#because I see people saying things from one perspective

[mythalism]

in my rook hating mindset now after that post this morning and cannot stop thinking about how they are literally the worst protagonist maybe in any story i have ever experienced JRHGKJERHGJERG. and like if you love your rook i am not saying you shouldn't. if you love your rook i am so so happy for you genuinely but you are also probably brilliant and have a huge brain because what the game gives you to build off of is so abysmal.

i literally cannot stop thinking about how insane it is that rook literally causes a double blight and worldwide catastrophe on a scale which thedas has not seen probably since the creation of the veil itself and just. experiences no remorse. and the story tries to tell us thats a good thing and makes them better than the villain/their foil. JHREGJKHERGJKHERG. HELLO?!!??!?!?! literally no one ever goes "hey maybe you shouldnt have done that" except solas and hes framed as the VILLAIN!!! WHAT!!!!!!!!!! hawke blames themselves for not putting the pieces together fast enough when a bouquet of white lilies arrived at their door? the narrative gleefully condemn anders with the immediate opportunity to kill him for his crimes. nearly every single character in origins immediately puts the entirety of the responsibility for the fifth blight on loghain's shoulders, regardless of the CLEAR SUGGESTION that the battle at ostagar could never have been won. and all of these makes sense for the world and characters!!!!! of course hawke would blame themselves for their families deaths when they were given the role of protector by leandra after malcom dies. of course the city of kirkwall is going to want anders dead for his extreme act of violence rather than start the uncomfortable process of acknowledging the beloved chantry's complicity in large scale abuse happening in the mage circles!!!! of course alistair and the warden are going to blame loghain for the blight and cailan's death!!!! it doesnt matter if they are right or wrong, it makes sense for their perspective and worldview to feel this way!!!!

have yall gotten the low approval conversations in inquisition????? solas's "Inquisitor. Tell me. How does it feel? Being you. Are you blissfully unaware or, deep inside, is some part of you banging on the walls, screaming?" cassandra getting drunk and practically spitting in your face how she regrets raising you up to such power? blackwalls' "Are you proud of yourself, of what you’ve built here? How about the lives you’ve destroyed along the way? Given much thought to those lately? Is this Inquisition all you wanted it to be? Because I’m disappointed. All I see is a gang of thugs led by a self-serving tyrant." and these SCATHING comments from those who once believed in the inquisitor enough to join their cause come from decisions that affect a fraction of the population that dies under the southern double blight. people will rip the inquisitior to fucking shreds when they fuck up. THATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE TRESPASSER DLC EHRGKJHERGKJHERG. like holy shit every decision carries the weight of "oh my god whos gonna hate me. who is going to die because of my choice. how is this going to come back to bite me." have we forgotten what its like to return to varric after leaving hawke in the fade and confess what we did? the call we just made? to look him in the eye and tell him that we sacrificed his best friend? WHY IS ROOK NEVER ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THIS INTROSPECTION?????????? TO EVALUATE HOW THEIR DECISIONS AFFECT THOSE AROUND THEM BOTH PERSONALLY AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE????? OH MY GODDDDD

the regret prison scene is so insane. first its insane because its solas at his best and most cunty. but secondly it makes no fucking sense even if im largely distracted by pookie being fun and villainous. solas tries desperately to play up rook's regrets during their conversations and we are supposed to believe that it was that manipulation that allowed him to swap with them in the prison. how does this actually work? blood magic? dont worry about it, kitten. but then when we get into the prison.... the only two regrets that manifest are things that just happened within the last 3 hours - your two party sacrifices. lets be clear that these are not even real sacrifices because literally all of these people volunteer to go and then argue about why they should go. this is so fucking stupid. then rook looks at the statues and says "i dont regret this because this was your choice". YEAH????? OF COURSE YOU DONT FUCKING REGRET IT WHY WOULD YOU. HELLO???? THIS WAS NOT ROOKS CHOICE THIS WAS ROOK JUST SAYING "SURE I GUESS". AND THEN THATS ENOUGH! THEY JUST LEAVE BC THEY CONQUERED THEIR REGRETS!?!?!?!?!??! WHAT!!!!!! there is no discussion of rook being responsible for the blight in the south that we find out via ooc inquisitior letter has KILLED LITERALLY EVERYONE. no suggestion that their recklessness and willingness to act WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION at the ritual is the reason for every single thing the evanuris do following their release.

and let me be very clear bc i know this was causing drama on twitter last week. i am not saying the double blights is rook's fault. i actually dont think it is their fault, although i do think they are stupid and reckless and shouldn't have acted so carelessly. but although rook is responsible for ghilly and edgar breaking free, rook is not responsible for the their actions following that freedom, and rook is not at fault for being put into an impossible situation (the need to stop solas's ritual) without all of the information on what the ritual was and what stopping it might incur. however, the double blight is rook's fault in the same way that the veil, the fall of the elvhen empire, elven mortality, and every demon's existence is solas's fault; which is to say, it is and it is not. solas was backed into a corner, in a desperate situation without knowledge of the potential consequences, and was forced to make a decision for the good of the world when he imprisoned the evanuris and blight with the veil. rook was backed into a corner, in a desperate situation without knowledge of the potential consequences, and was forced to make a decision for what they thought was the good of the world when they interrupted solas's ritual. but while solas feels immense guilt and responsibility for the choice he made, rook feels.... absolutely none. and the game tells us that... they're right? people should just not take accountability for anything? i will give credit where it's due here that varric's contribution to this scene is quite good and his line where rook tries to take responsibility for his death and varric says smth like "no, that was my own choice and you dont get to take that from me" is B A N G E R. WHERE WAS THAT ENERGY IN THE REST OF THIS FUCKING GAME!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

THAT was the lesson solas needed to learn, not that his regret was wrong but that it was MISPLACED!!!!!!!!! and that is why it is mythal acknowledging that their burden is shared and not his alone is the culmination of his entire story and what finally allows him to move on. pride stands alone, wisdom seeks out the input of others to make an informed and wise decision. this is also why he leaves such breadcrumbs for the inquisitor (a high approval one, at least) because he respects their opinion and their input and their existence and the way they treat him turns him back into wisdom from pride. this is why a romanced inquisitor mentions his name being pride and how its possible that hes not even CAPABLE of changing his mind because it would be so against his nature, and he needs someone whose opinion he values to show him the way. his flaw is his SELF INFLICTED LONELINESS!!!!! NOT HIS REGRET. varric even fucking says this in some random banter you get with his ghost in the infirmary but im too lazy to go find it on my desktop. its something about how he sees attachments as a weakness rather than a strength. his pride causes him to take on responsibility that is not his, his wisdom -> pride corruption has led him to believe he is the only one capable of fixing the world's problems and he will destroy both himself and those he loves in the process. he asserts that he is just a man but is unable to stop making decisions for the world like a god.

THIS is the solas/rook foil that should have been: rook relies on their friends and that reliance is ESSENTIAL; after all, the neve/bellara and davrin/harding sacrifice is essential to win. in contrast solas refuses to rely on anyone, and this isolation makes him increasingly cruel. when he has no one to mirror the way a spirit should, he becomes Pride, too proud and too god-like. his attachments make him more human. he is terrified of depending on others and will kill them rather than risk the vulnerability of dependence after what it has done to him (mythal, felassan). he has to unlearn this avoidance and fear, he has to admit that there "could have been a better way" that someone else saw and he did not. he must learn that he does not have all the answers. he is not Pride. its NOT that rook doesnt experience regret and doesn't take accountability for mistakes while solas is trapped by his own regrets. the message we got instead is so incoherent. but it was SO CLOSE TO BEING GOOD. the bones of this are littered everywhere in both the game and in the datamined content and for some reason it just could not be brought together in a way that makes sense.

the message that rook is "right" and better for not having regrets is genuinely insane, especially when the "regrets" they have to conquer are literally just. other peoples decisions. the fact that rook has the audacity to say to solas that he could never escape the prison while they could so easily because he is trapped by his own regret as if rook is better than him is genuinely so fucking dumb it makes me want to claw my eyes out for having been forced to read it. rook sacrifices nothing and learns nothing. the sacrifices within the game belong to the characters that make them, rook does not order people to their deaths in the same way that solas or even THE INQUISITOR do. rook never is asked to grapple with the fact that they ACCIDENTALLY unleashed a double blight, no matter how good their intentions. WHY DOES NO ONE BLAME THEM FOR THIS???? regardless of if it is their fault or not, the objective truth of fault does not matter, what matters is that you make decisions and PEOPLE JUDGE YOU FOR THEM!!!!!!!!! THIS IS LIKE FOUNDATIONAL TO THESE GAMES JEHRGJKREHGJKRHG. this is what the entire game is about doing to solas. judging him. based on his choices. and the game clearly wants you to have empathy for him in the end. but its so OBVIOUS that the vessel for building up that empathy should have been ROOK EXPERIENCING THE SAME THING!!! THE SAME JUDGEMENT!!! THE SAME GROWTH!!!!! FEELING THE BURDEN OF THE WORLD ON THEIR SHOULDERS. FEELING THE DREAD OF GUILT AND SHAME AND REGRET. TRYING TO DEFEND THEIR INTENTIONS!!! I DIDNT MEAN TO I DIDNT MEAN TO IT WAS A MISTAKE!!!! LEARNING THAT THEY HAVE TO OWN UP TO IT BUT THEY ALSO HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO MOVE FORWARD!!!!!! HELLO!??!?!?!?! they BARELY even express remorse for the treviso/minrathous sacrifice, even when faced with neve/lucanis's anger they just go "a decision had to be made and i made it". well. YEAH? LIKE YEAH THATS RIGHT BUT HUMANS HAVE FEELINGS??? YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A PERSON, NOT A BLANK SLATE VIDEO GAME PROTAGONIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS OKAY TO FEEL BAD!!!! YOU MADE A DECISION THAT RESULTED IN PEOPLE DYING. ANY HUMAN BEING WOULD FEEL BAD ABOUT THIS. ITS KIND OF FUCKING WEIRD THAT YOU DO NOT. HOW IS ROOK JUST BORN BEING OK WITH THIS. ITS SO ROBOTIC AND ARTIFICIAL LOL

rooks actions are such a clear, perfect parallel to solas putting up the veil and the guilt that haunts him afterwards that i KNOW it was intended that way and somehow it just got completely shafted. it literally feels like they did have a coherent parallel going and for some reason were forced to change directions last minute and thus we got some mish mashed barely cobbled together incoherent nonsense with clear echoes of its former self. instead rook has no flaws, makes perfect judgements at all time, has unconditional support from all of their friends who also make perfect judgements, are immune to making mistakes, and the message is its actually just really easy to not have regrets if you just choose right every time and refuse to take responsibility for anything as long as you had good intentions :D

[damian-al-ghul-wayne]

I want to add on to this because I just want to get my actual perspective of Damian out there,,

People should take into account that Damian is not only an assassin but a prince. I do agree that if the measures called for it, yes, then he would bite but in basic fighting or sparring? No. He absolutely wouldn't. My depiction and view of Damian, as I've stated in the past, is very polished and germaphobic.

As Brucie Mun mentioned, screening for diseases afterward, if it were to happen, would be something Damian would think about all the time once he's living with Bruce. Damian wouldn't like all the germs that come with biting, aka the whole mysophobia thing that was mentioned.

I like to think that Damian would use biting as a last resort if no other resources or methods are available at the time.

If all else fails, ✨️bite.✨️

Help sorry if this comes off rude or anything, but I just wanted to add on to this with my own agreements and understanding so that people get where I am coming from when I say that I believe Damian wouldn't bite.

I fully agree with the girls biting, though, because they absolutely would. Steph for SURE would (along with Babs & Cass ofc).

Personally, I like to see Damian witnessing Bruce, Dick, Jason, or any of the girls biting someone in a fight / spar and be grossed out completely. He'd have one of those faces where it's so obvious how grossed out he is, and you can tell he really wants to put a 10 foot pole between him and the other recipient until AFTER they get checked & cleaned.

Look, if you don't think all the Robins bit/still bite people, idk what to tell you.

[leonardhoee]

William Rex MBTI Analysis

I just finished William’s route for the 4th time and wanted to write this since I see a ton of people on the personality database website mistyping him.

William is a classic Entj 8w7 tbh and I think the reason people aren’t clocking it is because of the stereotypes surrounding that personality type. Not every entj 8w7 is a demon war criminal with no feelings or morals. As one myself I saw a lot of myself in William with the way he thinks and operates and his values. He also reminds me a lot of Sylus from Love and Deepspace and that’s what made me start questioning the typing they have for him right now. Both him and Sylus are “healthier”representations of that personality type and are more in touch with their Fi.

If this makes sense to you guys please go to the PDB website and vote ENTJ 8w7 for Will so we can get it corrected.

Analysis under the cut.

1. Extraverted Thinking (Te):

Te is the primary way TeNi’s interact with the world around them. Te is all about efficiency and getting things done. It is the TeNi’s primary decision-making process, which means that if a decision is needed in the moment, they will rely on what makes the most sense logically.

William’s Te is at the forefront of his personality. Most of the info about him comes from the full love bonus story from reading both endings. In that story something that really stuck out to me was his statement, “I will make this power obey my will, control it, and tame it,”. He’s saying this in response to his moral dilemma about his power being able to take away people’s freedom. Rather than lament his ability to control others, which he considers a contradiction to his core values, he chooses to impose order on this chaos. A true monarch. His immediate response is to take control with no hesitation. His fate should’ve been a threat to him so his response is to become the master of his own curse.

On top of that, his sense of justice is incredibly firm but at the same time he believes in the ends justifying the means. He uses his powers as a tool for punishing those he deems to be oppressors, stating that those who trample on freedom are “unforgivably evil.” Furthermore, his Te ensures that his sense of justice is actionable. He doesn’t just hold abstract ideals; he transforms them into concrete systems, and actively uses his powers to enforce justice for those who violate his moral code.

Basically, all his decisions and values are rooted in clear, rational frameworks, where he sees himself as the ultimate arbiter of morality. This efficient, results-driven perspective is absolutely Te dominant.

2. Introverted Intuition (Ni):

Ni is the way that a TeNi perceives their inner world, it dictates the way they store information and how they perceive that information. It also heavily dictates the path that their train of thought will take.

William’s Ni is interesting because it shows up in his fixation on the concept of destiny and freedom. He recognizes the irony of his existence: born to value freedom above all else, yet cursed with powers that inherently strip others of theirs. But because of his age dominance, this contradiction doesn’ paralyze him but instead motivates him to enforce his moral philosophy with conviction and to use the hand date has dealt him to do so. His Ni allows him to create a unified vision of justice and morality, framing his powers not as a curse but as an opportunity to shape the world according to his ideals. His long-term perspective is evident in his acceptance of his role as a “villain,” choosing to happily shoulder the consequences of his actions rather than compromising his vision. This is evident throughout his whole route when he asks MC to record his sins as an irredeemable villain to make sure that the legend of the self righteous monarch lives on for generations even after he’s met his end.

3. Extraverted Sensing (Se):

Se helps the TeNi use their senses to understand the world around them. They enjoy living in the moment and are capable when it comes to dealing with things that they can experience and touch in addition the purely hypothetical. This is because their Ni and Se fall in the middle as far as preferences go, so they’re able to flip back and forth to use each one as it’s needed. Se is also what drives them to search out playful new sensory experiences.

William is shown to take pleasure and satisfaction in the way he delivers his punishments. The route makes a point of describing his eyes and the way William takes pleasure in his own ferocity during these punishments. He doesn’t just want to “get it over with” he wants to have the full experience of commiting the sin. His ability to focus on the tactile and sensory aspects—the sights, sounds, and even the emotions evoked—demonstrates a strong tertiary Se. And this tertiary Se doesn’t only manifest in his violent acts—it also shows in his appreciation for beauty, art, music and even sex (Ex: the scene of him eating strawberries in the cafe with MC, his passion for music, his interest in connecting with people from all walks of life). He’s the type of person to savor physical pleasures and immerse himself in the present moment of those things.

4. Inferior Introverted Feeling (Fi):

Fi is the ENTJ’s last function. Fi helps them to assess situations to see how things match up to their values and beliefs. They may think of their Fi as their “gut instinct”. It helps them learn to be sensitive to the values and feelings of those around them. It can act as a warning system when they think a decision makes sense logically, but somewhere inside, Fi is the alarm saying it’s a bad idea. However, because Fi is the TeNi’s weakest function, they will often act with the swift decisiveness of Te first, before considering how their actions might affect the feelings of others or taking time to think about whether their decision lines up with their values.

So there’s 2 points that can be made regarding this. The first part is about his morals.

Despite his rational exterior, William’s deep internal conflict over his powers points to his inferior Fi. He considers his ability to control others a profound moral contradiction, as it conflicts with his core belief in freedom. However, instead of sitting and agonizing over this emotional struggle openly, he rationalizes it through his Te-dominant framework, and to simply become its master. Also his repeated acknowledgment of contradictions in his existence shows the tension between his powers and his values. He says in the bonus story, “I gave them freedom and found joy in watching them love that freedom, yet I would be the one to take it away again.” This self-awareness highlights his internal struggle, but his default response—to let people go for the sake of their freedom—reflects his Te- dominance rather than an emotionally motivated decision. He will let them go even if it breaks their heart.

This leads me to my second point about this. When falling in love with MC, William was faced with a dilemma. Being with her would, in his point of view take away her freedom which is a sin he refused to commit. However instead of spending the time unpacking that he immediately jumped to his ate function and did what he deemed rational in that moment which was to decide to leave as he always does. It’s interesting because his inferior Fi shows up in both ways, staying true to his values, but also having a massive oversight on MC’s feelings and desires in that moment and causes her a lot of pain. And that oversight remains until she (in ch 18) almost takes control of the situation even above him and shows him what she wants through a very blunt display (getting stabbed).

Enneagram Analysis: 8w7

William’s need for freedom and disdain for oppression are hallmarks of Type 8. He refuses to let fate, his powers, or external forces define him, asserting instead, “I couldn’t let something like fate deny me of being my own master.” This fierce independence drives his actions, from punishing oppressors to letting others go to protect their freedom. However, his control is not limited to himself; as an 8, he extends his authority outward, enforcing his moral vision on those he deems unjust and encourages everyone around him to become their own masters as well.

Between 8w7 and 8w9, William would be a 7 because of his Se. His boldness and ability to captivate others with his convictions make him a natural leader. This wing also amplifies his avoidance of emotional vulnerability, as seen in his tendency to rationalize rather than process his internal contradictions.

Why William Is Not an ENFJ or INFJ because those are the other 2 I’ve heard people saying.

Both ENFJs and INFJs are defined by their reliance on Extraverted Feeling (Fe) and a focus on interpersonal harmony. William, by contrast, prioritizes efficiency and justice over emotional connection, ruling out both types.

• Not ENFJ: ENFJs are people-oriented leaders who seek to unite and inspire others. While William’s charisma might seem ENFJ-like, his approach to supporting others is far more authoritarian and pragmatic. He enforces his ideals unilaterally, without the Fe-driven need to create collective harmony or prioritize the feelings of others. He says so himself in the bonus story that the things he does are out of self righteousness only. Entjs and enfjs can often get confused but the differentiation is that he helps others because he’s honoring HIS desires. He’s not doing it because of some grand desire to help others.

• Not INFJ: While William grapples with moral contradictions, his struggles are rooted in rational frameworks, not emotional exploration. Furthermore, INFJs tend to avoid direct confrontation, whereas William thrives in it. Additionally INFJs are Se inferior which is the main reason it’s ruled out. William is not Se inferior at all.

Why William Is Not a 7w8 or 1w9

• Not 7w8: While William’s charisma and love for freedom might align with 7w8, his motivations do not fit this type. 7w8s are driven by a desire to avoid pain and seek enjoyment, whereas William’s actions are rooted in a need for control and justice. His moral philosophy is too rigid for a 7w8, which would prioritize adaptability and personal pleasure.

• Not 1w9: Type 1s are perfectionists who pursue moral ideals through discipline and self-restraint. William is the opposite of self restraint. While he has a strong moral code, it is not driven by a desire for perfection or self-discipline but by a a self righteous desire. He says many times throughout the route that if MC thinks he is evil she is free to punish him how she wishes. He has never said he is a good or moral person and in fact says the opposite. He’s a villain doing what he values. His willingness to accept his role as a “villain” further supports his ENTJ 8w7 classification. He views himself as a necessary force of justice, even if it means being seen as cruel or self-righteous. His statement, “I followed my heart and chose to commit sins as a villain,” reveals his willingness to embrace moral ambiguity in pursuit of his ideals.

So in conclusion he’s an obvious ENTJ 8w7

Here are some screenshots I used as evidence

[shimmershy]

Buttercups and Golden Flowers

[thrashkink-coven]

I always find these arguments so comical, because it’s people who are taking their own interpretations based on assumptions of the text because the text itself is simply not inclusive or specific enough to be applied to all people in all situations. Obviously not, because it was originally intended as a cultural book or rules and myths for the people of Israel, not the entire world. The bible simply cannot and does not account for the nuances of modern life globally.

God who knits us together in our mother’s wombs fully states that a woman who is unfaithful will suffer a miscarriage. You can argue, “well according to this logical leap technically he’s saying this thing that aligns with my worldview.” No. I’m not adding anything to the text or theorizing. The text is very clear in what it says. If you have to go back and twist the words around to fit the context, you are bearing false witness. An intentional miscarriage is functionally the same thing as an abortion.

“19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

In the Talmud it states that if the fetus is a threat to the mother it should be ripped out. How a woman or pregnant person defines a threat is nuanced.

And again with the trans stuff. God has a bunch of rules for how men and women should act in accordance to Jewish customs. Does he say that an intersex person should be forbade from taking life saving sex hormones, or that a woman with a hormonal disorder shouldn’t take estrogen? No, because the Bible doesn’t talk about hormones in general. Does it say anything about trans people at all? No. You have to stretch the text and apply a lot of unspoken rules to make that assertion.

“But in Genesis it says God created man and women, opposites! Like land and sky! Gotcha!”

God’s creation exists in spectrums. In between day and night we have dawn and dusk; between land and sea we have coral reefs and estuaries and beaches; between flying birds and swimming fish we have penguins and high jumping dolphins. No one would argue that a penguin is an abomination for not fitting the categories of Genesis 1, or that an estuary isn’t pleasing to God because it’s neither land nor sea.

“But! But! Deuteronomy 22:5, “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the LORD your God,” See! God hates cross dressers!”

Boy do I love biblical context. Both affirming and non-affirming biblical scholars have a range of views on why this prohibition was written for its original audience. Some are convinced that forbidding the Hebrew people from dressing in clothes associated with a gender different than their own was a way to be set apart from Canaanite and Syrian religion where this phenomena was a part of certain worship rituals. Other scholars believe the prohibition was more of a way to reinforce previous instructions from the Torah that forbid “mixing” (for example, not blending fabrics, planting variations of seed or eating shellfish), given the way Israel’s national purity and their maintenance of rigid categorical differences were bound together. A third perspective is that Deuteronomy 22:5 was written to keep a gender-segregated society truly segregated. This would prevent things like men and women engaging in various forms of forbidden sexual contact, women from entering the temple, men evading military service, women signing up for military service and other behaviors perceived as contrary to the boundaries between the distinct parts of God’s created order.

Beyond understanding why this verse was originally penned, a more pressing question for Christians to ask is whether or not we are supposed to follow the prohibitions present throughout all of Deuteronomy. The answer for most Christians today would be no, on account of the theological conviction that Jesus, through his life and death, has fulfilled the requirements of the laws Moses presented at Mt. Sinai in the story of Exodus and because they do not believe that maintaining the integrity of God’s creation prohibits mixing. In fact, the incarnation of God as Jesus, the mixing of the fully divine and the fully human, is often viewed as the necessary context for humanity’s salvation altogether. Christians who maintain non-affirming perspectives on transgender and non-binary people must ask themselves why it is that this command is being upheld when they believe that most, if not all, of the other directives around it have been nullified

And we can go on and on forever. You can say that this is just my interpretation. Yes. Of course it is. These are all just interpretations because the people who wrote this book are long dead, and the text is not being used in its correct religious context.

This is why being capable of thinking for yourself beyond the book is extremely important. Using the bible as the basis for your morality in general is a dangerous slippery slope. If we’re nitpicking here, the bible also never condemns slavery, even chattel slavery, as the Isrealites very proudly boast that they enslaved the Canaanites after being freed from Egypt.

“No that was just indentured servitude”

Yeah no, the fellow Hebrews could only be held for up to 6 years, Canaanite (which at the time meant anyone other than Isrealites) slaves could be held in bondage for life and bequeathed to the slave owner’s children.

I’m not here to say the whole book is evil or whatever, because I also think that’s stupid. Obviously my values are going to be very different than the average Isrealite during antiquity. But using this cultural book for the basis of your discrimination is simply illogical and an insult to the guy you claim to love so much.

If Jesus died for our sins so that we could be saved, why would that sacrifice be nullified by being trans or getting an abortion? He already paid our debt. We will always be sinners because we are human, humans are imperfect. According to the Bible, anyone should be worthy of saving so long as they are committed to being a good person and proclaim Jesus as king. By those rules, transition, which is a “sin” that causes no harm against anyone else and requires no forgiveness from anyone else, should be one of these human nuances that Jesus died for, so that even if it is technically a sin by the old law, trans people can rest easy knowing their place in heaven is secured by the big guy himself. A woman who makes an incredibly hard decision and gets an abortion so she can be there for the kids she already has should have been insured for by Jesus because he died for all of our sins. This isn’t a continuous act of evil like murder or rape, trans people don’t cause harm just like gay people don’t cause harm. A mother getting an abortion (even though the bible literally does not say it at any point whatsoever) may be guilty of sin, fine. Let’s agree and say it’s a sin for the sake of the example. Woman sins by getting an abortion. Great news! Jesus already died for that 1000 years ago. So, continue to commit yourself to being a good person, and you will not go to hell.

This doesn’t mean you can continue to sin all nonchalantly, but again, nuance. There have absolutely been situations in which abortion was necessary to save the woman’s life. Jesus’ sacrifice ensures that even if we must “break” the law (again, there’s literally no law about it anyways) we are still insured by Jesus’ sacrifice. Humans mess up, but God accounted for that. Sinning does not automatically mean you’re fucked.

That’s why this argument makes no sense to me. Ideally, even the worst people should be capable of salvation. Telling women who are already in a difficult position that they’re going to hell for having an abortion doesn’t make sense according to the basic premise of Jesus Christ.

It’s okay to admit that you just want a reason to discriminate against people and feel justified in it. But pride is also a sin, and using the word or God for justification of that pride? Hoo boy.

most frustrating thing I’ve learned recently as i continue to read the bible

yeah so the bible literally never, at any point condemns abortion. Jesus never condemned abortion. In fact :) the bible actually provides instructions on how to properly have one. seriously. Look into it. Christianity takes its ethical base from Judaism, and Judaism says that you're not a person with a soul until you draw your first breath.

so :)

hahaha :) there’s literally no reason :) why Christians want to deny women and afab people healthcare :) besides the obvious, to control our bodies.

like :) there’s literally no reason :))

guys 🙏 absolutely NO scripture. :) condemning abortion even once. :)))))))

i’m about to lose my fucking MIND.

[bigskydreaming]

Imagine if you were a gay or bi man who tried a certain firefighter show because of all the attention it was getting for one of its mains having a later in life bi awakening.....and between seasons you ventured into its fandom in search of material to tide you over til the next one. And you're greeted by a deluge of posts and fics that are just cheerfully homophobic towards one half of the newly out bi character's canon relationship on the basis of 'well he's not the RIGHT gay guy' and pushing the idea that actually its fine to cheat on him because Reasons and he's sexually predacious based on......behind the scenes implications people have divined like they're reading fucking tea leaves.

But don't get it twisted....this fandom, like all fandoms, really cares about representation!

Sorry not sorry, but we really need to kill this idea that fandoms are welcoming and inviting and inherently progressive when they're frequently insular and reductive as fuck. Every single fandom I've been in has had major trends of people doubling down on their own headcanons and fanon interpretations of the characters and willfully enacting trends aimed at running off people who like the 'wrong' characters (usually characters marginalized along one or multiple axes), like the characters in the 'wrong ways' or other bullshit.

Scott is a Bad Friend fics overtaking Teen Wolf fandom was not incidental, it was a FEATURE of the fandom, because the vast majority of that fandom did not want to share its space with anyone who had the nerve to like its main character. Survivors complaining about or criticizing the prevalance of rape fics in a certain fandom has in my experience always led to a reactionary UPTICK in those fics, with gems like 'this character can, will, must be raped' in the tags making it crystal clear that some of these fics exist because how fucking DARE anyone try and push forth a narrative not agreed upon by Fandom Main.

I could cite examples for so many other fandoms, with the commonalities always being that vast majorities in these fandoms are explicitly reacting defensively to being asked to be more mindful of fandom trends revolving around or exacerbating racism, homophobia, transphobia, rape or abuse apologia, ableism, etc....

With the most prolific fucking rallying cry across countless fandoms being "No the fuck we will NOT be doing that," because lolololol.....

Fandom is an inherently progressive space, didn't you hear?

[lloydfrontera]

i can't get over how cute javier is when he introduces himself to ppodong. he's so serious about it that lloyd thinks he's about to question his cover story for how ppodong was summoned but no. he was just thinking really hard about how he should call him or if he had a name. and then when lloyd gives him the go ahead to call ppodong however he wants he just. calls him sir ppodong and fucking shakes hands with him. he introduces himself and shakes hands with the hamster like c'mon that's so fucking cute i cannot stop thinking about it just look at him

it's adorable.

and it's also one of the first times in the novel that you get the sense that 'oh. that's a kid.' it's subtle and lowkey but you can kinda feel that javier is actually excited about ppodong, he's curious about him and really gentle when he meets him. like. he's just a kid. a kid that probably never had a pet before and is now in close proximity with a cute and fluffy little hamster and just. wants to know his name.

it's just. it's very cute.

[heyclickadee]

One thing about Crosshair is that he’s a remarkably intelligent man with a good read of people and situations and emotionally wrecked life decision-making skills. Dude will have some truly perceptive insight into whatever’s happening that hits on a grain of truth, and then that insight will be filtered through so many layers of trauma and cynicism that his conclusion will end up at least 90 degrees off whatever’s right.

[ph0bia-archives]

Interpretation is entirely personable and I do not mean to argue against your own opinions and views but. Personally cannot see DiMA as some manipulative monster. This is just me ranting cause he’s one of the best written fallout 4 characters imo. Obviously spoilers ahead :3

For one— he doesn’t maliciously manipulate Kasumi. From the sounds of it, he just asks her questions that lead her to believing she’s a synth. She was isolated, and felt that she stood out even in her own family. She wanted a reason to leave, to think that she was connected to machinery more than it being a personal comfort. Acadia is a refuge for synths. It makes no sense for DiMA to lure normal people there?

For two— of course he acts like the institute! His whole existence is to form a personality around experience. He grew up in the institute, taking in their methods and morals. The only expressed reason he grew disillusioned to them is because Nick suffered. But that’s still all his first experiences. The institute, and people hurting synths.

For three— I don’t think it’s ever explicitly said what far harbor was like before the sole survivor gets there/before synth Avery. Maybe they were hostile towards synths, or Acadia. At the very least, they’re still hostile towards the children of atom, a group who 1. Before Tektus we’re (if I’m not mistaken) relatively peaceful, and 2. Did not react negatively or with hostility towards Synths. This is a simple baseline, but remember. DiMA went from only knowing people who hurt synths for their own gain to sitting alone in a cave for a year, to people who didn’t want to hurt him. The safety of synths is his first priority. Replacing Avery is extremely fucked, yes, it’s exactly what the institute does. Because that’s the first things DiMA knows. If far harbor was aggressive against Acadia, what should DiMA have done? Probably definitely not murdered a woman and replaced her, but from his perspective, that was probably the least damaging option, rather than letting his synths die, or killing the harbormen. He removed the memories likely because that’s how the institute functions! He was acting like them! The people who hurt the person he considered family!

Four— I didn’t actually choose/explore the routes where you’re with the institute or the brotherhood of steel, so. Can’t really say for certain my thoughts on his reactions, but. I think it would make most sense for him to act peacefully if you say that before giving him the tapes, because he wouldn’t have an idea of how he’d reacted previously. He wouldn’t know he had the experience of combatting groups who’d want Acadia exterminated, he doesn’t know the extent he’d go to preemptively keep Acadia safe.

Five— with the replacing tektus plan, it goes back to perhaps WHY he removed the memory of replacing avery. That’s what the institute does. If he remembers that experience of doing the same thing as his creators, maybe he’d integrate that into his personality. I don’t know if it’s fleshed out HOW DiMA’s mind works, if it’s like an actual person who can pick and choose what they learn from, or if it’s all turned into gained knowledge, or if I’m a dummy who needs to brush up on lore (good time to say that most of my interpretations came from my play through of far habit which I didn’t know existed until I accidentally started it, so. If anything I say or think is in contradiction to another route or such. Blame the naivety). But after he has that tape, he knows this is 1. Something that worked and 2. Something he’s willing to do with all the same reasoning as before. So he does it again.

Over all. I think if DiMA is hypocritical it works. He’s a machine over a hundred years old. That’s a lot of experience for a mfer who’s mind is supposed to develop and base itself on experience! His mind likely grows and changes rapidly based on events that happen to him. I can’t imagine he’s hypocritical without being written that way. Everything bad he does is for Acadia. I cannot interpret him as some malicious leader who wants to wipe out the other factions. Just someone who’s learned that sometimes the ends justify the means.

Anyways sorry autism rant OVER

Fo4 Far Harbor DLC spoilers

Replaying Far Harbor and watching vids abt the different lore it’s impossible to see DiMA as anything but an evil, hypocritical, and downright stupid monster. I don’t get how so many people love him.

He’s a murderer who had plans to obliterate an entire people and who did murder and replace an innocent woman. When you confront him about those memories that he purposefully removed bc he couldn’t live with how evil he is he’s like “I can’t believe I did that :’( we should totally do it again tho that’s a really good idea.” And then you can!!! It’s literally the exact same horrible things that the Institute does! He manipulates Kasumi (who we can determine by talking to the Institute, the people she knows, and by killing her in an Institute quest is not a synth) into believing she is a synth and lures her to the island with this manipulation!! He manipulates many others like this too to get his evil desires done in pretty obvious ways. I would count many of his synths, Nick, and the player among his targets.

If you’re sided with the Institute and you tell him and his synths to come back to it he says no but that he will not run and will not attack you. He condemns all of the synths in his “sanctuary” by taking not action and allowing you to go report back their existence to the Institute so that coursers can come reclaim or kill everyone there!! Same thing happens if you tell him you’re with the Brotherhood and synths existence is an affront to humanity he’s like “okay but we’re not gonna leave still” and then you can bring the Brotherhood forces to murder them all.

If you blow up some of the factions on the island he’ll be like “You’ve only brought death here >:( I hope you can live with yourself you monster!” Like that wasn’t his WHOLE ASS PLAN that he removed his memories of bc he couldn’t live with himself!!! Fucking hypocrite!!! This is only a few of his crimes. He is so evil and stupid it hurts.

[gibbearish]

every time i see discourse about fundraisers go by on here im just fully struck with the realization that not a single one of you people have either taken a cybersecurity fraud prevention course or bothered to take one singular second to consider the website youre on. this is the broke bitches website. none of us can afford to fund our mutuals' grocery bills, much less entire evacuation funds, and CERTAINLY not FAKE evacuation funds taking advantage of genocide victims. all this shit abt how people are deliberately choosing not to fund every post that passes their dash because they hate palestinians literally just does the work of actual scammers for them by laying the high-pressure sales tactics groundwork, and the "do you guys have any idea how hard it is to keep coming up with new attention-grabbing fundraiser posts?" ones just ring EXTREMELY hollow because YEAH! YEAH I DO! and so does everyone i follow! and everyone they follow! because all of us are FUCKING BROKE and surviving on crumbs! i just saw one that said "i make sure to keep $40 in my wallet at all times so i can give $20 to any panhandlers i see, this is the same" and its like!! good for you, thats very nice, but like!!! you need need NEED to take a step back and realize that /being able to do that/ is a position of privilege, not the default setting to be a good person. i wont discount that some people do ignore fundraisers specifically because of racism because Of Course, but like. a) yelling at them isnt gonna make them stop, or more accurately yelling at /everyone else/ isnt gonna make those people stop, and b) trying to apply that as a blanket motivation for everyone just. realistically doesnt work. not donating is a nonaction, it is the literal default status, and while in specific situations you can use CONSISTENT absence of SPECIFIC actions to track a person's motivations SOMETIMES, broadly speaking that just. doesnt work.

there are 8 billion people on this planet. most of them will never know you exist. of the ones that do, most will not be able to help you. of the ones that can, most will not be on the broke bitches website passing the same communal $20 around. consider your audience and stop shitting on fellow poor people for having the gall to need to be careful with their money. and if you are genuinely only posting your fundraiser to tumblr, like. im sorry, but you need to anticipate not reaching your goal and prepare accordingly. theres a reason the last big scam scandal people talk about actually getting the money is like. all-or-nothing era, as a website none of us have the funds to make that kind of thing happen anymore or the security to risk it. a fundraiser not meeting its goal on here is not a personal sleight against whoever made it, its just how life goes sometimes. and it's unfair and it sucks and we should help however we can, but. sometimes you just arent able to help someone else, and continuing to feel responsible serves only to torture yourself. and blaming OTHERS serves only to move that guilt from yourself off onto another person. i imagine that has to be where a lot of the vitriol comes from, is people who cant afford to donate more getting pissed at people they see as having the funds but choosing not to share them, but again, sometimes you just are not able to achieve the goals you set out towards, through no fault of the specific parties involved.

people on tumblr choosing to buy groceries rather than potentially donate to a scam are not your enemy and are not the ones facilitating a genocide. we're all victims of the same horrific system, the question is just how that system manifests its influence on each of us. poverty kills just as thoroughly as a bomb. everyone is just doing their best to survive, and as much as we like to pretend that everyone should be a perfect selfless angel that puts others before themselves no matter what, humans are by default a selfish species, and it is a lot easier to say what youd do in theory than actually do it. and there's a reason you have to put on your own oxygen mask before helping the person beside you, youre of no help to anyone if youre too dead to do anything.

[arsenicflame]

since we all appear to be talking about izzy 'calling the police' on stede id like to offer my silly little two cents:

its not like the navy wasn't actively looking for him anyway??????

at most, izzys actions sped up badminton catching up with stede, but its made very clear that badminton wanted Stede dead well before this, and was willing to use whatever he could to find him- whos to say jackie wouldnt have cut a deal on her own? that any other pirate thats seen them being unsubtle in a port wouldn't take the opportunity to make a quick buck over a guy who is Nobody and holds no influence that could lead to any consequences for them?

in reality izzy is probably the only person who would receive negative repercussions to selling out stede, given his personal connection with ed- any other pirate would probably have gotten away unscathed, anonymous. they likely wouldnt have even been present like izzy was. izzy had personal stakes, anyone else would have taken the money and ran

the way i see it, with or without izzy the events of episode 10 probably would have happened in some degree, izzy just expedited the timeline

[screambirdscreaming]

I used to like saying "gender is a social construct," but I stopped saying that because people didn't tend to react well - they thought that I was saying gender wasn't real, or didn't matter, or could be safely ignored without consequences. Which has always baffled me a bit as an interpretation, honestly, because many things are social constructs - like money, school, and the police - and they certainly have profound effects on your life whether or not you believe in them. And they sure don't go away if you ignore them.

Anyway. What I've taken to saying instead is, "gender is a cultural practice." This gives more of a sense of respect for the significance gender holds to many people. And it also opens the door to another couple layers of analysis.

Gender is cultural. It is not globally or historically homogeneous. It shifts over time, develops differently in different communities, and can be influenced by cross-cultural contact. Like many, many aspects of culture, the current status of gender is dramatically influenced by colonialism. Colonial gender norms are shaped by the hierarchical structure of imperialist society, and enforced onto colonized cultures as part of the project of imperial cultural hedgemony.

Gender is practiced. What constitutes a gender includes affects and behaviors, jobs or areas of work, skillsets, clothing, collective and individual practices of gender affiliation and affirmation. Any or all of these things, in any combination, depending on the gender, the culture, and the practitioner.

Gender encompasses shared cultural archetypes. These can include specific figures - gods and goddesses, mythic or fictional characters, etc - or they can be more abstract or general. The Wise Woman, Robin Hood, the Dyke, the Working Man, the Plucky Heroine, the Effete Gay Man, etc etc. The range of archetypes does not circumscribe a given gender, that is, they're not all there is to gender. But they provide frameworks and reference points by which people relate to gender. They may be guides for ways to inhabit or practice a gender. They may be stereotypes through which the gendered behavior of others is viewed.

Gender as a framework can be changed. Because it is created collectively, by shared acknowledgement and enforcement by members of society. Various movements have made significant shifts in how gender is structured at various times and places. The impact of these shifts has been widely variable - for example, depending on what city I'm in, even within my (fairly culturally homogeneous) home country, the way I am gendered and reacted to changes dramatically. Looping back to point one, we often speak of gender in very broad terms that obscure significant variability which exists on many scales.

Gender is structured recursively. This can be seen in the archetypes mentioned above, which range from extremely general (say, the Mother) to highly specific (the PTA Soccer Mom). Even people who claim to acknowledge only two genders will have many concepts of gendered-ways-of-being within each of them, which they may view and react to VERY differently.

Gender is experienced as an external cultural force. It cannot be opted out of, any more than living in a society can be opted out of. Regardless of the internal experience of gender, the external experience is also present. Operating within the shared cultural understanding of gender, one can aim to express a certain practice of gender - to make legible to other people how it is you interface with gender. This is always somewhat of a two-way process of communication. Other people may or may not perceive what you're going for - and they may or may not respect it. They may try to bring your expressed gender into alignment with a gender they know, or they might parcel you off into your own little box.

Gender is normative. Within the structure of the "cultural mainstream," there are allowable ways to practice gender. Any gendered behavior is considered relative to these standards. What behavior is allowed, rewarded, punished, or shunned is determined relative to what is gender normative for your perceived gender. Failure to have a clearly perceivable gender is also, generally, punished. So is having a perceivable gender which is in itself not normative.

Gender is taught by a combination of narratives, punishments, and encouragements. This teaching process is directed most strongly towards children but continues throughout adulthood. Practice of normatively-gendered behaviors and alignment with 'appropriate' archetypes is affirmed, encouraged, and rewarded. Likewise 'other'- gendered behavior and affinity to archetypes is scolded, punished, or shunned. This teaching process is inherently coercive, as social acceptance/rejection is a powerful force. However it can't be likened to programming, everyone experiences and reacts to it differently. Also, this process teaches the cultural roles and practices of both (normative) genders, even as it attempts to force conformity to only one.

Gender regulates access to certain levers of social power. This one is complicated by the fact that access to levers of social power is also affected by *many* other things, most notably race, class, and citizenship. I am not going to attempt to describe this in any general terms, I'm not equipped for that. I'll give a few examples to explain what I'm talking about though. (1) In a social situation, a man is able to imply authority, which is implicitly backed by his ability to intimidate by yelling, looming, or threatening physical violence. How much authority he is perceived to have in response to this display is a function of his race and class. It is also modified by how strongly he appears to conform to a masculine ideal. Whether or not he will receive social backlash for this behavior (as a separate consideration to how effective it will be) is again a function of race/class/other forms of social standing. (2) In a social situation, a woman is able to invoke moral judgment, and attempt to modify the behavior of others by shame. The strength of her perceived moral authority depends not just on her conformity to ideal womanhood, but especially on if she can invoke certain archetypes - such as an Innocent, a Mother, or better yet a Grandmother. Whether her moral authority is considered a relevant consideration to influence the behavior of others (vs whether she will be belittled or ignored) strongly depends on her relative social standing to those she is addressing, on basis of gender/race/class/other.

[Again, these examples are *not* meant to be exhaustive, nor to pass judgment on employing any social power in any situation. Only to illustrate what "gendered access to social power" might mean. And to illustrate that types of power are not uniform and may play out according to complex factors.]

Gender is not based in physical traits, but physical traits are ascribed gendered value. Earlier, I described gender as practiced, citing almost entirely things a person can do or change. And I firmly believe this is the core of gender as it exists culturally - and not just aspirationally. After the moment when a gender is "assigned" based on infant physical characteristics, they are raised into that gender regardless of the physical traits they go on to develop (in most circumstances, and unless/until they denounce that gender.) The range of physical traits like height, facial shape, body hair, ability to put on muscle mass - is distributed so that there is complete overlap between the range of possible traits for people assigned male and people assigned female. Much is made of slight trends in things that are "more common" for one binary sex or the other, but it's statistically quite minor once you get over selection bias. However, these traits are ascribed gendered connotations, often extremely strongly so. As such, the experience of presented and perceived gender is strongly effected by physical traits. The practice of gender therefore naturally expands to include modification of physical traits. Meanwhile, the social movements to change how gender is constructed can include pushing to decrease or change the gendered association of physical traits - although this does not seem to consistently be a priority.

Gender roles are related to the hypothetical ability to bear children, but more obliquely than is often claimed. It is popular to say that the types of work considered feminine derive from things it is possible to do while pregnant or tending small children. However, research on the broader span of human history does not hold this up. It may be true of the cultures that gave immediate rise to the colonial gender roles we are familiar with - secondary to the fact that childcare was designated as women's work. (Which it does not have to be, even a nursing infant doesn't need to be with the person who feeds it 24 hours a day.) More directly, gender roles have been influenced by structures of social control aiming for reproductive control. In the direct precursors of colonial society, attempts to track paternal lineage led to extreme degrees of social control over women, which we still see reflected in normative gender today. Many struggles for women's liberation have attempted to push back these forms of social control. It is my firm opinion that any attempt to re-emphasize childbearing as a touchstone of womanhood is frankly sick. We are at a time where solidarity in struggle for gender liberation, and for reproductive rights, is crucial. We need to cast off shackles of control in both fights. Trying to tie childbearing back to womanhood hobbles both fights and demeans us all.

Gender is baked deeply enough into our culture that it is unlikely to ever go away. Many people feel strongly about the practice of gender, in one way or another, and would not want it to. However we have the power to change how gender is structured and enforced. We can push open the doors of what is allowable, and reduce the pain of social punishment and isolation. We can dismantle another of the tools of colonial hedgemony and social control. We can change the culture!

[pjowasmy1stfandom]

Okay, first off. THANK YOU SO MUCH for noticing the little details I put in. Even ones I hadn't consciously noticed!!

Some of these shots I had planned since the beginning and others were cause I needed a good transition or bc they came to me partway through. The book going to the TV report was one planned from the beginning, especially because, in the beginning, all Techno really wanted from life was to become one of the legendary authors. Now, he wants to stay out of the public eye as much as possible. (I'm not saying it's impossible for him to want, or even have, both things, but it'll certainly be difficult)

I was really hoping the viewer would be able to tell who the three shadows were. Phil I wasn't worried about, but the Piglins were basically just people without super distinctive silhouettes beyond 'there's two of them and Techno's been hallucinating them too' so I just hoped the silhouettes would be enough. Also part of me wanted to put the Wither in somewhere, but 1) I couldn't figure out how to add her exactly in a way that would make sense bc 2) I honestly couldn't remember if he hallucinated her or not because 3) Strangely enough, getting kidnapped by the Nether wasn't Techno's highest paranoia problem, haha

And yess, the fact that Phil won't stop showing Techno love, even when Techno's straight up hallucinating him is another one of the scenes that I daydreamed and instantly went 'yes, this is happening'. Hands are HARD, but it was worth it. Honestly, that third scene, right before it switches to Phil's face, is probably one of my absolute favorites.

I also really like the head jerk, Techno is just done with Phil and his love.

I wanted to do a whole spin sequence with the 'panicking again, dancing with adrenaline', as Techno did the whole running his bloody hands through his hair, to kinda have it be like everything's spinning out of Techno's control, but that was too hard for me to figure out when I got to that point and I didn't want to fight my brain, so I just did the swivel with Techno yelling instead.

Aaaaaa YESSSSS my ABSOLUTE FAVORITE PART OF THIS WHOLE THING. The hair flip is amazing and awesome. I kinda wanted the colors to be slightly closer, so it'd be more like the blood is staining Techno's hair as he's desperately trying to keep his personal identity to what he's made himself to be (rather than mold his entire way of thinking to what Phil wants or to what the Wither wants or to what anyone else wants). But yeah, the running his hands through his hair with stress and panic (I do it as a person with long hair, so it made sense. Also, I actually used myself as a perspective model for some of the shots to get angles right and such. Especially bc I have long hair, so I could figure out how his hair would fall) and the just kinda staring at his hands in shock and horror before looking up at Phil... Yessss

The eye shots were one of those transitions I just kinda did bc why not, honestly. I needed something more between the hair flip and Phil, but I wasn't sure what. Then my brain gave me this and went, 'you gotta' and refused to give me any explanation why it worked. I wasn't really sure why until you pointed it out. Yess, it'd be because he's seeing blood everywhere... (Also the fact that other versions of him are literally called Blood God...)

Fun fact, I was actually planning on having Phil have the blood-stained hands the whole time, but I didn't like it, it was too.... Mmm, stationary, I think? It wasn't interesting enough. So I changed it so he was just an ominous shadow standing guard until the last scene, where he reaches out to Techno with bloody outstretched hands, like he's waiting for Techno to run into his waiting arms

Do you think the minimal color pallette's good or would it be better in color? I went with it bc I was trying to see if it would affect my drawing/perfectionism, but in color would probably be cool too. It'd definitely take away from the dramatic hair flip scene though.

Anyway, happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate, and hope your probably semi-normal day goes especially well if you don't!

@nomsfaultau Here it is!! Voices In My Head, one of the songs that has joined my MFR playlist

I'm actually incredibly proud of this. I tried a new brush to try and combat my perfectionism and I think it worked, considering that this is done. I'm not super happy with some of the shots, but I think overall it looks alright!

Let me know what your favorite parts are!

[rolandkaros]

i've been ruminating a lot on it because i think i'm bad at putting my thoughts into words but i need y'all to understand that while there are absolutely a lot of Not Good Things about the finals being held in saudi arabia for three years...the way people seem to treat is as morally black and white is shortsighted and unhelpful.

realistically the players traveling there will be protected. it may be uncomfortable, it's certainly not ideal, but they will travel there for a few weeks, play their tennis, then leave. there are a lot of women, a lot of queer people who actually live in saudi arabia who cannot just leave, who are actually subjected to laws and social climates...and to me it just seems very disrespectful to that actual lived experience, for everybody to sort of turn their noses up and get on their high horses. of course, if the players wish to opt out, that is their choice, but that is their choice to make. that's their judgement. not ours.

and then, what about a tournament like miami? florida is literally experiencing one of the worst active regressions that i've seen in the us (granted i'm young). things like critical race theory and lgbtq+ ed are being removed from curriculums, rights for trans youth, trans healthcare, etc. are going backwards. abortion rights? gun violence? and yes i know that the laws and climate in saudi arabia are different gravy, i understand that, but my point is, no one would ever DREAM of arguing against hosting a tournament in miami despite all of these issues. and we can extend this to a lot of other tournaments! i mean, all the outrage about fifa hosting a world cup in qatar, but we don't have any of these sentiments about doha? i've seen other people bring up that the finals were hosted in singapore when gay marriage was still illegal there. we've already talked about italy's fascist prime minister. and i could go on and on and on about the war crimes of countries like the us or the uk - is the us not participating actively in genocide right now? where is the standard? if you argue against hosting the finals in saudi arabia for the reason of human rights, to me it seems you have to uphold that standard for the location you do land on. and i can guarantee, you will not find a single country in the world with clean hands.

i want to be clear i am not arguing that hosting the finals in saudi arabia is a good thing, especially for three years, especially because it's definitely going there because of money, and not for any of the "good" reasons i think some people want us to believe about "improving the region" (which is very weirdly white savior-esque anyway). i don't really have an official "conclusion" to this discussion.

what i am arguing is that i think a lot of the protests against saudi arabiahosting the finals are more an example of implicit anti-arab bias and islamophobia, rather than genuine discussion. key word implicit: i don't think most people are purposefully trying to be anti-arab/islamophobic. or at least, i'd like to believe nobody is. but i also think, particularly in the west, there is already so much of this xenophobic sentiment ingrained. and this is why i think it's really really REALLY important to check ourselves when we talk about it instead of just jumping straight to the human rights conversation without a second thought.

i'll say it plainly: i don't think the finals should be held in saudi arabia. but for me, it has more to do with sportswashing, with the dangers of the way money is thrown around in sports, and because i think it's more evidence that the wta doesn't care about player welfare but rather about making a profit (what else is new). human rights are absolutely a concern of mine, but how is it fair to hold saudi arabia to a standard that we don't seem to care about for literally anybody else?

literally look at the us's ugly ugly history, past and present, and tell me why we deserve to host a tennis tournament.

[telesodalite]

Sort of a ramble, sort of me just writing my thoughts out while I'm stuck with writer's block, but I keep thinking about how Fulcrum was in stasis for roughly 3 million years??

Like, that's a long time, even for Cybertronians. Not a really long time, not an entire lifespan. But still, it's a large chunk of a normal lifespan just gone. Poof.

One second you're crawling across the pockmarked terrain of an alien planet, surrounded by the sound of gunfire, and the shouting and screaming before and after each earth shuddering impact of another k-con hitting the ground. And then it's quiet. You're not there anymore. You're drifting somewhere between not alive and just asleep. Preserved somewhere in the background of a doomed body, ignored by time and space, still here, but also not.

And then there's sound. Not gunfire. Not shouting or screaming. Not the sounds that'll haunt you till your dying days, your own death sentence pounding in your head. No. Just voices, talking, standing out against a silent, dead world. Wondering. Joking. Bickering. Familiar. Just, not familiar to you. And you're awake. Pulled back from the nothingness you've been frozen in, consciousness tugged forwards with the yank of a fuel pump and the nearness of life.

These two moments are roughly 3 million years apart, but only minutes, maybe even seconds, to him. From a hectic harrowing battlefield, to an old silent graveyard in one blink.

How long did it take to really sink in? I mean, he seems to just roll with it. He doesn't seem particularly bothered. But like, what happened outside of what we see? How did he really feel?

Also, his body aged without him. While his mind preserved itself, freezing him as he was right then, his body was left to weather Clemency for all those years. No wonder it crumbled to dust when he jumped off the world sweeper. It's probably a miracle of some kind that it didn't just fall apart each time someone leaned on him.

And even after they rebuild him, give him a better, newer body. His spark, it's casing, all the irreplaceable core bits that make up their inner bodies, it aged in the time without him. Does he feel it? Does it make his body even more foreign to him?

Then he's also a technician with information that's 3 million years out of date. Lucky him that the scavengers probably weren't working with top of the line material. But still it's gotta be weird when faced with anything brand new, because a lot can change and progress in 3 million years, and now some of the knowledge he once prided himself in is obsolete.

Besides those things, his view of the galaxy, of the war, of their kind, of other kinds, is one of the few things actually pointed out when it comes to him being stuck in the past. So, how often were his old views challenged? Facts of life he held close proved to no longer true? There's 3 million years worth of new science, new beliefs, new words, new terms, new views.

And sure, some of it can be familiar, because they're an ever evolving kind, and they have patterns, core beliefs, repeating behaviors, but a lot of it's gonna be unfamiliar at the same time, because it's 3 million years worth of catch up, it's not like missing last week's trend.

In a way, it makes him a living relic of a bygone era for Decepticons. It would've been really interesting to have had that explored a little more.

[vulpinesaint]

do i believe eddie brock is homosexual or even really into men. no. to be honest. however is he gay for that alien. one hundred fucking percent and it's canonical too