Steve Rogers uses voice to text to send texts and formats them like a telegram
HEY BUCK STOP SAM AND I ARE OUT SHOPPING STOP WANT US TO PICK UP SOME TAKEOUT STOP
Steve rogers fully understands that this is not the correct way to text. He just likes the absolute outrage it causes every time someone receives a text from him and wants to see how many times he can make the same people explain texting to him until they realize. Sam is currently at 14 times, beating out tony who’s at nine. Twice now shuri has facetimed him after reading bucky’s texts. He’s also managed to convince thor that this is the Earth Way to text and it’s great
I love this HOWEVER steve does it to sam like twice before sam is like, “you’re just being an asshole aren’t you. captain america is a fucking troll. do you know how much of middle america you’re disappointing right now, steve.” steve gives him a giant shit-eating grin before asking if he’s gonna tell the others and sam just says, “are you kidding this is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen; the other day tony almost threw his phone out a window.”
i will say the funniest thing i’ve ever fucking seen on a tv soap is when my mum was watching holby city (british medical drama) many many years ago and there was this one really arrogant anaesthetist and he was bragging about something or other while holding a charged defibrillator pad in each hand and triumphantly clapped them together and just straight up electrocuted himself and fucking died. it was supposed to be like a serious scene but nothing i’ve ever watched since has surpassed that level of comedy
no offence but angels with their 6 wings, blazing halos, multitudes of eyes, 4 faces + booming voices are 100 times more terrifying than any demon I’ve ever seen a description of. oh it’s a dude with horns. that’s chill. come back when you’re an eternal arcane wheel of fire and maybe i’ll be afraid of you.
There’s only one Light of Creation, even if it’s collected multiple times. It’s called “the” Light of Creation, and the IPRE doesn’t end up with a cargo hold filled with incredibly powerful orbs of light. It’s always the same single piece of creation that slipped out of the creator’s hands fell out of place.
So what removes the Light from the IPRE or the Hunger when they get to a new world? Why is it always falling at the beginning of the year?
The story is linear. The IPRE’s perspective is linear. From the outside, it seems like one year in each world, happening one after the other and resetting the physical forms of the crew each time. But since each of these years happens in a separate dimension, consider: they’re happening simultaneously, in the same year.
The “reset” at the beginning of each year is not really a reset – the IPRE is returning to the beginning of the same year, at a different physical location. The Light always falls at the beginning of the year because it’s only just been misplaced; it’s gone when they reach a new location because it has to fall again, because the year is at the beginning again. The “one after the other” perspective of the crew isn’t wrong, it’s just a different way of ordering the experiences that is easier for the mind to understand. Seeing all of that happening at once would be devastating – it was devastating for Maureen, who saw all of those worlds at once and the one consistency between them.
There is still a century of experiences, but in a layered whole that’s only broken when the IPRE moves past that one year. They only had to restore the Light and defeat the Hunger on a single world to save them all, because all of these dimensions are connected: if there’s only one Light and only one Hunger, only one victory is needed.
Mr. Rogers had an intentional manner of speaking to children, which his writers called “Freddish”. There were nine steps for translating into Freddish:
“State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street.
“Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.
“Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.
“Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.
“Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.
Rogers brought this level of care and attention not just to granular
details and phrasings, but the bigger messages his show would send.
Hedda Sharapan, one of the staff members at Fred Rogers’s production
company, Family Communications, Inc., recalls Rogers once halted taping
of a show when a cast member told the puppet Henrietta Pussycat not to
cry; he interrupted shooting to make it clear that his show would never
suggest to children that they not cry.
In working on the show,
Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R.
Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who
worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to
Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions
about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that
it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support
from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of
Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production
carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse
children in that way.
In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of
child development is actually derived from some of the leading
20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well
known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate
degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there
recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret
McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the
theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik
Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards
in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for
almost half a century.
This is one of the reasons Rogers was so
particular about the writing on his show. “I spent hours talking with
Fred and taking notes,” says Greenwald, “then hours talking with
Margaret McFarland before I went off and wrote the scripts. Then Fred
made them better.” As simple as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood looked and sounded, every detail in it was the product of a tremendously careful, academically-informed process.
That idea is REALLY worth learning to talk to the kiddos. Mr. Rogers still has a lot to teach us–especially for our own kids.
just moving along like everyone else 