In general, when it comes to the religious approach between the US and a country like France, the huge gap can be easily explained by history.

The USA history was all about learning to embrace and accept and tolerate all and every religion. Yes there was religious fanaticism and religious extremes in this country - in fact a lot of people in there like to forget the founders of the USA were themselves considered religious fanatics by Europe. But the whole history of the USA is about learning to be open-minded and tolerant and respectful of other religions.

But a country like France? Its history is about to try and kill religion. France had its "let's welcome and open all religions" era - but a long time ago, and somehow it shows how "young" of a country the USA is. France meanwhile went way past beyond that, and went to the next phase, the systematic elimination of religion, or at least reducing it to the point of it being harmless.

Because France had to deal with all the most fucked up things religion had to offer. Not only did we kept fighting with every neighboring countries in names of religions (Christianity vs Islam, Catholicism vs Protestantism or Anglicanism), but we even had the historical traumatism of the religious wars within France itself, the country devouring its own due to the Catholic vs Protestant debate. Itself being a mere continuation of the strict hunt by the Inquisition of all the various "heretic" groups in France - France was the country where the Templar Knights and the Cathare met their death by mass executions.

The French Revolution was all about getting rid of an over-powerful and corrupted Church, and of a biased government tied to Christianity so much the Crown and the Church were just one and the same. Overthrowing the King was overthrowing the chosen of God, and the one sent by God - and thus the French Revolution was about men of religion, and the Terreur that followed made sure to get rid of all those French communities that were still too attached to their religion. Heck the French Revolution was all about removing any religious name, and all religious celebrations and destroying all religious statues - not just of Christianity, but also of long-dead religions such as the Greek or Roman ones.

And the Enlightenment. What about the Enlightenment? Everybory part of the "Lights" were about denouncing and criticizing religious fanaticism and the power of "superstition" over the minds. They liked in times of religious wars and persecutions, and they knew first hand that religion was the enemy of a good, human thinking. Just take Voltaire's writing: the guy spent his entire life taking down any form of organized, unthought religion, caricaturing, mocking or denouncing all the forms of Inquisition and hurtful superstitions he could find.

And even then, one of the most important dates French kids are taught in school, which is considered to mark the beginning of modern France, is 1905: the law separating the Church from the State. This was the moment the modern Republic, after many tries and fails, finally established the principle that religion should not be part of a government, and that the State should be above religion, and that religion was a private domain not a public one. This is one of the fundamental principles of the French Republic: secularism, laicity, the modern way to ensure a freedom of religion by making sure none dominate and that all religious matters are to be secondary in the greater scope of things.

So yeah, what I am trying to say is that France's entire history is about fighting off religion and trying to make clear it should not define people's life and should not be imposed on anybody and should not have too much power. Because France lived in the trauma of the Inquisition, and the religious wars, and the superstition-fueled persecutions, and the Church influencing if not corrupting the government. Times and times again in an endless cycle.

Which of course is going to make a HUGE difference when it comes to religious approach compared to a country like the United-States, which was founded by religious communities, partially for religious reasons, and whose entire creation relied on religious principles (like Manifest Destiny), and where the President still has to swear by the Bible before obtaining their post...

It's interesting that the infection made fpk life better in a lot of ways. If the infection never happened, fpk would have been miserable in a marriage, and it would probably end with fpk starving himself. Since fpk would still most likely be married, Grimm would definitely not try to get with fpk and vice versa. Hornet and Holly wouldn't have been born, and I am unsure if WL and FPK wanted kids in the first place. I am unsure how diplomatic WL is, but if she isn't that diplomatic and her husband kicks the bucket from starvation, Hallownest might have been in trouble.

oh i've thought about this many times, and i believe that fpk did as well. part of him is thankful that things happened the way they did, though he also realizes how selfish of him it is to think that way - after all, the infection claimed many lives, and many of them were directly tied to his mistakes. but despite everything, he's actually much happier than he ever was, even if he has to deal with a lot of mental baggage left from his past

like you said, if it wasn't for the infection, there's a good chance he would be stuck in the marriage that made him unhappy. granted, there's still a possibility that he would separate with wl - the infection and the vessel plan was a big part of why it happened when it did, but i do think he also finally told her that he was unhappy, thanks to grimm's subtle suggestions that he deserves better than how she treats him. but i don't think he'd have to courage to do it if there wasn't another factor that contributed, and their fundamental differences in how they coped with the deaths of the vessels was exactly that - his breaking point

as for grimm, i do believe he would stick to subtle hints. he knew wl would not take lightly to him stealing fpk from her, and he wouldn't want it to affect fpk himself. besides, it would likely lead to conflict, and he's not as strong as he was before banishment so it's difficult to say how that would end for him. he didn't want to risk that, and potentially losing his chance with fpk. not to mention fpk himself, who even in the actual au timeline worried about getting into a relationship following his divorce, thinking that it would be unfair towards wl. so just imagine how he'd react to the prospect of cheating on her. it's very likely that he'd end up distancing himself from grimm altogether, and getting dragged even further into the toxic marriage, now with a particularly jealous (and likely more possessive) wife

and yeah, hornet would never be born, same with holly. hornet in particular made his life pre-hibernation that much happier, he was obsessed with her and wanted to make her the happiest she could be. she brought joy to his life, something he desperately needed. and while he wishes holly didn't have to go through all the horrors he put them in, they still make him incredibly happy. they are his beloved child, he would do anything for them. he doesn't even want to think of a timeline where they don't exist

as for him and wl, i don't think they were planning to have any children. fpk didn't realize he wanted to be a father until he became one. meanwhile wl simply just didn't want them. she had her needs and a high drive, but she wasn't built to be a mother, and she didn't want them to distract her from other matters she deemed more important

which connects to another idea i had, where she's the one who did most of the ruling. of course, she was aware that her husband was far more popular with the subjects, he was the one who gave them sapience and so they worshipped him, not her. so it was a far better idea for her to rule from behind the scenes - which was surprisingly easy, since fpk would listen to pretty much anything she said in regards to the development of the kingdom. though it's not that she was power hungry, it's more so that she was a perfectionist and had a very clear vision of an ideal kingdom. in her mind, if they were to actually rule, they might as well make it the best it can be, and since it was clear that fpk felt very lost and overwhelmed, she decided he needed her helping hand. so while on the surface they seemed like an equal couple, she was the one making most of the political decisions, especially those fpk felt were too much for him to handle. i particularly like the idea of her pushing for the bargain with herrah - fpk had many doubts about it, most of them connected to his irrational fear of herrah (as well as his sexuality, but at that point he hadn't put two and two together yet). but wl was firm and the bargain was their best option to save the kingdom, so she convinced him to do it, ignoring the fact that he was visibly stressed out by the idea. yet another addition to his mountain of traumas, and another sign that his marriage situation was very unpleasant

but to come back to the ask, i don't think hallownest would be in much trouble even if fpk ended up dying from starvation, since it was already mostly under her rule. she had the experience and skills, so the only thing she'd have to do is gain the approval of her subjects in the absence of their beloved king. and on the topic of fpk and starving, while i do think that wl would've noticed it sooner and put effort into helping him, it's possible that it would be too late at that point. the hibernation was really what he needed to get over that fear of eating - as long as he had soul magic as an option, he wouldn't improve. and with all of the built up stress related to the marriage, it would make any attempts at getting him to eat even more fruitless

all in all, if it wasn't for the radiance, he very likely would no longer be around. which is a very interesting idea, i think. his mortal enemy being the biggest catalyst for an actual positive change in his life. it really makes me think how their meeting would go, if the radiance was still alive. i feel like part of him would want to thank her, even if she still brought suffering to him, his family and his kingdom. though i don't think she would be very thrilled to hear that he ended up happy...

i rly liked what you had to say in that long post and i agree with it, but something that i wanted to expand on a little bit more. what u talked about in dissonance vs acknowledgement but i think another key point in that discussion is the steps that people take when they're in the in group vs the out group. like when people are in the in group, they are more likely to be sympathetic to others struggling and are processing their own emotions. versus those in the out group who have little emotional investment and are usually a little bit more callous. people in the in group are offended by the callousness that people in the out group treat them with, which causes more tension despite the groups agreeing on things in general. for a non recent drama example: mick getting fired last year. the in group (mick stans) were very sad about this and very emotional. people in the out group (non mick stans) were like dude what did you expect he wasn't preforming and this writing was on the wall are u delusional and don't have eyes? meanwhile, micks stans knew that he wasn't doing well but they're processing their own emotions but the out group's behavior makes it so that bridge of agreement can't happen.

hello, thank you! okay so i do see your point and i think that the mick example is both a good and a not so good example in this case, and i'll try and explain why.

firstly i do agree about the "in" and "out" group, though that also very much depends on where you stand and you own pov. but to go off your definitions here, if i take myself for an example, i was in the "out" group (non-stan of either mick or daniel) and therefore my responses to both were coloured by either my apathy towards mick or my antipathy towards daniel; let's suppose there was no positive emotion there. however; these two situations are fundamentally not the same.

mick got fired because of his lack of performance. this is a thing that happens often and it can happen to every one of our blorbos at some point. this was a matter of racing, aka their job. so no matter if people like mick, dislike mick, like haas, dislike haas, or anything else, it doesn't matter - it was, at the end of the day, another racer losing his job. the only consequences were there for him and his immediate family, and for his fans, who were/are understandably upset over it.

what daniel did had nothing to do with racing.

daniel, of his own free will, went to be a guest on a podcast he already said he enjoyed (i think, don't quote me on that) which is known to be full of misogynistic trash takes. once there, he proceeded to laugh at misogynistic jokes and make that "subjectively good drivers" joke himself, therefore affirming once again the prejudice against women drivers. this all comes right after f1 academy has fought to be broadcasted; after w-series lost funding and had to stop; after the question of disadvantages of women in motorsports and overcoming the blatant sexism has been in our (motorsports' fans and public) minds and in the discourse for a while. he did that after he already went on another podcast and laughed at the hosts' questions about "which eastern european female fans' pussy is the best" (a misquote, but the gist is the prejudice that all eastern european women are obviously whores; also, i do remember him saying "budapest" real quiet, but not quiet enough not to be caught by the mic, so take from that what you will).

this wasn't about racing. this wasn't about his job, like it was with mick. this was about a man who is followed by millions once again giving his fanbase affirmation that women are shit. shit drivers, shit pussy, shit whatever. this is blatant, outright sexism, and this has bigger impact than mick's contract termination. this is affirmation of patriarchal structures that feminism fights against, only it's presented with a wide smile and an aesthetically pleasing face, so "it's not that big of a deal"?

it is a big deal to me. i am a woman. why should i be okay with someone saying i'm shit just because of my gender at any moment in this life? why should any woman be okay with that? because someone you (general) like said it? because he's a man and we can't expect better? because that's just the way world is?

that's the fucking point. we fight so the world isnt like that. so that it isnt acceptable for women to be trash-talked callously on stupid podcasts. so that male celebrities need to think about what the fuck they say. so that people reassess and question their own biases. so that little girls can see someone who looks like them in an f1 racecar one day and maybe get inspired the same way all these boys do.

and this is where the "in" and "out" group thing doesn't work in my opinion, see. because while i will understand if mick fans block me for being callous about their boy's situation since i have no horse in that race and its just my mild annoyance with him that caused me to be unberable and potentially gleeful about him losing the seat, daniel fans that are rallying up to defend him can go fuck themselves tbh. because the fact that you would rather harass people over their completely valid outrage about his sexism than think on the aforementioned sexism yourself means that i dont want to interact with you. you have no moral high ground here, despite trying to take it by any means, when instead of reflecting on the actual harm those remarks, like any other sexist remarks, bring into the world, you'd rather hide behind deflection and attack people who are, again, rightfully upset over the sexism. there is also the matter of some takes i've seen which are basically just an attempt to dictate to those not in the "in" group how they should feel about it, using exactly the fact that they are in the "in" group of his fans as justification of why everybody else in the "out" group is just a big meanie.

fucking cry about it, i don't care. for me, sexism will never be okay, and i sure as fuck won't hold back in expressing my opinion about it, especially on the opinion website. and especially not for someone i don't even fucking like.

i hope this made sense! i:) thank you for the ask!

The Act 1 Wyll and Aurel dynamic is so funny to me actually.

Because Aurel is a dhampir, he has had Bad Experiences with monster hunters, he is traveling with Wyll out of necessity because of the tadpoles but he cannot let Wyll find out what he is.

But Aurel can only think "He is a monster hunter, which means his view of the world is limited and he will strike me down the moment he knows what I am" for so long after knowing Wyll. Because Wyll is so nice. He so sincerely want to help the tieflings at the grove (but, well, they're not monsters, they're refugees, so that just means he's an honorable man) and he's fine with Astarion being a vampire (but then, Astarion's an idiot who isn't all that much of a threat, so of course he's not going to worry about killing Astarion) and he's willing to spare Karlach at the expense of his own safety and...

And eventually Aurel cannot hide from the fact that Wyll is, fundamentally, a kind and honorable man. He is not like the other monster hunters Aurel has faced, the ones driven by dogma and hatred. Wyll is guided by love, by compassion, by a desire to protect people and he only directs his fury towards those who are actively harming innocents. By all rights, Aurel should realize midway through Act 1 that Wyll isn't going to try and kill him on the spot as soon as he knows what Aurel is.

But Aurel doesn't tell anyone about what he is. It is a secret he holds onto out of old fears and anxieties. The last time his secret was discovered the man he loved was killed, and he won't go through that again. It eats at him, the what if's crawling around his insides and keeping him awake at night every time a new companion's secret is discovered. And Aurel is so prone to spiraling, to getting lost in the worst-case scenarios - no matter how absurd or unlikely they may be.

It comes to a point where every time he talks to Wyll there is an ache in his heart because Wyll is a good man, he's such a good man and Aurel is so glad to call him friend, and perhaps in another life they could have...no, no, the nature of his existence means that one day they will be fundamentally opposed to one another and Aurel's heart will break again.

And meanwhile Wyll has probably already figured out that Aurel's a dhampir because a) he doesn't need to breath, b) he goes out for 'nightly walks' WAY too much for a guy who complains about nature all the time, and c) one time he climbed up a sheer cliff-face like david bowie in labyrinth when he thought no one was looking (wyll was looking) and now he's just trying to come up with a tactful way to breach the subject. Because from what he's read dhampirs are usually pretty touchy about the whole 'vampire parent' thing and he knows what it's like to have a fraught relationship with a parent, and he doesn't want to push if it's a sensitive subject...

So you've got Aurel talking himself into seven different anxiety attacks on a daily basis while Wyll stands to the side going "how do I tell him I already know without making this Worse"

I'm not entirely clear on what's going on with Rakha's relationship with Lae'zel but I'm like 90% sure Lae'zel just broke up with her on her own initiative before I could do it. XD

"I am not yours. You are not mine. Or so I've come to believe. You were zhak vo'n'ash duj - source of my bruises. The wounds you inflicted will heal, but they will leave behind scars."

Ma'am we slept together once, incredibly unsentimentally, and now you're surprised that Rakha was baffled that you wanted to do it again?

This is honestly really interesting and NOT what I expected and suggests to me that Lae'zel catches feelings WAY earlier in the whole process than I thought. Filing this away to talk animatedly about during my Lae'zel-mance on my stream playthrough, where it makes tons of sense because Jayce is a small, cute, worried-looking nerd who thinks Lae'zel is literally the coolest.

With Rakha, though... this has really played out in a way I did not expect at all.

Fundamentally I think Rakha's relationships are progressing a lot faster than Hector's did because I am taking a LOT more long rests, because Rakha is squishy and has to recover from battle more. XD So we're getting a lot more progression on the first map (or, more accurately, the opening adventures on the first map are meant to be taking a lot more in-character time than I realized on my first playthrough).

She and Lae'zel also connected really strongly right from the beginning, and given the way Lae'zel is behaving I'm starting to be inclined to think that connection was way more intense than I was giving it credit for. I already knew that Rakha has basically depended on Lae'zel for guidance and valued her trust, but clearly Lae'zel felt the same way in reverse, more than she let on.

However - talking to her again after this led to a different related set of dialogue: "Curious. I took of you completely. Yet your body seems no more worse for wear. Perhaps I might find use for it again..."

...What?

OK, I'm starting to think, actually, that in this worldstate, Lae'zel's emotions are just ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE. Rakha is not the stable central pillar that Hector was able to be; Lae'zel is simultaneously carrying the camp's forward momentum, Rakha's impulse control, and her own life upheaval entirely on her own back and doesn't know how to ask for help with any of it. Which has led to:

I trust you more than anyone else here. Want to fuck? OK we fucked and I still trust you and it's becoming a lot. Again? No? Well FUCK YOU THEN YOU NEVER MATTERED TO ME ANYWAY. Unless--

This is actually all tremendously sad, and a very strong reminder that Lae'zel is very, very young. :( That post that was going around about how she deserves to have a category 5 meltdown free of judgment is starting to feel particularly relevant and this may be fodder for writing in this worldstate once we get to the creche.

Rakha, meanwhile, is just confused. She can tell Lae'zel is upset, but doesn't fully understand why. I think on some level she wishes she could feel differently.

(The fact that this came directly on the heels of Rakha telling Lae'zel she wants to use the worms also probably didn't help. This is just a big slosh of everybody handling everything in the world badly. Astarion is absolutely looking on from the next tent over with popcorn.)

I've been working on something about the role of prejudice in cycles of violence & how we see that play out in Supernatural. Meanwhile, I've been having fascinating conversations here about sex, misogyny, consent, gender performance, etc. (especially in regard to Dean) that have challenged me to think more carefully about where I draw various moral lines, as well as the meaning/importance/function of accountability in society at large (what "counts" & why that matters).

After one of these, it occurred to me that I've been called an apologist in a lot of different contexts, & I wanted to reflect on what a critic might call my instinct to "make excuses" for other people's moral transgressions. Reflecting brought me to the conclusion that I see empathy & understanding as more useful products of discourse than accountability or allocation of blame, so I wanted to talk a little bit about the impact of these on character analysis as I see it.

[To be clear, I'm deliberately differentiating between impact in discourse vs. the role of these things in society, because that's a much more complex topic. So this is not directly related to any previous discussion — just a tangent off a tangent!]

I'm not sure if this is the most useful way to think about these kinds of things, but I tend to view allocating blame to others as easy. If you want to get biblical: we'll see the splinter in someone else's eye & miss the plank in our own. Or, to get more scientific, it's the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) at work. We see our own behaviors as primarily driven by our circumstances (I was just snappy because I was sitting in traffic for the last 2 hrs — not to mention this terrible headache. Anyone would be snappy after that!) & other people's behaviors as primarily driven by immutable internal characteristics (wow, that dude's impatient; geez, that lady's mean).

So, how does this impact our understanding of other people (real & fictional)? Well...

The FAE makes us feel like we're passing judgment appropriately & just holding others to the same standards we're holding ourselves to, but most of the time, without realizing it, we're passing judgments on others that we'd never pass on ourselves. It's the natural result of the fact that we have extremely limited knowledge of other people's circumstances (including both external factors, like an ongoing divorce, and internal ones, like feeling sick that day) and extremely detailed knowledge of our own circumstances.

So, when we judge ourselves, we do so in a holistic way that accounts for all these details (as there's no way to just set that knowledge aside). But when we judge others, we have to actively imagine (or seek out knowledge of) the circumstances impacting them if we want to judge them with the same ruler (and thereby possibly exonerate them). Meanwhile, because we don't have to do this "extra work" to comfortably exonerate ourselves, it can feel like it's not part of a fair judgment, it's "a reach," or that motivated reasoning is spurring that extra work, when it's really just an attempt to level the playing field.

To sum up the above: I think our natural instinct is to err on the side of attributing things to someone's personality that should be attributed more to their circumstances, and so I push a little harder than most people in the other direction to try to correct for this. Now, this perspective might lead me to ultimately make more mistakes, but it doesn't feel like I'm wildly overcorrecting. (Of course, how would I know?)

However, even if I am, there might still be sufficient value in this approach to justify doing so. (More on this in Part 2: Who cares if we're "fair" to fictional characters? What's the value gained here, anyway — especially if it turns out that this approach does lead to overcorrecting?)

It’s time for more unpopular opinions with Neg! Gonna fire this off into the main tag, too; just like last time, I’m also gonna turn off notifications after a bit if it starts to get to be too much (seriously I’m still getting notes for the last one; thank god for XKit Rewritten).

Anyhoosier, a surprising amount of people hate Wes. ... Well. Not surprising that they hate him, but more surprising as in their reason why: one of the more popular original concepts surrounding Wes, was that he was a general conspiracy theorist, rather than just simply out to get Danny specifically for any given reason. In fact, one of the original ideas, iirc, was that he more often than not came to the almost correct conclusions- but for all of the wrong reasons, or with some of the details not actually lining up. It was these errors that, in spite of hitting the nail on the head more than once, caused people to never believe him, bc while he was technically right, his “evidence” and reasoning was complete bullshit.

Now personally, I find this idea a lot funnier than what you usually see today. (Tho, I feel that way about a lot of popular headcanons that were birthed many years ago- like blob ghosts, for example; tho that one’s a bit more of a personal thing, since I was actually around for the inception of the idea in the first place, and even took a small part in it- but that’s another story for another day, if I even feel like it.) It’s more general, a lot less serious- mostly just a one-off joke, before people started getting really attached to him. But people started to take issue with this concept, for some reason, and retained this irritation into his current popular iterations, in spite of them being somewhat different than this early concept. For some reason, this related to Valerie, and her character arc.

You see, for some reason, people seemed to think that Wes took something away from Valerie- they would cite that she was canonically a conspiracy theorist, who tracked ghosts down and things like that. While the latter bit certainly is true, the former is... well, it’s a misunderstanding. Valerie isn’t interested in cryptids in general; she’s hunting ghosts, specifically. She might look into cryptid sightings, but only so far as to determine whether it’s a ghostly “threat” or not- in Amity and surrounding areas, it usually is some manner of ghost; whether or not it’s actually an active threat is usually irrelevant to Valerie’s prejudice.

The difference that I am trying to point out is that Valerie isn’t looking into unknown possibilities, but very well known and documented threats, that she takes it upon herself to hunt down. The idea behind Wes, be it the old or the modern iteration, is that, no matter what specifically he’s focused on, he isn’t trying to eliminate or contain it, but rather prove it’s existence in the first place. He wants to expose something as the truth; he doesn’t know anything for sure like Valerie does, and he isn’t trying to cause harm like Valerie is, regardless of the ultimate potential consequences of correctly exposing someone or something for once (whether or not he actually cares about causing indirect harm in his goals, depends on the individual interpretation of his character).

Teal Deer of this situation is: fundamentally and in practice, Valerie’s and most common portrayal’s of Wes’ goals and activities are wildly different. It’s a little bit of a disservice to Valerie to misinterpret her actions like this, too, imo; she’s not some curious researcher, but an educated hunter, who wouldn’t waste time on something that wasn’t even proven to exist- unless she had reason to believe for certain that it was a ghost. Wes, meanwhile, was only ever just some guy, with a fringe interest/hobby. It feels kind of silly to even compare them at all, especially Wes’ root iteration as a joke character, which is where nearly all of the more recent takes even come from, whether they know it or not.

i want to infodump hcs about vin, asphodel & their world so i AM below the cut!

so asphodel is very capable and informed on a lot of skills that have since become obsolete- they're an experienced garment maker, tailor, cook, and know a lot of very traditional handwork skills, but they can't use a smart phone to save their life. meanwhile vin is a twitch streamer and uses the internet for everything, but has absolutely no idea about the offline world (especially since he stays inside as often as he does) and is easily baffled by, like. driving. or cooking. or navigating w/o google maps. (also his sense of direction is Awful)

i think vin has only RECENTLY come to the human world; he remained in Hell for the majority of time and worked there and scarcely interacted with humans & wound up summoned by accident & bound to the human world like... within the last couple years. meanwhile i think asphodel is like, way more knowledgeable but also Not; they're kind of stuck in an archaic mindset and have not kept up well with the progress of technology, but Vin knows like, NOTHING about human history or worldly happenings yet adapted to technology VERY fast.

they both have extremely large blind spots in their human knowledge that make them very fun, especially since they're both kind of contrary to the perspective you'd expect them to have as a demon and an angel. like, vin generally thinks people are neat, and fun, and enjoys them even if it's in kind of a theoretical way. while asphodel is generally disillusioned with people and finds them simultaneously worth learning from but also generally lacking and not worth personal interactions with.

also tbh my views of this universe's "heaven" and "hell" are largely inspired by things like kuroshitsuji and hades, because i LOVE the afterlife being a big bureaucracy

IMO they're like... ok so my idea for the afterlife in this universe is 90% "every religion and lack thereof is simultaneously right, and what happens to you after death is a matter of belief and personal conviction, so careful record-keeping is the main duty of all celestial beings". so like, christian heaven & hell are just one of several Large Bureaucracies and their jobs are to keep track of believers, record their lives & then moderate where they should go once that life ends. Everyone gets a Trial at the end of their life where they have a defense lawyer (angel) and prosecutor (demon) who argue which outcome they should get. permanent sentences in hell are actually pretty rare and hell has adopted more of a greco-roman "serve time for your crimes & then get to go to heaven when your sentence ends" system (with the permanent sentences being Notable Punishments a'la sisyphus, tantalus etc who break Big Fundamental Rules in the Most Egregious Ways). and those who go to hell are essentially doing community service to help the company and/or act as Human Batteries (demons feed on human energy monsters inc style, and collect said energy from sinners) until they've served their sentence and are allowed to go to heaven, which is pretty much, like, just an endless existence where all needs and struggles are no more & people can just Vibe Forever)

mostly because the idea of hell just being dry capitalism & the prison-industrial complex is very funny to me & also i can't think of anything Worse than being forced to endure Capitalism for a little longer

anyways it means that asphodel's outlook is kind of moralistic & judgemental- they were a celestial defense lawyer & therefore are predisposed to judging people based on their actions & hypocracies- while vin's is very neutral, like. well bad people are just more people who need to get their shit together & serve their sentence & then they'll be fine. (and/or they're just Food Sources so no hard feelings.) so he's generally pretty friendly & amenable while asphodel has a very moral judgement model of thinking & cares deeply about Humanity Overall & heavily judges those who act against the good of Humanity, Collectively.

It's part of why they're so anti-technology & why Vin is so chill w/it- they believe much of the progress made in the 21st century is against the Good of Humanity, while Vin generally views it as "some people are cool some people suck but mostly it's just what it is". also ALSO! demons and angels are both beings made of just, like, pure energy. the main difference between them is essentially whether they have a positive or negative charge, basically. angels are tapped into the Universal Source Of All Energy (think lifestream a la final fantasy; this is also the outcome for those who don't believe in an afterlife- their life force becomes one with the universal energy source & melds with all other energy) & can endlessly Produce it, needing no source of energy to maintain life; "tiers" of angels are basically determined by the strength of that connection & how easily they can draw from it; archangels can draw more than angels, etc. while demons are NOT connected to that source and must draw from alternate sources such as humans.

this is why they use sinners as batteries in hell, & also why concepts like incubus/succubus exist- demons who go draw life directly from the living. that 'life' can be collected via strong emotions & strong feelings- they don't have to be negative a la torture BUT that is a very quick & easy way to collect; incubi/succubi generally use seduction to evoke strong emotions; some demons do even use things like comedy to collect. vin has an interest in horror media & horror games BECAUSE he can harvest fear from an audience that way; it's a safe haunted house way of collecting a lot of small snacks instead of one big meal. and the strength of demons is largely determined by how big their stockpile of energy is; higher tier demons have larger stockpiles, while lower tiers like vin usually just collect enough to sustain themselves & don't have much Extra. ANYWAYS I HAVE TO WORK BUT THANK U FOR COMING TO MY OC TED TALK, I THINK THEY'RE FUN

4, 5 and 11 for nhthcth, please?

4: What’s your favorite line of dialogue?

Ooohhh that's a hard one, partially because of how damn long this thing has gotten. I know what it will be, because there's one scene that's been living in my head forever and one specific line of it I can't wait to write, but that's spoilers. For now, I'd have to say that my favorite line of dialogue has been basically anything from Gerry's chapter in chapter 19, but specifically this line "You have me and I have you and that’s enough, do you understand me? It’s going to be enough."

Gerry's interesting because this entire fic is defined by his absence. We don't know where he is. We never have a chapter from his perspective. The closest degree of separation we ever get is this one, where it's Gerry talking to the tape recorder. So he ends up shrouded in mystery a bit, but I loved this statement, because we finally get this first glimpse of who Gerry really is.

For Jon, he's a borderline mystical figure, half nostalgia, half pedestal. like, gerry is the only person Jon's ever really had. Jon viewed their entire escape attempt through rose colored glasses, but then gerry talks, and we see that it was a source of huge stress and fear no matter how much fun Gerry also had. And despite all of that, Gerry's still fighting. He's still stubborn.

He's a child, and the thing is, he knows it's not going to be enough. He's lived in this world his entire life. There's no magic "good always wins" rules. Love doesn't rule the day. Kids without resources don't make it out. But it's this stubborn will to make it be enough. Its an act of amazing resilience in a child who's always been abused, and it's also a bit of a redemption for Gerry. Gerry had started to lose his will to save people before Jon. No one wanted to save him, and he kept finding his mother's victims on the verge of death and just... made the choice to walk away. Because he knew he couldn't succeed. But the thing is, in this world, it's choice that matters, not result. So by choosing to sort of turn his back on the part of him that always fought, he was losing himself for a long time. This line is a sort of "fuck you, I chose trying. I'm going to try to save people even though I know I can't."

I think Gerry's struggle with saving people has always been slightly different from Jon's in the sense that he struggled with the continued choice more. Jon struggled with the aftermath. The repeated failure and the realization that he actually made it worse, caused more death, and that if he just turned his back on someone, it would have been a net gain. But Jon's always had that one singular instance in his mind that he's pinpointed as the moment he could have been saved. Had someone saved me from the Web, I wouldn't be this. He views saving people as a single point that can pivot a life.

Gerry, meanwhile, was systemically not saved. He was an abused kid, and there were a thousand little moments he could have been saved. Someone could have reported his mom. The police could have believed him. His dad could have saved him. He was always trapped, so he doesn't really have a distinct moment of "I could have been saved then" which leads into "I could save this person." Jon's never really been able to turn away from trying, he just is plagued by it after. Gerry, meanwhile, had a much bigger conundrum over whether it would be better to just let people die because it'd be a net gain in survival rates. It's a humongous act of reclamation for him to say, "actually, fuck this, I am saving someone, and it's going to be us."

5: What part was hardest to write?

Kid Jon and Gerry scenes. They're kids, having terrible things happen to them, with no way out, so it's a little mentally burdensome. but the other difficulty is setting the tone. Fundamentally, they have immature minds having to grapple with extremely mature topics. It's hard to try and figure out with "how does an eight year old respond in the face of eldritch horror"

11: What do you like best about this fic?

The fact that it's actually about five different stories in one.

Like, we have the 2013 timeline. The young Jon timeline. The college era timeline. You also have the different storylines from each character's perspective, and I think that's my favorite part. because every single character's perspective makes this into a different story.

Like, Tim and Danny? Just joined the action. They're the main characters of a horror movie where the protagonists have a chance of surviving the day. They're smart and persistent and they can make it out the other end. It's a mystery and a thriller all in one.

But Sasha starting this story in the middle of it. She's worked here for a long time, touched the edges of it, and realized that her very thought processes were violated and betrayed. She's Jon in Season 2, only she knows the true horror of what's been done to her. So she's a protagonist who's already taken a fall and starting again at the bottom.

And for Jon? This isn't even his first story. He's had an entire life before Danny and Tim. He's had families and lost them. He's been in this community a long time. He's playing mind games with some very experienced players, and the thing at stake is the entire world. But he's also lost a lot. He's a very different protagonist than Danny and Tim in the sense that he knows that you don't make it out at the end. He's like the final girl and the credits won't fucking load.

You can make the analysis for basically anyone. So the framing of the story itself changes with every single character, and it's just a lot of fun to plan around.

WHY LESSONS EXEMPLIFIES EVERYTHING WRONG WITH 200X

It’s sad, because it was my favourite episode as a kid. It was the only He-Man episode I had saved on my computer from age 12 to 19, when I finally rewatched it and fell back into the motu fandom. However, each time I watch it, I find another thing that holds it back. And now that I am slowly rewatching the show, I find these flaws are inherent to it as a whole, and plague the show.

EXHIBIT A: INABILITY TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON ESTABLISHED PLOT POINTS

In Lessons, the main plot is kicked off after Orko preforms a Classic Screwup and destroys billions of dollars worth of statues. Crucially shown is Duncan’s role in the disaster: Instead of thinking logically to try and find a way to safely get the levitating statue down, he simply grabs Orko’s arm to cancel the spell and is surprised when the statue falls and breaks.

And from here, we could get into a whole discussion on whether it makes this Duncan’s fault, or we could argue that it was still Orko’s fault for acting without permission in the first place, or then argue that it’s in fact Duncan’s fault after all for this or that or-

Regardless, it doesn’t really matter who’s fault it is.

What matters is that Duncan and Orko literally never interact again for the rest of the episode after this scene.

The episode establishes a conflict between two characters, and then fails to even acknowledge said conflict for the rest of the storyline. 

EXHIBIT B: A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL SHOW AND CHARACTER DYNAMICS

In most aspects, the episode follows a standard Orko Runaway Plot: Orko is sad and wants to leave, and characters convince him to stay. However, how this diverges from the Filmation show is the reason Orko is given to stay.

In Filmation, the Sorceress shows him his worth as a person. She shows the others looking for him, missing him, that there would be a significant impact if he was gone. Furthermore, it is made clear that it does not matter whether he is good at magic or not: He is family to the other characters, and they’ll love him regardless of any percieved use to the group. 

Lessons, meanwhile, takes a different approach. Orko is instead shown flashbacks of his past, to exposition to the audience his backstory. Among this is the main argument as to why he should stay: He cheered up the king when he was sad. 

So the lesson is this: It doesn’t matter if Orko is good at magic or not. As long as people can laugh at his failure, he has worth. 

The episode tries to backpedal on this in it’s moral segment, where Orko claims that your friends will like you even if you make mistakes. But that still does nothing to prove that “Who you are” is more than just the jester that makes you laugh. 

And in the episode itself, no one even notices Orko’s gone. It was pure chance that Skeletor just happened to target Grayskull while Orko was there. It almost seems like they were going out of their way to make it feel like no one truly cared about him. The only evidence we see against that is Adam being motivated to raise himself from an injury and fight again after being told that Orko was in danger. But that’s not something you really notice unless you pay attention to it, and it’s outweighed by everything else. 

EXHIBIT C: NOT LETTING CHARACTERS OTHER THAN HE MAN SAVE THE DAY

Uh oh! He-Man has been taken out of commission! Now only Orko can save the day! What will he do?

.... 

As it turns out, his actions consist soley of providing a brief distraction and then getting knocked out. 

But luckily, He-Man is conveniently back now! Good thing He-Man is always here to save the day!

...Huh? What did you say about Orko having a character arc?

So first off, it’s made very clear that Orko being written out of the climax is incredibly forced; Orko is dropped literally two feet and it somehow knocks him out for several minutes. Despite having shrugged off worse injuries before and after this, being very lightly tossed in this scenario is somehow just too much for his little body to handle and he simply must sit the rest of this fight out. 

Secondly, it’s ALSO incredibly obvious that the writers were mandated to include He-Man saving the day in every. single. episode. 

Now, it’s understandable. If you think about it, Filmation most likely had the same thing. But the reason it wasn’t quite so obvious in Filmation was because the writing was better at keeping He-Man distanced enough from the other character arcs enough so that the others still had a chance to shine. Take Dawn of Dragoon for example. Even though He-Man defeated Dragoon, Orko was still the one to revive Dree Elle and the others. Even though He-Man did a fight against a bad guy and won, Orko still fulfilled his character arc of the episode without much interference besides a brief pep talk.

However, 200X struggles to accomplish this same subtle workaround. Oftentimes, it’ll have He-Man either do Too Much, making the other characters feel like they aren’t contributing enough, or Finish the Job, making it feel like he did more purely on association that he did the last notable thing in the climax. 

Lessons is no different. Orko contributes nothing to the final battle of the episode. Even though the Sorceress claims that Orko is needed to fight against Skeletor and co, the average audience member simply does not get that impression because Orko contributed so little to that plot. 

I’m pretty sure the only one who has it worse off than Orko in this regard is Teela, considering how many times she had to be saved in the episodes specifically dedicated to showing how competent she could be. However, this happens to several other characters as well, like Buzz Off, Mekaneck, etc.  

I could go into a whole other rant about that, but this is an Orko blog so I’ll save you the off topic rambling. 

Anyways yeah this show is a mess

Dude, I keep seeing The Succession, but it's like, do people binge watch this thing?? Because I just have to take it in little by little because it's just so fucking good, my brain feels so fucking full and satisfied that I HAVE to masticate on the debauchery I just saw for a while before I can submit myself for more. Like, Roman is my favorite fucked up little guy. The way that he is literally the scapegoat of the family and the ONLY ONE who anyone ever speaks about receiving the worst punishments, but they were brainwashed by their father to believe that he liked it as a child despite he insisting otherwise? The way that he is the ONLY ONE that Roy ever puts his hands on and that makes Kendall to immediately jump on his defense, yelling at his father despite the whole entire season being literally a puppet at his hands? Masterful, beautiful. This is the good drama that I wish I could ever write. Ah, man, I could literally write an entire essay on how the writing on Kendall is. As a character I don't care too much for him, he is not fun for me, but it's so well constructed and so fundamentally pathetic that I have to admire that. The whole submitting to Roy feeling so much like selling your soul to the devil and then, immediately after that, his sibling all talk about how fucking dead he looks. Like a fucking corpse that is just moving around. The way that the house they go to have a meeting for I don't care what is literally reeking of dead because a fucking animal was stuck on the chimney and meanwhile Kendall tries to pretend nothing happens. How he keeps repeating "dad's plan was better" and fucking no one believes him. The petty ass thieving that is his literal only way to rebel because it's the only thing he can control, the only thing that Roy can't touch. I am still on the fence about Shev. On one hand, I understand that she wants to believe that she has principles and she probably thinks that she is in fact a good person, but still falls into childish fighting with Roman, still disrespect the shit out of Tom because she believe herself with the right to do anything she wants and literally all it took for her to abandon a perfectly good political career was the promise of more power that she actually has no fucking clue what to do with. Like I get that she is a pampered queen, but like, compared with her two brothers, she is really getting the short end of the stick in terms of character depht.

MAN! But the way that the wife of Roy just reads her for filth and feels weirdly misogynistic because she literally never says anything like that about ANYONE ELSE? Like, what the actual fuck is up with that? Cool moment though. Anyway, I am just now around season 2 and I will be definitely reading the scripts the first chance I have, but I love this shit so much. Even the fact that sometimes the camera is handheld feels intentional in some way? I don't know if it actually is, but to me it always feels like we are merely guests on something that has clearly nothing to do with us. Not just like a play, but also a intruder that neither of these people want, a third person they can't escape from no matter how much they would like to. It's maybe a testament to how realistic all these characters feel, but every time the camera moves slightly while persueing a character I remember that someone was there, someone else was watching this happen. I don't know how to explain it, but something about it just feels cool to me. I like that aesthetic because it immediately remind me to The Office, but while the Office was intentionally set up like a documentary thing where people sometimes interacted with the camera man, this crew goes completely unrecognizable for these characters. Like we, the audience, was really never supposed to be there or we were so far removed from the status of these people that they couldn't give less of a crap about us. Like they were the gods of this world as they thought themselves to be and we mere mortals.

I love this show so much. I can't believe that it took me this long to discover it.

Fath's Writing Journey

Dear Mr. President and The Ministry of Education,

I hope you are doing well as I write this. I am writing to you today as a proud Indonesian student to voice my sincere concern and unshakable dedication to the cause of equality and equity in education in our dear country.

We all know that education is the key to unlocking the potential of individuals and driving societal progress. It is a fundamental human right, as enshrined in various international agreements and our own national constitution. However, I believe that our current education system is falling short of providing equal opportunities to all, regardless of their background, socio-economic status, or geographical location.

As a child, I used to imagine that all children in Indonesia were studying as hard as I was, using the best resources available at school. As I grew older, I learned that this was not the case in Indonesia. Here are some key situations that I have learned about from various sources.

Indonesia's education system is characterized by inequality, with rural students lacking access to quality education, qualified teachers, and essential resources, hindering their development. According to www.kompas.com, children in Papua (remote area) typically leave school after six years, while those in Jakarta (capital city of Indonesia) typically stop after 11 years.

Education costs, including tuition, transportation, and materials, often pose a significant financial barrier for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, limiting opportunities for higher education and personal growth. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the average tuition and fees at public four-year institutions increased by 35% in constant dollars between the 2000-2001 and 2019-2020 academic years. This upward trend in tuition costs places a heavy financial burden on students and their families.

Indonesian teachers face high salaries, leading to job dissatisfaction, financial stress, and deterrence from the profession, potentially affecting education quality. In general, according to various sources, an honorary teacher is usually only paid around 13 to 20 USD per month. Meanwhile, for teachers with civil servant status, it ranges from 130 to 195 USD.

We must prioritize and strengthen our commitment to inclusive education for students with special needs, ensuring they receive equal learning opportunities with adequate resources and support. The integration of technology in education is crucial for students to thrive in the digital world, ensuring access to digital resources and skills. I firmly believe that addressing these issues is essential to building a more just and equitable society in Indonesia. Education should be a force for levelling the playing field, not perpetuating disparities.

I urge you, as a leader in education or a policymaker, to consider these concerns seriously and to work towards comprehensive reform in our education system. Together, we can create a brighter future for Indonesia, where education is a catalyst for equality and progress.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Fath Fahim

As a trans woman who primarily dates straight-identified men, I’ve noticed that many straight men have a particularly strong reaction to other people’s body hair. The very idea of an intimate encounter, whether sexual or nonsexual, with a hairy person can provoke enormous anxiety and inner turmoil in straight men, causing them to doubt their sexuality and sense of self. Among straight men who find themselves attracted to trans women and transfeminine people, the anxiety can take the form of an intense pressure on their partners to perfectly embody the image of hairless, silky-smooth femininity. 

What is all this about ? I suspect that it is about such men’s internalized fear and shame about their sexualities. All their lives, they have been taught that their social status and even safety among other men is reliant upon certain sexual and gender norms. To them, being attracted to trans people at all is already a terrifying transgression. To be intimate with a person whose body is not only trans, but also rejects feminine norms by, oh, crime of crimes!, being hairy may simply be too frightening to bear. 

Of course, some might argue that preferences are preferences, and people are within their rights to desire or decline a hairy partner without being psychoanalyzed. Indeed, there is some truth to this, though I must admit that I am rather skeptical in cases like that of anon, where a man she’s already been dating and presumably had some form of physical intimacy with for two years is suddenly disgusted by her because of a little arm and leg hair. 

i honestly have no clue what goes through the mind of a cishet man who sees body hair on a woman (cis or trans) and immediately hears the kill bill sirens in the back of his mind. i genuinely do not know what sort of trigger could unleash such strong reactions. even when i did ask some of them, the answers i got were always the same and not very helpful, i.e. "it grosses me out", "it´s not feminine", "it´s unsexy", "it´s like fucking a monkey", etc. etc.

and i got these very dehumanizing answers even when the discussion was about a very beautiful cis female model who no man could ever deem unattractive or even remotely masculine, no matter how much of a misogynist he was. this cis woman - again, very stereotypically feminine and beautiful - just decided not to shave her armpits and legs because she´s a feminist and that´s what she believes in, and the men (+ some women) still called her names because of her choice, albeit they didn´t question her gender. so i honestly don´t think the men´s repulsion for body hair is always related to a given woman´s gender identity and expression. because they still say the same offensive shit when it´s a stereotypically feminine cis woman who literally works as a model that stops shaving.

i guess the widely shared phobia of men for body hair can have two different "roots", depending on whether the fear is directed towards trans or cis women. in the former case, as you said, they might succumb to transmisogyny in spite of their sexual preference for trans women, and will therefore fear reproach from fellow cishet men who might read them as fundamentally gay for dating a "hairy man dressed in a woman´s clothes" (again, the words and obtrusive thoughts of a very troubled transphobic man who´s experiencing cognitive dissonance when he actually finds himself attracted to the trans women he´s been taught to mock and berate).

meanwhile with cis women who don´t shave, men won´t actively fear being ostracized and scrutinized by fellow cishet men for sleeping with one, but they still don´t like the freedom of choice we exercise over our own bodies, since they presume to own those bodies, therefore they won´t allow us to look undesirable and proud. that means we are no longer sexual objects for the male gaze. it´s like a slap in their collective face.

either way, trans or cis as we may be, it´s literally not our job coddling their fragile egos and reassuring them that there´s nothing "wrong" with their sexuality or self-confidence. they can choke on my body hair for all i care

Writing to Spite; Staying Motivated When Broken

Just gotta get this out of my system because it’s been feeling like I can’t breathe lately, and my head’s finally in a clear-enough state to speak to it. I’ve been doing so much work, everyone, but I’ve been getting nothing done. It’s not a matter of remaining productive, I’ve been productive, but I haven’t gotten any writing done or any substantial commitments to any projects made, and it hurts.

I’m not making a lick of difference where I am in life right now, and it hurts, I’m not fulfilled, and this is being written to the cadence of smashing hammers on my roof, knocking light-fixtures loose and not taking responsibility for any of it. I’m so tired of the interruptions. I want one day without any, but I can’t have it anymore. There’s no peace, and there never will be any peace.

So I should just accept it. I should become a product of my environment and just start killing everybody. I should become this living spirit of conflict that everyone and their mother seems to want me to be. I should take their money, and treat them like shit, because this is how life is meant to be. People aren’t helping people anymore, and regardless of how clean it may be, we live in a captivatingly-ugly place.

Maybe I’m feeling insecure about my own value and what I’ve given to society, that’s usually what people feel as a projection of insecurity when things aren’t going their way. I’m no exception to the rule when I say that accountability, like common sense, isn’t a tulip that grows in everyone’s studio-apartment flower-pot. That pot mostly grows weed.

More to the point, these feelings might be amplified by my drug-use and subsequent habitual addiction. I’m off, and everything feels dimmer, but everyone keeps telling me that it’s my responsibility to find that brightness again, but how am I supposed to find it when all I’m faced with are meaningless people saying meaningless things about how meaningless they are?

I don’t think it’s okay to be meaningless, purposeless; all we have is what we leave behind, and I feel impeded by the fleshy walls of society creasing out my edges and smoothing me over as a person until I’m conjoined with the mass. I don’t want to fit into that sorority, the flesh-wall sorority, you never come back from being that guy.

Seriously, though, I’m trying to find my love of music again, my love of everything, writing, the world, but it all just feels so hopeless lately. I’ve been not wanting to move on, but by this point, I’m more misery than spite. My routine is dashed and my rituals are fucked. Big deal. It keeps happening.

I need to get more comfortable with the disruption. Every little thing feels like the end of the world and it makes me feel like I have a brain-problem with adjustment. Scale isn’t really something I can judge all too well when it comes to meltdowns, but lately the differences between right and wrong are blending together, and everything’s just becoming for the purpose of survival.

The hammers keep banging for the purposes of the day-laborer’s survival above me, though, so today’s become a frustrating surge-day of creativity, creating in spite of the noise. That’s what I need. I need to be oppressed, in order to create. I need to feel bad, and need to struggle. Something has to be wrong for me to be able to create. I thrive in chaos, but I hate it, meanwhile I like order, but if too much is injected, I thrash in my straightjacket, go figure.

I can’t figure out, for the life of me, if this is a temporary struggle, or fundamental alterations to my brain chemistry that will leave me as less of a human than when I started.

Probably a little bit of Column A, little bit of Column B.

Devalued Money Is the Root of All Evil

Making money worthless is almost impressive.  Turning paper that once embodied affluence into kindling while trying to make everyone rich is extraordinary in its way.  The inability to buy much didn’t even result from sabotage, I’m pretty sure.  Financial titan Joe Biden didn’t just stop at wrecking the value of the economy: he actually crushed the power of the thing used to obtain other things.  The commander-in-chief is a military genius if commerce is our enemy.

Bills remain valuable if you run out of paper towels.  Lots of basic goods remain tough to find and buy for some mysterious reason.  Meanwhile, digital funds float away like gossamer in the ether.  We were supposed to be enjoying our futuristic cyberworld where the mere idea of being rich is all it takes.

Federal economic experts think there’s no way to go broke as long as the presses operate.  Performing labor in order to receive compensation is for suckers.  Primitive earlier generations were so unenlightened that they thought trading created value to address needs.  Modern geniuses wonder why anyone has bothered to ever work.  Democrats try their hardest to ensure the dream.

Your leaders who tried making you rich by conjuring checks presume money never changes value.  It buys stuff, silly.  Never pondering where it comes from is like presuming any gender can have babies.  As it turns out, modern reasoning is not as sophisticated as those generating notions would like to think.

We all pay thanks to those who truly think it’s just a matter of government issuing enough funding to create prosperity.  You just know they tip like six percent.  It’s sadly obvious why their solution to both federal programs and personal handouts is always to send out more.  Unlike the fuel they refuse to tap, the well is running dry.  Fundamentalist lunatics who believe Washington is the source of income, prosperity, and joy refuse to believe more could ever equal less.

Human motivation makes handing out unfunded prizes tricky.  Unhinged fanatics who trust Washington over their own shopping skills are unable to grasp the essence of supply and demand, including when it pertains to currency itself.  Increasing the supply surely won’t spread poverty.

Congress meanly won’t vote to lower prices.  I just wish there were a natural way to do the job representatives won’t like consumers negotiating with a variety of sellers competing for business.  The free market is much crueler to enterprises, unlike the unfortunate certainties provided by forcing citizens to buy junk.

The only beneficiaries of coercion are companies that don’t need to impress customers to get cash.  For people who hate greedy capitalists, Democrats sure do love guaranteeing massive profits.

I am also shocked those who fundamentally don’t understand what finances are spread poverty.  Thinking having to work is heartless misinterprets the transaction.  Shutdown lovers enjoyed grandstanding about the economy being more important than people when people exchanging things is all an economy is.

Thinking the government can provide everything neglects that little bit involving where stuff comes from.  Politicians always compensate for not thinking things out by deciding what you need while being funded by parasitism.  But at least their products suck.  If you like government work, you’re in a rather lonely focus group.

Sending out checks makes recipients wealthy.  The White House is certain, and their math legally can’t be incorrect.  Why ever work?  And why not send checks for a million dollars?  An extra concentrated dose of free cash will surely stimulate the economy in ways cruel profiteers could never imagine.  I can’t think of a single catch.

Getting something for nothing is liberalism’s core.  Not getting anything is liberalism’s result.  The conflict between idea and reality defines a most empty presidency.

Making others work for free is the new way of embracing compassion.  Canceling student loan debt means students learned they can use a product without paying for it.  The item’s shoddiness is the buyer’s problem.  Every product provided as an alleged right forces someone else to toil on behalf of others, which violates a pretty important amendment.  And softness on crime is nothing more than thieves who don’t generate value taking from those who do.

A personal example doesn’t necessarily inspire.  Biden has spent his rather unproductive career bossing around others while grifting.  The embodiment of inspiration believes government initiates everything worthwhile, including economic progress.  Meanwhile, the very thing used to purchase other things isn’t even valuable anymore.

The only thing worse than claiming Florida suffers from cruel conservatism as they gain electoral votes is trying to explain why liberalism fails.  Everything Biden believes is being disproven.  Even worse, it’s by Biden.  Liberals should loathe their erstwhile savior just for that.  The pushily duped ought to be furious at themselves for believing it was possible to get away with such preposterous attempts to circumvent earning.  Wise kindergarteners grasp what a president in his ninth decade doesn’t.

Why learn when you can double down on delusions?  Blaming diabolical corporations for coping with his policies is exactly what to expect from this presidency.  Prices all just jumped at the same random time which happened to coincide with the inauguration of a thoroughly liberal president.

The collusion behind prices jumping universally shows a disturbingly sophisticated level of planning amongst commercial competitors.  If an observer didn’t know better, it might appear that the one entity that actually doesn’t allow customers to shop elsewhere.

Open negotiation requires working instead of waiting for magnanimous dispensation.  Worthless politicians wonder why all this free money buys less and less.

Barry: candy asses (3x07)

Well then. Just one more episode and the season is over? What is this nonsense, time is fake!

Cons:

This was probably my least favorite episode of the season? The pacing has been so frenetic and then this one really felt like a held breath, like a pause, in the midst of the chaos. While I expected that to be a good thing, it didn't quite come together for me.

Barry's only role this episode is to almost die and to hallucinate the people he's killed. I get that there were other things to focus on, but I'm not sure I learned anything new about Barry from this. He's dying, he feels guilt about the things he's done... this is not new information.

Meanwhile a lot of this episode was taken up with the investigation stuff over who killed Janice. I understand that for the purpose of propelling the plot forward, you need all of this. But Fuches telling Barry's big secret to yet another person, everyone getting rattled and angry at Barry for what he's done... there's really nothing new here, it's just turning the dial ever-so-slightly on stuff we've been watching all season. It's not that any of this is bad, it's just not quite as invigorating as I know this show can be.

The same sort of frustrating pacing issue happened with Hank as well. He's closer geographically to Cristobal, but we don't get to see them talk or start to figure out what comes next for them. Will we get to see that next week? I hope so!

Pros:

Despite all of this, it's not that I thought this episode was boring or unnecessary. There is an impending sense of doom as more and more people piece together the reality of Barry's past and all the people he's killed. But this episode felt kind of like more of the same, in terms of that impending doom continuing to grow, if that makes sense...

The most interesting stuff to me was happening over in the acting side of things. Sally screams at her former friend/employee when she discovers that Natalie has been given her own show, and Natalie records it. Sally then records a damage control pseudo-apology, and her agent decides to drop her. So things aren't going well for her, to say the least. Mostly I just love how the energy of the scenes about a woman's acting career are given this real narrative heaviness that puts it on par with all the murder stuff going on with Barry. At no point am I thinking "who cares, this isn't what matters" because it does matter, it matters to Sally and it matters in the way that the things that make up a person's life and choices always matter.

Similarly, we see that Gene is having some success with his new Masterclass gig. Things get a little tense when Jim Moss (Janice's father) talks to Gene about Barry as a suspect. Gene covers for Barry, but somewhat poorly, so it looks like another person has accepted the scary truth of the situation. It's so twisty, to have Gene in a position where he knows exactly what happened to the woman he loved, and while he badly wants revenge, for the sake of his and his family's continued safety, he has to help cover up the truth of his loved one's murder.

I don't have much more to say on this one. I'm anxious about next week's finale, there are a lot of things still in the air. I love to watch a show that is fundamentally about bad people, who I still find compelling to watch and learn new things about. Barry certainly delivers on that front!

7/10