#which imo is highly plausible

[expectopatronum18]

Why do people get so offended with fics that hv lily copying from Snape in potions instead of having the innate ability to do it herself?(hear me out)

Obvs, its annoying when its used to show lily as satan reincarnate against poor uwu sev, but imo there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea itself. Because we get absolutely no evidence from the source material attributing to her abilities apart from Slughorn's word. For example, we get evidence of james being skilled at transfiguration because he literally turned into an animagus at 15 (smthng Mcgonagall needed Dumbledore's help for) and even helped a fellow student do the same (albeit with Sirius). Ollivander also says in book 1 that his wand was good for transfiguration (actually, he also says that lily's wand was great for charms, but this is either forgotten or massively slept on by both the fandom and the source material itself). We get nothing of this sort about lily's supposed prowess in potions. In fact, Slughorn keeps saying that Harry's inherited his mother's abilities literally every single time he follows the Prince's instructions, which honestly makes me see this as the more plausible option.

Now obvs, there is the possibility that snape could have taken lily's work, but imo this is highly unlikely as we do hv evidence of him being good at the subject (brewing wolfsbane, becoming the potions professor only a few yrs after graduating, theatrics on the subject in his very first class with 11 y/os, etc. Also I don't think someone who names himself 'the halfblood prince' would be very ok with just copying from someone, snape is too proud for that).

This isn't canon ofc. They could have helped each other, had their own individual abilities, or whatever, but i just don't see why this possibility should be frowned upon so much. Maybe he was just helping her as a friend. Or maybe she was profiting off of him ( imo that would be an improvement to the perfect godlike figure we get in canon, and even so she wouldn't be half as flawed as the others in tht generation). Even if she did, it wouldn't mean she's stupid or incompetent overall, she was probably just bad at one subject and got help for it/ conveniently used the most easily available resource. Who knows, the possibilities are endless.

[solradguy]

If you don’t mind, could you provide sources for Millia, I-No, and Elphelt being canonically bisexual/lesbians? Not because I doubt it, but because I’d like to see (I think I know in Elphelt’s case, but not the others). Thank you!

IIRC @tillman's made a compilation of all the "Millia is bi" evidence so I'll forward you on to its askbox for that because Tillman is Millia's #1 fan haha

Elphelt's easy because she does Magnum Wedding on the female cast as equally as the male cast.

I-No's honestly actually the trickiest because it's hard to tell which lines she's being serious and which she's just being extreme to get a rise out of people she wants to piss off. That said, she says this to Baiken in GGXX:

"How sexy. That was a bloody good show! Hahahaha!"

Jam (GGXX): "I don't know much about fighting bare-handed, but I do know what to do with a fist, if you know what I mean."

She's got another one somewhere (Xrd story mode with Jack-O'..?) that feels more like actual genuine evidence but I didn't have these bookmarked and I don't have time to go digging for them right now...

I forgot Jam is probably bi too. She's like the most chill of the women during Magnum Wedding:

In any case, a lot of the evidence to support this these characters being bi or lesbian is about on-par or slightly below what we have to support Venom being gay. It's like, it feels HIGHLY plausible but I don't think Daisuke or ASW have ever outright said they were in the same way they've confirmed Bridget and Testament's gender identities in Strive, so we couldn't include information like this on the wiki but IMO it'd be harder proving they were 100% straight than it would be just saying they're probably at the very least bisexual

[max1461]

Blocked. Well here's the response I typed:

[T]he idea that the Japanese leadership didn't even respond to the bombings is verifiably false and complete nonsense

Oh yeah, that's not true at all. The Emperor's response speech, broadcast by radio, is super famous. I assume what they heard and are exaggerating here is that the Japanese leadership was weirdly slow to respond to the bombing. But obviously that's not the same thing.

The general "vibe" of the remainder of the screenshot is "far more confident about a variety of heavily debated points than is possibly warranted

Yeah, agreed.

Anyway, the sense in which I think the comment is a "significant exaggeration of a basically correct general idea" is that there were a number of significant factors that lead Japan to surrender when they did, and while I don't know exactly what was said in the back rooms, I think that with the US and Japan already going back and forth on surrender terms, the Soviets declaring war on Japan, and the absolutely desperate position Japan was already in, the idea that the war would have gone on significantly longer without the bombs is hard for me to believe. Not to mention that the US had the probable opportunity to end the war earlier by offering slightly different surrender terms (ensuring protection for the Emperor, something they ultimately did anyway), but for highly debated reasons they did not want to offer such terms in writing.

So the upshot is, IMO, something like "usage of the bombs was probably pretty avoidable, most narratives justifying their use are ahistorical, and through it's difficult to say exactly what would have happened if they weren't used, the idea that they saved lives on net is just as unjustified as the idea that they killed people on net". So the conclusion that they "definitely didn't do anything" is a significant exaggeration of the accurate notion that they "probably did nothing or very little that could not have been accomplished through other means, and furthermore all plausible reasons to conclude that they were justified which are extant in the historical record are so weak that we cannot even say their use was morally reasonable at the time".

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

what is your mclennon take

All righty then, feel like I haven't been asked this in two years.

(throwback to @phoneybeatlemania asking me this on anon on like day two of my having this blog <3)

I wanna preface this by saying I'm hyper-aware that multiple takes more or less fit the facts. I'm often reading up on what people who disagree with me are saying and try to consider their arguments as seriously as I can. Because of this, I don't feel entirely confident committing to one single take; more, a spectrum of scenarios I find more or less plausible.

(putting this under a read more cause I'm annoying lol)

At this point you can't really convince me John wasn't bi; the evidence is ample and IMO conclusive. Combining that with things John said after the breakup, some of his behaviours and words while the band was together makes him being attracted to Paul seem very likely to me, and I generally operate under that assumption though I do try to sometimes consider other possibilities.

Generally, I don't really buy into the idea that Paul is (meaningfully) attracted to men for two reasons: 1) he's denied it + continues to do so, and I dislike going against someone's word without good reason and 2) all the evidence I've seen for it feels very… Circumstantial. It seems more like a post-hoc explanation for a bunch of not necessarily related behaviours rather than concrete proof. (for example comparing when Paul started growing a beard to when he and Linda got together and concluding a general "return to the safety of heteronormativity" in mid-'68 based on that)

That being said, that doesn't mean I think Paul couldn't possibly be bi and I do see how the fact that he's still alive means that anecdotes like the ones we have of John confirming his consistent interest in men would not have emerged as easily and readily as they did once John died. (and conversely, Paul has outlived most Beatle-era people; I doubt much will come out from that time period at all in the near future, unless his kids decide to share things, but loyalty appears to be the currency of the McCartney Clan so…)

And also, I've seen this implied multiple times so let me reiterate: thinking Paul is not attracted to John is not equivalent to thinking Paul had an in any sense normal friendship with John. I believe that, no matter what, John was important to Paul to a probably slightly unhealthy extent and I don't discount that he's referred to John as some type of soulmate.

Now, timeline-wise, I consider myself somewhat of an outlier in that I'm highly skeptical of the idea that John was attracted to Paul from the moment they met (and, for that matter, if proof of Paul's attraction to men emerged, this skepticism would extend to him as well). But I also don't have some timeline I'm personally subscribed to because I think the evidence on this front is convoluted and somewhat contradictory. I'd say it mostly indicates to me that either a) John experienced multiple waves of infatuation which ebbed and flowed over the years or b) he was somewhat possessive of Paul before he was actually attracted to him. (or a combination of these two) Another thing I don't feel particularly confident about is at what point this attraction would have become conscious (and I err on the side of not believing an unconscious attraction could have lasted especially long)

I usually try to approach them holistically as people and when I can leave the romantic/sexual stuff unaddressed because I think a lot of aspects of their relationship can be analysed regardless of the precise nature of their dynamic. On the other hand, I do acknowledge that both these men were very sex/love-oriented and thus I can't discount it completely.

[lightstar789]

Kazui Mukuhara's Trial 2 M/V - Cat Analysis

Wow, okay, I completely forgot I drafted this holy shit.

I find it highly unlikely that Kazui actually pushed his wife off of a building (because apparently some people were going around and saying that), but rather, Kazui telling the truth about his feelings and his affair was his wife's final straw before killing herself, given that the word "LIE" is in the background as she falls, implying that this was her cause of death.

I say this because it's more consistent with what I've gleaned from Half, being that the knowledge of Kazui's lack of love towards her while she was already in such a dark place, is what caused her to go off the deep end. I wish I could say I buy into the gay theory but unfortunately I don't, because I don't think there's enough evidence imo.

I think the cheating theory is plausible, but it often comes hand-in-hand with the bartender from Half, which often serves as fodder for the gay theory. I'd buy it if they depicted another lover of his, but certainly not bartender guy.

Like other T2 M/V's, they serve to clarify the motives and the specifics of the murder, rather than an introduction to the character themselves.

Overall these are my thoughts, and do keep in mind I am currently finishing this post about 3-4ish months after I started it, so if there's anything I missed, please let me know! I also want to know what you guys thought as well!

[samueldays]

Sam Reviews: Just and Unjust Wars

⭐⭐⭐⭐

Four out of five stars, good case studies, well read, IMO best viewed as an account of what intelligent moderate left-libs believe, less convincing as argument, some gaps. Thanks to @friendshapedhole for the suggestion.

The common law of combat is developed through a kind of practical casuistry.

Walzer started by having strong opinions about Vietnam, then reached back to the Melian Dialogue, dipping into the War of the Spanish Succession, and a great many other wars for his cases. The examples are good, and yet even the Fifth Edition book feels to me incomplete. I suppose this is due to the nature of casuistry and shifting mores, that the writer cannot finish, only document what has happened so far, and must live with the knowledge that more things will happen.

My biggest complaint against it: like many left-libs, Walzer is still extremely concerned about the Nazis, going on for page after page, chapter after chapter, about how uniquely terrible the Nazis are and how fighting the Nazis might excuse committing some injustices of one's own (such as Operation Wilfred), but the Commies barely rate a mention.

As I get older, I get increasingly annoyed by this phenomenon. I feel like I'm not hearing Walzer talk in those chapters, I'm hearing some long-dead WW2 propagandist talking through Walzer, excusing why America has sided with Soviet Russia.

You will search this book in vain for any mention of Cambodia or the Khmer Rouge. Mao is held up as a conflicted moderate and Maoism gets nothing; here is the single mention of Stalinism in the chapter on nuclear deterrence and MAD.

"highly plausible", what an understatement. I have the Fifth Edition book from 2015. I choose to hope that this sentence was written for the First Edition in 1977 and never updated.

I grumble, also, that there's no mention of the Peace of Westphalia, which seems to me quite relevant to the situation of state-warfare practice and law that values the sovereignty and independence of states, condemning rulers for declaring aggressive war but not soldiers for participating in it. The notion of "neutral states", important to Walzer, rests on an assumption of a Westphalian state. Jus ad bellum turns on who the decisionmakers and relevant entities in war are, but I can't quite bring myself to make it a full complaint when Walzer acknowledges that this is more of a where-we-are book, less of a how-we-got-here book. Also I bought this because I was more interested in Jus in bello. Still I grumble.

My main takeway was a view of war crimes as a sort of violation of the presumptive immunity-right of most people, the right to not be attacked. Soldiers may be generally attacked unless they have surrendered, civilians may generally not be attacked unless some specific exemption applies, and the notion of civilian-looking guerillas is a messy one that Walzer spends some time on.

I applaud him for biting a bullet: on the view of immunity-rights no war crime inheres in gas attacks, the ban on poison gas is a constructed legal ban, not a basic moral principle.

I have heard the word "raid" (or "raiding") used for this demi-monde. I think it's an underappreciated feature of history, and ties back to the matter of Westphalia and States able to authorize acts of state. Ancient history has a great deal of time spent neither at peace nor at war, but in a state of raid, where armed bands from one group might do violence to another group, opportunistically scaling from robbery to murder and enslavement, in unpredictable ways and times. Raid as a condition can be quiet without being peace, when (like in outright war) no party sees a good opportunity to attack.

Raid, I have seen it argued, is prior to either peace or war. To make peace or make war requires in both cases some organized and treaty-capable authority over armed parties, an officer or ruler, who can order soldiers to stand down or to give battle, rather than speak as one of a band and merely suggest "that fight doesn't look worth it to me, bros".

[sanstropfremir]

Saw you mention Vuja De and I highly recommend the behind the scenes on the choreo and recording. So far there's been one episode and I thought it was really interesting!

Don't wanna "spoil" too much but I loved the cut from the dance practice to Yunho in the studio going "so how about we lower the tempo and take the song a whole step down?"

Btw the choreo for Vuja De was done by Vinh Nguyen and eztwins, two slovenian guys. (That kinda cracks me up because they also did work for a Helene Fischer, German Schlager singer, Tour which a friend of mine also worked on). They've done choreographies for sm acts before though I don't know which exactly.

Also wanted to ask you about your opinion on Nexus. I really enjoyed it but the ending didn't 100% work for me. The "it was all a dream" or rather "film withing film" ending was a weird angle imo as I didn't feel it fit with the rest of it and took away some impact but might have missed things or interpreted them differently so I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on it!

i think what probably caught you up about the ending of nexus is that that particular trope gets very maligned and/or used badly by people that don't understand the point of it. 'it was all a dream'/film within a film tropes are framing devices, where the intention of them (specifically at the end of a piece) is to break your immersion in the story up to that point in order to draw your attention to a larger point about the story itself. a recent example off the top of my head would be the ending of reborn rich, where the 'it was all a coma dream' purposefully draws attention to the fact that the story has convinced you that travelling back in time was a totally plausible possibility in what was established in the first episode as a serious, and most importantly, naturalistic political/financial drama. time travel is not a trope that would typically appear here, but the story works to convince you that it is, and so when the metaphorical rug is pulled out from under you, that's the point. you fall on your ass and take stock of just exactly what happened and how you got there. a lot of poor writers will use 'but it was all a dreammmm' in order to get out of actually writing consequences or thinking beyond their story, but a good and proper use of a framing device is meant to draw attention to the fact that it is a story and what that means. another good example is the wonder, which is a netflix film from last year directed by sebastian lelio, which very heavily nails on framing devices and their function, and subsequently how stories are integral to how humans understand and communicate with each other.

one of the central themes in nexus is power and autonomy. noah desires to escape the repetition of his real life, escaping to a place where he has full control to do and be anything he wants. sarah desires beyond her supposed capacities as an ai, searching for a way to escape her digital confines. the plot itself is very simple: noah becomes too reliant on sarah for escape, sarah sees him as her escape, and she kills him for it. the story very clearly has a moral - escapism bad - and because of that particular moral's presence in a lot of science fiction, i'm inclined to say that nexus is meant to be structured as a fable, with yunho as the modern aesop warning you of the dangers of escapism from inside escapist media. it's a nice succinct delivery of message that is sharpened specifically because of the framing device.

[funnywormz]

1, 4, 26!

1 - who is/are your comfort character(s)?

OHHH SO MANY but the most consistent long term comfort characters for me are like. anyone from wander over yonder, any moomins character but ESPECIALLY the groke, most of the main cast in utdr, dimple mp100, lord boxman ok ko, cecil and carlos wtnv, and ofc the current biggest one, dave lister from red dwarf <3. there are probably loads of others im missing hehe

4 - which cryptyd being do you believe in?

idk if i believe in any cryptids specifically, although i love the concept of cryptids i wouldn't say i have a concrete belief in any. however there are some i find more plausible than others. many of the "cryptids" im more prepared to entertain the existence of are the (apparently) extinct real animals have attained a cryptid-like status after being declared extinct (either globally or in specific areas), like with ppl "sighting" them but there being no tangible proof. obv it's extremely difficult to prove a taxon is extinct esp in remote areas, which means that although the existence of cryptids like this is highly improbable it has a higher plausibility than with some other cryptids imo. my favourites of these are the hypothetical cryptid moose and moa populations in nz, but i may just be biased bc i live here lol.

also, although i wouldnt say i believe in them whatsoever, i do have a soft spot for any ape-like/hominid cryptids (yeti, sasquatch etc), and for the ningen and nessie. also the fresno nightcrawlers i love them sm

26 - a scenario that you’ve replayed multiple times?

im assuming this means like scenarios in your head? i have a lot of songs where i listen to them over and over again and imagine scenarios/music videos to them, there are a ton of them but my current strongest one is a cartoony little brain amv portraying rimmer's entire lifestory set to "classic j dies and goes to hell" by glass beach. i also like to think abt lister and rimmer cuddling a lot when im not listening to music or anything, if that counts lol

[lurkiestvoid]

In the last 12hrs I have seen the exact same anecdote 1) as a Twitter screenshot and 2) as an entirely separate/original TikTok, BOTH of which claimed "a friend" was laid off and had a grudge, and so they left overwhelmingly POSITIVE reviews on Glassdoor praising the company's "great pay" "excellent benefits" etc etc, which then allegedly caused the company "trouble hiring ever since" bc "candidates think they're being lowballed"

While it's entirely possible if unlikely that both accounts are the same person relating the same story about their "friend" on two different platforms, which then got almost immediately reposted on other social media, and while it sounds plausible-ish -- sure, maybe 'positive review bombing' might have those effects -- imo it's much more likely a desperate attempt to trick disgruntled ex-employees into reversing the trend of rightfully highly-critical reviews against shitty employers.

Might be nothing, but just keep an eye out for this "anecdote" getting momentum and being repeatedly shared in pro-labor and pro-union spaces, and on the kinds of replies it receives.

[alvie-pines]

hey, i just wanna preface this by saying im not sending this in bad faith. like im not trying to be disingenuous at all and im not attempting to be a shit starter. but i feel like its worth checking deeper if heritageposts is actually antisemitic. because idk if its entirely useful to take an anons word for it, or trust that they were blocked for no reason other than simply being jewish. same with believing heritageposts is antisemitic based off secondhand (im assuming? sorry if thats incorrect) accounts of people just sort claiming they are. its just that zionist are throwing that word around with little regard with the whole ‘if you support palestinine/palestinians or are critical of any aspect of Israels existence or even certain actions from it etc etc etc you are antisemitic and support the suffering of jewish ppl’. (and ofc there are people who are being antisemitic on here, antisemitism is *pervasive* online. it is legitimately fucking bad and needs to be called out in people and spoken about. but im specifically talking about the whole deciding all anti-zionist are across the board antisemitic thing).

imo heritageposts has been doing some decent work so far in using their popular gimmick blog of tumblr heritage posts to help people keep themselves informed and reblogging a lot of resource posts and info on there (making some also). i mean if im totally mistaken here and they are actually antisemitic, like if they did block a jewish person for just being a jew, or anything else, thats genuinely my bad and i apologize. that said tho i cant actually find anything on that other than like, hearsay passed around by the gaggle of tumblr zionist or people who just genuinely dont know better but whos knee jerk reaction is to believe it because they dont want to support an antisemite. the latter of which i understand, like no one wants to unknowingly support or reblog from someone who is using this conflict as leverage to be antisemitic without really getting called out on it.

(i will just say because ive seen this called into question with heritageposts and many other blgos, that i truly dont think wishing death on idf soldiers is antisemitic. if someone wishes death on them for being jewish? absolutely, yes, that is 100% antisemitic. but people knowing and seeing what the idf is doing and has been doing and will continue to do if allowed to (which they probably will), coupled with watching these guys joke and tiktok dance over the death and destruction they’ve caused, i feel like its a very human reaction to respond with hoping they die/cheer for their deaths, particularly when idf soldiers already do that indiscriminately to palestinians. to me its such a big jump when people see others horrified and furious and overcome with grief at things the idf does and respond to it in a highly emotional way, and then equate that to them wanting idf soldiers dead because theyre jewish.)

like if that anon was blocked (it seems weird tho to message an anti-zionist pro-palestine blog and ask if its ok to follow simply because youre jewish? even though you agree 100% with them? when its made pretty clear on blogs like those that zionism ≠ judaism and its blatantly antisemitic to confer all jewish people to zionism) im really getting the feeling theyre possibly omitting something else they mightve said, or they were just being deliberately obtuse and aggro with how they said it. like something that genuinely warrants a block, but because theyre on anon they have plausible deniability and can just say literally whatever happened. i know saying this prob seems kinda silly coming from me, person currently sending an ask on anon. so if you ignore this ask for that reason i’ll understand lol

anyway my POINT that i literally couldve wrapped up in a single short paragraph is: i think its really important to know for sure if a big pro-palestinine/anti-zionism blog is antisemitic, or if they just have a very big target on their back for zionists who want them smeared as one because they legitimately believe they are one. because to them anything anti-zionist (and by proxy pro-palestine) is antisemitic.

im so sorry for this long ass ask, i know im a longwinded over-explainer. i dont have an excuse for accosting you with this wall of text other than i was cursed by a witch at birth to be this way.

im leaving behind this thing with heritageposts. i didnt know/follow them before that post, and i dont now. after speaking to MANY people on the topic, its become clear to me that i dont know enough about heritageposts to say anything more. ive asked for sources on any claims made to me that can reasonably be expected to leave evidence, and gotten none, so unfortunately i cant look into it further, at least not without doing some detective work that frankly, i am not equipped to do, especially not right now.

i understand and agree with your points. i would also like to know for certain if heritageposts is antisemitic, because while they seem like a valuable source for news, like i said in my original post i dont want my news filtered through an antisemite. but i just dont think i can determine that. apparently there is a lot of controversy on this particular topic and there have been accusations of antisemitism going back to before oct 7th. thats just too broad and complex of a subject for me, someone who doesnt even follow them, to make a sound judgement on.

i am leaving this situation pretty much the same as i was when i entered it: not following heritageposts. end of story. sorry i couldnt say or do more.

[topconfessions]

Referencing TOP and his moon obsession. I don’t think this space tourism mission is going to happen anytime soon. They have only just completed a test launch for the spacecraft they hope to use in the moon mission. They need to get that thing successfully into orbit first ensuring it comes back to earth… then after extensive testing get to the moon and back with an professional space team… per NASA they lost their technology to get back to moon…. So basically this is moon travel from scratch… as tenacious as Elon Musk is a highly doubt this will happen anytime soon. And as if the first people to travel back to the moon will be a bunch of artist…. They will use professional astronauts multiple times prior to engaging non astronauts. If they do travel this year I’d absolutely believe it did not happen and was AI generated cause it’s not plausible imo…. I agree that TOP needs to scale down his enthusiasm and maybe use that energy towards other creative pursuits. I mean, what if the mission gets cancelled?! How would he handle that let down?!… I feel sorry for him honestly. I think he has put all his eggs in one basket with this assignment, likely hoping it will redeem his public image to some degree. I hope it does redeem him but at the same time I hope he can create some balance in his life.

That's exactly what I've been thinking. What if they don't launch on the expected date and it's pushed back another year to 2024 (which seems more plausible although they should really do it 2025-2026 and WITH PROFESSIONALS like you've stated) like what then? he's placed all his eggs and emotions into this with little diversity on his day to day life and interests minus the wine so it's very hard to watch cause it's giving a kid on christmas back in the day who has all his sights set on 1 particular gift then has the rug ripped from under him then can't handle it. I don't know. It;'s tough. They should use professional astronauts first or just in general. This is giving a lot of flash in the pan and I don't like it.

[phoebehalliwell]

okay i get they wanted to have prue trash the auction house in the elevator while rex was there but was it necessary to have him in plain workman's clothes to have him change into a suit now? why did he enter the building dressed like a carpenter and is now in a suit? did he fully change in his office? i don't understand.

[transmutationisms]

going insane thinking about role of the theory of humours in this fucking show 

the entire show literally begins with logan pissing (piss being one of the clear fluids of the phlegmatic = cold, wet, unemotional, sluggish), a motif repeated a few times with him. he pisses in kendall’s office in s1 at a moment when he has plausible deniability in terms of whether it was a deliberate act or a result of sickness; then he unambiguously loses control of both his bladder and his mind in s3 when he goes “piss-mad”. logan’s piss is a literal plot point of this show because he’s basically the only character who’s ever allowed to actually release/express himself. he has the freedom to emotionally flow in a way no one else does—though in practise he experiences it less as a freedom and more as a matter of bodily betrayal

also in that first episode, greg puking. like logan pissing, this is less a healthy release/flowing of bodily fluids, and more a total loss of control. in greg’s case, it’s like he literally can’t stomach the bile (which checks for him; yellow bile = choleric, and cholerics are supposed to be much more irritable/volatile/short-tempered than greg ever is. especially in s1, he really doesn’t have the constitution to be a roy)

similarly, logan eventually also pukes (at argestes). it’s a rare expulsion of angry yellow bile on a show that’s usually more phlegmatic, and it’s done in a public place and socially coded as humiliating weakness for logan

tom swallows his own load (semen falls under phlegm), which robs his ejaculation of any purgative/cathartic aspect normally associated with the circulation of fluids. it’s, as he puts it, a “closed-loop system” and another way in which bodies and bodily fluids on this show are like a trap no one can ever escape from

which foreshadows tom’s line much later in the show, where he says having sex with shiv while she’s on contraception is “like throwing so much cake batter at the wall.” obviously, yeah, he wants a kid, but he’s expressing that specifically via concern about his bodily fluids and their dis/use

and, on that note, are we meant to understand that tom sees shiv’s use of birth control as a manifestation of her general emotional constipation and need to exert control over her life and herself? i think so. highly hippocratic! that guy was obsessed with blocked/irregular menses and it still shows in medicine 2000 years later!

kendall literally shitting the bed (release of black bile/melancholy) at tern haven, after the conversation with naomi in which they sort of clear the air, which is approximately as close as these people will really get to any kind of emotional breakthru

logan ordering all the seafood to be thrown out at the summer palace because “it sat around in the stink” (ok technically more related to miasma theory but still belongs on this list imo. fish is generally a phlegmatic food; it’s been touched by death and decay; he replaces it with pizza that no one really eats)

i literally only remember one time a character was sick on this show besides hangovers/drug-induced issues. it’s at that roman/shiv/tabitha/tom dinner party, and tom has a head cold, aka he’s phlegmatic. this is also a really important moment where we see tom stick up for himself with shiv: he tells her to fuck off after she makes fun of his suits and his “agricultural walk.” that this can only occur while he’s literally stopped up in the nose confirms the trajectory of tom and shiv’s relationship. it’s not a moment of weakness or a flash of anger when he snaps at her; it’s a much deeper perturbation and a temperamental shift for him

shiv offering gil eavis a squirt of purell after he shakes a guy’s hand on the street. obviously, yeah, a general fear of contagion/uncleanliness, but configured really specifically, i think, via the transmission of bodily fluids. this is even more phlegm (unemotional, languid), which she only knows how to counteract with the application of yet another clear fluid, but hand sanitizer is synthetic and made to kill

the extreme number of scenes that take place in bathrooms, like these people literally can’t speak to one another unless they’re in a location specifically coded for release and flow and circulation of fluids. feat: kendall destroying logan’s bathroom in the first ep after being denied ceo; roman kicking grace out of the bathroom because he says he needs to fart; greg giving himself some truly pathetic mirror pep talks; roman subtextually fucking jaryd mencken in the bathroom. also recall that tabitha is shown brushing her teeth right before roman proposes to her and she’s basically like “you’re repressed as fuck and this isn’t how to get someone to stay”

the relative bloodlessness of this show, blood being the humour of sanguinity (= vigor, vitality, health, regeneration). but! kendall had a cut on his wrist after the car crash, and a nosebleed before he went on camera to do damage control for logan. even though, normally, kendall is the most melancholic character, in both the classical sense and the more modern depressive one

there also could be a literal entire dissertation on the humours of different foods and the way the writers play with that (and how that in turn feeds into the general food issues of the show, pun fully intended). absolutely obsessed, i tell you

[imascar]

So I'm just going to throw my two cents in to the still on-going debate whether it was a J2 argument vs a JM argument and if no reads this, that's ok.

If you look back at the early seasons, pre Season 4, it was only Jensen and Jared as the face of the show. The two grew very close and very comfortable with each other. They started using the term "brothers" even as far back as 2006. With the introduction of new characters, and I include Misha in this, the face of the show extended beyond J2 and my gut is that Jensen was far more accepting of this than Jared was, and still is to some extent.

I think Jensen grew close to Misha quite early on and I've always believed that to be as early as Season 4. That did not, and does not, take anything away from his brotherly relationship with Jared. It was just different and that was evident very early on.

Now, as to the J2 fallout theory and any potential arguments.... Jensen has matured. It's really that simple. He matured and branched out and coupled with his open minded wife, embraced a lot of what he may not have openly embraced before.

(I don't include relationships with men in this. I think Jensen was with men way before Misha (Ty, Austin Peck...). I just mean he became more and more comfortable with embracing himself fully.)

Jared, on the other hand, has remained what he seems to think is his charmingly boyish self, which IMO, he is not. (I've never really liked Jared, so I apologize. ) He is still quick to anger, quick to judge, quick to react and still puts his foot in his mouth without understanding (or caring about) the repercussions.

I think Misha's personality had a hand in Jensen's growth which actually brings me full circle. While I believe Danneel and Misha sometimes push Jensen out of his comfort zone, I dont believe they do so with negative connotations. Which basically means that I don't buy into this idea that Misha was pushing Jensen into doing a joint panel and then had a tantrum when it didn't happen. Honestly, I call BS on that theory.

I do, however, think it is entirely possible that J2 had a heated discussion/argument. While they most likely still consider each other a brother, there is evidence that they have grown apart over the years. (Think, tense body language and lack of interaction.)

Honestly, I don't view them as being as close as they were back in the day so to me, a heated argument between the two is more plausible than one between Jensen and Misha.

Lastly, the idea of Misha getting that upset over a panel is ludicrous. The man is simultaneously enjoying the success of his book and the groundwork for his show while still dealing with the loss and sadness of his marriage. Being upset that Jensen didn't want a joint panel with all of that going on? Really? I highly doubt it.

And this got super long, super fast and I'm so sorry.

[humanwheatleyslefttoenail]

i HIGHLY doubt there will be a portal 3 (though i hope i'm proven wrong) but that post made me remember some ideas/speculation for what the plot of portal 3 could be

- Prequel similar to Portal Stories: Mel in Old Aperture or maybe immediately post GLaDOS activation where you're trying to survive in an unstable facility and a very young, volatile GLaDOS

- Something to do with time travel. A few mods have already implemented this in different ways as game mechanics, but it could also be used plot-wise. Maybe GLaDOS finds Cave Johnson's old time experiments, which then bring all the characters back to Portal 1 or 2 with their old memories and a chance to change things around a bit, despite some new antagonistic force trying to stop this. Or maybe GLaDOS wants Chell to come back, and time travels to convince her to stay in Aperture as a very confused audience has to figure out that it *is* a sequel and not a strangely familiar Portal 1.

- Exploration of the consequences of portals. There was this one star trek tng episode where the characters find out that warp drives are making dangerous rifts in space, maybe portals make similar distortions in space time. This could feed back in to the time travel thing or even let us have something along the lines of into the portalverse essentially. we might get to see rattmann, alternate versions of characters, or maybe some of the old cores from portal 1. it'd be a cool way to integrate the multiverse cave thing from the DLC into something more plot substantial.

- Wheatley is a fan favorite so if they're doing a continuation story, I don't think Valve would leave him out. I don't think they'd ever do a human wheatley/blue sky type thing and honestly I'm glad. if anything i think they'd play his redemption mostly for laughs.

- you could conceivably do a half life crossover but given it'd be a portal game i don't know how inclined valve would be to do a canon crossover. i think it'd probably be there'd be a few half life elements, like references and some black mesa technology, but i don't think you'd have chell meet gordon and alyx or anything

- people have had the idea of portal 3 taking place on the surface, which i think would be interesting. you'd have the chance to mix old aperture aspects of the testing environment, but then it'd add a new layer to the puzzles because you'd also have to improvise with outside elements. i think that could open up some really cool open ended puzzles with multiple ways to solve, which would be neat imo

- if it did take place on the surface, i think the plot would probably have something to do with GLaDOS asking Chell for help doing something only Chell could do, or maybe using both the surface and Aperture as game locations to complete a goal. Maybe they have to rescue Wheatley for some reason. Either way, it could definitely expand the game's environment.

- There's a scrapped idea that Portal 2 was about Chell bonding with various personality cores, that'd be such a cute idea if we can see more cores or maybe even get the Portal 1/2 cores back. They're adorable and I want to see more of them, it'd be so so so cute if they each had a section of the game they accompany you through

- also also more GLaDOS character development. not necessarily going back to being Caroline per se but opening herself up to Chell more as well as possibly other people, which she's already starting to do with the birds and atlas and p body. just her and Chell generally having more friendly interactions while she still maintains her sarcastic, morally bankrupt nature would be both cute and hilarious

- one of the missions in the game could be to wake up rattmann. i find this a little less plausible since rattmann is a human and the portal games shy away from showing models of human characters, but if they put him in a core (or... companion cube perhaps?) that's more plausible to me. i think it'd be cool to learn more about him that way but it might also take away part of his mysterious nature as a character who existed before the narrative. it could work but valve would have to be careful about it's execution

- cave cube. if you know what i'm talking about, you know what i'm talking about.

[theajaheira]

ok you know what i think it’s actually really vital that i talk a little bit about tea time. buckle up kiddos.

first off, a brief and relatively spoiler-free summary: the premise of the issue is very simple. the kiddos (aged up, if willow’s mention of being engaged is any indication) are hanging out in the library to help giles with research, swapping stories about what it would be like were giles a vampire. each of them, save giles, gets a chance to tell a detailed story -- xander tells two! -- and each story plays out in a way that says a lot about the scooby that’s telling it AND the way they view giles.

obviously this is a VERY character-driven issue, and it’s a really really interesting look at giles and how he is perceived as well! shit like that is my bread and butter, so this has honestly become one of my favorite things that boom has put out -- possibly my ACTUAL top favorite issue if we’re being real here. 

below the cut is a spoilery dissection of every story told -- a literal summary of Every Single Thing that happens in this issue, as well as what it has to say about the scoobies and their perception of giles, so definitely keep that in mind.

as can be seen in the preview, xander’s first story is about giles rising from the grave as an ineffectual british caricature, who is easily defeated by smoldering, sexy xander harris (and xander in turn walks off with buffy and willow draped all over him, cooing about how amazing he is). it’s more of an intro to the premise than anything, but it still sets the tone pretty clearly wrt how xander handles this situation: there’s some laughter and levity, and he’s center stage. obviously a lot can be said about xander’s self-esteem issues and how he overcompensates by casting himself as the main protagonist both in canon and here. however, i wanna save my more in-depth xander analysis for his second, longer, story, so i’ll stop myself there.

willow immediately responds with skepticism: she’s of the mind that giles would be an incredibly serious big-bad level threat. the tale she spins involves giles as a dangerous vampire cleric with access to a cryptic altar, killing xander almost immediately and slaughtering buffy as a sacrifice to create eternal night. her view of giles is more clinical than anything -- and, i would argue, the most perceptive and realistic from a threat standpoint. the guy knows a fuckton of magic and he is incredibly well-read and powerful. he’d have some kind of terrifying master plan. where xander goes for comedy, willow goes straight for logistics, already looking at the battle like it’s a battle rather than laughs aplenty. 

xander and buffy have a bone to pick with willow’s story (xander is indignant that he’s immediately and brutally killed, buffy is of the mind that she would easily defeat giles in hand-to-hand combat even if he IS a vampire), so (after one more teasing story where buffy lives and xander dies) willow gracefully alters her narrative to reflect her friends’ objections: after a dramatic tussle, xander helps willow and buffy unceremoniously stakes giles in the heart. still pretty straightforward and plausible. willow sees vamp giles primarily as a threat -- one not easily neutralized. one who could easily wipe them out.

buffy, about to tell her story, is interrupted by xander, who “had an even better idea!” the web he weaves is this time purported as realistic and entertaining: while partying at the bronze, buffy and co. are interrupted by a bunch of balding, greying vampires in curlers and bathrobes, led, of course, by giles -- who is wearing a hair bonnet and disapprovingly informing the bouncers how late it is at eight PM. a knockdown brawl breaks out at the bronze -- old people feeding on and decimating the young -- and culminates in giles and the geezers taking over the band to sing “some terrible song” that’s “probably something really old and bad!” the rest of the story descends into b-movie chaos, with buffy throwing a broken guitar neck up at the stage lights to send the whole thing crashing down onto vampire giles and his vampire old person band. it’s categorically absurd.

the thing that really sticks with me about this story is how dumb it is. xander’s take on giles is not even slightly serious and wholly underestimates him. fandom at large talks a lot about how giles dropped the ball with xander, but i think tea time explores an easily overlooked factor: xander constantly, consistently underestimates giles. in canon, xander’s view of giles is not often challenged: to him, giles is a bumbling, british librarian who regularly gets his ass handed to him by vamps and demons and the like. certainly part of his story’s intent is about laughingly entertaining his gal pals, but there’s a very real and consistent thread involving giles being hilariously nonthreatening. 

giles, taking umbrage at this particular tale, calls out both xander and willow: xander’s story, in giles’s opinion, emasculates vamp giles and turns him into a ridiculous caricature -- and willow’s story, though much more flattering, lacks the kind of imagination that vamp giles would clearly have. he then offers a suggestion of his own. it’s worth mentioning here that both xander’s and willow’s stories get gorgeous multiple-page spreads depicting the vampy action, but giles’s is a simple and chilling little thing: this is his vampire story. this meeting, called to ostensibly “research” a vampire altar, is really an excuse to get the scoobies to do his dirty work and find the thing for him. they’re tired and silly because the tea and donuts he’s given them are drugged, and their library location is to keep them out of daylight. he laughs it off when he sees they’re bothered, and the meeting is then adjourned when willow finally finds what they’re all looking for. 

buffy’s left her phone in the library, so she doubles back, and accidentally wakes up a dozing giles. just as she’s about to leave, he inquires, casually, “...you never did tell your version of the story.”

and good god here is where it gets interesting.

see, buffy’s take is simple: she’s fighting giles in a cemetery, she’s given the chance to kill him, and she is entirely unable to do it. they share a tearful embrace as she sobs about the unfairness of it all -- “you’re giles! and you’ll always be! ...how will i do this without you? without your guidance?” and as the sun is rising, giles turns her into a vampire, with no resistance whatsoever from buffy. the next handful of pages depict bloody, indulgent violence on the parts of giles and buffy, the two of them cuddled up together as they watch the world burn. 

buffy’s tale is the most emotive, the most loving, which makes me so damn soft! i love this girl so much! she is unable to even joke about giles as a foe to be taken down -- he is her watcher. he is her friend. she loves him endlessly and that does not change when he’s a vampire. vamp giles as she portrays him is gentle and understanding, holding her as she cries, because he knows that they’re connected. it’s easily my favorite part of this whole issue.

notably, there is a definite buffy/giles bend that the comic itself tries to contradict. the art is sensual in nature -- vamp buffy all dolled up in a way somewhat evocative of drusilla, giles tenderly caressing her face as he waits for her to wake up. “watcher and slayer connected forever” being the quote chosen to describe the situation. i think it’s kind of what naturally happens in a vamp giles sitch, especially if he turns buffy -- the childe/sire bond is incredibly sexual in nature, especially in canon, and a lot of frustrating human sentiment gets translated into something sexual as well. sex is a big BIG part of the relationships between vampires we see in canon; it would make a lot of sense for that to hold true for buffy and giles.

the comic is reticent about Going There, which i can understand -- though buffy is decisively aged up in this issue (willow mentions being engaged to a woman, later revealed to be tara), the buffy/giles bond is always seen through a father/daughter lens in canon. i do think it’s also important to always recognize how desperately giles wishes to escape the label of father in reference to buffy, pretty much entirely because there is no way to parent a child soldier who you’re also training, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish. point is, buffy very pointedly refers to vamp giles as her father not once, but twice -- once as a human, once as a vampire herself. it’s a very clear attempt, imo, to un-sexualize the vampy experience. the reason it doesn’t totally work, at least for me, is the fact that -- like i said -- the childe/sire bond is VERY sexual (spike and dru, angel and darla, angel and dru) and it seems just totally implausible that vamp buffy/vamp giles (two people who, as human were both VERY repressed) would chastely remain within the socially acceptable version of their relationship.

i can definitely understand why they did their best to blur that line, though. the idea of buffy and giles being romantically involved as vampires is 1) Kind Of A Lot and 2) not exactly the target demographic that i think this comic is going for. but the subtext is there, to the point where the issue itself has to actively obfuscate it, which i think is .... so interesting? especially as a counterpoint to the way i often see buffy/giles in fandom, wherein the father/daughter subtext in canon is at times actively obfuscated in fic in an attempt to push a preferred reading. 

the ending i particularly enjoyed: after buffy leaves, it is lightly and ambiguously implied that giles might really be a vampire. works GREAT as a standalone, imo, and the end is like the cherry on top. it’s a really REALLY interesting issue and i highly recommend it for any giles fan.