#but the basic principle applies

[general-sleepy]

Watching older exploitation movies is a perilous experience, because you can be having a grand old time and then suddenly, holy shit I think they actually stabbed that mouse.

[korrasera]

On the simplest level, a lot of people hate trans women because they think we're ugly women.

Every fat woman in your life already knows exactly what that feels like.

[kintatsujo]

Honestly A Link to the Past is still the platonic ideal of a puzzle based action adventure to me because it successfully takes every dungeon item in the game and applies it to the main world, and while none of the bonus items are necessary to finishing the game they're all still very nice to have

Like, it's just very neatly planned and comfortably curled in on itself, I don't know.

I'm not saying it's the best a game like it could possibly be but it's definitely a benchmark to aim for that can help you make a genuinely good game

[thursdayg1rl]

have the feeling that if I go to a London uni I will never be able to escape the cycle

[overclockedopossum]

Yeah geez

"Humanizing: [...] so that behavior is on me."

This is just an excuse to hate disabled people. The whole point of diagnosis is to understand how people experience the world differently, which is vital when it comes to invisible disabilities.

Without diagnosis, people like me who have invisibile disabilities are just shit. They act wrong because they're shit. They can't do things because they're shit. They can't handle situations because they're shit.

There are some symptoms that you can explain without diagnosis if people have time to be patient with you but when it comes to things like RSD it's vital evidence that you're not just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

I don't personally have RSD. But if someone does, a situation where they "blow up" is one that really fucking sucks for them. They are having an extremely bad time. The condition is a vulnerability to an extremely intense Bad Feeling in situations that most people are fine with, and the disabled person is likely already putting an absolute fuckload of effort into trying to manage that.

If a NT person has a bad interaction with someone who has RSD because of the RSD, it isn't the disabled person to blame. It's the RSD to blame and both people share the fact that they had a bad time as a result.

And you know what it does to understand that? It actually humanises the disabled person.

Sick list of symptoms bro. Now try humanizing your behavior instead of pathologizing it.

[grunge-mermaid]

I understand that iPhones can be tricky to learn when it’s your first smartphone at 70 years old

I understand that it’s not that intuitive when you’ve only had it for a week vs your family members who have had iPhones/smartphones in general for almost as long as they’ve existed

I understand that the apple ecosystem is vastly different from a windows or android ecosystem

What I don’t understand is how someone who has used personal computers more than half their life, who still knows & uses DOS commands, who is not tech illiterate (maybe not tech-ing at university level but certainly not illiterate) cannot understand that Basic Troubleshooting Principles apply to all devices

*how* you actually resolve the problem will be different of course but the flow chart is more or less the same. Follow the same steps, apply some critical thinking, do some trial and error

[carriesthewind]

Oh dear.

So as some of you may know, I love to point and laugh at bad legal arguments. And as fun as legal dumpster fires are when they are made by people who aren’t lawyers but think this whole “law” thing seems pretty simple, it’s even funnier when an actual, barred attorney is the person dumping gallons of kerosene into the dumpster.

And oh boy folks, do I have a fun ride for y’all today. Come with me on this journey, as we watch a lawyer climb into the dumpster and deliberately pour kerosene all over himself, while a judge holds a match over his head.

The court listener link is here, for those who want to grab a few bowls of popcorn and read along.

For those of you who don’t enjoy reading legal briefs for cases you aren’t involved with on your day off (I can’t relate), I will go through the highlights here. I will screenshot and/or paraphrase the relevant portion of the briefs, and include a brief explainer of what’s going on (and why it’s very bad, but also extremely funny). (Also, I’m not going to repeat this throughout the whole write-up, so for the record: any statements I make about how the law or legal system works is referring exclusively to the U.S. (And since this is a federal case, we are even more specifically looking at U.S. federal law.) Also, I don’t know how you could construe any of this to be legal advice, but just in case: none of this is, is intended to be, or should be taken as, legal advice.)

First, let’s get just a quick background on the case, to help us follow along. In brief, this is a civil tort suit for personal injury based on defendant’s (alleged) negligence. The plaintiff is suing the defendant (an airline), because he says that he was injured when a flight attendant struck his knee with a metal cart, and the airline was negligent in letting this happen. The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is an international treaty that imposes a time bar for when these kind of cases can be brought against an airline, and the plaintiff filed this case too many years after the incident.

The fun begins when the plaintiff’s attorney filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (So far, a good and normal thing to do.) The opposition argues that the claim is not time-barred because 1) the time bar was tolled by the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings (that is, the timer for the time limitation was paused when the defendant was in bankruptcy, and started again afterwords), and 2) the treaty’s time limit doesn’t apply to this case because the case was filed in state court before the state statute of limitations expired, and the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over this kind of case.

I’m struggling a bit to succinctly explain the second reason, and there’s a reason for that.

You see, the whole opposition reads a bit…oddly.

This is how the opposition begins its argument, and it’s…weird. The basic principle is...mostly correct here, but the actual standard is that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (which is what the defendant filed) the court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. But even then, you don’t just put that standard in your opposition. You cite to a case that lays out the standard.

Because that’s how courts and the law work. The courts don’t operate just based on vibes. They follow statutory law (laws made by legislature) and case law (the decisions made by courts interpreting what those laws mean). You don't just submit a filing saying, "here's what the law is," without citing some authority to demonstrate that the law is what you say (or are arguing) it is.

Again, this isn’t wrong (although I'm not sure what it means by new arguments?), but it’s weird! And part of the reason it’s weird is that it is irrelevant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a motion stating that based on the facts in the complaint, the plaintiff has not stated a claim based on which relief can be granted, because the complaint is time barred by a treaty. There is no reason for this language to be in the opposition. It’s almost like they just asked a chatbot what the legal standards are for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim, and just copied the answer into their brief without bother to double-check it.

The opposition then cites a bunch of cases which it claims support its position. We will skip them for now, as the defendant will respond to those citations in its reply brief.

The last thing in the brief is the signature of the lawyer who submitted the brief affirming that everything in the brief is true and correct. An extremely normal - required, even! - thing to do. This will surely not cause any problems for him later.

The next relevant filing is the defendant’s reply brief. Again, the existence of a reply brief in response to an opposition is extremely normal. The contents of this brief are…less so.

Beg pardon?

Just to be clear, this is not normal. It is normal to argue that the plaintiff’s cases are not relevant, or they aren’t applicable to this case, or you disagree with the interpretations, or whatever. It is not normal for the cases to appear to not exist.

Some highlights from the brief:

Quick lesson in how to read U.S. case citations! The italicized (or underlined) part at the beginning is the name of the case. If it is a trial court case, the plaintiff is listed first and the defendant second; if the case has been appealed, the person who lost at the lower court level (the petitioner/appellant) will be listed first, and the person who won at the lower level (the respondent/appellee) will be listed second. There are extremely specific rules about which words in these names are abbreviated, and how they are abbreviated. Next, you list the volume number and name of the reporter (the place where the case is published), again abbreviated according to very specific rules, then the page number that the case starts on. If you are citing a case for a specific quote or proposition, you then put a comma after the beginning page number, and list the page number(s) on which the quote or language you are relying on is located (this is called a “pincite”). Finally, you put in parenthesis the name of the court (if needed)(and again, abbreviated according to extremely specific rules) and the year the case was decided.

So the plaintiff’s response cited to Zicherman, which they said was a case from 2008 that was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the defendant was not able to find such a case. They were able to find a case with the same name (the same petitioner and respondent), but that case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, and the lower court cases associated with that case weren’t in the 11th circuit either. (The United States Reports is the only official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and only includes SCOTUS decisions, so it’s not necessary to include the name of the court before the year it was decided.)

Just to be clear. The defendant’s brief is saying: the plaintiff cited and extensively quoted from these cases, and neither the cases nor the quotations appear to exist. These “cases” were not ancillary citations in the plaintiff’s brief. They were the authority it relied upon to make its arguments.

This is as close a lawyer can come, at this point in the proceedings, to saying, “opposing counsel made up a bunch of fake cases to lie to the court and pretend the law is something different than it is.”

That, “Putting aside that here is no page 598 in Kaiser Steel,” is delightfully petty lawyer speak for, “you are wrong on every possible thing there is to be wrong about.”

By page 5, the defendant has resorted to just listing all of the (apparently) made up cases in a footnote:

(skipping the citations to support this proposition)

This is where I return to my struggle to explain the opposition’s second reason why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. I struggled to explain the argument, because they failed to explain why the argument they were making (that plaintiffs can bring lawsuits against airlines in state court, and the state court have specific statutes of limitations for general negligence claims) was relevant to the question of whether the plaintiff’s specific claim against the airline was time barred by the treaty. Because 1) this case is in federal court, not state court, and 2) federal law - including treaties - preempts state law. Again, it’s almost like plaintiff’s attorney just typed a question about the time bar into a chatbot or something, and the machine, which wasn’t able to reason or actually analyze the issues, saw a question about the time to bring a lawsuit and just wrote up an answer about the statute of limitations.

We also end with a nice little lawyerly version of “you fucked up and we are going to destroy you.” The relief requested in the defendant’s original motion to dismiss was:

In their reply to the opposition, however:

“The circumstances” in this case, being the apparent fabrication of entire cases. Because courts tend to take that pretty seriously.

And the court took it seriously indeed. The defendant’s reply was docketed on March 15th of this year. On April 11th:

AKA: you have one week (an extremely prompt time frame for federal court) to prove to me that you didn’t just make up these cases.

On April 12th, the plaintiff’s attorney requests more time because he’s on vacation:

The judge grants the motion, but adds in another case that he forgot to include in his first order.

On April 25th, the plaintiff’s attorney files the following:

(And he lists the cases, with one exception, which he says is an unpublished decision.)

But he says of all of the cases except two, that the opinions…

Which is…nonsense?

First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful.

Maybe if we look at the attached annexed copies of the cases, that might give us some answers.

...

My friends, these things are just bizarre. With two exceptions, they aren’t submitted in any sort of conventional format. Even if you’ve never seen a legal opinion before, I think you can see the difference if you just glance through the filings. They are located at Docket entry #29 on Court Listener (April 25, 2023). Compare Attachments 6 and 8 (the real cases submitted in conventional format) to the other cases. Turning to the contents of the cases:

In the first one, the factual background is that a passenger sued an airline, then the airline filed a motion to dismiss (on grounds unrelated to the treaty's time bar), then the airline went into bankruptcy, then the airline won the motion to dismiss, then the passenger appealed. And the court is now considering that appeal. But then the opinion starts talking about how the passenger was in arbitration, and it seems to be treating the passenger like he is the one who filed for bankruptcy? It’s hallucinatory, even before you get to the legal arguments. The “Court of Appeals” is making a ruling overruling the district court’s dismissal based on the time bar, but according to the factual background, the case wasn’t dismissed based on the time bar, but on entirely other grounds? Was there some other proceeding where the claim was dismissed as time barred, and it’s just not mentioned in the factual background? How? Why? What is happening? Also it says Congress enacted the treaty? But, no? That’s���that’s not how treaties work? I mean, Congress did ratify the treaty? But they didn’t unilaterally make it!

In the second case, there’s an extended discussion of which treaty applies to the appellants claims, which is bizarre because there are two relevant treaties, and one replaced the other before the conduct at issue, so only the new treaty applies? There isn’t any discussion of the issue beyond that basic principle, so there is no reason there should be multiple paragraphs in the opinion explaining it over and over? Also, it keeps referring to the appellant as the plaintiff, for some reason? And it includes this absolutely hallucinatory sentence:

…the only part this that makes sense is that the argument is without merit. I’m not going to discuss the actual merits of the legal arguments in the opinion, because they are so bizarre and disjointed that even trying to describe them would require a Pepe Silvia-sized conspiracy board. Like the previous case, both the facts and the legal posture of the case change constantly, with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

The third one…oh boy. First, large portions of the “opinion” are individual paragraphs with quotations around the whole paragraph. What’s happening there? As far as the content of the opinion itself - I can’t. I mean that, I literally can’t. What is being discussed seems to change from paragraph to paragraph, much of it contradicting. It makes the first case seem linear and rational by comparison. The court finds it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so dismisses the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction? But also the defendant hasn’t contested jurisdiction? And also the court does hold that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant? And then it denies the motion to dismiss the case? Also, at one point it cites itself?

…also, even if this was a real case, it doesn’t stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited it for in their opposition? I’m not going to go into the weeds (honestly it’s so hallucinatory I’m not sure I could if I tried), but, for example, the plaintiff’s reply brief states that the court held “that the plaintiff was not required to bring their claim in federal court.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal court, and there is no discussion of any filings in state courts. The closest the “opinion” comes is with the statement, “Therefore, Petersen’s argument that the state courts of Washington have concurrent jurisdiction is unavailing.” (This statement appears to be completely disconnected from anything before or after it, so I am unsure what it is supposed to mean.)

Moving on, case number four is allegedly a decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas. It includes the following line:

Honestly, the plaintiff’s attorney best defense at this point is that he wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the court, because if he was doing this on purpose, he would have edited the cases to make them slightly more believable. (Context in case you’ve lost track: these documents are supposed to be copies of the opinions he is citing. The screenshoted line makes it clear that what he is actually citing is, at best, someone else’s summary of an "opinion". It would be like if a teacher asked a student to photocopy a chapter of a book and bring it into class, and instead the student brought in a copy of the cliffs notes summary of that chapter. Except that the book doesn’t even exist.)

The actual contents of the “opinion” are, as is now standard, absolutely bonkers. First, the court decides that it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over Delta because “Delta did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in Texas.” This was despite the fact that the factual background already included that the appellant (sorry, the plaintiff, according to the “opinion”) flew on a Delta flight originating in Texas. Like, this is just wrong? It’s not even hallucinatory nonsense, it’s just facially incorrect legal analysis. Then the court starts discussing the treaty’s time bar, for some reason? Then it goes back to talking about personal jurisdiction, but now the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court agrees with the trial court that it does have personal jurisdiction, even though this is the plaintiff’s appeal from the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court already ruled it didn’t have personal jurisdiction? And even though on page 1, the plaintiff was injured during a flight from Texas to California, now on page 7 she was injured on a flight from Shanghai to Texas? Also the trial court has gone back in time (again) to grant the motion to dismiss that it previously denied?

Also, I’ve been trying to avoid pointing out the wonky text of these submissions, but:

Everything ok there?

Case number five is similar enough to number four that it’s not worth repeating myself.

Thank god, cases six and eight, as noted above, are real cases, so I’m going to skip them. The defendant alleges that the cases do not stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited them for, and I’m going to assume that is true, given the rest of this nonsense.

Case number seven looks legitimate on the surface. But neither the defendant nor I could find the case through any legitimate search mechanisms. The defendant looked up the purported docket numbers on PACER and found completely different cases; I was able to find a case with the name “Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.,” but it was for a different Ms. Miller, it was a California state case (not a Second Circuit federal case), it was decided on a different year, and the substance of the case was entirely different from the alleged opinion filed with the court.

On top of that, this might be the most morally reprehensible fake citation of them all? Because it is about the crash of United Airlines Flight 585, a real plane crash. Everyone on board - 25 people in total - was killed. 

The individual cited in this fake court case was not one of them.

I cannot imagine conducting myself in such a way where I would have to explain to a judge that I made up a fake case exploiting a real tragedy because I couldn’t be bothered to do actual legal research.

Now, I know you all have figured out what’s going on by now. And I want you to know that if your instincts are saying, “it seems like the lawyer should have just fallen on his sword and confessed that he relied on ChatGPT to write his original brief, rather than digging himself further into this hole”? Your instincts are absolutely correct.

Because obviously, the court was having none of this b.s. On May 4th, the court issued an order, beginning with the following sentence:

That is one of the worst possible opening sentences you can see in an order by the court in a situation like this. The only thing worse is when judges start quoting classic literature. If I was Mr. Peter LoDuca, counsel for the plaintiff, I would already be shitting my pants.

“I gave you an opportunity to either clear things up or come clean. Now I’m going to give you an opportunity to show why I should only come down on you like a pile of brinks, instead of a whole building.”

We are getting dangerously close to “quoting classic lit” territory here.

If I learned that the judge in my case called up the clerk of a circuit court just to confirm how full of shit I was, I would leave the legal profession forever. Also, the judge is now also putting quotes around “opinion.” When judges start getting openly sarcastic in their briefs, that means very very bad things are about to happen to someone.

So I’m guessing the delay between this filing and the court order was because the judge’s clerk was tasked with running down every single one of the additional fake citations included in the "opinions", just to make this sure this order (and the upcoming pile of bricks) are as thorough as possible.

If you are following along with Dracula Daily, the vibe here is roughly the same as the May 19th entry where Dracula demands Jonathan Harker write and pre-date letters stating he has left the castle and is on the way home.

Also, hey, what’s that footnote?

Wait, what?

Folks, it appears we may have notary fraud, on top of everything else! Anybody have bingo?

So on May 25, one day before the deadline, Mr. LoDuca filed his response. And oh boy, I hope ya’ll are ready for this.

Hey, what’s the name of that other attorney, “Steven Schwartz”? Where have I seen that name before…

...I ran out of room for images on this post. So I'm going to have to leave this as an accidental cliffhanger. Part 2 to follow once I refresh my tea.

[beakers-and-telescopes]

OKAY THIS ARTICLE IS SO COOL

I'm going to try to explain this in a comprehensible way, because honestly it's wild to wrap your head around even for me, who has a degree in chemistry. But bear with me.

Okay, so. Solids, right? They are rigid enough to hold their shape, but aside from that they are quite variable. Some solids are hard, others are soft, some are brittle or rubbery or malleable. So what determines these qualities? And what creates the rigid structure that makes a solid a solid? Most people would tell you that it depends on the atoms that make up the solid, and the bonds between those atoms. Rubber is flexible because of the polymers it's made of, steel is strong because of the metallic bonds between its atoms. And this applies to all solids. Or so everybody thought.

A paper published in the journal Nature has discovered that biological materials such as wood, fungi, cotton, hair, and anything else that can respond to the humidity in the environment may be composed of a new class of matter dubbed "hydration solids". That's because the rigidity and solidness of the materials doesn't actually come from the atoms and bonds, but from the water molecules hanging out in between.

So basically, try to imagine a hydration solid as a bunch of balloons taped together to form a giant cube, with the actual balloon part representing the atoms and bonds of the material, and the air filling the balloons as the water in the pores of the solid. What makes this "solid" cube shaped? It's not because of the rubber at all, but the air inside. If you took out all the air from inside the balloons, the structure wouldn't be able to hold its shape.

Ozger Sahin, one of the paper's authors, said

"When we take a walk in the woods, we think of the trees and plants around us as typical solids. This research shows that we should really think of those trees and plants as towers of water holding sugars and proteins in place. It's really water's world."

And the great thing about this discovery (and one of the reasons to support its validity) is that thinking about hydration solids this way makes the math so so so much easier. Before this, if you wanted to calculate how water interacts with organic matter, you would need advanced computer simulations. Now, there are simple equations that you can do in your head. Being able to calculate a material's properties using basic physics principles is a really big deal, because so far we have only been able to do that with gasses (PV=nRT anyone?). Expanding that to a group that encompasses 50-90% of the biological world around us is huge.

[drdemonprince]

I have heard from many trans and/or Autistic queer people that they like the idea of casual, anonymous sex of the sort that happens in the gay bathhouse, or the park marked on the Sniffies map, but they fear they will never be able to access it themselves. 

They assume that a trans person won’t ever be welcome, or that because they do not read neurotypical social cues with ease, the cruising ecosystem will forever remain inscrutable to them. Many harbor concerns about safety, having only ever been taught by movies and Law & Order episodes to associate cruising with seediness, criminality, and “threatening” male sexuality. 

I’m here to tell you that none of those impressions are accurate. Trans people are in the cruising spaces. We have always been there, we helped to shape these hidden corners and dusty backrooms into what they are, and for the vast majority of cruising patrons, our presence is not only welcome, but totally blasé. There are even trans-specific cruising nights in many areas! (See the bottom of this article for a list of Chicago-based ones!)

And though getting acclimated to the social norms of the sauna (or dungeon, or cruising bar) might seem confusing at first, it’s quite easy to study and mimic, even if you’re disabled. In many ways, it’s refreshingly more direct than most other forms of socializing. The cruising spot can be an arena for vanquishing shame, if you let it. 

Finally, it is important to note that it’s the seediness and secrecy of a cruising space that makes it so safe — it’s a self-policing community of queer people who respect the location, rely upon it, and who look after one another without the intruding eye of the straight public or the cops. 

If you’re queer and neuroweird and horny and you’re contemplating cruising, there is a place for you. You just have to overcome your understandable anxieties, study up on common cruising practices, and then venture forth to give it a try (maybe with a buddy the first time). 

In this piece, I will lay out some basic principles for cruising as a trans or Autistic person (though I think this advice applies broadly to anyone who feels a little out of place in cruising spots, which is everyone at first), explain the finer points of visiting backrooms, saunas, and parks specifically, and then I’ll wrap up with a list of resources for readers looking to find a cruising spot in their area. I’ll also close out with a list of cruising-related events in Chicago that are specifically T4T or sapphic in nature, because frankly, us gay dudes are wildly overrepresented in the scene. 

The full essay is free to read (or have narrated to you in the Substack app!) at drdevonprice.substack.com

[ohnoitstbskyen]

I deleted the ask, but someone wrote one basically saying "why do you post reaction videos to Helluva Boss? Don't you know the show exploits its workers and they're overworked and get burned out?"

And, I mean, I love your energy, person who asked, definitely hold on to those values and speak up about this. But also, I am afraid I might have some bad news for you about literally the whole entire animation industry.

As near as I can make out from the sparse journalistic reporting that's been done on SpindleHorse -- and as a sidebar, please for the love of god read actual reporting about these things and not just callout posts and fandom discourse -- as near as I can make out, SpindleHorse as a studio is neither all that much better nor all that much worse than basically anywhere else in the industry on their level. It seems like it is (or was? Hazbin Hotel seems to be run differently) a studio mostly run by contracting people on a project-by-project basis, which leads to a crapton of turnover, and a huge need for organizing and onboarding, which according to the reporting I have read, the producers and freelancers have struggled to balance and manage properly, which has negatively impacted a number of the workers.

Top that with the usual catty, clique-based backbiting, sniping and poorly managed conflict resolution that's just kinda endemic in creative environments mostly staffed by twentysomethings and stressed out freelancers, and you have the recipe for a workplace where a lot of people are going to have a great time and feel creatively fulfilled, and a lot of people are going to come away feeling justifiably burnt the fuck out and exploited.

All of this is... not especially unusual for the animation industry, or indeed for any creative industry. Which is not to say that it is good, or that it should be allowed to be normal, or that it shouldn't be reported on and criticized (and please for the love of god support unionization efforts because that's the only thing that will actually address these kinds of systemic problems). It's just to say that if those kinds of issues are the line in the sand you draw where you refuse to engage with a studio's output...

Then, for starters, say goodbye to basically all of anime, because the Japanese animation industry is actively in a state of crisis trying to recruit new talent because its working conditions and pay are so astonishingly abysmal. And the horror stories that escape from that industry make the issues at SpindleHorse look like summer camp at times.

But you also have to say goodbye to a lot of American and European animation. Please do not imagine that Disney and its subcontractors, or that Nickelodeon or Warner Bros, are benevolent employers. They exploit their staff brutally and are currently trying to crush the labor value of animation with threats of generative AI being used to replace jobs. But those corporations also have extremely well-funded PR departments and the ability to silence employees with NDAs and threats of blackballing, so you don't get to hear as many of the horror stories as you might from a smaller independent studio that's less able to silence criticism by holding people's careers hostage.

All of this is to say that 1) it's valid and important to have criticism of both large and small-scale animation studios, and to keep the well-being and happiness of the workers higher in your priorities than the output of Products™.

And 2) if you're going to have a principle for what kinds of problems make a studio's output morally untouchable for you, and what kinds of problems you think should make a studio's output untouchable to other people, you do need to apply that principle consistently to the entire industry, and not just to the independent animation studio that happens to be surrounded by the internet's most inflammatory fandom discourse.

If you don't apply that principle consistently, maybe don't send reproachful messages to strangers scolding them for not living up to your standards, and even if you do apply that principle consistently, maybe still don't do that, because it's mostly quite annoying, and doesn't really do anything to support animation workers struggling for better working conditions.

The Animation Guild in the US is currently in the middle of a bargaining process with their industry, and they have a social media press kit as well as relevant talking points on their website which you can use to post in solidarity with the workers. If it comes to a full industry strike, consider donating to their strike funds to help them maintain pressure. Outside of the US, try and find out what (if any) local unions exist for animation workers, and maybe sign up to their mailing lists. They will let you know what kind of support they need from you.

[visenyaism]

Aegon Unworthy Administration Dashboard Simulator

⚔️ whiteswordtowerrr

the gold cloaks found my aegmon rpf guys it might be a while before my next update

💫 maidens-grace Follow

RIP OP this is why RPF is not only problematic (sinful against the Maiden AND the Smith) but will also literally deservedly get your skull put on a spike

⚔️ whiteswordtowerrr

I lived bitch. king aegon made me read it out loud to his brother because he thought it was funny but then he let me go. new chapter dropping in 20 minutes

#the dragonknight got all purple and furious but he did just have to stand there and take it. Just like in this next chapt- #the king did hook up with my sister afterwards though. what can you do

🍒lanadelreyene Follow

listennnnn im not saying he’s perfect im just saying liberating women from religious oppression and literal imprisonment in the maidenvault and letting his girl cousin do the economy and elevating women of all social standings to positions of prominence isnt NOTHING.

🫀tree-hearted

“king aegon is a feminist” “criston cole had hoes” you people will say anything on this website.

🛡️knighttime Follow

just saw that Daemon Waters kid like the king’s four year old bastard do a perfect standing backflip in the training yard. Kind of compelling. Kind of kingly. I don’t know…

#can prince daeron do a flip?????

🐉 rhaenyra-did-nothing-wrong Follow

It’s SO disgusting how the king would hire a H*ghtower hand only 50 years after that wretched family MURDERED HIS GRANDMOTHER AFTER USURPING HER THRONE. #UNWORTHYGATE

🪙 laenycashmoney150

Me and that nasty old man. To be honest

🌈 crystalcrowned Follow

I block everyone who is horny on main about the king on principle because fornication is a sin but op is talking about ALYN OAKENFIST?????? Girl.

🙌 fleabottomtop

Sneaking in through the secret tunnels in the red keep to smuggle queen naerys a vibrator and a blunt this shit is getting out of hand

💐 summersepta Follow

she would not like that. try again.

🙌 fleabottomtop

sneaking in through the secret tunnels in the the red keep to smuggle queen naerys a prayer book and a cigarette

🦇whentch

🐲 rogue-princess Follow

if i speak....🙈🤐

🐦‍⬛ raventreeballer-deactivated89169

FYI @ brackennation literally seduced the king to use her influence to ban pro-Blackwood posts on here. block and report this treacherous whore ASAP

🐎 brackennation-deactivated47170

I know it’s you missy. KYS jealous cunt

🎻bardalicious Follow

king aegon’s collection of teenage mistresses posting through it on the dash again

🔥 fireandwaters Follow

Sooooo sick of seeing delusional reachers reclaiming dragons**d as if that’s not a literal crownlands-specific slur used against the Valyrian-Westerosi community in King’s Landing and Dragonstone. I don’t care how many ae’s your grandma has in her name you are a HIGHTOWER you are a TARLY you are a REDWYNE you are seven forgive me for even saying this a BEESBURY. Categorically NOT a seed. It’s basically valyrian racefaking at this point

⛓️‍ gaymanpalehair Follow

Say it louder for the Great Bastards in the back!!!!!! theyre literally noble

🔥fireandwaters Follow

No I can say it?? I’m from KL I’m in the community why would it matter if I’m acknowledged

🌼 ever-sweet Follow

Seven hells my great-grandsire literally rode caraxes and I can’t acknowledge my own heritage? Dragonseed literally applies to ANY👏ONE👏of👏TAR👏GARYEN👏DES👏CENT.

🪵 kingswoody

At the rate the king is going everyone in the realm will be able to reclaim dragonseed in 20 years come on now

🐦‍⬛raventreeballer Follow

are we not going to acknowledge the toxic power imbalance of the king having had TWO Bracken mistresses and ONE Blackwood mistress????

🐚besterling Follow

THAT’S the toxic power imbalance you want to talk about??? That one??? Nothing else???

🔮hightowered Follow

okay I thought the valyrian racefaking discourse on here was dumb as shit but tell me WHY i just saw my bastard cousin serena change her name to “serenei” on all her socials and then start telling people she was from lys and can’t speak common.

#Good thing we’re dragonseeds otherwise this would be insane

🐟rainbowtrout Follow

non-riverlanders in 20 years when the Bracken-Blackwood beef becomes everybody’s problem because it’s a Targaryen civil war

🍎 fossoshethey

Quick where's that one meme about the valyrian god of prophecy playing dodgelance with random tumblr users

🎭mummersfarce Follow okay I’ll bite. did king aegon the unworthy fourth of his name do something problematic.

✨ fleabottombottom Follow

well as a dragonseed of dance-era descent i gotta say i am not appreciating how hard it is to buy purple shampoo in flea bottom recently what with the rate at which blonde bitches are being created in this kingdom fucking skyrocketing

🎭mummersfarce Follow

fucked up. blocking him now ✊

[shibaincubus]

How to change your life with Gamification

Disclaimer stat point and daily quest (points) are used interchangeably and are different from main/side quest (points)

₊˚ ‿︵‿︵‿︵୨୧ · · ♡ · · ୨୧‿︵‿︵‿︵ ˚₊₊˚ ‿︵‿︵‿︵୨୧ · · ♡ · · ୨୧₊˚

You may have already heard about Gamification. It’s a strategy in which you use game mechanics,elements and principles to apply them to your everyday life to enhance your performance, studying etc.

But how should I use this technique to get the most of my life?

This is a guide for implementing Gamification in your life and thoroughly explains the process.

In my guide I am inspired by manhwa systems like in the solo leveling manhwa. Normally a system gives you stats such as strength which one can upgrade and become stronger. Upgrading is archived by quests that give you exp which also can increase your Rank e.g from F Rank to E Rank all the way to S Rank or higher. Quests are differentiated between daily quests and non daily quests. There are more functions such as items and gold but for the basic setup they are not needed

First you need to create your stats. In the solo leveling manhwa there are six stats: Strength, Vitality, Agility, Intelligence and Sense. You should have six stats but you are not obligated to use the ones from solo leveling. Idk how you can implement Sense and Vitality.

I strongly recommend you to have a stat called Willpower which indicated if you did every quest that you set for yourself and how well you stick to the system as a motivation.

As you can see I copied the stats Strength, Intelligence and Agility from Solo Leveling and added Willpower, Discipline and Stamina.

Some other ideas for stats are:

Charm (Beauty stat: I would use this if you want to glow up)

Charisma (If you want to improve your social skills or want to speak ------------ more professionally etc. I would use this stat

Health: If you want to eat more healthily or want to diet or want to -------- get your sleep schedule right etc. I would use this stat

You can get creative and cater to your own needs

Now if you have your stats you have to create a daily quests with each of these stats

Here is my example:

My quests don't look like much but you have to gradually work yourself up to your goals. Someone who has never done e.g Pilates in their life can't do a 30 min Pilates workout from day one without loosing motivation in the long run. So if you want to e.g. get your sleep schedule right I would set your wake up time e.g. 5min earlier every cycle until you reach your goal and maintain it.

A cycle equals 21 days. If you finish a cycle you can reflect your performance and make the daily quests harder or change the stats if they don't fit into your goals. Especially your first cycle is more of a test and try period. But you should keep your stats as they were and should not change them except if they really don't serve you.

Main/Side Quest stats:

These quests are quests like ''learn … language for 15min''. They are more of a to-do lists task.

I would use this formula for categorizing these tasks:

ASSIGNMENT (S) LIST

The ASSIGNMENTS

:::

:::

:::

CATEGORY: main/side exp etc.

DIFFICULTY: e.g. SSS

CLEAR CONDITION: e.g. finish all assignment(s)

TIME LIMIT: e.g. 7 hours

REWARD UPON COMPLEATION

:::

+2 exp

Stats in crease: e.g. Mentality +1 Intelligence +2 Motivation +1 Skill +1

PENALTY UPON FAILIURE

:::

all stats -1 (e.g.)

emotional damage e.g. +3

DURATION: e.g. 24 hours

Items confiscation …

DURATION: ???

Emotional damage stat explained:

This stat affects your conversion rate to points in the daily quest stat points. Normally the conversion rate is 10 e.g 10 main quest stat willpower point = 1 daily quest willpower stat point. Per +5 emotional damage you have to collect 5 extra points to converse the stat point

Example 10 points are needed in the main quest stats to converse to one stat point with a rate of 5 emotional damage point you need 15 points. A 10 point emotional damage point equals a 20 point conversion rate and so on.

How to decrease the emotional damage stat:

If you complete main/side quests as a reward you get -1 emotional damage point which you can use to get your emotional damage point to a good level. Emotional damage can't get into the negative.

The difference between daily quest stats or stats and main/side quest stats and leveling up is explained below

Stats in/de- crease in the main/side quests doesn't affect the normal stats that we've established so you have to create a new stat page for the main/side quest stats to count the points.

Like this:

Ten points on e.g intelligence stat on this list equals one daily quest intelligence stat point.

The conversion rate is as such 10 to 1 which means if you have e.g ten agility points you get one agility stat point.

How to level up:

Every time you finish a daily quest you gain a point for the Stat (first pic) you can only gain one point per stat per day. If you gain 10 points at every stat in the daily quest stat you can level up. If you don't finish a quest you will loose 1 point from the stat that you would've gained one point from.

Ranking up:

First you have to choose a range from which you can level up e.g F to S Rank / F to SSS+ Rank etc. than you have to find a starting point which you gradually increase e.g 20 (start point) increases +20% per Rank up.

How to increase your Rank:

Completing all daily quests gives you 1 EXP while the EXP gain can value in main/side quest the rest is explained above.

Here's my example:

Zyklus is German for cycle which I just tracked here and is explained above.

Lastly you need something that motivates you and in Solo Leveling it was a Punishment Zone if sung jin woo doesn't complete his quests.

For myself if I don't complete 5/6 quests i have to do the punishment.

For the punishment you have to do something you detests (and strains your body)

My example are 150 burpees

A full page can look like this:

One last thing is that you can 100% customise this approach you can add coins items etc. which also exists in a system, change other things as you like but the foundation has to remain intact.

[gorgeouslypink]

My Take on Manifesting + How to Use It to Wake Up in the Voidੈ✩‧₊˚

The Law of Assumption (LOA) in a nutshell is the concept that whatever you assume to be true is the truth. The most common and popular summary is: an assumption, though false, if persisted in, will harden into fact.

You've probably heard this a million times before, but I really want to explain this the way I interpret the law and I want to present it to you the way I wish it was presented to me.

The entire law operates on the principle that your 3d reflects your 4d. These terms are interchangeable with concious/subconcious, inner man/outer man, etc but basically that is the main principle that you should understand and accept: Your 3d reflects your 4d.

Now, here's where I deviate a bit into my personal opinions. If you know that your 3d reflects your 4d and you see something unfavorable happening in your 3d, why would you force yourself to pretend it doesn't exist? Deal with it in the 3d but KNOW that you can change things. Go and fufill what you want in your 4d.

Imagination Creates Reality.

You've probably heard this said a million times by LOA girls but it is such an important concept to understand.

Something that completely annoyed me back when I was trying to get into the void and had no grasp on LOA was people who would say that your imagination is your "true" reality or that you need to fufill yourself so much in your imagination to the point that you don't even care about it anymore in your reality. I do understand what they were trying to get at, but for me, I was just like if I want to manifest going to a concert, I don't want to just imagine it to the point where I'm fufilled, I want to actually watch it?

Let me explain my perspective now. Your imagination is not your reality. You can close your eyes right now and imagine yourself dating Harry Styles but once you open your eyes again, you're not going to be dating him. Imagining something doesn't make it magically appear in your reality, or else daydreamers would be living insane lives.

However, imagination CREATES your reality. To really understand this, we have to backtrack. Let's revisit LOA in a nutshell: An assumption, though false, if persisted in, will harden into fact.

I think most people understand the idea but acctually applying it is where everything comes crashing down. For me, there were so many times when I was super motivated, I listened to subliminals, I affirmed to myself, I was really assuming whatever I was trying to manifest. But then it didn't manifest and I was left disappointed.

I think this is a pretty common occurrence in the community and I know I've gotten hundreds of asks with people in this exact position. This ask that I answered covers this more in depth but I want to introduce a topic that isn't being pushed as much as it should: NATURALNESS.

"The time it takes your assumption to become fact, your desire to be fulfilled, is directly proportionate to the naturalness of your feeling of already being what you want to be – of already having what you desire."

-Neville Goddard

So basically, this is what I think the law should be represented as: An assumption, though false, if persisted in within your imagination until it feels natural, will harden into fact.

There are many ways that you attain this naturalness. Most people use imagination, just imaging themselves with their desire, really connecting to the feeling of having their desire so that it feels natural to them. This is when your desire turns into an assumption.

There are many methods within this; visualizing being the most popular one. Just visualizing normally or SATS allows people to experience their desire in imagination, making it more natural to them. Some people can't really visualize so they rely on scripting, pinterest boards, etc. The options are endless but the end goal is the same: making your desire feel natural so that it manifests into your reality.

Some people say you have to keep repeating your method for something to feel natural to you but I disagree. Just going to imagination once, truly feeling it and knowing its yours and knowing the law and that your manifestation has no choice but to appear is all you need to make something feel natural to you. I think the main reason that it takes some people repetitions is because they don't have a strong faith in the law backing them up so it doesn't feel natural to them but if you know the law is backing you up, your desire will natural to you instantly.

Now, if you noticed, I said most people use imagination. What about other people? Well, once you've experienced a few manifestations and really strengthened your belief in the law and acknowledged your power as the creator of your reality, you don't really need to imagine. You just know your desire will come. It's natural for you to manifest anything you want so anything you want will manifest. This kind of goes into what I was saying in the previous paragraph about knowing the law is backing you up. This is why states was and is so popular, it's knowing the law is backing you up and just occupying the state of whatever you desire and knowing it has no choice but to manifest. I love this post by @lotusmi explaining it and I highly recommend reading it.

Now, how to use all this to enter the void. There are 4 things you need to understand, embody, and assume.

1. You are limitless: Literally. You can manifest anything and everything. Seriously.

2. The void is real: One of the main things I've tried to do on my blog is getting everyone to a point where you might not fully believe in the void until you acctually use it yourself but you should know its real. In my Doubts post, I linked so much material across different platforms and groups of people and all of them are talking about the void. Recently, in my challenges, I introduced a book where the author talks about the void and how that's where your reality is created from. I even had a follower recently make a post about how they found their Reiki book talking about the void and how it creates your reality. There's endless examples and at one point, you have to sit down and wonder how all these different platforms and groups of people are all talking about the void if it's just a lie. It can't be a lie if so many people have come to the same conclusion.

3. You are going to wake up in the void state tonight: You understand manifestation now right? All you have to do is know you are going to wake up in the void, make it natural to you and that's it. I promise when you realize that the word operates on your beliefs and that your imagination is honestly what matters because your reality is just a platform for your imagination to project onto (your imagination creates your reality), your manifestations are going to be so quick.

4. Naturalness is all you need: All you're doing when you're manifesting anything, in this case; the void is making it natural to you. Once you do, it has no choice but to manifest in your reality. This really ties into the third point, but I want you to understand this because once you realize the third and fourth point, the law will be so easy to you. If you haven't entered the void yet, the only problem is that it was not natural to you. As a void blogger, I know this is a case because I've gotten so many asks about this and everytime I can tell that they struggle with seeing themselves actually enter the void. It's unnatural to them. But recognizing that naturalness is the problem is also the solution. Just make it natural to you. Know that you are going to wake up in the void tonight and really rest easy in this. You know you are limitless, you can manifest anything, waking up in the void is a peace of cake.

So here's what you're going to:

Starting this moment, know you are going to wake up in the void tonight. Just know it. Now, go straight to your imagination and do whatever method will help your desire natural to you. Know that your reality is just a projection of your imagination and that you are the creator of your reality. Deal with your 3d but know that your 4d is what triumphs.

If you don't wake up in the void, don't spiral. Your desire just doesn't feel natural yet, that's all. Just focus on making your desire natural to you. That is literally all you have to do and you know you're going to enter. If you're someone who might need some time to make your desire feel natural to you just because you struggle with staying firm in the law, do @littlemissprettyprincess 's void challenge: linked here.

The void is easy, you are going to wake up in the void tonight, and you are going to live your dream life. I know you are. Literally embody that and tell yourself that. Anytime a doubt or negative thought comes to mind, just stay firm in your desire and know the law is backing you up. Waking up in the void state is so natural to you and I can't wait for your success story.

[suzukiblu]

WIP excerpt for inkwell behind the cut; “Billy and Damian and the whole soulmate thing”. (( chrono || non-chrono ))

Like–except Robin, obviously. Robin doesn’t deserve him being spiteful. Robin deserves, like, a nice wedding with Nightwing as his best man and Red Robin, like, definitely invited but maybe seated at a table off to the side behind a tactically-placed floral arrangement or twelve and also whatever Robin likes to eat on the menu, which Billy admittedly doesn’t actually know yet and probably needs to figure out. Though then again, if he’s running away from the Justice League and/or Batman’s weird seventeen-bedroomed house until he’s eighteen, Robin’s tastes are probably gonna change a bit, so maybe he should just wait on that so he can be sure he’s getting it right and all? 

Ugh. Billy really doesn’t wanna have to run away from the Justice League until he’s eighteen. Especially not Batman. Batman’s really good at finding people, so he’s basically just gonna have to hide out at the Rock of Eternity for like the whole time, and that is so long and is gonna get so boring so quick. 

Ugh. Ughhh. Ugh. 

“Where was that? Laws about supplying alcohol to a minor vary significantly from state to state,” Batman says as Flash slithers to the floor with an actual moan. Billy glowers at him. He is still not forgiving him just ‘cuz he’s funny. “And felony charges can apply to repeat offenders."

. . . alright, Batman’s really funny. But still, dammit! 

“Bats, I really don’t think accidentally buying a drink for a magically-disguised minor three years ago is the relevant concern here,” Green Lantern says in exasperation. 

“You said you took him to multiple bars,” Batman says, just barely tilting his head. “Was that the only time any of you bought him a drink?” 

“I–you–he looks like forty!” Green Lantern protests. Flash just stays on the floor. 

Batman raises an eyebrow behind his mask, then looks over at Billy and looks him over; then looks back to Green Lantern with a very telling expression. Green Lantern sputters indignantly. 

“Stop being funny, asshole, I’m still gonna be mad even if you are,” Billy grumbles at Batman, who just makes the same little “hm” noise he always does when he’s feeling particularly smug about a joke he’s made. Billy scowls at him on principle. 

Asshole. Geez, like Billy’s new here or something. 

“Father, this is hardly professional behavior,” Robin says, giving Batman a withering look. 

“God, I will never understand what kids even think Bats is saying,” Green Arrow mutters under his breath, half-covering his face with a hand and eyeing Robin through his fingers. “Listen, Cap–Billy–” 

“Excuse you?” Billy asks, scowling at him instead. “You think we’re on a first-name basis while you guys are threatening me?” 

“Listen, brat, I am also a licensed foster parent, and Star is closer to Fawcett than Gotham is, so I in fact am threatening you,” Green Arrow retorts, narrowing his eyes at him. “And there’s eight bedrooms in my house.” 

“That is not a house!” Billy says. “That’s literally not a house, that’s like a hotel! Why do none of you just have houses?!” 

“A motel, perhaps,” Robin drawls, eyeing Green Arrow disdainfully. 

“I am not living with anyone, I’m fine,” Billy emphasizes with a glower. “I’ve been fine all this time, haven’t I?”

“. . . Billy,” Superman says, looking stressed. “How long have you been homeless, exactly?” 

“Since I was like seven,” Billy says, since he doesn’t count any of the in-and-out foster care nonsense as not being homeless, considering. That’d just been a bunch of shitty places he’d had to sneak out of or run away from, not actually anywhere he’d ever really lived. Mostly he’d slept in abandoned buildings or alleys or parks, ‘cuz it’d been safer. “So I’m fine, obviously.” 

“Since you were seven,” Superman repeats, looking stressed. 

“That’s what I said,” Billy says in exasperation, folding his arms again and glowering at him. “And I didn’t even have superpowers then and still took care of myself fine, so I’m double-fine now, actually.” 

Superman puts his face in his hands, for some reason. Black Canary pats his back sympathetically.

Billy does not think Superman deserves sympathy right now.

[purpledemonlilyposting]

I also kind of want to address people being mad at me for "wanting Lily to still have a platform". No it isn't to make money off her, ever since the I Wani Hug That Gator streams lead to me becoming the "unofficial official voice of Olivia" I think I've proven people come to my channel for me.

And there's a few things you gotta understand about me: I'm autistic, I've lived with a severe anxiety disorder my entire life, and I'm a staunch utilitarian secular humanist.

For my cognitive and mental issues I have a system of thought, logic and control in place to regulate these things. I have to adopt certain disciplined modes of behavior to keep my anxiety and anger issues under tight control and in order to avoid the magical thinking that often accompanies autism. This coupled with medication and copious amounts of cannabis is what makes a Sai.

Yes on the surface and when I perform on stream I'm a ha ha funny goofy goober. I'd love to actually be able to be that carefree all the time.

I don't usually get into politics or social philosophy because that's just not what my platform is for and I don't think I have the knowledge or expertise to speak on it at length. But when it comes to my principles my goal is always to apply them evenly. I fiercely believe you can't bend your ethics just because you don't like someone or find their actions reprehensible. Even the worst criminal in the world still needs to be given a fair trial in our justice system and a defense lawyer. If we want a governing or social system to work it has to be consistent.

And I want to be consistent in my belief that robbing someone of an income over personal issues with them is wrong. That's a terrible precedent to set.

However, once Lily copyright struck Anthony and I it was basically out of my hands. She had done and continued to do something that could get her channel terminated. That would be on her and not on me. He and I have tirelessly exhausted every avenue we could to try and get YouTube to investigate her. These things aren't going to happen overnight if they happen at all.

[soap-brain]

i think one of the nate eliot things is that they're both fucking unhinged. there's something feral about them, something that's capable of disregarding basic humanity. we know eliot is a killer, and a ruthless one at that, and he's not afraid of being in those kind of situations, which in a way dehumanises him, this inability to feel fear.

and nate. nate!! that man is terrifying! get in line, or get out of the way is his motto, and he applies it to absolutely everyone. especially in the earlier seasons, and yes he applies it to sophie (who is unarguably closest to him) too! for maggie he decides that she will get out of the way (because falling in line with him would mean that she would break the law, and she's a Good Citizen, not a Criminal or a Thief, and it never occurs to him that it's not a black and white situation... or that his ex wife matches his crazy).

and if you do neither, he ends you. simple as that. he doesn't kill you and he doesn't physically harm you, but what he does is arguably worse, because he ruins your life in ways eliot can't.

and they very quickly recognise each other as apex predators and both allow the other to use that for their crusade. eliot is a weapon that needs pointing in the right direction, that's what he's getting out of their relationship; and nate needs someone who'll have a go at him and who he can't actually hurt. because nate ruins lives by ruining their reputations, and what reputation does eliot have to lose? and conversely, not even nate ford could convince the world that eliot spencer isn't really fucking dangerous

(sidenote: that's why making moreau watch eliot spencer decrying the evil presidential dog fights is so fucking funny. there's an excellent post about it somewhere on here)

eliot thinks he's further along the path of being something inhuman, and he also thinks nate can still be saved from becoming that too. being an insurance cop, a "good guy" (btw a very laughable concept about how working in insurance makes you a good person. like. if that were the case then how come the same "good guys" let nate's son die so they didn't have to pay for his treatment?), was what kept nate on the straight and narrow before, and now giving him something to do might stop him from going completely off the rails ("how long until you fall apart again? a guy like you can't be out of the game, that's why you were a wreck. you need the chase" is what eliot's saying to convince nate to stay with the team).

unfortunately running with criminals doesn't fix nate the way eliot would like for it to, because the guy suddenly stops recognising any and all societal rules and overcompensates by trying to keep full control of everything all the time. he is so unreasonably mad at sophie for trying to help her friend teresa who got screwed over by marcone.

"she should've known what she got into, her husband working with the mob" and cpl perry from the ep before should've known what he got into, joining the military, but for some reason he's worth helping because he didn't "choose" to become a criminal. did teresa choose to get in with the mob or did she and her husband just not have another chance?

and when the entire team agrees they want to take that job, nate throws a hissy fit. tells them all to walk if they don't like the way he runs the team.

so does leverage fix nate? maybe after five seasons. but at first it makes him worse because between "not having to abide by normal human laws anymore" and the alcohol he completely loses his restraint

and eliot gets that. eliot has been there, has completely lost any and all principles (working for moreau mostly) and is now trying to glue the pieces of himself back together into something that isn't horrible. but nate isn't there yet. nate is still violent and dangerous, and eliot is the only one on the team who isn't disgusted by it. sophie certainly is. hardison and parker are too, even if they don't say it out loud. eliot may not like it, but he gets it.

and in return, nate is the only one who knows about what happened in the big bang job. he can hold eliot back with as little as a gesture or a look and it's not a slight to eliot at all. eliot trusts nate to point him in the right direction because they both need the same thing:

to be a good man.

also:

eliot: what, you think the only thing i know how to do is bust heads? nate: no... well, yeah. eliot: hold a knife like this, cuts through an onion. hold a knife like this, cuts thought like eight yakuza in 4 seconds. screams, carnage... nate: yeah good point actually

like apart from how it's funny, any normal person would react with some version of "that's so fucked up". and nate is just like yeah nah that tracks actually, fair enough, do carry on

also @scotchiegirl something about nate and eliot and violence? sorry for tagging you aslkdjfhasdlkfj i just had ThoughtsTM