#But for the most part I try to see major differences in interpretations of a text as just differences in our lived experiences

[fighting-these-demons]

Also, a headcanon is still a headcanon whether it's for the actual Canon of the show itself, or if it's a headcanon for an AU or What If situation.

And anything thats not specifically within the bounds of canon and conforming to the narrative is IMO an AU. Now it can be a Canon Conforming AU certainly, but it's still an AU.

My headcanons for characters and how they feel and react changes based on setting and circumstance, because setting and circumstances are life and mind altering.

A person's lived experiences builds them and changes them throughout their life.

How Blorbo feels and thinks and what blorbo believes in Canon with only Canon Events taken into consideration

Is likely different from

How blorbo feels and thinks and what blorbo believes in a canon-divergent/altered timeline/altered setting situation.

Would blorbo 1 be as much of an asshole or fuck things up because they couldn't manage to trust someone if their trajic past was altered? If their parents were better people or if they got the help that they needed from someone when they needed it? Would they lean more into the softer and more open pieces of their personality that we only see towards the end of the media?

Different headcanons for different situations just makes sense to me.

And at the end of the day, a headcanon is a personal interpretation of the media.

And personal interpretations are always going to be infinitely varied because how a person absorbs available information and the conclusions they draw from it are (once again) influenced by their own personal life experiences and personal circumstances of their existence.

Two people can have wildly different interpretations of the same canon scene and dialogue for this very reason.

And that's part of what makes fandom fun! It's interesting to see how other people see and interpret the media in ways that yoy never have before!

It also leads to clashing due to people having vastly different interpretations, values, moral frameworks, life experiences etc. Because sometimes you'll see an interpretation that you completely fundamentally disagree with and makes your head spin.

want to be clear that if i ever talk about a headcanon and then later discuss a headcanon that is directly contradictory to the first one, that’s because headcanons exist in a quantum state where they are all simultaneously true and not true up until the point where i discuss it in detail, in which case that is the one that is true in that instance. schroedinger’s headcanons

[abyssalzones]

can you tell us about your interpretation of the better world universe!!!! especially curious how stan/mystery trio works into it

hell yesssss I definitely can. ABW is maybe my favorite niche gf thing and probably the only "AU" I care about but that may be due to the fact that it's an AU that exists in the canon and we know so little about it. so it has an established foundation that you're left to fill in the details with yourself... it's like a poke bowl to me. you can put anything in there

and since I felt like it here's a bonus pic of them living their best lives pestering ford

[explanation-y stuff under ze cut because I got very longwinded]

as for specifics of how I see everything working out, there's a few key points that establish why things happened differently from canon, the most important being:

Stan agrees to hide journal #3 somewhere

Ford reunites with fiddleford and they begin working together again

both of these are already confirmed in canon, the first being the most obvious "schism" between timelines. literally everything in ABW is the way it is because stan made a different decision. kind of crazy in terms of its implications: I feel like that moment in the basement is a really good example of how stan gets so few opportunities to shape her own life (while ford is in the picture...) because of her role as the 'black sheep' twin. it's not exactly a premeditated decision to push ford into the portal, it's her acting on feelings that have been bubbling unaddressed under the surface for 10-something years at that point, and only then does she have any sort of power over the "narrative" of both her life and the story itself, something that from her pov has been ford's story. and in the canon timeline, she says no.

so like, what the hell made her say yes in ABW's timeline? this question kind of haunts me because I feel like it has to be entirely dependent on what the inside of stan's head looked like at the time. it's possible something influenced her, but overall I think it's more interesting if ford did and said all the exact same things up until this point and it really was entirely dependent on stan's decision internally.

so stan says yes, goes on a big trip to the other side of the world somehow, and buries journal 3 somewhere probably never to be found again. yay! but, uh, going on a trip like ford was suggesting would... take weeks. that would leave ford alone again. and not to have my established thoughts informed by new material or anything but bill did give him 72 hours.

so, next order of business: how in the fuck would ford convince fiddleford to rejoin him??? I'm unsure between journal 3 and tbob's information how ford may have tried to reach out to him but it seems like fiddleford was pretty adamant about staying away from that guy, out of guilt or fear of bill/the portal or both. I don't think logically it would just be a matter of ford calling him enough times or finding out where he lives- and I think that's kind of getting away from the point of why ABW is the way it is too. if stan is suddenly making decisions that are influencing ford's life, I think it would be similarly interesting if fiddleford also possessed some unique autonomy in this scenario.

aka I think ford got fucked up badly (possibly involving losing an eye) and fiddleford found him half-dead while trying to burn his house down. [mabel voice] romance!

to clarify: I don't think fiddleford is obligated to take care of ford. a major part of him leaving the project was finally making the decision to leave a situation that was hurting him, that he'd been staying in entirely because he still cared about ford and felt on some level he could still help him (which gets broken with "I don't need you!") and I think that's a very reasonable decision on his part. but I also do have to think about all the times ford has been "the hero" in situations where fiddleford ends up hurt and helpless because of something traumatizing. I think it'd be fascinating to see that reversed and have fiddleford actively making the difficult, messy decision to take care of that guy even when they're on miserable terms. and so begins like a solid week of these two desperately trying to look out for eachother in a nightmare scenario where one of them probably needs to go to a hospital + keeps getting possessed off and on and the other is going through the worst addiction/withdrawal cycle of his life irt the memory gun. yay! (part of the reason this even works To Me also is heavily informed by the lack of secrets: if fiddleford is actively dressing that guy's wounds he can't really keep it all to himself anymore. crushingly intimate perhaps...)

stan gets back eventually. such is the context of this pic

from there it's a nebulous grab-bag of things I think could happen up to the foundation of the institute.

how do all three of these incredibly fucked up individuals get along? well they don't but then they do.

how do they get bill out of ford's head without performing amateur brain surgery? idk. my best guess is a fiddleford and stan bonding trip into ford's mindscape that potentially helps answer the first question. possibly utilizing the memory gun. shrugs.

what's up with that one picture you drew of parallel fidds holding the memory gun up to ford's head? well. okay that one might or might not be something that actually happened but the idea was just that ford is coping badly with a few specific things and I liked the idea of fiddleford "holding onto" something for him to remember and work through later when he's ready to deal with it, it's an interesting reversal of how he's normally more of a memory sink.

from the point in canon about them stabilizing the portal so that bill can't use it to get into their dimension anymore onward, I think it just becomes a matter of them living the lives they could've always had in canon without realizing it. hence "a better world." some cool tidbits I like to think about:

stan gets to transition much earlier (late 1990's perhaps?) and probably starts going by "lee" instead

she's also the institute's CMO and is mostly in it for going on business trips abroad with ford. and the money. obviously.

the institute probably also legitimately changes the world on a sociopolitical scale outside of just interdimensional travel since their research renders them uniquely untouchable and all three of them are trans (I'm cartoon logic-ing a little bit here just let me have this one)

ford is the eccentric bill nye esque face of the company, fiddleford is the backbone. that isn't to say ford doesn't do anything as I think he'd always moreso be in it for the science than the fame (though it is nice to be more than comfortable financially) but it's an open secret fiddleford keeps tabs on literally everything, he's still very security-oriented.

the northwest family now has a more prominent ongoing rivalry with the pines family that could be very funny to think about. they've taken all the LOGGING JOBS with their damn SCIENCE

part of the reason I thought ford should lose an eye is because I think having him wear an eyepatch would be a neat way to parallel stan's "role" as mr. mystery visually! stan wears an eyepatch for no legitimate reason to keep up appearances as a schlocky tourist trap host, but it also alludes to her being more than she seems under the surface. ford's eyepatch does sort of have a legitimate reason to exist, but he also could just wear his glass eye and it would probably be less "conspicuous." he chooses the eyepatch instead because it's part of his image as Stanford Pines, Founder of Oddology, and because it keeps him safe. there's also a little residual scarring there from damage to his eyelid/tarsal plate which could easily represent him hiding the more "damaged" aspects of himself under his successes. ouch.

I'm unsure if ford and stan would ever feel comfortable getting back in touch with their parents. I know a lot of people go that route with fan material but I don't think they should have to. I think they're much happier now having healed the rift between them on their own and getting to live successful lives for themselves, rather than to prove something to their father.

that being said I do think fiddleford gets in touch with emma-may and his son again and they end up on better terms with time and a Lot of effort. tate's family is now composed of his father, mother, "uncle" ford (in the ye olde gay closeted sense of referring to your dad's partner as an uncle), and auntie lee, and I like to think they go out on trips to the lake together often :]

also ford and fiddleford tie the knot unofficially (in the eyes of the government anyway) in 1990. owed to stan somehow getting "ordained" as a rabbi. don't ask me how.

the pines twins start visiting the institute from a younger age than they do irt visiting stan in the show-- but they're only permitted to come along on heavily-supervised interdimensional excursions once they turn 12. cue antics!

anyway, hopefully this extremely longwinded and loosely structured mess helped answer your question. I like ABW sooo so so much you guys

[soularsss]

Drawing Likeness: with Tem!

okaay since a few people actually showed interest in me sharing a bit of what I've been doing to figure out how to really capture likeness, specifically Temuera Morrison, I figured id do my best to write it out

I am also going to entice you with some of my recent clone art! (oooh some of it is unreleaaasedd)

I am putting the whole thing under the cut because I have a feeling its going to be long:

Read more!!!

a couple disclaimers before we start

-This is not some definite post about how everyone should be drawing clones, nor is it in any way claiming that this is the right way. This is just my musings as I stare at a mans face for way too long and try to replicate it

-I am inexperienced. As kind as you all are to me, drawing real people is relatively new to me, capturing a persons identity through their features is difficult for anybody, and I am no different. I have watched many a video on likeness and had my share of classes, but If im being honest, i rarely put it into practice successfully. So there'll probably be errors in this post or things i will come back to in a few months and wish I had said/done differently

ANYWAYs you guys get my vibe im just here to ramble and today we are rambling about mr copy paste. I am doing this for Law, my clone boy, because I plan on delving further into oc fanart and I want to put effort into representing him correctly!

SO LETS BEGIN

Before even deciding what specific pose of a person I want to draw, I tend to grab a bunch of references and compile them like so

(all of these can be found on my pinterest)

Why so many? Well, we are about to delve into facial features, so when we are dealing with photos we have to take into account that there are an abundance of circumstances that will influence how a persons face will appear, some of these include:

focal length: All of these are taken on different devices, and focal length can play a big part in distorting faces

age will play a part, your face changes a bunch throughout your life!

lighting, while not as major, can muddy the waters and make it difficult to interpret facial planes and features

SO, to make sure we get a proper grasp of what's really going on, I like to make sure we have lots of options to compare and contrast with.

Next up! What I like to do is block out the main facial features with colour on different layers, the features I block out usually are the general face shape, eyebrows, eyes, nose and lips. But what you are looking for is the defining features of a person, so that could include other things! Maybe a scar, or some particularly prominent cheekbones.

I dont have any rhyme or reason when it comes to picking my colours, all that matters is you can see all the shapes clearly.

Now I may be biased, because Ive been staring at these for 4 hours, but notice how it still looks like Tem? :D

Anyways, now we can break these parts down, and you'll see what I mean about compare and contrast:

We'll start with isolating the facial shape, putting all these next to eachother you'll notice they arent exactly the same (partly because of my shoddy work) But the distinguishing features run through each shape! Namely the very soft rectangular shape I sketched out in the bottom right there. Along with his soft, wide jaw structure.

I did the same for the rest of his features!

You'll notice I highlight the prominent shapes and ratios,

When drawing anything, it is important to start from the very base shapes and build up.

When drawing something you want to look like someone, those shapes relative to other shapes is what makes it look like them.

I didnt use the same technique with his eyes and lips, but I wrote out some helpful info for them! More importantly for his eyes.

When drawing eyes, I find the most important part is where exactly I draw the creases, (along with the overall shape of the eye itself) it is important to understand where those will present themselves with hooded eyes.

NOW, with an understanding of his facial features in place, lets take a detour to colours:

before I start, a couple things to note:

-Temuera morrison versus the clone troopers in the animated shows:

While I love the animated shows they don't exactly stay close to their source material. Im going to link here to an excellent post discussing whitewashing specifically in relation to the clones.

Temuera is Māori, of Te Arawa (Ngāti Whakaue) and Tainui (Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Rarua) whakapapa, and also has Scottish and Irish ancestry.

The Māori people are the indigenous Polynesian people of mainland New Zealand (Aotearoa). Māori originated with settlers from East Polynesia. Māori people often vary in skin tone, Skin colour doesn't determine ethnicity. There's often a correlation but it's not a requirement.

But that is a tangent! What we are aiming for is to stay true to Temuera.

Bringing back my reference photos from before, Ive colour picked a buncha values and theyre all over the place. Why doesnt this work?

Similarly to earlier, you have to take into account the photos themselves. Many things like lighting, colour grading (when it comes to filmography) and makeup, can alter how a skin colour presents in photo.

You can attempt to get true to life by swatching from certain places on the face. Here I've tried to pick some photos with good lighting, and I've also tried to avoid overly lit/shaded areas.

Tem has a very warm, tan skin tone, Instead of colour picking I tend to try and replicate it myself, but I do often bring in references to make sure Im staying true to the source!

a brief intermission to talk about colour theory, something I myself struggle with alot. Often, when putting in flat colours without a background, I will forget to make sure the colours i intend to use will work with the skin tone i have picked! (something that is apparent in older works of mine, not just in relation to clones, but in general, the colours I end up with stray largely from their original sources and it is something I am doing my best to keep in mind and improve in! Although I don't think i am nearly experienced enough in the topic to say I have succeeded yet lol.)

anyways back to Tem :))

Now we can put all of that into practice! Things to keep in mind when drawing out a piece next to a reference like this:

the distance between the eyebrows? how far down his face does his nose go? Basically just, in relation to eachother, where do all those shapes we found earlier, sit?

The screenshot above is from before I did it myself, but instead of directly tracing from the reference, a handy trick I use it to complete your sketch first, and then overlay a traced version to see where your inconsistencies are! Alternatively, you could move your sketch over the image, but I didnt do it that way so!! uh!! im sure it works exactly the same!!!!

When it comes to a final illustration, or any sketch that isnt a direct study, of course you can push and pull and stylise! You'll see below that I'm not exactly 1:1 to my reference photo either.

The important thing with stylisation, or at least my own personal understanding of stylisation is that you need to thoroughly understand the thing you are stylizing! "You need to know the rules to break them" and all that. While shapes, lines and rendering can change, when it comes to drawing someone, and making it look like them, you have to make sure to keep their core features true to source. Caricature can capture a persons vibe whilst drastically exaggerating features, but it will only look like them if you KEEP THOSE FEATURES!!!! SHAPES!!! AHHH!!

But that is just my perspective on the discussion of style versus realism, please dont take is as Law, I dont know what Im on about half the time!!

anyways, after fixing your sketch, add local colours!

I rexified him because why tf not! But this is where you can go crazy with that clone personalization!

And then here is a very very barely rendered version (if you guys want me to explain how i RENDER that would need to be a completely different post, and I havent had anyone ask about it yet so who knows! maybe one day) But I digress, hopefully you learnt something new through my ramblings! It has certainly helped me organize my thoughts and I have also found some areas I would like to focus more on in the future to improve my own art!

TLDR: In order to understand an object, be it a face or a building or literally anything, you have to break it down to its simplest forms, understanding LARGER shapes will help you immensely in the long run

If you guys like this sorta content do let me know! I'd be down to do similar things for armor/anything really, I am very anti gatekeep so really anything at all you want to know! Send me an ask :))

also if you see a spelling mistake.. i don’t know how that got there

[yourdandelionofthedeathknell]

The Theraprism: Good or bad?

Ya know, i've never been sure how to feel on the Theraprism, as shown in the Book of Bill. This is in large part because we get very little info on it, from any perspective other then BIll's own at least (and he is...Not a reliable narrator). Personally, I see three possible interpretations and I don't know which one is correct. To be clear, I think all of these are fairly valid: 1. Their methods seem insipid, but are actually quite effective. They seem to have been effective in the past (one of Bill's fellow patients is slated for release in the near-future apparently), and the Axolotl (who, while not exactly rich characterization himself, has, generally, been portrayed as wise and benevolent) referred to it as "what [Bill] needs the most", which would be weird if it doesn't have SOME merit. I, myself, honestly prefer this one, because I think it works better with the narrative of the Book of Bill (a book which, generally, does not encourage the reader to sympathize with Bill's plight. Pity, maybe, but the framing is very clearly that he kinda deserves this) and the schadenfreude the reader is encouraged to feel if Bill's hellish afterlife is, largely if not entirely, a self-inflicted one: That it wouldn't be particularly bad if not for his own combo of being unable to accept that he lost, that he shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to anyone he wants, inability to form meaningful bonds with others, and, most of all, his total inability to admit to being wrong. He COULD leave at any time, if he would just actually repent, but...He's Bill, so...He won't. It just works best for me if his hell is largely self-inflicted. 2. They are harmful, possibly deliberately. This does have a fair bit of support textually. Mandatory therapy is already a pretty major ethical grey area at best (a major tenant of modern psychotherapy is that you can't make someone change unless they take the first step), they definitely engage in toxic positivity, and, of course, the "Solitary Wellness Void" is...Solitary confinement, which is a practice most modern medical institutions oppose and consider to be psychological torture. So, fair bit of support for this. 3. This is what I think was probably Alex's intent: They're a bunch of oblivious obnoxiously happy morons (as Bill himself would probably describe them) whose attempts to treat eons-old eldritch horror bad guys with puppet shows and arts and crafts is meant to be amusingly-inept rather then actively malicious, and whose effectiveness (such as it is) is down to having literally eternity to try. Kinda like what Mabel might do to rehabilitate someone. To use an analogy, think Charlie Morningstar from Hazbin, at least in the first couple episodes, where the fact that she's treating adult criminals like misbehaving children is the joke and is meant to indicate incompetence rather than malice. I get that isn't that much different from the proceeding (except in terms of "how seriously are we supposed to take this"), but still. I think all three of these have support, and, to be clear, I go with the first one not because I think it's the most supported (might be the least), but because it jives most with how I think about BIll's narrative IE as a character we're meant to, at best, pity, but not really sympathize with. I think the intent is "Bill is suffering a karmic self-inflicted punishment after all the pain and suffering he's caused", not "Bill is being medically abused and we should feel bad for him". The Book of Bill does invite readers to sympathize with Bill occasionally, but mostly past Bill, not current Bill. All viewpoints are valid, this is just trying to organized some thoughts on the subject. I sincerely hope I haven't said anything harmful here. Uh, cards on the table, I am neurodivergent, but i've never had therapy, forcefully or otherwise (although I did have an irrational fear of the possibility of institutionalization for a bit), so i'm sorta going off vibes here, sorry to say. If I said anything insensitive here, I apologize.

[churrochamp]

Let's talk about Merlin and lying. This isn't meant to be character bashing, but it might not be the most generous take either.

In All About Love, bel hooks writes: "In our culture privacy is often confused with secrecy. Open, honest, truth-telling individuals value privacy. We all need spaces where we can be alone with thoughts and feelings - where we can experience healthy psychological autonomy and can choose to share when we want to. Keeping secrets is usually about power, about hiding and concealing information."

(hooks has a lot more to say about the reasons why people lie in relationships, and our need for love and difficulty with love in general. Book is fantastic, highly recommend.)

The question is: was Merlin's years of lying about his magic, and all that he did in Arthur's defence, justified? Why'd he do it?

I've been trying to think through how the fandom generally interprets Merlin's character and choices in the show, and how this character makes me feel. It's really complicated and interesting (to me at least lol).

I often see the claim that Merlin lied about his magic for years out of fear for his safety, but it's never fully satisfied me as an explanation. Given that as a fandom we pretty much all agree that magic can be a metaphor for queerness, there's a natural alignment with the claim that queer people aren't ever obligated to come out, for any reason, but it's often said, especially if their physical safety might be jeopardized (which I agree with btw).

And it's true, given Camelot's genocidal laws, Merlin's life could be threatened if he revealed himself as a sorcerer. On the other hand, Merlin is basically all-powerful in the universe of the show, and I don't think the rest of Camelot could do much to him if he were prepared.

What's more convincing to me is the claim that Merlin's afraid of the potential emotional harm that could come from revealing himself. What if Arthur hates and rejects him? That's something his magic can't defend against.

I think Merlin's heart is in the right place. He believes all his work is done in service of Arthur and their joint destiny, which is the good of Albion. And he does save Arthur's life a whole dang lot.

The issue is, probably a good half of the show's major conflicts directly relate to Merlin's actions and inactions - usually, lies he's telling (Morgana, Mordred...). Conflicts that maybe could have been resolved with much less harm if Merlin, who often is the only one with crucial knowledge, had made different choices (and Gaius too oh my GOD). Dude is shooting himself in the foot. Merlin's lying isn't just about personal privacy and autonomy. It becomes a fundamental part, baked into his relationship with Arthur and his role in their prophecy (and the governing of a kingdom jeez).

In addition to plot SNAFUs, the way I see it, Merlin's lying has two major consequences for him:

His most important relationship, with Arthur, is deeply flawed and incomplete.

Merlin remains the most important, influential character in the show. His energies go to trying to keep the power for himself.

As bel hooks argues, there can't be true intimacy in a relationship if one or both parties withhold and deceive the other. This could look like lying to manipulate the other party to get what you want, or even lying to make the relationship go easier. Relationships built on untruth aren't fair to all parties - the deceived person can't make informed choices in the relationship, and the deceiving person robs themselves of the opportunity to be fully supported and loved for who they are. When Merlin lies to Arthur about magic, when he tells Arthur that magic is evil, even if it is for "his sake," he's taking choice away from Arthur often at crucial moments, for both their relationship and the well-being of the kingdom. Without knowledge of the truth about magic, and about Merlin, Arthur can't make fully informed choices as a king or a partner. Things go to shit, and it's terribly lonely for both of them, even if only one of them know about it. Merlin's reason for this might be fear of pain. However, when you don't give someone the opportunity to love or reject you for who you are, how can you feel held by that person? You deprive yourself of the chance.

Another reason to lie can be desire for power and control. By keeping the secret of his magic and their destiny, Merlin keeps all the responsibility and power to himself. This is the premise of the show: Merlin is the only person who can turn Arthur into a good king, save magic, secure Albion's future well-being--and he must do it all secretly. The show jokes about it, the characters joke about it. This premise is a kind of power-fantasy - being the secret power working from the shadows, using all your wit and guile to succeed despite the secrecy, risking life and limb for no recognition, but having the satisfaction of knowing that you are instrumental. It's very James Bond. Without the secrecy, what would be the point of Merlin? The secrecy might be part of what makes Merlin feel special, worthwhile.

As the years go by, the lies compound and the relationship becomes inseparable from them. The most significant on a personal level, probably Merlin's poisoning Morgana, Mordred, Ygraine, and Sophia.

Merlin can't control all the factors, he can't do it all by himself, he can't make Arthur into the ideal king and boyfriend of destiny, and from the start it's a doomed endeavour. Luckily Arthur loves him all on his own, and does get to see him at the very end, and they'll get a second chance.

So in summary, why does Merlin lie about his magic and his actions for so long? Fear, love, and power, is what I suggest. And ultimately it leads him and Arthur to ruin. It's not exactly exemplary behaviour, but it is very very human.

[orangeejuice]

Analyzing Cole's Reflection (or lack thereof)

This is a bit of an analysis regarding the topic of Cole's reflection in Season 5, which I find really fascinating, especially considering how it was explained in canon (particularly how it was written to be completely insignificant). Despite this, I personally haven't seen it talked about much, even though it has really interesting implications. While I do believe this is in part due to odd/sloppy writing, I also think there's quite a bit to see beneath the surface here, as I'll discuss under the cut below.

As we know, in Season 5, Episode 8, "Grave Danger," the ninja are going through the ice labyrinth in the tomb of the First Spinjitzu master. Within the ice, the ninja are able to see reflections of their future selves. This scene is actually quite important, as it becomes pretty relevant in Season 6 (Skybound), due to Jay seeing himself with Nya in his reflection.

However, what I find to be the most notable in this scene is that Cole does not see any reflection whatsoever. This causes him quite a bit of distress and confusion, although this is quickly interrupted by Morro attacking the ninja. Kai seems to bring up the possibility that the lack of reflection is because Cole is a ghost, but this is quickly shot down by Zane stating that ghosts cast reflections.

Upon first viewing this scene, it's pretty easy to have many different interpretations of why Cole doesn't see his reflection. I personally interpreted it as Cole quite literally not having a future, therefore not having a reflection, which felt quite relevant due to him becoming a ghost only four episodes prior.

Yet, in Season 6, Episode 1, "Infamous," we get our "answer." Cole finds out he can turn invisible and concludes that he couldn't see his reflection because "he can disappear." Thus, this plot thread (or whatever you want to call it) regarding Cole's reflection is entirely dropped, seemingly confirming that this explaination is true.

My issue with this is that not only is it boring, but it just doesn't make sense. For reference, this is what the other ninja's reflections look like.

As we can see, these reflections clearly are not meant to be their near futures, judging by the visible aging on Kai, Jay, and Nya (Zane being the exception, of course). If Cole's reflection really isn't visible because his future self is quite literally invisible, that implies that either his reflection is somehow the exception (by showing his near future), or that for whatever reason, his future self would have a reason to be invisible. Frankly, neither of these explainations are plausible, which is why I really dislike invisibility being the actual explaination. It's entirely possible that Cole only believes this to be the case as a way to cope with the otherwise bleak implication about his future. I prefer to interpret it this way opposed to it being written to genuinely be true.

However, it's also important to note that these future reflections don't seem to be set in stone. In particular (and forgive me if I am misinterpreting this), Jay's future seen in the reflection seems to have been entirely avoided by his final wish at the end of Skybound erasing the majority of the events in that season and thus changing the future from that point. In particular, him gaining the eyepatch during the events of Skybound leads not only us as the viewers, but Jay himself to connect this to the reflection he saw in Season 5.

It's also important to note that Jay's final wish would most likely not change the future reflections of the other ninja, just his own. However, as stated earlier, if it's possible for Jay to change his own future reflection, than perhaps the same logic can extend to the others as well.

With Cole in particular, I genuinely wonder if his lack of reflection was actually supposed to be relevant again in Day of the Departed but was cut for time. As much as I love DotD, it was clearly trying to shove as much content as possible into just 44 minutes. Unfortunately, the story ends up being condensed quite a bit as a result and I think it could've really used at least another 22 minutes, especially if it included stuff like this connection. But this post isn't meant to be about my thoughts on DotD's pacing and content, really, so I'll move on.

My thoughts on this are that perhaps Cole altered his future by going through the rift on the Day of Departed and becoming human once more, rather than fading or becoming stuck and forgotten in Airjitzu temple. I actually really do like this explanation, because it makes sense. Cole fading or being forgotten in a "bad" future are entirely plausible reasons for his lack of reflection in the ice.

Either way, I think it's quite a shame that it wasn't explored more. Obviously Ninjago is a show meant for kids and exploring a character's feelings regarding their possible lack of a future can be a little dark (although I don't personally see it as being too dark for Ninjago). Cole's fear and resignation (at least until his friends get to the Airjitzu temple) of fading away is completely well founded, because of this small scene in Season 5 and it adds even more motivation for him to go "settle his debt" with Master Yang.

On the other hand, it's not explored much in fan content either from what I can see, and I think that it's a huge missed opportunity. Like, can you imagine how scared Cole must've been when he started fading away and "ghosting out," meanwhile the fact he didn't have a reflection of his future self lingered in the back of his mind? Especially if he was coping with this fear by concluding it was due to his invisibility. Even with the events of DotD, I can imagine Cole still worrying about it in the present. After all, for all he knows, that future could still come to pass.

Overall, I found this scene and how it was handled super interesting and I would really love to see it brought up more in fan content (I might even write my own fic relating to this at some point).

Either way, I'd also be curious to see if anyone else has thoughts about this. I may have missed something that the writers/creators have stated regarding this, so if that's the case, you can let me know as well.

[makapatag]

Tactical Combat, Violence Dice and Missing Your Attacks in Gubat Banwa

In this post I talk about game feel and decision points when it comes to the "To-Hit Roll" and the "Damage Roll" in relation to Gubat Banwa's design, the Violence Die.

Let's lay down some groundwork: this post assumes that the reader is familiar and has played with the D&D style of wargame combat common nowadays in TTRPGs, brought about no doubt by the market dominance of a game like D&D. It situates its arguments within that context, because much of new-school design makes these things mostly non-problems. (See: the paradigmatic shift required to play a Powered by the Apocalypse game, that completely changes how combat mechanics are interpreted).

With that done, let's specify even more: D&D 5e and 4e are the forerunners of this kind of game--the tactical grid game that prefers a battlemat. 5e's absolute dominance means that there's a 90% chance that you have played the kind of combat I'll be referring to in this post. The one where you roll a d20, add the relevant modifiers, and try to roll equal to or higher than a Target Number to actually hit. Then when you do hit, you roll dice to deal damage. This has been the way of things since OD&D, and has been a staple of many TTRPG combat systems. It's easy to grasp, and has behemoth cultural momentum. Each 1 on a d20 is a 5% chance, so you can essentially do a d100 with smaller increments and thus easier math (smaller numbers are easier to math than larger numbers, generally).

This is how LANCER works, this is how ICON works, this is how SHADOW OF THE DEMON LORD works, this is how TRESPASSER works, this is how WYRDWOOD WAND works, this is how VALIANT QUEST works, etc. etc. It's a tried and true formula, every D&D player has a d20, it's emblematic of the hobby.

There's been a lot more critical discussion lately on D&D's conventions, especially due to the OGL. Many past D&D only people are branching out of the bubble and into the rest of the TTRPG hobby. It's not a new phenomenon--it's happened before. Back in the 2010s, when Apocalypse World came out while D&D was in its 4th Edition, grappling with Pathfinder. Grappling with its stringent GSL License (funny how circular this all is).

Anyway, all of that is just to put in the groundwork. My problem with D&D Violence (particularly, of the 3e, 4e, and 5e version) is that it's a violence that arises from "default fantasy". Default Fantasy is what comes to mind when you say fantasy: dragons, kings, medieval castles, knights, goblins, trolls. It's that fantasy cultivated by people who's played D&D and thus informs D&D. There is much to be said about the majority of this being an American Samsaric Cycle, and it being tied to the greater commodification agenda of Capitalism, but we won't go into that right now. Anyway, D&D Violence is boring. It thinks of fights in HITS and MISSES and DAMAGE PER SECOND.

A Difference Of Paradigm and Philosophies

I believe this is because it stems from D&D still having one foot in the "grungy dungeon crawler" genre it wants to be and the "combat encounter balance MMO" it also wants to be. What ends up happening is that players play it like an immersive sim, finding ways to "cheese" encounters with spells, instead of interacting with the game as the fiction intended. This is exemplified in something like Baldur's Gate 3 for example: a lot of the strats that people love about it includes cheesing, shooting things before they have the chance to react, instead of doing an in-fiction brawl or fight to the death. It's a pragmatist way of approaching the game, and the mechanics of the game kind of reinforce it. People enjoy that approach, so that's good. I don't. Wuxia and Asian Martial Dramas aren't like that, for the most part.

It must be said that this is my paradigm: that the rules and mechanics of the game is what makes the fiction (that shared collective imagination that binds us, penetrates us) arise. A fiction that arises from a set of mechanics is dependent on those mechanics. There is no fiction that arises independently. This is why I commonly say that the mechanics are the narrative. Even if you try to play a game that completely ignores the rules--as is the case in many OSR games where rules elide--your fiction is still arising from shared cultural tropes, shared ideas, shared interests and consumed media.

So for Gubat Banwa, the philosophy was this: when you spend a resource, something happens. This changes the entire battle state--thus changing the mechanics, thus changing the fiction. In a tactical game, very often, the mechanics are the fiction, barring the moments that you or your Umalagad (or both of you!) have honed creativity enough to take advantage of the fiction without mechanical crutches (ie., trying to justify that cold soup on the table can douse the flames on your Kadungganan if he runs across the table).

The other philosophy was this: we're designing fights that feel like kinetic high flying exchanges between fabled heroes and dirty fighters. In these genres, in these fictions, there was no "he attacked thrice, and one of these attacks missed". Every attack was a move forward.

So Gubat Banwa removed itself from the To-Hit/Damage roll dichotomy. It sought to put itself outside of that paradigm, use game conventions and cultural rituals that exist outside of the current West-dominated space. For combat, I looked to Japanese RPGs for mechanical inspiration: in FINAL FANTASY TACTICS and TACTICS OGRE, missing was rare, and when you did miss it was because you didn't take advantage of your battlefield positioning or was using a kind of weapon that didn't work well against the target's armor. It existed as a fail state to encourage positioning and movement. In wuxia and silat films, fighters are constantly running across the environment and battlefield, trying to find good positioning so that they're not overwhelmed or so that they could have a hand up against the target.

The Violence Die: the Visceral Attacking Roll

Gubat Banwa has THE VIOLENCE DIE: this is the initial die or dice that you roll as part of a specific offensive technique.

In the above example, the Inflict Violence that belongs to the HEAVENSPEAR Discipline, the d8 is the Violence Die. When you roll this die, it can be modified by effects that affect the Violence Die specifically. This becomes an accuracy effect: the more accurate your attack, the more damage you deal against your target's Posture. Mas asintado, mas mapinsala.

You compare your Violence Die roll to your target's EVADE [EVD]. If you rolled equal to or lower than the target's EVD, they avoid that attack completely. There: we keep the tacticality of having to make sure your attack doesn't miss, but also EVD values are very low: often they're just 1, or 2. 4 is very often the highest it can go, and that's with significant investment.

If you rolled higher than that? Then you ignore EVD completely. If you rolled a 3 and the target's EVD was 2, then you deal 3 DMG + relevant modifiers to the DMG. When I wrote this, I had no conception of "removing the To-Hit Roll" or "Just rolling Damage Dice". To me this was the ATTACK, and all attacks wore down your target's capacity to defend themselves until they're completely open to a significant wound. In most fights, a single wound is more than enough to spell certain doom and put you out of the fight, which is the most important distinction here.

In the Thundering Spear example, that targets PARRY [PAR], representing it being blocked by physical means of acuity and quickness. Any damage brought about by the attack is directly reduced by the target's PAR. A means for the target to stay in the fight, actively defending.

But if the attack isn't outright EVADED, then they still suffer its effects. So the target of a Thundering Spear might have reduced the damage of an attack to just 1 (1 is minimum damage), they would still be thrown up to 3 tiles away. It matches that sort of, anime combat thing: they strike Goku, but Goku is still flung back. The game keeps going, the fight keeps going.

On Mechanical Weight

When you miss, the mechanical complexity immediately stops--if you miss, you don't do anything else. Move on. To the next Beat, the next Riff, the next Resound, think about where you could go to better your chances next time.

Otherwise, the attack's other parts are a lot more mechanically involved. If you don't miss: roll add your Attacking Prowess, add extra dice from buffs, roll an extra amount of dice representing battlefield positioning or perhaps other attacks you make, apply the effects of your attack, the statuses connected to your attack. It keeps going, and missing is rare, especially once you've learned the systematic intricacies of Gubat Banwa's THUNDERING TACTICS BATTLE SYSTEM.

So there was a lot of setup in the beginning of this post just to sort of contextualize what I was trying to say here. Gubat Banwa inherently arises from those traditions--as a 4e fan, I would be remiss to ignore that. However, the conclusion I wanted to come up to here is the fact that Gubat Banwa tries to step outside of the many conventions of that design due to that design inherently servicing the deliverance of a specific kind of combat fiction, one that isn't 100% conducive to the constantly exchanging attacks that Gubat Banwa tries to make arise in the imagination.

[jewishvitya]

@turgidturnip I hope you don't mind me replying to this on a different post.

This is about "from the river to the sea" and the claim that it's an antisemitic rallying cry, calling to ethnically cleanse Palestine from Jews.

There's a misconception that this slogan comes from the Hamas charter, but it predates Hamas by, I think, a couple of decades. It's been used this way by more militant groups, and by Iraqi leadership at some point, but before that it's been used to call for a democratic secular nation state.

The reason you see these claims of antisemitism from Jewish people online is that this is the context where most of them will have seen it. Both because it is part of the history, and because that's how antisemites use it against Jews.

Both "Free Palestine" and "from the river to the sea" are thrown at random Jewish people, who are completely unrelated to Israel, to tell them essentially "You're not wanted anywhere and we want you gone."

This abuses the cause of the Palestinian people to weaponize against Jews. It's wrong and violent, but doesn't make the desire to be free in their homeland into something genocidal. And I'm not willing to just give antisemites this, but even if I was, I'm not Palestinian and giving up on a slogan because antisemites are abusing it is not my call to make. It's pretty obvious Palestinians don't want to put it away. Any slogans Palestinians might create can be used this way against Jews, because antisemites will always look for ways to be hateful towards us. But it doesn't make the antisemitism inherent in the desire for freedom.

Recognize where it's used in an antisemitic way from context: if someone uses those slogans to throw at a random Jewish person, or if it's used to disrupt a conversation about antisemitism, that's a misuse of it that does a disservice to Palestinians in favor of harming Jews. That's when it has genocidal intent applied to it.

Otherwise, don't let antisemites steal a slogan of a group of people who have been facing ethnic cleansing for over seventy years. Their real ethnic cleansing takes priority over the hypothetical one we're supposedly threatened with.

I'm not trying to tell other people what their liberation should look like. But when I talk to Palestinians, so far what I heard was a desire for one state that isn't an ethnostate. A civic state that tries to be safe for all the people within its borders. As far as I could see, Palestinians have been saying for a while that what they mean by this, is a state that will be free and equal to everyone.

The assumption that Palestinians will pull some sort of reverse ethnic cleansing against us is racist. And this assumption is the reason Israelis feel comfortable calling the carpet bombing of a civilian population "self defense." Killing them based on this is not self defense, it's a racially motivated crime against humanity.

Gaza is experiencing a genocide. This is because Israel wants the land - without the people. The manufactured Jewish majority can't be sustained if they're made equal citizens. Palestinians are risking the ethnostate by being alive.

So far Israel is the one practicing the genocidal interpretation of "from the river to the sea."

Palestinians deserve to be free on every single part of this land.

[y-rhywbeth2]

Lore: Dating, Marriage, Sex, etc

Part 1/2

Link: Disclaimer regarding D&D "canon" & Index [tldr: D&D lore is a giant conflicting mess. Larian's lore is also a conflicting mess. There's a lot of lore; I don't know everything. You learn to take what you want and leave the rest, etc etc etc]

DnD isn't exactly a dating sim, so most of this lore comes from mining Ed Greenwood's answers to questions, but since his answers are apparently canon unless and until contradicted in published realmslore, here you go.

It's mostly in regards to human culture (and the Heartlands, Waterdeep etc at that) but I'll throw in some demihuman stuff here and there.

So sexuality, and the norms and moral values Torilians build around it: More tolerant and kinkier than Earth, for the most part, and still not a perfect bed of roses. (You won’t face legal oppression; you can get called slurs.)

Attitudes in the Realms

Dating

Sex (and a bit about contraception and conception)

Sexual Orientation

Polyamory

Cut for space and expected in the follow up: marriage, sex work, religion, and the absolutely deranged shit going on in some noble families.

-

Attitudes about relationships in the Realms

The long and short of it is that the root of Toril’s mainstream attitude towards sex and relationships draws from the sexual revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s.

Cultural variations on and subversions of these norms occur, but the rule of thumb, especially as it applies to the video games is as follows:

Sex is not a terribly big deal nor innately taboo; pseudo-puritan attitudes are solely the province of some old high priests on a few religions in a minority of a minority. Virginity and the loss thereof is meaningless unless you're nobility.

Pretty much anything is legal so long as all parties involved are capable of giving and gave consent on most of the planet (though legal isn’t the same as ‘approved of’).

Of course TSR, and later WotC, fell very much on the side of ‘we can’t publish that!’ So it got massively obscured. It only really came through now and again, usually in sly little hints that could get past the radar/editors, becoming more obvious with 4e and 5e (Although Sune and Sharess were flat out stated even back in 2e to ignore gender when they’re in the mood to seduce mortals, and we'd already had Mystra saying that gender is basically just a costume for gods (which Mask illustrates.))

The Realms itself still has bigotry to go around, of course, but generally it's the clergy of a select few gods and the nobles who'll make a fuss about such things, and the latter only in regards to their own social circles and inheritance shenanigans. A traveling merchant who encounters a culture that practices forms of relationships he personally disproves of was probably raised to be polite and keep the slurs unsaid; diversity encourages trade, offending your neighbours does not.

What is and isn’t morally acceptable to an individual is determined by church doctrine and dogma (which determines many of life’s aspects, including love and sex and what's good or bad (chastity vs promiscuity, monogamy vs polygamy, whether procreation is mandated or not or even a sin, if loving people instead of despising them is a sin or not, and what acts are taboo))... and all that as interpreted by the local priests, who may not agree with their fellows’ interpretations. Some gods declare chastity a sin and want you to engage in as many romantic and/or sexual relationships with as many different people in as many different ways as humanly possible. Loviatar mandates BDSM and Ilmater doesn't frown on it either.

Most deities probably aren't going to discriminate. Gods see the universe in terms of their portfolio: what aids it is good what opposes it is bad. Most portfolios aren't terribly impacted by mortal love lives and hormones so I suspect the vast majority of gods could not care less, and, as per Faiths and Avatars, the gods 'generally try to be as liberal as possible to try and attract as much worship as they can.'

With Toril being polytheistic all of these gods are due respect and conflicting dogmas are just a fact of life. Several times a day a person is likely to be confronted with a choice – usually a minor one – where one action will serve some gods and be a sin in the eyes of others, and the rule of thumb is that everybody accepts you can’t please all of them all the time. You live according to the gods you favour above all others and respect the faiths of those you don’t: you expect that people will mind their own business and do them the same courtesy.

In the majority of the realms, including the cities and realms of the Heartlands, Silverymoon, Waterdeep and etc, at least, people are open minded and tolerant. A rule of thumb is that cities are more liberal and rural areas more conservative, but even then their norms and values don’t necessarily match the modern earth norms that might spring to mind; the nuclear family unit is not necessarily seen as default and polyamory is very common in some villages.

Largely, there’s not a whole lot of emphasis put on identifying your sexuality or making it a big part of who you are: most Torilians wouldn’t understand the point of drawing attention to sexuality outside of occasions where it’s actually relevant. If you were visiting Baldur's Gate and pointed out two men getting married at the temple of Tymora the people around you would be utterly confused about why you felt the need to single out the gender of the couple.

‘Individuals may find [queer relationships] too much for themselves to handle, but the laws and general attitudes of society don’t frown on it.’

You may have to ‘pick your neighbours and friends’ to live comfortably, but that’s significantly easier to do on Toril than Earth especially because you should have no reason to worry about persecution or discrimination under the law for deviating from whatever moral code a particular priest might be espousing.

Bastard children and wedlock don't cause a fuss so long as you're not a highborn (or found to have cheated on your partner, one assumes).

Contraception is widely available and family planning is emphasised; you are firmly encouraged to use it in a dangerous world where famines and disasters mundane and supernatural mean babies at the wrong times can lessen the chances of survival (for you and them).

-

Dating

Somebody who catches your eye is 'glim,' as in 'oh no he's hot' or 'she's well fit' or whatever. A Torilian who's very attractive is 'right glim.' As in they're 'glimmering.'

A term for a pair of lovers is 'brightbirds.'

Your 'fancyman,' 'fancylad,' or 'fancylass' is what your disapproving relatives will call your lover that you insist on seeing for reasons that escape them.

Waterdhavians call the target of their affections their 'rose,' which may get confusing as in other dialects a 'rose' is the slang term for a submissive woman in a Dom/sub relationship.

Red and black are considered the erotic/'sexy' colours. Garments featuring black lace and leather in particular.

Many priests, curiously, seem to find potential partners more attractive if they get a tattoo of their deity's holy symbol.

You can advertise your interest by wearing an artificial rose pinned to one shoulder: red signals that you're looking for a long-term romantic partner and black shows you're looking for sex. If the rose is made of steel then it indicates you're looking for a partner of the same gender. Wearing multiple roses indicates you're looking for multiple partners, but you might expect some raised eyebrows or comments if people think you're being overconfident. It's very rare to see women doing this looking for men, since it's thought of as a 'man thing' (wlw doing this to seek each other out apparently don't count to said men).

Sunites, as devotees of the goddess of love and beauty, are available for matchmaking services, advice and make overs.

Dancing - especially erotic dancing - is a large part of courtship trends across the cultural board. Which might tie in to the fact that all the goddesses of lust and love - Sharess/Zandilar, Sharindlar, Sune, Sheela Peryroyl, and to a certain extent, Lliira - are dancers or have dancing as a thing within their faith. Lliiran clergy give dancing lessons, and Sharessans and Sunites probably don't mind teaching either.

The only description of what a one might wear if one is feminine and wants to dress up and look fancy in human culture - the equivalent of a 'little black dress' - is a simple black gown with a high collar and plunging neckline in the front (the latter of which is optional). It's matched with a sash and boots and some small jewellery. If you want to 'dress down' the gown is pinned open to expose either bare skin or the underlying chemise (if you're going for a 'classy' look it'll be lacy and white).

Dwarven courtship involves a slow exchange of crafts made by ones own hand (this can be tools or physical artwork or things like poems and songs, the point is to illustrate your skill and the care you put in). You send it to the dwarf you're interested in, and hopefully they respond in kind. You then spend years doing this and slowly getting to know each other, eventually moving in and seeing if you can settle into something that can last past the initial spark before tying the knot.

Elven courtship apparently involves poetry, songs, and yet more erotic dances.

Drow have courting games called 'spider hunts' usually played at festivals by young drow, which are basically hide-and-seek.

-

Sex (and a bit on procreation)

You can't just fuck somebody right in the market square, but borderline public sex hidden on a rooftop, or ducking into an empty alleyway is pretty common and tolerated behaviour. You are, however, encouraged to keep your shenanigans off the streets lest you 'scare the horses,' take yourselves home or to the nearest festhall/brothel, and keep your 'public displays' limited to appropriate festivals (Greengrass, for example, which is a fertility festival and usually involves dropping all inhibitions for the day).

Lingerie comes in black and red and lace clouts (underwear) and dethmas (bras) which can be readily bought in most cities. Lace-up boneless corsets and shapewear are available as unisex garments.

Sex toys named as existing include whips, dildos, clamps and 'tingling creams.'

I've heard something about halfling orgies, but have found no details beyond 'exotic food.'

And in the Realms you're more likely to say 'rutting' rather than 'fucking' when being vulgar/casual about sex. Unlike 'fuck' it doesn't seem to double as a curse.

If you're considering bedding a priests be warned that as gods are said to derive power from having their name said aloud priests tend to call their gods name in bed. Fervently. The enthusiasm and emotion behind it is supposed to have a positive effect.

Elven foreplay involves sensory deprivation and ear nibbling.

Contraception, as mentioned, is stressed upon. People are concerned about plagues, famines, monsters and other concerns that lead Faerûnians to place a lot of importance on family planning. Contraception is generally delivered via divine magic - a cleric or druid can render you temporarily barren/sterile, guarantee conception or freeze a pregnancy at its earliest and least detrimental stages to be resumed at a safe date. People can ensure that their children will be born in times when it's best for them to be born. Elves have apparently mastered birth control, and it's basically impossible to get a child from an elf when they don't want one.

You can also ask the gods nicely and if you make sufficient offerings the deity can also rearrange your organs a bit to change the way you procreate (or possibly allow you both methods). Generally people will ask the deity they have the most positive relationship with, but Sune and Lliira are the favoured choices in the pantheon. Of the gods not recommended are Bane, Shar, Malar (whose idea of the perfect transformation is lycanthropy) and Selûne (who gladly supports you, but she's considered too mercurial and everchanging. She's not one transition she's eternal, ever shifting transition beyond the human physical endurance or mental comprehension.)

Arcane magic can manage physical modification via transmutation and glamours, which people often play with either as part of exploring their gender identity or just for fun, but transmutation via divine magic is vastly superior at allowing you to be fertile after the change if that's a goal. Arcane magic struggles with that. Arcane magic that allows for surrogacy and sort of IVF apparently exists, having been invented by a pair of liches that wanted a child for whatever reason, but I don't know how commonplace that is.

-

Sexual Orientation

Most people freely experiment in their youth, working out their preferences. Heterosexuality is the default, with bisexuality making up a sizeable second place and other sexualities constituting a fairly sized but unremarkable minority.

Obviously, the Isle of Lesbos does not exist and so neither does the world ‘lesbian’; Toril doesn’t have Earth’s terminology, it has its own words. It should be noted that some can be used in a derogatory fashion, although, considering reality, they could very well be reclaimed or have been stolen terminology twisted into slurs. The given terms, in Common, are:

Thruss - Lesbian Liyan - Gay man (elvish slang loanword) Praed - Gay man (gnomish slang loanword) Tasmar - Bisexual (masc.) Shaeda - Bisexual (fem.) (elvish slang loanword) 'No-thorn' - Asexual

Butches (‘harnor’) and effeminate mlm (‘dathna’) are liable to get scorn for their gender presentation more or rather than their sexuality.

-

Polyamory

In some lands (unspecified which ones) it's unremarkable and even expected for a relationship to be open by default.

While obviously it's not socially acceptable to jump into anybody's bed with no consideration of your partner's feelings on the matter, it's not a foreign idea to see love and lust as separate concepts.

In rural areas one can find villages that definitely don't follow the nuclear family model with mixed families living under one roof, and symbolic polygamous marriages may factor into the traditions of some seasonal festivals. For example in Turmishan a farmstead is traditionally inhabited by a family consisting of four married people, usually two men and two women.

[lorynna]

i would consider myself a radical feminist also and i agree with the vast majority of your views. honestly i am just curious why you think aromantic/asexual people don't exist or shouldn't be labeled. i don't mean this as hate i'm honestly curious to know if it is part of most radical feminist views

if you can accept someone who is lesbian, and knows for themselves that they aren't at all attracted to men, why would you not accept someone who realizes both that they aren't attracted to men and they aren't attracted to women? (obviously very different identities and experiences i'm just wondering why some people can be trusted to know who they're not attracted to and others can't)

Hello anon, thank you for asking so kindly.

I am going to try and explain what my personal opinion on the topic is, as well as I can, and please keep in mind that I don't speak for the radical feminist community but just for my own views.

First of all, the definitions I have read of both terms (aromantic and asexual) so far aren't really specific, differ from each other at times and leave open room for interpretation. The gendies meanwhile continue to preach "everything means something different to each person" and "it is a broad spectrum" just like they do with gender, which according to them is so complicated and unfathomable that you have to ask each person identifying with it seperately, to know what their gender means to them.

The first thing that comes up when I google the definition of both terms displayed below (just as an example of what I mean):

Like, what do "sexual feelings" all include and to which extent does "little romantic attraction" go?

I do think that people who fit the mainstream criterias for being asexual or aromantic exist, I am not trying to say that it is naturally impossible to experience no sexual or aromantic attraction to anyone. I do think it is really really rare for this to authentically occur though, and that a lot of people identifying with these labels have experienced some kind of trauma or are doing it because it has become a trend.

The thing I most dislike about these labels are not only their inconsistency in definitions but also how much they are starting to get pushed online = trend. In my personal experience I have seen not only online but also offline how younger kids and teens start to pick up on these labels without knowing what they truly mean, because they are "cool" and just like gender it is starting to become a similar trend. Seeing who publicly identifies as those labels, it is again mostly the demographic of teenagers who are going puberty and the several different, crucial developmental phases that come with that.

Since you are asking if this is a common radfem belief, I cannot say. There surely is a variety of opinions, however I have seen some good takes from which I remember being said that a person doesn't need the label of "asexuality" or "aromanticism" as an excuse to not participate in dating culture or to not engage in sexual relations. It should just be common sense to not ask strangers about their dating lives and not ask "why" if they say they are not dating or having sex as if it was something unusual.

Also answering to your last question of "why I don't trust those people to know who they are attracted or not attracted to" is not what I am trying to do insinuate by questioning/criticizing the labels they use to describe said attraction. It is not about me trying to say "I don't believe you, you are lying" it is "why do you need those labels". I just don't think it adds anything valuable to society and it's getting more mainstream each day. Now even with teenagers using those labels when they haven't had the time to figure out themselves as a person yet. It just looses its meaning.

I've seen women going through long periods without having partners (radfems participating in male seperatism for example) being asked "oh, so you're asexual, right?" or "oh, so you're unable to form a romantic connection?" because people start assuming, forgetting that there are so so many reasons why people might not have partners or might not want to.

Again, people who truly are not experiencing any sexual desire or romantic desire are really rare but through so many people mindlessly adopting the label it looses it's meaning because it gets more broad in definition and everyone continues to define it for themselves. "Yeah, I am asexual but sometimes I have sex. Like once a month but that's barely enough so I must be asexual." Like... you might just have a low libido and that's totally okay! Why do you feel the need to label yourself as asexual? Is it easier because of your partner's expectations, maybe? Is a simple no not enough for them?

"I'm 15 and I haven't had a crush on anyone so far. I actually think boys/girls are ew and I can't imagine kissing anyone, like ew saliva. Also the girls/boys in my class are so annoying!!" And no, I've heard statements like this several times before. I mean, give yourself some time you're only 15.

Why do we always have to slap a label on top of everything and why can't we just go through life saying "yeah at the moment I really don't feel like having a partner, I don't want to date or have sex. Maybe that will change someday, maybe not and either way it's okay, I'm open for change. " but we have to say "oh yes, I'm an asexual aromantic without doubt and that won't change, that's my identity" and then when that changes we get an identity crisis realising that oh, maybe that wasn't me? Who am I now?

It all boils down to me not being able to take those labels seriously anymore, which is why I reacted so sarcastically in the post you're probably referring to, where I talked sarcastically about those terms.

"labels are different for anyone"

like no.. to define means to limit, to define means to exclude people who don't meet those criterias and that's okay, that's what makes labels and words meaningful = contributing to a conversation of mutual understanding instead of having to first discuss what each person means by using one and the same word.

Like I can't go outside in a clothing store saying "oh I want a red dress" and when she shows me a red dress I then say "oh that's not red for me, that's yellow by my own definition." How do you expect everyone to effectively communicate by leaving the option open for everyone to seperately define one single term??

But as we know, the gendies aren't fans of definitions.

[mysticsublimeperson]

I've been hunted by one little all consuming idea.

Basically I want the knights exposed to BAMF spy! Merlin, I was thinking something like this..

The knights are spying on someone on enemy territory. They are following this person across the border and being seen there could cause a war, but the thing they need from this person is very time sensitive, so they go, surprisingly without any major trouble; mostly because Merlin's been assuring a safe passage n the dark.

The thing is this person finds an inn, and they can't be sure of they're way because in a inn you can ask for a ride, or trade the very thing they are after, they are unsure that this person knows it's value so...

"It'll be easy..." Arthur assured while taking of his gauntlet "We'll take off the armor and pass for merchants or something" explained as he indicated Merlin to take of the rest of armor.

Merlin couldn't contain the snort that escaped him.

All of them looked at him.

"Sorry, sorry..."

"You have something to say Merlin?"

"It's just... I mean not offense sires, but you are way too posh for that to work, even your normal clothes is way to fine, not matter how much dirt you cover yourself with" explained takin another part of the armor.

"Aren't you forgetting something Merlin?" said Elyan amused.

"Yeah.. alright, not all of you come from nobility, but... well, let's say that he perks of being a knight change people enough" he tried not to be offensive, but the fact is that after being trained as knight all of them had a change in demeanor, the walked differently, they looked at the people with a superiority that only power gave. Even if it's the power to do good and protect, they had that kind of authority. "Believe me, if you walk in there and claim to be anything other than a knight, we'll be discovered, people in this kinds of places know how to detect threats" He explained helping Elyan after loosening Lancelot's armor.

"Then what do you suggest?" Asked Leon softly.

"Maybe we can twist a bit the truth... Gwaine is already a drunkard" Gwaine laughed at that "And all of you can be yourself, before being a knight, just not together" thought outloud, he could hear some agreement "And Arthur and Leon could be knights on a quest, just not say that you are Camelot's knights" offered looking at Leon.

They spoke about the details of their background stories and arranged their accommodation. They would enter at different times, and from different paths. Most of them could fake no having any kind of relationship with each other, but some, Merlin knew, would not be able, so they planned around it. In the end they would take four rooms, one for Leon and Arthur, one for Percival and Lancelot, one for Elyan, and one for Gwaine.

"And what about you?" Lancelot asked worried.

"It doesn't make sense for me to have enough coin for a room" he said like it was obvious. But he could see the surprise in every face surrounding him.

"You'll come with us then" othered Arthur.

"That won't make sense with the story..."

"Us then.." said Percival, surprising Merlin, before he could deny.

"No, I won't work, come with me Merlin" offered Elyan.

"Don't be ridiculous, Merlin is my best friend, he surely can come with me without arising suspicions" laughed Gwaine.

Merlin was a bit chocked up with surprise, he hoped his face wasn't too red, but he couldn't help it. It was rare that the knights showed this kind of affection towards him.

"Thank you for the offers" he said sincerely "but I think you are not understanding, all of you will be interpreted as thread, maybe Gwaine could pass but he won't be discreet, all of you attract a terrible amount of attention and someone who is trying to smuggle something won't want that... just trust me" even this he could see protest in their eyes they agreed.

Merlin entered last, all of them already had been accommodated at the inn. Once alone, he could let loose, the rain was just a nice touch.

He entered the inn drenched, and purposely tripped at the entrance. He approached the owner and begged for a simple job to pay the stay, he looked at him and offered a cot under the stairs for serving the tables.

Now he had the attention, everyone knew him as a bumbling idiot, desperate for cain and roof, most of them view Merlin as an easy target, and that was the point.

He served awkwardly and tripped a bit more, the owner threatened to make him sleep with the horses but that secured his image.

"Are you ok?" Lancelot asked when Merlin brought his drink, if it was another Merlin would be in risk of being discovered. "You're still wet"

"It's fine, it's not different from the usual" that turned his expression into a frown.

"Surely that..."

"BOY!" called the owner.

"Yeah! Coming"

The person the comes to the room and sits themselves in a far table, Merlin knows that they are aware of him so he put his plan. He crashes softy, almost making a mess, and thanks them profoundly, he picks up something valuable looking from the floor and give it back, earning the look of someone too naive, and the he blushes ashamed when they comment on his situation. He spills some bullshit on how his master left him on the road for packing the wrong coat, making himself pitiful. Then he would sputter an apology for speaking out of turn, and would go. Now that the bait was set it was just a matter of time.

Usually this kinds of people would try to smuggle shit using someone else, so if they get caught, they'll just put the blame in the other person. It was smuggler 101.

He was kind of losing hope until a bully on a table he purposely took the other wrong decided that Merlin was good enough punching bag. The punch to the gut let him without air for a full minute, he felt himself gaping like a fish out of the water. He had prepared himself for the punch, but had to make it believable, now he looked weak, which solidified the character. He could hear voices, but he was a bit unfocused.

"Hey, friend, are you ok?" it took everything in him not to smile victorious, it worked.

Basically this person invites Merlin to their room and tries to convince Merlin to travel with them. And at dawn they go, Merlin, with some help from the magic, gets them confused enough to turn back to the borders where the knights are waiting and arrest them properly.

Then they are all terribly silent, because there's so much to unpack here.

[subway-boss-jericho]

Queuing posts for most of my AUs! Check out this Masterpost! (Disclaimer! - Please don't comment about their iconic knife bangs! I left them off this reference to keep their faces fully visible.)

Half-Ghost AU

-Premise- (This should hopefully be obvious, but I need to include major warnings for depictions of main character death.)

When Ingo and Emmet are caught in a space-time distortion, all hell breaks loose. Transported instantly to somewhere unknown- Rocky mountains and rough terrain. Not only that, but they've been caught in a territory war between the largest, angriest (Alpha) Electivire they've ever seen with more than enough Electabuzz lackeys to back it, and a whole flow of panicked, confused, furious Magmortar and Magmar. Without their pokemon, they're almost helpless. Desperately, Ingo and Emmet try to escape this warped space. Caught between a rock and a hard place, it only takes a warning one second too late, a dodge too slow, a brother too far away to help. Emmet is caught in the direct strike of a horrifyingly powerful Thunder, killing him before Ingo can finish screaming his name.

They will never be apart. Emmet barely stays down long enough for his body to hit the ground. He is never going to leave his brother alone. Now more than ever, Ingo NEEDS him. He snaps back into awareness from the darkness, just in time to see Ingo trapped in a brutal Fire Spin. Not this time.

Emmet bonds his soul to Ingo, reinforcing him- protecting him.

Ingo barely manages the strength to stumble over the side of the cliff ledge, sliding- tumbling. The strange space, the warped darkness, he's escaped. Heavily injured, Ingo fades to black.

When he comes to, he's greeted by the Pearl Clan medic, Calaba. He doesn't remember what happened, who he is, or how he was injured. ...Something looks, familiar, in the gentle ways his coat has been stitched back up in white. The medic didn't do it. Found him like that, apparently. Despite the newfound stress and unknown situation, his internal monologue is comforting, calm.

-Noteworthy Points- ,,I did warn you. Okay so, notes. Emmet is bound to Ingo and is not a typical ghost. He does not have the strength to manipulate him or possess him in a typical ghost media way. He can try to speak to Ingo, but Ingo hears Emmet's words as thoughts, and believes the thoughts are his own. Emmet can move him or get him to do things, but they generally aren't anything Ingo wouldn't have done on his own, and Ingo also interprets any of Emmet's attempts to do things as though he himself wants to do them.

To summarize, Emmet can have Ingo do small things (Grab item, move hand, perform small action) or even say things of his choosing on occasion, but Ingo is in an extremely fragile state of mind and interprets anything of Emmet's as though they are just thoughts of his own. He sees anything Emmet tries to do as parts of himself.

In regards to ghost powers, he doesn't have much. He is able to help heal Ingo a bit faster than naturally possible, and all of the stuff mentioned above. Emmet also protects him from external influence such as mind control or possession by other ghosts (Usually the pokemon kind). Any time his coat is damaged, Emmet can use pieces of his 'coat' to fix it. Also, Ingo is hurt worse by ghost and dark type attacks, and sometimes has other attacks- normal, fighting -seemingly phase through him. His eyes glow in the dark.

Essentially, Emmet is not a media-typical ghost, but is a different form of spirit. I am not well versed in ghosts to know if there is a specific word for the exact kind. He is a positive, helpful soul who is giving his strength to Ingo to help support him physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

Ingo has lost his memory as a trauma response to Emmet's death and his own horrible injuries, and thus does not remember him. His head begins to ache and he becomes unable to think clearly if he tries too hard to remember or is forced to think about it for too long.

Ingo has Pyrophobia, and generally feels uneasy/sad/uncomfortable/upset around electricity. Emmet has Electrophobia, and this becomes most obvious if he is ever trying to help Ingo navigate out of a situation/manages to have a higher amount of control than usual.

oh damn this post is long

-Links- Currently none! I will update this post with links to comics/art/writing if/when I post any!

[a-queer-seminarian]

Hello, sibling. Do you have resources for intersex Christians? Anything counts, trust. I'm an intersex Catholic and feel very alone in my community. I know God loves me and made me perfectly, but I would love to see fellow intersex Christians talking about our bodies, identities and faith. God bless you

Hey there. My heart goes out to you in your loneliness; you are beloved by God, and you are perfect as you are, even if human beings deny and erase you.

I am also sorry that the broader queer community also too often fails to remember intersex folk and include y'all in our efforts towards justice. You deserve solidarity, deserve to have your pain and your joys listened to as much as any of us.

And, I am happy to tell you that yes, I've got some intersex faith resources for you!

Let's start with intersex Christians talking about their experiences, and then we'll get to some intersex-resonant scripture.

...below the readmore.

Intersex Christians sharing their stories

Stories of Intersex and Faith — a documentary! I have not watched it yet because it costs $20 for an individual to rent it, but if you are interested but the cost is prohibitive, please let me know and I'm happy to rent it for you! .

"I'm an Intersex Christian — and It's Time the Church Listened to Me" (article, major trigger warning for discussion of medical abuse & trauma on a young child; to avoid it, you can skip to paragraph beginning: "The heart of the issue is that church still sees me as problematic...", after which are discussions of trouble with church but also suggestions for improvement) .

Interview with Sara Gillingham, author of the previous article (video, 51 minutes) .

And here's a Facebook video: "What do you wish more Christians knew about intersex people" (video, 2 minutes) .

Another FB video by the same person on how churches can be more supportive of intersex people (video, 3 minutes)

An intersex Catholic Saint?

If you haven't heard of Madre Juana de la Cruz, who would point to her pronounced adam's apple as proof that she had been "male in the womb," check her out!

Now let's check out some intersex-resonant Bible stories, plus intersex theology

For a concise, accessible look at intersex readings of various biblical figures, check out my webpage here... . as well as my webpage here for interpretations of Jesus himself as intersex (and trans)! (The intersex part is fairly brief, but includes links some scholarly essays if you want to learn more about intersex Jesus) . Please note that the focus of my site is trans theology (because that's my focus most of the time), but where a passage is also applicable to intersex folk I make sure to bring them in too, with links to further reading. For instance, did you know Abraham and Sarah were considered intersex by some rabbis in the Talmud?? .

"Male, Female, and Intersex in the image of God" with Lianne Simon and Megan DeFranza (video, 1.5 hours) — great intro to some intersex theology if reading isn't your thing

Intersex in Christ: Ambiguous Biology and the Gospel by Jennifer Anne Cox (book) .

"Intersexuality in Scripture” by Sally Gross (essay free online) . Note that this essay is from 1998 and the language used reflects that, but Gross is one of the foundational intersex theologians. . Also if you want to skip over all her intro paragraphs defining intersex, skip to the paragraph starting "As a brute physical phenomenon, the bodiliness of people who are born intersexed challenges cherished assumptions...")

Sex Difference in Christian Theology by Megan DeFranza (book)

_______

I hope some of those resources can help you feel a little less alone. There are other intersex Christians, including many who lead, write, preach!

I'll close with a regret: I was trying to find any kind of virtual community for intersex Christians, or even just intersex people in general. I wasn't able to find such a place.

If anyone knows of some online intersex support groups or communities, please share! Or if you have other intersex Christian resources you wanna add, share those as well.

I can suggest that you check out this webpage of intersex advocacy groups across the world. If there happens to be one by you and you get involved, I wouldn't be surprised if you met some other intersex Christians there.

Wishing you well, sibling. When you feel alone, may the intersex Christ enfold you in love. When you feel like "the only one," may the stories of faithful intersex people past and present bring you encouragement.

[genderqueerdykes]

From what you've seen, how gatekeep-y is the therian community?

okay so i did that non-committal hand wavey thing because its hit or miss, generally speaking

ive been in the community since 2010 - 2011. for a pretty long time. back then, in the early 2010s, it was extremely gatekeep-y. i was a part of several forums that would interrogate new members and ask them a million questions as to why they identified as nonhuman. a lot of the time people who had "weaker" (their interpretation, not mine) reasons like seeing the animal in dreams a lot or relating to the animal were bitched at for not being "real" therians. some places even would just straight up ignore or turn down people with common species like wolves or elves

nowadays its a mixed bag it's really going to depend on where you find a community. there are a lot spread across different websites. im finding that most spaces run by nonhumans these days are generally run by teenagers, so they can be somewhat poorly run due to the natural inexperience of a younger staff team. there are plenty run by adults but i've noticed the bulk of them are run by teens so your mileage will vary.

i've noticed most spaces these days tend to be a bit more open minded and usually don't ask people to answer 20 questions about why they identify as a nonhuman. however there are still places where people are very strict about how "real" nonhumans identify. if you find people who insist they know how "real" nonhumans should identify, that's your key to leave. people like that are just trying to get a captive audience to control

most of the time it's pretty chill. you can usually discern whether or not a community is tightfisted by reading their rules and watching how their staff members behave. since the community is so decentralized now, it's going to be a toss up. most of the major communities that were on forums have gone by the wayside now. i haven't joined a nonhuman community in quite a few years. i would like to, but currently i have no recommendations

feel free to ask any more questions you may have!

[luna-rainbow]

idk if you've seen that post, it's from years ago at this point, where someone is surprised to hear that Bucky has a disability. i think it's in an ask with a response like HE'S MISSING AN ARM. remembering that left me thinking,,, what are your thoughts on Bucky's own comprehension of his disability? like, i'm sure he experiences chronic pain, and he's aware of his disability *especially once he has a metal arm that can be detatched as we see in tfatws* but i also feel like he might feel guilty taking the title of disabled because he has the serum and is "super" plus he doesn't feel like he deserves the support/help that can and should be given to disabled people when they need it. ALSO he hasn't had all that much time to process as a human rather than a controlled weapon that he is missing an arm. his prosthetic has been welded into him,, with probably less sensation,, but it functions like an arm,, idk i just feel like it probably hits him out of the blue, too 🥲

Oooh thanks for the interesting ask nonnie! And yes I do remember that hilarious post.

Here's my usual disclaimer that this is just throwing out ideas and that canon lends itself to many different interpretations.

I think the first thing to consider is Bucky's relationship with disability as a concept. He was good friends with Steve, a chronically ill person, but sometimes people have a different bias when it comes to invisible illness versus visible body difference. I have seen people, including disabled people, who are more accepting of one type than the other. He had grown up during a time when disability was considered a "defect" and there was talk of eliminating them from the gene pool, so there might be some inherent fear of being seen as "disabled". At the same time, he had also fought through one of the bloodiest wars of human history but also post the antibiotic era, which means a lot of major injuries became survivable compared to WW1. He likely saw many people around him become physically marked in one way or another. I have a feeling that that experience would have reconciled him with the fact that the value of life is greater than physical wholeness. So overall, I think Bucky probably had a fairly accepting view on disability and illness back when he was able-bodied, and while he needs time to process the loss, that acceptance is probably somewhat protective against self-hatred.

The second thing is the curious subject of Bucky's bionic arm. I have met (lower limb) amputees who reject the "disabled" label, because to them once they put on a prosthesis they could walk and run and work and exercise. I think worrying about being "deserving" might be a small part of it, there's a bigger part of worrying about social perceptions of disability -- they didn't want the "handicap" label to be used to hold them back. I suspect you are right, in that Bucky probably sees himself as very capable, even super-humanly so, with the (very high-tech) prosthesis. He most likely feels that being a soldier is a big part of his identity and sense of worth. I suspect also...going back to what Bucky's relationship with the word "disability" means, his interpretation of that (given he came from the 1940s) might mean something that has a profound impact on function, and he may feel that he doesn't fit that mark.

The third thing is Bucky's relationship with body image, which has varied from movie to movie. The Winter Soldier had no qualms flaunting that arm, but then the Winter Soldier had no mind of its own, and its handlers knew the metal arm was intimidating. In both Civil War and TFATWS, we see Bucky wear gloves and long sleeves to hide his arm, which he removes when he starts a mission. It could be that he doesn't want to scare people or draw attention to it day to day, or it could be that he associates the arm with the soldier part of himself and he doesn't want to see it when he's trying to return to a normal life. Interestingly, in Wakanda, Bucky had been quite content to walk around without any sort of prosthesis at all. This might suggest that he's less bothered by the missing arm than he is by the need to wear a weaponised prosthesis.

But you know, people are fickle creatures, and I am sure when he's hit by PTSD or a bout of anxiety or depression, his views on body image and his physical limitations would take a very nasty turn and he would have to work through all the stages of grief again.

[lexicollectschai]

Since I started being part of the Sonic fandom and the Sonamy fandom i've noticed both of them had quite simmilar misunderstoods towards amy's character.

And it's... Amy never was created to be an "obssesive girl" "an obssesive fangirl" "an obssesive girl who only thinks about Sonic and nothing else"

And this is a consequence of the bad localization Sonic had in the West and how they didn't understand Amy's character, a girl who was created with many qualities japanese people love but the west considers it "weird", still affects her character to this day at this point we're many hear by mouth and mouth how Amy is but never had the thought of thinking "all of this is true?"

Look at this comparison between japanese!Sonic and American!Sonic and how different they treat Amy (minute 1:50 - 3:29)

https://youtu.be/PiSVTpRCGXA?si=cF_eEzFO5N3BPFQO

Thanks to this majority of western fans thought Sonic was always mad at Amy when in reality that was not the original intention and destroys all the concept of "obssesive" and "fangirl" were she cared for birdie and protected Gama from Sonic.

A girl who always tries to be better, helping people many wouldn't pay attention but she knows they need help.

A girl who is conscious she has to work hard than his friends with super powers

And Sonic being one of her main inspirations 'cause he represents what she wants to become: being free, going on your own having adventures, the excitement everything against the boring

And you would say "but in heroes she was an obssesive fangirl😭"

No, the fandom scaled the proportions and couldn't handle a single innofensive joke

Amy knew exactly exactly what she was doing telling him to "Marry him" as a joke. He would low his defenses and cause him to feel embarrassed and nervous 'cause she knows he's terrible at romance or i'm general, feelings

And many forgot that in the game Amy didn't know exactly why Sonic, Tails and knuckles we're together. In the beggining Amy saw Sonic in the paper and told us she hasn't seen Sonic in weeks and when she saw them thought they were just hanging out.

I'm talking about the girl who all the game supported,encouraging Cream and Big to rescue Chocola and Froggy and they needed someone as determinante, courageous as Amy who reminded her friends how brave they are

She even shows appreciation and love for the landscapes (just like Sonic)

"But- but in later games she was so obssesive and fangirl for Sonic 😭" Again bad localization for the west when in the original sources she was handled bit better than the West.

Also, Western has an obssesive to always point out the bad interpretations of female characters and saying why they are "the worst" "the most annoying characters" when at the same time try so hard to prove why this interpretation of a male character is not "bad enough" or "not the worst" and why even with bad characterizations he is still the best **cough****cough** Sonic and shadow respectively **cough****cough**

The character is not perfect, that's a reality.

She has strenghts and flaws that made her unique on her own. Her love for her friends (yes, this includes Sonic), the animals, the good and "Bad" robots and even characters who we're "devil"... She saw good, hope and love for them. She decides to help them being at their sides to show them there's always the option to chose a good path

She is the heart of all teams, she brings happines and hope to everyone. That's why all the cast loves and appreciates her and never refered to her like fandom does. That should tell you something

Personally I don't agree with the idea of "Amy is not an obssesive girl anymore and now she is a strong cute girl" when she has a l w a y s been a strong cute, bubbly, sassy, kinda bratty, compassive, energetic, silly girl but many think this is new when it's always been in front of you, you just decided to finally see the character and not prejuices