#he's aware of the damage it can do and in this instance- for one reason or another- he orders it to be done regardless

[xxplastic-cubexx]

just read the new mutants issue where Charles chose to stay behind in space and my god the juxtaposition between Charles trusting Erik and Erik joining the hellfire club and wondering at his own trust worthiness. I wonder how much of Charles decision was him ultimately trying to avoid the fact that his first class had seemingly betrayed mutant kind and not be willing to face them and how much of it was Dani and Illyana's reaction to him having Karma mind control Illyana. the fact that Illyana was depending on him to ease her mind through limbo and in choosing to stay he forced karma to do it instead, probably fucking up their relationship in the process.

I love him, this is crazy, how much of this is him trying to runaway and how much is this him not trusting himself to fix things and how much is it just him trusting Erik?

i keep trying to put into words my exact thoughts about the sitch but there really is a lot for one issue aintit... oh charles you and your brain...

[oatlystrawberryicecream]

the way that some people talk about jason and batman and the joker is so jarring to me because it relies on some unspoken assumptions that i will never buy into

1. the assumption that taking a life inevitably always makes the person who did it worse. killing someone isn’t always this earth shattering thing that harms the person who does it and fundamentally changes their outlook on things. i guess if you have never met a veteran or someone who survived an armed robbery or any number of other things you might make that mistake, but like some of the people who fought in wwii came home and were normal members of the community and the times that their bullets hit the mark were not necessarily the parts of the war that kept them up at night. these assumptions that once you kill you are wicked and have to feel bad and do this whole show of repentance are insidious. if you are gonna look at all this through the lens of christian morality you should at least be aware that that is what you are doing but you cant have just one character be wicked and unclean because of his actions when the bible says that everyone is wicked and unclean by our nature and all sins are equal. a lot of people object to that view but if thats how you see it batman and jason and the joker are all sinners and are all as bad as each other so at least be consistant about how you apply that moral framework.

2. the assumption that being robin or being taken in and trained by bruce means full agreement with and acceptance of every part of bruce’s personal philosophy on justice and morality. jason was a homeless child and even if all this was explicitly laid out for him he could not have agreed since he needed bruce as a matter of survival. bruce’s ideology is extremely important to him and he can teach it to his children all he wants but they are not beholden to it above all else the way he thinks they should be. jason has to live according to his own beliefs regardless of how unacceptable bruce finds it and it is unfair and hypocritical of bruce to get bent out of shape about it.

3. the assumption that killing is always bad. maybe i have listened to too many episodes of behind the bastards but some people will do significant and appalling damage to others no matter what unless they are dead. those people can’t be allowed to keep causing harm. it isn’t glorious and there is no honor about it but it is right and just that they be stopped. there is no reason to strive for purity or ideological high ground when you can provide a measure of safety and justice to victims and prevent future harm instead.

4. the assumption that bruce didn’t have to answer to jason. parents have a duty to their children and it is my opinion that that duty does not end when the child dies. bruce adopted jason and made himself responsible and accountable for everything that happened to jason under his care. that responsibility was ignored over many instances. i am not going to detail the things that led to jason’s death here but it was not good or effective parenting. after jason’s death the disrespect starts pretty immediately with bruce compromising evidence of his murder in order to preserve his ability to continue as batman and continues with bruce getting rid of pretty much all traces of jason’s presence in his life. he is only spoken of as a mistake, a lost cause, or a cautionary tale and is assigned blame for his own death, a death that batman never bothered to fully investigate since he was buried next to the woman who led him into the trap. a new kid is endangered and the joker and batman both continue doing whatever they want as if jason’s life only matters for the way it affects them. bruce needs to answer for all of this, as his son jason has a right to expect more from his father. now the extent to which that extends can be debated but it is clear to me that jason deserved better from bruce.

conclusion: killing is accepted in society in certain circumstances, you may or may not agree with this but self defense laws and even things like jury nullification exist because people knew there should be some wiggle room since no one could have the full context of every situation that would ever arise. ending a life is not normal or ideal but it is not an unfathomably rare experience and it does not always weigh on the person who does it. bruce has never to my knowledge killed someone so he has no idea how he would actually respond but that still isn’t even what jason was asking him to do. all he had to do was be present and not move and he would have been the only parental figure who didn’t let jason down.

[p5x-theories]

Crow in P5X

(last updated 7/4/25!)

Goro Akechi is primarily present as a Phantom Idol, or cognitive teammate. He has not yet made any appearance in the main story.

Crow joins for P5R collab’s second Laboratory Chapter, having been pulled into the Metaverse unexpectedly after the MetaNav led him to Odaiba. This takes place during the Phantom Thieves' infiltration of Sae's Palace, so his deal with the Phantom Thieves is in effect, though Crow makes it clear he doesn't actually approve of them and it's a temporary arrangement.

He actually first appears, briefly, at the very end of the first chapter, swooping in to save Violet from the boss after she turned her back on it. However, he doesn't become playable until the second chapter, where he joins up with the rest of the group and exchanges information. After everyone's caught up on things, they explore new areas of this not-Palace together.

While he alludes to not always having gotten along with the Phantom Thieves, and occasionally teases the other members of the group lightly, he is otherwise relatively cooperative, except when it comes to information about himself (for instance, refusing to share what he might have wanted to "escape" from in the real world). He comes across as particularly aware of Violet's struggles to keep up with the rest of them, as a very new Persona user.

He also seems to be consistently trying to puzzle out how this world works and how they might escape, which is a topic that's come up before, but which he manages to make much more progress on than past discussions had. Violet is the first to suggest they were brought here because of a desire to escape, but Crow reasons it out much more thoroughly, and ultimately puts together how they can use that desire to escape to literally escape this place. And while it had been speculated in the previous Chapters of the P5 collab that there might be a culprit arranging these meetings between worlds, Crow is the one to start theorizing about their motive, suspecting it may have something to do with synchronizing their desires and keeping their two worlds connected, and even making guesses as to why this not-Palace lacked a Core.

It's heavily implied that the reason Crow was pulled into this not-Palace is because he wanted to escape from the plan to murder Joker, or at least the larger aspects of his work for Shido, given Crow's reluctance to talk about it. This particularly seems to weigh on him as they're leaving, when they talk about seeing each other again, though in the end he also says he hopes to see the others again.

Goro can also be found in Leblanc in the real world, which Wonder is for some reason capable of crossing worlds to visit. He won’t appear until Wonder has begun the Laboratory's second Chapter, but has evidently already heard about him from the others. He initially introduces himself as a detective who catches thieves, but after Wonder reacts with alarm, he laughs and explains there's a situation that has him working with the Phantom Thieves. Like the others, he talks about day-to-day topics in his life, for instance inviting Wonder to play chess, or talking about the types of cases he typically helps the police with.

Crow's Persona Robin Hood is categorized as an Almighty type, and resists Bless while being weak to Curse.

Robin Hood is a Sweeper Persona, meaning he’s good at dealing with groups of enemies. His trait designates the teammate with the highest attack stat (prioritizing Resist and Control teammates) as Crow's "Detective Partner" at the start of combat. The Detective Partner can be reassigned once per round, with a cooldown of one round. Crow's attack stat is buffed based on his Detective Partner's attack stat. Additionally, whenever his Detective Partner uses a Persona skill, Highlight, or additional effect to cause damage, Crow gains one "Arrow of Clarity" based on how much damage they dealt, lasting for two rounds.

His bless attack skill hits all enemies, heals the team, and grants everyone one layer of blessing (Crow then gains "Truth", and all teammates' damage dealt is buffed for two rounds); his curse attack skill hits all enemies, and Crow gains Truth (for two rounds: all enemies' defense is reduced, the number of "Chaos Arrows" increases by 1, and Crow's damage dealt is buffed); and his almighty attack skill requires Crow to have Truth, which is consumed to use the skill. It deals almighty damage to all enemies, consuming all Arrows of Clarity that Crow has in order to buff the attack, then fires 4 Chaos Arrows at random enemies (prioritizing enemies that haven't been hit by a Chaos Arrow yet, and dealing less damage with repeat hits).

His passive skills 1) allow Crow to trigger a same-element buff for the team of any element (rather than only triggering when 2+ teammates are the same type), buffing damage dealt each time it's triggered during combat, and 2) buff his damage dealt whenever Crow deals almighty damage, based on how much the target's defense has been reduced by.

As in P5, his melee weapon is a laser sword, while his ranged weapon is a ray gun. His Highlight is shown from 0:15 - 0:27 in this video, and it hits all enemies with a bless attack then curse attack, and the number of Chaos Arrows increases by 2 for four rounds.

His recommended card sets are 1) 5 of Cups (Disappointment) + Queen of Swords (Freedom), 2) 4 of Coins (Power) + Page of Coins (Growth).

The game has no particular recommended teams for him at the moment.

[pleasantspark]

My Departure from the HH/HB Critical Community

Wowie. Another post! What could've thought! Anyways, I've been mainly dealing with outside issues involving OTHER reasons beyond it, not because the infighting or anything it's because no one in the community, outside or even inside can agree or be adults and civil.

To think Critic Community could have solved everything JUST by being upfront and handle shit behind closed doors is just some stupid shit, I came here to connect with other people who agrees with HH/HB bad pacing not act the same way as the Fandom acts. The fact that people have actively taken it upon themselves to shit talk others because why the fuck not? The fact I had people come into my Inbox to stir the pot, fuck off.

I am tired of being dragged into petty drama by grown ass adults who can handle the issues in private.

Why I am Leaving Exactly.

TW: Abuse, SA Mentions, Threats, Death Threats, ED Mentions, KiwiFarms.

I've been dealing with on and off again witnessing DV between my step-dad and my Bio-Mom which stopped as he is no longer living here. I started criticizing Hazbin as a means to find new friends and a new hobby to distract it, but overtimes people have gradually been seen sneak dissing or even starting shit with the sake of causing issues.

There's been past instances where someone from the Hazbin Standom comes in and LARPs/pretends to be a critical community member as a means to GayOP us. I warned people this Cherry person might be that exactly. But what I didn't really anticipate for is my throwaway @throwawaylily101 to be subjected to the worst Infighting Critic Community I have ever seen.

I am tired of people dragging me into messes all because they cannot exercise the caution required to take shit said with a grain of salt, then we got people throwing out false allegations like candy over shit that no one GAF about, like come on dude, the world is ending. Who knows if HB/HH will still be around this year? Because the fact grown ass adults are beefing over clashing opinions is nuts.

Then there's the KF Haters. For starters... Yes I am aware that they doxx people, but sometimes you do realize doxes come from the people they find out about? Chris Chan doxed themselves, and so Viv has her info up. I usually put a hefty disclaimer NOT to harass other people NOT INVOLVED yet somehow I am responsible for FUCKING everything? I had someone used my GD against the Fandom to harass someone else.

Another thing is, I was sent lynch threats, RAPE THREATS, DEATH THREATS AND EVEN THREATS TO RAPE AND KILL MY NON-EXISTANT CHILD THAT I GOT FROM THOSE RAPE THREATS over shit that I said regarding the series. (By that I mean these weirdos would go into explicit detail on how they would rape me then get me pregnant only to kill that baby.)

The fact I have parasocial haters is ENOUGH, the fact I had to deal with people on Anon telling me to off myself, that my feelings are invalid was enough.

I have a eating disorder, there's NO food in the house and once again I do critic to TAKE MY MIND OFF THINGS, but no. The constant push back and infighting has ruined the one aspect I claim to actually enjoy. I don't understand why it's very difficult to NOT engage in content specifically not catered to you.

Overtime I realized the fandom shifted from criticizing to straight up wanting the creators and people dead for no reasons. I don't condone this, but like. STOP LUMPING me in with crazies I have no part in.

What does that mean for me now?

I won't be deactivating as I said before, this whole account was meant for other purposes and NOT just Critic, I felt like my existence in this community caused more damage then harm and I am further removing myself because I am done with being used to attack innocent people, I am done being in front of the mob because I hang out with people NO ONE LIKES, I don't come here to be controlled I come here to hang with a community and this community has became the VERY community WE criticized.

All this has taught me is that maybe the Standom was right, maybe all we are, are Antis with no staunch understandings on it, because all we do is yell about how something sucks and preach. But I won't think like that, because that's what THEY want us to think.

I still will be running @mammoncriticizes and @seraphinacriticizes but after this, pleasantspark will NOT be answering any asks regarding Hazbin or it's plentiful dramas. I am done entertaining the two communities when they cannot handle things privately.

My Parting Wishes

As a parting wish, any followers I have from my critic days, PLEASE stay followed as I want you all to see my work that I AM PASSIONATE about, Critic posts only further stressed me out.

And all I ask for anyone stumbling across my Google Doc, don't use it to harass others, don't take it upon yourself to be a internet vigilante because that's cringe. Have fun being a critical, and remember.

Don't do anything I wouldn't do.

[revalition]

HEY i read your rambles on the authority skilltober drawing and i just wanna say that id love to read your thoughts on authority and volition's dynamic!! if you want to share them obviously lmao

hi anon!!! you sent this in 6 weeks ago, I am so sorry :( hopefully you still see this

I am! extremely excited to dump about these two!! just needed to have the time/energy to and then it took forever hgkjh

it's gonna be long so putting a break here :) but there are quote screenshots *and* doodles under the cut

first off, a bunch of this stuff is in this post about them, this Volition skilltober post, and this Authority skilltober post, but now it's all together. so if you've seen some of this commentary or screenshots before... that's why

so ... going to sort this into canon and headcanons.

CANON:

we get: all volition and authority interactions I can find!

them agreeing:

them disagreeing:

this ones not really agreeing or disagreeing ig:

this one, the authority passive only fires if volition's doesn't. they're covering for eachotherrr.

I ran a very complicated SQL query to find all the instances of them having dialogue right after another, but it doesn't account for when the dialogue is separated by a variable check (eg. the sorry cop dialogue needs to check if you have the sorry cop thought). so I did what anyone would do and spent 3 hours making a far more convoluted query to iterate through the variable chains until they reached another line of dialogue. Which for some reason was a lot more easy in theory than in execution. And every time I messed it up it would sit for like 15 minutes and then bomb my computer with 10 million rows of dialogue. And sure, maybe twice I accidentally made it trace through every single dialogue path possible in the game recursively which. required killing it because it blew up. but it eventually WORKED and that's what matters.

So these quotes! Basically. They agree on stuff plenty, backing eachother up against bad ideas presented by Harry, other skills, or other people. but they also bicker a lot, trying to shut down eachother's ideas. Volition is the voice of reason in a lot of these, mostly just his desire not to die out of sheer willpower, as well as shutting down a few of Authority's more impulsive suggestions. But there is one where Volition disagrees with Authority, telling you to keep pushing on the stickbug issue despite the fact that he's only doing it to be stubborn and is actively making the situation worse... I think Authority helps balance against the extreme stubbornness Volition sometimes takes too far.

Here are a couple of them referring to eachother's specialties...

Authority is also extremely anti narcotics and encourages you to do the right thing (like declining Evrart's bribe) which I'm sure Volition would be happy with, until Authority takes it too far and encourages you to drink and smoke more because it's better than narcotics, and starts encouraging you to basically fabricate situations where you can pretend to be honourable for karma coupons. Which. Sigh.

That's them! They're on the same page and everything is going great right up until it's not.

Also Authority triggers the only instance of healing *all* morale damage in the whole game... :)

Of note is also when Volition *doesn't* chime in. Volition is well aware of the gun idea during the Hardies fail, even before you are, and makes no move to stop it. (Also, the back and forth during that fail when Volition tells you to give the gun back is. hgkh. I can't think of any other instance of Volition trying to override some bad decision and the skill in question talking/fighting back. If it does happen, it must be pretty rare.) He also doesn't stop you during the Authority fail dancing in the church, just urges you to go apologize after the damage is done (despite stopping you from making a racist comment during an encyclopedia fail a different time).

They also do take over for eachother from time to time! Especially with Kim asserting his authority, both of them do it several times. Authority obviously has the eyebrow standoff, but the check to not wipe coal off your face is an Authority check. The check to refuse to drink water after you faint is Volition, as well as Volition will allow you to tell Kim you don't need to be supervised.

HEADCANONS:

YES behold. my headcanons about them.

skill parents... the two of them are the ones all the other skills go to if they need help, or to break up a fight, or to hide from if they're being irresponsible

one sided rivalry!! volition just wants to keep everything together and authority took that personally. he's far more invested in asserting himself over volition than the other way around -- volition just wants authority to listen to him. we've got volition at 10 skill points and authority at 8, and authority is cooperative right up until Harry takes too much morale damage and volition's points dip below authority's, and then all bets are off.

ouh I love these two. when they get along, they work together wonderfully and do a great job running the ship together. and when they don't it turns into a mess! :) they absolutely fight over who has to (or gets to, depending) resolve an issue when something comes up while they're fighting. or will defer to the other one if they're separate (go talk to authority > go ask volition loop)

Authority is like this absolute force of nature that can't stand being told no, or anything or anyone getting in his way, and will use intimidation or force or whatever he has to to get his way. And Volition is this wall of willpower that will completely dig his heels in at the first sign of anyone trying to force him to do something he doesn't want to do, and continue to be unrelentingly stubborn about it until the bitter end. Unstoppable force vs immovable object. Authority's desire to control everything is only matched by Volition's desire for control over himself. Like I am not convinced Volition would be able to put self preservation above his stubbornness. And it's this eternal standoff until something (either of their skill points dropping/raising) changes the playing field. They're awful for each other sometimes but they're the only ones who can balance each other out a bit. I'm so normal about them.

I will say with regards to my morale critical volition, which I have many thoughts about constantly... that authority is so much more attuned to volition's strength relative to his own that he often realizes way before the others that morale is getting low. :) may make some mini comics about them because writing is much more fickle... and I like drawing them.

okay... that's far more than anyone could have possibly wanted about these two idiots, I think. hope u enjoyed anon, ty for asking about them!!!

[morallygreyvigilante]

ik it's a topic that's been done to death but, thoughts on the poor handling of consequences in mha?

The consequence handling in My Hero Academia does very much suck, but I can somewhat understand the reasoning for it.

For me, the first instance that comes to mind was the first training exercise pitting Midoriya and Uraraka against Bakugou and Iida. The instance I'm talking about is specifically the later stage of the exercise where Bakugou launched a full-power blast directly at Midoriya despite specifically being told not to.

I don't have a lot to say about this one, Bakugou ignored a direct order and - when told that the blast could potentially kill Midoriya - claimed that "he'll [Midoriya] be fine if he dodges." The exercise should've immediately been terminated and Bakugou should've been punished for:

Disobeying a direct order from the supervising teacher.

Displaying a lack of consideration or care for a fellow student.

Yes, I am aware that this was the first exercise that they'd participated in, and that rash actions/decisions are probably to be expected. But this kind of behaviour/thinking should've been nipped in the bud immediately.

The second instance that comes to mind is the Hosu incident from the Hero Killer Arc, where Midoriya, Iida, and Todoroki weren't credited for taking Stain down.

Now, why did this make sense?

It gets mentioned after the incident that while their actions were ultimately a good thing, they had also technically broken the law because they hadn't been given permission to engage the villain/use their quirks. If their involvement was made public then it could've damaged their chances going forward. However, I do think that the whole thing could've been handled a bit better.

When Midoriya headed into the city with Gran Torino, it was specifically to look for villains and - in the context of the previous conversation - it was specifically so Midoriya could gain some experience fighting different types of opponents with his new technique. While it's true he wasn't explicitly given permission to engage, it was already heavily implied that he would be allowed to.

Granted, we didn't see much of Iida and Todoroki before their involvement in the fight. But, based on what we knew of Endeavor at this stage in the series, I find it very strange that he wouldn't have already given Todoroki clearance to engage especially since it was made clear that he'd already received some form of "training" before U.A. Iida, however, did very much run off on his own. But, again, we don't really see much of their sides.

The issue with arc was very much a lack of clarity.

The third instance was the final exams I believe? Now, again, this one does make some kind of sense. So this one's going to be looking at Sero, Kaminari & Mina, Midoriya & Bakugou.

So, first one up, Sero. I think the issue that a lot of people take with this one is that Sero did contribute quite a bit towards his exam with Mineta, and I do agree that Mineta would've failed if not for the help Sero provided. However, the students were informed that they would fail the exam if they were either incapacitated, or they ran out of time. Sero was incapacitated so - as much as it sucks - it wasn't entirely unfair. He just got unlucky.

The exam with Kaminari and Mina, I feel, is the midway point on this scale. It's important to bare in mind that the purpose the exams was to make the students face the areas they're weaker in and see how they manage to work around it (if at all). Nezu was a pretty good opponent as far as that goal went, however - while it was played up for comedy - I do believe he went overboard. I'm not saying he should've gone easy on them because that wouldn't have been at all helpful in the long run, but I do think he took it too far.

And then, of course, there's the clusterfuck that was Midoriya and Bakugou's exam. From the get go this exam was heavily weighted towards Bakugou's development and not Midoriya's.

Midoriya has shown a willingness to work with others since day one, we saw it in the first battle trial with Uraraka, we saw it in the sports festival, we saw it in the Hero Killer arc. Midoriya will work with anyone.

This is exactly why he was paired up with Bakugou, who - at this stage - showcased a generally bad disposition towards teamwork of any kind, especially teamwork of any kind with Midoriya. He went as far as to physically attack Midoriya during the exam, which should have been an immediate disqualification. Yes, it was an exam, but it was a simulation intended to form an idea of how the students would operate in the field at their current level. Attacking your allies is not acceptable behaviour.

Of course, he did ultimately decide to work with Midoriya eventually, but by that point he should've already been disqualified.

As far as I can tell, the only issue they really had with Midoriya at this stage was the whole "putting All Might on a pedestal" thing. And while I agree that it was an issue that needed to be dealt with, it shouldn't have been done in a high-stress situation while also having him effectively serve as a stepping stone for Bakugou's development.

It's also worth mentioning that All Might (like Nezu) went way overboard given the nature of the assignment, but the series did at least acknowledge that part, so I won't linger on it for too long.

And finally, the fight between Midoriya and Bakugou after the provisional license exam.

Quite simply, Bakugou was the one in the wrong here. He specifically instructed Midoriya to go with him, he specifically led him somewhere where he thought there wouldn't be any witnesses, and he was the one to instigate the fight.

Yes, Midoriya did eventually start fighting back. But it's important to note that Midoriya didn't start fighting back immediately, instead he tried to calm the situation down and keep out of the way, and even if he didn't start fighting back it seemed highly unlikely that Bakugou would've let him leave without dealing some damage.

I do understand why Midoriya was punished, since he did ultimately join the fight. And his punishment was admittedly lighter, though not by much considering he only did so because he wasn't being given another option.

Now, I have heard people say that the main reason Bakugou picked this fight in the first place was because of the guilt he felt over All Might's retirement, because fighting was the only way he knew how to process his emotions (which does raise some flags) and he wanted someone to punish him. And, while that does provide an explanation, it doesn't excuse his actions.

The main thing about this instance that bugs me, is that I'm pretty sure that this was the event that led to Bakugou finally being told about One For All (I could be remembering wrong because it's been a while since I watched that season, so take this bit with a pinch of salt). Yes I know Midoriya let it slip in the first season but since Bakugou didn't seem to believe him at the time, I'm not counting it.

At this stage (particularly under these specific circumstances) Bakugou had not displayed enough maturity to be told the specifics about a secret had very little to do with him (if at all), especially since All Might himself had already pointed out how dangerous it could be if too many people found out. Of course, Bakugou himself made no attempts to reveal the secret afterwards, but the fact remains that his prior behaviour - at least, as far as I'm concerned - in no way indicated that he could be trusted with that kind of information, especially not since it involved Midoriya.

[goldeneyedgirl]

TwiFicmas NYE Edition: Variable Stars

Okay, since I got some very desperate DMs, you all win and we'll celebrate the end of 2023 with Variable Stars, and the beginning of 2024 with STL snippets.

This is a few pieces from Ch 7 of Variable Stars. It's close to done, and the bare bones of Ch 8 has been set up. I look forward to getting back into the swing of VS because friends to lovers is just so damn wholesome.

I hope you all have a brilliant NYE and I'll see you next year ;)

She’s not sure when everything changed. 

When it stopped being the Cullen home and it stopped being Jasper’s home and it started being hers too. When she started seeing her own face in the photographs on the walls, when the other family members called for her, she wasn’t just an extension of Jasper. 

She knows the house (which step is cracked because one of them stepped down too hard, but there’s been a lot of damage lately, so they’re all gingerly avoiding it in the hopes it can hold out a few weeks so that Esme doesn’t get too mad. Which bathroom never has hot water after midnight. That Carlisle moved all the travel books from the top-most shelves in the library down  to her eye-level so she could take them without lingering. That the spinning chair in the living room is shoved in the corner near the window because it’s her favourite but she won’t sit in it if her back is exposed.)

She knows that Esme is fiercely protective of her garden, that the stepping-stones are there for a reason. There’s a greenhouse that’s about to be built; and that Bella sulks if anyone is in the hammock when she wants to use it. (She also knows that Emmett and Rose are banned from the hammock because of what they did to the last one.)

And the forest. She knows it better than anything. That’s where they hunt, where her and Jasper go running. Where he found her that day, washing off the blood. Where they play-fight and she plays on the ice at the end of winter and it’s all broken up in pieces.

Then there is Jasper. There are a million different ways to explain Jasper and who he is to her, how he soothes all the raw spots and open wounds just by being there. Everything is easier with him, and there's never a day when she doesn't thank whatever higher power exists that they crossed paths.  

(Peace is a funny thing; it feels solid but she’s so intensely aware of how easily it could shatter. Eight vampires in one place is a recipe for disaster; she never forgets that. But for now, she just savours every single moment.)

It’s home. She’s finally home.

//

Some things are inevitable; Alice knows this well enough. Her death, for instance - setting foot in that hospital when she was a newborn, where the doctor knew who she was… that was a place people went to die, not to heal.

Realising that the only thing her gift would bestow upon her was death, destruction, and the legacy of a monster was another. 

Oh, and Jasper being someone important. There had always been something about him, even when he was a nomadic grump. 

But Alice has accepted that certain things are inevitable and avoiding them, or pretending they aren’t going to happen. The only thing she can really do is accept them, and face them head on, no matter how nervous or uncomfortable she might be. 

That is to say, she’s heard about Peter and Charlotte before; Jasper’s got lots of stories about them and it’s nice to hear to his stories - she’d like to set Maria ablaze for some of the things she did to him, and she’s more than a little bit sorry that she never made it for enough into Mexican to make the woman burn for her sins, but Jasper seems to be mostly at peace with everything that happened to him. 

(He worries more over her stories, which she finds funny. A couple of bites is nothing, and she makes it abundantly clear that she walked away the victor in those battles. When she says that, he always relaxes, like he’s worrying for her in that actual moment even when she’s sitting opposite him playing Go Fish in pom-pom socks.)

Sometimes she wonders what he would say if she told him the real story about how she woke up. About the one named James and the woman with him, about what she did to him, about finding the hospital and going inside and decimating it, killing every single person she found. If he’d be mad at her, or disgusted, or angry for her or what. 

It’s purely academic of course; she’s never, ever going to tell him all of that. As much as the past doesn’t bother him, she still remembers how he used to look, how he used to carry himself all those decades ago. She doesn’t want to add more violence, more rage to the burdens he carries. 

(She never wants to become one of his stories, like Maria.)

//

There’s more and more talk about their next move. That makes Alice nervous, he realizes. For a second, that’s confusing because there’s no way that moving will change anything - it’s still their family, just in a new place (there’s a vigorous debate between Montana, Minnesota, and Maine - he’s hoping for Minnesota because the home there is on a huge parcel of land where they can roam without being disturbed. Maine is the most claustrophobic option, a place where they will be under the most scrutiny, and Alice isn’t ready for that yet.)

But he takes a second and realises, for Alice, this is a huge change. The utter unknown - this house is the only home she’s ever known. She might have heard about high school and college, and posing as human, but she’s never had to play that part. 

(He’s already cornered Carlisle and told him that Alice isn’t going to school yet. Her reading and writing are good, but not enough to deal with a high school class. Not to mention that he got almost a decade before he was forced to play his part in their charade; Alice deserves the same.)

Esme is making adjustments to the house model in the family meeting, her stylus darting over the screen as everyone throws out requirements (or demands) about their new residence - Edward wants a music room, Rosalie wants space for at least twelve cars, Carlisle and Bella had grand plans for the scale and design of the library. 

His requests are the same as always - his study, and a bathroom he doesn’t have to share. Esme is doting and amused as she confirms his space, the exact requirements he gives for every single new house. 

“Alice, what do you need?” she asks, and Alice has been very quiet; Bella and Carlisle are still debating the two-story library of their dreams. 

She looks like a deer in the headlights as Esme looks at her expectantly, and looks at him for help. 

“Another bedroom and ensuite, maybe with an extra-giant closet for all your clothes,” he says teasingly, and Esme is already nodding, already sketching. 

“I don’t have that many.” She’s trying to sound flippant but she’s already looking relieved as Emmett begins negotiating a gaming room of his own. It’s true, she rarely asks Esme for anything more complicated than help navigating the washer and dryer. It’s him that she goes to for money, with questions, everything. And it’s Esme and Carlisle that come to him when they need her to know something, especially if it’s a delicate topic. 

And he likes it that way, likes that he can be useful, be important for a purpose.

//

The thing that they all like to ignore is that Bella’s change wasn’t without its difficulties. The Volturi had hovered in the peripheral right up until she had reawakened; it was that tangible risk that had allowed them to form a formal, ongoing alliance with the Pack, and allowed Bella to keep Charlie in her life. It was messy and uneasy but Edward was convinced that Aro held no malice for the entire debacle - Bella was changed, her shield gift only interested Aro in how it had manifested when Bella was human, and everyone had parted friends. 

(Well, Caius and Jane were still looking for reasons to destroy the lot of them, but the linchpin in the whole thing was Aro, and he was suitably amused and affectionate towards Carlisle that they were safe.)

Alice had been bewildered and scared when they’d told her the entire story, her unease syrupy as they spoke about Volterra and the agreements, Victoria and James, the Pack. She was slack-jawed when Carlisle explained that he had been close friends with the Volturi for decades before he had his family. 

He has his arm tight around her as the story is told, and quietly reassures her that they have no reason to ever see Aro, the Volturi, or even set foot in Italy. 

“They only punish those that break the laws,” he says and she nods, but the fear is still there. 

[kemregik]

A basal argument, acting as structural description, for Anthropogenic Climate Change Accelerationism, or anthropoclicha/acc, or acc/acc.

Necessity is the mother of invention. This is a fundamentally true axiom of human history. Whenever persons, communities, tribes, nations, the species is faced with an existential threat, the gift Evolution unthinkingly bestowed upon us activates to its highest potential and we think our way out of it.

Humans are iterative in nature; we build on everything our ancestors built, and every generation that successfully passes their additions down guarantees the next will exceed the benchmark set by the last. This is the force that drives us at increasing speed towards the mythical singularity of fellows like Nick Land (of whom I was not aware, formally, until I had this thought and decided it would be good to check if anyone had beaten me to this punch and I realized he was at the top of any discussion about accelerationism in general because he invented it, apparently) and the occasional Posadist. This iterative process can be, well, accelerated. Human history is uncountably littered with instances of deadly crisis creating salvific technolgical, scientific, and societal innovations. There is little argument to be made against the notion that humans are primarily loss-averse, and so, best motivated by those external forces that stress us maximally.

Allow me now, from this axiomatic foundation, to present a conclusion for your consideration as a validly constructed political position (and not as a directive I believe ought to be carried out) : the only reason we have not solved the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change is because it is not yet an existential threat to the species, and the only way to generate the solution to Anthropogenic Climate Change is to worsen it until it becomes an existential threat to the species.

From the point of view of an acc/acc, by contributing to the degradation or instability of Earth's climate, you are forwarding the cause of climate science more effectively. You are generating the very stimulus required to create the solution, because no amount of public or private funding to a research institution will create innovation if there is no motivator towards research. Capital-S Science does not just throw shit at a wall to see what sticks, it focuses energy on solving problems and answering questions; from most urgent to least urgent. If your focus, ethically, is the promotion of scientific advancement, you by definition want scientists to be working towards a goal, and if you want a particular goal to be worked on, you need to give people a reason to work on it. The best reasons are threats. The best threats are those that levy the highest stakes.

What higher a stake than the fate of the species?

Note that this is NOT climate denial. The acc/acc here has fully admitted that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a real problem, a problem we are making worse by the day, but not bad enough for a critical mass of people to care enough to want to fix it yesterday.

At this point, one could say Enter Ancap and take the position that unrestrained capitalism is the most effective means of creating the climate crisis necessary to fix climate change, but I don't think this is necessary. There are statist answers to this challenge; I can imagine Mexico taking its nationalized petroleum industry and using legislation to force it to be as eco-hostile as possible, then taking the profits and dumping them into climate research institutions. There is no mandatory economic component to this ideology: so long as you make the damage bad enough, the scientific community will produce technology to reverse the effects of the damage you're doing, how you arrive at this point is ideologically inconsequential.

There is no mandatory utopian component here either, to be clear. The acc/acc doesn't need to believe that fixing the climate will bring about some sort of ideal human society in order to want to fix the climate, but I suspect that the primary motivator, ethically speaking, for any genuine acc/accs will be this belief.

I am terrified to think that in the near future, this sort of applied doomerism might become politically feasible to hold unironically. There are enough scientifically literate revolutionaries (I use that word very loosely here) hanging out in polcompball-flavored coffee shops—I think the kids call them "Discord servers"—for this to catch on eventually given the general distrust in academia and the scientific community at large in the current era, so I will not be surprised when banners reading "tree-huggers for deforestation" start showing up in Lafayette Park.

[fishklok]

Torts + Army of the Doomstar part 1

I looked for torts in the first half of the movie, but I figured I should get back to actually studying.

Note 1: Just because I raise an issue doesn't mean it would be successful in court. You have to bring up the shitty claims on exams too.

Note 2: A lot of the stuff in this movie/show probably falls more under criminal law. I wouldn't know because I haven't studied criminal law yet. This is torts so we're in civil law bay-bee. There is no such thing as guilt or innocence.

Note 3: AOTD spoilers lol

Intentional Torts

Battery: A volitional act in which one intends to cause a harmful/offensive physical contact (or put someone in apprehension of a harmful/offensive physical contact) and a harmful or offensive physical contact occurs. Depending on the jurisdiction, the intent could either be to cause harm/offense, or the intent could be just to make contact.

Pickles v. Toki (when Toki hit Pickles)

Edgar v. Nathan (when Nathan grabbed Edgar's face)

Nathan v. Charles (when Charles grabbed Nathan's face)

Murderface v. Salacia (all of the possession shit. The idea of him bringing a torts claim about it is just very funny to me.)

Pickles v. Skwisgaar (when they were doing trust exercises and Skwisgaar didn't move to catch Pickles. This could also be raised as a negligence claim if it can be proved that Skwisgaar didn't intend to let Pickles fall)

Assault: a volitional act in which one intends to put someone in apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Skwisgaar v. Toki (when Toki tried to hug Skwisgaar and he moved away)

False Imprisonment: A volitional act in which one confines someone to a bound space and that person is either aware of the confinement or harmed by it.

Crozier v. Orlaag (the interrogation scene. Like Murderface and Salacia, this feels like a funny claim to raise.)

Trespass to Property: A volitional act in which one intentionally trespasses onto someone's real property and that person is the sole causation behind the trespass.

Murderface v. Salacia (More possession shit. Because it's funny to me.)

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): When one intentionally behaves in a way that is extreme or outrageous in a way that causes severe emotional distress. This would have gone on forever if I wrote down every little insult, so I tried to find instances that could satisfy the severe emotional distress element.

Nathan v. that interviewer/host (Nathan had a mental breakdown after some of the questions asked. Although, he was already in a delicate place and I don't think Eggshell Skull Rule applies here. The host would have no reasonable way to know Nathan's condition and likely won't be found liable for the performance.)

Toki v. Pickles (when Pickles yelled at Toki)

Abigail v. Nathan (when Nathan proposed to her. No evidence of severe emotional distress, but it could be raised.)

Nathan v. Abigail (when Abigail rejected his proposal. More evidence of severe emotional distress, but still probably not that strong.)

The fans v. Nathan (when he "broke up with them." I only studied class actions for like 45 minutes in civil procedure, but I don't think this claim would hold up either.)

Dethklok v. Knubbler (when he yelled at them and destroyed their breakfast. This is the part where I should explain that IIED claims are notoriously hard to win.)

Negligence

Negligence is when a party has a duty, they breach that duty, resulting in an accident that they have both actual and proximate causation for and that resulted in damages.

The church v. Nathan (all the stuff he accidentally broke)

Knubbler v. the gong manufacturer (when the gong broke off the rope and send him tumbling down the stairs. Could also raise as a products liability claim)

Temple + Dethklok v. Murderface (when he pissed in their water supply. Could be raised to conversion (another tort I didn't explain lol) if he continued after knowing the river was their water supply.)

Temple + Dethklok v. Knubbler (when Knubbler accidentally knocked over that candle and started a small fire)

The estate of that klokateer v. Knubbler (when Knubbler rang the gong, causing it to break off and knock that guy off the cliff. While the gong manufacturer could be liable too, Knubbler would probably carry a larger proportion of the blame because he already had cause to believe that the gong was defective.)

All those people v. Dethklok (when they performed the wrong song. Since all of the deaths that occur can be linked back to that performance, they still have proximate causation. The Doomstar seems like a textbook example of a superseding cause, but since Dethklok had a duty to stop the Doomstar and the consequences were foreseeable, they're probably still negligent. Other possible tortfeasors in that chain: the airplane pilots, the truck drivers, the estate of that guy jumping off his diving board would be barred from recovery in a contributory negligence jurisdiction, at this point I started losing track of the deaths and just decided to blame Dethklok for all of it.

Strict Liability

Strict liability is when a defendant is automatically liable regardless of reasonable care, lack of negligence, or lack of intent. This includes wild animals and abnormally dangerous activities. As if this point in my notes, I haven't seen much evidence of either.

[momthesearemydinnerguests]

Re: My last reblog

IDK if reblogs were turned off or I've been blocked, so I'm responding here. I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative because i don't mean it to be. I'm just bad at tone. but I promise I genuinely want to have a discussion because i adore this fandom with all my heart.

@virginiaisforvampires Oh, don't get me wrong!! I am in no way trying to justify Armand in this scene. i 1000% agree that his "seduction" of Lestat in that scene is an act of incredible violence and cruelty. Armand DID try to rape Lestat, and Lestat absolutely should have wrecked his shit. I apologize if my wording made it seem like i was team Armand in this instance, because I absolutely am not. Lestat is 100% the victim in this instance. I'm a CSA survivor myself and I am deeply sorry if my wording implied that I was blaming Lestat. But I bring it up because 1) the obvious mirror in the show, and 2) it demonstrates how ridiculously powerful Lestat is even as a fledgling only a couple weeks/months old.

I also want to be clear that I am not saying the ep 5 scene happened in the books. It didn't. Like hands down. I don't even think that lestat is physically abusive in the books. I know it came across that way in my original response, and I apologize. i was in a rush and not separating my points out the best. I agree to an extent that In the Interview!book, Lestat and Louis do get into physical altercations and both parties are at fault. Hell, I'll even concede that in the physical altercations we see in the book, Louis is usually the aggressor (for example, when Louis almost kills Claudia, it is Louis who pins Lestat against the wall and rails at him). However, there is an inherent power imbalance in the Loustat relationship. Of course, i also FULLY believe that Lestat would do his best to hold back because he loves Louis with 100% of his being and wouldn't want to hurt him. But that doesn't mean that the imbalance isn't there. If Lestat's capable of doing that much damage to Armand - a vampire 200 years older than him who was also created by an ancient one - it's difficult to picture Louis and Lestat being evenly matched in a physical fight.

I also want to point out that reactive abuse is a very real thing... When Louis lashes out in the book, it's not without reason. And Lestat himself admits this, multiple times, throughout the books. When I say Lestat is abusive, I'm not talking about the physical violence. I'm talking about the way he targets people Louis cares about (Frenier, for example) - even if he has valid reasons (Frenier's plot to betray his family and leave his sister's with nothing), Louis is never made aware of these reasons and Lestat makes no attempts to explain. i'm talking about the fact that Lestat frequently projects his own trauma around being turned, and mocks Louis for his struggles with vampirism as a way of punishing himself. I'm talking about how he does to Claudia the exact thing he hated magnus for - turning her without her consent, condemning her to a life he didn't even want, without regard for what that transformation would mean for her. He denies them access to information, and even though he has good reasons for it (fear of marius's retribution, fear of the destruction of the vampire race, etc.), he's far from kind in the way he does so. In my experience, most abusers aren't sitting in their chair rubbing their hands together Bond villain style thinking of ways they can hurt you. Often they genuinely think that they are trying to make you stronger or to protect you from the world. it doesn't make their abuse any less real, it just makes it harder to see if for what it is.

As to @nalyra-dreaming's point about proving my own objection... I'm not objecting? My whole point there was that Armand is absolutely twisting the narrative. It's a thing he does all the time in the books. He will do anything to not feel alone, and that frequently involves tampering with memory and perception. The fact that the ep5 DV scene so closely mirrors his fights with Lestat in TVL is intentional. I absolutely believe that it could reasonably (and probably will) turn out that Armand is twisting the narrative and passing his own memories off as Louis's. While I personally don't like it for the reasons I stated , it fits with the narrative. But if it is a deception on Armand's part, the deception is effective precisely because Lestat is capable of such violence, even if it was never directed at Louis personally. After all, he's witnessed the violence lestat has directed at people less powerful than him (the priest in ep1, the tenor, their victims on murder night). I grew up in an abusive household, and even if it was never directed at me personally, I spent a lot of time waiting for the moment when the other shoe drops and it is directed at you. And Louis himself isn't immune to fits of excessive violence! If he himself struggles so hard to contain his rage, it makes sense he would fear Lestat doing the same. And if Lestat is capable of that level of violence, that means that it is also possible that it's not a deception. Rejecting the scene outright to me feels like turning a blind eye on that aspect.

Long story short, I agree that the DV scene in ep5 probably didn't go down the way Louis has presented in season 1, as much as I hope otherwise. I don't think that the story we've been presented so far is the WHOLE truth, but I don't see any reject it as a flat out lie. Even the books (at least the first five) I don't recall Lestat saying that Louis is a liar, but that Louis omits details and context, and/or misunderstands the situation. I do take issue with the idea that idea that Lestat isn't capable of that level of violence (not saying that's what y'all are doing, but I've seen a lot of that on my dash lately), and I do take issue with the statement that Lestat isn't abusive. The whole story is about a cycle of abuse (Marius+Santino to Armand, -> Armand+Magnus+Gabrielle to Lestat -> Lestat to Louis+Claudia) compounded by existing trauma, and the ways in which the characters struggle to break the cycle. And that's why it is so rewarding when they do succeed.

I personally don't want the scene retconned. I don't think it's necessary, and it would rub me the wrong way because of my own history with abuse and not being believed, or being told that I somehow deserved it. I don't think it takes away from Lestat's inherent goodness to have him fall so low in a moment of weakness. I don't think it changes the story either way. I'll also understand if they do, though, because it does fit with Armand's character. I don't understand the animosity I'm seeing between people who want it retconned and people who don't, because either way, it's all just speculation until season 2 actually aires. Both paths are capable of staying true to the characters and the story of the Vampire Chronicles.

[bluegekk0]

So how exactly did Zote get into this AU? I feel like I see him in quite a bit of the artwork. I feel like none of the pale family wouldn't want to be around him, so is he just there and they can't get rid of him or is he like the one family member they all like to bully?

Well, if there's anything that brings together the family, it's trauma and emotional damage. And yes, Zote is extremely unpleasant, but I do believe there are things in his past that made him push everyone away and act like a jerk. And deep down, he's just as hurt as everyone else in the AU.

This might be a long one cause I also want to get into how each family member sees him, as I rarely get the chance to talk about Zote.

I guess I'll start with his past. I'm aware that he's 100% meant to be a joke character in the game, that much is clear from his portrayal, dialogue and his role in the game. But I think if you read into some of his precepts, they paint a pretty interesting picture. And yes, I'm also aware that he lies about himself all the time, but some of those are way too specific in my opinion. I'll start in the order of the precepts since that's how I wrote them down.

"Laughter spreads like a disease, and soon everyone is laughing at you." - sounds to me like he has some experience with being bullied. Looking at his fighting skills, or lack thereof, I don't think it's that unreasonable to think he would be a laughing stock for his peers.

"The past is painful, and thinking about your past can only bring you misery." - this one is a lot more vague, but it's clear that he doesn't have fond memories of his past.

"You can rely on nobody, and nobody will always be loyal." - if this is his mindset, it would explain why he's so unpleasant to everyone. He doesn't trust them, perhaps out of fear that they'll bully and make fun of him?

"Mothers Will Always Betray You" and "Fathers believe that because they created us we must serve them and never exceed their capabilities." - these two are, in my view, the heart of the problem. The way I interpret it, he was seen as a disappointment by his father, who wanted to control his life, and his mother did nothing to defend him. If you feel like not even your own parents value you, it's only reasonable that you'd grow bitter towards everyone. And in his case, he also deluded himself into thinking that he's better than what he's perceived as. Not the most healthy coping habit, for sure.

"Do not linger in the nest. There is nothing for you there." - and it's not surprising that you'd get the hell out of your home as soon as you could.

"If someone asks forgiveness of you, for instance a brother of yours, always deny it." - yeah, makes sense that he wouldn't want to forgive them. The brother here is most likely just an example, but maybe there's more to it than that?

I may be looking too hard into a meme character, but I really like the idea of him being an outcast that decided to cope with his trauma by being incredibly unpleasant and pushing everyone away. And it only makes sense that he'd find family in another group of outcasts that all cope with their own issues.

Now, I also want to mention that I don't see him as an old man like a lot of people call him. To me, he's probably in his species' equivalent of 20s. So still quite young, and thus with a lot of potential to heal and become a better person, which is an arc he goes through in the au. Albeit slowly, i mean, it's Zote after all.

---

As for how the rest of the family sees him:

Holly is their closest friend, so i'll start with them. Before Vyrm moved to Dirtmouth, they didn't have any familiar face that would talk to them. They desperately wanted someone to acknowledge their presence, and being talked to was, to them, exactly what they needed. Hornet was still very distant, she didn't really speak a lot, and in general it felt like she ignored them. Grimm, while much more open to conversations, was busy - at that point, he and the Troupe were still slowly preparing to go elsewhere to finish the interrupted ritual. So Holly had to find what they were looking for elsewhere - and it just so happens that a very talkative bug was right there, in the town. Of course, he was only talking about himself and lying through his teeth, but Holly didn't mind that. plus, they related to his wish to love up to his father's expectations. And over time, the pair became good friends, to the point that even Zote began to act a bit less unpleasant towards them. He wasn't used to having friends, so it was definitely a struggle for him.

Hornet hated him at first. He was irritating, simply put. She responded to him with mean things, which would often end in arguments between the two. But as time passed, and Zote became a honorary part of the family, her attitude changed a little - makes sense, she does soften a bit over the course of the AU. Their current dynamic is a bit sibling like. Well, the kind where one bullies the other, but is equally as defensive if anyone else tries to do the same. They still bicker all the time, it's inevitable as their personalities clash with each other, but there is a degree of understanding between them. Hornet can see through his lies easily, and relates to his wish to push everyone away as a response to trauma.

Vyrm, similarly, can also relate to some parts of Zote's past, mainly the desire to live up to his parents' expectations and to prove himself. But at the same time, he does find Zote's rambling to be a bit much. He tolerates his presence and even acts friendly towards him, and he definitely sees him as a member of the family, but they're not very close. Zote is a bit afraid of him since he was the one who first found him in Greenpath, and he can't get rid of the mental image of Vyrm covered in blood, ripping an animal to shreds. Especially since he's right about the size of what Vyrm usually hunts.

Grimm sees Zote as entertaining. He doesn't exactly bully him, that's not his style and he does feel pity towards him, but he enjoys hearing him make stuff up about various things. His tales from his travels are particularly amusing to Grimm, as they're almost always completely made up. Grimm likes to "fact-check" him, which usually ends in Zote struggling to keep his narrative and giving up. But since he's part of the family, it means Grimm is still protective of him. Even if Zote himself finds him unsettling and is afraid of being left alone with him hahaha

I love the idea of Zote finally accepting that there might still be family he could belong to, he spent all those years thinking he's better than that, but deep down he really needed to be a part of one. It just so happens that he got "adopted" by a bunch of traumatized freaks, but maybe that's exactly the kind of family he needed

[radical-revolution]

WHAT ABOUT LOVE?

One might think that not all emotions are suffering — what about love, joy, creative inspiration, devotion, ecstasy, peace, union, fulfillment, relief?

We believe that emotion is necessary for poetry, songs, and art. Our definition of “suffering” isn’t fixed, and it is limited. Siddhartha’s definition of “suffering” is much more vast and yet much more specific and clear.

Some kinds of suffering, such as aggression, jealousy, and headaches, have an obvious negative quality, while others are more subtly painful. For Siddhartha, anything that has a quality of uncertainty and unpredictability is suffering. For instance, love may be pleasant and fulfilling, but it doesn’t spring independently out of the blue. It depends on someone or something, and therefore it is unpredictable.

At the very least, one is dependent on the object of love and, in a sense, always on a leash. And the additional hidden conditions are uncountable. For this reason it is also futile to blame our parents for our unhappy childhood or to blame ourselves for our parents’ disharmony, because we are not aware of the many hidden dependent conditions involved in these situations.

Tibetans use the words rangwang and shenwang to represent “happiness” and “unhappiness.” They are difficult to translate precisely; rang means “self” and wang means “power,” “rights,” or “entitlement,” while shen means “other.” Broadly speaking, as long as one is in control, one is happy, and as long as someone else holds the leash, one is unhappy.

Therefore the definition of “happiness” is when one has full control, freedom, rights, leisure, no obstacles, no leash. That means the freedom to choose and the freedom not to choose, the freedom to be active or to be leisurely.

There are certain things we can do to bend conditions to our advantage, such as taking vitamins to become strong or drinking a cup of coffee to wake up. But we can’t hold the world still so that it won’t stir up another tsunami.

We can’t prevent a pigeon from hitting the windshield of our car. We can’t control the other drivers on the freeway. A big part of our life revolves around trying to make other people cheerful, primarily so that we can feel comfortable. It’s not nice living with someone who sulks all the time.

But we can’t keep another person’s emotions upbeat at all times. We can try, and maybe we’ll even succeed sometimes, but such manipulation requires a great amount of maintenance. It’s not enough to say “I love you” just once in the beginning of a relationship. You have to do the right thing — send flowers, pay attention — until the end.

If you fail even once, everything you have built can fall apart. And sometimes, even if you give undivided attention, the object of your attention may misinterpret, not know how to accept, or not be receptive at all.

A young man anticipates a candlelight dinner with the girl of his dreams, imagining how the night will unfold, how he will woo and charm her. But that’s just his imagination, a guess. Whether it is an educated or an uneducated guess, it’s still just a guess.

Basically we can’t be 100 percent prepared all the time. Therefore our obstacles and opponents need to be successful only 1 percent of the time to do all their damage: a slip of the tongue, accidental expulsion of gas, one casual glance away from the X-ray machine at the airport security checkpoint.

We might think that we aren’t really suffering, and even if we are, it isn’t so terrible. After all, we aren’t living in the gutter or being massacred in Rwanda.

Many people think, I am OK, I am breathing, I am having breakfast, everything is going as well as can be expected, I am not suffering. But what do they mean? Do they mean this 100 percent? Have they stopped preparing for things to get better? Have they dropped all their insecurities? If such an attitude comes from genuine contentment and appreciation for what they already have, this kind of appreciation is what Siddhartha recommended.

But rarely do we ever witness such content; there is always this constant nagging feeling that there is more to life, and this discontent leads to suffering.

Siddhartha’s solution was to develop awareness of the emotions. If you can be aware of emotions as they arise, even a little bit, you restrict their activity; they become like teenagers with a chaperone. Someone is watching, and the power of Mara is weakened.

Siddhartha was not injured by the poison arrows because of his awareness that they were merely illusions. In the same way, our own powerful emotions can become as harmless as flower petals.

And when the apsaras approached Siddhartha, he could see clearly that they were just assembled phenomena, like a fire ring, and therefore they lost their allure. They couldn’t get a rise out of him. Similarly, we break the spell of temptation by seeing that the objects of our desire are actually just assembled phenomena.

When you begin to notice the damage that emotions can do, awareness develops. When you have awareness — for example, if you know that you are on the edge of a cliff — you understand the dangers before you. You can still go ahead and do as you were doing; walking on a cliff with awareness is not so frightening anymore, in fact it is thrilling.

The real source of fear is not knowing. Awareness doesn’t prevent you from living, it makes living that much fuller. If you are enjoying a cup of tea and you understand the bitter and the sweet of temporary things, you will really enjoy the cup of tea.

— Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse

[sizzlingpatrolfox]

Hey, so I'm new to your blog, and what I've been reading so far is very interesting. I'm also a joker but a very sane one 🙃😭. Anyways, I came into the fandom late and was immediately attracted to jikook because of all the ships I've seen so far (and I have NEVER shipped anyone because I just didn't see what others did) jikook was the most suspicious I have ever seen. And like i said, I'm a sane joker because a lot of moments that jikookers believe in, I debunk real quickly because I actually have common sense and logical reasoning. Like for me, I'm still so confused about the jm flying in for jk bday for a couple hours and then leaving....I was like, "Huh? 🤔" It didn't make no damn sense. There's some other instances that make me 50/50 (because that's what I am, I have no definite possibility of knowing or not knowing, so I'm just leveled. It's what keeps my sanity, and it helps with seeing through a biased mindset. ) but like you said, the good times outweigh the bad. With the 2nd chapter, it's very hard to see anything because there's no content. Things HAVE changed, sad as it is because I didn't get that jikooker experience in real time.

But I wanted to ask you, you said that in early 2021, you realized then that things changed. Can you say exactly what your breaking point was? A lot of times when people are asked that, they mention a compilation of moments but I want to know what EXACTLY was the moment that made you say "okay, alright...that was it...no more".

(Btw... you can call me Night Anon, since I'll be here regularly 😭😭. I really like when I can have a discussion with sane jokers (well, you're not a joker anymore, but you understand)).

Hello Night Anon, it's been so long. I used to keep in drafts some replies to post them later as to not have so many consecutive posts talking about the same thing, and this is one that I never got around to posting.

There were two specific moments that I remember:

First it was Jungkook not knowing of Jimin's 7 tattoo.

Second one was him saying on vlive that Taehyung's the most handsome person he's ever seen.

A lot of other things happened before, in between, and after but I think those two were the moments that really broke something and damaged beyond repair my opinion of their relationship, especially from Jungkook's side.

I'm aware the tattoo one could be "debunkable". Maybe he acted like he didn't know/remember, but to me it's a extremely weird thing to lie about. Normal, mature, sensible, logical way of going about it was Hoseok. Hoseok got asked on live about Yoongi's tattoo and he said "Yoongi has to be the one to show you". Jungkook listed everyone's tattoos (even Jin's, who hadn't really shown it before) and then was like "no idea about Jimin's". I always took the things they said and did to face value and accepted it. In 6 years I was never one to be dissecting and trying to find a hidden meaning or reason for why they did or said certain things. If it happened, it happened. I was always capable of accepting the things they said even when I would've liked to believe something different. So I accepted that he didn't know or remember about Jimin's tattoo because that was what Jungkook said.

As for the second time; pardon my french but if someone's eating my pussy on the regular, I won't go live in front of millions and say "actually, her best friend is the most beautiful human being I've ever seen". There was no excuse, there's still no excuse. Maybe it's just me and my silly female brain who takes respect and loyalty too seriously like that.

Then, another thing that was "smaller" but it was always at the back of my mind, was Jimin. He used to pretend like he was about to "kiss" JK, right? And it was actually limited to JK only, it wasn't something he did with/to other members. But then he started doing that same thing with Taehyung (memories 2021), and also with Hoseok during his bday live this year. I just never thought Jimin of all people would do stuff like that, even as a joke, if he was in a relationship.

[autistic-sidestep]

From the sidestep asks: 21, 27 and 34 for sura?

under a cut to save everyones dashboards (sura uses he/she/they/it)

21. what is their philosophy? fake it til you make it. if you pretend well enough, you can fool everyone else. (jury's still out if sura will ever be able to convince itself that it's a human/person and not just a really good impersonation of one.)

27. what qualities might someone appreciate about them? what would drive someone away? thoughtfulness. sura's REALLY bad at admitting things or showing affection outright, so he often does it indirectly, making observations or acts of service. like doing things w/o prompting and passing it off like it's not a big deal/just makes the most logical sense (see: mending their crew's clothing when they get damaged on the job/making suggestions about chen's new arm, etc.). they like knowing what makes people tick and having that proven right.

however, they also want that to be a one way thing; they can do the perceiving, but someone perceiving them? illegal. blocked. they also do a lot of lying and evasion to push people away (part of the self-destruction - cut them off so it hurts less for all the parties involved). there's a reason why sura stays away from ortega, cos they're acutely aware of how well ricardo can read them (+ the secret crush. tho it's rather hard to disentangle the resentment with if it's attraction or just nostalgic fondness that won't leave). sura can't retaliate the same way cos of the static, so they feel at a disadvantage.

chen is still a danger, but at least he's not immune to their telepathy. things aren't quite so loaded with him. chen's bullheadedness also means that sura's usual method of arguing and getting contrarian doesn't work on him. they're both very used to the same arguments and the counters from pre-hb, and now... they're both just too tired to keep doing it.

ig sura's also pretty loyal once they've made a strong enough connection too. she protects his team and trusts them to do the same in return.

34. are they nostalgic for their sidestep days or eager to move on?

very complicated. past-self rivalry equals any feelings of nostalgia getting quashed by frustration at his past-self being too naive/trusting. that's what got them into this mess in the first place. sura's sidestep self is always the benchmark ortega keeps comparing them to (like the present self is a ghost, and ortega's only seeing the negative space/absence of the old sura). the suranga that wore the sidestep suit, as far as they're concerned, died. and all of his principles went with him. sidestep almost feels like someone else. and it’s not like their current self will ever measure up to the sidestep that ortega remembers. it doesn't WANT to be that person anymore. in some ways, it Can't!

(this is also why a worst-case scenario would be ortega thinking it's a regene copy. lol, whoops, this just affirms all sura's suspicions that he only wants the wide-eyed idealistic sura before the trauma and the bitterness that followed him around like a puppy.)

they don't want to be in ortega's shadow, or be a sidekick, that's largely why they took up the mob boss role - so that they could prove to themself that they're better than him. and chen too, ig.

Something something some twisted logic that destroying the museum exhibit = finally proving she's better than her past self/getting closure? (spoiler alert it was not lol.) sura liked helping people as sidestep. and on occasion they still do it, just more selectively, re: rescuing the civilians at carter's place w/ chen. (50+ villainy/ruthlessness score aside... i think they might chalk those instances up as flukes, but that's just a lie to convince themself they're not still a bleeding heart.)

[melancholic-academia]

Oh, yeah, the UNEDUCATED, SELFLESS, "Kundan" here is the problem, while the WELL EDUCATED, SELF-CENTRED "ZOYA", is the real Queen, just like Rumi, seeking for true love (:

also, someone being wise enough to not lose energy on such topics, here's what chatGPT wanna say:

Zoya’s Toxicity in Raanjhanaa: An Analysis

In the 2013 Bollywood film Raanjhanaa, directed by Aanand L. Rai, the character of Zoya, played by Sonam Kapoor, exhibits behaviors that can be interpreted as toxic, particularly in relation to Kundan, portrayed by Dhanush. While the film presents a complex story of unrequited love, obsession, and political turmoil, Zoya’s actions significantly contribute to the tragic trajectory of the story. This essay argues that Zoya's toxicity manifests in her emotional manipulation, lack of accountability, and selfish decision-making, which ultimately lead to devastating consequences for Kundan and other characters.

Emotional Manipulation and Exploitation

One of the most evident aspects of Zoya’s toxicity is her emotional manipulation of Kundan. As children, Zoya and Kundan share an innocent bond, but as they grow older, Kundan’s one-sided love intensifies. Despite rejecting him, Zoya continues to engage with Kundan when it is convenient for her, occasionally offering him hope while never reciprocating his love. She uses his unwavering devotion to her advantage, whether it be for emotional support or to advance her personal desires. For instance, when she needs assistance in orchestrating her relationship with Akram (Abhay Deol), she does not hesitate to use Kundan, despite being fully aware of his undying love for her.

Lack of Accountability and Indifference

Throughout the film, Zoya rarely takes responsibility for her actions, even when they result in severe consequences. She deceives her family about her love affair with Akram and manipulates Kundan into helping her, despite knowing his deep feelings for her. When Akram dies, she swiftly shifts her blame and resentment towards Kundan, even though he was not directly responsible for the tragedy. Instead of acknowledging her role in the unfolding events, she distances herself from the repercussions of her decisions, leaving Kundan to suffer the emotional burden alone.

Selfish Decision-Making

Zoya’s decisions throughout the film are largely driven by self-interest. She disregards Kundan’s feelings and exploits his loyalty when it suits her. When she re-enters Kundan’s life after years apart, it is not out of genuine care but rather to use him as a pawn in her political agenda. Even after knowing the extent of Kundan’s sacrifices, she plots against him by arranging for his public humiliation. Her actions showcase a deep lack of empathy, as she remains oblivious to the pain she inflicts upon those around her.

Conclusion

While Raanjhanaa is often viewed as a tragic love story, Zoya’s character plays a significant role in the toxic dynamics of the film. Her emotional manipulation, unwillingness to take responsibility, and selfish decision-making contribute heavily to Kundan’s eventual demise. Though Kundan’s obsessive love is problematic in itself, Zoya’s toxicity exacerbates the situation, leading to irreversible damage. Her actions reflect a pattern of behavior that prioritizes her own desires at the cost of others' well-being, making her one of the more toxic figures in the narrative.

Lo bhai , aagaye . Are maine kab bola ki Zoya did no wrong ? Ofcourse she saw that he was interested and used him. Koi sahi hai hi nahi lol mujhe to kundan ke dost air bindiya ko chor ke aur kisi ke liye bura nahi lage 💀 everyone was doing insensitive stupid things . But probably if Kundad wasn't this "into" her or hadn't done so much chaotic shit , zoya ne bhi itna na kiya hota kyuki i understand, jab koi is tareeke se peeche parta hai na you're "understanting" for them turns into "disgust" and "irritation" . So yeah, zoya used him . Very true bit she had her reasons to do it.

Oh and yes , who tf thinks he was selfless? Hein? 😂😂😂 the only thing he was thinking about was himself. Selfless hota to he would've let zoya and akram be.

See guys this is why i was saying ki logo ko thoda soch ke movies banani chahiye , yaha people bohot zyada hi affected ho jaate hain 💀

[smqazi]

Punishments Prescribed under the Shari'ah (Islamic Law) 

IN SO CALLED ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 

WHICH IS BY DEFINITION IS NEITHER ISLAMIC NOR REPUBLIC,

UNFORTUNATELY!

Corruption comes in many forms and modes. The outright bribery of officials and judges is certainly understood to be a most heinous form of corruption for it undermines the very basis of a lawful society. There are enough examples of this type of corruption in our past and current national life to prove to us how damaging and destructive this immoral policy can be.

This article is not intended for the layperson and should be used only in conjunction with a detailed study of the topic of punishments under Shari'ah noting, in particular, the conditions required for one to be punished. Additionally, in common with almost all areas of Islamic jurisprudence, this is a topic of legitimate Islamic differing, opinion and evolution.

Apostasy

This consists of abjuring Islam by intention or words or acts or rejection, whether the words were said in jest, or contradiction, or belief. They consist of a declaration:

That the Creator or Messengers do not exist;

That one of the Prophets was a liar;

That one considers lawful what the 'joining together' has considered unlawful - as for instance fornication;

That one considers unlawful what the joining together makes lawful;

That one does not have to follow what has been decided by joining together; or

That one intends to reject Islam, or doubts it.

An act making one an apostate is one based on an obvious mockery or denial, such as throwing a copy of the Qur'an on a muck heap, or prostration to an idol or the sun.

An effort should be made to convince an apostate to return from error, though one authority says that it is only desirable, either once or for three days. Then he is put to death. Where the guilty repents, his submission is accepted and he is let alone, unless (according to some), he has turned to an esoteric infidelity such as zandaqa (i.e. Manichaeism) in which one can profess Islam outwardly but deny it inwardly.

The infant of two apostates (not one only) should be considered an apostate, according to the best opinion.

As to his property, the best opinion is that if he dies as apostate, he has lost it, but if he submits, he regains it. Debts contracted beforehand are however charged to his estate.

Fornication

This consists of introducing the male organ into the vagina of a forbidden woman, without any ambiguity or doubt, or into the anus of a man or woman as well, according to our (Shafi'i) school, and it receives a prescribed penalty (hadd), regardless of whether it was done for payment or by consent, and is applied as well for (relations with) a woman within the forbidden degrees of kinship or marriage (e.g. sister of a living wife) even if a marriage was performed. The guilty person must be adult, sane, and aware that it is wrong. Drunkenness is no excuse.

The hadd of an adult free Muslim or member of a protected community, who has consummated a legal marriage before this, is stoning to death. If one of the two partners has not, it does not lessen the guilt of the other;

The hadd of a fornicator who is not adult and free or was never married is one hundred lashes and banishment for a year, and if the Imam designates a place of banishment, that must be accepted; and

For a slave the hadd is fifty lashes and banishment for half a year.

Defamation

For a false accuser to receive the hadd, he must be a sane adult Muslim, drunk or sober, who acted freely. A child of a reasonable age is punished at the discretion of the court. The penalty for a free person is eight lashes, and for a slave forty. If two people accuse each other, the two punishments do not cancel each other.

Crimes Punishable by Amputation

For theft the amount necessitating punishment by amputation is of a value equal to the quarter of a (gold) dinar. Two persons stealing together must have stolen twice the minimum amount. There is no amputation if such as wine, or a pig or dog, or the skin of an animal that is not ritually slaughtered. But if the container of the wine was worth the minimum amount, amputation follows.

Theft by a minor, insane person, or one forced against his will is not punished by cutting off the hand but cutting may be performed on members of a protected community, subject to our laws.

The right hand is cut off for the first offense (even if more than one theft was involved), the left foot for the second, the left hand for the third and the right foot for the fourth.

Brigands (Highwaymen and Bandits)

Those who do not rob or murder travelers may be given a lesser punishment. One guilty of theft if the legal amount has his right hand and left foot cut off. Murder by a brigand makes his death mandatory. He is then hung on a cross for three days and taken down. Some say the body should hang until ichor runs from it, and others that he should be crucified for a time and then taken down and killed.

Forbidden Beverages

Every drink that inebriates in a large quantity is forbidden in a small quantity. The hadd for drinking it is not given to a child, an insane person or a non Muslim subject. One may take wine in immediate necessity, according to our school, e.g. to dislodge food in the throat which is choking one, if nothing else is available, but one is liable to punishment if he uses wine for medicine or for thirst. The hadd of a free person is thirty blows, and that of a slave is twenty, by whip, hand, sandal or a rolled up garment. It is said that it should be with a whip. The Imam may double the number if he sees fit.

Sins not punishable by a prescribed penalty or expiation may be punished by imprisonment, beating, slapping or threatening. The nature of this is at the discretion of the Imam or his deputy.