I Swear I Saw This After Posting

"Oh, Crowley... Nothing lasts forever."

Update: I did a very chaotic run (not trying to be an asshole but also doing all the drugs all at once) and Kim is angelically patient. But you still get moments like these:

And it took all I had not to immediately turn this whole playthrough around. One day my little completionist heart might want to do the fascist vision vision quest but I don't know if I have it in me. I want to do Kim simp run now.

BUT I also put a lot of point in Physique which means I got to see more of Shivers and other dialogue options. Some of my favorites:

You get more occasions to see people comment on your different situationships.

I did the ultraliberal quest and it's darkly funny to me that I sometimes wondered which dialogue option was the ultraliberal and which one was the fascist.

I also wanted to see the ending if you finish the game with Cuno, so I didn't try to warn Kim at the tribunal. I feel like a traitor. Since I have finished the game with Kim before, I knew what he would have said and having Cuno not knowing what you're talking about (or not fucking caring, 'cause Cuno Doesn't Fucking Care) was TORTURE. Esprit de Corps also interjects with vision of what Kim is doing. Just to hurt me, I think. The worst one, in my opinion, is that you can't get a picture of the phasmid and get this instead.

But a legendary Half-light check let me convince Kim to wear the jacket, so I guess it was all worth it in the end.

Help I want to do a different playthrough of Disco Elysium but I am afraid of disappointing Kim.

I was recently reminded of this and it's just as funny now as it was then.

My cartoon for this week's New Scientist

I started watching this video, looked at the chapters in the description, saw that one was called OH GOD HE'S BACK, and for a moment was gripped by the certainty that it was going to be Somerton somehow. ( To be clear, it's not).

New Philosophy Tube premieres tonight at 1800 British time!

I'll be in the live chat from 1730!!!

“‘Ah, Vimes,’ said his lordship as Vimes entered. ‘So kind of you to come. Isn’t it a beautiful day?’ Up until now, Vimes thought, when he spotted the two other people in the room.”

— Terry Pratchett - Thud!

Regarding the minisodes, I don't think the point was to show us that they trust each other implicitly. It's something I've been thinking about, so excuse the long reply.

The flashbacks in season 1, IMO, had 2 purposes:

Showing us how their relationship came to be as it is in present day. How they met, how they started getting along, how the Agreement came to be, fall out and reconciliation that they had over the centuries, etc.

Setting up the Holy Water ( if I remember the book correctly, it only shows up for the scene in Crowley's apartment, he didn't get it from Aziraphale and since the body swap is TV only, it never comes up again)

Your mileage may vary, but I think that this season's minisodes were only partially about their relationship (because everything is at least a bit about their relationship), they were more about Aziraphale. Specifically, Aziraphale's moral struggles.

A companion to Owls (the Job Minisode) shows us Aziraphale lying to the Heavenly Host to protect humans, and being very miserable about it (as a side note, I was screaming "Dude, you lied to GOD in the garden of Eden" during my first viewing, but on careful re-watch, his "I must have put the sword down somewhere" can still fall under the "technically true if extremely misleading" category, which apparently doesn't count for him).

In the Resurrectionists, Aziraphale spents most of his time encountering consequentialism for the first time, and trying to reconcile it with a deontological philosophy. Is defiling tombs a Wrong thing to do, if it leads to Good? I might be thinking to much about it, but it's interesting to see that after some reluctance, Aziraphale has a pretty standard reaction to encountering Consequentialism : it's great! It solves so many problems! And then runs smack down into 2 classic counter-arguments to Consequentialism: 1. you cannot actually know what the consequences to your actions are going to be (i.e., Wee Morag dying). 2. Consequentialism implies that the subject should be impartial as to who benefits and who suffers, as long as the overall Good outweighs the bad. But as Crowley points out, "It's different when you know them, isn't it?"

The moral argument in Nazi Zombie Flesheaters is at the very end. Aziraphale says that Crowley helping him means that he's not as bad as he says. Crowley replies that Heaven sees thing in black and white and sometimes, you have to blur the edges. They toast to shades of grey. Very very light/dark grey. And that's basically the moral position of Aziraphale as we know him in the present day: willing to make some concessions. But it's a compromise, and it's more about Crowley being good than, for instance, Heaven being bad.

The minisodes do other things, of course. A Companion to Owls reminds us of how awful Gabriel was, the Resurrectionists makes a link to the pub and explains why Crowley asks for the Holey Water, the Nazi Zombie Flesheaters shows us the trust (and I'll bet money that we haven't seen the last of these zombies). But I think they do work as foreshadowing for Aziraphale being overjoyed at the idea of being friend with Crowley without the moral complications.

(The discussion in the other reblogs was great, but I wanted to answer some points in this post specifically)

Can someone who actually liked the ending of s2 please explain to me why?

Ducks quack loudly before a rain. 📰 🦆 

If you are an avid Discworld reader, you remember that the premise of Jingo is the sudden appearance of an island in the middle of the sea.

Say hello to Graham Island, a real thing that happened in the 19th century. An island rose up in the Mediterranean, stayed there just long enough to be claimed by England, Spain, Sicily and France, then sank back. The whole thing lasted less than six months.

hey say something nice to me