#i have Many Opinions about this but unfortunately [redacted]

[ukulelekatie]

me: *reads a f/f fic in Spanish and plops a paragraph into google translate to make sure I understood it correctly because oof my Spanish is rusty these days*

google translate: ah. I see your lack of personal pronouns in this pro-drop language and therefore I need to make some assumptions about the genders of the people being written about in order to translate it into English. worry not! I will assume that this is written about a straight couple :)

me:

[bioethicists]

responding to this with my shitty redaction because i'm not comfortable posting obvious bait with people's names in them (particularly dead names) but i just wanted to point out the ways in which this ask is prototypical bait written to purposefully generate drama or controversy (idk if this is in a kiwifarms trolling with right wing motives sense or an 'i love drama' person) by trying to appeal to online leftist culture/the fear of being 'problematic'. i see ppl fall for this constantly + i need people to start learning to recognize the signs instead of either engaging or using this as evidence that leftists are stupid/petty/hypocritical (which many of us are, but in much less amusing ways, unfortunately)

the implication that there is a single founder of the "neurodiversity movement" + that evoking this movement at all (which i don't do + i think it's actually pretty evident that my politics are distinct from the much more bioessentialist politics of those who prefer that term, which is part of what led me to conclude that this is a copypasta) is supporting the founder. tracing a broad social concept to a single individual, then disparaging that individual as morally unsound (by evoking other explosive, petty pieces of discourse, like baeddalism + transandrophobia) in order to provoke doubt, fear or anger. demonstrates a hope that leftists will flinch away from anything associated with anyone 'problematic' without applying any critical thinking.

misrepresenting complex events (or fabricating them entirely- idk if these things happened + i simply couldn't care enough to find out) in a way that hits the pressure points of performative activism (she's being mean to an autistic person! other people of color agree with me! this other person is anti physically disabled people!) while also betraying reactionary opinions through language use/implications (claiming to care about 'transandrophobia' yet deadnaming someone? claiming to care about specific events at specific autism conferences but using terms like "severely autistic"? saying you have spoken to "Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians" lmao did you type this out based on census checkboxes from the 70s?). the author of this ask is clearly not a member of the activist communities they claim to be from because they accidentally slip into the speech conventions + opinions of a kiwifarms/4chan loser who does a lot of hatereading. this one did a good job of hitting the bingo card of divisive intracommunity issues rn- great research skills, bud! put them to better use <3

reframing reactionary beliefs using leftist concepts. this works because many of us do not have a foundational politic outside of "well, i want to be good, so I'm going to support the things that other people i trust say are good". which doesn't make you bad (there is no good or bad! learn this now + quick, if you really want to play a part in building a better world) but it makes you easy to manipulate + unlikely to be capable of meaningful change. notice that the claims this ask is asserting are, at their core, "people make up microaggressions to cause problems when really they could easily suck it up" + "people fake disabilities and being trans for attention". these are reactionary concerns, no matter how artfully they are dressed in social justice language. kiwifarms in particular was very, very good at this- they loved finding the people they stalked to be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc, not because they thought those things were wrong (it was their hobby to be these things!) but because they delighted in identifying hypocrisy, stirring up drama, + destroying people's reputations.

this is hard to explain bcuz i blacked out the names, but if you have a passing familiarity with fascist/reactionary online spaces, particularly the history of kiwifarms, you will know that reactionaries have their own 'pet leftists', just like we have our 'pet fascists' (shapiro, alex jones, tucker carlson, etc). that is, ppl they obsessively follow, harass, + scrutinize + come to believe are representative of everything that we believe. these ppl are rarely ppl who are actually prominent in our online spaces but online reactionaries often believe we are just as obsessed with these people as they are, but as unquestioned paragons of virtue + brilliance. namedropping these ppl is often an accidental tip of the hat, particularly when the ppl aren't on tumblr, haven't been a topic of community discussion for quite some time, or run in a different circle than us (reactionaries don't understand that there are actually thousands of leftist social groups which have very little overlap with some others- pronouns in bio does not mean someone knows or cares about contrapoints, for instance)

tl;dr this ask is a fantastic example of the rhetorical features bait that someone might actually take seriously.

[phoenixyfriend]

Raising the Minimum Wage and Its Effects

Ko-fi prompt from [name redacted]:

So, what does raising the minimum wage really do to the rest of the economy?

Hecking Complicated! I think I might need a doc of just. References for this one. But here are a few elements!

(Also, the Congressional Budget Office has an interactive model of how different changes to the minimum wage could affect various parts of the economy, like poverty rates and overall employment. Try it out!)

Reduction of Benefits

A common claim that is used to argue against the minimum wage is that it will result in companies cutting hours for their employees in order to recoup losses by having to provide benefits to fewer employees. This isn't 'the minimum wage is bad' so much as 'corporations are assholes,' but it is unfortunately still a thing that happens. (Harvard Business Review)

This is not a problem with the minimum wage itself, in my opinion, but these issues are emblematic of the weight that self-serving elements of capitalism carry. The low minimum wage is just one part of many that contribute to the current wealth disparity; if things like health insurance were universal, then bosses wouldn't be as able to cut them to employees in order to save money. Current regulations incentivize companies to hire more part-time workers than full-time, in order to avoid paying out benefits. Some cities have enacted Fair Workweek Laws in order to combat these approaches, though the impact is as of yet uncertain (Economic Policy Institute, 2018). Early reports, like the Year Two Worker Impact Report on Seattle’s Secure Scheduling Ordinance, do seem to indicate positive results, though:

In addition, the SSO led to increases in job satisfaction and workers’ overall well-being and financial security. In particular, the Secure Scheduling Ordinance had the following impacts for Seattle workers: - increased work schedule stability and predictability - increased job satisfaction and satisfaction with work schedules - increased overall happiness and sleep quality, and reduced material hardship. (direct quote from the Year Two Eval)

Unfortunately, these were approved at the earliest in 2015 (San Francisco's Formula Retail Employee Rights Ordinances, which went into effect in March 2016), which means that none of them were in play for longer than five years before COVID-19 ground the planet's economy to a near halt. I tried to find results for the San Francisco laws, but I couldn't find any studies for it; I did find an article from March 2023 that summarized which cities in California have brought in fair workweek laws, though, so maybe someone could use that as a jumping off point (What Retailers Should Know About California Scheduling Ordinances).

Companies prevented from cutting benefits by cutting hours would probably find another way to do the same thing, but let's be real: keeping the minimum wage low won't stop them from cutting every corner possible. EPI has some articles, like "The role of local government in protecting workers’ rights," that talk about how these measures can be, and have been, implemented to protect workers from cost-cutting employers.

Cutting the hours and benefits of part-time employees is a real, genuine concern to have about raising the minimum wage, and those need to be anticipated and combated in concert with raising the minimum wage. However, it is not a reason to keep the minimum wage depressed. It's just a consequence to be aware of and plan for.

Passing Costs On To Customers

A common argument against raising the minimum wage is that companies will raise costs in order to cover the raise in expenses, to a degree that nullifies the wage hike. This is, um. Uh.

Really easily debunked?

Like, really easily.

Over a ten-plus year period, research found that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage resulted in just a 0.36 percent increase in prices passed on to the consumer at grocery stores. A similar Seattle-based study showed that supermarket food prices were not impacted by their minimum wage increase. - (Minimum Wage is Not Enough, Drexel U.)

I've talked about it before, but in some cases it's just a matter of how US-based labor is such a comparatively small portion of costs for medium-to-large businesses that raising wages doesn't raise corporate expenditures that much.

That said, some companies rely on drastically underpaying their employees, like Walmart. Walmart's revenue in 2020 was approximately $520 billion (Walmart Annual Report, page 29). Now, this report doesn't actually tell us what amount is spent on labor, but it does give us the "Operating, selling, general and administrative expenses, as a percentage of net sales." This is, to quote BDC, "[including] rent and utilities, marketing and advertising, sales and accounting, management and administrative salaries."

So, wages are just part of the (checks) 20.9% of revenue that is operating SG&A expenses. But maybe I'm being mean to Walmart! After all, the gross profit margin is only 24.1%, so only 3.2% is left for those poor shareholders!

Oh, oh, that means the profit is still over 16billion USD? And Walmart cites having 2.2 million associates in that same report? And that's about $7,500 per employee per year that's being withheld? And that's before we take costs up by like three cents per product?

Which, circling back: A study from Berkeley by the name of "The Pass-Through of Minimum Wages into US Retail Prices: Evidence from Supermarket Scanner Data" found that

a 10% minimum wage hike translates into a 0.36% increase in the prices of grocery products. This magnitude is consistent with a full pass-through of cost increases into consumer prices.

Of course, Walmart does sell more than just groceries, but isn't it interesting that raising a minimum wage resulted in such a small cost increase? If we assume this is linear (it's probably not, but I have so many numbers going on already), then doubling wages from 7.25 to 14.50 would still mean only a 3.6% increase costs! Your $5 gallon of milk would go up to [checks] $5.18.

Hm. Those 18 cents might be meaningful to our poorest citizens, but if those poorest citizens are more likely to be raised out of poverty by raising the minimum wage, then it might just be the case that they too can afford the new price of milk, and have more money left over for things like... rent. Or education. Or healthcare.

Maybe even a cost cutting loss leader like Walmart can reasonably increase its wages. After all, they still have 13 stores on Long Island, where the minimum wage is $15, and has been since 2021.

(I could have just cited the Berkeley study and moved on, but after a certain point I was too deep in parsing the Walmart report to not include it.)

But also... minimum wage increases are often staggered. They start out on the bigger companies, which have the resources to accommodate those changes (unless they've been doing stock buybacks), and then later on the smaller businesses, now that a portion of the economy (those working for the big companies) has the spare change to spend money at those smaller businesses that are raising their prices by a little more than the corporations.

And at that point, all I can really say is, well.

If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you're not an oppressed company. You're just a failing company. Sorry, Walmart&Co, your business model is predicated on fucking over poor people, and so it's a bad business model.

Being a dickhead, while successful, is not actually 'smart' business practice.

(This doesn't even get into the international impacts, like what an "American companies should pay higher wages abroad, especially if they charge higher-than-American pricing for their products, but also at factories where we know they're committing human rights abuses" approach could be but this is already long as fuck so that'll have to wait for another post.)

Anyway.

Inflation

This one is tied into the cost argument above, but like...

Inflation is already a thing? Inflation is happening whether we raise the minimum wage or not. Costs go up whether we raise the minimum wage or not. Who is this argument serving? Not the people who can't afford rent, surely.

Quoting the earlier-mentioned Drexel report (red highlights mine):

While the minimum wage has been adjusted numerous times since its implementation in 1938, it has failed to keep up with inflation and the rising cost of living. The purchasing power of minimum wage reached its peak in 1968 and steadily declined since. If it had kept up with inflation from that point it would have reached at least $10.45 in 2019. Instead, its real value continues to go down, meaning minimum wage employees are essentially being paid less each year. Additionally, some economists argue if minimum wage increased with U.S. productivity over the years, it would be set currently at $26 per hour today and poverty rates would be close to non-existent with little negative impact on the economy. However, because gradual change was avoided, the extra funds were instead shifted to CEO compensation. A sudden change in wages now could possibly make a more noticeable impact on the economy, which is often cited as reasoning for a slower increase over time moving forward. Gradual increases with inflation and productivity could have avoided any potential economic ripple effects from wage increases and should be considered in ongoing plans.

Increasing Unemployment

A common argument is that the unemployment rate would jump as employers were forced to let employees go. Assuming they didn't just hire more employees so they could give them less hours in order to cut benefits... not really!

A 2021 article from Berkeley News summarizes the issue, along with several others, covering some thirty years of research that started with "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," published in 1993. They also touch on the issue of subminimum wages for tipped workers, though they do not address the subminimum wages set for underage and disabled workers.

“A minimum wage increase doesn’t kill jobs,” said Reich, chair of UC Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics (CWED) . “It kills job vacancies, not jobs. The higher wage makes it easier to recruit workers and retain them. Turnover rates go down. Other research shows that those workers are likely to be a little more productive, as well.” - Berkeley News article, "Even in small businesses, minimum wage hikes don’t cause job losses, study finds"

Lower turnover rates also save money for employers, as it causes them to have much lower HR expenses. How much money do you think large employers spend on using sites like Indeed or Glassdoor to find new employees?

This article from Richmond Fed does, admittedly, encourage a slightly grayer analysis:

In a 2021 review of some of the literature, [researchers] reported that 55.4 percent of the papers that they examined found employment effects that were negative and significant. They argued that the literature provides particularly compelling evidence for negative employment effects of an increased minimum wage for teens, young adults, the less educated, and the directly affected workers. On the other hand, in a 2021 Journal of Economic Perspectives article that analyzed the effect of the minimum wage on teens ages 16-19, Alan Manning of the London School of Economics and Political Science wrote that although the wage effect was sizable and robust, the employment effect was neither as easy to find nor consistent across estimations. Thus, although the literature supports an effect on employment among the most affected workers, it does not appear to be as sizable as theory might suggest.

The International Labor Organization has a similarly mixed result when taking a variety of studies into account. (I left in their own reference links.)

In high-income countries, a comprehensive reviews of about 70 studies, shows that estimates range between large negative employment effects to small positive effects. But the most frequent finding is that employment effects are close to zero and too small to be observable in aggregate employment or unemployment statistics (1). Similar conclusions emerge from meta-studies (quantitative studies of studies) in the United States (2), the United Kingdom (3), and in developed economies in general (4). Other reviews conclude that employment effects are less benign and that minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers (5).

And there's the 60-page "Impacts of minimum wages: review of the international evidence" from University of Massachusetts Amherst, which looks at data from both the US and UK. I'll admit I didn't read this one beyond the introduction, because this is very long already.

Not all US studies suggest small employment effects, and there are notable counter examples. However, the weight of the evidence suggests the employment effects are modest. Moreover, recent research has helped reconcile some of the divergent findings. Much of this divergence concerns how different methods handle economic shocks that affected states differently in the 1980s and early 1990s, a period with relatively little state-level variation in minimum wages.

I'd encourage you to think of it this way:

Employer A pays $7.25/hr. Employer B also pays $7.25/hr. An employee works 25hrs/week for Employer A, and 20hr/wk for Employer B. The minimum wage goes up to $15/hr. Employer B cuts the employee. Employer A cuts employees as well, but not this one, and instead increases their hours to 30/wk for greater coverage.

The employee has gone from just under $400/wk to $450/wk. They lost a job, sure, but the end result... They have an extra fifteen hours of free time per week! Or more! With time to level out, you have less jobs, but more employment, because people aren't taking up multiple jobs (that someone else could have) just to survive.

This is a very, very simplified example, which doesn't take into account graduated wage increases (see the NYS labor table) or the benefits issue from before, but it does show the reality that "less jobs" doesn't necessarily mean "less pay" or "fewer employed" people, when so many of those employed at this pay are working multiple jobs.

Even the Washington Post agrees that the wage hike wouldn't cost as many jobs as conventional wisdom claims, and they're owned by Bezos. (Though I recognize the name of the article's author as the same person behind that 60-page Amherst report, so there's that to consider.)

The Kellogg Institute also points out that individual workers were, on average, more productive after receiving the pay increase, so the drop in the bottom line was softened. This is a bit debatable; the results varied based on the level of monitoring, but it's worth noting that most minimum wage jobs are pretty high-intensity, high-monitoring. Goodness knows you don't get a whole lot of time to yourself outside of the critical eye of your shift lead or customers if you're working fast food. They also note a decrease in profits, but I'd point out that they speak specifically of profits, not share of revenue.

To explain the difference: imagine you sell $100 of product in a day. The product cost you $50. Overhead (rent, utilities, taxes) cost you $10. Labor cost you $15. Profit, then, was $25, or $25.

A 16% reduction in the profit does not mean you now retain $11. It means that you retain 16% less of the $25. You now retain $21.

(This is, as with many of my examples, INCREDIBLY simplified, but I need to illustrate what the article's talking about, and I don't have infographics.)

Some other articles on the topic are from The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Business for a Fair Wage, The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (more critical), the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, UCLA Anderson, Vox, and The Intelligencer, which cites another Berkeley article. I do not claim to have read all of these, especially the really long ones, but the links are there if you want to look into them.

In the interest of showing research from groups that do not serve my own political views, I'm going to link an article from the Cato Institute; I do encourage you to read that one with a grain of salt, given that it's written by a libertarian thinktank, and they are just as dedicated to hunting for research that serves their political views as I am. There were a few other libertarian articles I came across, but the way they presented information kept feeling really duplicitous so I just... am not linking those, or the leftist ones I am also uncomfortable with due to the whole "I'm totally not tricking you" vibes. Also eventually I just got tired, there are so many articles on this and I am just one blogger who is not actually working for a magazine or thinktank, I am working for my own personal tumblr.

Negatively Impacting Slightly-Higher Paid Employees

Did you know that raising the minimum wage affects more than just those making minimum? It affects those just above as well. It's referred to as the ripple effect of minimum wage hikes by this Brookings article. They estimate that a wage hike would affect nearly 30% of the country's workforce.

"Price adjustments provide the principal adjustment mechanism for minimum wage increases: higher labor costs are passed through to consumers, mainly for food consumed away from home. Such an increase does not deter restaurant customers. Price increases are also detectable for grocery stores (Leung 2018; Renkin, Montialoux and Siegenthaler 2019), but not more generally. The effect on inflation is therefore extremely small." - "Likely Effects of a $15 Federal Minimum Wage by 2024," Testimony prepared for presentation at the hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee, Washington, DC (2019)

This overlaps with general criticisms of widening income equality, citing an AEA article I cannot access since it's behind a paywall. I wonder if it touches on companies like Amazon being headquartered in the city and manipulating the job market by sheer size? I can only speculate.

Plus, there are the health benefits! Which are mostly connected to lessening poverty, and through that lessening stress and increasing healthcare access, but still! Some of these results are debated, but I'd need to know more about the details to know how they're related (University of Washington).

------

I've spent most of the day on this, so if you guys have made it this far and are interested in supporting me, please donate to my ko-fi or commission an article. (Preferably for more than the base price; I'm effectively working at a fraction of minimum wage myself, which is ironic considering the theme of this post.)

(I realistically shouldn't have spent more than two or three hours on this, but I have so many strong opinions on the subject that I couldn't stop.)

(Also: There were so many more sources I didn't even get to read the basic premise of because it was so repetitive after a while.)

[jewishmcr]

I recently made the extremely difficult decision to leave my synagogue two months shy of completing my conversion requirements because I couldn’t continue to support a congregation that aligns itself with “liberal Zionism.” I’ve been working towards conversion for nearly two years and this decision has been weighing on me heavily since October. I wanted to share the email I sent to my rabbi, in the event that it resonates with or helps other people in some way (I have redacted information about the specific synagogue for privacy). I would love to hear from others pursuing conversion to Judaism who have experienced similar issues!

Dear Rabbi,

I’ve been putting a lot of thought into the conversation we had last week, and I appreciate the time you took to speak with me and help me think about next steps. I’ve spent countless hours over the past seven months interrogating my relationship to [synagogue], Judaism, and Zionism, and am devoted to continuing to pursue conversion to Judaism. Although I desperately wish to carry on and finish out the conversion process with [synagogue], I cannot continue to do so.

I acknowledge and deeply appreciate that [synagogue] takes the radical stance of wholeheartedly condemning the actions Israel has been taking against Palestinians, and that this opinion is extremely rare among synagogues. I am glad that [synagogue] continues to push for the dignified existence of Palestinians and the recognition of their right to exist in land that has long been their home. These stances give me much hope for the future of organized American Jewish life across the country, and I hope that [synagogue] will remain at the forefront of progressive Judaism. All of this being said, I refuse to compromise my own morals, those both personal and religious, for the sake of the convenience of completing my conversion quickly. Zionism, even “liberal” zionism, is a colonial project that has, from the very establishment of the state of Israel, resulted in the deaths, displacement, and torture of Palestinians. I cannot separate an idealized hypothetical version of zionism from its concrete reality. I do not believe that the Jewish people ever had an inherent right to occupy land by forcible displacement. I do not believe that the state of Israel had the right to be established in 1948. Especially considering that on May 15th, 1948, one day after the official establishment of Israel, the first Nakba began. The day that you and I spoke marked the 76th anniversary of this horrific event, something that weighed heavily on my mind during our conversation. It is also my belief that Israel should not continue to exist as a nation. This has been my belief for quite some time, but it has strengthened exponentially since October 7th.

I understand that many members of [synagogue], including possibly clergy, share these beliefs with me. I also understand that I would not feel content in my conversion if I carried it out in a synagogue that continues to ally itself with zionism in any form. The version of Judaism that I want to create for myself has no space for zionism in any capacity. I seek a Judaism that, in addition to condemning Israel as [synagogue] does, is anti-zionist in words, actions, and religious practices.

I am heartbroken to be leaving [synagogue], which has been providing me with a community of fellow LGBT Jews since I moved to [current city]. This is not a decision I am making lightly, nor is it a decision that I’m happy to be making. I do not know yet what the next steps of my journey will be, but unfortunately it will not include [synagogue]. Although I did not yet want to admit it, I knew this was my decision when you asked me towards the end of our conversation if I could see myself continuing to worship, celebrate, and mourn with the [synagogue] community if I were to continue pursuing conversion here. My answer, unfortunately, is no. My discomfort with [synagogue]’s treatment of the genocide in Palestine has already caused me to withdraw significantly from synagogue life, as well as from completing the conversion requirements. I have found it increasingly difficult to jump through the hoops when I have a strong moral opposition to [synagogue]’s identity as a liberal zionist congregation. This decision is particularly difficult for me because, as you said, I’m unlikely to find a congregation willing to openly condemn Israel any more than [synagogue] does. I remain optimistic that eventually, I will be able to complete my conversion of my own terms among a community that shares my anti-zionism stance.

I thank you, [rabbinical intern], and everyone else from the [synagogue] community who has been there for me over the past two years. I have learned much and gained invaluable perspectives during my time at [synagogue], all of which I will take with me as I continue on the path to conversion. I plan to reach out to [rabbinical intern] separately as well as share my decision with the rest of my gerut group.

Thank you for everything,

Oliver

[blazehedgehog]

a negative question (those aren't fun i know) but what would you think of as some awful moments in gaming or gaming history?

I mean top of the list is Gamer Gate. Gamer Gate was, by the admission of the person who started it, his way of getting back at his ex-girlfriend. That's all it was. And it spiraled out of control into an entire hate movement that's still leaving ripples to this very day.

I am also of the opinion that most people who believed Gamer Gate was about game journalists were mislead and ultimately don't understand a lot about what they were campaigning against. The whole "ethics and lying in game journalism" largely stems from a growing series of misunderstandings and ignorance, which was largely exploited by bad actors to target women and minorities.

You cannot and will not convince me otherwise. Never ever.

That's because, in my 12 year stint writing for TSSZ, I took the job very seriously. It may not have paid much, but it did pay, and I did get a lot of valuable experience. And I watched friends in similar boats actually elevate their careers and become big, well-respected names in the games media/journalism space. Which gives me a better perspective than some folks have on what really goes on in that space.

I've talked about this at length many times over the years. About the weird adversarial relationship the press has with their fandom. And it's too big of a topic to contain in one single tumblr post, because it's many subjects, spanning decades. I cannot sum up why journalists used to (and still do) dunk on their fanbases, and why readers continue to value their opinions even in spite of that.

But I will say this: real, genuine corruption is a lot less common than you think. A lot of people get very twisted up in imaginary scenarios that simply do not exist. Most people in the press are simply trying to survive by whatever means the system allows them to. And I'd argue a lot of them are spiteful of their readers because some of you are genuinely insane and jump to these outrageous conclusions over literally nothing. Some folks don't know what an opinion means, or understand subjectivity, and treat it as a declaration of war.

Do conflicts of interest happen? Yes, absolutely. But with the way the market currently is, a lot of those things are necessary to keep media companies afloat. That's unfortunate, but it's not corruption. Not at the level you think it is.

When you see a website covered in ads for WAR OF DUTY 8: REDACTED OPS 4 and there's a prominent review for that same game, I can guarantee the person writing that review does not benefit from those ads and did not choose to put them there. All that money and all that blame goes to the corporation that owns the site. To the marketing managers and the CEO sitting at the end of the board room. That corporation may even go as far as to suggest edits to what probably starts out as a very honest review. But it is not the writer's fault. The writer has bills to pay. The writer needs to buy groceries. The writer needs to keep this job. The writer had real feelings and it was the corporation that changed the text.

And even then? The scenario I just described is rare.

You want to know what's even more rare? An indie developer sleeping with a writer for coverage of their game. A game, that, might I add, didn't even cost money. What was to gain there? Clout? You're out of your mind if you think that actually mattered.

Also? It's entertainment criticism. It is literally "Does this person like this piece of media yes or no?" This is not Watergate. It is not 9/11. Does honesty matter? Sure. But if you don't like a writer, go find a different one. There's a lot of us! But don't circle the wagons and prepare for battle, because that makes you a psychopath.

(Better yet: if you don't like a writer, start writing your own stuff! Be the change you want to see in the world and then understand how you're treated for that)

Which again just feeds into the idea that people who still believe that gamer gate was legitimate were tricked. It was a smoke screen. You were part of a hate movement. And how you react to that says a lot about you as a person and your values in this world.

[gorbalsvampire]

Do you have any thoughts, feelings, dismissive or derisive or intrigued or speculative noises you'd be willing to share about the "Kupala is an Earthbound" theory, please?

My dear mutual, it's like you knew I'd read Transylvania by Night recently! Beyond that, I've actually used Kupala in my long-ago Gehenna chronicle; the PCs essentially unleashed the demon to stop Tremere (the person and the clan) from winning the Eternal Struggle through a curse loophole. Good times.

Unfortunately, my thoughts on the Earthbound bit specifically tend towards the... not dismissive, but indifferent? I'm not a big Demon or Werewolf guy, and either of the "OMG Kupala is really THIS" revelations mostly serve to enable crossovers with those lines. Like: Kupala exists, it's a thing, it's in the soil in Transylvania, and how it got there and what exactly it is don't really matter in terms of the stories I want to tell.

Additionally - and this is my most unpopular opinion, so be warned - I find the Tzimisce deeply overwritten. There's too much convoluted comic-book "and then and then and then" worldbuilding around the clan. "They're bound to their ancestral soil because their Antediluvian made a pact with a demon of the primordial world" is a perfectly fine thing, but it has to coexist with too many other big things in the main, like "their Antediluvian has become a disease and is capable of affecting the entire biosphere" or "one of their bloodlines rejects Kupala and koldunism but it's not the same one that rejects Vicissitude so they're all still fucked" or [redacted because it's the stupidest bit of Dirty Secrets of the Black Hand] or the whole "two Antediluvian bodies" thing or playing Find The Lady with the worm in the box in Vienna. None of those ideas have room to breathe because they're all crammed in and treated as true at once.

The Tzimisce really need someone like Matthew Dawkins to work them over, the way he did the Hecata in Cults of the Blood Gods, establish a new normal with a coherent context rather than bits jabbing up through various books by various authors. If I ever write up my notes on V5: the Dark Ages, I'm going to try and do that job (since a lot of their bullshit originates in or before the Dark Ages setting).

HOWEVER. Kupala is kinda my favourite of the Tzmisce lore strands. It feels like the easiest to separate out from the others, and gives them a closer tie to the Tremere ("Kupala keeps encouraging sorcery in clans, wonder why?"). I think, when I first ran that Gehenna game, I was under the impression that Vicissitude somehow came from Kupala as well - that it was the Eldest's payoff for unbinding the demon/god.

So. Kupala. I like it, but I don't necessarily think attaching the "Earthbound from Demon: the Fallen" or "big ol' Bane from Werewolf: the Apocalypse" is necessary.

[stuck-in-the-ghost-zone]

UNDERSIDERS CLASSPECTING...

skitter-- heir of mind

tattletale-- bard of light

grue-- maid of blood

bitch-- knight of rage

regent-- bard of heart

[REDACTED]--mage of void

^__^ dont think too hard about any of em!! my classpecting methods also are. arcane and convoluted. and trying not to be like. vaguely spoilery? but. thats what i think. what r ur opinions... how would u classpect them? also bonus question classpect arm master for me please >:3c

UGHHHH DUDE I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THRSE FOR HOURS NOW. WHO THE FUCK IS REDACTED. IM LIKE 9 ARCS IN HOW IS THERE STILL A MAIN CHARACTER I HAVENT MET YET. SCREAMING. mage of void.... that's the classpect i gave ashe...... many thoughts head full

feeling A LOT OF THINGS about heart player alec. specifically destroyer class heart player alec. his dad's name is heartbreaker this is so evil. ALSO very glad u made brian a blood player it's so perfect for him. my immediate thought was knight of blood but tbh maid fits him soooo much better. EXTREMELY CLOCKED IN on mind player taylor. that would not have been my first choice for her but it fits REALLY well. (idk what my first choice would be for her. I keep thinking I understand taylor hebert and then she does something completely unexpected and im like WHO ARE YOU.) Lisa light player and Rachel rage player are also extremely perfect. also Rachel as a knight.... yeah.... I forgot to mention this in my lbs because it was. 4 in the morning. but I'm REALLY FUCKING SAD about Brutus and judas dying :( ESPECIALLY Brutus. fuck.

COMPLETELY. EVIL THING OF YOU TO SAY TO ME BTW. CLASSPECT ARMSMASTER. I HATE THAT GUY . UGH. unfortunately I did in fact think about this A LOT as I was finishing up at work. sigh. it was also super interesting because usually i lean heavy on aspects first bc I feel like i understand them better and class is just a modifier of whatever aspect a person is. but for him I went the opposite way because I COULD NOT decide for the life of me on a good aspect but ill be damned if he's not a fucking thief. he's so fucking thief coded. the whole basis of thief is "stealing [aspect] from others to benefit yourself" and he's so. selfish and egotistic in it for his own gain. he fucking SACRIFICED PEOPLE so that he'd be able to fight leviathan on his own so he'd have the glory of killing him. also related to his powers, while it's not stealing in a traditional sense he does ljke. really heavily analyze everyone around him and form tactics around that. also if I remember right he uses other people's tech/abilities in his halberd??? maybe not outright but i think i remember him basing some of his attacks on other heroes. anyway. for aspect I'm leaning toward.... well my first instinct is to say blood because he literally stole taylors team from her in revenge but i don't rlly think his other actions align with a blood player much. he's too focused on himself to be team oriented (even if his goal is to be. leader of a team) maybe hope? he wants glory he wants fame I feel like the closest thing to that aspect wise would be hope . fuck you for making me think about arm man for multiple hours

[fitzrove]

Nemo/Aronnax! (Nemonax?)

Tysm for asking!! >:]

As you may know I ship this (unfortunately) (shhdjfjf) so I'm answering that set of questions:

What made you ship it?

Ok so, I've talked about this a lot but in Nautilus das Abenteuermusical there is a song called Vater where the young and naive professor Aronnax has a crisis. Which goes on for almost 7 minutes. Which is mostly about how Nemo, the man he's admired as a genius so far, suddenly turns out to be a violent amoral monster - which unpleasantly reminds Aronnax of his drunkard officer (?) father,,,

I think the relationship is possibly meant to be read as simply fatherly, like a "father he never had" taking under his wing type thing, but it doesn't quite come across as only that, especially because of how violently Aronnax rejects that in the aforementioned song - he's sooo full of bitterness when he goes "do you want to be my father? Yeah, be my father? Do you want that? Never! No!". Like, Aronnax sees the patronizing attitude and emotional manipulation for what it is and strikes back by screaming about it... for seven minutes...

Also idk all of the other times they speak to each other are kinda Charged too... XDD In "Du bist es nicht wert" (Nemo refuses to let Aronnax and co. go free) Nemo screams that Aronnax "is going to die here with [him]" and calls him "beautiful" (derogatory). Idk it's just such a fascinating dynamic

I didn't quite ship it until finding out the context of the rest of the show from the official CD booklet, which points out that Nemo only rescues Aronnax and his friends from drowning once he hears Aronnax's name (??) and all sorts of other juicy details.

Idk, to me it comes down to how these characters symbolise two deeply conflicting worldviews and battle it out over their consciences - who will win, who will bend the other (and perhaps other characters/the world) to their will? It's like krolock x abronsius but abronsius is a twink (so he also doubles as Alfred I guess?) and there's more sexual tens-

2. What are your favorite things about the ship?

The fact that they both have so many issues. Like these people are so wrong in the head ajsjdjjfk. They would never develop a loving relationship - they both love their wives, even though one is dead - but they're canonically deeply fascinated by each other to the point of sparing each other's life or killing just to make a point to the other. Motivated by their anger and frustration, I can imagine them [redacted]...

3. Is there an unpopular opinion you have on your ship?

I don't like/want to read about the original Jules Verne book version of it at all, because those guys aren't that fucked up and they're especially not having constant mental breakdowns set to funky musical tunes xD I consider this unpopular because every ao3 fic for them so far is for the book or other adaptations.

[scarefox]

warning: probably controversial hot take rant 🤷‍♂️

me, a genderqueer who goes by they/them: I wish there was a genderneutral pronoun in my own language, german, too :(

the weird corner of the german queer community: don't worry we got you!! we remove and replace EVERY ''mann'' (male) and also ''man'' (neutral but looks and sounds like mann) in EVERY german word because we hate the patriarchy and therefore hate ever single [redacted] on earth and can't accept seeing them hinted at even in the slightest in text as well :) you are welcome

me: ... that's not what I wanted....? ''man'' isn't even gendered? doesn't it maybe come from the english ''human''? (since german and english is a related language). the cishetes are already struggling and crying to integrate ONE new neutral word into the language. But you want to unnecessarily change and butcher the whole dictionary with wonky grammar and no regards to the linguistic heritage and flow of our language.

them: everyone who disagrees the genderneutral language reform is our enemy! are you even genderqueer enough??? apparently not!! you sound uneducated and like a traitor even. you are part of the problem! don't talk to us ever again.

me: all I want is one neutral they/them in german that fits all purposes (we already adapted it into "dey" it just needs to be pushed more) T_T

P.S.: yall are ridiculous if you think a big crowd of humans (the majority) will bend and accept a whole pointless change of a system they had their whole life, learned in school for decades. without adjustment time, without rethink time, without proper explanation and education about the topic and why they should do that that does not involve hate on them (we inside our own community aren't even clear about the whole other genders yet and how to box them and treat them!!!). And it doesn't have anything to do with my opinion it is simply how human brains work. Nothing in the human world gets changed over night without resistance or force. And if you do it with force you get more resistance and frustration which will boil up into a anti-movement sooner or later. Hint: it's what we have now, the whole hate wave we face? that partly comes from the earlier sjw movement who was very "we are better than you so you are all trash" instead of reasonable explaining to people why certain behavior or words are hurtful to others. AGAIN this is not necessary my opinion but how humans work!! If you go up to some one who behaves wrong and just slap them (verbally) in the face you just get aggression and defense mechanisms back. And I already said it BACK THEN that fighting fire with fire will just cause a bigger fire. Which is where we are now. And it will continue like that because way too many people in this have a superior complex and don't know how to effectly make people do what you want them to do.

You have to treat the stubborn cishetes like little bratty children not like criminals. It is unfortunately like that.... And most of their defence is literally just coming form them not understanding it!!! and we won't move on if we keep going like it as if we were at war with the cishetes / everyone who disagrees (no wonder they treat us like a crazy cult if SOME of us do in fact behave like that....). How do you expect a peaceful agreement and acceptance out of this? I mean most german boomers can't even bring themselves to learn english because they are insecure about it, even tho most of them say "they don't need it"... and that's the same with ever y change they don't get, they feel insecure and confused and play it over with defense and dislike.

[across-every-universe]

OC Intro: Kieran

Important Note: This character sprung from me thinking “y’know what, some villains seem to champion narratives that would be very convenient for Hollywood to demonize, don’t they?” and my subsequent clumsy attempts to reclaim that trope, centered around one of my own passions. Kieran is decidedly not meant to achieve that same goal of demonization, but it also goes without saying that I do not condone all the murder stuff. I am not a writer, I do not have experience or expertise at the deft handling of sensitive political topics, and at the end of the day Kieran is just a silly little guy I cooked up in my head!

Name: Kieran (chosen/alias)

Age: 24

Genre: Comic-Book-Style Universe

Occupation: Kieran likes to call it “vigilante justice”. Some would call it murder. In Kieran’s opinion, those people would be misinformed.

Profile: Loading…

…

…

Unauthorized.

user_Kieran: override_key(REDACTED)

Profile: If you’d asked [_____] about her occupation a few years ago, she would’ve told you she’s a student in her university’s Department of Climate Science and Sustainability, and that she’s working for the team in charge of a weather satellite as a part-time job. Unfortunately, working for those “eyes in the sky” brings some extra eyes of your own on you, these days.

After a run-in with a power she doesn’t understand leaves her with some… unusual alterations to her biology, [_____] was “rescued” by the government-run Exobiology Division. Deemed a danger to society and a risk to her own safety, she was declared dead on any official documents and kept in a special hospital (for her own safety, of course. Purely for her own safety).

Mass chaos breaks out within the hospital a few years later when a gap in security is found by one of the “patients”. [_____] escapes along with most of the others.

She finds herself suddenly out on the streets with no real allies, no legal identity, and no way of continuing the life she once had without endangering their old friends and family. She has nowhere to turn, and no ordinary human would trust her and take her in with the way she looks. Except… there’s the people all those ordinary humans gave up on already. The ones who’ll take in almost any type of person willing to work. The villains.

[_____] doesn’t want to hurt people, but she doesn’t want to die either. She figure she’ll just join these guys for now until she gets on her own two feet. But a couple weeks turns into a couple months, and she’s in too deep now. She even finds a new name for herself: Kieran. She’s kind of getting used to this exhausting, but free, way of life. Still, even though she’s just doing small odd jobs — a small role in a heist here, a bit of hacking there — the guilt of working as a villain is starting to weigh on her. She needs to work towards something better, something big.

See, back when Kieran went off to university for environmental sciences, she had these grand aspirations of helping to save the world. She was hoping to do that in a more above-board manner, but those days of data sets and engineering solutions are laughably out of reach now. But the way she sees it, we’re all still hurtling Mother Earth flaming off of a cliff, pretty much. We’re all still dying.

Kieran’s sick of waiting around for the guys in charge to decide when she’ll die.

This new world Kieran lives in doesn’t have so many rules, now. She’s smart, she has applicable skills, and she has a little more emotional intelligence than some of her new “colleagues”. She knows she just needs to climb the social ladder of this loose network of self-proclaimed “villains” for long enough. Then, she can get connected to some people who have a bit of real power.

From there it’s info. Names of the ones in charge, the ones who hurt Kieran. Lists upon lists. Whose finances are held up by whom? Which organizations are subsidiaries of the other? Who’s really calling the shots? As her hunger for illicit knowledge drives them on, Kieran meets a couple old hats in the organization who aren’t so bad, actually. One takes her on as a protégé of sorts, teaches her the ropes.

Then it’s security — the targets’ and Kieran’s. How to cover your tracks. How to uncover someone else’s. How to buy secrets. How to take over that out-of-the-way warehouse without actually putting your name down on paper.

Hey, don’t look at Kieran like that. She needs a home base, and she was sick of staying in that compound with those insufferable supervillain wannabes. No one was using that old warehouse anyways.

From here, Kieran can really start planning. She’s beginning to get their head around it all now: who hurt her and why, and who’s in charge of running this sinking ship underneath the waves.

Kieran will teach them all why what they did was wrong.

And all of them will listen.

[fitzpirations]

Some thoughts on me seeing Days of Wine and Roses like,, almost a month ago now but I don't feel like editing it other than to add a few extra bits in bold & at the end. Overall, I really enjoyed it! Intrigued at what's next for the cast & crew, and if I could see it again/replicate my first viewing I probably would.

My thoughts, like film have developed and I am mostly out of a terribly weird headspace that I was unfortunately stricken w/ this weekend and I gotta say I loved Days of Wine and Roses.

~~~~~~~

I do think it’s perfect in the theatre it is right now & while I would LOVE for it’s actors to win very big awards for it and do believe they are due… for me a transfer is not the right move. Willing to debate on it! I think the story is important and unique and beautifully told but,, I also think the set/sound/lighting design @ Atlantic is special and can’t imagine it staged differently. It perfectly fits that space and needs that intimate of an audience, in my opinion.

anyway, this isn’t a full review & no one cares, but I’m so stoked with how things turned out & with my friend and I scoring great cancellation ticket seats & seat upgrades for a very cheap price and the fact that REDACTED who I adore was also there. my friend spoke to them while I blacked out- it was very neat. So embarrassed of myself for our post-show interactions that I’ve physically cringed and tensed up every time I think about it but! The show keeps replaying in my head and I’ve been thinking more and more about how it was told and listening to the demos and I just think how great is it to see a new piece of live theatre! I went in knowing a barebones plot (and purposely avoided real reviews, the demos, and the original movie) and was so happy to go on that ride. I do so so wish my mental health wasn’t being all finicky because I think I would’ve been all the more immersed in it but- nothing I can do about that. Luckily I didn’t say much of anything to the redacted actors in question, but my lack of interaction with one while my friend spoke to them and kept nudging me & my theatre equivalent of “good game” to the other will haunt me forever ❤️ my only consolation is I believe I wasn’t memorable in my presence & that maybe 1 day I’ll properly meet these people who I literally adore as a fellow creative. Wouldn’t that be nice. Until then, I will continue to beat myself up about it LOL. It’s so,,, I hasten to actually explain it more, but I feel about 3 feet tall thinking about it.

And did they drink ANY wine the whole time??? I’m very Kirsten in the first few scenes-coded in that I don’t drink and really never should be convinced to, haha. So I’m not super knowledgeable on names of booze- but I think I would have noticed them drinking wine, red wine at least. And no roses, just sad tulips. Oh! I could go on about the 2 little transition scenes they do with ok, both the “wine” (the bag from the liquor store that they have you you to believe is only holding one bottle) and the “roses” (the soon-to-die Tulips). Like it’s set up as a bit of like? Something to watch while they’re moving things around but actually? It reappears in the actual plot in a large way. And so many moments echo and mirror each other in words, actions, and song between Joe and Kirsten, but the reprises (so to speak) are new and fresh. Just so so neat. What a fun & exciting new piece of theatre. And why is the rolling out of the bed all the way to the front of the stage so funny? maybe it just was to me.

anyway anyway I have a lot of thoughts/they keep coming in and like loading which is wild. Like I’m joking but it’s as if I blacked out?? Perhaps someone on here will appreciate the image of me debating just buying closing night tickets even though I was too cheap to spend full price on any other performance// but a newer friend of mine posted a story of like, the New York Times review on opening night and I responded to it like “I’ve been dying to see this show!” and he was like “yeah haha it’s really good I’m working press on it lol isn’t that funny and I had to take a group pic with Kelli and was emailing her to arrange something and she saw me and called me over by name and gave me a hug- I didn’t know she knew my name!” I worked with this guy on the show I stage-managed recently and he’s in the process of quitting his sweet sweet press agent job and I’m not a close enough friend to acquire tickets from him and let me tell you,,, I was absolutely losing my mind reading this .

cut to my (other, closer) friend and I rolling up to the show without tickets the other night, with just hope & a dream and we were like 'wouldn’t it be funny if we saw like ~celebs/Broadway people because a lot of them are off tonight?' and we were chatting about watching the Tony's and stage-dooring and other unrelated stuff & we get tickets after 20 minutes and go to dinner and when we come back she’s like look it’s REDACTED TONY WINNER and I’m like omg. We go to step into the building proper and who do I see but my literal favorite actor at the moment other than REDACTED who is in the show and I was like friend it’s REDACTED! and she’s like go say hi and I’m like??? No I will not be doing that. And she’s like but he’s your favorite! And hey, we’re here to see REDACTED, who’s your other favorite! It’s a big night for you! But she was so loud that I was like looking straight ahead embarrassed that the random people in line would hear us. Literally what a time though, we had standing room tickets and then we got moved up like twice to center row, perfect view seats. Literally like a day later I was finally like O MY GOSH about it all,,, the desire to not be crazy about any of it and keep cool made me robotic in the moment and I’m very pro leaving-people-who-don’t-know-me-alone, so the circumstances were odd.

Anyway I literally have a notes app I keep throwing thoughts at about the most random moments from the show or the staging and it’s v good theatre. Like I enjoyed it, but wasn’t in love or anything but the more I stew on it, it’s a random choice of adaptation, a weird little show, its stars (including the actress playing their kid) are arguably all too old for their roles, there’s a song in Norwegian?? the opening number didn’t give me the ick but I was scared for my life that Brian was singing all of his lines// like I knew it was going to be a “two-hander” and read that the others other than the kid don’t really sing but that opener,,, I was like o no do I hate this? But also the set was so cool and as a recent big fan of Brian is was v cool to literally see him irl (lame I know) but why does the cast just pose in the beginning and slay for like 30 seconds? Idk but it was v 1950s chic of them idk idk we literally were clapping like,,, YEAH 👏👏👏 yeah! 👏👏 . And the scatting/jazziness of it all, I literally was shook but so pleasantly surprised by it all. What a treat! New musicals!!!

ok i literally never resolved the point I was making that the opening scene was not my thing and I was a bit scared I was going to hate it, but really enjoyed like the following 90%! Something about the first song is that it shouldn't be a song, in my opinion. I get why people are tempted to call it a play with songs, but I do think it's a real musical. Just was a bit cursed watching Joe singing right off the bat when no one else did, imo! If I were to see it/hear it again I may come around to it, but something about the way he was like half-singing was weird to me lol

but also randomly saw something from a video (that I haven’t watched as of yet) of Kelli saying they were supposed to open on BROADWAY February 2021 I think?? (tell me they wouldn't have closed immediately w/ omicron? or am i mistaken, I watched like 3 shows I was rooting for that season close early, and there were a TON) Literally the more I think about the show I’m like,, respectfully don’t transfer to Broadway,, it’s so special where it’s at, like I know Atlantic announced its next season I feel? But I don’t know what theatre it would fit in correctly, they’re all too big and the opposite of the intimate experience it is rn. In a perfect world I literally want them to film this version (which I know is the epitome of highly unlikely) but also, I think realistically other than the star power of the cast and creative team it’s such a hard sell for your typical theater-goer or tourist and I would hate for its history to be one of a flop like,, what have we learned from The Sweet Smell of Success :((( I also learned via Kelli ‘s own post and someone’s reference on here that there’s a full boot of that…someone please me up with a link!

So what have we learned. A lot of takes I have not shared,,, it turns out I can get starstruck and it’s so embarrassing it makes me want to scream. Show is good! I’d love a cast recording and for it to not just die but,,, I’m fearful of the idea of a transfer- it seems like it’s likely happening anyway, someone on the team commented on Kelli’s ig about the Tony's all like “excited for next year!” And my press agent friend is all “they’re eying a transfer!” And it’s not that they don’t deserve it but… idk I will remain skeptical of that. I truly believe it can be a success where it is now, and that just because it isn’t a Broadway show doesn’t mean it isn’t impactful and rewarding creatively and etc etc there is the part in my brain like this is Brian’s Tony tho, no?

I firmly believe had everything w/ Next to Normal gone down differently he would have beat those little Billy Elliots’s in a heartbeat, but I digress. Like other than SSOS which I only have a idea of (and no clue about that year’s competition from the top of my head) he’s been up for 2 comedic roles which are hard sells in a category with “proper,” dramatic roles nominated -as in, actors who appeared in a leading role in a drama- and then ITW-which I have thoughts on separate from who his competitors were- which tows that line and sadly like,, it wasn’t even close for him. I feel like every nom he’s had doesn’t even quite show off how talented he is as an actor like idk how to describe it, but idk. I want a Chip Zien nom & win for Harmony, which my brain tells me may be a featured role but if it’s lead… all hypothetical but I’m not rooting on the show’s downfall… I just think it’s perfect where it is.

Anyway... chaotic highly informal thoughts but I also have a few screengrabs from my notes app note I am going to paste below. Would love to hear someone else's thoughts, and am willing to say, obviously, one of the REDACTED's in question is BdJ.

[abovenorbelowne1]

I found myself ruminating on our current political environment amidst the upcoming presidential elections. Including but not limited to the whirlwind of events that have happened since Trump took office, throughout our fight of an epidemic, then tracing my “thought finger” to the end of the line ending at present. It has been packed full of chaos and almost too much for one to digest.

Then my mind began going back to the distant past, but further away from this bubble of mayhem.

I remember as a kid watching the hearing to impeach Clinton and witnessing everything which unfolded. In all bluntness, the president got impeached, yet not removed, for getting his dick sucked outside of matrimony. I can still hear his almost overzealous twang of an accent when he said the infamous words, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!”

I began comparing what happened to Clinton to Trumps impeachment attempts during his presidency, along with all 30 charges sentenced then redacted after his term.

My thought bubble then furthered. Rights for people of color, sexual freedom, and gender have had such a longer struggle than the past decade in general. It spans back for far too long and although it is still present, has at least made steps forward to individual rights and freedoms. It has blossomed from the Salem Witch trials to persistent hazing of sorts. You gotta take some sort of win there, although not completely victorious and not currently absolved entirely.

During Clinton’s administration is when Ellen couldn’t come out as gay, AIDS was still prevalent and strong, inequalities still existed for women (actually the only group who was better then in a sense), and the disgusting treatment of people of color needs no explanation. We cared so much about someone’s gender, who one should be allowed to love, hate still tinged in the breaths and minds about the color of one’s skin. We had so much concern over morality and focused so eagerly on that compass that it repulses me to think about it all.

We cared so much about all of these things and impeached a president for sexual acts. What the actual fuck happened?

The pentagon admitted that UFO’s were real. The existence has been proven of evil corruption, lies, misleading and malicious manipulations of individuals, women’s rights were sent back in time, and most of this has been at the expense of not only just the minority groups but the majority of our society. It has cost us financially, mentally, and unfortunately many lives. Have the events in the last decade and what has lead up to them desensitized us so much that we are blind to truth? Our society fought so hard, in my opinion, for the most obscene and pathetic reasons in the past. But now we just let everything slide right on through and I couldn’t tell you where that compass which was so prevalent before even exists. It’s mind blowing to me comparing it all at once. The depravity of it all.

It makes me feel hopeless and sad. Why don’t we care anymore? I am not wishing for more rights to be reverted back to the past for certain groups by any means. I clearly don’t condone it whatsoever. However, we literally acted as the morality police which led to the impeachment of Clinton, but now are okay with letting someone get away with murder.

In the future, although I don’t wish to live it, I hope we can almost mock this era in text books when taking a step back to assess it all. I hope it still no longer exists and we haven’t turned into a version of the movie Idiocracy. However and unfortunately, I can’t fight giving myself over to despondency.

[yukidragon]

Goodness me, what a feast of tags you have served for me! I'm so flattered that this post could inspire so many delightful thoughts.

Your observation about Ian's mother and her thoughts on plus sized people are spot on. In her opinion, being overweight means you're disgusting, slovenly, constantly thinking about eating, greedy, and overall a person who just can't control themselves. Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins after all.

And, of course, Alice, a girl, wanting to be friends with Ian, a guy, meant she was a slut trying to tempt him. It wasn't too bad when they were young, but it got progressively worse when she and Ian hit puberty.

Ian has come a long way distancing himself from much of his mother's teachings, but between her rhetoric and society's general opinion on being plus sized... Well, unfortunately he sees it as much of a turn off for others just like he did his braces and glasses.

The sad part is Alice believes it too given all the bullying she's gone through and all the little nitpicky comments dropped casually or with "concern" from people she knows aren't bullies. It's one of the biggest reasons why her self-esteem is so low.

I should probably dig deeper into this in a future ramble sometime. For now, onto some more tags!

What's funny is Ian hasn't considered the affair partner as a backup. He isn't even actually romantically interested in her, which is why he's so confused how they wound up sleeping together. He thought he could only ever be comfortable having sex with someone he loved and trusted, but the passion between them swept him away. Even after the breakup, he tries to resist his lustful desires towards her in order to keep their friendship and somehow repair his relationship with Alice. He actually cares more about keeping the friendship with the affair partner more than he does about any sort of romantic relationship forming.

Of course the affair partner is a real piece of work. She's the type of person to take offense that the new hot guy in school turned down when she asked him on a date because he's got a girlfriend. Seeing a picture of Alice just multiplied how offended she was, so tempting him away from Alice was both a game to the affair partner, an ego boost, and in a way retaliation because she felt insulted that Ian would rather be with someone "way below" her.

Again, I should go into a ramble about her sometime, maybe pin down her name and appearance too. I'm still developing her admittedly, but she's slowly taking shape.

Back to the tags... Yeah, Ian left out details in his post, and the commenters noticed some of them. I can imagine one was like, "Wait, did I miss something? Where did [Alice's alias] going to the hospital come from?"

While it does look bad that Ian doesn't go into detail about that, in this case it was respecting Alice's privacy. Plus he doesn't actually know what all happened since she doesn't even remember.

A part of him worried that her injury wasn't an accident...

But that too is a topic for another post.

Yeah, Ian is very caught up in his pain, shame, and low self-esteem. His life centers around it, and he drags everyone around him down with him in his eternal pity party.

I love the comparison between Ian and [Redacted]. They both messed up pretty badly, and they both have low opinions on themselves. The key difference between them is that Ian constantly needs reassurance and validation in order to overcome it, while Joseph hides his shame and self-loathing deep inside. For as alike as they can be at times, sometimes they are in opposition too.

Oh man, I absolutely love the image of Barbie coming across the post. She's online most of the time, so chances are she'd see it well before Alice does. She considers sending it to Alice to see, but refrains until she can be absolutely certain. The updates make it incredibly clear that it is, and it's possible she shows Alice after the first update.

I mean, even if Barbie was wrong, she's one of the people trying to get Alice to dump Ian's ass during this time period, and this post might help her big sis see sense. When he cheated, that was it. Barbie switched from seeing him as a dorky-kinda-big-brother-who-is-fun-to-tease to The-Worst-Kind-of-scumbag. It's this kind of capacity for betrayal and selfish cruelty that made her such a misanthrope to begin with.

Even before showing Alice, Barbie did leave a scathing comment that Ian replied to, not knowing it was one of her many anonymous accounts. They went through a bit of a thread that made her suspicions grow given the way he responded was similar to Ian's whining.

Jack is going to have quite the learning curve when it comes to the internet, so it's unlikely he's going to stumble across it himself. He might hear Alice venting about it eventually though. It'd just give him more reason to hate Ian and want to protect Alice from Ian and other people like him.

It would seem to Jack that Ian is the type of person to spread gossip. He knows all about gossip and how those words hurt. If Ian dares to come back, he knows just the words to use to get rid of him.

After all... it's how Joseph (unintentionally) got rid of Mary's worst bully in the past. Hopefully history won't repeat.

Heck yeah Alice deserves better, and she's gonna get it from Jack, her friends, and family. Sunshine in Hell is getting that happy ending! ...Eventually.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I had a lot of fun. It is always such a delight to get your lovely tags on my posts. 💕

Imagine if instead of calling MC during post-nut clarity, Ian went to reddit to ask for advice? (Well, the bland-name legally-distinct version of reddit in this universe.)

Of course the comments would rip him apart and there'd be more crying, but it's kind of interesting to imagine the post he might've wrote.

For example, imagine the way Ian would describe MC in the post to other people. Would he try to justify what he did because the relationship was rocky, or would he be mostly bemoaning that he has no idea why he did it? Would he talk up MC's good qualities or slip in a lot of things that bugged him that he never brought up? What little unspoken biases would come out during the post?

I think the tone of the post would be mostly focused on how much Ian is hurting, as it is him venting to a bunch of internet strangers. He focuses on how terrible a person he feels he is, and how much he fears what's going to happen when MC finds out and how this might destroy their relationship. He just can't lose them! He can't!

I like to think Ian would have the state of mind to at least use a throwaway account and aliases for himself and others he mentions in the post. However, if MC is the type to visit those forums often, maybe even introduced Ian to them in the first place or vice-versa, it's possible MC recognizes enough details to realizes it's about them. Maybe it could even go viral and they find out about the post listening to a reading on podcast or video site.

Using my MC Alice as an example, I can imagine Ian talking about her weight and how he totally loves her in spite of how overweight she is, and she's so cute and kind. But the affair partner looked like she stepped out of a porn ecchi manga - big boobs, big butt, tiny waist, long trim legs, and incredibly flirtatious and sexually charged.

On that note, Content Warning for fatphobia, acephobia, and internalized religious-based shame!

Oh Ian had no idea it was flirting at first, he swears, but it felt so good. He never really felt like Alice really saw him as attractive since she's asexual, and she isn't all that enthusiastic about sex. It's another subconscious bias slipping through to justify himself and get sympathy despite the horrendous thing he did.

The sex with the affair partner was mind blowing, but once it was over Ian realized what he had done and felt just so awful. The affair partner tried to reassure him that it was only natural he found her more attractive (because people who tempt others to cheat in a relationship love to stroke their egos). No one has to know and they can keep having fun~

Naturally taking the affair partner takes snipes at Alice. She had done so in the past that Ian had called out in so much he offered feeble protests that Alice had good points too, while trying hard not to upset his new "friend." The comments usually were so innocuous he felt like he was overthinking it, but in the situation they were overt and insulting and he snapped at the affair partner in that moment.

Now Ian feels bad about that too since affair partner is telling him he overreacted. She tried to reassure him that everybody in a long distance relationships cheats. In fact, Alice was probably cheating on him right now. Anyone who says they're ace - in her opinion - are just lying to seem more "righteous" than they are and asexuality doesn't actually exist. Affair partner's comment that there must be somebody desperate enough to want to fuck a fat girl was what set Ian off.

Yes, my version of the affair partner is complete scum. I mean, people who tempt others to cheat tend to only care about making themselves feel superior to someone else.

The post online is a lot of word vomit with a token attempt to clean up spelling and grammar errors. Ian just keeps crying and is desperate for anyone online to tell him how he can make it up to Alice and save their relationship. He doesn't want to end the friendship with affair partner either since he knows it's his fault this happened, because he just couldn't control himself. All that internalized shame for his sexual urges bubbling to the surface. He knows he fucked up and he just wants to know how to atone for his sins.

Of course when describing Alice before describing the affair partner, Ian mentions their good points. Alice is so kind, even overtly so, holding him whenever he cried, always reaching out to others, being more motherly than his own mom. She's sweet and kind like that to everyone, and everyone loves her. She's everything he could ever want and she satisfied him in bed.

Man, imagine if Ian intended to write that Alice is everything he wanted in a partner, only to accidentally use the alias he made up for the affair partner instead of the one he used for Alice.

I mean, easy mistake to make, right? He's using fake names he just made up on the spot. Of course he's going to mix them up. He even insists as such when a comment calls him out for it before he can fix it in an edit. It was just a typo!

Ian admits that he felt guilty about subjecting Alice to his sexual urges. He knows sexual urges are sinful. She's asexual and doesn't really initiate sex but is always eager to please him anyway. She's always been like an angel to him and to everyone. Sex with her sometimes made him feel like a filthy sinner like he was desecrating something too pure and good for this world in the name of his shameful urges.

The affair partner though... Ian admits she's exciting, thrilling, so open in discussing sex like it's no big deal. She flaunts her body, confident in a way Alice isn't. The two of them are like night and day. When he had sex with the affair partner he didn't feel like he was defiling an angel. He admits he doesn't know what he was thinking, but it was the most intense, raw, and amazing sex he's ever had.

Which makes Ian feel even more like absolute shit for enjoying it so much.

Perhaps the allure Ian felt, aside from the physical attraction, was that he didn't feel like he was dragging someone else down. They were both filthy sinners acting like animals, only focusing on the pleasure and not thinking about consequences. He didn't think about the future, or about guilt and shame... at least not until after the post-nut clarity hits.

Even if Ian had this irrational feeling that sex with Alice was wrong, he knows it's wrong with the affair partner. In the afterglow, cuddling with Alice made him feel safe, accepted, loved, and like what they experienced wasn't as dirty and sinful as he felt. The aftercare soothed his worries and made him feel like what they had was actually pure and good and full of love.

The afterglow with the affair partner felt wretched. Ian immediately wanted to throw up. It was all wrong. He still can't understand why he got caught up in it like he did when he knows it's wrong... but in the moment it felt so good.

Another piece of advice Ian requests of the people of the forum is how to stop thinking about the sex he had with the affair partner so that he never gets tempted again. All he wants is to be happy with Alice, his partner, the woman he wanted to marry since they were kids!

The comments, naturally, tear Ian apart, but some scumbags support him, insulting Alice due to his description of her and saying what he did was only to be expected. If she wanted to keep him, she should've tried harder and lost weight.

While Ian doesn't respond to every comment, he responds to many. To those raking him over the coals, you can practically see the tears spilling onto the phone screen as he types that he knows he's a piece of shit, but he came here to get advice on how to fix things! Alice is the only one he wants to be with! He never wanted this to happen!

Ian makes an edit to the post in response to the scumbags, pleading with people not to insult Alice. He tries to protect her honor, talks even more about so many good qualities about her, and how these people don't even know her or understand!

He also insists this post isn't rage bait or farming for attention.

Ian also slips in that he knows Alice would forgive him even if he told her, since she's just that kind and forgiving of a person, but she would be crushed. She's already put up with so much over the years and still loves him. He can't handle what this will do to her. He doesn't want to break her heart over something so selfish and vile. He can't believe he did something so stupid, but he just wants to know how to fix this without hurting her.

In a way, Ian irrationally fears that he's now just like these scumbags in the comments due to his cheating. The things they say about her... did he subconsciously think them? Is he really such a horrible person? The ones trying to justify what he did are so vile, and the rest are condemning him and hoping that Alice dumps him.

Ian was hoping to get advice, and he does, a little. There are some people in the comments that take a more soft approach to chastising him. In the end, their encouragement is just confess and go to couple's therapy.

Ian resisted going to therapy all this time because of hearing negative things about it, how pointless it is (mainly from his mother), but he decides that's the best shot they have. He'll do anything to fix this now.

Ultimately, the comments make him fear telling Alice all the more given how much hatred he got for his post.

Ian does post updates in the aftermath. First that he broke down and told Alice. She forgave him and they're going to try and make it work. He doesn't specify how, just that they talked a lot and many tears were shed. Though he got so much hate online, some of the advice did seem to help, so he's back to vent more and get more advice. He'll suffer the hate if it means atoning for his sins.

Oh there's also a brief mention of Alice going to the hospital for a while, but Ian mostly focuses on how awful he feels and how it must be his fault, without going into details out of respect for her privacy.

Then there'd be another update from Ian later on about how Alice ended things, and he's devastated. He was so confused by it, as if it came out of the blue. They were working on fixing things! He thought things would get better, but then she told him that she just couldn't do it anymore right now. She needs some space.

Ian goes into self-pitying mode, knowing it's his fault and he messed up, but he thought things were going to be okay. What does he do now? How does he fix things? What did he mess up after things seemed to be getting better?

Then an edit is thrown in that Ian found out Alice's friends apparently talked her into breaking up with him. She still says she needs space to think before they can try again. Ian can't blame them given all the comments roasting him, but he was trying! He really was! How can he prove that?

At this point the comments are just all telling Ian to leave Alice alone and let her move on. It's over. Even the more empathetic posters don't have advice for him this time.

Hmm... Ian might not have gone to a forum for advice right after cheating in Sunshine in Hell, but I like the idea that he sought out advice after he confessed what he did to Alice. He might've even been a regular poster to online forums for advice anonymously in the past.

Of course if Alice stumbled across the post and realized it was Ian who made it, it'd make her feel even more violated than before. She'd be the type to read way too much into how Ian talked about her and the affair partner, particularly when people in the comments called him out for how he phrased certain things.

If nothing else, it'd make Alice feel more certain that Ian wouldn't be happy in a relationship with her in the long term. It'd also tear her apart to hear in his own words just how much he's suffering.

The post would haunt Alice at the back of her mind, the hate comments and Ian's little offhand remarks in the posts picking at her insecurities.

Naturally, Alice would avoid those forums for a while, as well as anyplace else Ian might be lurking online. Even posts that seem sort of similar give her this feeling of paranoia that it might be him vague posting about her again. Finally, she decides to just take a break from the internet as much as humanly possible, including socials.

Wow, this little off the wall what if scenario grew into something much bigger than anticipated. I hope you all enjoyed this idea, as well as how I applied it to Alice and Ian's relationship. If you did, perhaps consider what sort of post Ian might make about his relationship with your MC and the fallout from that. Have fun!

@channydraws @earthgirlaesthetic @sai-of-the-7-stars @cheriihoney @illary-kore @okamiliqueur @kurokrisps

[cowboyhorsegirl]

my eyes spy a character opinion ask game, so you know what im here to do.

i want the opinions™ on the emh!avengers 👀

(or just tony, and 2 other characters of your choice if the avengers is too many characters.)

thank you so muchhhhhh for the ask! :D

i started trying to answer this by narrowing down which 3 characters to put up on the bingo board and you can clearly see how well that went jfkdsljfdfk

Tony Stark

EMH!Tony characterization AND character design is so fucking *clenches fist* just!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know i've talked about EMH!Tony specifically at length before but unfortunately the words simply aren't coming to me right now to describe how much i like him (I like him so, so much). One thing I will say is that I miss the way his nose looked in the first episode before they finished yassifying his character design. He still looks great after they change it, but S1E1 "Iron Man Is Born!" Tony is my desi king and i adore him <3

Steve Rogers

I love EMH!Steve so much, I feel like of the multiversal Steve's, this Steve is much more self-assured, specifically in the period of time immediately after he is found in the ice by the Avengers. His character design took some getting used to, but honestly by the end of S1, he had fully won me over to the point where I no longer feared for the structural integrity of his top-heavy weight distribution and actually liked how Shaped he is.

This Steve is a bastard who's first name is Malicious and last name is Compliance, and we love him for it. I adored how you could see him actively loosening up around the other Avengers as he spent more and more time with them. The difference between Steve just out of the ice and Steve at the end of S1 is so palpable and it's incredibly satisfying to see him come into himself more as he adjusts to the future and to his team.

My only complaint is while i was enthralled by the [REDACTED] story arc, I'm still very salty about the fact that Steve is basically MIA for like. half a season :/ which considering the whole show only lasted two seasons is upsetting :(

Janet Van Dyne

I actually managed to pull together some coherent thoughts about Jan here, but the long and short of it is that I love her I'd marry her I'd die for her I'd kill for her she's a bestie she's my ride or die she's so high maintenance she's got terrible taste in men she's got incredible taste in women she keeps tissues in her purse but she never cries in public.

Her character design.... literally what is there to say? Perfection, perfection, perfection, *chef's kiss*, absolutely not a single note because she is flawless.

I also have a very soft spot for scenes in which her teammates protect her from huge explosions while she's Wasp-sized <3 <3 They all care about her so much and she's so fierce and competent but it's also so lovely to see her teammates having her back when she needs it :')

Bruce Banner

Honestly EMH!Bruce Banner is my favorite iteration of Bruce Banner/Hulk that I've seen yet. I really really really really appreciate how, even though Hulk has comedic moments, his character is not reduced to comic relief. And I loved how the show portrayed Hulk's and Bruce's relationship with each other, the way they're both distinct personalities who are both good people that ultimately want the same things (acceptance, the chance to do & be good in the world) while also being caught in this struggle to balance power and control between them that sometimes catches them at odds with each other. Extremely compelling stuff.

I love both of their character designs separately. I also love how both of them interact with other people, namely Clint. EMH S1 especially is rife with bruceclint fodder if you're interested in that ship!

Dr. Doom

Oh my god, what's NOT to love about EMH!VVD???? Truly, EMH is Victor Von Doom's world and we're all just living in it. He has such a commanding presence in the (sadly few) scenes that he's in, and I love how whatever the Avengers/Fantastic Four are doing is always incidental to what he's got planned. Like, yeah, he gets that they're trying to stop him but he truly could not care less about it and that's so hot of him.

My headcanon is that every single character in EMH has a daddy kink for Dr. Doom and NO i am not projecting and if i were what of it? Mind your business.

Hank Pym

Now Hank... Hank is a tough one. I don't think it's any secret that I despise him, and for all of S1 and most of S2 that was very true. The problem with Hank is that politically, I fuck with him the hardest, but unfortunately for him I do not watch animated children's TV shows from the early 2010s to get my politics validated. And unfortunately for ME, EMH made the character who has the best politics also the most annoying motherfucker in the series. *spits*

But the thing is, Hank makes a very intense about-turn in characterization somewhere in the middle of S2. Basically, what happens is that at the beginning of EMH, Hank is Ant-Man, some time in late S1/early S2 (I can't really remember whoops!), Hank stops being Ant-Man and it's all very angsty of him, and then the big characterization change happens when Hank is revealed to have created a new superhero persona by the name of Yellowjacket.

All of this mostly makes sense in canon, but even so it's kind of jarring, which is almost 100% due to the fact that the creators of the show knew they only had like 3/4ths of a season left to tie up all the loose plot threads as best they could. Because of this, the show ended before I could really see how New-And-Improved Hank deals with a lot of the personal, interpersonal, and professional conflicts that plagued him during S1, which would have been really fun to see and to judge if he really had changed as much as it seemed like he had. It's all very interesting. IDK how I feel about it.

I also want to say that, even though I (mostly) can't stand Hank and I desperately love Jan, Jan and Hank together is a terrible, terrible couple and it's not all Hank's fault either. Hank doesn't trust Jan's autonomy and capabilities in the field. Jan doesn't respect Hank's scientific endeavors and professional passions. Both of them fundamentally disagree on the roles and responsibilities of superheroes in society. It's a mess. I like to believe that if the show hadn't been cancelled, there would have been an arc of Tony and Jan dating each other in order to make both of their real romantic interests jealous, which would have at least made all this back and forth worth it, but alas. Alas...

[qqueenofhades]

Hi, hope you don't mind me asking questions but I'll admit my government and legalize on this side is weaker and I'm watching multiple sources to try to get a clear idea on some of this but you also seem knowledgeable and passionate so also asking questions. Before the order to release the redacted affidavit many said it wouldn't happen cause they don't do that and from my understanding Trump never actually filed anything to have it happen. Do you think they did it to cut that argument before Trump could get followers to turn up the heat/donate money or why do you think/know they did that?

Well, it depends on who you mean by "many said," because the idiots on Twitter who are suddenly an expert on whatever socio- or geopolitical issue happens to be going on (COVID, electoral law, the war in Ukraine, gas prices, and now evidently the niceties and nuances of federal criminal investigations against former presidents) usually don't have a clue, and are just making up shit as they please. Plus, this is all in unprecedented territory, legally speaking, so actually nobody knows what's going to happen. We can make educated guesses (some, uh, more educated than others), but yeah, the peanut gallery of public opinion is especially bad as a barometer of such.

It's true, as far as I know, that they don't do this for most cases, but then, most cases aren't against, again, the former president of the USA who is under actual, literal investigation for treason, collaboration, sedition, plans to overthrow the government, etc. I mean, it sounds like a bad James Patterson novel; it's that far-fetched. The DOJ cited "public interest" in filing to release the warrant in the first place, because obviously it became a huge issue, Trump's crazy followers were busy threatening MORE treason (they just can't help themselves) and Trump himself is still the de facto head of a major American political party that has lurched wildly to the fascist right in the unfortunate few years since he came onto the scene. So there are a lot of levels here that simply aren't the case for ordinary DOJ proceedings (which lbr, nobody cares about anyway unless it's literally their job to do so). Hence, relying on "precedent" doesn't work here, because again... there is no precedent. This is totally new.

As I understand it, the DOJ moved to release the redacted affidavit because Trump was threatening to request it released UNredacted (since he's too much of a fucking idiot to stop making things worse for himself). He almost undoubtedly wanted this so his crazy followers could have access to the names of the FBI agent(s) who filed the affidavit and carried out the search, since the MAGAts have now declared war on the whole agency anyway. But seeing as almost the whole damn thing was blacked out, that means there's stuff in there that the DOJ can't release for fear of compromising their investigation and/or which is too sensitive for public dissemination (not surprising, given the materials involved). All of this is information which Trump may or may not know, and if he learns exactly what they have against him, he's obviously going to try to blow it up. So the DOJ made the move first to get permission to seal the original and only release the redacted version, because yet again, as with their whole "RELEASE THE WARRANT!" screaming that quickly went quiet when Merrick Garland called their bluff and did exactly that, they somehow think that actually releasing MORE proof will not be EVEN WORSE for them. Which, uh. Is not working the way they expected.

So yes: the DOJ needs to keep a lot of this stuff out of the public eye, they can't have it widely known for fear of compromising what they're doing against Trump, they need to protect the FBI people involved with this, and they obviously know that Trump's calls to RELEASE STUFF are only going to backfire on him, because everything that comes out only makes him look worse and worse (which was difficult, but here we are). So that's why they did it.

[caelumsnuff]

Hi, sorry this is a long ask but I really appreciated your posts! The daemon/demon allegory had been bothering me since that storyline started but I hadn't really been able to articulate why, and it brought a lot of other issues to light for me as well!

(Personally I never finished the freelancer series because the whole bridging/SA allegory really made me angry so I appreciate that someone else also saw the reasons why that decision was... poor to say the least).

And definitely agreed about the over-polarization of characters into good vs. bad!

I feel like a lot of the story decisions are based on the fact that many people are self-inserting, which unfortunately means reducing a lot of the nuance and gray aspects that would be more interesting to explore. Like with Vincent and Lovely- from a self-insert perspective, it's more 'romantic' and comforting to think that your partner would have as limited a power divide between you as possible and would take steps to ensure that, even though narratively it's not as interesting a choice. Which is also why I think the Bright Eyes storyline was axed, and why Love's obsession code was removed, and why I'm afraid that Darlin's story resolution is just going to fade into some milquetoast version of "love fixes everything!" rather than what it could have been- because people are putting themselves in the place of the listeners, it reinforces the idea that to like a character you have to endorse and agree with all their actions, so necessarily any character doing "bad" things or making darker decisions is a "bad person" and people don't want to imagine themself as a "bad person", no matter what that does to the story being told.

Honestly, Sam and Darlin' are my favorite characters which is why it pains me that their story is edging dangerously close to "I got into a relationship and it solved all my problems!" rather than two people with trust issues and unresolved trauma finding a friend when they needed one and that relationship slowly blossoming into something more as both of them come to terms with the things that are haunting them (which I agree would make more sense if Sam had either been turned more recently or if it had been clearly established that the clan is more loose-knit and not in fact a workable support system for him); honestly when the story started and it said slow burn I kind of thought they wouldn't start dating until much later, maybe even after things with Quinn came to a head, and I'm a bit disappointed we only got about 2 audios of them interacting pre-relationship. (Also I have a lot of problems with the way things between Darlin' and the pack were "resolved" in one frankly condescending and empty speech about family but I won't get into it here)

Anyway sorry again for the long message but thank you for your posts!

No need to apologize for the long message, i appreciate them You’re welcome for the posts, im happy to know that some people really enjoy them and that they’re making people think a little. Apparently a handful of people have dropped the Freelancer series because of the choices that were made in it, which is valid. I’m not exactly happy that its so bad that so many of us see issue with it, but i am glad to know im not the only person who feels it was wrong. I’m not neccesarily concerned about people self-inserting into listener characters, that is what they are for, Redacted made all content gender neutral and as inclusive as possible for this exact purpose. I think some of the issues with story-telling and overpolarization with characters does stim from Redacted’s desire to write content as inclusive as possible though. I respect this decision and desire, but i don’t think you can ever please everyone when it comes to the type of content you make without sanitizing a lot of it. Maybe this opinion stims from my general ‘doesn’t give a fuck’ attitude about creation, but he really could have just gone for it and made characters grayer (especially ones the listeners have romantic relationships with), regardless of whether or not it brings in a larger audience and pleases the most amount of people. It would be generally better from a story telling perspective. We already have ASMR content (from other creators) that caters specifically to a certain audience that excludes a lot of people (content that is very gendered, content that is racially specific with blushing and hair, etc etc), I think making content that is gender-neutral with some more complicated and grayer characters is a good middle ground, a niche that Redacted can fill. Maybe with Redacted leaving the discord server, he’ll be seeing a lot less of peoples opinions personally, and will start writing content that better fits his writing style and his characters again. It’s something that i would be really happy to see again, genuinely. Because i love Darlin’ and Sam so much is definitely the reason im concerned about where their story is going. But again, maybe Redacted distancing himself from the fanbase will save some storylines. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ who knows tho Thanks again for the ask 💖