#That's the fundamental difference between the good and the bad sides... of the Force | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bethanythebogwitch · 1 year ago

Text

My favorite magic system from a game I haven't actually played is from Mage: the Ascension. It kind of fits as both a hard magic system and a soft magic system at the same time because there are some hard rules, but its mostly very open. To become a mage you have to realize that reality is not what it seems. In MtA, reality is whatever the majority of people believe it is, known as the consensus. The consensus in modern days is pretty uniform everywhere, with small variations based on where you are, but it used to be wildly different based on the cultural beliefs of the local people. A mage is a person who realizes that the consensus isn't true reality and gains to power to act outside of its rules. Any given mage's abilities come from their own personal view of reality, known as their paradigm. A mage's magic can do basically anything, as long as it is accounted for in their paradigm. So a mage who's paradigm includes the classic Aristotelian elements can perform magic based on that, but if their paradigm doesn't include animistic spirits then they can't commune with those spirits even though other mages could based on their own paradigm. The problem with this is that the consensus doesn't like it when you go around breaking its rules and will punish mages by slapping them with an effect called paradox. Paradox can be anything from a spell failing to getting shunted into your own personal pocket universe. Nothing generates paradox like being seen doing magic by sleepers (people who are not mages and still live fully within the consensus). Most mages either only use magic around other mages or, if they need to cast around sleepers, will disguise their magic as a mundane effect. Someone throwing a fireball from their hands will generate major paradox because the consensus is that people can't do that. However if a mage holds a lighter up to a spraycan before casting their fireball, the sleepers can rationalize it as something that exists within the consensus and not as much paradox will be generated.

In the dark ages, magic was part of the consensus and mages could openly rule over the sleepers because everyone believed in magic and therefore magic was part of the consensus. In response to the tyranny of the mages, a group was formed called the League of Reason, who wanted to introduce a new form of magic to the consensus that everyone could use. This form of magic was based on logic and reason and was called science. This led to the ascension war, where the League of reason sought to remove magic and superstition from the consensus and a very loose coalition of mages called the Council of Nine Mystic Traditions want to keep magic in the consensus. And the League of Reason won. A mostly rationalistic, scientific worldview has become the consensus worldwide, forcing the Council into operating underground. The League of Reason has become the Technocracy, a worldwide secret organization ruling the world from the shadows and trying to stamp out magic and any other form of "reality deviants" to keep humanity safe, even if they have to suppress basic human imagination to do so. Notably, the earliest books for the game very much said "Traditions good, Technocracy bad", but later books went for a much more grey approach to the conflict between them, making it clear that both sides really are doing what they think is in humanity's best interest even if their ideas for how to do so are fundamentally incompatible.

What's really interesting is that science and technology really are a form of magic and technocrats are mages, even if the Technocracy would vehemently deny this. Technology is a form of magic that everyone can use because its part of the consensus and science doesn't discover new facts about the world, It creates those facts and applies them to the world. The Technocracy's super-advanced technology creates paradox just as much as magic does because personal anti-gravity suits and mass-produced clones violate the consensus just like throwing around fireballs and conjuring demons does.

Mage: the Ascension is a super fun setting because just about any fantasy or sci-fi trope can exist here. Classic pointy hat and wand wizards can battle cyborgs armed with self-replicating nanotechnology. Anti-authoritarian punks can hack your wallpaper to spy on you because they believe all reality is part of a unified mathematical whole that the internet gives us access to. A group of spacefarers can ride the luminiferous aether to mars only to encounter Aztec shamans who asked the spirits to carry them there thousands of years ago. A powerful mage can create a time loop by convincing their younger self to obtain enlightenment through the power of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Two people can have an argument over whether the guy they just met was an alien from Alpha Centauri or an elf from the Norse nine realms and both of them can be right. Animistic spirit-callers can upload themselves to the internet to combat spirits of malware. And an angry mage might just teleport you into the sun because they believe distance is just an illusion and therefore have the power to make anything go anywhere with a thought. It's a wild ride.

#mage the ascension #tabletop games #ttrpg #world of darkness #old world of darkness #magic system #mage #fantasy #science fiction #technocracy #technocratic union #council of nine mystic traditions #lore

269 notes · View notes

delicateperspective · 27 days ago

Note

Would you consider being a larrie a form of activism?

i ask because i volunteered at my library’s lgbt alliance this year for pride month hoping to make irl larrie friends but nobody had heard of it until i told them, and even then they didn’t care.

I stopped going when after i suggested we make awareness posters about closeting, one person said “people are dying and you want to waste out time on boyband shipping!?” The other people said that person didn’t have to be mean about it but in a way that still basically agreed that they thought my idea was bad without saying it directly.

Maybe this is less of a question and more just me venting about embarrassing myself… Has something like this ever happened to you?

to answer your initial question in generic terms: it depends on what you do with it. plenty of people are just here for the ship. for the edits. for the warm fuzzy moments. and if that’s how they choose to engage with it, then thats their choice.

but i think a lot of us have taken it further than that. we’ve applied all that we’ve learned and seen to real-life, boots-on-the-ground activism for lgbtq+ causes. like you just mentioned.

what you just experienced is a bit double-sided.

on one hand, there are layers and layers of misogyny placed on the general public’s view of boy bands. it’s a thing that young women love, so it must be trivial, right? how dare it include serious topics like forced closeting, the capitalistic commodification of artists, abuse within the entertainment industry, etc.

on the other hand, somewhere in your city is a homeless queer kid forced out of their home because of who they love. somewhere in your city is a kid thinking of ending their life because they’ve been told that who they are, on a fundamental level, is wrong. somewhere in your city, a queer couple is worried about holding hands in public.

two things can be true at once. we can advocate for the artists we love while ALSO using our voice for the most venerable in our own communities.

and i think there needs to be a bit of a balance. a “there is a time in place” kind of thing.

true advocacy always starts at home. in your own community. making a world a safer place for the queer kid at your local middle school ALSO makes it a safer place for people like L&H.

but i’m not saying you were wrong to suggest a poster on closeting. it’s definitely something that SHOULD be talked about. and the person who reduced and belittled your idea clearly doesn’t understand the global impact of it and how it shapes the general public’s view of queerness as inherently dirty or wrong.

i’d encourage you to give it another shot. maybe not there but at some sort of other form of activism or charity work. not everyone is always going to have the same views, not everyone is going to have the same outlook - but you should all at least be there for the same reason: the desire to make the world a safer, more accepting place.

and to answer your last question: not so much as a larrie, but as an advocate in general i’ve run across many who don’t particularly feel the same way i do about various issues. any time you use your voice, any time you take a stand on something, there is going to be others out there that feel differently. so i’ve definitely experienced opposition even from people who are supposed to be “on my side” so to speak. sometimes it’s good, constructive criticism to sit and think with. and sometimes it’s rooted in their own flaws or narrow world view. the challenge we have as humans is to try to differentiate between the two.

but don’t ever let someone else’s ignorance push you away from standing up for others. the world NEEDS people to use their voices for love and freedom and acceptance. if the kind are silent, only the hateful are heard.

#anon #lits perspective

20 notes · View notes

maxdibert · 4 months ago

Note

I saw that fic claiming that Sirius wouldn't have done the prank as well and LOL there's no character in the whole saga more inclined to fuck up that particular way than him - he's loyal, sure, but he's got a bad temper, he's impulsive and he's cruel. Sirius being flawed is what makes him one of the best characters!! The prank is one of the indirect reasons that lands him in Azkaban, when no one in his life doubts him capable of being a traitor because he's done it before!! These people just want things to be so painfully boring - everything is Snape's fault, so they don't have to think about the moral ramifications of their faves' actions any deeper, they can just go back to making HCs about how Sirius is dumb and overdramatic and can't spend more than five minutes away from Remus

Sirius was morally very questionable—he had been raised to legitimize sadism as long as it served a purpose he deemed good. He grew up in an environment where the ends justified the means, and he believed his ends were good. He had been taught to dehumanize those who didn’t think like him, and even though he chose the “good side,” his elitist and violent upbringing showed in moments like that.

Sirius was also a pretty uncontrollable force—James was the only one who could really rein him in, and moments like that make it clear that the only person Sirius truly cared about was James; everyone else was secondary. He was a very contradictory person because he chose a side that went against every foundation he was raised on. But no matter how much you rationally understand that something is right, if you don’t make a conscious effort to understand your flaws, confront your contradictions, and work on them, you’ll always repeat previously learned patterns and behaviors—no matter how loudly you claim to reject them.

Sirius is interesting because among the “good” characters, he’s the most morally grey and questionable of all. There’s a level of violence and rage in him that’s incompatible with someone who claims to be a bearer of morality and a defender of good. He’s capable of committing real atrocities without giving a damn or feeling guilty about it. He’s elitist, he’s egocentric.

James was raised to understand that killing someone was a line that shouldn’t be crossed—that’s why he stops Severus from dying. Sirius wasn’t. Sirius was taught to believe that the lives of those he considered enemies weren’t worth anything. Don’t take that away from him. Don’t erase that difference between him and James, because it’s vital.

It’s crucial to understand that the reason they were so close—why they were best friends—was because they shared everything: blood status, social class, personality, cruelty. But there was one fundamental difference: one had been taught limits, and the other hadn’t.

Don’t erase the cruelty. Sirius’s cruelty is essential because it teaches us that just like people with bad intentions can have good moments (like Narcissa), people with good intentions can have truly awful ones.

#Sirius black #Sirius Orión Black #Sirius black meta #Sirius black analysis #marauders era #the marauders #remus lupin #the prank #james potter #Severus Snape

50 notes · View notes

drbased · 3 months ago

Text

Deconstructing Conservative Rhetoric About 'Art'

So. I occasionally stumble upon the 'obviously fascist' side of tumblr, and today I discovered one of these blogs talking about what makes 'true art'. I've dissected TRA talking points before and so I shall do this one. It's a really long post, so I'm only providing screenshots of the parts that are relevant:

The first thing that struck me about these paragraphs is their similarity towards feminist analysis - specifically, what I have read in Dworkin's Pornography and Griffin's Pornography and Silence. OOP references the difference between the pornographic and the erotic. Whilst feminists would agree that pornography is dehumanising where eroticism is natural, healthy desire, that is where the similarity ends. Throughout these paragraphs you'll see how the patriarchy constructs these unspoken ideologies which feminism recognises and dissects.

A perfect example of this phenomenon is how eroticism and lust are rendered entirely separate categories. Eroticism is 'natural, healthy' sexual desire, and a 'fundamental part of the human condition'. Lust, despite also being something humans are capable of having, is separated into its own separate category, thus implying that it's not a fundamental part of the human condition. For all the right is obsessed with the left inventing language to 'redefine reality', the above is a perfect example of a patriarchal construction that has no definition outside of its own circular logic. The idea here is that there is 'good sexual appetite' and 'bad sexual appetite' and that these are conditions that are so distinct that they warrant categorisation. The complexity of the human condition and the various psychological factors that result in rape and sexual violence can be neatly isolated and packaged up as a result of the pseudo-spiritual evil force of 'lust'. Under right-wing thought, everything is categorised and simplified, so we never have to examine the construction of our world as a result of human thought processes and values and so hierarchies are preserved.

Additionally, there is demonstrated here another aspect to symbolic thought that I have discussed elsewhere: the implicit rejection of causality. The dehumanisation, rape and sexual violence caused by lust is used as proof of its inherent evil, rather than the other way around. So, then, an individualist narrative is formed of lust being the 'inner demon' that men are in struggle against: sexual violence is reframed not as something that men do to women to gain and sustain power, but instead a pseudo- - or actual - spiritual force that is inherently evil, and so women become props in men's inner struggle.

This narrativising of causality and morality as something inherent and 'above reality' allows for ad-hoc justification of anything that benefits the person. And this narrativising is present in another aspect of these paragraphs: note that pornography, and the sexual violence associated with it, is scapegoated as a 'modern' phenomenon. Once again, said sexual violence is implied to be 'proof' of the inherent corrupting (note the usage of 'perverting': a dog-whistle-esque term alluding to the corruption of the natural order) and evil force of pornography-fuelled lust, rather than an atrocity in its own right.

This is a dogwhistle towards liberal values: men, who have dehumanised, controlled, raped and impregnated women without the modern conceptions of 'pornography' for longer than written human history, imply that said rape and objectification is a product of deviant male sexuality caused by some pseudo-spiritual societal sickness - one that has nothing to do with patriarchy. Conservative men rightly recognise the evils of rape and dehumanisation in theory, but in practice they implicitly understand them to be the bedrock of male power. So it is within their best interests to deflect; to tell themselves and women that yes, men commit evil deeds, but if we religiously stick to our agreed-upon roles and hierarchies, we can at least mitigate the damage caused by men, or at least we can be psychologically comforted by believing that if we do things 'right' then we are safe. So, then, the patriarchy constructs a model of male sexual violence as something inherently aberrant and associated with the 'other': thus other violences can be justified, and atrocities within the 'in-group' can be downplayed. Whenever a man commits a heinous act we can be collectively reassured that he's 'not a real man'.

Meanwhile, the other major implicit assumption here is that within every man (and possibly every woman, although as you may notice as I share further screenshots, he never really addresses how women process the world), there lies this fundamental desire to dehumanise that is associated with sexual desire. As we've seen, he attempts to distinguish between 'good' sexual desire vs 'bad' sexual desire, and his use of 'Christendom' indicates the ideological position he holds. And once again, we see this same rejection of causality: 'good' sexual desire naturally exists within the context of 'the sacrament of marriage'. The implicit assumption here is that marriage is some inherent good, which results in the sexual desire within it being inherently good. This is of course something feminists reject outright.

And now, onto the meat of what I wanted to talk about:

So. If you thought I was stretching when I called those other things dogwhistles, then perhaps this will convince you. I'm going to take apart line by line why this is completely bullshit:

'Here the body is perfectly at rest': what does rest have to do with the erotic? Isn't a dead body also 'at rest'? I am as inherently alive as an erotic being when I'm doing the fucking grocery shopping as when I'm lounging in my pants at home. I'm being facetious, of course - the significance of this, that I will expand on later, is clearly in the desire to see femaleness as the natural opposite of maleness. Maleness is active where femaleness is passive. Men see femaleness as a pseudo-child-like state, whereby men make sacrifices to provide women with luxuries. And so, the healthy and natural state of things is demonstrated by the woman being portrayed as at rest: she is inactive, but she is content with that.

'The Venus could be clothed from head to toe, and her natural posture need not change in the slightest': This betrays the patriarchal belief about sexual desire: that men are inherently desiring and women desired, and that the female body inherently invites male lust, and therefore sexual violence. It is important that she looks as if she could be clothed, because that means she's simply naturally nude, and not posing sexually. Of course, there are deeply sinister undertones to all this: it is important she is both at rest and also could be clothed, which in short means it's important that she displays no outward signs of sexual desire. For all the waxing lyrical about her not being objectified, it is paradoxically important that she plays the role of a sexless being, being desired by the active male.

'The viewer is drawn automatically to her face, which veils her nude body from perversity': and here it couldn't be any more obvious that the female body is believed to contain some natural perversity which drives men to commit evil deeds. Men have to be reminded that women have human faces in order to remember that they're human and therefore don't deserve to be raped.

'You cannot objectify this woman, her flesh is off-limits to base appetites': This woman is literally a painting. She is literally an object. She is depicted nude for, as he wilfully admits, the 'male gaze'. Whilst in his mind, this painting demarcates a clear boundary between pornography and erotic art, a feminist would question this construction. This man is desperately attempting to justify looking at a naked woman as if it tells him something about the nature of humanity and eroticism through art. But for all his posturing about how art enriches us, all he's done is betray the same patriarchal beliefs that were likely also used to justify the painting's creation.

Also, I'd like to point out a few other aspects of this painting that to me, as a living human woman with 'flesh and spirit and entwined', read to me as distinctly un-erotic (i.e. displaying the exact kind of misogynistic dehumanisation you would expect from a patriarchal pornographic mindset):

As I've already stated, the fact that she's just lounging and showing no active interest in anything, let alone sex.

How pale and smooth she is. She looks like a fucking porcelain doll. There's no sense of her having interacted with the physical world.

The lighting in this piece is really odd - despite the huge black mass behind her that would surely place her in shadow, she looks as if she's under a bright spotlight. There's no real sense of shadow on her. She's entirely isolated from the environment around her - divorced from material reality, divorced from causality, as if to emphasise that she is there to be on display for the viewer.

The lack of body hair. She's a full-grown adult, and adulthood is where we develop our spirit of eroticism. For all the allusions to deviant male sexuality, if you didn't know any better you might be mistaken in thinking that healthy male sexuality that would require an erotic attraction to adult women with pubic hair. But pubic hair has been suspiciously absent in 'art' of naked women long before what we now call 'pornography' has become mainstream in the 'modern world'.

There are people in the background. Including what looks like a child. I notice he doesn't mention this at all. Especially since by his own admission, what makes eroticism so powerful and healthy is that it's of 'two becoming one' - but the privacy and intimacy of eroticism is surely lost when other people are depicted nearby. But I almost wonder if the existence of the other people actually bolsters the eroticism for him in a sense. Because if there are other people around, then she is further restricted from displaying sexual desire, and the presumed male in this scenario is also restricted from initiating sex: eroticism is thus separated from 'lust' by reminding the man that he can't fuck her at will. Of course, you'd think the fact that she's a human being who might not want sex would be enough to turn him off, but instead he requires external signifiers to remind him not to rape. This could indicate to us that her perceives eroticism less as an active force and more a lack of dehumanising lust. The existence of other people I think adds another aspect to this: broadly, conservatives believe that women should be private property, and liberals believe that women should be public property. But conservatives are also perfectly happy to bend rules to their will, as their entire ideological construction merely exists to preserve power. So if it benefits them to present the supposed sacred and vulnerable female body as something that's actually for public consumption, they will happily do that. The longer I consider the existence of other people engaging in their active lives in the background of this supposedly 'erotic' painting, the more I see this painting as some sort of intrinsic 'threat' to women: your body is naturally erotic, and no matter where you are or whatever situation you're in, if a man sees your naked form he views you as an object of his lust.

So I don't need to say as much about this second image, as it's mostly the same rhetoric. I will concede that he does address that she is a woman who actually does things. Curiously he says that her features are 'hardened' - hardened as opposed to what? As opposed to the other painting, where the woman looks like she's had the smoothing tool vigorously applied to her whole body? This women is still obscenely pale, with no areolas, no body/pubic hair, and nothing even resembling wrinkles. Her face looks less yassified and her stomach has marginally more definition than the other one, but to call her 'hardened' is patently absurd. This man is once again proving that for all these bodies are 'unashamed', he believes what makes a woman erotic is her being pure, untouched, inactive and - ahem - child-like.

'She too is off-limits': The overall impression we can get from these passages is that a woman has to display the most cartoonishly obvious humanity in order for a man to not view her as an object of lust (an allusion to a desire to rape her). For him, eroticism comes not from mutual desire, and instead from the thrill of crossing a boundary. The idea is that she has walls up, and there is excitement in conquering him. I've said before how men conceptualise rape and sex as functionally synonymous, and that 'consent' is merely the point at which she submits to his will: that ideologically is laid stunningly clear here; whilst this man clearly condemns rape, he processes eroticism through the same lens as rapists do - he, too, is sexually excited by the idea of her lack of consent. He, like all men, establishes a boundary at which point said excitement is morally bad - but every man who crosses a woman's boundary has the same justification.

'Theirs is not a nudity of advertising or intentional display, but instead of total leisure': he attempts to allude to the objectification of women in pornography whilst bypassing pornography's function in displaying women for male gratification. And that's what conservatives do - create arbitrary classifications for the purpose of creating some 'other' where deviancy lies. The argument of eroticism vs lust is a smokescreen so he can avoid addressing the real ideological position of pornography. After all, it's funny that he admits that these women aren't intentionally displaying themselves, when pornography where women are accidentally exposed is widespread. The idea that she is just lounging perpetuates his belief in the psuedo-spiritual inherent eroticism of the 'female form' (a helpful belief system to have when you want to construct a society where men can own and forcibly impregnate women), and it also fulfils the narrative of the erotic force of her lack of consent. We're supposed to believe that her lounging for a photo is somehow less fake than pornography - which it categorically is not, and I can't believe I had to say that. She's still posing, it's still fake, the only difference is she's expected not to show sexual desire. So if anything, you might even argue that (ideologically, at least) this is actually a bit worse than pornography that depicts a woman desiring sex and enjoying herself.

THERE'S A FUCKING BLACK SLAVE? SERVANT IN THE PICTURE. Where's her humanity, where's her eroticism? A white, extraordinarily pale naked lady gets to lounge, and its erotic that she 'could be clothed' but the black woman in mid-motion fully dressed isn't erotic? I think it's absolutely telling that in both these 'erotic' images there are whole other people in the picture. I can't say confidently that he chose these specifically because of the other people, but the fact that he's not turned off by them, the fact that he doesn't even mention their presence, speaks volumes. He's trying to construct a view of healthy eroticism that's supposedly about the connection between two real living beings and he chooses images of women showing no desire, doing nothing, next to other real human beings who aren't addressed at all. Mind you, given his political views I don't imagine he even recognises the black woman's humanity.

So these are two images that are supposedly erotic art. You wanna see what they're contrasted against?

'an unnatural and inexplicable pose that she would never hold if she was fully clothed': I will cede that women are placed in unnatural poses for the purposes of dehumanisation for male gratification. And there is definitely an element of that here - it's plain to see that the pose was chosen less because of its dynamism and more because of it showing off her bum. And the legs apart has some allusions to sexual positions - many women hump pillows in positions like this. But its allusions to more explicit things don't make it somehow less exploitative than the other images - she's equally as nude, equally the center of attention, equally on display. In fact, you could argue that she's actually less explicit here because all her bits are covered - no areola-less nipples are on display, and you could at least imagine that she has a bush.

It's funny to me that once again he prizes the idea of purity in a naked through how well he can imagine the woman being clothed. It's frankly just silly that he's trying to claim that this pose has anything to do with clothes - it's transparent grasping at straws to attempt to cover up his real desire to see women with boundaries that he could theoretically transgress. He wants to see nude women, but the desire to see nude women doesn't square with his conservative sensibilities, so he makes up this fiction that as long as she 'could be' clothed, she still has those boundaries, so she's still a viable candidate for possession by him. And to further illustrate that she has boundaries, she has to not show an indication that she wants sex, and that includes being a living, breathing, active human being: so, she must be still. She cannot resemble a clothed woman whilst naked, because without clothes the line between 'madonna' and 'whore' is blurred - so he has to find other signifiers that she is still the chaste, unsullied woman whose boundaries he desires to transgress.

'The face is another red flag, as it has no feature to play in the body's composition, and we have no reason to be drawn towards it': once again we have a clear admission that this man has such a shaky grasp of women's inherent humanity that he thinks not being able to see the face full-on means she ceases to be a subject and so becomes an object of lust. Don't get me wrong, there is real criticism to be made here: if she's looking 'off-screen', then this image is voyeuristic; at least in the other paintings there is some allusion to the existence of consent. But in this context, the woman is in a pose that, despite what he wants to claim, is clearly not designed to display herself sexually to the viewer. There's a real irony in that, actually - in the other paintings, the woman is directly looking at the viewer whilst fully naked, clearly implying that she is posing: literally on display. And yet in this context the woman is not posing elegantly and is looking off-screen, alluding to a much more natural context. It's clear his definition of 'on display' is, once again, divorced from reality - the inherent sexual nature of her body is such that moving whilst naked is enough to categorise her as 'on display'.

'Whether she is intentionally avoiding our gaze or is simply unaware of it, her subjectivity is compromised': Interesting how a woman's subjectivity is defined by her relationship to a man looking at her. You could argue that we're talking only about the context of a painting here, but it's clear from his rhetoric that he holds a much deeper ideological position that he is merely employing in his analysis of the painting: it is highly likely that he, implicitly or otherwise, views women's subjectivity in such a way.

'and we are free to engage in more lecherous mental activity': you couldn't make it any clearer: sex is something men get from women, and it's women's responsibility to remind men of their humanity so they can avoid men committing atrocities against them. Make no mistake, when he refers to 'lecherous', he is not thinking of this in moral terms - if this was about morality, then he'd have made the kind of analysis that I'm doing. He processes the world through this patriarchal ideological lens, which he exposes in the next sentence:

'This is not the body unashamed, like the Venus or Olympia. Instead, it is the body shameless.' Under the conservative viewpoint, there is the madonna and the whore: the woman whose body is capable of being shamed and yet stays pure, and the woman who has embraced her true nature of the shameless whore. The only distinction between this viewpoint and that of the pornography he denigrates is that pornography does away with the categories and claims that every woman is, deep down, the shameless whore. Both viewpoints come from the same ideological underpinning: that there is something pseudo-spiritually shameful about the female body, and that we are capable of being corrupted by sex. It's a useful viewpoint to have when you want to preserve your power through rape and want to outsource responsibility for your own actions and assuage your guilt.

'Her nudity, while beautiful, is dangerous and borders on advertisement': You couldn't make it any more clear that he does not view rape as an immoral act committed by a conscious actor on a victim. To him, her nudity is dangerous - not the beliefs or actions of the rapist. And despite his claims that our modern liberal society has commodified everything as a product (which, to be fair, it has):

it's evident that he views a woman's body as inherently a product. We can understand that he doesn't actually hate the concept of a product - but, like all conservatives, he wants it categorised. A woman's body could be advertised, but it shouldn't. Despite how much he wants to think of himself as different from those liberals wo view everything as a product, he defaults to referring to a woman being naked as 'borders on advertisement' - he, too, believes that anything, even the supposed sanctity of human eroticism, can be potentially a product.

To him, and by extension all men, the sanctity of human eroticism is vulnerable to all sorts of pseudo-spiritual and symbolic corruption - and that vulnerability is what makes it erotic. The fact that she has boundaries that can be sullied makes said boundaries vulnerable, which generates a high of eroticism. This, as with all symbolic conceptions, is a replacement for the true vulnerability of human eroticism: his eroticism as a living, breathing human being. The 'dangerous' naked woman whose body 'borders on advertisement' is entirely safe because she's just a painting, and so he's safe from having to engage with the reality that a real human woman can hurt him, can reject him. His entire self-conceptualisation as a man is structured about him being the untouchable centre of the universe - he is the presumed audience of the painting, his experience of sexual desire is not just universal but eroticism itself, and so a woman's naked body is advertisement to him. His discomfort and guilt around his desire to commit violence - that only exists because of how he is conditioned to dehumanise women - is outsourced and thus also becomes safe. All the things he likes about himself are good and healthy and natural. All the things he dislikes become narrativised into a psuedo- - or perhaps literal - spiritual and symbolic battle so he can feel that he has control over the universe. Her 'consent' is taken from her, as is her lack of consent, and instead reframed as part of his narrative - his internal struggle with the demons inside him.

When I first read this post, I surprised myself with being intrigued by his attempt to define art. I'd not really seen it done before, so even though I knew I would hate this guy I still decided to read out of sheer curiosity. Besides, it's healthy to know what your ideological position thinks and how they process the world - the youtube series 'The Alt Right Playbook' has given me great insight into the conservative worldview, which is why I recommend it at every turn. And after having read this guy's take on art can't help but think that for all the posturing about how art is enriching and gives you a window into the human experience, as opposed to 'modern art', kitsch etc which are purely products designed, to, well...

Like, this guy spent so much time trying to justify images that are clearly designed to be props that he finds satisfying to look at...

A lot of this argument isn't even terrible - I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about where the line is between art and commodification. But the conservative dogwhistling is so loud that every dog within several miles is howling - like, what's the point, here? What is the material harm caused by the commodification of art? Is this about human exploitation, about conditioning society to consume more and expect less, about training us to be less discerning so we're less susceptible to propaganda? No, it's vague allusions to taste as some psuedo-spiritual good, some inherent 'truth' that exists outside of material reality. This is the conservative viewpoint at its most transparent. He even concludes with 'then one must recognize that, like human beings themselves, not all art (and certainly not all product) is created equal' - as if he was literally tasked with the job to illustrate the right-wing mind so perfectly.

#my writing #theory posting #symbolic states #wowwwww so I checked the wordcount and this is over 4k words #was going to add a quote from pornography and silence but I've spent at least 2 hours writing this at this point

25 notes · View notes

splonk-fox · 1 year ago

Text

Tobecky is one of those ships where it's like, at first glance, you ask why people even see it as a viable pairing. It's not like Becky and Tobey are exactly shown getting along often, it's not the healthiest ship out there, as a matter of fact there are... certain episodes that make the pairing downright toxic (Looking at you Go Gadget Go).

Yet at the same time, I think that's what I like about the ship. In real life, relationships are never a straight path, they require effort from both sides and nine times out of ten there will be road blocks, times when partners do objectively questionable things, that's just how relationships are, and in a weird roundabout way, I feel like Tobecky is a good example of that. Sure Becky and Tobey fight a lot, they disagree about a lot of things and do things that upset each other, but they also understand one another on a fundamental level.

Seriously the parallels between these two is actually sort of surreal. They've both been lumped into this box of being one thing, said thing being expected of them. Becky is expected to do hero work as WordGirl, and Tobey, while nothing is forcing him to be evil, episodes like "Tobey Goes Good" show that when it comes to his mentality, doing bad things is the only way to get people's attention, to make people care about him.

They're both child prodigies who, in a lot of ways, are locked out of a lot of the things that other kids have. Both have families who could never really understand them. Becky for obvious reasons, and Tobey because, as made pretty clear through episodes the center around him, his mother doesn't tolerate his behavior and as far as we can tell, has never tried to understand why he does what he does, instead giving him corporeal punishment via ear pulling (which by the way, she does that to him even when he, to her knowledge, hasn't misbehaved, kinda fucked up if you ask me, coming from someone who had parents who used physical punishment as a way to reprimand their kids).

Another thing to point out when it comes to these two, is that they are both pretty arrogant, Tobey more apparently so than Becky, but Becky clearly takes pride in being WordGirl, and even beyond that there are times where she views her own opinions as above others, whether she realizes it or not. Obviously Tobey is called out on it more, but there are clear signs that Becky's status as a superhero has lead her to gaining a bit of an ego.

Really though, the big thing that I think draws people to this pairing is the rare moments where they aren't fighting, and are instead sitting down, talking, and it's when that happens that the two of them are actually able to get along, that they're able to understand each other, because in a lot of ways, they are the same, just on two different sides of the moral spectrum. I think this is best shown in "The Robot Problem" where the two of them are shown to legitimately be able to work together, Becky even saying that they make a good team.

So to summarize, the thing that makes Tobecky good, at least for me, is not that it's the safest ship, or that it doesn't have moments of toxicity, but rather in how it feels more realistic, more complex than your average pairing, the fact that when it comes down to it, Tobey and Becky understand each other, loathe as they are to admit it.

Alright, that's all. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

#wordgirl #becky botsford #tobey mccallister #tobecky

88 notes · View notes

faelapis · 1 year ago

Note

hotd: team green or black? (or?)

rhaenys thoughts?

rhaenyra x mysaria…???

house of the dragon asks! VERY LONG ANSWERS AHEAD:

1: team green or black?

there's two answers to this - the intellectual answer, and the team sports answer.

the intellectual answer is that this isn't really "the point." both sides have (and will) lose a great deal. there are no winners in war, only survivors. a petty conflict between the rich will result in the death of many.

on a broader, thematic note, my impression is that a big point of the entire "song of ice and fire" is that the unjust hierarchy of monarchy and feudalism hurts people. especially the lower classes. they are affected when lords flex military might, when they put their own survival above the realm, when they act petty, selfish or cowardly, which they frequently do. the rare "peaceful" ruler does not justify the system. the lower classes also suffer the most in war. but the system hurts everyone - even the royals themselves. they are literally killing each other for power.

THAT. BEING. SAID.

i actually disagree with the take that you can't have some fun with the team sports aspect. this is a fictional television show. Fun is allowed. it's drama! murder! crying and screaming!!!

so while HotD has overall thematic messages, the show encourages you to enjoy the back-and-forth between the characters. i don't begrudge people for their stan wars on twitter. we all know this is a fictional show - and its okay to be ruled by your emotions when watching fiction.

so. with that said? team black, 100%. i think they have more compelling characters and reasoning for their cause. fundamentally, their cause is to put a woman on the throne in a society ruled by traditional patriarchy.

look, i love alicent for her complexity. she is a well-written character who makes sense with her society... but she is not a girl's girl. she is trapped both by external forces of patriarchy and its effect on her own mind. she is stuck fighting for men and fulfilling wifely duties - never fighting for herself.

she seems pretty miserable, at the end of the day.

yes, rhaenyra is also complex. she's often a bad person - but sometimes, i like seeing a strong woman on a dragon do some crimes :) especially one who has had to fight for respect as often as rhaenyra. that's compelling tv, even if Monarchy Bad.

the greens have A Point somewhere, about stability > rhaenyra, but they are also clouded by self-interest. they didn't even TRY supporting a woman. (also, remember, this is emotion/vibes-based.)

the "aagon's dream" misunderstand was initially frustrating, which also makes me side against the greens a bit more. i like when characters are compelled by real, sincere differences in opinion. i dislike when it's just a misunderstanding that can be easily quelled.

and alicent DID have real motivations, previously! she was right that rhaenyra would have reason to kill her children to claim legitimacy - even if that's more of a Matter of War now than a real intention of hers early on.

oh well. one good thing about the misunderstanding is that it didn't actually convince anyone other than alicent. otto hightower and the council were already planning a coup. it seems mostly that it was a good tool to further their cause, not something that actually convinced the masses on a deep, personal level. you can also make the case that alicent "heard what she wanted to hear".

but it doesn't really matter because nobody was going to suddenly switch sides. the material reality is more important: the council wanted aagon. otto wanted to secure his interests. alicent wanted to secure her children's safety. the war is already happening, so alicent's misunderstanding being cleared up doesn't change anything.

and it causes alicent to realize she doesn't really have much power. society around her will keep turning, and her influence is very limited. the rabble may hate or worship her, and she has little control over it. she may be important in the council, or dismissed from it. which is leading her on a compelling arc that i'm interested to see where goes!

2: rhaenys thoughts?

very few! uhh... she seemed nice? i like her death scene?

the show seems to use her symbolically as a shorthand for "what a good woman ruler could be like" for the kingdom. but i don't know if it would've played out that way. it is hard to tell, because if she WAS queen, the society she lives in could have turned against her. or maybe she could have found a way to earn their trust. maybe viserys would've been chill enough to support her claim (probably?). but we don't know. she's The Queen Who Never Was (tm).

3: rhaenyra x mysaria?

ok so, i do actually have a hot take on this, cuz i've seen some call it "rushed." it may ruffle some feathers. here we go:

i dont think every gay kiss has to feel like an "earned" 50k slowburn fic. it's well-established that instant or near-instant attraction is a thing. i dont think it will be "endgame," but i dont think it needs to be.

i think sometimes - often in this show - you see a man and a woman meet and fuck the same night. people tend to just accept that. not every case of attraction has to be based on a Deep Bond of Many Years. sometimes, a man and woman on this show have no real bond, yet as soon as they Walk Close to Each Other, it's accepted "they will fuck that night."

i would also suggest that not everything is literal. it's addressed in canon that rhaenyras' attraction to daemon came hand-in-hand with what he represented to her. which was, in a word, freedom. she wanted to BE him more than anything.

if we take a non-literal approach, what might mysaria represent?

right now, i think its rhaenyras desperation for someone to listen to her. her council belittles her for being a woman. it protects her like a "daughter" rather than a ruler. mysaria both listens to her, and plots with her on equal level. in a way, she represents (and yes this is a somewhat cliche thing in gay pairings, but not for no reason!) a sense of equality and mutual understanding in a patriarchal world.

they are not "literally" equal in terms of rank - but again, it does not have to be completely literal. mysaria feels Treated like an equal by rhaenyra. she's trusted (and given agency), and earns rhaenyras trust (+expands her own agency) in turn.

mysaria additionally seems to represent a different idea of rebellion against patriarchy - an involuntary one. because she cannot perform its most core obligation of (presumed cisgender) womanhood: she cannot bear children. she must find other forms of "worth" in the world. she has no choice.

rhaenyra herself desires to take up sword, rule in a "masculine" way. so being the only other woman there + both of them standing outside patriarchys desired paths for them + being able to help/depend on each other... seems, to me, to serve the Themes of rhaenyras repression vs liberation well.

not to mention, it's interesting in light of rhaenyra being kinda gnc-coded in... other ways!

anyway. like i said, i Highly Doubt these two will be any kind of "endgame." but that's okay. sometimes, you dont need an eternity together - you just need a moment.

i think there's a certain breed of fan who sees many things only through shipping. so if there's not a long, "satisfying" arc of these two developing feelings for each other, it's a "badly written ship." especially for gay couples. and i don't think this is even conscious homophobia, i think its (partially from queer viewers!!) because they WANT to root for those ships. they WANT a gay ship to feel perfectly "right" in a heteronormative world.

well i'm sorry to say, this show is not a romance. it is not about ships or the idealized, perfectly developed couple. sometimes, people find an attraction to one another in ways that are not ideal. shit happens. people get lonely. people find relief in the only other person there who seems to understand them. sometimes it's quick. sometimes it's the opposite of a 50k coffeeshop slowburn AU.

but that does not mean it's bad. it's just reality.

#house of the dragon #hotd #hotd spoilers #long post /#gifs /#rhaenyra targaryen #alicent hightower #mysaria #rhaenyra x mysaria #hotd season 2

60 notes · View notes

smoshyourheadin · 1 year ago

Note

spencer agnew enemies to lovers one bed trope

The Start Of Something

pairing: spencer agnew x f!reader

a/n: GUYS IM SO SORRY I KEEP POSTING SO SLOW I HAVE NO MOTIVATION MY BAD THIS IS LIKE RLLY BAD AND RUSHED LMAO I DONT LIKE IT i have better stuff otw i promise (also anon ily for this!!) requests are open <3

working at smosh is pretty great. you’ve been working there about two years now as a producer on smosh games, and you’ve made some darn good videos. the people are amazing, it’s so fun working with literal comedians all day. damien is so kind, shayne is so smart, courtney is so witty, ian is so… morbid? either way, everyone there is family to you. the one thing you don’t like however? spencer.

it all started during your first big project at smosh. you and spencer were both assigned to lead a new series of board af. excited to prove yourself, you put in countless hours to make sure everything was perfect. however, spencer, being spencer, dismissed your detailed plans, opting instead for a spontaneous approach, leading the episodes to be messy, and all around bad quality.

every day at the office is a battlefield. Spencer’s snide comments about your meticulousness clash with your jabs about his unpredictability.

“nice color-coded schedule you got there,” spencer says with a smirk as he passes your desk. “did you plan your bathroom breaks too?”

you roll your eyes, not missing a beat. “at least i won’t forget to show up to work on time, unlike some people.”

he scoffs and walks away, and you smirk to yourself because of how annoyed he gets.

you grew up in a structured environment, where planning and precision were key to success. your parents, both engineers, drilled into you the importance of preparation and hard work. spencer, on the other hand, thrived in chaos. raised in a floridian household with artists for parents, he learned to ‘embrace’ spontaneity and creativity, when in reality he’s just a lazy piece of shit, and this fundamental difference in your upbringings is your reasoning for the friction.

the entire smosh crew is buzzing with excitement for the upcoming vid con. however, ian and anthony made a slight mistake: not enough rooms. as luck would have it, you’ve been assigned to share a room with spencer, and, of course, there’s only one bed.

“great,” you mutter, staring at the single bed. “this is just perfect.”

spencer shrugs. “we’re adults. we can handle this. or are you upset this’ ruined your plans?”

you shove him off, tongue in cheek, and put your bags down.

“yeah, well, i guess we’ll just have to make do,” you reply, mustering a half-hearted smile as you unpack.

that night, as you both lie awkwardly side by side, you can’t help but talk. the conversation starts stilted but gradually, you begin to share your perspectives. you explain how his disregard for plans made you feel undervalued. spencer admits he never realized how much effort you put into your work and how his actions might have come across.

after that night, some subtle changes begin to occur between you both. one day, you catch spencer glancing your way with what seems like concern when you’re stressed. you find yourself defending his unconventional methods when others criticize him.

one day, you witness spencer dealing with a personal crisis - a call from his dad that leaves him visibly shaken. as you’re the only person who saw him, you offer him a shoulder to lean on. that day, you see a side of him that’s vulnerable and human, softening your attitude further, almost affectionate toward him.

as you start getting along better, both of you struggle with your growing feelings. you’re plagued by internal conflict, denying what’s becoming increasingly obvious. spencer starts bringing you coffee in the mornings, and you find yourself lingering in conversations with him to try and stay in his company.

a crisis at smosh forces you both to confront your true feelings. a huge chunk of footage from shayne’s turn on tntl is accidentally deleted, and the blame game begins. in the heat of the argument, spencer snaps, “why do you hate me so much?”

the words hang in the air, and you both freeze. finally, you confess, “i don’t hate you. i don’t think i ever hated you. i think i was just scared that my efforts would never be enough.”

spencer steps closer, his eyes softening. “i didn’t realize. i thought you just… hated me.”

you break. hot tears sting your face, and you bring your hoodie sleeves to your eyes to prevent your mascara from running. he wraps you in a hug, and you sob into his shoulder.

in the end, you and spencer are inseparable. the crew notices the change, teasing you both about your newfound closeness, especially angela who you used to complain to about him. you’re all lovey dovey now, finding joy in each other’s company and embracing the weird balance you bring to each other’s lives.

#smoshyourheadin #amanda lehan canto #angela giarratana #arasha lalani #courtney miller #shayne topp #smosh #spencer agnew #spencer agnew x reader

110 notes · View notes

pizzapasta23045 · 1 year ago

Text

KAEYA HANGOUT ANALYSIS

Qubad: Fate means to send the machinations of war to every corner of the land, to fan the flames of conflict till they engulf the entire world... Qubad: Fate would see my sword tainted with the blood of innocents, that the bright banner of my homeland might fly in every nation known to mankind.

It so perfectly tells you what will happen in Kaeya's story without actually saying it. It's utterly lovely.

Firstly, it points out that Kaeya does not like violence, does not want it and he hates that fate wants him to be active participant in the creation of violence.

The homeland in the story could seem to be reffering to Khaenri'ah if you don't think about it too hard. But, weirdly, it reppresents both at different times of the play. In the beginning, fate wants the homeland to win, which would imply it's not exactly a 1:1 to Khaenri'ah unless the heavens have a weirdly convuluted plan as they themselves are the ones that destroyed it to begin with. It is also a place with a god, as you can tell in multiple points in the story.

Qubad: When I departed my beloved home to fight in a foreign land, I did so to honor his wishes and for my duty to our people. Qubad: Alas, is this fate's grand design... Is this fate's grand design... Qubad: Must it be so...?

Kaeya was, in a way sent to fight in a foreign land. Not in the sense of physically fighint but in the sense tha he's an agent there for a specific goal we are not privy through.

He's placed in the impossible position of having to choose between Mondstadt, the place he loves and Khaenri'ah, his homeland who he owes a duty to. Fate, not his father decided this. His father has not helped the situation, his father has harmed him, but in the end he is not the one that created the problem in the first place. As Kaeya's himself points out here.

Kaeya: Yep, "inept" is a good word for it. Honestly, it might even be a little too civil to describe a god who turns fathers against their sons and is bent on endless warmongering... don't you think?

While there is clearly an arger towards his father, Kaeya does not see him as a bad person but as someone who was forced to be evil. A victim of manipulation, just as much of a pawn of this game as Kaeya himself is. The god (Celestia) is in the end the main problem. Because he set up the twisted system in teh first place.

Qubad: I, Qubad, will spend the rest of my days in a foreign land, till I breathe my last in a place far from home. Qubad: But I shall not bow to the will of fate. I am no pawn in heaven's plan. Qubad: Gundafar, my dear mentor... You have always been like a father to me. It brings me only anguish to bid you farewell. Qubad: But I must walk this path, or freedom dies by my hand. Goodbye, my tribe and kin. Farewell, sweet land of my birth.

The important part of the hangout is this. "I shall not bow to the will of fate. I am no pawn." Kaeya makes his decision. He's made up his mind finally. He knows what he should do.

Now. What is that?

Well, we can see in the play in Kaeya's improv that he'll say goodbye to his mentor who was like a father to him. He also says goodbye to his kin and his tribe. He isn't picking either the side of his family of choise and his blood.

What we see here is fundamental. Kaeya shouts it at us. He is not picking either side, because both have significance to him. It's important to realize that the thing with his sides, that is also made up. It's a construct set up by the gods. Neither side is whooly right or whooly wrong. The Heavens WANT kaeya to choose.

Kaeya: If you don't like the script, just walk off the stage and join the audience. You always have a choice.

You always have a choice. There is always a less obvious choice. The Heavens do not control anything.

Qubad: My dear audience, I ask you this: Do you believe in fate? If fate decreed that your life was to end in tragedy, what would you do?

The point it's making about Kaeya's story is fundamental to both his and the travler's story. Kaeya's life is to end in greatness and tragedy as his constellation says. It's written in the part. But Kaeya is no pawn, and Kaeya will not turn back, as freedom itself, as a concept dies. Unlike his father, he will not let himself be tainted by hate and preperpetuate the cycle of violence that the warmogering gods want him to do.

Anyways this is my coming out as a "Kaeya isn't picking either Khaenri'ah or Mondstadt he's picking the secret third option the heavens don't want you to know about."

#textpost #kaeya alberich #kaeya #genshin impact #khaenri'ah #kaeya's father #papaya #celestia

62 notes · View notes

talenlee · 5 months ago

Text

Dev Pile 2025-11 — Blood And Bones

Starting next week, I will be in a classroom with a bunch of students talking about ideation and experimentation. That’s going to involve some generative tools and showing them ways that they can use those tools to launch off ideas. My plan is to take them the skeleton of Moonshiners and show them the way that these tools can be used to generate the templates of card faces. Then, when I have those concept assets generated, I can show them the steps I go through to take those ideas and make them into my own.

The aim here is to demonstrate the use of these tools as a kind of word calculator. I use Excel to do math for me, and I use it to generate random things. I use texture libraries and public domain art, I know that there is a value to having convenient things to prime the pump, to set up a template.

Anyway, because I have Moonshiners in a skeletal form, and I want to use that class exercise to demonstrate the process on that skeleton, what I’m going to do this week is talk a bit about progress on Bloodwork.

LaunchTableTop is my current toolkit for game making. This means that I have a good framework for volume of cards I can jam in a box, and, indeed, the box itself. I can look at the example of Cafe Romantica, our game they’ve printed, and use that as my framework for how many pieces I want to go into a box. That’s about 120 cards, and some tokens.

Bloodwork is meant to be an asymmetrical game with symmetrical pieces. That is, the players are both playing clans of vampires, and Old Vampires and Young Vampires treat their resources very differently. The Old Vampires have institutional power and can carry resources from turn to turn, with a slowly growing base of power. They’re supposed to win end games, but also take some time ‘waking up,’ while Young Vampires have to recruit and construct themselves out of what’s available. There’s a common area, called the Street, which has resources in it that players can access, but will react differently based on what gang they are.

Stuff in Bloodwork is meant to be therefore, just a set of player mats, showing the nature of your gang and how to play them, fundamentally:

There’s a vampire that’s a multi-level marketing scam, arranging its cards in a pyramid. The start of the game, this player takes 24 cards, and deals them out face-down in front of them. Each turn, they take one of these cards and flip it face up, then takes an action based on what’s visible in that tier for that clan. Originally, this was going to rely on dice rolls to trigger cascades in the organisation. They still care about what’s in the street, though, because while they can’t recruit, any thralls in the pyramid can be swapped with Vampires in the Street, and, they can exploit figures in the Street to get bonus actions.

There’s a vampire that’s running a cryptocurrency scam. They have a resource that drags Thralls out of the Street automatically, and they follow one of four different fake currencies they have going on. At the beginning of their turn, their weakest cryptocurrency (with the fewest thralls) collapses, losing all its thralls and that’s the amount of resources they get to work with that turn. They have to spend resources to establish a new cryptocurrency to call Thralls back, and at the end of their turn, these thralls are dealt out at random between their currencies.

Then there’s the vampire that’s running a police force. Their organisation is a single line. Every turn, they pick a card in their line to ‘retire’ and it fires off everything on one side or the other, then slides the rest in place. This means that they have their existing power structure, and it does change and have good or bad days, but it’s just a matter of rearranging who’s in charge.

The idea I’m currently brewing here is the idea that any given game of Bloodwork has to feature an Old vampire and a New Vampire building out of a shared common deck, where the Old Vampire has the victory condition in their deck somehow, and it’s the job of the Young Vampire gang to find it out. That means the Young Vampire can be aggressive and have limited ways to handle being attacked, while the Old Vampire can be defensive and have limited ways to handle doing damage. In a lot of ways I’m borrowing from the concept space of Netrunner with this idea.

In the original form of the game, it was based on Liar’s Dice; players would roll a dice and then tell the truth or lie about what in their tableau fired. But you could lie, and another player could call you out, and if they did call you out, it meant you’d given up paying attention to one of a small pool of victory-point jackpots known as the ancient tombs.

In this new idea, the game becomes straight up head to head, but where Netrunner was a game of asymmetrical pieces with a pre-emptive deckbuild, the Old Vampires get a cache of cards to start with, and they view the street as a place to play, a way to deploy threats. They can rile up vampires on the street, making Young Vampires have to deal with them, or fight them, before they can recruit them. They can deprive the Young Vampires of access to Thralls, and choke off their resources.

That means the game is going to feature these Young/Old playmats, then along with that a collection of 120+ish cards. Of those cards, the majority will be Thralls, Vampires, Resources and Events, and then there will be the return to those Ancient Tombs that the Old Vampires are protecting as a base of their power, for consolidation and control. They’ll have the same back as other cards – and depending on what the Old Vampire is doing, those cards will rest in some space or other that other Vampires can try and attack.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

#Dev Pile #Making

12 notes · View notes

imfromthemiddlekingdom · 2 years ago

Text

If I had the time I would go through video and debunk all of the jabs the OP unsubtly digs at the Jedi masters.

Legit the first minuet in and he calls Ki-Adi-Mundi a psychopath. Like bro. I don’t think you armchair psychologists actually understand the words that passes through your mouths.

youtube

Looking at the comments I’m filled with rage ngl.

There is no tapping into the dark side for the good of others. The dark side isn’t some quaint power boost that people can use Willy nilly and come back without consequences. It corrupts absolutely. There’s no such thing as “oh lemme just tap into this side of the force that corrupts absolutely to save people uwu” when it would usually become “oh shit I tapped into the dark side cuz I wanted to save people but it twisted my desires and in the end I ended up not only not saving the people I wanted to save, but also wrecked destruction onto other innocents.”

Also congrats on grievously misunderstanding what Vaapad is OP. It’s a twist on Form VII the Ferocity form (aka forbidden Jedi kata since if the practitioner isn’t firmly in the light the passion channeled can and will corrupt absolutely). Mace Windu created this form as a way to channel his own personal darker emotions. It doesn’t control him as the original form VII does. Literally we have Sidious saying that Form VII is closer to a Sith Form than a Jedi Form since it can and will corrupt the practitioner. Mace Windu did not use the dark side when using Vaapad. There’s a reason that the other “co-creator” of Vaapad when he fell to the dark side and tried to use Vaapad to defeat Mace still failed. It’s because Vaapad is a firmly light side Form and using the dark side of the force when using the Form will mean you fundamentally fail At understanding the base of the form.

Why can’t Star Wars fans understand that there is no “balance” between the light side of the force and the dark side? The light side is balance. The dark side is an abbreviation on the natural state of being. And comparing Emerald Lightning that Plo Koon uses to Sith lightning, a technique that is STATED, to be a twisted abomination of five usage, is disingenuous and a bad faith reading of the comics.

I could screenshot every comment on this video and write essays on how they’re wrong but I actually value my time and I really do not want to engage in media that I disagree with. Blah blah echo chamber, what of it? If people can be blinded by their own beliefs that grey Jedi exist I can also refuse to engage in it. I clicked on the video thinking it would be a nice meta explaining the different colours we see in KOTOR and the new Ashoka show but instead I get a very thinly veiled Jedi bashing video.

#pro jedi #Jedi order friendly #Star Wars meta #star wars salt #anti Star Wars YouTuber #Star Wars #Youtube

146 notes · View notes

streamafterlaughter · 2 years ago

Text

Fundamental Differing

Chapter XX: A Fine Line Between Hope And Despair

nav | masterlist | playlist | prev. chapter | pin board

summary: your night turns sour when you can’t bring yourself to leave eddie’s side just yet.

a/n: everyone please give a round of applause to me, willow, for completing two chapters within four weeks of each other for the first time since october! i love when i’m motivated it makes me feel sooooo good about posting. i hope y’all enjoy! a scene included was inspired by this post

tags: rockstar!eddie x rockstar!reader, afab!gnc!reader, use of y/n, mutual pining, angst, these two can’t catch a break

cw: sexual harassment, descriptions of violence (eddie gets beat up), wounds, mentions of blood. this fic includes mature content not suited for readers under the age of 18. MDNI

March 1986

Eddie’s POV

“Eddie, please. Stay with us, please. Baby, baby please.” Your voice is muted, like he’s underwater. He’s hurt. Bad. Chunks of flesh have been torn from his torso, leaving only bloody holes that rise and fall as he tries to breathe with little luck. It hurts to move at all, and the corners of his vision are starting to blacken. He has a particularly large gash just under his chin, and you won’t look at him, afraid to reveal anything about his own condition to him.

He knows, of course. There’s no chance he’s making it out of here alive, but that won’t stop you from trying. “It’s okay, sweetheart. Get outta here while you can, yeah?” It’s barely a whisper, more of a rasp, a ghost of what his voice once was.

“No. No! How could you ask such a thing of me? Help is coming. I’m not leaving you. I won’t.” Your voice is beyond broken, each word forced out between violent sobs. The creatures responsible for tearing Eddie apart have seemingly vanished into thin air, leaving the world around him now eerily silent, save for Dustin sniveling behind you. “The rest are on their way. We’re gonna get you outta here, okay? Eddie? Baby you can’t close your eyes, keep talking to me…” But your voice quickly fades as his eyes start to flutter.

—

April 1986

“No. I’m not letting you do that.” Eddie turns his back to you, facing the wall. He’s been in bed all day, sulking, in pain, and taking his frustrations out on you.

“Eddie, please. Wayne isn’t home and you need to change the bandages. Please. Let me help you.” You reach for your boyfriend, and he recoils from your touch. It breaks your heart to see him like this, and you know it’s not his fault, but it still hurts your feelings.

An idea comes to you. It’s a risk, it could seriously piss Eddie off. “Okay. Guess I’ll call Steve.” You turn to get up, but you’re stopped by the firm grasp on your wrist.

“Absolutely fucking not,” For someone in so much pain, Eddie is still very strong.

“Will you let me help you then?”

He groans, long and low. “Fine.”

“There. Now was that so hard?”

—

Present Day

Your POV

“Thank you for comin’ out tonight, be sure to catch our show tomorrow night! You know this one, let’s fuck this place up!” Of course, they start in on Master of Puppets, the finale to end all finales.

You can sense Eddie’s eyes on you in your peripheral, burning a hole through the side of your head. When you look at him, he’s beaming, grinning ear to ear as he completely ignores the band in front of him, focused instead on you singing and head banging along. “What’re you all smiley about?” You tease him, nudging his shoulder.

He shakes his head shyly, hair obscuring the blush on his cheeks. “You know damn well.”

You giggle, taking his hand in yours. “Thanks for hangin’ out. I know it’s not easy.” Eddie scoffs, lacing his fingers between yours. “It’s the easiest thing in the world, actually.” You know he’s lying, but it’s nice to hear anyway.

—

The crowd disperses outside, the warm air hitting you as you exit the club. Eddie plucks a cigarette from the pack and offers you one that you take gratefully. Metallica fans do double takes as they walk by the pair of you, some mumbling to their friends about how “That’s Eddie Munson! and Y/n L/n!” You snort as Eddie waves to a group of gawking girls, and you have to hide yourself in Eddie’s chest as one of them trips over their own feet, not paying attention to where they’re going.

“You wanna grab a bite?” Eddie offers, swinging your arm and his as you walk back toward the hotel.

“Yeah, I’m starved.”

You walk for what feels like awhile, your hand never not touching his. Eventually, you happen upon the neon lights of a bar and grille, rock music from twenty years ago buzzing in the cheap outdoor speakers. The place is fairly packed, and you find yourself more anxious than you’d prefer. Eddie must notice your posture change, because he squeezes your hand. You look up at him, and the question is clear in his eyes. Are you okay?

You nod, and squeeze his hand in return before clearing your throat to answer the hostess. “Two, please?”

The girl is young, probably in high school. Her big eyes flick back and forth between you and Eddie a few times as she pops her gum, as if trying to place where she knows you. “Follow me.” She says finally, without any indication that she knows a thing.

“Psh, square.” Eddie whispers, and you have to bite back a cackle. She seats you at the bar, crammed between each other and a stranger.

—

Eddie’s POV

It’s your turn to ask, but you use your words. “Are you okay? Sorry, I mean, is this—“

Eddie shakes his head, halting your anxious ramble. “I’m okay, sweetheart. Don’t worry about me.”

“What can I get ya?” The bubbly bartender appears seemingly from thin air, causing Eddie to jump. “Ope! Sorry, didn’t mean to startle ya! I’m Lizzie, I’ll be your server this evenin’.”

As Eddie overcomes his startled heart, you order a drink for yourself, a soda for Eddie, and an appetizer of soft pretzels. When the waitress whose name he’s forgotten disappears across the bar, you turn to him. “What’s on your mind?”

“Hm?”

“What are you thinking about?”

Truthfully, not much. For the first time in a long time, Eddie’s mind is quiet. “Nothing, if you can believe that.”

Your smile widens, and Eddie feels his chest tighten. Oh, right. There’s always that. Always you. “What about you?”

You shrug. “I’m having a lot of fun with you.” You sound sincere, and without a drop of pity.

“Me, too. A really nice time.”

Bubbly Waitress returns suddenly, almost slamming the glasses on the counter in front of you. “Here ya are! I’ll be right back with those pretzels.”

She leaves, and when Eddie turns his attention back to you, you’re already looking at him, hiding your fit of giggles behind your napkin.

—

Your POV

“I’ll be right back.” You’re about halfway through your meal when your bladder betrays you. Eddie nods, and you push yourself from the stool to locate the restroom.

When you’re finally able to see the door marked RESTROOMS, your path is obstructed suddenly, vision blocked by the chest of a large, solid form of a bar patron.

“Hey honey, you here on your own?” His speech is dreadfully slurred, and you look up to find his lips practically wet with liquor.

Even if you were, what makes this brick think you’d reveal it to him? Oh, right. Probably the alcohol. “No, I’m not. Would you excuse me, please? I need to use the restroom.” You don’t want to make this man angry. Somewhere, deep in your DNA, you feel the need to appear pliant to this man. Because he is a man, one very clearly stronger and more confrontational than you.

“Aw, c’mon. Let me buy you a drink, sexy.” His hand comes far too close to your chest for your liking as he pleads again with you, the rank smell of whiskey tickling your nostrils.

You glance to where your company sits, and find him staring back at you, watching like a dog for signs of trouble. He catches your eyes and you let the tiniest of nods slip. He’s off his feet in seconds.

—

Eddie’s POV

“Hey, baby! There you are.” He approaches with his arms wide, and you latch onto his lifeline. He shoves the giant out of his way with little struggle and wraps his arms around you, squeezing protectively. His heart races as you claw at him, practically shaking as you bury your head in his chest.

“Yo, bro. I was here first.” This guy just won’t quit.

“What the fuck are you talking about?” Eddie turns to face the guy, who’s about two inches taller than him and twice as built.

“You can have a go when I’m done, man. Back off.”

Eddie clenches his fists at his sides, so tightly he’s sure he’s drawn blood. He breathes deeply through his nose to stifle the fire in his chest.

“I’m not interested, asshole!” You spit from over Eddie’s shoulder, and he relaxes the tiniest amount.

“Oh shut up, bitch, you’ll get my dick whether you like it or not.”

He blacks out after that. When he comes to, Eddie is on top of the gigantic man, fist coming down onto his face at full force. Quickly, the guy rolls over to gain the upper hand, and Eddie has no time to react before his nose is crushed by his punch, gushing blood into his mouth.

“Hey, HEY! You two, FUCK OUTTA MY BAR.” The manager is a short, hairy man with a gold chain dangling around his exposed chest. Before Eddie can register what’s happening, three clones of you hover over him, scooping his limp body into your grip to carry him outside.

—

Your POV

“I know. I know! He’s sober. I don’t know why, Steve!” You’re trying to stay quiet as you beg into the phone for Steve to come bail Eddie out of jail. You're at the police station, filing a witness report, explaining in every way you know how to that Eddie is not in the wrong for this.

The cops won’t listen. Of course they won’t. Because “talking to a lady isn’t against the law, ma’am.”

It takes about an hour, but Steve shows up with words from the big fancy lawyers, and that somehow gets Eddie out of shackles. Typical.

Eddie is beaten, badly. His eye is almost swollen shut, turning black and blue at an alarming rate. His face is stained with the blood from his nose and mouth, as well as his white t shirt. You feel your heart crack and spider at the sight of him. The edges of your vision darken when he tries to smile and winces.

—

“What the fuck happened?!” You’re at the hospital. Eddie needs stitches in his forehead, and is being kept overnight to monitor him for a concussion. The ice pack given to him by the police sits melted in his lap. The usually bright fluorescents are dimmed to a hazy glow to accommodate for the time of night.

“Sh, Stevie. Stop yelling.” Eddie covers his eyes with one hand dramatically, reaching the other blindly to Steve’s face.

Steve slaps his hand away before continuing. “I feel like every time you two are together, there’s trouble. I’m starting to regret-“ He catches his tongue when your eyes widen. “Never mind. The guy said he won’t press charges if you don’t, and we gave him a thousand to keep that word. What the fuck were you thinking?”

“Steve, he was harassing me. I needed help, he was too big, he could have killed me.” You speak finally, angry at your friend now. “Eddie was there for me, something I’m pretty sure is your job, Steve.”

Steve gapes at you, speechless.

“It’s okay, Stevie. Don’t feel bad, I was sober. I made this stupid decision without a drop in me. There’s nothing you could have done to stop it.”

Steve huffs. “Well. I’m glad you’re both okay. I just need you guys to keep a lower profile when you’re out so this shit doesn’t happen.”

“Oh yeah, Steve, sorry. I’ll remember that next time I have to piss in public.”

The two of you bicker before Eddie interrupts with his shushing, finger to his swollen lips. “Though I would love to continue this very important discussion, I need to go to sleep.”

“Uh, Ed, I hate to break it to you. You’re not getting sleep tonight.”

Eddie sits up and winces at the pain. “What?”

You nod. “You can’t sleep. Not for awhile, anyway. They’re afraid you have a concussion.”

“Well, shit.” He groans, opening his eyes. “Now what?”

“We can keep you awake?” You offer, and Steve seizes the opening.

“We’ll do it in shifts. Y/n, take a nap first. I have to talk to Eddie anyway.”

—

Eddie’s POV

He doesn’t have the energy to fight with Steve, so he watches you exit the room with a small wave to him, and a quick hug for Steve.

“Seriously?” Steve places himself at the end of the bed. “You willing to risk everything for that? For some macho guy pissing contest?”

“You woulda done the same thing for them, for anyone. That guy was a moron.”

“Maybe, but you have a career, Ed. A reputation.”

“First of all, fuck you. I thought you got over that elitist shit after high school. Plus, if anything, I’m proud to have that reputation. I don’t take shit from guys like that, I don’t think that’s a problem.”

Steve sighs, pinching the bridge of his nose in frustration. “Look, man. I didn’t wanna tell you this, but you’re on thin ice. The label wants to drop you.”

Eddie’s ears are ringing suddenly. He thinks he’s heard wrong. There’s no way. The brute must have punctured his eardrum. “What the fuck are you talking about?”

“I don’t know the details. Your agent called me last week to tell me the executives weren’t happy with all the negative attention you’re getting. If this shit from tonight gets out, you’re almost surely cooked.”

Fuck. Fuck! “What are the chances of that happening?”

Steve shrugs. “Was anyone taking pictures?”

Eddie tries to remember. He remembers the song playing, I Can’t Live With You by Queen. He remembers the guy smelled like cheap beer and thick body spray. He remembers the fear in your eyes before he came over to you. He remembers the anger. Then nothing. “I don’t know.”

“Then I don’t know either. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.”

—

Your POV

You wake to Steve standing over your makeshift cot. “Hey, I’m gonna get back to the hotel. You okay to keep him awake?”

Your eyes wander to the clock above the door. 3AM. Shit. “Yeah, yeah I’m good. You sit up, squinting even in the dim light of the room. Eddie’s eyes are seemingly focused on the pages of a lifestyle magazine.

“Okay. I’ll see you later. Love you.” He places a kiss on your forehead.

“Bye, Stevie. Love you too.”

He exits after saying goodbye to Eddie, the door closing quietly behind him. “Alone at last.” Eddie teases, patting the bed next time. “Doubt it’s any more comfortable than the cot.”

You shrug, dragging your sluggish body into the small hospital bed, under the paper thin blanket barely big enough for one of your legs. “God, I don’t think you need me to keep you awake, this shit is so uncomfortable.” You squirm around trying to get cozy without imposing on Eddie, but he seems to catch on. He stretches his arm around your shoulders, pulling you in to lay on his chest.

“This okay?” He asks, voice hoarse with sleep.

“It won’t be if I fall asleep. What use will I be then?” You don’t bother lifting your head to speak, you can feel your eyes closing against your will.

“Guess I’ll have to keep you awake to keep me awake.”

“And how do you plan on doing that?”

You feel him shrug. “Tell me a story.”

“What?”

“Y’know. A funny story, a happy anecdote. I like hearing you talk.”

You debate arguing, but ultimately decide you owe him at least this much for taking such a beating. You think for a minute, what you could possibly say to Eddie to both keep him awake and entertained.

“Did I tell you about the time I met Bono?”

“What?!” Eddie cackles, shifting so he can look at you. “You’re lying.”

“I promise! I was in Boston, 1981. My dad took me to their concert at this tiny club called The Paradise. It was one of their first shows in the states, so they could play a teeny tiny venue with no issues.” You recall the night as you tell the story. Your dad had gotten tickets from a work friend, and he knew you were a huge fan at the tender age of thirteen. “We ended up running into him at the bar, and I had no idea what to do. I just kinda poked him.”

“Poked him?” Eddie’s bewildered.

“Yeah, like,” You playfully poke Eddie in his arm. “Poke. That’s it. Didn’t say a thing.”

“What did Bono do?”

You shrug. “I don’t remember. I think he just laughed it off, maybe said something to my dad.”

“Why’d you poke him?”

You shrug. “No idea.”

Eddie laughs, and you giggle with him. It’s such a stupid event, but it does the job of keeping Eddie’s eyes open.

—

The sun streams through the blinds of the stale, gray hospital room, rousing you from sleep. Sleep?! Shit! You wake up frantically, only to realize the bed is empty. “Eddie?!”

The toilet flushes, and you hear the faucet start. Okay, so he’s awake, that’s good.

Eddie exits the bathroom wiping his wet hands on his hospital gown. He’s put his jeans on underneath it, as if afraid you’d see his naked ass. The thought makes you blush. “I’m so sorry, why didn’t you wake me?”

Eddie sits back down on the bed, swinging his leg up and around you, locking you between his thighs. “You looked so peaceful, I couldn’t bring myself to. ‘s okay, I stayed up.” He shrugs. “Doctor said I was good to go, I was just waiting for you to wake up.”

—

Eddie’s POV

Steve is parked on the curb outside. He scowls at Eddie when he enters the passenger seat, leaving you to climb into the backseat. He’d usually let you ride shotgun, but he volunteers to take the brunt of Steve’s lecture. “Lay it on me, big boy. I know you wanna.” At first, Steve says nothing, stewing in his own frustration, chewing the inside of his cheek as he peels out of the parking lot.

“Y’know,” He starts after agonizing minutes, “I think I said my piece. I’m not pissed, if that’s what you mean. I know why you did it.” He lowers his voice so you can’t hear him over the music in the back, “I would do the same for them. For you, for anyone here. But you gotta remember who you are.”

“What the fuck is that supposed to mean?” He doesn’t want to argue, and his head is still throbbing, but Steve just knows how to light him up.

“It means you’re famous, Eddie! Like it or not, people know who you are. They like you, love you even! You can't beat up random guys in bars anymore. Not if you wanna keep your job.”

“What if I don’t want to keep my job?” He bites without thinking, but there’s a truth to his question. What if?

That catches Steve off guard. “What?”

“What if I wanna quit? Y’know, be normal, do normal guy things? I could work as a mechanic, move somewhere nice with the money I did save. What then?”

“Is that what you want?”

“I don’t fuckin’ know, Steve.”

He blows a breath through tight lips. “Well, you’ll have time to think about it. After this week, the leg is over. You get four weeks to do whatever you want before we hit New England and Canada. Give you some time to figure your shit out.”

This hits Eddie like a brick to the skull. A whole month of no touring. Where is he supposed to go? He can’t bear to face Wayne and Hawkins again yet, and Boston is way out of the question if you’re there. You. What are you gonna do? Do you even know about this month off? You probably do, you pay attention to those things, while Eddie barely knows what day of the week it is at any given point.

What is a month away gonna do to the progress he’s made with you? You said you needed time, but space, too? He’s starting to panic.

“Earth to Edward?” Your voice calls him back to the present.

“Hm?”

“Food. You want?”

“Oh. Uh, yeah, sure.” He shoves the cloud of dread out of his brain for now, and follows you and Steve into the diner.

—

a/n: believe it or not, the bono story is true, but it happened to my dad when he saw U2 in Boston in ‘81. My dad poked Bono. Not sure why, but he did!

tag list: @children-of-the-grave @five-bi-five @wiildflower-xxx @beebeerockknot @champagne-glamour @xxgothwhorexx @therensistance @chonkzombie @brxkenartt @sidthedollface2 @bibieddiesgf @gaysludge @eddiesguitarskills @littlepotatobeansworld @poisonedluv @kellsck @m-chmcl-rmnc @veemoon | send a message to be added or removed🫶

#eddie x reader #eddie munson x reader #rockstar!eddie #rockstar!reader #afab!reader #gnc!reader #eddie munson x you #eddie munson x y/n #90s au #stranger things #strangerthingscentral #st4 #best friend!steve #eddie munson angst #eddie munson fluff

61 notes · View notes

orion-nottson · 2 years ago

Note

I shamelessly believe in the Decepticon cause tbh. Like sure, their honors gotten dulled and replaced by Megatron's hunger for power. But you can not deny their cause. It started off with good intentions. Like all they wanted was to rebel against an unfair, overpowered council and have equal rights for their people.

Plus, it's clearly stated pre-war Cybertron was horrible and plagued with discrimination. I hate to be a Megatron apologist. But if I was a cybertronian in the great war? I'd choose the Decepticons too.

(Pretty sure I'd regret it later tho)

i do believe i've had this ask marinating long enough. (you taste scrumptios btw! 😋) so please enjoy this mini-essay. i've been thinking about it for. years. oh authoritarian fascist regime that is the decepticons, how intensely you've strayed from your original goal and manipulated your followers via appeals to social frustration and promises of identity... oh megatron, you never stood a chance did you? the power got to his head! 😃

...truly a you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain the dark knight christopher nolan moment in the studio today...

So, the Decepticons are often framed as the unambiguously evil "bad guys", and the Autobot cause is unanimously righteous and just for standing up against them. The Great War is often labeled as a fight between good and evil, that there are two sides that are fundamentally and morally different.

I think this is a disingenuous characterization, and very essentialist too. It omits a lot of internal history and nuance that many TF series employ (maybe with the exception of classic G1, which was your average 1980s military propaganda cartoon for kids) when attempting to answer the questions: What happened for the war between the Decepticons and Autobots to start, and for it to become how it is? Why are they fighting?

A lot of TF series throw in this backstory that the Decepticons were essentially, at the beginning at least, revolutionaries. As you said, pre-war Cybertron was rife with discrimination— Cybertronian society was plagued with severe class determinism, manifesting in cultural elitism and the institution of slavery. Inequality and unfairness were givens. There was a strict, immutable caste system with very very little class mobility (if, really, at all).

In TFP, Megatron was a slave— He had no rights, was oppressed and controlled by the elite upper class, forced to perform manual labor in mines, and was not a recognized citizen. Later, he did "climb the social ladder" to become a gladiator, but he was still, ultimately, a member of the lower caste, a nothing. Gladiators are still just as expendable, replaceable, and morally worthless as a slave. His function simply switched from forced manual labor to forced violent entertainment, and in both roles Megatron was oppressed. It's then also implied in TFP that, at the start, many Decepticons came from similar backgrounds, being members of Cybertron's oppressed and marginalized.

So the movement starts with, admittedly, very good intentions; All Megatron wants is to be recognized as an equal, to be free, to have control over his own life. He values self-determination, autonomy, and freedom. Megatron wants others in his same position to be able to choose. He wants to exist in a society not at his expense, but because he is a valued member of it. A valued member, like Orion Pax.

Orion Pax does not come from this background. He is an archivist living a very comfortable life as a member of the socially sound, from Cybertron's capitol city no less, Iacon. He isn't wealthy or a noble, but he's genteel and of an acceptable function. Orion Pax is civilized. He's one of the good ones.

This is the foundation for all the reasons why Megatronus of Kaon and Orion Pax of Iacon would eventually split, leading warring factions, calling themselves by different names. Yes, they believed in each other enough to be dear friends and allies. Yes, they called each other brother.

No, they were never equals. Orion Pax didn't have much to lose; he had the safety net of a good upbringing, a good step on the societal ladder. Megatronus could lose everything. He tasted freedom and opportunity and decided he'd never go back as long as he lived. It would be like willful suffering, a misery of knowing everything he could never have.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, when the ideology shifts.

Megatron is consumed with jealousy when Orion Pax is chosen to be a Prime. Of course its the respectable and civil Iaconian clerk that the Council chooses to become a Prime, this position only attainable by those worthy of it, because the level-headed and moderate Orion Pax makes a better poster child than that brutish, angry extremist Megatronus. Orion Pax is the reasonable one, he's the better orator, better at appealing to the sensibilities of the upper class because he's a member of it.

Megatronus, to the system, is still just a gladiator, a slave. He just talks too much. Is too loud, too opinionated. Didn't conform to the status quo. Why should they reward disobedience? That would set bad precedent, you see. We don't want more people to question things, don't want them to ask for more than they deserve. We all have our place in the world, and Megatronus should've learned to stay in his.

"Be more like Orion Pax, Megatronus, he does things the right way."

This decision solidified two absolutes for Megatron:

One, that Cybertron's elite will stay the elite, and everyone below them will stay below them. The caste system can no longer be changed or dismantled or reformed— It is too powerful, too deeply engrained. It must be destroyed entirely.

And two, Orion Pax was never his friend. And Optimus Prime, who stands in his place, can never be his ally.

Optimus Prime is a mere extension of the Council's will. A pawn who will never seek to disobey it.

Megatron is betrayed on two fronts: Once by the false promises of his homeworld, and then by the person he thought was his best friend and dearest ally— His brother. He realizes he has to now rally his forces around the idea that true freedom, individual self-determination and self-actualization, will come only from the elimination of Cybertron's corrupt government. If it cannot be fixed, it must be reborn.

The Decepticon cause arises from the failures and disappointments of a skewed, unforgiving, impossible system. The cards were always stacked against Megatron and his people—

"Don't you see, fellow Decepticons? They have always kept you weak. Starving! Take what should be yours— What is yours!"

It's easy to see how 'bots in Megatron's position are drawn in. They feel the heavy hand of oppression too. They have wants, needs, and desires that won't be met by elites and nobles who care less than slag about them— Take Optimus Prime and his newly-formed Autobots for example: They want the Decepticon cause to fall back in line, to keep their heads down, to conform and stay quiet.

The Decepticons are galvanized by Megatron, their frustration and sorrow weaponized into action. Any true Decepticon would follow Megatron's lead— He is their hero, after all, and he is a hero that fights back.

It's time the Decepticons bite the hand. It's time they start making noise. It's time they take down the Council, the elites, the Autobots, and Optimus Prime— All who oppose their freedom.

See... it's easy to get drawn in.

It's harder to escape.

(So yeah. You'd regret it. It should've been a warning sign that you had to start calling him Lord. Isn't that what you were fighting against in the first place? Power corrupts, after all.)

#transformers #transformers prime #tfp #tfp megatron #megatron #tfp optimus prime #optimus prime #transformers discourse #anon ask #ask #ask answer #lil bit of fanon in here tbh #freedom fighter to fascie pipeline megatron type beat

60 notes · View notes

jounosparticles · 2 years ago

Note

hellooo uh do you think fukuchi sees himself in the hunting dog members, good or bad? (traits I mean)

oooh this is a really good question!!

this really depends on how fukuchi sees himself. i assume he sees himself as some sort of hero who was forced into a villain role? personally, id regard him as intelligent, brave, strong, strategic, etc.

i also see fukuchi as caring. he really did not seem like he wanted to do the harm but did as was necessary.

as for bad traits, i see fukuchi as conflicted, violent (even if he doesn’t want to be), deceitful, and secretive

i’ll go through each hunting dog one by one.

tachihara

tachihara is very interesting to look at here. his moral greyness and internal conflict between the mafia and the hunting dogs makes looking at his relationship with fukuchi a bit deeper since they both are good people who sometimes side with the bad side.

- tachihara is very loyal. he cares about the hunting dogs AND the mafia. this leads him to some sort of moral greyness since he just seems loyal to people instead of moral organizations. you could argue fukuchi is similar, as he stayed loyal to his plan and was very reluctant to fight his own. this is debatable though, since fukuchi did have to betray the hunting dogs regardless.

- tachihara is strong. fukuchi recognized him as a strong soldier before they fought. he possibly seen himself in tachi there since they both had to face hard challenges for the sake of good.

- tachihara is secretive. he’s great at covering a case and fit in very well during his mafia infiltration. fukuchi could likely see himself in tachihara since really fukuchi has been keeping the secret of the war for 36 years. he’s also good at keeping a facade up.

- tachihara is determined. he is willing to fight and die for what he believes in and for the people he cares about. fukuchi could be similar in this aspect as he is fighting for what he believes is best and sacrificed himself for this.

- tachihara is willing. he does what’s best often with a smile on his face. this reminds me of how young fukuchi used to act, maybe fukuchi sees his younger self in tachi?

- tachihara is willing to work with the ‘bad’ side to do what is right. fukuchi could likely understand this, since he is doing the exact same with the DoA

overall, i feel there are some traits that align between the two. i can see fukuchi seeing his younger self within tachihara, as someone who is bright and determined. he also likely would resonate with tachihara being willing to work with the bad side to achieve good. like how he works with the mafia to protect the agency.

teruko

i’m honestly having a hard time finding too many parallels and similarities between the two. they get along well and clearly care about each other but i believe they are fundamentally very different people.

- teruko is expressive. she’s loud with her emotions and how she feels about things. fukuchi on the surface is similar, acting boisterous and friendly to most people instead of straightforward. however, i don’t see him relating to her in this aspect since their execution of said expressiveness is vastly different.

- teruko is conflicted. she couldn’t decide what was right or wrong when she found out fukuchi’s true plan. i would say she sees herself and her internal turmoil within him here but i don’t see it really vice versa.

overall, i don’t think fukuchi sees himself in teruko very much. they’re fundamentally very different people who seem to have different approaches to their work and interactions. although they get along, i don’t see many similarities between them.

tecchou

these two are very similar in combat-abilities but their personalities are very different. their approaches to achieving their own ideals go against each other a bit.

- tecchou is strong. he is supposed to be the strongest swordsman within the hunting dogs. fukuchi is also an incredibly strong swordsman and likely sees himself within tecchou when it comes to combat purposes.

- tecchou is determined. often, when his mind is set on something he will insist on it. shall i bring up the jouno being missing scene again? fukuchi is also determined, he spent years coming up with a plan and executed it well.

- tecchou is just. he believes in doing what is best for everyone and protecting those who need to be protected. fukuchi’s whole plan was revolving around saving millions of people, and while planning for it he still worked to keep justice at bay. i don’t know if i’d say fukuchi sees himself in tecchou here since tecchou is a very do-good person without harming the innocent however i figured id mention it anyways.

- tecchou is caring. he seems to want what is best for others, fukuchi does the same.

overall, these two clash a lot in personality. they are similar in profession however the way they act contrasts and would probably make it a bit harder for fukuchi to see himself in tecchou. fukuchi could relate to the determined, skilled swordsman that tecchou is but they diverge in other aspects. someone who is morally black-and-white like tecchou is very different and unrelatable to someone who is morally grey such as fukuchi.

jouno

i feel this depends on how you see his interaction with fukuchi before they fight. if you adapt it as fukuchi seeing jouno as evil, fukuchi was incorrectly perceiving jouno as a person and therefore could never truly see himself within him. in contrast, if you adapt it as fukuchi trusting jouno would do good behind his back while pretending to support his actions, i could see some traits that could relate them. (sorry if that last sentence didn’t make sense i’m gonna make an analysis on it soon actually!) regardless i will go over some traits.

- jouno is intelligent. he is very good at reading people and their actions. fukuchi is also good at this, however he uses his sword to send signals to indicate of it.

- jouno is secretive. he’s good at hiding things and being dishonest in order to protect something. fukuchi does similar.

- jouno is violent. he’s willing to harm others and often seems eager to if they’re a criminal. fukuchi might have seen himself in jouno here, as he is also someone willing to be brutal for the sake of good.

- jouno is deceitful. he lies and bluffs a lot to hide the fact that he cares. he openly said right before fighting fukuchi that he would consider switching sides if they were to lose; yet when given the chance he denied and attacked immediately. fukuchi is also deceitful, he lied to the hunting dogs about his plan and likely was not honest with the decay of angels over his plan. him and fyodor have completely different goals yet they worked together.

overall, it really does depend here and i am conflicted as to whether fukuchi sees himself in jouno or not. on one hand, he may have seen jouno as someone who was willing to use force for good and was a good fighter, which fukuchi would likely resonate with. but on the other hand he may have just seen jouno as a sadist who didn’t care about what side he was truly on as long as he had power and likely wouldn’t relate to that.

the hunting dogs as a whole

- the hunting dogs are generally selfless and willing to do anything to serve others. fukuchi also acts like this, he was willing to sacrifice his life in order to protect and unite humanity.

- the hunting dogs are powerful. fukuchi, being the leader likely sees himself in his subordinates as he helped the others. they likely reminded him of his own training in the past.

- the hunting dogs are goal-oriented. they dont stop a mission until it’s completed and never fail. fukuchi was also like this, he worked towards the bigger picture for his plan and was set on it for many years.

in the end, i feel all the hunting dogs have very diverse personalities that make any truly being fully visible within fukuchi impossible. they all share some traits and have a somewhat similar moral code. fukuchi likely sees himself a little in everyone as a result of working with and commanding them, as most people relate and act a bit like those around them; but there is not too much that makes fukuchi see his entire ideal set within a specific person.

thank you for the question!! this was fun to look at :)

#sorry if some of this is worded badly i’m super sleepy #this actually makes me want to look into the other hunting dogs and how they relate to each other omg #bsd #bungou stray dogs #bsd jouno #bsd tetchou #bsd tecchou #bsd teruko #bsd fukuchi #bsd analysis #bsd the hunting dogs #the hunting dogs #saigiku jouno #tecchou suehiro #teruko okura #fukuchi ouchi #asks #bsd spoilers

34 notes · View notes