#I DONT UNDERSTAND THIS IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION

[mezzo-morte]

WAIT IS GILLIAN FINALLY HOPPING ONTO DD'S PODCAST??? IS THAT RIGHT?

[myrfing]

im realizing maybe the reason why I'm so flippant about "cancel culture" is cause I just don't care about like. famous people man. i do not think it matters much if someone loses the fame and goodwill they can't handle. i thought it was almost a given and something you tacitly agreed to when you decided to be such a public figure; you can transgress against a group, but repairing transgressions will always be individual, and that actually just becomes impossible when you throw in massive online crowds and idolatry in the mix. or not impossible, but requires a level of humility and levelheadedness that I don't expect any human person to actually have when being faced with the criticism of an enormous crowd. but you don't die, you just get yelled at by a bunch of people online and you leave. you're free. it's not because people are evil or more prone to "mob mentality" these days or whatever, it's because you're trying to communicate to people through the deeply unnatural platform of "social media". it's obviously shit and degrading to experience but i genuinely think the extreme vast majority of the population can't handle it, myself included, so people should just not...aim to be...idolized? to have fanbases? in the first place lol but maybe this is a useless way of looking at things because it'll happen anyways

[thedevotionaltour]

when do i get to meet another asian dyke when is it my turn

[apenitentialprayer]

i know that as a catholic you just have to believe with what the church says but i really dont like the belief of the original sin, i feel like its such a horrible thing to believe about yourself and about other human beings too

There are actually ways of legitimately dissenting from less essential Church teachings in a way that leaves you in good standing with the Church; I'm not sure if Original Sin is one of those things, though, to be honest.

But, anon, I'm going to offer another perspective here, starting from a quote (perhaps ironically?) from my favorite heretic. One of the things that James Carroll believes is that Original Sin has been given a bad wrap. In Constantine's Sword, he says:

I referred to Augustine’s assertion of the idea that the human condition implies a perennial state of finitude, weakness, and sin, all of which will be overcome, even for the Church, only with the end of time. [...] Augustine is thus regarded as the father of a severe, flesh-hating, sin-obsessed theology, but that dark characterization misses the point of his insight. His honest admission of the universality of human woundedness is a precondition for both self-acceptance and the forgiveness of the other, which for Augustine always involved the operation of God’s grace, God’s gift. Only humans capable of confronting the moral tragedy of existence, matched to God’s offer of repairing grace, are capable of community, and community is the antidote to human woundedness. Augustine sensed that relationship as being at the heart of God, and he saw it as being at the heart of human hope, too. This is a profoundly humane vision.

I wish I had understood the spirit of this quote when I was in high school. I remember learning in my World History class that Islam teaches that all children are born good, and then the world makes them evil. And I remember my teacher asking how that compares with Christianity, and I raised my hand and said that Christianity teaches that all of us are born evil. Because I believed that at the time. And, really, the whole framing of that question was wrong and gave really simplistic representations of what Islam and Christianity teaches, but I don't think we're alone in having internalized that understanding, anon. And that's a shame.

I thin it's important to remember the worldview that the doctrine of Original Sin is actively defending us against; there was an idea, that gets called "Pelagianism" (the poor guy it got named after may not even have believed it), that said that humans were capable of being saved on their own, by their own power. Someone on this site recently asked what people's thoughts on Pelagianism were, so you can read my thoughts here. But to keep it short and sweet, I think Original Sin is an important doctrine because it saves you from the need to be perfect.

There are ways to treat Original Sin that I think are certainly unhealthy, and I think the doctrine can be a source of anxiety and fear. But I also think, very deeply, that Original Sin should be a reason why we treat ourselves and especially our neighbor with kindness and understanding. I can look at myself and say "What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. […] For I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil I do not want" (Romans 7:15, 19). And I can say that because I know I am ontologically wounded; that all of us have our weaknesses. That while we may still be in the moral wrong for committing a morally wrong action, our wills are compromised in a way that causes us to incline towards the comfortable and the easy rather than the good.

I wish I could go back in time and tell that class that Christianity does not teach that people are born evil. I wish I could go back and tell them that it teaches that we are born in a state of dis-integration, that we are wounded beings yearning for wholeness; alienated beings seeking everlasting belonging; beings lost in darkness, seeking the light. But I can say it now: the doctrine of Original Sin doesn't have to be an occasion to think you're depraved and without value, but it can be an invitation to come to terms with your own woundedness, because doing that (to use the words of Lutheran theologian Nancy Eiesland) "opens a space for the inflowing of grace and acceptance."

[corviiids]

ooh idk if you've talked about this one before, but what about goro akechi for the kira game?

HI RAPS

verdict: im prepared for this to be controversial, but consider this: ive never been wrong in my whole life. i think goro akechi could beat kira, but i don't know if he'd be happy with the outcome.

could goro akechi identify light yagami

im answering this one first because i want to make a point about this. listen. i feel like due to akechi's whole Plot where he Fakes Solving Cases For Clout, people forget that he actually is a really smart person and a good detective. like, he's not the super prodigy genius he pretends to be, but he's not a fake detective. he faked solving those shutdown cases for extremely specific reasons:

he was the fucking perpetrator so it served him to take control of the public understanding of the investigation into them and control the narrative; and

those cases were particularly high profile and would have been impossible to solve by anyone else, so 'solving' them would catapult him into notoriety faster than anything else - it was a clout speedrun, which is what he and shido needed.

but there are numerous other cases and puzzles in various bits of p5 media that he solves without faking them, plus we see plenty of occasions where he demonstrates his high intellect. the casino is a great example because i feel like the game takes that palace as an opportunity and relishes in letting you know what akechi can really do. the anime and the mementos mission manga both have subplots where akechi solves / helps to solve legitimate mysteries. and of course the famed unused mementos request in p5r which i think about all the time. it's kind of a shame that akechi's fake cases end up overshadowing all his real ones when he's a legitimately competent detective, even if he's not the impossible prodigy he projects as and even if he's nowhere near the level L is.

of course there's also the obvious one! while we are all aware that the phantom thieves are the least subtle people on the planet, and all ren's confidants eventually work it out just because he's so deeply unsubtle about it, it is still the case akechi identified them as persons of interest very early on, before pretty much anyone else (partly by intellect, partly by his metaverse advantage, i'll get to that). that's relevant because i think the phantom thieves are reasonably analogous to kira in the sense that they're utilising supernatural methods to target individuals which are untraceable via ordinary means.

now i dont think akechi could identify kira nearly as quickly or cleanly as L could, but i do think that if you placed him in charge of the investigation with all the investigative resources of the prosecutor's office / police department, he would be able to identify light as at least a person of interest in a reasonable amount of time, for two main reasons

light is more sneaky than the phantom thieves, but also makes the same kinds of identifiable mistakes that the PT do (eg targeting people in a set area, operating in such a way that it's possible to identify him as a student, being easily provoked, etc); and

unlike L, akechi has supernatural powers.

which brings me to:

could goro akechi intuit the mechanics of the death note

no, i don't think so, not on his own. but he wouldn't need to, because he has access to the metaverse.

we're back at the universe question. i think to fairly answer 'could they beat kira' questions we have to give our detective character all the advantages they have access to in their home universe, which means that akechi not only has his intellect but also has the metaverse, his persona, and his experience traversing the collective unconscious. (by the way, here's my post about what if light yagami had a palace.)

which means that once goro akechi has identified light as a person of interest, not even needing to ID him as a particular suspect, he can check whether the metanav gives him a hit. then he could infiltrate light's palace / find him in mementos (let's be real it's gonna be a palace) and find out the rest of what he needs to know from there. the metaverse isn't only useful for changing hearts and causing shutdowns. shadows are very forthcoming about their evil plans. all akechi would need to do is find light's shadow, and he'd find out everything he needs to know about the death note and kira's new world.

(follow-up question for fun: if akechi didn't have the metaverse, would he be able to intuit the mechanics of the death note? i think that akechi would ultimately get to the same point as L, namely, that kira needs a name and a face, but the specifics of 'magic murder notebook' would escape him. so no.)

could goro akechi survive

i think this would really depend on the context in which this investigation is taking place, but broadly i think it's likely? not certain, but it's likely. it depends on how reactive light is and depends on how well akechi reads the kira situation early on.

akechi is pretty shrewd, with the exception of major blindspots where someone he has a grudge against is concerned (hence why he's vulnerable to shido and to ren's plots). but i think kira is dangerous enough that akechi would be on pretty high alert from the start. in canon he's cunning enough to make false statements to the media to trick the thieves into thinking he's at least partially on their side / not an unambiguous enemy (that's the same strategy used in romance ha ha ha) so i think once akechi identified a person of interest he wouldn't be stupid enough to publicise that he's closing in on them and would probably start leaking false theories to make light think he's completely off the trail - after all, unlike L, akechi's name and face are completely public, so it would be way too risky to make light feel cornered. it would be smartest to play up the shallow celebrity angle to make think light he's just a dumbass idiot talking a big game.

i think akechi would bank on kira's MO of only killing criminals. after all, light didn't try to kill L until L deliberately goaded him into it - it's unlikely that akechi would have a reason to think that light would try to kill him just for investigating. up until that point kira has been masquerading as an icon of justice, so it would (and canonically did) take a lot to make kira veer from that ideology into killing investigators just because they threatened him. however, it's not impossible given nobody really knows anything about kira at that stage, so while akechi might make it public information that he's investigating kira, he wouldn't let on that he thought light was a threat.

then he could either:

initiate a surprise raid on light to get the death note based on information gained from light's shadow - risky because if it goes wrong light will kill him, but this will net him the most glory

(pre-phantom thieves) kill light - stops the murders but means akechi doesn't get clout for solving the kira murders single-handedly, not preferable

(post-phantom thieves) change light's heart - akechi also doesn't get credit and would be reluctant besides

so it depends how we're defining success i guess. could akechi beat light by killing light? likely yes, by simply causing a shutdown before putting light on notice that akechi was on his trail at all. could akechi beat light by apprehending light? maybe, it depends, it's risky. could akechi beat light by changing his heart? only if the thieves are involved.

so i guess the answer is yes i think akechi has the capacity to beat kira but probably not in a way that akechi himself is satisfied with and it wouldn't be a sure thing. it could go either way.

[ot3]

The same people who scream about how it's justified for poor Americans to become soldiers slaughtering poor people in the Global South for cash bc they don't know any better and have no other options are also the first to scream about how poor people in the Global South who take up armed resistance against oppressors like the US military are evil terrorists, don't those brainwashed brown people understand that violence is not the answer and they are hurting good people??!, like, where is the think of the poor people attitude then? (Rhetorical question ofc, they are not people to these racists and the US has the monopoly on violence.)

it's true..... it's true........... its genuinely fascinating how much a certain type of people will fall back on 'brainwashing' as a narrative to both forgive imperial soldiers and condemn armed resistance. in both cases it is infantilizing people and projecting the speaker's own lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thought to the people around them. 'people are brainwashed' is not really a line of reasoning i'm sympathetic to re: joining the US military in a post-internet age, because the only barrier to beginning to learn about the united state's war crimes is whether or not opening and doing a quick scan on the 'united states war crimes' wikipedia page is worth your time. you probably wouldn't work for a new company without doing a quick google search on them, and yet i'm supposed to believe there's huge swathes of people who are truly barred from encountering and internalizing critiques of the military enough to make an informed decision to join it? yes obviously there is a ton of propaganda to join the military. but isn't it interesting how a not insignificant portion of these same people aren't nearly as quick to defend the police, and will agree with the ACAB sentiment? it's almost like cops, who have domestic victims, are legitimate aggressors but soldiers, who have international victims, are themselves too victimized to be held accountable for their career choice.

i've been getting a lot of comments these past few days that boil down to 'why are we hating the individuals instead of trying to dismantle the machine' and i dont know how else to say this but one cool way to disable a machine is taking all of the cogs out of it

[transmutationisms]

intellectually i understand where you’re coming from but emotionally it’s a remarkably difficult pill to swallow. not to commit the cardinal sin of asking an anonymous “am i bad” question to a tumblr blogger but is it inherently selfish to feel upset at a person you care about harming themselves? are you just supposed to turn it off or like. theory it away. i know im probably being silly and i kinda just want an eloquent paragraph or several explaining why so i dont turn this over in my head til im nauseous. sorry

you're jumping straight from a position on bodily autonomy (fundamentally a question of material interventions and restrictions on a person's actions) to a moral condemnation of an emotional state (no longer attached to any particular action). no i don't think it's wrong to be concerned for other peopleor to express it to them. i think that's probably a necessary characteristic of most emotional intimacy actually. and i don't think that emotional response is at all incompatible with a commitment to bodily autonomy as a basic moral principle. in fact as a moral point it's kind of irrelevant how you feel or what your affective experience is anyway.

the question is, if you are confronted with a situation in which someone is doing something you think is harmful to themselves, do you think that your judgment of their best interest trumps theirs, such that you would attempt to alter their behaviour by force? that's what it comes down to at the end of the day: you either understand that people are entitled to self-determination and may use it to do things you disapprove of or find distressing, for possibly perfectly legitimate reasons---or you don't, and you are willing to violate someone's autonomy. neither of these positions precludes you experiencing concern for someone you think is hurting themselves, or from expressing that concern to them, or from offering any degree of support or sympathy. you don't have to like what people do with their bodies or their lives! but you do have to commit to defending their right to do it, including where this clashes with supposedly benevolent uses of force---like involuntary psychiatric interventions.

[tamamita]

the problem isnt the fact you dont like the aga khan. the problem is you had the audacity to say we're a cult just bc you dont like him, delete it, then act like you never said it, and then to ignore the question when direcrtly asked once again. that rhetoric literally gets ismailis killed, and you cant even acknowledge you said it or even apologize.

Anon, I don't think the Nizaris are a cult. If I ever said that, it was out of pure ignorance and stupidity, and for that, I sincerely apologise for uttering such sectarian language. I do not harbour any ill towards the adherents of the Nizari faith, let alone any other adherent of Islam, and I accept the Nizari branch of Shi'a Islam as a legitimate Madh3b, just like any other branch of Islam. I understand how my language caused you to be hurt, you're a Shi'a, and we've suffered centuries of persecution, so to throw you under the bus and use the same language as our oppressors is unjustified and hypocritical. You have the absolute right to feel this way.

While we may share our differences in faith and theology, may our minds be at peace and dedication to Imam Hussain (a) this month of Muharram, inshallah.

[ravengards-rogue]

dont take any of this too seriously. just spewing my thoughts. some rdr2 / johnigail stuff. mostly talking 2 myself. a lot of spoilers lmao

i really. i really like the relationship that john and abigail share both in rdr2 and later in rdr1. and what i like about it is that it, explicitly, is not a story of true love.

don't misunderstand, i think john and abigail love each other to death and ever after. they share such a deep and solid relationship and both make mutual connections to each other over the course of the game. but what makes them compelling to me is the deep realism rooted in their romance and the way that love is depicted as choice rather than fate.

rdr2 poses this more than once through out the story, with the most obvious example being mary-linton and arthur. when presented the choice to leave the gang or go with mary, arthur chooses the gang due to various internal and external factors. but the implication remains that things might've been different had arthur learned how to choose other things. himself. his future. etc. there's examples of this with hosea and bessie (said by hosea himself "she knew what i was"), with dutch and his varying models of young women. the van der linde gang chooses the outlaw life chronically, habitually, instinctively.

abigail joins the gang as a working girl. she sleeps with most of the camp, and then with john. they're sweet on each other. and she has a boy that she believes to be johns. john is hesitant to believe that (and maybe some of that is warranted) but most of it is him being a complete jackass. the kid is born. john is presented the option of fatherhood. he, like the rest of the gang, comes to a point where he feels he must choose what is going to take priority in his life.

(and this is important - because in my mind, so much of this pressure is so self-imposed. it's inherited in the way most sons inherit from their father or like most younger brothers inherit for their older ones. it's possible no one told john to choose explicitly. not then at least.

but well, john has seen this all play out before. and loyal men choose the gang, almost always. the gang is family, was family before jack and abigail. and if john owes anyone loyalty, it's dutch who raised him as a golden boy)

john, for better or worse, chooses neither. he leaves the gang entirely, for a year which is a huge point of contention. he leaves both things behind. he doesn't choose. he doesn't want to choose. but he comes back, and presumably makes the choice made many times before him. he chooses the gang and completely shafts responsibility of fatherhood and husbandry. but there is obvious uncertainty there.

the choice john makes to leave is interesting when you consider it thematically, and you consider arthurs specific advice to john before his death - that you can't be two men at once. something that is reiterated to john in the epilogue and that he acts on in rdr1. it's also interesting when keeping in mind some hidden dialogue hosea has with john, in which john says he knows that jack is his.

to me, john understands very well whats going on around him. and that his actions are informed explicitly by that choice.

and this to me is what makes his relationship to abigail so interesting. john is no doubt a loser, a deadbeat, and a bum (he is my favorite character) - but all of this information together makes me interpret his actions (coldness towards her and jack) not as genuine resentment but an externalized projection and defensive mechanism.

johns uncertainty is not towards jack being his or even towards abigail, but a baseline questioning of the violence he's been steeped in his entire life. what was once a simple, intuitive choice to be an outlaw is called into question by the legitimate possibility of something else.

arthur has a line to john, where he says that if you don't think jack is yours - why does it bother you so much? and it's a good question indeed, why does any of it bother him so much? why does abigails nagging bother him so much? why is it that john chooses to be actively antagonistic towards her when he could choose to simply be apathetic or choose to reject or stonewall her?

a lot of it is projection. its hypocrisy on johns behalf. he unloads his questioning and beliefs about the gang unto abigail who serves as a semi-constant reminder of his own problems. abigail during the main story game doesn't ask john to choose, but john knows that he has too. that's what that whole thing leads to.

when the gang starts to fall apart and when jack gets kidnapped, john immediately changes his tune. he's in clear disarray. the seeds of doubt planted in his head about dutch during blackwater only get increasingly extreme and as the game goes on into guarma and johns prison arc. he starts more clearly distinguishing where his loyalty will lie as the game closes, john is finally encouraged to make the cemented choice of jack and abi and not gang life (not all at once and something he will continue to struggle with) but he makes it all the same.

and then all of that intersects with abigail. and this to me is where the basis their relationship stems from because it's largely abigails influence, personality, and persistence that allows john not to make the same mistakes. abigail doesn't ask john for love, but she refuses to yield to him when it comes to jack. i know so many people see abigails nagging as nagging, or clinginess - but in my mind, it's simply her not letting john get away with being wishy-washy. abigail makes herself known and doesn't relent even when john continuously acts like a massive dick. she's not a pushover about it though either.

abigail loves john and probably understands him better than people give her credit for. especially with her calling him silly so often (a WHOLE different meta post) it's out of genuine love for john and in many cases, a genuine concern for john as a person that she acts the way she does. she gets on his case because she doesn't really want to give up on him, even though she probably very well could.

and she'd definitely be more at peace if she did lmao.

at a human level, abigails constancy and her both 1. not taking johns shit when he acts like a dick and 2. still wanting more and whats best for him is probably one of the base reasons john has full strength to make it out. and john knows that. abigail chooses john. she wants to choose john. she believes in him and so much of that contributes to the fact john doesn't end up somewhere much worse when the main story ends.

but again its not easy. for either of them. and it's not something that works until john gets his shit together. their relationship doesn't mend overnight, either. in the epilogue of the game, you see them face the same struggles they did through the main story. but like i said, abigail is no pushover. when john keeps choosing outlaw life, abigail leaves because she feels there's no helping him and john has to prove himself to her once more. he has to choose them.

(a lot of people critique abigail for being unfair to john and i understand that - but i think its mostly fear. john was in that life for years, and to abigails there's no telling if that siren song will take over and uproot her life again or not. i do think many times john took up the gun in the epilogue were completely fair, but i dont think abigails reaction is unwarranted.)

but again. again. the core of their love story is about choice. both john and abigail make the choice to choose their family and their love is founded on learning to choose each other. abigail straightens john out, and his character in rdr1 is so much more mellow than he is in rdr2. his loyalty to abigail is fierce and consistent, and john knows he owes a lot to her and never loses sight of that in the years they spend peacefully together.

he likes that abigail gives him shit and a hard time because he knows he deserves it and that it was one of the only things stabilizing him during some of the most tumultuous and difficult times of their life together.

they have such deep and genuine love for each other, built entirely in trying to believe and trust in one another and hold onto love in an era where everything was constantly at stake. it's not fairytale romance, but tried and true connection and choice. i love you because i chose you and i'd keep choosing you. they are so awkward with each other for so long because of the nature of their relationship to each other and that truly endears them to me all the more.

they just. they are so in love. but its not a fairy tale. and its not a case of john getting the girl because he's the hero or whatever. john loves her so much and she loves him and it all took a while and none of it was perfect. but it was real. so so so real between them. ack.

[marvelling-at-marvel-blog]

The thing about S1 Jamie that I think is interesting is I think on rewatch there is some insight as to why Jamie went so hard on the bullying of Sam. (Not gonna be defending Jamie's treatment of Sam just looking into maybe why). Because out of all of the things Jamie did is season one. The one that seems hardest to understand or really forgive is his treatment of Sam. The first time around, you couldn't understand it. Sam is legitimately the kindest man in existence. (I know as a stroyteller it was the easiest way to really get us to dislike Jamie and really make us more understanding of Roy's treatment of Jamie which to be frank is not great and understand Ted's fruatrations with him) and Sam just keeps trying with Jamie.

But know I think it far to say thay S1 Jamie was jealous of Sam and his easy going, happy, postive nature. I dont think he was aware of it though.

Season 1 Jamie is so interesting because on paper, he had everything he thought he wanted. But I dint think he was overally happy. But yeah it seemed to be all his way

1. He played for the team he grew up supporting and dreamed of playing for. I imagine his first time stepping on that fiels in that uniform would have been monumental. Sure, maybe he wasn't a starter, but he got some minutes and the unspken agreement that in a few years, he would be a star.

2. I imagine he was initially disappointed to be loaned out, but then he learns he is being loaned to Richmond. Yeah they suck, but he gets to play a full 90 minutes, is basically going to be the best player, kick most of thier goals and he gets to be team mates with Roy Kent (he dreamed of playing against him one day, with him is a dream come true, I really think pre show Jamie would have been so excited to play with Roy Kent and was so disappointed in how it turned out). Plus, it has the added advantage of getting him away from his dad. And once his done his loan, he can come back to Manchester. This is his chance to get away from it for a while and be the star

3. He meets and gets to date Keely Jones who his always had a crush on. Dhe is literally a dream girl for him

So he should be happy right. His got everything he wanted, but it's not going the way he expected because.....

1. Roy Kent hates him (in my mind Roy was standoffish from the start, heres come this whizkid who was everything he used to be and slowly losing. I think Jamie came in at 100% and immediatley put Roy on the back foot). Jamie tries with Roy but the more it doesnt work the more Jamie goes OK, if I cant make him like me I will show him I am better than him. Hence the beginning of that relationship.

2. Yeah his away from his dad and his killing it at Richmond, scoring their goals, winning them matches but it only seems to be winning over half the team (he can't see yet his attitude is what is stopping the other guys from liking him). And the team still isn't doing great even with him. Plus he may be away from his Dad but his relationship with his mum feels like it in a werid place which sucks cause she is his favourite person ever.

3. And Keeley seems to be where its going right but sometimes it feels like his a bit of a project for her. And I think he has heard people (like Roy) question why she is with him.

And let's face it, he is still likely hearing from his dad when he doesn't perform up to his standards.

And then heres Sam. Who (at this point in time) isn't playing well, isn't scoring goals, not massively contributing to thier wins and yet he seems so genuinely happy all the time and everyone loves him, Roy Kent seems to like him and is friendly with him, complimenting him (which he has never done to Jamie). Sam is so open and kind he has probably talked about his dad in the locker room, and his relationship with his family seems perfect and that must gnaw at Jamie because all he ever wanted is to make his dad proud and his pretty sure he will never achieve it because the man is a d***k who is impossoble to please, yet Jamie never stops trying and things are werid with his mum which he hates. But all he hears when its brought up from Sam is how great his family is.

Then along comes the new gaffer who Jamie can't even understand why he is coaching, but he also seems to love Sam and wants him to be the decoy so Sam can kick the goal. Even though Jamie knows if he kicks it, it will go in.

Now we all know the reason Sam is liked is because he is an amazing, kind hearted, dedicated person, but I think S1 Jamie is so jealous and does not even know it.

Because S1 Jamie is still living with the notion that being the best in the most important thing ( thank you James Tartt Sr) so to Jamie he is out here busting his ass at training to be the best, scoring all the goals yet Sam seems to be the one who is living what he thought his dream time at Richmond was going to be. And I know I mention it but I think it is a big thing for Jamie, the harder he tries the more Roy seems to despise him, and take enjoyment in his embarrassment.

And S1 Jamie in all maturity handles his jealously by trying to make Sam feel as bad as he is feeling. Which Jamie, baby. That's kindergarten mentality. And poor Sam actually thinks Jamie is a great player and would love to learn from him in the beginning and isnt having a great time either.

But yeah. I dont think Jamie ever disliked Sam. I think he was insanly jealous of him all the time and didn't know how to handle that or even admit it himself.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. Apologies for my rambles.

[shithowdy]

Yo hello there! I’m very sorry to bother you at this time of the day, just reaching out if you’d be so kind to check the post that I pinned on my blog and maybe give it a little help by boosting/sharing it? it’s for my cat :((( and we need help to get him the dental care he needs. It would really mean the world to me and I understand if you don’t, still appreciate you and stay safe! Btw, please do send me a msg to reply or answer the ask privately instead as I dont want other blogs to think im a spambot or what, once again im sorry for asking this, praying you’d consider! 🥲🙏

how about i answer this publicly so people can see exactly what a spambot these days looks like?

ai generated character icon, a very short and sanitary history of reblogs that are all relevant to the scam in question to appear legitimate (cats, popular fandom), and a search for the name "amy danescmand" across tumblr reveals a several-year history of the paypal account being linked for various dire needs.

it should be obvious enough to people that being asked to keep something like this to dms is shady as hell, but their post says they've managed to squeeze $180 out of users already, so let's have a learning moment instead. always scrutinize where your money is going in crowdfunds; look up names, do reverse image searches, check for generative images, and confirm user activity patterns.

[turtblurts-pkmnirl-hub]

okay. ive been trying not to let this anon get to me all that much today. keyword trying. but like. yknow. it really does feel like a slap to the face to watch what this anon said get reinforced in real time. the minute that i had z make a silly post offhandedly i got SO many more anons suddenly flood my inbox in a single instant than jaime had gotten in the entire day.

and like. i get it. z is interesting and she's a major source of information as to the offscreen ongoings of the other characrters! i get wanting to get all the juicy details from her whenever she's around.

but i think she's spoiled yall a lil too much.

its one thing to have a preference towards a specific character(s) and want to interact and ask questions about them! and i get not wanting to have to follow like several other blogs connected to them just to get the full story! thats whatever! i can understand that!

but its another thing entirely to not only come to someone's inbox and say TO THEIR FACE that you dont care about their character or their friends' characters, but to say that you follow one of their blogs and ACTIVELY BLOCK THE TAG OF THE CHARACTER THAT OWNS THE FUCKING BLOG just so that you can see what kinda shit z's talking abt.

what the fuck is up with that. why would say that to me. why would you say that to ANYONE.

thats such a slap to the fucking face. its disrespectful to me, to my friends, and to all of the time and effort we all put into all these characters that we roleplay FOR FUN.

ALSO HOLD ON IM JUST REMEMBERING THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED FOR US.

THIS EXACT THING HAPPENED WITH THE FRUITBASKET-GOSSIP BLOG AS WELL. THIS WAS SUCH A SLAP TO THE FUCKING FACE FOR ALL OF US, ESPECIALLY @/grims-local-pkmn-irl-hub AND @/cassi-pokeblogging-hub WHO PLAYED HONDEW AND STARF RESPECTIVELY. AND TBH THIS ANON WAS A LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION KILLER FOR THEM.

i dont care if this was meant to be in-character anon hate. this isnt good anon hate. this is just a shit thing to say period.

tld-fucking-r; if you are going to follow a roleplay account, respect the blogrunners and the characters that they play. dont say this shit to anyone. we're here to have fun, we're not obligated to do anything for you.

[anonymous-dentist]

STOP. FREEZE. U DONT KNOW SPANISH???? im mind blown. HOW do u know so much q!roier lore, how do u just know q!roier so well???? HOW??? GENUINELY?? like in my opinion u have the best characterisation of him that ive seen including hispanic q!roier fans, so u can imagine how shocked i am to be informed that u dont speak spanish,,

also some questions, do u watch his streams even without understanding much? and have u learned anything in spanish from him? sorry for asking so much hjdfhjsdfsd its just its always amazing to me to see ppl who dont speak spanish be interested on us, even though im constantly consuming q!roier content in english i always assume the creator is bilingual and not just. monolingual ghfdcjsjfsdcjmkvs

I think I’ve watched 95% of all of Roier’s qsmp streams, I’m just missing a few that I watched Cellbit’s pov of, and then the first week of qsmp streams. He was my first Hispanic pov, and I chose right because he’s the guy that stayed! :D

I have learned some very useful phrases in Spanish by watching his streams! Like, “No mames”, and “culero”. But also I’ve picked up on a lot of Spanish that I legitimately don’t know how to write because I only know what it sounds like! Like when he’s like “I don’t know” or “Look at this!” or “It’s a joke!”, stuff like that

I’ve been teaching myself Spanish via duolingo since November because I’d been watching Quackity’s Karmaland series for like six months at that point and I decided I should start learning what he was actually saying, and I. Have only had duolingo. Lol. Which sucks because they keep shuffling lessons around and randomly setting me back three weeks during a lesson shuffle and I don’t even know how to count to ten yet, but that’s fine because I know what a goddamn bolígrafo is

I’m genuinely monolingual, and so it’s sometimes very hard trying to write q!Roier and talk about him and stuff lol because I really don’t know like anything he says ever. But I kinda just vibe check and chill tbh, he really isn’t that complicated if you listen closely enough

[goqmir]

i dont rly understand how furries use vrchat cuz like. its a bunch of public lobbies right. do u not get harassed constantly. this is like a legitimate question. if its actually fun and chill and the harassment chance is low it might be kind of awesome but i cant wrap my mind around how that would be possible

[ravewing]

If Napoleon was in wings of fire what type of dragon would he be, I think he would be an icewing but idk

honestly ? its always been sort of in the back of my mind that hed be a seawing– i literally have no idea why !!

i feel like whenever i get into a new media, i subconsciously sort the characters (or in this case, people) into wof tribes. like i see bryce from hfjone as a sky/ice, the opabinia as a rainwing, washington as a mudwing, coach stopframe as a sandwing .. you get the idea .

i dont even have legitimate reasons for the majority of my 'tribe sorting' its literally all just based off of vibes🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

anywho i know you didnt ask but other napoleonic figure headcanons .. because im cringe ..

josephine would be a skywing i think ? maybe sky/rain

murat is definitely a sand/rain. like i know that as bones as i know that the sun rises. i can feel it in my heart

i think davout would be a sandwing, but my gut is telling me mudwing so im not sure ?

ney is a sand/night/sky (25% night 25% sky 50% sand). i feel like this is uber specific and might not make sense but its what my heart is telling me

tsar alexander is a rainwing . logically it doesnt make any sense but you guys just dont see my vision ..... but maybe an icewing too i dont really know. icewing actually is better now that i think about it

frederick iii is maybe a nightwing ? i dont know very much about him though so this could be very incorrect. i could see him as a seawing too though

fouche is a sandwing 100%

lannes is also a seawing

bagration is definitely a skywing like i dunno he has a very skywing-esque face .... but also perchance a sky/night.

barclay de tolly is a sea/sand ? question mark ?? i dont know much about him either

talleyrand is a rainwing but in the way that chameleon is a rainwing

yeag i dont think most of these make any sense but if you guys could borrow my brain you would understand . i think my founding father headcanons are more on-point because im a lot more familiar with them

[syrips]

i love speaking to homophobes unironically because they ask genuine questions like 'so youre fine with your partner flirting with other women?' and me responding with 'well yea, cuz i find her attractive too, plus its fun for everyone' and them trying to legitimately try to not only process it, but also try to find a flaw in the purity of uninhibited love and happiness

8 times out of 10, they usually kind of just nod and look at me like 'wait, dont you get jealous?', and them going down a rabbit hole of how i was born lucky enough to not experience nor understand the concept of jealousy