#it's obviously not a lot i don't think as i've only seen two instances of it

[demodraws0606]

I'm kinda peeved off that I'm seeing a few people that have the critique that Siffrin didn't deserve their "happy ending" in the end, that he was forgiven too quickly. I'm bad about this for actually a number of reasons.

(Warning this will be long because I am irrationally passionate about this, totally not because I relate to Siffrin or anything ahahahahaha)

First, logically, Siffrin's actions definitely are not as awful as people make it out to be especially not in the context of a time loop story. The worst Siffrin has done was his actions in the Bad Touch achievement and the last loop, one being purely optional. Outside of that, any tampering Siffrin had done was purely harmless, sure it's existentially horrifying but it's not like he did any actual manipulation.

You could also argue since Siffrin was in control of the loop, they are responsible for everything that was happening but we know full well he wasn't in control literally, his emotions were in control of the loop. Considering, a whole thing in this story is how acting as though you're fine and trying to control your emotions don't work, I don't think we can make the argument Siffrin was really in control.

He only wanted to trap everyone in the timeloop when it already had destroyed his mind. I thought it was obvious it was a monkey's paws situation.

The last time loop was the breaking point of Siffrin and it's one of the things he does suffer consequences from, they do get mad at him and he does apologize. What else do you want him to do ?

The Bad Touch achievement is the only thing that could be said to be "unforgivable" but it's optional and as far as I know it's hinted that Siffrin would talk about it with Isabeau. In fact it's said that even though right now they're fine and okay, they literally say they are okay to be mad at Siffrin later.

And also, it's not taking into acount the Actual feelings of his family either. They can't remember the loops and they have their own reason to not still be mad with him, so why should they hold Siffrin accountable for feelings they don't have.

In fact, the storyline strikes the perfect balance to not have Siffrin do such horrible action that he'd actually be unforgivable but still have him do enough that it shows what the loops are doing to him but....

..it's not just logically, judging Siffrin's actions as bad/good things like that is not just what's wrong with the narrative that Siffrin should've suffered more consequences. It also goes against the narrative itself.

For me at least, ISAT is a game about mental illness but also recovery. It's not coincidental a lot of people project their own mental issues onto Siffrin, it's not just a "ahahaha they're so relatable !!", it's a genuine part of the story.

I could make an entire essay about it but that's not the point, what would a story about these themes be if the ending was just "you need to repent for the things you did during your own mental breakdown"

It may seem ridiculous after all this that they'd just forgive Siffrin after all of this, but really hasn't most of the points against Siffrin's morality been coming from Siffrin themselves.

Siffrin believed he deserved to be rejected, that he deserved the suffer, that he was disgusting. It was these belief that kept him from talking about the loop because for him, everything was his fault. Not just because he created the loop but because the desire of staying with them was the very sin he hated himself for since the beginning.

So for all that self hatred to be met with, strange acceptance. It almost seems ridiculous, and Siffrin's talk with Odile in the epilogue reinforces how almost comedic it is.

It's close to reality, isn't it ? How many times have you thought you did something completely unforgivable to someone you cared about and you were waiting for them to be furious at you, but that moment never came.

Because they just simply weren't hurt enough by what happened. And sure it was definitely a bad thing you did and they were maybe mad in the moment, but you apologized. Sure there could be more consequences for what you did but what's the point in asking for them to be more mad at you ?

Shouldn't you strive to be better than beg to be hurt for your actions ?

Do you think being hurt, being yelled at would make anything better other than just feed the voice in your head what it wants to hear ?

Weird flowery talk aside, it just doesn't fit the themes and the narrative of the story is what I'm saying. Asking for more punishement for Siffrin goes against what the story is about.

It's just like complaining that the looping mechanics are too frustrating, that's part of the package deal bb !!

Fuck the idea of "repenting by suffering through the consequences" !!! Having to deal with "blinding unrelenting forgiveness and kindness" is in !!!!

[autisticshadowthehedgehog]

Nobody asked me for my opinion on the controversy that dropped today when the Sonic Movie cast pay rate was revealed, which is fair ig since I try to stay positive on this blog. But in case you're wondering, yeah as a certified AFAB™ I'm pissed, but not really specifically at the Sonic crew. Actor pay rates are usually negotiated between agents and the production companies so just like all the other problems with the Sonic movies, this is most likely an issue with Paramount and their patented dumbfuckery. Disclaimer that obviously it could very well be a Sonic crew issue as well, obviously I don't know the inner workings of the entire film production.

Also, if you're mad about this: please be mad about the pay gap that has been going on as long as Hollywood has been alive. This isn't a problem unique to the SCU. I know the phrase "pay gap" is thrown around a whole lot but do you guys actually know how big an issue it is?

Recent percentages are that male and female actors have "a wage difference of about 25 percent," with an estimated difference of $1-2million between star-power men and star-power women.[x][x] Basic Instinct star Sharon Stone said she made $500k to Michael Douglas's $14mil– and when she was asked to be lead in a film being made in ~2022, the lead male, who was "new", was going to be paid $8-9mil, with her salary still at $500k. Last December, Biggest Monopoly In The World Disney was sued by 9,000 women over their pay gap.

This article is from 2019 but brings up some big fucking pay gaps between leads– for instance, Gillian Anderson was offered half of what David Duchovny was for the X-Files reboot as one of the two main fucking characters, Amanda Seyfried has disclosed she made 10% of what her male co-star made on an undisclosed film, Natalie Portman made 1/3 of the salary of Ashton Kutcher in No Strings Attached, and Ellen Pompeo, the titular character of Grey's Anatomy, was paid less than the actor playing her love interest, Patrick Dempsey. In fact, Dempsey was being paid almost double what she was.

However, BIG issue with the 2019 article: it only focuses on what White actors are being paid. Research shows that Black actresses make 57 cents to every dollar white actors make on a good day. Viola Davis, one of the most popular and talented actresses of our generation, has said that black women "get probably a tenth of what a Caucasian woman gets. And I'm number one on the call sheet." Octavia Spencer had to collaborate with Jessica Chastain to make sure they both got paid the same amount of money on a film they both worked on, and revealed that her new salary increased 500% afterwards.

At the end of last year, while promo-ing The Color Purple, Taraji P. Henson broke into tears while talking about how little she's being paid when compared to her white and male contemporaries. And when she talked about the gap, I find it so fucking frustrating that the general audience response was to immediately blame the only Black female producer on the film. I have a million gripes with Oprah Winfrey but TCP cast has said that she herself managed to fix a lot of the problems on set and was nothing but supportive to them. Oh, and there were a lot of problems on set, including a lack of food and dressing space for the main actors. And this is all from celebrity women. Just think about how Hollywood is treating women who don't have the star power to speak up.

Of course this isn't even a problem solo to Hollywood, let alone Paramount, let alone just one movie. And honestly it was probably really sad that when I saw the pay rate for the Sonic 3 cast, I wasn't even surprised, because I've seen worse on bigger projects.

[nihongoseito]

how to use 〜じゃん／じゃない "isn't it?"

if you've been listening to people speak japanese casually, you've probably heard these conversational sentence-final particles! here i'll go over the difference between the two and then give their usages and example sentences. 行こう！

wait, doesn't じゃない just mean "not"?

you would be right about that! but as with lots of things in spoken language, intonation is key here. compare these two sentences in english:

it isn't pretty. (falling intonation)

isn't it pretty? (rising intonation)

clearly, these two sentences mean different things. they use different intonation, but even more obviously, the words come in different orders—in european languages, that's one of the easiest ways to tell a statement from a question. but as we know, in japanese, questions are made without moving words around; so, intonation alone with have to do the job! now, compare these two:

きれいじゃない。 (falling intonation) = it isn't pretty.

きれいじゃない？ (rising intonation) = isn't it pretty? / it's pretty, don't you think?

thanks to the rising intonation in the second sentence, instead of negation, we get a tag question. so if you're reading instead of listening, watch out for situations where you might have to guess or intuit what the intonation of the sentence is!

the difference between 〜じゃん and 〜じゃない

in terms of their conversational meaning or usage, these two particles are the same. however, in terms of "indexing" and social cues, じゃん is a bit more casual and じゃない can have a feminine tone. compare these sentences:

きれいじゃん？ (casual)

きれいじゃない？ (casual, feminine)

きれいじゃないですか？ (a bit more polite)

these sentences all feel very conversational, but depending on how you want to present yourself you might pick one over the others.

also, it's worth noting that じゃん only has the conversational usage: no matter the intonation, it can't mean "not" in regular statements (as far as i've seen, anyway!).

what's the difference between 〜じゃん／じゃない and 〜ね?

both these sentence-final particles ask for agreement or confirmation, as in these two sentences:

きれいじゃん？

きれいだね。

both of these could be translated as "isn't it pretty?" or similar. however, the tag question denoted by 〜じゃん is stronger than the tag question denoted by 〜ね. in other words, ending with じゃん is more like an actual question than ending with ね.

for example, if you said きれいじゃん？, you might be expecting your conversation partner to have had some expectation subverted. maybe you're looking at modern art, and they had initially expressed a disinterest in modern art; saying きれいじゃん？ leaves more room for them to change their opinion or even to disagree with you.

on the other hand, きれいだね is tantamount to a gentle statement, like you already know your conversation partner will agree with you. you might say きれいだね while overlooking a 絶景 (ぜっけい = superb view) such as 富士山 (ふじさん = mt. fuji) or 琵琶湖 (びわこ = lake biwa). after all, who could ever not find those きれい!

addendum: 〜じゃん with falling intonation

i watch someone on youtube who makes lots of designs in animal crossing, and when she is satisfied with a layout she often says 「いいじゃん！」, meaning "isn't that great!" or similar. but why is she using じゃん if she isn't actually asking for confirmation?

this seems to be an instance of a rhetorical tag question. in particular, the intonation of her いいじゃんs is falling, so it doesn't sound like a question. instead, she's making an exclamation out of a question. this is similar to what we might do in english with an exclamation like "isn't that great!", where we might pitch the sentence as a statement instead of a question. (and, to be totally clear, this person also says 「いいんじゃない？」 a lot too!)

例文 (れいぶん = example sentences)

高（たか）すぎじゃない？ = don't you think that's a bit expensive? この辺（へん）は神社（じんじゃ）が多い（おおい）じゃない？ = aren't there a lot of shrines around here? 疲れて（つかれて）いるんじゃない？ = aren't you tired? (don't you just want to go apeshit?) 全然（ぜんぜん）辛く（からく）ないじゃん？ = it's not spicy at all, right? やればできるじゃん！ = you can do it if you try! だから言った（いった）じゃん！ = it's like i already told you!

summary

in summary, 〜じゃん／じゃない are casual conversational particles you can use to make a tag question like "isn't it?" or "don't you think?", and they tend to have a rising intonation. of course, there are complications and exceptions to everything in language, so keep your eyes peeled and you'll definitely see more interesting usages of these particles!

as always, feel free to send me an ask if you have any questions/thoughts. じゃねー！

main sources:

[hms-no-fun]

Tell us about Dill and Alexander! I kinda picture them in my head as Kermit and that blue eagle Muppet but gay and gamer/greasy mechanic. Is that where you got the idea? Is sburb's frog fascination gonna play into the story of these boyos?

oh what's that? you want to be the captive audience for a lore dump about my very special guys? completely unprompted and with total investment in everything i might have to say? well well, don't mind if i do!

SO, Dill Croaker and Alexander Falcon are members of a now-defunct group called The Falconers. they are modeled after Star Fox (the team) from Star Fox (the video games). we haven't seen Alex on screen yet, but here's @girlpillz's rendering of Dill for B1 verse 1, where Lenore Lehart shows off her sick bouncy ball skills for Dana Straten to get the attention of Dill.

Alex being a blue falcon, i imagine he looks legally distinct from Falco Lombardi from Star Fox (the video games; the team) albeit less cocky and attitudinous.

there are technical reasons for The Falconers' existence. going into 3.2B, i knew i wanted a secondary supporting cast in the margins capable of handling dirtywork off-screen. for instance, they're decrypting and analyzing Lenore's stolen witch data so the main cast doesn't have to worry about it, leaving us more time to luxuriate in what we're actually here for: feelings.

Star Fox 64 is my favorite game, so when it came time to come up with that supporting cast, the possibilities of a knockoff Star Fox team immediately sold me on the idea (especially since this is the only story where i will ever reasonably be able to get away with such a blatant act of self-indulgence. you wouldn't believe it from looking, but i don't actually do a lot of indulging myself with Godfeels. i try very hard to never throw things in without serious calculation. The Falconers are pretty much the only thing i've introduced that came as an inorganic external mandate of my own selfish making, and even then i've worked very hard to integrate them naturally). as a broken up four-person crew, they mirror the Upsilons-- and so, them helping the Falconers reunite in order to find Alphi and Edie gives these guys some juice. their backstory is a shadow of the Upsilons', and a useful point of comparison as the narrative plugs along. i could've made a girl Star Fox team, but frankly Godfeels is just so women-centered, so female-focused, so tgirl-transfixed that i figured it was about time to throw the boylikers a bone.

The Falconers are balanced as a calculated twist on the Star Fox team. the most immediate difference is that here, Alexander Falcon fills the role of Fox McCloud. he's the charismatic team leader, a little surly (especially these days) but good at his job and deeply committed to the care of his team. Dill Croaker is, obviously, only about five runs through the dryer away from Slippy Toad, and fills the same role. my reason for this is that everyone is mean to Slippy and they're wrong. Slippy is a brilliant engineer and programmer, why do you expect him to be an ace fighter pilot too? that's YOUR job, hotshot! Nintendo themselves have been all over the map with Slippy in terms of characterization, pretty much never getting him quite as right as he felt in 64. so, yeah, Dill is my take on Slippy: a clueless gamer frog who plays with a lot of edgelords but is himself impervious to their venom. he never cusses because he's a good boy, and he respects women.

Dill and Alex have lived together on Crime Planet for a long time. are they fucking? no, i don't believe they are. Dill strikes me as something of an ace king, and anyway i don't think he's Alex's type. mostly they work together in the shop and hang out doing bro stuff. maybe Alex lifts weights while Dill plays shitty space MOBAs. but all this begs the question: who is Alex's type?

as of the B1 solo we've learned a little bit about the other two Falconers. first there is Erol [last name unknown], the oldest member of the crew who's likely analogous to Peppy Hare. which leaves us with Yolo Sionnach. a lot of information can be implied about him from this exchange:

yes, a lot of information indeed. but as much as i would love to enumerate the implications, i must hold my tongue. i mean, i would type it all out, but i can't, because i'm literally using my fingers to hold my tongue in place so that i can't say the spoilers out loud

anyway, i like the muppet comparison. that wasn't what i had in mind at all, but now i'm imagining the Falconers as the puppets Nintendo used to advertise Star Fox Zero and........ ohhhh scope creep you saucy temptress

the Slippy slander is rampant! and that's to say nothing of the ad where muppet versions of Satoru Iwata, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Reggie Fils-Aime slowly transform into Peppy, Fox, and Falco respectively.

i can't say that Sburb/the Universe Engine have much to do with The Falconers' story. they're not godtier, they don't know anything about the UE, they are literally just space mercenary furries. they come from the Lemurian Star System, trained at the Academy on Lemuria, and worked in the Lemurian Sky Corps until starting their own independent outfit as contractors (which i imagine is a fairly common career path in a region racked by interplanetary war and rampant espionage). age-wise, they're in their mid 30s.

thank you for this wonderful question. no one ever asks about the other guys, and i am always dying to talk about the other guys.

[whatusername00]

Which Baldur's Gate Characters Know How To Lace Up Their Clothing - Tiefling Edition

Or, Part 2. Honestly didn't expect my earlier post to be so popular, but I enjoyed doing it and enjoyed taking the screenshots for this one too. Honestly I intend to continue doing this regardless of how popular it is because I need to know.

I went through all the tieflings at the Emerald Grove, so if someone's not listed here it's probably because they just don't have anything that laces shut. I don't think I missed anyone.

Starting with Zevlor. Honestly I'm not even sure this is actually lacing rather than decoration. If it is laced, it's the only spiral lacing I've seen so far, but's its so miniscule I'm not totally sure. There are other instances of this same pattern that definitely are decoration, but this is the only one that looks like it goes over two pieces, so I'm convincing myself it's actually laced. I give it a 8/10. Perfect execution, but so small I don't know why it's there at all.

So Alfira, Lia, and Rechel all where the same corset with slightly different colors, so I'll just judge them all at once. Something I've noticed is that Larian rarely shoes the knot where these characters tie off their lacing, which really bugs me. It especially bugs be here, since corsets are one of my favorite things to make. But, the corset (both the front and the sides) have a horizontal lace at the top and bottom, which is accurate and not seen on a lot of the lacing in game where it should be, even if it is missing a knot. Lia and Rechel get a 9/10, and Alfira gets a 9.1/10 because I like the purple lacing.

Zorru and Lakrissa both have this sleeve lacing. One of the very few instances of knots being shown! Unfortunately, it's not laced properly. They do the same thing Astarion does - one eyelet in a pair is laced from the outside, and the other is laced from the inside. For cross-lacing, they should match. Also, I think this is two separate pieces of lacing instead of one long piece, which bugs me, but there are clearly two knots which is nice. 7/10.

As far as his front closure goes, it's nice! Honestly I'm a little bored of the cross-lacing at this point, but I guess that's just the style at this point in time. The lacing is consistent, which is something some of our companions couldn't do. 10/10.

As far as his shoulders go, I don't know how I feel about it. It's a bunch of different pieces of lacing, which means a bunch of different knots to tie. Definitely tied everything together once and never bothers with it again. Which, same. I do that with my shoes. 8/10 at least cut the ends to be the same length dude.

Bex's shirt is the same as Tav's starting outfit. Her skirt, however, has...this on the back. We're going to ignore her tail phasing through the top two crosses. At first, I hated the design, because why do you need a skirt that's split down the back. Honestly, the only thing that would be needed to sell this design to be would be to get rid of the top two crosses that I can obviously see, then it would make sense, because of the tail. But then why don't you just sew the skirt together from there down instead of lacing it? It already ties in the front. I guess I still hate the design.

But I digress. I'm arbitrarily judging the actual lacing job, not the skirt design. 8/10 there's no knot.

Toron is cursed with the lack of knots. I'm also fairly certain this is 3 separate laces, because I don't think this pattern is possible with one lace. If it's not knotted and the ends are just hanging down on the inside of his overshirt, I can only imagine how annoying it is. Honestly like 3/10 I hate looking at it.

Asharak, Danis, and Kanon (and Blurg, but he's not here) have the same outfit. And the way this is laced is not physically possible without fastening the lacing into place with sewing or glue or something. The lacing goes in and back out of the same eyelet on each cross, which would just pull the lacing out. Also, once again, not ends, no knots. 0/10 not physically possible.

Listen. This lacing is kind of atrocious. And given the circumstances (orphan, child) I'm willing to forgive him. However, that top right eyelet. He laced it in and back out of the same eyelet. Can't do that. At least 2 eyelets are missing. And I was having a hard time actually following the lacing so I pulled out a corset to try and follow - that lacing is not possible. The 4th eyelet from the top on the left has too many lines going to it. So, sorry Mattis, but 0/10. Meli also wears this top, btw.

Mirkon wears the same overshirt that Yenna does. So someone taught him how to lace his shirt properly. Didn't really help him with the harpies, but at least he looked put together while being lured. 10/10.

Arabella and Zaki wear the same outfit. And there no knot. Can you believe it? No knotting your lacing, in this game? Never seen before. It also seems to have the opposite issue and Asharak, Danis, and Kanon. Her lacing seems to go in and back out of the same eyelet, but instead of coming from the top, it comes from the bottom. Regardless, same issue, 0/10 not possible.

Locke and Umi wear the same outfit that Tav wears by default, except Locke's pants button instead of tie. That means the notes are about the same. They know how to lace, yay. Though they switch the lacing on the final cross, it has purpose - to keep the ends of the lacing on the outside (though it still sticks out.) 9/10.

And I think that's all the tieflings. And wow is it a lot. If you want to see this same thing for other characters, I'll link them below.

Camp Characters

[olderthannetfic]

There was a post a while ago pointing out that "Zionism" doesn't actually mean support for Netanyahu or the present-day government Israel, opposition to Palestinian rights or a Palestinian state, etc. when condemning the way it gets used on this website (I literally saw someone the other day list it in a DNI right next to "Nazis" with no sense of irony). And some people in the notes who are usually well-informed claimed this was "whitewashing" it, referring to an older term to erase how it's used now. Well, the problem is.... if you were actually as fully informed on this topic as you think you are, you'd know that this "older definition" is still how the term gets used in a lot of present-day Jewish communities, especially in the diaspora. That's one of the reasons that the term polls so well among Jewish people in the diaspora, even though a lot of them obviously don't agree with what the current government is doing in Gaza and a lot support a two-state solution - but upwards of 90% or more of Jews in the U.S. and UK for instance identify as Zionists.

And that's the point that was being made. The way that the term is used on Tumblr or even in left-wing activist and academic spaces on Tumblr is pretty different from how it's used among a lot of Jewish communities, and that disconnect in terminology use is leading to a lot of people who should otherwise be allies alienating each other. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that when it comes to a term that is most associated with a group you're not a part of, that how you're seeing it used is the only way it's being used anywhere. And don't make fights over one term obscure the end goals of uniting to support Palestinian liberation. The point was that a lot of people who aren't very informed on what the term actually means are using it as a slur word to mean "people who have the opinions on I-P I disagree with," and don't realize that they're both alienating a lot of people that definition actually does fit in while also encouraging people they probably don't actually agree with, antisemites. (There are literally posts I've seen going around on Tumblr about "Zionist-controlled Hollywood" and "Zionist-controlled media" and look, people. The famous Jewish conspiracy theory is literally called ZOG or Zionist Organized Government. If you sound indistinguishable from those people, then it's not about Palestine anymore. And if you want it to be about that and not about just pushing away Jews, then you need to better inform yourself on the history of antisemitic tropes and find different ways to phrase your argument.)

--

[batsplat]

#this is all incredible cowardice btw obviously i've ranked all the aliens in my notes by basically every imaginable metric#from qualifying to starts to w2w to mixed conditions to wet weather prowess etc etc etc. like i do also do it i just don't stand by it

i would LOVE to hear your rankings if you are willing to share...

sign of faith I'm posting this. please feel free to send me counter-arguments and disagreements but keep it sensible. this is not supposed to be serious, I just enjoy treating athletes like pokemon and love doing a sports discourse, but I'm not making any judgement over how I'd rank these guys overall. also, I've already said how I think basically all of these things are impossible to judge given timeline + machinery differences. it's really not that serious, this is really just an excuse to make radar charts, aka the coolest things to exist

also, obviously these categories are extremely fake and made up. please make alternative suggestions!! the two ones that I would have liked to include but couldn't really figure out how to put numbers to are 'tyre management' and 'adaptability'. with tyre management... that's a broad category and the one where era differences + bike factors really punch you in the face. like, for instance if I were doing this for dovi (which I'm not), by any reasonable standard that's such a massive strength for him - but then how do you account for his 2020 decline being so much about a tyre switch? how about jorge, who was the tyre preservation bloke, mr metronome himself, and then went to ducati and spent like, 1.3 years just darting to the lead early and slowly dropping back? what about valentino, who was seen as the absolute master of riding well once the grip levels were fucked at the end of the race, but then he too eventually got caught out by successive michelin tyre changes when he was like 108 years old? if you look at a lot of these riders' competitive decline, you do end up tracing it back to like... michelin... *shakes fist* but no it literally is about them no longer being able to make the tyres work for them for xyz reason, like that's typically the nail in the coffin, if you will. but obviously it would also feel weird to penalise someone for successfully adapting to one generation of tyres after the next until eventually no longer managing to when they're about 249 years old, y'know? also, tyre management does feel like you need to differentiate more if you're tackling it - like for instance one of dani's big strengths is the lack of tyre wear, plus similarly you have jorge's super smooth riding. whereas with valentino, casey and marc, I'm not saying they're all murdering their tyres, but their real big strength where tyres are concerned is that once the tyres are shredded and the grip is completely fucked, they're still able to be silly good in that situation. like, check out valentino's catalunya record, tyre killer track extraordinaire - you really see how good he is with this stuff in 2004 when he's more on the limit and he looks less in control than he generally does (a bit more like those other two actually). with casey, literally nobody needs me to reiterate the bonkers levels of raw talent he has, it's also not a coincidence he's the only one who's actually managed to beat valentino in one of said 1 vs 1 catalunya battles, the dirt biking thing, the insane natural sensitivity he has to grip levels. ditto with marc (minus beating valentino at catalunya), there's a reason why he's the mixed conditions goat, check out what he's been able to do late in races this year. so, sure, I could try and put numbers on 'tyre management' but.... I'd really struggle to rank them, like this may shock you but managing tyres is kinda important and it does feel the equivalent to having a category asking how 'fast' they are. they're all very good at it!! if in different ways

adaptability... yeah, look, ideally I would like some metric that considers the manufacturer switches + ability to override a poor package. but first of all, there's an obvious sample size issue, and second of all it's just TOO context-dependent. like, yes, brownie points to valentino for the yamaha switch - but how do we compare his failure to adapt to the ducati vs casey? on the one hand, obviously completely different levels of success on that bike. on the other hand, valentino by time of this switch was over thirty and casey when he joined that team was like, a child, with not that much experience of motogp - more of a raw talent who could mould himself to the needs of the bike. also, if you use hayden's results as a rough baseline, you kinda have to say the ducati was worse in 2011, and then if you dig into the numbers you do probably go 'yeah casey would've done better but not THAT much better'? like, he would've won races, not titles. I don't have a number for that from 1-10 either. dani never switched manufacturer, the honda was eventually developed away from him but *squints at the other side of the garage* he was also the only alien who had to deal with a teammate actively attempting to make the bike less rideable for him. jorge's switch to ducati is a bit. well. obviously it's not actually great that his final standings in those years are broadly in line with valentino on,,,, a WAY worse ducati a few years earlier. he gets bailed out a little bit by the three race wins in 2018 lol, dovi does have a littleeeee bit of a point that this man was not signed to win three races. but! he did click with that bike! I'm not sure I entirely buy his line of 'oh I would have won the 2020 title on a ducati' because, with all love, it's a very jorge thing to say and I'm also a bit? well before 2020 if you'd told me that marc gets injured in the first race of the season and someone else is gonna win the title, and then held a gun to my head and told me to predict who was gonna win the title in his absence, I guess I would have gone 'dovi or MAYBE fabio'. ducati wasn't in a super happy place in 2020, the tyres were funky, that could have affected jorge too!! we don't know!! I think it's absolutely a plausible counterfactual but I also haven't seen a convincing case for why the things that caught out dovi wouldn't have caught out dovi too, like come on. anyway, marc gets brownie points for this ducati adaptation, casey gets brownie points for the honda adaptation. honestly, just vibes based I do kinda think of casey as like, the most adaptable rider ever. I maybe rate valentino a bit higher in terms of getting the bike to where he needs it, and also obviously being adaptable - he has the longevity and multiple major riding style changes going for him. also marc is insanely good, and he rode the unrideable honda to places where it should NOT be ridden. it's those three in a cluster, probablyyy casey first, followed by marc then valentino, and then the other two aliens

also quite frankly I'd like to have something to do with bike development, but that's so hard to judge from the outside? obviously, valentino does have a very clear claim to fame here, and the yamaha gig is still... well, that's got to be the biggest impact a rider has had on a manufacturer this century. the other contender is casey at ducati, but the thing is he did basically bag them a title by being the only bloke who could win there, then they got super complacent, bike got worse and he fucked off. now, I'm not saying casey hurt ducati's development because of course that would be silly and unfair, but there is obviously a good half decade between him leaving that project and anyone else being able to consistently do something useful with that piece of shit. (obviously valentino also did not manage to make much short-term change at ducati so maybe we should just be blaming ducati here, but equally obviously the rider who made the single biggest individual difference into making that thing rideable isn't any of these guys but is instead andrea dovizioso lol.) as outsiders, we really can't meaningfully know how much these guys are making a difference behind the scene, all we have are vibes and rumours and surface level results... like basically if I had to rank them I'd probably give valentino the nod just because the yamaha thing deserves a nod, then kinda? idk casey + dani clearly did make an insanely good bike at honda and they should get some of the credit for kinda rescuing honda from its post-2006 slump. I think maybe dani goes second, like I know some have said he's a less useful development rider because he's too short (part of why honda didn't use him as a test rider, as well as obviously *gestures* the puig thing) and thus harder to compare to other riders.... BUT there's pretty universal praise for his work at ktm, and casey's post-motogp stints I don't think you can really say the same. with jorge... idk it's tricky, I remember reading that the vibe from valentino's team in 2013 was kinda 'well this bike is still... the exact same as it was two years ago...?' but obviously those guys also aren't neutrals. and they weren't even saying that in a negative way, there's a bit of an element of if it ain't broke don't fix it given jorge had just won the 2012 title. plus, especially in their second stint as teammates, I get the sense they were always broadly on the same page in terms of feedback? and if anything, yamaha's current malaise can partly be traced back to them not listening to shit they were being told by JORGE (+ valentino at the same time) like this is years and years back... so yeah those three are all in a blob. then comes marc, which. okay sure, super talented so can ride around everything etc etc, he's not the main reason for why honda sucks now, etc etc. but I'm sorry, you do just get marked down on this category if you sabotage bike development to fuck with your teammate. like I respect it, love you for it, but you are getting marked down here. there is no way you can get around this

then there's even more nebulous categories like 'mentality' or 'mind games' or whatever, but how even are you gonna rate this. with perhaps the sole exception of dani, all these other guys have exhibited some spectacular instances of head loss over the courses of their career. but then again with dani, you're probably also not going to point to mentality make the difference as much in a positive sense - like it's good to be even-tempered, but the highs also aren't as high in that regard. you have stuff like mental resilience, ability to bounce back from tough results... and again. I don't know. I don't feel comfortable putting a number on some of these. like say we took casey, then surely I'd have to mark him down for what happened post laguna in 2008 (and yes, I know he wouldn't agree with me on this, yes, I know there are mitigating circumstances, but it is a bit glaring). but then you look at how he got through 2009 and actually eventually got himself to the place where he won another title. how marc bounced back after 2015. whatever tf valentino did after qatar 2004. the 2009 bounce back after le mans/mugello... the 2003 arc and all that. for all of them, various criticisms in the media, hate campaigns from fans etc etc. like idk I don't have a number from 1-10 here. plus, any metric kinda has to have a clear good pole and a clear bad pole if you're putting numbers on that, and with something like mind games you can go either way on whether you think they're good or not? basically, I think we should lock casey and valentino into a room and get them to discuss this. I will provide a piece of paper with talking points and only let them out when I feel like they've had it out to an adequate extent. they're all mentally strong, love them all, let's leave it at that

wow! yay! these are all metrics I didn't even include! aren't you glad you clicked on this read more! there's so much to come after this!

let's get to metrics I did actually include: qualifying, starts, reliability, flexibility, mixed, wet, overtaking ability, defensive ability, cunning, strategy/work process. again, there were a few where I was like.... should there be some kinda basic metric for 'underlying pace' or 'raw talent' (both of which you kinda gesture in the casey + marc direction) but I'm somebody who's very outcome-focused. when you're rating things, you should sometimes just focus on the shit you can actually see. 'talent' is fake, give me results. but this does mean that... obviously not all of these metrics are of equal importance. like, qualifying is more important than how you are in the wet!! and yes, again, there's a million caveats here in terms of era and different bike characteristics and all that shit. even 'effort levels' - valentino's starts generally got better when he moved to yamaha (they were truly abysmal before that), which you can maybe attribute to the yamaha bike being better off the line (not much evidence for this from other riders who made switches back-and-forth around the same time iirc), or you can also attribute it to valentino knowing he couldn't afford quite as much faffing about on a worse bike. again, there's so so many caveats here. also, I found marc and casey REALLY hard to judge because like? it's so much harder if you haven't been able to see them line up next to each other to figure out how they compare? sure, you can use general metrics, you can check how they compare against the same group of riders, but... yeah, idk, for a lot of these categories when I was figuring out who to give a 9 or 10 out of those two I did a sort of *shrug*. I think one of these two I probably did dirty but I'm not sure which one. maybe I did everyone dirty. or maybe they all suck

so. let's go through them

1. qualifying

stuff I considered: outright qualifying performance both in terms of number of poles and average grid position, strength of qualifying opposition, h2h comparisons, adaptability to changing conditions

okay, so, I started with the most basic measure possible and looked at the pole numbers in the premier class as a percentage of number of race starts (and I've even updated the numbers for marc, that's how thorough I am hehe) (I just realised there's a problem here actually for casey because he got pole in valencia 2009 but didn't start the race due to a crash in the warm-up lap, which... well I don't want to take his pole away from him but I'm assuming the race start wasn't included? look, who gives a shit, I've kept the pole)

I also ran these numbers again just by... trimming down the number of seasons and limiting it to the 'competitive' ones, aka one where the finished top five in the championship standings. I'm aware this is super arbitrary, but I'm also not sure if we're really gaining much from including jorge's 2019 or valentino's 2021 or marc's 2023, when for instance you don't have those kinds of dud seasons for casey (though his rookie season did get cut). like, this is just a rough way of not punishing longevity and injuries and bad vibes, who knows what casey's qualifying would have looked like at age 382

doesn't actually change the order, which is nice. still think it's a better reflection of their actual qualifying chops

let's get the obvious out of the way - if you are getting almost 50% pole positions in your competitive seasons, I don't care how good your bike is or the era or whatever else, you are obviously an obscenely good qualifier. like, marc's qualifying numbers make you want to bust out the 12/10's. those are silly numbers that honestly you don't really need to add much too - sure, we can also dive into his average grid positions etc but like. they're all super high. idk what to tell you. marc has the average highest grid position every single year 2013 to 2019, enough said. I think casey over the course of his career was on slightly worse bikes on average than prime!marc, and also he was facing aliens in their prime or late prime literally every year which... yeah, maybe you do want to make a bit of an adjustment for that. like, marc's closest competition on paper in 2017-19 was dovi, who is very much not a gifted qualifier. but marc also got THIRTEEN POLES in 2014!! I know the honda was the best bike on the grid, but not by that much, and dani's hardly a slouch! idk I feel pretty happy with just giving marc the top spot here and letting casey slot into second. like, at a certain point the numbers you're staring at just sort of bludgeon you in the face, and you also have visions of cota 2015 and brno 2019 playing around in your head in a loop

THAT BEING SAID. there is one major caveat we do have to address: in 2013, the entire qualifying system was changed to introduce these 15 minute time slots. this whole q1 and q2 business is a relatively recent invention. now, this is pure speculation, but I think this format would have suited casey 'mr friday' stoner very very well. one of his big strengths was always like, being fast immediately, getting used to what the track was like with zero adaptation process and just putting down a super fast lap at the first attempt. he would have done great here!! also, I think the numbers of some of his opponents might have taken a bit of a dip and... yeah, look, obviously I'm really just talking about valentino here, who hated the new format and never got on particularly well with it. (serious argument to be made that if they hadn't switched the system, he would've taken the 2015 title - like obviously you get into weird butterfly effect territory with that kind of thing but ceteris paribus that will have absolutely cost him more than five points over the course of a full season.) he got better for a while in 2016.... but anyway during the early bits of the alien era, valentino was often qualifying like, really well when you compare it to his mid reputation. and maybe casey would've been able to beat him more under that system. probably

still, overall. idk man. almost 50% pole positions in his prime. obscene. giving it to marc

jorge is a lonely third in this metric. I feel fine with that? like, he's clearly very good, he was very good in his prime, that's how he won the 2015 title (though he did actually have a slightly worse grid position than marc that season, but crucially a lot better than valentino), he's gotten a lot of poles... but also his relative lack of flexibility hurts him here too, like he's not doing a brno 2019 is he. jorge kinda needs everything to be just right to get out the metronome, and that's also reflected in qualifying - he's more likely to be caught out by something being a bit off than either marc or casey. super fast over one lap, clearly insane underlying pace, what can you say

it's on the other end of the spectrum that I ran into my biggest headache, because...? honestly, I was a little bit surprised at valentino having the slight edge in the percentages, either way you measure them. dani has a bit more of a qualifying-centred reputation, whereas with valentino it's a bit... well, people do think he's very good at everything, and if you're looking for flaws in his game then that's one of the big things that jumps out. also, I do reckon there's a fair bit of recency bias at play here - a lot of fans only remember post-prime valentino, where format change this format change that he had just lost his edge over a single lap. some of this is also natural age-based decline? it does seem to be a thing in motorsports that saturday performances can go off before sunday performances, so it is a bit of an issue if everyone's just going 'okay but he was seventh every single week' when he too has racked up some impressive numbers over the course of his career. which isn't just longevity! you don't just longevity your way into 55 pole positions. on the other hand, you look at his honda prime and given the bike he was on, you do kinda go 'okay but I feel like you could've done a bit better here'. like, what are you doing being tied with biaggi on the yamaha in terms of average grid position in 2002... come on. come on. again, there's a teensy bit of an effort question here - I'm not suggesting valentino fluffed his qualifying on purpose to make his sundays more interesting, but I do think he does... you know, just performs differently when he knows he needs to do so. he's getting five pole positions on that 2004 yamaha... like he's clearly not a slouch

I actually think the best way you can make the pro-valentino qualifying argument is probably just by looking at the years when pretty good versions of the aliens were competing against each other on pretty competitive bikes? which is 2007 to 2009 - of course, that's gonna look fairly kind to valentino because he won the titles for two out of three years, but it's a good way to check our priors here and see whether valentino could theoretically keep pace with his fellow aliens. here's the average grid positions:

valentino got seven poles in 2009. idk, best bike, casey missed a few races, but at least against jorge it's a direct h2h (giving jorge a pass for his rookie season, but jorge's not becoming a significantly better qualifier after his sophomore season). like clearly he's fast

and after saying all of that, I ranked him last after dani!! yeah, look. I think it's marginal to me, and maybe this is partly my own bias because I've always thought of dani as a very good qualifier and have ragged on valentino for being mid literal hundreds of times. maybe it's also being swayed by the young talent factor - did you know valentino is the only alien who did not get a pole in his rookie season? these are the youngest pole sitter rankings for the premier class:

yeah, idk. I don't love this argument for philosophical reasons... but also it's kinda fine, it was obviously more important in dani's game than it was in valentino's. the percentages are close enough you can make the argument either way, but what sways me more than anything else is the competitive spread argument. like, all of dani's poles came with one of casey or marc in the field. several of prime valentino's opponents were really good qualifiers, sete in particular did out-qualify valentino over the course of whole seasons, but I'm not gonna make the case they were casey/marc good qualifiers. that's the deciding factor, congrats dani

2. starts

stuff I considered: speed off the line, consistency in starting ability, likelihood of getting holeshot, ability to get to the front from second/third row, wow factor starts from lower down the field

I was debating whether to put dani or casey first here, and I think you can make the argument for either. like, it is very hard to match dani, but I do also remember those kinda... later years, where he was still pretty competitive and winning races and all that but wasn't a rocket off the line in the same way any more, and it was one of those 'is it him or the tyres or the honda' thing. the whole problem with casey is that he retired so early so it's kinda... I mean, he may have had any of these issues too, we just don't know! unfair comparison. but well, I can at least judge the two of them competing, including on equal machinery and... man, dani and the holeshot, name a better love story. silly good. what I think is also important is... sometimes dani gets judged a bit for lack of flexibility in terms of figuring out how to get overtakes done in particular, but I can sort of picture a highlight reel of dani shooting off the line and picking his way through the field to still get the holeshot? like when he was good at this, he was so good - this is a category where the peak sways me I reckon

casey and jorge I'm also fairly content ranking in that order. jorge had to become a better starter, and while he did get very good at it and had so so many races where he just led off the start and then disappeared... idk, in terms of blistering raw speed off the line I still think casey edges him out. jorge does get brownie points for some of his ducati starts, bit more muscling his way through the field before burning out his tyres and falling back. sorry jorge. but yeah nah I'm fine with this order, casey did have the occasional stinker but also I'm blaming that on the ducati.... also jorge automatically loses the tiebreaker just because I remember that COMICAL 2014 cota jump start. then we get to marc and valentino, in that order. starts were a real flaw in marc's game early in his time in the premier class, even in his super dominant 2014, and while it did get better... like, y'know, he was never awful at them, but it also generally speaking wasn't ever one of his big strengths. valentino was 'running gag level of bad' at starting, like basically in his prime wherever he qualified, he was reliably seventh after a few corners. again, this is probably also exaggerated a bit... but also, we're operating at a high level here, somebody has to be at the bottom of the pile, and you cannot make an argument for anyone other than valentino. nobody's saying he's maverick vinales-level bad, but he's clearly no dani pedrosa. as mentioned above, he did get better at his starts when he switched to yamaha, so some of that prime honda stuff was also just him faffing about, and post-prime he really did have some great starts to make up for his poor qualifying but. y'know. balance of the career

which brings us to.... okay, one thing we do obviously have to quickly mention is that both marc and valentino have made some of those 'wow what the fuck' starts from poor qualifying positions. like, I've been insulting valentino a lot in this bit of the post, but qatar 2004 remains some very cool shit. objectively. (I mean the start he made from the back of the grid, not him cursing to sete. obviously. I wouldn't do the other thing.) marc... yeah, look, we've all seen the starts he's been making from pee fifty million this year. the... le mans sprint start, I believe? is still comically cool. doesn't save their positions in this ranking because you don't get that many points for three good starts out of three thousand, but still. did slap. plus, it does showcase they're very good at the bits where you have to like, spot gaps and dart through them, and obviously neither of them have ever been opposed to bit of muscling their ways through the field. they are very good!! still more sluggish off the line than the other three

3. reliability

stuff I considered: conversion rate on executing achievable results, number of unforced errors (anything that isn't 'strategy' like tyre choice or flag to flag handling), crashes - in particular costly ones

gahhhhhh I HATE this metric. I kinda needed a 'how often are you gonna throw away races while leading them' thing, which, to be clear, none of these blokes have done an awful lot of. but it's kinda... look, are you actually converting your maximum achievable results? what's the crash rate looking like? how many unforced errors are you making? and then I started changing my mind several different times because unsurprisingly, I can think of a lot of plenty of errors for all of them that are kinda egregious. like, that's how racing works! also this is a way less 'clean' metric than the two before that, because inevitably you're kinda overlapping with a lot of different categories. like, take making errors in the wet - obviously, that's what you do when you're not a good wet weather racer, but you don't suddenly get a free pass on mistakes just because it's raining. is this a metric that you limit to 'competitive' seasons? inherently, I am biased towards thinking a mistake is 'worse' when there's a lot at stake, but arguably that's something that should be included in the more cerebral categories and all errors should be treated equally. which I don't!! I think it very much matters being reliable under pressure. my last issue was the overlap with the 'flexibility' category because it's kinda... there's one or two riders who have a bit of a tendency to have Perfect Weekends when everything's going well, and then have poorer rides when they're just not quite feeling it. which is mostly covered under flexibility, but surely some of this stuff does also make you unreliable!!

again, they do obviously all have their errors... I think I probably penalise riders a little more severely for crashing out of the lead, which yes, all of them have done. now, I might be missing something obvious, but I think valentino only ever did so twice? donington 2009, which was in the wet (not an excuse!! he did also finish fifth, which, fair play I suppose), and sepang 2018, where he was *gestures* very old. marc... my issue with marc is that obviously he's managed to match that this year but both of those did have mitigating circumstances? his 2019 cota crash I also think had... something else going on. of course you do also have his phillip island crashes, 2014 and 2016 (I've said it before and I've said it again, prime!marc's phillip island record is incredibly funny when you think about it). then 2014 he's also got aragon, which was more about a poor decision to not switch tyres but like, crash is a crash, and argentina 2017. which is like... you know, given how he rides and how many races he was leading, it's not terrible. also I think this is a bit more dubious with early season races because you don't know what might end up costing you, but none of these were particularly important in title fight terms (argentina 2017 could have been!) so. dani... well, he's got sachsenring 2008, which was kinda terrible because he was genuinely seven seconds in the lead, but also it's raining? idk crucially it did basically cost him any hope of fighting for the title, lost the championship lead and bagged himself a wrist injury (which, of course, is also just poor luck - we do not have a sturdiness category). laguna 2010 also isn't great, especially given it just helped jorge run away with the title even more. dani also crashed from the lead at indy 2009, plus brno 2011. jorge ALSO crashed out of the lead at donington 2009 (truly, one of those days), plus brno 2009 (not great at that point in the title fight!!), plus valencia 2012 (I mean, last race of the season, also kinda a weird one since he was lapping someone), plus qatar 2014, and misano 2017. casey crashes out of the lead at... well, back to back races post-laguna 2008, brno and misano, which admittedly apart from anything else isn't great optics. I think the only other time he does it is qatar 2010? which. yeah. not ideal

okay, look, this sample size is so small I don't think you gain much from doing percentages per competitive season or whatever. on the balance of the available evidence, you do have to say that valentino only binning it twice out of the lead is pretty impressive, given he raced for like. fifty million years. and won a lot of races, so by definition gave himself a lot of chances to crash. like, it'd be lovely to have a statistic for 'number of laps led', or even better a spreadsheet with all the numbers for when riders are in certain positions, and then also numbers for how many times they crash out of every position so we could do like. some proper maths on this shit. unfortunately we can't! and it'd still only give us an incomplete picture, because again you do have stuff like 'well marc has ridden some kinda evil bikes' and 'how do we assess wet races' and 'how much pressure were they under in each situation' to assess. I still like it as a rough indicator! I suppose I've been thinking about the concept of 'crashing out of the lead of motogp races' rather a lot these last few years... impossible to guess why that is

also, those aren't the only types of unforced errors to exist. like, marc's not crashing out of the lead in 2015, but *gestures* that season is unforced error central. I also put jorge's weird helmet visor shit in this category, because fundamentally part of reliability is about not putting yourself in a position where dumb shit happens to you. and that could have really cost him!! crash rates in general - again, I don't love just giving raw numbers here. there's some specific series of mistakes that really jump out at you... an obvious one is valencia 2006, and it's also in that weird cota 2019 category of 'right I think there may have been something funky going on with the equipment but also you are calling this an 'error' so I shall call it that'. fight me casey stoner, I guess. there's other late championship errors that are. not great. like jorge phillip island 2009 or dani phillip island 2012. with casey, it's a bit 'eh' because he never was still in a title fight particularly late in a season? like, again, the 'two out of the only three crashes out of the lead in your whole career happened at the height of the title fight in 2008' is one of those things that's always going to raise an eyebrow, and did essentially end the title fight before they even got to the late stage but... yeah, idk, we're lacking in casey's sample size here. you can also look at title decider performance for three of them, and while we can get into the ins and outs of what valentino/marc got up to - never mind all that, you have two absolutely flawless performances from jorge sitting right there

when it comes to crash rate in general, valentino's in quite a happy spot again? I mean, his record in his prime certainly is silly good: three crashes in his rookie season, two right at the start, which, vale gets a little bit of 'the 500cc's were evil' bonus.... after that! one crash in 2001, zero in 2002 (the dnf is mechanical), zero in 2003 (no race off the podium), two in 2004, one in 2005 (that one was a howler mind u), two in 2006 (one he got barrelled into at the first corner and remounted, the other was as best we know an unforced error - but the three dnf's are all mechanical), one in 2007 (two mechanical dnf's), one in 2008 (remounted and finished 11th), three in 2009 (I mean he crashed like fifty times in le mans, then in donington he crashed in the wet and finished fifth which... good salvage work, plus indy which was genuinely dumb as shit). like, again, if we're specifically considering each of the aliens' respective 'primes', that record's hard to argue with. but then again, am I going to penalise casey too much for all his race crashes in 2010, given that valentino can also attest to that bike being, well, shit? also, brownie points of some kind to marc specifically for 2019, given we know what a nightmare that honda was and he only dnf's the one time. also, his 2016!! it's less spectacular in a way but that's a season that's so much about reliability - like so many marc titles are won on the principle of 'show up, don't crash, don't slum it in p13 every other week, win some races'. jorge is mostly fine - I don't want to penalise him too much for his rookie season though I do a bit more 2009, and then post-yamaha it was all a bit. eh. dani's issue is that he didn't crash that much but I swear every time he did, it felt super costly for some reason or another? which is also just bad luck, but

again, there's some stretches you do kinda maybe give a little bit of added weight. for casey, you do kinda have to mention 2012: he was tied on points with jorge leading into sachsenring, was clearly way too much on the edge fighting with dani, really should have settled for second and… binned it. right before the end. I get he's a 'I look at wins and the championships will follow naturally' type guy, but that inherently means he's gonna get a knock in this category. and then he had a mess of a mugello race right after, just multiple unforced errors and almost barrelled over poor bautista and… idk, we don't really talk about it much any more because he injured himself at indy and was definitively taken out of the title fight - but I still reckon the honda was probably on balance the strongest bike that year, and it was kinda his own errors that cost him there. for marc, nobody on this planet needs me to relitigate 2015, but yeah, 2015

also, yes, you can sort of bring in the ugly years for all of them minus casey (who had a very ugly rookie season but we'll give it a pass, and apart from that his ugliest season was 2010 - he didn't stick around long enough for comparable experiences to the others)... jorge skittling the field at catalunya 2019, quite a few dani misadventures... we can talk about valentino's ducati stint and that wet weather collision with casey that prompted the 'ambition outweighed talent' thing, we can talk about marc's silverstone 2021 barrelling into jorge or that aragon 2022 first lap or... whatever the fuck he was doing at portimao last year. clearly, when those two specifically know they're not in the title hunt, when they've been frustrated and annoyed and are hungry for success, their decision-making skills can take a serious hit, but also... okay, look, I'm not saying that injuring other riders like marc in particular did suddenly becomes okay when you're not fighting for a title, but a) clearly they were both riding bikes that were very easy to crash (I mean, again, look at casey's early 2010 crash rate), and b) for better or for worse, they're not doing that shit if they know they're fighting for a title (isolated and glaring cases of head loss for the pair of them set aside). listen, I'm deciding the rules, set aside the whole morality thing - I just care more about mistakes when they have bigger competitive ramifications

so. I do think valentino has to go first in this category and yes, we can get into the whole 'well the yamaha is very rideable thing' but also he did help make it that way so. y'know. at a certain point you just have to look at the headline numbers. he didn't crash a lot, he showed up, he generally maximised the results he could get. there's like, two or three major stains in his record, but then you also think about how he was saving his title bids with sachsenring 2016 type deals where he was working his way to the win from tenth and holding off three ferocious hondas right at the end... like, given how risky a lot of his riding inherently was, you have to say the unforced error count is low. see also laguna 2008 or motegi 2010 type shit, like not making mistakes when deliberately roughing up opponents isn't, y'know, the most morally 'good' way to approach racing but. still. he was constantly putting himself in risky race positions by dint of being such an ass qualifier/starter and his numbers are still like that. I rest my case. and, okay, I'm gonna be a wee bit controversial here and put mr crasquez in second. I don't know, maybe I'm just rewarding 'flexibility' here too and just being swayed too much by how consistently there he was in his prime but, I don't care. part of it is also the valentino situation of 'wow it really feels like you should be crashing more' (in races, I don't feel in general marc should be crashing more funnily enough), and it's also just the 2016 thing. also the 2019 thing. I get the argument with 2015, and I don't think any version of noughties valentino would have a season like that, but *shrugs* he also didn't have a valencia 2006-equivalent so whatever (I mean. he flirted with it in 2017 and that was a pretty poor performance, but crucially I'm an outcome-oriented person and he didn't actually bin it so)

then comes jorge - given his profile as a rider I don't think it reflects great on him that he has crashed out of the lead, including in costly ways, quite a few times. also, unfortunately you don't get a sophomore season freebie when we're comparing aliens, and 2009 did have some real. issues. (so did valentino's to be clear, definitely his messiest title campaign.) also, look, I think calling his ducati seasons not competitive is arguable - because unlike the valentino and marc seasons where you can at least say 'well nobody else on that bike was outperforming them', this is not something you can point to with jorge. his strongest trait is dominating from the front! he's supposed to be mr hammer and butter, he's getting a knock for the unforced errors, yeah. he gets a valencia bonus though. then comes dani - this one also feels quite harsh, and again I think it's slightly punishing lack of flexibility, but it's the really costly errors that stick out and also just... relatively more races than some of his fellow aliens where he's not reliably bringing any result home because he's not in the position he should be running in. and then comes casey, which, small sample size counts against him here. if you have that few seasons to draw from, unfortunately the whole laguna 2008 situation and 2012 sachsenring/mugello stuff do stand out

wow. this got long. I really don't like this category

4. flexibility

stuff I considered: not literal flexibility, more in terms of 'can you be good everywhere'. like, we're looking at the broad profile of a season - I want you to be good both at qatar and at sachsenring, right? have they won/gotten decent results relative to how good the bike/opposition is basically everywhere, do they just feel a bit limited at times, what were they doing at new tracks, etc, can they figure shit out over the course of the weekend

again, there's some serious overlap here with both the reliability category and also the wet/mixed conditions categories, but idk. still treating it on its own. again, there's two fairly straightforward tiers here - you've got valentino, casey and marc, and then jorge and dani. I'm not like, super attached to any particular order here? casey has the distinction that he's won at every single race he's competed at, which none of the others do, but that's also what will happen if you retire at age 27. if vale and marc had retired at that age... okay, yeah, valentino would've been missing laguna, marc would be missing austria (which he still is, actually), but also idk. valentino's laguna record is like, one third place, two visits where his bike is just 'no thank you' and then one of the best races of all time. marc got as close as it is possible to win that bloody race in austria on three separate occasions. also, casey completed the set in 2012 with... well, first of all he needed jerez, which...? who the hell has jerez as their bogey track? he'd literally had one podium there in his entire career before that point, all classes, which is kinda funny. plus, he also needed estoril - and he was really proud to finish the set, helped make his decision to retire. real take, maybe his issue with jerez is that everyone else knew it too well, like ideally he needs everyone (including himself) to be blasted with a mind ray to give them amnesia before they go to each track so he can take full advantage

anyway, look, the point is that all three of them can show up anywhere and broadly expect to be competitive in their primes. they go about this in different ways... casey had this nasty habit of just rocking up on a friday morning and being fast the second he touched the bike, valentino made more of a leisurely crawl towards 'ah well we'll figure it out at 4 am on sunday morning' (marc did a bit of both) - but broadly speaking they did generally get there more often than not. this is reflected in the very strong records they all have when they show up at tracks for the first time, and it's something marc explicitly pointed to last year in india when explaining why him, fabio and joan as the three most recent former world champions were suddenly so competitive there (in contrast to the rest of the season, where they were *checks notes* not having a great time). I don't think it's really just a raw talent thing per se, and especially with valentino he clearly did also have a very good working process (more on that in a moment), but yeah! however they did it, they sure did do it! the gaps in marc's and valentino's resumes, I do also not feel too strongly about... valentino's missing aragon, introduced in 2010, but like. he was fine there, he just wasn't winning that many races anyway after that, and it inherently didn't suit him too well. cota... well, y'know, he had one shot of winning that, won't really hold any of his 2019 performances against him. that also wasn't a particularly strong yamaha track, and again it's not like he was uncompetitive there. he just wasn't like. marc marquez levels competitive. marc has a few like austria, but that was such ducati heartlands and he really did get very close a million times, and stuff like portimao, which, well, only showed up post arm injury, he's still got time

I don't know, with all three of them it's also just so easy to pinpoint special performances at their weakest tracks, it moves me. I actually need to check the order in which I put them, which tells you how close they are in my mind. uh... okay I gave casey full marks, then marc, then valentino. yeah, idk, I guess sometimes my casey problem is that my brain just automatically extrapolates from the bits we got to see and assume he would've adapted to everything to come forevermore. but look, he really was that good!! actually the tiebreaker to me is how in his second ever motogp race he'd been ill, his flight had been delayed, he shows up at the qatar circuit like fifteen minutes before practise starts, and he ends up popping his satellite honda on pole. not knocking marc's cota pole obviously, but he'd already tested there, and we did later find out he is like, a literal deity at that circuit (casey is good at qatar but not that good). idk. that's where I'm at. I'm not actually sure why I'm ranking valentino third, maybe it's just a sort of 'begrudgingly amused annoyance' at how he won his least favourite circuit on the calendar only twice, and both were these massive spite wins (valencia 2003, 2004). like, I get that sports psychology does matter, but I also don't want to have to make an 'effort and mean-spiritedness' adjustment to all your results? obviously it's also super telling his one laguna win came in 2008, like we get it you're a hater, let's move on

oh I was about to move on but I do have to cover the other two. hm. well, look, their 2012 was super impressive and shows they can clearly be fast pretty much everywhere, but... yeah, idk, I don't want to penalise them for what the alien era was like, but maybe a little bit? like yeah they did it at a time when the bike difference was at the most egregious, and I GET that it happens to coincide with their primes, but that is not going to be the only season I look at!! sorry!! the thing about those two was if they weren't clicking with a track, you kinda didn't really expect them to pull a rabbit out of the hat come race day (even casey had a nasty habit of doing that, and acknowledged in his autobiography how extremely helpful it was to psychologically sucker rivals into thinking he wasn't going to be a huge threat). I look at jorge's sepang record, his argentina record, his assen record (and yes, I'm aware of the massive trauma he was dealt by his 2013 crash, that's absolutely a factor in the years after that), even phillip island... I know he won the latter two once in the premier class, but yeah. don't love it!! stinker after stinker at argentina, and that one in particular does raise an eyebrow because, y'know, always a bit of a quirky track with all the various grip issue dramas over the years. 2014-16 when they're teammates again, valentino gets three podiums there (including a win) and jorge just the one, so it's also not just a bike issue. with dani it's quite easy... qatar was a crappy honda track yeah, still not ideal results there, phillip island just too many riders who were better than him there, poor at assen, quite poor at catalunya too? apart from 2008, which it has to be said was a proper class performance. (admittedly who knows what valentino could've done there if he'd considered maybe not fucking his qualifying.) idk, several of these classic high speed tracks... okay, look, I'm not going to spend too much time ragging on their circuit to circuit records here, you get the point,it should be fairly clear that they both struggled more than the other three to tackle adversity weekend by weekend. and a lot of the times when they started a weekend poorly that was basically that

5. mixed conditions

stuff I considered: ... how good they are in mixed conditions. did they crash a lot in them, were they extra super special fast, did they get better when things were sketch, did they adjust quickly to these conditions, how did they manage race situations impacted by changing conditions

okay, look, again the lack of direct comparison does hurt me here, but yeah I was never going to put anyone other than marc first here. I was also never going to put anyone other than casey second, and anyone other than valentino third. all three of them are excellent here, even if it's a different vibe for each. liked, not quite the same thing, but obviously they're all great in low grip anyway, very nice with all the sliding the bike around (especially the first two). marc's got the whole insane saves things going for him even when he does make a misjudgement. there's that ability to just instantly know how to judge and adapt to whatever condition the track is in... well, it's neat! we'll get to this again in a second with wet weather racing, but I still think valentino's a bit more in the... hm. idk. he's obviously GOT a lot of natural feel, he couldn't do what he does otherwise, but he's clearly also big on kinda following other riders around and figuring it out as he goes? like it feels a teensy bit more conscious, like a deliberate thinking process rather than primarily using instinct. but yeah, I mean, you really don't have to get super complicated about that, it's literally been years and years of watching marc gain literal seconds on the field whenever the conditions are a bit sketchy. brno 2019 qualifying. no need to say more. (but if you did want to say more, I do have a misano 2015 to offer u. also like sachsenring 2016?? assen 2014! genuinely so many you could point to with him.) (actually.... I mean, I suppose we do also have to mention argentina 2018, where he was about a minute a lap faster than the rest of the field.) with casey, again, super easy, you've got a phillip island and valencia 2011 there - his last lap of valencia!! one of the best last laps of his career!! that shit was crazy!! mugello 2009!! I get that there's Reasons why valentino played that one cautiously *coughs* le mans fiasco *coughs* but still, casey was the guy who broke the valentino supremacy!! speaking. of. mugello. you want to know another mixed conditions race that happened there... that's right, last few laps of mugello 2004, like they're so fucking good. valentino's last ever race win comes in increasingly kinda sketch conditions in assen 2017, where he is also fighting marc. like, look, I'm not gonna list every single race performance in sketch conditions, and of course they did also have some stinkers... this is a vibes category, sometimes it's truly just about looking at some lap times and going 'oof you guys really are something special here'. but also clear order here, marc is just *gestures* something else yeah

anyway. okay listen at this point I don't REALLY want to rag on the other two, especially since I'll get to it more with wet races. they're just not quite at the same level! I'm not saying they're terrible, but y'know, you can just check their track records and draw your own conclusions. if jorge had lost that 2015 title, misano absolutely would have been top of everyone's list as a big, big factor in that. I've already mentioned argentina, and again it kinda is telling what their records there look like. phillip island. it's just... y'know. it's whatever. with dani, similar story, but shout out to motegi 2015. banger performance, super impressive. jorge also has a few good f2f's. but yeah, we can list every single performance where they were massively outperformed by those other three or we could. not

6. wet

stuff I considered: well. their records when races were wet. did they bin it, how did they perform against their teammates, what can we say about performance variation over time, how understandable were their errors, what was their approach like to them

similar tiers, slightly different order - casey, then vale, then marc. but again, it's super close, and I don't feel as happy with the order here as above. I just have this highlight reel in my head of casey's wet weather performances, donington 2007 and silverstone 2011 are both crazy good in different ways. yes, he didn't win every single race in the wet he competed in, but who does? and yes, his sample size is a teensy bit limited, and yes, he did lose that one le mans 2012 battle against ducati!valentino, which, who does that, but like... listen. when he was on it, he was so on it. on the flip side, and I realise this is again unfair given the sample size issues, I just don't have all these memories of watching casey crash in the wet as I do for each of the other aliens. even his poorer performances like donington 2009... y'know, there was a good explanation there. (indy 2008 is one that I'm quite meh about admittedly.) but like!! overall it just is NOT a lot of races in the wet - I feel the sample size issues with other things more strongly, but here he also just compares positively to other aliens in their primes and it's not as much a w2w thing. just something about him in the wet that I trust..? I feel like sachsenring 2008 is another one that also kinda shows he had a good feel for how much he could push. like, dani disappeared off into the distance, and casey did kinda go. huh. well idk about that but good luck. and then won the race by a mile when dani crashed out. I don't know! given that's not always a trait I massively associate with casey, I do think he was generally pretty sensible in the wet. also... yeah, given it's inherently not that many races you're judging, I do think inevitably this is something where my brain really is pulling together two or three signature performances and judging those. and with casey, I just think those performances slap

that being said. ranking him above valentino here could(?) be controversial, and I did struggle a teensy bit with this one. like, mixed conditions can be a bit dodgy and also, we'll get to this in a moment but valentino's flag to flag record *stares into the middle distance* BUT when it's full wet!! oh yeah. right. let's fucking go. the tiny caveats I have here in my mind are a) he did make some memorable mistakes in those conditions (as casey can attest to), but again, so has pretty much everyone, and b) the wet weather performances after 2015 were kinda dodgy. but that's like.... that is just fundamentally a yamaha problem once the series switched to the michelins, like I don't really see the argument for saying that was a valentino decline? it's become a pretty persistent issue, and even then valentino was generally putting his bike in a hell of a lot more impressive places than his respective teammates (hey, you still have pretty nifty performances even in that era - look at brno 2016). let's set all that aside, and focus on all the other bits: the banger performances. the donington 2005's and silverstone 2015's of this world. let's talk donington, actually, because... idk, I think there's something very valentino in the wet about that race specifically, because for a lot of the race it really doesn't look that great? he wobbles a lot, some very cool marc-y saves but preferably you don't want to HAVE to marc-y save stuff, gets to the lead and loses it and gets back again. like, okay, obviously the conditions are genuinely just atrocious, but crucially he's not just FAST!! it's not just dominant! it's him watching and learning and feeling his way into the race, until eventually he's learned enough and can pull away. obviously, it's always worth remembering there's a shit ton of natural talent here too, cf colin edwards talking about seeing his data and just going 'what tf do you mean he's locking up in every single corner' (I paraphrase), but it's... yeah, he's doing a lot of this with his brain. which I do think is a big part of wet weather racing!! like a lot of it is figuring out how much risk you should be taking at any given moment, what's possible in the moment, how much you can trust what you're feeling etc etc

but yeah, shanghai that year is a dominant one... silverstone 2015 is like, so impressive you have to say, crazy pressure from marc behind him until marc eventually crashed and then late pressure from petrucci. like that race saved his title bid and it could've easily gone wrong. also, one of my favourite things about valentino as a wet weather racer is not just that he used to be bad of it, but he used to be scared of riding in the rain. he didn't want to go out there!! teen!vale told his team boss he didn't want to race in that shit!! it's about the journey... first premier class win in... is that a wet or mixed conditions race? never mind, crucially donington 2000 he is working his way through the field on a track that is very much not try. and somewhere along the line, he did just become a proper excellent wet weather racer, even if he never was a massive fan. indy 2008 is another banger, like basically I reckon he's at his very best in conditions nobody should ever even contemplate racing in? see also what he did in his ducati years. I'm also inherently biased towards people getting better at stuff, so maybe that's part of the picture for me. anyway, with marc I don't massively have much to add to what I already said in the mixed conditions bit? I basically think he's excellent but he doesn't have the same margin over the field when it's full wet rather than 'kinda sketch'. he does also have the misfortune of running into some of the best wet weather races out there during his prime, first valentino and then dovi - who, if I were including him in this exercise, would absolutely be in the conversation for top spot alongside vale/casey. but like, just because he doesn't win them doesn't mean motegi and sepang 2017 aren't very strong, in terms of maximising what was possible on that day. speaking of 2017, misano!!!! he's good at the decision making stuff too, good at maximising his performance when he's not winning races. 2016 is a title bid that is built on a lot of kinda sketch races, most of which marc doesn't win - but he won the championship and that's the bit that matters. and in ducati!valentino style, of course those have also been the situations in which marc's had the chance to be more competitive in the horror honda years.... motegi last year is the obvious example. he's very very good, does chuck it down the road a few times too but that's life

so the thing about jorge and wet weather is that he's like, pretty poor in the lower categories, and the general 2006-07 pattern was that dovi was keeping himself competitive in those title fights in large part through starring performances in wet races while jorge flops. then there's a period in the premier class where he's actually kinda fine? does chuck it a few times, but also really some strong performances in there. jerez 2011, le mans 2012... anyway, if we're talking about assen becoming a real bogey track in jorge's later years, it's probably also worth mentioning that the assen 2013 highside came in the wet and is around the time there was a real downturn in his wet weather performances. he was still competitive in a few wet weather races! but he also... really wasn't in many. at times he was just slow - if he'd lost the 2015 title, people would still be talking about silverstone more, which you have to say he was very lucky to limit the points damage in (and he did come within a whisker of being crashed out on like, three separate instances, which can happen if you're running in a pack in the wet). then, of course, you have 2016 where his title charge completely fell apart in the wet.... as already said with valentino, the yamaha in those years clearly wasn't quite right in the wet, but valentino was still putting together stronger performances. then in 2017 jorge still has that decent sepang race where he challenges dovi for the win, but yeah... that's basically it. it's unfair when people portray him as a poor wet weather racer his whole career, but obviously. y'know. not on the level of the three above. dani...... look, I'm gonna keep this short: I get that his literal size and weight are a massive disadvantage here, but of course there's no way you can't rank him last in this category. he won one wet premier class race in his whole career, there's a lot of big crashes to point to (sachsenring 2008 again is particularly memorable) and also just him being very slow. sepang 2012 was cool though

7. overtaking ability

stuff I considered: race craft, efficiency in overtaking, direct duels, dogfights, comeback rides, creativity, .... being cool

right. look. I'm willing to hear the arguments for the others, but to me it's just got to be valentino here. like, yes, I get it - if you're constantly putting yourself in seventh at the end of every single first lap, you will just be doing a lot of overtakes. if your entire approach to winning races is built around sitting behind other riders for half the race and just vibing, then yes, of course you'll be doing a lot of memorable overtakes for the win. maybe you shouldn't have been in that position in the first place. I hear the case! I acknowledge it! but he was just so damn good at those overtakes! he knew where to place his bike, he knew where to attack, he was so good at making that shit stick, he's usually not being massively aggressive to the point of recklessness when he doesn't need to be... what's the drawback. again, maybe this is being swayed by the highlight reel rather than measuring 'pure' skill, but my god is it a highlight reel. remember how in assen 2018 he just. overtakes other riders ten times at the gt chicane? rinse and repeat, he just knew how to get past people. that's a bit of dominance in a certain track just in terms of sheer race craft that's like, a bit obscene really. there's a reason he's got three overtakes that are still iconic and infamous alike, mix of brutality of jerez 2005 and ruthlessness of laguna 2008 and determination of catalunya 2009. he knew how to judge risks, usually he walked that line very very finely - which is how he was seen as an aggressive rider but also didn't crash a lot - but boy did he know how to send it like the best of him. so you've got the range, right, something as practised as assen 2018 gt chicane, but also the creativity of something like catalunya 2009, of trying a move where others just wouldn't. also, like, FORgET the corkscrew move at laguna 2008, let's talk about that move around the outside of turn 3 ffs. and he was so good at working his way through the field!! I mean, he had to be given what an abysmal qualifier he was at times in the latter half of his career, but like his 2015 title campaign would've been impossible without that kinda qatar and argentina vibe. the man was always tussling, but he sure did do it well. idk, what's the counter argument here.... he's crashed like. at most half a dozen times. while attempting overtakes. idk I'm unmoved, sachsenring 2007 isn't enough to ruin everything else here. 'valentino rossi is good at overtakes', more as we get it

marc. marc. the thing about marc, right, is that sometimes he does stray to the wrong line of the 'aggression or just stupid' divide, but... given his baseline level of aggression, you have to say he mostly did a good job of not pushing it too far. he's extremely adept at working his way through fields... and it really is important he's willing to go for it. like there are riders who just won't! he's very see gap go for gap, as he's happy to remind everyone, and that makes him a very fearsome proposition. I'm not like... I love it for narrative reasons, but to me personally jerez 2013 does push it a teensy bit, and there's been a few too many race craft howlers for my tastes in the last few years. he's just too good to be doing shit like portimao last year. that being said, when he's keeping things sensible, the race craft is obviously elite. incredible bike placement, also just such an innate ability to thrive in those kinda chaotic situations at starts of races, in the middle of dogfights he navigates that stuff so so good..... I don't LOVE rating marc/valentino over the other three aliens on grounds of like 'hard racing' because you then get to tricky philosophical waters, but actually I'm perfectly happy to rate them above the other three for just being very good at this shit. for my money, my favourite overtake of his is still last lap on petrucci in misano 2017, like idk the sheer nerve and daring and skill in the wet!! I moved!! I also had a heart attack but never mind that!! misano 2019 ughhh my beloveddddd... okay admittedly he has a few too many of these epic duels tm he loses which we'll get back to in a moment, but that doesn't erase all the cool moves he makes on the way to moving. also obviously got to mention these comeback rides he's been having - and this kind of thing is also super important in starts!! just very very adept at all this race craft stuff, though a few too many of his overtakes don't stick for my tastes

now. the thing is. casey did most of his racing in an era that, as we have repeatedly established, was kinda ass. also, it's obviously worth pointing out that casey really wasn't trying to win his races in a way that involved a lot of overtaking. and his attitude towards racing did have the potential to hinder him in fights, because he was perhaps maybe possibly at times a teensy bit too concerned with keeping things respectful when certain other riders were willing to push him off a cliff if it could secure them pee four. that being said. limited sample size aside. when I close my eyes, I can see casey overtaking jorge around the outside of turn one at laguna 2011, and it is still the most bonkers downright terrifying thing I've seen in my life, but it is also very very very cool. that's right, he's ranked third because that move is so cool. it's just... he's always going on about risk and danger and all that and racing valentino at laguna was scary etc etc, which, yes, I do have a lot of empathy there, but my brother you are overtaking him around a blind crest. like you literally can't see where you're going. everybody finds turn one at laguna terrifying, it's seen as scarier as the corkscrew. and that's where you overtake him. and it's not an isolated occurrence - some of the laguna 2008 moves on valentino?? dude. it very much takes two to tango, we're talking some scary turn one moves and sketch turn three and turn five encounters like.... like!! phew. plus, valencia 2011 last lap

also, listen, at the end of the day, the reason why I'm putting casey over jorge here is very simple - direct record against valentino. one of them actually won extended battles against him, the other didn't. yes, jorge ran valentino close, but y'know. you don't get extra points for 'close', do you. catalunya 2009, sachsenring 2009, motegi 2010... casey actually beat valentino, he did it at catalunya 2007 and sachsenring 2010, qatar 2007... that sachsenring 2010 last lap move truly slaps!! idc if valentino had just come back from the broken leg, still slaps! now, yes, we do need to point out that jorge has done some great overtaking in his time, and he's also won quite a few close duels against marc specifically - but, well, marc didn't race casey, can't compare it. still, jorge is good wheel-to-wheel generally speaking, the risk assessment is mostly pretty good though sometimes he can be a bit... idk, clumsier on average than the three above him? anyway, still better than dani, who unfortunately did sometimes fall into the category of me going 'PLEASE overtake the guy come on move.... MOVE'. generally a lot of overtakes only happening when there's a massive tyre advantage which is like. it's fine. but it's not quite the same thing. but jerez 2010 brno 2012 for them respectively overall were obviously cool. basically my main thing for this one is that, we're not rating duels here, we're rating overtaking ability. and on the one hand I have the highlight reel in my head and the craft and skill of it all, and on the other hand I have like. if you get stuck in the pack. do I expect you to stay there or do something. and generally it's really marc and valentino where I'm expecting some moving

8. defensive ability

stuff I considered: also race craft, just general quality of defensive rides idk, how much I trust you to keep guys with better pace behind you

yeah valentino again here I fear. this is another factor where I'm really just seeing the highlight reel in my head, just so many class defensive rides (even though usually he'd PREFER to be coming from behind than holding others off). last few laps of sachsenring 2006 are like, gorgeous, what a crazy girl. laguna 2008. assen 2015. some of the late braking in catalunya 2009, like I already have talked about it elsewhere and jorge has spoken about how vale sets up his bike to brake 10m later than everyone else, but. has to be said. he really did gag me with that catalunya 2009 turn one behaviour. phewwwww some of his mugello main straight antics..... he TESTED those brakes. his last podium ride in andalusia 2020... still had it what can you say. also, thing is, there's not really many failures you can point to? his two biggest last lap defeats, he was behind going into them - like yeah still sucked he lost (especially sachsenring 2003 where you CAN kinda argue it was a fuck up in his defence) (jerez 2005 SHOULD have been a major fuck up but he won it so) but overall... oh also sepang 2006 last lap. I mean, I could go on - he's good at picking his lines and being a dickhead and just placing his bike right and also muscling his way around the track... some of his dubious motegi 2010 antics even though he's flirting with the line. also excellent at re-overtaking after being overtaken. straightforward case

so I've switched this twice and then realised I was overthinking this and next it's obviously marc. idk I think you can overthink this and marc does have a few Actual Sketch defensive rides (argentina 2015, silverstone 2019) but also his wheel to wheel record is so strong you've got to let him slot in here. like, again, the decision making isn't always ideal, he sometimes pushes it a bit too far, but the fundamental race craft can be faulted and he does do a lot of really excellent defensive riding, brutal on the brakes and all that. again, this really does jump out during the dogfights, plus also stuff like thailand 2019. he's very good at it!! a nightmare to get past, because he is also NOT just gonna give up the position! then we get into classic casey 'god this sample size is ass' stuff where I think I give him a lot of benefit of the doubt given just the lack of races where he was like... running similar paces to other guys... awful era. but clearly did have some excellent rides where defence played a huge role, catalunya 2007 was really good... assen 2007 he kept valentino behind quite a long time, few races like that where casey really does keep him behind for quite long. phillip island 2009 is a bit tricky because it felt valentino never had the ultimate pace to overtake but, well, casey started ahead, had valentino sitting on his rear tyre for a decent chunk of the race, finished ahead, so points for that. again, just a real sample size issue here but, y'know

jorge.... listen, he definitely can defend. he has done some very, very strong defensive rides. one of the strongest and most important ones of his career was at a little known race called valencia 2015 even if marc maybe wasn't as motivated to overtake jorge as he would have been some other days I'M KIDDING. it's good. lot of good stuff going on. that being said.... man, it's such low hanging fruit, but you have to talk about how jorge was robbed at the final corner first in catalunya 2009 and jerez 2013. now, look, of course people can lose races in final corners, but in both those cases you do have to say... dude. you could have defended that line. in both cases everyone does kinda go... mate. mate. you have to assume those two bastards will go for it. idk obviously this is selection bias because both instances were just so memorable, but inevitably this is the stuff you are judged on. don't do it!! omg! also, with all love to valentino's slightly deranged levels of aggression while both attacking and defending against jorge in motegi 2010, this is another one where you do kinda feel.... yeah, it's not easy when you know the other guy is kinda willing to crash you both out rather than let you win (valentino!! your shoulder!! valentino!!!!) and yeah you kinda still have a championship to think about... still. (that being said, I'm not giving valentino TOO many motegi 2010 points in either category - yes, it worked, yes, it was funny, but was it 'good riding'? eh.) do we give him points off for the sepang 2017 error that let dovi ahead... I suppose he defended very well against dovi at valencia that year lol. but actually, same thing with 2015, I'm not sure you really get many points for defending at valencia? anyway, I feel like the way this is ordered, I'm unfortunately constantly justifying ranking the same blokes last, so again, let's keep this quick. dani: fantastic work at aragon 2015. truly elite performance. wish you had done a little more of that. way too many estoril's and shanghai's and motegi's 2008. but aragon 2015 was lovely

9. cunning

stuff I considered: 'race management', how you navigate different race situations, battle smarts

hm, yeah, another bit of a catch all category like reliability was - just that general sense of... y'know, how good are you at figuring out races. working them out in your head, being smart about when to push and when not to push. decision making skills, how you are at analysing your opponents, at studying their strengths and weaknesses. at the mental side of the on-track game, at intimidation and stealth. cunning. anyway absolutely zero prizes for guessing who slots into number one and two here. all of the things I just described are very closely associated with valentino, and this is basically his category. I'm thinking what he did to sete specifically. I'm thinking how he completely switched it up against casey at laguna 2008. I'm thinking how he did that last corner overtake on casey catalunya 2007, saved it away, then did it for the win against jorge at catalunya 2009 after visualising it the week before that. it's that bloody assen 2015 chicane trick on marc - idc if that was planned or not (all right, I deeply deeply care), but either way what a clever way of stealing a win. it's the success rate in last lap duels... and then, of course, there's all the more general stuff - we've already discussed tyre preservation above, generally speaking prime valentino was excellent at controlling races across very different eras

marc clocks in second - prime marc was again just. ridiculously good at controlling races, especially in the tyre preservation era post 2015. knows when to push, knows when to not... I will yap on forever about how neat I find his 2016 campaign, by far the most cruelly overlooked of his titles just because he didn't 'win' a lot of 'races'. who cares about that, check out the consistency!! elite at race management!! marc does have a brain and he can choose to engage it, and he does prove as much on the track - he's good at a lot of risk/reward judgements, and he'd better be because otherwise with his riding style it'd be far more of a trail of carnage than it already is at times. the head loss to riding style trade off actually isn't too bad with him, relatively speaking. he's been doing some very strong race management this year, if at times from un-ideal starting positions - again, le mans main race says hi. plus, the dogfights man... not the actual fighting bit, the tyre preservation bit. unless you want to get into conspiracy theory territory, which surely nobody would want to, let's just assume that in phillip island 2015 he hadn't actually been planning to just find a bunch of extra tyre on the last lap - but phillip island 2017 and assen 2018 he times it perfectly. that being said. okay. it just has to be acknowledged. marc. we need to work on making more of these overtakes stick. yes, I've made the arguments myself, he tends to be in duels he has no right to be engaged in in the first place, he's on the limit at some of his poorer tracks, it's impressive and intimidating he's there in the first place... and I do believe all of those things! but the thing is when you tell everyone you go for every gap, and then riders are deliberately leaving you a gap knowing you will go for it, and then they get back at you, and then they do it literally seven times in one race... marc, come on. I'm on my knees. I was literally on my knees during aragon 2021. he does this against valentino, against dovi, against pecco, man even against jorge once or twice, and it does drive you a little insane sometimes. too much red mist!! too much red mist. stop being suckered into making the move marc I am so very much on my knees

with the other three, I've already kinda discussed what I'd mention here elsewhere. like, casey... idk it's a tough one because I don't think it's harsh to judge him on a tiny sample size, but if you've engaged in like. ten extended duels in the premier class and you've crashed in two of them, then unfortunately it does make me raise an eyebrow more than if you've crashed out of two from fifty, right? he does get a bit red mist-y, not just when he's punching people in practise sessions, but also like. occasionally in races. he's red mist-y in laguna '08, sachsenring '12, mugello '12... I don't think he's even mad necessarily (well, obviously he is in laguna), just kinda very dog with a bone. (biggest valentino in-race anger-affected errors of judgement are ofc qatar 2004 + sepang 2015, btw. marc I'm not gonna give the obvious and instead throw in a cute jerez 2024 sprint, like dude please stop attempting to murder joan enough.) he's decent at race management in general, though idk my issue with some of these alien wins is that, I get it's unfair, but I'm just not really that impressed with 'managing' a gap of six seconds? like congrats on being fast and not chucking it I guess. jerez 2012 + estoril 2012 are really neat in that regard though, he's proud of them for good reason. also, again, could've easily lost a few valentino fights that he didn't. with jorge... yeah, he's excellent at race management!! also a smart tussler, got those silverstone 2013 and mugello 2016 and austria 2018 wins to go too. think I do slightly hold some of the dovi losses over the course of his career against him lol. I mean, losing to dovi in direct fights does very much happen to the best of them, and this is another category in which dovi would obviously be in contention for top spot. both jorge and dani are very very strong at race managing, in particular when they're at the front, and they're capable of outsmarting opponents... again for dani, aragon + motegi 2015 do stick in the mind. valencia 2017 was suchhhh a good win too, so much going on in that race and he was smart enough to emerge on top. look, the tyre preservation thing was very good for all three of them, they could all manage races, they all had a few rough ones w2w, also you can make casey mad and spook dani. you can make jorge mad too actually

10. strategy + work process

stuff I considered: tendency to get it 'right' with team, from set up to tyre choice to improvement over the course of the weekend. also flag to flag races

easy marc win, and a big part of it really is just how that bloke fucking nailed flag to flag races. like, jesus christ, he had the cheat code to those things. how do you just make right call after right call, truly obscene. if I'm some random midfield rider, I'm telling my team to make me copy whatever he's doing like idc. also, okay, a lot of weekends he started strong, but the ones where he didn't? he ended the weekend fast. like, he's good on fridays, he's excellent on saturdays, but there really were plenty of weekends where his sundays were the strongest of them all. found a bunch of extra pace down the back of the couch overnight. 2016-19 was obviously super big on the tyre preservation and yup, got truly elite at that too - sure, some of that is just raw skill, but some of that is also prep work and knowing what you need to be doing at what stage of the race. valentino clocks in second here, and a lot of these things are broadly true of him too, especially the finding pace overnight thing. most infamous example is of course laguna 2008 - yeah, sure, tactics are great and all, but he needed to make a step to even stick close enough to casey to fuck with him. a lot of his race weekends went like that! the blot in his copybook is... dude. what the fuck is wrong with your flag to flag strategies. like it genuinely is not your inability to ride in those situations because you're clearly fine at THAT bit, but what's going on with the communication and decision-making thing here. it's also sometimes THE most obvious shit??? not to be all armchair expert here but scotty beam me in, send me back to 2006 EYE will fix valentino's f2f. it's so bad!! I don't get how bad it is!! with marc, the biggest blot is phillip island 2013 - which, I don't care he was 20 years old, I get it was his rookie season, but it could have easily cost him the title and it's such a truly abysmal fuck up that it still makes me shake my head to think about. genuinely inexcusable lol, the backstory of the whole thing is also so incredibly stupid. marc's not the main issue here, but this entire component is kinda rated by your entire team so. I mean, look, he's still on top

after that, I'm not massively fussed about the order - though again with casey I do think it's notable he was also pretty strong at the 'finding pace overnight' trick. he was kinda.... you know, he was already so strong on friday, which WAS an advantage but he discusses in his autobiography that it almost made it tricky to know where to go from there lol. but they still figured it out!! just good at figuring out ways to win. jorge did play some proper blinders f2f which I'm giving him brownie points for, some... less ideal decisions. I'm sorry, I'm also gonna dock him a few points for some of the ducati races where he was leading early on burning through his tyres and then dropping back. I think that can happen once, or maybe even twice, but like. too often, eventually u need to maybe change up the strategy and figure out what can work now. dani generally speaking was not doing that, and yeah, a few very strong 'yup you got the approach to tyre preservation exactly right' contenders, but also really did not do well in flag to flag races... tricky one because yeah with him and jorge, they were a bit less likely to find the pace overnight (casey did kinda allude to this in his autobiography lol)

graphs :)

okay. lemme show my video game-y radar charts <3

valentino:

dani:

casey:

jorge:

marc:

and combined, because well if you've read this far I might as well not play coy here:

anyway. look

I don't. love. what I've done to jorge specifically. and there's one massive jorge strong point that I could not figure out how to rank for everyone else, but feel very very strongly he is very very good at: some kind of clutch factor. this is KINDA captured by the reliability metric, but I don't quite think that one's enough... I don't think this specifically shines when he's on the heat of battle, but it does shine when he's late in a season when he needs to maximise those results to keep his title bid in good health. the glaring exception is phillip island 2009, but, well, valentino has a valencia 2006, marc has a... I know it didn't cost him but valencia 2017 was not a good performance. but! apart from that, if you look at jorge's track record from then on late in seasons when it's his own title bid (also excluding 2017 here) on the line... proper good shit. that late 2012 stretch where dani was on a different planet and jorge kept showing up to bag second place. I know I was ragging on 2015 earlier on and I'm not like, massively moved by most of that jorge season, and I still fundamentally think that if you're leading the last lap of phillip island by as much as he was, I don't care if it's literally jesus of nazareth on that motorcycle chasing after you - you should be making it a little bit harder for the guy behind. that being said, sepang was a+ given he really didn't have that much pace (lil bit of luck at the start and then those two bozos behind him did kinda help his cause, but still he did his job), and valencia was straight up excellent. I know he didn't win the title, but late 2013 was probably like. his career best stretch. the valencia 2013 performance is genuinely one of his best races. that's clutch!! that's what he's all about!! he can bring home a title!!

that being said. I had no clue how to compare that to the other four riders, not least because casey literally has not been in a close title fight with a few races to go. just wanted to say it! I also don't think all these categories are equal - like I think I said at the top, being a wet weather rider is nice but it is fundamentally not as important as being a strong qualifier. I just don't love these categories in general? I was trying to think of a way of splitting up qualifying into two different categories, couldn't think of one, tried to think of something for tyre preservation beyond inelegantly including it in strategy, didn't think of anything. easier to come up with this stuff with tennis, and obviously also easier to just like. judge pure performance because you don't have all these extraneous categories. also I kinda think these riders are basically equal on some of these categories, but also if you're doing a ranking then ranking something as equal best is chicken shit

I think generally it's good to have your radar chart arranged in an order where it's not too spiky (listen if you're still reading this post, that's really on you), so that there's a kinda correlation between the bits that are next to each other. broadly most of them do do this in a sort of 'huh dani pedrosa would have benefited from the sprint race format over the course of a full season' way. they're all not too spiky... I kept running into the sample size issue with casey, where it's just like... look, he had a fantastic career, but also in the premier class a lot of the 2007 to 2012 races were very same-y and you kinda need that variety to judge. so a lot of the times with him I'm kinda going off vibes? like I think he's good at certain things, I reckon he'd probably struggle with xyz if he'd had more of a chance to do it, and extrapolate from that. which obviously isn't a great way of doing these things. basically, I massively rate him, I think valentino had the slight edge against him in wheel to wheel but the fact that it was 'slight' given that's valentino's number one selling point tells you enough, and I wish we could have put him into more varied race and championship standings situations to see what he does. like, the overtaking ability ranking clearly is in large part that laguna 2011 overtake just sort of killing my brain

anyway from this it feels like I think marc is the most well-rounded rider, which I probably stand by? the more I dig into valentino's actual qualifying numbers, the more I do feel like I'm maybe being a bit harsh, like yeah age-based decline we get it but during his prime... also, maybe I'm a bit too mean about the starts... but yeah, idk, they're definitely bigger flaws you can point to with valentino's game than any equivalent for marc. also genuinely do think the flag to flag thing was abysmal, I refuse to believe that's not something that wasn't fixable. I still think marc's wheel to wheel is the bit where around silverstone 2019 I was kinda going 'okay love this for you but do you maybe want to WIN one of these' (and then he immediately made baby!fabio miserable). like, again, super cool he's dragging that honda into places it doesn't belong, still need to work on that conversion rate. also, there was a bit of a 'how to fight marc' playbook by then and it's the equivalent of tying a red flag to the side of the motorbike and practically inviting him to have a go. worked a bit too often! that's like, gonna be one of the most interesting aspects of the pecco/marc rivalry because if I did this for PECCO then he would genuinely be in contender for top spot for the defensive riding category (best three defensive riders this century are him, dovi and valentino in no particular order, I really do believe this). that being said, obviously the qualifying thing is bonkers, yeah, as is anything with sketch grip. my laguna 2011 equivalent for marc is that brno 2019 quali lap. mostly I think of a hypothetical casey/marc rivalry more as like. how it would psychologically torture casey. but obviously in terms of the sport itself it would've been very cool to see them face off with that kind of thing

with jorge, again, I don't feel like these specific metrics really capture what made him so good. there's no way to phrase 'unbeatable on his day' as both like, a workable metric and also something that doesn't sound kinda patronising. 'situational dominance', idk. I also wouldn't know how you'd rank the aliens for that, except valentino would be last. my main thing with jorge is always kinda getting annoyed whenever he goes missing, something I suspect would be punished more in today's motogp - but also in 2010 and 2012 specifically, that did happen very rarely. with dani, it was always the wheel to wheel stuff that was just kinda. meh. he's another one who isn't super well served by these categories, like if there's a 'technically very clean' or 'picks very nice lines' category, he'd be on top? idk man. send in alternative suggestions or shout abuse at me for not being kind enough to your favourite alien. in conclusion, I think they're cool. I'm sorry for insulting all of them a lot

[silverteacups]

The Metamorphosis and Nightcord at 25

FAIRLY LONG POST!

Part 2

LYRICS "How do I look like now? Am I unsightly? Of course I am."

This doesn't just represent Mizuki, but Mafuyu. This is also why they were the two to sing Villain - and no, I'm not talking about the trans Mafuyu headcanons. I'd love for that to happen, but I don't think that's what it's about. For Mizuki, it's about how people feel about their secret. They disgust people by being themself, and if Mafuyu were her "true self", she'd probably do the same. A lot of people - namely her mum - accept as the person she's forced to be, not the person she is. In the 3DMV, Mizuki holds up their hand, looks at it, then faces the camera and smiles. I am still human. I am still myself. I can see it clearly. What do you see that I don't? ""I beg you, please don't throw the apples at me." They Lock up, Lock up to themselves-""

In The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa's father throws apples at him. One badly injures him, and this line is referring to exactly that. Don't hurt me. Don't turn your backs on me. Don't treat me like filth.

"Of course, I couldn't even have a proper fight with you."

This, obviously, refers to Mafuyu and her mum. When it comes to Gregor Samsa, it might refer to how he can't even communicate with his family. He has no way to defend himself, to explain what he's doing, to explain how much he's struggling. He is suffering, his family is pretty much shaming him for it, and he can't even tell them.

"It's not a joke! Don't eat my dreams away!"

Ena and Mafuyu both got the full line, just to clarify (+ KAITO). I'm not gonna link it to Gregor this time, just point out how this links to Mafuyu's mum not letting her have the career she wants, and Ena's dad discouraging her in terms of her art.

"It's as if you're biting into the apple, Sa-sa-Samsa."

Again, Mafuyu and Mizuki both sang the full line (+ KAITO). Gregor never took out that apple, I don't think - he left it to rot. To me, this symbolises self-sabotage, feeding off something that has hurt you beyond repair. Mafuyu and her mum, for instance - despite everything leading up to the events in Immiscible Discord (and then Saying Goodbye to My Masked Self), she can't hate her. In fact, multiple times before this event, Mafuyu has tried to make it clear that she still very much loves her.

"Even if I'll become a shadow of my former self, I'm right here."

Kanade got this line, but I still think it suits Mafuyu more. Even if she's not the person she acted like she was, even if she'll never be seen the same way, she's still Mafuyu. She can change her name, she can change her appearance, whatever she wants, but that shouldn't change how people feel about her. That shouldn't make her mum turn on her. That shouldn't change anything. In the 3DMV, for this and the next line, the focus is on Kanade and Mafuyu only. These lines are about them. What I've said about Mafuyu, but also Kanade's determination to save her.

"Even if I'm poisoned by the fringed iris."

I spoke about this here. TL;DR: The fringed iris (otherwise know as the butterfly flower) is poisonous and was used around castles to slow enemies. Here, it could refer to Mafuyu's mum again. Putting up walls to protect herself will only do so much, and eventually they'll come crashing down, and it'll only hurt her more. In the 3DMV, she also does a motion like eating an apple, which links back to the biting into the apple point I made. "The light is there, at 25:00 (1 a.m.). Now drag along your tail, Sa-sa-sa-sa-Samsa."

Again, the Samsa is sang by everyone at the same time. Gregor Samsa, as time goes on, finds it far harder to even move. Struggle through your pain, basically, because you'll find that light at the end, at 25:00 - when their group meets up. Again, probably a reference to Kanade trying to save her. Also, During her line, Ena's the only one shown reaching for the light. This could be because she's the only one who's been really and truly saved. Does her art frustrate her? Does she still encounter hardships? Of course she does. But she can face them now, properly. She doesn't have that desire to disappear anymore. Look at I nandesu - she sees beauty in the world, in herself, in love, in her art, in everything.

CARDS

I've already pointed out the fringed iris, but also that it could be a japanese iris, which represents hope. Then you have Mafuyu, the butterfly. Unlike Samsa, she hasn't changed into a "hideous" creature. She's a beautiful one, in fact. There are other butterflies put on display. I don't think this represents Mafuyu's true self - it shows her "masked self". The one that everyone admires. In this event, Kanade is trying to save Mafuyu from her mum, but from the perspective of her mum, she's not doing that. She's only holding her back. Trapping her. The way I see it, this set is seeing them the way Mafuyu's mum would. Kanade, the charwoman, with her white hair and the almost completely vertical feathers in her hat. At first, the charwoman is the only one not disgusted by Gregor, the only one who has seen the worst and isn't fazed by him, but she turns his room into a dump. A cave. That's what Mafuyu's mum is seeing - someone with good intentions, maybe, but she is ruining Mafuyu's life by making music with her and distracting her from her studies, and Mafuyu sees it only as kindness. Also, unlike the charwoman, she's kept the furniture there. She's keeping what makes Mafuyu comfortable, even if (at least in her mum's eyes) it restricts her.

When Mafuyu's mum interacted with Ena, she actually got a good impression of her. Ena had to force herself to mention her dad. She told her mum she'd be using Mafuyu as a model. Ena doesn't represent someone from the Metamorphosis, I don't think. Rather, she draws what Mafuyu's mum can't see - her daughter's pain. The fringed iris that keeps her mother from her true self. The apples she's thrown at her so many times. The mirror that Mafuyu has looked into so many times, and seen the same thing each time. She draws these in books, because Mafuyu's studying, the pressure from her mum, all of it, that's where a lot of that pain comes from.

Don't think they've ever interacted with Mafuyu's mum, but if she knew their secret, this is what she'd see. Someone who seems like a friend, trying to poison her. The opposite of Kanade, basically. This is also a good way to show how people in general see Mizuki, or, certainly, trans people. Mizuki and Mafuyu are both Samsa, and Ena and Kanade are both the charwoman (if you ignore the part where she dehumanises Gregor and such). Also, note the spider necklace. Ena is the only other one with this, with some sort of insect. Gregor finds, at some point, that he can just climb up walls and onto ceilings. In fact, he quite enjoys it. Even then, though space would help, part of him didn't want to have the furniture taken because he's still attached to it. He's still human. That's the thing here. Mizuki has been dehumanised. Mizuki has disgusted people for being themself. They're no less human, yet people continue to act like that's the case.

Samsa, Mafuyu and Mafuyu's Mum

Mafuyu's mum is everyone, really, who isn't Samsa. Maybe not all to start with, but definitely towards the end of the story. I'll go through the list:

Grete, his sister - she started to see taking care of him as a chore, and was the one to propose letting him die.

His dad - after a series of events, he mistakes Gregor's actions for being harmful, throws the apples at him like I mentioned previously. He never cared about his son - he cared about the man who made them money, who provided for them, who was a human. Not the man who didn't appear human, nor the man who loved him even if he couldn't say so, even if he could do nothing to show it.

His mum - so desperate to see him, but disgusted when she did. She loved him still, but she didn't grieve his loss. Rather, she was relieved.

The charwoman later on - She's blunt. She doesn't care about how Gregor feels, because he's been reduced to just a thing. He's dead? Happens to every other insect. No big deal.

And then Mafuyu, of course is Samsa.

Even if other people can accept who she is, what about her parents? Her mum, especially. Will she ever see her the same? Will she ever love her again? Will she ever get that approval again? What happens if she stops meeting the high expectations she set? What happens when she tries to run, when she tries to talk, when she tries to rebel? Will she die thinking of her mum, still, rather than those who truly care for her, and herself? Will her mum continue to hurt her? Is it even intentional? If she could just speak properly, find the right words, could that solve everything, or will it never be enough? If she gives herself away, does that erase any chance she ever had of coming back from it, if that chance was even there to begin with?

[freeuselandonorris]

how do you feel about the sentiment of your kinks etc only being "real" once you've tried them? I think it's bullshit for the most part but I'm curious what wisdom you might have on it! you've mentioned being into ex: piss on some level before even really considering it sexual (which is real asf first of all) but also just really interesting to me as a concept. unfortunately the development of kinks/fetishes is something I see discussed pretty rarely (although maybe I'm just in the wrong circles) so if it's not too personal I'd like to hear your thoughts/experience related to that 👉 👈 (I realise now that there's technically two main topics I brought up but they're connected enough I think?)

ps.: the titular free use lando fic was SO delicious I will never be able to look at, frankly, any sports car again the same way

- anon

heyyy! got my laptop out to answer this so you know it's serious [cracks knuckles]

okay SO. short answer to your first question: yes, i think the idea that you're not "really" into a kink/your kink isn't "real" until you've experienced it in real life is 100% bullshit.

much longer discussion of this and the second question under the cut!

since i've gained quite a few new followers (hi!!) cw that i talk explicitly about my real life sex life below here, so skip this if you don't want to read about that :)

speaking as someone who DOES do a lot of very kinky stuff in real life, there are things i enjoy in fantasy/fic/porn that i either have tried doing in real life and didn't enjoy in reality, or that i simply have no desire to try! i have friends who are vanilla in their actual sex lives but are some of the kinkiest people i know. i know people who absolutely love roleplaying as daddies via sext but are asexual otherwise and have no desire to transition anything into the meatspace. all of these things are valid expressions of kink and this idea that there's some sort of hierarchy of kinkiness where you have to have been chained up in a dungeon getting flogged before you get your Real Kinky Person membership card drives me mad.

there are some kinks that are impossible to carry out in real life (monsterfucking my beloved)! there are some kinks that are not ethical to carry out in real life (for instance, there are certain forms of public kink i fantasise about heavily that i would never do in real life because the risks of being seen by someone who didn't consent are too high). there are some kinks that can be practised safely, but which i know would be dangerous for me personally (knife/cutting play and erotic hypnosis spring to mind, as someone with a past history of self harm and psychosis).

there's also an exclusionary aspect to the idea that you have to experience a kink irl to be "allowed" to claim it. some people can't or don't want to live kinky lives, for all sorts of reasons: disabilities or chronic illnesses; asexuality; neurodivergence; being in a monogamous relationship with someone who isn't interested in exploring kink; living in a country or environment where practising kinky sex might not be safe or simply not being able to find a kink partner (obviously there are plenty of kinks that can be indulged solo, but certainly not all of them).

one thing i WILL say is that i think the fantasy version (whether that's fic, porn, or just mental) of kinks is often very different to the reality of it. real kink is honestly quite silly a lot of the time! and there's SO much admin and logistics to figure out! so i think there is sometimes a slight danger that a kink experienced only through fantasy for a long time can suddenly not live up to expectations when it happens in reality. but that's a separate issue, and doesn't change my answer: yes, it's bullshit.

onto the second question! (is anyone still reading lmao)

SO onto my own kink discoveries!

i ABSOLUTELY blame horse riding as a kid for my bondage and impact play kinks lmao. i used to have this huge crush on a boy at my stables (i was about 11 maybe?) and we'd go to these things called 'pony days' where you basically spent a whole day at the stables looking after and riding a horse, v cute. during lunch we'd all run round tying each other up with the horse ropes and whipping each other with the dressage whips and riding crops (which were not used to whip the horses, i hasten to add!) and there was also a lot of leather tack (saddles and bridles, in other words) that we had to spend a lot of time polishing up and looking after. it really stuck with me as a kind of formative experience.

i think a lot of kinks are formed subconsciously at that kind of age, and if you prod at it for long enough you can usually find a moment where you're like "ahhh THAT'S when it was". same with the piss/wetting thing, as you noted - i used to get a (non-sexual, i was only a kid) kick out of peeing through my swimsuit before a shower because it felt naughty and forbidden, and that idea of enjoying it because it was 'bad' grew up as i did until i got older and figured out what watersports was. i was super ashamed of it for years and didn't tell anyone about it until i was in my 20s (and even that didn't go well!) and didn't explore it with a partner until my late 20s, but it's been the kink that comes closest to an actual fetish (though it isn't one) since i was about 15, i'd say. which loops me back to my original point! i've had a piss kink for farrrr longer than i've been doing piss kink stuff.

an interesting one for me is CNC because THAT is a kink i didn't realise i had until pretty recently. i used to get turned on at scenes in horror movies and so on, kidnap scenes and whatnot, and for the longest time i was like...jesus, am i secretly a serial killer what's WRONG with me. it wasn't until i was in my late 20s that i finally started to understand and read about the dynamics underpinning CNC play and it all began to make sense (although, hilariously, i did write an essay in my undergrad degree called 'the erotic potential of the horror movie' where i essentially described CNC without actually making the connection in my brain. my tutors put up with a lot from me, bless 'em.)

in general though, i was quite a sheltered kid until i was about 13, which coincided with me starting to get unsupervised internet access lmao. i got really into the band placebo around that age and started hanging out on their fan forums (i am really ageing myself here hahaha). their official forum on their official website had an RPF fic section and between the lyrics of their songs and all the extremely explicit and very kinky fic i was in truth probably too young to be consuming, by the time i hit my mid-teens my sexual identity had already pretty much fully formed around queerness and kinkiness. i went straight from 0-60 in many ways; i never really had a vanilla phase hahah.

WELL. if you got through all that then fuckin kudos to you lmao. as you can tell i find this whole subject area so so fascinating that it's very hard for me to stop talking about it once i've started 🥲

[jakowskis]

💖💙💜 owen harper bisexuality masterpost 💖💙💜

i've had this in my drafts for a minute but i figured i'd finish it up and post it today for bisexual visibility day :D

it hasn't cropped up recently, but i've seen a lot of people who've questioned owen's bisexuality over the years and i thought i'd compile all the 'evidence' (although it completely baffles me that we got a show with five canonical bisexual characters and people want to write two of them off as straight / "heterflexible" ?? there shouldn't have to be 'proof' of owen being bi, RTD said torchwood is about five bisexuals fighting aliens in cardiff which means they're all bi, full stop. also, bisexuals should never have to 'prove' they're bi, and in regards to fictional characters, i'm sick of people nit-picking who 'deserves' to be counted as rep and refusing to 'claim' certain characters if they're morally grey or if the fandom simply doesn't Like them as much-)

but i digress.

so without further ado, here's everything i've found that supports owen's status as a bicon :-)

explicit canon instances

➤➤ obviously, we have to start with his gay kiss in the first episode of the show. there's a lot to be said about that kiss, i'm not gonna get into all that here, but i've seen a lot of people say it's not proof of owen being attracted to men, and i wholeheartedly disagree. you can literally catch him smiling very happily after the kiss (and one of owen's few genuine smiles of the series, too). i don't think a straight man (or even a "heteroflexible" man) would beam at another guy who's just informed him that he wants to fuck him. a fair amount of people have also said they interpreted owen calling the taxi as him intending to get away from the couple, but i don't understand how they're getting that impression, because that smile makes it seem very much apparent to me that running away is the last thing he wants to do.

it's also, notably, the first time we see bisexuality IN the bisexual show, which i don't think should be discounted. like, we see owen do something gay before jack does, for fuck's sake. is it a good first impression of how torchwood portrays bisexuality? no. is setting owen up as a more sex-driven, opportunistic bisexual nicely contrasted against ianto & tosh's more romance-oriented brand of demisexual bi/pansexuality? in my opinion, yes. i love that the torchwood bisexuals all practice their bisexuality in different ways. that's very special to me. 'cause it's realistic! real bisexuals all experience bisexuality differently! obviously it'd be a different story if he was the only bi rep, because lord knows we've seen enough of that already, but torchwood makes an effort to show us five different brands of bisexuality, and five different bi stories that largely only exist in the subtext, that aren't the focus of the show, and it's fantastic. it's all i could ever want out of bi rep, honestly, even if it is a bit dated now.

➤➤ the other explicit moment in the show: asking tosh and ianto for an end-of-the-world threesome in sleeper (s2ep2). i've actually never seen owen bi-deniers (fhdskjf it's a conspiracy) even mention this scene. owen literally asks ianto if they can have sex with each other to his face, and he's dead serious when he asks it. that's... i mean you can't mistake that as anything else. like fhdsjkf??

➤➤ next we jump to some of the, i suppose, extended universe content. whether the books are canon or not is debated, but the novel 'another life' features owen playing an online simulation game, and it makes a point to depict owen flirting with someone with a male avatar + wondering to himself if the guy would be down for cyber-sex. [someone posted part of that scene here. for context, owen's also got a VR headset on during that bit.]

➤➤ another instance is on the website, which some also don't regard as canon, but, i mean, i don't know who worked on the things we see on that site, but obviously they got their information from somewhere. they probably consulted with the writers on the show, or at the very least got notes on what things to touch on. anyway, there's a portion of the site where you can find a 'background check' on owen, and it's just a collection of messages from some ex-lovers of his. one of them is a man.

again, some people disregard the canon validity of the website, but the way i see it, the information on this site was released while the show was airing for fans to look at and to gain further insight on the characters. one of the things they felt a need to tell us about owen, important enough to be featured in his background (wayyy before the katie plot was developed), was that he wasn't just interested in women. personally, i regard that as canon. you can find this here. and even if you wanna say fragments jossed this background, it doesn't joss his, like... identity.

next we have things said by russell t. davies himself + by burn gorman (owen's actor)

➤➤ again, RTD (who's torchwood's creator, but i'm assuming everyone reading this knows that) explicitly described torchwood as "a bunch of bisexuals living under cardiff and fighting aliens". that's not ambiguous. [i don't have a direct source for this quote, it was apparently said on the dvd extras.]

burn's comments on owen's sexuality include...

➤➤ (when asked who owen fancies) "Owen's pretty cocky, he'll try it on with whoever comes along." [x] and yes, this is vague, but vagueness is often interpreted as proof of bisexuality. (for example, in the pacific rim dvd features, newt's bio stating he was interested in "whoever will take him" was widely interpreted by the fandom as him being bi.)

➤➤ (in regards to owen's "let's all have sex" line) "I don't think he [...] thinks about the implications, or whether it's with a man or a woman." [x]

(ok i have to admit, although i absolutely adore burn, i'm not super fond of the way his 2006-08 self would talk about how torchwood handled sexuality*. however! he kind of hit the nail on the head in saying that, even if it's in the context of owen wanting end-of-the-world sex, because my take on how owen sees his own sexuality has always essentially boiled down to thinking he'd be like, "well, why wouldn't men also be an option?" (well, with sexual attraction anyway; i think owen's relationship with romantic attraction is far more complex.) i think he resembles jack in that way; anyone's a prospective sexual partner, if they're attractive and interesting and he decides he wants them, and he's also impulsive as hell, so he doesn't think too hard about gender in the moment if he decides he's into someone. there's not really any hang-ups.)

➤➤ and ofc...

(out of context this could look like he's just jokingly calling owen an alien-fucker, although owen makes his thoughts on alien-fucking pretty clear in countrycide lol, but it was said in the context of owen/andy as a ship [x].)

*if you're wondering what i'm referring to, it's a comment here [x] about how the torchwood team's bisexuality is a result of being in a pressure cooker environment and having a 'wartime mentality', and they just kind of 'take what they can get'. the implication that bisexuality is out of desperation/accessibility rather than attraction is pretty damn icky, BUT i love him lots and he generally seems to be pretty woke these days (+ otherwise has always seemed to grasp why torchwood's rep was so unique and groundbreaking and important) so i'll go ahead and hope that was just, y'know, simple 'being a straight guy in 2008' ignorance. fifteen years is a long time and i have faith his opinions have evolved by now, esp considering he used the word 'pansexual' at a 2016 con [x]. (actually, ok, you caught me, that last bit wasn't super relevant and i didn't need to bring it up, but i just wanted to gush about him doing it because how often do you hear that word out of celebs, especially older and presumably straight ones. and in 2016, too. kinda slay of him, ngl)

aaand finally, some random, non-explicit little things that i think support him being a bisexy king (several of these are goofy and half-serious)

➤➤ in episode 2, they make a point to cut to owen smiling after jack's line about "you people and your quaint little labels". one might argue he's smiling at gwen & carys on the screen, but cutting to him immediately after jack says it very much implies he's reacting to jack's words, and i think it's particularly poignant after, again, we saw him kiss a man the episode prior. (which, another thing - owen's literal introduction features him kissing a man, like that's gotta count for something. if the literal third thing i ever see a male character do ever is kiss a guy, that means something.)

➤➤ and of course, in the same episode, we get "period military is not the dress code of a straight man" .... owen's the only one of them with working gaydar. also what a fruity thing to say

➤➤ speaking of fruity things to say, in s2e10 when they're all watching the old film, owen goes "look at the state of them 💅" and he says it SO cunty for no reason it always kills me fhsdkjfd

➤➤ combat.

➤➤ no, really.

➤➤ bonus: in the combat commentary, it's mentioned that when RTD saw the above scene between mark & owen, he said it was "the gayest thing he'd ever seen".

➤➤ in the three monkeys, a big finish audio featuring owen & andy, owen flirts with andy repeatedly. even if he just does it to be annoying, it's still pretty damn gay. also the pet names... (he calls him sweetheart, sunshine, and tiger. it's half-mocking, sure, especially because it's owen, but there's also a domesticity to it.)

➤➤ and then there's the hope's "you're alive again and you want crisps?!" "be glad that's all i'm asking for" (owen was like 'i will not use this as an excuse to try to sleep w andy i will not use this as an excuse to try to sleep w andy i will not use th') these are the only two audios i've heard with this duo, i'm sure there's more examples in the other two. i know gooseberry literally has owen sabotaging andy's relationship with his gf and that is... woohoohoo.... i'll update this once i get through those.

➤➤ …. this is my personal opinion but i lowkey think he kinda wants john hart a bit when they all first meet him in kkbb hdskjfds. gwen & tosh both seem very charmed by him and they're meant to, it's supposed to be like 'oh, look at jack's ex waltzing in and charming the pants off everyone (ha), and only ianto and jack see through him' - owen isn't given a flirty line of dialogue or even a close-up shot of him eyeing john like the girls get, but if you watch him closely he certainly looks… intrigued by him. i think owen's more of a bi disaster than he lets on.

➤➤ in episode 10, diane notes that owen has "beauty products" in his bathroom. obviously this shouldn't be indicative of sexuality, but how many Straight Men in 2006 were moisturizing lmao. hell, how many do nowadays 😭

➤➤ gwen & owen's dynamic settles into a lovely little friendship in s2 and owen lowkey gives gbf vibes <3 them making fun of the movie in s2e10 together + the cheek-kissing at the end of s2e9… bi besties!!

➤➤ the peace sign he throws up in meat when he meets rhys fdsjk i don't even believe in some of the silly internet jokes abt bi culture but c'mon

➤➤ have you seen his taste in women. diane is soo butch and gwen's a total tomboy in s1. that's bi culture babey!!!! i too like girls when they're boys

➤➤ i already talked about it but the aforementioned scene where he asks tosh and ianto for a threesome... he asks them, like, immediately after they team up and bully him for not comprehending that there's "no phones. phones all broken. anyone there? no, 'cause the phones aren't working." that was suuuch a disaster bi owen moment for me. i too would get a little revved up if tosh and ianto both bullied me at once <3

aaand finally... the biggest Evidence of all....

➤➤ he's a leather jacket bisexual. need i say more

and that's all! thanks for reading!

[credit for the dividers used in this. didn't tumblr used to have built-in dividers? i miss that.]

[collectionoftulips]

Thoughts following the most recent episode of The Way Home

There's probably maybe like one other person on here or maybe a few who watch The Way Home and if so, hi!!, and secondly, I hope my regulars will excuse me for talking about another show for a minute. (For those who haven't seen it - I really recommend giving it a watch!) Basically - I've had some thoughts swirling around my head since the latest episode (this is mainly about some of my changing thoughts on who I ship on the show):

(Spoilers for 2x08 of The Way Home and it's mostly Kat-centric thoughts)

In some ways, my thoughts can be summarised by two points and I will make the case for them below: I feel like I have outgrown Elliot/Kat the way they are currently being written and I'm pretty heavily going on the Kat/Thomas ship.

If someone had told me at the end of season one, that I would be finding myself torn between Elliot/Kat and a new ship, I would have said that they are bananas. But after thinking about it some, at least the way the ship is being currently written, I'm not the fan I once was - and I don't think it's entirely because I'm 'intended' to have those feelings at this point of the show.

I really appreciate how this season has really given Elliot more space to grow as an independent character outside of his romantic relationship with Kat, but I think by giving him that space, the show inadvertently, or perhaps too successfully, made a case for why they are not right for each other at this very moment in time. The fundamental issue, to me, is that Elliot has spent so much of his childhood idealising Kat and he has in some ways put her on a pedestal. He knows her, but the way he knows her is so intimately wrapped up in his feelings towards her and that coupled with the weight of their past together, makes it an increasingly less attractive ship because of a few reasons:

a) he knows her very well but it's going to be very difficult disentangle the reality from the fantasy he has grown up with in his head (and being friends with someone is very different from being in a romantic relationship with them) b) she's been put on this pedestal that the only way she can change in his eyes is by disappointing him; she's already got this aura of 'endgame' status in his head c) it's very difficult to see where they get room to grow in a way that allows them both the character growth they both need/deserve, especially given the amount of trauma that especially Kat is going through (Elliot has also been through stuff, but that's mainly in the past that we partly get to see or it's off-screen in the past).

Additionally, seeing Kat going back to the 1812 has really highlighted some aspects of her characterisation that were previously not as prominent; she's spent most of her life blaming herself for Jacob's disappearance and now that she is on the precipice of finding him, she's displaying really a lack of self-preservation and desperation (to the point where she even forgets Alice and Thomas has to literally remind her that she has people depending on her and obviously there's the subtext that he might have feelings for her that I'm now very here for). These things make total sense for Kat as a character, but I don't think any of the people back in her time fully realise the extent of that self-destructive tendency (we also saw a less Jacob-related instance of this in the most recent episode with Kat's idea to go to London and leave Brady, but Elliot was too busy to be all 'this is my shot!' to really notice).

My growing hypothesis since 2x07 is that a lot of Kat's interactions with Thomas is fundamentally fuelled by Thomas' acknowledgement and frustration with Kat's lack of self-preservation (a skill he himself had to learn growing up in the time he is from), a tendency which is also amplified by the fact that Kat is from a different time and doesn't really have the same kind of sense about the scale of danger around certain tasks. I'm might be reading into it, but I was thinking about what was going on during their superdramatic beach scene, when he picks her up and it looks for a moment like he is about to wade out to sea with her. On the surface, of course, Kat's terrified that Jacob might die and also a fear and frustration that she does not know her brother, that even if he survives it might not matter because he might not remember her, that he has grown so much from the little boy that she knew that the fact that she found him might matter very little.

But I was wondering a little about Thomas' reaction regarding that whole scene. He's of course frustrated that she doesn't seem to have much understanding of the extent to which the world that they inhabit is not one that is forgiving or allows one to stay on any kind of moral high ground, but I also thought that probably from his perspective, he's probably getting quite frustrated with Kat. This is a woman who seems to have absolutely no self-preservation, and while he has recently learned that she is a time traveller, that lack of self-preservation runs much deeper than just being ignorant of the time period. She is a woman he clearly deeply respects and admires and has growing feelings for but that regard is seemingly not one she has of herself, and it has to be pretty frustrating for him to see someone whose strength he admires seemingly not respect herself or have such little regard for her own wellbeing. Which is why I think he reacted the way he did, trying to snap her out of the emotional spiral she was going down when she was in a panic trying to grasp at anything to soothe the sense of crisis that was exploding inside her.

In these ways, I sort of feel like the show has propped Thomas up to be the opposite of Elliot; this is not a man who has been in love with Kat Landry a really long time, but one that only recently realised it, and where Elliot sees this idealised 'prize' version of Kat (informed by his childhood), Thomas sees all of Kat's 'flaws' and all of the 'cracks' that she conceals from people in her regular life, and loves appreciates her for those qualities.

While obviously the extent to which they have any future depends on what the writers have decided to do for season two (and for season three), and it is looking pretty bleak, I like the path forward for Kat/Thomas more, as there is more ground to cover there and I think it would be a very different dynamic that I would find refreshing. Hence me going a bit cold on Elliot and Kat (despite that kiss in the most recent episode which felt like the most shoehorned thing ever that had extremely poor build up but that's a rant for a different post) and am now leaning towards the potentially doomed ship of Thomas/Kat.

I don't know if this made any sense, and I'm not sure if anyone is interested in my thoughts on this but it's either ranting about it here or at some point writing fic, so I decided for the former for the time being.

[we-will-be-reun1ted]

aether did wHAT

I did not know he put the flowers in her hair while she slept!!! :0000

Also i think the only things so far that i've seen that would indicate the travellers emotional strain from being separated is Dain (and i think Paimon too?) asking if the traveller was crying in their sleep because they dreamt of their sibling again; Traveller losing their patience by the time they got to Inazuma and just wanting to get things done as fast as possible to move onto the next nation; Traveller not even bothering to ask about their sibling anymore when they got to Nahida, only to be surprised by Nahida actually giving them information, and then asking about their sibling again in Fontaine; Traveller opening up to Venti in the teapot, saying they're tired; Voiceover where Traveller tells Paimon they've had nightmares of their twin leaving and saying they're too late; Nightmare hallucination thing of abyss lector telling Traveller that the abyss twin has abandoned them and no longer sees them as family (sumeru archon quest); And

this is just how i personally interpreted it: Traveller getting angry at Lyney for actively lying to them when they were supposed to defend him in court, because Lyney could've gone to jail and possibly be separated from Lynette.

Aether/Lumine are shown to be pretty secretive about their nature and actually keep a lot of things to themselves. Even actively keeping secrets from the people around them (shown most obviously during the Sumeru archon quest), To the point it's even implied they lie about their identities ("name your character" in the beginning of the game. Where in text that's how you get referred to as during the game, yet the abyss twin ends up calling the playable twin by Name™ instead of whatever name you chose in when you started playing).

So i'm not too surprised we haven't had many instances where Traveller talks about their sibling to other people, but yeah it does suck just how forgotten both the Abyss and Traveller twin end up in the game. (To the point a scary amount of players still think the Traveller is a self-insert, and don't know that Traveller has the most Voiceovers out of all the playable characters)

I could be wishful thinking and my mind playing tricks on me but I’m pretty sure that was mentioned??? If it’s not then bang there’s another one of my headcanons there you go.

Okay I haven’t gotten around to all of that yet but GOD WHENEVER THE TWIN GETS BROUGHT UP I think about it for absolutely she’s afterwards I’m not even joking. I’m really early in the Sumeru quest and actually only did the hallucination abyss mage one around two days ago and istg when he said about Aether not seeing Lumine as family anymore.

That would 100% fuck Lumine up for a while afterwards. No doubt about it. It would be playing on her mind over and over even though she knows it was only a hallucination.

Honestly I can’t really mention much since I’m not that far in the game yet but all of that does make a lot of sense. I would imagine they wouldn’t want everyone to know all about their lives and past since they aren’t planning on staying in Teyvat.

I makes me so upset when I see people completely ignoring the twins. I saw this one Twitter thread saying something like “it’s good that the story isn’t focusing on the twins as much anymore” and like??? No??? They are the WHOLE reason we are in Teyvat in the first place?? You can’t really have a story without the twins since the traveler entire reason behind doing what they are doing is to find their sibling. They wouldn’t be in any of the situations that they are in if they had their sibling with them.

[haberdashing]

What's the prepper mindset for? Like. Should we be worried and if so then what should we be worried about? (saw the book post and that you mentioned 'prepper mindset' which makes me think of those survivalist ppl in usamerican reality shows who live in the middle of nowhere and hoard food? cuz that's only where I've seen it and even then I dont fully get it tho)

I mean, there's a lot of definitions of "prepper" out there, and those shows definitely show one possibility there. Gun nuts who hoard weapons are, unfortunately, another. But neither of those is quite what I'm going for myself...

For me personally, it's sort of a general desire to be prepared for emergencies. Most likely natural disasters, possibly terrorism or a civil war or some such.

The goal: have basic supplies at hand (food's a big one, and water, batteries/power packs, flashlights, extra clothes, some other basic tools, I'm not too concerned with weapons myself), know where they are, know how to use them.

Things like going off-grid or being able to live in the wilderness are part of some preppers' goals, but not mine. And I'm not terribly concerned about the end of civilization as we know it, either. I'm not trying to live in fear--I have an anxiety disorder, I don't need any extra fear there, lol.

But if you have the time, money, and energy for it--which I fortunately do--it doesn't hurt to get a little bit extra together just in case you end up being unlucky and have to deal with, say, a blizzard that knocks out your power, or a wildfire that's heading towards your house, or possibly some sort of terrorist attack or riot but those really are less likely than the above, especially for usamericans like myself.

Obviously those odds do shift based on location. Here in Chicago, I don't really have to be prepared for a hurricane, and earthquakes and volcanoes would also have to be something big and rare (New Madrid fault acting up again or Yellowstone megavolcano blowing, respectively). If I were in Florida, hurricane preparedness would be more important, but I could ditch blizzard supplies. And get outside the US and those odds might shift further--if you're in Ukraine, for instance, stuff for war and physical combat might well be one of the major concerns to prepare for.

Really, much of what I get is either just more of the stuff I'd use anyway (ex. I use battery packs for my phone regularly enough anyway, but instead of just having one or two, I have several as back-ups) or little things that might be handy to have even in a non-emergency situation and aren't difficult to buy or store just in case (ex. paper clips, rubber bands, safety pins... I might not have a specific plan for them but they're good to have on hand).

And I know the post you mentioned, and while it's not traditional prepper stuff, I do think that reading material, whether physical or electronic, is a good thing to have on hand just in case as well. A bit to learn new stuff, but mostly to stave off the boredom. ADHD brain wants options for how to spend time if the Internet goes down, and books and ebooks are a good solution there.

[lol-jackles]

There's quite a few hellers out there claiming Jensen Ackles had his agent with him over this recent con. Why would any agent accompany an actor to a convention? Thoughts?

Not this anon and I don't know about "quite a few hellers" (but I also have a lot of them blocked because they are generally insufferable) but the only instance I did see of this being mentioned (and then people talking about that ask - not anyone saying they heard the same thing, just rehashing that post) was from an anon ask on an anti-Jared/heller blog, and not just any one, the one who admitted they didn't watch the show and only joined the fandom because they love starting drama - cynifer.

Their first ask was this one saying Jensen was supposed to vaca with Jared and Clif in Sweden (between PurCon in Germany and DarkLight in Paris) but had to "go home for work". Then they sent in another to clarify why they were the only one who seemed to have heard this info (no one could corroborate so they now claim it wasn't from a panel or M&G but from their autos... somehow still no one overheard that convo though 🤔) and then added that Jensen had his agent with him "at autos and throughout the con":

https://www.tumblr.com/cynifer/751832974078754816/

https://www.tumblr.com/cynifer/751842970226081792/

The thing is, it doesn't even make any sense that Jensen would have to "go home for work" in between overseas conventions. He was in Germany one weekend and due in Paris the following weekend, what could he need to do for work that couldn't have been done over zoom? Filming is the only thing I can think of but even then with flight lengths to fly from Germany to the US and then back to France he would only be able to be in the US to work for 2 maybe 3 days tops. It just isn't logical. And what would his agent have to do with that anyways? Agents don't generally accompany their clients to each job and certainly not overseas cons. And if the agent was needed for whatever "work" this anon is claiming they could and probably would just meet Jensen wherever he flew to in the US instead of going with him to Germany for 2 days just to fly right back with him to the US.

Obviously you have different insights into this, but from my point of view it sounds like this anon is trying to prove a couple things - that Jensen is "booked and busy" and also that he would rather do anything but spend time with Jared. Especially given the blog they sent that "info" to. If you only share your super sekret Jensen personal info with a very well known Jared anti blog?? Yea, I'm going to be supppppeeeer skeptical.

Huh, I'm apparently blocked by Cynifer. How did that happen? I've never heard of her.

Regardless, going by your description, yeah the whole thing sounds like self-soothing fanfiction that the person misheard or misunderstood during the autograph session. I'm guessing German cons are run similar to American ones where it's quick and you only have a few seconds to interact with the celebrity.

Jensen in the same convention as Jared is of course going to drive hellers into over drive to find any implausible ways to separate the two. J2 tinhatters are similar, they'll find a way to get those two together if one is not at the con, especially when Jared had personal crisis that forced him to withdraw from conventions and somehow Jensen will fly to the U.S between international cons one week apart just to check in on him.

Sounds like Hellers use Cynifer as an outlet for their self-soothing fanfictions because as you said, she is ignorant and just accepts everything the hellers throw against the wall. Even BNF hellers have to abide with certain standards or reality in order to keep their cred, like Will (of Team Free Will 2.0) hunting down sources. I've seen past BNF hellers stand up for some of Sam Winchester's choices because they had to acknowledge real life phycological sources and not just the sake of personal agendas. But Cynifer lets hellers have their full fantasy, no question asked.

Anyways, you are correct, there is no reason or purpose for Jensen's talent agent to travel with him all the way to a fan convention in Germany. Doesn't make any sense. If Jensen is doing a commercial in Germany, he still doesn't need his agent for that.

An agent typically has about 50 clients. They are constantly making contacts and building relationships with journalists, TV bookers, radio pluggers, and brand marketers.  Meeting celebrities is actually the least useful part of their job because it’s not going to get the clients work.  Remember kids, don’t become an agent or publicist to meet celebrities because they’re not the ones going to help your clients' careers. 

[animehouse-moe]

Hi! If you can I would love to hear your thoughts on chapter 236 of the JJK manga

First of all, very cool to see a Gokurakugai pfp! Secondly, man this is a very fun question to answer. So broad and open that there's so much I want to talk about. Obviously spoilers for people that haven't read the chapter yet so be warned about reading further.

Okay, so interesting stuff, lots and lots of interesting stuff. First of all, I think Gojo getting (potentially) off-screened is incredibly hilarious. Yes, I'm a diehard Gojo fan, but before that I'm a Gege fan. The idea of the "The Strongest" not even getting a death that's shown to viewers is just so damn great that it's funny to me.

Following that up though, I love how far they're digging into Sukuna now. The torch of "the strongest" is being passed to Sukuna, and with it he has to carry the burden of that isolation. It's a feeling that characters like Gojo can really relate to, and I think it's great to see Gege explore that.

Now, I'll skip over all the ideas of reading into the "dream/death" sequence since it's been done to death in regards to the concept of rebirth and enlightenment, but I will say this. I've had friends say it and I've seen other people express it as well. Confusion as to why everyone's young in the flashback.

It's a valid question, and I think there's quite a few answers. Nanamin's answer is one of them, and it's where my response stems from. This time in their lives, the trip to Okinawa, the days of Jujutsu High filled with excitement and happiness. It's something that they all missed. In their minds, those days were the days they were their ideal selves. Haibara and Geto remain the same for obvious reasons, but Nanamin and Gojo revert back because of that. They lost the people most important to them back then, and it's no lie to say that in both cases Itadori was what filled that hole. Gojo's comment about getting Geto to pat him on the back, and Nanamin's relationship with Itadori in general are the vestiges of that past. Anyways, where was I. Right, regression to the ideal. The whole reason they appear like that is because it's before all of that trauma, before all of the terrible things they've had to face in their life.

In a way, it's both fitting and unfitting. It's really interesting how Gege works in that regard, as Nanami and Gojo's paths have been largely similar in my eyes. Not so much in the details, but the broad paths they trace in terms of satisfaction in their lives. The most unfitting part though is Gojo being young in the flashback. I feel like if Gojo is to truly die, that we'll see him once more at his current age in this dream sequence. But I don't feel like that's going to happen. I'm pretty comfortably in the camp of "Gojo survives" and for a few reasons.

Firstly, Sukuna. Yes, Sukuna's "reality slash" fodderized Gojo but there's more to it than that. It is still an extension of one of two techniques, of which the chapter leans towards "cleave". Mostly because Sukuna confirms that the initial target was Gojo, but that the attack expands past him. Dismantle is typically used for inanimate objects while cleave is used on cursed spirits or other living things.

This part is a pretty wild idea on my part, but bear with me. Sukuna is a stupidly prideful sorcerer, do you really think that he would let Mahoraga deal the final blow to Gojo Satoru? I don't believe so, so it presents a contradiction. Sukuna's fanaticism with threes. In the prior two fights decided by cleave, Sukuna has obsessed over the number.

The first instance is against a finger bearer in chapter 8.

And the second time we see him kill using cleave is vs Ishigori in chapter 216. Where he states that he was aiming for 3 slices on the first failed attempt before delivering on the next.

So why now, why of all fights would Sukuna not only not deal the final blow himself, but do it in such a half assed manner? It's not a real kill, that's why.

Let me use the Ishigori example once more. Sukuna attempts a simple slash against Ishigori before getting a read on his ability. Realizing that his "simple" cleave did not kill him, he could form the conjecture that Ishigori is a high level sorcerer, one that could possibly use reverse cursed technique to heal himself. Because of that, he goes after the head so that Ishigori has no possible way of healing. Something that he doesn't do against Gojo. The questions continue to pile up in regards to Sukuna's conduct. He uses Megumi's technique as well as dismantle and cleave, but not the unknown technique he used against Jogo. Of course, it was for the act of embarrassment, but that's something that Sukuna would endeavor to do with Gojo anyways.

There's just too many pieces that contradict Sukuna's behavior through this chapter, and a lot of it does stem from the fact that content was passed over (for the time being). Sukuna still hasn't healed back his hand from the prior chapter. The act of cleave is denoted by an attempt at threes, but in this example it's one. There's a lot of oddities that point to something more going on with the chapter.

But because of that there's also so much potential. I think most people share in the opinion that while Kashimo's fighting Sukuna, the goal will to be to find a way to help save/revive Gojo.

There's three characters that we know of in the group that can use RCT: Hakari, Shoko, and Yuta. Kusakabe's a wildcard due to his grade 1 status without a cursed technique, but it's not likely. Anyways, the idea I've chatted about at end is that Hakari joins Kashimo out on the battlefield to stall using his domain expansion. It's a guaranteed four minutes and eleven seconds of unkillable (as far as we know) time, so long as he hits. During that, Yuta and Shoko will attempt to secure Gojo and use RCT to bring him back. But that's just one part of the puzzle, I'm very curious to see how the rest of it goes that Kashimo's chomping at the bit.

Overall, as a shock and awe chapter it's borderline perfect. It gives readers an intense feeling of despair, just the right amount for them to dig incredibly deep into the content of the chapter. To find all the odd pieces, to discover the incongruencies and ideas that don't quite sit right. I'm definitely not perfect with my ideas, but at the end of it all Gege's goal was to get everyone's brains into overdrive, trying to figure out what they'll do next. So while I may be in the fetal position thinking about Gojo being dead, I'm still incredibly excited to see where Gege goes with this potential.

[tanadrin]

@intimate-mirror

a lot of the scholarship, like a lot of english department scholarship in general, is really bad and makes stupid assumptions @tanadrin some things I've seen are 1. criterion of embarrassment used effectively in a negative way where all claims that are not embarrassing are labeled as probably false 2. "these are written in different styles, so they have to have different authors" I'm exaggerating a bit, but only a bit.

point 2 here is a drastic oversimplification of the documentary hypothesis. it's not just that the different sources use different words for god (although that on its own is interesting), it's that you can separate these sources, and get distinct stories with their own beginnings, middles, and ends that don't have the problems of the original texts (confused details, repeated episodes, out-of-context scenes), and their own governing thematic concerns. moreover, there are pretty specific hypotheses for why the sources would have been combined in the way they are, based on the material constraints on the production of ancient scrolls.

liane feldman, for instance, has a complete translation of P ("The Consuming Fire: The Complete Priestly Source from Creation to the Promised Land") and in her interview with dan mcclellan on his podcast she talks about how it is effectively a complete text. now, obviously, there are details of the documentary hypothesis that are debated--i think the traditional four-source version is considered out of date by some scholars, who instead argue for two or three sources onto which other elements gradually accreted that were never a standalone text themselves--but the scholarship is way more sophisticated than "these passages are in a slightly different style, and therefore they must have different authors." these are theories that produce pretty specific and coherent claims, and even if they're by and large not testable in the sense we have very ancient sources we can consult directly (outside of the occasional find like the Dead Sea Scrolls), they're testable in the sense that you can marshal specific points of evidence for and against them and make reasonable judgements based on the balance of probability.

a lot of points of textual criticism do dovetail with other disciplines like archeology, comparative mythology, historical linguistics, etc. so i think it's either disingenuous or ignorant to paint textual criticism as operating in a kind of methodological vacuum and proceeding entirely on nebulous suppositions.