okay this seems like a fun little game

Rules: make a new post with the names of all the files in your WIP folder, regardless of how non-descriptive or ridiculous. People send an ask with the title that most intrigues them, then you post a snippet or tell them something about it!

i do not have many WIPs, really, but here's what i've got:

mon academie heroique riffraff togachako debs au little mermaid au renora backstory

What the hell, going through my old Homestuck folder was fun, haha.

Old Homestuck stuff:

ExPostFacto

JohnVriskaKarkatBluh

Scheherazade

SecondChance

Garbage

NepetaIsGamzee

NotToday

More recent original fic (or quasi-original fic based on the Sims):

thefulcrum

theyearuniverse

talesfromtheneighorhood

crimesagainstromance

Reflections

so i'm no huge fan of rideshare and delivery apps, but this? this post?

completely fake. the article linked above thoroughly debunks it.

It's honestly kind of embarrassing that this fooled people. Like, think about this for a moment. Why would they call drivers "human assets" in the code? That is an incredibly vague phrase that doesn't actually mean anything except maybe as a synonym for "human resources" which is already used to mean "employees" and is not only too vague, but also inaccurate for describing the drivers, who are contractors. Doing that would only make the database harder to use and understand. How is Uber going to programmatically make an order take longer once a driver is assigned to it? Why would making all of the orders take longer in any way benefit Uber, who earns more profit the more orders they can deliver? The guy gave an image of a name tag that says "Uber Eats" but doesn't everyone know that "Uber Eats" is not the name of a company? The company is just called "Uber". "Uber Eats" is the name of a product that Uber has created. It just goes on and on. You don't need any sophisticated detective work to see that this is fake.

Also, like, they're saying it's AI, but I don't see convincing proof of that. To me it just looks like someone doing creative writing on reddit, like usual.

actually i’m very interested in silas’s sibling/colum’s parent who is not a necromancer? or maybe just not strong enough to be the master templar? and who had to have at least three children so that their eventual sibling (who is significantly younger than them) could have a cavalier they could siphon from. fascinating implications on all fronts there

From the way Judith says "all three are genetically his nephew" I'm imagining that actual family relationships between people near the head of the Eighth House don't align at all with genetics, and that probably all of these people were genetically engineered from DNA belonging to people who may or may not actually still have been alive at the time their "children" were created in this way, solely for the purpose of creating the best necro/cav pair to be the Master Templar.

a conversation that didn't happen but could have

mercymorn: why do you keep calling him "ortus"?

harrow: ........what?

mercy: the saint of duty. his name is ortus, not ortus.

harrow: ????????

mercy: what don't you get, infant? have you not learned to spell yet? it's ORTUS!! G-I-D-E-O-N! not ortus!

harrow, bleeding from every orifice in her face: i see

Please, Mercy had active x-ray vision of Harrow's brain at all times, and at one point even walked up to her and just randomly said "Gideon" to see what Harrow's brain was going to do about that. There is a 0% chance that she didn't know exactly what was going on with Harrow throughout at least 75% of the HtN, she was just also Not Interested in helping Harrow sort her shit out. Theoretically, she could have told, like, literally anyone else on the Mithraeum about this and they probably would have tried to help (besides Ianthe, who obviously also knew and who I think did try to help, but was severely hampered by whatever necromancy Harrow had done to her tongue before the brain surgery) but let's be real, Mercy didn't want Harrow to achieve full Lyctorhood and surpass her in John and Augustine's eyes while she fell back down into last place again for another 10,000 years

I would not want to be married to anyone I didn't regard as a friend for one, and for two that I didn't want to ride until the bed broke off the hinges.

I'm continually amazed by people who genuinely seem to think that friendship + sex = romance, and that's like, the whole formula. Sort of ironically, I'm currently in the middle of writing an asexual lesbian romance where one of them is sex repulsed and honestly reading this perspective is hilarious to me right now

I rather think the narrative has to, although that doesn't necessarily mean John will accept it.

When we see the very beginning of his story, John is afraid. He's afraid that if he admits to any kind of failure, he will become unlovable - that love is something that can be earned and lost, that forgiveness doesn't truly exist. The path to becoming a world-annihilating horror is paved with the belief that to be fallible is to be unlovable.

John first meets the nun worrying that she will accuse him of being the antichrist, and watches her die after she has told him that "fear doesn't help us achieve a state of grace; it deafens the heart". Which is all rather 1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear." 1 John is one of the New Testament letters, maybe by the same John as the gospel and the apocalypse, depending on who you ask. And it's about how you can defeat the antichrist with the power of friendship recognise truth because it is characterised by love.

One of Paul's first actions is to offer the real possibility of forgiveness to Ianthe: a forgiveness that undoes the metaphysical violence of her actions and could restore both her and Babs. Paul calls themself "the love perfected by death", which is an Oscar Wilde reference, but also rather loops back to 1 John, and "perfect love casts out fear."

And this idea that metaphysical violence can be undone, that it is love, not fear, that gives power, fits with what we know about Alecto the Ninth, in which it would seem there will be some kind of Harrowing of Hell. One of the fundamental aspects of the Harrowing of Hell in Catholic thought is that Jesus liberates Adam and Eve from the underworld, restores them to wholeness with God, and defeats death. John and Alecto are Adam and Eve figures in a number of ways, and it's interesting to wonder what that might mean for them in the end game of the series.

It feels like all of these thematic threads come together to suggest that John might still have the possibility of redemption - whatever that might mean in this series. But it might be just that: a possibility.

An end that might satisfy on both options for the poll could be one where John is genuinely offered some possibility of redemption or forgiveness, and cannot or will not accept it, either because he is so blinded by his desire for vengeance, or by the strength of his belief that he is unforgivable.

I mean, I think this is obviously one of the things that's going to happen in Alecto, but that doesn't tell me anything about whether it will be satisfying or not. I do believe we'll get a satisfying ending, but just the information that John will be offered forgiveness doesn't guarantee that it will be - there are plenty of possible John-is-offered-forgiveness endings that wouldn't be satisfying. So I can't really respond to this poll.

“this post contains mature content” it’s picture of a classical nude. it’s a photorealistic painting of someone’s hands. it’s a gifset of a kpop idol smiling. it’s a moodboard featuring someone’s bare shoulder. it’s a film still of a non-graphic bloodstain. it’s a photograph of a non-white girl sitting on a counter wearing a short skirt. it’s a meta about how sexuality is depicted in a tv show. do you see what’s happening here. the vilification of the body. the sanitizing of violence. the whitewashing of presentation. i hate it i hate it so much

Ehh

I think this is ascribing too much intentional thought and action to a robot that is not alive and does not actually have thoughts or opinions about what constitutes "mature content"

the way people seem to genuinely conflate brain damage with fascism drives me up the wall. maybe it's the lead in paint/gas/vapes. maybe it's ai. maybe their brains just don't work right. maybe something they didn't have control over made them dumb to us and thus ontologically evil. what are you on

every single day millions of people are poisoned by the actions of rich people trying to save a dollar by ignoring public safety. nobody has ever chosen to get brain damage. implying people with it are predisposed to conservatism is flatly awful. you yourself are not safe from getting brain damage because you are leftist. you are not special. you are just as likely to fall victim to it as anyone else is.

your mental ability does not, has not, and will never determine your political leanings. it's just plain ableism.

Utterly fascinating how the OP of this post about how you shouldn't blame bad things on brain damage just blithely connects AI to brain damage with literally no intermediate steps whatsoever

Feel kinda bad for Mercymorn having to just sit around while John and Augustine play ‘which dead woman we know was hottest’ including your mama jokes.

Also Pyrrha, who actually was one of the "dead" women and undoubtedly had to listen to them thirsting over her many times and just had to sit there and say nothing

here's a secret about consent: you don't have to like something to consent to it. in fact, you probably consent to six unwanted things before breakfast, so why not let your domme do that one thing that drives her wild that you're not really into?

Kink education voice: This actually isn't bad or harmful and it definitely isn't rape. You really can consent to things you don't like or even things you actively dislike. If you're not really into feet but your partner is crazy about them doing foot stuff won't hurt you and it'll make your partner happy so why not. Hell you might even learn something about yourself. As misc is saying above; we do things we don't really want to every day, what different does it make if those things are sexual.

We're not talking about coercion we're talking about doing something nice for someone you care about

Also there's a balance to be found here but if you never engage with something that makes you uncomfortable you'll never grow or learn, so like, maybe just stick that class out or let that domme strap you, and maybe you'll learn something important or maybe your comfort zone will expand a little

consent is about being okay with a thing you are engaging in. not liking it.

sometimes your partner likes something you don't and that's fine. if it's too much or actively making you uncomfortable, you can use your safe word and you two can do after care, but if it's just not your thing there's nothing wrong with doing it.

like you're not gonna say it's coersion or rape to describe your partner dragging you to a painting night that you don't want to do, right???

The issue with the OP of this post is that it's equating "things you don't specifically like but also don't have any problem with" and "unwanted things" which are very much not the same thing. Like, yeah, I can say that I consent to something that is specifically unwanted and that I'm not comfortable with, but that's not actually a healthy thing to do.

what's up, coming at you as one of those dirty-minded smut enjoying asexuals handing out water at the orgy or whatever the fuck people say. anyway, lately i get this kind of insidious sense that people think of sex-positive or sex-favorable aces as the "cool" aces. like "hey don't worry man, i'm asexual but you don't have to do anything to accommodate it." And of course it's a spectrum/umbrella, people can be asexual and sex-positive or sex-favorable, i know that from experience. But i worry it's also seen as the *more palatable* version of asexuality.

So here's the reminder that you are not weird or prudish or childish or mean if you don't want people talking about sex around you. You are not morally reprehensible or puritan or fascist if sex makes you uncomfortable or upset. if someone tries to make you feel ashamed of that discomfort, or pushes your boundaries on purpose just because they can, they're the ones in the wrong for not respecting you. Never, ever compromise yourself for the sake of people who think you're less than for how you feel and who you are.

Absolutely agree, but just want to add in this reblog that sex positive does not mean the same thing as sex favorable, and not being sex positive is in fact a problem