The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
I just learned recently that "Attack in Titan" was a translation error because someone involved in the project would not double check their work because they were incredibly fluent at English
Hello Readers! With the comic ending very soon, I wanted to say a few words.
I started this comic in 2009, with zero idea where it would go. It was perhaps, not the smartest career path. I gave up a lot of opportunities that would have likely been much more profitable in the past decade in order to keep making Supernormal Step. That is to say, I loved working on it, and even if it wasn’t a huge success for me financially, that was enough.
I always knew it would end someday though. I know, ‘as all things must’ and whatnot, but really, I wanted it to have an ending. Some comics seem to never end, or never plan to. If that’s your thing, that’s fine I guess, but it’s not for me.
It’s not the cleanest bow to put on the series, but this is where we stop following the characters. Finally you can assume whoever is left will get some rest, free from my torment. The world is a mess, but they’ll probably get through it.
Supernormal Step has been a weird silly thing to try and wrangle into a full story, and it’s time for me to move on. When I started I had never written anything substantial, it was all a learning process. The result of that is a bunch of weird decisions I got stuck with trying to justify for almost a third of my life. At least some I got to sweep under the rug and hope no one remembers, like unfortunate costume choices, but others I had to hang onto and keep trying to write around. I’m excited to finally take what I’ve learned since then and start something new with it. I have some sort of experience now, let’s see what I can do with it.
Right now, that leads to a tumblr blog with a bunch of concept art, but soon that url will lead to an all new comic, Speak of the Devil, which you’ll get to watch grow from the very beginning. The current plan is to launch it sometime in July, maybe follow my twitter account if you want further updates, I’ll also likely post here again when it officially launches.
Also, in the time between Supernormal Step ending and Speak of the Devil beginning, I’ll basically have no job. If you’d like to support me in the meantime there’s my Patreon and Ko-fi. I would really appreciate it, but if you can’t, that’s totally okay as well, I’ll be fine.
Until next time, thank you all for reading, you’re all beautiful.
In a flashback in a memory in another galaxy surrounded by yet another alien species that makes even less sense than the worms, the Main Boi from a past life goes up his own ass
+2
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
...saw the glasses go flying and wince over how they could have landed? Replacement eyewear ain't cheap and they're just getting their small business started!
Someone on twitter posted an Achewood screenshot and someone else asked what the name of the comic was so I told them it was Moon Over June
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+11
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
The ultimate thing that I take away from The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is that there are two ways to engage with the premise of the story
1. You do not take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. They believe that the happiness and prosperity is dependent on the misery of a (single-person) minority, but there is nothing in the story to indicate that this is actually the case. This isn't a standard reading of the text, but I still think it's a valid one: the presumption of the necessity of suffering for wider happiness being erroneous means that the cruelty is pointless, without argument, and only exists because the people privileged by it fear changes to the status quo.
2. You take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. Slavery is necessary in order for the society to be prosperous.
The thing is that I would argue that this doesn't really matter, because the calculus of suffering is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Unjust institutions are unjust, period, and cannot be allowed to stand. The people who rationalize things away for themselves willingly and actively profit off of human suffering; the people who walk away pretend that they can divest themselves of responsibility by walking away (nominally) from the benefits provided to them.
But those two groups are both cowards. At the heart of the story is the power that a single word, just one, has to free that person. The most fantastical element of Omelas is the idea that one person, acting kindly, could end that injustice. That isn't the case with injustices as we experience them. No one person can end the slavery that exists in their own country, much less in others, but explaining away these injustices as good or necessary is capitulation. So is "walking away" without trying to address those same injustices; we are members of societies that bear responsibilities for our own collective actions, even if we do not personally profit from things like forced prison labor or owning smartphones produced in inhumane conditions.
I could write a lot more and make a bigger post but I wanted to condense things a little. My reading of Omelas isn't very standard as these things go, I guess, but when I read it it feels an indictment, both of complicity and complacency.
Annie was right to set Jeanne free. It doesn't matter whether or not that allowed Ysengrin to attack the court. A line of defense dependent on keeping someone eternally trapped in their own personal Hell is so evil it's cartoonish.
I read the Omelas story, and the way some of you were talking made me think freeing the child would cause the town to explode, instead of just becoming a much worse place to live.
Moth 13 on
0
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
The ultimate thing that I take away from The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is that there are two ways to engage with the premise of the story
1. You do not take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. They believe that the happiness and prosperity is dependent on the misery of a (single-person) minority, but there is nothing in the story to indicate that this is actually the case. This isn't a standard reading of the text, but I still think it's a valid one: the presumption of the necessity of suffering for wider happiness being erroneous means that the cruelty is pointless, without argument, and only exists because the people privileged by it fear changes to the status quo.
2. You take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. Slavery is necessary in order for the society to be prosperous.
The thing is that I would argue that this doesn't really matter, because the calculus of suffering is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Unjust institutions are unjust, period, and cannot be allowed to stand. The people who rationalize things away for themselves willingly and actively profit off of human suffering; the people who walk away pretend that they can divest themselves of responsibility by walking away (nominally) from the benefits provided to them.
But those two groups are both cowards. At the heart of the story is the power that a single word, just one, has to free that person. The most fantastical element of Omelas is the idea that one person, acting kindly, could end that injustice. That isn't the case with injustices as we experience them. No one person can end the slavery that exists in their own country, much less in others, but explaining away these injustices as good or necessary is capitulation. So is "walking away" without trying to address those same injustices; we are members of societies that bear responsibilities for our own collective actions, even if we do not personally profit from things like forced prison labor or owning smartphones produced in inhumane conditions.
I could write a lot more and make a bigger post but I wanted to condense things a little. My reading of Omelas isn't very standard as these things go, I guess, but when I read it it feels an indictment, both of complicity and complacency.
Annie was right to set Jeanne free. It doesn't matter whether or not that allowed Ysengrin to attack the court. A line of defense dependent on keeping someone eternally trapped in their own personal Hell is so evil it's cartoonish.
Id love to hear more about your interpretation if you feel like writing more some time.
So like does it have to be that one kid or does any kid do? What if you kidnapped the kid and studied their magic torment power, then used that knowledge to create a cruelty free alternative. Or at least like, learn to torture 5 pigs instead of one kid
I read the Omelas story, and the way some of you were talking made me think freeing the child would cause the town to explode, instead of just becoming a much worse place to live.
In certain versions of the story, the fate of the town is left purposefully vague. So it might explode!
Kind of. It’s a bit like the trolley problem where the premise is basic enough where it can be reframed to test different capacities of the philosophies at work.
The ultimate thing that I take away from The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is that there are two ways to engage with the premise of the story
1. You do not take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. They believe that the happiness and prosperity is dependent on the misery of a (single-person) minority, but there is nothing in the story to indicate that this is actually the case. This isn't a standard reading of the text, but I still think it's a valid one: the presumption of the necessity of suffering for wider happiness being erroneous means that the cruelty is pointless, without argument, and only exists because the people privileged by it fear changes to the status quo.
2. You take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. Slavery is necessary in order for the society to be prosperous.
The thing is that I would argue that this doesn't really matter, because the calculus of suffering is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Unjust institutions are unjust, period, and cannot be allowed to stand. The people who rationalize things away for themselves willingly and actively profit off of human suffering; the people who walk away pretend that they can divest themselves of responsibility by walking away (nominally) from the benefits provided to them.
But those two groups are both cowards. At the heart of the story is the power that a single word, just one, has to free that person. The most fantastical element of Omelas is the idea that one person, acting kindly, could end that injustice. That isn't the case with injustices as we experience them. No one person can end the slavery that exists in their own country, much less in others, but explaining away these injustices as good or necessary is capitulation. So is "walking away" without trying to address those same injustices; we are members of societies that bear responsibilities for our own collective actions, even if we do not personally profit from things like forced prison labor or owning smartphones produced in inhumane conditions.
I could write a lot more and make a bigger post but I wanted to condense things a little. My reading of Omelas isn't very standard as these things go, I guess, but when I read it it feels an indictment, both of complicity and complacency.
Annie was right to set Jeanne free. It doesn't matter whether or not that allowed Ysengrin to attack the court. A line of defense dependent on keeping someone eternally trapped in their own personal Hell is so evil it's cartoonish9.
I did an academic paper on the story about a year and a half ago with citations and everything where i argued for exactly this reading so it's not just you
In today's unsounded, we are reminded that jivi is attracted to girls and with 50% of the girls in that temple set to die, odds are pretty good he's waking up in good company after spinning some tales for them.
Posts
Alternatively: never not be a square. That's my motto
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
I just learned recently that "Attack in Titan" was a translation error because someone involved in the project would not double check their work because they were incredibly fluent at English
Is it not pronounced blaze blue?
ZET!
Steam: pazython
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Such as Esther de Groot?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Am I the only one here who...
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
You are a war criminal. You have committed crimes against humanity.
1. You do not take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. They believe that the happiness and prosperity is dependent on the misery of a (single-person) minority, but there is nothing in the story to indicate that this is actually the case. This isn't a standard reading of the text, but I still think it's a valid one: the presumption of the necessity of suffering for wider happiness being erroneous means that the cruelty is pointless, without argument, and only exists because the people privileged by it fear changes to the status quo.
2. You take the belief of the people of Omelas at face value. Slavery is necessary in order for the society to be prosperous.
The thing is that I would argue that this doesn't really matter, because the calculus of suffering is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Unjust institutions are unjust, period, and cannot be allowed to stand. The people who rationalize things away for themselves willingly and actively profit off of human suffering; the people who walk away pretend that they can divest themselves of responsibility by walking away (nominally) from the benefits provided to them.
But those two groups are both cowards. At the heart of the story is the power that a single word, just one, has to free that person. The most fantastical element of Omelas is the idea that one person, acting kindly, could end that injustice. That isn't the case with injustices as we experience them. No one person can end the slavery that exists in their own country, much less in others, but explaining away these injustices as good or necessary is capitulation. So is "walking away" without trying to address those same injustices; we are members of societies that bear responsibilities for our own collective actions, even if we do not personally profit from things like forced prison labor or owning smartphones produced in inhumane conditions.
I could write a lot more and make a bigger post but I wanted to condense things a little. My reading of Omelas isn't very standard as these things go, I guess, but when I read it it feels an indictment, both of complicity and complacency.
Annie was right to set Jeanne free. It doesn't matter whether or not that allowed Ysengrin to attack the court. A line of defense dependent on keeping someone eternally trapped in their own personal Hell is so evil it's cartoonish.
meanwhile, enjoy this cool character
and the first volume of Barbarous in print form:
She seems pretty chill
I'd hang out with her
Id love to hear more about your interpretation if you feel like writing more some time.
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
In certain versions of the story, the fate of the town is left purposefully vague. So it might explode!
Kind of. It’s a bit like the trolley problem where the premise is basic enough where it can be reframed to test different capacities of the philosophies at work.
I'll buy 10 copies
Alice and the Nightmare
Specifically how he murdered a man
Steam: pazython
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2262
Monster Pulse