#I don't know if I entirely agree but there are valid points being made and a lot to think about

[mariacallous]

In the United States, the daily news accounts of Twitter’s decline and possible demise can give the impression that Elon Musk’s disastrous early days as the owner of the social media company is a largely American story.

One day, the headlines are dominated by Musk polling his Twitter followers to determine whether former U.S. President Donald Trump should be allowed to return to the platform. Unsurprisingly, given Musk’s politics, he was. Another day, the public learns that Marjorie Taylor Green, one of the most radical exponents in Congress of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, has been granted renewed access to Twitter. And at virtually the same moment, Canadian psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson, a long-standing provocateur in the United States’ culture wars and notable opponent of the protection of rights of transgender and nonbinary people, was welcomed back to Twitter.

Anticipating widespread criticism, Musk, who often comes across as a gleeful adolescent and exhibitionist, tweeted, “Hope all judgy hall monitors stay on other platforms – please, I’m begging u.”

Some prominent U.S. commentators have dismissed what is going on at Twitter. Marketing professor and podcast host Scott Galloway, speaking on CBS News’s Face the Nation on Sunday, said the platform is “not a national treasure.” But there are many reasons to mourn the ongoing spectacle. With all of its shortcomings, Twitter has been a powerful agent in the democratization of information over the past generation.

Depending on one’s age, it may be all too easy to ignore or forget what the human information ecosystem was like a mere generation ago. When I was starting out as a journalist in the early 1980s, the news in my country, the United States, was utterly dominated by a small number of companies, starting with the so-called national newspapers such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Most Americans got their news from the three national television networks—CBS, NBC, and ABC—which mostly took their leads straight from the big papers, allowing their coverage decisions to be especially guided by the Times’s front page.

In that era, the United States had a far more vibrant local information scene, with strong competition among daily newspapers in even medium-sized cities. Most of these have disappeared or been gutted by the internet. But for news of the world, even financially strong local papers often relied heavily on the syndicated offerings of the three big national papers.

I have worked at one time or another of my career on every continent. And although it is difficult to make a blanket statement covering the news industry globally, for the people of many—and perhaps most—countries, the news diet at this time was far thinner than in the United States and often dominated by official government publications and broadcasters.

Social media in general, and perhaps Twitter in particular, have helped destroy the old information system. By serving as what economists would call a “multiplier,” they have vastly expanded the range of offerings that we are all exposed to, as well as the reach of both smaller players in the information economy and individuals. Like almost anything so consequential, this has not come without problems and drawbacks, which I will come to in a moment. First, though, more needs to be said about what Musk has been destroying.

Others have commented on the destruction of all sorts of human networks and communities as Twitter suffers a battering from within. If predictions of Twitter’s ultimate demise are not utterly premature, I, for one, will find it immeasurably harder to do what I do. As a journalist with far-flung interests, that means staying abreast of information in every corner of Africa, in northeastern Asia, in academic history circles in the United States, in the publishing industry, and in many other areas. In addition to its reach, Twitter has allowed people like me to curate their sources by following people who are reliably interesting—and relatively reliable in the quality of information they share.

In recent days, I have been experimenting with some of the new alternatives to Twitter, such as Post.News. But however promising some of them look, it will be hard—or, more likely, impossible—to reconstruct some of what years of careful Twitter use had built for me and millions of others.

If these strike readers as relatively mundane considerations, there is one other way to think about the damage being done to Twitter that is the opposite of parochial, American or otherwise. Galloway notwithstanding, the destruction of Twitter would be a geopolitical catastrophe not only for the United States but also for the democratic world in general. With his shallow understanding of freedom of speech, these stakes seem to escape Musk.

As the world’s leading authoritarian society, China’s response to Twitter and other Western social media was to allow only stringently policed conversations on authorized (or at least not forbidden) topics on platforms such as Weibo. Musk’s free speech absolutism might seem like the opposite, but, in fact, it represents an abdication of responsibility and good sense in the name of his personal ideology.

It is true that Twitter has long allowed some level of disinformation and fake news on its platform, and that in some circles there was always lots of shouting, falsity, and ugliness. But the company expended considerable energy to keep things within bounds and enforce standards. By allowing virtually anything to appear on Twitter—no matter how hurtful, untrue, irresponsible, or even hateful—through the gutting of the platform’s Trust and Safety unit, Musk is destroying free speech in the name of saving it.

If things continue down this path, we will end up in a situation where democratic countries will have proved themselves as incapable as authoritarian ones in providing for untrammeled communication and the sharing of information globally.

This, and not Musk’s shallow and sterile vision, would be the true defeat of free speech. And there is no one who would be happier than its most powerful sworn enemies, the authoritarians. Listen carefully, and you may already hear them clucking.

[aizenat]

There is this girl I went to hs with and the nicest way I can say this is this girl was smart but not particularly so, and had a high sense of self despite being remarkably average. Again, that's the nicest way I can say that. She also got very triggered whenever I was better at her than something (in all fairness, she was like that with anyone better than her, but my friend caught her shit talking me once when I was the only person in my English class to get an A on my Catcher in the Rye essay--something I expected simply because I'm a writer, was then, and I never once got anything less than A on an essay my entire hs career--and that pissed me off particularly because my writing is the ONE thing in this world I can truly say I do better than most people).

Anyway, I learned a while ago that she moved to Boston, and she was associated with Harvard in some way. Without getting too into it, she works there in the weirdest and most random department (not as a professor or anything meaningful or prestigious, which will make sense in a second), doing basically admin shit it seems. I was curious because she's still listed on their site and it says she's been there for like eleven years. I was wondering if she ended up going there as a student in something, but without a linkden or something, I couldn't see. But every time I googled her name and the school, the only thing that came up was her staffing position. No information to indicate she was a student.

Which is funny. I looked up to see if you can go to Harvard for free if you work there, and the do have a reimbursement program, but you'd only get like 75% of fees back, so you'd still have to come out of pocket. And this is an IVY, so that's going to be pretty. And considering what she does, I can't imagine it paying that much where she could easily afford it. Maybe she does take classes and is slowly working her way to some kinda degree, but I doubt it. I feel like she'd at least be able to brag by now given how long she's been there (the site fucking says when she started lol).

Either way, the reason this is funny to me is because she was never even close or talented or impressive enough to anyone let alone college admissions to get into a school like Harvard (I know for a fact she didn't get in in hs lol), and transferring into schools is typically easier, she didn't get her degrees from there according to the site. So I just lowkey find it funny because the closest she'd ever get to Harvard is not as a student or even as someone brought in to teach, but by getting some admin job and sticking around long enough to get her picture on the school's site. She looks so proud in her Harvard shirt, thinking she finally "made it" but never in a way that would actually impress everyone.

It just all feels very fitting for her. In the right spaces to be around more impressive people while being overwhelmingly mediocre her own damn self lol.

[charmedreincarnation]

When I say that this journey is real, and our struggles are not in vain, I am shouting it from the rooftops. A month ago, I woke up with my dream life. Obsessed with the "void state", I woke up one day being the same person but with an entirely new life. All because I chose it.

Your efforts aren't going unnoticed. The universe is always on your side. You are the universe. It's been a month, and I still feel overwhelmed with joy and wonder every single day.

I was once poor and battling depression, a reality many can relate to. But we found the law because we knew we deserved more. You can be ordinary, flawed, even unkind, but you can choose to transform and have it all. And I did just that. My parents, who were illegal immigrants working underpaid jobs, are now wealthy and respected figures. My last name alone garners recognition, and I am a socialite earning money just by being me.

I used to live in an attic infested with cockroaches. Now, I reside in a four-story mansion, complete with exotic cars, house help, cooks, drivers - all treated and compensated fairly. We also own three other houses across the United States.

I was once insecure, severely underweight, and bullied. Today, not only am I stunningly beautiful, but I am also praised for my fashion sense. I was once a dull person, but now I am radiant with positivity.

I attended an underfunded school where I was bullied, and teachers lacked resources to intervene. Now, I study at a prestigious private school that assures my entry into an Ivy League university. Finally, I am respected and appreciated.

I was lonely and uninteresting. Now, I am vibrant with a close-knit group of friends and a man who seems straight out of a Wattpad story. He's perfect, and he's mine.

This transformation happened overnight. And I've been on this journey since 2020. But how??? I surrendered to my imagination!

The void was overwhelming, but now I can easily navigate it. I was tired of giving my power away. So, I gave in to myself, to my dreams. I knew I deserved it. Even if I didn't believe it at times, I made the choice. If you desire something, it's already yours. It's done.

I didn't have a list or anything of my desires, just a vision of happiness. I didn't know what it looked like, but I knew how it felt. Now, I embody that feeling every day. My life is a series of plot twists. It's not perfect, but my worst days now are what I once prayed for. That old life? POOF It's gone. All I have is now, and I'm living it to the fullest.

My advice?

Stop seeking proof. If you're looking for proof, you'll never manifest your dreams because the only thing that needs to change is self. Doubt is a reflection of your disbelief in yourself. When I surrendered to my imagination, it didn't matter who was lying or telling the truth, because I had my truth. The burden of proof lies within you. It's called the law of assumption. You might harbor some doubt, but you must have faith like the devout. They believe without proof. You can too! We all can! Believe in yourself, and the universe will conspire in your favor!!!!

I agree! Your words resonated with me a lot. Faith, particularly self-faith, is such an important tool in shaping our realities. The ability to trust ourselves, our desires, and our potential is essential in manifesting our dream life, and it’s only so beautiful to slowly see yourself give yourself all your trust when you’ve never even liked yourself.

You're spot on about the issue of seeking confirmation from others. It's an unnecessary hurdle that we give ourselves but it’s human nature. Our truths and dreams should not be validated by anyone else but us. As you said, why should it matter if someone lied or told the truth? We are the creators of our own lives and thus, the only validation we need comes from within.

And I wholeheartedly agree with your point about deservingness. We don't have to earn our desires or prove ourselves worthy of them. If we want something, that desire alone makes us deserving of it.

More importantly I am very proud and happy for you !!!! You’re a testament of what our own imagination can do for us and I hope you only keep getting happier and happier <3!!!!

[bananasfosterparent]

The difference in AA is his soul being irreversibly gone. That is the point and this is what Larians writers have been hinting at and this is what irks people about AA. The oversexualisation and erasure of his trauma, effectively erasing him as a person. I know we're talking about a fictional character, but if we're gonna go off on the topic, saying something "doesn't matter" is just a cop-out. Astarion didn't need to be "fixed" to the point of emotional lobotomy.

I don't think it's wrong to like or prefer him, but I think it's valid to have opinion on the matter, much like you have yours.

I started to apologize for the length of this, but honestly, since you sent the message, I'm going to respond to every part of it. I'm not sorry for the rambling lol

"The difference in AA is his soul being irreversibly gone."

Okay, show me the quote/scene/dialog in-game where this canonly is said and confirmed? Where does it say the ritual will ever touch his soul or any part of the game talks about his literal soul?

And if by soul you mean the "lose who you are inside" as a metaphor, that's still a matter of opinion and not actually canonly what happens. Astarion is still himself. The "changes" in his personality are shifts to simply adjust to the company he is around. He's essentially code switching.

That is the point and this is what Larians writers have been hinting at and this is what irks people about AA.

Got it. So the point of Astarion's romance is for Larian to write a singular story that has one ending you're "supposed" to enjoy with a "morally good" conclusion, and one ending that's fun and sexy, but "supposed" to be a cautionary warning of how things "shouldn't go". Because that makes sense for a "choose your own adventure" game and that's why the romance stops with AA as soon as you ascend him, and he enslaves and compels your character and you can't continue the romance with him--OH WAIT.

The oversexualisation and erasure of his trauma, effectively erasing him as a person

"The oversexualization".... So you know my Tav's personal motivations and why she chose to ascend him? And you're confident you know I made the roleplay decisions I made because you know it centers entirely and solely around it being to sexualize him?

Interesting.

Because that couldn't be further from the truth. My Tav has an entire story for why she chose to ascend him and it has nothing to do with how sexy it makes him. And it was a story I came up with well before I knew about any of this "sexualization" concept. And as a player, I didn't ascend him because I wanted a sexy vampire. I went into his romance blind and had no idea what would happen when I did it. I ascended him because it narratively made sense for my character and their relationship. But even then, if I wanted a sexy vampire, why is that a bad thing? He's not real.

And I find it so ironic that a lot of spawn fans who are anti-AA only enjoy AA for the sexual parts of that ending. Yet, we're the ones "oversexualizing" him lol

As for "erasure of his trauma"... where do I even start? What does that even mean? lol I'm not gonna lie. You sound young or unaware, but believe it or not, in real life there is more than one way to deal with trauma. And dealing with it in a way you don't agree with doesn't erase the trauma or mean the person is pretending it never happened. Ascended Astarion very much addresses his trauma and exercises a different form of healing.

In a fantasy world, you can actually explore those other options and have the outcome work FOR you, even if it wouldn't in real life. Accepting your fate and trying to align yourself with "morally good" choices is certainly not a bad thing and one way to go. In real life, that's what I agree with, as a Christian and believer in Christ. But Faerun doesn't have a Jesus. They don't have the same real world ideas of morals. They have their own gods, their own history, their own moral perspective outside of our world. Bringing in (your perspective of) our real world morals is a valid way to roleplay, but it's not the "only correct" way to roleplay.

There is the route of overthrowing what was meant to control and destroy you, and taking control of it yourself. Taking what was meant to be against you and making it work for you instead. For me, that's what Astarion's ascension means.

A smaller example of this is if you give Astarion Gandrel's crossbrow to use.

This weapon was designed to work against vampire spawn. It allows for its user to possibly inflict Turn Undead on enemies and gives them advantage in a fight against monster types. And yet, Astarion can wield it and use it effectively. He can take what was created to hurt and destroy him and use it to work for him.

Ascension can be the exact same thing. It's not a matter of which opinion of ascension is morally right. It's a matter of which decision on ascension is right for your Tav and their story with Astarion.

...saying something "doesn't matter" is just a cop-out.

Can you show me where I said "something" "doesn't matter"? Cause it wasn't in any of my recent posts. Are you referring to one of my older ones?

Not only do I not know what part of what post you're referring to, BUT I also don't know what I was talking about, if I even said "something" doesn't matter. I don't know what that "something" is.

Astarion didn't need to be "fixed" to the point of emotional lobotomy.

I'm glad we agree on something. I've seen people claim ascension is "fixing" him (because it eliminates the negative traits of vampirism) and therefore it's weird to call anti-AA spawn fans "fixers". But the difference is trying to change(fix) his morals and view of the world to reflect a "good" worldview (the spawn ending) VS trying to change (fix) his circumstances and lack of control (helping his ascend).

AA fans do not want to change his personality or his mental/emotional state. We want to change his circumstances so that he has a place to be able to make those decisions on his own. And for most of us, Ascension provides that perspective.

Spawn fans want the same thing. But the approach is more to convince him from the inside out that he can make those decisions without ascension. And that's also true. But not more valid or the only way.

But his personality does not change in either ending. In one (spawn ending), he is able to find freedom in just being free of Cazedor and exist the way he always has with a newfound confidence and peace.

In another, he is able to find freedom in taking the helm himself, and holding all the cards to be the one on top. He finds confidence in having the power and being able to wield it, without fear of anything he's had to fear with the negatives of vampirism.

But in both, he is still the same person. He still gets joy out of the same things (killing people, having/causing/observing bloodshed, and causing some chaos), he still has the same personality. The difference is in his circumstances and how he presents himself.

I don't think it's wrong to like or prefer him, but I think it's valid to have opinion on the matter, much like you have yours.

You don't mean that. Because if you did, you wouldn't have a reason to send this anon message in the first place. You wouldn't care enough. It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't have this opinion. You would be able to see value in both endings and respect the positive perspective of ascension even if you don't understand it, without arguing headcanon points like "his soul is irreversibly gone".

Your entire message is literally you trying to tell me it's wrong to like him and that the opinion I have of him is invalid and wrong. I already respect your opinion on both sides of him. Because it's your right to how you roleplay and see him. If you respect mine, you're doing a really awful job at showing it.

Regardless, if that is your intention or not. That's what sending this message says. If you really want to say you respect AA fans for enjoying AA, then stop sending AA fans messages like this and either completely avoid AA and the fans or refrain from trying to argue against it. We can discuss it and not agree while also respecting each other's roleplay choices.

This is not a wrong vs right conversation. It's a "what's your preference?" conversation. Spawn vs Ascended should be like "what's your favorite Pokemon type?"

The sooner that is realized, the better off this fandom will be.

[firstkanaphans]

I heartily concur with your interpretation of the Ray/Mew no-sex scene - it absolutely wasn't about sex, it was about Ray pleading with Mew to just give him a sign that he's actually genuine about this 'relationship' - at this point I think Ray wants to be with Sand, but as long as there's a chance Mew is being sincere about this, Ray feels bound to stay with him, not because he's in love with him, but because a) he begged for this (even though I still maintain he wouldn't have had Mew not brought it up again) and b) I don't think he has it in him to actively reject Mew (which in itself is part of the reason they don't work), so imo in this scene he's thinking 'show me something, anything, that allows me to convince myself I did the right thing playing it safe/not going after Sand' and THAT'S why he's so angry - it's not about sex, it's not about Top, it's not even about Mew not being able to love him. And it's not about him just being mad at not getting what he wants. It's about Ray realising that he's thrown away the possibility of real love for the lie that is this 'romance'. And like you said, Mew as good as confirms as much in the final convo. I appreciated Mew's maturity and honesty so much in that scene - it made me do a complete u-turn on his character. Mew realises that Ray wants out of this non-relationship just as much as he does, but he also knows that Ray will never be able to be the one to say it because of the power imbalance between them, so he does it for the both of them, which is a true act of love and friendship. I think for some ppl Ray 'choosing' Sand had to be an A or B scenario, aka Ray could have Mew but chooses Sand instead. But because Ray is a messed up raw wound seeping trauma and addiction and self-loathing and confusion it was never going to be that simple. What we get is more complicated but just as valid - Sand isn't his second option, Sand is who he WANTS to be with, Sand is who he loves, and who he WOULD be with if a) he was better equipped to recognise and understand his own feelings ('when I'm with you I'm so damn happy') and b) he didn't have such a longstanding and complicated (and unhealthily co-dependent) history with Mew. He doesn't drive off hoping to hook up with Sand because Mew turned him down. He seeks Sand out because, if we agree the Ray/Mew fight is the moment they both accept on some level their relationship is fake, then that's the moment Ray allows himself the chance to go after what his heart really wants, which is Sand. Ray doesn't have the emotional toolkit necessary to be able to articulate all this to himself, let alone to anyone else, which is why Mew very gently does it for him. But Mew being the one to break this to Ray doesn't mean Ray's feelings are any less his own. I think of it more this way: Sand is Ray's first choice, but Ray's own happiness is Ray's last choice, because on some level he doesn't believe he deserves it, and so without intervention - from Mew, from Sand - Ray would always continue to self-sabotage (as talked about in the tweet Jojo reposted a few days ago). And slightly but not entirely off topic: I also think nuance is often lost in translation - I might be wrong but I wonder if his words ('why won't you let me have it') are less...yeesh in Thai. Just part of a general thought I've been thunking about deep analysis of foreign language shows when you're reading so much into everything and yet relying on what are often serviceable at best subtitles (for which I'm still eternally grateful!) - SO MUCH can be misinterpreted by just a single word choice, and I sometimes find myself having to choose between taking subs at face value vs retranslating them in my head to what I think better suits the acting/story/characterisation. Apologies for the indecent length of this - I got carried away! Long story short: I agree with you!

Honestly, I agree with all of this and couldn't have said it better myself. I don't have much to add, but I will pull out some of my favorite lines for a TL;DR:

"At this point I think Ray wants to be with Sand, but as long as there's a chance Mew is being sincere about [their relationship], Ray feels bound to stay with him, not because he's in love with him, but because a) he begged for this...and b) I don't think he has it in him to actively reject Mew."

"So imo in this scene he's thinking 'show me something, anything, that allows me to convince myself I did the right thing playing it safe/not going after Sand' and THAT'S why he's so angry - it's not about sex, it's not about Top, it's not even about Mew not being able to love him....It's about Ray realising that he's thrown away the possibility of real love for the lie that is this 'romance.'"

"I think of it more this way: Sand is Ray's first choice, but Ray's own happiness is Ray's last choice, because on some level he doesn't believe he deserves it, and so without intervention - from Mew, from Sand - Ray would always continue to self-sabotage."

As for the question of translation accuracy, I actually did a little digging into this. The line that was translated as "Why won't you let me have it?" was literally บอกกูมาได้ป่ะว่าทำไมมึงถึงไม่ยอมให้กูเอาสักทีอ่ะ (bòk goo maa dâai bpà wâa tam-mai meung tĕung mâi yom hâi goo ao sàk tee à), which can more accurately be translated as "Can you tell me why you won't let me have it?" I know that's not a huge difference, but it turns an accusatory statement into a legitimate question. Ray's not just stomping his foot because Mew won't give him sex. He's asking for an explanation. [Insert disclaimer about me not being a native Thai speaker here.]

[radfem-polls]

Open ended question: what made you “peak”?

For me it was finally realising that women and made to cater to men but men never have to do the same. Example transwomen constantly forcing themselves into women’s spaces but men never have to do the same for trans men. Transwomen still having all the privilege of men while frequently putting down women and telling them they’re not doing enough as allies. So yet again women are constantly being forced to defend themselves and overexplain. Women spaces being shut down on social media like Facebook and reddit but men spaces and women hating spaces being allowed to thrive. Trans subreddits openly talking about how much they hate bio women and how they are prettier and better than any bio women while women in any subreddit including “lesbian” subreddits being made to walk on eggshells or censor themselves. Etc and the list goes on.

Hi thank you for your submission! Everyone it's time for our next...

Saturday open ended question!

Radfems and radleans, what made you "peak"?

Peaking often refers to switching one's perspective from being accepting of gender and/or gender ideology, to becoming gender critical. It can refer to becoming critical of genderism in a conservative context, an LGBTQ context, or both.

Alternatively, peaking can refer to any aspect of becoming a radical feminist (as opposed to mainstream feminist or opposed to mainstream conservativism), such as becoming critical of the sex industry, pornography, BDSM, reproductive restrictions, surrogacy, marriage, etc.

If you're referring to non-gender related peaking, specification would be great for people looking through the replies/reblogs, but you don't have to ofc 🫶🏾

Replying to OP under the cut (opinionated) 👇🏾

Huge agree, it's so clear that whilst trying to erase our sex, they still mistreat and silence us along sex lines. Despite obsfucating the definition of woman, they still know who is a woman when it comes to who to denigrate, debase, and intrude upon!

I personally feel that I peak again and again almost every day; each abuse a new reminder that they are male and of the oppressor class.

Essentially two big reasons I peaked can be summed up as 1) TIMs are sexist and 2) TIMs are racist.

Part 1:

One of the things that peaked me was, back when I was trans-identified, seeing how openly violent trans women were towards trans men. Some would even say the trans men and other tifs were not "truly trans" (and they are??), wish them rape or other violence, for perceived social missteps, or tell them they cannot talk about the oppression they experience for being female (AFAB), lest they perpetuate "transmisogyny."

It was like watching a miniature patriarchy surrounded by a veil of gaslighting and DARVO where it was insisted trans men or other "transmisogyny exempt" people were the real oppressors. It's truly no different to how men, particularly incels, DARVO women, insisting we are not oppressed and somehow inflict suffering onto men (usually by way of having boundaries). No different to "transbians" talking about breaking the cotton ceiling (🤢🤮) and positioning sex with lesbians a form of validation.

Part 2:

Another thing that peaked me is how trans women and other tims talk about black women. It's disgusting! They insist we have some imagined "proximity" to them by way of our "womanhood" being denied to us, but in this statement lies the misogynistic ideas they have around what womanhood even is.

They aliken their oppression to black women being considered "unfeminine," or being limited in what parts of femininity black women can access (which is a real problem in the US due to their history with the enslavement of African Americans, although not all black people are AA in the first place. Which ties into how a lot of LGBTQ politics is stinkingly USamericentric, whereas radical feminists prefer to look at the whole world).

This, however, misses the entire point of what womanhood is in the first place, and displays a grave misunderstanding in how gender seeks to oppress the masses. Harping on the second point first, trans women seem to not understand that femininity isn't a desire for women, by which our oppression takes place when we are denied that desire.

Femininity, rather, is a code of conduct that is forced onto women in order to control us, to control our sexuality, to control our reproduction, and to control our lives altogether. Femininity seeks to quash us under the thumb of men by embodying every aspect of a tortured and enslaved mindset. Everything from heels being considered professional while causing physical pain, short skirts limiting our ability to take long strides, bend down and even walk altogether, (and long skirts limiting our ability to run, climb trees, etc). To the very way we are expected to sit to take up less space. I could go on and on but there are many more analyses of femininity. The point is it is a tool to control us.

Black femininity was just as enslaving as white femininity in AA slavery USA. However it contained an additional aspect of dehumanization that white women weren't subjected to (of course, all women are dehumanized under the patriarchy. but due to our race, black women were/are additionally dehumanized). The modern march amongst black women to achieve hyperfemininity (essentially the expectations for white women ×10) is a seek to be dehumanized in a generalist way rather than racially-specific.

Yet for trans women, this oppressive code of conduct is what they desire in order to "be women." They think this code of conduct is womanhood, and anyone who seeks to fit into it is a woman, and anyone who detests it is not (see: multiple cases of trans women saying "if you hate womanhood so much, why not be a man?" or telling butches they are "closeted transmascs").

This all comes to the first earlier point that trans women misunderstand (or intentionally refuse to accept) the meaning of womanhood in the first place. It is not femininity. It is not an act. It is not a thought process. It is not a feeling. It is not immaterial.

Being a woman requires 3 things.

Be a member of a human species. Currently there is only one human species alive; homo sapien sapien.

Be an adult, which is usually considered the age by which one is mature enough to engage in the world independently. In much of the world this is 18 years old. It may be 16, 21, or even 25.

Be female. Notice how trans women do not fit into this. To be a female human, one must have at least 1 X chromosome along with either no Y chromosome, or the Y chromosome's SRY gene is missing, inactivated, or damaged beyond functionality. This karotypical makeup will result in the development of phenotypical traits that aim to partake in the production of the large gamete ova. This simple definition covers all females, perisex or intersex. Any human who does not meet this definition is a male, whether perisex or intersex male.

In short. Be an human adult female (adult female human, however you like to place the adjectives). It is on this basis of our SEX, female, that we are oppressed. The way black women are "distanced" from womanhood is on the basis of not being considered human. This is completely different to trans women and other tims as they are not women due to not being female. Claiming they are "denied" womanhood the way black women are is racist and appropriative of black women's struggles.

The other argument they have (which is even more racist) is their argument black women are "mistaken" for being male and attacked. It is true that *white* attackers sometimes target black women on assumption they are male. This is because white men are fucking racist and don't know what black women look like. Black men rarely struggle to tell if a black woman is a woman or not, unless that woman has an intersex and/or hormonal condition making her ambiguous.

In the latter, it is not blackness that is "analogous" to trans women's experiences, but possibly intersex. I'm not intersex so that is for intersex people to define to which degree they are in proximity to trans women, if at all. Altogether, mistaking black women for men is because of a lack of exposure to what black people and therefore black women look like. Using ethnic features as a marker of sex distinction is xenophobic and sexist against women. Whether that's a white man beating up a black woman because he thinks she's a man, or white TIMs on Xitter trying to prove a random black celeb looks like a man, it is at the core, racism.

I should iterate, obviously, beating up other people is repulsive, hate crimes are repulsive. Beating up trans women is repulsive. However by shifting the responsibility of these actions from the attackers, often white men or whoever else is most racially/ethnically privileged in a given region, onto black women, TIMs are being racist and misogynistic (misogynoirist in particular).

Of course, not every trans woman or other TIM is a virulent sexist and/or racist. But the core concept of womanhood being a commandeerable trait or thought process, rather than a material state of being that is oppressed in human society on the basis of sex, is sexist, immaterialist, psuedo-religious, and very easily leans itself to racist thinking.

That understanding of gender ideology as fitting into those above traits, my friends, is why I peaked. There's so, so much more I could say, but this is a poll blog and we'll be here all day 😅

If you read this far drop a flower emoji in the comments/reblogs/tags 🌷

Let me know if you want to see more under the cut soapboxing on Saturdays lol 😆

[bitimdrake]

Thoughts on Jack Drake's death in Identity Crisis? I personally dislike it because it's a fridging (and somehow only the third worst death in that book behind "why did she have a FLAMETHROWER tho" and "that's not how Firestorm works you're confusing him with Human Bomb"), and it took away what made Tim stand out in making him an orphan like the other Robins. I'm not a Batfam expert so I haven't read a ton of the surrounding stories but it feels like there was more they could have done with Jack.

I would not personally call it fridging because I think we've gotten waaaay too liberal with that term, particularly when removed from the original context of misogyny (*unless perhaps we are applying it to other bigotry, which I do think is worthwhile), and because "side character dies to push forward a main character's story" is...not a bad thing. That's a perfectly valid story telling trope that can be used well or poorly.

THAT SAID. I do think there was more to do with Jack that could have been really interesting!

He'd just found out Tim was Robin, and imo there was sooo much that could have be mined from that. It could have been a really interesting and major shakeup in Tim's story, without entirely changing the fundamentals of his character. I'm so interested in the theoretical arc of Tim and his long time hot-and-cold distant dad trying to figure this relationship out now that Jack finally, for the first time, is both (a) interested in actively pursuing a relationship with his son (he's been on and off since shortly after Tim became Robin) and (b) actually able to get to know his son (which has been impossible from Tim's side since he became Robin and starting keeping so much of his life secret). Jack decided to be supportive, but their relationship is messy! Their history is complicated! And he still has understandably mixed feelings about his son fighting crime! How do they figure this out??

(Unrelated, I still think about this one fic where Jack comes back to life circa Brucequest and realizes his archeological skills can help. The future story it implied. The gentle question of can Tim and Jack repair their relationship. It compels me.)

I'm of two minds about Jack dying at all. On the hand, I do agree it took away a lot that made Tim unique as a Robin and lumped him more in with the others. On the other hand, there has been some nice stuff as a result of him being adopted into Bruce's family. And, e.g., I don't think stuff like his relationship with Damian would be remotely the same if Tim still had his own father.

Also like. the theoretical fandom shift from this would be fascinating. The best known batfam characters who are not Wayne family are largely women at this point, which means fandom is extra inclined to ignore them. But if one of the core bat boys was not part of the literal family, would that actually shift the whole fandom focus away from Force This Into A Nuclear Family Mold? Would we see an entire thematic shift? Or would people just be trying to contrive reasons why Tim's very much living father didn't count....

[wolfjackle-creates]

Bring Me Home Arc 2 Part 14

WIP Wednesday is happening this week! I would've had it up an hour or two ago, but I ended up having to run an emergency errand for my mom to keep her friend's car from being towed. But it's all been taken care of!

Story Summary: Tim and Danny are both neglected by parents who care more about their work than their families. They deal with this by spending too much time online and find each other playing MMORPGs. They keep up their friendship as Tim becomes Robin and Danny becomes Phantom and don't bother keeping secrets from each other.

Note: Anyone who still doesn't know which episode I'm basing this arc on should know by the end of this segment. I did realize I made a mistake, though. The invading ghosts are Walker's guards. In the episode, up to this point the trio never refer to them as such. The audience, however, sees Walker send them in. I took that as Danny and co didn't realize they were Walker's people. But as I was going through minute-by-minute while writing, Danny does call them Walker's goons. So he knew the entire time. I'm adjusting that going forward and I'll retroactively make the edits before posting to AO3.

First, Previous

Word Count: 1.7k

-----

Everyone left Sam’s house at the same time. The Amity crowd had to get to school and no one felt comfortable staying at Sam’s house while she wasn’t home. As they ate a quick breakfast, Tim noticed Conner’s fingernails were painted.

“Looks good, Kon,” he commented.

“Thanks,” said Sam. “I did them last night while you and Danny were sleeping. Introduced him to actual music, too.”

Conner grinned. “She’s promised to burn me some CDs before we go.”

“A mixed tape is the only valid way to share music,” Sam agreed. “And if he’s gonna rock the punk look, he should know the punk culture, too.”

Tim laughed. “Well, looks like we know what we’ll be listening to on the way home. Will you need a CD player, Kon?”

“Is my laptop not good enough?”

Tim clicked his tongue. “Come to Gotham with me. I know I have an old one lying around. Nothing like listening to a CD while lying somewhere, wired headphones tangling up as you shift position. If you want the authentic experience, that’s the only way to go.”

Conner shrugged, clearly unsure. “If you say so.”

Danny yawned. “You’re giving him Dumpty Humpty, right?”

Sam snorted. “Am I giving him Dumpty Humpty? Who do you think I am? Of course I am!”

“Good. You can’t introduce someone to good music and leave out Dumpty Humpty.”

Tim nodded. “Yeah, you’ve gotten me into them. They’re fun. You’ll like them, Kon.”

“You played a song or two by them last night, right?” Conner asked.

Cassie nodded. “Yep. That’s who she was playing when Tucker, Bart, and I left to get some sleep in the other room.”

“Ah, yeah. That’s right. I liked them.”

“Of course you did,” said Sam as she flicked her hair. “I have excellent taste.”

Tucker was typing away on his PDA. “So what’ll you be doing while we’re in school?”

Tim grimaced. “I was thinking of hitting up the local library. We want to learn more about the ghosts. But also B has said that a condition of allowing me to extend my trip is that I keep up with my own schoolwork. So I have some catch up to do.”

Danny waved his spoon at him. “And you get on me for not doing my work.”

“Yeah, but you want to graduate and, like, go to college and shit. The stuff I want to do doesn’t require a diploma of any kind. B’s just making me do it because he society has convinced him it’s important.”

Tucker’s PDA alarm went off. “And that alarm means if we’re not out the door in five minutes, we’re gonna be late.”

Everyone groaned as they pushed away from the table and collected their belongings. The walk into town was filled with music discussion. Bart and Conner mostly listened and took note of recommended bands and musicians. Sam tended to know the most obscure stuff, but Tim knew some foreign bands from his time in Europe that no one else had heard of.

The walk was, thankfully, not disturbed by ghosts, but Danny’s ghost sense did go off several times.

“Didn’t your parents make a device that can track ghosts?” asked Tim the third time he complained. “Would that help you locate them?”

Danny hummed thoughtfully. “Maybe, I’ll have to see if I can find it. My parents stopped using it when it kept zeroing in on me. It was too loud for stealth use, though, and loudly went off anytime I was in range. And it didn’t work great for a 3D environment. So Tucker and I would have to develop a new display that can tell me if one is above or below me.”

“I should be able to help, too. You know how good I am with computers.”

“If I can find the device or blueprints, I’ll take you up on that.”

Not long after, they had to say goodbye at the entrance to Caspar High. Dash and his friends also arrived at about the same time. The group stared at Danny, but didn’t move to interact.

“Think they’re still overshadowed?” asked Conner, mirroring Tim’s thoughts.

“God, I hope not,” said Danny.

“But knowing our luck…” Sam trailed off.

Tim sighed. “Keep your distance as much as possible.”

“I know, mom.” Danny rolled his eyes. The school bell rang and he adjusted his backpack strap. “Gotta go. Have fun at the library.” His sarcasm was very evident and he hugged Tim.

The gesture surprised him and his return hug was slightly delayed. “I think I’ll find more than enough to amuse me there.”

With a quick goodbye, the trio rushed off before they could be late.

“So,” said Cassie, “Sam and Tucker seem to have a ton of ideas about you and Danny.”

Tim rolled his eyes. “Danny and I only met in person less than forty-eight hours ago.”

Bart nudged him. “And yet you’re already sleeping in the same bed and giving each other goodbye hugs.”

“I do the same with you guys.” He pulled out his phone to check the location of the library. “Come on, let’s just get to the library. I want to see if they have a digital subscription to the local paper we can use.”

Tim didn’t get much schoolwork done that morning, but he did find out Danny was originally named Inviso-Bill by the press and immediately began planning ways to prank him with that knowledge.

For the rest, he compared what was reported vs what had actually happened with past ghost attacks. One thing was clear, Danny needed much better PR. Hopefully being seen working with the Young Justice would help. And maybe Sam would actually listen if he tried to give pointers on how to manage public perception.

Shortly after noon and before Tim could even pretend he was about to switch over to school work, his phone rang.

“Hey, Danny. What’s up?”

“Tim! Do any of you speak Esperanto?”

“Uh… I don’t. Let me ask Bart.” He lowered the phone to ask.

“Esperanto? What’s that?” asked Bart.

“I’ll explain later,” said Tim. Back into the phone, he added, “Doesn’t look like it. Why? What’s going on?”

“So… You remember that wolf ghost with the collar? Walker’s goons are after him, too. I’m not sure why since he only speaks Esperanto. I got him away from both them and my parents. Think you can keep him safe until school is out? If I miss any more class I’ll be grounded until graduation. Senior graduation.”

Tim gestured to his friends to pack everything up. “Yeah, sure. Where are you right now? I’ll have Bart meet you first and the rest of us will follow.”

Danny gave him directions to a forested area behind the school which Tim relayed to Bart. As soon as the group was out of the library, Bart rushed ahead to Danny.

Over the phone, Danny let him know Bart had arrived. “Oh, and Tucker just got here, too. Excellent. He can speak Esperanto as well. Looks like he’s explaining things to big and hairy over here.”

“Great. We’ll be there soon as we can.”

“Can we fly there?” asked Conner.

Cassie nodded. “People would just think we’re more ghosts.”

Tim rolled his eyes. “Superboy and Wonder Girl were seen in town just last night. No.”

Conner stuck his tongue out at him. “Spoilsport.”

“Relax. It’s not far. GPS has us in the general location in, like, ten minutes.”

“Fine, fine,” sighed Cassie. “We’ll be good.”

Tim elbowed her with a grin. “Now, I never said you had to do that.”

Conner laughed. “So, what is this Esperanto language, anyway? I haven’t heard of it.”

“It’s a conlang based on European languages that’s supposed to be easy to learn. The idea was to make a sort of common language for Earth without promoting a single language like English. It hasn’t gained a lot of traction, though. And if Bart doesn’t know it, then it likely won’t.”

“Huh, weird. Why do you think a werewolf ghost know an Earth-based conlang?”

“Oooh! I bet it’s because he’s the manifestation of some teenage girl’s OC,” offered Cassie.

Tim laughed. “Or maybe the OC of one of the people to create Esperanto.”

Conner shook his head. “You’ve got this all wrong. He’s from an alternate future where Esperanto did take off and a werewolf virus spread among humans.”

The ten minute walk was filled with more and more outlandish theories ending with the wolf being the reincarnation of Jesus who was trying to bring humanity together through the reinstitution of a common language like in the pre-Tower-of-Babel days.

At the edge of the woods, Tim nudged Conner. “Can you hear where they are?”

“Yep. Follow me.”

And then it was less than two minutes before Tim could see them. “Oi! Danny!” he called out with a wave.

Danny flew over to them and hugged him. “Thank you so much! You’re gonna save me so many detentions.” He grabbed Tim’s hand and pulled him towards Tucker and the ghost. “Tim, this is Wulf. Wulf,” Danny said while making eye contact, “Friends.” Then he slowly pointed to each person and said their name.

Tucker rolled his eyes and repeated the information in Esperanto. Tim recognized his and his teammates names and many of the words felt familiar. Likely since he knew or was learning a few European languages.

“So, will we just hang out here for the next few hours until you get out of school?” asked Tim.

“Yeah. It’ll only be about two and a half hours. That okay? Then we’ll go back to Sam’s place. We can hide in her basement.”

“We’ve hung out in worse places for longer,” said Bart. “This is practically cozy. And me or one of the others can run into town for food and supplies. Anything you want from your parent’s place? Food? Snacks?”

Tucker grinned. “If you could get some jerky, that’d be great. No meat at Sam’s.”

Danny laughed. “If we think of anything else, one of us will text it to the group chat.”

An alarm buzzed on Tucker’s PDA. “We’ve got to get back now.”

“Shit. Okay. I’ll fly us back. Bye Tim, everyone!” Danny picked up Tucker and flew away, turning invisible before he was more than a few yards away.

-----

Next

So, more banter and more plot! We're almost starting to get somewhere! This marks roughly the halfway point of the episode. And the arc is almost 25k words. This is why I take forever to publish anything. It always spirals out of my control. Even this section, I originally opened with them in the library. But then I remembered I wanted to have Sam paint Conner's nails and that led to me adding over 900 words to the beginning.

I no longer do tag lists for this fic, but if you make your way to the subscription post, you can set it up so you get notified when this updates.

[prideprejudce]

im genuinely curious since i keep seeing this opinion, but i rly dont think hotd writing was bad? nothing is perfect but idk, unless someone points to me the times they had shitty writing im having a hard time seeing it. unless i dont actually know what "writing" means here. english is not my first language, i COULD be misinterpreting things lmao. i rly liked how they did things this season, i think it made sense with the last one, this one was just Tenser because at any second the war will reallyyy break out n we dont know when cuz we have two driving forces from opposite sides not wanting that to happen, thats the entire point of s2 i think: establishing that in war there is no clear winner ("strange victory" n all that), that everyone is going to die, that there is no point to any of it theres no point to war at all, that every character is "heroic" and "villainous" in their own right in the right pov. i think it was a fun season to flesh out the characters, have us not feel entirely happy to be fighting for one side cuz theres innocents in both sides but ultimately we all know they will all die and its all for nothing. thats the tragedy of it all imo. i loved it to pieces. i guess id say im sad some characters didnt interact but also i dont see how they would considering how this season went. n also i wanted more rhaena (i do hope she'll have a cool ass role next season, idc idc)

i personally think this season was truly a transition season to full out war. people are pissed because they wanted war to instantly happen after lucerys died last season, but in reality things arent that black and white and i think it would have cheapened the plot to fast forward through the political negotiations and underhanded scheming to try and win without fighting, to just full on nuclear dragon war.

I actually like the idea that this season was like standing on a cliffs edge where one wrong move led to oblivion with millions of people dying and the practical annihilation of half of house targaryen. I'm glad that the writers took the time to emphasize how dire this war could become before barreling us into it. the political battles and moral dilemmas are just as fun to watch as the actual battles

that being said, there are still valid criticisms of the show being brought up too: like the weird pacing and absolute dragging on of daemons harrenhal ghost adventures. on one hand I get it, because in the books daemon just disappears for weeks at a time, and the writers had to do SOMETHING with him this season instead of having him peace out for 7 episodes. but I agree that the harrenhal visions became repetitive, and I'm also not a huge fan of the back to the future magic being shoved in our faces instead of more subtle clues to it

overall, it was a transition season, not the absolute best season of television history, but it's definitely not the worst (and not even CLOSE to being as bad as got s8). I think in modern age media consumption, people now equate "i personally don't like this" to "this is all horrible and the whole show is trash now"

[sometimes-men-need-help-too]

So this woman asked reddit if she was in the wrong for joking about her husband in front of their colleagues after he refused to socialize.

She started out mentioning that she received a promotion at work to a more senior position than what her husband has. She said that while he was happy for her, she thinks he's embarrassed that she's his superior now.

They went to a work related social event ( It was supposed to be an opportunity to build team cohesion and that sort of thing.) . The husband didn't really want to go, said he had a migraine and she added that he's pretty introverted. She told him that it would be weird if he didn't go, that people would think he's jealous of her, and after some time, she was able to convince him to go. She said he greeted a few people but mostly sat in the corner and only talked to a few people at a time.

She said she was in a large group when someone, who had not yet seen my husband there, asked where he was and jokingly asked if he was as serious and mysterious at home as he was at work.

I told them he was the complete opposite at home. I said that while at work he seems organized, at home he’s a bit of a slob. I joked about how he always leaves his laundry all over the floor and I mentioned things like how he complains too much about random trivial things like the neighbors' kids sometimes playing on our lawn.

I also mentioned how he has a fear of heights and how he was shaking the entire time when we crossed a rope bridge during our honeymoon. I did say a few other things like how I sometimes feel like I’m his parent.

Everyone was interested and surprised to hear all of this, and we did share many laughs together. At some point, my husband walked into the conversation and quickly pieced together what we were talking about. The rest of the conversation was awkward after that.

On the drive home, my husband was not speaking. When I asked him if everything was alright, he said that I surprised him. I was annoyed by him being vague, so I told him that I knew that he wasn’t feeling 100%, but that he was acting childish for not socializing and acting offended.

He said that it was childish and rude that I was sharing his personal details with our colleagues. I then told him that he was blowing things out of proportion, but he didn’t respond, and the rest of the ride was silent.

When we got home, we argued again about the night's events. My husband said my behavior was appalling and that he questioned if I had any respect for him. I was angry by his outburst so I told him that he was only being sensitive because I was technically his superior now and that what was really bothering him. The argument ended there, as my husband didn't want to "waste any more time" and went to bed.

This morning, I texted my younger sister what happened, and she accused me of being insensitive.

So it was pretty unanimous that she was in the wrong. I definitely agree with that verdict. There's a lot to unpack here so let's go:

The first red flag that stands out to me is her manipulating him into going to the social event. I don't know if that's something that would look bad on him if he didn't go, not because of her reasoning but because it's just something you should do for whatever type of work they're in. But even if he had to go, I would think a migraine is enough to stay behind. I've never experienced one myself but I hear they're brutal. And then for her to insist that he go out sounds kinda cruel. Why put him in a position for it to possibly worsen?

The fact that she told him he had to go or it would make people think that he's jealous of her made me question the validity of her assumption that he's jealous of her. A lot of people in the comments didn't believe that either, with some speculating that she just feels a sense of superiority over him. Why else is that your thought? And then you have her reasoning that he was only upset because of her position and not because she humiliated him in front of co-workers.

But even before we get to that part, she was upset with him for not socializing the way she wanted him to. He only talked to a few people at a time, staying in a corner on his own. But again, he did have a migraine so he probably didn't want to be where there was a bunch of noise (i.e. in a group with people talking). But according to her he's also pretty introverted. It's no surprise he's not gonna be up for all that.

She even downplays what she did by calling it joking. But that is not what it was. This wasn't playful, it feels like she was trying to get even with him. She completely put him down, belittled and embarrassed him in front of co-workers. It would be bad enough if she did that in front of friends and family, but this could affect the dynamic between him and those other people.

And there's no way to soften it. She disrespected him by airing out all those things. You don't just tell people your partner's fears and bad habits to make jokes at their expense. What she did, you can't take back. Especially not with "I'm just joking!"

It's also extremely unprofessional. She's showing her colleagues that she's not the kind of person who should bein that position. I mean, if she publicly humiliates someone under her, someone she's married to, then what would she do to someone else? That's what other people are likely to question.

She did respond to a few people, but I wanted to specifically highlight this one:

This was in response to someone who didn't believe OP's claim that her husband was jealous at all.

This kind of floors me. She's assuming and interpreting all this instead of just having a conversation with her husband before everything blew up.

There was also this comment from someone who was on her side:

First of all, people would think something of it. They'd be all over it, saying he's toxic and abusive and that his wife should leave him ASAP. Regardless of what she feels, it doesn't give her the right to talk crap about him like that. It doesn't give anyone the right. He's not weak for being upset at her for talking about things that should have been kept private. Anyone in his place would understandably be upset. You don't treat your spouse the way OP did. It doesn't matter if they have bad habits like the laundry thing or not. You speak about that stuff at home and not a social event.

[a-really-bad-decision]

I don’t really give two wet farts in a hurricane about the fallout show or what it means for new vegas and west coast lore, but I do largely agree that bethesda deciding to nuke shady sands is indicative of their lazy writing habits and inability to engage with the structural critiques found in the source material. And I don't really think "well the ncr was close to collapsing anyways" is a valid answer to that criticism either.

Like. Fundamentally I don’t have any issues with the ncr being in shambles. Maybe the timeline is a bit more accelerated than I’d like, but we all know the ncr was already in trouble when we saw it in new vegas. They were corrupt (both abroad and at home), overextended, teetering on bankruptcy, and facing a food shortage in the coming decades. Not only was the writing on the wall, but the ncr as a faction was a blatant, textual reflection of america, both in universe and out: it's innate imperialist tendencies, it's unceasing, unsustainable consumption of natural resources, the problems inherent in viewing itself as a "civilizing force", etc. etc. etc. And I think for those criticisms to have any bite, the ncr needs to fall, (or change, or course correct). Otherwise, it goes against the entire thesis that new vegas was putting forth about retreading the mistakes of the old world. The game isn't subtle about this, and replaying it in 2024 really only drives those points home further.

But the show didn't do that. It didn't engage in any of what new vegas was trying to say with the ncr's storyline. And it wasn't like there were no satisfactory ways they could have explored the ncr's weakening or collapse either. Hell, in an ideal world, they'd have even gone about it realistically, and acknowledged that the fall of a nation is rarely due to any one problem, but rather a myriad of factors slowly gumming up the mechanisms in tandem until the system can no longer sustain itself.

Instead, they decided to nuke the capital of the ncr and call it a day, because... well I can't say for sure. I wasn't in the writer's room.

Maybe it's because the ncr’s problems are an intentional mirror of America’s problems, and bethesda as a company isn’t willing to engage with that at the risk of alienating the viewers and/or shareholders. Maybe they thought a realistic exploration of the ncr's shortcomings would be boring, compared the flash of nuclear destruction. Maybe they just genuinely thought it was an interesting way to dispose of the faction.

But I think claiming that anyone who take issue with how the show handled the ncr are frothing new vegas apologists who're unable to handle the changes being made to their precious, perfect, canon is kinda disingenuous. Change is inevitable - that's a rather important theme the game touches on. But if bethesda is going to make those changes, they should actually put some thought into what the original lore was saying, and how the changes they're implementing improve or comment on it, that's all.

[soracities]

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?

[wiitzend]

the problem with this whole child stars situation and that brings me back to cole sprouse’s interview (yeah, i know he is problematic too) but he spoke about how his mom pushed him both him and his brother to work as a kids to sort of full-fill her dreams as an artist and also to help them financially since she was a single mom and i get that but this is the thing that also demi lovato said, at one point she wants financially sustaining her entire family and this creates a weird power imbalance where she not longer viewed her mom as a authority figure because she was acting as the breadwinner of the family.

a lot of parents know they’re setting up their kids to this situations and yet want to ignore it because they want the money and for their child’s to keep paying the bills. only alexa nickola’s mom was like yeah no, we’re leaving at the first sign that something was really wrong.

alyson stoner in her podcast (worth watching) also speaks about how if you notice a lot of the productions nowadays take place in states where rules against child actors aren’t in action for example altlanta so it’s easier for production to manipulate it. I know a big portion of child actors have had some horrible experiences at some degree and most don’t want to either relieve that or admit that it happened to them. and that’s fair.

i agree 100%.

i genuinely don't understand a parent's wish to live vicariously through their own children and push them to become child stars when they willingly know the dangers that can come from that. if you have to work extra hours as a single parent to support your children then that's what just what you have to do as an adult. you never made it in hollywood and you're still bitter because of that? too damn bad. get over it. some of these parents play an equal hand in their children's abuse and they need to be held accountable as well.

i think it's incredibly valid that some child actors don't want to reveal that happened to them when working on these tv shows/movies. some of these stories are pretty horrific, i just hope they get the help they need to heal and move on so the people who abused them won't be able to steal another minute of their peace and well-being.

[sneakyboymerlin]

Can I ask for you to talk more about what you said in the tags of this post? Morgana went evil because she was classist and not because she was hurt? Can you go more into depth on that? I feel like Morgana's arc and her motivations are really hard to decipher because of the way she was written. Like one episode it seems like she just wants Uther dead, and then the next she wants Arthur dead too and she wants the crown and she's going after Emrys and that shift always confused me a little.

I always thought the interpretation that Merlin could have helped her more was valid. Like, yes I am completely in agreement that the entire point of 2x03 is that Merlin helped her when no one else would. But he also took back that help as the season went on, and betrayed her when he poisoned her. There WAS more he could have done, I think. He could have been honest about himself, but he wasn't. He could have simply told her that he suspected that maybe she was the center of the sleeping spell in the Fires of Idirsholas, but he didn't. He could have tried convincing Gauis to help her on his own, without bringing Merlin into it, but he didn't. (Even Katie McGrath said that she blamed Merlin for what became of Morgana.)

And yes, I know why these things didn't happen. Because the dragon told him not to and Gauis told him not to. But in the end these WERE Merlin's choices. And maybe if he had chosen differently, so would have Morgana.

Like, yes I agree that Morgana's choices were her own. But I don't think she made those choices in a vacuum.

As to the bit of her being classist, I think I understand what you mean? But I'm still confused because I wouldn't exactly call Morgana from season 1-2 or even season 3 a classist person. She was good back then, shared values with Arthur about what a better world would look like.

I'm just so intrigued by what you might mean, and I'm always looking for new ways to look at this story. It's lovely that after all this time there's still more to discuss.

Lot to unpack here.

For one thing, Morgana feeling hurt didn’t encourage her to kill or allow the killing of random uninvolved people, but especially the Druids + their sympathizers who were arrested in 2x03. She ignored her kin’s plight in favor of her own comfort, even though she is granted protections that those people couldn’t dream of. She’s very much a class traitor from the start, because she tends to be thinking more about how she feels than how others do. She’s more blatant in her self-loyalty later on, but it’s always been a theme with her.

As for Merlin, 2x12 was a mutual betrayal between him and Morgana. Morgana betrays him first in this episode by endorsing the fever spell that Morgause casts on Camelot. While she’s not fully informed at first, 1) Merlin has no way of knowing that (especially since she has formed similar alliances in 1x12 and 2x11), and 2) Morgana embraces Morgause’s plan after the fact (explicitly so in 3x01/2). Merlin then poisons Morgana in order to end the fever spell on Camelot, choosing the greater good over her as an individual. To clarify point 2 here, Morgana is aware long before 3x01 that Merlin poisoned her because everyone in Camelot was slowly dying, but she makes it clear that she understands this in 3x01.

I also fail to see how Merlin revealing his own magic would have changed anything. Morgana already knows that Merlin is pro-magic (also discussed in 3x01), they simply have different methods by which they aim to achieve that goal. Both are flawed, as Merlin’s relies on tyrants like Uther changing their minds, and he places blame on the oppressed group (even if he’s a part of it) for not demonstrating that magic can be good, when it doesn’t matter how well this is demonstrated, since magic is not banned for any logical reason.

Morgana’s plan is also flawed because she prioritizes herself over anyone else, meeting Uther’s tyranny with more tyranny. This is where the classism comes in. Morgana’s sense of entitlement is rooted in her status as a noblewoman. As 2x03 demonstrates, she values her own safety above the safety of her people, and when her descent is portrayed more openly, the first changes we see are in her mistreatment of Gwen, her maidservant. In 3x01/2, she also finds the townspeople to be disposable (including the Druids & sympathizers she knows live among them) and blackmails Merlin using her status as a noble. She also tries to kill Gwen because she can’t stand the thought of a “mere servant” taking the throne. She’s good to Gwen as long as Gwen functions as her underling, but as soon as Gwen is set to outrank her, everything that makes her appear distinctly better than other nobles disappears.

But ultimately, it’s Morgana’s actions that tell us this. These actions aren’t bad because she was hurt, or because she has magic. Every bad thing she does is bad because she is classist. The harm she does comes from a place of entitlement and inflated self-importance. While she may justify these actions with the hurt she’s suffered, being hurt did not make her do those things. Classism is the reason she becomes a tyrant, and it’s the reason she mistreats the “commoner” class. Again, her dismissing random civilians, especially the Druids & sympathizers, as disposable to preserve her own comfort? Comes from a place of classism. Her getting Gwen arrested on false charges and blackmailing Merlin using her power as a noble? Acts that are motivated by classism.

But back to what Merlin could or didn’t do. Morgana knew that Merlin was pro-magic, but she would never have agreed to his methods, as we see in 3x02, because she did not have faith in Uther or Arthur changing for the better (understandably so, and she’s proven correct). Whether Merlin is just pro-magic or has magic himself does not change this outcome, because it is about methods, not identity. Even when she finds out that Merlin is a sorcerer in 5x12, this does not change her mind.

And again, as far as Merlin knew in 2x12, Morgana was very much in on the plan with Morgause. He even tests this by asking Morgana why she reacted the way she did about Morgause and catches her in a lie. If he tells Morgana that he suspects her involvement, with the information he has (that she is allied with Morgause), then what? It makes no sense to bring it up. He never tells Agravaine that he suspects the man’s involvement with Morgana, either, because he doesn’t suspect that Agravaine could somehow be innocently/unwittingly doing these things. One could argue that Morgana could have confided in Merlin about her earlier interaction with Morgause (when the curse was cast) since she trusted him so much, but alas, she did not. And that’s understandable, too. Also, if you’ll recall, Merlin did try to get Gaius to help Morgana. They had a whole argument about it. Gaius concluded that gaslighting her about her powers was helping her. Merlin had to give up and go to Kilgharrah, and then when Kilgharrah wouldn’t help, either, he searched out the location of the Druids on his own and sent Morgana to their encampment. What Katie McGrath thinks about it means very little since she is just one (1) opinion against the visible canon facts. Merlin too blames himself for what Morgana became, but that doesn’t make him right.

The fact is that Morgana is her own person and her mind isn’t going to be passively changed. She’s always been fiercely independent, opinionated, and actionable. The desire to blame everyone but Morgana for her own actions also has a lot to do with her being a rich white woman. People assign a ~delicate, passive~ demeanor onto her, even when she shows her ruthlessness (whether that is simply standing up for her beliefs or torturing people). Morgana did not just get passed around and manipulated by everyone. If anything, 2x12 seeks to establish that it is Morgana herself who can make these decisions and change the future, rather than sitting around passively watching it happen. And by choosing to join with Morgause, she changes everything. The rest of the series is a chain reaction to this one crucial moment when she makes up her mind.

[justatalkingface]

hello! i don't want this ask to come off as mean or targeted at all so please don't take it that way, but i'm confused as to why you're still a my hero fan you don't seem to like the characters or the way that the story is headed, is it just hate watching (uhh,, consuming of media??) at this point? again it's cool if that's what it is, but you talk about the characters like they aren't that in depth, not just bakugou but. the other villains and also izuku too.

you said something about izuku just being happy and content with losing one for all in the new leaks, (in that same post you weren't caught up so i sorta get why you could draw to that conclusion,) but also izuku's character is known for bottling up his emotions.

Izuku's is always happy (even when he's not), the only time we really see him fall apart is his vigilante arc. yes throughout the story he is constantly crying, but again, never in situations that he is really hurt emotionally you know? We get to see his journey and his progress, it's all that he's ever wanted in life, to have a quirk and save people, so when that gets stripped away, he's gonna be a bit gutted no? thats what i think at least. the story started with "this is how i become the worlds greatest hero" but i think it's always been more about what make someone a hero, why people should want to be heros, and their stories behind it. why else create flawed characters like bakugou and shigaraki if not to show all the side of the story?

gosh, sorry didn't mean to write a whole essay, my words tend to get away from me. I would love to see your views once you do catch up tho.

Hmm. Well, I talked about some of my motivations in... that Gaiden post, I think, but if I wasn't OK with ranting, I wouldn't have made this account just to rant.

Why am I still a fan? And as an extended of that, still posting?

Spite.

No, seriously.

Like. When I first started reading MHA, I was amazed. It just felt so... refreshing, so unique; I loved how determined and kind Izuku was, I loved how human All Might was, I liked the variety apparent in the world, how rich it felt, all the potential to it. And then, before my eyes, I watched it rot away, so slowly I didn't even realize what was happening until it was already dead.

I miss what MHA was, and so much of this is... mourning, almost, for what was and could have been.

Also, like I said, spite, because I watched this fester before my eyes and honestly I want to call out each and every wound and point of rot on it's corpse, along with some desire for validation in finding people who agree with me.

'but you talk about the characters like they aren't that in depth, not just bakugou but. the other villains and also izuku too.'

Not... quite sure what you mean here? I think you mean that I think they're done badly? (And I do, so you're not wrong there.)

Alright, see, so I don't disagree with your logic here: Izuku is a mess. Izuku is a mess held together by lack of time (or not being allowed) to process his shit storm of a life and duty. He's gotten everything taken away from him.

He should be pissed. He should be feel destroyed, depressed.

But the keyword here is 'should'. And that is the problem, in a word. Izuku 'should' be upset. He 'should' be depressed.

But historically, things that 'should' happen regarding Izuku just... don't happen. From his abilities, to his opinion on himself, to other people's views on him... what 'should' happen, logically, just doesn't.

Also... let me pose a question:

Do you think Hori is going to end MHA with Izuku withering away from depression? That his friends, one by one, are going to abandon him, because they only ever really liked his Quirk, that his mom is going to die of disappointment of her useless son, that All Might will get killed by a three year old wielding a balloon? And that he'll die early, and the only one to attend his funeral will be Aizawa, out of obligation, and his entire summery of Izuku's life, and the inscription on his grave, will be 'Problem Child'?

Of course not. (Even though I get the feeling that Hori kind of does want that.) If he tried it, the editors would literally kill him. Less dramatically, they just wouldn't print it and make him rewrite it, because they don't want to fuck up the MHA cash cow at the finish line.

I'm not caught up, yet, but for this? I don't have to be. Stories like shonens follow basic structures, like a sort of skeletal system; you may not know the fine details, but you do know some things will happen. And shonens? They always have happy endings. Always. Even if the MC dies, they'll do it willingly, for a Great Cause(TM), and almost certainly go with a smile, and satisfied with their life choices. If it was a manga like Berserk, it would have been up in the air, because Berserk doesn't follow the same narrative rules, and so how it ends and what not are far more open to question than something like this (ignoring that, yes, Berserk ended too).

Fundamentally, MHA will not end with Izuku miserable. It basiclly can't.

That's why I say he'll be content, because he doesn't really have the time to be miserable before MHA finishes up. At worst, he'll have a brief shown moment of sad, because he reaches acceptance, because he won't be allowed to feel otherwise.

(Yeah, this doesn't feel targeted or anything, don't worry about it. If you get something more specific to ask me or whatever, knock yourself out.)

[remusjohnslupin]

@elerrinacrownedwithstars: Your responses are very interesting, and responding to them under another post (with a character limit) is difficult, so I thought I would make a separate post about it to convey my thoughts more thoroughly. I hope you don't mind ❤️ Please don't feel like you have to answer or anything. Following up on your previous message:

Of course, it’s possible I’m wrong, as this is only the impression I’ve gathered from some posts. And yeah, the writers of this show are laughably bad at their job but it doesn’t dismiss the idea that this is their attempt of ‘nuance’. Tolkien is fairly clear about how orcs are his idea of “what if Satan made people”, but even so, it’s notable - and he seemed to realise this too - that it had some problems within his cosmogony. In my bubble, I see discourse about how describing an entire race evil is problematic and I can’t say that I don’t see where they come from. But on the other hand, you’re right to point out that Tolkien wasn’t writing an allegory, and fantasy worlds are allowed to work differently than real worlds. After all, Tolkien is also clear that his Elves and Men can be at the different points of the spectrum of good and evil, whether they are Valinorean or Númenorean etc.

If I can backtrack a little to our previous messages, everything you said earlier about J.R.R Tolkien's observations about war and human nature are 100% accurate. I hope it did not seem like I brushed off your point. However, I would like to underline that just because he uses the word 'orc' or 'orcish' to describe the horrors of war, does not mean that he is directly referencing Orcs™ in his books.

I genuinely think if people are insisting Orcs™ have to be nuanced, otherwise it's racist... that's WILD. Because the point is, orcs are, as you so creatively put in, 'What if Satan made people.' They are not of any particular race like we understand. Any differential groups they might have between them is based on who 'bred' them, so to speak, and where. Unlike humans, they have no cultural and historical differences as we understand it. To copy/paste my previous point directly:

"Tolkien famously HATED allegory and never assigned any of his races to real-life ones. I mean, if there are people out there who think portraying orcs as purely evil is racist, then THEY must have a real-life race/ethnicity in mind when they think of orcs. Which says a lot about THEM, not Tolkien himself or those of us who rightly point out the butchering of the lore and poor writing in the show."

So no, I will never, ever see or agree with the idea that the discourse about orcs and race have validity. Like, no. If I start writing my story and create this bright green, goo-like race of blobs who are all evil and their entire agenda is to latch on to humans and feed on them.... and someone just came out and said that was also problematic and racist... how does it make sense?

You know what, this is Tumblr, so someone actually WOULD say that. Nevermind.

But that's what Orcs™ are. They are an extension of the evil (Morgoth) that marred the world even when it was first formed. Nothing more, nothing less.

In your last point, I think you inadvertently addressed part of the problem. This whole discourse about how pure fantasy evil existing is somehow offensive stems from the strange need to make everything relatable. I sincerely believe that people who think this way (including the writers of the Rings of Power) actually have a disdain for the fantasy genre, whether they recognise it or not.

"What if orcs were misunderstood?" ... "What if Galadriel was a cut-out cliche warrior?" .... "What if elven rings were also actually evil because power corrupts anyway even if they are wielded by super wise beings and those Rings were untouched by Sauron?"

They think they are being sophisticated doing these things. And I have no doubt there is some unnecessary political pandering there, too. But instead of elevating the characters and the show, they are hollowing out all the meaning behind Tolkien's themes.

Making orcs misunderstood essentially destroys how Tolkien showed the Marring of the World was permanent and would not be Healed until Dagor Dagorath.

Making Galadriel a copy-paste generic warrior who goes on adventures cheapened her character so much, I can't even. Sauron (when he was Annatar) did not go near Galadriel's kingdom because he was 92837647289% sure that she would recognise him on sight. Because she is probably THE most perceptive elf. She is also described as one of the kindest people alive, sooner moved to pity than anger. But they made her a vengeful asshole on a quest to find Sauron when he was THREE FEET AWAY from her face. But that's empowering because sHE hAS A SworD nOW!

I could go on, and on, and on...

The whole 'sympathetic orcs' debacle, along with the entirety of the Rings of Power, is what you get when you put a few idiots together, have them read Tolkiengateway, and ask 'Okay, so how would YOU write the story?'

As opposed to:

"We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren’t going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. What we were trying to do was to analyze what was important to Tolkien and to try to honor that. In a way, we were trying to make these films for him, not for ourselves.” — Peter Jackson