AOUBOOM x GARNIER MICELLAR
RMH
i don't do bad sauce passes
Game of Thrones Daily
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Stranger Things
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
todays bird
cherry valley forever
Peter Solarz


oozey mess
Cosimo Galluzzi
dirt enthusiast

if i look back, i am lost


blake kathryn

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Mexico
seen from Uruguay
seen from Ukraine

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
@wispraus
AOUBOOM x GARNIER MICELLAR

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
i don't care if it's nazis, mormons, or a bunch of misguided autistic people. if anyone ever tries to tell you your soul is from another planet and you're actually part of the class of impressive people that secretly did everything cool in the world but is now extinct and lives on through your broken genome, you RUN. YOU WILL RUN AWAY. YOU WILL SPRINT FULL SPEED AWAY FROM THAT.
grabs you by the shoulders listen. listen to my words. i understand the urge to make fanfiction about yourself and to find a reality in which you're super awesome and great and everyone who hates you is wrong and dumb. i get it. you're better than that. you can love yourself without putting other people down, dehumanizing and generalizing, and retaliating against your oppressors.
there's no NPCs. there's no aliens coming to save us. we're not the next step in human evolution. our hyperconnected nervous systems give us terrible sensory overwhelm more often than they make us geniuses. neurotypical people are sentient, conscious, aware people who are capable of understanding you. we're more the same than we are different. we're more the same than we are different. we're more the same than we are different.
Just watched Adam Conover (of Adam Ruins Everything) make such a solid point that I think we should spread far and wide. Yes, having AI write your emails is lazy, sure, but people love being lazy. We need to really emphasize that sending AI emails (or using AI responses on social media, or publishing AI flyers, or or or) is rude.
It's rude. You're making someone take their time to read something you couldn't bother to write. You're telling them they were so unimportant you couldn't be bothered to actually take the time to say something yourself. And frankly, you're lying about it while you're at it.
It's rude.
He was so real for this.
Thank you sir!
We need to stop glamorizing jobs and making people feel that they need to find their dream job or they're somehow missing out. Sometimes a job is just a paycheck and that's okay. You don't have to find your passion or whatever.
that one clingy couple

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Ideas are cooking for my pride outfit.
Oh boy have I pissed off the transphobes with this one.
IT’S NOT ‘PEEKED’ MY INTEREST
OR ‘PEAKED’
BUT PIQUED
‘PIQUED MY INTEREST’
THIS HAS BEEN A CAPSLOCK PSA
THIS IS ACTUALLY REALLY USEFUL THANK YOU
ADDITIONALLY:
YOU ARE NOT ‘PHASED’. YOU ARE ‘FAZED.’
IF IT HAS BEEN A VERY LONG DAY, YOU ARE ‘WEARY’. IF SOMEONE IS ACTING IN A WAY THAT MAKES YOU SUSPICIOUS, YOU ARE ‘WARY’.
ALL IN ‘DUE’ TIME, NOT ‘DO’ TIME
‘PER SE’ NOT ‘PER SAY’
THANK YOU
BREATHE - THE VERB FORM IN PRESENT TENSE
BREATH - THE NOUN FORM
THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE
WANDER - TO WALK ABOUT AIMLESSLY
WONDER - TO THINK OF IN A DREAMLIKE AND/OR WISTFUL MANNER
THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE (but one’s mind can wander)
DEFIANT - RESISTANT DEFINITE - CERTAIN
WANTON - DELIBERATE AND UNPROVOKED ACTION (ALSO AN ARCHAIC TERM FOR A PROMISCUOUS WOMAN)
WONTON - IT’S A DUMPLING THAT’S ALL IT IS IT’S A FUCKING DUMPLING
BAWL- TO SOB/CRY
BALL- A FUCKING BALL
YOU CANNOT “BALL” YOUR EYES OUT
AND FOR FUCK’S SAKE, IT’S NOT “SIKE”; IT’S “PSYCH”. AS IN “I PSYCHED YOU OUT”; BECAUSE YOU MOMENTARILY MADE SOMEONE BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT WASN’T TRUE.
THANK YOU.
*slams reblog*
IT’S ‘MIGHT AS WELL’. ‘MIND AS WELL’ DOES NOT MAKE GRAMMATICAL SENSE.
SLEIGHT - DEXTERITY, ARTIFICE, CRAFT (FROM ‘SLY’) SLIGHT - VERY LITTLE, FRAIL, DELICATE
IT’S ‘SLEIGHT OF HAND’.
DISCRETE - SEPARATE, DISTINCT, PARTED
DISCREET - SUBTLE, STEALTHY, DIPLOMATIC
BORN= existing as a result of birth
BORNE= carried or transported by
LIGHTENING = to make something less dark in color or to lessen its weight
LIGHTNING = bright flash of light during electrical storms
{This is quite helpful. Thank you Rebloggers.}
((adm: I just want to add-
Loose- untight
Lose- opposite of winning))
((ALSO: A fun trick - Affect = Action Effect = End Result ))
There = In that place
Their = belonging to them
can’t = a contraction for cannot
cant = a tilt or lean at an angle, usually to accommodate accessibility
Me thinking that this is child’s play and that I know it all already:
Me realising there are some things I didn’t already know:
TO- GOING ONE PLACE TOWARDS ANOTHER
TWO- 2, A NUMBER BETWEEN 1 AND 3
TOO- A DESCRIPTIVE WORD, THE MUSIC IS TOO LOUD, THE SHIRT IS TOO LOOSE.
TOO- A DESCRIPTIVE
WORD, THE MUSIC IS TOO LOUD,
THE SHIRT IS TOO LOOSE.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
I’m gonna add
ROGUE: CRIMINAL/REBEL/VAGRANT/ETC
ROUGE: RED MAKEUP
it’s rogues gallery, guys. Not rouge gallery. You’re making me think batman has an extensive lipstick collection.
If you’re talking about a weapons CACHE, it’s pronounced cash.
If you say cashay, that’s how CACHET is pronounced which means prestige and does not mean a collection of items stored together in a hidden/inaccessible place.
NO ONE IS ‘PREJUDICE"
PEOPLE ARE “PREJUDICED”
If he’s not moving, he’s STATIONARY.
If he’s a fucking space pencil, then carry on with STATIONERY.
If it’s wet precipitation falling out of the sky, it’s RAIN
If it’s someone ruling over people, it’s REIGN
If it’s holding back someone from (or getting someone to stop doing) something, that’s to REIN [them] IN (…as if you were using REINS on a horse)
(and oh yeah)
If you’re telling someone they’re going to have to reconsider an opinion or course of action, then they have ANOTHER THINK COMING
(because “another thing coming” makes no damn sense whatsoever unless they’re in some kind of monster movie, ffs)
Ugh, PRINCIPLE and PRINCIPAL not the same: “principles of physics”, “he was sent to the principal’s office”
It’s “voilà”, not “viola”
“She dressed with FLAIR” “they sent a distress FLARE”
Rebloging from myself because someone out there needs it
One like nitpick thing that drives me crazy is when people call Blue Whales the largest whales or the largest living mammals or some shit like that
Because yes that is true. But when you frame it like that you are completely disregarding the absolutely batshit reality that Blue Whales are the largest animals that have ever existed on earth through the entire history of the planet and they are alive right now today
i saw the edges of some hashtag discourse on twitter that purported to be critique of p'aof as a director but was of course more ship war nonsense/gmmtv bashing from our generation's greatest minds. but it did get me thinking that i'd be interested in what you thought were some of his strengths and/or weaknesses in helming a series.
Aof, my beloved <3
Strengths:
Camera choreography—he loves a fluid, roaming camera, especially in first episodes, and was pushing this even in the early days when the Thai tv industry did not have budgets for the kind of equipment or time to manage that easily.
His work is extremely dense with visual language and symbolism
His dialogue is lyrical and realistic
He’s one of the best at an urgent sense of pacing, partly, though, because he depends more than almost anyone on Western narrative structures.
The performances. He works with a different acting coach, Meng Chaiyapat, (who actually played the choir teacher in the latest TTH episode) than the other directors, and the angsty psychological turmoil they bring the actors to convey is top tier drama.
There’s also just a way he can write and direct a character who’s trying to repress, not just their sexuality, but a really deep-seated loneliness that keeping their sexuality from others has caused them. And that hits so true to my own history with my sexuality. P’Med, Pran, Li Ming and Heart, Day, Tanrak: These characters are some of the most lonely in the genre. He took the “My Loneliness” monologue from Love of Siam personally.
He can write the fuck out of women characters. They have their own stories, their own goals, complex personalities. Ugh!
The reason I’m obsessed: He’s THE most philosophical writer/director in the Thai BL industry and possibly the whole of the genre. He’s deeply interested in the problems of queer epistemology and semiotics—How do we know queerness is real? How do we embody it? How do we represent it? And is it less real if it’s not enacted or acknowledged by others or even ourselves? And if it’s not less real if we don’t enact it, why should we enact it anyways when we could conceal it and remain safer? The absence of characters appearing in photographs in his early works! The death that pervades all his series! The separations! The doubts about sensory perception! Ugh! Literally considering writing a whole book about it. There’s no one in queer studies—period!—who’s theorizing about these issues to this extent, and they’re so endlessly fascinating to me, especially his use of Buddhist/Eastern philosophy to address them (and that’s one of the many reasons why I’m so excited about Ticket to Heaven; it’s really a return to some of the theological issues that caused the Reformation schism that I have books about on my shelf—the iconography, the scriptural analysis, the capability of the mortal perceivable world to reveal the sacred, the questions of what faith means, ugh!).
And on that note, he writes for multiple audiences at once, like Shakespeare. He’s doing deep philosophical shit but you can also ignore all that and get your fix of great romantic drama.
Weaknesses
He cannot do comedy, especially camp, that well. I actually think the original 2gether is better than Aof’s sequel because the original understood how utterly ridiculous all the characters were, and how the subversiveness of the camp undermined what would otherwise be generic BL tropes. The original makes clear that the homophobia at play is stupid and the butt of the joke. Making the characters more real like Aof did takes away that ridiculousness, at least imo.
He does not have the editing chops of someone like Jojo or Dome or Boss Kuno. He’s got that beautiful flowing camera, but he can’t do the rhythmic and playful cutting some others go for. It can make his work feel less hip and modern. Aof is at his heart a lakorn director. His works feel like musicals or old Hollywood works in their editing. I personally love it and can go watch other series if I’m looking for other vibes.
I’ve joked that he actually only knows 15 actors at the company because man loves to use his favorites. Like it or not (I personally don’t like it lol), Jojo seems to have a prerogative to use new and even performance-challenged actors lol. Aof does not play around with his casting. He does not have interest in training stale actors on set. He’ll cast green actors, but it would seem to be based on the insight that they will DELIVER (Mix is ATOTS or G4 in MLC).
He can be heavy-handed with his metaphors sometimes (see “Would you like me to relight the flame?” with AlanWen). I chock this up to him writing for multiple audiences. The less literary viewer can benefit from an obvious metaphor now and then lol. There’s plenty of subtlety throughout any of his series for me to appreciate beyond those moments.
Tanrak believes in God because he needs to believe that his parents are in heaven waiting for him. That’s why he can’t believe in ghosts, can’t admit he’s afraid of them. Because then his beliefs are wrong and his parents are really gone. He’s walking through the cemetery forcing himself to believe that these people are not in the graves but, through sacraments like baptism (John the Baptist), are actually in a better place. He’s laying six feet under ground in a dried out pool (no baptism option here) telling Barth his parents’ souls are saved. Then soon enough, if he can live purely, he’ll be reconciled with them. Graves and ghosts, those signs of death, are pervasive in the series, but it hurts Tanrak too much to accept that death might really be the end, that he’ll truly never get to be reunited with them.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
"Lust means letting desire control us."
The pilot established Barth as the definitive outsider, but Episode 2 pushes past that to ask something far more uncomfortable: What are the community's obligations toward the person who disrupts their harmony?
The Father blaming Tanrak is a massive turning point because it forces Tanrak into the role of the shepherd. Suddenly, keeping Barth on the "straight and narrow" is his burden. On a literal level, it’s just strict discipline, but symbolically, the Church has recast Barth as the lost sheep and Tanrak as the one who must retrieve him. The genius of the writing is how it subverts Luke's parable. The parable is about searching for the lost, not controlling them. By drawing a line between the Father’s version of responsibility (correction) and the Gospel’s version (pursuit and care), the episode exposes a massive hypocritical gap.
Take Barth's reaction to his punishment: "I don't know what I did wrong."
This might be the most important line in the entire episode, because look at what he's actually rejecting. He isn't fighting the punishment just because it sucks. He's rejecting the premise behind it. Psychologically, Barth is looking for meaning, but the institution is just demanding compliance. Having to write lines only works if the kid agrees they actually did something wrong. Barth doesn't. So, the whole exercise becomes purely symbolic. The school wants a confession; Barth wants an explanation. Since nobody gives him one, we get the exact same result as Episode 1: he experiences the institution as demanding total submission without a shred of understanding.
The study buddy assignment looks simple on paper: the smart student helps the struggling student.
Symbolically, it's so much richer than that. Episode 1 forced Barth into Tanrak's uniform, but Episode 2 forces Tanrak into Barth's life. The movement goes both ways now. The institution keeps trying to solve its problems by making them share a space. Ironically, it works. Just not the way the institution intended. The school is looking for academic improvement, but the story wants intimacy. And suddenly, those two goals are starting to blur together.
Why does Barth cling to Tanrak?
One thing that stands out to me is how Barth attaches himself to Tanrak almost immediately. While we might interpret that as flirting, I think there's something deeper happening first. Tanrak is the first person who consistently returns, the first person who doesn't completely reject him, and the first person who shows up repeatedly. Remember the lost sheep imagery: a lost sheep isn't looking for doctrine, it's looking for the shepherd who came back. That's exactly what Barth keeps testing. Every tease, every interruption, every invitation to break the rules, and every attempt to drag Tanrak somewhere is a variation of the same question: "Will you leave too?" And every time Tanrak follows him, lets him, helps him, studies with him, or searches for him, Barth receives the same answer: "Not yet."
The scene involving the wall and the roti (the bread) feels incredibly symbolic.
Barth wants the bread, and Tanrak refuses. But then, he boosts Barth over the wall anyway. Look at the contradiction here: Tanrak won't break the rule, but he’s willing to help Barth break it. He’s caught right between obedience and desire, which is pretty much his entire character arc so far. The wall is a huge piece of symbolism, too. Walls separate worlds. Inside the seminary, you have duty; outside, you have freedom. Tanrak doesn't cross over, but Barth does. But here's the thing: Tanrak physically helps him do it. For the first time, Tanrak's body is participating in Barth's rebellion, even if his mind is still resisting it.
All those little details in the scene really strengthen the idea that there's both communion symbolism and desire symbolism happening at the same time. The big takeaway here is that symbols in a drama rarely mean just one thing. Good visual storytelling stacks meanings on top of each other. If Barth had simply bought the roti and eaten it alone, I'd lean much more heavily toward a "forbidden fruit" interpretation. But the fact that he offers it to Tanrak changes the entire dynamic.
Christian symbolism around bread isn't really about the bread just existing. It's about it being shared. Sharing a meal creates a real bond. When Barth offers Tanrak a bite, he's doing something that perfectly mirrors what he's been doing emotionally the whole episode. It’s his way of saying, "Come over to my side." Not necessarily in a romantic way yet, but definitely relationally. The institution just assigned them as study partners, but Barth is trying to turn that assignment into a genuine connection. The roti becomes this beautiful vehicle for intimacy.
So, why does the teasing expression matter so much?
Well, Barth's teasing face is important because he's not just sharing food here, he's testing Tanrak. Throughout Episode 2, Barth constantly pokes at him. He teases him, invades his space, climbs into his bed, challenges his rules, solves his riddle, and drags him into small acts of rebellion. The roti scene is just another version of that. It’s almost like he’s saying, "Come on. Live a little." The food itself becomes an invitation. Not just to eat, but to genuinely participate.
What's fascinating is that Tanrak almost never initiates these boundary crossings. Barth does. Tanrak resists, but then eventually yields, and this pattern repeats constantly. That's why the roti scene matters so much structurally. The question isn't just whether Tanrak wants the roti. The question is whether he'll accept something offered by Barth. And he does. It’s a small choice, but it's symbolically significant.
When Tanrak starts noticing Barth's lips while they're sharing food, that’s where the scene starts layering symbols.
On one level, it's just two boys sharing a snack. On another, it’s an awakening attraction. And on another, it’s full-on communion. These meanings aren't mutually exclusive at all. In fact, they completely reinforce each other. Food and desire have been linked in literature for thousands of years. People don't just watch what someone eats; they watch how they eat. That's usually how attraction first gets visualized on screen, when the camera turns an ordinary act into something incredibly charged.
This is also where the nod to 1 Corinthians 13 gets really clever. Tanrak excels at religious knowledge; he gets a perfect 10/10 and is the definition of an ideal seminarian. But right after that, the episode begins teaching him something he could never learn in catechism¹ class. It's not about doctrine. It's about connection, affection, desire, and actually paying attention to another person. Notice how Tanrak spends the whole episode just looking at Barth. Really looking. He’s not evaluating him, supervising him, or trying to correct him. He's just looking. That is a totally different way of relating to someone. The episode isn't even really about desire yet. It's about recognition. Because desire always follows recognition. First you truly see someone, and then you realize you can't stop seeing them.
And that's why I think the scene isn't just a straight Adam and Eve reference. Forbidden-fruit symbolism is usually all about taking, but this scene centers on an act of giving. Barth shares, and Tanrak receives. That feels much closer to the symbolism of a shared meal than a theft. I suspect the scene deliberately straddles two different symbolic worlds. On one hand, you have Adam and Eve: boundary crossing, awakening desire, and the loss of innocence. On the other, you have Communion: shared food, relationship, mutual participation, and intimacy.
The genius of this scene is that it doesn't force us to choose. The roti can be both. It’s the forbidden sweetness that awakens Tanrak's desire, and it’s the shared bread that starts to build a bond between them. That's why it lingers in the story way longer than a random snack run ever should. The roti isn't just food. It's likely the first moment in the series where Tanrak accepts something from Barth. Not because he has to, but because he actually wants to. For a character whose whole life is built on obligation, that distinction is absolutely huge.
So, why does that "bathroom stall" scene matter so much symbolically?
Let's assume he's already crossed a line inside his own head. The most fascinating part isn't the act itself, it's the timing. This happens right after Tanrak spends the whole episode trying to maintain order, discipline, and absolute control. And then, his own body interrupts that mission. Religious stories usually paint temptation as some outside force, but this episode gives us something much subtler: Tanrak realizes the conflict is actually inside him. That is a massive shift. The threat isn't Barth anymore. The threat is how he reacts to Barth. The battlefield has moved inward.
Put yourself in his shoes: this is a boy who has lived his entire life trapped in his own head and anchored by rigid structures. That's why those flashing images on screen feel like such a gut punch:
The Holy Family vs. The Lost Parents: For Tanrak, the stakes couldn't be higher. His biological family is gone, and Heaven is the only place left where they exist. If he fails to be the "perfect believer," he isn't just risking Hell, he's losing his parents all over again.
The Last Judgment & The Ticket to Heaven Painting: Flashing Michelangelo's Last Judgment alongside the show's titular painting plays out like psychological horror. The Ticket to Heaven painting shows a soul scrambling for safety while surrounded by demons waiting to tear them apart. Suddenly, Tanrak looks at that fragile stairway and realizes he's the one standing on it. And the "demon" trying to drag him down into damnation isn't some monster, it's his own growing, uncontrollable desire for Barth.
When Tanrak walks with heavy feet and a troubled face, he's not walking toward pleasure. He's walking toward his own spiritual execution. Whatever happens behind that bathroom door is a desperate surrender to a human urge, one that he genuinely fears has cost him his eternity.
The riddle of the believer, the lover, and the lost one may be the most interesting symbolic object in the episode.
Tanrak's brain teaser explicitly names three figures, and even before it’s solved, those labels feel deeply thematic because they map surprisingly well onto the story. Tanrak represents the believer: his entire identity is built around faith and obedience. Barth represents the lost one, which is exactly how everyone in his life treats him, a role practically assigned to him by the Luke scripture. That leaves the lover as the missing category, the unknown variable, and a role neither character fully understands yet. This is what makes the riddle so fascinating: the story itself is becoming a riddle about identity. Who is who? Can one person occupy more than one role? Can the believer also become the lover? Can the lost one become the one who guides? The riddle is a miniature version of the entire narrative.
Barth solving the riddle while peeing feels almost comically symbolic.
While Tanrak approaches truth through disciplined study, Barth approaches it through pure intuition. Where Tanrak sits surrounded by books, Barth solves the problem casually. This scene subtly undermines the assumption that institutional knowledge equals wisdom. Barth repeatedly fails the system's tests, yet he constantly demonstrates profound insight. Ultimately, the episode keeps suggesting that being highly educated and being truly wise are not identical.
This is where the deeper meaning of Luke 15 comes in.
The lost sheep parable gets way more interesting when you apply it to both boys. At first glance, the roles look simple: Barth is the lost sheep, and Tanrak is the shepherd. Except, the episode completely complicates that. Barth might be lost socially, but Tanrak is lost personally. Barth knows what he wants, Tanrak doesn't. Barth struggles with belonging, while Tanrak struggles with desire. Barth is wandering outside the community, but Tanrak is wandering inside himself. So, by the end of Episode 2, I'm not convinced there's only one lost sheep anymore. I think the show is quietly suggesting there are two.
Episode 2 asks: "When someone is lost, what does love require?"
The authorities answer with correction, while Barth answers with understanding. Meanwhile, the Gospel verse answers: "Go after them." And Tanrak is slowly discovering that following Barth may change him just as much as it changes Barth. That's why the passage from Luke is such a perfect framing device. At first, it sounds like it's about saving Barth. But by the end of the episode, it looks more like Barth might be the one leading Tanrak into the very part of himself he has spent his entire life avoiding.
After all, who is actually changing here? Not Barth. Barth enters the episode already intimately acquainted with several uncomfortable truths about himself:
He knows he's angry.
He knows he's lonely.
He knows he doesn't fit in.
He knows exactly what he wants.
The person having the existential crisis is increasingly Tanrak. By the end of the episode, Barth is casually eating bread and solving riddles, while Tanrak is lying awake, staring at the ceiling, wondering why his body has suddenly become a traitor. That's not the emotional state of a shepherd confidently leading a sheep home; that's the emotional state of someone who has just discovered he might be lost, too. And that's where the Luke verse becomes so much richer. In Christian theology, the parable isn't actually about the sheep's competence. The sheep doesn't rescue itself. The story focuses entirely on the one doing the searching. What happens when the shepherd starts following the sheep?
Officially, Barth is the one being guided. But narratively, Tanrak is the one being led. That's such an elegant inversion. And then there's the Corinthians verse, which I think is doing way more heavy lifting than it initially appears to:
"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love..."
Think about it, who in this episode speaks the language of religion most fluently? Tanrak. Who gets the perfect score? Tanrak. Who knows all the right answers? Tanrak. And yet, the verse quietly reminds us that none of that matters without love. That's a dangerous verse to drop into an episode about a seminarian developing feelings for someone. Because suddenly, the question isn't:
"Can Tanrak remain doctrinally correct?"
The real question becomes:
"Does Tanrak even understand what love actually is?"
I think the riddle might actually be my favorite detail, though.
The believer. The lover. The lost one. By the end of Episode 2, Tanrak is still the believer, and Barth is still the lost one. But Tanrak is also becoming the lover, and you could argue he's becoming lost, too. Meanwhile Barth, the guy everyone writes off as "lost," is the one who actually solves the riddle. Which is almost hilarious symbolically. The "lost" one is the one who sees the answer, and the "believer" is the one who can't stop staring at him.
Theological Context Note:
In Catholicism, the catechism covers the absolute essentials of the faith: the Creed, the Sacraments, the Moral Life, and Prayer. But passing a catechism test with a 10/10 (like Tanrak does) doesn't mean you're a saint; it just means you're good at memorizing doctrine.
That’s why the inclusion of the Corinthians verse in Episode 2 is brilliant. The Apostle Paul famously argues that knowing religious truth means nothing if you aren't living out religious love. Tanrak has the academic answers down perfectly, but the narrative asks if that's actually enough.
Meanwhile, Barth tanks the test with a 4/10, showing he’s either checked out or actively resisting the school's rigid structure. And yet, Barth is the only one wrestling with real, heavy spiritual dilemmas: exclusion, punishment, and what it actually means to belong. The show is beautifully illustrating that head-knowledge and heart-knowledge need each other. Dogma without empathy becomes cold and brittle, but raw emotion without a framework can lose its way. By forcing them together as study partners, Tanrak might be teaching Barth the textbook definitions of God, but Barth is teaching Tanrak the actual meaning of love.
Tanrak is currently the "resounding gong" (all correct sound, but no substance) and Barth is forcing him to find the substance.
what is it about capybaras that attracts groups of small animals to them? Its not just mammals either its like birds and turtles and frogs too
look at this shit
They radiate peace
capybaras are friend shaped
I love this post
This is actually a cool thing I know about!
In the wild capybaras live in large groups so naturally a female capybara will take care of not only her own offspring, but all of the other offspring in the group. So capybaras are super great mothers who will adopt pretty much anything and take care of it.
Lots of places that rescue different animals will give a group of baby animals to a capybara to raise if they have one.
Like puppies
Ducks
Deer
Emus
They are just super calm animals so they’re naturally great at mothering or just existing in a group!
mom shaped
When you remember how much you love a character you hadn’t thought about in a while
You're different from the others. I missed you so much. Can I hit on you? WILLIAM JAKRAPATR & EST SUPHA in THAME-PO HEART THAT SKIPS A BEAT (2024), ME AND THEE (2025), and YOU MANIAC (2026)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
LYKN did a long interview with the Zach Sang Show and honestly, it was fascinating — but my biggest takeaway is that the fact LYKN exists at all is insane.
Lego only joined Project Alpha because his mom literally cornered him and wouldn’t let him pee until he agreed.
Hong had never rapped before, wasn’t interested, and only decided to try it once the competition started because there were fewer rappers in the pool.
Nut was studying nano‑engineering. When a manager reached out to recruit him, he straight up said no. He wasn’t interested.
Tui was forced by his mom to learn instruments growing up.
William started singing in high school because he quit every other hobby as a kid and needed to prove a point to his parents. He hates competition. He hates being judged. He hates dancing. He didn’t even want to do ThamePo at first and said “no thanks” when they offered.
None of them were interested in acting.
Most boy groups spend their whole lives training, manifesting, and begging the universe for a chance. Meanwhile LYKN was collectively like, “meh, I guess,” and yet here they are, wildly successful and deeply confused about it.
It’s really just. The weaponization of shame. And tanrak being so ashamed of his own desires that he literally locks himself into a little box