#because if not the negative thoughts win

[thewierdbookworm]

Wild how those negative comments she makes about me revert me right back to my childhood trauma, the good thing is we’re breathing through the pain, and remind ourselves that doing the negative action will only hurt us, and it won’t actually solve the problem.

[ohmigoshiloveu]

Okay so like. I still haven't managed to get myself to finish episode 9, so I don't fully know how Theo's glow up finishes, but regardless I fucking love relistening to Emizel's section of episode 1 and like. Fuck man Theo does a lot of growing. Like he's a little bit pathetic at the beginning of the series. He's so, so brave during the alleyway fight, but he sounds shaky and scared and like a sopping wet pathetic baby the entire time. Charlie specifically describes him as not very alert, not a great fighter, and gives him this little moment where it takes him a second to manage to crush a soda can. He botches the check to beat Emizel in Smash Bros so there's a chance he sucks at the related skills (dexterity and computers I think?), but also after he loses Charlie specifically has him sound super frustrated and conclude that he should've 'stayed in his lane'. When Emizel says 'We'll do what we do best,' and Theo immediately responds with 'drink soda?' so fast that the other players notice it. Charlie might've had that as a predetermined character thing. Theo drinks soda. There's not much else to him.

Which creates this interesting dynamic between him and Emizel, because Emizel is so much better at him at all of these skills that the people around them (a FUCKING GANG) value. Emizel's perceptive, and agile, and strong, and a great fucking fighter irl and in videogames AND he always sounds badass. He's the top dog, the apex predator in their social circle. And I think that colors their relationship a lot? Like Theo has to look up to Emizel. I bet that Theo's looked up to Emizel since they first met, maybe Emizel came crashing into his life doing something epic and Theo thought it was the greatest shit ever.

On the flip side, I was getting a few hints of resentment? Hear me out! It's that 'should have just stayed in my lane' line. He's painfully aware how great Emizel is, compared to how much he's (from his perspective!) just a one trick pony. He's here to drink soda and say funny things, that's all most people want from him and he fucks up whenever he tries to do anything else!

And later in the segment Theo snarkily brings up a medicine check that Emizel had just fucked up in like this super backhanded, super passive aggressive way. That could be him wanting to rub Emizel's one singular fuck up in his face (especially because Theo was having a Moment about how he feels like people only see him as the soda guy, so any feelings of inadequacy would've been dialed up to eleven, so if there was any time for him to resent Emizel it'd be then), but it could also be that he was frustrated with Emizel being an ass (Emizel had just guessed that Theo's dream was to be a nurse, which was flat out wrong, and that's literally what set up the backhanded comment. Theo was saying something like 'thank fuck you don't wanna be a nurse cuz you sure fucked up with nursing that guy earlier.' It could also be that Emizel literally almost forgot Theo's name. Theo literally gave him the 'th' sound, it might've just been a bit Charlie was doing or it could've been Theo being AWARE that Emizel almost forgot his name. Or! It could be that in this moment, where Theo was confiding in Emizel about feeling like being the soda guy was all anyone ever saw in him, Emizel said something to the affect of 'well yeah Soda's the fun one.' Emizel doesn't think before he speaks and literally has a 1 in empathy. Just because he loves Theo doesn't mean he's not gonna blunder into being a complete and utter asshole to him. I'd hazard to say Emizel accidentally being an ass to people he cares about is a running theme).

But also all of that might come down to Charlie still getting the character down. Or, because I've theorized before that Theo might not've been supposed to survive the first Gabriel fight, the little hints of bitterness might've been intentional (even if they were completely improvved and Charlie didn't mean to add that to Theo's character) because Charlie was trying to shove as much character into this character before he was gone, but once it became clear that Theo was going to stick around longer he dropped it. As far as I remember, that bitterness is completely gone in all later interactions we see with Theo. OR! It could be that the bitterness drops because they've both got bigger fish to fry from that point onward, what with Theo's Shilo Incident TM, Emizel's vampirism, the Weylin twins. He doesn't have time to be bitter, he's too busy worrying about losing a cornerstone of his identity or helping his best friend adjust to being a fucking vampire now. And then after he learns to live without soda that basically negates his feelings of inadequacy- like, getting over the idea that he's nothing if he's not the soda guy would be required for him to give up on being the soda guy. And then Emizel would drift back into JUST being a guy to aspire to instead of also being a reminder of Theo's short comings, and then drift even further down into being 'guy who is actually going through it and has to overcome his own demons just like I had to overcome mine'. Like, I think we got to watch Theo slowly start to take Emizel off this pedestal in real time (he still definitely thinks Emizel's hot shit tho. Emizel's his boy, after all.)

Regardless, even if Theo did resent Emizel a little in the beginning, it's so fucking clearly overshadowed by how much he fucking loved him. And like, how could he not? Imagine you're Theo, critically low self esteem, and the literal coolest guy you know fucking LOVES you. Like, Emizel keeps consistently going out of his way to pull Theo up to his level and to treat him as an equal (mostly. Sometimes protectiveness bleeds through, like in his hypothetical fang scenario in ep 1 where he predicts there being five Fangs to fight and he says he can take three and Theo can take two (which in itself is still incredibly kind to Theo. Like, boy, you thought Theo was gonna be able to take out two whole guys? Hell no.) But that could also be chalked up to Emizel just being a cocky ass who wants to show off). Like dude, c'mon. Emizel might be a reminder of everything that Theo's not, but he's also probably Theo's biggest cheerleader. He wholeheartedly thought he was being supportive when he said he thought Theo'd make a great nurse! In all seriousness, though, even if it ultimately discourages him, Theo playing that Smash game against Emizel was at least a little bit of proof of him decidedly not 'staying in his lane,' and Emizel seems to inspire that! Later in that segment he challenges Theo to see which of them can break one of the Fangs kneecaps first! I bet Emizel challenged him to stupid competitions a lot, and that got Theo fired up and competitive in return!

And even when Emizel's not building Theo up, he's still giving Theo special attention, or readily receiving any attention Theo gives him. If nothing else, even at his lowest points that might've made Theo feel cool by association.

On Emizel's part, I think he's like, possibly completely oblivious to any turmoil Theo's going through? Like he thinks Theo's the shit and genuinely sees him as an equal. I'm 99% sure that Theo being his right hand man happened because Theo would've put himself into the role (in episode one before he gets all of his character development he's pretty much always looking to Emizel for what to do, and still more or less does whatever he says up to where I'm at in the series, with refusing to leave the alleyway being the only exception I remember). I think if Theo'd had higher self esteem or been less eager to defer to Emizel, Emizel would've happily gone about his business slotting Theo into more of a partner role. He tells Theo to run from that alleyway because Theo'd taken a fucking devastating hit and Emizel was sure he could handle himself, not because he knows Theo sucks at fighting. He tries to turn Theo into a cool vampire. He convinces Shilo that Theo'll be a valuable asset to raiding the Weylin warehouse and they take Theo with them instead of having him stay behind with the car like Grefgore, despite Theo being the one who actually knows how to drive. He tells Theo about being a vampire even though he keeps it a secret from everyone else, confides in Theo that 'yeah he might absolutely be susceptible to going into a frenzy like Shilo did.'

When you get down to it, Emizel pretty much tells Theo everything he would think is relevant, with two notable exceptions. Maybe three if you count him not telling Theo he has nine lives like a cat but tbh I think he might've just forgot. Or maybe he gets to it later, or maybe he did tell him and I forgot! idk man! But! Those other two things. First off, he like. Pointedly does not tell Theo that he's a prince. Like when they were doing the recap on the way to the Weylin warehouse, there's like. Charlie gives Condi an opening to say it, a little 'is there anything else?' and Emizel just. Doesn't. And the second one is that (at least where I'm at) Emizel never comes clean about bloodbonding Theo. Maybe it just hasn't come up yet, but still. It fits a pattern of Emizel not wanting to admit something that makes him, like, ABOVE Theo somehow. He sees Theo as an equal, and a precious one at that, he doesn't want things to get weird between them because he's literal royalty, and he doesn't want Theo's life to literally revolve around him like it would under a level three blood bond- and doesn't want to admit that he even considered it, even if he did it without really understanding what it was.

And Emizel backing off from ghoulifying Theo after Arthur explains what it actually entails kinda leads into a far more headcanon-y relationship analysis thing so um. Feel free to skip the next paragraph.

So! Like. Why the fuck was Emizel so attached to Theo being Soda. Like he gets over it decently quick, cuz that's his buddy and it's what Theo wants, so like. Whatever. But like, if I'm right about Theo always looking up to Emizel from the moment they met, there might've been some wiggle room between when they first became friends and when Theo became Soda. And like, before Theo became Soda, being Emizel's buddy would probably be the only thing he'd feel he had going for him? Which would've made it even harder for Emizel to get them both on equal footing, and I think that's just... really unappealing to him. Like! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Emizel loves having people kiss up to him and respect him and blah blah blah, I just think Theo being his boy and Emizel treating him like a partner go hand in hand. Either they weren't best friends yet or Emizel was just. Kind of uncomfortable and eager to push Theo into growing into something more than a hypeman. And then the soda incident occurs, and it gives Theo SOMETHING to define himself by, something people like him and know him for that's got nothing to do with Emizel, and maybe the initial soda incident was bad, but having that sense of identity and falling into what kind've feels like a class clown kinda role might've helped get Theo over his self esteem issues long enough for Emizel to go 'oh you're actually super cool. sweet.' and then blah blah blah they get super close like they are in canon. And then whenever Theo seems like he's backsliding into what he was before the soda incident, Emizel tries to course correct not because he doesn't think Theo's any fun without soda, but because he's made the mental connection that Soda without soda turns into less of a best friend and more of a follower, which as stated before he probably really doesn't want from Theo specifically. but idk. pure conjecture here.

Anyways, above all else, Theo's important to Emizel. I really, really like the idea that Theo was supposed to be like a brother to him (which. Again pointing at my 'Theo was supposed to die in episode 1' theory, can you IMAGINE the angst Emizel could've had about that? Lose one brother and then someone else claiming to be your brother shows up? It would've felt like some hellish, not-worth-it trade. Like a betrayal, like accepting Shilo might mean replacing Theo, and how could he ever?)

And Emizel's important to Theo! But unlike Emizel (who I'm 99% sure is gonna have some kinda moment with Theo but I genuinely cannot see him loving Theo in any other way than the way he does now), Theo has the bonus of having his view of Emizel have a clear trajectory to evolve over the course of the campaign. Like I said, he seems to be getting more confidence in himself and like, not gonna get into the stuff I've had spoiled beyond episode 9 but it seems like Theo's gonna get a lot more comfortable being a proper leader and not just a number two. He's gonna have an easier time seeing Emizel as an equal, and I think that's fucking awesome!

I could be completely off base, but if I never watch another episode then I'll never be proven wrong. So. Ya know.

[moghedien]

i swear if you people start uwuifying OCD like you did with ADHD and autism I'm going to start attacking

[smile-files]

some great bluish bakeoff stuff!

nickel later apologizes this episode; it's prompted by balloon's confrontation, but clearly nickel was in the mindset to apologize. the fact that he didn't raise the issue himself shows how he's still really afraid of how balloon would react. at the same time, though, he's acknowledging that "standing up for what [is] right" is important and good, even if it doesn't necessarily have the most beneficial outcome; notice how this not only shows how he accepts and understands balloon's anger towards him over the past few episodes (which had the consequence of losing them the challenge and getting bot eliminated), but also suitcase's anger towards him in the latter half of ii2 (which had the consequence of destroying their alliance).

in this episode, blueberry is assuming a role that has previously been taken by nickel and, more recently, silver spoon: he has placed himself at the top of the pecking order, calling all the shots, forcing everyone to roll with his punches. now everyone's in the same position balloon has been for a lot of his time in ii. silver, in throwing the chariot (:nerd emoji: actually a litter, they use the wrong word) at blueberry, is taking a stand against him -- announcing his frustration from being treated poorly.

for the longest time, balloon had "stay[ed] away from the thorns": beating around the bush, not bringing up the hard stuff, so he could maintain his positive relationship with nickel (and by extension his sense of having actually changed, which is linked with that that relationship represents) and not face his inevitable aggressive snap-back. but, though these proverbial thorns are painful, touching them helps him actually move ahead of all of that discomfort. balloon took a stand against nickel recently, which he was justified in doing, expressing his anger at nickel for both what he did and his denial of doing it -- and nickel harshly bit back about what balloon had done a while ago. balloon touched the thorn, and got the pain.

now, when nickel is yet again dancing around the problem, balloon's frustration returns. and, as silver took a stand against blueberry (which nickel supported), balloon channels his frustration and takes his own stand: technically also against blueberry, in trying to get himself and the others to the challenge before blueberry (thereby denying the domination he has imposed), but the drive itself came from nickel. he knows touching the thorns is painful, but that it's important and good. he should stand up for himself, and he does. he literally pokes himself with a thorn, and that literally sends him and the others ahead.

for the sake of this analogy/symbolic framework, it's worth noting how they are pushed forward because of the thorn, but there's still baggage: they fly through the desert only to crash, losing all of their ingredients. at this point, though, balloon's not going to let the pain of the thorn prevent him from touching it. balloon will keep standing up for himself, even if he keeps facing setbacks and pushbacks, because he knows what he deserves.

you can imagine that when balloon confronted nickel in this episode, he was expecting the same old same old: he'd say what he's mad about, and nickel would shut him down. but he doesn't. nickel listens to him. nickel lets balloon be angry at him, lets himself face the guilt he needs to feel. balloon is able to be mad at nickel without their relationship automatically going up in flames like before. and balloon is shocked! but will he forgive nickel? what'll he say? ...well, they're taken by tyler bombard before balloon could say anything...

for all this talk of the thorn, where's the blossom? well, here it is. thematic parallels indeed! recall how balloon misunderstanding "flour" as "flower" contributed to the grand slams losing the cooking challenge in ii2, which likely added fuel to the fire of nickel's hatred towards him -- now that same flower and that same misunderstanding is a representation of their friendship: it is what remains after the pain of the thorn. balloon finding value in this meager flower and presenting it to mephone at all (thereby insisting that it has value) is what wins them all the challenge. the flower and its beauty are not just a reward for the pain of the thorn, but a product of that pain.

balloon still hasn't responded to nickel's apology, because he hasn't had the chance to... but in disputing tyler's happiness about blueberry's death, balloon both recognizes his own attempt to change as well as nickel's: attempting that change is also a thorn, a very painful one (it literally killed blueberry), and both nickel and balloon have recognized the changes the other has tried to make and has succeeded in making. nickel is very reassured by this.

and as a final flower, a final reward for balloon's persistence in standing up for himself and what he believes in, balloon is chosen as the sole recipient of the immunity cookie -- silver spoon, someone with both a history of selfishness and a history of putting others below him, is the one to make this decision. balloon is finally being recognized, genuinely, for the changes he's made.

notably, balloon never accepts nickel's apology: no, he accepts that nickel is trying to make up for what he did. and, knowing from personal experience how hard it is to make that change and be acknowledged for making it, balloon is there to support him through it, and help him realize that he can be better -- and balloon is still on that "trek" himself, as we know balloon still has a lot of flaws to work through. they both know they have to touch the thorn, but they're all the more motivated to do so because they have a beautiful flower as well:

their genuine friendship.

...

balloon continues to be very charitable with blueberry, even as blueberry is critical of himself. nickel is also charitable -- telling blueberry to "just be nicer to people" implies that he believes that such a change is possible -- though of course he expresses this in his typical snarky way.

blueberry, though, doesn't believe that he can change, just like nickel used to. no matter how much balloon and nickel believe in him, he himself has to realize he has the capacity to improve before he can actually do it.

[randomnameless]

Are we ever going to get an in-universe explanation as to why Rhea sets a city with civilians still in it on fire at the end of CF, or is it forever going to remain the "devs wrote Rhea doing something evil so the audience wouldn't feel bad about killing the final boss who'd done nothing wrong up to that point, regardless of how grossly out-of-character it is for her to do that" excuse?

:(

I was typing an answer, switched tabs, and what I already typed disappeared...

Anyways...

Watsonian wise, the game iirc tells us Rhea intends to use the "fiery tiles" as hazards to slow down the BESF's progression to rekt them - and I personally find nice how the devs picked peg knights to act as reinforcments - cementing the "strategy" aspect of the Berning, aka Rhea's own troops are immunte to tile hazards, but the BESF isn't.

Doylist wise, I feel like it was one of the moves the devs pulled out to illustrate how far Rhea fell from... well, what she once was.

It's the culmination of her breakdown, her point of no-return : we came from a Rhea who valued Fodlan and its people more than her own survival and who would refuse to sacrifice anyone to ensure her safety to... a Rhea who lost so much (her remaining family), is PTSD'ing hard and was betrayed by Billy and Humanity "again", she snaps and now will sacrifice Fodlan and its people to get a chance of surviving what she perceives as the second act of the genocide of her species.

Forget the "not feeling bad" aspect of this fight anon, because, at least with the Jp audio, every scene involving Rhea, before this fight when she lost Seteth'n'Flayn, is in Tailtean, or even in this fight laments in her battle quotes, conveys, kuddos to Inoue, anguish, desperation and anger.

The BESF pushes her - during the entire length of this short route - to her breaking point, she breaks (but it's not only a furious/angry breakdown!) and Firdhiad Berning is the consequence.

Imo, even if the gapmoe and the Supreme Court tries to act as if the BESF is "in the right" or wonder what's for dinner, the foes are much more humanised/developed/are mourning on screen that, save for some devoted people, I firmly believe Tru Piss wasn't supposed to be seen as a "Good Route", but more like the Tales games sometimes have a "Bad End" path.

The final close-up on Billy's dead eyes after they lost Nirvana is, imo, telling enough - even if gapmoe and the game mechanics + IS' obsession to sell you Supreme Leader as a S material waifu you can romance sort of killed this intent, since you can get your "and they lived happily ever after" ending and marry Supreme Leader.

Tl;Dr : Tru Piss is written in a way that would make anyone (even on a first PT!) feel bad about the people you're trouncing, from Judith crying about Ignatz'n'Leonie's loss of their future, to Hilda sacrifying herself to save someone against her former nature, aka when it comes to do the "right thing" Hilda will do it even if it costs her life, to Faerghus' desperation to defend themselves at the point of willingly make the ultimate sacrifice and turning into demonic beasts and Dimitri's tender scene with Dedue, or Felix and Rodrigue fighting side by side to defend their land (and dying together) - to ultimately, Rhea losing her mind, breaking down as she learns of her kin's fate and relieving her previous PTSD hard, ultimately telling the player that they betrayed the gremlin living in their head (even if game mechanics means that gremlin is the worst mother in the entire series) and ultimately, herself.

If you're not a first PT, but Tru Piss is your last PT and you know about Rhea'n'Billy's backstories... Well.

I don't like the "you made hit you" rhetoric because it fucking sucks and irl is used by scum, and while I don't think the Firdhiad Berning was made to make Rhea look "evil" so you wouldn't feel bad for rekting her... the game painfully reminds the player, each time, that they are the instigators of this war, they are the agressors attacking people who, in this last map, will do anything to defend themselves.

It's ugly but it's the War the BESF, aka the player in Tru Piss, started/supported.

[raichukaiju]

If I had more faith in my balance, I would have scrambled up the log and into the trees - it looked like there was a neat little clearing back there~🌿

📸: @morbid-munrogue

{ He/they }

[marsixm]

big spoiler cw for the finale- i understand why a lot of people didnt feel like it made sense for how ed was acting during izzy’s death scene, like it didn’t feel earned or whatever bc they’d been at odds w each other since last season, but for me, and understand i’m not saying my personal experience making it make sense for me is trying to give undue writing cred or whatever, but i had a very difficult relationship with my very transphobic/bigoted mother. she made my life a nightmare a lot of the time. but i had to care for her in death. i had to watch her die for months. it was a waking nightmare, and it had a profound effect on me. it was complicated. it made my relationship to my memory of her very complicated. (and even if it hadnt been a months long ordeal i was caught in the middle of i’d probably still feel similarly) and that’s how ed dealing with izzy’s death feels to me. just like him having to kill his father, it was the right thing to do, but it still left him with difficult emotions. when ed says “you’re the only family i’ve got left” to izzy, after all the bullshit they put each other through, i get it.

[satelliteinasupernova]

The closer we get to the end of the series, the more desperate I'm becoming to finally BE FREEEE

[perpetual-pathos]

Opinions on the new Heathcliff identity? I'd like to hear someone else's perspective

I totally agree that it gives him room to play with Ncorp Sinclair since there's not many(?) negative sp characters! idk about team size though, ive heard maybe you're supposed to run a smaller team to maximise the sanity drop when more enemies try hitting you

i do think it wouldn't be too hard to hit tails after some time, especially with two coins for defense.. but he should be tanky enough to survive!!

overall rating: slightly harder than Ncorp sinclair

[avinox]

Have any of you ever felt like you're not a person?

Not as in not belonging to this world, but as in being unable to do anything at all right?

Like you've been here all your life and still you can barely grasp how real humans act, like whenever you try to communicate it comes out awkward and you did it wrong again, and someone always brings it to your attention? Like when you try to help out you end up making it worse, and it's because you didn't know something basic that everyone else does? It's like I'm way behind everyone else, and they let me know. I failed, again. I can't even do the easiest thing. Why is it so hard for me? Must be because I'm less than a person.

[argonapricot]

your tags on this post tumblr(.)com/argonapricot/729580866921218048/yo-baylan-just-up-ditched-shin-after-putting

encapsulate perfectly how i feel and how i wished they handled the relationship between baylan and shin. especially given that this is the only performance we’ll get of ray. i’m so so bummed. i guess i had my expectations set too high :(

Thank you for saying so! Yeah, it just breaks my heart and I definitely wouldn't feel so strongly about it if Ray Stevenson were still with us. It would honestly make sense if the showrunners had been trying to hold back on Baylan's plotline so that it could be explored in a movie or in the following season... but it's just such a misfortune.

I'm worried that there won't be enough time in the last remaining episode for Baylan to get the conclusion that he deserves. But I'm still grateful that we have had such incredible scenes that showcased his performance and character in previous episodes.

[seagull-scribbles]

Your art is so good it makes me scream and scream and scream bloody murder and gnash my teeth with jealousy and rage that a god would favour a mortal so

Obsessed with your grasp of the English language

Maybe I should make you some tea and you can pull yourself together /💕

[autism-corner]

erm

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[tsuutarr]

All of the fairies in Cot’s village have told him that he’s a workaholic with no understanding of his own limits. He usually waves them off, too focused on his potion crafting to really care about what they’re saying.

But when he falls inside your basket, he’s vividly aware of how stupid he is for ignoring his own limitations. He had flown too far to find some herbs and now he’s stuck in a human’s basket. He really doesn’t want to know what you’ll do to him, but he’s too tired to fly away.

Maybe you’ll put him in a jar. Or rip off his wings. Or feed him to your dog. Or something. Thousands and thousands of negative thoughts flood his head as he looks up at you, a mixture of wariness and exhaustion present on his face.

The last thing he expects is for you to push a few berries his way. The sweet, tantalizing scent of the berries makes Cot’s mouth water. His hunger wins over caution as he chows down on your gift. He doesn’t think he’s ever tasted anything so delicious. 

Once he’s done eating, Cot decides that you’re actually really, really nice. The smile on your face as you watch him eat makes his heart feel all fuzzy and warm. Your voice when you talk to him is really pretty, too.

After that, Cot begins to linger around you. At first, it’s purely to repay you! You were so nice to him, so of course he wants to pay that forward. He helps you take care of your garden and helps you clean your house, eager to please you. 

As he continues to assist you in any way he can, Cot can’t help but love spending time with you. It’s fun, it’s easy, it’s just… nice to be with you. In fact, he spends most of his time with you, making himself comfy in the dollhouse you got for him. And when he has to go back to the Fae Realm, all he can think about is you as he goes about his tasks.

He doesn’t really mind it, though. He likes thinking about you.

But then he has a thought. Maybe it’ll be better if you’re with him, always. When he sees you hanging out with your friends on his visit to the human realm, this thought spirals out of control until it becomes something dark and possessive and all-consuming.

Yeah, it really will be better if you're always with him.

He begins to gift you enchanted tea leaves from the Fae Realm, determined to slowly transform you into someone who’s more fae than human. Then, he gifts you a lovely necklace, enchanted with a piece of his magic – a piece of him. 

You gratefully accept the necklace, unaware of the enchantment on it – an enchantment to ensure that all your friends are too sick to ever spend time with you because he’s the only one you’ll ever need.

And as Cot sets his plan, you’ll be none the wiser. After all, why would you ever suspect your cute, tiny fairy friend? He’s just so adorable and harmless, you know?

[perkwunos]

But there’s a cruel reality behind the decision to track right: The campaign, once it hitched its wagon to Biden’s policy of unqualified support for genocide in Gaza, really had no other choice. In 2020, the Biden campaign tentatively rode the progressive wave of the George Floyd protests, anger about Trump’s racist border policies, Covid activism, and anti-war protests against Saudi Arabia’s destruction of Yemen to energize the Democratic Party base to defeat Trump. It was, in retrospect, mostly lip service, and certainly no one at the time thought Biden a firebrand progressive. But the broader theme of the campaign was that everyone would have a seat at the table, even if the plate would most likely end up being empty.

Harris made no such pretensions, because any strategy that played to similar themes would have had to address the elephant in the room: the Democratic Party’s ​“ironclad” support for Israel’s elimination of a people in whole or in part. And this simply would not have worked. One can’t really bank on activist energy, youth turnout, and base-mobilizing when those involved — while canvassing together, or running phone banks at each others apartments, or getting drinks afterwards — have to awkwardly address the fact of genocide and their candidate’s support for it. This isn’t to say there was no activist or youth energy in the campaign — clearly there was. But those in charge quickly decided against making this their central theme and vote-gathering strategy, given the uncomfortable questions that would naturally arise from campaigning in these spaces. So Liz Cheney and her negative-2 favorables it was. 

Countless pro-Democratic Party pundits tried to warn Harris. Polls were commissioned. The Uncommitted Movement very politely, and well within the bounds of loyal party politics, begged Harris to change course. But she refused. The risk, to her, was worth sticking to the unshakable commitment to ​“eliminating Hamas” no matter how many dead Palestinian children it required, or the degree to which images and reports of these dead children would fuel cynicism and create an opening for Trump to win. 

... Turning every party advocate into a dead-eyed trolley problem expert triaging which genocide was morally preferable may have made cold logical sense, but it was hardly an inspiring message. Making it less compelling was that, by and large, it was not a position emanating from Palestinians themselves, as virtually every major Palestinian organization and the sole Palestinian-American in Congress, Rashida Tlaib, refused to endorse Harris.