#She's literally a side character and then any reality in which this side character exists gets erased

[seafoam-taide]

my freak wife

[lu-is-not-ok]

Hello there! My friend introduced me to the Daiyu/Baoyu theory recently and I repaid them by immediately becoming crazy about Soda Hong Lu. Have you looked at Soda Hong Lu in the lens of this theory? Because half joking about this:

1. It is the only EGO that I can recall that features a transformation type sequence

2. In the corrosion, two shrimps attempt to check on the hallucinating Hong Lu/Body; he destroys them in the frenzy

3. It is an EGO that Hong Lu strangely has no Identities for in regards to archetype, Poise, and is one of the EGO for which Hong Lu has a dull eye. (Next Walpur might outdate this one but still squinting at it)

4. It is an Envy EGO, the sin associated with. Yknow.

5. In the pull animation, a shrimp is inexplicably focused on, crying from the same side Hong Lu's jade eye is on.

Idk if this is totally out of the ballpark here, but I'm seeing Soda as an EGO that represents Daiyu being dragged onto the 'boat', that being the family, as Baoyu guiltily observes, barely keeping it together under the idea that the 'boat' is the "better life" as seen on the log for Wellcheers in LCorp. They want to be able to pretend that the transformation is something that'll bring them fortune, just another process in the façade, but as the corrosion shows, one slip will doom them into inconsolable panic. It is an EGO that demands you provide to the group, but it is hanging by a thread. Do you see my logic. Shrimp Jia Family.

So, I'm gonna put it this way.

The things you pointed out about Soda? Huge. Like, they do definitely point towards something and I have my own interpretation of them to share.

Your interpretation of the EGO... I feel like it misses the mark a bit, but that's okay, because it very much can still be about the Two in One Daiyu Baoyu of it all in a way, thanks to the things you pointed out.

Let me explain.

Soda, both for Ryoshu and Hong Lu, is symbolic for their escapism, while also having some major themes of Reality/Fiction.

To briefly show what I mean by explaining Ryoshu's Soda - her form of escapism is that of indulging in the cruel Reality. Note how her Soda focuses on the Wellcheers drink itself - she uses the soda itself to attack, and in the corrosion she turns into the soda as well. Her EGO focuses on the cruel Reality that Wellcheers is a soda company that only cares about people consuming their product, she literally forces her target to drink it in her Awakening animation. Her Corrosion then focuses on the Fictionalization of that Reality, on the rumors that the soda can lead you to wake up on a ship in the middle of an ocean.

This isn't a Ryoshu post though, so if any Ryoshu scholars want to add onto this with their own interpretation of how that connects to Ryoshu's art and how she wishes to reflect reality in all its cruelty, be my guests.

Now, back to Hong Lu's Soda - for him, escapism is the reverse. He indulges in Fiction, his EGO reflecting the life shown in hypothetical Wellcheers' advertisements, happily fishing for shrimp among prawn on a ship in the middle of an ocean, surrounded by seagulls. Then, his Corrosion is the Realization of that Fiction, of what it would be like to actually live on a ship like that, having to hear seagulls scream and run away from you.

And this is where the details you pointed out come in. Because they made me realize something.

The 'Fiction' being symbolized by Soda? It's Hong Lu's current life as 'Hong Lu'.

Here's the thing about the Daiyu Baoyu theory - one of its many parts is that Hong Lu as a person does not exist. 'Hong Lu' is a fake persona. He's not a real person with an actual history, it's a character made up and played by Baoyu to cope with being forced to override Daiyu.

After all, it's not until after Canto 4, where Hong Lu becomes aware of Yi Sang's attempts of calling for help, that he starts actually saying concerning things. Until then he's tried his fucking hardest to make it seem like his homelife is as uneventful as a sheltered rich kid's homelife could be, with the anecdotes only getting more and more actually fucked up when it became clear his turn drew closer. Perhaps because that's what Hong Lu as an act was originally supposed to be - a rich kid like Baoyu but without his baggage, without his trauma. Until he started getting desperate and realizing that he too needs help, but couldn't ask directly without revealing he'd been lying this whole time, so instead he's sprinkling in more and more concerning things hoping Someone Will Get The Hint.

That little tangent aside, I believe this is what the magical girl transformation in the Awakening is meant to symbolize - Baoyu indulging in the Fiction of his new made up persona that is Hong Lu. After all, if you think about it, isn't it a common trope in magical girl shows for the girls to use pseudonyms and keep their true identities secret while transformed? Isn't that exactly what Baoyu is doing while he's acting as Hong Lu?

With that in mind, the prawn that gets focused on in the acquisition animation, the one randomly crying out of the equivalent of Hong Lu's jade eye, could be a little reference to the fact that under the act Baoyu is Fucking Miserable.

And then there's the matter of the ship. If the transformation sequence is a reflection of Baoyu becoming Hong Lu, then what is the ship about?

...It's the bus. The ship is Limbus Company's Bus.

Soda as an E.G.O symbolizes Baoyu's escapism via becoming Hong Lu aboard Limbus Company's Bus, getting carried around to "fish for shrimp" or perhaps hunt for Boughs.

Then there's the Corrosion. The seagulls screaming and crying all around him. The genuine anxiety and panic in his voice (listen to the original file for the voiceline without the effects if you can btw, it's so well acted - you can find it in the Organized Assets drive). The way others try to check up on him and he instead lashes out at them. How the animation seems to purposefully hide the actual enemies being hit so that it seems on first glance like the only things he's attacking are fellow prawn.

Ya'll... this could be another Distortion foreshadowing. Think about it. The realization that his escapist Fiction isn't enough, that the horrible reality he's living in has started to poke through and scream at him and cry at him. And the resulting breakdown causing him to lash out indiscriminately. ...Doesn't that sound like something that could happen with a Distortion?

Alternately, it could simply be a way to show in general what would happen once the act is stripped from Hong Lu. The fear, the panic. The pushing others away. A representation of someone whose escapism is a defense mechanism, and who, upon being stripped of it, cannot handle reality.

So, sorry to say Shrimp Jia Family is likely not the case. Thankfully, we can have the alternative of Shrimp Sinners.

On the other hand, here's a fun semi-related fun fact: the Sin Affinities of the Soda EGOs could in part be references to the two work types you can perform on the Abno to get the grape soda! Gloom representing Repression work, and Envy representing Attachment work. Neat, huh?

[bixels]

your tags about mercy being one of the most complex characters- YES!!! theres a log in one of ana's gun inspection modes where it mentions how mercy DESPISED her healing magic/science being used for evil on the battlefield, and there's an ingame line of her saying "power boost working as envisioned!" and it just reminds me how she was lied to, forced unto the battlefield when in reality she just wanted to help people with her inventions and thats the only way they said she could do it. AGH. Hippocratic oath!!

Which is why I never seriously bought into Moicy (I get the hatefucking though) as a serious ship because realistically, Mercy would absolutely abhor Moira with every fiber of her being.

This is gonna be a really hot take for gay Overwatch-knowers, but. I preferred when Moira didn't exist as a character in the story and her whole selfish philosophy of 'progress at any cost' existed as Mercy's darker side. I was really interested in Mercy's 'holier than thou' demeanor (her battle uniform is an angel costume, for god's sake). I found it so interesting that Mercy was the one who turned Gabriel into Reaper (it was assumed canon until retconned by Moira). Or that Mercy "saved" Genji by installing ninja stars into his knuckles and turning his body into a killing machine (which is why, imo, I don't think Mercy would ever be in love with Genji. He'd be a constant reminder of the power she holds yet tries to ignore, the ways she's unbelievably fucked her patients up in the past. A reminder that she's not as good a person as others believe her to be). I'm personally really into the idea that Mercy has two sides in her: the side who truly cares about healing people and the side who's so full of hate and anger for the perceived enemy that she unconsciously fuels her rage into the people who rely on her. Turning people into living weapons to "fix" them and fight her battles. Reminder that she watched her parents walk out on her as a child to volunteer medical work for the Omnic Crisis, only for them to die and leave her orphaned and alone. Is she doing this to take care of people, or is she doing this to avenge her parents (the official site says it's only the former, but I think that's boring as fuck)? I think it can be both at the same time, but sometimes she prioritizes one motive over the other. I think the "angelic, cheery healer" is a persona she instinctively uses to veil her selfish motivations, to everyone and to herself. Reminder that she was also lauded as a savant, a prodigy, a teenage genius who literally revolutionized medical science before she could legally vote. You cannot expect me to believe that she's truly altruistic, that everything she does is for the betterment of humanity and out of the goodness of her heart.

I don't think she's a malicious person at all, just someone who doesn't want to admit she has ulterior motives.

Anyways, she's not actually this interesting in the game or the story.

[jubileemon]

Orihime's Powers and Representation

Orihime's power in regards to her characterization. Orihime is an idealist. She exists in a very violent world, yet refuses to fight unless she's under really terrible pressure. She used to see Ichigo as her Prince Charming, her Knight in Shining Armor, until she realized that is simply wasn't the case. The girl was pretty much living in her own little fantasy world to cope with her HUGE troubles, which is why yanking her out of it and making her face a reality so stange to her own left her so distraught. So what do her powers do exactly? Reject reality.

Also in regards to Orihime, the reason why Loly and Menoly hate her even more after she uses her Reality Warper powers to bring them back to life. is more complicated than just being two ungrateful sadists. To start, Hollows/Arrancar/Espada as a whole are beings that are born when souls don't cross to Soul Society and stay in our world, becoming corrupted with supernatural energies. And here, two Arrancar girls (Hollows who have removed their mask and gained Shinigami-like powers) have witnessed how a lowly human has the power to undo death, pretty much messing with everything they know about their own existence. What is a crowning moment for Orihime, in the view of these two girls (and especially Loly, who had a better look at all of this than Menoly since she was horribly mutilated by Grimmjow yet she was not dead) is like catching view of an abomination, which explains the whole "she's a monster" deal.

Hollows, beings that are born from death, despair and fear, are being faced with a being who can literally rewrite reality so that events do not occur. Taken in this context, Orihime is less like an angel of mercy to these two and more like a God from their perspective. A being whose nature and abilities are so alien that they outright defy explanation. Considering this, its understandable that they would react less than pleasantly to what happened to them.

Further to the above point on Orihime's character in relation to her powers — there's a very specific reason why Orihime actually used to be useless on the battle field, and it's not any kind of limit on her power. It's been heavily alluded to that Orihime's power is pretty much limited by her own imagination. Naturally, when it comes to helping people, her healing powers can reverse pretty much anything. However, think about who Orihime is. She wouldn't hurt a fly if she could help it. She can take down random Hollows like that mook that was attacking Tatsuki in the school because it's monstrous in appearance, and they'll hurt more people if she doesn't attack. Place a humanoid enemy in front of her, and will take her a while to see that she should consider them an enemy, and she simply cannot attack them unless it's really needed. This is why Tsubaki's power will always be the most limited of her set.

Actually, about Tsubaki... think about the Shiten Koushun aka Shield of Four Heavens' Resistance. How is it formed? Via adding Tsubaki to the Three God Reflection Shield, thus making him turn a defensive barrier into an offensive weapon. Tsubaki is the weakest of the six Rikka spirits as well as the one who's less like her, personality wise; and the ones forming the Reflection Shield (Hinagiku, Lilly and Baigon) are relatively similar to her in character. This means that, if she wants to join the battle effectively, Orihime must accept to use Tsubaki yet not by simply sending him off towards the enemy (like many of her haters want her to), but by integrating him to the side that she dominates the most. Only by using Tsubaki in combination with Hinagiku, Lily, and Baigon can she draw his attack potential... mirroring how Orihime must now fight alongside Ichigo, Chad, and others if she wants to not stay behind. Also, when was the Shiten Koushun seen first? When she and Ichigo were attacked by Ginjou. Who was actually a humanoid enemy (more exactly the formwr Substitute Shinigami, but we didn't know that back then, and neither did she). This means that Orihime either is working on the issue mentioned above or has already gotten past behind it.

As for her Santen Kesshun (Three God Reflection Shield)? It too, is not the fragile thing it seems to be. It is specifically stated to Reject an attack and its consequences. It stands to perfectly good reason that it doesn't matter if the shield shatters instantly or not — another can always be thrown up. What matters is that whether the shield shatters or not, it genuinely DOES reject the attack that hits it.

Furthermore, it actually makes a ton of sense that it shatters so easily, too. Orihime's powers are a form of reality warping, after all, being what Aizen calls "the Rejection of Events"; she's essentially the Queen of Retcons. When her base shield blocks an attack, it also retcons that attack out of existence. But then, that raises the question... if there was never any attack to block, then why would she even make a shield in the first place? The reason it shatters isn't that it's fragile; it's the shield disappearing in a Puff of Logic because the attack it was meant to block suddenly never existed in the first place.

As for her Santen Kesshun (Three God Reflection Shield)? It too, is not the fragile thing it seems to be. It is specifically stated to Reject an attack and its consequences. It stands to perfectly good reason that it doesn't matter if the shield shatters instantly or not — another can always be thrown up. What matters is that whether the shield shatters or not, it genuinely DOES reject the attack that hits it.

Furthermore, it actually makes a ton of sense that it shatters so easily, too. Orihime's powers are a form of reality warping, after all, being what Aizen calls "the Rejection of Events"; she's essentially the Queen of Retcons. Logically, when her base shield blocks an attack, it also retcons that attack out of existence. But then, that raises the question... if there was never any attack to block, then why would she even make a shield in the first place? The reason it shatters isn't that it's fragile; it's the shield disappearing because the attack it was meant to block suddenly never existed in the first place.

[piracytheorist]

Been thinking about Nightfall wanting to "awaken the heart buried within Twilight" and I'm like... how exactly is she planning on doing that? It doesn't look like she really understands Twilight, she only sees the idolized image of him that she's built in her mind.

Her only ambitions driving her to perfection (and, to her credit, she does actually achieve a great level of physical discipline that a spy needs to survive) are the ones of her ending up as Twilight's real wife and life partner. She doesn't seem to share any of his dreams, she doesn't even seem to appreciate a possible world where children are happy - which is Twilight's core motivation, so ingrained in him that he kept fighting for it even when he hadn't actively thought about it for a long time.

The reason Yor and Anya are the ones awakening his feelings is because they are way more connected to his ambitions and motivations. Anya reminds him of himself and how important it is to him to protect children's innocence and happiness. Yor has similar motivations, and he actually, canonically thinks of her as someone suitable to inherit the world he wants to create, and maybe I'm taking a bit of liberty here by saying he probably wishes he'd had someone like her to protect him when he was young and defenseless.

So, without even trying, just by being themselves, Yor and Anya connect with him and awaken all the emotions that have motivated him as a spy from the very start. Nightfall has literally dedicated her entire existence to becoming the perfect partner for Twilight, but in her effort to become perfect she has completely lost what actually matters to the man behind the Twilight spy persona. In fact, she may have actually ended up at the opposite side. She believes that after the war Twilight will want to reminisce over old times and tour old battlefields with her when we as the audience keep getting hints that he finds no pride or happiness in being a spy, other than having the chance to protect the world.

Nightfall is hard to relate to not only because she's mean and selfish. It's also because she has dedicated herself to a false, empty promise that was based on Twilight's fame. I'm guessing Twilight never shared his inner feelings and motivations that drove him to become a spy, so Nightfall has no idea how much of a sensitive person he really is, beneath all the masks he puts on. And she's doing all that in an effort to make him notice her, praise her, and eventually choose her as his romantic partner, but everything about it is hopeless.

In a way it's a very interesting way to present her character, as she's willingly becoming a Satellite Love Interest, and everything about her plan, from mistaking Twilight's motivations and personality, to treating Yor and Anya horribly, to reaching for a goal the audience knows is unachievable shows why you can't be like that in reality. I could even say it's a commentary and satire of Satellite Love Interests, making a brilliant example of how such characters can work if they're consciously written that way.

(Anime only fan here, don't spoil me for the manga)

[dutchdread]

Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

Watching Cleriths celebrate NPTK these past weeks, knowing they'll, as always, be proven incorrect has been an exercise in patience. Sometimes it's just clear that you won't be able to convince people of a complex truth when so often discourse is limited to 280 characters. The reason Clerith exists is that people are unable to see the big picture, it survives by people squinting and not seeing the "but" that's located right after every piece of evidence they put forward. This means that you'll often be perceived to be arguing against what is to them the blatantly obvious. It's futile, nuanced argument never wins from emotion, so often you just have to take solace in the idea that "well, it will be fun to see their surprise 4 years from now". So when you get an interview like this, mere weeks after the game releases, which confirms everything that Clotis had been saying about, and had been mocked for, NPTK, you can't help feel a sense of schadenfreude.

Man that's gotta hurt. This is the difference between Clotis and Cleriths. Cleriths don't really like Aerith, because they want to assassinate her character. Rather than a sad tragic tale of a lifetime of love and loss they want to reduce her character to a shallow cliche rom-com about a capricious girl whose fickle affections change by the hour. The fact that the first person Aerith starts developing feelings for after 5 years of pining after Zack is a man who is almost literally channeling Zack becomes a meaningless coincidence in the story. The fact that she knows Cloud for 2 weeks, most of which is also spent pining over Zack is viewed as confirmation of how special their love is. It doesn't matter that Aerith doesn't even know who Cloud is. It doesn't matter that Cloud is shown to very obviously be in love with another woman. It doesn't matter that Cloud is clearly losing his mind. It doesn't matter that Cloud is constantly show as being apathetic towards her advancements. Even them fighting is recontextualized as "good chemistry" just to avoid facing reality. Usually nonsensical romances are seen as bad-writing, but here the cope makes people excuse all the nonsense as "how brilliantly written is this story? They love each other despite it making no sense, now THAT is romance". Zack is called irrelevant, CC is a "ret-con" and can be ignored, ACC is about how romantic it is to want to die to be with someone. The reason Zack is so predominant in Rebirth is in no way connected to Aerith yearning for exactly the bond he's constantly showing to have with her. The contrast with Clouds apathy means nothing, he definitely isn't there to have some sort of pay-off with Aerith in part 3. Nah, he's just there to give Cloud and Aerith his blessing and to F-off. The reason Tifa is silent and heartbroken at the end has nothing to do with her best friend dying and the man she loves losing his mind. The distance between her and Cloud at that moment is totally not used to illustrate the severity of the situation, or to set-up Tifas importance in the events for part 3. Nah, she doesn't get lines because she's just a side character duh!. That is how they think, every single character and story is assassinated, everything happens only to service Cloud and Aeriths romance, even Cloud and Aerith themselves are pushed through the mud. Screw the death of Ifalna, screw the death of Zack, screw the complexity surrounding Clouds Zack shaped psychology, screw Aeriths childhood and desire for real bonds of friendship, screw even the story of Aerith dying and how maybe, JUST MAYBE, the scenes surrounding Aeriths death have SOMETHING to do with the strong emotions surrounding death rather than just being "a cute romance scene uwu". Never have I seen any story interpretation reveal such rampant hatred for a character as Cleriths reveal for Aerith. To them, Aerith is totally the kind of person who would bond with Tifa, hear the very personal and intimate story about the promise shared between her and Cloud, hear that Cloud thinks that Zack is dead, and not 5 minutes later write a story about how "she loves Cloud and they wouldn't need no promises like that other girl". But sure, I'm the one who hates Aerith, not the people who think this is who she is, but me, the person who assumed she'd be less vile than that and that any song she'd write would encompass more than that. I stand up for her character and get mocked, called an Aerith hater, and called "toxic"....and then you get an interview like this. God it feels good to always have all your positions validated by future content. One has to wonder if the people still arguing for Clerith ever sit back and think "wait, the last 100 times I dismissed these peoples arguments I was proven wrong almost immediately, I am constantly having to shift my goalposts while they're just happily sitting there laughing as they consume media about Cloud kissing Tifa, or proclaiming to become her special existence....maybe I am the delusional one...." God I can't wait for part 3, it will be hilarious.

[time-is-restored]

do you guys every think abt death vs immortality as a thoroughline in like. literally all of the mechs albums.

old king cole is explicitly warped by immortality (never to forgive he would eternal live, his hands dyed red by gore - can be read a few ways depending on where u place the emphasis, but at the very least communicates that his wrath is facilitated By his immortality), and the olympians commit attrocities in order to hold onto their wealth and the immortality that it grants them (murdering arachne, yanking heracles' chain the second he tries to go freelance, having a monopoly on the acheron etc). the value they put on immortality and living forever, and the fear they have of ever possibly losing it, has completely warped their morals and priorities.

and while it comes up less in tbi, there's still significant emphasis placed on how odin has been in power for a century (both thor + the narrator bring it up, and there's also an emphasis on how long ago the bifrost project was started, and how 'no one left living' can explain its science). her villain monologue in rangarok iv places the extinction of asgard as an honour - a ruin that no one can possibly rebuild from is called 'apotheosis'. and as she says at the end, the idea that no one can possibly outlive her is a key draw for odin. asgard dies with her.

in hnoc, the only really immortal character is brian (and we only really know that bc of knowledge we get from outside the album), but the axis of life and death as a privilege vs a curse is still very present. 'mordred's gift to Arthur could be love in his own eyes / fating him alone to keep the life to which he clings', not only posits that the gift of survival isn't inherently good + kind (which the audience would immediately recognise as love, not possibly love), but places emphasis on the fact that arthur is now utterly alone. the station's death at the hands of mordred is hardly a happy one ('Its people damned, doomed by a man who's lost all his regrets'), but arthur's fate is arguably worse. severed from the finality and closure of death, what does he become? [insert that one cool theory abt hnoc arthur becoming old king cole here]

it's like. on a meta level, the reason we as fans don't put much emphasis on the depravity + cruelty of the mechs is bc the people portraying the mechs are all charismatic + skilled performers. in live gigs they're all portraying the fun side of their characters - roasting each other, bantering with the audience, making fun of the characters they're singing about, referencing off-screen violence - bc if they portrayed their lore too literally they'd be comitting felonies LMAOOO

but narratively, its like. literally every album is a meditation on the ways that the glorification of immortality can ruin civilisations - can ruin galaxies. whether its rooted in the fear of you specifically dying, or of being outlived, or overpowered or forgotten, or if its done for the sake of someone else's survival... it's all corrosive. if u refuse to accept the indisputable impermanence of life, you lose the ability to value it, and u numb urself to the reality of just how fucked up it is to cut another person's life short for any reason.

like. i do think some of the mechs started as good people, and some of them even might still have ethical standards, but i REALLY cannot stop thinking about how fucking. fascinating it is that this group of immortals who are KNOWN for basically considering nothing but how fun and/or violent any given activity will be, have basically filled their entire discography with songs about how their continued existence is corrosive and brings tragedy + ruin wherever they go.

so how self-aware are they? do you think those old morals + ethics still linger in their mind, when they're writing down these tragedies? they willingly self identify as liars + thieves + bastards, etc etc, and they seem to have no trouble identifying the 'bad guys' in the various albums (ie: humanising snow + cinders + rose, but not king cole), but do those concepts actually mean anything emotionally, or even theoretically, for them all beyond their dramatic potential? do they remember their lives before they were mechanised as it actually happened, or do they remember it as lyrics to a song? is it possible to be entirely self aware abt ur own capacity for violence (as jonny in paticular claims to be), if you no longer relate to violence as anything other than a narrative device - a means to an end, whether comedic or dramatic?

[nikethestatue]

I feel like part of the whole obsession with Gwyn and Gwynriel is that ACOTAR as a series doesn't have enough characters.

Even the characters that have existed for multiple books are very much sidelined and we barely see them;

Mor, Lucien, Tamlin, Elain (ACOSF and HOFAS), now Feyre (ACOSF and HOFAS), Tarquin, etc.

They all played significant roles before and expanded the universe. So readers didn't need to obsess over one character.

But instead of giving a wider view, SJM narrowed it down even more, from an already tight number of characters, and consequently, ACOSF literally had like 5 active characters. Out of five characters, obviously readers would pin their hopes and dreams on what's in front of them, which is Gwyn.

Gwyn is exaggerated in importance and impact because there isn't many others to choose from. And if someone only read ACOSF she would seem incredibly important and almost central to the narrative. However, the reality is very different. She is still just a side character in the general scheme of things, who isn't connected to any storyline outside of Nesta, and even with that, only insignificantly. Her role is a friend and a co-founder of the Valkyries. Absolutely nothing else is connected to her as it stands right now.

And Gwynriel is a byproduct of that lack of characters. When you seemingly have only one available male and one available (presumably hetero female, though we don't even know that she is) then people begin creating all kind of scenarios in the narrow point of view that they have.

That's why reading the rest of the series is so important and necessary. It's not that Elriels are 'obsessed with canon' as we've been 'accused' of multiple times. It's that Elriels have a lot more canon to work with. We dont depend on one book and maybe 14 pages total out of that book, which had vague Gwyn/Azriel interactions.

[thekirammanjinx]

“I don’t care that you’re lesbians” - proceeds to be homophobic. Same shit with all of them they try to act like they are “class and racial activists” to justify/cover up their homophobia.

They cherry-pick the racial representation they fight for. They seem to only care about Ekko’s rep and how timeb*mb fits into it. Other interracial (canon) couples : Caitlyn/Vi andJayce/Mel, it’s suddenly crickets. Do they only care about the rep if it’s a man of color and not a woman of color?

They claim that season 2 was a poor representation for class division and any justice around it. They particularly blame Caitlyn and Vi for this, which shows their misunderstanding of classism and how to make sustainable changes. So it’s unsurprising that they couldn’t appreciate the depth of CaitVi’s relationship - the symbol for repairing the class division.

They act like Jinx is the face of all this, but she’s a (presumed) heterosexual white girl , who grew up the most privileged and protected in Zaun. Not that it’s on the same level of privilege as the lowest parts of Piltover but her “class standing” was a lot better than Ekko and Viktor and ESPECIALLY Vi. Moreover this straight white girl has terrorized her black love interest, who was fighting to survive and protect the innocents of Zaun. Ekko has always been for the people of Zaun. Not Jinx.

Going by their logic…shouldn’t there be some racial and class status issues there? There is no logic with their self insert white girl. She’s always the savior, (i don’t see them talking about the white girl savior trope but okay).

Rant over. This isn’t a slight at any of the characters but they need to stop acting like they are activists

But it is important to talk about jinx not only being at the top of zaun, but actively being a harmful figure at the top, actively creating a place that is barely liveable for some. Fandom is so hard pressed to say that only the rich of piltover and the enforcers are the oppressors... but they're not. (This got long and possibly side tracked)

(Plus remember marcus and, therefore, the enforcers are in silco back pocket. Silco actively is using them to make things worse for zaun under the guise that he's doing it for the betterment. He's just revenge seeking and self idolizing. But then people will call caitlyn an oppressor and spout this nonsense when 1, she's at the bottom of the food chain in s1 when it comes to enforcer business and 2, silco is literally doing the, non existing, things people want to pin on caitlyn.

It is not the same as ambessa, seeing as she chose piltover, who actively has the bigger boot, but it is so similar to ambessa, the things silco did. Using the enforcers to incite hostility, making sure that zaun cannot retaliate because of they do it'll look like a retaliation on piltover and not on him. Then again people can't even think critically about ambessa, so no shock there.)

People really do not care about ekko except to spout timebomb. Which in turn mischaracterize him.(ekko is the grudge holding one who just hates caitlyn for no reason... like get fucking real. Ekko wanted a better zaun. He wasn't just jinx yes man. He was never jinx yes man.)

Everytime jinx is involved people suddenly don't know how to characterize and view the reality of a character. Down playing anything caitlyn experienced, saying she used the grey "only" for jinx; she used the grey, yes to find jinx, but also to end shimmer because she saw how dangerous shimmer was, saw how fucking unchecked it was. They attack the memorial.

Not to mention jinx is literally a criminal, but people do not want actual accountability and reprimand for actions. People just want caitlyn and anyone born in piltover to suffer, no matter what, which is such an odd mentality. Some people genuinely are not mature enough to be going into this media when that is their opinion, they see nothing wrong with their opinion, and die on that hill.

Speaking from a narrative stand point, jinx really had no reason to bomb the council when she was the one sitting at the top of zauns throne. Silco had the enforcers in his pocket, so any hostility coming from enforcers was on his bill, so it really does not work when people try and say "now caitlyn gets to feel what zaun felt"...

(it doesn't make sense to begin with because punishing an individual who had no rank or merrit is not revolutionary. It is straight punishment for her being born. Punishing innocent in your conquest does not make your cause more just.

Viewing EVERYONE as liable to a corrupt system does not make your cause just. Viewing everyone equally accountable, simply because they exist on the other side, does not make your cause just. People are not born oppressors, that is a title you must earn through ACTION. Caitlyn doesn't suddenly become an oppressor just because she's a councilors daught or because she puts on the uniform.)

But trying to explain anything to these people is literally talking to a brick wall. They don't grasp the concept. Too busy applying irl to fiction instead of applying the fictional narrative to the fiction?!

Acab doesn't work for arcane. We see that through the way corruption is played with(Grayson vs Marcus) The way it's not on individuals, but on a system that guides them, but even within the system not everyone is bad(caitlyn vs marcus--but people like caitlyn are not given the room to show that things can change. Not everyone is bad. Instead she is targeted simply for being there despite not having been part of the unjust to begin with. Being born a piltie does not make you part of an unjust system.

And then people hate vi simply because she looked at caitlyn as her own person and not as an extension of a system???)

Plus jinx(fandom) treat caitlyn like the big evil(when she's not); target her and kidnapping her and killing her mother, then hey... maybe caitlyn will become part of the corruption. Maybe she has a reason to hate them. Like she said.

Caitlyn did have her fall from grace but I never will understand the way people exaggerate it instead of just WATCHING THE SHOW and seeing it for what it is. She also becomes something of the mediator between zaun and ambessa. But again fandom doesn't look at ambessa and noxus.

[ihopesocomic]

As someone who has been in a lot of fandoms I think there's a big difference between bashing sexist tropes and fans who believe they are being anti sexist bashing certain characters or developments. (Not that that was the last ask about‚ but it kinda derivates I think?)

I have seen multiple times people insulting female characters going from more rude to softer as in "she's not enough girlboss anymore" or "she's too femenine now" (yes thats sadly a thing‚ literally saw people conplaining about a character wearing more purple because it was too "girly".)

Or female characters that have a love interest and while the narrative doesn't reduce them to love interests‚ the fandom does and seem to forget any other character trait she has just because she's in love.

With motherhood‚ characters being considered lesser beings for getting pregnant or becoming mothers is a thing too (the weird stuff I have read on Twitter on Reddit‚ I was also in a fandom where people went full sexist in a pregnant character for getting pregnant tho it was probably an excuse to hate her more).

There's also the absurd girlbossification such as Disney changing Snowwhite to a simple girl that wanted a good life to a... Badass leading an army? Or them not allowing the girls to be saved ever such as The Little Mermaid adaptation change. Some people do believe feminity is a synonym of weakness and girls should be all badass‚ it's a thing too.

I think the topic of female characters writing and people's opinions on the matter is complex one but sometimes‚ a lot of times‚ the audience can be way worse than the media. Taka and Sarabi are an example...

Just wanted to talk a bit about what I have seen myself. Misogyny in fandom is pretty real. Critizing sexist tropes is valid but critizing people who believe they are being progressive when they are not is also valid. (I'm sorry if this kinda off topic‚ maybe I just wanted to vent)

Just because I’m discussing one side of the coin where people disparage good faith criticism as being sexist doesn’t mean I’m saying the other side of the coin doesn’t exist and there isn’t actual sexism out there. lol

I read what you said about everything else and yes, misogyny in fandoms is a thing. Never said it wasn't. I've done nothing but complain about fans of xenofiction making bad faith arguments about sexism. I don't care much about fandoms because they're filled with people like that, and they're not people I'm going to entertain the opinions of because they think they live in a different reality when they live in this reality.

Don't conflate people with good faith criticisms with people who are making bad faith arguments. Which was what I already said. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, I probably could've worded it better. The things you're commenting on, I want to make it clear, that while they're no less real, these are chronically online people, and chronically online people don't reflect what's going on with the world outside. Out in the real world, no one bats an eye if you're a feminine woman who is a wife with kids. As far as the government is concerned, she's exactly where she should be.

I've always complained about people trying to be progressive with their female characters and they end up doing the opposite. The new Snow White is a recent example of this. It's certainly not the only one. (I've seen arguments about the new Tomb Raider being sexist and I don't entirely disagree.) It's still misogyny. Snow White may be leading a revolution but by golly she's feminine while doing it. Cuz that's more palatable to an audience than if Snow White were butch isn't it lol or hell, if Snow White was exactly the same but had visible arm muscles, she'd be deemed too "masculine". And that's not getting into the racism aspect of this whole conversation.

As for the pregnancy thing while yes there are dumbasses who complain when a female character gets pregnant. But know what I see more of? Pregnancy being used as a plot device because the writers don't know what to do with the woman otherwise. There's a lot of good and invaluable storytelling that can come with a pregnancy plot, but you'd be hard pressed to find one that shows any sort of respect or nuance. Most days it is simply there as a plot device, usually for the men. And if people think criticism of that is an attack then they need to rethink what they believe constitutes as misogyny.

As for your example of rude woman characters going soft, it was pretty vague but I'm sure you can figure out how that can be done poorly. This woman is undesirable because she is "rude" but now that she's "soft" she's more palatable to the audience. But since I'm not sure what you're talking about, I can't make a good argument here, I'm afraid. That's the best I got. Not saying you're wrong, but playing devils advocate here, I would say that a woman's personality need not be compromised in order to be nice.

Let's not ignore every movie that removes a girl's personality for the sake of making her girly, usually to obtain a man, where the narrative deems femininity to be the preferable option. I don't know how to tell you how much more common this is, even if its under the guise of one-dimensional girl-boss bullshit. I have spoken at length about how butch women are represented in media. And when you include trans women who are butch, the world may as well be on fire to these people. It's silly to assume that masculine women characters who are put in a positive light is the status quo just because it's more common now than it's ever been. It's still not a lot.

Of course women being love interests or moms or dead doesn't inherently reduce them to these things. I said this already. Its always dependent on how it is done. Lumping bad faith arguments with legitimate criticism is not doing anyone any favors. It's not a black and white issue, you are correct, it is complicated. But at the same time it's not. Again, I've spoken at length about this. In a lot of cases, people just take one thing I said and ignore everything else I've said. - Cat

[heartbeatbookclub]

I think it's sorta weird how the Protagonist (MC, Y/N, Stinky, whatever you wanna call him) is treated within the context of DDLC's meta.

That sentence came out weird. What I mean is that on terms of DDLC playing with the 4th wall (in other words, on terms of its actual existence as a visual novel in universe), the nature of the Protagonist's...well, entire existence, is up in the air.

Dan Salvato literally stated that he doesn't actually see him as a character in the same way as the girls. He's a "blank slate that says whatever is convenient." In a different statement, he's described as the "nameless, faceless self-insert character that you find so commonly in romance games", which I think is a good way of putting it. It's a good way of justifying why he kinda...sucks, because he's meant to be a typical VN protagonist. He's shallow, and responds with little more than what makes sense in context, because he doesn't have much character on his own, which is what makes him pretty bad at dealing with delicate issues like with Sayori.

In DDLC+ (spoilers, I guess?), it's a little bit vague about it, but in one of the mails, it states that Monika has literally "manufactured" a new character to "force interaction between her and the user". This character is heavily implied to be the Protagonist of the main DDLC visual novel that we know, and he is, as stated, noticeably absent from the Side Stories, because Monika didn't actively create him to be there.

Except...he isn't.

He doesn't physically appear, but in Trust, though he's obviously not mentioned by name, it's implied that he does exist, because when asked to act like a "normal person" responding to the Literature Club, she imitates a friend of hers who says "Literature is stuuupid. I'm joining the Anime Club."

...Remind you of a certain someone?

I feel like I'm overexplaining this, but my point is, it suggests that the Protagonist as a character isn't just something Monika invented out of thin air, or at least he's heavily implied not to be.

I think there's a larger conversation on the vague way the game itself treats the world outside of what is defined within the limited scope of Doki Doki Literature Club. Fans have filled gaps of different characters and events, but it's important to acknowledge that they're gaps filled by fanon, not canon. I think those gaps are left very intentionally empty, mostly to play into the conceit of the world, being that literally nothing actually exists outside of its boundaries, because it's a visual novel. It's a limited, constricted reality, where things are implied to exist outside it, but they actually don't.

In other words, Monika did apparently generate all that makes up the Protagonist as a character and vehicle for the player in the main game, based off the limited concept implied by their interaction in the Side Story. Or, rather, probably by something else, since the side stories are inherently a "Control Simulation" where Monika doesn't have any sense of meta awareness. It's a prequel set before the main story, but...well, if you really think about it, it's implied to tie into the main story, but they don't directly link up, do they? If it's not explicitly shown on screen in the main line Doki Doki Literature Club, did it even happen?

Either way, the Protagonist is a character independent of Monika's creation, he's just given absolutely nothing, and technically doesn't even exist outside of what's implied of him. Technically, the character Monika creates as a vehicle for the Player has no real relation to him, outside of being Sayori's friend and wanting to join the Anime Club. Or, depending on your view, he does! Since he's the literal manifestation of that character concept where it didn't exist previously, it's fair to say that he is that character given life!

I don't know, I think it's just kinda fascinating in context. I don't really like a lot of the extra lore surrounding the whole thing in +, but there are plenty of interesting things like this which have been given just enough flavor to be interesting.

Obviously I don't think this means the Protagonist is a complete non-character and any & all fan interpretations of him should be defenestrated (quite the opposite actually, reality can be whatever you want, I have a few concepts with him floating around my head which I find fun to play with), but I think this sort of thing is probably important to keep in mind on terms of actual investigations of canon.

[smile-files]

it's funny how much bow fixates on how important the contestants are, and how thus a contestant (marshmallow) will choose to give attention to another contestant (apple) over her; because she's a ghost (and automatically not a contestant), she is incapable of being "real" like the contestants -- she can only barely tangibly interact with them, and even when she can, it's only within the confines of one location and one element of the story.

to the show, the contestants are the main characters: and so the reality of any character, their depth and personhood, relies (in the eyes of the viewer) on their ability to interact with the contestants, as that determines their screentime and personal developments -- and, as bow notes, contestants are the ones most easily able to interact with other contestants. the contestants are the most "real" within this framework. a background/side character is less "real" in a sense, because they're a flat character, not meant to act like a fully fleshed-out person -- the contestants are "real" in their humanity, their complex relationships and emotions, their way of simulating actual human experience.

of course, this is all incredibly ironic, then, as the contestants were manufactured to be contestants: created to be the main characters in mephone's show. they're "fake" -- particularly in how they were synthetically designed to be "real". the way the characters have acted thus far implies that, largely, they had some vague knowledge of a past and identity for themselves outside of the show -- the only characters alluding to the contrary are fan and cabby, who have personal issues to that effect, such that they wouldn't automatically suspect that their uncertainty about how they are outside of the show would imply that they don't really exist outside of it. the fact that this revelation about mephone creating the contestants is a revelation at all means that they must all have been created to have some sort of backstory -- they were synthetically designed to be "real", synthetically designed to "remember" a past that would thus influence the way they feel and act today. part of what makes someone "real" or "human" is the fact that their experiences in the past affect them (regardless of whether or not they remember those experiences consciously); we have a continuity. the contestants, having been created in the show's genesis, awoke to feel like they were just continuing a life they already had (but which never existed).

there's some fascinating meta-narrative going on: is it not true, from our perspective, that these characters, these people literally didn't exist before the show? the ii16 twist, in contextualizing everything, makes you wonder about what it means to be a main character in a story -- and, in bow's case, what it means to be a main character cast aside by the narrative...

(just for the record, i don't necessarily believe that mephone consciously made the contestants -- but that doesn't matter to my speculation anyway.)

[tvckerwash]

@joltning I present to thee the elaboration requested:

When broken down to the bare essentials Wash and C.T fulfill the same function within the story, and the differences between them as characters mostly results from how the story was executed when it came to them fulfilling that function. 

For example, everybody (myself included) complains about how C.T exists solely as a plot device in the Freelancer Saga, but nobody complains about how Wash also exists solely as a plot device in Recovery One and Recollection. I mean Reconstruction is literally the ‘omg theres a plot!?!?!?!?” season of RvB, and without Wash there is no story. 

The main reason Wash isn’t perceived in the same way as C.T is due to the level of freedom the writers had when it came to telling the story they wanted to tell. The Blood Gulch Chronicles and Out of Mind set the foundations for Recovery One and Recollection, but it was through Wash that the lore of RvB was reconstructed into a cohesive story. The unexplainable was explained, the unelaborated was elaborated upon, and all the wacky hijinks and random bits and bobs of the previous seasons were tied together in a way that answered the question asked in episode one: Why are all of these idiots stuck in a canyon in the middle of nowhere while being separated into color coded teams that are fighting each other?

C.T however did not have the same level of freedom as Wash, and this is because of pfl’s nature as a prequel combined with the pacing of those seasons. We pretty much already knew everything about her that there was to know, so there was no point in hiding anything or taking it slow because of that, hence the painfully obvious foreshadowing. This approach to the Freelancer Sage, and C.T’s story is what leads to her essentially having the same arc as Wash, just reversed—or more accurately described; mirrored, like Chief and Arbiter in Halo 2.

A majority of the reversal and/or mirroring between them manifests in their personalities, which I actually talk about some here, but some examples of the phenomenon in regards to actual plot points are:

They are both introduced as recovery agents (or rather fake C.T, who was the real C.T at the time, was introduced as a recovery agent). Wash is a single agent recovering human technology from dead Freelancers, and he uses explosives to destroy the rest of the equipment to prevent information leaks. C.T is attempting to recover alien technology from a long dead civilization with the help of other aliens, and he uses explosives to make sure anyone who knows of their operation and presents a problem will be destroyed to prevent information leaks. 

We knew exactly who Wash was, who he worked for, and why he was reassembling the blues. We didn’t know who C.T was, who he worked for, and why he was fighting Tucker in the desert. 

Wash was shot in the back and survived, but failed to subdue the enemy. C.T was shot in the chest and died just as they were going to subdue the enemy.

In regards to the real C.T, some examples include:

The Meta was portrayed as the primary conflict for Wash, but in reality he had always been aiming for the destruction of Freelancer. On the flip side, C.T’s fight to take down Freelancer is portrayed as the main conflict, but in reality, while poorly explained, tracking down the alien artifacts seemed to be her real goal (which is not as insane as it sounds when you remember that Charon Industries was more aligned with the UNSC proper than pfl was). 

Wash never hinted towards his plan of taking out the Meta in Recovery One to South, or his plan for destroying Freelancer to the Reds and Blues until he had the perfect opportunity to strike, and by then he had built enough trust that they were willing to help him out despite his secrecy. If they weren’t, well, he knew what to say to change their minds. C.T however wasn’t exactly subtle with her thoughts and feelings, and she didn’t build any trust with the people around her, so when she finally defected—which didn’t take a genius to see coming—no one was willing to listen to her or take her at her word, and there was nothing she could say or do to change their minds except offering concrete evidence. “I’m starting not to trust you.” vs “I can’t trust you.”

This one isn’t a plot point, but I’m going to mention it anyway because I think it’s a nice example of this subtle yet obvious mirroring I’m talking about, and shows what I was trying to replicate in my blurb that spurred me to finally write this analysis:

Counselor: Agent Washington? Agent Washington? Washington: Sorry, what were you saying? Counselor: Were you thinking about Epsilon again, Agent Washington? Washington: No. Counselor: What happened with Epsilon was not your fault, Agent Washington. Washington: I didn't think it was. Counselor: We have safeguards for the unstable emotional patterns of an artificial intelligence. Sometimes these algorithms fail. Washington: Oh. So then it's your fault. Counselor: We prefer to think of it as no one's fault.

Vs:

Washington: It wasn't your fault, Connie. Connie: Easy for you to say. You didn't drop the ball. Washington: The ball got dropped. We were all there, it's everyone's responsibility. Connie: Dammit, why are you doing that? Washington: What am I doing? Connie: Making excuses for me. I'm not making excuses for myself...why are you?

All I've mentioned above is also why C.T’s relationship with the leader and the plot twist that the C.T in the desert wasn’t the real C.T are disliked by so many, as there was nothing to justify the sudden bait and switch like there was at the end of S6. I mean, considering we see both Tex and South use voice mods to sound like men, it reads as though that was supposed to be the case with C.T as well, which makes it feel like it was changed at the last second because everyone saw it coming.

This is an issue because A) There's nothing inherently wrong with being predictable—a good plot twist always has foreshadowing, even if it won’t be registered as foreshadowing until the twist happens in certain cases—and B) The story of the Freelancer Saga as a prequel was confined in a box created by the previous seasons, and all they were doing was connecting the aforementioned events to tie up a few loose ends and properly establish Carolina's driving force in present day S10.

[dateamonster]

this halloween season im going on a journey of trying to understand art the clown. (talking At Length about the movies terrifier and, to a lesser degree, all hallows eve under the cut. so obligatory Spoilers warning goes here.)

when i first saw terrifier pop up as a title on netflix, i pretty much immediately wrote it off as a generic slasher/scary clown schlock movie, and for a while it seemed like that was the general consensus. i dont think i saw any real buzz about the terrifier movies until the second one came out, and after that it seemed like i blinked and the third one was already in theaters along with tons of art the clown merch and costumes on shelves. i did a little research about the general content of the movies and audience reactions, trying my best not to spoil myself in the process, and decided it was either the sheer grotesque spectacle winning people over in a "how much can you take before you puke" kinda way or there was really something to this series that i just wasnt seeing, and either one seemed like enough to make it worth the watch.

i figured if i was gonna do this i needed to go all in, so i started with all hallows eve, the movie art the clown actually first features in before going on to get his own franchise. theres not terribly much to say about this not-prequel. the art of all hallows eve shares some broad similarities with the final version and establishes a few reoccurring motifs: the use of a tv as a framing device, arts love of shit play and gruesome mutilations as performance. other than that, this version of art comes off as a lot more immediately supernatural in nature. hes sort of operating on a plane somewhere between looney tunes and the ring, apparating out of thin air with a sign cheerfully inviting you to see the circus one moment and hammering his fists on the inside of your tv screen the next. as an introduction to the franchise-to-be i think it sets the stage pretty well, but this is still very clearly a proto-art, not yet the real deal we will come to know.

moving on to the first terrifier movie, the first thing that jumps out is naturally the return of the tv, although this time we start on arts side of the screen in a nondescript location that seems to function as a green room where he readies himself for the next act. the lone survivor of arts apparent offscreen activities being interviewed on screen declares confidently that art is dead, that she personally saw it happen, but fans of classic slashers know that means very little. art could be a ghost, or a demon of some sort, but he could also be more of a michael meyers type boogieman, both human and innately unkillable until proven otherwise, or until his movies no longer brings in the crowds.

and thats something that, especially if youve started with all hallows eve, becomes very apparent right away: terrifier is a movie about movies, taking its inspiration from slashers and gory torture-centric horror of the late 90s and early 00s, which in turn evolved from the classic slashers of 70s and 80s. both the actions of art himself and the surreal horror-trope laden world he inhabits, from the dreamy-eyed woman cradling her porcelain doll child to the mutilated victim turned crazed killer herself, inform us that we are very much watching a movie, that everything we see is not reality nor meant to imitate it, but a shade of hyperreality that exists because we are choosing to watch and engage with it.

which comes back to the character of art himself. a clown, a mime, a performance artist who himself is literally Art. "he thinks its funny because hes laughing" explains the witness, or rather, by dressing and acting like a clown he turns murder into entertainment. you could also say this is what all movie slashers with their respective masks and gimmicks do for the audience. the delivery is what determines the tone is what determines how the performance is received is what determines what the action is. and what it is, is shit and smut and death. and what it is, is art.

currently my interpretation is that terrifier is a movie in conversation with horror movies as a whole. we're currently in a cultural moment where the so-called elevated A24 horror film reigns supreme, and while theres definitely still a place for over the top guts and gore in horror cinema, but theres a lingering stigma that labels this type of film unsophisticated at best and degenerate at worst. terrifier to me is taking the stance that no matter what you personally think of it you have to recognize that even a movie like this is a form of art, and that whether by simple shock value or by its messages or by the merit of the leading mans honestly very impressive silent performance, it has earned its place in popular culture.

at least until i watch the other movies and decide i hate them. we'll see what happens! ttyl!

[archivalofsins]

All the times that Yuno has hinted at wanting the audience to give her a 50/50 or say nothing omitting other notes I have on prisoners appearance or general attitude after trial one,

"About forgiving or not forgiving people, I don't think you'll be able to choose."

People tend to project their best case scenario on others. Stating that they believe they will do x or be incapable of doing x. I.E "You wouldn't hurt me." - "You won't do that." This is usually to allude to their desires while playing on the other persons morality and character. Though it can backfire if the other party takes it as a challenge or as the person speaking saying they are inept or inadequate which Es does-

I won't let something like that pass. Are you saying that you doubt my capability to do so?

"Ah, no that's not it. It's different to what you're thinking, prison guard." "You know those people who just want to convince themselves? So, they intrude on other people's affairs even though it's not their place- I despise them."

"They only do that to make themselves feel better. Don't they? Those people don't actually end up doing anything."

"No matter how many chilling memories I had to go through... Those people never gave me any warmth."

Umbilical

"Am I a bad girl? Please don’t answer."

(-273.15°C)

"This chaotic situation you've wrought with that job of yours- Is it fun?" What are you trying to say? "Are you personally satisfied? I mean, having forgiven and not forgiven. The prison is like this now." You mean the conflicts between the prisoners? "Yep! Kotoko-san, who you forgave, went super violent and then injured people came rolling in one after the other." Later "Ah... I don't have much interest in things like ethics and morals. Doesn't your stomach not inflate?" That sounds like quite a dangerous ideology. "No, but seriously, I really do think so... That there are lots of people who think, "I have to protect ethics and morals" then end up constrained and miserable. They should just live in a more easygoing manner."

"It's not like I want to win the discussion. I'm just saying what I think."

Using the direct translation here, "Doesn't your stomach not inflate?" to highlight this is once again Yuno asking Es isn't it not satisfying doesn't this not fill you up and leave you wanting for something. One could say it doesn't give that full tingly floating on air satisfied feeling. Are morals and ethics really enough of a metric to get to satisfying conclusions is a answer necessary for a satisfying conclusion?

Though Yuno does state she would have been find with not being forgiven or found guilty,

"Even if I was scorned by you, I would have been okay with being told I wasn't forgiven. I don't believe I'm not in the wrong. I'd accept it." ... "Despite that, you arbitrarily assumed things about me and sympathized with me. Even though all I did was make a rational decision of my own free will." I'm sorry, but that's the sort of thing Milgram is.

Then, I hate Milgram.

This is a side note but I find it interesting that Yuno consistently takes attention away from the abortion point she brought up. More so focusing on her work to the point that Es is like I'm not here to judge that.

I believe it depends on the degree. "Yes, yes. Of course, I think criminal offenses fundamentally aren't good." ... "But immoral acts that don't cause anyone misfortune do exist, right? Just like sugar-daddying. Because it's been deemed ethically wrong I was hiding it but... Is someone being troubled by it? It's a win-win engagement isn't it?" - The wanted wanting the wanter. The overlap, isn’t that some sort of perfection? ... It's as I said before, I have no intent to pursue the rights and wrongs of your acts outside of murder. However, the reality is that that is connected to your murder.

Please stop bringing up things that have nothing to do with your crime but it does have to do with your crime. Yuno, literally alluding to the fact that her work was in fact hurting people just to see it go over Es' head again. Then this topic just sort of fades.

They go into talking about something else.

Es just kind of doesn't combat her statement at all when she says it's not hurting anyone. Despite that just being historically untrue about the profession she's in. Mostly because people tend to cheat on their spouses with people in Yuno's line of work all the time. Something that does negatively impact the spouse, destroy families, and also if not done safely cause considerable health risks to clients and workers alike.

What do you mean it doesn't hurt anyone?

She specifies in trial one just how much this can hurt not only the client but the worker themselves. It mostly hurts the workers since they're held to a higher moral standard than the people usually seeking them out and paying them (while at times cheating on their spouses in the process).

She discusses the harm it can cause in her first trial interrogation,

"For example news outlets. They always make a big deal out of adultery, inappropriate comments, immodesty, and so on- Right? And then they start criticizing the people who make an appearance there. Don't you think it's ridiculous?"

So, she isn't ignorant to it.

To the contrary she seems to know the harm it causes when it comes to public opinion quite well. She even states that's why she didn't disclose the fact that she did that. So, why is she pretending like it's harmless here when again in her previous voice drama the first instance of news outlets stoking controversies was in regards to adultery. Something that people can and have for a long time committed with people in Yuno's profession.

Is it a win-win situation when one party has to take more responsibility than the other if what they are doing is found out and it's never really the person with the spouse, money, or affluence getting the short end of the stick but the person with the job?

No.

Yet, Yuno points out that she doesn't have to worry about those things. She did what she did because she wanted to not because she had to in any way shape or form.

"I'm not pitiable. My family gets along super well. And I'm not particularly struggling for money. I decided, of my own free will, to do it because I felt that it was necessary for me."

So, this is as she says in Tear Drop,

"The overlap, isn’t that some sort of perfection?"

Tear Drop

"Don’t weigh me measure me against your morality." "Just shut it, will you? You know it all."

"I can’t smile well anymore. It’s because of you."

“Let’s reload the warmth.”/“Let’s just do it, please smile?”

In closing,

Yuno in Milgram constantly, "That sort of treatment won't leave me satisfied."

The audience,

"Surely if we continue to vote her innocent she'll realize that she has nothing to feel bad about that her feelings are in fact unfounded. If we just keep using radical acceptance she'll realize she can let her guard down and be happy eventually." It yells and clamors so loudly it misses the part where she said she'd be able to accept a guilty verdict more than an innocent one.

Along with the myriad of times she stated that this sort of superficial sympathy given in order to make oneself feel good because one found a reason someone was worthy enough for it in their eyes does nothing for her and that the sort of people who behave that way are the one's she hates the most.

Probably has nothing to do with that I hate Milgram statement at all. She's probably super pleased now because she's accepted the publics opinion of her into her heart and was finally won over by kindness. Yippee everyone was so nice and everything was solved~ Isn't that fantastic?

"Can you not forgive without some extreme reason? Then, alternatively, if there was some extreme reason, could you forgive?"

The reality is that such sides of the issue exist.

Even though the act itself is the same?/ ……don’t tell me, did this murder seem smaller to you than the murders of the other prisoners? Thought-provoking!

[stargazerlily7210]

Alright, here's a big claim for the finale (whether I actually believe/want any of these individually is besides the point. This is purely about how these all vibe together):

Sutekh is ultimately acting as RTD's Harbinger for opening the Classic Who floodgates as he sees fit.

Susan Triad will still turn out to be Granddaughter Susan. It will be revealed that the smattering of Susan Twists across The Doctor's travels will turn out to have been her Time Lord (aka. 'Complex Space-Time Event') consciousness calling out to her Grandfather for help. And, speaking of that, the Kind Woman RTD mentioned who is on a far away planet with something vital to The Doctor and Ruby, will be either one of Susan Triad dream selves or Carol Anne Ford herself. The something vital will either be the hope/confirmation/proof/information needed to unlock Susan's Memories and restore Susan Triad to her full Regenerated Susan Granddaughter self or Baby Ruby.

Ruby's mom is either revealed to just be an innocent, albeit unfortunate person turned acolyte of Sutekh (think, the speech Harriet/Sutekh gave about 'The Vessel. Which, presumably is the TARDIS but could honestly be referring to any/all of the current female presenting mystery based characters, as well.) The Trickster working under Sutekh. Or, more likely, Ruby herself.

The 'heartbreaking' moment we keep hearing about will either be Mel's death (as victim or sacrifice, hard to say), Ruby's death (imagine she learns she's a manifestation somehow brought about by the fight with Sutekh. Then defends her self sacrifice claiming it's fine because she doesn't really exist) or a reveal that refocuses this all back to The Doctor's foundling status.

The Doctor (and Ruby, or Mel, depending on who dies) will escape Sutekh in 2024 by using the oddly solid time window/'memory'/recording of the TARDIS to enter the Memory TARDIS (aka. The consciousness of the TARDIS itself that's defending itself against Sutekh's control). Which is shielded from Sutekh, but doesn't have the power to do anything else... Until Tales of the TARDIS gets revealed as The TARDIS calling out for help by using the time=memory=reality hack that Tales of the TARDIS has been alluding to.

If it's Mel who died, she will get brought back to some sort of existance (whether fully back to life, or only within the confines of the Memory TARDIS) through the magic of the Memory TARDIS. Kind of like how Clara was semi undead and had her own TARDIS.

If it's Ruby who died, the 15/Ruby scenes we saw bookending the Pyramids of Mars TotT episode will be something like a mix between the 'literally living on through memory' magic mentioned above and the Teacher Clara Shadow in 12's Mind Palace TARDIS. But she will ultimately be brought completely back to life.

Mrs. Flood will remain an off-putting mystery but will seemingly be on The Doctor's side, albeit away from any of the immediate action for the majority of, if not the entire episode. However, whether her identity gets revealed this episode or not, we will get confirmation that she is a Time Lord herself... and she'll inevitably be revealed as The Monk (for even longer winded reasons that ultimately amount to nothing).