Tumgik
#link click explained
juthemagicalclown · 8 months
Text
quick recap of abilities in link click after episode 10 according to four parameters : when, how, on whom, active (possess the victim) / passive (see the victim's perspective)
- lu guang : past, through pictures, person who took the picture, passive
- xiaoshi : past, through pictures, person who took the picture, active
- tianxi : present, through pictures, person in the picture, passive
- tianchen : present, through physical contact, person(s) he touches, active
222 notes · View notes
yuzuuu4 · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
[link click s2 ep12 spoilers] "I'm always telling you not to change the past, but I couldn't follow my own words."
4K notes · View notes
nuctua-larc · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
He's going to be so normal about this
144 notes · View notes
gh0stmew · 7 months
Text
Does this mean that Lu Guang has been destroying the photos he uses to dive so the timeline where Cxs died doesn’t exist anymore?
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
354 notes · View notes
sunnyyflowerrs · 2 months
Text
link click s2 spoilers !!!
at least once a week i’m reminded of the fact that the moment lu guang went back to save cheng xiaoshi was so important to him that’s he MADE IT HIS PHONE PASSWORD and i become violently ill
58 notes · View notes
mudanonaito · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
@linkclicknet Link Click Appreciation Event ↳ Day 2 || Favorite Scene → Cheng Xiaoshi and Lu Guang's Welcome Home Feast ⟡ "Sorry, Cheng Xiaoshi, I’m always telling you not to change the past, but I couldn’t follow my own words."
128 notes · View notes
saelterlude · 2 months
Text
You can pry my melanin-challenged Lu Guang hc out of my cold dead hands. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, white hair Lu Guang is not some supernatural bullshit. Get that hair theory out of my face, my man got medical problems, that's all.
42 notes · View notes
curapicas · 7 months
Text
I was rewatching Link Click's ep 1 and Oh Boy. If you don't count the stablishing intro right before the opening?
The first thing we know about Qiao Ling is that she's the suspiciously young boss who treats Cheng Xiaoshi like a misbehaving little brother (not an orphan tho, her dad is mentioned in the same scene. My guess is this implies she takes charge of Cheng Xiaoshi's situation over her own dad)
The first thing we hear Lu Guang ever do after half a scene of silently working is calling Cheng Xiaoshi an "idiot". But the context is, he'd just threatened that if he were to ever be thrown out, to avoid new tenants he'd hang himself (To summarize: the first thing we really learn about Lu Guang is that he takes this offhanded danger a Little Seriously. Also he's snarky)
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
The first thing we know about Cheng Xiaoshi, though, really breaks my heart.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
92 notes · View notes
gracetoldmeto · 7 months
Text
ok but what if Cheng Xiaoshi knows what Lu Guang is trying to do? And he's chosen not to bring it up?
like we already know CXS can kinda meld his memories/emotions with the person who took the photo when he's posessing them
so what if CXS saw something in those memories while acting as LG (before the boat scene)?
...and he's keeping silent bc he either doesnt wanna talk about it or he knows the fear LG has about this "last chance" bc he could FEEL how hopelessly terrified LG is...
LG could still fail... CXS could still die... this could be the last attempt to save shiguang so maybe CXS would rather enjoy the time he has left before the inevitable...
68 notes · View notes
elibean · 8 months
Text
Someone who knows Chinese tell me if this is what I think it is— CXS doing his classic “C’mon LG, say something!” and then a compilation of LG calling him “idiot” I’m losing my miiiind
EDIT: if the comments section is to be trusted that is indeed what this is!
59 notes · View notes
autismserenity · 2 months
Text
Me, looking through books on Palestine: "Ilan Pappé wrote one called 'The Biggest Prison On Earth?!' People in Gaza hate it being called a prison. There's an entire hashtag for it. There's been an account dedicated to collecting pics and videos of #TheGazaYouDontSee for 6 years.
"Is Pappé even Palestinian? oh god wait I can tell already. this is gonna be an 'Israeli apologist' isn't it." Internet: "Yeah, Pappé's Israeli."
Me: "For fuck's--- so people will believe Israelis unquestioningly if they're shit-talking Israel, but in all other situations, Israelis are all liars?"
Internet: "Pretty much. Also, at best, Ilan Pappé must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians."
Me, admittedly in full schadenfreude now: "What?!?!"
Internet: "Benny Morris. That historian who's extremely hard-core about primary source documentation, who wrote that detailed book about how and why each group of Palestinian refugees left in 1947-9. He reviewed three books about Palestine."
Me: "Holy shit. And the book by Pappé is about the Husaynis. The family that Nazi war criminal Amin al-Husseini came from, the guy who fucked absolutely everything up for both Israel and Palestine."
Internet: "That's the one. Morris wrote, 'At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.'"
Me: "Why??"
Internet: "He says, 'Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork. I take this example from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'....
"Blah blah blah, basically in 1947 the UN voted to partition the land into Palestine and Israel, and extremist militias started shooting at Jewish towns and people. David Ben-Gurion was the leader of the Jewish community there, and his journal describes a visit from a scientist named Aharon Katzir, telling him about an experiment codenamed "Shimshon." Morris gives us the journal entry:
...An experiment was conducted on animals. The researchers were clothed in gas masks and suit. The suit costs 20 grush, the mask about 20 grush (all must be bought immediately). The operation [or experiment] went well. No animal died, the [animals] remained dazzled [as when a car’s headlights dazzle an oncoming driver] for 24 hours. There are some 50 kilos [of the gas]. [They] were moved to Tel Aviv. The [production] equipment is being moved here. On the laboratory level, some 20 kilos can be produced per day.
"Morris says, 'This is the only accessible source that exists, to the best of my knowledge, about the meeting and the gas experiment, and it is the sole source cited by Pappe for his description of the meeting and the "Shimshon" project. But this is how Pappe gives the passage in English:
Katzir reported to Ben-Gurion: 'We are experimenting with animals. Our researchers were wearing gas masks and adequate outfit. Good results. The animals did not die (they were just blinded). We can produce 20 kilos a day of this stuff.'
"'The translation is flecked with inaccuracies, but the outrage is in Pappe’s perversion of "dazzled," or sunveru, to "blinded"—in Hebrew "blinded" would be uvru, the verb not used by Ben-Gurion—coupled with the willful omission of the qualifier '"for 24 hours."'
"'Pappe’s version of this text is driven by something other than linguistic and historiographical accuracy. Published in English for the English-speaking world, where animal-lovers are legion and deliberately blinding animals would be regarded as a barbaric act, the passage, as published by Pappe, cannot fail to provoke a strong aversion to Ben-Gurion and to Israel.
"'Such distortions, large and small, characterize almost every page of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. So I should add, to make the historical context perfectly clear, that no gas was ever used in the war of 1948 by any of the participants. [Or, he later notes, by either Israel or Palestine ever.] Pappe never tells the reader this.
"'Raising the subject of gas is historical irrelevance. But the paragraph will dangle in the reader’s imagination as a dark possibility, or worse, a dark reality: the Jews, gassed by the Nazis three years before, were about to gas, or were gassing, Arabs.'"
Me: "Uuuuggghhhhhhhhh. Yeah, it will."
Internet: "He does say, 'Palestinian Dynasty was a good idea.' Then he does some really detailed historian-dragging about the lack of primary sources and reliance on people's interpretations of what they say instead.
"'Almost all of Pappe’s references direct the reader to books and articles in English, Hebrew, and Arabic by other scholars, or to the memoirs of various Arab politicians, which are not the most reliable of sources. Occasionally there is a reference to an Arab or Western travelogue or genealogy, or to a diplomat’s memoir; but there is barely an allusion to documents in the relevant British, American, and Zionist/Israeli archives.
"'When referring to the content of American consular reports about Arab riots in the 1920s, for example, Pappe invariably directs the reader to an article in Hebrew by Gideon Biger—“The American Consulate in Jerusalem and the Events of 1920-1921,” in Cathedra, September 1988—and not to the documents themselves, which are easily accessible in the United States National Archive.
"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case. 
"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case. 
"'But Pappe is more brazen. He, too, often omits and ignores significant evidence, and he, too, alleges that a source tells us the opposite of what it in fact says, but he will also simply and straightforwardly falsify evidence.
"'Consider his handling of the Arab anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s.
"'Pappe writes of the “Nabi Musa” riots in April 1920: “The [British] Palin Commission... reported that the Jewish presence in the country was provoking the Arab population and was the cause of the riots.” He also quotes at length Musa Kazim al-Husayni, the clan’s leading notable at the time, to the effect that “it was not the [Arab] Hebronites who had started the riots but the Jews.”
"'But the (never published) [Palin Commission Report], while forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby accurately reflecting the prevailing views in the British military government that ruled Palestine until mid-1920, flatly and strikingly charged the Arabs with responsibility for the bloodshed.
"'The team chaired by Major-General P.C. Palin wrote that “it is perfectly clear that with... few exceptions the Jews were the sufferers, and were, moreover, the victims of a peculiarly brutal and cowardly attack, the majority of the casualties being old men, women and children.” The inquiry pointed out that whereas 216 Jews were killed or injured, the British security forces and the Jews, in defending themselves or in retaliatory attacks, caused only twenty-five Arab casualties.'"
Me: "Yeah. I'm looking at that report right now and it says there had been an explosion, and then people were looting Jewish stores and beating Jews with stones, and in one case stabbing someone. Some people said that some Jews got up on the roof of a hotel and retaliated by throwing stones themselves.
"And then it literally says, 'The point as to the retaliation by Jews is of importance because it seems to have impressed the Military and led them to imagine that the Jews were to some extent responsible for provoking the rising.' That's the only thing it really says about anyone blaming the Jews.
"Except.... the very beginning gives some historical context. And it does say that when the Balfour Declaration came out, Muslims and Christians 'considered that they were to be handed over to an oppression which they hated far more than the Turk's and were aghast at the thought of this domination....
"'If this intensity of feeling proceeded merely from wounded pride of race and disappointment in political aspirations, it would be easier to criticise and rebuke: but it must be borne in mind that at the bottom of all is a deepseated fear of the Jew, both as a possible ruler and as an economic competitor. Rightly or wrongly they fear the Jew as a ruler, regarding his race as one of the most intolerant known to history....
"'The prospect of extensive Jewish immigration fills him with a panic fear, which may be exaggerated, but is none the less genuine. He sees the ablest race intellectually in the world, past-masters in all the arts of ousting competitors whether on the market, in the farm or the bureaucratic offices, backed by apparently inexhaustible funds given by their compatriots in all lands and possessed of powerful influence in the councils of the nations, prepared to enter the lists against him in every one of his normal occupations, backed by the one thing wanted to make them irresistible, the physical force of a great Imperial Power, and he feels himself overmastered and defeated before the contest is begun.'
"Wow! What a great fucking example of how 'positive' stereotypes are actually used to fuck people over! We're not antisemitic, we actually think Jews are the smartest, most powerful, richest group with tremendous global power! So positive!! Not at all being used here to justify antisemitic violence!
"Also, immigration from all over the world actually meant that different agricultural and manufacturing techniques were brought into the region, and yes, financial investments to start businesses sometimes, which meant that Arab Palestinians there had the highest per capita income in the Middle East, the highest daily wages, and started a lot of businesses of their own. But go off, I guess."
"Anyfuckingway.... it basically says that the Muslims and Christians were angry and scared, the Jews were too quick to set up the functioning government that the Brits were supposed to be there to help both sides create -- and which the Arab leaders completely refused to create for Palestine, because (1) fascists and (2) didn't want Jews nearby -- and that they were "ready prey for any form of agitation hostile to the British Government and the Jews." Then it says the movement for a United Syria was agitating them real hard, and so were the Sherifians.
"Is that what Ilan Passe, I mean Pappe, meant by the Palin Report blaming the Jews?! That when it says it's understandable the Arabs were freaking out, because antisemitism, Pappe thinks it's saying the Jews were provoking them?!"
Internet: "I don't know. I kinda tuned out after the first hour you were talking."
Me: "OGH MY GOD"
Internet: "So anyway, then Morris ALSO says, 'About the 1929 “Temple Mount” riots, which included two large-scale massacres of Jews, in Hebron and in Safed, Pappe writes: “The opposite camp, Zionist and British, was no less ruthless [than the Arabs]. In Jaffa a Jewish mob murdered seven Palestinians.”
Me: "What the ENTIRE FUCK? There was no united 'Zionist and British' camp! The Brits would barely let any Holocaust refugees in, ffs!"
Internet: "Morris says, 'Actually, there were no massacres of Arabs by Jews, though a number of Arabs were killed when Jews defended themselves or retaliated after Arab violence.
"'Pappe adds that the British “Shaw Commission,” so-called because it was chaired by Sir Walter Shaw (a former chief justice of the Straits Settlements), which investigated the riots, “upheld the basic Arab claim that Jewish provocations had caused the violent outbreak. ‘The principal cause... was twelve years of pro-Zionist [British] policy.’”
"'It is unclear what Pappe is quoting from. I did not find this sentence in the commission’s report. Pappe’s bibliography refers, under “Primary Sources,” simply to “The Shaw Commission.” The report? The deliberations? Memoranda by or about? Who can tell?
"'The footnote attached to the quote, presumably to give its source, says, simply, “Ibid.”
"'The one before it says, “Ibid., p. 103.”
"'The one before that says, “The Shaw Commission, session 46, p. 92.”
"'But the quoted passage does not appear on page 103 of the report.
"In the text of Palestinian Dynasty, Pappe states that “Shaw wrote [this] after leaving the country [Palestine].” But if it is not in the report, where did Shaw “write” it?'"
Me: "I'M ON IT. [rapid-fire googling] OMG. This is.... Not the first time. In 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,' he reported that in a 1937 letter to his son, David Ben-Gurion declared: 'The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.'
"It's not in the source he gave. It's not in any of the three different sources he's given for it.
"He apparently has never responded to any requests for an explanation, either from the journal he published in, or from other historians. But it says he did "obliquely [acknowledge] the controversy in an article in Electronic Intifada, in which he portrayed himself as the victim of intimidation at the hands of “Zionist hooligans.”'
"This is absolutely fucking wild. THEN it says the chair of the Ethics Committee where he was teaching eventually said that the second part of the quote ('but one needs,' etc) was a (combined?) paraphrase of a diary entry and a speech Ben-Gurion gave, and that the first half is 'based on' a letter to his son.
"And it's so convincing! The chair says, 'Shabtai Teveth[,] Ben Gurion’s biographer, Benny Morris and the historian Nur Maslaha have all quoted this letter. In fact their translation was stronger than the quotation from Professor Pappé: ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’ Professor Pappé has documentary evidence of these quotations and the source will ensure that this is correctly cited in any future editions of the publication or related studies.'
"And IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE?!
"Ben-Gurion's actual diary entry (not a letter) says the opposite.
“'We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.... All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.'
"Benny Morris misquoted it as "We must expel the Arabs and take their places" in the English version of his 1987 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, although it was correct in the Hebrew version. He corrected himself in the 2001 book Righteous Victims.
"Teveth also misquoted it in the English version of his 1985 book Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, but again, had it correct in the Hebrew edition.
"And both Morris and Teveth explicitly point out the rest of the entry. The part about all their aspiration being built on the assumption and experience that there was enough room in the country for everyone.
"Historian Efraim Karsh’s 1997 book Fabricating Israeli History pointed out and corrected their mistakes.
"This is apparently a very well-known issue among historians of Israel and Palestine. It was a big deal in 2003, when an evangelist Christian publisher put out a book FULL of disinformation, which not only used the same quote as Pappe does, but also could not give a real source for it.
"But Pappe STILL USED THE MISQUOTE AND DOUBLED DOWN ON IT EVERY SINGLE TIME."
Internet: "Are you done? I know all this already."
Me: "Also, there are literally only two places where the phrase 'twelve years of pro-Zionist policy' shows up online, and they're both about Pappe making quotes up.
"NOW I'm done."
Benny Morris wasn't, though. The review continues at the link below. And the next part starts, "To the deliberate slanting of history Pappe adds a profound ignorance of basic facts. Together these sins and deficiencies render his “histories” worthless as representations of the past, though they are important as documents in the current political and historiographic disputations about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Pappe’s grasp of the facts of World War I, for example, is weak in the extreme."
#i hate people misrepresenting history in general#i extra hate it when people do it with malice aforethought#ilan pappe#is a lying liar and people need to stop recommending his bullshit when it's been so thoroughly debunked#this is a good example of anti-Zionism being antisemitism tbh. I have yet to see anti-Zionist accounts of history that are accurate#like if you have to victim-blame people who were baked in ovens during an anti-Jewish riot you are PROBABLY in the wrong#I was looking for a piece explaining the 1920 and 1929 anti-Jewish riots that I could link here that wasn't from an explicitly Jewish sourc#because I don't trust people to take an article from the Jewish Virtual Library or whatever without being like “this is Zionist propaganda!#even if it's about an extremely violent massacre of Jews#so I clicked specifically on the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Question and similar sources#and what all of them did was gloss right over the massacres and violence and just vaguely mention “the demonstrations in 1920”#or not mention them at all of course#I guess that makes sense but wow. now I understand more of how ignorant people are about the entire history here#not only has it all been presented to you as “this started in 1947 or 48! the Jews stole all the land! it's been genocide ever since!”#so that people literally tell me “they invaded in 1947 and kicked out the Palestinians and took their land”#but also you have to fill in anything before that yourself#and the only propaganda you have access to usually is this myth that everyone was perfectly happy together until Israel... killed everyone?#it's really super weird to see people say that Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived happily together before this#like what do you think happened? everyone was happy and suddenly the jews were like “fuck you we're taking over and killing everyone?”#that probably is what people think happened tbh#they don't need for there to be any motivation or for that to make sense because they've bought the idea that it's just pure evil ig#for some reason people have to reverse-engineer hamas's massacre and imagine that israel did even worse to justify it#a terrorist group doesn't come out of nowhere! i don't think you know what terrorism is tbh#but they're happy to assume that whatever they think israel did came out of nowhere#god i'm fucking tired#anyway fuck ilan pappe#there are WAY BETTER HISTORIES OF PALESTINE#i've heard good things about Gaza: A History but of course that's not all of palestine#long post#such a long post
21 notes · View notes
alien-from-planet-zog · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
by firelight…
…by moonlight
Tumblr media
18 notes · View notes
always-a-joyful-note · 4 months
Text
Sometimes I sit back and remember just how GOOD Link Click is as a story. Excellent plot? Check. Compelling themes? Yep. Characters well built that you can root for? Obviously. Deaths that do actually mean something? Yeah. Multiple kinds of relationships that colour the narrative? Yes, and it hurts us all. Banger soundtrack? Both the lyrics-based music AND the BG music. Incredible animation? We have that too. Balance of light and dark moments? Again, yes, and it hurts us all. Balance of show and tell? YES, EPISODE 9 S2. Supporting characters and antagonists who obviously exist as their own people even if the stories revolve around our three protags? Mhmm. Symbolism spun to deal max damage? We're still recovering from that
It's just Link Click is SUCH a well-written piece of media and I'm not ready for what happens in s3 but at the same time can't wait
21 notes · View notes
eruptedinlight · 28 days
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
New Photos of Saru in the first two episodes of Star Trek: Discovery, Season 5
13 notes · View notes
muninnhuginn · 7 months
Text
Trying to think about what would make Lu Guang open up about going back and am forced to admit that the only times he's in any way opened up in-series are when he's been forced to by outside circumstances beyond his control.
He panics if Cheng Xiaoshi is about to go off plan or he doesn't know what's coming photo-wise, but otherwise is incredibly good at keeping his cool.
That said, the only times he's been "confronted" to any extent so far remain post-earthquake and you could also argue when he was called on his reaction to the idea that powers could be passed on in s2. In these cases, he tends to deliberately underplay his reaction and let others just make their own assumptions. His deflections at present work because no one is truly looking to realise it's what they are. His quietness also absolutely comes to his advantage because his personality doesn't allow him to "slip" in the same way as a more talkative character would. (And doesn't that just make me think about how all the comments about him being "mature" imply he wasn't always like he is now. I doubt it's an entire façade he's putting on, but he has changed irreparably.)
The exception to this is, of course, when Cheng Xiaoshi was shot and he completely lost it. It's not that he's just dead emotionally or anything the rest of the time, but this is the one thing (person) he's sacrificed his beliefs for. And before it got to this stage, there was still some control, but Cheng Xiaoshi getting shot is a double whammy. Not only is Lu Guang no longer in control of the situation (he lost that back when he got stabbed) but if the implication is that Cheng Xiaoshi got shot the first time, then his reaction here is pure instinct. There's no thought in it whatsoever and even after both of them return from the hospital, he's clearly not taking it for granted.
Thinking to season three though. He's still off-kilter for now and Liu Xiao will likely ensure he remains that way. The fact we've been let into Lu Guang's POV now means we'll get to see those cracks that have been forming throughout season two and watch them widening.
Qiao Ling's knowledge is the key. If Lu Guang is to open up properly, it has to be external. Either a danger to Cheng Xiaoshi so potent he's forced to act without thinking or someone actually pushing and not letting him deflect. Someone with enough knowledge to realise that he's deflecting in the first place.
48 notes · View notes
daily-linkclick · 9 months
Text
wait i know a lot of us are speculating that liu tianchen might be disguising as his sister in the end of ep 5 but did we all collectively forget that possessing someone negates any physical ailments / disabilities the body might have? not saying the theory isn't true (im a big fan of it) but his power would make it way easier than fully disguising as her
46 notes · View notes