#tl;dr i'm doing great evidently

[lgbtmi]

i have more asks to answer, but alas, i am still injured from when i fell last week and due to that i am also incredibly tired.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

with the recent like self-analytical framework of [putting hand on own shoulder] "are you looking for the external validation of value in this which would never be guaranteed, and you don't even think it should be contingent on this anyways" it's like, that also speaks more to like "yeah i did really enjoy live performance / theatre-adjacent and -overlapping stuff"

like i have my sense of how much i loved things and none of that involves any memories of having enjoyed it b/c of any feedback i got, from peers or instructors or anything. memories of curtain calls don't stand out much. like fun Specific Feedback was a kind older (relative to me) performer with the central role telling me that my literal leaping onstage (dance performance. grande jete entrance) despite a technical difficulty that would have to be improvised around was Inspirational/Motivating lol. i stopped having any particular stage fright (although is that when you're onstage? more like, anxiety beforehand about messing up. being onstage was the easier, enjoyable part) thanks to just having to yolo through those technical difficulties lol....anyways and then that same show actually, some relative to me younger audience member's dad was like "she's your (role's) biggest fan" and we nervously take a pic together lol. these things were fun & standout but Not Even It; not at all like "this is what makes it all worth it" like this is largely beside the point but a fun little bonus outlier event or two

like there was also no "i loved it b/c of Being In A Cast" nor b/c of any particular like, hanging out having fun Social Element. i loved rehearsing, though. loved being backstage (or in green rooms, or dressing rooms) but not because of any particular company or goings on. loved waiting & practicing / warming up & getting things together like your own costuming & being summoned to backstage & whatall. loved all the technical elements of getting a show together, when things were being assembled / worked out, though i didn't get to have much of any active hand b/c i'm like this twelve year old just learning the part, but it was fun to witness. none of my sense of what contributed to having a great time entailed any particular praise or anything; there was some implicitness in how all at once i graduated from [ensemble performance, back row for tall people] to [roles with solos] and the like, but there was just like, being busy, doing things well enough that it just wasn't Impeding anything lol, and in other arenas where i might've gotten more comments about being like, an outlier per whatever measure of success, it was definitely like, it's all just [successfully avoided negative attention] and ofc people think good grades are good but i'm not particularly moved by the awareness that that in turn is what's good or impressive about me, or something. or that i have to have anything like that for [successfully avoided negative attention]

and i wouldn't have like, done a monologue to an empty room and been like wow magical. i'd do my thing for rehearsal, and then for an audience, but you can't really see the audience and you're like ten doing local ten year old recreational stuff so it's like, the curtain calls you don't remember much (by you i mean me) and then you're done, and for me it was the fun of just like Everything Before. no like classic memories montage of great times socializing, it was me sitting in the green room equivalent, me warming up in the hallway, enjoying being in an auditorium for like 7 hrs of rehearsal, etc, we didn't do any like social events like high school performance afterparties or anything; i wasn't like Friends w/even the occasional person i also knew from school, and that didn't matter or diminish things in the least. performing A Show and for whatever Audience and that abstract is completely good enough. any of my parents' involvement, unavoidable b/c i couldn't even get places without being driven, was a major downside; i didn't like any like post performance [congrats] from them b/c that stuff was just its own unconstructive Performance that you, by which i mean me, were required to be sufficiently like Oh Wow about when it's like, the focused attention from you here means i want to leave; being left all amongst other adults during rehearsals was the good shit, while it also wasn't the case i needed like support or hype from any of those adults either.

there was Some tradition of like, older students in some program who'd take a trip to nyc / do some performance or other, and that seemed exciting but it stopped existing before it could be relevant to me lol. also for the first like, show that was like "audition for parts" vs "class recitals" they gave us like a relevant keepsake for it, and that was a nice surprise, since i had a great experience and all. and one of my main [not dance, with lines and everything] experiences being this fourth grade english class scenes from julius caesar, auditioned again, i'm like hell yeah that this has to be nongendered b/c it's all a bunch of guys, so i play a guy, and an antagonist yippee who doesn't die midway through and sounds easy-peasy to be like [be the dictator assassin] lol. it's funny how already i Cared about like, wish we had Effects instead of awkward silence for the drama of that assassination. wish i like, knew fuckall about acting. but the teacher just focused on telling us all to talk louder b/c nobody could be individually mic'd, and in the end you really couldn't hear fuckall of other performances so that was a win. and we got to do it twice b/c some people's parents got stuck in traffic. all i remember of my parents' presence was being like "omg yes i get to stop being here talking to you b/c we get to do that Again hell yeah"

like it's social but in a Parallel way. i'm contributing my part, i know my role, you know yours, i'm fondly remembering sitting in some school lobby having mini muffins with hours to go before our performance, amongst other people but not at all hyped abt interactions with them or at all disappointed abt the absence of any. i enjoyed it all being in front of people, others involved in the show, or the audience, but i wasn't there for any specific feedback, just being Part of that group constructed experience there. truly this case of like....loved all of that exactly as it happened, was on my own shit, did not need any external validation, didn't need a specific kind of Socializing that's supposed to look like having individual interactions with personal friends, had this passion for it that i also was having a perfectly good time exploring on my own, whilest also enjoying working with / learning from whatever instruction i got. like sure wishing i knew fuckall about acting but that it turns out no not everyone necessarily all loves stage acting as The Peak like that, and this comfort and interest with it that comes from like, you have all the practice of Having to perform and mask and act in life against your supposed incorrect abnormalities, but here's this constructive and creative and expansive edition of that art and science. good enough for doing it all through like fourteen

[alyssumlovesthecosmere]

So, the other day, Crash Course uploaded a video in their Religions series, about Judaism. Now, I haven't watched any video other than this one, but if this one is any metric to measure by.... well, it's bad. Really bad.

To start, the introduction starts with "shabbat toothbrushes", where John Green describes to us how (some) jews will brush their teeth on shabbat, while ensuring to not break any of the melachot, or prohibited actions. This, in my opinion, as an orthodox jew, is.... quite a framing to start with. Especially since immediately after that introduction, John Green let's us know that there are other jews! who don't do this! and just... sir, I'm an orthodox jew. Sure, I don't do follow that rule on the shabbat- sorry, the sabbath which you then explain is the shabbat to jews (the word Sabbath comes from the hebrew Shabbat), but I follow a lot of rules that folks find strange! And I do not appreciate a video talking about jews sidelining orthodox jews. Framing the video in that way is clearly an attempt to make Jews seem more "mainstream", but it erases, estranges, and (this happens more later on) villifies orthodox jews. Which isn't fair.

But we just started this 13 minute video. At this point last night, I sighed and figured this was going to be just your regular old "Orthodox Jews are strange and bad" sort of video, and resigned myself to that. And then I looked at the sections of the video. One of which included Zionism in it. And I immediately got more worried, because John and Hank donated through Project For Awesome to UNWRA which are.... very linked to Hamas, including there being evidence of UNWRA employees participating in the Oct. 7th Massacre. But okay. Maybe this video will be fine.

Spoiler alert: It wasn't. It was so incredibly bad. John Green admits at the start of the video that Judaism is complex, great! Now explain tha complexity correctly! no. So he starts off his history with... Ya'akov Avinu, sorry- Jacob. Who's a descendant of Avraham Avinu, sorry- Abraham (John uses the english names and not the hebrew one and it just bothers me). Which like... no, Jewish history starts with Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. In addition, a large majority of his sources are non jewish sources which is just. Why. There are so many jewish sources on Judaism!

As this is getting long, I'm gonna put a tl;dr here and then a read more cut. The tl;dr is this - the video is a horrendously western view of Judaism video, that seems to be written by non-jews who don't have any expertise in Judaism. It is filled with misrepresentation of jews, especially religious ones, is severely lacking pretty much all of jewish history, doesn't mention MENA/SWANA jews at all, and is quite frankly a disappointment. I'm mad and sad and upset and most of all disappointed with crash course for creating this video.

Still with me? great. I'm wordy and I have twelve minutes of this video to go through still. To make this a bit more organized, I'm gonna go according to the sections that John Green himself gave, and give a summary of what he said and what is wrong or misrepresented there.

The Many Versions of Judaism (aka, somehow not our history nor our story) there are a few things wrong/upsetting here. First off, as I said above, the fact that he uses the English names. Second off, the fact that he, bafflingly, starts the story with Ya'akov getting the name Yisrael, aka when Ya'akov fights with the angel. John then takes this to explain that Jews today still wrestle with Hashem in our own way, but in a... shall I say tumblr style reductionist way. Y'know, the "jews shake lemon at gd angrily behind a denny's" way. This chapter is the only one that will ever mention the ancient Israelites, and never the tie to the land of Israel itself. In addition to this, he describes Judaism as monotheistic, but that "half of religious jews today believe in some other spiritual force, and not the gd of the Hebrew Bible" which had me going what in the what. Just. No. like, sure, i'm a vaguely agnostic-atheist religious jew and uh, no? And I found his source, and well, if I had to guess - the jews who responded assumed that the god they were being asked about was the one in the xtian bible - and so answered no, while John assumed said jews meant the gd of the tanakh, aka hashem. Third, his "devil's advocate" scene is just. Once again, putting down Orthodox Jews, and compares without change Jewish Religious Institutions with Xtian ones. To quote "for a lot of jews, it's more about action than faith", I'd argue, personally, that that line is correct for most jews, as our religion is not really one of belief (orthodoxy) but of action (orthopraxy). And also, I'll paraphrase "many jewish people consider following Jewish law to be the most important thing" yes! yes we do! and not just many, most, that's! the whole! shtick! for us!! (and yes i'm aware this is a simplification). He also manages to vaguely describe Judaism as an ethnicity, and explain that some Jews are connected to the ancestral history (without explaining what that is, no connection to Israel here no sirree), which I guess is fine-ish? (it does not)

The Written Torah So here he starts off with saying that we'll focus on the torah and not the tanakh, as the torah is how we jews conceptualize our relationship to gd and each other. Except that... we also use the rest of the Tanakh for that! (minor kudos to him for saying that the tanakh was written by the ancient israelites. Just no mention of why there were ancient israelites and then we had to come back). The torah gives us most of our rules, but the tanakh expands on them, and teaches us how we choose to treat hashem, how we treat each other. When Jews say the written torah, we do oftentimes also mean the rest of the tanakh. Frankly, going through his sources, I can't figure out what source he used for this claim, except that he uses a lot of non-jewish sources (like the britannica), and very few Jewish ones which is just... why, you can clearly see these jewish sources exist, why not use them? I understand that this is meant to be lighthearted, but he compares the five books of the torah to seasons of friends, which is kinda eeeh. And added to that, his descriptor for bamidbar or numbers is "the ancient israelites wander and suffer through the wilderness" (paraphrased). First off, it was the desert, and second off this is exactly where in the torah we get all of the mitzvot and how to treat each other and hashem. This is it!! why name the book/"season" wrong?? He then continues and talks about how the themes of exile and return are common in the torah, and continue to resonate today, and yet doesn't... explain... the history of us being exiled. Instead, we take a tangent into antisemitism, specifically the plague related kind. Which... fine, I know he's got a liking for that aspect of history, but there's so much more. Of course, he also mentions that the Pope was one of the influential people who pushed back against it and... just... sigh. We're talking the catholic church here. The same catholic church WHO BLAMED JEWS FOR KILLING JESUS TILL THE NINETEEN SIXTIES. If the pope pushed back against it, it was because us jews had more value alive, not because he thought we had inherent value as people. Of course, since we're talking antisemitism, John only talks about xtian antisemitism. The "happy dhimmi" myth is alive and kicking in this video, as there is absolutely no mention of antisemitism within the non-western world. IN ADDITION, by framing the antisemitism the way he did - that the "dumb europeans" attacked the jews but their religious leaders were against it, John inadvertently erases antisemitism by non religious people, and by religious leaders. Both of which are and were alive and well.

Zionism (aka, I had to put this in here otherwise the tankies would yell at me, and I made a mess of it) And then we have this digression, which makes zero sense in the context of the story John is attempting to tell, into Zionism. There is no reason for it, and if it had to be in the video, it should have, quite frankly, gone in at the end. But that is only the start of the woes that I have to say on this section. To start, the amount of sources here are negligeble as compared to the other sections (note the numbers, all previous sources were for the other two sections)

48. Encyclopaedia Britannica | Zionism 49. University of Michigan | Zionism  50. Ben-Israel, Hedva. “Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects.” Israel Studies 8, no. 1 (2003): 91–104. 51. Ghanem, As’ad. “Israel’s Second-Class Citizens: Arabs in Israel and the Struggle for Equal Rights.” Foreign Affairs 95, no. 4 (2016): 37–42. 52. Halpern, Ben (2004) [1990]. "The Rise and Reception of Zionism in the Nineteenth Century". In Goldscheider, Calvin; Neusner, Jacob (eds.). Social Foundations of Judaism (2nd ed.). Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publ. pp. 94–113. 53. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise| Zionism: Anti-Zionism Among Jews

[copied from the source sheet]

I haven't read the sources, so I'm not going to talk about them, but the fact that only half of the sources seem to have been written by jews is... not great. At all. And then there's how John introduces and talks about the topic. John compares the themes of exile and return in the Torah and Tanakh to the narrative told by Zionists, and mentions Zionism being a political movement. All of this is correct. However, what John is very obviously missing here is the history of Jews within the land of Israel. He talks about how we wanted a state for Jews run by Jews, but doesn't explain that we wanted it in the land where we came from, a land where we have mitzvot, commandments, that are specific to it. A land that our holidays and calendar center. The fact that this is missing is one of the glaring issues in the whole video. He also mentions that Zionism views Judaism as a nationality, which is true. Judaism is viewed as a nationality in the modern sense through Zionism, but it's also a nationality, or nation, in the older sense, regardless of Zionism. In addition to that, while Zionism is the idea of having a Jewish run state for Jews, it does not preclude the existence of other, nonjewish, people in this state. Which is important for the next bit. He then adds that, quote "this is complicated for lots of geopolitical reasons, but suffice it to say, Jewish people are not the only people with roots or a current presence in the modern state of Israel." Which, I guess does mention our roots in the land, but it also completely flattens the whole story into, what feels to me, "Jews Zionists bad for wanting a state because there are other people". He then mentions the Druze and Xtian and Muslim Palestinians, which is fair but also why specifically the Druze? And if the Druze, why not also the Bedouin? Both are minority groups within Israel, and if you want to talk about minority groups, the Bedouin are equally as important for this discussion! (another friend later pointed out that the likely reason is that the pbs source John uses mentions the Druze (but as muslims, and not as their own religious group which. sigh. Druze are not Muslim), but not the Bedouin. And of course, we get a "not all jews support the zionist movement, but many do" yeah. a huge womping majority. For a reason. At the end of this section he says you can find "much much more" on the topic in the sources and I just have to raise an eyebrow, because I do not count these 6 sources as "much much more" information.

Then, finally, we're off of this ill-placed and wrongly done section, and back to actual religion things. You know. Like how John had said we'd be talking about.

The Oral Torah and the Talmud We start off strong, with an accurate description as to what exactly is the Oral Torah, and what its place within Jewish society and Judaism is. And then... John tells us that there are "two guys who started it". Huh? Who? Hillel and Shammai of course! what. so, to explain to all of you who have somehow read till here and don't know, Hillel and Shammai are just one pair in a long lineage of those who were, according to tradition, in charge of the oral torah. Even more so, they weren't the first in their generation of pairs! (this is the time known as the Zugot, or pairs). Hillel and Shammai are the seventh generation in those who lived during the time of the mishna being slowly worked on and getting codified, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the one who did all of the codification, FIVE GENERATIONS AND A TEMPLE COLLAPSE AFTER THEM. So I chose to go into the sources to figure this one out, because frankly I'm baffled. And as far as I can tell, this comes from the encyclopedia britannica (again, why) saying that Hillel and Shammai were the last of the Zugot and that they taught the Tanaim (those who ended up writing the mishna), but just. What. Why. John then continues on to explain who Hillel and Shammai are, describing them as "Shammai, the rules are rules type" and "Hillel, the gentle, caring, impossible to anger type". I just- again with the putting down of one side (the stricter side) for the not so strict side. In addition to the fact that that isn't even an accurate description. It would be more accurate to describe the divide and debate between Hillel and Shammai as realistic and unrealistic. Hillel's school of thought, also known as Beit Hillel, worked with and around torah with the understanding that those who will be following it are people, and will make mistakes and need leniency. Shammai's school of thought, known as Beit Shammai, on the other hand, wanted people to strive to following the Torah in the most idealistic way. We follow Beit Hillel nowadays because they were better at taking day-to-day realities into account, but we remember Beit Shammai's halacha because we want to be able to fulfill our mitzvot in that way, and if human life didn't get in the way, we would do so. John Green stop putting those who keep stricter (or more idealistic) halacha as "bad" challange: level impossible. John Green then says, as is correct, that at around 200ce we started writing things down, but once again, he neglects to mention why we felt we needed to shift from oral to written (the answer is the Romans wanted us no longer jewish and we had lost our Temple and were going to be expelled from our holy land again, see, that's two sentences, is that so hard to say?) John Green then correctly explains that they way the Talmud was written down was by layers upon layers, "literally circling each other" however, that's only one portion of the halachic debate, and frankly, the Talmud is definitely not the central rabbinic text today. That's the Shulchan Aruch, which is based off of the Talmud, but collates all of Halachic debate into a masterpiece of a lot of books. It, too, has the layers upon layers thing, because why waste good paper space??? There are more mistakes here, in understanding that the Talmud is The Central Halachic thing, which again - look above I corrected it. I'll also happily admit that he's correct in saying that when we refer to the torah we mean both the written and oral ones. But we still have two sections to go, and I am still as wordy as ever.

Branches of Judaism Here is where I started to go from mildly annoyed at how he treats orthodox jews, to flat out mad. See, instead of explaining the differences between branches in a neutral way, John brings up differences that will make people feel things. He gives examples of questions - can women be rabbis - which will have listeners biased towards those communities that allow it (and yes, it is an issue within orthodox communities, but guess what! these communities are also trying to work within their framework of halacha for women's equality), or "can you push an elevator button on shabbat using electricity when the law says to refrain from creating fires and sparks on that day", which is an extreme oversimplification of the whole argument and discussion about electricity on shabbat, which will lead viewers to, once again, view those who do those things as backward, strange, and weird. And trust me, there are so many other halachic questions that can be used (such as can one heat food on shabbat, considering fire and heat, or how you deal with the dietary laws of kashrut), and idk. Maybe at this point I'm nitpicking, but as an orthodox not exactly a woman, it bothers me! It alienates me from the discussion, and it's really frustrating. He comments that the options you can choose are "unwavering, flexible, or somewhere in between", which to me shows a complete lack of understanding of what the orthodox framework of working with halacha is (too long; don't have time to explain - we can't strictly disagree with stuff but we can slowly push for change that may eventually end up disagreeing with something or another). He then explains Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism. His way of explaining is, while technically correct, missing an understanding of how we different streams of Judaism practice. John describes the differences as ones of strictness vs openness, lack of change vs flexibility. In reality, the difference between the streams is one of precedence. How much weight do we put on something that was written 2000 years ago? How much weight does our current way of living have? Orthodox Judaism will answer that what was written all that time ago has significantly more weight, that they knew more about halacha than we do, to Reform halacha, which takes halachic rulings from 2000 years ago under advisement, but sees how much the world has changed, and makes the rulings accordingly. I won't touch on his specific examples, and suffice it to say that they were in line with what I said earlier about his examples. They're there to make you feel something about these strange jews he's talking about, and that something is not always particularly nice, especially to Orthodox Jews. He then mentions a few other options, which is fine (though I wish he expanded on the "people who say 'I'm Jewish' but don't identify with any particular branch" as, with everything going on, and his sorely lacking explanation in how Judaism and conversion works, may lead to people deciding to just say they're jewish). After that he says that there "are jewish atheists". Yes. There are also orthodox jewish atheists, I thought we covered the fact that Judaism prefers action over belief at the start? I'm confused as to why he felt the need to add that here near the end of the video.

Next, he talks about the different physical branches of Judaism, and mentions that due to persecution we got to many different places. Of course, he once again neglects to mention the ur-persecution, or ur-reason that we are so spread out - our expulsion from Israel, and the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora (he mentions the Diaspora by name, but not the first reason for it). It's a glaring miss, but not as glaring as what is to come. He then talks about three diasporic communities, and I quote "...unique communities emerged in each new location: Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe, Sephardic Jews in Spain and Portugal, and Beta Israel in Eithiopia". One nitpick and one incredibly important correction. Ashkenazi Jews were originally from ashkenaz, ie France and Germany and eventually got to Eastern Europe as well - the name of the general European tradition is, however, Ashkenaz. The second, and more pressing issue, is that he says that Sephardic Jews are in Spain and Portugal. Those communities haven't been there in a Hot Minute, ie since the Spanish Inquistion. They've been in the SWANA or MENA region, with some exceptions for some Dutch, American, and British Jews. I had to look at his sources, because are you kidding me. Both (all three, if we include Beta Israel) sources are from britannica. Again. My first instinct was that maybe the issue was with the source! I was wrong.

The source for Ashkenazi Judaism (emphasis mine)

Ashkenazi, member of the Jews who lived in the Rhineland valley and in neighbouring France before their migration eastward to Slavic lands (e.g., Poland, Lithuania, Russia) after the Crusades (11th–13th century) and their descendants. After the 17th-century persecutions in eastern Europe, large numbers of these Jews resettled in western Europe, where they assimilated, as they had done in eastern Europe, with other Jewish communities. In time, all Jews who had adopted the “German rite” synagogue ritual were referred to as Ashkenazim to distinguish them from Sephardic (Spanish rite) Jews. Ashkenazim differ from Sephardim in their pronunciation of Hebrew, in cultural traditions, in synagogue cantillation (chanting), in their widespread use of Yiddish (until the 20th century), and especially in synagogue liturgy. Today Ashkenazim constitute more than 80 percent of all the Jews in the world, vastly outnumbering Sephardic Jews. In the early 21st century, Ashkenazic Jews numbered about 11 million. In Israel the numbers of Ashkenazim and Sephardim are roughly equal, and the chief rabbinate has both an Ashkenazic and a Sephardic chief rabbi on equal footing. All Reform and Conservative Jewish congregations belong to the Ashkenazic tradition

As you can see, britannica does in fact mention that Ashkenazi Jews were first in the Rhineland valley (germany) and france, and later moved to Eastern Europe. I have some nitpicking on that as what I said doesn't match but regardless. Ashkenazi Jews aren't in Ashkenaz according to John, they are in Eastern Europe

The source for Sephardi Judaism (emphasis mine)

Sephardi, member or descendant of the Jews who lived in Spain and Portugal from at least the later centuries of the Roman Empire until their persecution and mass expulsion from those countries in the last decades of the 15th century. The Sephardim initially fled to North Africa and other parts of the Ottoman Empire, and many of these eventually settled in such countries as France, Holland, England, Italy, and the Balkans. Salonika (Thessaloníki) in Macedonia and the city of Amsterdam became major sites of Sephardic settlement. The transplanted Sephardim largely retained their native Judeo-Spanish language (Ladino), literature, and customs. They became noted for their cultural and intellectual achievements within the Mediterranean and northern European Jewish communities. In religious practice, the Sephardim differ from the Ashkenazim (German-rite Jews) in many ritual customs, but these reflect a difference in traditional expression rather than a difference in sect. Of the estimated 1.5 million Sephardic Jews worldwide in the early 21st century (far fewer than the Ashkenazim), the largest number were residing in the state of Israel. The chief rabbinate of Israel has both a Sephardic and an Ashkenazi chief rabbi. The designation Sephardim is frequently used to signify North African Jews and others who, though having no ancestral ties to Spain, have been influenced by Sephardic traditions, but the term Mizrahim is perhaps more properly applied.

As you can also see, the britannica also mentions that Sephardi talks about North African Jews. What is that? SWANA Jews exist? and experienced persecution? Couldn't be. Surely all Jews are actually European and are colonizers in the land of palestine (heavy sarcasm and cynicism). I've got to say, I find the fact that using where Jews ended up for Ashkenazi Jews, and where they "originated" (in quotation due to the fact that only the name originated from there) for Sephardi Jews rather disingenuous, as the story being told erases the existence of SWANA jews to an upsetting and worrying degree.

Review and Credits Almost done. Just have to get through the review. John finishes up the story with something that I have mixed feelings about. He describes Judaism as a religion, but that being Jewish doesn't require a religious identity. I find the but annoying. It's not "judaism is a religion but doesn't have to be", it's "judaism is a religion and a people, and a culture, etc etc". Judaism is older than the concept of religion, we're a people, who can also have a set of belief and behaviour, but not doing them does not preclude you from being part of the family (unless, of course, you actively leave the family but that is a nuance not for here). The rest of his review is fine in my opinion. And now, the credits, which have a list of names that don't seem to be Jewish, but I can't find that about all of them (i know at least one of the people in charge of information for either this video or the series in general is definitely not Jewish)

I don’t know how to finish this, other than… Do better, Crash Course, do better @sizzlingsandwichperfection-blog.

[kamikazeworld]

Can we talk about how amazing Shen Qingqiu actually is?? He wakes up in an unfamiliar room to an unfamiliar person talking like he knows him, and his first instinct is to play along to buy himself time to figure out the situation without endangering himself. He quickly puts it together and manages to outwardly keep his cool and assess the situation. At multiple times in the story he's forced to think quickly on his feet and he's GOOD at it, he realizes things fast, memorizes things easily, he's extremely studious and read through the entire Qing Jing library as soon as he realized where and who he was. He's quick witted and flexible with his thinking, great at problem solving, a great actor... Sure, he couldn't fool people into thinking he was the exact same as someone they had known for years, but he's great at keeping his thoughts and feelings on the inside while showing a cool, controlled, *confident* face to everyone else. Actually he's really good at genuinely taking control of situations in general, even when he IS internally screaming. Fake it til you make it WORKS for him, because even when he feels like he's faking, he is doing amazing work and showing great competense. On top of that he's very compassionate even when he doesn't necessarily want to be, and while he was given a body that had already become an immortal cultivator, he still put in a LOT of work to practice, refine and master that cultivation until it was completely natural and second nature for him to use it. And that's fucking AMAZING.

The only times his abilities fail him, really, is when he believes he already knows how something is supposed to go and thinking it's set in stone. He believes Luo Binghe must hate him, must want a harem, and that he himself isn't that important or desirable, and he believes it SO STRONGLY that he can't see past it until it's shoved directly in his face. That's the only times he truly acts like an oblivious idiot, and honestly can you blame him? Like I said, he believes those are facts set in stone, no matter how much the evidence contradicts it. The pitfall of having detailed future information of an alternate timeline, I suppose.

TL;DR: SQQ is a brilliant, quick witted, creative, intelligent and hard working man and I fucking LOVE that for him. He was the perfect candidate for filling the role of the academic peak's leader and the sect's strategist, because he shares all those same qualities with his predecessor (I'm assuming, I haven't actually read the SJ extras yet oops). The main thing setting them apart, really, is just that SY was raised to be *kind* where SJ was unfortunately raised to be cruel.

Chef's kiss, truly.

[demonvampire180writes]

I am going to make what is probably a very unpopular opinion really quick, but don't eat me.

I've noticed an uptick of people villanizing Oliver, not just for the BuckTommy of it all, but in general. While I'm not here to defend him - I don't know him outside of what mostly poorly managed "journalism" and his rarely posted on social media shows me - I do think that calling him shady, or blaming him almost entirely for Lou's departure from the show is kind of... immature? That's not exactly the right word, but it's late, and my brain no brain good.

I think I maybe just try not to assume the worst in people, that's just the type of person I am, but I hate passing judgment without having the whole story, and we'll never get that. We can go around in circles about circumstantial evidence and still never draw the right conclusion. Maybe Oliver is a total dick behind scenes, and he IS the reason BT ended prematurely. Maybe Lou was actually causing issues, or he and Oliver, or someone else on the cast or crew, didn't get along. Maybe Ryan, or Aisha, or Kenny, or Tracie, or JLH, or Peter, or Angela said some not so great things and tensions are running high.

tl;dr It's fine to speculate, but if you start going too far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, you'll end up somewhere, and someone, you probably don't want to be. It's fine to not like actors but try not to make just one of them the root cause for any and all misgivings you may have.

[charcubed]

wait I'm sorry I just got kicked in the face. There's gonna be more sherlock?

LMFAAAOOO

Okay so. Yes because real ones know that that's always been the case!!

Here's a list of some of the ancient lore quotes from Mofftiss about the 5 season arc:

"instant series commission, a guaranteed 2nd series, a cuddle, a guaranteed 3rd series, and a whispered invitation back to 'my place' (where I'll explain that really I've got a 5-series arc in mind, & a spin-off)" –Moffat, 2009 (one year before Sherlock)

"Having started off with Sherlock and John much younger men than they are usually presented, it would be rather lovely to keep going. I love the idea of them being in their 50's and still doing it." Mark Gatiss, 2013

“…we just got out of the rain and sat at the top of the [Sherlock] production bus… and we just started plotting out what we could do in the future. And we plotted out the whole of series four and five.” –Moffat, 2014

Moffat: "We've had the most sketchy discussions on what we'd do." Mark: "We have an idea for season five on a Post-it note. That's as far as we've got. Unless I'm lying?" –2016

Moffat: "Thank you for showing more patience than any other fandom in history." Mark: "Stay tuned!" 2020, celebrating the 10-year anniversary

Those are just the quotes I have on hand right now, of course, but I do enjoy trotting them out lmao.

And yeah, after s4, basically Moffat or Mark or Sue Vertue all pop up in press every now and then to essentially publicly say "yeah we'd love to make more Sherlock but it's so hard to get ahold of Benedict and Martin :/ someday!" and everyone on the internet goes "OH MY GOD SHERLOCK IS COMING BACK???" and those of us who have been here the entire time are like "yes. it's a matter of when, not if" looollll. (There was an article with quotes by Sue a few days ago so that's why everyone is discussing it again.)

Of course, quotes by the creators (who are also notorious liars) are arguably not what matters most. The biggest evidence that there will be more Sherlock is the fact that the show indicates a 5-season arc and always has. Lowest hanging fruit: "The Five Pips" of The Great Game, for example.

But! Required reading: I humbly direct you to this post by the brilliant @devoursjohnlock. It continues to be my favorite summary about what this show is doing, as a queer story that acts as a queer adaptation/interpretation of Arthur Conan Doyle's work to bring the subtext of the original stories to light as text – amongst other things. And it talks about how/why the story remains unresolved.

Aaaaand I also direct you to this post by @bisexualmindcabin explaining how/why there may be a 10 year gap before s5 – a.k.a. just like Arthur Conan Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes back 10 years after killing him, if Mofftiss wanted to recreate that, they'd possibly aim to bring the show back 10 years after "killing" it.

SO YEAH

TL;DR: THERE'S GONNA BE MORE SHERLOCK

eventually

[ayin-me-yesh]

I'm not going to reblog the post, but I am once again going to fight people who use the Roman period as the evidence that all Jews, in modern times, are colonised people and Indigenous to Palestine

like, ok... Jews established kingdoms in Palestine as far back as the Bronze Age. the kingdom of Judah was then crushed by the Neo-Babylonian Exile, and many Jews were brought eastward in the Babylonian exile.

the conquest of Alexander the Great allowed a new kingdom, of Judea, to be established with its capital in Jerusalem. but not all Jews returned from the east, and Jews under Hellenistic rule also spread westward into Hellenized Egypt and northward into the Balkans. this was the situation when Rome conquered the Judean kingdom.

during the Roman period, Jews spread further into North Africa and Europe, establishing communities throughout the Roman Empire. when Judea was eventually crushed by the Romans and its citizens expelled, there was already an extant international Jewish community. the eastern community I mentioned from the Babylonian captivity had already existed for 500 years.

when Jews were expelled from Judea, many also eventually returned. a major community was almost immediately established in Tiberias, for instance. Jews would even resettle in Jerusalem. the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled a couple hundred years after the Roman expulsion.

so we start seeing these unique and widespread Jewish communities with their own minhagim (customs) and centuries to eventually millennia-long histories in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Jews were part of established pan-ethnic groups in these regions, so, for instance, there are Amazigh Jews, Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Russian Jews, French Jews, etc.

some of these communities in Africa and Asia would also go on to be colonised by European powers, such as France and the UK. colonisers like the French made distinctions between French Jews and native North African Jews.

Jews largely share common origins from the Near East, and there were Jewish kingdoms in Palestine whose histories are part of our religious identities, but we do not belong exclusively or even generally in Palestine more than wherever we found ourselves in the world. some of us are the colonised, but generally the displaced colonised of other parts of West or Central Asia or North Africa. others of us have been colonisers in those very same regions or elsewhere.

TL;DR Jews are diverse. we have a long history and geographically vast history that encompasses but is also much more than the Biblical narrative.

"Indigenous" in a political sense is not just being from somewhere, but having a relationship with a colonising power. and with that being said, Palestinians, the people being colonised by Israel, are Indigenous to Palestine.

[shuinami]

Jess and Hobie: their defining strengths + their weaknesses

I had a thought about Hobie while I was writing, have been thinking about Jess for a while and then this post about Miguel came out and it made me kind of want to yap. I'll only talk about Hobie and Jessica here because I'm biased + Peter & Gwen have been talked about a lot + I linked a post about Miguel + Miles & Pav have simpler, more obvious flaws that basically come down to youthful naivety.

I also find it really interesting that their flaws are basically opposites, Hobie's comes from "inconsistency" whilst Jessica's comes from stubbornness. And again, both these flaws come from their greatest strengths.

TL;dr

Jess' defining strength is her resolve when it comes to fighting for what's right and tussling with destiny but it causes her to have a one-track mind, even if it comes to dedicating herself to something wrong (from being misguided).

Hobie's defining strength is his optimism (e.g. anarcho-communism) but the extreme difficulty of pursuing those ideals and the struggle against systems can bring that optimism to a breaking point, causing him to be inconsistent or, more directly, to give up.

I think people forget that Jessica's pregnancy is by design and not just a 'feature' of Jessica Drew as a character. She was deliberately chosen to be represented in this stage of her life and I think it is so important to her character, even if it's not in the traditional way that pregnancy is typically portrayed as in media.

I think her pregnancy shows the kind of person she is: most obviously, it's cold, hard evidence that she's a bamf who takes care of spidey business even while pregnant.

More importantly to me, though, there's an implication that, as her universe's one and only spidey, she has been the one to save the day and been the change she wishes to seek, effectively enough that she feels comfortable bringing a baby into the world.

Unlike someone like Peter, she does not make the choice between bringing her child to work with her or leaving them behind. She just has to do what she needs to do to make sure her kid is safe, there's no failing for her. During her pregnancy, it's always going to be a matter of life and death. Jess is well aware and, instead of shying away from action, she's just committed to not making those kinds of mistakes. To get over her losses. She's going to take charge of her own world's destiny as she has always done and she's going to make sure it's good.

Her strong allegiance to Miguel's ideas is her most glaring flaw to us as an audience because A. we're seeing things through Miles' eyes, she's standing in the way of him saving his father and B. we know that Miguel can't be right about canon events - we know they wouldn't make the movies as bleak as that.

Of course, taking a step back from our perspective, it's also a flaw because she is being antagonistic to a teenager as a grown adult. It might make her seem cold and harsh.

However, Jess was the one to vouch for Gwen, to take her in, even though Miguel didn't want her to and they could have left things up to the web of destiny. Jess trusts her own capabilities but she doesn't trust the world to be kind. She doesn't assume Gwen can handle things just because she can, either. On top of being sympathetic, I think her dedication to being the change she wishes to see is why she accepts Gwen as a student; she trusts that a young girl can make the world a better place too, it's not a thing where she wants to micromanage everything. She just wants to know the multiverse is in safe hands. That's her "great responsibility".

The only reason she is following the anti-Miles agenda is because Miles, as far as she and anybody else in-movie knows, is jeopardising the existence of every universe (insidiously via the holes). Maybe, in another position, say, a bright-eyed teen who mainly worried about high school and puppy love, she would be more willing to risk things, to see how it goes.

She's not in that position though. Her world that she felt confident she had the power to keep safe has been made uncertain. One day, it could just go poof, along with her baby, and she wouldn't be able to stop it in the moment. If she makes the right decision now, if she doesn't make a mistake, she can prevent it. It's understandable that she's going to do whatever it takes to prevent anomalies.

What was the canon event chosen to represent her?

Her version of the moment from "The Final Chapter".

It comes from a story that largely focuses on Peter's personal life before spiralling into action to make up for a mistake that has made Aunt May fatally ill. In the panel, Spider-Man is trapped under machinery with the cure - the thing that will absolve the mistake - just out of reach. As the lair is flooded, drowning is imminent.

Against all odds, though, Spider-Man pushes past what should have killed him and rises to the occasion, with the thoughts of saving Aunt May and refusing to have a repeat of Uncle Ben.

"I won't fail you. No matter what - I won't fail."

Jess has had to handle her own fate as well as her world's. Now that the multiverse is involved, it's not going to stop at her own universe. She has to stop this. She won't fail. As per the dialogue between her and Gwen in ATSV, she's made a mistake before (by getting too close to someone) but she tells Gwen "I got over it". Sounds so savage in the moment but she still gives Gwen a chance to make her own situation right before letting her get kicked off the team. Helping Gwen in spite of the anomaly would be a mistake if she couldn't handle this.

And when the Spot gets away and Miles enters the picture? The gloves come off. It's tempting fate at that point. Jess' no mistakes mindset pushes her to even prepare to roll up on a teenager.*

Her greatest strength is her resolve - I mean, hell, she doesn't let even pregnancy slow her down when it comes to saving the world - but it causes her to be stubborn and leads her down a misguided path.

*By the end of the film, she seems to be questioning Miguel's method, though. On top of the fact that BTSV is obviously going to end on a good note, I think Jess' fight against destiny is going to have her come around in the end as Miles is doing the same thing.

Onto Hobie:

I luv luv luv Hobie as much as everyone else, he's definitely my favourite but I feel he has his flaws too (which tend to make me love my faves more lol).

In fact, I think he says what they are when we first meet him, though they are veiled as jokes.

I find that the audience tends to position him as a perfect distillation of anarcho-communism at its best. I think the teen spideys see him in a similar light; they see him as effortlessly cool & charismatic, a wise mentor figure ("use your palms" + his play fighting with Pavitr featured him taking on the stance of a boxing trainer as Pavitr tried to punch his palms) but he's not like the adult adults - he's relatable, he's cool, he's anarchist, he's not always on their case like Jess and Miguel.

He neither calls himself a hero nor a role model... but he is the perfect hero and role model, right? He's the best! He's the only one who's looking out for Miles and, when Miles is getting chased down by the entire society, what does he do?

He... quits.

Wouldn't that perfect hero we all believe him to be swoop in with his cape, know exactly what to do and save Miles, the underdog? He can't have possibly known Miles would manage against the society and, if he knew it was possible, then why wouldn't he lend a hand? He didn't drop off the watch in Miles' dimension, he gave one to his bestie, Gwen, likely in the scenario that she wanted to quit or got booted because 'it [didn't] work out'.**

I think Hobie's major flaw is his lack of consistency, as he famously said himself.

He has a strong moral code - he believes in the right things for the right reasons... but communism and anarchy are pretty much impossible to properly/entirely employ in a system that is consumerist, capitalist and authoritarian. He riots, he fights, but it's never over. London isn't free. In my experience, people with strong moral compasses tend to have issues with themselves because they hold others to higher standards than most and hold themselves to even higher and impossible standards (think Diane from Bojack Horseman).

One of the first comic panels I encountered of Hobie was him getting real with Captain Anarchy about losing morale because, despite killing President Ozzy Osborne, the face of fascism in his dystopia, nothing changes. He wasn't able to save the world like a hero in a movie or like a proper role model. He 'failed'. When you give your everything and nothing changes, no matter how optimistic, clever or read-up on theory you are, it can be hard to keep going.

And what is chosen as his defining canon event?

His version of Spider-Man quitting in "Spider-Man No More". Rather than being fed up with the world antagonising him as 616 is, Hobie is done with an antagonistic world.

The Hobie/Spider-Punk that has been built up externally, as far as I understand, would never give up. He'd keep raging forever and ever because that's the cool thing to do, because it's the heroic thing to do - because it's the right thing to do.

But under the mask, he's just a teenager, imperfect as any other.

He's still a Spider-Man too. Before the bite, he was another lanky black boy in racist-af, peak National Front, send-the-blacks-and-the-Asians-back, '70s England. He's a nerd, as evidenced by his ability to build such a high-tech watch, especially as a teenager who wouldn't have had access to anything like it until joining the society, meaning he had to pick it up quick. And I'm to think he didn't have any Flash-esque characters in his life? "Come out of it."

As Spider-Man with the mask on, he yells to the rooftops; as Hobie with the mask off, he mumbles and whispers. Sure he looks cool now but people don't tend to come out of the womb as Spider-Punk. On top of that, he's still so young and surely has plenty of room to grow.

I believe he joined the society in earnest, optimistic that he could help the multiverse but eventually reached his limits with actively facilitating death and trauma, with saving the multiverse not meaning freedom in his own universe, with being shackled to the web of destiny. I'm not convinced he made the watch in one day; I think he had been planning on quitting for some time and was waiting for the right moment (as he also wanted to support Gwen because friendship is important to him). That's why he tries to dissuade Miles from joining but, when he does leave, he doesn't go out in a riot, he doesn't even leave knowing that Miles has people on his side other than him. Hobie just quits.

I think his greatest strength is his optimism (his anarcho-communism & adamance about "love, joy and freedom" as per the un-permitted performance art pieces in his montage) but he's smart and he's been through shit - he isn't naive like Pavitr or Miles - the great heights of that optimism lead to intensely low lows.

**(I don't really see why or how he would have been able to predict everything that happened in the chase. I know that the watch is set to 1610 but if Hobie believed Miles would make it out of 928 and get back to 1610, would that not be things 'working out'? Or did he predict that he would get to the go-home machine but was the only one who considered that he would be sent to the place his spider came from. Why? And why wouldn't he set the watch to 42 if he knew Miles wouldn't be in 1610? I feel like the 1610 on the interface is just there to be there and that Hobie gave Gwen the watch so she could have the freedom to leave 65 if she wanted to, in the event that she quit the society because they captured Miles or because Miguel kicked her out as Jess kept warning.)

[ultraviolet-cello]

Yo what's up it's me, ya boi, [horrendous infection that knocked me down for a couple days]

Anyway I'll be catching up episodes 3 4 and 5 tomorrow/day after, but for now I just wanna do my thing with ep 6. 6&7 are possibly some of my favourite episodes in Tristamp, so I'm hyped to show off my theories/details about them.

Once again spoilers for Trimax [HEAVY spoilers in this case, we're talking about Legato and Razlo]

TL;DR there's something fucked up with Tristamp Livio and by extension Razlo, and I need more of them all the time.

@tristampparty I'm back in the game!

So a lot of these theories and details will link to episode 7 :]

So of note in this scene is (obviously) Wolfwood's weird red eyes which. Pretty cool ngl. But I do think there's something to be said about the way he pauses and carries the Punisher in this scene; there's a pretty popular theory that Wolfwood gets extremely overstimulated when he takes a vial and the way he pauses and wobbles with the Punisher here is, for me, more evidence for the list.

Also that they won't give this man a CAR. Give him a Thomas or something??? I think it speaks to the dehumanization of Wolfwood by EOM that he doesn't seem to get to use transport like a normal person - always set to wander the desert, because he can survive that! Not like a normal person, of course. Only the Punisher is inhuman enough to do that.

I'll have what he's having [I love that Nightow's wanted poster gets in the magazine despite being. Yknow, 30 $$]

I'll talk about this more when I actually get round to analyzing episode 5, but Roberto calling out Vash's not-being-human and then immediately going "well I'm not risking my life for that" is interesting because he's, well, a reporter. It speaks to his experience that he's not willing initially to chase down something that could be a big scoop. But also,,,, Vash looks like. 20. Roberto is probably about in his 30s-40s, which means he's probably heard of Vash since childhood [Since Tristamp Vash has a much longer reputation history than Trimax/98]. I really wonder what Roberto thinks of that; did the picture not come as a shock to him, or did he already know? Does part of the reason he keeps letting himself be talked into following Vash stem from a lifelong curiosity? Much to think about.

This plant HAUNTS me. Why does she have such a different tank? Used to power the Ion Cannon, maybe, but there's the possibility people adjusted it so she can better power the sandsteamer and that's,,,, There's a complicated relationship between humans and plants (obviously), but little implications like those adjustments make me go !!!! [My friend @millions-dykes has a Plant Engineer oc, Enigma, who focuses on that concept. She's very cool]

LIVIO SIGHTED. Let me get this out of the way quickly, but y'know that panel that is often cited as inspiration for Tristamp Livio's design? Yeah that's. That's Razlo.

Which is really fucking funny to me because it's foundational to Tristamp Livio - love that for him, but trimax Livio specifically does not wield Punishers, and the page that this appears on is when Razlo is getting Livio to tell him he's the strongest (Which then goes into this training flashback montage page which is Razlo-centric). Which again, extremely funny to me.

Not necessarily analysis, but something all iterations of Trigun do great at is a sense of Scale. The sandsteamer is massive, yes, but so is the desert. There's some great shots with the moons later on, which I love as well.

Wolfwood really doesn't try and keep it secret, huh? I mean, in every iteration Vash Knows[TM], but tristamp Wolfwood in particular just,,, doesn't keep the secret. I wonder what other conversations they've had, when Wolfwood realized Vash knew.

Being always able to see Wolfwood's eyes gives him a layer of emotion that I really like - Trimax Wolfwood is a little more reserved, because he's more developed, further layered into those coping mechanisms and repressions that make up his character. Tristamp Wolfwood hasn't quite had that yet, and it's reflected in his design. It's sick as hell

Time for me to be so normal about Livio and Razlo ^_^ so I've built up a bit of a study case on the differences in when Livio or Razlo are fronting [Trimax], and once you start looking into paneling and shit it's Very apparent! Which is cool! And I'm starting to build up one for Tristamp Livio, which,,, well, you'll see. Anyway take note of his movements here - slow, even footsteps and steady guns.

The mask here is. Also a red flag for something being Off. The eye moving independently suggests that either they have some Weirder Than Usual Body Stuff going on, that Trimax Livio and Razlo can do that and nobody comments on it because they're being polite or - My theory - the mask having those electrical components are embedded somewhat in Livio's face. I will explain in just a second.

Livio as a kid being so upset about his parents interests me - In Trimax, Razlo kills Livio's parents because Razlo was formed as a protective alter due to heavy childhood abuse, and Livio doesn't seem too upset by that specifically, more just being,,, alone. I wonder what happened with their parents in this specific timeline, or if Razlo just hasn't presented yet.

Now I've uh. Kinda semi-intentionally blocked out some stuff I've read in the Bible, but I do remember someone being crucified upside down. St Peter that was it! I don't remember anything else but I'm sure people more well-versed in the Bible will have some imagery to point out lol

Legato's outfit seems a touch inspired by that one July flashback in Trimax. Which, given that Tristamp is a leadup to July, is a nice touch!

Legato might be a bit protective of his hair. Can't imagine why.

On a more serious note, it makes sense for Legato to have such a protectiveness around his body and physical appearance, especially if Knives had an influence in it.

sands undertal

I really do wonder what Legato's ability is in this. Like unless they retrieved Vash's arm from the. Wherever it got sucked into when it was amuptated they can't go the 98 route. But the wire explanation of Trimax also doesn't quite seem to fit. Something new, maybe. Could be related to Plants!

I wonder if Vash here is thinking about Rollo. That Wolfwood was willing to kill Rollo out of mercy, and he's going to do it again to Livio. Except this time, Wolfwood knows Livio. Vash doesn't know Livio, but Wolfwood does and it's going to hurt Wolfwood if Vash lets him carry on with this. So he goes to save Livio, and save Wolfwood as well. Similar to Trimax, where Vash kills Legato to save Livio as a remnant of Wolfwood's memory, Vash here could be protecting Livio to protect Wolfwood.

Okay here's where my crack theories come in. So I do think that Razlo is elbowing his way into front about here, not even necessarily because Livio is getting his ass handed to him, but because of the mask. He's probably not fully There, because the progressing fighting style continues in Livio's movements, but the eye changes are. Well, it's Livio and Razlo you can never be too careful.

So Livio hits the mask here and is down for the count for. A Bit. What's important here to me is that the mask does of course have an electrical component. Now, what would that be for? Well, gathering that Livio seemingly has a bit of trouble after this (early episode 7, this is a two parter theory), that the mask is used by EOM to force a switch remotely. After the mask seemingly malfunctions, we get a lot more Razlo-esque movements and traits in episode 7 before Livio seems to come back in and have his little meltdown.

It links in with both dehumanization of neurodivergent people (In this case, a system) and the usage of Razlo and Livio by EOM. Razlo's very often portrayed as Big Scary Murder Alter by EOM for scare factor, whereas when we get a bit more into Razlo's head in the Elendira fight we see a bit more what he's actually like - protective alter groomed into assassinhood by Chapel - and lends more understanding to the character. EOM being able to force trigger a switch would be viscerally horrifying for that loss of autonomy theme in a way that speaks to many neurodivergent people. Thanks for coming to my ted talk????

[blitz0hno]

Why I'm Voting Inno Mikoto even tho He Definitely Did It

or should I say DID i-*🏏smacked*

TL;DR like many I do not believe a word John says, but I also don't think he has the entire truth. Meanwhile Mikoto's amnesia is near undoubtable. With two unreliable narrators and solid evidence of self-defense, I think we need more before declaring him guilty.

I'm here to be Mikoto's lawyer cuz John ily but you suck at it 😭

Now onto why I'm voting Inno:

Mikoto isn't lying when he says he doesn't remember murdering those people, at least not entirely. The memory is in his subconscious, but he can't even remember the faces of his victims because they were both so out of it.

I believe what we see in MeMe is safe to assume to be his first. The first mannequin smashed onscreen is this one:

That looks like a damn FNAF jumpscare lmao this tells me that his baseball hobby probably saved him from getting jumped at that train station, but it came at a heavy price.

That's where John comes in. To handle the feelings that undoubtedly came with taking a life and having to hide the evidence.

Generally in DID alter's memories fall into one of 3 categories (my observations of myself and other systems):

That event happened. These are all the details. I feel nothing about it.

That event happened and I remember everything I felt like it was seconds ago, but I couldn't tell you specifics

That event happened??

The latter two can safely be assigned to John and Bokukoto. The first one is what we're missing.

I saw someone point out how the train could symbolize that he can never go back (credit urself in the tags if u see this it was a good one) to before he killed.

That brings me to our final scene.

Remember how John split to handle the feelings of that stressor? The feeling of unsafety, pure adrenaline, and righteous anger at the attacker is a horrific thing, but once you experience it you change. In order for an alter to handle the reality of something, it must be accepted somehow. John's way of accepting it is not remembering their faces, only his expressions and actions. That's probably why he's so aggressive; constant fight-or-flight mode.

Mikoto (Bokukoto), like with whatever happened to him in early childhood to cause DID, is unable to accept these realities because doing so would shatter his world (it turns out constant fight-or-flight isn't great for your social life).

So about John's statement that he didn't know any of the victims even though he totally did, at least a little;

John is reading the room and there it is: unsafety, pure adrenaline, and righteous anger at the attacker. That's all he needs to feel to know that it's time to protect Mikoto.

That's not the face and mannerisms of a man who bashes skulls in for kicks. This shit was personal.

I can't tell if it's one or two victims in the second clip here, but I strongly believe they had something to do with his work. His subconscious is really harping on how much his boss got on him and how stressed it made him. Something happened that pushed them over the edge. You don't call your mom after you kill for fun (or maybe you do idk). You call your mom when you know you're fucked.

John initiated the second killing but I don't think he was the only one making a conscious decision. That said, I don't have enough details to condemn Mikoto to another unforgiven verdict.

So, where will we find that info? Well remember RGB Mikoto/Trikoto theory (kudos to whoever coined those too)? Well when I broke down the compartmentalization earlier I hinted that there's a strong chance that SOMEONE remembers every detail, but feels nothing and lays dormant.

Good old green Mikoto, the only one we haven't seen speak yet the one who's given us the most detail so far (via MeMe).

Even if not and Bokukoto remembers more than he's letting on/gets in contact with John, the crime itself isn't unforgivable beyond a shadow of a doubt yet even with multiple victims. His reasons are still cloudy.

Also I like him

[athena-theunicorn]

Okay, I don't usually make super long posts but I had to explain these out in detail and have people tell me I'm not crazy.

TL;DR: Why Tears of the Kingdom could be the end of the timeline (not necessarily a circle end, either), and why our theories saying Zelda was Hylia during the trailer era were right.

First order of buisness, I don't watch many theory videos. I haven't seen anyone talk about this here or on reddit, so I assume it's not a very well known thought, but I could be wrong. I could also just be spouting bullshit. The only three games I've completed have been SS, BotW, and TotK.

How is totk the end of the timeline?

Excellent question. Thus begins my tedtalk.

So, we know that Ganondorf was a Gerudo King, yes. He was esentially sealed away by Rauru because at the time they didn't have a working master sword to kill him with. Ganondorf lay in stasis in the depths of the first castle for probably many millennia. Zelda is able to tell them all of this because she's seen it all happen before, right in front of her eyes. So she is able to prepare them for war accordingly.

But since Ganondorf in this time was only sealed, it means he never died. And we don't know all exactly what Rauru's power is capable of. We don't know if, for example, bits of Ganondorf's power was able to escape and create figureheads to aid in the destruction of men named Link and Princesses named Zelda.

You heard that right. I think that Ganondorf was the first Evil Incarnate to grace the Kingdom of Hyrule. He was somehow able to reach bits of his magic and create weaker versions of himself to hopefully end or at the very least terrorize the future generations of the Kingdom he wanted so desperately. He created Demise to warn the generations of the terror he would cause. It was never a curse, but more like a promise.

It explains the (somewhat silly) health bar during the final battle. It explains why when he was disturbed for the first time in eons his was brittle, dehydrated, and weak to the Sword. Using his magic to make lesser versions of himself drained him, leaving him with a mummy. But when he finally awakened he was able to revive himself while Link was running around Hyrule looking for his Zelda.

But now that Ganondorf is vanquished once and for all with the Master Sword, I believe he is no longer able to send bits of himself out to terrorize people, thus ending the timeline for good.

Whooh. Okay.

Why is TotK Zelda actually Hylia?

This point is only slightly connected, so bare with me.

So, in Skyward Sword we know that it is explained that Hylia sent Hyrule to the sky to ward off a great evil and such. And in the Dragon Tear scenes on totk there are no sky islands, thus letting us believe this is before the islands were sent to the sky, if this is truly the first generation in a land called Hyrule.

In the final dragon tear scene ( I know, I'm sorry to bring it up, it still makes me cry too), Zelda - or the Light Dragon - is seen flying through the cloud barrier.

We aren't shown this part, but I think that hen Zelda flew above the cloud barrier, parts of the land broke off and went with her, ascending to the skys like how Skyward Sword described. Execpt Skyward Sword said that Hylia was the one to make Skyloft. But whos to say they're not one in the same?

Do you need more evidence? Well sure.

The other three known dragons (Farosh, Naydra, and Dinnral) are named after the three golden goddesses, the ones that left Hyrule in Hylia's care. Now, we don't know how these dragons came to be, if they were always there, if they're the goddesses spirits, or if they actually ate secret stones themselves. But you know who doesn't have a dragon? Hylia. And the Light Dragon has no name other than that. Because Hylia was the one to eat the secret stone, and Zelda didn't know she was Hylia herself.

Additionally, this explains why Zelda had such a hard time in Breath of the Wild reaching her powers. Because she was praying to nobody, and when she finally looked into herself for the answers she was able to finally reach that power. Hylia had nothing to do with it, and praying to her was all a lost cause anyway.

Dear god my brain hurts. But this was fun low key.

[stained-glass-idols]

Yo does anybody have any theories abt what the fuck is going on between Hylia and The Fae in LoZ????????

Like. I just. Stuff below the cut

1) fairy queen character only shows up disguised or in downfall timelines and sometimes both. In most of them she is a different person every time but

2) in wind waker the fairy queen shows up as a puppet that looks a LOT like Fi. She has an entire island as territory to herself and makes direct, almost Fae-esque comments abt Link*, which she straight up Doesn't Do in any other game (coincidentally the game that Hylia and the Golden Goddesses are the Least In lore-wise)

3) Skyward Sword, the game that Hylia is the Most in, doesn't have any fairies in it, and introduces Fi, Master Sword soul and Hylia's Hand In The World Who Looks A Fucking Lot Like The Fairy Queen's Puppets

4) Botw/Totk has Permanent Great Fairies, who can move around as they please. At this point in the timeline Hylia is clearly Present But Detatched, enough to the point where they don't overlap beyond Zelda's direct influence

5) late downfall timeline Link (original games), can turn Into a fairy, which I'm not sure specifically how this applies but considering how far into a timeline that Hylia has at least half abandoned at this point this bit is, it feels kind of significant

6) also slightly less??? Relevant but still notable in a weird way, Timeline Split happens with The Fairy Boy(OOT Link). He does all the time travelling song based things but. I just wonder if there was some Greater Fae influence. (Causing the split, opening up potential domain space in a time where your rival Isnt. A bit convenient, hm?)

TL;DR: Why is it that whenever Hylia has less influence, the Fae have more???? What's the power struggle here??????????

Idk exactly where I'm going with this, but the evidence so far points towards the Main Goddesses and The Fae having some MAJOR unspoken beef with eachother

(personally my question is who/what, lore-wise, came first; Fi or the puppet)

*romantic/flirting comments in a Fae light have some wild gd connotations you cannot convince me otherwise. She is going to steal his soul and keep it like a pet.

[blehblarghblah]

Hello, I recently read your Magic Between the Moon & Sky series, and I really like the college AU series. It's really wonderful. I want to know if there will be an opportunity to update in the future. If you don't mind, I would like to know why you Not a fan of TDP anymoreFinally, I wish you well. The novels you wrote really bring me great joy.

Ahh, it means a lot to know that you enjoyed my work! I really enjoyed writing Rayllum immensely and I loved to see that a lot of people liked it as much as I did (if not more, apparently 😅). The reason for why I dropped off TDP is kinda... strange to explain. My second oldest sister and I were big fans of the show, and as you can obviously tell from my blog, I was excited about it for a time!

But when Season 4 of The Dragon Prince was announced I was really excited about it! But at the time, my sister and I had others shows we were watching. I was also busy writing for The Most Undoing Thing at the time and didn't want to be too sidetracked with other fandoms. And then, as time went on, it kinda got away from us but we were shocked to hear that Season 5 was announced later in 2023 summer.

Now I know Season 2 and 3 had a similar time gap, for us, we were kinda worried about hearing such an immediate follow up when it felt like Season 4 just came out. Apprehensively, I looked at some reviews and such. I won't say that I haven't been influenced by what I heard, but I also know that there was good reviews and legitimate excitement too! I already read a small amount of the comic materials and books that came out in the break between Season 3 and 4, so I knew a lot of the changes to come.

And the time skip.

So, seeing a bit of a divide, my sister and I slowly just thought, "Well, we'll get around to it." But evidently, it just became something we kind of lost interest in. Season 3 was good, but there were some pacing things we weren't a fan of. For me, I enjoyed the heart of the story and the characters throughout. In the end, I was also aware of the rushed aspects of the narrative too at times.

All in all, I started to have less attachment to really wanting to watch or enjoy the media I was into, and just started focusing on MBTMS itself. Because I still liked Rayllum, and people still liked what I wrote. Though, it became an issue for me, because now I was essentially writing for a fandom I was losing interest in, which meant motivation was hard to muster.

I just felt like I was obligating myself to writing something I wasn't invested in, which made me worry that it would reflect in my writing. And the last thing I wanted, was to write something and put it out when I wasn't even happy with it. With that aside, time just kept moving on and suddenly there's 6 Seasons of this series, and I felt like it was just a lot.

The pacing of TDP has always been... strange. I understand that it's been separated into sagas as well. For MBTMS, I genuinely do wish to finish it someday. But the issue with most of MBTMS, is that it's largely set in an AU stories. And AU or not, I do my best to emulate the canon characters in their personalities and behaviours. So it's hard to do that when you haven't looked at canon material for so long nor if you're just not all too keen on getting back into it.

TL;DR: After putting it off for awhile, it got away from me and my interest slowly waned based on the overall pacing and output of the show. From the reviews and responses, I just felt less inclined to get back into it which affected my motivation to writing for MBTMS. I don't think I'll return to MBTMS, but I wish to someday.

Thanks for the ask, Anon. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm glad and pleased to know you enjoyed my stories for the time you shared with them.

Until next ask,

- Bleh

[phanchester]

just wanted to share info abt youtooz bc i've seen a lot of discourse lately. i'm actually not a youtooz fans because i don't like the eyes LMFAO but i see people accusing them of things that i'm pretty sure has been debunked

1) youtooz is a zionist company

there is no evidence for this right now!

this is the most proof that i can find. if anyone has more lmk, but a lot of people are saying on here, twitter and instagram (although admittedly less people on there) that this is a mostly baseless claim, and waters down the meaning of zionism.

2) youtooz steals art

read this thread from an independent artist who worked with them in the past!

tl;dr: youtooz creators ask for reference photos. content creators give them art without asking for permission + certain similarities. plus youtooz has apparently improved by working with other artists.

3) youtooz made nfts

no, they partnered with nft makers who commissioned them to make figurines of their stupid nft. which is not great but definitely not the same.

i actually dgaf abt youtooz i do not own any and i will never buy them simply bc they're ugly. but just wanted this to help ppl in navigating info online - if anyone provides evidence disclaiming this i will add it to this post

[emistations]

I know you're more passionate about JP Sonic, but I'm still curious: What are your thoughts on Ian Flynn's writing for English Sonic (from IDW comics, Sonic Frontiers (Ian was mostly writing the dialogue based on the premise that SEGA of America had given him for that game)) and other recent Sonic media?

For me, and many others, it may be the best writing for NA Sonic we've had in years. Yes, he isn't perfect and he's made some mistakes, but when you compare his work to the Pontac/Graff era, there's a massive improvement to be noticed. I've seen a lot of accusations being thrown at Ian when there's plenty of evidence to disprove them, and it kinda sucks to see a nice guy getting so much hate. Yes, people are allowed to not like Ian's work, but that doesn't mean they have to be jerks about it. It doesn't help that the mandates from SoA reistrict him from doing some incredible stuff.

This is just my personal thought anyway. What do you think of Ian's writing, and do you have any personal nitpicks with it? (sorry if that came off as accusatory, i'm just curious)

You're good, your question was not accusatory in the slightest! I'm personally a HUGGGGE fan of this question (and I'm glad I can answer it somewhere safe without getting dog pilled).

In full honesty, he's decent at best but that's it. He's leagues better than what we had before but if we had better options I wouldn't want him to write for the games. I can live with him writing IDW (although I have many criticism for that comic & do not consider it canon because of said criticism, even if it).

Ian's problem is that he has a good understanding of the characters, just a not good enough one. He convies their actions (in the comics) so well. But when it comes to dialogue it all falls apart. Sonic, for example, is supposed to be a static hero, the story changes around him & not the other way around. Ian has good story driven narrative, but not character driven. So characters getting philosophical out of nowhere seems unnecessary, especially when Sonic's straight to the point. And Ian has NOOOO idea how to write Amy, especially with that vague "sharing love with the world" arc she had in frontiers. It's clear there are characters he struggles with. Same goes to Eggman & how irrelevant he is.

Ian as a person is... Eh. He's kind & sweet, yes, but unprofessional. It's the fact that people don't know his role isn't that huge and start controversies because of what he makes up on the fly on his podcast, and then he asks "why did this thing happen?". He shouldn't be answering questions that will start a war and then wonder why it happened. He's a little careless in that departement.

All in all, I think he's ok at writing but has apparent flaws that people choose to ignore. I could go on in a longer post about what I didn't like in Frontiers' story to justify my point, but atm I'm too lazy haha.

Tl;dr, good writer, just not great. Would take Toyoda over him tbh.

[howlingday]

So this may sound crazy, but do you think that Lancaster and BMBLB are parallel/foils to each other?

When I look at Lancaster, both Ruby and Jaune have a lot of character depth that romance was not their top priority or part of their character dynamic. He even treated her as a person and not a kid. And that over time, they naturally develop with one another that it doesn't seem forced, and they have a better understanding of each other, that they know what the other is thinking.

For Yang and Blake (I'm not going into full detail and rant as to why those two shouldn't be together), it seems more shallow. These two didn't have great chemistry for each other. Even after the end of vol 1, Yang (in my opinion) treated Blake more like a cat than a person. This could be evident in vol 5, Yang has been Blake's partner, yet she didn't know why Blake ran away until "Weiss" had to explain it. It wasn't til vol 6 that their characters devolved to being romantic interest to one another. And besides the trauma and RWBY, they have nothing in common or share any interest

What's your opinion?

Part of me wants to argue the "romance" bit simply for the fact that Ruby's favorite genre of reading material is romance, but I do see what you mean. Jaune and Ruby were definitely more focused on their own self-improvement, albeit for very different reasons, while attending Beacon. Ruby wanted to be a huntress like the stories she'd read about and like her mom. Jaune wanted to prove himself as a huntsman just like his father and grandfather and their fathers and grandfathers. And yes, every time Jaune and Ruby talk to each other, it's as equals, though Jaune will admit that Ruby is better than him in every way. If Lancaster were endgame, it would be a fantastic showing of true friendship blossoming into something more. Although it's more likely Rosegarden will be Ruby's endgame

I will also spare the rant since it's already been said to death about the significance of Blake and Yang being the endgame ship for their characters. Instead, I'll talk about BMBLB as a ship that was "set up" to be endgame. While I firmly believe that until Volume 5 and 6 that Black Sun would be endgame, I could honestly see them working out pre-Volume 3. Their heart-to-heart in the classroom after Blake was practically killing herself to find a lead on the White Fang was a very touching moment that showed me that Yang really does care about Blake not only as a partner and team-member, but as a friend.

"I'm not asking you to stop. I just want you to take a break."

This is such a beautiful scene and perfectly demonstrates their friendship. In fact, it's, in my opinion, THE BEST BMBLB SCENE EVER! Yes, yes, the forehead touch was very cute, but it felt so out of place for characters who "aren't sure about their relationship". Sure, the "I won't run away again, I promise!" scene is very touching, but it's soured by the fact that they just committed murder and don't acknowledge that fact at all, and it stands better as an acknowledgement of Blake staying with her partner and best friend, Yang. And teaching Blake to dance was a cringey moment that, sure, it could have been a BMBLB moment if we were shown MORE THAN JUST THAT! WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE US AN EPISODE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT?!

Ahem! Excuse me.

tl;dr: Lancaster would have been a great ship if it weren't being torpedoed by Rosegarden, and BMBLB might have made more sense if more effort was put into it in the first place.