#cognitive triangle

[bodyofbrilliance]

From Reactive to Reflective: Unlocking Mind Over Mood Strategies

[myopicry]

Helloooo long time no see!

Read the post you reblogged about men always thinking that they're always right and objective, and honestly I think it might be (partially) bc if they DIDN'T act or think this way, then they'd have to analyse their own thoughts and behaviour in relation to the patriarchal society (even the most mysoginistic man knows he lives in a patriarchy imo).

They'll have to put so many things about themselves into question as well as the system they're part of, and that's something which I believe is harder to do when you're in a position of privilege in said system. Sure, they might have no problem recognising their privilege in terms of "men are better than women har har har I am part of the superior sexe", but not in the "negative" way.

I feel like it could tie into the "not all men!!" thing which sometimes gets obnoxious these days. There's a defensiveness and wanting to not go TOO in depth in analysis because of what that'll inevitably lead to. There's a need to retain positive thoughts about this particular aspect of society because of the part they play in that aspect.

I'd probably have more things to say but I just woke up lol. (keep in mind I have not proof read this so apologies in advance) Hope to hear from you soon!

~🪼

lolol ironically I am answering this as I just woke up time zones are funny

the thing is I kind of get it, why men are so reluctant to think about this kind of stuff. it is a bit challenging on anyone to upend their entire comfortable worldview for something more truthful because it does come with having to confront all the ways you've been wrong and have wronged in the past (literally my experience of peaking and desisting lmao) so, to me it definitely makes sense that the last thing men want to do is truly confront their privileges and their place in the world in relation to women, because they're probably going to find themselves on reflection quite guilty for many, many transgressions and things that probably conflict with their moral character and self-view. that being said, imo it's more than a bit cowardly that men won't ever really take this step to truly reflect.

it's not even misogynistic men either, I've talked in depth with a few self-proclaimed progressive men (back when I thought I still needed to actually talk to men lmao) and even if they were "feminists" or were trying to be a different, more respectful of women, person, they would never really interrogate their own treatment of other people, ESPECIALLY women* and make a meaningful effort to change that would require them to put themselves in a vulnerable or lower position than they felt used to. I've seen women reflect and change so much, I think when you're born and raised in a world that tells you all your perceived flaws and works to put you down into a handful of easily digestible roles there's not as insurmountable of a mental hurdle to overcome. still not an excuse for men! if anything, if they're supposed to be so much smarter and reasonable, I'd think they'd jump at the opportunity to become enlightened or whatever.

*god I wish I could do spoiler text on tumblr uhh just look away from this page break dear readers if you don't want some personal blog moments about how men are shitty. nothing explicit just general implied yuck and discussion of sexual harassment.

wow I have no idea why I'm so willing to lay my boring shitty backstory all out on tumblr but here it is!

but essentially of the two men (self-described as progressive or feminist) I knew pretty well, like talking about childhood trauma and personal deep topics, both at some point ended up pushing my boundaries and contributing to I guess the worst mental states I've been in as a young adult. the first time I was too much of a clueless teenager driven by zero self esteem, very untreated anxiety, terrible self deprecation skills, and also zero social awareness coming off of the pandemic, so I ended up in a relationship I didn't really enjoy at all because I wasn't attracted to him romantically or sexually but stayed in out of aforementioned self-loathing and the "obligation" of it all to fit in with my straight girl friends (did not help that I recently realized I had a crush on one of them and really wanted to push down that feeling) and the cultural norms I saw around me and my family. the second time I was lost in the gender juice, dissociated from my body to the max, and IDed as aroace lmao but was also very lonely (and once again was developing feelings for a straight girl holy shit I'm writing this and maybe I should stop knowing so many straight girls lmao) but luckily I was older and cut that shit out (not fast enough to not have experiences and time to regret and have boundaries violated ugh) anyway this guy told me his sad backstory about being a sexually harassing little shit in middle school but also had a really bad home life and high school experience and even after I kept giving him (not to brag) amazing advice to get his shit together and see women as people, he kept avoiding actually doing the work. In hindsight, I think the only reason he even listened to me talk and told me all this was because he believes in the "queer identity culture" stuff (bisexual + he/they lmao) and since I didn't label myself as a woman + was attempting to pass he must have "not considered me a woman" enough to immediately write off. yet he still assumed he could push my boundaries unlike how he would treat other men. curious.

anyway, tldr!! yeah men are shit and even progressive men are their own kind of self-blinded shit. they're fine as acquaintances, even some could be okay as friends, but I guess I've learned to not expect much out of them. maybe this is cynical, but it becomes much easier when you look for their value first, before leading with the natural empathy to befriend on an equal level. always keep the upper hand. this might not make a lot of sense I should write a separate post about it hmmm anyway

anon thank you for visiting again!! I'm sorry for the wall of text followed by the wall of text but I assume you keep coming back because you actually enjoy walls of text, so I hope you get something out of this set of walls of text!! and more walls of text to come! I've been in a very "sorting through the archives of my life and coming to terms with everything leading up to now" and it's been great for a lot of self-reflecting writing ideas. unlike men, I hope after truly confronting the events of my life and breaking it down, I will change and be aware of my (many, many) faults and become a much better person for it.

[13thpythagoras]

Dirac is espousing his own religious conviction here

it's fine by me but it's every bit as religious to say God is a product of human imagination as it is to say, God is a product of ET civilizations that live nearby and guided evolution intelligently on this planet, ie anthropological/religious stories handed down of first interactions with those ETs being usually referred to as Gods.

Saying "God does not at all exist in any form" is a negative religious statement, and like a negative number still being a number it's still entering the religious equation with mass and weight, of the negative variety.

Honestly the "God doesn't exist" belief is the same to me as "aliens don't exist" or "fairies don't exist," nah I'm aware all those things exist copiously; giant sea turtles exist too and sorry if you haven't seen one but they do exist. Just play nice with them if you encounter one of the above, don't accept gifts or make eye contact. That's all I can say, or if you're a huge jerk and you wanna lose your soul then take their gifts and do make eye contact with an ET / djinn... i mean reiki? hello? these guys can do insane stuff with reiki...watch a reiki master work, a true old school one. They can start flames lol I can only put flames out via airbending but a true reiki master can start a flame with airbending, dass some next level ish...it's on video, the 'scientist' must explain it! or we can sit back and enjoy the psychedelic background radiation of the universe slowly come into greater clarity...

[eeriesilkworm]

There's a real possibility we get a Will Byers centric love triangle in ST5

We know the Duffers love a good love triangle.

So much so, they've given us one (or several) in every season of Stranger Things thus far—and I don’t think they’ll break that streak in Season 5.

One thing I’ve noticed is that while some love triangles stretch across multiple seasons (like Steve/Nancy/Jonathan), the writers also introduce at least one new triangle each season.

Here’s a quick breakdown:

S1: Steve / Nancy / Jonathan S2: Steve / Nancy / Jonathan + Joyce / Hopper / Bob + Lucas / Dustin / Max S3: Robin / Steve / Tammy + Joyce / Hopper / Alexei + Joyce / Hopper / Mr Clarke S4: Steve / Nancy / Jonathan + Mike / El / Will + Robin / Vickie / Vickie's ex-boyfriend S5: Steve / Nancy / Jonathan (likely resolved) + Mike / El / Will (will come to a head) + ???

Sometimes they’re played straight, but the writers also love to openly mock the love triangle trope, too—especially in Season 3:

For example, Hopper gets irrationally jealous over Joyce talking to Mr Clarke and even Alexei—prompting Joyce’s sarcastic line about how every man she talks to must be her boyfriend. And of course, there's Steve wrongly assuming Robin has a crush on him, then confessing to her, only to find out she actually liked Tammy Thompson.

Basically, there’s no one way the writers use this trope. They clearly enjoy it—but more importantly, they enjoy subverting it.

So, call me delusional but I think it's likely that we could be getting another Will Byers love triangle in Season 5:

He's the main character of the season and his arc will (partially), revolve around his "coming of age" and acceptance of his sexuality, after all.

Will has consistently been portrayed as someone who is considered attractive or desirable in-universe. In every season except Season 3, a girl shows interest in him despite his nerdiness and perceived queerness.

And now, it looks like the Duffer Brothers are visually rebranding him as a romantic lead:

His new hair and costume design feels both heroic and boyish. The flannel—once a staple of his wardrobe and a symbol of his innocence—is slowly being phased out, suggesting a gradual loss of that innocence. However, he’s still buttoned up. That tells me Will is stepping into his manhood (and by extension, his sexuality), but he's still holding something back. He's going to need to be pushed out of his comfort zone; both physically and emotionally.

Even narratively, there are established links which hint at a possible non-Mike love interest:

When we look back at Will’s comment about not falling in love, we often read it as foreshadowing his feelings for Mike—or hinting that he already is in love with him. But I also interpret it as something more: Will doesn’t believe he will ever inspire love (or romantic attraction). He sees himself as undesirable.

Think about the four original members of the Party. Yes, they’re all considered uncool nerds to some degree—yet three of them are affirmed through romantic connection: Lucas has Max. Dustin has Suzie. Mike has El. They each receive validation and the feeling of being wanted.

Will does not.

And yet, the writers have made a consistent effort to show us that Will is considered attractive—despite his belief that he isn’t, and despite the lack of romantic validation he receives. That creates a real disconnect. A kind of cognitive dissonance.

Having Will repeatedly receive attention from girls—only to reject them or appear disinterested—was an effective way to subtly hint at his queerness. But it’s happened so many times now, that there needs to be a payoff.

What is the long-term point of making the canonically gay kid, who already believes he’s undesirable, only receive interest from women?

Er, there isn’t one.

It makes sense, then, to give Will the opportunity to experience mutual same-sex attraction with someone who isn't Mike.

Because Will's arc about accepting his sexuality doesn't just have to culminate in the realization that Mike loves him too (as sweet as that is).

It should culminate with the knowledge that queerness is valid, that he is considered desirable and worthy of romantic interest, and that he isn't alone in experiencing queerness.

Additionally, as mentioned above, Will is already perceived as queer—he’s been bullied for it his entire life, despite never explicitly coming out. Hawkins is a small town where word travels fast. So if there is another young gay guy in town, chances are… they’ve already heard of “Zombie Boy” Will Byers.

He'd certainly be on their radar: he’s good-looking, he’s mysterious, and he’s still closeted, which means he’d likely be discreet.

And let’s not forget where Will was emotionally at the end of Season 4, especially regarding his feelings for Mike:

He’s starting from ground zero in Season 5. He has zero hope that Mike feels the same way, and he’s likely going to be making zero moves.

In fact, most Byler theorists agree—it makes sense that Mike will have to be the initiator in Season 5. Will is just too emotionally shut down to make the first move.

But… wait a minute.

If this season is supposed to be about Will coming into his own as a young gay man—about self-acceptance, confidence, and owning his identity—how does that make sense if Mike is the one initiating everything?!

Well… maybe Mike needs to make the first move when it comes to Byler. But that doesn’t mean Will has to stay passive the whole season.

It’s possible that Will could gain some much-needed confidence—maybe even a bit of romantic “practice”—by taking a more active role with someone else first.

Giving Will a (temporary) new love interest would also level-out the playing field between himself and Mike:

There's a real sense of karmic justice and ironic foreshadowing in Stranger Things.

Will's jealousy of Mike and El's relationship has been hinted at for two seasons now—and he even complained that Mike only called a couple times while El had a "book of letters" from him.

What’s interesting is that even after Mike takes accountability for their argument and they make up, that specific comment—about the phone calls and letters—is never addressed. It lingers.

That’s why I think we could see a similar conversation (or even a full-blown argument) between Mike and Will in Season 5. But this time, Will might be the one receiving phone calls or letters—from someone else.

And let’s not forget: it’s possible that the Byers are temporarily staying with the Wheelers in Season 5. If Will has a secret admirer, and he’s trying to keep it quiet, Mike is going to find out. (Excellent way to manufacture drama).

I also feel compelled to reiterate that the Duffers have shown time and time again: they can handle love triangles in many different ways.

They can play it for comedy. They can make it completely one-sided or delusional—like Mike projecting his own jealousy, much like Hopper did with Joyce in Season 3. A love triangle doesn’t have to be serious or long-lasting. It could span multiple episodes, or just one. It could involve a kiss—or zero physical contact at all.

And it doesn’t have to disrupt a Byler endgame—in fact, quite the opposite:

Seeing Will Byers receive romantic attention from another male character would serve as a reminder to the audience that Will is desirable and that he has options—this increases the stakes for Mike.

The GA will start wondering if this is really Will's endgame, and if he is truly ready to get over Mike. The GA, especially those who never shipped Byler before, may find themselves unexpectedly invested. They might even feel disappointed or sad at the thought of Will "moving on."

It also creates space for the writers to show us jealous Mike. Just as we've seen jealous, longing Will, a temporary love triangle allows us to explore Mike’s feelings through that same lens of romantic insecurity.

This brings the possibility of Byler to the forefront of the GA's subconscious. At the same time, it invites them to root for Mike, and therefore Byler.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Hate

TRIANGULAR THEORY OF HATE

Typically hate is thought of as a single emotion. 

But there is reason to believe that hate has multiple components that can manifest themselves in different ways on different occasions. 

According to a triangular component of the duplex theory of hate, hate potentially comprises 3 components. 

As with love, hate can be captured by both feelings triangles and action triangles. 

Feelings may or may not translate themselves into actions, and actions may or may not represent genuine feelings. 

People may interpret actions as meaning different things, depending on their mappings of feelings into actions and vice versa. 

There are 3 components of hate: negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment.

Negation of intimacy - involves the pursuit of distance, often because the hated individual arouses repulsion and disgust.

Passion - expresses itself as intense anger or fear in response to a threat.

Commitment - is characterized by cognitions of devaluation and diminution through contempt for the targeted group.

The 3 components give rise to 7 different types of hate (plus non-hate), based on the particular combination of aspects involved:

Non-hate: No feelings of hate (none of negation of intimacy, passion, or commitment)

Cool hate: Disgust (disgust of negation of intimacy alone)

Hot hate: Anger/Fear (anger/fear of passion alone)

Cold hate: Devaluation/Diminution (devaluation/diminution of decision/commitment alone)

Boiling hate: Revulsion (disgust of negation of intimacy + anger/fear of passion)

Simmering hate: Loathing (disgust of negation of intimacy + devaluation/diminution of decision/commitment)

Seething hate: Revilement (anger/fear of passion + devaluation/diminution of decision/commitment)

Burning hate: Need for annihilation (disgust of negation of intimacy + anger/fear of passion + devaluation/diminution of decision/commitment)

THEORY OF HATE AS A STORY

The theory of hate as a story proposes that hate emerges from different kinds of stories. Some of the most common stories, deriving from the work of Sam Keene, Anthony Rhodes, Robert Zajonc, and others, are:

Stranger (vs. in-group) - Negation of Intimacy + Commitment

Impure-other (vs. pure in-group) - N

Controller (vs. controlled) - C

Faceless foe (vs. individuated in-group) - C

Enemy of God (vs. servant of God) - Passion + C

Morally bankrupt (vs. morally sound) - N + C

Death (vs. life) - N + C

Barbarian (vs. civilized in-group) - N + P + C

Greedy enemy (vs. financially responsible in-group) - N + C

Criminal (vs. innocent party) - C

Torturer (vs. victim) - N + P + C

Murderer (vs. victim) - N + P + C

Seducer/rapist (vs. victim) - N + P + C

Animal-pest (vs. human) - N + P

Power-crazed (vs. mentally balanced) - C

Subtle-infiltrator (vs. infiltrated) - C

Comic-character (vs. sensible in-group) - C

Thwarter/destroyer of destiny (vs. seeker of destiny) - C

Instigation of hate covers roughly 5 steps. Not all steps need to occur in order for hate to come into being. Indeed, even one step may start the process. The steps are:

The target is revealed to be anathema.

The target plans actions contrary to the interests of the in-group.

The target makes its presence felt.

The target translates plans into action.

The target is achieving some success in its goals.

Finally, perception becomes reality.

There may be elements of truth in some stories.

Example: A particular opponent may be loathsome in any number of ways.

But the power of stories is that their perception becomes, for the individual experiencing the stories, reality.

The individual typically does not question whether a given story is true. For him or her, it simply is true.

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References

Writing Notes: Love Click "Keep reading" for more examples. Warning: Very long text.

taxonomy of types of hate

The three components of hate generate, in various combinations, seven different types of hate. They are probably not exhaustive, and, because they represent limiting cases, are not mutually exclusive. Particular instances may straddle categories.

Non-Hate. Strangers on the street are likely to fall into this category, as may members of one’s family or one’s friends. But family members may arouse mixed emotions, so there is the possibility that some degree of hate exists toward family members, even coactively with feelings of love. In a healthy society (and a healthy person), most feelings one has toward other people are non-hate.

Cool Hate: Disgust. Cool hate is characterized by feelings of disgust toward the targeted group. The hater wishes to have nothing to do with the targeted group. Members of the targeted group may be viewed as subhuman, perhaps as vermin of some kind or as garbage. Visceral prejudice may be expressed as cool hate. The Sidney Poitier movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner depicted the visceral reaction of disgust of parents of a White woman who brought a Black man (her new beau) home to have dinner with her parents. Because the main feeling is a “cool” one, the reaction may be one of aversion rather than confrontation.

Hot Hate: Anger/Fear. Hot hate is characterized by extreme feelings of anger and/or fear toward a threat, and the reaction may be to run away or to attack (flight or fight). Sudden flare-ups of hate, such as road rage, are examples of hot hate. Gang members may kill others if they feel disrespected by the comments or even gestures of others. Riots often are accompanied by hot hate. People who feel only cool hate most of the time may be provoked and stirred up by the passion of the moment and find their hate converting into hot hate. The conversion may be short-lived. After the mutual egging on of the riot is over, those involved in it may revert to feelings of cool hate.

Cold Hate: Devaluation/Diminution. Cold hate is characterized by thoughts of unworthiness directed toward the target group. There is something wrong with the members of this group. Indoctrination often portrays the group as evil, as in Ronald Reagan’s conjuring up of the “Evil Empire” in referring to the former Soviet Union. This kind of use of metaphor invokes a number of free associations, all of which are stereotypically negative. The indoctrination may be against any group – Communists or capitalists in the Cold War (which was “cold” in more ways than one). Cold hate can be instilled even among those who have never encountered members of the target group. For example, it is not uncommon to find anti-Semitism or anti-Islamic cognitions among people who have never actually met a Jew or a Muslim. People are often unaware of their own cold hate. It is simply too much a part of who they are and how they were brought up. The cold hate may lie dormant unless the people are forced or inadvertently come into contact with members of a hated group.

Boiling Hate: Revulsion. Boiling hate is characterized by feelings of revulsion toward the targeted group. The group may be viewed as subhuman or inhuman and as a threat, and something must be done to reduce or eliminate the threat. The targeted group may change from time to time. In the earlier stages of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union was perceived as bad and revolting. Then, when Hitler made a pact with Stalin, the Soviet Union was perceived as good. Then, later, it was perceived as bad again. There was no sense of permanent commitment to any belief about the Soviet Union and Soviets. Negative intimacy and passion were instilled with a distinct absence of commitment. The change was later captured in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, where the identity of the enemy changed from one day or even one moment to another, and people were expected to adapt their hatreds to those chosen for them at any given moment by the government.

Simmering Hate: Loathing. Simmering hate is characterized by feelings of loathing toward the hated target. The targeted individual/s may be viewed as disgusting and as likely always to remain this way. There is no particular passion, just a simmering of hate. Ruthless, calculated assassinations often take this form. There is nothing sudden about such assassinations, which may be planned over periods of time, as Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination of President Kennedy apparently was. Alfred Hitchcock’s movie Strangers on a Train depicts an individual who has felt simmering hate over a long period of time, and has devised a plan to have a murder committed without his actually having directly to take part in it.

Seething Hate: Revilement. Seething hate is characterized by feelings of revilement toward the targeted individual/s. Such individuals are a threat and always have been. Planned mob violence, often preceded by fiery oratory, sometimes takes on the characteristics of seething hate. The goal is to arouse the mob to violence, as in the Krystallnacht, where mobs were sent to destroy shops of Jewish shopkeepers who were portrayed as seeking to destroy the economy of Germany. In these cases, the targeted group may be portrayed not as subhuman but as more than human, for example, as being engaged in a worldwide plot of domination or conquest. Fears among U.S. militia groups of black helicopters sent by the forces of world government show this kind of hate. The enemy is not subhuman, but superhuman in its massive organization and conspiracy to take over the world. The Left Behind series of novels, portraying a world very loosely based on the biblical book of Revelations, describes the efforts of the Anti-Christ and his allies to take over the world and the people in it.

Burning Hate: Need for annihilation. Burning hate is characterized by all three components of hate. The haters may feel a need to annihilate their enemy, as postulated by Kernberg (1993) for extreme forms of hate. Some years back, Eli´an Gonzalez, a Cuban boy who was found clinging to a boat off the shores of Florida, was seized from his Miami relatives by the U.S. government. There were massive demonstrations in Miami, Florida, and Union City, New Jersey, as well as elsewhere, against Fidel Castro and the U.S. government, which was seen as in league with Castro. The outpouring of hate was powerful. The targeted group may be viewed as diabolical destroyers, and indeed, a poster shown on CNN depicted then Attorney-General Janet Reno with the horns of the Devil.

relations of the components of hate to terrorism, massacres, and genocides

The triangular theory of the structure of hate speculatively holds that hate is related to terrorism, massacres, and genocides through the number of components of hate experienced.

Danger Level 0: No Hate-Based Danger, results when none of the components of hate is present.

Danger Level 1: Mild Hate-Based Danger, results when one of the components of hate is present.

Danger Level 2: Moderate Hate-Based Danger, results when two of the components of hate are present.

Danger Level 3: Severe Hate-Based Danger, results when three of the components of hate are present.

Massacres and genocides are much more likely to result, arguably, when all three components are present. They are also a product of stories.

stories underlying the development of hate

The Stranger Story. The hated enemy is a stranger. Propaganda typically shows the object of hate as very strange looking. One Nazi propaganda poster shows a Jew with a Star of David tattooed on his forehead, with evil-looking squinting eyes, with a grossly asymmetrical face, with a twisted lip and a double chin, and with large ears notably sticking out from his head. No one can look at this poster and identify with the individual depicted: He is a stranger. We usually think of strangers as people we do not know and never have known. But they need not be. Often the stranger is someone who is familiar to us, and whom we thought we knew, but who, on reexamination, now appears to be someone else – someone strange and perhaps incomprehensible. The stranger story can apply to interpersonal relationships. We may be in a relationship with a partner whom we think we know quite well. Then we discover, to our astonishment, that the partner is having an affair, or has a sizable private bank account that he or she has hidden for many years. The person whom we thought we knew well may now come to seem like an utter stranger, and we may find ourselves wondering what other things about the partner that may be detrimental to our well-being he or she has not revealed.

The Impure Other Story. The hated enemy is impure or contaminated. Typically, the enemy is trying to spread this contamination. The enemy must be stopped before the contamination gets out of control (or to stop contamination that already is out of control). The euphemism “ethnic cleansing” may call to mind images of an enemy that needs to be eliminated from a society that otherwise would be pure in much the same way dirt needs to be eliminated from holy relics. In a close relationship, hate may be generated by the discovery that the partner has been contaminated, as by an extramarital affair or a disfiguring disease. In some societies, it is sufficient for a woman to be raped for her elimination to seem necessary to certain men with this story. The woman now is no longer viewed as pure and therefore may be seen as having ceased to serve her purpose. Curiously, and with unabashed sexism, the impurity applies only to the wronged female, not the male who wronged her.

The Controller Story. The hated enemy is trying to control you and perhaps the world. One German propaganda poster shows a Jew riding on top of the shoulders of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, who is knee-deep in water. The only happy face in the poster is that of the Jew on top. Stories, such as the controller story, may have elements of truth. For example, the Sunnis in Iraq, although a minority, controlled the country for a long time. Some of them built up a system of oppression and repression that was, although brutal toward all Iraqis, especially arbitrary and invidious toward Shiites (Ghosh, 2007). But the stories may also be completely false, as when a group is targeted as controlling a society when in fact they are powerless and persecuted.

The Faceless Foe Story. The hated enemy has no face and indeed has few distinguishing human characteristics. For example, one political cartoon shows a dozen Soviet leaders who all look exactly the same, and have few, if any, distinguishing human characteristics. They are faceless and indistinguishable from each other. In a close relationship, one may reconceptualize one’s partner as faceless – as ordinary – and feel one’s love dissipate and even turn into hate if one feels tricked into having (previously) believed that the partner was special. Sometimes, perpetrators seek to be faceless. Torturers may hide their identities so that their victims cannot later identify them. Other times, victims are made to be faceless. Bombardiers may find it easier to destroy a whole town from an aircraft because, to them, the enemy is faceless.

The Enemy of God Story. The hated enemy is not only your enemy, but also, an enemy of God. The stories, as tends to be the case historically, are created by cynical and destructive individuals who seek to use others as their tools for wreaking havoc and destruction. This story can apply to individuals in intimate relationships in which one or both are religious. If one of the partners comes to be perceived by the other as having committed a mortal sin, then a loving relationship can turn to hate as the couple struggles with the (perceived) sin of the blamed partner. In a religion story of love, a reconceptualization of the partner as of the Devil rather than of God can suddenly turn love into hate.

The Moral Bankruptcy Story. The hated enemy is immoral or must be eliminated on moral grounds (as proposed by Zajonc, 2000). The enemy is doing immoral things, such as praying to the wrong god or gods, or to no god at all. Or the enemy is defiling holy sites or simply insulting the morality of God or humans by its very existence. During the Salem witch craze, one excuse for the elimination of alleged witches was their immoral pact with Satan. In close relationships, a spouse who comes to be viewed as immoral may be hated on account of the alleged immorality.

The Death Story. The hated enemy represents death. One Italian propaganda photo shows the Statue of Liberty carrying its torch and igniting a city. At the same time, it is taking off its mask to reveal a skull underneath. Enemies often do represent death. For example, the Janjaweed militias in contemporary Sudan come as close to representing death as any destroyers can. But these militias, following historical patterns, portray themselves as protecting the lives that are “worth” protecting, and the civilization that they claim to represent.

The Barbarian Story. The hated enemy represents a barbarian. Rome was eventually overthrown by enemies that the Romans viewed as barbarians. Today, the world faces attacks on many fronts from enemies viewed as barbarians. The barbarians, in turn, are likely to view those they attack as morally decadent and themselves as saviors coming to sweep away the decadence they believe they see among those they attack.

The Greedy Enemy Story. The hated enemy is exceptionally greedy. When gasoline prices reached high levels in the United States, one oil company produced a greater profit than any U.S. company in the history of the country. A CEO had just retired from this company with an exceptionally generous retirement package. The problem is that sometimes hated objects act in ways that promote rather than destroy the story that they would wish to have dissociated from them.

The Criminal Story. The hated enemy is a criminal, and needs to be dealt with as such. The hated person or group may have stolen something away from one, such as a loved one or some object of value. Propaganda photos frequently are made to look like wanted posters. One such poster from World War II, produced in the United States, shows Hideki Tojo, Prime Minister of Japan during World War II, in such a wanted poster. In a close relationship, discovering criminal behavior on the part of one’s partner may turn love into hate, especially if the criminal behavior is directed toward oneself. The behavior need not be legally criminal. If one perceives it as morally criminal, that may be enough to generate this story.

The Torturer Story. The hated enemy is a torturer. Some propaganda posters show actual portraits of individuals who have been tortured by enemies. In a close relationship, one may come to conceive of one’s partner as a torturer, and come to feel hate rather than love toward the partner. The torturer story is one of the most powerful stories of hate. In modern day Argentina, Chile, South Africa, and other countries, victims and their family are still trying to come to grips with a long history of government perpetrated torture. And attempts are still being made to identify the people responsible for the torture – both the torturers themselves and those who commissioned them to execute the torture.

The Murderer Story. The hated enemy is a murderer. Sometimes actual photographs are used, such as a widely distributed photo of right-wing students hanging and simultaneously hitting a left-wing student over the head with a chair. The right-wing students are smiling and cheering as the act progresses. In a close relationship, sometimes individuals feel that their lives are threatened, literally or symbolically, by their partners, and may come to feel hate rather than love toward their partners.

The Seducer/Rapist Story. The hated enemy is a seducer or a rapist. One German propaganda poster shows an older, ugly Jew seducing a beautiful woman. An American poster shows unclothed women in cages being inspected by Nazi soldiers. In close relationships, an individual (usually a woman) may come to feel that sex is no longer consensual but forced, and may come to experience hate rather than love for the partner. Unfortunately, many hated targets are rapists. Soldiers in war frequently use rape to satisfy their own lust, and to demoralize and humiliate the enemy. Rapes may occur in intimate relationships as well as in any others. They may also occur in families (incest).

The Animal Pest Story. The hated enemy is an animal pest, such as a germ, an insect such as a cockroach, a reptile, or some kind of a beast. One World War II German propaganda poster shows the Jew as a rat, with the heading “Rotten.” A World War II Italian propaganda poster shows the American G.I. as an ape. In a close relationship, one may come to view one’s partner as animal-like – a pig or a rat – and may come to feel hate rather than love for the partner. These stories become more powerful as those who perceive themselves as victims feel that the violations occur on a repeated basis.

The Power Monger Story. The hated enemy is crazed with the lust for power. A World War II German propaganda poster shows Roosevelt embracing the globe, his face crazed with the lust for power. In a close relationship, one may come to view one’s partner as totally absorbed by power aspects of the relationship, and as seeking total domination. One may feel one’s love convert into hate. The leaders of some countries come to be seen as power mongers. Unfortunately, they may act in ways that promote the stereotype. Whatever their intentions, their efforts to combat hate may then be belied by their own actions.

The Subtle Infiltrator Story. The hated enemy is a subtle infiltrator. One British poster shows a group of Army officers talking while a beautiful woman is sitting amongst them, pretending to be “dumb” but listening carefully to all that is said. Stalin used the subtle infiltrator story to induce hate of certain groups. Beginning in 1927, he staged a series of show trials designed to show that various groups were actually subtle infiltrators in league with the enemies of society. For example, managers, engineers, academics of various kinds, people associated with religious movements – all were portrayed as in league with and in the pay of world capitalists to destroy Soviet society (Mace, 1997). Similar stories are still used today to target individuals and groups.

The Comic Character Story. The hated enemy is a comic character. During World War II, American comic books often portrayed comical Nazi soldiers as being demolished by American super-heroes. A Walt Disney cartoon showed Donald Duck throwing a tomato at the face of a comical Adolph Hitler. Charlie Chaplin played a comic Hitler as well. Nazi propaganda portrayed Jewish women as fat, ugly, and stupid. In a close relationship, one may come to view one’s partner as a comic figure – as a buffoon or a fool – and feel one’s love turn into hate. This story may be less effective in inducing hate than some of the other stories, because it is likely to instill neither anger nor fear. Indeed, it may lead people to view a threat as less serious than it is, and, because of its comical portrayal, to dismiss any danger the threat poses.

The Thwarter/Destroyer-of-Destiny Story. The enemy is hated because of its role in thwarting or destroying a certain destiny. For example, the murderer of a loved one may be hated because the murderer has destroyed what should have been the destiny both of the loved one and of the one who has offered the love.

structure of the stories of hate

Because the stories of hate tend to be simple, some people might prefer to view them simply as negative stereotypes, or as negative images of the enemy.

Why use the story concept at all? Because, arguably, each is associated with an anticipated set of events.

The key point is that the threat represents a dynamic story, not just a static image or stereotype.

Whereas stereotypes tend to be somewhat one-dimensional, immobile, and static over time, stories are multidimensional, fluid, and changeable over time.

1. The Target Is Revealed to be Anathema At some point, often long in the past (and probably more often than not, in the imagined past), the target reveals itself to be worthy of hatred. Perhaps members of the group killed God, or slaughtered members of what is now the in-group, or plotted the destruction of the in-group, or revealed themselves to be dirty or greedy or whatever. Although the events giving rise to the groups’ being labeled as anathema may have occurred long ago, they can remain in a metaphorical sort of Jungian “collective unconscious.” In some cases, the events may never have occurred at all. They may merely be imagined to have occurred, such as when they are part of an oral history of dubitable validity.

2. The Target Plans Actions Contrary to the Interests of the In-Group One may not become aware of this problem right away. But at some point, one becomes aware that for some time, often a long time, the target has been planning actions contrary to the best (and often, any good) interests of the in-group. Whatever the problem is, it is no longer historical in nature; it is current. Because members of the in-group often do not realize they have been “plotted against” until what they perceive to be rather late in the plotting process, they may feel a sense of desperation and urgency. Of course, in many instances, the planned actions are imaginary, which does not make them any less “real” psychologically to those who are being manipulated into hating the members of the target group.

3. The Target Makes Its Presence Felt The story often first becomes perceptible when the target appears significantly on the scene. The target may come from outside, either legally (through legal immigration) or illegally (through illegal immigration, invasion, or imposition by outside powers). But the target also may come from inside. Perhaps it has been there a long time. Indeed, people often feel that they were blinded, and that only now are they realizing the threat that has been there for some time. Now the target is becoming powerful, and hence is becoming a force to be reckoned with, before it is too late. Stalin was notorious for devising elaborate plots that were alleged to have been hatched against the government, which had no more reality than the proverbial will o’ the wisp.

4. The Target Translates Plans into Action Members of the in-group believe they are becoming aware that the period of plotting is over for the target. The target is actively translating thought into action, and thus has become a true threat, not just a hypothetical one. Sometimes the action is now perceived to be already quite far along before individuals realize what is going on; other times the action is perceived to be just starting up. The exact type of action depends on the content of the story. In many instances, the only action is that of the perpetrators against the targets, who were never planning any action in any event. Enemies of God actively work against God. Beasts cause wanton destruction. Rapists, of course, rape men, women, and children. Subtle infiltrators covertly try to take things over. Thwarters of destiny try to make sure that the in-group cannot achieve the goals it deserves to achieve. In each case, the target group works against the in-group. What differs is how they achieve their goals. Often, they may achieve their goals in multiple ways through multiple stories.

5. The Target Is Achieving Some Success in Its Goals Unsuccessful targets may be viewed as pathetic, such as members of very small groups that have dreams of taking over the world. But once the target is not only acting, but achieving some success in its actions, feelings of hatred and perhaps the desire to act upon these feelings become a force to be reckoned with. In sum, the images, in themselves, are the contents that fill in the story schema. In a sense, the precise story is less important than how many of the above steps the target group has (in the minds of the in-group) managed to enact. The more steps the target group enacts, the more of a threat they become, and the “hotter” the hate is likely to be (i.e., the more the number of components that are likely to be operative).

mapping to the triangle of hate

Different stories are likely to induce different components of hate, but which are induced probably depends in part upon the person.

Consider a few examples:

Stories of individuals or groups as vermin or as impure are likely to induce negation of intimacy.

Stories of individuals or groups as murderers or rapists are “hot” and thus are likely to induce passion.

Stories of individuals or groups as greedy or as dominators are “cooler” and thus are more likely to induce commitment.

the relation of hate to love

Often, love is viewed incorrectly as the opposite of hate.

They are thought to constitute just one single dimension on which a person can move from love to hate, from hate to love, and so forth.

Hate is neither the opposite nor the absence of love. Rather, the relationship between love and hate is multifaceted.

Therefore, love and hate can exist at the same time in the same person with regard to the same object.

The opposite of love is rather indifference.

Hate and love have a lot in common. Both involve very intense emotions and attraction of a certain kind.

Love and hate both have three components, which are interrelated.

In one case, the components are inverses of each other. In the other two cases, they are actually the same, but are experienced differently.

Different people have different combinations of these components so, structurally, may experience hate (or love) differently.

The stories of love are also susceptible to turning. Consider some of the stories of love, and how they can contain within them the seeds of destruction:

1. Addiction. An addiction story involves one partner’s feeling addicted to the other, or less frequently, both partners feeling addicted to each other. Addictions are usually, in themselves, love–hate relationships. One feels bound to something or someone, but feels also one’s freedom to escape is restricted. Feelings of love especially can turn to hate if one feels that one’s addiction is self-destructive, as when one feels an addiction toward someone who is abusive toward oneself or others.

2. Business. In a business story, two people essentially view each other as investments, much like they might invest in people in any other business. The difference is that this is a particularly important investment. A business story succeeds by virtue of both partners feeling that the business is equitable and works to their mutual advantage. But if the business goes bad – one partner makes poor decisions that lead to financial or other forms of distress, or if one partner proves to be untrustworthy, the relationship can go bad rather quickly, and turn love to hate.

3. Fantasy. In a fantasy story, the partners view each other much the way characters would in a fairy tale. The success of a fantasy story in love typically depends upon the partners respectively occupying the roles of prince and princess, king and queen, or similar roles. But just as frogs can change to princes, so can princes change to frogs. And just as kings or queens can be perceived as beneficent, so can they be perceived as malevolent or as imperious. The success of the fantasy story thus depends on the partners maintaining positive images in the roles they occupy. Should the images become negative, hate can replace love.

4. Horror. Horror stories are stories based on one partner’s terrorizing the other. Relationships based on horror stories are almost always love–hate relationships to begin with. One is attracted by, and simultaneously repelled by, the abuse that characterizes such relationships. In some cases, the individual who is the object of the terror in such a relationship may come to hate the perpetrator, much as the victim comes to hate the perpetrator in a massacre. There is also a psychological phenomenon called “Stockholm Syndrome,” in which the victim of a hostage-taking develops positive emotions toward the hostage-takers.

5. Mystery. In a mystery story, one partner seems mysterious, and the other acts as a detective trying to solve the mystery. A mystery story gains its interest by virtue of the fascination of one partner with the mystery represented by the other. The individual peels away one layer of mystery after another. But one may find that, at bottom, the story is not a pleasant one. For example, the mystery may be that the partner is exploiting one, or is involved with other people as well. Love can then turn to hate.

6. Travel. In a travel story, two partners travel through life together, trying to the extent possible to stay on the same or at least proximal paths. A travel story can go bad if a partner feels that the other partner has departed from the path they set out together, or has started to regress on the path. If the paths diverge too much, and one partner does not like the path the other is taking, that dislike or even hate may transfer to the partner. This can happen, too, when one of the partners goes through a physical, psychological, or social transformation that changes him or her. When he or she makes new friends his/her partner dislikes or gets on a career trajectory that makes him or her much more successful than the partner and leaves that partner jealous, hate can develop as well.

7. War. In a war story, two partners enjoy fighting with each other. They seem constantly to be at war with each other. Love may turn to hate if the war becomes a serious one, and the partners find that the fights lose whatever good nature they originally may have had. The war story perhaps provides the best transition from a consideration of love to a consideration of hate.

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References

Writing Notes: Love

[mediamime]

Supernatural and the Concept of Grace

Hi! It's your friendly neighborhood Media Mime and I'm here with a wall of text about my insane thoughts on how Angels work.

From the TV show Supernatural.

I don't know what I'm doing with my life.

---

These are headcanons, mind you, so they aren’t supported by the show. I just think way too much about stuff like this.

This all stems from how beings from a different plane of existence would be borderline incomprehensible to humans. The whole, true form and voice not being viewable/hearable led to me thinking about them in more abstract forms.

I’m going to give you some weird background stuff below, but feel free to skip to the end if you’re just here for the Grace mechanics and things.

*Edit: Making the lil click more bar because I realized I never did this and the Post Is Too Long.

---

My day job is as a Math Adjunct, so you can imagine I have a bit of a fixation on recurring principles, formulas, geometry, and so on.

It’s my jam. 

Specifically, I have a focus on Mathematics in Nature. It's fascinating to me that we see the same shapes and patterns recurring over and over again in all natural formations.

I want to stress that to get into this kind of thing, you don’t actually need a background in Math. There are several resources online that provide examples and visual guides to this field of study. I’ve provided a visual guide below of some of my favorite phenomena as well as a basic (very basic) explanation of the principle. 

I ain’t getting paid for this right now, so you get what you get!

---

Now is also a time to mention that I took some psychedelics in my 20s that made me See Some Shit. This is not meant to be inspirational. I just think I should mention it because you see a lot of Stuff on them, not always Stuff you want to see. You can look up information about psychedelic geometry and skip the hassle of ingesting things you probably shouldn’t.

Don’t do drugs kids, or whatever.

---

The Fibonacci Sequence is where numbers ascend by adding the two previous numbers to itself. This plays a key role in something known as the Golden Spiral. For a very basic explanation, you take a square and draw an arc from one corner to the next and repeat with bigger and bigger squares.

1,

1 + 1 = 2,

1 + 2 = 3,

2 + 3 = 5,

3 + 5 = 8,

5 + 8 = 13,

and so on.

The curve itself is seen in the way plants grow, shells form, and weather formations to name a few. 

(The following are not my images, but they are readily available online. )

---

Tessellations are repetitive polygons (shapes with 3 or more connecting lines, think triangles, squares, hexagons) that form together, without gaps.

In nature, the real world, there are examples of malformations, but Math is an explanation of the ideal principle.

We can see these structures in scales, honeycombs, and so on.

---

Fractals are where we see the same pattern repeat at smaller and smaller forms of itself.

There is a lot of overlap of this with the Fibonacci Sequence (these patterns often appear INSIDE of the spiral), but it is its own concept.

Fun fact, fractals play a significant role in Chaos Theory, which I will not get into here because we would be here all day.

---

Anyway!

Sorry!

Carried away there.

Back to Supernatural (what an insane transition) and how this wraps into my concept of Grace.

---

Angels are filled with this kind of naturally occurring phenomena, a sort of endless collection of patterns. They are essentially manifestations of this idea or at least they process the physical world in this way.

Castiel mentioned eating molecules ONE TIME and well, I ran with it.

---

A couple of examples I feel strongly about, using Castiel as an easier point of entry than say, Lucifer or Gabriel:

Angels think in a series of sensations, like a form of Synesthesia.  Synesthesia is a concept explored in both psychology and cognitive neuroscience where people express the feeling of multiple senses activating at once. So for instance, the words might leave you with an impression of color or sounds may give you a physical sensation. I think Angels can, and do, adopt a more human perspective the longer they interact in the physical world. This is especially relevant during the time they are essentially made human, but I think the way they interpret information remains abstract. Just a fun fact, if you have Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (which is usually shortened to ASMR), you have a higher chance, according to some studies, of having a form of Synesthesia. 

---

Angels also think in patterns. For Castiel, in the beginning: His thoughts are very vibrant. Primary colors denote curiosity. The structure of those thoughts are very rigid. He thinks more in straight lines rather than curves. The movement of the thoughts is calculated and repetitive. Learning something for the first time is difficult, so splitting it into individual pieces is easier to comprehend. This is where we get The Face from, you know the one. He perceives things in his own way which makes him socially awkward in human form. As he gets more familiar with the physical world, and the boys in general, his perspective shifts. He has more robust colors dedicated to the people or objects he interacts with and they shift around easier. His thoughts are less linear and more curved and organic. He has less set structure because he isn’t learning as much anymore, he has an understanding he can build off of and make more defined to himself.  Learning to love humanity requires flexibility that doesn’t come naturally to Angels, so he actively works at it.

Seeing souls is easier than interpreting the actual look of people. This is a doozy, but we will take Dean as an example because I’m Destiel/Deancas pilled. To Castiel, Dean looks the way he looks, smells the way he smells, sounds the way he sounds, and so on in physical form. Castiel learns to interpret him in that way as the series goes on, but his soul, the essence of him, has its own set of sensations. The following are not literal, although I’m sure some would translate that way. He sounds like a crackle of fire and a low drum. His colors are darker oranges and blues and greens. He feels like a soft rain and sun on a warm day. He tastes of barrel aged liquor and smoke. He smells like a hearth and earth after it rains. He feels like every aspect of the impala, from the cold metal to the supple warm leather.  Obviously some of these senses shift and change from time to time, but that forms the basis of what Castiel recognizes as Dean.

---

Grace is at least partially visible to other angels and partially felt by humans. Other angels can see each other in their vessels. So they have a concept of what they look like in their true forms, despite being hidden inside of something.  This implies they can experience similar sensations as the other angels they look at, although I don’t like the idea that they can see their “thoughts” necessarily. I would imagine they can “feel” a sudden intense set of emotions/sensations from another angel however, in the way that humans can tell someone’s emotions through facial expression or tone of voice.

---

Humans can learn to experience angels, albeit in a form that is easier for them to comprehend.  Dean doesn’t experience anything special about Castiel when they first meet, outside of the generic information we get about Angels and the obvious senses he can use: seeing, hearing, smelling, (gods I wish tasting was on this list but! Alas!) As Dean gets closer with him, he can start to “hear” him. I like to think he sounds like a pleasant hum or a slight ringing, similar to a wind chime, depending on his mood. Dean, specifically, makes him hum lower than usual. If he were to hum out-loud, it would harmonize with the way his grace sounds. It takes longer to perceive colors, but I think Dean would see the little flashes of blue, similar to the way Castiel’s eyes get when he’s using his powers. This is why I typically put a little blue squiggle between them when I draw them together. Plus other senses, sorry but this is long enough as it is. You likely get the point by now!

---

Anyway, I’m very happy that literally anyone has even a passing interest in my interpretation of these things.

Formatting this was a nightmare and I feel particularly insane today.

[deramin2]

This is the essential question posed by Triangle Of Sadness (2022). One of my favorite movies. If you want to watch rich people suffer who deserve it and the social order get flipped, this is the film for you.

CW:

Vomit (So much vomit. Multiple long scenes.)

Drowning

Survival sex work

Romantic partners arguing a lot

Alcohol and drinking games

Deadly disaster and panic

The comprehensive study, conducted by researchers from Linköping University in Sweden, the European University Institute in Italy and the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, analyzed data from 59,400 Swedish men who took a military conscription test when they were young adults. The researchers then meticulously tracked their career trajectories, earnings and job prestige for over a decade, from when they were 35 until they turned 45. The results showed a strong relationship between intelligence and earning potential until the figure exceeded $64,000 a year. Beyond this point, the correlation became almost negligible. And at the highest pay scales, intelligence plateaued, suggesting that other factors, such as socioeconomic background, culture, personality traits and luck, became more significant. The study also found that job prestige didn't increase with cognitive ability at higher pay scales. In professions such as medicine, law and academia, more prestige didn't seem directly related to more income. The findings challenge the idea that success and higher levels of income are earned by superior intellect and talent. Instead, the researchers suggest that small initial success differences between individuals can grow into extreme inequalities over time. The study has limitations. It focused only on men, limiting its generalizability to the wider population. But it still provides a relatively large sample across a variety of pay levels and occupations. In a world where the ultra-rich continue to get richer and have more influence over global political, social and economic landscapes, the study's findings are significant. The argument that those taking home the most pay deserve it the most is one that needs to be challenged, the researchers point out — especially at the highest end of the scale.

[starfirexuchiha]

My P5 Royal Tumblr Posts Directory

I made so many P5R related posts in the past so I decided to organize them and put the links to them in a post so that people, as well as myself, can easily find them!

Since I am a Shuake enthusiast, most of these links are Shuake-related posts which is not surprising lol. I will update this as I find more of my old posts.

Links to my Translation posts

P5R Guidebook Interview Translation - The Royal Trio is a “Love Triangle”

P5R Guidebook Interview Translation - Akechi is the Deuteragonist

P5R Guidebook Interview Translation - About Akechi’s silly Navi Line 

Navi Akechi Status Ailment Translations

Joker’s gay dream about going to the beach with Akechi Translation

Joker’s gay dream about going on a movie date with Akechi Translation

P5R Keychain Merch Translations

New P5R Goro keychain merch & ShuAke Flower Language Translations 

P5 Tactica Crow Trailer scene Translation (Contains Shuake rivalmance)

P5R Artbook Translation - Creator’s Comment on the Shuake “Bad Ending” artworks

P5R Artbook Interview Translation - Regarding the “Bad Ending” (Maruki Ending) and devs being aware of Shuake fans

P5R Magazine Translation for Rokuro Saito's comment on the Royal Trio

P5 Maniacus Magazine Translation - Confirmation that Akechi has the Wildcard ability

P5R Magazine - Translation for the Shuake Profiles

P5R Magazine - Translation about meeting Akechi in 3rd semester

Links to my Guides (including Translated Guides) posts

P5R: Akechi Confidant Dialogue Choices guide

How to make Akechi obtain his 3rd Tier Persona (Hereward) in P5R [Concise]

P5R Guidebook Translation on how to make Akechi obtain his 3rd Tier Persona (Hereward)

P5R Guidebook Translation for Akechi’s Confidant Guide

List of Gifts that each Male Confidant Likes

P5R: Complete Akechi Gift Guide

P5R: List of ♪♪♪ gifts for Akechi (With picture references)

Confidant Deadlines for Akechi, Maruki, and Sumi

How to get the Royal Trio PS4 theme

Links to my Theories/Meta posts

The Flower Meanings behind each P5R Flower Keychain Merch

Ryuji and Sunflowers

“Acedia” - Akechi’s deadly sin

Side Effect of using Call of Chaos

Black Mask Goro also represents a Harlequin

The meaning behind Paradise Lost (Joker’s strongest melee weapon)

The Symbolism behind Akechi’s Tie and Badge

Hereward is the First Robin Hood who is also unhinged

Faith, Hope, and Charity Arcanas and how it will foreshadow a future P5 Spinoff game

Akechi being undetectable

Shuake connection to Adam and Steve

P5 - “He made HIMSELF go psychotic!”

The events in P3 took place near Maruki’s palace

The Real reason why Akechi is unaffected by the dream world

Goro’s surname may be fake

“Night on the Galactic Railroad” references in Persona 5 Royal (ShuAke-related meta)

Links to Unused Content posts

3 Unused Farewell Gifts in P5R for 3/19

Some Unused Akechi Lines in Mementos

Unused Akechi Thieves Den conversations

Unused Shuake dialogue in Darts Game

Goro thinks shirtless Joker is distracting

P5R Unused Showtime Stickers

Prince Akechi has Unused Navi lines

Some Unused Akechi Costume Conversations

Unused Goro Texture File

More info about the Unused Goro Texture file

Unused scene where Goro is still alive after Maruki's Reality got destroyed

Unused Content - Goro’s Unused Mementos Request (Not my post but this is so interesting that I wanna bookmark this here)

Links to Misc and Trivia posts

Tsundere Akechi moments in P5R

Persona 5: Mementos Reports - Some Akechi Trivia

Akechi is also an artist

P5 Tactica Translation of Goro’s special dialogue to Joker 

Goro scaring Ryuji

Akechi wanting Joker to be his true self (independent of the player’s will)

Akechi’s Arcana card is mysteriously missing in the official P5 and P5R websites

List of times where Goro thinks Joker is attractive

Goro’s ENTJ quotes by cognitive functions

The Answer to whether or not Akechi is alive in P5R + Shuake moments

Goro has a warm tingly feeling

Goro being a jealous bitch in the Royal Trio Love Triangle (Not my post but I love bitchy Goro)

Shuake Merch Catalog

[sometimesoliloquy]

More Thoughts on Nick and June (and the dreaded love triangle)

Listen, I really don't want to get my hopes up too much on how/if this will be resolved. Honestly I never thought we'd get Nick and June explicitly riding off into the Hawaiian sunset together, and always imagined we may get perhaps a more ambiguous but hopeful/bittersweet ending where I can imagine Nick and June riding off into the sunset together without too much cognitive dissonance or selective viewing. But I do think a few things have been made clear by the first 3 episodes of the final season. 

One: June does not want to be alone. She has now said this now multiple times in a short episode span. Whatever resolution we reach at the end of the series, we know there's still a long road ahead until the end of Gilead and undoubtedly many struggles that she does not want to have to face on her own (nor should she have to). We hope that June will have her friends and her mom as a support system and to fight alongside her, but give the woman a fucking break, it is not anti-feminist for her to want romantic love as well. And it's certainly not an anomaly in the show (or the source novel). She's never wanted to be alone, even if we don't very often hear her voice it quite so explicitly and so vulnerably. We know that June was a happily married woman when she was captured by Gilead. She’s a romantic. She fell in love with Luke and pursued the relationship despite him being married. She asked him to leave his wife for her, and married him despite her friends and family’s concerns. She fantasizes about the good times before with Luke and Hannah as a coping mechanism in Gilead early on. She misses him and mourns him when she believes him dead. In season 1 she expresses to (a fucking clueless) Fred that love is an essential thing to live for, maybe the most important thing. She later tells us "it's lack of love you die from." Her love affair with Nick (officially) starts roughly halfway through the first season and two episodes later she's feasting her eyes on his naked torso and face as he sleeps and telling us she's literally memorizing him for her mind to feast on later. She literally says she's there because it feels good and she doesn't want to be alone. She tells him their clandestine relationship is worth being hung on the wall for (and in so fundamentally starts changing his way of thinking and being) because the human connection of two hearts and souls and bodies is that precious to her. She risks stealing kisses and hugs and handholds, even just longing looks that could be deadly at any moment. She continually risks her life to continue this romantic relationship that gives her sustenance in that hellhole of horrors. She smuggles a tape out of Gilead to her husband to tell him of this love because even though it’s awkward as fuck snd she feels the guilt of being (technically) unfaithful she needs him to know that Holly was born of love, and she needs her daughter to know that someday in case she never gets to see her again. When she escapes to Canada, as broken as she is she still doesn’t want to be alone. Nick’s not there, but Luke is, her husband she loved who “waited for her” and reeeally wants to make it work. And as clumsy as most of his efforts are and as much as she struggles to connect, the greater part of her still doesn’t want to be alone. As she once told Eden you should grab love wherever you find it. And meanwhile Nick and June's love has just continued to survive and grow in emotional depth (although tragically starved of unrestrained physical expression for a minute), standing the tests of time and distance and remaining a consistent force at least in one form or another through to the current timeline. It is made clear from the very beginning and repeated throughout that June highly values romantic love and partnership and so it seems at least somewhat likely that she will have this in the end. I don't know who you been talking to but this girl loves love and to ignore that after everything, to deny her that would be cruel, depressing and inconsistent given this steady overarching theme of how love saves and sustains. And we know she's not getting Hannah yet, and likely having to give up Nichole at some point soon so let her have something ffs(!!).

Two: Nick wants to be chosen. By June. He's finally expressed in 6x03 what he's never dared to before. That while he has always understood and respected her bond with Luke, he yearns to feel that June loves him back as much as he loves her. It wounds him deeply to feel that the love may be unrequited or else somehow faded on her end, when his still burns with an agonizing fire. It hurts him to feel like second place, or a consolation prize. He very well may not even feel deserving of this love, this choice, but god he wants it. He's been willing to live on scraps for so long but we see clearly here his frustration and longing. We see how it's worn on him over the years and wears on him now as he has to not only try and somehow be satisfied with the too little, too infrequent bits of June he gets, but to also somehow juggle this with his marriage and the "not quite enough" of that relationship he initially thought he could live with but has found the inevitable comparison increasingly harder to bear (and especially as June has somewhat unexpectedly remained around the edges of his life, popping up at irregular intervals when she needs his help). He's dealing with Rose's growing resentment as she senses this--which could turn dangerous if left to fester too long--and the guilt he undoubtedly carries from all of it. To borrow Max's phrase, "the edges are fraying." It's too much and not enough and he's teetering on the edge while unable to fathom how he could ever let it go. With all this in mind, it's a little hard to imagine, and even--much--harder to want for Nick the kind of ambiguous ending that could see the triangle (or whatever-shape-it-is), largely unresolved: where June is still with Luke (or somewhat with Luke?) but and still having fleeting romantic rendezvous with Nick when the opportunity arises, or "not with either" but meeting up with both at different times. The "she can have both" thing just doesn't work in the long run; it's not sustainable and not satisfying, at least not to the majority of viewers (requisite "brother husbands" jokes aside, of course).

Three: At this point Luke is default position (see previous post). Default position is not good when it comes to romantic relationships--it's rarely fulfilling in real life (you may otherwise know it as settling, or being in a rut) and it's a downright snooze fest cop out when it comes to TV and fiction. Default is not endgame. I said what I said and I stand by it. It's boring, it's lazy and it's unsatisfying. It's a slap in the face to epic romance* and we. will. riot. Don't make us riot**.

*Don't look at me, hulu, YOU made this about epic romance when you gave us the 360 Bodyguard bridge kiss, if not long before.

**By riot of course I'm referring to a whole lot of yelling on the internet and then writing/devouring (the latter in my case) a slew of alternate-ending fanfic where we get it right. Be forewarned.

[jozlyn-moon]

The Cipher Twins

Ford’s Journal Entry:

(It’s long! And one of the first Journal Entries I’ve gone fully into making!)

“How and Why that devil managed to “conceive”, and I use this term loosely, is beyond me. Especially when it’s taken in mind how careful with planning he chooses to be. But the outcome of two children that share such gains of his power is.. well- reckless, but that does give us a view that he isn’t as on his game as much as he once was, which in my eyes shows as a beacon of hope. Continuing though-

These two have been an eye opening pain in the ass to deal with in all the years that they’ve had to be in my life… and that’s saying quite a bit. From the oddities that sprout from their father’s genes to the oddities that come from each of their unique personalities that stem from their own special quirks, to study them has been an experience. Though, if I shouldn’t lie.. I may have chosen a favorite of the two for one reason or another and even if either manages to get a hand on my writing their opinion would not much matter in the end.

To begin on the first, Lily Cipher, a rambunctious but albeit pleasant kid to be around. An attribute which I could only give thanks to in the mother’s raising of both of the twins which I presumed had fortunately been enough to quell any evil nature that may have been held in her soul. Along with the fact that there had been no contact with the father in her and her sibling’s upbringing. Ignoring that fact- She can be described as a great help around the lab, seeing as age and stress have worn down my ability to keep steady with my motor and cognitive skills… she comes in handy as a shockingly fast learner, but to no surprise really as much as I don’t want to point the praise at where the origin of the ability may have come from, I do have my guesses to who it was passed down from.

She is a very curious and hyperactive child as well, being quite fascinated in the little things and anything that moves, she could only remind me of Mabel in her younger years in the most bitter sweet way possible. I pray for the moment that she’s alright.. but besides that point-

I find that she’s been a large help in also understanding, if not, being able to decrypt the genetics of my enemy, with her ability to shape shift into a form similar to the beings of Bill’s late home dimension, flatlanders as they’re called, she has given key samples of skin and DNA that have properties no normal being can handle nor have. I believe she and her brother are direct keys in Bill’s downfall. And while I wish to be optimistic to the outcomes of their existence at the current time, I do hold dread for whats to come. As while I may have positive outcomes with the more sweet hearted sibling… I have trouble describing the short tempered and snide one as such. Liam is another whole pile of bones to dissect but i’ll get to his summary soon enough.

Lily, and what baffles me the most about her, is how something so, well giddy and sweet by nature, can come out of such a creature that can be so, by choice, dangerously and maliciously evil. But then again, that damn triangle had always had his charms at his hand, so it wouldn’t be a complete surprise if that had passed along to his spawn.

And as much as I want to be paranoid of my enemy’s daughter, seeing first hand her grow up with no influence of her father’s morals and presence due to her mother separating from that devil before either of the twins were born- it lets me ponder on the thought of the nature vs nurture theory and how whether or not natures of the parents pass down to the kin and how much it actual effects their psyche.

Albeit with Lily, she works on her own will with a good moral stand point and natural urge to uplift others in sometimes slightly odd but endearing ways. Though i’m afraid that it’s her brother that leaves me still questioning the nature vs. nurture stand point, as I couldn’t say the same completely for her twin.

Liam Cipher, a more reserved kid but leaning on socially aloof by choice, is one who leaves me sleeping with one eye open. Literally. Seemingly gained the temper of his father along with a slew of other worrying traits that I would rather not be in the presence of while someone has lit his fuse. He is the sole reason why I had to ban or at the least limit the use of both of their magic to the mundane and simple party tricks after an incident with him that cost me half my sight with a fit he threw when he was younger.

Though as his mother insists to me greatly, it’s not the child’s fault for the traits he was born with, he can’t help himself she claims. And while true to some extents I can’t help but feel the dread towards the thought of another Bill like being sprouting due to the “freak accident” of them being somehow made into existence. From the personality to even the damn voice that the kid shares with himself and his devil of a father, I can’t just shake off the feeling of a tense shiver that always crawls up my back when thinking of him growing older.

The only saving grace, and what calms my already paranoid nerves falls upon the ones I could think have a good hand in quelling those unsavory traits, the one’s I label the family buffers. I.e his mother, sister, and at times the cousins that are there to talk him down out of a potential blow out. I couldn’t even dare muster the thoughts to wonder what he’d turn to if his mother nor his “siblings”, if I could even loosely consider the cousins as such, weren’t there to quell his snappy nature. But for the sake of my cortisol levels, I can’t let those scenarios overcome my already racing thoughts because I have enough to deal with now in taking care of both of the twins that have been enough of a hassle on my growing age.

Liam for the most part has made it clear that he has a distaste for me, I believe sprouting from my coldness towards his mother for being deceptive at the beginning of our begrudging guardianship over the kids. And he places it as if I have no good reason, if it wasn’t clear that I have some bother that hiding the children of that damned demon under my nose with what current family I have left wasn’t something to not be chastised for. Not to mention that her withholding from the implicit truth had allowed me and my great great niece and nephew to harbor an attachment to the twins which if I had known before hand their origin… would not have ended well for her.

But I am not heartless, I do understand the fears that may have accompanied the weight of telling the truth at the time. And I’ve learnt that I shouldn’t be one to not swallow my pride and say I know I would have probably acted rashly. But as someone who freshly lost what family they had left at the time I feel as if it would’ve been just.

I don’t hate either of them, even while one may be more a pain in the ass than the other. I do believe I care for them in some sense. Liam is a help to me greatly, I won’t downplay that factor at all, he’s the one that helps me draw in the newer journal entries and goes out to scout with Chloe to do some cartography of the surrounding landscape. A quirk he seems to be great at with a sense of great direction and keen eyesight, something even younger me couldn’t get down right away. My body can only do so much these days as I’ve already made my point earlier that my hands and even now legs can’t do what they did often like they used to.

He’s smart, more smart than he gives himself props for, he knows how to channel a certain charisma and silver tongue that lets him find the best supplies, of course if it isn’t the case that he had stole them in the first place. And like his sister, there is no second thought to where he got that ability from, but it’s better to not dwell on it, just for my sake at least.

Both are a handful in their own ways, but they have grown on me- and they do hold insight in how we may be able to stop weirdmaggedon once and for all.

And I pray that it can be in time.”

(If you made it down here thanks for reading it! I want to make sure I have Ford’s characterization down to some extent 😭 My grammar may not be all that great but I tried lol)

[nicoleanell]

(actual link to gif set because tumblr's being weird)

Man it's the fact this statement is weirdly big and generous and brave in Armand's mind. I think it was Assad or someone else who said it was a moment of overconfidence or almost gloating, which is not the exact vibe I get, but I think there's something to that big-headedness of having survived and gotten through it and it's over now and just... He just wants to see. He just wants to skip that little stone down the cliff and see what happens. Maybe if nothing happens *then* he would actually be able to exhale. (He will not. He'd find something else. There's an itch in him that's never going to be secure enough in the bed he made.) Maybe it's just wanting to test something - Louis or himself or how many ways he can't die.

People tie it directly to Armand not being able to say the words in 2x05, which is probably intentional, but also it's not *exactly* the same because for one thing it's in the Past Tense now. It's very much meant as a moment of *closure* - he DID love you, past tense, we don't know where he is or how he feels now and that doesn't matter - while in San Francisco with Lestat right there on the mind telephone, it was the present tense terror that maybe that really was all Louis needed to hear to go running back to him.

But their relationship has also changed SO dramatically since San Francisco that it feels like even the past-tense version is a very, very precarious thing to admit. Because it's not about the material love triangle, it's not who-will-Bella-Swan-choose, it's about 70 years of mythmaking and storytelling.

SIDEBAR: The show left us IMO with a very frustrating ambiguity about the extent to which Armand has used his mind powers on Louis, like to the point where you have some fans believing that *every single fucking memory* we saw onscreen that they didn't like for the last two seasons is Fake News actually, and other fans believing it happened Just That One Time GOD. (I personally lean toward way *less* mind manipulation than other people assume, and if it was literally JUST the shit that happened in 1973 that's... enough to be messed up lol. I think the "love of my life" and finishing each other's sentences scenes have some unsettling implications. I *don't* think Louis having imperfect recall and limited perspective of stuff that happened a century ago is because of Armand all or even *most* of the time.)

But the fact no matter what is that Louis has a lot of cognitive dissonance around Lestat because he WANTS it acknowledged on some bone-deep level that Lestat loved him, because he loved/continues to love him too. And if we're gonna insist on throwing the word "gaslighting" around when we just mean "lying", then at the end of the day it's about Louis being told he's not crazy by someone who has at times made him feel that way.

Idk maybe this is me getting Too Deep about a finale I still think is kinda unsatisfying and already had way too much to do with Lestat and not enough with Claudia. But I do like that moment when I look past the toxic love triangle and more toward "hey buddy [my best friend Armand] why are you Like That" and Louis' little smile breaking my heart.

Something sad about that moment is Armand's right that saying those words *doesn't* end the world, and if nothing else had happened and Daniel and the Vampire CIA weren't on their divorce-attorney kick, that'd be the end of it. (Hot take I don't think saying the words or not in 1973 would've really made a difference either, and there's so much more nuanced and wild shit going on there than an undelivered message romcom beat.) And Louis would be *grateful* for that moment of understanding and closure between them.

[2075215]

Further more information about my Gravity Falls AU( Dimensional Attendants! AU)

Background story about: How did Dipper and Mabel become dimensional Attendants?

There was a small change at the beginning of the story. The day when Dipper and Mabel went to their grunkle's house was not sunny, but raining heavily. It was this small change that led to the disaster. The tires of the bus they were riding slipped, drove off the road, and rushed down the cliff. Dipper and Mabel did not survive. The problem is that this is not an normal car accident. This is a distortion of reality caused by the abnormality of the boundary of the universe. Most of the time, the distortion is very small, but under the butterfly effect, this time led to a completely different ending. Dipper and Mabel are the first victims of the distortion of reality. As for who caused the distortion of reality, it is not difficult to guess.(yeah the triangle guy) The AXOLOTL also noticed this tiny distortion. They found Dipper and Mabel and "reorganized" them. Dipper and Mabel were saved from death and survived in another way. Since Dipper and Mabel are the only two victims caused by distortion and abnormality, their own "energy" is somewhat unstable, but this instability allows them to shuttle between illusion and reality, which is conducive to repairing the abnormalities of the universe. This is why they became dimensional attendants.

Q: Why is Mabel holding a stick with an oil lamp hanging on it, while Dipper is holding a toolbox?

A: Before Mabel and Dipper died, when the bus crashed, Mabel was holding the handrail of the bus tightly, while Dipper was holding the suitcase tightly. Later, the salamander modified it for this purpose, and now it has become their tool

Q: If the twins didn't make it to Stan's house alive, what about Stan

A: What can he do? Stan still didn't find other journals, still couldn't bring Stanford back. When he heard that the twins had died, he actually felt guilty to death, as if if he had gone to pick them up, the twins would not have died. He even didn't open the door to do business for several days and hid in the house, letting the guilt overwhelm him

Q: What is the process of repairing the anomaly at the boundary of the universe?

A: Mabel will take her oil lamp to detect abnormal locations, and then share the location with Dipper. Before Dipper comes, Mabel will evacuate the creatures of nearby planets and universes to avoid accidents during the repairing process.

Q: What are the "accidents" that occur during the repairing process?

A: Hallucinations Leak, which will temporarily affect the cognition and memory of creatures, and more seriously, the space. Dipper once experienced it. He came to a bus. He sat in his seat and watched Mabel sleeping soundly on his shoulder. He listened to the harsh sound of the bus tires slipping and felt the violent shaking. He once again saw Mabel dying and lying beside him with a bloody head, but he was powerless, there's nothing he can do. It's a Hallucination after all.

Q: Why does the boundary of the universe expand and burn?

A: Incineration is actually burning away accumulations, some waste, some useless things. It is self-correction and clearing abnormalities; while expansion is a product of reality, creation, and expansion.

Q: What is the "abnormality" of the boundary of the universe?

A: Expansion > Burning. Burning is the self-correction of the universe. Excessive expansion will lead to uncontrolled splitting of reality. The better case will produce parallel universes, while the worse case will lead to distortion or disintegration of reality.

[fish-in-need-of-a-bicycle]

I’m gonna repost this because I want more people to check my work. This is my racial development model for Ashkenazim, which I made for my child development class after learning about racial identity models that psychologists have made to show stages that people tend to pass through as they learn about their racial and ethnic background.

So, Jumblr, tell me what you think!

[ID: Infographic titled, “Ashkenazi Jewish Identity Model”. A bubble says, “White Identification”, with a paragraph saying, “Starting in childhood, the individual begins to notice racial features and identify themselves as white. Even when not necessarily passing as white, the individual sees that other community members who they identify with do pass as white and that they themselves don’t easily fall into other categories”. An arrow points down to the next bubble that says, “Exclusion Realization” with the paragraph, “The individual starts to see that white groups reject either their culture or ethnicity as not white. This can occur a number of ways, including exposure to hate crimes or through noticing how intertwined whiteness and Christianity are.” An arrow points down to the next bubble that says, “Racial Framework Conflict” with the paragraph, “Usually beginning in adolescence, the individual realizes they do not benefit from the full privileges of whiteness but are instructed by society to identify as white. They have similar experiences to other marginalized groups but are rejected by them as a privileged class. They want to learn about social justice and white privilege, but struggle to reconcile how their experience does not align with whiteness. The individual seeks to move into one of the next phases to resolve feelings of isolation, mis-fitting, and cognitive dissonance.” An arrow points to a triangle where the corners are labeled “Identification”, “Assimilation”, and “Insulation”. Next to Identification is a paragraph that says, “The individual embraces and takes pride in Jewish culture and resilience, possibly becoming more observant. They see themselves as being in a unique position to add nuance to discussions of identity. They feel assured in their values, even if those values are shared by people who reject them. They are conscious of the present dangers of antisemitism but remain confident in the continuation of their people”. Next to Assimilation, it says, “The individual rejects aspects of their Jewish identity to find belonging in a part of mainstream society, such as a political group. Their acceptance by the group is precarious and may be contingent on denouncing Judaism or maintaining the label so they can be tokenized”. Next to Insulation, it says, “The individual concludes that the Racial Framework Conflict is a consequence of there being no place in mainstream society for them. They take comfort in their Jewish community and may become more observant. They may catastrophize as a way to mentally prepare for rising antisemitism. They disengage from any political or activist spaces that discuss racial or ethnic identity”.

Extra visual details, feel free to skip: The “White Identification”, “Exclusion Realization”, and “Racial Framework Conflict” are light gray. The triangle has a horizontal color gradation from purple to blue to green. The corner labels are in bubbles that are the same color as the corner. “Assimilation” is purple, “Insulation” is green, and “Identification” is blue. There is a light blue-gray diagonal watermark saying, “fish-in-need-of-a-bicycle”.]

[apostatehamster]

Oh no! Another person's 2 cents on the OFMD finale situation!

Yes, because unfortunately my mind still hasn't settled and is in a state of disbelief over what happened, and I am trying to unravel all of this to make sense of it. Written from the perspective of a sad Izzy fan, so if you do not care to read about that or are simply tired of reading these mind pieces... well don't. And do not bother interacting.

I want to preface this by saying, I do believe Writers should be writing the story they think is right. It is impossible to please everyone so I prefer Author's sticking to their vision rather than bending to the loudest (in most cases, read: displeased) voices of the audience. However, I also think people are entitled to voice their displeasure over writing decisions in a constructive way. I don't condone hate towards authors, actors or anyone involved in the making of the show and if you feel angry enough to send hate or threats, take a walk and calm down instead of being a jerk. That being said, I watched many shows with decisions I did not agree on and few made me as angry & sad as this one, hence me trying to dismantle why.

False marketing, expectations and broken promises

Frankly I hadn't seen much advertising about the show before, most of it was fandom activity that praised the show as feelgood and comfort, with good queer representation. I got into it pretty late, so I can't tell what the show itself presented itself as, but to me it seemed like they fully embraced that image and encouraged the show to be perceived as such. It's a rom-com after all, many laughters and sappy feelings. A safe space-ship for outcasts, so to speak. We expected drama but also making-up and possibly more shenanigans. What we did not expect, was a rather prominently featured character dying as one got used to happening from other shows.

OFMD promised to be different, or at least that was my and many others' impression, and then it turned that around in the last 10 minutes of the finale. But more about that and tonal shifts later.

What baffled me most were the interviews hailing in at the start of season two. I've read articles about how season 2 was leaning into the Ed/Izzy/Stede triangle with David Jenkins saying these three "are on an arc together that’s pretty inseparable". I mean we had Izzy being called a jilted lover before, and in addition to Ed & Stede's love declaration, we also had Izzy declare he had love for Ed, and Ed as well saying He loved him, best he could. There was a lot of love, but it was complicated, and the article gave hope that this season would sort this out.

But after the finale, we got interviews that declared Izzy was a father/mentor figure to Ed, which is such a weird claim that is absolutely unfounded in the way the characters interacted with each other, as well as the fact that Izzy's death apparently was something planned from the beginning as an ending to his arc. And well, I find that death separates characters quite definitely.

I am not saying that Steddyhands was promised to us, gods no, but we were definitely given a chance at it happening, when in fact, the ending had already been written as the complete opposite.

Reception and cognitive dissonance

Every person is different and thus has different feelings and opinions. I've seen Izzy fans hating the finale obviously, I've seen Izzy fans who said they liked it. I've also seen people who weren't explicitly Izzy fans say, they did not like the finale, so really, opinions can go any way.

However what baffled me is Jenkins feeling he delivered a truly happy end. Personally, I've never watched a character die and thought "This makes me happy." I especially would never describe a character struggling through hardship, just to ultimately die as happy or beautiful. I can only imagine that the focus was on Ed and Stede, when a happy ending was mentioned, but Jenkins kept pointing out in the interviews, how Izzy was his favorite, which gave hope for a happy ending for Izzy as well. As much as I enjoy seeing my favorites go through hardships, I also prefer to keep them around by not dying. I especially do not build my favorite up to be a well fleshed out character with growth, just to reduce them back to a plot device for the main character.

I know this is all based upon the interviews, and less on the show, but when I read "And what's the most interesting thing we can do with Con[...]?" my answer definitely wouldn't have been "kill his character off". Con O'Neill does a great job at playing emotional scenes, but we already had him act his heart out in the first three episodes. A last hurrah wasn't needed.

I am also trying to put myself in David Jenkins' shoes here, because I think he truly expected the last episode to be a happy ending, and a gift, just to be proven differently. I just wonder what went wrong, how one can read the room so completely wrong.

It wasn't malicious, but the fact that it was apparently meant to be a genuine attempt at offering a happy end makes it even worse.

Tonal shifts and established in-Show laws

It's an understatement to say that the tone of season 2 was decidedly more dramatic. To the point where I questioned myself if this was still allowed to be called a comedy show. I would have described season 1 as mostly slice-of-life, little adventures between the crew and the captains. People got hanged, fingers severed, people got stabbed, but you never felt the threat of actual death hanging over anyone's head, because everything was kept humorous. (Speaking of the non-baddies here. Calico Jack got a cannon ball to the head but with plausible deniability of his death & (apparently) an interview saying he could be brought back, if needed)

Enter season 2, which starts off with murder attempts, major wounds and a suicide attempt. Nothing was played off as a joke, and for that I am grateful because that would have been in poor taste, but the tone was noticeably different and darker. But it still wasn't 'realistic' by any standard. With no real doctor on board, Izzy should have died from his wounds and comatose Edward would have wasted away in the hidden cabin. Everyone came out (fucked up but) relatively fine.

The show goes back to the humorous tone with Anne & Mary who enjoy a good backstabbing and poisoning. We had our crew surrounded by death and a curse in the next episode, but there was any fear of them coming to harm, obviously. The crew gets boarded and tortured by Ned and his crew after that, but they are able to take it out and come away unscathed (some wounds aside). Oh no! Stede challenges Zheng Yi to a duel! Which we know means no one is allowed to interfere, until one of the duelants dies. But it's fine, Zheng Yi is just playing with her food. But watch out, a Cannonball flies towards Zheng Yi's head! Ah but she is fine, she escaped. The Swede pulled a Rasputin and got immune to poison without him even noticing! Look, even Auntie survived the explosion, badly wounded but she lives. Oh no! Izzy gets shot! But it's his left side, we established no vital organs are there. Roach and Stede are already on their way to get bandage- Wait they are back with no bandages, and Izzy he-

Oh, wait. He...died?

When watching season 2 I legitimately considered Izzy dying as an end result, because I am used to my favorite characters dying, frankly. But then I dismissed that thought because OFMD has proven again and again, that people do not die. Heck, Lucius was considered dead in the season 1 finale and he came back, albeit traumatized. But he lived to tell the tale.

Season 2 finale made it a point to leave no room for doubt that Izzy did indeed die. They dug him a grave, and they panned to his grave at the end to remind you, he is definitely dead. So, why did Izzy have to die in a world where our favorites can survive about anything? "Pirates die, that's just pirate life", okay but why was he specifically singled out to be the only pirate dying? In comparison to everyone else, it feels unjust, and it feels cruel towards the fans who felt safe in the knowledge that this was the one show where none of their favorites would die. And it feels like such a betrayal of the fans’ trust, who had hoped this show would do better.

I've seen a take along the lines of "Nowadays people expect the stories to be written explicitly for them, and then they get upset when it doesn't happen" and that take pissed me off enough to write this down. This isn't a case of entitled fans asking to change the story to be exactly what they want to be, there is fanfiction for that. No, this is fans upset that their favorite character got singled out by the narrative to be the one exception to the no dying rule. And I use the narrative loosely, because there was no ramification to the death that couldn't also have been established by the character staying alive and giving advice, so the death didn't even feel purposeful. And for a show that always stresses the "Talk it through as a crew" point, they did not care much for choosing talking it through as a solution.

I also heartily disagree that Izzy's arc was over and had no more stories to tell. I mean the guy followed Edward around for decades, I would have loved to hear more about their past.

I would have especially loved to hear more about their future, as two people who learned to let go of Blackbeard and became their own people again. Where exactly did the idea of that even come from, I don't know.

Pacing and Confusing decisions in the Final episode and the build-up into nothing

(Rambling alert!) 

Personally I didn't feel any pacing issues until episode 6. While I generally liked the episode, it felt crammed with both set-up of the baddie, fun-times, then appearance of baddie (and disappearance) and return to fun-times. The episode ended and I was literally perplexed that it was over, like we basically ran through that episode. But episode 8 took the cake.

Now I am well aware they had to cut corners, and the strike didn't make it easier either, and I wish we could have seen the result without these factors. But we got what we got now, and I have to judge based upon that, but I really would know how the final cut decision came to be.

I did like the beginning with Ed chilling as a fisherman, but in hindsight I wished they had cut that part a bit shorter to give more room for the final parts. We get a lot of Ricky dicking around the pirate republic, showing Jackie reluctantly bringing them drinks. Later on she finally decides to poison him. Why she didn't do so earlier, I have no idea, unless the show is trying to tell me The Swede had to build up enough poison tolerance within one episode to withstand the poison attempt, which would be ridiculous. Why the Swede was held as an emotional hostage, I don't know either. I don't want him dead but Jackie has many other husbands, the Swede being singled out was more to hurt the viewers than for Jackie imho.

We have Zheng Yi suffering through Stede's presence. Our queen is suffering through the loss of her whole crew and her aunt, while Stede unsympathetically offers that being a failure gets easier. I expected more compassion from a guy who treasures his own crew and also enjoyed the hospitality of Zheng Yi's ship, but okay. Being a dick for the sake of comedy, I suppose. "Thing's have a way of working out. At least for me" And Zheng Yi proves Stede right by killing the soldiers, and Stede claims that went just as planned. I am not sure what happened to the Stede who successfully avoided being backstabbed in episode 5 and defended his crew in episode 6 and actually seemed competent, just to go back to an ignorant fool, but hm.

Fisherman Ed returns, thinks Stede in danger, and recovers his leathers that somehow are still in the same place, after mindlessly killing everyone in his way. Whatever happened to not wanting to be a monster and not killing and running away from that, it doesn't matter anymore. The flashback of pop-pop tells him he needs to go back to what he is good at, and I guess... this is it??? The Kraken rises from the sea again. Will there be consequences for Ed's emotional state after that? Well, no. Not really. Or not in this season anyway.

Okay Ricky invites Izzy to a drink, he's quite obviously a Izzy fanboy. For what reason he took him out of prison, I don't know. He later says "Sad, I wanted to let you live", implying he had plans for Izzy. What those plans were, we will never know, Ricky never tells us. Izzy talks about what piracy means to him. "It's not about getting what you want" and I don't know if he means pirates generally robbing ships to get treasure, or of himself being perceived as a mastermind or being a captain, because he never inclined he wanted either. So, what a weird thing for him to say. "It's about belonging to something when the world has told you, you're nothing" is a beautiful line that makes me wish we had gotten at least some backstory to Izzy. Then we're shown a picture of the crew from season 1.... with Izzy in the background, quite obviously not belonging (yet). What an odd choice to cut into. You could have used something from season 2 that showed him actually belonging

Ed finds one of Stede's love letters, it's cute, but I am not sure why we needed that to somehow reinforce that Ed loves him. We already saw him worry for Stede and literally revert to his Blackbeard persona to set out and save him. He also didn't leave because he didn't love Stede or doubted Stede's love for Ed, but because he needed to find himself first to make it work. It's not a long scene but it took a bit of the momentum of the Kraken rising from the water from me.

Ed and Stede see each other again and we have a callback to the episode one opener. Which was also the moment where I slowly realized, death was in the cards for Izzy because that dream sequence meant his death. But no, this is OFMD, it'll be fine...

We're back in the cell, and our mates are trying to escape. Auntie is there! Very much alive, despite having been on an exploding ship. Who brought her there?? When was she brought there?? How long has she been there and why did no one bother to check the cloaked figure in the corner? NEVERMIND, Auntie is here and alive I suppose. Bleeding out and we've got no supplies to treat her, but she will walk it off just fine.

Captain trio congratulate themselves on beating a bunch of soldiers. Honestly impressive, outnumbered as they were. Mh, maybe they should get back to the crew tho...?

Auntie realizing she was harsh on Zheng Yi and admitting maybe she needs a different approach. I am seeing a parallel to Izzy later admitting his approach was wrong too. Except (and excuse the bitterness) Auntie gets to continue to "mentor" Zheng Yi.

We get a weird hard cut from "I don't do soft" to the talk between Izzy and Ricky. I really thought the talk had been talked, but some more insults get thrown at Ricky, and the deus ex machina happens as all prisoners are freed from prison, the captain trio arrives and all soldiers die of poisoning. Personally this was the moment where I had to slow blink in disbelief, because everything was happening so fast.

Stede talks about how they need a plan, and how a royal hostage could prove valuable. Another hard cut "SO, that's the plan". We do not hear the plan. We just gather from the following montage that it has to do with dressing up as English soldiers. We get a montage of everyone preparing for battle and dressing up, looking cool in slow motion. And, they did look hella cool, but there was so much buildup for them dressing up for the plan...without knowing what the plan even IS.

And then the plan apparently is.... just Izzy holding Ricky hostage? And the rest waits around and sees how it plays out? And they're just trusting Ricky to go along with their plan and say what they want him to say? Why was Izzy the one who had to hold Ricky hostage? The one person with a visible wooden leg? Not sure if peg-legs are an established pirate thing in this world, but the British seem to think so, because they look down at it. Why did no one check that Ricky had no weapons on him beforehand? And most importantly, where the fuck was Stede during this suicide plan? He is the one who planned it, yet he was nowhere around the group with Ricky, nor did he fight any Soldiers. He only reappears when everyone is running away. What the hell!! Where'd he fuck off to. Again, all this epic plan build up, for the barely existing plan to go up in shambles within 5 seconds, and then they all run. At this point they could have just left Ricky at the Inn and attempted to walk to the ship safely in disguise without ever drawing attention to the soldiers, and they would have had as much chance.

Ed asks Izzy if he is okay and I raise an eyebrow, A) because we as the viewers barely saw him get hit and B) Ed hasn't cared much about Izzy after Stede returns. But okay, we're stumbling back to the ship, surprisingly no one else gets shot.

Izzy is bleeding out on the ship, Stede and Roach run off to get bandages. "Bonnet is in charge, oh great I am fucked" is a true statement, considering Stede was in charge with the plan already and got Izzy to here. Later you hear footsteps approaching offscreen, which I guess were Stede and Roach. They just appear again, with no bandages and no comment. I don't want to get into detail how much I despise Izzy's parting words, and the message they send out, but Izzy throughout this season proved he wanted to live and got ready for living again, just to end up saying he wants to go here, and it's just so utterly wrong. This scene was presented as someone who was healed and now got to die amongst his loved ones, but he was not healed. He practically still believed he deserved what he got, and he died believing Ed did not need him and thus he was unnecessary. If he truly was healed, he would fight to live, if not for himself and his new found family, then for Ed who he still loves, but no. Okay maybe I did want to go into detail, but anyway, many have said it better than me already.

The crew who bonded with Izzy over the whole season stands mutely in the background, leaving the stage to Ed, who has barely cared about Izzy all season. Out of nothing I am supposed to believe Izzy means something to him, after Ed shot him down, discarded of him, happily mentioned to Frenchie that "But most importantly, no more Izzy" like Izzy had been the bane of his existence, the guy he didn't even have the balls to approach first to apologize but instead mocked Izzy when Izzy himself finally broke their silence, I am supposed to believe that Edward suddenly realizes Izzy's worth and that he deserves to be the one grieving, not leaving any space to the crew? I don't think so.

All season I was waiting for them to make up again, patiently, full of hope, but the remaining episodes got less and less. And I held out hope for them to bond over talks and teamwork, remembering how well they worked together before it turned sour, acknowledging that they could do better if they tried, but instead we got this. This is supposed to help Edward move on as Not Blackbeard, but Izzy had already encouraged Ed to not be Blackbeard, yet Ed came back deciding on his own to don his leather outfit again. This is such a back and forth, it's frustrating. They could have accomplished growth without a death, but I've already talked about that.

Also Izzy telling Ed has family now, because the crew loves him. Ed bonded exactly with one person outside of Stede, and that was Fang, who was once Blackbeard's crew anyway. Other than that Ed only hung back and did not give a shit about what the crew was doing, but sure they love him after the non-pology. Where were the scenes to back this claim up, it was utter nonsense.

Okay, we get a burial. No one says a thing, no one's got to say a thing about their unicorn. Everyone leaves, and "That's that then". Stede talks about Izzy, like he hasn't personally bonded with Izzy over the last episodes and like he was simply a guy Ed dragged along (the way season 1 Stede would have felt). Also, no acknowledgement that Stede's plan was what got Izzy killed whatsoever, no remorse.

Aye no time to be sad, we got a wedding now! It lasts less than a minute screen time, and I am still recovering from the emotional impact of a death scene + burial, maybe give me a minute so I can feel happy for LuPete? No? okay.

Stede and Ed decide to build an Inn, nothing either of them has experience in. Also the "family" Izzy promised Ed is sailing away, so that was for nothing as well. What happened to Stede wanting to be a pirate? What happened to Ed returning to being a pirate, because it's what he's good at? What exactly made them change opinions to leave their crew behind and start this? *lame hand gesture at Izzy's grave* This?? I am usually good at looking for clues and details and figuring stuff out in between the lines, but I am left clueless as to what inspired this.

I am 100% sure there were missing scenes that could have helped soften the blow of the death at least, but like this the episode feels jarringly badly patched together. There is no visible impact to the death that would explain the necessity to the narrative (and yes, we are in a story, not real life. Plot points happen because they bring the narrative along, and it didn't here) With everything established beforehand, it felt like the death got shoehorned in, simply because someone said "I want this character to be dead at the end of the season", and then a story was somehow built around this.

And of course people are upset about this, when I watched I thought it was a joke and I was waiting for the little wink telling me it's not what it seems. The theme I gathered from this season was "belonging", and to see the guy accepting that he belonged and deserved to be loved to be left behind and denied a chance to continue with the crew where he BELONGS, because he's dead and gone, is a very stupid choice.

The season had many unexplained and unresolved things that I chose to overlook because the show was still ongoing and I had hoped they would all work out in the end, but they didn't and this sours the whole experience.

Fandom

This has less to do with me unraveling the happenings of the show, but whatever.

I joined very late, a few weeks before season 2 aired. I was however vaguely aware that Izzy was controversial to the fandom and that fans got hate mail for liking the character who "broke the main couple apart". So going into the new season as someone who utterly loved Izzy in season 1, I was skeptical lol

But it was a nice experience. Season 2 showed parts of Izzy that I had already seen but in a way that made it clear to everyone that this guy has Emotional Layers TM and is capable of more than just being the guy throwing a hissy fit. Everyone could sympathize with him, people enjoyed seeing him, and I legit loved going through the tags of the gifsets and reading all the reactions.

Generally I loved seeing the reactions after every new episode, seeing how fandom came together to talk over what happened, and over what they enjoyed. I had expected a very split fandom but it seemed season 2 was somewhat gluing it together. Izzy was finally an "accepted" character and thus it was "okay" now to love him, now that he wasn't trying to break Ed/Stede apart either. The show was feeding fans too, I felt like I feasted every episode up until the finale happened.

And /then/ the finale happened and the illusion went away.

Up to then I thought this was a season for the Izzy fans, with the opener episode showing how ridiculous the take of "Izzy has to die for Ed/Stede to be happy" was in a mocking dream episode, I thought that was David Jenkins acknowledging the hate that has been sent in the direction of Izzy & his fans, and how it's Not That Easy. And then he proved Izzy was more than that.

And then he killed Izzy off, so Ed/Stede could be happy and we've come full circle again.

Of course Izzy fans were upset, because it felt like a final fuck you after a season full of promises that it would be okay, and of course people were voicing their displeasure and sadness over it. Some people were downright grieving the character, and I can tell you I Am People. I went through the 5 stages of grief, through bargaining and anger directly after the finale, sadness the whole day after, crying over it because it felt so unjust to me. And maybe these reactions seem extreme to you, but that does not mean that people aren't feeling awful about the finale, that it truly hurt them. And you do not get to mock people for feeling in pain. What do you gain from that? If you liked the finale, fine, everyone is different, but allow the people who were shaken by it to express their emotions. Processing emotions takes time, and as a part of this I wrote a goddamn essay to make peace. The least you could do is not be a dick.

Parting thoughts are that the final episode was both a product of unfortunate cuts in screen time, and a writer who didn't expect the effect it would have on the audience.

I am not hating on David Jenkins, I loved every other episode of the season and eagerly anticipated the next one, but I am so incredibly sad that one botched finale broke my trust into the show, soured my love for the previous episodes with the knowledge of what it all built up to, and left the fandom back in shambles.

So long, and be kind to each other.

[mamawasatesttube]

been working my way through superboy 94 for a little bit (unfortunately I have to like... go to work and sleep or whatever, not just read comics) and oh good lord. kon is just so. He's. I am wrapping this little dude in tinfoil and putting him in the microwave. I'm gonna put him in a jar with some sticks and leaves. God. I'm looking for John Henry Irons reading lists next.

GOSH I KNOWWW!!! the thing about sb94 that really compels me is that it's a little like a metatextual horror story, in that the narrative itself doesn't acknowledge how fucked up some of what it portrays IS, so you're left with this cognitive dissonance (i like to picture it as me banging on the fourth wall like IS ANYONE SEEING THIS!? IS ANYONE SEEING THIS SHIT!?!?? HES ONLY LITTLE!!!!). but also it's like... he's going through the horrors but he stays so kind. he's trying so hard to be a good boy and a good hero all the way through, no matter how many times life kicks him. and it makes me wail!!! hes just a little guy and he's trying so hard to be a good boy!!! and also sometimes he opens his mouth and the most ridiculous combination of words ever strung together in the english language falls out. my god. what a guy.

as for john henry, yesssss y essss i love steel. i wish i could remember off the top of my head which superman triangle era arcs he is and isn't in, but that whole thing is kind of blur in my head skdjfh it all runs together. for a vague synopsis though i'd say read reign of the supermen, then steel '94, and where steel '94 starts crossing over with superman, he'll appear fairly regularly in superman comics from there onwards. steel '94 ends but he still makes regular appearances in superman comics, culminating in some WHOOF!!! REAL GOOD!! stuff with our worlds at war arc, and then there's some more stuff (esp in "superman: the man of steel") that leads up to "superman vs darkseid: apokolips now!" which is the superfam comic ever, to me. lots of good john henry stuff in triangle era! <3

[ang3lwithapen]

just caught up with the update, and i love how meeting the detective makes my mc's cognitive dissonance ramp up. she's trying to ignore all the rumors for the $, but the meeting the other housekeeper's brother and he's trying to warn her and she's like 🙈🙊 🙉

also, can't wait to get into a love triangle with s and h. my warm and polite is going to break through their walls and a watches warily as they fight each other over the housekeeper.

love your writing style as well. it's very atmospheric and detailed. can't wait to see where the story goes next!

Yeah i suppose the Detective is the first true consequence to Bertha’s disappearance that the MC gets to interact with :D

S and H love traingle huh… 👀 interesting. Intriguing even.

Tysm 🖤🖤🖤