#or at least i don't find any like. discrepancies there

[satyricplotter]

i find it very funny the one place my heart went to find a (visual) depiction of bruce I liked best was in extremely nsfw yaoi batjokes fanart (as opposed to the comics, say). looked at him taking the joker way up his guts and went yep that's mr. wayne.

[killerpancakeburger]

Imagine: Ghost giving you the shovel talk after Soap and you made your relationship official

It's the evening, you two are smoking outside in companionable silence, taking in the star-spangled sky. Suddenly his voice pulls you out of your daydreaming.

"So... you n' Johnny, eh?”

You feel an ominous shiver run down your spine - you do not like the turn this conversation is taking. His tone is steady, like it usually is, but it means nothing when that specter is involved. He could be slicing a throat and his voice wouldn't waver a iota.

If there was anything you learned about The infamous Ghost, in the absence of his identity and the face beneath the mask, it was that the names he used for the people he considered his family were anything but random. Soap was the most common way he refered to his Sergeant, but a Johnny could slip here and there. "Johnny" was personal; intimate; vulnerable; and possessive all at once. Not in the way an insecure lover would act - although...? Maybe...? -, but in the way a pack member would bare his fangs at a newcomer to protect his mates.

There was something animalistic buried within him that would resurface from time to time, when the risk was too great, when the survival of the 141 or of any of its members was jeopardized. Something you would not risk to vex. Simon was extremely protective behind closed doors, it wasn’t a scoop, but you thought yourself safe from his fangs... or at least you did until now.

"Yeah?"

How you hate the interrogation in your voice. As if you were seeking his permission. Like a child knowing they're asking for too much but doing it anyway.

You busy yourself with your cigarette, trying to look unfazed.

"He may sound like a fuckin' playboy most of the times, but he's actually a sensible kinda fella. Doesn't go around givin' his heart to just anyone, y'know?"

You gulp. Take a deep breath. The only way out is through. Might as well be done with it.

"So, is this the part where you swear that no one will ever find my body if I hurt him?"

You're proud of how casual you managed to sound.

He actually chuckles at that. A relaxed, raspy, unbothered kind of sound. Maybe you will walk away with your life tonight after all.

"Got it all figured out, don't ya? But that's good. Saves us some time."

He tosses his cigarette and, for the first time since you’ve been outside, he turns to you and look you in the eye. His stare is as intense as ever.

"We're in agreement, then? Ya'll treat mah boy well?"

"Wouldn't dream of anything else."

"Good lass."

A pause, then:

"This works both way, y'know that, right?"

"Hmm?"

Too busy celebrating your escape from the valley of the shadow of death, you haven't been completely paying attention.

"If he gives ya trouble, I'll knock some sense into that thick head of his."

You look at him again, your face beaming and your chest tingling with a newfound joy.

"Thank you."

You smile, unable to stop the motion of your lips. Your gratefulness is not for the threat he proclaimed, but for the friendship he extends to you.

He doesn't answer. He doesn't need to.

Suddenly a burly arm wraps around your neck.

"What were ya guys talkin' about!? You’ve been there for ages." Pouts Soap.

Glancing over at Ghost, you can see that Johnny has tried to grab him by the neck too, with a lukewarm success, considering the height difference between the two of them.

"Nothin' ye need to concern yerself with", retorts Simon, lying as easily as he breathes.

As Johnny turns to you in hopes of finding an easier target that will confess everything, you nearly miss the conspiratorial wink Ghost sends your way. The action is so far removed from his usual character, you understand that the discrepancy is made to amuse you. So you giggle.

Tonight the sky is full of stars, and your heart full of bliss, the way you feel like your chest might burst with happiness at any moment, with those two men at your side.

A/N: Platonic!Reader x Ghost my beloved 😫 🖤 Tried to make Ghost the less OOC as possible, as usual >_< but man its not a walk in the fookin park.

Trouple potential tho? 👀 sorry not sorry, I can't help it, I love the ambiguity...

[henrysglock]

Finally, More NINA Puzzle Pieces

DISTRESSED NOISES!! WE GOT NINA CRUMBS!! AND IT'S DRIVING ME INSANE!!

IT HAS THE CAMERA!!! AT LEAST ONE VERSION OF REALITY HAS THE CAMERA!!!!!

Okay so remember when I pointed this out about the NINA discrepancies in El's 4.05 entrance, and how there were at least 22 different iterations of events?

Specifically this glaring difference between reality (tapes) and the rest of the 4.05 entrance (labeled 3 and 8)?

The presence of a camera in a UD-ified version of HNL tells us that the bottom row of images straight up cannot physically exist in one cohesive reality.

Which is to say—Anything that does not have the camera is 100%, definitely, concretely not based in the UD's reality/those versions without the camera are either fake or set in a different reality.

If you've been following along this past year and a half, this is not news to you; it's just confirmation of what we already knew.

It does, however, means that none of this was based in reality:

We already kind of knew that, based on the props changing so much within the Rainbow Room each time/Henry's changing hair/etc, but the confirmation goes crazy insane. We love to see it.

After the first entrance to NINA/after we see the footage of the version with the camera, we don't see a non-camera version again. Any non-camera versions seem to disappear. This means whatever simulation El's stuck in, it's adaptive. It learns, with a propensity for making itself immersive by molding itself to to the subject's understanding of reality.

However, what fucks me up is that all of these are, then, set in the same "reality":

Which means the new ST5 UD-ified HNL, the physical camera footage of 1979, Henry's electrocution, Blood Hands El, El running to the Rainbow Room, and Brenner running to the Rainbow Room are all supposedly set in "reality".

That's not possible, though. The electrocution scene cannot have existed in reality/could not possibly be a memory, because 14 year old El is barely tall enough to see in. 1979 El would not have been tall enough to have seen interaction:

This means that none of NINA is reliable. Period. Even the things that appear to be set in reality are unreliable re: what actually happened in 1979.

Whatever NINA runs on, it's adaptive and manipulative. It's like c.ai, if c.ai was actually AI. Whatever it is, it takes El's experiences both in the lab and outside the lab and combines them to form entirely new scenarios that never really happened (see: Blade Runner 2049 and the manipulated/mash-up memories shenanigans). El has been told she's reliving memories. That is not the case. None of what she's seeing is reliable. It's like when a movie says it's based on a true story.

This fits with what I said about the monologue never having existed at all and NINA being an immersive empathogenic drug trip that pulls from El's outside memories. It also fits with my draft about the Mindflayer ties between Shadow-NINA in the VR, TFS, and NINA in ST4, and my speculation in that same draft about a) NINA specifically running on the Mindflayer, and b) the Mindflayer using familiar humanoid avatars to gain sympathy and coerce its target into joining it.

We see this kind of behavior in Patty in her garnering sympathy from Henry and then insisting that she and Henry run away together to find her mother in the Stardust Casino...regardless of the fact that Henry is still flayed. We see it again in our "Couldn't Possibly Exist" Henry as he garners sympathy from El and then tells El to join him. And then we see it again in Shadow Brenner using the NINA-like maze to learn about Henry as a means to try and coerce him into joining him. It's a continuing theme.

Both Patty and "Henry" want Henry and El, respectively, to accept their offer and leave with them. Both Henry and El reject that offer in exactly the same way:

In my speculative opinion, we see a resurgence of this particular dual-yeeting in Billy and Heather.

Henry in the VR, as we know, has a dubious ending re: escaping the simulation.

This exists in contrast to the other version of NINA Henry, who, much like TFS Henry with Patty, is insistent that El run away without him.

When I say that we have multiple guys, this is what I mean. Their motivations are entirely different. One of these men in NINA is not Henry. It's someone or something masquerading as him. If I had to speculate, I would say that it stems from the Mindflayer and its possible presence in NINA...Especially given the similarities between NINA and the Russian prison, wherein they have a trapped form of the Mindflayer:

In short—Every day it seems more likely that whatever El fought in the massacre was not Henry. It's like I said way way back last year: there's someone else in there with her. Multiple someone-elses, even.

It also seems, if I had to speculate, that rejecting the Mindflayer avatar is what gives El her powers back. This means it may also be what "changed" about One, as mentioned in the plinko scene.

This all also backs what I speculated way back in the day about the blood transfusions being related to immunity against the Mindflayer, either finding it, triggering it, or building it. It seems to function like getting a live vaccine: you're given dose of the live virus, and your body fights it off. In fighting off the Mindflayer, it's entirely possible that the process triggers latent powers in those who have them. Those who don't have the basis for latent powers eventually succumb (see: Will, Billy, the Flayed). Brenner, with NINA, may have been giving El the equivalent of a booster shot.

[discluded]

I just realized that the porsche in the book was probably like kinn’s type? Cos they initially imagined a korean actor to play it right.. so apo being called to cast is really sus lol

I have never read KPTN and according to people who have, it's better for my brain that I haven't 😂

According to Reliable Sources, apparently Porsche wasn't Kinn's Type™ because Kinn's type is pretty and novel!Porsche wasn't pretty. But Apo is very pretty so obviously that wouldn't work 😁

Okay since I have a minute now:

KinnPorsche Casting: The Lore

First posting (one version) of the casting story for everyone to set the stage. Thanks to @lorddio for helping me find this one again and MileApo Safe Place for translating as always. it's got a very special part that needs highlight 😉

But setting the record straight(ha!) about the basics:

Mile was Kinn's face model, and purportedly many elements of Kinn were based off of Mile's public image (very importantly: wealthy heir to an important Thai family)

In the variations of posts about Mile is Kinn lore I've seen, this was the specific photo that inspired Daemi's Kinn. He reposted it around the same time his casting for KPTS was announced (this was reposted Dec 2020) but if I remember correctly from scrolling back in his feed, it was taken when he was 24-25 years old.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by MP 15.15 (@milephakphum)

As anon mentioned, and Apo mentioned in the clip above, Daemi chose a Korean actor as the face cast for Porsche.

However, he was contacted and specifically invited to audition for the role of Porsche. According to Apo, he didn't even read for any other characters

Those are the basic public facts we can agree on. But of course there's more going on behind the scenes! There's actually a lot going on here so I'm going to break it down for each actor, starting with Mile because that might set the ground for some of what happened with Apo.

Admittedly some of this is my opinion or interpretation, so take it with a grain of salt and use your own judgment! Again, the above facts are what is probably known and agreed upon.

Casting dates (a clarification)

First of all, there's a couple of confusing things going on with the dates, which I actually didn't highlight in the last post about it, but was exposed by the Facebook posts.

The first Facebook post dated October 1, 2020 talks about how the audition process has started and the first round will go on to October 3. The second post is from October 4 and then lists the dates of the auditions for October 10.

Now, October 10, the "official" audition date is (1) The day Mile and Apo were both fast tracked through auditions and (2) met again. I don't think anyone on the English side of fandom has noticed this or at least publicly talked about this discrepancy so I'm bringing you hot news (that I've been sitting on and not sharing lol)

It is worth pointing out that this is supposedly the photo below is of their first kiss from the auditions, and they're both wearing different clothes, so. I'm guessing the fast tracking was actually for the first round of auditions between Oct 1-3, and then the kiss was Oct 10.

Anyway, they sat next to each other and Apo talked to Mile first, regardless of if it was the same day (likely not, in my opinion)

There's also a couple of different photos of them together at audition.

Notably, in the first they're sat in uh, waiting area chairs. There's a different clip of Apo sitting behind Bible, so I'm guessing this is before Apo talked to Mile and he had noticed Mile while sitting in this area and went to talk to him.

The moved together down the line to the audition room, I think?

where Sprite interviewed them:

Also based on this last photo they switched sitting order at some point while waiting to audition

Mile's casting

So aside from the fact Mile visibly went to auditions, there is a rumor with some basis that Mile was pre-cast as Kinn. Probably soft confirmed by Mile himself.

I'm just going to close the loop on this discrepancy too: I think Mile was an invited audition/casting in the same way Ke Huy Quan was invited to audition for for Waymond Wang. Mile did audition. He was likely get the role because he was so preferentially invited by the authors and was the basis for the character.

Clearly, Ke Huy Quan won an Oscar and Mile won a GQ breakout actor award, so in invited casting, even for seemingly "unimportant" roles, it doesn't speak to an actor deserving or not deserving the role based on of acting skills. Mile also was cast as the main character Bohn in My Engineer in 2017 before turning it down; he clearly has some acting chops and can win lead roles.

In academia, often times internal postings will open for tenure track positions with a preferred candidate in mind; but due to rules these postings are made public and sometimes an outside candidate will blow the preferred candidate out of the water in terms of quality and get hired instead.

Which is to say there could have been another actor that ended up impressing more in auditions as Kinn even with Mile being preferred, or another actor pair that seemed more suited for Kinn and Porsche.

The other thing auditions do is allow for actors to screen test chemistry. So finally, Mile actually going through the casting process allows him to screen test a for a pairing partner. Which brings us to...

Pre-cast Preferred casting rumor credibility: 10/10

Apo's Casting

Play Mastermind.mp3 by Taylor Swift

Once Twice upon a time, the planets and the fates And all the stars aligned You and I ended up in the same room At the same time

Okay if you didn't catch it on the first watch...

Mile, what the heck is that expression. 😂😂😂

Again, Apo was invited to go to casting specifically for Porsche and only for Porsche. Apo has never acted in a BL before going to audition for KPTS, so the question begged who invited him and why?

First of all, Mile has made it clear that he was a fan of Apo's acting work and followed his career after they met in the gym. He's also made it clear he had the world's biggest crush on Apo. Look how excited he was to talk about working with Apo and how handsome he thinks Apo is in January 2021 (like 3 months after they met again!)

If Mile was the preferential Kinn cast and he didn't have an pairing partner, it would make sense to ask him if there were any actors he thought he might work well with.

I'm not entirely convinced Mile engineered for Apo to get cast or anything. Apo's acting career and skills stand on their own and I think their insane screen chemistry speaks volumes about why they were cast. But as for who made the request to Apo's manager ... hm 😏 Maybe we'll find out one day.

Mile Phakphum - Mastermind.mp3 rumor credibility: 6/10

[chrysanthemumgames]

Do the "no romantic attraction" options prevent certain content later on? If so, which option should I pick for closest to "I may not have experienced / thought about it before, but I'm still open to the idea if I find someone I like thinking about (and so I don't want to disable any game content that might come later)?"

They don't prevent you from entering into a romance later. I don't even think they lock off any flirting or crush options, or at least they shouldn't once the game's next update is pushed (there was a bug related to this in some scenes).

As of right now it's a roleplay element; as of the sequel it may be something that comes up as the PC reflects on why such a discrepancy exists between what they thought was the case before and what might be the case now.

It is, of course, perfectly possible to play a character who is aromantic from beginning to end as well.

[aikoiya]

LoZ Theory - Hylia = Amaterasu, But What Does That Mean?

Now, this theory is mostly just for fun, okay? So, keep that in mind when reading this.

Anyway, I'm sure that we've all realized to some degree that Hylia has some very obvious parallels to Amaterasu of Shintoist theology. At least, thematically speaking.

However, that brings into question as to who would take on the thematic roles of Tsukuyomi & Susano-o?

Interestingly, Hyrule itself doesn't really seem to have any gods of the moon & while wind & sky & even water gods have appeared throughout the games, the only one who you could feasibly refer to as a "storm god" really wasn't up to the same level as Hylia & I'd thus argue that he couldn't really be called a Susano-o parallel.

However, there was 1 divine entity that did appear in at least 1 game & had cameos in a couple of others. One that appears to bear some sort of connection to the moon.

The Fierce Deity. (Yes, he is actually, canonically, a Kishin, who are known for being compassionate protectors despite their viciousness in battle, however, I'm talking thematic roles here & therefore, he doesn't need to be a perfect representation of Tsukuyomi. At the same time, Hylia doesn't just parallel Amaterasu, but in some ways Danu, an Irish mother goddess, & even Christ to a degree. So, I don't understand why FD couldn't also have multiple influences.)

Not to mention, did you know that wolves, rabbits, & fairies all have some sort of connection to the moon? Like, I'm sure most of us know the wolf connection, but also there's the legend of the Jade Rabbit & I remember reading somewhere that the full moon was a portal to the realm of the fae. So, even in that respect, the Links still have some faint connections to the moon.

But if Hylia = Amaterasu & Fierce Deity = Tsukuyomi, then that still leaves Susano-o's Hyrulean mirror.

However, maybe we can figure this out by working through the game characters that Hylia & FD are most associated with, which are Zelda & Link.

And, as I'm guessing you're realizing, they too have a third: Ganondorf. And what seemingly divine entity is he most associated with?

The Bringer of Demise. Who happens to call down lightning in battle, as does Ganondorf. You could even make an argument about how his hatred could mirror the indiscriminant destructive power of a storm. Natural disasters, if you will.

Now, what I find interesting is what this implies about the 3 Hyrulean divinities in question. Because Susano-o had fallen from grace & been cursed into the body of a mortal for his misdeeds until he earned back his spot among the gods.

Is it possible that Demise had also been a true deity before committing some act that caused him to be cast out & become an... Akuma?

In fact, one of the things Susano-o did to get thrown out was that he destroyed his sister's crops. Specifically, it appears that he & Amaterasu both had 3 rice fields each, but whereas her fields were fertile, his were dry & barren, which in his jealousy, he destroyed her fields. (Which, itself, creates a bit of an interesting parallel between not just Susano-o's relationship with Amaterasu & Demise's with Hylia in SS, but also between the godly siblings & Ganondorf's relationship with just Hyrule, in-general. At least, if you trust WW Gdorf's words.)

One possible issue I see is a bit of discrepancy in the myths. In some depictions, it's Susano-o who kills Ōgetsuhime after his banishment, but in others, it's Tsukuyomi who kills Ukemochi. Which are simply 2 different names for the same goddess. Not only that, it was for the same reason. In order to serve them food, she produced it via some very unsanitary means, so they killed her for it.

As for Tsukuyomi, he seems to be regarded as an evil god, but at the same time, he only seems to appear in 2 myths. The myth of he & his siblings' birth & the myth of him killing Ukemochi.

Beyond that, personality wise, Tsukuyomi was described as cold & reserved, as well as having been noted to value things such as order, justice, & etiquette a great deal, to the point where it's said that he was willing to kill to maintain it despite murder not being condoned. In this way, he's seen as violent. Which could well fit with Fierce Deity, considering his portrayal as a Kishin with a few tweaks.

On the other hand, FD is referred to as a Kishin, which are inspired by the Buddhist Pāla or Protectors, a.k.a. Wrathful Gods. And though they are fearsome in battle & terrifying to behold, one of their core qualities is that they are compassionate, ultimately benevolent, & visit just vengeance upon those who wrong the innocent.

However, the only reason for Tsukuyomi being referred to as an evil god was his murder of Ukemochi. So, how does it change his character in a situation where the one to do so was instead his brother?

Are there other things he's done? It doesn't seem like it, which kinda paints Amaterasu in a not-so-great light considering how Susano-o does a lot more terrible things, yet later, she still forgives him.

Hell, remember he basically commits the exact same crime as Tsukuyomi. So, why is it that Susanoo gets a pass despite all the other shit he did, but Tsukuyomi doesn't despite technically having only 1 mess-up?

Is it because he hasn't apologized yet? Because he didn't get her some super powerful gift? Honestly, it makes me wonder what Amaterasu's reaction to Ukemochi's hostess skills & how she produced the food would've been.

Furthermore, either Tsukuyomi killed Ukemochi, Susano-o killed Ōgestuhime, or Tsukuyomi killed her, she revived, & then Susano-o killed her again later.

In the case of the last one, it brings to question why she hadn't learned her lesson? At that point, she only has herself to blame.

However, it's also possible that the story of night & day & Susano-o killing Ōgetsuhime could possibly be one in the same, just told from 2 different perspectives. Keep in mind that Susano-o was able to transform a woman into a comb even after being banished. It wouldn't be too farfetched to assume that he could transform himself as well. Hell, shouldn't taking on the visage of another person theoretically be much easier than literally turning another person into an inanimate object?

If I'm right, then the situation would unfold like this: Susano-o was banished, Ukemochi held a feast & invited Amaterasu, she couldn't come & sent Tsukuyomi instead, Susano-o heard of Ukemochi's grand feast, & took on his brother's appearance. Susanoo-o as Tsukuyomi asked Ukemochi to provide him with food, then upon seeing how she did so, he killed her before leaving, & that's when Tsukuyomi came upon the scene. However, this left Tsukuyomi to be blamed for her death because other partygoers witnessed the not-Tsukuyomi's crime, which resulted in Amaterasu & the real Tsukuyomi separating, thus creating day & night. (Not that this is actually what happened in myth, but it's just a thought.)

However, even if he did do it, if this was the only instance of Tsukuyomi behaving in such a manner, then it honestly seems very unfair to have him automatically slighted as evil.

Though, what I find interesting is that if my interpretation of the story were correct, then it'd somewhat create another parallel between Tsukuyomi & FD. The misconception that dark automatically means evil, which has led to both being demonized. In FD's case, pretty literally due to unfortunate translation association.

Sorry, I just found this possibility to be very freaking interesting.

LoZ Cultural Masterlist 1

[old-school-butch]

It's honestly sickening how easily you justify the murder of civilians. The loss of life on 10/7 was a tragedy, but how many more lives have been lost by Israel murdering civilians? What do you stand for? If you can rightfully be enraged by the loss of life on 10/7 and condemn Hamas for it, why can you not condemn Israel for this? What does Israel stand for if they can be outraged by the loss of life of their civilians but see tens of thousands of more deaths as nothing? What do you stand for? Because it's not that the loss of human life is a tragedy if you can condemn Hamas but not Israel. Why are the lives of Palestinians so worthless to you? What do you stand for? If one group kills less than 2,000, and the other kills tens of thousands, what do you stand for?

Peace, in the very TLDR version, I stand for peace. We clearly have different views about how to achieve that, but maybe its good for you to consider that people who disagree with you are as human as you are.

Where do I begin?

As bizarre as it seems, war is a human means of communication. Policy by other means, as the saying goes, where conflicts move from ideas and words to deeds, where emphasis is added with explosions, where commitments are made with life and limb and we argue through this kinetic medium until we reach some compromise, or at least a one-sided silence.

This almost sounds reasonable, until you consider that the ideal outcome of war, from any individual point of view, is to risk as little as possible and force your opponent to sacrifice as much as possible. The inevitable discrepancies in power mean that the poor, the weak, the dependent, ill, elderly, women and children inevitably make up much of those sacrifices. Men, with broad freedoms to loot, rape and kill among 'the enemy', will tell themselves that the ordinary rules of society don't matter here and feed their darkest desires to punctuate their own moments of fear and terror.

So, while I view conflict as inevitable between people and societies, I am opposed to war. I stand for peace. I would like to see peace in the Levant.

I support:

the self-determination of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples.

the recognition and declaration of an independent Palestinian state, or perhaps 2 states since they are not contiguous.

Israel's removal of its settlements from the occupied territories of the West Bank

the end of UNWRA and all claims of 'right of return'

normalization of relations between Gaza, Egypt and Israel and the West Bank and its neighbors.

That's a baseline. In more ideal terms I want to see:

free and fair elections for all people in every nation.

a Human Rights code established in all Levant states

lifting people out of poverty by finally focusing on economic development instead of decades of dependence on foreign aid

puppies and rainbows while I'm at it

Hamas started this particular war on October 7th, their 3rd try since Israel ended their occupation of Gaza in 2005 and Hamas defeated the PLA on its bloody path to power. Hamas' actions were a series of territorial incursions and war crimes targeting civilians and taking hostages. That sent a pointed message to Israel - we will kill your people wherever we find you, we will destroy you and we have no regard for the conventions of war.

That's not a one-time communique though. Hostages are still being held and Hamas' cruelty and indifference to life has turned to its own people - there are no air raid sirens, no shelters, no civilian-only zones where Hamas fighters separate themselves from civilians, Hamas fighters wear no uniforms to identify who's a combatant so civilians are safer. Multiple countries are sending humanitarian aid and Hamas not only fails to distribute it but instead captures it and sells it to fund their war, so the poorest and most vulnerable people are left to starve. That also sends a message I think too many in the West ignore - Palestinian life has no value to Hamas.

A nationalist Arab movement emerged in the Palestine region in the 1920s, just as Zionism swelled among Jews in the same era. It was the end of the 500 year old Ottoman empire and as it collapsed, new opportunities emerged. However, older ideas also surged including the desire to rebuild the Caliphate.

This was the vast settler-colonial Empire built from the start of Islam, under the prophet/warrior king Muhammad, until it peaked here. The caliphs is like a king, the Supreme court and the Pope all rolled into one - his right to rule came directly from Allah and his Prophet, and was head of both state and church where regional or secular laws were abolished and obedience to Allah, Muhammad as his prophet, and the Caliph as his heir was absolute. Differing claims about legitimacy led to splintering into multiple factions, which were then vulnerable to the Mongol, Byzantine and eventually the Ottoman Empires that would itself claim the title of caliph to shore up its own legitimacy.

Islamists are radical Muslims who have fundamentally colonial aspirations, first in this region and ultimately across the globe. Most of the conflict in the MENA area result from factions within this broader movement - Shia versus Sunni, Persian versus Arab, the Kurds Khorason and Wahhabists are all competing dynasties and sects who vie for control.

To Islamists who are inspired by this history and wants to recreate its colonial glory before moving on to conquer the world, it's clear that you can't have a Jewish state right smack in the middle of your beautiful Empire. They are super pissed that European colonial powers ruined their own Arabian colonial plans, so they've adapted their arguments. Those forces have found it convenient to continue the 'Palestinian cause' as a stepping stone to wiping out Israel and establishing an Islamic state by framing it as a struggle of national self-determination. Thus, it can appeal to the West and the U.N. as a nationalist struggle while continuing to pursue imperialist goals. The PLO was violent and somewhat deluded, but I at least believed that Arafat actually thought he would lead an actual Palestinian state and I supported their goal to remove Israel from the occupied territories.

Hamas' goals in the conflict are shared with all Islamist factions. Yes, even when Islamists are fighting each other, they are still all trying to establish the caliphate, they only disagree on who should be in charge of it. This ideology is already at war with the West but the West is blissfully ignorant of this colonizing and intensely violent movement, because Islamist energies are currently consumed with attacking each other, competing for followers, and punishing Muslim populations who are insufficiently enthusiastic about their rise to power.

Currently, radical Islamist regimes have already seized power in enough of the middle east that conflict is limited to proxy wars and destroying Israel (unless you're in Syria where 5 different proxies are in a multi-sided conflict) and the most intense insurgent fighting is now happening across Africa in a dozen different countries.

Strangely, the West barely acknowledges, much less compiles, this new threat of Empire. This wikipedia entry looks long, but it's only documenting the wars of the IS. That's just one group. Overall, Islamists are involved in the overwhelming majority of current conflicts, coups and insurgencies, and the West - with its ideals on nationalism, religious freedom, democracy and its own more material interests, doesn't have a good handle on what to do. I don't want to see a return to Cold War approach where the U.S. would back any dictator who said he hated communists. And, since there are internal struggles, we're already backing Islamists like the Saudis even though they supported Al Quaeda, ISIS etc. (who now think the Saudis are apostates who are too friendly with the West) or the Syrian dictator. These extremist, woman-hating, slave-fueled regimes are horrifying, and the less we have to do with them, the better.

I think we have to hold to our ideals but also accept that you can't bring peace to people who don't want it, and sometimes there is no 'good guy' to back in a fight, just less worse actions that both sides can be encouraged to take.

So these are the things I read and care about, and then I read your opinions about Gaza. So many deaths, you say, while Arab Islamists kill 300,000 Africans in the Sudan without a peep of concern from you, and you ask me what do I stand for? The Muslim Rohingya in northern Myanmar tried and failed to create a separatist Islamic state, and are now being expelled en masse - their population of 1.2 million destroyed as 900,000 fled (mostly to neighboring Bangladesh) and most of those who remain are confined to refugee camps. But I'm a terrible person who supports genocide, and you're a good person who cares about genocide... but only when white people involved in some way? Islamists have perfectly targeted white guilt and ignorance to gain your inaction in global conflicts and shift it to Gaza.

Personally, I find religious zealots hazardous to my health and, philosophically, I do believe in the ideals of liberal democracy and would like them to continue. I also believe that, under the rhetoric and extremism, many people living in the Levant area also want to be free from these regimes. I believe there are Palestinians who would like self-government and, like many violent regimes, Hamas is a parasite on the people.

Anyway, I don't blame Israel for this war because what alternative does it have? Allow its people to be raided, raped, murdered and kidnapped? Even if it somehow ignored October 7th - and the families of hostages are making it difficult enough as things stand now - Israel has no incentive to return to another ceasefire situation where they wait for the next raid.

I have many, many critiques of Israel and actions I would like it to undertake, and I think undertaking this entire campaign has been a mistake, but they have a goal to remove Hamas and I think that's a good goal. I also think Israel will fail in that goal to remove Hamas from power, just as Hamas has failed to destroy Israel.

I don't think a ceasefire will help Palestinians, whether it comes sooner or later, they're in for more of the same as long as Hamas remains. But the over-arching conflict of Islamism and its goals won't change in Gaza unless the bigger picture changes.

So I'll ask you the same question - what do you stand for? Isn't this war just one step of a bold, revolutionary vision to overthrow Israel, drive out the Jews and link up with the glories of the new Caliphate? Aren't these deaths worthwhile to support that vision? There was a ceasefire in place before October 7th, what was so wrong with that situation that this war was needed? A ceasefire now would hardly return Palestinians to better conditions, so the next war will be just as justifiable as the last one. That's what Hamas stands for, what about you?

[the-eclectic-wonderer]

This is not prepared at all, so it's likely going to be messier than usual, but I was in the shower earlier thinking about the Golden Girls (as one does) and I drew a couple of conclusions on the topic of how many children does Blanche actually have? that I wanted to share with you all.

So, first of all, let me sum up the controversy. The issue lies with one of Blanche's statements in S3E3 Bringing Up Baby, when she's trying to convince Dorothy to keep the Mercedes she bought with the money they'll supposedly get after Baby's death:

"I want that car, Dorothy. I will give you anything. [...] I'll give you one of my sons. I have given this a lot of thought. I have had four kids, I have never had a Mercedes."

Ok, everything tracks so far. Blanche has had four kids, some of which are sons. We meet her two daughters, Janet and Rebecca, a few times during the series, so the natural conclusion is that Blanche has four kids, two sons and two daughters.

Which is great, except... her next line in S3E3 is this:

"What do you say? Which one do you want? Biff, Doug, Skippy? No, don't take Skippy, he's got asthma."

She names a Biff, a Doug, and a Skippy, so... three sons. Which, in addition to the two daughters we see in the show, makes for a grand total of five kids. Huh.

Alright, we know that Blanche wasn't the best mother ever, but I find it hard to believe that she forgot how many children she has, so: what's going on here? The obvious explanation is, as always, that this is a continuity error (although it's a really egregious one!), but you folks know I prefer to find a Watsonian explanation wherever I can, so let's see if we can figure out anything interesting.

One thing that struck me when I first realized this discrepancy is her use of the words 'I have had four kids'. Not I have, I have had. Why does she use the past tense here? The sentence flows better with it, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in-universe -- unless you think that she's using 'to have a child' to mean 'to bear a child'. If that's the case, then what she's saying translates to 'I have physically given birth to four kids, I have never had a Mercedes.'

I'm sure I don't have to point out the implications of this, do I? If the number of kids Blanche has given birth to is four, but her total number of kids is five, then that means that one of her kids is not hers in the strictly physical sense, i.e. one of Blanche's kids is adopted. This would solve the discrepancy without breaking the canon elsewhere (as far as I can tell, at least).

For a while, this idea remained in the back of my head to examine at a later date, because it still has a number of issues to work through. For one, why would Blanche (and supposedly George) adopt a child? They had kids of their own apparently without any issues -- why adopt another child, instead of, well... making another child, if they wanted one more? I guess it's possible that fertility issues might have arisen at some point, but that seems unlikely for a number of reasons; that kind of problem is generally genetic in nature, and it tends to be diagnosed upon first try, not after four successful pregnancies. So, then... why?

I was stuck on this point for a long while, until I suddenly remembered this conversation between Blanche and Virginia, her younger sister, during S5E11 Ebb Tide:

"I remember when you were 16 and didn't come home for Father's Day." "I was away at school!" "Oh, yes. The Good Samaritan Academy for the Knocked-Up. Two, four, six, eight, all us girls are three months late."

It seems Virginia got into a spot of trouble when she was 16, and was away 'at school' for a while to take care of it. While this might imply that she was sent away to have an abortion, there's also space to hypothesize that she was sent away to carry her pregnancy to term and actually have a baby to then give out to adoption. If this is the case... I wonder if this baby is the one that Blanche and George adopted?

While an adoption seems a bit out of character for young!Blanche (to me, at least: she wasn't interested in her kids, why would she agree to adopt another one?), I think there's some space to consider it. For one, George might have convinced her! We don't know enough about the man to draw clear conclusions, but he did send money to the one child he had out of matrimony (see S5E18 An Illegitimate Concern), so maybe he feels more responsible towards kids near him than Blanche did -- and, well, if he'd asked, Blanche would have agreed immediately, of course. I feel like Big Daddy might have also played a part in this scenario: he could have wanted to keep the child in the family (a Hollingsworth is still a Hollingsworth!), and asked the youngest married couple among his children to take on the responsibility, to shield Virginia from the shame.

Note that this theory has a few issues anyway. For one, while Virginia is Blanche's junior, according to Wikipedia she's only one year her junior, which would put Blanche at 17 when all this happened -- and we know she met and married George much later, when she was already a university student (see S6E9 Mrs George Devereaux). However, I can't find any confirmation for this difference in age in the show itself, so I feel like the hypothesis still deserves some consideration.

As for which of Blanche's children is adopted, well... we can for sure rule out the boys, since she mentions them all by name in S3E3. This leaves her two daughters, Janet and Rebecca. All throughout the series Blanche has a rocky and painful relationship with Janet, even more than she has with the rest of her children:

I would love to have a chance to raise David. I might make up for the mess I made with Janet. [S1E6 On Golden Girls]

Well, honey, I really do want to see you. I think we have a lot to talk about, Janet. I've been thinking a lot about you, lately. [S2E16 And Then There Was One]

"I just talked to my daughter, Janet, and she and my granddaughter, Sarah, are coming to visit in a couple of days. Oh, I've never been so happy!" "Janet? Isn't she the daughter who hates you?" "[...] She doesn't really hate me, Sophia. We just don't see eye to eye." [S7E23 Home Again, Rose: Part 1]

As for Rebecca, while we know they stopped talking for a few years due to a disagreement, she seems remarkably closer to her:

We were always so much alike, and so close, just like Siamese twins. [...] I have missed her. She's always been my favourite. [S3E14 Blanche's Little Girl]

Although Rebecca herself seems to have a different perception on their relationship:

You're not happy, Mama. You're doing it again, you're telling me how to live! [...] Nothing's ever enough for you. I had to be the prettiest, I had to be the most popular, I had to be the brightest... [S3E14 Blanche's Little Girl]

I think there's two possible theories here, neither of which paints Blanche in a good light (but hey, we love these characters because of their qualities as well as their faults, don't we?). If Janet is the child she adopted, I think it's possible she might have been especially neglectful towards her (especially in her first few years); she might have taken her frustration with being convinced to adopt her out on her, as a lack of affection when compared to her other kids. This would explain why the relationship between them is so fraught (certain wounds last a lifetime, I'm afraid).

If Rebecca is the child she adopted, on the other hand, she might have wanted to overcompensate for her abandonment and sort of one-up Virginia ('see, how well I can take care of your daughter? aren't I the better mom?'). She might have showered her with affection (and with expectations, judging from what Rebecca says!) to the detriment of her other kids, which would explain the issues in her relationship with Janet as well.

I don't know. It's obviously very clear that, for all her faults, Blanche adores her children and is deeply pained by her mistakes as a mother; she often expresses regret for her actions and wishes she'd been a better mother:

I realized, too late, that I'd put myself ahead of my children. I've never made up all the time I didn't spend with them. [...] deep down, I wish you were really mine. So I could try again with what I now know. [S2E16 And Then There Was One]

For all that might have happened in the past, it's evident that Blanche loves all her children equally and considers all of them her own, so she's clearly gotten over any issues she might have had -- but that doesn't excuse her past actions, of course.

There's a whole lot that could be said about Blanche's approach to motherhood, how it connects to the way her parents treated her as a child and to her own internal issues, but as for the question of how many children she has, I feel like this is a satisfying possible answer. It's not airtight by any means, and I'm sure there's other ways to explain the discrepancy (they might have adopted a child from George's side of the family, for one, which would change a lot of dynamics); this is just the one that occurred to me. As always, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts, so do let me know your ideas about all this!

[secretlystephaniebrown]

Hi! I know you've talked a bit about maps of Gotham and I was wondering if there was any canonical or pseudo-canonical place where Stephanie was originally from. I'm working on a fanfic about her and I've been searching through wikis but I can't find anything

Steph is from Manchester, a suburb of Gotham! It's not on any of the official maps, annoyingly enough.

Detective Comics (1937-2011) #648, (Steph's second appearance! Agnes Belligner is apparently Crystal. Retcons!)

We also from that same issue learn Steph's approximate street address!

That being "115~ South Holden Street, Manchester New Jersey." The picture that we generally get is a suburb, but a less-nice suburb (unlike Bristol, the suburb where Tim is usually located in this era).

Steph's house is described as being about "forty minutes drive" from at least parts of Gotham.

Batman (1940-2011) #643 War Crimes Part 2: Minor Discrepancies

This house in Manchester generally appears to be Steph's house throughout her tenure as Spoiler and Robin. We see it on a variety of occasions throughout Tim's time as Robin. Adventures in Steph (and Tim's!) neck of the woods are generally explained as being "Gotham County" instead of Gotham City, with features like Steph's father being chased by a county sheriff rather than the GCPD.

Robin (1993-2009) #57 "Date Night" (Yes the sheriff's name is "Sheriff Shotgun. Okay then.)

During No Man's Land, Steph and Crystal don't evacuate, with Manchester being outside of the evacuation zone, although earlier issues showed some potential damage to the Brown House.

Robin (1993-2009) #58 "The Stranger"

(I say potential, because the same cracked-wall effects were used in basically every building in that issue... including Tim's new house in Keystone.)

Later into No Man's Land, when most of Gotham is, well... a no man's land, Steph and Crystal are shown still living a relatively normal life in the suburbs, outside the evacuation zone, clearly showing that while they were affected by the earthquake, they're not on Gotham Island properly, which makes sense.

Robin (1993-2009) #68 "War Beneath the Streets! Part One: Rats!"

This generally appears to be their home through the end of Steph's time, including through her run as Robin, as seen in the issue where she takes on the mantle.

Robin (1993-2009) #126 (A Life More Ordinary)

After her death and return, Steph apparently transfers to Tim's school despite having previously dropped out and been studying for her GED.

Once she becomes Batgirl, Steph and Crystal seem to have moved to Gotham City properly, since Crystal is working at "West Mercy Hopsital" in Gotham City.

Batgirl (2009-2011) #1: Batgirl Rising: Point of New Origin Part One.

Hope this helps!

[thotsforvillainrights]

Hi! I'd like to request headcanons for how Spinner and Rappa would react to his s/o admiring/complimenting his musculature/physique (this ask inspired by Spinner's arms, hubba hubba)

(Shuichi "Guns" Iguchi I like to call him, because woof😍)

~Spinner/Rappa's S/O Complimenting Their Muscle~

headcanon|scenario|imagine|match-up|drabble

-(Yes it's overdone and very cliché'. Yes I've taken one scene from the anime and ran with it. However, I don't care! I'll die on the blushing Spinner hill) Discrimination due to the way his quirk makes him look has been no surprise to hear him open up about back when you first started dating. Whether he admits it or not, he's affected by this when it comes to his own self confidence. Everywhere he goes, all he's ever heard about was his appearance. Lizard was possibly the most annoying thing to hear. Why would anyone be attracted to someone that looked like him when there were normal attractive people out there?

-Along came you. Now at first he was in denial because look at you! To him, you were quite possibly the most attractive person he could've laid his eyes on. What's even crazier is the way you overlooked anyone else in the room just for the chance to talk to him of all people! He was confused and at the end of it he still feels like this might be one big dream. However, he pinches himself and never seems to wake up.

-You compliment him all the time. You always make time to bring up how attractive you think he is. It's mind blowing to say the least. You especially find yourself making note of his muscles to him. The way you look at him when you compliment his arms has him thinking he's going to melt away at any minute. Don't let me get started on the way he softens when you hold him to admire him. He's completely and totally weakened for you. These things aren't said just because you hope he'll see himself as worthy one day, but because you honestly feel this way about him. Just slow it down. Any more attention today and he'll end up passing out from the lightheadedness of your words combined with your sweet butterfly kisses and smile!

-He's only ever really doubted himself once or twice in the past. Other than that, he's convinced himself he's hot shit. Rappa isn't the insecure type a lot of times. He's so sure of himself and that confidence rings throughout whatever he does. You can imagine how much cockier he becomes every single time you compliment him. You can only laugh when you kiss his cheek and call him handsome, he stands and shouts 'hell yeah' so proudly lol.

-When he thinks about it, you've always been there to cheer him on as his biggest fan. You never really missed a chance to remind him how awesome he was, so of course he'd never have a moment to think otherwise. He loves the way you pump his head up. When you compliment him, he feels his heart running a million miles an hour. He values your opinion more highly than you think. If you ever think otherwise then just remember all times he's gotten too rowdy with someone and you were able to wrangle him back down to reality! Without you, he'd probably be locked up by now.

-When he finally has a singular moment of small doubt creeping up then you notice his small change in energy. He's much quieter and thinking for longer than usual. You ask him what's wrong and he looks you directly in the eyes. "You serious? I mean about all that shit you said?" He asks you, searching for any discrepancies in your eyes. You only smile widely back at him before laying a big smooch on the side of his head. You wrap your arms around him and nuzzle yourself into the crook of his neck. "I wouldn't lie about it because I've got nothing to gain from doing so. I meant every single word. You're handsome and those muscles are to die for." He nods and a large smile etches its way across his face. "Haha, yeah I know."

[lemonhemlock]

it's amusing to me how ppl will try to criticise alicent's "where is duty, where is scarifice" by saying it's just her demanding why rhaenyra doesn't "submit to men", "scarifice her happiness", "give up her bodily autonomy" blah blah blah.

there is such a smugness and it's made worse by their security in them thinking this defense of rhaenyra is flawless."

submit to men". im not even going to deign to respond by pointing out all the ways which shows this simply isn't true or at least challengeable for alicent, but in the context of rhaenyra....its questionable because who made rhaenyra his heir in the first place? quickly. her father. rhaenyra "submits" to viserys' will by accepting his decision to name her princess of dragonstone. obviously she's only 14 then but it's a decision she continues to, using their language, "submit" to well into her adult life. of course, you could say that rhaenyra wants the throne anyway and that's fair but rhaenyra's own wants/needs are still ultimately irrelevant. they just happen to align with viserys' own wishes that stem from his powerful guilt over aemma and his conviction that he misread his "prophecy" wrong. it's because of these factors that one can find it really questionable that viserys would have listened to rhaenyra if she asked him to change the succession. what's more important, his daughter's happiness, or his need to redeem himself through her? im comfortable saying this because viserys at his core seems allergic doing right by his kids.another way it's questionable because again who is the final "authority" on rhaenyra's sons? quickly. her dad. rhaenyra's word by itself isn't good enough, she still has to submit to viserys' will through getting his protection.

"scarifice her happiness". mind you rhaenyra calls her own life a "droll tragedy". how great could that "happiness" (harwin) have been then? it's also very clear that harwin was never going to be enough for rhaenyra.

"bodily autonomy" I mean, I wish they kept this energy for alicent. but they don't. alicent's line to viserys "to have one child like that is a mistake" is also really interesting to me concerning this whole subject because it suggests that alicent would have been sympathetic to rhaenyra if she had been honest from the very start with jace's birth. but she doesn't and she ends up lying again and again. obviously rhaenyra lying about such a matter is going to be a huge trigger for someone like alicent whose father was removed from his position partly because of rhaenyra lying or not being wholly truthful.

sorry for the long post!

Hi there! I think there's a lot of naff defence of Rhaenyra and hypocrisy towards Alicent in TB's discourse, but, by now, there are a wealth of critical posts available that highlight these discrepancies and, if they don't pose any interest to them, we kind of, at some point, have to let bygones and be bygones and leave them to their little bubble. They can educate themselves from many sources now; it's not like when the show first aired and the meta was dominated by TB content. But if they don't want to engage in good faith arguing, then there's not much point in getting worked up about it. IMO a lot of these posters skew on the younger side, have a rather primitive view of feminism and rely heavily on anachronism, so girlboss pew pew is appealing to them. Maybe they'll grow out of it, maybe not, but we can't be educators for everybody.

That being said, onto the points you highlighted. I think I agree the most with "sacrifice her happiness", because Rhaenyra had all the options in the world for a husband, but she didn't take any of it seriously and exhausted everyone's goodwill after a ton of resources were wasted on her marriage audition tour for nothing,* until Viserys got tired of her tomfoolery and forced her to marry a closeted gay man. This is where a point about bodily autonomy can also be made, because Rhaenyra could have very well married Harwin (who was in her social sphere), had she taken any of this seriously.

*think of the cost of transporting her and hosting so many suitors under one roof - some of the bill being footed by the lords who were hosting her. Perhaps Lord Baratheon had better use of his time and money than organizing Rhaenyra's engagement contest. And you can bet she didn't just leech off of him, she must have visited other castles as well, since she is said to have been gone for several weeks (? can't remember). And all for what? It's very disrespectful.

I do have some sympathy for her because it's a lot to ask a 15(?)-year-old to start seriously considering marriage proposals, when that's probably the last thing she is interested in. And it is normal for teenagers to be immature. But there's got to be some give-and-take here. Rhaenyra can't both be the nominal heir and future queen, entrusted with more power than anyone else in the kingdom, and not heed any of her responsibilities. It is a position that comes with sacrifices and responsibilities; it's part of the job description. Making a politically-advantageous marriage is one of those compromises. Acknowledging that is not anti-feminist lol. God forbid kings and queens can't just do whatever the hell they want all the time.

And Rhaenyra is presented with choices: at no point does she refuse Viserys' offer to name her heir. He straight-up tells her at one point: choose a husband or I will name Aegon instead. She could have very well said "You know what, I didn't really think about what this would entail when you nominated me in the first place and now I kind of realise this is not for me. I don't really want to get married and I'm not particularly inclined towards politics either, so can we find some kind of alternative arrangement here?" Does she? No!

She doesn't want to run away with Criston and eat oranges either. Fair enough, but then you kind of have to move your butt and work towards securing your position as heir to the throne. Does she do that instead? No, lol. She's the definition of eating one's cake and having it too. In ep. 7 she bemoans to Viserys "I thought I wanted it" (i.e. the throne). So she does want it!

As far as her just going along with whatever Viserys wants, I am going to be generous again and say that I get she doesn't really want to disappoint her father and appear diminished in front of him, cool, but at some point you have to start taking responsibility for yourself and not just explain everything away resorting to your shitty childhood and relationship with your parents. And Rhaenyra never does. Especially when the stakes are this high. We're talking about the possibility of civil war here. It's very laissez-faire to the point of irresponsibility to just "go along" with this, in spite of succession laws, when you know people are going to be opposing your shaky claim, if you don't really want the throne deep down and are just half-arsing it.

And Rhaenyra can't blame it all on the follies of youth either. Because there is a time when she is a mature woman with three illegitimate children under her belt, not really putting in the work to diplomatically advance herself, being rude to people at court and just interested in her love affair and doing whatever she wants. But, by that time, Alicent had already produced 4 children, so Rhaenyra could have just noped out of this situation, if she considered it so shitty, and conceded to Aegon. Viserys by then was old and weak, he wouldn't have really put much of a fight if that's what she truly wanted. She could have lived her life as a very rich, privileged lady, but instead she chose to escalate and marry Daemon. And, no, the greens would not have killed Rhaenyra and her bastard children, not because of the kindness of their hearts, but because Rhaenyra's claim is comically weak and would not be taken seriously by any medieval historian, let alone by a person actually living in those times.

So this is where I wrap it up with the "submitting to men" argument. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to categorise Rhaenyra accepting Viserys' decision to name her heir as going against her will, because she is known to want the throne. What I think is more relevant here is to consider that Alicent is in a much more powerless position than Rhaenyra and doesn't really have much of a choice when it comes to defying men. Alicent is the daughter of a second son and she doesn't have a dragon soul-bonded to her who can roast people who annoy her. I think it quite trite to be "angry" with her (lol she's not real) that she has the (normal) coping mechanisms that she has and is not magically transformed into a rebel Lagertha figure who does whatever she wants and takes no shit from anyone.

However, I don't see the solution as Rhaenyra "submitting to men" either. I think that's a misrepresentation of the green stance (although I'm sure there certainly are green-aligned posters that skew more towards the Kinder-Kuche-Kirchen disposition). On my part, I don't see Rhaenyra respecting the basic law of the land as her submitting to men. Kings have to follow succession laws to acquire the throne, too, and then produce legitimate children to succeed them. Of course the law is meant to favour men, but not once does Rhaenyra do anything to further the cause of women in Westeros, only to further herself. She wants to be Queen, but it has to be served on a platter to her and she is not interested in putting any work in. She's not interested in the plight of bastards in Westeros, as long as her own bastards get comfy seats. At one point you have at least concede that she's mainly on a one-woman mission for her selfishness. And anyone is welcome to like her exactly as she is! She doesn't have to be morally pure to have fans.

But there comes a time when, after appraising the inequalities of the world, you also have to adjust your own behaviour so that you won't end up causing more harm in your quest to advance your own interests. You have to find a balance between your desire for absolute freedom and reforms that are achievable, because some progress is always better than no progress.

Some of this stuff is really complicated, like how can you integrate bastards in the inheritance process when most of the wealth is acquired via land and you live in a society in which people of means turn marriages into economic alliances, with vested interests in passing down that wealth to children related to both parents? The short answer is that you have to diversify the sources of wealth, but, for that, you need technological advancement, the rise of the middle class and, ultimately, to dismantle feudalism. Could Rhaenyra have accomplished this during her reign? No. Could anyone? Absolutely not. These are historical developments that happen gradually, over a great span of time, so the best any decision-maker could do is introduce incremental reforms that can help speed up this process, increase literacy rates* (you cannot become free if you cannot read) and, yes, tumblr is going to hate this, but engage in harm reduction - basically don't become part of the problem or an active vector of destabilisation.

That is wisdom that Rhaenyra never comes to possess. And, to cut her some slack again, this is truly visionary stuff, like very few people would be able to be so politically avant-garde. But, at the very least, Rhaenyra could have engaged in harm-reduction. And it's pretty insincere or misguided of TB to reduce this resolution to just "submitting to men".

*But can you even? You'd need to invent the printing press for this. See my mentioning the need to technological advancement.

[theneighborhoodwatch]

The neighborhood map changed again! I'm not sure if the black thing (to borrow a Madeline L'Engle term) under Home has grown anymore. Some things I notice are Poppy's house's windows shut, Barnaby's pawprints, vines growing on the roof of Frank's house, and lots of sidewalk chalk doodles presumably from Julie (and maybe Wally drew Frank's face?).

I've noticed subtle changes to the neighborhood in previous updates too, but with more continuing to happen, as well as content we've gotten this Halloween update, I have a feeling these neighborhood changes are more... current than we might have previously thought.

This is a bit of a long shot, but I think everyone in Welcome Home is active, at least somewhat. Some characters are more aware than others. Maybe they're "waking up"; we've had two puppets, Wally through his doodles and Sally through the Halloween record, speak directly to us now.

In the secret bug audio, found on the transcript page for the Halloween record, the puppets mention that the spooky storytelling went well, as if it's a direct follow-up to the Halloween record. It's a discrepancy, sure, but perhaps not an unfounded one. Maybe the neighborhood's stuck in some sort of limbo between the present and the past, and only now, with the WHRP, Q/A, and us discovering it, is it literally reviving in front of our eyes.

correct me if i'm wrong, but uh - weren't all of those map details present from before the halloween update? i'm looking at these screenshots and my older captures of the map to compare, but i can't find any differences. i'm pretty sure the map's the same, aside from julie and frank's character cards changing to make it more explicit that they were intended as a couple in-universe (haha, knowing what we know, that's not worrying at all. /s)

anyways, to get to the Meat of this ask: i don't sally was speaking to us in the storybook record, just the neighbors As A Group, but i definitely think this update makes it a Lot more likely that home (the town) kind of exists, like, Outside of linear time? that it isn't so much that there's a divide between the stuff that was produced Then and what we see in the present day so much as it is that the stuff that the WHRP is uncovering is like, a window into what's going on in home Right Now, whether they realize it or not (and something may be actively blocking them from realizing??? not sure if it's that or if it's simply willful ignorance; i suppose we'll see.)

i'm reminded of a couple posts i made a little while ago, about the possibility that welcome home as a proper show never Actually existed, and the stuff that the WHRP's digging up is welcome home's attempts to will itself into reality anyway, for lack of a better description. but it also suffers from being tethered to a single person/group of people's Vision of it instead of being allowed to be an ever-evolving thing, or only being allowed to evolve in a Specific way. i dunno. i just kept thinking about that the entire time i was reading through this update.

anyways i'm also thinking about the way wally's eye-eating ability was represented in that post-storybook tape. i kind of like that it seems to be almost Overwhelming for him, like he hasn't gotten much of an opportunity to try it out before (if he's gotten any opportunity) and is like "oh. Oh. Oh. I Get It Now. holy shit." i don't have much to add onto that and that's just how i see it as of the time of this writing, but i would feel foolish if i didn't make note of it for later.

[luffy-is-aroace]

Do you have the source in which Luffy was confirmed aroace? I’m making a project on the ace and aro communities that includes a list of aro, ace, and aroace rep in media and I can’t find where it was confirmed, but I hear everyone say he is. Thank you.

luffy is very very much aroace coded but neither he nor the author have ever directly said the words "luffy is asexual" - one piece's canonical queer rep is limited to transgender characters

that being said, here's the relevant passages, and some context if its needed:

in chapter 516/episode 411, luffy stumbles across boa hancock, the worlds most beautiful woman, in the bath. she has an ability to turn people to stone when they feel some amount of "love, lust, or adoration" to her; ie. when they are attracted to her. heres how it goes:

this is the first time hancock meets a man who isnt affected by her power. it basically suggests that, by not turning to stone, hes not attracted to her at all.

eventually, she develops a crush on him, and she wants to marry him, which he outright rejects (chapter 598)

in regard to the "mero mero" moment, a fan noticed a discrepancy, and asked the author about it in the SBS corner from volume 54. luffy had previously responded to the naked body of a woman the way all the other guys did. oda decided to blame it on luffy imitating his friend

"That's not the Luffy we know." "When Luffy is alone, his reaction is what it was with Hancock. He's interested, but he's not entranced by her." Luffy acting in a certain way because Usopp does - going along with the mood of the moment, or performing, or however you want to say it - feels awfully aspec to me. It's definitely a common aspec experience to try and force yourself into amatonormative - or, in this case, I guess allonormative? - behavior.

In the SBS for volume 88, oda was asked about why luffy called a woman a "beauty" at one point. The response:

Luffy understanding physical attractiveness as a classification, understanding it but not caring about it - that suggests he probably doesn't experience aesthetic attraction (appreciating someones appearance, disconnected from sexual/romantic attraction). this definitely speaks to my experience as an aroace individual.

also, this isnt necessarily evidence for luffy specifically, but moreso a general answer - in the SBS for volume 34, oda was asked if there would be romance between the main characters, and he brushed it off:

my impression, personally, is that Oda is generally fairly uninterested in pursuing any romantic relationships between his main characters.

in conclusion, I personally feel like the evidence here suggests that luffy is aroace, or at least aspec, given some of Oda's wording (which is probably a little up to interpretation, given it's been translated from japanese). His answer in volume 54 has always felt like a retcon to me, like Oda only came to a conclusion of sorts on this when Luffy met Hancock, and had to go back and find some reasoning for why Luffy would have responded that way. Luffy, more than anything, wants to have an adventure, and romance and sex aren't part of that for him.

I'm not gonna try to police how people view Luffy. it's not healthy for me to do that - luffy and his aroaceness is something that's very very personal to me and itd be way too messy. In addition, in the past I've had people point out that this evidence would only necessarily suggest luffy isnt attracted to women, and he could be gay; I personally don't see him that way, and I seriously doubt Oda would make that choice in canon, but people can do what they want. I think, however, it's pretty telling that a lot of aroace and aspec people see themselves in him.

This morphed into something of a modern take on my thesis here instead of just answering your question; sorry about that. I'd be interested to see your project when you're done, if you're able and willing to share!

[barbwritesstuff]

Hi, Barb! I was replaying from scratch and noticed a couple things I hadn't before.

After meeting Chris (and not getting cab money, oof) there's some pronoun errors regarding the baby. (For biological parents, at least. Not sure if it also applies to adoptive parents or non-divorcees.) "You remember how warm and slimy him skin was as you held there for the first time."

There's also a slight discrepancy between Minjo and Freya's Ch7 hangouts, regarding uh. Fridge lore? Furnishings. In Freya's it says "the only thing I have in the fridge is cow blood," but in Minjo's "You don't even own a fridge." I feel like from a practicality standpoint, Freya's makes more sense? Fridge and a microwave are probably still good to have for any being that consumes food or food-like substances, especially since the lockdown years would make keeping a supply a relative necessity.

Anyway I'm really excited for the next update, and finding it very odd that my reaction to the general cliffhanger didn't seem nearly as dire as the cliffhanger + talking with Minjo : "but I have a date?? I can't get murdered, or fight to the death or whatever, I have a date. We set a time and everything!" Plus the fact that it's a "we need to talk," which MC might not have reasons to be concerned with, but ooooooh. If only they knew.

You're the second person coming at me for my inconsistent fridge lore. 😅 I'll fix those errors up next update. Thanks for reporting. 💙

[thestrangestthing89]

I think there are a lot of interconnected plot points to consider with Will being the center of them all. One of which is that I think he created a few characters - El, Billy, and Eddie. I think of these characters like Dawn from Buffy. She was created to be Buffy’s little sister in S5. All of her childhood memories are fabricated (along with everyone's memories of her) but from when she is created she is real and is able to form her own thoughts and relationships. I think these characters are similar to this but Will has a bit of control over them unknowingly i.e. he’s able to call for El when he needs help. I think when he feels some things strongly he ends up influencing things unintentionally. But otherwise they have their own free will. So he’s creating people, and then he’s unintentionally manipulating things that already exist based off his feelings in the moment.

In S2, Joyce finds Will’s drawing of the MF and Will tells her it’s for a story he is writing. I think there are parts of this show that have been a story he is creating - there are parts that are real and parts that are a coping mechanism for his traumatic childhood.

Eddie shows up in S4 and is frequently called a "freak" - a thing that Will is called in the first two seasons. He is a nerd who loves D&D, and this is emphasized a season after Will is desperately trying to play D&D with his friends and keeps getting ignored. But in this season, we see Eddie - who is nerdy and enthusiastic about it like Will - getting his friends back to playing D&D and making it cool. One of Mike's points to Will in S3 was that they couldn't keep playing kids games for the rest of their lives and that having girlfriends made them grown up. But here is Eddie, no girlfriend in sight and loves playing D&D. Because he is older than them, Mike and Dustin look up to him and start to embrace being nerds again. They have fun playing even though they are a little intimidated by Eddie (at least in the beginning of the season).

Eddie also says a few things that don't add up - he was held back 3 years but then Chrissy remembers him from middle school. I think there are odd discrepancies like this whenever Will is involved in manipulating his surroundings.

Eddie's role in S4 is to get Mike and Dustin back to playing together - a thing that was upsetting Will the previous season. Lucas on the other hand, still isn't interested (at least on the surface).

Eddie has other things in common with Will - he is poor and his father isn't around. He's misunderstood and made out to be the bad guy by the town but isn't responsible for any of the things he gets blamed for. We see some members of the town blame Will for being queer and they seem to see his disappearance as the starting point to their bad luck (a thing I think is going to come up again later).

By the end of the season Eddie has emphasized he is not a hero. He runs away and hides when there is trouble. Something that Will has done in the past. But when Will stands his ground in S2 against the MF, it ends up hurting him even more. And when Eddie decides to be a hero and run back out into the UD to lead the demobats away and buy more time, it ends up killing him. And the same song plays when Eddie dies as when Will dies in S1 (When it's Cold I Like to Die).

Eddie fulfilled his role in the story. He was there to reunite the party and get them interested in D&D again. Lucas does realize he doesn't want anything to do with Jason and his friends and ends up helping to protect Eddie along with the group. I think there is a bit of foreshadowing here with the town hunting the freak. I think this is likely to happen to Will next season while the group protects him.

Also interesting to note that Mike seems to have had a crush on Eddie, indicating that Will's nerdy side is actually appealing to him. Even though he tried to say otherwise in S3.

[paperclipninja]

Time and memory

This is more a pondering out loud than any theory or idea I necessarily subscribe to at this point, but there's something about time and memory and the wackiness of both through season 2 that has me thinking and full disclosure: This is not a complete thought.

I have had this post sitting in my drafts for about a month because there's some connection my brain is almost making, but can't quite. And during that time a whole lot of ppl have delved further into the time and set/prop inconsistencies, so this post is a little bit sharing a whole lot of the metas I've had the pleasure of reading, and also an attempt to share my own thoughts on it all.

There are amazing posts delving into the time inconsistencies already (like The ineffable discontinuity of time in ALL of Good Omens season 2? and the other work @embracing-the-ineffable has linked in their pinned post that explores this and @indigovigilance's look at Continuity errors is another one).

Then @cobragardens points out these extremely sus time-related situations in 5 Good Omens Timefucks that Haunt me

Then others have pointed out inconsistencies in prop placement, costuming etc, such as They are out of order by @maufungi and @purplewillowchicken's observations about Crowley's chair in the bookshop

But then, THEN, Neil answered an ask about Crowley's knowledge that hand washing would become all the rage during the Edinburgh flashback and his response here (incl. the excerpt "Either [Crowley] has an understanding of science and the world, or he has visions of the future. Or he read up on the ineffable planning a long time ago. Your call") could indeed be very Gaiman-esque teasing or it perhaps a little bit of a hint.

When you take in how many time discrepancies or inconsistencies (whether this is prop or costume inconsistency/changes or timeline ones) there are throughout season 2 and consider that this is a show that is deliberate and fastidious in it's inclusion/exclusion of any details, it has to make you wonder.

Also, in the book of Good Omens, Crowley's watch shows the time for Another place as, "it's always too late" and it's stuck on one time. But in the series, we've never had reference to his watch in this way and the line, "It's always too late" said by Crowley in season 2, is, to me at least, quite ominous, almost defeated, like it's something he contends with often.

There is something about the way he says that line that struck me on first viewing and continues to on every subsequent watch. It's not just that the meaning is a little ambiguous; too late because Aziraphale is already in danger? Too late because they've always been in danger and they're simply staying one step ahead? Too late because no matter what Crowley and Aziraphale do, they're part of a bigger plan that they have no control over or ability to slow down? All of the above?

The way Crowley says, "it's always too late" comes across as quite personal to me. Like he feels responsible. Or, if we're going to go with some timey-wimey bendy-wendy stuff, it's like he keeps falling short of preventing or achieving something he's being trying to achieve for a long time. He sounds deflated.

And yes, it could be the constant looking over his shoulder and never finding peace, absolutely. As I said right off the bat, I don't necessarily believe what I'm writing is true, but more of a fun little "what if?"

There have been theories about time loops and the idea that Crowley (or everyone) is stuck in a loop, and I could see how memory could come into that. I don't necessarily think Crowley's memory has been tampered with by Heaven or Hell, but the idea that being in a loop impacts memory, and that each time he goes around it shifts or alters memories depending on what has been changed etc, totally tracks.

Part of me thinks that playing around with time loops etc is a bit out of GO universe, but then I remember that Crowley stops time and that is pretty darn significant, so anything's possible?

So what I'm throwing into the mix is this - what if time and memory, specifically Crowley's, are somehow connected? More specifically, his involvement in the creation of nebulae aka space, sort of attached him to different timelines? Or allowed him to travel through time in different ways?

Yes, this is whackadoo, but he can stop time, possibly manipulate it, what if he can jump around in it too? What if, just like Adam resetting the Earth, essentially setting it on a new trajectory and timeline, Crowley finds himself in different timelines at different times, trying to get to the one where Earth is safe, he and Aziraphale are safe, where it's not too late?

And what if he's either not aware of it or doesn't know which timeline he's ever in until it is too late? And that's why he doesn't recognise Saraqael and Furfur. Or, what if he has indeed seen the future and is desperately trying to alter the past to avert whatever he's seen? But in doing so, any changes mean that present Crowley doesn't remember these angels and demons he doesn't recognise, because they are a result of trying to alter the outcomes of the future?

I think this is all far too sci-fi and quite unlikely but, if I was going to humour myself a little more, the comment Crowley makes to Maggie and Nina, that he and Aziraphale have been talking for "millions of years" - I always took it at him just exaggerating the time they've known one another to make a point (which, honestly, I still think is the case). But if I wanted to support my own out there idea, arguably, if Crowley was travelling back and forth through time, trying to do whatever he's trying to do, then perhaps he really does have millions of years of conversations with Aziraphale under his belt?

And that's why sometimes props are different or in different places - something's been altered in the timeline and it flows into the present. Then of course there's the idea that the Metatron or God or some entity is manipulating time and messing with everything, again, maybe *insert shrug emoji here*?

Though I do keep coming back to Neil's comment about Crowley having visions of the future. Perhaps it's not so much travelling through time, as being able to see through time? I mean, there's the whole scene that never happened with the dream of the bookshop standing alone amidst destruction and while it's never been said whose dream it was, if I was a betting person, my money would be on Crowley. Ya know, the one who has visions of the future. Because Earth destroyed while the bookshop still stands would certainly explain the "it's always too late" comment too.

So that's the end of my half formed not-really thought. It seems ridiculous to write such a long post about something I'm not particularly convinced about, but I certainly agree there's something funky going on with time and the memory thing bugs me because it's not consistent enough to be a memory wipe situation (I don't think), but it's been made obvious enough we're meant to notice. Either that, or Crowley is just being a smartass which, honestly, is far more likely.