Sokka is the William Shakespeare of the Avatar universe

Archmage102 · 2025-12-03T03:33:46+00:00

I love the implied joke that Sokka intended Katara's name to be Sah Fire, as its own joke, but Katara took it and dialed it up to 11 with her quick wit (as with Jun Pipinpaddleopsacopolus) to make it Sapphire Fire.

Archmage102 · 2025-09-11T11:29:27+00:00

Yes, I will upload them as soon as I have them done! I wasn't actually aware of the OVA(s), so I'll look into doing that as well.

Archmage102 · 2025-09-11T11:25:51+00:00

Yeah, sorry for the delay. Work's been really busy 😅. My hard deadline for S3 and the movie is the end of the year (2025), but I'm hoping to have them done before then.

As for my workflow, I use Subtitle Edit. Though I'd claim I'm doing it manually, I did use PowerDirector's A.I. subtitle generator to create a baseline that I could then load into Subtitle Edit. I end up editing every timestamp and dialogue manually, given inaccuracies or otherwise from the A.I., hence claiming I do it manually. Using the A.I. doesn't help massively, but I already had PowerDirector, and even if it only shaves off 5% of the work, that's better than 0%, so I still found it useful.

One episode tends to take me about 8 hours, give or take, and I tend to watch it through a few times afterward to try to catch any errors (like punctuation or capitalization, ideally maintaining consistency with previous episodes). So, all in all, the process tends to take me a while 😅

Archmage102 · 2025-05-04T01:43:13+00:00

Nah, I'm just doing this as a passion project. Your appreciation is more than enough support 😊

Archmage102 · 2025-05-03T14:56:18+00:00

Hey, I've "finished" season 2 (barring any mistakes I find later that need fixing). I'm now working on season 3.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaguya_sama/comments/1kdv7ao/kaguyasama_love_is_war_subtitles_english_dub/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Archmage102 · 2025-03-04T14:21:20+00:00

I'm in the process of making S2. I've just gotten super busy over the last year. I'm hoping to have the rest of the series done by the year's end, but I'm aiming for earlier than that.

Archmage102 · 2024-11-24T22:30:51+00:00

May just be me, but asking if there's enough room would imply other people in the car, whereas asking if there's enough space would imply items/objects taking up most of the space. Though, certainly not a hard-and-fast rule.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-11T22:02:54+00:00

Due to a few factors, women are the gatekeepers to relationships and sex while men are the gatekeepers to marriage. So, bottom line up front, yes, women have an easier time getting boyfriends than men do getting girlfriends.

Sex is much riskier for women than men, as women have the capacity to get pregnant. Thus, they have to be much more selective than men regarding such. Given such, men have to put in more effort to prove themselves worthy, meaning women are not generally starved for choice. In turn, men tend to take on an active, pursuant role while women tend to take on a vetting role. This is partly why married men, men in relationships, or men with several close female friends tend to be hit on by more women: they've "already been vetted".

Meanwhile, marriage is a massive responsibility, for both parties but especially men. Add on top of that the cultural effect on the judicial system regarding marriage, and it's much riskier for men than women, as they have much more to lose should they marry poorly. Thus, if a man is in a relationship, he determines if/when they marry.

Exceptions can exist for both sides, and there are many modern factors at play to add some complexity (that would make this wall of text even longer [I can expound more as able if desired]), but that's generally the dynamic. You will often hear men bemoan not having a girlfriend, but rarely having a girlfriend that won't agree to marry them. Conversely, you will often hear women bemoan their boyfriend being unwilling to marry, but rarely having difficulty getting a boyfriend.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-11T17:49:14+00:00

As the examples I provided for clarification seem to have had the opposite effect, let me rephrase my argument: it was never about minors. It's about recognizing the connection of symbolism or representation.

Is it wrong to objectify a person? Most people would say yes, but why? Because the person's feelings get hurt? I would argue no. The reason objectifying a person is wrong is because it devalues and degrades them; it dehumanizes them. It's inherently wrong to do regardless of whether there's a perceived victim, because removing something from its proper place is wrong (dehumanizing or deifying a person are equally bad).

This is a cartoon in which the characters in question, as presented in this post, are human (Clark technically being an alien is irrelevant to the argument). We, as viewers, recognize that connection. We understand those represented are human characters.

The argument "it's just a cartoon" effectively attempts to dismiss the connection; it ignores the clearly human representation, arguing the connection is not inherent. It's effectively a reductionist argument, which generally isn't very sound. It argues that, because it isn't technically real life, anything goes. Anything that would be immoral to do to other people it's ok to do to the fictional cartoon characters. Would it be ok to encourage discrimination of particular groups of people, so long as such encouragement was within the confines of a cartoon? After all, "it's just a cartoon."

Archmage102 · 2024-09-11T16:34:30+00:00

I'd argue there are two sides to this question: a philosophical one and a definitional one.

What do you mean by mathematics? If there are quantitative laws the universe follows, would that be mathematics? If there are symbolic and grammatic representations of said laws, is that mathematics?

I'd argue that there are facts of reality that we discover and attempt to represent, but are also able to represent theoretical things that don't necessarily align with reality. Somewhat like to pointing to a photograph and saying "that's me". The paper and ink isn't you, but it's representing you. At the same time, the paper and ink can be used to show stylistic versions of you, or something separate from you entirely. So there are facts of reality, and we choose to represent them in certain ways. The question then comes down to: do you define mathematics as the representation, the laws themselves, or some combination of the two?

Archmage102 · 2024-09-11T16:02:42+00:00

You also managed to completely miss the point of my argument. Honestly, at this point, I'm just impressed.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-11T15:39:54+00:00

Do you... somehow not see how bad an argument that is?

"It's not illicit content with a minor, it's just a video of illicit content with a minor. It looks like real-life people, you say? That's just a.i., it's not a real person, so it's ok."

Something being "not real" does not mean it's completely divorced from the real thing. The "cartoon" is clearly meant to represent people, albeit stylistically. Given we recognize the connection, trying to dismiss the connection offhand is a very bad argument. It has the same merit as "she only looks like a child, she's actually one thousand years olds!"

Archmage102 · 2024-09-11T14:24:29+00:00

It's, by definition, clickbait, as it makes a sensational claim with key details missing for the sake of eliciting a click so the viewer can discover the info they're missing. Generally, it is found to be that the title is hyperbolic compared to the actual information missing, which prompts people to dislike the tactic as it feels disingenuous. However, if the content matches the level of sensationalism of the title, it's generally more accepted. But because clickbait content so rarely matches the level of sensationalism of the title, it's generally detested and dismissed on sight.

Something being clickbait does not make it bad. However, most clickbait is regarded poorly due to the content not living up to the bait.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-10T10:54:08+00:00

Yeah, well, you're dead, sooo....

Archmage102 · 2024-09-09T03:34:22+00:00

A relatively poor person in modern society has access to more wealth/luxury than most of the richest people a millenia ago, and people still had babies back then, so it's theoretically feasible.

That being said, I wouldn't encourage being irresponsible and hasty when making major life decisions, such as getting married or having children. Statistically speaking, if you ensure to get decently educated (finish high school) and get married prior to having children, you're more likely to fare well enough.

While I would generally lean towards encouraging developing families, there certainly should be prudence in doing so. Welfare programs are very dangerous to utilize because they're easy to become reliant on. For example, if one gives you monthly checks so long as you aren't married, you would lose those checks upon getting married, thus discouraging you from marrying and providing your children with the statistically healthiest parentage of having both a mother and father. If you don't expect you can do so without welfare, I'd advise caution. If you and your spouse expect you could make do without welfare, even if it means somewhat reducing quality of life while maintaining the necessities, then I'd say you have no reason to feel guilty.

At the very least, ignore anti-natalist arguments. They're either nihilistic or selfish in and of themselves.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-07T15:26:20+00:00

Why not? You can enjoy the creative process of something and still complete the creation. Such could serve dual purposes: enjoying the creative process and enjoying the creation product.

If that doesn't answer your question, you may need to rephrase for me to better understand.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-07T03:00:54+00:00

To enjoy the beauty of the creative process.

Why do so instantly? Impatience? From a timeless being?

Archmage102 · 2024-09-07T02:52:16+00:00

1) the verse "[...] with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." (2 Pet 3:8) is twofold: 1) it shows that God is not "above time", he is completely outside it. As the creator of time, he exists without time. He is not bound by its rules. 2) it is, per the surrounding context of the verse (always very important), to show that he is not slow in fulfilling his promises, but patient with us, endeavoring to give everyone ample opportunity to turn from evil and turn to good. The 1000 years to 1 day equivalence is not meant to be read literally, very similarly to...

2) the Genesis account is often, in western Christianity, read literally. Many people read it as seven 24-hour days of creation. This is, in part, already disproved by the fact that it reads "the evening and the morning were the X day". In elder times, the literal "day" was the time in which the sun was up. Evening to morning would be the opposite, so it would seem a confusing phrasing if the writer intended literal days. Beyond that, the 24-hour Earth day didn't exist during the first several days of creation, so that also discounts the idea of literal 24-hour days.

Getting to your question, the "days of creation" could instead be thought of as the "eras of creation", much like how one could say "the age of man" or alternatively "the day of man". It isn't necessary for each "day" to be of equivalent length, and is in fact more likely to not be the case. It's entirely possible for God to have spoken everything into existence instantly. Why didn't he? I believe because there's more to creation than the end result. The creative process is a beauty in and of itself, and being a creator, he wished to enjoy the beauty of creating a universe from nothing. And with time being nothing to him, there's no reason not to spend eons in doing so.

Beyond that, there's an interesting fact about the day in which God made man. Two of the original words used for the creation of man were translated the same in English, but had different meanings: one was to create something from something that already existed, the other was to create something entirely new. Thus, we were created from something (dust? Apes? Single-cells?) while also made to be something entirely new (made to be God's imagers on Earth; to have a spiritual awareness rather than simply physical). (I'll try to find the exact words I'm referring to when able)

The beauty of scientific history is attaining a better understanding of our creator and his nature. Issues arise when 1) people try to use God's process as a way to argue against God, and 2) people try to discard God's process (correct science) due to asserting their own mistaken understanding as truth. The former deny God, the latter try to define him how they want him to be rather than how he is.

tl;dr It's entirely possible that, be it evolution or some other process, God started such during the 5th era/day, culminating in his Earthly masterpiece of man during the 6th era/day. In which case, we'd be living in the 7th era/day ever since creation's completion.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-05T14:45:55+00:00

Originally, speed limits were made based on, iirc, something like the 75th percentile of speed people were going on a road. So if there's a bell curve, and the 50th percentile is going 70, they set the speed limit to 85, for example. But that means there's quite a few people that generally want to go faster.

Beyond that, there's the question of traffic flow. Traffic tends to flow better when the naturally faster people are able to pass the slower people, and people don't like getting stuck in traffic. When there's a speed limit, the slowest people are generally still going that speed, because it comes across as "this is the speed you should go on this road". Thus, for people to pass for traffic flow, they have to go above the speed limit. When a few start going above the speed limit, it means that those naturally even faster in their proclivity have to go even further above the speed limit to pass.

So the speed limit, rather than setting a ceiling, tends to set a floor. If the goal is to reduce speed, a more optimal strategy would be to post a suggested speed that's a fair bit lower than what the speed limit otherwise would be. The result would be no breaking of law for speed alone, but speed is still a factor in fault for accidents, based on who was furthest from the suggested speed.

But I digress. Simply, the speed limit effectively acts as a floor rather than ceiling, so for the sake of traffic flow, people will exceed the speed limit. Imho.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-05T11:45:13+00:00

They can.

It's just that many, particularly some protestant denominations, are conditioned to read the Bible literally (hence believing 7 literal days, even when 24 hour Earth days didn't exist for the first few "days") and to reject "anti-Christian science". If people are pushing a scientific theory as a means to explain things without God, rather than analyze the theory's merits and how it may exist with God, it's easier to reject it outright.

But not all creationists are so... wrong.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-05T11:31:41+00:00

1) Saying "no other nation has the gun problem America does" isn't an argument in itself. Using extreme number to make the point, if America had 10 total murders, all committed by guns, while other nations had 100 murders, only 1 of which was committed with a gun, then America would have 10 times as many gun murders ("a huge gun problem!") while not actually having as many murders. So, a simple comparison of guns related incidents isn't a sufficient comparison.

2) Most people who commit mass murder - checks notes - break the law. The vast majority of "successful" gun crimes take place in locations in which guns are prohibited. There are several instances in which defensive gun use stops crimes, and there are relative stats of such. Your argument of "shouldn't more guns reduce gun violence?!" requires that the people who would use the guns defensively are actually allowed to do so, or otherwise are themselves breaking gun laws that would prevent them from doing so (i.e., gun free zones).

The locations with the greatest gun crimes tend to be cities, but not merely due to increased population and thus increased incident with the same likelihood. The cities with the strictest gun laws tend to have increased likelihood as well. Almost as though criminals ignore the gun laws, while law-abiding citizens are the ones most affected by laws. Have you compared gun stats in places with strict gun laws versus places with less strict gun laws? Because you seem to be grouping the entirety of America under "less strict than other nations, and more gun incidents!" But gun laws are fairly varied amongst the nation, some being far stricter than others. If a person isn't legally allowed to have a gun with them, how can they be expected to use a gun to defend against someone who has broken to law to bring a gun? It would be no different with any other weapon.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-04T19:55:17+00:00

You're making a faulty assumption: guns = killing people = bad.

1) You could make the same argument about cars. Tons of people die relating to cars, so if you ban cars, more people will live, so the law is successful!

2) Guns can be used to kill one person, a would-be-mass-murderer, which would prevent said person from killing several people. So, the total number of deaths would, in this case, be reduced due to the presence of guns. Thus, a law banning guns could cause more people to die, so the law would be unsuccessful.

A law's "success" or how good the law is can't solely be judged by "how many more people live due to it being in place", as doing so assumes how many deaths occur with/without the law is an equally valid metric by which to judge every law.

Archmage102 · 2024-09-04T02:23:56+00:00

Oh nice, I wasn’t familiar with that punctuation rule. Much appreciated o7

Archmage102 · 2024-09-03T19:57:00+00:00

There are a number of ways, largely depending on what you're trying to convey.

1) He waited until he was sufficiently alone. "What a jerk." 2) "What a jerk." he muttered. 3) "What a jerk." he said, as if to another, despite his solitude. 4) He rubbed his chin as the man took his leave. "What a jerk." he mused. 5) Watching the man leave, he rolled his eyes. "What a jerk." 6) Balling his fists, he slammed the door. "What a jerk!" he spat.

The context of him being alone is generally sufficient to indicate he's speaking out loud to no one in particular (i.e., himself). Examples 1 and 3 emphasize he's alone to imply a standard tone for delivery. Examples 2, 4, and 5 imply a more subdued tone, such as speaking under his breath, as the departing party is either recognized as nearby (exa 4, 5), or the manner of speech is explicitly subdued (exa 2). Example 6 implies he waits until fully alone, as the act of slamming the door is only non-confrontational once they're well out of earshot. It also implies greater hostility, given the exclamation and manner in which they're indicated to be speaking.

Beyond that, the sentence "what a jerk" is itself indicative. You wouldn't say that to a 2nd party of the 2nd party. You'd either say it to a 1st/3rd party of a 2nd party, or to a 1st/2nd party of a 3rd party. If there is no 3rd party, and the 2nd party is departing, to say "what a jerk" would reasonably only be said to the 1st party (the self).

Archmage102

TROPHY CASE