#but i do genuinely believe that with all the rules antis are making up

[hurtcomforted]

"why are there suddenly so many proshippers?" we were here first. and we will be here longer.

[zedecksiew]

How To Play The Revolution

So: I do not like the idea of TTRPGs making formal mechanics designed to incentivise ethical play.

But, to be honest, I do not like the idea of any single game pushing any particular formal mechanics about ethical play at all.

So here I am, trying to think through the reasons why, and proposing a solution. (Sort of. A procedure, really.)

+

Assumptions:

1.

Some genres of game resist ethical play. A grand strategy game dehumanises people into census data. The fun of a shooter is violence. This is truest in videogames, but applies to tabletop games also.

Games can question their own ethics, to an extent. Terra Nil is an anti-city-builder. But it is a management game at heart, so may elide critiques of "efficiency = virtue".

Not all games should try to design for ethical play. I believe games that incentivise "bad" behaviour have a lot to teach us about those behaviours, if you approach them with eyes open.

2.

The systems that currently govern our real lives are terrible: oligarchy, profit motive; patriarchy, nation-states, ethno-centrisms. They fuel our problems: class and sectarian strife, destruction of climate and people, spiritual desertification.

They are so total that the aspiration to ethical behaviour is subsumed by their logics. See: social enterprise; corpos and occupying forces flying rainbow flags; etc.

Nowadays, when I hear "ethical", I don't hear "we remember to be decent". I hear "we must work to be better". Good ethics is radical transformation.

3.

If a videogame shooter crosses a line for you, your only real response is to stop playing. This is true for other mechanically-bounded games, like CCGs or boardgames.

In TTRPGs, players have the innate capability to act as their own referees. (even in GM-ed games adjudications are / should be by consensus.) If you don't like certain aspects of a game, you could avoid it---but also you could change it.

Only in TTRPGs can you ditch basic rules of the game and keep playing.

+

So:

D&D's rules are an engine for accumulation: more levels, more power, more stuff, more numbers going up.

If you build a subsystem in D&D for egalitarian action, but have to quantify it in ways legible to the game's other mechanical parts---what does that mean? Is your radical aspiration feeding into / providing cover for the game's underlying logics of accumulation?

At the very least it feels unsatisfactory---"non-representative of what critique / revolution entails as a rupture," to quote Marcia, in conversations we've been having around this subject, over on Discord.

How do we imagine and represent rupture, to the extent that the word "revolution" evokes?

My proposal: we rupture the game.

+++

How To Play The Revolution

Over the course of play, your player-characters have decided to begin a revolution:

An armed struggle against an invader; overturning a feudal hierarchy; a community-wide decision to abandon the silver standard.

So:

Toss out your rule book and sheets.

And then:

Keep playing.

You already know who your characters are: how they prefer to act; what they are capable of; how well they might do at certain tasks; what their context is. You and your group are quite capable of improv-ing what happens next.

Of course, this might be unsatisfactory; you are here to play a TTRPG, after all. Structures are fun. Therefore:

Decide what the rules of your game will be, going forward.

Which rules you want to keep. Which you want to discard. Jury-rig different bits from different games. Shoe-horn a tarot deck into a map-making game---play that. Be as comprehensive or as freeform as you like. Patchwork and house-rule the mechanics of your new reality.

The god designer will not lead you to the revolution. You broke the tyranny of their design. You will lead yourself. You, as a group, together. The revolution is DIY.

+++

Notes:

This is mostly a thought experiment into a personal obsession. I am genuinely tempted to write a ruleset just so I can stick the above bit into it as a codified procedure.

I am tickled to imagine how the way this works may mirror the ways revolutions have played out in history.

A group might already have alternative ruleset in mind, that they want to replace the old ruleset with wholesale. A vanguard for their preferred system.

Things could happen piecemeal, progressively. Abandon fiat currency and a game's equipment price list. Adopt pacifism and replace the combat system with an alternative resolution mechanic. As contradictions pile up, do you continue, or revert?

Discover that the shift is too uncomfortable, too unpredictable, and default back to more familiar rules. The old order reacting, reasserting itself.

+

I keep returning to this damn idea, of players crossing thresholds between rulesets through the course of play. The Revolution is a rupture of ethical reality like Faerie or the Zone is a rupture in geography.

But writing all this down is primarily spurred by this post from Sofinho talking about his game PARIAH and the idea that "switching games/systems mid-session" is an opportunity to explore different lives and ethics:

Granted this is not an original conceit (I'm not claiming to have done anything not already explored by Plato or Zhuangzi) but I think it's a fun possibility to present to your players: dropping into a parallel nightmare realm where their characters can lead different lives and chase different goals.

+

Jay Dragon tells me she is already exploring this idea in a new game, Seven Part Pact:

"the game mechanics are downright oppressive but also present the capacity to sunder them utterly, so the only way to behave ethically is to reject the rules of the game and build something new."

VINDICATION! If other designers are also thinking along these lines this means the idea isn't dumb and I'm not alone!

+++

( Images:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/victoria-3-dev-diary-23-fronts-and-generals.1497106/

https://www.thestranger.com/race/2017/04/05/25059127/if-you-give-a-cop-a-pepsi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

https://nobonzo.com/

https://pangroksulap.com/about/ )

[lovemyromance]

How tf are there still antis saying they don't know how Elriel counts as a forbidden romance??

1. Rhys literally forbade Azriel from seeing Elain

2. Elain is mated to someone else. She and Lucien may not even want each other, but that bond is something that is highly regarded by many and rejecting the bond could come with political consequences

That is the definition of forbidden romance. When you have external factors preventing you from being with another 🙄

And I know the antis go around saying " Well, it's just Rhys nobody cares what he thinks" and "if Elriel got together it would be fine"

Rhys is a HL. He rules over the NC, including Azriel and Elain. I suspect they will disobey him, but their romance isn't just as cut and dry as if they simply decide to be together so there are zero consequences.

There is an explicit order, mating bond, and politics / blood duel at play here. All are consequences from their potential relationship.

You know who actually has zero consequences and the world would probably rejoice (minus Elain and Azriel... and Nesta) if they got together? Elucien.

Next.

Then there's the antis who go on to say "well forbidden romance is gross! If they aren't doing something wrong, then why hide it! It means Elain is cheating on Lucien!"

They're hiding it because, again .... Rhys explicitly forbade Azriel.

Elain is not cheating on Lucien because they are not in a relationship, nor have made any commitment to each other out of their own free will.

Next.

"oh but Azriel deserves to be loved and not have to hide it! He deserves a love he doesn't need to hide away"

Yes, he does. And one day, he and Elain will be together in broad daylight (in front of sunshine hehe) because they're endgame.

But right now, let me introduce you to my friend Angst. I'm sure you've met them before, when you make your headcanons about Elucien & Gwynriel experiencing obstacles because they actually have nothing preventing them from getting together! It's rude to pretend you don't know someone, especially Angst in a capital-Love Story.

Next.

"SJM doesn't write forbidden romance!"

Too late, she already did when she had Elriel almost kiss in the hallway and then had Rhys explicitly forbid them.

Next.

"Well I think forbidden romance is a childish trope and -"

Bp-bp-bpp imma stop you there ma'am. 🖐️😌

If you don't like it... don't read it! It's as simple as that.

I'm sorry to inform you that your personal opinions on tropes you like/dislike did not make it into SJM's editing room 😩. She's set up Elriel for 3 books now and until the BC, we didn't know what trope they'd fall under but after the BC, it's clear: Forbidden Romance is happening.

Next.

Don't believe me?

Read that again. Sounds like Rhys is forbidding Azriel from getting with Elain isn't he?

Now, just based on what we know about the Spymaster of the NC - do we think this man's is about to follow orders? Especially when he's disobeyed them before?

Show of hands please 😌 Anyone genuinely believe Azriel will tuck his tail between his legs and scamper off, following Rhys's order to the T and refusing to even speak to Elain forever until death?

Didn't think so.

[dfwbwfbbwfbwf]

I refuse to believe the Valar wouldn't have fought Morgoth without the Silmaril.

(There's a TLDR at the end.)

.... Not really Valar friendly, but not anti Valar either. Valar critical, but still more on their side than not.

I have many, MANY issues with how the Valar handled a lot of things - Finwë's remarriage, stepping over Finwë's authority as king, basically letting Morgoth go after his false repentance was revealed, basically letting Morgoth go because he crossed the Helcaraxë, the Silmarils, refusing to go after Morgoth when Fëanáro made it clear he would never give them his Silmarils, etc. - but I don't think they're malicious enough to hold back their help by the time Eärendil arrived.

When the Darkening happened, the Valar were ... naive is probably the best word I can use to describe it. And petty - they are absolutely petty, especially Yavanna and Tulkas. "Oh, the Noldor don't want anything to do with us? Well, we WON'T help! How about that? And don't call back because we won't even answer the phone!" Then Manwë sat by the metaphorical phone wondering sadly why they wouldn't call. :(

.... I have honestly no idea why they didn't go fight Morgoth to begin with - they could've evacuated everyone out of the area like they did in the War of the Powers - but I digress. I still don't think it was malicious or because they wanted anyone to die. (Well, maybe Yavanna - I've never really gotten vibes from her that she likes ANY of Eru's children because they use her precious plants to survive, though maybe she'd like the Hobbits.) I think it was more of a childish thought on the Valar's part. "Fëanáro will see one day, and he'll be sorry!" That sort of thing.

And I think the Valar didn't really see anything wrong with what they did until the Dagor Bragollach. They made the Sun and Moon, and Men came to be, so clearly everything was going fine. See, Fëanáro, the Valar didn't need to do anything so drastic like return to Endórë.

Of course, then everything else happened......

.... I find it very difficult to believe that the Valar wouldn't know about this. Námo and Vairë would, 100%. Varda, too - she sees everything. And Manwë hears everything, and he's clearly been listening to the goings-on in Endórë before. Ulmo also actively participates in what goes on in Beleriand. These five at least would know how bad it's gotten in Middle Earth.

It was around this time Turgon sent sailors to beg help from the Valar, mind you. All drowned to Ossë, save Voronwë, and Ulmo did nothing. And it can easily be argued that the only reason Ulmo didn't let Voronwë die was so that someone could take his pet Man to his pet Elf's city. Which I guess is better than nothing, at least.

I justify this with the Valar being petty but not malicious. I genuinely think that Manwë thought the Noldor would pray if they needed help. (Yes, he said to never call him again, and the Noldor probably DID pray in the beginning - especially Turgon's people - but Manwë ... doesn't exactly logic very well.)

Anyway, Eärendil would eventually show up, and let's say he didn't have the Silmaril?

At this point in time, the Valar would have no excuse. They would know exactly how bad it is in Middle Earth. And the fact that Eärendil is pleading for mercy for everyone - including the SoF - should have an impact. If they still refused to go against Morgoth because he didn't have a Silmaril, the Valar would not be good and moral. Maybe not quite as bad as Morgoth, but they wouldn't be far off.

.....

I wonder if Eärendil is one of those scenarios where you are so focused on an outcome - either to make it happen or to avoid it entirely - that it comes to pass through your own actions.

The Valar - or at least Námo, because we know at least he can see the future - saw Eärendil as the only way to save everything from Morgoth, and became so fixated on him that they inevitably created that future. "We have to bend the rules Ilúvatar made about marriage, or Eärendil won't come." "We can't get involved, or Eärendil won't come." "We need the Sons of Fëanáro to do these horrible things, or Eärendil won't come."

(I absolutely DESPISE this logic, but it's better than the "all is well in Valinórë; yea, Valinórë prospereth - all is well" logic the Valar show. At least it would mean one of the Valar was taking steps to fix things rather than ignore the problem in the hope of it going away.)

-----

There's also the fact that Melian herself told Thingollo to give up the Silmaril. She can see the future, and she'd know the hearts of the Valar. If she had even an inkling that they would reject Eärendil without the Silmaril, I don't think she'd suggest returning it to the SoF.

-----

I guess you can say "the Valar needed to see the Noldor had gotten over their prideful ways", but I still don't see how EÄRENDIL giving them a SILMARIL would do that. It wasn't his to give. It wasn't ELWING'S to give. Or Dior's. Or Thingollo's. Or Lúthien's. Or Beren's.

-----

TLDR

I think the argument that Beren, Lúthien, Thingollo, Dior, and Elwing needed to keep the Silmaril away from the SoF to save the world is complete and utter bs, and I'm not afraid to say it. There's no way the Valar are so cruel and heartless as to let all of Endórë die to Morgoth because they didn't get a Silmaril - that goes against everything that Tolkien believed of them. They're flawed, but they aren't (supposed to be) selfish enough to watch the world burn to prove their point.

I think the compassion Eärendil showed had more of an effect in changing the hearts of the Valar than the Silmaril.

[zed-the-buggy]

ok so larry and geeta

i really hate to rag on a character other people like for my own blorbo so uh, geeta fans i am so so sorry i would recommend skipping this post, i doubt its actually this deep </3 you are allowed to like her prommy

ok but ACtual analysis time, what the FUCK is up with larry and geeta (people who have never had a shitty two faced boss before ask. /j)

larry expresses anti institutional ideologies a lot, he wants to do things outside the system hes in will allow. he expresses a lot of negativity about his position, a lot of remarks which could rock the boat. which they HAVE with the amount of people now realizing most gym leaders have second jobs. and the system might! be kinda fucked! and deal shitty pay and is just kinda a whole gimmick of an industry in the whole universe. and larry sorta points directly at that, when he actively complains about Having to be a gym leader, Having to be an e4 member.

Geeta in this position would fucking hate Larrys guts! and would also point to her just quietly not saying anything when the player likes larry most. Because Geeta doesnt just dislike larry in this position. Geeta dislikes the ideals hes lowkey pioneering here. And when the player likes larry, its like the player is siding with larry. The player believes hes in the right, not Geeta, and it directly pits the player and Geeta at odds, in a very quiet way.

Geeta cant say shit. Geeta has to keep up the appearance of one big happy league full of amazing, positive members and they're all strong and etc etc. She keeps the facade of the entire league. Whether she genuinely loves the league or not, she has to keep an incredibly dedicated face up about the view of the league. But this same rule doesn't apply in private. The gym leaders, her workers have to keep that facade also, especially with Geeta, but Geeta doesnt have to give them that same light of day. Geeta can do whatever she wants, and the gym leaders just kinda have to deal with it.

i very much believe geeta and larrys relationship proposes this really. really sad idea. because geeta is larrys boss, and they. really dont like eachother! and geeta has. power. larry is afraid she will "dock his pay" for chitchat. but really it comes down to his chit chat going against the status quo, the status quo which Geeta benefits from. And ultimately, she does have the power to dock him for chit chat. She can rob him for being honest. And while Geeta's true treatment of the gym leaders as a manager will probably remain unknown, Larry's existence really offers the idea that it's probably not a great role.

Larry is not special. And thats the problem. Hes not breaking ass to go all out on a cute gimmick, hes not loving the institution as much as everyone else is to the point of doing more than its worth. Hes just doing the bare minimum to get by. Actively complains about his job, which for people in the right spheres it could seem like a huge deal to be a gym leader, and an elite four member. like bro! thats awesome! you just get to do pokemon battles all day! but really its not. once you live in the system, and you get sick enough of it, it loses its luster, and you realize that its just another grind, dodging pay cuts, trying to please the right people and constantly bust ass just to pay for the rent on your apartment and maybe groceries.

Larry is a pawn in the same system as everyone else. Geeta needs larry to be special. But he wont be. And Geeta doesn't take well to that.

Thats why hes the exceptional ordinary man. His ordinariness is what makes him the exception.

[yourgfdgirlfriend]

can we talk about how toxic this whole “that small thing gives me the ick” narrative is?

like, girl, him using a basket at the grocery store or bringing water to the airport gives you ‘the ick’, but him never doing a single chore or believing women are inherently better at cleaning, like it’s some instinctual level ability is fine!? you’re gonna deal with him actually thinking he’s superior to you, but don’t he dare pick up a ping pong ball or you’re out?

wanna know what gives me ‘the ick’? rudeness. sexist behaviour. selfishness. masculinity, that is so fragile wind could knock it over. being unable to give a genuine apology. those are things that make me wanna drop someone; not normal human actions.

can we stop picking on any even slightly feminine perceived behaviour in men and just let them live without this ginormous expectation to always be this strong masculine picture of a man that no one is ever gonna be able to fulfil? you’re creating the same pressure on them we as women get all the time. you’re feeding into toxic masculinity. stop. make an effort to end this thinking instead. all the ‘icks’ I see on social media are so fucking stupid and misogynistic in their core; usually accompanied with sentences like “well, if he’s gonna cry about a birthday gift, he’s not my alpha anymore” no, he’s not. he is a real person with feelings, you fucking brainwashed-by-the-patriarchy monster.

give me a fucking break; i’m so sick of seeing people pressured into these roles their whole life and being so unhappy and hold so much resentment. just stop. let men cry. let men think kitties are cute. let men dangle their feet. let men giggle and be silly. let men have genuine moments of happiness without thinking about whether or not they seem masculine enough. cut them some fucking slack. and maybe there will be fewer men hating women, because they always had to be a certain way to be accepted. every woman knows the feeling of all these expectations and rules you have to follow. we know how much it sucks; how suffocating it is. so let’s stop repeating this narrative and start breaking out of it. reflect on where you’re coming from before criticising someone’s behaviour. we’ll all be happier for it.

and don’t anyone dare to use this as anti-feminist. this is inherently feminist, because it breaks with the tale of women being poor innocent damsels in distress unable to harm anyone or anything; always the victims. perfect little dolls. we’re not. women are cruel and flawed. women are offenders. women are judgmental. women are cold hearted and shortsighted. women are petty. women are misogynistic. (not all women of course *cough cough*) women are not perfect. we are human. of course the “women are capable and smart. women are superheroes” side of feminism is widely preferred. let’s be honest no one wants to hear bad things about themselves, especially when fighting against your own oppression; but it’s therefore no less true. both are legitimate; they’re two sides of the same coin. deal with it.

and if I see anyone hurting a sweet boy’s feelings, because him owning a stuffy or something adorable like that gave you ‘the ick’ I’m gonna personally bitch slap you so hard, that looking in the mirror will give you the ick for the rest of your life. savvy?

[milomaxxy]

Something I wish I could vent about without IMMEDIATELY getting fucking dogpiled by people who have zero fucking critical thinking skills and automatically assume shit about me, is how covid (and having long covid) has affected my ability to mask.

I got covid (at least) twice- and that's what I tested positive for. I have long covid now, and that affects so much that I do. I can't walk as far, I can't tolerate the heat as well, I can't eat or drink some of the things I used to, my sense of taste has wildly changed, and more; but the worst part is how it affects my breathing. I can't breathe without basically panting anymore. Even lying in bed right now, I can't breathe properly and have to breathe through my mouth to get proper air flow. If I get too hot, or even too warm sometimes, I end up gasping for air like I'm actually choking on the air I'm breathing. My head gets light, my vision blurs and gets dark spots, my mouth gets numb, my limbs tingle and prickle, and I get an overall weakness. Hell, there's been times I've almost passed out from it and had to sit down bc I couldn't stand.

How does this affect masking, you ask? Bc with my regular breathing being hindered already, any kind of extra hindrance can really fuck me. Like, quick in-and-out, less than 5 minutes? I can do it, not perfectly fine, but not really worse off. If I have to actually take time somewhere tho? Like, if I have to do grocery shopping, or go to an appointment, or do my taxes? It has made me actually end up having AMR (the ambulance) called for me by staff before. Bc I basically fainted (for like 5 seconds), fell over, and looked like I was actively dying. I've had to take breaks while grocery shopping bc I have issues breathing as is, but wearing a mask makes it genuinely Difficult To Breathe to the point of hurting me.

And it fucking sucks, bc I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THIS. I don't want to sound like a fucking anti-masker who probably thinks covid was made by the U.S. government when I try to explain my health problems. I don't want to have to disclose the fact that, even tho I followed ALL THE PROTOCOLS, other people got me so sick that I can't wear a mask without hurting myself. I don't want to have to disclose my medical information to have a "valid reason" to "break the rules" bc I KNOW how important masking is. I KNOW what the risks are, and I DON'T WANT to take those risks. I'm basically stuck between the decisions of "wear a mask, but not be able to breathe and end up in the hospital *again*" or "don't mask, risk getting sick again, and deal with people who don't want to hear eXcUsEs". As if "I genuinely can't breathe even sitting down and resting, much less moving around with a mask on and I HATE that" is an excuse and not me trying to explain how much I don't want to have to even think about not masking.

I just really wish I could vent about how much I want to cry about this, without someone accusing me of lying about my health. Without someone accusing me of being a fucking fascist, anti-masker, antivaxxer, POS just bc they don't believe me. Fuck

[error04landonotfound]

Before I begin, I want to make it abundantly clear: this post is not a hate post, nor do I wish for it to be perceived as one.

I keep seeing a lot of defense (and comments) of Max's moves post-Mexico GP, and some of the reasoning has been... interesting, to say the least. I've seen some along the lines of, 1. "funny how the fia cracks down on the driver with the wrong passport"; 2. "lando was whining on the radio too much"; 3. "10 seconds each is too harsh."

1. I've admittedly not been a Formula 1 fan for very long, but I've been one long enough to see that Lando has never (to my knowledge) benefitted from being British. Take a look at Austria and COTA (these are the ones I know), and tell me if you really think Lando benefitted there. I'm not saying that "British Bias" doesn't exist; it very well could! Just not for Lando Norris.

2. If Lando was whining, I'd sure hate to put a label on what Max was doing last week. What Lando said on the radio was, in his view, a statement of fact. He didn't "whine" about Max's moves; he said he was ahead at the apex and that Max's moves were dangerous, and as far as I'm aware, did not explicitly ask for a penalty.

3. 10 seconds is too harsh, you say? Think about this for a second: Lando's time penalty last week was DOWNGRADED to 5 seconds. The fia document noted it was originally 10 because Max left him no space. As much as I hate to admit it, I could see why the stewards ruled the way they did at COTA, but this week was far more blatant. Max was taking wider lines and had ZERO intention of making the corners. I'm sorry, but 10 seconds is more than fair, especially when you basically admit that your whole plan was to hold up Lando and ruin his race.

All this being said, I'm genuinely curious: would you still be defending these moves THIS HARD if roles were reversed and Lando had been the one to make them? Would you claim that there was "Dutch Bias" for Max? Or that 10 seconds per penalty was "too harsh"?

I know it's easier to say it than believe it, but I know for a fact that if Lando had pulled those moves, I wouldn't have defended them. I've said it before, I think Max is a great driver! There's a reason he's 3x WDC!! But he crossed the line in Mexico City, and I really wish more people would admit that. That was hard racing, yes. But it wasn't clean.

P.S. if you're going to hate on Lando for existing/having thoughts and opinions, at least put it in the proper tag (the anti tag). I'm tired of looking through the Lando tags and seeing hate. And this goes for all other drivers too, tbh, because nobody wants to see that in their fave driver's tags.

[artist-issues]

Was wondering what your take on this was. I have a Christian friend who's very anti-media, like he never listens to non-Christian music (even then enacting limits on the artists) and he believes all films are evil and stuff like that.

I believe his rationale is that it's all anti-Christian, making arguments like "Thanos is a representation of God in the book of Revelation and the film is therefore about killing God" or "Superman isn't a Christ-like figure; he's an antichrist figure because he points people's attention away from Jesus, the real Christ," and stuff like that.

Speaking as a Christian myself, I feel like that's a very extreme take to have when stories can always have Christian values to identify and distinguish and that even if he was right, it does no good to isolate yourself from those stories or to assume the worst faith interpretation of them.

Anyway, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the subject. I know well from some of your posts especially that there are stories with very unhelpful or anti-Christian messages baked into them, but should we not still give those stories a chance? And is there not a much more forgiving line to draw before that point? If a story isn't directly and explicitly about the direct and explicit Christ, does it have any value?

Well. I had a friend who was kind of like that, too, and over the years he’s softened up on that a lot. Sometimes people get really zealous and have these extreme convictions and it’s okay, if they’re really doing it because they genuinely read Scripture with a heart to do what God wants, not a heart to find a set of rules they can follow and find self-righteousness.

I think there’s two separate ways to answer this ask. One is:

How to Treat Your Brother in Christ Over This

which is the most important part, for you, like it was for me with my friend, personally.

In 2 Corinthians 10 Paul is talking about this with meat sacrificed to idols. Technically, you’re free to eat that, even though to non-believers it means something else. Because to you, a Christian, you’re not under the old Law, so it’s not a condemnable thing to take what non-believers are using for evil and just…eat it. For what good there is in it. Because it’s meat. So there is some good in it, and you’re technically free to enjoy that good. But this is what the Word of God says:

1 Corinthians 10:19–33 - What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. And I do not want you to become sharers in demons.

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but that of the other person. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake. For the earth is the Lord’s, as well as its fullness.

If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat consecrated to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake. I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with gratefulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

Paul also says, in Romans, “But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”

(emphasis added)

The idea is, your convictions should be in place because of faith. So if, in Scripture, your friend is finding something that makes him feel convicted that watching these movies is sinful or distracting from Christ, and he really believes that’s how Scripture should be applied—this is one of those areas where you just shrug and be gracious and say, “he’s trying to act in faith.” It would be different if Scripture clearly taught about movies or even characters. You could point to a verse and say, “dude, you’re misinterpreting Scripture,” but this is one of those areas where God left it up to our convictions. So we have to respond in grace, even if what bothers another believer doesn’t bother us, because it’s not a “hill to die on.”

You can only control you. So obey God in how to respond to him, even if you don’t agree, and put him before you. If he won’t watch a Superman movie and it bothers him, don’t talk about Superman around him. Don’t invite him to movies like that. Consider him more important than yourself. If he can’t be convinced from Scripture that he’s free to watch that stuff and enjoy that stuff, don’t try and convince him. Just put his conscience in front of your preference for movies, on your list of priorities.

Maybe he is turning a grey-area into an area for self-righteousness. Or, maybe he is trying to live out his faith, even if it’s “extreme.” But the point is, you don’t know, and you don’t get to know. Only God knows. You just get to decide how to treat him.

BUT! I bet you’re already doing all that. I bet you already knew all that. And what you asked me was “And is there not a much more forgiving line to draw before that point? If a story isn't directly and explicitly about the direct and explicit Christ, does it have any value?”

So Part 2:

What I Think/My Convictions on the Gray Area of Valuable Stories

Stories can have Christian values if there is anything “Good” represented in them. It can also have Christian values if there is anything “Evil” in them. There is no such thing as “good” or “evil” in a movie like The Joker. So that movie I would say has zero Christian values. They don’t call what is evil “evil,” and they don’t call what is good “good” in that story. So I’m just agreeing with you that not every story or every piece of media has a “nugget of something Christian” that you can pull out. Only in one sense do all stories have a grain of God in them, and that sense is, “it’s a story.” The same way you can speak blasphemies, because God created the tongue and invented language and communication—that doesn’t mean He’s in any way reflected or has anything to do with your blasphemies. But you wouldn’t say, “we should at least let the blaspheming guy keep talking, because God invented talking.” God invented stories and storytelling. That doesn’t make all stories worth a chance. If that makes sense.

Anyway.

That being said, I do think it is rare for you to be able to decide that’s worth giving a chance… until you give it a chance. ^^ Like, I watched The Joker. Now I know it’s godless. So I won’t be seeing the sequel.

The main answer to this is: yes. I believe there is value in a story that is not directly and explicitly about the direct and explicit Christ. And here’s why, are you ready, here’s the reason I’m convinced, here’s the best card to play:

JESUS TOLD STORIES THAT WERE NOT DIRECTLY OR EXPLICITLY ABOUT HIS DIRECT AND EXPLICIT SELF.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is not about Jesus. You could make an argument that it’s got some Jesus-imagery mixed into the Samaritan character because of how selflessly and thoroughly he cares for others even though Jesus specifically framed the story like it was the answer to the question “who is my neighbor?” and it’s about “what a good neighbor is.” But hey, if you’re arguing, then guess what, it’s not very direct or explicit, is it?

Because that’s how stories work.

If I weren’t advocating for treating your brother in Christ with grace, if I were in my flesh right now, I’d say, “ask your friend if every conversation he has is directly and explicitly about the direct and explicit Christ. Is every single word “Jesus?” Is every single sentence about Jesus? Would you say all your communication is focused on Jesus 100% explicitly & directly? No? Then why does a storyteller’s communication have to be?”

Because that’s what a story is. It’s a uniquely compelling medium of communication. But it’s communication, that’s it.

I mean you know my understanding of stories. Stories are meant to be signposts that point you back to truth when you’ve wandered. Stories are meant to be a way for you to escape the specific imprisonment of bad ideas and lost wanderings, and you’re specifically escaping TO HOME: which is truth. Good ideas, and truth.

Well guess what? Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Every good and perfect thing is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights. If there is anything good, anything worthy of praise, anything excellent—we’re supposed to be thinking on those things, and associating them with Christ.

It’s almost short-changing Jesus or His relevance to say, “yeah there can be truth in stories but that truth doesn’t have anything to do with Jesus so it’s not worth my time.” What are you saying? He is the embodiment of Truth. If it’s true, then it’s His. In that sense. If it’s Loving, then it’s His. The idea of self-sacrifice, love, good triumphing over evil, truth triumphing over twisted-truth, is to do with Christ, because He invented those things and He’s their source.

My pastor likes to call this “plundering the Egyptians,” or “the world is tripping and stumbling into Biblical truths all the time.” They might not believe in Jesus but their story wouldn’t have anything worthwhile in it without Him. The writer of Beauty & the Beast might not be connecting self-sacrificial love to Jesus when she characterizes Belle, but guess what, she can’t escape it. Just because she didn’t make the connection doesn’t mean it’s not connected. You can’t say that all good and true things, even coming out of the foul mouths of humans, are no longer good and true simply because of the state of the mouths they come out of. Goodness and Truth is goodness and truth, and our brokenness can’t blot it out or stain it or ruin it. If it’s in the story, and it’s good and true, it’s good and true. Regardless of who we are or whether or not we attribute it to it’s proper Source.

Also, look at all of History. Jesus is woven symbolically throughout all of it, but He doesn’t “directly and explicitly” write Himself into the story of the world until the First Century.

But He was telling stories that had pieces of Himself and the truth before that. And He’s been telling them after that.

The Global Flood? Mankind is so wicked that God utterly destroys them—but He saves a small handful of righteous with a Vessel that only has ONE DOOR that they CANNOT SHUT THEMSELVES? That’s a story about Jesus. It’s not “direct or explicit.” God wrote it, that’s called “reality.”

The lamb in the Garden? Adam and Eve have something perfect and wonderful, and they can be exactly who they are and who they were made to be, but then they ruin it with sin, so God makes a way for them to be covered and protected—but it’s with the sacrifice of a Lamb? That’s a story about Jesus. It’s not “direct or explicit.” But God wrote it into reality.

Caterpillars? Into butterflies?? God invented a creature that starts out as a low worm in the dirt, then it goes into a tomb-like, death-like sleep and emerges a new creation that is beautiful and flies? That’s a story about Jesus, I don’t care, it’s not “direct or explicit” but it’s what God wrote into reality.

If it’s true and good, then the good and the true parts are connected to Christ. And it would be cheating myself of more ways to consider where goodness and truth and beauty come from to say that His direct and explicit incarnation in human flesh 2000 years ago was the only way I’m allowed to be reminded of Him.

I would never say any of this to your friend unless they asked. Because it’s not gracious to slam your friend over something that Scripture is not directly commanding, one way or the other, about.

[ask-fgod]

Hello from @mcnotok! My name is Snap, and my answers will be tagged as "mod snap". I am an avid fgod Enjoyer™ :]]. I mostly enjoy Nightmare and Error, but every character in this universe is so fascinating to me.

and im @my-names-kris! which my name is uh. kris, obviously. answers from me will be tagged as "mod kris". i usually like blueberror in most utmv aus, but theres something about ink in this one that grabbed me by a stranglehold. also an avid fgod enjoyer, to the point where it actually got me to start writing for the first time ever!

RULES:

DONT SPAM

NO RP

NO ASKING CHARACTERS NOT LISTED HERE

DONT BE A JERK TO THE MODS

PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE CHARACTERS IS VERY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE (BUT YOU CAN SEND OBJECTS)

Story:

The backstory of this blog takes place after Error jumps into the void after he was attacked. Fate, annoyed but viewing him as replaceable, grabs a Swap!Sans, Blue, from his multiverse into the Anti-Void, and in a rushed manner, makes him into an error and the new God of Destruction. Destiny, angered by this and knowing Error would be too, tells him about what had happened to Blue, now known as Blueberror. Wanting him not to be alone, he returns, along with his newly adopted children, Void and Null that insisted to go with him.

Characters:

Error:

The first God of Destruction, jumped into the void wishing for death, and was sent to another multiverse instead with Destiny's help. Returned upon learning that Blueberror was made the next God of Destruction in his place, bringing two children named Void and Null with. Arguably the most powerful of the three gods, holding the ability to make a universe crumble with his very step. Despite this, he is normally a chill (and rather quiet) guy when you haven't done anything to anger him. It takes a lot to anger him, anyways.

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

Nightmare:

Nightmare is so detached from his past life that he considers himself a completely different person, but he is not. He hates all reminders of his detached past before the corruption, as they make him feel complicated feelings and thoughts he'd rather do without. Doesn't view Dream as a brother, but a part of him that he hates feels as if that feeling should be there. Due to the multiverse oversaturated in negativity, he has extreme mood swings. Took in the murder-time trio in an attempt to spread SOME positivity. It didn't do much, but he ended up keeping them anyways. (my mans is soft)

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

Dream:

Dream is extremely loyal to Ink to a fault, never believing the truth of the multiverse's oversaturation, even when Blueberror starts destroying. Due to this, he neglects his duties of spreading positivity, as that would disrupt Ink's creations... even if he suffers for it. Ink's right-hand man ruling over the Star Council. Is used as a mascot for the "happiness" that Ink can spread. Has only ever been used as a beacon for positivity, so when someone genuinely treats him as a friend, he gets very attached.

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

Ink:

The God of Creation, Ink, is the only god out of the three that was unable to hear Fate. Despite this, after hundreds of years go by, he figures out the instability of the multiverse he has caused. Knowing this, but having formed a council and an image of himself along with it, he still insists that he has been doing nothing wrong. Ink is extremely strict about his creations not being disrupted by any outside source, even when the scales of emotion are tipped in negativity's favor. Holds a hatred for Nightmare for taking the murder-time trio in. Hates Error and now, Blueberror, as well for their insistence that he is the one in the wrong. Very close with Dream, not really ever realizing how he's hurting his friend.

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

Blueberror:

Blueberror was a well-liked Swap!Sans (teetering on the edge of being a swapfell!sans) before he was snatched by Fate. It was to the point where he was even asked by Dream and Ink to join them. But being a neutral party, he refused. Before he was snatched, he sometimes travelled the multiverse, helping out anybody, no matter which side they were on. After Fate snatched him, he became the second God of Destruction. He is significantly less merciful than his predecessor, Error. Still helps out people in other universes, but less often due to his new duties.

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

Void and Null:

Void (age 2) and Null (age 5) are two children from the alternate multiverse that Error fell into's Handplates AU. Originally finding him lying in the ground unconscious in their Snowdin, after Null fled with Void away from their Gaster, the two of them have been extremely attached to their adoptive father ever since.

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

Minor Characters:

Minor characters that won't be making any major appearances in the blog, but still exist nonetheless consist of Horror, Dust, Killer, Star Council Fell, Fresh, and Core Frisk.

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

If you’re asking “what is fgod?” go here!

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

If you want to read the blogs posts in chronological order, go here!

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

If you want to see everyone's heights, go here!

📍 • ʚĭɞ • 📍

If you want to join the Discord server, go here!

[asherlockstudy]

what's the episode where they talk about imposing rules on their friendship (not talking during vacation, not meeting up in NC, ignoring each other at the supermarket and physical touch)

Sorry for the late answer. I have answered such asks so often with explaining my very genuine inability to track down things I remember they have definitely said in the past so this time I tried REAL hard and I was able to semi-answer lol

The alarms go off and seat belt are in this episode:

For the longest time I was certain that them talking about avoiding each other in vacation extremely was also in this episode but by skipping through moments I wasn’t able to find it. Perhaps it is there indeed but I missed it. If it’s not there, it’s still in a 2017 or early 2018 episode although I know this doesn’t help much.

By the way, going back to it again, I have new thoughts about it.

Rewatching this episode brought back memories of the “Why people think we are gay” episode last year. They basically say exactly the same stuff and ironically there are still the same contradictory elements about them. We’re talking about a 5.5 years time gap.

They say how they are not expressive and affectionate at all and how they don’t touch, they don’t have conversations about feelings and so on. The level of loyalty between the two episodes could easily make me conclude that this is simply the truth. And in a way I think it is a little true, although it comes with hilarious contrast with, say, Rhett’s frequent jabs that Link’s touches are inconsiderate.

But there’s so much that doesn’t make sense. Granted, Rhett and Link’s friendship is a little strange but still. In 2018, they explain that the reason they don’t text is because they consider it a corruption of true face to face communication. They say they don’t hug or touch and all that because they are so much like “one unit” that it feels redundant like “do you hug your mirror”? In 2023 they say instead how this is a trademark of stereotypical dudebro friendships like theirs and delicately imply how the years of anti-gay brainwashing in their youth still makes them slightly uncomfortable in the way they navigate their friendship. I believe this is a more realistic interpretation.

Both versions however simply do not go well with the years 2018-2019 of Link complaining that Rhett was not in touch with his emotions and did not open up to him because in these podcasts Link acts like a dudebro as much as Rhett. It doesn’t go well with the email Link sent to Rhett (was he about to end the friendship over not going fishing together often or what) or Rhett later crying over it or Link always being on the verge of breaking whenever it is mentioned or whenever Rhett expresses his care for him. It doesn’t go well with one time Rhett semi-honestly semi-jokingly said that even when they don’t drive to work together they still talk on the phone. (I think this doesn’t apply anymore but it did for a while or for some occasions, around 2020 I believe).

And even on its own it remains weird - why would it set off alarms that your best friend hugs you or helps you with your seatbelt. There are only two explanations: either you worry it means the friend will ask a favour or is preparing you for some nasty news, which suggests the friendship is not all that strong after all. Or, still, that you worry a hug or a touch in the car can lead to something unpredictable. Given the context of when this podcast is released I always thought these were the rules of restricting themselves from their affair (the forbidding of interacting during vacation even when in the same area definitely is) but the alarm setting ones could also be more generalised after all, meaning, it could have always been the case, it could have always been a concern in their minds “Why Rhett / Link was particularly affectionate / very helpful / touchy feely today? Does it mean something?”.

[disinherited-dornishman]

How you ship Crisnyra and reblog bullshit saying Rhaenyra coerced/assaulted Cole?Actors and showrunners all said its consensual and amde to be beautiful and pleasurable in contrast to Alicents rape scene with Viserys multiple times.Cole had all the time in the world to decide and the way the scene was framed with the waiting periods away from Rhaenyra, him taking off his own clothes, the armour etc him picking her up and initiating the actual sex on top while smiling...He wanted it. This was meant to show him choosing desire over his vows

I've had an exhausting day of work so I'm going to let the ass-ignorant problematic dumb shit you're displaying as regards the consent of that scene speak for itself and just focus on my answer to the actual question.

At the risk of sounding like Homelander of all people (ew), I can like whatever the fuck I want. I am under no obligation to explain these enjoyments to a stranger on the internet, so you're welcome.

Now onto the answer:

First, you can make your own judgements separate from what writers and actors tell you and still be valid. I don't give a fuck what showrunners say if it's dumb shit. They can say Balerion farted rainbows after Maegor made him eat the High Septon, or, even more ridiculous, that Viserys was a good person, that doesn't mean I'm gonna take them seriously.

Second, I am a staunch anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist, and thus by proxy an anti-Targaryan fan. I reblog posts analysing the Criston/Rhaenyra scene as a sexual assault scene because as an adult human being who doesn't rely on others to tell him how to feel or think about things, I believe that the most mature, genuine, and honest way of internalizing that scene is as, foremost, a sexual assault scene. This reading of that scene is the most realistic one within a sociopolitical context, removed from the fantasy the showrunners and actors are trying to illustrate, because colonizers and imperialists are, by merit of their very existence as a ruling class over natives, rapists. They rape people of rights, cultures, and identity. This is my dead-serious, historical analysis, pretend-it's-real-life view. That said, I can also view media in a more light-hearted and less serious manner, bringing me to my third point:

I ship Crisnyra because, again as an adult human being, I like escapism, and TV shows can be that. A way to switch off that part of my brain that is constantly critical and suspicious and serious and mature, because it can seriously get exhausting. Thankfully, I do this easily with Crisnyra because my first viewing of that scene was extremely romanticized, and I can still look back on it (and prefer to look back on it) as romantic. I blame the scene's direction that you mentioned and Fabs and Milly's chemistry. So when I reblog Crisnyra stuff or write for them in my fanfics as being a genuinely loving couple, that's what I'm doing, I'm choosing to be relaxed and have fun. That simple. I don't have to explain it or justify it to myself. I'm enjoying life at no harm to any fellow human beings.

I'm heartbroken this upsets you, but I don't have to view anything in life in only one way if I don't want to. I like looking at media through a sociological and historical lens, and also through a more personal, intimate, and romantically hopeful one. Sorry you don't have that skill.

You're welcome again for my precious time. Now block my @

[nyaagolor]

Finished Episode 4 and got through the first few chapters of Episode 5, so I’m back with some theories / questions / thoughts. I realized I probably should have been adding the spoilers tag to my posts so that will be rectified soon!! But anyway:

Theories:

1. Who is the person who called Natsuhi on the phone?

We have already established that Natsuhi is likely hallucinating based on her scenes with Kinzo and Beatrice, so I don’t think the kid is real. (She could also be lying but I’m biased in her favor bc I like her). If said child is actually 19, that would put him as a year older than Jessica, smack in the middle of when Natsuhi was having fertility issues. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch that in her extremely heightened state of anxiety around the family conference (all about inheritance / family / lineage), she might be haunted (both metaphorically and literally) by her miscarriage / fertility issues. I’ve been under the assumption that Jessica is not Natsuhi’s child— she’s Krauss’ kid by another woman, but Natsuhi raised her for image related reasons (Krauss didn’t want to get a divorce or admit his wife’s “failure”, but wanted an heir regardless). The person on the phone might be the ghost (literal or metaphorical) of Natushi’s final unsuccessful pregnancy, especially if she was far along before the miscarriage— he ends up being a representation of her trauma and guilt at her fertility issues

2. What happened on the island with Ange?

Her bodyguard actually followed her, sniping and killing the blacksuits and Kyrie’s bitch of a sister whose name I’m forgetting. He kills Ange at the end because Okonogi would be the next person to get the inheritance and that’s what he’s been after in the first place

3. Why could Ange revive Sakutaro?

Maria was mistaken, Sakutaro is not homemade. Rosa bought a factory plushie and passed him off as homemade, so Ange just bought another one. My theory is that Rosa will die by my blade

4. What the fuck did Battler do?

I was initially under the impression that Kyrie killed Asumu to get her man (slay queen or whatever) but now that I think about it it’s not impossible that Battler did it. Did he drive her to suicide? Accidentally kill her and it was made to look like a suicide? Why does he not remember? Why does him not remembering make Beatrice suicidal???? Is Beatrice Asumu???? Is she a ghost that Battler made up in his grief? actually probably not I don’t think they would do that. whatever

Da Rules! (or at least the way I understand the rules of the game to work)

- Magic can only do things that are also possible by humans, meaning every magical act has some kind of trick

- Only the outcome as Battler sees it matter. In essence, everything before the catbox is opened does not need to be taken as fact

- “Mystery” is not “Anti-Fantasy” and shouldn’t be treated as such. “Mystery” is too restrictive, and nuance is important

- Everyone has the potential to be an unreliable narrator. Some are outright lying (hideyoshi + eva in chapter 3), some genuinely believe what they are seeing (Maria, possibly Natsuhi), and some I just don’t trust on principle (Kyrie, Rosa, the limited omniscient narrator)

Questions I still have:

- How did Asumu pass off Kyrie’s kid as her own. Like genuinely what the fuck is the logistics of that??????

- What do I have to do to convince Natsuhi to get a divorce

- When are Battler and Beatrice finally going to make out. I’m waiting.

[traumatizedjaguar]

Master-post: I want to make this explaining what knowledge God has given me over the years

not so loving and boring crap, skip:

Yeah I can see economic collapse happening. I don't want to jump the gun and be one of those "crazy people" that believe in conspiracy theories because I absolutely am not one of those people and I'm not a conspiracy theorist (nor have I ever been, they've just been fun to look at in the past). This is very realistic. But let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if an economic collapse were to happen in the US and all over. I'm open to the fact that it may never happen, but I asked God to show me and He showed me and I shouldn't live in denial... I genuinely see it coming; even before God told me anything I studied the system closely since I was at least in 6th grade. I've always been anti-authority and interested in dystopias coincidentally because of how much empathy I have for others; I always felt depressed about the world and saw the red flags in our system. Food industry poisons us, 99% of the food in the grocery store is poisoned in some way and the food pyramid IS A LIE; school is a prison that kills creativity and passion, sports is controlled and overrun by abusers, clothing industry, religion in general and catholicism enslaves people and is a lie controlled by the terrorists in power, politics and government or what the CIA has fucked up on in the past because of their lack of Love.

we're all making a choice and its our own destruction. I take full accountability for what I've been apart of but we're all flawed. God doesn't want perfection, He just wants us to cooperate and love one another. two rules: spread compassion and DO NO HARM. Is that behavior of yours or action of yours or your thoughts or intentions harmful? try to be kind instead. it aint that hard to be kind. simple. its simple. Just like Architects new album - "for those that wish to exist: abbey road" states exactly what conclusion I've come to, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a interview of the singer-song writer talking about a spiritual awakening like how Kesha did already.

Also, don't trust people like John Rich (tucker Carlson interview about his song Revelation) who is obviously hired by the government to lead you to fear and the idea that we're all heading to hell: hell doesn't exist stop thinking about it. "lord will turn away from all their cries" and about every lyric is to fuck with you. God loves you and you need to love yourself and live on the right path. Meditation is an essential to living. You need it like you need food and water. *also to add: prophets are fake, that man - forget his name too lazy rn - who prophecied trumps shooting is hired by the government no doubt; if hes preaching christianity or catholicism he is just apart of the gov*

The CIA has used psychic mediums, astral projection, and spirituality in various projects for the longest time. The government has known about the collective consciousness and who we really are for a LONG time now. Do your research, I could write whole ass essays on this, but you can figure it out yourself.

God spiritually awakened me. My personality was coincidentally set up from a young age to lead me on this path.

the govern ment is a cult. yes. religion is too. we're no better or worse than Russia, china, North Korea... all dystopias in their own way

Good stuff starts here:

Spiritual Awakening

Who are we and where do we come from? Is there purpose to our lives? Who is God?

God is the singular source of everything in creation including us. He is also called Love, Joy, Source and we can always go back into Him. God is consciousness, thought... and He created us in His image, we are consciousness and thoughts and intentions are creation and are more important than actions because of that reason; we all collectively decided to use our intentions to simulate the physical universe we live in.

The Big Bang of the physical reality in our 3D world is all imagination, intention, thought essentially.

Life is just a dream within a dream within a dream. When you die, it's like waking up from having a vivid dream last night. You become more lively, awake, real because you gain back what senses you left behind for awhile.

We live in the illusion of physicality, time, death, mortality, and duality.

We are demigods. Our true nature is the soul, a free-floating immortal consciousness that is the light made up of vibrations which we are all gods of our own making with our own individual personalities. We are immortal, can't feel pain as it's an illusion under our control, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient. That's what a "higher self" is when evidential psychic mediums refer to that. We are the light and pure eternal consciousness, we are light-beings. Dying is safe and death itself is safe.

Time is an illusion, it doesn't truly exist. You could go back to this lifetime as you now again if you wanted to and restart it (but no god does that as there is nothing to be gained especially if abuse occurred you'd rather not obviously). You can slow things down, speed things up, or just do something and have it happen like with the snap of a finger; with a single intention you could make something happen immediately.

Duality and death are illusions. Grief is a temporary thing as they never really died. The human side of us delved too far gone into resentment and envy, jealousy, anger, hatred, fear, disconnection, lack of empathies, despair. Holding onto anger doesn't bring peace; you come from oneness as Love is connection so you have to pick between revenge or being pro-recovery because you cannot have both, you pick between growth or the cycle of abuse because you cannot have both. This is basic science psychology, we learn this in therapy even. What God taught me is that hexing or acting on bad intentions or bad actions toward another (even if its "deserved" or at an abuser) you are depleting and killing Mother Earths vibrations which effect how She functions, it traumatizes more than your target and hurts you in return because you reap what you sow and everybody gets a life review. Studies show that protestors that focus on revenge instead of compassion for their group end up hurting their side much more than helping which shows you cannot be duel in this. Pick peace, joy, happiness and compassion and more rights for your vulnerable community OR you can pick destruction on both sides and less human rights.

It is a never-ending cycle of reawakening ourselves every lifetime and learning how to bring forth our godliness while in a human vessel, learning how to love in a low vibrational realm, and we're here because we're groomed to become gods. We bring back knowledge and experience from the physical. We want to love in a different way because we have physical body parts to do things with. In heaven souls hug by absorbing their consciousness into another and becoming one. You can also make "physical" things in your own way and stories, you can do essentially anything you want because you are a god (of many). Especially in certain dimensions or realms you can socialize with other souls who want what you want. Oneness and connection is what Love is.

You can go back to any lifetime, any "new" one, any reality, any dimension or God/Source anytime you want. It's like a sandbox, open world gameplay we're all in. Life is like a play, a movie, a video game... where you choose your planet, your character, sometimes attributes you want to be born with like making a sim or rolling the dice on it, you level up by vibrating to higher dimensions and each dimension you unlock new abilities and superpowers such as bending energy, using the earths energy and material in new ways, consistent euphoria and joy, no need for sleep but enough energy, developing space craft thats sleek and fast, traversing the universe through space and time, and growing and learning in your journey as a god!

5th dimension is where heaven begins. (4th being time). Suffering and death are transcended, you lose all of the flaws that came with being a 3rd dimensional human like I said you unlock new levels then new abilities; you can see better and don't have a need for glasses, you would have your 5 senses plus many more and your senses differently. You can co-create with other gods because thats what we're wired for: co-creators, wanting to love and to be loved, free-will, peace and joy, creativity, education and knowledge, and play!

You can use the earths energy and materials to build and create differently in the 5th dimensional earth, it's like unlocking whole new levels or unlocking achievements in a video game. Every dimension is "physical" in its own way, a 5th dimensional creature would look like a ghost to us and could walk through walls and see through something solid to see what's inside.

We limit ourselves as humble gods do and come down here for challenges and the journey back to Source. So as long as you stay aligned with your True Self (the god side of you) then you will be able to accomplish all these things in life. Love = virtues = who we are.

Humans only see a small percentage of the color spectrum because we're limiting our godlike abilities down here for fun but back Home we can see the full spectrum of color again. You can only see ahead of you and in your peripheral vision while in a physical human vessel but back Home you can see 360 degrees at once and for a thousand miles, clear vision. Because you're just free-floating immortal consciousness, nothing is restraining you anymore. Obviously your senses go from 5 to 50.

"I must've forgot I'm a Demi-god. I always feel so blue, but im a Demi god" - Architects.

We create and build our character through free will and various lifetimes in the physical reality and on many planets, but we don't have to go to the physical 3D world on earth if we don't want to we can always stay in heaven or go anywhere else. We can link up with other souls and keep them as family in heaven or incarnate with them in stories of your own making; you can make stories in some of the highest realms of heaven or on earth or anywhere with no tragedy or cruelty or duality and because you're so at One with everyone it isn't hard to find many souls who just want the same thing as you.

You can build a whole script in higher dimensions (if you wanted to but you don't have to and life in the 3D is NOT scripted at all) choose to put the veil over your eyes and forget it and play out the story with other souls who consent to joining in on your love story. Going to the 3rd dimension on earth is like joining the marines, you're here for a purpose and it's to "fight" (human terms of duality) for Love to win; our purpose is to serve the world. We are here to serve each other, God doesn't need anything from us, He is Source and perfect and perfection doesn't NEED anything, let alone worship. WE need each other down here; virtues are what it's all about. The essence of our soul is our moral compass...

Tap into it and you will begin to feel the energy literally flowing around you, your relationships and social interactions become easy, gliding and at one with each other and you feel more peace. You will be able to be on the right path with the right people and passions, etc.

You are still your own individual god on your own journey just like millions of other gods and you can speak to the source God who created us anytime you want. Somebody recommended Suzanne Giesemann to me for meditation and she's got some good ones and this one is a real game changer.

"there’s magic in our bones, a north star in our soul that remembers our way home. there’s magic in our bones." - Body by Sleeping At Last

because of the simulated physical world we *NOT separated* but distanced ourselves from God (Love) and from each other by going into these vessels in 3D, which caused suffering to break out. If everyone on earth had a NDE we all would find world peace.

"All my worries were a waste of time, made the world so blurry I was going blind." - Caleb Shomo

The universe is made up of music and is built perfectly such as the fibonacci sequence seen everywhere. Every dimension vibrates at its own frequency. Dimensions are all in front of you, stacked on top of each other, essentially in and around you at all times. I believe there are 12 dimensions about but I will check with God or my higher self to see what they say.

We are omnipotent. If you believe you are limited or whatever you choose to believe about yourself you will make it that way. Believe you can and you will as human, you can do anything as a human that the soul can do - just believe like a child believing in a fantasy and you will make it or create it. We can do anything, anytime if you just believe.

Omniscience. In the afterlife there is shared knowledge among all souls with God meaning we're omniscient. instant communication because there is no physical vessel nor a mouth piece anymore. So when you have a thought, it's instantly shared and another souls response is shared instantly back. intentions are instant knowledge too. there is no privacy because love is connection and thats what the collective consciousness is. interconnected, interlaced energy forever.

Is there a hell?

Short answer:

No.

Longer answer is this:

We get life reviews with God back Home where we have to relive this lifetime through everyones else's eyes whom we interacted with here.

Every time you hurt someone intentionally, unintentionally or lacking self-awareness about it or made someone feel joy you will relive it from their POV, their emotions, their eyes, their consciousness. You literally become them. It's a self-punishment if you lived a life being a selfish mean person. If you get revenge on someone you will also have to relive the pain you caused them because revenge is always wrong as He told me. If you hurt someones feeling in a minor way you relive it as them and if hurt them in a significant way you relive it.

Nobody deserves punishment, let alone abuse.

Being able to see things from a higher self POV helps me be more empathetic and learn that I want what's best for my abusers and for myself.

You are a god and in control of your reality. The world is a strange and confusing place to live in and I can see why atheism is so appealing to people I mean I was an atheist for so many years growing up. Most of my teens I was one.

Videos I found to be cool and get you in the mood:

Timelapse of the entire universe

Zoom out from earth by nelsking26 has a cooler song

also mental health related things about thoughts vs event severity

[evilsystemm]

hey!!! first of all u seem cool 👏💪😎 and secondly i was reading ur pinned post (and obv if this is weird or makes u uncomfortable or is a stupid question pls just like. delete it and i'm sorry cause i swear i mean no harm) and i'm just wondering what u mean when u said that ur anti comshippers but respectful and sympathetic towards underage comshippers? i don't know much about comshipping bc i'm not one (so i tend to stay away from any discussion or discourse) but do underage comshippers have different beliefs/rules than over-age or smth like that? i tried looking it up but i just got smth about economics :') . pls dont take this as anything negative i'm just genuinely a lil confused if there's some rule/definition that i'm missing? anyway hope u have a nice day ☀️!

TW for any and all things that would fall under comshipping.

No worries at all, im glad you asked. As an overall statement, I am firmly against comshipping and proshipping. I think its very dangerous and that engaging in sexual/romantic ideas that are illegal and unethical bleeds into a person's psychological state and influences how they think, feel and act outside of the activity of comshipping (this is proven to be true in relation to pornography), affecting real life people. I don't consider this to include headcanons of these situations that are NOT romanticised or sexualised, because I think that can be an informative portrayal of abuse/assault etc.

The reason I mention underage comshippers is because a large portion of them do it because of something that may have happened to them (exposure to inappropriate content too early, sexual assault etc.) and it acts as a form of coping/reenactment. Not dissimilar to how children who have been abused will often act out the abuse through toys and drawings or on other children. Traumatic events like that damage the psyche majorly, and you *will* see symptoms that aren't morally correct, comshipping being one of them.

I dont think this makes it okay, and I still stay far away from comshipping at all because it's incredibly distressing for a lot of members in the system, but ultimately I think the best course of action for people under the age of 18 is understanding and support where it can be given.

Very few people who engage in this (including adults) mean harm, and I think its mostly a matter of them simply not believing or understanding how dangerous the practice can be. But I do hold more scrutiny to adults, because they are more capable of the logical reasoning to come to the conclusion that it's dangerous for them and others. Children generally aren't.

So no, underage comshippers don't have different rules, but I hold them to be more vulnerable individuals and I don't think outright criticism is an effective approach at helping them. That being said, I don't agree with comshipping in any capacity.

Thank you for taking the time to ask and clear up confusion!! and also thanks for saying I seem cool <3

[delta-queerdrant]

the best allies we could have (Alliances, s2 e14)

If Voyager’s Kazon arc has a peak, it’s “Alliances.” Here it is, the dramatic turning point in our understanding of Delta Quadrant politics! This episode has a kernel of something almost compelling, but like much of season two, it’s sadly undercut by storytelling failures.

We cold-open on a firefight with the Kazon. Star Trek battle scenes are so silly; why do the consoles explode? I guess the claustrophobic mayhem is a holdover from the nuclear submarine aesthetics of TOS. I will never not be amused by how Janeway’s hair explodes every time they’re in a fight. Are there no bobby pins in space?

A crewman dies in the battle, and we learn that two more have died in previous Kazon encounters, our first casualties since Durst got de-faced (lol) by the Vidiians. The tension is real - redshirt deaths hit differently when a small crew has trauma-bonded in space.

A faction of the crew wants to buy off the pursuing Kazon with Federation technology, but Janeway won’t turn her back on the Prime Directive. The Starfleet/Maquis divide, usually an afterthought, feels momentarily real. We’re treated to a three-way debate between Janeway’s lawful good authoritarianism, Chakotay’s collaborative ethos, and Tuvok’s detached realpolitik. “This isn’t a democracy, Chakotay, I can’t run this ship by consensus,” Janeway says, briefly inviting a utopian, communitarian vision of a Voyager actually run by consensus. But even she’s swayed by Tuvok’s (frankly, bullshit) suggestion that a temporary alliance with the Kazon has the potential to make the Delta Quadrant more stable as long as Voyager doesn’t actually hand over technology.

This is arguably a weak leadership moment for Janeway, who can’t adapt to the demands of her environment or crew, but maybe it’s okay to be a rules-y Taurus if you surround yourself with people who correct your worst impulses.

Janeway reaches out to Seska to try to broker a deal, which is fun because it’s genuinely unexpected and makes Chakotay so squirmy. Meanwhile Neelix makes contact with a Kazon acquaintance. They meet up in what I believe is the first “hive of scum and villainy” of the series. You know these people are up to no good because there are alien bikini girls!

Here Neelix encounters the Trabe, another local alien species who have their own story to tell. The episode both becomes interesting and loses the plot completely.

The Trabe tell Voyager that “over thirty years ago,” they enslaved the Kazon in an apartheid society. When the Kazon rose up, the Trabe lost everything. Now the Trabe are a landless people still persecuted by those they oppressed, even though decades have passed and many of the Trabe were children when the Kazon overthrew them.

Janeway is delighted - instead of allying with the Kazon, they can ally with the friendly Trabe! Chakotay agrees - the Trabe, after all, have openly acknowledged the harm their people caused.

Meanwhile, me: OMG NOOOO THEY FOUND WHITE PEOPLE IN SPACE

Previously I wrote about the Kazon as a parable for midcentury US race relations. Before I rewatched “Alliances,” I genuinely thought they were just clearance-rack racialized space baddies, but here the parallels to white Boomer experiences of the 1960s uprisings are unmistakable. It’s a resonant scene, but watching our command team fall over each other to befriend their new pals is… stressful.

The Trabe build on Janeway's proposal: together they’ll bring the Kazon together and negotiate for peace. But when the meeting begins, the viewer can’t help but notice that the Kazon seem like the most reasonable people in the room. They don’t trust the Trabe or Janeway, and they have a much better read on the power dynamics at play than Janeway does. Because the meeting is a fucking trap.

This episode is such a bummer. Maybe I'm being too charitable, but it feels like a genuine attempt at anti-white supremacist storytelling that missed the mark. Janeway, our audience surrogate, is presented with a complex political situation and immediately latches onto the group she identifies with: white-presenting people who have claimed the moral high ground after centuries as oppressors. Then the rug is pulled out from under her. White liberalism as a facade for violence is a very mid-nineties dynamic.

The full impact of this plot twist relies on the viewer sharing Janeway’s white myopia. If you don’t implicitly trust the Trabe (or the writers), you spend the whole episode screaming at the television. Why are our protagonists so clueless?

“I hope there's a lesson for all of us in this,” Janeway says in the final scene. “Although some of the species we've encountered here have been peaceful, others seem governed only by their own self-interests.” It’s not a good look when our hero has traveled 70,000 light years to learn that… politics are a thing? And why didn’t her command team didn’t save her from herself? Are you telling me that Chakotay, the Indigenous anti-authoritarian militant, is this politically naive?

If “Alliances” is at times a smart portrait of how an oppressor mindset operates, it’s undermined by an offensive caricature of resistance. Violent resistance absolutely can be fueled by an ideology of separatism and racial hatred, but the Kazon aren’t a resistance movement; they’ve won. Yet the Kazon resemble white peoples' worst fears of postcolonial "failed states." It feels like the writers genuinely believe that the political and social problems of formerly dispossessed people are of their own making, not recognizing the ways that white supremacy and economic imperialism still actively shape the lives of formerly colonized peoples. The Kazon only make sense in a universe where the Trabe are still economically and politically exploiting them, and that's not the universe we're shown.

We needed an episode with this shape, one that sets up the hard political choices of later seasons, and I can accept that requires our characters to exercise truly poor judgment. But this attempt at gritty politics doesn’t feel grounded in anything real, and the result feels disappointingly thin.

2/5 triangular tables.