#AEC asks

[radiates-confusion]

Hi. I adore the way your brain works

(I'm eating-the-inedible, this is my main)

AHHHH HELLO! Omg, Hi! Ummm, fuck, now I need to seem composed 😂😅

Hi! Um, sorry, I've been on Tumblr like, less than a year, and I'm bad at interacting with people, so seeing you pop in here was a.... Welcomed surprise!

Umm, thank you for the compliment! I don't really think of my brain working any differently than other people to be honest.... Most differences are just like... Undiagnosed mental illness or divergences, haha, but like, I read through the sort of asks you wanted, and thought something unconventional and like... Scenario esc would be fun for you!

In regards to what you said around my last ask, I plan to do more! I get a bit bored and lonely when on the bus to college by myself, so that kinda gives me something to do now, so you'll probably get a few a week! And uhh, pls, if you wanna make it gay, I'm here for that! Same with enemies to lovers! I kinda handed you enemies to lovers with the last one especially, and it was a very fun read!

But uhh, yeah, Hello! Nice to see you there beard/inedible (I hope you don't mind me shortening it, and as I'm writing this I can't actually see the full handle, sorry)

I'm, well, me! You can call me any derivative of this handle that you like, and I look forward to seeing more of your responses to any asks I end up giving you... Whenever that is 👍

[askevilcharming]

Hey loves, happy new year

@askevilcharming

[passerkirbius]

Compulsory Voting Looks Like...?

In my Voting With Spite post, I mentioned that Australia has compulsory voting, and I noted that quite a few people had either positive or negative reactions to that idea. I thought it might be a good idea to talk briefly about what Compulsory Voting actually does to your voting scene.

Now, to be clear, I'm going to be talking about the Australian Experience - that's what I know. I'm aware that Brazil and Belgium both have Compulsory Voting as well, and their experiences are likely to be a bit different. So, let's go through the big ones:

Do you need ID to vote?

Here, the answer is no - an ID can help, because when you get your name marked off the roll at a voting station, they use your name and address, and our driver's licenses have that, but it's not essential. Indeed, if you've changed address and that hasn't been recorded on the roll, you can still vote - this is called a "declaration vote", because the vote is put into an envelope where you "declare" that the information provided is correct, and the vote is counted once the electoral commission has verified the information.

One might think that this open up our system to a lot of fraud, but one of the fun parts about compulsory voting is that voter fraud is very easy to study - in such a system, if someone steals someone else's identity to vote, it will appear that that person has voted twice, and it gets investigated. The only other big fraud option is fraudulent enrolment - and again, because everyone is on the electoral role, if there's concern regarding a fraudulent enrolment, the electoral commission can check with people at the address of the enrolment. The AEC do these sorts of checks after every election, and it turns out, while there are often double votes, most of those are administrative errors (crossing off the wrong person somewhere), or entirely innocent (people with memory issues voting multiple times because they forgot that they'd already voted). During the 2018 election, only 118 cases were deemed worth forwarding to the Federal Police, out of over 20 million votes.

Do Politicians still play to the base?

In Voluntary voting systems, there is a well-known phenomenon where there's an incentive for politicians to, instead of trying to aim for policies that will satisfy the most people, to instead aim directly at their "base", their natural political home voters. The idea is that you don't actually need to persuade the other side to vote for you, you actually need to persuade your side to vote for you. The only prevailing counter to this is that you don't want to be so egregious that you motivate the other side to vote against you.

Historically, this has not been the case in Australia. In Australia, you can depend on your base to vote for you - they aren't going to stay at home, because it's compulsory to vote.

So they play to the centre?

Honestly, it's complicated. The question is often not about whether you're politically "in the middle", but where you live - Just like in other electorates, there are safe seats (where voter movement isn't likely to kick out the incumbent party) and marginal seats (where the margin of votes for a given party is quite small, generally less than 5%). Marginal seats are where political parties can potentially score a seat with only a little bit of a push, so it's standard strategy to build your campaign promises to directly target those marginal voters.

What those marginal voters actually want varies quite a bit, depending on where in the country they are - a marginal seat in Rural NSW need different targeting than a tiny marginal seat in Melbourne. In general these voters are looking for actual improvements in facilities and economic policy, rather than ideology, so while politicians from those seats may be absolute culture warriors, that often isn't what people in the seat are asking about or listening to - they want to know what the nutcase is actually going to do for them.

With that said, rural voters are more likely to want a personal connection to their MP and are much more likely to vote on who they, personally, like the most. This is less the case in Urban electorates, who care much less about who the MP is and what they're like, and much more about their party's platform.

But also also, there is a strong emphasis in politics about playing to "Ordinary Australians", which one can consider a code for "centre views". Of course, Australia as a society is pretty conservative in many ways, so what you consider "centre" may be a little left of what we consider "centre"...

So yeah, not nearly as simple as "playing to the centre" - there's a lot more involved there.

Are there such thing as "Independent" voters?

In Australia, at least, the idea of an "Independent" voter doesn't really exist - Australia's leaders aren't voted for in Primaries, so you don't need to have your political affiliation marked. Some Australians are members of political parties, but that number is tiny - in 2022, the two major parties had 100,000 members between them, in a population of 26 million people - about 0.4% of the population, maybe 0.5% if we count all the minor parties as well.

Are compulsory voters more engaged voters?

In a word? No. Australian society in general doesn't encourage people being overly involved or engaged in politics, especially in working-class subcultures (and of course, every Australian claims to be working class, regardless of their actual class). Like in many places, there's a pressure in face-to-face conversation to suppress political discussion to avoid conflict, and I can assure you that researching your candidates/parties before an election isn't a common activity (and I understand why - there's so many of them).

As a consequence, Australians don't tend to change their vote that often - in fact, studies in Australia have shown that there's a strong correlation between how you vote, and how your parents vote. A Labor voter is likely to stay a Labor voter, and a Liberal voter is likely to stay a Liberal voter, even if they're not a member of the party. This is why most election promises are much more about giving stuff to voters, rather than about legislation around society itself - It's considered safer to deal with infrastructure than it is to deal in culture wars issues.

Wait, if voters don't change often, how do opposition win?

Well, rarely is the honest answer to that question here. Since 1950, the party in federal government has changed only seven times:

Once in 1972, from the Coalition to Labor

Once in 1975, from Labor to the Coalition (although that one was a particularly odd one)

Once in 1983, from the Coalition to Labor

Once in 1996, from Labor to the Coalition

Once in 2007, from the Coalition to Labor

Once in 2013, from Labor to the Coalition

Once in 2022, from the Coalition to Labor

And during that time, there's been 27 elections, so in 20 out of 27 elections, the incumbent won. But with that said, every time the opposition wins, it's in a landslide, winning a huge number of seats.

The reasons for this are obviously complex, but the way I like to think about is that in Australia there's a certain inertia in the voting populace. Once your vote is set, there's not a lot that's going to change that vote - you're generally going to vote for the party that aligns most with you, and that isn't likely to change much. But as a party keeps fucking up (because they always fuck up), the more that votes wobbles - it might, initially, move your party down the preferences, which you might not notice (because it still funnels to you), but eventually, you've pissed off so many people that everyone votes for anyone but you arseholes, which results in the other party getting in with a landslide.

The previous government is usually horrifically savaged, to the point that it takes a few election cycles for them to slowly rebuild numbers, regain talent, and get themselves into a position where, now that the other side has fucked up sufficiently, voters are willing to let them have another shot at the big time.

This, awkwardly, also tends to stifle politically-lead social change, as well. Firstly, it can take decade or more for a party that is willing to engage with your chosen direction of society to become the Government, and even once they are there, it tends to be the case that Governments won't consider leading such changes until they are certain that everyone wants it - The Gay Marriage Postal Survey is an example. Any opinion poll could show you that the majority of Australians were for gay marriage, but the Coalition government of the time was against it. As a delaying tactic, they insisted on a postal survey (it couldn't be a plebiscite, because they couldn't get that through their own MPs) so every Australian had to vote on the issue. The result? 61.6% were for Gay Marriage (and up to 90% in some electorates!).

What if you can't vote?

Australia is something of a world leader in working to ensure that everyone can vote, because it's been generally established that you can't punish someone for not doing something the government has made it impossible for you to do. So, all Australians have access to:

Early Voting (usually for at least 3 weeks before election day)

Postal Voting (and you just have to post it on Election day, it can be received afterwards).

The voting infrastructure is set up that you can vote at any polling station in your state (we now print lower house ballots on demand, so every station has access to every ballot), and there are specific polling stations for interstate voters (where upper house ballots for every state are available).

There are mobile polling stations for voters, so even if you live in a remote town and can't drive to the nearest polling station, polling stations can drive out to you!

These mobile polling stations also attend prisons and hospitals to provide voting access for people who cannot leave to vote.

We even now have telephone voting for Blind folk, with a specialised system set up to allow for a secret ballot, so the phone person assisting the blind voter won't know who the blind voter is.

Australian embassies in other countries are also available for voters, although you are not actually required to vote if you're not in the country during the election campaign.

So, our voting infrastructure is built, as much as is practicable, to ensure that every voter gets every opportunity to vote. If you can't get to a booth on the day, you can early vote or postal vote.

To be clear, this is not a requirement of compulsory voting - it's quite possible to go to this level of effort in a voluntary voting system, and I can absolutely imagine a compulsory voting system that also made it difficult for people to vote (likely disproportionately affecting your political enemies).

Does Compulsory Voting help Minor Parties?

Not really - Preferential voting definitely helps minor parties, but not Compulsory voting. There is one way it might help though - As noted above, if you're pissed off with your current party, you may bump another party higher up on your preferences, even put them as your "1" vote. In a Voluntary voting system, such people might, instead choose not to vote and stay at home, so in that sense, I guess minor parties can be the beneficiaries of voter anger, but of course, that couldn't be the case without preferential voting.

Got more questions? My asks are always open! Ask away!

[identitty-dickruption]

there isn’t an election coming up soon or anything, but I just wanted to remind everyone that Australia does NOT use a First Past the Post system and that the only way to “waste” your vote is to do an informal vote (voting incorrectly)

put your absolute first preference first. even if you think they have no chance of getting in. worst case scenario, your vote ends up going to whichever of the major parties you put before the other

and if you have questions on how voting actually works? go to the AEC website (they’ve got videos), or ask a polling official on the day. as long as you follow the rules when you fill out your ballot paper, your vote will be counted and it will matter

[foodsies4me]

WIP GAME

Rules: Post the names of all the files in your WIP folder, regardless of how non-descriptive or ridiculous. Let people send you an ask with the title that most intrigues them, and then post a little snippet or tell them something about it! and then tag as many people as you have WIPs.

So, the lovely and wonderfully talented @echo-bleu tagged me again to showcase the ridiculousness of my WIP titles, thank you Echo. I won't list them all because there are wayyyyy too many to list at this point, but here are some of the current ones on AO3, as well as some of the ridiculousness saved on my computer.

(Note, many of these have already been mentioned in this game, but I have some snippets that haven't been seen for most of those by now.)

The normal titles:

Bridges Over Lakes of Salt

Apollo: Blood Wars

Walk, Fight, Fashion Baby

Of hiding and waiting (yes I am still planning on finishing that fic despite not having updated in nearly two years)

Along Came A Shadowhunter

Meet me in the Future, Love me in the Past

The Past Bleeds Golden

Crow's No Good, Very Bad Day (chapter 3)

The ridiculous ones:

Max's Unfortunate Adventure_Still-needs-t-be-changed-because-he-nearly-DIED

Of spoken words and part two's missing

That Alec birthday fic you SILLLLLL didn't finish

Vaguely beauty and the beast inspired

Vaguely beauty and the beast inspired with Alec this time

Alec saves Raziel and gets a powers boost

That one Omega fic I don’t want to write

That one kind of but not really zombie fic I don’t want to write cuz zombies SCARE me-WTF-brain

Why do these OC-s-have so many backdtory-NOBODY cares Lys

Camille being the worst-thats-ASSAULT-also Malec are both big sad

That Alec dies but doesn’t fic-how do I resurrecting him though

That OTHER AWG inspired fic because of course someone had to feed the bunny- Aec has a soulmatk

The Tumblr prompts you still haven't finished becase you're slowwww and life is bussyyyy

That similar fic to Four seconds and two steps but with Jace and maybe Izzy not being let inside

MAKE IT DRAGONGS

The spity spite ALEC CAN DRESS HIMSELF OKAY

(Yes the whole things are the working title. This is them in their complete unadulterated glory because a bean has no chill):

I am tagging @miss-mouse, @sandylee007 (with the evil snippets), @lawsofchaos1, @fiyaerrigan, @to-the-stars-writing (because I love to see all of the different folders you have :D) and anyone else that sees this from me and wants to participate that I am too shy to tag because tagging is still scary.

[aesethewitch]

can i get a reading please? AEC she/her. Where in my apartment is my missing rosary? (if you don't do missing object readings that's fine, i just really cant find it lol)

Hey! I don't do readings of this type via tarot. However, I do have advice!

If you have a pendulum, grab it. If you don't, that's okay -- you can make one by dangling anything relatively heavy (stone, crystal, pendant, etc.) from a length of string, twine, ribbon, cord, chain, or whatever else you've got on-hand. I suggest something around 16 inches long, but that's personal preference.

You can do this two ways. The first way is:

Stand at your front door. Dangle the pendulum in front of you as still as you can.

Aloud or in your mind, describe the item. Name it (my rosary) and describe what it looks like (shape, color, defining characteristics). If you like, call on whatever spirits you want to help you with finding it.

Allow the pendulum to swing. It may not swing far, and that's okay! Note which direction it swings and move that way.

In the new location, allow the pendulum to settle and ask, "Now where?" Watch it swing again, and move to the next location.

Ideally, begin with large location changes. Then, as you identify room, general space, and then specific areas, move less and less.

The second method is:

Draw a rough map of your apartment's layout. Label the rooms.

Dangle the pendulum over the map.

Describe the item as detailed above: name it (my rosary) and describe its appearance. Request assistance from spirits as appropriate.

Ask, "Where are you?" and allow the pendulum to swing as it will as you hover it over the map.

Depending on how large you draw it, it may swing toward a particular room. If not, hold it over each room. When the pendulum goes in a circle, go check that room.

You can repeat this method by drawing a layout of the specific room as well, or you can mix it with the seek-and-find method listed above.

I use these methods interchangeably! Hopefully this helps you out! (:

[denimbex1986]

'Like countless moviegoers around the world, I’m a major fan of Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer.” But like many of those who saw it, I wasn’t alone in having qualifications about the last part of the movie. For me, the first two hours of “Oppenheimer” were electrifying. I felt the kind of full-scale mind/soul immersion that’s the definition of what we look for when we go to the movies. But in the last hour, I experienced a certain falling-off quality. I was still involved, but less involved. As the film kept returning to the 1954 hearing that resulted in Oppenheimer losing his security clearance, with Oppenheimer in the hot seat being hectored by a team of interrogators led by Jason Clarke’s special counsel to the AEC, I thought, “Why are we still at this damn hearing?” I asked because I didn’t know.

Now I do. A month or so after “Oppenheimer” opened, I went back and saw it again, and this time my qualifications evaporated. I was just as electrified as I’d been by the first two hours ­— only now that sensation didn’t end. The feeling of immersion lasted all three hours, right to the final shot. I’m a bit embarrassed to say this, since it means admitting that I didn’t get the film right the first time; as much as I raved about it in my Variety review, I would now rewrite the last part of that piece. But I’m even more fascinated by why I missed a crucial element of the movie.

“Oppenheimer” presents its title character as a totemic figure, a daring, mysterious, endlessly complicated renaissance genius who rose to his moment by envisioning and overseeing the creation of the atomic bomb. Cillian Murphy, in his mesmerizing performance, endows Oppenheimer with an all-knowing aristocratic dandy swagger. He makes him a singularly charismatic figure, a wizardly idealist who conjures up an awesome power and then grapples with the consequences of his actions. And since it feels as if Oppenheimer, at that hearing, is being persecuted (to a large extent for his earlier Communist ties), it was hard to watch it without feeling like I was on his side.

The movie, however, is not on his side. Not really. In the last hour, it’s deeply critical of Oppenheimer — as critical, I would say, as any major Hollywood biopic has ever been of its subject. And this is the road I didn’t fully let myself travel down the first time I saw “Oppenheimer.” The last hour was trying to me because I was fighting what the movie was.

I can say, with some surprise, that the final hour of “Oppenheimer” is now my favorite part of the movie. It’s the most morally dramatic and hypnotic — the true inquiry into who Oppenheimer was, and why he’s a hero who will always have an oversize asterisk next to his name.

The first time out, I thought I was watching a drama about the creation of the A-bomb. But as captivating as all that is — the science-lab frenzy, the race against the clock, the thorny politics of life in the makeshift city that was set up in the Los Alamos desert — the process by which Oppenheimer and his fellow brainiacs transformed nuclear fission into a weapon capable of delivering a nuclear apocalypse is not exactly the stuff of spoiler alerts. They gathered; they devoted themselves; they wondered if they were going to set the global atmosphere on fire; they triumphed.

Since “Oppenheimer” is a movie with a built-in big bang, I spent a lot of that first viewing anticipating what the Trinity Test would look and feel like. I still think it’s the one disappointing aspect of the film. Nolan fragments the bomb detonation (glaring light, rising hellfire), and in doing so he somehow fails to channel its viscerally terrifying and unprecedented largeness. That kind of threw me off.

Was the building of the atomic bomb justified? “Oppenheimer” says that it absolutely was. The Nazis were working on their own bomb, and Oppenheimer, who was Jewish, very much saw his mission as an attempt to save civilization by winning a weapons race that, had the Nazis won it, might have resulted in a level of devastation beyond the unthinkable.

But was the dropping of the atomic bomb justified? Given that the Nazis had been defeated before the decision was made (by President Truman) to drop the weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a powerful case could be made that it was not. Should Nolan have depicted the effects of the bomb on the Japanese, as Spike Lee suggested this week? I think that would have made “Oppenheimer” a very different movie, and not necessarily a better one. I’m not here to rehash that debate, but I’ll point out that Nolan’s film features Oppenheimer, speaking to a roomful of his Manhattan Project colleagues, cutting to a kind of cosmic justification for dropping the bomb. He says, in essence, that it will act as an inoculation, forever scaring off the human race from using the bomb by demonstrating its deathly horror.

Perhaps he was right. But this was still Oppenheimer’s Faustian bargain. He convinced himself that dropping the bomb was justified, maybe even necessary, but in doing so he was also acting out of an elaborate and convoluted self-interest. On some level he’d invented a new toy and desperately wanted to use it. Though it wasn’t his decision to use it, he distanced himself from the horror of that decision.

The rest of the movie is about how the horror comes crawling back. I certainly saw elements of that the first time. But I what I missed, in my kneejerk-old-school-liberal way, is that the 1954 hearing runs on and on not because the film is trying to demonstrate that Oppenheimer was “persecuted.” As much as the Communist associations he had in the ’30s come into play, the point is not to depict the hearing as a McCarthyite smear (even though, in fact, it kind of was).

No, the startling thing about the last hour of “Oppenheimer” is that it features two characters who seem to exist almost entirely to prosecute and torment our hero, and in both cases what they say about him is right. “Oppenheimer” shows us how J. Robert Oppenheimer was not so much a victim of history, or of an oppressive U.S. government, as he was a defensive narcissist crusader who spent his final years using the trigger of his guilt to cover himself in a kind of grand delusion.

Robert Downey Jr.’s performance as Lewis Strauss, the former head of the AEC who becomes Oppenheimer’s antagonist, is a stupendous outpouring of extemporaneous verbal energy (the actor is even more commanding without his irony than he is with it). But because Strauss is the person who stabbed Oppenheimer in the back, I assumed, the first time I saw the movie, that Nolan figured he needed some sort of villain, and that the virulent, hawkish Strauss was it. Strauss certainly had petty personal motives; the film returns several times to the Congressional hearing in which Oppenheimer publicly humiliated him with a flippant comment about radioisotopes. Yet the reason that Strauss, in certain ways, comes close to dominating the film’s last hour isn’t simply because we’re watching a bureaucrat take his vengeance. It’s because Strauss is the one who understands, and articulates, a crucial element of the film’s verdict on Oppenheimer: that he was a brilliant and self-glorifying celebrity who forged a mythology around himself, one that extended into his very crusade against the weapon he’d created.

Oppenheimer was the scientist who let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, but after the war he devoted his life to essentially saying, “Let’s try to put it back in.” Never realizing that this was hypocritical and unreal. In public, he’d mocked Strauss, and it was Strauss’s sleazy double dealing that was on trial during his own 1959 Senate confirmation hearing for Secretary of Commerce — the other hearing that’s featured in the movie.

But the reason that Strauss is in the movie, and the reason Downey should win the Oscar for best supporting actor for his performance, is the fantastic fervor with which he rakes Oppenheimer over the coals. Just because Strauss is rather scurrilous doesn’t mean that he’s wrong; he’s the one who has Oppenheimer’s number. And so does Jason Clarke’s Roger Robb, the AEC attorney who, in one of the film’s most cathartic moments, gives a speech in the 1954 hearing that excoriates Oppenheimer for the hypocrisy of his position on the hydrogen bomb: his denunciation of it as a monstrously overscaled weapon — but talk about the wrong messenger! Oppenheimer’s A-bomb was already an obscenely overscaled monster.

Christopher Nolan, in that inquiring last hour, has written all this into the movie, not because he wants to damn J. Robert Oppenheimer but because he wants to take the full measure of a 20th-century visionary who charged into the creation of the atomic bomb as if it were the science project of a lifetime — which it was ­— but had the luxury of not fully thinking through the implications of his actions. By the time he thought them through, he’d turned his criticism of America’s nuclear policy into a grandly repressed apology. He used the nuclear debate, and even his own martyrdom, to justify himself. But the way the movie portrays this doesn’t make it an attack on Oppenheimer. It makes “Oppenheimer” a piece of history that’s also a human exploration of the most exhilarating honesty.'

[astral-express-family]

☆: 7 , 9, 15 for your Honkai s/i?

— @twilighthappiness

Yay ty for the ask!! i love Miya my former criminal turned chef/baker beloved!!

7. would any other characters (besides your f/o) have a crush on your self insert?

Hmm... I don't actually have any romantic Honkai f/os so this is a fun thing to consider. I could see Asta having a crush on me. tbh. Once the AEC (including Miya) get to Jarilo-VI, I could see Bronya also having a crush on me <3.

9. who are your self insert’s closest friends?

Outside of my familials, probably Asta mostly!!

15. how does your self insert play a role in the plot of the story? do they help directly defeat the villain, support the heroes, etc.?

They're a major character!! They live on the Astral Express, therefore meaning they're around for most of the game!!

[meraki-yao]

I think it's unfair to keep asking Nick which is better or which role is more challenging, M&G or rwrb. M&G was definitely more gruelling, it was a seven episode aec compared to rwrb which was a 90 mins movie so you can imagine the amount of time spent rehearsing, filming and learning stuff for M&G. It was also more challenging because Nick had to become someone who is greedy and uses s** as a currency and dark and gritty, for any profession one always likes a challenge. But just coz it was more challenging, doesn't mean RWRB was a cake walk. It has its own challenges and comparing the two is like comparing two vastly different things with N being the only common denominator. So asking him to choose time and again is just unfair and unnecessarily puts one choice up and the other down. Just coz he says M&G is more challenging, doesn't mean he enjoyed rwrb any less. I just wish everyone would stop asking him that .

I agree completely. I said this way back when in another ask but to quickly summarize: his projects are in different formats and different genres, and each difference has their own challenges. There's no air test to be done.

Which is why every time I hear the interviewer ask Nick a superlative question or a comparison question i cringe.

[insomanic-fanfication]

I had a thought...

*Ghost, Konig, Soap, and Reader in the back of an AEC truck-like vehicle. *

Soap: *Getting uncomfortable with the long silence within the group* 'So uh, [insert name], how's your enlistment been going?'

M!Reader: 'Besides having to wait to get surgery, it's been alright. Better than being at home.' Ghost: 'Wait.,. What do you need surgery for??' * wanting to know if he's going to need to pull more weight *

M!Reader: Oh, the DHA's being a cocksucker and dragging their feet on my bottom surgery, gotta wait a year or two.

Soap: Bottom Surgery???? *So very, very confused * da fuck is that?

Konig: *raising an eyebrow that no one can see*

Ghost: * turning to Soap* It means he's getting a dick, Johnny. " Soap: 'Oh.' *Has all the info he needs for context * 'p'etty shitty that you gotta wait for that. ' Konig: *Voicing a question only meant for his head* 'What does it look like now???????' M!Reader: * having a shit-eating grin looking at him* 'That your way of asking for something, Konig?'

Konig: Scheiße! Wait nein ... bedauern.. I didn't mean to.. *Realising he said the very personal question out loud, embarrassed as hell*

Soap and Ghost: *pissing themselves laughing*

_____________

Price: *Driving, Stuck listening to this for 3 hours without escape because.*

[radiates-confusion]

you're immensely cool ✨

Awwww! Thank you! You're really cool too!

But also like, fr, thank you, I'm really glad I come off that way ^ ^

[askevilcharming]

Season's Greetings/Best Wishes from @askevilcharming

[violet-fictional-lizard]

I wanted to feel smart so @peepawleo ur blog is haunted, receipts below

ger ercsri liev yw?

can anyone hear us?

Can't tell who this is but I think the future versions of the turtle Brothers who died are reaching out in the old man's tags

eaaa... xlerow fmk fvs.

awww... thanks big bro.

So this is clearly mikey

Ai'vi livi xss!!!

We're here too!!!

Again, unsure of who this is but your husband isn't the only ghost

xlic'vi ws pmxxpi!

they're so little!

$10 this is raph

....rivvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvh.

....nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

Yeah leo is a nerd lol

xlic vieppc hs xeoi ejxiv csy revhs...

they really do take after you nardo...

Donnie being sentimental

Vieppc? Emrx rs sri ksrre ewo efsyx xli xekw ai fiir piezmr? Kshheqr.

Really? Aint no one gonna ask about the tags we been leavin? Goddamn.

I wondered about it you damn hoe

lipps xyqfpv. mx mw kssh xs fi fego.

hello tumblr. it is good to be back.

Why can't you be a normal ghost n get your own blog like me

jygo sjj oirhve xlmw mw xli srpc aec m ger xepo xli wmkrep fixaiir xli hieh erh pmzmrk mw epp wgveqfpih.

fuck off kendra this is the only way i can talk the signal between the dead and living is all scrambled.

And since they'll likely be reading this imma once again say Ceasar Cypher is Lame and if others want to decode their messages use this

[residentstar]

I know I already know a lot about your system, but hey an ask game is an ask game and we like sending asks in.

🌊🌧️🌿(aka, yall's favourite colours, is anyone's got a favourite number, and best quote)

And if you're feel alright with sharing, feel free to ignore this one though, I know how wonky sources can be, but 💫 if you're feeling particularly ramble-y and open to it. (aka sharing sources)

~ Kinda a pile of Russ, Whole, Jash, Heart, Mind, Matthias, and Amaryllis rn, big lump

for the first one, we collectively are a fan of purple / blue colors :), as for numbers.. maybe three? we enjoy things that come in threes. as for quotes, i know at one point mind (i think) said something about eating our psys host’s names. i don’t know why. or the context

sources ! hm, imo the most interestingly sourced fictives are our hosts (2) and co-hosts (2). our hosts (heart and mind) originally split from the fic an endless cycle (by sadsadperson (our psys <3)) but are generally sourced from… everything? anything CCCC related that includes who their sourced from counts as source for them! for heart his main appearance is sourced from socialc1imb, nitroish, and disruptive voib (occasionally b0vidine too). the same thing goes for mind. this all also applies to whole.

as for soul/red. he originally was a brainmade and was one of the first people in this system. once aec (an endless cycle) was more finished he ended up gaining a soul source. and now his soul source works the same way heart and mind and whole’s sources work. we originally had another soul that split first but he ended up gaining a source from the lamentso au and turned into a moth guy :] 🎉

[levissmollpp]

𝑫𝒂𝒛𝒂𝒊 𝑶𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒖 || 𝑼𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓

↳ [x!Reader]

Working as a assassin has never been my dream. It was all too much for me. Bringing myself up to kill innocent people was impossible at first.

Today marks the day i joined  a year ago. It has already been a year huh.. My job isn't as bad as i used to look at it. All we ever do is eliminate the bad ones. People who sell drugs on the black market was my main target.

I woke up by my cellphone buzzing. It was my Boss Kei. He's very special to me. Without him i would've been just a stray dog running in the wilderness.

My past wasn't pretty either. I had been kicked out of my parents house and no one in the orphanage had the courage to accept me. Well all until one day i had been caught stealing. I thought that would be the end but it was Kei himself who caught me and took me in.

Since that day i worked specifically for him. He is really wealthy and stable enough to buy me an apartment for me to live in till i get my life back together. Because of that i own him alot.

My goal is to go by his expectation and do my best.

"Yes,boss I'm sorry for oversleeping again. Is there a new mission?" I asked as a notification pops up on my laptop.

"There's all the information about your new Mission. This one might be challenging but i know you can make it,just take your time reading all the important information and come by my office around 1pm to discuss it,understood"

I agreed as he ended the call. I quickly turned my laptop on to check it. "Challenging huh?" I murmured to myself as i carefully read the file. It was about a Mafia Boss named Dazai Osamu. One of the wealthiest people in Japan. He's known for being merciless and strict when it comes to Gambling and some other illegall activities.

All i was supposed to do is get close enough to him and find out what he's been up to. "Sounds easy.." i thought to myself until i read how smart he actually it.

There has been numerous times our Agency tried but failed on getting any information about his whereabouts and Business he's been doing. 'A woman working for the AEC agency has been reported killed after a mission involving the well known Mafia Boss' crap.. this is really gonna end badly, i can feel it..

I immediately closed my laptop in fear as i decided to grab a coffee near by instead. I changed into some more casual clothes. A white buttoned shirt and some blue jeans with a brown coat could do it. I smiled to myself as i walked out and locked the door after myself.

There is a little small bar right next to my apartment that i always go to. I'm more of a daily costumer to them.

"Now there you are..i almost thought you got sick"

That's Mika. He's the one working early shifts here. We got really close lately. I really love his bubbly personality.

"Oh well.. as usual i fell asleep to late working" i claimed as i sat at the bar across of him.

"Take it easy, i hate seeing you overwork yourself" he said as he patted my head and placed my usual order which was Caramel Cappuccino with a bit of Whipped cream. I nodded as i took out my laptop and went over some old files that had to do with My next target.

I felt cold air going though my body as someone opened the door to the bar. It was him...

My one and only target. Dazai Osamu

I quickly closed the files. He's a millionaire,why would he go to such a place. I guess i had a expression that was easy to read since he came and sat right next to me. Maybe he just has good taste in coffee since i would've lied if i said this coffee shop is quite special.

╭──╯ ◦•◦❥•◦•◦❥•◦╰──╮

"Shit.." i whispered quietly to myself as i turned back to face mika.

"Hello sir,what can i get you" i admired Mika as he smiled over to dazai. He really is sweet to every costumer. "I'd like some herbal tea" he smiled back at Mika as he proceeded to make a call. "Hold on a sec" he says over to Mika as he walks over to the back of the cafè  near the bathroom.

"Is that the guy?" Mika whispers in my ear slightly pointing over to him. "Stop don't point!"

I pushed his hand down as i stood up and headed towards the bathroom hoping I'd atleast hear a word that could help me.

"Yes it's on his way" was all i was able to hear as he immediately ended the call. Shit! Did he notice?! He ended the call as soon as i passed by him.

No! He's staring! What do i do?! I panicked as he walked straight up to me leaving no space between us. I could feel his cold breath gently running against my ear as he whispered.

"Going undercover huh?" He asked. Shit! I felt my stomach drop as i felt weak to my knees. How did he?

"Don't worry I'll let you investigate it if you do one thing for me?"

He asked turning me around harshly as he places his hands on my shoulders. I seriously messed up this quickly. I didn't ever got the chance to use my charming words.

"Be with me,join me and I'll let you know all I've been up to" he held out his hand.

"No way! You're my target,not my partner in crime!"

He smirked knowing well of my current position and curiosity.

I gave up a long sigh and held his hand.

"Fine i give myself up to you but only under one circumstance! We made a deal and that is a promise u should not break!" I said as i felt the warmth of his hands as he gives me a warm but yet mysterious smile.

"Deal."

[shiveringsoldier]

I’ve been thinking a lot about Oppenheimer ever since I saw it, and one big surprise/relief is how critical the film is of its subject.

The film repeatedly calls him out for his self-pity. In one scene, a character says something like “You can’t sin and then expect people to feel sorry for you.” In another scene, an anti-bomb advocate presents a slideshow of photos taken in Hiroshima one month after the bombing while recounting eyewitness accounts and describing the slow deaths that the people suffered. Oppenheimer makes the conscious choice not to look at those photos, which allows him to continue to distance himself from the reality of the horrible destruction and loss of life that his invention wrought. And it includes the instance when he said to Truman “I feel I have blood on my hands” and Truman called him a crybaby.

And it raises questions about his postwar behavior. In the film (as also happened in reality) he never actually says that he regrets the use of the bomb. He is also generally very passive during his AEC security clearance hearings; he is asked repeatedly why he doesn’t fight, and he never answers that question. And that makes you wonder if he chose to play the martyr, if he thought that being made into a public victim would be better for his image than actually owning up to his complicity in this global atrocity. And that’s a pretty disturbing and damning thing to wonder, but it is also necessary to raise such questions.