#which i guess inherently isn't a bad thing

[sauce-cat]

i've never had so much food ← women characters i like

[classicslesbianopinions]

This is so unbelievably funny. I stopped watching Ninjago ever since I moved to a place that didn’t have cable and we couldn’t afford it, like around season 2, 3, or 4 of Ninjago. And I’ve never seen or read Antigone in my life, but even if I did I would still vote for Lloyd simply bc it’s the funnier option.

But besides all that, having Lloyd’s character being diluted is a crime by Antigone people. Bc Lloyd was quite literally forced to be the green ninja. He had no say in it. It was either be the green ninja or literally die bc the world was ending from what I could remember. Bro was like 7 or 8 dude. Imagine being a literal 3rd or 4th grader and forced to decide the fate of the world itself. He was homeless and essentially abandoned by his family. Dad is evil and mom dropped him off at a boarding school. Literal snakes used him as a pawn when he thought they were his genuine family or the closest thing he had to it. He’s a kid. Like at the root of it all you have to remember he was only a kid. On top of all that, in order to be the green ninja he had to be a near adult. Like bro went from 7 or 8 to 17. He had a whole decade taken from his childhood to be the green ninja. In a whole afternoon it was just Thanos snapped away. All that time just gone. Lloyd sacrificed a whole decade to be the green ninja. You don’t understand. He is my Roman Empire.

Also Lloyd wasn’t born without fingers and still managed to save all of Ninjago. Antigone could never suck my nuts, I’m out.

i like how you're sending me the propaganda rather than the actual poll bracket blog

[unproduciblesmackdown]

fr both taylor's quants as mirrors to themself. rian Seen as so meritous and deserving and talked to and tasked with and advised and considered but apparently rian's whole thing is going "huh. wha" and having wendy's level of self-reflection (none). winston who is begrudgingly allowed to sit in his corner and ignored b/c he's undeserving so he can't really be meritous and nobody would look in that mirror b/c it's gonna be So not their reflection. while he just won't stop cassandraing and having all these insights and perception and observations nobody even asked or told him to have and is peak taylor understander and just like taylor: isn't guided by a paper-thin ego but also will take criticism / blame / mistreatment Too Much for his own good

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[murderofravens]

BLACKEST DAY

pairing: cho sangwoo x fem reader

summary: old feelings are rekindled when you encounter your father's old friend at the games.

warnings: age gap (reader is 20, sangwoo is 46) badly written smut, face slapping, slightly toxic dynamics, a smidge of some age-gap kink. lots of angst. body worship. this is a oneshot.

word count: around 5k

[feedback and reblogs are a writer's biggest motivation.]

MASTERLIST

life has a funny way of reuniting people.

when you woke up in the hall, surrounded by strangers wearing those ugly green clothes much like yourself, your first thought was— 'i should have brought someone with me.'

you were always rather wary of doing things by yourself. things seem much easier when you have a helping hand to give you advice, or to make bad decisions together.

your first shock came upon the mention of his name, taken by one of the guards.

player 218, cho sangwoo.

your eyes snapped up to the screen where you could see a clip of him getting slapped after repeatedly losing the game.

"former supervisor of team two at joy investments, embezzled money from his clients, invested it in derivatives and figures and failed. current loss, 650 million won."

you looked around frantically before you caught sight of him— handsome as ever, although visibly distraught. his shocked eyes were looking at the guards with a mix of anger and embarrassment.

you had known sangwoo since you were rather young. idolized him at one point, even. he and your father used to be some sort of business partners— which you can guess was another word for friends who gambled and hung out occasionally. most of your years went by with him acknowledging you politely, getting you chocolate everytime he came to visit, and patting your head with a proud smile whenever your parents told him about one of your achievements at school. you wanted to be like him— smart, ambitious and a hard worker.

you'd moved off for college when you were of age, and according to his mother, he had moved to the US for business purposes.

which, as you can see, didn't work out.

you don't really try to make conversation with him, don't even look at his side of the room. mainly because you're embarrassed. there are two reasons— the first being that you don't want to see the man you idolized at a place like this. and the second is personal. your last memory of him isn't something you're fond of. it still fills you with resentment and a sense of sadness— you had asked to meet up with him before you were going off to college, hoping to express your feelings. you'd developed a childish crush on him when you were growing up, and it had expanded into genuine feelings over time.

but he never showed up, and you were left sitting in the expensive restaurant all by yourself. you never revealed that to anyone, deciding to take that moment of humiliation to the grave.

the first game was terrifying, to say the least. while you could tell there was something inherently shady about the whole organization, what left you in genuine shock was the first shot that rang out through the field, killing the person who moved. you were careful about your steps then, walking forward rather meticulously, ensuring you were not a victim in whatever hellhole you've found yourself in.

splatters of blood covered your face as you almost reached the line, hiding behind another taller man. there were a mere 10 seconds left. your heart was quite literally trying to beat out of your chest, and sweat dripped down your forehead. and that's when you first made eye contact with him.

sangwoo, who was bent in half, was panting as he looked at the finish line. his gaze rose, and connected with yours— eyes immediately widening with recognition. you were frozen as you looked at him, jaw clenched and panic stricken. he looked at the timer, and the doll turned away. you quickly began running, and you saw him straighten up as the timer began nearing zero. you jumped across the finish line, and his hand grabbed you to help. you stumbled into him and the both of you fell onto the dusty ground— a mess of sweaty limbs.

you don't say a word to him as the guards guide you back to the hall. he is just as silent behind you, and you wonder if it's because he's embarrassed about being there, or if he remembered what he did to you and is reluctant to acknowledge you after.

"i didn't expect to see you here." he remarks quietly, voice grim. his head is lowered, and there's an almost disappointed look in his eyes.

the audacity.

"i could say the same about you," you shoot back dryly, sitting cross legged on the floor. he looks at you then, and your gaze challenged his.

"you've grown since i last saw you." he adds, and you scoff in response. so what? you were still bitter.

"it's just two years."

he clenches his jaw and looks away, his ears feeling hot. you've always had a problem with keeping your mouth shut, and apparently it still applies. you look up at him, eyes accusatory.

"i thought you went to the states." there's a taunting edge to your voice— rather shallow and childish on your end, but you can't help yourself. you're playing with life and death, but still you're angrier about your history with him than anything else.

"all those degrees just to scam people? i'd expect more from someone like you, mr. sangwoo—"

"you don't know what you're talking about," he shuts your words down quickly, voice firm. he's quick to change the topic, visibly agitated. "i thought you went to college. what happened to your—"

"father?" you interrupt, sitting straighter. "he got scammed."

you look at him pointedly as you say the last word, and his eye twitches.

"he gambled away his money on some non existent race. i dont live with him anymore and i need money to continue college and pay rent. my mom doesn't know and i don't wanna worry her." you take a sharp breath, voice getting lower, "my landlady threw me out before i found the ddakji guy."

his face softens with every sentence, an expression close to pity taking over. you hate pity, so you shut it down with a glare.

"don't give me that look," you sigh with exhaustion, running a hand down your face.

"i'm sorry to hear that," he says quietly, avoiding your eyes. he blinks a few times, adjusts his glasses. he doesn't know what else to say, and he's almost glad for the interruption when the staff walks in and announces the results of the first game.

it's so sudden how people begin to beg for their lives— kneeling before the guards, pleading to be spared. it makes you feel sorry and disgusted at the same time— you can understand why they'd do so, but you can't imagine kneeling before an organisation like this in any way. you value your dignity.

when the gunshot rings out to silence the begging crowd, the guard announces the second clause of the contract: a player who refuses to play will be terminated.

your head snaps up at the sound of sangwoo's confident voice.

"clause three of the consent form—" he steps forward, "the games may be terminated upon a majority vote."

the guard nods, "that is correct."

"then," he looks around, and his eyes fall on you. he looks away, and cocks his head to the side, "let us take a vote."

you almost feel that sense of admiration for him once again— he was always smart, that you can admit. more attentive than others, better at remembering little details. he's stepping forward to directly challenge these guards while people are begging for their lives. he's brave, like he's always been.

you fall in line beside him, and he looks down at you. you give him a slight nod, before your attention is diverted to the next announcement. the staff then show the money accumulated by the deaths of the previous player— 100 million won for each. as the massive piggy bank hanging from the ceiling glows, you can feel him stiffen at the mere sight of the money.

and the voting starts. your number comes soon enough— player 420.

you don't hesitate.

this money is not more important than your life. you need to consider all your options— you're not confident that you would make it till the end. and you don't want to fucking die yet.

you press the cross, and fall into the crowd.

sangwoo's number comes a while after— and you watch him like a hawk. you know he's a smart guy who knows better than to put himself in a compromising situation. you hope he'll help you go home.

until he presses the 'O.'

you feel utterly betrayed once again and he goes to his side of the crowd, not looking at you even once. you scoff to yourself, baffled by his audacity, before redirecting your focus to the voting counter. you start hoping your side wins purely out of spite.

player 001 presses X. your side erupts into cheers and you let out a breath of relief, glancing at sangwoo who stands frozen with his head lowered.

you don't remember much after.

the car ride feels suffocating— everything is dark. there's shuffling before you feel yourself being shoved, and you let out a yelp as your bare skin hits the gravel. "ouch— fuck!"

you hear your name— and recognise the voice.

"mister sangwoo?" you gasp, and hear a pained 'yes'. you can feel a cloth wrapped around your eyes, and your hands and legs are tied. you groan, shifting and writhing on the ground, impatiently trying to free yourself. you feel teeth on the front of your wrists before your hands are released.

you sit up quickly and snatch the cloth off your eyes. you turn to sangwoo then, and quickly untie his wrists. he grunts before sitting up, and the two of you untie your legs.

"shit, it's cold—" you hiss, quickly standing up. those bastards had only left you in a plain white sports bra and underwear. he was naked as well save for a pair of white boxers. the sight makes your skin feel hot, and you take a greedy but discreet glance at his chest before rushing towards your jeans and hoodie that are tossed to the side of the road, quickly getting dressed.

you clear your throat and turn around, only to see him quickly looking away from you, his clothes still in his hands. your eyes narrow knowingly and he wordlessly gets dressed, buttoning up his white shirt.

"are we still in seoul?" you ask, and he clears his throat, adjusting his glasses before looking up towards the buildings. he nods, and you shiver slightly.

he turns to you and hesitates before moving forward to put his grey blazer over you. you raise your eyebrows in question, and he doesn't respond before checking his pockets.

"are you hungry?" he asks, and almost comically in that same moment your stomach growls. he holds back a smile, and you wrap his blazer tighter around yourself.

you rest your head against the table while you wait. you can feel it pounding, but the smell of hot ramen tempts you to raise it. he takes a seat beside you and places the steaming bowl in front of you.

"do you have the money for this?" you cant help but ask.

"dont worry about it," he says with a wave of his hand, bringing out his chopsticks to eat. you decide to leave the job of worrying to him and get to eating.

you're a rather slow eater, and he doesn't complain. he steps out of the store, and you can see his back as he takes out a cigarette. you slurp up the rest of your food and follow him out.

"i don't feel that cold anymore," you hand him his blazer, and he turns to look at you. you're thankful about your self control, because he is a sight. so devilishly handsome even after witnessing such horrors— his cigarette teasingly hanging off his lips, the smoke wafting up and making his eyes squint just a little. his glasses make him look so much more sophisticated, or perhaps you have a thing for nerdy looking men. you're not a smoker, but he makes it look so good. if you were a weaker woman, you would've gasped. no wonder half of your childhood went by with that barely disguised crush on him— no wonder no guy your age back in college seemed good enough.

you clear your throat, bring yourself back to earth and continue. "you can have it. thank you."

he takes the blazer with a nod and puts it on. takes another puff of the cigarette, and watches you look around.

"i thought you'd come back with an american wife." you almost cringe at your own words. but conversation is conversation, you don't know how else to start. it's a discreet way to find out his relationship status, if any.

"marriage is the last thing on my mind." he responds quietly, taking a puff. you look at the side of his face, and his eyes stare at the road in front of him— thoughtful. you wonder what he's thinking about.

"where will you go?" he asks without looking at you.

you shrug, "i don't know."

"do you have any money?"

you pause, suddenly feeling a sense of dread. you have no money, and what little you got from the ddakji guy, you spent on your rent. which got you thrown out anyway.

your silence speaks volumes. he tosses the cigarette to the floor and stomps on it. you sigh.

"i don't have any money."

"come with me," he looks at you, gaze intense and serious. "i have enough for the both of us. atleast for a few days till we can figure things out."

"why?" you cross your arms over your chest almost defensively, eyes narrowing with suspicion.

he grits his teeth as he glares at you, mouth twitching. he looks away then, tonguing the inside of his cheek before returning your gaze. "you have nowhere else to go. it wouldn't be responsible to leave you alone like this."

you almost scoff— the words on the tip of your tongue. but you were okay with leaving me alone back then? but you don't say it, not yet, because you could use his financial help right now. you sigh, before nodding, and gesturing forward.

"fine, lead the way."

the motel he takes you to looks respectable enough. you look around, eyeing the plain decor. the man behind the counter looks at the two of you, and then gives sangwoo a toothy grin, which immediately alerts you.

"only one room available."

sangwoo doesn't protest. he doesn't have the finances to get two separate rooms either. he opens the room and you go in first, looking around. there's a single bed and some flashy lights, and it makes you roll your eyes. you turn around to settle him with a pointed look.

"it's better than i thought," he grunts, taking his blazer off as he takes in the scene. he steps forward and drags a finger down the side table, examines the dust it leaves on his skin with mild disgust.

you bite your lower lip as you watch him— his shirt stretching across his chest, his hair falling messily across his forehead. his glasses resting delicately on the bridge of his nose.

fucking nerd.

his gaze snaps up to you and that's when you realize you'd said that out loud. you wince, looking away and he straightens up, blinking innocently.

"you're still upset with me."

you cross your arms over your chest as you sit on the bed. you quirk an eyebrow, and he cocks his head to the side, eyeing you from a respectable distance.

you decide to play dumb.

"about what?"

he's not amused. he stares at you, expression serious and intense, "i didn't plan to stand you up that day."

so we're going straight to it, you think.

"then why did you?" you snap, unable to hold back the hurt from your voice, "i waited for an hour. you never came. i wanted to talk to you."

"i know." he nods. he walks up to you then, stands at the foot of the bed. "i know what you wanted to talk to me about. i was scared."

you freeze, looking at him cautiously, your heartbeat rising. "scared?"

"i knew you had feelings for me." he sighs, sitting down beside you. his voice is hushed, making the moment feel more intimate than you'd like. "i could tell that's what you wanted to talk to me about. it terrified me."

your breath feels like it's knocked out of your lungs. you swallow the lump in your throat, holding back the tears pricking in the corner of your eyes. "did anyone ever tell you that you're an asshole?"

he grunts, takes out another cigarette. he lights it up and takes a long drag— taking his time to respond.

"many people," he says, blowing some smoke through his nostrils. the sight almost makes your mouth water, but you ignore it.

"you're a dick," you shoot back dryly.

"what i am—" he points his cigarette at you, "— is too old for you. surely you didn't think it was a good idea?"

"you could've rejected me instead," you chuckle bitterly, "but you decided to leave me there to look stupid."

"you were too young." his voice is low, and his response almost makes you want to strangle him. he dusts some ash off his cigarette, adjusts his glasses, and looks at you with an intensity that makes your skin feel hot. "i couldn't keep you happy even if i wanted to."

you frown, gritting your teeth. he looks away.

"you looked at me like i hung the moon and the stars." he continues, looking ahead at the wall, gaze distant. "i couldn't maintain those expectations. we were in two completely different stages. you were meant to go to college, study well, get a good job, a boy your age—"

"stop talking like you're my father," you snap before he can finish, standing up. there's heat behind your glare and you almost laugh at his expression, "i had no expectations from you. so stop with your- your little— excuses. what's done is done, right? you've stood me up once, no need to reject me by wording it smartly. i don't wanna be with you anymore anyway."

that was a lie. you just hoped he couldn't see through your act. you're riled up because you're still affected by him, and his polite behaviour is driving you insane— you want to tear away at his walls, expose the passion he hides behind his smart guy facade. you know it because you've seen it in the way his eyes light up when he talks about his ambitions— how willing he is to cross any line to achieve what he wants. you want to butcher his self control and unleash the animal underneath, the one he's so desperate to hide. it's what made you fall for him in the first place.

he merely looks at you boredly, taking another drag of his cigarette. you snatch it off him, bring it to your own lips. he looks at you with mild shock as you take a drag, and you blow the smoke out on his face.

it all goes smoothly until you cough, and he's snatching the cigarette away again, watching you almost amusedly.

"you can't even handle a cigarette," he remarks dryly, putting it out on the bedframe. and that one line finally ticks you off. almost as if on instinct, your hand pulls back and delivers a sharp slap to his face— making it turn to the side. he snorts, adjusts his glasses again before he looks at you, unimpressed.

"you've been waiting to do that, haven't you?" he asks. your nostrils flare with anger. you can't hurt him physically— but your tongue is sharp. you'll use it.

"you're one to talk about different stages in life," you add, leaning towards him. a smirk curls upon your face, "look at you. all that ambition and experience only to end up scamming people."

out of the need to provoke him, your hand shoots out, jabbing a finger to his chest.

"how would your mother feel if she found out?"

it's a low blow, and you would be ashamed if it hadn't worked. it does its work to finally get to him. he grabs your wrist, and harshly pulls you down towards him, knocking your breath out. he shoves you on the bed and hovers over you, panting slightly. you chuckle.

"my life is hard enough," he hisses sharply, body trembling with concealed rage. his gaze drifts down to your lips before settling upon your eyes again. "do you really want to keep testing me?"

you can't help but smile smugly as you stare at him. there he is— almost on the verge of losing his composure. a few more quips and you're sure he'll crumble. it makes your skin feel tingly. your face leans up slightly, your hungry gaze drifting down to his lips. your hand reaches up, pries his glasses off his face. and then you flick his nose.

"fuck you."

the way his mouth comes crashing onto yours is animalistic. he desperately kisses you with the passion of a madman— his tongue entering your mouth and messily colliding with your own. as if to tease him, you bite his bottom lip sharply and he pulls back, eyes widening as a small trickle of blood falls down the corner of his mouth. his hand pulls back and strikes you across the face, and you can't help but laugh. your cheek stings and feels like it's burning— and you're addicted. you hope he'll do it again. you look back at him with an almost crazed look in your eyes, and you can see it finally dawn upon him that he's finally giving you exactly what you wanted.

"you're enjoying this too much, you little minx—" he hisses, grabbing your neck and kissing you again. your hands immediately reach up to his shirt, fumbling with the buttons as you try to keep up with his pace. he pulls away and tosses his shirt to the side, and you take that opportunity to use all your strength to flip the two of you around so he's the one on his back. it makes him gasp, and you look down at him with darkened eyes— a finger teasingly running down his chest, making him let out a shudder.

he's the object of all your desires for as long as you've ever known. the man of your dreams, the man that you kept comparing every single one of your college boys to. no wonder they never seemed good enough. how could they? they were no match for this beautiful man laying under you.

with a newfound vigour your head drops to his neck, licking and kissing every inch of his skin. your hungry mouth trails down his chest, breathing in the smell of him, leaving greedy bites in its wake. the sounds your actions evoke out of him are downright pornographic— soft, breathless groans that make you want to consume him entirely. his hand comes down to your head, holding you in place as you worship his body— and you moan when his fingers dig into your scalp.

your lips leave a wet trail and cherry red bites down his torso, until you reach the waistband of his pants. teasingly, you mouth at his bulge, making him hiss in return. his hips buck up slightly and you place a soft kiss to the material before leaning up to his face. his hands wrap around your waist and he flips the two of you over again, desperately tearing away at your clothes.

"i shouldn't be doing this," he mutters under his breath, talking more so to himself than you. you raise your hips and he pulls your jeans down, a throaty groan escaping him at the sight of your panties. they're almost transparent from how wet you are. he frees himself from the confines of his underwear and you watch with fascination as he holds you down with a hand on your stomach. you're panting when he's pushing them to the side and entering you immediately— making you scream from the stretch.

he clenches his jaw, squeezes his eyes shut as he buries himself to the hilt with a grunt. you choke on a pained sob, your fingers digging into his back as he grabs the side of your face.

"it hurts—" you hiss through gritted teeth, a tear running down your cheek. it burns, and he waits a second before wordlessly pulling back and thrusting again. the pain morphs into pleasure soon enough, and you whine as he falls into an easy rhythm, wrapping your legs around his waist. you whine in return, and he gives your cheek a light slap, prompting you to open your eyes. your breath hitches as he looks at you intensely— his own eyes glassy.

"not that young now am i?" you grit out with a glare, crying out as he retaliates with a harsh, pointed thrust. "y-you're my first—"

"fuck," he moans, his head dropping down to your chest. his thrusts get quicker, voice raspy and low, "don't— don't say that—"

"i always wanted you to take my virginity," you moan, throwing your head back, dragging your nails down his back. it makes him hiss, "ever since i was a—"

he slams his hand on your mouth, refusing to allow you to finish your sentence. "shut the fuck up."

he doesn't want to be reminded of the age difference between you two, even though you can tell it gets him hot. the moment his hand clasps over your mouth, you cum with a loud moan. your body trembles but he keeps going— not allowing you a moment to breathe. his eyes are full of rage as he bares his teeth in anger. you chuckle breathlessly against his hand, your eyes fluttering. he looks like an angry cat— you want to kiss him all over his face. his thrusts eventually get sloppy— he's close.

you lock your legs tightly around his waist, and he smacks you again. it surprises you this time, and he takes that opportunity to pull out, jerking himself off quickly.

"i can't afford taking risks," he grunts, clenching his jaw. you whine in response, pouting slightly, and he gives you an exasperated glare before he's cumming all over your stomach with a shaky groan.

you pant heavily as you come down from your high, and almost as if on fire— he quickly dresses himself. he pulls out a handkerchief from his blazer pocket, gently wipes off the fluids on your stomach. he just watches you on the bed— his eyes examining his handiwork. you notice his gaze lingers on your cheek. after a few minutes, he wordlessly gets up and goes to the bathroom, slamming the door behind him. you roll your eyes as you pull up your jeans too. a few moments pass, and you breathe a puff of air through your nostrils.

"are we going to talk about this?" you call out. there's no answer. you get up and rush to the bathroom door, except he's locked it. you can hear light splashing of water. you scoff in disbelief, going back to the bed. you lay on your side and grab a pillow, your lips wobbling as you go over everything that happened.

this was not how it was supposed to go. he was not supposed to seem this detached. you'd expected atleast a cuddle after sex.

you don't realize when you fall asleep. it's morning when you wake up— sunlight streaming in through the window and directly onto your face, making you wince. you stretch, look over your shoulder.

sangwoo isn't there.

you immediately go to the bathroom. it's empty, though the tub is full. you frown in confusion before turning back to the bed. there, a note on the side table has you stopping.

'i'm sorry,' it said, in his handwriting. placed along with it were a few won bills.

you sniffle as you stare at the note— the writing on it almost mocking you. you crumple it up, your fist shaking as you resist the urge to cry. suddenly, there's a knock on the door, and it makes your entire body stiffen.

a card slides from the little space under the door. the same one you remember the ddakji guy giving you. the shapes on it just look sinister now. the number on it is different this time.

your breathing gets heavy as you stare at it— your head beginning to hurt. you're sure you can hear your ears ringing.

you're alone. you wonder if leaving in the first place was a mistake. your feelings are conflicted— and worst of all, you feel used and betrayed. you're not sure if you should go back to the games. you're not sure if you could survive without any money.

sangwoo had left. you don't know where he is and you have nowhere else to go. no home, and you don't know how you would face your mother. you don't know how long the money he left you could go on.

you don't want to die. but you can't keep living like this either. you bite your bottom lip as you contemplate your options, the hurt from sangwoo's departure still lingering in your chest like a stab wound.

you pick up the card and place the call.

tags: @movienerd3000 @testdrivethv @leebyunghunswifey @nerdybarbariancupcake @neganhore @k1ra-park3r @vivdolls @wab-i @stantwicr @creativerambling @yasmim-1007 @makethemgirlsgoloco @jamiewritesfanfiction-blog @captaincarmel416 @warlabels @ferrarifinnick @smlbch @izzyyann @meheheasasa @poooopy @endlessfl4mes @selfishlittlebeing @pillowtalk6 @antiromanticbaby @sky-forts-and-burning-citadels @flow33didontsmoke

[jingyichickenwings]

This is less of a Deep Cut and more of a case of schadenfreude, but I love when various members of a creative team are messy in public about their high budget group project. Reality TV for nerds. It speaks to a profound lack of media training or fucks given. You guys realize that future employers can Google you, right? Unintentionally hilarious.

Linke and Yee were told in no uncertain terms that their season 1 storyboard was shit, so they hired Overton, who hired half a dozen actual writers, and they did basically a full overhaul. The script was objectively much better. But this was Linke's baby, and several years later you still see signs that he is Big Mad that he didn't get his way, and that he doesn't know or care about what actually became season 1 canon. I'm sorry that your Jewish stereotype villain didn't get to be a pedophile, I guess? Idk. Yes, yes, I am sure your version of Svengali is really innovative. Maybe someday, buddy.

Meanwhile they start writing season 2 in early 2020, while the season 1 air date isn't until November of 2021. So, they don't have public feedback on the script yet, just, yanno, actual writing professionals. Anyway, according to Overton, they needed to fire the non-management part of the writing team because of the pandemic?! Lmao babygirl you do your best and I respect commitment to the official PR excuse but nobody sensible believes this. Netflix writers average 110k/year, and you needed six or so from season 1. That is not a big part of the overall budget. Also, y'all could have saved money with Zoom meetings.

So the very thing that saved the season 1 script got line-itemed "because of the pandemic". That sounds like an extremely convenient excuse for Linke to be like, no, fuck you all, we are going back to Plan A, the rough draft of season 2 based on his shitty version of season 1. Honey. That ship has sailed. You already lost this argument.

So presumably some combination of Linke/Yee/Riot/Netflix was like, it's important that we have at least one actual grown adult writer on staff. So Overton gets to keep her job.

Now, I want to preface this by saying that season 2 would have been even worse without Overton. That being said, there is a reason they needed a deeper bench of writing staff. Overton and Linke over-connect with the characters Caitlyn and Jayce respectively, to a degree that they frequently forgot to evaluate how other characters would likely behave in certain situations. It led to contrivances, plot holes, etc. There is a lot I could add here but tbh go read any of the meta already out there.

In addition to the Mary Sue type behavior, Overton thought it would be Neat to make the writing more like Avengers, like multiverse time travel fuckery is a shiny beach pebble and not narrative napalm. What in the ADHD was she thinking? Even if they had the run time to world build enough for this, there was nothing in season 1 to even suggest this as an option. And let's be fucking honest, multiverse a lot of why Marvel is on a downward spiral. If Viktor can go to Build-A-Bear Workshop and 3-D print a million Jayces, why should I give a shit about his kill count? He can just be kind, rewind, and try again. Actions are decoupled from consequences.

Anyway, moving back to the topic at hand of the Arcane team. Apparently, Overton, Linke and Yee only half-wrote season 2?! Linke said something about how they "extensively collaborated with Fortiche on the story"? Which, it's not inherently a bad idea to get creative feedback from your art team, but ummm, maybe the writers and Fortiche should have worked to a point of agreement on basic story beats. Based on a lot of what Fortiche has said, the art for season 2 passive aggressively advances what they wanted the writing to be against Linke's wishes. They literally have just been straight up disagreeing with Linke and getting paid for it. Which, to be fair, I respect the sheer pettiness! Linke can't write his own damn show but wants to slow down the very expensive art team? When the actual writers that got fired "because of the pandemic" would have caught a lot of the season 2 issues?

So post airing of season 2, Overton is all about that girlboss copaganda, Linke is having multiple public meltdowns and getting fired by Riot(?), and multiple voice actors and artists at Fortiche are being like "yeah, we actually wanted something else so there are now multiple competing narratives for season 2". Which is hilarious. The way in which the show is messy is the same way in which the creators are messy. These bitches are a cautionary tale about hubris and the need to engage in team-building.

(EDIT MARCH 11: the fired rumors seem to be old/inaccurate, see comments for details)

[chantillyxlacey]

i've seen a lot of takes (i am using the word 'take' absolutely neutrally here; and i'm specifying neutrality bc i have started to see that word as having inherently negative connotations in this context and i have no idea if that's just a Me Problem but i figured specificity couldn't hurt)

okay, that got away from me, let me start again

i've seen a lot of takes about The Damsel that have to do with idealization being another kind of dehumanization and how she's Like She Is because you/TLQ are projecting a fantasy onto her and sanding away any traits that don't fit into that fantasy and rendering her into little more than a vessel for your/TLQ's wish fulfillment

and i don't necessarily think that's *wrong* either-- but i think that's also not the complete picture, and that only looking that that half of the image does kind of tend to paint TLQ in an unfairly bad light

because the thing is, in The Damsel's route, TLQ is ALSO being reduced to an archetype just as much as The Damsel herself is! The Princess becomes the quintessential fairytale fair-maiden-in-distress that exists only to be rescued by a knight-in-shining-armor; and TLQ-- if you allow them to be guided entirely by The Smitten-- becomes that quintessential fairytale knight-in-shining-armor that only exists to rescue the fair-maiden-in-distress

The Damsel says over and over, explicitly, that "I just want to make you happy!" and The Smitten in this route is equally preoccupied with making HER happy-- he even says it directly if you start deconstructing her. every other part of his identity has been subsumed to revolve entirely around her just as much as the reverse is true for her.

(speaking of the Deconstructed Damsel, i've also seen Smitten's reaction to that touted as him not caring about her agency-- but again, i always read that as him being unable to see any flaws in her rather than being pleased with the idea of her being biddable, specifically. if you halt the deconstruction his reaction is "she's ALWAYS been perfect" -- he'd think that no matter what she did or said, because his identity revolves around her the exact way that hers revolves around him/TLQ)

even the actions that lead to HEA fit into this, i think-- i read that moment as less The Smitten lashing out at her because she didn't live up to his fantasy-- it still happens even after she's said "i guess we can stay, if that's what you want"-- she's giving The Smitten what he wants, but he's still distressed because SHE'S not happy

i think it's more The Smitten feeling that HE hadn't lived up to HIS half of their shared fantasy. if she's not happy with the idea of "all we need is each other" then it must be because HE failed somehow. if she needs or wants more than him, it must be because HE is not enough.

if he was just better at playing his part, if he just offered her more, if he was just clearer about his devotion--

"if we just showed her the contents of our heart, she'd be happy"

that's not to say that what The Smitten does in HEA isn't incredibly toxic for both of them-- it definitely is, and it clearly makes both the Princess and TLQ miserable. "everything she doesn't know she wants" is a bad mindset to approach a relationship with, whether that mindset is reached through controlling selfishness or a desperation to appease (and i definitely think Smitten is motivated by the latter-- it's no coincidence that we arrive at HEA through a literal and fatal act of self mutilation)

he's definitely the antagonist of HEA, in that he is what TLQ and the Princess and the player need to overcome, but he's not a VILLAIN (which i think is most clearly illustrated in the moment where the Princess admits she's unhappy, that she's never been happy here, and his reaction is to GIVE UP instead of lash out harder)

i never got the sense that The Smitten was ever putting any blame on The Damsel-- he always considered *himself* to be the problem-- he puppeteers TLQ just as much as he does the Princess, even if we can't hear him while she can, and he asks TLQ/the player through her "isn't this enough? isn't this what you wanted?"

which in and of itself is an unhealthy way to approach a relationship-- blaming oneself for every bit of conflict or lapse in synchronicity is just as harmful as laying all the blame on the other person. there IS no blame-- sometimes people disagree or have conflicting needs or desires, and that's not anybody's "fault" because that's just how people and relationships WORK.

...can you believe i wrote out all of this when my original intention was to lay out an entirely different point about a read on The Damsel/HEA routes that wasn't about relationships at all?

OKAY!

THAT GOT AWAY FROM ME LET ME START AGAIN

so i don't think that looking at The Damsel/HEA through a lens of "what does this say about relationships and expectations and respecting other people's agency" is incorrect-- clearly i have a lot of thoughts about that lens!

but i wanted to offer another one that i haven't seen yet:

The Damsel/HEA route as a commentary on what makes a satisfying narrative

if you play out The Damsel route just single-mindedly taking actions to free her-- it's kinda dull, isn't it? like-- it's not without its charms! The Smitten is silly and entertaining and the Narrator's exaggerated pettiness is very funny! but ultimately, that's about it.

potential sources of conflict are brushed aside-- if you took the blade with you, you just drop it and it gets forgotten; the Damsel's hand slips right out of the manacle with no effort or harm; when the Narrator locks the basement door, every 'choice' you make just magically unlocks it right away. and then you're outside, what you wanted to do from the start. ...so what do we do now?

nothing, actually. the chapter ends, and there is no chapter 3. the game itself continues, but that ending feels about as substantial as the Narrator's "Good Ending" where you follow his instructions without question and accomplish his goal immediately.

if you DON'T take either of the actions that lead to one of Damsel's chapter 3's, there's very little variation in The Damsel's story-- pretty much all of it comes down to slight differences in dialogue. there's no "the princess kills you" outcome. the closest thing to an alternate end to The Damsel is if you deconstruct her-- and even then, it feels like less an "alternate route" and more like-- a cheeky acknowledgement of the lack of substance, because that isn't a bug, it's a feature!

but if you introduce conflict-- either in the more direct sense by slaying The Damsel or in the more interpersonal sense by highlighting a mis-match in her and TLQ's desires-- suddenly the story opens up! there are a bunch of new possibilities and a bunch of new outcomes, and all of them are more interesting than "you achieve your goal with trivial effort, hooray!"

Even if you wind up finishing HEA on a note that is superficially very similar to the easy end of The Damsel's route-- you leave hand in hand with her, the narrator conceding defeat, and the last image of her before TSM takes her is a warm, tender smile-- it FEELS so much more like a genuine happy ending-- even though the Princess' face is still streaked and stained from her tears. BECAUSE of that.

it's one of the most heartwarming moments in the game, and one that has made me misty eyed every time i've seen it, and it's BECAUSE of the conflict you had to go through to get there.

conflict is what drives a compelling narrative, is the takeaway. it precludes PERFECT endings, perhaps, but not happy endings-- it's what makes those imperfect happy endings feel substantial and earned.

even the dinner and the board game contribute to the idea-- the description of the food is some really lovely writing, to the point where i sat through and listened to it all again even though i knew nothing really happens during it-- but *nothing really happens during it*. it doesn't move the narrative forward-- you're just as hungry as you were when you started. it just stalls the story in place, and every time you go through it again it's less satisfying until it's outright unpleasant. the description of the meal also notably gets simpler each time, and less detailed-- there's only so much that you can say about it before you run out of things to describe.

the board game is similar-- the way that it's described the first time you play even sounds like the description of an exciting story! and then the board resets, and you do it all again just the same. and so on. the game/story stops being exciting and the wins or losses stop feeling like they mean anything-- because is conflict really conflict, is a challenge really a challenge, if you're always tracing the same path, always making moves where you already know the outcome? it becomes "a slog towards the end"

and this is how i tie the idea of "what Damsel/HEA has to say about relationships" and "what Damsel/HEA has to say about narratives" together:

ultimately, the statements can be summarized the same way "whether in a narrative or a relationship, 'perfection' is unattainable, but you wouldn't actually want it anyway"

conflict, substance, variety

in a relationship there will always be differences of opinion, differing goals etc-- variety between the members of the relationship, knowing and sharing this substantial and non-superficial information about one another, navigating the resultant conflict-- that's what allows the relationship to grow and deepen, and what allows the people in it to grow as individuals as well.

in a narrative, or in Narratives, as a whole, conflict is what makes things HAPPEN, substance makes them feel like what happens MATTERS, like something is being communicated, variety means that you're learning or considering something new-- and those are what make a narrative capable of impacting a person, of changing them, of being remembered

[myszalowska]

Here's my hot take on The Bad Batch as an AuDHD person: I do not quite like the fact that people are calling Tech neurodivergent. It's not like he can't be — he absolutely can. It's about the trope that annoys me. I am tired of autistic people being portrayed and/or seen as an ingenious man who just happen to lack social skills.

Why doesn't anybody say that, idk, Crosshair might be neurodivergent instead? For example, he has a hard time fitting in, he doesn't seem to like it when someone touches him, he demonstrates rigid thinking and he also stims (which, I must underline, does not mean that he's definitely ND).

Because he isn't as nice as Tech, I guess. Because of the said stereotypical trope. People are used to it because it's everywhere — "The Good doctor", "Young Sheldon", whatever. While calling Tech neurodivergent is not an inherently bad thing, it still perpetuates the abovementioned stereotype. And perpetuating it certainly doesn't not help anybody to take a step to true acceptance of neurodivergency.

It's okay when neurodivergent people write posts along the lines "Tech is sooo ND", but when it's the neurotypicals doing it, it kinda feels like seeing people call a villain mentally ill just because he's a villain. But that's a whole different topic.

Once again, I'm not against the idea of Tech being ND, I'm against the stereotype that just can't die.

[bogleech]

Guess I have to make a main thread about this. Someone decided to fight with me in the notes on this post just yesterday about Gaza and made select responses of mine into a callout thread here, where they say my anger towards the IDF is all a cover for antisemitism. This didn't make any sense, because they said they were also against the IDF killing civilians, and I repeatedly said that Jewish people aren't to blame for the IDF or represented by the IDF in any way, putting us supposedly both on the exact same page. What gerry leaves out of their own screenshots, and I'd actually forgotten, is that at first they came at me from an angle that I was disrespecting the victims in Gaza.

So this implies they feel gaza is being subjected to a genocide, and a pretty big one, since they're upset my language made it sound "smaller and tamer." When it becomes obvious that I do in fact consider it a serious genocide, that's when they switch over to saying that my criticism of Netanyahu or the IDF is inherently an attack on Jewish people.

Notice I never actually said "zionists" in this screenshot, even, but that I defined "regular humans" as humans who don't want to kill innocent families. That would automatically include Jewish people since they overall do not wish to kill anyone, but have in fact spent quite a lot more time trying not to get killed. I believe there may be entire books about this fact! I think there's even whole museums about it, if I'm not mistaken?!

So then they pivot to saying I'm an antisemite because I said the IDF and its supporters can "burn in hell," and they say "invoking hell" is an antisemitic dogwhistle, which is definitely news to me?!

So I tried to clarify, again, that I'm only angry at the people who are themselves killing civilians and the "pro-genocide maniacs" who defend the killing of civilians, which they responded to as if I had "lumped them in" with those. You can just see right there that I didn't make any assumption that they were a part of that at all. Thanks to their earlier comments I still thought I was speaking to someone 100% against the IDF's actions, but every time I said that the killers and their advocates alone are bad, they've framed it in some new way as me just not liking anyone Jewish. So now that you have that context:

...In a response to an ask, they finally just say they hated me to begin with and set out with the intention to "bait and sealion" me (their own words!!) into saying something they hoped would be antisemitic, which they believe was successful despite me never saying anything about Jews other than "this isn't their fault." They saw what they admittedly wanted to, so strongly, that they show me saying "this isn't the fault of Jews" as evidence that I blame Jews. But speaking of people "going mask off"

In multiple more recent posts and asks, this person appears to say that they simply do not believe the IDF is really targeting children or ambulances or relief aid, that "none of those are true," and the deliberate targeting of any children is supposedly just a conspiracy theory??? So I guess they did successfully troll me and I feel like a real gullible dumbass, because the only reason I continued responding to this person in the first place was that they said they were in fact against the ongoing massacre. Instead, these comments sound like they think the IDF is being unfairly vilified by dishonest propagandists, and that's why they hated me enough to try and fish for callout fuel. That's the nastiest fucking thing anyone's yet pulled on me about this and it's not one that I'm just going to ignore. I should have smelled a troll early on and just blocked them, but it's SO hard for me to suspect ulterior motives. I always go in thinking people mean well, and that there's just a miscommunication we can work out. I almost feel like this individual noticed that and tried to exploit it?!? Unfortunately I'm sure this kind of thing will happen again simply because I don't intend to obediently shut up about what's being done to Gaza. It's not logistically possible for the death and destruction to all just be accidental collateral damage. Don't let anybody ever fool you into thinking the IDF is the face of the Jewish community or vice-versa, just as you can't let anyone fool you into thinking Hamas represents all Palestinians. Especially don't engage this person, stop doing so if you have been, and block them.

[ckret2]

Hey is it a bad idea to skip the Axolotl arc, I really love your fic but that arc is just a lil' much for me. Idk, just asking if that would be a bad idea

Have a nice one! :)

You'll be confused by some future plot points that are dependent upon revelations made in the Axolotl arc, lemme see if I can sum up the important ones here. I'm compacting 50k+ words into one post so it'll probably leave things out.

Bill has been a ghost since the Euclidean massacre. This doesn't affect anything, it just means he had a physical body and now he's made of energy; but it surprised a lot of people so I guess it's worth mentioning.

Bill doesn't consider himself dead.

immediately after the destruction of Euclydia, Bill kidnapped a bunch of (living and undead) shapes from neighboring 2D and 1D universes and claimed they're his dimension's people.

the Axolotl arc does not explain why these shapes don't seem to be around when we see Bill's Henchmaniac era a trillion years later.

kidnapping the neighbors damaged/incinerated their dimensions.

when a universe burns, the most common element (hydrogen, 75%) colors the flames blue—like Bill's flames.

the multiverse has parallel timelines and weird dimensions like "46'\" and "M" rather than 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 because the gods had to restructure everything so Bill's Dimension 0 renovation wouldn't collapse the whole multiverse.

Dimension 0 was supposed to be a singularity, so time/space acts weird and the mindscape+landscape are collapsed into the same level of existence. You can imagine things into reality in D-0.

the grain-sized "speck" that's "all that's left" of Bill's universe actually is his entire universe, crushed into the seed of a Big Bang.

Euclydia's matter & energy are separated. Euclydia's matter is in the speck; Euclydia's energy fell into Dimension Zero.

Dimension Zero is an extension of Bill's will. The source of Bill's power is Euclydia's energy. D-0 and Bill are one entity: Dimension Zero is the anglerfish and Bill is the cute little glowing lure; or, Bill is the brain and Dimension Zero is the enormous battery. He has enough energy to set off a Big Bang.

the Axolotl arc does not explain how he did this. Only that he meant to go "up" (the third dimension) and was surprised to go "down" (the zeroth dimension).

As long as Bill contains an entire dimension's worth of energy, he needs a dimension-sized hole to exit Dimension Zero. Once the gods restructured the multiverse, Bill didn't have an exit.

D-0 is inherently unstable because there's too much energy/mass trapped in a space that isn't large enough for it. This also means there isn't enough room for Bill to Big Bang his speck.

the Axolotl is a psychopomp turned defense attorney who takes on divine legal cases that decide what afterlives souls are sent to. His long term political goal is to abolish damnation.

the Axolotl took Bill on as a pro bono client because he saw how Bill denied that his universe was dead, thought he could get this guy found not guilty with an insanity defense, and he figures if he can convince a divine court not to damn THIS dimension-destroying asshole, he can get a divine court not to damn ANYONE.

the Axolotl specifically set up his fish tank/office as an afterlife so that clients (like Bill) could request to be sent there when they die (like Bill did) so they can't be sent to another afterlife before their lawyer can reach them.

Bill's home universe didn't have a name when it was destroyed, just the serial number 2Δ. A god asked him the name of the first person to ever leave his universe, Bill said "Euclid," and thus it was posthumously named Euclydia.

Bill called Dimension Zero his "dream realm." The Axolotl arc doesn't explain when it changed to the Nightmare Realm.

Bill refused to tell the Axolotl his real Euclidean name. Instead, he said that as ruler of Dimension Zero, he should be called King Zero. The word "zero" comes from zéro -> zephirum -> صِفْر (ṣifr), which is also the root word forصِفْر (ṣifr) -> cifra -> cifre -> cipher; so he's still using that name.

VENDOR exists. THEY're a vending machine full of planets. THEY and Bill don't like each other.

I think that covers everything that might conceivably pop up again in future chapters.

[alilarew23]

if your main focus is on being in the state, you're not in the state

let's say you've decided to manifest a car, a porsche 911 carrera 4s to be specific (yes i am projecting, that badboy already has my name on it), and you've been trying the whole affirm and persist thing for a grip but "nothing is happening" so instead you decide to focus on your state. you ask yourself what the version of you with the porsche would be thinking, feeling, doing--who, when you own this porsche, would you be? you realize you'd probably be thinking something along the lines of, "i fucking love my porsche, this is the dopest car in existence," you'd be feeling like a total baddie, turnin' heads, you would, of course, be driving your porsche everywhere you went, so now, every time your desire comes to mind, you "get into the state." you think your new thoughts. you feel yourself into your imagined car and visualize people driving by in awe of your bad-assery. when you're driving your honda accord, you're telling yourself it's your porsche. you're even believing it! you do this for a couple weeks, and it feels good, persisting in the assumption that your porsche is yours, but then you start to get frustrated. "i've been in the state so consistently! still nothing! why isn't anything happening?" well here's the thing: you're seeing states as a sort of technique, a means of getting something that's not already in your possession. it's not that you're doing something wrong by imagining. it's the intention behind the imagining where you're faltering. think of it this way: if someone came to you in five minutes and said, that porsche is yours, 150 trillion percent, can't tell you how or when but just know it's a done deal and is coming to you right now via the path of least resistance, how would you feel? probably pretty stoked, grateful, relieved to not have to think about manifesting, and, along with those feelings, you'd probably be thinking, "this is so sick. i legit have a porsche coming my way simply because i decided to have a porsche. the law is wild in the best way." if you're a visual person, you'd probably also see some scenes in your mind's eye of you in your porsche bumpin' mac miller drinking your iced latte, if your brain tends toward inner conversations, you might hear your friend say how low key jealous of you they are (but also thrilled because your friends are the most supportive)...but the difference here is this is all a NATURAL BYPRODUCT of you being in the genuine state of the wish fulfilled. by genuine i mean what underlies it is ACTUAL BELIEF that you have already received your manifestation. not in the physical realm--it's fine to know your porsche is yours but still acknowledge it's on its way--but in imagination, it is already written. so, now, as you go about your days, your base state is fulfillment, and yeah, every so often you might "fall out of the state," but you'll quickly recognize you're being goofy, remind yourself the porsche is a given, and boom, you're back in. whereas before, your base state (though you probably weren't even aware of it) was a state of not having the porsche and trying to get it. which--you guessed it!--only manifests more trying. hence your frustration. so do i think it's wrong to focus on your state? goodness, no. we are always in a state. of course we want to embody the state of our fulfilled desires. but check your starting place, and make sure the belief (knowing) of having already received your manifestation is inherent in it. you'll save yourself so much time, energy, and unnecessary mental acrobatics and--a fun bonus!--your porsche will be in your driveway in a jiffy.

as always, love you/believe in you. can't wait to pass you on the highway.

xx, a

[utilitycaster]

I really appreciate your thorough breakdowns of this campaign's end, because I fell off of watching live back in summer 2023 (personal reasons), and though I kept myself pretty up-to-date with subsequent events I eventually started thinking "I'll come back when interesting things start happening" and I just never seemed to find that point. Good to know I'm far from the only one pretty displeased with how things apparently left off.

To throw in my two cents, I think you're spot-on with your impression of what kind of people those who think this was a narratively satisfying ending are. Specifically, I think it's coming from the type of people who find certain characters (I'm sure you can guess who) extremely relatable—difficult childhood, and/or early adulthood trauma, and/or were taken advantage of in grief—but refuse to acknowledge the fact that recovering from these things requires choosing to personally put in effort to do so. They want these characters to be handed a perfect happy ending, no work required, no matter what, and so when those of us who find that unsatisfactory dare to voice that opinion it's a personal attack on them saying that they don't deserve to be handed joy without working for it, because if their favorite characters can have it, so should they. (Because fiction is reflective of reality, so clearly that's what that means, I guess.) It's frustrating because I'd had high hopes for Imogen and Laudna's story in the beginning of the campaign, but there was a point where I just couldn't put up with their deliberate stagnation anymore. Definitely could have been psychologically interesting, though.

(And, just to be perfectly clear, this isn't a dig at anyone in the cast or anything—I suspect this was a case of too much ambition from previous success leading to less careful planning all around. I'm admittedly not super clear on exactly what the deal was with all the gods in the finale, though, so it's entirely possible I'm missing something major.)

Thanks! And yeah that does really feel like it in the end. Like, it is a campaign that seems to mainly be enjoyed by excuse-makers who want there to be a reason why it's right and proper to enjoy it and that criticizing it is inherently bad and wrong. Like, sorry man, if you see a post in the wild from someone you've never seen before indicating a character you relate to is stagnant and childish and your response isn't to say "well, I believe that's untrue, I'll make my own post about this" or "I don't like this so I'll block them" or "hmmmm maybe they are stagnant and childish, but they are relatable for other reasons, which are:" but instead to complain to them about how they are judging you, a random person they've never spoken to, you are the problem! You are the one feeling judged by a stranger who doesn't know you exist and who has no power to do anything beyond say something mean to you, and instead of going "wait this doesn't fucking matter" you are demanding the world bend around you to your will, and playing the victim when the world says "lmao no."

Like, again, no one is actually defending the campaign meaningfully. They're coming up with excuses why they can't or they're coming up with incorrect reasons why critique is impermissible (that fortunately no one is listening to) - that it's improv, that it's happy, that people aren't couching their posts sufficiently in This Is Only My Opinion (this is not how reviews/crit works, eg this AV Club article on the Severance premiere does not have Saloni Gajjar say "this is only my opinion" at the top because anyone who is smart enough to engage with media criticism in the first place doesn't need to be told this; there is a reason we are treating people with disdain and that's because the very act of being bothered by people phrasing criticism without This Is Only My Opinion is an immediate sign you are, in fact, not smart enough to get on this ride). It's the same with the characters. They want something to have suffered enough to be beyond criticism, and the rest of the fandom has (correctly) rejected that paradigm entirely, and they have no way to counter anything head on.

And as for Imogen and Laudna...while I think many things in the campaign were flaws that went beyond them, they certainly were at the heart of several, and I think had their relationship been a genuine slowburn - had Laudna rejected Imogen and remained mad in episode 65, as Laura outright expected - it might have been something worth our while.

I do think the bulk of...not even blame, simply responsibility, rests on Matt, and I do think it's mostly stretched thin/burnout/not realizing how this concept required much more work than past campaigns did, and again, I don't hold it against the cast (their live show in Philly this December was great, the CRF one-shot was fun, the Assassin's Creed one-shot was fun, and EXU Divergence has been stellar) but yeah it didn't work very well.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

speaking of speaking of Abuse it's like hey it's helpful to remember to not think of it like "whoa. an extreme word broken out to make people feel bad" but rather "an identification of a type of situation where an oppressive system is being continually established / maintained and something needs to be done differently to counteract / dismantle this" Just Like With approaches to other labels created for describing the external manifestations of [there is an oppressive system here] and going "someone is saying so b/c in identifying it it's also recognizing the crucial 'so something Else external needs to manifest to improve this reality' of it all, not just like 'whoa that's a big word for extreme things that we'd all definitely recognize & all definitely even be motivated to acknowledge in the first place rather than being potentially vested in it continuing without it even being a challenge to put any description of it into words to start to communicate about it'"....just like how we all totally know that [autistic people existing] is so Extreme and must be so Abnormal and we'd all Know It when we saw it, and when someone goes "i'm autistic" what matters is that people feel weird and then it's threatened that they might be obligated to do anything differently, so that person's probably exaggerating and trying to disrupt the norm, which is as good as trying to Elevate themself. kind of like when people break out the "abuse" A-word, right....always more important that no one could potentially feel bad via someone directing [and that's bad] language at them rather than asking "but like, Are they doing this thing? Are they having this effect?" which may still be answered with "no." and certainly will be if someone's committed to feeling above other people & positioned to act on it

[glitter-stained]

So in highschool we had a year with mandatory philosophy classes and I have to admit to a bit of cultural blindness because that was so important to my development of my worldview that I completely forgot philosophy isn't maths or language and has no reason to be mandatory everywhere. I say this because I had a hard shock coming in here and seeing people talk about how "it's evident and everybody knows that Bruce/Cass is right and we shouldn't be killing no matter what" -and to be clear, this isn't a criticism of Bruce or Cass or anybody who agrees with them, this is a completely understandable position that has been defended by plenty of people smarter than me over the years. (It's also not about Jason, because Jason is notoriously bad at behaving along his morals which is great in a character but bad for the debate). It's just that, there are also a whole bunch of people smarter than me who disagree and think killing a mass murderer is fine if it prevents millions of death.

The question is : are morals determined by rules that suffice themselves that actions are inherently right or wrong, or are morals determined by the intended consequence of the actions? (Deontology VS Consequentialism with the most famous subtype of consequentialism being utilitarianism). (I would like to add that there are other options and nuances here, it's a false dichotomy, but these positions are the most famous in the debate). I guess what surprised me is that the trolley dilemma is a famous meme, so I was like well if people are making jokes about the most famous debate in moral philosophy, that probably means they know what's going on with the debate.

Anyway, yes it's perfectly understandable to agree with the notion that murder is always morally condemnable but not everyone agrees with that idea. Just check out, uh, recent events.

I mean, maybe I'm understanding things wrong and people are saying this because they are so into deontology that they think it's evidently the superior option and anyone who likes utilitarianism or something else is dumb, but I also would rather assume people to be unaware than patronizing and mean so I don't prefer that hypothesis.

[drdemonprince]

Hi Devon, you’ve said in the past that you don’t mind being challenged so I guess I’m going to test that theory.

I totally agree with what you have said re trans men and cis men being Men but just arriving at that place from different routes.

You talk in your latest Insta post about women not seeing trans men as men as the problems with that.

However you in the past have talked openly about not feeling safe with cis women, and in fact have written a whole article on it. Outlining your past bad experiences with cis women. In that you clearly outlined a view that cis women specifically were more dangerous feeling to you, implying more so than trans women.

By your own account then are you not saying that you see trans women and cis woman as different and not as equal “women” because of your own experiences.

If that’s the case why can’t women differentiate between cis men and trans men and also say that they don’t feel safe with cis men because of past bad experiences but are ok with trans men because they haven’t had those same experiences.

For the record I’m a gay man so not coming at this from a defensive point of view but seeking to genuinely understand as there seems to be some possible cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy going on.

I say that with respect. I’m just wondering how you reconcile those two seemingly opposing views.

I think what you may be missing here is a differentiation between the descriptive and the prescriptive. The piece "I Don't Feel Safe Around Cis Women" is descriptive of my experience -- if you read through to the end, you'll see that I affirm that one day I hope that I will feel safe around cis women, and a lengthy exploration of the many many ways in which equating a person's identity to their safeness (or dangerousness) is unhelpful. That piece is far from an argument that cis women are categorically less safe than any other group, or a prescription that anyone's politics should be centered around the idea that cis women are uniquely dangerous. There is a very big difference between describing one's emotional feelings and making political pronouncements about how the world is or how people should be treated.

This same distinction applies in the opposite direction, too -- I think people have reasons for feeling uncomfortable or unsafe around cis men that obviously make a huge amount of sense. Frankly I don't care one way or another what somebody's feelings are. I have no intention of changing those. What I care about is a person's behavior, and the politics they advance -- and a politics that deems cis men as inherently more dangerous as individuals goes down a pretty troubling road when it's divorced from an understanding of structural power dynamics. The same thing is true of the cis woman discussion -- cis women aren't dangerous to me because they're women, or because of any innate quality to who they are; they're only more dangerous within a specific power differential. Similarly, cis men aren't all more dangerous to everyone who isn't a cis man -- we must take into account class, race, immigration status, ability level, and a number of other factors.

tldr; there's a big difference between someone feeling unsafe and someone having a politics that declares members of a group are actually inherently suspect, no matter the situation or their other positionalities.

[nothorses]

apologies if this is incoherent, i am pretty wine drunk rn- i saw you reblog that post with the quote about how "nonviolence only works if your enemy has a conscience, and the united states has none-" and i wholeheartedly i agree!

but afaik (and correct me if im wrong,) you are also staunchly against killing people as praxis, and against saying that our enemies "deserve to die-" which i also agree with.

my genuine question is: how do you reconcile those two ideas? i agree that nonviolent protests are highly ineffective and that our only way forward is through visible and disruptive resistance... but i also try to stop myself from saying things like "someone needs to just kill elon musk already" because... nobody deserves to die.

what lines do you draw irt this whole messy idea of violence and murder?

y'know, I don't think I really have reconciled those ideas, honestly. and the more I think about it, the more I think it's probably normal, and maybe even actively good, to hold these tensions and continue to try to reckon with them... without there necessarily needing to be one single, perfect answer in the end.

When I say nobody deserves to die, ever, I mean it. I also mean it when I say "the adjuster" did nothing wrong, and relish in his folk hero status. I don't think that's indicative of an inherent failing of my moral code or whatever so much as, like, the inherent complexity of reality. And I think it's important to keep asking questions about that tension, and talking about it, and being curious and open to new ideas and the increasingly complex ways in which these tensions manifest.

I think these are great questions, too! Honestly, I don't feel all that bad about joking with my friends over the murder/death of various "evil" pop and political figures. I also tend to avoid doing that here a lot of the time (though I don't always have that kind of discretion tbh). It's kind of a gut thing, personally, and if I examine that further I'm not sure if it's something I do because I know how my friends will interpret that but I'm afraid of being misunderstood by strangers, if I'm just afraid of appearing inconsistent, or if it's based in like, more calculated decisions around the responsibility of "having a platform".

I also think there's a distinction to be made between different kinds of violence. The state considers destruction of private property (esp. capital) to be a kind of violence, and frequently meets that "violence" with brutality and violence enacted upon human bodies and minds. I consider that later form of violence to be much more severe, and much more reprehensible. I do also think that seizing and destroying private property can be violence; I think it's violence when cops steal homeless people's signs and make "homeless quilts" out of them as trophies. So how are we defining violence? What kinds of violence do we accept- if any- and when? Why?

Honestly, I think cruelty is the thing I actually feel opposed to. I don't perceive smashing windows during protests to be "cruelty"; if anything, those acts come across to me like grief and love. But taking or breaking a less powerful person's things just because you can, just because hurting them makes you feel powerful and strong, is cruel. That feels like violence to me in a way the former just doesn't.

But that's super subjective and personal, tbh. I still believe murder isn't going to fix things. I absolutely believe a "violent revolution" is most likely to result in a genocide of the disabled and disenfranchised, then a power vaccuum most likely to be filled by whatever group is most well-positioned, holds the most hard power (weapons & physical strength), and is most eager to use it to seize power over others... and not in the kind of leftist utopia certain people think it will.

But do I think we can achieve progress through wholly nonviolent means? I mean, I guess that depends a lot on how we define "violence", but even then I'm not really sure.

I just keep thinking about this video:

idk.

Thank you for prompting me to think more deeply about it! I'm curious to hear yours & other folks' thoughts, too.