#long theory post

[the-nosy-neighbor]

More on A Cricket on the Hearth

In Dickens’s version, we have more characters, the story is from the viewpoint of the Peerybingles, John and Dot.  They are a couple with a large age difference and they have a new baby.  They know a toymaker named Caleb who works for a jerk named Tackleton, who is going to marry Mary, who is an old school friend of Dot.  Mary used to be engaged to Caleb’s son, Edward, who went off and died in South America.  Dot doesn’t want to marry Tackleton, but her mom is making her do it.

John brings home an elderly guy who was hitchhiking and the old guy invites himself to stay.  Tackleton comes to John and says that Dot is stepping out, which worries John.  They go peeping and see that the old man is actually a young man in disguise, who is young and hot without the disguise and has his arm around Dot’s waist.  John is heartbroken.  He thinks about killing the guy, while he sits in front of the fireplace brooding, but then a cricket chirps and turns into a fairy that shows him Dot’s past and how she is a good person.  In the end decides to be the bigger person (and not murder her!) and divorce her so she can be happy with the young hotness.  

It all comes out and it turns out that the young man is Edward, who finally made his way back to discover that May was going to marry Tackleton and decided to go in secret to see if she still loves him.  Dot helps them find a moment to talk, and they get hitched.  Dot didn’t tell her husband because he is a bumbling idiot.  All is well.  I guess except for Tackleton, I suppose.

What that means in Welcome Home context, I am not sure, but I have some half-formed ideas.  This story became popular at the time, and brass crickets around the fireplace became a thing.  I believe it was a common gift.  Example below:

We are used to having bugs around, and I thought we had a cricket, but the wiki calls it a mantis and those sure look like mantis front legs:

So, it is a tradition, but one that honestly hasn’t been around for a while.  At least, not where I am.  It might still be popular in England?  The internet only has references to it being obscure and there are tons of little articles and essays like mine above, enjoying this forgotten thing and how weird it is.   

The subtitle is interesting, though.  “A Fairy Tale of Home.”  The home is central to the story, in that the cricket stays around there, and it’s supposed to be a general good luck thing.  Generally in literature and myth, the hearth is like the heart of the home, and is closely associated with the positive aspects of home and family.  Hera and other goddesses are generally described as “of the hearth,” and not of the home.  If you get really weird about it, the hearth is comparable to a womb (I looked it up, it’s not just me, whew).  And the toys are something that figured in prominently in the update, but most Christmas things have toys in some form.

Fairy tale, though. I wonder if that is the important part of the title for our purposes. I'm going to have to think about that.

I did pull some frames that remind me of Welcome Home.  

The pic below Eddie is Edward from the cartoon special.  For one, the names are pretty similar.  Edward’s last name is Plummer, of the toymaker and blind daughter Plummers.  The last name is a reference to a person who works with lead, maybe pipes = plummer.  Thank god they got out of that field.  I wonder if this is one of Clown’s references for Eddie?  I went and looked at the references Clown used in an answer to an ask, and it included “It’s a Small World” and Special Delivery Kluger from a Christmas special called Santa Claus is Coming to Town.  But that is a very specific reference, and Clown does have a love of animated specials and kids’ shows. I think it is still a possibility that this was a reference for Clown when designing Eddie.

Another reason I posted that pic of Eddie is that it has images overlaid, and I saw it in his eyes first.  When I saw the reflection of the figure in the eye (from the previous post), I thought, “this is something Clown would do and probably has done.”

There is something about the way the cuckoo clock background is drawn.  The wash that is on the background does feel like it is an influence, though instead of a blue we get a black/red effect.  

How about this:  When Eddie has his freakout, we are getting a purely external view of what Eddie is going through.  What if he is having a Dickensian experience in his mind?  Maybe not ghosts, per say, though you could say that there are ghosts overlaid on most of the images in the Homewarming content.  (below is me torturing this pic to see what is overlaid on the top)

Just out of sight, and I have pointed out a few different instances where this almost invisible layering is happening.  Could we be seeing what someone would see watching Scrooge have his out of body experience?

Clown has stated that hard work and being useful is Eddie’s reason for living.  Is there some reason that he feels this way, especially where Christmas packages are concerned?  What if he is going against some kind of moral Homewarming code that earns him an experience equivalent to Scrooge.

Also, Cricket Crocket is mentioned in this cartoon, so what if the pea on the plate is not only an expression of solitude and loneliness (and an all seeing eye, more on that to come), but is also a reference to the stingy dinner the Crocketts were going to have before Scrooge got it together and brought them food?  Side note, in Muppet Christmas Carol, which is the far superior version (Scrooged is a close second), they bring a giant uncooked turkey and every time I think “how are they going to eat that before tomorrow because it is going to take 12 hours to cook in a fireplace?”

Seeing the clock speed up and slow down in Home could be related to this idea of all of the spirits doing this in the same night, this manipulation of time.  Eddie sees himself in a room full of giant toys, and he is dwarfed in the middle.  Out of body, out of time, surrounded by strangeness.

I’m not suggesting that it is a Christmas past, present, and future kind of thing, but I’m suggesting a reference to a supernatural level experience that fits into Dickens’s works.  Like the references Clown has made to Eddie’s extreme commitment to his work, he may feel similarly about the holiday, hence why he was so excited to help Poppy.  He was performing the duties that he is supposed to do on Homewarming.  The fact that he didn’t follow the tradition, since there were no packages to deliver, could be a clue to where the breakdown occurs.  

I may have to read some more of Dicken’s holiday stuff to see if there is a stronger connection.  But I do think that I have some more to write about Eddie, regarding this theme and applying the themes introduced with Poppy.  

[trainer-sean]

Mollie is also in a cage in Rambley rush, somehow. Maybe it symbolizes that the Ai are locked up somewhere, and Salem has corrupted the Bio-mascots(as I've been calling the monsters). Considering the implied Abuse they must have gone through from the Park Staff(willing to bet they didn't even get proper Animal caretakers). Also the possible Supernatural forces in this setting, considering a Rambleberry somehow popped out of Rambley rush.

Maybe Salem can possess her Bio-Salem counterpart, or she herself(im gonna assume Salem is female, just gives off the Female punk vibe for me) has leapt from Cyberspace, into Reality(like the Rambleberry, but this could even be more dangerous then we think, considering what can be designed in Cyberspace, I'm sure some of us have watched Digimon enough to know what kind of damage a Digital entity can do in the physical world). Maybe even Fused herself with her Bio-counterpart for all we know. The potion in Rambley Rush probably symbolizes her influence in how she got the Bio-mascots to go wild, which lead to Indigo Park being shut down. And considering Bird Up(the Indigo Park brand soda) is still out, its a Corporation similar to Disney(even if that wasn't obvious before), where they have multiple assets and money, that they could cover up what shutdown the park.

In a Previous shot, from a Trailer, it shows the game takes place in 2023/2024(can't remember which one, sorry) so can't really be the future.

There's also the concern on how the Bio-Mascots are sustaining themselves. They've been trapped in the park for 8 years, alone, sure something small like Bio-Mollie COULD sustain itself on rats if need be, but I doubt the rest of them as big as they are can't sustain themselves the way things are. Maybe they don't NEED to eat, but have the instinctual need or desire to, considering Bio-Lloyd dragged Bio-Mollie's dead body back to his den to eat her. Possibly another supernatural thing to do with the park.

Indigo Park theory

Okay, here we go.

Salem the Skunk, (if you played the arcade game), we found out they're like a villain or like a troublemaker to Rambley and his friends. They said Salem is a cunning, brilliant mind, and uses countless inventions it says on one of its posts. When you play the arcade game, Salem mentions their smokescreen works to crash Mollie's plane. They've been working on some 'potions' they have been experimenting on squirrels.

When they used it on Mollie, it made her probably into a bloodthirsty monster. "Now with none o' that "friendship" garbage stopping her from tearing you to pieces!" And what did Mollie do when our MC met her, she tears the MC into pieces. On Rambley's Railroad, we meet his friends (And Lloyd. I'm putting on a bet he's like a cowardly lion. He acted too innocent during the game.) on the railroad tracks, but Rambley starts to glitch on Salem's track and the place is damaged into pieces and a bit of a pile of blood there too.

It shows enough proof that Rambley, Mollie, Lloyd, and all of the cast are AI-sentient. And that also includes Salem too. Every popular mascot must have a villain who wants to destroy the main character. Salem became too intelligent and aware of their surroundings. In their program and data base, their only goal is to destroy friendship. And since they can only do that behind the screen, they perhaps can make a virus.

The same virus that was created in the 'potion'. Causing the mascots, Mollie, and everything to go out of control and cause chaos. Rambley seems to be the only survivor from the virus, but when he's close to Salem's track, he can't mention them, causing him to malfunction. Salem must have done something for Rambley to be confused about why the park shut down and why all of his friends were acting strange.

Another thing I couldn't figure or it might be shown during future chapters. Rambley is the only character who doesn't have the mascot animatronic or a live mascot. We've seen Mollie and Lloyd, they're blood and flesh. Finley is probably like them too.

We know the park is definitely hiding something in there. And somehow creating all the characters into a living being. So this is probably set in the future. Mollie and Lloyd could have been friendly and fun for all children and adults for who knows how long, yet all of a sudden, something causes them to act different and vicious. All except Rambley, who also wants to figure out what happened to the park and his friends.

[nondivisable]

I need to say something and I need y'all to be calm

if it isn't actively bad or harmful, no representation should be called "too simple" or "too surface level"

I have a whole argument for this about the barbie movie but today I wanna talk about a show called "the babysitters club" on Netflix

(obligatory disclaimer that I watched only two episodes of this show so if it's super problematic I'm sorry) (yes. I know it's based on a book, this is about the show)

this is a silly 8+ show that my 9 year old sister is watching and it manages to tackle so many complex topics in such an easy way. basic premise is these 13 year old girls have a babysitting agency.

in one episode, a girl babysits this transfem kid. the approach is super simple, with the kid saying stuff like "oh no, those are my old boy clothes, these are my girl clothes". they have to go to the doctor and everyone is calling the kid by her dead name and using he/him and this 13 year old snaps at like a group of doctors and they all listen to her. it's pure fantasy and any person versed in trans theory would point out a bunch of mistakes.

but after watching this episode, my little sister started switching to my name instead of my dead name and intercalating he/him pronouns when talking about me.

one of the 13 years old is a diabetic and sometimes her whole personality is taken over by that. but she has this episode where she pushes herself to her limit and passes out and talks about being in a coma for a while because of not recognizing the limits of her disability.

and this allowed my 9 year old sister to understand me better when I say "I really want to play with you but right now my body physically can't do that" (I'm disabled). she has even asked me why I'm pushing myself, why I'm not using my crutches when I complain about pain.

my mom is 50 years old and watching this show with my sister. she said the episode about the diabetic girl helped her understand me and my disability better. she grew up disabled as well, but she was taught to shut up and power through.

yes, silly simple representation can annoy you if you've read thousands of pages about queer liberation or disability radical thought, but sometimes things are not for you.

[glindauplland]

AGATHA ALL ALONG | 1.08 & 1.09 + TUMBLR REACTIONS

[disgracedaantt]

ok wait. hallucination/dream jackie actually brings up a great point! shauna is possibly the worst communicator out of the yellowjackets! she deceives, she lies, she covers things up and then gets mad when people don't know what she wants. like girl, jackie had NO idea that you didn't want to be called shipman. she didn't know you liked jeff, she didn't know you resented her or how inferior she made you feel because you never fucking told her! the crux of like 99% of jackieshaunas issues stems from the fact that shauna is incapable of communicating issues before they bubble over into fits of rage! which shauna knows! because when she told jackie she was bothered by the dress/randi hookup thing in season 1 jackie immediately dropped it! COMMUNICATE SHAUNA!!! pls for the sake of literally everyone COMMUNICATE!

[maridoodles]

i put too much thought into the backing cards for my new charms

you can shop these charms here

[powdermelonkeg]

Slowpoke Tails - Shed vs Chopped

Okay, so there's something of a discrepancy between how Slowpoke tails are treated by the Pokémon franchise. Initially, it was understood that these are a tasty, unethical luxury item, starting in Gold/Silver/Crystal and mirrored in Heartgold/Soulsilver:

The whole plot here is that Team Rocket has taken the Slowpoke in the Azalea Slowpoke Well and chopped their tails off to sell on the black market. These run for a whopping 1,000,000 PD a pop ($10k in USD).

But then, in later generations, it's said that Slowpoke tails fall off naturally. In fact, they're a crucial part of both Alolan AND Galarian cuisine:

The curry ingredient even sells for a measly 2,200 PD ($22 USD).

So what gives? Why is it a Million-Poké black market item when you can get a package off your local hiker?

Easy. Sweetness.

Slowpoke use their tails to fish for food. Typically, they do this by dipping their tails into the water, then letting the current catch the sweet sap they give off and bring it to hungry Water-types.

When a Slowpoke sheds its tail, it's because the tail's ability to generate sap has dried up. It's no longer useful as fishing bait, so the Slowpoke has to either get rid of the tail, or starve.

Shed Slowpoke tails, the ones commonly available for cooking, aren't sweet in the slightest—they're more like heavily-marbled tuna steaks, somewhere between beef and fish with a lot of fat dripping from them, and a rich umami flavor.

Chopped Slowpoke tails, the kind you find on the black market, are a completely different experience. The meat is more tender, the flavor a lot more delicate, with a sweetness permeating it that's a lot like the honey glaze on a ham.

Naturally, chopped Slowpoke tail then becomes a novel experience. Because you have to take it from a Slowpoke, you can't just find it lying around.

So why, then, is it illegal enough for Rocket to move in on? Why is Slowpoke farming or hunting for those sweet tails not a thing? They still grow them back afterwards, so what's the deal?

The problem with chopping a Slowpoke's tail off is that, even though it regenerates, its body wasn't ready to do so. This can cause a whole lot of complications for the poor thing.

A tail doesn't regenerate from nothing, for starters: every time you cut a tail off unexpectedly, the Slowpoke's body rushes to make a replacement, using up its body's fat reserves. This causes VERY rapid and dangerous weight loss, and a frankly ridiculous amount of stress.

Incorrect cuts can cause deformities, like a tail growing back too short, not being able to make enough sweetness to bait fish Pokémon, or even Espeon-tail syndrome, where the tail splits into two at the end.

And, perhaps most egregiously of all, a cut too high might mean the Slowpoke never regrows its tail at all. If you cut into anything that's not specifically tail tissue, the body will begin the scarring process over the wound, removing the Pokémon's ability to fish and evolve. And while it can learn to survive by fishing manually, like its evolutionary counterpart is required to, oftentimes, Slowpoke will just sit by the water and starve, not realizing that they aren't getting a bite because there's just nothing to bite.

In short: Shed = ethical, chopped = unethical, possibly lethal.

Slowpoke responsibly, guys.

[grilledcheeseandguavajelly]

“Agatha can’t control her powers and kills a bunch of people, this explains why Death is in love with her because it means she gets more bodies” No.

No no no.

I need “Agatha can’t control her powers and the first time someone blasted her with their magic they died right in front of her and she was only seven years old and terrified and alone until suddenly there was a small little girl across from her who gently took her hand and told her it was okay”

I need “Agatha can’t control her powers and had a tantrum, purple exploding out of her, but the other witch was too fast and Agatha blinked and they were dead on the ground and she scrambled back against the wall, curling up into a little ball and shaking, shaking, shaking, until someone just as young and soft as her stroked her hair back and told her they knew it was an accident”

I need “Agatha can’t control her powers and was beaten and bruised by her mother until she couldn’t take it anymore and ran off into the woods and was blasted by someone who thought she was a witch hunter, and she didn’t even realize what was happening until it was too late. Agatha climbing into a tree and scraping her cheek and trembling as she stared at the lifeless witch, something rattling deep inside of her that sounded like a stranger’s voice. And then the stranger appearing through the thick, standing over the dead body and instantly looking up, looking for Agatha. Finding her in the tree and climbing in with her. Smoothing a thumb across her cheek until it didn’t sting anymore”

I need “Agatha can’t control her powers and any spell she tries goes haywire, the final teacher that swore she could fix her grey and lifeless on the floor as Agatha sat up on the kitchen table and just stared and stared, tears falling, always falling, until that familiar face appeared through the bedroom doorway, watching Agatha, not the woman, and threaded their fingers together. Guided her to cracked, dusty skin and forced her to feel it, hand pressing hers into dead flesh and murmuring ‘exceptional’ under her breath before explaining every single step of reaping a soul. Talking and talking until Agatha wasn’t crying anymore, until she couldn’t remember why she had been upset in the first place”

I need “Agatha can’t control her powers but she also couldn’t control her temper, and suddenly half of a coven was dead before her, barely eighteen years old, and then the girl, also freshly a woman, the closest thing she knew to having a friend, sliding up behind her and placing a hand on her shoulder, wiping her tears away. Shushing her pleas of ‘why can’t I control it? Why do I ruin everything I touch?’ with soft murmurs of ‘there’s nothing wrong with you. You didn’t kill them. They simply… bent to your power.’”

I need “Agatha can’t control her powers but she sure as hell tried, until she was tied to a stake and her coven fell at her feet and her mother crumpled before her, hellbent until the moment she died to punish Agatha for things she had never meant to do. Agatha, with her grief and her relief and her freedom, finally, somehow still sobbing over her mother’s death, curled up far away and safe in the woods. Safe until Death came for her, hands cupping her face too tenderly, too delicately, and forced Agatha to meet her eyes. Death, who had somehow become the only one to ever show her mercy and kindness and compassion, leaning her forehead against hers and whispering ‘it’s okay. I am so proud of you.” Death leaning in so, so hesitantly and pressing the smallest kiss to her mouth. Breaths hitching. Eyes meeting. Long, loaded stares and trembling fingers and Death herself smiling at Agatha like she actually meant it. Agatha fisting her cloak and yanking her closer and letting Death suck the air right out of her lungs, and Agatha somehow living anyway”

That’s what I need.

[anistarrose]

I'd like to propose a dark horse candidate for the most interesting line in The Book of Bill. And it's this near-unreadable, seemingly one-off joke from the "Skin" page:

[ID: tiny text reading: "Help! This is not Bill Cipher. My name is Grebley Hemberdreck of Zimtrex 5. I'm one of thousands of beings Bill has devoured over trillions of years whose souls are now trapped inside him. You have to free me! It's horrible in here. He just keeps playing the song "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark on an endless loop. Please, please, this is not a joke! The Zimtrexians were once a proud and mighty people, but now our spirits long for release from this..." End ID.]

Okay, so Bill devours souls who then live out a horrible existence inside him. That's just some typical and expected Bill behavior, right? Nothing to be shocked by? Maybe not, but one thing jumps out at me... and of all things, it's the way that Bill keeps playing that Beach Boys parody (correction provided by @fexalted: no, not in fact a Smiley Smile parody, but a real song!) on loop.

Because in The Book of Bill, there's a recurring motif of characters playing music for a very specific reason: to repel an unwanted presence inside their head. This is what Elias Inkwell, and later Ford, did with the "It's A Small World" parody — they tried to keep Bill out of their brains. Or, metaphorically... to drown out his voice.

[ID: a Journal 3 page with a cassette taped inside. It's titled: "The World Is Small Ever After for Always." Ford writes: "If it's war you want, it's war you'll get! If you want to torture me? I'll torture you back!" End ID.]

That doesn't necessarily mean that Bill finds the voices of devoured souls to be troubling, let alone downright haunting, does it? Well... not quite on its own. But there's a "color" code on the page about TV static that says a lot:

[ID: a code consisting of colorful squares, translated to letters that spell out: "he never sleeps he never dreams but somehow still he hears their screams." End ID] (screenshot courtesy of @fexiled)

The context of the page implies these "screams" come to Bill especially when he listens to TV static, and the broader context of the book implies that these are the screams of his destroyed home dimension, Euclydia. Therefore, not necessarily those of the souls he devoured, from Zimtrex 5 and possibly other dimensions.

Except... do those two things really have to be mutually exclusive?

The beings that Bill devoured were accumulated over "trillions" of years, plural, according to Grebley. In Weirdmageddon 1, Bill claims to have resided in the Nightmare Realm for precisely "one trillion" years. So the "devouring" habit probably extends back even further than his time in the Nightmare Realm...

Enter @acetyzias, pointing out a very conspicuous word — and one of the only uncensored words — from Bill's description of destroying his home dimension:

[ID: the word "mandibles". End ID.]

Oh, and how does Bill describe the "monster" that destroyed his home to Ford, when Ford asks about revenge?

[ID: Journal excerpt reading: "Sixer, it would eat you alive." End ID.]

For a long time, Bill's destruction of his home has been associated with fire, even when the story's told by Bill himself. But through the way the book characterizes Bill's guilt — and characterizes how the consequences of what he's done remain lurking deep inside him — I think The Book of Bill lays out the hints for another motif: devouring.

And, well, when it comes to how Bill destroys things... it wouldn't be without precedent.

[ID: screenshot of Bill in Weirdmageddon 3, taking a bite out of the Earth. End ID.]

[flicklikesstuff]

Have you guys ever thought too hard about Crunchy Chip’s over-the-top avoidance of sweets? Because guess what?

I SURE did-

We all know that eating sweets in the Dark Cacao Kingdom isn’t as unforgivable as Chip makes it out to be. The citadel literally has some sweets stored that Fishgatto took in his benefit before.

Caramel Arrow’s fav drink is literally brown sugar milk tea (Like meeeee :D). Not even Dark Cacao himself is strict on it since he has given Chip a pass on the treats a number of times.

As far as I know, I believe no other Dark Cacao denizen is actually that strict on that rule? (I may be wrong idk)

So then, why is Chip like this?

…….

This is going into more theorising territory, but it’s been heavily implied that Chip has spent his entire life (if not ever since his childhood) in the wild. His voice lines point to this. He lives in the mountains, can set up camp by reflex, hunts with the pack, and overall just has a love for being outside.

Also, most likely raised by wolves even? I feel like his story below was meant to be about how he first met and was saved by Dark Cacao since it parallels the bit when Wildberry shares how he first met and is taken in by Hollyberry. While it’s not stated how old he was in that time, I’m going to assume somewhat young enough near Wild’s age if we’re seeing the two stories as parallels?

(After all, this sequence is meant to show why these two cookies are the best, most loyal options to be entrusted with their monarch’s soul jam. It makes sense to me that they’re parallels of a first-meet.

AGAIN, this is my interpretation only!! This story could really be taken as something else too.)

And I’ve been thinking. Assuming IF Chip has spent his childhood in the wild, he must’ve been isolated from cookie civilisation/cookie social circles for a period of time.

Until he was ‘saved’ and then taken in to train and become a warrior and Cream Wolf Captain. With his childhood spent not growing up in a typical cookie home and instead, his heart being always in tune with the wild more, there’s bound to be some dissociation with his fellow Dark Cacaoians.

(This is also the guy who doesn’t know what a delegation is despite being a man in his mid 30s tops. Adding more into my theory that he’s somewhat detached from society.)

………..

Getting to the point, what if this isolation is the explanation? Chip has mentioned that his job has him needed at the kingdom’s borders, thus making him even more distant from other cookies.

And even then, the others even agree so that his rightful place and the place he’s most expected to be in, is in the mountains.

Not saying that this is a bad thing. Not at all! He loves his job. I’m sure Chip loves being in the mountains with his wolves. He’s mentioned how he’s missed and is fully content being there a bunch.

It’s just that…. Does he ever feel a longing to belong? After all, it’s an ingrained thing to desire connections. Not just with the wolves but also, with his very own people too. Does not growing up among other children cookies just like his other fellow warriors had, ever get to his head sometimes?

Does it ever make him feel….isolated and distant in a sense?

Unless, this could be fixed of course. He could really, really, really commit to the values every warrior should have. And Discipline is one of them! If he’s dedicated to the bit, then he could convince himself that he truly does belong and IS a Dark Cacao warrior.

He’ll prove it if he must! To the king, to the others, to himself!

He feels the need to greatly appeal and prove to Dark Cacao so much that he does have a place in this kingdom after all. Why wouldn’t he? He’s kept strict to every rule and expectation, right??

If we consider that the theory he grew up isolated in the wild as a kid could be true, this means Chip has felt like an outsider ever since he could remember.

Being a Dark Cacaoian by blood/jam. But at the same time, still not fitting in. Its tough. (Not projecting nope.)

Btw, this may or may not reminded me of someone else….

Mr. “Would rather be in the silence of the Royal Gardens than loud-ass parties and talking and I’m fully aware how weird that sounds coming from a Hollyberrian cookie.”

*coughs coughs*

Totally not spreading my Wildchip propaganda but I just thought it’d be neat if they talk about how they love their respective kingdoms and would die to serve them but also-also, it lowkey feels weird and kinda hurts to not actually fit in with your own fellow cookies. Also WHAT, you’re an orphan adopted by your Ancient too???

………….

So anyways, I probs dug too deep into what should’ve been a comedic trivial thing of a character and made it into a mini sad-fest. Whups.

Though, it could also be simply that Chip’s just really dedicated while silly about it buuuuuuuut, that’s not as fun to analyse.

TLDR: “I didn’t have normal childhood like other cookies so I sometimes feel like not truly belonging but that’s not true because I DEFINITELY am a Dark Cacao Warrior and I can prove it by overcommitting to the bit.”

Btw, Happy late Bday Crunchy Chip <3 🎉💖

[sageshouldknowbetter]

Can’t stop thinking about Reghabi saying Gemma was alive “the last time I saw her.”

She saw her? Saw her how? Did she just see her Lumon colleagues carting Gemma inside the building? Did she somehow participate in Gemma’s torture, or is that just a Dr. Mauer thing? And, since we know she’s a Severance surgeon… was she the one who put the chip in Gemma’s brain?

Either way, her severing Mark has been wildly recontextualized. Imagine being Reghabi and knowing there’s a woman down there, trapped in your company basement, being experimented on in the worst way possible. Imagine having fought off deep reservations for years about what you do, every day a moral debate, feeling yourself edging closer and closer to a dangerous tipping point. Quitting a job that you know won’t take “no” for an answer.

And now imagine a guy walks in. Hearing his name is Mark — Mark Scout. Reading his file and learning that he’s only getting his brain split in half to cope with the overwhelming pain of his wife’s death through microdosing suicide. Grief got to him. Apparently, he’s “choking on her ghost.” Can you imagine?

Except… you can.

And now you’re drilling a hole in the back of his skull knowing dang well the woman he loves — who he thinks died between flames, crushed against a tree — is only a couple basement floors beneath his feet. And maybe, you helped put her there.

Or what if it was the reverse? What if Reghabi severed Mark and found out later that his so-called “dead wife” was alive and suffering all along? A suspicious paging through forbidden files, a passing mention of her name in the hall. The sickening slap of dots connecting and a sudden, horrible sinking realization of what she’s done.

Did she blame herself? Should she have blamed herself? Whose thoughts were she really appeasing when she responded to Mark’s “Are they hurting her?” with that curt, quiet “I don’t know”?

I wouldn’t be surprised if Gemma and Mark’s situation was the last straw that pushed Reghabi over the edge and convinced her to betray Lumon. Because if that didn’t cut it… then good Lord, what did?

[grim-arcade]

-insert ominous whistle sounds- caught up with chaos theory today and i'm obsessed with the Handler and her microbangs <3

[cut-aare]

Franmaya nation rise!!!!

[hyperfixatinator]

Where is the line?

In the comics, Tim Drake's moral code is an enigma to me, particularly his stance on the Batclan's no-kill rule. For all the fans who say he's always one step away from full blown villainy, there are even more saying he's a strict goody two-shoes who could never stoop that low.

Then there's the different takes on where Tim draws the line between these two extremes. Personally, I find that line hard to pinpoint. Digging for canon demonstrations of his morals has lead me to more questions than answers. My biggest question right now is:

What counts as breaking the no-kill rule in Tim's eyes?

Luckily, the Robins 2021 comics shed some light on this. In issue #3, "Tim", or rather an imposter of him, said that choosing not to save someone isn't the same as killing them, and that letting a villain die can be a way to get justice. Normally, this point would be moot since it's not Tim himself who said it. However, at the end of issue #6, the real Tim clarified that what the imposter said WAS his real opinion on the matter.

Not only that, but Tim has shown this belief through his thoughts and actions before. Twice.

The first time goes all the way back to Robin 1991 #5. During the fight against King Snake, Tim kicked him through a nearby window, fifty stories above the ground. As King Snake's life hung in the balance, Shiva appeared and commanded Tim to kill him.

Tim refused. He walked away, leaving King Snake entirely at Shiva's mercy.

What gets me is that Tim made no move to save King Snake from falling. And he made no effort to stop Shiva from committing the murder, either. His only thought as he heard the man's scream was "Fifty stories is a long way to fall."

The second time was in Red Robin 2009 #26. Tim orchestrated a whole plan to manipulate Captain Boomerang into getting killed by Mr. Freeze. The whole time, Tim blamed Captain Boomerang for making all those bad choices, despite Tim being the one raising the chances of them being made. Tim believed he was innocent because he wasn't directly participating.

Tim then stopped that plan, but not for any noble reason. He decided that he couldn't let anyone else kill Captain Boomerang but himself.

Tim couldn't bring himself to do that, either. So he had to spare his father's killer in the end.

This seems pretty cut and dry so far, right? Tim believing that letting villains die is alright as long he doesn't do the deed himself? I'd think so too, if there weren't other moments contradicting this.

In Robin #35, Steph insisted on leaving an enemy who got buried under the snow to die. Tim chastised her for it.

Neither of them were responsible for the snow, or for the enemy getting trapped in it. Plus, that guy tried to kill them with a chainsaw moments prior, so he's not exactly an innocent damsel in distress.

Maybe it was because this enemy wasn't a big enough fish to fry. We didn't really get confirmation that this guy has actually killed before, and he's around goon status at best.

But then in Robin #46, Tim chose to save another enemy who got himself into a deadly situation. That enemy was a murderer known as Young El. This time, Tim wasn't telling anyone else why they should save a murderer's life out loud. These were his private thoughts.

Notice how Tim's inner monologue sounded kind of on-the-fence. He contemplated justice finally catching up with Young El as the floorboards gave way, bringing a support beam down on him in the process.

However, Tim immediately switched gears to rescue Young El from under that beam before the water rose too high.

But Tim, as he told Young El the reasons he's saving him, asked himself "Do I even believe what I'm saying?" He could be asking this about two different things he said here. A) "Maybe it's not too late for you to learn something, Young El.", or B) "Death's easier for you when it's the other guy. Death's never been easy for me."

For Tim to doubt his belief in either of these statements is very interesting. He could be questioning if Young El is already too far gone for redemption, or he could be questioning if seeing someone die has never been easy for himself. For all we know, it could be both.

Unfortunately, Tim never got to see if his choice to save him would pay off. Tim wasn't strong enough to lift that beam, and Young El drowned.

There's a question on my mind as I read these pages. What makes this murderer's death different from when Tim let King Snake fall to his "death"? Sure, King Snake didn't actually die, but Tim didn't know that until later when the man came looking for revenge in Gotham.

Tim was once able to simply walk away from what he was certain would be a killer's demise. But then he's consumed by guilt over not being able to prevent a different killer's death down the line, to the point of hallucinating.

On top of that, what changed Tim's mind later? Red Robin #26 and Robins 2021 #3-6 still happened in the future. The only significant difference I can tell is that these two comics involved the killer's of Tim's parents, making it personal. But if the Imposter from Robins 2021 got his beliefs from his profile before his mother's killer got involved, then does that still hold up?

Maybe we should put a pin on it for now. There are other things Tim's done that brings the details of his no-kill rule into question.

Such as that one time Tim actually killed someone with his bare hands.

In Robin issues #51-52, Tim accidentally killed Lady Shiva while drugged on amarilla, a plant that enhances the user's speed beyond human limitations.

It may be argued if the amarilla altered Tim's mind enough to excuse him of fault or not. However, I want to focus on what happened after Shiva was revived. Here's another question to go with the first one:

Does Tim believe the kill still counts if the victim was revived afterwards?

From what I've gathered, yes and no. It's kind of complicated.

After Tim killed Shiva, he was understandably distressed about it, about how he can never take it back.

But after Shiva came back to life? Nothing. He didn't dwell on the fact he broke the vow to never kill. For something that devastating to happen in his life, it's odd that Tim didn't bring it up ever again, privately or otherwise. Especially considering what happened later in Robin #123, when Tim thought he killed Johnny Warlock.

Tim was utterly inconsolable. He lost all faith in his abilities as Robin, and in himself as a whole. It also contributed to his decision to quit being Robin after his dad found out. In general, he seriously dwelled on that "kill" for a much longer time than he had after killing Shiva. The difference being that he knew Shiva was resuscitated immediately afterwards, while Tim didn't know Johnny survived until issue #141.

But there's the fact that Shiva really did die. Her heart and breathing both stopped. So are we to believe Tim moved on from that so easily because she's alive now? What happened to never getting that back?

Come to think of it, not long after Tim killed and revived Shiva, there was someone else who landed in that same boat. Dick.

In Joker: The Last Laugh #6, Dick brutally attacked the Joker after believing he killed Tim. Dick ended up accidentally killing Joker instead, before the clown was resuscitated.

Here's the thing. While Tim was trying to comfort Dick, saying that it's ok because Joker's alive now, Dick didn't believe so. He was still distraught that he killed someone. The fact Joker came back to life afterwards didn't matter to him. To Dick, it still counted. So what does that say about Tim?

Before we move on, there's another person Tim knows who also died and came back from the grave. Jason.

Tim openly acknowledged Jason was killed before coming back, too. Multiple times. For example, when they met up in Red Hood and the Outlaws 2011 #8.

Tim hadn't shown any signs that he thinks Jason's murder doesn't count anywhere, except for maybe once.

In Knight Terrors: Robin #2, Tim and Jason had a heart-to-heart, and Tim said something strange.

"You survived."

Except Jason didn't survive. He died. To say Jason survived that night would've meant he never died to begin with. Him being alive now doesn't change that. Was this Tim telling a white lie to make Jason feel better? Or does Tim see being revived after death as "surviving"?

Ok, now we can move onto the next question. Or rather, bear with me as we go back to the first question. It's a broad topic with plenty more to talk about.

What does Tim count as breaking the no-kill rule?

We already asked how Tim feels about bringing villains back from the dead after killing them. And we asked how Tim feels about leaving a villain to die without getting directly involved. However, we still don't know how much involvement Tim needs to have in an enemy's death before he'll take responsibility for it.

We can confirm he won't mercy kill in Red Robin #21, even if it means giving someone a fate worse than death. No exceptions.

Tim also doesn't allow anyone he's actively teaming up with to kill, especially if he's the one in command. He's been amicable with known killers before (Huntress and Pru, for example), but only when they remain non-lethal while working alongside him.

Apart from that, though, it becomes less clear. However, I think this is a good place to expand on when Tim blew up a lot of League of Assassins bases in Red Robin #8.

I'm not going into whether or not those explosions actually killed anyone. I've seen evidence supporting both sides of this debate, so I'm just going to say it's up to interpretation. What I AM talking about is whether or not Tim would've felt responsible if they had killed someone.

Before overloading every generator in the LOA database, Tim gave a warning to the Wanderer. He told her that he couldn't be held responsible for what would happen to her if she didn't leave.

After initiating the explosions, Tim warned the White Ghost that they had fifteen seconds to leave before it was too late.

Fifteen seconds. That explanation on the mistake of letting him in might've taken roughly another fifteen to twenty seconds. Did the other bases even get a full minute head start? The way some of the people were already running away could imply they at least got a warning, but it's possible they might not have.

Even if everyone in every base received a warning, would that be enough for Tim to avoid holding himself accountable if they didn't make it out in time? Tim's the one who rigged the bases to explode, but I guess giving someone a warning means it's now their fault for not heeding it?

We can't be sure he even considered the possibility of those explosions killing anyone. Tim knew they were dangerous enough to bring the whole Cradle down, and the other ones we saw looked pretty powerful (except the ones in Ra's hideout). But Tim also called Ra's a murderer right after that happened, which would've been very hypocritical if Tim himself thought he committed murder.

So, my guess is either A) Tim relied on sheer luck for those explosions not causing any casualties and chose to believe they hadn't, or B) Tim didn't believe the deaths of anyone caught in them would be his fault.

Again, this isn't about whether or not blowing up the LOA bases killed anyone. It's about how willing Tim was to take that risk, and if he would've blamed himself for anyone getting killed from it.

Either way, it's canon that Tim had no guilt for the explosions he caused, or for anything he did before Red Robin #22. Just ask the Sword of Sin.

This is an exerpt I got from the Fandom DC Database on the Sword of Sin:

"The Sword of Sin can be ignited with the mind of the wielder, if the person is powerful enough. The sword has the ability to conjure in the mind its victims all of the sins for which they are guilty or have not atoned for."

When Tim was stabbed with this sword, he was immune. The Sword of Sin decided he was innocent. Although, I have to ask how reliable this sword was in making that judgement. If the sword is judging others based on its own set principles, then something's not right here.

The Sword of Sin was also used on Dick, and he wasn't immune. It dug into Dicks subconscious and unearthed memories he'd long since repressed. Memories of himself watching a boy get beaten to near death, and then doing nothing. He just walked away.

Now, tell me why the sword brought this to light, but not the time Tim left King Snake to die!

It wasn't an accident. Tim deliberately chose to leave instead of trying to save this man from the murderous Lady Shiva. Sure, Tim was no match for Shiva and he might've not been able to stop her, but the same could be said for an eight year old Dick not stopping a group of much older kids. Neither of them tried to stop the attackers.

Tim didn't atone for it, either. When King Snake returned in Batman #469, Bruce told King Snake that it wasn't Tim who left him to die. We know that's a lie, but Tim never corrected this. He let Shiva take all the blame.

We have two instances of a boy choosing not to prevent someone from having a near death experience. One guilty, and one innocent.

Did the Sword of Sin think Tim was justified because King Snake was corrupt? That doesn't sound holy to me.

Was it because Tim didn't feel any guilt over it, while Dick did? Can the sword's judgement be thrown off by the victim not feeling any shred of guilt over their actions, even subconsciously?

That could make sense given what we know Tim did in the past: King Snake falling, the vandalism (explosions), and ALL the lying over the years (Tim reviving Shiva might count as atonement, so I'm not including that). If the sword based its judgement on God's will alone, then odds are high it would've picked up on one of these.

Even so, I'm not going to sit here and say this is definitely the case. I'm not familiar enough with how the sword effects other characters to make that call.

If this is indeed false, then did the DC universe's version of God decide to pardon Tim of his sins when he prayed earlier that same issue, despite him not believing he had any? I mean, who knows, right?

You can probably see why there's more questions than answers. The point is Tim didn't have any guilt for the things he did before Red Robin #22. Tim was canonically convinced he had nothing to atone for.

So then why did he say the opposite later in Knight Terrors: Robin #2?!

In the heart-to-heart between Tim and Jason, Tim tells him this:

"You have a lot to atone for...We all do..."

Tim knows that the words "we all" include him, right? By saying this, Tim admitted to also having things he needs to atone for, right?

Is this another white lie to make Jason feel better? Is it one of those slight changes the New 52 made to the canon? If not, then why did he change his mind? Did his no-kill rule change and make him feel guilty for some past actions? Is it not the no-kill rule, but something else?

What changed?!

Where does Tim draw the line?

I don't know. We've narrowed it down to a general area, but it's kinda hard to see a line when it's so blurred it could be a gradient.

Tim baffles me. He acts as a steady moral compass for others when he can't even seem to stay consistent with his own. You're free to call it poor writing (and honestly, fair), but I find his hypocrisy fascinating.

That's what it is, isn't it? Tim's a hypocrite who's completely oblivious to being one. And it's not like this was never mentioned in the comics before. Damian called him out on it!

In Batman & Robin 2011 #10, Damian confronted Tim about his near-murderous reaction when Fist Point killed Artemis (Teen Titans Vol 4 annual #1). Damian then accused Tim of constantly rejecting him because they have more in common than Tim's willing to admit.

It's debatable how accurate that accusation was, but Tim had a pretty volatile reaction to it.

"I believe in every choice I make!"

Does he? I don't think someone who's so sure of what he believes in would contradict himself to this extent. Especially if he wasn't doing it on purpose.

He wouldn't vehemently push Bruce's no-kill rule onto others and berate them for bending that rule, only to go and bend that same rule himself when the Batclan isn't around. He also wouldn't exploit what he thinks are loopholes, decide later that those loopholes broke the no-kill rule, and then earnestly claim he never broke it.

Why is he like this?! He's had arguably the most normal childhood out of the whole Batclan before becoming Robin! What could've made him so fickle about this?!

Where does he draw the line? And how will he know when he's crossed it?

[genderkoolaid]

tbh my opinion isnt so much that trans men cannot have male privilege. its that the way we understand male privilege is based in cis women, specifically otherwise privileged (esp. otherwise-gendered privilege, i.e gender-conforming/straight/perisex) cis women's understanding of gender as something static and inherent to who you are, rather than something fluid which is, in part, constructed by society and placed onto you separately in every moment.

can a trans man experience (cis) male privilege? yes. can a trans woman? yes. and so can a cis woman! hell, a femme perisex cis woman with a gender neutral name could if she's assumed to be a cis man on a resume. male privilege is not an on/off switch. the idea that it is stems from cissexist understandings of male/female as entirely separate and static categories which everyone can and must be understood through. trans people in feminism are expected to constantly defend and deflect accusations of being Privileged Male Oppressors by promising cis perisex women that our experiences are just like theirs! we don't have any scary opinions that don't align with their worldview! we swear we won't ever make them have to reflect on how being cis+perisex has biased them and potentially made their analysis of gender at all inaccurate! trans experiences are only considered valuable to cisfeminism to the extent that they reaffirm what cisfeminists already hold true. thats why they only ever want to talk about a very simplistic narrative around wages pre/post-transition. its extremely unthreatening to cis people because it presents transness in patriarchy as just going from one cis role to another; it doesn't ask cis feminists to expand their paradigm to include the ways in which trans people are treated as a class and their own complicity in transphobic oppression.

which is why trans men have been getting fucked over by trans-affirmng cisfeminism. because by virtue of having our gender acknowledged, we are expected to forfeit our place in the feminist movement and adopt the role of outsider along cis men*. and its also why trans women and MTX people get fucked over the minute they cannot or refuse to describe their experiences through the one or two approved narratives. cisfeminism cannot tolerate transness-as-transness. it has to be compressed and reduced and diluted into something that fits within a cis-centric framework. we aren't allowed to have nuanced and intersectional conversations about trans men & other trans folks relationship with male privilege, the things we have to sacrifice to there, how fleeting it can be, the fact that for some of us being read as "biologically male" is actively more dangerous than being read as female... if it isn't familiar to cis women, then it means you aren't really oppressed.

*cis men should not be outsiders in feminism either btw but thats another post

[cassiebnuy]

the furry fandom is mostly concerned with literal representation

theres tons of symbolism and intention applied but its usually just in character design and to a lesser extent stylization (u can only go so far w it before it steps on character design)

bc the purpose of the art is v specific - its exploring sensory experiences and desires, its often not just a standalone piece but an imagination aid to make something with only an abstract internal existence more concrete and real.

past a point its hard to project urself into abstract art

theres nothing wrong with this, a lot of rly lovely art comes out of these ways of thinking. i do a lot of this kind of art myself

and of course there *are* other artists doing furry abstraction! im far from alone. paul peng does some next level shit that continues to inspire me, scribblechicken makes glorious surreal works w fields of repeated images, teddywitchs recent abstract sketchbook work has been rly inspiring to me, mariken has been playing with abstraction in ways tht make it feel rly accessible

and of course there are alternate models of furry besides patricia taxxons autistic model (from the "ethics of boinking animal people" video) which while rly useful for understanding the bulk of furry culture leaves out other types of brainweirdness that draw ppl to anthro animal imagery in different ways. pawberri posited an additional schizotypal model that seems v useful and made some of my favorite artists work click in a way it never did before

anyway i think on the scale of the fandom this results in the de-emphasis of non illustrative artforms. there are furry sculptors and painters and ceramicists doing incredible work but it doesnt seem to get the same love (with the exception of fursuit makers bc theyre making a v literally representational form of wearable sculpture)

i could go on abt material conditions, economic motivations, art literacy, etc but instead i just wanna make my case

we can all agree that postfurry is where the most interesting stuff in furry is being made right. i saw yall gushing abt sinkdog i saw the fanart i see my sog painting still getting notes years later. but postfurry is still limiting the furry toolkit to character design i think we can go deeper

u can apply that toolkit to pure abstraction and leave characters and backgrounds behind. u can plant it into the intentionality behind not obviously furry work. patricia taxxon used a term in the video i mentioned earlier, "transcendental furriness" tht i think gets at this a little. u can make pure abstraction furry. u can make furry food if u rly lean into animalistic eating experiences and evocative flavor combinations. furry doesnt have to just be a character design trope it can be so much more. it can be layered fractally into the process and intentionality of a work, if that makes sense. twisted into every fiber and woven in

*thats* the kind of art i wanna make

anyway thank u for reading my manifesto