#I don't even remember the context for this or the campaign

[iknowwhatyousaidlastsession]

Stronk zambie dna? ... what??

[theoriginalbylergod]

I love you ×9

Ok so I am probably not the first person to notice this or point it out since I've only been a byler for like six months... BUT I did maybe go a little crazy about this. So I'm gonna talk about it.

So a few days ago I was thinking about the mlvn endgame argument "well Mike said 'I love you' nine times". And like, first of all, saying "I love you" doesn't undo a year's worth of deliberate lying and miscommunication. That's not how relationships work. Their issues are still very much real and very much not going anywhere because they're not even TRYING to do anything about them. But also... I was thinking: why nine times? Why that number specifically? Was it just random? Is there maybe anything to indicate that nine is significant? Is there maybe a scene in the first episode of s4 that tells us how we should react to the monologue?

So, the DND basketball montage. Great stuff. Amazing foreshadowing. Everyone loved it.

I got to thinking about it. Decided I needed to know what Mike's roll was. I kinda spiraled about it on twitter because I could not see it clearly and I couldn't tell if it was an eight or nine. Desperate times called for desperate measures so I recorded my tablet with my phone and found the perfect frame.

IT'S A NINE

CLEAR AS DAY! IT'S A NINE! GREATEST DAY OF MY LIFE!!

Anyway, I don't know how DND works. I don't know why this roll evoked the reaction it did from the party - most significantly, Mike's very disgruntled reaction (I don't mean The Party™ I just mean literally the party that is playing this campaign) I genuinely don't know what the fuck is going on in this game. But what I do know is they wanted us to associate this roll with failure. That's why it corresponds with a missed basket in the basketball game. That's why Eddie gets this ooo that sucks for you guys look on his face. That's why we hear a chorus of "nooo" from the party. That's why Mike says "no no no" and looks extremely upset. I don't know anything about DND, but I can read context clues.

So I'm not going to try to understand what's going on in the game, I'm just gonna go off what I think they wanted us to subconsciously pick up on.

So they show us all of this. They associate Mike with the number nine in the first episode and then that number shows up AGAIN in the last episode.

The monologue cannot be associated with anything but failure. Whether that be mlvns failing relationship, or their very real failure to save Max (at least before El revived her), and their failure to save Hawkins. The monologue does not stand apart from that. It is completely interwoven with these failures. If you have average media literacy, you know that. Even before I was aware of just how important byler is to this entire story, before I was aware that they've been setting up byler endgame since day one, you would never catch me thinking that the monologue was supposed to be received positively by the audience. You would never catch me saying mlvns love saved the world. (Although that's because I genuinely forgot about mlvn a few weeks after I watched s4). I think I received the monologue in the way it was intended to be received. I didn't fully understand it, or why they would execute it the way they did, but I still received it in the way I believe it was intended to be.

So I know the general agreement among bylers is that the monologue kinda sealed the deal for mlvn bones. Like I'm not saying anything new really. But I genuinely do think that Mike's roll in episode one, the reactions to it, and the missed shot it corresponds with were meant to foreshadow the monologue and how they wanted the audience to receive it.

This is fiction, everything means something. Everything is thought of. The timer (and maybe scores, I genuinely can't remember) in the basketball game had significance. Other rolls in the DND game had significance. Why would that be any different for Mike? Especially when his roll was a nine and that number shows up for him again when he says "I love you" nine times. And both of these things are associated with failure.

Not that we need any other reason to interpret the monologue as a less than good thing. It's just the way that it is, it's pretty easy to figure out how they wanted us to take it. But they still did give us a hint. I think it's really cool.

[best-transgender-character]

Hi everyone. I've been putting some thought into the best way to bring this up without making light of it, since this is a serious topic and this is a very unserious blog. I don't want to reblog a bunch of individual posts without context and explanations attached, but if I find posts that I feel are thorough and explain what is going on, I may reblog them. Here is a summary, for anyone completely unaware of what is happening:

A trans woman (Rita, URL was Predstrogen, now Cyprederone) has had her account falsely flagged as NSFW and banned multiple times as a result of a transmisogynistic harassment campaign against her. You may have seen people talking about how her transition timeline has been flagged mature content, multiple times.

Support have been unhelpful when it comes to the harassment, and dubiously helpful about restoring accounts until this latest event.

People reached out to Photomatt about the topic, who is the CEO of Tumblr. He decided to respond, claiming that Rita was personally harassing him and posting death threats about him. This does not line up with the official reason why Rita was banned, which was "sexually explicit materials". The "death threat" was a slapstick post about an exploding car full of hammers. Matt threatened to contact the police or FBI about the threat, used neutral pronouns for Rita despite being informed of her pronouns, and even referred to her as 'it' in one sentence. He referred to Rita as "pergstrogen" in one post, which may be a particularly unfortunate typo, but may also be an ableist slur. He also sent people direct messages about the topic. Matt denied any possibility of transmisogyny playing a part, and suggested that people who feel this site is not safe for trans women should just leave to a different site.

Rita has been banned for life. Several people criticising Matt for this have also been banned.

Please pay attention to this, read other posts about it, look at Photomatt's blog (archived as of 21/02) to see the way he has handled this and Cyprederone's blog to see Rita's statement.

Here are all of Photomatt's posts about the topic, please check the notes of them to see people's responses as well as people archiving his comments. Edit: These posts have been deleted. I'm unsure if there is an archive somewhere of the comments, but these links are now the webarchive links to these posts.

You gonna do anything or make any statement about the rampant transmisogyny on this hellsite (original post with they/them) (first edit with "the account") (second edit with she/her) (archive of most recent edit)

I love this site and I’m sorry so many people are determined to ruin it.

So, the terfs and neonazis are fine, but a trans women giving threatening you is where you draw the line?

You should really feel bad about how transphobic tumblr is

all you ever do is drop the ban hammer on trans women you don't like, while casually ignoring the harassment they face

can I report your beahviour, or?

it's been four hours and nothing you've said has made this decision look better

Why did you misgender her lmao

❤ (heart emoji) [I don't yet have an archive of this. Please reach out if you have an archive of this, although there wasn't much relevant in this post.]

I'm continuing to get harassment and death threats here

My Beliefs and Principles

Tweeting Rita's saved URLs

He is further arguing with people on Twitter.

[Edit] Staff have now made a PR statement about the topic.

Please give trans women your love and support, and remember that this is deeply serious transmisogyny, not just an excuse to joke about car hammer explosions.

[arosescrow]

you should say more. about the gregorian chants

OKAY!

So. Gregorian chants are, historically speaking, incredibly significant, as they're one of the first kinds of music to be recorded on paper in notation in Church history. A lot of modern church people really liked them in the 90s because, along with a very successful marketing campaign by the particular monks responsible for the album in the original post, they saw it as an opportunity to bring sacred rhythms back into everyday life. An awful lot of Church tradition is about being connected with the past, and the rest of it is about looking to the future, so having this tradition from the past brought into the present was likely a big selling factor.

In addition, New Age spirituality got ahold of Gregorian Chant when this album came out. No matter if you were part of the Church or even any church at all, the unique qualities of Gregorian chant (in marked contrast to pop and rock music of the day) lent themselves to meditation, and the aforementioned rhythms of the day likely also appealed to at least some of the non-Christian listeners. I don't know a lot about modern spirituality or even New Age spirituality, so if someone wants to add to this post I'd love to see it.

Now we get to the really neat part, the part that I'm actually good at and can definitively say something about. This is the part that's full of jargon (or it should be), and I'll do my best to define it all for you.

Gregorian chant, as you can find on Wikipedia, is a part of an only slightly larger category called "Western plainchant". Western in this context refers to Europe, specifically Western Europe (the area around modern England, France, Germany, and to some extent Italy). Plainchant is a kind of monophonic (with only one melodic line and no harmony or accompaniment) music that was sacred, which means that this style was never used in the secular music of the day.

Gregorian chant comes in one of three "levels of complexity" so to speak, and in one of two "styles" (this is the wrong word but I can't think of the right one right now). The levels of complexity are: 1. Syllabic. The entire chant is made up of single syllables on individual notes, with rare or no instances of movement between notes on the same syllable. The melody could move, but it would not (as a general rule) have more than one note on any given syllable. 2. Neumatic. Most of the chant is made up of single syllables stretched out between 2-4 notes, with rare or no instances of movement between notes on the same syllable lasting for more or less notes than this. 3. Mellismatic. Most of the chant is made up of single syllables stretched out between more than 4 notes, up to a single syllable being used for an entire piece (later in the period, once people started to get freaky with it). I honestly don't remember very much about the styles but here you go @effemimaniac knowledge for you!

[oopsallfictives]

I'm gonna take a stab at creating an alternate definition of the word delusion, since I'm not a fan of the one commonly used in a medical context. This is gonna deal with some unreality and paranoia-inducing stuff, so read at your own risk.

The definition most commonly used for delusion is a false belief that a person can't be persuaded isn't real or true, even if they're shown evidence to the contrary. This is a flawed definition for a number of reasons, chief among them that sometimes people are just wrong and stubborn about it. We know that it can be incredibly difficult for people to change their minds once they're personally invested in an idea, but that's not the same as being delusional. A person who still believes vaccines cause autism probably isn't delusional, they're just personally invested in the idea because it validates their view that autism is bad and gives them a scapegoat to blame for the existence of autistic people. That's an ideology, not a delusion.

Another flaw is that some things can't necessarily be confirmed to be untrue. One of the most well-known (and commonly mocked) delusions is some variation of "the government is spying on me". This isn't something that's easily verified as either true on untrue, and it's also something that literally does happen to people. I live in the US, where we know the government spies on people. We know that in the wake of 9/11, US intelligence agencies undertook a massive campaign of surveillance of Muslim and Middle Eastern people living in the US. So "the government is spying on me" might not actually be a false belief, and you probably can't know that for sure.

Attempting to rely on a belief being false can be dangerous, too. I remember reading the story of a person who was labelled as delusional for saying Obama followed them on Twitter, and was incarcerated in a psych ward until they lied and said they'd realized they were delusional and Obama didn't follow them. The thing is, he did. It was true and verifiable, but the medical professional evaluating them refused to check if it was true so they didn't "encourage the delusion". Sane people tend to believe they have an absolute and correct understand of reality, and a lot of them would rather call you delusional than adjust their worldview. And if that person is a medical professional, they can completely turn your life upside down and stick you in conditions that the UN has called torture.

So here's my proposed alternative: a delusion is an involuntary belief that isn't rooted in logic or evidence, and that a person can't stop believing even if they know it isn't true.

Let's break that down. The involuntary part is important. Delusional people don't have control over our delusions. We don't believe them because we want to or because we think they're true, we just believe them. It's true that delusions can draw on voluntary beliefs, including bigotry, but believing the delusion isn't a choice. We can't just stop. In the case of delusions rooted in bigotry, the person is still responsible for holding those bigoted beliefs in the first place, even though they don't have control of the delusion that came from them. This is an important caveat, because people love to call bigots delusional for things they chose to believe.

The second part is that it's not rooted in any kind of logic or evidence. If a person believes something untrue due to faulty logic and/or misinformation, that's not a delusion. That's called being wrong.

Lastly, I chose the wording "even if they know it's not true" very deliberately. Some delusional people know, either always or sometimes, that our delusions aren't real or true. I personally always know, but that never stops me believing them. If you've never experienced this, it can be hard to imagine what it feels like to know something isn't true and still be unable to stop believing in it. It's contradictory and confusing and really hard to put into words. Of course, there are also delusional people who don't know their delusions aren't true, or who're confused and can't figure it out. It's not the same for everyone. This part of the definition also covers being presented evidence and being unable to accept it as true.

For some people, being told their delusions aren't true can also be extremely distressing and even push them further into it. Never reality check a delusional person unless they ask you to, or it's part of a crisis plan you made with them. The same goes for playing into or confirming a delusion. Do your best to remain neutral on whether or not their belief is true, and try to focus more on their emotions and how it's affecting them. If you know a psychotic person, it's a good idea to ask them (preferably while they're not having a psychotic episode) how they'd like you to handle it.

I'm open to critique from other psychotic people, but if you're aggressive or mean I'll probably just ignore you. This is just an idea, a rough draft, and I'd like to know what the community thinks. Nonpsychotics can reblog, but keep your thoughts to yourself

-Oliver (it/its)

[i-gwarth]

My thoughts on the aftermath of the [SPOILER] Quest

So earlier today, having gotten to a "Liked" level with all members of the Hex, I played through the Finale quest. It was very nice, and kind of what I expected. Spoilers follow

They now trust you enough to let you in via Transference, and you can help them to survive. Aoi's "you have the power" scene was the weakest of the bunch but I like her too much for that to be a real issue for me. I also genuinely loved the ending diorama, with the Drifter smiling, pizza party and fucking Amir being in two places at once.

The Hex are by far the most loveable set of NPCs this game has gotten since the Solaris people. They are all *delightful* and genuine and I cannot praise the performances enough. I also loved that Albrecht came across as a complete piece of shit in the main campaign, but ended on a more positive note in the Finale. The guy is at his best when he is 80% a scumbag and 20% a genuinely traumatized old man burning himself up trying to atone for his sins in a way that will cause a lot of casualties. The Deimos wall fragments were a good setup, but IMO he really shines through in the Albrecht's Journal codex entries. He reckons with the impossibility of doing good when his whole skillset and all of his experience (being immortal, an Orokin scientist, and dealing with the Indifference) stems from evil. It's good

But I have 2 negative pieces of feedback regarding post-finale content:

1. Rusalka. Where the FUCK is the Major? Guys you simply cannot make a character who looks and acts LIKE THAT and then put her in a demo and two cutscenes and nothing else. It is morally and ethically wrong, it is homophobic, it is the downfall of Western civilization as we know it, the sack of Rome and it makes me, specifically, sad. DE please consider bringing her back. Maybe she's the new face of the Indifference going forward

2. Arthur's message. "We made things right but now we have to keep them right"? "I guess you have to keep the loop going"? This is so bad it nearly undermines the otherwise excellent writing of the whole update. The Hex are a group trying to make a difference in a specific time and place. I get that Warframe relies on cyclical open-ended gameplay and there HAS to be a way for them to stay in the 1999 setting. But how is it "keeping things right" to re-do the same year, over and over again, ad infinidum? How is it helping the city if it's still infested on January 1sth, 2000, but the Hex are in a time loop? It is a meaningless cycle and the Hex "accepting" it is a horrible decision. Lettie is *distraught* at the idea of being stuck in the loop. She doesn't even think she's alive anymore.

I can't imagine there are no better ways to handle this. Maybe the Drifter offers them the OPTION to leave the loop (like the drifter themself has the option to leave Duviri and return whenever), but they choose to stay in it for a few more cycles to "understand" themselves? Maybe the Drifter loops back but the Hex themselves don't, and only partially remember previous cycles enough to retain standing/chemistry levels with them?

The hex are not like the people of Duviri, built out of whole cloth, aware of and at peace with an inherently cyclical (yet decaying) existence. They're people in a very gritty, realistic context, international aid workers trying to help in a crisis. It's isn't HELPING if the crisis continues in perpetuity like a carnival fair ride. They deserve better than to be made willing playthings

[fearnesbells]

so about that laudna-has-no-future 4sd chat...

marisha ray has throwaway lines and that is her god given right like anyone else and truly this may mean nothing

BUT

me personally i bluescreened when marisha said "what does laudna have to look forward to, she's dead" in response to a question of would laudna rather make contact with her future or past self.

i think laudna and her evolving worldview over the course of this campaign is sooooooo interesting so thoughts under the cut

"the worst thing that’s ever happened to me has already happened."

we all remember this! this is the response that laudna gave to orym when he softly pointed out that laudna seemed like she had the most positive outlook of the group. it was a central tenet of laudna's character up until that point, that despite the darkness that coated her soul, she was probably the one with the most zest for life.

she tended to believe the best in npcs that the party encountered. she had a rat marionette that got boners and made her laugh. she was wholeheartedly devoted to imogen and never, never believed that the end was the end.

and then, when orym asked her how she accomplished that, she responds in a framing of perspective.

she was murdered by the briarwoods at twenty years old. how can anything seem awful in comparison to that?

she died, and then she got to join an adventuring party. she died, and then she got to use her strange, eerie powers for good. she died, and then she met imogen.

she has hope because she's seen the lowest possible point her life can come to, and can only climb upwards from there.

she had a hope for a future, because of this. a good future. at least one that was better than the worst thing that had ever happened to her. and that future included imogen—

"can keep you from that. can keep us from that."

she had hope.

we all know this quote. this quote is the cottagecore lesbian life that marisha spoke to in four-sided dive. but i think to look at where laudna's at now, and to understand "what does laudna have to look forward to, she's dead", we have to look at the quote in greater context.

laudna is speaking to a possible future here. but in her words she's also saying that she understands that that future might mean abandoning what they feel called to do by the gods. in this moment, she's not guaranteeing a future, she's explaining to imogen that they have a choice.

and as of now, episode 82, arrived on the moon, they've made that choice. they're orpheus. they've descended into hell, and they can't look back if they want to make it out.

it's important to note that laudna wasn't lying way back in heartmoor when she was talking to orym. the worst thing that could ever happen to her had already happened. but she was operating then on her very human understanding of the world.

since then, she's died (again), been resurrected, seen magic beyond comprehension, and surrendered herself over to the spirit of her murderer that lives in her head.

there are no rules anymore. and laudna has learned that there is always something worse.

the quiet life she talked about with imogen might have been taken from her forever. the narrative has grown teeth and it has sunk them into both her and the woman she loves.

"what does laudna have to look forward to, she's dead"

she's orpheus, yeah? we know how this story ends. her love's been called to the hell planet by fate. she won't get out without losing something.

maybe—maybe—there's still hope for that cottage together somewhere. i don't mean to rule it out entirely. but i think that laudna herself, the character, has lost all belief in that possibility at this point. and that presents such a foil to the laudna that we met in episode 1.

sometimes the tragedy comes built-in.

even if. even when.

(all quotes pulled from critical role wiki's transcripts page)

[i-prefer-the-fictional-world]

Hi I'm the Anon that mentioned Blake's link to Allen and Weinstein

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/blake-lively-woody-allen-cafe-society-working-907665/

https://betches.com/blake-lively-controversies-plantation-wedding-harvey-weinstein/

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/12/27/how-blake-lively-once-complicated-her-advocacy-against-hollywood-predators/

The issue is people are not willing to see that she did not simply have empathy for the victims excusing her behavior saying "there is no perfect victim" not realizing how dangerous that isAnd saying her career could ruin don't you think the multiple actors and actresses supported the victims were also risking their career by speaking up?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41580010.amp

And now even though there are rumors it is interesting to note that even "reportedly" Taylor is also distancing herself from Blake.

Hi Anon. It is so not pleasant to see you again.

First of all the hollywood report link you sent me is the wrong link. This is the right link.

Second the quote is about Harvey Weinstein not Woody Allen.

Third I knew. I knew, I knew I KNEW that, that quote you sent me, that Blake said 'that was not my experience with him" was taken out of context and guess what? It was.

Blake did technically say those words but she also said that

"I think that if people hear these stories... I do believe in humanity enough to think that this wouldn't have just continued"

And

"I never heard any stories like this - I never heard anything specific - but it's devastating to hear"

And

"As important as it is to remain furious about this, it's important to also say that this exists everywhere so remember to look everywhere. This isn't a single incident. This cannot happen, this should not happen, and it happens in every single industry."

She also talks about how sexual assault is normalised and she has had plenty of things happen to her, like say if a director grabbed her butt she wouldn't think it was sexual assault even though it was. She talks about how important it is that we are furious about sexual assault and that we stay furious and that we don't just focus on these few stories but on humanity as a whole.

Honestly reading this article makes me sympathize with Blake even more.

I am not surprised that the ant* Blake camp is taking that one singular line out of context and are just running with it. Because that line implies that Blake doesn't actually believe Harvey Weinstein's victims when it's absolutely not true.

The reason I believed from the start that, that specific quote was taken out of context is because it's normal for reporter to ask 'this person has done these awful things, have they done something like this to you?' and it's normal for person responding to say 'no that wasn't my experience but I believe the allegations against that person.'

I haven't actually looked that much into Blake so when people said that she likes Weinstein I didn't go fact checking if it was true or not, because even if she does I was still very much going to Believe her. But from what I've read it doesn't seem like she's all that fond of him.

Anon I'm going to take a guess as to what happened here. You got sucked into tiktok/youtube wormhole of drama bait anti Blake content where no one does their due diligence and everyone is just looking for anything and everything they can find to use against Blake. So when I asked for source about the Woody Allen quote you went looking for a credible source and found the betches article which was published in January 2025 after this "drama" started which tries to take the quote out of context from a 2017 article when the allegations against Weinstein were first made. The betches article also regurgitates all of the smear campaign talking points because they even come to the actual point. I think you don't like Blake Lively and you went looking for "valid" reasons to justify how you feel.

The 2017 article is titled - Balke Lively on Harvey Weinstein claims : "it's devastating to hear". Gee I wonder why. Also the terrible Flaa interview where they talk about liking Weinstein's work was from 2016, the allegation against him became well known in 2017. And even though she does not say in these exact words it's very clear to me that Blake Lively wishes that allegations against him would have come out/became well known sooner.

And finally about Taylor Swift. I've been a Swiftie long enough to know better than to believe 'Taylor hates her friends!!!' headlines. I'm going to talk about that in detail later but Baldoni's team does not want Swifties on Blake's side hence these rumors. But let's pretend for a second that it's actually true and Taylor is keeping her distance from Blake. What does that prove? Amber Heard has talked about how the smear campaign against her affected her friendships and how her close friends who stood by her started keeping their distance from her because of how the media portrayed her. And then you see something similar happening to Blake Lively and think hmm Blake is clearly the problem here? Are you serious?

I'm not going to respond to asks like these anymore because they are just a massive waste of time. Anon I hope you have a terrible day for wasting my time.

[utilitycaster]

Hi!

Outside of the obvious issues within the Campaign, One point i haven't seen talked about was how 4sD wasn't really a good way to find out why characters did certain thing or thought a certain way, the what the fuck is up with that section was the closest because the players and Dani would talk and ask eachother, though i believe that they also do that outside of the game, or talked about it on cooldown, but the questions selected for the tower of the deep dive often leaned into a fanfic-y narratives (mostly Tower, but sure i guess we need to know what their favourite ice cream flavors would be, for fun i guess)

I think cooldown is the closest to what i would have rather liked from 4sD but that's behind a paywall.

Do you think the format affected the way the audience engaged with the characters? or would it be like with Molly in C2 where Tal said that he was absolutely not a good guy but the critters insisted he was just misunderstood and actually a saint (hyperbole)

Hi anon,

4SD definitely impacted how people engaged with the characters, but if it hadn't existed the sort of person who cherrypicks out of context lines from 4SD would have just made things up whole cloth to support whatever they wanted a la Campaign 2. I also don't think 4SD is like, a problem. I agree there were flaws in the format, but also...I didn't ever watch Talks for Vox Machina (I did for Campaign 2 but as I binge-watched C1 I didn't have time and I didn't bother) and I understood the story just fine. I think that if you need a talkback shows to understand a character's motivations, either that is a flaw of the text for not showing them, or you are a stupid person. A great example is Bowlgate: Talks addressed explicitly why this conflict happened, but if you had, perhaps, watched the show, you would already know that Caleb had issues with abuses of power and massive problems with trust that often manifested as control issues, and Beau had control issues from the opposite direction that were no less explained by her past, and they understandably clashed, and while I personally agreed with Beau's assessment here neither of them expressed themselves very well, and it was a great moment of conflict in a game where conflict is interesting, and I also at no point was like "oh my god Liam and Marisha hate each other" because I understand the concept of acting. I actually, as someone avoiding the fandom at the time but watching Talks each week, was stunned to hear this had even been a controversy when I tuned in.

I think there are two much bigger factors in how the fandom engages:

social media and especially algorithmic short-form social media creating echo chambers. Like, obviously I am biased but I think the reason why so many of the most rancid and incorrect opinions from this campaign are from Twitter and so many of the most rancid and incorrect people are as well is that on Twitter, saying buzzwords tends to get eyes on your post, and it's all very short so you don't have to explain yourself, and it's based on instant gratification and if you say something stupid in the past it's easier for people to move on because it's hard to find, whereas like, on Tumblr, people have longer memories and if someone doesn't explain themselves they can't point to a character limit. I think without like, Twitter, bowlgate would have been much smaller a phenomenon. I think a major flaw of 4SD is that they've addressed things brought up on Twitter that aren't even a controversy but are actually just incredibly fucking stupid (Relvin not saying the exact words "I love you" is the one I'm remembering off the top of my head but this has been a problem for a WHILE).

The biggest one: I have mentioned blorbo-centric morality and you alluded to how people thought Molly was a saint and I just think for whatever reason Campaign 3 attracted a MASSIVE number of people like that. 4SD doesn't even enter here; if it exists they'll use it but if not they'll again make shit up or cherry pick or misinterpret. The core of all C3 discourse, at this point, is that some people will defend literally anything Bells Hells do no matter what. This is why you are seeing people who insisted the gods were, as someone said, tall kings who needed to be dethroned (killed) and were colonizers and murderers suddenly pivot praising a plan that lets them live and oh how compassionate Bells Hells are. You got people who defended indecision on this topic earlier; who said there were no good options but were too squeamish to actually explore that if their are no good options their darling little angels will get their hands dirty no matter what. The No Agency crowd. It's utterly spineless and amoral; they will abandon whatever argument they had to pivot to the aimless whims of Bells Hells. So 4SD gives them more material in their endless pivoting but they'd do this anyway.

So the format was like, fun as a hangout show but not great as a talkback at times, but it really wasn't a major factor because idiots are gonna be stupid no matter what. With that said while there were things about 4SD I liked I kind of wish they could go back to a more Talks-esque format, obviously with like, a better host. I also think that it might be better to permit fan-submitted questions in real time and air the episodes a few months later, particularly since as mentioned the crew often asked questions from a while ago. I also think doing this as a big thing monthly might be easier on the schedule but meant that we heard a LOT from cast members who were frequently available even if if their characters weren't doing much that was interesting. I would ideally like to go to like, every other week, shorter and more casual, with fan-submissions through a web form collected during the week following an episode so that like. we wouldn't get Talkback Show For 119 for maybe a month but it would actually be about that.

[ax3-e0ns]

So there was a post I made ages back- I think back when Roleslaying with Roman was wrapping up Roman and Youngblood's escape from the City? I'm not entirely sure since I can't find it anymore even though I don't remember deleting the post. But the core of the post's mentality expressed was something along the lines of:

"Roleslaying is a great series from the perspective of a Sanders Sides fan because it allows us to explore the sides from a perspective outside of being reflections of Ch!Thomas's personality/mind. It serves a a nice reference for AU's."

& I wanna re-explore this, both from the context of what the series did end up giving us plus the reality that we're very unlikely to get a new installment. Because looking back, I was not looking at the series as it's own property & that's a glaring problem.

Looking back, it's obvious that the reason I and a lot of Sanders Sides fans initially looked at Roleslaying as 'additional Sanders Sides fuel' is because of how much the initial series was so heavily referencing Sanders Sides. The series was named after one of the characters & Thomas plays as said character. But doing so ignored the fact that Thomas's friends and staff were clearly aiming to create their own thing out of Roleslaying. Which effectively set an expectation for the series that it was never gonna fill.

This problem was most noticeable back when the series was first announced & people were speculating that Youngblood was actually Virgil in the story, which was before it was clarified that Youngblood was Terrence's D&D character for their campaign. But then the first episode came out & it made everything clear that the focus is not meant to be on Thomas's works, even if there will be easter eggs/ references.

This hype got picked back up when Doc Janus was revealed. Within the thumbnail itself it was hinting to this character, even though if you rewatch the episode Doc Janus doesn't really have a significant role outside of selling a potion to the duo. & realistically I really think that the involvement of the Sides should've remained there, as NPC's that don't have a major role in the main conflict, but can be interacted with for an item or for random bits of world building. Not out of any dislike to the Sides, but more-so because Roleslaying isn't the Sides' story, they have their own series to explore what the sides would be like as people outside of himself, if Thomas wanted to do that.

& the problem of the Sides' getting too much spotlight in a narrative that was clearly not meant to focus on them was further exasperated when Lilypadton became way more integral to the Frog Mafia arc. Because while there was the obvious attempt to make the narrative focus on this world & characters set up at the start, It kept getting swooped up or glossed over in favor of more Frog Patton with the Kermit the Frog doppelganger. (In the sense of what the audience ended up focusing on, which frankly I'm also guilty of)

I think the best part of roleslaying was when they went to the city. It was when the series was the most of it's own story. Which is frustrating because of that false expectation that was set up crossed with how much better the series would be if it was given that room to be it's own series.

[menfenced]

I've seen a lot of posts in the last 24 hours about why Kamala lost and I feel like most of them are failing to actually look at reasons voters are giving. Instead, they're putting forward what they personally didn't like about Kamala's campaign. But here's the thing to remember... You didn't like that thing about Kamala's campaign. You still voted for her. There's something else going on.

Because people didn't just vote against Kamala. They voted FOR Trump, and early polling results are showing they did it across the board in almost every demographic.

I've seen the calls for investigations into voter fraud and voter suppression because "this doesn't just happen!" and I agree with one thing. This doesn't "just" happen. There's a reason and democrats aren't listening. Because it's not just a handful of counties that got hacked or had crazy people trying to stop votes or didn't get all of their ballots counted. That's not to say that none of that stuff happened, of course. There may have been serious issues in some counties. But across the board, in nearly every state and every county, even if he didn't outright win, Trump made gains. The only two states where he didn't make gains: Washington State and Utah.

If that's due to voter fraud or hacked elections, it would have to be on a scale unlike anything we have ever seen before and honestly, we don't have any evidence of that right now.

So what happened? What do we know?

We know that since the pandemic and since the record inflation that caused, incumbent leaders all over the world have been losing elections at higher rates than usual. That crosses all political persuasions and again, has been seen across the globe.

Based on polling prior to the election, which remained fairly consistent throughout the election run, 3/4 US voters think the country is on the wrong track and 2/3 are unhappy with the economy.

Biden's approval rating when this election started was 40-41%

This is all a recipe for an incumbent losing, which to be frank, most people still saw Kamala as, even though she was running instead of Biden.

In addition to all of that, let's look at what the exit polls showed.

Kamala's approval rating in the exit polls was 48.5%

Donald Trump's approval ratings in the exit polls was 44.54%

And I know he wasn't running, but just for context Biden's approval ratings were 40%

When asked if Harris's views were too extreme, 46% said yes, 51% said no.

When asked if Trump's views were too extreme, 55% said yes, 43% said no.

So how did he win?

People like him less and think he's more extreme. Why did they vote for him?

Well, let's look at some other polling data.

45% of voters said that their family's personal financial situation was worse off than it was four years ago.

Only 25% said their financial situation was better than it was 4 years ago.

75% of people polled said that in the last year, inflation has caused them either severe or moderate hardship.

When asked who can bring needed change, 73% of voters said Trump and only 25% said Harris.

What that means is that a majority of American's don't like Trump. They don't think he's a good person. They think he's too extreme. And yet they still voted for him because the issue that was most important in this election was the economy.

Will Trump be better for the economy?

No.

But there's a perception that the current administration did not do everything they could have to fix it and people were willing to roll the dice on someone different.

Maybe we could have done more. Kamala only had 110 days to make her case and no matter what she said, the fact remained that she is the sitting VP. Maybe there was no way for her to escape the incumbent/status quo perception.

I hope we can learn something from the behavior of the American electorate this year, and I really hope Trump doesn't fuck things up too bad before we get another chance to step in, because the Republican Party is learning things too. They're learning that they can be as extreme as they want, but if they can make people believe the economy will work better under their leadership, even if it's not true, they'll still get votes.

[evidence-based-activism]

regarding your vote post, I’m pro trump and not homophobic at all. It’s insane that you all believe this. Trump was the ONLY president to be PRO gay marriage even before taking the office. If you remember back when Obama was in office he was against it for years. Then he came around to it. Biden was against it then came around to it. Trump was the only one who was pro gay rights/ gay marriage before taking office. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Also people bring him up being “misogynistic” for that audio of him saying “grab them by the p” which was taken completely out of context. Let’s talk about the point he was actually making which is that when you’re rich there are women out there ( we all know the kind to which he was referring) who will allow you to do anything or act anyway. He said you could “grab them by the p” and they wouldn’t care.

I'm bumping this up the queue given the current election timeline. So, here you go Anon (and audience):

"regarding your vote post"

They mean this post, where I implore everyone who cares about women (and other similar groups/causes) to vote for Harris (and down your ticket) in the upcoming US election. Check it out!

"I’m pro trump and not homophobic at all. It’s insane that you all believe this."

It's insane to me that anyone can actually believe that "supporting Trump" and "not being homophobic" are not mutually exclusive. You are supporting a man – and a party – that wants to dismantle the rights and protections of the LGB community.

I'll detail all the ways he's hostile in another section. First,

"Trump was the ONLY president to be PRO gay marriage even before taking the office"

This is just factually inaccurate.

In 2011, on Fox News [1]:

"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."

In 2015, on CNN [2]:

"I’m just for traditional marriage.”

In 2016 (election year), on Fox News [3]:

WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage? TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes.

"If you remember back when Obama was in office he was against it for years. Then he came around to it."

In the meantime, Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA, explicitly stated his support for same-sex marriage, and signed an executive order protecting LGBT employees working for government contractors [4].

Did Obama start out opposing same-sex marriage? Yeah, and that was terrible. But he also opposed (and pledged to repeal) the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – which was, I must stress, a bipartisan policy at the time, supported ‘strong civil unions’ that ensured the same rights as marriage, and pledged to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – all during his campaign.

And the thing is, most people at that time opposed same-sex marriage [5]. In 2004, 60% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 31% supported it. By 2019, this flipped with 61% supporting same-sex marriage and 31% opposing it.

All this is to say, that at the time, Obama's policies concerning same-sex relationships and discrimination protection for same-sex attracted people, were overtly liberal. More so than even the wider Democratic party or the American public as a whole.

The fact that he was responsive to the public, and became more supportive over time, Anon, is actually a sign of a good politician.

In contrast to all of this, Trump's explicit anti-gay campaign rhetoric took place during a time of unprecedented tolerance and acceptance of gay people, even among Republican moderates/leaners.

"Biden was against it then came around to it."

Biden "came around to it" around 2012, where he said [6]:

"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men and women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying men and women are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties and, quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that."

You'll note that 2012 is before 2020, meaning that Biden was the actual first President to be pro-gay marriage prior being President. (You'll also note that this was around the same time as Trump explicitly stating he opposed gay marriage.)

"Trump was the only one who was pro gay rights/ gay marriage before taking office."

I have explained in detail how you are wrong about this above. In addition to that, let's take a look at Trump's actual track record for gay rights:

Attempted to deny citizenship children born abroad to married same-sex parents [7]

Supported allowing adoption agencies to refuse same-sex parents on the basis of them being homosexual [8]

Appointed dozens of homophobic judges with a track record of anti-gay rulings/statements [9]

Removed or restricted protections based on sexual orientation in health care, and, just as importantly, failed to enact any protections [10]

Asked the Supreme Court to allow employers to fire workers on the basis of their sexual orientation, and, just as importantly, failed to enact any sexuality-based employment protections [11]

Selected a Vice President (Pence) with a long history of anti-gay remarks and legislation [12]

Prevented essential data collection about the LGBT community [13]

And a lot more general (e.g., immigration, economic) policies that, while not directed specifically at gay/bisexual people, still negatively affected the communities

"You have no idea what you’re talking about."

I have listened to Trump's words and watched Trump's actions and seen substantial proof that he – at the very least – would sacrifice homosexual/bisexual people to achieve his goals (e.g., winning the election, persuading Republicans on other issues, etc.). His actions have threatened our rights and encouraged hatred of and violence against our community [14].

Tell me Anon, what exactly are you talking about?

---

"Also people bring him up being “misogynistic” for that audio of him saying “grab them by the p” which was taken completely out of context. Let’s talk about the point he was actually making which is that when you’re rich there are women out there ( we all know the kind to which he was referring) who will allow you to do anything or act anyway. He said you could “grab them by the p” and they wouldn’t care."

Yes, Anon, let's talk about that audio. Let's talk about his exact words [15]:

"I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

And let's count all the ways this is misogynistic:

Admittance of sexual harassment/sexual assault ("I don't even wait.")

Justification of sexual harassment/sexual assault ("they let you do it. You can anything")

Support of the "rape is irresistible/uncontrollable" rape myth ("just in case I start kissing her", "it's like a magnet")

Support of the "women secretly want it" rape myth ("they let you do it")

Support of the "some women deserve to be assaulted" rape myth (in this case the "some women" are presumably women in proximity to rich men)

Objectification and sexualization of women ("grab them by the pussy")

Let's talk about your implied support for many of these ("we all know the kind to which he was referring"), as if any behavior could ever justify sexual harassment/assault.

Let's talk about all the other objectifying, sexualizing, harassing, misogynistic comments he's made [15, 16]:

"She's probably deeply troubled, and therefore great in bed. How come the deeply troubled women — deeply, deeply troubled — they're always the best in bed?" About his daughter, Tiffany Trump: ' "Well, I think that she's got a lot of Marla. She's a really beautiful baby, and she's got Marla's legs." Motioning to his chest, Trump added: "We don't know whether she's got this part yet, but time will tell." ' About his other daughter, Ivanka Trump "She does have a very nice figure ... if [she] weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?" "I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I'm more honest and my women are more beautiful." “They said, ‘How are you going to change the pageant?’ I said ‘I’m going to get the bathing suits to be smaller and the heels to be higher’.” “It must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees”

This is just a small sample of what he's said publicly, Anon.

Not enough? Then let's talk about the dozens of women who have accused him of sexual assault and harassment [17]. (I guess they didn't really "let you do it", more like "couldn't stop it".) Let's talk about how many more there must be, who have not been able to come forward.

Let's talk about how a jury has found Trump did in fact rape at least one women [18]. (And about all the ways our legal system is broken, that this had to taken to a civil court.)

(And what act, Anon, could be more misogynistic than rape?)

More than that Anon, let's talk about all the ways Trump and his administration has hurt women (and other, connected, vulnerable groups):

Limiting access to abortion and contraception [19, 10]

Appointing three anti-choice justices to Supreme Court and claiming credit for overturning Roe v. Wade [19, 10]

Targeting anti-discrimination and equal-pay programs which will harm working women [20]

Advancing economic policies that will affect all poor and middle class individuals, but particularly women [10, 20-22], including, but not limited to: threatening Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, housing and rental assistance, and cash assistance; threatening child care assistance/family leave; cutting the National Domestic Violence Hotline budget; threatening global health cooperation; threatening unions; etc.

And remember how he took credit for overturning Roe v. Wade [19, 10]? That was via his nomination of anti-choice Supreme Court justices. And let's all remember that, in his concurrent opinion , Justice Clarence Thomas stated:

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell"

Which, if you're not familiar, refers to the court cases that protects women's right to contraception without government restriction, made it legal for homosexual people to have sex, and legalized gay marriage. (And, while we're at it, let's all remember that, as recently as 2003, states could make consensual, homosexual, sex illegal. Let's all remember the states that still have sodomy laws on the books, just in case Lawrence is overturned.)

So, let's mark that down as another way Trump has threatened the rights of women and gays. And let's all remember that the next President will – most likely – be appointing Supreme Court justices that will determine whether the court upholds or rescinds these very basic rights.

---

And, also, just for fun, let's also remember all the ways Trump and his administration has threatened and harmed the environment [24, 25].

---

In summary, Trump is a homophobic, misogynistic, rapist who will trample the rights of the poor and the vulnerable.

This is the man you support, Anon. These are the actions you endorse.

And for everyone else, please, go vote.

References below the cut:

Clark, D. (2016, August 15). Donald Trump is against same-sex marriage. @politifact. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/15/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

Donald Trump on CNN’s State of the Union: “I’m in it to win it… I will make our country great again.” (2015, June). https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/06/28/donald-trump-on-cnns-state-of-the-union-im-in-it-to-win-it-i-will-make-our-country-great-again/

Fox News. (2016, January 31). Ted Cruz attacks Donald Trump’s financial record; Trump responds. Archived at http://archive.today/2016.05.05-023428/http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/31/ted-cruz-attacks-donald-trump-financial-record-trump-responds/

Steinmetz, K. (2015, April 10). See obama’s 20-year evolution on lgbt rights. TIME. https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/

Attitudes on same-sex marriage. (2019, May 14). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Crowley, M. (2023, March 17). Tracking the shift before Biden’s same-sex marriage epiphany. @politifact. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/17/tracking-the-shift-after-joe-bidens-same-sex-marri/

Trump administration loses fight to stop child born abroad to gay couple from becoming US citizen. (2020, October 16). The Independent. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/trump-same-sex-marriage-parents-children-citizenship-b938265.html

Adoption agency should be able to reject gay couples, Trump administration argues. (2020, June 4). NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/adoption-agency-should-be-able-reject-gay-couples-trump-administration-n1224911

Lambda Legal. (2021). Courts, Confirmations, & Consequences: How Trump Restructured the Federal Judiciary and Ushered in a Climate of Unprecedented Hostility toward LGBTQ+ People and Civil Rights. Retrieved from https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/judicial_report_2020.pdf

Compare trump and harris health care records and positions. (n.d.). KFF. https://www.kff.org/compare-2024-candidates-health-care-policy/

Garza, A. de la. (2019, August 25). Trump administration asks supreme court to legalize workplace discrimination against gay employees. TIME. https://time.com/5660956/trump-administration-anti-gay-brief-title-vii/

Drabold, W. (2016, July 15). Here’s what mike pence said on lgbt issues over the years. TIME. https://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/

Wang, H. L. (2018, September 20). Trump officials “did not want” census survey to ask about sexual orientation. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649752485/trump-officials-did-not-want-census-survey-to-ask-about-sexual-orientation

Lohr, D. (2018, January 22). Report shows massive increase in anti-lgbtq violence since trump took office. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lgbtq-violence-trump_n_5a625035e4b002283002897b

Schwartz, R., & Lange, T. W. U. last updated C. from J. (2024, September 20). 87 things Donald Trump has said about women. Theweek. https://theweek.com/donald-trump/655770/61-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women

All the sexist things Donald Trump has said. (2016, October 9). The Independent. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-sexist-quotes-comments-tweets-grab-them-by-the-pussy-when-star-you-can-do-anything-women-fat-pigs-dogs-slobs-blood-her-wherever-miss-piggy-miss-housekeeping-insults-hispanic-hillary-a7353006.html

González-Ramírez, Andrea. (2024, October 24). Trump Accused of Sexual Misconduct for the 27th Time.Archived at http://archive.today/2024.10.25-185528/https://www.thecut.com/article/new-trump-allegation-stacey-williams.html

Blake, Aaron. (2023, July 19). Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll. Archived at http://archive.today/2024.05.03-172431/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

Ranji, U., Salganicoff, A., Sanchez, B. C., & Published, L. S. (2024, October 1). Harris v. Trump: Records and positions on reproductive health. KFF. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/harris-v-trump-records-and-positions-on-reproductive-health/

McGahey, R. (2024, October 9). Trump’s economic policies will hurt working women. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2024/10/09/trumps-economic-policies-will-hurt-working-women/

100 Days, 100 Ways the Trump Administration Is Harming Women and Families (2017, April 25). Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-days-100-ways-trump-administration-harming-women-families/

Trump administration budgets and social programs. (n.d.). Brookings. Retrieved October 27, 2024, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-administration-budgets-and-programs-for-people-of-limited-means/

Sullivan, B. (2022, June 24). These 3 Supreme Court decisions could be at risk after Roe v. Wade was overturned. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096732347/roe-v-wade-implications-beyond-abortion

Gross, S. (2020, August 4). What is the Trump administration’s track record on the environment? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-the-trump-administrations-track-record-on-the-environment/

Popovich, N., Albeck-Ripka, L., & Pierre-Louis, K. (2020, October 16). The trump administration rolled back more than 100 environmental rules. Here’s the full list. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

[fleshengine]

What does this mean? (Not a dm so get fucked)

okay so it's been quite a while but that's how I am with asks. If I don't answer them immediately they get forgotten and buried.

Anyway. Twodee is a character in the Shadowrun Storytime greentext. It started as a tha/tg/uy story on 4chan's /tg/ board but people liked it so the op wrote out the whole thing which was I believe a multi-year shadowrun campaign where only one character made it through the whole thing.

Twodee was the hacker for the group for most of the story, only being replaced by Wildcard after going corporate at the end of the "Twotimes arc." The Twotimes Arc consisted of the group being contracted by Ares Macrotechnology to hunt down the enigmatic hacker known as Twotimes, not to be confused with the less than subtle hacker known at Twodee. Anyway name jokes squared away (haha) in order to hunt down Twotimes, the team had to track down members of his old shadowrunning gang and get them to each give up a communication satelite's access code which would allow them to triangulate the position of Twotimes' bunker. In order to check the validity of the codes, Twodee in his brilliant wisdom would immediately attempt to dive the satelites and be bombarded with the communication traffic of a good chunk of the planet. Now I don't think there's rules-as-written for processing that much data at once. There's a couple different ways I could see someone roleplaying it. The information could be overwhelming and Twodee barfs everywhere and then goes into a coma. It could just instantly fry his little nerd brain. There's lots of options really. Being the gigantic weirdos they are tho, they just had Twodee cum in his pants really hard. For each successive satelite he dove, he came harder than the last, and I think the third one actually knocked him out.

I don't even remember the context for that screencap tbh. But I figured I'd finally get this out of my inbox. I really like the SR storytime story and have relistened to it (there's a shitty TTS on youtube) multiple times over the years. It makes me want to play the game so much.

[hawkins-batman]

Hi! How are you?

Look, I'm writing this because I really want to educate myself. I read your posts, the one you pinned, the ones you write to, and most things because I honestly believe that Noah doesn't deserve any of the bad that is wished upon him. Idk, as a pseudo adult that I am and was here when the whole cancel culture was born (and I've seen it grow over the years) I feel like this obviously transcended. I actually think you're doing the right thing by defending Noah. I agree that if you see something bad or unfair happening and you do nothing you're responsible too. And even if we're wrong and Noah is what they say he is (which I really don't believe) no one deserves death threats and all the other nonsense he's had to read. People who say that forgot that they're not God to judge anyone and if they think they have the moral high ground to attack him like that someone needs to tell them how wrong they are to their face. I guess behind a screen we are all "brave enough to speak up" (however hypocritical I may seem saying this anonymously).

The thing is, I have friends that I don't discuss this with because I feel like I don't have all the information even though I fervently believe that Noah is the sweetest person and would never wish/support what Israel is doing to Palestine, and that's why I'm writing to you. And after this long introduction...

I read the image where he explains how the stickers thing was taken out of context (as I understand it) and I just went to watch the whole video again. I'm having a hard time finding an explanation because even though he notices very quickly what's happening and puts down the phone and stops recording/smiling, at first he does it. At first he laughs like everyone else and if it's his friends who put those kinds of stickers on their foreheads to make fun of it, it's even harder for me to feel like I can defend him. I feel very conflicted about it.

I hope you can answer me, thanks<3

I think focusing on the stickers or even his reaction to them is the wrong approach.

Getting caught up in the argument about what the stickers say was the first thing people did. When that failed, because he obviously didn’t have them himself, people go to his reaction and try to imply all kinds of crazy shit from that (that he was laughing at dead Palestinians, which is patently fucking ridiculous).

I focus on how people reacted to the video itself. Even if you think he reacted in poor taste (I don’t), the question is: does this video justify a smear campaign that has included death threats, rape threats, doxxing, homophobia (slurs, accusations he was spreading MPox on set), antisemitism (“Well, if only he wasn’t raised by Jews, he wouldn’t be like this”) and the harassment of his family to the point of forcing his mom to actively combat people in her own comments sections on her personal socials?

The answer is? Of course not.

Do not give people the concession of even talking about the stickers. That shifts the blame off of them and onto their victim. Put the behavior you’re seeing directed at Noah in the spot light and don’t let them run away from it.

If they cannot wholeheartedly denounce that behavior or, worse, think it’s justified, then there’s no need to talk about the stickers at all. They’ve got faaaar worse issues than stickers if this is the behavior they’ll justify.

And, on a related side note, Noah is famous in this fandom for being unbelievably sweet to his fans when they see him in public. Both word of mouth and videos/pictures of him meeting people out in the wild bear this out. It doesn’t surprise me that he was smiling at a waitress who recognized him and interacted with him, or even that he chuckles awkwardly along with his friends.

There was a guy a year or so back that recalled meeting Noah for the second time, and when he asked Noah if he remembered him, the guy could tell Noah didn’t, but in an effort to make him feel at ease and not awkward, Noah smiled, nodded along, and gave him a hug anyways.

That’s just how the guy is.

People are really brave for trying to make him out as some sort of villain for smiling in a video that’s being taken OF him, when I know it they had a camera trained on them 24/7, even the leftiest of lefties would be caught reacting in a manner that could be misconstrued as problematic.

And judging from the way they react when little old me calls them out on homophobia and antisemitism, I rather doubt they’d think receiving the treatment Noah has would be a fair reaction.

[scribblue]

Speaking as someone who loves Dareth I hate the way his misogyny is written.

I mean I don't want it to exist in the first place, given that Nya already faces sexism from pretty much every angle, and in the context of the whole publicity campaign thing she was recieving enough of it from the public already without Dareth excluding her from every opportunity and offering makeup segments etc. Do I understand its inclusion anyway? Sort of. I suppose it is "realistic" in the context of Dareth playing the sleazy manager role, because that is the tragic reality for a lot of women and teenage girls in the entertainment industry. I also HC that Dareth represses his homosexuality which, unfortunately, sometimes leads to misogyny in the real world. So I can't exactly write it off as something Dareth isn't capable of or that isn't necessary to the story or Nya's development at all–

However.

If it is going to be included, I would have really preferred Dareth to have an arc where he learns the things he said/the beliefs he held were wrong, akin to Sokka's arc in ATLA. Like let Nya beat Dareth up over that comment, let him see how wrong he was, let him at the very least apologize to her for his past actions. I know that sometimes misogynists are just that, and anyone can harbor those beliefs without changing or realizing they need to. Even people that seem "safe." But Dareth is a recurring character and a friend to the ninja, not just some random shmuck in the entertainment business they'll never see again. I would really have liked to see at least a tiny bit of growth from him. Even if Nya would never forgive him she is, at the very least, owed that apology and acknowlegement.

Anyway I saw someone talking about this earlier and it made me remember how much I hated this writing decision that's all

[sneeg-snag]

The hero’s journey and Shilo, an in depth analysis.

HI GUYSSS I was tasked with outlining how a character of my choice followed the twelve step process of the hero's journey. Due to the fact I am chronically obsessed with JRWI, I decided to pick Shilo as A) he is a very well rounded character who has very interesting dynamics and follows the journey quite closely and B) His story is “ended” (and I also remember most of it LMAO). 

Black is anything I turned in for my assignment and is a bit more barebones as it was supposed to be a minimum of 300 words and I wrote… 900… and red is all of my added and more in depth analysis of Shilo’s journey for those who have actually Watched The Show and understand what I mean when I say “The character of Edward Twilight is a formidable and powerful villain against the main characters''. also thank u @codecicle for egging me on i probably maybe wouldnt have gone as in depth if u hadnt asked for it <3. Lastly, THERE ARE SO MANY SUCKENING SPOILERS IN HERE I DO NOT HOLD BACK PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS!

Without further adu… ENJOY!!!

For my character that follows the hero's journey, I picked Shilo Bathory from the ttrpg podcast Just Roll With It. Some context to the character and the story, he is a character in a game the players of Just Roll With It play called Vampire: the Masquerade (think Dungeons and Dragons but with a different ruleset and Vampire themed), where he is one of the three main characters. It is a comedy drama podcast, with some things being on the sillier side while still retaining a story. He is a vampire prince who was locked in his mothers castle from birth Rapunzel style, and we start the story when he is itching to get out. (Had to give some people a like. Overview cause you will a) always find me promoing jrwi and b) there is like. So much going on all at once in this damn podcast) 

1.Call to adventure: Shilo, sick of being trapped in his room, searches outside and finds several papers in his mothers study detailing how one person was being tracked and followed in the streets of Los Angeles. He decides he wants to escape said entrapment and searches for a way to escape. Shilo is an interesting figure when it comes to the call for adventure, because rather than being called by an outside force like many other stories (ex, Rapunzel is egged on by the appearance of Flynn Rider or Rolan Deep being called back by his parents funeral) Shilo makes his own call. He is the one who breaks into his mothers study and he is the one to decide to go. This is influenced by a lot of things- like how it is the start of a VTM campaign and Bizly cannot just sit and wait for forever, but it also opens the question of would Charlie have made one if Bizly did not already take action? 

2. Refusal: Shilo notably skips this step, mostly ready to jump into the adventure due to his nativity and belief he will be safe as he is the prince of his vampire clan. However this can be interpreted as his mother blocking him from leaving and even restricting him by magical means from even speaking about the documents he found. Referencing back to the last step, it's very interesting how the refusal manifests as someone else rather than Shilos own inner turmoil. It is like the characters that would normally play in these two steps -his mother and himself- switch, creating a more interesting story when it is himself who has chosen to leave and the juxtaposition later that causes when he enters LA. 

3. Supernatural aid: Shilo himself, as a vampire can be interpreted as his own supernatural aid, however notable at this point he is overtaken by a supernatural anger at being treated like a child. His player rolls very well for the stealthy and supernatural actions he takes to push past any obstacles facing him getting to Los Angeles. The seer at the door can also be interpreted as said supernatural aid, as she tells Shilo how to go through the door and is sort of the classic “old person helping the young protagonist” type. I think she will 100% be more important later and possibly assume this role in Shilo and possibly Emiezl's life due to her being there when the twins were born and being the overseer of Salem (Pepper) but in the current season we have now, she is simply a guard to the door. 

4. Stepping through the threshold: Shilo physically and mentally steps through the threshold in his story. He finds his way through The Darkened Door, a physical door that can take him wherever he wishes. The physical one comes to Los Angeles, which is a complete turnaround for Shilo from his quiet castle room. The lights are bright, the city is busy, and the people are mean. Shilo throughout the story remarks on this and how he is very much a fish out of water. I personally love his “LA sucks” phrase because to him, it really does and plays off comedically on how he was the one to want to visit LA and get out of his castle doors. Of all places to go, it was LA, the complete juxtaposition of the Umber castle. ESPECIALLY since he can’t even dress like a normal human and must dress like a gaudy victorian vampire. (a trait I REALLY wish was brought up more. Granted who knows maybe people think it's just someone doing a late night cosplay (clown walk /ref))

5. Belly of the whale: Shilos first belly of the whale conflict is when he realizes he is not 24/7 protected and regarded as infallible royalty in the city of LA when he tries to enter a club that seems to be a hideout for vampire society and proceedingly gets arrested. He is taken from his group and quickly placed in jail where he will later get bailed out after repeating how cops are heroes to him. This one was hard for me to choose what Shilos “first” trial was. Originally I was going to go with his altercation with Emeziels (his?) father, due to the fact he erases his memory without an afterthought and that emphasizes the whole lesson of “consequences” later on. However, I really do think Shilos first moment of being in deep- in the “belly of the whale” was the aforementioned club altercation and his subsequent jail time. He is no longer this kid who can bat his eyes at the primogens or his mom when he gets caught out of his room, and is now a functioning member of society that must abide by both vampire and human laws. It’s a moment of “oh”, although this is kind of overshadowed by the fact Shilo is like “yay police ride!! They're the good guys!” and later sets in when they are not on his side and when he speaks to Soda. 

6. Road of trials: This is where most of the events of the podcast take place. Shilo and his group have many trials, through the story, including but not limited to getting into a huge vampire party, finding information on the main villain he meets at said party, finding out his mother has died due to vampire hunters that are now hot on his trail, all while avoiding the consequences of his own actions. Okay this one's kinda self explanatory. I trust yall to get it and I really don't wanna go in depth because i'm LAZY. I really considered mentioning things like the unseen one but I wanted to make it seem like a much more cohesive plot to my classmates than what the suckening really is (cause looking back good lord is it all over the damn place bro)

7. Meeting with the goddess: The character(s) I would consider the traditional “goddess” in Shilo’s story is the group known as The Midnight Circle. They are a group of female witches that help Shlio and his companions on gaining knowledge on both how to deface and bring down the main villain of the story and their curse as vampires. They can only succeed however, by working through their own personal doubts and gripes with their curses and helping each other. Shilo succeeds with flying colors, and he gives up his eye (mechanically, in the game, his insight and perception bonuses) in favor of knowledge of the main villains and his own mothers origin. This one is also kinda self explanatory. Though I am kind of sad that the midnight circle is like. The only figures who could be considered the goddess in this story. You could technically argue that both The Midnight Circle AND the Unseen One could be the typical “goddess” figure, but I digress.

8. The temptress: The temptress character on the flipside is actually quite a stray from the regular idea of a sultry maiden in this story. Some might say it can even be skipped, but I'd like to interpret it as the main villain. Early on in the story, the main villain had Shilo “drink his blood” several times unknowingly, leading to a game mechanic called a “blood bond” where the drinker is entranced by the vampire whos blood they drank and on higher levels (eg. the more blood they drink) has to obey their beck and call. In some of the final episodes of the story he makes Shilo a victim to his wills, leading Shilo to accidentally give up all the proof they have to defame him to said villain. It’s quite a huge roadblock in the final parts of said story, and the players must find a way around it. You can tell I really wanted to get this point across and went all out explaining the blood bond LMAO. I really do feel like for Shilo, Edward is the temptress in a less-orthodox way of a woman who the protagonist might lust after, and instead is this force that physically calls Shilo and interrupts his plans. On Tumblr, people have pointed out how because Shilo is very aro/ aroace coded, this very well can be interpreted as a sexual assault metaphor. Unknowingly drinking Edwards blood, several times, the fact he was undressed and redressed in matching clothes as Edward, the way Grizzly describes the music (that we cannot hear, only the players) Condi put on as “romantic” only fulfills this. Hell, Nathan Hanover himself said Edwards original music was supposed to have a chorus of moans. Imagine that playing over the scene where Shilo wakes up? I could very much go on about Shilo being treated narratively “like a girl” and how that affects his story and progression but this thing is already so long and id want to find and quote the tumblr posts this idea spawned from because it's important to me people actually get credit <3. Overall though, Edward Twilight ABSOLUTELY fits the temptress role in Shilos story, especially in the scene where he calls on Shilo while Shilo has the evidence of his wrongdoings and all Shilo can do is just. Follow along. 

9. Atonement with the father: This is actually one of the few steps Shilo skips, as he does not really have a father figure and this step falls more on his companion through the story, Arthur, who’s entire arc revolves around his past family and father. <- I actually LIED here. Shilo DOES have an atonement with the father- and that is with Deacon! I didn't want to introduce this new character and have to explain who this new guy was to the story on step nine LMAO. However, Shilo doesn't have an “atonement” with Deacon, and in fact after Edward takes all the proof of him breaking the masquerade from Shilo, Deacon does not believe him. It’s a very sad moment, and really plays into Deacon and Shilo’s relationship and dynamic through the whole story. Shilo believed Deacon was a person to go to for safety and protection, someone who would believe him though and through, and instead Deacon is fallible. He attacks Shilos friends after Club Crepuscule is blown up, he does not answer any of Shilos messages after he calls a billion times, he brings him straight to Edward after Shilo is hurt, and he does not believe what Shilo says about Edward. He shows again and again how he really only does things for his own gain, and honestly, I think if Shilo wasn’t the prince he would have left him to die many times. A vampire cop is still a cop y'know. 

He also has a strange fucking voice/person?? In his room??? I feel like we don't talk about this enough hello????

10. Apotheosis: Teehee. Apotheosis. This stage happens when Shilo’s previous actions throughout the road of trials comes to bite him, and consequences are on the horizon. An old man Shilo has accidentally let into the world and knowledge of vampire society is kidnapped and left up to be food for the main villains “end all be all” game (a hunger games style arena). Shilo does his best to save this old man, but in the end fails, and realizes how his actions have consequences in a very heartbreaking moment. I do think Shilo actually has TWO apotheosis, but I thought for word count and explanation I’d only mention Ben. The second (and honestly my and probably many others) first thought was when Shilo loses his innocence trait when making Edward Twilight “ugly” in front of all vampire society. Both of these events play into different traits and lessons Shilo has been learning through the course of The Suckening. Ben represents the fact he does have consequences to his actions and what he does matters in the grand scheme of things, not only to him but to others. His loss of innocence is about how he is no longer a child who is protected by his mother in the castle, and instead is someone who has the power to do what he wants when he wants. These two apotheosis also play into each other. Without the realization of consequences Ben brings Shilo, he could easily fall into being a manipulative creature without much humanity or care for those around him just like Edward and the other vampires of vampire society. Without the loss of the innocence trait and bringing down Edward Twilight, he could shrink into himself and become an anxious defeated child, whose mother is dead and who is a slave to the whims of someone much more powerful than him. It creates a very interesting end to this chapter of Shilo's life, and with the promise of a second season, creates suspense for where this new version of him is going to go. 

11. Ultimate boon: Playing off the last step, Shilo realizes how he isnt a small child protected by the castle walls anymore, and does have consequences to the actions he takes, especially on those he cares about. I forgot what the ultimate boon thing was. Give me a second. OH okay for more context the ultimate boon is the accomplishment of the goal the protagonist set out to do. Shilo’s “main goals” move a lot through the story. At first, it’s escaping the castle to find who his mother is tracking. Then its getting used to LA. Then it's taking down Edward Twilight and finding a good replacement, which morphs into becoming a good leader himself. At the end of The Suckening, a couple of Shilos goals are not met yet, and Charlie and Bizly actually speak in the QNA how originally the Suckening was supposed to be on a much bigger scale than LA, so we can imagine in the next installment we will possibly see Shilo’s goals of a good ruler being met, or they will shift as he grows into himself outside the castle walls. 

12. The return: Shilo, after finally defacing the main villain, Shilo is picked up by one of their companions' helicopter, and flown away from the other companion, watching as said other companion is burnt to a crisp by the rising sun. This ones really simple, as Shilo does not “return” to his home. Instead he is picked up by Real Taylor Lautner, and the story ends. 

13. Crossing of return threshold: This is where Shilo’s story truly breaks from the hero's journey, as his story is cut short and left open ended. There is a whisper of season two in the works (although it seems very far away), and hopefully we will see Shilo return to his broken castle home, a changed person without his mother and new knowledge of the outside world. I really do hope we get to see him return, as it is a very interesting dynamic and as mentioned earlier, the trio was supposed to take on all of Vampire Society rather than just Edward, so I really do hope we are not cut off from Shilo’s heroes arc too early and maybe we simply restart back to the road of trials when we get season two. 

Shilo is a very interesting character, who one may argue isn't even a hero. He follows some of the steps of the hero's journey, but also subverts some of the traditional steps with his beginning and ending. He is a very complicated and interesting character, and this analysis is also here to show how the JRWI boys follow said hero's journey in one way or another. Not to sound like a cringey youtuber but if you have more thoughts/things to add PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME!!!! I would love to speak about this more (not just to myself lmao) and there are a lot of points I missed (LIKE SHILO RIPPING OUT THAT ONE GUYS THROAT BEING A TURNING POINT IM SO MAD I COULDNT FIT THAT IN). Overall, I love The Suckening, and I think how Shilo is handled and played as a character is very intriguing! And also I might need to get tested for autism.