Ice Fairy Enthusiast

Please do not message me with your hints and tips to treat depression unless it is brand new and experimental because yes, I HAVE tried everything else, and yes, I HAVE heard of that thing. I like Touhou and video game stuff. I also write fanfic. My current project is a Devil May Cry fic called "Duet In Triple S Major" , about Kyrie becoming a devil hunter. You should also check out my Death Note fanfic: Silent Partner, Unfinished Business. Everything you need to know about a crossover is explained in a single scene. I wrote a blog about a fallout game that won't exist, called Fallout: Motor City. I have no idea how to un-flag that blog, but here are all the posts I mirrored on my blog. Here is a Sailor Moon crossover fanfic that is also embarrassingly autobiographical, and I would like more people to read: Sailor Moon: Double Exposure. (It should be understandable even if you don't know the crossover, as long as you have the general gist of Sailor Moon.)

[brazenautomaton]

My Fiction

All of these are fanworks of one sort or another, but they’re all fandom-blind friendly. You should check them out!

Silent Partner, Unfinished Business

They told Naomi Misora she was dead for three minutes when paramedics revived her. She sure didn't feel alive. She couldn't even remember coming back to Japan, much less Kira taking her fiance, much less Kira sending her to suicide, maiming her and robbing her brain of speech. She had almost given up hope of recovery until a mysterious figure gave the promise of revenge: the chance to kill those who wronged her, if only she can find them.

Aphasic and adrift, Naomi's going to join the Kira investigation to win her life back. She's going to help Misa Amane discover who she is, and discover a connection with her. She's going to make Light Yagami have to think on his feet, and present him with a new opportunity. She's going to solve some serious problems for L, and then make some serious problems for L. And she's going to make a hell of a lot of things get a lot more complicated.

A tense, twisty, action-packed psychological thriller mystery about romance, revenge, redemption, and the Kuleshov effect. Recommended for anyone who liked Death Note, didn’t like Death Note, or didn’t see Death Note. 

Has a romance-focused sequel (that may or may not be an AU) called Misa Amasora’s Pure Love Memorial.

Duet in SSS-Major

Kyrie awakens with strange demonic familiars inside a phantasmagoria of battles past, with no idea of how she got there. A single lock of white hair displays the trace of demon blood that resides within her now, an old project the Order called "Soprano Angelo". Great demon lords amass power inside a land of regrets, trying to earn the ability to return to life -- and with Dante and Vergil in the Underworld and Nero captive, it's going to be up to Lady, Trish, Lucia, Nico, and yes, even Kyrie, to save Nero and defend the human world once again.

But does she have the strength to fight demons just like her beloved? Did she willingly accept demonic power in order to bring back the Order of the Sword? Will her faith in Sparda carry her through the fires of perdition? Can the wholesome, motherly church girl also be a stylish Devil Hunter?

Can Kyrie attain true power?

A Devil May Cry fic that can serve as your introduction to the Devil May Cry  game series or the stylish action genre in general -- a story where everything happens for in-character reasons yet also clearly is an expression of a video game. Kyrie is going to feel what you feel when you flub an input, get your ass kicked by a boss and run around the arena breaking objects for health refills, overuse that new move you unlocked when you really shouldn’t, feel awed by a much better co-op partner, figure out the extent of her moveset, learn from her mistakes, learn to apply tricks she heard about, and learn to finally git gud and master the game.

She’s also going to be tagged along by two adorably boneheaded artificial demon familiars, co-op with the whole cast, solve mysteries that didn’t need solving, and engage in musical theater duels. She sings a lot. So much so that I composed her own DMC-style battle theme.

Princess: the Hopeful - Crystal Edition

You know the premise, don't you? Corruption. There's a force of evil corrupting everyone, poisoning their minds, spreading like an infection. Turning people against their friends, against themselves, until all they do is spread the evil.

The enemy is everywhere. The enemy infects everyone. And its name is "fear."

Fear controls the world. Fear twists and imprisons us, turns us on each other and against ourselves. Fear hollows you out and turns you into a vessel to spread more fear, demanding more and more of yourself, demanding you spread it to others just to alleviate the pain on yourself.

We've lived under the tyranny of fear for so long we don't realize it any more. But now, we have the chance to be free. You're that chance. 

Welcome to the War for Hope. 

Become a magical girl in the Chronicles of Darkness and fight the forces of Fear Itself! Express who you are in every action, put your lives and ideals on the line, and face glorious triumph or ruinous, soul-crushing defeat! Cast dynamic Charms made of multiple modular Upgrades to create your very own anime word salad spell names! Face Nightscapes crafted from fear and trauma to resolve and free the people who imprison themselves inside! The fate of the world is on your shoulders -- no matter if you're ready for it or not.

[zybilna]

One thing that makes me kinda sad is seeing people who feel like TTRPGs just aren't for them because they bounced off of some element that is clearly just a symptom of them trying out D&D5e. Like people who have had a hard time with learning the rules would probably do well with any system where the rule formatting and play culture around learning them aren't a mess. One friend of mine didn't like waiting a long time for turns to come up in combat, not even knowing that many games don't even use a turn-based structure.

A lot of D&D5e defenders on here like to claim that asking someone to learn a new system is "gatekeeping" somehow, but I'd argue that acting like one game is emblematic of the entire medium to the exclusion of people who don't click with that one game is way more meaningfully a form of gatekeeping, even if it's fully unintentional.

I strongly believe that not all RPGs are gonna appeal to everyone, but there is an RPG out there for everyone, and I just hope that people who haven't clicked with the most common option to be introduced to can find something that works for them.

[nonenosome2]

"Hey. I've never played a computer game before. Can you recommend one too me?"

"You should try DOTA."

"I didn't really like that. I heard about first-person shooters and those seem fun. Can you recommend one?"

"Have you tried DOTA? Just ignore parts of the game and it's basically what you want."

"I didn't like that. Can you recommend a good puzzle game?"

"Have you tried DOTA? Just ignore parts of the game and it's basically what you want."

"Damn. I guess I don't like computer games."

[throwitonthepilethesecond]

This pic is ancient and still relevant

[godlessondheimite]

In 2026, the chicest thing a gay actor can do is never explicitly come out as gay but also make it abundantly clear that he is. Coming out is too modern. Staying closeted is too old fashioned. But this method merges contemporary freedom with Old Hollywood glamour and allure, and it weeds out the dumbest people who truly don’t get it. I call it the Pascal Method.

[nobodys-odyssey]

Taylor Swift does this

[godlessondheimite]

no she doesn’t

[nobodys-odyssey]

You clearly don't go here or to queer history and signaling, or both, enough to have this conversation and I'm not going to explain it to you. You could have asked questions, you could have done even a modicum of research. You didn't and you made yourself look ignorant. Goodbye.

[sanjipussyindulgence]

[waitingforthet]

And now you know.

[lesbianeo]

mutuals, you can pick me up to put me in your inventory

[deanwinchesterapologist]

>settings

>onions

>my onions

>caramelize my onions

[petefoxshend-deactivated2018062]

“Big Pharma” okay are we talking about how privatization and monetization has deeply corrupted the field of medicine or are you talking about how you think chemicals in the water are making the frogs gay

[fireleaptfromhousetohouse]

>be me, chemical company executive >turns out one of our fine products is doing weird shit >like, really weird shit >it’s making frogs change genders >holy shit the religious right will gang-rape us over this >those guys fucking hate genders >what do? >idea >feed the story to a professional liar who will blame it on an undefined ‘them’ >story promptly becomes a byword for stupid made-up shit >justasplanned.jpg >that’s why they pay me the big bucks

[brazenautomaton]

What a great time to remind everyone that this is literally never true and is always cope. It's not a psyop because it's never a psyop!

Alex Jones did not break this news, it was publicly known before he went on his rant, nobody has to pay Alex Jones to say stupid and insane shit, "genders" was not on anyone's radar, it is never a psyop, and "because someone benefitted from an event that is evidence they agentically caused that event" is exactly what makes Alex Jones insane!

[cosmonautroger]

Urusei Yatsura, 1981

[holy-punks]

My favourite translator said that when she was an ambassador for Hungary she took all these Japanese politicians on a tour and she was trying to circumtranslate ‘merry go round’ cause she didn’t know the Japanese word for it by calling it a ‘horse tornado for children’ and they had no blessed idea what she was saying and she finally started running in circles going up and down and they go ‘ohhhhh, in Japan we call those ‘merry-go-rounds’”

[bruntalism]

[bitter-wolfsbane]

[cheshireinthemiddle]

He would have loved the 2020's.

[beardedmrbean]

Need to figure out some kind of exchange program where we swap people like this with sane people from Afghanistan or somewhere like that.

Or maybe we could set up some sort of gladitorial combat between fuentes acolytes and piker acolytes

[generallemarc]

This is, sadly, not a new phenomenon. "The Jews masterminded the Holocaust" has been a fringe belief for at least a couple decades; there's several variants, but they all agree that it was a conspiracy by the global Jewish elite to sacrifice some amount(they usually deny the actual figures but for some reason still say that some level of killings did take place) of their own people to somehow gain power. I say "somehow" because all the explanations I've seen were so nonsensical that I've forgotten them for the same reasons I forget the vague, half-formed thoughts I have right before I fall asleep.

[brazenautomaton]

"Thing was bad" -> "Therefore Jews Did It" is by no means a novel development.

They don't look at the evidence and think it points to Jews, they start at "Jews did it" therefore anything they come up with must be proof of it.

[nonevahed]

As the wise dr. scott alexander said, "when you declare your community free of witch-hunts, you attract witches."

which explains why 90% of the world population of liberal hbd guys are in his circles

[brazenautomaton]

It is still a good thing to not have witch hunts

[brazenautomaton]

I hate millionaires but not billionaires. Average billionaire made there fortune inventing air conditioning and splinter free toilet paper while the average millionaire bought a house with their parents money in 1973 and spends every day making the childrens hospital pay them for each ambulance they hear.

that doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about ambulances to dispute it

[pettycentral]

[rejectingrepublicans]

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I love how you have to equate "arresting people" to (what you think is) murder.

As if ICE doesn't have a legal right and responsibility to arrest people interfering with their duties, like cops in general.

[silent-calling]

One of these two tried to run over ICE agents and only failed to do so because the roads were slick. The other was directly physically aggressive with them, in the middle of a riot. Pretti might not have been a clean shoot, but it wasn't murder for sure.

[marinemas]

Pretti’s case is pretty indefensible. He was on the ground and disarmed. Whether it was incompetence or malice, both are horrific indictments of the ICE agents involved (and probably the screening, hiring, training, and management processes)

[siryouarebeingmocked]

The gun went off. The cops thought he was trying to shoot them.

Which Pretti's defenders consistently ignore, unless they're trying to blame it on the cops.

Even though Pretti's specific model of gun (Sig P320) is infamous for going off when dropped and has been for a very long time.

Also, open-carrying a gun to a protest is automatically escalating the situation. Even more so when he deliberately interfered with the cops, in a way that made him subject to arrest.

At the very least, he bears a large amount of responsibility for the situation.

If he didn't bring a gun, he'd still be alive.

[brazenautomaton]

The Second Amendment is a right, not a death penalty offense.

And it is never, ever appropriate or acceptable to shoot someone who is pinned on the ground. Ever! It is impossible that he was a threat, because he was pinned on the ground. It does not matter that his gun discharged while someone else was carrying it, because he was pinned on the ground and could not have possibly been the source of gunfire. The first response to gunfire should never ever be "shoot a man pinned on the ground who is being held down by several other officers who I might injure when I shoot him." There is no if, there is no unless, there is no what about. There is no possible situation in which shooting Pretti was acceptable or smart. The officer heard gunfire, then pointed his attention to the one person it could not possibly be coming from and killed that person. If they had been getting shot at like the officer thought, he would have put himself and everyone else in danger.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I have said, loads of times, that a) cops shouldn't shoot people for carrying guns, and b) loads of people needlessly escalate confrontations with cops and get themselves in trouble.

Whether or not they had a gun.

I'm being very consistent.

>The first response to gunfire should never ever be "shoot a man pinned on the ground who is being held down by several other officers who I might injure when I shoot him."

You're effectively saying, those officers were likely obscuring the line of sight of Pretti, and making it difficult-to-impossible to see what he was doing with his hands.

In the past, I've also said "the cops were wrong to shoot this person based on what we now know, but the person also bears a lot of responsibility for the situation".

I think it was manslaughter, I just don't think it was murder.

Also, you're doing the exact thing I said in my second line; breezing right by the whole "bringing a gun to confront cops" part to blame it all on the cops.

[brazenautomaton]

If line of sight to Pretti was obscured by other cops, that means it was completely inappropriate and wrong to shoot him because that is literally just shooting other officers.

Pretti was helpless on the ground. There is no other factor that is relevant or could possibly be relevant. It does not matter that he brought a gun to confront police, because he was helpless on the ground. Cops don't get to kill people, they have to. There is no way of looking at the situation, even without any hindsight, that makes it into a situation where someone had to kill Pretti.

[switch-up-snowfox]

There is no other factor that is relevant or could possibly be relevant.

Okay, Brazen, STOP. In a legal sense, There are many other things that would be fucking relevant, because those factors would determine if the result was a murder charge, a manslaughter charge, or some form of negligence. Even if we don't want to argue legally, you are basically trying to argue that the cop should not have reacted to all the factors other people keep bringing up (the chaos of the situaton, inability to tell what he was doing with his hands, the fact that a gunshot happened) should not matter in judging for a factor you got post hoc, and we should ignore any explanation for if the guy could have gotten and processed that factor in the moment.

Whether you realize it or not, what you are arguing for right now is basically telling everyone "ignore everything else, go for MY interpretation of how this went down and what should have happened, or you are wrong." You are actually making things harder on your case because you refuse to accept any thoughts that do not in some way lead to a variation of "the cop is a murderous moron and we should think the worst of him."

I have seen you argue about this on several different posts and that problem remains in ALL of them.

[brazenautomaton]

They should not have reacted to any if those things because none of those things could have possibly made "shoot a person helpless on the ground" a correct or defensible position.

If a gunshot goes off, the person who is helpless on the ground is not the source of it. Do not shoot the person who is helpless on the ground.

If you can't see what his hands are doing because other officers are obstructing your view of him, this means you are shooting into a group of friendly officers without verifying your target. Do not shoot the person who they are pinning to the ground.

If the situation is chaotic, your job is to not shoot helpless people in a blind panic. In fact the reason you are allowed to use lethal force is that you (allegedly) have been trained to keep your shit together in a chaotic situation. When a situation is chaotic you are never supposed to shoot without verifying your target. Do not shoot the person who cannot possibly be the source of the chaos.

This is not a situation where we're going "oh, the officer shot someone over a realistic toy gun, he should have known it was a toy even though at the time he had no way of knowing that." We are not only judging the shooter with the benefit of hindsight. There is no configuration of events where it was appropriate to shoot Pretti. What ended up happening was the luckiest outcome for the officer and if anything was different he would have made the situation way worse! If Pretti had a gun in his hands then it was inappropriate to shoot him because doing so needlessly endangered the other officers without verifying the target. Shooting Pretti was firing into a crowd of officers. You don't do that. If someone else had a gun and was firing on them, then it was inappropriate to shoot Pretti because that did not protect anyone from a threat; instead of taking cover and identifying the source of the gunshots he just increased the number of people shooting at the other officers by one.

The officer who shot Pretti deployed lethal force with such grotesque negligence and depraved indifference to human life that it is murder at best. Not even manslaughter, because there was no provocation and it wasn't an accident. Civilians are able to claim "imperfect self-defense" to downgrade murder to manslaughter if they acted in a sincere but unreasonable belief their actions were necessary, but officers cannot make this claim. Their job is to know that shit. Since there was no potential outcome where use of lethal force made the situation safer given what the officer knew at the time, it fails the reasonable-person standard.

[switch-up-snowfox]

Brazen, Pretti was not flat and helpless on the ground when his gun went off and he was not flat and helpless on the ground when he was shot. Hell from the vid i've seen, they didn't have his arms secured when the gunshots started.

[brazenautomaton]

If he did not have his arms secured, and there were multiple officers doing so, that means that it was not appropriate to shoot him. He had like five guys holding him down. Shooting at him means shooting at all of those guys.

[switch-up-snowfox]

okay, HAVE you seen the video of the shooting?

[brazenautomaton]

Have you?

Because we can see the video right there, and it's of a bunch of dudes holding Pretti down, on top of him, all over him, where it was clearly completely unsafe to shoot him.

[switch-up-snowfox]

the guy shooting him is closest to him, to the point he looks at one point like he's got the gun in pretti's back, and by the time he starts shooting, the other cops all were jumping back away from pretti.

[brazenautomaton]

they clearly jump back after the officer started shooting him

[rejectingrepublicans]

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I love how you have to equate "arresting people" to (what you think is) murder.

As if ICE doesn't have a legal right and responsibility to arrest people interfering with their duties, like cops in general.

[silent-calling]

One of these two tried to run over ICE agents and only failed to do so because the roads were slick. The other was directly physically aggressive with them, in the middle of a riot. Pretti might not have been a clean shoot, but it wasn't murder for sure.

[marinemas]

Pretti’s case is pretty indefensible. He was on the ground and disarmed. Whether it was incompetence or malice, both are horrific indictments of the ICE agents involved (and probably the screening, hiring, training, and management processes)

[siryouarebeingmocked]

The gun went off. The cops thought he was trying to shoot them.

Which Pretti's defenders consistently ignore, unless they're trying to blame it on the cops.

Even though Pretti's specific model of gun (Sig P320) is infamous for going off when dropped and has been for a very long time.

Also, open-carrying a gun to a protest is automatically escalating the situation. Even more so when he deliberately interfered with the cops, in a way that made him subject to arrest.

At the very least, he bears a large amount of responsibility for the situation.

If he didn't bring a gun, he'd still be alive.

[brazenautomaton]

The Second Amendment is a right, not a death penalty offense.

And it is never, ever appropriate or acceptable to shoot someone who is pinned on the ground. Ever! It is impossible that he was a threat, because he was pinned on the ground. It does not matter that his gun discharged while someone else was carrying it, because he was pinned on the ground and could not have possibly been the source of gunfire. The first response to gunfire should never ever be "shoot a man pinned on the ground who is being held down by several other officers who I might injure when I shoot him." There is no if, there is no unless, there is no what about. There is no possible situation in which shooting Pretti was acceptable or smart. The officer heard gunfire, then pointed his attention to the one person it could not possibly be coming from and killed that person. If they had been getting shot at like the officer thought, he would have put himself and everyone else in danger.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I have said, loads of times, that a) cops shouldn't shoot people for carrying guns, and b) loads of people needlessly escalate confrontations with cops and get themselves in trouble.

Whether or not they had a gun.

I'm being very consistent.

>The first response to gunfire should never ever be "shoot a man pinned on the ground who is being held down by several other officers who I might injure when I shoot him."

You're effectively saying, those officers were likely obscuring the line of sight of Pretti, and making it difficult-to-impossible to see what he was doing with his hands.

In the past, I've also said "the cops were wrong to shoot this person based on what we now know, but the person also bears a lot of responsibility for the situation".

I think it was manslaughter, I just don't think it was murder.

Also, you're doing the exact thing I said in my second line; breezing right by the whole "bringing a gun to confront cops" part to blame it all on the cops.

[brazenautomaton]

If line of sight to Pretti was obscured by other cops, that means it was completely inappropriate and wrong to shoot him because that is literally just shooting other officers.

Pretti was helpless on the ground. There is no other factor that is relevant or could possibly be relevant. It does not matter that he brought a gun to confront police, because he was helpless on the ground. Cops don't get to kill people, they have to. There is no way of looking at the situation, even without any hindsight, that makes it into a situation where someone had to kill Pretti.

[switch-up-snowfox]

There is no other factor that is relevant or could possibly be relevant.

Okay, Brazen, STOP. In a legal sense, There are many other things that would be fucking relevant, because those factors would determine if the result was a murder charge, a manslaughter charge, or some form of negligence. Even if we don't want to argue legally, you are basically trying to argue that the cop should not have reacted to all the factors other people keep bringing up (the chaos of the situaton, inability to tell what he was doing with his hands, the fact that a gunshot happened) should not matter in judging for a factor you got post hoc, and we should ignore any explanation for if the guy could have gotten and processed that factor in the moment.

Whether you realize it or not, what you are arguing for right now is basically telling everyone "ignore everything else, go for MY interpretation of how this went down and what should have happened, or you are wrong." You are actually making things harder on your case because you refuse to accept any thoughts that do not in some way lead to a variation of "the cop is a murderous moron and we should think the worst of him."

I have seen you argue about this on several different posts and that problem remains in ALL of them.

[brazenautomaton]

They should not have reacted to any if those things because none of those things could have possibly made "shoot a person helpless on the ground" a correct or defensible position.

If a gunshot goes off, the person who is helpless on the ground is not the source of it. Do not shoot the person who is helpless on the ground.

If you can't see what his hands are doing because other officers are obstructing your view of him, this means you are shooting into a group of friendly officers without verifying your target. Do not shoot the person who they are pinning to the ground.

If the situation is chaotic, your job is to not shoot helpless people in a blind panic. In fact the reason you are allowed to use lethal force is that you (allegedly) have been trained to keep your shit together in a chaotic situation. When a situation is chaotic you are never supposed to shoot without verifying your target. Do not shoot the person who cannot possibly be the source of the chaos.

This is not a situation where we're going "oh, the officer shot someone over a realistic toy gun, he should have known it was a toy even though at the time he had no way of knowing that." We are not only judging the shooter with the benefit of hindsight. There is no configuration of events where it was appropriate to shoot Pretti. What ended up happening was the luckiest outcome for the officer and if anything was different he would have made the situation way worse! If Pretti had a gun in his hands then it was inappropriate to shoot him because doing so needlessly endangered the other officers without verifying the target. Shooting Pretti was firing into a crowd of officers. You don't do that. If someone else had a gun and was firing on them, then it was inappropriate to shoot Pretti because that did not protect anyone from a threat; instead of taking cover and identifying the source of the gunshots he just increased the number of people shooting at the other officers by one.

The officer who shot Pretti deployed lethal force with such grotesque negligence and depraved indifference to human life that it is murder at best. Not even manslaughter, because there was no provocation and it wasn't an accident. Civilians are able to claim "imperfect self-defense" to downgrade murder to manslaughter if they acted in a sincere but unreasonable belief their actions were necessary, but officers cannot make this claim. Their job is to know that shit. Since there was no potential outcome where use of lethal force made the situation safer given what the officer knew at the time, it fails the reasonable-person standard.

[switch-up-snowfox]

Brazen, Pretti was not flat and helpless on the ground when his gun went off and he was not flat and helpless on the ground when he was shot. Hell from the vid i've seen, they didn't have his arms secured when the gunshots started.

[brazenautomaton]

If he did not have his arms secured, and there were multiple officers doing so, that means that it was not appropriate to shoot him. He had like five guys holding him down. Shooting at him means shooting at all of those guys.

[switch-up-snowfox]

okay, HAVE you seen the video of the shooting?

[brazenautomaton]

Have you?

Because we can see the video right there, and it's of a bunch of dudes holding Pretti down, on top of him, all over him, where it was clearly completely unsafe to shoot him.

[penny-anna]

what if on Taskmaster one of the contestants died in the middle of filming a task but after doing enough of the task for it to be deemed complete so since there was nothing in the rules to say you had to be alive throughout they allowed it. & then all the other contestants bombed so badly that the dead person won the task and in the studio Greg was there like 'wow you all managed to do worse than Christine and she was dead for most of it'

[penny-anna]

they don't sub in a replacement contestant for the studio shows so one of the chairs is just empty and sometimes when contestants are arguing their case on something they're like 'I think if Christine was still with us she'd take my side' and Greg would be like 'for fuck's sake stop bringing up Christine'

[penny-anna]

also everyone (Greg included) would dunk on Alex for 'killing Christine' with the task and Alex would keep nervously laughing it off and be like 'legally speaking we weren't responsible for what happened to Christine'

[penny-anna]

the interstitials for the season occasionally feature randomly inserted shots of Christine's lifeless body lying on the ground

[penny-anna]

obviously it would already have been announced that Christine died filming Taskmaster but during the show they wouldn't say which task it happened in so every time there's a Christine segment it'd be like is this the one where she died 🤔 let's watch and find out