#since we're just analysing the definition and not actually discussing it ?

[archesa]

I'm sorry what? I'm purposely keeping this out of the notes of the post, but I think there's something worth discussing here : Once again, What?

Let's take a deep soothing breath and crack open a dictionary just once, you know, just for fun!

Genocide :

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. (source)

The deliberate murder of a whole community or race (source)

The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular race or nation. (source)

So... once again, and I'm deliberately trying to make my point clear : BITCH WHAT?!

What in the Pale Tree's holy blossoms are we referring to here?

Infiltrating the asura lab during 'The Newly Awakened', to free the secondborn kidnapped and tortured and experimented on by said asura ?

Or perhaps are we talking about the Nightmare Court? Same Nightmare Court that regularly captures, tortures and kills sylvari from the hamlets and villages of Caledon Forest ?

Neither qualify.

She has no beef against the asura as a whole, just against those who were at the very moment using her newborn siblings as golem batteries... merely weeks after another of her siblings got vivisected by same said group...

And she harbours no ill-intent or feelings towards the Soundless, so her quarrel with the nightmare court has arguably more to do with, you know, their methods than their beliefs...

I'm once again not trying to get into a fight, and I wish the author of the above comment no harm... just a little bit of literacy.

[andy-wm]

https://x.com/jmnberries/status/1817503692083396934

LOUD AND CLEAR

Said by Jimin himself. He's searching for the person he's meant to be with, the one his heart is waiting for. He passes one person after another thinking is it you or you. And guess what ? IT WAS ALWAYS A WOMAN.

You and your theory about WHO proven wrong for 975939488848th time 😛

My goodness Anon, are you telling me my theory has been discussed that many times? That's quite an achievement! I didn't know my theories - or I - had such a far reaching impact.

[basking in the glow of this proud moment]

Ok I'm done basking, now back to the ask:

For those of you playing along at home, here's the tweet Anon sent in, for context.

Anon, I'm going to quote you, since you said it so succinctly...

"He passes one person after another thinking 'is it you or you'. And guess what ? IT WAS ALWAYS A WOMAN."

Absolutely correct Anon!

It WAS always a woman

I'm glad we agree on this.

You also said "He's searching for the person he's meant to be with, the one his heart is waiting for."

Yes! We agree on this too!

He's definitely working hard to find the one his heart is waiting for - you said it yourself, he's searching. He's actively looking for them.

We're doing well so far...

Oh but context is important here, right??

We should probably clarify that he's actually describing the last scene of the MV - the one he's about to film. He's not describing himself or his own life.

Yes, to be totally transparent, Jimin is describing a scene he's shooting for the MV of a song - a song he asked Jon Bellion to write. A song he himself didn't contribute to beyond that. He didn't write the visual narrative for the MV either, that was the creatives at Lumpens. No doubt he gave a lot of input but he didn't provide the material.

Did you forget that part, Anon? Or did you think he was actually describing his own life? Or... were you sneakily pretending he was talking about his real life when he said those things, because that suited your argument?

If you were trying to make it sound like he was talking about his own personal lived experiences, that kinda sucks. Because we love Jimin for WHO HE IS. We don't need to make shit up about his life and pretend things are real when they aren't.

We don't need to pretend, Anon, we can just observe, write about what we see - honestly and objectively and without judgement - and then step back and look at the situation.

I guess you might be wondering how come I'm analysing everything if I think we should just be talking about what we see. Fair call. I don't mean that we can't read between the lines or make educated (substantiated) guesses that we can back up with facts (and cite our sources - I am a librarian after all). I also don't mean we can't look deeper than the surface. There are always layers of meaning and hidden messages in the art produced for BTS. I get right into it because I enjoy it - my background is in visual arts analysis so it's kinda my jam - but I'm not just making shit up. I have a wealth of learning and experience I'm basing my analysis on. I'm also not claiming that it's fact - it's an interpretation - It's my interpretation (and just quietly I am pretty good at this stuff so it's a justified and plausible interpretation).

What I'm saying is don't purposefully misinterpret what you see to mislead, or to fuel an opinion or argument that doesn't stand up otherwise. If you have to bend the truth to back up your argument, you might want to reconsider that argument. Theory is built on evidence, not the other way around.

But back to Jimin...

Of course it's perfectly possible that he did spend several years thinking he would one day find true love with a woman. Maybe he dated loads of women. Maybe he came close to finding a deep love with one or more of them. And if he did, I hope those were happy times for him (or at least meaningful times if happiness was elusive). I would never think of denying that if I saw evidence of it, or judging him for who he loves (or loved). I don't think there's any wrong or right here - whether it's heterosexual or bisexual or asexual or gay or queer or into kink or poly or whatever else he is or does. Who he fucks or who he loves or who he feels emotionally safe with - and for many of us humans those are not necessarily even the same people - that's his business.

His life, his body, his business.

I don't judge Jimin. I just admire and celebrate him for who he is.

And I wish him happiness.

I wish them both so, so much happiness.

That's the whole point of all of this, really.

That's why I watch Jimin and Jungkook together, Anon. Not because I want them to be together or because I think they should be, but because I see real happiness when they are together.

True happiness and true love are rare and beautiful things.

I think that's why most of us Jikookers are here, Anon. Because the joy we see and the delight we feel, just from witnessing these two beautiful people being happy, is real.

I'm not saying ALL of us are altruistic. Some Jikookers are full of shit. They covet one or both of them and they think supporting Jikook's relationship entitles them to make judgements or assumptions or claims about Jimin and JK. They get possessive, they objectify, they demand things. Some people who claim to support Jikook have spite and hatred in their hearts... yes, we have our share of nut jobs too.

But the majority of genuine Jikook supporters I encounter are simply here to celebrate the greatest love story we've ever seen. We're here to get behind two beautiful men who clearly love each other despite the odds against them. We're here to bask in the reflection of their glow and it's bloody wonderful.

But, I digress....

Let's go back to the making of the MV for WHO...

<and here I go again with the analysis>

Here Jimin describes the MV, just like when talking about the final scene. He says it's like a musical movie.

"Right now we're filming one of my favourite parts. It's like a musical movie." There's definitely a narrative here, it's the part where he joins 6 other male dancers, an obvious nod to BTS.

We already know there 's a narrative, but Jimin confirms it for us here.

So let's look again at the narrative:

Throughout this production we can see that the dance (not choreographed by Jimin) and the lyrics (not written by Jimin) have been created/chosen to show /tell us that Jimin (the performer) is searching among all these women for the love of his life.

THAT'S *PART* OF THE STORY THEY ARE TELLING.

But it leaves out a pretty big development ...

He was searching for love, looking at every woman just as he was supposed to, but someone (WHO?) crashed into his life and stopped him in his tracks. Yes, that someone fell directly into his path in a way that couldn't be ignored.

Jimin said

"I try to see WHO I'm meant to be with... is it you? Is it you?"

It doesn't sound like he was giving anyone much of a chance, does it? It sounds more like he was searching for someone in particular.

Maybe it was no accident. Maybe he was searching for WHO all along and he just didn't realise, until he found him.

Ok I am done talking (finally)

I'll finish responding to this ask so we can all go on with our lives.

To respond to your specific query, Anon:

Jimin doesn't say he's searching for a woman himself, does he? Not even in that quote you supplied.

He could have said "women walk past me" but he said "people walk past me".

He could have said he's trying to see which of these women he's meant to be with, but instead he said "who I'm meant to be with"

We can't ignore him saying WHO, Anon.

The song isn't called Which woman?

The song is called WHO

Anon, if you stuck with me all the way through this post, I commend you.

And yes, I was a bit facetious in the beginning, in my defence I had a shitty day at work. But I responded to you as the adult I imagine you to be, even though your language was a little on the childish side. I assume you were intending to piss me off but I enjoyed answering to your ask, so thank you regardless.

If you are still here I want to ask you a few genuine questions in return... I'd love to hear your honest answer.

Why, in the face of all the evidence, it's so difficult to accept that Jimin and Jungkook have a bond that goes beyond friendship or brotherhood?

They look like they're vey happy together, so why do you want them to not be together?

Why is it a problem for you if they love each other? Homophobia is learned behaviour. Who did you learn it from?

And probably my most burning question:

Have you ever experienced true, deep, lasting love?

[transmutationisms]

Would you be willing to talk a little more on what you mean about us society not really being an individualistic one, rather a massified one? I guess I interpreted that as being a comment on how people flippantly refer to a society such as the us as being individualistic but I guess greater scrutiny breaks that down when you realise the amount of struggle that comes from not meeting the status quo ideal (and being deemed useful), and that really the power of being an 'individual' is given only to a select few. But I find this interesting because a lot of my leftie friends (and I have also been guilty of this and not previously realised) will definitely be like oh the UK is a super individualistic society when we're maybe really trying to make a point about something else ... Anyway, am I barking up the right tree at all and do you have any wider thoughts on the difference between those two ideas (often conflated) you'd be happy to share? Is the idea of the individual still helpful in terms of understanding the mythos of the US and also the UK in using it as a powerful idea larping at meritocracy at least in contrast to actual senses of community...

oh this is just something that irritates me in a lot of left and left-adjacent discourse—the slippage from a correct observation that capitalism denies us a lot of social support and connection, to the unfounded and frankly reactionary assertion that it in some way values or respects individuality or individuals' autonomy. i think this plagues a lot of discussions of 'egotism' & so forth. in truth i don't think we're facing some kind of epidemic of self-centredness or 'narcissism' (lmao) or whatever—i think , again, it's an economic context that is structured around the construct of the individual, and that's alienating and harmful. but at the same time—and particularly since the increasing use of population management, social statistics, state medical authority &c from the 18th century onward—we are also in an economic context that treats the population as a mass to be controlled and surveilled (hence 'massifying'—sorry to borrow an ugly term from an ugly foucault translation) & it's unhelpful to characterise this as any kind of genuine attention to individuality or the autonomous ego. it is certainly true that esp neoliberal discourse relies on the invocation of the self-sufficient individual (talking esp here about the post reaganite/thatcherite US/UK) but it's overly credulous to extrapolate from this that like, austerity politics actually has any interest in protecting individual rights, desires, &c. actually the entire 'individual rights' paradigm is kind of irksome imo because it presents the 'right' as something calcified and possessed by the individual rather than a social relation arising from a social context—but even leaving this aside for a second, like, it is just not viable to argue that the US or UK (to take the obvious examples again) genuinely are protecting or valuing individuals in any way lmao. like, what part of cutting benefits, extending work hours, breaking labour power, &c does that? ultimately i don't usually find "individualism" a particularly helpful schema for political / economic analysis. i think it's often a confusion of a few different things: a purely rhetorical analysis of reactionary liberal claims; a response to alienation that should be analysed as materially grounded; an openly reactionary response to a perceived loss of power for social institutions like the church or the family, &c.

[emeryhiro]

I over analysed the new TBOC Teaser and Sneak Peek

There's so much to cover here, and I'm so happy right now because of all the content we've gotten today! I'm going to focus the analysis on the new things we see in the teaser and trailer since many of the things shown today have already been discussed on here many times.

So please grab yourself a cup of tea or your morning coffee and bear with me through this post. It might be a little long, but I'd love to hear your takes on my timeline theory at the end. ♡

The Teaser

I'm starting with the teaser because that's what I got to see first.

Firstly, we see in the below photo that Daryl has finally gotten himself some arrows, which means we're finally going to see him with a bow (excluding that one time he used a crossbow in twd:dd 01x02). These definitely don't look like crossbow bolts, which implies that this shot is pre-reunion.

I also want to break down the dialog here:

Isabell: Tell me a story Daryl: There was this guy, he left home looking for something, and he couldn't get back.

I'm focusing on the part where he said "he couldn't get back" because he didn't say "he didn't go back" or "he didn't want to go back"; he said he couldn't; he's not there by choice.

~~~~~~

Secondly, we have this shot of Carol and her crew on a mountaintop. What stands out here is that it's not just her (on the right) and Ash (on the left); there are two other people there with them (middle).

Making notes of who these people are, here's a breakdown of what we can see about them.

There are two people.

First one: seems shorter with longer brown/black hair and wearing a beige coat.

Second one: seems taller, shorter auburn hair and wearing a black coat with a faux fur collar.

Unlike Carol and Ash, neither of them is visibly holding a weapon.

Also unlike Carol and Ash, they both seem to have bags/supplies.

They must trust each other at this moment because Carol and Ash don't seem to have their weapons drawn or their guards up.

The last three points make me think that the two in the middle might be locals from wherever they've landed in France and are helping them find their way. Additionally, to the local's guess, there's no way that the plane (image/model below) C/A flew in could have fit more than 2 people.

Beechcraft S35 Bonanza:

~~~~~~

Next, we see Carol (looking amazing as always) holding/shooting the crossbow, killing the walker we see below.

What's interesting here is that this walker is covered in moss and what looks like fungus growing out of it, which would happen to walkers who have been around water and/or in humid environments. The walker is also wearing winter clothing, which aligns with the snowy mountains in the background.

The only other place I remember seeing a walker like this, in France, was on the way to Normandy Beach, where Daryl looked over at the walker that had similar moss on it with trees growing through it; however, if I had to guess I'd say that's not relevant to the location of this new scene.

If the filming location accurately reflects the actual location of Carol/Crew, based on the surroundings and lake in the above shots, my best guess is that they are near the French Alps, somewhere around the area highlighted in red, OR the Spanish Alps highlighted in blue, since the rest of France is relatively flat and does not feature any large mountain scapes like we see in the photos.

It is also possible that these photos of Carol and Ash in the mountains are pre-France, set in the US while they were planning their departure via plane, with the only reason being that I don't think I've seen any photos of Carol or Daryl with the crossbow in France (that we know for sure were set in France). However, I'm still leaning towards it being in France because I don't see why Carol couldn't have taken the crossbow with her if they managed to take the rifle along.

Carol is later seen in a clip at Chantier Naval de la Passagère (purple mark on map), placing her right next to Daryl/Crew at Mont Saint-Michel (green mark on map).

~~~~~~

The Sneak Peek

The first thing to note with the sneak peek is that it looks like these images from the first teaser (below)...

are not at the same location as Daryl/Crew fighting in the sneak peak (below).

Another thing to note that's different is the people present with Daryl during each fight, which brings me to the next thing I've noticed.

~~~~~~

When the back of the truck is opened in the sneak peek, we see three people sitting in the back. After playing with the image a little bit, it becomes a little easier to guess who we're looking at.

To me, it appears that it's Fallou and Emile on the right, and the guy on the left resembles the man highlighted in the image below (from the first teaser).

All of this leads me to believe that somehow/somewhere, Fallou, Emile, and the ??? Man are taken by Genet and her people. This would explain Daryl's desperation during the sneak peek fight to stop Genet/Crew and get to whatever/whoever is in the back of the truck.

However, it gets a little complicated with how the timeline of these two fights relates to the below scene with Carol/Fallou/Codron.

I have two theories about how the timeline can go, but for now I'm just going to break down the one I think is the most feasible.

Firstly, we know that Fallou and Emile leave Daryl/Crew in 01x06, potentially heading back to Paris. On their way, they run into Codron, who's been badly hurt/tortured by Genet, along with Carol, who has tracked Daryl to Paris at this point.

From here, after resting, resupplying, and with the new information that Codron and Fallou gave her about Daryl's whereabouts and what he's been going through to try and get back to her, Carol leaves the Paris group and heads out to resume her search for him.

Sometime after Carol leaves Paris, the Paris group/base could have been attached, leading to Fallou, Emille, and ??? Man being captured.

This leads us to the fight we see in the sneak peek between Daryl/Crew and Genet/Crew, which results in Fallou/Emile/??? Man being rescued and joining up with Daryl and the Nest Crew again.

Here's where I think it gets interesting: Now that Fallout is back with Daryl, he tells him everything he knows about Carol, how they ran into her, how she's been looking for him, and how, right before the attack on that Paris base, she left to resume her search for him.

This would light a fire under Daryl, realising how much danger she could be in because the areas between Paris and Mont Saint-Michel are swarming with Genet's men, and Carol could very likely be unknowingly walking into an ambush that wasn't meant for her.

Knowing that Carol is somewhere between Paris and Mont Saint-Michel, Daryl can now easily track her to Maison Mere, where she happens to be trapped in a car with Ash, surrounded by walkers (image below).

This leads us to the scene from the first teaser, where we see Daryl, Fallou, Isabell,??? Man, and a few others from the Nest, are searching through what we've said appears to be Maison Mere.

In the first teaser, We see the walkers surrounding Carol's car get killed by something/someone that's not visible to us, other than the lone hand we see on the back of the windshield, which we have all agreed strongly resembles Daryl's (image below).

Leading us to our long-awaited life-changing reunion!!

Thank you so much for sticking with me and getting through this post ♡. I really hope reading it made sense like it did in my head.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of the above and specially on things that I've missed.

I'm so happy we'll have Caryl back in a few short months!!! Our wait is almost over ♡♡♡

[interestsofabookwormbitch]

Season 1 Episode 4

Starting another episode in my free time today I've got an hour and half, but I'm in a somewhat analysing mood, well see how this goes

Oh yeah, the blackout.

Ooh flashback.

Liz just doesn't feel it with Kyle. And wow someone hurt Rosa bad. That was kinda harsh.

Well, I wonder how they're gonna deal with this. Also, I just thought of this while writing, but I guess technically confirmation Max didn't tell Liz everything, but tbh, we knew that so it doesn't matter.

Isobel you tried that. It didn't work. Also, I really don't thing confessing will work tbh. Like even if he does the circumstances would point to him lying right? I just don't see Liz buying that completely. She wants answers, that'd be too easy.

Oh, Rosa's ex. He doesn't seem so bad tbh.

Lmao, protective father.

Ugh, this guy again. He's really tries to manipulate people. I hate him

Jenna don't fraternizte with the enemy. I hope this doesn't progress in anyway. I kinda like Jenna, so associating with that guy would be disappointing.

How has it taken this long for them to discuss each other's powers?

This is awkward... like "She feels like I'm a murderer" that's not what Isobel meant. Lmao

I feel bad for him though. Like this man is really going through it.

Oh shit. Actual consequences to the blackout. Tbh I didn't think there would be. Idk why, but I just didn't. Poor kid. Like genuinely.

Just casually rolling into to town to manipulate peoples minds. You know, as you do.

Also like, duh she didn't tell him.

Ooh. Calling the old man out. This low-key resonates though. Parents don't trust you, you lie. And don't get me wrong, her dad seems good, and I'm hearing what he's saying too, I just can't relate to his side (yet)

Fuck! What happened? Heart attack?

Ok, that was cool of Kyle ngl. I like him. Sometimes he makes me nervous (still does) but he's a good guy at heart

I like this dynamic. Michael and Maria I mean. Like it seems fun to watch. Also I'm assuming that man's order means Isobel did her thing right.

I forgot about the date tbh. That's awkward, and it's gonna end awkward if they continue with this since Liz is staying...

What is up with Maria and Isobel? Oof. I like this too though. Lmao. Maria is a obviously a good character cause I've found she's played off of everyone well.

I don't know how I feel about getting in Maria's head though. Idk idk. The set up feels like something will go wrong. It's always the set up with these shows.

(Uninportant tangent) Here's the thing. I'm a really anxious person, and I think of literally everything that could go wrong always. So I get really nervous reading or watching stuff. It's fun, tbh, but makes me feel dumb sharing if I turn out to be wrong.

Freak. Kinda rude and backhanded. Definitely isn't gonna help make nice. Nor are the comments during the reading. But also lmao Maria is like spot on and idk how but I love it.

Oh entering her head now and a flashback. I'm getting distracted by the background music though lmao. I love to dance to Shake It. Honestly bobbing my head along as I watch.

Why did Rosa hate Isobel though? Just cause she was the mean girl?

Oh no, this confrontation again. Everytime Max and Kyle are together I get worried Kyle's gonna reveal that Liz told him. It makes me nervous, and had I not been liveblogging I would look it up.

"We're just men" he says where both of them know it's not true. Obviously he isn't aware they both know, but still.

Rosa was gonna run away? The plot thickens.

Max is gonna have to do something. Like quickly.

😬😬 Jenna's about to find out if he keeps speaking like that.

What did Liz just find? I shouldn't ask that because it'll be answered soon.

Max that was not at all subtle... Jenna will be suspecting things now

Wow. Ok. Hmm. That's not great if she's right. Gonna be honest, I see no purpose in this being false, so I'll believe this reveal for now. My one question though, how is Liz an expert in handwriting? Like to the point of matching it? Like isn't that something that takes years of work, and she's in a more sciencey path. Idk. Just nitpicky.

Yeah, this would send someone spiraling. This back and forth on whether it's true or not right now is weird. Anyways. The fact that they're saying it's not true, to pointing how it could be, makes me believe it more.

Don't kiss. And they did. I'm not into this as a ship ngl.

Oh is Isobel still not okay? I thought that was just sort of a general, over did it, drink some nail polish remover and move on kinda deal. (On that note, how did they figure out to drink that stuff?)

This deal about that night is really blowing up in their faces seeing how it keeps getting brought up. Honestly, they probably thought they were in the clear from addressing it ever again as it's been a decade and then BAM! Liz come crashing into their lives threatening everything they've built, what with her knowing they're aliens, and also digging into her sisters past. I do get why these two don't like her. It just kinda sucks that we can't all get along yet. I feel things would be resolved so quickly if we all trusted each other. But that wouldn't be good stoy telling, and then I wouldn't watch the show. Probably.

Look, I know if I look logically, Liz and Kyle make sense and should be a good pair, they communicate well, they're obviously attracted to each other, they care about each other yada yada. But shipping isn't logical. So, imma pass.

Also this thing with his dad was kinda dealt with quicker than I expected. Like obviously they're looking into it, but I expected more conflict over it. Not sad to see a lack of it though

Ugh encounter. Oh this isn't as bad as I was expecting this to go.

Oh shit this confrontation is happening. See this is what I wanted to avoid. I knew it was coming, but why did it come? The betrayal of trust. Thought it is on both sides since he's still keeping secrets about Rosa. So you know, evens out... I don't really want to hit play. I hate moments like this.

This is hurting me. I'll leave it at that.

Agajdbks I'm analysing as I'm watching but I didn't want to hit pause so I kept going back and deleting.

So cage imagery brought up again, taken from Rosa of course. Being burned and needing to hide away in your armor. She's gotta break that cage and leave the safety of course that's coming later. Like this is a story, things like this get brought up to be broken. Same thing with how she only relies on facts. That rarely lasts in storied when it's brought up.

She's terrified is how she sums it up, but that's obviously more than just, "ooh alien may have killed my sister" and also relates to her feelings I'd say, I mean it makes sense. She's scared of opening up, of how she feels, and how he's involved with Rosa.

I honestly forgot more of what I was gonna say but oh well.

Jenna, don't you dare talk to him. Oh, he's fucking manipulating again. I hate him

Aw father daughter bonding. I like her dad

Ok, there lives are sad. Like idk, Michael hits the most just cause he's literally looking for some other alien to save him. It might as well be a child's fairytale tbh. Isobel's is sad too don't get me wrong, but something feels worse looking for someone not there.

And now they know about Kyle. Their lives are falling apart

Oh I'm running out of time I pause too much, I need to go, so commentary is short.

Gah! And of course it's right at the end with a reveal. Fuck me. I basically running to my practice and have no time to process and reflect anymore. I over thought things earlier. Damn. I'm watching the next episode tonight idc that I have to get up early.

[scifigeneration]

We're climate researchers and our work was turned into fake news

by Michael Grubb

rawpixel.com / shutterstock

Science is slow. It rests on painstaking research with accumulating evidence. This makes for an inherently uneasy relationship with the modern media age, especially once issues are politicised. The interaction between politics and media can be toxic for science, and climate change is a prominent example.

Take the recent “deep freeze” along the US east coast. To scientists, it was one more piece of a larger jigsaw of climate change disrupting weather systems and circulation patterns. This includes dramatic changes seen in Arctic sea ice and the knock-on effect on temperatures elsewhere in northern latitudes – both warming and relative cooling. To President Donald Trump the cold snap was a chance to mock climate change, and some skeptics suddenly talked about an impending ice age.

Fiction. Breitbart

Colleagues and I experienced similar frustrations in late 2017, after we published a paper in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience, in which we concluded that there was more headroom than many had assumed before we breach the goals of the Paris Agreement. We found ourselves not only on the front page of the main British newspapers, but globally, as far-right website Breitbart ran with a story that a small band of buccaneering scientists had finally admitted that the models were all wrong – a fiction rapidly picked up by the more rabid elements in the media.

The essence of good science is to continually update, challenge, improve and refine, using as much evidence as possible. Single events rarely make for good science. And if every painstaking evaluation, updating work from years ago, may be portrayed as demolishing everything that went before – particularly at the whim of non-scientific agendas – then we have a major dilemma. The edifice of science is built with small bricks and this research was no exception.

We emphatically did not show that climate change was “less bad” or “happening slower” than previously thought. Our work built on the many previous scientific studies that had looked at the risks of unchecked emissions and the prospects for limiting warming to 2℃ above pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement went further, aiming to “pursue efforts” towards a more ambitious goal of just 1.5℃. Given we’re already at around 1℃ of warming, that’s a relatively short-term goal. Greater ambition therefore requires greater precision.

Ten more years of this? Or 20? kamilpetran / shutterstock

Our study took a microscope to that question. Where previous estimates were drawn from a range of mostly long-run models that looked at century-long changes, we instead focused on a precise definition and current starting point, and other factors which matter far less in the long term, but a lot if the goal is much closer.

Some of the earlier estimates seemed to imply a “headroom to 1.5℃” of less than a decade of current emissions – clearly unachievable given the long timespans and huge inertia. We estimated about 20 years – equivalent to global CO₂ emissions falling steadily from now until hitting zero in around 40 years – and made it plain that it still looks, to put it mildly, a formidable ambition. Other studies have since come to similar conclusions.

A (non-)story of revolution

The more detailed reporting by those correspondents who attended the scientific briefing was accurate enough (even if some of their headlines and lead-ins weren’t), but that was soon lost in the misrepresentations that followed. Doubtless we could have done more to explain how our conclusions arose from what were actually quite minor scientific developments. Some instead turned it into a story of revolution in climate science. Scientists are also human, and these sceptic reactions reinforced a natural initial inclination among other researchers to defend their previous numbers. Some took to Twitter to do so, but themselves seemed to confuse the media headlines with our actual conclusions.

Some challenges could yet be proved right. There could, for example, be more pent-up warming currently being masked by other pollutants or already lurking in the oceans. When the goal is close, other heat-trapping emissions (like methane) also matter a lot more. Our study – like earlier work – had its share of caveats and uncertainties.

There may be even more heat lurking in the oceans. Maksimilian/shutterstock

Unfortunately, while good science embraces uncertainty, politics abhors it and the media seems confounded by it. That in turn pressures researchers to simplify their message, and treat existing estimates – often, from a range – like a position to be defended. It is a risky trap for scientists, however eminent and well-intentioned, to wield overnight reactions to parry months of painstaking peer review and refinement that lie behind analyses published in leading journals.

Science against spin

So how should science respond? The climate policy implications are easy: nothing significant has changed. We have but one planet, and both the physical and economic processes that are driving climate change have enormous inertia. If a big ocean liner were steaming into dense fog in polar seas, only a fool would maintain full speed on the basis that the technicians were still discussing the distance to the first big iceberg.

One underlying challenge is indeed around the communication of uncertainty. This is a well-worn track, but it bears repeating. The job of science is not just to narrow uncertainties, but to educate about the risks that flow logically from it. Like a medical prognosis from smoking, the fact that things might turn out better or worse than the average is not a good reason to keep puffing. You won’t know until it is too late whether the damage has been slight, or terminal.

But science also needs to embrace and embed another obvious feature of medical practice: a doctor would never look at just your temperature to diagnose your condition. So part of the problem stems from using a single indicator for complex processes. Too much debate treats temperature (and especially the most recent global average) as the sole indicator, whereas many other factors are at play including sea levels, ocean acidity, ice sheets, ecosystem trends, and many more.

These other trends need to be reported in context, just as economics news reports not only GDP but debt, employment, inflation, productivity and a host of other indicators. And scientists themselves need to improve the art of communication in a world where research can be spun, within hours, into a story of past failure, rather than the reality of continuous improvement.

Michael Grubb is a Professor of Energy and Climate Change st UCL

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

[fleshing-out-fodlan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now onto Leicester:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally Adrestian nobles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[venusdebotticelli]

"We're not at the end yet" - Okay, first off there's a pattern of queerbaiting that's as long as the show (since Dean was coded as bi right from the start), and second, how exactly are you 'throwing them under the bus' for being a band of homophobes? By writing metas and supporting the show? Please. And one more thing - if I was attacking meta writers, it's precisely because I know how metaing works and I've seen people turn from dotty professors to ferocious preachers over the last two years./

Many people are aggressive rn, they call you a heller and a hater simply for pointing out what we were free to discuss as late as S10 - that yes, the story was built on romantic tropes but it wasn’t going anywhere. There is no good reason for keeping this in the subtext, and yet we’re being attacked for even suggesting that after 9 years they should make it textual or go home. Tbh, I’m very annoyed, saddened and let down by this behavior and the constant implication we’re stupid and bitter.

I think this is just a misunderstanding of what I’m saying¿? You have the certainty that it’s not going anywhere, but I don’t¿? I’m not a mind reader and I’m not in the writers’ room, so I have no idea where the story is going, but I definitely think there’s a strong possibility of it going explicit canon before the end of the show, simply because when I interpret the story that’s the direction it’s strongly pointing at in my opinion. 

If I think of reasons for it *not* to go explicit, I can only come up with behind the scenes reasons, like network executives being awful and getting on the way, or the writers pulling a Buckleming/Charlie and just derailing the plot in a completely stupid and insulting way for no good reason. As I’ve already said, I think the writers have the moral obligation to make it canon at this point, and as a queer woman I’d be furious if they didn’t, because as I personally see it, in my own interpretation, there’s absolutely no reason storywise for them not to explicitly acknowledge the romantic story between Dean and Cas.

So, you have chosen to believe the story isn’t going anywhere. I have chosen to believe it probably is going in that direction, because that’s the logical conclusion I see for it and I think the writers *should* honour the groundwork they’ve laid down, but I have no idea what’s coming down the line, and I know it’s by no means a certainty they’re actually going there, so I just choose to appreciate what we already have, without inherently expecting to be disappointed. When I look at the story I see how they are getting to the point I think they’re getting at. When you look at the story you see more narrative they’re just gonna drop with no payoff, because you don’t think they’re going there. So literally until the show finishes and we see how they wrap it up neither your opinion nor mine are wrong or right.

 And with that established, let me just mention some specific points:

“We’re not at the end yet” - Okay, first off there’s a pattern of queerbaiting that’s as long as the show (since Dean was coded as bi right from the start)

I think we just have a different definition of queerbaiting here. Queerbaiting for me is the inclusion of obviously queer elements with the sole intention of drawing in queer viewers, without ever intending to explicitly deliver on them or treat them with respect. If we go by that, I wouldn’t say the first few seasons were really queerbating, because even though Dean was queer-coded, it was ambiguous and vague enough that I wouldn’t really consider it a call to queer people, so much as a reading that’s there if you want to make it, but isn’t really tangible enough to really hold the writers accountable for it. And the jokes they made about Dean and Sam, while they could be considered in poor taste, allude to incest so obviously no queer person is gonna expect anything from them.

Once they introduced Cas and the jokes started to be about Dean and him, you could argue that it was queerbaiting, also because the queer-coding got stronger. It was shitty, but the show didn’t end there. 

It kept going and now as far back as s7 we have had a continuous queer narrative constantly being built upon, that took them from friends to whatever they are now, and that’s still being built, so of course until the story is finished there’s no way to tell if it’s going to be queerbaiting or not. Calling the current narrative “queerbaiting” would be like closing a book halfway through and deciding you have been cheated and lead on because you never got to read a kiss or a resolution or whatever. Until the story finishes, it’s just Schrödinger’s queerbaiting, and going into people’s inboxes telling them they’re harming the queer community or whatever because they’re not certain it will end badly is a shitty thing to do. Also, if Dean and Cas end up together by the end of the show, all of the instances of queer-coding in the show would be great build up for it, even if they weren’t intended as such at first. For those of us that like to think there’s a possibility of them getting together, this is all one great cohesive gigantic love story building up towards it, and that’s what we love about it when we explore it in meta, even if we still haven’t seen the resolution and can’t be sure that’s what it will be eventually.

I know the uncertainty and wait is frustrating and disheartening, but other people choosing to enjoy the ride and appreciate it in meta is in no way an attack towards you.

how exactly are you ‘throwing them under the bus’ for being a band of homophobes? By writing metas and supporting the show? Please.

I literally do not understand a single thing about this sentence. I think you read my disclaimer and understood exactly the opposite of what I said¿? 

#AND OF COURSE WITH THE FUCKING DISCLAIMER THAT EVEN IF WE’RE PUMPED ABOUT THE LITERARY ASPECT OF IT #SOCIALLY SPEAKING THEY HAVE A FUCKING DUTY TO NOT THROW QUEER PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS YES FUCKING HELL #But we’re not at the end yet 

 What I said is that even though *us* meta writers enjoy the literary aspects of it as they are now, *the writers* have the social duty of openly acknowledging the queerness of it, and if they don’t, then *they the writers* are throwing *us queer people* under the bus. This is me holding them accountable to explicitly deliver on the queerness of it all, while still acknowledging that the story is ongoing, so just because they haven’t openly talked about it yet it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve done anything wrong yet, as frustrating as it is to have it still be subtextual.

If I was attacking meta writers, it’s precisely because I know how metaing works and I’ve seen people turn from dotty professors to ferocious preachers over the last two years. Many people are aggressive rn, they call you a heller and a hater simply for pointing out what we were free to discuss as late as S10 […] There is no good reason for keeping this in the subtext, and yet we’re being attacked for even suggesting that after 9 years they should make it textual or go home. Tbh, I’m very annoyed, saddened and let down by this behavior and the constant implication we’re stupid and bitter.

I’m sorry you have had this experience in fandom, but personally I haven’t seen it in my corner of fandom, and certainly not from @elizabethrobertajones or me, whose inboxes are the ones you went into with all of this. I’m gonna speak both for myself and for what I have personally seen on Lizzy’s blog specifically when I say this, because this is what I personally have been able to observe and you seem to have a beef with:

As I said, expressing our optimism and enjoyment of the story as it unfolds is not “preaching”. Every time we discuss the show, we do it from our own perspective, and make it clear that we are speaking for *us*, that our opinion is not authoritative in any way and just a personal interpretation of what we see on the show, based on our personal knowledge of storytelling.

The people who like to call destiel shippers “hellers” come from the corner of fandom that hates castiel and thinks the show is only samndean and no one else, so literally the opposite of any meta writer I’ve ever seen, and certainly not Lizzy or me. Whatever aggression you’re receiving on that front is not coming from meta writers, so going to meta writers’ inboxes to attack them for it makes no sense whatsoever. (Not that attacking people in general makes any sense, but I digress)

We agree there’s absolutely no reason to keep it subtextual by the end of the show. Literally *no* meta I’ve ever seen or personally written has argued that it should stay subtextual. I’ve seen people saying, from a storytelling standpoint, they’re okay with it not being textual yet because they expect it to be later on, which is also my position. Again, this is just from what I’ve personally seen, but whenever that point has been made it has been an expression of a personal stance, not an attack against anybody else. Neither Lizzy nor I have ever attacked anyone for being frustrated with it not being textual yet, because we can certainly sympathise, and hell, I often share that same view too– I think it’s pure cowardice that it hasn’t been made explicit yet, but I can justify it with narrative reasons as long as there is a satisfying pay off later on. If there isn’t in the end, I know a massive group of positive meta writers will be storming the supernatural offices to claim their heads on a plate, and I’ll be one of them.

Again, I’m sorry you have been mistreated like this, but “this behaviour” is not coming from us, so turning us into whatever caricature of a meta writer you think we are, and dumping this in our inbox, is extermely rude.

PEOPLE ENJOYING AND POSITIVELY ANALYSING SOMETHING YOU HAVE A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP WITH IS IN NO WAY A PERSONAL ATTACK TOWARDS YOU.