#Splashstar

[forestwhisker]

Collab piece with @cheesecakewitch!

[andyztoyz]

[endlesscats]

"No longer will we wait for the approval of dead cats to do what we know needs to be done. We will do whatever it takes to make RiverClan the strongest Clan, the richest in prey and territory, and the more influential...We will enjoy our living seasons to the fullest, and not worry about what lies beyond. And I will take you there!" — Splashtail

[tlksam]

Curlfeather, Splashstar, and Podlight.

Wanted to make Splash a ticked tabby like the website. Also made Podlight pointed like the website so he could match his sister. I am obsessed with the silly hair wacadoodles and unicornicdesigns gave Splashstar so I wanted to do something like that

[carboniila]

Splashtail

[xemo-wc-08x]

“I will never let you go. I’ll always be beside you, because I want to watch you fail"

[bonefall]

Splashtail and Atheism

Hello. I am an Atheist and I call Splashstar an Atheist because he is based on widespread bigoted depictions of godless people like myself. There have now been several posts about this written as if they're trying to "correct a misconception," and I am tired of vagueposts completely missing the point of the criticism to get caught up on arguing semantics.

The misanthropic, god-hating "Atheist" character in Christian propaganda, which I feel Splashstar has some alarming similarities with, does not come from the writer's correctable "misconception" of irreligious labels. It is born from a hatred of nonbelievers.

Specifically, my point that Splashtail is a mashup of two popular anti-secular tropes common in religious media;

The assertion that there's no such thing as a "real" nonbeliever, and that Atheists are just "rebelling" against God because we're mad at him, want to do bad things without guilt, or have "lost our way."

The belief that morality itself stems from faith in a higher moral being, asserting that the irreligious are "evil" in contrast to the faithful.

Even passing familiarity with the arguments of Christian apologia seen in Chick Tracts, Pureflix films, PragerU videos, and so on, will have put these tropes in front of you. They are false and harmful, and they target Atheists.

For more on this, TVTropes has an entire article dedicated to the Hollywood Atheist and its sub-tropes. Note how many of these Curlfeather and Splashtail fall into, regardless of if you're arguing that they are "real atheists" or not.

Those that hate us do not care about semantic labels. To them, we are without God, A-Theistic, and they do not actually care what is at the core of your beliefs if it contradicts their narrative.

But, even worse, the "Splashtail Can't Be An Atheist" crowd isn't even totally correct on the semantics they're trying to have a pedant battle about.

Most atheistic organizations and online atheists define Atheism as "one who does not believe in God" and attempt to push a sliding scale of "agnosticism" on how hard of a "maybe" you're feeling about your lack of faith. In the sliding agnostic scale, Agnostic Atheists are a "probably no god" and Gnostic Atheists are a "definitely no god." Others describe that scale as "hard" and "soft" Atheism-- but there is NOT universal agreement on that definition.

There other definitions of an "Atheist," and even those who reject the "agnostic scale" completely (I am one of them). "Atheism" was historically the catch-all term for what we might now call "Irreligious," and more.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy explores its many meanings, and proposes that what defines an Atheist is an active choice to distance oneself from faith; "Someone who rejects the premise of gods either based on lack of belief, or meaninglessness of the question." Matt Dillahunty, a prominent educator and activist, intentionally refers to himself as an Atheist when others (including religious people!) have tried to pressure him into using the label Agnostic, for reasons he covers in great depth. Historically, "atheist" simply meant anyone who denied the gods or acted impiously, evolving into use as a broad label for irreligious practices around the 1500s, until attempts to narrow it to "nonbelievers in deities" in the 1800s.

By EoP's expanded definition alone, Splashstar qualifies as an Atheist. The rejection does not have to come from a belief that Theism is false, but that the question is meaningless. He doesn't have to "believe" in StarClan any more than you have to "believe" in a total stranger. He rejects faith in it and lives without their influence.

But even more than that, "atheist" is a broad, stigmatized term with a history you can't erase. Hundreds of combinations of philosophies, spiritual beliefs, and logical positions have been called "Atheism."

"Atheist" can refer to Agnostics (those who aren't sure if there is a god or not), Antitheists (opposition to the belief in and/or worship of gods), Igtheists (those that feel that "god" is such a nebulous term that the question of belief is meaningless), Apatheists (people who just don't care), practitioners of Non-Deistic religions (such as Humanistic Judaism and some sects of Buddhism), and even heretics who spoke against religion like Diagoras of Melos (gay guy who chopped up a statue of hercules and used it to bake beans. king.)

In a fantasy universe where gods are provably, visibly real, the term "Atheist" is going to look a lot more like those historic and expansive uses.

Unless you want to argue that "atheism" by the narrow, popular definition of "believing in deities" can't exist in such a setting. So, arguing that Cloudtail stopped being an Atheist when he saw demons in OotS, in spite of this not affecting his spiritual practices. Or, dancing around using one uniting term, you could specifically say Curlfeather is a Misotheist, Splashstar is an Antitheist or Agnostic, Mothwing is Deist, etc.

You could have a discussion about how applicable these words even are in the setting. Or make up terms that satisfy yourself. You could do this forever. But I choose not to.

I think it's counterproductive to push people to learn a bunch of terms for hyperspecific branches of irreligious philosophy just to discuss clear anti-secular sentiment within the text of a book, actually. Or push people to abandon a useful word because fantasy isn't exactly the same as real life. Functionally, imo, all of those aforementioned cats are Atheists within this setting, living "without god" by rejecting belief-- and many of them invoke real world bigotry, with tropes much older than WC itself.

So the simple fact is; Calling Splashtail an "Evil Atheist" immediately communicates the narrative tropes I am criticizing.

Either by authorial accident or on purpose, Splashstar's lack of morality being tied to his rejection of StarClan invokes the demonized atheist trope, very much like the ones seen in PureFlix's God's Not Dead or Jack Chick's The Last Generation.

All the arbitrary wishing that the terms were more narrow and exclusive will not change the reality that those characters are intended by bigots as atheists. The terms of the discussion reflect that. Trying to tut-tut the fandom for calling a spade a spade is a smug way to phrase you completely missed the damn point.

[booksofstars]

[sugarrrrtea]

redraw November 30 - October 31

[diamondclawwww]

Splashtail Sprite

evil boi

[rudymentari]

Splashtail pattern progression 👍

[troutfur]

The way RiverClan has been treated this entire arc, from having their occupation by ShadowClan be framed as something benign and ultimately helpful to making Splashtail their most turned-up-to-11 straw authoritarian that needed to be deposed by a coalition of all the other Clans, is honestly disgusting. And on the arc where the Clans are implementing democratizing reforms no less! It really does not take much reading between the lines to get at the underlying political beliefs these white British ladies are channeling into their writing.

[ploverpaw]

Local teenager sent to hell

[animationflurry]

A SPLASHTAIL

[bustersw0rdwc]

[leafpool-loves-ashfur]

i finally read Stars and (spoilers obvs) i saw so many people complaining about Berryheart being "redeemed" and i was expecting to see that happen and

no???? she literally never was??? in fact when her death scene and her funeral occurred i was THE MOST HYPED for it??? it is literally SO well-written imo, much more compared to a lot of other stuff this arc

like. genuinely. Berryheart and Sunbeam's relationship has been SO interesting and SO complex and it BAFFLES me that people don't like either character. like, okay, i do hate Sunbeam x Nightheart as a REAL "in-love" ship (i like it best when as when Nightheart just fuckin. showed up at her house and said "we're married now" because that was funny fr, misogyny aside), and all of the Sunbeam-in-ThunderClan stuff is EUGH and boring, BUT the saving grace really was her and Berryheart's complex relationship.

Berryheart is SO REALISTIC as a loving, overprotective, overbearing helicopter mother WHO ONLY LOVES THE VERSION OF THE DAUGHTER IN HER HEAD. yes she still loves Sunbeam, but she doesn't love who Sunbeam has become and she handles it poorly and treats Sunbeam poorly!!!! same with Spireclaw, her son. in fact, i love ALL of Sunbeam's family. all of them have distinct personalities and motivations and reasonings that differ from each other!!!!

and Sunbeam just wants her mom back!!! her mom DID love her, her mom DOES love her, but also her mom is doing horrible things to her, her family, her mate, her clan, ALL of the clans, and that's hard to reconcile! so OF COURSE Sunbeam keeps trying to paint her mom in a better light, keeps trying to justify her in her head!!!! is it not obvious that what Sunbeam is CHOOSING to believe about her mother is not what her mother actually was as a person? Sunbeam is choosing to believe that her mom had good and just motivations and that she would have been good in the end, when the reality is that Berryheart WAS NOT GOOD OR JUST.

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS WITH FROSTDAWN AND CURLFEATHER, AND PEOPLE SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT PLENTY BUT NOT WITH SUNBEAM AND BERRYHEART????

literally, Berryheart died trying to usurp Splashtail in the same exact fashion that Curlfeather did for Mistystar. just because she was going against the bigger evil did not "redeem" her, because she still had horrible intentions??? hello???? she just wanted the power for herself, how is that "redeeming" her???

the ONLY way i can see this being fucked up is if the Erins for some reason say she went to StarClan, but as far as im aware, she's in the Dark Forest, which straight up proves that she WASN'T redeemed