#Like I said in the post I have nothing against people who financially support that company

[plushie-lovey]

A few weeks ago I was nearly at 200 followers, now I'm back down to 165. Ik why you guys left but it was for a silly reason. To each their own

[ahsxual]

Dark Sins - II

Pairing: William Afton x Fem!Reader

Summary: After what happened, you tried so desperately to forget about William Afton, the man who couldn't leave your mind no matter how hard you tried it. But desire is a dark sin, a feeling that makes human beings do things against their will.

Genre: Smut

Warnings: minors don't interact + 18, guilt, office sex, cheating, choking, sassy reader, p in v sex (no protection), spanking, Dom!William x Sub!Reader, possessive William, daddy kink, spanking (one slap), softer William at the end, married William, age gap (reader is on her 20s, William is 50), cursing, student!reader

Word Count: 2,7k

Part I & Part III

A/N: Part II of Dark Sins was unexpectedly requested by you, so here I am posting it! I didn't expect so much support after not writing fics for 3 years (can you believe??), but I'm glad to be back! Ly guys <33 @fandom-maniac-anime here's your tag, hun! ^^

It's been weeks since that little "incident" with William and you couldn't managed to take the thought of fucking your boyfriend's dad out of your mind. You knew it was wrong, you knew it was filthy, but you couldn't forget about William's tongue and fingers inside of you, making you cum so hard until you saw stars. It sent shivers down your spine everytime you thought about it and it made you feel so guilty... Sure, Stu made some mistakes in your relationship, but nothing compares to what you did to him. You didn't know what to do: was it better to tell Stu the truth? No no, he would never forgive you and you would ruin his relationship with his stepfather, even tho it wasn't completely your fault... should you just broke up with him? That wasn't an option either, because you loved Stu dearly.

Your mind was a mess and you couldn't focus on anything. Not even your studies, which complicated things because you had an important exam in a couple of weeks. You were now in your room alone, reflecting on what you should do to make things feel right again. That's when you had an idea that could help you get in line again and distract you from your forbidden desires.

"Hey babe, can I talk to you?" you asked Stu, your boyfriend, when he answered your call.

"Sure baby, is everything alright?" you heard Stu becoming worried which was unlikely of him. Your heart started to beat faster when you thought about the possibility of him discovering your darkest secret, but you pushed it away quickly.

"Well... I was thinking of, you know, do something for me. Something I think that would be good for me." you could practically sense the confusion that Stu must have felt when you said those words.

"And... what's that?" you heard him chuckle on the phone, a typical reaction from Stu.

"I think I should get a job... like a part-time, so I can get some money and be more financially independent, you know?" you started chowing your nails nervously, before you heard a hysterical laugh from your boyfriend. Now it was your time to get confused. "Why are you laughing? I'm serious, Stu!"

"You, working? Come on babe, you must be joking! Why do you need a job? That's for desperate people. And you're not desperate." he laughed like what you just said was the best joke he had ever heard.

"What? Why do you say that? That's not true!" you felt a little bit offended by Stu's comment and immaturity. Stu was a rich and spoiled guy, of course he would think that way.

"My dad works with those people, Y/N. And even he thinks that those people are desperate just to gain a few bucks." when you heard the word "dad" come out of his mouth, you stopped breathing for a moment, making you cough. "Are you alright?"

"Yeah, I'm fine." you lied. There was a silence between the two of you, since you weren't sure of what to say. You were lost on your thoughts, before you heard Stu speak again.

"Listen... if you really want to get a job or a part-time, fine. I'm sure my dad can help you with that." you felt trapped, like your heart was going to explode and your mind was screaming for you to refuse his help and forget the idea of getting a job with his dad's help. You didn't really need it, you just wanted to occupy your mind with important things and be as busy as you could, so your mind wouldn't be able to think about things that didn't matter.

"Yeah, I would really appreciate that." your mouth betrayed you, speaking for your lust instead of listening to your rational and morals.

"Fine, I'll talk to him then." he said with a smirk on his face and paused. You knew something was up since Stu always wanted something in return when he made you a favor that he doesn't agree in the first place. "Buuut, you need to do whatever I ask for two weeks! No matter what it is!" you rolled your eyes, knowing that he would ask something against your will.

"Sure babe, what is it?" you smiled at his excitement, even tho you felt suspicious about his request.

"Me and the boys want to spend a week out. At... Billy's house." your smile immediately fadded away when he mentioned Billy's name. You were worried about the strange and probably bad influence Billy had on Stu, but after what happened a few weeks ago, you knew you couldn't be mad at him. "Come on doll, you know I won't cause any trouble! You know me!" he laughed at his own words, which made you laugh as well.

"Yeah sure Stu, I totally believe what you just said! Not even you believe it!" you both laughed, until you decided to let him have fun without complaining. "When will you guys go out then?"

"Oh fuck, is that a yes??" you could feel Stu's enthusiasm.

"I mean, I don't want to be the nagging girlfriend who doesn't let her man go out with his friends." even tho you felt nervous about Stu spending a week away from you, specially in Billy's presence, you couldn't forbid him to do something he really wanted to.

"Nahh, don't worry about it. You're the best, babe. We'll go in two weeks after our last exam. And don't worry, I'll talk to my dad right now. He's downstairs." your stomach sank when you realized William was at Stu's house too. You haven't seen him since then, avoiding him as much as possible.

"Thanks, baby. I love you so much..." tears started forming in your eyes, guilt consuming you by each second. Maybe Stu being away and enjoy his time with the boys would be good for both of you, since Stu was a very clingy boyfriend. You didn't mind it at all... but it became incredibly difficult to show affection towards Stu and have sex with him after everything.

"Love you too, sweet cheeks." were his last words before he hung up.

..................................................................................

Two weeks had passed and you were saying your goodbyes to your boyfriend. You would definitely miss him. Now you were in your room, looking at William's business card deciding on either or not you should go to his office. After a few long minutes debating if you should make an appointment or not, you called the number when a kind, older woman answered.

"H-hey good afternoon, I wanted to make an appointment with Mr. Afton if it's possible?" you started sweating and shaking a little bit, a ridiculous reaction to such a simple act, you thought.

"Yeah, sure! We have a vacancy for an appointment in two hours, a client canceled half an hour ago his appointment. Do you want me to make a reservation for you, ma'am?" the lady asked, and if you thought you were nervous before, now you were panting.

"Yes, that would be great." you swallowed hard, your throat becoming extremely dry.

One hour and a half passed and you were now facing the mirror, trying to calm yourself down until you felt ready to leave your room. You were dressed in a pink skirt with a small, white top that defined your breasts. You felt pretty, yet you perfectly knew this outfit would be seen as provocative to your boyfriend's dad. Why were you doing this?? Why would want to get pretty for a man who's twice your age?? Those thoughts were pushed away when you gained the courage to leave your house and went straight to Mr. Afton's office.

"Come in." you heard that deep, masculine voice... the voice that you unconsciously dreamed of hearing again. You took a deep breath before coming in and closed the door. After a moment, you saw William staring at you in disbelief before a small smirk came to his face. "Well, I wasn't expecting such an... unexpected, yet very welcoming client to come".

"I just came looking for a job, Mr. Afton." you stuttered a little bit, William's big blue eyes staring at you intimidatingly.

"I'm sure you are... sit down." he chuckled and you frowned confused before sitting down like he told you to. He started reading your curriculum attentively like he was reading his favorite book, before he looked at you silently.

"So... what do you advice me, sir?" oh that nickname... always so obedient, his little girl. Yes, you read that right. For him, you were already his.

"Well, I have a... very interesting job option for you. I think you would love working there actually, and for a part-time, it should be all good." he smirked dangerously and you looked at him confused once again, waiting for his advice.

"What is it then?" you asked curiously, before he got up from his seat slowly to make you both coffee. You accepted, since you didn't want to be rude.

"A sex shop." he said it like it was so normal to him. You almost spitted your coffee and started coughing a little bit. "It's also near my house and I know the owner very well. He told me a while ago he needed a pretty employee to... you know, attract more costumers." you looked at him shocked and speechless. No words came out of your mouth and William enjoyed the effect he had on you. "Do you want the job or not?" this time he went serious and approached you, his hands interwained in front of you to show power over you.

"Isn't there any other option? I don't think Stu-"

"My son has nothing to do with this. It's your life, your choice. Don't waste my time Y/N, you have to take this seriously. Otherwise you can get your pretty ass up and leave." he shouted sternly and went back to work on other client's files, completely ignoring you.

"O-Ok, I'll do it!" you said impulsively since you felt trapped. You wonder how William knew so well the sex shop's owner like he said. Does he buy a lot of sex toys? Is he that kinky? He must be so experienced... your thoughts were interrupted when you felt a strong hand grabbing your neck before putting you on top of his desk, him standing between your spread legs. "W-what are you doing-"

"Shut up now, bunny. You're getting on my nerves and I don't like that one bit. You think I'm stupid? That I didn't notice how you dressed up to me like an innocent girl just to get a reaction from me, huh?" his grip on your neck tighten and it became harder to breath. "You're nothing but innocent, sweetie. And you're gonna prove to me right now how filthy you really are. The side no one knows about, but me. Not even Stu." his eyes were darker then before and you felt your core getting wetter. You knew he was right and the worse of it, you didn't feel guilty anymore. You've had already sinned, so now you just let yourself go and followed your deepest desires without anyone to stop you now.

"You know what?" you challenge him with your eyes and words, before you started rubbing yourself against his already hard cock, making him confused and frown for a moment, waiting for your response. "Maybe you're right. I'm a little dirty fucking whore who's desperate to be fucked by my boyfriend's father. I've been touching myself while thinking about you... and since what happened, the only way Stu could make me cum, was if I thought it was you fucking me instead." you tried to speak the best you could due to the lack of oxygen, but it was enough to drive William insane. He stared at you incredulously, admiring your honesty with such ease. He suddenly pulled you to him and kissed your neck roughly, leaving hickeys and love bites on its way. You gasped at his roughness and the fact he was marking you as his, so everyone else could see it.

"Don't worry, sweetheart. My son won't see the way I marked you, even tho I would like to see his face once he realizes you're mine now." he whispered seductively into your ear before bitting your earlobe. He continued his attacks on your neck while he unbuttoned his pants, taking his erected cock on his strong hand and started to touch himself. He then undressed your top and bra effortlessly, like he already did it so many times during his life, before putting one of your erected nipples in his mouth. He was sucking and biting the sensitive flesh, making you moan loudly. "Shh baby, you're on my work place, don't forget it."

"I'm sorry, Mr. Afton. I'll try my best to be quiet." you promised breathlessly, pleasure consuming you at a dangerous rate.

"Good girl..." his low voice made your pussy pulsate into nothing, making you desperate for this older man's touch. "But for now on, call me daddy, understood?" he tried to remain serious and control himself, so he wouldn't cum before fucking you.

"Please daddy fuck me already, I can't wait anymore..." your desperation was palpable and it only made him even more proud of the power he had over you.

"You're mine now, bunny. Is that clear?" he said before pushing your drenched panties aside with his fingers and finally entered you. You both moaned loudly and you only prayed that no one heard you. "Fuck, you're so tight..." he pounded into you faster after giving you just a couple of seconds for you to adjust to his large size. You bite your lip until it hurted, so you wouldn't make too much noise, but it was becoming unbearable.

"Please daddy, I can't stay quiet!" he understood you needed help, so he put one hand on top of your mouth and nose and continued to fuck you hard.

"Say that you're mine... fucking say it!" he growled into your ear in a way that scared you, so you decided to give him want he wanted.

"I'm only yours daddy, I need to cum please!" you cried out pitiful pleads, meaning every word you said. He suddenly changed your positions, grabbing your body while he barely sat on the desk for support and pounded into you almost in the air. His strength surprised you and the new position touched your g spot just perfectly, making you cum within a few seconds. He knew you were about to cum, so he quickly grabbed his tie and put it into your mouth so it could muffle your moans.

"That's it babygirl, cum for daddy and make me proud. Prove to me I'm the only one who can pleasure you this good." he spanked you hard on your ass and that was all you needed to reach your limit. Your orgasm was intense and it made your legs tremble, which made your pussy squeeze William's cock as well. He came right after you, letting out a growling moan that turned you on so much, before he loaded his thick sperm inside you. He then turned around so he could sit on his chair with you on top of him, both of you trying to catch your breath. After a while you both stared at each other's eyes deeply, his now softer cock still buried in you and he didn't seem to care about the risks or if he would get you pregnant.

You knew all of this was extremely wrong... you knew he was much older than you and would never want anything serious with a young girl, specially when you were dating his own son. But the way he was looking at you right now told you something different. His eyes became softer now that he was looking at you, showing a bit of care and... love? No, it couldn't be. Stu told you that his mother and William weren't on good terms lately and probably didn't have sex anymore, but maybe that was something that made you believe William could possibly care about you and wanting to make you his. All those thoughts and theories were put aside when you impulsively grabbed William's face and kissed him. He reciprocated without any hesitation, his experienced and soft tongue tasting like coffee while his big hands pulled you closer and grabbed you like you would escape from him at any moment. The kiss wasn't rougher and primal like the sex you had. No. It was soft, slow and passionate... a kiss that you believed only people who were in love could do.

Your heart started to beat faster, desperate to feel and discover more about his softer side, and that made you realize something: was I falling in love with my boyfriend's father?

[incorrect-riordanverse]

It's really disheartening that Rick Riordan stance on the war I understand that he wants to be neutral on this stance but in my opinion by becoming neutral he only worsening the issue as many Palestines are dying that are mostly children, how the majority of Israeli are supporting the Genocide of Palestine, and how the government is trying so hard (but miserably failing) to justified the genocide. I will hold him accountable for what he said on this issue as during this period the choice is basically "you are with us or against us."

Part of me wishes he will realize what he said was wrong and understand the bigger issue that plays at hand. I will criticism for his actions as how can a man who promotes LGBTQIA and representation of minorities and disabilities in his books turn a blind eyes to Genocide of people. However we can only wait and see on his next move.

One last thing about your previous you said you don't group Riordan with other authors where do you would group him with? Also this is more on an opinion base answer but many people are boycotting companies that support Israel there as been another post on Twitter on boycotting authors. Rick Riordan happens to be one of them. Do you believed that he should be boycotted with other authors or he should be properly educated and apologized for his previous statement? If you believed he should be boycotted what do tou have to say to those who might have the mentality of "separate the art from the artist"

thank you for this ask, and i completely agree with you! it is extremely hypocritical of him considering what he preaches for in his books. i think he’s convinced he has properly addressed the apartheid by using very vague language that can be applied to anything, and in doing so, he’s addressed nothing really.

your first question on who i would group him with— probably other authors who are doing the exact same as him in their virtue signalling. i always like to link my other blogs to each other, so i don’t think it’s a secret that i have a red queen account and i’m pretty passionate about that. unfortunately, victoria aveyard is another fantasy author who has literally wrote a whole four-book series on the uprising against oppression but is now playing neutral in her address of the apartheid. rebecca yarros is in the same boat, although i haven’t read ‘fourth wing,’ fans have said there are large themes of oppression within the book. so if i had to group riordan it would probably be in the ‘i-like-to-write-about-it-for-profit-and-praise-only’ group.

in terms of boycotting, i think that’s a great idea! i would also like to remind everyone that the percy jackson tv show is coming out in a little over a month, but disney is a huge industry financially supporting israel as well ($2 million in funding), which is obviously far more damning than a poorly written address by one person. there is a boycott happening for disney as well— and the pjo show will be released on disney + . i implore everyone to not watch it on that platform!! personally i will be pirating it online (idk if i’ll get into trouble saying that here but lol oh well), because im pretty sure the boycott is only for withdrawing financial support, not simply consuming media.

i feel like separating art from the artist only works if that artist is… like, dead, and you’re using that art and its values as a historical insight to how the world was during its time. you can still like a piece of work that has a problematic artist, you can engage with the work (to an extent). but separating art from the artist barely works because either:

to engage with the art is to support the artist in some way, so that artist is making money based on your interaction with that (particularly in the case for singers and streaming of songs)

that artists’ views and values are so rancid that it’s literally embedded within the text itself. to ignore it is harmful.

harry potter is my all-time favourite example to use, because jkr is the scum of the earth, and her views are entrenched in her work. a lesser known example is sarah j maas and her books (she’s also not as dogshit as jkr, but then again, its not hard to be a better person than her). i’m not going to bag on these people for liking things by problematic people (would be hypocritical of me), i just think it’s cowardly not to address it when you come across it, or at least admit to it. to simply write things off as ‘separate to the artist’ is like purposefully turning off your critical thinking skills.

on whether boycotting or an apology is enough— if riordan did apologise and used specific language and not the nonsense he had in that blog, expressed his remorse for his ignorance and then actually did or said something to support the people of palestine then, yeah. that’s fine and that’s how we learn ig. but he should educate himself, too many activists, people from the arab community and especially palestinians are expected to be all-knowing and to educate everyone else on an already draining and personal tragedy. it’s been exhausting for me, i can’t imagine what they’re going through. if riordan (or anyone) needs to be educated, he should do it himself, and (at least in my opinion) i don’t think the info is very hard to find now. it’s just about weeding out the misinformation.

i think boycotting is a good idea as of now. it can serve to be a catalyst for self reflection for many people. also, as much as i hate most online discourses, talking about it online needs to happen. i don’t want these authors to forget, for a moment, about the ignorance they posted online during a time of international crisis.

[zvaigzdelasas]

While most Ukrainians battled against Germany during the war, it’s well known that the western region of the country collaborated with the Third Reich — and that thousands of those involved were allowed to resettle in Canada. [...]

When Anthony Rota, [...] introduced Hunka during Zelenskyy’s Sept. 22 visit, he called him a “veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today.”

And Hunka made the argument himself after Russia invaded his homeland last year. “In the last war, I joined the Ukrainian underground to fight Russia, so I was fighting the same people they’re fighting now,” he told a reporter covering a peace vigil in North Bay, Ontario, in March 2022. “Nothing has changed there. The same enemy. First Stalin was there and now this idiot,” he said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. [...]

In a post for the SS Galichina veterans’ blog Combatant News, Hunka wrote that 1941 to 1943 — after Germany invaded Ukraine and before Hunka enlisted — were the happiest years of his life. He also recalled eagerly awaiting “the legendary German knights” to come and attack “the hated Poles,” using a slur for Polish people, in 1939.

Captioned photos from the blog show Hunka during SS artillery training in Munich in December 1943 and in Poland around the time of a visit by Nazi mastermind Heinrich Himmler. “I know that if I ordered you to liquidate the Poles … I would be giving you permission to do what you are eager to do anyway,” Himmler said during that visit, according to several historical accounts. Now, the Polish minister of education is looking into whether Hunka can be extradited and prosecuted for what happened during the war.[...]

[After the war,] Hunka made his living in the aircraft industry, working his way up to inspector at DeHavilland Aircraft in Toronto. After retirement, he visited Ukraine nearly every year, according to a profile of him in a University of Alberta newsletter announcing the donation made in his honor by his sons. The profile said he also served as president of the parish council of St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Catholic Church in Thornhill, Ontario.[...]

In his mea culpa, Rota made it sound like Hunka was a constituent from his district [...] whom he did not know much about. “This initiative was entirely my own,“ Rota said[...]

But Rejean Venne, an independent Canadian journalist, wrote in his Substack newsletter this week that Rota and Hunka family members have had numerous chances to cross paths over the years. Among Venne’s examples:

- One of Hunka’s sons, Martin, was chief financial officer of Redpath Mining, a multinational corporation headquartered in Rota’s district. Redpath has contributed to Rota’s campaigns and Rota has provided government funding for recreational facilities operated by Redpath. (The company did not respond to inquiries from the Forward made Thursday.)

- Martin Hunka has also served as chair of the board of trustees for North Bay Hospital, which is located in Rota’s district and which Rota has supported. Hunka’s name can no longer be found on the hospital’s website and social media posts. (The hospital did not respond to a request for comment emailed Thursday.)

- North Bay Pride, an LGBTQ+ organization, gave an award to Rota nine months after Yaroslav’s granddaughter Leshya Lecappelain joined its board of directors. In 2022 and 2023, North Bay Pride received more than $100,000 in funding from Rota. (Asked about this, a spokesperson for North Bay Pride said Lecappelain had not been on its board for several years.)

“Rota’s response that this was a last-minute request doesn’t add up,” Venne said in an email interview. “The Hunka family appears well connected in Rota’s district.”

The Forward could not determine whether Hunka and Rota met before he was honored at Parliament. Rota and others at the House of Commons did not respond to several requests for comment sent Wednesday and Thursday. Efforts to reach Yaroslav, Martin and Peter Hunka, Lecappelain and other members of the family for comment were also unsuccessful.[...]

On Wednesday, the University of Alberta said it would return the CA$30,000 endowment that Hunka’s sons donated in 2019 in their father’s honor. The money was intended to fund research at the school’s Canadian Institute for Ukrainian Studies. But Per Anders Rudling, a university alumnus and expert on Ukrainian nationalism who teaches at Sweden’s Lund University, said the Hunka fund is just “the top of an iceberg.” In an email to the Forward, Rudling said the University of Alberta has “much larger endowments” honoring other figures connected to the Waffen SS unit. The “most problematic,” he said, is the Volodymyr and Daria Kubijovych Memorial Endowment Fund [Editors note: archive link - also "matched two-to-one by the Government of Alberta"] At CA$450,000 — about $334,000 — it’s 15 times larger than the Hunka fund the university is returning.[...] In a Facebook post Thursday, Rudling also questioned university endowments named for other Galichina Division veterans, including Roman Kolisnyk, Levko Babij and Edward Brodacky. Pointing to research he published in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies [Editors note: 1, 2], Rudling said, “I have tried to raise this issue in the past, to no avail.”

Asked about Rudling’s concerns, Michael Brown, a spokesperson for the University of Alberta, reiterated a statement in which interim provost Verna Yiu said the school is “reviewing its general naming policies and procedures, including those for endowments, to ensure alignment with our values.” Yiu also expressed the school’s “commitment to address anti-Semitism in any of its manifestations, including the ways in which the Holocaust continues to resonate in the present.” The honors given to SS Galichina fighters extend beyond academia. One of the University of Alberta’s endowments is for its former chancellor Peter Savaryn, another SS Galichina member. In 1987, Savaryn was awarded the Order of Canada, among the nation’s highest honors, bestowed by Canada’s governor general, the representative of the British Crown. Mary Simon, the current governor general, has condemned the Hunka scandal as “a shock and an embarrassment.”[...]

When the Hunka endowment was announced in 2020, the university said it would fund research on two “leaders of the underground Ukrainian Catholic Church,” Cardinal Josyf Slipyj and Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky. (A metropolitan is akin to a bishop.) Slipyi was a deputy in Ukraine’s 1941 self-proclaimed government, which pledged to work closely with Germany under Hitler’s leadership. Slipyi also assigned chaplains to SS Galichina and celebrated the unit’s inaugural Mass. After the war, the Soviets sent him to gulag prison camps. But Sheptytsky’s legacy is layered [sic]. He helped “dozens of Jews find refuge in his monasteries and even in his own home,” according to Yad Vashem, while also supporting “the German army as the savior of the Ukrainians from the Soviets.”

Harvard University also houses a Ukrainian Research Institute. Asked, after Alberta’s announcement, whether that institute’s funding would be scrutinized for Nazi ties, the university said in a statement that the institute had never received money from the Hunkas, nor had it received donations designated for research related to SS Galichina. Harvard did, however, in 1974 establish a fellowship and faculty position in European studies with money from a foundation named for Alfred Krupp, who was convicted of war crimes for using slave laborers from Auschwitz to build and work in a factory.[...]

In Canada, questions about the Ukrainian immigrants’ past dogged them for decades, and in 1985, the country launched a Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, known as the Deschênes Commission. Investigators were mostly limited to considering evidence gathered in Canada, and ultimately they came to the controversial conclusion that the Galichina Division “should not be indicted as a group” and that “mere membership” in the division was insufficient to justify prosecution or revoke citizenship.

This week, as Trudeau apologized for the Hunka salute, B’nai Brith Canada called for the full release of the commission’s report, which had been heavily redacted, along with other Holocaust-era records, in order to “restore public trust in our institutions.” “Canadians deserve to know the full extent to which Nazi war criminals were permitted to settle in this country after the war,” the group said Tuesday[...]

Why would Hunka’s family risk his humiliation, at age 98, by putting him under a spotlight? Did they not realize how his military record would be perceived and portrayed? “It’s arrogance. It’s not naiveté,” said Jack Porter, a research associate at Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and himself a Jewish child survivor of the Holocaust, born in Ukraine. “They know what their father did,” he said. “It’s hubris, it’s chutzpah. They rationalize that these men were fighting communism. If a few Jews were killed, they also were communists.”[...]

More than 2.5 million Ukrainians died fighting against Germany. “There were many good Ukrainians; they should not all be stigmatized,” he said.

But he said veterans who fought under the Nazis like Hunka and his compatriots have been emboldened by the whitewashing of their history, especially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year. “They’ve been hiding in plain sight,” he said. “They’ve been there for 60 years and nobody has touched them, so of course they feel OK.”

29 Sep 23

[pluckyredhead]

So the Bill Willingham Steph post crossed my dash again and got me wondering... if you're a writer, what IS the best way to respond to fans (singular or group) that publicly call out your writing at a con? Obviously you shouldn't wish violence on them but since it's not like you can un-write the story, do you ignore them? Change the subject? Argue back?

I mean, I can't pretend to know the BEST way to handle a volatile question in a public space, when saying nothing is not an option.

But I also want to challenge the idea that fans were "calling out [Willingham's] writing," because that wasn't what they were doing. Sure, plenty of people said he was a hack online. But at cons, what they were asking was "Why doesn't Steph have a memorial case?"

I always hammer that point home because it's so astonishing to me now. We didn't want them to bring Steph back from the dead. We just wanted them to memorialize her fairly. We were asking for crumbs, and it infuriated Willingham and DC Editorial. To the point that when they did bring Steph back by revealing Leslie Thompson had faked Steph's death, Tim goes "So that's why she didn't have a memorial case!" They would rather have her alive than give a bunch of (mostly) female fans the tiny bit of fairness they had been asking for. It's just mind-boggling to me now how little we were willing to settle for and how angry it still made DC.

Anyway, the decision to kill Steph was editorially mandated, and the decision not to give her a case was also editorially mandated - neither of those were Willingham's decision to make. (The other objection fans had, the sexualized depiction of Black Mask torturing Steph, was also not Willingham's fault - that was artist Jon Proctor.) Now, obviously Willingham couldn't just say "Not my fault, ask DC" because throwing his employer under the bus would not have been good for his career. But DC also shouldn't have hung him out to dry.

I think ideally with any controversial storyline, the publisher should have a discussion with the creators about the best way to handle questions so that everyone is on the same page. But what happens instead is that creators (underpaid freelancers who are almost all in precarious financial circumstances) bear the full brunt of any anger, blame, or harassment, and the publishers (massive corporations*) get to ignore it.

Of course, in Willingham's case, he was not harassed, but asked a polite question ("Why doesn't Steph have a memorial case?") that he probably could have easily said was up to DC without getting in trouble. But instead he chose to publicly fantasize about committing violence against real women, because he was annoyed. So that's DEFINITELY not the answer.

So in conclusion: in general publishers should step up more, in specific Willingham is a fucking douche.

-

*When I say "massive corporations" I'm talking specifically about DC and Marvel, who are owned by Warner Bros and Disney respectively. Image is not a massive corporation. Also, DC Comics and Marvel Comics are in tricky positions because they are actually small, weirdly ramshackle legacy publishers who in a lot of ways still operate like they did when Marvel had two (2) actual employees, Stan Lee and his secretary Flo Steinberg. They operate on tiny margins, everyone who works there is criminally underpaid, their HR is a fucking joke... So like, none of this excuses editors for repeatedly not supporting their creators during times of controversy (THE FUCKING MOCKINGBIRD COVER, Chelsea Cain is a TERF but that shit was ridiculous), but I think it's also important to remember that when we're talking about the people editing these books on a monthly basis, we're not talking about Bog Iger or David Zaslav - we're talking about someone living in NYC or Burbank working 60 hour weeks on a $45K salary so that Disney has enough IP to make Guardians of the Galaxy 9 or whatever. It's complicated.

[askagamedev]

An official release of the Kotor 2 missing content DLC/patch had been promised, then pulled back. It had been enough of the promise that a free game was offered to people who had bought the Kotor 2 rerelease. Why does that kind of rollback on an official plan happen? How is the decision to stop weighed against free stuff and bad PR?

I think it would help to provide a little more context as to what is going on.

Way back in 2004, a game called KOTOR 2 shipped and was played by a lot of players. Many players did not like the ending, but the game had been in development for less than a year and Obsidian were on the hook to ship the game by the deadline. The game was regarded by many players as a flawed gem.

Years later, modders would discover a whole bunch of unfinished endgame content in [KOTOR 2's original files]. Some of them collaborated to unlock, fill out, debug, and finish that content and restore it. This was released for the PC as an unofficial fan mod called The Sith Lords Restored Content Modification in 2009 and has had several updates since.

In 2015 Aspyr Media, a smaller game publisher and developer, obtained the rights to port old Bioware games and began releasing titles like KOTOR, KOTOR 2, and Jade Empire to platforms like iOS, Linux, and Steam. It was around this time that Aspyr began working with the mod team responsible for the Restored Content Mod mentioned above, all in hopes of bringing the mod to these other platforms. The DLC was never really Aspyr's work, it was the mod team working with Aspyr to bring that content to Aspyr's Switch port of KOTOR 2. Eight years later, Aspyr announced that things had fallen through and the Restored Content DLC was cancelled.

It sounds like what happened was that something essential fell apart along the way and there was really no way to complete the work in a timely and legal fashion. One of the original modders posted to reddit after the announcement was made and said "Aspyr did nothing wrong. Quote me on that. Shame it ended the way it did... I have nothing but good things to say about Aspyr and our cooperation over the past eight years". I suspect that, had the DLC been completable within reasonable circumstances, they would have done so. But there's a lot of potential issues that could have stopped them - the license may have expired, it may have been a Nintendo certification thing, the mod team could have fallen apart, there could have been some major legal liability that came to light, it could be the financial trouble currently hitting Embracer Group (Aspyr's owner as of 2001), or any of a number of things. The only people who know for sure are the mod team and Aspyr. I suspect they are all under NDA, so I doubt they will be telling.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[rahadaddy]

One of the underrated changes I've made to my Barovia, just because it fits some of the themes and narrative better, is with Ez and Van Richten. He's still her mentor and foster father figure, but instead of Van RIchten being secretly racist and leaving Ez behind because he is cursed, it's more heartbreaking. Van Richten is dying in my game. He doesn't want Ez to have to witness it (or, worse, die with him). His stint as Rictavio is a coping mechanism that is not working and his goal is to kill Strahd or die trying.

Ez just found him again and she's hoping he'll reconsider sentencing himself to death like some martyr. She doesn't want him to reconsider killing Strahd. She just wants him to not throw himself at Death (in Barovia, no less!). She wants to be included in the greatest hunt Van Richten has undertaken. There is a heartbreaking drama unfolding between them.

And it's all background noise. Rictavio traded his horse for information on Castle Ravenloft with the warlock (who has a celebrity crush on Rictavio). He just offered to arm the party's fight against Strahd. Ez took the ranger aside and said, "Hey... he means well, but he will be reckless. Coming from me, that means something."

Except... coming from her, it means nothing because as much as she likes and wants to support the party, they hate her for stealing a horse from Arrigal's camp. They don't like Arrigal, either, but Arrigal and the ranger were formerly business associates, so saving Ez's life had a financial cost. More to it, the cleric hates Ez for "embarrassing his family's name" or something. I do not understand my player's logic there, but Alistor generally hates most people so it doesn't shock me.

Sometimes I think about party roles. Theo, our warlock, is definitely the heart of the party. She certainly is the one who wants to make connections with NPCs the most.

I just don't get it with Ez. Ez saved Victor Vallakovich from Castle Ravenloft, and the entire party's lives from pissed-off druids in the woods this past session and it didn't move the needle. Maybe her stint as "Rictavio's Lovely Assistant" will be humorous enough (or productive enough) to impress them. If not, I'm going to have to reevaluate. She doesn't show up often or in every life-or-death scenario. The two times she has shown up were to first give the prophecy to the ranger (who is a replacement for a dead bard PC) and reunite Victor with the party after a teleportation circle went wrong, and second because Van Richten promised the party a ride home from Castle Ravenloft. It made more sense to send Ez than Van Richten, who wouldn't have been able to resist a vampire hunt.

My GF said she wished Alistor (her cleric) liked Ez better because it seems like a fun little drama and that she wishes everyone had insight checked the NPCs more. I agree but I don't know what to do about it. I know what plot beats to hit with my players that they generally enjoy. I have not cracked the code on NPCs. And it's weird because they adored Ez last game!

I think one of the things I'm going to try to do is pare down the number of NPC allies they take with them to Krezk and Immol. Right now, they have Ireena, Ismark, Victor, Stella, and Doru. Stella died and was brought back by Theo during the druid fight. At other times, they've traveled a little with Godfrey and the revenants, the Durst Siblings, and they have plans to travel with Patrina Velikov. I guess they don't really need more NPC allies but like... wild choices, I think.

And I still have NPCs to finish designing for Krezk and Immol.

I'm not mad about it. The game is going really well and we're having a great time. I'm just stumped! The party wants to spend a day or three in Vallaki before shipping out west to search for prophesied items. I have to have Immol ready for them! I'll probably try posting more here as I prepare!

[gemsofthegalaxy]

Greg and Marianne are so interesting, in addition to Greg and Ewan (and the fact we somehow never got any interactions between Marianne and Ewan?). @mossiestpiglet said in the tags of a post that we don't talk about them enough, and I concur. So allow me to do so.

I really do need to re-watch the early episodes to confirm, but from my memory, Marianne says she can't give Greg money and encourages him to go to New York City to ask for a job from Logan despite having, like, $20 left when he arrives (which makes it a huge gamble to do, given how fucking expensive NYC is otherwise). And despite the fact her own father would hate this, and wants Greg to have nothing to do with Logan. I always took it to mean she was not willing to give him money, but later on Greg talks to Caroline how his mother is solvent, debt free now. And even later, he's paying for her credit cards. So perhaps she simply had none to give.

Still, I remember getting the feeling that she was tired of dealing with him in the first few episodes and I sort of think that's part of it, but I also think she just can't help him any more than she has. She probably feels like a total failure, I mean, look at her cousins in comparison. Sure, we as the audience know they are complete messes, but at least they're rich and have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want. Marianne at the very least does not have that luxury, and I'll say more on the financial situation throughout this post.

Greg is very clingy to her early, on and I believe they're implied to still be in contact afterwards. I think Ewan says that Marianne asked him to make sure Greg ate at Thanksgiving- that means Marianne is worrying over him going hungry (and he was going hungry, he was stealing food from work and Tom made fun of him for it).

Despite one mention in the script, Greg is vaguely not in contact with his father canonically, and I take his father's marked absence (when Greg is so reliant on his mother) to mean that he was raised by a single mother (I strongly believe he would have asked for support from his father too if he was in contact with him. It doesn't make sense to me that he wouldn't.)

Many people have noted that Marianne's scenes are often held in a bedroom, and it gives her a vaguely depressed vibe, and with her alluded financial issues, it seems like she struggled, alone. Even though her own father has millions of dollars he refuses to use.

Greg, although he is taking care of his mother financially (after she was unable and seemingly less willing to do so for him), is also a brat to her despite being an adult. No more than in the scene at a funeral where he tells her to shut up. (I personally have fairly chill parents who I can get fairly angry at and we bitch at each other, so,) I don't see this as majorly out of line or horrific, but rather as portraying that they are very casual with one another and she probably did not do a great job with discipline or, arguably, boundaries.

One thing I do want to take as canon despite it only being in the scripts is Greg's post-funeral fight with Ewan, and what I want to point out is that Greg says "mom and I have been talking and We are not coming to Christmas" which is only one line, but it feels HUGE in put together with the rest of their scenes.

Here, Greg is presenting himself and his mother as a united front against Ewan, a rich man whose child was in debt severe enough to be a topic of family gatherings, and whose grandchild was in such poverty he was sleeping in a church at one point... We have almost nothing to go off with Ewan and Marianne, but, I say again: it is quite absurd to me that he was sitting on 250mil for Greg while she struggled to raise him, presumably on her own. While she clearly checks in with Ewan about Greg back in Thanksgiving (again, unless i am mistaken then oops), Greg sits between the two of them at the funeral although he is her father, not his.

I have had friends tell me that even with their limited interactions, they get a strong impression that Marianne and Greg are quite codependent with one another, and I feel like I agree; he relies heavily on her for guidance and does not want to do things alone, but also takes care of her financially and comes across as mildly defensive about her towards Caroline, at least trying to make sure the family knows she's in a better place than she used to be. And, then with Ewan, he goes out of his way to say something to feel like it's him and mom against Ewan, when he is feeling incredibly, incredibly defensive and upset at Ewan.

For one reason or another, whether it be depression or financial mismanagement (probably a combination of both that fed into each other) Greg probably has not had much stability from Marianne but seeks her out anyway. Sure, he is an adult, and you may argue that he should be able to stand on his own feet by the start of season 1, he doesn't seem to have much else support besides her- and her him, from what very little we have seen. And honestly, parenthood does not stop at 18 years old, parents in my humble opinion should be prepared to support their kids for their whole lives as best as they are able.... and from what we can tell, this very well might be the best Marianne could have offered Greg, with how little support she must have gotten from Ewan who is incredibly gruff and only interested in his own 'environmentally-friendly' agenda. I doubt he was much help if she is indeed depressed, as many have taken her to be.

I am not even sure how to wrap this up. Just- the little glimpses that we get into Greg, Marianne, and Ewan paint such a sad fucking picture to me. Single mom, obstinate grandfather, and child who tries to please both of them but still never quite measures up. Growing up poor, with a grandfather who has millions but thinks money is the root of all evil and would rather nearly starve his own family than give it to them. And Greg doesn't even seem to resent this, although Marianne might at this point; at the start of the series he genuinely wants to make a good impression on Ewan and be sweet with him still. We didn't actually get their funeral fight, either, we got Greg saying "that was a good speech grandpa", playing both sides to the bitter end, still wanting to please Ewan in what tiny way he might be able to after his show of trying to stop him speaking. Greg desperately wants love and approval from Ewan, and he seems to get some but not a ton of support from Marianne, and we have almost no way to know exactly what goes on between father and daughter with the other two but... I cannot imagine it's a strong or loving relationship.

[dandelionh3art]

In June of 1967, at the same time as Israel was starting to enact its military dictatorship over the West Bank and Gaza, the biggest athlete of his time and one of the most famous and recognizable icons of his era, Muhammad Ali, was sentenced to five years in prison for his refusal to join the US military and serve in the Vietnam war.

Two months earlier, on April 28th, his boxing license was suspended, and he was stripped of his heavyweight world champion title and arrested: 3 times his name was called at a Military Entrance Processing Station in Houston, and 3 times he would not step forward.

Before and after that day, he was active and speaking against the war to American students in universities, in rallies throughout the country, in press conferences, and interviews.

He never once buckled under pressure, and crafted some of the most memorable and popular quotes of the Vietnam era like "I ain't got no quarrel with them Vietcong", or

"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality. If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years."

-

Choosing wisely, the American state did not destroy Ali. Ali came back to the ring after 3 years of forced absence, reclaimed his title, and, beating all the best heavyweights of the time, created an unmatched legacy in all of sports history.

-

Almost 60 years after that, it is impossible to even imagine, say, Lebron James or Stephen Curry talking with anything similar to that clarity and conviction about, say, a certain genocide and their country's support for it. It's inconceivable. They see themselves as nothing but earners and entertainers.

I often think about the timeless greatness of Ali, being not only the greatest boxing champion of all time but a great formidable political spirit as well. Ali who did not succumb to fear and pressure and risked his career, freedom, many millions of dollars, and even his life (in a country notorious for lone assassins) by consistently refusing to join a war the American public was still overwhelmingly for at the time.

And what do we have today? Complete craven silence. All the great athletes, rock stars, actors - deafening silence.

Not one of them has as much to lose as Ali did, at the height of a singular career in global sports. Not one of them risks jail time, fierce public hate, or financial ruin. Still, they find no courage to speak up.

They all count their dollars and likes in the dark, psychologically broken, and morbidly anxious stars of nothingness.

-

Nearly 6 decades after he willingly put everything on the line for his principles in a spectacular act of real-time political nonconformity, The Great One still shines as a huge beacon of light in a sea of rancid complicity. An inspiration and a role model like no other.

-

The absence of an Ali-like figure of our times tells a sad and uniquely poignant story about the triumph of capitalism and conformity over the human spirit in America in the post-Vietnam era; it also tells us how much of a giant Ali really was.

Alon Mizrahi

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

Put down your shovel Ron DeSantis! 🤦‍♂️

Thank God for John James. I wish I had a twatter account just so I could HIGH 5 him. I've actually written 2 Tumblr Draft Posts venting about this online insanity. I still might share my thoughts here, but for now John James of Michigan nailed it.

From JohnJamesMI to RonDeSantis:

#1: slavery was not CTE! Nothing about that 400 years of evil was a “net benefit” to my ancestors. #2: there are only five black Republicans in Congress and you’re attacking two of them. My brother in Christ… if you find yourself in a deep hole put the shovel down. You are now so far from the Party of Lincoln that your Ed. board is re-writing history and you’re personally attacking conservatives like VoteTimScott and ByronDonalds on the topic of slavery. You’ve gone too far. Stop.

https://twitter.com/JohnJamesMI/status/1685020441692225536?s=20

Ron DeSantis Slams GOP Rival Tim Scott for Criticism of Florida Black History Curriculum

Scott is the second Black Republican DeSantis has attacked on the issue as siding with Democrats

Published 07/28/23 Marc Caputo

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis accused a Republican presidential campaign rival, Sen. Tim Scott, of laundering Democratic talking points by suggesting that the Sunshine State wanted to teach kids there was a “silver lining” to slavery.”

“Part of the reason our country has struggled is that all too often D.C. Republicans accept false narratives, accept lies that are perpetrated by the left," DeSantis said Friday while campaigning in Iowa. "And to accept the lie that Kamala Harris has been perpetrating even when that has been debunked, that's not the way you do it. The way you do it, the way you lead, is to fight back against the lies. So I'm here defending my state of Florida against false accusations and lies."

DeSantis’s counter marked the second day in a row of responding to a Black Republican criticizing him over the education standards by comparing them Harris, the first Black vice president, who traveled last week to Florida and bashed DeSantis. 

On Thursday, he similarly swiped at Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds, a supporter of Donald Trump in the presidential primary who called for a slight adjustment in the education standards that say slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

DeSantis pointed out that Harris and other Black Democrats had embraced an AP African American history course that they backed —and that he opposed — had substantially similar language about slaves learning “specialized trades” but “nobody said anything about that.”But Scott, the only Black Republican senator, later that evening took DeSantis to task. 

“The truth is that anything you can learn, any benefits that people suggest you had during slavery, you would have had as a free person,” Scott told reporters. “What slavery was really about was separating families, about mutilating humans and even raping their wives. It was just devastating.” 

DeSantis has repeatedly pointed out the state standards clearly teach the evils of history and racism

Lost in the discussion over the slavery issue is another major controversy concerning the standards that indicates kids should learn about violence “by African Americans” before they were massacred by rampaging white people. 

DeSantis's feud with Black lawmakers from both parties who don’t support himerupted as his campaign struggled to regain its footing after financial troubles and struggles in the polls. Trump leads DeSantis by wide margins with Scott in third in many surveys. 

DeSantis advisers say he won’t back down in the face of criticism, even as the controversy has raged into its second week and, according to critics, helped undercut his message that he will be a better general election candidate to defeat Joe Biden because he can get more independent and swing voters. 

DeSantis Attacks GOP Rep. Donalds Over Criticism of Florida Black History Curriculum

The Republican presidential candidate and Florida governor also took aim at Vice President Kamala Harris 07/27/23

Marc Caputo

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis swiped at a reporter and accused a fellow home state Republican congressman Thursday of siding with Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris for saying that a controversial state curriculum provision about slavery should be changed.

DeSantis said Rep. Byron Donalds —who endorsed Donald Trump in the presidential primary over the governor — was wrong to say that the new Florida standards suggested suggested that slavery was beneficial to some slaves.

After those standards passed last week, Harris flew to Florida and accused DeSantis of trying to whitewash history.

But DeSantis stuck back, noting that Harris and other Democratic critics had endorsed an Advanced Placement Black history studies course that had a similar point.At the end of the day, you gotta choose: Are you gonna side with Kamala Harris and liberal media outlets? Are you going to side with the state of Florida? And I think it’s very clear these guys these guys did a good job on those standards,” DeSantis told reporters.

The standards in question say that “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

DeSantis mispronounced Harris's first name (which sounds like “comma-lah”) but later sounded it out properly.

“Don’t side with Kam-a-la on that. Stand up for your state,” DeSantis told Donalds.

The row came at a low point for DeSantis’s presidential campaign as he reels from financial woes, layoffs and bad poll numbers vs. Trump. When Donald spoke up via Twitter with a mild suggestion DeSantis amend the language, the governor’s campaign and executive office both criticized him.

After the blowback, Donalds took to Twitter to say that “What's crazy to me is I expressed support for the vast majority of the new African American history standards and happened to oppose one sentence that seemed to dignify the skills gained by slaves as a result of their enslavement.

“Anyone who can't accurately interpret what I said is disingenuous and is desperately attempting to score political points,” Donalds wrote. “Just another reason why l'm proud to have endorsed President Donald J. Trump!”

DeSantis also had a testy exchange with a reporter who asked “were there benefits to slavery?”

“That’s not what the curriculum says,” DeSantis shot back.

“What do you think?” the reporter asked.

“The curriculum is very clear. I think it’s like 200-plus pages of all kinds of stuff that —you can’t read that. Have you read it?” DeSantis responded.

When the reporter didn’t answer the governor’s question, he asked again “Have you read it?”What’s your opinion?” the reporter repeated.

“But you haven’t read it,” DeSantis said. “So I’m just making that clear. That makes it very clear about the injustices of slavery in vivid detail. So anyone that actually read that and then listens to Kamala would know that she’s lying. And that particular provision about the skills, that was in spite of slavery not because of it.”

“The AP course has made that same point,” DeSantis continued. “Other courses have made that same point. Nobody said anything about that.”

The fight over Florida's new African American history curriculum that suggests slaves derived "personal benefit" from slavery has turned into a war among conservatives as Gov. Ron DeSantis aides are attacking Black Republican Rep. Byron Donalds.

"We will not back down from teaching our nation’s true history at the behest of a woke @WhiteHouse, nor at the behest of a supposedly conservative congressman," Education Commissioner Manny Diaz, Jr., tweeted abut Donalds.

Diaz slammed the representative after Donalds said that he supported almost the entirety of the new standards, calling them "robust" and "accurate," however it was line about slavery that needed to be change.

"What's crazy to me is I expressed support for the vast majority of the new African American history standards and happened to oppose one sentence that seemed to dignify the skills gained by slaves as a result of their enslavement," Donalds tweeted. "Anyone who can't accurately interpret what I said is disingenuous and is desperately attempting to score political points."

Just another reason why l'm proud to have endorsed President Donald J. Trump!" Donalds added.

Jason Miller, a senior advisor to Trump tweeted out a statement in defense of Donalds calling him a "conservative hero." Miller lambasted the DeSantis team for their attempts to "smear" the congressman.

"Ron DeSantis needs to look in the mirror and recognize that at his current trajectory, it's not just 2024 that is dead for him, but 2028 as well," Miller's statement read. "DeSantis' misguided attacks are only helping Joe Biden, and if that's his goal, DeSantis should just get out of the race."

Christina Pushnaw, who works as DeSantis' Director of Rapid Response, has compared Donalds criticisms of the curriculum to those voiced by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Pushnaw responded to both Miller and Donalds' tweets with a Harris gifs.

[malewifehenrycooldown]

a kinda long post about my ship with Ly.on V.asti.a and my self insert Nova Celestina, and their melancholic-ish meet cute (?)

Ly..on and Nova meet each other for the very first time at the Fai.ray Ta.il Guild, not long after hearing some of its members have gone missing (and that Sirius Island, a place these missing members went to has ‘vanished’) and that the local search parties have turned up NOTHING.

they both go to said guild to hopefully comfort the remaining members who are there. To share a moment of giref and provide a helping hand or two.

Ly..on goes with Ju.ra because Lam..ia Scale has pretty strong ties with FT, and so really it’s just to lend a shoulder for these members to lean on if they ever need help or assistance (of which also Blue Pegasus does too).

Nova goes for for a more personal reason, as that even as one of the few independent freelance mages in Fiore (with no guild attachment), she still holds a special place for Fai.ry Tai.l. It was her old guild after all until aspects of her own personal life had to take priority. She still thinks about the people she was growing up with, and how much they meant to her, and still mean to her. She does find herself thinking about them in even the smallest of tranquil moments when she isn’t taking on a freelance job or being hired on the spot.

Anyways, the two meet each other for the first time at the Fairy Tail Guild and try to offer remaining members support and sort out deals as to what they can do to help them if their other members don’t turn up. It’s essentially a moment for people at the guild to take time to grieve and mourn their friends and compatriots.

Ly.on reflects on how he and Gra.y could have fixed their relationship, because even if they are rivals, he still cares about him. I personally headcanon that Gra.y is like the brother Ly.on never had,the two never always saw each other eye to eye, and sometimes there were arguements that could be deemed as petty. Now Ly.on will never gain the opportunity to fix that relationship after finally being given a second chance by his old childhood friend, let alone be able catch up on their relationship.

It particularly hurts him, especially with their last face-to-face communication being the Nirvana Arc, and Gra.y is the reason why La.Mia S.cale are a legitimate guild now, and Ly.on has turned around his life for the better! but now that opportunity to thank Gra.y is gone… and it breaks his heart into pieces, because he can’t make up for lost time.

Nova just misses the guild that she once called home. And she’s been overdue for a ‘proper’ visit (she briefly shows up in the Phantom Lord-Lucy Rescue Arc to fuck some shit up against PL) but she didn’t properly stay around for long. Even if she left at a young age, fa.iry t.ail still said she could return whenever she needed to, because fairy tail always left their doors open to former members to return whenever they need to.

It was a place she once called home, and now is ever more the opportune time to come back home when her family needs her most. However there is an aspect of.. fearing for the guild’s safety. Fai.ry tai.l is unfortunately a guild that other rival guilds love to target and intimidate. Now with their highest and most capable members missing or worse dead, they can’t protect the guild to the extent than they used too. Even when Gildarts came back, he joined the others to Sirius Island. Nova wants to not just support her old guild and guild mates, but to try to protect them too. She is a relatively powerful mage, having cosmic/chaos devil slayer magic, but even then, it won’t do much because other guilds can take advantage of a mourning, grieving fairy tail in other ways aside from magic (I.e: absurd taxes, owed debts, just general financial abuse and bullying).

It’s just an extra layer of salt added to an already angry wound. It’s just unfair that other guilds will target another simply because it’s taking the time to process grief and move on.

During this… sad/melancholic atmosphere at the FT guild, Ly.on and Nova kinda hit it off well. It does start small but later they become more conversation throughout the day there, talking about their connections and relationships to Fairy Tail and it’s members, telling funny stories and just generally enjoying each other’s company. That’s the general starting point of how they meet, but really the way they fall in love is partly due to their shared connection to Fairy Tail and how their experiences with the guild have changed and helped them improve as people.

[news-of-the-day]

5/23/23

Talks about the debt ceiling continue with little progress, and a default is looming come June. With Republicans holding the House, they want to use their position to reign in spending and are demanding a cap on future budgets. Another sticking point is requiring work for benefits (medicaid, food stamps, financial aid, etc.). There are other smaller issues, like releasing money sequestered for COVID, defense spending, and more oil drilling.

Russia and the Ukraine have been fighting for the city of Bakhmut for a long time, and Russia has claimed victory, although the Ukraine says they're still in and the Wagner mercenary group hasn't agreed with the win. Two Russian groups fighting for the Ukraine pushed into the Belgorod region of Russia to attack. It hasn't seemed to do much damage and Russia claims it has repelled it.

Fighting also continues in Sudan. After long standing leader Omar al-Bashir was ousted in 2019, power was shared between two individuals, Lt. Gen. Abdel al-Burhan and Lt. Gen. Mohamed Dagalo. who control two completely different armies, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Facing internal and international pressure to return to civilian rule, tensions between al-Burhan and Dagalo grew as they had to determine things like who who would subordinate to whom in the new power structure. Last April, suddenly the RSF attacked several SAF bases and since then it's been a mess with hundreds of civilians dying and hundreds of thousands fleeing, especially since a lot of the fighting is taking place in the capital, Khartoum. Attempted ceasefires have been brokered, but neither side is paying particular attention to them.

Trump appeared virtually in court over his trial for the Stormy Daniels payout, so the judge could issue a protective order on evidence, i.e. Trump or his lawyers cannot discuss evidence that isn't already public knowledge. Judges are known to put in such orders, but in this case it was prevent witness intimidation. Both the judge and the DA have received death threats already.

AZ, CA, and NV made a historic deal over the Colorado River. To put it quite simply, the river is drying up and will probably run out if nothing changed. Considering it nourishes over 40M people and provides irrigation for some of the US' most fertile land, this is a massive problem. The three agreed to decrease their intake by 13% in exchange for $1.2B in federal funds. This isn't enough to stop the problem however, but it's a move in the right direction.

E. Jean Carroll is seeking an additional $10M against Trump in her defamation case. Carroll sued Trump over her claim that he raped her back in the 90s. (It was too late for a criminal trial, but NYS briefly allowed civil sexual assault trials to proceed.) Two weeks ago the jury agreed with the sexual battery claim and awarded her $5M, and the defamation case is continuing. Forgive me, I am about to geek out because defamation lawsuits fascinate me. Although we recently have had two high profile verdicts (Alex Jones, FOX/Dominion), they are very hard to win, particularly if the plaintiff is a public figure because they need to fulfill the "actual malice" standard: i.e., the defendant said the statements knowing they were false or with "reckless disregard" with the truth. So for example, I write these posts and I may make a false statement. I don't mean to, sometimes I do poor editing, or I didn't understand the issue properly, or the source I got the information from may have been incorrect. It's unlikely anyone would win defamation against me since everything I write is researched and in good faith. In the FOX/Dominion case, it was pretty obvious after sifting through FOX's internal communications that they didn't care whether Dominion voting machines were rigged or not, they wanted to boost their ratings against OAN and Newsmax, and so brought on contributors who made baseless claims against the company. As for Carroll, I think she has a decent shot given that she won the civil lawsuit over the assault itself, so now Trump's ad hominem attacks on her would make him more liable. Of course this is all going to appeal, so we'll be hearing about it for a while.

1) BBC, The Hill 2) NYT, Al Jazeera 3) WSJ 4) Washington Post 5) Reuters 6) Politico

Thank you for your kind words while I was on break. I can’t cover everything I missed, but I’ll try to provide context for the latest news.

[acrossthewavesoftime]

Making fun of people’s mental health issues, even if they aren’t people that you particularly like, is absolutely despicable. This is incredibly poor behaviour for a so called “historian”. Whatever happened to working against historical bias? You don’t have to like bpc, but maybe check yourself first before you mock someone’s alcoholism

Anon,

You are indeed correct that I am not particularly fond of Charles Edward Stuart. That said, you should not treat a three to four lines long post on Tumblr the same as a scholarly opinion expressed in, say, a thesis or a paper. These are different media, and serving different purposes.

The post is already marked as not being anything close to historical fact as it deals with Charles Edward and his father being (un-) able to set up bots, which, given the different landscape of technology and information media in their day and sardonic tone, should be enough to know not to treat this post as a scholarly piece.

I agree that illnesses are a difficult subject and have to be dealt with sensibly.

In the case at hand, there is ample historical record suggesting that Charles Edward Stuart was generally not a very pleasant person to deal with, growing increasingly worse following the failed rebellion in Scotland, which seems to be the time when he made visibly intoxicated appearances in public more often. Being seen behaving erratically further hurt his cause as it led to potential European supporters feeling that he was in no shape to make another (and successful) attempt on the British throne (or even just on Scotland), which frustrated him, and perhaps contributed to his alcohol abuse, which also alienated him from his partner Clementina Walkinshaw and only daughter.

Walkinshaw left Charles after putting up with a little shy of a decade of physical and psychological abuse to protect their young daughter Charlotte and herself from harm, possibly with the help of his own father, as Charles' controlling ways meant she would have had little chance of just closing the door and leaving, even more so as mother and daughter would have been financially dependent on Charles, who, for the next 23 years, did not support his child as she grew up and declined wanting any contact with her.

Given this historical background which the post and tags also allude to, I felt it was safe as not to be misread as a general vilification of people struggling with alcohol abuse (who are, which is important to mention, not automatically abusive, particularly intentionally so, to other people by the way), but an expression of a personal distaste for this particular man featured in the post which is coloured by the fact he turned violent against people in a socially and physically weaker position than and dependent on him while intoxicated, and did so, as the lengthy period of the abuse and indeed disparaging letters written by him suggest, unremorsefully.

This does of course not mean that I think Charles Edward Stuart would not have deserved help, a kind of help that sadly was not available at the time, or that I have a distaste for any (modern) person who struggles with an addiction of any kind. If you had taken the time to check my past post history, you would have found that there is nothing to suggest so.

Your criticism has however alerted me to the fact that I forgot to add warning-/mention-tags to the post as I normally would, so that people who do not wish to stumble over a post mentioning either alcoholism or domestic abuse can filter it; I have rectified that.

To me, the line "[y]ou don’t have to like bpc" especially in conjunction with you also citing "working against the historical bias", reads as though your main point of issue with my post is that I do not like Charles Edward Stuart and made an according comment on my blog.

If this is the case, my best advice (something you were so free in giving me unwantedly that I in turn am confident you will hear out mine) to you is to not engage with people whose opinions you don't agree with rather than getting up and personal in anons.

I don't know you (and you clearly don't want to be known by me even in a loose internet-acquaintance way, seeing as you used the anon function for your ask), and don't have to agree with me; but I am also firmly of the opinion that the key to good, peaceful coexistence in any space where people meet is to engage them respectfully.

To me, your response is emblematic of the worrying trend of (internet-) anti-intellectualism that does not tolerate discourse in that, instead of expressing polite critique, you resort to a public response coupled with attacking the credentials you deem me to have under the guise of defending what, nonnegotiably, is a good cause (namely the dignified treatment of people who suffer from mental illnesses) by taking a post out of context, or misreading its message.

Lastly, I would also like to remind you that first and foremost, you are responsible for curating your own online experience and how that, and your resulting behaviour, affects others; you are of course free to disagree with me or any other poster on this site or anywhere else, but there are other, more proportionate responses to not liking a post someone put on their own personal blog than getting up and personal in an accusatory anon message.

Your personal feelings on a matter are not necessarily those of others, and to shout at a stranger because you do not agree with them is poor form both in person and online.

You are free to block people, including me, whose posts you don’t want to see and sites like AO3 or Tumblr allow you to filter tags.

Perhaps the best, and most effortless response is to move on from posts that you do not agree with. This does of course not mean you should ignore things such as hate speech or other content that violates Tumblr user guidelines, or indeed the law (e. g. doxing, (explicit) images posted without the consent of the person in them, or in some places, denying the Holocaust happened etc.), but if a post simply does not sit right with you personally, sometimes the best response is none at all. There is so much content on Tumblr alone that each of us could fill our entire day just sending (and in turn, receiving) rude anons to people we disagree with for one or the other reason.

If you feel like wanting to discuss something you read with the original poster, perhaps the best response is to send them a private message, and ask politely “what do you mean by [x]?” or “could you please explain?” rather than sending them a rude anon attacking them personally. Many people, including me, are genuinely open to discussion and constructive criticism and will listen to what you have to say if you approach them politely.

[liskantope]

Roughly in the vein of my post from last night about "love is love", and while the fight over gay rights and conservative Christianity is on my mind, I want to put into words another recollection. Again, please don't take this to be my trying to defend my understanding of "how The Discourse was when gay rights was a major culture war battleground" as objectively correct using like one or two personal anecdotes -- I'm retiring from that particular thread and in the process of rethinking my position -- but while it's on my mind I think it's good to put on paper some reflection of how a lot of my intellectual development was rooted in opposing the power of religious dogma. I've long had a sharply anti-religious streak, where I don't mean "anti-religious" in the sense of being against all aspects of religion -- there are some that I covet, which is why I spent so long trying to be involved in Unitarian Universalist groups, for instance, and have contemplated exploring reform Judaism -- but having a deep distrust of moral convictions rooted in religious dogma.

We all have intellectually formative experiences, particularly during teenagerhood I think. Here is one of mine.

In high school, I had a young AP American History teacher who was fairly open (though very careful and cautious and even-handed in his articulation) about his political and religious views: he considered himself politically moderate but was clearly fairly conservative-leaning (and somewhat libertarian-ish) even by the standards of that time. Outside of the following anecdote, I really liked him and we got along great. One day, which was probably in early 2004, he invited us to propose current political debates so that he could explain his own views and moderate a discussion, and someone brought up gay marriage. The view he expressed was (in carefully reluctant tones) something like "I respect that many people are in this kind of relationship and of course it's not government's place to suppress them, but I happen to believe as a matter of deep moral conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman. I just couldn't continue to have faith in the God I believe in and feel otherwise. So I cannot lend my support to same-sex marriage. I do, on the other hand, support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, because there are many same-sex couples out there who are financially prepared, are in a loving, stable relationship, and would make wonderful parents, and a child is much better off with them than with many types of households that too many children are forced to grow up in today."

I felt an ethical dissonance and tension among the things he had said (among other things, his convictions about gay marriage clearly had nothing to do with thinking that gay people couldn't genuinely experience love or be good parents!), and when class ended I confronted him to argue about it. He said (with a strong hint of apology in his voice), "There are certain moral truths I believe in, coming from my faith, that tell me that a man being married to a man or a woman being married to a woman is just wrong." And he added, in an obvious attempt to soothe the indignation visible on my face by showing me that his moral convictions weren't aimed only at judging gay people, "There are some other things around marriage that I also feel to be morally wrong. For instance, a man cheating on his wife or a woman cheating on her husband is similarly wrong."

His attempt to appease me by holding up infidelity as similar moral valence to two men or two women being married backfired spectacularly, because it was an exquisite indication that something was very inconsistent here: here he was, in the same way in the same breath, talking about infidelity (which very demonstrably causes harm) and gay marriage (which visibly harms nobody and only makes two people very happy -- the only way one could possibly argue that some harm could eventually come of it would be by demonstrating that it's bad for children's development to be raised without one parent of each sex, but he had already clarified that he didn't believe that!). The contradiction had to arise from somewhere, and clearly it arose from this weird black box called "his religious faith". Now he was a smart, serious guy, so I'm sure if someone were to press him in an appropriate setting for some justification for why God decrees that marriage is only between a man and a woman, he would have some deep theology-infused philosophical answer. But this answer would have to bypass anything to do with anyone's actual concrete health or happiness or harm.

I didn't think of it this way at the time, but eventually I came to look back on that as the moment, more than any other, when I became truly anti-religious in some sense. I had never really been religious, but previously God-belief had felt like this bemusing-but-not-very-interesting thing that everyone around me seemed to have for some reason I didn't understand but didn't need to care about, and now I suddenly became very interested in how wrong-headed and ethically dangerous it could sometimes be. This was actually a major intellectual and moral turning point in my own development as a young person.

Around that same time, or maybe a short while later, my mom had a friend who was anti-Iraq and a reliable Democrat-voter but also strictly Mormon and socially conservative. One day they got into an argument over gay marriage (I wasn't there; this was a story my mom told me later that day or week). During it, my mom's friend likened being gay to being an alcoholic: a harmful condition that one probably doesn't choose to have in the first place but which one can and should work on to remedy. After my mom laid out all her reasons for supporting gay rights, however, her friend said, "You know, everything you're saying makes a ton of sense, and I think in fact I would agree with you on this issue, if it weren't for my Mormon faith." While this wasn't as formative for me as my own direct experience narrated above, it seems to have really stuck with my mom: nearly two decades later, she even brought it up to me the last time I visited her.

[noellesmind]

Why men are more often supporters of the patriarchy

Recently, someone tried to convince me how women (beginning from Eve) have been more easily deceived by the immoral distractions and why it’s wrong to support women in their struggle to eliminate the patriarchy. This wasn’t the first time, I have come across this narrative lots of times:

‘Men build the society, men build the family system. Women support “degenerate” things like feminism, promiscuity and LGBT, ending up normalising them. It leads our society to destruction.’

So… maybe this really needs to be said. Why do more men support the patriarchy? Why should neither men nor women support it?

1: The roles have different degrees of freedom

As much as patriarchy sets a rule for both men and women, there is an obvious disparity between the freedom and liberty that the two enjoy. While men are the “keepers of women”, women end up as meek and submissive figures that are far too easy to exploit. I am not against women submitting to their husbands per se, but the submission of a woman is earned through trust and following God’s word. Someone who doesn’t fit within this doesn’t deserve the obedience of a woman, nor does a woman have to submit because the Bible says so. Ultimately, it’s individually her choice.

But so to speak, while men are expected to be high-achievers and maintainers, they do indeed get to set standards around their house and aren’t really expected to spend much time in actual servitude of another. They enjoy financial liberty as opposed to women, and they would gladly come back to a cooked meal and a woman to cater to their other needs.

The sort of work that a man does also lies up to him. He has a lot of options and he can easily choose one to earn means while fostering his interests. But for women… not so much. The only option that a woman has by the end is to give up her individual identity, take over her husband’s name as if she belongs to him, and look after the house and the children.

Not only does this limit her choices, it also suppresses her individual prowess, something that could have allowed her her own identity in the world, something more than just the wife and mother of somebody.

Even if a woman might choose to build around her own identity by working as something more than a homemaker, her motherhood is often questioned.

If men are great fathers for maintaining balance between their work and home lives, and finding time for their family while simultaneously keeping up the work, why is it the bare minimum for women? Better still, why are women ostracised for something that would result in praise for men?

2: Men often fail to realise the ramifications of what they support

I have come across lots of men choosing to support patriarchy because they feel their “masculine urges” upon seeing scenes like these:

Somehow, that’s supposed to be an indicator that they’re “man enough”. Well sweetheart, I am a straight cis woman with absolutely no gender dysphoria or sexual attraction towards females, and I still feel that “urge” you describe.

Except again, I realise that what true masculinity is far too different than this ideal image people have in their minds. When it comes to “masculinity”, it involves foregoing interest in your own mental health, even at the risk of suicide. It involves foregoing material interests, pushing your physical and mental health to the utmost threshold, setting the standard by doing something out of the ordinary.

Yet, the pinnacle of masculinity on Quora is a particular guy with a Thomas Shelby profile (hem-hem, we know who we’re talking about) who has accomplished absolutely nothing throughout his life except for a potential sex offending crime, a whole long list of whiny posts that sometimes may apologise or romanticise rape, and a generally poor reputation in the eyes of anybody with more than two braincells.

Sorry my dear sigma guys, while you may have the highest degree of pleasure watching Oppenheimer and Thomas Shelby, while you may have the dearest desire of setting up a nuclear bomb and walking past its flames, you have a very, very poor and limited view of what masculinity really means.

I would leave it up to that, because those guys that see themselves as the protectors of masculinity are well-aware that in a situation actually demanding a life-threatening response, they would be the first to cower away.

3: Comparing the ideal vs the real

To the want-to-be-traditional women, I am sorry but if you have such scenes in your mind:

I am rather displeased. Do you feel this is the reality for majority of the women that choose the life of a traditional housewife? No, no, absolutely not!

I am supposed to get “feminine clicks and instincts” upon seeing these ultra-feminine depictions, and truth be told, I do. But in retrospect, I found the thought of lots of idealities extremely gratifying, that was until I put them into play. Say for example, two years back when I read ‘Twilight’ by Stephanie Meyer (a very uninteresting read), I could feel within my bones, the similar way you feel you’re such a woman, that I am a vampire.

For the eleven year old I was, I didn’t find any interest in the romance part of the book. I was more intrigued by the part of the vampires and the werewolves, and I direly needed to validate myself as one. So off I did. I made a routine that required me to sleep at 4 in the morning and wake up in the early afternoon (I stopped going to school after 7th year, so this routine wasn’t much of an issue for my schedule). I had to give that up within two days.

Majority of the “ultra-feminine” or “ultra-masculine” influenced people hardly ever realise that these scenes they create are not the reality. Heck, if you want to compare the ideality, look at this and tell me how you don’t wish to do this too:

If the top, elite class was the reality for everybody, life as everything could be amazing! Except it’s not. While work in the corporate, especially in women’s case, is portrayed as a very “tiring and exhausting experience”, “working for an employer that doesn’t care for you”, even “pour coffee for the boss instead of your spouse” as if that’s the only thing women do… working as a housewife is glorified without ever taking account of the reality!

4: Extra point about self-contradictory and spiraling arguments made by patriarchy sympathisers

A 15 year old girl in my class wished to become a mother. All teachers of my school, as well as the clergy of the church my school is associated with, fought tooth and nail to convince her how “babies don’t give love, they take and take and take”. Yet, this same point brought up by an adult woman to deny the responsibilities of motherhood, is responded with “Why wouldn’t you want babies? They’re such lovely gifts of the Lord!”

Contradiction is the finest element of patriarchy, the only thing that it stills stands upon.

[mysmorgasbordoffantabulosa]

In his recent live, Jin talks about the delay in their enlistment due to various reasons and thereby the hate comments they have been receiving. The comments online around this are so ridiculous -

1. BTS sacrificed for the Army and endured hate comments - BTS is my favourite band and I love them to bits but nothing they do is purely only for love. Everything, and I repeat, every single thing they do has a commercial angle to it. Nothing was a sacrifice. It was purely an analysis of what will get them through the enlistment period with least financial impact to them and the company. While no one deserves the hate they get, I wish the fandom would stop painting them as saints and treat them as the extremely talented musicians yet human that they are!!

2. BH forced them to delay - As on date BTS is a far bigger brand than BH. Just the word 'hiatus' had wiped out 30 % of their market cap overnight. While BTS has a little skin in the game, BH will be at a much bigger loss, were they to separate from BTS as on date. That is why there has been repeated messaging from everyone about this not being their last concert and they have years to come. BTS certainly has the upper hand in negotiation. Any company across the world would be open to sign them individually or as a group given the cash machines they are!! No way BH can force anything they do not absolutely want to do against their will.

3. Free 'xyz' from BH - Again these guys have no clue how the real world works. BTS are not kids needing protection, they are all well functioning fairly smart adults. They also have access to the best legal and financial advisory money can buy. They can protect themselves much better than any social media warrior can protect them.

As much as I hate Corden I don't think he was wrong when he said most of the fans were teenagers ( at least by the maturity level they seem to be )

The more we start treating them as humans and adults the freer they will be. As of now the critics alternate between trying fight wars that BTS themselves have no interest in fighting or hating them for the smallest deviations from prescribed behaviour.

While this is true for most of K-media it is more so for BTS given they are under microscopic lens.

Sorry about long rant post! Unfortunately went on Quora out of boredom today. This is the result 😌

We all occasionally need to rant it's therapeutic!

Just to add / comment on you some of your thoughts...

Regarding ARMY being teens (or at least mentally so), I think you have to understand most ARMY don't comment negatively, most tend to stay positive and be proactively supportive.

Twitter ARMY is a whole different beast to Mainstream ARMY, they are the ones quick to draw conclusions, will fight with each other over their stan/ship, there are always some who are just constantly negative. I think Twitter hold a lot fo the blame for how the wider K-Pop and likes of Corden perceive ARMY, and because Twitter tends to skew young, it's easy to equate ARMY as being young.

I do agree about how we see them and treat them is gonna have to change, and with military enlistment there is a good possibility that, that could happen. It will weed out the wheat from the chaff in ARMY and hopefu people will become more mature and enough to let them be themselves.

I hope it comes quickly.