#personally i'm kinda eh on it

[cerasus--flores]

oh btw mewtuals what do we think of hold it down

[collieii]

someone probably said this already but in spiderverse i think it's interesting how when pavitr was first introduced everyone thought something bad was gonna happen to him bc of how confident and optimistic he was. and then in the actual movie we see that something bad was supposed to happen to him (police chief dying!) but it doesn't! miles stops it! and miguel berates miles for this, says it's going to cause the universe to collapse or whatever.

there's this idea that tragedy is inherent to spidermans growth, and while it's true that some spiderpeople learn important lessons through loss, no one stops to ask, is it really necessary? yeah, maybe the chief was supposed to die. but why does spiderman have to be formed through tragedy? why do we (as heroes) have to let people die? pavitr didn't lose anyone, and he's still a good spiderman! maybe, if he doesn't suffer, he'll end up better off for it!

so while miguel is arguing for all this big picture stuff about saving the multiverse he's lost sight of what it really means to be a spiderman, he's not looking out for the real individual people. yeah it's just one person who would die, but that one person means something to someone. shrugging and saying "stuff just sucks sometimes, we can't do anything about it" is the opposite of what superheroes do. pretty obviously, miles arc is also a reflection of the struggles people face in real life, working within unequal systems, where it's easy to shrug and say "that's just the way it is" and not ask "but why does it need be this way? can't we do something about it?"

miguel is arguing that you can't have your cake and eat it too. presumably, miles and co. are going to find a way to get around that and change things for the better (and maybe that's why miles has that line about two cakes in the advisors office!)

[echoed-salvation]

"I wish someone would doom the world just to keep me alive" is a thought I've often found myself thinking, albeit never unaccompanied by guilt, thinking about han sooyoung's sacrifice long after I finished the orv webnovel. To some level I envy kim dokja - the friends who'd do anything for him and the love he receives. No matter how many friends I make there's a feeling that never seems to go away. A feeling of loneliness. A feeling that leads me to never feel like I truly belong, regardless of what I do. There's a silly little part of me that yearns to receive that kind of burning love, that love that is almost a curse in how irrational it makes you act. No matter how much I'm able to resent my very being, I can't help but selfishly wish to be one of the most important things in the world to someone out there.

But then I realise. There is someone who cares about me like that, who cares about all of us. Someone who would write a whole novel just to ensure our survival knowing that we'd find it and read it. Because regardless of what we've all been through and where we are in life we are all kim dokja and maybe, just maybe, we can be selfish for once and believe we deserve that love. You are allowed to exist, allowed to want and allowed to be cared for. Don't let yourself believe that you don't matter.

[oneluckydragon]

So I decided to spin the wheel by @onefey since I saw so many mutuals getting really cute PMD Teams.

Meet hero Lucky (Girafarig) and partner Biggs (Wimpod). Never in my life have I considered a Girafarig as my potential PMD-sona but here we are despite it all. Even though I was skeptical at first I am now in permanent love.

Gotta think of an Exploration Team name now... hm.

[batsplat]

hello, i have a question. what is the difference betwwen a hard and a dangerous racer? is there some sort of characteristics like how succesful a racer is or is more of a "a dangerous racer races on the limit and that's dangerous. a hard racer races on the limit but. its just a hard racer". thank you for answering!

completely in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. it's a perpetual debate, and one where everyone draws the line differently... very much a case of one man's dangerous manoeuvre is another one's hard but fair overtake... that being said! I'll have a go at coming up with a general framework with which people assess this stuff

let's bring in two strawmen, which feels like the most direct way to illustrate the possible stances you can take on this debate. to be clear, nobody really fits neatly in either ideological category - but, well, these are pretty much the two most extreme positions anyone could have:

when people are describing something as 'hard racing' (as opposed to... idk, 'clean' racing), they are usually talking about a) contact between the two bikes, and/or b) an action that forces the other bike to take evasive action. what constitutes forcing evasive action? well, this is all very nebulous and hard to define - there's crossing another rider's racing line, making them pick up the bike mid-corner, forcing them wide/off-track, not yielding in situations where one of you will have to yield to avoid a crash... but this is always an assessment that will depend on the specific circumstances. not every block pass is considered hard racing, for instance, even though you are quite literally 'blocking' the other bike. contact is the more straightforward one... if you initiate a move that leads to contact, then most people would agree this is 'hard' racing

so say you are in the 'A' camp. according to this line of thinking, pretty much every contact is 'dangerous' riding and should not be allowed. here's what gibernau said about jerez 2005, included in the sete post:

let's not discuss the merits of the jerez 2005 move specifically here - this is an expression of a broader ideological position. "this is not a contact sport" "it's not about hitting another guy"... so, according to this stance, actions that knowingly result in contact should not be acceptable and as a result need to be penalised. taken to the logical extreme, any and all 'hard racing' is dangerous

let's go to the other extreme, 'B'. let's say you're very pro-hard racing, to the point where you think that contact is more than fine and that it is unreasonable to call it 'dangerous'. sure, of course it is dangerous, but inherently all motorcycle racing has a lot of risk attached. racing that involves contact is basically acceptable. even within this extreme, my lovely venn diagram allows for some actual 'dangerous' riding - either behaviour that is wholly irresponsible during races... or stuff that doesn't count as hard racing because it's not 'racing'. here are some examples:

stuff that happens during races but is like... egregious misbehaviour. cf romano fenati pulling a rival's brake lever during a race - obviously dangerous and no longer really exists within the confines of actual racing

in either races or non-race sessions - not following proper safety procedures like for instance ignoring yellow flags. again, should be pretty obvious why that's dangerous

poor behaviour in non-race sessions,the general tag for not exhibiting appropriate care, awareness for your environment, all that stuff... the extreme example is marc barrelling into the back of another rider after the chequered flag had been waved in friday practise at phillip island 2011 (more on that here). it's also things like faffing about on the racing line, see the pecco mugello dramatics

so, yes, everyone will agree that there's some stuff that counts as 'dangerous riding' that's distinct from 'hard racing' just because it's not actual racing. that's the most straightforward stuff... but yeah, anyway, those are basically the two extreme positions you can take. you can say that all contact is bad and dangerous, that any time you're forcing another rider to take evasive action and are making a pass that isn't 1000% clean, you are putting others at unnecessary risk. or, you can say, hey, everything goes, rubbing is racing on steroids - sure, there's a small category of things that aren't acceptable, mainly stuff that isn't actually racing, but otherwise you should be allowed to brute force yourself past riders whenever you please

obviously, they're strawmen for a reason. basically nobody holds either of these positions in their entirety - and in race situations, there's always going to be actions that are seen as hard racing by some and as dangerous by others. so, unfortunately, we're going to have to dig a little deeper here, and figure out by what metrics people draw the line between hard and dangerous. let's... hey, how about we bring in casey stoner, just this once. as a treat. here's what he said after laguna '08:

“I’ve been in hard racing all my life, some very aggressive racing, but today was a little bit too much. I nearly went in the gravel so many times and I don’t think it was necessary.”

hard racing? casey's done that before. some very aggressive racing? no issue. but what valentino did at laguna was "a little bit too much" and not "necessary". the specific thing casey cites is nearly going into the gravel - and indeed, forcing other riders wide/off-track is one of the types of racing behaviour that most finely straddles the line between 'hard' and 'dangerous'. for other examples, see suzuka 2001 in which biaggi forced valentino off-track and valentino flipped him off when he eventually got past (a few more details here), qatar 2012 where marc forced luthi off-track and got slapped after the race (here) and sepang 2015, where... uh. you know. or how about argentina 2018 where... look, I think you get the point - plenty of controversy comes from forcing your opponent's bike into places where it's simply not supposed to be

while we're at it, let's throw in a little excerpt from casey's autobiography about the race:

A lot of it was fair racing, he was out-braking me on the inside and riding better than me around a lot of the track. If it had all been like that I would cop it sweet. But a couple of moves off camera added to my frustration. I risked running off the track, and racing at the limits like that as we were I even became worried about my safety.

(does have to be said that the pair of them spend... relatively little time off-camera, never when the bikes seem to be particularly close - but of course the problem this statement creates is that by definition you can't judge any footage you don't have access to)

so, let's strip away the details and think about what casey is actually talking about here. it's a risk/reward calculation. this is what's at the heart of this riding standards debate: what level of risk is acceptable for what level of reward? there are situations in which there is inherently a higher level of risk in a way that isn't caused by either party - influenced by the circuit layout, what the weather is like, how hard you're both pushing aka how much on the 'limit' you are, and so on. but even if that risk isn't your 'fault', if you are riding at very high speeds on a dangerous track, you can still be considered a dangerous rider if you're not exercising appropriate levels of caution

so, let's break it down even further and try and come up with some basic criteria by which people judge whether a specific move is 'hard' or 'dangerous'. how about this: (1) does the action have a reasonable chance of coming off, (2) is the risk you're taking proportionate to the reward, and (3) is the move likely to cause serious harm to you or the other rider. let's take them one by one

listen, it needs to be plausible that you're going to be able to pull this move off. if you're firing the bike from fifty miles back into a gap that doesn't exist, then this is by definition an unnecessary risk. you are not going to do yourself any good and you are also not going to do the other rider any good. (sometimes it might be in your interest to crash the other rider out so you might as well, but unsurprisingly this is frowned upon. see the 1998 250cc title decider.) obviously, this is going to be affected by your skill level - if you're a mid rider, there will be fewer moves that are 'plausible' for you than for the best riders

this is basically the common sense metric. if you are riding in a pack, make sure to keep in mind that crashing in this situation could get ugly. if you are fighting for p5, maybe a different approach is fitting than fighting for p1. if you can make an overtake a lap later as long as you're patient, in a way that's a lot safer than doing it now, perhaps just do that instead. don't be silly in the wet! this comes down to stakes, whether it's worth it, how likely the move is to succeed... and also what the consequences would be if you got it wrong, for both yourself and other riders. you're making an overall judgement based on all of those factors... sometimes you need to take risk, but it's better to make sure that risk is reasonably sensible

however high the potential rewards are, there's a certain level of risk that is no longer acceptable, where the 'risk/reward calculation' stuff has to be thrown out of the window because the reward no longer matters. this is basically the catch-all for 'wholly irresponsible riding' - anything that's just going too far

so, uh. obviously everything described above is super subjective... but that's what people are judging in my opinion, this is the standards they are using in their head to determine where they draw the line. so, as an example, to bring back the stuff from this post about the inter-alien ideological differences:

and again, this is also what the debate after aragon 2013 was about:

if you think aragon 2013 is unacceptable to the point of being dangerous, then you probably take quite a hard line view and think pretty much any action that could lead to contact needs to be stamped down on. while that contact did have unpleasant consequences for the other party (dani wasn't able to walk for several days and his title bid was basically over), it is perhaps a little worse than could have been reasonably expected in that situation. in that sense, there's a bit of surface level similarity with jerez 2005... there, valentino made the pass for the win at the last corner, knowing he would probably bump into sete while doing so. neither rider is knocked off their bike (though sete has to leave the track) and it is at a slow corner, with relatively 'light' contact. unfortunately, as a result of where valentino's bike impacted sete's body and sete's preexisting shoulder issues, it ended up injuring sete (see here for valentino learning of this perhaps a little later than was ideal and only after he'd taken the piss out of sete for dramatically clutching his arm). at aragon 2013, marc was harrying dani and sticking very close to his rear tyre as he applied pressure to his teammate before he made a small misjudgement, getting his braking a little wrong and clipping the back of dani's bike. he happened to cut a crucial wire in the process, causing dani to highside a few moments later

these aren't equivalent situations and each have their own risk/reward profile. but the basic point is this: inviting contact with another rider will always generate more risk, and can always have unintended consequences... even when the action is relatively innocuous and the rider would not have expected this outcome. if you are in the 'all passes should be clean passes' school, this risk is fundamentally unacceptable. even trickier - what if contact is made as a result of a move you initiated but the other rider could have avoided? of course, you started it, but they could have yielded... and maybe they should have, maybe that would have been the wise, the sensible thing to do in that situation. it's always important to remember that at least two riders are involved in all these situations - and there are many cases where contact and/or crashing is not 100% the fault of any one party. so, for instance, there are several moments in laguna 2008 that are so risky in part because casey is also refusing to yield. that's not to necessarily imply any blame or fault! of course, it might not be ideal for the most aggressive riders being able to bully everyone else as they please because they know they can generally rely on everyone else being more sensible and yielding. but the differing outcomes resulting from the choices made by the 'other' rider will always help influence perception of any race situation - a move that is seen as 'hard but fair' might have been seen as considerably more dangerous if the other party hadn't yielded

and yes... yes, there is absolutely a question of your success rate. this links back to point (1) - is the move plausible? there are moves that aren't really considered examples of 'hard racing' and certainly not dangerous... because they worked. take valentino's last corner move at catalunya 2009, at a corner where you don't traditionally overtake (remember, before the race jorge was going around tempting fate by saying that if you're ahead by that point you're sorted). sure, he goes for a gap that exists, but it could easily have gone wrong - and if a lot of other riders had tried that, then it would have. how do you think yamaha would have felt if valentino had taken both yamaha riders out at the very end of the race to allow ducati to claim an unlikely victory and an increased championship lead? here's another one: misano 2017 and marc making a last lap move in treacherous conditions to snatch the win. no contact required to make that risky as shit - and if stuff like that goes wrong too often they call you an idiot at best and dangerous at worst. of course, both valentino and marc have had moments where they very much did not pull off moves they were intending, which is how we get ambition outweighing talent and 'I hope he can learn from this one and improve for the future', among other hits. but, relative to the amount of risk they're regularly taking in their racing, they get a lot of reward for their troubles... because they're very good at what they do. the risk/reward calculation is one that they... uh, can both be very adept at, but it's also one that's fundamentally easier when you're skilled enough to pull off a lot of moves that would be beyond the capabilities of other riders. it's when you don't know how to judge your moments, when you keep trying moves that you can't pull off - that's where other riders will start having a problem with you

which is where we get to reputation! how different incidents are judged will also depend on the existing reputations of the riders involved and whether they are seen as 'fair' racers or not (an even more nebulous term, if possible), versus hard racers, dangerous racers... often, this is a question of quantity too - with certain riders on the grid, you will notice they're involved in controversial incidents disproportionately often. how likely people are to pay you the benefit of the doubt... how likely they are to believe you as to what your intent was in a certain situation, perhaps the most nebulous concept of them all. 'hard' and 'dangerous' aren't assessments that are made in isolation, and how severely riders are judged will often depend on their pasts and how those pasts are perceived by others

where you get into really sticky territory is... okay, both valentino and marc have more often than not (arguably) been able to stay on the right side of 'the line', where their moves might be hard but aren't putting anyone else in active danger - but that's because they are at least theoretically capable of exhibiting a good sense of judgement and are also good at what they're doing, as covered above. here's a question: do they bear any responsibility for when younger and/or worse riders copy their moves and/or general approach to racing, with worse consequences? when they have been criticised, when they are called dangerous, at times it's not just what they're doing in the moment... it's what they're inspiring. so you've got stuff like this from sete:

even more drastically than that, after the death of a fifteen year old rider in supersport in 2021, one of his fellow rider said this about marc (which marc unsurprisingly strongly pushed back on):

(just worth remembering, this is a rider who did walk away from the sport as a result and was clearly deeply affected by what happened - the marc comments were part of a longer statement that got overshadowed by this part and the resulting controversy)

setting aside the merits or lack thereof of these specific assertions, what of the general questions they raise... can you be a dangerous rider in an indirect fashion like this, by the very nature of your legacy? are riders who helped bring about a more aggressive baseline standard of racing in any way responsible for anything that happens as a result of this standard? (even worse, there's a line of succession here - after all, who was marc's biggest inspiration?) or does individual responsibility reign supreme here? athletes are by design only interested in their own successes, aren't they - and 'legacy' is so abstract, how can anyone know how others will be influenced by what they do? how can we even begin to assess how big an influence individual riders really are? let's not forget that there will be other factors - riders in the past have discussed how particular characteristics of the moto2 class have bred more aggressive racing, or the influence of the size of motogp bikes, or how difficult it is these days to overtake in a completely 'clean' manner, or the rules themselves and to what extent they have actually been enforced etc etc... maybe there's also an element of people focusing on the easiest, most visible explanation in the form of star riders, without giving proper consideration to the underlying factors that will influence an era's style of riding. again, how you feel about all of this will vary from person to person - but part of the hard vs dangerous debate is inherently forward-looking. and it's hardly just legacy... your hard/dangerous moves may also be setting a precedent in the present. to what extent is it the duty of riders to worry about that?

so then, that's what I've got. how you draw the distinction between hard racing and dangerous riding will come down to your individual ideological position and what you think racing even entails. do you think all contact is objectionable? do you think only the most extreme of transgressions - most of which don't qualify as 'racing' per se - should be labelled dangerous? somewhere in between? everyone will draw the line in a different place, according to the situation and their individual biases and understanding of events. it comes down, generally speaking, to how you judge the risks and rewards of a certain move, whether you think what a rider attempted was 'worth' it. all of which depends on whether the rider could realistically have managed whatever action they were attempting, whether the potential rewards were proportionate to the risks, or whether the whole thing was just too flat out dangerous to ever be worth it... of course, none of these are objective standards by which you can assess the racing, but they should give you a rough indication of what people are even talking about when they're distinguishing between hard and dangerous racing. riders as individuals are also far from consistent in their stances (surely not!) so you do have to play it by ear a lot of the times... and while there are plenty incidents where the majority can agree whether it is 'hard' or 'dangerous', there are plenty more where you're going to get a lot of contradictory opinions. no definitive answers here - unfortunately a lot of the time you'll just have to make your own mind up

[theglidingbat]

Expect me to update more because it's finally vacation time and that means I get to indulge in my hyper fixation more.

Anyways none of y'all here to learn about my non existent social life.

So...Jayroy huh...

They give off the vibes of that one couple who keeps going on and off on and off-

Like-

"partners" huh

"I'm not worried now that we're back together" you just talked about how you were fine without him Roy oh my god you fucking simp-

....I wanna say something but If I do I'll probably get doxxed then get my corpse thrown into a pit-

But I feel like this is accurate representation of fandom.

Yeah Roy you're not married, you want to be however don't you you dork?

THEY WERE ON A BREAK BUT NOW THEY BACK TOGETHER LES GOOO

Also this arsenal suit has the potential of being so cunty.

Actually it is cunty fuck you. Roy Harper serves cunt

MARRIED. What the FUCK. Get a room.

LITTLE GUYSSSSS

Jason don't be a spoil sport so what if he ruined your shower get another one let the boy have his fun.

God. Men can't even set the bathroom on fire in peace in this society.

Hahahahah need to draw him pregnant- I mean what. .......

......

No wonder I don't get bitches-

.......

Still need to see him pregnant-

Home of sexuals.

Either that or this is a great queer platonic relationship.

[caravanlurker]

shout out to that one time I watched the PRISMCorps Magical Girl lore video and the first few episodes of TGAMM in veeery close proximity. too much time on this xP loong ramble in the tags

[sasayan]

it sure is a bittersweet feeling having watched the final episode. this drama succeeded my initial expectations and it has easily made it into my top five, and as sad as i am that it's over, it's also nice knowing that this is how it ends – with nothing but hope for the future and the reaffirmation that love is the most powerful thing there is in this world.

[royalberryriku]

Thinking about how "self defence" is considered okay until a country the west is not allied with does it.

[hungnitan]

Myriad Celestia Trailer — "Kyoden: A Cleave Across the Transient World"

THERE'S SO MANY HI3 REFERENCE HERE to the point that video alone could make a big money for standlone game !

For many HI3 reference, let those lore master handle the talk (lol). When AcheSwan video release I thought this "Mei" is HoT different AU if her Kiana died, which seems not so far fetched aside she become HoO. It's kinda ironic since HI3 Mei become HoO basically because of power of her love to Kiana and Elysia (let's simplified as that XD)

From pionner relics lore, I guess we can deduce that Acheron's Kiana I mean Frebass timeline is more backward than myriad celestial since it explained Frebass is just a 14 year old nameless girl. If we think they're same age, Acheron nowdays should be 18 or 20 ish.

Now into the interesting part, almost nothing explain about Frebass whereabouts in two Acheron videos ! So what's happened to the nameless girl diving herself into nihility ? One scene from Black Swan memories indicate the very same rooftop HoTMeiKiana scene which isn't a good sign...

And let me added something as that video showing a clear words that HI3 connected to HSR. Kiana is a human made person by Otto, meanwhile HI3 Otto already remove all branch of his existence as price of saving Kallen. Which means Kiana is special entity only at HI3, so there's possibility Frebass isn't Kiana but Durandal (real Kiana) like existence.

Now I watch the video I just feels grateful Otto doing so many things to stop honkai... if not for him, in one possible universe HI3 could become Izumo HSR

I only hope these missing piece will be explain in TB 2.1 !

PS : I guess HSR will cook really hard at 2.1 TB quest, with Acheron lore become like that it's all about how Aventurine past could beat Mei angst max level. So let's prepare lot of tissue and don't read it at public place (lol)

[pierswife]

I've always had a complicated relationship with gender.

For the longest time I've just. Existed. Since I was little, I was told that I was a girl, so that's how I lived. But a lot of the time? I didn't "perform girl" correctly. I didn't like the right things, or I didn't react the right way. Sure, I liked plenty of feminine things, but I also rejected that part of myself vehemently. I was considered a "tomboy," but that didn't feel quite right either. And fuck, did my family DESPERATELY want me to start being just a little bit girly. I mean, shit, I remember when I was a teen and I was talking to my mom, my mom had asked me what I wanted one of my aunts to get me for Christmas. I just said make up, not because I wanted it, but because I knew it would make my aunt happy. I would finally be doing something girly, which I hadn't done since the 5th or 6th grade. Honestly, at that point I really didn't care. As long as my family was happy, then I'd be happy. Right? That was the way it was supposed to work? Right?

I've always been pretty firm with my... Grab bag of sexuality, I guess. I'm demi through and through, both sexual and romantic, and I consider myself bi as well. Those are all a part of me, a VERY important part of me.

But it took me YEARS to finally be brave enough to start exploring my gender and why I felt the way I felt. It took me until I turned 21 to finally start embracing myself and embracing the fact that I am feminine despite not being a girl. I'll still catch myself sometimes bringing myself down by going "haha not to be a girl," but I know that isn't the way I should talk about myself. There's nothing wrong with being a girl. There's nothing wrong with presenting femme. Like sure, I'm not a fucking girl, I'll set that one straight immediately, but I also just... Don't care. I am me. I'm Manda. My gender is myself. Manda-gender.

I want to be recognized for who I am. And that is Manda.

[lethal-spaceship]

It was a surprise to me that you are Russian. In general, I don't care who you are for, whether it's Zadr, Datr or Zatr, it doesn't matter of me!

Reminded me of a dialogue I had one time. - Jack are you british? - No. - Thank fucking god. I guess I just don't have that russian vibe to me or something😭😭😭 Also shoutout to all of my fellow zadr (and datr) goobers!! And thanks for the support, appreciate it a ton < 3

[lemongrablothbrok]

Eeee! Lookee what I just got in the mail today from my baby brother!

[daily-ethoslab]

if i was a minor and i saw someone ripping a bong and DYING i don’t think i woukd do it

that one was more of a joke haha...

[conditionaljewel]

I just feel so strongly about Laudna and identify with her so much. There’s so much that I have in common with her as far as lived experiences, and I see so much of her in myself, myself in her, that I’ve just felt so deeply connected to her from the moment she first appeared on our screen. Verbal abuse and physical violence suffered as a child, violence at the hands of someone older, societal violence, psychological violence and torment, there is a lot that Laudna and I both share in common and much of the pain she feels, I have felt too.

I’ve had dirt thrown in my face, head stuffed into toilets, and bashed into garage doors. I’ve been made fun of for being different from the other kids. I’ve been jumped and beaten up simply for walking into a room. I’ve had to run and hide from kids and adults because I didn’t like how someone made me feel. I’ve had adults perpetuate the systemic cycle of abuse and violence, both as a child and an adult, and not do a damn thing to keep me safe. All things that this poor girl has also suffered through, violence dealt to her by those whom she had otherwise not been given a reason to distrust. Add to all that: Laudna’s made her own friends, Pate and Sashimi, while I had my own imaginary friends for much of my life and still, to this day, talk to myself as though I were to someone else. (The keychain Pate plush helps add to my transformation into Laudna.)

Laudna means so much to me, and I love and cherish her so dearly and just want the best things in life for her. I want for her to live for a very long time and to be happy and to heal and find peace, and in that, I want her to always have Imogen at her side.

Imogen means just as much to me, but in a different way. I don’t necessarily identify with her in the same sense, but I do identify with some of her trials and struggles. The auditory sensitivities, the fractured and awkward relationship with her parents, the struggle with finding her place in everything. She also means a lot to me on her own, yes, she will always be her own individual person first; but, when thought of in the context of Laudna’s life, she also means so much to me as a partner for Laudna.

Being a Laudna kind of person - someone who has longed to feel like they’ve belonged and was wanted despite their differences and quirks - the thought of someone feeling about me the way Imogen feels about Laudna, and in turn having someone to feel about the way Laudna feels about Imogen, is something I often think about and long for. So when I put myself in Laudna’s shoes and think about the things that I’d want and that would help me start to heal, Imogen is the right kind of person to help Laudna do that, and vice versa. Laudna is not a healed person, she still has a lot of deep-seeded trauma that lurks beneath that cheery exterior and we’ve begun to see it crack and become exposed as of late, but we’ve seen how much Imogen also does help her stay grounded and level with the rest of the world when it’s all gone to shit. Who couldn’t use a friend or partner like that?

I just really love this spooky dead lady with all of my entire heart, and I will never not feel one with her, and I just really need for her to have a happy ending out of all of this.

[jinouchibhue]

Friendship ended with the Roman Reigns and Mox now Edge and Christian are my favorites. Full circle.