#parallels abound

[intermundia]

anakin's unparalleled ability to become his vehicle, to extend his awareness beyond himself and mesh into the machinery, disappearing into the environment of the race, the battle, and reacting with superhuman unconscious skill and reflex—it's been with him since he was a small boy, and continued well into his adulthood. it's a fundamental part of who he is and how he interacts with the force, the context in which he excels beyond any other human. he doesn't have to reason, doesn't have space to even think, he's bigger than himself and transcends himself. qui-gon told him to feel, not to think, to trust his instincts, and this is the only time when that advice is completely valid. when anakin is a pilot, he can forget about all his pain and fear. he can be really free to lose himself, and become the best version of himself at the same time.

[queerlyillogical]

watching daredevil while reading kafka’s the trial in english is like just how much can we ponder catholicism’s effect on justice and morality systems

anyways matt murdock my beloved but he is sometimes a dumbass and josef k. my beloathed why are you the way that you are

[motherfracker]

Seeing the flashbacks in 7x08 sheds so much light on Bobby's reaction to certain events during the show.

Why Bobby treated Buck the way he did after the embolism and the lightning strike. It's so much more than just being an overprotective parental figure.

The first time was this fear that Buck was in front of him, coughing up blood and dying. He couldn't save his father from dying, but he sure as hell could try and save Buck. And do everything in his power to make sure he remains safe and out of danger.

And then Buck dies after being struck by lightning. He sits vigil at his bedside when he knows there's a chance that Buck will pull through. And he comes back. So, of course, this time, he treats him differently; of course, he overcorrects and gives him slack in his performance review. Of course, he's gentler with him, Buck woke up. And his father didn't.

Their relationship is so complicated in that Bobby views Buck as his son, but he's also been this trigger for the trauma he experienced with his father.

What happened with his father also reinforces why Bobby struggled so much with being unable to sus out Jonah. Bobby put on his headphones and didn't notice what was happening in his house.

[stonergirlfilmcanon]

sorry going back to this people don't understand how fucked gaslighting is and generally downplaying the impact of psychological abuse. but think about how isolated Louis is. think about how long it's just been the two of them. think about how Armand fosters a paternalistic "protective" environment for Louis (his "prison of empathy") and how the one time we see Louis try and access emotional support outside of Armand pre-Dubai (making a connection with Daniel, speaking about Lestat and Claudia, two big no no zones for Louis and Armands relationship) he is brutally punished. Think about how Louis can't trust his own mind, how he needs Daniel (just like he needed Claudia with Lestat) to help make sense of his story. Like... how must that feel? To be trapped in a cage, being told it's for your own good and believing it. Internalizing the victim blaming (apologizing to Armand for his attempt, "I don't consider myself abused") because to realise after so many years together, a relationship predicated on running away from a past abusive relationship, that it is the same would be for it all to crumble. Which is why the finale is so powerful -- it's Louis taking back control.

basically . can we talk about this shot.

[petrichal]

Personally I want Garp to break out with Pudding and punch Blackbeard as hard as he can as a last Fuck You before he can finally keel over but maybe that's just me

[holycartoonwarrior]

I will never get over how on the nose stewy and Marcia’s names are. Oh wow stewy u changed ur name from “sincere” to “person who manages property and finances” wow ur so subtle. Omg Marcia ur name means war. Fucking poetry. You two should be friends. It’s so silly <3

[frodothefair]

I like Eowyn, Eomer and Faramir now too.

Bring on the protective, slightly patronizing brother-sister dynamic. So anime.

Bring on the mutual healing and romance in a hospital ward. Not sure if that’s anime but it’s still one of my favorite things.

[amateurvoltaire]

For the past six years or so, this graph has been making its rounds on social media, always reappearing at conveniently timed moments…

The insinuation is loud and clear: parallels abound between 18th-century France and 21st-century USA. Cue the alarm bells—revolution is imminent! The 10% should panic, and ordinary folk should stock up on non-perishables and, of course, toilet paper, because it wouldn’t be a proper crisis without that particular frenzy. You know the drill.

Well, unfortunately, I have zero interest in commenting on the political implications or the parallels this graph is trying to make with today’s world. I have precisely zero interest in discussing modern-day politics here. And I also have zero interest in addressing the bottom graph.

This is not going to be one of those "the [insert random group of people] à la lanterne” (1) kind of posts.  If you’re here for that, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.

What I am interested in is something much less click-worthy but far more useful: how historical data gets used and abused and why the illusion of historical parallels can be so seductive—and so misleading. It’s not glamorous, I’ll admit, but digging into this stuff teaches us a lot more than mindless rage.

So, let’s get into it. Step by step, we’ll examine the top graph, unpick its assumptions, and see whether its alarmist undertones hold any historical weight.

Step 1: Actually Look at the Picture and Use Your Brain

When I saw this graph, my first thought was, “That’s odd.” Not because it’s hard to believe the top 10% in 18th-century France controlled 60% of the wealth—that could very well be true. But because, in 15 years of studying the French Revolution, I’ve never encountered reliable data on wealth distribution from that period.

Why? Because to the best of my knowledge, no one was systematically tracking income or wealth across the population in the 18th century. There were no comprehensive records, no centralised statistics, and certainly no detailed breakdowns of who owned what across different classes. Graphs like this imply data, and data means either someone tracked it or someone made assumptions to reconstruct it. That’s not inherently bad,  but it did get my spider senses tingling.

Then there’s the timeframe: 1760–1790. Thirty years is a long time— especially when discussing a period that included wars, failed financial policies, growing debt, and shifting social dynamics. Wealth distribution wouldn’t have stayed static during that time. Nobles who were at the top in 1760 could be destitute by 1790, while merchants starting out in 1760 could be climbing into the upper tiers by the end of the period. Economic mobility wasn’t common, but over three decades, it wasn’t unheard of either.

All of this raises questions about how this graph was created. Where’s the data coming from? How was it measured? And can we really trust it to represent such a complex period?

Step 2: Check the Fine Print

Since the graph seemed questionable, the obvious next step was to ask: Where does this thing come from? Luckily, the source is clearly cited at the bottom: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Christian Morrisson and Wayne Snyder, published in the European Review of Economic History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2000).

Great! A proper academic source. But, before diving into the article, there’s a crucial detail tucked into the fine print:

“Data for the bottom 40% in France is extrapolated given a single data point.”

What does that mean?

Extrapolation is a statistical method used to estimate unknown values by extending patterns or trends from a small sample of data. In this case, the graph’s creator used one single piece of data—one solitary data point—about the wealth of the bottom 40% of the French population. They then scaled or applied that one value to represent the entire group across the 30-year period (1760–1790).

Put simply, this means someone found one record—maybe a tax ledger, an income statement, or some financial data—pertaining to one specific year, region, or subset of the bottom 40%, and decided it was representative of the entire demographic for three decades.

Let’s be honest: you don’t need a degree in statistics to know that’s problematic. Using a single data point to make sweeping generalisations about a large, diverse population (let alone across an era of wars, famines, and economic shifts) is a massive leap. In fact, it’s about as reliable as guessing how the internet feels about a topic from a single tweet.

This immediately tells me that whatever numbers they claim for the bottom 40% of the population are, at best, speculative. At worst? Utterly meaningless.

It also raises another question: What kind of serious journal would let something like this slide? So, time to pull up the actual article and see what’s going on.

Step 3: Check the Sources

As I mentioned earlier, the source for this graph is conveniently listed at the bottom of the image. Three clicks later, I had downloaded the actual article: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Morrisson and Snyder.

The first thing I noticed while skimming through the article? The graph itself is nowhere to be found in the publication.

This is important. It means the person who created the graph didn’t just lift it straight from the article—they derived it from the data in the publication. Now, that’s not necessarily a problem; secondary analysis of published data is common. But here’s the kicker: there’s no explanation in the screenshot of the graph about which dataset or calculations were used to make it. We’re left to guess.

So, to figure this out, I guess I’ll have to dive into the article itself, trying to identify where they might have pulled the numbers from. Translation: I signed myself up to read 20+ pages of economic history. Thrilling stuff.

But hey, someone has to do it. The things I endure to fight disinformation...

Step 4: Actually Assess the Sources Critically

It doesn’t take long, once you start reading the article, to realise that regardless of what the graph is based on, it’s bound to be somewhat unreliable. Right from the first paragraph, the authors of the paper point out the core issue with calculating income for 18th-century French households: THERE IS NO DATA.

The article is refreshingly honest about this. It states multiple times that there were no reliable income distribution estimates in France before World War II. To fill this gap, Morrisson and Snyder used a variety of proxy sources like the Capitation Tax Records (2), historical socio-professional tables, and Isnard’s income distribution estimates (3).

After reading the whole paper, I can say their methodology is intriguing and very reasonable. They’ve pieced together what they could by using available evidence, and their process is quite well thought-out. I won’t rehash their entire argument here, but if you’re curious, I’d genuinely recommend giving it a read.

Most importantly, the authors are painfully aware of the limitations of their approach. They make it very clear that their estimates are a form of educated guesswork—evidence-based, yes, but still guesswork.   At no point do they overstate their findings or present their conclusions as definitive

As such,  instead of concluding with a single, definitive version of the income distribution, they offer multiple possible scenarios.

It’s not as flashy as a bold, tidy graph, is it? But it’s far more honest—and far more reflective of the complexities involved in reconstructing historical economic data.

Step 5: Run the numbers

Now that we’ve established the authors of the paper don’t actually propose a definitive income distribution, the question remains: where did the creators of the graph get their data? More specifically, which of the proposed distributions did they use?

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate the original article or post containing the graph. Admittedly, I haven’t tried very hard, but the first few pages of Google results just link back to Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and Tumblr posts. In short, all I have to go on is this screenshot.

I’ll give the graph creators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in the full article, they explain where they sourced their data. I really hope they do—because they absolutely should.

That being said, based on the information in Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, I’d make an educated guess that the data came from Table 6 or Table 10, as these are the sections where the authors attempt to provide income distribution estimates.

Now, which dataset does the graph use? Spoiler: None of them.

How can we tell? Since I don’t have access to the raw data or the article where this graph might have been originally posted, I resorted to a rather unscientific method: I used a graphical design program to divide each bar of the chart into 2.5% increments and measure the approximate percentage for each income group.

Here’s what I found:

Now, take a moment to spot the issue. Do you see it?

The problem is glaring: NONE of the datasets from the paper fit the graph. Granted, my measurements are just estimates, so there might be some rounding errors. But the discrepancies are impossible to ignore, particularly for the bottom 40% and the top 10%.

In Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, the lowest estimate for the bottom 40% (1st and 2nd quintiles) is 10%. Even if we use the most conservative proxy, the Capitation Tax estimate, it’s 9%. But the graph claims the bottom 40% held only 6%.

For the top 10% (10th decile), the highest estimate in the paper is 53%. Yet the graph inflates this to 60%.

Step 6: For fun, I made my own bar charts

Because I enjoy this sort of thing (yes, this is what I consider fun—I’m a very fun person), I decided to use the data from the paper to create my own bar charts. Here’s what came out:

What do you notice?

While the results don’t exactly scream “healthy economy,” they look much less dramatic than the graph we started with. The creators of the graph have clearly exaggerated the disparities, making inequality seem worse.

Step 7: Understand the context before drawing conclusions

Numbers, by themselves, mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I could tell you right now that 47% of people admit to arguing with inanimate objects when they don’t work, with printers being the most common offender, and you’d probably believe it. Why? Because it sounds plausible—printers are frustrating, I’ve used a percentage, and I’ve phrased it in a way that sounds “academic.”

You likely wouldn’t even pause to consider that I’m claiming 3.8 billion people argue with inanimate objects. And let’s be real: 3.8 billion is such an incomprehensibly large number that our brains tend to gloss over it.

If, instead, I said, “Half of your friends probably argue with their printers,” you might stop and think, “Wait, that seems a bit unlikely.” (For the record, I completely made that up—I have no clue how many people yell at their stoves or complain to their toasters.)

The point? Numbers mean nothing unless we put them into context.

The original paper does this well by contextualising its estimates, primarily through the calculation of the Gini coefficient (4).

The authors estimate France’s Gini coefficient in the late 18th century to be 0.59, indicating significant income inequality. However, they compare this figure to other regions and periods to provide a clearer picture:

Amsterdam (1742): Much higher inequality, with a Gini of 0.69.

Britain (1759): Lower inequality, with a Gini of 0.52, which rose to 0.59 by 1801.

Prussia (mid-19th century): Far less inequality, with a Gini of 0.34–0.36.

This comparison shows that income inequality wasn’t unique to France. Other regions experienced similar or even higher levels of inequality without spontaneously erupting into revolution.

Accounting for Variations

The authors also recalculated the Gini coefficient to account for potential variations. They assumed that the income of the top quintile (the wealthiest 20%) could vary by ±10%. Here’s what they found:

If the top quintile earned 10% more, the Gini coefficient rose to 0.66, placing France significantly above other European countries of the time.

If the top quintile earned 10% less, the Gini dropped to 0.55, bringing France closer to Britain’s level.

Ultimately, the authors admit there’s uncertainty about the exact level of inequality in France. Their best guess is that it was comparable to other countries or somewhat worse.

Step 8: Drawing Some Conclusions

Saying that most people in the 18th century were poor and miserable—perhaps the French more so than others—isn’t exactly a compelling statement if your goal is to gather clicks or make a dramatic political point.

It’s incredibly tempting to look at the past and find exactly what we want to see in it. History often acts as a mirror, reflecting our own expectations unless we challenge ourselves to think critically. Whether you call it wishful thinking or confirmation bias, it’s easy to project the future onto the past.

Looking at the initial graph, I understand why someone might fall into this trap. Simple, tidy narratives are appealing to everyone. But if you’ve studied history, you’ll know that such narratives are a myth. Human nature may not have changed in thousands of years, but the contexts we inhabit are so vastly different that direct parallels are meaningless.

So, is revolution imminent? Well, that’s up to you—not some random graph on the internet.

Notes

(1) A la lanterne was a  revolutionary cry during the French Revolution, symbolising mob justice where individuals were sometimes hanged from lampposts as a form of public execution

(2) The capitation tax was a fixed head tax implemented in France during the Ancien Régime. It was levied on individuals, with the amount owed determined by their social and professional status. Unlike a proportional income tax, it was based on pre-assigned categories rather than actual earnings, meaning nobles, clergy, and commoners paid different rates regardless of their actual wealth or income.

(3) Jean-Baptiste Isnard was an 18th-century economist. These estimates attempted to describe the theoretical distribution of income among different social classes in pre-revolutionary France. Isnard’s work aimed to categorise income across groups like nobles, clergy, and commoners, providing a broad picture of economic disparity during the period.

(4) The Gini coefficient (or Gini index) is a widely used statistical measure of inequality within a population, specifically in terms of income or wealth distribution. It ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (everyone has the same income or wealth), and 1 represents maximum inequality (one person or household holds all the wealth).

[crimeronan]

hey kitkat, if its not too much trouble, could you make a propaganda post for the silt verses? I've been seeing you talk about it a lot (i have spoilers marked dw) but im afraid to look up anything about it. is it horror? all i know about it is val <- horrible woman(?) so im intrigued. was wondering if it'd be possible for a silt verses post a la that trc post you made a while back

OH, ABSOLUTELY. i think about 95% of my followers have no idea what this media is about, so this ask is very exciting. i'll preface it by saying that i think it's edged out the dreamer trilogy for my favorite story Ever -- it's exactly on par with the first two books in terms of Reading My Heart Off The Page.

the premise:

the silt verses is a now-complete horror-tragedy narrative podcast set in a fantasy world that has many parallels to our own. this fantasy world is embroiled in late-stage corporate capitalism and is ravaged by the effects of colonialism, war, and oppression.

in this world, gods are created through sacrifice and belief. there are thousands of them, with thousands of individual religions.

the problem is that gods must be fed through human sacrifice. and if they aren't fed, they die.

and people are very invested in keeping their gods alive.

sacrifice is considered a necessary part of society, something that's as essential as breathing. the idea of simply not making sacrifices is considered a violent, radical, leftist anarchist position that is simply unsustainable. or so the state would have you believe!

but. SOME gods have been outlawed, and worshiping them WILL get you killed by the government.

the state says that it's because these gods are uniquely evil, and too dangerous or sadistic or wild to be fed.

in actuality, gods are outlawed when they don't serve the state or corporations' purposes. the question at the heart of the worldbuilding is always, "is Anything you've been told about the gods and the magic true? how much of this world is socially constructed? who benefits from the way things are?"

Metaphors Abound.

-

the cast:

the first season follows four key narrators; the second season introduces a fifth; the third a sixth.

-

carpenter - sister carpenter is an older woman who was born into an outlawed river-worshiping faith. she has seen her entire family murdered by the state, including her brother, parents, and grandmother. she briefly left the faith but returned to the parish because she had nowhere else to go; her relationship with her river and her church is complicated at best.

carpenter begins the series as a """devout""" disciple of the river parish. in actuality, her faith has been slipping for a Long Time. she's no longer certain that she loves this god she's been killing for for her entire life.

she begins the series investigating some unexplained "miracles," aka Deeply Fucking Horrific Murders, that appear to have been done by her god.

alongside her is brother faulkner.

-

faulkner - faulkner is a kid, somewhere around 19 or 20 years old when the story starts. he was NOT born into the river faith, but was instead called to it, back when he was still a rural farm boy living with his father and brothers. his first sacrifice was his brother, who he drowned on the farm. he later left home to find the parish.

faulkner has been with the parish for a pretty short period of time, but he truly IS a devout fanatic. because of this, he does not get along with carpenter. the two of them bicker a lot. carpenter thinks that faulkner is a stupid country bumpkin who's naive and full of starry-eyed optimism, and he annoys the piss out of her.

faulkner is not a dumb country bumpkin.

but he knows how he sounds and he knows how he looks. so he plays the part of the starry-eyed child with ease.

he is planning to kill carpenter.

he knows she's slipping, he knows she's losing her faith, and he wants her dead. he's been asked to keep an eye on her because the parish knows she's slipping, too.

uh oh!

-

hayward - investigating officer hayward is a police officer in the religious homicides division of the greater glottage police force. this police force has jurisdiction over outlawed gods. hayward's job is to find outlawed gods, arrest/kill their worshipers, and report them to the government.

he is the main antagonist of season one. crucially, he's a Good Cop - he's friendly, affable, funny and likable. he's kind of a dickhead bastard, but in the way that the protagonists of Cop Tv Shows (TM) often are. he offers to "help" the people he's arresting. he's good at playing the role of a good guy who just needs to uphold the status quo for the good of society.

but. he is, first and foremost, a cop. and the narrative has a Lot to say about cops. and about other people whose job is to Enforce The Law.

so. don't think that him being a Good Cop means that he's Actually a good guy or that he's not dangerous to the protagonists. Hoo Boy.

-

paige - paige duplass is a corporate boardroom executive who works for a marketing firm that creates gods. her job is to do all the marketing and branding for new corporate mascots. what does the god look like? how does the worship work? how are the sacrifices made?

but her company's profits are waning. and they need to return value to the shareholders.

so. they're going to kill their employees.

not paige, of course! she's a highly valued member of the team. she just has to keep everyone calm and be a kind, upbeat manager while the Layoffs approach. everything is fine, everyone. we aren't going to kill you :) don't worry :) just keep smiling :)

the horror of this gives her a crisis of conscience; after all the murder goes down, she leaves to go on a long drive.

which becomes longer still when she's taken hostage by carpenter and faulkner.

-

shrue - season two introduces shrue, a spineless liberal politician who runs on a """left-wing""" platform but really could not care less about anything except polling numbers. they're willing to do rotten, ugly propagandist things for their campaign -- including killing the river god. and all of its followers. for the good PR! :)

not great news for carpenter, faulkner, or their people.

but then shrue experiences Actual Violence up close for the first time. and it Shakes Them To Their Core.

and, well. suddenly they're not so comfortable being a spineless liberal politician anymore.

too bad they've locked themselves into their role and cannot fucking escape it!!

-

val - introduced in season three, VAL is the saint of a god of liars, purposefully created by the government for use as a weapon. she is the remnants of a woman who killed herself to serve her country. she does not remember who she is or what else she wanted, aside from her mother's approval.

as the saint of a god of liars, whatever VAL says becomes true..... as long as someone is there to listen. you're a loyal soldier? no, you died of a tumor as a child. you're a politician begging for mercy for the sake of your infant child? no, your baby has an insatiable taste for flesh and ate your sorry ass. etc

she's a monster and a sadist; she enjoys killing people to try to fill the emptiness in her. she is in terrible pain all the time and does not understand why. and she is becoming increasingly disillusioned and sick with herself, the government she serves, and the Utter Pointlessness of all this systemic violence.

but how do you break a cycle when you Are the cycle?? how do you get better?? how do you change anything??

much to consider.

-

overall, it's as close to a perfect story as it gets imo. literally every detail is carefully, painstakingly chosen to further the themes, arcs, characterization, etc. the plotting is suspenseful, the horror is Deeply Fucking Scary, the storylines are gutwrenching, the voice acting is spine-chilling, and the characters are So Fucking Compelling.

also, i get frustrated by representation-first fiction recs, but if you get this far and want to know: it's Deeply queer. faulkner, paige, and shrue are all trans (shrue is they/them, paige is a post-transition trans woman, faulkner is a trans guy who's recently started T). carpenter is aroace, there's casual representation and normalization of trans n gay people throughout the ensemble cast.

and more importantly, it's just. So Damn Good.

@valtsv @deermouth you two are the other main silt verses bloggers i know, so if you want a pitch for your followers.... here is this!

[hoursofreading]

I found myself watching a mind-bending YouTube documentary on the New York sewerage system, about which, to my considerable shame, I knew nothing. Despite what you say, it seems to me that an artist and a sanitary worker actually have much in common. Just as the New York sewerage system is a critical pillar of public health, so too is art, and although art may not literally protect a city from plague and pestilence, it does, in its way, make the world we inhabit that little less noxious. And without pursuing the comparison to absurdity, art has its equivalent trials – blockages abound and gloomy artistic ‘fatbergs’ clog the pipes of inspiration, yet still we gallantly gather up the brown water of experience and rinse it through the purifying vats of our imagination! It is safe to say that our occupations have their parallel challenges, mine abstract, yours actual. Brian, if by chance you dealt with any of my bodily waste whilst I was visiting New York in the nineties, as it travelled along with the 8.3 billion gallons of daily waste water, running through the 7,500 miles of sewerage pipes, then I want to acknowledge your efforts and say, with the utmost respect, thank you and God bless you! For if God exists, then He exists in the sewers as in the stars, and in the end, in our own hellish ways, we are each at His service, engaged in the grim business of preventing the world from drowning in its own excreta.

Nick Cave

[saltpepperbeard]

no, like,,,

an episode one parallel? a dream made reality? a race to get to one another? heart eyes and smiles and caresses abound? two well-lit, well-angled kisses?? an "i love you" ???

GUYS, THE SHEER AMOUNT OF FOOD WE HAVE ON THIS SHIP,,,,

[deme-real-life]

as a DM adding symbolism to a world, especially religious symbolism, is really funny due to the sorts of ramblings it produces from me. hitting up the friend group that isn't in the session so as not to spoil my players: "hey do you guys think it'd be too obvious if i made this shopping sequence have a bunch of weighing involved with a cashier named jack to foreshadow the anubis parallels later on in the campaign?"

what makes this sort of thing funnier is when it's for minecraft. i talk to my friend (who's also in the server and gave me a bunch of ideas to add more allegories) and go "hey do you think the pishon river out of eden, surrounding a place with gold and onyx abounding, could be sufficiently translated to a piglin haven in the overworld?" i love writing

[poorrichardjr]

Conspiracies Abound

If you ever spend any time around MAGA individuals you will quickly run into at least three different conspiracy theories before the first twenty minutes of conversation, and even more if you start speaking about politics. The country is doing terribly because of a loss of God, satanic democrats drinking the blood of raped babies they murdered just after they were born, or because of the Illuminati, deep state, or UN. Pick your poison and a MAGA has a conspiracy theory that explains everything. Covid was a Chinese hoax designed to get Biden elected. There is no limit to their madness.

No offense to any of these people. I understand the need to explain things that seem "unusual." The thing is, almost none of these people understand Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest explanation for any situation is often correct. America sucks because we elect bad leaders and don't take the time or effort to do the work to determine who really would be a better politician for us. Instead we descend into tribalism that has determined our entire view of the world.

The thing is, conspiracy theories have a place. It just depends upon why you are using them. Believe it or not, but conspiracy theories can be used to make yourself more aware of things that you should be paying attention to. If a conspiracy theory makes you suspicious of the election process, you "could" spend more time learning about it and trying to understand it. We know that almost never happens, but it is always a way to combat the craziness of some more outlandish conspiracy theories.

Another plus of conspiratorial thinking, not necessarily the theory spinning so popular in America today, is to posit future possibilities. Depending upon how far you take it the "theories" become more and more conspiratorial. However, there is a good reason to sometimes spin these yarns, especially when it comes to dictatorially minded politicians. I am not saying you should take all of these theories so seriously that you see the possibilities of the thinking everywhere, but it can make you aware of situations that are definitely questionable at best.

For instance here is a conspiracy theory to be aware of, simply because it has happened in history and considering our current situation could be a factor in our future. Complain all you want about how many people are drawing parallels between Hitlerian Germany and modern America, but any historian worth their salt will tell you there are many similarities. Hitler complained about Jews and undesirables, Trump complains about immigrants and undesirables. Each divided the people of their nations. Each came to power through election where they did not receive the plurality of the vote.

Here are some similarities that haven't yet come to pass. Hitler placed people into positions of power who had no experience in those jobs but who had a lot of disdain for the functions of those departments. Trump is nominating people to lead departments who fit that mold, though the Senate "might" keep them from those positions (though I doubt it). Hitler deported people, made life so uncomfortable that many "undesirables" left, and eventually put people into camps. We know how that ended. Trump is promising mass deportations for legal and illegal immigrants, removal of citizenship, and massive camps. We can go on, but you get the picture.

So, here is where I will give you a conspiracy theory to ponder. Hitler had power when he got his Chancellorship, but that wasn't enough. Similar to how Trump being president isn't quite enough to turn him into a dictator. What really gave Hitler power was the moment he was able to remove his oppositions ability to interfere with his plans. Enter the Reichstag fire, the pretext the Nazi's used to seize total power and jail and make illegal opposition parties.

Yesterday all I heard from some people was that the people Trump was nominating for power were being targeted with bombings and swatting threats. I expect tons of protests when Trump takes office, especially if he gets his way and starts deploying the military and police to go through cities. Here is where the conspiracy comes into play. Some event is going to happen in the future that causes the right wing talking heads to demand Trump crack down on the opposition. Whether that is the death of a possible head (even if it isn't caused by liberals or immigrants) or a riot by the "liberals."

Where that goes is anybody's guess, but if history repeats itself it will be the fundamental issue that gives Trump the power he needs and craves to do everything he wants. As I said, it is a conspiracy theory, but one based in some semblance of reality. As reactionary as our republican "friends" are, I wouldn't put it too far past them to try something like this. Care to take bets now?

[unordinary-diary]

Blyke and John: Parallel Characters

I’ve written multiple entries about this,

[x] [x] [x]

But I’m back to make a comprehensive analysis about the glaring similarities between these two. I’ll try not to repeat myself here.

‼️SPOILER WARNING for the whole series‼️ but this mostly focuses on the story before John’s suspension.

Firstly, this scene:

ch. 121

This conversation takes place near the beginning of the Joker arc. It’s after John targets Zeke, after he targets Juni, and the day before he goes after Seraphina’s kidnappers. The timing is important.

“If someone hit your best friend, would you let it slide?”

That question is supposed to remind us what John does to people who hurt Seraphina: hunting them down and sending them to the hospital. Blyke shooting a destructive beam really close to John was an example of a trait they share: they both blow up violently when people mistreat their friends.

John’s downward spiral carries strong themes of hypocrisy. He’s angry at the world, he’s angry at himself, and as a coping mechanism, he chooses to believe that everyone else is as bad as he is. That means that most of the traits he hates others for are the same things he hates about himself. In this scene, Blyke is unintentionally calling out this hypocrisy: “What I did is no different from what you do”.

But Blyke’s just trying to connect with John here, he has no idea what John’s been doing. And John, of course, doesn’t give a shit about what Blyke has to say. This line was here for the audience to notice.

They’re both so similar, but their similarity immediately causes tension between them because, well, John was on the wrong end of Blyke’s protectiveness.

I really love the way this was written— there are so many flashbacks to this scene, but they remember it differently. John remembers the part that hurt him— he’d describe it as “the time that jackass shot a beam at me”. Blyke remembers the part that hurt him, or rather, hurt Remi: “the time that jackass hit Remi for no reason”.

Blyke and John are both hotheaded characters with strong ideals. They’re similar enough that Seraphina points it out:

(ch. 80)

As Blyke grows as a character, he becomes more like John: sticking up for low tiers and speaking out against the injustice in the world. But while Blyke is doing that more, John is going in the opposite direction, until they are fully opposed to each other.

Speaking of Blyke’s character arc, it took me a few rereads to actually understand what part of him changed. His kindness, selflessness, bravery— all of those things were there from the start. Blyke’s character arc was about becoming more aware of his surroundings, and how his carelessness can harm others. Blyke was never malicious, but after X-Rei and integrating more with the school, he becomes aware of people suffering around him and how he unintentionally contributes to it. He becomes less reckless, privy to the flaws in the system he grew up not questioning, and uses his power more responsibly. He even comes up with a more controlled way to wield his ability. The part of Blyke that changes is his maturity.

Part of John’s character arc is also about being careful. It’s not as close of a parallel as other things are, but one of the things that John works on during his redemption arc is holding back. Both of them learn self-control throughout the series, and for John, that means acting early before his emotions spiral out of hand.

Adding onto my first point about the two of them wanting to protect their friends— the fact that they can’t do that makes them both angry and desperate. For most of the story, the “block” that prevents John from protecting Seraphina is in his head. It’s his own trauma that holds him back. The block that prevents Blyke from protecting his friends is, guess what? Also John’s trauma! Parallels abound.

Another thing I noticed in Episode 80 is this:

Notice that when Seraphina says “I’d take that over strength any day,” John is looking at the camera. He’s avoiding Sera’s gaze. Seraphina is saying she prefers honesty over strength. John is very strong, and very dishonest, but Seraphina thinks the opposite because John is so dishonest. John appears to be reflecting on this disconnect.

In relation to this analysis, Seraphina is actually pointing out a major difference between Blyke and John. Beyond that, she’s praising Blyke’s traits, (less strong but very open) above John’s traits, (strong as fuck but a liar with his pants on fire). Furthermore, John really cares what Seraphina thinks of him. Knowing that she would think less of him is the main reason why he spent so much time and effort preventing her from catching his lies.

This leads into my main point here: Blyke is the “goody-two-shoes” version of John. Or, more accurately, the person that John wants to be. Blyke has a clean track record and doesn’t really get into trouble. He is respected and left alone by the school without being hated and feared, he de-escalates conflicts without taking things too far, he doesn’t lose control, he’s someone Seraphina thinks highly of, hell, even his grades are better! Blyke represents everything that John wants to be, and the person that he could have been if he’d gone down a different path.

But, crucially, John is also what Blyke wants to be. Well, not wholly, but his ability? His strength? It’s one of the things John hates about himself, but Blyke wants that strength so desperately that he risks his life for it over and over again.

They’re both desperate to be like each other, even when they hate each other the most. Neither of them have any idea how alike they already are.

I don’t know what Season 3 holds in store for us, but I do hope that John realizes that Blyke embodies who he wants to be, because mutual jealousy would be a very interesting dynamic to explore in my opinion. I also hope that it ends up being something they can bond over, by helping each other accomplish their personal goals. (Blyke being another helper in John’s character arc, and John helping Blyke train.)

A side note: John beat up Blyke four separate times. That’s more than any other character, which is interesting because John’s main rival is supposed to be Arlo. For reference, John has beaten Arlo twice, three times if you count the time when Seraphina intervened, and he only beat him unconscious once. But John beat Blyke to the point of passing out all four times, the worst of which being a shot clean through his chest. (shoulder? Unclear. S1 finale).

It’s odd, isn’t it? Out of everyone, Blyke is the one who John physically hurt the most. John’s only grudge against him is an old memory from episode 33, of an event that didn’t actually harm him. John’s grudge against Arlo is much more serious and again— that’s his main rival. So why is it that he’s so much more violent towards Blyke?

The problem here is that I’ve been thinking about these fights as “John picking on Blyke”. And that’s… kind of true? But while Blyke didn’t start any of these fights, they were all consensual in a way. He didn’t seek to fight John, nor was he ever happy about fighting John, but he was always a willing participant.

(138, 153, 206, & 211)

In three out of these four fights, John didn’t even expect to be fighting Blyke going into it. This is significant because while Arlo is John’s main rival, John absolutely fills that role for Blyke. Blyke’s own agency is what leads to most of these events. The reason, narratively speaking, why they fight so much is not for John’s character, but for Blyke.

For John, his reason for fighting Blyke so much is not narrative but moreso symbolic. John is angry at everyone and everything, but ultimately the person he hates the most is himself. It’s only fitting that the character most like him would bear the brunt of his wrath.

As John is having his positive character arc (suspension and post-suspension), he is becoming more like Blyke, and the two of them reach a point where they’re even more similar than they were at the start of the series.

In the Rowden amusement park, John does start to realize how similar they are:

(249)

Additionally, I want to draw your attention to the parallels between this scene:

Blyke and John’s argument in chapter 249

(which the image limit won’t let me add, scroll until you see red hair.)

And this scene:

Argument in ch. 121 (it’s at the beginning)

Two sides of the same coin.

Furthermore, in the S2 finale, Blyke is shown being taken to Keon. There is an implication that by Season 3, Blyke and John will share Keon-related trauma as well. Despite my pessimistic predictions, I do hope that this is a similarity that can bring them together rather than tear them apart.

[waitmyturtles]

Last Twilight: Episode 6 reflections

Welp! Once again! Aof Noppharnach! Thanks, buddy! Fist bump. HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO LIVE AFTER THAT.

I'm gonna live, because we get ANOTHER flirty episode 7 next week, woop woop. But let me review what we've all been screaming about today.

Anti-August rhetoric is abounding, yes. I would argue that the narrative themes that the character of August presented during this episode were set up in episodes well before this disaster that August created happened.

This episode demonstrated Aof's mastery of dissecting interpersonal engagement and relationships, as well as offering an examination of chosen vs. unchosen familial bonds. The examination in particular of the nature of nuclear (unchosen) family bonds -- especially in the face of the impact of a traumatic event like Day's sudden blindness -- is subtle and exquisite so far. I'll get more into this in a moment.

The show's been laying all of this down for us since the start, paralleling the impact of the unchosen bonds Day has with the world he has left around him, with the chosen bonds he's made with Mhok, and vice versa. That is all happening alongside Mhok's continued internal emotional journey of change and stablization, which again, I'll touch on in a moment.

In episode 5, we heard Day describe his sports partnership with August as akin to an "arranged marriage."

Day showed us in the last episode that he did the majority of the lifting of the partnership he had with August. Day HAD to be the emotional stabilizer of the partnership in order to win championships. Akin to the Asian practice of arranged marriages -- it certainly takes two to tango. But if the CULTURAL expectation--

(THE HUGE AND ENORMOUS AND ASSUMED CULTURAL EXPECTATION IN ASIA, mind you, which we are reading between the lines here) --

of the OUTCOME of an arranged marriage is to 1) have children, and 2) not get divorced -- well, if someone isn't pulling their weight, the partner has to clock some overtime shifts.

Day did overtime, and boop, fell in love with his badminton partner. I don't blame him. All that work to get to know August's ins and outs? And the way August looks, mmhmm? Yeah, I get it. August may have been a butt, but Day doing that all that work to accidentally find himself on the attraction path wouldn't be surprising to me.

We get to episode 6. We see that Day is being failed by his unchosen family. We still don't know what the deal is with Night, despite Mhok's inquiries. (I apologize to @respectthepetty for not finding their theory post that Night was behind the wheel of the car accident that first affected Day's eyes -- shout-out, Senpai.) We see Day's mom sort of failing him prior to his birthday. We see that Day was sort of expecting his mom to fail him anyway.

I wanted to capture Day's mom's emotional reaction here because... we know past stuff is percolating. Day's mom's career comes first and has come first. The wins come first, as they should have been for Day when he could still see and could still play badminton.

Day was prepared to be disappointed. That hug at the end of this scene with his mother was a sigh of relief for Day that his mom came through, but we don't know the extent to which his mother hasn't come through in the past, except by way of having kept Day inside for a year after the onset of his blindness.

And then Day was failed, again, by unchosen family.

August says, "I'm willing to do whatever makes him happy," but, just like nuclear/unchosen family -- you have to KNOW the people around you to KNOW what ACTUALLY makes them happy. Nuclear/unchosen family can't just clock in and clock out of family work. It takes more zhuzh than that.

For example: changing diapers might be a role a parent performs. It'll make a baby happy to feel clean and dry. But are the babies happy to actually wear a diaper? No. They don't know from diapers. The babies will be happy with loving, caring, and attentive parents showing them attention. From there, emotional growth will flourish.

Love, here, is not exactly about roles and tasks, as August is defining happiness above. Love is about something different -- it's about paying attention, at all times, to the people you love, and responding accordingly.

Unchosen family can very well fail you, because at the end of the day, they're still "family" by blood and sometimes bond. That's why it's important for so many of us to have CHOSEN family that shows up for us.

REMEMBER: BETWEEN DAY AND MHOK? DAY CHOSE MHOK. THAT'S A CHOSEN RELATIONSHIP FOR DAY, FINALLY, FOR ONCE IN HIS LIFE.

And Mhok comes into Day's house, starts to take care of Day like a partner, starts to get to know Day's ins and outs, and boop -- Mhok has found himself falling for Day. Quite the different paradigm from August, who did and does shit.

And in episode 6? Here comes Mhok, barreling in from the start of the episode, re-shifting the paradigms in Day's life that were created by the unchosen people that preceded Day in close proximity. I love how the VERY first scene of this episode started with Mhok announcing himself to Day in Day's room -- very unlike the way that August had silently slunk away from the bar in the previous episode.

And all the ways that Mhok is right behind Day as August engages through the episode, checking in, vibing. And respect to Mhok for taking some time away from the birthday party at the end, too. Did it break my heart to hear Day calling for Mhok before August's final arrival? For sure. But Mhok needed some space to process --

-- and then he came back, watched what was happening, and you know what struck me? We again saw a moment where Mhok has changed, as I mentioned last week.

Mhok could have pummeled August! Imagine if that shit went down at the start of the series. Lil' August wouldn't have any damn teeth left. Remember that Mhok pummeled that m'fer that Porjai was with, TWICE.

Mhok didn't kick August's ass this time around. Mhok held himself, he asked August questions. Day also knew what Mhok was capable of, but Mhok held himself. FUCK. Exquisite!

And then.... we got the rooftop, we got the rooftop.

This is a great series. THESE ARE GREAT EPISODES.

Couple other quick notes:

1) JIMMY AND SEA! JIMMY! THOSE LOOKS ON THE ROOFTOP! YOOOOOOOO.

2) I just want to acknowledge all the sensualness of this episode by way of scent and touch, and trust the family on posting about it.

That being said:

I've been known to be intrigued by scented things emanating from Aof's shows in the past. He had posted on IG a few weeks ago about a perfume company he likes, I went to check it out, and bloop, I got myself a sampler for the holidays.

I clocked the cologne that Day gifted Mhok.

As far as I can tell, this specific bottle called Tiwa doesn't exist -- although I love that the fake brand is "UNTOLD STORIES," written at the top. Tee-hee.

Coincidentally, a scent called "Tiwa" was created by a company called Parfum Prissana, out of Thailand (they look great, I want to smell them one day).

A website reviewing Prissana's Tiwa notes the description of the scent that came from Prissana itself:

Atmosphere of the day time in a countryside of Thailand. The smell of local cooking herbs and spices and there is fruits orchards and precious woods near by. Tiwa means day time in Thai.

Well, well, well.

[telomeke]

4 MINUTES – COUNTING DOWN

We're now just shy of the mid-point in 4 Minutes (three eps down with five more to go) and I've been avidly watching, but getting quite confused at the same time by all the twists and turns.

Part of that confusion stems from not being able to watch the "Sultrier" version at first, despite getting Viu Premium. (How do they come up with these euphemisms though? Remembering that KinnPorsche also had a "La Forte" incarnation. 🤣) The sanitized 4 Minutes was annoying, not just because the sexy bits were cut out, but also because we missed important, informative parts of the narrative.

For example, Korn and Ton Kla's Ep.1 sex scene was actually an in-your-face illumination of their relationship dynamics, and also a parallel with Win and Ton Kla's own Ep.3 turn in the sheets later, that revealed so much about their characters in the vein of show-don't-tell.

Ep.2's tryst between Korn and Fasai was also missing, as was (inexplicably) the conversation between Korn and a smoking Great in Ep.1. I can only presume it was Great's cigarettes that caused that scene to be snipped, because other scenes also had alcohol and ciggies all blurred out. Highly annoying, but anyway – I finally found out what was going on with Viu Premium, so if anyone else is having trouble finding Sultrier, I will share some tips in a different post.

And with that out of the way, I finally got to watching the unbutchered 4 Minutes – and I'm finding it smart, sexy and oh-so stylish in the mold that we've come to expect from Be On Cloud. Sumptuous cinematography and visuals are now quite a BoC hallmark, that started with KinnPorsche and continued in Man Suang – and 4 Minutes so far has been a delight to take in, a cinematic and super-twisty supernatural thriller overflowing with signs, symbols and scenes (possibly) pregnant with hidden meaning, so much so that the fandom is all a-flutter, me included.

Directing (and editing) has been taut, and I think Director Ning Bhanbhassa Dhubthien does much better when given free rein (unsaddled by screenwriting duties, and P'Pond maybe! 🤣) My take is colored by Man Suang – its huge potential for intellectual engagement (all that historical drama and political intrigue!) was unfortunately not developed to a satisfying extent; its most potent elements were given insufficient screentime, watering down what could have been a truly juicy experience for the viewer. Perhaps it might have done better as a mini-series with a longer timeframe for the developments to unfold, but that's a remake for another day perhaps.

Anyway, back to 4 Minutes. They've been really stoking the furnace with clues to the truth underlying the narrative, and fan theories abound as to what it all might mean while we breathlessly await revelation.

So I can only guess at some of the stuff, and nod at some of the visuals. But here's some of what I've picked up on.

The title 4 Minutes (especially with so many references in Ep.1 to cardiac arrest) is quite likely a nod at the widespread belief that when the heart stops beating, you only have four minutes to start resuscitation before the process of brain death begins to set in. (I'm seeing a lot of different opinions about this online, with some sources insisting the window of time is much longer. But there are enough mentions of the four-minute deadline in more than a few Thai sources that I think this is probably the intended significance, especially since screenwriter Sammon is also a medical doctor who would know of this notion's currency in popular culture. Here's an example in Thai media: CPR กู้ชีวิต ก่อนสมองตายใน 4 นาที/CPR saves life before brain death in 4 minutes.)

After the four minutes are up, it is too late to save the stricken patient – so there is a sense of urgency underlying the notion. (For another work that plays on this, see Madonna's song 4 Minutes where the urgency being messaged is about saving the planet instead.)

But with cardiac arrest, the premise is that even when corporeal death is signaled (cessation of the heartbeat being the traditional marker of this), a person's life-force still has that small window of time for human intervention to make a difference, a sort of ultimate last chance beyond the final frontier, if you will.

This aligns somewhat with what we're seeing of Great's do-overs, each time he is thrust back four minutes into the past. But I think there's also a bit more to it, based on what we're seeing in Episode 3.

Among all the fan theories online, this one by @myezblog caught my eye: Theory - plot is pretty much revealed.

Now, whenever Great is alone, we see that his clocks reset (and Great is aware of this too, by Ep.3). In Ep.1, his clock showed 11:00am (at timestamp 05:00, after his call with Title). And in Episode 2 we were shown Great's clock turning to 11:01 at timestamp 35:06, and in Episode 3 it went to 11:02 (timestamp 41:37).

But the ominous 11 o'clock actually put in an appearance even before these instances. Looking back, at the start of Episode 1 we were shown that the patient in the Emergency Department Resus bay basically flatlined at 11:00 – that was their time of death.

If it's really Great whose heart stopped on that Resus trolley in Ep.1, what we appear to be seeing is a flashback of events playing in his head, leading up to the time of his cardiac arrest (11:00).

And what his clocks are showing him (and us) whenever he's alone during that flashback is basically a countdown of the four minutes that he has, before he is brought back (hopefully) or is gone forever (I hope not – it wouldn't be much of a series then!).

So in the coming episodes, we should be watching for Great's clocks to tick up to the 11:04 mark – that is likely the time horizon when Great is jolted back to the present, hopefully having learnt some lessons reviewing his past that will be key to solving his conundrums in the present and the future.