#this is all kind of random but. tl;dr

[dollsome-does-tumblr]

i feel like archie ofmd is getting an inordinate amount of dislike and resentment. (i haven't really seen it around here, but in other spaces online!) i've seen so many posts throughout s2 like, "who is she? she's so random! what is she contributing? why is she here? we know nothing about her except surface level stuff and random backstory details!" but like ... that also describes almost all the men in the crew!!! why CAN'T we have a woman pirate who's got the same kind of chaotic, unburdened-by-backstory vibe? why not, huh??

tl;dr -- i love archie and i'm so glad she joined the crew!

[dogtoling]

OK. . . seems i missed the whole 'chickens are controversial in splatoon' thing. . . why?

To put it short there's evidence both for and against them existing, and this is without me actually looking anything up so i might be missing something.

cases for chickens being extant: there's been chickens present in SOME form in several splatfests, they're not mammals so they're not NECESSARILY extinct, despite being domesticated animals and thus being unlikely to survive it doesn't mean it'd be IMPOSSIBLE because pigeons and other relatively human-dependent birds still survive in Splatoon, and of course there are many instances of Eggs being a staple in inkling culinary culture. egg is everywhere

cases for chickens being extinct: we only actually See chickens (or chicken, as in food) in splatfest art and splatfest dialogue which isn't (or at least definitely wasn't until Splatoon 3) canon-compliant at all. We havent actually seen chickens in-universe to my knowledge, nor had them mentioned outside splatfest. probably the biggest nail in the coffin is that there IS a chicken statue in Splatsville, and typically when there are big animal statues in the cities those are statues depicting extinct animals. this is something from an interview that touched on the crane and tortoise statues in Inkopolis Square; which also confirms that it wasn't JUST MAMMALS that suffered and went extinct, it was also other miscellaneous land animals and even random birds which I think me and initially a lot of other people thought were just. Fine and safe. But if a random bird like a crane can be extinct now then chickens are absolutely not safe just because they're not mammals. although eggs are in like every food it's not really been confirmed in any way that those are CHICKEN eggs (although that is the most likely), they could as well be farming domesticated pigeons or something

So really it's a big case of no real confirmation they DO exist, but also no real confirmation they DON'T exist, but also the only context we see them in-universe is in a context where every other animal depicted there IS extinct and it's like a lore thing. So the existence of eggs is a big hint TOWARDS them existing but could easily mean nothing whereas the other one is more in line with proving they do not exist. it is a very uncertain situation for the chicken

HOWEVER!!!!!! there is hope for the chicken. splatfests in Splatoon 3 have had more in-universe accurate themes and dialogue so far (meaning they dont randomly make up shit like "marina's landlord is a narwhal" and "inklings eat red meat" or whatever the fuck in that sea food vs mountain food one we didnt even have that one it was regional). SO THIS MEANS! in the next splatfest we Could get a somewhat stable answer to if chickens exist or not. of course the other 2 options are extinct animals whereas the chicken is 50/50. i'm HOPING the dialogue touches upon this fact and doesn't just talk about all of those like they just Exist. basically we are very close to some kind of progress on this issue that would be Somewhat credible because while splatfest dialogue has never been a credible source in the past, it has been WAY better in S3

TL;DR we just don't know. Chickens are a mystery

[sexhaver]

i guess i should preface im not anti ai but how is "everyone can make art it comes free with your humanity" ableist? i could see the argument for illustration and drawing and stuff as i agree with that the other statement is ableist ("oh this guy picked up paintbrushes with his mouth oough") but art is a lot more than that especially cause ive seen people make pretty interesting works of art using AI as a tool

in a vacuum it's not an objectionable statement but in context it's being said as a response to disabled people being like "hey, i like making visual art but can't move the pen/mouse too well, this new technology seems like it could help me make some cool art with minimal physical effort on my end". and in that context, "everyone can make art" stops meaning "humans have an inherent creative drive that manifests in a variety of ways" and starts meaning "okay, sure, you can't make visual art any more, but you can still do poetry or writing, right? like you can type the prompt for AIs, so you can type words, right? just do that instead, it still counts as art. what? you wanted to make a specific kind of art instead of just any random form of expression, and you don't particularly like writing, and also you're bad at it? well too bad, shouldve thought of that before you lost the ability to draw, because your only option to continue doing that without me yelling at you for using Ontologically Evil Technology is holding a brush in your mouth, and if you disagree with that then i'm going to call YOU ableist and post inspiration porn".

tl;dr it treats all different forms of art as fundamentally interchangeable and completely disregards the feelings and desires of disabled people

[cosmicdream222]

The void explained in an old Reiki book

The other day @gorgeouslypink posted about Reiki and the Void on her challenge account here. Usui Reiki is the type of reiki I learned back around 2018, although I kinda half-assed the training and never fully read the book 💀 So I found one of my old Reiki books (it’s from 1995!) and flipped to the back to see if there was an index. There wasn’t, so I proceeded to open it to a random page and what is it about? The Void.

It’s kind of flowery Buddhist language but it’s the void y’all:

Here is the text for easier reading:

Reality is created by the action of Mind from the Void. The Void is the depths of fathomless peace, purity, perfection, mystery and joy. In Wiccan terms it is Spirit, Ether or Goddess. All Be-ing comes from the Void, and it is the essence of all existence. All Be-ing (everyone) is already in a state of perfection, a part of the Buddha Nature (or Goddess Within). Reality is also the Non-Void, which is all potential, and a vast complex of worlds and shifting universes.

Mind emerging from the Void is the first Buddha source, but this source is obscured to most people by the illusion of the senses, the Non-Void. The reality created by this obscuring of Pure Mind is like the reality created in a mirror. People in incarnation do not awaken to their intrinsic purity (the Void) which exists beyond the senses. Their understanding is based upon the Non-Void's illusion. A distorted mind on Earth acts to creates a distorted reality, resulting in suffering.

"Mind, which manifests itself as wisdom, is intrinsically Void; yet everything proceeds from it and is therefore mind's creation." Everything real is created from the perfection of the Void. Yet, because of distortion and illusion, we perceive the world as imperfect and remain attached to delusion.

Wisdom=energy=creation is the Void, and participates in Nirvana. Human perception of reality is Non-Void, based upon potential, and participates in the Mind's creation of suffering in the world.

Enlightenment is understanding the joy of the Void, one's perfect Buddha Nature, and leaving the attachments and delusions of the Non-Void and the senses. Once true reality is perceived, attachments and cravings no longer have meaning, and Nirvana is attained. This understanding is Enlightenment, which leads to the release of the soul from karma and incarnation. It happens by the freeing of the Mind from delusion.

- Essential Reiki by Diane Stein, 1995

.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・。.。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.

My tl;dr summary:

Our reality is created by the Mind, which comes from the Void. Everything comes from the Void, and its limitless potential. The 3D world (the non-void) we see is an illusion created by the senses. Unenlightened people suffer because they are stuck in the 3D’s illusion, thinking what they perceive with their senses is real.

True understanding, or Enlightenment, comes when we grasp the joy and perfection of the Void, realizing we already have it all, and can release attachments and delusions of the senses.

[i-love-your-light]

too many thoughts on the new hbomberguy video not to put them anywhere so:

with every app trying to turn into the clock app these days by feeding you endless short form content, *how many* pieces of misinformation does the average person consume day to day?? thinking a lot about how tons of people on social media go largely unquestioned about the information they provide just because they speak confidently into the camera. if you're scrolling through hundreds of pieces of content a day, how many are you realistically going to have the time and will to check? i think there's an unfortunate subconscious bias in liberal and leftist spaces that misinformation is something that is done only by the right, but it's a bipartisan issue babey. everybody's got their own agendas, even if they're on "your side". *insert you are not immune to propaganda garfield meme*

and speaking of fact checking, can't help but think about how much the current state of search engines Sucks So Bad right now. not that this excuses ANY of the misinformation at all, but i think it provides further context as to why these things become so prevalent in creators who become quick-turnaround-content-farms and cut corners when it comes to researching. when i was in high school and learning how to research and cite sources, google was a whole different landscape that was relatively easy to navigate. nowadays a search might give you an ad, a fake news article, somebody's random blog, a quora question, and another ad before actually giving you a relevant verifiable source. i was googling a question about 1920s technology the other day (for a fanfiction im writing lmao) and the VERY FIRST RESULT google gave me was some random fifth grader's school assignment on the topic???? like?????? WHAT????? it just makes it even harder for people to fact-check misinformation too.

going off the point of cutting corners when it comes to creating content, i can't help but think about capitalism's looming influence over all of this too. again, not as an excuse at all but just as further environmental context (because i really believe the takeaway shouldn't be "wow look how bad this one individual guy is" but rather "wow this is one specific example of a much larger systemic issue that is more pervasive than we realize"). a natural consequence of the inhumanity of capitalism is that people feel as if they have to step on or over eachother to get to 'the top'. if everybody is on this individualistic american dream race to success, everyone else around you just looks like collateral. of course then you're going to take shortcuts, and you're going to swindle labor and intellectual property from others, because your primary motivation is accruing capital (financial or social) over ethics or actual labor.

i've been thinking about this in relation to AI as well, and the notion that some people want to Be Artists without Doing Art. they want to Have Done Art but not labor through the process. to present something shiny to the world and benefit off of it. they don't want to go through the actual process of creating, they just want a product. Easy money. Winning the game of capitalism.

i can't even fully fault this mentality- as someone who has been struggling making barely minimum wage from art in one of the most expensive cities in america for the past two years, i can't say that i haven't been tempted on really difficult occasions to act in ways that would be morally bad but would give me a reprieve from the constant stress cycle of "how am i going to pay for my own survival for another month". the difference is i don't give in to those impulses.

tl;dr i hope that people realize that instead of this just being a time to dogpile on one guy (or a few people), that it's actually about a larger systemic problem, and the perfect breeding grounds society has created for this kind of behavior to largely go unchecked!!!

[rosehipandroots]

if the links had YouTube channels what kind of content would they make

oh i can so get behind this

time: he’s too cryptid lol he appears in the background of Malon’s ranch vlogs. he makes his appearances stranger and stranger to mess with people bc he’s Like That 

warriors: all the beauty. makeup, skin routine, fashion, etiquette. this is however staggered by him and artemis’ impromptu sparring matches bc she likes to ambush him while he’s streaming 

twi: he’s just a little guy doin his farm things. he mostly talks about fishing and his goats and posts tutorials on how to properly herd and wrestle em. his audience is routinely shocked that he can haul 300 pound rams around. his most popular video is of illia roasting the shit out of him while talo and malo cheer her on (he left epona out overnight at the ranch on accident) 

sky: he knows all the birds. all of em. he’s like the rainbow macaw guy that was just walkin his birds lol. he does volunteer work at a zoo and vlogs about days in the life of a zoology student. he also skydives with his girlfriend all the time and he and wind happily talk about seagulls, and he often introduces his sword at the beginning of his videos. he’s got all the sunshine energy 

wild: he’s just Insane on social media. just a total gremlin. wind shows up in his videos a lot & they do crazy shit followed by a cooking tutorial from wild like nothing even happened 

legend: he’s a nerd. such a nerd lol. he didn’t post often but when he does it’s always an infodump on the most random of topics, esp things he shouldn’t really have the right to know/vaguely concerning bc he knows Everything (with an occasional jewelry interlude with wars) 

four: you never know what he’s going to post. smithing, pranking, breaking and entering; he gets away with the weirdest shit and no one knows how. wildcard fr

hyrule: he does those lil soft aesthetic videos with a lot of travelling, landscapes and rain. throughout the course of his videos he somehow becomes friends with increasingly more concerning animals until he’s just taking innocent selfies with a wolf pack in the middle of nowhere (which may or may not include twi) 

wind: had to think about this one for a minute! i think he’d do a lot of out-to-sea videos and chaotic boat manning stuff with tetra. plus bombs! aryll often steals the show bc of how cute she is and often steals the actual camera itself. she talks about seagulls and fencing. wind also does cartography occasionally with legend bc they’re all about maps 

this was really fun!! i think the tl;dr is that they're simply all too chaotic to not be entertaining XD twi and sky are the only vaguely normal ones

[davekat-sucks]

lute x adam is better than davekat and chaggie. they both sound killer singing together.

also just like wish's "villain", I find no fault in adam's reasoning, sinners such as rapists and pedos should be eradicated. i dont give a fuck about how apparently there are random kids in hell to emotionally manipulate the audience, for all we know that could be a grown ass man pretending to be a kid, and maybe that could have been more interesting: to see a hell's citizen take advantage of vaggie's kindness. it'd explain her trust issues & lute's bizarre reaction to actual mercy.

whats up with modern shows/films these days and their weird morals...

Adam x Lute is better than Davekat and Chaggie. Funny enough, Vivziepop confirmed that pedophiles, Nazis, and racists are already wiped out after they died. Like, human pedophiles/Nazis/racists who die, don't go to hell, limbo, purgatory, or heaven. They just get erased from existence. Angels have nothing to do with it. The Hazbin/Helluva universe already does its work. Of course, imps and hellborn creatures like hellhounds or the Sin ringleaders, can still be pedophiles, Nazis, and racists. But they are exempt from extermination. So the only sinners that do get sent to Hell to just do the same old shit would be murderers, con artists, human traffickers, rapists, and those who commit slavery, are still around. Which makes me question where does child murderers or those who lead child human trafficking and slavery fall in. Do they get wiped out from existence too if they didn't touch the child in that way? Do they get wiped out from existence for harming a young soul? Or do they get straight sent to Hell because murder is bad, regardless of age? Probably doesn't help that Heaven already admitted they don't know the requirements of people getting into Heaven, so it's a mystery on who is even checking since apparently at this point, even innocent souls who likely died of accident or bad circumstances, get sent to Hell regardless. It probably will be answered later on by some bullshit means, but it raises more questions on when in point did that become a thing. People pointed out that Angel Dust's sister, MOLLY, is there. What point in time Heaven allowed others to get in before it all changed with the extermination? Does even something small as when you were a kid stealing from the cookie jar, count as a major sin to be sent straight to Hell and that's why the child is sent in? Who the fuck knows. Maybe it will get answered in finale. Maybe they will hold it off for season 2 since it is confirmed and they are already recording the lines as we speak. I think the reason for these weird morals in recent modern media, just only goes for the straight black-white mortality, but hide it differently in these recent times as an act of justice that we won't make the same mistakes like we did in the past. Unfortunately, they are but are too ignorant to see it. Also in the case of how Hazbin Hotel is presenting with its rushed pacing, people, audiences and creators, would rather get to the heart of the matter fast and immediately than to build it up on how to get there. Why the fuck should we know about Camille and her backstory when all that matters is that she is a protective mother and that's it? No need to build up sustenance, all it matters is just the emotional factor to pull at your heartstrings for one moment like a quick sugar rush. No need to show the slow burn romance of why Vaggie likes Charlie. All it matters that she is now cute lesbians with her and its a good rep for LGBT. TL;DR of that is people are impatient.

[funnyburneracct]

Hi, I'm Xiao/burningrqs. this post is going to be long. Posting this from a burner so that it doesn't go down the drain when we deactivate.

But essentially, this is an apology to the radqueer community for multiple different things. I'm going to do my best to type this out as well as possible, and I apologize if I miss anything or word things poorly. I am going to explain myself to the best of my abilities, but please keep in mind that my explanations do not excuse my actions by any means.

Post under the cut.

for those who don't want to read it though, TL;DR: I was a complete asshole and I'm genuinely very sorry about it.

So, I want to start off by apologizing in general for the "burning radqueers" thing. Not only was it just not funny, but it was also really weird. I know damn well that if I saw someone pop up with a "burningmogais" blog or something, I would be pissed. So I don't know what made me think that running burningradqueers was a good idea in any sense.

My rude and dehumanizing comments did not help. Regardless of how I view people, what disorders I have, or how symptoms present themselves, it was disgusting of me to act as though I can't be held accountable for my cruelty towards others.

The targeted posts were even worse, and allowing people to just pick a random blog to "burn" was teetering on harassment. It put the user in front of so many people who clearly did not have good intentions towards them, and inherently put the user being "burnt" in danger. I wish I noticed that fact sooner. Even if I disagreed with people or didn't like them for whatever reason, I still should not have felt as though I had the right to post stuff like that.

Adding onto that, I should have never used my ASPD as an excuse for anything. I tend to get defensive when I feel insulted, which is what happened, and I decided to bite back despite being in the wrong. I acted impulsively and out of pure anger, and then tried to defend it, which I shouldn't have. When saying the kinds of things I did, I am open to criticism whether I like that fact or not, and trying to act as though I am immune to that criticism because of a disorder was disgusting on my part.

Another thing, somewhat on a similar note, is that an apology is owed for my hostility in general. Every time it was even lightly suggested I was wrong, I seemed to lash out and get angry. This really just comes down to me needing to learn to admit my wrongs. I should not have made my inability to understand my wrongdoings anyone else's problem.

Then there's also the things I said when I lashed out before deciding to drop burningradqueers entirely. I don't fully remember all of what I said as the event happened during an episode (this does not excuse my words at all by the way. regardless of my state at the time, what I said wasn't okay and should not be excused) and the posts have since been deleted. But, I do remember at one point making harassment out to be a competition of sorts when someone was simply trying to calmly explain to my why the namedropping was not a good move. I can't for the life of me remember why I did that, but I am very sorry about it. A lot of people in the radqueer community have been harassed (and likely do still get harassed constantly), and for me to act like I am the only victim of harassment was wrong on multiple levels.

I'm sure there was a lot of bad stuff I said during that episode, but as I said, I do not remember most of it. I'm sorry that I can't apologize for the specific things I said, but I am apologizing for the situation as a whole.

The entire thing started over me not being able to handle much deserved criticism, and I stood "my ground" despite having absolutely no ground to stand on.

I started burningradqueers over baseless hatred. I didn't know why I was supposed to hate radqueers, or what I was even really hating. I joined the anti community thinking that it is much easier to just move with the pack and hate what everyone else seems to hate, but hatred really isn't that easy. It's exhausting. And realizing how much the anti community really wouldn't want me if I was honest about things made me realize that. Realizing that there are so many antis who would rather see us suffer forever due to dysphoria than see us live happily after getting amputations was rough, and honestly kinda gave me a taste of what radqueers have to deal with every single day, and it felt horrible.

Without realizing it, I managed to do so much damage to a community full of people who deal with exactly the same things I do, a community that is mostly traumatized and mentally ill people who are just trying to get by. Not even just that, but genuinely just people trying to exist and be honest about themselves.

It is not my place to dictate what is and isn't valid in terms of someone's personal identity, and even more, it's not okay for me to treat a whole community like garbage just because I didn't understand it.

Again, I do not want my actions to be excused. I treated people horribly and was a total dick, but I hope that me apologizing can at least make some of you feel better about how I behaved.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for asking my mom to stop singing?

okay so a couple months back i (a uni student) moved out of my old apartment and back in with my parents while i try to find a new one. the only issue is, since i first moved away, my parents had moved into a smaller house than they had when me and my siblings were growing up. they now have their bedroom and my dad's study, but no additional bed or guest rooms. for this reason, i have been sleeping on their living room couch.

my mom also doesn't have a room of her own, so her laptop is also in the living room, as is mine. so basically the living room is our shared domain for the time we spend at home. i have class and friends to spend time with, so i'm away relatively frequently (though i'm on winter break now of course), while my mom is retired and is at home basically 95% of the time year-round.

me and my mom both listen to music a lot and our tastes do not overlap basically at all. i listen mostly to indie, folk, rock, the kind of stuff white queer kids love, while my mom's music is almost entirely soulful christian pop about big j and stuff.

up until recently, my mom didn't wear headphones. she'd play music directly from her laptop speakers. this obviously bothered me somewhat, but i hadn't said anything about it. recently (i.e. a couple weeks ago) i asked her if she'd consider starting to wear headphones, which she has for the most part, though sometimes she forgets. i just kinda let her do whatever if she does, i haven't mentioned it again since.

so that's the first time i asked my mom to be quieter, and i don't think i'm an asshole for that. my worry is about the second time. you see, over the last week, she's taken to singing along to her tunes. maybe she did that before and i just didn't notice over the actual song itself? anyway, i can definitely hear it now.

and of course it's not the best musical performance, it's a lady with little singing experience belting along to her favourite songs, but it's not really about the quality of the singing. i don't like the music she likes and would prefer not to listen to it, is all.

today, whilst she was singing, i gently asked her: "could you stop singing?" i didn't mean forever, just in that moment. i really tried to say it in a nice way, and i don't think i sounded particularly rude? it should be noted, though, that my parents do seem to think of me as some kind of sensitive sally intent on criticizing every little thing they do. that feeling does kind of go both ways, but i admit sometimes i can be harsh on my mom, because she can be overbearing and a bit neurotic, and i don't really get to have the space i wish i could, especially not now when i'm living with them.

anyway, so i ask: "could you stop singing?" and my mom says something like "okay- well, i would prefer not to." the way she said it really made it sound like i had hurt her feelings. so i said, "okay. that's alright. you can sing." she stopped singing and has been sort of running around for the last 10 minutes or so restlessly doing random things.

my parents are that kind of people who are really really deep in "politeness" and genuinely baffle me since i'm autistic (like, a couple of days ago we had some leftover cake, and my dad straight up forced me to take half of what was left over even though i said i didn't want it. i still don't really know why?) so i'm sure even though i said "okay, nevermind then," my mom didn't believe me.

while she was running around doing random things, i told her, "sorry if i hurt your feelings." and she said, "oh, it's nothing." i genuinely don't know if i'm in the wrong here. i feel like, on the one hand, this is a space we have to share, and i should have the right to ask her not to make noise (i always wear headphones and never sing along to music or vc with friends when my parents are around), but on the other hand, it's her house, and she should have the right to sing in it, right? i don't know.

TL;DR: i asked my mom to stop singing in the only space for our computers in the house and i'm pretty sure it upset her. AITA?

What are these acronyms?

[silverware-drawer]

This is probably a super unpopular opinion, but I genuinely don't know why people are putting so much weight on the destruction of the "eggs"—players or fandom.

I actually thought they were holograms at first, just some kind of digital avatar for the purpose of the game, but I guess it makes more sense if they're statues. But honestly, I feel like even calling them "eggs" is purely a manipulation tactic.

If you think about it, they are literally just big rocks with the equivalent of a paper sign that says "this looks like your kids" taped to it. Any connection they have to the actual eggs is, for all intents and purposes, completely based on assumptions. Up to this point, nothing the eye has said has solidly connected them to the kids beyond their appearance.

Big rocks are not the same as children. Not even if they look kind of similar. There is no reason for the parents to believe that they are—or are connected to—their real kids, except for paranoia. If breaking a statue leads to an egg's death, I wouldn't blame the person who broke the statue. I would blame the person who decided that in the first place, the person who created the entire situation.

It's like the thought experiment that goes, "if you were in front of a button that, when pressed, would end global warming but also kill a random person somewhere in the world, would you push it?" There is no situation where I'd think it was reasonable to blame the person in front of the button for any death or destruction that came as a consequence. I'd blame the person who fucking built the button in the first place, and had the power to end global warming but decided to make it into a twisted game.

From my perspective, the only legitimate moral conflict here is whether the characters choose to try and break the game that's presented to them, to go along with it because they fear what will happen if they don't, or simply refuse to play at all. Just like the elections.

Anyway tl;dr—with the information we have, I think the "eggs" don't have any meaning except messing with the characters' heads, and if any of the actual kids die as a result of the situation I think the puppet master is to blame. Not the puppets.

[thesilliestofgals]

Hello everyone, I'm making this huge post because I'm hyperfixated on what's going down in the Ever After High fandom right now, and I need to type all my thoughts out. So, get your tinfoil hats ready folks, because it's speculation and theorizing time.

DISCLAIMER: this is all just speculation and/or incoherent rambling. I'm putting it under the cut because... it's a little long lol (if you see any grammatical and/or spelling errors ...no you don't)

Earlier today, January 5th (or January 4th, depending on your timezone) Mattel released a "new" song for Ever After High, "Can't Get Me Down" (you'll see why I put new in quotation marks in a bit). Reaction to the song itself was... mixed, with some really liking it, some not liking it, and some being more neutral. The reason why this sent the fandom into a frenzy is because, obviously, this is our first real content from the actual source since the series ended in 2018.

Tin foil hat time, I don't think this song is "new" at all. I'm speculating that this song was in the Mattel's equivalent of The Vault for a long time, which could explain a lot about why it sounds janky and almost ai. Also, I saw some people saying it reminded them of Taylor Swift, and we know, canonically, Taylor Swift exists the EAH universe as Tailor Quick, and Raven is a fan of her. Adding on the fact that Raven is used as the cover for this song, I suspect she would've sung this either in a webisode, or more likely a special, but it got cut for whatever reason.

Here we get to my biggest point: why now? Why would Mattel, with no promotion beforehand, just drop this out of the blue? I saw someone suggest it was a mistake, and I saw someone else suggest that this was leaked by some employee, but I don't think either of those are the case- if they were, it likely would've been taken down already.

I shared this theory through an ask, but I'll reiterate it here: My theory is Mattel is using this as a tactic see how people would respond to the idea of EAH making a comeback.

I think EAH making a comeback now kind of makes sense- look at what happened during it's downfall; iirc doll sales were low, but also, Disney had created Descendants. This is a bit more into conspiracy theory territory, but from what I've heard discussed, many think Disney's creation of Descendants was the nail in the coffin for EAH. It's also common knowledge that Disney is extremely territorial about fairytales, and especially when it comes to princesses, so them making Descendants to assure EAH's decline... checks out. With Disney not doing well now, Mattel could be trying to take advantage of that. But that's just my theory, I could be totally wrong and Mattel could be doing this for some other completely random reason.

There was also some other stuff about trademarks, but I'm not good with that kind of stuff, so you can read more about that here.

TL;DR: this situation is very *exaggerated and vague hand waving in air* as you can tell by this post, so while we can continue speculating and/or doing our own digging, I think it'd be best to keep an eye out to see if Mattel releases any more songs, or even any announcements/statements.

If I forgot anything or explained this poorly, I apologize!! Please let me know if I did either and I will try and correct that!!

[capn-twitchery]

I love your ocs but I fear I am a bit out of touch with some of their lore. how much does Grace know about the red honey fuckery?

thank you sm!! :D♥︎ don't worry--i'm not sure i've actually spoken about this a whole lot!! (plus my lore is scattered around random posts like a ransom note. imagine being organised, couldn't be me)

for context: the two of them are a ridiculously slow slowburn bc neither of them know how to talk about feelings, they go in different directions a lot, twitch's response to Having Feelings (or anything) is to disappear to zee. everything takes forever. there's a summary of their timeline here if you want it !!

ANYWAY to answer:

tl;dr summary: most of the time, nothing! eventually, more than anybody else.

so, for most of the time, grace knows absolutely nothing. nobody does, really--twitch doesn't tell anybody, they don't want to talk about it, nobody sees their face at all.

as far as anyone knows, including grace, twitch's bad memory, lying & inconsistent stories are just a personality quirk. and they get sick sometimes, they just need bedrest & won't be available for a few hours, a day, a couple of days. nobody is allowed to see them.

grace remains mostly unaware for a long time--he has inklings that something is up. once he gets to know twitch better, he can tell they're not themself sometimes. but prying would push twitch away, so he just offers help, if they want company, for their headaches the surgeon mentioned. he'll leave the cabin door unlocked, just in case.

he has no idea how bad the "headaches" are until it's happening right in front of him, once they're close enough for twitch to trust him to that degree. he has no idea why it's happening, but he knows twitch doesn't want to tell him, either. and when they're sobbing in his lap, pleading for something he doesn't understand to stop, begging him to help them tie a blindfold because they don't want him to see their face, it's not exactly the time to pry.

it happens a few times. it never gets easier, and it never gets any clearer. it's not til after grace leaves for the new sequence and comes back that he finally sees their face uncovered. he doesn't connect any dots-whether that's because he genuinely just doesn't make the connection, or because twitch doesn't want him to make a big deal about it, who knows!

while he was gone, twitch starts connecting some dots: something's weird with their memories. they don't know how to process it. they bring it up subtly, ask grace if he knows anything about red honey, and maybe he can figure it out himself. he tells them he does, he learned about it during nemesis, in the palace cage gardens. it still haunts him, sometimes, the prisoners with their crying, the suffering the hollow looking eyes-

the eyes.

everything clicks all at once-twitch's eyes, their headaches, the memory issues, the inconsistencies, the lies. it only gets worse when twitch tells him they're starting to wonder if the memories are all theirs.

oh, god. how could anybody do that to them? who did that to them? but twitch doesn't want him on any kind of revenge mission, they don't even think they remember where the cage garden was, and they don't want to try either. he settles for comforting them the best he can-but what can anyone do to help, really?

at the very least, trusting someone enough to talk about it is a huge weight off twitch's shoulders. grace can help them try to figure out what's going on with their memories, it makes them better at talking to each other. it's not easy, but it helps twitch to move forward-slowly, but surely

[henrysglock]

[Lumax voice] Turn Around, Look At What You See! In Their Face...

(If you couldn't already tell: I have finally lost all my marbles.)

I'm sure this has occurred to other people by now, but if El's memories leading up to the 4.07 monologue are ripped directly from Brenner's (<- slayful Nat post, required viewing), and she runs in to see One killing Two...then doesn't it stand to reason that that is what Brenner saw when he ran into the Rainbow Room in 1979?

Now before anyone hops in to correct me: There's definitely a version of things where Brenner finds El alone in the rainbow room after the massacre. That's not in question. We all know that happened at some point.

(Regardless of the manner of death...no broken bones or gouged eyes...okay!)

However, as I'm sure we're all aware...these guys are different guys.

(This detail has been beaten into the ground but always bears repeating)

So, what is in question is what close-up Brenner saw when he ran into the Rainbow Room.

Those duplicate memories appear to belong to close-up Brenner:

i.e. not the Brenner who runs in and sees El at the start of 4.08. (This isn't to say that that Brenner doesn't have those memories or similar ones, but he's not the Brenner whose memories are being featured. Begone, thot.)

So, arguably, if El has close-up Brenner's memories...then she should be running in and seeing what he saw, no?

So what did he see? Someone just slightly shorter than him, who walked close enough to warrant a tight shot.

That POV (as has been discussed ad nauseam by many) is far too tall to be any version of El:

But it is about the right height for someone a few inches shorter than Brenner...something like:

So, tl;dr: I want to play a clip for you.

I love choreography and camera work. That's art right there.

However, that video doesn't include the subtitling that accompanies the visuals that link El finding One to Brenner finding El:

Now, it's difficult to compare anything after this point (though not impossible, can't keep a south Wisconsin boy down. I will be using them for comparisons later)...because of course that's when weird, random blood starts appearing:

Hence, the clock is visibly frozen after that point:

This smacks, to me, of the same kind of shit that happened with 004 when the kids were bullying El—Scenes that never actually happened in the real past being spliced into a tape that cuts off and then picks back up like no time had passed/nothing had been spliced in. It makes more sense if you read the post I linked, since the video in that post makes my point clearly.

< TANGENTIALLY RELATED >

The anime nerd in me is tempted to liken this whole deal ^ to JJBA/DIO's time-stopping stand "The World" in...that's right...Stardust Crusaders, wherein DIO pause time for everyone but himself, which I'm certain others have done as well.

Tbqh...I'm still here:

Specifically a reference to The World/DIO vs Star Platium/Jotaro, both of which are time-stopping stands...(Much to think about irt Jotaro/Star Platinum developing time-stopping powers later on in terms of El, sure, but also in terms of "Everything was hard for [One]...He walked in here, and it was like something had changed. He told me he had figured it out.").

[Distant screaming as I'm forcefully prevented from going on a "Stardust Spider-Stardust Crusaders-Dio Brando-Joestar Family-Dio's Bone-Green Baby-Green, Green Grass of Home" tangent in this post...and don't get me started on DIO's regen healing/vampirism from the ancient stone mask...don't get me started on King Crimson and Golden Experience Requiem either...]

Not to mention the DIO reference with One linking this scene to (you guessed it) Edward Munson:

Edward Creel proven once again, but this time it's via goddamn JJBA and Brenner fuckery. (And yes, yes, I know about DIO the band. This ain't about her. Things can have multiple meanings. It was a Choice to associate Henward with DIO and Eddie with DIO. I rest my case.)

< ANYWAY, TANGENTS ASIDE >

As I said earlier, close-up Brenner is shot at a distance baby El could never have achieved. She passes out on the far side of the room, entirely too far away to have been anywhere near close enough for a close-up of Brenner's face, height aside.

However, ignoring the blood fuckery and disappearing gate cracks:

Some-One else has enough energy left to walk towards the doors. All the way over, in fact. So while those close-up shots are 100% out of range for post-gate baby El, they're very much in-range for 3:46 PM One.

Tl;dr: It's entirely possible, if not likely (based on the choreography and camera-work in these scenes) that close-up/angry Brenner was addressing One rather than baby El.

[happy-lemon]

Gather 'round, friends. I have a weird story about Iara Machado.

You might remember that she married Gwen and they had a son named Leo, who is now a young adult. (He was just at Lola's Christmas party.) Well, not too long ago, via the magic of Neighborhood Stories, they had twins, Ana and Tomas.

While I've been playing Generation Lola, I kind of lost track a bit and I discovered recently that Gwen died. No idea why or how. So that was kind of sad.

Yesterday, while I was taking screenshots of Lola's wedding, I realized I didn't have a second wedding outfit without a bouquet in her hands. Which sucked because I knew as soon as I took her in CAS, everyone was going to break their poses and poof back home.

Friends, I had Lola in there for two minutes. Tops. And when I teleported Iara back, she was no longer Iara Machado. In those two minutes, not only did she marry Baako Jang, but they had/adopted (I'm not sure) two more babies. Neighborhood Stories is the wild west, man. Anything can happen.

Well, I did what any (in)sane simmer would do. I "adopted" those babies to a random couple who "moved away" forever. And because it was clear Iara was calling the shots about her relationship, I took Baako into CAS to update his funky style a little bit. While I was in there, I took a look at Iara's gender preferences and I gasped!

All this time, I thought Iara was a lesbian, but as it turns out she's sexually attracted to men and women, but romantically attracted to men only? Okay. So, all this time she was married to someone she really just wanted to bang. And after Gwen died, Iara decided to get herself some dick.

Anyway the TL;DR is that I think I accidentally fucked up Iara's entire life. Imagine if she'd been an only child and I'd let her be heterosexual. Just imagine.

Congratulations, you nutty kids! I hope your life together is happier than the expressions on your faces.

[panlight]

What do you think of the "Everything in twilight is because of Mormomism" theory going around? I'm always in some random comment section that's discussing twilight(either the lore, the characters, or SMs writing) and that's the only thing anybody will ever bring up

I think she was definitely influenced by her religion and the culture she grew up in, but I don't think most of it was like, intentional.

In fact she seemed to intentionally try to avoid Mormonism in the story; Charlie is Lutheran, Bella doesn't really have any faith, Carlisle is/was 'Anglican' and Edward seems to be vaguely Christian. She chose not to make any of the characters canonically Mormon, but they sometimes feel Mormon to readers because of how she wrote them.

SM herself had this to say:

The main theme that I consider to be LDS is that of free agency. These books are all about choice to me–people’s ability to rise above (or sink below) what is expected of them. There is a little bit of Helaman’s stripling warriors with the pack, too (they fight to protect their families, who are not able to fight the way they can). There is some overt discussion of religion, particularly in New Moon, and a little in Eclipse. For me, that is more about realism rather than my specific religion. Religious or not, real people have to wonder sometime about where they came from, why they’re here, and where they’re going. Characters who didn’t ponder that a little would feel pretty shallow to me.   As an author, I consider NOTHING, ha ha ha. I just tell a story. All the symbolism and themes and archetypes are things I discover after the fact. All that stuff in the above paragraph–I didn’t think of any of those things until after the story was done. Then I would read through it and think, “Hey, the pack kind of reminds me of those Ammonite kids. Wonder if that’s where I got it from?”

So I don't think she set out to make Carlisle 'look like Joseph Smith' but can imagine that when she was trying to imagine a young leader she might have been influence by Smith. I can definitely see how her attitudes toward marriage, motherhood, Indigenous peoples and race could have been influenced by her faith and culture. Imprinting seems to be related to a common trope in early Mormom fiction (tl;dr - everyone exists as souls before we are born and sometimes pair up in that spirit realm and have to find each other on Earth and when they do it's this instant, powerful recognition), and this based on an essay by a fellow Mormon (tw: for religion talk). And the whole idea of eternal families relates to ideas about 'sealing' and the Mormon afterlife.

But I don't think she set out like, "bwahaha I'm going to write a MORMON vampire romance!!!" She's not that deep, she had a weird dream and wrote it down and then built on that going wherever her imagination took her, but that imagination was certainly influenced by her faith and lived experiences.

And plenty of conservative religious types hate the books on principle for having vampires and werewolves in them at all because that's occult and that's of Satan. Also because of the 'sexual content.'

[hephaestuscrew]

Pan-Pan, Boléro, and Minkowski's different responses to loss

I want to compare two key lines of Minkowski's which indicate very different responses to grief:

In Ep29 Pan-Pan, Minkowski breaks down and says "Doug Eiffel is gone! There was nothing we could do to save him. It wasn't anyone's fault. It's horrible, and pointless, and it just happened."

In contrast, after arriving at the funeral in Ep46 Boléro, she says "[Lovelace, Hilbert and Maxwell are dead] to make the fact that we're not gone yet important. They're gone... so that we never forget how important it is that we're still here." 

TL;DR: In Pan-Pan, Minkowski expresses her unprocessed grief through despair and hopelessness. Whereas in Boléro, she is able to find hope in the loss and lead her crew in trying to move forward. I suggest a significant reason of the difference is the presence of Eiffel to force Minkowski to confront and process the sense of loss.

Pan-Pan: "It's horrible, and pointless, and it just happened"

In Pan-Pan, the whole episode is full of anger and despair, but Minkowski speaking about the horrible pointlessness of losing Eiffel is one of the most painful and hopeless moments. It doesn't feel like she's really speaking to the others. She's focused on her internal despair (as suggested by the fact that she goes on to talk about the cracks, which Lovelace and Hilbert aren't supposed to know about).

The only potentially positive thing Minkowski says here is her recognition that "it wasn't anyone's fault". When Hera and Hilbert have been blaming Lovelace, and Minkowski has been blaming herself, it's significant that she acknowledges that sometimes a horrible thing just happens without there being anyone to blame. 

But in this context, and in the tone of voice Minkowski uses, even the lack of blame doesn't really feel like a positive thing. If Eiffel becoming stranded was just pointless and random, if there was nothing any of them could have done to save him, then the next tragedy might be just as unpredictable and unpreventable. Minkowski strikes me as the kind of person who can sometimes fall into the trap of subconsciously wishing that the awful thing is her fault because then at least she'd have control over something. In her train of thought here, the lack of blame is followed by focusing on how horrible and pointless what happened to Eiffel was. The only conclusion she can draw is "it just happened". There's no sense of hope in those lines. Eiffel being stranded just happened, and so do the cracks, and the crew are at the whims of brutal fortune with no meaning to any of it.

Boléro: "They're gone... so that we never forget how important it is that we're still here"

In Boléro, Minkowski can't even say that the tragedy wasn't anyone's fault. For each of the deaths, someone pulled a trigger. There is blame, and some of it lies at her feet. She didn't want to come to the funeral because at first she didn't know what she could say about the deaths she feels responsible for.

Yet even so, this time she finds something reassuring she can say to her crew, a grain of hope she can provide without attempting to diminish the loss: "[they're gone] to make the fact that we're not gone yet important. They're gone... so that we never forget how important it is that we're still here."

In another show, or another context, this kind of line might have had an 'everything happens for a reason' tone, which is something I deeply dislike as a response to other people's loss. But it doesn't feel like that's what Minkowski is saying here at all. She isn't trying to make any grand philosophical statement about the ultimate beneficence of the universe, or about how mortality gives meaning to human life. What she says here is working on a much more personal level. It's more about finding something other than despair that the crew can take from what has happened. This tragedy may still be horrible, but it provides a reminder that they are still alive in a context where that's far from guaranteed. Minkowski emphasises that the fact the survivors are alive matters - her crew matters. I'd argue that this contrasts with the 'it just happened' outlook discussed above. 

I don't know how much Minkowski fully feels the importance of them still being there in the moment, but it's something that she can offer her crew, something that she can say in a situation that words can't grasp. I think the moment when she joins the funeral is such a key moment of her leadership. In the end, despite her doubts and struggles, she's there for her crew. Eiffel brought them together for a funeral, but he doesn't know what to say when Hera asks why they have to be gone. Minkowski enters just at the right moment to support her crew and she provides an answer to Hera's question. It's not a perfect answer, but it allows the funeral to move forward. It allows the crew to move forward (even if that emotional movement is somewhat thrown off by a dramatic change in the circumstances). Minkowski starts off the eulogies; she leads her crew in the acknowledgement of what's been lost.

Why such a difference in responses?

There's lots of ways you could interpret the difference between the outlook of these two moments, and there's probably more to say about it though the lens of Minkowski's character development than I'm going to say here. But for me, the main difference between these moments is that, in Pan-Pan, it feels like no processing or recognition of grief has really occurred. When Minkowski says "Doug Eiffel is gone!", it almost feels like the first time that Minkowski has fully confronted and acknowledged the loss. Eiffel has been lost in space for 116 days, but it's only at the end of this episode that Minkowski brings herself to say in her distress calls that he is "presumed dead". Whereas in Boléro, she's already eulogising the dead and thinking about what can be learned from the loss, not even a full day after the mutiny.

Obviously there is much less ambiguity to a body bag (or least there would be, if not for alien interference). But I can't help thinking that the difference between the attitudes towards loss which Minkowski displays in these two quotes is less about the difference in the kind of loss, and more about a situation that prompted and enabled the processing of emotions in Boléro: namely, the funeral. After Eiffel was stranded in space, I think Minkowski probably went months without looking her grief in the eye. But after the deaths of Lovelace, Hilbert, and Maxwell, Eiffel's suggestion of a funeral forces Minkowski to confront her complicated emotions and provides a space in which she can offer direction to her grieving crew.

This is a good illustration of how I think Minkowski and Eiffel complement and support each other in a really valuable way. On his own, Eiffel couldn't provide the leadership that the crew needed for the funeral to work. But without Eiffel, and his determination to recognise the emotional weight of the three deaths, the funeral would never have happened and Minkowski would never have been in a position to provide hope and direction to her crew. When Eiffel was the one the Hephaestus crew were grieving, Minkowski couldn't offer much emotional direction to her crew beyond despair. But when Eiffel is beside her in the grief, saying that the grief deserves to be felt, then Minkowski can find a way for them to move forward emotionally. It's not the deaths that remind them how important it is that they are still here. It's the grief. It's the ability to confront that grief together.