#BUT THIS PART AHHH

[shannonallaround]

Ok but I really need to point out something about Sonic and Nine in Sonic Prime that I didn't notice the first time round.

In episode two, the Council is gonna use their laser 'energy extractor' on Sonic, and he genuinely thinks it's the end. After stalling with his ramblings about his friends as his 'last words,' when he realizes Nine doesn't have any sort of plan, he says "I guess this is game over." Nine looks at Sonic like this, watching what he thinks are the hedgehog's final moments:

After trying to blow the laser out, Sonic turns to Nine and says his true last words:

"See ya, buddy."

And it rocks Nine to his core.

I think this right here is the moment when Nine decides he's dedicated to that hedgehog.

[ryllen]

[doctorsiren]

I’ve had this thought in my brain for a while of like

their engagement rings are their respective attorney’s badges and they don’t acknowledge that they wear the opposite one now (they do trade back eventually)

[jack-olin]

i’ve binged almost everything trigun in the last three weeks and now my brain chemicals have been altered permanently

bonus sketches below post tristamp ep 5

[chloesimaginationthings]

Jonathan Joestar, also known as “Phantom Spider”

[mushtoons]

Besides Finn, what are the other's reactions to the IK being separate to Simon? Like PB, Marcy, anyone else?

part 1 >:)

[shittyakechiweekly]

Thinking about Akechi and philosophy again. Particularly his mention/very superficial glaze over hegelian dialectics. It's really weird to me that some people seem to go "he misquoted hegel sjjsjsjsjkaks" and then give an explanation of dialectics that shows that... they don't fuckin understand dialectics fully themselves.

Which is understandable considering Hegel was an idealist and idealism tends to require some weird logic to understand. (Akechi seems to in canon reference a lot of idealists which is hhhh, so I depict him as a materialist out of spite) I also haven't fuckin read Hegel myself, so I can't perfectly explain hegelian dialectics. However, I can sure explain dialectical materialism to an extent cause i've done my homework there at least. And like having an understanding of dialectics in general is a key part to understanding that crap. So I look at this quote right

this one? and im like well, in explaining dialectics he aint fuckin wrong. Now did Hegel explicitly state this? Idk, i don't feel like cracking open the 300 pager that is The Phenomenology of the Spirit right now. It's 1AM. And if he didn't, that is okay. Look, Karl Marx didn't fuckin explicitly explain dialectical materialism either. We still credit it to him though, since it is the method he designed and used. Also if you're wondering where thesis and antithesis comes from, it's from Kant. Kant is one of the many that influenced Hegel.

Moving on to the actual paraphrase. Again, Akechi ain't wrong. Contradiction exists in all things, and yes to advance you must resolve the contradiction. This is where people who bring up the "Akechi forgot the synthesis!" get kind of on my nerves because he didn't. One cannot have advancement(synthesis), without resolving the preexisting contradiction (thesis and antithesis). Hell! even if you ditch the idea of synthesis, he could still be right about dialectics, just not hegelian dialectics. Akechi uses the term advancement, which allows us to play with the possibility that maybe his approach to dialectics is through marxist dialectics. A synthesis, in the constant motion of the dialectic, would become another thesis with it's own antithesis and then fuse into another synthesis. The pattern continues. In dialectical materialism, we see that 1) multiple contradictions can exist simultaneously, and 2) That change occurs not by fusion of the thesis and antithesis, but when the intensity and opposition of the contradiction grows until it bursts into a new contradiction. Although, Akechi is talking about hegel to paraphrase the general concept of the dialectic, and could be purposefully using "advancement" instead of synthesis to highlight the constant motion of the dialectic, but maybe to obfuscate what kind of dialectical method he puts more stock in. Dialectical materialism can kind of be like dirty word in philosophical spheres because it is marxist. I doubt the writers for the game could get away with it either, considering the kind of ending message the game was given.

But also like I doubt the writers did a super deep dive into dialectics. And it would be kind of weird to have a game where there is literally an immaterial world based entirely on thought, start using a materialist dialectical method instead of an idealist one. Even then for a simple throwaway comment about dialectics, it is still accurate enough.

Anyways, I'm not a philosopher. I'm a sociologist and an artist. My fiance is the philosopher, and I fully expect them to correct my ass on some parts in the replies if they see this post.

[bnuuys]

le temps des fleurs 🌷

[laynore-x]

Pucci Chibi Plush

He just doesn´t know how to react and i just want to die.

[dirtbagdefender]

[beaulesbian]

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)

So we're just supposed to let people die because some algorithm says that that's supposed to happen? You realize how messed up that sounds, right?

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Spice is the variety of life!

[First] Prev <--> Next

[front-facing-pokemon]

[sysig]

Ellen McLain’s commentary from my trivia playthrough

[peipapicoz]

The dog bed and children books in professor's lab seem to suggest that Arven probably spent lots of time in the lab when he was small. From the journals in the research labs we learnt that the professor only started working underground when their research reached certain progress. They even took the picture of young Arven from lab down with them to Area Zero and pinned it in one of the most obvious spot.

Anyway what i am trying to say is the professor definitely loved Arven a lot but Arven was too young to remember the time he spent with his parent and now I feel even more sad for him 😭

[i-am-a-fan]

So one head-canon turned into another and then another and then another an-