#not out of some moral principle but just out of practicality

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

*

[mostlysignssomeportents]

They were warned

Picks and Shovels is a new, standalone technothriller starring Marty Hench, my two-fisted, hard-fighting, tech-scam-busting forensic accountant. You can pre-order it on my latest Kickstarter, which features a brilliant audiobook read by Wil Wheaton.

Truth is provisional! Sometimes, the things we understand to be true about the world change, and stuff we've "always done" has to change, too. There comes a day when the evidence against using radium suppositories is overwhelming, and then you really must dig that radium out of your colon and safely dispose of it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/19/just-stop-putting-that-up-your-ass/#harm-reduction

So it's natural and right that in the world, there will be people who want to revisit the received wisdom and best practices for how we live our lives, regulate our economy, and organize our society. But not a license to simply throw out the systems we rely on. Sure, maybe they're outdated or unnecessary, but maybe not. That's where "Chesterton's Fence" comes in:

Let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence

In other words, it's not enough to say, "This principle gets in the way of something I want to do, so let's throw it out because I'm pretty sure the inconvenience I'm experiencing is worse than the consequences of doing away with this principle." You need to have a theory of how you will prevent the harms the principle protects us from once you tear it down. That theory can be "the harms are imaginary" so it doesn't matter. Like, if you get rid of all the measures that defend us from hexes placed by evil witches, it's OK to say, "This is safe because evil witches aren't real and neither are hexes."

But you'd better be sure! After all, some preventative measures work so well that no living person has experienced the harms they guard us against. It's easy to mistake these for imaginary or exaggerated. Think of the antivaxers who are ideologically committed to a world in which human beings do not have a shared destiny, meaning that no one has a moral claim over the choices you make. Motivated reasoning lets those people rationalize their way into imagining that measles – a deadly and ferociously contagious disease that was a scourge for millennia until we all but extinguished it – was no big deal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles:_A_Dangerous_Illness

There's nothing wrong with asking whether longstanding health measures need to be carried on, or whether they can be sunset. But antivaxers' sloppy, reckless reasoning about contagious disease is inexcusable. They were warned, repeatedly, about the mass death and widespread lifelong disability that would follow from their pursuit of an ideological commitment to living as though their decisions have no effect on others. They pressed ahead anyway, inventing ever-more fanciful reasons why health is a purely private matter, and why "public health" was either a myth or a Communist conspiracy:

https://www.conspirituality.net/episodes/brief-vinay-prasad-pick-me-campaign

When RFK Jr kills your kids with measles or permanently disables them with polio, he doesn't get to say "I was just inquiring as to the efficacy of a longstanding measure, as is right and proper." He was told why the vaccine fence was there, and he came up with objectively very stupid reasons why that didn't matter, and then he killed your kids. He was warned.

Fuck that guy.

Or take Bill Clinton. From 1933 until 1999, American banks were regulated under the Glass-Steagall Act, which "structurally separated" them. Under structural separation, a "retail bank" – the bank that holds your savings and mortgage and provides you with a checkbook – could not be "investment bank." That meant it couldn't own or invest in businesses that competed with the businesses its depositors and borrowers ran. It couldn't get into other lines of business, either, like insurance underwriting.

Glass-Steagall was a fence that stood between retail banks and the casino economy. It was there for a fucking great reason: the failure to structurally separate banks allowed them to act like casinos, inflating a giant market bubble that popped on Black Friday in October 1929, kicking off the Great Depression. Congress built the structural separation fence to keep banks from doing it again.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton agitated for getting rid of Glass-Steagall. He argued that new economic controls would allow the government to prevent another giant bubble and crash. This time, the banks would behave themselves. After all, hadn't they demonstrated their prudence for seven decades?

In fact, they hadn't. Every time banks figured out how to slip out of regulatory constraints they inflated another huge bubble, leading to another massive crash that made the rich obscenely richer and destroyed ordinary savers' lives. Clinton took office just as one of these finance-sector bombs – the S&L Crisis – was detonating. Clinton had no basis – apart from wishful thinking – to believe that deregulating banks would lead to anything but another gigantic crash.

But Clinton let his self interest – in presiding over a sugar-high economic expansion driven by deregulation – overrule his prudence (about the crash that would follow). Sure enough, in the last months of Clinton's presidency, the stock market imploded with the March 2000 dot-bomb. And because Congress learned nothing from the dot-com crash and declined to restore the Glass-Steagall fence, the crash led to another bubble, this time in subprime mortgages, and then, inevitably, we suffered the Great Financial Crisis.

Look: there's no virtue in having bank regulations for the sake of having them. It is conceptually possible for bank regulations to be useless or even harmful. There's nothing wrong with investigating whether the 70-year old Glass-Steagall Act was still needed in 1999. But Clinton was provided with a mountain of evidence about why Glass-Steagall was the only thing standing between Americans and economic chaos, including the evidence of the S&L Crisis, which was still underway when he took office, and he ignored all of them. If you lost everything – your home, your savings, your pension – in the dot-bomb or the Great Financial Crisis, Bill Clinton is to blame. He was warned. he ignored the warnings.

Fuck that guy.

No, seriously, fuck Bill Clinton. Deregulating banks wasn't Clinton's only passion. He also wanted to ban working cryptography. The cornerstone of Clinton's tech policy was the "Clipper Chip," a backdoored encryption chip that, by law, every technology was supposed to use. If Clipper had gone into effect, then cops, spooks, and anyone who could suborn, bribe, or trick a cop or a spook could break into any computer, server, mobile device, or embedded system in America.

When Clinton was told – over and over, in small, easy-to-understand words – that there was no way to make a security system that only worked when "bad guys" tried to break into it, but collapsed immediately if a "good guy" wanted to bypass it. We explained to him – oh, how we explained to him! – that working encryption would be all that stood between your pacemaker's firmware and a malicious update that killed you where you stood; all that stood between your antilock brakes' firmware and a malicious update that sent you careening off a cliff; all that stood between businesses and corporate espionage, all that stood between America and foreign state adversaries wanting to learn its secrets.

In response, Clinton said the same thing that all of his successors in the Crypto Wars have said: NERD HARDER! Just figure it out. Cops need to look at bad guys' phones, so you need to figure out how to make encryption that keeps teenagers safe from sextortionists, but melts away the second a cop tries to unlock a suspect's phone. Take Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian Prime Minister. When he was told that the laws of mathematics dictated that it was impossible to build selectively effective encryption of the sort he was demanding, he replied, "The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia":

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-end-end-encryption-ban-says-laws-mathematics-dont-apply-down

Fuck that guy. Fuck Bill Clinton. Fuck a succession of UK Prime Ministers who have repeatedly attempted to ban working encryption. Fuck 'em all. The stakes here are obscenely high. They have been warned, and all they say in response is "NERD HARDER!"

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/05/theyre-still-trying-to-ban-cryptography/

Now, of course, "crypto means cryptography," but the other crypto – cryptocurrency – deserves a look-in here. Cryptocurrency proponents advocate for a system of deregulated money creation, AKA "wildcat currencies." They say, variously, that central banks are no longer needed; or that we never needed central banks to regulate the money supply. Let's take away that fence. Why not? It's not fit for purpose today, and maybe it never was.

Why do we have central banks? The Fed – which is far from a perfect institution and could use substantial reform or even replacement – was created because the age of wildcat currencies was a nightmare. Wildcat currencies created wild economic swings, massive booms and even bigger busts. Wildcat currencies are the reason that abandoned haunted mansions feature so heavily in the American imagination: American towns and cities were dotted with giant mansions built by financiers who'd grown rich as bubbles expanded, then lost it all after the crash.

Prudent management of the money supply didn't end those booms and busts, but it substantially dampened them, ending the so-called "business cycle" that once terrorized Americans, destroying their towns and livelihoods and wiping out their savings.

It shouldn't surprise us that a new wildcat money sector, flogging "decentralized" cryptocurrencies (that they are nevertheless weirdly anxious to swap for your gross, boring old "fiat" money) has created a series of massive booms and busts, with insiders getting richer and richer, and retail investors losing everything.

If there was ever any doubt about whether wildcat currencies could be made safe by putting them on a blockchain, it is gone. Wildcat currencies are as dangerous today as they were in the 18th and 19th century – only moreso, since this new bad paper relies on the endless consumption of whole rainforests' worth of carbon, endangering not just our economy, but also the habitability of the planet Earth.

And nevertheless, the Trump administration is promising a new crypto golden age (or, ahem, a Gilded Age). And there are plenty of Democrats who continue to throw in with the rotten, corrupt crypto industry, which flushed billions into the 2024 election to bring Trump to office. The result is absolutely going to be more massive bubbles and life-destroying implosions. Fuck those guys. They were warned, and they did it anyway.

Speaking of the climate emergency: greetings from smoky Los Angeles! My city's on fire. This was not an unforeseeable disaster. Malibu is the most on-fire place in the world:

https://longreads.com/2018/12/04/the-case-for-letting-malibu-burn/

Since 1919, the region has been managed on the basis of "total fire suppression." This policy continued long after science showed that this creates "fire debt" in the form of accumulated fuel. The longer you go between fires, the hotter and more destructive those fires become, and the relationship is nonlinear. A 50-year fire isn't 250% more intense than a 20-year fire: it's 50,000% more intense.

Despite this, California has invested peanuts in regular controlled burns, which has created biennial uncontrolled burns – wildfires that cost thousands of times more than any controlled burn.

Speaking of underinvestment: PG&E has spent decades extracting dividends for its investors and bonuses for its execs, while engaging in near-total neglect of maintenance of its high-voltage transmission lines. Even with normal winds, these lines routinely fall down and start blazes.

But we don't have normal winds. The climate emergency has been steadily worsening for decades. LA is just the latest place to be on fire, or under water, or under ice, or baking in wet bulb temperatures. Last week in southern California, we were warned to expect gusts of 120mph.

They were warned. #ExxonKnew: in the early 1970s, Exxon's own scientists warned them that fossil fuel consumption would kick off climate change so drastic that it would endanger human civilzation. Exxon responded by burying the reports and investing in climate denial:

https://exxonknew.org/

They were warned! Warned about fire debt. Warned about transmission lines. Warned about climate change. And specific, named people, who individually had the power to heed these warnings and stave off disaster, ignored the warnings. They didn't make honest mistakes, either: they ignored the warnings because doing so made them extraordinarily, disgustingly rich. They used this money to create dynastic fortunes, and have created entire lineages of ultra-wealthy princelings in $900,000 watches who owe it all to our suffering and impending dooml

Fuck those guys. Fuck 'em all.

We've had so many missed opportunities, chances to make good policy or at least not make bad policy. The enshitternet didn't happen on its own. It was the foreseeable result of choices – again, choices made by named individuals who became very wealthy by ignoring the warnings all around them.

Let's go back to Bill Clinton, because more than anyone else, Clinton presided over some terrible technology regulations. In 1998, Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a bill championed by Barney Frank (fuck that guy, too). Under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's a felony, punishable by a five year prison sentence, and a $500,000 fine, to tamper with a "digital lock."

That means that if HP uses a digital lock to prevent you from using third-party ink, it's a literal crime to bypass that lock. Which is why HP ink now costs $10,000/gallon, and why you print your shopping lists with colored water that costs more, ounce for ounce, than the sperm of a Kentucky Derby winner:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/30/life-finds-a-way/#ink-stained-wretches

Clinton was warned that DMCA 1201 would soon metastasize into every kind of device – not just the games consoles and DVD players where it was first used, but medical implants, tractors, cars, home appliances – anything you could put a microchip into (Jay Freeman calls this "felony contempt of business-model"):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

He ignored those warnings and signed the DMCA anyway (fuck that guy). Then, under Bush (fuck that guy), the US Trade Representative went all around the world demanding that America's trading partners adopt versions of this law (fuck that guy). In 2001, the European Parliament capitulated, enacting the EU Copyright Directive, whose Article 6 is a copy-paste of DMCA 1201 (fuck all those people).

Fast forward 20 years, and boy is there a lot of shit with microchips that can be boobytrapped with rent-extracting logic bombs that are illegal to research, describe, or disable.

Like choo-choo trains.

Last year, the Polish hacking group Dragon Sector was contacted by a public sector train company whose Newag trains kept going out of service. The operator suspected that Newag had boobytrapped the trains to punish the train company for getting its maintenance from a third-party contractor. When Dragon Sector investigated, they discovered that Newag had indeed riddled the trains' firmware with boobytraps. Trains that were taken to locations known to have third-party maintenance workshops were immediately bricked (hilariously, this bomb would detonate if trains just passed through stations near to these workshops, which is why another train company had to remove all the GPSes from its trains – they kept slamming to a halt when they approached a station near a third-party workshop). But Newag's logic bombs would brick trains for all kinds of reasons – merely keeping a train stationary for too many days would result in its being bricked. Installing a third-party component in a locomotive would also trigger a bomb, bricking the train.

In their talk at last year's Chaos Communications Congress, the Dragon Sector folks describe how they have been legally terrorized by Newag, which has repeatedly sued them for violating its "intellectual property" by revealing its sleazy, corrupt business practices. They also note that Newag continues to sell lots of trains in Poland, despite the widespread knowledge of its dirty business model, because public train operators are bound by procurement rules, and as long as Newag is the cheapest bidder, they get the contract:

https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-we-ve-not-been-trained-for-this-life-after-the-newag-drm-disclosure

The laws that let Newag make millions off a nakedly corrupt enterprise – and put the individuals who blew the whistle on it at risk of losing everything – were passed by Members of the European Parliament who were warned that this would happen, and they ignored those warnings, and now it's happening. Fuck those people, every one of 'em.

It's not just European parliamentarians who ignored warnings and did the bidding of the US Trade Representative, enacting laws that banned tampering with digital locks. In 2010, two Canadian Conservative Party ministers in the Stephen Harper government brought forward similar legislation. These ministers, Tony Clement (now a disgraced sex-pest and PPE grifter) and James Moore (today, a sleazeball white-shoe corporate lawyer), held a consultation on this proposal.

6, 138 people wrote in to say, "Don't do this, it will be hugely destructive." 54 respondents wrote in support of it. Clement and Moore threw out the 6,138 opposing comments. Moore explained why: these were the "babyish" responses of "radical extremists." The law passed in 2012.

Last year, the Canadian Parliament passed bills guaranteeing Canadians the Right to Repair and the right to interoperability. But Canadians can't act on either of these laws, because they would have to tamper with a digital lock to do so, and that's illegal, thanks to Tony Clement and James Moore. Who were warned. And who ignored those warnings. Fuck those guys:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/15/radical-extremists/#sex-pest

Back in the 1990s, Bill Clinton had a ton of proposals for regulating the internet, but nowhere among those proposals will you find a consumer privacy law. The last time an American president signed a consumer privacy law was 1988, when Reagan signed the Video Privacy Protection Act and ensured that Americans would never have to worry that video-store clerks where telling the newspapers what VHS cassettes they took home.

In the years since, Congress has enacted exactly zero consumer privacy laws. None. This has allowed the out-of-control, unregulated data broker sector to metastasize into a cancer on the American people. This is an industry that fuels stalkers, discriminatory financial and hiring algorithms, and an ad-tech sector that lets advertisers target categories like "teenagers with depression," "seniors with dementia" and "armed service personnel with gambling addictions."

When the people cry out for privacy protections, Congress – and the surveillance industry shills that fund them – say we don't need a privacy law. The market will solve this problem. People are selling their privacy willingly, and it would be an "undue interference in the market" if we took away your "freedom to contract" by barring companies from spying on you after you clicked the "I agree" button.

These people have been repeatedly warned about the severe dangers to the American public – as workers, as citizens, as community members, and as consumers – from the national privacy free-for-all, and have done nothing. Fuck them, every one:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

Now, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and not every one of Bill Clinton's internet policies was terrible. He had exactly one great policy, and, ironically, that's the one there's the most energy for dismantling. That policy is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (a law that was otherwise such a dumpster fire that the courts struck it down). Chances are, you have been systematically misled about the history, use, and language of Section 230, which is wild, because it's exactly 26 words long and fits in a single tweet:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Section 230 was passed because when companies were held liable for their users' speech, they "solved" this problem by just blocking every controversial thing a user said. Without Section 230, there would be no Black Lives Matter, no #MeToo – no online spaces where the powerful were held to account. Meanwhile, rich and powerful people would continue to enjoy online platforms where they and their bootlickers could pump out the most grotesque nonsense imaginable, either because they owned those platforms (ahem, Twitter and Truth Social) or because rich and powerful people can afford the professional advice needed to navigate the content-moderation bureaucracies of large systems.

We know exactly what the internet looks like when platforms are civilly liable for their users' speech: it's an internet where marginalized and powerless people are silenced, and where the people who've got a boot on their throats are the only voices you can hear:

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

The evidence for this isn't limited to the era of AOL and Prodigy. In 2018, Trump signed SESTA/FOSTA, a law that held platforms liable for "sex trafficking." Advocates for this law – like Ashton Kutcher, who campaigns against sexual assault unless it involves one of his friends, in which case he petitions the judge for leniency – were warned that it would be used to shut down all consensual sex work online, making sex workers's lives much more dangerous. This warnings were immediately borne out, and they have been repeatedly borne out every month since. Killing CDA 230 for sex work brought back pimping, exposed sex workers to grave threats to their personal safety, and made them much poorer:

https://decriminalizesex.work/advocacy/sesta-fosta/what-is-sesta-fosta/

It also pushed sex trafficking and other nonconsensual sex into privateforums that are much harder for law enforcement to monitor and intervene in, making it that much harder to catch sex traffickers:

https://cdt.org/insights/its-all-downsides-hybrid-fosta-sesta-hinders-law-enforcement-hurts-victims-and-speakers/

This is exactly what SESTA/FOSTA's advocates were warned of. They were warned. They did it anyway. Fuck those people.

Maybe you have a theory about how platforms can be held civilly liable for their users' speech without harming marginalized people in exactly the way that SESTA/FOSTA, it had better amount to more than "platforms are evil monopolists and CDA 230 makes their lives easier." Yes, they're evil monopolists. Yes, 230 makes their lives easier. But without 230, small forums – private message boards, Mastodon servers, Bluesky, etc – couldn't possibly operate.

There's a reason Mark Zuckerberg wants to kill CDA 230, and it's not because he wants to send Facebook to the digital graveyard. Zuck knows that FB can operate in a post-230 world by automating the deletion of all controversial speech, and he knows that small services that might "disrupt" Facebook's hegemony would be immediately extinguished by eliminating 230:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/zuckerberg-calls-changes-techs-section-230-protections-rcna486

It's depressing to see so many comrades in the fight against Big Tech getting suckered into carrying water for Zuck, demanding the eradication of CDA 230. Please, I beg you: look at the evidence for what happens when you remove that fence. Heed the warnings. Don't be like Bill Clinton, or California fire suppression officials, or James Moore and Tony Clement, or the European Parliament, or the US Trade Rep, or cryptocurrency freaks, or Malcolm Turnbull.

Or Ashton fucking Kutcher.

Because, you know, fuck those guys.

Check out my Kickstarter to pre-order copies of my next novel, Picks and Shovels!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/13/wanting-it-badly/#is-not-enough

[autolenaphilia]

The anti-kink moral crusade rests on a lot of transmisogynistic assumptions.

Of course it’s no surprise, since it rests on ideas from the moralizing arguments about bdsm made by radfems in the 70s. The only change is that they are being massively hypocritical and inconsistent about which kinks are bad now, as I pointed out before. Now it’s only certain kinks, like consensual non-consent and fauxcest, that are bad because they “fetishize abuse”, and not bdsm as whole, despite that being inarguably true about bdsm.

And that’s purely to broaden the appeal of such arguments, so that even self-described “leatherfags” can moralize about fauxcest. The morals and principles are frankly just “It’s okay if gay men call their boyfriends “daddy”, because I find that hot, but if a trans lesbian couples pretend to be sisters it’s evil.”

And you can’t really appropriate the radfem arguments about kink without taking their transmisogyny onboard, since they stem from the same transmisogynist bio-determinist root ideology. Janice Raymond in The Transsexual Empire explained trans women through a lens of pathological sadomasochism. Years before Blanchard’s autogynephilia concept, radfems have seen transfemininity and kink as the same thing.

The image of the trans woman painted by radfems then and now, is of privileged males appropriating the pain and suffering of real wombyn, and playacting this suffering for their own perverted sexual amusement. And that is the same image painted of trans women with incest and cnc kinks in modern callout posts. They just remove the explicitly terfy language to make it less obvious. Instead of making a mockery of misogyny in general, we are instead accused of mocking the experiences of the survivors of sexual abuse.

And that boils down to the same thing. Survivors of sexual assault are often as a group assumed to be afab. This ties into a specific transmisogynist discourse. It’s one that argues that afab children are more often sexually assaulted, and that trans women are not targeted by sexual violence pre-transition, and comes to the conclusion that this proves that trans women are male socialized and privileged. This is the fairly nasty transmisogynist undercurrent here.

And it’s proven when in discussions about the transmisogyny of callout culture, a common cliché line in response is that “clearly some people’s worst oppression is being told they are freaks for shipping incest.” This treats transfems as ultra-privileged and transmisogyny as not real at all.

Of course in reality, transfems are disproportionate targets of sexual violence even in childhood and pre-transition. And many survivors of childhood abuse have these problematic abuse-fetishizing kinks, and use it to deal with their trauma, including many of the kinky transfems being called out.

And even if no one involved in the sexual roleplay and fiction being criticized have trauma, the trauma of other non-involved people is not a good argument for its destruction. It’s a reasonable demand to ask for triggering material to be tagged properly so you can avoid it, it’s unreasonable to demand it shouldn’t exist.

Yet transfems are expected to accede to the latter demand. And I think this is because of what May Peterson calls transfeminized debt. It’s how we trans women in feminist circles are expected to be perfect women and perfect feminists to be acknowledged as women at all, instead of as monsters to be destroyed. Of course because nobody is perfect, this leads to every trans woman eventually being thought of as a monster.

We are treated as having to pay off the debt of male socialization/privilege to get basic human rights. And this in practice means conceding every disagreement with TME people, and agreeing to every demand they make of us. Or else we get the hot allostatic load treatment.

And that’s why kinky transfems are expected to fulfil the ridiculous demand from certain puritanical TME people that “I’m not involved in your kink, but I have trauma relating to it, so you can’t do it.” And are treated as evil monsters for not fulfilling it. It’s clearly transfeminized debt and transmisogyny, we are treated as privileged perverted monsters, inherently exempt from sexual violence. And that is used to justify sexual harassment, in the form of callout posts for our sex lives.

[transgenderer]

It's weird to me when people conceive of effective altruism as "utilitarian". Like. Obviously at a certain level of detail it becomes pretty utilitarian but the details are actually not very essential to either the theory or the practice. It's not specifically utilitarian to think it's morally better to give 10 children a potentially life saving malaria net than one child a toy, or whatever. It's just normal moral principles, it's the reason if you're handing out cookies you don't give 10 to one child and none to the others. There's not necessarily a calculational principle at play, just...budgeting. The same logic you use when operating under a limited budget ever, that for a fixed amount of money, some options are better than others

[brucewaynehater101]

Emperor Obi Wan Tim Kenobi has a different crown from each planet that is under his control, there are historians and fashion designers trying to figure out a singular imperial crown for Tim to wear everywhere in the empire instead of changing his shiny hat all the time in an attempt to be considerate and also because before Tim they were all trying to kill one another for the glory of their respective tyrants and a single crown for the united empire seems like a nice peace symbol. Prior to the C4 interfering, there was definitely a near genocide and all the planets are coexisting peacefully but that's mostly because they're all a little scared of one another and still healing from all the harm they inflicted on one another.

The problem with the singular imperial crown is that more planets keep joining and bring their own shiny hat for the emperor which makes the historians and fashion designers start all over again since it wouldn't be fair for the peace symbol/imperial crown to not include the newbies.

Any time one of the planets has rumblings of a rebellion wanting to overthrow the emperor because he's "soft" and making noise about returning to the bloodshed of the "good old days" they get very quietly nipped in the bud before their emperor gets any idea they existed. Tim has become a good luck charm and symbol of peace in the empire and they don't want to scare him off.

The lack of rebellions and general acceptance of his rule is, however, actually making Tim more paranoid rather than more comfortable. After all, he's used to Earth.

Earth is fucked, so I don't blame Tim at all. I wonder if Tim is scared that these planets are trying to hide their horrible history (as some powerful nations on Earth try to do with their actions).

Imma call Tim's hero name as Patron for this AU (feel free to hc a different one). Anyways, Patron is trying to find out what shit his newly acquired planets have done in the past, what sort of shit they may or may not be hiding, why absolutely no one is against his rule, and why there's been no rebellion. It's practically unheard of (especially on a human standard where some people disagree seemingly on principle) that there would be no dissent.

Is Tim helping them? Yes. Was he given the power instead of him taking it? Yes. Yet, there's also the fact that he's human. He (at the beginning) has no information on the culture, values, morals, traditions, etc. He doesn't know what's important to them. How can he thus lead them?

(Slight debate on the "lead" portion since he seems to be guiding them to self-sustainability rather than control them)

But you are absolutely correct that the zero dissent would freak Tim out. It should.

The idea about the crowns is adorable, though. I've got a somewhat simple idea for them, though. What if he had an elegant and simple design of some type of metal twisted on his head? Then, as decorations, little spheres of each planet is added. Whatever the planet looks like, it's added to the crown when Tim gains it. Just miniature planets that can easily be added or taken away based on how his empire changes over time.

It sadly doesn't have as strong of a tie as incorporating the essence of the planet into his crown, but it does allow each planet to be proudly displayed.

[yermes]

The worlds in the shitter, we are reclaiming our magic 🍷

↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟

Pick a meme

123

↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟

Disclaimer: please take what I say with a grain of salt and not as the gospel. I just want to share some ideas of practicing and giving advice using the medium as often as I can with school, work, and my own personal studies and practice. But I am working on sharing my notes soon so that will be exciting! Liking and sharing does a lot 🥰

↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟

Socials: My Socials **☾**

My written blog+ tumblr+ tarot /bookstagram

↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟

The cards

VIII of Cups ☕️

Well, time for some good old fashioned escapism?! Why do we read, pray, play video games, watch television, or live any of the other pleasures of life when the world has taken a turn? To escape. Its okay to turn off the news and to light the candles at 300am to summon demons for fun realistically, is it worst than whats happening now? (im joking) we are going through an era of overwhelming disappointment, we feel abandonment as the wealth gap grows and the people in power show their little care of the working class. Magic has always been a tool of the working class because divine principle values not of worldly possessions only that of the will to pursue higher knowledge. It is more likely for a camel to pass through an eye of the needle that a wealthy person reach heaven. The divine has no place for those who would sacrifice human goodness for material gains and so much material gains it subjects the people around them to misery. Magic for you is a tool for when we have nothing else we can rise in our own way.

Queen of Swords ☀️

This is forreal a new hot girl era. Like what most modern esoterica would state, apathy in the working is a virtue for when you lust for results you only manifest more lust for results. We must not wish for we can only take, we are building out independence as magicians and as people. Its the era to grow using our perception and criticism of the world around us, for a magician any act is to change, to make. When we realize the world around us has not changed the world has shifted far from progress so we must excite change ourselves, we must create the world and environment we can hope to live in. Being critical, learning of the world around you adds to your magic. Magic and science hold hands in a marriage they only add to each other and never take away. Be fair, learn, put in the effort to understand yourself, your skills, your own personal morals and values and be the change you were hoping for.

Queen of pents 🌙

What is the divine feminine? The divine feminine is dual, both a dark and commanding energy but it could also be nurturing. While we cannot reject the darker more divine aspects of the divine feminine and we embrace all parts as one I believe you should explore more nurturing aspects. Its important to note, that the divine feminine nurtures but never coddles. Lock in pookie, build your base, build your coin, save everything you can and build every skill you possibly can. We only add to ourselves we never take away. We comfort ourselves in our failures and successes. Welcome shadow work into your life to progress, do rituals to keep your intentions in check. Be aware of whats best for you and your current action at the moment, we are in the business of bettering ourselves for we can’t help anyone if we cannot help ourselves.

↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟

Extras:

Story/vent:

School starts next week

↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ↟ ⋆ ❅↟ ⋆ ❅↟

[pendwelling]

hi I had a question about a section of chapter 221 in twsb

When discussing the island of pleasure (where the admiral Emma corleone is) (not too sure about the accuracy of the names from mtl),

they talk about how things like polyandry polygamy are allowed there, and how they allow morally wrong things under the principle of free love.

most importantly, they say that monogamy is deeply rooted among continental people.

however, the history of Riester as a continental nation has the taking of multiple life partners with the practice of the Emperor taking a religious and a political partner.

anyway, I am confused as to why characters we generally align with morally (duhem) refer to things like polygamy (which also implies (i think?) a disapproval within Riester of polyamory as a whole) as morally incorrect with the blatant queer undertones of the main characters, as well as among side characters.

is the author trying to highlight the religious nature of Riester and the specific and at times contradictory nature of their religion or possibly religion in general? Marriage within religion (especially Christianity) is seen primarily a unity of people in god’s eyes. We saw yeseo officiate(?) someone taking a religious partner (I believe, it was a while back) and it was similar in nature, with asking for approval from the god of this world itself to be religious partners, with it giving them the thumbs up or down with the ceremony.

the largest difference with these two is that wasnt romantic in nature. So are the rules that as long as the partners aren’t romantic in nature, then the political/religious partnership is acceptable, and romantic marriage is only acceptable among two people? If these are true, what about her majesty for example? I genuinely cannot tell you whether her, Aurelie, and alexandre were all romantically or platonically involved, which think was on purpose on the author’s part. I believe that only alexandre and frederique were married, but once alexandre died, Aurelie became Cedric’s godmother, but was she as involved as a parental unit in Cedric’s life before alexandre died? Were the three of them raising him together his whole life, or was it mainly frederique and Alexandre until he died and aurelie became more present in Cedric’s life

idk man, is author trying to point out the potential conflict of the mcs’ mix of a queer platonic and (i think?) romantic relationship, especially among the judgemental nobles?

you don’t have to answer all the questions posed here btw!!

I know you probably can’t answer every question here (especially the ones about the authors motivation) I am just curious as to what your thoughts are about this as you are an expert with twsb lore/character, if you don’t feel like answering at all that’s also totally fine lmao okay I’ll stop yapping now

"You don't have to answer all the questions posed here" WHO DO YOU THINK I AM do not underestimate the sheer depths of my insanity over this novel (/J /LHHHH)

(On a more serious note now—) haha I will for sure do my best!!!!! You actually raise some very very interesting questions and that made me quite excited to think about because there are actually quite a bit of different factors to take into account here 👀 (intersectionality, if you will). Thank you for sending your question in 🙇‍♀️ I'll do my best to answer!

I would also like to preface this by warning you (and anyone else who might be reading) that my answer will at times require that I use context from way further into the novel, thus might spoil certain revelations and big mysteries (particularly regarding the nature of QPB and TWSB's religion!!!) In other words,

BIG SPOILER WARNING!! (200+, JUST THE ENTIRE NOVEL AND EVEN ENDING)

I'm not sure if you would have rathered a more spoiler-free answer, so I apologize in advance 😭 Apologies as well for any typos that might possible arise. This took a while to write LMAO

(With that said, we should first start with the world's religion!!!)

The Church of God is a religion practiced mainly in the Divine Kingdom of Venetiaan and the Riester Empire (though more so in the former rather than the latter). A huge aspect of this religion is how it sort of influences the behaviours of its believers, particularly around the main belief that if one lives their life in an interesting/exciting enough way and endures hardships, they will one day obtain the gaze/adoration of God, which is something that the beings of this word (at least, the ones who believe or fear God) will yearn for until the day they die [295]. A sort of greeting that believers even use is actually: "May the Lord be pleased with your life ('주신께서 당신의 생애에 기뻐하시기를.')" Later on as you read, it becomes increasingly obvious that the entity that is "God" would refer to either the author themselves, or the readers (in some ways, it is both). But in the larger case, the one the people of QPB yearn for the attention of actually that of the readers, thus, YOUR gaze—or rather, the ones who would be the target audience for a Romance-Fantasy genre story like "I Quit my Job, then I Became the Princess Bride" (QPB), (and then later on, "When the Third Wheel Strikes Back").

This is where it gets kinda(?) meta. Knowing that QPB is an All-Ages, G-Rated, non-explicit novel targeted primarily toward teenage girls and young women (think, Jung Eunseo), it's only natural that a country outside of the premise of QPB (Corleone) would be free from any expectations of said God(s), and thus, will act outside of the "genre". Therefore, what's being highlighted in an understated way is that a country like the Empire of Riester where the main cast of QPB primarily act will be constricted by the conventions of an R-15/G-Rated RoFan genre—but a place like Corleone can break free from the genre and be a full-on R-19+ and more explicit than it wants.

People openly show intimacy out in the open, gamble and play games on the streets, are more promiscuous(or maybe sexually liberated is the more correct term?) and freely flirt, casually dress sensually, and commit "crimes in the name of free love"—and crimes here refer to how, with Corleone being so open with how they regard love, their going-about with relationships and marriage is different, and could lead to people, say, as they put in 220: "kidnapped, proposed to, or forced into a (arranged) marriage" etc. Though notably, these extreme worries were directed towards Yeseo, whom no one in the party at that time believed would be able to fend off the love-enthusiastic people of Corleone (they pretty much indirectly call Yeseo somewhat of a doormat/someone who innocence/inexperience could easily get him roped into trouble... 😭). And on a grander scale beyond just the main characters, this all somehow manages to be played in a somewhat comedic light haha—even though Corleone is outside of God's gaze, it still has to stick to the overall more lighthearted genre in some way, right? If not QPB's, then TWSB's wkkwkkw (this surrealism/idealism, in some way, also has some meta merit to it, too, actually.)

So while Corleone's atmosphere may seem like a harsh and rowdy place, the culture there is just... how to say. Very enthusiastic and extreme about the idea of "romance". In a sense, it's almost as if, though this is a "land abandoned by God", the importance they place on the theatrics of Romance is interesting when considering how the original setting was a Romance story itself (though a different genre of one). I think I should also highlight how this arc takes influences from the Commedia dell'arte, whose conventional plotlines included themes of sex, love, jealousy, etc (amongst others). As such, the theatrics of Corleone—inspired by elements of Italian culture (like how Riester and Venetiaan have French and Dutch influences respectively)—maybe aren't that surprising. Looking back on the Italian Renaissance, we can note the abundance of works with increasing interest in lewd subjects, attributed in some way to the emerging secularization at the time. Boccaccio’s "The Decameron" is notably a rather anti-clerical, at times erotic, and witty work about different stories involving Love, and in the context of its time (following the emergence of the Black Death in Florence) would therefore be a document of an emerging worldview: a desire to be liberated from the control of the Church and eager to explore the world on its own terms (though, it did get banned by the Church for a while for its explicit nature LMAO)(but recirculated after being revised since it was so popular). Other Italian/Tuscan poets at the time were also finding enjoyment in writing funny, satirical, or even downright insulting poems, many of which also took on sensual subject matter, some more explicit than others. ((Just noticed I'm going on a tangent wkfhjdkd sorry for bringing up what I learnt in my Italian Renaissance class out of the blue haha, but I find that it is interestingly relevant to the portrayal of the Principality of Corleone and its theatrics/sensuality.))

SO CORLEONE. Italian Renaissance, Commedia dell'arte. Romance, Sensuality. Comedy, Theatre. Satire, Anti-clericalism... anti-clericalism within this context can refer to Corleone's rejection from God's gaze. The "genre" and "rating" Corleone is presenting is not what She wishes to see, thus, is "morally incorrect" in QPB's original worldview because it doesnt align with the larger genre expectations.

Anyhow, I had to reread this arc and some others, and from what I can remember and what I've seen in this reread, I don't think Marquis François Duhem ever calls out polygamy as a whole, specifically, for being "morally incorrect"—I'm more so inclined to believe they are referring to the blatant absence of TPO (haha), and the over-the-top actions and behaviours that the freedom and enthusiasm for romance sometimes lead to, but even more specifically, the carefree and spontaneous treatment around love and marriage. I don't believe sensuality is necessarily and solely portrayed in a completely negative/puritanical/critical light in this series (there are different ways sexuality is portrayed throughout the series with different sets of characters), but in this case, I believe it might come off as a bit critical because François is directly affected by personal circumstance: after all, in this same arc, when Admiral Emma Corleone was propositioning for François (and later on Jesse) to become "partners", was not exactly doing so for pure-hearted and genuine romantic reasons, but with the underlying tone and intent of the Admiral bedding them for certain gains, and nothing more. François, of course, doesn't exactly appreciate this kind of attention from the Admiral and is openly guarded while around her, evidently not receptive to the idea of becoming her second spouse (after kicking out the rest—which speaks to how lightly she treated those relations in the first place), and thus kind of projects an additional layer of negativity to this. (And I'm assuming you might? have already read further ahead by now, but François does have some genuine reasons to feel put off by Emma, particularly because of their history, and Emma's implied interest in François stemming from the despair he wore back when the Duhems' parents passed away. I think it's understandable that one would feel apprehensive towards someone who is one-sidedly attracted to your misery haha...)

Of course, outside of these specific circumstances, that isn't to say that people don't frown upon having more than one legal spouse (in Venetiaan, this is especially the case, but Riester too), but there are just multiple different factors involved. I think it's very fair to compare it to real-life Christian morality/belief of one-spouse-only, but of course, those who aren't fervently religious and/or are more open-minded will regard polyamory/gamy in a more welcoming light. In particular, we've seen characters before who've expressed outright opposition to the idea of their spouse having another lover, but this is of course different from polygamy—in Prince Consort Werner, Queen Christanne, and Priest Michael's case, it was not a balanced relationship between three people, but an individual cheating on their legal spouse with someone whom she actually loves (their relationship is quite complicated, but we won't be getting into that now haha, but point is—)

The act of cheating and having more than one lovers is seen as bad, without a doubt, but curiously enough, the people of the Divine Kingdom of Venetiaan actually show quite a positive reaction towards the Queen's relationship with the commoner priest Michael. "The Romance of a Century", I believe it was called, and despite this Leary being a case of infidelity that resulted in a child, why isn't the Queen's infidelity seen as completely negative? Well, it can absolutely go back to religion. Despite Venetiaan being the most religious country in the story, it seems very receptive to their Queen's story, and yet simultaneously it is this very religious fervour that makes it so. After all, the child born from the Queen's extramarital relation was born with golden blond hair and purple eyes symbolic of the Lord's love and divinity, therefore the existence of this child itself can be taken as a blessing from God, Herself.

So, is cheating bad? Yes. We've seen this before with Duke Sarnez who was once caught by his own daughter and her friends while he was intimate with an Imperial attendant in an office. Yet, we also see it with Queen Christanne towards her own legal spouse, but the reaction is different, because of the "blessings from God".

So, is having multiple consenting lovers in an equal-levelled relationship, bad? No. The story does point out that the ruler of Corleone, Lorenzo Corleone, has multiple concubines, but he isn't portrayed in a negative light, either. In fact, he is actually portrayed as a typical person—"an old gentleman" [665] he is actually described as. Courteous and rather kind, both to Yeseo and other known characters such as Aurélie, and actually becomes a great supporting character during the later war. Him having multiple legal wives isn't symbolic of him being a morally bad character, nor do Riesterian character treat him poorly for his cultural differences or marital affairs, either, and it is just that—cultural differences.

So is polygamy/polyamory wrong? No, but, the cultural differences and reservations about marriage/love between different countries will illicit different reactions depending on whom you ask.

Anyway, I hope I'm getting across my thoughts properly haha bc I think I'm sounding like a convoluted mess, but I'd also like to note that there have also canonically been conversations about queer relationships in the story itself—particularly between Princess Cornelisse and her would-be religious partner Isle Roosegaarde, whom Cornelisse promised to make her consort when they're older [670]. In this conversation, Isle remarks that she can't possibly be made Cornelisse's consort because they are both girls, but Cornelisse casually retorts that not even the Royal Family has such conservative and outdated views (which I think is kind of hilarious in retrospect, because it implies in a way that Werner, despite being a horrible person, at the very least doesn't discriminate on people's sexuality to the point where his own daughter is educated with this same view)(of course, unless you're Jesse, which means that everything about you is worthy of Werner's ire LMAO). BUT ANYHOW, point is, historically it seems that more conservative/traditional values have existed at some point, but the current reality is notably much more open-minded. It is fair to say that Monogamy and Polygamy co-existing in Corleone but not in Riester or Venetiaan might have something to do with each country's respective histories, as well as how strongly each nation respectively believes in the main religion (and how it would influence their beliefs). And when you take into account the context of whom the God of this religion is, we can also assume that the typical young QPB RoFan reader would not want an explicit environment where the people (characters) you love would be existing in a setting reminiscent of gritty, sensual harem genre (there is even MORE meta to be said about this, and that involves the "Creator" (writer) or the world, and their intent toward the Gods (readers), but just know that an adult theme is definitely out of the question when it comes to what appropriate subject matter to the target audience, or more specifically, a certain target reader 👀)

Anyway, I bring up historical conservatism and the more-progressive/liberal nature of the TWSB universe because the idea of polyamory in Riester actually, in a funny way, is kind of? accepted...? it really, really just depends on context.

For example, there have been quite a few occasions, actually, of either friends of Cédric, Yeseo, and Christelle (CYC) or the general public themselves, alluding to or actively believing that the three of them are in a romantic relationship. One of these people was actually Marquis François Duhem himself, and he's funnily enough supposedly quite aware of the rumours floating around their relationship and at some point reaches a conclusion along the lines of "wow!!! so the rumours are true, you three really are like that—!" [468] (hahaha I do not think that he has any strong averse opinions on polyamory at all (Emma Corleone bugging him to be her next husband being a whole different case)). And earlier on in the story, we've even seen gossip tabloids who've placed immense interest on CYC's relationship, though this can of course either be interpreted in romantic or platonic lenses haha. Oh, and another notable person who even outright called CYC "lovers" was Jibril Diop, Cédric's 2nd cousin and a later addition to the main cast (more specifically, while talking with Yeseo, Jibril refers to Cédric and Christelle as Yeseo's lovers and asks him if he broke up with them since it's rare to find Yeseo all alone haha) [465]! But either way, it seems the opinion on having multiple lovers depends on a variety of different factors, from personal opinion, to religious beliefs, country, etc etc. Jibril Diop himself is actually someone whose character aligns more with Corleone's values and interests rather than Riester, since he's very free-spirited and loves dating and flirting and hates stuffy clothing, and is well-known in the Riesterian Beau Monde for his social affairs and activities in the different salons in the capital. He's even reportedly dated multiple people at once before, though it's unknown if these were open relationships or otherwise, so I can't really tell you any more than that haha. (If you haven't met him in the story yet, please anticipate his arrival. He's such a great character, I adore him greatly. He's sooooo fun as a new addition to the main cast hehe)

Anyhow, I'm sorry if I haven't given any clear-cut answers so far but rest assured!! It gets even more complicated!!!!!! 🙌🙌

SO!!! Knowing that different countries, cultures, and people regard Monogamy and Polygamy different, where does the Riesterian custom of having a Religious and Political Companion come into play? Well, in the first place, the tradition of choosing these two partners is solely a Riesterian custom, one that is also reserved for the Imperial Family (and collateral lines). A POLITICAL COMPANION to help the Imperial ruler politically, financially, or in any other diplomatic/transactional needs, (typically with a renowned noble family, or even a wealthy and affluent merchant family); and then a RELIGIOUS COMPANION to help guide the future ruler spiritually, an emotional and religious guide. Neither of the two roles are necessarily romantic, and the position as Political Companion does not require love—it is a political match first and foremost, though rulers such as Frédérique and her mother before her, Céline, were lucky in that they were able to marry people who they loved. The marriage is merely a formality so that the ruler could have an adequate spouse who fits all the requirements needed to support the ruler and fulfill the duties required of by a consort. Love is not a requirement, but it is still a legal marriage, thus a degree of respect for the arrangement is still expected.

So, what does that make a Religious Companion?

Religious Companionship via Covenant/Holy Contract Ceremony is special in that it requires the two individuals involved to swear their souls together and have them joined for eternity. This connection is beyond romantic or platonic love—in fact, a lot of the sentiments between the Master of the Covenant and the Patron Saint is very queerplatonic. It is metaphysical, it is something integral to the people involved, it is something only they alone can truly understand. It is hard not to regard the sharing of one's soul with another as not being romantic, as the very nature of the Holy Contract is intimate and requires, in the first place, a deep trust in the other person.

I believe the in-universe romance novel by Benjamin Giradin, "Reason, Emotion, and Divinity" (as the title is translated by the official webtoon team), displays a common trope regarding the complex arrangement of the main character (Heathcliff) who is caught up in a conflict between his Political (Jane) and Religious (Catherine) Companions [78]. It is noteworthy that, although Heathcliff is in a physical marriage to Jane, he is in a spiritual/mental marriage with Catherine and is the one whom his heart lays with. We can see, here, that this is an example of a relationship that is not equally "polygamous"—there is a lack of sincerity on one party's part towards the other, and the "spiritual marriage" is seen in a negative light as it is not fulfilling the role it should be. It's a very dramatic circumstance however and of course, is only one (fictional) example of the extent of the depths that a Religious Companionship might lead to, but we can take another example, too—this time, one from Riester's very history, told to us in Chapter 195:

Basically (recapping for anyone reading who might not know), roughly a thousand years prior to the current timeline, Empress Arianne Riester proposed that the Cardinal Phillipe (who had been her ally in unifying the fractured Empire following Venetiaan departure) become her second companion. Knowing that Arianne was already married at this point and was also not romantically in love with Philippe, the Cardinal rejected her, unwilling to take on a role similar to that of a concubine. But despite this rejection, Philippe did harbour unrequited love for Arianne, and gave in to her sincere proposal, though not without requirements. Philippe gave her tulips and said that even if they were not legally tied to each other, he was still and would still always be her ally, and the Empress wished for his formal companionship that strongly, then it would only be so if the Lord blessed their union and affirmed that it would be okay. The blessing later came in the form of the blossoming of never-before tulips. Since purple was a deeply religious symbol and tulips of that colour had never existed beforehand on the continent, the people took this as a religious sign, thus, a blessing from the Lord Herself. Thus, the two joined together and their union was the start of the tradition of the Religious Companionship in the Riester Empire for generations to come.

Interestingly, it is noted that every single Religious Companion of every Imperial Riesterian ruler to come after Arianne and Philippe, all died single [256]. In a sense, this is truly a marriage no different than a political one, and perhaps even deeper than that. While Philippe genuinely loved Arianne (one-sidedly), not all Religious Companionships are explicitly romantic, either. But again, it is undeniable that the Patron Saint in the Holy Contract is the one who holds the most power—if they do not sincerely wish to form a Covenant, it would not happen. So naturally, all Religious Companions feel strongly about their respective Master of the Covenant, and this intimacy could absolutely stem from love, or result in love.

SO, what can we make of Empress Frédérique's relationship with her Political Companion Alexandre, and her Religious Companion Aurélie?

Just like how the different examples of Political and Religious Companionship that we've seen above are different, Frédérique, Alexandre, and Aurélie (FAA) are also unique in their own way. Frédérique and Aurélie's relationship was the first to form, with Frédérique being the first to "fall for" Aurélie for the clarity of her ether and her sincerity in her tasks as an Imperial Priest. They were childhood friends following this and naturally grew very close, but the one who Frédérique later explicitly romantically falls for was Alexandre Blanquer (notably, she fell for him at first sight, similarly to how she did with Aurélie in the confessional hahaha. Frédérique is really the type of person who knows what she likes and strives to obtain them). FAA are truly special because all three of them managed to form very strong connections, not just with Frédérique, but between Aurélie and Alexandre, as well.

Frédérique and Aurélie note on numerous occasions how much Cédric's growing relationships remind them so much of their own childhoods and younger years back when Alexandre was alive, and it is very clear that they all loved each other. Perhaps this might not be the clear response you'd like from me? but I do not think it matters whether or not their relationship was romantic, sexual, or platonic.

Just the fact that they loved each other immensely, to the point of Aurélie even almost sacrificing her own life if it meant she could trade it for Alexandre's (which ultimately failed, though deteriorated her eye in the process, which is why she wears a monocle) [600]. Aurélie and Alexandre were not physically married, nor did they share souls and emotions like how Frédérique and Aurélie did, but despite this all, they managed to form deeply intertwined bonds despite at surface-level glance Frédérique being the "only link" between them. From the very start, they were all together a 3-person parental unit for Cédric the moment he was born, and Aurélie, though not his blood parent, was pretty much his second mom right from the get-go (in the official webtoon translation, he calls her "Aunt Aurélie") and naturally had been made the godmother since his parents are pretty much her partners, too. They were so close that Cédric's conception dream was actually dreamt by Aurélie—prior to his birth, she dreamt of being visited by a sun who came into her bedroom, before falling asleep together. It was reportedly a very cute dream, and I think it's very indicative of how close these three were for Aurélie to be the one to have the conception dream instead of Cédric's own parents. From the very very very start, they had always co-parented and cared for Cédric, and would have done anything for him. Their relationship is untraditional for the typical two-parent family unit, but they were true in this together right from the start, from every step of the way. During his childhood, Cédric was only awake for very short hours of the day, but whenever he was, Aurélie, without fail, always came and visited him in the mornings to read him stories, just because he liked it, and Frédérique and Alexandre would also join them for whatever small moment of family time they could get, when Cédric wasn't sleeping [600]. They raised, cared for, and loved this boy greatly, you cannot distinguish a difference in their love on the basis of whether they're Cédric's parents or not. They love him because he's their precious child, and that is that.

I like what you mentioned about how you were unable to figure out if their relationship was romantic or platonic, and how you said it was perhaps intentional on the author's part. Sookym never mentions queerplatonicism at all in their work, but the queercoding of this universe by mere virtue of the existence of all the implications brought forth by the lore and magic system itself allows for very queerplatonic/queercoded messages to saturate the work in its entirety—all due to the very nature of TWSB alone. I think QPR is the best way to describe Religious Companionship, and all the other very special and metaphysical bonds that appear between several characters throughout the entire novel. In FAA's case, it is clear that Frédérique loved Alexandre very dearly, and that their marriage was not even a necessarily political one (they practically eloped without the permission of Alexandre's family, and the Blanquers also disowned him when he went through with the marriage, so there was hardly any political gain there, other than Alexandre hinself being a 9th-Grade Mage), but it is EQUALLY CLEAR that Frédérique loves Aurélie, too. You will understand as you continue reading, but there are some incredibly intimate moments between these two that are both emotional AND physical.

The biggest example that comes immediately to mind is right after Frédérique and Aurélie had to be separated for a long time during the Riester-Venetiaan war, upon reuniting, the two of them immediately spent the night together, and the morning after has Frédérique hugging Aurélie around the waist while in bed [850], and the scene is played completely naturally, as if this is a routine that isn't unusual for them and that has probably happened before. Of course, this happened because being apart for too long is literally physically painful for Frédérique, so being physically close to Aurélie and receiving her ether in the most direct way possible would remedy that, but in the first place, if they were not incredibly close, the physical nature of their relationship would not be as crazily intimate—to the point of sharing a bed and being in semi-states of undress, and physically touchy with each other in a scene epitomizing domesticity. They love each other and that's that. They are literal soulmates and partners, and we don't need to know anymore. The love they have for each other is something only they themselves would understand, and the love they had for Alexandre is something that also belongs to them.

With all these different presentations of love, affection, and queerplatonicism between different characters, I do not think there is actually much conflict that CYC themselves would face in becoming partners. Everyone in Riester and in other nations as well understand that the bond that Empress Frédérique and Cardinal Aurélie is integral and important, and there is never any criticism there on Frédérique's intimacy with Aurélie, even when it is well known that Frédérique wildly loved Alexandre. The only issue, in fact, that arises about CYC's potential partnership, was Yeseo (as Jesse), being from Venetiaan, and then later on, was mostly internal doubt and dilemma from Yeseo himself. Outside forces never disapprove of the three of them having any sort of relationship, and whatever criticism they ever face is not because of any romantic conflict or say gender bias (like I said before, homophobia doesn't exist in the widespread view, and if it does, it happened in the past as is now seen as stupid WKJJJK), but because of the requirements that the position of Political Companion and Religious Companion require, respectively. But Christelle Rambouillet and Jung Yeseo are probably the only ones that can fit the requirements of these two symbolic and physical positions the best, with Christelle, even after discarding the ducal Sarnez name, obtaining military achievements and notable contributions to the Empire and becoming the "Star of the Navy", and her incredibly positive public image and reputation as a national hero within the Empire will undoubtedly dissuade any criticisms of her worthiness of being a Political Companion. Yeseo, meanwhile, (again, sorry if you didn't want all these spoilers in this reply 😭) is the renowned Palace Lord of Juliette, the Marquis of Sérénité, an Incarnation of God and an Angel of the Lord, and is His Holiness the Pope, himself.

Yeseo and Christelle become some of THE most accomplished people in the Empire, and anyone who tries to push their sons or daughters into the symbolic roles of Religious and Political Companions for the Crown Prince of the Great Riester Empire, will have to compete with these two reputational behemoths hahaha. At the start of the story, the conflict between CYC's potential Companionship has always been political, with the question of who could possibly fit these roles the best and aid Cédric, once he inherits the throne. Politics and schematics have always been the question here, and you could even say that emotions have very little to do with this decision—in fact, we've seen before that Cédric would have gone with anyone Frédérique and Aurélie would have chosen for him, since that's what it means to be a Crown Prince and fulfill his duties. Of course, that isn't to say that FredAu would want Cédric miserable, but it is clear that politics always take precedence, unless extraordinary circumstances arise enough to the point of being able to discard traditional political moves.

Initially, Christelle de Sarnez was the best candidate for Cédric Political Companion because not only was the Sarnez Family a (now formerly) reputable family and strong supporter of the Empress, but the marriage would also bring with it the Blessing of the Azure Ocean, which Cédric had needed at the time. Of course, this initial setting falls flat, but Ham Ga-in, as Christelle Rambouillet, later makes an enormous name for herself and becomes even more renown that she would have been as a "Duke's daughter".

As for Jesse Venetiaan, while his ether was the more noble and pure, and his divine power was incredibly notable, his biggest flaw in the eyes of Riester-Venetiaan politics was that Jesse was a foreigner from the opposing country. This flaw, however, is immediately rectified once Jung Yeseo separates from the identity of Jesse Venetiaan (and there's a LOT more context, but it'll take way too long to explain) and becomes the "Moon of the Empire", rather than that of the Divine Kingdom. Once it is made known that Yeseo's allegiances and loyalty are clearly with Riester, the political doubt, implications, and hesitation on him being Cédric's potential Religious Partner naturally fades, all most if not all Riesterians are extremely enthusiastic about their potential union (in fact, many characters are often surprised that they haven't already officialized it, or haven't done it earlier LMAO).

In short, it's always politics, politics, politics. Riesterian nobles ultimately don't place much importance about whether or not CYC are romantic, platonic, queerplatonic—what matters in their eyes is always POLITICS and if the candidates for the future Emperor's Companions will be fitting of the roles they will have to play. CYC's own feelings are their own and whether or not they, in this Companionship, become romantic or platonic, or remain heavily queerplatonically coded, is their own personal affairs, so long as each of them are able to accomplish their respective duties. Of course, there will always be an interest in the nature of their relationship because gossip and curiosity in any country is unavoidable, especially when it concerns such important people like CYC, but the nature of it, in a political lenses, has little to do with whether or not they are fitting as partners. I personally believe that in any way one can spin it, CYC will still be the perfect pairing regardless, and Cédric choosing candidates that do not understand the depths of his soul is unfathomable to me—Yeseo and Christelle are, quite literally, the only ones (in a meta sense, as well). And on the topic of politics, the question of heirs will also naturally follow, and I am very!!! glad to say that this question gets very masterfully solved by the author haha! I am very content with it and it's a bit humorously in retrospect how it happens, but ultimately was a very smart move that allows for this question to be resolved (without having any of the MCs contradict whatever we might think of them!) and allows for readers to naturally conclude whatever outcome they prefer best after the main story ends! (But if you or anyone reading this is interested in knowing more about the Heir Question, feel free to refer to this post where I go into depth about it!)

Anyway, this response has really gone on for a....... very very long time. It took me a while write this out and make sure I got all my facts right LMAO, but I hope I was able to answer, even if only in some way, your questions and help your curiosity!!! 🥹😭🙌🙌

[artbyblastweave]

As a game mechanic, Karma was disadvantageous because it injected obtrusive level of awareness of authorial intent into every situation that raised or lowered your Karma (and in doing so frequently demonstrated deranged moral reasoning in how the points are allocated.) In New Vegas specifically, though, I found Karma advantageous in conjunction with the reputation system, because it tracks your character’s long-term behavior on an axis that the reputation system isn’t measuring. “Principled Person Despised by Authority” and “Omnimalevolent Weasel with A Great Eye For PR” are both well-worn archetypes that a dual Karma/Reputation system is able to model to some extent. It also provides another fun axis on which to engage with your companions- Boone leaves you if you piss off the NCR, Veronica leaves if you piss off the Brotherhood, but Cass leaves if you're just generally, generically a shithead- which is an incomplete venn diagram with those other two, and the contrast can serve as an interesting characterization vehicle IMO.

There are ways in which the affinity system in Fallout 4 was a step forward, primarily in how it lanced the obtrusive authorial judgements and more-or-less coherently tied it into the values of whichever companion you're currently travelling with. It also smoothly got around one failure mode of New Vegas- the incredibly specific, poorly telegraphed and thus frequently inorganic sequence in which you had to bring followers to places in order to trigger their affinity points. However, I've always had the vibe that the intended dynamic for Fallout 4 was that you'd pick and stick with a companion that would mesh with your intended playstyle- but I get the impression that what happens in practice is that players instead alter their playstyle for as long as it takes to juice up each companion's affinity meter, which can result in some pretty wild behavioral swings that you have to put some legwork into justifying from a roleplay perspective. And this compounds with the fact that the game isn't really tracking much else about who you are as a person. Your special stats are way less rigid. Nuanced faction reputation is out the window because factions themselves are sort of sidelined as a relevant mechanic outside the big four, and with the big four it's kinda all-or-nothing as to whether you're in their good books. Side quests tend to be fairly siloed in their impact, and Karma's gone. My decision to open fire on a population center, or lack thereof, feels more acknowledged in New Vegas than in 4. I guess If I were made Fallout Czar I'd probably do a tripartite system- Companion Affinity AND the New Vegas 4x4 faction reputation system AND some re-implementation of Karma, or some analogous system of tracking in which direction you break when asked to make a decision. Deontological vs. Utilitarian. Authoritarian vs Libertarian. Practical vs. Sadistic. Track everything. Break out the quadrants. Make the engine weep blood

[dheekshaaa]

I have been a decent person my whole life. One might even say good... So I need help now that have reached a morally grey area:

Now before I ask for your opinion I would love for you to read this out completely before judgement is asked for.

Here we go:

I will be starting college in a few months.

So I need some help, and here is some context.

I have NEVER been a leader, like a class monitor or a scout or anything of the sort where they are picked and chosen to do something they want to do, regardless if they were good or not at it.

In my school the teachers just picked a person and it was just never ever me.

I didn't have the best grades.

I was not physically the best.

I mean I was both but that was in the early stages and there were people better than me so I just never got picked.

Now, the point is, I'm gonna eventually start collage.

Should I read up on manipulation and body language and like vocabulary and all that people attracting stuff that one can develop and then

Apply those principles upon myself to make the best out of this?

These are going to be the years that set my life to come for the future and I would like to know that IF or WHEN I do this will I be considered a fake or morally bitchy person for practically customizing my personality just to maximize my network thru maybe mildly manipulative means?

I'm don't have a big Tumblr presence but if you do reach this:

Thank you for reading this completely

Thank you for attempting my quiz

I wish you wonderful years to come.

See you next time~~

Good day✨

[thatscarletflycatcher]

There's something that has been gnawing at me since I saw some comments on the look-how-they-massacred-them poll for Daniel Sousa -with which I didn't want to engage then and there because I really didn't want to pick up a fight with another Daniel fan, there's few enough of us, but also because the argument was very difficult to articulate.

It is difficult to explain how Daniel Sousa is screwed over by Endgame without making it look like either "he deserved Peggy as a prize" or "he was the perfect prize for Peggy", because it all begins by understanding the experience of WWII and the building of the morale of WWII. Something that Markus and McFeely seemed to perfectly understand in Agent Carter, which inclines me to believe it was specific insistence of the Russos, whose concept of narrative and storytelling is at the level of a belligerent and not very bright 4 year old, that gave us that mindblowingly stupid "happy ending" for Cap and Peggy. Or maybe Markus and McFeely are just arcane creatures, at times intelligent and at times really dumb. Anyways.

Point is that both CATFA and Agent Carter understand that for these characters, fighting WWII is a matter of "each doing their bit", of, as Steve put it in The Avengers, to lay on the barbed wire so the one that comes after you can pass on. And in the process of doing that, you have great loses and suffer great grief. The price of war is immense, and for these people the price of war is the price of freedom (yes, that celebrated Steve speech from CATWS is also sharing in that same spirit. It's kind of impressive how until that awful mess of Endgame, the perspective of Steve as a character from movie to movie is one that addresses how some 1940s things are outdated, but how many others are still relevant and inspiring. It is a surprisingly nuanced take on History, that of course the Russo "Cap is an outdated relic that belongs in the past and should stay there" brothers don't seem to have what's needed to grasp).

In that context, the most coherent tone for Steggy is tragedy. Because that is what happened to many, many, many people during the war. You meet, you fall in love fast, because there is no time. And then suddenly the other is gone, never to come back. And all the promises of youth and life and future the other person represented, are gone with them. People who lived through 2020-2022 have some idea of what it is like for projects, opportunities, and years of your life to just vanish. Now you make that five years, eight months, and to mention "just" the British, 1 out every 100 people live in 1939, dead, and over 350.000 permanently disabled. If you were 20 in 1939, your life would be practically on hold till you were 26. It's a whole lot of grief, and an intense grief, that you don't solve the way you solve a random missing connection in a romcom like Serendipity or The Lake House. Doing so is cheapening and bastardizing the grief and trauma of a whole generation of people in different countries.

So, Agent Carter. Here we have a story focused on a group of people, spies, who, in different fronts and with different outcomes, made it through the war and are now facing this new world they are living in, and all the grief of their respective losses. The focus of the story is Peggy, a woman who, like many others, was allowed a wide range of action during the war, and is now subconsiously perceived as a threat by many of her male coworkers. It's a desperate bid to "go back to the way things were before", and her presence is a constant reminder that they can't.

Sousa occupies a very similar position to Peggy's: he's also a reminder that the war happened and that there is no way back, no magic solution, no pretending. And that's why both are ignored, and displaced, and why both struggle to prove themselves in a subconscious way while living by the continued principle that they are doing their bit. That is their lifeline that keeps them sane and working all throughout s1 of Agent Carter.

That's what we mean when we say Peggy and Sousa are equals, and that Sousa is contented with letting her have the spot; not because he's her inferior or her dependant, but because he's her equal -in intelligence, in ideals, in resourcefulness, in loyalty, but also in their relative positions in the power ladder- and does not feel threatened by her because of it.

(It is in this context, btw, that Peggy's rebuke of Daniel's "rescue" of her in the first episode must be understood. Because she was once treated like any other officer/agent of her same rank, she has knee jerk reactions to both being demeaned and being protected. It's also an important theme of that beginning of the series that Peggy needs to learn to let her friends in, and that she needs their help, and that that doesn't make her too weak to protect and defend them.)

But also, in another way, when we talk about Sousa becoming Peggy's husband, it has to do with the sentiment Krezminsky expresses in the series:

The ship of Steggy had sailed and was gone forever since the moment Steve became the legend in the ice and Peggy "Cap's Girl", this embodiment of the ridiculous damsel in distress we hear in the radio drama that plays on one of the episodes: Peggy fell in love with Steve when he was a scrawny, sickly lad, because she loved the man he was inside, but now forever for the world she is just another superficial, weak girl lusting after the handsome godlike rescuer, the picture of the eugenic dream of the übermensch. In Daniel Peggy loves and finds all the same things she found and loved in Steve, but in a different light, because Sousa is a different person, with a different life story, plus something else: they have both gone through war and its loss and grief, and come to the other side in need of rebuilding and finding new meaning in life and hope for the future.

In a world where the Dark, Tall and Handsome Hero of the Six Pack, Alpha Dominance and Endless Stamina reigns supreme, Sousa as a love interest is a remarkable and -sadly- bold statement about the things that truly matter in finding one's life partner.

So I think here is a reasonable point to start talking about Sousa in Agents of SHIELD. Because here's where someone would rationally say "well, but you see, there he's also chosen as a love interest!", and the reasons why context in AoS changes everything are multiple, so let's go there.

But before that, let me make clear that I do wholeheartedly believe the writers of AoS meant to honor Sousa, and sincerely tried to do their best with what they were given. That doesn't change what the end product ended up doing and saying about him.

Like Peggy is the main character of Agent Carter, so Daisy is the main character of Agents of SHIELD. As much as you can say all the team characters are important and get the focus, Daisy is the one which the narrative insists on making the focal point, as the arcs of several seasons hinge on her, and we are expected to sympathize with her first and foremost in any situation in which she is personally involved. But unlike Peggy, Daisy is a superpowered individual. She's more like Steve than Peggy; she's practically a demigod. She is capable of ripping Earth apart with just her hands. Where Peggy and Sousa were equals in the power ladder in-universe, in AoS the distance between Daisy and Sousa is abysmal. That imbalance is the first thing that leads to Sousa being put in the position of Daisy's Boy. The fact that he ends up in space with Daisy's last minute sister who is ALSO an inhuman does not help things.

As a side note, there's something to be said about futuristic prosthetics in AoS and how they interesect with disability. But I'd rather not get into it because it is a thorny subject and I don't feel qualified to speak of it.

In a different way, Daniel being Peggy's love interest in Agent Carter is balanced out by his having a life of his own and many interactions with other characters throughout the series. He pursues his own lines of investigation, he conducts interrogations of his own, he comes up with plans, he teams up with Krezminsky and with Thompson and in s2 he has downright made a life for himself as chief in California with a fiancé and all. There is a clear sense that he exists as a character outside of pining for Peggy.

In AoS, the opposite happens. Part of it is owed to the writers writing themselves into a corner: to take Sousa out of his timeline, they have to do it in such a way that his disappearance is inconspicuous, which means killing him. They do it the best way they can think of, honoring his alertness and intelligence, by making him realize HYDRA is infiltrated in SHIELD decades before anyone else does. But as a consequence, Sousa becomes the man out of time: there's no future for him, because he has died, and unlike Steve, he's not being brought back because he himself is required. They just save him because they take pity on him and the tragedy of his life. So he has no mission and no significant previous connection with anyone on the team. One of the concrete things in which this is evidenced the most is with the switch from being addressed as chief Sousa to Agent Sousa. He was chief, but between that SHIELD and this SHIELD there's not such a connection by which he can claim that title. There's no subordinates to manage. So he's sort of default-called agent without really being a proper agent.

So the writers choose the fish-out-of-water concept for him. Which is far fetched. This guy lived through wwii in a high spy setting where intelligence has knowledge of powerful interstellar aliens. He's most definitely not bewildered by phone cameras, guys. He would quickly adapt... if, again, you know, he was brought back for a mission. But the reality is that from a Doylist POV, he was brought in to be Daisy's love interest, and the only thing he can offer to her, in this huge power imbalance I have pointed out, is chivalrous manners and quaint WWII style references like when he tells her "Agent Johnson, we are going home"; both can be very charming to a modern woman, but they are things that highlight the cultural and psychological distances that separate them, and make it glaringly obvious that they have barely anything in common.

The series tries desperately to give them common ground in the time-loop episode, with this idea that Daisy is like Peggy because she sacrifices herself for others and to protect others all the time. Which is laughable because, again, in Daisy's condition of beloved main character that embodies the tortured, quasi byronic heroine that we understand to be the hallmark of about one half of the contemporary superhero type, the narrative and the characters in it bend all sorts of ways to accommodate her, not the other way around. Peggy's type is different because it is rooted in that WWII morale/frame I was talking about at the beginning of the post.

As a consequence of all of this, Sousa barely interacts with anyone that isn't Daisy (he has of personal scenes, what? one or two with Coulson, the scene where Jemma gives him a new prosthetic, and then he's given an idea to give to Mac in the finale. I don't remember any other non-Daisy ones), has no unique role to fulfill in the mission (specially because so much of the plan is entwined in Fitz and Jemma's rescue plan that was NOT counting with Sousa) and no personal goal to achieve, which weakens his standing as a character outside the romance plot, and when it comes to the romance plot, he has nothing in common with Daisy, and he brings nothing to the partnership other than... narratively forced love, and chivalrousness.

In the end, Daniel, who was a character and a person of relevance in Agent Carter, is nerfed and turned into a prop for the rushed happily ever after of the main character of AoS. And that, in my books, is being screwed over. That's what makes his becoming Peggy's husband and building a life and a future with her a much better and more preferable outcome for Daniel; he gets to build a life of meaning by his own significant work and significant connections, in his own time and place, with a wife who is his equal and with other people that have lived through the same collective experiences of trauma and grief he did.

[ambiguouspuzuma]

I was talking a while ago about how characters with a strict moral code are always bailed out by the plot. Give them an ethical dilemma, and they'll say 'there has to be another way'... and there always is. Give them a situation where their hands are tied, they'll say 'there's always a choice', and what do you know?

Reality bends to give them the perfect get-out. They manage to solve the Trolley Problem without having to choose. A third way always arrives in the nick of time. They get to keep their whiter-than-white hero status, but still manage to save the day. Practical results, without ever having to compromise on their sacred principles.

For the writer, it's a good way to preserve their protagonist's heroic reputation. The moment they have to get their hands dirty they'll have readers who disagree with their decisions, and that dispels the myth. It might be necessary, if you do want this sort of white knight character to continue. But it does make them a little one-dimensional.

I was having the opposite conversation about A Song of Ice and Fire more recently. One of the ways in which it diverts from much of classic fantasy is that it forces characters to make those decisions. It doesn't let them duck the difficult choices, and then always makes them stay and live with the consequences. That creates a murkier world, but it lets you explore and develop a far more interesting cast.

A common way in which this trope appears is in a hero who refuses to kill. The Batman won't kill the Joker, and hundreds of people die every time he lets him live. But that's an example of how this can be explored in an interesting way: let him face the consequences of each choice, and decide whether to stick to his principles or bend them. Most stories aren't so brave as to include the second part.

As a related complaint, I recently read two novels where our hero is well aware that the antagonists want them dead, but does nothing about it. They survive multiple murder attempts by the skin of their teeth, and only then act - and are thus vindicated in taking the high road and not acting pre-emptively to take down their nemesis. But they could so easily have died, and in that case evil would have triumphed! Many others would have been worse off as a result!

It seems to be a common approach. The hero is able to show that they're the better person, not turning to violence to crush their enemies, and still wins because they're able to catch their opponent in the act. They get both principle and practice. But not allowing them to even act in self-defence is a ridiculous standard of purity, and their negligence or willingness to gamble with such an important outcome should also be criticised.

Perhaps I'm too radicalised by the whole 'in the game of thrones, you win or you die' sequence, but it feels like a grounded story should show such stubborn commitment to ideals as having some sort of consequence. I'm not saying every character needs to be a brutal pragmatist, and it's a valid ethical approach, but you have to show the pros and cons - weigh up what might happen if your gamble fails, compare idealism and outcomes. You can't just have them be pure of heart and spare their naivety from punishment, then act like that was the only sensible way to act.

[film-in-my-soul]

Think of the Children, Bucky Barnes | 1,214 | RainyForecast

Summary: Clint Barton, Bucky Barnes decided, was on his shit list. Officially. And seeing as he was currently dressed as Santa Claus, the threat should carry some symbolic heft.

undersell, overcommit | 10,222 | silentwalrust

Summary: Steve goes so hard for Bucky that he becomes a licensed, practicing massage therapist.

Glitter in the Air | 11,625 | BonkyBornes / @padfoot-and-the-marauders

Summary: James was standing when Steve turned around. His backpack hung from his left shoulder. Somehow, he’d managed to buckle the strap across his chest. He looked at Steve, his gaze simultaneously expectant and far away. Guarded. Waiting. For what, Steve didn’t think he wanted to know. “Are you in trouble?” Steve asked again. His voice was quiet, barely there. “No.” Steve looked at him. At the dark bags beneath his eyes, at his dirty hair, the sweatshirt he’d been wearing since Steve had first seen him. There was a hole in the left cuff. It was none of his business. “Is there anyone I can call for you? Is anyone looking for you? There are phones you can use.” “No. I’m—” He stopped and looked at the door. His eyebrows furrowed. “I’m looking.” “Looking for what?” If Steve could help in any way, he would. James looked at him again. It was the first time he’d fully met Steve’s gaze. “Myself.”

(see more recommendations below!)

I [Heart] You | 1,138 | writeonclara / @writeonclara

Summary: “Steve’s been hit with a curse,” Natasha said. She said it calmly, so Bucky didn’t immediately go flying out of the apartment to tear apart the Tower in search of Steve. Then again, Natasha would probably be calm if New York City spontaneously burst into flames. He lowered the coffee pot and squinted at her. “Of course he has,” he said. He felt, abruptly, exhausted. “What is it?” “The witch kept ranting about sexual repression and archaic moral principles,” she continued blithely. “It’s not like you to prevaricate, Romanov.” Natasha pressed her lips together. For a moment, Bucky thought she might start laughing. “It might be easier just to show you.”

Small Truths | 1,311 | crackdkettle / @crackdkettle

Summary: Five times Steve shrank and one time he didn't change back.

Van Goghing Slightly Mad | 1,541 | Xanoka / @adventures-in-mangaland

Summary: Damage control. Now would be the perfect time for damage control. “I’m sorry for calling your painting porn!” Well shit. Bucky is a Security Guard at a fancy art gallery and is absolutely not crushing on the Tiny Blonde Guy who frequents the Modern Art section. Nope. Not at all.

unlocking | 2,636 | glim

Summary: Written for Shrinkyclinks Fest for the prompt: Winter Soldier Bucky is recovering and trying to learn about/integrate into society. So, to kill two birds with one stone, he goes to the library. Steve is the librarian in charge of the history section.

Winter, New York City | 3,688 | unicornpoe

Summary: Between the rough sheets stretched rumpled across the bed, two boys curl like a set of parentheses around each other and their breaths mingle arhythmically in that dark place behind Bucky’s eyelids. It’s still night until he looks; it’s still night, and he doesn’t have to move. But then: a shift, Steve’s head rolling a little where it rests on Bucky’s chest, soft-fine hair rasping against Bucky’s collar bone. A quiet, wet cough. And Bucky opens his eyes.

Love in an Elevator | 3,785 | leveragehunters (Monkeygreen) / @leveragehunters

Summary: Bucky wanted M&Ms. Steve just wanted to go home. Neither wanted to get stuck in an elevator. (Warning: may contain traces of peanuts, banter, and some fluff.)

The Bucky Barnes Guide to Household Management | 5,506 | CryptoHomoRocker / @feelingsaboutgaysuperheroest

Summary: "Steve doesn't even notice at first, is the thing." Or: Steve is unobservant, Bucky learns to be good at things that aren't killing people, and knitting happens.

Stitch Me Up Right | 5,954 | sirsable

Summary: The Avengers have a new fashion designer and suddenly Bucky has a lot of problems with his suit.

Nailed to the Wall | 645 | Catchclaw

Summary: “Shhhh,” Bucky says for the dozenth time. “If you’re that afraid of getting caught, you should probably keep your mouth shut, huh?”

Snap Him Up | 647 | Catchclaw

Summary: “Rogers, those do nothing for you.”

You're Back | 779 | Catchclaw

Summary: He dreams that he’s spread on Bucky’s fingers. Not the blood and bone ones. The metal ones; the cold, killing kind.

Mistake on the Part of Nature | 1,274 | idiopathicsmile / @idiopathicsmile

Summary: Steve takes in Bucky's betrayed look and Sam's confusion, follows Sam's gaze to the pile of mangled fruit in the trash can. Sudden comprehension fills his face. "Oh," he says. "Bucky found out about bananas."

Resist / Delay / Obstruct | 1,321 | ladivvinatravestia / @ladivvinatravvestia

Summary: Who uses their mug shot as their dating profile pic? Steve Rogers, that’s who.

then we shall need each other | 1,425 | tsunderestorm / @tsunderestorming

Summary: In which Bucky returns to Steve, just not in the way he'd expected.

Phases of the Moon | 2,359 | Catchclaw

Summary: It’s not so much that Steve Rogers is a virgin, it’s that he’s a virgin.

They Say That Time's Supposed to Heal You | 4,939 | untune_the_sky

Summary: The thing they don’t tell you, don’t warn you about, when you make that first connection – when you feel somebody else’s breath in your lungs for the first time – is that it fucking hurts when that’s gone. They don’t warn you, because it’s a difficult thing to comprehend; it’s a difficult thing to understand.

One-Armed Pushups | 5,033 | k8erwaul

Summary: Saw one of those "AU prompt" posts on tumblr and this one stuck out to me as perfectly appropriate for Stucky: “i came to the gym to work out but holy god i can’t stop watching you do one armed push ups that’s so hot” AU

Just let me (kill) love you | 5,041 | Chim / @chim-aceyliz

Summary: The Winter Soldier has a mission: killing Steven Grant Rogers. Too bad the whole universe is getting in his way.

"Lunch" | 5,140 | cleo4u2 / @cleo4u2 & xantissa / @xantissa

Summary: Bucky Barnes, the feared Winter Soldier, is working hard at becoming a person again. He doesn't understand a lot of the modern world, yet, but he Avengers help him with that when they can. They don't always get it right.

Something Fishy | 5,254 | leveragehunters (Monkeygreen) / @leveragehunters

Summary: Steve meets Bucky. Bucky meets Steve. Some things are meant to be. But even when something's meant to be, you might need to work a little to make it happen. (And that's made a tiny bit harder when your universe, out of all the infinite multiverse, managed to get things so completely mixed-up.)

When You Come Home | 5,978 | unicornpoe

Summary: “Nice to meet you, Bucky,” says Steve. He lets go of Bucky’s hand, and it doesn’t feel like a retreat, but it does feel like a promise: like the end of a sentence left uncapped, hanging there for one of them to finish later. There’s a cold wind blowing, but Bucky feels warm. “Please don’t try to come in here,” Bucky says. “There are alien corpses. It’s really gross, and really dangerous.” “Alright,” Steve says, and he’s not quite laughing aloud, but one lingers in the corners of his smile, in the way his blue eyes brighten.

special delivery | 6,049 | glim

Summary: It's not that Steve's bad at taking care of himself when he gets sick; he just wishes he didn't have to all the time. At least he can order most of what he needs online. That's some small comfort, that he can have soup and ice cream and everything else brought to his door.

asthma attacks, fire escapes, and chai | 6,657 | beemotionpicture / @beemotionpicture

Summary: It happens because of his asthma of all things. As soon as he feels short of breath he starts rooting through his messenger bag for his inhaler. Steve has a moment to think aha! and then fuck, before he's losing his grip on the thing and it’s skidding across the pavement and into an alleyway. He freezes when he realizes he’s not alone. Steve hears a muffled sound coming from behind the dumpster, but that’s not what makes him look; no, it’s the metallic scent in the air which, with a creeping feeling of dread, he hopes isn’t blood. He looks. It’s blood. And there’s a man sitting right in a puddle of it, leaning heavily against the brick wall and clutching his side with a metal hand.

re(dis)covery | 7,024 | glim

Summary: Wherein Bucky Barnes, SHIELD operative, discovers he has feelings for the nurse down in medbay and rediscovers a few more things about himself along the way.

Blind Date | 8,294 | AggressiveWhenStartled & quietnight / @quietnighty

Summary: “I just had the best idea I have ever had in my life,” Bucky said, punching straight through a doombot with his metal hand and clutching the napkin with Steve’s phone number in the other. The formerly (somewhat) dark and peaceful corner of Central Park was now lit up with energy beams, flashing robotic lights, and panicked astronomy buffs running for cover. Oh well, it wasn't like they'd been going to see many stars what with all the Christmas shit everywhere. “The bar you are setting for that is not high,” Natasha told him over the coms.

Brooklyn | 8,749 | togina / @toli-a

Summary: "Captain America, what's your stance on gay marriage?" Everyone knows that, by now. Everyone but Bucky.

Here comes the feeling you thought you'd forgotten | 8,946 | bangyababy / @bangyababy

Summary: So he eats his cake and sips his coffee, occasionally glancing up from his phone to Steve. If Steve sees him he’ll give him a little smile, which he tries to return, but judging from the look on Steve’s face, it’s probably not working. Still, Steve doesn’t stop smiling at him. It makes him feel almost…real. Today, he thinks, he can be James. Recently escaped from Hydra, the Winter Soldier stumbles into a bakery where he meets the worker, Steve. Being around Steve helps him remember things about his past, makes him feel a little more like a person, so he keeps coming back.

The Long Road to Lynbrook | 9,306 | monicawoe / @monicawoe

Summary: Six years ago, Bucky left the hamlet of Lynbrook to battle against the Knights of Hydra. Steve has missed him ever since, and refuses to believe he's dead. One night, Steve finds a frog at the well— a frog with one metal arm.

Breadth Requirements | 9,438 | SkyisGray / @skyisgray

Summary: Steve's never met his Psych TA in person, but he's a little obsessed with their snarky, flirty email conversations. Steve's never made any headway with the hot guy who sits in front of him in Psych, but he's a little obsessed with his mouth.

if you keep reaching out (then i'll keep coming back) | 10,517 | unicornpoe

Summary: “Do you mind if I work a little, Bucky?” He says Bucky’s name as often as Bucky says Steve’s, like maybe he likes the feel of it, the music of it—like maybe it’s at the top of his list, too. He’s using strong-looking hands to pick up the satchel he’d been carrying when he came over, lifting it up and sitting it on his lap. “I’m an artist, and I’ve got a couple commissions I hafta finish up here soon.” Artist. Of course he is. “I don’t mind,” Bucky says. He doesn’t. He likes the idea of sitting across from Steve while he works, sipping his coffee, finishing the book he was reading, and maybe looking up and meeting Steve’s eyes every now and again. His shock-blue eyes. His eyes framed with golden lashes, like seagrass. The Winter Soldier, and a man made of spun-strong gold.

Wrap Battle | 10,604 | GoodbyeBlues

Summary: "Hey, fuckface!" Steve called out after him. "What name do I put on the order?" The man stopped short, turning and looking at Steve from under a cocked brow. "Do you talk to all of your customers this way?" "Yes," Steve nodded. It was the truth. The man grinned, his straight white teeth flashing and the creases framing his eyes deepening with the motion as he continued to gaze unflinchingly at Steve. "You can call me Bucky."

Nokken Wood | 10,616 | leveragehunters (Monkeygreen) / @leveragehunters

Summary: When Sam's friend needs a house-sitter for his place in the country, Steve jumps at the chance. Six months rent-free to do nothing but draw and paint and wander the countryside, looking for inspiration? It was like a dream. But when he gets lost in a storm and nearly falls into a pond he starts to rethink the whole like a dream aspect of life in the country. And when a red-eyed, sharp-clawed, silver-fanged creature rises out of the darkness, Steve is one hundred percent certain the dream's morphed into a nightmare. ...until it gives him a cup of tea.

miles to go before i sleep | 11,910 | Avelera / @avelera

Summary: Steve finds Bucky outside of the Smithsonian and invites him home.

Under the Skin | 18,447 | leveragehunters (Monkeygreen) / @leveragehunters

Summary: "Brooklyn, like I said," he replied, taking Steve's hand and shaking it, then he paused, tilted his head, and said, "Actually, since you're staff? It's Bucky." "Bucky," Steve repeated, feeling oddly touched. "Always Brooklyn in front of the clients, though," he added seriously. "No, of course," Steve promised. "Good to meet you." "You too," he said, glancing down to where Steve was still holding his hand. Steve let go with a sheepish smile. "Sorry." Working in a brothel wasn't somewhere Steve ever expected to find himself, but then he'd never expected to quit his shitty corporate hell-job to apprentice as a tattoo artist. Great as it was, his apprenticeship didn't come with a pay cheque, so eating and keeping a roof over his head meant finding a job that paid actual money. Which was how he'd ended up as the night receptionist in a brothel, accidentally holding Bucky's hand, with no idea Bucky was going to turn out to be something else he'd never expected.

Decoys | 19,540 | littlerhymes / @popliar

Summary: The serum makes Steve stronger, but not bigger. Instead of a superhero, he becomes a spy.

Something New, Something Gold | 20,385 | Nonymos

Summary: Bucky Barnes, retired black-ops operative and Archeology professor, spends a long weekend in the Brazilian rainforest toying with his own mortality and puzzling over the mystery of Steve Rogers. (Also, like, the lost city of El Dorado. But seriously, Steve Rogers.)

The Day the World Went Away | 21,323 | 74days / @74days

Summary: Bucky Barnes has survived the Virus that devastated the world, leaving him road-tripping over America dodging violent gangs and trying to get through another year. When he manages to find a radio station still broadcasting, he's not aware that the voice on the other side of the country will soon become the driving force behind his actions.

This Side | 35,321 | orphan_account

Summary: Bucky Barnes restores antiques for a living. Steve Rogers saves the world. Bucky has no reason to believe their paths will ever cross, right up until they do.

Graphology | 55,177 | leveragehunters (Monkeygreen) / @leveragehunters

Summary: "Steven Grant Rogers," a voice said from somewhere near Steve's front door. "Professional inker. Maybe you'd like to explain why you're leaving us messages about our good friend Bucky?" The redhead currently pinning Steve to the couch said, "Really?" "Alright, her good friend Bucky. My tolerated friend Bucky." "My phone's on the table," Steve ground out. "Grab it, have a look at the last picture." The guy grabbed it, and his obvious double-take would have been funny if Steve wasn't being crushed into his couch. He held it out and the redhead peered at it. "It could be fake." "That's right," Steve said, digging down for all the sarcasm that existed in his skinny body. "I scribbled all over my own thighs and took a photo so I could lure a pair of hostile weirdos to my apartment. That's how I enjoy spending my time." "You know what this means, right?" the guy said, sounding deeply bemused. "Bucky has a soulmate.

2024 Reclists · INBOX · Blog Updates

[kuwanxs]

The two faced spectre and his poor guise of duplicity

jujutsu kaisen as a manga is very carefully curated to lay some of the key themes out. For characters like Gojo, and Geto, it takes a painstaking amount of care to carefully lay out the intricate details and nuances of both their characters and their relationships and the inherent symbolism in it. Something as such would convince you that Jujutsu kaisen is very generous with its explanation of themes to its readers. However, I think this act of laying bare the key details is what really tricks the readers and convinces them into believing Sukuna is a standard, evil character. With no real motives or purpose, just simple need for violence.

Sukuna’s curation, by far, consists of the most intricately picked out details that intentionally create a barrier between him, the reader and the characters he interacts with. He belongs to an ancient era, much of what he speaks is often lost in translation to the sorcerers and curses of the current era. You may find a lot of Japanese speakers/readers break down multiple panels of Sukuna’s speech bubbles and more often than not, his speech bubbles dissect to give us a deeper, more complex dialogue which neither the reader nor the listening character will grasp at first. This barrier of language is intentional to create an air of mystery and confusion on both ends, it tricks the readers and the characters in verse into believing Sukuna as a being is shallow enough to simply fight for the hell of it.

A very essential part of Sukuna’s character is his curiosity. He is curious, at his very core. He is curious to test someone’s limits, to see how far can someone really go, how far can they be pushed? He is curious about human food (cue to him trying and disliking popcorn) His curiosity is a very significant cause that steers him into battles. He treats every opponent differently, he praises some, he belittles some, he encourages some. It’s his way of understanding and testing the true limits of his opponents. He praises Jogo, Kashimo, he asks Higuruma to heal himself, he acknowledges Gojo when the narrative itself brushes past his death. His candidness in every character interaction during a battle is what makes him raw and hard to stomach beyond the surface level.

Sukuna is both similar to, and different than gojo. In a way they're perfect anti parallels to one another. In their shared loneliness and dehumanisation, they find a common ground. Yet it is also what differentiates them. Gojo's isolation renders him impenetrable by those around him, so he becomes a pillar that ensures the security of the jujutsu society, despite acknowledging its flaws, his existence on the mounted platform makes him shoulder the burden of being a beacon that needs to guide his students in order to bring about a change. However, Sukuna's loneliness is a trait that had been engraved into his being from his time in the womb itself as a taboo child. So his isolation as the strongest only strengthens his beliefs of living as he chooses to. Which is why there is a stark contrast in the two panels between Gojo and Sukuna wherein both are titled as the honoured ones.

Sukuna is a very refined character. He recites haiku in midst of his battles, he knows poetry, he knows the language of flowers and knows archery. He praises the moon during his fight with Jogo whilst simultaneously belittling him.

Sukuna’s character often comes with an air of duplicity. It’s not greatly intended on his part but rather something that is reinforced by Gege. Its a very funny way to trick your readers into doing their homework for their characters.

He is a man rooted to his principles and beliefs, a lot of his practices reflect the traditions of his time. But him being grounded to his principles doesn’t really equate to him being moral. He lives the way he wishes to, he fights and destroys and pushes everyone to their limits, his beliefs are limited but stay unshaken.

For a character like Sukuna, who is a product of neglect, and someone who’s very existence is reduced to a title alone, his isolation from human sentiments is very understandable. He was a taboo child, someone who’s very existence stems from negativity cannot understand the concept of “love” so he rejects Yorozu. Sukuna is a character who was robbed off the very chance to be human, he lived and died as the “two faced spectre,” and the effect of this dehumanisation reflects itself in the final chapter. He dies in Yuji’s hands calling himself a “curse,” yet when confronted by Mahito he expresses his true feelings of both fear and regret.

His confrontation with Mahito was extremely fitting for his character because throughout the story, Sukuna, sticking to his beliefs, lives the way he wishes to. He partakes in all heinous acts and stoops low enough to deceive and kill when necessary. When he fights Yorozu, in megumi’s body, he tells her she can do anything she wishes to if she defeats him upon being questioned for marriage. This really grounds Sukuna’s belief of loss and defeat to be equivalent to death itself. He cares not for what Yorozu does to him if he is defeated because a defeat to him, is shameful enough to be considered death itself.

Which is why the only time he directly confronts Mahito, and through him the very narrative itself, is after his defeat. He loses so he finally let’s go of his arrogance. And we find out who Sukuna really has been all along.

[m4rdb]

An insight into the characters based on their approach to the “Allie problem”

If good writing means that every scene has the potential to say something about a character at their core, then the girls' attitude towards the "Allie problem" is an interesting example.

Taissa

The one who comes up with the very plan. This establishes her as ambitious and extremely rational, but it’s the type of rationality that without grounded moral principles could degenerate into violence and cruelty at any time. It’s what we see with adult Misty and Walter, who are both so practical-minded that resorting to murder is nothing more than a smart option to choose to them.

Like Jackie says, Taissa has so much fight in her. The way she handles the Allie situation shows that if she has a goal, she’ll do whatever she finds necessary to obtain it.

How does that translate into their time in the wilderness?

Taissa’s the first to make the call that they should leave the plane and find water. She’s the one who sleeps in the attic when everyone else wouldn’t, she’s the only one who tries to tell Jackie she shouldn’t leave. And in season two, she’s the one who says, “We need to find a way to stay alive, and it can’t be her [: Lottie]”.

Then we see them drawing cards. We’re not shown how they get to that very decision exactly, but it’s important that we know that the two things are tied. The hunt that follows, their first conscious hunt (let’s not forget about Travis), wasn’t supposed to happen—it’s rather the consequence of the designed sacrifice refusing to take on the role.

Though there’s an obvious religious aspect to it, drawing cards isn’t just letting fate/the wilderness decide in their place so that they don’t blame themselves. It’s also the girls’ attempt to give the ritual some semblance of logic and structure—on a normal day, they would draw cards to decide who gets which task. They’re using the same mechanism, except that they’re now deciding who should die and get eaten. And it starts with Taissa’s very rational and straightforward remark about needing to survive.

Natalie

She openly and passionately goes against Taissa’s plan. Despite being presented as the outsider who doesn’t really engage with the team and disregards rules by smoking and doing drugs, she’s the one who fights to play fairly. She most likely doesn’t care about Allie personally, but she’s a teammate, and they should treat her as such.

While Tai’s ultimate goal is winning at Nationals, Natalie doesn’t want to win more than she wants to be a team (T: What’s your plan, then? / N: I dunno, play like a fucking team and win? It’s worked so far.).

It’s quite ironic—yet not that surprising—how, despite being opposites, Natalie and Jackie share a similar mindset about this.

The scene establishes Natalie as a sympathetic character with grounded and noble moral principles, no matter the adversities. In the wilderness, she’s the first and possibly the only one who acknowledges Travis’ grief and sees through his unsufferable attitude and understands that, as much as questionable his methods are, he’s trying to make sure Javi gets over their father’s death and wants to live on.

It's also meaningful that Natalie’s not there when Jackie and Shauna fight and Jackie ends up leaving the cabin. The night earlier, Natalie was the one who let her out when Lottie and the others locked her in and went to hunt Travis down. Natalie basically saves the girl who just had sex with Travis being perfectly aware that it would hurt her, and she doesn’t even know. Viewers do know, though, and we’re instinctively led to think of her as even more noble and deserving of empathy.

Jackie’s death certainly comes from an irrational choice, but the deepest reason is the others’ lack of sympathy towards her at the end of the season. It could be delusional, but I can’t see Natalie turning a blind eye on the whole thing, had she been there.

Jackie was their captain when they had a normal life. Natalie becomes their leader thanks to the constant effort she’s put into the group ever since they landed there—and possibly, as the matter with Allie shows, even before that.

Lottie

Lottie’s phrasing for her refusal is telling. She says, “It doesn’t feel right.” It’s not that she thinks it is, or that it seems like it is. She feels like they’re not meant to go through with it. A simple yet fitting choice of words foreshadows Lottie’s spiritual nature and her connection to the wilderness as well as her role of prophet/messiah.

It’s also important that she’s not shown as particularly proactive. She does express her opinion, but she’s not as passionate as Natalie about it, who instead actively tries to convince them what a terrible idea it is and interferes with Taissa’s plan on the field. This shows how Lottie never cared be a leader, but rather follows where her feelings lead her.

Van

We’re not really shown Van’s reaction until they’re in the locker room after the scrimmage. We just learn that she’s impressionable, as she almost throws up at Nat’s mention of Allie’s bone being visible, and that she’s so devoted to Tai that she won’t let Shauna talk shit about her at the party.

Laura Lee

Of course, nobody would even dream of telling Laura Lee about an act of such misconduct. She would never go along with Taissa’s plan, she wouldn’t even fathom doing something like this. She’s more clueless than Jackie, because Jackie at least did notice something was off on the field. Even at the party, Laura Lee is the only one who still has no idea there were such tensions.

Her blissful ignorance keeps her kind and pure, apart from the ruthless tendencies of the team. It doesn’t change once they’re in the wilderness—Laura Lee dies trying to help her friends, and she fortunately never gets to witness their worst moments.

Shauna

Unsurprisingly, Shauna’s a tough one. Her attitude towards the Allie situation is as ambivalent as it will be for the rest of the story towards everything else.

Shauna keeps her thoughts for herself until Nat and Lottie leave and it’s just her and Tai, and even then, the first thing she says is, “Jackie’s not gonna like it.” The moment she’s asked to make a personal decision, she talks about what Jackie would think, and it’s not because she herself doesn’t know what to think, it’s just what she chooses to say outright. If anything, Shauna isn’t against Taissa’s plan entirely, and bringing up Jackie rather sounds like an excuse so that she doesn’t dwell on her own dark thoughts.

When Taissa says, “Then we probably shouldn’t tell her,” we expect that to upset Shauna—she wouldn’t keep things from Jackie, right? They’re best friends. While it does upset her, it still doesn’t stop her. We understand why later in the episode, when we discover that she’s no stranger to keeping secrets from Jackie, between her affair with Jeff and the admission letter to Brown (it also recontextualizes their first scene together in Shauna’s car, where Jackie addressed literally both).

On the field, when Taissa plays aggressive and forces Allie to play under pressure, Shauna tells her, “It’s not helping,” and once Allie’s on the ground, she’s one of the girls who runs to her first and tries to comfort her. Even though she didn’t openly disagree with Taissa’s plan, she didn’t want or expect things to escalate the way they did. She’ll make the same mistake when Jackie leaves the cabin, Taissa tells her to go talk to her, and Shauna just goes to sleep, underestimating the consequences of it.

Her ambivalence—if not hypocrisy—is shown later that night at the party, when she tries to pick a fight with Taissa while drunk. I think some part of her felt guilty to an extent, so she tries to fight with Tai out of remorse and because she wants to make her look like the only culprit, since she hates that she was so close to being complicit in it. Who calls her out when she defends Nat from Taissa’s slut-shaming at the party? Natalie herself slams in Shauna’s face that she is complicit.

If Shauna had told Jackie, she would’ve put a stop to it for sure. In the 2019 script for the pilot, Jackie says, “You should have told me about Taissa and Allie.” Shauna’s choice to keep the secret directly anticipates their falling out towards the end of the season. Shauna’s continuous lying drives Jackie mad until she explodes and they have that fatal fight.

Shauna’s the one who tries to act as a person who has it together but really doesn’t. She has the potential to be a good person, friend and mother, but she ends up flunking everything and she barely understands why.

Finally, she tells Tai that she’s “a fucking sociopath”, which, considering everything that happens later in the series, is sort of rich.

Jackie

Like Laura Lee, Jackie has no clue the whole “freeze Allie out” strategy is even happening. Shauna didn’t tell her, she was left out, and she doesn’t find out until Allie’s already hurt and there’s nothing she can do about it.

She watches the others as they rush to help and comfort her and handle the situation, but she doesn’t partake in it because she’s too shocked to move. After the scrimmage, she tries very hard to do as Coach Martinez told her—as captain, she’s meant to glue them together (“When it gets tough out there, these girls are going to be looking for someone to guide them. Can you handle that?”). It’s more than that, though—the way Coach put it, if Jackie can’t do that, then she isn’t really anything special. She’s not as fast as Shauna and her footwork isn’t as good as Lottie’s, and there’s something else that Taissa’s better at, too, though Jackie stops Coach before he can tell her that bit. But nobody seems to care about what she’s saying, and Natalie storms off.

Jackie’s inability to handle the Allie situation and lift the others’ spirits foreshadows her incompetence as well as her progressive loss of influence in the wilderness—in Lottie’s words, “You don’t matter anymore.”

Allie’s accident marks the beginning of Jackie’s downfall even before the plane crashes.

[thislovintime]

Photo 1 courtesy of Disc & Music Echo, January 1968. "When they shot them down at Kent State, that was the end of the flower-power era. That was it. You throw your flowers and rocks at us, man, and we'll just pull the guns on you. Essentially, the revolution, which was sort of tolerated as long as it wasn't a significant material threat, was not tolerated anymore. And everybody went 'Ooops' and scurried for cover and licked their wounds. They became isolated – which was the point of it all. 'Togetherness isn't going to get it' was the moral they tried to lay on us, because the less togetherness there is, the more room there is for exploitation. Kent State was an attempt. Let's try this and see what happens. And what happened was the shooting and vast inflation and a swing to the right — the moral majority. The whole thing was inherent in the situation. A certain amount of loosening up, a certain amount of extra leisure, and people are going to try to improve their lot instead of just barely hanging on. If you had a little extra you're going to try to make everything better. And if you see that your own happiness, or the lack of it, is tied in with the sadness of your neighbor, you're going to start feeling communal. And that's going to expand until the crunch comes. As long as people are educated to believe that isolated self-interest is the only way to go, when the crunch comes they'll withdraw from each other. And only now, in the faintest glimmerings, do I see any sense that people are realizing that togetherness and flower power alone won't get it. It's got to be togetherness, flower power, plus a willingness to do something pretty stern from time to time. If you're not willing to behave sternly, people who won't stop short of stern behavior are going to keep on going. It's taken a while for that message to sink in." - Peter, When The Music Mattered (1984)

“I personally find the idea that we (as a country) never did anything bad to anybody else, and that the only reason anyone would do anything to us is their unbridled inhuman evil, to be very far wide of the truth. The number of times I have been accosted in one way or another where I had nothing to do with it is maybe in the 3-5% range, if that. I’m not excusing anyone from blame. But the more we think we’re all good and certain others are all evil, the worse things get, not the better they get. Only the humility to realize my part in the events of my life allows me to walk in relative peace. The other attitude is called pride, in the seven-deadly-sins sense of the word, and the Bible is dead right when it says it goes before a fall.” - Peter, Ask Peter Tork

Q (from a 15-year-old): “[W]hat do you think young-ish people can do to help the world 'situation’?” Peter: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and there’s no getting over that. The job for the rest of us is simply not to demonize anyone, and to fight as hard as needed for what we are sure is right. As to what the ‘young-ish’ can do, I propose what I propose the old-timers do: do what’s in front of you to do with gusto (you’ll never find out how things are if you do them half-assedly), and remember that everyone’s doing his or her best, no matter how awful that may be. Thanks for asking. Keep up the good fight.” - Ask Peter Tork

“Those of us who were truly interested in liberty, fraternity and equality, however, knew we were onto something good and real. What had been called democracy was, and to some extent still is, a pretext for wrapping the will of the greedy and aggressive in a mantle of public acquiescence. Now, the business of wresting power away from those who make a specialty of wielding it will be a long and protracted struggle, with a lot of setbacks along the way. The outlines of the new style of governance are only dimly perceivable, and won’t become clear for a long time to come. In the meantime, our job is to practice the principles of fairness and service to the extent possible. One thing is clear: there is a much higher joy in service than there is in acquisition of wealth. (Remember that it isn’t money that’s the root of all evil, it’s the love of money.) Hanging together in brother — and sisterhood is so happy-making you want to sing right out loud. Yeah, I feel the same about those ideas as I did then…in case you couldn’t tell. heheheh” - Peter, Ask Peter Tork

“I believe very much in all that I believed in back in the 60’s. I hope I’m more aware of the practicalities than I was then, but I am positive that the values and principles I held then are critical to the well-being of the planet, or at the very least, critical to growth and contentment in the population. As to the practicalities: the chance of no more war in our lifetimes is so close to zero that I don’t imagine it possible, tho’ there well may be progress along these lines. May be. Sometimes I see the world as an eternal horse race between salvation and dissolution, now one, and now the other gaining the lead. But to the extent that we can learn, each and all of us, that the cooperative good is good for the greatest individual good (with safeguards, to be sure), that forgiveness is the route to true inner peace, and that not everything we deem wrong or bad may be so, to that extent hassles of all shapes, sizes and colors will diminish. I am so sure of all this that I would, I hope, be willing to bet my life on these principles.” - Peter Tork, Ask Peter Tork

[vamprincessrina]

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖊𝖌𝖔 𝖎𝖓 𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖋𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓

"𝔶𝔬𝔲 𝔠𝔞𝔫 𝔡𝔬 𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔯𝔶𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔴𝔯𝔬𝔫𝔤 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔦𝔯𝔢."

🪽 ♡₊˚ 🦢・₊✧

TW: Delves into psychology theory. Very lightly brushes on themes of having a negative childhood. Overall positive message, though, just want to put that out just in case!

I wanted to make a post talking about the ego and how it may "hold us back" in manifestation. This was inspired by a YouTube video I watched and I want to give credit to the original creator because I'll definitely be quoting parts of their video!

(TLDR at end, approximately 4-5 minute read)

𝄞⨾𓍢ִ໋

Firstly, one must ask, "What is the ego?" The concept of the ego, as first propagated by psychologist Sigmund Freud, signifies the "self" or "I" and serves as our intermediary with the external world through perception. It is the segment of our being that holds memory, evaluates, plans, and in various manners, responds to and acts within the surrounding physical and social world. According to Freud’s theory, it coexists with the "id": our base and primitive drives and instincts, and the superego: the ethical and moral component of our personality. The ego operates on the principle of reality, which acts to satisfy the id's primal yearning for instant gratification while upholding the superego's aspirations for maintaining social and moral standards.

This delicate balance is dictated by the strength of the ego. An individual with lacking ego strength may find themselves torn between the demands of the id and the superego. Conversely, one possessing an overly fortified ego might become rigid and resistant to compromise. A well-balanced ego is deemed essential for assisting an individual in coping with stress, setbacks, and other hardships in life, without resorting to unhealthy coping mechanisms. A person with low ego strength may struggle to withstand adversities and might seek to evade reality through wishful thinking, addictions, or delusions.

With an understanding of the ego and its role in balancing the id and superego, one might ponder, what transpires when the ego does not exist? The phenomenon known as ego death can occur through the practice of deep meditation, the use of psychedelics, near-death experiences, or rigorous spiritual discipline. This process involves a loss of self, of all emotions—both benevolent and malevolent—and a sensation of oneness with the universe. This elevated state is akin to what some may describe as "enlightenment." Though any person on a spiritual journey might experience ego death, maintaining such a transcended state is nigh impossible in a world where the ego is requisite for survival. Oftentimes, only monks or those who wholly sequester themselves from society in an effort to negate karmic debt can sustain this enlightened state.

I bring this discussion to light because, within the realms of manifestation and spirituality, we are frequently advised to purge ourselves of doubts and limiting beliefs, ultimately striving to dissolve our ego. Our ego is formed in infancy and evolves throughout our development. It serves as our shield in this intensely stimulating and, at times, perilous world. Often, a weakened ego strength stems from external sources within one's childhood—perhaps an unstable upbringing, a childhood bereft of freely given love, or a sense of unworthiness. Thus, when we endeavor to manifest our desires and any doubts arise, merely suppressing them and admonishing ourselves for feeling thus is a misguided approach. It is imperative to bestow upon our ego, our doubts, the love and validation they require; otherwise, they will persistently clamor for our attention.

Self-transformation and the spiritual journey, which are inadvertently related to manifesting, is not often a process achieved overnight. There may be days of immense confidence, where one resides in a state of knowing. Yet, on subsequent days, doubts may cascade, highlighting every contradiction in our circumstances and physical reality. We are often advised to enhance our self-concept and strive to reach a higher vibration aligned with our higher selves. Whilst this counsel is admirable, why can we not simply be deserving as we are? When we convince ourselves that we must embody a particular state to attain our desire, we are merely affirming the deep-seated belief that we are undeserving.

Thus, I implore you to reflect: are you condemning that inner voice? While it may suffice for some to ignore it and persist regardless, this approach may prove counterproductive, especially if this issue recurs, causing you to waver. The next time this occurs, take a moment to sit with yourself. Remind yourself that this may be your inner child. Assure them that they are accepted, that they deserve to be heard, and that they do not need to change. Learn to cherish that aspect of yourself and the lessons it imparts. Worry not that perhaps by "validating" and attending to these doubts, you might find yourself in a perpetual state of negativity. Contrarily, by providing that voice the love and validation it seeks, you will discover that it in fact soothes and dispels the worries more rapidly.

In truth, all facets of the ego are equal. The version of you that is joyful, the version that is sorrowful, the version that feels deserving of love, and the version that does not—all coexist. The reason you deem them as "bad" or "unwanted" is because you assign them such labels. They exist to protect you and are neither inherently good nor bad. This is why, in ego death, all emotions cease—there is no joy, sorrow, desire, or contentment. It is a state of nothingness. You are the one ascribing meaning to your feelings, creating a duality that may generate unnecessary resistance.

I once encountered the advice that "you can do everything wrong and still achieve your desire." Of course, this is not an endorsement of self-destructive habits. Rather, it is a call for kindness towards oneself. Remind yourself that you are deserving of your desires exactly as you are. Practice self-parenting and self-soothing. If we are all interconnected with the divine, then every part of us, even those that seem unseemly, is still imbued with divine love. Cease demonizing certain parts of yourself. Abandon the notions of "I should not think this way" or "I should be making more progress." We are imperfect beings, but this does not render us any less deserving of our desires at this very moment. Why must we attain a particular state to be worthy?

Happy Manifesting,

ℜ𝔦𝔫𝔞

TLDR: The ego, as defined by Freud, mediates between our primal desires (id) and moral standards (superego). A balanced ego helps us cope with life's challenges, while an unbalanced one can lead to unhealthy coping mechanisms. Ego death, achieved through spiritual practices, leads to a loss of self and a feeling of oneness with the universe but is hard to maintain in everyday life.

In manifestation and spirituality, we're often told to eliminate doubts and dissolve the ego, but this isn't always helpful. Our ego, formed from childhood experiences, protects us. Suppressing doubts isn't the answer; we should validate and love our inner voice instead.

Self-transformation is a gradual process. It's okay to have doubts. Embrace all parts of yourself, as they all serve a purpose. Being kind to yourself and practicing self-soothing can help you manifest your desires without feeling undeserving. You don't need to be perfect or reach a specific state to be worthy of your desires.

I feel that perhaps talking about the psychology of the ego may be a bit unnecessary, but, what's wrong with learning something new?