#for a particular person (there should be no way that someone has the exact same number denominator as someone else w differing caps)

[datastate]

btw regarding the discord thing: there are also other issues coming up with how people already try to monopolize usersnames they don’t intend for financial gain (see: kinnies on tumblr selling urls for upwards of 200 usd) which may result in an excess of throwaway accounts to hoard these usernames. additionally, without the number discriminator, there is also the issue of random people being able to identify & add you -- which, sure! you can change security so no one can send you frqs unless you share a server, but would you really turn that off every time an irl asks for your discord to contact you? or you may need to change your username... but quite honestly you shouldn’t have to change your username just to avoid harassment or unknown people suddenly contacting you. it’s ridiculous.

[jacksintention]

I'm thinking again on the fact that so often comments, criticism and readings on Jack dwell a lot on how he is barely human/a person/doesn't have a personality at the point of the story and, while I somewhat understand these points, I find them so lacking. I find them... ableist? I'm always doubtful to use the word here because I'm not sure if it's applied in this kind (mental health) of context, but something like that. And I find them extremely simplistic.

However, honestly, a big part of the reason for these readings being so popular is that the manga itself words it that way. But that's one of the problems I find in the manga. When I say P.andora Hear.ts is very good but unfortunately it is very manga-like at times, besides the 2000s homojokes and the like, I'm usually thinking about things like this. I feel like often characters and situations that are (potentially) very intricate instead of getting insightful deep overviews often get screwed by the writing itself, which falls into very manga tropes a lot in a bad way (not that every manga has to fall into them, or that every manga trope has to be bad or written badly).

I don't know... For instance, I'd argue R.askolnikov's capacity for love in Cr.ime and Punishmen.t is debatable, but it's never treated as if it made him less of a person, a human being or made him not have a personality. I'd say not even Svidrigailo.v, who is as much a Bad Guy™ as a character can be, gets that treatment by the writing. I'd say that even him or Mikol.ka are written as fully fleshed human beings with their intricate internal lives and feelings. Svidrig.ailov's last scene with D.unya is fascinating for both characters and spins the whole dynamic and makes you question the entire narrative and veracity of not only those two characters, but brings to mind several other conversations among different characters and throws light (and doubt!) on the main plot between R.askolnikov and Porf.iry.

In similar situations, Jack's humanity, personhood and personality are debated, doubted and even full on accepted as vanished. No one reads Crim.e and Punishmen.t and comes to the same conclusions about Raskolni.kov, Svidrig.ailov, Sony.a or Razu.mikhin. The writing doesn't allow it. The writing doesn't allow you to forget that humanity is diverse and multifaceted, that it can be sad and cruel and loving and monstrous, even all at the same time, or that a person may struggle with feeling at all; and one is still a person.

[euphoricimagination]

Friends don’t look that way

Feat. Kenma, Osamu & Sakusa

Kenma

Kuroo has never seen Kenma this way before.

Kenma has always been quiet, enjoying the company of his games way more than any other person; yet he was always caring about anyone else perception of him, always noticing eyes on him. However, Kenma never looks back, never looks at anyone directly that he didn’t have to look at.

So when Kuroo saw his friend on the lunch table, looking in front of him every few minutes with an unusual look, he was confused.

Kenma usually spends his lunchtime playing, if it wasn’t for Kuroo he would even forget to eat, so it’s no wonder than the captain wants to know what is grabbing the attention of his best friend.

He followed Kenma’s gaze once he lift his eyes up, finding you laughing with your friends. He has seen you before, you were in the same class as Kenma and sat behind him. You also seemed to enjoy volleyball and gaming as much as his friend, as he has seen you in their volleyball matches wearing a well love Legend of Zelda hoodie. He looks at you again, you were hearing whatever your friend was telling you with a smile on your face, before he looks back at Kenma, his eyes shining in a very particular way

“Do you know her?” Kuroo asks his friend, making him come out of his small trance

“Yn? Yeah, she’s my classmate” he answers back again with his nonchalant expression

“I meant it as actually knowing her, talking to her” he insist, seeing a faint blush on his friend face

“Yeah, she’s nice”

“She has to be more than nice for you to be so unsubtle with your heart eyes for her”

“I’m not…looking at her like that” he mumbles with a mixture of annoyance and shyness, as he hides his face in the scarf around his neck. Kuroo smirks at his friend response, not believing anything that comes out of his mouth, especially when Kenma lifts his eyes towards you again only to find out that you were looking at him too. Kuroo laughs out loud now as the both of you blush, putting a hand on Kenma’s shoulder

“Well, I don’t think you’re the only one with heart eyes” he says encouraging only to receive a glare from Kenma, a useless glare considering how red he is. His friend is definitely in love.

Osamu

Osamu is not concentrating as he should be in this practice match. He knows it, Atsumu has pointed out, Kita also remind him that they were playing several times, and now even the coach is pointing it out, scolding him for not taking this practice match seriously.

But it’s not his fault, Osamu thinks to himself, how it’s he supposed to concentrate when you are in the bleachers watching the match alongside your friends? How is he supposed to not look at you when you look so cute being all excited every time they score a point?

However, he doesn’t really understand why he is so unable to focus. Normally when you want to impress someone you would try your hardest to be better than normal, trying to stand out for them to notice. So how come his brain decided to do the exact opposite? Not only he was failing his serves miserably, but also he has unable to stop looking at you, resulting in him pathetically failing at receiving some of the easiest serves.

“Oi” Atsumu calls him once the coach finished talking “What the hell is wrong with ya?! Ya suck!”

“Eh?” Osamu looks at him back “I don’t suck, maybe yer’re the problem, dontcha think?”

“Me?! Ya know damn well I ain’t the problem here!” Atsumu throws him a ball, however he can catch it quite easily “What are ya even looking at?!”

“I think I know” says Suna smirking, looking in your direction and making him look at you too. Atsumu also follows his brother gaze, noticing how Osamu’s eyes change slightly when you lock eyes with him “What is it Samu? You like- Oi, listen to me”

Osamu is listening to everything, however he can’t seem to process any words coming out of his friends mouth, only focusing on you…until he received a slap on the back of his head

“Oi, stop eyeing them like they’re a piece of snack, ya fucking weirdass, she ain’t food” Atsumu says this time. Weird? Was he being weird? Osamu doesn’t know if you find it weird or not, but he does know that he doesn’t like Atsumu calling him out like that

“The fuck? I don’t do that, I don’t know what yer’re talking about” he says defensively, a useless attempt, really

“Ya liar! Ya haven’t stop looking at her this whole time!” Atsumu says again “No wonder ya have no fans, yer’re a weirdo”

“I’m not! Shut ya trap, ya asshat!” he says, feeling a slight hotness in his face

“Whatever, I will not allow ya to be useless right now” Atsumu says simply, walking towards the fence where you were standing “Oi! Yn-chan! Will ya go out with Osamu later?!”

He screams at you, making you blush and look back at Osamu, who also has a red face. Despite being embarrassed, you nod your head, receiving a bunch lf teasing remarks from your friends as Atsumu comes back to the team

“What was that for?!” Osamu screams at his brother

“There, got ya a date with her. Now, if ya keep playing bad I’ll ask the coach to replace ya” Atsumu answers, clearly too focus on the match to notice that he help his brother to have a date with the girl he likes

Osamu scoff slightly annoyed, however, it fully sinks in once he saw your happy, blushed face while Suna pats his back. He has a date with you, and he was excited for that, but now he has a practice match to focus on

Sakusa

“So like…Do you like her or something?” he hears Komori say besides him, making him turn his head towards him, a confused expression on his face. Who was Komori talking about?

“Why would you think that? How could you think that?” Sakusa asks. He seriously doesn’t get from where his cousin gain that idea, it’s not like he was doing anything in particular

“Because you keep staring at her like you’re in love or something” Komori says, pointing with his head to where you were, sitting on the other side of the classroom. Oh

Oh.

Everything suddenly just… clicked into Sakusa’s head, he was looking at you this whole time, your presence so relaxing that he didn’t even notice that he was staring at you. But then again, you always have manage to change his behaviors a little.

He recalls meeting you for a group project in where the teachers assigned the groups, and since you two where the only ones doing the job, he ended up finding you pleasant to be with. You two started to do homework together, which turn into you befriending Komori too, which somehow turn into you sometimes joining them for lunch or going to cheer them on their practice.

Soon enough your presence went from pleasant to likeable, which lead into him going to you from time to time. He didn’t understood a part of the lesson? He demanded you explain it to him. He received way too many gifts by his annoying fans? You’re the only person he even offers some of them before throwing them away. He was annoyed or anxious by the loud room? He always tries to find you there to feel at ease, because you always seem to find a way to calm him down. Like now, that you felt his eyes on you, which made you smile warmly to him, making all his worries disappear.

Komori was right. He’s in love with you.

He doesn’t even answer his cousin before standing up and going to your sit, with you receiving him with a playful yet worried smile.

“My practice ends at 6.00 pm today, wait for me” He says, it wasn’t an order but also wasn’t a question

“Yeah, I’ve nothing to do, thanks for asking” you say sarcastically, making him roll his eyes “Sure, I’ll wait. What for?”

“You’ll know later” he says before going back to his -smirking- cousin. It took him long enough to realize his feelings for you, he wasn’t going to take any longer to confess.

[iam93percentstardust]

one of the things that really bothers me about modern franchises, and in particular over the last 5 years or so, is their refusal to commit. what i mean here when i say this is that it's not uncommon for a major franchise to make a decision, whether about the plot or the characters, that should have had huge, world-changing consequences... and then just never address that again or worse, immediately go back and undo it. and i'm gonna pick on star wars and the mcu here because those are the two big franchises i'm into at the moment (and i think they're kind of the worst at this), but i don't want you to walk away from this thinking that this is solely a disney thing. i've seen this happen with game of thrones and supernatural and plenty of other non-disney franchises. spoilers ahead, you've been warned:

in ant-man & the wasp quantumania, scott and hope make the life-altering decision to stay behind in the quantum realm and defeat kang instead of going through the portal to return to their world. this should have been a huge meta decision for the mcu, and when i first saw it in theaters, my immediate thought was wow, what is this going to mean for the mcu going forward? are we going to get a movie/miniseries about scott and hope helping to rebuild the quantum realm? how are cassie, janet, and hank going to react to the losses of their loved ones (in some cases, for the second time)? is cassie going to become the "first" young avenger because she has to take her father's place among the team lineup (and i only say first because as of this moment, none of the other young avengers introduced to the franchise are official avengers yet)? except nope, because less than 2 minutes later, cassie had fixed the portal that had broken way back at the beginning of the movie and brought scott and hope back.

and it felt like such a cheat. i was so disappointed in that theater, not as someone who was invested in these characters on a personal level (because yay, cassie gets her dad back!), but as someone who has spent years investing themselves in the story of the mcu. what was the point of wasting screentime on scott and hope accepting their new lives in the quantum realm if it was just going to immediately be undone? the entire scene could have been cut to scott and hope making it back bare seconds before the portal closed and it would have had the same emotional impact. there was nothing added by making scott and hope (and us) think that there was no way back only to rip the rug out from under us and go "gotcha! you really thought we were gonna give this movie a sad ending? haha! you're so dumb!"

and this isn't the first time the mcu has done this. one of the biggest complaints about endgame was the decision to set it five years in the future with no consideration for how that would actually change the setting of the mcu. characters were brought back to the exact place they disappeared from with no consideration for how things might have changed in the interim five years (like planes that weren't in the air anymore, buildings no longer standing, even just something as simple as a chair being unoccupied). and then the mcu didn't even really have the courage to address how this would have shaped the world other than a few jokes and making the bad guys in the falcon and the winter soldier people who cared about how the world had screwed them over during the blip.

and things like this happen over and over and over again. the accords are put into place in civil war, but by the time we get to she-hulk, they're gone with no explanation because, as best as i can tell, the writers didn't want to have to deal with the worldbuilding that went into the accords. gamora is killed in infinity war, but heaven forbid quill not have an emotional investment in a film he appears for maybe 10 minutes in so now she's back in endgame. steve got to go live in the past with his ex-girlfriend (which is in itself a refusal to commit after the mcu both gave her a different husband and had the woman herself tell him to move on) but we need to establish that messing with timelines is bad because that's what the entire next phase hinges on so actually his ending was predestined and it's only everyone else who can't change time. whoever took this entire town and also wanda hostage and forced them to live out a sitcom fantasy is bad and needs to be stopped but wait, it's actually wanda and she can't be the bad guy yet, we need her for doctor strange 2, so actually everyone's going to defend her now and say that no one else could ever possibly understand her grief. thor has decided to accept responsibility as king of asgard, but we can't use him for any more movies if he's stuck in asgard, so actually he's decided to pass it on to someone whose entire leadership capability is developed offscreen. i could list more examples but this is making me angry, so let's move on to star wars instead.

with star wars, i look at first the oft-quoted meme, "somehow palpatine has returned." yeah, i shouldn't really need to go into detail on how that counts as a refusal to commit but. the last jedi was a study in how johnson refused to commit to anything that abrams had laid down in the force awakens, but rise of skywalker was almost like abrams had looked at the franchise and said "screw you for taking it away from me, i'm going to come up with the most bullshit stuff just to spite you for doing that in the first place. and i'm going to start by undoing the most important plot point of the first trilogy: the emperor dies." and yeah, disney's kind of tried to salvage this by dropping hints into the bad batch and the mandalorian about cloning, but that only really works if you're watching the franchise chronologically and not considering that both of those series came out after rise of skywalker.

and then there's the mandalorian, my sweet summer child, who is, in my opinion, the worst at backtracking their plot points. i'm not entirely convinced that any of the higher ups for this show really knew what they were doing when they started working on it and i'm not convinced that they know what they're doing now. yeah, there's the tie-in to the last season of clone wars, but the mandalorian has managed to walk back pretty much every single major plot point it's had. din is this legendary warrior who can't be beat, but no one will watch this show if he defeats everyone too early, so he's constantly getting beat up (tbf, sometimes some of the fights he loses makes sense like the krayt dragon and the mudhorn, but a lot of them don't. at all). moff gideon is dead, no wait no he's not, now he's imprisoned, no wait no he's not, now he's definitely dead, you can totally believe us this time guys. grogu can use the force and must be placed with the jedi, but wait, the only person still actively teaching the way of the jedi is luke and all of his students will be brutally murdered ten years from now, and we can't have that, everyone will be mad at us for killing off such a cute character and no one will buy baby yoda dolls (and also we have to set up luke's character degradation from hopeful, believes-in-love cinnamon roll to "i'm going to kill my nephew") so in between seasons let's have grogu decide to go back to din (and don't even get me started on how frustrating it is that a casual mandalorian watcher also had to watch book of boba fett to understand why grogu is back). din has the darksaber now which makes him king of mandalore, that's totally going to be important and what the entire series has been building up to, right? wrong! he might have spent the first two seasons making connections, learning about the world outside his sheltered upbringing, and demonstrating the various qualities that would make for a good leader, but the entire third season will be about din realizing that actually he's super unworthy and the darksaber should actually go to someone who... saw an animal in the water.

and it's really, really frustrating as a viewer! because how am i supposed to get invested in any of these plot decisions when they almost always get reversed? why should i care that mj and ned have forgotten peter when ant-man 3 has shown me that they'll remember him the next time they're all on screen together? why should i care that tech is dead when half of the last season of clone wars was about how echo was actually alive? if none of these decisions have any permanence, then where are the emotional stakes? why should i watch your movie if all you're going to tell me is that nothing matters?

[under-lore]

About "Tweets aren't canon"

One misconception that one seems to be nearly guaranteed to see brought up by someone whenever discussing Undertale/Deltarune lore with people who are not particularly invested in it is that "Toby Fox said tweets weren't canon".

And, when you first hear it, it actually sounds quite convincing, because this tweet is in fact real and does seem to say that.

So... What's actually going on here with tweets and with this one in particular ?

The actual status of tweets

Before mentioning what's really going on with that specific tweet, i'd like to lay some groundwork first.

For instance, regarding the fact that this tweet dates back from November 2016. And that if the tweet were to be taken seriously, it would mean that no tweets especially after that date are to be treated as canon.

Something that is rather explicitely not the case.

There are several examples for this, although the Gaster tweets which introduced us to Deltarune and directly link up to the game's "Goner Maker" introduction sequence are i would say prime offenders.

Here in these tweets, we are not yet connected, then we are given a way to connect.

Then, we pick this back up where we left it in Deltarune, where we are then asked wether the connection was a success.

This has of course been pointed out to Toby (although he never responded to those messages), and yet it did not prevent him from re-doing the exact same thing a few years later for chapter 2.

In short, the situation is that, to this day, Toby Fox still purposely uses tweets in order to provide important canon-accurate information about his games, with the Spamton Q&A as recently as last year.

In light of that, using that one tweet to say that any information coming from tweets is invalid just can't be right... So one might wonder :

But then, why did Toby say that ?

The problem comes from the fact that this quote is usually cropped like this when people try to share it around :

Which is greatly misleading !

Obviously, Toby Fox's popularity comes mainly from Undertale and later Deltarune. Due to this, and due to the majority of the fandom nowadays being teenagers, many in the fandom are not aware that ever since his own teenage years, Toby Fox has been for the lack of a better term, a massive shitposter. A habit that only started to die out after Undertale's release and in the year that followed. (Though he still shows glimpses of it from time to time)

I mean, we are talking about the person who kept on posting memes on twitter for nearly a decade and who made "a goast poot on u" at the end of the Earthbound Halloween Hack, his first semi-serious game project.

Why ?

Because he's just that kind of "funny guy" and felt like it. His words, not mine.

This was, up until not so long ago, the kind of person that Toby was online.

When taking all this into account and looking back at the un-cropped version of that quote, it becomes pretty obvious what's going on here.

Toby Fox found a bootleg nursery rhyme video of Undertale characters, found that hilarious (As the "funny guy" that he is), and decided to make a shitpost about it. Joking about how this weird thing that he found, right here, was the peak of official Undertale material and might just be more canon in his book than the kickstarter or tweets were.

The post that started this whole thing in the first place was just that, a shitpost, a joke, not something that Toby ever actually meant. Which honestly should have been pretty obvious in the first place, i mean, this is still a post about Toby trolling bootleg nursery rhymes, people. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously...

Besides, that tweet's statement would have been self-contradictory anyways. If tweets weren't canon, then this tweet would not be canon either, etc... Leading to one of those silly paradoxical loops rather than to an actual statement about tweet canonicity.

So then, that brings the question : Why ?

Why do so many people still claim that tweets aren't canon ?

The reason is likely the same as the reason why this misconception was created in the first place : It is a rope to cling on to for some people to defend certain headcanons that Toby had debunked via tweets.

Because yes, between late 2015 and late 2016 Toby used to once in a while answer a question about the lore of the game on tweeter. Leaving some people with their headcanons turning out to be wrong.

(A few examples of headcanons that Toby denied on twitter were that Undyne killed the green soul human, or that ghost monsters used to be humans, for example.)

It was some of those people, in the first place, who started cropping this tweet to make it seem like their headcanons were still on the table and started the mess in the first place.

This rumor, at its origins, was not just a mere misconception but rather a deliberate attempt at misinformation from some fans that weren't happy with the way Toby had taken the game, which is unfortunately still being shared around to this day due to how sensible it seems at first sight.

[roach-works]

People are getting *wayyy* too comfortable tossing around "pedophile" as an insult. So sorry you had to deal with that :/

i saw an interesting post the other day talking about how conservatives mislabeled neopronouns and lgbt+ identity descriptors as 'newspeak' from 1984, which is a sinister dialect designed to prevent people from being able to talk about forbidden topics, when in fact more precise identity labels actually let us think about sex and gender with more depth and nuance than ever before.

but i think, ironically, that the extremely conservative, sex-negative, reactionary impulse to label every degenerate freak you dislike on the internet a 'pedophile' has absolutely done that exact thing. its a newspeak word, a word meant to degrade discussion and impoverish the mind. it means badsex. it means tranny. it means cross dresser. it means fag and it means freak. it means someone you don't like on the internet. it means someone you want dead. and each and every time it also means person who has committed an unspeakable act of sexual violence against an innocent and helpless soul. it's all the same thing at the same time. you no longer have to clarify who or what or how; in fact, you can't.

like. that's fascinating. in the way that roadkill is fascinating. in the way that getting mugged is fascinating. pedophile meant something different just a little while ago. it was a word that meant a particular person had done a particular thing. now it's a wonderful gun with infinite bullets and it is pressed up against all of our throats.

i am not, and have never been, interested in children. i think perhaps it should be a little concerning to all of us how little that's actually mattered.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Genuinely trying to understand why a gay person would be supporting the party you do.

Not American myself but from what I understand there’s a lot of homophobia there.

It doesn’t look like Democrats are perfect either but at least less hostile to gays?

I'll dispense with my usual "Shut the fuck up European" image response because you do actually seem genuine, so here's my genuine answer.

Yeah, there's some homophobia on the right. Some. It's nowhere near what the media would have you believe. But there's homophobia on the left, too. The left just has the media and their ability to shape a narrative on their side. The worst thing I've had said to me by someone on the right was that they don't support gay marriage and think its a sin. Or that they think gay sex is disgusting. And that's fine. I don't like hearing about certain sexual acts myself and find them gross and weird. I don't need anyone else to approve or support my sex life.

And as for the part about gay marriage, I understand where most of them are coming from when they say that, too. They truly feel that their religious beliefs are under attack and that religious marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. But even many of those people will say that they don't really care if gays get legally married as long as there's some differentiation between the religious ceremony of marriage, and the legal institution of marriage, which are two different things. I personally don't need anyone to validate my marriage but me and my husband. I don't care if it's legally recognized. I don't care if it's recognized by any particular church. My marriage and my relationships are my own personal business. And there are a lot of people on the right who feel the exact same way.

So, that's the worst I've gotten from the right. Let's talk about the worst I've gotten from the supposedly gay friendly left. The following is not a complete list, but here's some of the things that I've been told by Democrats and other leftists when they find out I'm a gay right winger, both online and offline:

Kill yourself

Die faggot

You should be gay bashed

I hope you get raped by a closeted Republican politician

I hope your dog dies

Kill yourself

You're a traitor to all gay people

Kill yourself with one of those guns you love

I hope you get cancer and die horribly

I hope your husband dies

You should be sent to a concentration camp

Kill yourself

and basically every anti-gay slur you can possibly think of

That's what I get from the left, from other gay people, when they find out I vote differently then they do. Just based on these anecdotal experiences with the American right and the American left, I think it's pretty clear why I find myself on one side and not the other.

But!

I'm not a one issue voter. Gay issues are mostly meaningless to me. What I care about are personal freedoms, protecting my rights, and the success of my country on the world stage. Currently, the American right aligns with those beliefs way more than the left. That's not to say the Republican Party always aligns perfectly with what I want or believe, but the reality is we live in a two party system. Until enough of us get together and make a nationally viable third party, if the choice in presidential elections is between one party that I almost never agree with and whose stated goals are to violate my rights and destroy everything I love about America, and one party that does what I voted for them to do around half the time, of course I'm voting for the second party nationally.

Locally it can be a bit different. It's easier to effect local elections and policies just by being active, and in geographically close areas the differences between the people running for town council might not be as wide as two people running for president nationally, so I won't just vote the R party line by default. I've voted libertarian locally before. Hell, I even voted Democrat once. But, for the most part, it's the Republicans who I feel will do what I think should be done more than the other parties. And that's why I vote for them, and why I'm a registered Republican. Well, that and I want to be able to vote in the Republican primaries.

[next-station-willde-central]

Something about Nine makes me sad and happy at the same time - he's an artist; he did his own grafittis, to be exact, and that's yet another thing that differentiates him from Tails, that, as I'm aware, isn't really skilled in spraypainting

"Wait, Wild, aren't you just projecting headcanons onto your favourite character?" - nope. The proof is in his original New Yoke base:

"Oh, but it's just the creators 'prolly drawing him and placing it as a treat" - then how, in-universe, did it appear there? And why is it a drawing of Nine specifically (notice he's shown in his hoodie and off-coloured), alongside a gun (?) and, I assume, some spray tests, just like people test brushes and paints? No one else had access to his base other than Nine himself, and knowing how distrustful he is, he would not let some random street artist barge into his lair and do his portrait on the wall.

What further supports this theory is the fact he has the same drawings in the Grim... which, again, could not be accessed by anyone other than him (by the way, it seems like all the paintings were made on a movable board that Nine must've carried all the way from New Yoke, which still, why would you move THOSE DRAWINGS in particular if you weren't the author that's, I'd even say, proud of them?).

Annndddd let's also not forget the board has a drawing of a gun, like aformentioned - the same one he used to scan Sonic... is that a coincidence? I really, really don't think so.

On the ending note(s), can we talk about how he even picks colors and how he portrays himself? Because in the drawing of himself, he seems sharper and more vibrant (f.e.: his fur is phosphorescent lime-yellow, or his muzzle is literally cyan), with a bitching expression ever more amplified by the shadows around his face and a black hoodie, like he even WANTS to be viewed, even in his private home, in interior no one should even see, in a simple spray doodle, as someone dangerous, someone you would never want to cross paths with, someone shady and a little bit of not obvious (that part refers to the absolutely eyesore colours he used; unless Nine is just colorblind and doesn't know how that drawing appears to most people, buut that's more of a big speculation-theory territory that we do not get into in this post).

Second ending, it also further proves that Nine is not really Tails - sure, in the New Yoke universe he does fill the niche of being Miles Prower, same as Mangey does in Boscage Maze and Sails in No Place, but in this equation Nine =/= Tails (and some, like me, would say Nine > Tails, but we call those horrid phases opinions and we keep them under our pillows /lh). They share the basics - being super-intelligent, young foxes skilled in mechanics, inventors bullied for their two tails that overcame hardships due to their determination - but aside from that? The skeleton is identical, but everything else that's bulit upon it is completely different - this is why they aren't really the same person. Tails is a prodigy kid and a hero, accompanied by friends and a team ready to help him, and Nine is an isolated and ostracized anarchist basement dweller driven by anxiety and childhood trauma that also happens to be an artist. And a hacker. And a suprisingly good fighter. And-

And a person with his own identity - imagine stripping away his every single original trait and comparing him to a random kid that's also a "better", more successful version of him that actually won in the end.

A kid that's super great, but can the kid do those amazing grafittis like him? Nah. 1:0 for Nine, losahs' /j

--

tldr; Nine can actually spraypaint and he's good at it, as seen in his New Yoke lab/in Grim - the way he does it kind of tells his personality and thoughts; also further proves Tails and Nine are two different people and that Nine is just occupying Tails' "niche" in his Shatterverse, not directly being him

[soracities]

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?

[ceruleancattail]

Once I saw your requests were open I immediately began rolling around in my bed like a crazy fangirl fkakgkaogkw

Can I request some nightfall content of Jade and Floyd? Maybe first meetings or just how they generally are in the AU? You can so them separate or joint, since I think the chaos of dealing with the two of them at the same time would be absolutely wild lmao

YO IT’S RABIOA IN MY INBOX??? SLAY!!!!

Nightfall Floyd and Jade

Floyd x reader, Jade x reader

They never use the front door.

It’s not very good for your heart.

The soundless way they creep up behind you reminds you of long winding shadows, following your every move. Try as you might, you’ll never get rid of them.

Fingers as cold as ice, the twins seemed rather fond of touch.

Touching you, specifically.

Jade likes to slide his fingers down your neck slowly, waiting for the chill to fully settle in. His nails scratch at bits of your skin, leaving faint red trails running down the nape of your neck. They sting, a burning sensation prickling on your skin.

Floyd doesn’t wait. Grabbing your shoulders, he yanks you backwards. You’ll fall into his arms, back crashing against his chest. Wrapped in his embrace, there’s nowhere to run.

The Leech twins. From what you gather from your other patrons, they’re rather notorious in the underworld.

Octavinelle’s most devious duo.

They are often sent on missions assigned directly by the head honcho himself. Certain negotiations where the clients need a little more…persuasion.

The crime scene’s always messy whenever they’re involved. The heavy metallic stench of blood flooding your nostrils. Crimson red splattered everywhere, painting a ghastly, gory scene of death. Bullets litter the ground, some ingrained deeply into the walls. Wisps of smoke curl from those holes, metal still glowing red hot.

You’ve resolved to hold these two at arm’s length. To be wary whenever they stepped in. No matter how brightly Floyd beams at you, or how soft Jade’s voice purrs.

Take their orders and serve them. Nothing more, nothing less.

As much as their reputation preceded them, both Leechs were paying customers. You couldn’t really bring yourself to chase them off the premises. You weren’t capable of that.

Unfortunately, you’ve bared witness to how fast Floyd could draw his gun, emptying an entire round into someone’s gut. Jade’s ability to twist a person’s arm around them, breaking it with a sickening crack. On the bright side, that particular gang never came back to bother the Lantern ever again.

Somehow, Octavinelle’s most ruthless duo have taken a liking to the Lantern. Specifically, during your shifts. They’ve somehow memorised which days you come to work, to the exact minute.

When you’re opening up, Floyd wanders in. Blowing a puff of air into your ear, he’ll laugh as you yelp. Startled? It’s just Floyd, shrimpy. You can relax.

Hey, can he come in early? After all, it’s only Shrimpy on duty today. Floyd has nothing to do anyways. Might as well keep you company, yeah?

When you’re locking up the cafe, Jade’s always there. Oh, what a coincidence. He never thought he’ll bump into you. Lady Luck must be smiling down on him.

Shall he escort you home tonight? Offering you his arm like a old fashioned gentleman, he’ll walk you home, a spring in his step.

The Leechs should really stop being so nice to you, honestly. Floyd Leech with his hugs, tackling you to the ground whenever he hears you approach. Jade Leech with those slender fingers of his, gently lacing them through yours.

It’s not very good for your poor, racing heart.

[yanderefairyangel]

I don't like doing this... and I was really seriously debating on whether or not I should do this ( and I really hope this time it's the last I ever have to) but

This blog has been running for quite sometime in tumblr, about a month if my memory is right. However, this blog had very.... very weird takes

Notably anti Brodian one. But then, I checked something in the AITA blog and found.. this

This blog, whose first post is a submit to the account about shipping regarding Alear and the Fell twins of the Xenologue. And then

This blog reblogged it. Except they aren't claiming to be a side account as you can clearly tell. Now, I don't like accusing someone, however I find it very strange that scrolling both blog, not only do they have the same way to express themselves and typing quirck but both blog's first post was an entry to that AITA blog.

Do you see what I mean by "same way of typing" ? Well, that's not all. After searching, I realize that the blog they reblogged "femalealeartruther" used to be active as well

For people already aware, I already pointed out that this person was the same as chaotic flower and timerra lover, two blog that became infamous for championing the idea that F!Alear is the "true canon one" and on hating M!Alear. Evidence as follow :

I really dislike saying that but after checking the blog of aleardivine dragonmonarch, I realized they answered in the same way as THIS blog to ask they receive

The same way they answered to a blog reblogging them and this time with the femalealeartruther account

And again. Those blog all have deactivated.

As I explained I have several reason to believe that not only is femalealeartruther the same person as aleardivinedragonmonarch, but also that they are the same person as timeralover and thus with chaoticflower.

Yes, the same blog who in the right order :

claimmed you were bing racist if you didn't like Timerra's singing

claimmed that Timerra and Fogado aren't popular because people are racist

Hate constantly on Brodia and try to villify it by any means and hate Alcryst in particular

Was being rude towards fanfic authors

Insist on shipping Alcryst with F!Alear even though they hate him

Call anyone who prefer M!Alear over F!Alear sexist

Admitted to have stolen an idea of fanfic for an Alearcryst fic that was shared on Discord and trying to make belive it was their idea first

Have apparently lied on their age multiple times

The thing is that each time they claimmed to be a different person who had nothing to with the person who deleted their account... despite the obvious

Each time they come back with a new obsession and a new way to stir out drama and this time, it's because they dont like the fact that they dislike seeing Alear being shipped with Nel or Rafal and won't block or mute the ship instead they tried to prove that this ship is "problematic" (which imo when you do that it's not a good look for you at all ngl it come across as controlling and mean spirited)

Also, I should say it right away but chaotic flower has apparently displayed such behaviour in other fandom such as genshin and twisted wonderland

I could be wrong but again I find it very strange that several account that hates Brodia, claim F!Alear is the canon one, hates M!Alear ship Alearcryst, insist that the Fell twins are Alear's sibling because of an headcanon and express themselves in the very same manner and keep intereacting with the AITA blog with it always being their FIRST post and regularly hosting polls to test which of F!Alear or M!Alear people prefer would all be run by completely different people.

Also.. again, searching, I realized that a lot of the reblogs that were taking side of OP were having the exact same type quirk and scrolling through their blog there is none to little content which are limited to intereaction with the AITA blog and rebloging from the same blog as aleardivinedragonmonarch and weird captions such as never mentionning which is their main account and all

The last one I am SURE I saw the account femalealeartruther at SOME point reply with the exact same arguments.

If somehow they are different person, then this must be one heck of a coincidence

What does Op says ? They are denying it

However I am clearly not the only one who noticed it

(so yeah they kept spamming the inbox of the blog with Alear related ask and F!Alear in particular)

(all of this because of ship I just can't-)

Keep in mind that those are just several thing I noticed and I am kinda worried to see that this person keeps comming back with a new identity pretending to be a different person and well, cause drama.

Also, OP if you read this. Again, I must reiterate. You are welcome in this fandom as long as you STOP doing this sheet right here. That's just baffling that each time you make a blog and then deactivate it all to come back with a new obsession. And each time you pretend to be someone else. Why can't you just run a blog without trying to spark the flame of discourse ? The block button exist, the mute button exist. It's up to you to curate your own online experience and if you are indeed a minor as you claimed several time you were yet keep insisting on having this behaviour, then maybe it's a sign that you are not mature enough to be on social media. Especially since you speak as F!Alear as if she was a real person and not just a fictional being. I am sure that if you properly apologized and admitted your mistake instead of having several blog running to pretend to be another person just to prove that you are right people would actually forgive you.

As for other especially Alear, Alcryst and the Fell twins fans, I am advicing you to block this person and avoid any intereaction with them. This isn't an invitation to harass this person, if anything just block them.

Update

Both account ended up deactivating.

AT THE SAME TIME !!!

[onehundredandeleventropicalfish]

Dream has a nasty habit of giving advice and not taking it himself:

He tells Orpheus to grieve for Euridice(I'm not sure if I spelled that right) and then get over the loss, but he never got over Orpheus' death;

He tells Hob that taking away someone's free will is dishonorable. Yet he imprisons Nada and unmakes Gault for defying him;

He warns the fox lady against revenge but he wastes his precious energy on trapping Alex's mind in a nightmare after he gets freed.

He's such a bastard and I love him

He loves and cares so deeply for everyone, yet he's petty and spiteful. He never stops loving yet he can be so cruel to those he cares about

I don't remember where but I read this somewhere about Dream: "he can love without forgiveness and forgive without love" and I think that sums up Dream pretty nicely. He's full of contradictions and that's what makes me love him as a character so much

you know, ironically, while it's absolutely true that dream can be hypocritical, you're definitely not wrong, those first two actually aren't, as far as he sees the world

because the thing that hurts dream the most is that he cannot see himself as a living being - he is endless, he has a purpose, that's the extent of his existence

and therefore he doesn't dream, doesn't have a story, shouldn't want things for himself

and this is why he causes his own tragedy, because he is a person and he does need the things that make up someone's life, but he refuses to believe so

so when he's talking to orpheus, the important part here is "you are mortal, it is the mortal way"

dream would benefit greatly from being allowed to mourn orpheus, but he can't, he has a job to do, and allowing himself to grieve would interfere with his purpose. so he has no choice, he has to bury it

"so live" only applies to orpheus, as far as dream's concerned, because he doesn't think the endless live

gault falls under the exact same logic. dream sees his creations as extensions of him and is always surprised when they go beyond that. and if he's not allowed a life of his own, if he has to spend eternity fulfilling his purpose as it was given to him, they do too. they're not mortal, they don't live, and thus they don't have free will

(i'm honestly super curious to see what happens in the show from here because gault didn't exist in the comics, and dream actually acknowledging she was right is a major step forward that comic dream never managed to make)

and nada had free will

she just didn't think she did

that's how hell (or any afterlife) works, in the sandman universe, there is no being that judges it. death doesn't decide where you go, and neither does anyone else. you go where you believe you should

which is what makes sure people get to the right afterlife for their particular religion, but also it means that everyone in hell believes they deserve to be there

dream may have put her there, but he didn't have the power to keep her there. when she says "only your forgiveness can free me", that doesn't mean dream has to formally pardon her, it means she can only leave when she stops feeling like she was in the wrong here. and a part of her hates him for this, but a part of her is also stuck feeling guilty, and that's what's keeping her in hell. it's still a shitty move on dream's part, don't get me wrong, but when he said that to hob he was not currently doing anything to prevent her free will. had she truly decided what dream did was unfair, she could have left

revenge, however, that's where you're absolutely right. dream knows, on so many levels, that revenge causes more problems than it solves, and yet this is the one indulgence into human feelings he actually allows himself

he tells the fox not to, he tells hob revenge is a bad idea, he's constantly explaining to people he cares about not to take revenge because it will get them hurt. he is the prince of stories, and he knows how revenge stories end

(destruction even says he was disappointed that dream is still viewing everyone as stories, he'd hoped one day dream would realise people are people)

dream, though. dream doesn't have a story, so who says his revenge has to end in tragedy? he pushes down all his emotions for the sake of the world but anger doesn't want to leave, anger is good at convincing you it deserves to stay, anger can be righteous

if everyone else is just a story, well, the end is that they get what's coming to them. they deserve to be punished for hurting the people dream cares about, and who better to ensure the end of the story than him?

(and he doesn't realise how much his own emotions are influencing those decisions. he thinks he's being rational. he's not. what you were saying about him being both loving and spiteful always makes me think of orpheus - he loved his son more than anything in the world, he was a genuinely good dad and he did everything in his power to keep orpheus from tragedy. but then when orpheus ignored him and got hurt anyway, dream couldn't help but be angry at orpheus for causing their entire family so much pain, and that's why he walked away)

all the endless have different ways in which they see themselves in comparison to mortal beings. the more emotionally healthy ones realise that there's very little difference between the two. and then you get desire who explicitly admitted (in internal narration) that their entire sanity is hinging on believing that they are in control of the universe, they physically can't believe dream when he says they serve humanity and not the other way around. and dream, who sees everything and everyone as a story, except himself

he's not a living being, he doesn't follow their rules. he's not playing the game, he's the referee

except that's not and never was true

and that is the root of all of dream's problems

[wild-karrde]

I'm gonna say something, and it's not targeted at any one user in particular because I've seen this ramping up A LOT across the fandom, especially with the premiere coming this week.

People are allowed to have different expectations/hopes/opinions than you, and that's not a personal attack on anyone. They are allowed to do that.

You can hope a character comes back from the dead. In a franchise that has practically written the joke that only Qui-Gon Jinn can't survive a lightsaber to the chest, I think it's more than fair to hope Tech re-emerges (I have my own EXCEPTIONALLY dark theories on how that may go, but we'll see). It's also ok for you to want him to stay dead. You are completely allowed to think that his arc hard run its course and his death served a purpose.

You can like the clones' physique as it's portrayed. You can prefer them thicker. And having one of these opinions is not an attack on the other.

You can want a happy ending for the Bad Batch and can be sad if it doesn't happen. That's allowed. You can also expect them to all die and to have our souls crushed. And wanting one of those doesn't make you "naive" or "too dark" or whatever adjective for not expecting the other.

I could go on and on with examples, but all to say there's this weird passive aggressive atmosphere going on right now where people post one thing, and others in the same circles/community feel the need to post the exact opposite like it's some kind of weird debate. There's posts circulating that feel borderline shaming for people that have particular hopes for the season. This is Tumblr. People just post stuff that makes them happy. Posting something you enjoy or have a theory about on a show isn't an attack on someone else or their opinions. And if you don't like someone's opinions THAT MUCH, then just unfollow them. It's really that simple. I've done it without saying a word to the person I disagreed with.

It's just really strange to me that a community that thrives off of theories and possibilities and different character interpretations and twisting threads of canon into complex stories based on a single line of dialogue or passing glance would be getting chippy with one another for having the same types of theories and hopes for undetermined canon. This is media we all love, so can we please let each other have our individual thoughts and opinions about it? I have had PLENTY of differing opinions with my friends on here about things I did/didn't like in a show. They're still my friends though.

In addition, can we all remember that just because something doesn't turn out the way you wanted, that doesn't mean it's bad; sometimes, sure, it's bad, but what I've found is that most likely means it just wasn't for you. And that's fine. Not everything can/should be for you. So go write a fic about it. Seriously. We all live for AUs. Go do it.

Let's all just be kind to one another, yeah? Because lately it feels like we're stepping on one another's excitement, and I'm not here for that.

[utilitycaster]

Hey! Because I have seen various, various, various takes on Ashton’s actions in ep77– both on twitter (whew) and on here— and I am loving all of the different perspectives on it, I was wondering what your opinion was on the take that Ashton may have manipulated Fearne in the conversation they both had right before absorbing the shard.

Personally, I feel like it may be a bit more complicated than that, but I still don’t know.

Hey!

I think this post I made sums it up. It's not. Ashton tells Fearne precisely what they intend to do. He then does it. Fearne has the opportunity to refuse this request, or to tell the rest of Bells Hells, and she chooses not to. Yes, he compliments her and tells her that he trusts her to do the right thing when most wouldn't. Laudna asks Imogen to kill her if Delilah takes over in virtually the same exact language earlier than episode, and I don't think that's manipulative either:

Laudna to Imogen: And if anything happens and I become her little puppet, I trust you to make the right choice. (Implication this is a request for a mercy killing in the context of Delilah and Laudna's lives being inseparable; is understood as such by Imogen as demonstrated from her response and her later scene in the temple)

Ashton to Fearne: Things are going to happen, and I trust you to help me make the right decision, and I hope you trust me to help make the right decision.

The fact one is being brought up and not the other really points out that the Twitter talks out their collective ass ten times more often than they do their collective mouth; and the fact that they cannot distinguish "put Fearne in a somewhat uncomfortable position" from manipulation really points out that touching grass is not enough; they need to develop meaningful relationships with a wide variety of people in the real world.

Going along with a friend's stupid-ass decision that they encouraged you to join in and immediately regretting it is not, in fact, manipulation; it's your friend at most being kind of a dick and you exercising your agency to make your own stupid-ass decisions. It would have been wiser and nicer of Ashton to ask the party who wanted to take the shard, sure, but Fearne actively agrees with them that they should get it, and Ashton is not really defined by wisdom and being nice, and also, the above would be way more boring.

I don't want to go into this because it's a massive out-of-scope rant not limited to this particular situation, and I'd like to drag my sleep schedule back into a reasonable place tonight, but I think a lot of the more rancid discourse, whatever it may be but especially about interpersonal relationships between characters, arises for the following reasons, and I have little patience for any of them.

Thinking the only way to be a Good Person is to use 2023-approved therapy speak (and, frankly, frequently 2023 Rando on Tiktok claiming expertise who is actually a freshman psych students with no friends and a D average approved "therapy speak")

Relatedly, an all-consuming fear of any conflict, fictional, real, or otherwise, and the accompanying lack of any conflict resolution skills; this is also why they think this is manipulative, because if Fearne said no, that would be Conflict which is bad so positioning someone where conflict might be required for them to express themselves must be evil.

The genuine belief that you can only understand someone if you get everything right on the first try; either you read their mind perfectly or you have failed and are probably a manipulator or abuser for potentially leading to misunderstandings which lead to conflict which, as we see from the above point, is evil.

A refusal to admit that sometimes people are merely 1. assholes or 2. stupid. I frequently talk about opinions I cannot stand, and I almost as frequently get questions about how this opinion is problematic, and the vast majority of the time? It's not. I think it says something quite worrying, actually, that people are more comfortable and even eager to assume that a stranger is hateful or bigoted rather than merely inconsiderate or not that bright. Ashton made a poorly informed decision and made Fearne party to it. It was dumb and it wasn't really nice. That's literally it.

Anyway here's the five geek social fallacies; I recommend reading any Twitter Take(TM) and deciding how many of them they are applying to the narrative, cast, and fandom. See if you can get a full house.

(also upon re-reading this I'm pretty brusque and I promise it's not directed at you; I just genuinely think that the majority of the Twitter fandom, and certainly the loudest voices thereof, are so stupid a Detect Thoughts spell on them would fail on the basis of intelligence alone and the fact that their takes gain traction baffles and infuriates me)

[anghraine]

Long, rambling, general post (with some detours into Austen + SW):

I find the academic obsession with novelty (at least in my field) rather irritating and in some ways actively harmful. But I've been thinking about it as I work on my dissertation, and there is an underlying concept I do find important.

Over here, I'm pretty content to scream my opinions at no one in particular, and have fun if people end up (courteously) answering back. But while there are commonalities between fandom meta practices and academia, a major difference (again, at least in my field) is that in academia, you essentially have to familiarize yourself with the wider community and discourse, and engage with it.

In literature, at least, it's important that you're not just reaching interpretations in a functional vacuum—interpretations that may well have been reached and argued thoroughly and well before. If you've got something fresh to contribute to the overall conversation, okay—maybe you basically agree with another interpretation but feel it could be expanded upon or there are some nuances that got missed. But the conversation doesn't particularly benefit from people just echoing the exact some interpretations over and over without adding or modifying them at all.

To put it another way, not everyone needs to (or should) cover every interpretation they agree with. This is not exactly literary criticism's reputation, but it's fundamentally social. Not everyone needs to do everything. Different people can and should cover different ground, and the general discussion benefits from this.

But this post isn't really about academia.

I think there's some real value in this idea that not everyone needs to be seen to repeat every correct take, or every take they agree with. Sometimes you're not really equipped to add anything. Sometimes you're not the best judge of a particular issue because it's not in your ballpark. Sometimes the ground has been so thoroughly covered in wider social discourse that you don't really need to add to it.

And I think this is especially important when it comes to the Internet firehose. People essentially repeating the same thing over and over and over without adding anything significant is a major way that ideas—including mistaken ideas—spread so quickly. Sometimes it's fairly inane jokes that become inescapable for an OP or within a fandom or whatever (book Isildur fans unite!). Sometimes it's mistaken or irrelevant corrections that someone/some people get bombarded with because no one bothers to check if the corrections have been made already. Sometimes it's the same reply ad nauseam, which quickly becomes intensely irritating while adding nothing. Sometimes it's worse than that—wrongheaded or exaggerated attacks on someone's character that get launched at the person incessantly, or active disinformation.

But basically, I think it's worth considering the shape of the overall discussion when you're considering what you specifically are going to contribute to it, if anything. Sometimes this is very serious. Sometimes it's a minimal consideration for others and for your impact on the general atmosphere in a fandom or some other social context.

For instance: back in 2005, when the Keira Knightley/Matthew Macfadyen Pride and Prejudice came out, my part of Austen fandom was having absolute conniptions over it. Some of this was over literally any adaptation of P&P ever being made after the 1995 mini-series (especially anyone else ever playing Darcy). Some of this was over claims that the 2005 P&P was generally more Brontë than Austen. Some of it had to do with particular contractions, or certain depictions of characters, jokes, aesthetics, dialogue, etc. I remember very serious articles about how it was a flash in the pan that would soon disappear from cultural consciousness (lol).

I actually share a number of the criticisms, as it happens! But I thought (and still think) that the collective outrage was ... excessive, at best. So I mostly didn't talk about my personal gripes because they already seemed to disproportionately dominate the conversation (to me, etc), and I didn't want to add to it. But it interests me that people have sometimes assumed that not personally adding to the griping about it means that I love it (and often, that I need to be corrected from doing so!). The same thing happens with particular ships or dynamics I don't like but don't want to add to discourse about.

I've definitely erred in the other direction. I used to talk quite a bit more about my criticisms of the Star Wars prequels, for instance, which I later regretted despite still having those criticisms. The fandom rage was just so over the top and everything covered so exhaustively and excessively by others that it (very belatedly) started to feel like adding to it was kind of like kicking a dog.

On the flipside, sometimes the firehose is pointed the opposite way from my personal opinion, and even if that opinion is just a mousy little cheep amidst the roar of approval/disapproval, voicing it seems more appropriate to me than joining a stampede of disproportionate hatred. Or sometimes the general discourse is pretty mixed and you just have to exercise judgment about your role in it (I've definitely gone for "I see a lot of debate on this point and hell with it, I get a place in the ring, too").

But in any case, I think that the pressure to be seen to have a take all the time and the assumptions made about people if they don't individually weigh in on ... basically everything is really misguided. We're social creatures! Sometimes ground has already been thoroughly covered. Sometimes it's been covered far too much. And I think stopping to think of what we're really adding, even when we're not plodding through reviews of the literature in academia, can be worth attempting.

[centipedelightning]

Hey. Hey psstttt Valentine you should totally tell us all the ways Papyrus shows his Autismcore Swagger(tm) 👁️ 👁️

This is gonna be a dissertation good god. Toni you don’t know what you’ve brought into the world. Also this isn’t really gonna be a “look at all the way’s he Is autistic!!” As much as look at all the correct reasons he’s autistic so I will be covering a lot of character misconceptions.

The correct and lore accurate reasons why Papyrus is autistic (and debunking some incorrect points bc I can’t stand misinformation) in no particular order. A whole lot more under cut.

Safe Food

a lot of people consider spaghetti to be Papyrus’ safe food or something but papyrus hasn’t even eaten his own food.

You might be able to argue that him making spaghetti all the time is a weird habit or missed social cue, but it isn’t a “safe food”. Hell, him not eating his own food is why he constantly misses social cues about how it’s actually super bad.

Face Blind

Is face blindness an autism trait? Tbh I’m not sure, but I‘m autistic and mildly face blind so I’m bringing it up. Papyrus seems relatively unable to tell the difference between faces. He does not recognize that Toriel is a different person from Asgore.

You might also be able to make a case about how he refers to Frisk as “Human” the whole time because he can’t differentiate than from others but that’s not really a strong point, so it’s being skipped.

Sarcasm/Humor

Humor is under this section for a very important reason: PAPYRUS’ MAIN SENSE OF HUMOR IS DEADPAN SARCASM. I’m not sure where people got the idea that he misses sarcasm tbh.

He’s joking here.

Another joke.

Listen, I am autistic and make the exact same types of jokes. Deadpan, obvious lies are so funny, but people usually miss that it’s a joke. That’s the case here. He’s just making jokes without making it clear with tone or phrasing that it’s a joke.

I just want to highlight some of his wordplay/puns bc people refuse to acknowledge that he likes puns too.

Another joke. Also he has a style of humor where he just stumbles into what he thinks is funny and commits to the bit even if the joke doesn’t really work and he’s so real for it.

Difficulty Lying

I don’t have any screenshots for this section because I’m not actually sure where people came up with this. Maybe it’s that his lies are super easy to see through, but he actually lies All The Time.

This is jumping ahead a bit, but the reason Papyrus’ speech is all caps is because he’s lying. If you go back a bit and reference fighting Migosp, until you get rid of the Whimsum that fights with them, they’ll speak in all caps. Once you spare the Whimsum, the Migosp’s case goes standard because it is not putting up a front.

Papyrus speaks in all caps because he is constantly lying about how cool and confidant he is. In reality, he’s very lonely person with a lot of insecurities.

If I can find the post about case setting and lying that I saw years ago, I’ll link it here.

Special Interests

He absolutely has a special interest in puzzles/puzzle making.

he spends a lot of his time making, thinking, and reading about puzzles. There’s no way this isn’t his main special interest. He also gets annoyed that Sans doesn’t recalibrate his puzzles as often which is so reflective of someone that’s into your special interest but not as much, so you get really annoyed when they aren’t as involved as you are.

tbh he might be joking here but if taken as a fact, that’s not normal!! That is not a normal level of enjoying something! (If true) he walked his ass over to the cliff and spent who knows how long painting it to make it look like a rope bridge, all for the sake of one puzzle. That’s autism levels of liking things baby.

He also has a lot of robot action figures so I’m saying he likes to collect them bc I collects dolls. MTT might also be a special interest, but I think it’s more that Mettaton is like the only celebrity other than Undyne down there.

Misses Social Cues

This one is easy and the most obvious. Very often Papyrus will miss social cues and facial expressions.

We know that his food is practically inedible, so this would obviously not be a scrunch of pleasure.

And here we see that he completely misreads Frisk’s face. Maybe he’s intentionally being dense but I highly doubt it. This paired with the supposed face blindness is screaming autism.

Voice Level

…..

I think people aren’t gonna like this one but it’s so often cited as a reason he’s autistic that I need to acknowledge it. I don’t think Papyrus has a volume issue. I think if the theory about all caps=lying then we can pretty safely assume all caps are not inherently indicative of loud speaking.

Undyne is a loud character. A lot of her voice lines end with lots of exclamation marks and very expressive sprites. She specifically only has words in all caps for emphasis because italics (as far as I can recall) aren’t used. Papyrus, on the other hand, is always in all caps, but rarely has things like added exclamation points to denotaste loudness.

That’s all to say I don’t have a strong opinion about the matter. You can bring up how, psychologically, people tend to raise or lift their voices in volume or octave when telling lies, so Papyrus may still be a louder character than most.

Love of Organizing

This one I found while looking for certain voice lines so there’s not much commentary.

He greatly appreciates when things are organized in a certain way, and especially when that way is visual.

Echolalia/Making Up Words

Another small section.

small example of repeating words (echolalia)

One of a few examples of him making up words

Difficulty Making Friends

Yeah this is one of the few sections people so manage to correctly cite. Papyrus has a huge problem making friends. Hell, most of his voice lines are about how he wants friends and capturing a human/joining the Royal Guard will get him that.

Other than his brother, Undyne is the only person Papyrus can really call a friend. Even then, the only reason the two are friends is because Undyne pitied him and agreed to “train” him. That’s not exactly standard friend making.

When Papyrus does have the chance to make a friend a bit more normally, he gets a manual from the Library.

*note that this voice line is only from the hangout, if the player chose to flirt with him, i would be a dating manual*

Do you think allistics need a manual on how to act normal and make friends? No of course not. He also is very strict in following the manual closely as to make sure he makes a friend “properly”.

he’s flying blind here y’all.

Also, he’s very emotionally intelligent and I think people overlook that. In the hangout, he’ll tell the player that he doesn’t like how they’re speaking to him and gives them genuine (and good) advice about having more than on friend so you don’t obsess over/overwhelm said friend.

Routine

Unless Sans was joking, which in this case I doubt, Papyrus has been wearing his battle body every day. For weeks.

It’s a comfort item and something that he clearly has gotten very comfortable having on all the time.

Whether or not the puzzles need recalibration, Papyrus makes it clear he has a set routine and needs it to be done. This specific screenshot is also an example of the “wanting people to be as into your special interest as you are” thing I mentioned earlier.

Strong Sense of Justice

Papyrus feels very bad telling a lie that conflicts with his friendships, and has to come up with a convoluted reason to eat around it.

I don't think this needs further commentary.

That’s all folks! I can’t say just how exhaustive this meta is, but it’s damn near it. I tried to pull up a list of basic autistic traits but gave up once damn near immediately. Autism Speaks I am hunting you down. Anyway, there’s more examples I could have pulled but I really dont want this to be a mile long post.