#so a saying that was on purpose and i don't really understand why

[candiiee]

ᴅᴇᴋᴜᴛᴏʙᴇʀ ᴅᴀʏ ᴛʜɪʀᴛʏ: ᴍᴀɢɪᴄᴀʟ ɢɪʀʟ

summary: Izuku, Bakugo, and Todoroki get hit by a villain’s quirk, and transform into magical girls

warnings: swearing, Bakugo antics

an: y/n teases them

This was fucking hilarious. Seeing the class hothead, cutey, and pretty boy walk in, wearing girly outfits, looking like something straight out of sailor moon. Not that you were hating of course. They looked really hot.

Izuku was beet red, trying to appear nonchalant, Bakugo giving everyone the death glare, and Todoroki, who looked like he could care less, though he did look a little smug.

Sero wolf whistled, "bold fashion choice, but nice legs!" You snickered, taking out your phone, taking secret pics, for blackmail purposes and general appreciation of how nice they looked.

Izuku stammered, "i-uh-um.."

"you look manly, Bakubro!" Kirishima said, genuinely impressed.

"shut up shitty hair!" Bakugo barked, as you tried to suppress a giggle.

"eye candy in the morning, how nice." You coo, wiggling your eyebrows suggestively at Izuku, making him squirm as he avoided your gaze.

"I take it none of you decided to become strippers, so what's with the get up?" Denki asked, genuinely curious.

"maybe they like to cosplay?" Jirou quips, snickering silently.

"we were hit by a quirk when we took down a low rank villain yesterday." Todoroki speaks up, making everyone nod in understanding.

"so you didn't just wake up and decide to show off your legs?" You say, still smirking.

"o-of course not!" Izuku stammered, "we can't even take off these outfits!"

You hum, "you sure? Try right now."

Todoroki with no hesitation, tried to take off the top. "Todoroki! Stripping in a classroom is strictly forbidden!" Iida says, chopping the air, giving you a look.

You roll your eyes, "personally I was hoping Izuku would fall for it." Izuku flushes, as if he can't fathom why you would ever want to see him shirtless. Poor innocent boy.

You shoot him a cheeky grin, making him flush even more. "Showing up to school on those outfits takes guts." You say, smirking at Bakugo. "Right, Kachan?"

"shut the fuck up sassy extra!" Bakugo snarls, looking like he's going to explode, which makes sense, because of his quirk. Izuku tried to calm him down, "y'know, you guys should be careful. Don't wanna accidentally flash anyone, right? they could faint from being subjected to three hotties!" You quip, feeling pleased as you make Izuku and Bakugo blush, Todoroki looking confused.

"SHUT THE FUCK UP!" Bakugo says, looking like he's gonna strangle you.

You grin, "yeah yeah. You're just sad Izuku looks prettier then you."

Izuku squeaks, looking like he's gonna faint.

"are you done?" A tired voice asks, and everyone scrambles into their seats.

"Of course, sensei!" You say, using your good girl voice.

@candiiee 2024

prompt by @/getstarried

Taglist: @dokidokidraft @mo0nforme

[jumalanpelko]

hey if it's not uncomfortable to ask, what was the original (pre-reboot) story about?

If you're uncomfy feel free to toss this ask

(I don't mind my name being shown)

No its very much fine!

It was a similar story but very different. Guard, Suncat and Senior guard were all characters in it.

-In the og comic there was no god. The cats worshipped the sun but it wasnt like an actual being, just their belief.

-instead of dying slowly because of the god Suncats starved themselves on purpose as a sacrifice so the sun wouldnt burn everything (they lived in a desert).

-the cats were very much humans just drawn as cats cause little Sysi didnt know how to draw humans lol. Like they had houses and shit

-also i am very much sure that it was disrespectful to some cultures. Not on purpose, I just didnt really understand stuff like this at that point of my life (it was before stuff like "why it isnt ok to put feathers in warrior cats' heads" or really anything about cultural appropriation were discussed in my circles). I didnt take inspiration on anything specific but still. Ive learned a lot since then, I was a kid back then.

-The storyline was very different since the god wasnt real. It was mostly Guard proving that and the whole city going to chaos and literally everyone died. (Cat thats replaced with Sugarpaws tried to kill Guard, but Suncat stopped her and died of her wounds, Guard died because he stayed with dying Suncat in a fire, "Sugarpaws" was killed by Senior guard and I think Senior guard was killed by smoke??? Or she died because she pushed "sugarpaws" off a roof and went down with her????)

-Also Guard's and Suncat's relationship was way more vague to the point that some readers saw it as parent and child and some even romantic. I believe i saw them as friends, there was no romance in the comic

-The old comic is still public in jumalanpelko instagram (i dont update the new comic there anymore tho cause Instagram is PAINFUL to put comics in that hoe just cuts the pics as it wants). It is OLD and only in finnish tho

1. Cat thats replaced by Sugarpaws

2. Guard

3. "Sugarpaw's" son was like "owo you should go to see x at some point of your life" and then he just "oh yeah. You are dying". (Also here you can see stuff like the feathers that are very much not ok. So sorry about that)

4. Suncat and Guard. She is saying "seriously. Im going to cry too"

[itsmistyeyedbi]

And the kiss! (in addition to this)

○

○

○

I'm not tagging this because the tags are just me rambling about my thoughts on what a says here. I guess it could be t/w/c critical? But barely I think lol.

[nostalgebraist]

Thanks for this thoughtful review!

(BTW, for others – this is probably obvious but there are spoilers below the readmore, don't click unless you've read the book)

I'm going to use this as an opportunity to talk about one specific thing that bugs me about some reader reactions to my stuff. Therefore, most of what I say below will be negative (about your review), but I want to emphasize first that that's not a reflection of what I thought of it overall.

----

What I'm here now to talk about is this kind of thing:

There are parts of all his books, where I really think that the explanation for why they are the way they are is that they are "bad on purpose", and all the bullshit [note: in context "bullshit" seems to be meant as a neutral term for non-realist elements -nost] is a way of turning these shortcomings into strengths. The self-effacing voice which whispers that the characters aren't sufficiently well-drawn, are too cartoonish—well, what if that was the point? What if there was a reason for that, in the story?

And like... okay, there is sort of a sense in which this is true, sometimes, kinda. There is a grain of truth to this; it is getting at something real.

But it pains me to say that, because I don't want to encourage this kind of reading. Interpretations like this are occasionally correct but IMO they're much more common than they should be. IMO the right intuition is that this is a galaxy-brained, contrarian sort of take, a last resort you land on when you've ruled out everything else.

And not just with my work, with everything – I'm simply more aware of the problem when it comes to my work, because I wrote it and I'm aware of why I actually did things the way I did.

I've said this before, but watching the way that people react to my own fiction has been an eye-opening experience, one that has taught me things about reader (and viewer, etc.) reactions in general. Specifically, what I've learned was:

People's tastes are way more diverse than I had realized (before I started writing and sharing fiction). And they are diverse in a very fine-grained way; even if two readers have the same preferences about 90% of stuff, or 95%, they'll still diverge on some things. While it's not literally true that "every reader is a unique snowflake with a preference set that no one else shares," that is a very good first approximation of how things are.

Readers (including me!) have been trained by a lifetime of reading book/movie/etc. reviews to frame their preferences/reactions in a pseudo-objective "this is just how it is" way, like their own tastes have some special viewpoint-independent priority, a quality of "reality" or "accuracy" lacking in everyone else's tastes (which are all different, cf. 1). And this is not just a stylistic quirk of the way people write about fiction, it actually (IMO) feeds back into the underlying opinions behind the written commentary. It degrades people's ability to understand what it is they're looking at and their ability to make accurate inferences about the process of its creation.

----

Here's a sort of cartoonish schematic of the type of experience that led me to draw these conclusions. (And I suspect this is not just a thing that happens to me, I imagine it happens with any sort of work that "contains a lot of different types of stuff" the way mine does.)

Writer makes something that has X and Y and Z in it. Writer thinks X/Y/Z are "great tastes that taste great together." Writer is very pleased with the result.

Reader 1 has similar tastes to writer, says something brief about how they loved the book and it's a new favorite for them.

Reader 2 loves X, is OK with Y, hates Z. They write a lengthy review saying that the book was a mixed bag and could have been great if the writer had stuck to X and not messed things up by doing so much Z.

Reader 3 is the reverse of their predecessor: they hate X, are OK with Y, love Z. They write a lengthy review saying that the book was a mixed bag and could have been great if the writer had stuck to Z and not messed things up by doing so much X.

Reader 4 loves X and Z – but they hate Y. They write a lengthy… you can fill in the rest. Imagine a whole bunch of these guys (readers 5, 6, etc).

Reader 17 has the same tastes as Reader 2: loves X, is OK with Y, hates Z. But their lengthy review takes a different, in some sense "more charitable" angle, speculating that the inclusion of Z was a load-bearing pillar in the overall structure, a thing that unfortunately had to be included to "unlock" all that sweet sweet X.

Reader 18 has the same tastes as Reader 3: hates X, is OK with Y, loves Z. But, they explain, X was a load-bearing pillar in the overall structure, a thing that unfortunately had to be included to "unlock" all that sweet sweet Z.

Writer reads all these reviews and feels strange, dizzy. The "nicer" reviews like 17 and 18 are actually more uncomfortable to read than the "meaner" ones like 2 and 3.

"I don't know how to convince you guys," Writer thinks, "but I... I just liked all of it? I thought it was good? That was why I wrote it? (Why else would I have written it?)"

----

Or, as I wrote in that previously linked post from 2021, w/r/t TNC specifically (and making a slightly different but closely related point):

Some people say X was the worst part of TNC, some people say X was the best part. The story was a celebration of Y; the story was about how Y is laughably futile. It’s a letdown that we were never told more about Z; the reason TNC is good is that it leaves stuff like Z to the imagination. It was obvious we were meant to believe P; it is obvious we were meant to believe not-P; the ambiguity about whether P is tiresome literary masturbation; at least the story didn’t jump the shark by spelling out whether P! The reason people like TNC is, of course, that it has A, although nostalgebraist insisted on putting B in there too because he hasn’t fully perfected his formula yet / he somehow thinks B is good even though it isn’t / he thinks it’s funny how bad B is (but the joke tires). …and then someone else has same take, but with A and B flipped.

This exact sort of thing is of course happening again before our eyes with reactions to TAoHS.

I've encountered multiple readers who disliked most of the story but felt the ending (sort of) "redeemed it," and I've also encountered multiple readers who liked the story up until the ending but disliked the ending (or at least thought it was worse than the rest) – to say nothing of the many readers who liked (or disliked) the whole thing all the way through.

And this ending-related stuff is just one particularly obvious facet of a broader diversity in the overall reader response.

By now I know not to be surprised by this stuff, and even to find it kind of fun to watch... but I have to admit, it is still a dizzying and uncomfortable experience.

----

Now, as I said, it is sometimes true that things really are "bad on purpose."

But I think the interpreter's default hypothesis – which should be maintained by default unless convincing evidence against it can be brought forth – should be:

The writer thinks that the thing they wrote is good. They think the ideas are good and they think they executed them well. And they think this more-or-less homogeneously for everything in the work – there are no "bad but unfortunately necessary" parts from the writer's POV.

(At least, this should be the default with works that aren't making the writer much/any money. Obviously things are different with lucrative commercial fiction; there are plenty of well-paid hacks who know they're hacks and do it for the money, etc.)

Why should this be the default? Multiple reasons.

First: it takes a lot of effort to produce any sort of creative work. The writer thought that effort was worthwhile, for some reason – why?

The most straightforward explanation (and a very common one IMO) is that the writer simply believed in the thing that they were making. They believed the effort was worthwhile because it would yield a good product.

Second: as a writer you have an immense amount of freedom. It's difficult to overstate the extent of it. You are playing God, you decide the way that literally everything will be.

Obviously there are some constraints, cases where one part of a story will imply the existence of another or whatever.

But it's very rare that you actually get forced into "doing a thing you know you are bad at, badly." After all: why do that? No one's forcing you! Just do something else! You're God, you control everything!

(Note that this applies also to the very act of writing anything. No one is forcing you to write at all. If you can't come up with good ideas, nothing prevents you from just not writing your bad ones.)

Third: at least in my experience, "playing God" in this way requires a certain state of mind, a certain boldness and self-assurance, which is incompatible with thinking "yeah this is gonna suck but I have to do it" – but is very compatible with thinking "I am making something excellent and every part of it is excellent, hell yes."

Fourth: because of the previously noted diversity of reader preferences, it should not be surprising to any given reader that they find some parts of the work much better than others, even if the writer thought it was all excellent.

This outcome is predictable from the X/Y/Z stuff I talked about above. No clever interpretive work is required to explain it; it arrives pre-explained; it's simply what happens by default.

And finally: because, as I noted above, I think all of us are infected with "reviewer brainworms" and we need to be mindful of this fact.

(Just to be clear, I am not accusing OP of being more infected with said brainworms than anyone else; I'm still on my soapbox, giving a generic rant about a general issue, with OP as merely a jumping-off point.)

We've grown accustomed to the casual conflation between our own tastes and some (usually hazily imagined and under-theorized) sort of "objective, ideal artistic standards."

Outside of a few edge-case eccentrics who can be ignored for my present purposes, we do not do this because we've become intellectually convinced that

(a) such objective standards make sense and really "exist" or at least really matter and

(b) they just so happen to match our own preferences.

Rather, we've fallen into this habit because it's what the pros do: there's a standard style that professional critics and reviewers write in these days, and that style implies these stances. And if one writes (and thinks, in one's inner monologue) in this style, one can easily fall over backwards into uncritically believing (a) and (b) for no better reason than "I seem to already be talking as though I believe these things, hence it would be simple and convenient if I really did believe them."

But – even if we bracket the philosophical questions of whether (a) is in fact true, and (if it is) whose tastes in particular ought to be elevated in the way (b) presumes – even if we table all that for another day, still we ought to keep in mind how weird and audacious a move this is, this simultaneous assertion-without-explanation of the (a)+(b) pair.

We've gotten used to it by exposure, because "the pros" have normalized it. But in actual fact it is a pretty wild thing to just go and assume, given the X/Y/Z/etc. diversity of actual opinion!

If (b) is true for you (general "you" not OP), then it can't be true for me, because we're both unique snowflakes to a first approximation; indeed if (b) is true for you then (to a first approx.) it is only true for you. No one else's tastes have this magical relation to reality, just yours.

Holding the belief (b) about a given reviewer is conceivable-but-wild if we're only considering them in isolation. But once we bring a 2nd reviewer (with non-identical tastes) into the picture, who also believes (b), it's literally impossible to maintain that both of these people are fully right.

And then of course in real life there are not 2 but many, many readers out there, all of them unique snowflakes. And, while it is socially normal in our social context for each one of them to write like they're the chosen one blessed with that special (b)-magic, if you read enough such writing and actually think about what you're reading, it can't help but feel like a sort of game, like playing make-believe. As with most games, it can be very entertaining (for all parties involved), but we shouldn't confuse its amusing conceits for properties of the real world.

In the real world, the writer has their tastes, and you have yours. These tastes are probably not identical. The writer may be aware of the diversity of readerly tastes, and may thus be aware that tastes like yours are out there, but they have no special reason to consider you in particular, elevating you above all the other readers who are non-identical with them (and with you). The writer is dimly and abstractly aware of you, at best, as just another one of the people who will come along later, dislike some of their choices, assume that these choices were wrong in some "objective" way the writer knew about at the time, and then speculate as to why the writer would do something they know is wrong. For every choice, and every way of making every choice, one can imagine a reviewer who responds to it in this way, and quite often these reviewers actually materialize once the work is available for consumption. If you try to reason about these guys in advance, as a writer, it'll stop you in your tracks (if nothing else because there are 2+ of them whose takes are mutually incompatible). You've gotta have some other standard of value to rely on.

So, as a reviewer, if you ask "why would someone ever make a choice I don't like?" and try to pick at this question, you are quite likely heading toward a dead end. The writer wasn't thinking about you (or people like you). They were applying their own, distinct standard of value.

Better to ask: "suppose there was a person who actually liked all of this. What would they be like? How would they be similar to me / different from me? And what, if anything, can I conclude from that?"

The Apocalypse of Herschel Schoen

My fourth novel, The Apocalypse of Herschel Schoen, is now available in full.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

[oceanwithouthermoon]

yk when i think about it, especially when im watching the anime with people who havent read the manga, the reason a lot of people who only watch the anime and didnt read the manga misinterpreted saikis character so badly is definitely in part because of how damn fast paced the anime is 😭

like that little smile and eye shine frame is there for not even half a second in the anime, so its easier to miss it and assume that he really did only finish those workbooks to get coffee jelly ☠️ its much more clear if you get a good look at how he reacts here that hes just a silly little tsundere and a fucking liar

[thepoisonroom]

'I flirted with the idea that instead of being trans that I was just a cross-dresser (a quirk, I thought, that could be quietly folded into an otherwise average life) and that my dysphoria was sexual in nature, and sexual only. And if my feelings were only sexual, then, I wondered, perhaps I wasn’t actually trans.

I had read about a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen, by a Northwestern University professor who believed that transwomen who were attracted to women were really confused fetishists, they wanted to be women to satisfy an autogynephilia. And though I first read about this book in the context of its debunkment and disparagement, I thought about the electricity of slipping on those tights, zipping up those boots, and a stream of guilt followed. Maybe this professor was right, and maybe I was only a fetishist. Not trans, just a misguided boy.

About a year later, on the Internet, I come across a transwoman who added a unique message to the crowd refuting this professor. Oh, I wish I remember who this woman was, and I wish even more that I could do better than paraphrase her, but I remember her saying something like this: “Well, of course I feel sexy putting on women’s clothing and having a woman’s body. If you feel comfortable in your body for the first time, won’t that probably mean it’ll be the first time you feel comfortable, too, with delighting in your body as a sexual thing?”'

-Casey Plett, Consciousness

[descendant-of-truth]

Interesting addendum to this that I wasn't expecting: in the English version of Days, whenever Roxas talks about Sora, he's always clearly framed as a person. "Who is Sora," "I don't even know a Sora," etc.

In Japanese, he initially asks about who Sora is, but then switches to asking what Sora is. And it seems to happen not too long after Xemnas describes Sora as "the connection" between him and Xion.

He proceeds to wonder to himself what Sora is, and who exactly that makes him, before going to ask Axel about it. And during that conversation with Axel, he doesn't say "I don't even know a Sora," he instead just repeats the question of "but what even is Sora?"

Which I think adds an extra nuance to the narrative that gets lost in the official translation. Roxas instinctively thinks of Sora as a person, because why wouldn't he, but none of the answers he gets about him frames him as such. So, perhaps subconsciously, he starts seeing Sora less as a person and more of a mystery, this obstacle to his and Xion's lives that he can't seem to get answers about.

And normally, you'd think Roxas wouldn't fall into this trap, right? He's always been the most adamant about defending Xion's personhood, shouting at people when she's referred to as a puppet or an "it." His whole storyline is about asserting himself in the face of nearly everyone he knows dehumanizing him and trying to take away his autonomy.

Plus, he has Sora's memories! If he remembers things that Sora's done, and things that Sora's felt, how could he not see him as a person?

But I think that's a testament to how insidious the Organization's manipulation is. Roxas and his best friend are discriminated against, they're "othered" in a way that's unfair and it makes him justifiably ticked off. But that's the thing: he knows Xion, he cares about her, and of course he knows himself. He remembers things about Sora, but he doesn't really understand him - we never see him processing the memories he has very well.

So it becomes very easy for Sora to be presented as the "other." He doesn't stand up for Sora's personhood because he hasn't seen it, and frankly, he has bigger things in his home life to care about than whether some random guy he knows random things about is being treated well. Sora, reportedly, is half the reason he has so many problems anyway, and at this point in his life he just wants someone to blame.

It doesn't matter that Sora wasn't personally responsible for anything that happened to Roxas. He doesn't know what Sora did or didn't do when it comes to him and Xion, but everyone's telling him he's responsible, he's the connection, he's the reason everything is happening to him. And so, Roxas's anger is directed at an innocent person, someone who's really not much more privileged than he is, instead of solely at his oppressors.

Honestly, the way Roxas views Sora over time deserves a post all on its own, because it's not even necessarily as straightforward as "and then he saw Sora exactly for who he is once they joined together for a while and he got over his resentment." It's more like, his resentment turned into genuine respect, and then into this weird, resigned hero-worship for a bit, before they seemed to get on equal terms towards the end of KH3.

But my point is, Roxas plays a very interesting role in this pattern of Sora being dehumanized, because he ends up contributing to it for completely different reasons than everyone else, and it's not even on purpose. DiZ and the Organization see Sora as a tool, Namine and especially Riku care more about waking him up than how he'd feel about their methods.

To Roxas, Sora is the reason he lost everything. Sora is "what it was all for," which starts as something he hates, and becomes something that gives him a certain degree of comfort.

Because Sora will be the one to figure it all out, right? He can depend on Sora, just like everybody else, because that's what Sora's here for. He's a good guy, he'll find a way to make things right again.

He ends up being correct, but man. At what cost

Anyone else find it fascinating that whenever we're shown Roxas's feelings through Sora, it's just kind of melancholic and wistful, but the reverse scenario always feels like you just walked into a psychological horror?

Seriously, the way it's presented, it's like we're meant to see Roxas as an old friend that we miss talking to, but Sora - our original "old friend" that we would have reasons to miss - is hardly even shown as a person. The contents of his memories feel less important than the effect they're having on Roxas, which is usually Extreme Distress and/or physical pain.

And it's insane to me because KH1 was so whimsical! The memories that Roxas and Xion are experiencing are literal Disney magic! But the way they're shown, with the fuzzy filters and the glitch effects, sort of removes the emotions you associate with them and makes them come across as eerie and unsettling.

Not to mention, Sora's memories rarely prompt any feelings of happiness, the way Roxas's might make Sora extra fond of the Twilight Town crew... which might say more about how KH1 affected Sora's mental health than anything.

(I personally stand by the idea that the story revisits it so much as an analogy for how repeating events in your head over and over can alter your perception of them)

But like. how wild is it that this series found a way to take its cheerful protagonist, and without changing anything about him, turned him into this constant, unnerving presence that haunts the lives of two other characters?

And I think another reason Roxas doesn't feel like he haunts Sora in the same way is because no one really... treats Sora like a person while he's asleep. He's either a tool or an object of affection, and regardless of which you pick, his feelings are seen as secondary to the goal of waking him up. As a result, the narrative focuses entirely on Roxas and Xion's personhood, and unlike Sora, they never stop being treated like people once they're made inaccessible due to the plot.

It's probably a bit late in the story to bring it up by now, but I still wonder if we'll ever see Sora be upset with Riku for sacrificing people in his name. Sure, it worked out in the end, and I'm not sure if Sora's even aware of what happened (how likely is it that he's properly sifted through all of Roxas's memories at this point?) but there's a list of things he could still conceivably be mad at Riku about that he hasn't processed, and I want this to be one of them

[pplatonic]

Unfortunately I have to turn off asks because random strangers keep sending me charity/donation solicitations which spiral my moral OCD and paranoia/delusional thinking. So if you want to talk to me just DM me instead (discord is an option too, send me your usernames in DMs if you prefer that.)

[angered-box]

yknow realizing my family was super fucking mean to me for no reason before i turned 18

[fragglerockopinions]

The worst thing about suffering is that it still hurts when the danger is over but no one cares about it anymore because it shouldn't hurt. No one will ever say "I'm sorry that happened to you" especially when they barely say "I'm sorry that's happening."

[zalia]

And this is why I had to delete my Reddit account to stop myself getting into fights about lore because the lack of understanding (and interest in) about how story *works* and about characters etc. was just... infuriating.

In the wider lore community, it does feel like there's a lot of people who see the narrative as a puzzle to be solved which has an objectively correct 'answer'. Or perhaps more, they see the narrative as a set of objective 'facts' that are stated clearly and can be learned so that they can list them off (as well as a perspective that they are the main character, so *obviously* the world must conform to their views and anything else is bad story). I think this is why you also get a lot of people who complain when characters aren't 'logical' or choosing the most objectively correct course of action 100% of the time. To this brand of fan, the story is a puzzle and *they* have solved it (while sitting at home on their computer in relative safety and comfort, with a surplus of time to spend thinking and dissecting every bit of info) and they don't get why the characters haven't (y'know, because of the trauma, living in a high stress situation under threat of apocalypse, where there are actual consequences for their choices - in the case of Eramis specifically... the Vanguard executing Eramis while leaving, say, Saint-14 alive, would really make it clear that the Eliksni in the City are second-class citizens who can expect harsher treatment legally, which doesn't really look great from the standpoint of ending violence). It's really frustrating to deal with, especially when it leads to 'loremasters' putting out information that is wrong or misleading, because they cannot do anything but the most surface level reading of a text - for example, one specific loremaster having a short video about how incredible Lord Shaxx is and how he's the strongest and best because he defeated Felwinter easily so many times! Ignoring that the lore is pretty clear that Felwinter was not trying to win. He was not there with the purpose of winning a fight. He was buying time and working to get Shaxx to trust him enough to side with the Iron Lords (and get access to the Seraph Bunker beneath his fortress). (I love Lord Shaxx, he is great, but we do not know how he would fare in a fair fight against Felwinter). It does feel like anything that isn't spelled out in block caps in a way a 3-year old could easily understand gets ignored or just... not understood. So I am absolutely unsurprised that Eramis and her story is being misunderstood so badly. (apologies for the rant, it is something that has been bugging me basically since I got into Destiny).

Eramis Executors are up in arms that our favorite, bitter, lesbian crab didn’t receive a bullet to her head to no one’s surprise. What happened to the overarching themes involving forgiveness and mending the wounds of the past to build a better future for everyone resonating with people? Does the Traveler and what it has been representing for 10 years mean nothing when it comes to Eramis? Were we supposed to abandon the power of friendship? Is punishment with no consideration the only way of dealing with those who have committed wrong acts that people know of?

[therevengeoffrankenstein]

openly weeping at the idea of someone genuinely hating soul punk.

[luvevee]

It's pretty annoying having to scan basically every artist for i/cest shit in any media that has siblings because most of them hide it on alt accounts/platforms/sly tags and that's a big reason why I'm too burnt out on reblogging art

[jarognieva]

I need to vent

[aremindertoremember]

The thing about the potential longevity of Canadian prime ministers, absent of term limits, is it really seems to let people buy into their own BS about Society's Problems being all the fault of the current PM to a massive degree. He's been in charge for 10 years, so people who don't understand nuance can very easily say everything that's wrong in the world is all down to him being the Marxist anti-Christ or whatever hysterical horseshit they're coming up with today.

I've had so many conversations, with friends, in real life, desperately trying to get them to see sense - like no, I don't think he did a great job. No, I don't like him. No, I didn't vote for him and I wouldn't. But his greatest sin is being the most painfully boilerplate, off the assembly line neoliberal politician, governing during a time that surely requires extraordinarily visionary leadership. He is woefully inadequate to the task, governing for a world that no longer exists, and that's about it. It's not on purpose, it's not a conspiracy, he's just shitty.

Because of that longevity in office that allows people to delude themselves over how much blame can actually be specifically assigned to the prime minister, they're about to be in for a rude fucking awakening when Peewee Pete turns up to fix absolutely nothing and screw Canada even further for the people who don't make up the upper echelons of wealth and society. Because people do seem to love catchy slogans and finger pointing but don't worry so much about the pesky details of whether a candidate might you know, gut your society as you know it for the profit of him and his friends.

You would think our neighbour directly to the south would have been enough of a case study of why you should not do this, but I guess we're just always determined to be only a couple flushes behind the US in the same toilet.

Alberta "newspapers" full of brainless drivel quotes from MLAs and MPs about how Justin Truedeau single-handedly destroyed Canada.. I'm so tired.

~~~~

[nanaminokanojo]

MASTERLIST

Sukuna is pissed.

The reason? You moved away from him in your sleep when he wanted to hold you close.

In your own subtle ways, you've always complained about how unaffectionate he is. You didn't explicitly say it, but he did notice how your mood would shift, your pretty little smiles barely masking your disappointment when he would do or say anything remotely cold or mean. And now that he was giving you what you wanted, you just roll away from him, depriving him of your warmth and the affection he expects you to reward him.

How you even managed to escape four of his arms to find your own corner of the bed was a big puzzle to him. You've always slept peacefully pressed to his side on most nights, and you didn't really move much once he had two of his arms wrapped around your frail form. Perhaps you were doing it on purpose after he had evidently upset you during supper by dismissing you when you asked about his day. There was nothing to tell, and though he understands that your concerns came from a good place, he still refused to tell you of the horrors of the world he found himself so deeply embroiled in.

Sukuna, however, brushed off the idea. You wouldn't dare. Or would you? He was just protecting you. Why would you hold that against him?

He chose not to entertain the thought, thinking it was just you moving in your sleep. And so, he reached for you, gently placing his arms over and underneath you to pull you closer. But it hadn't even been a minute of him holding you when you started letting out these seemingly irritated noises and shortly after, you were turning your back on him.

"What –" He stopped himself when you breathed in deeply, half expecting to hear sobs if you were truly upset with him, but then, your breathing rhythm returned to normal. You were still fast asleep.

Sukuna shrugged, already feeling his temper rising at the thought that you could sleep just fine without him. The thought of it annoyed him, and that was an understatement. He decided to move closer to you then, but as soon as he did, pressing your back on his bare chest, you started squirming, a dissatisfied groan leaving your lips.

At that, he rose slightly on his elbow, taking offense. "Woman, what is your problem?" he demanded, making you lie down flat on your back, startling you. "Is something ailing you?" This time, he spoke gently, watching as you slowly blinked up at his frowning face like you haven't got a clue what he's talking about. And then you closed your eyes before favoring your left side, going back to sleep.

"You –"

"What?" you whined without facing him, annoyed that your sleep was being disturbed.

Sukuna scoffed. You've really done it this time. Nobody dared speak to him that way. "What now? You don't want me anymore? I thought you wanted –"

In one swift movement, he found himself being tackled onto the bed as you turned around and threw yourself against him, immediately finding your spot in the crook of his neck. His two left arms instinctively wrapped around you, keeping you cradled in them as you snuggled closer, planting a kiss under his collarbone as if to appease him before you were falling back asleep.

"You could have just stayed like this –"

"Shh."

Did you just shush him? And as if to punctuate it, you raised your hand, your fingers blindly yet tenderly brushing his lips and staying there.

"Wife, you are aware I have two mouths, aren't you?" he spoke against your fingers, fighting a smile.

You moved your head back to smirk at him as you threw a leg over his abdomen right where his other mouth was, your thigh preventing it from saying anything.

"There. Problem solved."