#postpunks

Oh boy, I have SEEN those shows. They're complete bunk. It's all entirely based on morality tales from Amish communities, which promise dire consequences for minor infractions to community rules. Like not even religious laws or actual safety guidelines. Just traditional community rules. Such as the rules about faces on dolls.

The same goes for like 90% of the "true" accounts of ghost encounters, paranormal activity, demonic attacks, and so forth you see on television. Sure, there are people who experience things, but the sensational tales you see in ghost shows are nearly always produced by a team of writers and "recounted" by actors.

And the stuff that IS based on true experiences? So much of it is just people scaring themselves based on past trauma, religious paranoia, mental health issues, or just plain ignorance. And by ignorance, I mean the people who freak out over noises in the woods as if there's nothing living there that could ever possibly step on a twig, or the ones who blame evil spirits for a house that feels "heavy" or "hostile" when they're constantly arguing with their family and not bothering to communicate or attempt to resolve conflicts.

But to your point, that's exactly what I was talking about. Why would that particular paranormal consequence happen ONLY to an Amish person? Same thing for witches. If the rules about intrusion by evil spirits or ghosts or demons or whatever are supposed to be constant for everyone, why is it only certain persons and households that are affected?

And no, it's not because witches are inherently more "in tune the the spirit world." Plenty of witches don't even bother with it. The only thing that is likely to summon ghosts and demons into your home is....actively and deliberately summoning ghosts and demons into your home. And even that isn't a guarantee.

("Oh but I started hearing weird noises in my house after I started practicing witchcraft!"

Yeah, because you were EXPECTING SOMETHING TO HAPPEN. Those noises were very likely there before, you just didn't think anything of them until there was a possible paranormal explanation.)

yeah!! hill being a plagiarist is incredibly important to the plot, and even more emphasized in the novelization which is based on the original script and not the movie itself apparently? (citation needed but y'know) as in, hill steals the laser drill from a guy he then lobotmized/hypnotized. the ideas/plagiarism/credit thing is also thematically relevant to the lobotomy/hypnotism thing i think... hill can't come up with his own ideas so he relies on others' work, and he's only good at stripping other people of that ability. the accusation of plagiarism being his final condemnation and -- technically -- downfall is crucial imo. even if its fake

and i think that proper credit/not plagiarizing is one of herbert's core values and a huge part of his moral compass. between the conflict in the first movie and his concerns/paranoia in bride, it's the one ethical research principle he has. he doesn't care for fame, but he wants the credit! even with the bride, he's upset that she refuses to acknowledge him as her maker, and i think that's what causes his rejection of her (possible jealousy aside). she's at least partially a failure bc she doesn't respect his input, refusing the acknowledgement

also i don't think the 'laid to rest' line makes sense plot-wise.... what rest.... he's literally getting re-animated not even a full minute later??? herbert's too fond of puns/one-liners to do that............. i think

three posts that could be read in exactly the same voice.......

(alt text below)

Taps microphone . What The fuck ever Yeah

Come to SGC’s Christmas In London Show at the Electrowerks.