#determinism vs free will

[nozomijoestar]

i really like the dichotomy of everyone respecting Nana as their friend off stage (and the darker feeling she has that they All take from her in one way or another except Karen) but inside the stage duels as performers with her as their ultimate test, they're all still prideful enough to treat it as every man's glory for themselves, making it so they can't hold a grudge against Nana outside the Revues because to everyone the Revues are Just Business and a space for words that don't belong outside it- which plays into the repression that's hurting all their relationships, they really thought of everything making this series

[greenfiend]

Forced conformity is killing the kids

Chosen defiance will save the kids

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Personality

The philosophy of personality explores the nature, origin, and development of individual identity and selfhood. It involves questions about the essence of what makes someone who they are, how personality is formed, the relationship between personality and free will, and how external and internal factors shape personal characteristics.

Here’s an overview of key concepts and perspectives:

1. Nature of Personality

Personality refers to the unique patterns of thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and experiences that define an individual. Philosophers examine whether personality is something inherent (fixed by nature) or whether it evolves over time (shaped by nurture and experience).

Essentialism vs. Existentialism:

Essentialism posits that personality is rooted in an essential nature that is relatively stable over time. This is often linked to the idea of a fixed "soul" or "self" that defines identity.

Existentialism, on the other hand, argues that personality is fluid, shaped by personal choices and life experiences. For existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, human beings are not born with a pre-defined personality but create themselves through actions and decisions. Sartre famously claimed, "Existence precedes essence," meaning that who we are is the result of our lived experiences, not an inherent nature.

2. Personality and Identity

Self-Identity: Philosophers such as John Locke have explored the link between personality and personal identity, especially how continuity of consciousness relates to being the same person over time. Locke's memory theory of identity suggests that we are the same person to the extent that we remember our past actions and experiences.

Psychological Continuity: Theories of psychological continuity focus on how personality and mental states over time create a coherent sense of self. If a person experiences radical changes in personality or memory loss, philosophers question whether they remain the same person.

3. Determinism vs. Free Will in Personality

Determinism: Determinists argue that personality is shaped by a combination of genetics, environment, and social conditioning. According to this view, free will plays little to no role in shaping personality because external factors like upbringing, culture, and biology predetermine how we think, feel, and act.

Free Will: Opposing this, many existentialists and humanistic philosophers believe that individuals have the power to transcend their circumstances and freely shape their personalities. Sartre argued that people are "condemned to be free," meaning that they must take responsibility for their actions and the personality traits they develop.

4. Personality and Moral Responsibility

Character and Virtue Ethics: Philosophers like Aristotle emphasized the role of character in shaping ethical behavior. According to Aristotle, personality traits like courage, temperance, and wisdom can be cultivated through practice and habit, leading to a virtuous life. In this view, personality is not just a collection of traits but something tied to one's moral development.

Moral Luck: A challenge in the philosophy of personality is the idea of moral luck—the notion that aspects of one’s personality may be shaped by circumstances outside of their control, yet they are still held morally accountable for their actions. For example, someone born with a naturally aggressive disposition may find it harder to behave ethically, raising questions about responsibility and fairness.

5. Personality and the Unconscious

The role of the unconscious mind in shaping personality has been a major topic of discussion, especially in the works of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Freud proposed that unconscious desires and conflicts shape much of our personality, and many of our behaviors are driven by unconscious motives rather than rational choices.

Jung expanded on Freud’s ideas by introducing the collective unconscious, which he argued contains archetypes that influence individual personalities. These archetypes are universal symbols and themes that shape human experience and personality development.

6. Personality and Social Context

Sociological and Cultural Influences: Many contemporary philosophers and social theorists emphasize that personality is not developed in isolation but in interaction with society and culture. Social constructivism suggests that much of our personality is shaped by societal norms, values, and roles. According to this view, personality traits are often expressions of the expectations and constraints placed on individuals by their social environment.

Gender and Personality: Feminist philosophers like Judith Butler argue that gender, as a central aspect of personality, is a social performance rather than an inherent trait. In this sense, personality is something individuals enact within the framework of societal norms.

7. Personality and the Self

Concept of the Self: Philosophers debate whether there is a "core" self behind personality traits or whether the self is an illusion, constructed through interactions with the world. Some argue for a unified self, where personality is an expression of a consistent internal essence. Others, such as David Hume, believed that the self is a bundle of perceptions with no fixed identity, constantly in flux.

Narrative Identity: Some philosophers, like Paul Ricoeur, suggest that individuals create their identities through the stories they tell about themselves. Personality, in this view, is tied to the personal narrative that individuals construct over time, making sense of their past experiences and future goals.

The philosophy of personality addresses fundamental questions about identity, free will, morality, and the interplay between nature and nurture. It explores how much of who we are is determined by genetics, culture, or unconscious factors, and to what extent we have the power to shape our own personalities.

[boyfridged]

i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.

we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.

after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness. 

to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.

all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime. 

[vandalizedheart]

a lil late night reminder: no matter how you choose to run your blog, or how you may write your muse, you have a place here. as long as you're having fun and finding joy through having a roleplay blog, that's all that matters in the end. <3

[thespiritualsolarsystem]

The desire to play in samsara indulgently yet simultaneously have the impulsive desire to remove one’s senses and be liberated from thy illusion

[13thpythagoras]

[viscer-aa]

The urge to have Leviathan Child “taken seriously” (bullshit, carries baggage) vs the urge to have Leviathan Child become an increasingly psychosexual melodrama (based, cool)

[kaidatheghostdragon]

More, because im kind of sad that nobody else has added to this. (Btw all my ideas/prompts are free for anyone to take and make their own - even if its something ive massively fleshed out and you want to take it a different direction. All i ask is you drop a link so i can read whatever you did!)

Tim was the first of the bats to be hit by the strange weapon. The white suits had shown up in gotham a few weeks ago shooting up the place, and about one-fifth of the people they hit were instantly evaporated.

The bats were at their wits end trying to investigate, and nobody was allowed to patrol alone. The Justice League was also reporting that the suits had been spotted in a number of other cities, including Fawcett and Central City. However, the strange weapons seemed to be far more lethal in Gotham than anywhere else.

The suits loudly declared that anyone who was evaporated was a malevolent ghost pretending to be human. They had scanners that they used on *everyone,* and shot anyone who measured above a certain threshold without hesitation or remorse.

The bats had stolen one of the scanners pretty early on and found that every one of them measured above the threshold. Whatever logic the suits were using to justify their crusade was clearly nonsense.

Tim had found a lead, a rumor that one of the evaporated had reappeared. They lived in crime alley, and as per the buddy system currently in force, and Hood's rule that no bat enters his territory without his escort, Jason partnered with Tim to investigate.

White suits were already swarming the place, possibly catching wind of the same rumor. Hood and Red Red Robin booked it out as fast as they could, but as luck would have it, the scanners picked up their presence, and the suits gave chase, relentless in their pursuit.

Hood knew every inch of the alley and carefully led Red Robin through many narrow escape routes, forcing the suits to seperate and regroup, but none of it was enough to shake them when they could somehow track the bats' movements.

Tim was running the math as they escaped. Jason had died and came back, and was arguably closest to what the agents claimed of everyone over the scanner's threshold. There was no doubt in Tim's mind that it Hood was hit, he would be killed.

In fact, nearly everyone in the family had died at some point or another. Everyone except Tim. Yes, he was over the scanner's threshold, but only barely. There was still about an 80% chance that he would be unaffected. The agents would stop chasing him if the gun didn't affect him, and it would give jason a chance to escape.

Tim had worked with worse odds before. And if it did kill him? Better him than jason. Bruce wouldn't survive losing jason a second time, no matter how emotionally constipated they both were to each other. Tim had always been just a replacement.

So Red Robin lagged behind, waiting for an opportunity where Hood was far enough a way to get out of the scanner's range while the agents focused on Red Robin.

When Tim felt his entire body go numb from the shot, he knew his gamble had failed. He could only spend his last fraction of a second of critical thought, hoping that Jason wasn't dumb enough to turn around.

And then Tim woke up. Or maybe that wasn't the right description, as he wasn't fully convinced he had even lost consciousness. A quick self-check confirmed that he was whole and uninjured, laying on *extremely* soft carpeted floor.

Tim sat up, guaging his surroundings as quickly as possible. He was in an extremely large room, walls of stone like an old keep or castle. In the center of the room stood a piece of frankensteined tech that Tim *guessed* was some sort of antennae, by the overall shape of it. Covering most of the walls were shelves stacked to capacity with various medical supplies and emergency first aid equipment. There were a couple of prepped and ready--to-use gurneys, and a clear-doored fridge stocked with glass jars and iv bags filled with a lazarus green liquid.

In one corner of the room, sitting on two stools, was an enormous black knight cloaked in purple flames, and next to him, an honest-to-god yeti, one arm made of clear ice, even displaying the arm bones.

"Ah, another liminal," the yeti commented.

The knight sighed as they stood, "I'll go inform the prince," then promptly vanished into thin air in a whirl of purple flame.

Half an hour later, as Tim was asking a million questions of the ever-patient and delightfully friendly yeti, Red Hood showed up the same way Red Robin had, battered and bruised. As Tim and his new friend Frostbite gave Jason emergency medical care, Jason (after getting over the shock of still being alive and returning back to vigilante mode) informed Tim that he did, in fact, turn around ("WHAT in the GODDAMN FUCK were you THINKING, Tim?!?!") and the agents had attempted to live-capture Hood, but he had put up so much of a fight that they decided to shoot him instead when he had nearly escaped.

He had also called in back-up after Tim had been shot, and right on cue, Robin and Nightwing appeared in the room. More injured than Tim but less than Jason.

Great, Tim thought, Bruce is probably really going through it right now. So much for noble sacrifices.

Good reveal au, where after learning phantom's identity and realizing the atrocities that the GIW have committed (or alternatively, ethical science au, where they find out the GIW plagarized them), the fenton parents decided to create the 'ultimate ghost-ending weapon' and sell it to the agents.

They go absolutely overboard, describing to the agents in meticulous detail how it evaporates any ghost it hits near-instantly and describing it quite ruthlessly in the blueprints, and soon the GIW have raplaced all their main weapons with the new gun.

Except it doesn't actually kill ghosts. It's the Fenton Bazooka. You know, the one that creates a portable portal to suck the ghost back into the ghost zone? What they actually did was retool it slightly to make it look more grusome than it actually is. They even added a beacon in Phantom's Keep, which all Fenton Bazookas will target when they open a portal, so the ghosts are always delivered to the keep.

From there, Phantom stationed an emergency medical team at the keep to treat the many injured and ragged ghosts that the GIW 'destroyed,' and to explain what just happened.

What they didn't anticipate was that now that the GIW have a mass-produced weapon that they believed would effectively eradicate ghosts, they would go on the offensive. They have a number of cities they've been monitoring but didn't want to get involved in without better tools.

One of those cities is Gotham.

And the Bats are ectocontaminated enough to register as ghosts.

Batman witnessed several of his children get evaporated by green energy weapons within mere moments of each other. He's absolutely gutted. Devastated. They didn’t even stand a chance.

He'll get his revenge, and it's frighteningly easy to track the weapon to private subcontractors. The Doctors Fenton, in Illinois. Their research calls for the genocide of all ghost kind, and apparently, that war started by killing his own children.

His children will not die in vain.

He gets to Amity Park and finds the Engineer's Nightmare of a building that is Fentonworks, but that night, before he can hack through the security and break in, one of the windows opens.

It's one of his kids that he had watched evaporate before his very eyes. They give him a silent signal of one of their identifying security codes and gesture for him to come inside.

Is it a trap? A prank in poor taste? Utterly genuine?

He goes through the window.

All of his dead kids are there, wearing borrowed pajamas and only their dominoes to conceal their identities. Daniel Fenton (son of the Fentons, this is his bedroom, has voiced a few arguments against his parent's views, but still an unknown) is among the crowd of teens and young adults, twirling on an office chair and obnoxiously sipping a capri sun.

"First thing you need to know, Bats," Daniel says after finishing his drink, "is that my parents are absolutely NOT genocidal ectophobic scumbags, and that is the reason why your kids are still alive."

[itoseyukis]

been binge rewatching Dark and losing my absolute mind over it

[dutybcrne]

Okok but

Sigewinne & Wriothesley, but enemies to friends arc in their first meeting

[deception-united]

Worldbuilding: Questions to Consider

Government & authority:

Types of government: What type of government exists (monarchy, democracy, theocracy, etc.)? Is it centralised or decentralised?

Leadership: Who holds power and how is it acquired (inheritance, election, divine right, conquest)?

Law enforcement: Who enforces the laws (military, police, magical entities)?

Legal system: How are laws made, interpreted, and enforced? Are there courts, judges, or councils?

Laws:

Criminal laws: What constitutes a crime? What are the punishments?

Civil laws: How are disputes between individuals resolved?

Cultural norms: How do customs and traditions influence the laws?

Magic/supernatural: Are there laws governing the use of magic or interaction with supernatural beings?

Social structure:

Class/status: How is society divided (nobility, commoners, slaves)? Are there caste systems or social mobility?

Rights & freedoms: What rights do individuals have (speech, religion, property)?

Discrimination: Are there laws that protect or discriminate against certain groups (race, gender, species, culture)?

Economy & trade:

Currency: What is used as currency? Is it standardised?

Trade laws: Are there regulations on trade, tariffs, or embargoes?

Property laws: How is ownership determined and transferred? Are there inheritance laws?

Religion/belief systems:

Religious authority: What role does religion play in governance? Are religious leaders also political leaders?

Freedom of religion: Are citizens free to practice different religions? If not, which are taboo?

Holy laws: Are there laws based on religious texts or teachings?

Military & defense:

Standing army: Is there a professional military or a militia? Who serves, and how are they recruited?

War & peace: What are the laws regarding war, peace treaties, and diplomacy?

Weapons: Are there restrictions or laws regarding weapons for civilians? What is used as a weapon? Who has access to them?

Technology & magic:

Technological advancements: How advanced is the technology (medieval, steampunk, futuristic, etc.)?

Magical laws: Are there regulations on the use of magic, magical creatures, or artifacts?

Innovation & research: How are inventors and researchers treated? Are there laws protecting intellectual property?

Environmental/resource management:

Natural resources: How are resources like water, minerals, and forests managed and protected, if at all?

Environmental laws: Are there protections for the environment? How are they enforced? Are there consequences for violations?

Cultural & ethical considerations:

Cultural diversity: How does the law accommodate or suppress cultural diversity?

Ethics: What are the ethical foundations of the laws? Are there philosophical or moral principles that underpin them?

Traditions vs. change: Does the society balance tradition with progress? How?

Happy writing ❤

Previous | Next

[shallowrambles]

SPNwin 1x12 + fridged feelings + funhouse mirrors

One of the things I REALLY love about the SPNwin 1x12 (Tears of a Clown) episode is this idea of funhouse mirrors, and halls of mirrors. This, I think, is where a lot of the soreness within Supernatural as a franchise and audience, lies.

It's this fact that, mirrors and parallels are not always one-to-one, nor are they necessarily meant to be. Sometimes, it's mix-and-match. Sometimes, it's absurd. Other times, grotesque. Sometimes, it's taking the most black-and-white, least charitable, most cynical take on something and sticking it in the mouth of The Villain.

Other times, mirrors simply reveal that characters are at crossroads of purpose. They're struggling with their own meaning-making or dealing with completely different junctions regarding the difficulties of adjusting to living.

(Mary longs for the clown world in a way John does not. Mary wants to disappear into a world of non-decision, because she's afraid. Then, she shifts all the fault to John, rather than taking ownership of her own feelings.)

MARY: Didn't it feel good to you, not having to worry about our problems for a second, not to have to worry about us?

Mirrors and parallels ask questions, like "how are these things similar, and more importantly, how are they different?" It's not necessarily about the severity of a given situation, nor the weight of the “crime.”

It's not about this couple being lovers and that couple being platonic and that couple waaay over there being enemies, per se. And yet, it's about that, too, because it's making you ask the question.

It's less proof of a theorem and more...indirect.

(Humans see ourselves everywhere. In every pattern. We even see our own faces in puffy, distant clouds. See our face made out of simple stuff: two dots, a circle, and a curved line. And I think that's lovely.)

“It was for a spell to make him forget all of his problems and freeze him like that, so he could stay happy forever.”

[temiizpalace]

Can i have Malleus and Leona with prompt 3?

☆┊PUT YOUR HEAD ON MY SHOULDER! NOT HIS! (🐉 vs. 🦁)

SUMMARY: THEY BOTH OFFER HIS SHOULDER TO REST ON. WHO KNEW IT BECAME A FULL BLOWN WAR!

CHARACTERS: malleus draconia vs. leona kingscholar

EVENT MASTERLIST

WARNINGS: no determined end couple, jealousy, crowley sucks at being a guardian 👎👎👎

NOTES: leona suffering chronicles part 3!!! /j tysm for your request!

reader is g/n, reader is yuu

˚∘☆∘˚

helping crowley had many benefits.

weekly payments, a home and shelter, and a beloved father figure. that’s what he claims anyway. however, from yours and grim’s experience, there were also many drawbacks; he forgets to pay you, he forgets about you, you’re his favorite errand runner, and you tend to pull all-nighters in order to finish up his chores.

in short, helping crowley was just asking for a death wish. finally finding some free time in your day to rest, you sat onto a nearby bench hidden by the trees, basking you in some shade.

“urgh.. if i have to run down anymore papers to crewel i think ima be sick.” grim groans, stretching himself into your lap before curling up to nap. “tell me about it.. im sick of being sam’s supplier.” you sigh, leaning your head onto the back of the bench. “child of man? what are you doing outside of class?” a certain prince calls out, suddenly sitting by your side.

“tsunotaro? i could ask you the same question.” you laugh, suddenly snapping yourself awake. “wasn’t there a housewarden meeting today?” you ask, seeing his face twist into a pout. “if that is the case then they have failed to invite me.” he sighs, crossing his arms with a frown.

“seriously? again?” you scoff, shaking your head. “i’ll have a talk with crowley about this when i see him later.” you smile at him, patting his back. “i appreciate it. you’re too kind, really.” malleus looks into your eyes, not being able to resist smiling back at you. as you both continue to converse like normal, you have yawned far too many times for the poor boys liking.

“are you sleeping alright? i believe you yawned at least 10 times during our conversation. are my topics too boring for your liking?” he frets, sudden worry overriding his emotions. were you losing interest in him? are you going to leave him?! oh no. no no no no no no no no—

“why would you think that?! im always interested in what you have to say. crowley has been working me ragged lately, that’s all.” you reassure malleus, giving him a thumbs up as if what you said wasn’t concerning in the least. “why that lousy..” he mutters, eyes narrowing at the facts. how dare that stupid insolent prick drive his poor beloved prefect to the brink of exhaustion. it’s inexcusable.

“im on a break for once, so me and grim were just resting here.” you smile, pointing to your sleepy catlike companion. speaking of catlike companions, leona watched from a faraway tree your little chat with malleus. yuck. he’s already annoyed when you talk to other beastmen, but talking to that horned bastard just left a bad taste in his mouth.

“well, you’re more than welcome to rest on—”

“hey.” leona huffs, plopping himself beside you. malleus’ eye twitched at the sight. are you shitting me. what is he doing here? isn’t there a housewarden meeting for him to attend to? go away. “leona?! shouldn’t you be at the housewarden meeting?” you exclaim, practically taking the words right out of malleus’ mouth.

“mm, ditched. no way am i attendin something stupid like that first thing in the morning.” he shrugs, crossing his legs and making himself comfortable. “looks like someone wasn’t invited.” leona grins, pointing at the obviously annoyed prince sitting beside you. “if you had just come to insult me, then you can take your leave and save it for later, kingscholar.” malleus replies with a polite yet harsh tone.

“not everythin’s about you, lizard. can’t i care for my own underclassmen?” leona frowns, wrapping his arm around your shoulder. “..pardon?” malleus furrowed his brow, watching as the lion prince got far too touchy for his taste. “they got eye bags, probably haven’t been sleeping well. since im such a kindhearted senior, i don’t mind if they rest a lil.” he smirks, leaning you onto his shoulder.

“really?!” you shout in disbelief, nearly waking poor grim up. leona was one to never admit to anything, always keeping you guessing. seeing him so.. direct threw you and malleus for a loop. “would you rather rest on tree bark?” he raised a brow, leaning closer to your face. “nope! thanks i guess, leona.” you hastily accept, deciding not to question it.

“thanks for talking to me malleus, it kept me from falling asleep.” you smile, now shutting your eyes. in a matter of seconds, you had already fallen asleep, relieved from all the previous exhaustion. the two princes glared at one another, tensions rising to new heights. “your services are no longer needed, you can go to the housewarden meeting. consider it an invite.” leona chuckles, waving malleus off towards the hallway, earning a genuine look of anger from the usually calm and collected fae.

“i appreciate the sentiment, but i believe the child of man and i were having a heartfelt conversation before you showed up. as king of briar valley, consider yourself excused.” malleus retorts, moving you over onto his shoulder. leona scowls in return to his obvious insult, very gently moving your head back to him. “if i remember right, they chose to lean onto me. not nice taking what’s not yours.”

“don’t act like you didn’t just steal their attention.” malleus scoffs, tugging you back towards him. “why you horned bastard.” leona growls, bearing his fangs at the now smug prince. and so, the game of tug of war began. constant pulling back and forth, back and forth, it was a miracle you hadn’t waken up yet. poor prefect..

HOWEVER, a certain someone else felt the shaking, and just couldn’t stand it. grims eyes flutter open as he looks to the two housewardens tugging you left and right with a frown. “HEY,” grim shouts, startling the two as they looked down. “do ya mind?! some of us need to get a lil shut eye.” he hisses, trying to look at the very least intimidating. “shut it, pipsqueak.” leona grunts, glaring at grim.

“grim, i believe it is best if you don’t intervene.” malleus stated sternly, moving him off of your lap. “HOW DARE YOU! GRIM THE GREAT LISTENS TO NOBODY! [MC]! WAKE UP, WE’RE SLEEPING SOMEWHERE AWAY FROM THESE FREAKS.” grim shrieks, almost rupturing both of their eardrums.

you stir awake at grim’s shrill voice, rubbing your eyes with a grumble before looking downwards. “huh..? oh, tsunotaro? leona? you’re still here?” you mumble, turning your your sides to see the two boys covering their ears. “let’s get outta here and sleep somewhere else. crowley might find us and give us somethin else to do.” grim frowns, tugging your hand.

“alright, alright, jeez. calm down, will ya?” you sigh, reluctantly getting up and following him inside. “i’ll see you both later! don’t go arguing more, ya hear?” you show them a smile before grim drags you out of sight, leaving both boys dumbfounded.

“it’s your fault they left. tch, dumb lizard.” leona grunts, glaring daggers into malleus. “my fault? how about saying that again after i shave off that mane of yours?” he jeers, feeling a vein about to burst. “haah? what was that?!”

they did indeed, argue again.

A/N: three leona requests in a row is crazy 😭😭 he can’t catch a break (imagine leona bald tho)

date published: 8/25/24

© temiizpalace — do not copy, steal, or put my work into ai. thank you!

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Hi, I’m sorry to bother you. I’ve been attempting to unlearn what I’ve been taught about the DPRK from western outlets, but I’ve gotten stuck on a facet that you can, perhaps, speak to. As is often harped on here in the west, there seems to be a dynastic quality to the leadership, namely the Kim family. Now the fixation that the people have on their leaders I can understand, we can observe the same kind of obsessive fervor in many countries in the west (especially the US). I guess I don’t fully understand the political structure of the DPRK, nor the people’s relations to it. I apologize for the vagueness of this question, and thank you very much for your time.

It is understandable that most people will have no idea about the political structure of the DPRK, and the title of "Supreme Leader" can be confusing if you don't understand how the DPRK's government works.

The political structure of the DPRK is based around democratic centralism, similar to the USSR. Kim Jong-un was elected to the positions of general secretary of the Worker's Party of Korea and president of the State Affairs Commission, which grants him the honorific title of "Supreme Leader" and makes him the representative of the state. However, he is not the head of government. That would be the premier, Kim Tok-hun (unrelated to Kim Jong-un, Kim is simply a very common surname in Korea.) Kim Tok-hun also serves as the vice president of the State Affairs Commission.

The highest organ of the DPRK, meanwhile, is the Supreme People's Assembly, which is a multi-party legislature that votes on laws and constitutional amendments and is responsible for electing both the Premier and the President of State Affairs, among other positions. While there are multiple political parties in the DPRK, the Worker's Party holds a privileged position under the constitution. So while the position of General Secretary does not confer any formal governmental powers, it is still a powerful political position in the country.

The Premier is the head of the Cabinet, which is the administrative and executive body of the DPRK. While the SPA creates laws, amends the constitution, and decides the budget, the Cabinet administers the implementation of them.

The SAC directs the orientation of state policy in the DPRK. While they do not write laws directly, they can issue directives to guide the SPA in determining which laws to write. However, the SAC is ultimately accountable to the SPA and not above it. The SPA is responsible for electing the SAC in the first place and has the authority to recall its members. So while the SAC is not directly elected by the people, it does not hold greater power than the SPA whose members are directly elected.

Members of the SPA are elected by all citizens 17 and older alongside members of local assemblies (compare governors vs senators in the US.) Elections are conducted via secret ballot. Anyone has the right to run for election regardless of party affiliation, which is why there are multiple parties represented in the SPA as well as independent members.

You can read more about the DPRK governmental structure in the DPRK constitution here: