I want to take a moment to list out some of my most challenging problems with Protestantism according to what Scripture says, in no particular order. It is not a comprehensive list of all of the problems that I have with it, but having these answered would go a long way to me taking Protestantism seriously from a theological viewpoint.
We should rely on our own personal interpretation of Scripture
And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. ²⁰ First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, ²¹ because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Here, Peter is saying PAY ATTENTION TO THE CHURCH!!! Listen to what the apostles are teaching and allow that to form your reading of Scripture. If you read the rest of this chapter, He says that "we" (the apostles) have had given to them, "all things that pertain to life and godliness" through knowledge of Jesus Christ. When we read Scripture, we should not read it solely with our own understanding, but allow ourselves to be taught by the apostles (or those appointed by them as successors).
When it comes to Sola Scriptura, I do not see how it is not relying on one's own personal interpretation. How do I know that I am understanding Scripture correctly? How do I know that I do not have an interpretation that is horribly off base? I have never really gotten an answer to this from Protestants.
If I am debating Scripture, according to Protestants, I am debating the sole highest authority. So if I test my interpretation against something else, I am testing against a lesser authority and thus it can still be challenged and I have not sufficiently solved the problem.
We only need to declare Jesus as Lord to get to Heaven
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Here Jesus flatly says professing that Jesus is Lord is not enough to get you into Heaven, but doing the will of the Father. Yes, we are saved by faith through grace. If you get baptized and are shot dead the moment you walk out of the church, you will go to Heaven having done nothing except making that "leap of faith." If you are in a car crash and have a minute to live and all you can do is place your trust in Jesus, yes, you will be saved. But for 99.99999% of people, this is not the case. We have our entire lives to live after baptism. So the question is "Do we live according to what we profess with our mouth?"
If I say "I am an Orioles fan." but only ever go to/watch Yankees games and only ever root for the Yankees, would you say that I am actually an Orioles fan? Do I not call into question that statement that I made by my actions? What if I grow up as an Orioles fan, regularly attending games and watching them daily. But then later, my favorite player gets traded to the Yankees and I convert to a Yankees fan. Was I never an Orioles fan to begin with? No. That would be silly. I was an Orioles fan, but then became a Yankees fan.
Likewise, if I say "I am a Christian and believe that Jesus rose from the dead." But I never attend Church, I am not loving others, I am worshipping other gods, etc. Am I really a Christian? Maybe I was at one point, but I certainly am not now based on what I have done.
As such, yes, it is true that works do not save us, but if we act contrary to what we believe, we cannot have assurance of our salvation. Hopefully God still finds a way to bring us to Heaven. I would rather someone spend 1000 years after death having their soul purified knowing that they will go to Heaven then know for a fact that they are in Hell. Even so, we must recognize that Hell is real, it is a real possibility.
Baptism does not save
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
I have ZERO idea where some Protestants get this idea from. The idea that Baptism is not salvific is not at all Scriptural. This really ties into the "Sola Fide" bit of this post.
The Eucharist is merely symbolic
I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰ This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread^\)^c\) which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
⁵² The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”^\)^d\) ⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; ⁵⁴ he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ⁵⁶ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” ⁵⁹ This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
Jesus flat out says "This bread that I am talking about here is my flesh." So the disciples challenge Him saying "You mean this figuratively right?... RIGHT?
So Jesus responds repeating himself over and over in verses 53 through 58. How many times does Jesus need to say something for you to believe it? You will latch on to a singular verse that teaches something you agree with (or seems to) for dear life at the exclusion of literally any other verse on the topic, but something else is taught multiple times and you don't believe it? I am confused about how Protestants read the Bible. It does not seem to be in any kind of coherent exegesis.
You are allowed to get divorced and remarried... at all.
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ⁷ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,^\)^a\) ⁸ and the two shall become one.’^\)^b\) So they are no longer two but one.^\)^c\) ⁹ What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,^\)^c\) and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Marriage is "until death do us part." The teachings on divorce from the Gospels is trying to set a trap for Jesus to see which rabbinical school he agrees with. Jesus comes out and says. "Neither." He says "Yeah. Moses allowed for divorce. But this is not how it was from the beginning. What about that "except for unchastity" phrase in Matthew (and only Matthew)?
There Matthew is talking about unions that God did not join together. He is talking about invalid marriages that his primarily Jewish readers would have been thinking about. The gentile converts to Christianity would not have thought about these weird situations, so this is excluded from the other gospels.
You can get re-baptized
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Some that want to say that you can get rebaptized jump to Acts 19. Reading this passage, it would seem that what is going on here is that the Baptism by John was not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Paul is essentially saying that the "baptism" that they had received was not valid. He does not say that he "baptized them again into Christ." Rather it says that Paul "baptized them in the name Jesus Christ." As in they were not baptized into Christ, so Paul baptized them "for real this time."
You can only be cleansed from Original Sin once. After that, you can confess your sins and have them forgiven. Baptism is what makes into a child of God. That can only happen once. To do otherwise is a grave sin because you are saying that God was not powerful enough to save you the first time. Again, if a baptism is deemed to be invalid, this is a different story. This is why Paul asks "Into what were you baptized?"
The Church is simply the collection of believers
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Here it is clear that the "Church" is something more than a collection of believers. Jesus teaches here that first, you deal with disagreement 1 on 1. If that does not work, you go and get other believers to help show that they are wrong. If that does not work, then take to the Church. If even that does not work, they are to be treated as an unbeliever (excommunicated).
Certainly, all believers are a part of the Church - which is the body of Christ. The Church is not a parish or a singular building. The Church is universal, but there is a clear structure to it. There are priests, bishops, elders, etc. There is real authority in that structure. This article goes over in Scripture and towards the bottom the Church Fathers what the Church is meant to look like: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-biblical-church/
Many Protestant ideas sound nice, but I do not want to believe something merely because it sounds nice. Dessert for dinner sounds nice but it is not good for my body. Likewise, we should not judge something on "does it sound nice." We should judge something on whether it is good for our souls.
I look at many Protestant theological views and note how they seem to not be based in Scripture or based on a misunderstanding of Scripture. I would love to see if Protestants can properly answer these. Simply quoting verses that seem to back you up is not enough here. You need to show that these other verses are not problematic.
I do not only want to trust in Jesus, I want to trust that I am following everything that he taught. Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all that He has commanded, not just the important stuff. If you get the main stuff right but other things wrong, you still got it wrong. If a teacher gave a 10 question quiz and said, "You got questions 1, 2, 5, and 7 right, but everything else wrong. It is ok though those questions were the most important." I still get a failing grade. So, if you want me to convert to Protestantism you need to show that you actually follow all of Scripture, because I want to strive to get a 100% on the "test" of salvation. After all Jesus told us to "Be perfect as Your Heavenly Father is perfect" Not "Be kind of perfect as Your Heavenly Father is perfect."

TLDR: I love you, but I am incredibly frustrated and don’t know what to do because everything I do is wrong. I am frustrated. I feel that no matter what I do, I am wrong. I’m not saying I’m perfect, but I know for damn sure I’m not as bad as you make me out to be. No matter what I do, no matter how I react, no matter what, it’s always wrong.
For too long I have tucked my tail between my legs and given up. I have apologized every time. Even if I didn’t think I was in the wrong, I apologized because I wanted to improve myself to your standards. But now I realize that you will never be happy with what I do. Every time I try to learn, to improve myself as a person and a partner, something else is wrong with what I do.
Every time you tell me something, I have to sit there and think through every possible outcome of the scenario. And more often than not, this train of thought goes “Well if I do this, then she’d be disapppointed/angry/upset with this outcome. But if I do the other thing, she’d still be upset with what I chose to do.”
Take for example last night: When I was debating whether or not to go home from . What you said boiled down to “do what you want, but I’m not going to tell you what I want”. And to be honest, I think you didn’t know what you wanted, but whatever I chose was definitely going to be the wrong choice. If I had chosen to go home, you would have gotten mad at me for being impulsive or something like that because you had made it clear that if you went home, you’d just sit there and play a game. But, if we stayed, I knew that you’d get mad at me for being selfish and doing what I wanted to do.
Another example: This morning. I knew you hadn’t slept well. So I chose to (even though I am still mad at you), cuddle with you because I know that can help you feel better. But that was the wrong choice because from your viewpoint, I just wanted to cuddle to make myself feel better. If I had just laid there and not said anything, or gotten up, you would have gotten mad at me for leaving you. Once again, I had no right answer.
And I know you’re going to say “well you should have done X”. There’s ALWAYS something I didn’t do that I should have done.
I want to be a better person. I want to be the partner you deserve. But I feel like a fly trying to get out of a closed window. I feel like at this point I’m blindly flailing around with no hope of ever being better.
Every time after we fight, I sit down after and I look at the situation again. Where would I have done things differently? Where do I need to change? What can I do to make myself a better partner, given what I’ve learned here? And after long enough, it feels like everything I try has been ruled out as “not the right choice”.
I don't know what to do.

Hey all, I understand this is a topic people don’t usually like to talk about, but I’m undergoing some discernment in my life rn. Getting married in about 1.5 weeks, and not sure what the right move is in terms of contraception. I’ve grown up Catholic my whole life and the church tends to believe that contraception is sinful because you’re taking the natural purpose of procreation away from sex and controlling it yourself. Recently my fiance and I had a pre-marital couples counseling with her Protestant grandparents and they enlightened me that it’s not wrong in their eyes for most contraceptives. I understand the Catholic viewpoint, but it’s also confusing to me why it’s Catholics that only believe this and it seems like 90% of Christian’s aren’t against contraceptives that prevent conception. I want to hear what everyone has to say because I’m trying to discern what’s right and wrong and what to do. Thank you!

Hey fidelityinvestments,
Welcome to the Daily Discussion. Here’s a place where you can ask the community questions about your investments.
We also have a wide range of Fidelity resources that can also help you get started:

• Fidelity Learn
• Guide to diversification
• Investing ideas for your IRA
• Create a financial plan
• Retirement Planning and Guidance center
• Fidelity Webinars
• Fidelity YouTube

Another helpful resource is our Screener tool on Fidelity.com. We have screens for mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and stocks. You can access any of the screeners in the "News & Research" drop-down menu on Fidelity.com and then click the security type you want to research. These screeners let you compare different securities to help find which one suits your needs best.
Just as a general reminder, investing involves risk, including risk of loss. The experience of customers expressed here may not be representative of the experience of all customers and is not indicative of future success.

I know this is basically Gaint Douche v. Turd Sandwich: but if you were forced to have to be friends with one, who would you pick and why?
This question came to mind when thinking about how I would deal with being on reality tv and having to subject myself to such awful people on a regular basis and I’m very curious to see others viewpoint.
Mine is Jax only because I feel as long as you aren’t sleeping with him or telling him secrets I could be entertained by his chaotic energy and come out fairly unscathed. Whereas Tim’s level of manipulation genuinely scares me.

Allow me to explain.
Growing up, like Niklaus and Mikael, my mother and I never really had a relationship.
And like Niklaus and Mikael, my mother was abusive. Emotionally, mentally, verbally and psychologically.
In those ways, I can sort of sympathize with him. I’ve been betrayed before, too.
In those ways, I can understand his distrust and broken nature. His guarded, cold, closed-off self. The walls he holds up to protect himself from being hurt.
I’m the same in those ways. I also have trust issues, parental issues and keep myself guarded and closed off like Niklaus.
My mother, like Niklaus, is narcissistic. I fear that I may be, too.
I know he’s done some messed up shit. Really, REALLY bad things. There’s no excuse for it.
But, at the same time, he’s broken and misunderstood.
So, in some ways, in my own upbringing, I can understand and sympathize with Niklaus.
You may all disagree with me, and I understand, I just want to give my own viewpoint from my perspective.

Intro

It’s not much of a stretch to say that violence is the primary form of interaction in video games. With a handful of exceptions, most video games involve guys whacking other guys, with varying degrees of brutality. Even chill games fall into this - Stardew Valley has sections with combat in them! Considering the pervasiveness of violence in video games, there has been a ton of amateur and academic commentary on the topic. However, while this is a well-established school of thought, I haven’t seen people try to apply this to Fire Emblem specifically.
So, let’s do that now! In this post, I’ll be exploring how violence in Fire Emblem is implemented - what limitations are placed on violence, how it warps wider game and narrative design, and what it implicitly says and does not say. I hope this post doesn’t come off as too early-2010s “makes you think”-y, but I do think there are multiple interesting things worth talking about here!
Despite the length of this post, "a brief discussion" is an appropriate title, as we won't be able to go into depth on everything. After all, video games are holistic works, so the attitude towards violence is relevant to every aspect of their design. However, I have managed to wrangle some of these threads into the following structure: first a discussion on the fundamental mode of interaction in Fire Emblem, then how stories are constructed with regards to violence, and ending with the aesthetics of violence and how they relate to characters. Also, as FE is a huge series, be aware that I am gonna be making some broad statements which may not apply to each individual plot point of every game. I actually planned to write 3 case studies around Thracia 776, Fates, and Three Houses (which have the most interesting attitudes to violence in the series IMO) which point out these deviations, but this post is way too long and full of tangents already. If people are interested, I’ll make a followup to this post which goes into them in more detail. Also also, because of the nature of this post, I’ll actually give a useful TL;DR for once:
TL;DR: Nintendo games must be fun mechanically, and they can’t be too uncomfortable narratively. If you try to provide a counterpoint by saying “oh this Kirby final boss is super dark it eats 100 morbillion galaxies”, you do not deserve rights. IntSys has to keep to this as a 2nd party publisher, but they also have to deal with the fact that their games are at least nominally about ‘war’ (or at least they put their toes into that particular thematic pool). This conflict between making a fun video game for children/teens and the wider framing of the narrative leads to interesting narrative and aesthetic tensions. also fun is cringe, misery is based

“Do you like hurting other people?” (or The Fundamental Mode of Interaction)

OK LISTEN I KNOW I LITERALLY JUST SAID THAT I DIDN’T WANT TO COME ACROSS AS A EARLY 2010s “VIOLENCE IN VIDYA BAD :O????” PERSON BUT I SWEAR I’M GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS
The best place to start when talking about violence in video games is to think about the primary form of interaction in said game. In the case of Fire Emblem, this is in the in-chapter gameplay. Sure, in objective terms the player moves arbitrary objects across a 2D grid which perform subtraction on arbitrary objects controlled by the computer, but this is always framed as controlling a squad of soldiers to engage in (typically lethal) combat with enemies (who are normally also soldiers). When you’re not doing this in-chapter gameplay, you are preparing for the next chapter of combat. This involves surveying the area of combat, preparing weapon loadouts, etc, however more recent entries also include light life-sim-esque elements. To summarize, Fire Emblem’s interactivity involves ordering violence as well as the preparations to order said violence.
For players, this strategic thinking is extremely fun and is the primary draw of the series! You have all these tier lists of who’s better at killing, discussion of the maps where you do the killing, complaints about the length of gameplay sections where you don’t do killing, etc. This is by design, as while I don’t know the core brand tenets of Nintendo, I imagine the Reggie quote “If it isn’t fun, why bother?” is carved into a solid gold statue of Mario in the office lobby. This then is enforced on all associated studios, including IntSys and so Fire Emblem. While I would disagree with that Reggie quote (especially the bit where he says “If it’s not a battle, where’s the fun?” which is a wild statement to make about an entire medium), this approach to making games is ultimately fine, and so IntSys tailored the strategic gameplay to be satisfying to your dopamine receptors. You could analyse what the normalisation of violence even in ‘just for fun’ games says about wider gaming culture, but I won’t get into that here. In any case, let’s dig into a few specifics of FE’s interactivity.
One thing that’s interesting with regard to strategy games is the detached perspective of the player. You order units and observe the resulting violence, but it’s not tactile, you don’t directly swing the sword or shoot the bow or cast the spell like with action games. This adds a layer of separation between the player and what fundamentally happens, at least within the framing that the game provides. It’s not like Call of Duty, where your relationship to the violence is very visceral, where you view everything down the barrel of a gun. OK, I probably shouldn’t use a series that I have very little personal experience with (I only listen to the supplementary lore material, so let’s talk about Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice. While you’re not directly in the driver’s seat, John Sekiro reacts to your every input with extreme responsiveness, so overcoming the game’s challenges i.e. stabbing people is incredibly visceral and satisfying. While this violence is fantastical in nature, there is sufficient blood and explicit sword-action to clearly say “oh yeah you are violently killing all of those bozos with a katana”. Coming back to FE, not only are you far more detached from the violence, it is presented in an extremely cartoony manner… but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here, we’ll get to the aesthetics later. Point is, Fire Emblem gives the viewpoint of a stoic commander, who Does What Needs To Be Done™, and not the viewpoint of an actual soldier who has to do the actual killing.
Now let’s view the player’s perspective on violence from a different angle. Fire Emblem intends for its combat to be relatively relaxed on the player side of things - the turn-based nature allows the player to calmly think through all of their moves, and you typically have perfect information on the enemies. The only exceptions to this are Fog of WaSame Turn Reinforcements, which are rare and typically unpopular amongst the fanbase. This leans into ‘combat as sport’, where (going back to the Reggie quote) you have a fun time picking apart a puzzle with the tools you have, and we all collectively enjoy this! This is a valid way of designing strategy games, and I like what IntSys has done. However, it’s not the only way of making these games - for example, in Total War you have to juggle all your battalions in real time whilst the enemy is bearing down on you, and the XCOM games always have Fog of War and limited information on the enemies, with you never knowing what kind of awful new monster is going to suddenly charge at you. Don’t get me wrong, neither of these follow ‘combat as war’, the principle that violence should properly mimic the stress, tension and unfairness of actual conflict. Hell, neither of them are particularly mature either - Total War is the strategy game equivalent of smashing action figures together, and XCOM emulates a pulp sci-fi alien invasion story. However, the additional pressures these games have make them hew slightly closer to actual conflict, putting you more in that mindset in a way that the clean fun Fire Emblem doesn’t really do. Again, I want to say FE’s approach to violence in in-map gameplay is fine, but when all three of these franchises have an explicit narrative framing of ‘warfare’, it does make Fire Emblem’s narrative a little more… stretched.
Finally, I want to briefly mention the maps. To steal from a brilliant Jacob Geller video, these are Worlds Designed For Violence. At least outside of the Kaga games, the maps you fight on are primarily designed around how the player interacts with them, i.e. fights on them. While I imagine the narrative designers and artists at IntSys are involved throughout the map design process, the gameplay flow probably takes precedence most of the time. Maps are not designed to resemble realistic places that you have to fight through, they are instead designed primarily to provide fun gameplay experiences before being dressed up by the artists to look realistic/fit the specific story beat. This is a more consistently entertaining approach to map design - heaven knows we have a lot of Kaga castle assault maps which are as fun as actually assaulting an entrenched position IRL - but this lack of friction could potentially take the bite out of the intended vibe, neuter any commentary on violence throughout the story.
You may have noticed that we’ve only talked about the “in-map” gameplay for now, when there’s an entire second half of these games, i.e. all the gameplay between the maps. Don’t worry, we’ll get to all of that, but this may fit better in:

Something something “ludonarrative” something something (or Narrative Implications)

(To clarify, here I’m going to talk about the wider plots and narrative structure as opposed to characterisation, as that fits more into the aesthetics of the series)
It’s not bold to say that the narratives of games have to warp around the core gameplay structure. Especially in AAA video game production, the narrative designers usually have to take a back seat to the systems and level designers, at least outside of the initial rough outline they provide in the original game pitch. In this case, the job of the writer is to form vaguely coherent connective tissue between individual levels, setpieces and expensive pre-rendered cutscenes. This must be a very difficult job, and is probably the reason why most video game stories are the way they are. I am not privy to IntSys internal meetings, but I imagine they abide by this paradigm, trying to give a reason for why you fight 20 battles which roughly align with plot beats that were decided years ago.
Put another way, the writers of Fire Emblem must contrive a reason why the characters fight a vast number of violent battles in a strategic manner. This has a pretty easy solution - war! We have found something it’s good for, as whenever the gameplay designers decide that an extra map is required, the writers can just insert “oh no there’s a blockade of enemy soldiers in the way, guess you gotta kill them all”. This is the case for almost all the games and is a fair enough narrative choice, as it’s frankly one of the few scenarios where you could reasonably contrive so many battles, but it’s worth examining this in a bit more detail.
Even in the framing of warfare, there are still a lot of skirmishes, which sometimes the narrative or tone fails to support - or at least, their presence means that violence isn’t taken that seriously. Let’s take an example from early in Awakening: Emmeryn sends the Shepherds to negotiate an alliance with Regna Ferox. On the way, they are ambushed by Risen on the Northroad (1), have to fight the border guards who think Chrom is a bandit I think??? (2), and then after arriving they need to take part in Regna Ferox’s ritual combat to secure their alliance (3). These beats aren’t necessarily bad, and I actually think Awakening uses these opportunities quite well: the Risen are established as a constant threat to the world (except not really in the main story but that’s a whole other thing), “Marth'' gets more development, we set up Regna Ferox as fighty people who like to fight, and while the middle encounter is very tenuous it does set up a funny joke in Cynthia’s paralogue. However, I want to communicate that if the map/encounter designers need X maps between plot points A and B - in this case, needing low-stakes trials in the tutorial period - then there’s gonna be a fair bit of narrative filler. That is to say, there must be multiple combat encounters that kinda just happen, which makes violence a lot more casual in the narrative. See also the myriad examples of “oh shit random bandits attack!”, used to have a lower stakes map, with bandits appearing and vanishing as needed. This works fine enough in the context of ‘combat as sport’, allowing your favourite scrunglo to build up a triple-digit body count, but this casual attitude circumvents potentially interesting ideas with regards violence. Taking the example further, banditry and its causes are never seriously explored, as bandits are just treated as a filler enemy (except in Based As Hell Thracia 776).
Another narrative consequence of needing so many fights is that… you need to fight. That is to say, any anti-war sentiment or appeal to diplomacy in the series is fundamentally undercut by a) strategic combat being a core appeal of the series and b) narrative beats needing to be structured around fighting enemies. It’s a struggle to have moments of diplomacy and reconciliation when you had a fight within 3 minutes of said moment, lest some people start screaming that things are getting boring. This also makes any appeals to pacifism kinda moot. Xander’s quote about “war bad” in Conquest is utter bullshit, as a huge part of the marketing around that route focuses on the coolness of the tactical combat and its challenge. Eirika and Ephraim can never be equal, because Ephraim’s “fighting is fucken awesome” is encouraged by the gameplay, and Eirika can NEVER save 11037 because we need a final boss and no-one else fits the bill.
Speaking of, in video games it’s best practice to have a big bad guy you fight at the end of the story, the toughest mechanical challenge coinciding with the narrative climax. In Fire Emblem, you have one grand final battle which decides the fate of the war and/or world, before cutting to a brief wrap-up and then credits. This is an attempt to make these games satisfying, which is fine, but this is at odds with an anti-war message (which FE often gestures towards) - that is, actual wars tend to be deeply unsatisfying in a narrative sense! Oftentimes, after a decisive battle, things just kinda keep going for a little while afterwards with casualties continuing to pile up until peace terms are agreed. In the few cases where there is a final battle, it’s more of a formality as the decisive moment occurred months ago. See World War 1 and… World War 2 for examples of each, not to mention a whole host of war-related books and films. The problem with doing this in a video game is that it would require having multiple one-sided fights past the most climatic fight, which would be unfun, and we return to that fucking Reggie quote again. While video games can effectively explore this anti-war narrative space - This War of Mine is a fantastic example - it just doesn’t gel with the fun games that IntSys wants to make. I bring this up in the context of FE because Fire Emblem has such an aesthetic focus on warfare compared to other video games, so it sticks out even further. Even in FE6/FE9 where the war is effectively over in the final few maps, the enemies still remain extremely challenging, because if they didn’t things would be boring.
A few minor things that didn’t fit in above before we wrap up this section. First of all, in making an action packed story, Fire Emblem neglects an important aspect of army life in warfare - the “hurrying up and waiting”. In the majority of cases, the breaks between fights is under 10 minutes, it’s just glossed over. Fire Emblem Three Houses is the exception to this, but there it’s more framed as school life. Some people may say “what’s the point in having large amounts of timewasting where nothing happens in my game about war” and to that I would say fuck you, I want to play Jarhead Emblem. Next, Fire Emblem involves fighting people AND monsters, but these targets are typically given equal narrative weight, outside of maybe a funny line of dialogue about someone being afraid of monsters. In 99% of cases, enemy soldiers you fight have no more humanity than literal monsters. The death of any of your beloved soldiers is a tragedy with big sad death quotes, the death of those poor fuckers is quite literally a statistic which is proudly used to rank how well your guys have done at the end of the game. Finally, the limited scope of the violence the series can show limits the potential impact of scenes. In some cases, this is good as the implication is enough, e.g. the ‘Monica’ scene in Sacred Stones is wonderfully grim and would be weakened by anything explicit. However, a number of other scenes are neutered by the limitations on violence. This fundamentally relates to the aesthetics of the series:

insert prozd tweet/skit here (or Aesthetics, Tone, and Characters)

I’ve been talking a lot about ‘the violence committed’, and this might have seemed a bit weird to you. It’s a true statement, but because the violence is mostly cartoony and abstracted - bad guys disappear into nothingness, there’s no blood, etc - it’s hard to think of it in that way. It’s basically impossible to place Fire Emblem in the same artistic sphere as, say, All Quiet on the Western Front. This aesthetic sense was partially tech-limited in the early NES and SNES games, which was grandfathered into the more graphically complex titles, but it’s also related to how the aesthetics unavoidably warp the tone of the work. IntSys needs their games to be relatively lighthearted and unconcerned with the consequences of its violence, as one of the core appeals of these games is the charming cast of characters. As you would expect, it would be a lot harder to appreciate your goofy blorbos and their lighthearted chats about nothing if you could see the brutal consequences of their triple digit body counts. If violence was more realistic, there would be a lot less “ooh I like training and/or this one hyperspecific food” or “I like peace, but I guess violence may be possibly needed sometimes” and there would have to be a lot more trauma and dourness. There are also age rating concerns, as you can’t exactly sell Come And See Emblem to pre-teens. And once more, to clarify: Fire Emblem as it exists now is fine! I like the lighthearted tone of this series, and I like the characters that reside within it. However, a few problems do arise from IntSys’s approach to violence, as occasionally they brush up against darker ideas but (due to similar reasons to the above) they can never commit to them, which neuters their potential impact. This is especially troublesome with regards to characterisation, as the little dudes are a core appeal, so if something is off that could cause problems. In a sense, at points we have severe aesthetic tension.
A fairly useful case study to see how this affects characterisation is with Mozu in Fire Emblem Fates. Mozu is a charming character, a genial country bumpkin with a bit of an edge at times, who has fond memories of her hometown. This lines up with the lighthearted tone of her recruitment paralogue, where (checks notes) her entire village gets massacred by inhuman monsters, with her mother literally being murdered right in front of her, and she joins up with Corrin’s party because there is literally nothing left of her old life. I understand that people who experience extreme trauma do still manage to live meaningful lives, and that IntSys wouldn’t want to have a character who is a barely functional traumatised mess for 90% of the campaign. However, this doesn’t explain the sheer dissonance between the relatively normal and well-adjusted Mozu who quietly remembers her lost loved ones, and the fact that her village got My Lai’d a handful of weeks ago in the game’s timeline. IMO this would work a lot better if there were a few survivors (instead of literally everyone else dying), with Mozu actively choosing to leave her old life to help others instead of being forced to leave by circumstance. This reduction in scope would mitigate the dissonance between the character and what actually happens to her. This is by far the most extreme example in the series, however I’m sure you can think of others. My issue here is not with having ‘normal’ characters, or with them suffering tragedies, my issue is the dissonance between the two when viewing the scope of said tragedies. This is just one way the series wants to get into darker territory, then swiftly backing off instead of delving into the consequences.
This aesthetic restriction also affects the potential impact of dramatic scenes in the main story, limiting what the focus of these scenes can actually be. This little bit will involve heavy spoilers for Genealogy of the Holy War and Spec Ops: The Line (I KNOW THESE GAMES ARE VERY DIFFERENT WITH VERY DIFFERENT INTENDED DEMOGRAPHICS IN VERY DIFFERENT CULTURAL CONTEXTS, SHUT UP). Both have a very important narrative moment around their midpoints, involving fire magic/white phosphorus respectively. In each game, the deaths that occur are utterly horrific when you think about them. In FE4 the focus is on the drama of the plot twist and effects on the characters, with the actual effects of the violence being left to implication. We don’t know if this was the original intent of Kaga and the team, or if this was enforced by various tech- and publisher-related restrictions, but in either case we do not see anything explicit. In any case, in Spec Ops: The Line, the horror and graphic nature of the violence is completely inescapable, and therefore forms the core of the turning point of the story. The specifics of the violence itself are crucial - the game does not work if you don’t see the consequences of the white phosphorus - and it leads beautifully to the complete descent of its endgame. You may be saying “of course you couldn’t show that violence in FE, it’s a kids game” which is true, and in any case the scene in Genealogy is very good, even without showing the violence. I imagine if we get a remake in the year 202X we wouldn’t see anything explicit anyway, partially due to the publisher but also because the scene doesn’t necessarily need it. The point I am trying to make is that the aesthetics form a limitation on what Fire Emblem can explore, narrative space that the series fundamentally cannot reach.
One more thing, and this isn’t really about the games themselves but the impressions leading into them, and how the aesthetics can affect that. Do you guys remember when the intro cutscene of Three Houses was released a few weeks before release? I do, and I also remember the collective shock of the community when seeing the early previews. It was so drastically different to everything that had come before, and consequently was really intriguing - you can see a lot of speculation in the above comments. To clarify, I don’t want to pretend that 3H is some kind of super mature ultra gritty war story, or that blood = good game, but that beginning cutscene gave one hell of a first impression. Even though the game isn’t that much darker than any other FE game, the sheer unexpectedness put people off-kilter in a kinda awesome way. Does the game actually deliver? YMMV, but I think this (and some of the later cutscenes, such as the mid-game Dimitri one) work quite well. Sometimes, a little injection of harsher violence can go a long way.

Conclusion

Frankly I don’t really have a conclusion, sorry. As you can see, there are so many disparate strands, I can’t possibly make one grand thesis statement. Maybe the inherent contradictions of having warfare in a family friendly video game weakens the potential end result? I guess, but I don’t want to imply that what we have now is bad, as it is pretty good tbh. So, uhh…
…
OK, if I had to say something, it’s more about the process of making this. Having to try and think about how violence intersects with a video game you like takes you in a number of different directions. Ultimately, this process was really fulfilling for me, and I would recommend that you do the same (for FE or anything else)! Trying to analyse something you enjoy from a perspective not usually applied is pretty neat. If you guys have any thoughts (on the points above or your own), I’d be very interested to hear them!
Also, if people are interested, I’ll try to make a few case studies. I would focus on Thracia 776, Fates, and Three Houses, as (when thinking on this topic) I found that these games were consistently the most intriguing, with the most interesting relationships to violence. This would probably take a while though, as I am gonna be very busy in June, and I probably won’t have time this month either.

I stayed close to Teatro Degollado in Guadalajara for 3 months.
You can see the tour of my Airbnb by clicking here (its in Spanish)...along with a short clip of Teatro Degollado as I saw their showing of Cinderella.
I went from October to December. of 2023. I had the best time of my life. There are so many things to do.
I even had a local mariachi band perform my favorite song in front of me while I was eating a Torta Ahogada in the city center.
You can catch a small clip of their performance by clicking here
I am a huge Opera buff but I did not expect Guadalajara to have much of it.
Fortunately, a new Opera company has emerged out of Guadalajara.
They are still very new...and they only play at the end of the year.
It was the most amazing thing I have ever heard. They even played my favorite opera song, Brindisi, but that for another time. They were so new, that they could only reserve a small room in the house of a friend. I went in a heartbeat to see what the fuss was about. A ticket to watch them cost 15 USD.
You can see a short clip of their performance of "Lejos de Ti" by clicking here
They are back this year...but they are now performing a Teatro Degollado as it appears that the word has gotten out of their immense talent.
You can follow their facebook group here. https://www.facebook.com/primedonneopera

I am late diagnosed. Just fairly recent. My dad was late diagnosed too (in his 70s) and he was treated horribly by everyone in the family.
My mother remarried 15 years ago and has a new family, too. My stepsister came over (I live abroad) recently and opened up to me, telling me, how horrible my mum and her husband speak of me. They say I’m a nutcase, that I’ve always been a weird child. She said it’s every single time, they saw me, they’d gossip about it. Even after my wedding. She said she was shocked to find out I am actually nice and friendly.
I had no clue at all. I thought we had nice visits. We didn’t had fights. I was so keen on being a good host every time. I am so sad about this. I am not sure how to react here. It’s beyond my comprehension.
Did anyone experience things like this too in their family ? How do you handle this?

May 13 2024. I am learning and still need to learn more on how to get over differences and accept one another humans as just the same and that i shouldnt judge too hard cuz what if i was in their position. (This could apply to you reading this now or any person who reads this, which is know might be a long one but please just give it a chance to see why you don’t even have the time to read this and actually understand, to see my view point because this is the viewpoint of all regular folk such as you and myself)
WHY HAVE WE AS A HUMAN SPECIES JUST LOST EMPATHY AND UNDERSTANDING we dont need to feel ashamed cuz we didnt know better, we just need to start working on fixes and now since only more time will hold back actual change.
Aslo i think im starting to learn something new about myself if im not doing something that grows me as a person as in example discussing political viewpoints and reading or just learning views on humans and just humanitarian things in general cuz
WE’RE HUMANS AND THAT COULD’VE BEEN US AND ITS NOT BUT IF WE GOT THE MEANS TO HELP THEN LETS HELP , oh wait we cant help cuz (insert stupid fabricated excuse that the governments make cuz they are or might be a failure just because, IF A GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY IN HELP OF PEOPLE THEN IT SHOULD GET THINGS DONE AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE LIVING WELL AND I MEAN EVERYONE the only reason we have some people who cant even afford to have the time to read this or to take time to understand). Now i know that sounds unreasonable but THATS ONLY SOUNDS UNREASONABLE CUZ OUR OH WELL LOOKSY DOO ITS THE SAME FUCKING GOVERNMENTS TELLING US ITS NOT
We hear the term escaping the matrix or finding the cheat code in life. Well the matrix isnt about escaping reality or people ITS ABOUT ESCAPING THE GRASP OF THE GOVERNMENTS AND BEINGS THAT STOP US HUMANS DOING WHAT WE WANT.
And if we humans cant see this then perhaps the time for the human race is over and doomed to fail either from nuclear amerggdon or climate change.
Like being a dick and not wanting to help or actually be active and apart of something is what government want from us regular folk us NON ELITE HUMANS the ones who don’t have tens of millions of dollars or just enough money and superficial happiness or anything to not get you thinking about each other and how we all feel.
They (as in the people who get to decide our way of life the Government’s WHICH BY THE WAY THEY SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT) dont want us to see “oh damn they got the power to actually make the change and theyre not making change ?” THEY’LL DO ANYTHING TO JUST NOT GET ASKED MORE QUESTIONS AND GET INTO IN DEPTH (examples like taxes and how we are all to busy thinking about our bills or how anything would get done cuz everyone needs to focus on things that “actually matter” BUT THE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER OR JUST DISTRACTIONS , like if you read this and think wait i don’t have the time for this LIKE WHY DONT YOU?? Because your to busy with what…? EXACTLY THAT WHAT AND ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS USALLY WHAT IT IS AND AN EXAMPLE OF A DISTRACTION)
You see this isn’t a regular war this is a revolution of the average human such as me and you. Thank you
any excuse to be able to move on and thats why i think i haven’t been able to move on these days. Havent been able to connect with things and people in my life
Its just such a deadly cycle and loop and no wonder people kill themselves.
BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS JUST A DISTRACTION FROM THE TRUTH THAT IM LIVING IN A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO KEEP ME AT THE BOTTOM AND WITH A FALSE DREAM AND HOPE THAT I’LL BE RICH ENOUGH TO NOT CARE OR RICH ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
We as in the human population also need to stop questioning the messager and talking about whats up with me as a person and SEE WHAT IM ACTUALLY SPEAKING OF AND WHAT I REFER TO BECAUSE WHAT I REFER TO IS THE DAILY LIFE OF ANYONE OF US. BECAUSE WHAT I SPEAK OF IS THE TRUTH AND HOW WE ALL FEEL.
And i will do what i have to do to spread this message and if that means playing by this sick game’s rules and having to force myself into the machine of capitalism and how our society worships money. Then i will just to have a platform to spread the truth. Because I do believe this way full heartedly and found it easy to write this because i know how all us people feel since we are all still human. And now is the time to stick together and be able to help our neighbors and friends, family and even those we don’t even know.
Spread the word and lets help each other by getting educated, ask more questions. don’t take everything at face value all the time and don’t just follow and the herd mentality, actually use your brain and think how this relates to you and others in your life and help them out if possible. Thank you for your time just do not be hardheaded and say “nah” actually be the change you wish to see in the world, thats how it starts.

i really wanted to go through each song and rate it so here’s a lil review for my second listen of the album

• peter pan - really cute song makes me sad don’t love the noise in the background 8/10
• sickset - might be the best song on the album absolutely love very rks also i can hear charlie’s voice on this one 10/10
• finalist - i don’t have much feeling abt this one it’s good but feels a little empty 7/10
• LOL - underrated single love the lyrics not my fav chorus tho 8/10
• lucky - can’t really understand the lyrics v instrumental heavy 6/10
• meticulous - very fun! definitely a top song seems fun to sing along to 9/10
• hot pink ice cube - has a nice beat very bouncy i hope they upload the lyrics soon 7/10
• SVO - gets stuck in my head a lot doesn’t seem like a song id play for other ppl tho also what is a silicone vacancy ooze??7/10
• Code Blue - this one makes me want to cry beautiful lyrics love to sing it heavy contender for my fave 10/10
• overtime - love the lyrics i think the rest of the band really shines on this song too with instrumentals and backing vocals 9/10
• Ghoul - very interesting interesting song mostly doesn’t sound like rks but definitely a vibe i like 6/10
• John Woo - very lyrical i don’t get a strong impressiom right away but id like to read the lyrics 8/10
• Low as we go - a little too electronic for my taste but it’s good 7/10
• bearwalk - i like visuals it evokes very fun nice guitar solo 9/10
• Superstar - she’s fun she grew on me 7/10
• Cinderella - very fun i think i’ll like it more the more i listen to it 8/10
• best man - i think it’s very fun tho it kinda feels like it was written specifically to be played in the club 6.5/10
• rabbit run - i really vibe with this one great lyrics 9/10
• daddy yankee - i think it’s fun i wonder who it’s abt 7/10
• re-entry - good! 7/10
• no occasion - i like it 8/10
• thanks for coming - the first time i listened to this one it made me really emotional so many layers i love it 10/10

overall i give the album an 7.5/10 i feel like the lyrics are still there and overall i really like it i think some of the sound change can definitely be attributed to the new producer. it’s still true to them as a band but a little different they’re finding their footing as the band evolves

​
#nintendo #wii #adventure --
Disney Princess Enchanted Journey For Nintendo Wii. Save the kingdoms of four Disney Princesses. Meet, interact, and help Ariel, Cinderella, Jasmine, and Snow White. Explore magnificent locations with a lovely soundtrack. Defeat the evil and break the curse. Join the wonderful adventure with Disney Princess Enchanted Journey. --
Hey check out similar videos here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05uKspxQ89s&list=PLVduyMnVQjzNYPljUBqwgAXdMPQ9CEKWY

Hi everyone! I am 13F and I am looking for an audition song for a local production of Into the Woods later this year. I think the auditions are going to be in around September but I would like to have an audition song now. I am a Alto/Mezzo I don't really know to be honest but i can't sing very high. It is a kids and adults show. I am interested in playing one of Cinderellas Step-Sisters and I would appreciate some help. I was thinking of singing Step sisters lament from Cinderella but I think it might be a bit too on the nose and would not give the casting people enough flexibility to cast me in other roles. Please comment some suggestions :)

The show in question is Ramy, a comedy/drama on Hulu. For some context, the show is mostly about a Muslim family, and the character in question is Uncle Naseem, an outwardly hyper-masculine, racist, misogynist man who is clearly overcompensating for something.

Full Comments

Original post for posterity:

Like what was the point?? He was funny as hell, and I wish we could get deeper into his character, but why make him gay??? I wonder if the season where he made the uncle gay was the season the show got a Golden Globe.
Update: it’s been so fun going back and forth with you queens, please keep going, I love how butt hurt you guys are 😭 but then again I’m sure everything’s numb down there by now 😂
Update #2: I see I hurt some feelings here, let me just say, I hope you have nightmares about what I said, I hope the PreP in your stomach makes you throw up tonight, I hope you cry yourselves to sleep. Thank you for being so entertaining during my workday. Byeee queers 🥹

.

Why does it bother you if he is gay? And what do you mean by “absolutely no reason”? The fact that he was gay is exactly what made us get a deeper perspective on the character, which is what you say you wanted. He otherwise was just portrayed as a backward, racist, misogynist. So it was important to show another side to him, not just that he’s the “old crazy uncle.” It shows why he is the way he is, the frustration he has felt his entire life, of being gay and having to hide it, and probably being hyper masculine to compensate . Also, I could be wrong, so feel free to clarify, but if you think Uncle Naseem was “funny as hell” because you actually agree with the comments he was making, I have news for you. The show creators definitely do not want us to agree with Uncle Naseem’s viewpoints. We are supposed to be laughing AT him for the things he is saying, not with him. If you find yourself agreeing with Uncle Naseem’s viewpoints and it bothers you that he’s gay, this show might not be for you .

Because its forced nowadays. If it wasn’t mandated by Hollwood, id have more respect for the writers.

Nah, it’s not forced. It made perfect sense. It’s like when you hear about anti-gay pastors and politicians getting caught on Grindr or with prostitutes. There’s no gay mafia telling Ramy what to do, but that’d be funny though lol

It really is forced, but you can pretend to ignore it.

How is it forced? Everyone disagrees with you. To us, it made perfect sense. I think you don’t like it because you’re a conservative who doesn’t like gay acts depicted

Lmfaoo so since everyone disagrees I should just agree with you all? Those echo chambers really smoothed out your brain.

Then articulate a non-smooth brained reason why you think you can’t have gay characters on TV or why this show in particular shouldn’t have one of the cast members be gay Nah there was no point. But thanks for the essay. why did you even ask the question if you didn’t want a real answer? Lmfaoooooo just cause you agree doesn’t make it a “real answer”. well the only answers you agree with are ones that reinforce the opinion you already hold. if you just wanted people to agree with you then why did you ask a question in the first place? That’s not what I said at all but go off sis

[...]

Actually gays are dying out. Everyone is trams these days.. lesbians are unicorns now

.

I couldn’t disagree more with you. It makes him a more interesting character and puts a new spin on all his past statements and interactions. It makes Naseem more sympathetic because his homophobia is overcompensation and denial. Like they didn’t have to make him a diamond dealer either, but it also makes his antisemitism more interesting being that he has to work with Jews all the time.

Yeah, but he didn’t need to be gay

He didn’t need to be, it just was better for his character. Often times the most homophobic guy is gay. Why does it offend you so much? Do you think being gay is bad?

LMFAOOO such a high school response “oh he doesn’t like gays so he must be gay”. That talking point tracks with your other smooth brained buddies in here

Can you answer the question? Is being gay bad because it’s haram?

.

People just be gay.

Duh

Are you 13?

Ouch that one really hurt 😞

lol ok kid

thanks man🙂‍↕️

.

Dude….this is so mistaken. This isn’t just a DEI move or some shit. You have this really racist and emotionally wrecked uncle in denial and unable to accept his “flaws”. He knows he is for example attracted to men but he cannot accept that that is okay. He finds himself in the sauna getting sucked off because he couldn’t do it anywhere else. And the moment he thinks his niece finds out he goes crazy about it. Curb your homophobia/queerphobia. A show isn’t “infected” by the LGBTQ movement or part of the gay agenda just because it features gay characters. I’m sorry you’re too afraid to live in a world where media isn’t strictly heteronormative.

Oh save the “phobia” garbage lol, they didn’t need to make him gay period

So why did they have to make him straight?

They don’t, but making him gay shouldn’t be his whole storyline, they barely dove into his character and they just make him gay for what?? It just feels lazy.

We’re explaining to you why the reveal that he is secretly gay is essential to his character development yet you completely ignore it and assert that “they didn’t need to make him gay”. It only appears lazy because you do not understand the logic behind it. They constantly show he’s a lonely bitter old man but we just assume it’s cuz he can’t court any women cuz he’s racist. It’s a massive reveal to us that the real reason he can’t court women is because he’s not attracted to them, and he comes from a place where homosexuality is essentially a weakness and so he cannot accept that he’s weak. We see that he was dating a guy for some time but ends up punching him in the face, because for Uncle Naseem the thing he loves is also the thing he hates most about himself. He loves his family but he also hates them. He loves Ramy but he also hates him. He loves men but he also hates being attracted to them. This is what causes the dissonance in his life, because he can’t accept his flaws. The fact that such a hard ass bought a cake for his boyfriend shows how inside he’s still soft and vulnerable like everybody else. You’re gonna keep asking the question. WHY DID THEY HAVE TO MAKE HIM GAY? The truth is that Ramy Youssef didn’t have to tell us Uncle Naseem is gay, but if we didn’t know then we would know even less about Uncle Naseem.

Yeah you’re on crack or poppers if you think I’m reading all this LMFAOOO! I’ll respond with just a simple, No you’re wrong. Thank you😇

[...]

I would disagree. Him being secretly gay explains a lot about Naseem’s character flaws, especially concerning his overtly homophobic behavior. He’s very clearly compensating in multiple areas. He’s trying to put on this persona that doesn’t match who he actually is. I think him being gay is actually pretty crucial to the character and story line. I like that you don’t have any issues with the other characters? Others are not perfect either, yet you only seem to care about this.

Nah

You don’t even have any counter arguments, what’s the point of your post other than showing how incoherent you can be.

Awhhh I’m sorry I’m not engaging with you like you desperately want 🥺. Tell me how your day was buddy

You’re the one who posted this and can’t even hold your own lmao, you must not be that bright

You feel better? I’ve responded 2 times now okay🥺 hope you can sleep now

The butt hurt guy (ironically) who creates a post like this not having any self awareness to realize they are more like Naseem than their brain cells can handle, I almost feel bad

Ouch!!! You hit me with such an original response!!! It’s not like this take wasn’t said a million times 😭. And awhhh you feel bad for me??? Thanks man. I’m arguing with queers from around the globe, it does get tiring. Thanks bestie 🫶🏽

My bad, I had to repeat it because I thought you had some reading comprehension issues. You mentioned on another comment that you didn’t read it because 2 paragraphs was too long for your dumbass.

Nah it’s just, you queers all say the same things in your responses. Why waste my time ya know?

I’m sure Allah is very happy with you right now

.

Sounds like a bit of casual homophobia, eh?

My homophobia is anything but casual

Then no answer will make sense to you. People be gay, and so is his uncle. Get over it cause everybody else loved the twist.

Lmfaoooo exactly it’s called an OPINION, you don’t have to agree bud. Btw I bet when you typed up That last sentence you crossed your arms like you did something LMAOOOOOOOOO

Bro did you see your post? You asked the question and here's the answer, you're a homophobe. Funny part is that YOU answered it hahaha

LMFAOOO you did it again!! Pressed 😭

The thought of you seething about gay folk enough to come complain here is hilarious to me lol🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈

Oh no not the rainbows!!!! Please!!! I just ate! Your “pride” gives me bubble guts!

.

care to explain why you have such a problem with the uncle being gay?

Because

because what?

Because yuck

yeah I saw that you admitted to being a homophobe already. you’re a trash person with trash beliefs and a shit moral system. not much we can do about that.

LMFAOOO pat yourself on the back please, or get whoever back doors you to do it.

.

I think you just don’t like that he’s gay. Get over it.

Omg I really needed to hear that, thx sis! 😂

Cool, did you get over it? And not your sis, thx! 😁

Just trying to relate to you queers, I assume your a they/that. How do you guys say sis? ?”This”?

I just commented this on a post but wanted to see others experiences/ thoughts on this viewpoint- I will give my back story for context
I have been suffering with gastritis for 4 months (also have GERD and have had these symptoms for roughly the same amount of time in Jan last year) GI initially thought I had eosinophilic oesophagitis which was not confirmed by scope. Through trial and error I discovered that gluten triggered my symptoms and stopped eating it for 8 months which resolved my symptoms by around may last year, roughly 3 months into diet. During that time I ate healthy, home cooked everything, ate a wide variety of foods, spices, vegetables + meats and dairy. I mainly restricted processed foods, alcohol, chilli and acidic tomato. (I could eat everything and drink alcohol once healed)
Fast forward to Jan this year, symptoms make a comeback with a literal vengeance but I am GF so no idea what is causing it. Got an endoscopy and confirmed moderate linear gastritis with erosions + mild oesophagitis (non-allergy related and no signs of coeliac but I was gluten free @ the time of scope)
This led me to try to do things differently than last year because I assumed gluten was not the sole cause of this problem and wanted to rid of it forever, plus I had a diagnosis. So this sub reddit (bless it’s fkn soul) was my source for healing and I began the bland diet, cutting out literally everything except for rice, chicken/ organic gf chicken sausages, eggs and salmon (as I went on I included oats and home made almond butte a variety of herbal teas)
I followed an extremely strict supplement regimen without ppi (they caused a nervous breakdown when I tried them the year prior) I used MSM, collostrum, collagen, gelatin, Manuka honey (actually a god send and strongly recommend) and as I went I added coconut kefir, cabbage juice twice a day and aloe Vera juice twice a day.
I literally did not step out of line with this diet for 3 whole months. Not one mouthful, whiff or taste of a food outside of that and diligently took my supplements every day. I saw considerable improvement after the first month and then into the second month I stalled.
This is where it is interesting because I booked a Europe trip in October before relapsing, and I was without exaggerating, absolutely terrified of going over there with this illness. The thought of not being able to control my food/ bring my juicer for the cabbage or find dairy free kefir actually made me feel sick. And I think many of you can relate to that.
Anyway fast forward to 2 weeks before the trip, I’m about 75% better and have good days and bad days, I think it is important to note that the bad days caused significant distress and fear that I was regressing after getting better for the first month. It’s also important to note that I have not 100% confirmed my root cause at this point.
Because my GI told me I am not coeliac and gluten is likely fine, I started incorporating some sourdough toast/ fermented wheat products. Initially I responded absolutely fine to these. Once I decided I needed to break the diet in preparation for my trip I actually ate a donut and had minimal reaction.
About 9 days before the trip I started getting SEVERE lower belly cramping after every meal I consumed. At times I considered going to to the ER, even while I sat a final exam (RIP). At first I thought it was the folinic acid supplement I had incorporated (research on this shows it reverses damage in atrophic gastritis patients over 6 months of use so I thought it would be helpful) and I stopped it immediately but symptoms worsened. I came to the conclusion after the final exam fiasco (had 2 pieces of almond butter sourdough) that I am probably coeliac/ wheat allergy and the scope did not show damage because I had already been GF for 8 months (need to eat a gluten filled diet for 6 weeks for coeliac testing to be conclusive)
So I went back to my GF diet and the symptoms persisted and got worse. During this time my gastritis was also flaring up I think because of the distress from the pain and at this time I incorporated a half dose/ day of esomsprazole (the weakest PPI on the market, honestly for more mental reassurance than anything). And I know this is long as hell but stay with me, the details matter,
I decided I’m just going to have to cop the awful health and go on the trip (I genuinely considered cancelling and staying home because it was so fucked) but I just took a massive gamble and went. I just happened to speak to a naturopath @ work that day who suggested taking digestive enzymes for the trip to aid with the tummy ache (and for those fresh in the gastritis journey I would strongly recommend these, have had a huge impact for me)
This was 4 days ago, I’ve been in Paris for 4 days and it is absolutely impossible to get food that will fit these dietary requirements. I cannot get cabbage juice or straight aloe Vera water, I can’t find an organic butcher and I honestly thought it would be more miserable to subscribe to my frankly militant routine with my eating.
And therein lies the miracle- I chose to accept my health as it was, and accept the situation for the potentially shit reality that it may have been, and I just started eating food and breaking my diet. I started with plain rice and kebab meat with garlic sauce (extremely bold I know) and had some light symptoms that went away very quickly. It is essential to note that I was really scared to eat this meal but knew I needed to do it.
The following day I felt empowered and decided to try some restaurant food that was heavily seasoned, and I had a glass of wine. When I tell you I literally could not believe that I didn’t drop dead from the relapse I thought that would cause, I realised that for me (and potentially some of you long term sufferers) that the anxiety of coming out from under the safety blanket of the bland diet and extreme restriction was keeping me sick. Each day I have felt more emboldened and less scared and therefore have eaten further into my list of fear foods. This includes Mexican food (spicy + citrus) a matcha latte and an enjoyable amount of alcohol.
I genuinely cannot believe that this is how it’s going and it made me wonder what part the psychological damage this condition does to us, has on the maintenance of the illness or worsening of symptoms that cannot be explained by diet/ lifestyle changes.
I absolutely want to acknowledge the real suffering that this condition cause, I have experienced it and we can all agree it’s fucked, but I would be remiss to ignore that it seems my actual (seeming) recovery from this illness was made complete by letting go of the fea anxiety and accepting whatever outcome I got. I genuinely think that the crippling mental health aspect could be responsible for ongoing, indefinite suffering that I see on this sub. Because obviously the bland diet/ supplements and (potentially) confirming root cause had huge impact on my physiological healing and it could not have been achieved without that work,
BUT, I could never seem to shake it fully. It’s like the fear of the illness keeps it going/ stagnated at like 75% or regressing.
I am interested to know everyone’s thoughts. This will obviously not be a method for those early in healing, but may give hope to those long term sufferers
TLDR: I am able to eat all of my trigger foods after deciding to let go of the mental safety net that is bland diet/ gastritis recovery protocol, which leads me to question if psychological distress associated w/ gastritis is keeping us sick

This is a scheduled post, I will update the end time and type schedule tomorrow if needed

This event lasts until May 20th, 20:59 JST. (countdown timer here)
In Cinderella Caravan, you are to grind any songs in hopes of getting Event Drops. In the Recollection version of this event, you will have two options: allow any event SR to drop as a live reward or select 2 past event cards as your 2 SRs that will have a chance of dropping for the event. You may change your 2 selected cards up to 3 times for the duration of the event. Event Drops consist of your two selected event idols, random R idols, and/or Medals.
There are four ways to increase your drop rate.

• Have a centre with high Star Ranks
• Play a high difficulty song
• Get a high Score Rank
• Play a certain type of songs

Subscribing to Premium Pass will yield a guaranteed Event Drop, on top of the original chances.
Going to the event page will yield a Stamina Drink 50 everyday, and it expires daily.
You can also receive Medals from playing Live Party as well as finishing event-only Business.

Type Schedule (JST):

• May 14th - Cool
• May 15th - Passion
• May 16th - Cute
• May 17th - Cool
• May 18th - Passion
• May 19th - Cute
• May 20th - Every Song

Missions:

Missions	Reward	Duration
Collect 150 Caravan Medals	25 Jewels + 1 Candy	Resets Daily

Exchange List:

Rewards	1st Time Cost	Medal Cost	Max	Premium Pass Cost	Premium Pass Max
Suisei Gacha Ticket		300	5
50 Star Jewels	100	200	20	100	8
S.T. Master Trainer		2400	1
My Card Star Trainer		1000	1
Magic Timer		1000	1
Cute Tiara	500	1000	2
Cool Tiara	500	1000	2
Passion Tiara	500	1000	2
Memory Key	100	200	5
Magic Fabric	60	120	6
Magic Dress	60	120	3
Master+ Ticket		30	20
Cute Candy		30	5
Cool Candy		30	5
Passion Candy		30	5
Stamina Drink 10	20	40	10
10 000 Money		1000	∞
1 000 Money		100	∞
100 Money		10	∞
10 Money		1	∞
Past Event Selection Ticket		1000	10	500	2

Useful Links:

• Basic Japanese Translations for Deresute by SnowGames
• Deadline Countdown
• Japanese Wiki Event Page

Credits:

• DoctorNeko for creating the initial caravan skeleton

I have a staff member who ran a large panel but didn’t check if all the reagents were on board. When they realized it, they told a new staff member “I need you to finish this for me, you need the practice.” The new staff member did not perform the testing, because they felt extremely uncomfortable with the situation. They talked with management, but the original staff member never completed and management ended up finishing it before the due date. I’m doing some look back documentation about the event and I wanted some other opinions because I find this to be disturbing that the assigned tech has had no consequences.
Update edit because it’s getting late and I think I have my answer. I really like that a lot of people are saying the lab works as a team and if the sample needs to be finished, we help each other out. I didn’t expect that viewpoint. The policy at my lab is that they are individual assignments, it’s pretty strict. So maybe we need to look at being less rigid, but we also need a way to attest who is performing what tests. We do use our results to document competency. If one person reconstitutes, maybe someone else puts it on the analyzer after the timer goes off, and a third person finalized it, it opens up to a lot of possibilities if that analyte fails. One person being responsible for their assignment makes it easy for documentation.
I’m not a cutthroat person, I wouldn’t assign someone if they’re hospitalized or on vacation or FMLA. If they quit, of course management would re-assign. But if they’re on the schedule, they get assigned. Handing off something assigned to you without consulting management first, is not how my lab traditionally works. We don’t have a high turnover, we actually like each other, I can’t imagine someone leaving at lunch and not coming back. I’m sorry that happened to you!
It was one person who has had issues with proficiency samples. Everyone else follows the policy. If I’m being honest, I get the vibe like they don’t think they need to participate.
I really do appreciate everyone’s opinions. Thank you!

I’d like to begin this invitation of advice or experiences by stating that what I want in life is a partner who feels like home, will always give me their genuine effort, & will love me through all of the highs, mediums, & lows of life.
I specifically want to know about any advice or things I should consider when it comes to the age gap I have with the man I’m seriously considering making a staple & serious part of my life. I (29f) met Chance (40m) 3 years ago & we have been seeing each other for a little over a year. We met at the middle school in which we both work- he’s the social worker, I’m the art teacher. When I first saw him, he looked like a meat head (he’s pretty muscular, bald, beard, wears hoodies) & I’ve always been into nerds so it never occurred to me that I’d end up attracted to him. The first year we knew each other, it was very surface level, & then, during the second year of my time at the school, I got to know him better, as I did a few coworkers I now consider close friends. This second year of friendship was also a tough period for me as I was going through a divorce from a 5 year relationship with a man who wasn’t on the same life path as me & kind of made me dislike myself just for being me (wanting kids, needing to be intrinsically motivated in my career rather than financially motivated)- basically he was type A & I am B. Anyhow, as I was processing my divorce & creating friendships, I got to know Chance better both at work & at hang outs with friends outside of work. I watched how the kids at school just flocked to him & how kind he was with everybody. He coached the basketball team, did an after school program with the SRO to help at risk kids, & often stepped in to help others with tasks that weren’t related to his job as social worker. & he always did it with a positive attitude & good sense of humor. People just LIKE him, you know? It became obvious that he was just a really good person. One day, we had a discussion about kids & how we both wanted them. He told me I’d be a great mother because of how I treat the students & I told him he’d also be a wonderful parent. & he cast his spell on me & I slowly started falling for him. I couldn’t quite figure it out. Here I was, recently divorced from a relationship that had a tremendous affect on me mentally/emotionally, & I was gaining feelings for a man who was very different from my ex, & 11 years older than me. Was I just looking for a distraction? Was I using him to boost my confidence up after it had spent so much time at all time low? Or was I simply recognizing that this man had all of the features that I’d been missing in my past relationship & maybe I should pay attention to that? I was worried that my judgement post- divorce couldn’t possibly be clear, so I expressed that I had feelings for him but had to take things very slow. I was a bit of a mess as I tried to take the initial steps to get closer to him. I’d get emotional & have somewhat of a panic attack, or I’d go through some wishy washy phases when it came to wanting to see him in general. No matter what it was, he said that he understood, he wasn’t going anywhere, & that he just wanted me to be ok. He’d always ask what he could do to help & what I needed from him to feel better. If we were kissing & he felt that I wasn’t comfortable, he’d stop. One time he could tell that I wasn’t feeling great & he cried because he thought he’d made me feel bad. Needless to say, he was always there for me & ACTUALLY cared about how I felt. As we got closer, he was always respectful, would leave me flowers on random or special occasions (like when I was in an art show that he attended, or the first day of a new semester at work), wanted to make things like holidays memorable for me (one time I specifically thought was sweet was when he decorated my place with a Christmas tree & lights because “it’s your first Christmas in your new apartment, it should be festive!”). I consistently got solid evidence that he was emotionally mature, ready for a relationship, & wanted the same things as me.
So, I thought, “why is this sweet, courteous, kind, responsible, funny man single?” I’d heard some woman at work “pick” at him about this & say “I just don’t get how you’re single!” & I honestly wondered myself. You always heard that it’s a ref flag if a man dates a woman over 10 years younger & that it’s because “women his age didn’t want him”. Well, there are a few rational explanations I could think of: 1. He’d been sexually abused by his stepsister for years as a child. He’d told me that he’d had a few relationships during his 20s & 30s, but they didn’t last long & he’d had some issues with women not dealing with his anxiety around sex well. With me, this was not an issue, really. We’d taken the physical really slow, & when one of us felt anxiety as things heated up, the other stopped & supported. After a few months, it became a non-issue & we were able to have great sex with no fear that one of us would get anxious. 2. When he was younger (childhood-20s) he was overweight. He began balding in his 20s & so he shaved his head. Maybe there weren’t a lot of women who wanted to be with the overweight, bald guy? Women can be just as shallow as men.
So, I began to try to look for any signs that maybe this man is “grooming” me or something. I looked for issues as well as green lights. How’s his family? His brother is happily married with children & Chance is close with his family, seeing them weekly. What are his friends like? I enjoy his friends. They’re nice, fun people & his best friends are in happy marriages. Does he manipulate you? No, he treats me like a princess (I’m not used to it) & tries to establish healthy relationship patterns (he always insists on a weekly date night, suggests activities together, such as me weight lifting with him & him running with me). He also hypes me up like no other- If I’m wearing a risky outfit that I love but know my mom would insult, BAM Chance is the first one to see it & his jaw drops to the floor. Always telling me how strong, sweet, & cool I am. Made me take his gloves when we went on a snowy hike & I’d forgotten mine. Just basically an endless stream of courtesy.
I have gotten a lot of evidence that this is a solid person with whom I could build a beautiful relationship & family with. Everything he’s shown me has been positive as far as communication, morals, empathy, kindness & life plans is concerned.
So… is the 11 year age gap a concern? Should I be more paranoid about why he is still single, or are my theories valid? Although he goes to the gym daily & is like a kid at heart, should I worry about his age when it comes to us potentially raising kids? He’d likely be 43-45 by the time I was ready for that.
If you have any thoughts, please let me know. Truthfully, I do have other potential options if I pursued them & I’m not afraid of being alone, but I’m feeling that I’d like to commit to a relationship.

Hey NoStupidQuestions,
Ever find yourself wondering if we could ever live in a world ruled only by love? I mean a place where every action and decision is guided by pure love, and where traditional structures like laws and borders don't define us. It’s not about being liberal or conservative, or adhering to any religion; it’s about tapping into something deeply human that connects us all.
In such a world, every person’s perspective is seen as a divine expression of existence. Imagine that – every viewpoint, every feeling, every action is part of a grand tapestry that we’re all weaving together in real-time. Here's what keeps circling my mind:

1. Human Nature: Are we capable as a species to lead with love in every aspect of life? Can love truly override the complex web of emotions and motives that drive us?
2. Functionality: How would we manage the practical aspects of society—everything from healthcare to conflict resolution—under the rule of love?
3. Global Unity: In our global village, could such a concept hold up against the immense challenges we face like climate crisis and cultural clashes?

I’m really looking to challenge the status quo here and dive deep. I want us to think about whether this is just a beautiful dream or if there's a way to make it real. Could the principle of love be enough to sustain a global society?
What do you think? Could we ever make it work, or is it just a utopian fantasy? And if you think there’s a chance, how do we start moving in that direction?