#Is there a name for this discourse?

[jeanjwould]

genres i'm tired of:

"feminist retellings" of stories that can already be considered feminist in their own right

"feminist retellings" that fumble the "feminist" plotline so bad it just turns misogynistic

"feminist retellings" that still center around and hinge on men

"feminist retellings" written by people who don't understand what feminism is

[stolenkissesdiaz]

tommy calling buck ‘evan’ during their entire relationship and the first, and only time, he calls him buck is after he breaks up with him. eddie calling buck ‘evan’ only once and it was when he gave buck his goddamn son. the only time tommy called him buck was before leaving and the only time eddie called him evan was when he gave buck proof of him and chris staying. of them wanting buck. of them keeping buck. id say “which could meaning nothing!” but it actually means everything.

[mag-101]

Goodmorning I am back in the fucking building again

[mid-knight-black]

I think Eddie feels the most comfortable and at home with his abuela because growing up, she was probably the only person in his family who allowed him to be a child while everyone else expected him to be the man of the house. She let him be her little Eddito… 🥺🙃

[gif made by the talented @housewifebuck 🤍]

[askivv]

okay, but like, who the fuck keeps telling dream he was the reason dsmp was popular ? mfer, ur villain character was outdone by fucking Jschlatt . who didnt even want to be there . You were on the same server as Technoblade . sit the hell down .

[lasnevadaslaborunion]

Huh.

So when Dream dictates people's feelings to them, takes their words out of context, feigns ignorance to things he was caught in the act or word of, goes on nonsensical Ben Shapiro-esque tirades to prevent the other person from getting a word in edgewise, or butts into situations that didn't involve him just to say an ableist slur, it's fine because he has autism and ADHD.

But when Tommy Tubbo stutters, speaks a little too slowly, asks for clarification, or concedes a single inch of rhetorical ground because the topic will go nowhere otherwise, that's proof he's an idiot who can't read or make up his own opinions without his friends telling him what to think.

Do I have that right?

[synchodai]

I get this impression that House of the Dragon doesn't get that "named" heirs aren't really the norm in Westeros. If it were that easy for someone to just give everything to their favorite child, Randall Tarly wouldn't have needed to force Sam to go to the Wall and Tywin could have simply chosen Cersei over Tyrion as heir of Casterly Rock.

If we look at the history Westeros borrows from, the concept of "naming" heirs wasn't really a thing in medieval England. Landed gentry didn't have direct say over the order of succession until the Statute of Wills in 1540. Before then, land and subsequent titles could only be inherited through agnatic primogeniture.

Agnatic primogeniture prioritized the living, eldest, trueborn son. Claims can only be passed on patrilineally. This means that a grandaughter can inherit a claim of her grandfather's titles through her father, but a grandson cannot be given the same through his mother. However, if his mother finally does have land and titles under her own name (not under her father's), only then does her son and other children enter the line of succession.

The reason it was like this was because it kept land and titles under one family. Daughters are less preferred because when they are married, they become part of their husband's family — meaning that any titles they receive will be inherited through a new line. This wouldn't be an ideal situation because it gives two families claims to the titles. The more claimants there are, the more unstable the hold the owner has.

In other words, agnatic primogeniture was practiced for stability. Because back in the day, titles weren't just property or land. They came with governorship over a people, so a stable and predictable transfer of titles was necessary to avoid civil conflicts and questions of legitimacy.

A landed lord or lady wasn't given the right to designate heirs for a few reasons:

Most of them were vassals who oversaw the land in the name of someone higher up. It technically isn't even theirs to give away (see: feudal land tenure).

The wishes of a human being are less predictable than having a determined line of succession based on birth order. What if he becomes incapable of declaring an heir either through illness or disability? What if he's captured and a bad actor forces him to name this person heir under threat of violence?

People died unexpectedly all time. This was before germ theory and modern medicine — child mortality was extremely high. With no refrigeration technology, a single poor harvest could mean dying from starvation. Bandits, cutthroats, and raiders were a constant threat. They could not afford to rely on a person choosing a different heir every time the old heir drops dead, because the landed lord/lady could die just as suddenly.

Even 21st century families stab each other in the back over who gets grandma's house — so imagine having an uncertain line of succession in the middle ages over a life-defining lordship and without a modern-day court system to mediate.

Going back to HotD, whenever Targaryens did go against the established line of succession, they could only have done it by consolidating the support of their vassals. Only royalty seemed to have the power to bend agnatic primogeniture, but even then they were beholden to it.

When Jaehaerys I ascended the throne over Aerea, it was mainly because there were those who saw Maegor the Cruel's act of disinheriting Jaehaerys as null and void. This restored Jaehaerys place in the line of succession above Aerea.

And when Rhaenys was passed over for Baelon, Jaehaerys had to convene his lords and offer compelling reasons as to why — her young age, her lack of an heir, her Velaryon last name, etc. It wasn't a given that just because she was a woman that she was ineligible. If he was doing it purely out of misogyny, he still had to legally justify his misogyny in order to strip away her rights.

Even after consolidating support, the book mentions Jaehaerys I and Viserys I's respective hold on the crown was still weakened. Even though their claims were backed by reasons cosigned by a powerful majority, they still had to ensure the security of their rule through other means. There were people who doubted their right to rule, and those people had to be placated with gifts (by Viserys) or intimidated into submission (by Jaehaerys).

So we come to Viserys I who never gave his vassals a reason why Rhaenyra should supercede his three sons other than, "I said so." Had he convened with his lords and maybe made the argument that a first marriage takes precendence over a second one, then maybe he could have set a new precedent and gathered support.

But no, he didn't. He relied on the power of his own words and the lords' personal oaths — oaths that he didn't exactly plan how he would enforce posthumously.

And the Realm did not choose to adopt a different succession law after Jaehaerys's designation of Baelon in 92 AC or the Council of Harrenhal choosing Viserys on 101 AC. If those two events did change anything, it was that now women were exempt from the line of succession for the crown and only the crown. It did not set the precedence that monarchs could freely choose heirs. It did not upend the whole system; it only made a tweak, as most lawful policy-changes do, by carving out at an exception. It was a committee, not a revolution.

Before and after the Dance, no other monarch, lord, or lady "declared" an heir that went against agnatic primogeniture, save for Dornish who have cognatic (equal-gender) primogeniture instead. Ramsay had to get rid of Roose Bolton's living trueborn son AND be legitimized by the crown in order to be recognized as heir (only a crowned monarch can legitimize baseborn children which is another world-building pillar a lot of people miss). Randall basically had to force Sam to abdicate because he wanted his younger brother to inherit instead. And of course, Tywin despite his intense hatred of Tyrion is forced to acknowledge him as his heir.

The rigidity of the line of succession is a major and constant source of conflict in the series, so it baffles me that people really thought that characters could just freely choose their heirs. That's why we have a civil war. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It's the expected consequences of someone carelessly going against a foundational tenent of the society they inhabit.

[rosetterer]

if you are mad that bucktommy is getting more attention than henren, you should be fucking furious that a non-canon mlm ship has been getting more attention than henren for YEARS

[wardensantoineandevka]

every time anyone that's even slightly critical of C3 calmly writes a post that's longer than 750 words in an attempt to unpack what they feel is not working in the campaign or what's happening in the fandom, there's a rash of its defenders going "why are the haters always writing these long posts all the time, we don't need anyone to be writing novels, why is the post so long. it's so ridiculous that anyone is writing essays."

personally, especially if I was trying to position myself as having intelligent and complex opinions and capable of paying attention to episodes that are five hours long on a weekly basis, I would not admit I thought 1.5k words was dissertation length.

it's especially funny because many of the same people keep stamping their feet that critics never explain their perspectives or stances, then they're mockingly dismissive when doing so doesn't fit into a tweet.

not to make it sound grave, but it's anti-intellectual, it's simplistic. above all: it's juvenile, childish, asking to be treated as a child. wah, so silly anyone could possibly have a meaningful thought that requires enough space it doesn't fit on my phone screen at once.

[tmmyhug]

dream needs to take methamphetamines im being so fr

[smallenoughtopurr]

Look if there's one name we can agree on...

[3kidsinacoat]

[randomchips]

So basically-

Tommy calls out Dream for:

-misogynistic things DREAM said

-for DREAM making others feel small

-for DREAM saying a slur

-for standing with someone who was inappropriate with a 18 year old

Dream calls out Tommy for:

- child labour that a company that Tommy had no say in did

- having an "editor sweatshop" that he can't prove and where all editors said that they weren't misstreated and were paid well

And then discredits all the criticism by cutting out all proof and completely lying about not being guilty of these things...

[cozmic-ash]

Gordon/Barney/Alyx is really really funny to me conceptually bc it's like, two hot geniuses in their 20s who look at the 40-something smartass who hangs around and go 'yeah that guy. we both want him carnally'

[zackstriker]

while i appreciate the emotional sentiment behind Daniel Lester and dan taking phil’s last name i seriously think if either of them was gonna change their last name it would be Phil. While Dan has less attachment to his family he has a lot more attachment to his independent identity as a person/individual outside of his relationship. Plus so so much of his independent brand is Daniel Howell (merch, author name, the name on his comedy special, youtube channel name, etc). While Phil is closer to his family he has much less attachment to his name, even mentioning on multiple occasions how he literally almost changed his name to Zack Striker. Further, his brand “AmazingPhil” is less rooted in his individual identity and would not be impacted by a surname change. I saw someone on here say that phil does GAF he just shows it differently than dan, and i think changing his last name would be one of the ways phil would show he does GAF. Plus i think Dan would be floored if someone showed him they loved him so much they changed their last name to match his. He spent so much of his life feeling unlovable and like he had to change himself, but Phil changing his last name would show Dan he is lovable and desirable and worthy exactly as he is.

[tiredbitchposts]

I often feel like people forget that both Shen Yuan and Shen Jiu got fucked over in the transmitgation with Shen Yuan dying and being forced to live as someone to fix that person's mistakes and Shen Jiu being forced out of his body so someone could live his life better than he did. Both of them got the shit end of the deal, that's the whole point of it, Shen Yuan may have gotten his happy ending but he'll never be his own person and he's at the mercy of the system for the rest of his life and Shen Jiu never got a happy ending but now he'll never get tortured in the most cruel ways possible and live knowing he indirectly caused the death of the person he loved the most