#But being on anon with 0 proof is not helping your case at all

[dbphantom]

Listen if you're gonna send me an ask about why I shouldn't interact with a person, can you at least do it off anon so I can request actual proof privately? I'm not replying to these since the only way to respond to them is publicly and I don't want to contribute to an unsubstantiated rumor about someone. That's not fair.

[itsclydebitches]

one of the previous anons here (again)! :0

not to be an "UM ACTUALLY" kinda person, but I think the tinfoil anon was referring to the scene in the training room (where crosshair got stunned by hunter) insteada the scene at sea (rescuing omega and azi).

I'm.... *also* really curious about what he was thinking there, honestly? Like, all that setup to ask his brothers to join the empire with him -- but what did he expect them to say? And it even seemed like he was about to draw his rifle on Hunter, before Hunter stunned him, but the others also had their guns pointed at him? He couldn't have possibly thought he was going to walk away from that in one piece lmao, regardless of whether he outdrew Hunter or not

Anyway, yeah, apologies for cluttering your inbox with the digital equivalent of snail mail these past 48ish hours XD.... I just think these meta posts are neato

OH SHIT if that's the case so sorry other anon, that's my bad 😅

And omg, literally don't worry my inbox is already beyond saving. I've got hundreds of asks spanning back years at this point, stuff I just straight up don't have time to answer and, sadly, probably never will. Cluttered doesn't begin to cover it. If my ask box could embody physical space, it would probably smell like TBB's barracks lol

But YEAH okay, let's talk the stunning scene instead because I love being sad on a Sunday night. What's important for me is that building up to this it's Hunter who is gunning for Crosshair (pun not intended lol). Crosshair has already shown that he's not planning to hurt them by murdering his other team and he's only just started to think over Hunter's "We never were" — in response to his "don't become my enemy" accusation — when all the droids pop up. Yet instead of focusing on them, Hunter immediately jumps on Crosshair. I mean yeah, we as the audience (to a certain, complicated extent) understand why they're so wary of him, but also think about how bad that looks from Crosshair's perspective. You've just proven you're not out to hurt your team, Hunter claims you were never enemies... but the second a fight starts he attacks you. Like you're the enemy. So does Hunter believe what he's saying? So many of the problems here come down to claims vs. action. TBB is really good at saying things to Crosshair, but aren't very good at backing them up with action. Like claiming they wouldn't leave him behind vs. actually not coming back for him during this whole stretch, here we've got "We're not your enemy" vs. Hunter choosing to attack him instead of the droids.

So they tussle a bit and it's only when the droids become overwhelming that Hunter is forced to turn his attention towards them instead. When he does, we see Crosshair thinking for a moment and then we get a preview of that "Oh no, Crosshair is going to shoot Hunter!" scare out on the water: he lifts his rifle, aims in a way that appears to be at Hunter's back, but then shoots over his shoulder to hit the droids instead. We even get two reaction shots to this, Hunter's brief look of surprise and a more overt "Omg, Crosshair is helping" reaction from Tech and Wrecker.

When Wrecker pulls his helmet back down it's with a sense of new determination. The whole squad is back in action! This is (again) proof that Crosshair is not out to be their enemy. He just fought alongside them, protecting them rather than taking advantage of the situation to take them out.

... except that as soon as the battle is finished Hunter immediately has his weapon on Crosshair.

And everyone else follows his lead.

Crosshair had complete trust in them. He had his back turned right before this moment, head in his hand, not at all worried about what his allies were doing. Why would he? They're meant to be allies and the threat (the droids) is gone. Except then he turns around to find that Hunter has his weapon on him after Crosshair just killed for him, after Hunter attacked first, after Crosshair didn't attack when given the chance, and you can see him looking down at his weapon with this sense of resignation.

What was he thinking in this moment? Probably that fighting is inevitable. I don't think Crosshair believes he can make it out of this without being stunned (or shot. I mean, does he know their blasters are set to stun?), but rather that he's just going along with what the others insist is going to happen. Every time he does something to say "We're not enemies" they do something back that says, "We are."

Crosshair doesn't want to fight his team, but Omega releases droids to help them battle him.

Crosshair wants to fight the droids, but Hunter attacks him instead.

Crosshair does fight the droids when given the chance and thinks that's it, he's proven his trustworthiness, but Hunter has him at gunpoint the second it's over, as do the others.

Every time he tries to do something to show he's not their enemy — "Don't make me your enemy" he says. That's what he's trying not to be — they turn around and frame him as the enemy anyway, whether it's attacking him instead of a droid, Tech telling Wrecker he's beyond talking to, or all of them assuming he's out to shoot Hunter instead of save Omega. This is an ongoing trend that just snowballs the longer things go on. Have you watched Grisha? You know the Darkling's line, "Fine, make me your villain"? To my mind it's sorta like that only with Crosshair having better grounds to make that claim than the Darkling did lol. Raising his gun isn't about thinking he can win this fight. It's also not about wanting to fight — he's made it very clear that he doesn't want that at all. It's much more of a resigned, "Fine, if this is the road you insist on going down, I'll oblige you."

"This is who I am," Crosshair says and Hunter has made it clear, several times over, that "this" is TBB's enemy. Crosshair didn't want that, but it's what they're insisting on, so an enemy is going to defend themselves by shooting back. Which is when he's knocked out, wakes up drowning, is saved by Omega, learns the Empire tried to kill him, and is back to his half angry/half desperate, "Can you please not think of me as the enemy for two seconds and hear what I have to offer?"

As for what he thought his brothers would say in regards to joining the Empire, that offer he has... I think he thought they'd say yes. Whether that belief is born of his own, twisted reasoning, or if there is still something going on with the chip, Crosshair prioritizes their safety and their purpose over the ethics of working for the Empire. When Hunter goes, "We're loyal to each other, not some Empire" that's something Crosshair agrees with. When not forced to try and kill them via the chip, he is loyal to the squad, absolutely, even over what the Empire wants. That's why he kills the Empire's soldiers and disobeys orders to get rid of TBB, instead trying to orchestrate their move into the organization instead. That's not what the Empire wants, it's what Crosshair wants.

So they're both loyal to the team over who they work for, the only problem is a) Crosshair is struggling to believe that they ever considered him a true part of the team — "You weren't loyal to me" — and b) Hunter's loyalty, unlike Crosshair's, actually has a limit. For him, he's not willing to kill civilians to give his brothers a sense of purpose in the world. He's not willing to follow an evil Empire to ensure that they have food and aren't always on the run. For Hunter, his desire to keep the rest of the team safe and happy does not outweigh basic morality (which is a good thing!) They'll figure out a way to survive while also doing the morally correct thing. Crosshair, however, places nothing above his teammates. He'll betray the Empire's orders for them. He'll kill his new team for them. He'll murder whatever innocents it takes to give them a safe, fulfilling life in this new galaxy. The Empire wants him to kill other people's kids? What does he care if the tradeoff is getting a good home for Omega? Something, something, Jedi fear attachments. All of which makes this whole mess all the more tragic. He will do anything — literally, ethically anything — for his squad... and they didn't even come back for him. He'll do anything for them, but they're insisting on being enemies instead. The underlying problem is that Crosshair's way of expressing devotion and care — let me help you join the Empire that's definitely going to take over the galaxy so that you'll be under their all-powerful protection and can live save, happy lives — is something that TBB finds to be repugnant (with, you know, excellent reason). So Crosshair is just standing there, continually offering his heart to them, not understanding why these ethical questions are more important than the only thing he cares about: them. And, again, we don't currently know how much of that warped thinking stems from Crosshair himself, or something that was/is still up with the chip.

Plus, toss in everything else we've discussed about Crosshair's abandonment. He doesn't understand why they care about the Empire's crimes over the protection of their family and he's continually hurt by the knowledge that they won't go as far for him as he's willing to go for them, not realizing that going that far is morally reprehensible. If TBB had tried to rescue him and had approached him as a brother in need of rescue, rather than an enemy, he might be more receptive to their arguments about what's best for the team. Simply because he would have felt like he was still a part of that team. Right now, everything Hunter argues about the evils of the Empire, while 100% true, are filtered through this knowledge that Crosshair isn't a "real" brother anymore. Chip or not, he believes what he's saying and has no reason to think that he's wrong, just that others aren't listening to him. From Crosshair's POV, they wrote him off the second this all started and haven't made a single move to fix things. That's the easiest way to entrench the idea that his way of doing things is right, the only problem here are his brothers who refuse to see it, insisting on opposing him instead, just as they had from the get-go when they left and never came back. To Crosshair, he's reaching out despite (again, from his perspective) the others not deserving it, yet that extended hand is continually slapped away. Nothing in the situation is helping him realize that what he's offering is what's wrong because it's all framed to look like he himself is the problem (see: Tech's little speech to Wrecker). But that's also why Omega's reminder that he's still their brother is so important. He gets a reminder, but Crosshair needs to see that again too. He needs a reason to turn away from the Empire because, whether it's due to the chip or not, the simple argument "This is wrong" isn't doing it for him. I honestly think he'd have left with them if he felt like he could rejoin the squad because, as established, his squad means everything to him. That's the top priority. But so much happened to make Crosshair believe that his brothers don't want him, that they'll only accept him as an enemy, that any offers to join them are made only out of obligation... that all he has left is the Empire. He needs to believe that they accept him as his brother so he can toss the Empire to the curb for what he wanted this whole time: to go home.

tl;dr IT'S SUCH A HORRIBLE MESS lol and this is why I oh so hope season two tackles all this with something resembling respect and nuance. This is one hell of a tangled problem, with lots of justified and inaccurate anger on both sides, so to try and simplify it all into a, "Crosshair is just a bad guy who thinks bad things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" would be... less than satisfying imo.

[agl03]

Hello! I’m a new aos watcher, so I apologise if this is a repeated rant, I just wanted to vent a little and found your blog :) I just finished through season 3 and 4 and those were really… rough on fitzsimmons, more so than the first 2, and I think it’s because the writers were so inconsistent? 3A was just a mess to jemma. she was so hot and cold, but not in the way you’d expect from being on a planet. it was like watching a different character almost every other episode [1/6]

[2/6] she has ptsd, then she doesn’t, she’s professing love for fitz, then professing it for will. I was getting whiplash! It felt like the writers put her through hell and then didn’t know how to come back from it, but gathered their bearings in 3B (although if I’m honest, that felt a little cheap, because it was a redo for her relationship with fitz but she still never got to react to being on a freaking alien planet!)

[3/6] and then season 4 was so hard to watch how they tore fitz down. I just find it so hard to believe that, without jemma, fitz would be such a monster, because he had to be a good person too, right? otherwise its like he had 0 personality before jemma and she carved him into who he was, but that doesn’t make sense. I guess I’m still shocked that he never woke up from it, even though everyone else did. it felt like the writers pushed him far (too far) and didn’t know what to do with him.

[4/6] I haven’t seen season 5 so I hope they mention it a little bit, but it was a real struggle to see how extreme they went with him, and Im honestly struggling with whether or not i should go on because the writers seem to love to push them to extremes and then backpedal and not in any way that resolves anything, it really makes me cringe sometimes!

[5/6] I also thought it was strange that fitz got a chance to say, very clearly, that he would always choose jemma over anyone, but that jemma never said anything about that for will? I get that jemma is more reserved than fitz, but I’m still a little sore about that, it doesn’t help with fitz looking like besotted second choice, is all I’m saying. I guess I’ll have to see in the later seasons…

[6/6] anyway, i'm sorry for this, i had about 4 seasons of angst built up in me and i didn't know who to turn to! i really like the show, but i am starting to try and watch with less and less expectations because i keep getting my hopes up for a real resolution and it hasn't happened after almost 100 episodes... thank you for listening and for being so friendly from what i see! i hope i haven't poked old wounds or anything !

Hi Anon!

Welcome to the Fandom, and you have no idea how much these kinds of asks are right up my ally over the years.  I’d say go digging through my blog for more of the metas but that is spoiler central in there so I hope this will suffice until you are done.

First and foremost I don’t want to spoil anything for you but I’ll say to you what I said to the fandom at the end of Season 4....just hang in there we have to trust that the writers have a plan.   I”m REALLY gonna stress this one cause I have a feeling you’ll be back.

Season 3 does indeed hold many old wounds and a pile of story lines that started and then went no where or flat out didn’t make sense.  The whole Space Rando thing was upsetting to say the least but I will tell you the writers said in the Season 3 Declassified that he was nothing more than a roadblock in getting Fitzsimmons together, 12 episodes, but that is what is was.  Were there other ways they could have worked with a more father figure Space Rando and Jemma’s PTSD for that delay, yes, but to be very honest they did not have the real estate to do that kind of story the justice it needed with everything else going on.  It is also worth noting they had to fire the actor that played Will and in that had to change a few things, IE Hive was Ward.   Real estate wise the cast had gotten pretty large at that point and there just wasn’t enough time to properly deal with all that was going on.

Season 4 they did much better, had things mapped out better, but that still didn’t change the fact that I suspect there were a few lane changes story wise .  Again thanks to the declassified books.   And over the years I’ve done A LOT of metas on the Framework and I think something that gets lost a lot is what Radcliffe said he wanted and what AIDA actually did when it came to fixing a regret.

Radcliffe told AIDA, in order to keep the team quiet and not trying to bust out like May did, was to take away a regret.   And for May that was Bahrain.  That change was what set up the hell scape we came into with Hydra in charge.  Radcliffe was blissfully off on his happy Island with no clue what she was really up too until it was too late.  

After 4.14 when AIDA got her hands on the rest of the team she didn’t do like she did with May, Change her biggest regret, rather she changed A regret and for everyone but Fitz stuck them somewhere where they wouldn’t get in her way.  Mack got his daughter back and was ready to die in there with her.  Mace got to be the Hero Inhuman Leader he always wanted to be.  Coulson was a teacher.  May was where her regret left her.  Daisy (had she been replaced) would have just been another foot soldier in Ophelia’s army.  And Jemma was where she could never ever have a chance of getting to Fitz because she feared their love and that Jemma would take him from her.  And I have proof those were not the regrets that they would have had fixed and I’ll circle back to that in a second.

Fitz was her target all along.  She knew from the Darkhold she needed him for what she wanted.  Looking Glass and Love.  However, she didn’t realize that his heart always was Jemma’s and when he wasn’t brainwashed and controlled within an inch of his life that he’d leave her in a second.  She mistook his previous acts of caring and empathy as love and had no understanding of the depths of human emotions. IE you can love people different ways.  Sure he cared about AIDA but he loves Jemma with his heart and soul and vise versa.

As Fitz was her target she fixed things so that she could insert herself in his life in Jemma’s place and that he would have grown up with his awful father who taught him that cruelty and power was the way to go.  This also kept out any positive and caring influences like his Mother, Jemma, and the team.  

I said I had proof that some of those regrets weren’t necessarily what the team would have picked.  That came via Self Control from Robo Coulson and Robo Fitz bearing in mind these LMD’s all had scans of who’d they replaced.  Their memories and their desires.  

Robo Coulson told Robo May to let this whole hostile takeover happen because in the Framework they were happy and together.  That was decidedly not the case there though their connection ended up proving crucial to getting everyone out.  

Robo Fitz told Jemma he was doing this for her so they could get married, grow old together.  Had he known he would be sending Jemma literally into the grave Robo Fitz would not have gone along with the plan.  He thought he was getting Jemma and they were going to go live their own Happily Ever After in there.  Yeah, not the case either.  

With the not waking up, no one but Coulson woke up and that was only thanks to Tahiti.  And yes, it was brutal.  Every week my poor ask box got more and more upset and as a fandom we were more than ready to get the hell out of there.  I mistakingly died on the hill that Jemma would snap him out of it (though I did accurately predict the second Fitznapping....yay).  She didn’t because this isn’t Once Upon a Time, True Love’s kiss doesn’t break the curse of having your mind completely wiped by an evil LMD and the Magic Demon Book.  Now looking back it does make the fact that the second he had free will again, despite that other manipulated life where he was dedicated to Ophelia, it was still Jemma.   

Oh and Jemma did choose Fitz over Will, when the sandstorm hit.  She continued to go to Fitz and left Will....she would have never left Fitz in a sandstorm with the evil monster lurking about.  

That all being said sometimes crap just has to happen to move the story ahead and there is always a price to pay for the good.   I do think the Framework went too far but at the same time the writers were making a bit of a political statement there and they saw how good Iain was with evil bad guy.  

Shippping Fitzsimmons is a lot like a Marathon and you are about to the “What on earth have I done to myself,” point of the race.  But I promise the feeling of crossing that finish line at the end can’t be beat.

[gothicstay]

rules

[ hello, my name is austin. these are the rules for all requests and writings. if you have any questions, please send an ask! i would be happy to answer :) ]

Requests

i mainly write for stray kids, and of course i have rules that i would like to follow (rules can change over time, whether it is me being more or less comfortable with a topic/kink/etc.).

i do write for all members including jeongin and seungmin. please assume that protection/contraceptives are always involved in my writings unless otherwise stated in warnings or throughout the piece itself. 

what i am NOT WILLING to write:

pedophilia

incest

animal/relationship abuse

non con/rape

necrophilia

cannibalism

any form of blood play (this includes period sex)

knife play

memberxmember

underage reader

gender bending members

foot fetish

what i am WILLING to write:

daddy/mommy

bondage

voyeurism

choking

dirty talk

rough sex

poly!sex/relationships (memberxreaderxmember)

(the list goes on... if you have any questions about what else i will write, please ask!)

i mainly will write dom!skz as i myself am the brattiest of subs, but i can write for sub!skz as well. i also tend to not proofread right away, so please ignore all spelling mistakes. all requests/writings of mine that have been proofread will say so.

Asks

i also have rules for asks as well, as i have seen many writers on tumblr do this! usually these are prompts i don’t feel like writing a full blown smut fest for and just feel like summarizing, or just helping others get the smut out and in the world (if that makes any sense i am running on 0 caffeine and 2 hours of sleep). 

please do not...

send anything against rules under requests

spam

hate

questions about my personal life (it is none of your business)

hate to others through asks

i will obviously add to this as time goes on, as i am still new to this side of tumblr. 

I am also open to roleplaying anons :] i’d prefer that if you’re under 18 you don’t participate in rping since most of them tend to be nsfw!

i will occasionally write fluff, but it is not often. i am a student so i ask that you please be understanding in the case of my inactivity. if you are under 18, i highly suggest you do not follow, for obvious reasons.

i can write in all pronouns (she/her, he/him, they/them) but i will usually write in they/them. i will also sometimes state if this person has a dick or vagina (sometimes i will not, so if it is, it is up for interpretation, or i simply forgot)

if for whatever reason i forget a warning on something i write, please let me know! i am human and i do miss these things from time to time.

i am also what they call a slow writer. i’ll answer asks and such but sometimes it takes me time to write quite literally any story. i do try to write more often and it’s something i’m working on.

if i’m following a writer who is under 18 and does smut, please send an ask with proof!!

i think i have covered everything. if i happened to miss something or you are confused about something, please ask and i will get back to you as i can!

i hope you enjoy your visit to gothicstay ♡

- austin ❤️

[eorzean-capitalist]

The more flowery a person’s speech … the more suspect the feelings, or lack of feelings, it concealed. --  Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary

There’s a lot to unpack from the fauxpology that appeared recently on a new blog from Oz.  I’ve seen this before... from multiple abusive people.  

So let’s dive in, shall we?

There are some things I need to address, some of which I need to apologise for. I want to be clear this is not me entering into a debate, this is not my version of events, this is an apology for where I have made mistakes and where I have at times hurt many people who ultimately did not deserve it, many of whom are my friends and loved ones. 

Some of which you need to apologize for? Some?

I have no intention of any kind to publicly address this any further. I do not think it would be of any benefit to anyone, particularly the people I have hurt, to escalate this more than it already has by arguing about any specific claim’s full context. If you wish to speak with me privately, I encourage you to reach out to me personally

Private, where you can continue to try to control the narrative.  Private, where you can attempt to keep gaslighting your victims.  Private, where no one else can see what you’re saying and go ‘Um, no, that’s not correct’.  

And whose benefit here are you really concerned about?  Because I can tell you right now, your victims would /love/ for you to publicly acknowledge the hurt you caused them.  It just wouldn’t be very fun for you to be open to the kind of scrutiny you’ve called to attention on other people for daring to go against your dictates and mandates.

Unfortunately, I have to be clear about what, exactly, I’m apologising for. In the noise and fury surrounding the last week or so, accusations have been made that are not simply bad interactions taken out of context or even objectionable but otherwise fairly mundane failures of decency, but utterly detestable and even illegal.

Jesus christ, put down the fucking thesaurus.  We get it.  You know big words.  Would you stop tap dancing around the point and actually get to it?  

Actually, I’ve read this run-on sentence several times and I really can’t make heads or tails of it.  What are you trying to say here, Oz?  Are you accusing your victims of making shit up?  Despite all the evidence that’s been posted?  Are you suggesting that somehow talking about the shit you’ve done is illegal?  Like really?

I do not say this to excuse anything I have actually done or anywhere I have actually been wrong, but so that I can apologise for where I have indeed done wrong without admitting to baseless claims of acts that are not just morally reprehensible but in some cases illegal.

“So I want to cherry pick what to apologize for.  The stuff that’s just kinda assholish I’ll admit to but everything else is illegal because I say so.”

I have never doxxed, stalked, sexually harassed, or threatened the the life of anyone

Um.  Sure, Jan.

Additionally, I have never sent anonymous hate messages through Tumblr or any other medium. I have never condoned any of those behaviours, encouraged them in others, nor have I ever made false claims of any of the prior acts.

Uh huh.  Have you forgotten we’ve all SEEN you do this shit?  You may not do anon tumblr hatred, but you do threaten people.  I’ve seen you go on complete tirades over and over again.  People have actually posted testimonials and screenshots of logs where you are threatening them.  Seriously, stop denying you do this shit. 

I have made many mistakes and, yes, I have made some very bad choices. While I am absolutely guilty of being unnecessarily aggressive, disdainful, and combative, I have not done any of those things. I am not going to speculate about the motivations of the people making these claims, but suffice it to say they are entirely false and the people making them have no reason to believe otherwise. There are things I have to own and apologise for, but these are not among them.

They just made some very bad choices, folks.  We should totes give them a break. 

I regret I must start an apology with a qualification like that, but given the nature of the more extreme and spurious claims some have made, I have no choice. It would be disingenuine and even irresponsible of me to extend a blanket apology and include deeply reprehensible acts I have never committed nor would I ever commit.

I think what they’re trying to say here is ‘I would do anything for love... but I won’t do that.’

Also, if you need four flowery paragraphs of highfalutin language to start off your ‘apology’, you’re doing it wrong.

What I will apologise for are the places where I have failed and while they are not as many as claimed, they are dire

Now we begin the minimizing stage.  They admit to doing some things, but not everything, and even those some things are very small really.  Just a few things.  Yes, dire things but JUST A FEW THINGS.

I allowed myself to listen to voices that lauded me for drawing hard and sometimes arbitrary lines with people, showing swift cruelty, and forgetting there is a very real difference between flawed people who have made mistakes or even just poor choices and people who set out to knowingly do harm for its own sake

“Guys, I made some bad choices.  I was lead astray by other nebulous people.  Clearly they were the ones to guide me into these dire, terrible actions.  I apologize for them dragging me kicking and screaming down this awful path.”

What’s worse is that these are lessons I learned long ago, but I allowed myself to be comfortable and even lazy. I did not hold myself to my own standards and through my unwillingness to examine my own behaviours, I hurt others.

I hope you pause to meditate on the fact that this is why people say your behavior has never changed.  

There are times I have shown anger or drawn a line around spaces under my control and done so justly There is a time and place for anger. Like any emotion in a healthy volume and the right context, it has a role to serve.

The problem is, you are addicted to your righteous anger.  You go from 0 to 60 in 0.005 seconds, and when you blast people, you refuse to listen to them when they try to reason with you.  I’ve read the logs.  I’ve seen you run in, scream at people and when they try to placate you, continue to berate them.  

Your first reaction to anyone challenging you or ‘threatening your territory’ is to go nuclear.  Full blast nuclear.  And you do. not. stop.  You will continue to post about them for months.  Vagueposts sniping at them.  And you don’t just do it yourself, you command  your people like they’re your little army to avoid the people you’ve decided are on your Naughty List on pain of becoming your next victim.

That’s on you.  It is all on you.  No one else is to blame for this, no matter how you may try to blame your ‘choices’ on mysterious others in your life.

In many cases, what I did was apply that anger too broadly and too eagerly. I was too willing to see the hurt in response to my actions as a proof of guilt from the people I refused to see the simple human dignity of. I allowed people who I felt wronged me or people dear to me to become less than people in my eyes, something reserved only for the most awful of people, not individuals who simply commit some passing faux pas in a bad circumstance or, indeed, do nothing beyond some relatively minor violation of the social contract.

On this, we can agree.  Would that you had said this rather than all the shit above.

After a period of suffering genuine manipulation, abuse, and gaslighting by a truly vile person, I allowed my feelings of abandonment and outrage at an injustice to stew and mutate into a broad and directionless anger. No matter what happened, my failure to properly gauge my emotions and find healthy, positive outlets for those feelings was not just unacceptable, but my fault. What’s worse is that I sought and found help. I knew what I had to do, and it took me too long to begin the process of healing, a process entirely within my control. While I refused to heal, I indulged in pain and the social rewards that come from it. Not just my own pain but the pain of others.

More blame shifting.  Remember, folks, while they did hurt people, they were the REAL victim here.  

The worst part of all of this is that among the choices I made, they were not choices I made out some misguided belief or, in most cases, not even out of misinformation. They are things I did in spite of my own beliefs. If you asked me on a good day, I would tell you I believe it is absolutely critical to reach out to people you feel have wronged you and while it’s important to protect the things and people vital to you, you should never allow yourself to succumb to a hateful, tribalistic, ingroup/outgroup attitude without fully appreciating the harm that does not just to other people, but to yourself.

On a good day, if you asked me, I would tell it is absolutely crucial to be no one’s attack dog and to avoid people who celebrate the harm you do to others. I would tell you it is easy to build the support of people who see you as a vector for the harm they want to see done to others. I would tell you it is not just easy, but a passive process to become a threat to other people and that is the very last thing you should want to be. When I say I was overly comfortable and lazy, that is exactly what I mean. 

You know what they’re doing here?  Trying to be subtle about it, but definite blame shifting going on here.  They are blaming other people for jumping on the bandwagon THEY created.  They got off on manipulating public opinion about people, and are now blaming the very people they manipulated into feeling that way.  

Nice try, but i c wat u did thar.

I failed to be the better version of myself I have been. I can say I never set out to harm people specifically because I wanted to or I because I enjoyed the idea of punishing others, which I didn’t, but the effects of my actions are the same as if I had. I invited and engaged in unnecessary conflict to no gain, I meted out judgement where harmful, and I did all of this with the reassurance I would be rewarded in ways I never should have sought.

“See, folks, I just wanted the approval of other people.  So I hurt you because I sought out that kind of approval and it’s their fault for making me want their approval.”

In every instance of wrongdoing, I was a hypocrite. In allowing myself to see people as their failings, something I absolutely know is wrong, I justified a level of hostility that is not just inappropriate, but destructive to myself, to those around me, and of course to those on the bad end of that hostility. For that, I apologise from the bottom of my heart.

Furthermore, I need to apologise for the influence I’ve had. Beyond my actions themselves, I have helped create a culture of cyclical anger, division, and anguish that has done real harm to our community. Not only have my actions reflected poorly on my friends, who I can assure you are not supporters of those actions, they have fed into a subculture on Balmung of a deeply hostile and hateful moral rectitude. I contributed to an environment where people looking to do harm can and can do so largely without consequence.

You know, if you had just said this, I might actually believe you were sorry.  Unfortunately, this is buried in so much bullshit it’s hard to take seriously.

I can complain about there being absolutely false and completely groundless claims made about me, but it is my fault there is an environment for those claims to come from. Obviously, there are other bad actors in our community, but I am the only person I have control over and I have to accept my share of the blame for the culture I helped create and I am sorry. In different moments, I have tried to contribute constructively to the space we share and in others I have actively torn it down.

Like other things, it’s something I know better than to do. As has been said both to criticise me and to defend me, I have an old and long-buried history of being a malignant presence in another community. I am proof that people can grow beyond their immaturity, but that one still has to be vigilant about not falling into their old habits. It is a lesson I know and chose to ignore for temporary comforts.

I am sorry for allowing a kind of zeal to take hold in me that let me ignore the difference between a sexual predator or their defenders and people who simply briefly upset someone in some minor way. At my best, I hold myself to a high standard of proof and responsibility, aware that taking action against someone is harming them. It’s doing something they may have to carry with them for a long time and if we take that action wrongly, then we’re hurting someone without reason. At my worst, something I have shown far too much of, I allowed myself to stoop to the lowest standard of a bully, the exact kind of person I so comfortably and openly resent.

The problem with this line of thinking is... you’ve only managed to do it AGAIN. How is that proof of growing or changing?  You can’t even bring yourself to apologize properly, how is anyone to believe that you’ve changed at all?

I am also deeply and truly sorry to the people around me. My friends, both in my free company and not, have shown me a patience and grace that I certainly failed to show others. I am not just glad but lucky to have people around me willing to tell me when I have done wrong and all I can ask is that you not judge them by my worst actions. They and the community we have built together are surely better than I am and I can think of no better testament to that fact than the guidance and tolerance they have shown me.

I can agree with this up to a point.  Obviously most people in your FC are not to blame for your actions.  Though you should probably consider the kind of atmosphere you’ve fostered in your own FC.  Considering the testimony of many ex-,members, you made it pretty awful for them while they were in there.  Be better.  

There’s not a deep, meaningful takeaway I have to offer from any of this. I’m not saying any of this from some place of wisdom other than that of someone recently reminded I am not beyond succumbing to the worst inclinations common to all people, inclinations many people manage to avoid succumbing to themselves.

All I have left to say is that I am sorry. I have before, can now, and will later do better. In turn, all I can ask is that you give me the grace do so.

“I’m only human, folks.  Please leave me alone so I don’t have to really, truly, face up to my actions.” 

[ladyjaneasher-blog]

Wait I'm sorry for being misinformed, but the info about Paul calling Yoko a jap tart is not true? From what i read he sent a letter to john (i think) saying this. So it's not true? (because thank god if it's not true)

it’s okay, anon. let me reiterate: 

the full message – if you believe francie, that is – was “you and your jap tart think you’re hot shit” and the full quote reads:

“John obviously loved Paul enough to let him run wild if it would help ease the tension Paul was creating in the studio and at home. Yoko could see it too.

But Paul was treating them like shit too. He even sent them a hate letter once, unsigned, typed. I brought it in with the morning mail. Paul put most of his fan mail in a big basket and let it sit for weeks, but John and Yoko opened every piece. When they go to the anonymous note, they looked puzzled, looking at each other with genuine pain in their eyes.

‘You and your Jap tart think you’re hot shit’, it said. John put it on the mantle, and in the afternoon, Paul hopped in, prancing much the same self-conscious way he did when we met.

‘Oh I just did that for a lark…’ he said in his most sugar-coated accent.

It was embarrassing. The three of us swiveled around, staring at him. You could see the pain in John. Yoko simply rose above it, feeling only sympathy for John. I was sad to see the Lennons go, even though it took the pressure off of Paul.”

putting aside that you can already read the clear bias between the lines, sometimes in other retellings of the story, it’s said to be a postcard and other times it’s a typewritten message left in an envelope. the discrepancies here alone should tell you something. 

now, where does the claim come from? it comes from an ex-girlfriend of paul’s from the late 60s, who he has parted not on the best terms with: francie schwartz. francie wrote a book about her relationship with paul where francie claims that while john and yoko stayed at cavendish, they received a note saying “you and your jap tart think you’re hot shit”.

why is it bullshit? i have several points to make:

francie schwartz is one of the most unreliable sources in beatles history. ask any beatles researcher worth their salt on their opinion about francie and her book. what’s more important in this particular case: she relies almost exclusively on sensational claims to make her book body count (1972) more palatable and exciting to a general and broad public instead of actual proof. other such claims include paul having been sent love letters from brian; a claim just as insubstantial and without any actual tangible proof. 

first off, to get a more personal picture of francie during the time she wrote and published her book you have to ackowledge her agenda as the scorned ex-lover as is evidenced by the book itself as it displays a great deal of vindictiveness towards paul. read body count and you’ll know what  i mean. it’s absolutely vile in places.

second, the book was published in 1972 – when paul’s critical reputation was possibly at one of its lowest points – and it was published by none other than jann wenner’s rolling stone press, which very obviously chose john’s side in the john versus paul breakup era split and which back in the day had a lot of sway in the music industry. the magazine wasn’t yet the joke it was to become. something else that is interesting and slightly related: jann wenner. paul’s critical acclaim wasn’t at it lowest point because mccartney (the album) was years ahead in its day and the press just didn’t get it, but because wenner directly influenced his reviewers to slam paul for – as wenner saw it – breaking up the beatles. here’s the relevant quote:

“When I became record reviews editor, I made it clear to him after a few months — nobody had done the job before me — that the record review section was an independent republic within the country of Rolling Stone. That meant that nobody else could tell me what to review or what a writer could say. They could argue with me, but ultimately it was my decision. And that worked well. There was one incident where Paul McCartney makes his first solo record and people thought it was wonderful: this rough, homemade one-man-band album. It was accompanied by a press release, a self-interview, about why he no longer needed the Beatles and how little he thought of them … this real obnoxious statement, you know? I assigned it to a friend of mine, Langdon Winner, and Jann saw the piece and said: “We can’t run it this way — he’s just reviewing it as if it’s this nice little record. It’s not just a nice little record, it’s a statement and it’s taking place in a context that we know: it’s one person breaking up the band. This is what needs to be talked about.” I said I didn’t agree and “in any case it’s up to Langdon to say what he wants to say.” Jann said, “We have to talk about this.” So we went to dinner that night and spent three fucking hours arguing about this record review. Finally he convinced me. So I went over to Langdon’s and sat down with him and spent three more hours arguing with him until I convinced him! Now to me this was the essence of great editing, of how you put out a publication that is utterly honest. All that time spent over one 750 word review! And it was worth it.”

—Greil Marcus in conversation with Simon Reynolds,

Los Angeles Review of Books

there are other instances where wenner displays his clear bias against paul, which was especially rampant in the time where paul was hailed as the talentless and flighty hack who did nothing more than book the studio for the beatles and john as the deeply misunderstood true lyrical and musical genius behind the beatles. a narrative that was formed then and persists to this day.

third, a number of writers – including, disappointingly, doggett and carlin – have recounted the “jap tart” episode from paul to john and yoko as fact, but it’s NOT. it’s the unverified retrospective eyewitness testimony years after it happened of a very much biased, secondhand source. we’ve never seen evidence from anyone else that this event occurred. no picture, no copy, nothing. just like any other event francie “remembers”, if i might add. and since other private notes and copies from letters and even journals exist from other and more deeply involved with the beatles people, it is suspicious.

even during “lennon remembers” – also done with involvement from wenner – john himself admits that his examples of the others treating yoko badly in the studio or elsewhere come off as him being paranoid. if he had indeed a clear and very much damning example, such as this “jap tart” postcard or typewritten message or handwritten note, why didn’t he bring it up? or, more glaringly, yoko herself? when discussing why she and john left cavendish in philip norman’s paul bio, she doesn’t mention this incident at all. why didn’t either of them ever bring up this incident in all the years after it supposedly occurred? 

it’s also important to point out that the narrative that paul was an absolute and continuous horror to john and yoko during the let it be era is just that: a narrative. let’s see what yoko has to say:

“After the initial embarrassment, then – um, now Paul is being very nice to me. He’s nice, and a – a very, um, str– on the level, straight sense. Like, um, whenever there’s something happening at Apple, he explains to me, as if I should know, [inaudible] and things like that. And also whenever there’s something like they need a light man or something like that, he asks me if I know of anybody in the art world, and things like that.

And like, um, I can see that he’s just now suddenly changing his attitude, like he’s being – he’s treating me with respect. Not because it’s me – but because I belong to John. I hope that’s what it is, because that would be nice. And I feel like he’s my younger brother or something like that. I’m sure that if he had been a woman or something, he would have been a great threat – because there’s something definitely very strong between John and Paul.

And, um – and probably among those three people of George and Ringo and Paul, Paul is the only one that I can sort of feel the vibration [from]. Like, sort of sense it, you know, that something is among that. ‘Cause Ringo and George, I just can’t communicate. I mean, I’m sure that George and – I’m really sure that they’re both very nice people, but that’s not the point… I think that’s because being, uh, [because of John, Paul, and me] being air signs, like Libra, Gemini, and Aquarius.”

[x]

another point is the nature of the source itself: francie didn’t – at least as far as we know – write any of these instances down, be it in her diary, or even in a letter to her mother, with whom she stayed in contact during that time. all of which would have made the claim more credible, as those would have been never intended for public view and subsequent consumption as her book was. 

she wrote them in her memoir, something she wanted people to buy, and there has been discussion that wenner encouraged her to promote the “sex and dissension” between paul and her and paul and the beatles in her work, because that’s what would sell and ensure publicity. 

lasty, i’ve seen another valid point brought up: linguistics. “hot shit” is something that is more an americanism – francie is american – than something used in the late 60s by someone of liverpool descent.

tl;dr: francie’s claim is unfounded and to this very day has zero (0) proof to it. 

i’ll include another good quote about the issue under a read more should you be interested.

While Erin toils in academia with an unusually heavy workload, I thought I would share another unpublished excerpt from The Historian And The Beatles regarding this now infamous statement attributed to Paul by his erstwhile lover, Francie Schwartz:

One example of Doggett’s occasional acceptance of unverified testimony as fact is his use of Francie Schwartz’s claim that the reason Lennon and Ono left McCartney’s London house (where they were temporarily staying) in Summer 1968 is because McCartney left the couple a postcard with the words “You and Your Jap Tart Think You’re Hot Shit” on it. Schwartz, McCartney’s girlfriend at the time, is the only source for this scene, (Body Count, 220) which, Doggett argues in both You Never Give Me Your Money and in a later interview with Oomska, initiated an irreparable wedge between Lennon and McCartney.

However, neither Lennon nor Ono ever mentioned this incident, even during Lennon Remembers, in which Lennon accuses the other Beatles of seriously mistreating Ono but also acknowledges that their offered examples of mistreatment are unconvincing: “Even when it’s written down, it’ll just look like I’m paranoid.” (Lennon Remembers, 44) Given that Schwartz portrays this incident as an extremely painful moment in Lennon’s relationship with McCartney, and that it directly led to Lennon and Ono departing Cavendish, it would presumably have been, for both Lennon and Ono, a particularly memorable moment. More, describing this incident would have heavily reinforced Lennon’s Lennon Remembers interview agenda to portray himself and Ono as victims of McCartney and the other Beatles. His failure to remember and recount the incident in this particular instance casts suspicions on the accuracy of Schwartz’s account.

While Garraghan declares that “the testimony of a single witness whose competence in every respect is above suspicion may be accepted as true,” (Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, 244) Schwartz does not qualify as a competent witness. Her brief relationship with McCartney ended badly when he told her to move out and Schwartz quickly sold articles about her time with McCartney to Rolling Stone and later produced a book, Body Count, in which Schwartz details the postcard scene. The Beatles Bibliography (which repeatedly discredits those pro-Lennon sources promoting the “Lennon Remembers” and Shout! versions of Beatles history) describes Body Count as “a travesty of a memoir,” in part because of its “self-serving and non-reflexive tone.” In credibility terms, Schwartz’s unverified eyewitness testimony is equal to that of the Apple Scruff claiming that Lennon once attempted to hit a pregnant Linda McCartney. While both Schwartz and the Apple Scruff’s claims are generally reinforced by circumstantial evidence (Schwartz by Beatles insider Derek Taylor’s claims that McCartney was sending him anonymous but ominous postcards in that same time period, the Scruff’s by Lennon’s admitted acts of occasional violence against women) Beatles writers who recount both scenes should explain that they are unverified testimony presented by an unreliable source.

Anyone still questioning whether Francie Schwartz is being truthful about the “jap tart” comment need only consider the point which Erin makes here: that J&Y would have been been screaming about this to the press to bolster their position that the rest of the band mistreated them/Yoko, had it been true.  I would also add that the vernacular–calling something or someone “hot shit”– sounds far more American than late 60’s British.  I think Schwartz gave herself away with that one.

I’m shocked that Doggett didn’t come up with those same, very simple observations.

What say ye, commentators?

(source)

i’ve also incorporated a lot of the points from the beatlesbible here.

[rabbitindisguise]

Is it bad if I think that the reason I'm aroace really IS because no one likes me? When I was a kid, I used to get lots of crushes all the time. I crushed on at least half the people I met. But every time I got rejected (which was anytime I confessed attraction to someone), my attraction faded away more and more. Ever since I turned 15 many years ago, I realized I wasn't attracted to anyone anymore. And since I still don't have any takers, I guess it's just as well.

Is it bad to . . . identify as ace? Fuck no.

Maybe one third to one half the reason why I'm ace and aro is because I have social anxiety. I mean, I can offer some questions:

Does identifying as ace make you uncomfortable?

Do you wish you had a partner, but think it's unrealistic?

Are you pissed/upset/disillusioned/unpleasant emotions about getting rejected?

And the main question I can say to all that is: do you want to be ace?

Because the thing about being asexual is the identity has taken in a lot of people. AVEN's official stance has always been that asexuality is open to anyone that feels they benefit from the term. As a shorthand, as an umbrella, as a cover, whatever someone needs. That means aspec people, people that don't necessarily fit the definition of asexuality (little to no sexual attraction) but maybe have low libidos, or little sex for many other reasons. Fighting against the stereotype of unassailable aces, or aces that aren't mentally ill or have "other explanations" for their asexuality, has been a multi year process that I've always taken seriously. So the only real stance I can take on "is it bad to be ace" with regards to self identification is "fuck no." This identity is open to you regardless of your personal history, anon, no matter what that history is. It's up to you to pick it up, but if you choose it, it's yours for keeps.

And, ultimately, the entire narrative of your identity is up to you. It's not bad to "acquire" aceness, if that's what happened. It's also not bad to change your mind. It's also also not bad to decide that despite the evidence you were ace all along, or aren't ace now despite identifying as it for awhile, somewhere in the middle, or whatever else you want to say about yourself. There are a million possibilities and all of them are up for grabs here.

People may or may not accept these things like I will, but it's not your obligation to do or say or think things about yourself to satisfy them. Even me! Don't feel obligated to try and satisfy my questions with answers, even. They're just an attempt to help you clarify your own feelings for yourself, a process I am most definitely not a part of and can only chest on from over here

But if you want my ace-ssment as an ace™ that feels 0% conflictions or confusions about my aceness in case you do want to be ace and need a nudge to feel secure in your place in the community . . .

The line:

And since I still don't have any takers, I guess it's just as well.

really jumps out at me

Because I've talked to people who have gotten lots of rejections that are allo. Not saying you can't be one of them! But one thing I noticed was that rejection often . . . increased their desires? It might be a personality thing, and that I'm more likely to hear complaining from them over allos that have accepted their face and still ID as allo, but that's honestly just further proof you can do what you want. So if you do want to be ace, and you want some validation of that decision, I gotta say I don't typically hear "and then I felt less interested in the thing I wanted and didn't get" in any song about sex ever unless it was about slighted exes talking about a single instance of attraction. Correlations? Not causations. Sexuality can be fluid. Not bad at all to come into being ace through a less common narrative.

Hell, I lost my virginity long before asexuality was something I was using to describe myself. I've experienced sexual attraction more after identifying as ace than before I began to identify as ace. The world is chaos. May you have a cat, loved plant, or pal in some shape or form that can keep you company in the times ahead, because you sound rad as heck anon