#cause it's not only about that and it has a great moral debate about what if people would age but couldn't die

[jayktoralldaylong]

One of my favourite things about Arcane is that all the couples can be read as toxic, which is GREAT.

I'm tired of people bringing morality debates into dark media. Let dark media be fucking dark. You guys wouldn't survive a day in the TMA fandom, needing everyone to be as good as gold. How are they going to make for enjoyable complex characters if they're not morally grey. In fact, I wish there'd been more expansion on just how morally black they can become!

"CaitVi is so toxic" According to lesbian statistics, that sounds just about accurate. 💀 Heck, I wish Caitlyn had done more (Not really, but it would have been nice to further explore the darkness in her heart). Isn't it adorable how she immediately folded as soon as Vi called her cupcake? Caitlyn's like one of those villains that will consistently do the most....until it comes to someone else hurting her girlfriend. The only one allowed to hurt her girlfriend is her. 💀

Then let's talk about Vi. Someone pointed out how Vi never cared about Zaun's independence in the first place and many people yelled that they were wrong. But actually, they were right. Vi never wanted Zaun. Zaun was Silco's dream, and Jinx inherited that dream cause Silco would never shut up about it. Vi wanted Piltover to take responsibility for all the shit they allowed to happen in the Undercity. That's a part of the reason she joined up with Caitlyn in the first place. Let's not forget she wasn't dissuaded when she dragged Jayce down to fight with her and he killed a child. Children been dying, it's been her whole life. Someone needed to do something about it, and Zaun would have just isolated the people from all the privileges that Piltover SHOULD have been providing for them. Some people just can't accept that Independence cannot in fact solve every problem, and sometimes independence is colonisers running away from the responsibility of fixing the mess that they started in the first place.

Besides, we all know Vi joined up with the Enforcers because "I feel like I am worthless if I can't be of service." She'd already run out of family members to serve, Caitlyn was the next best thing. She's just like Jayce.

And speaking of Jayce, let's talk about his violent levels of codependency with anyone who'll give him attention. People LOOOOVE to talk about Mel, but it's there with Viktor too. When bro wasn't basing his worth on his inventions, he was centering it around Viktor.

Viktor who decided at some point in his life that he would not LIVE without Jayce. He was fine dying without him, but living without him was unacceptable. Oh how healthy. 🙄😂 Viktor be the kind of toxic ex to threaten divorce 500 times over, then burn the world when you actually leave him. Jayce is no better cause he's the kind of guy to keep going back to his toxic Ex.

Yes, Mel is manipulative. That's what I love about her. How are you guys failing to give this woman the praise of being an outsider in Piltover, but running their entire council. 💀 Girl raises her hand once and the whole government starts spinning. She was the best sugar mummy Jayce and Viktor could ever ask for. She kept the whole city running. Literally the entire of Piltover dancing on her palm. And yes she manipulated Jayce but let's not forget she thought that was a love language. 💀 You wanna be mad at someone, be mad at Ambessa for raising her that way.

I also don't think it's fair to blame her for the Undercity situation, she's not native. Monkey see, monkey do, and not a single one of those Council members actually cared about the situation down there, it was deplorable. 💀 Jayce did way more in his two weeks as Councillor than any of those drug pushing, money laundering, Piltovian heads of government.

And that just covers MelJayVik, we don't even need to get fully into TimeBomb, cause we know what's wrong there. 💀 Surely we have not forgotten the many teammates Jinx has killed, but making sure to never kill Ekko cause that's her man. Ekko has a lot to unpack, like how his consistent and unwavering love for Jinx is an indication of a lot of doors he might not be ready to open. I know they dynamics go crazy and I love to see it.

Ambessa and Sevika are a crack ship but I'm sure we all know bedroom dynamics go crazy with Mrs. Warlord and Miss Liberation. I love it when characters clash in a toxic heap. It's insane and should be explored.

Quit saintifying my toxic ships with your woke morality debates. If you want everyone to be sunshine and rainbows then you should be watching literally anything else. 💀 "It's not healthy." GOOD, I like it that way. 💀 Angst, spice and trauma are the recipe for a plethora of explorative fanfiction. Any of their dynamics can be taken in any toxic direction and I want that EXPLORED.

[prettyboykatsuki]

tw for very very brief mentions of rape and incest and other taboo subject matter - only brought up for discussion.

i feel like it is kind of beating a dead horse when i bring up the relationship between fiction, reality, and the exploration of dark/taboo. given the nature of my blog and the change it's made over time—it's brought up repeatedly many times and in many context in which im forced to defend.

outside of that though, i have never really taken a moment to thoroughly break down the reason (or one of them) i find the it important which is the idea of fictional exploration as a sort of third space of processing and development.

there are many arguments surrounding the exploration of taboo relationships, ideas, and incidents in fiction built on the basis of morals. our greater, societal infrastructure relies on the idea of morality to justify any and all material violence. whether that violence be physical harm, systemic injustice, or psychological / verbal abuse etc.

there's a quote by frank bidart that goes "you can convince human beings to do anything if you convince them it is moral" that i think of often when we debate about what is moral and why. all people are equally capable of committing great material harm to other people if they are under the impression they are in the moral right.

so you examine morality as a mechanism for forming social contracts. it is largely debated whether or not morality is subjective or objective - but regardless of either thing, it is a fundamental part of creating a social circle. big or small.

human beings are also naturally social creatures. we want the approval and attention of our peers and we want community. and it will cause us to act in ways, whether that be conscious or unconscious, that are unsavory. whether that be passivitiy to maintain the status quo or othering another person in order to gain social status or favor.

a lot of the people who are staunchly against any forms of taboo in the exploration of fiction are people engaging with this kind of social behavior. at the core of there reasoning, they are seeking solace with peers over a sense of moral superiority all while not contributing anything materially—except often the verbal abuse and harassment of the opposite party.

none of this is very novel for me to point out. there are also plenty of other things that contribute to why this kind of debate happens online so frequently, particularly a strong taboo towards any all sexual content stemming from old-school religious conservatism and other fascist ideas etc.

but i bring it up because of how it relates to my feelings about the concept of fiction as a sort of third space in the same way the internet is a sort of third space.

engaging in this kind of moral crusading online is done by people who are seeking out social spaces that connect them to other people. this is especially true online as the internet has become a third space for people to interact with others that share similar interest and views. they do this to have a space to reaffirm themselves and their morality.

most importantly, they do this because the internet is an easily accessible space to like-mindedness and self-assurance. it's unreliability is overshadowed by the fact that young people engaging in this kind of critique can get ahold of their peers easily this way. humans are social. they seek companionship and our real life third spaces have become more and more sparse over the years.

so, online spaces have become a place for people to process their social development and their emotions with their peers.

now there's an understanding—that people need a way to process their internal world, concepts and ideas somehow.

but there are social contracts that can't be broken in these online spaces. though they are meant to be an escape from the constraints of real life, you are still subject to scrutiny and at risk of becoming a bad actor that is shunned by their own online community and circle of friends.

on top of that, if human beings are capable of committing horrific acts of violence, they are just as capable and if not more, of experiencing that violence in their lives. this also requires processing similar to the normal, everyday social processing people do online.

this much is obvious, even to many people who oppose the idea that fiction doesn't equal reality. you'll often hear them utter words about seeking counseling / therapy underneath posts involving dark subject matter.

but then, there are social contracts of acceptability and palatability. and more, there is inaccessibility.

all human beings are subject to some form of violence or some other type of struggle. whether that be in their class, race, or sexuality - the average person has material conditions and complex emotions that can't be neatly resolved nor shared comfortably with their peers.

everyone needs space to air these aspects of themselves out healthily. you are automatically going to experience a specific amount of negativity in your life that requires an outlet and there is no real way to find a universal solution to answering those feelings. unresolved, it can lead to substance abuse or suicidal thoughts/

and there is no universal, easy to access place for people to unilaterally express and process their feelings and thoughts.

but there is writing fiction.

this, to me, is the one argument that i think is important to bring it up but rarely does. because there are many angles to approach this discourse and this is just one of them.

writing is also a kind of third space. a place to communicate that isn't home or work. a third space in to connect with and break down these emotions—somewhere that can be shared to find camaraderie. it can also be shielded to hide away from the scrutiny of your peers. it is a place where you can inadvertently process these great, overbearing emotions that is neutral and welcome to all.

and it's not that fiction can't cause harm at all. because it certainly can and has

but the very presence of taboo is not the sole cause of harm in what makes something fictional hurtful. propaganda and insensitive messaging and all the ways fiction can hurt people exist with in a predefined context and social climate. that kind of harm spreads through massive scales of government and print and makes its way onto shelves.

more than that, human beings have a sense of morality. it is agreed upon that rape, incest, violence and murder are materially harmful. in the misplaced desire for censorship, it seems people are attempting to affirm this by monitoring works of fiction that have this subject matter at all.

but in that monitoring, you are taking away what makes these kinds of spaces comfortable - which is a lack of hostility.

if you believe this to be the most optimum solution, i implore you to critically examine whether or not you think it morally correct to take away from someone the means to process their emotions. and if you believe still, that it's the best thing to do for all parties i next ask, how will you then make space for them? what space will replace this one?

what are the other solutions have the same level of access to all? can you implement a space for someone with no other healthy outlets, to vent and untangle and smooth out these feelings, without requiring the hypothetical labor of someone else? can you promise you will be able to provide something that offers a similar catharsis for the often deeply complicated feelings being addressed (whether that be directly or indirectly) through the presence of themes like incest, rape, or abuse? can you provide another alternative to the repetitive behaviors of trauma that insist on recreating / imagining these harms in a controlled environment over and over again?

to be clear, it is unnecessary and against my beliefs that you must have experience those things directly to write about them. in fact my point is the opposite.

the thematic concepts that come along with the taboos are the catharsis themselves. a person with a disconnected trauma about neglect or abandonment finding healing in the themes of incest about forbidden love or love that goes against all. a person with no trauma at all, who longs to be free from the daily life stresses of work may find catharsis in the writing of rape which strips autonomy and choice.

human beings are complicated. these examples may feel extreme to you. you are welcome to view them that way. that is your right.

but for other people it is a good solution, one of the best solutions - to strip down these desires bare and explore them where no one is being hurt. where they do not hurt themselves materially or anyone else. art is one of the few spaces you have for yourself. you can argue that distribution is the problem—but if you are able to identify when it is wrong, does your moral superiority extend so far as to believe that that's something only you can do?

and most importantly - are you prepared to take that space from them and provide other outlets? do you think it fair to prevent people from safely having access to something that you, yourself, depend on heavily for social and emotional affirmation?

are you willing to hold space for them when no one else can or no one else will?

[blue-bird-lamentation]

I was walking on the street and remembered one of my favourite books I've read so far portrays the relationship between a man and a personified death and it made think about how this explains how i like Ryomina so much...

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV S2 Ep3 Musings - Loumand

Last post, I promise; I needed another nap; this ep's a freaking rollercoaster. And these two queens nearly gave me a stress ulcer!

DEBATABLE, Louis. I can think of FAR worse vamps than you, love.

Why're y'all having this whole conversation where anyone can hear?

They got Sartre's wall-eyes down; good makeup this season, team! 👌

DreamStat's a Loumand bed-death truther, jfc. 😭

I wanna know EXACTLY what Armand sees--or "feels"--whenever DreamStat pops up in Lou's head. Cuz he clearly knows precisely where Les is; he looks right in his direction. But does he HEAR Les too? (God I hope not, this song would've had me SEETHING--Back to Hell with you! 😅)

"Oh dear" indeed; I was HOLLERING.

SAM WAS DEVOURING THIS SCENE HOLY GOD GO AWAY DEMON

Armand looked PISSED, I was scared for Louis' life! And he DOES know, actually, yes Lou. I can almost GUARANTEE that he knows PRECISELY where Lestat is AT THIS VERY MOMENT, yes Lou.

If only you knew.... 😬

Claudia's suffered more than Christ. And nice cut to Daniel sneaking around with Raglan James as Armand talks about Furies punishing "human wrongdoing." It's really interesting that Armand told the lawyer that LOUIS is the owner of the paintings. Is he the owner of the penthouse too? HOW MANY DEEDS DOES HE HAVE, ROLIN?

I wonder what AMC might be saying about Loumand's art collection, not just wrt what we know about art heist!Armand (which we'll likely see a nod to in Ep4 at the Louvre); but also wrt what we know about Dubai's godawful neocapitalist hellscape economy, and Loumand's "moralizing" about Parisian black markets in S01E02.

I wonder if that's the excuse Armand'll give the coven when Louis shows up for dinner in Ep4--very much NOT dead; and rips out Santiago's tongue.

WILD voice-over, cuz you KNOW that's what Santiago was thinking, too, LOL. (You wish, Francis.) But yes: Louis' finna end your whole career. XD

Another TERRIFYING jumpscare from the coven, like in Ep2 with Annika. Louis, I am shocked & appalled--can you not HEAR all these vamps planning your bloody murder around you? CLAUDIA! WTF!?

But this is how you know Armand's true personality--he hates getting his hands dirty. He kills all the time, but he makes his victims' deaths pretty. He'd rather sit back & let Lestat/Louis come in and wreck his whole coven, even though he has the power to just light those mofos up all on his own! I wish AMC emphasized a bit more that Armand not only writes/directs the plays--he's an ACTOR, too. And istg he's an expert at PRETENDING to be helpless, meanwhile he's the strongest vamp that's NOT one of the Children of the Millennia (thanks to how well Marius made him).

Armand, that is LOW; waiting until Claudia's stuck under the oaths b4 you tell her she's guilty of breaking Great Laws she doesn't even know about yet. WTF?

How TF you gon' hold Louis accountable for following the Laws when he wasn't even allowed to be in the effing room when they were read!? He's not even a member! WTF! (I get it--any rogue vampires are subject to death, yadayada; we know it's a stupid policy.)

I love how he plans to leave by himself here--it had nothing to do with picking "another one" over Claudia. He just didn't want to hold her back anymore. And his presence was causing problems. 😭 It's so cute that Louis' stipulation about London was that if it's "too large" he'd leave and go to Ireland (?!?)--he's become agoraphobic or something? He just wants to be alone in his hermit hole--MOOD. 😭

Good to get confirmation that the Fire Gift here is Armand and blessedly NOT Santiago--so why's he zooming around in the sewers?

Look, sometimes folks make terrible first impressions--Lestat was being hella racist, Louis' always playing defense, Armand was finna kill Louis in a gay public park. It happens.

Foreshadowing like crazy, as usual.

WILD thing to say. I'm gonna cry, please stop.

(What kinda hypocrisy is that, when you were made young your dang self!?) She's already 30+ years old--maybe she'll last a little longer if y'all (read: sexist, racist, ageist, ableist, etc society) don't eff around tryna make her life even harder! But AMC's deliberately cutting Claudia's life in half, compared to the books, cuz misogynoir's real and Claudia gets NOTHING out of vampirism, not even a fair chance. And y'all let her into the coven KNOWING how much she loves y'all, and KNOWING y'all were gonna kill her. EFF THIS WHOLE COVEN, ARMAND INCLUDED. (Lemme calm down--this kind of betrayal is exactly how Lestat must've felt in S01E07; I get it; they're getting a taste of their own medicine. But LESTAT EFFING HAD IT COMING. The coven should've just told them: y'all got til sunrise to GTFO our territory, you're not welcome here. This whole bit's unnecessary.)

THE PARALLELS ARE PARALLELING

SKILL ISSUE. Cuz Louis' got the least power, and he's finna clear that whole bish out in just a couple episodes. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Louis, love, ARMAND DON'T GIVE A EFF ABOUT RAISING SOME OTHER MAN'S OFFSPRING. This is the call of the wild, as Alphas KILL the children their stolen Omega brides had for other Alphas/Betas, so he can restart the gene pool with HIS DNA instead. I know y'all had National Geographic back then already--READ A BOOK, Louis, it's what you're best at.

Incredible. After all of that Louis said Lestat never broke him. BENT BUT NEVER BROKEN, that's right! 💪😤

Boy, we're not talking about some little (unrequited) CRUSH over a man you only knew for a few months (which you've CLEARLY not gotten over yet). Louis was MARRIED to the man for 30 YEARS. This is his MAKER. Lestat knew his whole family; went to the Black cookouts and everything! They literally built a home AND business together! They raised a child together! WHATCHU KNOW ABOUT THAT!?

And that's LESTAT'S DAUGHTER TOO--how much can you possibly love EITHER of them while planning to knock her off!? I can't listen to too much more of this. *hands Louis the torch and scythe*

Beautiful end of this STACKED episode. Incredible work, AMC! Jacob acted his PANTS off; he excels at the trembling voice, agonized facial expressions, and utter mental breakdowns. He's pulling DEEP within him, holy god; it's so raw, it's almost hard to watch. EMMY WHEN?!

[coochiequeens]

The tide is turning and the TQ+ only have themselves to blame

Brits are turning against gender ideology

Ordinary people are swiftly waking up to the threat posed by 'trans rights'.

JO BARTOSCH. 30th September 2023

In news that has left members of the dinner-party set spluttering over their decolonised soya lattes, it turns out the great British public isn’t as bigoted as they fantasised. Published last week, the latest British Attitudes Survey (BAS) has shown that Brits are increasingly tolerant of same-sex relationships and ever-more accepting of sex before marriage or abortion.

But perhaps most tellingly, as attitudes toward sexual morality have become more liberal, attitudes toward transgenderism have become far less sympathetic. The survey shows that the proportion of people who think someone should be able to change the sex on their birth certificate if they want has fallen from 53 per cent in 2019 to 30 per cent today. The proportion of people who ‘describe themselves as not prejudiced at all against people who are transgender’ has also declined from 82 per cent in 2019 to 64 per cent today.

That particular statistic has been taken to mean that there is a rising tide of ‘transphobic’ bigotry. But I see no trace of that in the gender debate or in broader society. More likely, these stats capture the public’s growing concern about policies and ideas associated with transgender ideology, from the erosion of women’s rights to children’s safety.

Predictably, this change in attitudes has been condemned by those who have built their careers on the grievance politics of trans activism. Former Stonewall CEO Nancy Kelley opined on X (formerly Twitter) that ‘years of relentless toxic coverage and political manipulation is making us less tolerant and less supportive of a marginalised community’.

Kelley is just wrong. This attitudinal shift is not prompted by ‘toxic’ reporting or ‘political manipulation’. It’s actually prompted by a greater understanding of ‘transgender issues’. And here Kelley is correct – news coverage has made a difference. It has made us aware of what the cause of trans rights actually entails.

So, as stories like that of double rapist Adam Graham (aka Isla Bryson), a man who was put in a women’s prison, have received column inches in the British press, public opinion has begun to shift. Furthermore, in the face of obvious injustices, such as men triumphing in women’s sporting competitions and winning female-only awards, accusations of ‘transphobia’ have lost their power to silence would-be dissenters. The public is gradually waking up to the reality of transgender ideology and they don’t like it.

Gillian Prior, deputy chief executive at the National Centre for Social Research, which produces the BAS, disagrees. She seems to think the public’s turn against trans rights is evidence of our growing illiberalism. ‘In the case of transgender people’, she said, ‘the recent public debate about the law on gender recognition has appeared to have resulted in attitudes becoming less liberal than they were just a few years ago’. But this completely misunderstands the issues. There is nothing illiberal about not wanting women to give up hard-earned rights and spaces to accommodate the feelings of men who identify as trans.

In fact, the survey shows just how liberal Britain is now. The change in attitudes toward homosexuality has been remarkable and encouraging for those who believe in equality. Over the past 40 years, the proportion of those who think that same-sex relations were ‘always wrong’ has fallen from 50 per cent to just nine per cent.

The cause of LGB rights is very different to that of ‘trans rights’. Gay liberation was a fight to achieve legal parity with heterosexuals. The fight for trans rights is not about fairness or legal parity. It’s about allowing children to be put on experimental, puberty-blocking drugs, advocating for taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery and, above all, demanding that the rights of other groups, especially women, are infringed upon.

These illiberal and dangerous demands have been pushed by trans activists, not those advocating for LGB rights. As Kate Barker, chief executive officer of LGB Alliance, the only charity advocating exclusively for same-sex attracted people, explains, the battle for equality for gay and lesbian people has largely been won. If there is a growing threat to gay and lesbian rights today, it comes precisely from trans activists.

‘Today, gay men and lesbians are being branded as discriminatory bigots for being attracted exclusively to one sex, their own’, says Barker. ‘This is the result of gender-identity ideology, which promotes the belief that it is valid for some men to “identify” as women and vice versa. Believers in this ideology say it’s “transphobic” for lesbians to rule out all males who “identify as lesbians” as potential sexual partners. It is a bizarre reversal of the prejudice we faced in the Seventies and Eighties.’

So, despite the howls of protestation from trans activists, Britons are not becoming more intolerant. Rather, they are waking up and saying no to an ideology that threatens us all.

Jo Bartosch is a journalist campaigning for the rights of women and girls.

[el-moscorrofio-y-el-mercachifle]

I loove the theory that Mario loved secretly Armando. They are both toxic but I think they would get along great as a couple 😭

What do you think about them?

Hiii! Thanks for the question🥰 but I think you arent going to like my answer at all lmao

Tbh, I don't like the theory or the ship lol I will proceed to explain why so if you don't want to see the ship or theory dragged I apologize but since you asked my opinion ig I'll be honest lmao

1. I don't see the theory that Mario was in love with Armando viable because it goes against my personal interpretation of the character.

I see Mario as a manipulative and nearly machiavellian hedonistic man. I see his actions as coming from a place of mere fun and manipulation. He cares about himself above all else, and if he has to step on top of others to preserve himself, his position, his entertainment and his power, so be it (ex. The plan, ofc. He doesn't care about using Betty). He doesn't care about the harm he causes others: women are toys to be used and discarded, ans men are tools. Women can be controlled by their emotions (Patricia, Betty, Marcela), and men through their fears (Armando). The only person who we ever see Calderón sort of caring about is Armando, and even then it's highly debatable to which degree he truly cared. When Armando is at his lowest points we continually see Calderón further kicking him down, like when Armando is nearly having a crisis about his sexual frustrations due to Betty's refusal and Mario starts taunting him about Nicolás being the one to satisfy Betty and that he's better at sex/bigger than Armando. We see Mario alternate between checking the grounds to see where Armando is at (he's a very observant man and can quickly tell when something is off. Ex. When Betty was injured. Ex.2. Calderón extremly quickly realizes Armando feels different about Betty) making fun of him for his emotional turmoil even after Armando has told him it's very important to him. Mario's body language is very important, too. You see how he processes information much better in his facial expressions than with words. If you're interested in a deep analysis of dkfferent but crucial scenes, I recommend checking out @youwontlikethisblog 's posts. But yeah, Mario is very manipulative and his actions come from looking for his own benefit.

I know that the last paragraph sounded super sinister, but that's who Mario is in my eyes. We just don't see it as plainly because he's funny and handsome, but morally speaking, he's barely a step above Daniel lol. He's funny in the things he says, his mannerisms, and he's super charming, which is why men like him are much more dangerous than men like Daniel lmao with Daniel, at least you know sknce the first hello thay he's a jerk, with Mario, you see a polite smile and a cute laugh and next thing you know you're betraying the person you trusted the most or dragged along in an empty relationship full of empty promises lmao

Anyways, continuing:

His relationship with Armando is based on fun and usefulness. They both start as very cruel men who just use women and discard them, feeling nothing towards them and making fun of them/ their intimacy behind their backs. (Ex. When Betty is showing Mario about how she tranfered Armando's phonebook to the computer, and the name of a woman comes up, and both Mario and Armando start joking about Armando having "voice lessons" with her while they start mockingly moaning in a female voice)

They both lacked morals and that's why Mario had fun with Armando, because they were partners in crime. They could be cruel in front of each other and have fun with it. Whatever attempt Armando made to change and be a better man, Mario knew it was empty (ex. When he says he won'tcheat any more on Marcela right after the engagement, just to end up going with Claudia Bosch as soon as Mario suggested it).

Armando disapproved some of Mario's behaviors (like him going for vulnerable women, which already set the ground for Armando's later moral development) but it wasn't a big deal. Once Armando starts to actually develop a firm moral stance, change, and now cares about the damage he's causing to women (Betty, Marcela, Alejandra), Mario finds it weird and offputting ans boring. Armando is no longer fun to be around, and is, instead, actually being a hinderance to Mario's fun (ex. When Mario wants to be with Alejandra and Armando forbids him), and also a moodkiller (ex. When Mario is reading Betty's diary, he looks interested, relaxed, he's finding it amusing and even says thay Betty writes wrll, then Armando comes in and the whoel fight starts).

Additionally, Mario benefited grratly from that friendship. When Armando was a future President and then President, Mario had his position as VP secured. After everything falls apart, Mario still has skin in the game as he continues being owner of a small percentage of Ecomoda, so it's still in his best interest to save it, but his friendship with Armando is no longer useful as he's now desitute. This is when Mario goes on to full cruel mode. He doesn't even seem to care that much that Armando literally tried to kill himself. His supposed best friend was so down that tried to kill himself in a very brutal and slow way with full intention to feel every last moment of pain trying to pay for what he did, and Mario barely cares. He actively contribjtes further to Armando's emotional pain by casually asking if perhaps the woman thay Armando is fully in love with never actually loved him at all.

So yeah, I think Calderón had good chemistry with Armando (they're super fun and entertaining to see together! God knows I laughed the hardest with Calderón's scenes)x but I don't see love there because love is beautiful, gentle, and selfless. Mario wanted fun and cared not for Armando or anyone else. I truly don't see Mario as capable of feeling true love, lmao

2. I don't like the ship, either. I think it would be just as toxic as Armando/Marcela

Armando is a very wild, emotional, and pretty brutal man. He is a whole ass storm lmao and he needs proper calm to be able to flourish his good side and actually be a good. That's why he fits with Betty so well, because she's calm and calculative and soft and tender and happy.

Mario may seem calm and happy, but he's none of these really. He's calm not because he has great control over himself and is able to handle emotions in a mature way, he's calm because he doesn't care ans has to keep a facade in front of everyone all the time (which is why when Armando hits him in front of everyone Mario doesn't even pay the slightless attention to him and his speech, all his attention is to the cuartel and everyone watching, because thay's the only thing he truly cares about: his image. This is also why after it's lost, he truly leaves.) He's also not happy, he's funny and makes fun of everything and everyone because he doesn't care and probably finds feelings, guilt and empathy a laughable matter (especially if it's towards women). This is seen to infuriate Armando throughout the novela lol in comparison, Betty's true happiness and calmness brings him peace that allows him to reflect and think his actions through instead of just reacting on instinct to put his barriers up (ex. The first collection with the bad fabrics. When everything is calm and Betty offers support, Armando actually allows himself to wonder if he's doing the right thing instead of just aggressively defend his position).

Mario is also very dismissive of Armando's emotions, very similar to how Marcela does it. Neither of them really care about him but rather how his behavior will affect them (Marcela: how it'd affect the engagement/ Mario: how it'd affect Ecomoda, aka his source of income). Some examples of this dismissiveness are like how Mario constantly tells him to suck up his guilt and move on or how he needs to marry Marcela even though they barely stand each other.

Mario is also deeply allergic to commitment lol Armando actually wanted a commited love and a traditional family (marriagex children) while that's what Mario despises the most. There would be lots of cheating and insecurity on that relationship, ans we all know how Armando handles that when he's in love lmao

Anyways I think I already wrote too much lmao I could make a whole essay in this topic fr, but you get the idea lmao

Sorry if this isn't the answer you would have liked! I still loved the question because I've been wanting to talk about those two for ages but couldn't bring myself to do it! ❤️

[calico-cows]

Is marching band a cult? here’s a list from site link

The group displays an excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

the band directors word is law

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

maintain morale, don’t question anything or complain, especially leadership

Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

questionably applicable… it is very hard work but the goal is not suppression

The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

yeah absolutely. They tell us how to act and think and NO TOUCHING and professional learning environment and all that

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

well we ARE special

The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

you cannot tell me the band doesn’t have this mindset about cheer and other sports kids

The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

ok but is the band director actually held accountable

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

eh not really unless you count exercise lol

The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

not really unless you’re late

Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

band camp. You’re never home. Debatably applicable

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

have you seen our recruitment efforts? We’re not good at it but we’re trying very hard

The group is preoccupied with making money.

it’s expensive to run a band! And we need new uniforms eventually! So yes

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

haha absolutely

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

I mean no one says it out loud but yeah kinda

The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.

there is no leaving marching band

[crisiscutie]

Why do you think some people think just because Hojo is unattractive to them, that somehow makes him not Sephiroth's father? Do they not consider that maybe Hojo looked like Sephiroth when he was young or maybe he got his looks from Lucrecia?

*cracks knuckles* You got me stepping into hot water, now. Disclaimer: Most of this is just my opinion.

I think this phenomenon also comes from the camp of people who just want Vincent to be Sephiroth's father. While people can hold differing opinions, the cold, hard truth is that Sephiroth is, without a doubt, Hojo's son. Not only by their physical similarities, particularly in 7R, but also by the several overlapping personality traits that they share. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. If I recall correctly, they even have a similar laugh!

These strong similarities are also why Hojo projects on Sephiroth. His son is the living embodiment of his dream of transcending humanity through his scientific brilliance. He is also undoubtedly an abusive parent who displayed an unhealthy obsession with his child. He repeatedly endangered him, objectified him, and followed him obsessively. I mean, the Silver Elite existed before Sephiroth was even a teenager!

As for their personality traits, it's important to know Sephiroth and Hojo share a ruthless drive towards their goals. They do not care about morals and ethics. They will get what they want no matter what. Hojo also shares Sephiroth's intense narcissism and disregard for most humans. Yes, even pre-Nibelheim Sephiroth had shades of this as well. While Sephiroth's narcissistic tendencies can be traced back to his position as Shinra's prized weapon, it becomes more reminiscent of Hojo's narcissism after his descent into evil. I believe it's possible that Sephiroth suffers from a form of Acquired Situational Narcissism. Give that link a click to learn more about it.

Their physical similarity is debatable in older games, but in 7R? They share a much stronger resemblance. It's clear they have many similarities in their facial features, including their nose, lips, facial shape, hairlines, and so on. Of course, Sephiroth still has traits from his mother as well, some in personality and appearance. But boy, do some underestimate the similarities between father and son.

I also think a good deal of this phenomenon is due to Draco in Leather's Pants. Sephiroth is a tragic villain, but it's easy to forget that "villain" part as well. It's disgusting and tragic that our Crisis Cutie was subjected to such inhumane experimentation, exploitation, and other abuse which nobody should ever have to go through. But since Nibelheim, Sephiroth has become a sadistic and vicious man who will do whatever it takes to achieve his goals.

He deliberately seeks to hurt Cloud, his friends, and others. He takes great care in planning his words and actions accordingly. No one truly knows if Nibelheim Incident Sephiroth was acting out of his free will or was being controlled by Jenova, but I've always believed the former, with hints of Jenova's influence. From what I believed, his intense anger and feelings of despair, he took out his frustration on the innocent people living in the town he happened to be in, killing and hurting even children. The main characters, especially Cloud and Tifa, have good reason to fear and despise him.

Advent Children Sephiroth, I consider being pure evil. He sees everyone, even his own remnants, as tools to be used and he is out to make everyone suffer. I don't think some people understand how horrifying Geostigma is. The disease not only causes physical deterioration, which happens slowly and painfully, but it also viciously attacks your psychological state. You are feeling agony and despair in EVERY SENSE. And guess who makes up a majority of Geostigma victims? Children. Especially those who come from disadvantaged circumstances. Sephiroth had it out for everyone (especially poor Cloud) in that movie.

What makes Sephiroth interesting for me is his complexity. Even though he thinks he's above humanity, he demonstrates his humanity on multiple occasions, in subtle and obvious events. He finds solace and love in Jenova as he projects his motherhood fantasies onto her. He feels that both she and he were wronged by humanity, thus need to need to enact their vengeance on the world. And not only does he feel a strong sense of belonging with Jenova, but he also desires to carry on her mission of conquering and obliterating other worlds in the universe in her name. That is some serious devotion and love right there. I recall a moment in 7R where, after the party defeats the Jenova Dreamweaver, Sephiroth just looks so dejected as he picks up Jenova's body. Seeing an extension of his mother getting hurt is obviously upsetting for him.

Jenova is a tool for him to project his fantasies onto her, and with her being a blank slate, she can transform into anything he desires, his insecurities aren't present around her. But around Cloud and others, the insecurities are present. Sephiroth deflects to protect himself and to manipulate Cloud and the group. He is well-aware of the similarity between him and Cloud. Check out this gifset for an example of those common Sephiroth deflections.

As I said in my rules, we love the Crisis Cutie at his best and worst on this blog. Although Sephiroth is a tragic villain who did not deserve the horrific abuse he suffered, he made the conscious decision to continue a cycle of pain and hatred created by Shinra.

I'm crossing my fingers that Rebirth and Ever Crisis can capture the complexity of his character and give him the treatment he deserves. I don't want Sephiroth to be woobified more than he is already, but I also don't want his villainy to get overplayed either. I want to see more of Sephiroth's complexity and his identity crisis.

[zerokissingbooth]

rant under cut ab dr ratio

i know we don't know much about his actual personal life just yet, but it feels less like earning nous' gaze is earned by intelligence but rather drive to your field. your passion willing to push the boundaries of what's known- ruan mei as an example.

until ratio does something worthwhile like idk, preventing the mass extinction of sentient inorganic life in hopes of stopping an egopowered supercomputer (screwllum vs emperor rupert i) or continued to actively reject the genius society despite MULTIPLE INVITATIONS (ruan mei) or having mass intellect, developing the simulated universe from an OUTSIDE LOCATION and being acknowledged as insanely smart but refusing to actually use it (stephen lloyd) he won't ever be acknowledged by nous.

it isn't a matter of humanity, empathy, or anything like that- hell there's still genius members we haven't met because they're all various levels of too invested in their work, introverted/anti-social, or something else that has nothing to do with morality.

dr ratio's prime drive outside of spreading knowledge is spreading himself outwards. he has ego, he actually put an entire space station in danger just to try and prove a point. like why hasn't anyone talked about that? dr ratio putting the station in crisis just to stick his nose up at a small group of people-- two of them not actually caring at all, by the way. the entire conflict of the space station issue with dr ratio's introduction was entirely focused on ratio and screwllum.

and you cannot say ratio has empathy-- he makes his students cry without care, his class has an insanely low graduation rate, he's quick to insult first due to his own admitted bias before actually listening to someone (see: ratio actively insulting aventurine's race and lack of intelligence first). he refuses to debate people because he automatically declares himself a winner. his entire philosophy of 'spreading knowledge and curing ignorance' is counteracting his own actions with how harsh and refusing he is to accommodate to students. even if students that do graduate out of the 3% become experts... that is an insanely low number for a guy who taught 52 courses.

and we know why some of the geniuses are the way they are or why they seem less empathetic. like ruan mei's trauma with the death of her parents and the failure to keep family promises (seen in chara stories 1 and 2) caused her to spiral hardcore into trying to bring them back and nearly broke the biology of the abundance on her planet. she didn't eat until needed, didn't sleep, she was literally in a daze working.

or screwllum! while we don't know much we know that not only does he hate any mechanical constructs that follow rupert i's orders (which are to destroy organic life) he is utterly fascinated and enchanted by life. his own invitation by nous to join the society actively prevented the IPC from wiping out all mechanical lifeforms, further prevented due to his own intervention.

ratio is insanely fascinating, but he is not as empathetic as it seems. he's rational, logical and a jackass; knowledge and being able to carry a title is first to him, with how narrow of a birth he has within education. many degrees he has, but they're ranging from philosophy, mathematics, biology, and whatever- nothing within the realm of history, the arts, languages or literature. an argument could be made here that ratio specifically values mathematics and sciences above other aspects of knowledge, leaning into his bias, but that's just me.

"but his note to aventurine!" was a note explaining how he had an answer to aventurine's previous question. acheron had more of an impact on aventurine's almost-death in the dreamscape which makes sense, seeing as her entire thing is with nihility and death. it doesn't surprise me he figured it out, as he is a philosopher.

"what is death in a dream?" is a great philosophy question and would've been a treat for him to pick at and solve.

[kora-kat]

Cult of the Eye au

The entities are common knowledge, and everyone knows that mental trauma or contact with an avatar can cause you to become an avatar.

Being an avatar is generally frowned upon, seen as either a moral failing or a disease. Although there are groups that attempt to aid those who are in the process of becoming

Avatars stay together like in canon for safety. Sometimes in cults, sometimes in small friend groups. Not all these groups are malicious, but they still feed of fear

The government allows avatars- to an extent. Similar to what theorized is going on in tmp, they are allowed to feed on only those allowed by the government and, in exchange, do jobs for the government. Hunters are the most commonly allowed because they are seen as the easiest to control (whether this is true or not is debated) and are able to kill other avatars with ease. Hunt avatars are often treated like glorified hunting dogs and are paired with a handler. Daisy is one of these hunters, and Basira is her handler.

The institute is straight up a cult in this au. Instead of pretending to be a research institute, they are open about being a temple of the Eye. They claim to help people avoid being avatar food. You give them a statement, and they tell you how to combat or avoid avatars. They are not warned about the nightmare beforehand, but it is an open secret.

If you are in especially big trouble with an avatar, Elias may offer you a place within the institute as an acolyte.

Elias is kinda a high priest. Jonah has convinced everyone that he is a holy being that inhabits those chosen by the eye. It is considered an honor to be his vessel. No one knows that the vessel dies.

The Archivists are considered to be a manifestation of the eye itself, higher than any avatar. They are chosen by the prev Archivist and are specially groomed for the role over the coarse of years. They are encouraged to become as fast as possible to the point of becoming monstrous. The assistants act as their keepers.

Canon continues, but everyone knows that avatars exist and they think the Eye is good. They quickly discover that the Eye is no better than the other entities quickly, though.

The main cast is all acolyte of the eye who have chosen to join for protection. Jon from the web, Sasha from the spiral, Tim from the stranger, and Melanie from the Slaughter. Martin joins not for his own protection but because the Corruption has been attacking retirement homes, and he wants his mother to be protected. Besira and Daisy join because the government wants to keep tabs on the institute.

Gertrude was considered both a great Archivist and an awful one. She did her job amazingly of keeping avatars from killing people. However, she refused to become fully. Many acolytes silently wondered if she was truly a good fit for the position but never dared to voice their opinion.

Gertrude's death is blamed on the Circus and used to get everyone to want to go after them.

Jon is chosen as the new Archivist, shocking everyone because they thought Gertrude chose Sasha. Jon had no training. He is told that being marked by each entity is part of becoming. It is not.

Sasha, Tim, and Martin are chosen as his assistants. They find it weird to treat Jon as anything higher than human. They are warned Assistants die very quick.

Jon is more willing to become in this au because it is treated as an honorable thing by the institute. However, he quickly realizes it is horrible, dehumanizing, and isolating. He misses feeling control of his life. His friends now treat him like a caged monster to be taken care of. Other avatars treat him like a threat. The only one who treats him like kindly are Jonah and Martin.

[isbeeshy]

Okay its 5 am and i could not sleep cause i was binge reading yuureitou. I kind of loved it? Even tho it has SO MANY QUESTIONABLE points? How does this manga have such a great and nuance portrail of a transmasc character but also fetishize him and objectify him all the goddamn time??? I would have stoped reading if i had not gone looking for it cause i saw a trans guy recomend it. And im really glad i didnt stop?? Because it actually is a mistery manga with a trans guy as the co main character that despiste the constant fetishization (seriouly they love shoving this guys boobs in our face) is actually a great character? Extremely complex with a lot of internal conflict, and not only about beeing trans? And i love Amano as well? Who is also very genderqueer? And THEY GET TOGHETER AND GET TO BE HAPPY IN THE END???

AND THE ACTUAL PLOT AND MISTERY IS ACTUALLY REALLY COOL AS WELL? (Very mixed feelings on the last arc with marube (marube in general i must say, that one is... a can of worms im not touching right now)

It has very cool philosophycal debates on the morality of killing people, deciding on who gets to live and die, i was not expecting some of the deep discussions we got there?? Im really impressed

And i should probably go to sleep right now. But damn what a wild ride

[littlemoonastrology]

All About: AQUARIUS ♒︎ - The Zodiac Signs

This post will cover all the basic information needed to understand Aquarius, the eleventh Zodiac Sign!

Take a look at my other posts to see information on: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius and Capricorn!

We are almost at the end of the series... Pisces is the last one so look out!

If you feel like this post has helped you feel free to Follow, Like Reblog or Repost (as long as I'm credited!).

~

[UPDATE]

My Big 3 Readings (£5, 10 slots!) and Natal Chart Readings (£20, 3 slots!) are available on my Ko-Fi! If you'd like to purchase one or support me, please use this link: https://ko-fi.com/littlemoonastrology/shop Thank you!!

~

Aquarius ♒︎

Date (Only applies to Sun Signs): January 20 - February 18

Symbol: ♒︎ - The Water Bearer

Associated House: Eleventh

Associated Degrees: 11°, 23°

Associated Energy: Masculine

Planetary Ruler(s): ♅ Uranus (Modern) and ♄ Saturn (Traditional)

Element: Air

Modality: Fixed

Keywords: Unique, Progressive, Innovative, Adaptable, Spontaneous, Humanitarian

Aquarius placements - clever, progressive and always look deeply into situations to get a better understanding. This sign not only has the capability to stick to a plan/ideal, but also to adapt along the way and change it if needed. These placements are highly adaptable and use this to their advantage - to get what they want or follow a plan they deem is logically the best (or suits their ideals more). Not only that, but Aquarius placements also tend to be very humanitarian or have a strong sense of morals meaning they are great friends to go to if you need help getting out of a messy situation which is keeping you from developing. To some extent, these signs may also be interested in topics such as: sociology, digital media or science as it allows them to keep their creative brain engaged! Aquarius placements are also generous if they think someone deserves it, often sharing their knowledge on many different topics and sparking debates. These placements may also seem like they have a strong friend group too!

To some people, someone with this placement might come across like a conspiracy theorist (or someone who looks into things TOO deeply). Whilst this can be the case if an Aquarius has lost some kind of sense of reality or become too fixated on an idea - most of the time it's because Aquarius has spent a while learning about a topic and developing their understanding. This may mean depending on the audience an Aquarius is sharing their knowledge with - their opinion will either be endorsed or not taken into account at all (even if they are logically correct!).

If an Aquarius feels like their life is too stagnant, uninteresting or lonely they may try to live vicariously through their own ideals, friend groups, a cause they are passionate about or maybe even their own work. Maybe they also have a tendency to be "chronically online", not having much of a social life outside of the internet which can further the stagnancy of an Aquarius' life. When under stress, they may become extremely cold and blunt - maybe even become somewhat selfish and use their ability to get what they want in unhealthy ways (although this is in a few cases).

When Aquarius feels like they are succeeding in life and utilising their brain, they may seem to develop a bit of an ego or arrogance and focus on enjoying what they receive. Whilst there is nothing wrong with enjoying what you've worked for it's just as important to keep an open mind and be open to learning so you aren't at risk for losing what you've worked towards.

~

Notes/Keywords/Phrases

Zodiac Sign

Each of the Zodiac Signs are a constellation. The Zodiac Sign shows how a Planet/Asteroid/Fixed Point/House is being represented and expressed. Once a Planet/Asteroid/Fixed Point/House falls into a Zodiac Sign, it adopts the energy of it.

For example: if Mercury falls into the constellation Sagittarius, Mercury adopts Sagittarian traits. If the 6th House falls into the constellation Aquarius, the 6th House adopts Aquarian traits.

Associated House

The Houses in Astrology are dependent on the time and location of birth in a Natal Chart and there are 12 different ones. Each of these 12 Houses are then assigned to a Zodiac Sign and 1 or 2 Planetary Rulers. The Houses in Astrology show you what area of life the energy of the Zodiac and Planets/Asteroids/Fixed Points is appointed to and helps provide depth into the chart.

For example: Capricorn's Associated House is the 10th House.

Associated Degrees

When a Planet/Asteroid/Fixed Point/House falls into a Zodiac Sign constellation, it will be appointed a Degree. This Degree shows how far along the Planet/Asteroid/Fixed Point/House is in a Zodiac Sign. Each Degree is also associated with a Zodiac Sign, meaning when this Degree comes up it can nuance the way the Zodiac Sign of a Planet/Asteroid/Fixed Point/House is being represented.

For example: Mars is 6° in the Zodiac Cancer, 6° represents Virgo - therefore the Cancer Mars also takes on Virgo traits. The 2nd House is 23° in the Zodiac Scorpio, 23° represents Aquarius - therefore the 2nd House in Scorpio takes on Aquarian traits.

Planetary Ruler(s)

This phrase refers to the Planet(s) that rule a Zodiac Sign. When a Planet falls into the Zodiac Sign it has rulership over, the energy of both the Planet and the Zodiac Sign is amplified.

For example: Pisces' Planetary Ruler is Neptune.

Modern / Traditional

These words are associated with two kinds of Astrology: Modern Astrology and Traditional Astrology. Traditional Astrology refers to Astrology that was practiced before the 19th century, whilst Modern Astrology refers to Astrology that is practiced now. Some people choose to practice Traditional Astrology, some people choose to practice Modern Astrology, whilst some others might practice both types or combine them together.

Element

Each Zodiac Sign/Planet/House/Degree is associated with an Element and this covers certain traits which are unique to the Zodiac Sign/Planet/House/Degree they correspond to.

These Elements are: Fire, Air, Water and Earth.

Modality

Much like an Element, each Zodiac Sign/Planet/House/Degree is associated with a Modality. The Modality describes what the focus of a placement is and how the energy is expressed.

There are 3 different Modalities: Cardinal, Mutable and Fixed.

[granulesofsand]

System Accountability, Again

🗝️🏷️ RAMCOA, syscourse

My opinion has not changed since last time this was up for debate; system accountability relies on the system being seen as one whole, and we do not use that model.

There are pieces of decency that I extend as a person, but I won’t pick up any more than that because I share a body with others.

Some things I will do, as a person:

Try to mediate: if I care about the outsider or the insider involved, I do my best to deescalate and resolve. I am the only one who gets to decide whether or not to put myself at risk. If any of the participants are dangerous to me, I don’t give a rat’s ass what is morally correct — I am allowed to maintain my own safety, even if my giving it up would be detrimental for the situation.

Educate: either the insider about why their behavior was inappropriate/unhealthy or the outsider about why this behavior is appropriate/helpful. Still refuse to be forced into the role; it’s a decency thing, and I’m not respecting the personhood of an outsider over my own. We are both important, and we don’t have to coexist if one of us is being harmed.

Discuss: before or after a conflict does escalate, many of us are now able to clarify and communicate without turning to inappropriate behavior. Many is not all, and while I respect the right of an outsider to cease interaction with our system, I’m not taking responsibility for whatever that alter did. It’s not unlike social media, where the website is not responsible for the content unless they are knowingly hosting threats. It wasn’t me, and we will not be adopting a model that hurts us because it would be convenient.

Walk away: I, as an alter, have enough proficiency with technology to block off channels of access if an outsider does decide to cease contact. It’s okay if you can’t find safety with other of our alters after a bad encounter with one. You are allowed to leave (or ask us to leave, if it’s your space) and make decisions about your own boundaries.

Sometimes I do take it upon myself to repair damages another alter caused, but it is not required of me. I see it much the same as our external family; they can be dangerous, and they do cause harm both because we were involved and for other reasons — I did not cause that harm, and my reaction to that is up to me, just as anyone who faced that impact.

Some of our alters care more about relationships than others, and they might go further for the sake of preserving a bond. That’s great, and it’s their choice.

The choices are very important to us because we did not always have them. Our background in programming and coexisting with many programmed systems informs our opinions quite a bit, and we were not allowed to present ourselves authentically as a requirement of that environment. Our individuality is crucial to our existence, and while you are free to describe yourself/selves however you want, you do not get to choose for us.

I can talk more about why we insist on being separate people rather than feeling like separate people, or anything along those lines. I know it’s contrary to dominating clinicians, but I still value my/our lived experience over their learned experience. We do listen to their opinions and mind the evidence presented, and the stance we present externally is as close to a consensus as we can get. You don’t have to understand right now to give us this kind of respect, however, if you don’t, I will not continue to extend it to you.

There’s a lot of ideas in RAMCOA and general CDD spaces that are cultural, and that can be good and safe if it feels right to you. We will still reflect whatever you use when we address you, but please be aware that what works for you might not for us. Differences are okay, and I have yet to find the statement without exception. It’s part of being a person, and you are doing it just fine. I need you to consider we are doing the same.

[i-will-change-this-someday]

My thoughts on Epic: The Musical, The Ithaca Saga:

(Spoilers Ahead)

I first listened at midnight after a long Christmas Eve, but I thought it was good.

I was so tired that I didn't really understand what was happening though, and I didn't realize Telemachus was speaking at some points.

Overall I really liked this saga.

I still haven't had the time to listen to the entire musical in order yet, I probably will on Monday.

I'm not sure if there's really supposed to be any message or moral to the story, maybe just that no matter what there will be people that love you.

Cause I originally thought it was meant to be "Open Arms" vs. "Ruthlessness" but that only works if you completely subscribe to ruthlessness being the "Right" thing to do.

I was thinking it was going to be a "you need a balance between the two" kind of thing, but in the end Odysseus lets go of "Open Arms" entirely, although Athena has picked it up.

I really thought that Jorge would change it, and Odysseus would spare that one guy (I vaguely know he was more or less innocent in the Odyssey) with Polites singing "Open Arms" in his mind. (There was an Open Arms reference in that scene, so I was right about that I guess.)

To be fair, I don't think there was really any sort of moral or message to The Odyssey either, it's just a story of this guy's long trip home. (I'm sure there are small story points and stuff, I just mean like an overarching thing across the whole story.)

As always the vocals, music, and animations are all amazing.

I love all the songs, but I think my favorite is "I Can't Help but Wonder"

Something I have seen debated lately is the change that the suitors explicitly attempt to (or plan to) rape Penelope. I'll be honest, I think it's fine, I don't think it was entirely necessary to make quite so explicit when previously such matters were only alluded to, but I don't mind it.

I don't think the video of Jorge explaining that Calypso "is a child in an adult body" completely means that she didn't assault him, he's saying she is childish in that she doesn't understand what would typically be acceptable behavior, but I don't think that means she would be literally like a child. (But that's just my interpretation.)

I know a lot of people find it annoying that the suitors are made "worse" when Calypso was downplayed in the musical. But I've seen arguments that the suitors never intended to assault Penelope... and like, I don't know, that seems a bit obstinate to me.

Like sure, you can argue that it did not need to be as explicit as it was in the musical, but to say it was never there in the story seems like willful ignorance.

Do you really think they would have been like "Great, I am now king, Penelope is my queen and I have murdered her son, I will never lay my hands upon her because I respect her as a human being with autonomy. What a good day."

And look, I'm not gonna say that the gender of the victim doesn't make a difference, cause I'm sure it's a part of why it was made more explicit for Penelope, but I don't necessarily think that it's why it is less explicit for Odysseus.

From what I understand, as I still have not read the Odyssey, in the books, Odysseus's assaults are framed as him being so good in bed that even Goddesses want him, it is still framed in a way that makes him "powerful" and in a way that it is his ""choice"" to sleep with them. (I'm not sure that came out right, I guess I just mean it's not said in a way that most assaults on women are typically written, far less violent and explicit I'm sure that it was framed in this way because many people [now and then] think that men can't be victims of rape.)

Anyway what I'm getting at is that the people who assault Odysseus are literally not human. Meanwhile the suitors are humans. So for me, the suitor are always going to be worse in my mind, they are humans, they know exactly what they are doing and the harm they are inflicting. Not that the harm non-humans (Gods/Goddesses in this case) inflict is lesser, just that they're not necessarily going to consider humans on the same level as them (especially in this case)

So I feel like maybe that’s why the suitors were made explicitly intending to rape Penelope.

In the end, I really enjoy the story, and I'm excited to see what will come next for Epic.

[mariacallous]

When Russia invaded Ukraine last February something extremely heartening was observable here in Britain: people who had hitherto shown little interest in geopolitics were suddenly hoisting Ukraine flags in their garden, offering to house Ukrainian refugees, organising fetes, triathlons, spinathons, baking cakes and organising various other fundraising activities for Ukraine.

Predictably enough, there were those whose mean-spirited cynicism led them to resent this display of spontaneous solidarity. The British people were, they said, simply falling into line with the ‘current thing’ et cetera. But that was merely a projection of their own emptiness. In reality we saw an outburst of genuine and widespread support for Ukraine because the Russian invasion was so flagrantly criminal, a disgusting violation of sovereignty on Britain’s doorstep and a deeply ominous development that people rightly intuited would set a bad precedent if left unopposed.

How could a country such as Britain, marinated as it is in folk memories of the Second World War, not hear the lessons of Munich ringing out as Putin’s troops crossed the Ukrainian border? Moreover, with a leader such as Vladimir Putin, there is no need to ventriloquise what he wants because it is right there in print. One can make reasonably good sense of contemporary Russian foreign policy simply by looking to the policies of the czars. The strategy of Peter the Great was to dominate through the ‘protection’ of its neighbours. Czar Alexander I, at the Vienna Congress of 1815, argued that the concerns of small nations should be subordinated to those of the Great Powers. And it was the ‘enlightened’ Catherine the Great who brought Ukraine under Russian control in the 1700s and who introduced the Russian serf system (more recently, ‘liberal reformers’ such as Alexander Navalny and Mikhail Gorbachev have both supported the annexation of Crimea). As Volodymyr Vynnychenko, a central figure in the early twentieth century Ukrainian national liberation movement once remarked, ‘Russian democracy ends where the Ukrainian question begins’.

The average person in Britain has a better instinctive grasp of all this than many of our intellectuals, who are so immersed in an Oz-like world of unreality that they are compelled to interpret the war in Ukraine through the prism of their own obsessions. Thus they discount what Putin has actually said - that Russians and Ukrainians are ‘one people’ and that Ukrainian statehood depends on Russian consent - and instead repeat their own theories ad nauseam: it’s really about ‘NATO expansion’; the US are the ‘real imperialists’; and there is ‘this one Ukrainian militia group that is racist actually’.

Many of the same people exhibit similar delusions when it comes to the nature of Hamas and the conflict raging in the Middle East. You do not need to support the Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory (I certainly don’t) to take Hamas’s genocidal intentions seriously. But our intellectuals of course know better, and so we are told that ‘death to the Jews’ is really a cry against poverty and oppression and that Hamas is rather like the armed wing of Amnesty International.

I don’t want to talk more about Israel Palestine - I’ve written about it here and here if you care for my opinion on the matter - but isn’t it astonishing to see people who (rightly in my view) believe that Israel should give back stolen land simultaneously calling for Ukraine to give up its land to the Russians. You either believe in the right to self-determination or you don’t. But then, just as with the bad faith debate around free speech, one is always coming up against people who want to have it both ways: to loftily cite a moral principle for their own pet cause only to disregard it like a snake shedding its skin as soon as it is no longer convenient.

There are mounting calls for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, based on what is frequently described as ‘conflict fatigue’ among Ukraine’s western allies (it’s curious how the people far away from the fighting are more fatigued by the war than the Ukrainians themselves, who resolutely oppose all talk of capitulation).

Such world-weary calls for a settlement can reasonably be interpreted to mean that Ukraine should give up significant portions of its territory in the name of a flimsy ‘peace’. Never mind that the Ukrainians themselves do not want it - which surely ought to factor into the calculations of any democrat; and never mind the terrible precedent this would set - that aggression and nuclear threats will ultimately be rewarded with territorial concessions; and never mind that Russia routinely flouts international agreements, meaning any peace treaty it signed would effectively be worthless. Forget all of that for a moment, and consider the plight of the Ukrainians who would be expected to live under Russian occupation.

I don’t expect sleek geopolitical ‘realists’ to care about such things, lost as they are in their pseudo-worldly parlour game of ‘state actors’ and ‘spheres of influence’ and barely disguised admiration for thuggish foreign leaders with whom we must ‘do business’. One more or less expects people who think about human beings in this way to hold a cavalier and insensitive attitude toward the people actually forced to live under despotic rulers.

But it behoves anybody who cares about democracy and human rights - not as abstract concepts, but as the right of millions of Europeans to have their self-determination respected - to confront what Russian occupation of Ukrainian land entails. What does it mean for the average Ukrainian to live under Russian rule? What are the conditions like? And would giving Russia the green light to claim this land as its own really mean an ‘end to bloodshed’, as is often claimed? These questions should be addressed by those in the West who feel comfortable asking Ukrainians to tolerate indefinite occupation in the name of ‘peace’.

Of course we don’t need to idly speculate as to what conditions are like in Russian-occupied territory because we have ample evidence already. Where Putin differs from some of the czars (and has more in common with Soviet rulers) is in his insistence upon reproducing the Russian social system in the areas under his control (albeit not to the same extent as the Soviets did in the economic realm). The first thing the Russians have done in occupied areas of Ukraine is to remove the capacity of individual Ukrainians to rebel against their servitude. In Crimea, which has been occupied by Russia since 2014, Ukrainian law has been supplanted by Russian Federation criminal law, making it an offence to (among other things) discredit the Russian armed forces or to call for sanctions against Russia. Politicians, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists or those who have simply been vocal critics of the Russian leadership have been arbitrarily arrested, ill-treated, tortured, deported to Russia or bumped off. Since 2014 Russian authorities in Ukraine have targeted anybody considered capable of resisting Russian occupation or who has merely rejected the imposition of Russian citizenship. As a 2017 UN report documented, the human rights situation in Crimea ‘significantly deteriorated’ under Russian occupation:

‘Grave human rights violations, such as arbitrary arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, ill-treatment and torture, and at least one extra-judicial execution were documented… [Meanwhile] hundreds of prisoners and pre-trial detainees have been transferred to the Russian Federation.’

Occupying powers inevitably end up visiting terrible cruelty on the people they rule over. This is especially true in the case of Russia, which regularly visits ferocious savagery on its own people (and which is jointly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria). According to a 2022 report from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, summary executions of civilians occurred in more than 30 settlements in Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Sumy - regions that were occupied by Russian armed forces in February and March of last year. Here is Wayne Jordash, a British Queen’s Counsel who is busy helping Ukraine to investigate Russia’s war crimes:

‘If you look at what happens in Russia-occupied territory, you will see that, depending on the length of the occupation, different progression of the criminal plan. In Kherson, you will see a real illustration of what the Russian political and military leadership planned for Ukraine as a whole.’

Kherson, once home to more than 280,000 people, was the first major Ukrainian city to fall to Russian forces during the February 2022 invasion. During its occupation, Russia set up at least 35 torture chambers where victims were reportedly beaten, waterboarded, electrocuted and raped with foreign objects. Elsewhere in Ukraine, around 6,000 children - some as young as four months old - have been abducted and removed to camps in Russia where they await adoption.

I don’t expect the West’s armchair realists to abandon their calls for a ‘negotiated settlement’ in the face of reports they probably won’t bother to read. However I would like them to say what their preferred solution to the conflict in Ukraine really entails, instead of wrapping their acceptance of permanent Russian occupation in the prophylactic language of ‘peace’, ‘diplomacy’ and ‘dialogue’. When fighting a war it’s important to understand the nature of the enemy. It’s hardly surprising the Ukrainians have a better understand of their Russian neighbour than some of our cloistered highbrows. But the latter have an obligation to spell out the full implications of their preferred course of action. Unlike some of our Ukrainian friends, they can still speak freely about such things.

[crazydreamercycle]

Random musings on what I'd do if, in a world where the 2012 seasons didn't exist, I was asked to plot the MCoG sequel

No romance, at any point

I would have expended on the theme that started to be set up in S1 with the Great Heritage of the Cities of Gold being there to preserve Muan technology and energy sources, as they can both cause great destruction and greatly improve quality of life, and have the kids end up with a very powerful and dangerous artifact which could either save or kill thousands, while they debate if they should give it to someone, and if yes, to whom

Maybe some expansion on Mu's history, both good and bad - it's an Empire, after all. But also Tao deserves to know more about the history of his culture

Maybe some of that with Atlantis too?

Of course, Mendoza, Sancho and Pedro have to be in here (I mean, they don't actually have to, I can honestly see a possibility where they're not, but I like Mendoza too much not to include him) but the kids don't deliberately go fetch them in Barcelona. Rather, they had their own wacky adventures while trying to go back to Spain, possibly lost the gold somehow, and run into the kids by coincidence partway through S2 and they team up again, possibly with more of an on-and-off thing to it than in S1 so as not to undo the kids gaining more independence/coming of age thing at the end of S1

Hey, remember how Sancho and Pedro wanted to betray the kids at the end of S1 but Mendoza betrayed them and threatened to kill them if they didn't help out? What if this had consequences on the narrative and group dynamics???

Mendoza's continued character arc: he has the kids as essentially morality pets but is still kind of a terrible person on the side and mostly in it for the gold. His arc now is to be a better person to people who aren't the kids (while still being a lying little scoundrel, of course). That, or the kids deliberately use the fact that they know he won't hurt them/let them be hurt to manipulate him or deliberately thwart one of his plans, and it causes conflict. Or both. Both is good, too. There are multiple seasons. there's time

Arson is committed at least once per season

if I have to bring back one of Esteban's parents it'd be his mom. After all, we only know she's dead through Mayucca's tale, which he himself admits might not be true. Just because the part of it about his father was right doesn't mean the part about his mother dying was

I'm gonna be honest, I don't have the knowledge to pull that off and the execs wouldn't let me, but. Exploration, or even just representation, or gender and sexuality in Native cultures beyond the western binary and heteronormativity (since it's like, a fact that colonization fucked that up and that the western concept was most definitely not universal)

Zia gets to still be angry, tho I'm not entirely sure what her arc would be (and probably am not the best person to decide that. Presumably I'd have a team and I could find someone who is more qualified than I am in the matter tho. Same for n°10, tho I really don't think I'd be allowed to to it)

You know these weird rooms in S1? The ones with like, glowing red tiles on the walls? At least one of these per season. They never get explained

Of course, that is not to say that this would be the only way to make a good sequel, or even the only sequel to S1 I'd enjoy (or even that I'd do a good job if I actually had to direct a sequel, I probably wouldn't). As I said, it's just a random reflection I thought I'd share on where I'd personally take things, and I'd actually be curious to know where others would have gone, disregarding S2+.