#<- the idea that these statements are Real and True facts of existence is deeply embedded in the western consciousness

[vigilskept]

this whole idea in both the fandom and the games themselves that being a people attached to their past & a lost civilization is a failing whereas a celebration of the present is something to strive for wrt elven & dwarven culture is something that reads as fundamentally western & liberal to me.

[philtstone]

psych reiterates its thesis statement constantly. in between the lines there's a line of obscurity. i've heard it both ways. learn how to bend. the idea of duality and paradox, 2 contradictory things being true at the same time, is embedded into every aspect of the show. it infuses the characters themselves, who all contain contradictory qualities and behaviors, and the shows premise, about a con man whos lying so he can be allowed to uncover the truth. most importantly it shapes all the shows core relationship dynamics: you think shawn and gus are opposites but really theyre the same kind of crazy. lassiter's horrible people skills need juliets unabashed and sometimes too intense friendliness. shawns the first man we see wholeheartedly respect juliets intelligence but also fundamentally disrespects that intelligence through his lie (and that doesnt negate the fact that he loves her!). the characters are only able to grow when they embrace this duality and learn how to discuss, address, and navigate it together.

shawns relationship with his dad is not separate from this. 90% of opinions i encounter on henry fall flat because people insist on either making him Worlds Best Dad or Irredeemably Monstrous. he is neither. he exists in between the lines as a 3-dimensional and complicated person who loves his son deeply but has also caused his son a lot of hurt because of his own unresolved character flaws. at the start of the show, shawn is not ready to see this. he engages with henry, and all the real damage his flaws have caused, one dimensionally. critically, though, when shawn is confronted by his dads 3-dimensionality, he decides to embrace it. slowly, and over time. but he still embraces it. let me be clear: this is value neutral. even takes that try to acknowledge both "sides" seem to miss the fact that the point is not weighing his actions against each other and deciding whether henry was a good or bad parent. the show isnt making a statement on abuse or proving that actually henry was the best ever dad this whole time and shawn was wrong to be hurt. embracing the complexity is simply the only way shawn can grow and heal as an adult. how they can both grow! theyre never going to fully put certain patterns of behavior behind them either, bc thats how parent child relationships are irl: existing in between lines, with a whole lot of mess and duality. but they are able to move forward and evolve, like every character dynamic in the show does.

also psych is a comedy so most of this is done for the bit. a masterclass of tv writing frankly. 10/10 no notes.

[ammoknightsofficial]

What’s some of your funniest characterizations to the Winter Brothers?

Posting the Diagram again for Clarity:

I'm going to include things that aren't funny on their because I want to talk about them in general. They're my favorite Cave Shadows, and also I think giving them any kind of extensive characterization is inherently kind of hilarious. In Descending Birth Order...

KYLE: I can't really call any of his added Characterization "funny", more so just an expansion on/further labeling of how he is in the game, but a few things from Least to Most Funny are... >Crippling need for Approval and Affection, which he doesn't like about himself, so he tries to bury it under 12 layers of a facade of aggression and apathy, and also just self-sabotages about it constantly. You see it the clearest with his father, though. He really looks up to Charles, and wants to be just like him. He's recently learned he wants to be better than him, though, so that's been fun to work through. >100% has Unregulated, Undiagnosed BPD, which is making the previous point way worse, and is contributing to it significantly. I say "Undiagnosed", but do not mistake that as him having an ability to get it diagnosed. Firstly, I do not think the field of Psychology exists in the Monster Hunter world in the same way it does in real life. There's not much of a DSM to consult. Secondly, the Winters family has a lot of Social Prestige, and Charles is quite occupied with Keeping Up Appearances, and has tried so hard to raise his children into Normal, Upstanding Men that he doesn't react too well to labelled aberrations from his personal idea of Normalcy. >Closeted, In-Denial Gay. You'd never guess it, but that's also making the previous things worse. This can lead to hijinks but is ultimately kind of a big gaping wound that's doing a whole lot of internal bleeding. A somewhat funny consequence of this is that he's accidentally built somewhat of a reputation of himself as a Heartbreaker, Two-Timer, and Player. He's not any of these things on purpose, really, he just keeps failing to do Conversion Therapy on himself and also failing to say "no" to girls who ask him out out of some weird, paranoid idea that if he doesn't, rumors will start circulating, and they'll Figure Him Out. Deeply funny battles with Internalized Homophobia where you kinda have to laugh or else you'll cry. >Demiromantic. It keeps getting worse. Dear God, the constant dates with random girls keeps getting worse. I'm AroAce myself, but I don't think the language for this even exists in the Monster Hunter world. And if it does, they're probably locked away in some deeply, deeply obscure Zines. It's, like, funny, how bad the struggling is. >Bratty Twink. Sorry, it kind of just makes a lot of things make sense. This isn't a statement on his "preferred position", mind you. He's just a Brat (Gay Definition) and a Twink. I don't think he knows what being a Brat even means. He's new to the whole "gay" thing, he doesn't have a lot of knowledge about the culture or terminology. This tends to get interpreted by the girls he's gone out with as him being a Dommy Bad Boy. Not true. He's a Brat. We love him.

CHASE: From here on, the lists aren't in any order. >Has NPD. Not a slight against him, mind you, having NPD isn't a federal fucking issue or a war crime in the way the whole Internet apparently wants everyone to think it is - I swear, bigotry against those with Cluster B Personality Disorders specifically is just fucking derangedly bad - but it is definitely a fact about him that effects the way he interacts with the world. Him and Navirou can shake hands on this. NPD Warriors. >ADHD. He just looks it. >The sense of Sibling Rivalry between the Winters is at its absolute strongest with Chase and Kyle. They've probably thrown chairs at each other before. Part of it is recognizing aspects of themselves in each other that they don't particularly like, but being dogshit at communicating this, so they just resort to arguing or violence. >Wannabe Manwhore. I say "wannabe" because he just, like, sucks at it. He's a bit more offputting to women than Kyle is, which is really funny, because Kyle is already offputting to women. This is probably because Chase is likely a bit of a misogynist. In an XBox Live Chat kind of way. >Dual Blades user. Once again, he just looks it. >This one is extremely specific, and mostly only applies literally to a Modern AU, though in standard form it's a bit more of a way to sell his vibe... He's the fucking Ghostface Thirst Trap guy. He's that guy. You know, the guys who post thirst traps of themselves with no shirt on, but a Ghostface mask on, and probably a knife in their hand? And they've got the abs to indicate they fasted for this pic for a fuckin' week or something? That guy. He's that one. I'm gonna throw him around.

WILLOW: >Obligatory Transmisogyny-Applicable Winters sibling. Nonbinary and on Estrogen about it. Likely christened as William or something, but their mom started calling them Willow as a nickname when they were a child, and they adopted it as their actual real name. Uses They/Them and gender neutral terms of address predominantly, not fond of He/Him or masculine terms of address but will endure them (not happily, mind you. It's a good way to make Willow decide to put emotional distance between you two), and She/Her or feminine terms of address is a pleasant surprise that they will not object to, but defaulting to it also won't make them happy. >Hilariously, Besties with Kendrix's Older Brother, Mateo. No one realizes this, because Kendrix and Mateo do not talk about each other often or in any clear terms. They're in a little Hunting Trio together. >Primarily a Hunting Horn user. No further notes. This was information decided upon through the fact that my friend @sssantostyle is actually playing as Willow for his playthrough of Monster Hunter Rise. It's also just fitting, I think. They look like a Hunting Horn user. >One of those people who's just fucking obsessed with the color Purple. People who have their favorite color as Purple are insane about the fact that their favorite color is Purple. It's awesome. Their second favorite color is Pink. They like pretty things. >Favors "Cute" Monsters over everything else. Kyle gained a strong appreciation for Mizutsune through Willow. >Doesn't really talk to their family much these days. Low Contact, though no one is "disallowed" from reaching out. Chase does this the least, Liam the second least. Kyle didn't reach out much until he started to understand himself more, and suddenly realized exactly what it's been like in Willow's shoes the entire time. Henry has the highest level of contact. They are besties. Will elaborate in Henry's section.

LIAM: >Probably Bisexual. I don't know his life, that's not my business. Though his method of attraction to men is probably completely identical to his attraction to women, which is really funny. He's like this:

>Another one of those "Vibe Sellers", in the same vein as Chase being the Ghostface Thirst Trap guy, but he has the energy of a guy who played Varsity Football in school. I don't have further commentary on this. You understand. >You know how Kyle's a Player on accident? Liam's a Player on purpose. He's having fun with it. He's living deliciously. Slut rights! >Most definitely Neurotypical. He just looks it. He's also aggressively Cisgender. I think he doesn't really "get" anything otherwise, but generally tries to be respectful about it. He's a bit of a Krillin. Would be soooo into the Marvel Cinematic Universe if he knew what it was. >Enjoyer of Leviathans. He just seems like a guy that can enjoy a good Leviathan. You can't beat classics like the Lagiacrus. >Primarily a Great Sword user. Again, he just looks it. Probably gives him really good shoulders. Bitches love his nice shoulders.

HENRY: >Transgressive Horror Fan. I cannot stress that enough. He's super duper into Horror in general, but he has a hardcore soft spot for Transgressive Horror. This means he not only gets saddled with the baggage that being the Eldest Son + Firstborn Child always gives you, but he's also given Family Freak baggage. This makes him quite "with it", so to speak. >Easily the closest to Willow. Willow is also something of a Black Sheep, having had some obvious gender struggles as a child, and thus resulting in not exactly being Charles' favorite kid. No one truly tried to "get" Willow, or properly show support, outside of Anastasia - their mother - and Henry. Henry genuinely did do his best to help Willow sort themselves out, and was legitimately instrumental in Willow actually being able to do so. Henry isn't equipped with terminology, nor is he good with comfort, but he does have some Horror Novels that deal heavily in matters of Gender. Think like, some Monster Hunter-y, novel equivalent to I Saw The TV Glow, or something. That. >Autistic as fuuuuuck. Holy shit. I mean, kind of a given considering the Transgressive Horror Hyperfan thing, but it's gotta be stated. This does contribute significantly to him not being very good with his words or with comfort. He just prefers to talk as little as possible because of this. >Heavy Bowgun user. Just thought it'd be funny. It's adjacent to Charles' love of Archery, but just... Not quite. It's symbolic, really. >Him and Willow have totally opposite taste in Favorite Monsters, as one could probably guess. He prefers the scary ones. You just know his favorite Elder Dragon is, like, Vaal Hazak. Henry is also likely where Kyle gets his appreciation for the Bazelgeuse. Impressionable young man.

[sad-lullabee]

🌿 Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The OG Free Spirit 🌿

Before the word "counterculture" even existed, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was living it. The man wasn’t just a philosopher—he was a revolutionary spirit, a lover of wild nature, and a challenger of every system that tried to confine the human soul. His words have echoed for centuries, inspiring anyone who’s ever dared to break free, dream bigger, or feel deeply.

🌌 “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”

This one line could be the entire manifesto for Bohemians, hippies, and anarchists alike. Rousseau saw society for what it often is—a system that tames us, molds us, and pulls us away from our true selves. To him, we’re all born wild, compassionate, and free, but society places "chains" on us, pulling us into routines and rules that leave us empty. That idea—to reject the “chains” and find authenticity—is what’s fueled every rebel spirit, every artist, and every soul who has dared to dream of a different way to live.

Because rebellion isn’t always loud. Sometimes, it’s just refusing to be anything but your truest self.

🌱 Back to Nature: Life Without the Filters

Rousseau didn’t just wax poetic about nature; he believed in it, lived it. For him, nature wasn’t just a backdrop—it was freedom. It was the raw, untouched part of us that’s not weighed down by society’s expectations. Long before communes and "back to the land" movements, he was already preaching simplicity, authenticity, and a life that wasn’t built on accumulating but experiencing.

To every hippie who sought peace in nature, to every Bohemian artist who found truth in simple beauty, Rousseau’s voice whispered: there’s freedom in the woods, in simplicity, in silence. And he reminded us that the most powerful statement is to live in a way that rejects the material and embraces the real.

"The more we fill our lives with things, the further we drift from who we truly are."

✨ Radical Individualism: The Art of Being Unapologetically You

Rousseau saw society as a system that pushes people to fit in, to act “normal,” to live by rules set by others. But he believed in the power of individualism—of refusing to be shaped by anyone else’s vision. This do-it-your-own-way philosophy was core to Bohemianism and, later, the hippie movement. Just like today’s anarchists, Rousseau wanted a world where people weren’t forced into boxes but could fully be themselves, wildly and unapologetically.

In a world that asks for conformity, Rousseau dared to ask: What if you just... didn’t? What if you lived by your own standards and let your heart be the guide? And for those who follow that path, whether artists, writers, or rebels, he’s right there with them.

💫 Emotion Over Reason: Listen to Your Heart, Not the World

In a time where logic was king, Rousseau turned around and said, Nah, I’ll take emotion. He didn’t just talk about love or art—he believed in feeling as a form of wisdom. And this was revolutionary because it called for a life that wasn’t calculated but felt. This emphasis on emotion over reason laid the foundation for Romanticism, resonating deeply with anyone who believes that true understanding doesn’t come from facts but from intuition, feeling, and raw experience.

"It is not reason that teaches us to love; it is feeling, that transports us, that elevates our souls."

To every artist, poet, and dreamer, Rousseau said it’s okay to be sensitive, to let your heart lead, to seek depth instead of definition. For the Bohemians and hippies, this was a lifestyle.

🔥 A Vision for Freedom and Community

In The Social Contract, Rousseau didn’t just dream up a society; he imagined one where people came together not because they had to, but because they wanted to. His idea of the “general will” wasn’t about obeying rulers or following orders—it was about mutual respect, creating something together without hierarchy. This became the seed for future anarchist thought and for anyone who dreams of a community without oppression.

Rousseau’s vision was radical: that people could govern themselves, make choices together, and build a world that respects each individual. He believed in communities where no one’s voice was silenced, and every heart was heard.

🌼 Rousseau’s Legacy: The Patron Saint of Every Dreamer 🌼

Rousseau wasn’t just a philosopher—he was the soul of every person who’s ever wanted something more. He is the whisper that reminds us to go back to nature, to live by feeling, and to refuse the chains. His spirit lives on in anyone who’s dared to reject the expected and seek the authentic.

Rousseau shows us that the most radical act is just to be real. 🌿

🌿✨ How to Incorporate Rousseau’s Principles into Your Life ✨🌿

1. Prioritize Simple Living and Connection with Nature 🌲

Strip back on material things and focus on nature. Grow a little garden, go for walks, or meditate outside. Find peace in the simplicity of living with less, connected to the earth.

2. Pursue Intellectual and Creative Freedom 🎨

Teach yourself what you want to know, explore art, music, or writing that’s truly yours. Join DIY art collectives, poetry readings, or any space where you can be wildly yourself.

3. Emphasize Emotional Authenticity 🌱

Value relationships that feel genuine. Share your feelings openly with those who accept you. Let go of any need to be “perfect” and embrace the beauty of being real.

4. Champion Equality and Social Justice ✊

e a voice against oppression. Join community movements, uplift marginalized voices, and support initiatives that work toward a more just world.

5. Reject Conventional Norms and Materialism 💸

Embrace minimalism in your way. Thrift, upcycle, and live within your means. Find joy in experiences, memories, and quiet pleasures instead of the pursuit of more.

6. Encourage Self-Governance and Reject Authority 🕊️

Set your own values and boundaries. Join or support mutual aid networks, volunteer, and engage in non-hierarchical spaces where people look out for each other, not for power.

[creekfiend]

Just wanted to say thanks for "people from culturally Christian backgrounds" because that seems like a good way to phrase it, and I'm going to try to remember to use it when I'm talking about this sort of thing. (I try to not be a dick to people, when possible, and trauma's messy and complicated.) I'm sorry that some people are being horrible in this whole discussion, and I hope you are doing okay.

I'm doing fine! I really sympathize with most of the people involved in this tbh (except the outright antisemites of course lol) bc like I HAVE seen a lot of reactive and reductive and unkind blanket statements about this by some jumblr people in which they are condescendingly explaining other people's realities to them. Which is my LEAST favorite thing. Jumblr can also be really... umm, dog pile-y in a way that I find frustrating and unproductive. However. I think it's also fairly obvious that most of these reactions are trauma responses, and while that isn't an excuse it is an explanation and provides additional context that I do not feel is irrelevant. For jews we have constantly been told 'well simply stop being jewish' like all the time by everybody, often at gunpoint. So like, when I see nonjewish atheists assert that stuff jews are TELLING you they have gone through "literally never happens" that ALSO REALLY SUCKS. like so so bad. Cannot overstate how much that sucks. Cannot overstate how much it sucks to see ppl I sympathize with deeply wrt their mistrust and hatred of like, organized religious authority, align themselves with people who refer to jewish atheists as "religious nationalists" for refusing to divorce themselves from their ethnic backgrounds/culture/community/traditions. That rhetoric is Just antisemitism in a form that has been used to cause real and violent harm to us in living memory.

Also really alienated by the idea that one must be This Vitriolically Angry About Religion to "count" as an atheist. Like what? That is bonkers. I do not understand why the people making seemingly reasonable posts about "actually here's some interesting writings by people from Islamic cultures or majority Hindu cultures or orthodox jewish cultures outlining the ways that the authorities in these societies have used religion to cause harm on a systemic level" (objectively true) seem to be aligning themselves with people who are doing the SAME THING TO JEWS that they resent being done to them -- e.g. condescendingly explaining to us that our negative experiences with a certain type of atheists Don't Exist or Don't Count or cannot possibly be rooted in antisemitism.

I find the whole thing depressing and troubling. I don't tend to follow jumblr because of the aforementioned issues I have w it but this backlash seems to me to be disproportionate and really hateful in a way that... combines poorly with the increased antisemitic sentiments being lobbed at jews from all ideological sides recently. I wish we could all be more congizent of 1. the role trauma is playing here for everyone and 2. the inherent lack of productive discussion that can be had when two parties are simply Trauma Responsing at each other back and forth endlessly.

Then there's the people who just get super aggressive about people "believing fake things" but I'm not sure there's any help for them. Sure wish that the nonjewish atheists who are not like that would disavow them though! I certainly am more than happy to say "acknowledging a cultural/societal dynamic that privileges one religion and culture as default and that existing in thay culture might cause people to have unexamined assumptions about other religions and cultures" should not be weaponized against individual people in order to bully them by insisting they are a thing that they manifestly are not (atheists aren't Christians. The fact that atheists from Jewish backgrounds will have Jewishness shackled to them regardless of their degree of identification with Being A Jew is actually bad and a function of antisemitism; it is not an aspirational dynamic we should be applying to other people simply because their cultural background is privileged over our own in our society.)

Like can we stop talking past each other and try to understand where people are coming from

People are expressing a lot of hurt and anger about atrocities and systems of oppression that I ultimately feel are totally interconnected. Because of this hurt and anger most people are not being precise in their language or prioritizing connecting or actual dialogue about this and instead focusing on dogpiling and gotchas. It's discouraging.

I'm a secular humanist jew with complex feelings towards both jewishness and atheism as concepts and movements. I want to understand and connect with people based on our common ground.

This is I guess all me being a big baby who is unsuited to internet fights but this one specifically feels really hurtful to me because I feel like my reality is being ignored and denied. I suspect a lot of people are also feeling that way. Which might be a good place to START the discussion to be honest.

[violexides]

to take a more... calm stance on this, i think there are a lot of double standards within the queer community that is largely caused by people becoming so invested within their own personal experiences that they cannot conceptualize the experiences of other people within their community. further i think a natural consequence of forming a community surrounding an aspect of one’s identity that some may argue was inherent to them is that we create a community where certain experiences (Western ones) are centered and other experiences (literally anywhere else) are forgotten-- this is seen in the overriding of certain terms, gatekeeping, etc. 

the reason i have stood as a radical inclusionist and will continue to align myself there is because a lot of exclusionist efforts come from this attempt to either advance the queer community in one way or reduce the problematic aspects of it, but... who are you leaving behind with this? our ancestors, definitely, but more readily forgotten are people literally from anywhere except America and Britain. like. the idea that we are starting these mass discourses over just the terminology when those specific terms aren’t even existent in other language, centering the concept of labels over people’s experiences... how do you expect that to translate? how do you expect that to stand historically? 

and to kind of loop back to the former point, something that i have been raging about for a while (and why i am trying to make this more comprehensive) is the fact that people will talk about the experiences with misandry that queer men have in this community, and then imply within their definition of in-group misandry that queer women are the oppressors. and then queer women will talk about THEIR experiences with misogyny, and then in that casually throw out there that they think gay men benefit under the patriarchy which... isn’t? how the patriarchy works? (more on this later)

like, several facts can coexist. here are a few statements that are all true and very evident within online spaces especially, as that is my audience here, but also throughout the queer community as a whole: 

lesbians who speak about lesbophobia are frequently & automatically assumed to be trans-exclusionary or misandrists, and therefore have their voices spoken over. masculine, or amab, nonbinary people are excluded from nonbinary spaces and seen as a threat. sapphic women (espec butches) are disallowed from speaking sexually about other women as they are then deemed by this to be feeding into the sexualization of women under the patriarchy. gay men are told they are disgusting and perverted for having sexual fantasies about men that veer towards the side of fetish, and thus ostracized. 

these are things that coexist and as a lesbian specifically, i will speak to the fact that recognizing (and being enraged, because i often am) about the misogyny that gay men exhibit within the queer community... doesn’t override the experiences that gay men have when being told their attraction to men is something ‘unfortunate’. (side note: i keep mentioning the patriarchy as something queer men cannot benefit from, which i recognize is somewhat controversial of a take. however, the patriarchy is a system of oppression and not something that inherently champions all men. examples of other people who suffer deeply under the patriarchy, aside from women-- who are the most direct victims, certainly-- include BIPOC men and disabled men. and yes, queer men). 

i could talk about this for a long time but i do genuinely think that the queer community lacks a lot of compassion for the experiences of others. and further i think that the online aspect of the queer community creates some of these difficulties, because some of these experiences are reduced when being actively surrounded by other queer people in real life-- but that is not always a direct possibility for people, especially right now, so it’s still important to consider the issues of the internet community and address them*. also, i think that in some respects the queer community was a little doomed when we began to create these community-wide discourses, because if you look at the people dominating these conversations, it is typically young white people from the US or from Western Europe, and it overrides a lot of the history that other groups have (ex. queer people are downright expected to know about Stonewall. how many of you know the names of any queer activists in South America btw?) 

this isn’t really meant to make people believe in anything in particular. do what you want and i ultimately cannot do much with a somewhat inarticulate and inconclusive post about the subject. i just think it’s important that people know that their experiences, and their identity, are valid and EXTREMELY important. and in that means that the experiences of others, especially people who speak different languages, or people who identify with a different gender, or people who use terms you deem ‘offensive’ -- are important, too. 

TLDR the queer community is all about fighting for our rights and protest but we keep mistaking innocuous queer people who commit the ‘cardinal sin’ of like, not being white anglophones who have your exact identity, as cops. 

*when it comes to activism, which i do not claim that this post is, it is significantly more important to consider the real world implications of these discourses and see how this touches the real life communities first and foremost. again i am just talking in a specifically online lens because there is only so much that i can convey on a tumblr post and the entire reason i was making this was because i got angry about misogyny towards lesbians and couldn’t find any posts that encapsulated that sentiment without also leaning into misandry.

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

A strange thing -- and it is a constant irritation to me -- is when you ask a question in a forum (say, the Stack Exchange Mathematics forum) and you get an answer which is just deeply wrong. "This is false, in fact," you say. "You don't know what you're talking about."

"Yes, I do," replies the question-answerer. "I am a math major, and I have studied this material."

And, okay, first of all -- that doesn't really matter. Of course they think they know what they're talking about, if they're a math major, because everyone thinks they know what they're talking about in math. Answers to basic questions get deleted all the time on Stack Exchange -- not because the people answering them don't know the answer, but because if they did know the answer, they'd realize it's an obvious, "trivial" fact. Answers that are deleted don't magically become untrue, they just become boring.

Saying "no, that answer is wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about" to someone who's told you they majored in math is a lot like telling someone "no, that answer is wrong, you are not the author of a book by that title." The problem here is that you, the reader/questioner, know something that the person, the writer/answerer, doesn't. And that difference in knowledge makes you feel like you're holding some sort of power over them.

The reason I bring this up is because I've recently been reading chapter 1 of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. (I'm not sure why I didn't read it before -- in part because it's supposed to be this incredible, revolutionary, idiosyncratic thing, and I don't have an easy time with those, but it also feels a little like . . . well, a tract. A tract is a long sermon. A tract is for people who are convinced, not for those who are trying to decide.)

In that chapter, Wittgenstein insists on a profound difference between giving a definition and giving a "rule." This distinction is not obvious to me. A rule is just a fact about the world -- like "the sky is blue" -- and it can be true or false. But to me, a definition is always a rule, usually a rule with no real-world implications. It just makes one word correspond to another. I don't really see the problem with this. You can define "sphere" however you want, but once you do that, there are things that are spheres and things that aren't, and you know it.

For instance, Wittgenstein (1.1) defines a rule as something like

(1.1) Something is a rule, if it is possible for it to happen and for it not to happen.

And he says that, if you are familiar with this rule, then you can evaluate a proposition like "Either this is a rule, or nothing is a rule." But nothing is a rule as far as you are concerned, really, if you're just going to evaluate whether or not it is a rule. No one can tell, for sure, if any proposition is a rule or not, Wittgenstein says. You can never be sure of the status of a statement like "Either this is a rule, or nothing is a rule," because what we mean by "this" and what we mean by "rule" are arbitrary, so there's no way to test whether something "happens" as a rule in a way that is guaranteed to work.

I don't think you can assert these things about definitions. They have no implications. You don't know if a definition is true or not, in the sense Wittgenstein talks about. If you know the definition of "sphere," then you know whether an object is a sphere, but there's no way to verify whether the definition itself is correct, since you have no way of testing how the things you define are actually classified by other people.

I think this is not a difference that matters -- it doesn't seem important to say that this or that sentence is a definition, as distinct from being a rule or a fact. If Wittgenstein wants to say that "spheres exist" is a rule he can say that, but if I want to say that this is the definition of "sphere," I'm fine doing that. I don't see a difference between these two things that really matters to me.

But it's something I have found myself thinking about -- and I've found myself thinking about it whenever I remember that many, many mathematicians think that postulate-based frameworks are inherently untrustworthy and that you should replace them by "just axioms." It seems to me that an axiom is a definition -- you choose your axioms, you define your terms. But many mathematicians don't like this view. They think an axiom is something that is different, a thing that is (different from) a definition, which can be true or false, and can be used to test the truth of other statements.

The problem is that the difference between the two things is entirely practical -- it is a practical difference. No one knows what an axiom is. It's totally impossible to get agreement on what an axiom is. And this is because it's not a real difference -- there is no "thing" that you can point to and say "ah, that's an axiom" and everyone will go "ah yes, I see it." Like "I see the sky" -- you can point to something you see, and someone else will say "oh, I see it," and they will know what it is, what it is for, what they can expect from it, and so on.

You can't do that with an axiom. Everyone thinks they know what an axiom is, and everyone disagrees with each other about it. You can't demonstrate to someone that some proposition is an axiom, because an axiom is just some thing and there is nothing distinctive about it, so it doesn't "make sense" to someone else that you have just shown them something that is different from everything else they know. It's the fact that these differences don't matter in practice that leads to the belief that they do. But then, if you're convinced that they do, then the difference will be real. And you will want to use it to look down on other people who don't get it, to say that they don't really know what they're talking about.

I don't really know how to end this. Wittgenstein's Tractatus fascinates me in that it makes a lot of assertions I want to disagree with and makes me feel bad about it, because I worry about missing something. But the book itself feels like a personal attack on me, in some weird way.

[cancerjupiter]

🔥 fire venus 🔥

 venus in aries

ex: lily james, rihanna, marilyn monroe, lady gaga, tyler the creator, mariah carey, audrey hepburn, rdj, freud, gigi hadid, chris martin, melanie martinez

they are driven to impress others, show them new things and new experiences. they need to excel in their chosen field and feel in charge, directing the action. however, in relationships, they’re also attracted to strong-willed people - which often leads to conflicts. if they like you, they’re very direct and spontaneous. their greatest charm is their straightforwardness in social interactions, often combined with daring humor. if things go badly, however, their mood can change to combatively defensive and oversensitive. they’re not known for subtlety, and often like violent sports. fighting is natural for them, and they admire others who fight for causes. they highly value independence and always want to be number one, no matter what. they are not very patient and are terrified of boredom.

express affection directly, impulsively, enthusiastically; in love with the honeymoon phase of relationships.

assertive and demanding, which can add difficulty to intimacy.

values independence above all, in self and others

aries venus can be fiercely proud of their romantic attachments and loved ones. they can be very emotional, but rarely would you describe them as deeply feeling. they’re not very romantically sentimental or sympathetic; they prefer to be direct and blunt. the men are self-centered and not very giving; the women aren’t very patient or stereotypically feminine. the women don’t like overly gentle or patient men, preferring them to be aggressive and “compete” with her; they’re a true contradiction and quite complex. both like “quickies” and can be almost insatiable sexually, although quite selfish.

they can be selfish in relationships since they push their own ideas about how it should go, instead of talking about it with their partner. relationships start with a BOOM but fizzle easily since aries is not known for its longevity. they’re always looking for excitement, daily. they like to be enthusiastic and positive and let no one walk over them, even if they’re not overly assertive.

venus in leo

ex: fiona apple, madonna, mj, nicole kidman, tom cruise, amy winehouse, jlaw, whitney houston, niall horan, jason momoa, dua lipa, asap rocky, hitchcock

these people do nothing halfway. when committed, they can show remarkable loyalty. the problem is that they can go to such extremes of misplaced and impractical loyalty, that it outdoes common sense of objectivity. their reactions, while warmhearted, are well calculated and not at all spontaneous. as Grant Lewi points out, “No one with Venus in Leo has ever been talked into anything”. they want to make sure the right effect and use their affections to get what they want. 

they possess sharply contrasting qualities: sincerity and generosity combined with a superior attitude towards others, and showing jealousy over others’ success. they have a huge, vulnerable ego and the merest “slight” is taken as a major offense: try leaving them on read too often or not showing up to their party. they’re very proud of their relationships and need to feel respected and admired by all. their greatest gift is probably their ability to vitalize others through their faith in them, conveying a warmth of encouragement to anyone who needs it.

express affection warmly, dramatically, playfully, and enthusiastically.

the need to be the center of attention or dominant force of a partner's life can encumber deeper intimacy.

can be extremely generous and loyal.

leo venus is rather in love with dramatic love. they crave grandeur and excitement, often staging affectionate displays or romantic situations. they have tremendous pride over their relationship and their own wonderful generous qualities (yes; they know how good they can be). although they’re easily offended by real or imagined insults, they’re quite insensitive to others’ feelings unless it’s related to the leo venus, somehow. a constant need for praise is their most tiresome feature, and they have an enormous weakness for flattery, one way they can be emotionally manipulated. at worst, they’re so self-centered they can’t relate on a simple, sincere human level and use others for self-aggrandizement. and if so, they can end up lonely, petty, and indignant.

they want to do a lot for their beloved, and make sure they enjoy every moment spent with the leo venus, and certainly don’t mind if other people notice their magnificent generosity. their own sense of identity is sometimes so tied up with their primary relationship, that they often go into crisis if things end, badly or not. they like physical demonstrations of affections, but are not very receptive on a true feeling level. they stimulate these displays of “love” in you, especially if in need of affection, but they can also drop you like a stone if they find someone who can praise them better and you’re not delivering.

their responses to love and affection are lavish, open-hearted and almost childish. the urge to spread sunshine throughout their partner’s life is genuine. flattery will get you everywhere with them, but make sure to keep this up if you intend to maintain a relationship. they can also be very sexual and give as good as they take.

venus in sagittarius

ex: joan baez, david bowie, nicki minaj, billie eilish, kendall jenner, jake gyllenhaal, jimi hendrix, jane fonda, mac miller

their reactions to life are rather happy-go-lucky and philosophical, explaining how resilient they are when confronted by the cruelty of life. some call it shallowness or avoidance of true feelings. take your pick, but it’s hard to stay mad when they disappoint. they’re often fickle and hard to please, but that’s due their chronic lack of satisfaction. they have a hard time dealing with routine, tedious reality, and facing the practical limits of life. they don’t enjoy living in the moment.

for them, there’s always room for improvement, and their philosophy of life is optimistic, always thinking a better reality exists just over the hill. they love surprises and you can expect anything from them. a need for space and freedom is essential for them: both mentally (learning, discussion, debate) and physically (activities, sports, traveling). they are also brutally honest about others’ hypocrisy or negligence, although they react to their own truth with a shrug because of their inflated self-image.

expresses affection freely, enthusiastically, generously and idealistically. motivated by an inner trust and faith in love.

tolerant and open-minded attitude toward love with a need for alignment of ideas; values honesty but may be insensitive to feelings.

sag venus wants to be hard, or at least noticed, in any social situation. and in a close relationship, the sharing of ideas and philosophical harmony is necessary for it to last. but for it to last even one evening, there has to be a common sense of humor or type of entertainment, since they can’t stand boredom and are naturally humorous people. they like exploring their relationship and often ask their partner some probing questions and enjoy teasing statements. honesty is, again, valued above all else, but they can be extremely insensitive and dismissive of others’ feelings and needs because of it. their casual remarks do real damage and reveal an irresponsible, and self-centered attitude towards love and sex.

they’re tremendously enthusiastic and unprejudiced about love and sex, and their sexuality is often not straight. they’re fun, but you can never flatter or praise them. you’ve got to earn their respect and usually glow with self-confidence to intrigue them. this venus placement is found in many who are impulsive and generous with affections; they are demonstrative, but also rather impersonal in their relationship approach, although quite charming. being a fun “pal” comes easier than being a truly intense lover; and the fact they grant their partner vast amounts of freedom reveals they like to maintain a level of personal distance, without restraint or heavy expectations. 

these people see no reason why emotions shouldn’t be followed, and usually discount the importance of material things if their partner can’t offer them (unless there’s heavy Taurus on the chart).

[vickyvicarious]

Leverage Redemption Pros/Cons List

Okay! Now that I've finally finished watching the first half of Leverage: Redemption, I thought I'd kind of sum up my overall impression. Sort of a pro/con list, except a little more just loosely structured rambles on each bullet point rather than a simple list.

This got way out of hand from what I expected so I'm going to put it all under a cut. If you want the actual bulletpoint list, here it is:

PROS

References

Continuity

Nate

Representation

Themes

New Characters

General Vibe

CONS

'Maker and Fixer'

Episode Twins

Sophie's Stagefright

Thiefsome

You might notice the pros list is longer, and that's because I do love the show! I really like most of what it does, and my gripes are fewer in number and mostly smaller in size. But they do exist and I felt like talking about them as well as the stuff I loved.

PROS

References

There is clearly so much love and respect for the original show here. Quite aside from the general situation, there's a lot of references to individual episodes or character traits from the first show. For example, Parker's comments on disliking clowns, liking puppets, disliking horses, stabbing vs. tasing people. The tasing was an ongoing thing in the original, the stabbing happened once (S1) but was referenced later in the original show, the clown thing only had a few mentions scattered across the entire original show. The puppet thing was mentioned once in S5, and the horses thing in particular was only brought up in S1 once. But they didn't miss the chance to put the nod to it in there; in fact with those alone we see a good mix of common/ongoing jokes and smaller details.

We got "dammit Hardison" and "it's a very distinctive..." but also Eliot and Parker arguing about him catering a mob wedding, and Eliot being delighted by lemon as a secret ingredient in a dish in that same episode (another reference to the mob episode). Hardison and Eliot banter about "plan M", an ongoing joke starting from the very first episode of the original show. We see Sophie bring up Hardison's accent in the Ice Job, Parker also makes reference to an early episode when describing "backlash effect" to Breanna, in an episode that also references her brother slightly if you look for it.

Heck, the last episode of these first eight makes a big deal out of nearly reproducing the iconic opening lines of the original show with Fake Nate's "we provide... an advantage." And I mean, all the "let's go steal a ___" with Harry being confused about how to use them.

Some of the lines are more obviously references to the original show, but they strike a decent balance with smaller or unspoken stuff as well, and also mix in some references between the team to events we the audience have never seen. If someone was coming into this show for the first time, they wouldn't get all the easter egg joy but most of the references would stand on their own as dialogue anyway. In general, I think they struck a good balance of restating needed context for new viewers while still having enough standalone good lines and more-fun-if-you-get-it callbacks.

Continuity

Similar to the last point, but slightly different. The characters' development from the original to now is shown so well. I'm not going to go on about this too long, but the writers clearly didn't want to let the original characters stagnate during the offscreen years. There was a lot of real thought put into how they would change or not.

It's really written well. We can see just how cohesive a team Parker, Hardison, and Eliot became. We get a sense of how they've spent their time, and there's plenty of evidence that they remained incredibly close with Sophie and Nate until this past year. The way everyone defers to Parker is different from the original show and clearly demonstrates how she's been well established as the leader for years now - they show this well even as Parker is stepping back to let Sophie take point in these episodes. Eventually that is actually called out by Sophie in the eighth episode, so we might see more mastermind Parker in the back half of the show, maybe. But even with her leading, it's clear how collaborative the team has become, with everyone bouncing ideas off one another and adding their input freely. Sometimes they even get so caught up they leave the newbies completely in the dust. But for the most part we get a good sense of how the Parker/Hardison/Eliot team worked with her having final say on plans but the others discussing everything together. A little bit more collaborative than it was with Nate at the helm.

Meanwhile Sophie has built a home and is deeply attached to it. She and Nate really did retire, at least for the most part, and she was living her happy ending until he died. She's out of practice but still as skilled as ever, and we're shown how much her grief has changed her and how concerned the others are for her.

There's a lot of emphasis on how they all look after one another and the found family is clearer than ever. Sophie even calls Hardison "his father's son" - clearly referring to Nate.

Nate

Speaking of Nate! They handled his loss so, so well. His story was the most complete at the end of the last show, and just from a narrative point, losing him makes the most sense of all the characters. But the way he dies and his impact on the show and the characters continues. It's very respectful to who he was - who he truly was.

Nate was someone they all loved, but he was a deeply flawed individual. Sophie talks about how he burned too hot, but at least he burned - possibly implying to me that his drinking was related to his death. In any case, there's no mystery to it. We don't know how he died but that's not what's most important about his death. This isn't a quest for revenge or anything... it's just a study of grief and trying to heal.

Back to who he really was real quick - the show doesn't eulogize him as better than he was. They're honest about him. From the first episode's toast they raise in his memory, to the final episode where Sophie and Eliot are deeply confused by Fake Nate singing his praises, the team knows who he was. They don't erase his flaws... but at the same time he was so clearly theirs. He was family, he was the man they trusted and loved and followed into incredibly dangerous situations, and whose loss they all still feel deeply.

That said, the show doesn't harp on this point. They reference him, but they don't overwhelm new viewers with a constant barrage of Nate talk. It always serves a purpose, primarily for Sophie's storyline of moving through her grief. Anyway, @robinasnyder said all of this way better than me here, so go read that as well.

Representation

Or should I say, Jewish Hardison, Autistic Parker, Queer Breanna!

Granted, Hardison's religion isn't quite explicitly stated to be Jewish so much as he mentions that his "Nana runs a multi-denominational household", but nonetheless. He gets the shows big thesis statement moment, he gets a beautiful speech about redemption that is the emotional cornerstone of that episode and probably Harry's entire arc throughout the show. And while I'm not Jewish myself, most of what I've seen from Jewish fans is saying that Hardison's words here were excellent representation of their beliefs. (@featherquillpen does a great job in that meta of contextualizing this with his depiction in the original show as well.)

Autistic Parker, however, is shown pretty dang blatantly. She already was very much coded as autistic in the original show, but the reboot has if anything gone further. She sees a child psychologist because she likes using puppets to represent emotions, she stims, she uses cue cards and pre-written scripts for social interactions, there's mention of possible texture sensitivity and her clothes are generally more loose and comfortable. She's gotten better at performing empathy and understanding how people typically work, but it's specifically described as something she learned how to do and she views her brain as being different from ones that work that way (same link). Again, not autistic myself but from what I've seen autistic fans find a lot to relate to in her portrayal. And best of all, this well-rounded and respectful depiction does not show any of these qualities as a lack on her part. There's no more of those kinda ableist comments or "what's wrong with you" jokes that were in the original show. Parker is the way she is, and that allows her to do things differently. She's loved for who she is, and any effort made to fit in is more just to know how so that she can use it to her advantage when she wants to on the job - for her convenience, not others' comfort.

Speaking of loved for who you are.... okay, again, queer Breanna isn't confirmed onscreen yet, and I don't count Word of God as true canon. But I can definitely believe we're building there. Breanna dresses in a very GNC way, and just her dialogue and, I dunno, vibes seem very queer to me. She has a beautiful speech in the Card Game Job about not belonging or being accepted and specifically mentions "the way they love" as one of those things that made her feel like she didn't belong. And that scene is given so much weight and respect. (Not to mention other hints throughout the episode about how much finding her own space meant to her.) Also, the whole theme of feeling rejected and the key for her to begin really flourishing is acceptance for who she is, not any desire for her to be anyone else, is made into another big moment. Yeah, textually that moment is about her feeling like she has to fill Hardison's shoes and worrying about her past, but the themes are there, man.

Themes

I talked a bit about this yesterday, so I'm mostly just going to link to that post, but... this series so far is doing a really good job in my opinion of giving people arcs and having some good themes. Namely the redemption one, from Hardison's speech (which I'm gonna talk a little more about in the next point), and this overall theme of growing up and looking to the future (from above the linked post).

New Characters

Harry and Breanna are fantastic characters. I was kind of worried about Harry being a replacement Nate, but... he really isn't. Sure, he's the older white guy who has an angsty past but it's in a very different way and his personality and relationships with the rest of the crew are correspondingly different. I think the dynamic of a very friendly, cheerful, kind, but still bad guy (as @soundsfaebutokay points out) is a great one to show, and he's got a really cool arc I think of learning to be a better person, and truly understanding Hardison's point about redemption being a process not a goal. His role on the team also has some interesting applications and drawbacks, as @allegorymetaphor talked about. I've kind of grown to think that the show is gradually building up to an eventual Sophie/Harry romance a ways down the line, and I'm actually here for it. Regardless, his relationships with everyone are really interesting.

As for Breanna, first of all and most importantly I love her. Secondly, I think she's got a really interesting story. She's a link to Hardison's past, and provides a really interesting perspective for us as someone younger who has grown up a) looking up to Leverage and b) in a bleaker and more hopeless world. Breanna's not an optimist, and she's not someone who was self-sufficient and unconcerned with the rest of the world at the start, like everyone else. She believes that the world sucks and she wants it to be better, but she doesn't know how to make that happen. She outright says she's desperate and that's why she's working with Leverage. At the same time, Breanna is pretty down on herself and wants to prove herself but gets easily shaken by mistakes or being scolded, which is a stark contrast to Hardison's general self-confidence. There are several times when she starts to have an idea then hesitates to share it, or expects her emotions to be dismissed, or gets really disheartened when she's corrected or rejected, or dwells on her mistakes, or when she is accepted or praised she usually takes a surprised beat and is shy about it (she almost always looks down and away from the person, and her smile is often small or startled). Breanna looks up to the team so much (Parker especially, then probably Eliot) and she wants to prove herself. It's going to be so good to see her grow.

General Vibe

A brief note, but it seems a fitting one to end on. The show keeps it's overall tone and feeling from the original show. The fun, the competency porn, the bad guys and clever plans and happy endings. It's got differences for sure, but the characters are recognizably themselves and the show as a whole is recognizably still Leverage. For the most part they just got the feeling right, and it's really nice.

CONS (no, not that kind)

'Maker and Fixer'

So when I started writing this meta earlier today, I was actually a lot more annoyed by the lack of unique 'maker' skills being shown by Breanna. Basically the only time she tries to use a drone, the very thing she introduced herself as being good at, it breaks instantly. I was concerned about her being relegated into just doing what Hardison did, instead of bringing her own stuff to the table. But the seventh episode eased some of those fears, and the meta I just wrote for someone else asking about Breanna's 'maker' skills as shown this season made me realize there's more nuance than that. I'd still like to have seen more of that from her, but for now the fact that we don't see a lot of 'maker' from her so far seems more like a character decision based in Breanna's insecurities.

Harry definitely gets more 'inside man' usage. His knowledge as a 'fixer' comes in handy several times. Nonetheless, I'm really curious if there are any bigger ways to use it, aside from him just adding in some exposition/insight from time to time. I'm not even entirely sure how much more they can pull from this premise in terms of relevant skills, but I hope there's more and I'd like to see it. Maybe a con built more around him playing a longer role playing his old self, like they tried in the Tower Job? Maybe it's more a matter of him needed distance from that part of his past, being unable to face it without lashing out - in that case it could be a good character growth moment possibly for him to succeed in being Scummy Lawyer again down the line? I dunno.

Episode Twins

This was something small that kind of bothered me a little earlier in the season. It's kind of the negative side to the references, I guess? And I'm not even sure how much it annoys me really, but I just kinda noticed and felt sort of weird about it.

Rollin' on the River has a lot of references/callbacks to the The Wedding Job.

The Tower Job has a lot of references/callbacks to The White Rabbit Job.

The Paranormal Hacktivity Job has a lot of references/callbacks to the Future Job.

I guess I was getting a little concerned that there would be a 'match this episode' situation where almost every new Redemption episode is very reminiscent of an old one. I love the callbacks, but I don't want to see a lack of creativity in this new show, and this worried me for a minute. Especially when it was combined with all three of those episodes dealing with housing issues of some kind. Now, that's a huge concern for a lot of people, and each episode has its own take on a different problem within that huge umbrella, but it still got me worried about a lack of variety in topics/cases.

The rest of the episodes failing to line up so neatly in my head with older episodes helped a lot to ease this one, though. Still, this is my complaining section so I figured I'd express my concerns as they were at the time. Even if I no longer really worry about it much.

Sophie's Stagefright

Yeah, I know this is just a small moment in a single episode, but it annoyed me! Eliot made a bit of a face at Sophie going onstage, but I thought it was just him being annoyed at the general situation. However, they started out with her being awful up there until she realized the poem was relevant to the con - at which point her reading got so much better.

This felt like a complete betrayal of Sophie's beautiful moment at the end of the original show where she got over her trouble with regular acting and played Lady Macbeth beautifully in front of a full theater of audience members. This was part of the con, but only in the sense that it gave her an alibi/place to hide, and I always interpreted it as her genuinely getting over her stagefright problems. It felt like such a beautiful place to end her arc for that show, especially after all her time spent directing.

Now, her difficulty onstage in the Card Game Job was brief and at the very beginning of being up on stage. @rinahale suggested to me that maybe it was a deliberate tactic to draw the guy's attention, and the later skill was simply her shifting focus to make the sonnet easier for Breanna to listen to and interpret, but he seemed more enraptured when she was doing well than otherwise in my opinion and it just doesn't quite sit well with me. My other theory was that maybe she just hasn't been up on stage in a long time, and much like she complaining about being rusty at grifting before the team pushed her into trying, she got nervous for a moment at the very beginning. The problem there is that I think she'd definitely still get involved in theater even when she and Nate were retired. I guess she could've quit after he died, and a year might be long enough to make her doubt herself again, but... still.

I just resent that they even left it ambiguous at all. Sophie's skills should be solid on stage at this point in my opinion.

Thiefsome

...And now we come to my main complaint. This is, by far, the biggest issue I have with the show.

I feel like I should put a disclaimer here that I had my doubts from the beginning about the thiefsome becoming canon onscreen. I thought the famous "the OT3 is safe" tweet could easily just mean that they are all still alive and well, or all still working together, without giving us confirmation of a romantic relationship. Despite this, the general fandom expectations/hopes really got to me, especially with the whole "lock/pick/key" thing. I tried to temper my expectations again when the character descriptions came out and only mentioned Hardison loving Parker, not Eliot, but I still got my hopes up.

The thing is, I was disappointed pretty quickly.

The very first episode told me that in all likelihood we would never see Hardison and Parker and Eliot together in a romantic sense. Oh, there was so much coding. So much hinting. So much in the way of conversations that were about Parker/Hardison's relationship but then Eliot kept getting brought into them. They were portrayed as a unit of three.

But then there was this.

I love all of those scenes of Parker and Hardison being intimate and loving and comfortable with one another and their relationship. I really do. But it didn't escape my notice that there's nothing of the sort with Eliot. If they wanted a canon onscreen thiefsome, it would by far make the most sense to just have it established from the start. But there aren't any scenes where Eliot shares the same kind of physical closeness with either of them like they do each other. Parker and Hardison kiss; he doesn't kiss anyone. They have several clearly romantic conversations when alone; he gets important conversations with both but the sense of it being romantic isn't there.

Establishing Eliot as part of the relationship after Hardison is gone just... doesn't make any sense. It would be more likely to confuse new viewers, to make them wonder if Parker is cheating on Hardison with Eliot, or if they have a Y shaped relationship rather that a triangle. It would be so much clumsier.

Still, up until the Double-Edged-Sword Job I believed the writers might keep it at this level of 'plausible hinting but not quite saying'. There's a lot of great stuff with all of them, and I never expecting making out or whatever anyway; a cheek-kiss was about the height of my hopes to be honest. I mostly just hoped for outright confirmation and, failing that, I was happy enough to have the many hints and implications.

But then Marshal Maria Shipp came along. And I don't really have anything against her as a character - in fact, I think she has interesting story potential and will definitely come back. But the episode framed her fight with Eliot as a sexyfight TM, much like his fight with Mikel back in the day. And then his flirting with her rode the line a little of "he's playing her for the con" and "he's genuinely flirting." The scene where he tells her his real name is particularly iffy, but actually was the one that convinced me he was playing her. Because he seems to be watching her really closely, and to be very concerned about her figuring out who he really is. I am very aware though that I'm doing a lot of work to interpret it the way I want. On surface appearance, Eliot's just flirting with an attractive woman, like he did on the last show. And that's probably the intention, too.

But the real nail in the coffin for me was when Sophie compared herself and Nate to Eliot and Maria. That was a genuine scene, not the continuation of the teasing from before. And Sophie is the one whose insight into people is always, always trustworthy. She is family to the thiefsome. For this to make any sense, either Eliot/Parker/Hardison isn't a thing, or they are and Sophie doesn't know - and I can't imagine why in the hell she wouldn't know.

Any argument to make them still canon leaves me unsatisfied. If she knows and they haven't admitted it to her - why wouldn't they, after all this time? Why would she not have picked up on it even without an outright announcement? Some people suggested they wouldn't admit it because they thought Nate would be weird about it, but that doesn't seem any more in character to me than the other possibilities. In fact, the only option that doesn't go against my understanding of these people and their observational abilities/the close relationship they share.... is that the thiefsome is not a thing.

And furthermore, the implication of this conversation - especially the way it ended, with Eliot stomping off looking embarrassed while Sophie smiled knowingly - is that Eliot will get into another relationship onscreen. Maybe not a full-blown romantic relationship. But the Maria Shipp tension is going to be resolved somehow, and at this point I'm half-expecting a hook-up simply because of Sophie's reaction and how much I trust her judgement of such things. Even if she's letting her grief cloud her usual perceptiveness... it feels iffy.

It just kinda feels like I wasn't even allowed to keep my "interpret these hints/maybe they are" thiefsome that I expected after the first couple episodes convinced me we wouldn't get outright confirmation. (I mean, I will anyway, and I love the hints and allusions regardless.) And while I'm definitely not the kind of fan who is dependent on canon for my ships, and still enjoy all their interactions/will keep right on headcanoning them all in a relationship, it's just.... a bummer.

Feels like a real cop-out. Like the hints of Breanna being queer are enough to meet their quota and they won't try anything 'risky' like a poly relationship. I dunno. It's annoying.

.

That's the end of the list! Again, overall I love the new show a lot and have few complaints.

[caffeineandsociety]

Genuinely I think one of the most annoying things to deal with is stereotypes that are decoupled from the demographic they're about, so they end up flying over a lot of people's heads - and to some people, they still evoke An Image, but to others, they either don't evoke an image of Actual Human People at all, or evoke an image of something completely different.

Namely I find this so annoying because of how we treat "Doing Something Racist/Sexist/Etc." as a Horrible Mark Of Evil Person Shame, Something No Good Person Ever Does, which means if you point out when someone does, say, use a fantasy trope that's based on a racial stereotype, or repeat a joke that's been decoupled from its shitty origins and doesn't outright mention the demographic being mocked, a lot of the time they'll insist you must be wrong because THEY didn't think of that demographic.

For instance, most of us on tumblr at this point know a lot of standard high fantasy goblin tropes are born of antisemitic stereotypes...but while we're over here discoursing about what do DO about that, there are a whole bunch of people who don't have a single fucking clue that those are stereotypes of ANY real human demographic. They're just silly little guys who only exist in a fantasy realm, to them. They're not being indoctrinated into intentional antisemitism by playing a stereotypical goblin in a video game because they're not making any connection between those funny little fantasy guys and real human people - as is one of the two ways propaganda can largely fail -

But by continuing to use those particular tropes, they are unwittingly perpetuating those stereotypes, by potentially passing them on to people who DO make the connection.

The ideal reaction, when someone credibly (...we are acknowledging but not getting into those cases where the complaint is some asshole weaponizing progressive language for less than progressive ideals) points out that you've done something like this, is "oh, shit, well that is NOT what came to my mind at all, I won't do it again/do you know how I can fix it?/[some other relevant statement or question about moving forward]" -

But because so much of this culture is obsessively punitive, because we have culturally decided that the goal of these conversations is not about minimizing harm done but about identifying Who Is An Ontologically, Essentially, Evil Bad Person, instead...people get defensive, which helps NO ONE involved.

Now, I will always say that in the case of an infrequent fuck-up, a brief reminder that a mistake was, in fact, a mistake rather than intentional harm is usually a good thing, because it's reassuring. "Oh shit I honestly had no idea"...is what I expect to be true if it's someone I'm willing to actually bring something up to, but it's nice to hear it confirmed. In fact, while it shouldn't be a default approach, for me personally sometimes I even like to hear the internal logic that led someone to do something assholey and think it was harmless at worst; I like being able to dissect where this shit comes from, what people are and aren't being taught about social issues, and what (if any) connections they're seeing instead, knowledge is power and all that (...as this blog is kind of a testament to).

But...that's only if they're. You know. Open to acknowledging that they fucked up in the first place. Which a lot of people aren't because we treat every single mistake that accidentally hurts someone else as some kind of mark of intentional evil that will, like, bar you from getting into heaven or something. In a lot of cases this ends up affecting even people who know better because one, it's deeply culturally ingrained, and two, it's never just about one person; you have to take into account whether or not anyone ELSE involved is still buying into that crap.

In short, it's a mess.

[cosmicjoke]

Okay, onto chapter 128 of SnK.  There’s some really huge thematic payoff in this chapter which I want to talk a little about!

The big theme that really comes full circle here is the theme of violence, and how it’s intrinsically linked to the human condition.  That’s obviously a huge theme throughout this entire series, but in a lot of ways it culminates in this chapter.

I first really noticed it in a big way, in terms of having a big impact on the characters, way back in chapter 50 something, during the Uprising arc, in that scene where Jean, Connie, Sasha, Mikasa and Armin are waiting around, and they start talking about Levi and how repulsed they feel by what they perceive to be his unnecessary violence.  They flatly condemn him for it, even going so far as to say there’s something wrong with him, and making bold statements about how they would never kill another person, no matter the circumstances.  This statement of course comes back to bite them not long after, when Armin is forced to kill one of Kenny’s squad in order to save Jean, and Jean begins to understand the impossibility and even selfishness that can be inherent to holding without compromise to one’s moral values. 

That theme comes back in a huge way in chapter 128, and it’s really interesting to see Reiner try to step in and take on the role of martyr by telling the members of the 104th that they don’t need to fight, trying to save them from the moral dilemma of killing their own comrades.  What I found really interesting here was how Jean, Connie, Mikasa and Armin don’t answer at first, and you can see this is a huge struggle for them, the scenario presented before them one which clearly goes against everything they want to believe they’re fighting for.  Connie even says that they’re supposed to be saving people, not murdering their friends, etc...  But it’s impossible to ignore how it’s Hange who steps in and dashes any possibility of them sitting this fight out against the rocks.  They say they aren’t interested in being a spectator, and reminds everyone there that humanity doesn’t have any time left for them to be debating their morality.  This ties back in perfectly with what Levi had spoken to his squad about way back in the Uprising Arc, again, when he told them he doesn’t know what’s right or wrong, and that all any of them can do in any given situation is act in the way they think is best, both for themselves and those they care for, and for humanity as a whole.  We’ve seen Hange come to terms with this blunt and often brutal reality well before this, during the battle for Shingashina, for example.  Hange really began to separate whatever moral qualms they might have had, any emotion they might have had about killing other people, during this arc, and coming to really understand and accept that sometimes morality was something that had to be sacrificed for the greater good.  Here in chapter 128, Hange isn’t interested in or willing to indulge in preserving either their, or anyone else’ moral purity at the expense of the Marlyean group.  They’re in this together, and Hange understands fully that to accept Reiner’s offer of sitting back and watching while he, Annie and Pieck take on the Yeagerists would be the height of selfishness and a prime example of placing one’s own moral purity over the well being of others.  I always think it’s brilliant the way AoT explores these issues, of how an uncompromising loyalty to one’s idea of morality can, in fact, lead to total disaster for others, can in fact worsen the lives of others.  How if one has a moral code they are absolutely, under no circumstances, willing to break, that person often is the one who is most self-serving and self-centered, more concerned with keeping their own hands clean than with helping anyone else.  SnK doesn’t condemn violence, but instead makes very strong arguments for why it is sometimes not only an option, but the ONLY option, and that’s incredibly bold, and incredibly true to reality.  

Armin, as usual, is the first to understand this, after Hange reminds them all.  Armin was also the first, back during the Uprising Arc, to extend understanding towards Levi and his violence, and why he had to at times resort to it.  Armin flat out says here “I refuse to stand by with clean hands”.  He’s acknowledging the selfishness inherent in an uncompromising moral code, and refuses to place himself above the rest of humanity, even if it means once more getting his hands dirty with the blood of other people.  He still comes up with a plan to try and avoid any bloodshed, but you can see Armin is willing and ready in this moment to do whatever is necessary, which he does when he and Connie get into the situation they do with Daz and Samuel.  Armin is the one who tackles Samuel, which is what gives Connie the chance to shoot him.

There’s this huge moment with Levi I want to talk about, after everything goes to shit and Armin’s plan falls apart, where Yelena says “You can’t separate humanity from violence.”  And then she says to Levi “Right, Captain?”, and we get a look at Levi’s face, and once again, he just looks filled with naked despair.  I think these two panels are incredibly important in understanding Levi’s own psychology during this entire final arc.  Yelena is right, for once, when she says you can’t separate humanity from violence.  It’s a part of the human condition.  And she asks Levi specifically about it, because if anyone understands this, it’s Levi, who grew up in a world where violence was often the ONLY option, if one wanted to survive, or protect those they cared for.  But Levi’s saddened expression in the following panel really speaks to his feelings regarding the undeniable truth of Yelena’s words.  Levi knows it’s true, but he wishes desperately that it wasn’t.  I’ve called Levi an idealist over and over, and it’s because Levi is someone who understands the way of the world, and understands human nature, with more clarity and compassion than probably any other character in the series, he understands that violence, pain, poverty, desperation, fear, death, are all a part of life, and especially a part of the human condition, and yet, even with that understanding and acceptance, Levi is also someone who strives towards something better,  towards a world in which these things AREN’T necessary, aren’t inevitable.  Levi has been fighting this whole time in order to try and create a world in which people can live in genuine peace and prosperity, without fear, or violence or inequality.  But every bit of Levi’s life experience tells him and reminds him, day in and day out, of the impossibility of that ideal.  The impossibility of creating a world in which these things don’t exist.  Nothing in Levi’s life would ever lead him to believe true peace and prosperity for all is an attainable dream, nothing in his life which would ever give him real hope in that dream becoming reality.  But still, he fights for it.  This is part of what makes Levi so remarkable.  It’s the very fact that he STRUGGLES to believe in the possibility of a better world, and yet still gives everything of himself to make it a reality, that makes Levi such a hero.  In fact, Levi doesn’t really believe that it’s possible, I don’t think, his life having been too hard and too desperate to fully embrace such an ideal notion.  But, once again, even as he’s riddled with doubt as to it’s attainability, he sacrifices everything he has for the possibility, no matter how slim.   Levi’s naked despair in the panel following Yelena’s question is because he’s being reminded once again of the impossibility of that dream.  Once again, he’s being shown that humanity is incapable of achieving true peace within itself, he’s being shown once again that people are by nature violent and warlike, and that everything he’s fought for seems more and more like a distant and hopeless dream.  Yelena sits in stark contrast to Levi here.  She’s bitterly accepting of the ugly reality, unmoved and unemotional.  She doesn’t care.  She thinks humanity is a worthless mess, unsalvageable and unworthy of salvation.  To Yelena, this is the inevitable result of humanity’s very existence, and to fight for something that unrealistically idealistic is a fools errand.  Indeed, Yelena seems almost to revel in it, the violence serving as affirmation of her beliefs, giving her a sense of validation.  But Levi, beside her, is deeply affected, his pain and sadness openly expressed in his face, his disappointment and heartbreak plain to see.  Levi is HURT by the violence, by seeing it unfold.  Levi, despite knowing the truth of Yelena’s words, despite knowing from the most first-hand experience the brutal and violent nature of human beings, and the improbability of humanity ever achieving true peace, still believes with his whole heart that humanity is WORTH fighting for.  Levi, despite how hard it is for him to believe in actually achieving a better world, still believes that FIGHT is worth an attempt.  And that’s really one of the most vital philosophical difference between Levi and people like Yelena, or Zeke.  Despite knowing and understanding better than anyone the brutal and harsh reality of the world and humanity, to Levi, it’s still something that’s worth fighting to protect, and worth sacrificing for.  Even against his own, weary doubts as to its possibility.  And that just shows a strength of character that is immense.  To be so burdened by doubt, but still to fight with every last ounce of your strength, to give to your very last breath.  That’s Levi.  That strength of character, that unwavering conviction in giving his all to a cause he isn’t at all sure is even possible, is never more apparent than in this final arc, when Levi is in the most literal sense at deaths door, physically wrecked and barely able to even stand, and yet still he fights with everything he has.  That truly is remarkable.  That truly is heroic.

Just one more note.  Floch really exposes himself in this chapter for what he actually is, which is a power freak.  He’s been spouting off this whole time about the Empire of Eldia and saving the island and the people on the island and blah, blah, blah, but during his conversation with Kiyomi, he admits that he doesn’t really believe that the island will be safe, even if Eren wipes out all of humanity, that people will still continue to kill each other, and then he starts in about how what’s important now is for people to “know their place”, as he holds a gun to Kiyomi’s head.  Floch is a power freak, he wants to control other people, wants to dictate to them, wants to hold power over them.  He exposes that about himself here.  He doesn’t actually care about Paradis, or the people on it.  He’s simply getting off on being able to push other people around and make them do what he tells them to.  He’s such a bitch.  It was hilarious when Kiyomi took his ass down and messed his arm up.  

[how2skinatiger]

Facts matter and misinformation can have devastating real-world impacts. This is as true in the African bush as it is in the U.S. Capitol. That is why we are deeply concerned when we read overt misinformation about trophy hunting, such as in the opinion pieces by photographer Cyril Christo.

Trophy hunting is an emotive and polarizing issue ripe for misinformation. Much of the discussion on both sides occurs in echo chambers, where falsehoods and half-truths are shared and perpetuated. Misinformation can eventually make its way into policy debates as it has in Congress, the California Legislature, and the UK Parliament. Just as with anti-vaccine falsehoods and climate change denial, these misinformation campaigns must be called out for the significant harm they do. As the scientist Kelvin Peh stated so well: "Truth not only continues to matter; it remains the biggest weapon and shield for all wildlife conservationists and environmental scientists in a world of increasingly wanton, politically-motivated myth-making."

There are many statements in Mr. Christo’s contributions which could be debated, but three central (and common) misconceptions stand out. These are not unique to Mr. Christo’s articles: these misconceptions are commonly spread by anti-trophy hunting campaign groups. Such misinformation must be tackled so that policymakers can be better informed.

The first is the idea that trophy hunting is driving species to extinction. Decades of published, scientific research and field experience show this is demonstrably false. There is not, as far as we can tell, a single species where trophy hunting is listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List as a key threat driving it to extinction. Humane Society International, an organization that campaigns against trophy hunting, listed the top 20 species imported by American trophy hunters (the bulk of international hunters). If that hunting was intensifying decline, it would be a major concern in a world that has lost over two-thirds of its vertebrate wildlife since 1970. However, far from hunting driving those species to extinction, nine of the 20 are increasing in numbers and 6 are stable. Eighteen are ranked as "Least Concern" by the IUCN, with the other two "Near Threatened:" so none are threatened species. For four of the 20, including one of the "Near Threatened" ones, trophy hunting is identified by the IUCN as a positive instrument in their conservation, and is implied for a further three species. None of the 20 have trophy hunting documented as a threat to their populations. These facts matter.

Trophy hunting can be successful at conserving wildlife because it provides the economic incentive to conserve large tracts of wildlife habitat where there are few or no alternative funding sources. This helps maintain species, including lions, which can threaten the lives and livelihoods of rural people. One seminal study documented at least 340 million acres conserved by trophy hunting across sub-Saharan Africa: more land than has been set aside for National Parks, where photo tourism is concentrated. Furthermore, there are clear examples where trophy hunting has benefited the conservation of wildlife, including elephants, lions, rhinos, buffalo, argali and many others. These examples are well documented, including in an IUCN Briefing Paper, the academic literature and a US Congress report. Again, these facts matter. 

By incentivizing the conservation of wildlife habitat and the maintenance of dangerous species, trophy hunting can play an important role in reducing far greater threats such as habitat loss and poaching. This conservation benefit is particularly significant given that IPBES highlighted land use change as the primary driver of massive global biodiversity loss. This is why over 130 scientists and local stakeholders, including Chairs of multiple IUCN Specialist Groups, signed a 2019 letter in Science, warning that banning trophy hunting without viable alternatives ready would imperil biodiversity.

The second theme of the misinformation campaign is the false equivalence between trophy hunting and poaching. Trophy hunting differs from poaching as much as shopping differs from shoplifting. In both cases, the former is legal, regulated and generates wider benefits. Conversely, because poaching is illegal and unregulated, it is often indiscriminate, kills many non-target species and plays a key role in wildlife decline.

Oddly, the "evidence" that has been cited for poaching being linked to trophy hunting is that they can occur in the same area, such as in Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve, which has undoubtedly suffered severe poaching. But recent data from South Africa’s Kruger National Park, one of the most popular photo tourism destinations in Africa, showed that rhino numbers fell by 67 percent since 2011. Does this mean that "where photo-tourism is allowed, poaching follows?" Should photo-tourism be banned, in Kruger or more widely, especially as most African protected areas maintain wildlife far below carrying capacity, due to threats such as poaching?

The sensible answer is no; whether managed for photo-tourism and/or trophy hunting, most African protected areas are woefully under-funded, so removing either one of those key revenue streams without adequate replacement would only exacerbate those threats. For example, in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape — internationally important for lions and many other species — it is indeed likely that lions are in decline. However, as with many other landscapes, far more lions around Ruaha are speared, snared and poisoned than are killed by trophy hunters. An exaggerated focus on trophy hunting simply draws attention away from the real threats such as intense human wildlife conflict, or the disempowerment of local people in conservation. This is of real concern.

Clearly, trophy hunting has huge impacts for the individual, and in some cases can negatively impact populations, such as with lions in Hwange or Selous. But in Africa just as in the U.S., the science exists that can, and does, underpin sustainable trophy hunting. This includes age-based adaptive quotas and targeted actions such as quota reductions or time-limited moratoria for some species. Poor governance, including corruption, and poor design of and adherence to regulations, can doubtless have real impacts on wildlife in trophy hunting areas, and the same is true for photo-tourism areas.

The key question however is whether removing trophy hunting in an area would ultimately decrease overall threats. Currently, it is unlikely to be the case. Indiscriminate bans, without better alternatives to replace incentives from high-fee trophy hunting to maintain wildlife and habitat, risk significantly amplifying major threats such as poaching and land conversion.

The third, and crucial, topic where we often see misinformation is around trophy hunting and colonialism. Much of the current conservation model – including land set aside for both photo-tourism and trophy hunting – has deep colonial underpinnings, and this must be understood and acknowledged. But that makes it ever more important that today, the post-colonial decision-making and rights of African countries and communities are respected. Westerners must not continue to externally impose their own ideals upon Africans, such as pushing trophy hunting bans and restrictions, where local communities warn they are directly undermining both successful conservation and human rights.

What is all too rarely recognized is that Africans themselves have long realized the failure of conservation models, and have in many places reversed them. At the core of these new African-invented wildlife conservation models is the principle that legal rights should be given back to local people to sustainably use their wildlife. These rights, the global markets that add so much value to a uniquely African product, and the democratic awakening associated with them should not be undermined because utilization offends people elsewhere. Let the communities that live with wildlife be the ones to decide whether the benefits they receive from trophy hunting are meaningful — as many have. Recently, the Community Leaders Network of Southern Africa made a powerful statement on this very topic. Tired of getting a raw deal, rural African communities are demanding a new deal in which they are shareholders (not disempowered stakeholders) in their own wildlife resource. Thus, externally imposed bans, including import bans, undermine not only the foundations of sustainable wildlife management but also of human rights.

Read more

[apparentlyaswarmofbees]

I've been asking around this one question for a few people now, because I like hearing what people have to say about it...

So I wouldn't mind it if you shared a list on who's your favourite (from Most to Least) from the Obey Me! Crew (Brothers & Formally Undatables)...

Also, please feel free to ramble on about why you placed them in each space...

O-oh dear-

First off, you spoil an infodumper like me too much lol (I am happy sfjsjjdjn) and I am going to go overboard (and changing the order of things) for my own pleasure.

And so...

Second off...

Gladly

Here is My List of LEAST to MOST Favorite of The Obey Me Boys ^^

That I just did on spot because I didn't have one ready because it's hard for me to rate the characters as they all have their traits and even their flaws add something good to the character but I'll be dammed if I don't enjoy deep frying my brain for fun.

Please take note I am taking this literally and all characters in here are FAVORITES, just some will be more and some less, which mean I LIKE ALL OF THEM. Yes, I have changed my opinion on a certain two characters I have said to not like, and I am not ashamed to say I was incorrect.

So let's start this off with the right foot shall we?

#12 | Diavolo

He is still infuriating I won't deny that. And I won't pity him though he is a tragic character that is so lonely he overrates any kind of affection, that doesn't know how to interact with others without exagerating, that has no one to give an oposing opinion because of his status and so it's increasingly hard for him to learn to make good decisions, and with his goal to unite the realms I could almost say he is naive. He's a bit of a puppy always wanting some pets, but as a not dog person, I don't have enough in me to be always playing, so to me an overly needy puppy can end up getting annoying, though of course, I can't help it but at least give it a few pets before going my way.

.

#11 | Simeon

Yes in the end I actually liked him all along but was just in denial after I thought about it. Simeon is a good character, he's a dick even though he's an angel and he doesn't bother to be any different, he definetelly has his own set of rules he follows and I believe he would be a Chaotic Good just like me. He's well made. And as much as he is pretty unlikeable, the mystery, the questions, the fact that he has always been the same we just didn't get to interact with him much to see it, to have a naturally asshole character put down some of his walls to help us even if part out of possible self interest. And of course he's also fun. Simeon is charming, and I have come to appreciate all of him.

.

#10 | Luke

A kid. A brat and a tsundere. I Absolutely love the character development and it's extremelly adorable. He's now officially our guardian angel and I love that. He was just a prick that I rolled my eyes so hard whenever I encountered him in the game and now he's just a lil' bratty brother that is fun to tease and squish the cheeks off. He's a really nice kid in the end, just previously ignorant, but still nice because he was willing to learn and change despise saying he didn't want to. I personally can understand Luke as I was pretty alike as a kid. Again, he's a nice kid I would gladly buy some balloons and cotton candy for.

.

#9 | Barbatos

The number 1 buttler, he's just, a good dude l o l. He has his distance from everyone due to his position but that doesn't make him any less interesting. He is mysterious and powerful and yet he feels, so chill. He's also fun and actually has a pretty soft personality in which he knows exactly when to switch off to strict. He's a character I respect and wish existed in real life so I could be friends with (╥﹏╥).

.

#8 | Solomon

Shady sorcerer is actually a pretty good guy though mildly insane. He is actually responsable (and takes it pretty seriously seeing he's basically the representative of the human realm). He's kind though again, mildly insane, and diligent. He may have terrible food but the fact he does it with good intentions is pretty adorable, he just likes to follow his instincts and be spontaneous because he likes new and exciting things. He probably has quite a bit of angst to him due to his not only immortality in not aging but also by not being able to be killed but even so it feels that, contrary to how many human immortals end, he still hasn't lost the light in his eyes and can still enjoy things and enjoy being alive, and that is most likely thanks to other immortal/long living beings such as demons.

.

#7 | Lucifer

Yep. Lucifer is actually a really fucking great character, he's fond of his family, hard worker to the point of destroying himself, self punisher, elegant, pretty af, cute at times. But not exactly my most favorable cup of tea. Seeing I can see through his bullshit all his posessiveness, all his pettiness, all his actions just becomes ridiculous and annoying. And theres also a problem with the fact we always end up submiting to him, I don't want that. For every time he disrespects me I want him to kneel and kiss my feet. His pride collides with my own, and his decisions do too. But even so he is very reliable and so he has my respect for that, I do want to hug him and tell him he deserves nice things and that he can rest now this is not the war anymore you don't have to bow down to anyone anymore you didn't doom your brothers but freed them instead, but then again he makes bad decisions because he has zero braincells for emotional intelligence and that pisses me off and makes me just want to yeet him off a cliff. Yeah Lucifer, I would gladly kick you in the balls with ♡°.•love•.°♡.

.

#6 | Leviathan

Surprising is it not? But it's true, I often focus on Levi due to him not only being pretty alike to me but also because he's related to many things I have been familiar with since I was born: animes and games. His anxiousness is relatable, the outcastness is relatable, the awkwardness is relatable, the obsession is relatable, the references are relatable, the infodumping is relatable. He's very relatable to me, but not my most favorite, and all because of his envy. He's a guilt tripper, and though I am long immune to it in real life due to extreme exposure to it from my family, it still is enough for his rank to go down. I still love him though, but mostly as the character that represents the thing I am most familiar with in life: myself.

.

#5 | Beelzebub

Big puppy, he's the type of guy who will talk to plants. He has big and strong hands that could crush anything and yet he will do his best to handle some things gently. He's chill and non judgemental, loyal to the core. Once you win him over, you win him over, he would die for you. He is purposely childish at times and it's cute. He is amazing. I wish I could enjoy eating like he does. He's the only character I truly feel hurt for, as he is deeply inflicted by survivor's guilt and it just pains me I can't comfort him because he isn't real ಥ‿ಥ

.

#4 | Belphegor

Hoh boy. The brat. The fandom itself is pretty divided on their liking of Belphie and it's understandable lol. But I personally understand Belphie. To hide hurt behind anger, hate and spite, to turn to agression to prove a point but you end up just fucking up. But the guilt and wish to fix things can lead one to giving themselves up, and so it becomes a constant battle of getting close but not too close for the sake of both parties involved. I get this boy more than I wish I ever did, and that's why he's high on the ranking. And because he's cute ngl.

.

#3 | Satan

H o h b o y, another one that reminds me of myself, only it's the aftermath of the above where one bottles up all their negative feelings because being emotional is not being rational and who the fuck even wants to not be rational. Where you have no fucking idea who you are because all you know is to stomp your feet and scream for the sake of making an statement but that just proved all your enemies a point so now you turn to smarts to prove yourself. To make others angry, to make them frustrated and infuriated with your knowledge because you want to prove yourself, be reconized for who you are, to be someone and also, hopefully, change other people's ways, to make them understand they are wrong because you deep down actually want to get along with them. Yeah, Satan is high on the list, and it's also because he likes detectives uwu.

.

#2 | Asmodeus

What a fucking icon he is I love him okay. It frustrates me when people use cheating as a angst prompt for him as he's obviously someone who just isn't made for monogamy, and he's pretty honest and I feel he would have nothing to hide and would talk it all out with all his partners. He's a sweetheart that works hard on daily basis and hour after hour to mantain an image, he likes the attention, he wants to be loved. If anyone mildly self centered ever told me 'I love you as much as I love myself' I would marry them on spot. Asmo is just incredibly sweet and I love all his affection and respect him for all the work he does to make a good impression and look up to that self confidence even though most of it is actually just him trying to convince himself. Also perfect example off gender is an ilusion lol.

.

#1 | Mammon

Yep, our number 1, The Great Mammon, the most lovable dumbass that has been by our side from the start though with a bit of whining. This man is perfect. He has incredible self control over his powers, and as someone who used to be an angel to be able to use money all you want bro. I wouldn't feel bad either. He's our protector from start to end to the point he focuses on us instead of the queen in the Dame event. He isn't stupid just has selective focus just like me! And all the people with ADHD and many other neurodivergents. When he wants something he does is perfectly and diligently, he just needs the right push at the right time. He's the most good of all demons and even angels and he loves all his brothers deeply, he is always there to support everyone to the point of even allowing himself to be the punching bag for the sake of them not turning too much on one another. He was literally our first SSR card, our first call, our first pact, our first and the best. He IS great, truly.

[pixelsareforsquares]

To Become with Others

A reflection on the importance of intra-action in my performance practice.

I am sitting.

I am sitting in a rehearsal space.

It’s a big space.

And it’s mostly empty.

I could…

I could…

I could do a lot of things,

here

in this big open space.

I stand up.

I walk across the room.

I try moving my body a bit.

It feels good but it’s not what I’m looking for.

I try filling the void with my voice, which feels good too, but…

But

The stakes are low.

I try writing things on big pieces of paper. I hope it will fill the vastness around me, but...

But all it does is echo the expanse of my mind. So I try moving these big pieces of paper around, my generous handwriting seems flimsy against their broadness. And sitting somewhere in all this space is the thing I’ve tried so hard to bat away, with my body or with my voice or with my writing. Thinking if I fill it, it won’t have the space to exist.

“But if I were a real artist I would know what to do."

What am I supposed to do here?

How can I best use this space for my research?

What can I uncover?

Here.

Alone.

Who am I without anyone else?

via Somatic_based_content_only on Instagram. 19.04.21

This scenario repeated itself during a workshop with Dagmar Slagmolen, director of the Amsterdam-based music theatre company, Via Berlin. Over the past few months my research has focused on vulnerability and its role in audience participation. My aim is to create a method for accessing and utilizing my own emotional vulnerability to better connect with my audience in order to enhance and expand the participatory experience. In our initial meetings, Dagmar was very excited about this project, particularly my interest in the links between shame and vulnerability. The piece I am creating in order to explore some of these techniques, focuses around my personal sexual history and hopes to buff out some of the shame which is so deeply ingrained in the patriarchal narratives surrounding sexuality in western society. In the days prior to the physical workshop, I discussed my work with Dagmar and the three other workshop participants, which helped me condense and clarify my research so far. I was then given the task of continuing to think about and experiment with vulnerability during the workshop.. Therefore, after a brief talk with Dagmar upon arriving in the studio, I was left with, none other than….. space and time to experiment.

Spaces which I had time to experiment in

Sitting in this studio, I became increasingly aware of a considerable obstacle. Explore vulnerability with who? Myself? Can one even be vulnerable with one’s self? Vulnerability is an act of revealing, an act of (emotional) exposure (Brown 2012). I find this an impossibility considering the omnipresence of the self. At least for me personally, the idea of exposing my self to myself seems nonsensical, as my emotional vulnerabilities exist in relation to others. This notion of impossibility seems to parallel the more ambiguous feeling that I described in the introduction, which creeps in whenever I undergo a solo studio practice in order to create work. The work I make is not only the presentation of a skill or story or technique, but the intra-action of space, time, set parameters and most importantly, other people. While I may use studio time to learn or refine certain physical techniques, this is usually a small element of my practice. Just as I cannot experiment or rehearse my vulnerability alone due to the fact that the very notion of my vulnerability is conditional to the presence of others, so is it impossible for me to experiment or rehearse a performance which is reliant on inter and intra-actions with people around me.

Pieces of paper, large and small

If all the world’s a stage, then when and where do we rehearse? When and where do we experiment? According to performance scholar Richard Schechner, the extended childhood particular to humans is a rehearsal, where we learn the behaviours which we ‘restore’ each day in our performance as adults (2013, 29). However, as restored behaviour may be combined and adjusted in a multitude of ways, and as our co-performers, sets and scenery are invariably interchanged, one’s performances of restored behaviour are thus in eternal flux. The performance of everyday interactions is a constant improvisation structured through certain social parameters. Each experience becomes the rehearsal for the next. It is an act of becoming, an intra-action of the players, the space, the audience etc. Scholar and physicist Karan Barad defines intra-action as “a mutual constitution of entangled agencies” (2007, 33). As I understand intra-action, it negates the idea that anything can be independent from anything else. If I think about it in the context of interactions with others, I understand that my presence and actions do not come from a self that is independent of those around me, but instead materializes through my relationships with others. Moreover, because of the multiplicitous constellations of people, places and things that come into contact throughout daily life, this diffracts into exponential infinity.

As much of my practice relies on such intra-action between myself and the other persons in the performance space, I must then question the where, how and why’s of rehearsal in my practice. Improvisation has always been wildly fulfilling to me, and even more so when I have an audience. This overused saying of ‘dance like no one's watching’ has never made sense to me. It is the eyes of others that grant me the ability to take the risks that make for an exhilarating performance. It is here where I get an embodied sense of intra-action between the audience, and myself where our relationship invokes a disassembly of any and all facades of self.

Some reflections on my relationship to improvisation as a 14-year-old

As I better understand this relationship, it also becomes clear as to why cabaret has remained at the heart of my practice. While I may wear the same costume and perform to the same music for any given act, the stage which I step on is always different, anywhere from a small piece of cleared floor with an audience member given a light with which to illuminate it, to a circus tent in the middle of a music festival as swarms of drunk people wander in after a headliner rock band. I have given myself the same task and the same tools in each however, I must remain nimble and responsive to my audience’s and surroundings. In an interview with José Esteban Muñoz, Nao Bustamante, describes a similar working method “It’s very important for me to maintain a fresh space.. I have these 12 positions that I hit within the piece… and then within those 12 positions anything can happen, and I just allow myself to watch myself, watch the audience, watch the interaction, focus on that particular moment or balance” (2002). My performance is not one of set actions, but a response (to a response to a response…) within a microcosm of intertwined energies in a room. In speaking about the work of Bustamente, Jack Halberstam writes, ‘Her body must respond on the spot and in the moment of performance to the new configurations of space and uncertainty" (2011, 144). As I have noted in previous reflections on my practice, a frequent piece of feedback I receive is along the lines of ‘It was so great to watch you when everything went wrong’. This is usually in reference to some technical difficulties that I’ve had to fix before or during a performance, crouching awkwardly on the floor in whatever absurd costume I’m wearing. These moments are moments of failure in which holes of uncertainty are pulled and stretched and the audience engages in a different way than they have rehearsed. We are together in a liminal space of both watching and non-watching. I think that the reason why I seem to be adept at such moments is because I invite my audience to continue to engage with me as I make plain my failure. “It’s those moments of failure that also build empathy for the character” (Bustamante 2002). The intra-action between myself, the audience, the liminal space of performance/not performance and failure coalesce to create a space of vulnerability and empathy that is near impossible to recreate alone with myself in a rehearsal space.

“For I do not exist: there exist but the thousands of mirrors that reflect me. With every acquaintance I make, the population of phantoms resembling me increases. Somewhere they live, somewhere they multiply. I alone do not exist.” (Nabokov, 2011, 118).

A phrase I have repeated many times in collaborations over the years is, ‘It’s not about me’, which is both entirely true and entirely not all at once. It is, of course, always about me. I am always present, inescapable even, as the protagonist of my own life story. However, I am also unsure, as indicated by Nabokov above, and in relation to Barad’s concept of intra-action, if there is any essence of self that is able to exist independently of the world and the people in it. A friend from many years ago always talked about how everyone we encountered was only a reflection of ourselves, which is something I still ponder on often. In contrast, the artist, Ann Liv Young, under the guise of her persona Sherry (whose work I investigated recently in relation to my own) suggests that the opposite is true. She is a reflection of others, rather than vice-versa. Sherry is a highly confrontational and contradictory semi-autobiographical character which Young uses to create improvisational participatory work. During performances, she maintains that Sherry is merely a reflection of her audience, making statements such as, “I only work with what’s in the room. I am very boring. I am essentially a mirror” (Good Sherry, 2018). These proclamations are used particularly at moments when her audience seems uncomfortable with what Sherry is saying or doing. Young and I are both interested in using vulnerability in our work, however I find that Young as Sherry wants to draw out vulnerability from her audience, while using Sherry to deflect her own vulnerability. Whereas the methodology of my approach is more about creating space and leading by example. However, when one uses intra-action to examine these relationships we see that they may both exist concurrently or not at all. One is both a reflection and reflects others. If everyone we encounter is standing with a metaphorical mirror in order to call into our existence, then we too must be holding a mirror to realize all other’s existences. Similarly to the elusivity of an objective truth, the idea of a self, independent of the world around it, slips from the realm of possibility. The self is in a continual flux of intra-actions with what is outside of us. Thus, as I explore my practice and how I might better engage with vulnerability within it, I understand the centrality of intra-action, particularly with other human beings and come to understand how important the methods of performance-as-research and performance-as-practice are to my work. Moreover, while I may have engaged with both of these methods in my practice for many years, it is an element which I have often wished I could pull back from. However, by switching my focus in order to better understand how and why I use performance-as-practice, I will be able to explore the full depth and range of how performance-as practice might be used to its full potential within my practice.

Reflective reflections. Some props I acquired.

....becoming something with others.

Barad, K. M. (2007) Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press. Brown, B. (2012) Listening to shame. (TED2012). Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame (Accessed: 15 November 2020). Felden Krisis (@somatic_based_content_only) • Instagram photos and videos (no date). Available at: https://www.instagram.com/somatic_based_content_only/ (Accessed: 25 April 2021). Halberstam, J. (2011) The queer art of failure. Durham: Duke University Press. Muñoz, J. E. (2006) ‘The Vulnerability Artist: Nao Bustamante And the Sad Beauty of Reparation’, Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory, 16(2), pp. 191–200. doi: 10.1080/07407700600744386. Nabokov, V. V. and Nabokov, D. (2011) The eye. New York: Vintage International/Vintage Books. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=722896 (Accessed: 25 April 2021). Schechner, R. and Brady, S. (2013) Performance studies: an introduction. 3. ed. London: Routledge. Tactical Aesthetics (2019) Ann Liv Young: Everybody has a responsibility to respond (excerpt from ‘Good Sherry’). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqEJyWxWzzs&ab_channel=MGM (Accessed: 3 March 2021). Video: Interview with Nao Bustamante [videorecording]. (2002). Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/2333.1/5dv41nv8 (Accessed: 25 April 2021).

[thelostguardianau]

The Lost Guardian- Chapter Eight

“Heed the Silenced”

(Authors note: aha.. yknow I should probably stop making promises for this fic. Months later, w/ a chapter that doesn’t have Thomas in it, three different outlines down and i’m really just at the mercy of this fic at this point xD considering midway through writing this chapter I had to cut and rewrite an entire scene i’d spent a month on bc I’d decided that Dee had a chance at redemtion that added an actual direction and a tangable end goal to this story. So. Yeah. And!! A loud Thank You!! to @bumblebeekitten for helping me bounce ideas back & forth for this au and being my beta for this chapter!!)

Character Info & Art:

Patton | Logan | Roman | Virgil | Remy | Deceit | ??? | ???

Chapter Seven | Chapter Nine

Fandom: Thomas Sanders Sides

Pairings: Eventual Polyamsanders (LAMPR/CALMR-a.k.a LAMP/CALM + Remy ‘Sleep’ Sanders)

Warnings: THIS CHAPTER IS KINDA DIALOG HEAVY!(sorry) Currently depicted as morally grey Deceit(subject to change in future chapters), though the side of Deceit from his first appearance doesnt make an appearance in this chapter and it is explained why, mentions of past betrayal and dark descriptions of bodily concepts, curses, limitations, and changes only really explained as possible through the lore of this au. Deceit speaks in riddles because he has to, ominous warnings. Virgil still isn’t okay mentally. Mentions of indifference to death, lack of selfworth or self preservation. (Let me know if I need to add anything!)

[[MORE]]

Brown eyes flutter open at the chilly breeze of a fan, and the ravenette’s mind comes to realize that he’s been moved from resting on his stomach to laying on his back. Groggy from his much too short nap, it takes a few moments to realize there are no warm bodies near him or under him, no breathing or chatter of familiar voices to sooth him.

The room, he realizes, is empty.

The room itself is, in fact, not Remy’s bedroom at all.

Shooting straight up, Virgil’s first clear thought is that he’s back at home. At his apartment, this time in his hoodie yet still roughed up from his latest ‘adventure’. The scene is eerily familiar, and yet he knows this time that work is not where he needs to be. It’s already daylight and his mind now knows this familiar scene, he should feel alone. Yet, this time he can hear the sound of honking cars and people, his loud neighbor from upstairs stomping around.

It doesn’t make sense as he walks to his window and peers out to see vague cars and people, he can’t even seem to make out any individual faces. It’s grey and raining outside, but there is no pattering sound against the foggy window. ‘What’s happening?’ Virgil wonders.

“Life seemed so simple a week ago, even months ago, did it not..?” A familiar voice drifts from behind him. Ice cold fear shoots down the ravenette’s spine as he recognizes the voice.

“I can hardly believe you were able to leave it, your routine. It was your everything, back when you came to terms with what you had left. Am I wrong, Virgil?” Whirling around to face the voice, Virgil finds the terrifying ex-Guardian sitting on his couch looking quite at home, if a little sheepish.

“What do you care?” He spat back, stepping back against his window.

“I am only looking out for you, you know. I have been protecting you all your life. Of all people I think I would know what is best for you, don't you think? We are connected after all, you and I.” The man sighed, making a surrendering motion with his hands.

“Why would I trust you?! You tried to kill me yesterday!” Virgil growled. “Why--h-how are you even here!?”

“False, my dear Virgil. I tried to warn you. Sure,” The guardian rolled his hand as he spoke, “I am forced to have a round-about way of speaking my truths, it is just part of my consequences it seems. But how else was I going to get you to listen to me after the others fed you lies about me? I do sincerely apologize for my other half being rough, though. I cannot quite.. Control.. Him.” The guardian tilted his bowler hat down to guiltily hide his eyes, regret briefly twisting his expression.

Finally the Guardian stood, dusting himself off as if his immaculate attire had acquired dust from just existing in his apartment. “I needed my physical body to reach yours and make our soul connection strong again, so that my soul could reach yours. However.. The pain I caused you was far from my intention. I am deeply regretful that it came down to.. That awful encounter.

“To answer your question though, Virgil, I am here because I created ‘here’. A realm made to form this illusion of being home, sweet home, just on the corner of the little street you had come to live on for the past year. It is all my doing. Where you stand is simply an illusion only you and I can access, a manipulation of your dreams and memories. The only place where the real me can talk to you mostly unhindered.” The guardian gestured to his surroundings.

“It takes only one person to flip your life on it’s head, a matter of hours to make the decision of a lifetime, and a matter of days to have completely changed your life’s direction,” He turned to Virgil, and looked him straight in the eyes, feeling distant and lost.

“And only a matter of years to succumb to the depression of the lonely consequences..”

Virgil blinked at that. The sad, longing tone had him thrown for a loop; it almost felt like the Guardian wasn't even quite talking to Virgil. “I-What..? I.. I don’t understand.”

The Guardian shook his head, snapping out of it and refocusing himself. "Nevermind that. It is time I talked to you for real, if you will have me?" The Guardian held out a hand politely, though there was no real expectation for Virgil to take it.

After a pause, Virgil gave a slight nod, still suspicious of the other's intent. The Guardian returned the nod, and his hand fell to his side.

“I am limited to the time that you rest and for now I will not be able to explain myself thoroughly, so, I ask you to understand that I do not expect you to trust me when I am done. I honestly do not expect you to ever trust me. With the mistakes I have made, I firmly believe I would not deserve it.”

Virgil blinked in surprise, not having expected his captor to admit to his faults straight off the bat.

“Okay.. Well, we’re here, might as well hear your side of the story. So.. Shoot.” Virgil said lightly, distrust and suspicion still evident in his tone and stance.

“I would assume at this point you are well aware of how the story you have been told paints me as the villain, a mastermind seeking power, immortality, and revenge? At least, that is what I am led to believe is still the story, it has been many years since I have heard the tale first hand… And... Well. Would that not be so lovely?” Virgil made a face, eyes narrowing in confusion.

“I am serious. Life would be so much easier if it was all black and white, true or false, good and bad, would it not? If those who meant well knew everything and those malicious few could not corrupt anything?” The Guardian frowned a bit, frustrated with his words that couldn’t seem to cooperate with him.

“Would it not be lovely if I could talk to you without fighting to keep from turning every honest thought into a question or theoretical statement just to let it be said? That my words could hold a meaning not forcibly disguised in the forms of fables and riddles?” The Guardian looked down lamely, his words tapering off in agitation. For a moment, Virgil waited as the Guardian was silent, contemplative. Then, the next moment the Guardian’s face scrunched up in sadness and his words were soft as he placed a hand over his golden wrist markings.

“My story is complicated, and twisted with shades of grey. One could say what I did was an attempt to keep you safe, another could say that what I did was outlandish and impulsive, and stupid. But no one will be able to tell you that what I did went according to the plan I had... at first. No one will tell you that my intention was to save you, to keep your fate safe. No one will tell you that my plan was ruined. Because there is no longer anyone who remembers what happened that night except for me,”

The Guardian’s eyes flicked up to meet the ravenette’s, a hurt look passing over his face as he continued. His steady voice now just barely trembled with uncertainty as he continued.

“No one but me and the soul who wants so desperately for everyone to forget. The soul who ripped my own in two to bury the secret, and ruin you and I both.”

“My final warning is this: Beware of the man who carries the world on his shoulders unflinchingly, he will be watching you closely. You have immunity to his power thanks to our connection, you might use this knowledge well to find the truth that lies in plain sight. However, your fate lies in the decisions you chose to make with this knowledge, I can only warn you of what might come.” The Guardian nodded solemnly, choosing to finish his cryptic warning there.

Virgil stood there, reeling with the information. Sure, he definitely wasn’t completely convinced he could trust this cryptic stranger, Guardian? Foe? Friend? Virgil wasn’t really sure what to call him anymore. But damn, his life was already so fucking crazy, this was all just fucking crazy! He could just be dreaming for all he knew.

But… Deep inside, he was hoping he wasn’t.

This was, well. This wasn’t what he’d been expecting to hear when facing the man whose, er, body? Had originally tried to strangle him? Now he’d heard his sob story and, well, Virgil wasn’t that easy to fool, but he’d also been told that it wasn’t expected that he’d trust the guy even in the end and he didn’t really want to.

He’d been on the path to death for so long, and then just two days ago everything had changed. So much was happening, it was frankly exhausting. What the fuck was he, some book protagonist? Couldn’t he get a little time to think about all this before he went crazy?

Still, something under all his incredulity begged to hear the guardian out. He vaguely wondered how Stockholm Syndrome worked before he gave in a little. What difference did a little more crazy make in his life at this point?

“Fine, I’ll heed your warning, or whatever the fuck. But only if you can tell me what you mean when you said that this guy ripped your, uh, soul? In two.” Virgil huffed, partially relaxing. It was odd how comforting he found it to be, floating in this weird feeling imaginary world, where he could interact with objects that weren’t real. It felt like he was really standing in his home, and yet it was just built from memory.

The guardian’s solemn expression formed into a grim smile, eyes distant once more before nodding. “I will do the best that my words will allow.” Virgil nodded, and waited for the now very familiar stranger to gather his words and take a breath. Then he began, his markings lightly flashing gold.

“You find yourself whole one day, as you have always been. To be whole of body, whole of mind, both human and guardian in nature. To have conscious thought and control over your whole physical being and soul..

“You find that yourself and others of the winged variety are capable of separating your soul from your being, though only the most Elite can do it well. You find out the family you made would soon be in danger. You then find yourself lost and alone when you once had a home to call your own.

“You find yourself knowing a truth, a perilous truth. Your home is in shambles now that you are gone, yet they do not know it. This truth is at fault, but the blame is not fully your own in a world built on lies.

“The source of truth tucks itself into blankets of grey, drawing itself further from discovery with each passing day. Now only you know the truth. The source of the truth finds you, it seeks to hide you too.

“You find yourself split one day, as you have never been before. Forced apart from the body, trapped within the mind. Guardian in nature, to have conscious thought and your dying soul trapped within, a false mind piloting the puppeteered confines of a broken body with a blind goal.”

“You find you cannot control what you used to, you are a prisoner to a body that is no longer your own, mostly unconscious to the world around it. Crazed by the false emotions that fuel it.”

“The you that used to be is no longer, and has not been for over a hundred years. The world that knew you knows not of what you’ve become. Knows not of the shackles that bind you.

“The you that used to be is no longer, and will never be again.” The Guardian finished, hesitant yellow eyes meeting Virgil’s carefully. Phantom goosebumps trail down Virgil's arms as the final sentence strikes a cord in him.

Virgil found he really wasn’t quite sure how to respond to that, the rawness in the other’s tone spoke volumes of the sore spot they’d reached.

“Your body rests, but your mind also needs time to process today. I shall see you when you next rest, though only if you wish to seek me. Rest well knowing that you will not be scooped from your safety once more, as I hope I’m never to do so again. And...” The guardian paused, considering their next words very carefully.

“I know it is selfish to ask... but, I hope and wish that Thomas is alright, after all this time... Do take care of him, would you?”

Virgil paused and stared, finding only concern and longing in the guardian’s expression. And, well, fuck. What a way to pull at a guy’s heartstrings.

“Er, yes. Yeah. I’ll try my best.” Virgil gave his signature mock salute, the Guardian tipping his hat in return.

“Trying is all I could ever ask of you, Virgil. Rest well, you will need it.” And with that final sentence, the world around Virgil gently grew dark, and he sunk into the comforting arms of sleep.

Despite it all, Virgil still found his mind vaguely conscious. Sluggish at best, but awake nonetheless.

He figured it was likely some lingering effect from the Guardian’s dream realm, but didn’t dwell on it. His life had way too much else going on to be debating the side effects gained from Guardian powers.

First, he’d been pretty damn convinced two days ago that he was going to be a goner by the end of the month. Completely resigned to die believing that his very existence was scorned by the world he’d been unwillingly born into.

Then Patton had stumbled onto his shitty apartment’s roof, found him in all of his resigned and depressed glory, and changed his life forever.

They’d mostly skipped the whole ‘Human nature is a series of life, death, and rebirth’ spiel that guardians were known to give in these situations because... Well, It wasn’t like they’d really had time to address it before the truth about his soul had come out. That he wasn’t exactly human to begin with.

Virgil didn’t think that Guardians had ever had a situation like his before. There wasn’t a protocol for comforting a kidnapped guardian soul. It’d never been a possibility before!

So it wasn’t surprising then, that Virgil didn’t have any better of a time processing it.

His whole life, all that he’d known to be true, all that he’d believed in? Everything had been uprooted and turned on its head. He’d apparently been living a life that was not supposed to be.

Perhaps for the first time in two days, Virgil realized that the thought of his death at the end of the month had not been consistently worming into his brain. It had once been something he could never seem to stop thinking about.

The death indicated by his soul timer was now perhaps the farthest thing from his mind.

Perhaps the strangest thing so far was that he wasn’t alone anymore. He’d possibly had more physical contact with other people in the short two(three?) days since this adventure started then he’d had in the past 16 years.

And wasn’t it just the cherry on top that he’d also gotten nearly choked out by the very guardian accused of kidnapping his soul in the first place? And now he was considering trusting the damn guy.

Virgil hollowly wondered why he even cared.

Why did he care about staying alive now when he’s spent his whole life believing he never would? Up until two days ago, that belief had still been true. But now? Avoiding death was the goal, Logan had stated as much.

Really, would Virgil lose anything by trusting the banished guardian? Even if the guardian was trying to trick Virgil and got him killed, what difference would it make? That’d always been the goal before. What did he, Virgil, really have to lose?

If it happened that Virgil lived past his twentieth birthday, if he became a guardian like he was supposed to be in the first place. Would he want that? Did he want that?

He wasn’t sure. Didn’t know if he ever had been.

His life had been built on resignation to the inevitable. Nothing seemed to motivate him towards liking or hating that possibility. He was just that.

Indifferent.

And wasn’t that just the greatest revelation of the night? Finding out that you’re indifferent to living or dying.

Once this was all over, if Virgil lived that long, he would make a note to see a therapist. He knew very well that this kind of mindset was unhealthy to keep. It just couldn’t be helped that the nineteen years he’d lived with this particular affliction couldn’t be fixed by a few extra hugs and comforting words.

Even if he didn’t like the fact that death sounded like the more peaceful option.

His thoughts paused, mentally sighing at the downward spiral he’d caught himself in. It was tiring, and going nowhere.

‘For now,’ he decided, ‘I’m just going to see how this plays out. The Guardian said that none of the others remember the truth, or whatever. So, It’s a ‘he said-they said’ situation right now...’

‘I’ll have to keep an eye out for the guy that he warned me about, then. Who knows if he's as dangerous as The Guardian made him out to be. It’s hard to tell with the weird way he has to talk..’

Virgil paused again, a realization striking him. If he could have groaned, he would have. Not once had he been given or even remembered to ask for the name of said Guardian. What was he supposed to call the rogue Guardian now? He couldn’t just keep calling him The Guardian!

Amidst the disbelief of such a slip up, a foreign yet familiar feeling prodded questioningly at his conscious mind. Adding confusion into the mix of emotions, he returned the feeling with a questioning thought of his own.

He briefly heard the Guardian’s whispy voice once more, now acting with permission.

“You may call me Janus”

Then all at once, Virgil woke up.

.

.

.

Chapter Nine

[reincarnatedladywarrior]

WHAT THE SOCIETY DON’T WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT LOVE

Free encyclopedias on the web would define love as a range of strong and positive emotional and mental states, from the most sublime virtue or good habit, the deepest interpersonal affection, to the simplest pleasure. But come and think of it, love is not an instinct. Love is a skill. And when we say skill, it needs to be learned. A skill that the society refuses to consider as a skill. We are meant to always follow our feelings. And if you keep following your feelings, you will certainly always commit big mistakes in your life. Who wants that? No one wants that. No one wants to end up with the wrong person. Nobody wants to feel like they have been sentenced to life imprisonment by marrying the wrong person.

Unfortunately, it is primarily because people tend to idealize love just like what fairy tale movies try to project on our screens ─ an image of a perfect love where there’s a king and queen living in a castle that is bound to have a happily ever after. But in real life, that’s definitely not always the case. Love is more than just a feeling or a mutual chemistry. It is to love someone with charity and generosity in interpreting someone’s behavior; a constant recognition of ambivalence between the good and bad traits that exist in human nature. Hence, while growing up, we tend to associate an ideal partner to the idea of a good person we have created in our minds from an unconscious attempt of assessing our parents and separating their nice and unpleasant characteristics. Then, we’ll make a pretty long list of good traits that we’re looking for, only the good ones of course. But by doing so, we tend to neglect the mere fact that bad traits are also included in the package. The truth is, a ‘perfect person’ don’t and never exist and is more like a conceptual theory postulated by blind hopeless romantics.

None of us are perfect and we don’t need be perfect to love and be loved. The demand for perfection will lead you to only one thing ─ loneliness. So, one should not find a perfect person to be happy but a perfect person to suffered with in a familiar way that will help you define what genuine happiness really means. Because whether we like it or not, at some point in our lives, everyone will hurt us and all we need is to find someone worthy of the pain that is intertwined with loving. You cannot have perfection and company at the same time because to be in a company with another is negotiating imperfection every day.

Meanwhile, sulking seems to be a reflection of people’s desire to be understood by another individual. Because that’s how love was taught and how we think love should be ─  filled with understanding. That’s right but on its own detriment that’s also the reason why when a person doesn’t understand us, we get disappointed, sad or in rage. We shouldn’t expect someone to read our minds and do something that we wanted them to do for us then invalidate their feelings when they don’t act a certain way that we wanted them to behave. Love requires open communication and a cycle of giving and getting; not only an absolute selfless act of kindness towards another being. Because without communication only endless catastrophe awaits.

On the other hand,  it is also crucial to take note that love is not all about gifting someone all sorts of nice things that you could offer, although it’s considered as one of many love languages out there. On top of all of that, to love is to be a teacher and a learner. ‘If-you-love-me, you-should-accept-all-of-me’ line should be stigmatized as a sign of true love. True love is not just about accepting the way your lover is. It is accepting the truth that love has a role of transforming one another to become the best version of themselves to maintain a healthy relationship. Having said that, it’s a little ticklish but one should learn how to accept the fact that when someone tells you something about yourself, they’re not attacking you. They’re trying to make you a better person and we don’t normally believe that because it hurts our pride to actually take a look inside ourselves to find the truth…that the other person wants to educate us and it isn’t a criticism. Criticism is merely a wrong word to apply to a much nobler idea which is to try to make us better but we tend to reject this idea very strongly. Not unless it’s nothing but a below the belt statement or an insult in disguised of a joke, well then stand your ground. But sometimes you have to bear in mind that an angry person is not always what they see to appear, some of them are secretly and deeply sad pessimists. And this only further emphasizes someone’s need to hone behavioral interpretative skill in order to love properly.

Incompatibility, we are all incompatible but it’s the work of love to make us graciously accommodate each other and each other’s incompatibilities. Therefore, incompatibility is an achievement of love; it’s true love that make us gradually accept the need to be compatible.

We all have types. And we can’t probably change our types. Many of us might have certain types who are going to cause us real problems. They may be too distant, arrogant or going to torture us in some way. And your friends would casually say, cut him/her out of your life he\she’s not good for you. Realistically speaking, you cannot manage your type, let’s take that for granted but there’s an achievement here as well. It is to change how you characteristically respond to your tricky type. Most of us have formed how we respond to our tricky types in early childhood. For instance, we have a distant parent which matches to a distant lover…when we were very young, we respond to that distant parent by attention-seeking…we rattled and banged. And now we’re adults we rattle and bang in our own way. And we think it’s going to help but it doesn’t. It creates a vicious cycle that won’t get us anywhere. It is open to us to have a more mature response to the challenges that the types of people that you’re attracted are going to pose for us. And that’s an immense achievement. One thing that we can do is to recognize the inability to compromise ─ one of the shameful things that we have to admit… “This is my partner, I’ve compromised…in choosing them I’ve compromised.” “Why you’ve compromised?” “Well, I’m not that attractive myself. I’ve got lots of problems. I’m a bit naughty. Frankly, I can’t pull anyone better but they’re very nice…they’re okay.” Now, you would think loser, but that’s not true. Compromise is noble. We compromise in every area of life and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t compromise in our love life. Maybe some parents are just sticking around for the children…good! And we’ll say, “Oh, they’re just sticking around for the children.” That’s a wonderful reason to stick around, for what else they’re going to stick around. Let’s look benevolently in the art of compromise as a massive achievement in life.

Notably, a Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard had a wonderful outburst where he basically said, of course you’re going to marry the wrong person and make the wrong decisions in a whole row of areas. And the reason why you’re going to do this is because you’re a human. Therefore, do not berate yourself for doing what humans do. This is what he said, “Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.”