#EACH ONE MUST JUSTIFY ITSELF. TO WHOM.

[nemesis-is-my-middle-name]

it is actually a crying shame what a barrier to entry ffxiv has. like other games you can at least watch lets plays of but who's making Good lets plays of this mmo. plus so much of it is about making your special lil guy and then getting attached to them and then getting absolutely whammied by the sudden Plot. can't get that so much with a lp. there's an essay you could write abt how video games are uniquely suited to pulling the player into the world and making them like, directly complicit in/affected by the story when they can't sit as far removed from it as other mediums. but it's fucking late already i can't even tell if that sentence made sense. whatever. christ. read my meta boy.

[manikas-whims]

Since Xavier is so little prince coded is mc the lone rose 🌹 back on his planet or the fox 🦊

Ohhh wow Anon..I didn't want to think too much on this, mostly because I read The Little Prince like..years ago and the plot isn't that coherently in my head but let's see..

The obvious interpretation can be..

Xavier is the little prince, traveling through the space, wandering on all these planets, learning something new everyday, learning from the people he meets and in turn teaching them something as well..

Queen MC should represent the rose, the Prince’s beloved whom he has left. In the book, the Prince leaves the Rose due to her vain, proud and naive behaviour. But here in Love and Deepspace, the Prince has left his beloved in order to save her from the fate destined for her..In a way, the rose has always been the major source of motivation for his travels..

Then..that must imply that the Fox represents the current timeline MC? In a way, yeah you could say that. The Fox becomes a dear friend and teaches the prince the significance of people in his life. About how one person in this sea of so many, becomes important because of the connection we share with said person, and the time we spend cultivating said relationship with them. The Fox calls this “taming”. According to the fox, “to tame means to establish ties.”

“If you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world.” says the Fox.

And since Xavier has left his planet, as well as his timeline and met the current MC, they both have been slowly taming each other i.e. they've been slowly establishing a bond with each other with every encounter and moment spent together in the main story.

Now in The Little Prince..

The Fox teaches the Prince the importance of ties and significance of one person compared to the rest around them:

“It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

And the Fox makes the Prince realize how dear his beloved Rose is to him, and that he has a responsibility towards the Rose:

“You mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed. You’re responsible for your rose.”

So if Love and Deepspace writers take the same route..

then in accordance, there will come a point that Xavier might have to leave the current MC and go back to his own timeline’s Queen MC (which is exactly what he came back in time for) because he has a responsibility. And the responsibility in this context is that he vowed to himself that he'll save her life. Get her out of this cursed fate of dying and being brought back to life over and over for the sake of a planet.

BUT!

THIS IS A CHINESE OTOME GAME! And yes while that justifies nothing, I firmly believe that it is highly unlikely that the game might follow this route..

..simply because Xavier himself has never acted as such. He's been nothing but protective towards the current MC. He's been killing his own ex-teammates from the Backtrackers in order to protect MC. And he doesn't hesitate in doing so which in itself cement his standpoint and his feelings towards the current MC.

Also, I believe that..IN ESSENCE, QUEEN MC AND CURRENT MC HAVE THE SAME SOUL, AND ARE THE SAME PERSON.

So our MC doesn't need to be the Rose or the Fox. She most likely is both a cherished friend and a lover to Xavier because she is afterall, the same person. With the amount of times she's died (or forced into dying), it's obvious that the Queen MC from Xavier's actual timeline could very well be the current MC who's died so many times that in a distant future, she is reborn and exists in the same era as the one that Xavier comes from.

My word is not absolute, and this is still a very rough way to put it all into words. But I do firmly believe that that one thing that the antis keep using to antagonise Xavier will not come true because he's always been in love with ONE person and our MC as well as the Queen MC are THAT one and the same person.

» But hey! If Xavier does betray current timeline MC, then we might possibly get a plotline/route like I posted about [HERE] and I am not averse to that.

[sai-lec]

The Internet Tifosi

an informal reflection of online fan spaces by me, a recent member of the tifosi.

I love being part of the tifosi. I love the colour red. I love seeing the passion of the tifosi at races. I love Charles. I love Carlos. I love watching races and highlights from old team lineups I love the greats like Schumacher and Lauda and Prost I love Ferrari.

My path in f1 didnt start with Ferrari, it started with McLaren- my dad is a huge McLaren fan, he introduced me to Lando (and Carlos but primarily Lando) in lockdown and sure it didnt click with me right away; I watched some races with him, he showed me the highlights from the races I didnt watch with him (including several videos of Grosjean's infamous crash) and despite the fact that I wasn't heavily invested it gave us something to bond over. That September when I left home for university it gave us a reason to call each other. When I developed a genuine interest (after I decided I wasn't coming back home after I graduate university) my dad wasn't bothered by the fact that I had shown up at Christmas with a Ferrari hat on, in fact he took it off my head and tried it on himself; "do I look good as a Sainz fan?". From my dad introducing me to Lando, Carlos was the natural next step in immersing myself into the fan community. From Carlos, we found Charles and the Tifosi. I don't have many (or any) friends in real life with the same level of interest in Formula 1 that I have developed, naturally I found myself creating this blog hoping to find a community within online spaces that wasn't available to me in the digital world.

My experience within the tifosi has been... unique, to say the least. I have been engaged in online fan spaces since I was around 14- I made my Tumblr account in 2016 to talk about supernatural, before moving on to buzzed unsolved, and marvel and so on as my interests developed and changed. Within each of these communities I have found a group of people that I felt comfortable around enough to call them genuine friends. some of whom I still keep in contact with despite the fact that our interests have changed. that hasn't quite happened to the same extent with the internet's Tifosi; and there is a multitude of reasons why.

The 'Versus' Predicament

To be rather blunt for a moment- I have never been part of a community that has been filled with so much vitriol for other members, and I was part of the Marvel fandom when Civil War was released (team cap). In fact, it seem that the tifosi are constantly engaged in a Civil War of their own- devoted fans of Charles as the self-labelled Lecfosi and Team55 practically always appear to be at odds with each other. And publicly so.

It is natural for people to have a favourite driver- we've just discussed how ive come to find myself as a devotee to Team55. But as with other areas, fan spaces have seen negative impact in communication due to internet dependancy in recent years.

From my perspective, the issue appears to be a mixture of cancel culture and virtue signalling. Now cancel culture is in itself a manifestation of virtue signalling in which creators or whomever else face mass criticism and attempted deplatforming as the internet becomes aware of potentially problematic past or present behaviour; however given its internet context and usage I've elected to view it as a separate entity.

Internet fan spaces have regressed to a state of defensiveness- in order to promote and validate your approval of one subject you must justify why in comparison to another. This is where the effects of cancel culture come into play. Cancel culture reached its peak performativity during quarantine as the internet and social media became the primary method of protesting and spreading awareness of activism whilst maintaining social distancing and quarantining requirements. As morality became monitored and policed by a younger and younger average user base, it is natural that there was a bastardisation of the phenomenon resultant in the mass cancelling and calling out of any person who spoke or acted in a manner that wasn't deemed correct; not necessarily related to politics or activism at this point, I myself received an influx of mass hatred and cancellations to the point where I was borderline shunned by an entire gaming community for making a joke about everyone hating one of the event mini games ('whats everyones favourite game and why is it not buildmart').

This same mindset is so visibly present within the Tifosi today- both extremes find themselves comparing one driver to the other in order to justify their favour. For example, tensions have been high with Lecfosi and Team55 almost in a panicked state looking to justify why they chose to support their favourite driver with 'Carlos is gifted every achievement Charles would have beaten him if he wasn't held back ' and 'Ferrari fired the wrong driver' filling the comments of Ferrari's Instagram and Twitter posts. This has prompted fans to flock to defend their preferred driver, often in ways which contribute to the animosity. Drivers face this pseudo-cancellation as a result with twitter bios seeing additions of 'Carlos fans din' 'if you like CL16 unfollow me' after every race. Criticisms of the drivers themselves increase, they are placed under heavier scrutiny as the violence between fans increases leading to a never-ending circle of driver-to-fan hatred. it is seen as almost a moral failure within fan spaces to support the wrong driver.

I, personally, have witnessed arguments between fans in comment sections on tiktok- the most memorable being a 'share your favourite driver and why' tiktok in which a Carlos fan received comments of 'Well you know Charles is actually better because x y z'. (I'd like to point out this is not an antagonisation of Charles fans, but this is what actually happened nor am I excusing Team55 from the ability to make similar comment). The notable point here is that Charles was never mentioned, yet the mere fact of someone else preferring the wrong driver in this commenter's eyes lead to them purposefully targeting another Ferrai fan to chastise them on their decision effectively boiling the interaction down to 'you're not allowed to support this driver because I don't like him'.

This is where virtue signalling comes into play. For those unaware, virtue signalling is the public expression of opinion with the intent of alignment with a moral correctness. The internet especially in fanbases weaponises that frequently through the examples of 'dni of you support x' as discussed prior. The followup to that mindset is the feeling of requirement to discuss. For example, when a driver races poorly or is subjected to penalty, fan spaces will see an influx of posts demanding fans to defend their driver (How can you support him when he drives like that), mass criticising the driver (he doesn't deserve his seat why isn't he fired), or public statement of disapproval because of the social requirement to misalign yourself with the incorrect actions of another person without genuine belief behind the statement as oftentimes excuses will be made for their preferred person in a similar situation. At times it appears that the primary interaction of some people within the Tifosi is to engage in critical commentary on their disliked drivers.

Criticism? Or extreme negativity?

With call out and cancel culture leaving the political sphere it has severely impacted the positivity of fanbases as criticism becomes a primary, almost necessary, aspect of fan culture. Of course we talk about critical consumption in which you are able to analyse and evaluate the content which we consume and become aware of its biases and flaws, however this has snowballed to become criticise everything you consume. Thus, the animosity of the fan spaces rises once more.

Of course every driver is bound to face warranted criticism- the majority of the grid are socially unaware rich white men, they are destined to say or do something worth criticising. They are bound to say bitchy things and act in ways that you don't agree with because that is just the nature of humanity, everyone does these things. But that does not mean every single one of their actions are worth dissecting under the microscope. And the prevalent attitude of analysing drivers mannerisms, behaviours emotions and heat-of-the-moment radios and comments doesn't display the analytical eye a lot of people think it does.

A lot of attitudes in the 2024 spaces that I have personally seen have centred a Carlos negativity- there have been dire criticisms of the journalistic bias towards him across the first 3 races of the year. Of course, if you don't like him then you're bound to be tired of hearing about him. But what I found interesting was the theories being circulated that he was paying his way into the media or that there was a behind-the-scenes scheme to keep media interest on him. Now, a lot of people perceived this to be a theory based on the culture surrounding Sainz's family wealth and his father's influence when in reality it was likely to be because of the increased interest around his circumstances going into the season- no seat for 2025, rumoured negotiations with several teams, surgery and first non Red Bull win of the season. to analyse this situation critically is not to say 'well there must be a secret reason and I will investigate' but to recognise that journalism is reliant on attention grabbing headlines- a man with no job and no appendix winning a race while still in the post-surgery recovery period is exactly the kind of narrative that will garner clicks. It would have been the same had it have been any other driver in that specific set of circumstances. There is a difference between critical thinking and assumptive analyses and oftentimes they can become conflated in the desire to prove a point.

This is the issue- a lot of people engage analytically with media in order to suggest a particular narrative. Every person is subject to bias, and when that bias is unchecked it can lead to a lot of analysis that are reliant on theory, speculation and assumption in order to maintain the subconscious perspective of the writer. This is why we see a lot of people use demeaning nicknames towards Charles on twitter an simultaneously view Carlos as undeserving in instagram comments- the integral points of their perspective on the driver rest on the moments which will develop their narrative view of the driver as the lesser. Critical engagement cannot rest solely on one the positive or the negative, otherwise you failing to engage critically by cherry picking a perspective in order to maintain a narrative. That is tabloid journalism, or gossip, at best.

I Am In Misery

It is also just not healthy for you as a fan to consistently engage in negative commentary and discourse. I mean that seriously this is a PSA if your fan engagement sees your negative criticism and commentary of your disliked driver outweigh the time you spend enjoying your interest then you need to take a step back and reassess how you want to participate because that is not sustainable for your mental wellbeing.

This is not to say that you must never hate, you must never criticise or say anything bad about someone we all do it- it's natural. But you have to ask yourself if you truly enjoy using another driver to uplift your favourite. Aren't his accomplishments enough to validate him alone?

Ive noticed a complete lack of will to celebrate- in my inbox right now are maybe around 15 asks all talking about how I shouldn't be happy with this weekends performance or else I dont understand F1. I argue the inverse,

I understand F1. I understand that this weekend was not the best performance Ferrari had to offer. I understand the impact of the team racing each other and Carlos' aggression during the sprint. And I have mentioned as much. However, I choose to focus on the positive aspects of the weekend. The tyre management from both drivers was impeccable to gain 2 positions each and maintain them finishing on tyres that were 40 laps old. They made an excellent recovery from the mishaps in qualifying that ultimately earned the team and themselves more points. We maintain 2nd in the constructors championship and 3rd and 4th in the drivers. There are issues that need to be discussed and resolved but ultimately this is not the worlds worst performance.

F1 is entertainment. I want to win, I want to succeed but I also want to be entertained. My mental health has seen a series uptick since I decided to directly seek entertainment. Sure, the drivers shouldn't have been racing the way they were, it had the potential to put both cars in a detrimental position, but it sure does make things more interesting!!! There's almost a sense of parasocialism within the community- a lot of people are hesitant to look for relief beyond the emotions of their favourite driver, and subsequently view every race as a failure in some aspect (just outside of the podium, on the podium but not p1, could've done better if it wasn't for xyz) and that negatively affects their experience as a fan and for other fans who don't share that perspective. It's almost like people have forgotten to enjoy the race, they're so preoccupied with looking for something to criticise.

Now this isn't to say you're not allowed to enjoy critical assessments of the success of races. But thats not what the majority of us are posting (it might be what some of you think you're posting, but you're not). I love watching video essays on races that are done properly with acknowledgement and awareness of bias. I don't love reading posts along the lines of 'why this race actually sucked' (not a real example) because it's not built from an analytical or critical perspective, just a discussion of the race and outcome through a lens of destructive pessimism.

End

This behaviour isn't specific to the Tifosi, it's an internet wide phenomenon. But I've chosen to directly comment on it here because as I said, I've never sen a community with so much hatred for itself. As of 2024, we are all on the same team right now. We have the right to hold our own opinions of the drivers and express those. We do not have the right to argue on the validity of other fans preferences, we do not have the right to directly enter fan spaces (ie the main tags) and spread destructive negativity about a driver nor do we have the right to harass blogs for whom they chose to support.

The inherent negativity is so calamitous to the community. It perpetuates the infighting, it furthers the negative narratives we have constructed of drivers, it only contributes to divide the community as both sides earn reputations of being toxic towards each other. And to an extent, yes . It is true, and that is disappointing. You have the right to choose your favourite driver. However, Charles and Carlos are both talented drivers- there is no need to drag one down to uplift the other. It is instigating behaviour and I'm sure a lot of people comment in that manner purposefully.

Be aware of your parasocial connection to a driver. if you find yourself criticising a driver for an action that you would not criticise your favourite for executing ask yourself why you view the action as negative circumstantially. If you are only able to assess races based on what could have happened, what better could have happened then ask yourself if you find this enriching; do you leave race weekends feeling good and excited for the next race or soured because things might have been better under different circumstances. Don't ignore the problems, acknowledge them and say but what are the positives as opposed to letting the failures undermine the successes.

just have a bit of fucking fun once in a while PLEASE .

as an endnote: I do recognise that the majority of insights and examples I have given in this reflection have been at the expense of team 55, again I would like to reiterate that as someone who primarily finds themself in 55 spaces I a naturally experience a greater exposure to negativity towards that driver as it usually tends to be maintagged or sent directly to myself or other 55 centric blogs. Just as the CL16 community is more likely to be exposed to and remember hatred towards Charles. In no way am I insinuating that 55 fans are incapable of or have not acted in the the same nature, to Charles' detriment. The toxicity remains prevalent on both extremes of the community.

this is a mass response to the people in my inbox thank you for your patience I didnt want to answer like 15 different asks about everything in slightly different ways

[ndbookstudy]

i am that, nisargardatta maharaj, ch. 61.

Questioner: I was lucky to have holy company all my life. Is it enough for self-realisation?

Maharaj: It depends what you make of it.

Q: I was told that the liberating action of satsang is automatic. Just like a river carries one to the estuary, so the subtle and silent influence of good people will take me to reality.

M: It will take you to the river, but the crossing is your own. Freedom cannot be gained nor kept without will-to-freedom. You must strive for liberation; the least you can do is uncover and remove the obstacles diligently. If you want peace you must strive for it. You will not get peace just by keeping quiet.

Q: A child just grows. He does not make plans for growth, nor has he a pattern; nor does he grow by fragments, a hand here a leg there; he grows integrally and unconsciously.

M: Because he is free of imagination. You can also grow like this, but you must not indulge in forecasts and plans, born of memory and anticipation. It is one of the peculiarities of a jnani that he is not concerned with the future. Your concern with future is due to fear of pain and desire for pleasure, to the jnani all is bliss: he is happy with whatever comes.

Q: Surely, there are many things that would make even a jnani miserable

M: A jnani may meet with difficulties, but they do not make him suffer. Bringing up a child from birth to maturity may seem a hard task, but to a mother the memories of hardships are a joy. There is nothing wrong with the world. What is wrong is in the way you look at it. It is your own imagination that misleads you. Without imagination there is no world. Your conviction that you are conscious of a world is the world. The world you perceive is made of consciousness; what you call matter is consciousness Itself. You are the space (akash) in which it moves, the time in which it lasts, the love that gives it life. Cut off imagination and attachment and what remains?

Q: The world remains. I remain.

M: Yes. But how different it is when you can see it as it is, not through the screen of desire and fear.

Q: What for are all these distinctions -- reality and illusion, wisdom and ignorance, saint and sinner? Everyone is in search of happiness, everyone strives desperately; everyone is a Yogi and his life a school of wisdom. Each learns his own way the lessons he needs. Society approves of some, disapproves of others; there are no rules that apply everywhere and for all time.

M: In my world love is the only law. I do not ask for love, I give it. Such is my nature.

Q: I see you living your life according to a pattern. You run a meditation class in the morning, lecture and have discussions regularly; twice daily there is worship (puja) and religious singing (bhajan) in the evening. You seem to adhere to the routine scrupulously.

M: The worship and the singing are as I found them and I saw no reason to interfere. The general routine is according to the wishes of the people with whom I happen to live or who come to listen. They are working people, with many obligations and the timings are for their convenience. Some repetitive routine is inevitable. Even animals and plants have their time-tables.

Q: Yes, we see a regular sequence in all life. Who maintains the order? Is there an inner ruler, who lays down laws and enforces order?

M: Everything moves according to its nature. Where is the need of a policeman? Every action creates a reaction, which balances and neutralises the action. Everything happens, but there is a continuous cancelling out, and in the end it is as if nothing happened.

Q: Do not console me with final harmonies. The accounts tally, but the loss is mine.

M: Wait and see. You may end up with a profit good enough to justify the outlays.

Q: There is a long life behind me and I often wonder whether its many events took place by accident, or there was a plan. Was there a pattern laid down before I was born by which I had to live my life? If yes, who made the plans and who enforced them? Could there be deviations and mistakes? Some say destiny is immutable and every second of life is predetermined; others say that pure accident decides everything.

M: You can have it as you like. You can distinguish in your life a pattern or see merely a chain of accidents. Explanations are meant to please the mind. They need not be true. Reality is indefinable and indescribable.

Q: Sir, you are escaping my question! I want to know how you look at it. Wherever we look we find structure of unbelievable intelligence and beauty. How can I believe that the universe is formless and chaotic? Your world, the world in which you live, may be formless, but it need not be chaotic.

M: The objective universe has structure, is orderly and beautiful. Nobody can deny it. But structure and pattern, imply constraint and compulsion. My world is absolutely free; everything in it is self- determined. Therefore I keep on saying that all happens by itself. There is order in my world too, but it is not Imposed from outside. It comes spontaneously and immediately, because of its timelessness. Perfection is not in the future. It is now.

Q: Does your world affect mine?

M: At one point only -- at the point of the now. It gives it momentary being, a fleeting sense of reality. In full awareness the contact is established. It needs effortless, un-self-conscious attention.

Q: Is not attention an attitude of mind?

M: Yes, when the mind is eager for reality, it gives attention. There is nothing wrong with your world, it is your thinking yourself to be separate from it that creates disorder. Selfishness is the source of all evil.

Q: I am coming back to my question. Before I was born, did my inner self decide the details of my life, or was it entirely accidental and at the mercy of heredity and circumstances?

M: Those who claim to have selected their father and mother and decided how they are going to live their next life may know for themselves. I know for myself. I was never born.

Q: I see you sitting in front of me and replying my questions.

M: You see the body only which, of course, was born and will die.

Q: It is the life-story of thus body-mind that I am interested in. Was it laid down by you or somebody else, or did it happen accidentally?

M: There is a catch in your very question. I make no distinction between the body and the universe. Each is the cause of the other; each is the other, in truth. But I am out of it all. When I am telling you that I was never born, why go on asking me what were my preparations for the next birth? The moment you allow your imagination to spin, it at once spins out a universe. It is not at all as you imagine and I am not bound by your imaginings.

Q: It requires intelligence and energy to build and maintain a living body. Where do they come from?

M: There is only imagination. The intelligence and power are all used up in your imagination. It has absorbed you so completely that you just cannot grasp how far from reality you have wandered. No doubt imagination is richly creative. Universe within universe are built on it. Yet they are all in space and time, past and future, which just do not exist.

Q: I have read recently a report about a little girl who was very cruelly handled in her early childhood. She was badly mutilated and disfigured and grew up in an orphanage, completely estranged from its surroundings. This little girl was quiet and obedient, but completely indifferent. One of the nuns who were looking after the children, was convinced that the girl was not mentally retarded, but merely withdrawn, irresponsive. A psychoanalyst was asked to take up the case and for full two years he would see the child once a week and try to break the wall of isolation. She was docile and well-behaved, but would give no attention to her doctor. He brought her a toy house, with rooms and movable furniture and dolls representing father, mother and their children. It brought out a response, the girl got interested. One day the old hurts revived and came to the surface. Gradually she recovered, a number of operations brought back her face and body to normal and she grew into an efficient and attractive young woman. It took the doctor more than five years, but the work was done. He was a real Guru! He did not put down conditions nor talk about readiness and eligibility. Without faith, without hope, out of love only he tried and tried again.

M: Yes, that is the nature of a Guru. He will never give up. But, to succeed, he must not be met with too much resistance. Doubt and disobedience necessarily delay. Given confidence and pliability, he can bring about a radical change in the disciple speedily. Deep insight in the Guru and earnestness in the disciple, both are needed. Whatever was her condition, the girl in your story suffered for lack of earnestness in people. The most difficult are the intellectuals. They talk a lot, but are not serious. What you call realisation is a natural thing. When you are ready, your Guru will be waiting. Sadhana is effortless. When the relationship with your teacher is right you grow. Above all, trust him. He cannot mislead you.

Q: Even when he asks me to do something patently wrong?

M: Do it. A Sanyasi had been asked by his Guru to marry. He obeyed and suffered bitterly. But his four children were all saints and seers, the greatest in Maharashtra. Be happy with whatever comes from your Guru and you will grow to perfection without striving.

Q: Sir, have you any wants or wishes. Can I do anything for you?

M: What can you give me that I do not have? Material things are needed for contentment. But I am contented with myself. What else do I need?

Q: Surely, when you are hungry you need food and when sick you need medicine.

M: Hunger brings the food and illness brings the medicine. It is all nature's work.

Q: lf I bring something I believe you need, will you accept it?

M: The love that made you offer will make me accept.

Q: If somebody offers to build you a beautiful Ashram?

M: Let him, by all means. Let him spend a fortune, employ hundreds, feed thousands.

Q: Is it not a desire?

M: Not at all. I am only asking him to do it properly, not stingily, half-heartedly. He is fulfilling his own desire, not mine. Let him do it well and be famous among men and gods.

Q: But do you want it?

M: I do not want it.

Q: Will you accept it?

M: I don't need it.

Q: Will you stay in it?

M: If I am compelled.

Q: What can compel you?

M: Love of those who are in search of light.

Q: Yes, I see your point. Now, how am I to go into samadhi?

M: If you are in the right state, whatever you see will put you into samadhi. After all, samadhi is nothing unusual. When the mind is intensely interested, it becomes one with the object of interest -- the seer and the seen become one in seeing, the hearer and the heard become one in hearing, the lover and the loved become one in loving. Every experience can be the ground for samadhi.

Q: Are you always in a state of samadhi?

M: Of course not Samadhi is a state of mind, after all. I am beyond all experience, even of samadhi. I am the great devourer and destroyer: whatever I touch dissolves into void (akash).

Q: I need samadhis for self-realisation.

M: You have all the self-realisation you need, but you do not trust it. Have courage, trust yourself, go, talk, act; give it a chance to prove itself. With some, realisation comes imperceptibly, but somehow they need convincing. They have changed, but they do not notice it. Such non-spectacular cases are often the most reliable.

Q: Can one believe himself to be realised and be mistaken?

M: Of course. The very idea 'I am self-realised' is a mistake. There is no 'I am this'. 'I am that' in the Natural State.

[uboat53]

Well, the Trump trial is officially over and the reaction to it sparked an idea I need explore. SHORT RANT (TM) time?

INTRODUCTION

Anyone else notice something interesting about the Republican response to the verdict? They's lots of talk about "rigged trials" and "election interference", but there's not a lot of talk about the evidence. I mean, if you really thought that someone wasn't guilty of something, wouldn't you want to make a case for it? Heck, if you really thought that a trial was rigged or that the other party was interfering in the election, wouldn't you be able to put up some evidence for that?

There's a reason for that, though, the Republican response has nothing to do with the evidence. Many of them DO, in fact, seem to think he's guilty, but they still think he shouldn't be convicted. The reasons for this are pretty interesting.

THE WORLDVIEW

In 2018, a composter named Frank Wilhoit from Ohio came up with a definition of conservatism. It goes like this:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups that the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

And, here's the thing, he's not wrong. Just look at how the conservative response to campus or BLM protests varies from their response to the attack on the US Capitol. Look at how their statements about law enforcement in general deviate from their statements about Trump's legal travails. None of these statements make sense if you hold a belief in the American concepts of equal justice under law, but they make perfect sense if you believe that Trump and his followers are part of the in-group and the law isn't supposed to bind them.

THE EVIDENCE

The great thing about the American legal system is that, in order to convict someone of a crime, you have to be very clear about what they did and why you think they did it. In other words, you have to lay out the evidence.

In this case, jurors believed, based on Stormy Daniel's testimony as well as corroborating evidence, that (a) Trump had an affair with her, they believed, based on financial records and corroborating evidence, that (b) Michael Cohen paid her in order to capture her story and prevent it from coming out, they believed, based on financial records, written records, and corroborating evidence that (c) Trump paid Cohen back for this, they believed, based on testimony by Hope Hicks, Michael Cohen, and others, that (d) the story was prevented from coming out because it was believed it would harm Trump's chances of being elected, and they believed, based on all of this and other corroborating evidence, that (e) Trump's business records were falsified in order to conceal the nature of this payment which would constitute an illegal campaign contribution.

Whether you understand the evidence as the jury did or not, the evidence is laid out for all to see. Also, each decision the judge and prosecutor made was a matter of public record. It is striking that no Republican in the country seems to think there was anything wrong with the evidence, what the jury interpreted from it, or with any specific decision made by the DA or judge during the trial. In fact, it's becoming more obvious that many of them don't seem to have any issues at all with what the jury found or with any of the schedules or procedures of the trial itself.

THE UNAMERICAN TRUTH

Fundamentally, American law is premised on the idea of equal justice under law; this is the concept that the law should apply equally to every person no matter their station. This type of conservatism is, therefore, at odds with one of the most basic premises of American law and has been since the founding.

And, like most bad things in America, this worldview goes back to racism. This is exactly the same worldview that allowed people to justify enslaving black people purely on the basis of the color of their skin. It's the same worldview that allowed people to justify hanging a black man merely on the accusation that he had whistled at a white woman but to refuse to convict a white man who had clearly murdered a black one. It's the worldview behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow.

Republicans and conservatives today aren't arguing that Trump is innocent of the charges he's been convicted on, they seem to largely accept the evidence on that front. What they're arguing is far more dangerous to our country, they're arguing that no law should ever be enforced against Donald Trump or any member of their in-group no matter how guilty they are.

[fugengulsen]

It will do you no harm to find yourself ridiculous. Resign yourself to be the fool you are.

You will find that you survive humiliation And that’s an experience of incalculable value.

That is the worst moment, when you feel you have lost The desires for all that was most desirable, Before you are contented with what you can desire; Before you know what is left to be desired; And you go on wishing that you could desire What desire has left behind. But you cannot understand. How could you understand what it is to feel old?

We die to each other daily. What we know of other people Is only our memory of the moments During which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they and we are the same Is a useful and convenient social convention Which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember That at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.

There was a door And I could not open it. I could not touch the handle. Why could I not walk out of my prison? What is hell? Hell is oneself. Hell is alone, the other figures in it Merely projections. There is nothing to escape from And nothing to escape to. One is always alone.

Half the harm that is done in this world Is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle To think well of themselves.

There are several symptoms Which must occur together, and to a marked degree, To qualify a patient for my sanitorium: And one of them is an honest mind. That is one of the causes of their suffering.

To men of a certain type The suspicion that they are incapable of loving Is as disturbing to their self-esteem As, in cruder men, the fear of impotence.

I must tell you That I should really like to think there’s something wrong with me — Because, if there isn’t, then there’s something wrong With the world itself — and that’s much more frightening! That would be terrible. So, I’d rather believe there’s something wrong with me, that could be put right.

Everyone’s alone — or so it seems to me. They make noises, and think they are talking to each other; They make faces, and think they understand each other. And I’m sure they don’t. Is that a delusion?

Can we only love Something created in our own imaginations? Are we all in fact unloving and unloveable? Then one is alone, and if one is alone Then lover and beloved are equally unreal And the dreamer is no more real than his dreams.

I shall be left with the inconsolable memory Of the treasure I went into the forest to find And never found, and which was not there And is perhaps not anywhere? But if not anywhere Why do I feel guilty at not having found it?

Disillusion can become itself an illusion If we rest in it.

Two people who know they do not understand each other, Breeding children whom they do not understand And who will never understand them.

There is another way, if you have the courage. The first I could describe in familiar terms Because you have seen it, as we all have seen it, Illustrated, more or less, in lives of those about us. The second is unknown, and so requires faith — The kind of faith that issues from despair. The destination cannot be described; You will know very little until you get there; You will journey blind. But the way leads towards possession Of what you have sought for in the wrong place.

We must always take risks. That is our destiny.

If we all were judged according to the consequences Of all our words and deeds, beyond the intention And beyond our limited understanding Of ourselves and others, we should all be condemned.

Only by acceptance of the past will you alter its meaning.

All cases are unique, and very similar to others.

Every moment is a fresh beginning.

~T.S. Eliot -  The Cocktail Party

[julia-bunncat]

Bunbun!! Welcome back! I’ve miss you! 🥰 I recently went through your blog and I’m curious about your new Shinsai AU~ I’d love to here about it when you have the time. ✨👀✨ Also, I hope you have a lovely day! 💖

Awww, thank you so much for the question and such sweet words, Leeann ^^ I missed too! 🥰 And actually, ahah… During the time I was away, not one or two Shinsai-oriented AUs were added in my collection 😅 Moreover, each one of them contains some monstrosity of Shuichi or Korekiyo, so I wasn’t sure you'd like it… But since you are interested, I will try to tell you at least about one! (and I even have a sketch made by my bestie! 🤗💗) Especially since, due to the recently released V3 merch for Halloween it seems very appropriate 😂🎃

yeah I mean it :>

Let's call it "Spiritual Marriage to a Fox" ~

Often the ideas for my AUs are generated under the inspiration of arts. This was no exception, but since I can not attach here foreign art without permission (and get this permission too) – I just describe it. In this image, Korekiyo, wearing Japanese traditional clothes, with black fox ears and tail, is sitting behind bars, tied with a red rope. Instead of the usual mask, the lower half of his face is covered by a thin white cloth (like a veil for eastern dances) with the inscription «Truth» on it. And Kiyo’s look is rather sad, even sympathetic... So, yeah, situation «kitsune! Shinguji is imprisoned» becomes the starting point ✨

Shuichi, in turn, took on the role of junior priest of the Saihara family. The cunning fox is imprisoned exactly where he serves. Moreover, Shuichi knows that his senior mentors are about to torture Kiyo through various rituals – and he must take part in it... But he had doubts. His uncle taught him that it's always possible to negotiate with the otherwordly forces, and that extreme measures should be taken only if the Yokai are seriously dangerous. So he decided to risk. Just look at the kitsune first... Then let him out. And if anything went wrong he was even willing to give the beast his tiny life – to let him drink his blood so he wouldn’t hurt others...

But he didn’t know... that just by stepping into the dungeon he was dooming himself to a completely different fate, where his selfless and sincere desire to understand another being would not justify.

It sounds frightening, but actually everything is even funny in its own way (if you look at it from the outside, not from Shuichi’s point of view) :D In this universe Korekiyo is not a standard kitsune, but a whole deity Kūko, which, in fact, allowed itself to be imprisoned (Just because after 1000+ years of life, these creatures begin to be more interested in people and lead a similar lifestyle. Specifically Korekiyo wanted to understand the nature of human fear, anger, despair and superstition, so he pretended to be a standard kitsune xD). He has great power, is able to foresee the future and freely manipulate human consciousness... But hardly uses it, especially when he’s forgotten for a long time and only 💕Shui💕chi💕 offers a helping hand.

So... Yeah :'0 He instantly falls in love with Saihara ~ Moreover, Kiyo is sure that it's decided by fate! That Shuichi is the man with whom he is destined to enter into an eternal strong marriage!! First and only 🥰 :D

One small conversation between them – and Kiyo, believing in the vision he has, in fact, takes advantage of Shuichi’s good intentions. Under the pretext of being grateful for his release, he offers Shuichi to enter into some kind of "partnership": Kiyo gets a person through whom he can continue to explore the human world; and Shuichi gets all sorts of benefits: protection, deliverance from misfortunes + senior mentors will not judge him for yokai's salvation.

“From now on, your life will change... but only for the better.”

And the truth is, the priest had no choice. He didn’t know where to run. Didn't know how to convince his fellow-novices that the yokai he had released was not dangerous to humans. But most of all, he didn't want to be alone, as he had always been...

“I am Shuichi, the eldest son of the Saihara family, junior priest and probably the most naive man who still walks the earth. Because, um... I think, I agree with your offer.”

But OF COURSE, Kiyo didn't specify to him that his offer is actually a marriage proposal ;)))

This sketch illustrates how it will happen...

Yes. Yes. Shuichi will be tricked into marrying a supernatural powerful being! And he’ll be angry. He'll be broken. But Korekiyo never lied for a second about the terms of this complicated marriage. He tied himself to Shuichi with his own hands (or lips if you wish xD) to be eternally devoted to him from now on!! 😍

And though this plot is full of questionable, even forcing moments… As you may have noticed, there is again a mythology where everything has its own specific laws that paradoxically work 😅 In fact, this is kind of a branch of my main yokai! AU, but without emphasis on modernity. I like to experiment with the OTP's conditions; to speculate how hard the background will prevent the emergence of their love... So hope you and others will find it at least curious :^ (and I’m always ready to clarify something or add details)

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A federal judge on Thursday rejected a last-ditch effort by Peter Navarro, a former adviser to former President Donald Trump, to dismiss the contempt of Congress charges he faces for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee, keeping his late January trial on track to begin.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said Navarro had failed to prove that the former president wanted him to assert executive privilege over his potential testimony — a key claim that Navarro has long maintained justified his decision to simply blow off the select committee’s subpoena.

But Navarro provided no evidence of his claim, asserting only that Trump privately asked him to invoke executive privilege. Without at least a shred of proof that Trump made a “formal” assertion of executive privilege, Mehta said, he could not grant Navarro’s motion.

“Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege. And, because the claimed assertion of executive privilege is unproven, Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt,” Mehta wrote in the 39-page ruling.

It’s a significant decision in an area with little precedent: what current and former presidents must do to assert executive privilege. Mehta acknowledged that there’s not much to guide how courts should determine when a proper assertion has been made. But he said limited court rulings on the subject suggest there must be at least some formal evidence it occurred.

Mehta noted that two other Trump aides whom the House sought to hold in contempt — Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino — produced letters from Trump ordering them to assert executive privilege on his behalf. The Justice Department declined to prosecute the men, and Mehta indicated that the absence of a similar letter from Trump to Navarro led to a reasonable conclusion that Trump had not asserted executive privilege over his testimony.

Mehta’s ruling means that Navarro’s trial on two charges of contempt of Congress is likely to commence later this month. He faces a maximum sentence of a year in prison on each charge — one for refusing to testify and the other for refusing to provide documents — if convicted.

The select committee had hoped to interview Navarro about his coordination with former Trump adviser Bannon and efforts to strategize with members of Congress seeking to challenge the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, 2021, during the counting of Electoral College ballots. The committee recommended that Navarro be held in contempt in April 2022, and the full House quickly followed suit. The Justice Department charged him in June.

Mehta’s ruling also gutted a series of defenses Navarro had hoped to raise at his trial, including that he had a “good-faith belief” that he was immune from the committee’s subpoena. Mehta also agreed to prohibit Navarro from arguing that the select committee’s subpoena was invalid because the panel didn’t have a full complement of 13 members or a ranking Republican member appointed by GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Although he declined to say whether the committee was operating improperly, Mehta noted that Supreme Court precedent required Navarro to first raise his rules complaint with Congress itself. Because he didn’t do that, he effectively waived that argument. Navarro had argued that raising his complaints to Congress would have been “futile” because the House would have simply rejected them. But Mehta said the rules were clear.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has recognized a futility exception. … And, given the rationale of the rule, it is doubtful that higher courts would recognize one,” Mehta wrote.

The ruling essentially puts Navarro on a track similar to his close ally Bannon, who was tried and convicted of contempt of Congress in July. Bannon, like Navarro, had hoped to argue that he believed he was immune from testifying and that longstanding Justice Department precedents precluded Congress from subpoenaing advisers to former presidents. But in that case, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols relied on a decades-old appeals court ruling — United States v. Licavoli — to reject Bannon’s proposed defenses, ruling that prosecutors simply needed to show that Bannon deliberately refused to appear before Congress.

Mehta cited the case, as well, in tossing most of Navarro’s defenses.

“Defendant apparently believes the law applies differently to him,” he wrote of Navarro. “Because he is a former aide to the President of the United States, he contends, a more stringent state-of-mind standard applies, meaning that the government must be held to a higher burden of proof to convict him as opposed to the average person.”

[theprayerfulword]

April 16

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jeremiah 31:3 The Lord says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness."

Ephesians 4:16 From him [Christ] the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Psalm 103:12-14 As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us. 13 As a father pities His children, so the Lord pities those who fear Him. 14 For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust.

Philippians 3:8 …I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ…

May you be blessed as the tribe of Levi was, to be given no inheritance in this world, but to have, instead, the Lord, God Almighty, the Father in heaven, as your inheritance. Joshua 13

May you follow the Lord your God wholeheartedly, for then the Lord will give you the land of your heart that you travel through and explore as your inheritance and the place where God will place His name and establish His kingdom. Joshua 14

May you always pray and never give up, for as an earthly judge who receives petitions from those seeking justice can be worn down by continued imploring, your heavenly Father, Who desires to grant you the wishes of your heart, will not be reticent to meet your need and provide you justice, and quickly. Luke 18

May you be justified and forgiven as you sorrow for your sins and the sins of those around, recognizing the holiness of God in reverential awe and fearful trepidation, and realizing your inability to meet His requirements of righteousness and integrity, understanding and accepting that only what His Son, Jesus, has done and offers to you freely, will prevent you from being consumed, and gratefully receiving the gift made available out of love, seek to serve the Master you have chosen. Luke 18

May you approach God as a little child, in trust and frank acceptance of His Word, unquestioning and without reservation, loving in response to His love, that you will not be hindered from coming to Him, and receiving His kingdom. Luke 18

My child, know Me alone. Come to Me only, and draw near to Me by yourself. Understand that My relationship is with you only. I place you in My body where I will, and you are to be joined together with others of like faith in Me, but you must know Me in solitude, personally, away from the crowd. You must ascend My mountain on your own, through the clouds and thick darkness, picking out the path to follow as I show it to you, not following the flags placed by others. Those who only know of Me through the words of other men are not Mine. Those who follow My Word, as heard from others, are following traditions, not obeying My Spirit. You must draw near to the foot of the cross alone and see with your own eyes My blood, dripping from My head, My back, My hands, My side, My feet, and accept that it was your debt which extracted this payment, for only then can you be released from your burden, freed from the enslaving obligation of an impossible repayment program. Only then will you be able to receive the life that is in My blood for you, and start walking in the joy of the newness of life at My side. Only then will you be able to talk with Me heart to heart as to a friend that sticks closer than a brother, content to be in My presence as you learn to know Me even as you are known. Only then, will you be free to allow your life to be hid in Me and be one with Me, where no authority or power can take you from Me, for the Father has placed Me over all other powers and authorities. Therefore, as you come to Me, I can send you out to the work of the harvest field, among the despair and distress of those ready to be harvested, for the ripest grains of wheat are found on dry and dying stalks. Those who know of Me often hide in the work they are “called to.” See the priest cross the road to avoid the wounded man who would make him unclean for his “work”? See the Levite avoid the injured man because he would be late for his “duties”? See the Samaritan who knows what it is to be alone, outcast, isolated, rejected? He can feel fellowship and kinship, sympathy and compassion for the man in his need. Walk with Me, My love, and feel My heart for each of My wounded.

May the Lord show favor to you and restore your fortune, forgiving your iniquity and covering your sin as He sets aside all His wrath and turns from His fierce anger, putting away His displeasure in order to restore you and revive you that you may rejoice in Him when He shows you His unfailing love and grants you His salvation. Psalm 85

May you listen to what God the Lord says, for He promises peace to you if you do not return to your folly because His salvation is near to those who fear Him so that His glory may dwell in the land. Psalm 85

May the Lord indeed give you what brings life, for Love and Faithfulness have met together, as Righteousness and Peace kiss each other, allowing Faithfulness to spring forth from the earth, and causing Righteousness to look down from heaven as it goes before the Lord and prepares the way for His steps. Psalm 85

May you see how poor in spirit you are, having no righteousness or good works of your own strength which are worthy of praise, so that you may turn to, and depend on, the riches of the eternal righteousness of Christ, through the grace of God, that His riches may ransom your life. Proverbs 13:8

[savingthrcw]

Clarke Griffin

page under construction

Some important canon divergences:

-if we don't plot, my default answers for memes and starters when we first begin writing may be after season 3 but canon divergent: they aren't under the threat of world destruction again (yet), Rohan honored the coalition so they are at 'peace' with the grounders, and Clarke and some of the others are staying at Becca's house, sort of a sidegroup so Wanheda isn't going to put a target on Arkadia with her presence. This is so that we can write ALL the plots we want without worrying about timelines. Either that or the depressing but with hope 'after season 6' when there is no time/planet traveling and they are just learning how to live in this new world (not freeing all the Eligius criminals at once), and dealing with various traumas. But it's not a must!

-I do headcanon/write that after having the Flame in her head, Alie's chip, blood transfusions in an unhigenic place after being tortured by her chipped mother, Clarke's brain and body wil take time to recover after s3, even if the Flame was removed correctly. She has pains in her neck sometimes, and her PTSD symptoms got heightened. She also hates being completely alone at this point, even before what happens with Praimfaya.

-important: Wells was her best friend for her entire life before being sent to Earth: Clarke is still in pieces, probably always will be, over losing him. She will think of him/mention him.

-Lexa and Finn are on the same level in her memories, more or less: people she knew for a couple of weeks/one month, she had romantic feelings for, felt betrayed by and sort of forgave before they died horribly, which means their death had more weights than their short romance, and to me Finn has more romantic weight seeing as he was her first and there was a whole 'cheating' situation that made things even harder, but they also lived together and survived together during their first month on Earth. I'm sorry to Cle.xa shippers but I cannot see how Clarke and Lexa had any time to get to really know and like each other when they were constantly apart or Clarke was justifiably refusing to see her after Lexa's betrayal pushed her to pull the lever in Mount Weather. And this after their first kiss was very shortly after Clarke felt forced to stab Finn to spare him from torture.

-She mourns both but not as extensively as in canon: Finn, though, makes her feel extremely guilty and responsible, on top of being someone she had to mercy-kill, and stays with her also as a trauma and reminder that her love kills. Lexa is connected to the first 'worst moments' of her life, and very directly so, and Clarke has mixed feelings there; but since Lexa was shot by someone who wanted to kill Clarke and right after they slept together, guilt wins there too. She's not in love with Lexa for years after her death.

-if a Bellamy rper wants to write shippy things, Clarke has been in love with him without realizing it ever since season 2. If they don't, she has no love interest when interacting with him unless plotted otherwise (she'll still have the occasional hook up with Niylah, though, but she's happily single). If a Murphy rper wants to write shippy things we will have to write that development from scratch with our thread (which is how rp generally goes). With the others I may default to Clarke having feelings for Bellamy, though, as that's what I took from the show, but having no intention of doing anything about it, especially once he's with Echo (whom my Clarke likes, by the way).

-I absolutely want to explore the fact that Clarke in the first seasons is a TEENAGER who had the weight of the world on her shoulders (after a year in solitary which is traumatizing by itself) and can still act like one sometimes. Should, in fact, be given the chance to just have a bit of fun. It didn't take long to convince her to get into the fun at the end of the very first episode, when Jordan swung to the other side of the river, she did join the party in their camp even if it was short lived, she just doesn't have time for it.

-If Madi exists and s5 happens, Clare is not going to crawl for people's forgiveness after season 5; as far as she sees it they were saving their family and she was saving hers: they wanted to put a chip that is a death sentence in her daughter's head (Bellamy) and wanted her to lead an army (the others) and she fought for her. She may apologize for hurting people in general but if prodded she will not hesitate bringing up that they made her daughter the Commander, robbing her of her life, and argue over most things she's accused of. She's going to fight back, despite agreeing that she's a terrible person. In fact if we go down that route she may be somewhat resentful around Spacekru (minus Echo who didn't attack her and they talked things out when Echo was being "kept hostage" anyway and she was told Bellamy was still alive after the arena). Even so, she also wishes for forgiveness and loves them but doesn't feel like part of their family/group. -This is also why I'm hesitant but interested in writing her with Raven: I think they'd fight a lot in later seasons and I'm not too comfortable writing hostility even if it gets fixed, unless I know the other rper and we can talk ooc too (so I know we are not actually annoying each other!) but I'd also love to write them finally going at it and then returning to be friends!

-With Octavia she actually doesn't have any particular issue because even if we write her as having become Blodraina, Clarke sees her as having lost her mind and she knows she decided to follow Madi by the end. So while she's very careful because she doesn't know if Octavia is dangerous to her now, it's an easier relationship than with Raven, Clarke isn't particularly hostile, just cautious, and if you write Octavia going through her character development in s6 (okay maybe without going into s7 with time-traveling) Clarke is there for her, especially because she knows how having to make impossible choices (genocide/cannibalism) can make you lose yourself. -She would apologize to Bellamy for forgetting he's part of the family, yes, but she'd also remind him he promised to protect Madi and then left Clarke herself locked behind while he took her daughter to Gaia and put a target on her back. Literally. A target that changed her too, and that she has to learn how to control so she's not overwhelmed by the Commanders.

-If we do write season 6, she'll bring up to Murphy how fast he cooperated with her murderer Josephine, though this would be without particular resentment given how things turned out; she'd reference it to return the favor of Murphy not letting her off the hook for a second after season 5.

-Clarke is apologetic about causing pain, especially if she decides it was wrong, and will always agree she's a bad person, but she will not think she was wrong nor apology for protecting her people, and is not that submissive.

scenarios:

-I'm also here to write enormous canon divergences, as in: long stretches of time when nothing happens, or no Praimfaya at all, or maybe there is Praimfaya and she manages to get back in time to go to space, or she's stuck on Earth with Madi but then there is no Diyoza situation yet and the others just come back, or maybe season 5 goes normally and then at the end Earth isn't bombed and they live in it, OR it happens like canon and I'm willing to write season 6 too… but NO SEASON 7. Nothing from season 7 and that includes things that started happening in season 6 related to it (time and dimension traveling lights, Hope grown up coming back for Octavia etc). I'm more than happy to write 'life after big events' (which includes us writing bad things happening to them). But also as in her taking a different approach with those characters, changing their relationships, opening up earlier/more, or having other off-canon adventures that bring them closer.

[joannechocolat]

White feminists, I’m looking at you.

Another week, another raft of Press articles by self-professed white “feminists”, defending their own prejudice by bashing other women. It’s as if they can’t stop themselves, these women of a certain age, a certain class and a (very) certain privilege, who seem quite happy to see women abused, as long as those women are different from their own privileged circle of friends.

These are the women who “don’t see” race, and who think that counts as a virtue.

These are the women who “don’t see” class, or disability, or neurodiversity, or gender, except perhaps for that one friend, who represents all others, and will be used as proof of their tolerance and lack of prejudice whenever the question arises.

These are the women I interact with every day, many of whom I think of as being decent, well-meaning people.

But in actual fact, not seeing race (or gender, or class, or disability) just means you don’t see your own prejudice. I get it: it’s very convenient not to be able to see how one’s privilege impacts on others. Because as soon as you can see that, things start to get uncomfortable. Criticisms people make of you start to seem more justified. It becomes harder and harder to hide behind your comforting circle of friends - all of whom are telling you that you’re right, you’re good, you’re kind, in fact, you’re the real victim if ever your prejudices are called out– your friends, who think just like you.

But here’s the thing. We’re all privileged. We all have unconscious bias. Just because we’re women in a patriarchal society, doesn’t mean we’re not capable of punching down at someone more vulnerable, or causing another person – or group of people - to do so. And let’s face it; those people are usually men. Misogyny loves it when women attack other women. And it’s intersectional. Look closer, and you’ll find how often it leads to racism, ableism and transphobia.

I’m looking at you, white feminists. Using the patriarchy to confirm your own social and racial prejudices, rather than hearing the voices of those women who most need your support. Women of colour. Trans women. (And no, I’m not going to let you deflect by arguing about what exactly makes a woman – there are plenty of people who have done that. Read them if you want to.) What really matters is not whether someone looks or thinks or behaves like you. What really matters is who suffers harm, and who benefits from your actions.

Women are in a majority. Sometimes we forget this. We fight against sexism and prejudice as if we were a minority group. We’re not – or at least, we wouldn’t be, if we didn’t keep splitting into factions, attacking each other, then looking all surprised when the patriarchy keeps rolling on, harming women everywhere. And the saddest part is that we have so much potential energy. If only that energy were directed to bashing the actual patriarchy, rather than by heaping blame upon the women who are its victims, we might be making progress instead of tearing each other apart.

I’m looking at you, white feminists. I know how angry you must feel when people call you prejudiced. I know you’re used to the moral high ground, to the feeling that you’re the real victims of a system that’s loaded against you. And I know that when people call you racist, or ableist, or transphobic, it feels like abuse. It feels that way because you’ve never really considered your privilege in all this. You’ve never really considered the impact your words – amplified by social media, or published in the national Press - might have on real-life people.

You really need to do that. And no, it isn’t easy. First, you have to suppress that urge you have to tell the world that you’re special and different, and therefore have no unconscious prejudice. You’re not, and you do. The fact that you don’t think you have any is precisely because it’s unconscious prejudice. Unconscious prejudice is like a black hole: only detectable through its actions. And if your actions cause POC harm - or trans people, or autistic people, or any other marginalized group likely to receive abuse, or worse, because of something you said, or did – then you need to understand what you did, and acknowledge it.

The first and most important thing is to understand is that this isn’t about you. Too many people fixate on whether or not they’re really racist (or sexist, or ableist, or transphobic) instead of looking further. I get it. It’s easier to focus on the words and what they mean, rather than the reason they were used in the first place. So stop thinking about the words, and think about what you did, instead. Consider whether you said or did something that was harmful. You’re not in the best position to judge. (Unconscious bias, remember?) So listen to your critics. Instead of feeling offended that someone used an ugly word, ask yourself why they used it. Look at their reasons, not yours. Understand their perspective.

That means first putting aside all your excuses and justifications. This isn’t about you, remember? No-one cares why you made a mistake. You might have done it by accident. You might have done it out of ignorance. You might have stuff going on in your life that made you careless or vulnerable.  But this isn’t about you. No-one cares why you caused harm. All that matters is that you did. The harm might be direct – causing offense to someone through your words or actions – or indirect – for instance, reinforcing harmful stereotypes, or attracting the kind of negative attention that might result in trolling, doxxing or violence.

Whatever it was, if that happens, the first thing to do is to acknowledge it. Own it without making excuses, or arguing over semantics, or talking about your feelings, or making the process about you.

And no, it isn’t easy. It involves centring the conversation around someone other than you. You may not be used to doing this. It may make you feel uncomfortable. It may even upset you. But remember, this isn’t about how you feel. The fact that you’re instinctively trying to make this about you, even now, should be telling you something.

So yes, get over your feelings. If you said or did something that’s likely to cause harm to someone, own it. Educate yourself. Apologize. Move on, with a greater awareness of what you need to do to improve. That’s all. We’re none of us perfect: we all make mistakes. But when we do, we need to put ego aside, and try to stop repeating them.

Only then will feminism stop tearing itself apart. Only then will feminism be truly deserving of the name - when white women finally understand that if they continue to support and care for only the women who look and think as they do, then the patriarchy wins, and that they are doing its work.

White feminists, I’m looking at you.

White feminists, I’m looking at me.

[zazzander]

Nico di Angelo: His Arc in BoO and why he should have joined the Romans, part 5

Let's talk about the moment the arc goes off the rails & how I would change it.

The Moment Nico Riordan Changed his Mind

Sure, Nico had mixed emotions about the camp. He’d felt rejected there, out of place, unwanted and unloved… but now that it was on the verge of destruction, he realised how much it meant to him. This was the last place Bianca and he had shared a home - the only place they’d ever felt safe, even if only temporary.

They rounded a bend in the road and Nico’s fists clenched.

Page 411, BoO

The motivations are very limited. Bianca was a Hunter. Besides Nico has a sister whom he loves and a surrogate sister who he has just bonded with, both of whom are Roman.

Instead of being upset about the Greek’s position...

Nico should realise just how much he’s come to care about the Romans, and by extension, the legion.

He discusses their mentality, how it's about working together, holding each other up, being one big family. They don’t divide each other based on ancestry - they are one legion.

Also, Nico has been working through his isolation and his rage. He’s been warned that his rage will make him lonely. But he has also have realised that his anger isn’t “wrong” either. He can still be accepted by people despite the “darkness” inside him.

Additionally, while he’s managed to open up to Reyna, we see in this section he’s still prone to feelings of rage (“Nico’s fists clenched” is a physical manifestation of this). I think this should stay, but it should be shown as an uncomfortable thing - because Nico's arc isn't over yet. He still needs to learn to forgive.

Nico & the Centurions

Unforunately, it’s also around here that Nico stops feeling so close with the two centurions. He closes himself off a little. Especially in the way he departs.

So instead, in this scene, I would have:

Dakota explaining why so many of the legionaries follow Octavian. Discuss their rage at the Greeks for the attack - people injured, some severely, and how Percy had promised them so much, just for that to be broken. On how the Titan War had left many of them scarred. They're longing for peace - and Octavian's promises.

Perhaps Nico questions Dakota’s previous loyalty to Octavian, who then justifies himself and the others.

Basically, Dakota says, “It’s more complicated than you realise”.

He explains how Reyna, Jason, and Octavian were the leaders who got the camp through the Titan War. Both then Jason disappeared and returned on the side of the Greeks. Then Reyna left them for the ancient lands. The only one left was Octavian.

The divide between Reyna and Octavian had been getting worse and worse since Jason disappeared. So when Nico suggest Dakota and Leila make a distraction, Dakota isn’t so keen to force the final break. He doesn’t want to seen the legion fight itself.

Nico starts to realise why the Romans are so angry. And that he’s felt a similar rage himself. He knows how consumed by anger he had been when Reyna had been threatened and injured by Bryce; but how can he hope to show the Romans violence isn’t the answer when he himself turned to it so quickly?

The Sabotage Sequence & My Changes

In the original, Nico shadow-travels away from Dakota and Leila with little warning. I would love to change this - having a proper departure.

It goes something like this:

Nico states that he feels he must join the Greeks.

Dakota questions that choice: “You aren’t staying with us?” and “Reyna ordered us to work together”.

Nico is confused, he’s not a Roman, after all. He’s never been to the Wolf House nor has he sworn an oath to the legion. Dakota says, “Does that matter?”

But Nico doesn’t want to consider the implications of that idea. He thinks about the "other choice" that he had been searching for, but he doesn’t have time to consider that. So he shakes his head, wishes them good luck, “I… I have another part to play.”

He shadow-travels to Half Blood Hill. He still considers assassinating Octavian. He then runs into Will and co. And they sabotage a couple of the onagers.

At which point, Octavian shows up.

It goes something like this:

Octavian explains his thoughts more. This would be a continuation from Dakota’s reasoning. And we, the readers, along with Nico, start to understand where Octavian is coming from. Which is basically: Octavian is fueled by the desire for revenge. He wants peace for New Rome and believes that the only way he can get that is by destroying the Greeks.

Octavian still offers Nico a place within Rome. But this time he actually echoes the same thoughts Nico has been having. Nico is thrown by the fact that Octavian, Reyna and Dakota all seem to think he belongs among the Romans. Especially when Octavian is saying it.

Will interrupts the moment - saying that Nico would never turn against the Greeks. But Nico recovers enough to say, “It’s not about being Greek or Roman.”

Will is surpirsed by that statment. Because they're at war. "You can't be serious. Being Roman means working for this loser." And Will points at Octavian.

But Nico fights to point. Then he turns to Octavian.

Nico tries to reason with Octavian, telling him the Parthenos plan. But Octavian scoffs at the idea - saying that the Romans had been fighting the Greeks long before the statue was stolen, that they inherited the legacy of Troy from Aeneas. And that a conflict between them would surely start again. The only way to guarantee the safety of New Rome is to wipe out the Greeks and turn the gods into Romans permanently.

Octavian might even have a line like, “I refuse to be Cassandra, doomed to watch her city burn and be powerless to stop it!”

At this point, Nico understands that he’s being hypocritical. What caused him to open up to Reyna wasn’t being rejected for his darkness, but being accepted despite it.

He sees the exhaustion in Octavian’s face and knows it mirrors his own. They have both been harmed by pushing others away. And scarred by the horrors that they faced in the Titan War.

Nico reflects on the brief time that he knew Octavian; the strange augur who always hung around Temple Hill rather than the legion. Despite being a member of the legion, Octavian faces his own form of isolation. He sympathises with Octavian (who is the manifestation of the resentment and hatred many of the Romans feel).

Nico realises his own quest is more than just bringing the Athena Partheonos. His mission is to help the Romans forgive. That’s why his father sent him to Camp Jupiter in the first place.

And Nico starts to express his understanding to Octavian, admitting his own flaw of wrath - that he knows what it’s like to hold a grudge. And he sees Octavian hesitate, a flash of understanding and connection passes between them.

But their meeting is interrupted, possibly by Will, possibly by the other sabotage crew. And the opportunity is lost.

Octavian says something about it being "too late" and launches the onagers.

The Pre-Gaia's Awakening Sequence & My Changes

The sabotage works still and Octavian is upset. This time, in his panic, Octavian starts talking about the future that he knows is coming. That New Rome is doomed. That “this is only the beginning” and various other ominous stuff.

Octavian still sounds shrill and lacks the force of charisma that Jason has - but listening to his words, Nico realises just how scared Octavian sounds.

Will questions Octavian though. Will doesn't believe Octavian's predictions, much like the other characters in the story. No one can see the future at this time - not even the Oracle. But Octavian says that Will doesn’t understand anything.

Before that can be explained further, Dakota and Leila arrive with their cohorts. Nico shares a look of camaraderie with the two centurions.

Octavian is upset that the two cohorts are following Reyna’s orders, once again, but Nico actually listens to what Octavian is saying, and Octavian is also generally more clear with his wording. Reyna left them, she’s the outlaw that abandoned them! Also, keeping the stuff about saving Rome.

This time, Nico recognises the feeling of being abandoned and betrayal that not only Octavian, but the rest of the legion, hold towards the Seven & Reyna. How Reyna’s choice to go on the Parthenos quest also meant her leaving them behind. He recalls Dakota’s words about how Jason and Reyna had been important in getting the legion there, that no matter what either of them did, the legion would always respect them. But how they ended up following Octavian because he's the one who stayed.

His actions might not be moral or correct, but many of the legion will forgive that - like how Dakota forgives Reyna for breaking the ancient laws. Nico understands the means of much he can show the Romans i.e. Octavian, how to forgive the Greeks.

But then, the Greek army arrive.

It was an impressive sight, but all Nico could think was: No. Not now.

BoO, page 430

We keep this! It fits better with such a scene because Nico is starting to think that his task isn’t just to bring the Parthenos. It’s to help heal the wounds between the two camps. As well as between the two sides of the legion. The Romans had followed Octavian for a reason. Many of them still do.

So even as the Athena Parthenos arrives, Nico knows it won’t be enough. He meets Octavian’s gaze across the battlelines and sees the rage within them. The unadulterated hatred for the Greek fighters. This Octavian is among his soldiers, much like he was in the battle against Polybotes. But it’s actually acknowledged.

Reyna gives her speech. But instead of everyone joining Reyna, the loyalties of the legion are split down the middle. The two factions suddenly solidify.

And then Gaia starts to wake.

At that moment, Octavian loses it - as he does in the original. He runs and Nico wants to follow, but he can't. They have a bigger fight.

It’s too late, he thinks. And realises Octavian had said the same thing just a little while earlier.

The Final Fight Sequence & My Changes

Switching out Nico’s POV, we still have the big fight, but significantly, Jason sees Nico fighting among the Roman demigods, not the Greeks. He doesn’t understand why Nico is doing so at first, but then - because he’s Jason - he realises that Nico might have found his answer. Much in the way Jason has.

Regardless, Will comes to Nico and points out Octavian loading an onager. Nico is the one to try to talk Octavian down. Not Will. We switch those roles, because that honestly makes more sense in how they were characterised up until that point.

Nico tries to reason with Octavian, saying that understands Octavian’s rage, but that they need to work together.

But Octavian just starts talking about having “run out of time” and such. It’s less about “stealing my glory” and more “I hate how you delayed my plans and now all of this is your fault!”

And, because I’m an Octavian fan and I think it would round out Nico’s arc really well, Octavian doesn’t die. They come to an understanding, moments before the end - but Gaia still needs to be taken down. And Octavian still believes it must be him to do it. Mike shows up and Octavian uses Mike to resist the two demigods.

But! When Octavian launches his onager, Nico uses his magic to summon a skeleton. Controlling the skeleton, he holds Octavian down as the onager goes off.

He sees Gaia fall just as he feels himself disappear. And, out of the smoke, the stunned figure of Octavian staring at him.

We have a moment where we think Nico is dead - gone for good. But to his surprise, he wakes up.

The Resolution Sequence & My Changes

Will and Octavian, both descendants of Apollo, have worked together to bring him back. Will uses his healing powers, Octavian uses the unicorn draught that the narrative established earlier. Their combined healing is strong enough to bring Nico back from the darkness.

Anyway, with that job done, Octavian stands up. He thanks Nico for saving his life, saying something about taking Nico’s words on board - or something suitably Octavian-esque.

Yet, as he moves off, he collapses. Mike holds him up. Octavian is unconscious from the pain and the emotion of it all. Mike says thank you, both as a translation of Octavian's words (because there's no way Octavian would actually say thank-you) and also from himself. He knows that Nico could have easily let Octavian die (in this version, Mike didn't notice the tangled robe situation).

He moves to carry Octavian away, but Will makes them stop. Mike is suspicious and Nico braces for conflict, but Will insists on healing Octavian. Octavian’s arms are laced with burns. He wakes up and there is a very brief moment of peace between them all, before the rest of the armies arrive and everyone pulls away.

Nico doesn’t know where to go in the next few days. He hides out in the Hades cabin but it doesn’t feel like home. What he does know that while on the surface everything is fine, they’ve won the war, there’s still tension in the air. The Seven are dealing with the loss of Leo. And the Romans are also dealing with the Reyna vs Octavian faction.

Both Reyna and Frank are outraged by Octavian’s actions. They want him brought to trial. Meanwhile, Octavian also wants them to be brought to trial. He doesn’t accept Frank as praetor.

Nico tells everyone that he wants to join the legion. Hazel is super happy. But, Nico reveals that he wants to be ratified in the “right way” i.e. by the augur. None of the others really understands this - but Nico insists that Octavian does it. He believes it will be the best way to remove the divisions in the legion. After all, the Third and Fourth cohort did turn on the rest during the fight. Even if they were following Reyna’s orders, that just means there is more resentment between the “Reyna faction” and the “Octavian faction” than ever.

Nico Joins the Legion

So at the celebration dinner, post the various funerals. We have a moment between Octavian where Nico helps Octavian forgive the Greeks, especially Percy. But also Reyna.

Before the crowd, Octavian announces Nico to be a member of the legion. Nico takes the oath. Reyna and Nico have their big hug:

She gave Nico a big hug and the crowd roared with approval. For once, Nico didn’t feel like pulling away. He buried his face in Reyna’s shoulder and blinked the tears out of his eyes.

Page 475, BoO

However, because it’s important, after the dinner, Octavian and Nico talk. Nico asks what Octavian was talking about during the battle and Octavian warns Nico about another threat. This is not explicit because we want to keep the ‘mystery’, kind of like how Rachel ended PJO with a prophecy.

Octavian admits he knows about it because he’s been working with the threat for years - “None trusts me, di Angelo. And that’s without knowing that I’ve been working with the enemy.”

“Why would you? Aren't you loyal to Rome?”

“Because… because family is complicated. I’m sure you know that better than most.”

Anyway, Octavian isn’t fully “redeemed” here. But instead, he’s taken his first step on the path. What happens here is that he’s humanised. And in a way that facilitates the character development of a main character and hero: Nico di Angelo.

If we had the ending like this, Nico stops just being “death boy”. His pain and suffering, his anger and his mistakes, they mean something - and the love that he finds with Reyna, Hazel and Jason allow Nico to work past it. To become the hero that can save people, not in the way the Seven do, but more on a psychological level.

[ohwaitimthewriter]

Ner naak (My peace)

Pairing: Din Djarin x earthling!reader

Warnings: None

Summarize: Din Djarin meets you, an earthling, with no idea of the existence of an outer space.

Words count: 1617

A/n: Enjoy your reading!

Ner naak Masterlist // The Mandalorian Masterlist

Life sometimes manifested itself in strange ways. Even for Din. And he didn't expect to wake up with a tray of freshly prepared food at his disposal. You had even written him a note describing every single food on the plate. "French pastries are the basis of a successful breakfast" you wrote and if he had no idea what the "French" part meant, he heard his stomach growling at the simple sweet, slightly perfumed smell of the pastries. 

The day could only start well and Grogu was already enjoying swallowing little choux buns topped with sugar balls. Din chuckled at him gently before grabbing one and twirling it between his gloved fingers.

" Let me have some of it. "he said before sliding the food under his helmet into his mouth.

And he let a long, satisfied sigh escape. When was the last time he had eaten something so good? There was something special about earthly food, was it because it had been a long time since Din had been able to enjoy the flavours of a good meal? He could never get tired of it and he ate another one. He had to ask you what it was but he had just placed it as one of his favourites. 

And then he noticed something else on the little note you had left him. A little note that made him frown. What did you mean when you said, "P.s. Sorry, I had to. » ? A little shot of adrenaline reminded him that maybe he had let his guard down a little too quickly and a little too long. It was only then that he heard voices other than yours rising from the outside of the ship. 

He didn’t think twice, the ramp of the ship opened and he turned towards Grogu before leaving.

"Stay there and don't eat everything. "He said to Grogu, who had no intention of listening to him. 

Within a few steps Din found himself outside and suddenly found it hard to understand what was going on. 

A small group of young people around you were studying the plans you and Din had drawn. Some of them were impatient, others were so focused that they didn't hesitate to scold those who weren't being serious. 

Something was eluding him and he thought that his little stay on earth had made his brain weak. Since when did he let himself be so easily surprised? And to tell the truth, at that very moment you were surprising him too. 

You didn't notice Mando right away. He wasn't doing much to be noticed either, he was confused enough to ask for the attention of five unknown people. But you didn't have a choice. 

The night had not been very restful. The conversation you had the night before with Mando had gone round and round in your head and between the sprawling galactic monsters landing on Earth and the army coming in tanks, your mind had other things to do than rest. And those disturbing dreams hadn't helped your anxiety, so you decided you needed to pick up the pace. But speeding up without a work crew was a tricky thing to do. 

Life had a really strange way of showing itself sometimes and until now, you probably never thought to ask for help to repair this ship. Help other than what Mando was already giving you. You had been far too aware of the danger it could represent, for you, for Mando, for Grogu... but what was better? Revealing his presence to students in whom you trusted partially? Or to be discovered by the police? 

It wasn't a good idea, you knew that. And you hadn't taken the time to discuss it with Mando either. It was more of a decision taken on a whim and you would surely regret it later, but today, thanks to the students you had carefully selected, the repairs were going to be a good step forward. And the sooner the ship would be able to fly, the sooner Mando and Grogu would be safe, away from Earth.

In other words, you were reassuring yourself as best you could. 

You didn't know if those dreams had been the trigger or if the lack of sleep had caused some neurons to break down, but in the early morning you woke up with an awful realization: it was much bigger than you. And no matter how full-grown you were, no matter how thoughtful and composed you were, this morning it was all too much. And sharing this secret with almost grown-up people was probably the only way to relieve the pressure you had put on yourself. 

So there you were, explaining as best you could to five of your students the tasks they were going to be assigned to repair the ship. But that wasn't the most complicated part. You had to deal with your students' reaction to the ship and nothing in your studies to become a teacher prepared you for that.

"Well, can we focus for five minutes? "You asked them as one student had been trying for a solid two minutes to calm down his friend who still couldn't believe his eyes. 

"Ma'am, can you believe it?! "He exclaimed, "A real one! »

"Get over it, it's not as cool as Star Trek's USS Entreprise NCC-1701-E. "His friend who never seemed very impressed with the Razor Crest commented. 

"I wish you knew my courses as accurately as that." you smiled slightly. "Good, you'll start by gathering all the material listed in here," and you gave them each a piece of paper. " you get to work and... be respectful. " You glance at them briefly before finishing. " Croissants and chouquettes as much as you like in the car." 

And you knew that their motivation had just been boosted to the max. You got up and only then you spotted Mando near the ship. And his whole body was more tense than a tree trunk. And the trickiest part of your hasty decision had just begun: persuading Mando that your potentially bad idea wasn't such a bad idea. 

Your students didn't seem to have noticed him yet, they were far too busy eating pastries and it seemed that a croissant was more important than a spaceship piloted by the Galactic Daft Punk cousin. Ah those students!

It was just that a little anxiety was making your stomach heavier. From what you could see Mando didn't seem the most delighted to have a bunch of young people he didn't know around his Razor Crest but hopefully he would understand. 

"It wasn't planned." He said, his voice muffled by the helmet. 

"I know. And as much as I would have loved to have the Crest all to myself, sometimes you have to be realistic." You said, and you were looking forward to his reaction. 

"You're not realistic. You're worried. That' s not the same thing. "

And for the first time, you observed Mando withdraw into himself. He wasn't very talkative already, but it seemed to you that you had managed to win his sympathy.  You had seen him trust you gradually and you feared you had taken ten steps backwards, whereas you had only taken two in the same direction.

And then you felt a pinch of irritation tickle your nerves. His words had not been well received and it would have been hard for Mando to miss the annoyance expressed by the hardened features of your face. Your posture had changed too. Your arms, which were usually open, had just crossed over your chest, your usually relaxed and loose shoulders were now tensed and stiff, and even your chest, which was usually light and sometimes delicate, now looked much stronger. You showed a disconcerting self-confidence and Din made the pleasant discovery that you were not the type to let yourself be stepped on.

But this was not the time to dwell on your new confidence.

"Indeed, I am worried for you and I think that the situation has been sufficiently addressed for you to understand that I will never be able to get you out of this rotten planet to the bone without any help. "And the features of your face softened again. "Look, yes, that wasn't planned, and I'm not asking you to trust them, but for your, "you paused before correcting" if you want to leave Earth in one piece, we must work faster." 

Mando sighed heavily. You saw him lower his head slightly, as if he was thinking about the pros and cons. He was nervous. You could see that and you suspected a rather complicated past in relation to other people, perhaps one or two betrayals, and he was thinking over and over again until he nodded silently. 

"You know this world better than I do. I trust you, but I won't go easy on them. "He granted and he saw you relax completely, the hint of annoyance had completely disappeared and he recognized you in your kindness.

"Don't worry, they are students, there is nothing more resilient. "You gave him a little smile before gently placing your hand on his forearm in a friendly gesture. "They won't bother you, I'll make sure of that." 

Mando nodded again and before you could go back to repair the ship, he couldn't help but stop you for a moment, holding your arm.

"What's the name of the, huh, ‘French’ pastries you brought me?" he asked. 

" They're called 'chouquettes', why that?" 

"Do you have some more of them? Grogu... Grogu seems to like it." He justified himself. 

But you couldn’t be fooled. Grogu was certainly not the only one who liked them.

[msfcatlover]

Can you give the bullet points for that Hollow Knight Ludonarrative dissonance essay so us who played the game can fill in the gaps?

Sure thing!

First and foremost, I know many people are familiar with the term “ludonarrative dissonance,” which is when the mechanics of a game run counter to the themes and sometimes the plot of the story being told. On the opposite end of the spectrum, and far more rarely talked about, is “ludonarrative harmony,” which is when the mechanics of a game support the story being told or even tell a supportive story of their own!

I am very firm in my belief that in a quarter of a century playing video games, Hollow Knight has the best ludonarrative harmony of any game I’ve played.

Here’s my primary example: the condemnation of the Pale King’s actions, and how it ties into the original possible endings of the game.

The Pale King’s failure is the great final tragedy of Hallownest. He saw the end coming, knew he could not defeat the Radiance again, and did not want his people to suffer. He determined he needed a being of pure Void to contain the Radiance, but believed that any emotion would lead to a flawed prison. So, he created the Vessels by the hundreds, letting them struggle to the top of the Abyss, and cast each one of them back down into the depths for the “flaw” of being children with actual emotions. We don’t know how he determined this, but when he finally found one that seemed properly emotionless, “truly hollow,” he took that child and sealed the gate behind them, locking the player character (henceforth referred to as “Ghost” in this first draft ramble-essay,) and who-knows-how-many-other Vessels to fend for themselves in the depths.

You already know this. And you already know that child was not given a name (though I will be referring to them by the fandom nickname “Hollow” from here on out,) was purposefully neglected, taught only training and their purpose for existing in the hopes it would keep emotions  and desires from taking root. But Hollow did have desires; specifically, Hollow just wanted their dad to be proud of them. When Hollow sacrificed their mind to hold the Radiance and was imprisoned in the Black Egg, after the Dreamers gave their own minds to keep it sealed, the prison was faulty. An unspecified amount of time later, the Radiance’s influence was able to leak out in the form of the Infection, and the kingdom of Hallownest was destroyed.

(The Pale King often gets pilloried by the fandom for “letting” that happen by showing any level of caring for the child. This is the wrong conclusion.)

The game begins with us playing Ghost, having at some point escaped from the Abyss and (seemingly) having lost their memories in the wilds outside the kingdom. It is as Ghost that we track down the Dreamers and slay them, opening the Egg to face Hollow and put an end to the plague, though how exactly that happens and what the outcome is depends on your choices throughout the game.

As a fellow Vessel, you can take Hollow’s place. When Hollow is slain, Ghost absorbs the Radiance and the Egg reseals itself.

Using the power of the Dreamnail, you can enter Hollow’s mind and fight the Radiance directly, driving her back into hiding for the foreseeable future.

If you have the Voidheart charm equipped and choose to fight the Radiance, you become a “higher being” yourself and are able to slay her for good. The kingdom is free of the plague, and Hollow even survives and has another chance at life. (This one is, by the way, known as the “True Ending.”)

And here we finally reach my argument, and I can stop regurgitating old information. Because these endings and what you need to achieve them is what finally solidifies just how wrong the Pale King was. Wronger than he ever knew.

He must have thought the Vessels less than people, or he would not have been willing to kill so many. But he would not have rejected so many of them if the Vessels weren’t inherently feeling, thinking creatures like any other bug in the kingdom — none of them were “truly hollow.” Children, left to die in the dark by the hundreds. The greatest sin he ever committed.

We know he did, on some level, care about Hollow, but still chose to neglect them in hopes of stunting their emotional growth. That he believed the sacrifice of one Vessel and three of his most respected advisors (give or take Herrah, who’s whole deal with him is kinda... weird,) to eternal imprisonments was better than letting the whole kingdom fall to the Radiance’s vengeance. That the ends justify the means. It’s his last thought, still echoing in his corpse when we find him on his throne: “...No cost too great...”

But the ends don’t justify the means, and I don’t just mean because the plan failed. I mean because it was inherently flawed in its initial premise, the very assumption he built it on: that “being hollow” was the solution to the problem.

A truly hollow Vessel would not care one whit about the mission or anything else. If Ghost were hollow, there would not be a game; they would wander aimlessly, not speaking or interacting with anyone, until they finally died.

If you play Ghost as being hollow, or as close to it as you can, you’ll be ignoring all NPCs. You’ll not be buying any upgrades or equipment. You’ll not be wandering far from the central path. Why would you? A hollow Vessel should care only for their mission, find the shortest route to enter the Black Egg, slay Hollow, and be done with it. Not only does this make life much harder for you, it nets you the worst ending. The Pale King’s trap just resets, now with the Dreamers dead so none can ever try to fix the problem again, and it will fail eventually, because Ghost isn’t hollow. The very fact there is a plot to follow, a goal to achieve, means that Ghost has goals they are willing to suffer hardships to reach. Frustration, determination, and pride in success have to be assumed, complimented by the fact those are all the emotions the player will feel on this particular run.

If you want to face the Radiance, you have to upgrade the Dreamnail, and you’re not told that will be the end result when you first receive it. You have to be ambitious and stubborn, at the very least, to pursue that goal blind, or you have to really want to know what the Sage will give you as a reward. You have to experiment, going back to bosses you’ve already beaten to fight their dream versions and put them to rest, track down the hidden dream roots and clamber all over the map to solve their puzzles. For the second ending, Ghost has to have goals outside of their main mission, has to think through the concept of deaths enough to make the connection between the ghosts and the bosses, and repeatedly return to speak to the Sage for the upgrades. They have to be curious enough to even use the Dreamnail in the first place, and like it enough to want to improve it.

And how do you get the best ending? The true ending? Slay the Radiance, defeat it for good, save the kingdom of Hallownest?

You explore. You wander off the main path, root out secrets and shortcuts and answers. You need to talk to multiple NPCs, and not just speed through their dialogue to get your reward but actually think about it and remember who’s connected to whom. You meet the White Lady in the Queen’s Garden and travel down into the Abyss, both areas you never need to go to and which no one will even tell you about before you’ve been there. You throw yourself against the Path of Pain again, and again, and again, and again, with no promise of reward, just to see what’s on the other side.

To truly defeat the Radiance, you have to play Ghost as being curious, distractible, attentive, and caring. They cannot be isolated and they cannot be ignorant. And if you care enough to end up with the Voidheart, you probably talked to everyone, helped them complete their quests, tried different charm combinations and ran around the map just to see how people reacted. You probably wanted to know the secrets of Hallownest, and refused to let insurmountable odds turn you away.

In the true ending, Ghost actually has a pretty strong personality, told purely through mechanics.

Story and gameplay.

The Pale King was wrong. We’re told that, asked to look upon his actions and despair that anyone could be driven to such lengths... made worse by the fact his theory was flawed in its very foundations. Being hollow was never the answer; a hollow Vessel was always going to fail. The cost was too great, and all the awful things he did to try and stop the Radiance... it was all for nothing.

Harmony.

It’s just... it’s heartbreaking, and absolutely beautiful.

And every time I see people say Ghost can defeat the Radiance because “they’re the one who’s really hollow,” I want to rip my hair out, like how the fuck can people just IGNORE the SMOOTHEST INTEGRATION OF STORYTELLING AND GAMEPLAY I’ve ever seen in my LIFE, one of the HARDEST PARTS OF GAME DEVELOPMENT that someone probably spent months getting down to such a truly astounding finish, and somehow reach the conclusion the guy whose fuckups lead to the deaths of hundreds of children, intentional child abuse, and the downfall of his kingdom was RIGHT?!

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

attempts on her life: an exploration of victimhood, theatre and self-empowerment as modern feminine survival tactics

trigger warning for discussions of suicide, self harm, sexual assault, fetishism, eating disorders, implications of paedophilia and violence

‘is she not saying, your help oppresses me? is she not saying, the only way to avoid being a victim of the patriarchal structures of late 20th century capitalism is to become her own victim?’ martin crimp’s 1997 play, attempts on her life, was first performed at the royal court theatre upstairs the year of its release. written ‘for a company of actors whose composition should reflect the world beyond theatre’, the play explores the seedier, harsher aspects of reality, including pornography, ethnic violence and suicide. crimp’s central character, anne, is characterised as unique and empowered, but most importantly she is characterised by narrators and other characters describing her. the irony of a woman described as so empowered having so little voice of her own throughout the play is crucial to the question the play poses: is liberation from patriarchal constraints even possible, or do acts of reclamation serve to eventually end up catering to the male gaze regardless?

the scene ‘untitled (100 words)’ details anne’s self-destruction, manifesting in ‘various attempts to kill herself.’ it is an effort to replace being a victim of ‘patriarchal structures’ with being a victim of her own actions and emotions. arguably though, this effort may not be entirely fruitful as anne’s behaviour produces the same result she would achieve through allowing herself to cater to traditional expectations: a helpless victim of the male gaze. anne’s actions are presented as exhibitionist; while motivated by her own suicidal ideation, her attempts to take her life work as ‘a kind of theatre for a world in which theatre itself has died.’ she leaves a ‘gallery’ of memorabilia surrounding her attempts, including ‘medicine bottles, records of hospital admissions polaroids of the several hiv positive with whom she has intentionally had unprotected intercourse, pieces of broken glass...suicide notes…’ a narrator describes this exhibition as ‘the spectacle of her own existence, the radical pronography...the religious object.’ the semantic field of language in this scene associated with anne’s suicide attempts is littered with sexualisation and ideas of performance: ‘its sexy...voeyuers...pornography...object of herself...to be consumed...self-indulgent...entertaining.’ this opens up a dialogue between the narrators that evaluates her suicidal behaviour as a piece of artwork. one asks ‘who would possibly accept this kind of undigested exhibitionism as a work of art?’ while the other offers the idea that ‘gestures of radicalism take on new meaning in a society where the radical gesture is simply one more form of entertainment - in this case artwork - to be consumed.’ as uncomfortable as it is to suggest, anne’s suicidality is both fetishised and commodified, something that is partially her own doing. the concepts of ‘pure narcissism’ and ‘self-indulgence’ are attributed to her performance, along with one of the narrators pushing for her to receive psychiatric treatment. an obvious but viable interpretation of anne’s ‘gallery’ is that it is an exaggerated cry for help, where she lays out the evidence of her mental state in the hopes of receiving validation or assistance. this idea is disputed by this narrator’s counterpart, who suggests that ‘help is the last thing she wants.’ the sexualised language used and the repeated hints at exhibitionism could indicate that her performance is for the purpose of her own sexual pleasure: ‘surely our presence [the audience] here makes us mere voyeurs in bedlam.’ in forcing those around her to witness her mental decline, anne may be participating in fetishism. she certainly is acting with the intention of performing, and of being watched.

this is where the idea of empowerment and reclamation comes in. anne forces her peers into watching, something that she gets pleasure from, and this arguably serves as a reversal of typical sexual dynamics which place men in dominant, pleasure-receiving roles roles. in self-destructive behaviours, she reclaims her body and chooses to destroy it herself rather than allowing others to do it to her. however, in the process of doing so she achieves the same result that she would if she were allowing her environment to shape her into an object of the male gaze; that is to say, a helpless object. men’s stereotypical attraction to what ibsen referred to as ‘feminine helplessness’ tends to be the driving force of the objectification of women. it can be argued that this objectification is inevitable and thus anne’s efforts to control the means by which it occurs is the closest she can get to liberating herself from it. finding a way to enjoy or bear something painful and inevitable serves as a survival mechanism; ‘not the object of others, but the object of herself.’

the aesthetic framing of anne’s violence against herself is incredibly significant to its relevance as a piece of artwork. in ‘aesthetic violence and women in film: kill bill with flying daggers’, kupfer argues that film, and by extension plays and scripts, aesthetically frame violence in three ways: symbolically, structurally, and as a narrative essential. anne’s violence can be characterised as self harm and fulfills these three framings. symbolically it is an act of free will and a reclamation of her own body, an opportunity to enjoy her ‘inevitable’ objectification. structurally, the scene ‘untitled (100 words)’ occurs five scenes after the last discussion of anne’s suicidality within the play, a scene titled ‘mum and dad.’ this sets up certain aspects of anne’s performative nature in advance. after a suicide attempt she describes ‘[feeling] like a screen’ to her parents: ‘where everything from the front looks real and alive, but round the back there’s just dust and a few wires...an absence of character.’ here she details an experience of feeling disconnected from herself beyond her performance. the act of using performance as a means of openly criticising performance is certainly subversive, and is a device seen in more modern media, such as bojack horseman (‘i felt like a xerox of a xerox of a xerox...not my character’) and in bo burnham’s ‘inside.’ crimp uses his play to propose ideas about the nature of acting, particularly its role in the lives of women. the sentiment of acting being a survival tactic for women is echoed in much earlier texts, such as ibsen’s ‘a doll’s house.’ throughout the play nora caters to her husband’s infantalised fantasies of her whenever he is present, and doing so results in him giving her an allowance and certain limited but significant moments of freedom. torvald admits, ‘i would not be a man if your feminine helplessness did not make you doubly attractive in my eyes’ and repeatedly states that he wishes some ‘terrible fate’ would befall his wife so that he could have the pleasure of rescuing her. anne’s performance of suicidality, of feeling ‘beyond help’, would likely be received by men similarly to how nora’s childish facade is received by her husband, as a fantasy that involves saving her for their own sense of pleasure and accomplishment. however, what makes anne’s behaviour ‘radical’ is her refusal to accept help. she recognises that her feelings of hopelessness are fetishised and argues that ‘your help oppresses me.’ this sentiment is also reflected in ‘a doll’s house’; nora must refuse torvald’s money and help in order to pursue her own freedom in the final act. catering to his idealised image of a wife only served to help her survive her household, not to prosper or be her individual self. she had to leave the environment which forced her to perform behind entirely in order to discover who she is beyond the act. not accepting help is anne’s version of this, but the narrators consider the idea that even in isolating her act to only include herself, anne still cannot escape objectification. her ‘radical gesture’ of destroying herself and laying out the evidence of her behaviour is ‘simply one more form of entertainment, one more product… to be consumed.’ an earlier scene, titled ‘the camera loves you’ includes the line ‘we need to go for the sexiest scenario’, a statement which accurately summarises the likely reception to anne’s ‘dialogue of objects.’ arguably another aspect of what makes anne’s predicament ‘the sexiest scenario’ is that even within the text itself she is the subject of the conversation, but rarely a participant. anne is described by narrators, art critics, her parents, her family, etc, but only ever speaks for herself when her defiant statements are being quoted by one of these narrators. descriptions of her self-inflicted violence fit kupfer’s final framing: a narrative essential.

interestingly, the play consists of a somewhat non-linear narrative, where each of its 17 scenes has its own plot unconnected to that of the last. as a result, a narrative essential in ‘attempts on her life’ would be a device, or in this case an instance of violence, which builds our understanding of both anne and the play’s messages, rather than a traditional narrative essential which would drive the plot forwards. the play delivers multiple instances of various forms of violence, ranging from ethnic violence to self harm to forced pornography. anne’s self-injury in particular is framed just prior to and just after the midpoint of the play. before the midpoint, the audience learns of her ‘terrible detachment’ from the character she plays, how she ‘feels like a screen.’ the midpoint, a scene titled ‘the international threat of terrorism™’ opens with a brief analysis of a statement made by anne: ‘i do not recognise your authority.’ the speaker asks, ‘does she really imagine that anything can justify her acts of random senseless violence?’ ‘random’ and ‘senseless’ seem ill-fitting qualities to attribute to anne’s violence, particularly given that her parents state ‘she’s planned all this.’ however, this midpoint scene states ‘no one can find anne’s motive’, seemingly the reason that the speaker cannot see a possible justification for her behaviour. choosing not to recognise the authority of those around her is yet another aspect of our protagonist’s performance that is ‘radical.’ in neglecting to acknowledge the power of those objectifying her, anne is achieving two things; either she is allowing herself to experience her own body and emotions without it being for the sake of others, or she is allowing herself to be fetishised and is simply in denial of it. her defiance is complex and the results of it, and indeed the motivations behind it, are difficult to ascertain.

martin crimp’s use of 17 separate individual scenes rather than a traditional singular plot narrative allows the audience to gain a multifaceted understanding of many multifaceted issues. anne is placed and acts within varying contexts such as her own personal self destruction, destruction of land that comes with ethnic cleansing, the commodification of female bodies and two different familial structures. the scene ‘the camera loves you’ emphasises how anne is an ‘everywoman’ but rather than this term being used to describe an average woman in daily life, it instead refers to a woman who is, simply put, everything. anne is described in the scene ‘girl next door’ as ‘the girl next door...royalty…a pornographic movie star...a killer and a brand of car...a terrorist threat...a mother of three...femme fatale...a presidential candidate...a predator…’ by not allocating a specific speaker to each line, crimp allows the director to decide who describes anne and in what way. lines such as ‘what we see here is the work of a girl who clearly should have been admitted, not to an art school but to a psychiatric unit’ can be spoken by a parent, an art critic, a teacher, anyone, and the relation of the speaker to anne is what characterises the comment and thus characterises her. someone described as ‘self indulgent’ by a parent is very different to someone described the same way by a lover. this means that anne is not just every woman, but every woman to everyone. by placing this ‘everywoman’ in such a range of contexts, she arguably becomes a plot device used to convey meaning, and it can be argued that this negates the more empowered features of her character. it is entirely common for female characters to be reduced to plot devices, however most often when this occurs, the character is two-dimensional. anne, on the other hand, is consistently given additional layers to her character in every scene; she exists to be characterised. excessive use of character description in conjunction with limited speaking time is either evidence that crimp’s writing is atypical in style but not theme, or that it is poignant.

arguably, by giving anne countless traits and emphasising ideas of performance and media, crimp is using his 17 scenes as an extreme example of the commodification of female bodies. anne is sold to the audience as this larger-than-life persona, someone who fulfils a million roles in subversive ways that are interesting to watch, but she still ‘feels like a screen.’ again, this sentiment of the effects of performance on an actor is echoed in many modern texts and pieces of media, but ‘attempts on her life’ makes this point in specific reference to women. real life examples of anne’s treatment exist, and her ‘everywoman’ role allows audiences to relate anne to any number of women existing in media. the way that others only talk about anne when describing or evaluating her mimics the way that agencies and record labels create a solid branding for their actors, musicians, and so on. this brand becomes an intrinsic part of their genuine personality as they cannot be caught behaving in a way that is not consistent with it. acting becomes a constant, and these women are constantly selling a brand or persona, and have very little space to behave in ways that feel true to themselves instead. acting ‘out of character’ results in the loss of public support, funding from agencies, job offers, etc, and thus the character created for celebrities is vital to their survival in their respective industries. as previously discussed, traditional texts argue the importance of theatre for women’s survival just as much, namely ibsen’s ‘a doll’s house.’ the same way nora must leave the environment that forces her to act in order to be happy or individual, anne must do the same; but her attempts at suicide suggest that the environment forcing her performance is not a household or an industry, but ‘the patriarchal structures of late twentieth century capitalism.’ either she dies or ‘becomes her own victim’ in an attempt to escape constant performance, but even her death becomes somewhat performative. even dead, many female celebrities continue their branding through martyrdom. there is very little room for one to make art detailing suicide, sex, and the like without seemingly crossing the line between expression and glorification. women who suffer are not necessarily acting, but as their suffering is a part of their life experience, it becomes interwoven in their branding or public image: amy winehouse’s experiences with alcoholism and bulimia come to mind. winehouse never glorified alcoholism herself, but songs such as ‘rehab’ and documentaries covering her illness released after her death have certainly been accused of doing so. agencies and other creatives took advantage of winehouse’s struggles in order to perform their own ‘activism’ or ‘spreading of awareness.’

in light of ‘attempts on her life’ and the concepts surrounding performance that it poses, we must consider: is liberation from patriarchal constraints even possible, or do acts of reclamation serve to eventually end up catering to the male gaze regardless? it would not be accurate to the play’s style and purpose to try to make one singular conclusion to this question. crimp uses varying styles and contexts in order to showcase the various aspects there are to this issue; the necessity of performance, the constraints it leads to, the sexualisation of suffering, brand maintenance, and so on. anne’s lack of voice in this play can be read either as an example of the very thing the play criticises, or simply just poor usage of character, and the former feels most appropriate for crimp’s writing style. the play implies that victimhood can be intrinsic to womanhood, but presents anne’s defiance as ideallised, encouraging it. theatre can be used as both a survival mechanism and a method of empowerment, but the play posits that it is only empowering to a certain extent; it allows one to control the means by which they are objectified but not to actually avoid objectification. one can behave in undesirable manners, such as anne’s displays of suicidality and exhibitionism, but then we must examine their motivations. is anne behaving in this way solely based upon her low mental health? or is the fact that she is also engaging in a form of exhibitionism and forcing an audience evidence of her sexualising her own experience? if so, her sexualisation of suicidal behaviour likely stems from the ‘patriarchal structures’ she is working to avoid being a victim of, suggesting that it is not possible to liberate oneself from them. anne is evidence that women are not separate from the patriarchy, but active participants in it as it is a collection of ideals engraved into western society. it would be unfair and somewhat dejected to conclude that these ideals cannot be unlearned, but ‘attempts on her life’ certainly illustrates that unlearning them is a more active and difficult task than simply holding a feminist ideology.

i.k.b

[ruby-whistler]

Srry but i noticed in one of ur dream posts u Referred to tommy's cat as hope. I must correct u, that cat was born pussbou and died pussboi. /lh Also tommy killing that cat was nothing compared to dream killing mushroom henry in exile btw just wanna say Also for ur posts about dreams trauma or wilbur manipulating him can u provide links to vods or other proof? Srry if i seem rude i mean that in a "genuinely curious way"

Aaa sorry if my ask came off as rude im just genuinely curious :(((

hi! dw, you don't seem rude at all, and i'm extremely happy someone with a different perspective has found my blog! i really appreciate that sort of attitude and am happy to answer :]

/dsmp /rp

the cat was called pussboy by tommy, but dream only called it "the cat" and then said that "it was hope", which is why it sort of became a symbol (his hope is dead, basically) - that's why i kind of made its name capitalized, because it was more of a metaphor than anything.

most c!dream fans call the cat hope because it's just really nice and really symbolic, and also really sad when you think about it. that's why the name was used in the essay, just to clear up the confusion!

tommy killing that cat was nothing compared to dream killing mushroom henry in exile

i don't really think so? mooshroom henry was entertainment more than anything, and even if it was bad, when watching the stream i don't remember seeing him mourn that much - on the other hand, dream was very quickly and very obviously attached to the cat, with it being his only companion in months of isolation, along with the hope that even when tommy left it would keep him company.

keep in mind c!dream has been deprived of stimuli and human contact for so long it's officially classified as psychological torture at that point.

i don't mean to compare trauma or even compare deaths - because honestly, what c!dream and c!tommy have gone through individually is incomparable and i think neither should be diminished in favor of the other since they're both terrible situations.

that's why i disagree that it "was nothing compared to" - it had an obvious effect on c!dream, and was still c!tommy killing an animal specifically to hurt him, no matter what reasons he had.

when i'm talking about effects people's actions have had on c!dream, i'm not talking about those people. i'm talking about him. :) /lh

as for the trauma, a lot of people agree that a lot of the things he says or does are trauma responses, and hence it's very possible that he's had trauma before he went into prison!

this includes being repeatedly called a tyrant via propaganda by about half of your friends who decided to betray you, trying to keep peace and being pushed deeper into villainy instead, repeatedly being put in between a rock and a hard place in order to make sure the people you care about don't start killing each other, then being betrayed by your closest friends after merely trying to keep peace (sapnap & george) and just in general having no control over your life or image and grasping at straws to gain it back.

i know a lot of people with trauma who heavily relate to certain trauma responses, which aren't always just shaky breaths and flashbacks, but trauma often also manifests itself in extremely ugly and destructive ways, both inwardly and outwardly.

trying to control the people around you is also very often a response to going through trauma, as well as emotional repression which is... rather evident on c!dream during season two. it only seems to get worse with repeated abandonment.

in the end, during the vault scene, the way he acts really just isn't at all the way a healthy person would act, and a lot of his really bad mindsets come from the way he was taught by the world around him.

the character is very reserved however, and since we don't have his pov we can't really say for certain - a lot of people claim it in good faith because they have a lot of evidence for it, and i think they're certainly valid in that.

that is just before the prison, however. from what happened during the prison arc? there is no denying he's traumatized at this point.

he's been emotionally and physically abused by c!sam since the very beginning of being imprisoned, and being in solitary confinement for over two weeks is generally considered psychological (and maybe also physical?) torture. that alone shows up in a lot of symptoms of his mental deterioration while in pandora's during people's visits, and quackity's "sessions" just absolutely drove the point home.

what he's gone through during this arc is absolutely incomparable to anything others charactes have faced before, and it's just plain suffering being endured by someone who is, despite everything, still a human being.

as for the wilbur manipulation thing!! it's talking about the whole vassal scene (though even beforehand a lot of their interactions are pretty iffy), and here's a post about that :]

I also have a small question about the analysis u last reblogged cus it says "why dream needed lmanburg gone rightfully" and like. The house analogy is poor because for one cus the land is infinite. And 2 cus punz's yard was literally larger then lmanburg. And also stuff about dream being a mediator? Can u provide examples?

i wouldn't say it was poor. dream's said a lot of times that he didn't care in the slightest about the land - a lot of his problems with l'manberg arose with the fact that wilbur basically built it on lies and tried to disallow half of the server to come there. c!dream was mad about the division and the fact that wilbur wanted "freedom" to have authority in his lands - over others, as can be seen in this post also.

the table analogy was fitting not because dream was some overlord, but because these were literally friends he invited to hang out and live in a place he wanted to call home. claiming a part of it for yourself and saying people of a certain nationality can't come in is directly opposing those goals.

in the early days of the smp, dream's always been a mediator between his friends - sapnap and george, who would often get into fights and go around killing each other! he would always do his best to stop the conflict, which continued after tommy joined when he took him to court and then later tried to mediate conflicts he was a part of, which resulted in tommy killing him unprovoked, stealing his gear, and starting the disc wars when dream was trying to get his stuff back. later, during pogtopia, he is also most concerned with peace over everything, and this seems to continue indefinitely after.

Today i was thinking about how messed up the final control room was. Like. Dream arranged the betrayal and punz and sapnap killed tommy and tubbo who like. Were literal children and their pals (because the author, wilbur soot, is dead/j but srsly if u take the streamers words tommy said he was 9 during the revolution sooo)

Sorry im gonna ramble about how dumb canon ages are for a second cus like. Streamers can say the characters are one way or another (wilbur saying he is mentally 30-something, etc.) But in the end the characters act like they(or at least their streaming personas) do.

i... honestly don't find it that bad? they were in a war, and the final control room was basically just supposed to end it quicker. the l'manbergians made it clear they were going to fight to the death, so they really left c!dream no other choice. and it's not like he didn't give them chances to give up.

also yeah the 9 year old thing was retconned, because in that case c!dream would've been 14 and i don't think that's true.

c!tommy and c!dream were both young and once again, in a war. the final control room was an attempt to assure victory, which both sides would've taken if possible, but only c!dream saw he had the option.

i do agree the whole child soldier thing was bad but... complain about that to c!wilbur, methinks. he talked naive kids into fighting for his personal power. however, the age argument isn't really valid either way. they had enough agency to sign up for it, and whether or not c!wilbur pushing the intense nationalism onto them had something to do with that is another debate entirely.

Bacl to final control room cus like??? Also fun fact punz took 2 of wilbur's canon lives. And like that probably is what started wilbur's paranoia which later lead to his spiral and i. Many thoughts full of lmanburg today.

i'm pretty sure cc!wilbur said what lead to c!wilbur's spiral was a "dark, twister view of possessions" and "disregard for his fellow citizen whom he claimed to love so much", but i really wouldn't say it was the control room; if anything the sudden loss of power after the elections seems to me like the trigger for his spiral.

I watched the exile arc live and. I feel dirty almost for feeling little to no sympathy for c!dream (srry ive been forgetting to add that aa) because of his actions toward c!tommy and like. The whole probation was so humiliating and unfair and c!dream was planning to frame him for the crimes he and puffy did under the the guise of "pranks" and c!quackity was planning to seize the vice president role.

i mean... to be fair, if you didn't watch the prison arc much yet or only watch tommy's perspective i understand not feeling that sympathetic - however, i encourage you to maybe watch a few prison visits, since they could help you see the whole picture better!

i also watched it live, and i also thought it was terrible, but i share very much the same sentiment for the prison arc because. absolutely no one should have to go through either of those things, you know?

i don't think probation was that humiliating? he was just. being asked to not start conflict with the other factions for two weeks. of course, what happened as a result is in no way justified, but i don't think probation itself would've been bad at all. either way yeah the framing and c!quackity's behaviour was. very yikes, i agree.

Also c!tommy antis are dumb because they say "he deserved exile angry emoji" i dont see u saying that about ranboo. Just say you hate cc!tommy and go. Also people say c!tommy was just as toxic to c!dream and i??? No. One is the victim and one is the abuser and like. :/// man. This part is rambly srry

i wouldn't say they hate cc!tommy? cc!tommy has a persona who people think is annoying at first ( but then they subscribe because he is super entertaining big man! ) but a lot of c!tommy's actions are straight up toxic to certain characters, such as c!funndy and c!jack. he has a very dismissive attitude towards others and their trauma and it does affect the people around them very negatively.

examples; his repeated bullying and behavior towards fundy:

Tommy: “Fundy, I’m just here to kinda let you know that I – if you weren’t Wilbur’s son, you would be out of L’manburg, alright? Just remember – you need to keep that relationship with your father. I saw how asshole-y and bratty you were acting in the courtroom the other night. You need to pull your shit together young man.”

......

Fundy: “I’m wearing glasses…are you making fun of my eyesight?!”

Tommy: “Yes.”

Sapnap: “Your father would be very disappointed.”

Fundy: “Wh – disappointed for wearing glasses?!”

Tommy: “You got glasses, like what are you wearing…”

Fundy: “What do you mean?”

Tommy: “Sapnap, Sapnap, over here. Fundy, Fundy, Fundy, I’m really sorry to say this – I’m just here to publicly denounce you.”

Fundy: “…What?”

( credit for transcript: @/findingjoynweirdstuff )

he's also responsible for a big chunk of c!jack's trauma, both with actions and words, and that's why i think certain people might dislike the character, and i don't think that's wrong of them. anyone can dislike any character they want if they don't attack people for liking them, in my opinion.

also c!tommy was most definitely toxic against c!dream in the cell. it's of course understandable but that doesn't change the fact he was constantly hitting and insulting him (without dream doing anything back for a long while until he snapped) which is toxic behaviour.

i wouldn't say he was "just as" though, so i agree with you on that. they're different and they behave differently.

i made a dream blob keychain today. Is it possible to send images if u wanna see? Idk cus i havent used tumblr before. I think that's all for now. Thx for letting me talk :D peepoShy -curious anon (but fr a connoreatspants c!dream redemption arc would be cool)

yooo that's cool! i don't really,,, know if it's possible to send images? try it out and if it isn't i'll try find a way to turn it on.

also, no problem! just please remember this is a c!dream sympathetic blog, and me as well as my followers are uhh,, oftentimes emotionally attached / personally relate to the character, so if you could avoid sending hate on the character (not that you have or that i expect you to, just a friendly reminder) in the asks that would be great! we already see a lot of it unwillingly so, i'd rather not see more, but as long as the discussion is civil i'm absolutely ok with you asking more and with me answering more questions if you'd want to! :)

if anyone else would like to reblog this and add some things i might've missed with my answers, feel free to, just go easy on her (she uses she/her pronouns!) and keep it factual.

i hope u had a good or at least ok time at school today :D

thanks! i gtg now because exam tomorrow but i'm going to try write the redemption essay tomorrow as well because ohhh boy i have a lot of ideas about what all i could write around the concept.

also sorry this was long, i can't keep my tongue on the leash :[