#Now obviously there’s a lot of nuance to the situation but if I had been 16 in Simons position and dealing with all the other bullshit he’s

[fan-of-young-royals]

I know Simon is so much stronger than me because that final fight in the music room would’ve been the Moment I decided to break up with Wille

[lachiennearoo]

How to Make Friends

A more-or-less clear guide on social interactions

Growing up with heavy ADHD and generalized anxiety, it was always a bit hard for me to make friends and socialize. Despite my yearning for friendship, I was always "the quiet one" and "a loner", simply because I didn't know how to approach certain social situations, and it made any friendship I had extremely unstable (except for my sister @vive-le-quebec-flouffi, who was so extroverted and friendly it was literally impossible to escape her clutches of socialization)

As I grew older, I learned through a lot of trial and error what makes a good friendship.

Or, rather... what's the best way for someone to WANT to be your friend (without being superficial or hypocritical.)

Now, obviously, this doesn't work for everyone. But this is what I found helped me the most in social circles (especially online) and I hope it can help others too

LET'S BEGIN!

1 - Be yourself

Now that sounds very cliche and cringe, I know, but hear me out, because my opinion on this is not the same as all those feelgood inspirational movies and ads.

"Being yourself" isn't as simple as it seems. Because after all, what does "self" imply? If someone is, say, a criminal, would "be yourself" mean that they should embrace their sinful side?

No, obviously not.

"Be yourself" is a bit more nuanced, but I'll try to boil it down for you.

It just means "be unashamed of your qualities which you think are flaws". For example, "be yourself" would apply to someone who sees themselves as ugly, or maybe someone with an odd yet unharmful hobby, or a weird sense of fashion, or someone with say a handicap, a speech impediment. "Be yourself" is a sentence for the specific people who have genuine good in them, but are afraid to show it to others because they have been persecuted in the past, or are scared to be. It does NOT mean to accept genuine flaws. "Be yourself" does not include say violent anger issues, an addiction, a recent crime committed, or a generally unpleasant personality. Those are obviously not things to encourage. You can understand they may be a thing that happen to you, and accept it in your life, but that's different from being proud of it or encouraging it.

Speaking of personalities... let's talk about that

2 - Be kind

Now when some people hear that, they think it means "always smile no matter what, always look happy and positive, always agree with everyone just so you don't hurt their feelings, and never cause any drama", like you're Deku in My Hero Academia or Steven Universe in his titular show.

But that's... not quite that.

Obviously, kindness is something you use to help people feel better, to cheer up, and feel happy, and obviously to be kind, you need to have compassion, heart, empathy, and always put yourself in other people's shoes regardless of who they are. But it is not necessarily all-encompassing.

There's a rule that I think anyone learning kindness must learn. It's that sometimes, kindness means to be firm.

Not mean, of course. Not judgmental, not insensitive. Don't insult anyone, don't belittle or patronize anyone or make them feel inferior to you. That's still very rude and that's not what you want.

But what I mean is that sometimes, if you know that a person's actions towards something are wrong, especially if it's towards someone else, you must be able to point it out, and act accordingly. Don't just stand there and agree with them just because you don't want to hurt their feelings. You must still be able to know right from wrong. Kindness just means you won't be an ass about it, it doesn't mean to stay silent.

Hey, that brings me to point three!

3 - Show your own opinions

If there's one thing people hate just as much as meanness, it's those who stand by and do nothing about it.

Regardless of if you agree with them or not, if you say absolutely nothing when genuinely bad behaviour is happening, out of fear of "starting a fight", you are actively making the person who is being attacked feel alone.

I remember myself, when I was bullied in the first two grades of secondary school (11-13 years old for those who don't know) for "being ugly", I was told by my mother (who was friends with other kid's parents) that some of the kids "didn't hate me" and "didn't agree with the bullying". And I asked her "if they don't hate me, why won't they talk to me?" She never managed to answer that one. And it broke my heart, because outside of my sister, I had no one else.

Don't be like that. You may be scared of acting, but you know who would be grateful if you did act? The victims. And isn't their opinion of you much more important than the opinion of someone who acts with hatred and bigotry?

If you see someone suffering injustice, or even just hear someone who has a rather harmful opinion, don't be scared to tell them that you disagree. Obviously don't be an asshole about it, stay civil, but if you voice out your opinion, you will be seen as someone who stays true to their beliefs and is brave enough to stand up for them if the opportunity comes.

There's obviously much more that comes with social life (nonverbal cues, sense of humor, timing and mood), and I don't know everything (I'm just some random québécois girl on the internet). But I hope this was a bit more helpful. I did have fun writing this, at least. So I guess that's better than nothing!

[wilcze-kudly]

The Gaang being 'bad parents' didn't ruin their characters.

I've seen this argument tossed around a couple times and it's honestly one of my least favourite criticisms of lok.

Katara (and Sokka but we have no confirmed kids for him, which seems unrealistic with how much game he had) lost their mother as children and their father was forced to abandon them when they were barely starting their teens. They were raised by their grandmother with little to no peers of their own age.

Aang did not know his parents and a huge chunk of his childhood was him being groomed into taking up the mantle of the avatar and mastering airbending. He also was isolated from other kids his age. His closest parental figure was Gyatso who was more of a teacher than a father. Also the Air Nomads were literally wiped out so that adds to the trauma pile.

I really don't think i have to talk about Zuko's family life here, but at least he had relatively positive parental figures in the form of Ursa (though i do have a burning personal dislike of ursa) and Iroh. Despite this his struggle around the subject of his family and his trauma relating to his upbringing was a focal point of his character arc.

Toph was raised in isolation by her asshole abelist parents who did not listen to her, sent people to capture and bring her back and then disowned her. (If my cursory understanding of 'the rift' is correct, I need to actually read it because i am unreasonably obsessed with the Beifong family.)

Where, pray tell, were they supposed to learn proper parenting skills? On their brief stint as child soldiers? While fighting a war as literal children?

There is the argument that they must've matured later in their lives, of course. But you can only recover so much from copious amounts of childhood trauma.

Being a bad parent doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. Sure it makes you a failure in an incredibly delicate and important aspect of human life but it doesn't make you a bad person. And saying that it does takes a lot of nuance out of the conversation.

Like, do you know how easy it is to fuck up a child?

Especially that the ways the members of the Gaang 'fucked up' as parents feel mostly in character.

Bumi was going to face some struggles with self worth due to being the firstborn child of the Avatar and arguably one of the most powerful waterbenders in history, while being a nonbender himself. That much was unavoidable, no matter how his parents approached the issue.

And Aang was obviously going to be over the moon when Tenzin was born. Think about it. He's literally the last of his people. He has no one else 'like him'. No one else to pass down the traditions, the teachings that Gyatso and everyone else he cared about and who were horrifically murdered to. Aang is getting older and he feels like his culture and history and his entire life before he got trapped in that damned iceberg will die along with him. And then Tenzin is born and Tenzin can take up the mantle that had been thrust upon Aang.

I'm going to withhold my judgement on Izumi and Zuko, since we barely know anything about them. She seems well adjusted but that's all i can say right now. But Zuko has also been shown to be extremely, painfully aware of how fucked up his family is and has clearly been putting in a lot of work to unscrew what his ancestors have screwed up.

Toph situation feels very tragic to me,because it's obvious that she thought she thought she was doing better than her parents. She gave her daughters the freedom to do what they want, to not feel opressed and trapped like she had. How was she supposed to know that she was making her girls feel like she didn't love them? (Here's another post of mine about the Beifong family and how they just feel like they're cursed or something at this point.)

TLDR; I get annoyed by people saying that the Gaang being 'bad parents' ruined their characters, because to me it felt like it actually enhanced them.

Neither Aang nor Toph acted out of malice or a lack of love. On the contrary, Toph was trying not to repeat her parents mistakes, accidentally committing a bunch of her own. While Aang probably didn't even realise that he was neglecting Kya and Bumi.

But just loving your children doesn't always make you a good parent.

I think these flaws only add to them as characters. It makes them feel more real.

It's unrealistic and, frankly, just plain boring to go 'oh the Gaang were all good people so they would be good parents too.'

The Gaang were a gaggle of traumatised children forced into saving the world, because the adults around them failed them, that then grew into traumatised adults who have no idea how to be good parents.

[olderthannetfic]

Hot take incoming.

People who have been traumatized or otherwise harmed by certain people (predators, etc) have every right to be upset about it, and angry, and scared about whether other people will experience the same thing. They also have a right to process their trauma in their own time, because everyone is different. It is also understandable that some people might not have access to a way to process that trauma. Lastly, obviously, people with trauma totally deserve to be included in fandom spaces as much as someone who doesn't have trauma.

However… I feel like there is a line that shouldn't be crossed when engaging in certain discourse in fandom, and outside of fandom. If someone has lots of unresolved, unprocessed trauma, and because of it, they can't be (sufficiently) objective, or look at things in a more unbiased manner, they should not be engaging in discourse about things like censorship too heavily—if at all. They need to postpone that until their mental health is a bit better.

Unresolved trauma can make it really hard to properly acknowledge nuance. For example, if someone's parents grabbed them, beat them, withheld food, opened locked doors on them, et al, yes, they're going to have trauma. But the question remains whether they can view something like a fictional dynamic where, for instance, someone makes amends with their parents who abused them due to mental illness, which has since been treated, with ample objectivity. Or any other, even darker topics, especially ones where toxic relationships and events are written to be erotic). It really feels like many people in fandom don't recognize they might be too biased to read something without viscerally (viscerally!) reacting, and throwing down the "ban it" card. I get the impression it's not really healthy for the individual a lot of times, too.

I've reblogged posts about why it's bad to censor sensitive topics in fandom, and I've posted some of my own commentary, which tends to be very clinical. I've had multiple strangers, at these times, create full-on essays in my inbox where, after mentioning how I seemed like a safe space, they described how they were groomed and abused by someone, and all sorts of stuff that I didn't want to read. While it was very sympathetic, they argued that x things should be censored, and nobody should be allowed to write toxic relationships, because they "knew just how bad that trauma could be," and they implored me to believe them. But even if they do have firsthand experience with that trauma, and they feel so strongly about it, does that really make their argument any more logical?

I'm convinced these people still had unprocessed trauma, so they were acting with their feelings, not their brain. I got this impression from how they completely trauma-dumped on me - I kid you not, it felt like they had to get this stuff out somehow, because they hadn't been given enough opportunity to vent before. One of these people who were in my inbox? They legitimately seemed desperate to get me to accept what they were saying. Now, it could've been a bucket of fake bullshit. But if it was real, I have to wonder how much of the incessant campaigning for censorship is actually a misguided way for people to manage and make sense of trauma, to validate it somehow, and feel like they're getting control over a situation, even if they don't realize that's what they're trying to do.

Not to claim people shouldn't be allowed to speak their minds. But, there's nuance. I feel like a lot of people in fandom need to wrap their heads around the fact that there is a large difference between being informed by trauma, and letting trauma speak for you. And the latter can often lead to bad outcomes.

--

[broodwolf221]

forever thinking abt solas and sera as extraordinary foils of each other

elven history v. elven modernity is a big thing but just as major imo:

rebellion

solas is the dread wolf, the trickster god of rebellion and deception. we know now that it's more nuanced than all that, but he did lead a rebellion - and with good cause!

sera is a modern rebel, and what does solas do? he tries to share his experience with her. he talks about the tactics of rebellion, the choices to be made, the difficult things that lay ahead. sera listens and then rejects it and he's so confused. she's a rebel, she obviously cares about people, why won't she take it all the way?

but her reasoning is about avoiding his consequence and he doesn't even see it. she doesn't want to kill or ruin all nobles bc to do so would plunge everyone into chaos and she recognizes that. solas plunged all of arlathan into a chaos so profound it destroyed it

in a lot of ways, sera is wiser than solas, wiser about people, about reaction, about cause and effect. he went to extremes in order to free slaves and to punish the evanuris. she knows that nobles are awful and that servants and workers and all the people who provide for them are abused and misused, but she doesn't think wholesale destruction is the answer and she isn't wrong

and what's the difference? imo, community and experience. solas is such an academic, distanced from those he seeks to protect, and can be very paternalistic. sera has lived these things. she talks about how some of the red jennies make enough coin to retire and how the ones who do good are fine but others end up being the target of the jennies. she knows how people can change

also: the red jennies scare the nobles. there's power in that. it's far from perfect, but that doesn't mitigate the very real power in it. what if instead of destroying everything, solas had led a rebellion that put fear in the hearts of the evanuris? what if he forced them to confront that they, too, could face the consequences of their actions? it wouldn't have been easy but it would have prevented the absolute destruction that followed

and he! doesn't! fucking! see it! he doesn't see that sera's reasoning is about avoiding his mistake! he doesn't see that sera's wisdom grounded in experience counters his naivete grounded in an academic pursuit of justice!

which imo is all the more reason to believe he's a spirit. he had, and perhaps still has, a very simplistic view of things like this. if there is an injustice you fix it. you don't live with it and change it by degrees, you don't try to alter it at the root, you just Fix It, whatever form that takes. the evanuris are bad? imprison them. simplistic punitive justice. to sera, the nobles are bad? make them, THESE nobles, fear reprisal. give power and anonymity to the people being hurt. but don't get rid of all the nobles only to have to start the process over again

and we don't know the full form of solas' rebellion, granted. he may have tried many things for a long time. and arlathan appears to have been much worse than thedas is now - even tevinter doesn't seem as bad as arlathan is vaguely implied to have been. but he still destroyed... everything. he killed so many innocents. and yes, again, his situation was different - he talks about the evanuris destroying the world if he didn't stop them. perhaps he's right. it's not a 1:1 comparison, I get that. but they are still very profound foils of each other, and I find his insistence that sera should follow his path to be a fascinating bit of insight into his character, continuing to opt for extreme measures

[jess-the-vampire]

I genuinely don't understand the gripes a few people have with how Belos was handled in the finale. "Dont just brush him off as being evil" Well, why the fuck not? Dude wasnt born evil but he purposefully chose destruction and death at every possible opportunity for 400+ years. Nothing about his backstory would have made any impact on the characters affected, because its not an excuse, its not even an explanation! Caleb had the same childhood and he loved the Boiling isles. Eat boots Belos.

Ok, buckle up cause this is gonna be a long one, we gotta have a chat about Belos as a character, because there's been so many takes about this i keep seeing about " he never accepted the isles the way luz did" and "He had 400 years to change and he never took the took the offer", because it just seems like the fandom wants to kinda ignore a lot of the nuance about his situation and why it's not that simple?

and i'm for sure certain it's because the fandom is obviously already pretty biased against him since he's the villain, and what he does to the main characters as well as represents.

And that's fine, obviously he becomes a pretty bad person, no one is obligated to like him and it's ok to feel uncomfortable given the character he is.

But i think a lot of these issues as to why people have such mixed opinions about the finale has a lot to do directly with the fact the show DID keep his backstory as vague as they did, when if they had gone into it i think we would've had less of this discourse.

Now none of this is me excusing him obviously, but the fandom is very adamant to just not allow him to have depth either, when....he's allowed to be irredeemable and have depth at the same time. He's meant to be a very human villain, a character that could happen to anyone under the right circumstances

So not exploring that depth, why it got how it did, and how things like it can be prevented is a flaw within the show and among a lot of fans.

And to be fair, the show does not HAVE to do it, but the show also clearly wrote his character to have a lot of implied depth whether people like it or not, him coming from a very real religious group alone and making him a foil to luz has turned what could of been a very one note villain into one with a lot of layers to his villainy.

And if the show wants to make belos a very one note villian, no depth, they could of very easily done this by just cutting out details like his love and care for his brother, or just make make him want to destroy witches simply because he decided on his own they were worth destroying.

But that's not exactly what they've presented belos as being.

The show thrives in having characters who aren't just simple nor cookie cutter.

Hunter isn't just some cocky sidekick, he's an abused teenager who craves love and affection, and is willing to go high and low to earn it, terrified to be thrown away and replaced and constantly is forced into a mold just to get the affection he craves. He's highly sheltered and isolated just because his father figure doesn't want him to be his own person since that wasn't what he was created for

King isn't just a tiny little brat who craves power, he's a child whose been lied to about his past, and he wanted nothing more then to be taken seriously and feel a sense of belonging. He believes that he wants power, but finds out he really only wanted to be treated like anyone else, and that he's far happier with a family that loves and cares about him rather then being a powerful demon king.

Lilith isn't just a self important antagonist who wants to force eda to do what she wants, she grew up close to her sister and wanting to be by her side well into the future, but felt a sense of inadequacy in comparison to eda. The pressures of the coven system and need to win against her sister made her make a drastic choice she regrets and she wants nothing more then to fix it and make everything the ideal fantasy they grew up wanting to have together. She's also a large nerd, craves the attention of higher figures since her own mother used to put all the attention on eda, and changed her appearance just so people would take her seriously.

And the show does this with most of it's cast, obvi there's the exception like tibbles and even bosha who don't have too much to them, but they're also very minor antagonists and there's still stuff you can pick up on.

Belos however is the main antagonist, everything that happens in the show, happens because of him, his entire backstory is basically why the plot of the show happens.

Not just that, but also caleb and evelyn, if it weren't for the drama between these three, there would be no show.

And people are WELL aware these three aren't the main leads, they aren't going to be the main focus of most episodes and obviously the show was going to end in the favor of the main characters.

But

the story the show tells between these three ties very strongly into the ones with the leads too. We are given at least enough details to notice parallels between stuff that happens with characters like luz, and characters like philip.

We know philip and luz grew up in gravesfield, we know there were outcasts there, and they had one family member they relied on to support them there. They ended up in the demon realm, they both learned magic, and they both are strongly motivated by their beliefs regarding the isles.

So there's a lot they share in common, which makes it really easy to take a look at philip and say "Well it's his fault for not being like luz and accepting the isles like she did".

But, there's a lot of differences here

Luz grew up with fantasy, with magic stories about witches and heroes and demons. Philip grew up in a 1600s puritan village which demonized this stuff, he was a young child growing up being told this stuff was evil and he was taught to fight against it.

Luz felt odd for her interests and out there personality but at worst she felt isolated and misunderstood, she didn't like her mom's efforts to change her to be "Normal". Philip actually conformed to gravesfield, caleb clearly encouraging his brother to do so, just so both of them could fit in with the town. Had they not conformed at best they'd be isolated, but at worst they'd be dead.

Camilia is an adult who eventually opens up and talks to luz about how it was wrong to try and change her to be "Normal", that she herself hid her own interests to do so.

Caleb, was a child, he did not have any open conversations with his younger brother. Caleb hid evelyn and his interests with witches from philip and then on top of this, left philip behind.

You could absolutely say the fact caleb didn't talk to philip is pure speculation, and not confirmed at all. That all of this could be summed up to unreliable narrators.

But we know caleb left for the isles before philip did, we know it took time for philip to find him again (because his beard grew out), we know caleb had a wife who seems to be pregnant, that he was introducing philip to (Implying he not only hasn't seen philip in awhile, but that eve and philip have never met to caleb) and all of that alone feeds into the fact caleb left him behind to start another life. This is all shown in his memories alone, stuff we can't chalk up to unreliable narrators.

So the most logical conclusion to come to is caleb left philip to start a new family, we don't have a lot of details as to if caleb ever planned to return, if caleb had good reasons to do what he did, or much about his mindset.

But we have enough to know Philip loved and looked up to caleb, that he relied on caleb, and caleb lied and left him.

There is again, reason to tie this back to camila and luz.

but this is not a child leaving a parent behind, this is a parental figure leaving a child behind.

This is what i mean by the issue being lack of clear answers, people claim caleb left when philip was an adult, but we actually have no confirmed evidence for this. We have enough of philip's memories to know 2 things, that he was still a teenager when caleb was meeting evelyn, and he was an adult when he arrived.

You could argue philip was an adult by the time caleb left, but it's so vauge you can also argue caleb left when philip was a child and philip didn't figure out his way to the demon realm till adulthood and there's not enough proof to go one way or another.

now titan dad says philip had no genuine reasons for his actions, that he did this all for glory, but as steve put it back in OTWAT, the titan is just a guy.

And given the collector situation, he can make mistakes and screw up just like anyone else.

Titan dad only sees what he can see and make observations based on what he sees. He saw a human come to the isles with a bias already against witches, who ended up killing his brother, who claimed to come here to save others and that's all he's going to see philip as being. Someone who wants to save others but just hurts them instead.

He has no reason to know what philip grew up under, nor does he have reason to know philip and caleb's story before they arrived. There's no denying philip did love caleb, and that they were close, but that caleb leaving him behind for witches drove them apart.

I think the problem ppl even have with what titan dad says is purely because the fans take it at face value, because let's be honest, most fans will believe the objective heroes for what they assume over the villians. And since the show again, leaves philip's story vauge, and never puts it in the main focus, people will just assume what titan dad says must be the truth.

Like yes, you can pick up on these details if you are paying attention, but most people won't do that, so a lot of fans will listen to the god telling them what philip's motivations are coming from rather then put together the sense of betrayal from caleb that hurt philip that most of the evidence is actually pointing to.

philip had no parents, and had no one but caleb as far as we can tell, and then caleb left him too, like he didn't want him anymore.

And he left him in a bigoted town, alone.

the damage this could of done if he was a child is pretty darn bad, and for philip to assume this happened because of a witch means reinforcing everything he's been taught about witches.

Caleb lied about his changes, so when caleb sees him again, caleb seems to be a different person, which does fit with what philip says to luz about the isles "Brainwashing people".

tho you can argue that that's not the truth, that philip knows caleb did it on purpose and killed him for betraying him, cause of how he blames him in episodes like FTF.

But again, this is the result of leaving things vague, because either situation is plausible.

it's plausible philip never intended to kill caleb at all and he died as the result of trying to protect eve because the show says he was trying to target evelyn to save caleb, and it's plausible he died on purpose out of philip's rage for caleb leaving him. Because guess what? That means caleb had the means to go see him and could've seen him but made the choice NOT to, so yeah, that's pretty heartbreaking.

again, this also comes into play regarding Philips's guilt.

People objectively keep saying philip HAS no guilt regarding caleb, but we have evidence for both guilt and non guilt.

Now, sure, his portrait of dead caleb implies philip is not guilty for his death based on his expression after the fact. We also have the fact philip shows distain towards the grimwalkers, that he never outright expresses he feels bad to anyone.

But, we also have caleb's death being treated as one of philip's worst memories in KT that he objectively recalls in horror, he says he "Tried" to save caleb in FTF, which implies he wanted to save him and that he's mad he didn't manage to do so. The grimwalkers and caleb could be seen as ghosts, but also as hallucinations, and if you are seeing them as the latter then it makes sense he'd be seeing them out of some level of guilt towards having them killed.

If the show had these details explained more fully, it would be easy to either deem belos as being a murderous dick with no remorse who thinks killing was the right thing, or as a guilt ridded stubborn murderer who wants to not acknowledge he was wrong and screwed up.

it's why people are split, because you could objectively choose to see him both ways and the ending will affect you differently depending on what you picked up on.

But now let's talk about philip not changing, because people have bashed him for not doing so in the 400 years he's been there and that he had opportunities to do so but didn't.

And i think this is half right, half wrong.

Philip came to the isles with biases, he basically grew up in a cult, he came in thinking he was traveling into hell to go find caleb. Caleb encouraged his hatred, and then his hatred got further pushed when caleb seemed to be kidnapped, and then further pushed when he was surrounded by nothing but bigots.

So this man was already on a bad foot compared to luz, who was here to live out the fantasy books she grew up on, and objectively would have no reason to hate or fear witches nearly as much.

And we do know while the BI can be compassionate, it also has it's issues, even luz faced discrimination for being human herself while on the isles. Being powerless there is well, not great, it's why luz had to figure out her own way to do things alongside everyone else.

And the Bi ARE dangerous, especially for humans, so it's at least understandable philip is not going to just show up and look past the flesh eating plants, the evil weather, and the lack of anything he can even objectively eat.

Now philip could of considered things outside of his bias, and made the effort to try and look at things from a new perspective. But we also have to acknowledge that it's not easy to come out of this long time brainwashing either, and that it takes time and help to do so.

And philip, didn't seem to have that.

Yes, caleb grew up the same way, but not only was he older, which already set him up to question things more. But he had evelyn, he had someone to challenge him and his views and change his mind.

Philp, doesn't have that, there is no confirmation anyone ever really chose to challenge his views or make him realize he was following a lie.

Caleb could of but caleb left.

All we see is philip, isolated, following the beliefs he was taught and being hostile to witches, and witches rightfully being hostile back, which just further is feeding into his bias.

You can assume philip had chances to change but didn't, but there's no real strong evidence of that being offered to him either. That any witch ever tried to make him question anything.

It's pure speculation.

Now Philip is a stubborn ass dude for sure, so yeah, we can claim he just simply didn't want to consider it.

But people are claiming Philip was shown help that he didn't take and that's just not true. We never see anyone asking him to do the right thing or making him question things, at least not compassionately.

no one to our knowledge ever did challenge him, or did reach out to him, not even in the show itself.

Luz is rightfully hostile towards him even when trying to challenge him, hunter does attempt to try and come up with helpful ideas but he would silence himself if his uncle didn't like it (Not to mention the existing fact that he is supposed to be a caleb replacement so his existence comes from philip not wanting him to change or question things philip thinks caleb should not), and well....collector giving him a hug isn't gonna do anything at that point to stop him from thinking the worst of the isles.

This is partially because belos has the power in scenes, that if he hears what he doesn't want to hear he can quickly silence the individual and ignore it.

He's basically put in situations where no one is challenging him and if they are, they're usually doing it with distain and he's responding like a dick right back.

So maybe not much could of been done when belos has become emperor, outside of some rare occurrences where he has no choice but to listen or if he was challenged by someone he respected and would be less willing to hurt. Maybe he's too far gone to back out now and has too much power to even allow himself to consider what anyone had to say, even if they did do it kindly and wouldn't face his wrath.

but he was only emperor for 50 years too.

So ok, what about before that?

Well, yeah, maybe there were chances he could of been, but that's a period of time we only see so much of, and none of it shows one way or the other that Philip was offered the chance to improve.

I think had we gotten a scene of philip being offered a chance to do good, to consider things, that he knew he was wrong and still rejected it, it would back up this whole "Philip made the choice to not get better" thing people claim.

but truth is, it's speculation, we don't know.

A guy who spent his life buying into where he grew up and came in with biases that became a cycle of him being terrible and witches reinforcing what he thought isn't just suddenly going to change his mind and be nice now on a whim unless those biases are challenged in a way he can't deny.

it's on him for not considering looking on things outside of his bias for sure, but people seem to think doing that is simple and easy and it's really not.

Philip had no evelyn, he was left with no one but his bias and stubborn mind.

It's like king said back in hollow mind " People don't want to believe they've been following the wrong person their whole lives", and philip didn't have a luz like hunter did to help him realize how wrong he really was.

Instead it got worse and worse.

This is why philip feels real, because this can happen to people, that they can grow up with hate and never receive the help they needed to pull them out of the mindset. So they get worse, they become worse people.

and we can argue philip didn't deserve the chance to get better, but you'll never know if you don't try and we don't know if anyone did try before he was too far gone.

to think all of this could of been avoided if caleb actually spoke to his brother and gave him the chance to change...

Tying this all back to the beginning-

Philip's story ties into luz, they are foils in a lot of ways, but people need to remember they have differences outside of luz being a good person and philip being a bad person. Those differences make them into the people they are.

That luz was set up to love the isles in a way philip was set up to come in with a bias against it.

That it is not as simple as "Philip should of just got better" given what happened to him and the lack of help he had.

That philip never really is objectively shown to be offered genuine chances to reconsider his views on the show as much as people keep claiming so, and it's mostly all assumption at this point.

That so much of this argument over whether he's one way or the other could of been fixed if the show hadn't kept things vague.

By doing so, it leaves a lot for interpretation about him and therefore means people will have different views on what he thinks and feels and therefore will have different views on how his death should of been handled.

Caleb and philip tie into camila and luz, they tie into the clawthrone sisters, they are the basis for the plot of the series, they tie into hunter and the themes of being understood and being honest about yourself and conformity and it is no wonder people care about them.

It is incredibly valid if anyone expecting this story, that tied into the plot so hard ,as well as the themes, was upset it felt unexplained or dropped in the finale.

Especially since the fandom, with an obvious hatred for belos, responded to it by treating titan dad's word as god and simplifies philip's story completely despite everything i just mentioned here.

It is perfectly fine if you are not someone who cares about belos, but the people who do are perfectly allowed to be bothered that the show itself kept the complexity vague and not addressed and none of it mattered when it came to how his arc ended.

And that the only person who properly gives a personal opinion of what he thinks his motives are, simplifies him to being evil, and the fandom roles with that and the show never tries to do much to prove otherwise despite the evidence.

because this is a fascinating story about how conformity and bigotry can drive two close brothers apart and it feels like a story the show should of at least dedicated more of an episode to.

Especially since there's no clear idea if we'll ever get extra toh content to really tie any of this up.

Again, none of this excuses belos/philip for what he did, does, or tries to do, no amount of his life being screwed over and people treating him bad and not reaching out to him will ever excuse the fact he went so far.

But let's also just, not pretend it was an easy fix either, that someone can just....stop believing what they believe with the drop of a hat.

Especially given how this can reflect real people who are made into people like this.

He is nuanced, and people are attached to this villain for good reasons.

Nothing is simple about him, and it's just a product of how the show has handled his character.

[lookupthewordjokeinthedictionary]

Sorry to post something more than drawings and this might be an incoherent post but,, everyone has touched on it without actually linking their very similar ideas together, so I wanted to do that for all of you. If it wasn't clear, I will be talking about Sanders Sides.

The importance of every side is a very nuanced subject that barely gets touched on anymore by the fandom. @beauty-and-passion has made a lot of very good analyses, theories and headcannons about the sides and you should definitely check her posts out.

However what I don't understand is how everyone can touch on the importance of Virgil without actually linking every piece together. It had always been confusing to me (ever since I joined the fandom in 2018) what the sides can do and what they can feel. I now understand that what they feel has nothing to do with what they can do, for Thomas. Virgil, despite being anxiety, can feel happiness, can have empathy, can be logical. He understands all the points made by Logan once they're explained to him in a way he can understand.

A lot of people have also talked about ego, id and superego, and how Freud's theory on them is supported by Sanders Sides. I won't go on too much detail but basically, ego is the logical part of your brain, superego is the moral part of your brain and id is the creative part. You can see how that beautifully ties in with Sanders Sides.

However a lot of people have written about how anxiety and your fight or flight can be used as a weapon for self care. Anxiety is a fight or flight response, so it obviously can get you out of harming situations (see: aa part 2). Anxiety can also worsen intrusive thoughts, something we've seen before. But worsening them for a person means making intrusive thoughts (ehem, ehem, Remus) stronger. In AA part 2 we also saw the contribution anxiety makes to the creative process, by making (specifically) Thomas "rehearse and rehearse". Not to mention that ever since his acceptance, he has been siding with morality a lot more, because it's the fear of getting caught that stops us from breaking most laws, it's the fear of being judged (by a higher force) that stops us from being immoral ("Similarly you fear being perceived as a bad friend" -Deceit, SvS). Even Thomas himself has said that Anxiety probably plays the most crucial role, not only with the consequences being so very severe of him "ducking out", but also by his own admission ("You're the one that pushes me out of bed in the morning"). And forgive me for talking from a personal point of view, but as someone who studies science, anxiety is the drive I need to study, contributing to my overall ability to learn.

Virgil, as a lot of you have pointed out before, is one of the most character developed sides of them all. And I doubt that it's because he's so well liked by the public, and more because he is literally the driving factor of the series. Virgil isn't a "dark" side or a "light" side because, as we've seen from 'Fitting in', he can't be boxed in a specific label. He is the one who makes Creativity act, Intrusive thoughts more powerful, Morality abide, Logic work, Self care active and so so much more.

I can't wait to see how Mr. Sanders will continue the series, but I also can't wait to observe more invisible strings of all the sides to Virgil. No wonder he's that powerful, is all I'm saying.

[ingravinoveritas]

Have you seen his latest tweet? He’s having one of his moments and is blocking people left and right. I got myself blocked for commenting on a comment… TF is this poop? 😒

@phantomstars24 Okay, so...I have seen what's been going on on Twitter with Michael and there is...obviously a lot going on. Let me first put up the screenshots of his other tweets, which followed the initial one in @ourtubahero-blog's screenshot (the first one is most recent):

I think there are a few things (well, a lot of things) that are getting missed in all this, specifically the context for why Michael wrote the original tweet in the first place. It appears that it was meant to be a reaction to this incident, which just occurred today in the UK:

The wording of Michael's tweet was not clear, and I also don't think anyone outside of the UK would readily know what he was reacting to, so straightaway this seemed to lead to a lot of misunderstanding. A large portion of the criticism of that tweet stemmed from people thinking Michael was taking a neutral stance on the situation in Gaza/Israel, which is what then led to him making a clarifying tweet in that regard. For my part, I did not interpret Michael's original tweet as neutral, but rather that he is and does stand with innocent people of every stripe, and wishes for there to be no more bloodshed or further loss of life.

Michael's subsequent tweets only seem to have compounded the problem, as they appear to have been made out of an emotional response on his part, which is not a good thing when it comes across as defensive. Emotions are running incredibly high right now, and sadly that is the time when misunderstandings are most likely to occur. In the interest of clarity, in his second tweet, Michael did not say that he had no time to do research, but rather that he "has no time for people telling him to do research." What I took this to mean is that he already has done research and thought very carefully about this entire situation, and therefore felt slighted at people implying that he had not.

The problem inherent in all of this, however, is that this is an extremely difficult subject to have nuanced conversation about, particularly on social media and especially on Twitter. This then leads us to the issue of blocking. I think what Michael was attempting to say (again, badly worded) in his tweet about blocking people was that he was blocking people due to what he perceived as personal attacks. This would explain people being blocked for saying apparently innocuous things, as Michael was on the defensive and does not really have that button in his brain telling him to stop or back off once he gets going.

It goes without saying that Michael seemingly blocking people indiscriminately is definitely not a good look (though it is not without precedent, as I remember well him doing the exact same thing four years ago, albeit under different circumstances). But what is also not acceptable is people sending him death threats, or tweets such as this falsely accusing him of horrific things. In this instance, it is more than understandable that he would have a strong reaction to being dogpiled and block someone, because no one should have to accept threats to their person on their own social media page.

I think what is also happening is that a lot of fans (not either of you who sent in these asks, for the record) are correlating online activism to activism in real life. Michael has always been about walking the walk and not just talking the talk, to where we know he donated almost all of his money to the Homeless World Cup in 2019. He is also a UNICEF UK ambassador and has visited Lebanon, Chad, and Guatemala to meet and help refugee children. All this to say that we have no idea what he has done outside of social media to assist refugees and victims, or if/how much he has donated to Palestinian charities or other relief funds for victims and their families. And for my part, I would rather Michael be clumsy with his wording on social media (again, not defending the indiscriminate blocking) and taking tangible action in real life than engaging in performative Internet activism that ultimately goes nowhere.

(Also, I cannot help but facepalm at people asking Anna to weigh in, under the assumption that a) She would even care about this; and b) She has any influence whatsoever on Michael's behavior, which it is abundantly clear she does not or else he would have stopped flirting with David years ago. I just really hope people do not tag her or expect her to have the ability to somehow "rein him in," because they will be very disappointed...)

So yes, I think what made Michael make a statement tonight after all this time was the above-mentioned MP. I think his intentions were likely good and that his heart was in the right place--as are all of ours, in wanting to protect innocent civilians and stop the horrific violence that is happening. But I also think that if Michael wasn't prepared to handle certain types of criticism, then it probably would have been better for him to say nothing at all, or at least certainly to not escalate things by continuously tweeting. I am also sorry for the fans who were hurt by his actions, because I know fans who have been there before, and it really sucks.

I am hopeful, however, that we can all step back and breathe once emotions are no longer so heightened and try to find a way to listen to each other and engage meaningfully. Because it is truly disheartening to see how things escalated so quickly tonight, and I want to believe that we as a fandom and as human beings can do so much better. I suppose only time will tell...

[highfantasy-soul]

I get people concerned that 'viewers are seeing a hot guy and falling for his manipulation!!' but like....personally, I don't believe cops when they just tell me someone is bad without proof?

The thing about compelling antagonists is that a lot of the time, THEY HAVE A POINT!! Vader in the OG trilogy had no point. It was just black/white we want to be fascist all over the galaxy and have all the power, you want to stop us. In the prequels, Palpatine was the same: he wants power....just cause. Anakin you can make a partial argument for in that his initial intention was never just to get power for himself, but rather protect those he loved: this led to him being able to be manipulated and then making abhorrent choices like slaughtering a bunch of children.

In newer Star Wars, there's room for nuance - room for critiquing and looking into things and seeing it isn't always black/white our protagonists are perfect, the antagonist is psycho evil for the sake of being evil.

We didn't see the rebels in Star Wars Rebels, Andor, and Rogue One as evil because they were killing storm troopers - we saw that their violence was justified in fighting back against an oppressive regime that was hurting people.

When I look at Qimir, he's only killed combatants directly opposed to him. We don't know yet what his real goals are - we don't know why the Jedi 'abandoned' him. So I'm going to reserve judgement and hear him out until I get more info. You know, like you should when determining if someone is evil and needs to die? You don't just rush in guns blazing because you see a red saber and someone fighting enemy combatants?

I know a lot of people have woobified the jedi so much that even though they're a militant police force with absolute power to kill you with their laser swords, fighting back against them is somehow seen as kicking a puppy, but idk man. I'm not against violent opposition to an oppressive force. Obviously we need more info before we can say for sure if Qimir's goals need to be pushed back against, but I don't go into situations with the default view of 'the jedi must be right'.

For me, it's really interesting to see how similar Qimir's attempts to get Osha to join him are similar to how Sol got her to agree to join the jedi. Separating her from other influences: check. Giving her tests to unlock parts of herself she knows are there: check. Showing kindness and understanding of her situation: check. Offering her something she wants (with Sol it was to allow Osha to 'be her own person' rather than only the other half to her twin and the lure of other children like her (that he conveniently left out she'd never be able to have a deep relationship with due to the non-attachment rules of the Jedi) and with Qimir it was being accepted for who she was, not some sanitized version of who others wanted her to be, plus the deep relationships she craves): check.

Is Qimir pushing for Osha to join him so he can have power? Yup. Did Sol push Osha to join him so that the order could have more power? Yup. So now the real question is: power to do what?

Though the idea of the jedi is great, how they actually exert their influence isn't always good for everyone (see stamping out the witches who we, yet again, haven't seen do anything bad). When you have a huge organization that prioritizes their own view of the world above all others, it's not only 'bad' people who get caught in the crossfire. Everyone just makes the assumption that if the jedi are against you, that means you're just a psycho who wants to go around killing people with impunity and if the jedi are supporting you, that means you're automatically good - but that hasn't been shown to be the case. Lets take a look at the Separatists as seen in the Clone Wars tv show - they weren't all fascist maniacs, they just wanted to govern themselves - not to have slavery or be able to kill a bunch of people, but because they were concerned about centralizing rule too much (which turns out, they were right to be worried about that!!) Or Tales of the Jedi when we saw the Jedi turning the other way when members of the Republic were treating their citizens horribly.

Fighting against those aspects of the Republic and the Jedi doesn't automatically throw you into the 'fascist psycho mass murderer' category. Killing the Jedi you think are responsible for the slaughter of your whole culture, I don't think, puts you in that category either. And of course, there can be instances where people do bad things for what they believe are the right reasons (see: Andor and Rogue One) BUT they aren't doing it to people we've associated with 'the good guys' for so long it makes it hard to think about the situation at hand rather than reacting in a knee-jerk kind of way to protect your blorbos.

Very long winded way of saying: I'm not saying Qimir is good or bad. I haven't seen enough to say yet. No, killing Yord and Jecki isn't enough 'proof' any more than Cassian killing the injured rebel so they wouldn't be caught was 'proof' that he was bad. We need to know WHY they're taking such drastic actions before I'm comfortable making my decision on what the show is trying to say.

If you feel like that's me 'lacking critical thinking skills' because you've jumped to a conclusion that's not supported by any facts yet, fine. But I'll wait for the narrative to finish before casting judgement based on what I think is a common trope used in stories.

[anonymousredactedconfessions]

So ALEXIS. Before I start, I get that when you really like something, criticism can sometimes feel like a personal attack. But, come on. It is audio roleplay my love. You'll survive. Just because someone critiques Erik does not mean the world is going to end. It is how art develops. Through critique, not yes-men.

I have no opinion on her tbh. She's just kinda there. But I've seen so much hate about whether someone is an 'Alexis supporter/ apologist' or not, and equating that to supporting rapists. Hello? Are we on planet earth right now?

1. I'm not massive into the Solaire plot but I'm sure as hell she didn't do that and 2. People interpret characters in different ways. Alexis isn't super developed. There's room for growth there. But people get so hateful and vindictive over someone doing something as small as saying 'Alexis redemption arc?' or writing a fic about her that isn't calling her a stupid bitch (because daddy Sam hates her, which is understandable, but christ). Are stories just endless fluff, all filler no plot to you people? You're boring as hell if so. Yes, so fun. Everyone has clearly defined morality with no nuance or opportunity for change. Yay! Don't interpret the medium!! Media literacy!!!

Alexis has a weird double standard around her too. If unconsensual turnings are meant to be a sexual assault allegory (which is so fucking badly handled if so), then where is this energy for William? Or Fred, even? Hell, or Sam, who let Fred turn Bright without their consent? Ik Sam outright said no to Alexis, but to say it's different is to say that Bright and Vincent don't count, basically because they grew to 'like it'. See where the allegory becomes very problematic, very fast? It would also imply that Sam, in this case an allegory of a sexual assault survivor, watched another person get sexually assaulted in front of him and did nothing. Hm. Let's not use that argument perhaps.

Also, I think it's very likely she just panicked. Honestly, who the fuck is calm and rational after a CAR ACCIDENT? Still an immensely fucked up thing to do. And, idk cause I've obviously never been in that situation, but I think a lot of us would've done what she did if we saw someone we loved mangled and dying in front of us and we had the power she had to save them. Is it moral in any way? Absolutely not. She didn't listen to him and that's obviously terrible. Yet, it's remarkably human. But no, Alexis is a stupid bitch. You support her?Kys. Delightful guys.

She's a prick, sure. Clearly not a great person. Yet you still simp over people like Vega? You know damn well he would've wiped Caelum's tiny ass of the map if Gavin and Freelancer didn't intervene. Different standards again. Or Blake?

I just think you all need to chill. She's alr, I guess, and entertaining when she's on screen. Just calm down and go touch grass. She's not real.

.

[linkspooky]

BUNGOU STRAY DOGS, CHAPTER 127 THOUGHTS

There are some incredibly interesting parallels in the Akutagawa vs. Atsushi fight, and the standoff between Dosteovsky and Sigma going on this chapter. Especially in regards to how three of them are related to Dazai. Let's look at the parallels and the potential future for these characters under the cut

1. Dazai-san, Dazai-san, Dazai-san!

One of the most interesting parallels in this chapter is the relationship to Dazai that all three of these characters have. Akutagawa who Dazai recruited to the mafia, Atsushi who he recruited to the Detective Agency, and now Sigma who he chose as his item to escape from the prison and it looks like if they get out alive together he will invite to join the agency.

More specifically though, I want to analyze it in terms of Dostoevsky's statement to Sigma. That Dazai preyed upon Sigma's desire for a home, and then waved becoming a member of the detective agency over his head in order to get Sigma to do what he wants.

While it seems to be a pretty transparent ploy on Dostoevsky's part in order to get Sigma to question his alliance with Dazai, after all Sigma has him at gunpoint and apparently cornered. He would say or do anything to get out of the situation, and it's not like Dostoevsky is against manipulating people.

At the same time, I think it's Dos's statement is more along the lines of a half-lie, and half-truth. Dazai is, after all, not someone who goes around adopting orphans out of the goodness of his heart. He's not also someone who's so selfish that he only views people as tools for a larger objective. Dazai's character lies in the nuance between those two extremes.

Which is why I want to say there is a half-truth to Dos's statement. Dazai himself even confirmed this earlier, he had two reasons for recruiting Sigma, the first is that his ability will be useful, and the second is that he knew Do would kill him if he didn't choose Sigma.

The nuance lies there, you can both genuinely want to save or even care about someone, and you can also go so far as manipulate them. In general, my interpretation is that Dazai tries to manipulate people into doing what he thinks is best for them. After all, Sigma needs a place to stay, and the detective agency would be a home and a happy ending for him.

However, dirty methods for a good result doesn't always get the result you intended. Before returning to Sigma I want to briefly talk about the Atsushi and Sigma parallels. Atsushi is clearly set up as a foil to Sigma, Atsushi even goes out of his way and is especially compelled to try to save Sigma while he's falling.

Atsushi at first only saves Sigma because of the page, but then he starts to empathize with him after hearing the utter bleakness of his dying words. At which point he is personally trying to save him, causing Sigma to call him kind. Atsushi obviously also relates to those words, because he's so desperate to have a greater purpose in the world, to be an extraordinary hero rather than a nameless orphan.

Atsushi, Akutagawa, and Sigma are all orphans who have essentially had Dazai sweep into their lives and recruit them into an organization, giving them a home when they previously didn't have one. The detective agency is also, a much healthier environment for Atsushi obviously, because he's in a better place than say Akutagawa who was left behind in the mafia and spent a lot of the beginning of BSD bitter and spiraling because of that.

However, there's a pretty serious downside to the way Dazai recruited both Atsushi and Akutagawa. Akutagawa's strained relationship with Dazai is pretty obvious, so rather than dwell on that let's talk about Atsushi for a second.

Atusshi's extreme indecisiveness has been highlighted this arc over and over again. An Atsushi removed from the detective agency, and more particularly Dazai is constantly struggling to make decisions for himself. I don't believe in this case though, that Atsushi's upbringing in the orphanage is entirely to blame for this.

There are two reasons I would lay the blame for Atsushi's total indecisiveness at Dazai's feet more than anyone else.

First is, Dazai's habit is to manipulate people for their own good, but also to take away decisions from them. Second is when Dazai helps people, it's always with the unwritten implication that they now owe him for his help. Even if he doesn't directly say it, Atsushi obviously believes that he has to EARN his place in the detective agency.

This is Dazai. He nudges them in the direction that he thinks is best for them. Sometimes this takes the form of everyone just following Dazai's plan, because he's the machiavellian scheme r of the group, just Atsushi going where Dazai wants him to go, and fighting who Dazai wants him to fight. Or, like the scenes where Dazai deliberately staged a test to let Kyouka join the agency that would also make her overcome her death wish.

Sometimes, this takes the form of Dazai pitting Atsushi and Akutagawa against each other, two people who might have gotten along a lot earlier and sympathized with each other, if Dazai hadn't made them fight each other because HE THOUGHT that was the best way to make their individual abilities stronger.

Like, yes Akutagawa was in the mafia and murder is a big no-no for Atsushi, but Atsushi was able to sympathize with a murderer like Kyouka from very early on despite being aware of all her crimes. There wasn't really any reason for Atsushi and AKutagawa to fight, until Dazai made one.

However, this isn't to question the morality of Dazai's actions in making people's choices for them, but rather to point out the results. There's a reason that every. single. time. Atsushi cannot make a decision for himself he pictures Dazai suddenly showing up and telling him the answer.

By positioning himself as Atsushi's savior, and even giving Atsushi a home, Dazai's basically put himself in a position where number one Atsushi believes in a pretty idealized version of Dazai, and number Atsushi thinks he OWES Dazai. These things make Atsushi pretty obedient to Dazai in general. There's a reason that in Beast which is the darkest timeline for Atsushi, Atsushi is so paralyzingly afraid of making his own decisions he has a mental breakdown unless Dazai gives him orders to follow. He literally wears a collar that Dazai gave him.

Now, for Atsushi in the main story, aren't we witnessing him go through something similiar? Sure, he's not massacring people and breaking down in tears like White Reaper Atsushi, but every time someone throws up a roadblock on his path he literally begs Dazai to show up, and when he doesn't he imagines Dazai magically telling him what to do.

All of these subtle manipulations have made Atsushi pretty obedient to Dazai, and also, doubtful of his stability in the detective agency and left with the idea he has to earn his keep. Now in an arc where Atsushi is separted from the detective agency for a long time now, and also separated from Dazai and unable to follow his plans we are watching him continually choke underneath the pressure.

Which is where we get the results of Dazai's dirtier methods, Dazai isn't really raising Atsushi into a strong, independent adult, he's making Atsushi into a tool. I don't think his intentions are fully to use Atsushi as a tool, but rather his methods end up with that result.

There's a difference between the way Dazai takes in orphans, and the way Oda does. He says as much in Dark era.

"I have this friend who's supporting several orphans all on his own, you see," he continued his weapon still drawn and aimed at the boy. "Akutagawa, I'm sure Odadsaku would've been patient enough to give you the guideance you needed had he been the oe who found you on the brink of starvation in the slums. That would've been the "right" thing to do. But "righteousness" doesn't sit kindly to me. And there's only one thing that people like me do to useless subordinates."

Obviously, Dazai's undergone character development since then, but just compare the orphans Dazai takes in to the ones that Oda does. Oda's orphans don't have any special abilities or talents, they're just kids that he raises and supports with money. Atsushi, Akutagawa, and even Sigma all have an ability that benefits Dazai in some way.

In fact, in the AU where Oda does take Akutagawa in, despite having an incredibly overpowered ability, Akutagawa doesn't get to join the agency until he's undergone personal development and spent time with every single member to learn how to be a better person first.

Which is what Akutagawa needs, he's constantly stuck in survival mode and believes everything is a vicious battle for his life, much like Atsushi he's never been allowed to be a normal kid for a single second in his life. Beast allows Akutagawa to develop as a person rather than a Beast fighting to survive.

Dazai skips a pretty important step in their personal growth for all three of them, focusing more into shaping what he needs them to be for a greater mission.

Atsushi's still working to earn someone else's praise, Akutagawa's still ready to die for Dazai's sake because he believes that will give his life meaning, Sigma is still desperate to do anything that will give him a home. Mori, of all people in the Beast Epilogue, points out that this is the wrong way to raise a child, because you don't raise a child to be what YOU WANT THEM TO BE. You raise them so they can grow up and figure out what THEY WANT TO BE, and grow into their own person.

To give Dazai the benefit of the doubt, he's probably not doing this intentionally, but the result of it is that both Akutagawa and Atsushi are very, very compliant with his orders. After all, if they were like, free thinking adults they might disagree with him or tell him no.

Which is why while it is a good thing for Sigma to join the detective agency, and is probably the best ending for him, at the same time Dazai just dangling joining the detective agency out there to Sigma as bait to get him to do what he wants is not starting out on the right foot.

Because Dazai doesn't save people out of the goodness of his heart, he takes people in and then they owe him something back. Which is what Dos is trying to get at when undermining Sigma.

The detective agency is a much better place for Sigma, but if Sigma joins the detective agency because he think he owes Dazai, or the agency something for giving him a home, it's essentially a repeat of the way that Dos used him. Atsushi has the same desperation to continually prove himself to the agency, as Sigma once did to try to protect the casino.

2. SAVE ME!

Now to finally focus on the Sigma and Akutagawa parallels, both Akutagawa and Sigma are characters who are most likely going to finish their arcs by joining the detective agency. They are also both orphans who need to be saved.

A particularly strong parallel between the two of them is that they were both initially taken into a harmful organization, only because of their ability. Akutagawa is a starving child in the slums, but he so happened to be born with an insanely strong ability to turn his clothing into weapons which causes Dazai to fish him out of the slums and bring him into the mafia which is his current "home" so to speak. Though, a home where he has to earn his keep and is considered disposable if he's not useful.

Sigma was literally created by the book, and then found, and given a place to call home by Dostoevsky, implicitly because his ability was useful. He also once agan, put Sigma into a position where he had to earn his keep. He took advantage of the fact Sigma came from nothing and had no home, and was terrified of going back to having nothing to make him willing to risk his life and everything else to defend the sky casino.

They are both deceived into thinking they have been saved or taken in, when really they are still fighting for their own survival. It's what stunts their growth so much as people, if you're continually in survival mode, and completely insecure in your living situation and attachment to other people then how are you supposed to grow and develop as a person?

They are also essentially people who come from "nothing" though the nothing is poverty in Akutagawa's case, they're also people who were victimized by crimminal organizations, Sigma by human traffickers, and Atsushi by the port Mafia, until they were rescued by their not-so-benevolent "saviors."

They are also, both in a way resigned to their own deaths. Sigma accepts falling off of the casino to his death, and thanks Atsushi for simply TRYING to save him (please get higher standards Sigma). Akutagawa's accepted that he's going to die soon for his illness, so he's willing to put everythig on the line in a final gambit to pass Dazai's "TEST" and then make Dazai's promise that he will give meaning to Akutagawa's death.

Sigma: I never understood what I was born for.

Akutagawa: I want you to find a reason.. a meaning to my life."

They're also looking for someone else to give them the answer to themeaning of their life, and the person who promises that they feel indebted to. Sigma is of course, a little more aware than Dos is using him than Akutagawa is towards Dazai, but they both end up ultimately doing what Dos and Dazai wants them to do.

They've been taken in by someone, but they haven't been saved, which is why both of them are so easily resigned to their death. This is also where Atsushi comes in for both characters. Yes, it's Atsushi's bad habit to play hero. He saves people because he wants someone to protect, because protecting someone makes him feel like he's needed and worthy to live.

However, while Atsushi may have self-interested reasons for saving people that he doesn't seem fully aware of yet, I also believe he's more capable of relating to their personal feelings as a fellow victim than Dazai is. The moments when Atsushi truly saves someone is when he relates to them, when he exposes his own scarring and vulnerability to them in a way of saying "Hey, I'm suffering through this too that's why I want to help you."

That's why say, Atsushi's bond with Lucy just feels more natural and less codependent than his bond does with Kyouka. Atsushi didn't start with Lucy by thinking (Hey, if I protect her does that mean I'm a good boy and earn good boy points???) Also, Atsushi explicitly did not show up and save Lucy despite the fact he promised to. Because his moment of saving her wasn't showing up as a hero and rescuing her as a damsel, but relating to her feelings.

Atsushi also explicitly fails at saving Sigma. He goes the extra mile to try to save him, but Sigma falls anyway. Yet, Sigma remarks that Atsushi is kind because he empathized with the part of Sigma that believes he didn't mean anything to anyone in the world and was ultimately disposable. Which shows underneath this big hero persona that Atsushi puts on, he is genuinely someone who wants to help people who are lonely and scared just like he is.

So, Atsushi's approach to saving both Akutagwa and Sigma is different from Dazai's approach. I'm not going to say because Atsushi is more empathic and Dazai is low-empathy that Atsushi is a better person.

No, I think it's more like Atsushi tries to approach them as equals. At least, when he doesn't see them as a damsel in distress to earn good boy points, Atsushi is capable of exposing a part of himself to these people and showing them they're not alone in their suffering. Dazai is so distant to other people, he doesn't know how to relate to them on their level. Which is why he always takes control in the relationship.

Which is where we get to this chapter, Dazai isn't Akutagawa's savior. Atsushi is. This is the great narrative challenge that has been set up for Atsushi.

Atsushi and Sigma are both stuck in a situation where someone they don't udnerstand has just selflessly tried to save them for reasons they don't understand. (I won't dwell on this too long, but I think Dazai was genuinely willing to risk his life and put Sigma's life above his own, not just because Sigma's useful to the detective agency but because he's an innocent).

Atsushi doesn't understand why Akutagawa would selflessly sacrifice himself to save Atsushi. Partially, because Atsushi has been trained to see the bad in Akuatagawa rather than the good in him (hello there, Dazai).

However, on top of that I think geuniely Atsushi doesn't really understand that someone would go out of their way to save him without asking him something in return. It's not just the selfless action coming from Akutagawa that baffles him, but the selflessness of the action itself.

As for speculating for Akutagawa's reasons for saving Atsushi, I think it goes back to Atsushi's reasons for helping Lucy, there's something similiar about the wounds they've suffered in the past and Akutagawa sees that in Atsushi and relates to his pain. A lot of the attempts to connect have been on Akutagawa's part.

He comforted Atsushi the day that the orphanage headmaster died. When Atsushi challenges him not to kill people, Akutagawa genuinely keeps his end of the bargain. Akutagawa does attempt to take care of the people he sees himself in in his own way, he did it for Kyouka in a twisted way, and was genuinely happy for her when he saw she no longer wanted to die.

Atsushi tells Lucy that just letting innocent people in the street die as a part of the guild's plan, would be the same as letting the childhood versions of themselves die. It'd be repeating what was done to them. Atsushi, Akutagawa, Lucy they've all been wounded because the people in their lives who were supposed to take care of them didn't. Now, despite those wounds, all three also attempt to reach out and take care of others, because they know what being abandoned is like.

Akutagawa probably just saved Atsushi because he relates to him, coupled on top of the fact that Akutagawa knew he was going to die soon, so if one of them was going to live might as well be the one who has a life to live and a chance at happiness.

Akutagawa has also, due to the vampire's power in him, basically become a dark and twisted version of what Dazai intended him to be. Dazai scouted him for his ability, and then made his ability strong without really caring about who Akutagawa was or what his needs were as a person.

He also made Akutagawa into someone willing to die to earn his praise. Now we have Akutagawa as a literal undead zombie, that just violently attacks everything near him. He doesn't even bother to defend himself, just like Akutagawa has no regard for his own life. He just attacks, regenerates, and attacks, he's a living weapon of violence. He's a mindless zombie too, just like in his previous life he was pretty obedient to Dazai's orders.

Which is exactly the narrative challenge that is being set up here for Atsushi. Akutagawa saved Atsushi because he saw something of himself in him, but also because he believed he was going to die anyway and he was less worthy of salvation. Now it is time for Atsushi to return the favor to Akutagawa. Akutagawa won't save himself, and he won't get better with outside help, so he needs someone else to convince him that there's more to life than what he's currently seeing.

It's a narrative challenge especially because killing him would be the easier option here, Akutagawa is already dead technically, and a mindless zombie that will keep attacking everyone around him until someone puts a bullet in his brain, and then another one to double tap.

Yet, Atsushi isn't doing that. He doesn't even considering it an option. He jumps straight to trying to reason with Akutagawa even in mindless zombie mode. It's already been hinted last chapter that Akutagawa might still be in there because he didn't immediately go after Bram Stoker. Now, not only does Atsushi believe that he can reach Akuatagawa, he's actively trying to reach out for him.

Which really is just tremendous character growth on Atsushi's part. He's finally learning to see Akutagawa as a person and trying to reach that person. To do otherwise would be to abandon the child he used to be.

[andrea-lyn]

I know so many people have shared their own sentiment about the watcher situation and I'm basically jumping into an overfilled pool, but I literally can't stop thinking about this one from the business side of things, so pls have some ramblings. behind a cut bc boy did this get long

All of this is just armchair observations as someone who's been in marketing, optimization, and had my fair share of budget-strapped projects over the years, and who is currently working on strategies to drive growth via marketing:

If it's purely about money - before any of this, they should have exhausted their existing options. Maybe hire a dedicated marketing person to develop a growth and content strategy around Patreon to drive value. Beyond that, use that marketing person to drive awareness campaigns to get people to Patreon with a goal to 5x your Patron count, because there was definitely untapped potential there

If it's about content - every artist has their right to make what they want, but when you start asking people to pay for it, now you have to do your research. Do a survey with a substantive response rate to understand if people even want the shows that you want to produce. Again, you have a right as an artist to produce what you want, but asking your fanbase to pay for things that they don't want is a lot. This is when you need sponsorship help (or seed money and tbh, I'm not ruling out that they don't have some of that behind the scenes). I saw a comment that summed it up really well that when Buzzfeed was paying for Worth It, there was a small thrill of seeing them spend a company's money, but now it's the subscribers money. At that point, if you actually want to be marketable and successful, you need a pulse on what people are willing to pay for vs want for free. If you're spending all your money on high production values for shows that maybe 10% of your audience want, it's wasted resources

I won't speak to the staffing levels because there's likely a lot of nuance there, but I will say that there are probably workflow and resource improvements that could've been done to at least make the staff levels more efficient. This comes down to someone in a process role, which might have been done! Obviously I don't have a peek under the hood and I know they've discussed restructuring before, but this is a matter of scale and goes back to the second point -- there's a lot of 'if we build it, they will come' mentality here, but again, if you're not building what they want ... no, they won't, especially when Dropout and Netflix and Disney+ and other subscribers are building right beside you.

If they were dead-set on this, then should have hired a marketing/PR person to plan this launch for them. Dropout, anecdotally, is an example I go back to. I still remember seeing the stings at the end of videos about it and I remember going 'hey, I'm not going to pay for that' for years. But they were deliberate in their strategy of posting content, they didn't immediately shove behind the paywall, and they built up a catalogue with content that it did then make sense to pay (and a reasonable rate for the value!). The abrupt launch without a content plan to communicate value was an odd choice. I also think that survey I mentioned before should have delved into willingness to pay so they could actually understand where the ceiling kicks in and where no matter how much people want to pay that might not match up with what they're willing to. You'd get your average price there and then you could realistically do a workback schedule to understand the content you can produce, which could have then be used to create a content pipeline

Honestly, I think it all comes down to them wanting to pursue their dreams and more power to them. I love that they have a mission statement to make television quality videos -- but here's the thing, you have an existing audience and given the reaction, it's becoming clear that your mission statement and your audience's core wants of your product don't align, which means that something has to get sacrificed ...and unfortunately, in this case, I think it's the goodwill of a large portion of the audience that gets the knife because I really don't think this one's getting walked back

Like I said earlier, I do have some suspicions that maybe there's seed money or financial backing in this from investors (they solicited this in the past), but they've lacked a clear strategy around growth and marketing to buffer their finances in the past and it doesn't fill me with a lot of optimism that things will change because they're behind a paywall. For those who intend to subscribe, I think it's great and I think that it proves that yes, there is going to be an audience for them -- it's just always a question of numbers and whether that audience is their target to break even. I had suspicions their big announcement was this and I was honestly planning to subscribe too until I saw the price point and the lack of future scheduling news. Unfortunately, given the amount of subscriptions I already have, it didn't make sense, but if it were cheaper and there was a more robust content plan, I probably would be there too.

[tzov]

I saved this as a draft for a long time but I want to share it now:

Boys and men in sports humiliate and injure to prevent girls and women from "encroaching" on what they consider their domain.

I've tried to talk about this many times in my life, and I always get the, "you just can't handle competition, you just expect me to go 'easy,' on you, you're just whiny/weak/holding up the game, this is unavoidable" when it was extremely obvious to me that I was being maliciously targeted by boys in an attempt to humiliate me, not in an attempt to simply win the game.

I recognize common threads between complex individual experiences:

-That the excess violence was CLEARLY not necessary to win;

-That it was done to me/other girls and not boys of a comparable size/skill (or, often, lesser size/skill);

-That it would occur when I was not that great of a threat i.e., they would spend the whole CASUAL game focused on shutting me down even though a lot else was going on; and then, when it was serious and we were actually trying, we would be having fun, getting rough, and then when I was up, the clear moment of a DECISION (with a petulant gleam in the eye) to make it unfun by SUDDENLY kicking/slapping/shoving me EXCESSIVELY hard (in a way I could not prepare for as it had no precedent in the game), PURPOSELY (this is not hard to tell) hurling the ball as hard as they can at my head while I'm not looking, etc. (and this was often on top of disproportionate, unsportsmanlike ridicule/taunting, i.e., condescending/disgusted/impatient that I never saw boys do to each other, instead of the fun shit-talking that I DO understand is part of sport);

-In situations where they would not allow me to play (i.e., ignore me completely as a teammate, refuse to assign me a role, etc.), because they ASSUMED I couldn't before I could prove otherwise, and then when I insist, instantly hurting me on purpose so I still never get a chance to show that I am skilled/competitive;

-And finally, it was ALWAYS in conjunction with specific comments about my femaleness, or comments about how I'm overconfident/need to be taught a lesson (and I would not include this point if I were bragging about my skills or messing up the game, I can tell if I'm holding up a competition).

In the end, all of this DOES result in my being less practiced and skilled, which serves as an ad hoc justification for it

In my memories, it seems like they are angry that a girl has the audacity to try, because nothing is more hammered into our heads than, "girls are weak and it's unthinkable to lose to them or take them seriously." Just because women can't compete with men at certain high level sports obviously does not mean that every individual girl will lose to every individual boy--- and it's so important for me to tell the difference that I am very thoughtful about whether it's "rowdy crazy high level man stuff--" I've never been interested in participating in that because it's scary and feels pointless.

As a lifelong athlete, I also have a lot of experience with accidentally getting hurt, with "intimidation" as a legitimate strategy, with making a beginner player quit because they obviously don't belong in your game; but these are all ways boys will try to pass off their cruelty.

It's also worth noting that boys my age were UNABLE to physically overpower me until about age 14, and all of this still happened (though it happened a lot more after that). I know that sometimes girls can hold up games and be overconfident and I can imagine that would be annoying. But sport is so important to me, and this pain is so deep, and I've been told these things all my life, so there's no way I would not be looking out for such nuance.

For most girls, it really only takes the one experience for them to never try again. For me, I BELIEVED people for a long time that I just needed to accept that things get competitive and rough-- and that's why I put myself through it over and over, only to find that something else, something far more sinister, was clearly at play.

In summary, men and boys are actively unsportsmanlike and unnecessarily cruel to girls and women who want to try to build skill and compete in various sports, and this is nothing to do with biological differences-- just misogyny.

[rosemarydisaster]

I want to ask people to please please accept nuanced characters and not be a bitch about it. I've already seen so many crazy takes and I don't know if I can handle the death of media literacy right now. We've been through this in AFTG, let's not bring that energy to TSC.

For those who have read the book, examples under the cut.

Let's start with the fandom's favorite scapegoat: Thea Muldani. "She thought Jean was a whore sleeping with the defense line". That's what she was told and what Kevin and Jean allowed her to believe. Context is important: Thea was there because she just found out her team (and she wasn't involved at all with the mafia part or Riko's torture) had lied to her about her boyfriend's injuries. She obviously couldn't believe it because, would you!?? And when she sees Jean she's instantly on his side asking what happened to him. She's heartbroken when he doesn't answer and tells her to just believe what Kevin tells her. You can tell she cared about her little duckling and was horrified with what happened under her nose.

Then Kevin. Kevin is the recipient of Jean's unrequited love and that's not his fault. Hell, there's a lot of chances he didn't even know about it, Jean was the closest thing he had to a friend. He didn't seduce and trick Jean for his own benefit, he tricked his friend to survive and regretted ever since. He knew Jean wouldn't run, he knew Jean would have tried to stop him if he told him. It wasn't fair for Jean, but it was Kevin's only chance. I thought this was obvious. Jean is entitled to hate him, but the audience should know better than mischaracterize him like that.

Jeremy and the Trojans are the closest we have to a normal pov. Their way of handling Jean's trauma is not going to be like the Foxes'. They try not to pry too much, to offer him distractions and accommodations. They honestly do as well as they can. The people saying they're so pushy and annoying???? My bestie in Christ you'd probably handle it way worse.

I just think that we as a fandom should appreciate how good Nora's character writing is. Most characters are not fully evil (and those who are you can understand how they turned into monsters most of the time), but they fuck up. Sometimes they fuck up unknowingly, sometimes they fuck up because they don't know better, sometimes they fuck someone over because it's their only way out, sometimes the circumstances get in the way.

That doesn't make things better for the characters that get screwed over. Jean is entitled to his complicated feelings over Kevin. Aaron is allowed to not understand why his brother killed his mother. Just because the current narrator's pov makes it obvious for the audience doesn't mean the characters inside the book have the info and knowhow to do better.

TSC made me love Kevin even more because I'm a sucker for for imperfect victims. I hate the IRL narrative that in order to deserve sympathy you have to be purely the most victimized victim of them all. Kevin had to step over Jean to get out of his situation. Kevin had to witness the abuse, unable to do anything about it. Kevin is a bitch to his teammates and endangers them just by being in their team. He also loves them fiercely and forces them to keep on living.

It's complicated. And if you can't handle nuanced and complex characters please just keep your incorrect opinions to yourself??? Like why is everyone so comfortable admitting publicly they don't understand how to analyze realistic traumatized characters??? Why would you admit you can only see in black and white?? "Well if you're a victim and a good guy then you would never ever do something not nice. Gotcha!" That's how you sound.

[olderthannetfic]

Do you think deepfakes count as fictional, reality or a whole other thing.

I ask this because it's genuinely the biggest news in the kpop space currently. Deepfakes of idols have always existed, I've known about them since 2016 when i first became a fan and tbh, I didn't think much about them. Also, I'm sure people have been editing celebrities and people they know into porn for as long as they've had the ability to. It's just much more accessible and easy to do now.

However, the issue has blown up both internationally and in Korea after a middle school student committed suicide due to being deep faked.

The discussion is now if this counts as sexual harassment and abuse, or is it rpf? It's been a kpop staple for years and people are drawing parallels between it and fanfic. to me deep fakes are worse because they're meant to look exactly like the idols. It's difficult to distinguish reality while fanfiction is just that. Fanfic. No one is reading it and thinking it's really real and the idols actually do the freak nasty after work or smth.

What are your thoughts? I ask bc you and your followers generally are more nuanced and I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter.

--

I've been asked this exact question a number of times. The closest thing is, of course, the photomanips that were hugely popular in some parts of fandom in like 2005.

The difference between those (or the same thing done with better technology now) is that they're openly branded as fake. RPF is the same way. It's posted to fannish archives or on fanworks-oriented social media accounts. It often has watermarks on it indicating it's a fanwork, and that's assuming it isn't... like... a photomanip of somebody as a centaur or something. Fanfic, even fanfic by tinhats, is labeled as fic, not as tabloid news.

Deepfakes intended for harassment are presented as real. A shitty person could take certain types of fan art and repurpose them for this, sure, but that's not the fault of the fan artist. Disguising the fact that this is fan-made (or, well, hater-made) art is the whole point.

How realistic the art is isn't the main issue: it's whether they're pretending it's real.

Now, is drawing cartoony offensive art of your middle school classmate harassment? It could be. Even if it's obviously art and not a photo, it could certainly be used intentionally to bully. A lot of things can be part of a bullying campaign. It's obvious how fake photos could easily be more traumatic and cause more trouble more quickly, but there isn't really a huge difference between known-to-be-fake "photos" and cartoony rude art, nor is there a huge difference between fake photo "evidence" and lying gossip "evidence".

The intent and the social context are what matter here. The photorealism just makes it easier to achieve a specific bullying aim.

--

But, yes, given the current technological situation, if you are a person who uses AI to make celebrity porn or something, the ethical thing to do is to watermark the hell out of it and/or make it less photorealistic and/or make sure it's posted to some porn site with attribution where people can easily go to debunk it should it escape containment and be passed around as The Real Thing. You can't control what assholes do, but you can at least put some roadblocks in place so they can't misuse your stuff as easily.

[thestrangestthing89]

This situation with Noah isn't a new problem in the fandom. These fans have been harassing everyone for months in them name of progressive causes they aren't well-informed about. This is obviously not specific to the Stranger Things fandom. Go anywhere online and you will likely see a bunch of teens screaming about something even though they clearly skipped the step of educating themselves. Not only have I been the target of the dumbest shit, but so many other people have too. No one can post here without someone getting self-righteous and yelling about it. I have been accused of the following simply for posting something to my own blog: - I've been called misogynistic because I said El wasn't the main character. A thing the writers have said several times now (it's Will). The writers aren't misogynistic either. - I've been called misogynistic because I said El has character flaws like everyone else. - I've been called a condescending bitch when I politely tried to explain what misogyny actually is. A thing you'd think they'd be interested in learning if they actually cared about that cause (clearly they don't or I wouldn't have been called a bitch so much). - Been called racist because I said Hopper wasn't copaganda, even though I explained clearly why I thought this was. - Got called racist because I pointed out that Lucas was often filling his Ranger role and that's why he is helping Mike in S3 (the boys all play their D&D characters). But the trendy thing to say at the time was that he was being written in racist way so obviously this means I'm racist too. - Had multiple people say I was silencing them when I wrote my own damn post (not a response to theirs) about many of the above topics. I just simply disagreed with their points and that isn't allowed here. - Had someone I never interacted with spread a rumor that I sent them anonymous hate filled asks even though I had no fucking clue who they were. And those posts were anonymous so they have no idea who actually sent them. They just wanted my attention. But I never sent anyone an anon ask before anyway so this was just bizarre. But a several people believed it. - Pretty much every adult on here has been accused of pedophilia for watching a show with kids on it. This gets pretty relentless sometimes. I'm sure I could think of several others and other people have had a lot as well. The thing about this as someone who has actually experienced things like misogyny first hand is that being called this is incredibly upsetting, especially when you are being called this by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and doesn't care about the impact of these words. They just want you to shut up and stop telling them they did something wrong.

This is all happening because they are watching a show that is overwhelming them and they can't deal with people discussing it in a more nuanced way than they are. This wouldn't be happening if there were more adults here to drown it out. But as it is, no one can actually discuss this show and it has nothing to do with Noah. It's because kids are watching when they shouldn't. And they have weird, boundaries with the fandom and the cast that are constantly causing problems. This didn't happen back in the first 2 seasons because it was only adults watching. I'm not saying adults can't be problematic too, but most of this shit is from people who are way too young to handle this. And now we are all getting lectured by 14 year old foreign policy experts. It's not ok and they need to spend a lot of time learning about how to interact with people online better. This isn't the shows fault. But they can make it clear who this is actually for. Because these kids are going to throw a fit over everything. They always do. They aren't going to like S5 either. They are only watching because it's cool and they have FOMO. They can't understand it and are constantly insulting it and everyone associated with it and the fandom. Seriously, amp up the horror. Make it rated R. A lot of us would really love to be able to discuss this show and can't because of how awful it is here.