#i should die. maybe i want to believe that people are inherently good and want to do good and have the capacity for good!!

[v-arbellanaris]

i think the problem (?) is that the only kind of (fictional?) love that interests me is the kind of love that changes the world. the kind of love that derails the narrative, the kind of love that changes everything -- not necessarily by how special or unique the love is but by the very mundanity of it. the love that grows, not in spite of the barren lovelessness of Before, but out of it. i think that's why I'm always so invested in ships that are two people diametrically opposed to each other, or enemies-to-friends-to-lovers, or two people on separate sides of the morality issue coin, because i love it when love... not that it changes a person but it allows the person to Become. the space, the grace, to change. to love the monster, to love the unlovable and the intolerable, is to make it something other than a monster, than unlovable, than intolerable. i love it when being loved at your worst, ugliest, most horrible self is what makes you want to be someone worth loving. like is this ANYTHING to anyone or

[tanadrin]

could you elaborate, why do you believe that people online continue to talk about the flint water crisis as if it were still active? Is it just ignorance of the solution or are there ongoing health issues?

i mean i think people do that bc "everything is fucked and nothing ever gets better" is a genre of post that tickles the limbic system, and in the attention economy of the internet, anything that tickles the limbic system tends to do well, bc it produces engagement. outrage, and outrage-adjacent things, and cliches like "why is no one talking about [major news article everyone is talking about]" and "don't get excited about apparently-good-thing X, here's why it's actually just as bad as [completely different thing it is in no way just as bad as]" and all that other stuff.

and because negativity and outrage--even negativity with no underlying substance--makes a bigger splash than positive stuff with real underlying substance, continuing to repeat "flint doesn't have clean water" (a crisis that did genuinely drag on for a very long time!) has more salience than the news that flint's water problem was fixed (something that took a long time when it finally was properly tackled and didn't generate a single large headline).

there's kind of a similar dynamic in climate news actually, where genuine improvements in areas like energy storage and clean energy rollout and new nuclear permitting don't make a dent in people's narrative that everything is fucked and we're making no progress because IPCC forecasts about what would happen if we hit 4 degrees of warming are genuinely very bad and scary (and, thankfully, no longer on the table!), whereas the boring policy details of stuff in the Inflation Reduction Act, or China's continuing expansion of EV manufacturing are, well... boring. although climate news is different in other ways--like, the planet will continue to warm until carbon emissions are net negative, so even as we make progress on that issue the crisis continues. it's not all good news. but there is good news there, which just gets much less traction online bc of the dynamics of how news works on the internet.

needless to say, though, i think if you want to have an accurate understanding of the world you need to internally mentally check your own tendency to succumb to engagement bait like this. worst case scenario you fall into a doom loop, which i think is pretty unhealthy just in general. but if you notice somebody post something compelling, and you click on their username, and it turns out that all they post is about how the world is fucked, and nothing good ever happens, and we're all gonna die, i think you should be suspicious of them and their motives. not because doomposting is inherently manipulative or deceptive--a lot of people genuinely are doomers! but that doesn't mean they're not responding to the limbic incentives of social media, either. after all, if you too express nothing but pessimism and outrage, then the people addicted to pessimism and outrage will applaud you for being Very Serious and give you lots of engagement and attention, and you will react accordingly.

and also, you know. some people do just lie on the internet for attention. that is absolutely a thing that happens. i am not inclined to bend over backwards to try to reconstruct a generous framing of those lies where maybe people somehow are under the mistaken impression that there is some ongoing sub-problem affecting flint that they have mistaken for being isomorphic to the original crisis. some of them are just liars!

[cheeseburgersinparadise]

Why is death feederism ok? It is objectively self harm, as one is doing something that will result in them hurting themselves and eventually dying (as fetishized). I just can’t understand it… I am someone in this space that likes being stuffed and full, and doesn’t mind a little biy of wg… but I just don’t understand why gaining until death is encouraged so much when it’s so extreme and life ruining.

Like if there was a feeder and feedee couple that were into it… what would happen if the feeder had issues and couldn’t help the feedee that is reliant on their feeder? What happens if they break up and the feedee is dependent enough where they need family or something to help?? I mean it’s just… they could literally die if they were so dependent and forced to live on their own.. encouraging people to ruin their lives because it makes their private part excited is encouraging self harm.

This is my opinion and I seriously want to know what you have to say… I brought this up to someone else and their response was to block me and say “I think death feeding women think more critically about the fetish🤔” without response. And just so you know this isn’t fatphobic, i never once said I find fat people gross or anything, I just find the idea of fetishizing self harm gross. It’s fetishizing being disabled and or dead.

TW for death feedism, kink talk, self harm/suicide

so general disclaimer - I am not a death feedist and so I don’t know that I’m a good representative to speak on this topic but I’ll share some brief thoughts.

I think it’s okay to look at extreme fetishes and feel uncomfortable with them, so I’m not going to try and tell you that you can’t feel the way you do. I was very critical of people who practiced this fetish in ways I personally didn’t like and this community helped me realize it’s not my business to do that. There is no moral superiority in kink.

The thing is though - in order to be sex positive and an ally to our fellow feedists (yes, even the ones we disagree with or don’t like how they practice the fetish) we have to respect their bodily autonomy and allow them to make whatever decisions they think is best for them. It’s not our job nor our place to tell folks what they can and can’t do.

I would maybe agree that it’s a slippery slope and in a very extreme case, you could argue that this line of thinking would allow us to excuse a suicide fetish, for example (unsure if that’s a real thing). But there ARE disability fetishes and a fetish isn’t inherently bad as long as there are informed consenting parties and you are practicing RACK.

I don’t know if that line of thinking is even worth arguing because it could only serve to slip the other way up the slope back to overt purity culture. I want to validate your thoughts and questions because its important to critically analyze things and i want to believe you are coming from a place of good faith (and I have it in me to try and discuss this).

Regarding the statement of “death feedists think more critically about the fetish” could be true, as realizing you’re a death feedist DOES require reflection and understanding of yourself and of fatphobia in general. I haven’t had at length discussions with folks about this but the death feedists on my dash that post about fat lib seem to know their shit.

At the end of the day, why death feedists enjoy that aspect of the fetish is not for me to debate with or without them present. It’s not for me to tell them what they can and can’t do with their bodies. That aspect of the fetish isn’t for me, but that doesn’t mean I have the right to tell others what they should get off to. I also think death feedists are a smaller portion of the community and it’s easy to block the tags they use if you don’t want to see their content. I know a few death feedists and I like them (at least their online persona) and they are probably more equipped to discuss this if they want to. So please feel free to add some comments if you’d like, death feedist friends.

My advice is practice radical acceptance. It feels uncomfortable but I think ultimately it makes you a better person when dealing with things you think are weird or gross or bad.

[tossawary]

I'm reviewing episode transcripts from "Merlin" to build up my worldbuilding document (character list, mostly) and, a little ways into S2, I'm kind of feeling like the show is actually quite mean to Arthur as a character sometimes? S1 E14: "To Kill the King" is one of those episodes where I forget how badly it pissed me off until I run into it again.

Like, don't get me wrong, Arthur can be a bully, entitled, hotheaded, and reckless, but he's also at this point risked his own life to save people multiple times. Both individuals whose lives were "worth less" than his own (getting the Mortaeus flower for a poisoned Merlin, smuggling Mordred out of the city, protecting Ealdor from bandits) and also Camelot as a whole (fighting the plague-causing monster in the sewers, fighting the mam-eating griffin, drinking poison to lift the unicorn curse).

Arthur is giving me vibes of being both bored and frustrated (and probably not able to name those feelings or exactly why he has them) because he wants so badly to do good things, but he's not really sure how to go about it because (no one ever tells him anything, he almost NEVER knows what's really going on to make informed choices, and) he's also stuck under the thumb of his tyrannical father, who spends most of their scenes together berating Arthur for being too merciful, for not being dutiful enough, and/or not finding sorcerers for execution fast enough. When Arthur tries to be fair-minded and compassionate, Uther often essentially tells him that he's going to be a weak king with that attitude.

Arthur's pathways to betterment are limited, his parent and role model and boss here is an AWFUL person, but he's trying!

So, it's quite frustrating to get to this one episode where characters like Gaius (extremely biased, admittedly, clearly not an objective individual) are saying things like: "Arthur's not ready. The responsibility would be too great. Brave though he may be, he lacks experience, he lacks judgement."

Like, I don't know, Arthur may be only 21 and kind of a dipshit, but I personally think he'd still do a better job than the guy who tried to kill a kid (Mordred) just for existing a few episodes ago? Maybe? Gwen's father, who wasn't even a sorcerer or knowingly working with one, is dead explicitly because of Uther's awful laws. Did everyone in this episode forget that Uther tried to BURN GWEN ALIVE AT THE STAKE not that long ago (Episode 3)?

ARTHUR: "[Morgana]'s right, Father. You hear the word magic, you no longer listen."

UTHER: "You saw it for yourself. She used enchantments."

ARTHUR: "Yes, maybe. But to save her dying father, that doesn't make [Gwen] guilty of creating a plague. One's the act of, of kindness, of love, the other of evil. I don't believe evil's in this girl's heart."

UTHER: "I have witnessed what witchcraft can do. I have suffered at its hand. I cannot take that chance. If there is the slightest doubt about this girl, she must die or the whole kingdom may perish."

ARTHUR: "I understand that."

UTHER: "One day you may become King. Then you will understand. Such decisions must be made. There are dark forces that threaten this kingdom."

ARTHUR: "I know. Witchcraft is an evil, father. So is injustice. Yes, I am yet to be King, and I don't know what kind of king I will be, but I do have a sense of the kind of Camelot I would wish to live in. It would be where the punishment fits the crime."

UTHER: "I fear you're right. She's played with fire, and sadly she must die by fire."

When the adult druid (Cerdan) accompanying Mordred is killed (Episode 8), Arthur objects afterwards! On his own! While Arthur is sometimes an active participant in Uther's tyranny and otherwise complicit, he's been told all of his life that magic is inherently evil and corrupting, he was raised by the very man spreading this hateful philosophy, he should probably hate magic more than anyone after Uther, and yet he still disagrees with Uther's methods and judgments. Even though Uther is apparently VERY willing to lock both his son (Episode 4) and his ward (Episode 8) in the dungeons for disagreeing with him and disobeying him!

ARTHUR: The Druid was only in Camelot to collect supplies. He meant no harm. Is it necessary to execute him?

UTHER: Absolutely necessary. Those who use magic cannot be tolerated.

ARTHUR: The Druids are a peaceful people.

UTHER: Given the chance, they would return magic to the kingdom. They preach peace, but conspire against me. We cannot appear weak.

ARTHUR: Showing mercy can be a sign of strength.

UTHER: Our enemies will not see it that way. We have a responsibility to protect this kingdom. Executing the Druid will send out a clear message. Find the boy. Search every inch of the city.

Obviously, running a kingdom is complicated! Uther apparently won Camelot by conquest and is in conflict with many of the neighboring kings, including Odin and Cenred, and likely has more of the respect of the local nobility than young Arthur does. Uther's death would create some instability! (Agravaine de Bois hasn't been created yet, but let's assume there are many other potential vultures.)

But the show generally isn't pushing that angle. This isn't really about smooth transitions of power. Personally, concerning Arthur's "lack of judgment", I do find his ready conviction that it is his duty to die for Camelot's honor if necessary (he says as much to Merlin explicitly before fighting Valiant in Episode 2, then again before fighting the Black Knight in Episode 9) more than a little concerning, but that doesn't seem to be angle pushed here either.

The show has characters (Merlin, Gwen, Gaius) suggesting that offing the King, who regularly kills innocent people whether they have magic or not, who has forbidden use of the tool that might have saved innocent people from Nimueh's plague or the wraith of Tristan de Bois, would be wrong! It would be murder and murder is bad! It would make (in the words of a grieving Gwen) her "just as bad" as him.

Even though Merlin has at this point already killed Aulfric and Sophia (Episode 7), as well as Mary Collins (Episode 1) because they were trying to kill Arthur. And arguably got an assist with Valiant (Episode 2). And will kill many more as the show goes on. This conversation with Kilgharrah in S1 E14 is in many ways so, so funny:

KILGHARRAH: Well, young warlock, what is it you come to ask of me?

MERLIN: I need your help.

KILGHARRAH: Of course you do, but this time, will you heed my words?

MERLIN: The sorcerer Tauren is plotting to kill the King. He's made an ally of Morgana. I don't know what to do!

KILGHARRAH: Do… nothing.

MERLIN: What do you mean? If I do nothing, Uther will die.

KILGHARRAH: Don't you want Uther dead? It is Uther that persecutes you and your kind, Merlin. It is Uther that murders the innocent…

MERLIN: But surely that doesn't make it right to kill him.

KILGHARRAH: Only if Uther dies can magic return to the land. Only if Uther dies will you be free, Merlin. Uther's reign is at an end. Let Arthur's reign begin. Fulfil your destiny!

[The dragon flies off.]

MERLIN: Wait! Where does it say my destiny includes murder?

KILGHARRAH: Free this land from tyranny, Merlin! Free us all!

I feel for Kilgharrah here. He was VERY straightforward. I don't know how he could have been clearer about this.

I won't say that Merlin's character writing doesn't make ANY sense here (I do think the character writing in this show is NOT amazingly consistent), because... he IS being influenced by Gaius, who is, unfortunately, a bootlicker and also probably extremely traumatized by all of the death he's seen (big contributor of the bootlicking) (also, apparently Gaius only becomes a "freeman" at the end of Episode 6, so there's that). And Merlin is also being heavily influenced by Arthur, who loves his father, despite everything. For Arthur's sake, if no one else's, Merlin will go out of his way to save Uther. Sure! That tracks!

Merlin spends a lot of time in this show protecting a terrible status quo under some assumption that Camelot will... somehow suddenly become better under Arthur? Instead of perhaps eventually just trusting Arthur and talking to him after their years of knowing each other? There are several, in-world reasons for this and I don't think they're all unrealistic! It's tense! It's thrilling sometimes!

(Though I am ultimately a little annoyed that Merlin's many secrets never really come out and get dealt with by the characters, because that would have been fun drama and some resolution to all the tension, even if the story did still end in death.)

There's some tasty tragedy in this silly show, in many ways. Merlin is confused and conflicted and scared and without clear guidance in many ways. Kilgharrah is mysterious and not at all reassuring. Gaius is complacent and (very reasonably) incredibly secretive. Merlin doesn't get to see many of the moments where Arthur speaks up for magical people and tries to talk Uther down. Morgana and Arthur are both stuck here in a "The hands that cradled you are covered in an unimaginable amount of blood." "But they cradled me, yes?" nightmare scenario. (There's also a sexist element where male characters like Gaius and Merlin won't let Morgana know about her own powers "for her own good" in a gaslight-y way that's fascinating to me in how it creates a villain.)

But, also, the compelling tragic elements here don't make certain episodes any less frustrating to watch in their execution. (I don't think villains being frustrating to watch or read necessarily makes them effective villains, especially when what I really find annoying here is the heroes' reactions to the villain. Uther has killed SO MANY PEOPLE! FOR NO REASON!) Especially when a lot of the overall results of this show often feel more accidental than purposeful. I do understand why the writers keep Uther around! He's a formidable antagonist to have looming all over the place and the actor is fun.

But OOF, I felt that "Do... Nothing".

Merlin! MERLIN! LISTEN TO THE SCARY DRAGON! MERLIN, REMEMBER THAT TIME UTHER TRIED TO BURN GWEN ALIVE??? JUST BECAUSE GWEN IS TOO NICE TO GO AFTER UTHER WITH A KNIFE AND TAKE REVENGE, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN KILLING HIM MAKES YOU "JUST AS BAD"!!! MERLIN!!! YOU HAVE ALREADY MURDERED MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO KILLED WAY LESS PEOPLE THAN UTHER!!!

In Episode 4, Morgana says to Uther: "You can't chain [Arthur] up every time he disagrees with you." This implies to me that Uther has had Arthur thrown in the dungeons before. In Episode 3, Arthur says to Morgana: "Father will slam us both in chains if he knew I'd endangered you," and maybe he wasn't at all joking with that? Arthur is rattling the bars of his cell here, apparently fairly ready to be aimed wherever Merlin points him, bucking against being aimed at innocents by his tyrant of a father.

But nooo, Gaius says Arthur is "not ready yet" because...??? He seems less hotheaded than Uther to me, honestly. Are his tax policies not up to par yet? You can hire a guy for that. Suggesting that Arthur would be in any way worse than His Majesty "Anyone Who Talks To A Sorcerer Gets Executed Even If They Didn't Know They Were A Sorcerer" feels quite mean to Arthur, really. I think he'd do alright, in comparison, Gaius who lies to the King every single day, but I suppose you sometimes want to be a loyal friend to good ol' King "Made Merlin Drink Poison That One Time And Wouldn't Let Anyone Go Get The Cure". Good for you. Bad for everyone else.

Like, I know, I know this show is not very deep. I like that all of the characters are flawed and fumble a lot! I even kind of enjoy that it ultimately ends in death with so many loose emotional threads. It is a weekly burst of fantasy nonsense that is not especially concerned with consistency in worldbuilding or characters from episode to episode. But the executive discrepancies here are, like the ones in "Star Wars", weirdly fascinating with all of the holes and wobbly bits it creates.

This show: "Yes, our hero has once again saved the tyrannical king who kills innocents! Preventing the oblivious prince from assuming the throne and trying to do better as he so clearly wants to do! Good work, Merlin, taking the high road (which involved murdering the rightfully angry people trying to kill the tyrannical king) again!"

Me, every time: "...I am genuinely not sure how the show wants us to interpret this. What did they think they were doing with this? Was this always meant to be a tragedy from the first season? Because personally, I'm getting some kind of tragedy from this."

[rat-rambles]

Ok Alastor shippers of all sorts, I'm going to put in my two cents and before I get into I'm a pro shipper all around just don't be mean to each other and tags are there for a reason.

My credentials: I'm an gray ace, aro person who's been around Fandom a very long time. Personally I've been initiated with the “but al is ace aro so you can't ship him” discourse and first off that's not true both because we can date -I Have a long term Partner- and because I've explored a lot of my queer identity through Fandom and fanfics and I think others should get the chance to do the same. I'm sure a lot of people will learn they’re ace aro because of alastor. That being said ik a lot of you writers out there aren't ace aro and are new to the topic so I'm going to go over some of my personal suggestions of how you could make Canon compliant works. (And if you do any or find any please send to me I'd love to see it)

Oblivious Alastor

Canonically this man doesn't know he's an ace in the hole. And I don't believe an egomaniac like him would assume that there's anything “different” about himself. ik when I was a baby ace I thought everyone was just being dramatic basically before realizing I was the exception. I can see this going 2 ways.

Radiostatic (pre show): vox is obviously completely smitten with al and al sees dating a more powerful overlord as an advantage(which vox in the past was the more powerful of the two). And Al starts getting slowly more and more uncomfortable and vox gets pushy in a very manipulative way.

Radioapple: enemies to friends to lovers? After Al and Luci become close friends, Luci starts to catch feelings for Al and Al agrees to date him seeing as he is fond of him and he's a very powerful ally so why wouldn't Al date him? As the relationship progresses they’re both confused by Alastor's behavior. Luci tries to be respectful. You know maybe he's just very against pda. And al doesnt understand why he's not feeling the things he's meant to.

I can see Al reverse heteronormativity- ing his way into assuming he's gay because he's NOT straight.

Malicious intent

Same as the last one except Al knows he doesn't have feelings for them like that and is trying to be toxic and uses them. IE what if Al was a gold digger actually.

Maybe I am in love?

Al actually thinks that he MUST be feeling a romantic connection because this is the closest he's ever been to someone and once again, gets steadily more confused as he realizes what he and his partner are experiencing is different.

All of these can end in nice queer platonic bliss and I think any story where Al and his partner discover he's ace after establishing the relationship is inherently interesting.

Last note some ace vocabulary

Ace and aro are a spectrum. Typically with ace people they will self identify as either sex positive, sex negative, or sex neutral. With Al it's generally head cannoned that he's sex negative but that's not explicitly Cannon and sex positive and neutral aces are valid.

Sex negative: is self explanatory it's what everyone thinks aces are; I don't want sex ever the idea grosses me out ect.

Sex neutral: is when someone doesn't have the desire for sex but isn't repulsed by it either. If they are in a relationship and their partner wants to have sex they’re open to it but don't expect initiation on their part.

Sex positive: people have a hard time understanding this because it's the seperating of the need for sex from the want. Typically if a sex positive ace were to never have sex again they'd die happy but if they have a willing partner they are happy to participate. It builds intimacy. It feels good, it's nice but it's not the same as being allo and having that cardinal lust.

note: please know what type your head cannoning Al as in your works when writing it, although people of course can change which they feel they align with, it's important to know how he's feeling about it.

I'm not as familiar with aro terminology but like with ace it's more about the drive the need the anguish. Al wouldn’t in cannon crave romantic connection.

Like with ace it's not actually cannon what type of aro he is some aro people are completely repulsed by the idea of romantic relationships or they only like it in theory (which playing around with the idea of Al liking a relationship in theory but not in practice could be a lot of fun.)

The gray romantic umbrella are aro people who can have romantic attraction to some degree. They’re still aro you can head cannon Al as it but please do a little research into which one you think your version of Al would identify with there quite a few so I'll spare the list here.

Demi romantic is when someone can develop romantic attraction for very specific people, very rarely. These people won't be on Bumble but might fall for someone after knowing them for a few years (or an indeterminate amount of time, my timeline was a year and a half I shit you not) a lot of you are looking for that.

As for kink. Lots of queer people especially are into kink because it's intimate, it's physical, it requires trust but it's not actually inherently sexual a lot of the time. And we do know that Al likes torturing and being dominant so yeah he'd be kinky that's completely canon compliant.

At the end of the day Al is ace aro in the show and that's what counts. Have fun be creative, explore the depths of your queer little minds and please be nice to each other.

(and if any of you make works related to this please please please send them to me thanks)

[boots-with-the-fur-club]

Next part of the hand saga!

Prev, Next

@daboyau

@phoebepheebsphibs

@littlemissartemisia

@that0n3shr00mi3guy

“Answer our other questions first! I don’t trust you after everything you’ve done! After everything you’ve caused! You….you helped kill my brother!” Donnie screeches, hand on his tech bō shaking so badly out of anger he worries he might break it.

“I never meant for you to be harmed this way. You won’t believe me when I say it, but none of this was born from malice. I haven’t spoken until now because there was no need to. As for why I’ve been tormenting you….it’s for a reason you are not going to easily accept.”

“Just say it already!” Leon insists.

“I did it because I was asked to.”

Raph nearly hits the hand with his fist, just barely hitting the ground next to it.

“You think we asked for this!?”

“No. You didn’t. Someone else did.“

“Who!? Who would ask for this to happen to us!? To everyone else!?” Donnie asks.

“To put it simply, the people who made you.”

“W-We don’t even know our original parents….” Mikey comments.

“No, not just you. Your entire world. Everyone in this competition is formed from a collection of ideas from an author or authors. These authors gave you the titles you go by. They sent you here to compete. To meet other characters in their own stories. To promote their own stories. That’s how this started. No Fun in Fungus, they simply sent an “ask” of mushrooms, spores. Then your author wanted more, one for each of you.”

“What possible reason could there be for doing this to us!?” Donnie grits his teeth.

“To give more to your story. To bring you all closer together. I too was created in this way, for this purpose. I have merely been a tool to different beings. It may sound ridiculous, maybe even insensitive, tragic, but you should consider what you have gotten. What you’ve learned. When Karai was brought here, you were even told not to think too hard about such a concept.”

Each of the brothers want to make the argument that it’s crazy, but they do in fact remember what the competition mod said to them.

“Even Misa giving you those flowers was an ask sent by an author. These asks…..they were all in good fun. Hurting you was just to make comfort all the better. You were never supposed to die. You were never even supposed to be seriously injured. I just enjoyed seeing all the stories coming from the spores so much. It’s gone too far. It’s why I want to help now, before someone is killed in a way they can’t come back from. No Fun in Fungus was already over, they were supposed to rest. You all still have a lot of story left to tell, it’s not supposed to end here.”

The four of them take in this crazy amount of information they’ve just been told. Can they really trust the hand after all they’ve been through?

“What can you even do to help?” Leon questions angrily.

“The spores are not the only item I possess, as you know. I am intertwined into your and No Fun in Fungus’ storylines. For that reason, I am able to bring out what is called a plot device.” The hand moves to the side, revealing TNT charges connected to an empty base.

“There’s nothing in there.” Donnies says dryly.

“Sometimes plot devices are there to urge the story forward in different ways. In order for this to work, I need mystic energy from each of you. That may be difficult for Michelangelo in his current state, perhaps I could find another one-“

“Mikey, my brother I love so much, I did not bring you back from the dead for you to kill yourself again. Lay. Down.” Leon threatens.

Mikey lays back down.

“It does not have to be him. Because of your being separated at first, you haven’t had the chance to completely understand ninpo. It seems only Mikey truly has.” The hand explains.

“You mean the sacrificial martyrs? Why would we want to know about them? Mikey’s been doing that way too much already!” Leon complains.

“Hamato have sacrificed themselves numerous times, that is true. You’ve seen it be true. Ninpo isn’t inherently about dying for a cause. It’s just how it’s been used a lot, considered the only way. It also has been used to save. Out of love. You’ve seen that too. Ninpo is about the connection to your family. That’s why Donatello was able to use it. That’s why Mikey woke up and used it. When you’re about to lose who you hold dear, your connection strengthens more than ever.”

DvD glances at Mikey. They stare at each other for a second or two. It’s true that they’ve been through an experience nobody else could, or should, truly replicate.

Maybe DvD sort of understands why the NFIF group are the way they are. Obviously he knows how it feels to want to protect his brothers after almost losing them, but what he’s learning is why they’re so willing to throw away their lives even for people who just look vaguely like family.

It’s so much easier to experience pain than to experience someone you love going through pain.

It’s a sentiment he wouldn’t have even considered before everything they’ve been through. Something Draxum never would have let him ponder.

He loves his family.

It’s messed up, they lost years of being able to know each other, there was so much distrust, and things aren’t even close to perfect right now.

But this is his family.

Even April, who has zero blood relation to them but still went through all this just to help.

Misa, who’s yearned for family and takes the role of an elder sibling because she wants to take care of others despite her young age.

Karai, who is related to them but wasn’t originally even supposed to know them if her mission had succeeded.

Something he’d protect with his life.

The hand brings the container closer. DvD looks back at it and hesitantly puts his hand on it. A purple, glowy, shiny substance pours inside. He takes it back after a moment, feeling like he was drained a little bit, but otherwise fine.

Raph and Leo look down at it in surprise before the latter takes on more of a bitter expression.

“I’m the one who took care of Mikey. I protected him. I did my best every single day for years to feed him, clothe him, give him what he needs. I was there for him longer than any of you. Why don’t I have powers like him and Donnie? Are….are they closer….than we are?” Leon frowns deeply.

“No! Leo, I love you just as much! I promise! That’s not how it is-!” Mikey voice cracks from how raw his throat still is.

Raph gently rubs his shell.

“He’s right. Connection to family doesn’t mean how much you love them, but how you think about yourself in relation to them. Insecurity about your place in it.” The hand stares.

Leo feels all eyes on him and starts messing with the material on his pants to avoid addressing what was just said.

“Welp, no insecurity here. Must be something else.”

“The fate of the multiverse might be in danger at this point, you’re going to avoid talking about what we already practically know? Why you left Mikey before-“

“I don’t want to talk about it!” Leo yells, interrupting.

He holds onto Mikey tighter.

Mikey presses his cheek against Leo’s and nuzzles into it as much as possible.

“I….I haven’t….gotten over anything. When I got spored, it reminded me of everything I’m afraid of. I….I…..still can’t accept that any of you love me! I-It’s hard work to even like me, loving me? I-Impossible! Nobody actually does! I-I made Mikey feel like he has to be loyal to me because I took him in. I forced him to never leave me and then I left him! And then he forgave me because he’s so nice and lovable! He’s a pretty painted picture but I’m just a bunch of shredded pieces that I can’t tape back together! Why can’t someone just finally sweep it all up into the trash!?” Leo sobs.

Raph, Donnie and Mikey’s jaws all drop. They’ve been aware of just how hard it’s been for Leo to understand that he’s wanted, a real, true part of the family. What they didn’t know is just how lowly he really thinks of himself.

Leo sniffles.

“I’m cursed. I always have been. Even if I am a part of this family, I shouldn’t be. Look what happened! To Mikey! To gram-gram! To all of you! Not just now, but before too! And you saw what happened to the NFIF guys! Leo helped feed me and Mikey and then he went missing and I just know whatever is happening in that room to him is awful! NFIF Raph held me and tried to protect me and he’s still back there too! You’re all going to get hurt or die or worse with me around! I-I should be alone, I should at least be punished for everything I’ve-!”

DvD, surprisingly, is the one who pulls Leo into as tight of a hug as he can manage without hurting him.

“Shut up.”

“Wh-What? Is….is this supposed to make me feel better or are you angry?”

“Both! The only person who thinks you’re not worth anything is you! How dare you say that I don’t care about you!? I do! You should care about you too! You want to stop being a burden!? Then don’t make us live without you! If you weren’t here, Mikey would be dead right now. If he hadn’t wanted to be with you and didn’t leave those families, we wouldn’t have this family. We wouldn’t have found each other. Give yourself more credit.”

Leo goes back to hiccuping sobs as he buries his face in DvD’s shoulder.

Mikey starts crying as well, despite how much he’s already been doing.

“I-I’ll rip up my picture a-and we can make one up ourselves! I-I can give you tape! J-Just please, d-don’t go again! I-I love you so much!”

Leo pulls him more into the hug, they wet each other’s faces with their tears.

Raph wraps around them all.

“You told that other me before about how you know he’s not a bad guy. How we’ve all made mistakes. You should give yourself the same benefit of the doubt. You aren’t cursed, bad things……just happen. A lot. What was going to happen to the NFIF guys would have without meeting you. But now because they met us, we can help them. There’s not a day that goes by where I’m not glad you’re in the family, Leo. I love that I know you. I love you.” He rest his chin on top of Leo’s head.

Leo and Mikey keep crying until they’ve finally calmed down.

The hand once again offers the container towards Leo.

“How….do I do it?”

“Think of your family as a something within you, and release it. Raphael, you as well.” The hand urges.

“What? Me? But didn’t have any breakthrough or anything…..”

“Right now is the moment you feel closest to your family. It may also help to remember who is not here, and wanting to get her back.”

Leo and Raph nod, both placing their hands on the container. Red and blue pours in before the hand takes it away.

“Where…..are you going to find a replacement for me?” Mikey brings up.

April suddenly bursts inside the room.

“You guys! He took Misa!”

April had kept walking until they could no long hear Mikey scream. It took everything she had to not go back to help. Misa wanted to go back too, but as grown up as she thinks she is, nobody should be seeing that.

Nobody should be experiencing that.

It’s not like the turtles were adults either. They shouldn’t have to listen to their brother scream and beg for the nightmare to end. It’s something they have to do though because the only good adult they have around has been taken.

It’s painful to not be able to do anything else, but this is incredibly important. Misa needs her right now.

“Is….little big brother….going to be okay?” Misa asks, looking up at her with wide eyes.

“He’s got everyone else with him, they’re going to do whatever he needs them to.” April assures.

Misa looks down.

“I want to help Raphie too.”

April bites them inside of her cheek. Guilt for leaving him is gnawing at her as well. Wasn’t there anything else she could have done? All that guy has being doing this whole competition is trying to protect everyone from the spores.

Who protects him?

“We’re going to, when we have a plan.”

“But….but it’s going to be too late!” Misa whines.

“Hey, we don’t know that. Maybe….maybe the void guys helped out and he’s coming back to us now!” April suggests, vaguely aware it’s probably a huge lie.

Misa pouts until footsteps draw her and April’s attention.

“Raphie!!” Misa shouts excitedly shouts, wriggling out of April’s arms.

“Misa! Wait!” April reaches out too late.

The young girl runs up to NFIF Raph who picks her up. They smile at each other.

“Hey, kid. Glad I found ya. I have something real important I need you to do.”

“How can Misa help?”

“I need to borrow your portal sword.”

Misa gladly hands it to him.

April sees a glowing, blue tear roll down his cheek.

“Misa! Get away from him!”

Misa looks at her in confusion before seeing Raph’s eyes fill with blue. She begins grabbing at her sword but he keeps it out of her reach. He then holds her tight, close to his plastron and tucked under his arm.

Raph’s smile falls. The glowing tears fall freely down his cheeks with no signs of stopping. He looks over at April with a sorrowful expression.

“I’m sorry I couldn’t keep my promise. I really tried. I just….there’s no reason for me to fight anymore. My family is all back there. Even if I did fight, everything I do fails.”

“Raph! That’s not true! Fight it, we can save your brothers together! You don’t have to do this!”

“No, doing this is the only way he won’t hurt Misa. It had to be me. All we need is the sword and to use her as bait. She’ll be okay. I’d promise, but….my promises don’t mean much…..” He opens a portal.

“No! Raph! Misa!” April poofs to get close, but ends up falling on top of nothing after the portal disappears.

“Where did he take her!? Back to that room!? Are they sporing her again!? She can’t survive that! Mikey didn’t!” DvD panics.

“Hold on, what do you mean he didn’t-WHY IS THE HAND HERE!? IS THAT TNT!?” April points.

“Be not afraid-“

“IT TALKS!?”

UIFY Raph explains what happened. April feels like her feet are stuck to the floor. It’s only been 15 minutes and things somehow turned even more disastrous.

“H-How are we going get more ninpo!? That could kill Mikey again!”

“It can come from you-“ The hand starts.

April slams her hand onto the container.

“I want to save them! Please work! Do your magic thingy!”

Shockingly, it does work. Green pours into the container and the colors all being swirling with each other. They glow even brighter.

“This should be enough. I can set up the charge behind the wall that houses the main mushroom.”

“Wait, won’t that hurt the other me?” Leo brings up.

“He’s survived worse.”

“That’s not a good reason!”

“He’ll be alive and the spores will be gone. Is that not what you want?”

“It is, but-!”

The lights suddenly shut off.

DvD quickly turns on the light from his phone.

“Oh what now!?”

“Hello everyone in the competition! It’s your new overlord, Audrey III!” Donnie’s voice calls from a speaker in the room.

Oh no.

DvD quickly searches the room for some medical masks which he puts on and passes out to his brothers and April once they’re found. If he thinks what’s about to happen is really happening, they need protection.

Leo careful puts Mikey’s on for him and then carries him on his back as they all leave the room.

There’s panic and chaos everywhere from the sudden darkness. People are bumping into things and shouting.

The nearby vents start releasing the familiar, sickening spores.

“Don’t resist. Or do, your fear is tastier that way.”

[deadite-central]

Time for some more Fishman Island gushing/thoughts because like I said, I love this arc

The entire flashback shows us different reactions to the racism that fishmen face. How different people deal with it, how it shapes their lives, their morals, their dreams. On one hand we have Fisher Tiger, who cannot bring himself to love humans, and refuses to let human blood be transfused to him, even if it meant he died. However, he doesn’t let that shape how he interacts with the world. He still lets Koala on the ship because he knows that no child deserves to be a slave. No one deserves that life. Then, you have Arlong, who believes that all of this justifies his utter hatred for humanity, how they should be the ones to suffer like he and the other fishmen did. While it makes sense why someone like Arlong would come out of the environment he was in, it doesn’t change the fact that what he did to Nami’s village was absolutely vile.

And finally, Queen Otohime. She understands that a war with humanity is going to bring them nowhere, and instead, she wants to change the world using political power. She takes a bullet for a celestial dragon because she doesn’t want all of the chances fishmen have for a better tomorrow be ruined. Something she had no idea would in the future save her daughter’s life. Otohime believes that they need to work for a better future, to show their children that hatred isn’t the way, because those very children are the ones who will shape the world when they’re older. She might have been an idealist who hadn’t shown enough care for the Fishman District, but her efforts were very real.

Back to the present, Hody gets an absolute reality check when the people of Fishman Island would rather have their home destroyed than let him rule it. It’s not like he cares about the people of the Island either way. But then Luffy comes swinging, absolutely perfectly landing a kick, starting the fight

And finally, the Straw Hats are altogether (even with Jinbei, who only joins them in the future, which I find lovely) ready to take on the New Fishmen Pirates, but also allowing the people to choose for themselves if they are the good guys. Luffy has no intention of parading himself and the Straw Hats as heroes, because what he cares about is freedom, including the freedom to choose what you see him as

Onto the fight with Hody himself, we find out more about his view of the world: he doesn’t actually care about fishmen. He only wants to get divine revenge for what they went through. He needs humans to be inherently evil to justify his conquest for blood, and he couldn’t give less of a shit how many fishmen die in the process. Humans never actually hurt him, but he was raised in an environment that made him believe all of this. This is how he, and many others in the fishmen district lived. That’s why you can’t just abandon a group of people into a district and let their hate brew.

Luffy finally defeats him in the end, once again completely disproving Hody’s and Arlong’s belief that fishmen are inherently stronger than humans, and after a few more problems taken care of (including Shirahoshi talking to the Neptunians) Fishman Island is saved by a human who doesn’t even consider himself a hero

Getting back to the comedy, my favorite gag gets brought back, and in a great way too. Because Big Mom gets introduced, and holy hell is she terrifying here. Luffy obviously doesn’t care, cause he’s Luffy, and talks back to her, finally resulting in saying he’ll defeat her, and the payoff for that will come much, much later

And to finish things of, just like Otohime believed, the children are the future, and they already have different views than their powers. Because while sure, there are still terrible humans, the Celestial Dragons exist, and surface isn’t completely safe. But there are people like Luffy, who the kids themselves see as their hero. And with the fishman district kids also getting another chance, maybe soon fishmen will be able to live their lives without the fear they used to have

[paragonrobits]

on a whim i looked up the Templin Institute (a worldbuilding-focused youtube channel I dropped because I was horrified at a video they made where they claimed that the Men of Tolkien's Legendarium aren't REALLY human because they're not vicious enough, cruel enough, or obsessed with war) and I was miffed to see that apparently since I dropped them they made a video arguing that everyone in the MCU should be living in constant fear and that it would be better to live in the universe of The Boys (because the super serum is qunaitifable) and Warhammer 40k (since in that one, everyone is a zealot who believes that the God-Emperor protects them and thinks that all aliens are inherently evil)

and it sort of illustrates a thing that... I don't think sci fi fandom or writing IN GENERAL is like, but it is enough of a common element to bother me, and its when people treat cruelty, systemic brutality or man's capacity for evil as an inherently positive aspect.

This ties into the video that caused me to drop them; the channel made the claim that the Rohirrim would have been doing better if they had been genocidal and brutally attacked anything different enough from them (in the sense of "maybe if they had killed all orcs on sight for being nonhuman, Rohan would be doing better"). and its like... why?

I honestly can't fathom why anyone would consider that a good thing, or even think that it SHOULD be expected to hate and fear anything different from you, and to got to the extreme that NOT being xenophobic by default is some kind of failing, or imply that not wanting to kill all other forms of life makes you different from humans, or that being more bloodthirsty or willing to hurt others is an advantage.

What, I can't help but wonder, is the appeal in lionizing the worst parts of ourselves?

You see a lot of this in sci fi, and i think its because a lot of those look at the factions involved as characters in their own right, so they don't really feel much when stuff like 'by performign x social policy, the Human Dominion allowed 42 percent of its people to starve to death on purpose' is considered a fairly neutral detail.

Mindless fanaticism is often prized in these settings, to the point where the most common fandom memes is numbing stuff like 'FOR THE EMPEROR' and 'PURGE THE XENOS'. quite literally stuff all about turning your brain off and being happy about being a murderous garbage-animal that acts like a walking personification of the 'maybe the people who say all humans are inherently evil animals and that it will be a blessing when we all die and no longer poison the universe with our cancerous capacity for evil' idea.

i find it really, REALLY fucking creepy when this stuff gets popular, and more to the point, when the idea of 'humans are naturally warriors/soldiers' becomes so prevalent that you have people hating the idea of some universe where we don't automatically try to kill things for not being like us. its just exhausting, and tedious and...

I don't know, but it doesn't really sound right with archaelogical evidence for us.

I'm thinking about how ancient graves from our own ancestors and our neanderthal cousins both have many signs of caring for the ill, the elderly and infirm. the remains of children with severe Down's syndrome who survived until at least five years old, well cared for by others. Lots and lots of bodies with healed fractures and broken legs, which means someone took care of them; a running animal, and a hunter, with a broken leg is a dead animal. A healed leg is someone who was taken care of.

I think about how on the island of Cyprus, they found an truly ancient burial. In it, they found the body of a long-dead human, and beside them, the body of a cat, laid to rest with ceremony and by all signs, love.

The burial is around 9,500 years old; almost ten thousand years ago.

This predates the first confirmed use of writing by at least 3000 years or so. 3000 years before the epic of gilgamesh became one of our first stories (a story, I note, about a king who grieves the death of a friend and desperately tries to find the secret to immortality, and in time makes peace with the inevitability of death, and becoming a story we still know today).

War goes back a long way; there's no mistake about that. But I think about how friendships and love for animals that loved us too, and long-dead people still showing the signs that people cared enough about them to keep them alive as long as possible, is probably much more integral to the concept of being human, or perhaps what it means to be a thinking entity at all, more than our capacity to hurt each other.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi! I want to thank you on the way you talk about The Marius Issue, it really helped me understand readings of it outside my own (i think most of the critique is very valid, and absolutely in line with the books and even with in-universe judgement on the events. Its just wild how many people seem to run on the few descriptors and believe that's all there is to it)

I am actually concerned that the way they introduced the idea of Marius, it would be easy falling into a kink-negative rabbit hole of "every Dom is inherently an abuser, every Sub is actually a victim and there is no way that dynamic could be fun or consentual". Because there has been similar thing already established with Louis and Lestat and now also with Louis and Armand. And then we will get to Daniel and Armand as well... That's so much revisiting to do, i am scared the show would not be able to pull it off, should we trust the writers?

For me, a cool thing about Armands and Mariuses relationship is that they affect each other pretty equally. Armand knows exactly where to push Marius to get what he wants, and Marius complies, always. Very often against reason. (EXPOSED! ThE MoSt ReASonAbLe TVC character is weak in the face of one specific boy and fumbles hard on his so-called Morals!)

Marius is portrayed to be very concerned for Amadeo distancing himself from humanity, and he tries over and over to push Amadeo back to it. His moral failure is that he can't do it fully, never actually commits to it - there is too much love, too much obsession and too much underlying conviction that Amadeo will recieve the Blood one day, hence the grooming.

There is so much nuance to it, like a fucked up tapestry of doom unrevelling its horrid beauty from the day Armand did not die in the brothel.

Yes, do trust the writers.

I know it was reduced to "dom/sub" in interviews, but I do think it is all a lot more complicated, and we see that already with how Loustat has shifted in this season already, despite it being "only" Louis.

We are on a POV show.

S3 will be Lestat's. I firmly believe we will have more characters there "chiming in", so to speak. There will not be a black and white picture of any of these characters, pun not intended - they will all be morally gray, and their actions understandable - and horrendous.

I am sure the show will make a very firm commentary re Marius, and I have a feeling that.... there maybe was a past to Daniel and Marius already, and now that Daniel knows... that commentary will come from him, maybe (after he remembers, of course). I think there is a lot of potential in it all, without watering anything down.

I disagree a bit that Marius is "only" weak in the face of Armand... there was more to it all in the books. Hints, mostly. The "ankles of the boys", for example.

I do think it good that the show makes it's commentary. And not everything they point out will be comfortable to acknowledge.

But I for one appreciate them for doing this.

[bestialitybestiary]

Like, maybe I am an annoying Peter stan. But. I think he's actually a really helpful guy. Or would be, if anyone trusted him more. Really, it's kind of tragic in a way, that he, just like Derek at the beginning, couldn't trust anyone (after what happened to their family + werewolfs couldn't trust many humans anyway) and if he needed help, he had to either scare someone into doing what they need or make a deal. And I think one of main differences between Peter and Derek is that Peter doesn't want to die. When he senses danger, he wants to avoid it. It's a reasonable thing to do! He doesn't want to die for others or for some cause, especially someone else's. But it doesn't make him a bad person! Not being self-sacrificing isn't inherently evil! It's just that so many of characters in this show just don't care if they die, that it makes Peter look like a coward or an uncaring person! He cares! He wants for Derek to think more about himself, and he should! He tells them when to run, he doesn't just dissappear, he tells them to run away (in 3a and 4). It's not his fault they didn't listen and stayed and then were in trouble. He does what he thinks is the smartest decision. He isn't happy that others decided to be stupid, but that doesn't mean he's going to be stupid too.

In contrary to Scott, Peter doesn't believe in people or in change, so he sees Scott's decisions as naive and dangerous. That's just the difference in their life experiences. The pack see his, in his eyes reasonable behavior as being spineless and unreliable and so don't really trust him. Because of that Peter can't make another step like Derek. Someone has to start trusting. It won't be Peter, he wouldn't do something so, in his eyes reckless. He won't open, knowing how people can hurt each other. And so he's stuck in this mindset of "if I need something I have to make a deal, because no one would help me out of their own good will". It's a tragic cycle really.

[randomnameless]

Sorry I need to send this about the "children of the goddess should not be allowed to rule" thing. Cause like, why shouldn't they. We, as humans generally appreciate the guidance of someone older and wiser. Wouldn't a nabatean's lifespan and experience make them the most "fit" to rule? Like, yeah, I trust someone with a millenia life experience to lead more than I trust someone with under 3 decades. And maybe it can be argued that Rhea didn't do a good enough job, but that doesn't actually disqualify the rest of them? Like, either they're truly godlike and should lead due to their inherent experience and wisdom, or they're just like any other person, in which case why shouldn't they get the CHANCE to lead. Like, is the situation that they live in fodlan, but have no rights to play a role in the future that they'll have to live in? They're not allowed to be in a position of leadership due to their race? Cause that's like. Pretty bad. But this is a question the game cannot answer because it might make homegirl look slightly morally questionable.

Go ahead anon, rant!

I think this issue could have also been raised in FE10 - but that game and "racism" is like... you believe you're eating a chocolate flavored peanut, and only realise you're actually eating a peanut flavored chocolate.

For all of the focus, in both games of the duology, Daien got as the laguz hating country, there's no line/zilch about them being happy - or not - with having a heron branded queen? Miccy will age slower than regular beorcs, will Daein peeps be okay with that? We don't know, but we sure know that legends will remember Ikey-poo fondly, just, don't give a fuck about the world or the other characters from the verse please.

As for Nabateans not being allow to do either X or Y based on their race... well, it was basically raised early in the fandom days by some people, myself included, but I guess being able to drink tea with Freezer overwrote that issue.

We could argue using headcanons all day long, for 5 years lol about what Rhea did or didn't - since the game loves to tell and show different things, but the fact that Nopes had to add Yuri and Dimitri discussing about common sense, like feeding people first before giving them education, I'm pretty sure the devs never believed people would seriously wonder what would Clout/Supreme Leader/Dimi's policies about "making a better world" would entail : both Yuri and Ferdie's supports are just here to, in a typical Fodlan fashion, sprinkle peanuts on your ice cream to make you believe you're really eating a snickers.

"We're a very serious game about having three political powers discussing about the future of the world and what should be done to reach this ideal !"

"And no one thought about food? People needing food to survive? Before doing anything else like getting a proper education or wishing to have a say in the politics of their respective states?"

"... Well, we also tackle very serious themes like isolationism and its effect of society and prejudices!"

"By depicting the foreign neighbours as MENA inspired people being bloodthirsty and deadset on pillaging or rampaging in cities? They attack for fun and let their orphans die as canon fodder? And the main lead who wants to talk about opening the borders and isolationsim never mentions this? At all? Especially since he's a prince of this MENA inspired country?"

"... but we hammer in 3 routes how this lady is evil incarnate, and in the 4 others, we say she sus!"

"Your point being? One person hearsaid to be wrong doesn't suddenly make the rest of your cast likeable, especially if their writing has glaring holes like the ones I pointed!"

"... we can sell super rad umbrellas?"

And you know what, it's a damn shame the devs didn't believe in their "homegirl" as you said it, because Freezer is somehow super popular, and that was even before the DBS retcons!

[yuri-is-online]

Call me tragedy anon w the way i slurp that shit up real. Okay but in all /srs i'm a firm believer that most love stories or stories in /gen in TWST are mainly happy love stories tragedy? Never heard of them!!!

But i think most would be more fascinated to figure out thats its popular in Yuu's world. Like why??? Don't people not like being happy more than sad? and its true!! But there's always something cathartic about well-written tragedies (imo at least) and people enjoy that feeling. Personally the media i enjoy and stick to me the most are usually the ones that have open ended or ambiguos endings that leave a bittersweet after taste in your mouth. Something about retrospecting and finding peace that yes even though it never ended well, there was happiness, or maybe if not happiness then maybe peace to be found in a story like that. The love was still there!!!! Do you understand!!!???

Orpheus can never be with Eurydice ever again, but the two loved each other!! Icarus will always die but the sun kissed his face!!! Do you understand!!!!!!!!!!

I want to thank you for sending me this on valentine's day. It is so fitting I should have answered immediately.

Welcome to the stage tragedy annon! W takes in this ask right here your brain is massive.

Orpheus can never be with Eurydice ever again, but the two loved each other!! Icarus will always die but the sun kissed his face!!! Do you understand!!!!!!!!!!

I UNDERSTAND I AM THINKING I AM FEELING I AM CRYING BUT I FEEL SO FULFILLED!!!!!!!!!!

I really like happy endings and have a hard time playing the bad end in otomes but one of my favorites, Birushana has these tragic endings that I have done some of and GOD. The image of Shungen screaming at Tomomori as he cradles Shanao's dead body, saying he can't just take her away as Tomomori prepares to jump into the ocean and drown with her only for him to say "You misunderstand, she is taking me." .·°՞(≧□≦)՞°·. i am crying, screaming, throwing up etc. and so on because fucking damn that's what it's about. The love is so real it has to endure even when everything else is gone.

I think that Idia might find some morbid comfort in that concept which is why I mentioned the Orpheus and Eurydice connection in his long fic musing. I don't think he would find it romantic necessarily, but certainly comforting. Like at least by Yuu's weird standards his curse isn't the major set back he thought it would be and even if things end badly they will still see it as worth it? That's weird, odd, and something he outwardly wants to make fun of but not something he really can when that's what he has come to believe too after his overblot.

Jade and Azul both work really well for this too. Azul because he believes love is inherently exploitable, so the idea that stories end badly in your world just further cements his own bias. The idea that you would consider the bad ending to make things no less real or valuable though, THAT he would need some time with. What do you mean Orpheus fails to save Eurydice is the point of the story? He has a hard time coping with the idea of losing already, adding that into romance as a selling point doesn't make sense from a consultant's point of view. You want to win in the end no? Not just be left ugly crying alone. Jade on the other hand... I just like to see him eat shit on something like this tbh. "Oh I would never do something like that, what an idiot for looking back-" Jade would actually show up at the gates of the underworld and he would still look back because he needs you to be there exactly like the myth foretold and he would be cursing fate the entire time.

I feel like I leave Floyd out of these sort of things so I want to add him here because I feel like he would dismiss the idea of tragedy as a good thing but not because he like. Doesn't think it doesn't exist or something he just doesn't care. He already knows the time you spend together will be enjoyable, and if it ends with death or with him going too close to the sun, well that was the point wasn't it? Kind of like he gets the point but not because of the example given. It's also why I could see him actually successfully making it through to a happy ending. He has this line in Chapter 7 when Lilia is scolding the Octatrio that made me scream because of how good of a job the VA did with it:

And if he says his place is a happy ending I believe he'd make it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[hamliet]

am I the only one who thinks death as a redemption distasteful?

I mean, no, you’re definitely not the only one!

Honestly, the trope is oversaturated now. Everyone and their mother wants to have Darth Vader while ignoring the specific context that made Vader’s redemptive sacrifice work. I wrote about when redemptive death works in the linked meta above.

See, I tend to think the problem isn’t the trope itself, but instead treating the trope as an easy way out, or as a moral necessity when really it should serve the character, the plot, and the themes. The genre also matters. But... yeah, how it's used in 99% of stories nowadays is lame and distasteful. It's giving up, not pushing through. It's bad witing.

Like, writing a story where someone fucks up in every aspect, where they are evil, but in the end have one lone thing they love and sacrifice everything for that love—that’s beautiful. And I don’t think it’s a miserable ending either; bittersweet, but it’s hopeful. It talks about the humanity in each of us that can’t be snuffed out no matter how we try. 

I dunno, man, I have loved ones who are so beyond messed up. I want to believe there is hope for them even if it’s an eleventh hour “wait, I love this one person.” Will that redeem them to the world? No. But is it enough to comfort their loved ones? Maybe. It’s not an easy answer. That’s why redemption via death can work masterfully in a story. It can give life and hope. But it’s so often misused that I also get why people hate this trope now and kinda hate it myself lol.

In stories, actions have consequences. They’re symbols, and so are the characters. If you skirt consequences for a character that’s how you get Marty Stus and such. If death is an established reality in your world, then it’s logical some characters may die. Death is a fair consequence, but consequence does NOT mean punishment. It just means that if something happens in a story there should be a reason it happens, not just “for the sads” or “because they were bad and I want to punish readers who see themselves in them.” If a character has done certain things, and the rules of the world make it clear death is likely, that’s not inherently bad writing. 

But for a lot of the oversaturation of "redemptive death," it’s, frankly, cheap. Because it’s not used as a genuine way to end a characters arc with thematic weight or to honor them. It’s done to give the audience a “there there, we made you care so we won’t kill them off as a baddie but we don’t want to take responsibility for making a complex character and actually use them to add meaning to our story.” And that’s been most of the redemptive deaths post Vader, let’s be real. 

But on the other hand, death is a reality people have been grappling with in stories since the beginning of time. I’m serious; the oldest stories in the world are about humans trying to understand how to live in the face of death.  But death is the only thing that humans are all equal in. The only thing. I wrote about that here.

So when you have people who refuse to acknowledge death at all, and act like killing a character including in redemptive death is a moral statement that they deserved to die when it really isn’t—it’s just a different side of the same coin as the cheap “death redemption” people. Both view it as a moral thing or as an easy way of wrapping up their writing instead of letting it fester so that audiences can continue to think on it, to ponder it, to wonder what if.

Not all stories are designed to preach or teach morality, and even fewer good stories are designed to do that. (Which is not the same thing as saying good stories are inherently amoral, either.)

If a character redeems themselves via a sacrifice that costs their life, then their sacrifice needs to matter. It needs to be dealt with, to bring life or criticism, rather than being an easy hand wave away so that the story can just continue like it didn’t matter. I

Redemptive death itself is not the problem. The problem is bad writing of characters and themes and plots that leads to an oversaturation of a trope in a pale attempt to imitate a good story rather than actually write one.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

(I’m popping a extra disclaimer here because I don’t know if I worded this very well, and I understand if this isnt the kind if question you feel comfortable answering, but this is a genuine question made in good faith. I also apologise if this sounds really stupid)

I read one of your recent asks about inclusivism and it reminded me of something that always sat in the back of my mind with this train of thought.

If we say that everyone regardless of religion, or absence of it, gets into heaven, doesn’t that seem disrespectful to their faith. By saying that people of other religions get into christian heaven, is that not inadvertently telling them that their religion or their gods are fake, and that when they die it’ll be okay because they’ll learn the real truth? I hope this doesn’t come across as blunt or disrespectful to anyone, I’ve just never be able to come to a conclusion that isn’t exclusive (which is kind of a depressing thought), but is also respectful. Because it’s a beautiful idea that god loves us all regardless of who we are or what we believe, but what about people who have the kind of faith we do in a completely different god, or multiple gods, do they have the same thoughts about us? that their god loves us even though we dont believe?

I feel like I’m asking questions I’m not supposed to but I’m just really curious about your perspective if this is something you’re comfortable answering.

Hey anon, this is an important question, so thanks for asking it! You don't sound "stupid"; you're thinking like a theologian :) I'm probably not going to do it justice, I'm afraid, but maybe folks will hop on with more ideas or resources?

This got really long, so the TL;DR: I agree with you, and so do a lot of theologians and other thinkers!

In a religiously diverse world, it makes sense that people of various religions ponder where people outside their religions "fit" in their understanding of both the present world and whatever form of afterlife they have.

If someone has a firm personal belief in certain things taking place after death (from heaven to reincarnation), I don't think it's inherently wrong to imagine all kinds of people joining them in that experience, when it points to how that person recognizes the inherent holiness and value of all kinds of people, and shows that they long for continued community with & flourishing for those people.

However, this contemplation should be done with great care — especially when your religion is the dominant one in your culture; especially if your religion has a long history (and/or present) of colonialism and coerced conversions.

Ultimately, humility and openness are key! It's fine to have your own beliefs about humanity's place in this life and after death, but make yourself mindful of your own limited perspective. Accept you might be wrong in part or in whole! And be open to learning from others' ideas, and truly listening to them if they say something in your ideas has caused them or their community tangible harm.

In the rest of this post, I'll focus on a Christian perspective and keep grappling with how to consider these questions while honoring both one's personal faith and people all religions...without coming to any solid conclusions (sorry, but I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all or fully satisfying answer!).

I'll talk a bit about inclusivism and how it fails pretty miserably in this regard, and point towards religious pluralism as a possibly better (tho still imperfect) option.

And as usual I'll say I highly recommend Barbara Brown Taylor's book Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others to any Christians / cultural Christians who want to learn more about entering into mutual relationship with people of other religions.

In previous posts, I brought up the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism without digging into their academic definitions and histories — partially because it's A Lot for a tumblr post, but also because it's by no means in my sphere of expertise. I worried about misrepresenting any viewpoint if I tried to get all academic, so I just stuck to my own personal opinions instead — but looking back at some posts, I see I didn't do a great job of clarifying that's what I was doing!

So now I'll go into what scholars mean when talking about these different viewpoints, with a huge caveat that I'm not an expert; I'm just drawing from notes and foggy memories from old seminary classes + this article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), and anyone interested in learning more should find scholarly articles or books rather than relying on some guy on tumblr!

Defining exclusivism, inclusivism, & religious pluralism

When we encounter traditions that offer differing and often conflicting "accounts of the nature of both mundane and supramundane reality, of the ultimate ends of human beings, and of the ways to achieve those ends" (IEP), how do we respond? Do we focus on difference and reject any truth in their views that conflicts with our views? Do we avoid looking too closely at the places we differ? try to find common ground? try to make their views fit ours?

Exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism are three categories into which we can place various responses to the reality of religious diversity.

It's important to note that this is only one categorization system one can use, and that these categories were developed within a Western, Christian context (by a guy named Alan Race in 1983). They are meant to be usable by persons of any religion — all sorts of people ask these questions about how their beliefs relate to others' beliefs — but largely do skew towards a Western, Christian way of understanding religion. (For one thing, there's a strong focus on salvation / afterlife and not all religions emphasize that stuff very much, if at all!)

Drawing primarily from this article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), here are basic definitions of each:

Exclusivist positions maintain that "only one set of belief claims or practices can ultimately be true or correct (in most cases, those of the one holding the position). A Christian exclusivist would therefore hold that the beliefs of non-Christians (and perhaps even Christians of other denominations) are in some way flawed, if not wholly false..." . (From my old class notes — Exclusivist Christians believe 3 things are non-negotiable: the unique authority of Jesus Christ as the apex of revelation; Jesus as normative; salvation exclusively through repentance and faith in Christ's work on the cross. Some will allow that God does provide some truths about Godself and humanity through general revelation, including truths found in other religious traditions, but the Biggest most Important revelation is still Jesus.) .

Inclusivist positions "recognize the possibility that more than one religious tradition can contain elements that are true or efficacious, while at the same time hold that only one tradition expresses ultimate religious truth most completely." . Christian inclusivists tend to focus on salvation, claiming that non-Christians can still achieve salvation — still through Jesus Christ. Sometimes they hold that any non-Christian whose life happens to fit Jesus's call to love God and neighbor, etc., will be saved. Other times they hold that only non-Christians who never had the chance to learn about Jesus can be saved; if you know about Christianity and reject it, it doesn't matter how "good"you are, you're doomed. .

Pluralist positions hold that "more than one set of beliefs or practices can be, at least partially and perhaps wholly, true or correct simultaneously." For Christian pluralists, that means believing that Jesus is not the one Way to God / to heaven/salvation; Christianity is one way of many, usually conceived of as all being on equal footing, to connect to the Divine. .

(These three categories are not all encompassing; the IEP article also brings up relativism and skepticism.)

Issues with Exclusivism & Inclusivism

I hope the issues with exclusivism are clear, but to name a few:

Christians who are taught that all non-Christians (or even the "wrong kind" of Christians) are doomed to hell are taught to see those people as Projects more than people — there's a perceived urgent need to convert them asap in order to "save them." The only kind of relationship you'd form with one of them is centered in efforts to convert them, rather than to live and learn alongside them as they are.

Doesn't matter if they are already happily committed to a different religion. In your eyes, they're wrong about feeling fulfilled and connected to the Divine.

Doesn't matter if you have to resort to violent and coercive practices like wiping out all signs of non-Christian culture or kidnapping non-Christian children to raise Christian — the ends justify the means because you're looking out for their "immortal souls."

...But what about inclusivism? If you're a Christian inclusivist, you aren't forcing anyone to convert to Christianity right now! You acknowledge that non-Christians can live holy and fulfilling lives! You even acknowledge that there's scraps of value in their valid-but-not-as-valid-as-Christianity religions! So what's the problem?

Turns out that this is a major case of one's good intentions not being nearly as important as one's impact.

You may be pushing back against exclusivism's outright refusal that non-Christians have any connection to the divine at all, which is nice and all — but by saying that non-Christians will basically become Christian after they die, you are still perpetuating our long history of coercive conversions.

There's a reason some scholars argue that inclusivism isn't actually a separate category from, but a sub-category of, exclusivism: you're still saying everyone has to be Christian, "so luckily you'll See The Light and become Christian after you die :)"

This is very reasonably offensive to many non-Christians. If nothing else, it's ludicrously smug and paternalistic! I won't get into it here but it only gets worse when some inclusivist positions try to get all Darwinian and start arranging religions from lower to higher, with Christianity as the "evolutionary" apex of religion ://

For now, I'll only go into detail about Catholic Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner's particular version of inclusivism, because it's quite common and really highlights the paternalism:

Rahner's Anonymous Christians:

A question that Catholics and other Christians struggled with in the 20th century was this: If non-Christians cannot be saved (because they held firm in believing that salvation must be in and through Christ), what happens if someone never even had the chance to learn about Christianity? Surely a loving God wouldn't write them an automatic ticket to hell when they're non-Christian through no fault of their own, right?

German Jesuit Karl Rahner's response was to conceive of a sort of abstract version of Christianity for non-Christians who lived good, faithful lives outside of official (what he called "constituted") Christianity:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. ...Let us say, a Buddhist monk…who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." - Karl Rahner in Dialogue (1986), p. 135.

So someone who has intentionally devoted themselves to another religion, someone who does good work in that religion's name, is...secretly, unbeknownst to them, actually Christian?

I hope the offensiveness of that is clear — the condescension in implying these people are ignorant of what religion they "really" belong to! the assumption that Good deeds & virtues are always inherently Christian deeds & virtues! the arrogance of being so sure your own religion is The One Right Way that you have to construct a "back door" (as Hans Küng describes it) into it to shove in all these poor people who for whatever reason can't or don't choose to join it!

One theologian who criticized the paternalism of "anonymous Christianity" is John Hick, who was one of the big advocates for religious pluralism as a more respectful way of understanding non-Christian religions. So let's finally talk some more about pluralism!

Religious Pluralism!

As defined earlier, religious pluralist positions hold that there are many paths to the divine, and that all religions have access to some truths about the divine.

For Christians, this means rejecting those 3 non-negotiables of exclusionists about Christianity being the one true religion and Jesus being the one path to salvation. Instead of claiming that Christianity is the "most advanced" religion, pluralism claims that Christianity is just one religion among many, with no unique claim on the truth.

Some other pluralist points:

Pluralism resists antisemitic claims that Christianity is the "fulfillment" of (or that it "supercedes") Judaism.

Various religions provide independent access to salvation rather than everyone's salvation relying on Christ. (Note the still very Christian-skewed lens here in emphasizing salvation at all though!)

When we notice how different religions' truth claims conflict with one another, pluralists reconcile this by talking about how one's experience of truth is subjective.

Pluralism tends to give more authority to human experience than sacred texts

John Hicks' pluralist position

I mentioned before that Hicks is one of the big names in the religious pluralism scene. The IEP article I drew from earlier goes into much greater detail about his views and responses to it in the section titled "c. John Hick: the Pluralistic Hypothesis," but for a brief overview:

His central claim is that "diverse religious traditions have emerged as various finite, historical responses to a single transcendent, ultimate, divine reality. The diversity of traditions (and the belief claims they contain) is a product of the diversity of religious experiences among individuals and groups throughout history, and the various interpretations given to these experiences."

"As for the content of particular belief claims, Hick understands the personal deities of those traditions that posit them...as personae of the Real, explicitly invoking the connotation of a theatrical mask in the Latin word persona."

"Hick claims that all religious understandings of the Real are on equal footing insofar as they can only offer limited, phenomenal representations of transcendent truth."

We must accept that world religions are fundamentally different from each other, rather than falling into platitudes about how "we're all the same deep down"

Each religion has its own particular and comprehensive framework for understanding the world and human experience (i.e. we shouldn't use the normative Christian framework to describe other faiths)

Another angle: hospitality

As various philosophers and theologians have responded to and expanded upon pluralist frameworks, one big concept that some emphasize is hospitality: that all of us regardless of religion have an obligation to welcome others to all that is ours, if and when they have need of it — especially when they are of different cultures or religions from us.

Hospitality requires respect for those under our care, honoring and protecting their differences.

When we are the ones in need of hospitality, we should be able to expect the same.

Hospitality implies being able to anticipate our guest's needs, but we need to accept the impossibility of being able to guess every need, so communication is key!

Liberation theology & Pluralism

I also appreciate what liberation theologians have brought into the discussion. Here's from the IEP article:

"Liberation theology, which advocates a religious duty to aid those who are poor or suffering other forms of inequality and oppression, has had a significant influence on recent discussions of pluralism. The struggle against oppression can be seen as providing an enterprise in which members of diverse religious traditions can come together in solidarity.

"Paul F. Knitter, whose work serves as a prominent theological synthesis of liberation and pluralist perspectives, argues that engaging in interreligious dialogue is part and parcel of the ethical responsibility at the heart of liberation theology. He maintains not only that any liberation theology ought to be pluralistic, but also that any adequate theory of religious pluralism ought to include an ethical dimension oriented toward the goal of resisting injustice and oppression.

"Knitter claims that, if members of diverse religions are interested (as they should be) in encountering each other in dialogue and resolving their conflicts, this can only be done on the basis of some common ground. ..."

Knitter sees suffering as that common ground: "Suffering provides a common cause with which diverse religious traditions are concerned and towards which they can come together to craft a common agenda. Particular instances of suffering will, of course, differ from each other in their causes and effects; likewise, the practical details of work to alleviate suffering will almost necessarily be fleshed out differently by different religions, at different times and in different places. Nevertheless, Knitter maintains that suffering itself is a cross-cultural and universal phenomenon and should thus serve as the reference point for a practical religious pluralism. Confronting suffering will naturally give rise to solidarity, and pluralist respect and understanding can emerge from there."

Knitter also sees the planet as a source of literal common ground for us all: "Earth not only serves as a common physical location for all religious traditions, but it also provides these traditions with what Knitter calls a 'common cosmological story' (1995, p. 119). ...Knitter makes a case that different religious traditions share an ecological responsibility and that awareness of this shared responsibility, as it continues to emerge, can also serve as a basis for mutual understanding."

When Knitter and other liberation theologians speak of suffering or earth care as rallying points for interreligious solidarity, it's important to point out that such solidarity doesn't happen automatically: it is something we have to choose to commit to. We have to be courageous about challenging those who would pin suffering on another religious or cultural group. We have to be courageous about having difficult conversations, again and again. We have to learn how to work together for common goals even while accepting where we differ.

How to end this long ass post?

My hope is that as you read (or skimmed) all this, you were thinking about your own personal beliefs: where, if anywhere, do they fit among all these ideas? where would you like them to fit?

And, in the end, did I really address anon's question about whether it's disrespectful to people of other religions to assert that everyone is loved by God, or gets into heaven? Not really, because I don't know. I think it probably depends on context, and how one puts it, and how certain one acts about their ideas about God and heaven.

For me, it always comes down to humility about my own limited perspective, even while asserting that we all have a right to our personal beliefs, including ideas about what comes after this life.

When I imagine all human beings together in whatever comes next, I hope I do so not out of a desire for assimilation into my religion, but a desire to continue to learn from and alongside all kinds of people and beliefs. I hope I remain open to learning about how other people envision both what comes after death, and more importantly, what they think about life here and now. What can I learn from them about truth, kindness, justice? How can we work together to achieve those things for all creation, despite and in and through our differences?

I'll end with Eboo Patel's description of religious pluralism, which sums up much of how I feel, from his memoir Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim:

"Religious pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form of proactive cooperation that affirms the identities of the constituent communities while emphasizing that the wellbeing of each and all depends on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its unique contribution."

___

Further resources:

Explore my #religious pluralism tag for more thoughts and quotes

You might also enjoy wandering through my #interfaith tag

Two podcast episodes that draw from Eboo Patel, Barbara Brown Taylor, and other wonderful people: "No One Owns God: Readying yourself for respectful interfaith encounters" and "It's good to have wings, but you have to have roots too: Cultivating your own faith while embracing religious pluralism"

My tag with excerpts from Holy Envy

Post that includes links to various questions about heaven

Here’s a post where I talk about why I don’t believe in hell

My evangelism tag (tl;dr: I’m staunchly against prosletyzing to anyone who doesn’t explicitly request more info about Christianity)

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/718924158401134592/i-have-seen-some-analyses-and-analyses-of-fandom

This assumes that people only defend what they like, but they don't. I have never really been into underage or incest ships. And while I do enjoy some non/dub-con stuff, even there I'm more into stories with some sort of redemption arc. Hydra-trash-party-monster-turns-into-an-actually-good-dom kind of stuff.

I've never gotten disgusted comments on my very niche and not popular fic. Maybe the occasional person blocked me for the ship name in my profile.

But I don't think people should be called pedos no matter what fictional content they read or write. Having been a teenager in the HP fandom, I've seen every problematic ship possible, including Snape/everyone and outrageous magical creature pairings. Even to teenage me it was clear that it was not that deep. Many of those people were just having fun and trying to one up each other on the crazy shit they came up with. And none of that was even stuff I wanted to read!

That people these days are told to kill themselves over stuff like this blows my mind. As someone who was (midly) bullied in school and has had suicidal thoughts since as long as can remember, I just can't stand this. That is stuff that can actually affect children, for fuck's sake. Because that's real people telling real you that you should die.

Fanfic always comes with the context of "not real" -- not just in our world but even in the canon universe! It's two layers of "not real" right there. And children are not stupid. They know what make believe is. (And even if they don't--then that is the problem, not the fiction they read.) But far too many kids still grow up learning that they are inherently bad, unlovable, a burden for their parents, etc. Those kids can find refuge in fandom--or at least they could until recently.

--

[beep3]

So spoilers for X-Men #30 ahead

Talon died as she lived, doing pretty much nothing other than existing to serve Synch’s development as a character.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m almost happy she’s gone, I hated Talon and pretty much everything she stood for. From the very beginning the idea of splitting Laura into two characters is just dumb. The only reasoning I can identify is that Marvel wanted to satisfy the fans that wanted Laura to stay as Wolverine and keep her character development from years of comics, and the ‘fans’ that insist she should go back to being X-23, both in title and personality.

Which of course is inherently dumb, anyone who wants Laura to go back to using that name clearly doesn’t understand the character in the slightest, and probably hasn’t read many of her comics either. It’s beyond easy to say that she would *despise* having to go by X-23 again, it goes against pretty much every aspect of her character arc, anyone who insists she should return to being X-23 almost definitely doesn’t actually care about Laura’s personality or character, they just don’t want her to have the Wolverine mantle, feel free to fill in the blanks for why that is. Although I’m sure they’ll insist they wouldn’t mind if she went by another mantle instead, like talon.

Regardless, Talon always felt like a low-effort way of making Laura act like she did as X-23 again, with the added effect of tying her entirely to a random relationship of one-sided character development.

So I can’t say I’m too choked up that Talon died, but the realisation that this is the ‘original’ Laura Kinney that we watched escape the Facility, make human connections for the first time, progress and learn to be more than a weapon, to learn that she’s a real person who is valued and loved, the character we saw grow for over twenty years of comics in such an insanely well-executed character arc, the idea that *this* is how she died, doing nothing other than serving Synch’s development is just outright sickening. Or at least it is to me, someone who is way too invested in a fictional comic character for their own good lmao.

Not enough people talk about how random their relationship is, Laura and Everett interacted maybe *once* in their entire publication histories before the Vault, and randomly over one issue they end up in a relationship, no setup, no real interaction, they just apparently decided to start dating because they were trapped in the vault for hundreds of years?

I’ve always believed Laura was queer, Craig Kyle has stated a desire to write a story about it, Marjorie Liu even supposedly intended it in Laura’s solo series, I don’t mind if she’s bi, a lesbian, trans, etc, but even outside of a queer relationship there were *countless* other characters Laura has formed bonds with over the years that would of made more sense than just randomly deciding to have her date a completely random character out of nowhere.

Of course this isn’t the first time it’s happened, Laura has a weird history of romance that pretty much constantly caused that to happen. Angel did the same, and even practically abused Laura, mocking her for cutting herself, and generally mistreating her throughout their relationship.

Throughout New X-Men her relationship was pretty similar, focusing a lot more on Julian’s/Hellion’s development more than her own, of course in Marjorie Liu’s X-23 series the tables got turned and the inverse happened, so I guess that evens things out?

Regardless, the relationship with Synch feels especially creepy, trapping Laura in a vault for years and basically forcing a relationship is dodgy enough, but the way it’s phrased in this panel is just even creepier.

Is there really a message to take from all of this? Not one that I can find. Maybe that Laura just has bad luck with the number 30? Pretty sure All-New X-Men #30 is when Laura’s creepy relationship with Angel started. It’s interesting that Talon or Wolvie-Laura didn’t die like how she was foreshadowed to in the Infinity Comics.

I guess the real potential message you can take is that Talon isn’t *really* dead? My best guess is that they’re going to telepathically fuse both Laura’s together again, which I guess is the best case scenario, I can only hope the Synch relationship doesn’t follow…