you point out that they’re drawing false equivalencies and just because they don’t like a certain decision a character has made, doesn’t mean it’s out of character for them, and said researcher blocks you instead of acknowledging it. that’s not very “researcher” of you.

youve got a lot of really great thoughts on a transphobia and homophobia, tbh more critical thinking than most people on here, and i was wondering how much you knew about the theory of rapid onset gender dysphoria/if youd be comfortable sharing your thoughts on the ridiculous idea

It was explicitly invented by transphobes as a means of delegitimizing trans identity, and that invention was backed up by a "study" in which the person running the study never spoke to any trans people or to any professionals providing care for trans people, only spoke to the parents of trans minors, and those parents were specifically recruited from forums for anti-trans parents.

The paper which supposedly coined ROGD was taken down for a while and corrected. Further studies have found no basis for ROGD.

What's really interesting is in the cache of emails which became public earlier this year from a former detransitioner there's a paper trail which pretty clearly indicates that the term was actually created on a very heinous website called 4th/wave/now (forgive my anti-search slashes, these people are awful) well prior to the study.

Hey, you want to guess where the parents for this study were recruited from? If you guessed "the one where the term was invented," you're right!

But wait, there's more!

It appears from the journalistic work done by Mother Jones, Jude Doyle, and Julia Serano, that this term was created by an anti-trans activist who works extensively with right-wing think tanks and who went to great lengths to hide that she invented the term.

Jude Doyle:

Finding anti-trans narratives that would “sell” to the general public was a constant concern for this crowd, and Shupe says it didn’t much matter if the narratives were based in fact or not. Marchiano, for instance, eagerly watched the spread of the ROGD theory — “[transfeminist writer and researcher Julia] Serano has already written a takedown,” she exulted in one August 2018 email. Shupe suspects Marchiano’s role is larger than the public knows: “Marchiano never explicitly said she is the inventor of ROGD, but the evidence points to her, and she’s listed as a contributor to the [Lisa Littman] study on PLOS One,” she writes to me. “My ‘opinion’ is that Marchiano and the 4thWaveNow folks are behind the ROGD study, and Littman merely fronted it for them to make it appear unbiased.”

Jude Doyle again:

On July 2, Shupe sent Marchiano a link to Jones’ blog post telling her “you’ve upset Zinnia again.” (Shupe had a tendency to send Marchiano news of ROGD, and to attribute the theory to “you” — that is, to Marchiano — whether Marchiano was explicitly named or not. In the communications I’ve reviewed, Marchiano does not reject the attribution.) Marchiano responded by saying that Jones had done something to “make her nervous” — namely, she’d dug up a blog post about ROGD that Marchiano had written under her own name.

Julia Serano:

If all of this is true — that Marchiano ran YCTP and invented ROGD — then it would follow that Marchiano was also likely skepticaltherapist, the supposed parent of a trans child who invented the idea of “transgender social contagion” in the first place.

Julia Serano again:

Also on March 15, 2016, at 6:07am (so very early in the day, likely before the aforementioned YTCP piece is published), skepticaltherapist posts her final comment on 4thwavenow before mysteriously disappearing. In a reply to someone named Starrymessenger, skepticaltherapist says: 'I wanted to mention that this month’s Psychotherapy Networker is focusing on trans youth issues, and the tone of each article is uncritically celebratory — lots of mentions of “courage,” and “bravery.” You may need a subscription or at least an account to comment, but I have so far.'

At the time of this comment, "Lisa" is the *only* person to have posted a comment on this particular Psychotherapy Networker article, as the 2nd comment doesn't appear until later that evening (7:30:15 PM on March 15th; both 4thwavenow & Psychotherapy Networker appear to be based in the U.S., so the should be only a few hours apart, if at all). Therefore, "Lisa" and skepticaltherapist must be the same person.

Did you catch all of that?

This is a fraudulent "diagnosis" explicitly invented by an anti-trans psychologist who at times has used sockpuppets to manipulate online conversations, claimed at times to be the mother of a trans child, or maybe it was her friend who had the trans child, or maybe she just knew somebody who just randomly decided he was a trans boy after going on tumblr. (Boy, does Lisa Marchiano hate Tumblr, lol.)

After inventing this diagnosis and pushing it on a forum for parents who don't like that they have trans kids, Marchiano then approaches a different researcher and uses this other researcher to launder this term, launching it into the verbal stratosphere, while explicitly working with right-wing groups who used this "evidence" to manufacture anti-trans bills. This list of right-wing groups and individuals includes the Alliance Defending Freedom, the "American College of Pediatricians," -- not to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the legitimate organization, ACPeds is a fringe right-wing group.

They literally made all of this up, this idea that transmasculine people specifically are being "infected" by online sources, and then they laundered it through a shitty study and tried to hide the laundering they did, so that shit like this can happen:

The president of the American Principles Project, a member of the coalition, recently told the New York Times that his group’s goal is to eliminate all transition care, starting with children because that’s “where the consensus is.”

This isn't about protecting children or any bullshit like that, and it's not about this fallacious "disorder" because it doesn't exist -- and they know it doesn't exist. They know it doesn't exist because they were the ones who made it up.

Like... what else is there to say? It's like if I made up Purple Big Toe Disease and claimed that all people taller than 5'10" and born on a Tuesday have Purple Big Toe Disease and should not be able to buy aspirin, because it's G-d's plan that people who have Purple Big Toe Disease should not prevent themselves from feeling the pain that G-d has planned for them, and then I asked someone to write a paper about PBTD and pretend I wasn't the one who made it up so I could point at the paper and be like le gasp, PBTD is the number one problem! We need to stop everyone over 5'10" and born on a Tuesday from being able to buy aspirin! And then some dude in South Dakota starts writing up bills in consultation with a bunch of Evangelical lawyers to deny basic health care to people over 5'10" and born on Tuesdays.

If it sounds fucking ridiculous, it's because it is.

okay i know you've mentioned/answered this a million times but i would love to get your top recommendations for borgias published books and content.

i haven't really ventured into those selections but i really want to take the leap into that realm and buy/borrow some books and read them..!

(also i'm curious if you read many fanfictions for the borgias, and if so do you have any good recs?)

💞

hi <33! no worries at all! i love being asked questions about everything related to the borgias, as i get very enthusiastic about them. now, let's start with my favorite borgias biographies:

maria bellonci's 'lucrezia borgia' because i'm very obsessed with accuracy and avoiding cliché biased narratives. it's such a solid read really! it also portrays lucrezia in a way that i've always believed she was—a completely misunderstood woman who is a pawn in the power and ambition games of her father and brother. but deep down, she's just a silly, pretty poetry lover who's guilty by association. this book also debunks cesare's supposed "jealousy" towards juan as the shows how much he loves him (based on the letters to each other) and that rodrigo has always loved his children equally, which is a cherry on top lol.

emma lucas's 'lucrezia borgia.' while it's not entirely accurate because it satisfies my beloved (but not accurate) 'lucrezia is a femme fatale and not saintly' narrative (which i love, by the way), i'm fascinated by how it unexpectedly delves deep into her family, especially rodrigo, cesare, and juan. it also provides great anecdotes about the characters so there's that. despite having negative reviews, the biography is actually very well-written and highly entertaining! fuck the gossip!

christopher hibbert's 'the borgias and their enemies.' for some reason, i keep forgetting to recommend this book to my friends. i tend to get easily investedwith any borgia book that focuses on the pope and his children, providing narratives without forcing you to choose what to believe. the author obviously conducted extensive research before publishing it because when reading a biography (not historical fiction), i prefer to avoid biased perspectives that can be heavily misleading. i also appreciate the fact that machiavelli (and other important figures) plays an important role in this biography because i'm always excited about him.

ferdinand gregorovius' 'lucretia borgia according to original documents and correspondence of her day'. it's also a very unbiased excellent piece of history that is full of validated source. and i just adore how the author is pro-lucrezia as well.

samantha morris' 'cesare and lucrezia: brother and sister of history's most vilified family' is also well documented and well researched! while cesare was given more depth than lucrezia, still, lucrezia's character in this biography is more colorful. obviously the most popular narrative for the borgia family is them being incestuous, corrupt and violent, a family to be feared, but the author suggests otherwise as she sets out to prove this is not the full story and she does make a good argument! as she detailed how they've been portrayed by mainstream media as well as detailing what happened to their descendants.

sarah bradford's 'lucrezia borgia.' okay, so this one isn't a favorite of mine, but i'd recommend it to you or anyone who's a huge fan of ceslu. it's written like a love story biography exclusively about them. while i like how she wrote about ceslu, i heavily dislike how she wrote about juan and rodrigo and how she portrayed them based on narratives from the family's enemies. the author also manipulated a letter about the envoy boccaccio, which is supposed to praise both brothers. but instead, the author just one-upped him with cesare by dunking on him, which i personally find lame and intensely inaccurate since juan borgia was pretty much loved by his wife, his family, and his friends based on the retrieved documents and letters. that being said, i do enjoy the ceslu parts, of course, and i believe any fan of showtime's 'the borgias' who ships ceslu would enjoy this book and its fluent writing and can easily ignore the negatively inaccurate narratives about the other members of the family.

that's all for the biography books! now let's start with historical fiction:

sarah dunant's 'blood and beauty'. one thing about me is that i'm never gonna stop praising this book because it is absolutely my favorite historical fiction book about this extraordinary family! again, i get so invested in any book when the author does extensive research. also, if you're looking for a book about this family that reads like an episode of showtime's 'the borgias,' then this book is your go-to! full of interesting dynamics, and yes, cesare is as cruel and megalomaniacal as history and machiavelli portrayed him, lucrezia as a victim of her father and brother's political ambitions game, and juan as the flawed kid who was eventually sunk deep when he got dragged into his father's ambitions game. while the book doesn't provide a deeper exploration of the characters' psyche, it's more focused on the story by making it very engaging and sheds light on their complex relationships and their rise to power. and every character is highly sympathetic as the author brilliantly humanizes them. in short, it is emotionally intriguing and a must-read for the borgias enjoyers.

mario puzo's 'the family'. you know, i wasn't even surprised a bit that this book's writing and story being groundbreaking because after all, it is written by the author of 'the godfather'. the family is such a compelling book, such tender writing when it comes to lucrezia and cesare. the story becomes intriguing the more you read. i also loved puzo's portrayal of rodrigo as this family man who deeply loves his children yet he uses them as pawns (which is also similar to jeremy irons' portrayal). while i gotta criticize that the characters have no depth and his version of lucrezia as this damsel angel for her father and brother is, uhhh… quite boring. i like her when she's multilayered lol. i also think the way he tried to present cesare and give him the "from zero to hero" trope in order to make him relatable is also lame because cesare's success as a historical figure is because he was calculating and wicked, and definitely not a bitter loser. i mean, i could absolutely ignore the bitterness part, but at least françois arnaud's cesare added so many layers and swag in the characters, therefore you could ignore it. but i can overlook all that when there's an engaging story and great writing, no matter what the characterizations are like. so overall, it's impressive and entertaining, and you will definitely enjoy it.

regarding fanfiction; i'm sorry but i never read any because i feel quite satisfied by all 'the borgias' show canon that we have and all these historical books. i wish i could help with recommending fics :/

thank you very much for the question, and i hope this post answers it. have a great day 💕🫶

Im sorry if this isnt appropriate to ask, you dont have to answer considering you lean more anti-endo, but I dont understand what arguments are there for pro or even neutral endo? Ive honestly really tired to understand because ive seen quite a few systems now say things like "I use to be anti-endo but now ive been informed" or "I use to be anti-endo but ive been educated" and im just not getting? Whats compelling these people to start beliving in the existence of non trauma based DID? Have I just not been informed enough? I tired doing research about it but all I could really fine were people saying "Well we dont know everything about the human mind so you dont know whats posible, you cant tell people what their experiencing is wrong" (I just dont really agree with this point) or if someone just believes spiritually they have like ghosts in the brain??? (As an ashiest I just cant get behind that one) Or they seem to have a bunch of links to studies that supposably prove that scientists also believe in endos but ive yet to read all of them threw but from briefly glancing at a few of these links most of them dont even link to studies having anything to do with them. Its all just very confusing to be honest and I wanted to get someone else perspective on it.

I think most of it is people either A) being tired of getting hate and giving in and just saying they're pro-endo

B) They read the articles endos link, not realizing a majority of them are not made by unbiased people who have actually done proper study. Most of the articles I've seen endos and pro-endos link are not actually done by people who have the correct resources, or they go into a study already biased and instead of doing a double blind or keeping their biases out of their studies, they do the full study themselves and let their biases effect the results. But if you haven't taken actual psychology classes you likely don't know to watch out for these things, and it's easy to look at them and think "oh yeh, these are professional and real so they're right" even tho they're not

Or C) They doom scrolled through pro-endo shit so much that their brain started to agree with it because they were submerging themselves in the community, and when you do that with anything enough your brain will start to justify it, especially if it's causing you stress because the brain wants to solve the stress issue so it just starts to make you think you agree with what's being said

We've actually had C almost happen to us with a few things because some of us have issues with doom scrolling, but were lucky enough to be able to realize when it starts ro happen and take a step back from it

I really don't fault people for being tricked by the misinformation, or just giving up on getting hate for no reason

It's just frustrating to see people act as if because they used to be anti-endo and now they're not they're suddenly enlightened and must be right

We used to be pro-endo, and now we're not and we don't use that as a way to show our view point as the right one.

We will always encourage people to do their own research, and whether they end up pro/neu/anti endo we don't care after that as long as they've researched with actual good sources

If we could find good sources on non-traumagenic systems being possible we would absolutely change our views again, but we've looked. When we were pro-endo we were desperate to justify things, and we just could not find an actual reliable source

So yeh, always do your own research, form your own opinions, just always also make sure the research you're looking at is reliable

what are your thoughts on the police files that just got leaked from xinjiang reeducation camps?

The ones from a supposed 'anonymous hacker' who's veracity was verified by... the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and Adrian Zenz, the ones who published them? What's that - we investigated if we were lying, and found ourselves to not be?

The same Adrian Zenz who says he's 'led by god' on a mission against China, whose prior research has already been torn to bits - his figure of a million supposed detainees coming from oral interviews with only eight people; his numbers showing an apparent alarming amount of IUD operations being a result of him literally just adding extra zeroes to a number 'accidentally' and implying, if given a second of thought, that every single woman in Xinjiang got a dozen IUD operations - this Adrian Zenz:

Adrian Zenz, who works for the surely-unbiased Victims Of Communism memorial foundation (which published this supposed 'leak'), an arm of the far-right Heritage Foundation.

All of which just-so-happens to come out as a UN delegation arrives in Xinjiang, surely ready to overshadow the reality that they, like every prior human rights delegation to the region, will not find a shred of evidence of what would be an incredibly gigantic, undeniable operation.

If such a terrible thing were really happening (without any apparent motive on the part of the Chinese government beyond Being Evil), wouldn't there be more clear evidence than blurry satellite pictures of schools and farms misidentified as concentration camps, random pictures of unrelated prisoners, and even Taiwanese BDSM footage rebranded to 'footage of torture in Xinjiang'?

Wouldn't someone, anyone with a shred more credibility than Adrian Zenz and the Victims Of Communism foundation be the original, primary source for any of the supposed leaks or studies that every article on Xinjiang traces back to?

We're already seeing the west in the midst of a propaganda war, where experts have said, openly, that the truth doesn't matter as much as making sure that what you're saying hurts The Enemy and helps The Good Guys - that misinformation can be a positive force, as long as you aim it at your enemy and believe it wholeheartedly - are we expected to just take them on good faith?

Most of the world isn't. The parts that are are the same ones in every map like this - the ones that don't recognise Palestine, the ones that oppose UN resolutions against glorifying neo-nazism, the ones that have 14% of the world's population but 73% of its wealth.

It's easy to say, thirty years later, that of course Iraqi soldiers weren't taking babies out of incubators, that of course they didn't have WMDs - but in the moment, in the churn, when you're caught up in the swell and you lose your bearings, it's a lot harder. If you notice you're on the side of the ones braying for war, and that they'll lie to get it, maybe that's a sign to rethink.

I understand why you'd believe it. If there's the slightest chance that this were really happening, I'd want to be one of the people who stood up. I wouldn't want to be someone who, in the pages of history, sat there, happily following the status quo as it committed terrible atrocities. The people in charge also understand, and they know that it's a powerful response. Atrocity propaganda is nothing new.

If you really care about standing on the right side of history, about actually opposing crimes against humanity while the world around you stands silent - then siding with the United States, the genocidal settler colony, the invader, the torturer, the armorer of apartheid, the boot on the neck of progress everywhere in the world; it's not the way to go.

Why it is far more than just “Logan should be listened to” and a conversation on external vs internal flaws.

Firstly, it’s clear that the series is agreeing that Logan as a character is not heard, and that is is an issue. From the SKIP ALL button, to that little momentary sung debate Logan has with Thomas in the puppet episode, to the entirety of WTIT, Logan does not feel heard. 

I have thoughts, because the issue is more complex than just the other characters giving him more attention. Much like the series as a whole, Logan’s issue is far more of a multifaceted problem. I also am not one of those fancy essay writers who can cite philosophers and like research papers and stuff, but I sincerely wish I was, not gonna lie. This is just me making observations and having a decent grasp on how to write characters.

1. Logan is both Logan and Logic.

One of the less discussed points to Logan as a character is actually just how difficult his role is. Not just as in a difficult job for the character to fulfill, but in how hard it is to balance Logan as a character vs Logan as a writing tool. Logan is a fleshed out character within the sasi series, he is not a side character or one who is not meant to be analyzed. He’s a person, but he’s also a means of communicating information to the audience. The show usually defaults to Logan when trying to teach a lesson or handle a heavy topic from an informational stance. It makes sense. Logan is logic. He is information. He’s a steady stream of facts and stats. Logic as a character is extremely valuable when the series decides to tackle topics around various mental health issues, but this does temporarily mean Logan as a character has to take a backseat for Logic as a means of communication. You can’t have the character informing the audience about intrusive thoughts actively overcome by his own issues to the point of being unreliable or questionably biased. WTIT does the best job with balancing this, but it’s a fine line to walk. Logan can be emotionally charged, but cannot subtly manipulate facts, or lead the viewer to believe he is doing so. This actively limits how Logan is utilized. Again, the show balances this by making his biases obvious when necessary, and I think they’ve done well, but it can become tricky and I’m curious to see how it is handled in the future.

2. Logic can’t be the default solution (for C!Thomas).

Logan can’t fully embody his function. If so, he’d never be wrong. Then there is no show. Imagine if Thomas rationally and calmly asks Logan for a solution every single time he has a problem, and is given an easy solution every single time. It would kinda suck. A lot of fan interpretations of the ‘Logan isn’t listened to’ issue are resolved by simply defaulting to Logan’s opinion, and everything being solved right after. This is boring. But also impossible, because Logan as a character is quite human, and therefore flawed. Therefore, not really wholly Logic,. The other sides can fully encompass their traits while being irrational or contradicting their jobs because they are simply meant to represent pieces of C!Thomas, and since he’s human, he’s flawed, so they are flawed. But logic is not really a personality trait, it’s a method of reasoning and understanding facts. His job makes less sense than the others. Is he the level of logical understanding that C!Thomas is capable of? Is he supposed to be flawed human logic? Or is it just an umbrella term for whatever the hell he is? There’s no unbiased logic that is also human, so what is he really?

The whole point of the series is talking out issues from various perspectives within oneself. In everyday life, the ‘logical’ answer is probably the correct one, because I’d wager that decent everyday logic takes into account emotions and the human element. Logan is kinda that ... sort of. Well. At his core, Logan is flawed, which means he is human, which is rad, but then he’s not not pure logic. Which means he isn’t the only solution to Thomas’ problems, as it should be. Again, what’s the show for if he was?

3. Internal vs external flaws.

One of my biggest writing pet peeves are the characters without internal flaws. I mean characters who have ‘issues’ but all of the issues are entirely out of their control. Their environment is their biggest obstacle, and their internal flaws are practically non existent. Rey from Star Wars is unfortunately a good example of this, almost all of her problems are external, minus kinda believing in humanity too much (though this isn’t usually written as a legitimate flaw in most cases). This is not typically the mark of a well written character, it’s necessary at times and we can absolutely have a mix of external and internal issues, but it usually is not interesting as a main issue.

Now let’s talk Logan. I’m saddened when he is reduced to a character purely plagued by external issues. His sole issue is not that he is not listened to. His sole issue is not that he is sometimes treated badly by the other sides. I hate to see a complex character simplified to a few external flaws, because Logan is deeply flawed, like we said above. All the sasi characters are delightfully flawed, it’s something I love about the series. They’re all terrible people sometimes, they just love each other enough to try and be better. But seriously, these guys suck. Love em. But they suck.

4. Logan is flawed.

Deeply flawed. He is prideful. He is insecure. He is afraid of being wrong. He has anger issues. He doesn’t always trust the other sides to help. He thinks he can save Thomas singlehandedly (maybe if he was actual pure logic he could lmao). He has a complicated relationship with his function as Logic and his own emotions. He’s scared of not being taken seriously. His self worth is probably cripplingly low. He struggles to ask for help. And like thirty other things.

Logan is not perfect. If he was, he’d be boring as hell. he’s flawed, and his flaws are part of what make him complex. He’s no bad guy, but he’s also not solely a victim of circumstances either. He’s a lil fcked up in general, and that’s okay. Because they all are.

5. Still love him tho

This is less of an actual topic and more of a “he still needs attention and care to grow and mature while he overcomes these problems because this poor bitch is lonely” section. My boy is deeply flawed but it’s made worse by the current method of communication he, C!Thomas, and the other sides use. He’s being benched and clearly emotionally spent trying to be everything Thomas asks of him while unable to be what Thomas needs. He can’t do it alone, Remus is right. No matter how much Logan tries and tries to change and adapt and be what Thomas wants from him, it’s not going to work. Not when he’s working alone

ABANDONED WIP WEDNESDAY

Context for this one: Another Dad!Ingo fic that didn't pan out. Written quite early on, probably right after Touch of Love. Was supposed to focus on an adult researcher Akari from earth who got turned into a child and was given the ability to understand everyone but not speak the language. Ingo meets her and teaches her sign. (You can see that I repurposed this idea for Feral in Hisui)

This is just the prologue so Ingo isn't here yet unfortunately. Bummer.

No one understands Akari (Maybe Ingo can fix that)

Word Count: 832

Rating: G

No archive warnings apply

Volo had made a ****ing mess. Honestly, arceus looks away for one second and next thing it knows someone has cracked a hole in the sky. Go figure. It hoped that the problem would fix itself, that one of its children or the people of the land would shape up and fix the freaking sky hole that loomed over its temple. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The hole quickly went from an inconvenience to a problem when things started falling through it. Small things Arceus could excuse, (some bathroom slippers, a microwave, half of a billboard that thankfully fell into the ocean) but when a *person* fell through, it knew that this was a problem that needed divine intervention.

And so it was time to find a chosen.

If Arceus was going to do this, it might as well go all the way. Honestly, Volo’s shenanigans had pushed Hisui’s Pokémon/human cohabitation back a few decades. Arceus claimed to be unbiased but hisui was definitely its favorite region, and having it lag behind its peers in development because of one (1) stupid fanatic, well, it really grinded arceus’s gears. So okay, Arceus needed someone to fix the hole in the sky AND make the locals more friendly with the local wildlife. Now how to do that? Consulting with the other legendaries of its realm (as well as a couple of other arceus’s of other realms), the best solution it came up with was a Pokédex. Hard to fear what you understand you know? Thankfully, a Pokédex was already underway, an effort spearheaded by those outsiders that recently invaded. Unfortunately, the outsiders are stupid and even more afraid of Pokémon then Aceus’s own people (and that was saying something) They were getting nowhere fast and certainly didn’t have the skills required to fix the sky. The man from the future probably could, but while Arceus wasn’t paying attention he had already settled with the pearl clan and become a warden to one of it’s blessed nobles. Besides, he was weird and intimidating, and no one would find comfort in his constant scowl and train metaphors. So! Arceus would need to bring in a chosen from outside its realm. Unfortunately, that was easier said then done, and Arceus was finding that a perfect human might be impossible to locate. So Arceus would make its own. First, the body. Children always made for good chosens, they were easily underestimated and had vigor and energy that an adult simply couldn’t keep up with. It needed to not stick out too much, an appearance that could match any child of the era. Of course, it needed to be quite sturdy as well, a hole in the sky is not an easy fix after all! Next was the soul, probably the hardest part. Arceus could try to make one from scratch, but that was a pain and it would have no idea if it made a good one until the soul had run around for a couple of human years. Time was of no consequence to Arceus, but it was very important to its people. So Arceus would have to steal a soul. It wanted a curious one, one with the nack for research and a loving heart. They couldn’t be afraid of Pokémon, but they also couldn’t be used to them. Pokémon needed to be an enigma that the soul would be desperate to solve. So Arceus searched through other worlds, snatching the soul of a dying girl on her last breath. A biology student, one who loved animals and had a tendency to solve problems that no one asked her too. She was a liiiiiitle too old, (nearly 24) but didn’t all humans want to be younger? She probably wouldn’t mind losing a couple years.

Gently placing the soul in the newly formed body, Arceus found that there were still a few snags in its plans. First off, it seemed that the new soul was not happy to lose a few years and was also demanding to be sent back to the lousy world Arceus had stolen her from. That wouldn’t do. Taking a page from the accidental skyfaller, Arceus wiped a good chunk of her memories. It left the important stuff; science, math, basic life skills, but any personal memories were deemed unimportant and were deleted from existence. Speaking of basic life skills, her native language would be useless now. Feeling quite generous, Arceus granted her the ability to understand all languages as if they were her own. It briefly considered granting her the ability to speak said languages but ended up dismissing that thought. It wanted to speed up progress, not skip years of scientific discovery because the biology student wanted electric lights. And so with a couple more skills (good aim, excellent reflexes, etc) and a communication device/map that arceus could send instructions through, Arceus gently deposited its chosen onto the land of hisui.

And that was how Akari’s tumultuous life of bottled words began.

So... about that UK report on trans care...

The Cass Report should be considered a scandal through and through and nothing else.

Several of the contributors to the report are openly transphobic, and I do not mean in a "difference of opinion" way, but in a "have openly mocked transgender people on fucking Twitter!" way.

Several of the contributors have actively campaigned against trans rights in general.

And if that wasn't bad enough, the methodology lead to the vast majority of research into gender affirming care, especially regarding minors, was left out of the report for not being done in a way that would be considered entirely unethical by modern standards.

The report repeatedly cites research that does not conform to the standards that the authors claim they held research to, as well as (and including) research which has been thoroughly debunked.

The report also contains several statements that do not have any citations associated with them.

If the Cass Report was a wikipedia article it wouldn't have stayed up for more than 2 minutes before it was flooded with corrections and "citation needed" and ultimately been taken down for overall review due to the amount of glaring errors in it.

The fact that the UK government commissioned this report, from these known transphobes, claiming it was "supposed" to be an unbiased report on gender affirming care, is a scandal.

The fact that the UK government is taking this report seriously is a scandal.

The fact that the opposition in UK parliament isn't calling out how utterly unacceptably bad this report is, what a waste of money and time and energy it is, what a rubbish excuse for not tending to actual issues it is, is a scandal.

The fact that UK's Labor party has seemingly accepted the report as "accurate" is a scandal on top of a scandal.

And worst of all, the fact that there are so called queer organizations in the UK that are accepting this report at face value is a Fucking Scandal.

There's literally nothing good about this report at all.

It's all garbage.

And every person who is accepting it as even possibly true in any way is either so gullible that they shouldn't be allowed unsupervised anywhere in the world, or they're looking for something to affirm their preexisting transphobia.

Hi, I've only recently gotten interested in the Wars of the Roses and since I am unable to find an unbiased analysis, I wanted to ask: what do you think of Eleanor Talbot and the idea that she was allegedly married to Edward IV?

The more I research the claim, the more incredulous I get that it's often taken so seriously, particularly by Ricardian circles. I'm very skeptical about the fact that this supposed marriage was kept secret for ... 19 years? Even more? Logically, it is not possible for a piece of information that explosive and nationally relevant to stay under lock and key for that long, especially considering Edward's political enemies. I've read some pieces on Eleanor and the most any of them can do is theorize that she may have been romantically involved with Edward at some point before May 1464. But a potential affair hardly means marriage; as far as I can tell, Edward IV appears to have had affairs with lots of women, but Elizabeth Woodville was clearly the one he wanted as his wife and queen, and obviously the only one who was acknowledged and honored as such. From what I can make out, I don't think he would have had that much difficulty getting out of the marriage if he particularly wanted to: considering it was very private, his public acknowledgement of it was crucial, and his word would have triumphed whatever Elizabeth or her family would say; people gathering at Reading to find a way to end it or persuade him to end it did not amount to anything; Wake's witchcraft allegations against Jacquetta directly relating to their marriage which were cleared by Edward's council; even the fact that Elizabeth Woodville did not produce a son until 7 years after she became queen. He very clearly wanted to remain married to her even though he did have potential routes out of it. I've also observed that people tend to link the circumstances of his marriage to Elizabeth and alleged marriage to Eleanor and call it a pattern of behavior, without considering the fact that once again, being involved with someone doesn't automatically mean marriage, and that it's very possibly a deliberately constructed pattern/parallel by the people making the allegations.

And it seems awfully, almost embarrassingly convenient that this came up after both parties were dead, when Richard was actively slandering his brother's licentousness, and when he wanted to usurp the throne from his 12 year old nephew when neither he (Edward V) nor his mother (Elizabeth Woodville) were in a position to assert themselves.

Of course, we'll never truly know for sure but ... what do you think?

Hi! To get straight to the point, there is simply no evidence that Edward IV had been married to anyone other than Elizabeth Woodville. You'd think ricardians would be more careful about this claim since they make such a big deal out of the lack of material proof linking Richard to the murder of the princes (actually king and prince) in the Tower, but no. Lack of evidence doesn't work both ways in this case, apparently.

As many historians have pointed out, parliament, which ultimately ruled that Edward IV had committed bigamy and invalidated his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville, simply did that on the grounds that it was ‘the common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame is throughout the land’. Although parliament could legislate over the succession of the crown, it had no jurisdiction to invalidate anyone's marriage, since only the Church had authority over those matters at that time. If there were any proof that Edward IV had really been married to Eleanor Talbot/Butler, Richard and his supporters would have called an ecclesiastical court made exclusively of prelates and representatives of the pope to rule over that case based on canon law, as that was the Church's prerogative since the 12th century. A. J. Pollard made a very apt observation about this:

Had Richard lll been the deeply troubled, honourable and honest man we are asked to believe him to be he would surely have followed the course of a properly constituted investigation.

Ruth Mazo Karras has a great book called Unmarriages: Women, Men and Sexual Unions in the Middle Ages where she presents many cases of marriages judged by the church to have been clandestine or invalid and actually explains how the Church came to have a monopoly on the legislation of marriages. Jennifer Ward cites an example of an illegal marriage claim taken to the Pope and casts light on how the investigation of an ecclesiastical court should have proceeded in face of the pre-contract allegations made by Richard and his supporters:

This issue of legitimacy and therefore of inheritance was at the heart of the best-known twelfth-century case, concerning Richard de Anesty, dating from 1158-63. Richard claimed to be the heir of his uncle, William de Sackville, on the grounds that William's only child, Mabel de Francheville, was illegitimate. If Mabel had been legitimate, she would probably have inherited her father's land. Richard alleged that William had broken his marriage contract with Albereda de Tresgoz and married Mabel's mother, Adelicia, daughter of Amfrid the sheriff. William and Albereda were said to have expressed present consent, and, according to Richard's account, Albereda asserted that she was William's lawful wife at his wedding to Adelicia, but failed to be heard because of the crowd and because William turned a deaf ear. She was later granted a decree by the bishop of Winchester and Pope Innocent II that William should return to her as her husband. Mabel argued, however, that the marriage contract with Albereda only amounted to betrothal, and that both Albereda and William had agreed to end it; the relationship had never been consummated and William had returned Albereda's dowry. William and Adelicia's marriage had been carried out in the face of the church, and Albereda's father had been present at the wedding feast. The annulment of the marriage by the bishop was null and void. For Alexander III the annulment was the crucial issue, and Mabel was adjudged illegitimate.

We can make a few observations about this case. First, notice how William's alleged first wife, Albereda, sought the Bishop of Winchester then the Pope himself to protest against William's second marriage and have it annulled. Why wouldn't Eleanor Talbot, the daughter of the Earl Shrewsbury and NIECE of the Earl of Warwick, who had such influence over Edward IV's early reign, be silent about Edward IV's second marriage? It's not like she was a helpless nobody who wouldn't have anyone to vouch for her case in the papal court. Moreover, according to a Burgundian report about the revelation of Edward and Elizabeth's marriage, many dissatisfied lords tried to come up with means to annul the marriage, as anon cited in this ask. Knowing this, and having the possibility to be backed by number #1 dissatisfied noble in the kingdom, Warwick, why wouldn't Eleanor have spoken against Edward and Elizabeth's union at that time?

Second observation: notice how both parties concerning the legitimacy of the marriage of William and Adelicia, namely Richard and his cousin Mabel, had to testify in front of the court and produce witnesses, documents and/or reports that attested to their claim that the marriage was valid or invalid. There was never anything even remotely close to this in the case concerning Edward IV's marriage. Where was the appeal to the Pope? Where were the witnesses of Edward IV's first marriage testifying in a clerical court? In fact, we don't even actually know for sure who claimed to be witness to Edward IV's alleged first marriage. The document approving Richard's rule, Titulus Regius, only claimed that it was 'the common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame' but never actually cited anyone as an actual witness to the alleged first marriage of the king.

No contemporary English source gives the name of a witness. Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, is only cited as the author of the bigamy claim and the only witness of the alleged first marriage in a French chronicle by Philippe de Commynes, a servant of King Louis XI. Commynes goes as far as to call him 'ce mauvais evesque', that is, 'this evil bishop'. That Commynes' claim is plausible comes from the fact that one of Henry VII's first actions after Bosworth was to order Bishop Stillington's arrest. If we accept that Stillington had helped Richard by concocting the pre-contract claim—and ricardians must accept it otherwise there's simply no name to validate their theory—the picture we're left with is not pretty. One, Bishop Stillington had previously been imprisoned by Edward IV in 1478 so Stillington was hardly an unbiased witness against Edward IV.

Two, in 1472 whilst he was still Edward IV's Chancellor, an office Stillington exercised up until 1473, he took part in a ceremony recognising the legitimacy of Edward Prince of Wales as Edward IV's heir. Along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and eight other 'Lords Spiritual' (that is, prelates) and thirty-six 'Lords Temporal' (that is, noblemen) Stillington solemnly swore to Prince Edward that

that in case hereafter it happen You, by God’s disposition, to outlive our said Sovereign Lord, I shall then take and accept You for true, very, and righteous King of England, &tc. And faith and truth to you shall bear.

If Bishop took part in that ceremony knowing the boy was illegitimate, he should have acted so as to either speak against it (admittedly, difficult to do), decline to take part in the ceremony by faking an illness or some other excuse (possible), or seek ways to legalise the king's current marriage by way of appeal to the papal courts, something people in irregular marriage situations did all the time. See to what lengths John of Gaunt went to have his Beaufort children legitimised. It seems scarcely possible that Edward IV, who was careful enough to orchestrate ceremonies to invest his son Edward as England's heir and recognise his authority over charters and conciliar bodies, would have left his heir as vulnerable to the law as ricardians claim he did.

Another point to the whole pre-contract story, is that it seems to have been only a later addition to the reasons Richard 'was offered' the crown. According to Mancini, Richard's affiliates' first idea was to claim Edward IV was a bastard (and his children unable to rule consequently). Ricardians claim Mancini was a foreigner and simply misunderstood the terms that were preached at St Paul's Cross, but The London Chronicler also believed that the first version that was preached was that Edward IV himself was illegitimate. Mancini tells us that the claim was not well received by the audience, so it makes sense that Richard's supporters would have quickly dropped it. The claim is lightly touched upon in the parliamentary act approving Richard's rule in the observation that Richard was his father's undoubted heir and the only one born in England. It alludes, of course, to the fact that Edward IV was born in France and George of Clarence in Ireland, as if subtly casting doubts about their legitimacy.

Lastly, even if the pre-contract story was true, it still by no means should be a definite reason to make Edward V unable to succeed his father. As Horspool has pointed out, solutions to that problem included 'securing a retrospective canonical or papal judgement of the invalidity of the pre-contract; an Act of Parliament legitimizing the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage, or [...] proceeding to the coronation of Edward V, which would legitimize him by making him the Lord’s anointed'. Hypothetically, if parliament was competent to declare Edward V illegitimate enough to overrule an ecclesiastical court, it was equally competent to declare the boy legitimate. In face of all these possibilities to legitimise his brother's heir, Pollard has the correct assessment of the situation:

The truth of the matter is that Richard III did not want Edward V to be legitimate because he did not want him to be king.

Considering Richard made no effort to sustain his nephews' right to rule, as had been asked of him in his condition as Lord PROTECTOR, the pre-contract allegation must be seen in that light: a poorly sustained, entirely unevidenced excuse to justify an act of usurpation.

current events, isreal/gaza/palestine stuff

ok so. to preface, i haven't done any research on this stuff myself and am repeating stuff my mom has told me. i don't want to get flamed or hate for saying what I have heard from her. I'm ignorant about this topic and want to be properly informed. i don't know what sources to use for accurate unbiased info about what is happening

hamas is in charge of palestine's government. they have stated that their goals are to kill all jews everywhere (with their prime target being Israel) and take over the world. hamas has a ton of weapons that the US left in the area when biden pulled them out of the war in the middle east without taking any of their weapons etc. israel begrudgingly gave palestine the gaza strip as a peace offering and so palestine (and the rest of the world) would stop bothering them about it hamas hasn't given any warnings to isreal or their ppl before brutally slaughtering and assaulting innocents. but the isreali gov warned the innocent ppl of palestine to get out before they retaliated. hamas has been using the ppl of palestine as human shields as well as hiding dangerous weapons in/under places such as schools and hospitals.

based on this information, i suppose i side with Israel. if hamas's goal is to kill all jews everywhere, I don't want that to happen. nobody should want another holocaust. however, I also don't want countless innocent palestinians to die in the process of israel's attempt to wipe out hamas

I'm a bit conflicted, because I know the person irl who suggested Confession (they told me in person), Climate got the most votes, and the one person who reblogged said Apocrypha. I love democracy, but I was tempted to show favoritism

But, I decided to be fair this time, and go with Climate. But I may not be so unbiased in the future

So, how does Climate apply to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Well, the Earth is our home. We helped create it (Michael was one of the Creators, and the Endowment tells us specifically to associate ourselves with him, after he becomes Adam), we live on it, and it will be glorified with us

When Adam was placed on the Earth, he was commanded to be a wise Steward over it. As I previously said, we are Adam, we are all supposed to be Stewards. But what is a Steward? It is one who oversees and manages a property (in this case, the Earth). So, to be a wise Steward is to careful manage the Earth, properly using its resources

We have not done that. When we began using Coal & Petroleum, we didn't know the affect it would have on the environment. I can't get mad at their ignorance, because it helped build our society. But we have absolutely no excuse now. We know the affects, and it's inexcusable to look the other way (it's not a conspiracy, and if anything, implementing clean technology would inspire a new boom in careers)

Now, as you know from the Evolution post, I believe in Old Earth Creation. As this is the case, I have to acknowledge the changes in Climate over time. But, we cannot deny that humans have accelerated it to unprecedented extent, and we are not slowing down

So, what can you do. There's a number of things:

1.) Vote! I know, many of you aren't going to vote for the Green Party, but vote for policies which help the environment, vote out politicians who don't believe in climate change, or who are paid off to look the other way

2.) Speak. I'm taking an Environmental Science Class this semester, and I learned that one individual is useless. But you don't have to remain one person. Speak out, whenever, to whomever. If you live a more sustainable life, and talk about it, you'll get others to join you. Brigham said the Gospel is everything, Temporal & Spiritual. So, this counts as Missionary Work. Talk to your Ministering Families about these issues

3.) Hunt. I know, it's weird to say that, but hunting can help. In my Word of Wisdom post, I discussed limiting Meat. Well, not only does Hunting cut down on the need for Land & Feed when it comes to raising Pork or Beef, but it also prevents overgrazing. The only thing I will say is hunt wisely, and use what you kill. Overhunting can lead to a population collapse, and trophy hunting is just... No. I'm addition, raise your own animals. Not everyone can have a whole cow in their yard, but if you have a few chickens, that cuts down on eggs being shipped thousands of miles (and you can sell the extras)

4.) 3R. Recycling is good, but it's not enough. We need to reduce & reduce first. Let's say you get Soda for a Party. Instead of getting a 12 Pack, get some 2 Liters, and use your washable cups. Reuse your used 2 Liters (I use mine as Mini-Greenhouses), and then you don't need to recycle

5.) Learn more. I can't tell you everything. Learn the effects of Climate Change, what you can do to slow it, ect

I've got some resources here. From personal research or my Environmental Class. Please share more in the Comments & Notes

https://ldsearthstewardship.org/

https://www.climate.gov/

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-concerns/climate

https://www.ipcc.ch/

There no such thing as "unbiased", or at least not in the way you and me have been convinced it's supposed to look like.

Something that's "unbiased" within the world of rhetoric is something that doesn't seek to convince anyone of anything but simply to inform and provide cold data.

Meaning, for example, a article about racism that seeks to be unbiased would have to research racism in a way where is simply cold and factual information about racism, and objectively speaking, it shouldn't seek to reprimand or praise or even to convince the reader of anything besides facts by themselves and the context within it, a white supremacists and a avid BLM supporter should be equally likely to stay the same belief wise or change their opinion at the end of the article, you should not swade or be influenced by opinion when making anything labelled as unbiased, few to no commentary and little to no personal opinion.

I say this mainly because "unbiased" is a label used to create authority and to inherently manipulate people's perception of what someone has said or will say.

And the issue isn't with information not being "unbiased", is the dishonesty of it, of News sources claiming to be informing when they are only propaganding and indoctrinating through underhanded tactics, the point where The Washington Post and Fox News use the same baity tactics and language for attention and profit, if media was forced to be honest about their biases instead claiming to have none simply for audience boosting, 80% "left wing " and "right wing" media would just the classic liberal shit, not liberal as in the Daily Wire memespeak, but liberal as in "the government shouldn't have any regulations over the economy, therefore banks should have the right to slave you if you miss a loan payment".

And this also includes devil's advocacy btw, because the actual goal isn't finding the truth, but a bias of explicitly being a contrarian and defend whoever is the bad guy within a specific perspective.

If you come out of a article, video or any media with spoonfed moral and opinions, is not unbiased, doesn't mean it's bad, just not unbiased which by itself is not bad or good, just a incredibly niche method or essay and article writing that's not actually used that much because of how restricting it is, but everyone is convinced is more present than it actually is.

in case you're just here for the good stuff, i'll be tagging my personal ramblings as #whmpersonal so you can avoid em BUT this is tangentially related to the game project i'm working on, so stick around i guess? tl;dr: i'll probably make a more coherent post where I ask ppl for help (especially artists). also, i'll be more attentive and answer your asks faster, hopefully. : )

anyway, after a bit of a "review" of my creative process (and i guess my uhh way of living in general?) i've noticed that it's a huge clusterfuck. and that it has been since i was a kid. without some external pressure or an imposed structure (like deadlines, parents or strongly worded emails) i just sort of relied on random surges of productivity to carry me through life. on one hand, it's kinda fun: most of the time i'm not doing anything valuable and then all of a sudden i condense weeks worth of work into several sleepless days during which i feel like An Immortal Unstoppable God. lighting bolts shoot from my fingertips, my eyes glow in the dark, and my caffeine-to-blood volume ratio is hovering around 1.

unfortunately, it's not really sustainable. the "not doing anything valuable" stage that takes up most of my time is not me just chilling. it's me freaking the fuck out about not doing anything despite wanting to and finding myself just. not able to. not to mention that some things just need minor, but constant maintenance - at best i'd just forget about them and face the consequences later on. at worst i'd be acutely aware of them while procrastinating, clueless as to what's wrong with me.

couple that with a couple other unhealthy habits, a microscopic attention span and wow, i fit like all the criteria for adhd. i gotta admit i was super sceptical at first when doing any research, since, well. how the fuck am i even supposed to gain any unbiased insight into this. anyway, i spent a stupid amount of money on an official diagnosis (seriously why is this not covered by insurance gsygx), it took a million meetings and tests and i get a piece of paper that says i have add and deserve some medication.

this has also made me realize that i'm spread out super thin when it comes to projects. i love every single one of them, but im going to have to be a bit more realistic in terms of what can remain in "when it's done" limbo and what needs a bit of a push. the whump game is unique in that it's not just me who wants this to eventually get released. so! what this means is that it needs a proper, project structure. not a .txt on my desktop where i keep a backlog of missing features. but must important of all, it needs ~*people*~. this is the first time i took a step back and estimated how much time everything would take me and yeahhhh i was being very optimistic when i said "playable build in 2023" lol. i've been hesitant to ask for help bc 1. i'm stubborn : ) 2. im bad at coordinating stuff 3. i can't pay ppl - like seriously, there is one person making a model for me (if you're reading this sorry i didn't ask if you want a tag but this is just a personal post where i keep yapping) and it's looking so clean and professional,,, you gotta sell this as an asset.

HOWEVER im getting past the mentality of "i gotta do as much as i can by myself". and also taking meds so that im able to focus on tasks (both gamedev-related and others) and actually pay attention to what im doing. which is great news for development! and answering asks! ill be making a dev post where i tag all the ppl and will also ask for help.

that's it. im on a train rn and bored out of my mind so this is why this post exists, sorry. anyway check out this screenshot of a moment in clone high that i relate to deeply.

Why not have Thrash's frustrations over the war be linked with how Bee was forced to go back into hiding? Speaking of the war episode, why have Shockwave act like that? I was expecting him to come out, not caring that the war is over or anything that wasn't his scientific plans to terraform earth into a Cybertron 2.0. And, you know, not act disgusted at the sight of the Terrans. WHY have a scientist who sees this LITERAL PHENOMENON and act racist to it? No? [2/4]

Shockwave should have been like "Oh good, this could help advance my research." AND TAKE THRASH. It would have been interesting to have Shockwave show the same dissmissiveness Thrash showed when Megatron was retelling the war. Having him question the scientist and receiving answers that reveal how little he cares about anyone outside of his plans. Even if it causes human to be erased, and horribly experimenting on the terrans, in the processed! [3/4]

Also, the absence of Optimus, the lack of him and the autobots on what happened with Bee, THE PARASITE GRUBS! WHY DIDN'T DOTTIE CONTACT ANY OF THEM ABOUT THAT?! Just-! Augh, it feels like so much information was lost in between episodes from the plot's refusal to cover those little moments that should be there to keep it consistent! [4/4]

--------------------------------------------

tragically, anon, your first ask got eaten. ::( I'm tantalized by the link between bee having to go into hiding and thrash's frustrations about the war. I also thought it was kinda weird that shockwave, who is famous in at least 2 popular continuities for using science to create things that should not be, was not more into things that should not be! and we know he's a scientist in this so it's kinda weird that he's engaging with an unknown phenomenon as like... some kinda robo alt right dude and not as a scientist.

um and then I wrote like a billion words of speculation so I'm putting it under a cut. I know your ask wasn't really about this but oops

you ARE making me want to think about a rewrite to center the terrans + siblings thoughts and feelings about their history. I think it would be cool to have them model "coming to your own conclusions about historical events" since they're the audience identification characters. maybe not the three babiest terrans (who honestly make these episodes SO crowded, there's not a lot of time for established characters). but I really like twitch's motif of being desperate to protect her family, and I'd want to foreground what's going on with thrash--as you point out he doesn't seem to care a lot about the history, he doesn't see why it should affect him. they don't understand how they're supposed to relate to this, which is great! I might have the last piece of season 1 see them accepting that they DO have to care, realizing that no single person who was there for the war can give them an unbiased account of it, not even their parents.

as for mo and robbie, they've already had a very specific education on the war, at least the part of it that was on earth--both their parents were there for it, and we know public schools teach it. and how does it affect THEM? they're not being held accountable for it like their terran siblings, but they do feel protective of the terrans and they're in this weird place where they're half "with the autobots" and half "unaffiliated." it really seems like they've been taught differently than most of the humans we meet in the racism parable episode; the malto kids believe autobots are not to blame for the war. I mean it seems like they have weirdly little blame toward the decepticons either but I think that might just be inconsistent writing. I really want to know what they actually think and how their opinions have changed after personally meeting a bunch of transformers.

e11: doesn't need to change, no notes. I like that the first 3 episodes are just baby terran nonsense and I like the twitch + hashtag relationship. wait actually no we need to address the fact that soundwave got captured on purpose and like... did they escape? what is their plan?? we need 1 crumb of foreshadowing so viewers (me) aren't rattling the bars of the fence like HEY WHAT'S GOING ON!!!

e12: deals with personal identity as a transformer and crucially!! personal identity in relation to war and politics! we hear that megatron adopted a new alt mode when she changed sides--she now has a form that humans can ride in. I think I'd want to have thrash in here instead of hashtag, because he chose his alt mode specifically for mo... we could introduce early the idea that he gets uncomfortable and checks out when he has to think about the war and the fact that he's expected to relate to it. he's not very interested in cybertronian society and falls more on the side of feeling like he's fully From Earth.

e13: deals with the idea of transformers wanting to integrate into human society. I don't get why they didn't introduce anti-transformer racism here if they were so excited about it. also I'm arbitrarily replacing tarantulas with sky-byte, the number 1 guy who is known for being a nonthreatening decepticon. he likes poetry, he likes history, one can easily see him being interested in humans and wanting to experience their culture as one of them, whereas it's not really clear why tarantulas wants to be a human. so I might make this an episode that complicates the enmity and separation between humans and cybertronians. I also want to make a little room to see mo and thrash's opinions about decepticons... cos we DID already do an episode about what if a decepticon seemed nice and fun, and mo and thrash got burned there. here we see them both trying to be responsible big siblings and stop nightshade from hanging out with a decepticon, but thrash also has some complicated feelings about the idea of transformers Becoming humans.

e14: look. if we're doing an arc about how much bumblebee cares about decepticons, we've got to go all the way. we HAVE to talk about decepticon ideology and why breakdown actually joined. friends don't split up for no reason; can we model for kids what it looks like to have a real important disagreement with someone and have to decide whether you can forgive them? how is that a parallel to megatron and optimus' relationship????? which wasn't in this series of episodes at all despite being really important in the first 10??? so I'd add that. I'd also retcon some of episode 8 bc as armcontrolnerve pointed out bee was really blithe about sticking mode locks on the cassettes, which doesn't really jibe with the idea that he values decepticon freedom. anyway. in my perfect world (I'm keeping twitch's freakout obviously) breakdown would be bitter about how bee wants to pretend they don't have any real differences and that their situations are the same and they can forget factional conflict and have a beer together. bee says something obliviously hurtful and breakdown is genuinely going to leave and save his own skin--until he sees bee give himself up for breakdown. we get some reciprocity to their relationship, and we get the sense that bee is willing to put himself on the line for people he cares about even if they're decepticons. the lesson for kids is that good intentions mean nothing if you don't say and do things to care for your friends.

e15: ummm okay I don't think the plot of this episode adds anything. it just makes me feel so bad for dot because she's been assigned saintly mom of infinite patience by the writers but her life is genuinely so hard. if we're gonna have a dot episode let's have a dot episode!!! what are the things she's trying to protect her children from knowing? what happens when she loses her cool and panics or yells or breaks down? I'd want to do a thing where she's trying her hardest to present her strong cheerful face for the kids but when it's over she goes to alex to be weak and express sorrow and frustration. "it's not your fault, kids. your mom isn't upset at you. she's just upset." my priorities are 1) allowing dot to be human and have faults, 2) showing that parents have an obligation of care toward their kids but that doesn't mean they don't need support too.

e16: this is the first time any of the kids get the sense that the war was actually ABOUT something. twitch is uneasy because she understands that the war is still happening and she feels it's her responsibility to defend her family from it. I might show this by having her ask pointed questions: what tactics were used in the war? what were casualty rates like? how can I best prepare for it to happen again? megatron finds this disturbing. the war is over, she insists. (I'd want to start to explore here in what ways megatron's account of the war is self-serving! maybe having nightshade ask cogent questions megatron ends up answering "well it's uhhh complicated.") twitch doesn't press the issue, but it's clear she doesn't agree. thrash, meanwhile, is checked out again and wanders off. shockwave gets reawakened, captures him, and we get the threat he'll be experimented on--I'd use visual parallels or even flashbacks to when they were captured by mandroid. shockwave is foiled and refrozen but thrash realizes: lots of people see us as symbols of whatever they want to see, not as people. thrash understands that there are people who are trying to make his family into a battleground. I'd end this episode by reaffirming that the malto family is not a battleground; they're not divided along those lines, they're whole. to his parents and siblings thrash is just a person. ideally he also looks cool in front of his younger siblings and feels the big brother emotion ::3 the thing that's fun about thrash, which is obvious comparing his shield to twitch's swords, is that he's really not about fighting. he wants to be a good big brother and help his siblings become their best selves; he's empathetic, he's about strengthening internal family bonds through fun and (eventually in my perfect world) also emotional intelligence. so his big moment isn't about taking the burden of battle, it's about being the one who's not freaking out and who allows his younger siblings the space to make informed choices about whether and how they want to fight. so the terrans take down shockwave together while megatron is frozen! we end on something nice with mom and dad... but nightshade, whose lessons in history from sky-byte have made an impression, wonders how shockwave would have told the story of the war.

e17-18: I'm completely changing the plot of these because I think "people are terrified of you because your countrymen destroyed a bunch of their cities, you can't do anything about this because you're just a kid" is a shitty thing to have to put in your biracial family metaphor. so. I'm going to make some wild claims about what the plot of this finale is going to be, and I'm not totally happy with it because I think the show writers came up with a premise that's pretty impossible to do well (giant alien robots on earth as an analogue for marginalized human groups).

I think the intro is bee and brawl and they're genuinely teamed up. we can use this to convey that bee has a reputation among decepticons as a whole for being willing to ignore factional boundaries. yo okay you know what would be really cool? is if bee is using his exile to try to free decepticons who are under human control, being threatened with getting handed over to GHOST in the same way mandroid was threatening novastorm and skywarp. this can be about gladiating as opposed to what I think is a more realistic case (the military extorting people to join? never!) because it's a kids' show. but it's crucial that the same people hurting the decepticons are also the ones hurting humans who are under their power. people who are capable of causing genuine harm to transformers have the power to do that to other humans too. we can even use this to build a little human/tf solidarity. brawl pushes a heavy cart for a custodian whose back isn't what it once was, because it costs him nothing and he has a new perspective on having a job that sucks and hurts you. bee remarks on how he's changed. then we have this bee/brawl friendship and it makes it starkly weird when we see grimlock and realize there's something wrong with her. brawl says that she didn't used to be like this.

the malto half of the plot can be that hashtag and nightshade have teamed up to investigate something suspicious they found on the internet or something. a video of a transformer acting really weird? they dive into forum posts and supply lines and realize that someone is selling devices that mind control transformers. jawbreaker hangs back and tells the four older siblings, who now believe it's their responsibility to bring everyone back safe without waking up mom and dad. so now we have hashtag and nightshade infiltrating the arena in time to see bee fighting grimlock. knowing about the control chips, they realize what's going on and interfere with the fight, freeing grimlock, who furiously demolishes the arena. bee hurries the kids away to find brawl, who's been injured in his own fight against grimlock. at the end of the episode bee and brawl will leave together, with bee citing breakdown as someone he shouldn't have let out of his sight in the first place.

we end up finding out that mandroid is selling control chips to fund his projects, with the rationale that it keeps humans safe from transformers. I think we can still have him appear and have the hashtag fight, because that was really fun. I might cut the GHOST/mandroid connection because the good cop/bad cop thing they're doing with the schloeder siblings is extremely tiresome and irritating. I do want to keep the subplot where robbie meets one of his old friends and realizes he's changed a lot as a result of having the terrans in his family: he's more empathetic to people who are different than him, he interrogates what he's told to see if he believes it. in my mind his friend is excited about transformer fights and robbie's like "dude that's messed up."

so the overall thing the finale episodes are about is 1) people in bad situations feel empathy and solidarity and help each other out, 2) the babiest terrans are developing their moral compasses and teamwork skills. I feel like there's got to be a way to make the plotline more coherent but I've been looking at this post for like 3 hours and I'm just not smart enough to fix the mess the writers have made lol

🍍🍓🍌🍑🥑

🏳️‍🌈

🍍 Has this muse's sexuality changed over the course of playing them?

qrow has been and always will be a disaster bi with a female lean. i think that's been pretty consistently portrayed throughout the blog. the only thing in regards to his sexuality is the muse kind of gradually revealing to me over the course of the first year how with his younger encounters... since he's never been very good at navigating his own emotions, he definitely wasn't very good about boundaries. he was used for comfort a lot, rather than respected as an equal partner and he didn't even realize it, because hey he was still getting off, right? and didn't want the romance anyway, right? and... why am i suddenly supposed to care what happens after (no one ever cared about how i felt before?) while he's better at communicating expectations as an adultier adult, it does still bleed into how he chooses his partners and how he approaches (or avoids) encounters a lot more than I anticipated.

🍓 Have they ever fallen for someone straight?

as far as mainverse rp? no. there are maybe two straight muses around here and they are people qrow would not get involved with lol. even in multiverse rp, qrow has only 'fallen' for one or two people ever in his life so far and that was reciprocated, so still no. now, in a 'has he hit on straight dudes while drunk and been turned down' sense? yeah, that probably happened at least a handful of times.

🍌 What do "gay thoughts" look like for them?

usually the sudden realization that a guy is actually making moves on him or flirting with him followed by eye-sex reciprocation, or maybe laughing off some homoerotic tension if he's not actually into it. sometimes seeing some eye candy and checking the guy out, but keeping that admiration to himself. unless he's a bird at the time then he might whistle like a little gremlin, as you know.

other times, just fleeting fantasies during 'personal time' involving prior experiences or guys he's met and found attractive.

🍑 For research purposes, do they top or bottom? Exclusively, or preferentially?

Service top, very much preferred, but not exclusively. Misfortune makes him feel like most of his life is out of control, but sex is one of the things he's skilled enough at to wrest some of that control back, to make a plan and usually see it through to good result, so that feels good to him. bottoming does tend to happen more with the same sex, if only because guys see a twink like him and maybe have some expectations, and he doesn't always bother to get into that power struggle/banter with someone coming at him with top energy, just happy to take what he can get, or too drunk to care (see above about the boundaries thing tbh). sometimes, especially with a longer term partner(s), it can be a desirable thing, though. he'll feel better about being more vulnerable and having less control, and just letting the dynamic play out that way, if that's how the mood strikes that day.

🥑 Do they pass for straight, or do people take them for gay at a glance?

He can pass for straight, especially if he's living in his toxic masculinity. to those who don't know any better, he looks and acts like a man's man huntsman hero, a stereotypical womanizer, too, by choice and design, so some people won't ever look past that. ...but then again someone might also see him standing like the dramatic bi disaster bish he is, unbiased by other assumptions, and realize that's really, really fruity, my dude.

Hello Miaro, how are you? Why do some people feel some type of connection with celebrities? (No blaming i’m just curious). Be it spiritual or not.

And what if it was true? How should they differentiate their fantaisies from reality?

Hi ! Im pretty greah ! On holidays at the moment.

I think it depends on whom we are talking about.

In some cases, celebrities have the purposes of uplifting the collective. That is the case for BTS, but i dont think they are the only one, i jsut cant think of other examples rn lol.

In that case, they have a role to encourage healing and growth, which can make people attached to them. Fandoms and artists can also belong in the same soul family, and have the purposd of helpnig each other in thier ventures.

In many other cases, people think romantic feelings or intense attraction is the sign of a connection. It can be the product of youth and inexperience, or something more vicious like being the victim of a spiritual predator who will encourage you to think that way so you pay them, ot buy their products, classes etc. Some cults can even build around a "mentor" claiming to teach you how to manifest celebrities or your ex back if pnly you join their super elite community and pay 999,99$ a month and dont listen to anyone else bc only them know. Some people start off being made curious to the idea but then thier ego wil hold onto it so much for survival they dont know how to exist anymore outside of their identity as someone else's soulmate/tf/fs etc. They become vicious and lash out at anything which contradicts it.

The status of celebrities have also changed over the growth of social media. They used to be unreachable beings, they are now relatable, and much closer to the "common folk"than they used to. Thats even the case with kpop idols, 2nd generation were unreachable god like beings, whereas 3rd used social media to reach fans, and 4th now has a lot of them having their own accounts outside of their groups.

The only way to surely tell is to do honest research. To look into all types of soul connections, all the experiences they are linked to and honestly compare to your own. Chances are, whatever you lived is tiny compared to what you originally thought it was. Many people come up to me and bring up signs which are so easily explained or common, and they are still certain that this is supposed to br an obvious sign of something significant. Seek knowledge, experience and unbiased advice.