#-criticism and disagreement

[disastergenius]

maybe this is a hot take but i do wonder if the initial gnarlrock incident, following argument, and (imo) anticlimactic and almost complete brushing off of that conflict occurring between Imogen and Laudna had actually led to a real conversation about Delilah/her influence and Imogen and Laudna's relationship in general (pre-established romance) would have made discussing Delilah later in the campaign easier

[starbuck]

If you feel the urge to take a red pen to a story, you are REACTING to the story which is the POINT!!!!!

[seaweedstarshine]

Hi! Long time no yap but I've been really bothered by this thing and I know you're just the person I can go to with this (even if we don't always end up agreeing at times).

I got into a tiff with someone in a comments section of a post that was about Amy (Which character do you think deserved to become a villain? or something similar). They brought up Amy's abuse of her boyfriend. I may have tried to defend Amy (key word is tried. I am officially rubbish at debating) but then I may have said something? Because they said that I (and apparently a lot of other fans) was excusing Amy's abuse because of her trauma. It got me stumped because isn't young Amy's treatment of Rory rooted in her trauma? Did I miss the memo where we separate trauma and abuse? Am I missing something?

That statement bothered me a lot because if there's one thing I never want to do it's defend an abuser. So here I am, humbly asking and hoping to clear the muddy waters.

Your really confused and disturbed moot, Tia 💌

TIA!!!!! Thanks for the ask 💌 , and I send you all the hugs.

Discussion of abuse, trauma, ableism, infidelity, and unhealthy relationship dynamics beneath the cut.

(First off… while I really appreciate your faith in my explaining skills <3 <3 <3 my passion for traumatized characters and mentally ill+neurodivergent rights doesn't make me especially qualified to fully clear muddy waters especially not knowing the full context, but I feel you, and what follows is my informed perspective!)

Speaking generally first, harm done in media is best examined by the impact on the audience, with a different lens than harm done to real people. While relatable experiences in media can be useful and validating and incredibly important, you can’t be “defending an abuser” when the abuse is fictional. It's actually normal for traumatized/ND/mentally ill people to project onto mentally ill villains, when villains are the only significant representation for those stigmatized symptoms in a media landscape that excludes and demonizes us simply for existing. RTD can't stop people who hallucinate from reclaiming the Master's Drums and projecting onto the Master, for example — 90% of the best Doctor Who psychosis fic by psychotic authors is about the Master, whether RTD likes it or not. It's not true crime.

(This is speaking generally. Amy Pond is very much not the Master.)

Abuse is a behavior, and there can be many reasons for it, but reasons based in trauma don’t make it not abuse (some forms of generational trauma can propagate abusive parenting styles, when the parent thinks abusive parenting is normal, or lives entirely vicariously through their child). This absolutely should not be taken to mean trauma correlates with abusive behavior; rather that abusive behaviors from traumatized people are more likely to present in specific ways.

Abuse is also a targeted behavior, based in control — not consistently displayed C-PTSD symptoms as seen in Season 5 Amy Pond through many aspects of her life. Mental health symptoms don't become abuse just because they hinder one partner from meeting the other partner's needs. Any life event can do that.

Without knowing the context of the arguments, this is the aspect of their relationship I've seen you talk about before (which I also feel strongly about), and what I assume is what you were debating? So, here I will talk specifically in regard to Season 5.

We all know Amy — she's never attached to Leadworth because she never wanted to leave Scotland, no steady therapist because none of them stick up for her, can't stick with one job yet her first choice is a job that simulates intimacy because her avoidant behavior (a known trauma response) isn't sustainable to her wellbeing. Rory knows her fears of commitment stem from her repeated abandonments, it’s why he’ll always wait for her, and it's why he blames the Doctor “You make it so they don't want to let you down.”, who apart from having caused a lot of her trauma, has actively taken advantage of her being the “Scottish girl in the English village” who's “still got that accent,” because he wants to feel important, so yeah, I think interpreting Amy's issues (and how Amy and Rory transverse them) as Amy abusing Rory indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of their relationship, as well as a misunderstanding of the (raggedy) Doctor’s role in Amy’s formative self-image (which of course she works through in Season 6, but I am sticking to Season 5).

Abuse is always based in control. That just doesn’t fit here. While Amy's detachment from her real life includes things like calling Rory her “kind of boyfriend” (which she is upfront about to his face; differing commitment levels isn't abuse, though it can be a relationship red flag for both parties IRL) — her Season 5 disregard of Rory’s feelings occurs only in response to the fairytale embodiment of her trauma. It's never a response to Rory; it's a response to the Doctor, who stole her childhood and led her by the hand to her death. She cheats on Rory with the Doctor in her bedroom full of Doctor toys, drawings, models, she made from childhood to early adulthood.

(And yes, like many repeatedly-traumatized people, Amy is prone to being sensitive and reactive. Take her “Well, shut up then!” line in The Big Bang; but given Rory responds to this by hugging her, clearly he doesn’t take it as her actually dismissing him. He knows her better than that.)

And by no means do I meant to imply this is fair to young Rory, poor Rory, who's left struggling with the feeling that his role in her life is in competition with the role of her trauma (aka the Doctor). But not every unhealthy relationship dynamic is unhealthy because of abuse. Labelling Amy's treatment of Rory in Season 5 more accurately isn't the same as excusing her harmful choices — but making mistakes is part of being human, Amy's mistakes are certainly understandable, and she works through them out of love for Rory.

If there's one thing to say about Moffat women, it's that Moffat allows his female characters the same grace that the male characters *coughTENcough* have always had, to hurt and struggle and make realistic mistakes and overcome those mistakes and to heal without being demonized.

Amy isn't perfect, but she is a fully realized character, and her story gives us a resonant depiction of childhood trauma.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Actually, sorry, I still don't see why TOTK is imperialistic. The imperialistic one does seem to be Ganon in his greed to conquer. I'm not saying I doubt your argumentsz just... Could you help me understand that?

Hey, yes! No problem at all. If that's okay with you, I'll compile my arguments in a series of links where I reply to previous asks.

Again, I want to reiterate that I don't think what we see in-game is secretely an imperialistic story about Rauru being a bad guy. We can speculate all we want, but there is no evidence in-world for Ganondorf to be anything other than a horrible baddie. My point is not that Ganondorf is secretely misunderstood in TotK, but that I believe Nintendo should have constructed its storytelling in a way that avoided falling into very loaded narrative patterns with real-life imperialistic echoes, and I am criticizing that they didn't try to deliver a version of Hyrule that gracefully accepted its own history, its influence over the world and its inherent moral grayness, instead of nervously scrubbing itself of substance out of fear of its own legacy.

This is the big one, that addresses the game's framing and why I think TotK's version of Hyrule parallels imperialist narrative movements.

This one talks about my problem with Rauru's character writing and what doesn't land for me.

This one is about why I don't think Nintendo is cackling about that good imperialist story they did, that it was probably accidental but still worth mentioning.

And this one, which I assume is the previous ask you sent me, adresses why I think saying that the zonais (and Sonia) are also PoC-coded kind of misses the point in my opinion.

Hope this clarifies my argument! I feel like, as the conversation matures in the fandom, this specific position (not talking for anyone else but me here) is getting kind of warped into something that it's not, or being conflated with the way people are creatively invested in the characters, which, while I certainly won't deny one obviously feeds off the other as far as I'm concerned*, are two separate things.

Again, it's completely fine to disagree! Or to agree and not be put off (everyone stop feeling guilty over the rare joy we manage to catch mid-flight --we can critique media without demanding people to Feel Bad as a result of the conclusions): it's a really fun game and I did play over a hundred hours! But I think the conversation is at least worth considering in a way that isn't caricatured as its weaker arguements.

*(to be very transparent so my own position is crystal clear, and it helps people making up their own mind: Ganondorf touches me as a character because of the way he inherently tries to fight against the limitations Hyrule/The Goddesses/the fiction itself try to force upon him --to devastating and unproductive results-- so the more his own canon tries to flatten him and the more poignant his character becomes to me. Won't deny that! It's this exact realization that made me spiral into hyperfocus to begin with --I am deeply touched by themes of tragic ambition and the impossibility of meaningful rebellion while STILL willingly burning everything down for the sake of refusing your place in the universe, even when the only thing accomplished by the end was the unflinching expression of your agency as well as General Suffering. So of course he would just catch me by the throat like that, that bastard. That being said, I don't think TotK Ganondorf (or any Ganondorf tbh) is a poor little meow meow, especially not in this game's canon where he is *obviously* nothing more than a threat to be stumped and doesn't ever meaningfully oppose you ideologically, which is kind of my problem. Even OoT Ganondorf, simplistic as he may be, questions Hyrule's inherent stability, inevitability and glory in many, many ways. Here's another, final post about why I liked the gerudos better in OoT despite All of The Problems, that partially addresses this exact point!)

[happycattail]

Just saw the Thumbnail for Ep 83 and I am Salivating. The fact that of everything, they chose to use the one of only Orym and Laudna. The cast (or crew) or maybe both, are all fully aware of the tension brewing within the party. Especially between Orym and Laudna and I am so excited to see the eventual blow up

[justworthlessreblogs]

scattered thoughts on kirapika

this has taken me way longer than it should've tbh, i have 4 different essay drafts in my docs but none of them felt satisfactory. in the end it's probably better to make a list anyways, because there isn't really an overarching through line to any of these

putting this under a read more because it's Long. there's going to be a (much shorter, hopefully) part 2 because i hit the character limit oops

fair warning that there's going to be a lot of complaining about ciel (i don't hate her i swear i just have beef with how her character's framed in the show)

i think the most frustrating thing about their arc is the wasted potential. like they're both really great characters, there's some really great setup, and the series initially takes the angle that the conflict isn't completely black and white. and then 23 happens and rio gets kicked out of the narrative and the writers decide that actually no, ciel can't do anything wrong in her life ever because she's their precious golden child

i've said it before and i'll say it again: the coma was literally the worst decision the show could've made, because it robbed rio of basically all of his character development and it left ciel floundering around without anything to do. like genuinely when watching her episodes during the coma era i was sometimes like "...what is her arc here supposed to be again? because it really just kinda feels like she's fucking around" and it doesn't help that the writers were still on their Ciel is Morally Right in All Situations kick so any conflicts she got into were kinda boring, tbh? this usually isn't an issue for me in precure except this is a season where characters *do* fuck up (aoi, himari, yukari all had episodes where they fucked up/weren't totally in the right/did some morally gray [for precure] things in this same stretch!) so it makes ciel stick out like a sore thumb (i am still salty about 34 robbing me of an actual disagreement between ciel and yukari)

i think i mentioned it in wv 7's author's notes but episode 41 is kind of a disappointment for me. i thought the premise sounded fun (rio gets framed because of an evil clone! there's so much fun you can have with that!) but the actual execution kinda flops. we barely get any evil clone shenanigans, first of all, but my bigger issue is with the kirapika dynamic and conflict in the episode. i think it drags both of their characters down.

in 41, ciel suddenly regresses and starts being kind of an ass to her brother again, but the problem is that... she doesn't really start doing this until *after* the emotional conflict is supposedly resolved? at some point she goes "and i nearly messed it all up again" and i was like Girl. What Have You Done Up To This Point. like she's literally done *nothing*, hasn't said anything hurtful - the "worst" she's done is telling her brother that she'll go with him if he leaves, and then backtracking in private (the backtracking does feed into another issue i have, but in isolation there's nothing wrong with it! i do think it's perfectly reasonable to not want to uproot your entire life!). the actual regression comes when they're on the bridge, when ciel tells rio that they both made cure parfait

the cure parfait line is genuinely cruel. pov you are rio kuroki, you just got out of a 4 month coma 3 days ago, you got cool powers for 15 minutes but then got beat up super badly and lost them almost immediately after *and* were told you'd never be a precure (a dream that you've tried and tried to achieve but nothing ever seems to work) and then here's your sister on the bridge telling you that you both made *her* a precure and it was a super cool and awesome event when all you got out of it was that four month coma. if i was rio i would've lost my shit then and there

the line just feels so ooc for ciel to be saying at the EMOTIONAL CLIMAX??? THIS IS THE EMOTIONAL CRUX OF THE EPISODE. if it was a line that had happened early on and caused the conflict i'd be more forgiving but it *isn't* and that's why it fails! at this point she's supposed to have learned that disregarding others' feelings and thinking only about what's good for herself hurts others!

also rio once again takes the blame for everything, just like he did in 23. why is rio constantly always the bad guy in the conflict (even though the show pushed a "they both did things wrong" angle at the start) it makes their relationship feel really lopsided

their relationship just feels really lopsided overall, tbh. i think part of the problem is that we never really get any positive interactions between them in the series - we get the flashback with the waffles, and then there's that brief moment when rio comes back in 40, and ciel complimenting rio in the christmas episode but that's barely enough to go on when most of their major interactions in the present timeline are them fighting with one another. the show wants me to think that kirapika are the Best Siblings Ever but doesn't really do the work to actually *show* it, which makes it feel hollow. where are the sibling shenanigans, toei. where are the moments where they share a single brain cell. i just want kirapika sibling fluff, dammit!

part of this lopsided feeling also comes from how it feels like rio would move heaven and earth for ciel (he outright sacrifices his life. if it wasn't for luimere he'd be dead, and he had no way of knowing lumiere would intervene) but i don't get that same vibe from ciel even though the show tries acting like she would. shit happens and she's like "oh no! anyways". even a large part of her angstfest in 23 is more about her thinking that she's thrown away her chance of being a precure (it's literally one of the first things she says after julio's purified. not really a great look tbh).

lopsided 3: ciel's feelings are always seen as more valid over rio's. it's especially frustrating when rio actually does have a point (see 22-23)

honestly overall it just feels like the writers had something against rio. genuinely what the fuck did he do to them to make them toss him around like that

ciel's angstfest in 23 is really funny to me it's literally the equivalent of when you slightly mess up so you turn your discord pfp and banner all black and change your username to "gone" and claim you're never going to log on again but you're back 2 days later. i would love it if she was the one who actually broke herself out of it instead of rio and ichika having to do all the emotional labor

just... let ciel have flaws! we're shown a ciel with flaws in her introductory arc! and it's amazing! but then after 23 they all disappear and on the rare occasions where they come back they're never treated as something for her to work on, they're just there, or they're unintentional on the part of the writers. and a character without flaws obviously isn't unheard of for precure but in a season that takes great pains to remind you that its main cures are all very flawed people it feels a little jarring to have ciel never learning anything because she was in the right all along

i don't think rio becoming ciel's satellite post-coma would've annoyed me as much if we hadn't been given a taste of rio as an actual defined character during the julio arc. like once he comes back he only exists around ciel and it's a bummer because i really liked his dynamics with ichika, yukari, bibury, etc and i wanted to see more (we do get that one riobib scene in 41 but it's like 30 seconds). pretty much all of his dreams and aspirations evaporate, too, most notably The Precure One

rio's dream to become a precure never being brought up after 23 (except to be mocked by grave) is so, so jarring when it was originally a huge part of his character. 41 tries to act like he only became julio because he wasn't as good at sweets as ciel and it's like... no? wanting to become a precure was a big part of that too? sometimes i feel like 41 is an episode from some alternate universe where rio's precure dream was never part of the plot and it somehow wormed its way into ours. it'd make the cure parfait line a lot less worse if that was the case tbh

see you all in part 2 i guess

[playcraze]

So I decided to rewatch s1 a bit and.... these pics are not the same

[muffinrag]

sometimes alan alda writes really well. sometimes he writes the silliest oc fanfiction i've ever seen in my life

[kindnessoverperfection]

I've found that, when interacting with others (or myself), it's useful to consider the lessons I'd want to teach a growing child.

If a child makes a mistake, I wouldn't want them to feel shame. I wouldn't yell at them, humiliate them, or in any way indicate to them that their mistake is a reflection of their worth or of who they are as a person.

Instead, I'd want them to associate the process with love and joy. If they say something that hurts someone's feelings, or otherwise ostracizes someone in some way, I'd compassionately explain to them. Ideally, they'd walk away knowing why they said / did it in the first place, how to handle similar situations in the future, and would accept the consequences (e.g. if a friend no longer wanted to hang out with them).

While the consequences may sometimes be painful, I'd do my best to instill in them that mistakes are human and natural, and that the process of learning from these mistakes is an opportunity to improve connections with others and express love.

I have a tendency towards excessive guilt. Memories in which I've said / done something ignorant or hurtful are infused with this guilt and shame- but ideally, I'd feel a sense of love and peace, and perhaps happiness, when looking back on them. Because they were moments of growth, moments I learned how to be more compassionate (even if the actual learning came years later).

So I'll put this out into the void:

When you make a mistake, that is not a reflection of you as a person. It is a moment in time, a moment which was informed by your past experiences. Humans are not static labels, or monsters in an RPG game. We are social creatures who live and learn and react and grow and experience and love. Be gentle with yourself and move forward knowing you're doing so in accordance with your values.

[punkshitposts]

something I think is actually hilarious is that if you go left enough you start having more stances in common with (individual) conservatives, and if you go right enough you start agreeing with (individual) leftists. like i have a pretty close friend who's self described as "just far enough right that I hate politicians" , whom I hard disagree with his overarching political stances. but the finer details of it... yeah we agree with each other. gun control/gun rights opinions taxation opinions pro-small government opinions slight separatist opinions anti two party opinions anti-corporation opinion ect ect ect.

we stand on opposite sides of a standard political compass but I genuinely think if I were to count stats, I'd agree with as many of his stances as I would a liberals/democrats stances. my hs gov teacher described the difference in right vs left to us as "everyone's goal here is the betterment of mankind, they just think the best ways to do it are different" and that's literally the best way, to me, to describe what the difference in right vs left is regarding anarchism specifically. we got ESSENTIALLY the same opinion but the ways we think are the best ways to go about enacting said opinion are what makes us different. and something abt that is really painfully funny to me. envisioning a world where an-something is the major world thing, not capitalism.... and there's STILL right vs left... but The Anarchist Versions. christ.

sorry for the book i wrote in the tags. ignore typos I am NOT retyping any of that to fix them xoxo

[samuraisharkie]

ok I genuinely think @is-the-owl-video-cute has gone off the deep end. what makes you act like that on the internet for real. I don’t even have a real stock in this bullshit drama but they are just the most reactionary asshole to people? how can y’all look up to them they are genuinely so immature and pissy. they’ve been throwing a fit over users they personally dislike and using absolutely no proof at all to say they doxxed ppl. there’s like zero proof other than they don’t like them LMAO. can y’all log the fuck off please?? before someone actually gets hurt??

[ultrapoppet]

I need the iwtv fandom to stop praising the show for dealing with domestic violence. It DEPICTS domestic violence but the way it deals with it is really best left unexamined. They bit more than they could chew with loustat.

[juniperhillpatient]

I’m sorry to people who don’t love season 4 of Camp Cretaceous but to ME it’s a masterpiece of television. I’m sorry for loving found friendship & cute romances on a kids show. As if it’s my fault

[rosesradio]

does anyone want to make like a petition or something for thomas to donate at least part of the ad revenue on his sorting video to a trans charity? or at least put some kind of disclaimer in the video or in the description stating that he doesn’t support jkr, and maybe link some resources and/or charities to encourage donations? idk, it just sits weirdly with me that, upon checking the video a minute ago, there’s no alterations to how it was originally posted to address the bigotry of that franchise.

(especially considering he bought a bunch of merch for the video, which he makes a joke about, potentially encouraging his viewers to sort & buy merch for their houses as well)

[ruvi-muffin]

So smth got me mcThinking(TM)

Do we Know the timeline at which Essek gave the beacons away?

I can only find a source that says he began Conspireing w the assembly three years prior, but i Doubt he gave the beacons away like... Immediately right??

[mermaidsirennikita]

mostly because of a Booktwt Thing...

As someones whose place in the book space is a reviewer only at this time (though I do write, I currently don't have any books published)...

I think it's totally valid to have this idea of a space for reviewers, for authors to just stay out of it (for their own good as much as those of reviewers) and for everyone to say what they want to say about a book without being censored.

However....

If we're going to operate by that logic--I don't see how it's not valid for other readers to look at your takes and go "Well, I think that's stupid."

Nobody is silencing you. There is no power imbalance; we're all readers. (In fact, I would say that "power imbalance" isn't always the best way to describe how authors and reviewers relate, as I feel there's no way you can compare an author, say, on Stephen King's level interacting with a reviewer to some indie author with 100 reviews on Amazon and less than 1,000 followers interacting with a big name reviewer... Neither situation should happen, but does the author in that question have the power to send people after the reviewer the way the reviewer has the power to send people after the author? I'd argue no, and I think that if we totally ignore nuance we kinda get nowhere.)

If other readers think your take is dumb and vocalize that... That happens. That's kind of the nature of putting your opinion out there. The issue when an author reacts is that it's someone who made the thing trying to stifle your opinion of the thing, which suppresses critique. But other people's opinions simply differing from yours is not suppression.

I mean, look, I put my opinions about books out there on the regular. Some people are going to disagree with me. Some people are going to think my takes are dumb as hell. Do I think that it's always the height of decorum to spend time talking about how someone else's take is dumb as hell? No.

But if you have a hot take... Some people may react that way. And some hot takes... are not always the height of decorum, either. You are allowed to put them out there. Others are just... allowed to react.