#and people around me seem to think that because they don't see prejudices means they don't exist/they're not common

[bloomingbluebell]

would REALLY love for people to not start rambling about politics and then get surprised/upset/disappointed when i walk out after a certain point

i'm tired of having to correct people and STILL getting shut down

[jam-n-jay]

Because of the whole ~situation~ I've been seeing a large uptick in transfem support/positivity posts and don't get me wrong I appreciate it but I think it needs to be said

If you actually want to support trans women YOU NEED TO COMMIT TO THEM.

The harassment, violence, and censorship we face is constant, it is not relegated to isolated incidents extreme enough to be broadcast to the wider public. Every time something drastic like this happens people will show up, offer their support and condolences, but in the intermediary just go back to perpetuating the very transmisogyny that led to this in the first place. That's why the events of today have been utterly unsurprising for any trans woman who's been even the teensiest bit plugged into the general 'discourse' that just so happens to follow us wherever we go. Again I feel the need to repeat:

THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT

This is the result of a pattern of persecution that is not limited to just outright transphobes and TERFs. It is one that YOU, YES YOU, are capable of perpetuating. In all likelihood, you HAVE spread or contributed to it in some form or another. So LISTEN TO TRANS WOMEN. Vet call-out posts targeting us, be wary of spontaneous hate mobs against us. Acknowledge the reality of transmisogyny and don't be afraid to face your own culpability in it. TME people, stop getting irrationally upset at TMA/TME terminology. It is meant to be used specifically in the context of discussions around transmisogyny. It's not the axis around which all trans-ness rotates, there are grey areas, and it doesn't function well as a general label like trans man/trans woman or AMAB/AFAB because that was never meant to be it's purpose in the first place. It's a tool to assist in the discussion of a prejudice nothing more.

Do not just listen to transfems when our voices are at their loudest. Even when things seem quieter you have to KEEP LISTENING. If you can't do that, all your current words of support and solidarity will mean jack shit in the long run, and that's when it matters most.

[ixzotica]

NOT-SO-SMALL RANT ABOUT THE SHIFTING COMMUNITY this has been pissing me off for some time now so i'm going to yap about it and if you don't agree w/ me, feel free to block me! also please note that this is just a general rant and isn't targeted at any specific individual(s) because i've been seeing this on here and in other shifting communities.

this is going to be the laaaast time i talk about this because i don't want to be know for complaining all the time anymore LMAOAO! anyways allow me to start by saying this. if what someone's doing in regards to shifting isn't harmful, bigoted, racially insensitive, or truly problematic and it doesn't affect you, stop being an annoying piece of shit and judging people for what they do with the realities they shift to ESPECIALLY if you can't handle/don't like it being done to you. you do not get to judge and dictate what people do in their lives, who they shift for, why they shift, what wording they use in terms of shifting, nothing.

YOU DON'T GET A SAY IN THE HARMLESS SHIT SOMEONE ELSE DOES IN THEIR LIFE JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

and yes i get that there's certain stuff that's just based off of morality and culture and history, i'm not talking about that because i too am personally very sensitive about that stuff for reasons of my own. i'm talking about some of you who judge shifters for wanting to shift to have consensual sex with legal adults as a legal adult in that reality. or some of you who judge people for having multiple partners because you just can't seem to wrap your head around it or simply choose to be ignorant. or some of you who even judge people because they script that they get attention and that they're smart and pretty. because think about it.

what does any of that have to do with you?

you act like YOU'RE gonna be the one living their life when you're not. many of you judge people for shit and you don't even know how they perceive it yet you're too close-minded to even think outside of your own head and consider their thought process. many of you seem to forget that you are shaming someone's entire lives for miniscule shit. like these are their LIVES. and not to mention, many of you claim that "don't mean to judge" but just because you say that you're not judging doesn't mean that you're not being judgmental. the shit you say can still be offensive or demotivating or just straight up bigoted/prejudice to the people you're talking about when you could've just kept it to yourself.

imagine if a straight person came online and said that they didn't like when queer people spoke about their queer experiences/partners/whatever because it made them uncomfortable and they couldn't relate but "they aren't judging, they just don't agree with it?" you see how fucked that sounds? well you probably don't because you're doing the exact same thing just in a different community about different shit, all of which ain't got nothing to do with you.

how would you feel if someone on this app started bashing you for who you shift for and saying that shifting for this person was so stupid and going into detail about how fucking lame you are? you wouldn't like it right? because that's your partner and you love them, right? so why the fuck do you think you can do that to other people? seriously, it's starting to get very fucking ridiculous.

please just think before you start judging people for harmless shit because they might turn around and do the same shit to you or call you out for not minding your own business and now you're all offended and getting flamed for being an asshole. and if you truly just need to talk shit about someone's life, maybe get some friends who share your values and talk privately instead of putting everything on the internet. now go shift! <3

SINCERELY, A Serial Yapper with A Lot To Say

[leonawriter]

Okay apparently I'm going to do a study on this introduction, because going back to it? Especially knowing more about Hakuba via more recent Magic Kaito chapters? Fascinating stuff.

So. Hakuba's introducing himself, and he starts out by bringing up "My father spoke of you often" and "It seems you're a very sharp detective." Both of those are positive!

Hakuba is... high society, compared to Hattori simply hanging out around high ranking people and treating them like normal. Hattori argues with Kazuha in a very down to earth way, while Hakuba knows how to drink tea and probably how to set the table with a full set of cutlery (or at least how to use them).

So, Hakuba using their fathers to introduce himself is, to him, a normal enough way to say "I've heard good things about you, we're similar, I hope we can get along well."

What's more - Shinichi realises that, pretty quickly. Even if they hadn't met previously, he'd have been able to figure out by the words being used, that Saguru's father knows Heiji's father, or that they're in the same business.

If anything, I'd say that this slight culture clash is the second step of things going wrong between Hattori and Hakuba here, right after Hakuba being present at all, since Hattori had wanted Shinichi to take his rightful place where Hakuba is currently sitting.

Strike one, strike two.

Unfortunately, it gets worse from there, and I'm gonna go into it.

But then Hakuba brings up that he's not even fully based in Japan. To which, mostly Hattori is just "wait, what?" - but although I'm sure he means it simply to be as clear as possible, that could also be read as "I would say that, but I'm actually better." As in, being smug.

Strike three.

Still with "Kudo is the high school detective of the east, that's obvious, isn't it?" and rubbing salt into the insult to Hattori's bro with "they'd have liked me to represent the east in his place" but...

Oh boy.

This... this is also where I just stared and held my head in my hands because now? Because of something Hattori's said, and what he's going to continue saying/leaning into... we need to go back in time.

All the way back in Hakuba Saguru's first appearance, the papers say "just returned from London," suggesting (as I've seen someone say before) that he'd spent at least some, if not much, of his youth in Japan.

Certainly, he doesn't seem to speak with an accent in the present day, so he can't have grown up in the UK and only sometimes lived in Japan.

In Japan, however, he is referred to as...

In Nakamori's (uncouth) words at their first meeting, "Y-you're that bastard from London!"

No mention of how he has a fully Japanese name, partially Japanese features, a Japanese father, and no accent.

His introductory splash also frames him with the Union Jack behind him, showing off his Holmes cosplay and light hair. Almost all the major characters in the series have blue eyes, but here it's rather... plainly emphasising his Western features. His non-Japanese-ness.

Now, I do have to wonder if Gosho wrote that back in 1990 and hadn't given much thought to it. I certainly don't think it was intentionally cruel.

However, by volume 40, released in 2003, he's learned a bit more about social prejudice, and shows this with the Professor's First Love story:

This shows something that happened 40 years ago in-universe, with a girl of Japanese-American descent who has light, gingko colour hair, being very aware of how different she is, and not wanting her friend to see. She calls her hair "weird" and starts to cry.

Coming back to the present - content released in 2006 - let me go back to Hakuba Saguru.

Hattori "That's obvious, isn't it? And yer not even from this country to begin with."

Oh, Hattori. Only the previous case had you seeing how words can be as sharp as knives, and can hurt people.

Saguru doesn't seem too bothered at first, however...

First off, he points out that it isn't even his fault he's "taken Kudo's place" in the first place!

They contacted his housekeeper, who he's been shown to be very close with (I'd hazard a guess to say that, having not seen his mother at all, or seen her mentioned, Baaya is closer to him than his parents are), and when she heard that her charge would only be taking someone else's place since they weren't there, she got offended on his behalf.

Saguru, who loves this woman like she's literally his nanny, could hardly say no at that point.

More to the point: how he says "But it appears I am unfit to represent the East..."

So now we have Hattori having come in wanting his best friend to be represented and not sidelined just because of circumstances out of his control, and being in a bad mood immediately because of someone else having been called in. He also possibly inflates the number of cases he worked on or solved, by including childhood adventures, leading Saguru to point out that his count is only low if you only count the ones in one country. Saguru attempts to make friends with him regardless, and that doesn't work because Hattori is still stuck on how Saguru is "taking Kudo's place" and then focuses in on how Saguru "isn't even from this country" which... starts leaning into the uncomfortable territory of "Hattori I love you to pieces but are you being racist/xenophobic right now?"

I say that in the context of how Japan has a really big problem with seeing anyone who isn't fully Japanese as Not Japanese Enough, as I went into earlier. I don't think he's aware how he's coming across, by the way; he's simply got a big case of foot-in-mouth.

So now instead of having come to this conclusion organically and naturally, Saguru is offering to take the place of "Guest Participant from Overseas" to placate Hattori.

I'd imagine he won't be wanting to tell Baaya about that, for sure.

Saguru goes on to suggest that Conan (i.e, Shinichi himself) should represent the East instead.

I reiterate: they could well have come to this conclusion over a friendly conversation, because of how they have five detectives. But instead now Saguru has ceded his position to (as far as he knows) a child. A very clever child, but a child nonetheless.

The next time we're back at the island with Hattori and the others, he's already decided he doesn't like "that smug guy."

As said before, there are plenty of things that Hattori could have picked up on that'd suggest Saguru "looked down on people" and "had a prideful way of thinking" and he certainly could appear smug in his achievements.

Hattori himself says that Saguru was "was like a copy of [Kudo]." But he has decided he doesn't like Hakuba, therefore he won't like Hakuba.

A moment of Saguru bonding with Natsuki over their natural brown hair, a shared trait - we can see him smiling after saying "But... there aren't any tv cameras yet, so you could do what you want for tonight?"

In a way I feel like I'm making too much of a big deal out of this one thing, but I'm not the one bringing attention to it - Gosho is. Gosho's the one who reminds us that kids get into trouble for their natural brown hair, and Saguru got that too.

Those who've read Magic Kaito will know that he DOES have a Japanese school uniform - but as we saw at the start of the post, when he arrived, he arrived from his school in London.

This further emphasises how he's set apart from the others.

(An aside: it's entirely possible that his "school abroad" is more likely him going to sixth form, since our Secondary schools last (or did for me) up to the age of 16, and depending on the time of year he may have transferred over to the new school year already. Or he's just finishing his last year of Secondary. We don't know.)

Honestly... I'm going to leave this at that for now, because for one thing the post got away from me a bit, and became longer than I expected, and for another thing, I've covered the majority of the first meeting and both of them getting off on the wrong foot.

In short:

Hattori arrived with an idea of slipping Shinichi into the event, and was offended and upset when someone was already in his place. He, being the loyal friend he is, wasn't willing to simply let it lie.

Instead of backing down and accepting the situation and make friends with the new detective - who Shinichi knew and was acting friendly with, and who was willing to befriend him - he let his bad mood get the better of him and made offensive remarks of his own, most of which to the others would seem entirely unwarranted.

Because of that, Hattori still has a bad opinion of Saguru, and Saguru's opinion of Hattori has gone from "my father's spoken of you [positively]" to "rude asshole."

Neither of them are innocent, but when you look at them individually and fairly, neither of them are the only one in the wrong, either.

Like... no wonder they don't get along from here on? Wow.

I did not expect there to be so much in it, but there we go.

[fernsnailz]

take this ask as a free ticket to freely hate on elemental (WE SUPPORT THE HATER GRIND WOOO)

ok so to preface. i have only seen elemental once. it was in theaters. i did NOT pay money to see it (my friend worked at the theater and we got in for free). we also saw it in 3D (would not recommend). i chugged a canned margarita beforehand (WOULD NOT RECOMMEND). i sobered up halfway through the movie and had a terrible time. needless to say i am not a fan of elemental (2023)

below is an edited version of the review/rant i sent to the group chat afterwards. BE WARNED IT'S REALLY LONG.

much later edit: personally i think i did a very bad job of critiquing this movie in this ask, and some of the opinions i expressed below are some pretty bad faith takes. i still think this movie is worthy of criticism, but not in this form and not from a guy who chugged a margarita before seeing it.

ok so the big point of discussion with elemental i've seen is usually around the allegory it uses to portray its themes of race, immigration, and prejudice. generally speaking, it's my opinion that trying to portray concepts of this weight and depth with an allegory or metaphor is already a terrible idea*. this isn't stuff that you can make simpler to understand by portraying minorities as fire people or predator animals or whatever great new idea disney is cooking up next, because this isn't stuff that can just be MADE simpler. if anything, allegory makes discussion about race more complicated because you have to explore why racism and prejudice, an inherently illogical belief, exists within said allegorical world. usually said fictional explanation just seems to justify prejudice - for example, the allegory in zootopia is straight up DANGEROUS to compare to real world racism because predators, aka zootopia's minorities, literally used to hunt and eat prey animals (the majority). with this in mind, elemental is already off to a bad start since disney has a bad history with allegories of this kind.

(*EDIT: this is gonna eat me alive if i don't clarify this because i realized too late that i spoke WAY too generally here. to clarify, i'm mostly talking about creating an entire allegorical world that lacks humans here - allegory can be a very powerful way to portray a human experience, and i don't want it to seem like i'm arguing that allegory and metaphor can't be used at all to create a powerful story about race and prejudice. for example, here's a short film that i really like called OverWeight. it's about losing one's culture and identity, and that theme is explored entirely through a bag of luggage. and it's really good! just want to clarify that i'm not advocating for only extreme realism and a lack of magic here, but instead against using huge, non-human allegorical worlds that replace these human experiences. thx bye)

thankfully, elemental never got as bad a zootopia in its portrayal of prejudice (at least in my opinion), but that's not saying much. it mostly just feels kinda confused - as far as i know, fire people are supposed to serve as a sort of "immigrant everyman" allegory which is. not how that works. immigrants of different races and ethnicities are going to have different struggles and experiences, and trying to boil everything down into four different elements that fit every kind of person under an allegorical umbrella is over complicating everything again through a veil of simplicity. it's almost like all of this would be fixed if they just told a story about real human people instead of turning them into water and fire people but i mean WHAT DO I FUCKING KNOW!!!!

oh also the worldbuilding of elemental is. kinda ass. to further explain: fire people are the only immigrant characters really explored in depth, and a good amount of the worldbuilding around them is actually pretty interesting. they have their own language that the characters speak every now and then, they have their own foods, customs, and culture that you can definitely tell a decent amount of thought was put into. which i liked! and then you learn that the country they come from is literally called Fire Land. just Fire Land. i doubled over when they said that because compared to everything else, it’s so out of left field and just. GAHH. it really reeks of "exec in the disney board room wanted to make part of the movie about prejudice easier to understand for The Kiddies" and i hate it. god.

this is consistent throughout the film, a lot of genuinely interesting worldbuilding is intermingled with surface level, bottom of the barrel ideas that just feel. so confusing. like a big theme the movie centers around is gentrification and how the city (called “Element City,” by the way (SCREAMS)) is not built with fire people in mind. i like this concept a lot and they show this in some interesting ways! a main conflict centers about how water is flooding ember's home, and there are multiple moments where high-action scenes are revolved around ember just navigating the city and trying to avoid water, something that most of the city’s residents wouldn’t have issue with. i thought that was really good! it was something that, surprisingly, was very relatable! and then the movie goes full zootopia and just like. has one of the characters call the fire girl a slur (the slur was “fireball”) which, reasonably makes ember mad, but then the character that did the slurring faces NO narrative repercussions for her actions because. ???????????????? i don't know??? you would think that a movie that turns issues of class and race into a fun cutesy little allegory would at least take the time to go "hey kids! let's not call minorities slurs" but instead the Slur Woman ends up helping ember and wade on their shitty little romantic sidequest and never once seems to express any remorse. cool! great!!!! WHO'S IDEA WAS THIS???????

by the way who fucking wrote this who put all these element puns in here. there are so many element puns in the movie i want to eat the writers of elemental. i’m mostly made of carbon but i do not walk around like “wow what a long workday we have fellow coworkers, i guess we have to CARBON diem, amirite?” please kill me

the varying quality in the worldbuilding and allegory of elemental just goes to show that this movie would have likely worked better if it focused on humans on earth rather than elements residing in a confusing elemental world - previous pixar works like bao and turning red show that pixar movies that focus on real experiences told from a human perspective with a magical realism twist can work really well! the allegory of elemental makes its characters and experiences feel distant, i spent more time trying to understand the world of the movie than the characters and their struggle. that could be a me problem, but the world was so goddamn broken in the first place that i felt like i COULDN’T focus on anything else. idk can we just tell like actual stories about actual marginalized people without turning them into The Trope of the Week i’m so tired

and by the way. i do not like the character designs in this movie one bit. ember looks like if you asked a middle schooler to design a fire woman. "ohhhhh we're pixar and we have to give all of our woman characters a pencil thin waist and big feminine eyes and skinny little legs" i want to explode.

ok we're getting into just batshit insane rant territory here now. so with that in mind I FUCKING HATE WADE. from the moment he appeared on that screen i knew i had it out for that motherfucker. the first thing he does is start crying over a situation that HE CAN SOLVE. he’s a city inspector that gets caught in the flood overtaking ember’s home, and the FIRST thing he does is start writing up violations he sees in the basement of ember’s family home. and then. he has the audacity to CRY ABOUT IT because it’s sooooooo tragic that her dad’s shop is going to be shut down because of HIM. the movie frames the water people as overly emotional because they cry alot (because they’re made out of water, of course!!! isn't that so funny!!!!!!!), but wade’s actions make it clear that those tears are FAKE because he does NOTHING to help ember in the first scene they meet. then, only after ember explains to him that there’s LITERALLY NO OTHER WAY her family can survive if the shop is shut down, does wade agree to help her out. kill me

oh btw wade being very emotional and crying a lot is NOT a bad thing and imo most modern stories need more emotional male characters. but. elemental treats wade's crying mostly as a running gag more than anything. which just kinda doubles around to being misogynistic again

wade continues to be a fucking nuisance to my psyche, even after leaving that theater. i did not enjoy the romance between ember and wade because i hated 50% of that duo. ember was ok i liked her enough bUT I WANTED TO KILL WADE. they try to spin him like “ohhhhh hes a little bit clumsy and goofy and a little bit dorky ahah don’t you like him?” as if that doesn’t describe most of the male love interests in every movie released after 1990. the two sit on a beach where ember is on the verge of a meltdown because they haven’t been able to save her dad’s shop, and one of the things wade says to comfort her is “i think you’re beautiful like this tho uwu” HUH????????? who tf is trying to make moves while someone is having an anxiety attack i SWEAR to god. i want to use wade as bong water i hate him so much

and then. ember gives him some glass that she sculpted to look like a flower she likes. it’s a nice sculpture. later in the movie, wade is like “hey ember i have something for you” and then just. gives her the sculpture back. and they treat it like he gave her a gift of his own like bro SHE gave that to YOU WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

the one act wade does for ember before the big climax revolves around taking her to see some underwater flowers - it’s a nice sequence, but it’s not a gift that’s exclusively from him. they have to get the cloud lady that called ember a slur to help make an underwater bubble to contain ember. fucking. come ONNNNN

wade dies in the climax of the movie. straight up he evaporates from heat and they’re like “awww he’s gone :(“ and they manage to bring him back but i really wish he stayed dead. would have been worth it if he died. but no. there's so. many weird little things in this movie that make my blood run a little too hot. can the genre of kindergarten racism movies please stop here. i am begging i can't do this again please

completely forgot to mention this at the beginning: my friends and i refer to elemental as "The Movie of All Time" because the concept of "element people" or general element-based characters is such a common story trope within young animators and storytellers (at least in our experiences). the number of pitches we've seen about "this character is made of water/has water abilities and this one's made of fire/has fire abilities and they need to find a way to work together/it's a love story!!!" is uncountable. we could not believe this movie was a real pixar production when it was first announced we thought it was a joke

in conclusion. i wish i had another canned margarita halfway through elemental. might have been bearable that way

[drdemonprince]

I read your newsletter about "transmisandry" today. I'm a trans man and I generally agree with what you said. However, I was wondering how you would classify a particular experience of mine and other trans men I know irl or have seen online.

In short, I find that in some queer spaces, masculine and/or "binary" (meaning, not non-binary) trans men are treated as outsiders and enemies. I imagine some straight-passing queer cis men experience similar.

This prejudice against masculinity has nothing to do with us being trans, and is in no way oppressive, but it seems to me that some people have a hatred/disgust/discomfort/etc. with masculine men, especially if we are proud of our manhood. I sometimes feel excluded in queer or progressive spaces, and like I have to change myself to fit into others' idea of "acceptable" manhood.

I think this tends to emotionally affect trans men in particular because being a man is generally hard-won and joyful for us. Have you experienced prejudice in queer spaces, especially trans spaces, for being transmasculine? And while I don't believe there exists systemic misandry, is this not a form of misandry, just interpersonal?

Thanks, I really appreciate your work.

Hi there, thank you for great question. What you are describing is certainly a very real and troubling dynamic within both queer and feminist spaces, and it's put me off for a very long time. I have sometimes referred to this as "playful 'misandry' feminism", always with "misandry" in quotes because, as we've already established, it's not a real locus of systemic oppression. I have also sometimes in the past likened it to "Men's Tears Coffee Mug" feminism in its performative, self-congratulatory, typically white feminist stance.*

*in the Koa Beck sense of the term. Someone who is not white can be a white feminist.

I was always put off by performative man-hating jokes and the exclusion of men within feminist spaces because, well, I was one, and because it nearly always played out in transmisogynistic ways that were transparent to me, and because I was a major ride-or-die for men who were victims of sexual violence yet were frequently excluded from survivors' spaces (again, because I was one, even before I realized that I was).

There are a lot of troubling effects that happen when feminist women make a big performance out of finding all men to be disgusting and evil and frequently express disinterest in men's feelings or suffering (which used to be way more common in my estimation, around the early 2010's or so it seemed to peak). I was driven away from feminist spaces as a young closeted trans man because I could see such spaces were not for me or for any of the other men that I cared about and needed support. On the inverse side of things, I have spoken to many trans men who said that "playful "misandry"" feminism actively made it harder for them to realize that they were guys. Men were seen as the enemy and inherently evil and destructive and so they felt absolutely disgusting about the possibility of being a man, or feared transitioning would get them seen as a betrayer of the feminist movement.

As you rightly note, it is not just trans guys who get excluded by such dynamics. Cis men who are genuinely avowed feminists can be driven away by such forces, which is especially upsetting in the case of sexual assault survivors and queer men. Trans women and TMA enbies are excluded from feminist and women's spaces because they supposedly "look like" men to these types, and their own feelings of superficial safety rank above the actual data on who is the most at risk structurally (which is trans women). Butches are regarded in some spaces as too aggressive or unacceptably masculine because of it. And people's analysis of gender oppression just overall sucks when they buy into "playful misandry" style feminism because they go around saying shit like "femme people are oppressed by masc folks." what the hell does that mean. Does a cis, gender conforming feminine woman have less structural power than a butch lesbian? I don't think so.

It seems to me that the big problem here is that "playful misandry" feminism is rooted in a deep deep misunderstanding of the structural nature of oppression. Sexism isn't caused by patriarchy and capitalism, it's caused by "men" and so hating men and excluding them is what will fix things. Men as individuals are responsible for sexism and so women should be as detached from them and unsupportive of them as possible. This logic leads to a TERFy place really quickly, and yes, it also really really damages trans men.

My opinion is that it's best to critique this problem as the political failure that it is: a misunderstanding of sexism as individualistic rather than systemic. That's the core issue from which all the problems flow -- from rampant transmisogyny to the exclusion of cis male sexual assault survivors to the feelings of alienation of trans men. Yes sometimes naming the performative nature of "man hating" jokes and the like is helpful because people recognize instantly what that dynamic is when they hear it. But the "misandry" itself is not the core problem -- it's the shitty gender politics and white feminism.

Does that make sense? To be clear, I think it's something trans men get to talk about. I talk about it from my positionality quite a lot really. I don't think "misandry" is ultimately the helpful or clarifying way to name it, but I will sometimes throw around that term with a TON of qualifiers if I'm discussing the specific interpersonal dynamic of women saying that men are evil rapists innately or whatever. But really discussing the broader gender politics failure that leads to those little shitty comments and looks is almost always more helpful. If trans guys and cis guys are feeling excluded from a space due to these dynamics it's almost always the case that trans women, TMA enbies, butch women, and lots of women of color are too.

[whinlatter]

That brings up an interesting point. Since you seen to be a canon girlie, do you think/feel that Hermione DOES become Minister?

What do you make of Harry being Head of Magical Law Enforcement?

thank you for this question anon! i do think it's very plausible hermione becomes minister of magic. i think it's equally plausible that harry becomes head of magical law enforcement. mostly because, well:

basically: i think both characters' career trajectories are in keeping with the politics of the series as a whole - eg. the goodies are all liberal, pro-state, non-revolutionary moderates who support a gradualist reformist agenda rather than a radical re-imagining of societal organisation. i also think both career options track with who each character is in canon (or rather, who the teenage versions of these characters might become as adults). and i think most of the reasons people are disappointed by either idea, and especially by harry coming 'a cop' then rising up the ranks to run law enforcement, is because they are putting their own more radical ambitions around social justice onto characters that would be poor vehicles for them.

on hermione - i don't know how many people have huge issue with the idea of hermione as minister of magic. i imagine the complaints with this idea come from people who a) like hermione and think hermione's politics as a teenager - identifying systemic injustice and labour exploitation of a subject people - jar with the idea of her settling within a political system that upholds and enforces that structure and others like it, or b) people don't like hermione as much and who think she would be too unpopular to get elected. to the former group, i'd trot out the arguments made far better than people other than me: that hermione's support for the house elves mostly boils down to a bit of a saviour complex and 'be nicer to your slaves', which is not especially radical position, and also point out the ministry's institutional culture seems to reward high-achieving technocrats with establishment credentials (or at least, prior records of academic and professional achievement), and i could see hermione riding that train straight to the top, especially on wave of post-war reformism with diminishing anti-muggleborn prejudice. (the wizarding world also loves a good (and bad) law and is extremely vigilant in enforcing them to a fault. hermione jean granger absolutely loves a rule. it's a match-made in heaven. it is - i fear - giving keir starmer).

to the second point, as i talked a bit about here, the wizarding world does not seem to be a democracy. so hermione wouldn't even need to be especially popular to get the top job. i personally love the idea of hermione quietly parking her commitments to representative democracy to get a bit of good labour legislation passed, or even thinking about wizarding democracy in victorian terms (as long as you're representing what you think the enlightened citizenry want, you're gucci). i mean honestly, what do the masses know! ignore em, queen. they're all kind of pureblood racists anyway!

on harry: i have a feeling it's harry's trajectory that most pisses people off. and i absolutely get it! people hate cops, and harry appears to become one, after spending a lot of the series raging against how shit senior leadership at the ministry of magic tend to be. while i do see the argument that teenage harry has strong criticisms of the ministry for its officials' self-interest, corruption and lack of accountability for their many miscarriages of justice, the truth is that a) harry never really associates being an auror with representing the ministry of magic as an institution, that b) he thinks of lots of characters who work in and around the ministry of magic, including in law enforcement, as agents of good (arthur weasley, kingsley, tonks, mad-eye, amelia bones) and c) harry at no point shows himself interested in thinking about ideology, about political systems, or about a more developed worldview beyond a deep sense of right and wrong and a need for justice. i think harry would like being head of magical law enforcement much less than hermione would like being minister, and i could see him finding the job enormously frustrating both for how much politicking it likely requires and for how little field action it would require. but i don't think that means it's out of character for him to rise up the ranks in pursuit of a more effective justice system and eventually take the top job as a means to an end.

the only other thing i'll say is that i do think there is something a bit culturally specific about imagining these two characters we think of as morally good actors taking up roles within the state to try to work for what they feel to be positive reform and progressive causes. the state appears quite neutrally in the hp series: it's a tool to be picked up and used to affect political change. this reflects its author's worldview, the political moment in which it was written (eg. under blair's new labour), and a longstanding dimension of real-life centre-left social democratic british politics usually expressed, at various times and to varying extents, by the political programme of the labour party throughout its history (to say nothing of a wider european context). it's not an inherently problematic political worldview (it is a core social democratic and socialist principle; it is also my own view of the state...), though ofc it can become so in the wrong hands. for instance, it's a consistent through-line in jkr's political evolution and a staple of her practically single-issue dangerous anti-trans politics even now - terf politics is a lot about wielding the state to remove legal protections from trans people, stop them from accessing health care etc. but the idea of the big state and of laws and government as a positive interventionist tool does colour hp as a text in lots of ways and is reflected in the worldview of many of its characters with which the reader is supposed to side. and i don't think we should overlook that.

conversely, hp is also a series devoid of political movements, and certainly of a meaningful far-left ideology or political sphere. and that's important to remember too if we're interested in canon coherence: hp is a liberal text in that it seemed plausible for its author to vacate a great deal of politics from her world-building. and i think that is, regretfully, worth remembering when we're claiming hermione should have been a trade union agitator or harry should have been an acab abolitionist organiser or whatever.

[brainrockets]

Some of the Suvi critics out there are... something. I mean, I get it if you don't enjoy media because of unpleasantness. I very definitely avoided Succession because it squicked me deeply.

So if Suvi squicks ya out. Like sure fine. But some of the interpretations of Suvi being irredeemable or 'not showing signs' that she might be 'redeemable' are just weird? To me?

I mean. I also was raised in one of the cristofascist American evangelical death cults and had to deprogram and unlearn a lot in my 20s and have done a lot of work to be in a healthy space now so... maybe I just have sympathy for being 20 and just suddenly seeing cracks appear in the way you understand yourself and the world around you?

One thing people seem real perturbed by is Suvi's behavior towards Ame (and Ame's seeming lack of correction of that behavior).

And I think there are a few things at play here.

1. Suvi was raised in a highly ordered hierarchy as a soldier from early childhood.

2. Ame is a witch of the heart and has been handling all manner of village nonsense and nonsense people for years.

3. Suvi has not had ANY sort of psychological safety or release since maybe the Cottage. She is more afraid of Steel than Orima.

4. Ame is worried about Suvi. Worried about the way she killed without trouble. The way she's not allowed herself to express feelings for the most part other than anger.

5. When you have a lot of feelings and no safe way to let them out. They still come out. Usually inappropriately. Often paradoxically they get vented on people you feel safe with. Not to say that's acceptable or good but it is pretty normal?

6. Paradoxically, while Ame is safe to be mad at, perhaps subconsciously, Suvi also views Ame as a threat. And she's not wrong. Ame is a huge threat to her. Ame threatens to upend everything that Suvi believes about herself, about magic, about her world. She also plays by different rules and has actively exposed Suvi to risk by divulging things Suvi wanted to keep private. (Not with malice but definitely flagrantly flouting basic rules because she doesn't know they exist.) She also is a threat to the defenses Suvi has built around herself in the wake of her parents' deaths. The way that she has used the notion of the Citadel's correctness as a shield against the pain of loss.

7. I think Ame has dealt with wounded animals and wounded people fairly regularly in her role as apprentice. I think that Ame knows that wounded creatures snap at someone even if they are trying to help. Snapping back at her isn't maybe the move right now. And she has expressed dissent, she's not leaving her nonsense totally alone. She's just carefully cutting away little pieces of net and tutting at her raging and getting a little closer each time. And when Suvi finally lets herself cry instead of rage, Ame reacts with the same patient care she'd use with an injured animal.

8. Also, i do think people are missing Suvi's actions behind her words. Particularly vis a vis redeemable qualities. She does talk mad shit and she says some truly terrible things. But her actions are in conflict with her words. She abandoned her training and her responsibility to help Ame break her curse. He outfitted her friends from the armory and rented out a whole floor of an inn just to be kind. She's kept silent on Honored Friends the entire time she's been at the Citadel. Steel told her to stay and wait but she ran after Ame anyways. She was making a lot of threats but now that Eursulon has promised to free the Great Spirit her only issue with helping do it is that Steel might kill her first. She is ready to throw down for her friends with extreme prejudice.

She's at a crossroads. I find it very hopeful. But like again, I relate pretty heavily to being young and afraid and angry as the world opens up before you and everything you thought you knew is wrong and harming people. Knowing there's a chasm and on one side is your family and your community and on the other side is the unknown and your friends.

[mywitchyblog]

@shiftmaxxer

masterlist

In response to your post:

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. It’s refreshing to engage in a counter-argument and have meaningful discussions that don’t devolve into insults or death threats. This kind of respectful dialogue is what allows for growth and understanding, even when we don’t see eye to eye.

Part 1: Clarifying Intent and Addressing Misrepresentation

First and foremost, it seems there may have been some misunderstandings regarding the purpose of my original post and the intentions behind it. I understand that you’re critiquing my previous rant, which I admit was written in a heated moment. In hindsight, I recognize that I should have taken the time to calm down before writing, as it might have conveyed my thoughts more clearly and without the emotional charge.

You mentioned, and I quote: "Calling other people of color 'pathetic' for what I believe to be perfectly understandable reactions to race-changing is reductive." I want to clarify that this was not my intention at all. The individuals I labeled as "pathetic" were those who, unlike you, resort to insults and threats, using logical fallacies as their only arguments—arguments that aren’t even valid to begin with.

The only other instance where I used the word "pathetic" in that post was in reference to certain white individuals who oppose race-changing without providing proper arguments. Here’s the passage in question: "As a person of color, this issue is especially relevant to me, yet the opposition I see frequently comes from individuals who don’t share my lived experiences—often white people who have no stake in the matter, telling me what I should or shouldn’t do. They’ll throw around terms like 'DNI,' 'I don't wanna argue with you,' 'if you support race-changing, block me,' or brand me as a bad person without engaging in any meaningful dialogue. It proves that they are cowards, pathetic, and that their claims hold no weight and reek of insecurity."

This quote is crucial because it explains why I referred to these individuals as insecure and pathetic: they immediately resort to name-calling without providing proper explanations. The "bad person" I referenced is someone who attacks me with labels like "racist" or even "pedophile"—terms that have nothing to do with the actual debate at hand. This is an example of a Strawman Fallacy because it misrepresents my argument by suggesting I called all POC "pathetic," which wasn’t the case. My criticism was aimed specifically at those who rely on insults and threats rather than valid arguments.

Part 2: Addressing Claims of Hostility and Spite

You also pointed out that I "completely dismiss any opposing arguments, calling it 'close-minded.'" Yes, I agree—logical fallacies and insults are indeed close-minded arguments. The only counter-argument I had is the one I mentioned earlier; feel free to check it out. So yes, I called it close-minded because that’s exactly what it is. Furthermore, accusing me of writing with ChatGPT is an Ad Hominem Fallacy, which targets my character rather than engaging with the substance of my arguments.

Regarding your statement: "You've stated yourself that you argue in a way to 'spite' people who oppose your opinion." Let me clarify—spite plays a dual role in my approach. On one hand, I genuinely want to uplift and educate people, sharing knowledge and perspectives that can help others grow and expand their understanding. On the other hand, there’s a part of me that’s driven by a desire to challenge and provoke—to make people think harder and question the status quo. Sometimes, that means making people uncomfortable or challenging their deeply held beliefs, especially when those beliefs are rooted in ignorance or prejudice. It’s about making them confront their biases to the point where their limited thinking is forced to evolve—or at the very least, be exposed.

And yes, I will not budge on the point that ad hominem attacks, threats, and insults are not acceptable forms of argumentation. They don’t contribute to meaningful discourse, and they certainly don’t challenge or strengthen any position.

You mentioned that my tone "is hostile and full of what I see as 'conversation enders' (you argue in a way that shuts down discourse rather than encourages it)." I apologize if my tone came across that way; it was not intended to be hostile. In the future, I’ll make an effort to use better disclaimers and perhaps even include tone tags to ensure that my intent is clear. My aim was never to shut down conversation but to challenge the status quo and encourage intelligent debate, free of ad hominem attacks—much like the approach you’ve taken in your response.

Part 3: Hypocrisy and Nuance in Race-Changing Discussions

You also raised the point that I’m "hypocritical for disregarding the value of people's hurt and frustrations and calling it a desire to be 'empathetic.'" This is not the case. In my essay, I acknowledged that there’s a fine line between empathy and the potential for fetishization, romanticization, and even racism if not handled carefully. For example, I specifically stated that "race-changing in reality shifting can serve as a unique and valuable tool for promoting intercultural understanding, challenging racial prejudices, and fostering a more empathetic and inclusive society" when done thoughtfully and ethically (Essay, Part I). If I were truly disregarding these concerns, I wouldn’t have included the parts of my essay where I emphasized the importance of treading lightly and being considerate.

Initially, I planned to argue that race-changing was entirely okay and not disrespectful at all. However, as I continued writing, I recognized the need to include those critical nuances—because nothing in this world is black and white. Consequently, I changed the direction of my essay to reflect this, and I quote myself: "By maintaining this careful balance, race-changing in reality shifting can serve as a unique and valuable tool for promoting intercultural understanding, challenging racial prejudices, and fostering a more empathetic and inclusive society. As with any powerful tool, its value lies not in the practice itself, but in how we choose to use it."

Originally, I might have said something like "Race-changing is okay and a good thing," but instead, I concluded, "Race-changing can be a good thing, but we need to be careful not to be disrespectful, as we have a duty and responsibility."

Part 4: Loaded Questions and Hasty Generalizations

You asked: "You would rather shift to be another race to 'understand' a race than engage with their media, their lived, documented experiences, or talk to others about their experiences? Are others' experiences meaningless to you unless you physically ARE them? If you lack that amount of empathy that you have to become another race, I don't think empathy was ever in the cards for you." I’m not sure if you’re addressing me directly here, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

As for me, I never stated or implied that in my previous posts. Moreover, asserting that race-changers shift to another race because the experiences of POC are meaningless to them, ergo they never had any empathy to begin with, is a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Additionally, the framing of the question is a Loaded Question Fallacy because it presumes a lot about my intentions without evidence, and frames the question in a way that makes any answer seem incriminating. It's an unfair setup.

In my essay, I made it clear that "shifting allows for experiencing life through different perspectives which can be enlightening as fuck" (Essay, Part I). The goal is not to dismiss or undermine anyone’s experiences but to gain a deeper understanding through direct experience in another reality, which is a legitimate and complex method of exploring identity and empathy.

Part 5: The Complexity of Reality Shifting and Allegory in Fiction

You also wrote: "For people from the racial identities being appropriated, witnessing individuals casually adopt and discard their race can be distressing. It can feel as though their experiences and struggles are being reduced to mere fantasy elements rather than being respected and understood. This disregard can contribute to feelings of marginalization and invalidate the real-life challenges faced by those of different races."

I completely agree with you that this can be distressing, and I cannot invalidate your feelings—you are entitled to them. However, I must disagree with the notion that race-changing "invalidates the real-life challenges" faced by those of different races, simply because in the context of reality shifting, the line between "real" and "fake" life blurs. If you meant "OR," then I retract my disagreement.

However, to suggest that some race-changers do this with the intention of causing this effect on POC is reductive. As a POC myself, if someone were to tell me they shifted to a reality where they are the same race as I am and then shared their experiences of discrimination, I would feel a sense of joy that they finally understand my pain—rather than dismissing it in this reality with statements like "Oh, come on, you’re exaggerating," or "It’s not so bad after all." Like, why don’t you walk in my shoes before saying that? Oh wait, they did, and now they get it.

You stated: "Being black and being a 'werewolf' aren't comparable in any version of reality. To trivialize a lived experience of an inconceivable number of people (because remember, this is the multiverse) is extremely bold." I have never trivialized or reduced the pain of other POC or marginalized communities. I merely pointed out that they share some similarities in that they are perceived as monstrous, discriminated against, and persecuted. The difference, of course, is that one is considered fictional in this reality, and the other is not.

It is you who is being bold by claiming they have nothing in common. Consider that some writers create fictional races as allegories for what marginalized communities face in our world. A prime example is the Na’vi from Avatar. James Cameron, the director of Avatar, explicitly stated: "Avatar very pointedly made reference to the colonial period in the Americas, with all its conflict and bloodshed between the military aggressors from Europe and the indigenous peoples. Europe equals Earth. The Native Americans are the Na'vi. It's not meant to be subtle."

In this context, someone shifting to be a Na’vi could be seen as analogous to race-changing to be a Native American, only with a superficial, fantastical layer added on top—a "pink bow" if you will. While the Na’vi might be fictional, their creation is deeply rooted in the real experiences and histories of Native Americans, particularly their suffering at the hands of colonial forces. The narratives of exploitation, resistance, and survival embodied by the Na’vi are direct reflections of those faced by Indigenous peoples.

Thus, shifting to become a Na’vi in a desired reality is not just adopting a fictional identity but engaging with the complex and painful history that the Na’vi represent. Whether or not the person shifting acknowledges this connection, the allegory remains. The act of shifting to a race that is explicitly crafted as a stand-in for a real marginalized group comes with inherent implications, making it far more than a mere fantasy element.

Therefore, equating the Na'vi with werewolves, and dismissing the deeper connections between these fictional and real marginalized groups, misses the point entirely. The comparison trivializes the intent behind these allegories, reducing complex social and historical narratives to mere fantasy. It's not bold to recognize these connections—it's simply understanding the truth of how fiction often reflects reality.

Part 6: Logical Fallacies and the Nature of Empathy

Regarding your statement: "Discrediting one's lived experiences (ergo, attacking their credibility) is not just questioning the validity of their personal story; it's denying the nuanced realities that intertwine us as people. If you can do that so easily, how can you become better and more understanding from rcta alone?" If I were discrediting my fellow POC’s experiences, I wouldn’t have brought a nuanced perspective to the subject. I acknowledged that it’s a topic that requires careful handling and that it’s not black and white, even though I tried to simplify it but couldn’t.

However, your assertion that "It won’t fix or better your empathy because you already lack it from the way you react to those who don’t agree with the practice" is an Ad Hominem Fallacy. You’re attacking my character without providing evidence to support your claim that I lack empathy.

In my essay, I discussed how "morals and ethics are not universal constants but are shaped by cultural, temporal, and situational factors" (Essay, Part I). This underscores the importance of understanding that empathy and moral considerations can vary greatly depending on the context and the reality in which they are applied.

Part 7: Nuanced Perspectives and False Dichotomy

Finally, I want to emphasize that it’s okay to feel offended by those who race-change. I won’t dictate your feelings—you are entitled to them. But you also need to acknowledge that not everything is black and white; not everyone who engages in race-changing does so to invalidate or trivialize the lives and experiences of other people of color.

You said: "But refusing to be accountable for the real reasons you race change (and why at least 50% of us shift) is disingenuous." If I were truly being disingenuous, as you claim, why would I have written in my essay that the issue is nuanced? By acknowledging the fact that we must tread lightly and be careful, I’ve already implicitly stated that those people exist. If I didn’t acknowledge that fact, I wouldn’t have discussed it at all.

You also mentioned: "There is no morality play. People don’t shift races to 'grow' or just because they're 'curious'. You make such an (understandably) loaded and controversial topic more innocent and sweet than it is." Let me stop you right there. I do not make a controversial topic more innocent and sweet than it is—I made it more nuanced.

Stating that race-changing is inherently bad is a False Dichotomy Fallacy; it reduces the topic to two simplistic notions when there are other perspectives. I acknowledge that some POC may be offended by it. But they must also acknowledge that not everyone who engages in race-changing does so to trivialize their experiences—quite the opposite.

How many POC (myself included) have been so sick and tired of having people dismiss our pain, wanting them to understand instead of diminishing it? I can’t recall the number of times I wanted those people to walk a mile in my shoes just to see what it feels like. And with shifting, they can.

Part 8: Conclusion and Invitation for Further Discussion

You concluded with: "It makes you someone who can't and won't make room for those who feel invalidated by those who race-change frivolously." So, what do you propose we should do? I specifically said in my post that we shouldn’t be frivolous about it—that we have a responsibility and a duty when engaging in such practices. And yes, I admit that saying "DNI," or "block me if you support race-changing," may have been too much, but when those same people are the ones who insult and threaten me, I cannot be blamed for making such assumptions about them.

To conclude, I really enjoyed your respectful perspective on the subject. However, stating that people who race-change immediately do it for disrespectful reasons is simply wrong. You should understand that nothing in Reality Shifting is purely good or bad, black or white; it is a spectrum of gray.

I’m also quite curious to hear your stance on bi/multiracial shifters who choose to change or "suppress" one of their races.

Ergo i have to refute those arguments, it was delightful to debate with you.

I wish you good luck and success in your shifting journey

Kind regards,

Luno

[polarisbibliotheque]

Hii!! so i just want to say first that i love love the way you write dmc fanfics. The way you just understand them, makes all their action seem like something they'd do. And well, if it doesn't bother you, may I ask a few advices on how to write Vergil, young and current? I'm trying to write a story and I think your input would be very helpful since you're probably the most accurate Vergil writer there is. Thank you andI just want to say that your fics helped me out a lot mentally. Thank you for bringing the characters to life 🫶

You just left me floored, loved to death, giggling like a 7 year old in public, and I thank you wholeheartedly for that 🖤🖤

First of all, thank you SO much for your words - and wow, I am absurdly flattered that you think so highly of me as a writer, really! I mean, I'm just writing my crazy shenanigans here, I don't expect much hahahaha words like yours make my day and, honestly, you made my whole week!

I am SO happy what I write helped you mentally. I do write to help myself in that regard too, and seeing I was able to have an impact on someone else, it makes everything worth it. That's what Dante would have wanted :')

Asking me for advice doesn't bother me AT ALL! Feel free to ask anytime you want it - by all means I see myself as someone so good as to give advice, but I've gained some experience and it's always good to share! Maybe I'll say something that makes sense to you!

So, without further ado, a few advices on writing Vergil - young and current - down the cut 'cause I haven't written it yet, but knowing myself, I know it's gonna be big :)

(spoiler: it's huge *puts on fool hat and jingles away*)

I sprinkled some things here and there about Dante and Vergil on this blog, but I think it'll be nice putting it all together in one place!

I recently got an ask about which MBTI personality I think it's Dante and Vergil, and there's a LOT on BOTH of their characters in there. You can find it here.

(I won't repeat the things I wrote there, 'cause oh boy this one's got bigger than I expected)

But oh, Verge, this little emotionally constipated goth man *sighs* he's Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice. I'm not even joking.

But all of that aside, I do keep a few things in mind when writing him. I've said before I have many similar personality traits with him and I think it makes it easier for me to write this little bitch (affectionate).

Vergil is pretty much shaped by his trauma. You could argue Dante is as well, but differently from his twin brother, Vergil never really found acceptance. Yes, the twins lived through the same thing but the fact that Eva managed to save Dante and not Vergil is crucial to both characters.

Dante has survivor's guilt and depression from all that happened. He can't keep a deep connection to save his life, 'cause he keeps everyone at bay - he thinks his demonic blood is a curse and he is the reason everyone perishes. So it's best if people keep away from him.

But even with that, Dante loves being around people. It's what makes him so fond of his human part and, in my opinion, it's what made Dante healthier than Vergil. He seeks connection and humanity, he wants to use his strength to protect the weak - like Eva once used hers and sacrificed herself to protect and save him. That is crucial to Dante's character.

Vergil, in the other hand, believed for a LONG time he was left for dead. That his mother chose to save his brother because she loved Dante more and Vergil was left to die. He was left all alone in the cold, in a cemetery filled with demons who slaughtered him in quite a gruesome manner. If he hadn't find the rage, strength and power inside of himself that day, he wouldn't have survived.

Vergil learned he is on his own, his own family didn't love him (even if he was wrong, that's the impression he had for a LONG time) and the only one he could count on was himself. That made him withdraw completely: be wary of people and their intentions, shut himself to the world, allow only strength and power to come through his personality and keep his vulnerabilities and feelings shut down in the darkest and most protected place of himself because if he didn't, that could be his death.

Vergil didn't learn to protect the weak, because he wasn't protected when he was weak. He learned to survive, because when he needed the most, no one was there and his own will was the only thing that could save him. If he had given up, he would've died - no one would come, no knight in shiny armor, no powerful protecting demon, no sacrificing loving human mother.

✨That's why he's an asshole✨

Hahahaha jokes aside, that's why he's so laser focused on power, I think. When he was younger (around DMC 3), he finds Dante again and there's a hatred for his brother because he believed he was left to die and wasn't loved as much as Dante (as always, our red devil being a clueless himbo who just got lucky to be around Eva, poor guy). He wants to prove he is better than Dante, that he was worth something, that he too was worth saving - even more than his brother.

To some extent, up until that moment in DMC 3, Vergil is better than Dante (regarding power). He's got a lot of knowledge and control over his demonic heritage, things Dante didn't even know he could do. But Vergil is so blinded by his hurt and in so much pain he can only deem himself worthy if he beats Dante down, if he wins, if he gets all the power in the world.

I don't think he ever wanted to kill Dante - he just wanted to win. Like a kid, going "see, mom, dad, I win, I'm worth as much as Dante!!" - quite tragic, really.

With his power thing, it's not a desire for power for it's own sake, but as an armor. Given everything that happened to him, that Vergil has this thing of "only I can protect myself and I can count only on myself to save my life", it's very understandable that his logic takes him to the path of "if I am the most powerful being in this world, I will never bleed and I will never hurt again".

So, even if he says on the outside he is power hungry because he wants to honor his demonic heritage and humans are weak, on the inside it's actually that he's trying to carve his heart out from himself so he won't feel nothing and stop hurting - as well as gain all the power he can so NO ONE can make him feel scared, vulnerable, weak and powerless like he did that night when no one appeared to help him.

Vergil hides his pain under a mask of cruelty and hubris - since being honest means being vulnerable to him and that is something he's got a deep aversion to.

Current Verge has dragged himself out of Hell in a crumbling body. If Dante hadn't "killed" him as Nelo Angelo, he probably would've never been free of his shackles with Mundus, but once again he was left for dead (even if not intentionally, I know Dante would have gone through all the layers of Hell to bring his brother back, but VERGIL doesn't know that). Once again, Vergil had to muster all his will, his power, his demonic heritage to drag himself out of that godforsaken place.

He didn't know Nero was his son, he just took Yamato back 'cause he didn't really had time to explain everything that was going on. Vergil was on the brink of death, it's not like he could think logically about everything he was doing and weight pros and cons. He needed to survive. That's what he does.

It's only when he separated his human and demon parts that he came to realize a bunch of things - because Vergil never really had time to do anything else other than surviving; and thinking too much, going over your feelings and past trauma, doesn't do anything good when you're stuck in survival mode (been there, done that).

After he gets both of his parts together and goes back to being Vergil, he knows a lot more than he did before, because V allowed his heart to feel and to process all that pain he didn't allow himself to process before - because if he did, he would probably break, like V himself was falling to pieces.

He knows his mother loved him. He knows it wasn't Dante's fault. He knows it was all a tragedy and no one is to blame - he knows he wasn't left there to die: Eva died trying to get to him. It honestly changes everything he's been thinking for the past 40 (if I'm not wrong...?) years.

That's why he wonders, if he was in Dante's place all those years ago, would that change something? And honestly, it probably would. Because everything Vergil did was from a wound he couldn't bring himself to heal from that fateful night.

Therefore, current Vergil is a lot more accepting to his feelings - but internally only, he won't let it show. He also understands his thing of wanting to surpass Dante wasn't his brother's fault and it's something he has to work on.

Not saying he won't be a little bitch sparring with Dante all the time and keeping score over stupid stuff, because that's EXACTLY how these two function - but now Vergil is fueled by healthy sibling rivalry and fun instead of inferiority complex and pain/hatred.

Vergil's path is a lot similar to Anakin from Star Wars: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to the Dark Side of the Force. If the Jedi Council had understood Anakin's upbringing as a slave, his deep love for his mother - and for all the beings on the Universe, I argue, because he did want to become a Jedi to free all slaves - his overflowing empathy, his deep feelings, his love for Padmé, etc., Anakin wouldn't find himself vulnerable to the grooming of an older man who saw all this and took the opportunity to twist it all to make him feel pain, fear, anger and hate.

If Qui-Gon Jin had trained Anakin he would've never turned to the Dark Side, I will DIE on this hill and fight EVERYONE, even if I love Obi-Wan

Star Wars ramblings aside, that's Vergil in a nutshell. And I think with him older, currently, he can finally see all of that, because he had a chance to be just demonic, as Urizen, and just human, as V - noticing how everything that happened to him shaped him to feel pain, fear, anger and hate, doing desperate things to protect himself and feel safe.

I argue Vergil hasn't felt safe for a single day in his whole lifetime, and that matters. Because in the end, that's how I write him: a wounded stray dog who knows only pain and hatred from the outside world.

If you try to approach him, he'll first bare his teeth, bark and try to bite you - not because he's mean, but because he's stuck in survival mode and that's his first response to ANYTHING. Just like a wounded stray, you have to approach carefully, offer kindness and show him you're not there to hurt him.

And just like a stray dog, he'll eventually melt and accept that kindness - he just has NO IDEA how that feels like.

✨What about Nero's mother, I hear you ask?✨

Hahahaha so that one I have some doubts myself. I often imagine two scenarios and I still haven't chose one of them to satisfy my heart HAHAHAHA

That might be me projecting, of course, but because of ALL THAT, I don't see Vergil as being open to relationships and one night stands - he takes things too seriously, and that's part of his character.

He either decided to try it out empirically with a one night stand with someone who was kind to him and he wanted to understand that kind of experience to understand himself better and out of curiosity (look, I know this sounds crazy, but that's exactly what I did on my first kiss with a super random guy at a party and I was like "oh, well, that's not for me, I'm gonna stick to kissing people I love, this sucks" and it took a weight off my shoulders)

oooooor he was treated with kindness for the first time in his life and that broke him for a while, he melted under a soft touch and gentle words and couldn't resist trying out new experiences he only had by proxy from his books - and when he woke up next morning, he was reminded how broken he is, how powerless, how not worthy of love not even from his own mother, and left because that would lead to nowhere. Because of him. Because he wasn't worth it - she probably fell for his looks, his heritage, his outside, but when she knew his inside she would run in horror.

Again, Vergil has a lot of issues, the poor man.

When I'm writing Nemesis, we have young Vergil - laser focused on power, proud as fuck, stepping over anything and everything to get what he wants, because life favors the ones who survive. The weak ones should die, that's the law of the jungle and he won't waste his time saving those who can't do it for themselves like he did for himself. When he sees the reader struggling to keep fighting him to protect others, he sees not only Eva, but himself in a will of a survivor who will go through excruciating pain to save themselves. He values that and admires that - admiring the reader as an enemy and having utmost respect.

When he's older, he's trying. And he has a LOT to learn - but his partner has to understand he's the stray dog who knows nothing but harshness. Vergil is quiet, methodical and disciplined, knowing how to live only with himself as company. But now he has a family: he has his brother back, he has a son, he has the whole crew to live alongside him. That's new, harrowing and comforting at the same time.

So, when in doubt, think about how a wounded animal would react - and how you would have to act to be able to approach and help.

Vergil, differently from Dante, is forever stuck in survival mode and has forsaken his humanity so he could keep going. As a younger man, he's ruthless and won't spare efforts to get what he wants because he is desperately trying to not feel vulnerable and worthless as he usually feels. As an older man, he's trying - in his own stupid Mr. Darcy way - to recover, to understand himself better and finally heal that horrible wound in his heart.

But of course. He is still proud, observing, regal and prone to overkill here and there and showing off his skills. These are all inherent to his personality.

(Also. Vergil enjoys some dumb fun sometimes - he only lets it show a tiny little bit when competing with Dante over ANYTHING. If Dante says he can eat a cheeseburger in three bites, Vergil will go above and beyond to eat it in two. Everyone thinks he's just being stupidly competitive with Dante and wants to win against his brother no matter what, but that's just his way of being fun)

Phew! That's quite a lot on the blue devil! Hahaha it isn't everything I keep in mind - of course there are the other things like him being reserved, more on the quiet side, intellectual, methodical, a lover of beauty (like literature, philosophy, poems, etc.), stupidly independent... But I think those traits are more "worldwide" known.

If you take all his trauma and how it affected him into consideration, I think, his personality follows easily. You understand a lot better how he would react in certain situations - in the end, that's what being a writer is all about: creating characters and watching how all of them react to situations given their backgrounds and baggage!

I'm so sorry it's such a HUGE answer, but I do hope it helps. There's a lot to unpack and I didn't want to just "oi, he's a traumatized asshole, that's it" - because you miss the nuances if you just work with that perspective.

Thanks a lot for asking, though, I had fun writing this little essay on Vergil, the man, the myth, the legend HAHAHAHAHAHA

Hope you have a nice weekend and have fun writing!! If you need any advice, even on writing in general, you can always ask me again! As you can see, I'm happy to help and I do love sharing what I know xD

[creature-wizard]

The importance of separating belief from practice from economy when criticizing spirituality

I notice that a lot of people who want to criticize harmful expressions of spirituality often conflate the beliefs and practices of those spiritualities together, rather than separating them and asking themselves which one is harmful exactly, and why.

Sometimes, both practice and belief are harmful. For example, going on a highly restrictive detox diet because it will supposedly rid your body of toxins put into regular food by an evil conspiracy. There's no evidence that detox diets actually work as claimed (and if they seem to, it may be that you actually have a food allergy or intolerance, and you feel better because you happen to be cutting out that food for awhile), and they can actually be very harmful. Meanwhile, this sort of conspiratorial worldview has roots in old antisemitic conspiracy theories used to justify violence against Jews in the past, and today, justify queerphobia and ableism by way of suggesting that an evil conspiracy is putting chemicals in our food and water that turn kids gay, transgender, or give them ADHD, autism, or whathveyou.

But other times, it's not quite so simple. For example, let's look at modes of faith healing that hold that you should eschew evidence-based medicine in favor of praying and getting right with God. Meanwhile, studies show that people who rely on faith healing don't exactly have a great recovery rate. Many children have died from treatable diseases because their parents were taught that sickness was a test of faith and God would damn them for seeking conventional medicine. (Can you even imagine how terrified of eternal damnation you'd have to be in order to watch your own child die in agony?)

If we look at most people who believe in prayer, we can see that most of them don't agree with this extreme position. Most people believe in prayer and evidence-based medicine. If anything, prayer gives many people a way to feel like they aren't just sitting around doing nothing while their loved ones are in the hospital, and that itself is arguably beneficial.

Now, if you personally have trauma connected to prayer, or just don't find any meaning or satisfaction in prayer, then it's fine if you don't want to do it. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to tell everyone else that they shouldn't do it. When you do this, you're just using your own personal feelings as a moral compass, and as we know from observing the "thinking about gay sex grosses me out, therefore it's unnatural and against God's will" crowd, that's no way to go.

So how about beliefs and practices used to extort people? For example, energy healing services often come with steep price tags. But let's be real, so does evidence-based medicine in places like the US. This clearly does not mean people should just stop seeking evidence-based medicine. It does means that we drastically need to change the system, so healthcare is more accessible. Additionally, if there's one thing I've learned from researching alternative medicine, it's that practitioners are more likely to actually offer something for patients' complains, rather than telling them that it's all in their heads or that they need to lose weight. This doesn't mean that an exploitative alternative industry should be allowed to exist, of course. But it does mean that we need to understand how prejudice among doctors fuels it. Moreover, I think we can agree that someone who watches energy healing videos on free YouTube after they've done all they can from an evidence-based medicine standpoint, or offers free energy healing sessions to friends who are in the same boat, are not in the same category as scam victims and scammers.

So yeah, when you're out there criticizing harmful forms of spirituality and religion, remember to separate practice from belief from economy and examine each one separately and in terms of how they connect to each other and to larger issues, rather than putting it all on blast together.

[therealvinelle]

I'm sending you and Muffin to jail for making me consider if I'd be much different from Tom if I was in his place.

I started reading The man who would be king and in chapter 7, when Lily gets shown the first two memories of Tom as firstie and starts thinking that she and Tom might be similar, I'm right here with her.

just... had I grown up in an orphanage and then got a visit from Dumbledore and he set my wardrobe on fire?? and continued to watch me distrustfully all the time at school?

and sure, there were supposedly stolen things in the wardrobe and it's definitely possible that Tom just stole things from other kids because he wanted to, but it's equally possible that someone stole Tom's things first and he just returned the favour. to make sure it won't happen to him again.

and I do believe that being mean so that people aren't mean to you is not a good way to live. but sometimes there's people that will leave you alone once you show them that you won't just take it.

I don't really have a way to excuse the rabbit thing, had that really been Tom's doing (this is your [plural] influence, me questioning things like that), except that perhaps he killed it by accident and then since it was already dead, he used it to leave a message. but even that is a stretch.

perhaps I'm being too kind to Tom, but growing up in an orphanage couldn't have been easy. especially before and during the 2nd world war. and it just doesn't seem Dumbledore even gave Tom a chance.

and he's Tom's teacher, obviously in a position of authority over Tom... those school years couldn't have been easy for Tom just from the 'Dumbledore keeps staring at me mistrustfully and blaming everything on me' reason. and Tom can't just switch schools to avoid him. and there were obviously other reasons, like blood purity prejudice.

and I like to think had it been me in Tom's place, I wouldn't have made Deatheaters about it or anything that had likelihood for getting people killed. but who knows, maybe after 7 years of dealing with it, I'd have snapped too, if likely somewhat differently.

...I just might've been less strategic and more petty about it, even in the first year of Hogwarts, perhaps attempting to break into Dumbledore's quarters and setting his clothes on fire, to see how he'd like that when it happens to him (I know Tom's wardrobe wasn't actually set on fire, it only looked like that, but still).

that probably wouldn't endear me-as-Tom to Dumbledore either, lol.

in conclusion, had I been in Tom's situation treated like he is, it would be less lethal to everyone around unless it made me go insane, and I'd probably live a pretty quiet life after graduating, but my school years wouldn't look that much different. perhaps even worse because I wouldn't make many long term plans (or I'd make the plans, but not actually act on them), just made more short term trouble.

and I think that while a lot might've stayed the same, I think there could be some significant differences in the story had Tom's Hogwarts' letter come with a different professor, not giving Dumbly a chance to be told about Tom from Ms. Cole.

Anon is referring to mine and @theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin's fic The Man Who Would Be King.

As for your observations, I get what you mean. Tom Riddle is in many ways a cleverly disguised SI, Muffin and I didn't want to go the route of Automatically Evil, he's just dark like that, Tom Riddle. He has reasons to be the way he is, and capacity to be better.

[saintsenara]

Absolutely no pressure if it really does make you uncomfortable to talk about but I would LOVE to hear about why dramione pisses you off... first and foremost because I'm a card-carrying dramione hater and there's nothing quite as enjoyable as a fellow hater articulating their haterade. Please. I'm handing you the mic. Go to town. (If you want!)

thank you very much for the ask, anon - and it's very sweet of you to ask whether dramione makes me sincerely uncomfortable [it doesn't, and if there's ever a day when i find harry potter shipping preferences that deep i shall face god and walk backwards into hell]. i subscribe to one belief in fandom above all others - that you can write yourself into, and out of, the most nonsensical premises if you are willing to engage with your characters in their full spectrum and if you have enough nerve. which is to say, there is almost certainly dramione out there that i would regard as interesting and well done, which feels coherent as a premise within which to situate both hermione and draco's canon selves, and which does so by being unsparing in how it deals with the whole "he thinks she's literally subhuman" thing...

but the reason i don't like dramione as a pairing is because i've never actually seen it done in a way that actually is interesting.

i'm on the record as a straightforward hater of fanon!hermione - the preternaturally perfect, incandescently beautiful "brightest witch of her age" [lupin means by this - please, i am begging you all to understand - that she's clever for a fourteen-year-old, not that she's some sort of epoch-defining intellect] who makes you wonder if we've all forgotten the early-00s flame wars over mary-sues. i am also on the record as a hater of the classic draco-in-leather-pants version of the other half of our pairing - draco is an insecure, pointy little dickhead whose jokes always flop, and he is so much more fun in this form than he is as the suavest man alive.

and, obviously, dramione is famous for being beholden to these characterisations [something, if i may, which is really letting harmony and snamione off the hook...]. and that is just so boring! even in a setting in which an author doesn't want to deal with the context of blood-supremacist prejudice - and good for them! why not! - i would much rather see fics think interestingly about how mashing draco and hermione's personalities together would actually go. how would he handle her constant need to debate things? how would she handle his fits of crippling jealousy? how would he handle her stubbornness? how would she handle his self-interestedness?

and i think something quite striking could actually come of this... as i've noted elsewhere, draco's narrative mirror is ron, who is obviously a ride-or-die hermione stan, and there is - therefore - a way set out within the arc of canon for thinking about how hermione and draco might interact. it could be a genuinely fantastic piece of enemies-to-lovers fun, but this would involve both hermione and draco's canonical characteristics being thought about [and harry and ron's: the former always seems to come around to dramione really quickly, while the latter is written as a death-eater-adjacent boor who doesn't want the woman who "belongs to him" to be happy], and i'm afraid that the vast, vast majority of dramione writing seems to have no interest in doing this when "just make him suave and her perfect" exists...

but, of course, there is a second major objection which i know many people have to dramione: that he is a member of a terrorist organisation which believes in eradicating people like her, and that he believes wholeheartedly in that organisation's beliefs.

and my feelings about this are more complicated.

because, to be frank, as someone who has - only this week - written harry having a sensual little snog with his parents' murderer, i can't really get up on my high-horse about people shipping the heroes with the villains. and, indeed, i won't - another fandom [and life!] principle i have is that the potential of redemption for everybody is one of the most important things about humanity; that even the most evil people can repent and repent sincerely; and that love is strange and unpredictable.

i do think something interesting could be done with draco having to unlearn literally everything about his life, and with both him and hermione grappling with their personal limits when it came to remorse and forgiveness as they realise that, against all the odds and no matter the heavy weight of the past, they want to make something together. but, once again, the standard move in dramione seems to be a sort of "nooo, he didn't really mean it!" or a "hermione gets over it immediately because he didn't rat them out when the snatchers caught them!" [no - he didn't rat harry out. he doesn't seem to have a problem with hermione getting tortured by bellatrix...] or a "well harry using sectumsempra means i'm over the fact he called me a mudblood" or "uwu he was sixteen". and, once again, i think it's dull!

and this, of course, brings us to the other category of dramione - the one in which she's a dirty little fucktoy for a sadistic pureblood lord. while this is at its worst in other hermione/death eater ships, we've all seen the fics: hermione is given to draco as a forced bride; hermione is given to draco as a sex slave; hermione is given to draco to be degraded etc.

i have no moral objection to people wanting to read and write this stuff, because i'm neither a cop nor a priest. my objection, once again, is that this is dull.

i think there is something really, really interesting which could be done with draco finding himself attracted to hermione despite what he's been raised to believe about her, above all for the way this could be used to play with the gendered dynamic we might expect to find when this trope is used.

discrimination is justified by societies - again and again throughout the course of history - with the claim that it protects women [and men's claim to them]. we can imagine easily that this is the same in the wizarding world because voldemort literally tells us so - in the opening chapter of deathly hallows he explicitly equates tonks' marriage to lupin as the cause of the "rot" in the black family tree, before he goes on to murder charity burbage while accusing her of supporting miscegenation.

what we see less frequently is the idea that men need to be protected from the other - societies are much more amenable to seeing men's behaviour as hypocrisy [and tolerating this] rather than moral corruption, and we can assume in the wizarding world that it would be perfectly acceptable for a pureblood man to have a muggleborn mistress or a half-blood love-child in a way it never would be for a pureblood woman.

so how does draco justify his attraction to hermione to himself? how does he keep her a secret? how does he think of women more generally, if he has a pureblood wife at home and a muggleborn woman he cheats on her with? does he see nothing contradictory about sneaking off into broom cupboards and then strutting into the slytherin common room and telling pansy parkinson that hermione is a digusting mudblood dog?

or, does he get the other side of the coin? do lucius and narcissa think he's being corrupted? is his temptation all-consuming? will he lie about hermione attacking him to save face? will he turn on the tears and place her in unimaginable danger and then feel only the slightest hint of regret?

and i just think that has so much more potential than your standard "draco's sadistic but, more importantly, he's hot" stuff.

because i will read things that are objectively baffling if they are, at least, interesting. dramione nation, i'm begging you... just be interesting.

[666writingcafe]

The Bookstore

Content Warning: anxiety attack x Satan

"I have to say, I really like this bookstore," Satan tells me softly. "It's so quiet and peaceful in here, and they have a really large selection of books."

"I've always been drawn to this one," I reply. "It feels more cozy than a traditional store. Sadly, I've had to limit the amount of time I spend in here, because otherwise I'd go into debt from spending all my money on books."

"Does your employer not pay you enough?" I sigh.

"I mean, I have enough to cover bills and other necessities. I just try to have some money saved up in case of an emergency."

"I see." Satan pauses long enough to clear his throat. "So, um, it's been a while since I've read anything from the human world, and I was wondering if you had any recommendations."

"Define 'a while'." He glances down at the ground, a slight blush developing on his cheeks.

"Shakespeare..." Honestly, that sounds about right. I figured it must have been a few centuries ago.

"Comedy or tragedy?"

"It was a comedy, I think. Much Ado About Nothing? I liked the dynamic between the two main characters. Benedict and Beatrice." Perfect.

"Follow me."

~~~

In the end, we've settled on ten books: The Importance of Being Earnest, Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Great Expectations, The Mysteries of Udolpho, The Castle of Otranto, Frankenstein, Dracula, Interview with the Vampire, and A Clockwork Orange.

There's a lot more that I think Satan would enjoy, but I don't want to overwhelm him. Knowing him, he'll have these ten books finished in a couple of months--and be able to talk intelligently about them.

"Hey, do you remember which way we came from?" Satan asks. "I want to say it was from the right..." He stops mid-sentence. "Wait, no. Maybe it was the left?" He's getting anxious. I can tell.

"Take a deep breath and try to relax," I instruct. "If we stick together, we'll find our way out." He doesn't seem to hear me.

How could he? He's having an attack.

He doesn't allow many people to see him like this, not even his brothers. The only exception is Asmo, although Lucifer does know about them.

It's not like Satan wanted me to witness him in this state, either. I merely stumbled into the situation the first time.

What makes his attacks different than, let's say, a human's, is that his anxiety is quite prone to becoming anger, and considering that he's the literal Avatar of Wrath...

Not even the amount of money Diavolo gave me would be enough to cover a damaged bookstore.

I set my stack of books down before grabbing his from him and putting it next to mine. Then, I gently guide him to sit next to me on the floor.

"Count or touch?" I ask him. Sometimes, he's able to handle external sensations when he's in this state, but other times he doesn't want to be near anything that can even remotely brush up against him.

Silently, he scooches closer to me.

"Are you sure?" He nods his head, and I wrap my arm around him. I don't mind that he's currently not talking. That means that he still has some control over his emotions.

After a few moments, Satan sighs.

"If only I could have you this close all the time," he murmurs. "You have a soothing heartbeat."

[sureokyeahwhatever]

i finished vampire the masquerade bloodlines after chipping away at it for a couple weeks after work. Those first 2/3rds of the game are a genuine masterpiece, but man, that last third gets really, really weird and racist.

The thing is, is that I actually have very little to say about that first 2/3rds. It's just good. The design is great, it's well balanced, it's open ended, it has great characters. It's wonderful. This part of the game feels like a real, worthy successor to Deux Ex. There's just nothing more to say, I think.

...

And that's why I almost have a hard time believing it's written by the same people as the last bit. The whole game up to that point (up to just before chinatown) is pretty darn smartly written with some relatively cogent social commentary. The quality of the missions also takes a really, really steep dive in that section too (lots of run and gun hallways, lots of extremely buggy areas, shitty boss fights, etc. But that's honestly understandable because balancing the endgame of an ImSim is practically impossible). Idk, it feels like a totally different game. I could almost just forgive all of that though, if it weren't for the ungodly and seemingly genuine racism with regards to the east Asian vampires.

Like. Ok. If we're being VERY charitable and we just flatly forgive all of the misguided-though-not-malintentioned 2000s era attempts at humor-via-stereotype (dialogue options referencing "tentacles" directed at a young japanese woman; old chinese guys who are always loud and drunk; jingoistic WWII-surviving japanese soldier; Chinese businessman speaking in riddles and mentioning the I-Ching; so on and so on) the whole handling of the "chinese vampire" storyline is psychotically racist.

You first hear of these guys -- the Kuei-Jin, which I learn from the wiki is a portmanteau of the Mandarin word for ghost and a the Japanese word for person, which... ok. -- as being basically like animals. They slaughter who ever they see, lots of people in the bourgeois faction see them as a nuisance, the people in the anarchist faction see them as "invaders from the east," which already had me like "Jesus fucking Christ, maybe these anarchist guys aren't cool after all". But anyway, you go to Chinatown to talk to them and -- by my estimation -- they were basically the same as everyone else. They're protective of their territory, they're secretive, they're paranoid of outsiders... I mean, yeah, they're fucking vampires and apparently all the other vampires see them as sub-human, so yeah, I'd be paranoid and secretive around me too.

The thing is, is that you have this anarchist friend who you tell everything to -- Jack -- and I wanted to go tell him "hey, I don't think these guys are so bad. Maybe we misjudged them" or something like that. And there was a dialogue option along the lines of that, but when I said it, his response was something to the effect of "don't let them sweet talk you with their 'spiritual path' bullshit. That stuff ain't for /us/". Which, I heard and again, said "ah! Interesting writing decision! We're learning that Jack ALSO has flaws like everyone else! he's not just some perfectly cool, levelheaded badass -- he has unjustified prejudices just like everyone else!" So I continued the story under the assumption that, yes, while the surface level of the whole "Chinese vampire" thing was being handled in a really immature, racist way, and in-universe all the other factions seemed to see them as exactly that -- racist stereotypes of conniving, backstabbing Chinese mafia goons -- this was all setting up an interesting "let's all learn to put our cultural differences aside and defeat those rich assholes who want to rule LA"-style ending. This would not be the case.

There was a moment towards the end that I THOUGHT confirmed my suspicion. You are told by the leader of the bourgeois faction to convince the anarchist faction to ally with them so they can, together, take down the Kuei-Jin. Around this time you also are intercepted by the leader of the Kuei-Jin who straight up warns you "hey, that bourgeois guy set me up. He's about to set you up too. Be careful. I hope we can be friends in the future." So I get this information and go straight to the anarchist faction with the intention to say "Ok, bourgeois guys are obviously doing a power play. Now's the time to join with the Kuei-Jin and take them out. We'll settle our petty differences later." (Side note, yes, I understand they were recently at war, but war happens in these situations. The best way to prevent another war is actively making peace. Not by just constantly threatening to go BACK to war). But no such option was available. Instead, all the options were different variations on "Let's join with the bourgeois faction and kill those Chinese guys!" What? But I don't want to kill those guys! And I don't really trust either of these other factions either because the anarchists are racists and the bourgeois guys are, well, bourgeois guys.

So eventually the "ending-tron 3000" comes up in the form of a conversation with a taxi driver which, as far as ending-trons go, is pretty cute. If you decide to ally with the Kuei-Jin two things happen: one, everyone hates you because it's completely impossible to convince anyone that they are anything other than parasites, and two, they kill you in a cutscene and you die in the ocean, which, all things considered, is probably the worst possible way this whole story line could have been handled. There was an opportunity here to have an exceptionally interesting moment where you bring people together to fight in solidarity against those who seek to concentrate their power over the city and all it's inhabitants. There could have been an ending where you work together with the Kuei-Jin and the anarchists to get rid of the bourgeois faction, render the "anarchist" faction system redundant, and allow LA vampires to establish their own federated society where people can live where and how they please without the iron fist of some Ivory tower pretty boys telling everyone how to live their lives. You could establish a system of vampire democracy across LA, with all the benefits and negatives that it brings. Would LA then be crushed under the heel of the bourgeois faction coming in from other cities? Or would it be able to stand the test of time and serve as an example for other cities to rise up and do the same? There's some interesting stuff here, both politically and for individual characters as perhaps you have to work extra hard to get Jack and the rest of the anarchists to believe that the Kuei-Jin are, despite superficial differences, just vampires like they are and that they all share common interests.

Instead, the game goes hard in the other direction. It calls you an idiot for trusting those eastern invaders and basically says "you should have listened to everyone else when they were mumbling under their breath about how you can't trust those Kuei-Jin as far as you can throw them". i.e., you were an idiot for not being racist enough. Like, I can understand the general theme of "trust no one", since it permeates through the whole game, but to literally introduce a faction of "conniving foreigners" who everyone hates, and then to have that hate be perfectly justified just feels boring, hateful, and honestly like a waste of a third of what was otherwise a great, great game.

Anyway. The game is good. Great, even! It's really hard to make an ImSim, so even though the last third has some rough (ROUGH) design flaws and bugs, I'm happy to look past that. However, it's really easy to not just put Chinese people in your game and make them evil stereotypes that everyone rightfully hates, so that's harder to look past.

I would say the ideal way to experience the game is to marathon the first chapter up to downtown, play less and less frequently from downtown up until the end of hollywood or so, and gradually lose interest around the time that you're asked to go to Chinatown. I think if you did that, you'd end up remembering the game very fondly.

[seriousbrat]

What do you make of Lily’s relationship with Slughorn? Slughorn in the series seems to be seen as a bit of a cringe guy, blatantly collecting celebrities and celebrities in the making. With Lily’s disdain for James and Sirius arrogance and entitledness, wouldn’t it be in line with her personality to not think much of someone like Slughorn either? Although understanding he means well, his attitude towards muggleborn talent reads a bit like a micro aggression - would that not bother fiery and independent-thinking Lily? I’d love to read more meta or fics about these two characters, it’s so funny to me that Harry was always almost hyperfocused on uncovering his dad’s memories and identity, and then in HBP, out of nowhere Slughorn comes alone like “Lily Evans gave me will to live” and Harry doesn’t dig deeper??? I’m also curious wether Slughorn ever also acknowledged Snape’s talent for potions or had any curiosity about him, since he was so close to charming Lily. I need to know!!

Honestly, I LOVE Lily's relationship with Slughorn. Mostly because I find Slughorn a very entertaining character to write. I just find his mannerisms amusing so I kind of have a soft spot for him lol, even though I don't think he's a great person or anything. He's not terrible either, he's just supposed to be average. Moderate.

I definitely think you make a good point about Lily's lack of patience for the Marauders, but at the same time I think Slughorn, whatever else he was, was never purposefully cruel and I don't see him as arrogant. Pompous and ambitious, maybe, but also not overly ambitious-- Dumbledore states that he never aspired to personal power but preferred to watch from the sidelines. I think Slughorn represents the casual or 'benevolent' prejudice of the wizarding world, probably the most common attitude among purebloods. He espouses unexamined beliefs about Muggleborns that are obviously bigoted, but at the same time his actions don't fully line up with those beliefs, as several of his favourite students have been Muggleborns, and he deliberately rejects students aligned with the Death Eaters. He's just a moderate, who doesn't examine the world around him because the status quo benefits him.

I do think Lily would have been fond of Slughorn despite all that, because he's generally kind. We only see Slughorn with older students but I imagine he was really sweet to the first years, one of the 'softer' professors among the staff. He was very kind to Hagrid (even though this was partly for personal gain) and also to Ron after the love potion debacle. So I think Lily would have seen him as a kindly, well-intentioned uncle who nevertheless had failings. For the time period, however, Slughorn's attitude would probably have been standard and honestly his inclusion and support of Muggle-born students during the war, even if it was flawed... is still something. I've no doubt that Lily wouldn't have been afraid to argue with Slughorn when she disagreed with him, but he would probably take it in stride, engage with her opinion with good humour and respect even if he didn't share it. He enjoyed and encouraged her "cheeky answers". And that's honestly a much more pleasant experience than someone outright dismissing your beliefs. I can see why they got on, personally.

About Snape: I've no doubt that Slughorn spotted his talent pretty much immediately. And while Lily and Sev were friends, this was perfect- the glow of Lily's personality basically covered Sev as well, made him more likeable by association lol. However, I think while Slughorn was very fond of Lily for who she was, he didn't actually like teen Sev very much. Snape's not exactly a people person, and he was even more disagreeable as a teenager from what we know-- Slughorn likely saw that as an obstacle to success. My belief is that when Slughorn (who I see as a bit of a gossip haha) became aware of the rift between them he automatically sided with Lily and Sev stopped receiving invites to the Slug Club. Slughorn likes talent but he also likes charisma, something Sev lacked (at least in a way that was obvious), and if Slughorn as Head of Slytherin was at all aware of Sev's proclivity for the Dark Arts that would have been a further strike against him.

Anyway! As I said, I really enjoy writing Slughorn lol. I've even considered doing a Wodehousian-inspired Slughorn prequel even though there's no audience for it probably lmao..