Jay jays pov:
I sigh,
It's time to go to kiko, I got changed , but I just wore a baggy fit
Outfit in comments
It wasn't exactly baggy but it's cute
Then finally that bating Kumag (trouble maker aka ci-n) woke up.
Ci-n finally stopped snoring as he woek up, nad fell of the bed, I didn't even bother to help him because he bet kiko mercilessly did her ever help kiko? No , so why should I?
Then he groaned and asked me
Jayyy, pls help me!
He asked like he was drowning in water,
No , why tf should I help u , did u ever help kiko? U didn't! So why the heck should I? Get up urself,brat
He whined like a kid who lost his candy and got up reluctantly, then I sat on my bed and worked on my laptop, ok....I know keifers bday is far away but I wanna get his gift prepared rn,I booked an appointment at a very famous store , its a secret.
Then I did an entrench test for harvard,standford,Oxford university,and MIT. Unfortunately I have to and don't worry I also have back ups if I don't wanna go international, I applied for Hamilton university too since felix that brat is also going there but im sure every university I going accept me ,
I'll just make sure my grades r acceptable
In math in the last exam I got:99
English:100
Taglog:10
Science:98
Social science:99
Economics:100
Bussiness:100
Computer:100
EsP:100
But I need to focus on taglog I got 10 out of 100. I don't even know taglog the bit of taglog I speak is from p-dramas, I only know how to speak taglog I don't know how to write or read . I speak taglog all the time because my toxic grandpa hates it when I speak taglog , so I keep irritating him
But english is my home
Then I prepared my presentation in the amin meeting hall for e.v corp
The presentation:
Good morning.
Today, I intend to address a proposition that many of you may find reprehensible before I have even completed my first sentence.
That is precisely why I have chosen it.
The subject before us is not comfortable.
It is not elegant.
It is not politically convenient.
And it certainly is not the sort of proposition that can be discussed without confronting the most fundamental questions concerning justice, morality, bodily autonomy, and the limits of human authority.
The proposition is this:
Should a person convicted of an exceptionally grave sexual offence ever become eligible for an experimental pharmacological intervention designed to impose a severe consequence upon them?
At first glance, the answer may appear obvious.
Perhaps some of you are already thinking that a person who has deliberately violated another human being forfeits the privilege of compassion.
Perhaps you believe that society spends too much time debating the rights of perpetrators and too little time acknowledging the permanent consequences suffered by victims.
Perhaps you believe that certain crimes are so abhorrent that conventional punishment becomes almost insulting in its inadequacy.
I understand that sentiment.
But understanding a sentiment is not the same as permitting it to govern public policy.
That distinction is the foundation of my argument.
Because if we are going to discuss an experimental substance, an unprecedented intervention, or any mechanism capable of producing profound consequences within the human body, we must first determine what precisely we are attempting to accomplish.
Justice?
Retribution?
Deterrence?
Rehabilitation?
Public safety?
Or revenge?
Those words are frequently treated as interchangeable.
They are not.
Justice seeks proportion.
Deterrence seeks prevention.
Rehabilitation seeks transformation.
Public safety seeks protection.
Revenge seeks suffering.
And if we cannot distinguish between these objectives, then we have no business placing something experimental before a human being and calling the result justice.
Let us therefore consider the most emotionally compelling argument first.
A convicted rapist has caused extraordinary harm.
The victim may experience consequences that persist for years.
The victim may lose a sense of security, trust, confidence, or control over their own life.
The perpetrator deliberately created that suffering.
So why should society concern itself with the perpetrator's rights?
Why should we protect the bodily autonomy of someone who disregarded another person's bodily autonomy so completely?
It is a powerful question.
But there is an even more important question beneath it.
What distinguishes a system of justice from the individual act of vengeance?
The answer must be principle.
If our principles disappear whenever we encounter someone we despise, then they were never principles at all.
They were preferences.
And a civilisation cannot construct a legitimate justice system upon preferences.
We cannot proclaim that bodily autonomy is inviolable and then quietly append an exception stating, "unless we consider the individual sufficiently monstrous."
We cannot declare that experimental medical interventions require rigorous ethical scrutiny and then abandon that scrutiny because the proposed recipient has committed an atrocious crime.
We cannot insist that punishment must remain proportionate and then permit suffering to become an objective in itself.
Because once suffering becomes the objective, the distinction between justice and vengeance begins to collapse.
And that is precisely where my proposal becomes more complicated.
I am not proposing that convicted offenders be rewarded with comfort.
I am not proposing that society disregard the magnitude of their crimes.
I am not proposing that victims be asked to forgive those who harmed them.
And I am certainly not suggesting that severe crimes should receive inadequate consequences.
I am asking whether we can construct consequences that are severe without becoming deliberately cruel.
That distinction matters.
A punishment can be stringent without being vindictive.
A sentence can be consequential without becoming an exercise in degradation.
A society can condemn an act absolutely while refusing to abandon its own standards in response to it.
That is the paradox we must confront.
If we respond to brutality by institutionalising brutality, have we defeated brutality?
Or have we merely given it a legal vocabulary?
Consider the hypothetical substance at the centre of this proposal.
Let us call it Aurethine.
The name is deliberately clinical.
It sounds precise.
Controlled.
Almost reassuring.
But names do not make substances ethical.
A laboratory designation does not transform an experimental compound into a legitimate punishment.
A scientific vocabulary can make an atrocious idea sound respectable if we are not careful.
That is why the question cannot simply be:
"Does Aurethine work?"
The first question must be:
"Should Aurethine exist as an instrument of punishment at all?"
The second must be:
"Who decides?"
The third:
"Under what authority?"
And the fourth:
"What prevents that authority from expanding beyond its original purpose?"
Because history has demonstrated something repeatedly.
Exceptional powers rarely remain exceptional forever.
A measure introduced for the "worst offenders" can eventually become a measure applied to less serious offenders.
A measure introduced under extraordinary circumstances can become ordinary procedure.
A mechanism created for one category of people can eventually acquire broader definitions.
And once a government possesses the authority to deliberately alter a person's body as punishment, the moral implications become considerably larger than the original crime.
Today, the category may be convicted rapists.
Tomorrow, who defines the category?
Who determines guilt?
Who determines eligibility?
What happens when evidence is later proven false?
What happens when a conviction is overturned?
What happens when the scientific assumptions underlying the intervention are discovered to be incorrect?
And perhaps most importantly—
What happens when the institution responsible for administering the punishment is itself corrupt?
These are not hypothetical concerns to be dismissed as pessimism.
They are the inevitable questions that arise whenever extraordinary power is placed in human hands.
Now, I know what some of you may say.
"You are overcomplicating this."
"You are giving criminals too many protections."
"They destroyed someone's life. Why should we care about their comfort?"
Because this is not about their comfort.
It is about our character.
The standard by which a civilisation should be judged is not how it treats the people it admires.
That is easy.
The true test is how it behaves when confronted with someone it considers utterly reprehensible.
If our principles survive even there, then perhaps they deserve to be called principles.
If they vanish the moment our anger becomes sufficiently intense, then we have constructed nothing more than conditional morality.
And conditional morality is dangerously convenient.
Now, let us return to the victim.
Any discussion of punishment that begins and ends with the offender is incomplete.
The victim must remain at the centre of the conversation.
Justice must recognise the magnitude of what occurred.
It must protect the public.
It must hold the offender accountable.
It must provide meaningful avenues for the victim to regain agency.
And it must communicate, without ambiguity, that sexual violence is not an inconvenience to be processed through bureaucracy.
It is a profound violation of another person's autonomy.
Therefore, if we reject harmful experimental punishment, we must not replace it with leniency.
We replace it with accountability.
There is a distinction.
An offender can face severe legal consequences without society becoming an instrument of physical experimentation.
We can impose restrictions.
We can impose lengthy sentences.
We can create rigorous monitoring systems where legally appropriate.
We can prevent repeat offending.
We can fund victim support.
We can improve investigative procedures.
We can strengthen evidence collection.
We can ensure that convictions are based upon competent investigation rather than institutional negligence.
And we can invest substantially more in preventing sexual violence before it occurs.
That is where our resources should demonstrate their greatest ambition.
Because if our objective is truly public safety, then punishment after the crime is only one component of the equation.
Prevention is superior to retaliation.
A victim spared is more valuable than a perpetrator punished.
That is not softness.
That is strategic thinking.
And strategic thinking is precisely what this institution claims to value.
There is another uncomfortable reality.
A punishment does not become morally superior simply because its recipient is guilty.
Guilt establishes responsibility.
It does not automatically establish that every conceivable method of punishment is permissible.
If guilt alone justified unlimited intervention, then there would be no meaningful boundary to punishment.
And without boundaries, justice becomes dependent upon the imagination of whoever possesses authority.
That should terrify us.
Not because criminals deserve unlimited sympathy.
But because ordinary citizens deserve protection from unlimited power.
The law must therefore possess a boundary that even hatred cannot cross.
Otherwise, the most dangerous person in the room is no longer necessarily the offender.
It may be the person holding the authority to decide what the offender deserves.
That is the philosophical heart of this presentation.
We are tempted to believe that morality becomes easier when the victim is innocent and the perpetrator is monstrous.
In reality, that is when morality becomes most difficult.
Anyone can defend human rights when the person in question is sympathetic.
The difficult question is whether those rights remain meaningful when the person is deeply unsympathetic.
If they do not, then they are not rights.
They are privileges granted by popularity.
And I refuse to build a justice system upon popularity.
Therefore, my recommendation is not to authorise Aurethine as a punitive substance.
My recommendation is to treat the very proposition as an ethical boundary test.
If the compound has legitimate medical applications, let qualified researchers investigate those applications under rigorous scientific and ethical oversight.
If it has no legitimate therapeutic purpose, we should not manufacture a medical justification merely because we desire a more sophisticated form of punishment.
If society wants stronger consequences for sexual offences, legislators should debate stronger lawful consequences.
If victims require greater support, institutions should provide it.
If investigative systems are inadequate, reform them.
If offenders remain dangerous, construct lawful mechanisms to protect the public.
But do not disguise vengeance as medicine.
Do not disguise cruelty as innovation.
And do not confuse the sophistication of a laboratory with the sophistication of an ethical argument.
Because an elegant instrument can still be used for an ugly purpose.
A sophisticated institution can still make primitive decisions.
And an advanced civilisation can still regress morally while progressing technologically.
That is the danger.
We possess the scientific capability to do things that previous generations could scarcely have imagined.
But capability does not constitute permission.
The fact that we can manipulate something does not establish that we should.
The fact that we can impose suffering with extraordinary precision does not make that suffering just.
The fact that an offender may be hated by almost everyone in this room does not grant us the authority to abandon the principles that govern everyone else.
Justice must be stronger than anger.
Law must be stronger than revenge.
And civilisation must be stronger than the crimes committed against it.
So, if the purpose of this meeting is to determine whether we should create an unprecedented pharmacological punishment for convicted sexual offenders, my answer is no.
Not because their crimes are insignificant.
Precisely because their crimes are significant.
Precisely because the consequences are profound.
Precisely because the victims deserve a justice system that is uncompromisingly serious without becoming morally indistinguishable from the violence it condemns.
Let us build a system that does not merely punish the guilty.
Let us build one that protects the innocent.
Let us construct institutions that are formidable without being cruel.
Let us pursue accountability without sacrificing principle.
Let us develop science without permitting science to become an instrument of vengeance.
And if we are ever tempted to say that a particular person is so reprehensible that the ordinary rules no longer apply, let us pause.
Because that sentence is not merely a statement about the offender.
It is a statement about ourselves.
It reveals whether our morality is conditional.
It reveals whether our principles are genuine.
And it reveals whether we believe justice exists to satisfy our anger or to establish order where anger would otherwise prevail.
I believe it must be the latter.
A justice system should not ask us to become less human in order to punish someone who behaved inhumanely.
It should demand that we become more disciplined.
More rational.
More principled.
More uncompromising in our pursuit of accountability.
Because the ultimate victory over brutality is not to become better at inflicting it.
It is to become incapable of needing it.
That is the standard I propose.
Not mercy without accountability.
Not punishment without restraint.
But justice without hypocrisy.
Thank you.
Now doubts or questions may be asked
Then I kinda prepared my own question and answers just in case
They r:
QUESTION 1: "Are you seriously suggesting that convicted rapists deserve consideration after what they have done?"
JAY JAY:
"No. I am suggesting that justice deserves consideration.
There is a distinction between saying that an offender deserves sympathy and saying that the institution responsible for punishing that offender must remain governed by principle.
I have no interest in diminishing the suffering of victims, nor in romanticising the actions of perpetrators. Their crimes warrant serious consequences.
But if we determine punishment according to how much we despise the individual receiving it, then we have surrendered justice to emotion.
I am not asking this room to care about the comfort of an offender.
I am asking this room to care about the integrity of the system that sentences them."
---
QUESTION 2: "What happens if an experimental substance causes permanent harm?"
JAY JAY:
"Then the question ceases to be whether the punishment was severe enough and becomes whether we knowingly authorised irreversible harm without sufficient ethical justification.
An experimental medical intervention carries uncertainty by definition.
That uncertainty may be acceptable in carefully regulated therapeutic research where informed consent, scientific necessity, and independent oversight are present.
It becomes an entirely different proposition when the purpose is punitive.
The law may deprive an offender of liberty.
That does not mean it acquires unlimited authority over their body.
If we cannot guarantee that an intervention is ethically defensible, we have no moral justification for imposing it merely because the recipient is unpopular."
---
QUESTION 3: "Where do you draw the line between justice and revenge?"
JAY JAY:
"Justice asks what consequence is proportionate, lawful, and necessary.
Revenge asks what suffering would feel satisfying.
Those objectives may occasionally resemble one another from a distance, but philosophically they are opposites.
Justice has boundaries.
Revenge has appetite.
Justice can be scrutinised.
Revenge merely demands gratification.
The moment our objective becomes making someone suffer because we believe they deserve suffering, rather than imposing a lawful consequence for a legitimate societal purpose, we have crossed the line."
---
QUESTION 4: "What if the victim demands the harshest possible punishment?"
JAY JAY:
"Then we listen.
We listen without interruption, without judgement, and without diminishing the legitimacy of their anger.
But listening to a victim does not mean transferring the entire authority of the justice system into the hands of an understandably traumatised individual.
A victim deserves to be heard.
A victim deserves justice.
A victim deserves protection.
But no individual should be placed in the position of determining the boundaries of punishment solely because they were harmed.
That responsibility belongs to a system capable of balancing accountability with principle.
Otherwise, justice becomes personal retaliation wearing institutional clothing."
---
QUESTION 5: "Why should taxpayers fund protections for someone who violated another person's rights?"
JAY JAY:
"Because public institutions are not charitable organisations.
They do not exist merely to reward virtuous citizens.
They exist to maintain a functioning society.
When the state imprisons an offender, it assumes responsibility for that person.
That responsibility is not an endorsement of the offender.
It is a consequence of the authority the state itself has exercised.
If we want the state to possess the power to imprison people, then we must also demand that the state exercise that power responsibly.
Otherwise, we are not creating justice.
We are creating institutionalised neglect."
---
QUESTION 6: "What happens if the offender is later proven innocent?"
JAY JAY:
"That question alone should make us extremely cautious about irreversible punishment.
A prison sentence can, in principle, be ended.
A conviction can be overturned.
A person can be released.
But certain consequences cannot simply be undone because a court eventually discovered that the original judgement was wrong.
Human institutions are fallible.
Investigators are fallible.
Witnesses are fallible.
Judges are fallible.
Evidence can be misunderstood.
Therefore, any punishment whose consequences cannot meaningfully be reversed must be subjected to an extraordinarily high ethical threshold.
If we cannot satisfy that threshold, we should not cross it."
---
QUESTION 7: "Isn't refusing this punishment simply weakness disguised as morality?"
JAY JAY:
"No.
Restraint is not weakness.
Anyone can exercise power.
The more difficult achievement is possessing power and refusing to misuse it.
A system that can retaliate but chooses proportionality is demonstrating control.
A system that cannot distinguish between punishment and cruelty is demonstrating insecurity.
Strength is not measured by the severity of suffering we can inflict.
It is measured by the discipline with which we govern ourselves."
---
QUESTION 8: "What would you say to a victim who believes your proposal is too lenient?"
JAY JAY:
"I would not tell them that they are wrong to feel that way.
I would not tell them to forgive.
I would not tell them that their anger is excessive.
And I certainly would not ask them to minimise what happened.
I would tell them that their suffering deserves recognition and that justice must take their safety seriously.
But I would also tell them something difficult:
Your pain should not have to become another person's suffering in order for society to acknowledge that your pain mattered.
We should be capable of condemning what happened without reproducing the same logic of harm.
The objective should be to restore your security and dignity—not merely to create another victim."
---
QUESTION 9: "If the substance could prevent future offences, wouldn't refusing to use it be irresponsible?"
JAY JAY:
"Only if we have established, beyond reasonable doubt and through legitimate scientific evidence, that it is genuinely necessary, effective, and ethically permissible.
Potential benefit does not erase ethical boundaries.
Otherwise, almost any dangerous intervention could be justified by claiming that it might prevent something worse.
That principle is far too broad.
We must distinguish between evidence and speculation.
If an intervention has legitimate therapeutic or preventive potential, then it should be studied through appropriate scientific and ethical processes.
But punishment cannot become a convenient laboratory simply because society fears what an offender might do in the future."
---
QUESTION 10: "Who gets to decide which offenders qualify?"
JAY JAY:
"That is precisely the problem.
The moment we establish a category of people who can be subjected to an extraordinary intervention, someone must define that category.
And definitions have consequences.
What constitutes sufficient evidence?
Who evaluates it?
What happens when jurisdictions disagree?
What happens when political pressure influences the process?
What safeguards prevent expansion?
The more extraordinary the punishment, the more extraordinary the safeguards must be.
If those safeguards cannot be guaranteed, the proposal is structurally unsound."
---
QUESTION 11: "What if public opinion overwhelmingly supports the proposal?"
JAY JAY:
"Public opinion deserves to be heard.
It does not deserve to become a substitute for ethics.
Majorities can demand sensible reforms.
They can also demand unjust ones.
The history of civilisation is filled with examples of societies becoming convinced that something was acceptable simply because enough people believed it.
Popularity establishes prevalence.
It does not establish morality.
If every fundamental right disappeared whenever public anger reached sufficient intensity, then rights would not be rights at all.
They would be temporary permissions."
---
QUESTION 12: "And if the law permits it, why should morality stand in its way?"
JAY JAY:
"Because legality and morality are not synonymous.
The law establishes what the state permits.
Morality asks what the state ought to permit.
Those questions overlap frequently.
They do not always produce identical answers.
If legality were automatically proof of morality, there would never have been any reason to reform unjust laws.
Law evolves because societies eventually recognise that something once permitted should no longer be permitted.
Therefore, legality is the beginning of the conversation.
It is not the conclusion."
---
QUESTION 13: "You seem remarkably concerned with the rights of offenders. Where are the rights of victims in your proposal?"
JAY JAY:
"Everywhere.
The right to safety.
The right to dignity.
The right to be believed when evidence supports their account.
The right to competent investigation.
The right to meaningful legal representation.
The right to support.
The right to see serious crimes treated seriously.
And the right not to have their suffering reduced to a statistic.
But I refuse to create a false dichotomy in which protecting victims requires abandoning every principle that protects everyone else.
Victims deserve better than that.
They deserve a justice system capable of protecting them without sacrificing its own legitimacy."
---
QUESTION 14: "Then what punishment do you believe these offenders deserve?"
JAY JAY:
"Punishment should be determined by law, evidence, proportionality, and the circumstances of the offence.
I am not standing here to propose a particular sentence.
I am standing here to establish a boundary.
Accountability is necessary.
Cruelty is not.
A serious crime should have serious consequences.
But the seriousness of the crime cannot become an invitation to abandon every ethical restriction surrounding punishment.
The justice system must be severe where severity is warranted and restrained where restraint is necessary.
Anything else is not justice.
It is excess."
---
QUESTION 15: "What if your position makes people believe that offenders are being treated too well?"
JAY JAY:
"Then perhaps we should examine why we have allowed justice to become visually synonymous with suffering.
A prison sentence is not kindness.
Legal restrictions are not kindness.
Loss of liberty is not kindness.
Accountability is not kindness.
We do not need to make punishment grotesque in order to make it meaningful.
The purpose of justice is not to create spectacles of suffering for public consumption.
It is to establish consequences, protect society, and maintain the rule of law."
---
QUESTION 16: "If you had the authority to decide personally, would you ever administer the substance?"
JAY JAY:
"No.
And that answer is precisely why I am standing here.
Authority should make us more cautious, not more confident.
If I possessed the power to impose irreversible consequences upon another human being, my first responsibility would not be determining how much suffering I could justify.
It would be determining where my authority ends.
That is the distinction between possessing power and being worthy of it."
---
QUESTION 17: "So what, ultimately, is the purpose of this entire proposal?"
JAY JAY:
"To expose a question that is considerably larger than Aurethine.
The substance is not the real subject.
We are.
The real question is what kind of institution we intend to become when confronted with people who have committed acts we find almost impossible to comprehend.
Do we become more disciplined?
Or more vindictive?
Do we strengthen the law?
Or weaken its principles?
Do we pursue accountability?
Or merely satisfy anger?
Because eventually, every institution encounters a moment when its values become inconvenient.
That is when values become real.
Anyone can defend principles when they cost nothing.
The true test is whether we maintain them when abandoning them would be emotionally satisfying.
That is the test I wanted this room to confront.
And if we can leave this meeting understanding that justice requires both accountability and restraint, then perhaps the most important conclusion has already been reached."
That's it, now it's 5:15 , I still have like a lot of time
So I prepared for my concert tomorrow, im gonna release the song tomorrow on the concert live.
I went to my personal singing studio where my unpublished songs r written the song im gonna release tomorrow is: hate me
They lyrics go like
HATE ME
[INTRO — almost whispered]
"Yeah.
You said you hate me?
...okay.
Hate me.
(me... me...)
[BEAT DROP]
I don't care.
(don't care...)
Never did.
Never will.
---
[VERSE 1]
I heard you talking
Yeah, I heard it all
Funny how you know my name
But don't know me at all
You don't like my attitude
You don't like the way I move
You don't like the things I do
Okay.
That's cool.
I got nothing to prove.
You keep watching
Every little thing
Then you say I'm "too much"
Baby, that's funny
'Cause you can't look away
Even when you say you don't care
---
[PRE-CHORUS]
I don't care
(don't care...)
I don't care
(no, I don't...)
Say whatever you want
I won't change
I don't care
(don't care...)
Never did
(never did...)
If you hate me that much
Why you saying my name?
---
[CHORUS — bass-heavy]
Hate me
Hate me
Go ahead, hate me.
I don't care
I don't care
You can say it to my face.
Hate me
Hate me
That's okay, baby.
If you hate me, I get the gain
You keep giving me your attention anyway.
(anyway... way...)
Hate me.
---
[POST-CHORUS]
Seven days—
Still not enough?
You found another hour
just to keep me up.
(up... up...)
That's crazy.
You hate me...
But you know everything.
---
[VERSE 2]
New day
Same comments
New post
Same nonsense
I don't even read it
I just keep moving
You call it drama
I call it background
You call me lucky
I call it right now
You want a reaction
I don't have one
You want me bothered
I'm having too much fun
And honestly...
If this is your hobby—
You should probably get a new one.
---
[PRE-CHORUS]
I don't care
(don't care...)
I don't care
(no, I don't...)
Say whatever you want
I won't change
I don't care
(don't care...)
Never did
(never did...)
If you hate me that much
Why you saying my name?
---
[CHORUS]
Hate me
Hate me
Go ahead, hate me.
I don't care
I don't care
You can say it to my face.
Hate me
Hate me
That's okay, baby.
If you hate me, I get the gain
You keep giving me your attention anyway.
(anyway... way...)
Hate me.
---
[RAP — beat switches, stripped-down and aggressive]
Okay.
You don't like me?
Cool.
I don't need you to.
You got a whole lot to say
But I never asked you to.
Talk online
Then you watch offline
Every move
Every post
Every headline
That's funny.
You say I'm on your nerves
But you know my every word.
You know the songs
Know the looks
Know the shows
Know the hooks
That's not hate.
That's homework.
And you still failed.
I don't chase
I don't beg
I don't call
I don't text
I just step in
Do my thing
And somehow
I'm the topic again.
You want me smaller?
No chance.
You want me quiet?
Not today.
You want me gone?
Wrong girl.
I'm already here.
And I'm not going anywhere.
(anywhere...)
You can keep throwing shade
I'ma keep throwing numbers.
You spend all night
Trying to pull me under.
I spend five minutes
Making something you remember.
That's the difference.
Don't confuse it.
You hate me?
Fine.
But remember—
you pressed play.
---
[BRIDGE — beat almost disappears]
Maybe you hate me.
Maybe you don't.
Maybe you just like
having something to talk about.
I don't know.
I don't care.
(care... care...)
You can keep my name
inside your mouth.
I'll keep my name
at the top.
---
[BEAT CUT]
Hate me.
(me...)
Hate me.
(me...)
Say it.
---
[FINAL CHORUS — huge]
Hate me
Hate me
Go ahead, hate me.
I don't care
I don't care
You can say it to my face.
Hate me
Hate me
That's okay, baby.
If you hate me, I get the gain
You keep giving me your attention anyway.
(anyway... way...)
Hate me.
Hate me.
---
[DANCE BREAK — crowd chant]
Hate!
(hate!)
Me!
(me!)
Hate!
(hate!)
Me!
(me!)
I don't—
CARE!
(care... care...)
Never—
DID!
(did... did...)
Never—
WILL!
---
[OUTRO — quiet again]
You said you hate me?
...
Okay.
Keep going.
(going... going...)
I kinda like the attention.
Hate me."
That's it , im kinda scared and also I'll be performing another song the name is: somehow u
"SOMEHOW, YOU
[INTRO — JENNIE]
Mm...
I was talking to somebody today.
And somehow...
I thought about you.
[ADAM — softly]
Again?
[JENNIE]
Again.
[ADAM]
Funny.
'Cause I did too.
[JENNIE]
You did?
[ADAM]
Yeah.
I was talking to somebody...
And I was thinking about you.
(you... you...)
---
[VERSE 1 — JENNIE]
I was sitting there, listening
Trying to pay attention
They were telling me a story
I was laughing at the right parts
But somewhere in the middle
I started thinking about you
Wondering what you would've said
If you were sitting next to me
They asked me what I wanted
I almost said your name
Then I laughed it off so quickly
Like nothing had changed
But it did.
Something changed.
'Cause lately every little thing
Feels like it leads back to you
A song I hear
A place I see
A stupid little joke
Someone says something
And suddenly—
There you are.
---
[ADAM — VERSE 2]
I had the same thing happen
Just a couple hours ago
Someone asked me if I'm happy
I said, "Yeah, I think so"
But then I started wondering
What happy really means
'Cause every time I picture it
You're somewhere in the scene
It's not like I'm trying
To make everything about you
I actually try not to
But somehow when I'm talking
My mind takes a different route
They ask me where I've been
I think about where we went
They ask me what I'm listening to
I think about what you sent
And when they make me laugh
I catch myself looking around
Like I'm waiting for you
To be the one who makes that sound
---
[PRE-CHORUS — JENNIE]
I don't mean to...
[ADAM]
I don't try to...
[JENNIE]
But somehow...
[ADAM]
Every time...
[BOTH]
It comes back to you.
---
[CHORUS — BOTH]
Every time I talk to somebody
I think about you
Every time somebody makes me laugh
I wish it was you
I could be surrounded
By a hundred different faces
But somehow I'm still looking
For you in all the places
I don't know what you did to me
I don't know what you do
But every conversation...
Somehow...
Leads to you.
(you... you...)
---
[POST-CHORUS — JENNIE]
Somehow, you.
[ADAM]
Always you.
[JENNIE]
Even when I'm not thinking—
[ADAM]
I'm thinking of you.
[BOTH]
Somehow...
You.
---
[VERSE 3 — JENNIE]
Someone asked me what I like
I started naming little things
Coffee when it's raining
Late-night drives
Songs I shouldn't sing
Then I realized every answer
Had a memory attached
And every memory
Had your face somewhere in the back
I tried to change the subject
Tried to keep the conversation light
But then they mentioned your favorite song
And I smiled without thinking twice
They looked at me and asked me
"Why are you smiling like that?"
I said, "It's nothing."
But we both knew
It wasn't nothing.
---
[ADAM — VERSE 4]
I was with my friends last night
Everybody talking loud
Someone asked me who I liked
I almost said it out loud
I changed the subject
They didn't let it go
They kept asking questions
Like they already know
Maybe they do.
Maybe I'm obvious.
Maybe every time your name comes up
My whole face gives it away
Maybe I'm terrible at hiding
How I feel about you
But honestly...
I don't think I want to hide it anymore.
---
[JENNIE]
You know what I hate?
[ADAM]
What?
[JENNIE]
I can be having the best conversation
And then something reminds me of you.
[ADAM]
That's not what you hate.
[JENNIE]
What do I hate then?
[ADAM]
That you like it.
[JENNIE]
...Maybe.
---
[PRE-CHORUS — JENNIE]
I don't mean to...
[ADAM]
I don't try to...
[JENNIE]
But every little road—
[ADAM]
Every little thought—
[BOTH]
Keeps leading back to you.
---
[CHORUS — BOTH]
Every time I talk to somebody
I think about you
Every time somebody makes me laugh
I wish it was you
I could be surrounded
By a hundred different faces
But somehow I'm still looking
For you in all the places
I don't know what you did to me
I don't know what you do
But every conversation...
Somehow...
Leads to you.
(you... you...)
---
[VERSE 5 — ADAM]
Maybe it's the way you listen
Like you actually hear me
Maybe it's the way you laugh
When something isn't even funny
Maybe it's the little things
You probably don't remember
Like the night you stayed up talking
When you could've gone to bed
Maybe it's your voice
Maybe it's your eyes
Maybe it's the way you say
"I'm fine" when I know you're not
Maybe it's the fact
That I don't have to pretend
When I'm with you
I don't know.
I just know that when you're gone
Something feels missing.
---
[JENNIE — VERSE 6]
Maybe it's the way you look at me
When you think I'm not looking
Maybe it's the way you remember
Every random thing I've said
Maybe it's the way you make silence
Feel completely comfortable
Like we don't have to fill every second
Just to know we're okay
Maybe it's the way
You make ordinary days
Feel like something I'll remember
Maybe that's why
Every time I'm with somebody else
I start wishing...
It was you.
---
[ADAM]
I think that's the problem.
[JENNIE]
What?
[ADAM]
Everybody else feels like everybody else.
[JENNIE]
And me?
[ADAM]
You feel like you.
[JENNIE]
That's such a cheesy answer.
[ADAM]
You smiled.
[JENNIE]
Maybe.
---
[BRIDGE — JENNIE]
I could talk about the weather
Talk about my day
Talk about the things
That happened on the way
I could talk about a movie
Talk about a song
Talk about somebody
I've known for way too long
But somehow in the middle
Of every little thing
Your name appears
Inside my head
Like a melody
I didn't know I knew
---
[ADAM]
I could talk about my plans
Talk about my friends
Talk about the places
That I wanna go someday
I could talk about the future
Like I know where I'll be
But every version of tomorrow
Has you somewhere next to me
And maybe that's too much
Maybe I'm getting ahead
But I've tried to picture life
Without thinking of you
And honestly?
I can't.
---
[BOTH — QUIET]
Maybe that's what this is.
Maybe this is what happens
When somebody becomes
Part of your every thought.
---
[INSTRUMENTAL BREAK]
(soft piano, distant vocal echoes)
[JENNIE — whisper]
You...
[ADAM — echo]
You...
[JENNIE]
Still you.
[ADAM]
Always you.
---
[VERSE 7 — JENNIE]
I was talking to somebody
Just yesterday
They asked me why I suddenly
Looked so far away
I didn't know what to tell them
So I just smiled
Because somewhere in my head
You had been there for a while
And maybe that's the strangest part
You're not even doing anything.
You're just existing.
Somewhere.
Living your life.
And somehow...
You're still taking up space
Inside mine.
---
[ADAM — VERSE 8]
I was talking to somebody
About something completely different
Then they said your name
And suddenly I wasn't listening
Not because they were boring
Not because I didn't care
I just couldn't stop thinking
About the way you looked at me
And I wondered if you do it too.
Do you ever hear a song
And think of me?
Do you ever see a place
And wish I was there?
Do you ever talk to someone
And suddenly realize
You'd rather be talking to me?
---
[JENNIE]
Maybe.
[ADAM]
Maybe?
[JENNIE]
Okay.
Definitely.
---
[PRE-CHORUS — BOTH]
I don't mean to...
We don't try to...
But somehow...
Every time...
It comes back to you.
---
[CHORUS — BOTH]
Every time I talk to somebody
I think about you
Every time somebody makes me laugh
I wish it was you
I could be surrounded
By a hundred different faces
But somehow I'm still looking
For you in all the places
I don't know what you did to me
I don't know what you do
But every conversation...
Every little thought...
Every road I take...
Still leads to you.
(to you... to you...)
---
[POST-CHORUS — JENNIE]
If I'm being honest—
[ADAM]
I'm thinking about you.
[JENNIE]
If you're being honest—
[ADAM]
I'm thinking about you too.
[BOTH]
Maybe we're both
A little too far gone.
---
[RAP-SUNG SECTION — JENNIE]
Phone in my hand
But I'm not checking texts
Somebody's talking
I'm thinking what's next
Not for me
Not for them
I'm thinking where you've been
And when I'll see you again
It's getting ridiculous
I know, I know
Every little thing
Turns into you somehow
I could be anywhere
Doing anything
And somehow
You're the first thing
That my mind brings
---
[ADAM — RAP-SUNG RESPONSE]
Same here.
No lie.
You show up
Every time.
New place
New day
Still your face
In my mind
I don't even have to try
It's automatic.
Kind of dramatic.
But if this is a problem
I don't really wanna fix it.
---
[JENNIE]
You make it sound so easy.
[ADAM]
It is.
[JENNIE]
How?
[ADAM]
I like you.
[JENNIE]
Oh.
[ADAM]
There.
Problem solved.
[JENNIE]
You're impossible.
[ADAM]
And you're smiling again.
---
[BRIDGE 2 — JENNIE]
Maybe I don't need an answer.
Maybe I don't need to know
Why every road I take
Keeps bringing me back home.
Maybe I don't need to fight it.
Maybe I can let it happen.
Maybe when I think of you
I should just let myself smile.
---
[ADAM]
Maybe I don't need to hide it.
Maybe I can say it plainly.
Maybe when someone asks me
Who I've been thinking about—
I don't have to change the subject.
I don't have to look away.
I can just say your name.
---
[JENNIE]
My name?
[ADAM]
Your name.
[JENNIE]
And what if I say yours?
[ADAM]
Then I guess we're even.
---
[FINAL CHORUS — BOTH, BUILDING]
Every time I talk to somebody
I think about you
Every time somebody makes me laugh
I wish it was you
Every time I close my eyes
I somehow see you
Every little thing I do
Finds another way to you
I could be surrounded
By a million different people
But somehow you're the one
Who makes the whole room disappear
I don't know what you did to me
I don't know what you do
But every conversation...
Every little thought...
Every stupid little moment...
Still leads to you.
(you... you...)
---
[JENNIE]
When I'm talking—
[ADAM]
I think of you.
[JENNIE]
When I'm laughing—
[ADAM]
I think of you.
[JENNIE]
When I'm dreaming—
[ADAM]
I see you.
[BOTH]
Guess I can't help it.
---
[FINAL CHORUS — BIGGEST]
Every time I talk to somebody
I think about you
Every time somebody makes me laugh
I wish it was you
I could have the whole world
Standing right in front of me
And somehow I'd still be wondering
Where you could be
Maybe it's ridiculous
Maybe it's too true
But every single road
I take...
Leads me back to you.
(back to you...)
---
[OUTRO — JENNIE]
So...
Who were you talking to?
[ADAM]
Nobody important.
[JENNIE]
Why?
[ADAM]
Because I was thinking about you.
[JENNIE]
Again?
[ADAM]
Again.
[JENNIE]
You know what?
[ADAM]
What?
[JENNIE]
Same.
(you... you...)
[BOTH — softly]
Somehow...
It's always youuuuu(i hit a hight note)."
While I was hitting the high note,I was in a soundproof glass so it won't break but I accidentally left a glass inside and it broke
Sigh
Forget it ,I looked at the time it was 5:45
I went down and that bating kumag was laying on my bed wet af ,his clothes soaking wet,
Ci-n!! Get off my bed!!
Finally he got off
And said
Jayyy, pls forgive me
He crawled toward me and cringed to my feet
Asshole!get off!
Only if u forgive me
I sighed, he's gonna keep clinging to my feet if I don't forgive him
Fine,I forgive u
Then finally he stopped and grinned like an idiot
I sighed
I know he's annoying but I can't help but forgive,he's like my little brother,
Then we both talked and when we got down , I saw someone that made my quarter of my eye flash red.....
Ch goal:5
If anyone has guests on who he is, pls comment