Good Youtube Channel for history related topics

Call me one sad little autist, but learning history is my thing. Most people would be content curling up with a good novel at night, you could hand me a good history book and I'd get the same benefit from it.

And that's when I discovered this:

Oversimplified is a video series done by a guy who promotes historically based games, but in exchange for some openly admitted plugs for these titles, done for the obvious purposes of covering costs for his channel, you do learn some actual history, only in a such a way that if fought sleep in IRL history classes, you won't watching this.

For starters, this guy makes it all very plain English, with helpful illustrations and humor to make the learning portion less boring.

Second, you get the condensed, relevant facts. No long, boring explanations, this stuff was made for people with attention spans of a gnat.

Finally, you get the two in one deal of some decent games getting pitched to you as good ideas to buy them, and some funny yet informative lessons about actual history.

Even if all the games that get promoted on this channel don't inspire you to play them, if you want to be entertained and possibly learn something while doing so, you could certainly do worse.

My stance on people being nasty

I'm writing this to make perfectly clear, in case there is ambiguity, my stance on how much I can take before I don't want to put up with nastiness.

First off, just want to get out there I'm a stolid defender of free speech, and simply being offensive, even to the point of being an asshole, is not a crime, and while I might have to restrain the urge to hit someone for being this to me, I will defend their right to be that way.

However, and I'll cover this in more detail as I go on, there is a point when I no longer consider it justified as far as my personal limits go.

In real life, civility is a rule in every place that observes civilized behavoir. I expect it, and I expect it to be returned. Common sense, but I admit it annoys me when people act like this isn't true when it otherwise is.

Granted, life is not ideal, and I'm not blind to the fact rules alone do not make human nature bow to reason, but in the real world, such incivility usually has social or legal consequences, which strikes me as a fair enough reason not to get too worked up over it

When we get to talking about the temporal world of the Internet, things change.

Me, I try to be the same civil person online as I am in real life, it's just in my nature not to be an asshole. Part of that I ascribe to my religious beliefs, as I'm Christian and I ascribe to the Golden Rule, but another part of it is that there was a time when I wasn't as nice and civil that I admit I'm ashamed of, and I'd rather rise above who I was than sink to that level again.

I am not naive, however. The internet, with it's tendency of anonymity, it's distance from real humans speaking face to face, and it's breezier and more informal structure, it does not lend as well to reinforcing the idea that being a jackass is not acceptable, and in some places is tolerated, encouraged, and even outright celebrated, which is good, people do need some safety valves where they can let go of the nastiness they suppress elsewhere, and I even patronize some of these places.


But that's when my limits arise.


While I tolerate people being nasty in jest just fine, humor is often offensive and is often funnier for it, doing it too often with me as the target on a consistent basis feels less like fun with offensive humor and more like it's being done as personal insult. Maybe I need a thicker skin in this regard, but after a point, it's not funny to me, it's just mean, and when I ask for it to cease, then I expect people to realize they crossed a line and back off. If they keep going, I consider that to be my cue to either report them to whatever authority is available or pack up and leave.


Of course, not all places on the internet adhere to this standard, even places that are offensive by nature that still have, on paper, some hard rules for when you need to cut it out on the offensiveness, and I guess that's when my autism comes into play.

One of the key symptoms of autism is taking things literally, and while I consider myself fortunate, years of training have allowed me to overcome many of it's more negative aspects, one thing I tend to take literally is when someone establishes rules in any venue where discourtesy is verboten after a point and that it can and should be reported.

If it gets to the point it passes my limits, and, more importantly, the limits the rules says should not be pushed, I will report it. If the authority that is supposed to enforce said policy does not, or worse, is guilty of egging on what they need to stop instead, I admit, it makes me angry, because I consider it hypocrisy.

If that makes me an autist, then so be it, guilty as sperged.

I've been told at some of these places I just need to accept such things, especially if I have a reputation that would draw such nastiness like flies to shit, and I admit, my internet "name" is attached to a website that discusses works of media ranging from family friendly to utterly depraved, not to mention I've talked shit about some horribly nasty and hypocritical people, so I'm gonna get shit on, I need to accept that.

Okay, if that's true, then guess I do need a thicker skin.

At the same time, if I still derive value from where I'm getting shit on, I guess it's my sperg nature to want to gut it out even if don't like getting shit on, and until it gets utterly intolerable, that's what I plan to do.

But make no mistake: At the end of the day, I still value my dignity more, and if you held a gun to my head and forced me choose between that and accepting being shit on when I could take my dignity and leave, the latter is will ultimately be my choice.

And if I get mocked for THAT, well, not much I can do about it, but at the same time, I'm the only one who has to look in my mirror and like myself to keep existing on this planet, and in that regard, my opinion is the only one that matters.

Just some anger I want to vent

It's been a very long time since I wrote a post where I just have to vent, but event of recent days have made me feel it would be better to make a blog post about it so I can get this out.

Given the rage is about a party I know for a fact has read my blog, I will be deliberately vague with details in many cases because the party in question I simply want to wash my hands and it is my solemn hope they never trouble me in any way whatsoever, so in the event they are reading this, I want it made known I discourage in the strongest possible terms anyone doing to them as they have done to me, their evil actions should not be repaid with more evil, and I will not be party to doing so.


Anyway, here's goes:


Recently, I had to draw a very direct line in the sand with a certain party who has both seniority and certain privileges that exceed mine at a place I frequent. The line in question was to demand they cease any attempt to have anything to do with me whatsoever except in any case where their duties require interaction with me, and then I have made clear desire I desire the bare minimum that requires then they are to leave me be again. It is also inevitable we will encounter one another in certain situation involving group participation, and I will not complain if we are jointly involved in said activities so long as they refrain from any possible action that could be considered remotely offensive.


Thankfully, I rest easy in the knowledge they are others in authority I reported this to and that sanctions will be enforced if they cross this line, and I have restricted certain activities of mine at this venue to minimize our chances of interacting, and while I'm not entirely happy with all the sacrifices doing so entails, if it ensures further peace between us for the indefinite future, so be it, I'll take that.


That said, here is a non exhaustive list of my grievances against this party:


1. They have abused their privileges, seniority, and authority to harass, badger, and otherwise make me feel unwelcome. It is my contention they are utterly corrupt, should be stripped of any power over anyone, and if I were running things at this venue, I would implement such immediately, but that is not my call to make.

2. They have encouraged others to do likewise, and have abused their powers in their position to further enable egging on fellow miscreants for whom my respect is also at an absolute nadir, and while there are measures in place to prevent them for doing further mischief, I consider the authority figure the chief instigator of such activity and believe they deserve the harshest condemnation for encouraging actions the very rules their position says they are to enforce say they should not be doing.

Again, if it were my call to make, they would be stripped of power for such callous abuses.

3. They have made repeated attempts to extract personal information from and obtain confirmation or denials of certain topics I do not share with others except in the confidence of trusted friends and family, my therapist, or pastor. In doing so they have fabricated insults to my character and integrity and have twisted every action I have done or the actions of others they attribute to me in the most petty, ugly, and evil light, simply for the purposes of degrading me and denying me dignity, despite repeated efforts to ask them to cease and trying to extend more than one olive branch to appeal to the better part of their nature, and they have shown when they do not wish to act like a callous bastard, they are capable of acting maturely and humanely, traits I lament they are apparently incapable of showing more often in my experience.

4. They have encouraged, misled, and even outright lied about me to people who are both new to me and intimately known to me, all for the purposes of angering me, causing me distress, and otherwise have shown me they desire nothing but to show callousness and spite.

5. They and their associates have implied and even outright stated if they had access to certain information about me it would be used to ensure my shame and humiliation. I am pleased to say the chance they will ever obtain such information is extremely unlikely barring illegal actions taken to rob me of my personal privacy or gross error on mine.

There is little threat at present they will ever be able to make good on those threats, I have made extensive preparations to safeguard against it, and I will pursue legal action immediately if they ever succeed and in doing so put the lives of innocent people in danger, as I do not fear for myself, but the lives of those who do not deserve evil be brought down on them simply for their associations with me.

6. Finally, they have made it absolutely clear that if given the choice to show good will or ill will regardless of any effort on my part to show them good will, they will by default choose to show me contempt.



This all said, I believe their mischief and cruelty is at it's end thanks to recent events, and insofar as I'm capable, I simply wish to wash my hands of knowing them and move on, their petty evil is not worth my dwelling on, and it is my hope they and their associates are willing to abide by the current terms preventing them from doing me any form of harm and do likewise.


I want it also made clear if they and those who have associated with them wish to repent of their action and show me decency and humanity once more, they will be forgiven without reservation. I'm an open believer in Christ, and while this person and their associates have mocked my faith and have used any hypocrisy on my part (which I admit I have been prone to, I'm a sinner and well know it) as an excuse to mock and belittle me, I still stand ready to forgive them should their hearts be moved with guilt and a need to expiate their former ways.


In the meantime, I will remain wary and watchful of any attempt they make to breach my desire to leave them in peace, and they have my word I will report them to the proper parties if they make the slightest attempt to reignite their efforts to hurt me under the slightest pretense, and since I know they will certainly read this sooner or later, I hope they consider this and act wisely even if they never seek to admit their own fault.

The Bizzare Yet Logical Morality of Hannibal Lecter

I recently re-read some of Thomas Harris' works, and I've come to understand his titular sociopath's curious morality, which Anthony Hopkins did well to reproduce in the movie versions of the books, at least those parts faihtful to the books.

I cannot speak as to the TV series version where Hannibal is portrayed by Mads Mikkelson, so this merely addresses the original version Harris wrote.


Lecter is a complex man with seemingly inscrutable qualifications for whom he considers worthy of respect, what he considers "rude", and when he will kill someone, but after analyzing the books carefully, it's obvious how to boil it down to make it simple for everyone to understand.


1. Lecter's hatred of rudeness follows a curiously logical progression. While he can tolerate rudeness if professional responsibility absolutely requires it (he accepts Jack Crawford's refusal to appeal to his ego as wise even though he obviously enjoys having an ego stroking, and Barney's impersonal treatment of him when security matters in the asylum also win his respect as Barney being appropriately prudent around him) and even respects it, he otherwise considers being an asshole a death sentence if you have no good reason for it other than spite.

This is rather hypocritical, he's not above such pettiness himself, but it clarifies why he's never wanted people like Crawford, Barney, or even (and especially) Clarice Starling dead on those grounds.

Whenever they had to be uncivil to him, it was always professionally motivated and never personal or petty. Given Lecter was a psychiatrist and his profession has an ethics of separating personal and professional he seems to have taken as his own morality (though not without some self serving reservations), this is a pretty logical and consistent moral of his.

It's also why people like Frederick Chilton and Will Graham got killed or maimed, with the former going out of his way to be petty and the latter earned Lecter's contempt because Graham was clearly trying to use him for his own purposes without respecting him, which is why all he does to Graham is try to get him killed in Red Dragon. Starling in the sequel makes a point of never forgetting to appease Lecter's ego while still never patronizing or insulting him, and while she does lie to him, it's on Crawford's behalf and done for strictly professional reasons, which he can understand and thus lets her off with some smarmy comments about the deceit but does little more.



2. Lecter's second rule is that if you never forget who he is, what he's capable of, and regard him appropriately, he will do the same.


Practically everyone who dies by Lecter's hand always underestimates Lecter in some manner for the most part. Chilton dies because he makes a point of this despite treating Lecter as the threat he deserves to be regarded as, not to mention Chilton's petty spite also earns Lecter's contempt because the security aspect aside, Chilton makes a point of treating Lecter with intellectual contempt, and Lecter's disgust with someone he rightfully considers a dunce is made incredibly obvious.


Barney, by contrast, was capable of civility and and regarding Lecter as the brilliant if twisted man he was, yet never forgot what Lecter was capable of even once. It's why he makes a point of giving Barney his fond regards as he gets transferred away from the asylum to Tennessee in The Silence of the Lambs, Barney showed him personal decency while giving him due professional prudence at the same time. This later is why Barney takes a hint when he sees Lecter at the end of the novel Hannibal and skips town and keeps his mouth shut when he sees Lecter in Buenos Aires, Lecter gave him a hint Rinaldo Pazzi missed earlier in the book, and while Lecter knew Barney realized who he was, he also knew Barney was prudent enough to let that knowledge stay to himself, hence why he lives.



3. Lecter will kill you despite his first two mentioned rules if your death is to his benefit.


As Barney aptly puts it in the novel Hannibal, he never forgot for an instant that if Lecter wanted him dead, Lecter WOULD kill him, no matter how well they got along.


It is for this reason Officers Boyle and Pembry die in Memphis despite their showing Lecter a reasonable amount of personal courtesy, they provided him an opportunity to become a fugitive again and he was going to end their lives to get it.

They also made a serious mistake relaxing security around him, a mistake Barney and even Chilton never would have made, a mistake he accurately foresees in advance would happen when he was no longer under Barney's eye.

Pazzi managed to not get killed despite Lecter clearly toying with doing so very soon after they meet because Lecter decided to give him the benefit of the doubt at the time, but as soon as they meet later after Pazzi agrees to sell Lecter to Mason Verger, Lecter realizes Pazzi knows who he is then, and Pazzi not calling rhe police on him was a fatal mistake for Pazzi because he not only showed Lecter contempt for not respecting how dangerous he was, he also ensured Lecter would have to kill him to save himself.




Insofar as the books and movies line up, the above tend to be very consistent in regards to Lecter's character and should serve as an effective baseline for evaluating Lecter's actions insofar as he has anything resembling a moral compass as a character.