#does he mean metaphorically or literally

[jieanette]

ik its platonic and more leaning to encouragement but pls let me have this delusion

[aroanthy]

i love how fraught and complicated discourse around various utena characters ‘dying’ is when anthy is literally stabbed to death eternally by a million swords imbued with human hatred. and then utena gets stabbed to death by them also. like. ‘death’ is incredibly interesting in rgu because most of the time it’s this ambiguous figurative thing that has interesting implications re: ohtori as a closed-off world one can escape. we are all trapped in our coffins. mamiya is the only named character with a grave. nemuro memorial hall functions as one all the same. ruka is implied to have died in the hospital— was he dead all along? who was the boy we saw for these two episodes? is this dead boy the same boy, or is this just another coincidence from the shadow girls, cutting like a knife? it’s heavily implied that akio and anthy murder kanae by poisoning her, adding to the previous implication that they were poisoning mr ohtori too, but there are no perceptible consequences of this. kanae’s absence is not felt. she’s fed an apple slice. what happens to the bodies? we know what happened to the 100 boys, but what about everyone else? and so on and so forth. ‘death’ is a tricky thing in utena, i think it’s constantly functioning on figurative and literal levels in very different ways for very different purposes. dios died. dios was dying. dios didn’t die. he grew up. etc etc

[synthshenanigans]

Something about how Heart is being compared to mythology, Minds referencing the bible & Soul being the one to use both of those things

[rawliverandgoronspice]

behold: my second least favorite string of words in the entirety of Tears of the Kingdom.

(it's a little less transparent why this time so I'll explain my thoughts under the cut)

So why do I not like this?

In so many words: because if you remove it, the scene still works, but you lose the moral certainty of what is going on.

This single sentence does so much legwork for the entire game (the kind I dislike), to the point where I'm about 60% sure it's the product of a rework that realized how ambiguous Rauru's position was as the Good Rightful King and needed to nervously reassure the players that Ganondorf Is and Always Was the Invader, Actually.

(no matter that it leaves the gerudos in this awkward in-between state of both invaders and victims, while never dwelling in the specifics of their history and their own agency in the entire thing; brushed off as a sin they have to expiate through loyalty to the winners of that particular strife, but without explicitely blaming them either to avoid the implications of what that would have looked like)

If you remove it, not only do you lose a pretty clunky line that detracts from Ganondorf's intimidating presence (who is he even speaking to? who needs to hear this right now?) that honestly speaks for itself when it comes to his experience with warfare, but also you lose any tension and any mystery regarding why he is attacking in the first place.

You also... kind of rob Ganondorf's motivations of their meaning. "Hyrule will bow down before me" leads to asking... why? What does he want? What does he see in those lands? And what little we get with Rauru and then Link during the final fight begs more questions; why do you prefer hardship to peace? Why do you value strength? What leads you to want to rule a land devoid of survivors, become a king without a kingdom? I don't think we ever get satisfactory answers. If you remove this sentence, on the other hand... Subtextually, it becomes pretty clear that his motivations is that he felt threatened by Rauru's power, which is ripe with subtext and questions about whether this is a legitimate reaction, whether his "no survivor" stance is due to a feeling of betrayal when his own people turned against him post the Demon King shenanigans... I'm not saying it would fix the entire game's writing, far from it, but it would already do *so much more*.

(genuinely, I think he could have stayed completely silent during the Molduga Assault, speaking only in the Show of Fealty before going completely nuts after Sonia's murder, and it would have worked MUCH better in terms of characterization but anyway anyway

EDIT: ALSO!!! that way he wouldn't speak hylian to fellow gerudos, which is weird inherently)

Without this line, the core of the tension between the gerudos and Hyrule comes front in his conversation with Rauru; it allows the cause of his hostility to be Rauru's invitations, that he would have taken as a threat, and would have still made him warlike and domineering without making him cartoonishly flat, because, once again, Rauru is not acting in a particularly more legitimate way when Zelda arrives in Ancient Hyrule; and it would have been... fair to point that out. And make for better characterization for Rauru, and Sonia, and Mineru, and everybody. But the priority was for Hyrule to be pictured as unquestionably holy; always legitimate, always truthful, always beautiful, always just.

Also, and this is more of a nitpick but: why would Ganondorf want Hyrule, specifically, to bow down before him also? Was he at war with the rest of the disparate tribes before, and just carried on his ambitions to the very very newly-founded kingdom as they allied under a new banner? (though it seems to be implies the lands were crawling under monsters in a generic sense, and not Ganondorf's attacks in particular) Why would he even consider Hyrule a legitimate entity worth taking over then, if it is so new, born from the will of a powerful rival, founded by what is basically a stranger to these lands? Why would he covet something so young instead of destroying it and just calling the lands Gerudo Lands II or Grooseland or something?

I don't think any of that was even accounted for, because, beyond everything else: to me, this sentence is so clearly and painfully crammed in here to shield Hyrule from any potential blame and immediately characterize Ganondorf as Bad without having to remove any of the causes that could lead one to side-eye Rauru's little pet project as equally questionable.

Beyond the clumsiness, it is cowardly --and, I think, a little damning.

[featherymainffins]

Now this might be because I have issues but is it just me or does Slay The Princess feel like an allegory for a relationship?

[childhoodeloquence]

how does Hozier do it? lyrical genius I’m so for real

[mustlovewillgrahamsdogs]

i know we’re all obsessed with this moment and the hilarity of him asking at the end of s3 cuz it’s like come on will, be serious plz 😭 but to me, this moment, is overwhelmingly autistic. here, will and i are the same.

[dnangelic]

what is your core theme?

the friend .

you love to feel the warmth of a friend's hand in yours. food tastes better when it is made by a friend. you are kind and forgiving, and you treat your friends with ultimate compassion. you love your friends. you are grateful for every friend that comes and goes in your life. you miss many friends. you wish more friends kept in contact with you. you wish that you were not so forgiving sometimes but everyone has their vices. your friends take precedence over everyone. you would not be anywhere without them. you want to, one day, hold them up, too. you want to be someone depended on - someone needed. you want to be needed by somebody. you want to be wanted in the same way you want. your painting is "the three friends" by sebastian straub.

the yearner .

you long for something you have never had. it is just out of reach and your fingertips graze it constantly. you can feel its electricity buzzing through you and just the adrenaline is enough to keep you chasing it. your legs are tired and your body is disfigured but you reach out anyway, you stretch your arms forward and throw yourself at what is ahead. better days are coming. rest will find you soon, you hope, but until it does, you will keep running. the end justifies the means. the end keeps you running. you will know when to stop, you are sure of it, but it isn't yet. rest will find you. your painting is "tender grace of a day that is dead" by walter langley.

tagged by @legardien tysm ily lily!!!!

[glimblshanks]

It's so difficult, because I genuinely do want to understand what the whole deal with Christianity is, but Christians are so apposed to any line of questioning about their belief system (in a way that no other religion is) that if you say anything they don't like they shut down and accuse you of being a sinner.

And it's like bro, I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm trying to understand why this religion is even appealing to you. How do you manage to get so many converts when you're not even willing to answer basic questions about your theology?

Everyone I've found who's actually willing to discuss Christian theology with me is an ex-Christian which is super unhelpful, because ex-Christians are people who have deconstructed Christian belief and come to the conclusion that it doesn't work for them. They're always very cynical about the whole situation. That's not what I'm looking for.

I want to talk to someone who's still into it. I want to understand what actually draws people to this religion ( I do not want to be trauma dumped at - I don't know what aspect of Christian belief confuses y'all into thinking that trauma dumping is an appropriate substitute for theological discussion, but it absolutely isn't).

Like you would really think for one of the most popular religions in the world finding answers to this stuff would be easier. Why can't you guys just talk about your beliefs?

[doppelnatur]

i think maybe we should start talking about victims and survivors as an oppressed group even outside of the context of other marginalizations. I'm thinking especially about victims of domestic violence, bullying and sexual abuse but also refugees and victims of natural disasters and other forms of ongoing stress/trauma, I just have less perspective on that and would welcome other perspectives here.

And yes, being part of a marginalized group, a) is in and of itself an ongoing stress, b) makes it more likely for you to become a victim of both interpersonal power imbalances as well as the effects of the global power imbalances as expressed as war and climate catastrophies, etc and c) makes it harder to receive help. I just think seeing those as intersections might be helpful? Conversations about domestic violence and sexual abuse are very commonly framed as conversations about gender and while I do think gender is an important factor in both, it is unhelpful to deny the doubt, downplaying and scrutiny all survivors regardless of gender face.

I think it would be helpful when building support networks to keep in mind the social bias against victims, whether those support networks help people escape a war zone or an abusive home. My impression is that a lot of the same social mechanisms that apply to marginalized groups, also apply to victims and survivors. It's the downplaying of the impact of the violence/disaster, the dehumanization, the speaking about you and not with you, the being robbed of your agency, there being "good" and "bad" victims, the contradictory and impossible standards you are held to, the way you're expected to bare yourself to display yourself and your wounds and be available for questioning...

I don't know maybe this is a useless concept or already really common framing but like I'd like to have a conversation about it?

[the-whispers-of-death]

oh don't you worry im patient enough. i'd break feral Stone in no time. some muzzling, a few days with no food spent collared and leashed outside (maybe some tying him down and spanking him) he gets to see how well i treat Grim Reaper Stone who is a good boy.

i'd pin feral Stone down, showing him who's really in charge. if he wants to act like an animal i can assert my dominance like an animal

(if he peed on my furniture to mark his territory or to just be a nuisance i'd pee back on him so he knows his place at the bottom of the pack)

Someone does need to show Feral!Stone he isn't the alpha he thinks he is. He's a little shit who only thinks with his bloodlust.

Though he somehow manages to get Serial Killer!Stone wrapped up into this, probably because he tells Serial Killer!Stone that you kidnapped him (you did not but poor Serial Killer!Stone went to rescue Feral!Stone because he has strong morals, the rescue attempt did not work.) Now you have two serial killers, at least Serial Killer!Stone is a good boy like Grim Reaper!Stone.

Grim Reaper!Stone & Serial Killer!Stone cuddle each other while they watch Feral!Stone try and fail to assert dominance over you.

[yell0wrabb1t]

no thoughts, nothing going inside my brain but henry emily, the afton kids and the mci kids (no one could ever understand how much they, on a conceptual level. Mean to me, they are all peacefully at rest and if they are not, they are still fighting and winning. idgaf about what canon will do)

[yotd2009]

The Tiktokers Are Saying That Romeo And Cinderella Is About Grooming

[an-army-of-nightmares]

Ok I'm done w/ my corpse phase and wanting perfection to be rotting on the inside. Hyde can be in the porcelain au now

[transingthoseformers]

Okay but currently looking at Silverlight's future friend group and remembering the description of Hailstrike and Trailfire as "Mean girl sidekicks", and there's Influx the jackass nerd(affectionate), it's really obvious that Silver is the group's Good Guy™️ friend and the rest are moral support who're ready to break your knees if you even think of being a dick to Silver— that's their job and only they are allowed to do that🥰

This does not include Silver's future sibling(s?), as Stargazer is instantly dubbed the shy scaredy cat and thusly is to be protected as well.

[dawnssummers]

this is angel in the reading where angel is Just gay and his pursuit of buffy is about striving for the heterosexual ideal to make up for being gay and also a vampire (rather than just the second bit). and before that a lot of his vampiric behaviour especially pre spike comes from the same place of striving for this approval from a beautiful older woman who might take him as a companion and make things okay + throwing himself into the art of the kill also comes from general resentment at the world. which in this case is specifically tied to being gay. and then it all comes crashing down on him with the soul until he gets taken to buffy. because i really do think angel does vampirism as gay allegory (bisexual version. like buffy as a slayer) and even as liam this is implicit but i generally take this as a layer rather than as like his core/intrinsic character if that makes sense at all. BUT making it core to him and making him specifically gay is also fun <3 i love to just say things