#then you're going to find things to dislike

[rizsu]

ꪆ୧ ── HUSH-HUSH ┊ KEEP IT A SECRET ﹑ JJK ⤿ starring: g. satoru ◟ choso ◟ sukuna ◟ f. toji.

꒰ love simulation ﹢ headcanon-type · most to least likely to keep your relationship a secret!

𖧷 · love, ‘su: i have nothing to say here but I Need To have this here for layout purposes. it Bothers me if its not there.

most likely 𓂃 can hold themselves back. choso and somewhat toji.

( pda = public display affection. )

listen, CHOSO can keep a secret, but leave it up to him and he would've made it known you two were dating. he's only keeping it a secret because you said to. when it comes to you, everyone knows he never questions your words.

in terms of pda . . . he doesn't do it — actually, he does, but only you know the true meaning to his touch. it's a regular thing to have an arm wrapped around your friend's shoulder, standing close to them, blah blah blah. you get the point: he keeps it entirely friendly.

this doesn't mean he's not clinging onto you the moment your peers aren't around! once they're out of his view, choso will not waste time to satisfy the itch he's been feeling. either he buries his head in your shoulder, whining about not being able to touch you at least, or his hands are intertwined with yours.

in mr. TOJI FUSHIGURO's case, your words are law. he usually sits back and let you do as you please — obviously he'd go along with whatever scheme you planned. he doesn't mind keeping to himself at all; he's not one for much pda anyway.

there are times where he gets touchy, though. he tries to keep it at a minimum, but don't let him be near you during a dinner-out with friends or anything of the sort. if he's seated next to you, trust, his hand will find comfort sitting on your thigh, occasionally squeezing here and there.

sometimes — really rare times — his friends suspect him. they don't reach the “are you dating y/n?” conclusion, but do they reach the “you got a thing for y/n or what?” one. it's all due to the fact that he softens his language with you. he doesn't curse, tone lowers an octave, and has a slight smile. three things his friends will never experience. he doesn't deny it, but he also doesn't confirm; he simply shrugs at their questions and never satisfies their curiosity.

least likely 𓂃 sorry, he's a bit selfish. satoru and sukuna.

SATORU . . . yeah, no. there's no way he would've succeeded. that's like asking him to not breathe for a day. when you brought up the idea of keeping the relationship a secret, he tried talking you out of it. why are you denying publicizing his affection for you? you must hate him, or are you hiding the fact that you're taken? satoru's dramatic, and his favourite literary device is hyperbole. he will exaggerate.

at first he tries his best to keep it a secret, but old habits die hard. calling you names clearly reserved for someone's romantic partner, arm snaked around your waist all the time, glaring at anyone who tries to flirt, giving you quick kisses — yeah, no way.

but, satoru does apologize for failing to obey! if you're mad at him for outing the relationship, he'll spend days upon days begging for forgiveness in creative ways til you accept his apology.

SUKUNA does not give a fuck. he's lived long enough to not care about secrecy. it's cute that you want to keep it on the low, but he prefers letting it known. pair that with him disliking physical contact with anyone else and you've got yourself the perfect recipe for disaster.

whenever he's not with you and someone approaches him — no matter the reason — he's quick to ring up his favourite sentence: yeah no, i'm taken. either that, or he's holding his palm up to reject them. he does not wish to engage with strangers. even his own friends struggle to get him out.

when he's with you, however, he's clinging to you like a magnet. game night with friends/family? he's pulling you to lean on him, doesn't fetch drinks for anyone but you, gets revenge for you if you lost the game, demands that they “go easy on y/n.” the list goes on. it took everyone zero time to put the clues together and figure out sukuna and you are a thing. it's entirely out-of-character for him to be nice in the first place.

[azaharinflames]

I still don´t get what they thought they would achieve with Brad but it seems to never have crossed their minds that people would actually NOT care for the character. It is wild how much screentime he got, in a mid-season finale no less, and this public ass kissing of cast and the official account after he left is so weird. Nobody piled hate on the character or the actor they just were not interested, so why the need for this outpouring of support all of the sudden?

When the next character making eyes at either Buck or Eddie comes around and this lot decides to stay silent again we will all have our answer without a shadow of a doubt. That they hang the LI out to dry because they are scared shitless of Buddie backlash, but will jump into action for the next bit part player who just wasn´t as popular as they thought he would be.

I really started to dislike them, not gonna lie. I like Tommy, I like bucktommy but I will cheer on who ever comes next for Buck or Eddie just out of spite now. Because whoever plays them will be treated like shit by the fandom and will get no help from the mean girls clique that is the 911 production

Hi, Nonnie! Thanks for the ask. I see what you're saying, and overall I have to agree.

Here is my take. I try to play devil's advocate and give grace as much as possible. But earlier today I went on Twitter, and I saw a hate tweet (disclaimer: I've blocked hundreds of BD accounts by now, and I have blocked many, many words to not find a new one, but a BT account I follow had quoted it, so I saw it). In it, they were essentially laughing and having a party at the goodbye comments Callum had received, because that 'confirms' for them that the cast hates Lou. That they knew before, but now it's confirmed.

And the thing is... I've said it before, Lou is not a defenseless little boy. He's a grown man that, in my opinion, has a great head on his shoulders and knows very well what he's doing. And he's a busy man. So I honestly don't think he gives two craps about some losers on Twitter claiming his co-workers hate him - he knows better (he knows what happened), and he's the one with a career in acting and loving fans, so. Does he deserve the harassment? Hell, no. But I don't think he cares if some loser claims the cast hates him.

However. This behavior is only enabling hate. Not addressing the hate the LIs go through and the harassment the actors receive isn't just 'ignoring the hate so it goes away'. Ignoring that behavior and then showing support for other guest stars tells the deranged fans that they are good to go. That their bullying and hate is allowed, justified.

Is that the truth? Well, no. But it is what has happened. Because all the people being this hateful and sending harassment or death threats fully believe the show has their backs because nothing has told them otherwise.

Is it the intention of the show? No.

Is it still what they're accomplishing by their lack of response? Yes.

I don't overall dislike the cast as people because I don't know them. But the representation of themselves they're giving right now,? Not exactly a fan of that.

Also, as for Brad... I just have to laugh. They fully thought the Facebook moms would fall deep in love with him, and didn't take into account their hearts were already taken by Tommy, and that they'd be heartbroken enough for Tommy to not care for a character that doesn't have nearly the same charisma or depth.

Anyway. Thanks for letting me rant, lmao.

My inbox is always open for venting, ranting, and to discuss any topics <3

Take care!

[deepestdelulu]

Becoming a better student ₊˚⊹♡

Honestly I´ve never been an A student, but I always try to do my best, and I´m very proud of myself, at least in this area of my life. So here I let you know my tips for studying, not getting bored (at all) and having great marks.

Prepare for your classes ˚୨୧⋆｡˚ ⋆

Wake up on time. We don't want to be stressed first thing in the morning, right?

Eat breakfast. So you will be able to better focus in class.

Assigned reading and homework. Make sure you are prepared for your classes!! :)

Review your notes. Going through some of your flashcards before class is really helpful.

Check your bag and charge your devices. Ensure you have everything you need: Books, homework, chargers, pens, water...

In Class ˚୨୧⋆｡˚ ⋆

Listen and pay attention. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by simply paying attention, trust me.

Take notes. My favourite note-taking method is the Cornell method; I can make a separate post on that!! <3

"Quick notes." If you struggle with note-taking, try taking quick and messy notes. You can clean them up once you get home!!

Engage. If you have any questions or don't understand something, make sure to ask!! Most teachers really appreciate students who speak up. :) And remember you can always go talk to them privately.

No distractions. Turn off your phone, no chatting, you'll be glad...

After class ˚୨୧⋆｡˚ ⋆

Finish your assignments as soon as you can. Go home, put on a cosy outfit, have a snack, and get working!! <3

Prepare flash cards. A great way of reviewing your notes, too... :)

Update your Study schedule. Write down any assignment and due dates, reading you must do, upcoming tests, etc...

Clean up your notes. Review them, highlight the important parts, and maybe even make them look cute!! :)

Don't avoid topics/Subjects you dislike. I know it is tempting, but you can't avoid them forever, so you might as well get them done.

Structure and routine ˚୨୧⋆｡˚ ⋆

Goals and Priorities. Keep them realistic and manageable.

Time management. Having a set schedule makes studying less overwhelming; it takes some discipline but is so worth it!! <3

Develop a routine. Figure out what works best for you; I prefer studying in the morning or at night.

No "zero days". Even if you can only do a bit, do it!! NO. ZERO. DAYS.

Remember your goals. Dreams will keep you motivated; remind yourself of what you're working for!! <3

Self-care and balance ˚୨୧⋆｡˚ ⋆

Don't forget about your hobbies. You need to do things that make you happy, so make time for those things!!

Maintain a balanced diet. I know chocolates and junk are tempting, especially when you are busy studying all day, but you're not doing yourself any favours.

Sleep. Sleep. Sleep. 8 Hours. Non-negotiable.

Exercise regularly. Even if it's just a walk, put on some headphones, listen to music, and give yourself a break. <3

Care for your social life. Reach out to your friends, make plans, and keep in touch; a good work-life balance is critical!!

Romanticising ˚୨୧⋆｡˚ ⋆

Study dates. Meet up with your friends at a cosy cafe, discuss your work, and have some fun!! Studying doesn't have to be all serious all the time ;)

Silly Pinterest boards. Visualising your goals will help you find motivation!!

Music to set the mood. Make a playlist to study with, I have lots of them :)

Cosy sweater and candles. The cosy Rory Gilmore vibes haha...

Getting a coffee before class. A little treat before things get serious... Simple pleasures, you know? :)

As always, Please feel free to add your own suggestions and tips in the comments!!

✩‧₊*:・love ya ･:*₊‧✩

[antianakin]

I recognize that these are very questionable things for Padme to have done, and I call it out when I talk about her quite often, so I don't deny that these choices on Padme's part CAN be interpreted as Padme being... somewhat darker.

And I do personally believe that Padme's choice to be with Anakin despite the obvious red flags in AOTC was intended to be seen as a selfish choice on her part, that her feelings for him (or, perhaps more accurately, for what he REPRESENTED to her) overrode her morals. So it's not like I think the narrative doesn't represent her with flaws ENTIRELY, but I don't know that I'd say that the narrative itself represents her as DARK.

Padme spends a lot of her time being nice, being sweet and kind, and when she's not doing that, she's often off making big impassioned speeches about how they shouldn't go to war or about justice and things like that. She is very much represented as, generally, morally GOOD, and morally BETTER than many of the people around her.

In TCW, she often got turned into an action Barbie of sorts, either fighting the good fight in the Senate or fighting the good fight in the streets somewhere. She's the one who goes to try to get the Separatists to talk about peace, she's one of the Senators involved in whatever summit is happening on Mandalore with the Separatists, she's the one who insists that Ahsoka should learn more about politics, so on and so forth.

So while you do not personally care for some of the decisions she makes regarding Anakin and the way she chooses to ignore or brush aside some of his behaviors (and I don't think you're WRONG to dislike them, I obviously also personally dislike them and I think that the narrative does in some ways question her decision and expects the audience to do so as well), I don't think it is accurate to claim that Padme is DARK and certainly not that the narrative expects you to see her as dark.

Padme makes some questionable decisions, yes, she makes some SELFISH decisions, yes, and those decisions do ultimately lead Anakin to find ways to excuse away his actions, but I also don't believe Padme intends for that to be the outcome of her choices. When she tells Anakin "To be angry is to be human" she's hoping that he'll calm down and figure himself out and that this will be a one-off event. Natalie Portman claimed that she played that scene as Padme sort-of feeling like she wants to SAVE him with her love, that she RECOGNIZES his anger has led him to do dangerous things, but that she believes she can fix him with kindness. While you can question that belief, it's clearly coming from a good place and a desire to help Anakin be BETTER rather than an intentional disregard for Tusken lives.

You can likely apply a similar thought process to why Padme reacts the way she does to Order 66. She can barely believe that Anakin WOULD do something like that (with the Tuskens, she sees how the Larses speak about the Tuskens and so she can understand that there's a clear hostility between the Tuskens and the human settlers that Anakin likely experienced himself, and the Tuskens DID capture an innocent unarmed woman and tortured her to death, so they've clearly done something pretty heinous that provoked Anakin's ire; but with the Jedi, NEITHER of those things are true since Anakin SHOULD be on good terms with the Jedi and they haven't done anything to specifically earn this kind of treatment from Anakin). She goes to Mustafar just to try to clear things up, knowing that Anakin is capable of ruthlessness, but hoping he isn't capable of this kind of BETRAYAL, and clearly recognizing that she might have to do some damage control again. You can see her switch from just asking him to deny what he did to trying to "save him" with love and kindness again, hence the option of just running away. It's only once Anakin refuses that kind of comfort that she starts to back away saying he's going down a path she can't follow. But even that line has been argued to be more of a WARNING than a THREAT, another entreaty for Anakin to come back to her rather than an ultimatum.

And you can tell that Padme IS horrified by what he did to the Jedi, it DOES bother her on a moral level, but she has invested so much of herself into this relationship that she can't really let go of it any more than Anakin can in some ways. She is not without her flaws. But I don't see Padme committing her OWN genocide to save Anakin. The closest she gets is in TCW when she chooses to trade Grievous for Anakin, but this is a choice that's backed up by both Jar Jar and the Gungan leader (more accurately, they literally convince her INTO IT when Padme hesitates over making the trade).

Padme isn't dark in canon. She is flawed. There's a difference.

What I WANT when I say I'd like Padme to have gone dark is to see Padme be CORRUPT. One of the ways I think the Anidala relationship storyline in AOTC could've been helped was if we saw more of Padme being politically corrupt so that her choice to be selfish with Anakin felt more in line with her stated morals. Perhaps she's not necessarily out there murdering people, but she's not above, say, taking bribes or things like that. She's not a perfectly pure politician who always fights for what's right. This would perhaps make her a simpler character, less complex and nuanced, but I also don't find that there was enough time or space for Padme's complexity and nuances to be explored in a way that really made a lot of sense, so instead of being complex she's just sort-of contradictory. You find her "sociopathic" because her morals and motives seem to vacillate wildly depending on what the scene requires of her, rather than being more clear and coherent from one scene to the next.

So, yeah, I think Padme can get a LOT darker. I think you could really look at whether Padme would've ultimately gone along with what Anakin would've asked of her if she'd survived Mustafar or if she'd never GONE to Mustafar. What would she have done if Anakin had made her an Empress? How much would she have allowed and how desensitized might she become to certain atrocities over time? Would she ever get to a point where she didn't just allow murder, but actually ASKED for it? Could she be pushed to feel like it was necessary for one reason or another? If Anakin made her feel like this was her perfect dream, or that her family was being threatened, would she be willing to defend it with oppression and murder? Would she start to maybe enjoy the power she'd been granted as an Empress, would it start to change her to someone very different from who she'd been before she married Anakin? Would her parents and her sister and her nieces even recognize her when they saw her in broadcasts anymore?

Come on, we can get more creative than just... what's in the films. Making her darker and more morally corrupt is a way to make her more likable and more coherent. Maybe she's not quite as against dictatorships as she thought she was, maybe her frustrations with the Senate and the Corporate Alliance are starting to tear down the passionate young Queen that fought for her people's freedom. Maybe she feels like she IS fighting for people's freedoms still, but she's willing to do a heck of a lot more to get it. Maybe she's far more sympathetic to the Separatist side of things than she is in canon and nearly lets them win a few times because... what if. What if they DID just burn it all down and start again? Would it truly be so bad?

THAT'S what I mean when I say I want her darker. I don't just want a young romantic woman getting swept up in what she thinks is an epic romance that she's willing to believe that her love can fix a dangerous man just because he says things to her like "I'm haunted by the kiss you should never have given me." I want someone who is attracted to this dangerous man because she's not truly all that different from him and she's already slipping down her own slope towards darkness. I want a Padme who's already made some moral concessions in the name of justice or freedom and figured out how to sleep at night still. I want a Padme who is willing to achieve a victory at nearly any cost. I want a Padme who is perhaps not all that devastated by her handmaiden's death because, well, that's what she's for isn't it? I want a Padme already becoming desensitized to things that would've appalled her ten years ago and Anakin's shaking simmering rage about the state of the world echoes her own.

Characters that would be improved if they were darker, more evil, or morally corrupt:

Ahsoka Tano

Satine Kryze

Padme Amidala

Characters that would NOT be improved if they were darker, more evil, or morally corrupt:

Obi-Wan Kenobi

Leia Organa

Mace Windu

Yoda

Luke Skywalker

[alexanderwales]

The second chapter of Save the Cat! is about genre, titled "Give me the same thing ... only different!". The general principle is one that I strongly agree with, even if I don't always practice it in my writing: you must know how and why things work in fiction, you must be a student of the realms you're writing in, you must give your own twists on clichés if you think you might be writing them, and must be familiar with clichés so that you don't end up boring people. Study things that are like the thing you're trying to create. Analyze them, take them apart, understand how they work or don't work.

But then a lot of the chapter is taken up with Snyder's own system of ten genres, and when I was reading it I wanted to just stop him and say "hey, what the fuck, did you even watch that movie?"

Also I laughed for like five minutes at him putting Schindler's List in the "Dude with a Problem" genre, even though I agree that according to his typology it completely fits.

I'm a huge fan of making up arbitrary categories and then stuffing things into them. I don't think it's often very useful, no, but it's fun, and when you're done shoving things into boxes, you can pull them back out, find a new set of boxes, and repeat the process. I'm not going to repeat Snyder's categories here, but I think they kind of suck, and don't accurately reflect genre as we understand them, and the whole thing would have been better off is it was taking story archetypes and saying why they work and then what the usual deviations from them were.

Here are two examples that I take issue with, among others. First, by his accounting Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is a "Golden Fleece" movie, the kind of film centered around a hero's journey where what he ends up finding is, ultimately, himself, and every set piece along the way is important only in the way it relates to the hero's self-acceptance or whatever.

No. Wrong. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is very very clearly a "Buddy Love" under this system. Look at this fucking image:

Could this DVD cover make this any more obvious? Literally all the promotional material is like this. It even says in the book that most "Buddy Love" movies start with the "buddies" disliking each other, and that their relationship is central to the movie. And if Snyder is getting this wrong, what else is he getting wrong about his own system?

Example two. I'm just going to quote it in full:

Now look at The Matrix and compare and contrast it with the Disney/Pixar hit Monsters, Inc. Yup. Same movie.

Fucking what do you mean.

Under this system of genres, Monsters, Inc. is very clearly another "Buddy Love" movie. There's a kid they have to deal with, but most of the movie is grounded in the relationship between Mike and Sulley. Like, what's the low point of the whole movie? They get banished to the Himalayas and then have a big fight! It's about their relationship to each other!

(I looked this up on the savethecat website and found an article claiming that it's an example of "Monster in the House", which is fucking stupid, because what's the monster and what's the house? Just does not apply. The child is takes the role of the "monster" for such a small amount of the movie, then they're looking after her and trying to return her home, and even before that it's not relatable as a monster to the audience. Blake Snyder didn't write the article, so maybe he had something different in mind.)

Meanwhile, The Matrix most closely falls into either "Dude with a Problem" (ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances) or "Superhero" (extraordinary man in ordinary circumstances) and I would argue that it's actually neither of those because it's a goddamned hero's journey and those are their own thing and it makes no sense to try to split them into two parts because you don't get more explanatory power of what's working and what's not. His analysis of what he calls "Superhero" films also sucks for that reason and just totally misses the mark about what makes them tick.

So how are these the same movie? I don't know, it probably made sense to Blake Snyder. I have done my due diligence and searched for answers online, but haven't found much, just some weak ass defenses.

Also, I really hated that he says Chinatown and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? are basically the same movie because no shit. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a parody of noir, and was adapted from the script for a never-produced third film in what was supposed to be a Chinatown trilogy. But even then, I don't get how you can say they're the same movie without pointing out the strong "Buddy Love" through line in Roger Rabbit!

This whole chapter was a total miss for me. Decent advice at the start that I've been hearing and preaching for a long time, but this typology sucks and he doesn't even seem to understand it (or the movies he's putting in it) very well. And since the typology sucks, it's a bad lens for understanding the underlying rules of writing, of story structure, the components of story, etc.

[purrple-sectors]

I had this post on my drafts for months ngl and I think with everything that's happening (and to not let it rot on the drafts) it should be shared

----

With the Lando hate train going on, and many other hate trains, I feel like there's some things that need to be said related to fandom and hate culture in general, this is not only about Lando and it applies to any driver

It's very valid to dislike, lose respect, and/or hate a driver to some degree, but death wishes, including wishing for a serious crash and general hate speech is NOT OKAY in any way

There's some very valid stuff to hate about a driver, but not all things they do are valid to hate, for instance many of their actions are reasonable and not properly wrong, I'm talking for example about when they complain on the radio when they're genuinely struggling with the car

It's okay for people to like a driver you dislike and it's okay for people to dislike a driver you like, don't harass fans for having opinions different than yours

Refrain from using isolated quotes or sentences from drivers to base all your mindless hating but also defending, context matters like the question they were answering, what they said before and/or after, try to understand the situation in a wilder angle before making assumptions and spreading misinformation

Avoid generalising actions, the drivers are human beings, and humans are very complex, only bc they did/said something shitty once, that doesn't mean all they do is always with malicious intent

I know we are on a time where media impressions are so absolutely central that it's normal to question the motives behind some statements, but that's doesn't mean they are all done with manipulative intent, yes we can never be sure but that also means that we aren't sure if it was truly a pr manipulative move

Try to not claim that you know for sure the true intentions of a driver when its not disclosed and the comment/action itself is very dubious and/or not very serious, you can guess it but you shouldn't go around saying that what you think is the factual truth, you don't know them personally and what is going on on their heads, a comment you may feel like it was made with ill intent, could have been done very innocently and naively. I'm not saying that it always happens however at least try to consider that it may be a possibility

Don't go overanalysing and dissecting a driver's every action and words with the purpose of only finding things to hate on them, not only is quite disrespectful it's frankly borderline obsessive and creepy

If you want to truly hate, there's specific places where you can do it, but don't let it bled to spaces like Twitter and Instagram comments, places where most drivers (like Lando) are very present and can see not only the hate directed to them but also the hate directed to other drivers. This also include spaces where drivers' close ones can see the hate, mentioning in particular Max F's twitch chat.

But be aware that if you're hating/speaking ill about a driver on a social media platform there may be people that can get uncomfortable with it and block you as they should. DO NOT make it personal or weoponize it, they have every right to block you if they feel uncomfortable and dont want to see your content

Lasty if you ever feel like your mental health is in stake bc of f1, turn it off and give it a break, your mental health shouldn't dependent on some drivers that don't even know you, its okay to feel this way but it's imo unfair to blame on a driver for their performance when theyre simply doing their job and doing their best

On a final note all the drivers have done something shitty and/or had shitty attitudes at some point but many people are clouded by judgement and mindless hate some drivers without acknowledging (and refusing to) that their faves also did things wrong, please avoid doing this, not only its very hypocritical but its quite a dangerous mentality of "My fave cant do any wrong" that can easily be translated to day to day life, try to be critical on serious situations, and hold ALL drivers accountable for things they said/done, not just the ones you personally feel to! You will come across as quite hypocritical if you just select a few drivers and not hold anything accountable to others (especially if they're your faves) and in the long run is not a very good look

To sum up just practice basic human decency, this is mostly my take of view so take it with a grain of salt if it pleases you so. This applies to any driver and I'll add more if I find other things to say. To any new fans out there the only thing I ask you is to try to educate yourself before jumping into any hate train, give yourself a chance to form an opinion and then see which part or side of the community you relate most, don't let others dictate your opinion.

[anarchotolkienist]

I watched an introduction to the World of Darkness setting Hunter, which makes the case that it's a game about being a punk - the isolation that comes with being one of the few people who see the oppression of the world for what it is and doing something about it, when noone can be trusted to help you and you are the only people who seemingly care which can then cash out as hating the humanity you're supposed to protect because they feel complicit, and so on. I sort of get it, for an experience of really annoying 90s hardcore who takes The Scene and Punk, Man, way more seriously than it deserves, but I also feel like it's way closer to the Nazi Punk experience than any normal ones.

The whole experience of the world being that it's run by monsters who only seem human even through they aren't, that you can't fight back against except by cleansing it (the title is even, probably (?) by accident, the title of the pre-eminent neo-Nazi serial killer novel) but you'll be seen as a murderer, finding connection with other people who have Seen it online and only online (what is Hunter-net but Stormfront? However much I dislike the punk scene, normal punks hardly go about finding their political community on a forum, they do so at gigs and in bands, parts of the scene. Only the Nazis really prominently featured the forum as an organising tool). Like the theming to me really strongly implies that you're a neo-Nazi in a world where neo-Nazism is just kind of ontologically correct (because there actually is a conspiracy at the top to keep the blood-sucking élite and their influence secret and it is partially based on what kind of human runs the show - the universe has oil companies that are massively destructive, not because they exist in a social structure, but because they're run by an evil cult to the Lovecraftian entity the Worm, and that sort of thing). It's kind of hard to imagine the endgame of the Hunters being a popular revolution establishing different structures and ways of living with one another (any kind of left-wing revolutionism), rather it seems to be a cadre of murderers Who Have Seen the Light rising up in cell structures until they eventually manage to purge the government of the inhuman beings that corrupt it and use it to cleanse the world of the impurities that prey on people.

I don't think that any of this was in any way intentional, so I don't really know where I was going with this, other than I guess be careful how you imagine your radicalism and the things you fight against, because you might accidentally become a Nazi. It's happened before, and it will keep happening until the left takes Fascism seriously as a force that we have interactions with ideologically.

[before-it-felt-like-a-sin]

Thoughts/potential fic idea (if enough people want it)

Imagining being Nat's best friend and having feelings for her but resigning yourself to never having her because she's not into girls.

Jump to the crash, and Travis starts being just a complete dick to everyone, but especially you. Of course, Nat's defending you, telling Travis to fuck off.

Eventually he stops being as much of an ass, but you still don't like him because of his previous behavior. You do everything you can to stay away from him. Everyone knows about your dislike of Travis, especially Nat. No one blames you, and most some of the girls agree with you. You assume Nat does, too.

Until you find out that she's hooking up with him. You feel betrayed on so many levels. One, your best friend didn't tell you she was sort of dating him. Two, the girl you have a giant crush on is dating someone. Three, your best friend is fucking around with a guy who was a complete ass to you.

You pretend to be happy for her, but you start getting distant. Not talking to her as much, sleeping next to someone else at night. Not sitting with her at dinner.

Obviously, Nat notices this and brings it up, asking if you're jealous or something. The thing is, you are, but it's not of her. So you say no, that everything's fine. She pushes further, and you end up pissed, angry that she doesn't get why you're mad.

Once you tell her that it's (partly) because Travis was/is an asshole, it's her turn to be pissed. She's defending him, saying how nice he is to her. You fight about it, saying yeah, he may be nice to her now but he was an ass to everyone. And he still is kind of a dick to everyone else.

Fast forward to post-expedition, and Nat comes to you, apologizing for not listening and explaining what happened between her and Travis. It takes a few days, but you forgive her.

The two of you end up going to doomcoming together, completely platonically of course. You run off together (like she and Ben do in the show) and end up just catching up. When the shrooms hit, you're both giggling and for once, everything feels right again. (Imagining the other girls don't go feral on shrooms this time) Nat does cry over Travis a little, but it's a lot of anger and less real sadness over it.

You try to comfort her. telling her he never deserved her and that he's an ass. Then, Nat almost kisses you, but you stop her, telling her you don't want her to kiss you because she's high and missing Travis.

She looks hurt, but she understands. You tell her if she still wants to kiss you in the morning, you'll consider it. Trying to joke away the awkwardness. She laughs, and you move on. Eventually, you crash, falling asleep on the dirt of the forest.

The morning after can go one of two ways: You talk, really talk, and end up kissing. Or, she pretends to forget the whole thing.

[chirpchirplol]

hi! anonymous asker here, I made an account to post about why I initially thought I was Lion. This is going to start off like me trying to argue it's wrong but that's not what it is. It's also long af, sorry for that, I wrote it out for myself to process it then went back and realized there was a literal question it was in response to. longafness after link, tl;dr: I value and rely on my gut feelings heavily, can't make myself ignore them, but I want them to be predictable and it's uncomfortable when they get out of line

So I felt confident about Lion, and with Badger or Snake, it was "I wouldn't like it but I could see it." Like with Snake, I love me some hedonism and struggle with selfishness - had assumed both those characters were huge Snakes lol - but find it as a whole to be a very "fuck you, I got mine" mentality. Sucks for those strangers in need with no one to come through for them! Like I have STRONG feelings about this, I don't understand how people don't find it horrifying. I actually have a weird opposite thing where I can get FURIOUS on behalf of strangers being mistreated, even hypothetical or fictional ones, in a way I don't for people I know well or even myself. Which is why I thought Badger was possible and maybe I just was resistant due to being burned or because I thought it was boring, but the unpersoning group thing creeps me out. "All people matter… except the ones that don't." It's so close to being really beautiful!

With Bird it was more, "who even does this?" Like with the Bird answer on the "lack of objective truth" question, "it's OK, I thought about it and reality is close enough to the model in my head", that is literally incomprehensible to me as a way a person would think. (My answer was "actually there is objective truth." That was my answer before I even got through the question.)

The main reason why I thought Bird was impossible is the "choosing to care about something" part. I can't do that. Caring about things is not something I can turn on or off at will, even if I want to. At least not important things as opposed to say hobbies, but even then I can't just go "ok self, you're gonna like football now because I said so" and then actually do. It's an organic process, I can kick it off but ultimately I either care or don't care, and if I don't then the farthest I'm gonna get is pretending, or lying to myself while knowing it's a lie. Definitely can't talk myself into caring about a job, god knows I've tried lol. My likes and dislikes are so fundamental to who I am as a person, so sacred even, that the idea that they are deliberately malleable for other people is just, whaaaaa?

Where this really kicks in is friends and relationships, I cannot deliberately make myself like someone I dislike or dislike someone I like, people generally don't grow more attractive to me over time. and it'd make me sad, like relationship-foundation-shakingly sad, if I found out my friends/partner felt that way with me. like they had to try to like me rather than just like me.

I'm not really a logical person either. I start with the conclusion, which is generally based on feelings, and then hope I can justify it in case I ever have to talk about it. (because arguing is stressful enough when I do have a defensible stance let alone when I can't explain it) I have this irrational but unshakeable assumption that my feelings and thoughts should just agree completely. When they don't, that feels bad, but my gut has veto power. To fully talk myself into or out of opinions I have to actually feel good about them, they have to not feel viscerally wrong, or else things get into an uncomfortable self-judging place where I know I should believe something but don't actually, truly, deep down, believe it. Or where none of the stances feel right, that's even more "fun".

A good example of that is actually the "past self is a different person" thing. My past self is still me, the things I did or thought in the past do not disappear just because I've changed nor do their permanent effects on me. I absolutely feel guilty about things I used to believe, and sure some of that is just the cringe of people knowing about it, but even if no one else knew I'd know and that's enough. And yet… I also theoretically believe in rehabilitation and think it's wrong not to, but apparently I actually don't, because that sure isn't something a person who believes in rehabilitation would say! I'm being flippant but this legitimately bothers me, especially because the idea of not believing in rehabilitation feels even more bad.

What convinced me ultimately: I'm not a Trump supporter, obviously. I would like to think it is absolutely impossible for me to become a Trump supporter. But that's what they all say, people become the things they would never EVER become all the time. Which led me to this question: Would it be worse to deliberately choose to do something wrong, or to slowly stop believing it's wrong without realizing? Or does that distinction even matter? Feel free to substitute something less extreme, like working for an evil company, bullying, cheating, selling out, betraying a friend, whatever line you would never cross.

And my answer is actually that the latter is wayyy more disturbing. I'm really big on owning and naming your beliefs and desires. It's a great way to get your conscience to kick in, to actually say it out loud then see how good or bad that felt. Same principle as how, if someone makes a racist joke, you act confused and ask them to explain it to you.

So the former would be gross, like fuck any person who would do it; but at least I could be conscious of the fact that I am choosing to do an evil thing for the sake of, I don't know, stonks. I would be engaged in the process, my conscience would be involved despite being ignored, and I would hope I would feel disgusted with myself forever. (Even considering the possibility is kind of disgusting.) But slowly having your beliefs erode over time into something bad… how do you stop that? How do you do ANYTHING about that? Shit what if it's happening right now? Even if the shift was in the opposite direction and I slowly became a better person without trying… I guess that's good? Can't argue with it being a net positive? But it feels unearned and unreliable, if you can sleepwalk forward you can sleepwalk back.

So that's conscious vs. unconscious I guess. Also I wrote and revised a ton of words to answer the question so there's that too.

bird primary + burnt snake secondary

 tl;dr: Fairly sure I'm Lion primary (maybe burned Badger since I sort of envy the idea of close communities, or hedonistic Snake, not sure where that line is)

(the way that divide works out is that basically, Burnt Badgers look like Snakes. They have the Snake's small community, but wish they could cast their net wider. Hedonistic Snakes tend to be more solo, and much more focused on /stuff/. Also, both options make pretty good short-term coping mechanisms.)

but unsure whether my secondary is Bird, Snake/burned Snake, or burned Lion.

I love researching and reverse-engineering and my immediate response to situations is to Google advice, but reactively, not proactively. I am allergic to planning, and prepwork feels stifling and unnatural.

Ooooh, have we got a single-player Environment Snake? (I also think of these as MacGyver Snakes.) Basically just pulling at the things around you in order to solve the problem at hand.

I studied math in college then did a coding bootcamp, and I always felt adrift because both only taught memorizing solutions to individual problems/proofs, not how to solve unfamiliar ones -- i.e., really learning. 

However, I neither consider myself flexible nor want to be, and singleplayer Snake is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more comfortable than stuff involving other people. (Complicating factor: not neurotypical.)

I think I can say, pretty confidently, that this system works just fine if you're not neurotypical. :) There's no reason you have to use the multi-player version if you don't want. The most dramatic single/multi player divide is probably Bookkeeper Badger vs Courtier Badger, and there are lots of people who prefer being just one or the other.

I do the "faces" thing reflexively, in the moment, but it doesn't feel like "shifting" or "becoming" anything: just me, lying.

That's Snake. "Becoming" is more of a word that a Courtier Badger would use, they kinda do have to believe it, or it doesn't work. Snake secondaries are a lot more aware of what they're doing, in the moment.

It's interesting that you are just straight-up using the word lie though. In my experience, Snakes are more likely to conceptualize that particular problem-solving strategy as "say it in a way they'll listen to," or something like that. You might just be super direct (and/or like hanging out in Neutral) buuuut... the negativity of "lie" can sometimes point to a Burnt secondary. No sign of that yet, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

I don't have a moral problem with lying; it's often even right since a) telling the truth often hurts people, and b) people do prefer it: most people want to hear what they want to hear, and if that happens to be the truth that's great.

Hmmm. This is sounding like primary stuff. And it's quite reasoned out, which makes me interested in hearing why you went for Lion primary instead of Bird.

But deep down, I guess I resent it. I wish that when I say what I mean it would convince people rather than create problems. I try to ration that to only things that REALLY matter to me, but tbh many things do. I hate arguing.

What I'm hearing here is the Bird primary fantasy of "If I was only able to explain it exactly right, in precisely the right words, then everyone would agree with me." And as you say earlier, it doesn't actually work like that. It sounds like you're feeling a bit cynical in regards to other people a the moment, and I can't exactly blame you.

I would love to be an inspirational secondary but I am bad at inspiring people.

There is definitely some burnt secondary talk going on here.

Family: I'm not close to my father -- he’s a terrible person, serial cheater, racist, etc. I'm closer to my mother, and don't think she's a bad person, but both parents were hypercritical and have horrible tempers, so my childhood felt horrible to live through since I was always getting yelled at or having corporal punishment used for doing something wrong.

Definitely seeing where the burned secondary energy is coming from, if so many of your formative experiences involved being told that the way you were doing things was wrong. I also see why you might have at least a fascination with the confident, firey, speak-your-truth-and-damn-the-consequences Lion secondary.

(On paper this could be called abusive, and anyone else being subjected to this makes me furious, but I'm not fully comfortable with the label for my situation, even though I know that's inconsistent.) 

I understand, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate your carefully articulated position, and it's slanting me in the direction of Bird primary. Even though this is obviously a topic you are very emotional about, all those emotions are arranged within the framework of thought. You're aware of and okay the fact that you feel all kinds of different ways about what happened.

Any secondary model came from my mom, but I don't know about primary. She always says my sister and I are "the most important things in her life." (One of the reasons I don’t want kids is that I don’t think I could ever believe or promise them that.) She ostensibly also hates my father and their divorce was vicious, but she kept working for him until he retired, goes on trips with him to see my sister or me, and pressured me for years to un-estrange him because “after all, he’s family” until I gave in and now pretend to have a relationship just enough to placate them. I don't have any ethical problems doing this, it's just irritating.

That is very, very unusual family dynamic. Have to get my head around that. Your mom may have some very intense Badger going on, especially with the the whole "after all, he's family" thing. That could fit go with a nasty divorce, especially if she thought his presence was a threat to you and your sister. On the other hand, she might just be able to compartmentalize to an insane degree, which would probably point to Bird secondary.

I don't understand this aspect of my mom; I observe it happening, but I don't understand it. It feels kind of sad, in an existential way. 

Honestly, I agree.

(Another way my dad sucks is that he played favorites with my sister and I, me being the favorite.

Being the Golden Child sucks just as much as being the Problem Child.

The shitty resulting dynamic is I only "care about" his approval to avoid him creating drama that ripples to everyone around him -- he's gotten better but he has literally started shit when I didn't end emails with "love" -- but my sister actually cares about his approval, and it hurts her.)

Secondary-wise, my mom would always harp on me to "pay attention to the people and things around you," and whenever I tell her about solving problems in Snakeish ways she's like "way to go, [me]!" But she also is meticulously planned and scheduled and organized, and hates surprises and not knowing exactly what will happen. She's the kind of person who gets frustrated in April when I haven’t told her my Thanksgiving itinerary, which, like... I don't want to think that far ahead.

She could be either Prep-work secondary, Bird or Badger. If she's a Bird, "pay attention to the people and things around you," points to a a Rapid-Fire Bird (which can look *very* Snakey.) Or it could be a way of describing Courtier Badger. Being that scheduled is more often a Bird thing... but I could also imagine a Badger manifesting like that, especially if she is so concerned with specifically planning holidays.

Low-stakes/high-stakes problem that felt good: This is a high-stakes problem containing a low-stakes problem. I'm rolling them together because they illustrate both aspects of my problem solving.

Higher stakes: That coding bootcamp required being on Zoom 8 hours every day. But I had 3 roommates (part of why I did it was to not have 3 roommates), and they didn't want me there that much. I can't go to coffee shops because either they're loud, or I will make them loud by talking for 8 hours, thus becoming the problem. Coworking spaces are expensive af. I even consider renting a storage unit but I don't think they have power and wifi. The idea I settle on is sneaking onto a nearby college campus: preferably the CS building, to blend in. I scour the college subreddit for posts about what buildings let students in without ID, then scout them out (this is March, the thing doesn't start until May, I'm just high on must-solve-now energy). After ~15 minutes (lol) of walking through campus I decide I've had enough, seems doable. The day of, I leave early in case I have to give up and go home, but that turned out to be completely pointless because tailgating in is shockingly easy. Like it's scary how easy it is. One day a security officer stopped me but even he eventually let me in after I acted increasingly frazzled and panicked -- not ENTIRELY an act but I definitely was playing it up.

I like this story. And I feel good about saying that it is QUITE snakey: what do I have immediately around me, and how can I use it to get what I want in this moment? Even little details like - you're not bothering to come up with a cover story or borrow/forge someone's ID. If you're caught you'll talk your way out of it. You did a little research, then scoped the place out, then were good to go.

Lower stakes: I usually did classes from an empty auditorium (students weren't supposed to be there but no one checked, and also I'm not a student right?). The whiteboard's eraser stand was a few inches away from the wall, and one day I drop my phone in the gap. Shit. The gap's way too high to reach down. I can't ask anyone for help because I'm already 2 layers deep of being somewhere I'm not supposed to be. The stand screws to the wall, but I don't have a screwdriver because who just carries a screwdriver around? (For whatever reason, going to a hardware store didn't occur to me.) I stare at the thing until I realize: I am literally in the ENGINEERING building. I search various offices, ask people for a screwdriver, but no luck. Then I see a board listing the departments. One floor has a "makerspace," and somehow, its door is wide open (the student lounge is locked down but the room with deadly power tools isn't, ???) I grab 5 sizes of screwdriver, then also grab duct tape and a ruler to fish my phone out in case the screwdrivers don't work, which turned out to be a good idea because they didn't

Sounds to me to me like you just MacGyvered a solution :D

One thing I am picking up on is your subtle critique of the existing rules/systems. Getting in via tailgateing is easier than it should be, talking your way past the guard was too easy. The door with the powertools really should be locked, etc. It's making me (again) think Bird primary for you. You've very tuned into the way things run, and how well designed (or not) that is. There's also just a little bit of Birdy rules-lawyer in "Students aren't allowed in this room, but I'm not a student (because I snuck in.)"

Hard decision-making process…. I don’t know. I don’t experience many decisions as hard. I often know what I want to do right away; the difficult part is doing it.

In the language of this system, that's a Burnt secondary.

Or I know what I should do, am obligated to do, have no choice but to do, etc., though sometimes it feels miserable or wrong, like resignation.

Unfortunately that is what it feels like to have a Burnt primary - you just use whatever problem-solving strategy you can at random, since they all feel like a chore and it doesn't really matter.

I can feel proud of making certain "right" choices in an abstract self-congratulatory way, but I never like it or really feel good about it. I either act on something immediately or put it off until the decision makes itself, a drop-dead deadline approaches, I get bored/impulsive enough to do it on the spot, or I suddenly swerve my life toward something I like better.

You're definitely an Improvisational secondary. Which is really fine, even though I know it doesn't feel that way all the time when you come from a family of intense Prep-work people. Just keep an eye on that 'wait until the deadline' impulse. It's very, very common for neurodivergent people to use that last-minute stress adrenaline to kind of hack their brain, and it's not sustainable.

I'd wanted to change careers for years but the actual decision to do the bootcamp was an impulse based on ~3 hours' research the day I encountered it.

That can absolutely work though. You *are* working on the problem and mulling it over in your head long term, even if you are (in the words of another snake secondary) "waiting for the opportune moment."

This is all healthy and well-adjusted, and it definitely has never caused any predictable problems! (Did get a job though.)

Hey, if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

My fantasy: To be successful and well-known in my field; to create the kind of art I want to create and have it be respected/influential. To live the life I want, with the aesthetic I want, and the opportunities from others and follow-through from me to achieve that. The details vary based on the field but that's the general template. 

I'd say that's a very human fantasy, without too many details that slant me one way or the other, in terms of this system. There's definitely a focus on the community around you and how you relate to it/integrate into it. And that makes me think Bird (the external primary) is more likely than Lion (the internal primary.)

Characters: I relate to characters who are flawed in the same ways I am -- they feel like cautionary tales -- or sometimes via empathizing in a way the story doesn’t (Carlotta from Phantom got done DIRTY).

It's interesting that you respond to characters who the narrative framing doesn't support, because the narrative framing doesn't support them. I guess that does fit with your interest in constructed systems, and if they're useful/functional or not. Which points to Bird.

On that big pop culture character test I always get Hannah from Girls and Gaius Baltar from Battlestar Galactica: harsh, but not wrong.

(I always get Inara from Firefly and Céline from Before Sunrise.)

It's been a second since I've seen Girls or Battlestar Galactica, but I do think that both of those characters are Bird Snakes, which is honestly impressive since Bird Snakes are easily the least common fictional archetype.

Baltar is clever, adaptive, reactive, he pulls from around him. He also bluffs and will *act* like he's an expert when he really isn't. A lot of his internal conflict revolves around extremely Bird primary rationalization - is this situation really his fault? and if it is, what is he morally/rationally supposed to do about it (if anything?) "Voice of *a* generation" Hannah also has this way of getting caught in her own feedback loops when trying to figure herself out. One of my favorite moments is the bit where she loses her purse on the way back from the wedding, and then rides the train all the way to Coney Island, sits on the beach and eats the slice of wedding cake while watching the sun rise. I think that's beautiful, and a very Snake secondary response.

I also gravitate toward a specific archetype: Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, Madame Bovary, Violetta from La Traviata. People who desire an impossible thing deeply and unshakably, temporarily achieve it, and are taken down dramatically.

Now that, I'm thinking is a story structure that you like. And/or you're drawn to these tragic great ladies, living most of the way in a fantasy world. It's a good, cathartic archetype.

What makes me feel powerful: I don’t really resonate with that framing. The closest is that feeling like I have no options is the same for me as feeling powerless.

Okay, "not feeling powerless," I'll take it. And we're back to that Burnt secondary again. I'm hoping you'll leave your Snake a little more room to breathe and play, because it seems like you're a pretty capable person. You manage to do the things you want to get done, and you have an excellent awareness of what are good and bad situations, both for you and just in general.

Thank you to anonymous for such an excellent submission. If you'd like a Sorting of your very own, commissions are open on my ko-fi. :D

If you'd like to read more about the system I'm using, my explanation is right here.

[edwardshundredyearoldspunk]

"I watched x so you don't have to" "I listened to y so you don't have to" "I read z so you don't have to" I cannot tell you enough how you also didn't have to. you didn't have to do that babe. you could have just not done that and spared the internet of yet another bad faith criticism of a piece of media that wasn't made for you

[zeroducks-2]

I'm completely serious when I say that yall need to calm down about the whole "if you dislike x it means that you're y", because you sound just like antis and it's not helping anyone.

So quick PSA for who needs to hear it: Not liking Taylor Swift doesn't make you a misogynist. Hating JKR doesn't make you sexist. Not liking Twilight or anything else with a female protag doesn't make you anti-women. Not having wlw ships doesn't make you lesbophobic. Disliking a female character is actually totally fine, and you don't need to fill any moral quota by having a favorite character belonging to every single marginalized category of people.

Sometimes people just do not like stuff, and sometimes they even have extremely good reasons to dislike stuff. Stop being a fucking cop about it.

[allastoredeer]

Can I ask your opinion on radiobelle/charlastor and radiodust? I'm just curious because, other than chaggie, they were like THE ships pre-show while radioapple was pretty rare, and now it's kinda the other way around, and huskerdust shippers finally getting fed

I don't really favour any Alastor ship over the other (huge multishipper over here) and I haven't found a problem that can't be solved or made worse with a polycule, actually (with Alastor centre stage <3)

AYYYE! Hello my fellow Alastor multishipper! And yes, of course! I'd love to share my opinions and thoughts :3

When I first saw radiobelle/charlastor I felt kind of weird about it - this was before the show even dropped. While I wasn't active in the fandom after watching the pilot, I still saw things here and there, and radiobelle never really did it for me.

Recently though, I've been coming across some super cute radiobelle fan-art, and honestly? The ship doesn't really bother me. In fact, it's kind of growing on me.

I know people like to rave about how Alastor is like a "father figure," or Charlie "saw" him as a father figure, especially during the "Dad Beat Dad" episode. But, like, it's really not that big of a deal. They are, in no way, actually related. There is no familial ties to them aside from words and perceived feelings. And even if she does truly see him as a father figure, fandom is THE place to go to change canon and do whatever you want with the characters. That's what it's always been and that's what it's always going to be.

Besides, the ship has a lot of cute potential and I'm so here for it. I think one of the reasons people hate on it so much is this weird, perceived power-difference/imbalance between them. What with Charlie being this wide-eyed, hopelessly optimistic, and sometimes very naive women, and Alastor being this darker, manipulative, seemingly "older" man. I can see how that would squick people out, especially with the idea of Alastor manipulating/using Charlie.

However, I'd like to argue that Charlie is a grown-ass adult. Considering how the aging process works in Hell (particularly with Hellborn. Particularly with hellborn royalty, considering Lucifer is a fallen angel who's older than time itself and yet looks like he could be the same age or younger than Alastor), Charlie could be leagues older than Alastor. Maybe she's actually a couple hundred years old in Earth years, but she's considered in her mid twenties in Hell years.

As for the manipulation thing, we've been shown several times in the show that Charlie won't put up with Alastor's bullshit, and that she'll even call him out on it. I don't think she's as naive to Alastor's manipulation or schemes as everyone thinks she is.

I'm not a die-hard radiobelle shipper or anything, but I think its a pairing that has a lot of cute and wholesome potential. I think it gets WAY more hate than it deserves. (Besides, has no one considered the absolute hilarity of Lucifer meeting up with his daughter for the first time in years, and getting introduced to her creepy, dark, sadistically weird boyfriend with an obsession with 20th century radio? Does no one else find that fucking hilarious?? Just me??)

As for radiodust, I wasn't weirded out by it like I was with radiobelle. Originally, I was just kind of meh about the ship. But also like radiobelle, I've been seeing more content of it and its starting to grow on me. An Alastor/Husk/Angel Dust polycule actually sounds kind of cute, and has the potential for a very interesting dynamic to play around with.

My general consensus: While I'm not a die-hard shipper of radiobelle or radiodust, I like the pairings and I can see why other people would like them too.

Additional, to those who do dislike these two ships, that's okay. Some pairings just aren't to your taste, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes a pairing just squicks you out. That's fine. Just don't harrass other people who do like it. If you do not like these pairings, then move on and read/watch/look at something you do like. It's that simple.

I have mad respect for both of these ships because, like you said, dear Anon, they were what kept the Hazbin fandom going for years. Let's show some respect for our elders, people. Honor those who came before 🫡

[maaalkavian]

"higher education" is so fucking snobby dude... my distaste for academia and the educational system as a whole is just further amplified

[slippery-minghus]

hmm. had an actual conversation with nightmare coworker today that seemed mutually productive. she apologized for saying some bullshit that hurt my feelings and i clarified that my intentions are to help not to undermine her, and we both agreed that there's no competition against each other and that it's the lack of growth in our role that's the problem. it was...productive.

and further cementing for me that it is time to begin making my Exit. i will be sending out my resume to a few places this weekend.

i'm still processing the conversation, and am struggling to place myself in where i am responsible to better my behavior. because i genuinely don't want to be an ass, even though i really don't like this lady and will jump for joy the day i never have to see her again. she stated that she knows my intentions aren't to hurt her, and that she thinks i'm very kind. i apologized for if my behavior came off as undermining her, and said that my intentions are only to better my own growth—and that i know she's trying to succeed too. i validated her feelings, and complemented the effort she is putting in.

where i'm struggling with is: am i in the wrong/causing harm and needing to change if the issue is that her feelings are incongruent with what she knows of my intentions? her feelings are her responsibility (WOW i almost typed "her feelings are my responsibility". i feel like that's a freudian slip) and she states that she knows i don't mean to hurt her. i'm going to try to be more clear in wording my intentions with her (she feels like me trying to take work off her plate is to undermine her. when really, i'm caught up and see her getting overwhelmed, and i want to help and also have something to do since i'm bored).

but i'm really struggling to look at my role in this and pass judgement on myself. i can and want to do better, and i don't think i did anything wrong, but i'm always so hesitant to say it's not my fault or i didn't do something bad. like i can't trust my judgement on that. my intentions were good, her bad feelings are ones caused by her insecurities, which she more or less has expressed to be aware that they are not true—the hurtful thing she said to me, she acknowledged was said out of hurt and not what she actually thinks. so, is it fair to say i'm not the bad guy? i'm not in the wrong? i know good intentions that still result in harm don't absolve anyone, but when the things that are clashing are insufficient communication and reactive insecurities... i'm not a monster, am i?

[sovonight]

,

[ambientsoundtrackfan]

vehemently hating taylor swift is my litmus test for how pathetically online you are because any sane person who dislikes a celebrity is like oh ugh they sound terrible/I hate X musician and move on with their adult lives but when someone comes at you at the mere mention of taylor with unhinged hate (yet also in-depth knowledge) of taylor swift....I know where you go