#a shit theory

[roseliatea26]

Matpats gl theory is like when a man tries to impress you by talking about your interests except they are so horrifically wrong it’s painful

[01010kom]

my single contribution to the fandom.

[philzasjuicyass]

HOLY SHIT.

[chloesimaginationthings]

Jeremiah and Mike’s first conversation in FNAF 2

[radiance1]

Danny: Hey, I need you to be my boyfriend for a week.

Jason: What.

Danny: My parents are coming over and I've apparently accidentally talked about a partner more than once and only realized when they said they wanted to meet them.

Jason, currently still solidifying his power as a Crime Lord: Excuse me?

Danny: Let me get this out of the way, I do not consider you at all a person of romantical interest and a friend. But I need you to act as my partner for only a week until my parents go on their merry way over to my sister, okay?

Jason: Is there, quite literally, no one else to ask this?

Danny: You're my only friend who lives in Gotham, plus we share the same apartment.

Jason: That's almost sad.

Danny: You in?

Jason: Sure, why not.

===

Maddie: Danny, honey.

Danny: Yes mom?

Maddie: I don't mean to.... question, who you choose as your parent but. Well, me and your father was just wandering if he was a... [Maddie gestures with her hand] you know, one of those.

Danny, uncomprehendingly staring at his mother's hand: What.

Maddie: Oh dear, how do I bring this up. You know, one of those.

Danny: Mother I need more context.

Jack: If your boyfriend a crime lord!?

Maddie: Jack!

Jack: What? Beating around the bush wasn't helping!

Danny: Say WHAT?

===

Danny: Hey dude, thanks for helping with this even though you didn't need to!

Jason: No problem, I wasn't doing anything too [Crime Lord activities flash through his mind] important.

Danny: Can you believe my parents thought you were a crime lord though? Weird am I right?

Jason:

Danny: Jason. You are scaring me.

Jason: Haha, yea that's weird isn't it?

Danny: Jason.

Jason: Well, I have to leave now to attend to my totally real and totally not crime related job at the ice cream shop.

Danny: [Squints eyes]

Jason: [Internally sweating bullets]

Danny: Suuuuure, bring me back some ice cream though.

Jason: [Thumbs up and leaves]

[reloaderror]

on track to deliver on the biweekly thistle

[anoant]

Pictochat!

[beanghostprincess]

Chainsaw Man has always been about power and control and a guy who has been stripped of his childhood and teenage years to then be constantly used and manipulated, forced to become hypersexual after being groomed and sexually assaulted, and losing the one bit of normalcy there's left in him.

Denji has no control over both his body and decisions and instantly becomes a vessel of what he thinks will fix him, the very same thing Asa is to Yoru, who keeps demanding war and respect and power and she knows what to do to make Denji lose his humanity.

The relationship between Denji and Asa is so genuine and human that using that against both of their wills is incredibly violating and dehumanizing. And that's why it is so good. And that's why it needs to be explicit. And that's why I am extremely surprised people are grossed out by this happening when dehumanizing and taking control of the lives of others is exactly what War would do.

[lemonsharkgirlfriend]

everyone's joking about a lesbian love triangle being the focus of rhaenyra/alicent/mysaria's stories in hotd s3 but that will literally be what happens when mysaria acts to uphold and support the image of rhaenyra as queen (or rhaenyra's duty) and alicent is kept prisoner (or a hidden but unavoidable reminder of rhaenyra's love). and so the love triangle will serve to represent rhaenyra's internal conflict between love and duty

[gothra]

I’ll never forget when I was arguing with a person in favor of total prison abolition and I asked them “what about violent offenders?” And they said “Well, in a world where prisons have been abolished, we’ll have leveled the playing field and everyone will have their basic needs met, and crime won’t be as much of an issue.” And then I was like “okay. But…no. Because rich people also rape and murder, so it isn’t just a poor person thing. So what will we do about that?” And I don’t think they answered me after that. I’m ashamed to say I continued to think that the problem was that I simply didn’t understand prison abolitionists enough and that their point was right in front of me, and it would click once I finally let myself understand it. It took me a long time to realize that if something is going to make sense, it needs to make sense. If you want to turn theory into Praxis (I’m using that word right don’t correct me I’ll vomit) everyone needs to be on board, which mean it all needs to click and it needs to click fast and fucking clear. You need to turn a complex idea into something both digestible and flexible enough to be expanded upon. Every time I ask a prison abolitionist what they actually intend to do about violent crime, I get directed to a summer reading list and a BreadTuber. It’s like a sleight-of-hand trick. Where’s the answer to my question. There it is. No wait, there it is. It’s under this cup. No it isn’t. “There’s theory that can explain this better than I can.” As if most theory isn’t just a collection of essays meant to be absorbed and discussed by academics, not the average skeptic. “Read this book.” And the book won’t even answer the question. The book tells you to go ask someone else. “Oh, watch this so-and-so, she totally explains it better than me.” Why can’t you explain it at all? Why did you even bring it up if you were going to point me to someone else to give me the basics that you should probably already know? Maybe I’m just one of those crazy people who thinks that some people need to be kept away from the public for everyone’s good. Maybe that just makes me insane. Maybe not believing that pervasive systemic misogyny could be solved with a UBI and a prayer circle makes me a bad guy. But it’s not like women’s safety is a priority anyway. It’s not like there is an objective claim to be made that re-releasing violent offenders or simply not locking them up is deadly.

[mind-lost-in-the-stars]

I think I’ve seen a post about it before, but I’ve connected more dots and I feel like it should be talked about more because..

that guy from La Dee Dah Dah Day is totally Max right?

a couple things make me believe this!

- character is a jock played by Jeff, and Jeff was heavily considered for the role of Max before he got involved in other projects

- we see Peter (hot cocoa boy) is also infected during this number which could be a coincidence and they just needed an extra, buuuut….in the “Nerdy Prudes Must Livestream” livestream, Nick mentions how NPMD was the first completed work in the Hatchetfield trilogy

-we do see the same letterman jacket being used later during the working boys segment

however we know this is (very likely) a different character because of how Jeff’s hair is up and how the letterman is now buttoned

-bonus points for the “J” on the letterman possibly standing for “Jägerman”

-the demeanor of the character (even though his is infected) gives a very Max like energy and yes this could be Jeff just being an asshole jock, but NPMD was the first finished Hatchetfield show which means they would have known what Max’s checker was going to be like

I think this is fun to talk about because like….how the hell did max get infected??

I know this is a question that can pertain to many of the first few infected characters we see, but I feel like most of them can be covered by “oh yeah they went to the starlight that night”, but there’s no way max would have. we know he got infected before the rest of hatchetfield high because of the later scene of Alice being trapped in the high school, so that didn’t infect him. that means he was killed and then infected or some how infected unknowingly like the patrons in beanies. the ladder is more likely obviously, but imagine if it was the former and instead of Max coming back as a ghost after he died in the Waylon place, he came back as a part of the Hive.

boy do I love thinking about the implications!!

[trashprinxe]

Let’s have a talk about malleability and TTRPGs

I come from a theatrical background. Did theatre for most of my life, majored in stage management, the works. Plays and the way they function are deeply embedded in my psyche.

So when I design and play games, I come from that theatrical framework.

Now — on the one hand, you have Shakespeare. Fairly universal stories, yeah? You can cut it up, switch things around, put it into a multitude of settings. And it still works! King Lear in space. Romeo & Juliet as pirates. The Scottish Play (old habits die hard) done avant-garde. It’s malleable!

On the other end, you have hyper-specific plays about hyper-specific themes. Angels in America. The Laramie Project. Venus in Furs. Etcetera. You can’t remove the core themes, change the setting, switch scenes around: without erasing the core intent of the work and the story it’s trying to tell.

And in the middle, you have plays that are somewhat malleable. Almost, Maine, for instance. It’s made up of vignettes; you can do only some of them, if you so choose. It’ll still have the same impact.

I believe TTRPGs exist on a similar spectrum.

You have systems that can accommodate many different genres or play styles. People play dnd this way. Pathfinder comes with pre built settings that run the gamut

PbtA games are hyperspecific. Monster of the Week is about, well, monsters of the week. Remove that, and you’re playing a different game.

Call of Cthulhu can be set in any time period, but you still have to be up against Eldritch horrors. If you’re able to fight the monster, that’s a different intent than the game was built for.

Lyric games are akin to 4.48 Psychosis (everyone should read that, by the way, it’s a master work of avant-garde theatre).

And so on and so on.

Nothing is better or worse than any other. It just exists, on a spectrum, in the same vein as playstyle or crunch do. Everyone has their preference.

But with any game, there comes a point where you’re no longer playing that game.

10 Things I Hate About You is not The Taming of the Shrew, though it were based on it. There’s a limit to even the most forgiving game to where you’re no longer playing that game, but something you and your table have created for yourselves.

You can’t take the queerness or religion out of Angels in America. That’s a different play altogether.

It’s a spectrum.

I choose to design in the specific. That’s what resonates with my brain. You may want to play something that’s capable of handling more universal narratives. That’s fine too!

But we can’t ignore the bones of the system, and it’s incorrect to say we’re putting on Hamlet, when we’re actually performing The Lion King.

So: the Theory of Malleability (working title).

I don’t have a great end to this. Just musings. But I hope it makes sense to you too.

[funtergeist]

[clouvu]

Desiderium

[iffasart]

@campbenji JWCTcountdown: release day / free day

HAPPY CHAOS THEORY DAY!!!!

I'M SO EXCITEDDD :D

Edit: added some close-ups under the cut

[mothlau]

brain filled with jegulus uni au where james walks into the wrong lecture, all tired and sleep deprived, with baby harry on his chest. cue regulus falling in love with the hot dilf that doesn't belong in his post modernism class and who he knows for a fact is sirius' best friend

first chapter is officially out :)