Today is the birthday of my friend who goes online as Thor Gundersen1058. To celebrate this day, I have made a list of my favorite 5 moments from series that he introduced me too.
Friday, October 16, 2020
Happy Birthday Thor
Magical Girl Series for the Halloween Season
Thursday, October 15, 2020
How they compare: Mr. World (American Gods)
Tuesday, October 13, 2020
The Japanese word that causes problems for vs debating
There's a word in Japanese that I have found causes signifigant problems in vs debating, not that it should mind you, just that people are exploiting the world's ambiguity to massively wank certain verses. This is a word that if you are going to be debating Japanese verses you may wish to know. This word is 世界 or "Sekai". Literally translated this means "world" and that translation is generally perfect.
You may notice the word "world" is somewhat imprecise and in the same way so too is "sekai." When you say "world" what comes to mind? Most likely what comes to mind is the planet Earth. However "world" can mean smaller things. If a 10 kilometer meteor was going to hit the Earth you would say it's "the end of the world" but in reality it would not end the planet, just most life on the planet. You can make reference to various types of world: the world of sports, the prehistoric world, the Islamic world etc. or use it in sayings such as "a world of difference between". You can also, less commonly, use world to mean something bigger then the planet. such as the universe or indeed the multiverse if you say "change is a constant in this world." The general theme here is that when you say world you mean the totality of something, in other words it's everything comprising a subset. "Sekai" functions virtually identically. When you say "sekai" the primary meaning is the planet Earth but you can use it to mean society or various subsets of the Earth (you could say a fish for instances lives in the world of a lake) or use it to mean something bigger like macrocosmic structures.
Here's the problem: it's a usually intentionally amibigous word. It is not specific enough to use in the way people are trying to use it. There's a clear double standard here some are using. Let me tell you what this would be like if you were to use world in the same way sekai is used. There's a point during Infinite Crisis where Post-Crisis Superman and Golden Age Superman fight and their fight creates a blow that shatters the "world". They're fighting over the universe so this definitely means it should be at least a universal feat. But DC's world is way larger then a universe so it's an archetypally infinite feat.
Except no, that's completely ignoring the ambiguity of the word "world". Some people recognize this double standard but go the other way and say yep, that's a universal feat right there. I'm saying the inverse. There's a lot of times I can see where people are taking Japanese works where the word "sekai" is used and scaling that to the maximum extent of the verse regardless of the ambiguity of the word "sekai". Most times you see the word "world" by itself in a Japanese work it is translated from "sekai" and to keep that ambiguity means it should be at most planetary. There's a very common type of this where people take two seperate statements that contain the word "sekai" and then put them together to mean something that if it was in English would never be taken as evidence. Here's an example.
"The Demon World has different seas, continents, skies and stars to your reality."
"Quick! Stop him! He is threatening the Demon World!"
This is a random example that I use just to seperate from pre-conceptions. The person analyzing will take the first statement to say the Demon World is multi-stellar in size and the second to say the character is multi-stellar. But that's ignoring that "world of demons" is as ambigious as saying the world of humans and that world can be used in two different ways in two different statements. The second statement I would read as at most planetary and possibly just meaning a threat to all life there.
Try and interpret foreign works as close as possible to how you would interpret your own and don't try and read additional meaning into words. Japanese has it's own ways of saying universe ("Uchu") and multiverse ("Tagen uchu") and most times if the writer wants to say universe or multiverse, they will use those specific words for it.
The reason this is a sore spot for me is I like to debate Sailor Moon and have history with this tactic because of it. A long time ago, people constantly downplayed SM by saying words didn't mean what they literally meant. There's a statement in SM that the Lambda Power "restores everything to the static cosmos". People would then throw at me "Sailor Moon takes places in the galaxy so cosmos here means galaxy" even though cosmos literally means universe. Now people are doing the same tactic but in reverse, including for Sailor Moon. They'll say "Sailor Moon's cosmology includes alternate universes so cosmos means multiverse" even though again Cosmos literally means universe. I try and stick as close as possible to the words in the text.
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
The Kardashev Scale of Civilizations
In 1964 the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev created a system with which we could assess the rough capability of any extraterrestrial civilization we came across. This system was expanded, mostly by Carl Sagan, into the current Kardashev Scale, a scale that can be used to determine how advanced a civilization is. We use this in versus debating to get a rough idea of who would win in a fight between two civilizations by comparing how technologically advanced they are (although this is not always the only factor), and I have long suggested that we use this as a way of assessing a character's intelligence. Specifically we say that with time to prepare a character can reliably create technology indicitave of a civilization of Kardeshev Scale X.
The Scale is based on the wattage of the civilization, or how many joules per second it produces. It is a logarithmnic scale, meaning that every 0.1 higher means the civilization produces 10 times the energy of the previous type. This means a Type 2 civilization produces 10^10 times more joules per second as does a Type 3 civilization over a Type 2 civilization.
I'm going to go over a few civilization levels, and what you might expect from them to give a better intuitive sense of them. This is as far as I know, I'm not a scientist.
Sunday, October 4, 2020
How they compare: Dr. Neo Cortex (Crash Bandicoot)
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
Statements in versus debating
There is a worrying trend in vs debating these days in which any statement is taken immediatly as both definitely true, and also definitely literal. This is definitely a newer development, it used to be that statements were viewed with suspicion and you had to provide extra effort into showing their accuracy. Here I'm going to give my personal guidelines for what statements I use and what I don't, along with a few examples at the end.
When I am assessing a statement, I assess it through the lense of 3 criteria, which can be positive, neutral or negative. As any negative factor can cast serious doubt on a statement's usage, I give -2 for each negative, +1 for each positive, and +0 for neutral. A statement that has negative points can never be used. A statement with 0 points, either neutral in all regards or positive in two but negative in the third, I consider only "possible" and would only use it as support for something with better evidence. Something with 1 point, having 1 positive regard and neutral in both others, I consider probable, and will state that it is probably or most likely the case that it is true though still view it as not ironclad. +2 is pretty certain and +3 is just clearly the case. The three regards are
1: Truthfulness: How likely is it that the character's words are true and literal. This is positive if the character in question is characteristically honest and direct in their words. This is negative if the character in question is generally deceitful (or has reason to be dishonest) or may be using a figure of speech or hyperbole. This is neutral if character's personality is unknown or doesn't lean particularly one way or the other.
2: Evidentality: How likely is it that the character is likely to know what they are talking about (related to where their information comes from.) This is positive if there is reason to think the character would know about the subject in question. This is negative if there is no way for the character to verify their own statement or there is other reason to think they wouldn't know. This is neutral if a character's source of information is unknown, or if it's unknown how well known a fact in-universe is.
3: Consistency: How consistent is the information with other facts given. Positive means that the statement fits in nicely with other sources, corroborates other data, or explains things without explanation. Negative means that the statement contradicts other statements or worse other demonstated things. Neutral is if the statement is basically in a vacuum, without much else to tell if it's consistent, or if fits most data nicely but contradicts a few things.
So I'm going to be showing a few character statements and how I assess them using this. First I'm going to start with 2 statements from my favorite series that happen to be about a similar thing that statements are often used for, and so make for a good demonstration.














































