#if something disproves it i'd like to know and see if i can fit it into the spec

[kanmom51]

fairly new army & jikooker here, and i just wanted to share my thoughts. (love your blog btw💜)

it just baffles me when ppl try to write JM off as being straight if he happens to refer to a ‘she’ in songs. Like Crazy being a good example recently. is their thinking so shallow that they can only perceive ‘she’ as a woman in the physical sense?

like, how often have ppl used female pronouns or the female form to express more abstract concepts in literally any art form over the course of history??

i never saw that ‘she’ in Like Crazy as anything other than JM referencing either alcohol (how many men call alcohol a seductive temptress/mistress when they have a drinking problem?), or his feminine side which he all but spelled out for us in his mv & dance for the song.

Agreed.

Nothing much to add really.

I'd say that it's even more so when we know that 'she' wasn't in the original lyrics.

Also, this song needs to be read within the Like crazy movie reference, and not separately from the quotes we get at the start and end of the song.

This song is about JM, well struggles he was going through during the pandemic, but the way I see it, it's not a one layered song. It has depth, multiple meanings, multiples interpretations, and I think that's what JM wanted for it, especially given the MV and choreography.

People assume. They love to assume. Well, they love to do that when it fits their own set of beliefs or wants. And they mostly don't want him to be queer.

And even more so, they definitley don't want him to be queer with JK.

Those two, they ruffle so many feathers, lol.

It's actually quite entertaining (when not infuriating) how much time and energy people are putting into trying to disprove they are a couple. For the months leading up to Feb 2023, when we had radio silence, they were all rejoicing and spending time in coming into our spaces to let us know how Jikook are no more (which means what? That prior to that they were a couple? Right?). And when they are acting like they were in the last BTB (something we haven't seen for such a long time because of the lack of ot7 content), they are all back to the old fanservice and JM forcing himself on JK narrative. Good thing I have a good chiropractor with the whiplash I get from these people.

Anyway, lovely that you reached out, and thank you for your kind words.

[crownmemes]

The X-Files Sentences, Vol. 1

(Sentences from The X-Files (1993-2002, 2016-2018). Adjust phrasing where needed)

"It's happening again, isn't it?"

"Sorry, nobody down here but the FBI's most unwanted."

"So, who did you tick off to get stuck with this?"

"I was under the impression that you were sent to spy on me."

"Do you believe in the existence of extraterrestrials?"

"You just think you can come up here and do whatever you damn please, don't you?"

"You're saying that time disappeared? Time can't just disappear!"

"There's classified government information I've been trying to access, but someone has been blocking my attempts to get at it."

"I see no evidence that justifies the legitimacy of these investigations."

"Let's just say that I'm in a position to know quite a lot of things."

"You know, the government is not above the law."

"What would be the chances of someone like me seeing a UFO?"

"It can't be aircraft. Aircraft can't manoeuvre like that."

"Just because I can't explain it, doesn't mean I'm going to believe they were UFOs."

"The brain doesn't work like that. You can't just go in there and erase certain files."

"I can provide you with information, but only so long as it's in my best interest to do so."

"Each victim was found with their liver ripped out."

"Why would I make them so uncomfortable?"

"Reputation? I have a reputation?"

"Do you think I'm spooky?"

"If you explain to me what you're talking about, maybe I can help you out."

"What was she doing right before she died? Was she pleading for her life?"

"Come with me or don't come with me, but until they find a body, I'm not giving up on that girl."

"Fact is, we've got a cannibalised body. Someone - or something - out there is hungry."

"On the contrary, I think I've been exceedingly polite."

"So, can I ask about the case you're on, or can't you say?"

"Look, I wouldn't ask if it wasn't important."

"I have to admit, that fulfilled one of my boyhood fantasies."

"I have my orders, and the license to execute them as I see fit."

"How can I disprove lies that are stamped with an official seal?"

"No government agency has jurisdiction over the truth."

"Are you at all familiar with the phenomenon of cattle mutilations?"

"You know, some mistakes are quite worth making twice."

"There's something else I haven't told you about myself..."

"Some killers are products of society. Some act out of past abuses. Some kill because they like it."

"I thought you'd be pleased that I'd opened myself to extreme possibilities!"

"How come you don't believe me?"

"Our best lead is gone. Someone stole it before the lab had a chance to look at it."

"Remember the day you first walked into my office? You pissed me off just looking at you, but then I saw how your mind worked - how you're always three jumps again."

"A lot of people are saying you've become an embarrassment - a liability."

"The government can't control a deficit or manage crime. What makes you think they can plan and execute such an elaborate conspiracy?"

"That's why I like you! Your ideas are weirder than mine!"

"I think it's remotely plausible that someone might think you're hot."

[ialwaysknewyouwerepunk]

hey) I'm reading a bukowski (aka harry's favourite poet is I remember correctly?) poetry collection right now and I was wondering if we as a fandom knew that because I wasn't here when the album came out so I might have missed people talking about it? so I saw he has a poem called bluebird (which is already 🤔), but then I read it and and omg he's talking about a "bluebird" living inside him and him not letting this "bluebird" out because it would ruin his career!!! (I don't have the book at hand right now sorry you should read it yourself probably my memory is shit) harry would definitely connect to it, wouldn't he, see his situation with glass closet in it and maybe that's what he's referencing when talking about a bluebird?

hey babe!! yeah we have been dabbling in bukowski, or at least i have (esp in my only angel post, a song that features bukowski writing at the beginning). i know for sure that not nearly every reference has been unearthed. i don't think it's possible to get them all tbh. i'm not an avid poetry reader, but i have to admit i like bukowski's poetry from time to time. this one, bluebird, was brought to my attention after harry's house! you can read a post here but it's just us screaming into the void jhsgfd. but now that you've sent this to me and i'm bored at work i figured i'd dive a little deeper.

There's a bluebird in my heart that Wants to get out but I'm too tough for him I say, stay in there, I'm not going To let anybody see you There's a bluebird in my heart that Wants to get out But I pour whiskey on him and inhale Cigarette smoke And the whores and the bartenders And the grocery clerks never know that He's in there

'bluebird', unclear as to what that means to the poet. but it's soft <> tough. ～"somewhere over the rainbow bluebirds fly," from the wizard of oz / "if i was a bluebird, i would fly to you," daylight. strong associations with the queer identity // a desire to fly away: sott, if i could fly, matilda, etc.

this paragraph is so hs1 to me. drinking, smoking, getting high, having sex, anything to think about what's truly inside of you. then i can't help but think about fine line's "we'll get the drinks in, so i get to thinking of her" where it's the other way around.

the bluebird is also real to bukowski, he's undeniably inside of him, he doesn't try to disprove that. he just hides him by keeping up a different persona, by having a hardened outer shell. // harry and his image

'i'm too tough for him' implies that it's his own choice to keep his bluebird hidden

There's a bluebird in my heart that Wants to get out but I'm too tough for him I say, Stay down, do you want to mess Me up? You want to screw up the Works? You want to blow my book sales in Europe? There's a bluebird in my heart that

the implication that if you show your true inner self, you don't sell as well. what secret about you could possibly fuck over your career? - brings the hiding of the bluebird in a new light, since this is an external motivation to change who you are

～"what if i'm down, what if i'm out? what if i'm someone you won't talk about?", falling

～"put a price on emotion, i'm looking for something to buy. you've got my devotion, but man i can hate you sometimes," fine line

～"i'm not going to get lost, i'm not going to go broke, staying cool," mfasr

Wants to get out But I'm too clever, I only let him out At night sometimes when everybody's asleep I say, I know that you're there So don't be sad Then I put him back But he's singing a little In there, I haven't quite let him die And we sleep together like that With our secret pact And it's nice enough to make a man Weep, but I don't weep, do You?

this reminds me of harry saying he feels most beautiful when he's asleep.

～"just stop your crying, it's a sign of the times"

it just fits so much of harry's art, where he pretends to be someone he's not and tries to come to terms with how people see him or how he sees himself. bukowski spent a lot of his career struggling with who he was, and same goes for harry. even though he's clearly in a more accepting era, he still battles with that split in his life - public and private.

i also think the poem's ending can be seen in a more positive light, as the poet taking control of his life and his privacy. he determines what others see of him. in this layered poem, where the poet makes it seem like he's acting of his own volition by keeping his bluebird tucked away from view, but actually lets it be known that he kind of has to, the issue of one's identity in the industry is prodded at. i think for harry, in a life where he has very little control anyway, his decision to put a giant lock on his private life is about the only one he could make. he probably could still have a personal instagram or twitter acc if he wanted to, showing non-descriptive holiday pics or whatever. he chooses not to, and this is only in recent years that he's begun to be more and more secretive. because maybe it's either all or nothing to him. either the cage is shut or the bluebird flies free

[hopeymchope]

There is a theory about Yakou Furio being Shuichi’s uncle. Do you think it’s possible?

That's really interesting... I've seen multiple thoeries about "Master Detective Archives" taking place in the future of the Hope's Peak timeline, either decades or a century after DR3. But if we were to instead link Rain Code to V3 — which takes place either FAR later after DR3 orrrrrr — in the the far more likely/plausible scenario IMO — in its own separate universe, then does that line up?

The most basic details about Shuichi's uncle as stated in V3 could fit, sure. We only know that his uncle A) ran his own detective agency and B) usually took on pretty small cases like accusations of infidelity or lost items. That certainly aligns with our boy Yakou.

The larger universe of V3 aligning with the universe of MDA is... a bit trickier. Even knowing that Tsumugi is very likely full of shit about a great many things, it's hard to dodge the whole "Danganronpa is a broadcasted show using real (abducted) people" issue. But hey, maybe that's why we can fid a pic of Monokuma and a display of his famous "evil eye" in Rain Code; those could be references to the show, maybe some leftover advertising. But I have to assume there isn't currently a murderous TV program running in the world of MDA. We also have to assume that Tsumugi was lying that this world embraced Danganronpa because crime and murder are exceedingly rare, etc etc. Crime clearly ISN'T rare in a world where Master Detectives are a big damn deal. Furthermore: Given how young Yakou Furio still is, if he was Shuichi's uncle, then "Danganronpa" couldn't have ended until pretty recently. And if there ever was such a program, it probably wasn't successful with the MASS MARKET crowd, because that seems like something that would definitely be a major pall hanging over ALL OF SOCIETY. Maybe it was underground/dark web shit, but still had a surprisingly large audience or something? Or we could argue that we don't see THAT much of the world outside of Kanai Ward, and Kanai Ward was isolated away from Danganronpa's reach... ?

Yeeeaaah, you can see how this gets trickier the more we try to mesh the worlds together. It's not impossible! But it takes some finessing of the information we have. We have to start assuming Tsumugi was lying about certain things we can neither prove or disprove in any fashion based on V3's available evidence. Which, based on her track record, is definitely believable. But... it gets tougher the more you think about it.

I'd rate this theory as "Not impossible, but... "

[problemswithbooks]

There's a few minor characters in a later One Piece arc that disprove your theory re: inheritance of fish-like traits, but your world-building speculation is really interesting!

Actually one of Big Mom’s young sons looks fully Fishmen. De-Chat.

Got these two asks so I looked into it a bit more.

Something I find really interesting is that Big Mom's kids, De-chat and his mermaid sisters look nearly the same as full-blooded fishmen and merfolk. Big Mom is interesting because she doesn't really look human due to her size but is apparently just a little to short to count as a giant. It might be possible that she has giant ancestors somewhere in her past--but also who knows, she could also have fishmen or merfolk ancestors as well.

Again, this is just me trying to make sense of One Piece biology that was never supposed to make any sense. Oda only designs characters based on how they look and fit into the story. He's not going to limit his artistic talent to reality or make world building rules that might also put restrictions on what he can draw.

But for me, how I'd make sense of Big Mom's kids looking so much like their seafolk fathers is to say that somewhere in her background she has a fish-person or merfolk parent. Given how Oda says their dna works, with it remembering any secondary species (like whale shark, or goldfish) it makes sense that human hybrids generally get more human traits because one parent lacks a secondary species to pull from. Meanwhile, both fish-people and merfolk are human, so the genes have more ways of combining in a way that emphasis human traits.

But if someone has seafolk ancestors their dna would still carry that secondary species, even if they themselves do not have any fish traits. If they then had children with a fish-man or mermaid that child could have a higher chance of inheriting fish traits. This could explain why Big Mom has such pure looking seafolk children.

Meanwhile other hybrids we see like Sapi look nearly entirely human except for a fin on his head. Dellinger is interesting because he looks almost fully human as well, but most of it seems to be because he can hide those traits. He can choose whether or not to have human teeth, or hide his fin.

I'm no expert on dna or genealogy so my head-cannon is probably nonsense, but to me seafolk kind of feel like eeve in a way, where they're dna is kind of unstable. Whenever they have kids what they look like is a complete crap-shoot, where anything is possible. On top of that it doesn't seem like their abilities or size is always determined by their fish traits. Some of them look nearly human, except with non-human skin tones, while others look extremely inhuman--like Zeo or Hammond.

Which again is very purposeful on Oda's part. He's drawing cool characters. The reasons why they look the way they do doesn't matter to him at all. I just try and come up with reasons because I find it fun.

[thementalhealthdisaster]

Ages ago I started telling people I was experiencing tics. Because I was experiencing tic-like behaviour. It happened often when I was anxious or stressed. And I started trying to see if anxious tics were a real thing.

(they aren't, tics can get more frequent/bigger? With anxiety tho)

And when I started thinking about it, I knew this likely wasn't a tic disorder. It'd happened before and gone away. It has since calmed down significantly and I can go a long time without having them. They also don't feel how people describe tics.

So, what do I think they are?

Honestly? I'm not a doctor and I don't know. But I do have a theory. My "tics" were often a head jerk or drop followed by a vocal sound and/or hitting myself (usually the head). While I often couldn't stop these, I could redirect them.

(I could also trigger them by thinking about them. That doesn't fit neatly in any part of my explanation, but it doesn't disprove anything either so it's staying there.)

Like I said, they felt connected to anxiety and stress.

I'm undiagnosed autistic. I've always called what I now know are sometimes meltdowns and shutdowns, anxiety attacks.

My theory is, that my autistic brain was forcing me to stim in some way to process emotions and get through meltdowns and shutdowns. My brain causing me to have involuntary movements (that I could redirect as sounds or other movements) in an attempt to prevent a more severe meltdown.

I also hit myself in meltdowns. So that part is similar. It often happened worse right before and during meltdowns. It happened minorly but a lot while driving, something that causes me anxiety. It was happening the most during a time where I was trapped at my parents and extremely suicidal. I'd often have meltdowns or panic attacks on the way home. I was almost always emotionally exhausted...

I think my brain was desperate for me to Do Something. To stop sitting completely still and filled to the brim with fear. It needed me to jerk and whistle and pop and hit myself to deal with those feelings.

I think.

Like I said, I'm not a doctor.

[txxxciii]

Welcome to pride month Mortal Kombat headcanons part 2!! I'll leave the link to the first part in the end of this post.

If you thought I'd go in a chronological order, like how I started with MK9 and should do MKX, but no. I'm just doing it in a completely random order. When will I stop? Who knows. :)

Amyways

MORTAL KOMBAT (2021) LGBT HEADCANONS

(Note: any characters I don't include I most likely consider cis straight. Another heads-up, I didn't feel like screenshoting the characters, so I'll instead use fanmade icons, but since I don't want to accidentally be disrespectful, I won't add in any flags. Also, for certain reasons, Cole and his family are entirely absent)

[ICON BY instewv (deactivated)]

BI-HAN (HE/HIM) — HOMOSEXUAL

Man is legit so thirsty he fucking killed his crush's family /j

In all honesty, as much as I love bireena and think they're destined to be together (but every time something's wrong), I cannot comprehend the thought of 2021!Bi-han unironically liking women. Something about that fight with Hanzo just felt intimate, y'know... (if you ignore the awful camera work). Alas, he's the type of a gay person you wouldn't respect, and shouldn't, in fact.

[ICON BY instewv (deactivated)]

SONYA BLADE (SHE/HER) — AROMANTIC ASEXUAL

2021!Sonya is sooo me fr fr. Like, the attitude? The humor? The fact that she lives somewhere in a dirt hole? The nerdy fixation?? Slay though, queen.

With everything said and checked, it's only natural that I will project my own identity into her. I feel like during her more youthful days she'd try to find some kind of a crush or a partner so she can relate to her peers, but each time it felt like a waste of space and energy. It's only when got into Special Forces that she completely gave up.

She respects people who share her mindset, or those who simply don't have the charm. She cannot stand, however, if someone insists on "fixing her" with a saying "I'm not like the other guys you've been with!". Those types of guys wake up in a dumpsite with their faces covered in bruises.

[ICON BY instewv (deactivated)]

KUNG LAO (HE/HIM) — HOMOSEXUAL

Every iteration of Kung Lao is gay in my headcanons. The way it's presented is different.

Kung Lao, as a monk, cannot commit himself to marrying someone, therefore, falling in love is also off the list. The difficulties in maintaining a cold-hearted demeanor began when he was assigned as a temporary supervisor to Liu Kang and his heart began to melt (side note: THEY'RE NOT COUSINS! IT'S A MISTRANSLATION! THE WORD LIU USES ROUGHLY MEANS "A STUDENT SENIOR"! READ JOHN TOBIAS' TWEETS WHERE HE DISPROVES THIS MISCONCEPTION! ALSO LIU LITERALLY SAID HE'S AN ORPHAN HOW THE FUCK WOULD HE HAVE A COUSIN? THINK, MK FANDOM, THINK! sorry I'm just so sick of seeing this same statement over and over again. back to hc ^^☆). Lao knew he felt something for Liu, but was it simple friendly love, or more? He couldn't tell, as he didn't have anyone close prior to Liu Kang. Sometimes, his anxiousness becomes so intense he isolates himself, but not for long until Liu brings him down to ground.

[ICON BY instewv (deactivated)]

LIU KANG (HE/THEY) — DEMISEXUAL, DEMIBOY

I'd imagine it's hard to get to know Liu Kang on a meaningful level, not because he's avoidant, but because 99% of the time you wouldn't know what the fuck is bro thinking about (only Kung Lao could decipher the code, and he doesn't share). Liu, in general, is pretty apathetic towards people, but once he likes you, he'll let you know. Whether it's regular private talks, sharing what's his or, hell, even saying "I like you" straightforwardly.

Don't ask why he's a demiboy though. It fits the vibes ok!!

(Insert meme: "Demiboy is a spectrum", on one end - 2021!Liu Kang, on the other - 2011!Baraka)

[ICON BY evaporated-milf]

KANO (HE/HIM) — PANSEXUAL

"For you, I don't have any standards" should speak for itself.

He's that one guy who'd fantasize about being in a str/p club with all those present in the room with him right now. But then he doesn't actually do anything romantic or sexual, he just bashes someone's head against the wall.

(Bro really meant it when he suggested Liu and Lao s/ck him off in that dinner scene /j/j/j)

[ICON BY evaporated-milf]

MILEENA (SHE/HER) — BISEXUAL

Mileena is bi and it's canon, though I feel like 2021!Mileena would be masc-leaning. Doesn't mean she can't feel attracted to ladies (like girl you know you didn't need to lay on top of Sonya like that right?), but with how she's basically surrounded by men, it's obvious she'll notice her attraction with them easier.

[ICON BY evaporated-milf]

KABAL (HE/HIM) — HOMOROMANTIC ASEXUAL

Listen, at first I headcanoned 2021!Kabal as aroace since it just made sense in my eyes. But then I watched the Behind the scenes video where they said that Kabal carries Stryker's badge, "his fallen partner", and I'm like "Okay man, weird way of coming out but congrats". That's when I thought I should just make him homoace as a way of satisfying both the demon and the angel on my shoulders.

———

I didn't bother to include Raiden (genderfluid aroace) and Shang Tsung (genderfluid) since the reasoning would be the same.

This was way more fun to write as MK2021 is my niche interest that I unironically love despite knowing it's absolute trash ^^)

Anyways byeee and happy pride month!

Part 1 (Mortal Kombat 9)

[cristalknife]

Hey so I read your cute kid Chay fic but I wanted to let you know midget is actually a slur and not a word that should be used. Not sure if you knew that but it's something I recently learned as well. Could you use a different word instead? I'm not a little person but it's a word that little people ask not to be used in general.

Hello there, so first of all thank you for contacting me I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss things. TLDR: context is key to determine the meaning of a term. In the specific case I do not believe the context support that interpretation of the word. However since I do believe trigger warnings should be treated seriously I've added a warning tag to the story. For the long version explanation.

Preface: while I was raised bilingual, I'd like to point out the English I grew up with was British English, later on diluted with (or corrupted by depending on who is talking) American English. This will be an important detail when you check out the references To answer your point, I do know that the word itself could be used as insult and slur, but its meaning depends on the context. If it was used to refer or address to a person who has dwarfism with the implicit meaning that they are less, then I totally agree that it's derogatory and should not be used. But I do not believe this meaning of the word applies in here.

For one Chay was physically and mentally de-aged, he didn't acquire a medical condition, he just returned to be a small and a little naughty child.

The second aspect of the context to consider is this is that Big has canonically the tendency to be an ass at times.

We see that on when he set up Porsche and outs Kinn in the span of a single instance.

We find it in how he acts when Porsche get punished.

Descending a little bit on the intersection between head-canon and meta, if we analyse the known background details we know of current bodyguards, and apply a little bit of logic and projection of personal experiences, few if not none of the bodyguards would come from safe, happy or wealthy enough families. Politically correctness would be a low priority given where they are now working.

Story wise there is the power dynamic between Chay and Big's position to consider, part of the family vs hired bodyguard. Big is on the disrespectful/offensive side because he can't exactly start swearing against Chay. If reported to Khun Korn there is still the mitigating factor of not sounding so bad once deconstructed and analyzed

Last considerations, as far as I know and I've found the official definition across dictionaries concur it's an informal offensive way to refer to a very small/short/not very tall person (see Longman, Collins, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Cambridge ). We have also the fact that before the latest purge in records from respected societies like the Entomological Society of America's project Better Common Names midget was used a lot to refer to the different species, one of them being the tiny biting flies and other very tiny kind of insects, of then of the annoying/dangerous kind, term that can be seen on sources like this Story wise in the end Big had meant using it both as indication that Chay was now small, but also that he was an annoying little bugger. To be honest I do not know what other term would fit in the situation: - munchkin is too cutesy for how Big is characterized, - half-pint (other than me personally having problems with it) is not really that culturally fitting (Thailand uses the metric system not the imperial one so it refers to foreign concept) - runt could be an even worse term because it implies disproval on top of being offensive, kind of sentiment that would be hard to explain upon review and that's all the alternative I could come up with that are closer in terms to what it's meant. That said suggestions are welcome, so please feel free to reply.

For now I'll just add the warning as additional tag, since I do not see an alternative solution that fits the story's needs.

[on-noon]

Calvin and Sienna went through something today. They shared looks as if them two were the only ones who could ever understand the other, after never getting along earlier.

They had the weird, displaced-from-time look about them, as if it had been a year since they were last in this house, although we had breakfast together this morning.

I called their school, got them the day off.

Neither Calvin nor Sienna told me anything about what happened. I wouldn’t believe it, after all. I’m famous for disproving alleged supernatural incidents.

They spent the day together, talking. I only saw them when I knocked on Calvin's door and brought them out to the kitchen to eat.

I think they might have told my husband what happened. It makes sense, he's "not from around here." He'll believe them when they tell of their adventure.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened. First time for Calvin and Sienna, sure. But for my other children, I'm used to this sort of thing.

George goes to a boarding school that claims it's for "gifted students," I'd be interested to know what gift it is.

But when George came and told me about the school, he seemed excited. Like most of my children, he never really fit in at the public school.

I signed the papers even though the school representative was lying, only half of the details he gave me checked out. The form I signed had some very odd clauses.

But George enjoys his school, and so I won't complain that I know zero concrete details about it.

The next day, I sent George and Sienna back to school. They have lunch together, and should be fine. I wouldn't be surprised if they find the troubles of school easier to handle, after whatever they went through.

Life was relatively normal in the household for the next month, but then something happened with Jade.

Jade herself seemed relatively normal, but the rest of the family started treating her weird. Scorpio always flinched when he saw her, as if reliving a bad memory. Sienna was overly kind to Jade. My husband would always check on her, check her location, text to see if she was alright. Al, although married and living with his wife(probably a vampire), kept scheduling things to do with Jade. He had to drive the three hours into town each time, to do random stuff like go to a movie, or to the store.

One morning, I asked Jade my normal "How are you doing?"

"Not well," she said. "Everyone here's treating me weird and they won't tell me why. I've asked, and they all say 'it's better for you not to know' or something of the sort. Scorpio's face just goes blank, but that's Scorpio."

I nodded. "I'd noticed. Try to be patient, whatever happened is still fresh so all the emotions are strong. Remember that we love you, and if they aren't telling you something, they probably have a reason. Not necessarily a good reason, but a reason nonetheless."

"If they love me, why won't they tell me what's going on?" Jade said.

"Oh honey." I hugged her.

"Do you love me?" I asked.

"Yes. Why do you ask?"

"And lets say something happened to you, something weird. Maybe an alien abduction or falling into a movie. Would you tell me?"

"No, I wouldn't," she said softly. "But that doesn't affect you! This, something happened to me and no one will tell me what!"

"You're right. I'll talk to your dad tonight, see if I can get him to tell you about it."

I sat down with my coffee. John would tell Jade what happened if I pushed him to. After all, as she pointed out, it did happen to her.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Parables of the Kingdom of heaven

Genesis 36-37, Psalm 10: 12-18, Matthew 13:18-35

It's come to my attention that I probably shouldn't be taking such a low view of scripture in my thoughts on the old testament. I realized that I'd been assuming the question, "Who made this up and why?" I'd ignored the possibility that it could be true. This is the path of the overly cynical pseudo-intellectual, who assumes falsehood and goes out to half-heartedly disprove something.

But on the other hand, if these stories were true to the letter, it paints a pretty nasty picture of God. If we see them as windows into what humans thought was important, we gain some neat insights into humanity. I am not educated enough to critique this document at all, never mind from an unbiased standpoint.

But still i will continue, because despite all of my doubts, I still believe this book to be helpful in determining what the interactions between God and Their people (All of us) have been.

The old testament passage today gives a list of the descendents of Esau, who have become, in the time between the events and the recording, Edomites. This reads, from a cynical perspective, like a historian writing in the time of the kings, about where the neighbouring nations came from. I don't really know the significance of the writer deciding to include so many women in his genealogy but it feels egalitarian for the time. If so, props to them.

I think that some of my thoughtful Christian friends would agree with a lot of my assessment of the old testament but insist that the stories have undercurrents which show God's character and influence. This is a valid perspective although rather hard to prove or separate from the other possibilities. We would expect, if there was a God, that their fingerprints would be detectable but perhaps not obvious, as ants in an ant farm would have trouble comprehending the human who observes them.

And so we reach the theme of the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven, a concept close to my heart because of the people who have taught it to me. It teaches of a benevolent and non-coercive king who seeks to construct around them a community of people who act in right relationship with the king, other people, themselves, and the rest of the world. And this is what Jesus talks a lot about and it's probably what I will ramble about a fair amount too.

The kingdom of God is like a tiny mustard seed that grows huge. It's like a man sowing grain among weeds. Jesus is trying to catch people's imagination and let them know that the Kingdom of Heaven is not something way in the future or a magical limbo we go into when we die, but it has arrived with him. But he isn't super clear as to what it is.

And the old testament helps us here, because we can follow the general character and personal goals of God throughout. We can read what he cares about in his laws and prophets.

And hopefully we will be able to see patterns in history as we deduce patterns in nature. Both are the fingerprints of God, I think, but even if we never associate them with Them, there are ways of using them that fit into the laws that God has set up for the kingdom of heaven.

[fleshing-out-fodlan]

This brings up some interesting points but before I respond to them I do want to give some I guess disclaimers?? Just to make sure we're on the same page. So first off, when talking about a culture you do have to generalize so there will definitely be people who are exceptions to what I say. Furthermore, saying a noble is taking their duties seriously does not necessarily indicate that what they're doing is morally good (I have a specific example I'm thinking of right now that we'll see later) and the opposite is also true (for example, Bernadetta and also Lysithea as you pointed out don't care for their noble duties but I wouldn't say they're morally bad people for that). Also, I'm specifically talking about pre war culture (from what I see everything you said does apply to that just thought I'd still say that now to prevent future misunderstandings). And also I'm more or less ignoring hopes so don't worry, I won't comment on anybody's Golden Wildfire characterization. Anyways, now that I got the unnecessarily long spiel out of the way, I'll start actually talking about the game.

So yeah, I focused mostly on the noble youth in my analysis. Mainly because the student characters are the ones I care most about so when I look into things for the game I tend to find those the most interesting to read about. I know that makes my analysis weaker overall but I was just writing that for fun so I didn't really feel like looking into other things. But since you've pointed it out, I thought it actually might be interesting to look at all (or at least all that I remember) of the non student character nobles and see how I view their actions and if I think it fits into my theory.

Since you started with Faerghus, I will too (disclaimer: I've only played Azure Moon once and am getting all my information on this from research I did so I could very easily miss something):

Rowe: I agree with you here, Rowe is depicted as a noble who cares primarily for his own well being and is willing to ignore morals for his own gain.

Cornelia: I'm pretty sure, before the events of the story, the real Cornelia is replaced with one of the slitherers similarly to Arundel. Just like I don't think it would be fair to use slitherer Arundel's actions to prove the empire's cultures I also don't think it's fair to use slitherer Cornelia's for the kingdom. From what I gathered, all we know about pre-slitherer Cornelia is that she was an extremely talented mage and helped cure a plague in the kingdom and improved Fhirdiad's infrastructure, both of which involve her helping the people. Also is Cornelia even a noble? All I see is that she was a holy woman before working for the Baliddyd family but idk.

Kleiman: So obviously this man is an awful person but I don't think that disproves my point. My argument is that Faerghan nobles take their duties seriously and not necessarily that they're good people (which maybe that misunderstanding is on me for only using examples of people doing good things but I do believe you can feel a strong sense of duty and that that can motivate you to do terrible things). As far as I'm aware, we don't learn about his motivation for this in houses so I don't really think this proves or disproves my theory.

Lambert: Idk what it is about the three lords and their families that make me not want to talk about them in analyses but regardless I'll try to do it anyways. So the subjugation of Sreng? That was bad, he should not have done that. But again, this doesn't mean that he took his duties lightly. According to the wiki, Lambert was disliked for pushing for 'radical' reforms and travelling to Duscur to try and improve their relations. All this to me indicates that he took his duties pretty seriously. Honestly, I thought there would be more information about him so idk if I'm missing stuff but this was all I could find (besides his whole love story but I didn't feel like it was relevant to this discussion)

Rodrigue: Regardless of how you feel about the man, he definitely takes his duties seriously. He said once to Dimitri "Wherever you lead, we will follow." That's not a mindset that I support and actually find to be very unhealthy, but in his mind his duty is to the king and this would be him following through on his duty (I was going to say this later but I guess I should say it now so I don't seem like a hypocrite, I concede to your point about Hubert, his duty is to Edelgard similarly to how Rodrigue's duty is at least partially to the king so yeah, Hubert does take his duties seriously). Rodrigue also spends a significant amount of time helping to raise the future king after Lambert dies and when Cornelia exiles Dimitri Rodrigue stands by him, standing up to her instead of giving in like Count Rowe did. And later on, he even gives his life to protect Dimitri.

Gilbert: Honestly, I think Gilbert's strong sense of duty is one of his major flaws. He feels like a failure for being unable to protect his king and ends up abandoning his family because of that. And in fact, we see his duty being his priority again when he battles Annette in Crimson Flower. By this point, he is fighting with the Knights of Seiros, meaning his duty is to the church not necessarily the kingdom at this moment. When confronted by Annette, he states that he will kill her, his own daughter, if she stays with the empire, showing him putting his responsibilities as a knight over his responsibilities as a father. In Azure Moon, he stands by Dimitri despite him obviously not being in a good mental state to handle this situation because, similarly to Rodrigue, he feels like his duty is to the king and he must therefore stand by him even when the more moral thing to do would be, in my opinion, to find somebody else to lead while Dimitri is in that mental state.

Count Galatea: Honestly, this is the person I was thinking of when I gave the disclaimer about how a noble taking their duties seriously does not necessarily translate to them behaving morally. The thing Count Galatea is most well known for is pushing Ingrid to marry for money. Now, I would say pushing your daughter to marry for money is not a great thing to do, and reading the post you linked about Ingrid's endings makes it seem like it wasn't smart to do either. But here's the thing, you don't have to be a good leader to take your responsibilities seriously. In Count Galatea's eyes, the best way to secure a good future for his territory is by marrying Ingrid off so he works hard to accomplish this goal for his people. Was that actually the smartest thing to do? I don't think so, but he was still doing it for the sake of trying to help his people.

Margrave Gautier: I feel like there isn't that much information about Margrave Gautier from houses. We know he disinherited Miklan for not having a crest. Now, we know all three countries place a big emphasis on crests. I haven't looked too deeply into this but based on what I've seen when I played, I think Faerghus places the biggest emphasis on crests. So, form the Margrave's perspective, having a crest would make a person better fit for this position than if somebody lacked a crest. Regardless of if this is true, this is how he feels. So, if he wants to take care of his territory and if he has that perspective, obviously he would give the position to his son with a crest. Furthermore, when the lance of ruin is stolen, he turns to the Church of Seiros for help. Honestly, this could be for a few reasons, I don't think it's ever confirmed why in the game. Maybe he was just being selfish and knew the weapon was powerful and wanted it for himself, or maybe he was aware of the threat this weapon posed when in the wrong hands and decided to admit his mistake to outsiders at the risk of harming his reputation to try and make up for him failing to protect the weapon earlier.

Rufus: I think Rufus is an example of a Faerghan noble who does not take his duties seriously. He still has territory to rule over despite not being king, a responsible noble would prioritize helping their own territory thrive. But he doesn't do this, instead he helps to assassinate his own brother to try and gain power. Furthermore, once he became regent the condition of the kingdom declined, so he didn't even take his duties seriously once he got the position he wanted.

Baron Dominic: In Azure Moon, when Annette goes to get Crusher from Dominic territory, Baron Dominic initially refuses to hand over the weapon and attacks them. However, it's later revealed that he was planning to hand over the weapon all along and just pretended to be against it so Cornelia couldn't get mad and punish his people. Here, Baron Dominic is taking his responsibilities to his people extremely seriously. He supports Dimitri's army and wants to help them, but also knows what he would be risking by doing so. The fact that he went out of his way to devise a plan to do what he thinks will be best for the kingdom in the long term but also mitigate the short term damage done I think shows that he is actually a good leader.

Lonato: I think Lonato's a bit of a gray case here and it can go either way honestly. Because the thing is, he did risk his citizens lives to fight against the church in a rebellion that obviously had no chance of succeeding. Nobles have a responsibility to protect the people in their lands and in this instance I think he failed. That being said, his people obviously care deeply for him. If he was just another corrupt noble, I don't think his people would've felt such a strong loyalty towards him. Furthermore, he adopted Ashe and his siblings, three kids in his territory who were forced to live on the street. If I remember correctly, the only other noble to adopt anyone was Count Rowe (adopting Yuri) and that was for much less respectable reasons. Lonato easily could've punished Ashe for breaking into his house and stealing from him, he had the power too and I'm sure other nobles would have done that. So those last two points make him seem like he cares about his people. Honestly, I think Lonato's case is very complicated and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it so I'm not going to come to a conclusion on him.

Now onto Leicester:

Oswald von Riegan: There really isn't much about this guy but what we do know is that, for a while, it appeared as if he had no heir which caused political tension in Leicester. The wiki says he tracked down Claude's mom and had Claude brought back to Leicester, in all honesty I thought Claude decided on his own to come and was just kind of like "surprise I'm your heir." But assuming what the wiki says is true, I actually think what he did was kind of corrupt. He felt like his family was going to lose power so he went out of his way to track down an heir who no one had ever even heard of and decided "yep, this'll be the next leader of the alliance regardless of how people feel about his capabilities." Although I guess you could argue that's no more corrupt than other nobles just making their children inherit their positions because they also don't take anyone else's feelings into account. Regardless, he supposedly did this to relieve political tension which I would say he does have a responsibility to do, I just don't know if this was the way to do it.

Tiana von Riegan: She just vanished without even telling anyone where she was going. She definitely did not care about her noble duties.

Count Gloucester: I would consider him to be a selfish noble and one who doesn't care much for his duties. I think he wants Lorenz to be the next leader of the alliance not because he necessarily believes Lorenz would lead the alliance to the brightest future but moreso because he wants that clout. Furthermore, I don't think it's ever technically confirmed but it is heavily implied that Gloucester was responsible for the death of Raphael's parents and Godfrey von Riegan (aka the next heir). Killing the heir to the most powerful house in the country could definitely have extreme consequences in destabilizing the country which he does not seem to care about. The one good thing I can find that he did was hiring Jeralt's mercenaries to help Leonie's village because poachers were hunting there. But that one good thing doesn't undo all his corrupt actions he did in a selfish attempt to gain more power.

Count Ordelia: I don't really have much to say about him. From what I see he provided aid to House Hrym when they wanted to defect from the Empire to the Alliance. We don't really know why he did it though, although we do know Hrym citizens were fleeing into Ordelia terrtiroy to escape the cruel leadership of Duke Aegir, so I don't think there's enough in cannon to decide what category he fits into.

Margrave Edmund: Genuine question, where is Edmund portrayed as a dangerous schemer? I'm not too familiar with his character so I'm probably just missing something but from what I see he enacted trade policies that improved Edmund territory and, in some of Marianne's endings, tutored her to be a worthy successor. I do agree that he's selfish based on what Marianne says in CF about him wanting her to join the empire to get their name out there and also not caring about what side wins. Because I'm not sure what your dangerous schemer comment is referring too I'm going to hold off on judgement right now.

Judith: I think Judith is very dedicated to her duties. In CF she risks her life defending the Great Bridge of Myrddin. Claude told her to flee if she's in trouble but she states that she "could never do that" and calls in reinforcements instead. This shows how she values the well being of the alliance to the point where she is willing to risk her life. In SS Judith brings reinforcements to Aillel to help the church, again putting her life in danger to fight for what she believes to be right.

Acheron: This is a noble who doesn't feel a strong sense of duty and only cares to look out for himself. He literally says "if you can't beat them, join them" so I don't think I need to spend much time proving this point.

Finally Adrestian nobles:

Bergliez: I'm starting with him because I think we agree so I don't feel a need to talk about it too much. He risks his life for his soldiers, obviously he cares about his responsibilities as the Minister of Military Affairs.

Ionius: Not excited to talk about him because from what I've seen on here he's apparently a somewhat controversial character which surprised me considering I literally never think of him. I know he was accused of trying to consolidate power for himself but I've seen some arguments about whether or not that's true or if it was an excuse for the insurrection. If it was true it would show he's corrupt and that he cares more about being powerful than fulfilling his responsibilities. But again, idk whether or not it's true so I feel like I can't really judge. Then, after the insurrection, he becomes relatively powerless, so it's hard to say what he would've done if he had the power. I also remember reading something about him wanting to abolish the consort system I think but I'm having trouble finding where that was. One good thing I will say is that, when Edelgard comes to inherit the throne, he willing gives it up instead of clinging to power despite not being in a position to be a good ruler. Overall though, there's a lot about Ionius I'm not sure of so again I don't really have a concrete conclusion.

Duke Aegir: Here's another one that's pretty cut and dry corrupt. He was the mastermind behind the insurrection and is obviously out to get more power for himself. His motivation behind this has nothing to do with helping the people or Adrestia, but rather with his selfish desire with power. In Ferdinand and Lysithea's paralogue it's said he instated heavy taxes in Hrym territory and forced the citizens to perform hard labor. And, from what we know of his character, he likely didn't even put the extra money to good use (not that that would make what he did even remotely okay, just using this to further emphasize his selfishness) and instead kept it for himself.

Marquis Vestra: As you said earlier, the duty of house Vestra is to serve the Hresvelg family. Marquis Vestra was involved in the insurrection of the seven and, according to Hubert "spat on a legacy of loyalty and devotion." That being said, I don't think staging an insurrection is an inherently bad thing to do if the leadership is corrupt, but as we know this insurrection led to the torturing and subsequent death of Edelgard and her siblings. So in this case, not only did Marquis Vestra ignore his duties, he also didn't do the morally correct thing imo. In all honesty, I'm not exactly sure why he did this though, and this post is turning out to be a lot longer than I expected so I am admittedly getting lazy with research so maybe I'm missing stuff but I'm going to come to a conclusion and say he doesn't particularly care about his duties.

Count Hevring: So limiting this analysis only to Houses, there's not much to go off of with this guy (Hopes gives a lot more with him but I'm ignoring Hopes for this analysis). He participated in the insurrection of the seven but again, I don't think we get his personal reasoning for doing so. And he does work with Edelgard and as we know one of her goals is fixing the corruption within the nobility. In Linhardt's and Dorothea's C support, Linhardt comments on how his father is an extremely prideful man and how his pride prevents him from making amends with Count Bergliez. This is not a great trait for a leader to have, you should be able to put your own personal feelings behind you at least when handling political issues. Despite that one flaw, I'd overall put him on the more positive side for Adrestian nobles as he is fighting a war against corrupt nobles but he definitely has to do some work on himself.

Count Varley: Another pretty cut and dry case, Count Varley is extremely corrupt. He tries to groom Bernadetta into being a 'good wife,' trying to secure marriages for her that would increase his power (such as to Ferdinand). He also has a very disfavorable view towards the commoner, forbidding Bernadetta from being friends with them. and beating the one she was friends with. I don't think I need to say much more, he's a selfish noble out to get power for himself even if it means neglecting his responsibilities.

Baron Ochs: This is a complicated case. He takes a hero's relic that he shouldn't have, but he thought it would save his daughter so it's honestly very understandable. Overall, we don't know much about what he was like as a ruler so I don't think it would be fair to make much of a judgement for him.

Okay, so this ended up being way longer than I expected so now that I've gotten through all the relevant nobles I think I'm going to just post this. I had a whole list of things I wanted to talk about and I only got through the first one and also wasn't able to respond to like the majority of your points (sorry) but I was having fun doing just this part so maybe I'll look into the rest on another date. Anyways, this was just for fun, if you don't agree with all my points that's fine and I'd be interested to hear your interpretations (especially for the nobles from the later half of my list because I got much lazier in my research there).

Before finishing this post I just wanted to respond to your last paragraph. Hopefully I made it clear in this post that I was not arguing Faerghan/Leicester nobles = good and Adrestian nobles = bad and sorry that I was unclear in the original post. It was just a random thought I had and I hadn't done too much in depth research before posting it because it wasn't originally meant to be an in depth analysis. I do still believe that, on average, Faerghan nobles are the most dedicated to their duties while Adrestian nobles are the least dedicated, but I do think it's less black and white than I originally made it appear. Furthermore, I don't think that makes Faerghan nobles better than Adrestian nobles overall, in fact I would say Faerghus culture's obsession with duty is a flaw of their culture that I think you could write a whole post of its own analyzing. So yeah, I don't think one country is better than the others and that was not the point I was trying to convey, I just think they're different. I think they each have their pros and cons and this post was originally a way for me to specifically talk about what I view as a flaw in Adrestia's culture because I do personally find Adrestia to be the most interesting of the countries to talk about. Well, if anybody actually managed to get through this whole post thanks for actually reading it!!

A big part of Adrestian culture is the way that many nobles don’t seem to take their duties particularly seriously (don’t worry, we’ll talk about Ferdinand). I’ve always imagined that, of the three countries, Adrestia is the one with the largest degree of class inequality, meaning commoners have very few opportunities to rise up. Consequently, the nobles have become complacent in their positions as, if the commoners have no opportunities, they have no way to threaten the nobles. And for this reason, many Adrestian nobles take their positions for granted and ignore their noble duties.

First, I want to look at the other countries and the duties their nobles feel, starting with Faerghus (still have no idea how to spell that so hopefully I got it right). Ingrid is planning to marry for money to help her people who are suffering from a famine, Felix has a paralogue where he goes to protect his people and says to his dad “we were protecting your subjects, not your ego,” and Sylvain has a paralogue where he goes to defend his territory from thieves. Now, lets look at Leicester nobles. Lorenz obviously takes his duties seriously and, while Hilda may not take hers seriously, we know her brother Holst is constantly putting himself on the front lines to protect his territory from the Almyrans.

Looking at the Adrestians, most of the nobles seem to just not really care about their responsibilities. Linhardt wishes to ignore his responsibilities, Caspar’s older brother who is set to inherit his father’s position is stated to be a lazy jerk, Bernadetta isn’t worried about her noble position, Hubert is only concerned with his duties to Edelgard not his country, while Petra cares about her position she is not Adrestian so it doesn’t count. (I’m not talking about any of the lords for this because I just don’t really feel like getting into it).

This leaves the one exception to the rule: Ferdinand. A good amount of his dialogue, especially early game, revolves around him talking about his “noble duties” and how he must fulfill them. So surely, this means Adrestian nobles must take their responsibilities seriously? Except, look at how he’s treated. Everybody, or at least close to everybody, in the Black Eagles house looks down on Ferdinand for his attitude. Obviously, his perspective is not perfect, but he’s the one Adrestian noble attending the academy who is actively trying to do right by his people, and he is getting berated. So obviously his behavior is not the norm. All this put together indicates that there is a culture in Adrestia where nobles only look out for themselves to a degree much more extreme than the other two countries. 

[sometimesrosy]

You really think they’re going to go back to earth?? I mean, I could see Bellamy and Clarke landing at the dropship site all ready to rebuild humanity with radioactive playing softly in the background, fade to black. But I can also see them really leaving earth in book one.

It is, of course, only a speculation. I don’t know. I recognize that I am leaping ahead of canon evidence to make that speculation, but then, I have done that before and been correct. I guessed, from out of nowhere that cryo sleep would be a solution, but my guess came too early. I guessed that for the COL they would save everyone instead of losing everyone like MW, because that’s the kind of twist that would keep an audience on it’s toes. Once i accepted the time jump and clarke left behind, I guessed that she would become a mother, although I said it woud be bellamy’s child. So i got the motherhood right but not the shipping spec. When you spec on this show based on shipping it’s almost never right, that’s not how they make their narrative choices. I guessed that s5 would end with Bellamy and Clarke would lose the war for Eden (McCreary cheated) and take their people who stopped fighting into the wastes for an exodus. As the season went on it became probable that the exodus would be in the stars instead of on earth. So like, these big conceptual stories? I’m picking up on. I think it’s because I speak the same language as JR, 90s scifi geek who went to college to study writing. We have the same references in our heads. Once I started LOOKING for his symbolism and allusions and archetypes, the whole show fell into place and made a lot of sense to me. This show is NOT random. He’s not changing the story to please fandom or to hurt them (except in cases where he can WORK with the changes.)

I’m not intending to brag, I’m intending to show you that although my spec seems like it comes out of left field and there’s no basis for it, the basis actually comes with the TYPE of story he’s telling and the common language in the GENRE. Like, I started picking up on his symbolism in s3, but if I didn’t keep getting confirmation that I was right with the themes and archetypes and symbolism and allusions, I would have changed my theories. But I keep getting confirmation that I’m on the right track. JR is going down a familiar path for me. So I’m trying to find the street signs and show them to you so you can follow the path too.

So WHY did I come up with this wacky theory about Clarke and Bellamy returning to earth? HOW? It didn’t happen until s5 was over and I started getting asks and started reading/watching those references he told us about and started thinking how all the storylines converge.

long and involved, so, below the cut.

Snarky foreshadowing– This was when I first went, wait, what? Raven, when she flew the last ship off of earth said, “Just once I’d like to take off from a planet while it wasn’t burning.” TWICE she’s done that. Third time’s the charm. They’ve been fixing the traumas, I think we’ll get this one again too, only this time the planet won’t be burning. They’ve got ONE planet left. The new one. Therefore, they will be leaving the planet and it won’t be burning. But WHY would they leave the planet when it’s not burning? Then I had to find a REASON for them leaving the safe haven planet. 

History repeats itself– This story is about how pre-apocalypse humans were ruining the world. Becca is the real wanheda. She, her creation, eradicated humanity. That’s the genocide. She started the harshness of the Ark because of her madness. She started the harshness of the grounders as Pramheda. She came back and we saw her trying to fix what she’d done. She ALSO had to do with the eligius program and invented their nightbood. THEREFORE, the new planet colony is a descendent of Becca’s original crimes against humanity. Was it all an accident? Sure? But also it was the result of her choices, her hubris, her genius.  She is Doctor Frankenstein. (Actually I just made that connection and I feel stupid for missing it. Does it work? Anyone see it also?)

You are responsible for your monster when you let it out– Lincoln’s words. VERY IMPORTANT. This makes EVERYTHING in the story make sense. If people don’t take responsibility for their evil, they are the monster. If people TRY to take responsibiilty for their evil, they are the hero. That’s why leaders sacrificing others is not a sacrifice, they aren’t taking responsibility they are using people. But Clarke or Bellamy risking their lives to fix their mistakes IS heroic. It’s not always smart, but that’s the good guy move. hero/monster has been a theme since s1.

The structure of the story is a spiral– They are returning to their greatest traumas and FIXING them. Making the right choice this time. Teaching others to make the right choice, learning from their mistakes instead of doubling down on their evil actions in order to make it worth it, like Octavia all season 5. Or Lxa in s2. Or Jaha the whole show. Or Cage Wallace. Redemption comes through recognizing your monster and DOING BETTER. Redemption is a MAJOR theme of post-apocalyptic stories. 

Eligius 3 are Colonialists, NOT refugees– Monty said that they went to the new planet to USE the resources because the resources of the earth were used up. They aren’t looking for a home, they’re looking for another planet to consume. THIS IS WHAT STARTED THE ORIGINAL FALL OF HUMANITY. They reflect the values of Mount Weather who believed the earth was their birthright and treated the people on the surface as cattle to be used and tortured. This is a repeat of the MW conflict.

Eligius 3=Mount Weather– that means we’ll be getting a redo of the biggest and most traumatic “failure” that Clarke and Bellamy had. Except, it never really was a failure. It was the RIGHT thing to do. It happened also to be best for their people, but it was GOOD, even though it caused harm to some innocent people, because as Maya said, none of them were innocent. They were the disease. Clarke (med student, remember?) had to KILL the mountain to put it out of its suffering (like Atom) and to save the rest of humanity. This means that Eligius 3 will ALSO be the disease. They ARE the disease that caused the apocalypse. 

JRs reading/viewing list: all about the aliens– Weird non linear, non reality hybrids of alien and human. Consciousness. AI. Philosophy. Religion. I have not gotten to see ALL of the films or read the books, but I’ve researched them all a bit and they share themes. Also Avatar (blue not airbender) And I believe that we’ll have a non-humanoid kind of alien that bonds with the humans to create something new (also if you’ve ever read Ender’s Game which JR certainly did, it actually moves on to tell the story of Ender as Speaker for the dead, and his psychic connection, facilitated by an AI in his head [JANE!] who brings back the dead species and allows another very odd species to be recognized as sentient.  HOLY CRAP Madi is the speaker for the dead. omg i just realized!

If humanity is to be redeemed, they have to be responsible for their monster – They have broken the cycle of violence amongst themselves. They encounter a society that will be JUST as poisoned as the pre-apocalypse society that started this all. Russell’s people will BE the monster. Their enemy (the aliens who are NOT their people) will be the victims.  To be the good guy, they will have to CHOOSE their enemy over their people. Lincoln did it. Maya did it. They were The Good Guys. Clarke and Bellamy will have to end Russell’s people. In doing so, they will replay the MW trauma, but this time they will understand WHY it had to happen and will heal the trauma of the past, because they are HEALING humanity.

If humanity is to be redeemed, they must FIX what they have broken, that is The Earth itself– They can’t drop Earth when it’s no longer providing for them and move onto another planet that they can use up. If you look at The 100 in terms of environmentalism, which you can, you can see this would make them the bad guys. To be the good guys, they have to go back to what they did and start over. This fits the spiral structure, as well as being the Good Guy and being responsible for your monster. 

They aren’t going to discard the earth, or humanity– Why? Because they wouldn’t let Octavia martyr herself. She represents humanity. She will now be forced to WORK to redeem herself and fix what she did. So will humanity. They do not OWN the Earth, the Earth owns them and they are the caretakers. Octavia needs to go back to earth and treat it like her responsibility, not her property. She needs to follow what Lincoln believed. The attempted martyrdom was a reference to Lincoln. But she was cheating. She can’t cheat redemption.

THEY CAN’T CHEAT REDEMPTION: THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO EARTH. In real life, none of this would have to happen, but this is not real life. This is JR with a story he wants to tell. The story is about the redemption of humanity and two mythic heroes who save humanity, not by keeping them from dying, but by leading them to redemption. THIS IS EPIC. 

When I started thinking about all these thematic questions, I saw that it started to form into a narrative, and many of the characters had roles to play within this narrative, some more than others. When I looked at those characters and their relationships, it completely connected to the long game stories of the relationships of the delinquents and the storylines that are actively being told and have been left open at the end of season 5. 

This theory slots the character arcs into the themes of the show as a whole AND the new main plot story of aliens, new planet, russell’s “peaceful” (yeah sure) society, bellamy and clarke’s commitment to be the good guy. 

So yeah. I see them leaving the new planet to take responsibility for the planet humanity killed, destroying russel’s peaceful society so they can’t destroy the new planet, and leaving Madi behind (she is special) as the steward for the new people. 

Because of the ORIGINAL foreshadowing that brought on this spec, Raven wishing to take off of a planet that isn’t burning, we know that they won’t destroy the new planet. They will save it. And leave it. In order to redeem humanity. 

leaving madi and echo behind with the aliens is not necessary for this redemption plot, but it fits the youth shall inherit the earth generational story and reflects Abby’s struggle with letting go of Clarke, and also Echo’s story of belonging and family and loyalty, and with her stated backstory. You see how this theory connects the larger themes to the character arcs? it just makes sense to me. It isn’t convoluted to me. It is a direct if this, then that, kind of logic. It’s just that it is bringing together MANY past concepts and lessons to save humanity. I don’t know if it sounds convoluted to other people, so if it does, ask me question and we can see if i can get it any clearer.

I can tell the entire story now, with places for the main characters dealing with their personal stories. And it all fits. It’s CRAZY but I’m so excited about it, I can’t wait to see if I’m on the right track. Because if I am it is going to be SO GOOD. Like REALLY. Like miraculous. And everyone who ever hated on this show is going to have to eat their words. Just. I mean. WOW. 

And all the characters people think were discarded and deserved better? They all have an important place, too. Wells has the vision for a life well lived. Lincoln’s idea of being responsible for your monster. Lxa’s power will actually be related to how they can save the new people (the flame), Maya’s conviction that she needed to stop her people because they were doing the wrong thing. Jasper’s belief that the problem WAS humanity and it might not be worth saving. Luna’s desire for peace. HOLY SHIT. 

[dutchdread]

Many Clotis saying Cloud loves Aerith but more like platonic love rather than romantic. Do you agree with that? I understand you never disagree that Cloud didn’t have sort of romantic feelings for Aerith because of the resolution. Most Clotis agree Cloud cared for Aerith but just against the fact that Cloud is IN LOVE with her. Of course like you said Cloud definitely has feelings for her but after Cloud regain his true self, what do you think his feelings for her are? Somehow I always see you point out his feelings for Aerith in AC were guilt but guilt can sometimes interpreted as romantic too, this is why many people thought Cloud pining for her or saying Cloud loves both girls romantically except he moved on with Tifa because Aerith die

I wouldn't say that guilt can be 'interpreted to be romantic", I'd say that romance can be the cause of guilt. And that's true, the only reason you need to feel guilty towards a person is to believe, for whatever reason, that said person matters in some way. The reason they matter, to you, might very well be that you had a romantic attraction towards them. But the point is that whether or not Cloud has romantic feelings regarding Aerith is irrelevant towards his actions in advent children, because while it's true that Cloud could have romantic feelings towards Aerith and do the things he does, it's equally true that he doesn't need any romantic feelings towards her at all in order for his actions to fit his personality.

Nothing in the story of advent children depends on the romance part of this equation. This is partly why it's hard to disprove, because it's mostly irrelevant. It can be there, or not be there. But that's a weakness of the case for romantic feelings, not a strength. It's like arguing that Cloud could do what he does, and still love chocolate Icecream. It's true, because nothing in the story says anything about Clouds love of chocolate icecream. But the very fact that the story doesn't have anything to say about Clouds love of chocolate icecream in itself is a good indication that Clouds hypothetical love of chocolate icecream is irrelevant to the story. It's would be an unnecessary, randomly tacked on part of the story which serves as little more than a bit of trivia. Likewise, "......also he loves Aerith" can always be tacked on to any situation.

Clotis generally aren't saying that Clouds feelings of guilt mean he doesn't love Aerith (although there is a bit of truth to this that I'll come back to later). They're saying that that since Clouds actions are caused by guilt, his actions can't be taken as proof that he loves Aerith. In general, in any argument, it's important to remember that the fact that a claim hasn't been conclusively disproven, doesn't in itself make the claim true.

Concerning whether or not Clouds guilt is caused by romantic feelings, or exists side by side with romantic feelings, I have several things to say.

1. As mentioned earlier, romantic feelings are not needed for Cloud to feel guilt, Cloud is established time and time again to feel similar feelings of guilt in regards to the death of Zack. I don't know what else to say about this, it just adds nothing, so why postulate it?

2. Love doesn't just exist in a vacuum, it grows and shrinks depending on your actions. If you think about a person in romantic terms your brain will, over time, rewire itself to associate said person with romantic feelings. I've experienced this myself, I tend to gravitate towards negative thoughts, I tend to "see the bad". That's not a good thing, people romanticize "following your feelings", but feelings are fickle and aren't always in your best interest. For some people, following your feelings means ending up at the bottom of a bridge. I once decided to just forcefully think differently about a person, as an optimist instead of a pessimist, when I found myself being annoyed with something I stepped back and told myself "hold up, what are you doing, who even cares? It doesn't matter that she's a bit neurotic, what matters is that she's sweet and caring, and tries her best". Just the change in that mindset caused me to go from being done with someone, to falling head over heels with them. The point is that if you learn to associate a person with negative emotions, that's will have an impact on the way your mind views them. What Cloud is doing in advent children is associating Aerith with guilt. That's not an association that's conducive to the development of love. To Cloud, seeing Aerith in a romantic light would likely be borderline insulting to her memory, and Zacks. She let Zack and Aerith die, and now he's has the nerve to think about her romantically, the girl whose dead because of his? The girlfriend of the friend whose dead to him? No, that's not the mindset Cloud is in, he's punishing himself, he's beating himself down. He's not having sessions of fond romantic musings. 3. Clouds actions are more in line with not loving Aerith, than with loving Aerith. For one, there is Denzel, Cloud thinks Aerith sent Denzel to him, Cleriths even pretend that he's their symbolic child....so why, if Clouds actions are based on love, is he abandoning his and Aeriths child to be with Aerith? Surely he'd have taken Denzel with him. Surely Aeriths child would be of the highest importance? But he left Denzel with Tifa, because Clouds actions aren't due to him being heartbroken, which is why Aerith is so understanding towards him in the movie. If Cloud was abandoning their child, just because Cloud was feeling love sick, do you think the Aerith we know would have been ok with that? But enough about that, you asked me what I think Clouds feelings are regarding Aerith, and I think that little backdrop probably helps give some context. I'd say that Clouds feelings regarding Aerith....are complicated. Feelings generally aren't that easily placed in boxes, they are likely a mixture of guilt, gratitude, fondness, and some attraction maybe. He definitely cares about her, he thinks he learned much from her, and finds her vaguely important in some way.

We have to remember that Cloud met Aerith in a rather weird place in his life where he wasn't himself and wasn't sure who he was, this matters because if you're not sure of what or who you are then you can't know what is genuine and what is an act. The same way we argue about what Clouds feelings might mean, he'd be having the exact same uncertainty. Cloud probably isn't sure what Aerith meant to him when he wasn't himself, but what he is sure off, is that she's dead because of him. She becomes symbolic, he calls her mother, and I think that might be the best way to describe it. In the Sefirot, Chesed represents compassionate, altruistic love, and the healing of the world. Mother earth, spiritual healing, that's what I associate Aerith with. In the end, isn't that what is the nicest relationship for Aerith and Cloud to have? I've always found this obsession with making Cloud and Aeriths relationship something "physical" to be a bit creepy. I prefer the story where Cloud appreciates Aerith for what she means to him spiritually instead of sexually? One where she's his symbolic mother, the ideological mirror to Sephiroth and Jenova? But heej, that's just a theory, a GAME THEORY!

[lightstar789]

A Random Theory I've Been Brewing in My Cave

Sorry if my wording is terrible, or downright offensive to those with mental trauma. I don't have it myself, and I'm sincerely sorry if any of what I say is harmful and/or triggering to those individuals. As always, I am welcome and open for feedback, so if you'd like to talk to me, I'm always here and willing to learn.

There will be mentions of trauma and child a***e in this post, so please be wary and proceed with caution.

That being said, DR:DT Chapter 1 spoilers below!

Some people wonder what caused Charles to get his fear of blood. While there are several other reasons to have a fear of blood, non-trauma related and I acknowledge that, the fact that during the trial, specifically past trauma and/or baggage was brought up, I believe it stems from that.

Now, there's a lot that can fit in that category: a***e, violence, and unsafe environment is what a lot of people seem to think, but I personally don't believe that to be the case. You see, Charles' seems to fondly recollect his childhood, as evidenced by that post on the official Tumblr stating his favorite foods are rooted in nostalgia, and the quote associated with him on Mai's character page, that being "a girl who loves her family."

But wait, what's this?

Memory loss, huh? Well, in many trauma patients, memory loss of a traumatic event is quite common, to allow the brain to heal as healthily as possible, and to prevent the body from reliving it. This caused me to think back to Veronika noting that in the trial, saying that emotional baggage and trauma from an earlier time that you may not remember often resurfaces when you least expect it.

Under the impression that Charles' home life was relatively peaceful, what could've happened? Well, I theorize that maybe he had a sibling or a family member who died, and traumatized him to the point of memory loss, since he cares about family a ton.

Maybe he was a target of the mastermind of this game, given that we don't know everyone's definitive ages, just a range, or that the trauma could've happened pretty close to the start of the game, but not so close it'd be affected by the memory loss. Also, maybe his parents may have turned into helicopter parents in order to prevent a relapse, and this is why he doesn't exactly know how to operate basic appliances.

But hey, I guess it's something.

I'd love to know what you guys think about this topic, and potentially bring up evidence that may prove or disprove this theory!

[elistodragonwings]

"Don't listen to that claim, that person is a [TERF/white supremacist/ecofascist/etc.]"

No, don't listen to that claim because it's a bad argument. Be careful not to use ad hominem logical fallacies. Bad arguments stand on their own, regardless of who says them. Yes, learn to recognize the kinds of arguments these people make. At the same time, think critically about what you read, regardless of your knowledge of the person who said it because you usually won't know, and you shouldn't have to. Their harmful belief are what make them "bad" not the other way around.

If you see something you think you agree with think:

Is this thing I read factually true or does it simply fit with my own biases or the assumptions I'm already making about the topic? How do I know what I think I know? Did I study this topic or just learn it on social media (this is especially true regarding ecology and climate)? Am I subconsciously trusting the person saying it, given that I don't know who they are? Does it carry implications that I may not initially consider? What biases might it be based on? How does this apparent "truth" apply to both people/beliefs I like and those I don't? What's being implied as good or bad here? Can I apply this claim in a way I'd disagree with, and what do I do with that? Can I think of any challenges or alternatives? Can I think of examples that would disprove it? Can I use the claim to support something I might not like? How might someone who thinks differently from me interpret this statement? What might someone I disagree with mean if they said it?

Do this every time someone makes a claim. Do this every time before you share something supposedly profound on social media.

[habibharry]

Nah, the worst part about Larries is that they were all about outing Harry (& Louis, but a straight man can't actually be outed) until he decided to come out. The two weeks after Medicine were all about proving the song wasn't in fact about what it was & that it had no impact & they still maintain that most people think Harry's straight (I'd say 95% of his fans & almost everyone who's aware of who he is that isn't a fan consider him not-straight, but okay...). They did everything to prove he 1

Anonymous said:wasn't straight until he decided to go "hi, lol, I'm not straight", then they were like "nope, nope, back in the closet you go." Bc they give no shits about his mental health & wellbeing they just care about their ship. They also flat out reject the possibility of him being anything other than gay bc if he's attracted to men & women that doesn't disprove his "stunts", they need him to debunk those "stunts" so he could be single for their king Louis. I'm of the opinion that Harry had 2Anonymous said:PR relationships in the past, some of them were very obvious for attention, but wanting to change his entire sexual orientation and erase the possibility of him being attracted to women entirely just bc it doesn't fit with ur ship has got to be one of the grossest things they've ever pulled. It's so toxic & I don't get how they don't see it. He can only come out with Louis & if he does or says something to come out before, we'll ignore it & pretend it's meaningless, even if it's very obviously 3Anonymous said:both important and really hard for him to do & we'll also push a label on him & reject any other possibility bc they'd conflict with our ship. That's basically what they're doing. On top of making everything he does about L*uis. Every pause, every breath, every smile, every suit, every lyric he writes, every rainbow he waves, every speech he gives. I'm sorry for the rant but I'm disgusted. I want to protect Harry from those people so bad. I wish I could black mirror block them for him 4--------------------------------I did mention I was talking about "one of the worst things about them", there's clearly more than one lol. Also I understand you're just sharing your opinion here so I'm not gna debate on whatever you said. But yeah I know the feeling of wanting to just snatch his name away from their terrible mouths, esp when they go on and on about him like they know jack shit about him or who he is. And yeah I've seen plenty of "he must only come out w louis or he's awful" and I cant tell you how much that makes me sick to my stomach, I can't believe one can have such thoughts about a real person, but then they don't have any bit of empathy anyway.All they've done ever is deny aspects of Harry's life to fit it into their "narrative" or to make Louis look better or the way they want to see him, it's all disgustingly obvious. Although in the end they're always gna be a stupid irrelevant minority just within this fandom who don't mean shit on a global scale, where Harry is utterly loved and appreciated and it'll only keep growing bc of who he is and what he does, and they can't even touch that no matter how much they think they can. We already know that. So just ignore those pests and continue to love Harry, it's all that matters 💕