#the power and meaning probably actually just come from what we ascribe to it.

[sexiestpodcastcharacter]

which entity from the magnus archives do you think is the sexiest? personally i'd say the slaughter. or the corruption.

Pre-Michaelified Spiral is pretty up my alley, but only because that one dude referred to it as the Fractal and I love when the beauty of math is incorporated into stories.

The Dark is pretty sexy, not gonna lie.

Unfortunately the Corruption is the one I'm most susceptible to in a victim way and not an avatar way, so I can't find it sexy because it just terrifies me to the marrow in my bones.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

What do you think about opinions that Chloe’s development was ruined in season 3 finale because Thomas didn’t like that viewers like her more than Marinette? I Don’t think that it’s true, but it gave me idea that Thomas ruined Chloe’s already few character development because viewers liked her more than Gabriel.

I've heard this theory before and it seems like a massive stretch to me. It's always possible, but I don't feel comfortable making accusations like this without some hard evidence and I've yet to see any, though it's not like I follow this guy on Twitter or anything. My knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes is all based on random things that make their way to my Tumblr feed. So if someone has hard evidence, feel free to reblog and add it, but the most likely explanation is just bad writing. Why ascribe malice when incompetence makes just as much sense and requires a lot less motivation?

Think about what this accusation is actually saying. It's claiming that an adult man willfully ruined a major element of his passion project (or even just the show that he's known for, meaning that it will define his future career) because he was salty that people liked a character that he created. That seems like a conspiracy theory take to me.

It's also not like Thomas has full creative control of the show! Head writers have power, but they rarely have total power. They're still employees and a ton of things happen between an episode being written and the final version being aired. Producers, directors, censors, and many others usually okay a script prior to an episode being animated because that's the most expensive element. Plus it's not like he's the only one who wrote Chloe's story. Every season two and season three episode is credited to multiple writers. In other words, it seems like multiple people signed off on Chloe's story.

There's also the issue of the air dates. Queen Wasp and Miracle Queen first aired about twelve months apart (October 6 2018 vs October 15 2019). Production times for animated TV shows are about that long, which would mean that Miracle Queen was probably being written or was even already set in stone around the time that Queen Wasp aired. In other worlds, every element of Chloe's journey was probably at least sketched out before the audience ever saw it start. That would mean that nothing in that story was reactionary. It just doesn't fit the timeline.

While Chloe's season three ending was a total mess, it was hardly out of nowhere. It was glaringly obvious that Chloe couldn't stay Queen Bee from the moment that we met Queen Bee. You can't willfully out yourself to the world and expect to stay a hero (or, at least, that shouldn't be a thing Felix). I was honestly baffled when they gave her back the bee in Malediktator and relieved when Marinette finally acknowledged the problem in Miraculer:

Ladybug: I'm sorry, Chloé. I should've told you this a long time ago. I might never be able to let you be Queen Bee again.

Which was, of course, the setup for Miracle Queen, further complicating this theory because it looks like less than a year passed between the world premieres of Queen Wasp and Miraculer (October 6 2018 vs May 15 2019).

I don't know if this made it to your Tumblr feed, but the Miraculous writing team announced that the writing for season six was done back in late March. The show won't air until sometime this winter, well over half a year later, because that's just how animation works and they've supposedly done things to make the animation process faster this season. I just don't see how this Chloe theory works or why it needs to be a thing when her bad writing falls perfectly in line with things like the absolute disaster that was season five. She wasn't a fluke, she was a warning of things to come.

As best I can tell, the entire Queen Bee plot was just an incredibly awkward and forced way to show how dangerous identity reveals were. Which isn't a bad plot to have, but don't do that plot and then let a bunch of other temp heroes keep their miraculous post reveal! Writers, what are you even doing?

If you want my best guess answer to that, then I don't think that the writers planned to make their story feel massively hypocritical. I think that they just did a dumb writing mistake that I've seen multiple shows do: they wrote a really cool cliffhanger ending without planning how to make that ending work in the following season. And there was no way to really make the ending work, so they end up just kind of ignoring it.

The reason why this happens is pretty simple. Most shows try to end their seasons on cliffhangers so that fans will come back for the next season. It's extremely rare to have a solid happy ending that ties everything together. This can lead to writers making questionable calls because they're pressed for time and have to come up with something that will keep the fans wanting more even if that thing makes no sense. It can also lead to writers making questionable calls because they DO have a plan for how the cliffhanger will play out, but when it comes time to actually put that plan into action, it gets shut down and now they have to scramble to make the nonsense work.

Anyway, what I'm really trying to say is that, as much as I like the concept of a redeemed Chloe joining the team, it was pretty clearly never going to happen in canon. The writing only backed that read for a brief moment at the start of season two where we got a handful of episodes that made Chloe feel less like a cookie-cutter mean girl and more like a true character, but then the Chloe plot really got going and I was just waiting for the inevitable fiery end. I actually thought that Chloe was going to be treated as a tragic character and become a true villain in season four. Instead we got utter nonsense that tossed her character all over the place to the point where I have no idea what they're even trying to do with her.

[scarlet--wiccan]

Is Pietro a sociopath? Bc I read this thing from RomaPop that repeatedly calls him one but I don’t remember reading anything like that?

https://hopeburnsbright.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/romapop-booklet-2016.pdf

I'm not an expert on psychiatry or personality disorders, so please take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.

No, I do not believe that Pietro has ASPD or any related condition. I don't believe that the text properly supports that, and I don't believe that it would be a correct interpretation of the character based on my admittedly limited understanding of the matter at hand. In Scarlet Witch (2015), Wanda and Pietro get into a fight and she accuses him of being a "textbook sociopath." I believe that this terminology was misused and incorrectly applied, and I believe that this statement, much like Wanda's earlier diagnosis of "schizophrenia" in House of M, contradicts prior continuity and character treatments. Since then, I do not believe that notion of Pietro being a "sociopath" has been revisited.

A lot has been said in modern comics about both Wanda and Pietro's mental health, but a lot of it has been pathologizing and ableist, with an unspoken racial element that leaves a very poor taste in my mouth. Obviously, that includes HoM and the 2000s in general, which was just a really destructive period for both characters, but I think it also includes a lot of Peter David's earlier depictions of Pietro and the way his powers affect his behavior.

I tend to get kinda touchy when people want to ascribe certain conditions to either twin, because the material that this perception is based off of is often harmful or just inaccurate, and I think it gets in the way of actually exploring the more compelling, meaningful aspects of Wanda and Pietro's mental health or trauma. When it comes to these specific labels, like "sociopath," which have been applied to them in the past, I would rather disregard those statements, and maybe retcon them by having characters to talk about why they said, that while acknowledging that it was incorrect or misinformed.

For me, the gold standard of modern Pietro characterization is still Quicksilver: No Surrender, which takes a much more realistic and sympathetic approach to the character and all his flaws by focusing how the isolation and trauma he's experienced has caused him to develop unhealthy patterns. From there, maybe we can start to develop more specific language and diagnoses for the mental health challenges he and Wanda face, but I want it to be about their actual lives, not their powers.

And I should say, I believe very, very strongly, that stigmatized personality disorders deserve to be represented with humanity, dignity, and empathy. I just don't believe that this has ever been the case with this character.

I'm familiar with RomaPop and Vicente Rodriguez's work. I think there's a tendency for activists to speak about comic books and other typically niche media without necessarily developing advanced literacy in that media. I've noticed that a lot of people who, you know, do very good work discussing Romani issues, tend to make erroneous statements about comic book characters like Pietro, Wanda, Magneto, Nightcrawler, etc. because, I mean, they probably haven't read all the material. It takes a lot of time and commitment to become familiar with comic book lore and develop a clear editorial perspective on it.

[theredpharaoah]

I need show-watchers to understand that the Strong boys’ parentage was far more ambiguous in their actual lives/unimportant. First of all, legitimacy isn’t private or public opinion, it’s legal. Children born before a marriage are illegitimate. But children born to someone within a marriage are automatically considered to be legitimate, and legally the child of the father. That is, unless the father or father’s father states otherwise. Legally, Rhae’s kids have always been proudly and publicly claimed by House Velaryon as their legitimate children. And so really the discussion ends there. Regardless of who their biological father is, their father in law and history is Laenor. The boys never even knew the Strongs.

Secondly, their parentage was probably far more ambiguous when they were alive. Both Laenor and Rhaenyra had Valyrian features, but they both had parents and grandparents who didn’t. Laenor’s mother, Rhaenys, had black hair like her own mother, Jocelyn(a half-Velaryon btw). We don’t know what Corlys’ mother looked like. Rhaenyra’s maternal grandfather is an Arryn, and both her maternal grandmother and great-grandmother lacked Valyrian features. Valyrian features are understood to be recessive in universe; no one was gonna assume her children were bastards any more than they were going to assume the same of Alyssa Targaryen or Alysanne Targaryen.

But of course, everyone knew Laenor was gay. And this is where the show fucked up: Laenor was not this masc4masc warrior as he’s depicted in the show. While usually what Grand Maester Mellos said would be correct for the period, as homosexuality was more of a behavior as opposed to an identity, queer gender identity still did exist and was common. Laenor was not just someone who had a sexual preference for men, he was gender queer in come capacity - he would’ve had no problem identifying as gay today. He was one of the gworlz. And that doesn’t mean he’s like high fem, but he ascribes to fem culture in a way someone who just likes to sleep with men wouldn’t. He wasn’t functionally bisexual. Because of this, most people would’ve known that Laenor wouldn’t have been able to fulfill his duties - Corlys, Laena, Rhaenys, and Rhaenyra definitely did. And so they wouldn’t have blamed Rhaenyra for having children with Harwin - as it is her duty to produce heirs. The only fear that would’ve arose from this is whether or not her children would be able to be Targaryens; be able to ride dragons. Once it was shown that they could, nobody cared. Even the Greens didn’t really care. Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron only called them the Strong boys to piss them off, they didn’t actually care about their parentage cuz it didn’t matter. Their mother was Rhaenyra and that was all that mattered. They didn’t care until Christon told them that the boys would try and kill them to secure their claim to the throne. And if anyone REALLY had an issue with Velaryon blood not being in the boys, Laena and Rhaenyra dealt with that by betrothing the former’s daughters to the latter’s sons when all parties involved were toddlers. Which is another reason why Vaemond and the other Velaryons being mad had nothing to do with “having a Velaryon” ruling Driftmark. Rhaena and Luke would’ve most likely ruled together. And even if they hadn’t, their child would be just as Velaryon as it would’ve been if Luke had been Laenor’s bio son and married some other woman. They just wanted power for themselves.

Sidebar: considering Valyria borrows heavily from Rome, I’m inclined to believe adoption would’ve been a thing. Adopting a distant relative when you lack your own heirs was extremely common in Rome(Many of the Caesars did this). If Valyria was like this, then I find it hard to believe any of the Valyrian houses would’ve actually saw Luke not being Laenor’s as a big deal. Especially when House Velaryon and Targaryen are as intermixed as they are. Because Luke was Rhaenys’ 3rd cousins going purely off of Rhaenyra. So Jocelyn(half Velaryon) was his 4th cousin and Alyssa(born into House Velaryon) was his 5th cousin. But Alyssa was also his great-great grandmother, as she was the mother of Alysanne and Jaehaerys. I really think the only reason those Velaryon cousins and Vaemond brought it up is because they were power-hungry. The Conquerors were half Velaryon and The Conciliators™️ were half Velaryon. The only kings who weren’t half Velaryon were Aenys, Maegor, and Viserys. And they still all had Velaryon grandmothers. Tbh, Idek why they even bothered being two separate houses at this point. And that’s another reason the Sowing was dumb. There were still a bunch of Velaryons around after Vaemond and Co got killed, they could’ve been put on dragons instead of randoms. Corlys had High Tide built and the Driftwood Throne moved because Driftmark was too crowded. There were too many Velaryons and not enough power to go around - not enough to satisfy their desires at least. Corlys could’ve claimed a dragon. His ass was clearly mobile enough to still do shit so he could’ve claimed Vermithor. You know, since they were just ignoring Rhaena.

[hlekani-666]

<091> 13. Atheist Republic Newsletter: Is there any meaning to a life without God?

On our Facebook page and website, we often have theists ask how we can possibly find meaning in life without God. We also frequently see questions like, "What is the point of living without an afterlife?". The implicit message is that people don't have the strength required to endure difficulty and grief; we require a god, the hope of eternal life in paradise and the belief that we will be reconciled with those we care about. How can an atheist possibly bear the weight of grief when a loved one dies if they don't believe they will see that loved one again in the afterlife? Theists also have the conviction that the only things of consequence, are those things that have eternal value – a person or action can't really have "true meaning" if it has an absolute end.

Atheists know we must invest everything into this life because it is all we have. We can teach others, care for others, impact the lives of those around us and create a better world for generations to come. We alone have the responsibility and the creative power to live our own life with meaning and to imbue it with significance. This can be both invigorating and terrifying.

So what does a religious person actually mean when they say life is meaningless without God?

In a bit of a twist, it's probably the human evolutionary process that leads people to religion. Our own brains compel us to find patterns in our world, enabling us to predict what might happen so we can make better choices and survive. We also long to explain those patterns, for without an explanation, we experience ongoing cognitive dissonance and unrest. It is this desire for explanation that has led to ascribing the patterns to a god or gods.

We want someone to care for us so we do not have to feel the weight of caring for ourselves and others. We want someone to forgive us so we don't have to bear the heavy weight of conviction and reconciliation when we have wronged someone. We make stupid mistakes and do not want to bear the consequences. The reality of living a full life without god is often too much to bear. Creating our own meaning is often too daunting.

In addition, we are frequently perplexed by our own behavior. Why do we hurt those we love? Why do we so often feel out of control? Why is there so much pain and heartache? We can't explain why people commit heinous acts. After all, we are just now beginning to gain a tiny amount of knowledge about how brain physiology and chemistry affects human behavior; so all throughout human history, we had no way to understand these things. In a way, it's probably easier to explain this often overwhelming sense of dis-ease by giving responsibility for it to a demon or devil or some inner spiritual defect. Christians call this the "sin nature" that all got started when Eve chose to disobey God and Adam chose to go along with it.

This sin nature puts us all on a track to hell no matter how good we are in life. If our "badness" is on a fundamental spiritual level, our salvation must then in turn be divine. There must be an all-powerful being to guide us and give our sinful existence some sort of meaning and then guide our eternal soul to paradise; for without god, we are eternally doomed. And because this god is so amazing and saves us, we must give this god thanks, and praise it, and give it offerings of prayers and worship.

This then is the basic tenet of "meaning" found in religion: to recognize that the only true good comes from God and the only true hope can be found in eternal life. Christianity teaches we all have a "sin nature" and so ultimate meaning for our lives must come from God who will save us if we submit to him. The "good" we do must be in the name of God and for his glory and ultimately, this life is fleeting and our only hope and joy comes from knowing that we will one day be with God in heaven for eternity. Jesus is our savior and we must accept this and worship God. Islam teaches that nothing happens without God willing it to do to and because of this, we owe God everything and must constantly be thankful to him and worship him. The meaning of life is to worship God through Islam and without total submission and surrender to God, we are damned.

But there is something very childish about the impulse to pass responsibility off to a divine being. Taking responsibility for our own behavior and making our own lives full and meaningful comes with maturity. When we believe all meaning is to be found in how we live our lives instead of where we go when we die, we are faced with the knowledge that we have quite a lot of work to do while we are alive, which can be scary. But it also frees us to fully embrace the wonder of the universe head-on without the marring cloud of spiritual fantasy. We have ways to judge our decisions and how we treat other living beings that share this planet with us. We have the freedom to figure out for ourselves what a full life looks like. We have the freedom to be creative, to explore, to question and also answer.

"The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal." - Carl Sagan

Many great minds have explored the issue of life meaning. Richard Dawkins has a series called "Why Are We Here?" and in "Grand Design", Stephen Hawking addresses ancient and profound questions about the meaning of life.

Link To Original Post

[koraki-pharmakis]

10 Myths About Hellenismos

Today, let's address some popular myths (and the truths) about Hellenismos and its deities. Not very surprisingly, most of these things come from Wicca or Christian colonization. You can believe these things if you want, they just aren't from the religion.

Myth 1: Deity work is dangerous

Truth: Deity work, in Hellenismos, isn't any more dangerous than worshiping the Christian god is supposed to be. This notion didn't originate in Hellenismos, and is also a largely neopagan idea. Our theoi aren't monsters or aggressive. They won't kill you over tiny mistakes. Just respect them, do what you can, and you'll be fine.

Remember that even in the mythos, people aren't smited for the wrong offering. They're smited for blatant and deliberate disrespect, which by nature can't be done accidentally.

Our deities genuinely aren't easily angered. They wont be mad if you reach out to them, if you confuse them for something else, if you give them the wrong offering, etc.

Myth 2: You need to look out for entities impersonating deities

Truth: Again, this isn't remotely from Hellenismos. Our gods cannot be impersonated by evil entities. Frankly, we don't really have entities with that desire or power in the religion. If you're contacting a Hellenic deity, and you get an affirmative response, you contacted them. The idea you didn't, or that something else is lying to you, is from outside the religion. Our deities are more powerful than random ghosts, and our religion doesn't have that concept.

Myth 3: Hekate is a moon goddess/crone

Truth: Hekate is associated with the moon, but she is not a goddess of the moon. She is the goddess of one lunar phase--the dark moon, which is on the eve of Hekate's Deipnon. She is also not a crone goddess outside of neopaganism and Wicca. Historically, she was depicted as a maiden. Her triple form was also not maiden/mother/crone, simply a triple maiden-esque figure.

Myth 4: Hestia gave her seat to Dionysos/Apollon took Helios's chariot

Truth: Honestly, it's just a difference in counting. Some deities were and weren't Olympians depending on time, culture, and locations. No seats on Olympos were "given up," it's just that sometimes one is there and sometimes the other isn't.

As for the chariot, no. Apollon didn't replace Helios. They were synchronized, but Apollon didn't "take" the chariot, and Helios was never removed. Helios is still the sun--his name is literally "sun."

Myth 5: The myths are history/Hellenic Polytheists believe in the myths

Truth: The characters in myths are real to us, and some myths are literal, but in general, Hellenic mythology is not meant to be taken fully literally. Most of it is symbolic. Additionally, a lot of the r*pe in the mythos is translation errors. We believe in our heroes and our gods, and we believe there is truth in the myths, but no, our mythology isn't like Christian mythology--it's not expected or really encouraged to believe the myths are strictly true history. The myths aren't even consistent over time and location, so it's simply impossible to believe in all of them at once. But no, our gods do not act the way they do in mythology. Myths are by and for mortals, and do not capture the divine.

Myth 6: It's disrespectful to dress up as or write fiction about the gods

Truth: This is just ridiculous and ahistoric. The majority of Ancient Greek theater was deity cosplay and fanfiction. I said what I said.

This can definitely be done disrespectfully, but isn't inherently disrespectful. You also aren't required to represent the theoi fully accurately in this.

Myth 6: X god is Y orientation/gender

Truth: While you can certainly theorize our theoi's sexuality, and none of our gods are cishet by modern standards, none of the gods can only be interpreted as one gender or orientation. The terms we ascribe to them are based on mythos, portrayals, and modern interpretation of historic social roles.

The most common of these theories are maiden goddesses as aroace (ie. Hestia, Athena, Artemis), erastes (top) gods as bi men (ie. Zeus, Apollon, Patroklos), eromenos (bottom) gods as gay men (ie. Ganymedes, Hyakinthos, Akhilleus), and Artemis as a lesbian.

None of these are wrong, to be clear. It's just not as simple as using our modern labels for them. Erastes and eromenos were both considered straight in Ancient Greece; being a 'virgin' didn't always mean celibate; Artemis can be interpreted as bi, lesbian, and/or aroace based on her myths. You can interpret them however you like--I certainly interpret my gods as queer--but there is no single right answer.

Myth 7: You need a patron or to be devoted to someone, or can only have one patron/be devoted to one god, & devotion is an oath

Truth: Patron deities are more of a principle in neopaganism and Wicca than in Hellenismos. Worshiping the theoi does not require you to find a patron or devote to a deity, ever. Patronage is not particularly important or common, unless you are thinking of a patron god of a trade (ie. if you're a blacksmith your patron is Hephaistos).

Devotion is also not exclusive, and never requires an oath. Oaths in Hellenismos are extremely serious, and should never be taken without extreme caution. If you aren't willing to die if you break the oath, don't make it--find something else. You probably wont die, but that's the necessary level of certainty. Devotion, while serious, is not as serious as being oath-bound. You can be devoted to multiple deities, and devotion can be called off if needed. You can't really call off an oath.

Myth 8: X god is a r*pist!

Truth: Please stop it. Just stop it. No. Especially if you're basing that on Lore Olympus. The mythology isn't fact, weird inaccurate mythology fanfic written by someone who doesn't know anything about the myths isn't fact.

The mythology isn't straight up history. The myths were often mistranslated (the Greek word for r*pe didn't just mean r*pe) and they aren't facts. They were also products of their culture. So. No. They are not. And their worshipers aren't r*pe apologists.

Myth 9: Titans are evil and/or Olympians hate titans

Truth: Titans are fine. Really. They're not evil, they're not going to hurt you. They're just another kind of Theoi. Many of them were actually a large part of the historic religion. Hekate's Deipnon was a monthly festival, after all. And no, Olympians don't hate titans. Remember the point about myths not being literal.

Myth 10: The gods are jealous

Truth: No, the gods will not be jealous if you worship another god. They wont be jealous if you worship another pantheon, or if you need a break. If you're a god consort, they won't be jealous if you're interested in other mortals or deities. If you're a devotee, they won't be upset if you devote to other deities.

The most jealous a god gets is upset if you break an oath, promise, or agreement with them. If you promised them a daily libation but skipped it for another deity without permission, they may get upset. But even then, that's not really jealousy.

Myth 11: If you work with X deity, you can't work with Y

Truth: This is usually based on rivalry in mythology, and isn't true at all. Related to the above jealousy point, no deity in real life hates another deity, especially not enough that if you worship both they'll be upset. You can worship Aphrodite and Persephone. You can honor Hera and Leto.

Most of these gods are actually happy if you honor other theoi. Many of them are family, or share domains.

If enough people are interested, I might make a part two, because this is barely the tip of the iceberg. RBs welcome from pagans and non-pagans alike.

[letteredlettered]

Do you have any complaints about HP canon, and if so, what are they? For example I know a lot of people really dont like that Draco didnt get a redemption arc, but your work seems to really thrive off of a close reading of canon Draco in a way I think a lot of fanfic just cant because hes like... a very bad person. Its made me wonder if you are very... canon positive? I guess? Or more positive than most, maybe.

I have too many complaints about HP canon to list in an ask, but I can try to list some of them. First I want to say that choosing to use canon to inform your fic has less to do with whether or not you like the canon and more to do with what you like or want from fanfic. If you don’t like that Draco wasn’t redeemed, you can write a fic that posits he is redeemed and so that canon doesn’t have to be dealt with. Or, you can write a fic that shows how he gets redeemed or deals with the fact of his redemption to show what canon could have been. I obviously prefer the latter style, though I respect anyone’s choice to write in the former style. I can’t say I always understand the former style, but I respect the fact that people want to do it and should if that’s what they want.

I will say that I’m not sure I’ve ever written a fic that’s fully canon compliant, and I can’t quite imagine wanting to. Most of my fics a response to canon--they’re about something that wasn’t in canon, that I wish was in canon; or they’re about something that wasn’t in canon, and I don’t want to be in canon, but I still want to be explored. I wish the MCU would actually deal with the responsibility of wielding outsized power of destruction, so I wrote MCU fics. I do not want Schitt’s Creek to deal with the darkness of David Rose’s trauma or past, but I was still interested in it, so I wrote darker SC fic. I love Star Trek TOS, but I want to see Kirk and Spock hook up, so I wrote TOS fic.

There are a few things where I like the canon just the way it is, so I don’t write fic for it. Rainbow Rowell’s Carry On series is just what I want. I don’t need to write fic.

Back to my complaints with HP canon, the major problem I had was a lot of set up without the follow-through I expected or desired. I discussed that in my tumblr posts about Ron and Ginny. The set up of the Harry Potter universe is rather black and white, which I appreciate--it’s easy to get invested; it’s easy to consume. You know who the good guys are right away, and there’s no more complication. LOTR is rather like that, and I love it. But then HP begins to deconstruct its premise--James Potter was good, but he wasn’t kind. Dumbledore was trying to stop Voldemort, but he wasn’t honest. Snape is a horrible person, but he’s trying to do the right thing. This is my favorite sort of story, the one that starts black and white--vampires are evil; the robots will kill us, and the Gems that didn’t rebel are the enemy. Then a vampire earns his soul, or you find out you’re a robot, or--well, actually I didn’t like where Stephen Universe really went with that, but you get the picture. The Harry Potter series began the process of turning its own premise inside out, but somewhere in Halfblood Prince, that got too hard, and things began to snap back to their original shape. Good is good, actually, and bad people will always be bad.

One example of this is the death of Voldemort. Harry is set up as a mirror to Voldemort. Their pasts are very similar. Harry even feels compassion for Voldemort. At several different points, Harry is faced with the fact that he has to kill Voldemort. But Harry never has to deal with killing Voldemort, or with making a decision to spare Voldemort. In the end, Voldemort causes his own end as a result of his own destructive tendencies. This makes me feel that the text is suggesting that Voldemort deserves death. The idea that anyone “deserves” death for bad things they’ve done is not something I believe in or ascribe to. But even if it is the argument the text wants to make--what was the point of showing us that Tom Riddle was lonely, hurt, feared, and probably mistreated? The point really appears to be to show that two boys can have the same background and one turns out good while the other turns out bad, because goodness is inherent to some people while evil is inherent to others. I find this conclusion abhorrent, but I feel the conclusion is ultimately borne out by plenty of other aspects of the HP books.

The other example is Draco’s lack of redemption. I do not think villains have to be redeemed. The world has proven that shitty people can remain shitty. I also appreciate stories that show us the humanity of shitty people. A story about someone who is faced with thier bad choices but continues to make bad choices because they’re too afraid to do otherwise can be a good story. But I guess with Draco, I felt like I saw enough of his inner turmoil to understand why his heart would change, but not a thorough explanation of why it wouldn’t. Combined with many other similar characterizations in HP canon, it just feels like more essentialism--bad people are bad, and that’s how it is. I don’t mean there’s no nuance--as I said, the series does begin to deconstruct its own premise; we even saw how the Trio could be shitty. But ultimately they make the right choices. The characters who make the wrong choices generally continue to make them, except for Snape and Dudley. My complaint with those two representing a change of heart is that we don’t get to see the actual painful process of what that looks like--Snape’s happens pre-canon and there is too little of Dudley to show what is going on in Dudley’s brain.

The last thing I absolutely hate about HP is a lot of the “bad” characters tend to be overweight or unappealing in appearance. It’s true that a lot of this might be Harry’s POV--maybe Snape actually is the sex god some fics make him out to be, and Harry just he’s greasy because he doesn’t like him, and maybe Harry doesn’t like a good hook nose (I do). Additionally, Lockhart is very pretty, and while I want to firmly stress that Draco is never describes as good-looking, he’s not really described as ugly, and I believe Narcissa is even described as beautiful. But the book isn’t written in close third-person Harry POV, and “pointy” isn’t very flattering. Unkind words and stereotypes are used throughout to highlight the badness or evil of almost all the characters we’re not “supposed to” like. The descriptions of the Dursleys in particular are upsetting.

In my opinion, the  above examples demonstrate a lack of compassion at the heart of the HP story. That’s what I’ve always hated about it and what always made me want to write about it. I want to write and say, “Look at this. This is fucked up. This is wrong.” Some people don’t read fic for that reason, and I think that’s fine. Plenty of those people really hate my fic, which is also fine. I know that many things in this world lack compassion, and I don’t spend years of my life writing fanfic about them. I think the reason I keep coming back is to me, the premise was unkind--which I was fine with, and then the text itself began to deconstruct itself--which I was overjoyed by. It made me fall in love with the series. But when the premise snapped back to an essentially black and white world, I felt betrayed.

In conclusion, I find HP at its very essence to be unkind. Ursula K Le Guin said it best when she said that it was “ethically rather mean-spirited.”

[callmearcturus]

Okay so here is my question.

To preface, if you use this post as a jumping off point for Why The TMA Finale Was Bad, I'll probably block you. I enjoyed it immensely, it wildly exceeded my expectations, I don't care.

But TMA is the first time that I've flat out not really understood why people didn't like a thing I liked. Usually I can go "huh I see that but i disagree" but one aspect that repeatedly comes up that actually confuses me is:

"season five's transition to less metaphorical fears made it less effective."

Which is vaguely what I keep seeing, but I don't actually understand it, and I will try to explain why.

1. I feel like the *framing* of statements changed and got heightened, but the actual way fears manifested didn't change that much from previous seasons. I've heard it said that S5 was far more "real life" than the other seasons. I don't really understand this?

Literally part of what drew me to TMA was how the horror was rooted in realities I understood and had compassion for. I don't really see how the Flesh Garden is not a more souped up version of MAG090 "Body Builder." I don't see how the Stranger Caoursel of Lost Identity is not just the apocalypse evolution of what Breekon and Hope did to the original proprietor of their delivery service. The events of the horrible addiction puppet show feel like the thematic continuation of "Creature Feature." And every kind of lackluster Slaughter episode was the seed for the much more successful Trenches domain imo. Also I don't think there can be a more explicit "the Fears use out structures to hurt us" moment than Peter Lukas' ridiculous Ritual.

Like... "Recollection" is informed by "Cul-De-Sac" which is informed by "Lost in the Crowd." I see a pattern of things being more heightened, but I don't think the story was ever (to me, personally) "escapist horror."

1.a. Actually the idea that TMA was once "escapist horror" and then stopped being "escapist horror" at some point is one I'm also unsure of. What counts as escapism is reader/listener-self-selected, and I don't think its something the show can *decide* to be. What is escapism for you is not going to be for me, and I know from the experience of live listening to S5 that people ascribed "escapism" to different episodes than I did. And that's fine. My point is: that's personal lens, not something under authorial power.

2. The idea of "fear capitalism." I realize at some point that this went from being a joke to being a real argument people had. I think the gist of it is: The Fears Are An Analog For Capitalism In Its Various Forms. Which led to the idea that because the Web "won", that means Capitalism "won."

This very much confuses me because I think it's directly countered by canon? Capitalism did not create the Fears. The Fears, as they manifested and fractured into their vague categories, were born from humanity's fears. That's textually stated multiple times over the show and is doubled (tripled?) down on in the final statement in MAG200.

To me it feels clear that the Fears used structures of capitalism not because the Fears Are Spooky Capitalists, but because we, humanity, created capitalism and fed it until it became the prevailing structure of our lives, and so that's the way the Fears will get us.

Like, I think if the Fearpocalypse happened in a utopic anarcho-communist society, the Web sould still exist, but it would manifest in different ways. Ways that, frankly, you and I cannot understand because the philosophical idea that after we manage to institute a new societal order we will still be so scarred by the capitalist past that it will take two or three generations down the line for people to be able to think like true anarcho-communists, blah fucking blah philosophy drivel.

I guess my question here can be: do you think the Fears created Capitalism? Do you think in another societal system, the Fears would not exist? Perhaps different Fears would form. (I like to daydream about dumb shit like "what if the Geth from Mass Effect got The Fears, they would be totally different right")

But yeah I feel like the show is pretty clear that the Fears came from humanity and then found cozy spots in the structures of our society, but they did not invent those structures, we did. (like, is this not textually exactly how The Flesh formed?) And so I think "Fear capitalism" is a bit flip?

3. I guess for me, number three is: the show was obviously impacted by the pandemic. Season Five kicked off pretty much as lockdowns were going worldwide. They had to instate hiatuses, which were not in the original schedule plan, to make shit work.

And to me, it feels like the effect was two-pronged. First, a lot of the show's effects were heightened by the new state of the world. Things that were already written and recorded now had new resonance. Second, theoretically it's hard to speculate on did anything textually change because the pandemic, but we know that it must've from a production and acting standpoint at least. Whether things were textually changed, we don't know (yet).

I am, by my own repeated admission, someone who reacted well to TMA in the pandemic. It felt very much like a balm for me. I was listening to TMA while working front line retail, back when my job still hadn't supplied us with PPE, when we were going from store to store to spend 50$ on a box of 20 surgical masks, back when we used lysol to refresh our masks because we couldn't afford to throw them out.

For me, TMA kind of got me through that experience. I remember feeling almost ecstatic joy at season five, listening to episodes during my closing shifts. I realized this was not the Normal Reaction to S5 at MAG169 "Fire Escape" when I was LIVING and others were... not so much living. XD There were several points where it felt like I was the only one still having a good time.

My point here is, I think, that I wonder how much of the way S5 was taken, all the talk of how its more intense and heightened and "real" is more of an artefact of how the world rapidly, unexpectedly changed in 2020 as it was happening. It's like the grimdark inverse of Animal Crossing to me. No one involved could have dreamed of the situation to come, and the work was already pretty much planned and on rails, barring the last minute adjustments they managed to put in in response to the pandemic.

From where I'm sitting, being a weirdo who ate up S5 with a spoon, it feels like the pandemic made it harder for people to enjoy TMA, and I wonder if that's an under-served factor here.

I think that's all my thoughts right now.

[sundayswiththeilluminati]

I need to vent some CR thoughts to free up some headspace so in no particular order ENJOY THESE THOUGHTS.

- Essek talked to Caleb about not getting distracted for the same reason he asked about the eyes and what they might cause: checks and balances. He was checking Caleb a bit, but also reminding Caleb to check him. Which Caleb did in the Rejuvenation Room, successfully.

- The Luxon beacons aren’t a misunderstood or lost creation of Aeor. The Luxon was a real entity that really came to Exandria and kindled its first life in the form of the Primordials, whose existence is otherwise unexplained. It probably did create the beacons for the reincarnation reasons the Kryn ascribe to it, too; it’s too close to Buddhist/Hinduist/more mystical theology about rejoining the universal divine and about mortal life being an attempt by the divine to know itself to be a false front. The purple crystals in the Rejuvenation room aren’t prototype beacons, they’re Aeorian tech built in an attempt to replicate the beacons’ power much like how Yeza was working to capture the beacons’ time-twisting abilities in potion form. They aren’t nearly as powerful as the beacons themselves, hence the guard’s statement that they “mostly” got there, but they have the beginnings of beacon-like qualities.

- What could the Somnovem have been doing that got them ostracized by the rest of Aeor, a society whose leaders clearly didn’t mind hideous experimentation? I genuinely think my theory about Tharizdun, the Somnovem, and psionics might be right. Aeorian mages were preparing to fight the gods using arcane powers originally taught to mortals by those same gods. They’re too smart not to at least try to find a source of power that doesn’t derive from the beings they’re planning to fight. If they found a Luxon beacon they’d be able to tap into dunamancy, i.e. an arcane school that doesn’t descend from the current pantheon, and they’d absolutely keep that on lockdown as a secret weapon. Maybe the Somnovem went the other direction in seeking out a different power: Tharizdun. The rest of Aeor, knowing that was a) a terrible idea even for them and b) the only threat that would unite Prime and Betrayer gods in smiting their shit, were not cool with that.

- Side note: the gate to the Astral Sea is named the Mensus Gate. Mensus means “mind.” Also I’d be reeeeal careful about the “planar tethers” if I were the crew. Sounds like all those gates were built pre-Divine Gate, which altered the relationships between planes.

- Returning to the main thought: the Somnovem, like the rest of Aeor, venerated the mortal mind; but instead of focusing on intellect, they sought power in imagination and dreams. The very qualities that, as the Aeorian mages were figuring out, shaped the gods they were fighting. What if the Somnovem’s attempts started to look like they were actually working - but the wild, uncontrolled psionic powers they demonstrated scared the rest of Aeor even more? Psionics that couldn’t be counterspelled, damped with antimagic fields, or access-controlled like arcane spellcraft? Merging minds trapped half-waking that seemed to deliberately abandon conscious thought and perhaps birth new, far worse gods?

- I’m 50-50 on whether Ruidus “The Saddest” Moon is the dormant heart of the Luxon or the original anchor that chained Tharizdun. I could believe either. Possibly both, if the Luxon’s sacrifice caused Tharizdun’s original banishment.

- The destruction of Aeor was not as simple as a single divine smite. There were multiple attacks that may have occurred over a longer period of time.

- What appeared in the amphitheater, and who summoned it? Davexian implied that the crowd that gathered there had done so to confront one of Aeor’s leaders. It sounds like many of the citizens of Aeor didn’t know about the extreme lengths their leaders were going to. But then something hit. It probably wasn’t summoned or caused by the crowd, since they were all apparently slain by it - but the archmage appears to have been frozen in a time-bubble before she could cast anything either. Was it a manifestation of Tharizdun or the Somnovem?

- Who hit the Genesis District with a bunker-buster, and what were they aiming for? Beau’s analysis of the damage indicated a pattern like a bunker-buster bomb: instead of bursting just above the ground to do the most damage up there, it burrowed underneath for a ways before exploding. That’s the kind of munition you use when you’re gunning for something underground. This Creator-Hammer, maybe? And why is the whole district frozen in that moment of explosion, with even the debris still hanging in the air? Again this element of stasis, of freezing time. Speaking of which...

- What are those time bubbles, and where did they come from?? We still don’t know what could possibly be powering them! All the other arcane technology in Aeor, even the lights, are guttering low at the limits of their power, but the time-stop bubbles are fresh as a daisy. They don’t match any known divine or fiendish magic, but Davexian gave no sign of recognizing them, meaning they weren’t Aeorian tech. AugGHHH EVERY TIME THE CREW SEE ONE AND JUST GO ON THEIR WAY LIKE THAT ISN’T A COMPLETELY BAFFLING PHENOMENON IT’S DRIVING ME INSANE YOU GUYS.

[lazyliars]

I FINISHED DELTARUNE CHAPTER 2

Very fun. I was genuinely struggling with the last boss, played it up to 1 AM last night, was about to give up and go to bed, and then...

I don't know what happened, but something clicked in my brain? Suddenly I was perfectly dodging attacks and had the pattern LOCKED down?? I was having such a miserable time right until then. Then out of nowhere I started seeing the freaking code and owned it.

Spoiler-laden thoughts under the cut.

THAT ENDING.

So Kris opened a dark fountain in their house, right? That's what happened?

Setting aside the obvious "What the hell does it mean for a fountain to exist in the Light world" question, does that imply that they're the Knight? Probably not, right, because the King and The Queen would have recognized them...

I'm still on my crack theory that Papyrus is the knight. Think about it! He just arrived to town, and this business with the dark fountains only started recently iirc? And in UT, Papyrus wants to join the royal guard... in other words, a knight.

And considering the Lightners that have entered the Dark World so far seem to be ones facing serious emotional issues (Susie feeling like she'll always be "the bad guy", Noelle's difficulties speaking up for herself and dealing with her family life crumbling, Berdly's superiority/inferiority stemming from skewed self-perception, the myriad things going on with Kris...)

Papyrus just moved to a new place, and doesn't seem to want to leave the house. It's not hard to imagine a person struggling with the loneliness that comes from a situation like that.

The allure of being a powerful, influential figure in the Dark World would make sense.

That ties Sans into this weirdness, which in turn gets us a little bit closer to whatever the hell Gaster has to do with everything.

...or maybe not.

Theories aside, I really loved the cyber-city as a setting. I was skeptical at first because I usually dislike "electric" themed worlds, just, aesthetics wise, but they knocked it out of the park. I especially liked the glitchy garbage heap part.

The enemies were cool and adorable, the Werewires as a standout were creepy and awesome. Also liked the mechanics of the Butlers.

For characters? I liked the Susie and Noelle-budding romance, it was cute. The ferris wheel was such a good sequence.

I liked Noelle in general. Not too many specifics, I just liked the way they handled her.

AND BERDLY. Goddamn it. As soon as I saw him in the dark world, I fucking KNEW he would be my favorite by the end of the chapter because Toby Fox does not do things half-assed and I'm a sucker for character development. But Yeah no, I really, really liked Berdly's arc.

This wasn't as much of a Susie-heavy chapter as the last, but the developments she did have were nice. Her excitement at seeing Lancer was so sweet! And at the ending, I took her to the bunker, where two other kids were there, and one off-handedly said something mean about Kris and she stepped in and scared them off and then checked on Kris like... 🥺

And Ralsei. Ralsei... Gonna be honest, I was super sus of him at the start of the chapter, and still kinda am, but in a different way now. He DEFINITELY knows more than he's letting on, but whereas at the start of the chapter I was getting almost... idk, smug vibes? Now I feel pretty confident that he's more in the vein of "doing what he thinks is best" type beat. Still sus, and I still wonder what he talks to Kris about when the player's perspective shifts to Susie in both chapters... but I don't think he's a villain-in-disguise. At least, not intentionally.

There's still a lot of mysteries surrounding him that might point to something more sinister, but... yeah, idk. I think part of my initial hesitance was because I was still adjusting to his goat-face after having replayed ch. 1 with the covered bird-ish face.

Also the Swan-boat scene was soooooooooooo cute.

The big plot still remains obscured, but what with "the roaring" being name-dropped, we have some sort of endgame we could potentially ascribe to the Knight, but no motivations to couple with it yet...

I really hope in chapter 3 we get to see them. Maybe not like, ACTUALLY see them, but hear them speak, get a feel for their voice and what they're like...

ANYWAYS. tldr, Deltarune ch. 2 was very good, just as good as ch. 1 in my opinion. Now, the waiting game begins for chapter 3.

OH. Also, I am absolutely OBSESSED with the Snowgrave route. Hooooooly shit. Just... wow. I need to watch a full playthrough before I make any judgements about what it says for the story, but what I've seen so far...

It seems like a deadly reminder that the events of the Dark World DO have consequences for the Light World. It may feel like fantasy, but it can easily twist out into reality, in drastic and horrifying ways.

[johannas-motivational-insults]

“Friendship” in the Horde

Season 4 raised some interesting questions about how people who grew up in the Horde define friendship. Kyle claimed that his squadmates were his friends, despite how we've seen them bully him, and Scorpia admitted she didn’t even know how to be a good friend. We also saw further developments in Catra and Lonnie’s dynamic that have some interesting implications about their bond, both past and present. However, while these themes became more explicit this season, they are hardly new. The Horde worldbuilding is really quite brilliant, as the writers have been laying the foundation for these revelations by showcasing certain patterns since season one.

This got a little lengthy on me, but there was a lot to consider. The lack of healthy emotional expression and relationship modelling is one obvious problem in the Horde, but the hostile environment has also led to some very specific power dynamics and social structures. These structures, while potentially helpful in hostile environments, are maladaptive in terms of fostering healthy relationships. Ultimately, every character who grew up in the Horde is emotionally crippled. (I’m not even going into Adora, an excellent example, because her repression and communication problems are well-documented and I wanted to focus on characters still in this environment.)

Scorpia

Let’s start with Scorpia. Her revelation that she doesn’t understand what friendship is was a big moment for her, but for those of us who have been watching closely, it’s no big surprise. Scorpia was so desperate for a meaningful connection that she latched onto the first person who showed any signs of considering her a friend, ignoring all the red flags indicating that the relationship was not healthy. Actually, she didn’t ignore them so much as not recognize them, because she didn’t even know what a healthy relationship looks like. To her, the fact that Catra invited her to her room and chose her to accompany her on a mission was enough for her to dub them the Superpal Duo.

Of course, we all know how that went for her. She continued to support Catra unconditionally despite the latter’s tendency to use Scorpia as her emotional punching bag. They did settle into a somewhat more reciprocal and caring relationship after Scorpia saved Catra against her orders during 2x05, proving that Catra was more important to her than the mission (even if that wasn’t what Catra thought she wanted). It’s sad when you think about it, because that was probably the first time Catra ever experienced her wellbeing being prioritized above all else.

Unfortunately, the revelation that Shadow Weaver had gone running back to Adora after betraying her triggered a trauma response and made her clam up again, lashing out at Scorpia and shutting her out even though she had done nothing to betray her trust. It took Catra blatantly attacking and insulting Scorpia when she failed to bring back Entrapta’s recordings (and some well timed reality checks from Emily) for Scorpia to realize that Catra was being a bad friend and she couldn’t win her over by being a good friend.

And actually, Scorpia’s confession in 4x10 that she “thought” she was being a good friend to Catra implies that she had since realized that she wasn’t actually being a good friend to Catra either. She knows the scorpions were a loyal people and she ascribes to that ideal, and she has so much love to give and always tries so hard to be positive, but not setting boundaries with people or demanding a measure of basic respect does nothing for them or you. Also, you can’t ignore the fact that Scorpia forced her affections on Catra, inserting herself into Catra’s life in a way that made her uncomfortable, and continued to ignore Catra’s attempts at setting boundaries with her (which is also very disrespectful). While Catra was certainly the aggressor, she was not the only one who failed in this partnership.

Let’s go back for a moment to Scorpia’s earliest indication that Catra might want to be her friend, when she confides in her and enlists her help coming up with and then executing a plan. Being chosen as Catra’s wingman seems to be important here, and perhaps she was wilfully ignoring how she was the only person who could make Catra’s plan work, but being confided in and trusted was huge to her. And since Horde soldiers are so used to being used, they don’t see it as a red flag. Catra actually flat out said Scorpia was the only person she could trust. How could a lonely gay not interpret that as a sign of being special to someone?

The squad

The importance of trust also becomes evident when considering the interactions among the main squad. Loyalty seems to be paramount in the Horde, not just the scorpion kingdom. Adora defecting to the Rebellion and leaving her squad behind was seen as a huge betrayal, and not just by Catra. Did anyone else want to cry when Lonnie struck back at Adora with “we were your friends” in 1x09? Lonnie was deeply hurt by Adora’s abandonment, feeding into her disillusionment with the Horde. Similarly, when Double Trouble revealed they had double-crossed Catra, her devastated reaction was not that her plans were ruined, but that they had betrayed her. That no doubt was also related to her previous betrayals, but also serves to highlight the importance of loyalty in their subculture.

While all the Horde characters were interesting to watch this season when it came to the themes of friendship, the arc was most pronounced in Lonnie. As I’ve mentioned previously, Scorpia had a short arc over one episode where her rosy worldview was destroyed, causing her to leave (much like Adora), while Lonnie was already a cynic who was aware of the Horde’s imperfections and had to go through more extreme hardships to detach from this unhappy but familiar environment (much like Catra, we hope).

Though she and the boys didn’t leave the Horde until the finale, her disillusionment was already evident in her first episode this season. After Catra berated them for something that wasn’t their fault and demanded they risk their lives to fix it (big Hordak energy), she had her first big revelation: “Catra doesn’t care about us, Adora left us. Everything they taught us in the Horde about loyalty is meaningless. It’s everyone for themselves.” In the next episode, she was frustrated by Scorpia’s naïve enthusiasm and trust in Catra, but it took a big blow up between her and Catra for her to finally decide she was done with her, done with the Horde in general.

Kyle represents a sort of middle ground between Lonnie and Scorpia in terms of outlook. He was not treated well in the Horde, but still believed in the ideals of loyalty and squad unity. He wanted to believe Catra had sent them out on a mission into the Whispering Woods because she trusted them and wanted it to be a team-building exercise. His take on it was: “She may be mean, but we’ve always had each other’s backs. Ever since we were kids.” He saw the squad as his family, including Catra (and previously Adora). It took Catra baring her claws and threatening to attack Lonnie outside of a battle sim for him to lose faith in her.

Bullying, the pecking order, and squad unity

As is clear by this point, the Horde defections this season were driven by Catra mistreating the others, but we can’t lose sight of how mistreatment is a fact of daily life in the Horde. And as I mentioned above with Lonnie, it’s those who were most aware of and desensitized to the mistreatment who had the hardest time naming it and leaving the toxic environment. Call it Stockholm Syndrome, call it the sunk cost fallacy, but either way once you’ve submitted to a system that dehumanizes you, it’s hard to admit that that system is wrong and leave it for a better life. Scorpia and Adora grew up somewhat privileged in the Horde in that they were destined for greatness, so they were never abused overtly and they had a level of protection from power-hungry cadets looking to claw their way to the top of the heap. They were already at the top and couldn’t be taken down, so they didn’t have to bully or be bullied.

The importance of pecking order is much more evident when considering people like Kyle, Catra, and Lonnie. Within their squad, Kyle is obviously the omega of the gang (get your heads out of the gutter, that is not what I mean), the one who gets blamed for everything that goes wrong and is constantly getting picked on. Lonnie shits on him, Catra shits on him, and even Rogelio gives him shit and goes along with the blame game. Despite all this, Kyle considers them his friends, his family.

This starts to make sense when you consider it in terms of intra vs. extra squad relations. Maybe the squad didn’t show Kyle any respect or treat him with kindness, but they did protect him in battle sims (sometimes lol) and rescue him from the spore storm. You also kind of get the impression that although they bullied him and asserted their dominance on the regs, they would protect him if other people tried to hurt him. You might say he’s the pet of the gang – he has no power within the structure and it may not be pleasant, but the structure still offers advantages. Having allies was still good for him even if he was at the bottom of the pecking order within the alliance.

Through a sociology lens, you might say the squad (and the Horde in general, given it’s a military society) follows the stereotypical male model of friend groups with clear pecking orders that everyone buys into (with exceptions for blatant power struggles), as opposed to the stereotypical female model that appears less hostile and more cooperative outwardly but involves a lot of underhanded infighting. (Obviously those are broad generalizations and it can be argued how much of it is nature vs. nurture, but they are observable patterns that boys and girls are socialized into in many human societies.) This ties in interestingly to @jaelav3​‘s observations about masculinity equating to strength and femininity equating to power in the Horde (a meta she really needs to write, because it’s brilliant). The hostility of the Horde forces soldiers into these rigid pecking orders in order to find protection in a dangerous place. When everyone knows and accepts their role, it is easier for the squad to function in a unified manner and protect each other, even if it’s at the cost of their mental and emotional health.

Now, when not everybody buys into the pecking order or it’s ambiguous, and/or if there’s a sudden power vacuum, that’s when things get interesting…

Catra and Lonnie, the perfect case study

Catra also suffered a lot of bullying and abuse in the Horde, but in a very different way than Kyle. She was in a unique and kind of contradictory position where she was somewhat protected by her close friendship with Adora, but she was also Shadow Weaver’s favourite chew toy and everyone knew it, which made her a target as well. If Shadow Weaver abused her, she wasn’t going to care if the other cadets abused her as well. Catra’s defensive body language and general distrustfulness and hostility gives the impression that she was bullied behind Adora’s back and Shadow Weaver turned a blind eye, perhaps even encouraged it.

This was all illustrated in 1x03, when Catra and Lonnie butted heads and Catra was forced to back down when two other cadets backed up Lonnie, then Lonnie told her to watch it because Adora wasn’t around to protect her anymore. That one line alone told so much of their story. This was also one of the few times we saw cadets using people from other squads to affect their own squad’s dynamics, as – like I said – that seems to be kept mostly in-house. It may have had something to do with Lonnie’s overall standing among the cadets or how Kyle and Rogelio rank lower in their little hierarchy and seem uninterested in getting involved with the power politics, but I digress.

The argument itself was meaningless, really - the whole thing was a pissing contest, an attempt to assert dominance within their squad’s sudden power vacuum. Lonnie fancied herself the new leader of the squad, and she ended up getting her wish in a backwards way when Catra was promoted out of the squad and given official power over her. Catra, of course, took every opportunity to rub this in Lonnie’s face, perpetuating the cycle of abuse she’d fallen victim to.

The reason they had a power struggle in the first place wasn’t just because Adora left, it was because their pecking order was previously unclear. Catra wasn’t very cooperative and tended to go rogue, so she didn’t slot nicely into the power structure. She was also perceived as lazy, as she had adopted an air of nonchalance once she realized she’d never get the recognition or praise so easily heaped on Adora. (Why try when failing hurts so much?) That being said, she was Adora’s best friend and basically her sidekick, so in a way that made her second-in-command of the squad.

On the other hand, Lonnie was devoted to the squad and was always around to provide tangible support, so she was also kind of Adora’s second-in-command. Combined with her harder work ethic, this also gave her a very legitimate claim to the throne. She was obviously pissed when her teammate she saw as a lazy asshat got promoted, but to her credit she lived up to her own personal ethics, buying in and not pushing back against Catra’s authority until late in season 4.

Despite the power struggle, however, Catra and Lonnie do seem to have a bond. Even if they don’t like each other, they have a certain level of trust in each other. When the princesses invaded the Fright Zone in 3x04 and shit started to go sideways, the first person Catra was looking for to try to get support and/or answers was Lonnie. Then in 4x10 when she was starting to lose her mind amid a lack of sleep and Scorpia’s defection, she pulled Lonnie aside and demanded to know what was going on among the soldiers, what they thought of her.

This was an incredibly interesting scene with some deep implications. Because while it was on one hand an expression of trust in Lonnie, it was also an acknowledgement that Lonnie was one of her bullies and held clout among the people who have demeaned and abused her in the past. It also showed that Catra still has social anxiety and her sense of social power (as opposed to power in terms of rank) is very fragile, which is extremely characteristic of a bullying victim. Also, the fact that Catra said, “Just leave. Like everybody else.” implied that Lonnie leaving would hurt her emotionally, which is rather illuminating.

As for Lonnie, her loyalty meant she bought into the system and expected to Catra to do her job running the place, taking care of the Horde. And Catra certainly succeeded early on, taking territory and increasing productivity. In return, Lonnie was a loyal and obedient soldier, even if she never hesitated to give Catra a bit of attitude. But she became frustrated in season 4 when Catra went on her sunk cost fallacy spiral and ended up making things worse for everyone else as well as herself. This failure was a huge betrayal to Lonnie, and it’s important to note that she wouldn’t feel betrayed or disappointed if she had expected nothing of Catra in the first place. It’s one thing to be kind of a dick about your superior rank, another entirely to endanger your squad/friends (or anyone you are responsible for, really) and run them into the ground as a remedy for your own anxiety.

The breaking point of course was the scene in the locker room in 4x12, when a lonely Catra tried to be “friends” with the squad again and was briefly successful in mending fences a little until she snapped at Kyle and then at Lonnie, calling them pathetic. This prompted Lonnie to shove her, which in turn made Catra bare her claws and rush Lonnie. There was really no coming back from that, even though Kyle intervened before anyone got hurt.

As an aside, Kyle stepping up in this scene was amazing - this season in general was everything I wanted for him. And it’s important that it was him who intervened, because he was really the only one who could ask Catra, “We used to be your friends, why are you treating us like this?” It makes perfect sense for Catra to push back at Lonnie given their history, but Kyle doesn’t have a history of bullying Catra (quite the opposite). And wow, it had an impact on Catra. You could just see the confusion and regret on her face before she brings back the façade of anger and kicks them out.

When the squad left the Horde, Lonnie said that they were done protecting Catra. This assertion is interesting, given their checkered past – since when was anyone protecting Catra? Lonnie bullied her, and none of them protected Catra from Shadow Weaver, not even Adora (though bless her heart, she tried). But this does make some sense when you consider how much of the idea of friendship is based on loyalty, and how important that adherence to the structure is for protection. In Lonnie’s mind, even if Catra was now their commander, they were still a unit in a way. And she saw standing by and obeying Catra to be a form of protection, helping her stay respected and carry out her plans. Lonnie is a good support person, and by removing her support, she was in a way removing her protection as well.

(After the series is over I might just go all out and do a huge-ass meta about Catra and Lonnie through the seasons. I am absolutely fascinated by this relationship, if you can’t tell.)

Allyship

Overall, you can’t help but get the impression that the Horde’s version of friendship is more akin to allyship. It’s protection, unity, loyalty. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t get emotionally attached, it’s more that how you feel about someone is less important than what that relationship can do for you. That’s why Scorpia doesn’t even understand what friendship is. That’s why Catra tolerates “friends” who annoy her, because they’re useful to her (not that she doesn’t get attached in time, but that’s not why she tolerates them in the first place).

Catra’s one of the few people in the Horde who has experienced real friendship, as her bond with Adora was much more emotional than practical (even if it was both). And that explains why she eventually lashed out at Scorpia and said they were not friends when clearly they were by the Horde’s definition. Her and Adora really had taken the friends thing to a different level, and she was missing that dearly.

It will be interesting to watch the interactions between the Horde characters when they are thrown back together in new circumstances, out of the Horde’s rigid power structure. Honestly, the redefining of these alliances and friendships is one of the things I am most looking forward to in the final season.

[septembriseur]

I was talking to a friend recently about the differences between "old" and "new" fandom, and we decided it came down to whether or not you engaged WITH canon or VERSUS canon, and I think either mentality extends to your approach to fanon, where either you all have to be on the same page or everyone is kind of bouncing off each other (obviously I'm generalising in both contexts). (1/2)

(2/2) I don't want to be disparaging of how other people approach fandom spaces, but as someone who is firmly in the VERSUS camp, I don't understand how WITH fandom can operate on a large scale or longterm? As you say, if you view fandom as a transaction with specific expectations, how are you going to enforce that? To me it takes the focus off the creative works and on inter-community policing.

lol sorry one more point! I ascribe the rise of "new" fandom to heightened corporate interest in fandom generally--it seems like once at least certain media companies realised they could capitalize on fandom they were more deliberate in giving people what they wanted, thus diminishing the need for reinterpretations of canon. I also think that bc canon gay ships are so prioritized, any other interpretation is strongly discouraged by these "new" fandoms.

It’s taken me ages to answer this because I’ve just been so mentally weary. Sorry!

The concept of “versus” fandom is very interesting to me. Part of what interests me is that there is not actually a huge practical gap between my world and the worlds of creators. Like, I know some creators/actors/etc; I know more people who know creators/actors/etc; it’s perfectly possible that at any given turn I could interact with a given creator. And yet I do view fan work as operating in a different sphere from canon, and I’m not particularly interested in the intersection of those two spheres. That’s not to say I’m anti- fan writers crossing over, as many do, or anti- fan writers writing for canon, and in fact I’ve been working on a project for a canon line. But my writing for canon looks nothing like my fan writing, and I have no impulse to try and “adapt” my fan writing to canon. That’s just not my understanding of what fan work is, or does. Fan work is a practice that is versus canon, or maybe just in response to canon. It’s the other half of a conversation in which there are two voices. (Half-formed thought here about dialecticism, prompted by me reading the intro to Gershom Scholem’s book on Jewish Mysticism on the train— this might be where I would ultimately end upcoming up with something intelligent to say re: your point about polyvocality, which I think is probably essential and key.)

I don’t know if I agree, though, that fanservice diminishes the need for reinterpretations of the canon, precisely because of this sense that fan work is a response to what’s there. The fact that, historically, fan work has prioritized the exploration of gay ships doesn’t mean that the presence of gay characters or the acknowledgement of subtext is going to obviate the urge towards response. I mean, for instance, if Marvel makes Bucky Barnes bisexual, that doesn’t diminish the richness of interpretations in which Bucky is Jewish, or in which Bucky is the survivor of sexual trauma. It doesn’t even actually diminish the richness of interpretations in which Bucky is bisexual, because a lot of the appeal of such interpretations has always been: “Okay, but what would that look like outside of the text? What is his daily life like? What if this other thing happened?” Maybe that’s where a lot of the polyvocality does come in! Like: there is no One True Interpretation of a character; there’s not even a fixed interpretation. And fanwork has always been about the “what if...?” — which is what makes it such a powerful site for people to explore questions of identity. What if Bucky had a traumatic brain injury? What if he was epileptic? What if (as in a story that I once co-wrote 10,000 words of with @prettyboysdontlookatexplosions he filed a personal injury suit against the US government and ended up a billionaire? These are all just different what-ifs that allow the exploration of different problems. And, to me, that’s what fanwork has always been about.

[alexanderfanin]

more hitman hcs please 😟🤲🤲 urs are elite!!

tyty! im jamming these out at 1am so please excuse any potential grammatical errors; i am prone to making them even when conscious-

this'll be an assortment of varying importance and quality.

• Diana is the shortest of the group, even in heels, she stands at a fairly decent 5'5-6 but literally is just surrounded by towering mfs. Olivia is a few inches taller than her (5'8 maybe?), even when Diana is in heels and this unnerves her. Everyone does their own rendition of "how not to talk to short people" with her, Lucas has no idea what he's doing and ends up being the most unwittingly bad about it by like.. hunkering with his hands on his knees at her. Diana does not like it. Olivia thinks it's funny as shit.

Edwards is similar in that he leans over her (I still don't like and will never recover from the fact that he is taller than 47, when popping his hip. Which puts him at like.. 6'4. Awful). Anyway he's lean and tall and towers over her in a way that is like.. purposefully condescending almost. Diana does not like to talk to him, for obvious reasons, but infinitely prefers it to be over the phone or when they're both sitting because Edwards should never be as tall as he is.

• Speaking of Edwards, I kind of headcanon that he essentially resigns himself to a complete lack of both friends and family - and that the closest individual to him was Janus, who was more like a deranged uncle than anything else. He's like.. spectacularly lonely and tries to use it to give himself some gravitas but whenever someone finds out the universal response is just straight pity, which he hates. (*fanin voice* "awh do you want to get some coffee :((?"). Despite being incredibly powerful, he is perpetually perceived as less than.. so he has a complex.

• Lucas has never been to therapy, I feel like he wouldn't - he wouldn't want to risk the humiliation of someone not believing him, he is incredibly private. And he has spent so long prioritising his (and 47's) revenge scheme that he has basically become so infatuated with the concept of doing it, to the point where he's unable to know or attempt to introspect on if it will actually be beneficial or worth it. I feel as though he may be disappointed, catharsis is momentary, and really.. how is he going to justify some of the murders in the long run? (Cobb? We really think he had any clue what happened 50+ years ago when he was also probably just a child? The Partners don't even know). Anyway, he's never tried therapy and probably shut down Olivia when she suggested as much.

• 47 is incredibly bad at naming his animals, none of them have names and when asked to give them one's retroactively, he'll say some shit like "bird" for his canary or similarly with his rabbits. It's not because he lacks creativity (his kills demonstrate otherwise obviously), it's just because he finds it hard to ascribe an identity to and empathise with other things - not to say he doesn't feel compassion, sympathy or care. Just that the nuances of naming and kind of.. anthropomorphising an animal are lost on him.

• Olivia drinks shitty energy drinks, and smokes like it's going out of fashion. She's tried to quit a few times, and pretends to not smoke about Lucas (because he is definitely Stern Dad Mode when it comes to cigarettes). But the stress of what they're doing genuinely leaves her with little choice otherwise, it's difficult to confide in Lucas when he's dashing about the planet with 47 or in pursuit of him and so she just submits herself to the ease of it. Similarly, the energy drinks mean that she has a completely scuffed schedule when it comes to sleeping; both 47 and Diana were woken up and freaked out by her wandering about doing shit in the 1-4am period of time, when they first stayed in the safehouse particularly.

• Soders had an unspoken soft spot for Diana, he knew her parents and rescued her canonically; his disdain for 47 rose in both equal parts as a result of jealousy over 47's talent and concern for the woman who he brought into the ICA after she went through a lot of traumatic shit to do with murder and so forth. He would never admit it, and as time went on he grew further and further from her. Although maybe there was a brief moment after 47 shot her in Absolution of "look I told you so!" but their relationship was pretty non existent by that point. When she was first hired, Diana got a lot of shit for being Soders' "favourite".

Anyway I hope you enjoy theseeee

[spiritualgateway]

The Next Wave

written by Steven Black:

We seem to be experiencing a boom of old conspiracy theories. Sometimes woven into a new coat, but at the core they are the same old black and white stories. Is it also true that all the conjecture, relativization, fake news and various conspiracy theories that are currently surfacing annoy the hell out of you? I have to be very careful about the sarcastic part of myself and therefore I keep myself from commenting. Not always, but mostly.

Whenever I open my FB Stream lately, I notice a real war being waged by the self-proclaimed awakened against the alleged sleeping sheep. One „have to know“ after the other is posted and „THE Truth About“ is announced – daily. I know this all too well.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Yes, I went through a phase myself where I believed a lot of bullshit or at least thought it was possible. It started in the late 90’s and ended in 2012, and during that time I probably inhaled every existing conspiracy theory and read all the authors who spread it with a fervor of conviction. Starting with David Icke, Jan van Helsing, Robin de Ruiter and countless others, up to Alex Jones. Hell, I myself have contributed to the spread of such stories. The subjects they dealt with back then were not really different from what they are today.  

Me and many other people, we thought we were „awakened“ then, because we believed we could understand the world more and better, like everyone else. Critical comments were countered with „inform yourself properly“ and immediately some links of „alternative points of view“ were thrown behind, which confirmed our own statement. And one could be sure that other participants who took the same bubble would shout down the critic as „mainstream sleep sheep“. No matter what argument came up – it did not reach anyone. In this phase one is not accessible to criticism, one fends it off. But if the criticism is so valid that it cannot be negated, one still had the recourse to some whataboutism.

It was a time when it was all about „the rise“ and all the political or economic daily news was seen as „there is light coming into the darkness“. We knew that the „end of the matrix“ was near and that a worldwide recalibration of consciousness was coming. We thought of ourselves as light warriors, critics of the system, rebels for the good and enlighteners. Fervently inspired by the conviction that we had all taken the „red pill“ and would now be the only ones to see clearly, we wanted to wake up and enlighten „the sleeping sheep“. In doing so, we constantly reminded them that it was absolutely (!) necessary to do research, think for oneself and question everything! Only WE knew, all others were of course stupid, brainwashed or sleeping. We were the judges, jurors and executioners of the worldly realities – self-proclaimed world policemen and smartass activists. We alone knew how the rabbit had to hop and how it „should be right“.

Pffff. When I look back on it now, I can laugh about it heartily. God, what a wonderful mindfuck.  

Yes, if we had done it like that.. If we had heeded this „winged advice“ that we had thrown at everyone, we would have taken it to heart ourselves. If we had questioned the sources we referred to and believed. Instead, our own thinking, research and questioning was limited to almost everything that came from alternative media and supported our views. Official facts, whether political, economic or otherwise, were „mainstream“ and thus fundamentally untrustworthy. It was all just propaganda … (yes no, that’s clear).

This made us susceptible to believe people and media that had either a political or other agenda. Starting with racist Jew haters, religiously dressed up ideologues, political muddle-heads, esoteric concepts without any grounding, up to „doomsday fanatics“.

But we had heard a call from the universe that the time had come for an expansion of consciousness. It felt like a kind of magical awakening. And I, as well as everyone else in that time who was like that, we were not the first. There have been recurring, rather small movements since the 1950s. But there was a really big, concentrated shift of consciousness in 1986, at the time of the so-called „Harmonic Convergence“. One can certainly call this the first great wave of lightworkers and truth seekers that the world has perceived.      

They did not fare much better either. These people, too, had to rummage through various horror scenarios, actual and imagined injustices, as well as their own overflowing imagination. But the basic themes were the same as they still are today. They are power topics (power and powerlessness), money topics, resistance to living, dying and all kinds of heavy, undigested emotional burdens. At that time, all of this was going on a little more quietly, at least in the eyes of the public. These topics were only discussed in small forums on the early Internet.

And today?

Today, the „social media“ are full of them and various shit storms are spilling over into the media mainstream.

Today the exact same process is taking place, in a new wave of people who have come in the beginning of their own awakening process. Awakened can not be spoken of, it is a slow awakening and it usually takes years.

One „wakes up“ from years of unconscious dwelling within one’s own personality structure, which has usually become quite rigid. One gradually enters into a new process of self-discovery, where many things are simply thrown over, which were normal and acceptable until then. The sense behind this is a broadening of perspective and a restructuring of mental expression.

Yeah, right. They got a call from the universe.

And at first you are thrown into confusion and disorientation. You will also have the feeling of stumbling around in a seemingly endless labyrinth. Individually varying degrees of identity loss can occur, which additionally creates fear. Many things seem to make no sense anymore, you part with friends, views and previously held beliefs, while at the same time you have the feeling that you can no longer find a secure hold anywhere. A well known, often observable reaction to this is a devaluation of the human being, the body, the mind or the human identity itself. In the course of this process one stumbles from one conspiracy theory to the next, constantly stepping on a bullshit cookie and sometimes not knowing whether one is male or female.

Can you prevent this? No idea. Most probably not.

That doesn’t mean that everyone who gets into this process is clinging to conspiracy theories and thinking they are THE thing or the only and pure truth. But a lot of people do just that. In a time of great personal uncertainty, the one-dimensional black and white images of conspiracy theories seem to simulate an unpleasant but seemingly stable reality.

Basically, an essential scenario is happening here – your consciousness is being twisted through the wringer and a kind of battle is taking place inside you. A battle between your old consciousness and the new, unknown. The old consciousness knows only defense and projection, but the new one wants to reflect and express itself mainly through self-reflection.

This inner fight has nothing to do with any Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bill Gates, vaccinations, cash bans, paedophile satanists, mind control or whatever. In reality, „the universe“ is fucking your old consciousness to break you open and dissolve old encrusted structures. And the first, basic reaction is mostly projection and defense.

Hiking through your own darkness

There is a spiritual metaphor that says: „The dark night of the soul. This term goes back to the Spanish Carmelite and mystic John of the Cross. It is a poem written in the 15th century – in prison. For John of the Cross it was about the mystical union of the soul with God. Nowadays this metaphor is used to describe the difficult period of a spiritual development process, where the human personality has to struggle with disorientation, depression and confusion. Its purpose is actually to achieve a continuous, increasing and lasting reconnection with one’s own soul consciousness. This is a time when many things that once seemed normal and safe for the human personality simply seem to break away. Where instead depressive states are experienced, where crises, insecurity and loss of orientation prevail.

I actually believe that we are all in some kind of global dark night – the entire human species, the entire human family. And, of course, that means a process that will last for several years and probably decades. We are going through personal and global, very individual crises and we are coming into contact with our own darkness. With many things that we have been carrying for a long time, but which we are very often simply not really aware of. And a whole lot of situations and emotions are being washed up inside of us, so that we have the opportunity to check if it still fits for us. Yes, in the end it is years of trials …  

It takes a while to understand that expanding consciousness has little to do with any external enemies, but rather with what is going on inside and how to deal with it. Nevertheless, it is apparently unavoidable that you first shoot yourself on everything you find in the world of Scheixxe and what you judge to be „that shouldn’t be like that“. And so one wades for a while through all kinds of dirt, horror ideas, laments about injustice and deals with horror scenarios. Starting with worldwide mind control, up to some omnipotent enemies of mankind. As an antipole you read channelings or inform yourself about natural food.

Basically, projections are a defense mechanism of the psyche. The term projection describes the transfer and shifting of one or more inner psychological conflicts to other persons, groups of people, living beings or various objects of the outside world.

Relatively harmless projections are when we ascribe characteristics, deficiencies or problems to other people, which we ourselves carry openly or hidden within ourselves. A far more serious form of transference is when I believe that the whole world is conspiring against me (or humanity, the whole earth, health, freedom, morality, faith, etc.).

Whatever the case may be, when we project, we thus transfer our own issues, fears or worries, to other people, organizations or groups of people, so that we do not have to feel it with ourselves. And then link these fears to certain events or circumstances that we do not like, which is then considered „proof“. The point is – what we project and transfer to other people are either unrecognized, personal qualities or unprocessed, emotional problems from our past, which we transfer to the present. And often, both variants intermingle. Projection allows us to transfer self-experienced situations or predominant emotional states, in our own consciousness, that are perceived as unbearable, to ward off these emotions from ourselves by transferring them to x-any situation, people and organizations.

And this, whether we want it or not, is unavoidable in a real wake-up process.

We push away what is inside of us and project it onto politicians, Illuminati, cabal, deep state mind control or whatever. To explain to us why we have certain feelings or thoughts. In this way we can continue to fool ourselves that everything is okay with US – only with THOSE out there, there is something wrong with them.

Talmud: „We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are“.

You can of course now despise all this fear porn of various conspiracy theories and call it bullshit – which of course is a good 99% (in my opinion) of all conspiracy theories. But in the end, they seem to fulfill a need that is not quite visible on the surface.

When you get into such a wake-up process – process, mind you – your entire identity structure is „attacked“. All the things and experiences that we hid from ourselves and that we repressed will be flushed up from our inner self over time and our protective and defensive shields will become porous. Most of the time, we have buried them so deeply that we can no longer feel or perceive many things. Deep, formative experiences that reach far back into childhood. All our deep fears, the inner insecurity, the doubts or our real self-esteem will gradually creep to the surface and say hello. Everything that has been quietly there all along will suddenly start screaming very loudly inside us.

Conspiracy theories are theories, not facts. They are extremely simplified black-and-white images and, moreover, highly exaggerated descriptions of a seemingly alternative reality. Mixed and connected with actual, clearly criticizable, political, social or economic processes. Whereby, however, the really criticizable things are completely lost, because the context with which they are interpreted is completely far-fetched.

BUT …

Now, if a Xavier Naidoo in a video cries because allegedly thousands of children are being freed from an underground torture prison where they were abused as human lab rats to obtain an alleged super drug called Adrenochrome and you react emotionally to it, it is because this extremely shocking horror show is arguing with certain experiences of your own past. Maybe from a past life, maybe in this life – does not matter in the end.

But you can suddenly feel THAT. It breaks down your protective shields and your emotional numbness. You can feel this nameless horror inside you, what it must mean to be tortured, abused and trapped. Powerless, to be exposed innocently and helplessly to something. But at the moment you can’t realize that this might have something to do with yourself. And you do not want to feel all the unpleasant things that have to do with you personally. You do not want to feel your personal powerlessness, helplessness or fears. You want to get rid of that.

I’m not saying that conspiracy theories are good. But everyone has to go through his own processes, even if that means having to go through a nonsense of denial of reality. If you bought into it, then you have to go through it. Okay, whatever makes you descend into your own darkness is good.

Of course, there is no such underground bunker and no tortured children to produce adrenochromes. And of course, „St. Donald Trump“ has not freed anyone. This Q Anon story is completely free of meaning and serves nothing else but to secure Donald Trump’s re-election and keep his conservative voters happy. Apart from the fact that there is child trafficking, that there is organized sexual and also ritual abuse of children, there is no truth in the story itself.

These and other conspiracy theories, however, bring you in touch with your own feelings and emotions that are buried deep inside you. The stronger you react to it, the more outraged and angry your reaction is, the more emotional charge you have built up.

The dark and heavy energy, such formatted information, docks fundamentally to the inner parts of the person that are in pain, traumatized or disoriented. This inner pain is often so well hidden and suppressed, so great and unspeakable – because never processed or admitted by us that only a supermonstrous, absolutely malignant source can explain it, who must be behind it. This kind of milkmaid’s calculation, of an omnipotent conspiracy feeds and triggers the fragmented inner child within us, which then becomes angry and projects its hatred, its rage and despair onto the world.

What do you think it does to you when you wallow in assertions and views that the eternal sacrificial existence enshrines? What does it do to you when you think the world is in the iron grip of a global conspiracy, a supposed elite, with the aim of undermining moral principles and ultimately reducing humanity? If you believe that some malevolent aliens have allied themselves with various leaders or secret organizations to rule the earth? And you yourself are completely powerless in this?

Does it make life much more fun? Does it create meaning, love or harmony for yourself and more connection to the world? Does it produce improvements in your personal life? You will have to admit that this is not the case. On the contrary – you clearly feel worse. If you roll around in dirt, you don’t get cleaner, but naturally dirtier.

If you go through this phase, the day will come when you are „done with the world“. Where you feel so weakened, depressed and trapped in your own darkness that you will experience a kind of inner breakdown. You will approach a state where you give up. Which, as weird as this may sound, is a good thing. When your inner resistance and your defense strategies no longer work and collapse, there is only one way out – to work through your emotional burdens. In reality, this is not a breakdown, even if it feels that way – it is a breakthrough.

This is the moment when the real challenge begins and you are so „backed up“ that you are ready to face your own personal issues. And in the end it’s all about that and nothing else. It is about you, not about politics, economics, Illuminati, cabal, Donald Trump, Rothschilds, Soros, Bill Gates or Rockefeller. It is about you personally, in this process. How you feel with yourself, your body and your life.

The Rothschilds are not responsible for how you feel or whether you have too little money in your pocket. Donald Trump is not coming to save you, Germany or the world. God or the universe will not transport you to a light-filled 5 D world where you don’t have to feel all the pain anymore. George Soros is not to blame if you do not take responsibility for yourself. The pharmaceutical industry is not to blame if you are sick. The slaughterhouses are not to blame if you are meat. Reptilian shape-shifters have nothing to do with it if you don’t feel comfortable with yourself or your body. Illuminati or Kabale are not responsible if your relationship breaks down or you are no longer satisfied with it. No one is responsible for whether you can accept yourself, with all your apparent faults or inadequacies. No one, except ourselves …

All these are deeply personal issues and conflicts that should be looked at. No one will come to save you miraculously. You are the one you are waiting for. You are the one who can „save“ yourself.

It is about making new friends with yourself and life. It is about self-acceptance and self-acceptance, exactly as you are. And you will only achieve this if you really deal deeply with yourself. Everything else is just an attempt to avoid yourself. To avoid the pain, loneliness, loss, anger and many other conditions that have accumulated in you for years. And it takes a lot of courage to venture into a therapeutic reappraisal process and to face your personal stories mercilessly.

This is a very critical time when you are extremely vulnerable and unfortunately some people do not manage to take the necessary step and get stuck in the old stories. They get stuck in conspiracy theories and cling to them desperately. And bullet through one wave of outrage into the next. If you don’t do transformation work and don’t integrate all the unpleasant emotions into yourself, you can get stuck in it for a very long time.

I recommend to everyone who wants to hear it, an examination of the Inner Person Model. And I strongly recommend feeling work. Get professional help if you are in this process. You will find it very difficult to get through on your own and if so, you will have to spend much more time with it. So take care of yourself and your consciousness …

Man is basically not a prisoner of fate, Illuminati, Freemasons, aliens, etc., but of his own consciousness, which he does not care about. When you deal with your inner conflicts, your emotional nebulas and diffuse mental states, you regain clarity – above all clarity about yourself. If you are clear with yourself again, many strange convictions you had about x – any external processes will also be cleared. You will then realize that you don’t need conspiracy theories to criticize various processes or states in our society. There are enough factual, fact-based and also technically competent arguments for this.  

For those of us who have been through it for a long time, for those who find it a bit annoying to see all this old stuff reappearing so massively in the social media. But we should remember that we once experienced a similar phase and had to go through it. No, of course these people are not stupid, even if a part of me has the perception that the concentrated stupidity seems to take over the power at the moment. They are merely in a process of transition and one can only wish them good luck and good luck with it. They are not the first and will not be the last. In fact, I believe that this will intensify.

I have a part of me that thinks it could save people from their own experience if they only had enough information. This part of me thinks he would abandon his tribe if he didn’t say anything about it. And so I sometimes make comments to some people when I feel it would make sense to correct the statement. Most of the time it doesn’t take 2 minutes of googling to find out the facts. Meanwhile I make such comments only once, sometimes even twice. But if I constantly get answers to them, which my 20 years younger self has known for a long time, because he himself answered criticism like this, then I stop.

Because the adult in me knows that it makes no further sense and the person has to go through this experience until the end. Once you are in it, there is no other way out than to go all the way through it. Then I just keep my mouth shut and sometimes I unfriend or put people on „sleep“. Especially those who share particularly annoying „alternative theories“. This is pure self-protection. I just try to keep some distance to the experiences of others that don’t fit (anymore) to mine.

It took me a lot of persuasion to make this part of me understand that it cannot protect or prevent anyone from their personal experience. And to feel all the sadness and regret, at the thought that in this process some will „fall under the table“ and may not be able to rise from there. This part of my personality has now understood that his tribe has to do its own personal, very individual work to come to terms with the situation and that this is entirely his responsibility. Or he will get stuck in his experience.

I am also aware that the term conspiracy theorist is considered offensive by many who are in it. Well, they should thank those people who, by mixing up thoroughly criticizable topics with phobias, paranoia, hysteria and pure fantasy, led to a huge accumulation of absurd theories that no clear-thinking person can take seriously. And no, the term conspiracist was not invented by the CIA to silence critics of the Kennedy assassination. It goes back to the Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper, who coined the term conspiracy theory as early as 1948.

From where I stand today, conspiracy theories make no sense at all. They are packed with emotional dramas and personal imbalances, cause doubt, create fear and feed the hysterical inner child. Never have conspiracy theories led to anything constructive. They simply invite you to let your hatred, resistance, lack of empathy and inner drama queen out and let the proverbial sow run free. To understand this, just look through the commentary columns under some VT Post.

And it is not at all about the fact that there have been or are actual conspiracies throughout human history. But all the things that are manufactured and suspected about it today, so bizarre and excessive, can’t be put on any cow skin anymore. Conspiracies are by definition top secret – they are so secret that any fool with computer access can find them neatly listed on the Internet. Michael from Recklinghausen knows them all, maybe the CIA should hire him …

Makes totally sense, right?

But okay, it’s just basic personal issues that are transported in this way. Apparently, for some of us it is necessary to exaggerate things so much that we are capable of an emotional reaction. Because no matter which horror story is given for the best – it is always MY personal fear that is then triggered. My anxiety, my paranoia, my hysteria – all kinds of emotional instability that exists within myself is reflected.    

And when you are in there, you believe that it is all real. That some reptiles rule the world, that George Soros is using refugees to destroy Christianity, that Angela Merkel, Barack Obama and white-vultures are still reptiles in human form, that the Corona crisis is a hoax, that it’s the pretext for establishing a dictatorship, that all the famous Hollywood actors or politicians are pedophiles and that Donald Trump is liberating Germany. That the Corona crisis would be the final wake-up call for the rise to 5D or would be used by the elite to initiate a system crash and abolish cash or put all of humanity under mind control … etc., etc., etc.

It’s like a huge buffet where you can eat according to your personal taste. You can buy into any of these narratives – but a real danger is that they will swallow and eat you.

Ironically, it doesn’t really matter if things actually have any truth to them. The only criterion is whether or not we believe the narrated things. And what we believe is in turn related to a certain kind of identity. If there is already a deep conviction in our identity structure that we are victims, helplessly exposed to things and life, then it is not very difficult to convince ourselves of a world in which ALL people are victims of a huge conspiracy.

We all know, the world can sometimes be a terrible, unfeeling and cold place. But it can also be a beautiful, uplifting place, full of beautiful people and experiences. Everything this world holds in store is always an expression of people, of dynamics and personal, national and global processes and the consequences of these. If you look at the world in general with a sober view, you can see what a long way we as humanity still have to go.

It is a war that is raging inside us and that reflects its expression on the outside. The war between all the unredeemed and burdensome emotional content, the mental beliefs built around it and the painful attempts to control it and keep it away from us – but which we always lose because the elaborate stories we tell ourselves about it to rationalize and explain the pain away collapse sooner or later and the pain comes back to us with all its force. We can’t run away from it, because we can’t run away from ourselves.

None of us can „save“ the world, but we can „save“ ourselves and do our inner processing work. Imagine that everyone would do this? In no time we would see a completely different world. But since we refuse most of it and think that we ourselves do not need it – it will probably take some time. Nevertheless, this is the path we must take.

Until next time same station …

DISCLAIMER: Nothing you read here is THE truth. It is my truth, my perception and how I see things – now, in this moment.

THE INFORMATION SPACE

[kiruuuuu]

Hey. So.. would you write something about Ace and Kali? (One shot or HC - whatever comes to your mind) Something rather serious.. I just woke up to the idea that Kali is able to look behind this Golden Boy facade and knows that Ace has his insecurities like everybody else. 🤔

Hi, thank you so much for this ask 💗 I’ve been carrying this thought around for a while and only just now finished writing a small snippet on it! I’m not sure whether it captures the heart of your idea but I think it at the very least toys with it :) In my head, Kali and Ace are well aware of each other’s flaws, which lets them bond yet fuels an underlying suspicion that could boil over if stoked... In any case, I hope you like this! (Rating G/T, ???, ~1.2k words)

.

The men are glancing at each other uncertainly, probably trying to gauge whether it’s more beneficial for them to snitch or keep mum, neither of them wanting to be the one who speaks up first regardless. Kindergarten behaviour, and it does nothing to quell Kali’s rage. She’s kneading the collar of the jacket she’s carrying, grateful she didn’t sling it over her shoulder so she’s got some outlet at least – it’s been a while since she last threw something breakable at someone, but the urge is still there.

“Who”, she hisses once more, not ready to accept this silence. She’s been back at the base for all of ten minutes and already she wants to step on someone.

“Don’t get mad at us”, says one of them and though he likely meant it as a request, it comes across as a plea.

Kali is not unreasonable. The fault lies not with them and they all know it, so she forces herself to take a deep breath. Though she keeps rubbing the fabric between her fingers. “I won’t.”

“It wasn’t our idea.”

Yet they’re hesitant to tell her whose it was. “I know.”

“We’re bored out of our minds here.”

The complaint is heard. To play nice with Harry, Kali has put many of Nighthaven’s operations on hold, aborted some of them entirely and gave orders to not lift a finger unless cleared with her. Some of it is explicitly stated in her contract with Rainbow, some of it heavily implied, some of it merely… encouraged. She remembers the way Harry paled at some of the names she dropped and she’s done more thorough research since then. There’s no chance anyone believes in an actual change of heart, she’s too opportunistic for that, but compliance surely is the next best thing. She asks how high to jump. She enjoys how her agreeableness is slowly turning Harry into a nervous wreck.

Still, the downside is downtime. Significant downtime. She’s just returned from a Rainbow mission during which comms broke down, meaning no clearance possible – so everything came to a standstill.

Was supposed to, at least.

“Is it really worth it?”

Kali raises a brow. “Answer me: have I ever let you down?” They shake their heads. They know better than not to. “I’m not going to. Remember the face of our Minister of Home Affairs when he realised he needed us? Hm? The way we tracked mud into all those official buildings, the way they were forced to treat us like esteemed guests?”

They haven’t forgotten. A grim satisfaction lines their features, a satisfaction Kali herself has felt many times. She’s worked hard to make herself invaluable to her home country’s government, and reaping the benefits made it a thousand times worth it.

“Imagine that rush of power, but now it’s officials from Russia you’re facing. European representatives. Americans. Rainbow has ties to everyone. Get it?”

They get it. They might not like it, but they understand. These are men refusing to lick boots – like her – and bowing to Harry’s authority doesn’t come easy. Reminding them of their goal, however, helps.

“It was Ace”, one of them mutters.

She turns around and leaves, no words necessary. Tracking him down is surprisingly difficult, he likes to hang around Aruni and drift aimlessly in her absence, so she has to ask a few people until she barges in on him trying to flirt with one of the newcomers, phone out, smile wide, eyes dead. “Out”, says Kali sharply.

The asshole leans back like he’s not even expecting to be scolded, while the other man scrambles to gather his personal items and hurries out of the lounge as fast as he can.

“Glad to have you back, Queen”, Ace greets her and she wants to punch him in his stupid face.

“You went on a brief excursion, I hear.”

The smile fades. If he hadn’t realised before how deep he’s in the shit, now he can definitely smell it. “Nothing out of the ordinary”, he replies, defensive.

“What was my one rule?”

“It was just a bodyguard job, nothing big. Nothing even happened.”

“My one rule?”, she repeats, unfazed.

“The whole thing was over in a few hours, and the guys needed it, you should’ve seen them afterwards, they -”

“No! Operations!”, Kali barks.

If Ace actually rolls his eyes at her right now, she’s going to skin him. He seems to resist the urge, if barely. “Is it really that serious?”

Is it ever. Once more, she pulls herself together with Herculean effort and tries hard to be reasonable. “We want to get on Pandey’s good side, understood? He is the one we need to butter up. None of his lackeys go and do some bodyguarding of their own accord, they know better than that. If you don’t receive any kind of official mission, you are to stay put and keep your fucking mouth shut like a good little boy.”

“Harry actually commended me after the fact.”

The casual remark gives her pause. He’s too clever to go against her without anything to gain – and while annoying her is indeed his goal sometimes, this is too significant to be ascribed to mere pettiness. Meaning he was fully aware of Harry’s future approval. Meaning he’s trying to get on his good side by himself.

A good rat makes sure there’s always another ship near in case this one capsizes.

She could crush him in a minute. Throwing him out of Nighthaven is the easiest thing in the world, and setting an ultimatum the second easiest: there’s no doubt Harry would choose her, Wamai, Aruni and all the resources her organisation has at its disposal. It’s not even a choice. And then there’s the photos. The kind from which an artificial personality like him would never recover because the internet never forgets. Five minutes, and his life could be ruined.

In a way, she finds his aspirations amusing. She’d never do it, unless he actually betrayed her, and he’s not dumb enough to do so. He’s crafting himself a parachute knowing full well its effectiveness relies on Kali not cutting it.

He correctly interprets her silence, revealing that he’s fully aware of how transparent he is. “Don’t worry, I’m on your side and I’ll stay on it. You know that. I saved your life, now I get to be a part of it.”

“Rumour has it that you decided to save me after you found out who I was.”

She’s met with a dazzling smile. “I did save you though, didn’t I?”

All she wants is to tell him to be very, very careful. One day, he’ll try to impress the wrong person. And either he’ll pay the ultimate price for it… or he’ll do something he won’t be able to reconcile with his conscience. It’ll be his downfall, and though she wants to witness it, she doesn’t want it to happen. Not really.

Still, she simply walks away without warning. This is something he’ll have to find out for himself.

[transhawks]

Hawks and the Trolley Problem

I. What is the Trolley Problem?

The Trolley Problem is an ethical thought experiment, mostly testing outcomes and methods of achieving them. It goes like this:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. 

You have two options:

A. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. B. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

What is the right thing to do?

There are schools of thought that attempt to explain this problem. A common response is to divert the trolley, actively making the choice to kill one person to save five. In this scenario, you are making an active choice to kill someone for the ‘greater’ outcome, which assumes that the best outcome is to save as many as possible. We will call this choice the Utilitarian option.

The second option is to do nothing and let the five people die. Why? Because then it’s a matter of letting the trolley do what it intends to and not actually pulling a lever and condemning a person to death. By choosing inaction in order to not murder anyone, you could stay true to a moral of never killing anyone. This is the Kantian option.

Of course, the Trolley Problem is customizable - people add all sort of features, like instead pushing someone in front of the trolley to stop it, or including knowing someone in the line up of potential dead. It doesn’t even have to be a trolley - all it asks is what is the right thing to do? And, of course, what is the value of a human life.

II. What is Hawks’s Dilemma? 

Hawks has infiltrated the Paranormal Liberation Front and managed to manipulate Twice into befriending him and providing him with information leading to a preemptive strike by the Heroes against the PLF. However, he feels that Twice is a greater harm than just an information source and thus has used his friendship to kidnap Twice, keeping him and his quirk away from a battlefield where he would easily be able to overwhelm the hero forces. Without Twice, the villains are far more easily beatable. 

BNHA 263 ends with Hawks threatening Twice with his feather-knives and asking himself the question, internally: What is the right thing to do?

Let’s break the options down:

A. Hawks kills Twice to effectively ensure he cannot escape and help. The villains are not able to use his clones in the battle, leaving them vulnerable. Hawks ensures heroes survive the battle (assuming no unexpected things happen), and that the status quo the PLF want to topple is maintained. Low amounts of civilian casualties, hero casualties. The problems that caused this issue in the first place continue.

B. Hawks lets Twice go. Twice uses his clones to defend the PLF, ensuring more casualties for both the heroes, and possibly the PLF. Eventual massive civilian casualties. Status Quo is broken, system is broken - the problems that created this are addressed, either by further perpetuation or reduction.

There are also other factors.

Hawks knows Twice. Heroes are not typically supposed to kill villains. Hawks has referred to Twice as ‘good-natured’, and reflected it made it easier to accomplish this, yet he also seems surprised by how much Twice genuinely likes and trusts him. He also knows, on both sides, many of the people likely to die from this.

Miruko in 262 mentions that heroes hold back fighting villains - killing is not usually an action heroes are allowed or suggested to take.

And, lastly, Hawks’s choice is not solely his - up to now he has performed his duty as a tool to the Hero Public Safety Commission.  

III. How the Hero System Would Tackle the Problem?

Let’s talk about what it means to be a hero.

From what we’ve seen in the manga and spin off Vigilantes, there’s an actual calculation, maybe even algorithm in how heroes get paid. It is a clearly a numerical one.

The question is how exactly should anyone looking at a catastrophe begin to count the worth of human life? We don’t have exact confirmation, but it’s likely the ‘Specialty Organization’ is none other than the HPSC, or the Hero Commission as fandom likes to call them. 

From previous encounters, we know that they are utilitarian in outlook, hence the way they sent Hawks to infiltrate the League. To the HPSC, the consequences of an action matter far more than the morality of the action itself. As a organization that, then, depersonalizes choices in terms of numbers and metrics, a simple calculation that five people over one intended casualty is acceptable.

Remember, the HPSC also comes out with ranks. Heroism is numbers to their system and they got the calculation.

In Japan, Professional Heroes are officially ranked by taking in account several factors such as the number of cases solved, general popularity, and level of social contribution. (bnha wiki)

In their view, Hawks would choose A. There’s no option for him otherwise. The HPSC continues to exist as long as everyone accepts their metrics and calculations. Lives, to them, have an internal quantifiable logic. So do hero actions.

Villains do, too, but only in ‘resolving’ them. As incidences. 

IV. What are Lives Worth, Anyway?

The more factors we include in this problem, the more complications. A kantian viewpoint might come from someone in the Liberation Front - Twice’s quirk is amazing and far more valuable that most quirks. If we put Twice in the Trolley Problem, it’s unlikely that the five other people would have comparable quirks. Thus, simply on that basis, Twice’s ‘worth’ would be more than the others and no lever would be pulled.

For Hawks, it would be the action itself. Heroes do not kill, and while he has been conditioned into taking the HPSC’s metrics into the forefront of his decision-making all his life, the active choice to kill Twice would have consequences.

Hawks has already shown to struggle with guilt - besides the words he said after the Jeanist incident, manipulating Endeavor into coming with him just to use him as a shield against whatever the League had did disturb Hawks, just from facial expressions. He does even question that he has to perform immoral actions in order to do as the HPSC wishes. At the same time he has generally gone along with the idea that the ends justify the means.

It’s very obvious what would happen if any of us ever encountered a “trolley problem” in real life. We would panic, do something rashly, and then watch in horror as one or more persons died a gruesome death before our eyes. We would probably end up with PTSD. Whatever we had ended up doing in the moment, we would probably feel guilty about for the rest of our lives: even if we had somehow miraculously managed to comply with a consistent set of consequentialist ethics, this would bring us little comfort.  ( Nathan Robinson, Current Affairs. 2017)

As I wrote this, someone mentioned The Good Place, a show that showed explored the Trolley Problem in depth. One of the conclusions it came to is that nevertheless of the circumstances it is horrifying. No matter the ethics, faced with such a problem, most people would not come away of it well. Hawks included because he is not a machine and is capable of feeling guilt either way.

If he kills Twice, he kills and betrays a friend, and saves the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions, and betraying people he has gotten to know over the course of months. But that’s a weight he’ll have to bear for the rest of his life, if he manages to survive. He’ll have to know he did what Heroes are avoidant to do; kill. 

If he doesn’t kill Twice, Twice will help lead a revolution that, while addressing many of the issues Hawks sees with society, will kill Hawks’s thousands of colleagues and many innocents in the crossfire.

V. A Different Question?

The issue then is not what Hawks does, but why he has to ask this question of himself in the first place. The thing is that there are rarely only two options in any given situation.

The thing is situations are created. And so are choices. They do not come out of thin air. They are not in a self-contained vacuum. Twice was created, and so was Hawks, and so was the Commission. The choices Hawks faces right now are not removed from hundreds of years of other decisions, and powers that enact them.

If I am forced against my will into a situation where people will die and I have no ability to stop it, how is my choice a “moral” choice between meaningfully different options, as opposed to a horror show I’ve just been thrust into, in which I have no meaningful agency at all? Let’s think a bit more about who put me here and how to keep them from having diabolical power over others.  ( Nathan Robinson, Current Affairs. 2017)  

The thing about ascribing morality, too, to individual actions is it misses the powers of institutional forces upon our lives. What does that look like in BNHA?

It means we see Ujiko and not an Empire AFO has been building for at least a century to make sure there are systems in place creating noumus, and people like Shigaraki who exist in this world. 

It means we see Endeavor and his heroism and brilliant record and not a system ignoring that a man who bought a woman to force her to have children in a genetic experiment is now the symbol of Peace and Stability for that system. 

It means we see Twice as a regrettable casualty of society whose only option for acceptance was among murderers fulfilling a murder-empire and not a consequence of both AFO’s system and the Hero System to make sure people like him have no safe place in the world.

It means we see Hawks poised to kill Twice and not the organization that bought him as a child and raised him into a soldier who has to decide whether to kill one or many.

And once you realize that none of these questions, none of these options are fair or right in these terms - not the one for many, not the sparing to absolve personal guilt, you can ask the question what is right thing to do.

What I mean is maybe there shouldn’t be heroes or villains. None of that conflict should exist. There’s no rights in either view. Yes the hero system should be eradicated. But the lack of future Shigaraki envisions, and the dystopian plans AFO and Ujiko actually have, and the Liberation Army plan for, are also wrong. 

Neither of the systems proposed have the right answer or the right to posit one. 

The real answers are not in the right or wrongs. They’re in every other sentence. They’re in Jirou’s encouragement of Kaminari, in Shigaraki telling the League he wants them to be happy with what they love, in Keigo’s unsure smile as Jin looks at him and tells him he’s a good person for caring for his friends. The answers are in the love that ordinary people have for each other, that no manufactured conflict and institution can quantify or destroy. And that hopefully, someone will voice this.

VI. What will Hawks Answer?

The thing about this is that we aren’t sure if Keigo will fully make a decision right now. There’s a likelihood he will be interrupted. Or he will put off his decision-making and spare Twice for the moment, delaying his choice. And that’s just ignoring the fact that there isn’t one choice to make here; no, lots of them. 

However, Keigo has made one personal life-changing decision in before; the HPSC has taken that choice and removed free will from it. 

Self-sacrifice, after all, is both the will of the HPSC and Hawks’s true nature. If quirks are to show us the nature of the person, why not Hawks’s feathers, deceptively soft but deadly, maneuverable and revealing, and yet, ultimately consist of him breaking his only ability to fly free until he no longer can? What’s more self-sacrificial than breaking off pieces of yourself to save others?  

The Good Place has an answer to the problem that accepts that no matter the options, and the questions, someone will lose something. Die maybe. The solution is that if someone must die, why not yourself?

The one comfort is that for all the lack of choices Hawks has been given in this situation - this is the one solution he can come up with on his own.