#and no arguments need to be made to defend that premise

[anarchicarachnid]

this will get me absolutely no love on this site, but the way tumblrites perpetually and thoughtlessly hate on AoT is a perfect encapsulation of this site's specific brand of leftist discourse lacking critical analysis skills.

Nearly 100% of the time I see AoT, one of the most popular animes of all time, mentioned here, it's someone trashing on it for extremely non-specific reasons, such as "you can say AoT is bad op". there is literally never any meaningful critique or analysis, ever.

and I have a strong suspicion it alllll comes back to the time a couple posts circulated calling the mangaka a fascist for a couple of, let's be real, really weak reasons.

AoT is ab extremely political narrative which depicts bad people AS BAD PEOPLE, and still nobody on tumble dot hell seems capable of understanding the themes whatsoever. Literally if you have so little understanding of the messaging and characters that you think Eren's actions are portrayed as justified in the eyes of the creator, you don't understand the story well enough to trash on it.

The worst thing you can say about it and be broadly correct is that there is a very bad line toward the end that makes it easy to misunderstand what the creator's actual messaging is. But it's a good thing the entire rest of the story is extremely clear about the themes and messages, so maybe you can understand how it isn't all undone because one bad person says a bad thing one time at the end.

I hope at the very least there isn't one single person media illiterate enough to think that the messaging is that genocide is good. Or war. Or child soldiers. Or racism. Or racial oppression. Or eugenics. Like these should be realllllly obvious themes if you paid even the slightest bit of attention.

[tpwrtrmnky]

The problems with the 'infighting' comic

So I deleted the infighting comics. Fundamentally, the reason why is that I think I did a bad job with them. Clearly this wasn't a popular decision, and I did say I'd elaborate on why when I had time, so let's talk about the problem with the infighting comic.

Just to get this out of the way, the problem is not that the 'wrong' demographic liked it, or anything of the sort. What I don't like about the comic, and what keeps coming up, is that the way I frame it and how I execute the attempt at doing something with the never-ending churn of Discourse in the queer community is that it:

Fails to state what I think the problem is. "Infighting" is vague, it can mean basically anything, and unfortunately a very common use of the term is "literally anyone in the community criticizing anyone else in the community for any reason whatsoever." The comic fails to do anything to communicate whether this is the intended reading or not. This is a problem because the most common targets of bad-faith infighting accusations are also the most marginalized in the community, and the fights start as completely unjustified backlash to marginalized people criticizing marginalization.

The comic doesn't sufficiently communicate the intended idea that these are marginalized people with actual problems. The complaints of the characters come off as trivial due to how they are only presented in an oppositional context, with no frame of reference given as to whether their complaints are equally legitimate, whether one of them is right and one is wrong, or whether they're both just saying some nonsense. This is a fundamental flaw in the premise, because depending on which real-life situation the reader assumes it's about, the entire meaning changes. Regardless of what I say I actually intended this is bad enough that by itself, it drags down the whole thing.

The framing that the bigot character doesn't care about the difference between the groups. This only works if you're operating under the assumption that the comic is talking about groups that are routinely conflated by bigots, which at the very least is a detail that should be clearly stated in the premise, not in the second comic, and again leads to a very artificial framing of the supposed "infighting."

The main character being presented as a neutral observer with no stake in the argument themselves is weird.

The follow-ups do very little to address any of the above issues.

The comic is spread over four separate posts, which means even if the above issues were meaningfully addressed, the circulation of parts of the comics without those problems dealt with would continue, with all the problems retained.

There are more criticisms, and I am not going to argue with them because I don't want to defend the comic as I made it. I don't like it. I am tired of seeing the arguments that come from it. I apologize for how it was made, and I will not attempt anything to replace it until I can meaningfully address the problems with it.

There are additional structural problems with the Pills That Make You Green comics that have become more and more apparent as I've kept making them. I think failure to meaningfully address these issues is going to keep causing comics to fail in similar ways, and so I am thinking that a serious change to how I approach these needs to happen if I even want to make them anymore.

[lobautumny]

The rhetoric of anti-porn ideologues is as insidious as it is annoying. They use the fact that porn addiction is a real phenomenon to paint anyone who consumes porn to any extent as an addict, which is patently delusional, but calling someone a desperate addict is a really easy way to get random people who don't know anything about the person being attacked onto the attacker's side, because if the audience don't know them and they try to defend themself as not being an addict, then it's very easy for the attacker to just go "see? Obviously they're just in denial and need help."

Another thing is that they start at a reasonable premise: Yes, porn addiction is a real thing that some people succumb to in the same way that one can get addicted to anything enjoyable, and there are businesses that should be under scrutiny that weaponize that fact and actively try to pray on addicts, which can ruin their lives much further than the addiction itself would on its own. But then the anti-porn acolyte falsely equivocates this very reasonable stance with "all porn is inherently damaging to society, and anyone who consumes porn to any extent is an addict."

The fact that people who do this schtick genuinely get a lot of respect despite literally just being puritans who farm clout by harassing random people online is as depressing as their shitty, anti-fun ideology and this toy's sick of seeing them.

There's a popular Youtube video essayist who made a tweet a while back claiming that all fetish porn is inherently immoral and fetishes have no place in an advanced society, and his sources boiled down to "trust me bro." He doesn't even give any kind of coherent argument for his stance. He just kind of asserts, based on nothing, that kink is a major contributing factor to how much mental illness exists in the world and that 90% of the world agrees with him. He then goes on to call anyone who disputes his claims a desperate addict attacking him from degenerate subreddits, and he paints his detractors in this way specifically to avoid having to make an actual counterargument to anything they are saying, because then he would sound like a stupid pseudointellectual asshole (precisely what he is) because he doesn't have a counterargument in the first place.

And if you find yourself thinking, while reading this, "Hm, this all mirrors a lot of argument tactics commonly used by a particular group who are known for not being too terribly fond of minorities, especially jewish people," you would be exactly correct. This toy's not saying that every anti-porn ideologue is a nazi, but a lot of them are reactionary conservatives who, at the very least, are not fond of the LGBT, and most of the ones who aren't still use the same exact rhetorical tactics based on dogma and harassment that nazis use to prop their bigotry up and make anyone who disagrees with them look like some kind of sickly degenerate, and that should be a red flag for anyone. In fact, unironic use of the word "degenerate" to negatively describe others should always raise alarms in your mind.

It's really incredible how scared so many people are of sexuality. This toy thinks a lot of it comes down to projection. Like, yeah, it sucks that you got addicted to porn at an early age and it stunted your social development or whatever, but perhaps your personal experiences are not universal. This toy doesn't want to say "skill issue" to people who have had genuine struggles with addiction, but damn, some people make it hard not to.

[thelittlecrookedtalecomic]

Wow, Ariel was only 34?! Poor thing sure didn't age well 😔 Sorry, maybe you're tired of questions about her, but I'm just curious: you said there were many plotholes in the original movie, what are they? (I must sound dumb 😂)

Alright, this is going to be a LONG answer and I hope I can explain myself good enough 😁

The Little Mermaid is one of those scripts you have to completely flip because you're changing the original idea in an opposite way. In the original story, the mermaid is not an exemplary character, but rather proof that we cannot force someone to love us just because we have become infatuated with them. No matter how much we self-sacrifice or try, "no means no." She is a selfish and reckless character who shows growth in the end by letting go of these traits and choosing to sacrifice herself when she had the option to save herself and crown her greatest selfish act.

In Disney's case, the premise was obviously that Ariel had to be a heroine, carry a moral message, and triumph over evil. To do this, they chose the path of victimization. Ariel had to be a misunderstood social outcast who fell into a trap set by a very evil figure who was then defeated. But the resources employed were insufficient, as they kept too many elements from the original script.

Demonizing the figure of the witch was an obvious step, turning her into a deceitful character with "I want to conquer the world" ambitions to quickly cast Ariel as the victim. The problem with this is the initial premise: literally everyone in the ocean knows Ursula can't be trusted, and she proudly displays her victims in her garden. This makes Ariel look like a foolish character for making a deal with her and downgrades a lot of the "I’ve always wanted to leave the sea" narrative into just a "teenage tantrum." Sure, she’s an impulsive teenager, but the point of this narrative device was to victimize her, and it achieves the opposite. Personally, I would have made Ursula a more discreet and manipulative character, someone Ariel saw as a victim, which could later trigger a sense of betrayal in Ariel.

Then there’s the often-discussed aspect that's always used as an argument: Ariel's fascination with the human world. It’s a great nuance to add to the story, moving it away from being solely about a romantic interest. Ariel needed her own background, hobbies, and goals, like exploring that unknown world. The problem is its execution—it’s insufficient and tedious. Ariel is a fanatic about the human world, with an oversized ego about what she thinks she knows, and her extreme idealization is used as if it were irrefutable evidence against her father. I always use the same example for this: in neutral terms, Ariel looks like someone who idolizes and defends an extraterrestrial way of life she knows only through the garbage she collects, while everyone else knows these beings hunt humans. Essentially, she comes across as an crazy and obsessed person.

This fascination with the human world is sold to us in a propagandistic and absurd way, focused on "we, the audience, are humans, and Ariel says we’re great, therefore she’s right. Her father keeps giving us a hard time, so he’s a tyrant." By the end of the movie, Ariel becomes the "superior species" because her father bends for absurd reasons. During the first half of the movie, Ariel’s love for the human world is heavily emphasized, but it falls flat when the weight of the original script lands on us. It all turns into a race against time for the woman to win over the man, and all the prior development becomes mere decoration that could be removed from the plot without affecting it at all. If Ariel hadn’t met Eric, she wouldn’t have left the water. This is also shown when it’s not until Triton destroys Eric’s statue that Ariel is devastated, unintentionally showing in the script that the rest of the cave treasures (and her character’s corresponding nuance) were mere additions. You can literally erase all the first part of the movie until Ariel meets Eric and there's no difference in the script development. In the end, what matters is the man, and that’s what moves the story. It’s Eric who makes Ariel seriously want to leave the water, and his statue is the crown jewel of her collection. Eric's cracked stone face is what pushes Ariel to take the step, as Flotsam and Jetsam don’t tempt her with exploring the human world but with winning over "her prince," just like Ursula does later too. Everything in the deal and the song, revolves around seducing Eric.

Personally, on this point, as I said, the script had to be completely changed, and that’s why they could have taken more risks by simply eliminating narrative elements that doomed the story to follow its original course. Ariel shouldn’t have fallen in love until she left the water. There are tons of stories they could have told about a mermaid being deceived by a witch to fulfill her dream of becoming human, and then introduced the romantic interest after she achieved her initial goal. This would have not only affected Ariel but Eric as well, who also loses out in Disney’s version. Originally, he was a prince who at least knew he had no romantic interest in the protagonist. Here, he’s a puppet obsessed with a voice while also being attracted to a mute stranger, despite being "in love" with the owner of the voice, and then goes on to marry a third woman who, no matter how much they try to sell us the idea that she "hypnotized" him, her physical appearance raises serious doubts in a realistic context about how much of a womanizer and fickle person Eric is.

Then we have poor Triton, the real victim of this script. He’s the most logical character in the film, battered by forced scenes where he loses control of his temper to demonize his perfectly logical ideas, and suffers absurd accusations of patriarchy against the protagonist (because we can all see how Ariel is locked in her room with no freedom, having tons of real obligations in her privileged underwater bubble). He’s also used as a cheap tool to emphasize human supremacy over the marine world.

Another aspect that should have been more balanced is the presence of animals. Ariel is by far the most dependent protagonist on others because of this. The supporting characters do absolutely all the work for Ariel, whose only accomplishments in the movie boil down to dodging a shark, saving a man from drowning (which was already in the original script), jumping into the water to swim after the wedding ship (for which she also needs help), and grabbing Ursula by the hair. One could argue that Cinderella also relied on her friends to escape her confinement. The difference is that Cinderella herself took the initiative by ordering them to bring Bruno, a course of action that made sense due to the development they had, making it a logical resource to use as a consequence. We are shown how Cinderella built relationships with her friends, so these friends help her in her moments of necessity. But in Ariel’s case, her friends act and solve things without communicating anything to her. Ariel controls none of the situations, and everyone else solves the problems for her.

Considering the decades that had passed, I’m still surprised at how all the nuances of the film end up making Ariel a much weaker woman than her predecessors, who didn’t navigate their plots pretending to be heroines like the case of the Little Mermaid. Ariel doesn’t learn or reason through anything during her experience. She doesn’t control any of the events around her or discover anything for herself, doesn’t apologize for her mistakes, and conveniently gets a rather undeserved happy ending. She doesn’t adapt to circumstances (the circumstances and characters adapt to her needs), she suffers no disappointments from the human world she so idealized because she walks on clouds as the privileged guest of a prince, and nothing happens to pull her out of her comfort bubble.

Essentially, it’s a script that not only retains 80% of the original nuances but also worsens them by making the mermaid’s actions affect more people due to her recklessness, and on top of that, rewarding her for being the most problematic and useless character.

[leportraitducadavre]

Fear and Racism - an analysis of Tobirama’s advocates

During all my years on Tumblr, I’ve found constantly the same argument regarding Tobirama’s views on the Uchiha, and while most (if not all) of his fans tend to justify his behavior over the vastly discussed COH theory that considered them biologically and emotionally unstable and thus, needing the government’s control, many others avid readers tend to defend or understand (at least partially) his views and decisions upon the premise of fear. More specifically, his fear of the Uchiha’s power, a sentiment born and developed during his youth as a member of his clan that lost beloved ones at Uchiha’s hands and was forced to face them in battle.

I will not dwell on the fact that many other (if not all) noble clans composing Konoha also incurred in such duels, and it’s likely that the Senju and other families also fought during the Warring State Era. The Uchiha was the Senju’s primary opposite force, yet not the only one, still, that “fear of insurrection” was solely focused upon a single family instead of a vast group of different people. In that sense, this fact alone disintegrates the argument that Tobirama was “prejudiced” rather than racist, as prejudice refers to a preconceived idea (positive or negative) about a particular person or group not based on prior experience nor knowledge, while racism involves an unequal distribution of power on the basis of ethnicity. The fact that Uchiha was the only clan forced to perform a single job (that limited their political influence and also prevented their complete integration in Konoha), were spied on by ANBU members, and were moved to the outskirts of the city (not by the Nidaime but following the same segregationist policies established by him), are actions performed by two different governments under the guidance of what became a systematized racist political structure.

The policies he made were around his personal racial prejudices as he’s the one and only who created the bureaucratic system of the village (something many of his stans gloat about) that, in itself, makes him racist. Those that state that he was just "prejudiced" conveniently leave aside the segregationist structure he built around his mindset. As someone in a position of power who, as was canonically shown and stated (by Hashirama, Orochimaru, and himself), didn't even bother to check his own prejudices, he's to be held accountable over the simple fact that he was the Hokage in charge of guaranteeing the safety, equity, and equality of those under his command.

Yet, while fear given his prior experiences is a fair claim as the basis for Tobirama’s bias, it’s also factual for the rest, as Madara (and other Uchiha) also lost relatives at Senju’s hands –in fact, Tobirama is likely more powerful than most Sharingan wielders as he killed Izuna, the second in command. Yet unlike Tobirama, neither Madara nor anyone of his kin performed undisclosed autopsies of deceased Senju members in order to study their biology nor wrote discriminatory and limiting policies based upon their nature. Madara even deflected after learning about his clan’s future inside Konoha’s borders.

[I’ll also brush over the fact that Tobirama’s words about how Madara is viewed negatively by other clan heads, while Hashirama isn’t, it’s never canonically shown –which only let us with his word,  which we immediately took as factual.]

What I will comment on more deeply tho, is the notion of fear and its influence on racist mentalities and behaviors, as many believe that Tobirama’s fear of the Uchiha has nothing to do with his discriminatory mindset, as if “fear for what an ethnicity might do and therefore acting by repressing them in advance” it’s somehow different than racism, that implies a “racial [ethnic, as the term racism is far outdated as there’s only one race that exists with multiple ethnicities] prejudice that guides the individual to perform discriminatory and repressive acts.”

Extreme hatred is almost always based on fear. People may feel threatened by people they view as "different" or "foreign." They may fear losing power. To combat this fear, some people may seek social support from others with similar fears, perpetuating the cycle.

Source

Attitudes of extreme hatred are usually based on fear. They come from primitive survival mechanisms—our instinct to avoid danger—to fear anything that appears to be different, which leads to fear of the other.

“When one race of persons unconsciously feels fear in response to a different race group—fears that their own level of security, importance, or control is being threatened—they will develop these defensive thoughts and behaviors,” says psychologist and political advisor Dr. Reneé Carr. “They will create exaggerated and negative beliefs about the other race to justify their actions in [an] attempt to secure their own safety and survival.”

Source

Irrational fear, particularly of people of color, has shaped the American criminal justice system since the nation's colonial beginnings (...) Many of the propagators of this apartheid trafficked in racist fear-mongering to justify discriminatory treatment of African Americans, warning white America about the inherent criminality and violent propensities of black men.

Source

Fear and Racism are deeply intertwined, such as is Hate and Racism (there’s a reason why xenophobia, which is the fear of strangers or foreigners, it’s often used as a synonym for racism) –Tobirama claimed that the Uchiha were a “clan possessed by evil” (x), despite his studies only confirming that emotions were the primary force behind their chakra activating the Sharingan. At no point did he prove that negative emotions were the sole requirement for their kekkei genkai to activate nor was he able to prove that their feelings commanded their actions as he performed autopsies over (hopefully) dead bodies that clearly had no way to feel a single thing and act upon it; in fact, he wrote the book of shinobi’s rules that forbid people (even non-Uchiha) from showing emotions -yet Hiruzen, the student he trusted the most with his will, as he bestowed upon him the Hokage title, happily exploited such connections amongst his forces. 

Tobirama’s need for control pushed him to create Edo-Tensei (a jutsu that came back to bite him in the ass, but regardless), he controlled powerful deceased shinobi at the expense of other people’s lives –you can say that Tobirama’s primarily driven force was fear yet it easily evolved into a clear necessity of absolute control over both living and dead people as to perform what he thought was righteous. In that sense, his characterization is marvelous, as he’s not above cruelty to perform what he claims is “the greater good”, in fact limiting his vicious tendencies is reducing both his depth as a character inside the story and the complexity and duality of the system he created under such perspective –neither he nor Hashirama were above ruthless acts to carry out their wishes.

To state that he wasn’t racist but rather, a person that acted upon his fear by creating and carrying out segregation policies based upon biology (re-read that phrase again and tell me how that isn’t racism, please) it’s limiting the existence of racism to mere “hatred” sentiments that rest upon the notion of one ethnicity’s superiority (morally, physically or both), which, pardon me, is absolutely nonsensical and paradoxical, as Tobirama was well aware of the Sharingan’s supremacy (in that case, the explanation of his racism would be solely based upon the anger awaken by sentiments of jealousy, yet canonically he never displayed such propensity as even having access to Uchiha corpses he never implanted himself a Sharingan).

[Many POC (particularly males) have to, to this day, fight against racist pre-conceptions that paint them as violent, savage, and blood-lusted individuals, created to install fear amongst the “pure” white citizens in order to push them to seek “government protection against the savages” which, in turn, happily and easily installed discriminatory policies against such communities.]

If you wish, you can say Tobirama’s fear was “rational” as he does have a background of conflict with the Uchiha, yet then you can’t blame the Uchiha for distrusting Tobirama and his successors’ policies as they also possess the same history –yet while Tobirama is, somehow, justified in his apprehension for the Uchiha, that courtesy isn’t extended to that family, who should have trusted blindly Konoha’s system, a bureaucracy which basis are built upon Tobirama’s ethnic prejudice.

And it's even by their own laid-out premises that these advocates fail to specify what exactly ARE Tobirama’s segregationist policies: They were targeted to a single clan and a single clan alone, what is that if not ethnic prejudice? They keep saying is not racism yet fail to convey what it is as if “fear” is enough response when speaking of an individual that built Konoha's entire political structure.

Furthermore, many claim that Tobirama couldn’t be racist as he allowed one Uchiha (Kagami) inside his cell, and both Itachi and Shisui were advocates for Konoha’s government yet:

This denial of the significance of race is a tool that allows the dominant racial group to legitimize the effects of racism under the guise of individual merit. Through this lens, people in positions of power can credit their successes to their own hard work while positioning the disadvantages oppressed racial groups face to personal rather than systemic failures.

The praising and/or awarding of one or few individuals inside a group that suffers from systematic prejudice is not proof of such a community not suffering from such segregation policies, rather, it’s a way to disguise such oppression while selling the idea that individual merit it’s both what matters, and the thing that’s stopping most members of such a family from rising inside Konoha’s political’s sphere. That way the blame is placed upon individual actions rather than the systematic flaws of Konoha’s policies (and the same happens with other characters, such as Naruto, Neji, Kakashi, and so on –as their traumatic experiences and subsequent reactions are blamed upon their individual perspective and not on the bureaucratic structure that is both the cause of the specific events that shaped them and the reason why they don’t have a better support system after such occurrences).

At the same time, Madara was the main motive of Tobirama’s “terror” for the Uchiha yet, after Madara’s death, he continued with his discriminatory policies towards those who shared the same ethnicity as the former leader, despite them willingly turning their back on him when he tried to make them abandon Konoha, pledging their loyalty to their village rather than to their strongest member and leader. Tobirama’s prejudice toward this specific ethnic group (as ethnicities in this manga are marked by the different Kekkei Genkai that exists), a consequence of his fear of a “new Madara rising” (whether it’s based on fear or hate doesn’t deny the fact that these notions were constructed with a racial prejudice still, making the system in itself and Tobirama specifically racist), converged in the systematic oppression that, later on, will push the Uchiha to attempt a coup and their subsequent massacre, a point that I touched upon a little more here. 

In short, denying Tobirama acted upon his fear for the Uchiha is reading his character flatly, I agree, however, maintaining that fear is not one of the main bases for the development of racist mentalities and policies is to simplify both the notion itself and to diminish the gravity of the segregationist practices that result from this perspective. 

[transmutationisms]

wait go on about the theoretical point of departure

ugh well it's 'phenomenology of spirit', because in the lord-bondsman dialectic hegel argued that while both lord and bondsman develop self-consciousness through their mutual encounter, the bondsman does so first, both through recognition of the threat of death and through his direct encounter with nature through his labour; the lord, on the other hand, is dependent on the bondsman as a mediator because the lord doesn't have this direct relationship to the external world, instead expropriating the products of the bondman's labour. hegel wrote as though these were abstracted, theoretical figures, and it's true he was talking about world-historical consciousness, but he was also directly theorising in response to the newspaper coverage he was reading on the haitian revolution. so when he talked about bondsmen developing self-consciousness and no longer needing the lords, he didn't mean this in an abstract sense; he meant the literal revolution in which slaves overthrew masters and haiti gained independence.

so, when marx 'turned hegel on his head' (ie, made the analysis material), one thing that came through was this underlying understanding of alienation as something that affects both labourer (whose products are expropriated from him) and capitalist (who is not directly producing and thus not encountering the outside world except by mediation). you can see this especially in marx's earlier work, like the 1844 manuscripts, which is why i always say this is an interesting text through which to consider some of succession's premises. marx was more interested in proletarian alienation in the sense that he saw this as eventually birthing revolutionary consciousness and class solidarity, and later in his career much of the 'alienation' theorising was subsumed into his analysis of the 'commodity fetish'. 'succession', on the other hand, is a piece of psychological fiction but starts, i would argue, from sort of the other side of this theoretical point, where the interest is in the alienation of the capitalist, using of course a 21st-century media conglomerate and not the figure of the factory owner or whatever.

later in his career hegel was far less sympathetic to the bondsman and to the position of enslaved people generally. this was a shift that happened for numerous reasons, but one was that he continued to read european newspaper coverage about haiti following the revolution, a situation that involved grappling with the continued effects of french colonialism, from internal social tensions to the difficulty of shifting away from the monocrop economy the french had imposed. make no mistake that this was not how haiti was covered in the papers hegel read, and instead, by 'philosophy of right' he had settled into a very different reading of slavery, which he justified in part by what he perceived as the despotism of king henri christophe, and in which he argued that enslaved africans were in fact not capable of gaining true self-consciousness and spiritual freedom. this was absolutely part of a broader trend by which europeans pointed to any 'failings' of independent haiti and, instead of seeing the legacy of pre-revolution french colonialism as well as ongoing us and french imperialism and intervention, used it as a rhetorical tool against anti-slavery, anti-colonialist, or black humanist arguments. additionally, marx had his own reasons for talking about slavery as either a bygone practice or an example of labourers being 'lazy' in contrast to the european proletariat—namely, he had specific class and racial interests in defending european labourers and using the denigration of enslaved africans in order to do so.

(my sources here are primarily 'baron de vastey and the origins of black atlantic humanism' by marlene daut; 'the fetish revisited: marx, freud, and the gods black people make' by j lorand matory; and 'hegel, haiti, and universal history' by susan buck-morss)

[wavecorewave]

Colonial appropriation of indigenous lands often began with some blanket assertion that foraging peoples really were living in a State of Nature – which meant that they were deemed to be part of the land but had no legal claims to own it. The entire basis for dispossession, in turn, was premised on the idea that the current inhabitants of those lands weren’t really working. The argument goes back to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690), in which he argued that property rights are necessarily derived from labour. In working the land, one ‘mixes one’s labour’ with it; in this way it becomes, in a sense, an extension of oneself. Lazy natives, according to Locke’s disciples, didn’t do that. They were not, Lockeans claimed, ‘improving landlords’ but simply made use of the land to satisfy their basic needs with the minimum of effort. James Tully, an authority on indigenous rights, spells out the historical implications: land used for hunting and gathering was considered vacant, and ‘if the Aboriginal peoples attempt to subject the Europeans to their laws and customs or to defend the territories that they have mistakenly believed to be their property for thousands of years, then it is they who violate natural law and may be punished or “destroyed” like savage beasts.’ In a similar way, the stereotype of the carefree, lazy native, coasting through a life free from material ambition, was deployed by thousands of European conquerors, plantation overseers and colonial officials in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania as a pretext for the use of bureaucratic terror to force local people into work: everything from outright enslavement to punitive tax regimes, corvée labour and debt peonage.

From The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021), by anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow

[toushindai]

some nattering about how I characterize Rauru and Sonia in my Ganondorf/Rauru fics.

as I have mentioned before, usually I prefer to adhere strictly to canon when writing fanfiction, to the extent that I used to think of myself as trying to write exactly what the author had in mind but didn't put in the story. yes, I have always been this pretentious.

but then I looked at what Rauru and Ganondorf have going on and went "ah, they need to have nasty, resentful, dubcon-at-best sex about this" and I'll be honest I'm not sure played-straight loz characters (vs. various permutations of joke characters) are even allowed to know sex exists, so this was obviously a departure.

which means that Questions of Kingship exists, in my mind at least, in a strange space that is both canon-compliant and AU, and I have made characterization choices based on the story I was telling rather than prioritizing sticking to what the game has in mind. And I don't think my readings are entirely wrong--do I think Nintendo intends their King of Light to be a rapist, no, but they sure did write a guy who disregards and tramples over an implicit "no." This is what is conveyed by Ganondorf mentioning that Hyrule has sent the Gerudo repeated invitations! I didn't actually make that part up! Honestly I expected to have to defend my choices re: Rauru from some very irritated fans who forgot about the back button, but it seems that if I irritated anyone, they remembered the back button. Good for them, and to everyone pressing the "more of this" buttons instead, thank you, I appreciate you, what the fuck is UP with this guy amirite??

Anyway though,

Sonia.

Oh, I have struggled with Sonia mightily. I did not want Rauru to be cheating on her. And partially this is because I don't particularly care to write about cheating but largely it is because a huge part of Rauru's sense of superiority over Ganondorf is a moral one, and if Rauru were betraying someone he loved to carry out this affair, that sense of superiority would be chopped off at the knees. And I'm using that sense of superiority, thank you very much.

So: it became the case that Sonia needed to know about the affair, needed her to be on board with it. And well, there were very quickly quite a lot of jokes that she and Rauru had "looking for a third" vibes, and I do think that's true, and anyway that girl married a goat god. "A very canny monsterfucker" is the kernel of canon characterization that I wound up building around. Very clear-eyed, less self-deception than Rauru; an overpowering propensity to identify what she wants and go for it. It's just that Zelda didn't see much of that. I guess, is the argument I'm going for. Well, then, Sonia is someone who can play at sweet and harmless and kind until she reveals how much of an edge she has.

Does the game suggest she has such an edge? ...No? I guess it doesn't. I don't know. But if it is not possible to hide anything from Sonia, and Hyrule is behaving coercively towards its not-yet-allies (and it is! again I did not make that part up!), then she must be aware of this. And she must be on board with it. She adores Rauru--this is clear in the cutscenes, just look at the light in her eyes when Rauru is speaking sometimes--and so I make the two of them a team, united in intention. But where I write Rauru as conflicted--naive thoughts about kingship stumbling against the reality of it--I place Sonia in a more decided position. Her premises: that Rauru is good, and that a unified Hyrule is a superior outcome over disparate nations. She is aware that the latter premise is not automatically accepted by everyone, but she has unwavering faith in it so she moves to carry it out without the indignation that resistance inspires in Rauru. Resistance does not make her doubt herself in the same way. (That's worse??) She is more pointedly, more cannily political than Rauru. Rauru wants a kingdom united in friendship (genuinely he wants this, as I write him); Sonia knows that friendship is not what unites kingdoms.

She just... winds up with this strange amoral core to her. A surprising one, I think. What I find myself writing is a Sonia who seems kind and sweet and confident and only very occasionally lets anyone see the part of her where she has made up her mind and is unmovably certain of her own rightness. A part of her that doesn't need it to be a moral rightness. Am I making any sense here.

I mean for some of that startling strangeness to come out in the way she regards Rauru's relationship with Ganondorf--I don't know if that comes through. I write Ganondorf conflating Rauru's sexual submission with political submission to excess; Sonia is almost the opposite, believing that the relationship between the two can exist as a function of desire alone regardless of the political dimension. It's about wanting and having and that is all. But the very assumption that that's all comes from the position of Hyrule's dominance, an unassailable position in her mind. I'm having trouble getting at what I'm getting at, but, my point here is that she's a little scary. that's all.

@toushindai

[fideidefenswhore]

What are your thoughts on Jane Boleyn, and the role she supposedly played in the fall of 3 Queens (Anne Boleyn, Anna of Cleves, Katheryn Howard)? Do you think she has been too maligned by historians for centuries, especially when it comes to the relationship with the Boleyns (it seems she got along with Anne)?

Now that I've read both works and compared them side by side, I suppose I would say my stance on Jane Boleyn falls somewhere in between that of Julia Fox and James Taffe ('Somewhere in between' is not, btw, Alison Weir); although closer to the former than the latter. Offering critique of both biographies, I would say that of JF is too apologetic (smoothing out wrinkles that exist in her arguments rather than acknowledging them) and JT is too severe.

Especially when it comes to the relationship with the Boleyns? Yes and no. Obviously she was married to George, she sent him a message of comfort while he was in the Tower, and wore only black the rest of her life, which was quite the potent statement. However, I would allow for the possibility that she potentially, inadvertently implicated him or AB (ie, testimony of hers was twisted to suit the crown's case). This is where I think there are flaws in the arguments of some of her defenders-- they cannot allow for even that possibility and so make claims that disallow it; some of which are untrue. 'Jane was only blamed as a means of absolving Henry in the whitewash of Elizabethan propagandists' is not true. Johannes Sleidan in 1545 claimed that Anne and George died by her 'false accusation'. Sleidan was a Reformer, so he would have been more sympathetic towards the plights of these two than the average person, and would have spoken to others that were as well, but the motivation to vindicate Elizabeth did not yet exist; she was at this point the very unlikely third in line to the throne.

I do appreciate that you said 'got along' with Anne, not 'besties', because...it's possible they were very close, certainly, but we must also allow for the possibility of animosity. The linchpin for the argument of closeness is the report from Chapuys that they 'conspired together' to banish Henry's mistress from court. Was this the precise truth? Considering the source I'm doubtful. Probably there was a lady Henry was serving at this time (although that we never have a name makes the story somewhat suppositious), but did they need to have 'conspired together' against her for Jane to be banished from court (which is what happened instead)? Jane might have merely made Anne aware of her, and Henry finding out that she'd been the source would have been enough for banishment. Or, as was presented plausibly in Adrienne Dillard's fictional rendition, Jane might have dropped hints to Cromwell that this mistress was a supporter of the two exiled and contumacious royal women that were Anne's adversaries, Cromwell might have passed this along to Henry, and Henry might have banished Jane for shattering the illusion that this woman had no independent ambitions or ulterior motives and merely let him hit for the sheer pleasure of his company.

If this was evidence of closeness, and it might be, then we also have to remember that the end result was Jane's banishment from court, and that there is, as JT fairly pointed out, no evidence that any of the Boleyns spoke in her defense, favor, or for her return. It would take an extremely magnanimous person to accept all that with equanimity and not feel any resentment whatsoever. So, if there was intimacy, there might have also been rift.

That leaves the question: enough 'rift' for her to seek vengeance? I doubt that much for all the reasons Fox outlines in her biography, but at the same time I wish there was not this relentless push to only defend women that we assert 'deserve' defense, on the premise they were entirely selfless, accepted every insult with grace, never kept any grudges, never had personal ambitions (the actions she took during the queenships of those you mentioned would suggest otherwise), mixed emotions, or conflicting loyalties; that we could acknowledge that acknowledging the agency of historic women also means acknowledging they were capable of making mistakes.

[hollow-dweller]

#just saw a post defending allura's fridging as ''her choice'' so instead of fighting a teenager on tunglr.hell i'll leave this here) God agreed with this! Like Allura's death being described as "her choice" is literally such White™ psuedo- feminist bullshit cause 1) she's a fictional character and the writers are the ones who chose to kill her like this, and 2) isnt even remotely true? Like this being "her choice" implies she had other options, which she definately did not have given the entire goddamn multiverse was destroyed by Haggar, what's more 3) Allura is the one who since the beginning was making sacrifices and losing everything she had to a almost ridiculous degree given the story starts with her losing her entire fucking planet!! Like!! All she did was lose with or without her choice being involved and at end she lost even the future she could have had because Haggar literally destroyed the fucking multiverse! This was a classic case of torture porn and than fridging, like!!! I hate it here!!!

And just..... anyway Allura is alive and ruling as the Queen of Altea and head of Coalition and when she gets too stressed Lance aka her Prince Consort/house husband is ready with a lighthearted joke, some freshly cooked food, supportive hugs and kisses, half the paperwork already done, and wearing sluttiest outfits he could get pegged in for stress relief

okay anon so when are we gonna make out

i have no idea of the OPs positionality beyond being able to infer from their posts that they're a teenager or else very young, but that is secondary to the fact that their argument in defense of Allura's death absolutely smacks of White Feminism(tm), and the attendant corollaries of pop/"choice" feminism.

to more fairly represent their argument aside from a one-off tag: essentially they argue that because of Allura's losses, and the overwhelming pressure placed on her throughout the narrative to be a leader and a saviour, her "choosing" to sacrifice herself and reunite with her dead loved ones is one she made for her own well-being. instead of going back to live in the messy reality of the world, and to keep having to work to fix it, she decided to choose her own peace in the afterlife.

so even if we accept, for a moment, the premise that this choice is an expression of Allura's agency, the problem with this argument becomes immediately apparent as having intense shades of suicidal ideation. i don't believe that every sacrificial death in media is an expression of suicidality, to be entirely clear, but this framing of Allura's thought process pretty clearly DOES position it as an expression of suicidality. yes there is the context that the lore of the show does confirm for us that there is an afterlife, but that doesn't negate the fact that OPs argument is, essentially, that instead of finding love and happiness and fulfillment despite her losses and her suffering, the best ending for Allura is to die so that she can exist in a universe where those losses never happened and don't matter. in what universe is that a hopeful and fulfilling ending for a character that we have watched claw herself back from the brink of despair? in what universe is that BETTER than seeing her actually get to enjoy the fruits of her labour, and find love and belonging again despite her losses? even setting aside the troubling undertones, in what universe is a complete character regression the BEST ending for Allura? someone needs to watch Crystal Venom again.

to your point, this choice was NOT an expression of Allura's agency at all, because the narrative had backed her into a corner. the writers orchestrated it so that Allura had no option but to sacrifice herself, lest the multiverse be destroyed. the choice was not "peace" versus "more work"; it was "watch everything you worked for be destroyed" or "save everything you worked for but not for yourself". she was either going to die or she was going to be erased from existence, along with everyone else. that isn't a choice. there is no agency there.

and finally, it is impossible to examine Allura's treatment in the narrative without acknowledging that Allura is a Black version of a character that has, in every previous iteration, been white. and in every previous iteration, White Allura was allowed to live. this is a transparently racist treatment of a Black character, and fandom only continues to perpetuate that racism by trying to excuse or defend that treatment. in Stitch's 2018 article, "Sacrifice, Heroics, and Dead Characters of Color", they provide an extremely thorough overview of the phenomena of sacrificing characters of colour, and especially Black characters, for the benefit of the white or predominantly-white characters, as well as fandom's wildly differing responses to the deaths of white characters versus characters of colour. interestingly, they briefly point out Voltron fandom's outrage over the killing of Adam, as a pretty blatant example of Burying Your Gays. the article was written before Allura's death, but as anyone in fandom during both events can attest, the general fandom responses in both instances were wildly different: Adam, a character with maybe five minutes of screentime total, received intense outrage. Allura, one of the main characters of the show, got nominal backlash almost immediately and entirely eclipsed by people being upset klance didn't happen.

Allura was fridged in the most fundamental sense of the word short of literally being stuffed in a refrigerator, and there is no way to plausibly deny that fact and still call yourself a fan of her character.

[mlobsters]

supernatural s11e18 hell's angel (w. brad buckner, eugenie ross-leming)

the one true sibling communication method, just holler

honestly don't remember what amara needs healing from (don't even know if we know), what rowena is doing (and ditto if we know). i was just thinking how they managed to stretch out this like... 5 episode arc over an entire season (i presume) but basically just ignoring it a good chunk of the time (i'm not complaining about the monster of the week episodes we got that i genuinely enjoyed, by any means). i get that they need some big bad plotline to hook it all together but eh

lol right, rowena "died" i forgot about that. i need those damned pre-episode recaps

ROWENA All in good time. Right now, you're still weak from that pesky angel smiting.

oh right. that seems like so long ago. thanks for the reminder, rowena

sam is very tickled about crowley being kept in the kennel

think i prefer misha playing lucifer than cas at this point, but i think that's mostly on the way they write cas. but it looks like he's having fun with lucifer. (but i saw my pal pellegrino in the credits which i'm happy to see)

zoned out for a second as i'm wont to do in heavenly politics scenes and i refocus and what in the world is he doing on this angel's lap

DEAN After we exorcise Lucifer out of Cas and put him into a new vessel. SAM What? Really? DEAN Yes, really. We're not gonna send Lucifer into battle inside Cas. What if he doesn't make it? SAM Dean, it's a strong vessel. It's held Cas for years, and we know what he's been through. I'm guessing it can hold Lucifer. DEAN "It"? It's not an "it," Sam. It's Cas. SAM And Cas wanted to do this.

DEAN Yeah, well, there's times I want to get slapped during sex by a girl wearing a Zorro mask. That don't make it a good idea.

crowley is intrigued. i was waving my arms around like a distressed sim that doesn't like something. too much information for me, dean-o; but i would argue the point that it's in fact a fine idea. i'm sure someone is available that would be happy to make your dreams come true

SAM Dean, this is exactly how we screw ourselves. W-We make the... the heart choice instead of the smart choice. DEAN Oh, okay. Thank you, Dr. Phil. Cas is family. SAM Yes, and his choice deserves to be respected. DEAN Even if it kills him?

maybe i'm projecting but i just don't buy sam making this argument? unless he's freaked out for some other lucifer-related-reason, or looking for a reason to put cas's vessel/whatever in harm's way. if we're goin with the premise that cas is family and he's got the blanket forgiveness for letting lucifer out, then why is sam arguing so hard against getting him out of harm's way asap? i think framing it like it's about cas's agency... does not ring true to me. like yes sure based on sam's history of losing agency, he will be staunch defender of other people's choices - but i'm not getting that from this

her makeup is beautiful, the lighting is really picking up all the fine glitter in her eyeshadow. lovely

so what are we trying to do here, get lucifer out of cas and back in the cage? losing the plot

i did not anticipate crowley smoking out to hop into cas's vessel, is there just no limit to how many angels and/or demons you can stuff in there?

CROWLEY He's really got his hooks in you. Snap out of it. Do you know what's happening out there? The Winchesters have trapped the abomination so that you can expel him so that they can put him back in the Cage... CASTIEL Well, that doesn't sound like a very good idea.

his frustrated flailing made me laugh enough to make a gif

CASTIEL Wait. That was Dean I saw a minute ago, wasn't it? CROWLEY Yes. CASTIEL And he wants me to expel Lucifer? CROWLEY Yes! CASTIEL [laughing] Well... he may have a more objective view of the situation. Maybe I should.

cas appears to be zooted out of his mind

SAM Listen, um... I know I came down on the side of wanting Cas to deal with Amara, so... DEAN Well, that's what he wanted, though, right? Besides, didn't we say that we were gonna swear off getting in the way when one person makes a choice the other doesn't agree with? SAM Yeah, um... Yeah, we did say that. DEAN So... SAM Okay. So, that's our policy. DEAN Which sounds damn good. Well, let's go find that idiot and bring him home.

okie dokie pokie. i'm still not buying what they're selling but even i can't resist the emotional power of "bring him home" from dean.

i dunno where they're going with all this but it's a struggle for me to stay with the mainplot shenanigans. also i'm very tired

[silent-partner-412]

forever going to disagree with the narrative of “me! had to be the lead single for lover and not cruel summer cuz taylor needed a hard reset after the reputation era and no other song could do that better” no. no no no. all of this feels like swiftie cope to me and here’s why.

1. first of all, even if we agree with the premise that cruel summer sounds like a reputation song (which it kinda does, it’s basically getaway car 2.0) and wouldn’t be an effective enough heel turn for taylor, nobody would even notice if the promotion and music video for it were sunshine and rainbows and super colorful and bright. taylor is usually a master marketer, she easily could’ve made good visuals that fit lover as an album for cruel summer if it were the lead, and literally nobody would be the wiser cuz the song kicks so much ass.

2. if we assume that the lead for lover HAS to have a distinctly different sound from reputation, then use i think he knows! or paper rings! i think both of these songs sound distinctly lover to me, they’re both super upbeat and bright and fun, they’re both fucking great, and they easily could’ve pulled off the heel turn better than me! ever could. hell, even you need to calm down would’ve worked better as a lead if you ask me.

3. disregarding all of this, time has proven everybody right, and in present day cruel summer is a bigger and more iconic song than me! ever was and ever will be. this is statistically true and also culturally true. nobody cares about me! in 2023 except pop nerds scratching their heads about how such a terrible choice for a single was made by taylor fucking swift, and swifties who defend everything taylor ever does.

like come on people. let’s all just admit taylor fucked up during this era. she fucked up! and that’s ok. she’s bigger than ever now, and lover the album is still performing shockingly well in terms of sales. as bad of a song as me! is, and as confusing as the rollout of lover was, it also doesn’t really matter that much anymore and this whole argument should be put to rest.

[couldntbedamned]

The Phoenix Protocol - Chapter 1

Summary: No one else but Tony thought anything was off about Sharon. Investigating on his own, he discovered and brought down her Skrull impersonator and when he found the real Sharon near death, he made a choice that would change both of their lives.

AO3 Tags/Warnings: Alternate Universe - Canon Divergence, Extremis, Extremis Tony Stark, Extremis Sharon Carter, Skrull Species, A Skrull Impersonates Sharon Carter, Canon-Typical Violence, Recreational Drug Use, Non-Consensual Body Modification, Childhood Memories, Team Cap Critical, SHIELD Critical, BAMF Sharon Carter, Sharon Carter Deserves the World, Tony Stark Has a Heart, more or less canon compliant up until civil war

Author's Note: Look. This is supposed to be just a few bits of a premise I had where Tony saves Sharon with Extremis. But if you've read my writing, you know that sometimes no matter what I plan, things just happen. So.

-----

Chapter 1

-----

Tony noticed it before anyone else.

Sharon wasn't actually Sharon.

He didn't know her well, of course, but between her committing some light treason to help Rogers and her return for a pardon during which he'd actually testified in her favor citing an inspired argument that she was actually upholding her oath as a CIA agent to defend the Constitution, there was a difference somehow. Something just seemed... off. He couldn't explain it, but it niggled at him.

Tony Stark didn't like when things niggled at him.

Later, Sharon would have the thought that no one who knew her realizing she was being impersonated was a sad indictment of her life. And she knew she'd never quite forgive those who hadn't noticed.

But Tony had noticed.

No one believed him.

That didn't stop him, but some backup would have been nice.

The underground bunker the real Sharon was being kept in was harder to breach than Tony was used to, but FRIDAY got him through.

He set a nanite disk on a terminal to gather any and all information on the network. No sense in wasting the opportunity, he figured.

Sharon was in rough shape.

Scratch that. Sharon was in terrible shape.

FRIDAY's scan and resulting report was grim. Along with an alarming number of cuts and abrasions that were barely starting to heal, she had a host of bones that had been broken and were healing incorrectly. It looked like anything that could have been biopsied, had been biopsied. Her vitamin levels were dangerously low and he didn't need FRIDAY to tell him what the crackling noise in her chest was.

Her situation isn't good Boss. She's not going to make it to the nearest hospital; she won't survive transport.

Tony's mind raced. There had to be something he could do! Then it came to him.

"Dispatch one of the quinjets to this location and the other Mark L." He tapped the arc reactor and told the nanites to retreat into the housing. Pushing up the pitiful excuse for a shirt she wore, he took the arc reactor and set it between Sharon's breasts.

Boss?

"Initiate Phoenix Protocol," he ordered.

I'm not sure that's wise.

"Of course, it's not wiseI!" He snapped. "But right now it's the best chance she has. Initiate Phoenix Protocol, now."

Heaven help him.

He watched, intent, as the nanites in the arc reactor pierced Sharon's skin and injected the perfected Extremis he always carried around in case of emergency.

He'd damned her.

It had once saved his own life and he knew personally that even if the Extremis saved her life... he'd just damned her.

Her skin radiated fire and he made sure to steady her as she convulsed and stilled, bones resetting correctly and abrasions healing. FRIDAY's scans showed that the places biopsied were regenerating and the infection in her chest was burning away.

Boss, the quinjet and Mark L have arrived. The quinjet is landing just outside the entrance and the Mark L is on its way to your location.

"Good. Let me know when Sharon's stable enough for transport."

Another hour and FRIDAY said their little phoenix should be stable enough. In the armor again, intel-collecting nanite disk reabsorbed, Tony carefully carried her to the quinjet and made sure she was secured to the emergency medical table onboard. He had the quinjet take them back to the Tower and ignored all messages coming from the other Avengers.

He wasn't in the mood to talk to them; they'd brushed him off and said he was crazy. They hadn't been concerned that one of their allies could be trapped somewhere and in danger. They'd been wrong, and Tony had been right. And if Sharon pulled through and survived Extremis, he'd never let them live it down.

She was sure she was dead.

She knew her injuries and knew that the Skrull impersonating her was damn good. She wasn't long for the world but with that knowledge came a certain amount of peace. She was so tired of hurting.

Then she heard the familiar sound of a firefight and while she wanted to get up and fight herself, she couldn't. Her body was too injured, too weak.

Then everything was a faded blur until she felt something pierce the skin between her breasts and fire pouring into her body.

"You have to stay calm," a voice told her. "You have to regulate."

She didn't think she could. She just wasn't strong enough, not good enough.

She was nothing.

"C'mon Babygirl, you can do this."

Antoine? Antoine! She didn't know how, but Tripp was here!

"I don't think I can, Tripp. It burns! I feel like I'm on fire inside and out!"

"And if there is anyone I trust to walk through fire and come out on top it's you, Sharon."

"Yeah, this is nothing other than another campfire where you sat too close just because I said you wouldn't be able to handle the heat."

A man with strawberry blond hair and a shit-eating grin was next to Tripp.

"And I'd told you that of course, I could. Dugan you're such an ass."

"You've always proved us wrong, Share-Bear. Now you have to prove us right. If you're strong enough, that is."

"Babygirl, you can do this. You just gotta stay calm and let this Extremis do it's thing. You're stronger than any of us."

Maybe she was. Maybe not. But she had to try. She could make it through. She would make it through.

Everything around her was still hazy and she thought she heard a voice just like back in that bunker.

"FRIDAY, what's it looking like?"

She's regulating, Boss. Current projected time of Extremis completion is five hours.

"Come on, Sharon. Just hang in there and I promise I will do whatever it takes to make this up to you."

Twenty-seven hours after he'd had FRIDAY start, Sharon Carter finished regulating and like the namesake of the protocol, rose from the ashes.

-----

[animechristi]

Tower of God: Symptoms of Loneliness

I place this at the service of Christ by the hands of His mother.

“It is not good that the man should be alone” - Genesis 2:18

First, disclaimers:

1.)    As of 2022, Tower of God is an unfinished webcomic written by S.I.U., so I cannot comment on the series as a finished whole.

2.)    That said, I really like ToG. I think the MC is a great example of someone growing in virtue and the author does a great job at creating a diverse cast of characters. If the art style turns you away, I suggest you hold out since it gets way better over time. Alternatively, you can watch the anime which is a good adaptation with a great OST by Kevin Penkin.

3.)    I want to talk about loneliness, but that is a wide category, so this will have to be limited to a specific type as I’ll clarify later on.

Second, here’s the plot:

            The premise of ToG is simple. There’s a tower. Climb it. Get to the top, and your dreams will come true. Simple, right? Yes and no. The issue is this: you climb each level - known as a “floor” of the tower - by passing a test, a test where there is always a winner and loser. Thus, it very quickly becomes every man for himself.

Our story begins with Bam a young boy who lives in an underground cave. One day a girl named Rachel stumbles across this cave, and the two becomes friends. But Rachel wants to climb The Tower and tells Bam to forget about her. Our infatuated boy is not to be put down and so quickly chases her up the tower.

Third, what I want to talk about:

          My focus this article is a conversation between Bam and Endorsi a girl who is living only for herself. Endorsi has no problem stepping over people to get what she wants. She grew up in a family that encouraged the strong and neglected the weak. Bam on the other hand, had no one with him in the cave and so treasures anyone he meets.

            At one point, the climbers need to get 10 signatures of “friends” they’ve made. Endorsi has set herself up as an independent climber and so she has no one to reach out to for such a task. At the same time, she finds herself out of money and so Bam buys her lunch each day in order to get her signature. Later she asks Bam why he wasted the money just to get her signature. His answer? “I hate being lonely, so I don’t want others to be lonely either.”

            Endorsi, however, doesn’t immediately say “thank you”. Instead, she tries to defend her isolation. “I like being alone,” she says, “It feels worse to be with someone. They bother you… and make you nervous, so it’s better to be alone.” But Bam turns this argument upside-down. “But doesn’t that also mean… you’re lonely?”

            His point is this: for some of us, the dislike of people is not a cause but a symptom of loneliness. And Bam proves this by his next question: “Is that how you feel with me?” To which Endorsi replies: “No.” The point is that, by realizing there are people she enjoys being with, Endorsi now understands loneliness isn’t being with people we dislike but being away from people we do like. If you’ve ever sought refuge in a friend at an event where you don’t know anyone else, I think you’ll know what I mean.

Okay, so what’s the point Mr. “Christian Commentator”

            Recall the verse at the top of this page. “It is not good that the man should be alone.” As Christians, we believe that from the beginning of our existence we are called to live in a community. This is why family is not just a social but a natural structure. Despite whatever you may read from Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, we never find man simply alone in a state of nature.

            We are not meant to be alone – no matter how much we convince ourselves that it’s good for us. Even the early monastic movement was aware of this with solitary hermits being the exception not the norm. You don’t take on the solitary life to be independent but to realize just how dependent you are on God. It makes us grow in humility by knowing we don’t have everything under control.

So now here’s the point.

        To move away is also to move towards. In recognizing that it is not good to be alone, we know what it is we should be looking for: building community with others. Big surprise, a recurring theme in Tower of God is whether it’s better to dominate others or work together with others to obtain your goal.

            As I mentioned at the beginning, loneliness is a broad category, so I’d like to look at a specific type of loneliness, one that makes us dislike people. Just like Endorsi – when there’s no one around us that we’re comfortable with – we can easily turn to ourselves to accomplish everything. Afterall, wouldn’t asking for help be a sign of weakness? And here pay attention to the lies of the devil: wouldn’t they think I’m stupid? Do they only help me to feel good about themselves?  Wouldn’t I be in their debt or be putting myself under them?

            All of these are ways the devil gets us to close ourselves off to others and put us in a state that is not good for us to be in. To borrow words from Classroom of the Elite, we mistake isolation for independence. We forget that God has said “Behold how good and pleasing it is when brothers dwell together” (Ps 133:1).

So what are we to do?

Talk is nice, but this is pointless if I don’t offer practical advice. I’d like to preface this by saying these aren’t magical cures, but simply things that I’ve reaped much benefit from.

Frequently invoke the name of Jesus. E.g. “Jesus Christ have mercy on me” or whatever form you find helpful and can be prayed repeatedly while you’re working. This reminds us that we can’t do anything without Him.

If you don’t have a devotion to a particular saint or your guardian angel, get one. Doesn’t matter who; start making friends with those we look forward to spending eternal life with. Just like with Jesus, talk to them about anything that’s happening.

(And this is the one I struggle with most) Put in effort to know more about people, it will help you love them. Spend time learning about their likes, dislikes, and family, and most importantly don’t be afraid to share your own life with them. (Endorsi wouldn’t have realized her scenario if she hadn’t talked with Bam about it)

As I said, this is not a cure-all. But it is a place to start. When we find ourselves hating the company of others, let’s stop and ask ourselves why. If it’s because we think we don’t need anyone, then that’s the first sign we’ve gone too far.

 

I could go on but will stop for now. Perhaps this topic can be revisited from a different perspective.

St Justin Martyr, pray for us.

[seacharms]

Fighting back against the bully

Could you make, Namjoon ff when your daughter is bullied a lot at school but one day she punches the girl who bullied her really hard and her nose starts bleeding, that's why you both were asked to meet the principal otherwise your daughter will be suspended but then your daughter tells you both and the principle about the bullying and Joon starts scolding the principle? etc. (PLSSSS DO THIS ONE>>>>>IVE BEEN UR FAN FOREVER!! … I PURPLE U❤🤞)

~Sure :)~

Recently you both noticed your daughter coming home from school late, she said that she had been studying with her friends in the library but you knew that it wasn't true. One day he walked into her room while she was doing her 'make up' (basically she was covering the harm marks on her face). "Honey come for dinner!" Namjoon said happily as he bust open her room door. "DAD GET OUT! THIS IS THE 4TH TIME THAT YOU'VE CALLED ME!! I KNOW THAT I HAVE TO COME FOR DINNER!!!!!" she screamed at him, making him flinch. He thought that she just needed some space, he left her room disappointed. The next day......

~Time skip~

(Y/D/N's POV)

"Hey, loser! did you really think running to the classroom where our teacher was sitting would save you?! You are so wrong *evil laugh*" said the bully, she dragged me to the bathroom and punched me really hard on my stomach and chest then she tied my hands with something then she took a water bucket and she poured it all on me, and made me drink something forcefully, she then slapped me and continuously started jabbing my back. I HAD ENOUGH!! I punched her on her nose and slammed her on the wash basin which made her entire face bleed, then I took some water and splashed it on her face the same way she did to me. Suddenly a teacher entered the bathroom and saw that stupid girl's face bleeding and both of us were soaked. The next thing you know is that we both were in the head office and my parents were called, she just kept ranting about me to the principal and making it look like it was all MY fault. I felt like I should've stabbed her with a knife. The principal sent her home, but I WAS STILL STUCK IN THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE!! My parents reached school and my dad looked ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS, I got really scared cuz, I have never in my life seen him THIS ANGRY!

(Y/D/N POV ends)

Namjoon was furious! you tried to calm him down so that he doesn't lose his temper in front of the principal. "So the reason I called you both here is to discuss Y/D/N's behavior toward other students for example she was caught beating a student up miserably in the washroom. That girl's face was utterly bleeding nonstop, she was sent home because the injury was severe. We suspect her of hardcore bullying toward colleagues, classmates, and teachers. Therefore we will have to expel her from this school permanently." The principal said as he gave an annoyed look to you. Your daughter just broke down and started justifying herself, "THAT GIRL DRAGGED ME INTO THE WASHROOM AND STARTED HARMING ME, STABBING MY LEG, BACK AND EVEN PUNCHING MY LIVER, ABDOMEN, STOMACH, AND CHEST!! SHE MADE ME DRINK SOMETHING HORRIBLE AND SHE EVEN TIED MY HANDS... I SOMEHOW FREED MY HANDS AND DID ALL OF THAT IN SELF - DEFENCE BUT NOBODY WAS THERE TO HEAR ME SCREAM WHEN I WAS GETTING HARMED BY THAT DEVIL!! ONLY WHEN I HIT HER BACK, A TEACHER WALKED IN!!!". Namjoon was more than surprised and angry but the moment your daughter lifted her shirt a little bit to show the blackish blueish purple marks, Namjoon lost it! "DO YOU NEED MORE EVIDENCE?! MY DAUGHTER IS BULLIED EVERY SINGLE DAY AND THIS SCHOOL DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PROTECT HER BUT THE MOMENT SHE TRIES TO DEFEND HERSELF, YOU EXPEL HER!!" You didn't want to keep quiet so even you joined the argument, "WE DON'T NEED SUCH A SCHOOL, BEFORE YOU CAN EXPEL HER, WE WILL REMOVE HER FROM THIS SCHOOL... YOU CAN'T EVEN PROTECT YOUR STUDENTS!!" after saying this you three left the premises of the school and your daughter just collapsed on the ground and started crying from pain and regret and she started to blame herself for making you guys come to the office and fight with the principal. "Sweety, remember that we will forever support you and you are never alone until we both are alive," You said as you wiped her tears and lifted her from the ground. Namjoon's face softened and he pulled you both into a huge family hug.

THE END!!

~Hope y'all enjoyed reading! I know that this is longer than the Jimin ff but the request for this one was more deep and specific so I could write more. Please make sure to ask in a very descriptive way while sending your requests. (I hope I don't sound rude).

[kitschykitchen]

🍽️Hot and Fresh Review🍽️

Ideal Snacks for While You’re Watching: A bottle of red wine, beef bulgogi with rice, kimchi, and mandu.

Main Ingredients:

A down-on-her-luck Korean-American trying to make it in New York's Wall Street.

Her meek and timid rich bestie who's married to a grade-A asshole.

A slew of love interests and paramours that range from a match made in heaven to Satan incarnate

This is not an easy novel to categorize by genre. In some ways, it mirrors a romance novel. In most ways, it's literary fiction. And at times it comes off as a TV drama with its meet-cutes and frequent dire situations. Min Jin Lee manages to dip her toes into so many different spaces and weave a complex narrative. Free Food for Millionaires follows the story of a Korean-American immigrant family. We have the rebellious and prideful older daughter, Casey Han, her dutiful and obedient younger sister, Tina, her submissive and evangelical mother, Leah, and her stoic and reserved father, Joseph. After Casey is kicked out by her father during an argument, our story progresses with her struggling to survive in the late 90s and trying to avoid the handouts constantly at her disposal.

We mostly follow Casey's perspective but the novel occasionally switches to the perspectives of the ensemble cast. One thing I appreciate about Lee's writing style is her ability to enter each character's mind no matter how brief. Despite our tendency to assume that we as individuals are the "main characters" and everyone else around us are just "NPCs," Lee negates this by giving us glimpses into the lives of the random people with whom the protagonists interact. Suddenly, we're not just privy to the thoughts of the Han clan and their friends, but even the doorman at someone's apartment or the saleswoman selling someone her wedding dress.

While reading Free Food for Millionaires, committing to reading every day was hard. This was one of the longest books I read with a whopping 600+ pages. I'm sure to any seasoned reading vet, that sounds like child's play, but considering I was juggling a new job at the time, 600+ pages felt like eons of reading. Needless to say, I've finished it now and my thoughts have changed slightly.

A lot of my animosity came from the book's length, making certain sections feel drawn out. I was reading it sporadically, which meant opening the book after days of distance only to find myself in the same situation. Casey struggles to make ends meet and has to rely on the kindness of others despite her intense pride. However, that pride forbids her from taking help immediately, so we're left with pages of her denying help despite her increasing need for it. Constantly being introduced to this problem felt tedious to me. How long was Casey going to suffer? When would I be able to read about the highs of her life?

After a while, I had to ask myself why I was so hostile towards this book. That's when I realized the entire premise felt too familiar to my current life. I'm a recent graduate living in my childhood bedroom. My family constantly complains about money--from the price of groceries to the inability to move any time soon despite the depleting neighborhood. I couldn't find a job for months and when I finally did, I got paid low wages that couldn't be used because I had so many bills to catch up on. Reading this book wasn't allowing the escapism that most anticipate from reading. Instead, I was constantly reminded of stark reality. I was angered by Casey's pride, yet possessed the same stubbornness. Despite my situation, my family constantly offers to pay for me and buy me niceties. And I'll cry, scream, and protest until my throat goes hoarse if it means protecting that sense of self-preservation.

Free Food for Millionaires teaches us that pride does not protect you from the slings and arrows of life. Community is the only way that we can defend against daily woes. Lee exemplifies this realization in the latter half of the book after Leah suffers a miscarriage caused by a sexual assault. While in the hospital recovering, the women of Leah's church choir come together to sing for her. This scene nearly made me tear up, reminding me of the importance of ties to others. Currently, politically and economically, we can start to shut down and become more selfish as a form of protection. We feel we lack autonomy and thus turn inward to focus solely on the self. But Min Jin Lee says selfishness and pride won't save you. When you see Casey denying help from her rich and wealthy friends, you feel frustrated because she keeps herself in poverty. Then, you must ask yourself why you do the same thing? Why do you deny the help offered to you? Why do you keep yourself trapped in your misery when solutions are being offered?

Ultimately, Free Food for Millionaires gives me many complex feelings. While it might not be the perfect book for me, I implore people to read it regardless. Use the novel as a starting point on your journey to being more kind to yourself.

Michelin Stars: 3.75/5 (⭐⭐⭐)