#but when i think about it within the context that its the same company that made last twilight

[beiyuanism]

gmmtv vs not making their blind character gain sight again

[alexanderwales]

I'm a big fan of wizards-as-programmers, but I think it's so much better when you lean into programming tropes.

A spell the wizard uses to light the group's campfire has an error somewhere in its depths, and sometimes it doesn't work at all. The wizard spends a lot of his time trying to track down the exact conditions that cause the failure.

The wizard is attempting to create a new spell that marries two older spells together, but while they were both written within the context of Zephyrus the Starweaver's foundational work, they each used a slightly different version, and untangling the collisions make a short project take months of work.

The wizard has grown too comfortable reusing old spells, and in particular, his teleportation spell keeps finding its components rearranged and remixed, its parts copied into a dozen different places in the spellbook. This is overall not actually a problem per se, but the party's rogue grows a bit concerned when the wizard's "drying spell" seems to just be a special case of teleportation where you teleport five feet to the left and leave the wetness behind.

A wizard is constantly fiddling with his spells, making minor tweaks and changes, getting them easier to cast, with better effects, adding bells and whistles. The "shelter for the night" spell includes a tea kettle that brings itself to a boil at dawn, which the wizard is inordinately pleased with. He reports on efficiency improvements to the indifference of anyone listening.

A different wizard immediately forgets all details of his spells after he's written them. He could not begin to tell you how any of it works, at least not without sitting down for a few hours or days to figure out how he set things up. The point is that it works, and once it does, the wizard can safely stop thinking about it.

Wizards enjoy each other's company, but you must be circumspect about spellwork. Having another wizard look through your spellbook makes you aware of every minor flaw, and you might not be able to answer questions about why a spell was written in a certain way, if you remember at all.

Wizards all have their own preferences as far as which scripts they write in, the formatting of their spellbook, its dimensions and material quality, and of course which famous wizards they've taken the most foundational knowledge from. The enlightened view is that all approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, but this has never stopped anyone from getting into a protracted argument.

Sometimes a wizard will sit down with an ancient tome attempting to find answers to a complicated problem, and finally find someone from across time who was trying to do the same thing, only for the final note to be "nevermind, fixed it".

[doberbutts]

I also think that when I see people demanding a *unique* oppression, that they are asking for something impossible and also are very much misunderstanding intersectionality in the first place.

I don't believe any oppression is truly unique. I do think there are faces of oppression that change with the demographic, but more likely than not you as Oppressed Group X have way more in common with Oppressed Group Y than you might think.

But also, Crenshaw's original paper on intersectionality discussed a specific context: black women being skipped over for hire where black men and white women were both getting hired, making that specific context unique to the intersection of black womanhood.

People get skipped over for jobs they are more than qualified for all the time. Even within the paper itself, there is discussion about this happening to black men and white women at other companies, just that this specific company was excluding specifically black women from its pool of candidates due to their specific bias against black women.

Experiencing workplace discrimination and hiring discrimination is not at all unique to black women. The *context* was. It was not "just racism" because black men were being hired, and it was not "just misogyny" because white women were getting hired. It was the intersection of both that resulted in black women being excluded.

When a trans man states that he is being removed from, say, a reproductive rights conversation and it's happening specifically because he is a trans man, what's meant shouldn't be that no one else struggles with reproductive rights. It means that it's not happening to the cis women who are actively leading the conversation, nor is it happening to the cis men who are pitching in. It is, however, happening to anyone with a uterus who is deemed as too "gender devient" to count: trans men, trans women, intersex people, and nonbinary people. Albeit, for different reasons, and the face of which changes depending on the demographic of the person receiving it.

But the conversation around reproductive rights is also one that must include disability, must include race, must include sexuality, must include class, must include age, because these things also have a direct effect on discrimination within the medical field and whether someone truly has access to the autonomy needed to make reproductive choices of their own without others choosing for them.

Similar to how we can understand the context provided in Crenshaw's coining of intersectionality to examine how black women specifically were experiencing something that neither black men nor white women were victim to within that specific example, so too must we understand that these are contextual and circumstantial conversations that will not always be truly unique.

After all, black men and white women do both get rejected for jobs on account of race and gender. Cis women and other marginalized genders frequently must battle for their right to make their own reproductive choices.

But when someone says "this happened to me due to the combination of my race and my gender", we must understand that likely the combination, the intersection, created a unique scenario that cannot be understood by only examining a single piece of that person's identity. So, too, must we understand the same when someone says "this happened due to the combination of my transness and my gender".

So when I see a challenge to name something unique from someone also flinging around the "learn intersectionality" phrase at those who are trying to describe the things that happened to them that hurt them, all I can think is that clearly that person does not understand interaectionality. Nor have they ever actually read the words of the woman who coined it. She's still alive. Her TED talks are on YouTube. Many of her essays are online for free.

Finally, I must remind these people that Crenshaw is not the woman who coined misogynoir, and while both Crenshaw's and Bailey's theories do work in conversation with each other, being discussed by different people does mean there is not a 1-to-1 basis to compare them to. There will be disagreements and inconsistencies between the two because they are two different people.

[blueskittlesart]

did u not like totk?

i LOVED totk. i think it was well-written and did its job as a sequel to botw very well. HOWEVER. i do think it suffered slightly from the commercial success of botw. as i mentioned in my last post, nintendo does this. thing. when one of their games gets popular where every game after it has to be Exactly The Same so they can make all the money in the world via comparison marketing. (and this is a problem with the wider game industry in general but also a very observable pattern in loz specifically.) I know it's been a pretty long time since botw came out, but before (and immediately following) its release there was some pushback from longtime fans who worried that the open-world and lack of traditional dungeons meant that the game had strayed too far from the classic formula that makes a game a "zelda game." this is to say, botw was EXPERIMENTAL. and the devs had no idea if what they were doing was going to be successful or not. the open-world of botw wasn't a gimmick, and it wasn't the devs jumping on the open-world bandwagon. it was what CREATED that bandwagon. the open-world was a deliberate choice made specifically for botw because it reinforced the story that botw was designed to tell. the game is about exploring a desolate world, about making connections, and rebuilding both the broken kingdom and the player character's shattered sense of self by traveling and learning and building relationships. a large open-world map with only minor quest guidelines and lots of collectibles and side quests lends itself perfectly to this specific story, which is specifically about exploration and rebirth.

the problem is, botw was. almost TOO good. it was so good that every other game company on the planet started scrambling to build giant open-world maps into their next release, regardless of how much sense that actually made narratively. and because of that, when it came time to release a sequel to botw, the devs had a lot to think about. they had HUGE shoes to fill in terms of fan reception, but they were ALSO being asked to follow up one of the best-performing games of all time, commercially. totk needed to SELL as well as botw. And, likely because nintendo was worried about that potential commercial value, totk needed to keep people comfortable. I don't know for certain, but I definitely get the feeling playing totk that the devs were specifically told not to stray too far from what made botw marketable and successful--that being the open world and the versatility of gameplay. so in order to follow that up, they made... 2 more huge open maps, and new gimmick gameplay which was explicitly super-versatile.

do i think that the extra maps and ultrahand were BAD choices? no. however, i don't think they necessarily ADDED anything to the game as a narrative whole. one of my favorite things about botw was how everything seemed to be designed AROUND the narrative, with gameplay elements slotting neatly into the story thematically. totk just. didn't really have that, imo. there wasn't a huge narrative benefit to the gigantic, completely unpopulated depths and sky maps. ultrahand was cool, but within the context of the story it meant basically nothing. in some ways, i almost think totk could have benefitted from a much more linear approach to its storytelling, a la skyward sword, because there are a lot of story beats that have to be found in chronological order in order to have the right emotional impact, but because of the nonlinear open-world it kind of became a struggle to hit all the important story points in the right order. an easy example of this is the dragon's tears in comparison to the memories--the dragon tears have a very specific set order in which they happen, and finding them out of order can make the story you're seeing in them feel confusing and disjointed. the order in which they should be found is technically displayed on the temple wall, but most players aren't going to pick up on that or follow it--more likely, they're just going to explore the geoglyphs as they come across them organically, and therefore will likely witness the story in a completely disjointed way. compare this to the botw memories, which ALSO technically have a set order--the order in which they're displayed on the sheikah slate. however, because they're largely just small moments in time, and not one continuous story, finding them out of order has a lot less of an impact on how you as the player experience the narrative, and it's not hugely detrimental to your experience of the story if you find them naturally as you explore rather than explicitly seeking them out in order. If TOTK had been allowed to deviate from the botw formula a bit, i think we may have ended up with a more cohesive game in terms of narrative beats like that. as it is, i just think the game is torn slightly between wanting to be its own new game with new gameplay and needing to be botw, if that makes sense.

[sea-changed]

i. Reading Looking For The Good War has, among many other things, I think really helped me to clarify and articulate what I find so disquieting about "Points" as an episode. (Which is not all of it! There are certainly plenty of scenes that I find fascinating and/or enjoyable to watch.) But:

"It is much easier to tell a sentimental war story with a happy ending, in which valor eclipses causes and reconciliation triumphs over everything--a comedy, in other words--than it is to tell another, unsentimental kind of story." (page 89)

This is what it is, exactly--"in which valor eclipses causes and reconciliation triumphs over everything" could more or less be the logline of "Points." This is most egregiously evident to me in the scene of Nazi general's surrender, but the scene where Winters tells the Nazi officer to keep his sidearm is also I think highly indicative of this drive towards reconciliation, however rotten, above all else. And Samet articulates that wonderfully, and articulates as well the cost of this type of narrative:

"Yet sentimentality does more than shape the way we commemorate wars. It informs all those cultural and sociological attitudes in the shadow of which wartime and postwar policies are crafted, and it prevents a more productive and enduring sympathy that, in cooperation with reason, might guide our actions and help us become more careful readers of war's many ambiguities and false seductions." (page 83)

ii. The layers of dislike I have for the Nazi general scene are manifold; the mirroring of Winters and the Nazi general and thereby Easy Company with the Nazi soldiers feels incredibly sinister, perhaps most aggressively so in its weird push to rehabilitate the Nazis as soldiers, and thus to both foreshadow (within the world of the show) and echo (in the world of the audience) the archetypal defense that Nazi higher-ups would put forward at Nuremberg and beyond, that they were just following orders.

iii. The mirroring of Winters and Easy Company with the Nazis is clearly intentional, and somewhat bizarrely explicit ("You've found in one another a bond that exists only in combat among brothers") and maudlin (the panning shots over the Nazi soldiers' faces and wounds), and by the end the urge to parallel the two leaders and the two armies--indeed, to collapse one into the other, in order to make them functionally the same--seems to cause a sort of scriptwriting amnesia about who these words are actually being said by and to. Once again the greater historic context makes this especially chilling, Operation Paperclip being perhaps the most salient point to evoke. (I am also haunted, forever, by a statistic that Michael C. C. Adams cites in The Best War Ever, that a September 1945 survey of American GIs found that 22% believed the Nazi treatment of Jewish people to be justified. Granted, this survey would not have been taken using modern sampling methods, and who knows what the sample size was to begin with or what soldiers in particular were being surveyed. But still.)

iv. The scene leans heavily into the idea of a unique soldierly bond that unites not only each individual army within itself but bonds the two armies together. ("You've found in one another a bond that exists only in combat, among brothers who've shared foxholes, held each other in dire moments, who've seen death and suffered together.") Besides being disquieting for reasons I state above, I think it's notable that the Nazi general's speech emphasizing the brotherhood of soldiers happens directly after the short scene between Winters and Sobel, wherein Winters chides Sobel on a point of military ritual ("We salute the rank, not the man"). Sobel is outside the brotherhood; he doesn't understand how to be a soldier; whereas the Nazis are within the brotherhood, so much so that they are allowed to articulate its terms. (This is egregious no matter what, but becomes all the more so when it is framed as a Jewish man being excluded from the "club" of military brotherhood while WASP Americans and literal Nazis are allowed in.) (Meanwhile, Liebgott occupies a sort of bizarre placement in this scene, there to ventriloquize--indeed, perhaps neutralize, or even legitimize--the Nazi general's words, but not speak for himself.)

v. This gets to another point that Samet makes that stuck out to me, about the inherent tautology of military culture. She quotes William Styron, who in a 1964 review of General Douglas MacArthur's memoir said:

"Anyone who has lived as a stranger for any length of time among professional military men, especially officers, is made gradually aware of something that runs counter to everything one has been taught to believe—and that is that most of these men, far from corresponding to the liberal cliché of the super-patriot, are in fact totally lacking in patriotism. They are not unpatriotic, they simply do not understand or care what patriotism is. [...] A true military man is a mercenary [...] and it is within the world of soldiering that he finds his only home." (Samet quotes Styron on page 233; I'm quoting here from the full review)

The point of being a soldier is to be a soldier; the point of the military is to have a military. She also has this to say--especially saliently, I think, for obvious reasons--about Ambrose, and his perspective specifically in Citizen Soldiers:

"By means of emphasis and convenient omission, Ambrose preserves his focus on unity, not division; right, not wrong; liberation, not subjugation. Paradoxically, given that he makes so much of American idealism, he often subordinates a consideration of causes altogether to a veneration for the magnificence of the army itself. The creation of that army, rather than the victory it made possible, becomes 'the great achievement of the American people and system,' just as the nation's 'greatest nineteenth-century achievement' had been, according to Ambrose, 'the creation of the Army of the Potomac' rather than the end it eventually secured--the abolition of chattel slavery." (page 46)

Here we are back to the first Samet quote from above: valor eclipses causes and reconciliation triumphs over everything. To be a military man--to be part of the club, the brotherhood, the "bond that exists only in combat"--is to "subordinate a consideration of causes altogether to a veneration for the magnificence of the army itself." The country and the cause that the Nazi general and his soldiers fought "bravely, proudly" for become sublimated, while that bravery and pride, stripped of more specific meaning, is extolled. What matters, by the time this scene happens--and it's the last scene in the core section of the episode, followed only by the close of the frame structure with Winters and Nixon and then the baseball scene-cum-epilogue--is not the American cause that Easy Company was fighting for, and certainly not the Nazi atrocities they were fighting against, but rather a reconciliation that views the experience of war as preeminently important. Sobel, who did not experience combat, is dismissed; the Nazi general, who did, is legitimated.

vi. And that, I think, is the core of the message that Band of Brothers promotes. Fandom often refers to the show in passing as propaganda, but I'm not sure that really gets to the heart of what it is, in the end, saying. I would suggest that it's not merely propaganda; it's a recruitment poster. It's not selling truth, justice, and the American way (or if it is, it's doing so only incidentally); it's selling the experience of being in the military as a transformative and ultimately positive one, that unites (a certain subset of) men through the unique crucible of battle, beyond any concerns about what, exactly, one is fighting for. So long as you know when and how to salute, you too can be a part of the brotherhood.

vii. All of which gets back to the scene earlier in "Points," when the Nazi colonel surrenders to Winters. The colonel first makes the explicit parallel between the Nazis and the Americans, and between himself and Winters in particular: "I wonder what will happen to us, to people like you and me, when there are finally no more wars to occupy us." He serves to explicate here more or less exactly what I was saying above: he sees himself and Winters united as military men, above and beyond their particular countries and causes.

Winters doesn't look thrilled about the comparison--but then almost immediately tells the Nazi colonel to retain his surrendered sidearm. I suppose this is supposed to read as magnanimous and fair-minded on Winters's part, but it also serves to reinforce the Nazi colonel's own words, validating the colonel's prioritization of their shared military positions above and beyond their allegiance to the countries and ideologies they were (at least nominally!) fighting for. As the scene itself shows, giving up a sidearm is an expected part of the surrender process, both practically and symbolically; by refusing it Winters is stepping outside military precedent--indeed, bending over backwards--to help the Nazi colonel retain dignity as well as firepower. On its own it is, I think, a frustrating and uncomfortable scene; in the broader context of the episode it sets up and reinforces the Nazi general's speech later on and the ways that Winters and the show itself find meaning in paralleling and reconciling the Americans and the Nazis with one other. (The Nazi colonel knows how to salute; and when he does so, Winters salutes him back.)

viii. Of course it's historically true that American soldiers tended to identify with German soldiers and civilians much more than they identified with people from Allied countries, as Samet herself and even the veteran interviews at the beginning of "Why We Fight" document. (And I don't believe that paralleling the Americans and the Nazis is necessarily something to be dismissed out of hand.) But because the end of "Points" is so overtly sentimental, paralleling the Americans and Nazis serves not as an indictment of American soldiers' amorality but rather as a rehabilitation of the Nazi soldiers and officers as soldiers and a paean to military culture divorced from meaning or cause. As Samet says--"valor eclipses causes and reconciliation triumphs over everything." The military, as an institution, whether it be American or Nazi, becomes the greater good of the war; while the causes those militaries were fighting for become not only secondary, but recede entirely.

[thathellenicpolytheist]

You may have talked about this before, but what is your opinion on giving the gods alcohol as offerings? Personally, I like to give Aphrodite strawberry wine in a small glass, but I wanted to know your thoughts on the matter bc you seem quite educated in a lot of the history. Is there a reason that you specifically should or should not? Do you offer the gods alcohol? If so, what is your favorite thing to give each god?

hi this is a great question thank you so much for giving me the chance to talk about it!!!

i love wine offerings! if we are too understand wine offerings however we should look at the culture of how wine existed in the classical world.

wine was a very central part of diet in the classical world, it was drank daily and with most meals, but this is in part because the wine is not quite the wine we think of today. it was diluted wine. the reason for this is unmixed wine was mostly considered too strong on its own but by mixing with water they had better control over just how strong that wine would be and you could mellow out the taste.

we also know that in the classical world wine was given as gifts and offered to guests and friends. as evidenced in Homers epics.

“Maron the son of Euanthes, who lived inside the shady grove on Ismarus. In reverence to the god, I came to help him, and save his wife and son. He gave me gifts: a silver bowl and seven pounds of gold, well wrought, and siphoned off some sweet strong wine,” - Homer, the Odyssey, IX. 199 - 205, translated by Emily Wilson. 2023. W. W. Norton & Company

With this, Achilles led them in and sat them on chairs with crimson throws and told Patroclus, who was beside him, “Get a bigger bowl, son of Menoetius. Mix some stronger wine, and get them all some food. My dearest friends have come into my home.” - Homer, the Iliad, IX. 256 - 260, translated by Emily Wilson. 2023. W. W. Norton & Company

so it would make sense that if we are looking at offerings as something similar to what you would gift an esteemed guest (as my lovely mutual @xenia-and-wine has mentioned before.) that wine would make for a good offering.

as i said i really do love wine offerings and i think they are great if you have the means to do so and we have an abundance of evidence showing us that alcohol was being used in these religious contexts within antiquity.

“So stay a while and let me get you wine sweetened with honey. First, pour out libations for all the gods, especially father Zeus, and after that, you need to have a drink. Wine can restore a man who is exhausted,” - Homer, the Iliad, VI. 245 - 349, translated by Emily Wilson. 2023. W. W. Norton & Company

“Now guest, give prayers of thanks to Lord Poseidon, and pour libations for the god. This feast is in his honor; pay him proper dues. Then give the boy the cup of honeyed wine, so he can offer to the deathless gods libations. Everybody needs the gods.” - Homer, the Iliad, III. 42 - 47, translated by Emily Wilson. 2023. W. W. Norton & Company

“Each time the singer paused, Odysseus wiped tears, drew down the cloak and poured a splash of wine out of his goblet, for the gods.” - Homer, the Odyssey, VIII. 88 - 90, translated by Emily Wilson. 2023. W. W. Norton & Company

so as a reconstructionist making wine offerings and libations is something i like to do when i have the funds and ability to do so!

as for your question about what kind of wine i give to the Theoi, i tend to use my own favourite wines (i’m very partial to a nice rioja) and this is for the same reason as why if i was to cook for friends or guests i would make them my best meal and give them my favourite drink, i am offering them the best thing i have. but it is kind of up to each individual what type of wine they would like to use.

i mix my wine with water and then either pour it onto the ground from a vessel or onto flames, sometimes i will pour diluted wine into a glass or cup and put it on my altar overnight and discard it again either onto the ground or into flames the following day. my libations are made in combination with prayers to the Theoi.

[maximumwobblerbanditdonut]

To help remember what you forgot! 🤔

“If you don't know where you've come from, you don't know where you're going."

In ten years of MPC have you heard about how it all started in Scotland? 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 If not, then that's just how this company rolls I guess. Generally, nobody will know or care- sadly. If yes, then you are well within your right to be miffed, If you've watched it from the beginning and it hasn't been mentioned

After two months since SH IG Live from New York, 🗽last January introducing the main charity collaboration, we have not seen Sam refer to the origins of MPC on this 10th anniversary.

MPC has applications in various fields. However, it's important not to overlook the origins of MPC, to accurately plan a tenth-anniversary, you must remember both the date (when) and location (where) of MPC's birth, and the people involved which is crucial for its MPC celebration.

For those who forget or are not familiar with MPC’s origins, allow us to remind you. Always is a good decision to look back on time on the first steps fondly, and to know the initiators who started the programme.

Where do we come from? Is fair to say and then think “Where do we go from here?” 2 phrases that can refer to questions about the past and future of MPC in their 10 years, that have not started in America? MPC, as everybody knows, and it’s good to remember, was born in Scotland by a Scottish with a purpose who decided to take a different path along the way across the pond.

When SH back to Scotland to work in the Outlander series after spending more than 10 years in London. He came to John Valbonesi and the Shears brothers for help. The brothers Gareth and Chris Shears owners of Bear Strength Clothing, focus on the CrossFit market and teamed up with Sam Heughan, and co-owner of the Fight Camp Glasgow’s John Valbonesi to create My Peak Challenge, achieving personal goals – raising money for charity Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research and donating those profits to the cancer-fighting charity Bloodwise UK (now Blood Cancer UK 🇬🇧)

Gareth and Andy Shear, who set up Bear Strength, a fitness clothing line in 2013, and distribute to countries including Canada, USA and Australia.

That included a My Peak Challenge t-shirt from Bear Strength, a wristband and a sticker. The team originally included Sam + three members (the two brothers and Valbo) and there was no connection to Alex Norouzi.

Over time, AN gradually eliminated the Shear brothers after his participation in MPC. So, If SH wants to commemorate MPC's 10th anniversary, they should remember when, where, and who participated in its beginnings. MPC - My Peak Challenge was created in December 2014 and launched in January 2015 in Scotland with a different team. Let alone with Alex, since all this happened before he met Heughan.

In a recent Instagram profile update, Alex Norouzi upgraded his resume from CEO to co-founder of MPC. This changes MPC's vision and relationship with Scotland, where MPC was founded and began without him. It's important to clarify that MPC's origins were in Glasgow, Scotland, not Los Angeles, California.

SH teamed up with Fight Camp Glasgow’s John Valbonesi and Bear Strength Clothing to create My Peak Challenge.

EDA’s co-owner John Valbonesi played a role in Glasgow, being one of the initial Sam Heughan’s trainers at the MPCPrepProgram. In this context, Valbonesi would be regarded as a co-founder, Similarly, to Gareth and Andy Shear, the brothers who helped Sam. They designed 🎨 MPC logo and marketed the t-shirts, also contributing to establishing the first relationship with the early supporters, known as "peakers."

In late 2015 Alex and his friend, photographer Peter Lueders, travelled to Scotland for an interview and extensive fitness shoot with SH. Their photos appeared on the cover of The Box magazine in January/February 2016, which boosted Sam's ego. Later that year, Alex quickly became Sam's best friend. The goal of this trip was achieved the same year when My Peak Challenge headquarters moved from Scotland to Los Angeles. Mission accomplished. ☹️

Additionally, Alex Norouzi was not a co-founder of MPC; he joined the movement later by building on the work done in Scotland obviously without him which helped to enhance his status in L.A. since his arrival in this city in 2004. This point is a distinction that should be accurately conveyed.

However, Alex Norouzi was not involved in this stage, No one knew about him when MPC started its activities in Glasgow. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Now he’s trying to give a new version as a co-founder of My Peak Challenge, which is incorrect. MPC was registered as an American company after Sam Heughan transferred his headquarters to Los Angeles, but their activities were created and launched in Scotland first.

If Alex wants to consider MPC "founded" in the US, and not when it started operating in Scotland, then in this case, MPC wouldn't be commemorating its 10th anniversary, but only 8 years, as the company was registered in October 2016 in the US. MPC's current format is only 4 years old, dating back to 2020 when an additional modification was included in the products/services for personal training and online fitness. There's no information about staff or co-founders listed, meaning Alex isn't listed in My Peak Challenge. MPC only mentions Sam Heughan as the company's founder.

You can't be something you're not! Pretty simple.

SH participated in what it means to reach maximum physical condition, now it is in Valbo’s hands, Program Director of MPC @mypeakchallenge, Hollywood Personal Trainer 🤔 I wonder What is Valbo's customer base in Hollywood?

SH wore the Fear The Beard T-Shirt in his Twitter avatar, including Graham McTavish, who rocked a Fear The Beard T-Shirt as well.

Sam should be careful when distributing co-founder titles. "Co-founder" implies a role in the creation of the idea 💡 and does not necessarily reflect an individual's skills or abilities. Co-founder is not a job title, and it isn’t a perpetual licence to be employed at the company, regardless of what you do. It's important to clarify that Alex, and no one else associated with MPC in America, was among the original participants who help created My Peak Challenge - MPC in Scotland.

Why do SH fans travel to Edinburgh to celebrate the MPC gala or come to celebrate Heughan's birthday? 🎈 Why not Los Angeles? There are times when certain things need to be made clear, and this is one of them, although Sam Heughan forgot to mention it during the MPC anniversary video, as usual. He only remembers Scotland when he needs to brag or sell something.

Alex seems to be trying to erase any memory of Sam that might link him to his old life in Scotland. Essentially, he wants to prove that Sam started a new life in Los Angeles solely related to him. Perhaps SH wants to hide something related to his past, which always suggests that his new life began with Outlander as he always wished.

Posted 13th March 2025

[sojourner-between-worlds]

Not so long ago, another Christian on here shared an article about the "problems" with the Chosen. Now, I fully believe and support thinking critically about the media we consume, especially for something depicting the life of Christ. That being said, I'd like to offer some thoughts of my own about some of the most commonly cited "problems" with the series. (I ended up referencing the above article in most points, but almost all of them I have see elsewhere as well. That article was just an easy frame of reference.) I'm not here to convince anyone to watch it; I'd just like to offer an alternate perspective for anyone who is willing to listen and think critically.

As a disclaimer: no, this show is not flawless. It's a flawed show made by flawed people doing their best. There are times I take issue with it myself. There are valid criticisms. The ones below are, quite simply, ones that I believe are not.

Buckle up; this is going to be a long one.

1.Mormon Influence I can't believe I still have to explain this one, but I still see it listed as a reason not to watch, so here we go: VidAngel/ Angel Studios Mormon ties had no more bearing on the series content for being the streaming distributor than CBS currently does for being allowed to broadcast it. When a company solely has distribution rights, that does NOT mean they are making content decisions. The only time a distributor would have say on content is if they are partnered, which usually means they are paying for production in some way. Angel Studios never gave a penny towards production (this is the largest crowd-funded series to date, remember? They have no studio backing). They never had any influence. And, oh yeah, as of May 2024, they were deemed to be in breach of contract and now the Chosen no longer has any ties to the company. No influence. Got it? Good. Then we can move on.

2."What does your heart tell you?" (This one could be included in point 4, but I've seen it so often it gets its own, haha.) Okay, this one? This one I agree was not a good writing choice. However. I think this one needs a little more thought rather than taking it at knee-jerk. Yes, the heart is deceitfully wicked and cannot be trusted. But there's some nuance here that I think gets left behind when well-meaning people call out the series for this line. The heart, as referred to in Proverbs, is the will of man. The heart, in pop culture, is often synonymous with emotions. Within the context of the scene, its very clear that the second meaning is the one intended. Now, I will say "feelings are fickle" until the day I die (because they are) because they can't always be trusted to reflect the truth. Again, however. Feelings do exist to tell us things. That is literally their purpose. Not always accurately reflecting the truth of something doesn't change their purpose. And that is what the writers were going for in this scene: the emotional weight of the truth Nicodemus has found. Could they have probably found a less controversial way to convey this? Yeah, maybe. But I can say that this wasn't intended to be the Disney "follow your heart" mumbo-jumbo it constantly gets written off as.

3.A Hearsay Gospel This point was taken directly from the referenced article. I'm choosing to address it not because it's a popular "problem" but because it's actually one I'd never seen before and I think it shows a gross misunderstanding of the inspiration of the Gospels and Scripture as a whole. This point posited that it's unbiblical to show Matthew and John taking notes because it undermines the Spirit-led inspiration of their writings. Except that it doesn't. The Greek word used when talking about this is more literally translated "God-breathed." Which is not the same as "God-dictated." If it were the latter (and what the writer of said article implied), then there would only be one Gospel account. That would be all we need because everything would be in it. Or, if there were still four Gospels (given that they were written with different intended audiences), they would all sound the same and have the exact same details about shared recorded events. But they don't. Because God didn't tell them, verbatim, what to write down. This is why there is variety yet harmony. This is why each writer has a distinct voice in the way they wrote. Because God didn't dictate; He led. There is a difference.

There is also the matter of the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars believe that Mark may have used Matthew's Gospel as a reference when he wrote his own because it shares so much in terms of content (93% of Mark can be found in the others). Does that make it less inspired? The obvious answer is "no" (or it wouldn't still be in our modern Bibles).

The episode most criticized for this point was s2 ep3, where a woman runs past Matthew and he desperately calls after her, "Healed you of what?" Therefore making it something he didn't personally witness that he wrote down. But here's the problem with this: that entire episode is based on one single verse from the book of Matthew: 4:24. Which, if you look it up, says only that Jesus healed many people. As any writer can tell you, not every note makes it into the final draft. Provided something like that did historically happen and provided Matthew did write it down, that doesn't mean everything he took notes on would have been in the completed manuscript later. Therefore: no hearsay.

Bottom line: what made it into their Gospels is still being presented as things they personally witnessed, and taking notes doesn't detract from being led to write or from being led what to include.

4.Unscriptural Script There are several points under this one, so we'll take them one at a time. --"House" vs "Business". This one is, once again, directly from the aforementioned article, but I wanted to address it briefly anyway. This is in reference to Jesus, at age 12, staying and teaching in the temple when his family had already started home. The author claims that "the Bible says, 'Be about my Father's business'" and claims that saying "in the house of my father" (as the show does) is Catholic-inspired and unbiblical. I don't know about the Catholic-inspired part, but I can say that it depends what translation of the Bible you're looking at. KJV uses the business wording. ESV and HCSB both use the house wording. (And if you want to mince accuracy, ESV and HCSB are both more literal than KJV/NKJV.) Unless you take only one translation as being the True Translation, then you can't say the line they went with is unbiblical.

-- Apparently certain things demean Christ, such as him practicing his Sermon on the Mount as opposed to it "being inspired" (see point 3 for the rebuttal of the second part). Except it doesn't. Because Jesus was also very human. Which people tend to forget when talking about this point specifically. It's wrong to have him practice what to say specifically. It's wrong to show him with a sense of humor. It's wrong to [fill in the blank; there are many of these]. Most of them amount to "it's a sin to be human." There are a lot of things that are a direct result of the Original Sin that are not, of themselves, sinful. It's not sinful to say something in a way people don't understand (so he practices to make sure people will understand what he means). It's not sinful to be nostalgic (its an acknowledgement of things that were good in the past). It's not sinful to show Mother Mary supporting Him (we all need earthly support in the form of other people; this is literally one of the purposes of the church!). Every single thing I've ever heard anyone say is "demeaning" is actually just portraying Him as every bit the human He became.

-- The first "arrest". Quintus wanted to talk to Him. He wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't imprisoned. Quintus gave Him a warning and let Him go. This does not contradict Jesus declaring it was not yet His time because it wasn't. He wasn't arrested. I don't know how many more ways I can say this.

-- "Nathanael couldn't have been a drunk because Jesus said there was no guile in him." Except the definition of "without guile" is not "sinless". The definition of guile is "deceit, cunning, hypocrisy or dishonesty in thought or deed" and many modern translations use the word "deceit" in that verse instead. Jesus is saying that he is honest and not a hypocrite. There's nothing about drinking in there at all. I'm not trying to call out this author specifically, but when I say that it's important to understand what words mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

-- John the Baptist. One of the points I've seen repeatedly is that it's sacrilegious for Peter to call him "Creepy John". I have to ask if these people understand that Peter called him that in anger and before he met Jesus. After that, it's a running joke along the lines of "remember when you didn't believe me" from Andrew. This is peak sibling behavior. That's all I can say about that.

-- "Matthew couldn't have been autistic because it's not in the Bible/ it didn't exist back them/ etc." I haven't seen this one in a long while, and I made a whole post about this way-back-when, but it bares repeating. The word "autistic" doesn't appear in the Bible in part because the word wasn't even coined until the 1900s. I don't know what else to tell you on that front. Since I've already made a post about this, all I'm going to say here is that it's important representation that is made all the clearly by the overwhelmingly positive response it received from autistic fans. Jesus called all sorts, the outcasts of society, the lowest of the low. And, yes, He calls autistics, too. If there's a problem here, that's all on you, buddy.

5. The Music This particular writer pointed out this lyric specifically: "Got no trouble with the mess you've been" and quite frankly I'm having hard time understand the problem with it because he doesn't come out and say it. It is, in fact, a completely true statement. God is not put off by our messes. We don't have to fix ourselves before coming to Him. Its also worth pointing out the past tense here: been. As in, He calls you out of your mess. You don't stay there. So I have no idea what the supposed problem here is; I only know that it's not one.

In general, I don't have a problem with people not liking certain styles of music. I do take issue, however, when anyone tries to assign morality to a style. Music is amoral. It can be used in immoral ways, just like anything else can be, but music itself does not have a morality. It doesn't have "mystic undertones"; it is in a style that you yourself associate with mysticism. If you don't care for the style, that's fine, but don't assign it a morality it doesn't have.

.

.

Know of something I missed? I certainly didn't cover every controversy so let me know and I'll let you know what I think of it!

[firststrikerr]

OC Kiss Week #3 — Refraction

Irritatingly, Marion wordlessly regards you, openly dissecting your guarded expression. You can feel their mind hover around yours, probing you from just out of swatting range. ��Want to know what I think?” they begin. A part of you wants to respond that no, you don’t, but you suspect that won’t deter them from saying their piece. “I think that you really don’t like being out of your depth.”

2970 words, featuring @autistic-sidestep's Suranga Fernando.

(Technically past the deadline and barely scraping by my self-imposed rule to keep it under 3k words. Help)

Return of the Reverse Sidestepverse. This one focuses more on the AU's reversals, so some context to have handy in addition to the Rat Council:

"Levelhead" is Psychopathor, but as a corporate hero. Part of the old guard, from times when being a hero meant something. But staying this long in the scene wears down even men like him. Widely respected.

"Harbinger" is Herald's villain self. Though he was once a hero, he quickly grew disillusioned by how performative it all was. Currently securing publicity for the Rangers by picking fights with these so-called heroes and showing the world how incompetent they actually are.

Suranga Fernando. Argos.

“I think I might be slightly disappointed,” Marion drawls, swirling the melting ice in their untouched glass of rum before setting it back down.

“About what?” you ask, though you’re mostly occupied with feeling disoriented by the crystal clarity of your mind. You keep expecting the dampeners to kick in any second now and muffle the bustle around you, like a sack thrown over your head, but the pressure never comes no matter how long you wait.

“About this place.” They prop their chin up with their hand, elbow resting on the table’s edge. “It’s too easy when the name is the exact same, down to the lack of apostrophe.”

The name isn’t the only thing that Joes retained through alternate realities—it also kept the same owner, the same location, and the same jukebox playing the same music. There are even several individuals that you recognize among the patrons.

Except, if anyone asks you, the similarities only makes this place feel even more wrong. Just like the rest of this accursed world, everything is the same but in none of the ways that matter. The familiar faces don’t wear the scars that they do back at home. In place of the quantum roulette, a karaoke setup awaits its next challenger.

Worst of all, you feel out of place—seated at your usual booth, but as the wrong self. As Suranga Fernando, not Juno. Picking up on thoughts that you shouldn’t be privy to, at least not within the four walls of this bar. No need for dampeners when the mundane clients have don’t have the same need for discretion.

And well, it doesn’t help that your present company is nowhere near as pleasant as the good doctor’s.

“You really do make a challenge out of everything, don’t you?” you huff, taking a sip from your own whiskey. Another wrong burn down your throat. They didn’t have Juno’s usual bottle on shelf.

They shrug. “Don’t act like you aren’t playing the same game. We wouldn’t be sharing the cork board otherwise.”

“The difference is that I consider easy answers just as respectable as the hard ones,” you shoot back, pursing your lips when you realize you let more of your irritation slip through than intended. Ugh, curse these frayed nerves. Get yourself together.

Irritatingly, Marion wordlessly regards you, openly dissecting your guarded expression. You can feel their mind hover around yours, probing you from just out of swatting range.

“Want to know what I think?” they begin. A part of you wants to respond that no, you don’t, but you suspect that won’t deter them from saying their piece. “I think that you really don’t like being out of your depth.”

You have to put in conscious effort to keep your face muscles relaxed. Look unaffected, as if their observation hasn’t struck a chord. Had it not been for the table between you, you would have shooed them away with a wave of your cane. Instead, you settle for rolling your eyes. “All this just because I’m not as hard to impress as you are.”

“I don’t see you disagreeing.” You can tell they’re tempted to keep digging, but your stern dissuasion seems to suffice at deterring their figurative shovel.

“Look,” they say with a shrug. “No need for the sour face. We’re here to make friends, aren’t we?”

“Did I give off that kind of impression?” you ask, adjusting the corners of your mouth. Despite their supposed nonchalance, you’ve long since sensed their stewing distaste whenever they’re in your vicinity. Territorial. Wary of someone that threatens their sense of individuality. It’s true that you mirror that sentiment to an extent, but if you use that to your advantage and amplify it to an echo…

Yes, there you go. You reflect back to Marion an impression that they were projecting their own bad mood onto you. Make them scramble to keep their own thoughts in check. That should keep them occupied just enough for an opening to turn your attention towards your actual business here—an old friend who sees nothing but a stranger when she looks back at you.

Rosie Rae Brown—or at least, a version of her—is currently busy wiping tables. As expected, she’s employed at the bar, but not as a bouncer. Just another server. This Joes doesn’t deal with enough trouble to need that kind of security. You let yourself stare for a second too long, and she catches you looking. Keeping your composure, you give her a polite, practiced smile, a greeting which she returns with a quirk of her lips before getting back to her task at hand.

“We could always get her fired,” Marion suggests, snapping you out of the momentary daze. You slowly turn your head to raise a brow at them.

“What?” they demand, imitating your expression. Well, no need to give away the fact that you didn’t expect them to take that angle.

“It’ll be hard to displease Joe about Rosie,” you explain, drumming your fingers on the table. “Easier to make her quit the job herself.”

“Let me guess,” they cut in, raising a finger. “By dangling a better opportunity in front of her.”

“Which shouldn’t be too hard to do.” You don’t need telepathy to see that she’d take a fresh start in a heartbeat. It isn’t hard to imagine why. Even at the villain bar, she was never all that attached to her job. Being stuck in this drearily mundane place sounds even more like purgatory for a woman who survived the boost drug. Perfectly good talent going to waste.

“So all we need is some kind of inciting incident to give you an excuse to approach her.”

“Exactly. And once she demonstrates her abilities…”

“You go up to her with a shiny new job offer.”

“Hook, line, and sinker.”

The two of you synchronously turn to face each other, gazes locked together before Marion frowns and turns towards the window.

“I’ll… go look for someone that’ll pick a decent fight.”

—

It hasn’t even been a full week since you shook hands with Rosie when you come back from running errands and find the living room taken over by Marion. With their back turned towards you, they greet you with a “Good timing, Suranga” as they pop a pin into the cork board with a flourish. “You got back just in time for my little surprise for you.”

Your eyes drift over the haphazard pile of illegible notes, directories, and profiles until it reaches the board that Marion proudly presents to you with a satisfied smirk on their face. What you first notice is the new web of strings that connect Broucek Group, the trading company represented by Levelhead, and various people of interest. More specifically, they branch out from a portrait labeled “Tina Broucek”, freshly placed next to Levelhead’s.

What Marion’s finger points to isn’t any of the high-profile individuals, though. Above a label that reads “The Shepherds” awaits two headshots that you quickly recognize.

“Pelayo and Ward?” you blurt out, approaching the board and squinting at the photos. Yes, dressed up in a different flavor of professional sensibility, but undoubtedly Pelayo and Ward.

“I found the WolfPack’s equivalent in this world,” they elaborate. “A security company called the Shepherds. As expected, Pelayo and Ward are employed here.”

There’s an irony in that change of name that you can appreciate, but once the initial surprise washes away, the sight of their pictures leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.

“Hm. You don’t look as happy as I thought you’d be,” Marion remarks, tilting their head. “A little appreciation goes a long way, you know?”

Appreciation? No, that’s not right. You’re barely coming to terms with the fact that your specialty isn’t uniquely your own anymore, but your crew—they’re your people. This is like completing your unfinished puzzle in your absence and acting like they did you a favor.

“You didn’t have to,” you say curtly. “I could have done this myself.”

They blink, and then you feel it again. The probing. Just as you shut the curtains to your mind, they sigh. “Okay, fine. I’ll come clean. I went out of my way to figure this out as soon as possible because I wanted to beat you at your own search. So don’t feel too bad.”

It’s your turn to search, no, rummage through their expression in disbelief. You… hadn’t expected them to outright confess their intent, just like that. To your disappointment, the sense of vindication supplied by their admission simmers down your anger.

“I won’t. I wasn’t even thinking of seeking out the others yet, so…” you shrug, slight smile creeping up your lips. “I guess you ran a race against yourself.”

To that, they huff and place a hand on their hips. “If that makes you feel better, then sure. Whatever.”

Only then do you notice the hints of fatigue outside their sharp, focused gaze. The twitching lower eyelid, the slight hand tremors… You almost wonder if you should be concerned before they clap their hands together.

“Can we move on now? There’s plenty to cover still, and it was just about to get interesting.”

“Alright, then. Let’s see the rest of what you’ve got.”

“So the Shepherds are under contract with Broucek Group. Tina Broucek over here, Levelhead’s wife, runs the company and bunch of other charity organizations on top of that. She’s got a lot of interesting connections from this. One of them is a marine life conservation program with ties to the Los Diablos Aquarium—oh, by the way, that aquarium has ties to Becker Industries too. We should take a closer look at it at some point—right, the point. Point is, the Shepherds working with Broucek Group makes sense, considering the the WolfPack we know got hired by Psychopathor, too. So yeah, the Shepherds are currently assigned as guards for Levelhead, which—okay, isn’t it funny that a hero needs his own security team? Goes to show that they’re mostly around for show. Even more so than our worlds, apparently.”

Their ramble reaches a pause only when they finally run out of air and have no choice but to take a sharp inhale. You use that split second to also let go of the breath that you’ve been holding while trying to keep up with how fast they’re talking. “Anyways, we’d need to release the two from their duties to Levelhead before we can recruit them. And to do that—”

“We take a look at their contracts,” you interject, “and see what it’ll take to break them.”

“… Took the words right out of my mouth. As usual.” The flash of irritation across their face doesn’t last very long as their trail of thought chugs on. “In other words, we’ll need copies of those contracts. You can handle that, right?”

“Is that even a question?” you say, your thoughts already planning ahead as you give your cane a twirl. “I guess I’m just surprised that you’re leaving it to me. I thought you’d make some kind of competition out of it.”

They shrug. “I feel like I made my point already. Besides, I have other projects that need my attention.” You sense their thoughts splitting apart in several sharp directions, then proceeding to fizzle out. You step out of their mind when you sense it scratch at itself, the friction producing sparks that never quite ignite. They drag a hand down their face.

“Ugh. Now if you’ll excuse me, I think my body’s reaching its limit, so I’m just going to…”

Leaving behind those last words, they crawl onto the couch and collapse face-first onto the cushions. It doesn’t take long for their breathing to indicate that they’ve fallen asleep.

Once the dust of the past ten minutes fully settles, you squeeze your eyes shut, trying to digest everything that happened ever since your return. With a sigh, you glance back up at the pictures of Pelayo and Ward.

Even after recruiting Rosie, you weren’t sure if you wanted to track down the rest of the crew. You have enough inconsistencies all around you serving as reminders that your past efforts—the networks that you so meticulously built as safety nets to fall back to in case your claws lose grip—amount to nothing in this disturbing world you’ve been dropped in. What good is there to assembling a group that will only uncannily resemble yours, but never be quite them?

You narrow your eyes at the unconscious Marion. They started this project all on their own, without even consulting you, just to lick the wounds on their ego. You just momentarily got carried away by their breakneck pace. Instead of fetching contracts for them, you should be looking for allies that better fit your current needs. Reapproach this issue with better standards than just sentimental value. Trying to break Pelayo and Ward’s contracts would mean potentially antagonizing Levelhead. No point in destabilizing established alliances just for strangers wearing familiar faces.

And yet…

With a sigh, you push yourself up and make your way to the spare communal cabinet. You return with a blanket tucked under an arm, which you then drape over their prone body.

Well, you suppose you can give the idea a bit of thought while you tend to some tears in your clothes.

—

You should have never agreed to this. There are so, so many ways for this plan to go astray. Of all the conditions for contract termination you could have gone for, why did you choose the one that requires Levelhead to be incapacitated?

Oh, right. Because everything else needed you to incriminate Pelayo and Ward in some way. Harder to operate with that record when you have to play on the side of the law.

“You do realize that the Council is never going to let us live this down when they find out, right?” you ask through grit teeth, tightening your grip around the arm Marion offered to you as the two of you made your entrance to the grand hall.

“You mean if they find out,” they reply easily, voice hushed to match yours. “You know how to camouflage your telepathic signature.”

“Of course. But if they do—”

“They won’t, and neither will your doctor dearest, alright?”

Upon sensing a lingering gaze, the two of you both shoot the young attendee a charming smile each to fluster her into averting her eyes. “Levelhead isn’t in armor, and security’s pretty loose,” Marion resumes. “Depending on how well Harbinger does, we might not even have to intervene.”

You shake your head, tightening your shields as the crowd grows thicker. “I still don’t understand how you got him to agree to this.”

“Harbinger or Herald, he’s still Daniel Sullivan,” they say with a crooked grin, as if they just told a hilarious joke only they understand. They might mean that they exploited his consistent love for attention, but you somehow think there’s more to that behind their words.

“… Why do all this?” There’s a ‘for me’ that you leave unsaid, fully aware of how presumptuous that would sound. They must have picked up on it regardless, if their scoff is anything to go by.

“Don’t flatter yourself. I’m just not one to sit out of a good challenge when I see one.”

Maybe the reason why they don’t see this madness for what it is is because they think of this all as one big game. Well, you won’t stand by and let that kind of attitude put you at this much risk.

“It isn’t too late to call this off—” you begin, but soon get interrupted by a finger over your lips.

“Look, Suranga.” They let go of your arm and step forward from their position by your side, tilting their head just enough for your gaze to fall onto them. “I hate to admit it, but you know this city and its people as well as I do.” When a server passes by with a trayful of champagne flutes, they whisk two away and hand one to you. “In other words, I’d like to think you have better reasons than simple practicality for choosing these specific people as members of your crew.”

“Except you left out the interdimensional travel part,” you mutter back, your restless thumb wearing your cane’s handle as you take the offered glass from them. “Enough has changed to render most of my reasons moot.”

But maybe they do have a point. Maybe that’s why you’ve let this frankly impractical plan get this far. What is it that draws you back to these people, you wonder as you take a sip from your glass, all the while knowing that there are far more convenient allies to make in this world?

“I don’t know.” They throw back their head and down their own drink. “You just looked a little lonely to me.”

Before you can petulantly ask them to elaborate where they got that impression from, a fiery, determined signal pierces through your shields, warning you that he’s about to make his entrance.

“Ah, there comes our cavalry,” Marion smiles. Just as you set off to find cover, they stick a foot out to make you trip, then catch you just before you crash onto the floor. In that same moment, the floor-to-ceiling windows shatter beneath the impact of Harbinger’s kick.

“He’s a little faster than you might expect,” they say, heedless of the small cut running down their cheek as they pull you back up from your dip. As the crowd around you breaks out into a panic, they plant a quick kiss on your knuckles before letting you go. “Now let’s see what kind of show he puts on for us.”

[m0ns00n53]

Hi. Yes, this is my insanity [pats on head]. If it sounds familiar, I ripped it right out of my current project because it needs to be its own little stand-alone and I’m just dying to toss it into this void as well. Also because mentally torturing a certain someone (probably not who you’re thinking!) is great catharsis and I highly recommend it😉

Plus this is like, shameless self-promo. You know when you pick up a book and it’s got that two-page hook completely out of context? Or it’s at the end so when little-kid-you picks up the forbidden book to see if the story ends happy, you instead land on the next thriller’s hook-scene and become convinced that all Dean Koontz’s stuff has shitty endings

Welp, that’s this😏

(Oh, content warning: Huge Spoilers for Season 2. dark thoughts, intrusive thoughts—flirting with suicidal, but not quite there. Also, graphic violence to cars, and mention of blood)

If you do happen to find yourself “hooked” (teehee), the fic is

Without further ado:

Anger + Adrenaline (so christened for this post)

03:15

Two hundred horses growl in Jim’s ears, protesting against the two large boulders he’s using to both urge them on and restrain them. He stands still in the darkness, listening to them fight each other, fight the chunks of granite. They’re all too eager to throw themselves into that sturdy acer macrophyllum just sixteen feet ahead, glowing in the headlights.

Jim can relate to that need for movement, for action. It’s why he chose to do this himself. It’s why he just took the jet all the way here. He needs….

In. Out.

He isn’t sure what, exactly, has kept him from releasing the car to its destruction.This road won’t be deserted for long: he should’ve removed the rock from the brake pedal ten minutes ago, gone on to bash out what remained of the windshield and spatter the interior in some of Angus’s bagged blood from Phoenix Medical. Cordoned the whole thing off so they’d have realistic evidence of the crash that has left Jim’s son lying half-dead, twenty miles away in Colorado River Medical—

This is why, he wants to scream as his fist bangs into the hood’s dark, warm metal. This is why Jim stays away. Matilda can judge him as much as she wants, because she won’t ever understand. And that’s fine, as long as she does her job, carries out his orders and minds her own business. She doesn’t have to understand him, or his choices.

In. Out.

She probably doesn’t realize just how easily he can hear her judgment, as well as all the other things she didn’t say during that most recent phone call he’d initiated after too many hours spent tossing and turning. But Jim has always been good at reading between the lines. He didn’t need to witness Dalton’s grief-crazed attack on the Phoenix—the man’s own people….

For a moment, Jim lets himself wonder if there had ever been a time when Jonah might’ve done the same….

Regardless. It had been clear from the very beginning, from the moment Matty had refused to come back and manage the other teams, do her job.

There is a chance…a very high chance….that Angus will leave Jim. Angus will leave him for Ellen….

Ellen.

He doesn’t know what to do with the childish insistence screaming through his head that it’s not fair. This feeling…it’s out of control. He wants to take the precious red Jeep his son loves so much and smash that into scrap as well as this company SUV. After all the years of damages Angus has accrued….

In. Out.

From the very beginning, he was such a destructive kid. Jim had given him the benefit of the doubt when he was seven. Curiosity ran strong in the veins of both sides of the family, and a sealed container of butylithium and nitrogen doesn’t look like much to worry about until it’s too late. That had been on Jim, keeping it in the shed within reach of a precocious little boy who could never keep his hands away from where his mind wanted to go. He still remembers how Ellen had been the exact same way, those inquisitive blue eyes flashing above her mischievous smile, hands always reaching out to touch….

In. Out.

The car had been different. Angus had known exactly what he’d been doing that time.

Still. Jim can’t deny the flash of pride he’d felt, confronting that little perpetrator at the scene of his crime. Nine years old, streaked head-to-toe with dark grease and surrounded by the innards of his victim, Angus had stood tall in their garage, blue eyes remorseful but blond head held high. He hadn’t protested Jim’s charges or his sentence. And watching him tackle it—watching him teach himself how to piece every bit of that engine back together, all on his own….

That had been worth the seven straight weeks of bus fares.

Jim’s pride sours, sticking uncomfortably in his throat. Without further hesitation he circles back around to the drivers’ side of the car, reaches into the footwell and shoves at the granite chunk closest to him—

Ripping his arm out of the way just in time for two hundred horses to charge ahead, roar straight into the solid trunk with an explosion of deafening sound.

There’s no fire. Not that Jim expected one, but with the way things have been going…But that’s one thing that went right, at least. The only light is coming from the tail lights and single headlight that still functions. Passenger’s side.

Jim grabs the designated tree branch—a good size, about half the thickness of his arm and twice as long. Dragging it behind him, he pulls his SAK from his pocket and clicks on its flashlight—pauses.

The place where Angus would’ve sat is a crumpled mess of plastic, aluminum and fiberglass.

In. Out.

Bashing a hole into the windshield has become a non-issue. Jim drops the limb across the jagged edge that remains, halfway into the gaping space and onto what’s left of the driver’s seat. A believable culprit for an impalement….

Without his permission, his brain begins speculating what kind of injuries it’s all covering for. GSW, a stabbing of some kind….

In. Out. There’ll be time to learn about it in all its gory details when he reads the reports stacked on his desk. Another avoidance she knows about, and judges him for.

Which is fine.

As he shines his light over the wreckage once more, Jim lets himself imagine—for the briefest moment—how it would’ve felt to have been behind that wheel. If that had been his foot lifting from the brake, shooting him toward the maple. Would he have been able to leap out, heart pounding with adrenaline, to land in the fallen leaves? Or would he have failed, and turned planted evidence into something all too real….

In. Out.

He bends down and reaches into the little cooler beside him, lifting out the bag of his son’s blood—trying not to notice how heavy it feels, or how it shakes in his hand.

Angus.

Here’s a bonus gif I found in the gif search of Oversight being shitty😒

[emerald-truth]

Gender Presentation and Women's Empowerment in The World Is Not Enough

Hi guys this is something I've been thinking about for a while and this topic is a big reason why TWINE is my favorite Bond movie! I'm gonna talk about how masculine or feminine presentation affect the power, credibility, respect, etc. of the three main women in the movie: Elektra King, Judy Dench's M, and Christmas Jones. I'm going to include examples from the movie plot itself, the context of the making of the movie and reactions to the movie.

Elektra King:

Within the movie itself, Elektra uses a highly feminine presentation to aid in her duplicity by encouraging stereotypes about women as victims who need protection. Conforming to gender norms also helps her wield her sexual power against men (like Bond and Renard) in a heteronormative society. In both these cases she acts as though she is giving up power by giving herself over to the protection of MI6 or the sexual desires of men. Her femininity encourages the association of asking for help with weakness. Highlighting her womanhood also makes sexual desire appear weak in contrast with the virility associated with masculine desire. Both of these illusory weaknesses are intended to make the people around her underestimate her.

But despite using femininity to feign lack of power, Elektra desires and uses power as much as any Bond villain. Despite her physically feminine presentation, she takes on a traditionally masculine role as a businessperson and leader of both her family company and her country. She easily convinces Bond, a strong believer in male sexual dominance, that he is in control of her, when in fact she is manipulating him through the same methods he uses on women, in a strong parallel to Fiona Volpe from Thunderball. However, she goes beyond Fiona's role as a henchperson, by using her sexual prowess to control her own henchman. Many past villains have exercised sexual control to entrap women in aiding their schemes in the way Elektra does to Bond and Renard. For example Kara is manipulated into aiding the villains in The Living Daylights through her romantic and sexual attraction to one of them. By following the example of former villains, Elektra goes beyond the trope of the femme fatale which relies on the perceived danger of women's sexuality to claim a sexuality that is not only dangerous, but powerful in the way a man's is. It has the ability to give her complete control over those who are sexually "weaker" because of their desire for her, inverting the concept of men's desire as strength and women's desire as weakness.

The film itself acknowledges its own bias and that of its audience towards crediting men with more power than women by framing Renard as the villain and having Elektra's villainy as a twist. The franchise relies on stereotypes and its own tropes to make the twist surprising. No one is supposed to expect a woman to have the cunning and strength of will to be a Bond villain. According to Bond movie tropes, a woman is supposed to be either a romantic lead, or a femme fatale henchperson of the main villain, not the main villain themselves. Elektra's feminine presentation plays the same tricks on the audience that it does on the characters. Associations of gender non conformity with villainy also make her conformity less suspect-able.

The way Elektra is perceived is affected by her wealth as well as her gender in ways I'll come back to when I talk about Christmas. But generally, because of her wealth Elektra is able to present in a highly feminine and somewhat erotic way without putting herself in as much danger or losing as much credibility as a lower class woman. She is able to afford elegant clothing which accentuates her feminine sexuality without being considered promiscuous, but also commands the attention and respect that wealth garners regardless of gender. For example, when Elektra enters the casino everyone's attention is on her not just because she is a beautiful and strikingly dressed woman, but because of the money she might spend there.

Overall, Elektra uses femininity and gender conformity as part of her ploy to feign dependence on others and lead them to ignore the power she in fact has over them. To compensate for her disadvantaged position, she exploits the few benefits of a woman's position as long as possible to craft an evil plan that plays to her gender. Both Elektra as a character and the plot of the movie use stereotypes about women's weakness to make it surprising that she had created and controlled the evil plan all along.

M:

M, on the contrary, presents herself more masculinely with a short haircut and more often wearing suit jackets and monochrome outfits. Some of this is a requirement of dressing in what is considered professional clothing for the office, but she presents herself more masculinely than other professional women at MI6 like Moneypenny. You get the sense that she's made this choice in order to gain power in a man's world, and fill the role that, as far as we've seen, has only belonged to men before her.

However, M also wears makeup, skirts, and other feminine accessories. Holding on to some of her femininity asserts power by not giving in completely to the male dominance in her workplace, but it's also part of a delicate balancing act demanded of professional women. In order to reach this high position of power, she's had to conform to both gender standards for women and the masculine standards of MI6 and managerial positions.

In contrast to both Elektra and Christmas, M does not express any sexuality. I think this is partly due to her age, as women are denied sexuality when they are no longer "young and beautiful" and appealing to men. Lack of sexuality could also help M in her position of power because she doesn't face accusations of "sleeping her way to the top" or unwanted advances from colleagues. In order to gain respectable power within the system she had to give up her sexuality, as opposed to Elektra who used sexuality to create villainous power. This dichotomy of power highlights that the power of women's sexuality will always be precarious and open to moral attacks in a way that men's sexuality is not. No matter how much M and others criticize Bond for his sexual exploits, they never put him in danger of losing his job or the respect of MI6. If M had been anywhere near as expressive in her sexuality she might have lost the respect of her employers, and certainly of some fans in the real world.

All of these standards apply to making M acceptable to Bond fans used to a male M as well. Whether M as a character calculated her presentation to the extent that I have here or just enjoys dressing this way, the design of a female M was certainly planned out with even more precision by the movie makers. Whether or not the character of M sacrificed personal style for professional respect, it would have been hard for a female M to exist both in universe and from an audience perspective without the perfect balance of masculine and feminine presentation.

She's taken the opposite path to power from Elektra, by adopting the masculine standards of a male dominated workplace. Her confident mannerisms and steely workplace personality deny any room to be called weak on account of her sex, but unfortunately these are not always enough for a woman to be respected by men. Her carefully constructed presentation backs them up with a masculinity that conveys strength and competence but not deviancy from womanhood.

(there's also plenty to be said about how dench!m falls into motherly tropes in ways that male ms cannot be considered fatherly, but I'm not getting into that here)

Christmas Jones:

Christmas's feminine and sexual presentation mean she is seen as less powerful in a similar way to Elektra, but she does not turn this to her advantage in the same way. There is also a level of class influence on people's opinion of Christmas versus Elektra. Although both dress femininely, Elektra's outfits are luxuriant and expensive and intended for mingling in the high class society she is a part of. Christmas's clothes are more typical of a lower or middle class woman going out with friends. Even when she dresses up more, her dress is simpler and cheaper looking than Elektra's. Christmas lacks the wealth and connections to leverage her femininity for protection in the way Elektra does.

She also seems to lack the desire to use stereotypes of femininity to her advantage, but also the desire to use masculinity to increase her professional prestige as M does. Christmas is not taken seriously, especially by fans, because of her insistence on presenting in a way that is supposedly "pointless" because she does not use it as a tool. Many people say that the reason for the character's lack of motivation for her presentation is that the motivation is in fact that of the movie makers trying to create sex appeal, and therefore Christmas is a poorly constructed character outside of this role. However, in character it is not necessary for her to have a motivation beyond preference. This choice can be seen as a rejection of the standards of dress that M has so closely adhered to to achieve her position.

Although Christmas is intended to be sexually appealing to the audience, we are told that she never has sex with men. Christmas reclaims her sexuality in a different way than Elektra, by dressing "sexily" either for her own enjoyment or that of other women and withholding her sexuality from men. If Elektra follows the classic Bond model of Fiona Volpe, Christmas follows that of Pussy Galore in being robbed of her sexual freedom by becoming just a more challenging trophy for Bond to collect.

Much of the fan response to Christmas was that she was not a believable character because it was not typical or practical for a scientist to dress like she does. Although perhaps it is not practical, I don't think this is a good argument in context because Bond characters, including Bond himself, regularly dress impractically. The conventions of the franchise are that aesthetic is far more important than practicality. I think Christmas's "low class" outfit plays as significant a role in making her an exception as her gender does, partly because this DOES defy the conventions of the franchise where even lower class Bond girls like Plenty O'Toole (my other underrated fav) dress relatively elegantly. Because she cannot avoid certain stereotypes of promiscuity through class privilege like Elektra can, Christmas's dress is considered slutty rather than alluring.

In response to the argument that no scientist would dress like Christmas, I would raise the same points I made about M. The reason professional women do not dress like Christmas is because they know they will not be taken seriously and may be taken advantage of sexually. By refusing to accommodate patriarchal expectations, Christmas has likely given up more prestigious positions in exchange for her right to self expression. I would guess that, although she refuses to answer Bond's questions about her history, part of the reason she is working such a difficult job far from home is because of this refusal to look the part.

Although the character was clearly designed to be sexually appealing, the same is true of every Bond girl. Although the filmmakers intentions with the character were misogynistic, to say that a woman who dresses too provocatively cannot be a scientist is also misogynistic. This combination of sexist and classist stereotypes from audiences prevented more people from enjoying Christmas as a character and exploring in universe motivations for her choices as they might for other poorly written Bond girls. I can understand why people might not want to engage with a storyline that strips a woman of her sexual agency for the sake of a male audience, but personally I find that considering what choices Christmas might be making about her presentation returns some agency to my understanding of her story.

In conclusion!

All three of these women navigate a misogynistic world by claiming power in their own ways. However, in exchange they each have to give something up. Elektra turns her sexual power on those who underestimate it, but in exchange she gives up her respectability. Obviously Elektra is villainous in other ways, but the fear of women's sexual strength plays a part in her fulfilling the movie trope of villain. M gains power within the system, but in exchange gives up her ability to dress either "too" feminine or "too" masculine and her sexuality. Christmas, like Elektra, loses respectability in reclaiming her femininity and sexuality, but because she lacks Elektra's status and refuses to engage sexually with men in any way, she does not gain even illicit power, only personal liberation.

[papercherries]

I've been seeing a post circulate recently about how we're "living in the hunger games" and whilst I think that's true to how we're all feeling culturally at the moment, I think its fair to say that this isn't new. The original post even states that the hunger games was conceived after the writer was flicking through channels during the war in Iraq.

We live in a society that feeds off both ends of a spectrum. One side being suffering, the other being cult like decadance. I believe a good amount of media on tv/radio/newspapers/online can be put somewhere on this spectrum. My point is that for a good while we have rooted our media in both ends of the spectrum. Vietnam war/massive push for culture, Palestine and the Met Gala. For previous events I can only speak for films as they're what I study. But recall the films that come out around certain times, the ones we remember usually relate to the times. 1968, Easy Rider, counter culture Americans exist, people hate them for it. 1976, Taxi Driver. American vet who has been radicalised toward the right because he has been let down by the system. 1992, Boyz n the hood, the lives of black Americans who are once again, being let down by the system. If not being oppressed by it. 2005, V for Vendetta.

I refuse to take content out of the context of their time. But I've cherry picked these films and that's an obvious bias toward the message I'm trying to send. Because with these films, there a million others who are on the other side of the spectrum. Think, within the last year how many movies have released that you feel truly reflect the time we live in.

I can think of a couple but none are based in modern times. When the war in Iraq was happening you had films like American Sniper, The Hurt Locker, Jarhead, fucking die hard 4.0. Whilst we've always had action schlock. American war/vet schlock was hard to avoid then. Some will claim to be anti war, but I believe this to be an impossible feat. They are decadence.

Within the same years though you had Eternal Sunshine, Brokeback mountain, City of God, District 9. All amazing films, but they're closer to the middle of the spectrum, obviously this varies though. But no film can be on the true end of suffering without being non-fiction. Sure, we can wince and squeal at Salo or some Cronenberg nightmare. But it will never compare to the horrors we witness on our televsions and on our phones.

The nauseating effect of true decadence is also only available in the world of non-fiction.

The reason it's progressivly feeling more and more like the hunger games is how we access this information. Or more precisely the rate at which we interact with it and how its presented to us. The Internet is an independent space, It is not ruled but it can be controlled. Checkmarks, verification and paid subscriptions. Ways of being sure that what you're seeing is "real".

A verified news outlet who is supporting the genocide in Palestine will not release an article for Palestine. Most news outlets are owned by the same people. I'm looking at Rupert Murdoch here. This means these "verified sources" won't report a lot on the genocide because it doesn't suit them. They would rather report on the protests and the injuries of the few Israeli occupants. But news outlets are also big companies, they specialise in different things to release a whole package. So you'll have the same places releasing statements on the metgala.

(Though, I'm also not saying we shouldn't have verified accounts and such because this same system can be used for other nefarious purposes. Like making a fake account to pretend your a black American who is voting for their local republican senator).

Now if this were in a closed system, like a newspaper. It would be fine for them because they can have their cake and eat it too. Release something denouncing Palestine and showing the "nationalist might" of the occupants whilst also reporting on the metgala. Their ideals are presented and they've covered all bases. The Internet doesn't allow for this kind of system. The people who are reporting on/for Palestine are the people. Independent online accounts who go against the will of these companies.

And whilst the companies are big, they only have one social media account (per country sometimes) . Which can't fight against the massive influx of pro Palestine posts. So what happens is, you end up seeing both ends of the spectrum at the same time. Both real suffering and decadence, appear before your very eyes.

The same thing was happening to Suzanne Collins. She witnessed both ends of the spectrum at the same time.

But you must remember, this isn't new. We've always had this spectrum. From Lords and gods to celebrities and presidents. Go to war and be a hero! A tale as old as time. The plague and the Holy War.

There are only two ways to remove this media spectrum. Remove one side entirely; by removing all suffering from media, there will only be decadence to watch. Or by removing the systems that create the spectrum in the first place.

The decadent allow the suffering to continue. The decadence cannot survive with suffering. They cannot survive without their wars, their slavery and their theft. Not all suffering is equal, not all decadence neither. But in either case, there is too much.

People with deep pockets tend to fill them with the bodies of men.

[dearweirdme]

https://www.tumblr.com/dearweirdme/743956303944318976/so-i-the-jm-lukewarm-anti-is-back-i-saw-that?source=share

I was asked in the comments to contribute my opinion. The other members have said themselves that Jimin is the most traditional and conservative when it comes to the hierarchy of respect. He's said to be the one who adheres to honorifics, for example. He has been seen scolding both JK and Taehyung when he thinks they step out of line in that regard. He takes a big brother, caretaker approach with Taehyung despite there being only a few months between them and despite the fact that Taehyung actually acted in a protector role himself towards Jimin when they first met, they seemed to have settled into that natural dynamic of Jimin acting somewhat like an elder towards Taehyung. This is usually a sign of someone who does subscribe to the traditional culture of respect. You can contrast this with how Taehyung treats JK much more equally, however if the assumption is that they're dating then this might not be the best comparison since their interactions will be skewered by a different kind of intimacy and closeness.

Perhaps a good example might be a pairing like Jin and Yoongi or Jin and Namjoon. You'll notice that Jin very rarely, if ever, reinforces the honorific standard on his own behalf. We saw him undermine Jimin's attempts to remind Taehyung of it during their fight and said it didn't really matter. However, he will 'pull rank' if it's to benefit one of the others, especially the younger members so this strikes me as Jin being someone who either doesn't feel a personal connection to the traditional ways and doesn't see a benefit in them or he actually enjoys rebelling against them.

How a Korean holds themselves does tie in closely with how they lean traditionally. As a conservative culture, strong displays of individuality or assertiveness are not viewed as positives or within keeping with social harmony

Taehyung and Jin, for example, who have shown a more lax approach to honorifics are also known for being the most likely to hold their ground against the company and openly take swipes at HYBE or display sarcasm and boldness and a determination to do what they want. They are more likely to openly rebel against what is expected of them but guaranteed, there are those who will use this to negatively define their personalities the same way agreeability is used to negatively define a person in others.

Jimin and Hobi, who is also said to be quite the disciplinarian with the younger members, are more likely to think carefully about how they come across because how they present themselves ties into their idea of respect and how much of themselves they feel comfortable showing. It's telling that members have pointed them out as having the 'scariest' tempers.

Neither approach is right or wrong. It's just a personal matter. Some people are more guarded than others. Some people are more stubborn than others. You'll find people who admire or condemn these differences in personalities based on their own. I admire Taehyung and Jin's assertiveness. I also think being guarded is a smart choice in their industry.

Regarding the accusations about Jimin being fake or a company man that I've seen throughout the years, that's an unfortunate consequence of carefully and wisely curating how you want to appear to the world but we also have to consider the context to see if its fair to label him as such and I don't think it is because if you take a group of 7 individuals, each with their own ambition and emotions, is it really likely that they're all going to speak so highly of a member who throws them under the bus to advance himself? The members themselves have told us that Jimin is one of their greatest supports, he is their shoulder to cry on---we've seen examples of this with our own eyes.

Does that really sound like someone who never sticks up for his friends or just leaves them floundering to suit himself? Is that the kind of person that anyone would really trust when they are at their lowest emotional point.

Jimin might appear to be the most reasonable member the same way Hobi appears to be super laid back but behind Hobi's sunshine, humor and bubbly personality is a person who can be just as focused and serious when he needs to be.

And I would guess the same applies to Jimin since there must be some reason why the others, even Namjoon, view him as so strong and sturdy that they turn to him for support. This is not the kind of man that trembles and turns his back on his members when they need him most.

Who they show us is unlikely to be who they are behind the scenes. The same way do we really believe Hobi is 24/7 smiles and laughter?

Each member decides which parts of themselves they want to show and which parts they don't but, to me, BTS has always seemed to take their group first mentality very seriously and that means even in the face of the company. I really couldn't think of a single member that I would imagine putting the company above their members or working with the company against the best interests of the group. We have heard how the members take a 7 or nothing approach when it comes to agreeing contracts and re-signing and I think the fact that they are still visibly close and comfortable with each other after so many years is a good sign that they carry it through.

So in conclusion, if Jimin was all the things people say and think he is, why would anyone else in the group trust him or have confidence in them to share their deepest feelings with him? You would think after 10 years of being screwed over by a company man, the others would have learned their lesson and kept their distance but we know that they don't so isn't it more likely that there is no weight or legitimacy to this kind of thinking? Since people tend to even instinctively veer away from people who throw them under the bus not get closer to them.

Hi again anon!!

Thanks for this! So insightful!

[pencil-peach]

G Witch Onscreen Text: Episode 3

This is part FOUR in my ongoing attempt to transcribe and discuss all of the text that appears on screens and monitors in the show! Because it's COOL!!!! HUAHHHH!!!

<< Click here to go back to Episode 2!

Take My Hand..... Let us go....

TEXT (Bottom) No. 001 MOM

This is just the UI that appears during the video call, not much to say, but the fact that No. 001 appears above Prospera's contact name in Suletta's Phone probably means that contacts aren't sorted in alphabetical order, but by the order they were registered into the phone.

Suletta's Mom is No. 001 because she's the first (and by this point in the story, probably only,) contact in Suletta's phone.

Following this same line of reasoning, Sarius is registered 39th in Shaddiq's phone, and his contact name isn't "Dad" or something like that, it's just his full name, Sarius Zenelli. All business with this guy, huh?

TEXT: ID: 5011-01 NAME: PROSPERA MERCURY COMPANY: Shin Sei Development Corporation POSITION: REPRESENTATIVE PLACE OF BIRTH: MERCURY FIELD: PERMET MINING TECHNOLOGY, MS DEVELOPMENT CHILDREN: 1 SPOUSE: DECEASED PERSONAL HISTORY:

Assigned to mercury development group Married in the field Gave birth to SULETTA MERCURY Injuries to half her body from resource mining accident

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION: Mining accident victim

HOKAY. There's a lot to dig into here.

So first, minor thing but I figure it important to mention, the ID on Prospera's profile is 5011-01. The first half of the ID matches that of Aerial's Permet Id, which is 5011-0083. What this means particularly is beyond me I think. Maybe the first half of an MS ID is in reference to its creator? Maybe it's just coincidence? Who knoooows

It's very interesting how almost all of the data that's recorded here is just straight up wrong. Prospera was not born on Mercury, didn't marry in the field, (well...i guess technically she did. Not THIS field though.)

But what I think is most important here is that Prospera is in fact receiving workman's compensation for a mining accident. It's easy to assume that this is also misinformation, that there never really WAS a mining accident, but lets think about it for a minute.

We first hear about this accident during the Shin Sei hearing, when Prospera claims the accident took her arm and face. We KNOW that she's lying about this, because she lost her arm back when she was a child. It doesn't explain her helmet, though.

Then we see this, and learn that she's actively receiving workman's compensation for the incident. In episode 24, we finally have a name to the condition she has: "Data Storm Infection," and we learn that it's actively paralyzing her body.

So, I think the mining accident did really happen. The resources they were mining for would had to have been permet, which would explain how she became infected with a Data Storm.

This is mostly speculation on my end, but look at Prospera's Permet scar. It's focused around a single point. We can't know what specifically happened, but if I had to make an assumption, during the accident she probably got blasted in the head by a potent chunk of permet at that spot. Or something like that. I could talk about it another time.

Anyway, moving on !

TEXT: (El4n's phone) EXCHANGE COMPLETED PILOTING DEPARTMENT ID No: LP-041 NAME: SULETTA MERCURY CONTACT INFORMATION REGISTERED (When the two are in the process of registering, the tab says ADD FRIENDS instead of EXCHANGE COMPLETED)

Just the contact exchange screen.

Not text, but I think knowing now that Jeturk Heavy Machnery was the top company in the Benerit Group gives new context to how swiftly the company began falling in the ranks entirely because Guel lost the title of Holder. It really does give you a lot of sway within the Group.

TEXT Subject: Regarding the next Duel From: Vim Jeturk To: Lauda Neill

Follow my orders for the next duel. Make sure to look into the attached file.

Regards,>>attachment file

This is the email Vim sends Lauda before the duel, about rigging the sprinklers to go off.

Not going to transcribe all this again, just wanted to point out that when one of the main settings in Aerial is yellow, that means its currently active/online

TEXT: SEMI-AUTONOMOUS MODE [???]

Cant read the sub heading in this shot, but we can see that the Darilbalde is currently on Semi Autonomous Mode

TEXT: INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM LOCATION: 7TH TACTICAL TESTING SECTOR CURRENT STATUS: ABNORMAL STATUS: LOCAL HEAT ABNORMAL. COOLING BY WATER

Here we get a brief look at the environmental control system that Felsi and Petra messed with for the duel. They turned the humidity up to 98

When Suletta wins the duel, she already has the Holder emblem and colors on her Duel card. She also has 2 wins, so her and Guel's first duel is no longer voided.

TEXT: KP001 ELAN CERES CONGRATULATIONS!

When Suletta wins the duel, Elan is the first person to send her an email congratulating her on the victory

She also gets a bunch of other messages from other students at the school. Most of these are repeats of each other, so I'll go ahead and only type out the unique ones: YOU'VE DONE IT! CONGRATS! SO COOL! WELL DONE, MERCURIAN GIRL! HOW LUCKY! WOOHOO! NICE FIGHT! CONGRATS! YOU WON! MERCURIAN GIRL...G... GIRL, DONT LOSE! I THOUGHT YOU COULD DO IT! YOU'RE A SPECIAL... GREAT! GREAT! BEAUTIFUL VICTORY!

When Miorine tells Suletta to set her inbox only to friends, you can see that she does at the top there.

No text here. I just really like this frame.

TEXT MOTION DETECTOR ON

Nothing super interesting here. I just like it

Anyway!!! THAT IS ALL!! WE HAVE MADE IT THROUGH!!! As a reward, here is a funny image

Me when a pretty girl is nice to me one time.

Lots of fun stuff this episode! Please excuse the tangent on Prospera, I just think she's really interesting. I think my favorite email from this episode was GIRL, DONT LOSE..... GIRL...YOU HAVE TO WIN....!!!! I'm still having a lot of fun with this! And I hope you've been enjoying it too! Until next time....hoyaaaahh...

Click here to go to Episode 4! >>

Click here to go to the Masterpost!

[kawaiifansblog]

Hi guys, today I came to explain about cutecore, which is racist, the same thing with cutegore and kawaii.

Many saw on fandom week that cutecore was a musical genre to avoid shadowbans for gore, I don't know what else I'll explain, THAT'S A LIE!

Cutecore is nothing like that!

I will explain everything

It is linked to pedophiles and incest because it became very popular in the ageplay community on Twitter

And racism because is basically the Americanized kawaii jojifuku Soq, that is, whitewashing or racism

Find excuses to defend something disgusting like this, it's sick

Because technology wasn't advanced enough for that

And also basically cutecore only existed because people wanted to exempt incest

Because what they did to hide gore was actually only putting it on for milliseconds at the time

Find excuses to defend something disgusting like this, it's sick

Because they want to defend cutecore and make excuses

And as if that weren't enough, these people also romanticize food problems

Then people all had incest and pedophilia fetishes And also basically cutecore only existed because people wanted to exempt incest

Grew up in that ageplay Twitter community

This refers to erasing a culture Making it Americanized and sexual

"But Japan created kawaii to hide its crimes"

on the historical side of Kawaii, it happened as a form of rebellion against Japan during the Second World War.

But after that, the government itself and large Japanese companies took advantage of the aesthetics. But it emerged among young people to show opposition to political authorities

But nowadays it is spread as a way to forget everything that happened.

Xenophobia because it takes away ALL Asian culture, racism because it has the idea of whitening and standardizing, unhealthy origins that support pedophilia, incest and sexualizes kawaii

Just because you have color is racist

And yes

In addition to erasing not only culture but history, and if there is a term that is Jojifuku, kawaii, kawaikei and so on, cutecore and kawaiicore should not be used

So bro, these people who base themselves on what they see on Tiktok don't have a shred of personality

Everything, any subculture, any different style that enters Tiktok, is totally changed

Refers to erasing culture, making it Americanized and sexual

Besides what that is, the person doesn't even seem to research when using a clueless term, and still pays to know about it.

"I call my boyfriend "daddy"

OH HOW I'M ANGRY AT PEOPLE WHO CALL THEIR BOYFRIEND DADDY, I'm sorry if someone does, but it's strange for you to see your romantic partner as a father figure.

In addition to many racists, those who use it are idiots who don't study or ignore ALL explanations

Exactly bro, There has been a prevalence of people abusing aesthetics to glorify violence, self-harm in their media, as well as general toxic behavior (harassment, suicide baiting, etc.) it's fucked up

And they use characters aimed at children, with blood, things like that.

That famous "kawaiigore"

I disagree with a Brazilian kawaii YouTuber, she made a video talking about cutecore being racist and they told her to kill herself and even sent a STALKER to chase her

I hope I helped

yes, but cutecore was created by people who have a fetish for the wrong things and cutecore does indeed remove the Asian features of kawaii, sexualizing it by putting it in an Americanized and sexual context cutecore kawaiicore cutegore are invalid everything and any subculture and cuk has its name completely changed when it enters tiktok

It has been popularized in communities that romanticize self-harm, incest, and pedophilia. Plus they romanticize eating disorders.

Fact.

When we think about this thing that was created recently that was emerging recently and it unfortunately appeared within Twitter itself and I disagree that it was basically something more succinctly a more fetishistic form, well, clearly fetishistic, you can even notice that they are clothes that are much more shorts that are very sexual characters and to be able to sexualize everything that is cute and adorable and they also changed a lot of Asian things to American things her procedure in a specific part of Twitter which is a part of I I don't know the name but basically it's one that romanticize self-mutilation and incest then it started because firstly because they started this self-mutilation thing and people were interested in the content, people really liked it and

American things her procedure in a specific part of Twitter which and a part of I NN know the name more basically and one that romanticizes self-mutilation and incest then it started because first because they started this self-mutilation thing and people were interested in the content people liked it a lot and it turned out that these people had very specific tastes, which are things that have to do with cutecore, if you have a lot of very sexualized anime, there's something like calling your boyfriend daddy, that's because the cutecore community that emerged was already a problematic community that was that romanticization self-mutilation and within this community these communities are super connected one of them is for example one for eating problems and then there were some hashtags that they used to indicate that they liked minors or older people basically the tags that they used emojizimhos you know what it means z00f1l14 and.. p3d0f1l14 lolicon and shotacon these things like they used these tags so much that these emojis are actually very cute they are cute But for them there was a meaning that they put on their profile according to things that they were attracted to, to look for someone who liked the same things and, in addition, it was a version of jojifuku itself and shibukawaii completely.

Vo1dchan and the 4chan trolls (creators of cutecore kawaiicore cutegore They shared incest pornography and gore with each other I was one of the closest people to him and I met him on the internet.In addition, they advocated Nazism and Adolf Hitler. And there was a fetish for pedophilia and incest Cutecore grew in the ageplay community on twitter On Twitter there was a community that romanticized self-harm and eating disorders. They used emojis that comshippers and proshipers used, they had a meaning

[idrellegames]

Not an ask. But thank you so much for the aspec representation in Wayfarer. It's so refreshing to see an alloaro character like Veyer that is canonically alloaro and isn't the character archetype that sleeps around a lot and you just hope that they are around but then they eventually gets "fixed" by love. Anyways thanks for being awesome.

I so very rarely see alloaro characters handled with respect in fiction since it's so easy to boil their traits down to "noncomittal person who sleeps around until the right person comes around and fixes them". It's the flip same of the same coin as romantic asexuals, where the character gets boiled down to "inexperienced person who has never had sex until the right person comes around and fixes them."

Sexual attraction and romantic attraction are so often tied together as a single experience. And it is this way for many people, but not for everyone. Just speaking generally as an ace person, my experience is that aromanticism and asexuality are more palatable for non-acespec folks when they're treated as something that goes hand in hand. But being aroace isn't the only way to be aromantic or asexual - there's a huge variety of way people experience attraction and calling treating romantic and sexual attraction as the same thing is a disservice to everyone (even for allosexuals whose sexual orientation may not match up with their romantic one!).

Within the context of storytelling - at least in western writing - there's a narrative demand to meet certain expectations otherwise the trajectory may fall flat and be seen as unfulfilling. A committed relationship that includes both romance and sex is typically the desired end goal with fictional relationships (look at any romantic comedy, even going back to Shakespeare - Shakespearen comedies always end with a wedding). You can also look to the prevalence of the OTP in fandom - there's a desire to see your favourite characters get together in a specific way and to have that relationship come to fruition. And it is quite fun! I don't mean this as a knock against it - I enjoy OTPs myself, I love romance in fiction so much. I love a satisfying romance arc. Most of my OCs for video games have relationships and its a focal part of their character development.

But this does mean that aromantic and asexual people often sit on the sidelines because they don't fit perfectly into that type of story structure. So it can be very difficult to include them. They blur the lines of the format. They make it a little messy. They don't match the expectation.

I think with aromantic characters, too, both writers and audiences don't know what to do with them. There's always this lingering sense of disappointment that romance is off the table, that their arc isn't going to culminate in a committed relationship. Even in the world of IF and gaming, we don't have terminology to classify aromantic characters who can have some kind of relationship with the player character because the terminology is Romance Option (RO) or Love Interest (LI). Wayfarer's character roster is evidence of how much of a stumbling block this is - Aeran and Veyer are included on it as "romances", even though they aren't in the traditional sense (Aeran falls into the "conditional" label, Veyer is in the "tryst" one, but neither of them are technically "romances" in the traditional sense).

As for Veyer themself, they aren't interested in romance. They are in their 60s, they've been around the block a few times, they know what they do and do not want. They know what their life is like and what they can and cannot commit to due to outside factors. They may be smitten with people they find interesting or intriguing, but romance or long-term commitment isn't a part of that.

This doesn't mean that they can't be compassionate or genuinely care about their partners or enjoy their company, they're just going about it in a different way.