#What does it mean what does it represent?

[jane-asmo]

Why I think Caitlyn didn’t ask Vi for forgiveness

(Thank 'anons' for your messages. I’ll try to respond to you through this text: )

The importance of Caitlyn’s “I know”

A key moment in Caitlyn’s character narrative is her “I know”—both its content and delivery.

The content: When Caitlyn says, “I know,” it doesn’t just mean “You’re right.” It means, “I’ve taken the time to think about this.” And thinking is what Caitlyn does best. Her “I know” conveys that she has already had this conversation with herself, over and over in her head. She’s thought about it constantly, she’s already told herself these things, and she’s already blamed herself for them.

The delivery: She screams it with violence, and we can see this represented by the boat falling apart. It’s not just that she has thought about it; it’s tormenting her. Her “I know” is incredibly powerful because it’s filled with suffering.

To me, this is as valid as an apology because asking for forgiveness is outward-facing—focused on the other person. "Asking for forgiveness" says, “Whether I’ve forgiven myself or not, whether I feel guilty or not, it’s on you to decide to forgive me.”

But here, Caitlyn’s “I know” is inward-facing. It means, “I’m not asking you to forgive me because I can’t even forgive myself.”

She knows everything you’re saying, and it torments her.

This is followed by:

"I didn’t even have time to think before they hauled her off."

This line is so telling. Everything about Caitlyn is tied to thinking and reflection.

Being a sniper means aiming and shooting. Aiming is the equivalent of thinking, and shooting is the equivalent of speaking. Everything Caitlyn does is deliberate and thought through.

This is why some people dislike her: as I’ve said before, unlike other characters, Caitlyn’s actions can’t be forgiven easily because she doesn’t do anything by accident.

Then we get to:

"We can’t erase our mistakes. None of us."

Caitlyn speak in “we.”

In the prison scene with Jinx:

"No amount of good deeds can undo our crimes."

This scene mirrors the rage she felt when she threw the boat. In this moment, she’s speaking to Jinx, but also to herself.

Caitlyn and Jinx are paralleled so many times throughout the show. Caitlyn quickly realized that, in some ways, she had become like Jinx. And so, in order to forgive Jinx, she would first have to forgive herself.

At this point in the episode, the person Caitlyn hates the most is herself.

But she no longer has the "energy" to hate, neither Jinx nor herself.

Energy comes from fuel. What she perceives as a lack of strength to keep fighting is simply the fact that the fuel that powered her hatred has disappeared. And when you stop feeding a fire, it eventually dies out. She has no energy left; she has no fuel to sustain her hatred.

It's a particular way of saying, I don’t hate you anymore, and I don’t want to hate myself anymore either, because in the end, that hatred corrupts us/everything .

In her own unique way, Jinx also says, I didn’t know your mother was there, even if it wouldn’t have changed anything. And this too is a strange way of taking a step toward the other.

We have two brilliant and intelligent women who express their emotions in unconventional ways. ----------

There’s also a whole analysis that could be done about her concept of justice and rules, "but I don’t have the energy" to dive into that here. Still, it would only lead back to the fact that Caitlyn doesn’t see herself as the right person to free Jinx (and therefore to forgive her) because she believes she herself is beyond forgiveness.

[xinganhao]

✏️ sociology major!junhui x reader.

your roommate junhui has a habit of using his major on you ✶ part of my svt university milestone event

⤿ friendship, fluff, and they were roommates!!!, an academic paper for the hc. more content under the cut. ♡⸝⸝ prompt from @ore-pheus!

The Sociology of Love, Julia Carter Annotations by Wen Junhui

Love is interesting sociologically for so many reasons... It is a word that is used prolifically to mean so much, which means it is incredibly difficult to define and study. Love is interesting because it is everywhere and has a significant impact on our culture, society and lives, and yet we can know relatively little about what it actually means. Love is not something we can ‘know’- we have to investigate how it is represented socially and culturally. (Carter, 2015)

ANNOTATION: Carter positions love as an all-encompassing yet unknowable emotion. At the risk of sounding cocky, I don't think that love is particularly difficult to understand or find. This is simply because of recognition.

I recognize love. It's in the care and consideration of my parents. It's in the brotherhood of my friendships. It's in my roommate, who tolerates my incessant questions, who lets me get away with almost everything, whose fondness for me is sometimes more than what I deserve.

Love is everywhere. Carter is correct in that regard. It's simply a matter of seeing it, of calling it as it is, of spelling it out. Otherwise, we might spend the rest of our lives trying to justify our cowardice behind the guise of love as a 'mystery'.

So why does love have such power? Whether a private emotion, organising institution, normative expression, commodity, societal glue or legitimating ideology, love is clearly an important concept to understand and interrogate in modern society. (Carter, 2015)

ANNOTATION: Sociologically, the word 'power' is thrown around too lightly. Carter's implication that love is equivalent to power can be dangerous, because I am of the firm belief that it's not the emotion that wields the power; it's the person.

Love, on its own, is just an intense feeling of deep affection. The question then because: What do people in love do? Some shy away from it. Some run. I've found myself taking it day by day. Love has me learning. Love has me listening. Whether I act on it or not is indicative of my own power, and not the power the emotion may/may not have over me.

There's discussion to be made about how love can render one 'powerless', but it all falls on the individual. We are only as good as the loves that we act on.

There was, however, evidence from my research to support the normative notion that love should be romantic, once-occurring and lifelong... suggesting that ‘real’ love should only be experienced once and this should not come to an end. (Carter, 2015)

ANNOTATION: Once again, I find myself unable to agree with Carter's findings. Love as a lifelong feeling or commitment is understandable, but the notion of it being 'once-occurring' is significantly flawed on two counts. First, there is the manner of which it discounts romantic relationships and how they shape how we are. To love and lose someone does not mean you loved them any less or, in this case, did not love them at all to begin with. It is a disservice to downplay our own emotions just to subscribe to the credo of a 'one true love'.

Alternatively: I find myself falling in love with the same person over, and over, and over again. I have fallen in love with them on our walks home. I have fallen in love with them first thing in the morning, when they're bleary-eyed and can barely finish brushing their teeth. I have fallen in love with them even when there was distance between us— on long breaks, where they're the person I think of during the first snow of the year.

And so Carter is only half-right. Love is romantic. Love can be lifelong. But it has not happened to me only once.

... love has become a quiet, private project for couples in a society that worships coupledom and romance. (Carter, 2015)

ANNOTATION: While I have spent majority of this paper arguing against Carter's sociological view of love, I find myself wholly agreeing with her at least on this point. I'm often described as an outgoing and loud individual. For the most part, I thought that should I ever encounter romance, I would view it the same way.

But I've found love in the quiet moments. Bowls of breakfast cereal. Midnight trips to the convenience store. A shitty Netflix romcom playing in the background as the two of us cram essays.

If this love is only ever mine, ours— if no one else is ever made privy to our shared affection and all the rituals that come with it— then so be it. It will be enough for me. This will be more than enough for me.

[amateurvoltaire]

For the past six years or so, this graph has been making its rounds on social media, always reappearing at conveniently timed moments…

The insinuation is loud and clear: parallels abound between 18th-century France and 21st-century USA. Cue the alarm bells—revolution is imminent! The 10% should panic, and ordinary folk should stock up on non-perishables and, of course, toilet paper, because it wouldn’t be a proper crisis without that particular frenzy. You know the drill.

Well, unfortunately, I have zero interest in commenting on the political implications or the parallels this graph is trying to make with today’s world. I have precisely zero interest in discussing modern-day politics here. And I also have zero interest in addressing the bottom graph.

This is not going to be one of those "the [insert random group of people] à la lanterne” (1) kind of posts.  If you’re here for that, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.

What I am interested in is something much less click-worthy but far more useful: how historical data gets used and abused and why the illusion of historical parallels can be so seductive—and so misleading. It’s not glamorous, I’ll admit, but digging into this stuff teaches us a lot more than mindless rage.

So, let’s get into it. Step by step, we’ll examine the top graph, unpick its assumptions, and see whether its alarmist undertones hold any historical weight.

Step 1: Actually Look at the Picture and Use Your Brain

When I saw this graph, my first thought was, “That’s odd.” Not because it’s hard to believe the top 10% in 18th-century France controlled 60% of the wealth—that could very well be true. But because, in 15 years of studying the French Revolution, I’ve never encountered reliable data on wealth distribution from that period.

Why? Because to the best of my knowledge, no one was systematically tracking income or wealth across the population in the 18th century. There were no comprehensive records, no centralised statistics, and certainly no detailed breakdowns of who owned what across different classes. Graphs like this imply data, and data means either someone tracked it or someone made assumptions to reconstruct it. That’s not inherently bad,  but it did get my spider senses tingling.

Then there’s the timeframe: 1760–1790. Thirty years is a long time— especially when discussing a period that included wars, failed financial policies, growing debt, and shifting social dynamics. Wealth distribution wouldn’t have stayed static during that time. Nobles who were at the top in 1760 could be destitute by 1790, while merchants starting out in 1760 could be climbing into the upper tiers by the end of the period. Economic mobility wasn’t common, but over three decades, it wasn’t unheard of either.

All of this raises questions about how this graph was created. Where’s the data coming from? How was it measured? And can we really trust it to represent such a complex period?

Step 2: Check the Fine Print

Since the graph seemed questionable, the obvious next step was to ask: Where does this thing come from? Luckily, the source is clearly cited at the bottom: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Christian Morrisson and Wayne Snyder, published in the European Review of Economic History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2000).

Great! A proper academic source. But, before diving into the article, there’s a crucial detail tucked into the fine print:

“Data for the bottom 40% in France is extrapolated given a single data point.”

What does that mean?

Extrapolation is a statistical method used to estimate unknown values by extending patterns or trends from a small sample of data. In this case, the graph’s creator used one single piece of data—one solitary data point—about the wealth of the bottom 40% of the French population. They then scaled or applied that one value to represent the entire group across the 30-year period (1760–1790).

Put simply, this means someone found one record—maybe a tax ledger, an income statement, or some financial data—pertaining to one specific year, region, or subset of the bottom 40%, and decided it was representative of the entire demographic for three decades.

Let’s be honest: you don’t need a degree in statistics to know that’s problematic. Using a single data point to make sweeping generalisations about a large, diverse population (let alone across an era of wars, famines, and economic shifts) is a massive leap. In fact, it’s about as reliable as guessing how the internet feels about a topic from a single tweet.

This immediately tells me that whatever numbers they claim for the bottom 40% of the population are, at best, speculative. At worst? Utterly meaningless.

It also raises another question: What kind of serious journal would let something like this slide? So, time to pull up the actual article and see what’s going on.

Step 3: Check the Sources

As I mentioned earlier, the source for this graph is conveniently listed at the bottom of the image. Three clicks later, I had downloaded the actual article: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Morrisson and Snyder.

The first thing I noticed while skimming through the article? The graph itself is nowhere to be found in the publication.

This is important. It means the person who created the graph didn’t just lift it straight from the article—they derived it from the data in the publication. Now, that’s not necessarily a problem; secondary analysis of published data is common. But here’s the kicker: there’s no explanation in the screenshot of the graph about which dataset or calculations were used to make it. We’re left to guess.

So, to figure this out, I guess I’ll have to dive into the article itself, trying to identify where they might have pulled the numbers from. Translation: I signed myself up to read 20+ pages of economic history. Thrilling stuff.

But hey, someone has to do it. The things I endure to fight disinformation...

Step 4: Actually Assess the Sources Critically

It doesn’t take long, once you start reading the article, to realise that regardless of what the graph is based on, it’s bound to be somewhat unreliable. Right from the first paragraph, the authors of the paper point out the core issue with calculating income for 18th-century French households: THERE IS NO DATA.

The article is refreshingly honest about this. It states multiple times that there were no reliable income distribution estimates in France before World War II. To fill this gap, Morrisson and Snyder used a variety of proxy sources like the Capitation Tax Records (2), historical socio-professional tables, and Isnard’s income distribution estimates (3).

After reading the whole paper, I can say their methodology is intriguing and very reasonable. They’ve pieced together what they could by using available evidence, and their process is quite well thought-out. I won’t rehash their entire argument here, but if you’re curious, I’d genuinely recommend giving it a read.

Most importantly, the authors are painfully aware of the limitations of their approach. They make it very clear that their estimates are a form of educated guesswork—evidence-based, yes, but still guesswork.   At no point do they overstate their findings or present their conclusions as definitive

As such,  instead of concluding with a single, definitive version of the income distribution, they offer multiple possible scenarios.

It’s not as flashy as a bold, tidy graph, is it? But it’s far more honest—and far more reflective of the complexities involved in reconstructing historical economic data.

Step 5: Run the numbers

Now that we’ve established the authors of the paper don’t actually propose a definitive income distribution, the question remains: where did the creators of the graph get their data? More specifically, which of the proposed distributions did they use?

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate the original article or post containing the graph. Admittedly, I haven’t tried very hard, but the first few pages of Google results just link back to Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and Tumblr posts. In short, all I have to go on is this screenshot.

I’ll give the graph creators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in the full article, they explain where they sourced their data. I really hope they do—because they absolutely should.

That being said, based on the information in Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, I’d make an educated guess that the data came from Table 6 or Table 10, as these are the sections where the authors attempt to provide income distribution estimates.

Now, which dataset does the graph use? Spoiler: None of them.

How can we tell? Since I don’t have access to the raw data or the article where this graph might have been originally posted, I resorted to a rather unscientific method: I used a graphical design program to divide each bar of the chart into 2.5% increments and measure the approximate percentage for each income group.

Here’s what I found:

Now, take a moment to spot the issue. Do you see it?

The problem is glaring: NONE of the datasets from the paper fit the graph. Granted, my measurements are just estimates, so there might be some rounding errors. But the discrepancies are impossible to ignore, particularly for the bottom 40% and the top 10%.

In Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, the lowest estimate for the bottom 40% (1st and 2nd quintiles) is 10%. Even if we use the most conservative proxy, the Capitation Tax estimate, it’s 9%. But the graph claims the bottom 40% held only 6%.

For the top 10% (10th decile), the highest estimate in the paper is 53%. Yet the graph inflates this to 60%.

Step 6: For fun, I made my own bar charts

Because I enjoy this sort of thing (yes, this is what I consider fun—I’m a very fun person), I decided to use the data from the paper to create my own bar charts. Here’s what came out:

What do you notice?

While the results don’t exactly scream “healthy economy,” they look much less dramatic than the graph we started with. The creators of the graph have clearly exaggerated the disparities, making inequality seem worse.

Step 7: Understand the context before drawing conclusions

Numbers, by themselves, mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I could tell you right now that 47% of people admit to arguing with inanimate objects when they don’t work, with printers being the most common offender, and you’d probably believe it. Why? Because it sounds plausible—printers are frustrating, I’ve used a percentage, and I’ve phrased it in a way that sounds “academic.”

You likely wouldn’t even pause to consider that I’m claiming 3.8 billion people argue with inanimate objects. And let’s be real: 3.8 billion is such an incomprehensibly large number that our brains tend to gloss over it.

If, instead, I said, “Half of your friends probably argue with their printers,” you might stop and think, “Wait, that seems a bit unlikely.” (For the record, I completely made that up—I have no clue how many people yell at their stoves or complain to their toasters.)

The point? Numbers mean nothing unless we put them into context.

The original paper does this well by contextualising its estimates, primarily through the calculation of the Gini coefficient (4).

The authors estimate France’s Gini coefficient in the late 18th century to be 0.59, indicating significant income inequality. However, they compare this figure to other regions and periods to provide a clearer picture:

Amsterdam (1742): Much higher inequality, with a Gini of 0.69.

Britain (1759): Lower inequality, with a Gini of 0.52, which rose to 0.59 by 1801.

Prussia (mid-19th century): Far less inequality, with a Gini of 0.34–0.36.

This comparison shows that income inequality wasn’t unique to France. Other regions experienced similar or even higher levels of inequality without spontaneously erupting into revolution.

Accounting for Variations

The authors also recalculated the Gini coefficient to account for potential variations. They assumed that the income of the top quintile (the wealthiest 20%) could vary by ±10%. Here’s what they found:

If the top quintile earned 10% more, the Gini coefficient rose to 0.66, placing France significantly above other European countries of the time.

If the top quintile earned 10% less, the Gini dropped to 0.55, bringing France closer to Britain’s level.

Ultimately, the authors admit there’s uncertainty about the exact level of inequality in France. Their best guess is that it was comparable to other countries or somewhat worse.

Step 8: Drawing Some Conclusions

Saying that most people in the 18th century were poor and miserable—perhaps the French more so than others—isn’t exactly a compelling statement if your goal is to gather clicks or make a dramatic political point.

It’s incredibly tempting to look at the past and find exactly what we want to see in it. History often acts as a mirror, reflecting our own expectations unless we challenge ourselves to think critically. Whether you call it wishful thinking or confirmation bias, it’s easy to project the future onto the past.

Looking at the initial graph, I understand why someone might fall into this trap. Simple, tidy narratives are appealing to everyone. But if you’ve studied history, you’ll know that such narratives are a myth. Human nature may not have changed in thousands of years, but the contexts we inhabit are so vastly different that direct parallels are meaningless.

So, is revolution imminent? Well, that’s up to you—not some random graph on the internet.

Notes

(1) A la lanterne was a  revolutionary cry during the French Revolution, symbolising mob justice where individuals were sometimes hanged from lampposts as a form of public execution

(2) The capitation tax was a fixed head tax implemented in France during the Ancien Régime. It was levied on individuals, with the amount owed determined by their social and professional status. Unlike a proportional income tax, it was based on pre-assigned categories rather than actual earnings, meaning nobles, clergy, and commoners paid different rates regardless of their actual wealth or income.

(3) Jean-Baptiste Isnard was an 18th-century economist. These estimates attempted to describe the theoretical distribution of income among different social classes in pre-revolutionary France. Isnard’s work aimed to categorise income across groups like nobles, clergy, and commoners, providing a broad picture of economic disparity during the period.

(4) The Gini coefficient (or Gini index) is a widely used statistical measure of inequality within a population, specifically in terms of income or wealth distribution. It ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (everyone has the same income or wealth), and 1 represents maximum inequality (one person or household holds all the wealth).

[mangoharchives]

"The blessing of forgetting" ft. my human Bill Cipher design.

Meaning behind the drawing: It's inspired by one of the paintings based on "Mary's annunciation", in which Mary is told she has been blessed with the child of God. Hence the title "The Blessing of Forgetting". But there's a deeper meaning. Bill takes a somewhat angelic form in this drawing, as if to deceive. Notice how he also has flowers in hands, as if offering them to Fiddleford who does accept them. But the flowers are "Forget me not", this is a reference to the fact that even after Fiddleford erased his memories multiple times, he was always unable to forget what he saw on the other side of the portal, which is Bill. There's also the fact that Bill is holding the memory gun in the hand farthest from Fiddleford, trying to hide it and playing with him. All of this, the memory gun, the portal, Bill, cause a bridge between Fiddleford and Stanford, which is represented by the torn picture. The whole thing is inspired by those religious paintings since I'm a sucker for religious imagery.

[physalian]

Not-so-gentle reminder of things to think about before harassing someone over their opinion on a piece of media:

These are fictional characters who don’t know you exist and do not need you to be their knights in shining armor bullying the people who don’t kiss their asses.

These are fictional characters making fictional choices and one person’s love, criticism, or ambivalence toward them does not define their own personal morals and worldviews.

You are as entitled to your positive opinions as someone else is to their negative ones, and when you say “you just didn’t understand” how you’re coming across is “you didn’t draw the exact same conclusions I did, thus you are wrong” which is just not how media literacy works.

You are not the creator and the lines you draw and patterns you see (positive or negative) in a work of fiction are not objectively correct. They're your interpretation and we all interpret things differently.

You have no idea what is happening behind any given post you see and especially in fandom, people post impulsively a lot. If someone’s on here ripping a character you love apart, telling them they’re an awful person for doing so isn’t going to change their mind, and there’s a good chance the character they’re hating on is not the root cause of why they’re upset. That character may represent something very real in their own lives that you’ll never know about.

Thus, someone attacking a fictional character who does not know they exist and isn't real because they're having a bad day or are in a mood or simply don't like them is a whole different ballgame than seeing that post and attacking a very real person with thoughts and feelings because you are having a bad day or are in a mood.

I’ll rip a character or a story apart on here, but I’ll never attack the people who like them on here, and I’d implore more people to understand that “I don’t like X” does not mean “I don’t like that you like X” and it does not mean "I don't like X and don't like this piece of you that you see in X either".

If you don’t have something nice to say to somebody… don’t say it? Block and scroll on.

[sepublic]

So from the hats, we know the center is Nokt, whose fangs, while different, are still clearly represented. Zarkt has the chains…

Rox and Kur have the same hats, but based on what we’ve seen of Rox, I’m inclined to think she’s the one with the scythe; I can see how her caged mouth guard would translate into the mask she has in the final design.

This leaves Drix and Kur, the former of whom confuses me; She’s the farthest left but her actual face looks nothing like what we see here. Her insectoid face is completely uncovered and symmetrical, too! I’m aware designs change as things go along, but it’s interesting.

Will the showrunners acknowledge this? Like idk Drix properly shows her face and it’s covered in bandages, only to remove them with the rest of her outer cloak and reveal her actual appearance. The Forbidden Five share the same robes here, which implies this is a depiction of them with their outer cloaks, as they’re seen in the actual show before Nokt emerges.

(Turns out Drix got her face busted up prior to being sealed away. Due to time not passing in the Netherspace, her injuries never healed; But now that she’s escaped, her wounds have finally recovered and she can remove the bandages to reveal B U G .)

What does this mean for Kur? Will they also look completely different? Or did the designers decide that Drix and Kur looked too similar, and so allowed Kur to retain the asymmetrical, single eye look, while Drix was differentiated?

What if Rox is actually the one to the left of Nokt? The same weapons that nobody else has, plus the side-by-side placement to further allude to them being siblings. Which means we might have Kur with a cage face, or not, since it’d mean Rox and Drix both don’t resemble their appearances here at all…

On a final note, if Rox is the counterpart to Nya… Then would Rox and Kur have a thing? They’re the only ones to share the same hat mold; I’m sure there’s also budgetary reasons for this, but it could be a Jaya parallel. But if the Forbidden Five already have a Jay equivalent, this defeats the idea of them not having one because Jay himself will join. Which raises the question of who’s actually left out of a parallel… Maybe Zane, since he’s meant to stand out as the protagonist in 2025, where the Forbidden Five will properly shine?

[wingedshadowfan]

⚠️arcane s2 act iii spoilers // caitvi ending commentary ⚠️

the difference between the last individual scenes of vi and caitlyn, and the one they shared actually made me sob, so vhere's my analysis of what it all meant

caitlyn is at home, in her family mansion in piltover. her monologue seems to be a messege or an archive for the kirammans or historians after her; she's also looking at the kiramman house files, a family heirloom, a symbol of her legacy and her station, a connection to her mother. she's perhaps looking for something needed in order to start rebuilding the city, perhaps checking if jinx could still be somewhere out there, maybe even seeing what ekko saw about the undercity's vents and water ducts. she still seems to have purpose, or to be in search of one for herself.

vi is also in caitlyn's house in piltover, but she's not with caitlyn. in a city not her own, in a house not her own, it seems she's chosen to sit in a room alone with her thoughts, staring at the fireplace. we hear her humming the tune to a song her mother used to sing, the same one jinx was humming when we first saw her this season - vi's small comfort, the faintest memory from those before her, and nothing to leave to those after her. no roots and no legacy. she's grieving everyone and everything she's lost. stripped of will and void of purpose.

caitlyn is excited to hear vi humming a song. we don't know how long it's been since the war ended, but this implies she hasn't been doing much other than sitting by herself in silence in quite some time. she's become a shell of herself, and caitlyn is worried - she's there for her but doesn't want to push her either. she asks her if she's "still in the fight", and this is a loaded question that i can see two main meanings in - one notably sadder.

1) are you still in there?

what part of you is left, and is it strong enough to keep fighting this state you're in? do you have it in you to keep going? do you have the will to live in spite of it all? is there any fight left in you? are you still with me, or are you just in the room?

and i feel like caitlyn knows the answer but wants to hear it from vi, check in on her and encourage her to open up if she's feeling ready to. because she heard her humming to herself.

and when vi says she's the dirt under caitlyn's nails, she doesn't mean it in a cute, flirty or romantic way. she means it in a self-deprecating "i know i'm not being easy right now" kind of way.

i'm not fun to be around, to have to take care of and wait around for. i'm making things harder for you and i'm holding you back by not cooperating and just getting better. i can't help it.

and she adds onto this, "nothing's ever gonna clean me out"

you're stuck with me. i'm a nuisance to you but i can't leave you because you're all i have left. i think i'm lost and broken beyond repair. i'm crooked. i think i'll never be okay again.

2) have you given up on zaun?

are you still in on fighting the system? have you given up on trying to make others see your people for who you are? do you still have hope in the dream for unity and freedom for zaun?

it sounds like caitlyn does, and she's still up for it, just like she was in the latter half of the first season, before jinx kidnapped her, tried to get vi to kill her, and blew up the counsil building just as its members were about to vote for zaun's sovereignty, killing caitlyn's mother. but caitlyn can't do it on her own - it's vi's home, vi's people, vi's identity - and she needs to know if vi still believes they can change something.

and when vi says she's the dirt under caitlyn's nails, she doesn't literally mean caitlyn, or herself. she means the opposing poles they represent - piltover and zaun, oppressor and oppressed, a pristine policewoman and a crooked criminal. until piltover's view of the undercity and its people changes, zaun will always be a torn in its side, fighting it, defying it, trying to free itself from its clutches. small, perhaps insignificant, an inconvenience, but a part of it that it can't get rid of or erase. it'll always be there, it'll always fight back.

and when she says nothing's ever gonna clean her out, she means she'll never be bent out of shape and lose that part of herself - the ugly, dirty, raggedy part that grew up on the streets of zaun and was raised among all the tragedy, misery and poverty of the undercity. a product of the system. she'll never let that be "washed out" of her, she won't forget her origin or her goals. this is who she is, her identity - not just in the eyes of piltover, but in her own heart - a zaunite.

EDIT: i also saw this interpretation on tiktok if you're interested. to summarize: there's a spanish saying "like nails and dirt" which is used to refer to two people who are inseparable, so this is a testimony of vi's love for caitlyn having given her reason to keep going and stay by her.

[pickyourpoisonandevolve]

Thanksgiving Drabble w/ the 141 + Black Reader

Notes/warnings: just a fluff piece from me. I don’t know how to do drabbles/imagines but I SURE DO enjoy reading them and I have a brain baby to birth. Idk if this is TOO specific for a drabble but reader is black/female/american. Because those things aren’t often represented in these! And also I can do what I want at the end of the day. Just… just walk with me here.

The military is an easy place to forget that your squadmates are real actual people with families and backgrounds, on account of the inherent assimilation. Not that it wasn’t needed, but you get so busy creating your own language and communication styles that I think being able to express cultural habits and likes get a little seldom.

All that to say, you and Gaz LOVE to cook together, as it makes you nostalgic for your respective families. And you’ll be damned if these Brits make you skip Thanksgiving. The rest met your enthusiasm with “fucking Americans” but Gaz thankfully was more than happy to join you in the prep, you both bonding in hatred for the same old shit from the base kitchen. But most of the base is gone so you lot have the kitchen and common room to yourself, and that means you and Gaz are making a FEAST.

Pulling greens, the dishes that take 6-8 hours to make, the shit talking, the hyper specific recipes that you bicker about, the music played. You both are IN IT, and Johnny, Simon and Price didn’t have anywhere else to be, and are more than happy to eat what you make. (As they aren’t the most talented cooks of the bunch) Sausage rolls and chip buttys a Thanksgiving does not make.

It tickles the other three to walk by occasionally, listening to you to just… talk. And vibe. About old experiences, moving in tandem, bitching occcasionally. It had a spooky parallel to how you all worked in the field, seamlessly in sync, but the juxtaposition of it being wholesome. You all got to live in a temporary bubble of normalcy and domesticism. Like a big weird family, you could forget you all killed people for a living.

Price had shit to do, so he did flybys through the day, but they increased in frequency as it went on, his smile growing each time. His little grinch heart growing, seeing his team get along. You tossed cookies at him, hoping to get a rise out of him, but all you were met with was a “thanks, love” and a wink. You made a mental note to do that at a frequency of everyday forever.

Soap didn’t want to miss anything (or feel left out) so he kept to his favorite things: “watching TV” aka TikToks and passively watching a show, interjecting in conversations and stealing food when no one was looking. (Everyone was looking and he was slapped and yelled at A LOT)

Ghost was just unfamiliar with this intimate of camaraderie. He stopped in occasionally for tea, which Gaz and you started making for him. You could see his little eye crinkles as you prepared his tea just like he liked it.

Gaz and you started singing together as you plated the meal on the kitchen island. The rest of the team was holding a flight pattern in the common area, pulled in like the smell lines in an old timey cartoon, scotch already prepped and poured. But there was a moment where you two got swept up in your comfortability, and started singing in earnest. (This song in particular) You two didn’t make it a habit of getting too relaxed in front of the others, big tough soldiers and all, so this was a rare, near nonexistent sight.

Better days comin' for sure

If this world were—

If it was up to me

I wouldn't give these nobodies no sympathy

I'd take away the pain, I'd give you everything

I just wanna see you win, wanna see

If this world were mine

The three on the couch looked back with open mouths and smiles as you carried on. Literal years you all have worked together, how did they not know you two sang, and HARMONIZED? Did you practice?

You noticed first, brought back to reality and almost dropping a dish. Scandalized! Embarassed! Blushing furiously! Gaz thankfully was impervious to their bullshit, and told them to fuck off and come eat. Typical soldiers, couldn’t sit down proper for anything, food included, so you all settled into conversation and a full meal standing around the island. Enjoying the bubble, enjoying the peace, enjoying the moment.

Johnny, Price and Simon graciously offered to do dishes and clean. (Leftovers for days!) And after a while, you all dispersed. Soap stole a half of a pie and was inbound on falling asleep with his pants unbuttoned on the couch. Ghost was tactically figuring out how to look aloof and fall asleep on Soaps shoulder. Gaz had family (and a lady, you suspected) to FaceTime and Price hung behind you on the way to the barracks. Before you made your good nights, he offered to share a new bottle of bourbon his Nan sent in his room. Super casual. No pressure. Maybe he could hear your pretty voice sing just for him this time.

(This Drabble is sponsored by holidays, KDots new album, and an excuse to flirt with Price. Happy Thanksgiving, Americans are all on native land, and fuck Columbus)

[kooldewd123]

revisiting digimon as an adult, it is incredibly striking to me just how strongly adventure and 02 contrast against each other in their views of technology. despite releasing only a year apart from one another, they fall on opposite sides of the millennium - 1999 and 2000, respectively. and because of that separation, being a year apart yet divided across a thousand-year boundary, they have a weird dynamic when held up against each other. the digital world is clearly a representation of the internet, the digital age, the rise of technology, whatever you wanna call it. in digimon adventure, the digital world is a frightening place. there's something hollow to it. it's filled with technological relics - payphones that spout only nonsense, power lines that lack any cables, factories that create and then disassemble the same odd shapes in an endless cycle. these were the modern marvels of the time, and their existence here in this broken state asks the question of whether they have a future in the coming age of the internet or if they'll instead be replaced by newer, better, digital inventions. although the series ultimately offers an optimistic view of what the future holds (represented by the digimon themselves), that feeling of uncertainty and trepidation underlies the entire journey, reinforced with every new out-of-place landmark the digidestined reach.

and then we reach 02, and the entire perspective completely shifts. what does the future hold? well, we're in the future now! 2002, baby! the digidestined have traveled the digital world and befriended many of its inhabitants. it's no longer foreign and dangerous, but familiar and comfortable. the new digidestined don't approach it with the same terror the original cast did; rather, they see it all as a big game from the very start. it all feels very reflective of how, as home computers became more widespread and people became more familiar with them, so too did we see a rise in online entertainment. the best way i can describe the feel of 02 is "early-to-mid-'00s browser game." the show just bleeds this very Y2K, almost frutiger aero sort of aesthetic. tk and kari's outfits are comprised of saturated, contrasting colors. the original digivices already look outdated next to the new D-3s, with their smoother, more plastic-y designs. instead of the plain rectangular crests, the digieggs all have sleek, curvy shapes to them. veemon and his armor digivolutions simply feel like browser game mascots in a way that i can't properly describe. i typically don't like to compare digimon designs to other franchises (i've seen enough comparisons to a certain other monster-collecting franchise already), but demiveemon practically looks like a goddamn neopet to me. it all collectively feeds into this new-millennium optimism you can feel at the core of the show: the internet is fun, it's exciting. we're at the cusp of a generation who will grow up never knowing a non-online world, and we are the trailblazers who get to define what that means. as opposed to adventure, which trapped its characters in the digital world for most its runtime, the characters of 02 are allowed to freely travel between the two worlds with only a few narratively unimportant limitations. adventure uses the digital world as a vessel to ask the question of what the future of technology looks like, and 02 then tries to offer an answer by telling a story about the real world and the digital world evolving in tandem with one another, each shaping the future of the other. the show is in constant dialogue with itself as these two themes collide.

[callmecharlie09]

Some analasys on Mouthwashing

This is quite litteraly my first post on the game, but i wanted to shoot my shot incase someone finds this, i rlly need to talk about this beautiful masterpiece.

People often talk about the game regarding the playthrough and theories and whatnot which is obv normal, considering thats what you need to use as a source of analasys, but one thing I never myself have seen is people talking about the title of the game itself.

I found it random how mouthwashing of all things was the word chosen from it, seeing how it is only pretty relevant in the game when the crew starts using it as a substitue for food or smth after running short on it. However, it obviously means alot more if it is the name to represent the game, and this is my take on it ^^

One thing that caught my eye is that the entire crew had hid something from the rest at one point or another, pre and post crash. Anya had hidden her abuse taken from Jimmy after Curly didnt do anything, Daisuke telling Jimmy about his problems with his mom when drunk, Swansea keeping away the escape pod so Daisuke could use it, and Jimmy and Curly are mostly related to Anyas situation, but also the scene where Curly told the crew about them being fired, making Jimmy felt lied to in a sense. So what does this mean? I feel like the mouthwash is suppose to be a 'metaphor' for the expression "to wash your mouth out with soap". Normally, this expression is used when someone says something bad or something they shouldnt have said, and in a more overexagerated sense, 'to clense your sins'. So could it basically mean that it is a weird punishment for every crew member not being truthful? Especially in dire situations? It might be, but I have another theory for it.

Another thing is the suffering the mouthwash brought to the others. One might assume that, despite the minty taste and liquid form, mouthwash would still be enough to help them survive, seeing as how its sugar contents woupd help them live for long enough to get rescued, but that doesnt seem to happen in anyones case.

The moment they discover the mouthwash storage boxes, Anyas first instinct was to read what it contained, and she immediatly panicked when she saw it had too much sugar to be used for Curly to tend to his injuries, already being a problem to two of the members. Swansea and Daisuke (mostly Swansea) took advantage of the alcohol that it contained, striking back Swanseas addiction that he sobered up from and making Daisuke think about his mother solemnly, and Jimmy is the only one left. He has the smallest disatvantage when it comes to him as a singular person, but as now captain, he sees it as him getting the biggest one, with having to make the others survive on mouthwash alone while he goes madder and more insane everyday, becoming less stable than before and distancing himself from everyone.

Thats basically all that I have to say, it might've been obvious to others, but I only thought about this a few days ago lol (im sorry for bad english).

Bye chat <3

[blessed1neha]

What is Badhaka planet in Vedic astrology? What is its significance?

In Vedic astrology, the term Badhaka (literally meaning "obstacle" or "hindrance") refers to a specific planet that acts as a potential troublemaker or obstructive force in a person's life, depending on the ascendant (Lagna). The concept of the Badhaka planet is primarily related to the principles of Jaimini astrology, and it holds significance for understanding challenges or delays in achieving specific goals.

How Is the Badhaka Planet Determined?

The Badhaka planet is identified based on the ascendant (Lagna) and the classification of houses in a chart:

For Movable Signs (Chara Rashis): Aries, Cancer, Libra, Capricorn

The 11th house lord is the Badhaka planet.

Example: For Aries Lagna, Aquarius is the 11th house, so Saturn becomes the Badhaka planet.

For Fixed Signs (Sthira Rashis): Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, Aquarius

The 9th house lord is the Badhaka planet.

Example: For Taurus Lagna, Capricorn is the 9th house, so Saturn becomes the Badhaka planet.

For Dual Signs (Dwiswabhava Rashis): Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, Pisces

The 7th house lord is the Badhaka planet.

Example: For Gemini Lagna, Sagittarius is the 7th house, so Jupiter becomes the Badhaka planet.

What Does the Badhaka Planet Represent?

The Badhaka planet is considered a source of obstacles, delays, or hindrances in life. Its placement and influence in the natal chart can create challenges in the areas of life it governs. However, it doesn’t always act negatively; under certain conditions, it can lead to growth through challenges or be neutralized by benefic influences.

Obstructions and Delays:

The Badhaka planet might cause delays in achieving success, fulfilling desires, or attaining goals.

Health Issues:

If the Badhaka planet is associated with the 6th, 8th, or 12th houses, it may bring health problems or accidents.

Relationship Challenges:

When linked to the 7th house, the Badhaka planet can cause relationship struggles, misunderstandings, or delayed marriages.

Spiritual Growth:

Obstacles caused by the Badhaka planet often lead to introspection and spiritual development.

Karmic Lessons:

It is often seen as a trigger for karmic lessons that one must face and overcome.

Factors That Modify Its Influence

Benefic Influence:

If the Badhaka planet is aspected by or in conjunction with benefic planets like Jupiter or Venus, its negative effects may reduce significantly.

House Placement:

The Badhaka planet’s influence depends on which house it occupies:

In the 1st, 4th, 7th, or 10th houses, it might create visible struggles.

In the 6th, 8th, or 12th houses, hidden challenges or health issues might arise.

Dasha Periods:

The effects of the Badhaka planet are particularly noticeable during its dasha (planetary period) or antardasha (sub-period).

Strength and Dignity:

If the Badhaka planet is exalted or in its own sign, its negative effects may reduce, and it can act as a source of constructive challenges.

Remedies for Badhaka Planet

Mantras:

Chant mantras associated with the Badhaka planet or its ruling deity.

Example: For Saturn as the Badhaka planet, chant the Shani mantra or the Hanuman Chalisa.

Charity and Donations:

Donate items related to the Badhaka planet on its specific day.

Example: Donate black sesame seeds, iron, or black cloth for Saturn.

Strengthening Lagna Lord:

Strengthening the ascendant lord can reduce the negative impact of the Badhaka planet.

Worship:

Offer prayers to deities associated with the planet. For example:

Worship Lord Shiva for Saturn.

Worship Lord Vishnu for Jupiter.

Gemstones:

Wear gemstones only after consulting a qualified astrologer, as strengthening a Badhaka planet may not always be advisable.

Key Points to Remember

The Badhaka planet does not always bring negative results. Its influence can lead to growth and transformation if handled correctly.

Its effects depend on the overall chart, including aspects, conjunctions, and yogas involving the Badhaka planet.

Challenges caused by the Badhaka planet are meant to teach lessons and lead to spiritual evolution.

By understanding and addressing the Badhaka planet’s influence in the horoscope, one can navigate its challenges effectively and transform obstacles into opportunities for growth.

[desmon1995]

How the Warriors created a fantastic opening.

When it comes to setting the tone for a concept album, the opening tracks are everything. For The Warriors album, the first three songs—Survive the Night, Roll Call, and The Warriors Cypher—do exactly what they need to do: introduce the world, set up the stakes, and give us everything we need to know about the characters. By the end of these tracks, not only are you fully immersed in this reimagined New York City, but you’re already seeing themes unfold that will circle back perfectly by the finale.

"Survive the Night"

The first track sets the scene in a big way. DJ Lynn—our Greek Chorus and guide for the album—takes the mic, introducing us to the chaotic world of NYC and the boroughs the Warriors have to escape from. This is genius for two reasons.

The Radio as the Storytelling Device: In the movie, everyone listens to the radio to keep tabs on what’s happening. The album leans into this, using DJ Lynn to tie together the narrative. It’s a nod to the original and a creative way to keep the story moving.

The Voices of the Boroughs: Instead of showing us gangs heading to the summit, the album gives the boroughs themselves a voice, starting with Chris Rivers as the Bronx.

The Bronx speaks on its struggles—how systemic change is the only way to stop the violence that’s tearing it apart. Rivers, as Big Pun’s son, brings an extra layer of depth. He’s literally continuing a legacy, which mirrors how various warriors end up inheriting the will of Cyrus like Cleon or how Fox herself ends up taking after her fellow Warriors Swan and Ajax.

Nas follows as Queens, representing struggle and perseverance. He speaks to the creativity and resourcefulness of people born into tough circumstances, as well as the constant threat of being seen as a danger by the system—even when you’re just trying to rise above.

Nas himself grew up in the NYC projects in queensbridge and has directly suffered from Reaganomics growing up, and all of that turmoil caused him to become a rapper so he can literally ride his way out of the situation.

Came’ron as Manhattan shifts the tone, highlighting the borough’s wealth and privilege. Manhattan doesn’t face the same struggles as the others, and the disconnect is clear.

Manhattan out of all of the cities represents the class divide that we see throughout the album as due to lavish the city is it doesn't have to worry about how it's going to survive because it's the upper echelon of New York City.

The Staten Islands, are voiced by Wu-Tang’s Ghostface Killah and RZA which while it's just an elongated joke about how far they have to go to get to the summit there is a lot of insightful meaning here.

Firstly, the Wu-Tang clan renamed the Islands Shaolin to reclaim the image from the media as it being a inhabitable ghetto and to reflect how growing up there in the community made them who they ultimately became.

Reclamation is something many marginalized communities do be it with harmful words used by their oppressors or images that society tries to tout.

Swan does this with Luther's "Going Down" leitmotif before she eventually ends him.

Busta Rhymes closes out the borough roll call as Brooklyn, the most welcoming of all. Brooklyn celebrates diversity, something the Warriors embody as a group. They’re a mix of different backgrounds and styles, but their differences make them stronger.

Busta was a rapper that eventually took off by being a part of their groups and would often participate in various freestyles (his work with A tribe called quest is legendary) so he speaks to the truth of forming a found family within the rap community

"Roll Call"

The second track is quick but effective. It introduces the Warriors as a team and establishes Cleon as their maternal figure. Cleon insists they’re going to the summit, and while not everyone agrees, they all respect her enough to follow.

This track subtly establishes the sisterhood among the Warriors. They may bicker or disagree, but they have each other’s backs no matter what.

"The Warriors Cypher"

The final piece of the opening trifecta gives us a deeper look at the individual personalities in the group.

Cochise: The loyal soldier, always ready to support.

Cowgirl: Wild and free-spirited, she brings the positivity the group needs.

Fox: The youngest and prettiest, with an almost RPG-like growth arc that makes her fun to watch.

Cleon: The fearless leader and heart of the group.

Rembrandt: The introspective artist who sees what others can’t.

Ajax: The temperamental muscle, tough but with a hidden soft side.

Swan: The aloof but big-hearted leader, second only to Ajax in battle-readiness.

By the end of this track, you know exactly who the Warriors are. Their personalities bounce off each other, and you can already feel the respect and trust they have as a team.

After everything is settled you basically understand all you need to know so the musical can surprise you with various twists and turns but regardless of what new themes get added you already know the essentials

[sunshinemoonrx]

Part 2: The Alternatives

You thought you were safe just because it's been a couple months? No. Let's talk about the skirtless alternatives some seasons go for.

Neutral: just not gendering the suits in their basic construction is perfectly respectable, creates uniformity which is better for some designs, and is arguably less sexist; although as established we're not so much analysing the social implications here so much as what makes me swoon. Skirtless teams were a regular option earlier than you might think, with Goranger, Dynaman and Fiveman (and Sun Vulcan, but that doesn't count). Though it would be hard to argue that for instance the Momoranger suit isn't still very feminine. Just like with skirts, there's different colour schemes for the pants/leggings style: most commonly they use the main suit's solid colour or black, but white is also occasionally used. Which I prefer is contextual and I think they usually pick well for the individual design, though how rare white is makes me fond of it. I don't think Dynaman would be many peoples' thought for "hot sentai suits", but in motion those leggings are really flattering.

The leotard look: Part of what gives the Bioman/Changeman/Flashman trilogy its unique feeling, but it's still wild to me they've never gone back to it (the closest would be those male Jetman suits). But I'm biased, of course; if you know me, you know that I love those shows and that I love a space leotard. I do genuinely think it's a very fun silhouette compared with the long-pants look; but from a sex appeal perspective, there's something really magical to how much you can suggest with the same material by just moving a few lines around. Change Mermaid is a perennial favourite of Japanese suitfuckers for a reason. This is mostly for Changeman and Flashman, where everything is very clean and sleek and sexy, whereas Bioman is a bit more clunky by comparison, they were still working that aesthetic out and were leaning into the gadgetry theme besides. But I've come around on them recently, and it must be said the Bioman suits are using the "colours representing upper and lower layers" effect I talked about before to emulate long socks and gloves (on all five rangers!) in a way the other two aren't.

(Stray thought, but if you put a helmet on Farah Cat she'd look like a pretty convincing evil Flashman)

Bare leg: oh Battle Fever, you strange show, you. Like a lot of people, I don't really think these suits are, uh, good, per se? The big eyes and plastic hairpieces are a little haunting. Miss America especially, well, she's definitely distinctive, having both the only full-on wig and the only bare legs (in close-ups at least) in the whole sentai series. But again, memorable doesn't necessarily mean good. Still, I actually do think it would be cool to go back and explore the partial suit look sometime; if not often. After all, the complete enclosure of the human form is part of the sentai suit appeal. (I actually think exposed skin stands out less on more layered designs--Riderman and Tackle look unusual next to other Riders, but not as unusual as Miss America in a pink ranger lineup, imo)

Accessories: This is mostly a post about the actual suit construction, but as an addendum I do wanna mention that very occasionally the girl suits will have earrings, and honestly, that's never worked for me, because uh, the helmets don't have ears. Momoranger's are kind of charming in a clunky way, like the Goranger suits in general, and the fact they're detachable bombs does help. The crystalline Maskman ones actually would look pretty good in another season, but that team in particular look so good entirely because of how sleek and no-nonsense their design is. Having these objects sticking out of the helmet breaks that up. Rare point against those designs for me.

In conclusion: I'm glad we alternate between approaches, but bring the leotards back into that rotation. Three is not enough. Also keep doing the thigh-highs thing. Yes there will be one more of these, no I will not promise when.

Okay so Skirts on Sentai Suits

Part of a tokusatsu 20 questions going around recently was "do you like skirts on sentai suits?" Here's the thing: Not all skirts were created equal.

(Preface to all this: I know I am going to be unruly suit-horny here so for the record, give them to the boys too. Obviously.)

Broadly there are four colour schemes:

Suit is all its primary colour, including skirt (e.g. Ryusoulger, Denjiman)

Suit body and skirt are primary colour, legs are secondary colour (black or white) (e.g. Gokaiger, Dairanger)

Suit body is primary colour, skirt and legs are secondary colour (e.g. Goseiger, Liveman)

Suit body and skirt are primary colour, legs on the non-skirted suits are also primary colour, but legs on this suit are a secondary colour--THIS IS THE HOT STUFF BABY LET ME EXPLAIN WHY

Okay so it's about "something hidden" or "something you're not supposed to see". If the skirt and legs are the same colour, it all registers as the same 'layer'. If you have a pink/blue/whatever skirt over black or white legs, that more suggests "clothing over body". However...

The non-skirted suits also have black legs, right? So clearly, that colour/layer is also "okay to see". Symbolically, that's black pants. (Of course, tokusatsu suits aren't only hot in imitating the human form. But we're talking about tight bodysuits in this post, not big sexy monsters, so follow me here.)

But if you've got a skirt over black/white legs, and the non-skirted suits have solid-colour legs...now that's a symbolically "lower" layer than the 'costume' shape.

So thank god for ninjas. See, in Hurricane the solid colour is the 'clothing', and the grey is 'beneath'; the shoulders of the sleeves emphasise this (contrasted with the Gouraigers' black pants, whereas even they have grey sleeves). In other words, that's a colour that has to be covered on certain body parts to be 'appropriate', like skin does. In Ninnin, solid colour is 'clothing' and black is 'beneath'--extra emphasised by the thigh-highs, which as I recently posted about, Jesus Fucking Hell.

Like, this is all an illusion. Obviously, the colour 'beneath' is just a bodysuit. ShiroNinger's black legs under there look exactly the same as, say, ShinkenRed's. And let's not forget, nice legs in a tight bodysuit are nice in and of themselves. But the concealment...the suggestion of something forbidden...the whole colour scheme lining up to reinforce this...(And well, Hurricane Blue does even have blue 'panties' under there...which again, if you took away the skirt would just make the blue a leotard-style shape like the Flashman etc. suits and not feel like underwear at all, but the fact that it's hidden and you get brief flashes...)

Interestingly, there's a third season that achieves this effect a different way--Jetman:

Now, all the suits here have secondary-colour legs--but uniquely in all of sentai, here the boys get a short-shorts/leotard/something shape, not too far off the girls in, say, Bioman. This means that at least for the lower body, white is an 'underlying' colour (or pink for White Swan, a common colour-scheme-swap for white rangers in a team with white as a secondary colour). So you do get the layered/"this colour has to be hidden above the thigh so it's intriguing" effect...sort of...the upper-body colour scheme confuses this and makes it hard to equate it to an outfit shape, as I also recently posted about. (And ofc, imitating an outfit is not the only objective of a sentai suit--the Jetman suits look great!)

Potentially post 1/3 if I can be bothered to post the other two. Yes there is more to say about this. Yes you will get my opinion on every single team in the third one if I do. Yes there is something wrong with me

[devon-usher]

Thoughts on Sergei?

I have no clue if Ushanka's an incarnation of madness, a manifestation of change, or a victim of compulsion, if he's real. As a story/tale, the whole thing is very enticing. Ghost in the Machine and all- y'know. Good creepypasta material.

If he's real, then I don't know if he's actually suffering, or if he's done suffering and only his echoes remain to terrify other people. It would likely be both. I feel kind of sorry for him if he's "alive" in there - based on the tale, he never adapted to his situation, which is a shame.

Then again, maybe the whole suffering thing is an act on his part, and is only meant to scare people, in which case, well played I suppose. It's very unnerving.

[hinamie]

もう一回、もう一回

[jacketpotatoo]

The thematic implications of Caitlyn transitioning from solely a sharpshooter, to learning the ropes of hand-to-hand combat, and how it follows her growing distrust in Ambessa. If the weapon is a reflection of mentality, it prefigures Cait's mental expansion - away from narrow-minded thinking and acting from a distance. Instead of tackling from afar, she melds her skills in accuracy and deduction *with* close-up action. This is her power play. "Vision" is cait's strength (as opposed to "Might" and "Guile" and "Sacrifice") and Ambessa qualifies this with the phrase "tunnels in your eyes". Ironically, she trains Caitlyn and literally gives her the tools to pull away from her rifle-mindset. In teaching her how Noxus views strength, she offers her the keys to dismantle it