#and like it's stupid and i'm not trying to take a stance on The Morality Of Memes or whatever here. i couldn't care less

[raazberry]

sometimes i really do wish i could go back to how i was online in the 2010s when the concept of being cringe or being an edgelord didn't exist in my brain

[papurgaatika]

People trying to tell me zionism isn't rampant in TLOU and that Neil isn't a zionist. Okay sure, let's get into it really quick.

First of all, there's no such thing as an "innocent israeli" they're all settlers aiding a settler colonial state. If they truly wanted to change things they would leave occupied Palestine, but they won't, because it's easy to blame your government and move on when you're being aided by the privilege they're giving you.

Second. He is a zionist. He has made his stance on the matter extremely clear. Whether or not you understand and use your own critical thinking skills, is up to you. He has stated in many interviews that pt. 2 is based on the "conflict" (if you want to call the resistance to colonization of a native people a conflict) happening in isreal and Palestine. Do you believe that when Neil said that "if [he] could just push a button and kill all these people that committed this horrible act, I would make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on these people." after the killing of two IOF soldiers, he was somehow supporting Palestinans? Or are we choosing to ignore his blatant hatred?

Third. Over 30,000 individuals have been killed because they are being bombed, forcibly starved, trapped under rubble, or getting medical supplies cut off. There is no way you can ask me to condemn a freedom fighter for shooting down an imperialist soldier, it's stupid to even think that.

Fourth. Do not ever tell me what I can and cannot write. If my morals and values make you feel like you need to write a stupid ass reply to my fic, shut the fuck up!! I don't need you to read my work, and lord knows that I don't need to hear your blabbering. If you take such great offense that I've linked ways to donate to a vulnerable people, i don't know what to say to you. Seek help and gain compassion* maybe.

Anyway. I know for a damn fact that if you're mad that I oppose an ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing that you're not going to comprehend anything ive said nor will you read anything that I link in here, but what the hell. I have sources to back myself up. I don't speak out of of my ass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/video-games/news/the-last-of-us-part-2-ellie-evolution/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bv8da4/the-not-so-hidden-israeli-politics-of-the-lkast-of-us-part-ii

If you've made it all the way down here and want to actually help the people in Gaza right now, I'm providing some links below. Goodnight everyone and free Palestine 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸

https://x.com/CareForGaza?t=Q9zooda7I6rHbkAUgcAGVQ&s=09

https://www.pcrf.net/

Remember that E-Sims are how people in Gaza are able to use the internet so PLEASE donate those if you can as well.

[ckret2]

youve gotten a few asks about billford before, and your plans for ford's relationship with bill in your fic, but im curious if you personally ship it yourself/*like* it. and, just for the hell of it, if you have any opinion on billdip too, since that one's even more controversial.

I'm gonna put most of this under a cut since it's not only long, but also long about two different topics, but the tl;dr is:

Yeah, I'm a fan of billford. I don't think it's canon, inevitable, or necessary to their dynamic, and I'm still on the fence about whether things will tilt toward the romantic in my fic or if it'll stay platonic, but I do enjoy the ship a lot because it has a lot of (obsessive, weird, unhealthy, angsty) elements that interest me to explore in ships. Billdip, on the other hand, does nothing for me. I don't care about how people ship imaginary characters in their fictional fandoms and I'm not gonna block anybody for liking it, so this isn't a moral stance, here—I just don't like it personally.

One of the things that intrigues me most about a ship is the idea of love that's gone so far it isn't even love anymore but punched out the other side into unhealthy obsession, and "I'll spend the next thirty years of my life hunting you to death" versus "What if I turn you into a gold statue and carry you around to stare at you a lot" sure fit right into "unhealthy obsession." On top of that, some of my favorite ship dynamics are:

the worshiper and the person they've picked to revere as their god, either metaphorically or literally—with bonus points if the person they've devoted themself to doesn't deserve that worship and maybe isn't even all that special, and the worship actually reveals more about the mind of the lover than it does about the (un)divine nature of the beloved

the mad scientist and the muse who gives them ideas and inspires their work (one of my all-time OTPs has a line where the mad scientist says to his ex "we were each the muse to the other"), with bonus points if they both get so caught up in "what can we do together? What dreams can we make reality—" that they plunge into full "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" territory—and bonus bonus points if they eventually come out of the haze of SCIENCE and one of them is horrified by what they've done... but maybe the other one isn't.

two people who are wildly compatible with each other (similar hobbies, tastes, worldviews! they fill in the gaps in each other's personalities! they each happen to be the other's type! they understand each other like no one else can! whatever, fill in the blank!), but for some reason one betrayed the other, they've tried to kill each other, and now things are vicious and bloody and painful and raw between them; but if they talk to each other and accidentally let their guards down for even a split second, all that history is still there, they still like the same stupid movies and share the same stupid inside jokes no one else will ever understand and have the same stupid complementary life dreams, they could have been good for each other, but there's no road back to where they were before the betrayal. Their chemistry is like two huge magnets strapped to land mines: the attraction is as powerful as ever but heaven help them both if they ever touch.

or, alternatively, two people that have all that chemistry, but are just really toxic and do bad things when they're together and enable all each other's worst tendencies, even if they don't necessarily do bad things to each other; and they've got to navigate the fact that they might adore each other so much but they are objectively worse people when they're together.

I like ships with inhuman things. As a writer I like waxing romantic about the inhuman things and trying to convince the reader that yes, this too is beautiful and lovable when seen through the eyes of a lover. I will make you take the stupidest love interest seriously for five minutes. I've romanticized a sticky pile of goo, I've romanticized a robot spider, I've romanticized the concept of being a disembodied voice, I've romanticized a pteranodon made out of lava, and I'll romanticize a cyclopic gold-plated corn chip too, don't test me. Who better to adore a sentient triangle than a scientist-artist who sees the beauty in precise angles?

Depending on the headcanons and/or AUs you're working with, you can get all of these pretty darn easily out of Billford.

I like writing Ford as the awed naive intellectual, hungry for knowledge, for the secrets of the universe, for more, who was utterly dazzled and starstruck by this divinity who tantalized him with esoteric secrets—and who's been furious at Bill for thirty years for betraying him, hurting him, threatening his home and everyone he loves, but underneath all that also furious at him for not being what he advertised when he could have been that; and Bill, meanwhile, playing it cool, far too comfortable playing the role of faux god, but privately, secretly distraught that his favorite "student"—the one who takes Bill's "teachings" and gets creative and inventive with them, the one who always wanted to know more, not just about the universe but about Bill personally—his favorite student no longer worships him, doesn't even respect him, doesn't even see him as an equal, but looks at him like he's the scum of the universe, and Bill won't even admit that it bothers him but it's killing him that nothing he does can get his favorite to so much as smile at him again.

That's the dynamic in my head when I write them. You could play it as purely professional, a god disappointed to lose a worshiper like a boss disappointed to lose his best employee or a celebrity disappointed to lose the president of his fan club; or you could play it like platonic friendship, maybe a QPR; or you could play it like a romance. I like the zest added when you toss romance into this already nasty mess of emotions. I like capping off all that heartache with, "—and if things had turned out differently, maybe I would have taken your hand and traveled with you to the ends of eternity, if only you weren't [such a brutal heartless backstabbing piece of shit]/[unable to forgive a few white lies and some light torture]."

Billdip, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing for me. Not even just for the age reason—that does squick me out, but even if I try to look at it like "okay pretend he's aged up" or "stick it in an AU where they're both dumb kids having dumb kid crushes" I just, see nothing there. I don't even see anything there platonically. Like, legitimately—for the fic I'm working on, I've been trying to figure out what kind of dynamic/interactions they'd have beyond just "Dipper scowls at Bill a lot" and even on that level I've been struggling to think of something compelling between them. I look back on the fact that for a good few years billdip was the ship in the fandom and I go, "why? where's the meat? what do they do for each other?"

I'm forced to imagine that the ship must have been based on some combination of "fandoms naturally want to ship the everyman main character with the charismatic fun villain," "a bunch of teens with crushes on Bill were using Dipper as their self-insert stand-in," and "people assumed Bill wasn't lying when he said Dipper impressed him and didn't start revising that opinion until we got to see firsthand that he uses lines like that on everybody." It feels really uncharitable of me to the shippers to assume that their OTP is founded entirely on statistically average fandom trends and character misinterpretations rather than, like, y'know, traits actually present in the characters, so I'm taking it on faith that there's probably more to it than that and I just don't see it because it just ain't my jam.

When I do try to speculate harder on "how would I get them to interact with each other in a compelling way, like, just in a platonic sense?" my brain starts going "well, dipper's a nerd who's into the paranormal, he wants to know about mysterious things? maybe he's fascinated with bill as a mysterious thing? and maybe... idk, why would bill give a hoot about dipper—maybe bill takes advantage of that fascination, tempts him with more information, maybe he's amused by Dipper's curiosity about weird things—?" and that's usually about the point where I go "this is just, the way Bill and Ford met. This is the watered-down junior version of Bill and Ford's first few weeks." In trying to figure out what the heck Bill and Dipper would even talk about I keep accidentally recreating a less interesting version of Bill and Ford's dynamic.

I want and need Bill and Dipper to have an interesting character dynamic in this fic so being unable to come up with something that personally compels me has been actively frustrating me lmfao, but it does serve to illustrate my main point here: man, billdip does nothing for me so hard that I can't even see them platonically interacting.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

This actually deserves its own post, so I'm going to say it again

A constitutional convention is a TERRIBLE IDEA.

I can't stress this enough. Think of every politician you know. Not just the one or two you like. Not just Donald Trump and the Republicans who backed him (and mostly flip flopped on that backing depending on what they thought would give them the best chance of being reelected), not just DeSantis, but all of them. Would you trust AOC to rewrite the constitution? Because you bet your ass the Democrats will be taking her input, if not actively having her write her version to put up for a vote. Even when it gets rejected, some of what she writes will make it in when the Republicans inevitably cave on important stances in the interest of another mostly one sided "compromise". Don't believe me? Look how many traitors are supporting the gun control lite that's currently going through congress.

Would you trust Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell to stand up for the principals of limited government and personal freedom? Would you trust the people voting on any new constitution to even read it, let alone understand what it is they're voting for? Would you trust the voting machines to properly tally ratification votes? Would you trust groups like BLM and Everytown for Gun Safety to have input? Would you trust politicians with ties to China, Soros, and the WEF to put the interests of the country ahead of global interests? Would you trust the media to accurately report on what's in each draft of the new constitution? Would you trust Google and Facebook to not censor the drafts that get put online? Would you trust any of these people or groups with your rights?

Think of everyone you talk to online. Think of your friends and family. Think of your coworkers. Would you want them rewriting the constitution? Would you trust them with your rights?

If the answer to a single one of these questions isn't an emphatic "hell yes!" then you can't support a constitutional convention. Rewriting the constitution now would be a disaster. We would lose more than we gain, if we even gain anything. The country is way too big for a consensus. Any document will be a mess of conflicting interests all trying to get their agendas passed. Our rights will be, at best, a distant 10th or 11th place in the drafting of a new constitution. At worst, they won't even be considered. Our politicians don't study the classic Greek and Roman philosophers. They don't have their morals informed by religion or family or study of history. The only philosophy they read are Marks and Engels, Osteen and Coulter, Vice and TMZ. The only morals they have are informed in most cases by decades in Washington. There is no one alive right now who I would trust in rewriting the constitution. Not even myself. As a society, we aren't equipped for it, morally or emotionally. Whatever fantasy you have of rewriting the constitution to be everything you want it to be will never come true. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Anyone who tries is either incredibly stupid, or lying to you. Don't be a fool. Don't let the enemies of this country and our constitution rewrite the very foundation of our laws.

[phoenixwrites]

This might be badly worded but I just wanted to say thank you for everything you're doing when it comes to fighting against callouts and all. I still struggle with feeling stupid for having anxiety attacks and what I've been told is PTSD because of baiting to kill myself and detailing how I deserved to be r-ped over a fic and a character, I still cannot watch what fandom it was apart of because of how terrifying and triggering it was all so I'd "learn my lesson", "see the error of liking (fictional character)" and "we'll be nice again once you delete that fic bestie!" and so much more. There was immense trauma that I feel so shameful for feeling traumatized about still. I really struggle with participation in fandom because of it but from the bottom of my heart and soul, thank you for being here and fighting back, making fandom feel a little safer. You, your strength, your ethic are an inspiration. I wish you endless good things and support.

I don't think it's badly worded at all. And I'm so, so sorry this has been your fandom experience. You didn't deserve it, they were in the wrong, and the fact that this is becoming a problem from younger folks in fandom spaces? Fucking sucks.

It's literally...baffling to me. The rise of purity culture in fandom? Baffling. Fandom is where I went to ESCAPE purity culture in high school and now this shit is following me in? EW.

I kept this message for a while, because it really meant a lot to me to reread. It's such...all I wanted to do was to write fic. Fandom has ALWAYS been this open inclusive space for ANY ship, even the ones I fucking hate. I'm not shy about the ships I hate! I talk about it literally all the time! There is space to hate ships. That's why the anti tag exists. Some of my closest most beloved Hellcheerers are Reylos and I fuckin' haaaaaate Reylo.

But there's space for me to hate Reylo. I don't need to take a faux-moral stance for me to hate it, I can just hate it because I hate Adam Driver's stupid face. (Or how the focus on his arc deteriorated Finn's arc as a result IT'S FINE. NOT THE ISSUE.)

There is space for fluff and coffeeshop AUs and the most disturbing violent dead doves you've ever seen. There is space for love and fun and trauma and hate.

It's just very outside my fandom experience. The ship wars were vicious, but they weren't trying to shove puritanical moral value to them. It was literally just "I fucking hate Kikyo's stupid face she's a slut", which yeah, reductive and mean, but at least it was honest and not trying to turn it into good vs. evil.

I really hope this weird fuckin trend of harassing dead dove writers or writers of "problematic" ships dies. And I hope your next fandom is lovely and warm and supportive, because you fucking deserve that. We all do. No one deserves this kind of vitriol. It's inexcusable, pathetic, and I'm never going to shut up about how awful it is.

I'm not going anywhere, babes.

[rametarin]

Criticisms of right wing talking points of mine.

I will say when it comes to the topic of race, religion or other similar issues in U.S. politics, probably one of the more irritating things to deal with are low-end conservative stances.

I don't usually criticize them. Not because they aren't immortal and generally detrimental, but because we all already know them and understand them. It's just rehashing them over and over again. They consistently stand by their positions, so, you wind up repeating yourself. Not that this offends many hard-leftists, because taking the opportunity to repeat and buffer the message has always been something they've done to reinforce.

Like, every single fucking day of the Trump presidency was not just dealing with the embarrassment and farcical nature of that president, but the equally uncomfortable part was the left wing response to it- which was to get as stupid as some of the more stupid subcultures of in-the-weeds conservative points.

"DURRH! LOOK AT ME! I'M DONALD TRUMP!" hits self in face, "DURHRRRH!" applause for late night funnyman talk show host skit #191877455. This continues for 4 years.

That horrid situation where you try to go down an enumerated list of why a thing is bad but the dude on your side just keeps making funny faces and going, "YEAH! HUH HUH. AND HE'S SO STUPID AND CRINGE, TOO!" like that's contributing to the conversation beyond tribal grunting in solidarity.

As a result, it can sometimes give the wrong impression that via omission, I have sympathy or support for certain popular right-wing conservative positions, despite not actually having those. And if you're the sort of person that attribute disagreement with you and your preferred method of solving or handling a subject, then that's interpreted as putting my flint knife in with the enemy against you.

This isn't true. While yes, the vast majority of my grumbling is about hard-leftists and the utterly asinine values some of them have, you'll notice that I am not pointing at liberalism itself as guilty of this, but things on the left that either pretend to be liberal when it suits them while being some other form of leftist, or co-opt liberalist positions while maintaining they aren't liberal- and that anything else is anti-science/anti-goodness/synonymous with backwardsness, evil and republicans.

The sort of people that will genuinely tell you, to your face, that a left-wing person, "cannot be authoritarian or fascist, because authoritarianism and fascism is inherently right wing. The left is anti-authoritarian and anti-fascist."

Dealing with this sort of shit is multi-tiered and obfuscated under all kinds of levels that you have to dig through and cartograph to really understand the shape and scope of what you're dealing with.

Over on the right side? You just need to understand first their bible, and then maybe the denominations of how they apply it, and then understand the gradient of how they interpret the literalism of it based on their popular denominations. Which... is easier, because rather than make it an absolutely horrific experience of smacking yourself in the face with every rake, and only uncovering what they believe through social traditions of finding a belligerent leftist that would be willing to entertain your probing questions, if only to mock you before going quiet, you can at least ask a general republican their thoughts without them getting too defensive. Since their world outlooks are often tied to their spirituality and metaphysical interpretation of where this world intersects with divine mandate, and it's often a consistent tradition, they have their little ducks in a row and accountability, even if it's just an offshoot derivative cult of Christianity that assumes familiarity but takes it in a different direction.

Then you need to understand that in general they do not approve of the use of government to impose subjective morality, especially if the modern view is to not use the government to impose their morality. The idea that everybody should be obligated to provide something to someone else at no cost to the person getting the help, even if only participating in society and reimbursing the cost of that help, disgusts them. Being party of society to them means at least trying to contribute to the whole and minimize your expense to the whole, and thus, the very environment and state of the relationship grows surplus, and prospers.

This is antithetical to the moralist leftist argument that there should be an enormous welfare state, especially for people that refuse to contribute back anything. People that demand that others and the masses get free buffets, with the expense handed off to other people to pay for because, "even they contribute poop," just infuriate them.

And then you add in the idea that in order to somehow compensate or fix the wounds of the past that was racism by favoring people on the basis of their race, at the expense of the supposed "benefitting race", and fucking wonder why your average republican voter absolutely despises social services in their current form, the travesty that is public housing and the abysmally lacking and slanted view on race relations in US society. Why republican politicians keep getting voted in promising to kill the feed to tumorous, runaway welfare states and prevent the growth of do-nothing communities feeding on society's arteries.

As a young person you're fed a line that they just hate poor people, hate non-whites and hate non-christians. While all this is certainly true for the far edges of that population, it automatically disregards them having any validity whatsoever to their reasons for feeling this way, and erases the reality that many of these criticisms can be (but are not always, depending on the level of knowledge ofthe person making them) correct.

By contrast, you're told that hard-leftists only want, "racial equality, housing for the poor and opportunity for the underprivileged." Which itself is many many mountains of shit with many levels, compounded by alloy-like layer deposits.

Simply put, it's easier to see the bullshit when dealing with republicans, because they themselves don't really hide it as well, nor do they go to college specifically to learn social sciences to learn how to lie more effectively, even if you do get the heritage foundation occassionally belching out some softcore "I'm just saying :^)" content, like talking about the IQs of different races of people and the disparity in industry from different places on earth.

By and large, those more likely to define themselves as socialists or communists tend to be more pseudo-intellectual, and operate with others. Even if they may apply themselves to more academic fields and subjects of sciences and literature. They're more likely to study communication and be more skilled at misdirection and omission, and often treat communication like the goal is to give a false pretense of cordial civility, while handling a person to do what they want.

Comparing and contrasting that to a bullshitter trying to evangelize the supremacy of the bible in all subjects, and, well, the evangelist is chained to the dogmas and approaches and perceived reality of their bible, while the pseudo-intellectual is able to lead you on after forming a rapport because you don't have any idea exactly what books or schools of thought they have under their belt on theories on psychology and how to exploit both your unfailiarity and tendency to trust. They know how to come good and they know how to give false impressions, and formally educated by other people with the desire to "lead you to your own conclusions" to make sure you conclude exactly what they want you to conclude, by giving you exactly the cherry picked ideas they lay out for you to absorb and internalize.

Right-wing perspectives can be dour and terrible takes depending on what they are. But, they're more often than not, surface area or shallow and don't require much dressing up just to interpret what you're looking at. Even if they have a few layers of deceptiveness and deceit, sometimes. Like Newt Gingrich lauding and praising the idea of a school that doesn't hire a janitor but pays the children of the inner city school to clean it as child labor, because, "it'd teach them the value of labor, discipline and money." Newt, sit down, you're just reinforcing a stereotype.

But that is absolutely nothing compared to hiding in the ambiguity or arguing by omission you get when dealing with hard-leftists, who will refuse to disclose exactly what direction they're coming from when it suits their cause, and dress up as another, allowing you to think it comes as a liberal criticism.. and then smile and go, "Oh, that's just platforming. :^)" when you call them out for what they're doing.

And having said exactly why republicans tend to dislike or hate left-wing initiatives to increase social services or the welfare state, for better or worse, you will sincerely have situations where the motivation isn't to prevent actual honest-to-god incrementalist socialists, juxtapositional racists and cranks from setting up places where you're giving free housing, food and education over others on the basis of your race so long as it's a minority, but just to prevent non-whites from having access to those at all.

Many of the people we attribute to being the classic image of the mason jar drinking, casual slur using "right-wing" conservative, are nothing of the sort. That's a satirical chimera made up of a bunch of different guys that left-wing comedians merged together to make fun of. Southern Democrats were racist as fuck, but did want a big social welfare state. Just, exclusively for whites, and others could wither on the vine. It may be considered a distinction without a difference, but those ones that did believe in social welfare for whites but not if it meant black, Hispanic, Asians and others could have that too, decided the public welfare state didn't deserve money. But those are not the same nor completely representative of any legitimate complaint against massive expansion of the welfare state.

So when discussing social services, benefits and even depending on the region and era, any sentiment of reparations, one needs to get granular. You can't just say, "right-wingers hate black people and poor people." Even if it is, in fact, true that there are many that absolutely do. It's not so simple.

It'd be equally true to say left-wingers just hate white people and love people specifically because they aren't white, as Class Struggle Theory and Privilege Theory encourage. But, also, it'd be equally absurd and untrue unless you count those disgusting people that believe that shit also represent the people that just want a legitimate avenue by which the state can provide for those that need and cannot obtain due to their circumstances of labor and housing. But we don't popularly say that, because, "that'd be right-wing propaganda!"

It wouldn't be, but that's why we don't say it. because it wouldn't be popular outside right-wing circles.

I don't have to put much effort into explaining how and why white supremacists are bad. Our society and culture goes to great lengths to all but enforce that. However, if I equally say putting black supremacists on a pedestal, not dissuading black supremacism and black supremacist talking points, do not entertain ethnosupremacists just because they're black and "speaking up on behalf of their communities," then I get accused of just hating black people.

Meanwhile compare and contrast, some no-account dude like Richard Spencer, the most milquetoast and small dick of white supremacists, talks about whites even having a community to speak of, and he gets punched in the face on camera. He's no Louis Farrakhan. And he sure as fuck isn't the Nation of Islam.

So I don't need to exert any effort at all, or avoid or contort around any accusations if I were to say, "David Duke is a terrible person and the KKK are abominable."

But if I were to say, "What we popularly imagine of as capital B Black gangs that engage in narcotics trafficing, selling, consuming, are major contributors to the Black community oppressing and destroying itself while the bloodbath gets blamed on the society around them, and due to that, attributed to White Supremacy. Black gangs are bigger dangers to all people, not just black people, but especially black people, than the KKK ever was," then I'd be looked at as a KKK apologist.

If you look at gang activity and "race conscious" ethnosupremacist movements on a venn diagram, it's practically a circle. Yet, it's only socially acceptable to point this out when it comes to white gangs. There's absolutely no social reprecussions or side-eyeing if you come good and real about that when discussing white gangs and drugs. But you commit the faux pas of saying the Capital B Black and Hispanic gangs do the same shit for the same reasons and should be regarded as dangerous for exactly the same hateful, bigoted reasons as the white gangs, and suddenly it's, "Black and Brown scare."

Even if you point out the disparity in hate crimes in the modern era on just whom is committing them against whom, you point out the numbers, incrementally, of people most likely to engage in the behaviors of attacking cops bare handed or with weapons and why, based on what identity and tribalist mentality, you point to the ultimate kill count that made the KKK so threatening and terrifying as a concept based on the danger they represent Vs. that which modern day ethnic narco gangs represent, you get treated as having ulterior motives for even making the parallel. "White hate group bad, black group valid."

That's why I don't spend my time taking apart right-wing shit. Yall already know that the vast majority of republicans are not opposing climate change legislation because they take issue with some of the more particular bullshit in it, they take issue with it largely because it cuts into profits. There are definitely sound, reasonable arguments to make on just having objections to what can be in climate change and environmentalist bills and what they want to achieve vs. what the law would do as a result, but those are not the points and directions most republicans make. And so, I don't consider them to be the same thing. When I object to a bill or a mentality that says CO2 should be treated the same as harmful poison by saying it should be treated as an unutilized resource and incentivize sequestering it, I'm not saying it because "climate change isn't real," but because, "I don't agree in the government putting an arbitrary additional exorbinant cost because someone had the audacity to try and make something by artificially labeling it more harmful than it is."

All you need to do to reject the vast, vast majority of right wing talking points is A.) reject ideological supremacy of organized religion or subjective faith as the basis for secular law and morality. B.) reject the idea things would, "just get on" with no regulations at all from the government. This is true in regards to business as well as federal social policies. C.) Reject the idea states rights should trump federal rights in everything. No, you do not get to decide marriage is valid or invalid based on your religious faith just because one region has a majority population that believes such.

Dealing with the unpleasant excesses of the hard-left is by comparison, oh so much more complicated a topic, because they do not pull from one singular source of sacred text, but hide theirs behind contemporary academic profits they put on their shoulders and then abandon for another once their opponents start forming negative opinions on their philosophy, and then like viruses slightly mutating, hide behind that veil of even pretend unfamiliarity to go the next decade's writer is entirely different fromthe Marx derivative that came before them, so your criticisms "are uneducated and won't apply until you've read that exact book."

So it's not that I don't have anything negative to say about extreme pro-life conservatives, be they religious or non, it's moreso that their views are pretty much self-evident. And/or naturally limited by our existing rules and legal system in exactly what they can do to exact the brunt of their shitty values on the rest of us. There's nothing to dissect here that isn't already well, well understood, said ad nauseum by people who are diametically opposed to everything they stand for, or easily imagined by people that have only ever argued with a religious person once.

Please do not confuse this for sharing their beliefs.

[kitkatopinions]

You realize that you're both ignoring Ironwood's glaring flaws and vilifying the protagonists for not obeying him, while vilifying the protagonists for working with him despite his flaws?

I'm not doing either of those things, you just don't listen. But thank you for at least attempting to refute what I said instead of just churning out the same thing. Let me explain to you how you're wrong.

I'm not vilifying the protagonists for working with Ironwood, because I don't believe they were wrong for working with Ironwood, because I think that he wasn't a clearly bad dictator until he shot Oscar (which started him being shot through a villain arc at the speed of light.) I believe that Ironwood was a flawed good guy who was doing some morally dicey things while stuck between a rock and a hard place, and Team RWBY and co were flawed good guys too who rightfully believed in some of the things Ironwood was doing (like trying to launch the communications tower.) I'm simply pointing out that the belief of many anti-rwdes that Ironwood was clearly a bad dictator throughout his appearances but especially in volume seven - if true - wouldn't make Team RWBY and co look good and would actually reflect very badly on them. I don't believe it to be the case that Team RWBY and co were actively working with a dictator for months. Therefore I'm not vilifying them for willingly working with a dictator for months because I don't believe that they were doing that. But the anti-rwde posters who are of the opinion that Ironwood was always a dictator and that it should've been obvious and anyone who doesn't believe that to be the case is either stupid or a bigot do believe that Team RWBY and co willingly worked with a dictator for months. They're the ones accidentally vilifying the mains, you're just getting angry at me for pointing it out. By their logic (and assumingly yours) Team RWBY and co (and the writers) all belong in the same category as me.

I also don't think that I've really vilified Team RWBY and co for going against Ironwood. either. I've been very clear about the fact that I think that the essentially trolley problem at the end of volume seven was one that had absolutely no 'right answer' or perfect solution, and Team RWBY's stance of 'we should risk it all in the hopes of saving everyone and leaving no one behind' - while a little idealistic - could've been written in a good and very hopeful way. I'm not sure it was a good choice of the writers and I think it could've been done a lot better, but I don't think Team RWBY were wrong to take the stance they did as characters. I feel like I've been clear about that. I don't start getting frustrated with Team RWBY and co until Volume Eight, and I don't think anyone comes out of that volume looking good, and I know I've been very clear about the fact that I think the writers are to blame and still love the characters of Ruby and Yang and stuff even if some of the things they do frustrate me at times.

I also don't think Ironwood is perfect. I've said that over and over. I'd love to know what 'glaring flaws' you think I'm ignoring, lol. Because all I've said recently as far as I know is that I don't think he was a dictator doing things like invading Vale and ruling Mantle as a dictator. If you believe he was, cool. But again, the main protagonists all worked with him and for him willingly for months. I don't think they were wrong to do that, buuuuut..... It kind of feels like you might. XD

[imunbreakabledude]

ok nah i got more to say from my last post.

the idea that The Boys portrays women as good/noble/infallible and men as bad/evil/fallible is a take that gets thrown around surprisingly often for how simply and objectively false it is.

i feel like this take often comes from people who just really hate annie? and whatever you dont have to like her, but she's a very traditional narrative hero, morally right most of the time, but still fucks up sometimes, learns from other characters, strays occasionally but stays the path. i can see why some of the reflexive negativity came from the latter half of s3 where she was vocally just pointing out how crazy other ppl were being (with the wild stance of "let's not help the super powerful, aggressive, exploding man we don't know at all murder a handful of people in the hopes that he will peacefully then murder the one guy we want him to murder and then cause no further issues himself?" paired with "maybe don't take this experimental drug we don't know the consequences of just in the name of throwing yourself into this highly risky plan?") - it's understandable why other characters disagreed bc it's a good conflict! but the reason she was portrayed as reasonable/right is because... those are reasonable/right stances? lmao

but early in s3 she was WRONG and Hughie was right. remember? when she was all like "i wanna stay in the seven and be co-captain and i'll fix everything by being popular and getting diversity™ in the seven." she was wrong! and hughie told her to get out, and she didn't try, she got in deeper, and regretted it, but it was too late. annie literally got her friend killed. if she hadn't brought supersonic into the rebel effort (yeah he kinda pushed his way in a bit but she could've tried harder to keep him out) and also if she hadn't goaded homelander even more by challenging him over stupid shit, then homelander wouldn't have killed supersonic.

anyways, on the topic of characters who are always/almost always portrayed as good and right. in my opinion at least, the most consistently good, loyal, reasonable character on the show? M.M.! he has his own struggles, sure, feeling torn between fighting the fight and being there for his kid, but i cant think of one moment he was morally off course. Frenchie is not too far behind, and Hughie is not too far behind that - even when Hughie messes up he has abundantly understandable and empathetic reasons, and he is never portrayed as EVIL. even when he's "wrong" to take temp v and help soldier boy in s3, it's not by a huge margin, you understand why he and butcher believe that to be the best course of action.

meanwhile... there are bad women on the show! you have annie and kimiko who are near the top of the "goodness" scale (at least in intent) but both do have missteps or regrets. Then there's Maeve, who is portrayed as ultimately good but with some major flaws and mistakes.

then you've got the two major women antagonists of season 1 and season 2? Madelyn Stillwell and Stormfront? i'm 99% sure both those characters were men in the comic (and obviously many other aspects of them changed but) ... the show made a conscious effort to depict that bad people can be any gender?? lol?

You've also got Neuman now, another powerful antagonist though her allegiances are still questionable. Ashley as well, whom idk if we can truly call an antagonist, but she is certainly not a "good" person on the moral scale of this universe.

I guess there are technically more "bad" men than women on this show if you go broadly speaking - but that's because there's more men period. even if we leave out the most questionable case of butcher (who is obviously designed to make the audience feel ambivalent about whether his actions are justified; though I would put him in the "good" bucket ultimately, at least in how the show's constructed, he's an antihero) ... ya get ~3 "good" men (hughie, frenchie, mm, 4 if you count supersonic) and 3 "good" women (annie, kimiko, maeve, who's aboutta be gone). then you've got ~4 "bad" men (Homelander, A-Train, Deep, Soldier Boy, I guess you could count Noir but he isn't shown to be like a bad person morally? I guess you could maybe count Edgar too). and ~3 "bad" women (Madelyn, Stormfront, Neuman, could add Ashley if you want). that's a surprisingly equal breakdown tbh... the one place where the men get the majority, i guess, is in the MINOR "bad" guys. like ones only in 1-2 episodes who then get dispatched. Translucent, Lamplighter, Gunpowder, Mesmer, Termite etc... only woman equivalent i can think of is crimson countess. Little Nina too I guess? but there's more men, there, because yeah, just more men overall.

tl;dr I have no idea why people ever make that complaint because the show is pretty varied in terms of protagonists/antagonists across gender lines

[transgenderer]

It would be so easy to win at morality. All I would have to do is empty out my savings account and send $ to givedirectly (it would take a few days bc of transaction limits) then wander around aimlessly fasting until until I died. It wouldn't take long - 3 weeks without food is enough to die, probably less if I walk a long distance every day. Yet I don't. I'm not afraid of hurting my loved ones and I don't want to live. Yet I'm still posting instead of winning. Why is this?

well. okay so if we are adopting this stance, and to be clear i dont endorse adopting this stance, 1) unless you have a LOT of money (like, thru inheritance or something) and very little earning potential, you could probably net donate more money by staying alive, having a job, and spending as little as possible on yourself and donating the rest to givedirectly or whatever. which is actually really hard! part of why winning at morality is hard, 2) wandering around fasting aimlessly for weeks would be a crazy way to kill yourself. good chance you would get forcibly institutionalized. 3) your happiness (and that of your loved ones!) goes into the great moral integral in the sky! if you make them sad, or yourself sad, by your choices, that's bad to the calculator! ergo, i think its pretty unlikely killing yourself would be winning at morality!

i mean, to be clear, there are lots of reasons you shouldnt kill yourself. but "killing myself would be the most moral option" is a thought ive often had myself (especially when i was like 14), and man it just does not make any sense in any non-stupid moral system. its trying to justify your desire to kill yourself with ethics. if youre gonna be suicidal, say it from your chest, yknow. anyway i always feel like such a square encouraging people not to kill themselves but man. are you on antidepressants? antidepressants might be placebo but they made me personally way less into wanting to kill myself. if you are, have they done the wacky treatments? go for the wacky treatments. electroconvulsive works, its crazy that it works. but it does. anyway if youve done all that idk, move to another country, join a convent, write an album of shitty songs

the best anti-suicide advice is ive heard is that if you want to kill yourself, do something crazy instead. its not like you have anything to lose. and i think what you will realize, or what i realized, is that its not that i wanted to kill myself, i just wanted to be happy. which is less cool seeming than wanting to kill yourself unfortunately. but anyway. uh. personally i cannot reccommend eating a bunch of delicious food enough. worst case you get fat i guess. food is so good and delicious food can be very cheap. get some fast food you really like. eat candy, eat chocolate, eat cake. get a little pleasure in. speaking of i need to eat something.

[hierarchyproblem]

Uncharitable sectarian bitching below

I think like. "Sometimes in a revolutionary situation there are compelling strategic or tactical reasons for killing some civillians" is a stance you could take. I could name some historical examples and we could debate the particulars. And "civillians are inevitably killed in war regardless of the extent to which anyone is intending for that to happen" is unfortunately incontrovertably true. And I'm seeing a lot of "Hamas are doing some reprehensible things but that pales in comparison with the everyday violence of the occupation," which is a very important point to be making and a position I fully endorse.

This morning, however, I read the opinion that "there are no Israeli civillians" which is just. That's infuriatingly stupid. Fucking come on now. "Israeli civillians should be shot" would at least be more honest, and the meaning is the same! But no, this is just an embarrassing degree of moral cowardice; the refusal to engage with the ethical implications of one's own implied stance! Revolutionary violence is clearly ethically complex, so simply pretending that it isn't is just not credible! Say you support Palestinian liberation despite Hamas' atrocities - that's my position - but nobody will or should take you seriously for insisting the atrocities are Good, Actually. Fuck.

I guess one can try to feel like a Serious Revolutionary by being absurdly cavalier about actual, real-life violence, but to everyone else, it just reveals the massive disconnect between the online tough-guy posting and anything resembling useful analysis or action. If nothing else, it doesn't inspire confidence that the concern being expressed for the suffering of the Palestinian people is grounded in sincerity either! Since apparently this is just some kind of game.

You'd think you could expect better from the "when our turn comes we shall not make excuses for the terror" ideology - that they'd accept the ethical costs involved in liberatory action and commit to it anyway, a position that actually takes some moral courage - but I'm belatedly realising that even much of the best of internet Marxism-Leninism has "owning the libs" (by, I guess, reactively adopting sillier positions than them? thereby diluting the credibility and impact of the actual useful communist analysis you ought to be providing?) as its highest fucking principle.

[cyber-clown]

its kind of funny whenever people reblog that stupid dr pepper elf post with tags or whatever apologising for reblogging AI. like i'm sorry buddy but i think you need to do a bit more introspection on your morals here, because it kind of seems like you're batting for both sides right now. simultaneously acting like "image made by an AI" is some kind of inherently evil concept, while also bending over to make excuses for why you get to partake. my lord! what moral integrity!

FYI modern developments in AI are incredibly problematic in many ways, some deep rooted and others a little more transient, but i think if you're going to take any kind of stance on it you should probably try to come to a slightly more informed opinion on the flaws of AI rather than "if i reblog a photo of a night elf hitting a vape i must prostrate myself for forgiveness due to the spiritually sinful nature of AI"

[purrpickle]

Ep 11 reactor reaction hot takes under the read more because I am tired and apparently air these now.

Watching people react to Ep 11 of GAP the Series can be so very, very difficult because it shows just how much so many people don't understand - or want to understand! - Sam or where she's coming from or the trauma and abuse and love for her grandmother she grew up with, nor understand - or want to understand! - Mon or where she's coming from as the selfless, overwhelmed, desperately in love young woman she is.

Some people focus so heavily on Sam not being able to go against her grandmother or being engaged to Kirk while still wanting Mon in her life (and that she has been engaged for the majority of the show so never should have started anything with Mon even though it is so clear that Kirk has never been anything or a 'real' option to her), or even that Mon is so stupid for agreeing to be Sam's 'side piece' and deserves so much more and should just leave, right then and there (and double down that Mon is and has been in the wrong for pursuing an engaged woman in the first place in the same breath), as if giving up everything with Sam so easily is who Mon is.

And, look, I understand personal opinions. I do. And I do understand some of these moral stances, don't get me wrong! But there's only such a limit I can take before I just get so frustrated. Because how these people just so flatly approach this episode and tear down the characters for both their actions - or inactions - just illustrate to me how much they don't understand the story, the characters, the culture, or pretty much anything in favor of superimposing their own opinions on the characters and situation as if Mon and Sam are or should be anything like the people/reactors themselves instead of who they actually are and have been built up as on the show up until that point.

What I'm saying is, you can criticize the episode and the characters all you want. Call out Mon deserving more! Because she does. Call out Sam being selfish in her heartbroken desperation! Because she is. But to get so angry and verbally so in such a high and mighty tone deaf way that erases any of the nuance in favor of pure censure? Just continuing to complain and lambast the characters and everything the whole episode without even trying to understand or examine it? That's when I get so uncomfortable and riled. Have (valid) criticisms or critiques but please also have some critical thought, too!

Sure, maybe I'm being a little unreasonable here because I do watch these shows wanting to understand the characters and look below the surface, but I don't care! I honestly just cannot care anymore if this opinion of mine is uncharitable. It's just another way I'm just so tired with some of the takes I've seen of this show.

So I guess that's my own personal opinion that others might get uncomfortable with and frustrated and riled at. But that's okay. At least I know it's subjective and my own personal (high horse) opinion! 😀

[implausiblyjosh]

while ago, someone made a tweet like "Man I don't even like AI art but I'm consistently forced to side with it simply because it keeps bringing out the worst opinions on art, copyright, and derivative work imaginable." which is fairly obvious posturing. Might as well say "i would be against AI art, but anti AI art people are so cringe i can't help but support AI art", you know? You're trying to find a morally superior way to justify whatever your stance is, you see it all the time online. So I QRT'd and said as such and I also explain how, by my estimation, there isn't really a "leftist" way to support AI art. It's like saying there's a "leftist" way to support Facebook, that just doesn't make sense.

I get into a back-and-forth with this person, because of course. But the thing that sticks with me, a couple months out, is how adamant they were that their position was the only morally correct and principled stance. The specific exchange was when my friend jumped in to say "You don't actually have to support EITHER copyright law OR ai, which regardless of it's effect on creative freedom (consistently used to steal art and cut out laborers) is also ecologically devastating and directly held up by exploited workers in africa." which is all true. The way AI art exists, and the only way it can exist, is through exploitation. Even if you don't agree with the concept of "stealing art", the ecological impacts of these AI companies and the worker exploitation of moderators is a fact of the industry. The person replied "stealing art isn't real" and "I will not be talked down to by a half-wit who isn't even willing to put in the basic effort to understand [their principles]." and it really stuck with me.

It's pretty obvious from the exchange that the person was desperate to convince themselves they were morally superior, and nothing would change that position. So then they have to deliberately ignore the issue of "worker and environmental exploitation", a weird thing for a leftist to want to do on purpose, to then take the wild position of "the morally superior, leftist position is support this exploitation because stealing art doesn't real and copyrights should be abolished, and if you weren't a half-fit you'd have the same stance as me".

It's been stuck in my head for months now. Just this pure want to Be Correct. To not think for a moment that you could be wrong or that you couldn't have thought about this from all angles. When confronted with a viewpoint that is considering more angles, you call that person stupid for giving it more thought and coming to a different conclusion. It was baffling. It's still baffling!

[lumpsbumpsandwhumps]

Parental groups r weird, but I got the feeling like ppl r again violently trying to accomplish their own goals using children, to show off the school or their high morals u know. That’s may sound alien, but if I’m still a teen, and I actually want to discover the world myself, derive my own views and opinions, can I like go without those lessons of gender studies etc. Like I don’t want teachers/relatives and random people telling me what to do and what to think, I want to have a right to choose my own courses and be free with that. Bannings r stupid, but it’s even dumber to be fed forcibly with something I’m not ready to consume or waste time on. Does this go only in one direction?

I mean I'm definitely one who thinks there are happy mediums in every conflict, but most sides take the stance of "my way or the highway", so it's hard to really satisfy anyone without completely alienating the other.

I think it's important to at least approach the ideas of gender studies, sexualities, etc with developing teenagers because that's when they really start to discover themselves. Some kids struggle with labeling new feelings or confusion they might experience, so it would help to give them a stepping stone, which they can then decide to pursue further with elective courses if they feel it resonates with them or just out of curiosity. And, even if none of those ideals apply to them, it's still good that they acknowledge such things exist and normalize it.

They don't have to be full blown core classes from grade 6 to 12 about the entire history of transgender identity, just a semester similar to health class that kids can later on select electives on if they want to continue exploring those topics, or never touch again. You can throw in the story of the Stonewall Riots during the civil rights lesson without turning it into propaganda as to why you, a 16 year old, must now label yourself as transgender. You can finally acknowledge the contributions women have made in the STEAM field that had been ignored or miscredited to men. You can read the letters or love poems of famous authors and say they were written to their same sex partner and leave it at that.

It's not about forcing kids to be one way or another, it's about exposing them to different ways of thinking and normalizing the outcomes.

[lifeasatargetedindividual]

What most people don't like about me is, I always tell the truth. Even if it might make me look bad or at the very least, questionable. I always tell the truth and give the FACTS. Everyone who's wronged me would rather only air THEIR side of the story, their own specially made version of "truth," omitting their own actions that would make them look bad or questionable. They'd rather play as the complete "victim" while knowing full well they are not as innocent as they try to portray themselves. I have no issue telling the facts of the entire story because unlike many others, I was raised on solid morals and values. Many people who are being gangstalked are T.I.'s simply because they pissed off the wrong person with a God-Complex. These type of people refuse to admit or even acknowledge their wrongdoing or the fact that they are wrong period. Instead, they believe they are absolutely justified in having you stalked and harassed and they want everyone to feel about you as they feel about you. They want and fight to keep everyone on their side. When I first came out with my story on a particular social media page, I was met with a plethora of responses. In no time at all, I also found myself being criticized, judged and attacked by trolls who I highly suspect were gangstalkers in disguise and clearly on Brinley's team. I purposely made it clear: "Hey, you can believe whatever you want to believe and judge me as much as you want. Unlike Brinley, I'm not a control freak. I'm not here to gain sympathizers nor enemies, I am simply giving the facts of our fallout and how I believe without a doubt it's the reason I'm being gangstalked." Some seemed shocked by my response; I suppose they were expecting me to go into temper-tantrum mode or trolling mode. Too bad they were left disappointed. Unlike others, I do not try to play as God in anyone's life. My only stance has always been, NO ONE deserves to be abused for any reason. Regardless of what you may have done or may not have done, if you are not an actual terrorist, your name should NOT be on the list. If you believe anyone has committed a crime against you or someone else, that's your move to involve the courts, isn't that what the court system is for? But what people with connections to gangstalking do is the complete opposite because they know they are full of shit! The only "crime" committed against them was the instant death to their ego by someone they believed as below them. And this is their revenge in turn, to have you stalked, harassed and tortured for the rest of your life. Ironically, there are still some out there who want me to give Brinley a chance and be with him as he wants. This always earns an uproarious cackle from me. Never gonna happen. What kind of fool do you take me for to believe for an instant I'd be with ANYONE, much less him, who WANTED these evil things to happen to me as a result of being gangstalked? Just how desperate and stupid do you think I am? Smh. What he intended for my absolute demise has made me into the hardest, fearless soldier of justice and freedom that I would've never been in the past. Unlike the masses, I don't stand with nor encourage bullies, abusers and predators. I stand against them on behalf of all survivors. But thank you, for sharpening my focus and mission. Regardless of who believes in me and who doesn't, I am taking this ALL the way. You chose the wrong woman to throw into your little hidden system of torment and oppression.

[lemissingmask]

3. Midas - Beauty/Greed

There's a bit of a time skip from the previous, since these are drabbles to be linked up. Merlin and Lancelot have followed Nimueh's trail to the gate to the underworld, where they encounter the gatekeeper who presides over it.

Next post

-

"What are you doing here, Merlin?"

Arthur, gatekeeper to the underworld, folded his arms, glaring at the god and sheep before him.

"None of your business, Arthur."

Merlin copied Arthur's stance and glared - admittedly less intimidatingly - back at him.

At his side, Lancelot glared in solidarity with his new friend...more or less...  Some might have thought it just an ordinary stare from a sheep, but Merlin was morally certain it was a glare.

"It is my business when you're this close to my father's domain," Arthur eyed the sheep suspiciously, "You have no reason to be here.  We do not have revelry in the underworld...we also don't have sheep."

"Then you are missing out, my friend."

Arthur arched an eyebrow, "Friend?"

Merlin really wished he'd stop putting unnecessary emphasis on everything.

"Sorry, my mistake," Merlin smiled sweetly, "I'd never have a friend who can be such an ass."

"Or I one who could be so stupid."

Silence.

Glaring.

A stand off.

And then a sheep.

Walking right past Arthur and towards the steps leading to the tunnel to the underworld.

Arthur stared, frozen in bemusement, his head following the motion of the small creature as it adopted a leisurely pace down the uneven and cold stairs.

"Whyyyy is your sheep going down there?" Arthur asked, still looking after the gradually disappearing form of the sheep.

"We're on a mission," Merlin started to walk after, and past Arthur, following Lancelot into the darkness, "Your father is trying to steal Gaius' well."

Arthur rolled his eyes, or at least his tone when he spoke suggested he probably had.

"Of course he is," Arthur was now walking in step with Merlin down the stairs, "That man will go to any length for power."

"He has power," Merlin objected, "He has an entire realm at his disposal."

"He wants more.  He wants to wipe out all mortal beings and possess both worlds."

Below them, Lancelot bleated, ambling up the stairs a bit and bleating again.

"What's the sheep saying?"

"No idea," Merlin picked up the pace, "And the sheep has a name.  He's Lancelot."

"You named your sheep after the god of beauty?"

Lancelot bleated again and came to join them, nudging merlin in the leg.

"No, the sheep is the god of beauty."

Arthur shifted across the staircase to stare at the sheep more closely, "You can't be serious."

"I never joke."

"Joking is quite literally yout primary reason for existing."

"Joking and wine," Merlin corrected, "And dancing, and drunken idiocy."

Lancelot nudged him again.

"Right, anyway," Merlin returned to the point, "Your greedy father sent Nimueh to steal the well from Gaius.  We need to get it from her before she gets it to Uther, and..."

"And my father decides to take all the realms for himself," Arthur finished, "Right.  And Lancelot..."

"Is helping."

Arthur snorted a laugh, "Good luck to you.  A sheep and the one drunkards worship against Nimueh?  You had just hope she and Uther aren't in the mood for killing either gods or sheep at the moment."

"I have a plan."

Lancelot stopped, turned, bleated.

"I do!"

"Lancelot doesn't seem to agree."

"Lancelot's a sheep."

The sound that followed was definitely indignant.  And, it turned out, indignant noises were very incongruous with something as utterly adorable as the fluffy creature a few steps below them.

"So," Arthur smirked, folding his arms and leaning against a wall, giving up walking and allowing his lower half to turn to black smoke so he could drift level with Merlin, "What is this master plan of yours?"

"You're Uther's son.  I'm not telling you."

Arthur was Uther's son.

He was also nothing like Uther.  For one, he could leave the underworld.  He and the collector of souls, Leon, were the only ones from that realm who could.  And, for another, he was a good man, if a bit of a prat.  And, then, just to complete a story much like the tragic plays the mortals wrote, he was besotted with the goddess of the sun.  Every sunrise he stood just beyond the threshold to the underworld and watched the gold she gifted to the lands below, smiling as the warmth fell on his permanently cold skin.

Arthur loved Guinevere, but rarely did they meet.  Uther was greedy, and that extended to keeping a tight rein on his son, never allowing him to stray far enough to meet with the radiant sun goddess.

"By which you mean," Arthur corrected, "You don't have a plan."

Lancelot chimed in his agreement or disagreement or indifference.  Or perhaps a comment on the drop in temperature the farther they went.

"I have something that could be loosely described as a plan," Merlin glared, "Happy?"

Arthur's teasing smirk fell, "I won't be if my father gains yet more power."

-