#I kind of don't think you can even address it effectively on any level without understanding that question

[morlock-holmes]

I've been watching a lot of videos about right-wing pundits and, man, so much of the Red Pill stuff and all the stuff that budded off it is based on confused straight men asking,

"Hey, how come women never seem to ask me out?"

[varpusvaras]

Winnick will come this close to writing a good, rightfullly angry character with BPD/CPTSD and ruin it by making him his conception of "a dangerous psychopath" because dc's understanding of mental illness begins and ends with the joker.

I like that Jason was angry i'm not gonna lie I enjoy the "bad victim who doesn't accept that they were a necessary sacrifice, who doesn't think what happened to them is something they should be expected to tolerate, like fuck your greater good, you weren't there, it isn't worth this." I think even looking at Jason's past before getting adopted he has reason to be angry, like he is poor af and starving and he had to take care of his mom and his dad is in jail because he couldn't see another way to provide and he gets trafficked -he has so many reasons to be angry. And he's not, and I love jaybin, but I think there are so many ways and things he can be angry about without it feeling classist. And I love that he can't emotionally regulate, that he has so clearly BPD/CPTSD because why the fuck would he not, have you seen his life (and that's not even counting the csa hc, which i am because willfully and consistently implying csa and then not addressing it/denying it feels like feeding into a culture of taboo that ruins lives and getting away with covert victim-blaming at the same time). The issue is that they lack finesse or any kind of understanding of anger. The think anger is a personality trait. They think angry = evil. They think being angry means you're violent at and about everything, that you shoot indiscriminately even though you've known better since you were a kid, that you're suddenly treating women like shit (which, wtf seriously) which okay maybe THEY treat women shitty for no reason when they're angry, but that'd be more of a them problem I'd say. Their portrayal of anger is classist because their conception of emotions hasn't evolved since fucking Descartes. Think anger = bad = poor and not only doesn't it occur to them that this is classist, they so instinctively assign moral value to the concepts of poor and angry that they don't realise it and just conceptualise poor=angry and end up with incredibly classist portrayals of anger. You can write characters that are mentally ill and violent without being ableist, you can write characters that are poor and angry without being classist, but that requires a level of respect for people, introspection, humility willingness to learn about the sensitive topics you are exploring that is simply not accessible to Winnick and so many other dc writers.

And here comes my very hot take that I'm too cowardly to say off anon: the pit shouldn't have healed Jason's malnutrition. Like, outside of canon I love big jay, I love big men who are emotionally vulnerable and need comfort etc. but in canon? It just comes off as another way to adultify Jason, and make the horrible things that happen to him acceptable. Jason "sleeping with Talia because he is fucked up about Bruce" because they both look like adults until you realise this is actually just rape and you can't put any responsibility of Talia taking advantage of the kid under her care (very ooc of course) on the child himself. Jason fighting Mia looking like a 40 years old beating up a teenage girl when they're the same damn age. Fucking Ethiopia 2.0. And Jason's murders as well, for the matter. Like don't get me wrong the duffle bag of doom is an iconic villain move, but it's just that: a massive shock effect and a "psychopathic" move. We shouldn't need Jason beheading anyone to be horrified, because just one murder, if written correctly, should be enough. A child killing someone is a terrible thing. A child being put in a position where they think killing someone is the only solution to ending suffering (thinking about the Garzonas case) is a terrible thing. A kid trying to kill his murderer (because fuck his death has to matter it has to) and only begging to be allowed it should be horrifying. Jason, with his unhealed malnutrition making him look a couple of years smaller and younger than his physical age, should look his mental age. It should be impossible to look away from the reality of what he is: a traumatized teenager who wasn't allowed to grow up. And he has a gun. This is already a horror story.

Make utrh!Jason a villain if you must, but have the guts to sit with it. Don't shove the fact that he was a hero and a victim under the rug because it's uncomfortable. Sit with the unease that sometimes someone is doing something bad and is suffering a lot, and maybe they're doing the bad thing because they don't know how to survive the suffering, and suddenly it's not easy separating hero from villain from victim. Your imaginary lines in the sand will not protect you from the crude reality of the complicated and shitty situations you have chosen to depict; you open the can of worms now you can't look away and let the worms roam free just because you're squeamish.

How does it feel to be psychic and be in my head and write part of my essay on Jason for me? Fuck, I have so much to say about this but I need a good night of sleep to formulate it correctly. Look for a longer answer tomorrow, but in the meantime, everyone sit down and look at this and look at it hard. Thank you.

[androdragynous]

I know i complained about the stardew valley penny and George cutscene at length but the it really is fucking. bizarre the lengths people will go to defend it because "the game lets you pick to side with him" (please do literally any reading about wheelchair use and realize why it's a problem that the game rewards you for moving someone without their consent.) or variants of that sentiment but then it's like. the rest of the cutscene is also So Weird

Like. Penny moves an old man in a wheelchair without asking him. He gets upset, she asks if you saw what happened The game prompts you to select from;

"I was. You did a kind thing there, Penny." (+50 friendship with Penny)

"I was. You should've asked instead of assuming George wanted help." (-50 friendship with Penny)

"I'm just taking a walk, minding my own business." (No effect on friendship.)

And these are the REVISED options. Before 1.4, the second option wasn't"you should have asked", it was "You should've left him alone. Now he's grumpy."

So already it's kind of shit. The person she's upset - who's entire existence in the game is experiencing inaccessibility, let's be real - because he was shoved without permission just for being in a wheelchair doesn't have his friendship level affected at all.

Regardless of which answer you pick, George apologizes (Penny does not apologize in every choice! But the guy she shoved does!) and says she was kind.

Once he's gone, she talks about how hard it must be to be old. It's worth noting, for what it's worth, that George has been using a wheelchair since a mining accident caused his immobility; it's not a result of age, and you learn about this whole he struggles with a bookshelf in his own home, where presumably he has been living with a wheelchair for at least two decades (given how he talks about his grandson), which is a whole different can of worms because why is this never addressed in a fictional community with multiple craftspeople who frequently do projects for each other?

Anyways. So Penny's like, damn, sucks that he's old. And the options the game gives you - all neutral in terms of friendship points - are:

"I'd rather not think about it."

"It's just a different part of life."

"That's why we should respect our elders."

"I'd rather die young..."

Like are you kidding me? You have a cutscene that's about being disabled - it's not about aging, because his disability was not caused by aging, it is explicitly and directly about the fact that he is in a wheelchair. And the game assumes your opinions will be "Not my problem,", "That's an old people thing,", and "I'D RATHER BE DEAD"? And this is something people just... don't remark on? Even in conversations ABOUT this cutscene? Like, George's mentions of being disabled are already Constantly Miserable -able-bodied writer standard quality - but the game is just like. Yeah you can say you'd rather be dead rather than express any positive sentiment about this guy surviving a traumatic mining accident. You can't say it's great that he's able to still be a part of the community in his chair, or renovate his house to make it accessible the way you can build ENTIRE HOMES for other characters. The community center you rebuild in the Good Ending for the community is only accessible by stairs. The path out of his home is dirt. It's the little things, y'know, like... obviously he wasn't thought about as his own character. The game's writing sees him as a source of conflict for others, and down to the very tiles of the terrain, he's irrelevant.

AND THEN THE TOWN DOCTOR DOES A HIPAA VIOLATION AND GETS SAD IF YOU SAY GEORGE SHOULD HAVE AGENCY OVER HIS OWN BODY. WHAT ARE WE FUCKING DOING HERE

[utilitycaster]

Sending this hoping to get it in before break/you go to bed, BUT!

The contrast between Laudna demanding power and support of Delilah, vs the 'I didn't choose this' is intriguing. I don't know about you but this is the increased Oomf to Delilah I've been waiting for, as well as potentially forcing Laudna to reckon with these feuding interests of hers. And Laudna being interested in potentially powering Delilah enough to get her out of her head too.

Sorry if these aren't organized, just curious as to what you're thinking!

I think I'll have to sit with it for a while because there's some issues that I feel fall on Marisha, some that fall on Matt, and without knowing how much Marisha did in the character development and how much she left to the DM it feels presumptive to criticize since I can't quite tell where the breakdown is. With that said, it kind of sets up a conflict? But it also kind of doesn't, and that's actually a pretty massive problem for me that underscores how this really needed to come up much sooner.

Here's the crux of it: Laudna has been a hollow one, presumably living only because she is bound to Delilah, for 30-ish years. She has not been working towards Delilah's goals in a meaningful fashion during that time, and has only incidentally provided her with strength (the gnarlrock, Bor'Dor). Delilah was effectively dormant for a time and Laudna was still fine. Delilah has also not made these goals clear to her until now, at least to our knowledge.

What are the consequences, meaningfully, if Laudna doesn't do anything to help Delilah resurrect Sylas? She's been leveling up in sorcerer, which is unrelated to Delilah; losing three warlock levels isn't fun but it's not devastating if she's still a L8 sorcerer without them. Delilah doesn't seem to need to be active to keep Laudna alive; she just can't be removed. To that point, Delilah is unlikely to simply kill Laudna for disobedience, since I don't think she has any other options, so they really are trapped in a standoff, with neither able to kill the other without killing themselves. At best Delilah can try to make Laudna kill the people she cares about, and to be clear that's a good source of conflict, but at this point the party knows that then they put Laudna down so it makes it either a suicide mission for Delilah, or a TPK, or a postponement of the inevitable.

This isn't to say it's not a potential good hook, particularly if Laudna decides she refuses to be a permanent vessel for Delilah. I think that while the points above are still pretty significant...not plot holes, but certainly plot points that demand more explanation than we've gotten, Laudna refusing to comply with Delilah would be a great step forward. I also think it has opened up some great new avenues for Imogen; her scene in the Dawnfather temple was intriguing. But this lack of stakes remains, and that's what ultimately needs to be addressed, even though this is a big step forward in terms of having some engagement with the core concepts of the character.

[magnetoeisenhardt]

Mandatory Disclaimer: Stories do not have to be morally perfect in order to be good or interesting. Stories do not need to function as a moral lesson for the audience. A fictional character doing bad things is (by itself) morally neutral. However, works of fiction reflect ideology, and it is worth examining and critiquing both the underlying ideology and the way a work of fiction engages with it.

Mandatory Disclaimer Part 2: Don't post the "The best thing you can do with power is give it away" comic here. I don't think it's a bad comic, but I think it's addressing the strawman (who does exist, his name is Alan Moore) argument that "superheroes are inherently fascist". That is a very stupid argument, but I think "there are inherently right wing aspects of some superheros" is not an absurd thing to say, and I don't think the aforementioned comic meaningfully addresses real critiques people have of specific comic book characters and stories. This critique is not about all superheroes. It is very specifically about Batman, and other primarily crime fighting heroes.

As a huge Batman fan, I've been wondering if it's possible to divorce Batman from very right wing ideas of justice. (As a hero) Batman's entire existence is predicated on the idea that criminals are a class of people to whom it is morally good to do violence to. I think a lot of arguments to and against this are made in bad faith, but the fact that Batman goes out and hurts "criminals" as the major component of his heroism actually does map onto right wing rhetoric about crime and punishment. Criminals do not have the same human rights as non criminals, and this is good.

I don't think diegetic arguments against this (Wayne Corp donates a bunch of money to charity; these criminals are ninjas/evil clowns/sewer mutants; Gotham would be even worse without Batman in it) meaningfully address the fact that the Batman story is constructed in such a way to create "inflicting violence" as the correct and moral response to a criminal. Additionally, as a street level hero, the criminals that Batman deals with are often committing the exact same kinds of crimes that real would be committing. We do see him fight run-of-the-mill muggers and drug dealers and murderers.

I do think Batman is more in the clear than other characters by virtue of his No-Kill-Rule, as I do think that we are still at a point where "breaking the law is not something that should result in being murdered" is a pretty radical statement. Additionally, there are stories that try to make Batman into a softer character, with more emphasis on restorative justice (DCAU Batman, for example). However, even these stories don't do away with the crime aspect all together. Violence is still an acceptable response to most criminals.

I also don't think most "Batman is actually the bad guy" stories actually do anything interesting or meaningfully address this problem. Most of the time, it's "Batman is usually good, but this time he's Gone Too Far", generic "authoritarianism bad" that feels like it could have been written about any character, "vigilantism is bad because it's breaking the law", or edgy ragebait.

Furthermore, even if the "violence against criminals is good" paradigm was portrayed as morally wrong, there's really only two options, which are to write Batman as if he is in the wrong, effectively ending him as a hero, or to somehow transition him away from being a crime-fighter, which would, I feel, render him almost unrecognizable. While I think a limited Batman series could end with Batman rejecting violence and doing something else, think the serial nature of mainstream comics means that Batman is bound to the status quo, and I don't think you can permanently change this aspect of Batman's identity and have him remain Batman.

[crystalsenergy]

When we fight against the rhythm, that's when things stop flowing

When we fight against the rhythm, that's when things stop flowing

When we stop allowing things to flow - including what presents itself as difficulty, and especially that - that's when we feel stuck. That's when things don't move. We block the flow. But Paty, why?

Something I've been saying for a few years and would like to convey this time is: the toughest phases are the most transformative. CHANGE HURTS.

Not because pain is necessary, but because we're not accustomed to seeking change, so the necessary lessons often happen in unbalanced ways.

But if evolution involves change, and in this standard scenario we experience, we need to understand that pain will be part of this change process (obviously, I'm not talking about any kind of pain, but pain linked to something that is leading us toward change, toward questioning). By the way, the act of questioning is a valuable one. Change hurts because it creates space for shocks and reflections that will shake the old structures.

Just think about Pluto, the astrological symbol of regeneration, change, rebirth, transformation. It is at the same time the planet of death, of loss. But it doesn't have to be seen in a morbid way.

Pluto is, in the end, the pain faced, felt, brought to the surface, in order to be given a new meaning; It's transformation. And rebirth.

Seeing the old and withered leaves fall to make room for the new.

The tree doesn't die, only the leaves are replaced. You, who are the tree, remain. Only the leaves change.

Understanding the natural significance of pain is not the same as seeking it, or accepting it as it comes without doing anything. That's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about understanding that certain pains are the result of a clash between the Before and the After,

Who we were VS. Who we want to become (or what we're still trying to understand).

Pain (whether actual pain or discomfort) is, in some situations, a translation of something that is not entirely in harmony in our life.

Pain can represent something or someone on the inside telling you that they don't want to stay in the same place. Or it can signify something on the inside that is asking to be taken care of.

In both cases, we need to be open to hear what this pain has to say to us.

Automatically shutting the doors because discomfort is arising won't make it disappear - it will only silence it for a moment, but it will continue to exist.

💭 "Paty, are we all destined to go through changes and feel this kind of pain/discomfort?"

There is no such thing as something entirely predetermined. There are tendencies, and a single tendency can be taken in different directions - even opposing ones. As I mentioned above, pain tends to arise when lessons don't come through openness, seeking, or lightness.

A person who tends to reflect and delve deeply into emotional issues, traumas, and wounds, for being very open to it, will tend to reflect on it much more frequently.

However, what they will do with it, the intensity of their reflection, the frequency, the actions they will take, whether they will take any action at all, all of this comes from the person.

A person can be extremely reflective and open about traumas and wounds and because of that, feel these issues quite intensely and avoid the topic. Out of fear of further confronting it.

Another person may choose the path of study and bringing knowledge about the topic.

There's no superiority here, just different choices with different effects. And we can always change our path, understanding the level of natural difficulty we may encounter ahead, depending on the path we were on.

In both cases, the issue of addressing wounds and traumas will be a part of the person's life - after all, we're talking about their personality. Therefore, if they run away from it, the issue that needs to be addressed by them will continue to surface, but in a different language - that of discomfort.

To answer the question about whether there are predetermined phases or moments for reflection:

Not necessarily, as it will always depend on the openness of the individual.

On the other hand, life will always bring us the things necessary for our evolution. But coming into contact with those things will always be our decision.

Finally, understand that change hurts, but not all pain means we need to "get rid" of what causes it. Sometimes pain is just a symptom, not the root of the problem. Perhaps the discomfort is simply a symptom, not the problem itself.

It's what happens in the cases of reflection and a search for change in beliefs and thoughts. Change hurts and will continue to hurt if we were very closed or accustomed to a certain lesson that we are now facing.

And let's also understand that not everything bad that arises needs to be discarded - it can be an opportunity to understand if there's something behind that bad thing, and if there is, what it is, what we can do.

And if we are facing our Shadows, internal or external, that's a beautiful and significant step!! 💗 Let's honor this.

Don't pressure yourself! Enjoy the process.

[djeterg19]

I think people genuinely don’t understand how dangerous alcohol addiction is. Quitting alcohol with no specific plan can actually kill you?? Like hospitals, at least in the US, always have liquor on hand. Because just outright stopping drinking if you’re someone who has been a severe alcoholic for years can cause death. This is genuine fact. So the idea that Ray will be able to just quit with no adverse side effects is ridiculous. That’s what rehab programs are, supposed to be, for. To help get you sober in a SAFE manner. Which is why I don’t think anyone has completely been successful in stopping his drinking.

I just in general think people are acting like the people around Ray are being too harsh on him. But looking at the fact that he says “why do people KEEP saying I’m an addict”. Implying that he has been told this before. But he has continually denied it. And you can’t get Ray help if he won’t even admit he has a problem!

And also showing that his dad has tried to get him into treatment but Ray won’t listen. Like the people around him have tried. But they’ve most likely exhausted every option they can without Ray wanting to get help.

I’m just. I know I’m saying a lot. I’m obviously sick of people villainizing Ray for being an addict, but also people villainizing his friends and family for not being kind and understanding 100% of the time.

When people have that reaction it just shows me that they’ve never dealt with someone in the throes of addiction. And the lack of sympathy for how difficult it is to see someone you love constantly and continuously hurt themselves is just so horrific to me.

It’s very apparent that Ray has been an addict for years. Ray’s dad has most likely tried to get his friends to get him into treatment. But it hasn’t worked. And honestly they’re probably just disillusioned about it. So all they can do. Is try to keep him as safe as they can.

Just why can’t everyone see this is an absolutely shitty situation that is making Ray and the people around him act in ways that aren’t the way they normally would.

If having a loving friend group would make Ray not an addict, I can guarantee he wouldn’t be an addict. But that’s not how addiction works unfortunately.

Thanks for the ask! Yeah I'm not 100% thrilled with how the addiction story has been handled. Jojo did say that they weren't trying to send any specific message with this show so that is probably why but I would feel better if they had addressed it a bit more. It does feel like Ray had one genuine therapy session and is now fixed. Obvious caveat that we don't know what happens in the last episode.

But yes acute withdrawal is a thing and hospitals can and do administer alcohol to addicts to help prevent seizures or death caused by going cold turkey. I think we can assume they are not going to go there with Ray but going cold turkey without medical supervision can be extremely dangerous and life threatening.

But yes most characters have gotten flack for not getting Ray help but Ray hasn't wanted help? And even after his drunk driving accident said he didn't have a problem. That he wasn't an alcoholic. So no matter what Mew or his dad or any of his friends said or did he wasn't going to get help until he wanted it. And Mew, Chuem, and the entire friend group is like 21/22 which means the phone call to Mew was when they were around 19. And Mew was torn apart for not reacting the right way. What 19 year old is equipped for that? Not many. And as soon as he realizes how serious it is he rushed to be with Ray? And everyone has been blaming Ray's dad for being absent but was he really? We don't really know that much about him but he was clearly willing to go to lengths to get Sand to try to get Ray into rehab. Ray...is not a reliable narrator imo. Ray gets a level of grace that no other character gets.

Does Ray need to be completely sober? Not necessarily. Some people just need to learn how to manage their intake and learn their limits. To not use the alcohol as a crutch. We really don't have enough info because his recovery hasn't been given a lot of focus. I wish there was more because love...won't fix Ray. But with the Boeing bomb going off, I find it unlikely to get the proper treatment with only one episode to go. Maybe Ray is magically fixed and will never really have to suffer any consequences unlike everyone else.

[mii-ruby]

first of all, since you are very focused on me making my choices and getting personal using the words 'rich coming from', and by doing that making weak claims in your argument, this is ridiculous.

Is it shocking that I would point out your obvious bias after you accused me of sugarcoating things because of mine? It is suddenly a "weak argument" when directed at you, but perfectly acceptable when you apply it to others? Fascinating logic. In any case, if being called out feels unfair, perhaps it would be wise to not start with personal accusations in the first place.

IF you have points of argument, bring it to the table instead of being attacking personally. I talked about your narrative rather than talking about you and question your choices.

I have already answered most of your points in my other reblog, but you decided to ignore it for some reason.

Anyone can like any character. Did I ask why you like yona?

I didn't question why you loved Soowon either, I merely pointed it out

‎Yes it is. That's not how making an argument works. You need to chose a side in your debate.

I said that Yona was temporarily retreating because she wants to take the dragons to safety and because she got overwhelmed by the situation. What sides are there to take her?

What bothers me here is, after making use of Soowon's character's intellect to get all bordering countries as a Vassal nation, yona will get a ready made store bought state of kingdom to rule. That is if she rules. I would have absolutely loved it  if she had been shown to be involved in these political games in another light. BUt that's my opinion.

So you're basically dissatisfied with the way the dynamic of governance works? Let me tell you something: A ruler that is wise and capable should strive to leave the country stronger for their successor. A competent king does not envy the ease he affords his heir, but does his best so that the next reign can focus on prosperity rather than survival. I don't think you would've minded it if Soowon's heir happened to be his son, your issue is that it's Yona who's inheriting the "fruit of Soowon's work". Even though in reality many of Soowon's achievements would not have been possible without Yona’s own actions. It's ironic that you bring up Xing kingdom as an example. It was certainly not Soowon's "intellect" that secured Kouka such a vital ally, but Yona’s compassion and tireless efforts to bridge the gap between Kouren and Soowon. The same can be said of this final war against Kai, where Soowon himself admits he was saved by the very people he discarded. Only his fans refuse to see this reality.

‎I don't know what is making you happy at your own statement. But let me brief this point in case for you a bit. what yona in her travel did, was no doubt an act of kindness. But it didnt even scratch the real cause of situations at the surface. sei and water tribe arc was best IMO. Im saying state level taken by government to resolve an issue even IRL is way massive and different than an activist/ NGO doing it by so many ways. We were just not shown the effects of Soowon's actions taken for the country because the story us being told from yona's narrative. It will accentuate and highlight her action and their reactions.

Once again you're making it into a competition between Yona and Soowon. I merely stated that it was normal for people to be grateful to Yona for her direct help. Even irl activists tend to be more popular with the people than actual governors, precisely because they are seen personally engaging with communities and addressing their needs face to face. Their actions are immediate and visible, whereas the work of a ruler (implementing reforms and setting long term policies) often takes time to bear fruit and is not always perceptible at the individual level. It is only natural that people more readily recognize and respond to what they can directly witness.

‎I literally *rolled my eyes* here at the childishness. You added that emoji like you made a really good point or did a prank and is happy about it all on your own.Sure i guess whatever makes you happy.

After reading your different replies and seeing how you "blah" me and call my posts April fool jokes, I thought I'd step to your level and see. Are you dissatisfied?

Yona did nothing wrong (chapter 267)

Given that we're getting the next chapter soon, I wanted to comment on this matter a last time. Akatsuki no Yona is not a fatalistic story. It showed us that things could be changed to the better through hard work. That's why, this story will never promote the idea that one should surrender to their abusers and accept their fate for the greater good. Because yes, the dragon gods are abusers: they're akin to the toxic controlling partner (or parent) who gaslights you and claims to know what's better for you, who claims their unreasonable behaviour is justified in the name of love, that it is your fault for not appreciating it, and that everything bad that happens, will be because you didn't listen to them.

Neither Yona nor Hiryuu are selfish, foolish or evil for seeking to escape a toxic environment. It is never the victim's fault for rejecting their abuser. And whatever natural disasters befall the innocent people in Kouka will be because the gods chose to unlish destruction with their own hands, not because Yona refused to yield to their suffocating love and oppression.

In fact, Yona's defiance isn't only morally justified, but also logically sound for several reasons:

1- the gods have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, by attempting to kill the very people they promised to turn human and send back to earth, leading to their current descent to madness from repetitive contract breaking. If Yona had trusted them and they later went back on their word, she'd be called dumb and naïve instead.

2- The contracts they're imposing are one sided and self serving. A contract should allow both parties to put their own terms and conditions, yet Yona is denied this right. They're desperate to regain their strength, and once that happens nothing will stop them from breaking a contract or two. Ooryuu confirms that they'll keep imposing increasingly absurd conditions, but Yona is expected to comply with these absurdities?

3- The gods had already started withdrawing their "devine protection" the moment Yona entered the chalice. They were already planning to abandon humanity all together. Their protection of humans so far was only linked to Yona's well-being, that's why, if anything, Yona returning to earth would actually coerce them into maintaining their devine protection out of fear for her safety.

4- by returning to earth, Yona isn't severing all ties with the gods. She can go back to heaven and negotiate a contract whenever she wants thanks to the chalice and a drop of her own blood. Far from "abandoning" her people to certain death, she's giving herself the opportunity to assess the situation firsthand. Is this "devine protection" really necessary? Would its absence really affect the country in an irreversible way? Can't the people actually work through this crisis hand in hand and overcome it? After all, nothing guarantees the images shown by the gods are real, or much absolute. Yona has already defied fate: saving Hak from Zeno's attack, and seeking out the dragon worriers to prevent his death, proving that nothing is set in stone, and that you can change the future through analysing the current situation to decide on the best course of action

5- Kouka isn't facing "immediate" destruction. The sun didn't disappear, it merely got veiled by clouds, much like in winter. People are able to walk down the streets without using torches or candles. While Photosynthesis may decrease, crops will not wither overnight. Kouka also ought to have its own food reserves for similar crises. It also now posses several vassal states that could help providing food and housing for the most affected areas.  This leaves enough time to evaluate the situation and decide on the best conduct to adopt

6- The fundamental problem remains that the gods are apathetic to humans. They're unable to relate to them, and often minimise their suffering. Yona's return to heavens won't be more than a fleeting remedy to a lasting problem. As the protagonist of the story and Hiryuu's reincarnation, Yona ought to treat the problem at its root and find a way to bridge the gap between gods and humans, eventually making a contract that cannot be broken. Can this be achieved through surrendering yourself to vicious fickle beings? What was Akatsuki no Yona about all along? Was it a story praising self sacrifice and martyrdom as the absolute form of strength, selflessness and generosity? Or was it a story about struggling through the mud, relying on your actions, efforts and choices to shape your outcome? About challenging injustice, resisting fate and finding alternative paths? Which of these best describe Yona's actions in this chapter? Think about it, and find your answer.

[your-brilliant-lady-m]

Part 1 - Basic Concepts of Miraculous Ladybug: Miraculous Jewels

Alright! I promised you meta and now I deliver!

I feel like people mostly watch Miraculous for the romance these days. Shipping is all everyone cares about. I wonder why? Probably because writers themselves don't take their worldbuilding very seriously and because they don't put much effort into making the audience care about something other than Love Square, like the mythology behind the Miraculous, or motivations of the main villain, or some pretty heavy topics for a kid's show that they bring up and then refuse to touch again. You know, all the good things. And this is coming from someone who is a passionate multishipper. I have lived through several shipping wars in different fandoms and came out victorious after all.

I am probably the only person out there who cares about the big picture, the overall storyline and the worldbuilding of Miraculous in addition to all details and implications that could develop into fascinating plotlines relevant to the main story. It is a rather lonely fandom experience, I must confess. But, hey? Who cares? I am here to have fun and bring to the table discussions no one wants to have.

So, let's talk about the basics.

If you, as the writing team, are capable of keeping only 1 thing consistent, then please, I beg you, let it be the basic concepts of your universe. Because in this case, one has to actively put effort into writing characters and conflict resolutions badly. And also because nothing can save bad worldbuilding.

I don't have high worldbuilding standards for Miraculous. They certainly aren't as high as the ones I had for Legend of Korra (which was a badly written trainwreck, that ATLA doesn't deserve as a sequel) or the ones I currently have for Dragon Prince. Therefore I won't be too harsh in my criticisms. Granted, I think that Miraculous has better worldbuilding and lore consistency than Winx Club for example (I haven't seen the reboot yet, so writers might have fixed their worldbuilding at least a little bit). Even though I enjoyed Winx when I was younger and some elements of this story still attract me.

Both serialised and episodic shows as well as movies to the lesser extent must have some flexibility in worldbuilding and plot because you can never be 100% sure where your story is going. Maybe, you'll get money for more seasons, maybe not. However, you must never lose sight of your basic concepts. They have to stay the same no matter what, because rewriting lore and retconning major developments every new season is not and never will be called good writing.

Forgive me for using architectural metaphors, but you need a solid foundation to build any kind of structure. Otherwise, everything falls apart.

I like to apply this logic to writing as well. When designing a world where your story takes place, you must lay a few ground rules. It's especially important if you have a magic system. What kind of ideas absolutely must exist? What kind of conclusion do you want your story to have? Does your magic system has limitations? Where is the grey area? Could you introduce new elements later on?

And I feel like the writing team of Miraculous Ladybug did not ask these questions. This may feel like I am nit-picking canon material and looking for problems that simply aren't there, but I promise that I am not. You see, things that I am about to point out only seem small at first glance. But these details are actually the source of the largest plotholes in the series. And their presence negatively affects character development, conflicts and resolutions of said conflicts.

That doesn't mean that I have nothing good to say about the magic system of the show and its elements. There are a lot of great ideas and concepts. And some of them have the potential to contribute to the delightful story.

Let's dive right into it, shall we?

Camouflage

I have to give credit where it's due because the idea of camouflage and shapeshifting for Miraculouses is brilliant. It seems like Miraculous can't fundamentally change its type of jewellery or accessory. The ring will always be the ring but with a different ornament, colour or shape. This is true most of the time (Monkey Miraculous is an exception since it transformed into earplugs/headphones/headband/circlet) It makes sense and avoids plotholes. Grimoire doesn't have the pictures of each Miraculous in disguise for identity protection. That was very neat too. I have no comments. This concept was very good.

Also, since Marinette wore a nose ring of the Ox in "Kwamibuster" without any problem and Adrien wore Ladybug's earrings in "Reflekdoll", we can assume that you don't need to have piercings to wear a Miraculous. Miraculous just magically passes through your skin.

I'm interested to know the following. Can Kwamis recognise a camouflaged Miraculous on a person? Can the holder order them to confess the identity of this person? This shouldn't be possible for identity protection just like with Kwamis sensing each other. But more on that in later posts.

Power Levels

For a long time, we assume that there are only 7 Miraculouses. Turtle belongs to Master Fu, Gabriel has Butterfly and Peacock, Marinette and Adrien have Ladybug and Black Cat. Everything is pretty straightforward. Then it's revealed that there are more jewels and more boxes. It makes the worldbuilding interesting, but it also majorly complicates things, making them inconsistent.

Their position in the Miracle Box implies their power levels. Creation and destruction are the most powerful forces in existence, therefore they are at the top. Moreover, it makes this Box the most important, the most powerful out of all others. Su Han in "Furious Fu" calls it "Mother Miracle Box". Fox, Turtle, Bee, Butterfly and Peacock have less power than the main pair, but more than the Miraculous of the lower Zodiac tier (since they correspond with animals of the Chinese Zodiac).

1. Ladybug can create anything out of nothing (Lucky Charm, which gives what you need the most at the moment). This Miraculous can resurrect the dead, reverse the effects of the Cataclysm. The power of Miraculous Cure or Miraculous Ladybug can work in several ways:

it simply repairs the damage (puts stuff back together, heals injuries and so on)

it reverses time for the matter, restoring things back to the state they were before the destruction occurred (however, the Cure doesn't erase people's memories of everything that happened unless they were mind-controlled, frozen in place or transformed by Akuma into something else - this is an important point that I'll discuss some other time)

How does Miraculous Cure work when there are no supervillians? In NY Special Marinette just says this.

Excuse me, what? What was that? You can't do anything when the villain is gone? What the hell?

*insert here every scene where Ladybug fixed Paris after destroying akumatized/amokized object (this action causes the Akuma victim to detransform/sentimonster to disappear - villain is gone) and purifying butterfly and feather*

It was such cheap angst. I couldn't even be upset when Adrien gave up his Miraculous, because that whole situation is just stupid. But, never mind. We aren't talking about that today.

Apparently, Lucky Charm and Miraculous Cure only work when summoned to battle a specific villain. What is the point then? Huh? You can't tell me that Ladybug has the power of unlimited creation and then say that she can't repair the damage without a special Lucky Charm that was magically synchronised with specific big bad of the week.

Ladybug also can purify Akumas. It makes sense for Ladybug to have the ability to reverse the magic of less powerful Miraculous. But this power can't be applied universally. How does this power of reversal apply to different situations where there is no evil Butterfly holder? Can Ladybug reverse the magic of any Miraculous?

The unlimited power of creation introduced in season 4 ("Mr. Pidgeon 72") is another fascinating thing. On one hand, it's logical and proves the status of this Miraculous as the most powerful. On the other hand, by introducing this power, you have created a plothole. Look, Marinette can create the charm which repels Akumas. If Ladybug can create anything then what stops her from creating a tool for finding Hawkmoth (like special glasses for discovering identities or a compass)? I mean, the show says that the power of creation is unlimited, it means that the creation of such tool is possible.

2. Black Cat can destroy anything with Cataclysm, even other Miraculous. He can kill living things and turn them into ash, but not himself. This Miraculous is supposed to have other special abilities that we don't see. And they should be equal to powers of Ladybug, both in number and in potency. Unfortunately, after 3 seasons writers didn't give us anything. It makes laughable the idea of balance between Ladybug and Black Cat.

Now, to the second tier. These Miraculouses have a singular ability, but they need a second one to keep the power balanced between Zodiac and the main pair.

3. Butterfly creates champions with different superpowers. But how does the time limit of children work for Butterfly? In theory, the countdown should start right after the creation of the Akuma since for Ladybug and Chat Noir countdown starts after activation of their powers even if they don't use them. However, if the countdown of the Butterfly begins after Akuma creation then there's no point because the holder has to stay transformed to guide their champion. The charged butterfly won't have time to even grant powers before the transformation of the child-holder drops. This issue is never explored because Gabriel doesn't have a time limit. However, I feel like it should be addressed in flashbacks of past Butterfly holders for example.

This Miraculous should be less powerful than Ladybug and Black Cat. It's often not. Some Akumas are too overpowered. Stormy Weather can move the Earth away from the Sun, Timetagger can send people through time and jump through time as well, Chat Blanc destroyed the world with a single energy blast, Miraculer could steal powers of those more powerful than her by default. These are the most notable examples. One could argue that Chat Blanc was a different case. Hawkmoth simply gave the most powerful Miraculous a boost. However, we know that even without a holder (the wildest and the most powerful form of uncontrolled Miraculous magic) Plagg's Cataclysm can't destroy the universe just like that (he presumably wiped out dinosaurs and sunk Atlantis on his own without a holder). I think that the less powerful Miraculous (Butterfly) shouldn't be able to increase the power of destruction to such a degree and give Black Cat the power to destroy celestial bodies and galaxies.

Writers want us to see Hawkmoth as the formidable villain. But it's not easy because he is less powerful than your main heroes by default of your worldbuilding. Sometimes writers make the Butterfly more powerful than creation and destruction to raise the stakes, breaking the laws of their magic system. So, how do you solve this? Let Ladybug and Black Cat keep their status as the most powerful and instead of giving Hawkmoth more magical power, make him smarter, more cunning, inventive. Gabriel is a fashion designer, whose creativity makes him a very good Butterfly holder. He has a life full of experience, he knows much more about things than the main teenage characters. Catalyst was very interesting for this very reason. Gabriel sort of discovered a cheat code to boost his powers. Show us how he experiments with his powers, how he analyses his past Akumas and tries to find the most effective ones. Maybe Gabriel tries to design Akumas that can specifically neutralise Ladybug and Chat Noir. This exploration could also give writers an opportunity to explain how the powers of Butterfly work. Can he control the type of powers he grants? Can he control the appearance of Akumas? There are many things to be explored.

4. Peacock creates sentimonsters. I remember that fans were very disappointed when the power of the Peacock was revealed at the end of season 2. I was one of them. The concept of Amoks is far too similar to akumatized butterflies. Other Miraculouses have unique abilities and keywords for their powers, while Peacock just looks like Butterfly 2.0. That glowing mask effect just adds insult to injury.

You have to start by figuring out the powers of the Peacock in a normal situation. If a holder is a good person, then how does their power work? For example, make them related to sight (because of the "eye" pattern on feathers). Maybe, Peacock grants the ability to see the several possibilities of the future, but only a few minutes ahead. Maybe, this Miraculous gives you the ability to see through someone's eyes for a few minutes (and the victim is completely unaware of the intrusion). Perhaps, Peacock allows the holder to use feathers (or tiny peacocks) as cameras one at a time and be all-seeing. These feather-spies can be destroyed by the holder or disappear on their own after some time. Such power could be devastating when used against heroes in canon.

5. Bee can paralyze. This power is pretty straightforward. Once I read a fanfiction focused on very vell done Chloe Redemption, where she fights alongside Ladybug and Chat Noir. Eventually, she grows and becomes a better person. This fic ends with an Akuma battle, where LB and CN are trapped and Akuma is ready to kill them. But Chloe uses a second power of the Bee on the villain - Miraculous Stinger. It's deadly both for the holder and for the victim (because bees die when they sting someone). Chloe kills the Akuma with a Stinger before it can get LB and CN, but she too dies making the ultimate irreversible sacrifice. I will add a link if I find it again.

6. Turtle can create a shield. I don't have much to say on this either. It feels underpowered compared to others in the second tier. Maybe Turtle can also slow down opponents (because turtles aren't the fasters animals out there).

7. Fox creates illusions and acts as their puppeteer. In order to create a balance between other powers, these illusions must hold for as long as the holder needs them to. I propose this mostly because we see that Venom of the Bee lasts very long, the shield of the Turtle lasts either until it's destroyed or the holder wants to remove it, same goes for Akumas and sentimonsters who disappear only when the holder wants them to or their affected object is destroyed.

Let's talk about Zodiac tier. Miraculous of the third tier shouldn't have the second ability like more powerful ones. These powers are the most inconsistent. Even if we haven't seen all of them yet.

8. Mouse can create many small clones of the holder. It is unclear how these clones communicate with each other and how many of them this Miraculous can create. The holder can control the number of clones. This power was very convenient in "Kwamibuster" and it makes sense symbolically for the mouse. What activates the time-limit for children? Marinette didn't have any problems with it when she became Multimouse.

9. Snake can create a 5-minute time loop and has the ability to come back in time. This Miraculous feels a bit overpowered for the Miraculous of the Zodiac Tier. The holder can reset the time as many times as he/she needs to. It's was a good source of drama and trauma in "Desperada". I was honestly surprised that Adrien was capable of fighting after spending months in a loop. But this doesn't change the fact that Snake is overpowered. You can give this Miraculous the power to hypnotise or keep the time ability but place a limit on the number of resets. How does the lyre work as a weapon? Who knows? No one!

10. Dragon can shapeshift into elements: water, wind and lightning. It has the coolest transformation words hands down (Bring the Storm and Open Sky). Apparently this Miraculous doesn't have the time limit.

11. Rabbit can time travel or jump through alternative realities, even writers aren't sure. Time-travel in this show is so badly written it gives me a headache. This Miraculous shouldn't exist just like its powers. Snake belongs to the same tier, but 5 minutes and whole centuries of time jumps aren't comparable in power levels. They are not and this is the hill I will die on. Give the Rabbit powers related to its symbolism in China like an ability to de-age people, heal them or give them a speed boost in contrast with Turtle who might have the ability to slow down.

This Miraculous is so special that its Kwami - Fluff can live separately from his Miraculous in a Miracle Box for millennia (Fluff lives in the Box in "Sandboy", but his Miraculous, pocket watch, was passed down for generations in Alix's family). This is a discussion for a separate post, however. There's a lot to unpack. We'll do that some other time. You will suffer with me but at a later date.

12. Horse can create portals. They could lead anywhere, which is pretty cool. On the other hand, this power is not very useful in direct combat, especially when it's used by a child since we can have only one portal per transformation.

13. Monkey can cause a malfunction in powers of other people. What is the point of this? This power was specifically created by writers to defeat Akuma in "Party Crasher". That's it. What if your target is not magical? How does this Miraculous work in different circumstances?

14. Pig shows people their greatest desire. Both the holder and the recipient of this power can see this desire. Chat Noir wasn't impressed in "Guiltrip" and neither was I. It's underpowered compared to other Miraculous in this tier. Also, why does the tambourine can shoot energy beams? Why?

That's all I have to say on the matter. I'll update the power analysis as needed.

[weebsinstash]

This is gonna sound stupid but I like that you think critically about the stuff you’re really into. A lot of bnha blogs are really bad about that. Like they’ll like one character or one group of characters and if someone says something like “this character did something shitty, and I don’t know if they’ll get/if they deserve a redemption arc” their response will deadass just be like “OKAY triggered ANTI.” and it’s like, look homie, you can be horny for whoever you want, I myself am horny for all the bad boys from endeavor, to hawks, to AFO, but like, you have to at least acknowledge that the other person might have a point about the actions of one character and the way they’ve affected the story and other characters. And then the conversation shifts to “its FICTIONAL LMAO it doesn’t matter” which. Is just a shitty argument all around, because yeah no shit something happening in a story isn’t the same as it happening irl but we can do this neato thing where we analyze the writer’s choices and the message they push, especially for a show that is literally centered around asking bigger more profound questions about the story’s universe and ours because fiction doesn’t come from a vacuum. Like i’m not asking everyone to 4D analyze every little detail, I know fandoms are an escape for a lot of people, I just wish more fandom blogs (this really can apply to all fandoms, but especially anime and bnha) could consume literally anything critically. N e weighzzzz I love you and your blog, have a nice morning and i hope your coffee stays hot ❤️

Well, I'll be perfectly honest, I have plenty of personally-biased takes myself. I'm definitely not like, good at looking at this series critically 24/7, especially because it's actually starting to piss me off. I actually really, like, without a doubt absolutely HATE this plot line of "societal corruption" because I don't actually expect the problem to be addressed in any way whatsoever and like. It's boring to me. I don't fucking care about a story based on the moralities of good vs evil (especially when they're being preached to me by literal children, Deku) because that's all extremely subjective. This is all especially frustrating in My Hero Academia, because it's trying to tackle issues that are cemented in culture and society and law which, I'm going to be honest, are kind of... fundamentally impossible to change? Like not to be a Debbie Downer but this entire plot line of "reforming hero society, the system is broken" is completely pointless because it is not actually something that can be changed. Just like in our world, the societal injustice is deliberate, and changing it would require a level of lawmaking and overturning that just isn't going to happen. That's why I made the comparison to Naruto: at the very end of the series it brought up the inherent corruption in turning children into ninjas, showed you how gritty and violent it was for children to fight in wars and said "there is something wrong here" and then did not change anything about that problem whatsoever and then actually released a sequel where the problem is arguably even worse.

You get what I mean? This entire thing about "Hero Society bad" is all bullshit because uh it isn't actually going to change so to even address it, let alone make it a focal argument in the series, is actually a pretty bad decision, and you could argue it was childishly naive.

Like deadass, spoiler warning for the newest chapter leaks that were released today, but [[spoiler starts here]] Deku literally made some dumbass comment to the effect of "Endeavor is different than he used to be and he's trying to be a better person, the person who was an abuser is no longer here" should honestly tell you everything you need to know. I know this is ultimately a manga for children but the idea that intentions alone make everything ok or just the insinuation that Endeavor doesn't need to face consequences at all is. Dumb. Like Jesus fuck, all this talk about being a better person and helping others and we're told "yeah this guy is blatantly a criminal for multiple reasons but he's on the Good Guy Side so as long as he says he's sorry he doesn't have to go to jail" like literally just Endeavor himself undermines the entire discussion altogether.[[end spoiler]]

Horikoshi created a story about Heroes vs Villains, then said "actually what makes Heroes and Villains different? Heroes can be pretty scummy and some Villains can do pretty good things" and then he turned around again and said "actually nevermind, even though there may be just a few bad faith actors, the Heroes are always righteous and just :)" and honestly I'm sick of it

Dkfkfkfkf anyways thank you! I've tried not to nag too much over here cause I don't want to you know, ruin anyone's good time or anything, but I've been having uh. A lot of issues with the decisions being made for this series so I've been occasionally just... throwing my opinion out there and seeing what people think

[kalinara]

I think ultimately, part of the problem is that the leadership of a nation is different from the leadership of a team.

When I think of Jean as Xavier's ideological successor, I'm still thinking primarily of the X-Men rather than the entire mutant race. At most, I'm imagining the team more as they were in the 90s, when they all seemed to be at their height, with a shit ton of members, most of whom working out of or connected to the mansion, but also not the be-all and end-all of mutantkind.

It WOULD have been interesting though to see how Jean would have handled the Decimation era. Because that's when we DID, very briefly, see the mutant race united under Scott's leadership. At least until Logan fucked it all up. Not to disparage Emma, because I think, as Scott's partner, she provided him with a lot of necessary strength and support at that time. But while she was able to bolster him, she lacked Jean's idealism. I do think Jean might have been able to remind Scott that survival is important, yes, but it's also important to remember WHY they're surviving.

(As I said before, I don't actually think Logan was WRONG in the Schism. Hypocritical, yes. Wrong, no. My problem is that Scott OFFERED a solution and Logan decided that he'd rather punish Scott for failing to be Steve Rogers than do what's best for mutantkind.)

I suppose, you could make the argument that, right after AvX, LOGAN was the leader of mutantkind. But that really only seemed to last until Scott was out of prison.

It's kind of interesting though that, at least until Krakoa, Xavier's never really been that effective at uniting mutant kind. Prior to Giant Sized X-Men, Xavier had made many attempts at recruiting characters like Fred, Pietro and Wanda, but the O5 never increased their numbers until Alex and Lorna. Who both joined when Xavier was "dead". He was obnoxious enough that, at their very first meeting, Moira goes off to become a human supremacist.

We certainly never see him win over any of the Acolytes. (...insert joke about Scott's sub game being so strong it redeemed Frenzy outright here). And we saw how the Arakkans dismiss him, whereas on individual levels at least, we've seen mutants win their respect without going full Crucible (Roberto and Kurt, for example.)

Xavier only manages his position on Krakoa because of the many advantages Krakoa gives the mutants. But it's funny how little of them come from Xavier himself.

Krakoa, the creature, is what provides the safe, defensible place to live and the ability to connect many locations.

The Five (supplemented by Wanda later) are the ones who provide resurrection. And really, only Elixir was recruited during Xavier's tenure. Tempus and Goldballs were post AvX recruits. Proteus was Moira's son, kept isolated and separate. And Hope...well, we know how that goes. I suppose we can credit Xavier with the Cerebro copies and getting the DNA from Sinister.

... which still creeps me out because at no point does anyone ever address that Sinister did NOT obtain of these samples with consent!

The unified mutant nation concept really comes more from Magneto and Genosha. (Utopia was more of a military base, IMO. It never seemed like Scott had intended it to be a long term, forever solution.)

It's funny though how the trauma of Xavier's murder and then the miracle of Krakoa has made most of the X-Men forget that the dude was exiled twice from the mansion, and no one was really even all that bothered. (Hell, arguably, Scott and Jean had pulled off their own coup to start the X-Men. Fortunately for Charles, that's all they wanted to do. But if they HAD chosen a full takeover at that point, would anyone have stopped them? It seemed like Kurt, Kitty and Emma at least were completely on board.)

Bringing it back to Jean, it is pretty interesting to think about her role on the Council. The thing about Jean though is that I think she has a very similar weakness to Charles: she's an idealist rather than a politician. But they went in different directions. Charles kept his idealism, but essentially constructed a card house fantasy. Hence the Knights of the Round Table, Camelot approach. But Camelot was doomed, at least in part because Arthur compromised his values one too many times.

Jean went the opposite route. She kept to her values to the point where she chose to leave the Council rather than compromise for the greater vision. It meant she could reform the X-Men with Scott, but it weakened the more heroic and ethical side of the Council. Even without Mikhail's influence, Piotr was never going to match Jean's effectiveness on the Council and they all suffered.

Ororo though is interesting, because she WOULD have been excellent on the Council, if that was all that she was doing. But it was clear once Arakko was up and moving that her heart wasn't in it. For all her faults, Emma was absolutely right when she called her out. Ororo let a lot of shit slide, because she simply wasn't there to notice or deal with it. And by the time she tried, giving her proxy to Piotr...well, that made things worse. The ironic part being that IF she'd been present, she (or Kitty, who was also pretty over-stretched) would have been most likely to notice something wrong with him.

To be fair to Ororo though, by the time Arakko was in full swing, Jean had already left the Council, and she might have had concern over who would have come in to take her place. POSSIBLY if Jean had stayed, or Scott had accepted the Council invite, Ororo would have felt more comfortable leaving things in their hands to focus entirely on Mars. But sadly, it didn't happen that way.

I think my biggest problem with Xavier's vision of Krakoa (Watsonian critique, not Doylistic), is that he seems to think that just because permanent death isn't a thing anymore, then everything's safe and fine.

I'm not saying Xavier shouldn't have invited ex-villains onto the island, but it's obvious very quickly that there are no safeguards or protections for any of these villains' former victims. Or any future victims.

So we get some awful scenes like Jamie Braddock taunting Meggan or Mr. Sinister telling Scott that he's prettier when he smiles (that one in the middle of the fucking COUNCIL meeting) and there's apparently nothing that can be done about that?

The Shadow King gets to hang around children, leading to the death of Gabby Kinney (and in her case there was some question about whether or not they'd resurrect her because she was a clone.) Sinister, we're told in Hellions, still has an ORPHANAGE. There weren't kids there, at least, but still. The fuck?

And then there's Madelyne Pryor. And yes, I agree that, back in the 80s, she was screwed by the narrative. But she's done a lot of things since then. Maybe. I admit, I can't really keep track of whether or not the one who tortured Scott and company in the 00s was actually THIS Madelyne or another dimension's. But THIS version is introduced torturing people.

Alex pushes for her resurrection. And any counter argument is immediately neutralized by pointing out that Sinister is on the Council. And...well, yeah. But it's POSSIBLE that some of Madelyne's victims might not have been on board with her running free, but that's not a thing we get to hear. (We are told that Jean supported her resurrection much later. Which I do believe, but I also think the narrative doesn't really allow any other possibility.)

Xavier's very self-congratulatory about the no prisons on Krakoa thing. Of course, there's the Pit. You go in there if you're recalcitrant and break the rules. Even if you're a child. And then you get tortured by Sabretooth because no one bothers to check in on the prisoners, apparently.

To break immersion, in a Doylistic sense, I really enjoy that Krakoa has its darker sides. This isn't a paradise for every character, and it's no surprise, when you think about it that the Summer House is on the Moon instead of Krakoa proper.

But in a Watsonian sense... Any fan of the Wolverines can verify that you don't need permanent physical harm to have a massive amount of trauma and pain.

It makes sense. Charles has that King Arthur fantasy, and part of that involves seating some of his strongest enemies at the Round Table. And it makes sense that the man whose first X-Man was an abused child that he rescued and made into his field commander doesn't necessarily have an awareness or appreciation of long term trauma.

But somehow Cassandra Nova gets to be resurrected in a safely isolated place, away from any and all possible victims. Funny how that wasn't an option for anyone else.

[the-empress-of-snark]

First, I would like to publicly make an apology to JD, the mod from Tomione Finds who initially reached out to me. I was already a bit agitated, and ended up misreading what she was trying to say to me and reacting impulsively instead of processing tthings calmly. 

It was genuinely not my intention for her to be hurt in this situation, but she was and for that I am very sorry. 

So, my initial reaction to kyoki's post was not to bother dignifying such obvious hyperbole with a response. 

Like, seriously, painting me as Fandom Satan so you can pin your flounce from fandom on me is just so wildly attention seeking it borders on the absurd. 

Your post was deliberately inflammatory, completely fabricated and designed solely to smear me, and your criticism that I've never provided evidence was  inaccurate as well as ironic, given that you...don't. 

That shit is exactly the kind of behavior I've been talking about. 

I then realized that staying silent isn't the answer. 

There are folks who might also be experiencing bullying in our fandom community, but feel uncertain if it qualifies as such or is more a personal conflict. Or maybe they're scared to speak up or come forward out of fear of retaliation - such as being smeared as toxic or untruthful like I was.  

Here's the thing. Your feelings are all valid. 

You know what you're experiencing, I know what I've experienced, and no amount of shouting down and being called a liar will ever change that. 

I'm also just going to point out that while my old blog was active, I talked about my experiences with bullying extensively, on more than one occasion. 

If I was going to be called out as a liar and a shit stirrer, that was literally a golden opportunity to do so. But the reason why that didn't happen at the time - a culture of silence that reinforces unequal power dynamics - is part of what I've been talking about. 

The thing about bullying is that it isn't necessarily someone walking up to you and punching you in the face. More frequently, it's subtle, low key, and perpetrated in a way that makes you doubt yourself. 

Here are a few examples of my experiences.

As if I have to state the obvious, reblogging someone's art with shitty tags in order to make fun of it is bullying. 

Also, I had never interacted with this person.  

Next, I only ever shared this privately with a couple people. It was nice of this person, who I'd been on friendly terms with, to let me know what they really thought of me and my writing. (Edit 7/21/21: I'm not gonna shield the identity of assholes any more)

That's some epic level passive aggressiveness right there.

And then just before I deleted,

There is a factual inaccuracy here. I did not ever regularly post in the tag, let alone posts regarding my experiences.

And then there is this:

This was created in June 2018 for members of the Tomione discord, but the history behind it goes back to January 2015. The term and its use was a significant part of my falling out with Nerys and Serpentinred, with the latter deeming it as a 'demeaning slur.' 

Which isn't...exactly what I said in our last email exchange. 

I worded this clumsily, I admit, but I was trying to describe how I felt - using I statements. I did not ever once use the term as a pejorative against her, and she's free to bring forth any evidence that I did. 

At that point though, it didn't matter, though I apologized to both of them in subsequent emails.  They were angry, and immediately severed any relationship I had with them, which was their right to do. 

So, a few years later, these same people suddenly appeared in the Discord using these Inner Circle icons, and offering them up for members of the chat to use. In a variety of colors. No one there had any idea that this was, in reality, a very pointed slight directed at me. 

There's really no way to explain this away as an innocent effort to make something fun for the chat, or as a joke, given the repeated assertion that the term was a slur. 

Somewhere along the line, their feelings toward the term must have changed, because both of them used the icon.

And no, there's been no "owning up" to this. Taking responsibility for your actions involves actually addressing shit with the person you harmed, and not minimizing the effect this had on me as “whining about a button”. 

I have now provided evidence to support my statements regarding my experiences with bullying in fandom. I did not at this time include less easily categorized vague posts made where I wasn't specifically named, but if I read it, it would be clear that I was the person being referred to. These were posts where I was accused of using slurs, or impersonating an artist in order to harass someone.

These posts are still damaging, though, in the sense that they're deliberate misrepresentations designed to create social/fandom harm to the people being talked about, and are examples of covert bullying/relational aggression. 

Which brings me to an observation I'd like to make regarding the angry, almost aggressive disparagement of myself and others speaking, even privately, about our experiences as 'spreading garbage behind our backs'. 

It's hypocritical. It's a double standard, given multiple posts that have been made about me, and honestly, it's concerning that someone could possibly expect to exert that much control over what people say about them, even privately. 

For example, if you and your friends want to chat about how much of an asshole you think I am, and how much you hate me, that's entirely your prerogative, and I have no control over that. You're perfectly free to express your opinion of me on your blog. The reverse holds true as well. Once you start making false accusations, though, it's a different story.

Lastly, I guess if there is anything I would like to see come from this, it would be for folks not to feel hesitant or uncomfortable about either speaking out about their own experiences, or openly being supportive of other people without fear of retaliation.  Because after the actual incidents, the sense of isolation was about the worst. 

Ultimately, this isn't about being liked or having conflicts due to differences in opinion. This is about actively engaging in behaviors, or encouraging others to engage in behaviors to purposefully cause harm. It's about isolating and marginalizing people you don't like and stripping them of support within the community. 

It's unacceptable. 

[evartandadam]

Hi! I have a question for you. this is what i find particularly confusing abt your character analysis of sasori: if sasori wants to abandon human emotions altogether, why would choose puppets to receive love, then? What's with his cognitive dissonance(i don't recall you elaborating on this that much) that occurs on both conscious and subconscious levels? pls be specific.

I think every single scene Kishimoto included in Sasori’s backstory is very important in understanding who he is, and why he is what he is. No scene is wasted. Sasori’s story is the perfect example on how to make a psychopathic killing machine. Sasori’s struggle with his relationship with emotion is the core of his character.

Ok, let’s dig into this chronologically.

As a Small Child:

The earliest flashback we get of Sasori is when he is about 5. He seems to be a normal, sweet kid, despite his quiet disposition. He loves his family very much. His parents seem to give him the proper amount of affection for his age. 

(It is well known that small children who do not receive physical and emotional love end up emotionally stunted. Keep this in mind.)

Then, his parents never return from a mission. His grandmother takes him in, knowing they are dead. But she doesn’t want to hurt her grandson.

Chiyo managed to raise what looked like a kind young man (her son), but she did not raise Sasori the same way. I believe life has been harsh to her since having her son, and she feels unable to give Sasori what he needs. She is emotionally distant, and appears to lie to Sasori about his parents. 

We don’t know how long she hid his parents’ deaths from him, but it would be long enough for him to feel betrayed by her because she didn’t tell him. I believe his later hatred of his grandmother stems from this incident. 

Does Chiyo try? Of course she does. But it is obvious she didn’t know how to reach out to him in a proper way. Her solution is to teach him puppetry at a very young age. This seems to make him happy. What she doesn’t realize is that this is the beginning of a disaster. The creation of a monster. 

The next thing we see is Sasori making puppets of his parents, and manipulating them into hugging him. This is pretty straightforward. Sasori is using puppets as people. He wants to gain affection from non living things, because he is desperate to recreate what he once had. Little Sasori has a hole in his heart, and he tries to fill it with a false reality. This is a very important “first” for him.

As a Chuunin (from a filler, but it fits him very well):

We skip ahead to when Sasori is a young teen, maybe 12? He is not emotional whatsoever, and he has a teammate, Komushi, who always tries to reach out to him. Komushi loses an arm during a mission, and Sasori makes him a puppet arm with gadgets inside. This is Sasori trying to help. But Komushi accidentally ingests some poison kept in the arm, and dies. Komushi’s parents beg for Sasori to help. So what does Sasori do?

Well, he makes him into his first human puppet! But why? This is a very strange thing to do to your teammate. Chiyo is certainly horrified by it. But to Sasori, this makes perfect sense. Because, to Sasori, puppets are as good as human beings. 

Sasori thinks this is making Komushi live forever. Now he will never decay. Isn’t that what everyone wanted? 

Sasori at this stage in his life is really messed up and confused. It is not shown why exactly, but it doesn’t really need to be shown. Suna is known for its horrific training methods and lack of care for its ninja. They put kids into training at a very young age. This is the standard for military villages. The Leaf Village is the kindest of them, which is why the main characters still think for themselves and show empathy. These other villages literally brainwash children and make them into killing machines. That is their goal.

And that is what they get. 

Sasori as a Jounin:

Sasori, by the time he is 15, is such a notorious killer, he receives the title of “Sasori of the Red Sand” during the Third Great War. What we know about him is that he is a brilliant genius, the inventor of the standard puppets used in the Puppet Core, and a scientist/medic. He is probably the pride and joy of his village. But Sasori is unhappy. The main reason is likely that no one understands his genius human puppet technique. He wants to experiment freely, and without judgement. So he leaves. 

Sasori’s Human Puppets:

What is Sasori’s fascination with human puppets? Well, as we can see from his past, it stems from his desire to feel human connection when he didn’t have any. He spends all of his time with puppets, fighting with puppets, making puppets, bonding with his creations. This was probably his way of trying to connect with his grandmother as well, for a time, before coming to hate her. He eventually leaves over his desire to create human puppets.

It is important to address that he genuinely does not understand why everyone else thinks the concept of human puppets is repulsive. He has been raised to kill effectively, using puppets. Human puppets are definitely superior to normal puppets. Sasori sees his discovery as the next step forward for puppeteers. It is an effective weapon- nothing more.

He has been brainwashed all his life to not value human life. This is a very dangerous thing to teach a child with the background that he has. Sunagakure expected Sasori to value certain human beings over others, but to Sasori, this is hypocritical. He thinks his fellow ninja are weak and hypocrites for rejecting his brilliant work.

This is the beginning of his struggle with two opposing thinking processes: (1) A lack of care for human life, and (2) the desire to feel love and connection, which has managed to manifest itself as associating people with puppets.

So Sasori kills hundreds(?), running amuck around the continent. He is gaining a collection, and developing a reputation as probably one of the most dangerous killers alive. And the more he collects, the hungrier he gets.

Sasori at this point believes the human puppet is the peak of humanity. He associates it with eternal life and power. He also feels loved by his human puppets. 

To make it clear, Sasori is taking a live person (representing those unpredictable humans who rejected him, including his grandmother). and turning them into a puppet (something he can control, and feels safe with- something that can love him.)

Sasori Becoming a Puppet:

Sasori decides to make himself into a puppet for many reasons. The main one is that he wants to destroy every puppeteers weak point- themselves. By making himself into a literal machine, he is practically indestructible. This is very practical. 

Another reason is that he wants to live forever. He is brilliant, and wants to learn until the end of time (like Orochimaru). He seeks to make his collection infinitely bigger. This means he never gets tired of his work. He is obsessed. 

The last main reason is that he wants to become a puppet, emotionally. 

This means that he is tortured. He has lived his life chasing perfection, but he feels empty. He is lonely, and no matter how many puppets he surrounds himself with, he can’t seem to get rid of this loneliness. (The loneliness that stems from his parents’ deaths and Chiyo’s lack of affection with him). Sasori himself says that by making himself a puppet, he is no longer human, and has no emotions. 

This means he struggled with emotions. This is interesting, because externally, Sasori looks very deadpan. He was hurt and betrayed as a small child, and his response to this was to close himself off from others. But because of the particular career of puppeteering, he accidentally replaced people with puppets. Who knows if he is consciously aware of this. 

So he tries to become what he idolizes- a perfect being with no regrets or flaws. Something better than a human being. But this doesn’t work out as expected. 

His Contradictions (subconscious and conscious): 

As I mentioned before, Sasori was raised to be a killer with no emotion. This is all he knows how to do. This is why he values having no connections or emotions. He wants to be strong. Strong = Apathetic. 

But Sasori deep down wants human connection. This is what he cannot bear. He wants what other people want. This does not go with the previous point. How can he be a strong ninja when he has these feelings of loneliness? He must eradicate them!

He thinks becoming a puppet will somehow separate himself from his humanity. But he fails. We can see this when he essentially kills himself, saying that he is not a perfect puppet. This means he still feels these emotions, and he can not bear to live with them. 

So to answer your question, Sasori does not purposefully attach himself emotionally to his puppets. This is not something he can control.

I said in another rant that Sasori is obsessed with control. He even wants to control death. I mentioned at the end of the “Sasori’s Human Puppets” section of this rant that the process of creating human puppets is to rid humans of their unpredictability. 

The only thing he can’t control is himself. 

This is his cognitive dissonance. (definition: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.) He knows he can’t eradicate his emotions, but goes to great lengths- irreversible lengths- to achieve the impossible. 

But like I said in other rants, I think part of this is subconscious at this point, because he has buried the truth so deep. He lives his life lying to himself. He is essentially roleplaying what he wants to be. In his Shippuden battle, he puts on a good show, bragging that he is a complete puppet and he succeeded in his goals to destroy his connections/emotions. But by the end of the battle, he is finally admitting to the others, and to himself, that it was a failure. And this admittance causes him to no longer want to live. 

Conclusion:

The sad thing about Sasori is that at this point in his life, he is probably too far gone to change his ways. He is a psychopathic killing machine. But even as an infamous serial killer, he wants something he can’t understand. 

Chiyo blames herself for Sasori. She also said to Sakura “The Sand is responsible for making Sasori into what he has become.” She is referring to his training. The Sand made something they could not control. Sasori is trapped the mental box the Sand provided for him.

Sasori wants something that he is probably incapable of returning, due to how emotionally stunted he is. But people can want things they do not understand. 

Hope this answered your questions! Thanks for asking!

[jedi-order-apologist]

So,about Miller's clone wars books, you mentioned you might have some thoughts on it and i would like to hear them, if you're up to? I read some time ago and don't really remember if had any jedi bashing or not, i just recall having fun while reading.

I wouldn’t say that the books are Jedi-bashing, just that they get the Jedi wrong. There’s a lot of conflation of love and attachment, and the typical “Jedi can’t show emotions” thing going on. It’s just done for whump instead of bashing.

Actually, yeah, I think that’s my main issue with these books. Not really how it portrays the Jedi, but rather that stuff is done for the sake of whump regardless of whether it actually…fits. Which would be fine if this was a fanfiction tagged as whump, but this is official material associated with the TCW TV show. The EU may not have been strictly “canon”, but it was at least intended as the equivalent of fanfiction with a big flashing neon “canon-compliant” tag. And I feel that these books fall very flat in that regard.

And yeah, I guess I’m not really the biggest fan of whump in general. I like angst fine but…I get burned out on this particular brand of it, because it usually just doesn’t feel earned or built up enough for me. I’m not sure if I can exactly put my finger on it but there’s a way that the prequels and TCW justify their tragedy to me that these books just don’t capture. It’s a really careful thing, to handle angst properly, and if you go too far then it gets really tiring.

But that’s obviously a personal preference thing. For those who like whump more than I do, I’m sure these books are a lot more appealing - so don’t let me put you off of them if you enjoy them. These books just didn’t resonate with me for a lot of reasons…

(rambling more specifically about what I liked and didn’t like under the cut)

I think the books (which again, I haven’t read Siege - only Wild Space and Stealth) do have their strengths. I think Miller is really good at writing playful banter - those character interactions are absolutely on point. I couldn’t stop laughing when in Stealth, Obi-Wan pretended he had no idea where Anakin could’ve possibly learned how to be so sarcastic.

But uh…most anything outside of playful banter? Not so much a fan of those interactions. The way it’s written…it’s like they have only two levels of interaction, and the instant there’s any tension between characters, they invariably take that tension to 11, with no stops in between. It makes everyone come off as really bitchy, because they’re the same level of upset regardless of how minor or serious the trigger. I don’t mind characters arguing but this constant level of it wears on my nerves. Everyone’s written as though they’re 30 seconds from having a breakdown, and I’m sorry, but I just can’t see how these people are supposed to survive three more years of war if they’re already so close to their breaking points.

Especially Obi-Wan. I’m sorry but this is the worst offender in regards to “doing things for whump rather than fitting with the character”. The characterization of Obi-Wan is just…really, really fanficy. And I don’t mean to malign fanfic, because I do love transformative works…but characterization is often a mixed bag, and, as in these books, a weird mix of highly on-point moments which exactly hit what you’d think the character would do/say/think, and moments that are the complete antithesis of that, and moments that are just really, really off without being able to exactly pin down why. And I get that a lot of this is subjective, and a lot of people can and do fit this with their interpretation of the character, but I just can’t. I can’t see Obi-Wan being as dysfunctional as he’s portrayed here and making it through the genocide of his people and Anakin’s betrayal and then living 20 years alone in exile. That’s not the kind of thing you get through if you already hate yourself for years before that.

I don’t know…it’s almost like Miller felt like Obi-Wan had to be this dysfunctional, that he needed to be equally as unstable as Anakin, just in a different way…and I just don’t see that from the films or TCW. I know a lot of people really like this interpretation. I don’t. It’s not that I think Obi-Wan is perfect, because he’s absolutely not. He’s fallible as anyone else would be. But the idea that characters need to be dysfunctional in order to be fallible or interesting doesn’t sit well with me.

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, and this is all supposed to be a temporary thing Obi-Wan is struggling with. I don’t remember it being quite as bad in Wild Space, after all, so maybe his characterization in Stealth is all supposed to be an after effect of Zigoola, and he’ll make peace with all of that by the end of Siege, presumably after his terminally ill friend/love-interest inevitably dies tragically in his arms? Somehow it doesn’t seem likely to me that that would make his self-recrimination/self-loathing/refusal-to-take-care-of-himself/etc any better, but I could be wrong. If anyone knows if Siege addresses my issues with Stealth then I’d probably be much more encouraged to read it.

The part that really soured my opinion, though, was when we got to the scientist, and how all that was handled. I get it, Miller was trying to present a situation of “someone’s in trouble, Anakin wants to help, Obi-Wan also wants to help but knows that they must stay focused on their mission, they both have good points”...except that the scientist was at the center of their mission, she was being forced to make the bioweapon they were trying to stop, so Obi-Wan’s “oh no, just like Qui-Gon, Anakin’s picking up strays that we can’t afford to be distracted by” makes NO sense to me. In helping her they’re helping their mission. And the part where he's thinking about how they have to succeed in their mission at all costs, and even considers Shooting the Hostage himself is really...not Obi-Wan, to me? Yeah there are a lot of lives on the line, and maybe this was supposed to be him struggling with the Dark Side (it didn’t really come across as being written that way to me though, but I could at least accept that more), but the way it was all written didn’t really seem to justify itself, and doesn’t seem in character for Obi-Wan (I realize this book was written very early in TCW’s run, so the Citadel arc wasn’t out yet, but...in the Citadel arc Anakin is the one saying that the Jedi don’t go far enough to succeed in the war, and Obi-Wan gives him some raised eyebrows for that). And the way he gets hung up on the scientist having been coerced into making the bioweapon because she was unwilling to sacrifice her family is so odd to me, because 1) they have limited time, and it doesn’t make sense to spend that time dwelling on things that can’t be changed, and they need her cooperation so it’s better to be tactful than openly judgemental, and 2) Jedi don’t expect non-Jedi to follow their beliefs and make their sacrifices, which is how this whole thing comes across.

Anyway, I’m sure people can come up with justifications and explanations for why this all works but it doesn’t work for me and there wasn’t enough going for the story otherwise for me to try and make it work. YMMV.

Oh, and also with both Wild Space and Stealth, I really get the sense that Miller wanted Padmé, Bail, Obi-Wan, and Anakin to end up in a four-way but for obvious reasons wasn’t allowed to write them as such, so settled for making various insinuations whenever possible. It’s actually more amusing than annoying, but it certainly doesn’t help it feeling like a mislabeled fanfic.

Anyway, if you like these books that’s completely fine. But they’re not for me and I don’t agree with their take on Star Wars or its characters. I can go into more specifics if you want, but it was more about the general way it was written and the characters characterized than any specific passages or moments.

[darkfalcon-z]

Essentially a funeral is a positive recognition that the person lived and that they mattered to others, regardless ow what kind of rites are used. As such this positive recognition is what pacifies suffering spirits and lets them pass on or at least rest in their graves rather than wander the world. It stands to reason funerary rites would be just as effective in one culture as they are in others. What would matter would be the deceased not being able to recognise the actions of the living as proper affirmation of their living. Hence, while most people were abused and treated unjustly in life, vast majority of them never transforms into fierce corpses or ghost.

Most people are scared and suffer many negative emotions when they are dying. Bu there are few things to consider here. Not all negative emotions, even very powerful ones, creates resentment (psychologically). Resentment isn't simply negative feeling, but something that festers, stews, lingers, it is akin to obsession or fixation. People, who experienced powerful negative feelings may be more likely to turn them into powerful resentment but this is not a simple cause and effect process. Likewise people, who experienced injustice in life may be more likely to form resentment, but in great deal that depends on how they responded to the unjust treatment both emotionally and with actions - both people who saw suffering the injustices as something divine being would reward them after death (any other positive or neutral narrative about suffering would do here) and people who fought for themselves (if you addressed the injustice already you're not going to be so resentful over it) in life may not carry much resentment. On the other had overprivilaged assholes my form dangerous levels of resentment over inconsequential things they've seen as offences (see how many people develop resentment ow women and minorities in real life).

We've seen in the book that people may die in absolutely horrifying, most unjust circumstances and not carry much resentment - WWX becomes perfectly harmless wandering ghost, Wen Remnants save everyone during the second siege, XXC's soul shattered, A-Qing tried to get people who wandered into Yi City safely away. It's unlikely that without resentment vast quantiles of resentful energy would be created. Also, resentment has a lot to do with blame attribution (or misattribution), people just thinking "why me?" when dying wouldn't necessarily caused problems, but people thinking "this is someone's fault and they should answer for it" would.

As such in order to create waterbornabys people dying on Titanic would need to have on average significantly more resentment, than people usually do when they die, otherwise they would be pacified by the funerary rights. And not on a scale of just some percentage of them turning into water ghouls, but for most of them to contribute to the abyss. On the other hand they would need not to have a "positive" mission that would cause their spirits to travel to hunt the shipping company's owners or whoever else they've seen as responsible because that would also decrease how much resentful energy stayed on site.

I'm pretty sure that waternborn abysses would be more likely to form not on the sites of high profile disasters but multiple smaller ones that had not been addressed by anyone, from ongoing negligence from authorities towards the safety of local people, or where corpses were dumped after being murdered or simply because no one wanted to bother with giving them funerals, so in areas near shore or inland waters, with resentful energy accumulating overtime but not being direct towards any particular target.

I don't thing negative emotions of the living would caused the situation to go worse - those can be positively directed towards the deceased - like remorse or longing. On the other hand the emotions like anger can be used to constructively address the injustices, to tell the stories of those who died. The lack of negative emotions would be unnatural. It's not bad for people to have negative emotions. It's not what creates or contributes to resentment. Resentful energy isn't about bad vibes.

Love the things that mxtx does to my brain cause I saw a post about ocean gate and started wondering how big a waterborne abyss the titanic would’ve caused

[mbti-notes]

Do you have an opinion on the affects of social media on developing cognitive functions, specifically teenagers? I am asking with regard to navigating my son's adolescence. He is 16 and while the last few years have been more turbulent than previous years (with no doubt more to come) I think the road has been made substantially smoother as a direct result of me being able to access your blog, thank you. I don't feel inclined to limit his social media use, it's a part of life now, but it would be

[con’t: helpful to have some signs to look out for. I originally typed my son as Si dom with T preference and was trying to encourage his Te but now I’m thinking he’s more like INTP so I’ve changed my strategy to keep an open mind (and develop the patience of a saint LOL) and help him make the right decisions for himself. He has become more reckless and scattered lately with high value placed on acceptance from friends. Could this be Ne or does social media have a larger influence?]

I’m glad that you find the blog helpful and I admire your devotion to parenting. You raise a lot of interesting issues, though I may not be the best person to ask since I tend to have a negative opinion of social media. Parenting teenagers requires walking a very, very fine line between giving them enough guidance to avoid bad decision making vs giving them enough freedom to learn proper independence. It’s a very hard job. Sometimes, the only way to know that you’ve veered too far one way or the other is by making the mistake and then adjusting your approach - lots of trial and error. Every kid is an individual, so what works for one kid won’t necessarily work for another. Being able to adapt to their needs is the key point. It’s art more than science.

Everything has its positive and its negative side. Human beings tend to be short-sighted and easily rationalize bad decision making. When they really want to do something, they are much more likely to envision the benefits of doing it and this then blinds them to the costs. To be a good parent, I think it’s important to teach children how to recognize negative consequences and navigate them more intelligently (i.e. objective assessment of pros and cons that produces rational decision making). However, this is only possible if parents themselves are capable of it. You can’t expect kids to learn how to do something well without someone to teach them or model it for them. Unfortunately, I know plenty of adults of all ages who misuse social media just as badly as their kids. Kids learn predominantly through example, so you have to be the first one to follow the rules that you set. If you don’t follow any rules yourself, they won’t see the point in following any, either. For example, if all they see of you is your nose in your device, why would they put theirs down?

I don’t believe in banning kids from social media, but I do think it’s a good idea to be smart in limiting its usage. Social media shouldn’t be a substitute for real and meaningful human interaction, it shouldn’t take up so much time that important things get neglected, it shouldn’t interfere with maintaining good physical and mental health, and it shouldn’t be used as an escape. Teenagers become harder and harder to supervise as they get older because they increasingly have their own life going on. At a certain point, there’s no imposing rules on them because violating their autonomy only leads to rebellion.

A better strategy is to sit down with them to talk about the importance of using social media in HEALTHY ways, talk about why limits are necessary to avoid the negative/unhealthy aspects of it, and negotiate with them to come up with sensible limits that both of you can live with. If YOU also spend too much time on social media, then it’s even better to join them in adhering to those limits, to model the behavior that you expect from them and give them the feeling of being in it together. When you place limits on one aspect of life, it’s a good idea to expand yourself in other ways so as to minimize the feeling of “missing out”. For example, if you use social media for social connection, then compensate for limiting social media by making more effort to go out and join interesting social activities. Putting limits on fun means increasing boredom, so make sure that the boredom is addressed with a healthier option.

Social media is relatively new, so there isn’t a big enough body of research about its hidden effects or underlying costs. The few studies that have been done about social media mostly seem to suggest that misuse/overuse has very detrimental effects on psychological well-being. The spread of misinformation is a big problem (i.e. it makes people stupid). Cyber-bulling and violation of privacy are big problems. When you are so plugged in to other people’s lives, it’s hard not to engage in social comparison, and this often results in negative self-appraisals that diminish self-regard. This is particularly destructive for teenagers because they haven’t yet developed a very strong sense of self and are very likely to use other people’s judgment as a barometer of their own self-worth. Adolescence is usually the time that people start to grapple with level 2 ego development. It’s important for teenagers to learn how to socialize well and fit in with others, but it’s also important for them to learn the dangers of choosing the wrong socializing methods.

People at level 2 ego development are very prone to: experiencing shame/anxiety/depression via negative social comparisons, blindly following the ingroup (and rejecting the outgroup), and sacrificing self-care as they succumb to peer pressure. Helping them is not a matter of trying to stop them from doing these things, because you can’t, since doing these things is a natural part of that stage of development. What you can do is offer them guidance about self-care and help them think more critically about the best ways to handle peer pressure (i.e. give them options/strategies for working through real situations), in hopes that they’ll learn how to make better decisions. In the event that they make a bad decision, review the mistake with them. Reflect with them to figure out what went wrong and work with them to brainstorm ideas for how to avoid the same mistake in the future. Ask them what they could’ve done differently (this encourages N development). The PAIN of making mistakes is an efficient way to learn, which means that you shouldn’t be in there “helping” to the point that they don’t feel the pain of their mistakes.

Discipline is necessary for giving kids a sense of structure. To internalize a sense of structure is to possess a mental framework for making good decisions (usually requires developing the judging functions). At the very least, a child should have their parent’s way of critical thinking at hand whenever they aren’t able to solve a problem entirely on their own (i.e. “what would mom/dad advise me to do?”). Always be transparent, fair, and consistent in how you punish kids by explaining your decision, why it’s necessary, and what lesson it’s meant to teach them (e.g. self-care, intelligence, respect, patience, etc). This makes it more likely that they eventually internalize your moral lessons and learn to use them even when you’re not present. If you punish unfairly or disproportionately, if you’re a hypocrite, or if you’re inconsistent with punishments, you risk losing their respect, which, in their mind, means that they no longer have to listen to you.

Unfortunately, some kids don’t learn well the first time around and you have to discipline them to get the point across. You can develop a punishment scale that begins with a mild punishment for the first mistake and then increase the severity of the punishment for every instance of repeating the mistake. While I admire your patience, I’m sure you know that laissez faire parenting also has its problems. Overly permissive parents run the risk of losing their child’s respect because it’s easy to fall into the trap of devaluing your own needs whenever the child tests your rules and boundaries, and they will absolutely trample your boundaries if you give the impression of not having any. When you devalue your position of authority in the relationship, you encourage kids to do the same, and then you become a mere source of food or money and nothing else to them. This also enables them to be narcissistic in their approach to others.

I’m not sure how good you are at communicating, just in case it’s needed, I’ll continue on to say that I believe that one of the most important elements of parenting is establishing a strong sense of trust. If your kid trusts you, they’ll feel more confident about making independent decisions because they know that you’re there to help them should they need it, and sometimes it’s enough that you’re with them “spiritually” in their memory of lessons learned. The best way to build trust is to keep the lines of communications open. Good communication isn’t about trying to pry information or performing the role of judge jury and executioner. People, let alone teenagers, won’t want to communicate with you if they suspect that all you’re doing is judging them or just looking for an excuse to criticize them (and teens likely get enough of this from their peers).

Communication should come from the heart, use inquiry and sharing of feelings to show that you genuinely care about what’s going on with them. Good communication should work both ways: listen to each other carefully, be transparent about your motives, be honest about how you feel and what you need, negotiate compromises, and respect each other’s individual autonomy. You should model the kind of respect that you want them to give to you (I can’t count the number of times that I’ve seen parents trying to teach their kids to be more respectful… by shouting at them angrily). When they are out of line, remain calm, hear what they’re feeling (validation), then explain to them that you/people are more likely to take them seriously when they express their feelings maturely. Give them an example sentence of how to express feelings or requests respectfully.

Teenagers are emotional creatures, they live in the emotions of now and don’t respond well to appeals to the future. This can’t be helped because it’s part of adolescent brain development, so give them some leeway to get their feelings out, but use the chance to teach better communication methods. Sometimes it’s necessary to give them cooling off time before instigating a serious discussion. Recklessness is usually rooted in emotion. Some kids are reckless out of boredom, some out of anxiety, etc. Try to identify the underlying emotion that’s motivating the problem and then you’ll have a better chance of coming up with a good solution. For example, if boredom (or excess energy) is the motivation, then enroll them in productive activities to fill up their time. If anxiety is the motivation, then they need to learn better emotional management skills, perhaps get them a bit of light counseling on the topic from school or a local community organization.

An important part of establishing trust that is often overlooked is the notion of equality. A parent-child relationship is naturally unequal in power, but it doesn’t have to be excessively and unnecessarily unequal. There are a lot of different kinds of communication, since people communicate with different intents/purposes depending on the circumstances. More often than not, parents only talk to their kids in “parent mode” of ordering them around, interrogating them, or criticizing them. If this is the only mode that kids get to see from you, then they will view you as an authoritarian and their approach to you will be rooted in fear of punishment and the desire for escape. This makes it very difficult for them to trust you because you’ve taught them that your role is to supervise and discipline and nothing else, which means that everything they do will be as far away from your watchful warden eyes as possible.

There’s no avoiding “parent mode” as a parent. However, you can avoid making that the ONLY mode. A better strategy is to pick your battles wisely so that you use parent mode as sparingly as possible, especially with teenagers that are always pressing you for more freedom. But if you’re not using parent mode, then you have to know how to communicate with them in other modes, otherwise, communication tends to dry up quickly. To build trust, do more activities with them and spend more time talking to them in a way that establishes both of you as persons on equal footing. To be clear, I’m not talking about the cliche of being friends with your kids; I believe that you should maintain the position of parental authority until they reach adulthood. I’m talking about communicating heart-to-heart so that they get to know who you are outside of your parental role. Be more willing to share your feelings with them such that they feel encouraged to share theirs with you. Within reason, share with them what’s on your mind and let them in on what’s happening in your private world. You don’t want to let them in completely, however, because you still need to command enough respect to have some authority over them. Talk about problems you’ve encountered or struggled with and how you felt about them, but also talk about what you did to resolve them, which gives them good examples to learn from.

Rebellion is a natural reaction to feeling excessively restricted, and it’s natural for teenagers to feel restricted regardless of whether you are objectively restricting them, because their main preoccupation is independence. Children tend to project their psychological problems onto their parents, and you can make it harder for them to demonize you by humanizing yourself enough for them to empathize with your experience. By communicating in heart-to-heart mode more often than in listen-and-obey mode, they learn that the relationship between you matters in its quality of love and care, not just in whether they follow your rules. When you successfully establish a sense of mutual appreciation for each other, they learn to see you as a person with your own needs and desires, and then they’ll have less desire to rebel against you. If your kid understands that your “parent mode” is just one part of you but that the greater part of you is a fellow human, then their rebellion is likely to take a softer, more respectful form. As a result of trust and good communication, they are more likely to consider negotiating with you first before running off to do something dumb just to spite you. Let them know that you’re always open to calm and sensible negotiations/compromises because it gives them the sense of having some say in the matter. As you gradually “equalize” the relationship through heart-to-heart communication, it’s then easier to transition into an adulthood friendship with them in the future.

From the child’s perspective, I distinctly remember when my parents switched modes with me, perhaps you can recall your experience as well. My mother had a strict rule of never involving kids in adult affairs, ever. Both of my parents come from big families and they all grew up together in a small town (11 siblings between them), so there was always lots of drama going on behind the scenes, but my brother and I were completely oblivious to it growing up. My parents were quite stoic with us and we never really knew what they were thinking, so the relationships were often quite strained because communication was virtually non-existent.

You can imagine my shock when, one day, in my twenties, I was just minding my own business as usual and mom comes into the room and complains about this or that relative. She proceeds to tell me the entire 20+ year backstory of their horrible relationship. I thought she had gone mad for spilling all this shocking info to me out of the blue. Signs of early onset dementia already? But then I realized that this was a role change. I was no longer the kid who had to be kept in the dark. I was now a person who was worthy of being treated as a confidant and even someone smart enough to seek advice from. It was a bittersweet moment. Sweet because, starting in adolescence, people hanker to be treated as an adult by their parents. Bitter because she had decisively given up her authoritarian role and now I had absolutely no cause to keep rebelling against her, lol. The point is, she could’ve given up her authoritarian role more gradually by easing me into the role change in mid-to-late adolescence. We wasted many years being at odds with each other because she couldn’t recognize the ways that I had matured. And some parents aren’t flexible enough to ever make the switch.

In the end, you can only do your best. If I had to come up with a motto about parenting it would be that “Attention is love”. Just be attentive and respond to what’s important to them. Teens appreciate your care even when they don’t show it or claim to not want it, so long as you respect their emotional needs.

PS: There’s already a parenting title on the resources list about teenagers and social media that might be of help.