#but the criticisms were very valid and important to point out to try and fight against us being fed unfinished broken products

[tastytofusoup]

I remember the plot of a novel, but that doesn't mean it's real

[roo-bastmoon]

In Defense of Our Alliance

My dear friends, there's trouble on the timeline today and it hurts my heart. I'd like to make a case for peace, if I may...

Every group of friends and all communities need every so often to hash out differences in points of view, personalities, and policies--but I suspect there's a bit more to it than that, this time.

We are beset on all sides with enemies we cannot fight.

Billboard keeps deleting sales without explanation, deaf to our requests or complaints. They absolutely have a double standard for the artists who pay radio to play. We cannot be sure any of our new buying methods will work, and in this economy, nobody has money to burn without a care.

YouTube keeps deleting views, again without explanation, despite folks streaming under premium accounts and following best practices. Watching those counts go down by the hundreds of thousands every hour is maddening, especially when it doesn't happen to artists who pay for ads.

Spotify froze and split title tracks. Hanteo deleted sales data the second records broke. The company went completely silent--neither celebrating Jimin's Hot100 #1 nor publicly acknowledging his being unfairly pushed down the chart--again, without explanation or recourse. Even some members were silent about his achievement.

Meanwhile, the LA Times is writing love letters to other groups trying to use our group for validation, which is just baffling.

This is to say nothing of the cult, the haters, the shooters from other fandoms, dragging our friends and our members through the mud, nonstop, all day every day, with a particular viciousness I'd normally associate only with actual diagnosed psychopaths.

And we knew there would be challenges, maybe even a contrived scandal or two, around Jimin's release. But I don't think anyone could predict this level of a shit show.

Everyone is exhausted; everyone is on edge.

What was supposed to be a fun and safe space has become a battleground.

And most of us are so ready to defend Jimin and the other members, yet we have zero hope of a fair fight.

It is no surprise to me that, with all that fatigue and pent-up anger, we are starting to fight amongst each other.

I must acknowledge that there are a fair few things we need to hash out as a fandom--the ability to call a spade a spade and not be labeled an anti; the ability to block or take time away and not be called a coward; the ability to criticize but not give in to hate or cult-like narratives; the ability to speak our minds without spewing negativity. There's a lot that needs to be addressed, and it's for heads clearer and smarter than me to untangle it all.

But I will say this:

Jimin has only us. That much is very clear.

So I put it to you now:

We NEED our archivists, who help capture and catalogue the important milestones and the little moments that illustrate why our fandom believes what it does.

We NEED our tutors, who help us make the most of our streams and purchases and votes so we are not wasting time and money and effort.

We NEED our cheerleaders, who help reset our attitudes into more positive, gentler, kinder, more honorable kinds of fans.

And we NEED our discourse blogs, the ones who can entertain multiple points of view without bashing or adopting any particular stance.

Most of all, right now, we need to unite. Because Jimin has very few other folks in his corner. Hobi goes in today. And while his other members love him, I strongly suspect he will feel the absence of Hobi's unfailing support, his clear demonstration of affection, and his wise counsel.

Now more than ever, we must come together. And to do that, we each much decide:

Why are we here?

If you're here to experience pleasure over a ship or a rush of adrenaline over drama and tea, if you just want to look at pretty pics and fics and not really get involved--okay. You are a casual fan. Nothing wrong with that. All I ask is that you do no harm while in this space. Don't fuel the flames of any feud, please.

But if you're here for Jimin, for BTS, for Jikook... then the goal has to be to support Jimin and BTS and Jikook first and foremost, yes? Even though it would feel great to pop off on someone you don't like or agree with (and I'm in Super Menopause thanks to medication so I absolutely sympathize with folks who do pop off--god knows, I have), please try to ask yourself:

Does it serve our common purpose?

Does it help?

Is it kind?

Would Jimin and Jikook feel honored by it?

Would BTS be proud of us?

And if the answer is no, then: forgive yourself for being human. We are none of us perfect.

But maybe take some time away to reset and recharge.

Real life is stressful; fandom life is stressful. Try to get some deep sleep. Let yourself enjoy a nutritious, hearty meal. Watch a comedy show that makes you belly laugh. Look at something so beautiful it makes you tear up. Listen to uplifting music. Pet an animal. Take a walk. Enjoy a luxurious bubble bath. However you restore yourself to your BEST self, you deserve that.

And then? Bring your best self back to this fandom. Because otherwise, we abandon it to the loudest assholes out there.

In the end, I believe we all want to support our boys and to make the best judgements on how to be a good fan. We may disagree on how to do that. But that's no reason to insult our allies or harshly judge the way they conduct themselves.

Shame is not a teaching tool.

Let's lead by example.

I'm a small blog. I'm nobody important. If you've read this far, I'm already surprised. But if you're still with me--please take this much to heart: I sincerely want us to get back to being the loving, intelligent, hard-working, focused fandom we've always been.

We are just regular people. We are going to have bad takes, and bad days, and bad attitudes. But let's give each other a little grace.

And if someone truly has bad intentions, and wants to ruin things, then let us calmly, quietly walk away from them. No need to give our precious time and attention to anything toxic. Toxic people feed off it and only get stronger, anyway.

Our time and energy is best spent on what brought us all here in the first place: BTS.

These are my thoughts, and I mean to say them sincerely and gently.

If this post rubbed you the wrong way, my DMs are open and I'm willing to listen to your thoughts. (Because DMs are always the best place to question someone or discuss something sensitive, I think.) But it's very unlikely that you'll change my mind about the need for us to work together and treat each other compassionately, so, you might wish to just quietly block and be on your way instead.

In any case, I just wanna say... I see you guys, out there. I see you trying hard. I see you contemplating the best way to make use of your time and resources. I see your bubbly enthusiasm and your devastating frustration. I see you, and I think each of you are very human, in the best sense of the word. Despite all the heart aches and hardships, I'm still proud to count myself among you.

It's not much, but I'm sending you guys my love and support. <3

It's gonna be okay. We'll get through this.

I'll show you.

[ellieswr1d]

The Blatant Misogyny that is Daredevils Elektra

(This isn’t very good and probably isn’t any new opinions, I just wanted to share my thoughts. Please enjoy.)

Elektras's character has been around since January of 1981, first appearing in Daredevil no. 168 in Frank Miller's run. Elektra has appeared in many comics since then and has appeared in a few movies and shows. However, we will disregard the 2003 Daredevil and the 2005 Elektra movie. Today we will be focusing on Netflix's Daredevil, which ran from 2015-2018, and the 2017 Defenders show.

Elektra first appears in Daredevil season 2, episode 5: Kimbaku. She is a prominent character for most of the second season until she dies in the season 2 finale. Then she appears again in The Defenders, where she is an antagonist until her death, again. Most criticisms are about her character, claiming that she is a manipulator and sociopath. While these claims are valid, there is more to her character than meets the eye.

Elektra is portrayed as a badass independent woman, and skilled in martial arts. She knows what she wants, and will do what she must to get it. She lives for danger and excitement, as Matt says to her when they first meet, "The one thing daddy’s money can't buy, ... the unexpected." She finds exhilaration in violence and is calculated in her actions. All of this points to her being unempathetic and leads most to believe she is a sociopath.

Part of this is due to her role as a woman, and a woman of color in this show. While Elektra is Greek in the comics, she is played by Elodie Yung who is French-Cambodian. She plays a strong character in this show, and her character has a lot of depth. In the second season, where she appears, the main focus of the show is the Punisher and the Ninjas. The ninjas themselves seem like a play with stereotypes, the other gangs Daredevil goes up against are all centered around money or weapons, but the Japanese and Chinese are involved in an ancient group worshiping a mythical substance to grant immortality. And surprise, surprise, Elektra is revealed to be the person they've been searching for. As Ardo Omar wrote in his article, ‘The Misrepresentation of Daredevil's Elektra’, "She becomes part of a long line of Asian bad guys in the series." He puts it perfectly, illustrating how her character was minimized to a tool in the Hands games.

Throughout the show, we are introduced to many different characters who do not operate by the same morals Matt lives by, Elektra included. This does not inherently make them bad people, but it is important to note that each person has gone through something different than Matt, which Matt continuously disregards. Elektra however, went through something similar to him. Both she and Matt were trained as children by Stick to fight the Chaste’s war. Both Elektra and Matt were then abandoned by him. While Matt did not see Stick for more than twenty years after Stick left, Elektra ended up working for him once again. He sent Elektra to meet Matt in college to try and recruit him for the Chaste, however, Matt didn't know this until many years later.

Elektra's childhood is shown in episode 12, “The Dark at the End of the Tunnel,” where we see her as a child sparring with boys much older than her. One of the boys blows a kiss at her before they start, throwing Elektra off. We see Stick as her mentor, and another man watching her. Elektra, probably upset by the previous harassment, loses control and almost beats the boy who’d blown the kiss at her to death. Stick had to drag her off of him to stop her from actually killing him. Stick then whispers in her ear something along the lines of, "Nice job." Later, the boy approaches Elektra while she is training and she attempts to apologize; in return, he tries to kill her, pulling out a knife. Elektra beats him and slits his throat, just as the man who was watching her earlier enters the room. Elektra had been taught her whole life that killing was okay, and after this, Stick tells her that it is as long as it isn't someone on their side. That kind of thinking was put in her head at such a young age, and it is the same thinking that Matt continuously criticizes. Elektra is punished, and the man we saw earlier expresses thinking that they should kill her, calling her out of control. Instead, Stick kills the man and sends Elektra to love with a Greek couple. He tells her to watch them, and learn how to fit in. We are shown the type of environment Elektra grew up in, and Stick's abandonment of her. At such a young age, she was taught to fight and kill and told it was okay. She was not shown remorse, or empathy, and is consistently judged because of it.

We learn what she was training for later in the season. We had heard many times from Stick about a war, the same one he was training Matt for. He speaks of fighting for "The Chaste," and once again tries to recruit Matt. He says they are battling, "The Hand," and tells the story of how the war began. Matt of course doesn’t believe him.

After Elektra's close call with the ninjas when her and Matt were investigating Midland Circle, Elektra kicks Stick out. She tells him that she wants to change and Matt believes she can. Elektra killing has always been a problem in their relationship, and her decision to kick Stick out is a big step towards bettering their relationship. When Matt returns, a ninja is waiting for him and Elektra kills him, despite him being young. Afterward, she says, "This is who I am, do you still want me?" She was afraid that what she was and who she was would be what drove Matt away from her, leaving her truly alone. She truthfully wanted to change, (this is evident by the end of the season), but it is hard to undo what Stick taught her. Matt constantly tells her that she has a choice, a choice to stop killing and change for the better, but he judges her again and again, even when she is trying to help.

Elektra wasn't framed as a sympathetic character, she went through a lot throughout her life, like most characters in the show, but she doesn't get the same amount of fan love as other characters. Hell, Loki and Frank got themselves their own spin-off shows despite them killing dozens sometimes for the sheer fun of it. Bucky, Loki, and Frank are all common fan favorites, their actions justified by traumatic events they went through. Both Bucky and Elektra were brainwashed and forced to join an organization they would not consciously join, but why doesn't Elektra receive the same sympathy as Bucky?

Quite simply, misogyny is the answer. Everyone makes mistakes, Elektra included, but we expect Elektra to redeem herself. We expect her to become some big hero like Matt who atones for her sins by protecting people and stops killing. She eventually finds her atonement in her death, as Ardo Omar says, "In death, she is redeemed where redemption wasn’t necessary." In other words, she had to die before she was deemed good. In her final moments, she says to Mathew, "I know...I know now, ... what it feels.... to be good."

After her funeral, (a pitiful excuse for one,) we are shown that the Hand dug up her body and placed it in the stone coffin we saw with Nobu when Matt was rescuing the children. There they add a reserection elixer of sorts. And with that, she is brought back to life, once again, to fight a war that wasn’t hers. Alexandra Reid, the leader of The Hand at this point, begins training Elektra to be The Black Sky. She is sent to retrieve Danny Rand, or Iron Fist, to open the passageway to the skeleton of a dragon. From which they can extract more resurrection elixir, to grant immortality to The Hand once more. She has multiple run-ins with The Defenders, and Daredevil specifically.

The more she sees Matt, the more she becomes doubtful about her role as the Black Sky. She goes to Matt's apartment and sleeps in his bed, where she has a dream about being with Matt. This causes her to begin remembering more. She finds the card from her funeral and visits her grave, where Alexandra meets her and reassures her that she isn't Elektra, but the Black Sky. And that Matt allowed her to die, so he shouldn't be trusted. She ends up killing Alexandra and gains control of The Hand. "His name is Mathew. And I, and Elektra Natchios. You work for me now."

At the end of the season finale, The Defenders, the Hand, and Elektra are under Midland Circle. The Defenders have placed TNT on the support poles, and the building is set to collapse. The Defenders return to the surface, leaving Elektra and Matt underneath. They fight until the building collapses. Their final conversation being:

Matt: "This is what we get, isn't it?

For ever thinking we could make it work."

Elektra: "Who says we didn't?

We're together.

Something I've wanted since I first laid eyes on you.

We can have it forever."

And before the building collapses:

Elektra: "I'm sorry Mathew.

For all the pain I've caused you along the way."

Matt: "You know, we're going to die here."

Elektra: "No.

This is what living feels like."

People often blame her for Matt being under the building when it collapsed, but it was entirely his choice to stay under with Elektra and try to get through to her. Jessica and Danny tried to get him to leave but he chose to stay. People condemn her for every one of Matt's choices as if she had made them herself.

The MCU and its characters undermined her storyline and life, writing her off as the bad influence and the classic "femme fatelle" as they do with most female characters. They placed her second to a man who acted like a child for the majority of the show by lashing out at her because he thought she deserved it. They erased her storyline and backstory, opting instead to kill her off, once again like most female characters. (Wanda, Natasha, Gamora, etc.)

Elektra Natchios is a person with a past and future. She has feelings, thoughts, and dreams. She was written for her life to revolve around Matt, but she deserves more than to circle a man who sees her as something to be fixed. She was raised to be a weapon and when she wants to change she is used again and again. Elektra deserved more than what the MCU gave her.

That’s all:)

[monkeymindscream]

6, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 23. SALT FOR SALT, UNLEASH THE BEAST.

YES. YES. THE BEAST IS OUT!

6. Which ship fans are the most annoying?

Overall, I pray every night that I will never again be placed within the vicinity of more shippers who are anything like Starco shippers. Skin me with a cheese grater over that.

But that's not especially topical for me at the moment (and anyway, I've barely touched the Star vs. fandom since its finale, so for all I know they've calmed down since then). So in terms of a group I've encountered more recently that's gotten my nerves:

Lunter shippers.

I've been dipping my toe into the "toh critical" tag lately, for my own mental health. It's been a very cathartic experience for the most part, save for the slew of anti-Huntlow sentiments. Most of the people I've noticed decrying Huntlow are Lunter shippers. Which, I'm sorry, puts a massively different spin on any arguments they may try to dredge up against it.

Which listen. I fully acknowledge that Lunter is, thematically speaking, 100% the superior ship. And I don't just mean that when compared to Huntlow, it eclipses Lumity by a green mile. Like - yes Lumity is a massively important milestone, culturally speaking, yes it's very cute, no I'm not trying to lobby that the show would have been better without it or whatever, but I'm sorry these are the facts. Luz and Hunter had better chemistry as enemies than Luz and Amity did, and once they were on the same side they confided in each other more than Luz and Amity did. The payoff of them getting together at the end of the series would have been better than the Lumity payoff we got. ("They're siblings-!" fanon likes to interpret them as siblings; they don't share blood so this argument holds no water.)

All of this is course coming from a purely objective standpoint, you understand, because I'm very firmly Team Huntlow. Which, getting back to the point at hand, Lunter shippers apparently are aggressively against. I'm not saying they don't have valid points to their arguments (because lord knows this show turned into an incomprehensible mess by the end), but I resent that they frame those arguments as objective when they're obviously grasping at whatever they can to justify why their ship is superior. (On this note, I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the anti-Lumity sentiments I saw in the critical tag were also primarily from Lunter shippers.)

8. Common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

(Hollow Knight!)

The amount of people I see out here acting like it's even feasible that the Pale King went through all his offspring, one by one, and then chucked them into the Abyss when he deemed them "failures" is staggering. It is honestly the stupidest fucking take I've ever seen. That pit is filled with husks. There's thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them. How much time do you think this motherfucker had?

Also, he's a gotdamned bug. Who was married to someone who had to chain herself up to prevent her urge to breed. How has no one come to the conclusion that he placed their eggs in the Abyss to imbue them with Void, and then Hollow was chosen to be the vessel for the Radiance because they're the only one (seemingly) who managed to fight their way back out? That getting out was the first test they had to pass to prove their worth?

(This shit-opinion is so prevalent that it was stolen for another piece of media, and it makes just as much if not less sense there.)

10. Worst part of fanon

(Rise!)

Donnie is fucking everywhere and is used for moments that would better suit/make more sense for his brothers.

12. The unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

Considering the prevailing attitude in most of the fandom spaces I've fallen into in the last five years seems to be "if they've done something bad then they're horrible characters and don't deserve any time in fanworks unless they're getting dunked on/being a complete piece of shit!" I'd say most if not all of my faves fit for this? Soo lightning round!

Emperor skekSo: Is he one of the worst of the skeks, if not THE worst? Yes (which is a con for you people, for some reason). Does he also have some of the most humanizing motivations out of all of them, is actually very effective at redirecting the group as a whole towards a mutual goal, and unarguably has the best design? Also yes.

Pale King: First of all, what the fuck would any of you have done in his position when faced with an entity that wanted her subjects to be eternally, blindly obedient, and who then wanted revenge when you took that away from her? Even though he made untold amounts of mistakes and less than stellar decisions in his efforts to protect his kingdom, his intentions were good. Tragic, morally-grey, haunting-the-narrative characters are wonderful, actually.

Krangs 1, 2, and 3: They get absolutely no love in fanworks, but they should. They're collectively badass, their personalities and entire dynamic with each other is really entertaining and interesting, if you give it even the barest amount of effort, and the implications of what we can infer of Krang culture from them is wildly fascinating.

Philip Wittebane: Honestly at this point I think everyone should like him just because the irony of the fandom-puritans constantly shitting on him (an actual Puritan) for essentially fulfilling his role as an antagonist has long worn thin, and I'd like to make them uncomfortable.

KIKIMORA: KIKI IS FANTASTIC ALRIGHT?? She's a funny little guy, she's ruthless, she's got an abusive family (or at least mother based on the snippet we got), she'd sell you to Satan for one cornchip, she has one of the best designs in the whole show-

(Also she's proof that people are shallow as all fuck, because if she was conventionally attractive/more human-looking, she'd be a fan-favorite and have people writing essays to defend her. That's how Lilith got away with everything.)

16. You can’t understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

(Cult of the Lamb!)

Having Narinder need to apologize to the other characters. He's the only character I see people taking the stance with. Which is especially egregious when it involves the other Bishops. It's usually something to the tune of him needing to make up for the injuries he cased them.

I'm sorry, how did the entire fandom manage to leapfrog over the fact that he only injured them because they were actively trying to imprison him?? I'd be cat-scratching at people too, no pun intended. If people are apologizing I don't think the cat should be the one made to head the line.

Also, in regards to the Bishops, I never see art/fic of the Lamb being salty towards them when they join their cult, but I see loads of art/fic of Lamb being a sadistic fucking bully to Nar over their whole debacle. And it's presented as either just a silly joke or totally justified and what Nar deserves. Fuck y'all.

23. Ship you’ve unwillingly come around to

(Rise!)

I didn't plan on falling head-over-heels for Leuno. I even resisted a little once I first felt it pulling me down. Didn't last. Look how that turned out.

Also John/Rhi, but only by virtue on not wanting to like John at first

[perfectlyvalid49]

hey, thanks so much for adding that "check your sources" thing to the post criticising israel! I'm kinda terrified of how quickly people are just pouncing on the opportunity to spread misinfo (I mean every globally-discussed event seems to be surrounded by that nowadays...). I won't lie, I'm also running out of energy to fact-check because there's just so much conflicting info out there, but when people don't even bother before spreading bold statements from openly biased sources to hundreds and thousands... anyways, point being, I appreciate your efforts and I really liked your post, thanks for doing your best!

You’re welcome! I honestly believe that misinformation/disinformation is an existential threat to democracy. I wish more people were more careful about the information they spread. I’m glad someone out there appreciates whatever small addition to the conversation I can make.

But I gotta admit that my initial reaction to this was which post? A while ago I pushed back against someone uncritically posting criticism of Israel from Al Jazeera, and they blocked me, and I took it personally. So I kinda went on a tear for a few days where I posted that sort of thing a lot.

As for running out of energy to fact check – me too! I’ll admit that I don’t fact check everything; that feels like an impossible task. But for anyone who cares, I’ll go into what sorts of things I think about and what are more likely to make me fact check what I’m seeing. Media literacy 101, let’s go!

So the very first question you need to ask yourself is, “does the reporting organization have known biases, and how does that interact with the topic reported?” The easy example in the US is that everyone knows that Fox has a right wing bias, and MSNBC skews left. When in doubt, there’s a handy chart ( https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ ). But other biases can come into play as well. ABC is owned by Disney, so for reporting on Disney, I fact check anything that is coming from ABC. Al Jazeera has an antisemitic bias, so for reporting that involves Israel, I fact check anything coming from Al Jazeera. But either of those sources are valid for something apolitical, like the local weather forecast.

The next thing you need to look out for is, “how is this being reported?/Is the headline trying to make me feel something?” It’s one thing if an article is clearly marked as an opinion piece, but then it’s just that – opinion. If a newspaper is publishing something as not an opinion piece, then you need to see if the author is presenting facts, or presenting an opinion disguised as facts. Very frequently you can tell from the headline. For example, “Reported Death Toll in Gaza Rises to 15,000” is factual, and a good indicator that the article is trustworthy, whereas “IDF murders another 500 civilians; Death Toll Now at 15,000” reports the same number but with a clear bias (use of the word murder, deaths listed as civilian, uncritically accepting Hamas’s numbers even though we have evidence that they lie about these things, trying to evoke outrage). This doesn’t mean that the article can’t contain true facts! But it does mean it’s a good candidate for double checking against other sources.

Another thing to watch out for is, “is this trying to get me to do or not do something? If so, who benefits?” Is the article trying to convince you that it’s stupid to fight climate change? Either because it’s already hopeless or because it isn’t real – either way you should be suspicious. Who benefits? Probably big companies who don’t want to change how they’re run to lessen the impact on the environment. Or when you start seeing posts about how voting for democrats is pointless because they’re not doing enough – who benefits? People who want to see republicans in power instead. This isn’t necessarily cause for a fact check, but it’s still an important part of media literacy to be able to recognize this tactic and ask yourself this question.

Finally, ask yourself, “is the article telling me something I want to hear/am inclined to agree with?” We all have biases, and a lot of news articles play into that. And it’s very likely that you’ll fact check something you don’t want to believe anyway – because you don’t want to believe it, so of course you’ll look for something to prove it wrong. But things that you want to believe are the things you need to be the most cautious of, because they can still be false, but you’re more likely to pass them on uncritically. I actually sort of did this myself a few weeks ago – I posted an article about JVP sucking. And they do! But I could have picked a better article to post, because the one I selected was not super well written, and it had busted links. I should have double checked, but it was saying something I already agreed with, so I didn’t read the whole thing before sharing. (No one is perfect, I will try to do better).

And while this feels super relevant to the i/p conflict (and it is!), really, it’s applicable to just about everything. There’s an election in just under a year, and this will be very relevant to that too. I know there are news aggregates that will do some of the bias checking for you, but really the ability to think critically about a source of information is a really, really important skill. Practicing it for yourself is the best way to develop it.

[logicalbookthief]

Christmas Movies Ranked by How Anti-Capitalist They Are

It’s a Wonderful Life

Movies that make you want to pick a fight with the 1% and also weep with joy. Absolutely a classic and anti-capitalist at its very core. Will convince you we need to start oppressing landlords again.

“Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle.”

SAY THAT!!! George Bailey said fuck landlords, all my homies hate landlords, they have NO rights. Local man believes poor people are human, dedicates his life to helping them, and in his time of the need literally the whole town comes together to support him and his family. Class solidarity ftw!

“Remember no man is a failure who has friends.” Bitch I CRY EVERY GODDAMN TIME. 

10/10

Home Alone

Soundtrack goes hard, the wacky hijinks even harder. 

Loses points because the bandits had a prime opportunity to seize and redistribute some of the wealth from this ritzy Chicago neighborhood and instead they focus their energy on trying to kill an 8-year-old who outsmarts them at every turn.

2/10

Elf

A family favorite in our house. Touches on the overworking and mistreatment of employees through Greenway Press – Walter forced to choose between being with his family on Christmas Eve or losing his job, it’s implied Deb has a pet grooming business on the side to makes ends meet despite being a receptionist at a NY publishing company, etc.

Honestly most of the points come from Jonie’s underrated yet highly relatable storyline. She works in retail, exhausted and cynical towards the high-paced Christmas season which gives her little to no relief or reward, since she’s surviving on ramen noodles and using the employee showers because her water was cut off. Not expanded on enough to be considered a true Marxist piece but the effort is appreciated.

5/10

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Although the meme is correct in that Rudolph’s red nose becomes desirable only once it proves to be useful, it does get points for exposing the harmful nature of forced conformity and those alienated by these capitalist ideals -- Rudolph, Hermie, the island of misfit toys -- are given a place to belong despite the perceived “flaws” that before made them undesirable.

Also the elves definitely have a free dental-plan now thanks to Hermie and are hopefully on their way to unionizing. Fucking superb you funky little misfit.

6/10

Klaus (2019)

Turns a member of the bourgeoisie into a man I’d trust to carry my mail. Respect for postal workers this movie contains was ahead of its time.

 No direct takedown of the establishment but a heartwarming message -- “A true selfless act always sparks another” bITCH I may be crying -- that emphasizes the importance of giving to others even when there is no selfish motivation to do so, which is inherently anti-capitalist.  

8/10

The Santa Clause

Scott Calvin starts as a toy executive who takes part in the commercialization of Christmas. He was probably a business major so automatically loses points.

The Santa dynasty itself seems to operate under the cutthroat rules of the business world where you must overthrow (or in this case, throw him off the roof) the former CEO in order to seize power. 

Elves have not unionized or seized the means of production by the end.

0/10

A Christmas Carol 

THE ORIGINAL. Charles Dickens was not even in the neighborhood of fucking around with this one. CREATED the anti-capitalist Christmas genre!!

Rich man treats his employees like shit and gets terrorized by three ghosts on Christmas Eve. Force him to redistribute his wealth by dragging him through a montage of his most epic fails -- oh, hey, remember when your fiancé left you? -- and make him listen as all his employees and relatives complain about his stingy ass. 

They end this slideshow by throwing this dude into his own grave. DIRECT ACTION. 

Like damn, the ghosts really said, “If you hoard your resources and ignore those in need when you could directly improve/save lives with no cost to yourself, you will die ALONE and you WILL pay for your crimes in hell.” Literally watching this movie is a catharsis for anyone who is or has been poor and working class. 

I’m including all versions of this movie but a special shout out to the Muppet version because it fucks the hardest. 

100/10

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Listen I’m not even in realms of joking with this one. This movie is THE anti-capitalist film of the holiday season. 

WhoVille commercializing Christmas and a fixation on consumer culture to the point where anything and anyONE who cannot be commodified -- aka the GRINCH -- is alienated? The Whos rediscovering that people should be cherished over material items once it all is stolen and they must confront how empty the holiday has become??

Cindy Lou becoming disillusioned in Christmas -- at an age that coincides when many children (those who celebrate Christmas at least) lost belief in Santa and had to wrestle with what the holiday means with the magic gone and they’re more aware of the rampant consumerism that taints the season?? Her resolve to find a meaning that goes beyond material consumption because if a holiday founded on goodwill doesn’t extend that goodwill to everyone, even those society deems undesirable, then what’s the point???

The Grinch despising Christmas because he is unable to participate and isolated from the Whos and also the better qualities within himself? His alienation serving to demonize him further as it allows the public to narrow his valid criticisms of the holiday down to him being different and thus inherently predisposed to evil?? And hmm isn’t it interesting that a LOT of this demonization comes via Mayor Augustus “generously paid for by the tax-payers of Whoville” Maywho, Mr. 1% himself.

The upper vs working class divide evident in the light show competition between Martha May and Betty Lou Who?? The opening scene of the shopping frenzy that mirrors our own consumerist culture and overworking of retail/poster workers??? This entire monologue:

“That's what it's all about, isn't it? That's what it's always been about. Gifts, gifts... gifts, gifts, gifts, gifts, gifts! You wanna know what happens to your gifts? They all come to me. In your garbage. You see what I'm saying? In your garbage. I could hang myself with all the bad Christmas neckties I found at the dump. And the avarice... the avarice never ends! ‘I want golf clubs. I want diamonds. I want a pony so I can ride it twice, get bored and sell it to make glue.’" 

MARXIST KING. MENTION IT ALL.

1000/10

[astrolovecosmos]

Imum Coeli and Midheaven: Inner and Outer World

The Imum Coeli (IC) is the sign at the beginning of your 4th House, the Midheaven (MC) will always be the exact opposite of that sign at the beginning of the 10th House. The IC is the inner self, roots, past, upbringing, private self. The MC is your most outer self, reputation, ambition, career. The IC/MC sit on an axis and always have a relationship to each other. 

Libra IC - Aries MC: We see a struggle for expressing identity or needs when among family, growing up, and within their inner self. The Aries MC finds freedom in the outer world, maybe in the professional world by standing alone and being an individual. The Aries MC can seem aggressive, confident, competitive, or in charge when in the outer world of school, work, organizations, or larger or more shallow social events. But at home, in their closest relationships, in their private life they are used to cooperation, adapting to others, tries hard to keep the peace or harmony, and may be a people pleaser or lack discipline. There can be a complicated relationship with attention and admiration. In their private life they seem to be praised the most for obedience, compromise, and light charm. But they can find empowerment and a rush in being praised or admired for rebellion, conflict, speaking up, and passion. In the outer world they may stir up drama just for the attention or to feel liberated. At their best they embrace their more level-headed, calm inner self as someone valid, precious, and important but when in the outer world finds ways to get in touch with the warrior side of them. The MC learns to stand up for themselves and fight but must tap into the IC to do this without giving into pettiness, immaturity, or malice. 

Scorpio IC - Taurus MC: The Scorpio IC can be very secretive about their inner self. In fact hiding the self and feelings from family due to fear that they may seem too intense or sensitive is associated. They were likely a willful child or willful within their most inner self. This will can be contained by the Taurus MC’s calmness or practicality but ultimately their determination and strength will always be with them. For Taurus MC “determination” is their main keyword. To protect the more vulnerable and hurt side of their IC they can adopt an unmoving, stubborn, logical, and level-headed persona that the outer world can’t shake or pierce. This person is highly security conscious. The Scorpio IC feels safe by hiding their emotions and intensions. The Taurus MC feels safe through physical resources, wealth, and possessions. The Taurus MC might also feel safe by being in control and relying on their own predictableness and steadiness. The depth, mystery, and power within the inner self is not muted by the Taurus MC, but is underestimated and buried. There can be a great balance here between the rationality of the MC and the emotional, intuitive, and fierce IC. However they need to be careful not to let their fear of betrayal or fear of lack of control to get in the way. They contain and shelter a lot of potency from the outside world, sometimes they have a need to let that out! 

Sagittarius IC - Gemini MC: The Sagittarius IC has a need to be free. Maybe that is free from controlling parents, a religion, old traditions, or even from a mindset they are used to from an early age. Through a Gemini MC they’ve developed an outer self that is persuasive and charming - charming enough to help raise them to the top and out of whatever traps them. The Sagittarius IC can also indicate someone who moved around a lot or was exposed to many different ideals and people when young. There is a flexibility and versatile nature to their youth and programming. This carries with them into an MC that is highly curious, adaptable, and finds it hard to be satisfied with just one hobby, career, or subject. The association with passion, a zealous nature, and impulsiveness exists here. This could mean being an impulsive and energetic kid or this could mean growing up in an environment that was highly charged, fiery, and volatile. While there can be inner passion or being familiar with passion, their MC presents a much more cool headed, logical persona. With intellectual pursuits this person can find an escape from raging emotions and impulses. Sagittarius is connected to cons, exaggerations, broken promises, and false beliefs. This may manifest as feeling disillusioned by what one is taught as a child. They may feel tricked by family at some point. Or tricky behavior or a grandiose, over excitable nature has been engraved in them. In the more detached, always changing MC they can either still practice this more reckless behavior or let it all go with an outlook that wants to observe, study, and connect with others, even if those connections can sometimes be more surface level. They have a thirst for knowledge that is natural to both the inner and outer self. The Gemini MC has an open mind that can help fulfill the needs of the Sagittarius IC. 

Capricorn IC - Cancer MC: The Capricorn IC is well known for having a burdened or restricted childhood. There is an emphasis on growing up fast, taking on too much responsibility, strictness, being pressured and criticized, or being taught to repress emotions. The Cancer MC desires connection to the outside world, while emotions are hard to express they learn how to be good at making others feel comfortable, at appearing trustworthy, and sometimes they may learn how to reach out to create their own family via friends and coworkers. They have a personable touch in their approach to the professional or outside realm. This may seem very contrast to who they are privately, a much more colder, controlling, and restrained individual. There can be a desire to protect and take care of others. Capricorn is a fellow provider and protector however the need to take care of others, even nurture them could come from a desire to express feeling and affection. They are more comfortable expressing love or admiration through actions vs. words. However due to a desire to connect deeply with others they can easily get used and burned. Both Cancer and Capricorn are guarded individuals, and they learn fast to be skeptical and perceptive however it is hard for them to refuse a friend or coworker who asks for help or comfort. They can be deeply sympathetic. The outside world can see an approachable and understanding person but when you get close there is a heaviness or melancholy about them. They put on a very different warm and inviting face to the public. It is very important for them to get in touch with their inner child! A journey to learning how to express their emotions will likely be a long one, but it is such an important adventure when it comes to finding fulfillment. The Cancer MC is a way for them to find that closeness they crave, but they need to be careful of making bonds too quickly and being taken advantage of. Their inner self desires stability and safety to express their true feelings and self, the outer self craves closeness, softness, and to feel like they help or care for others. Many times the outer self tries to find closeness through careers that involve taking care of others or by quickly adapting and joining groups of friends/people. 

Aquarius IC - Leo MC: The IC of the “outsider” is the stereotypical interpretation for the Aquarius IC. Another common association is feeling detached or being estranged from family. Growing up in an environment that pushed for independence, conformity, and aloofness is associated. Growing up with influences that promote a strong sense of individuality can manifest too. The Leo MC desires esteem, recognition, and maybe fame. The Leo MC wants to stand out and be admired. An Aquarius IC who felt left out or alienated when young may learn how to be flashy, loud, attention-grabbing, and unique to feel more loved and accepted. They may use confidence or show off their intelligence and talents to gain admiration. Aquarius and Leo are both original and individualistic people, there is a drive to stand out and be genuine for the sake of living their best life. To the outside world they try to gain a sense of belonging, warmth, and passion through a fiery and sometimes selfish approach. The Leo MC can strive for luxury, class, influence, power, and praise - this can be sought after in many different ways. As a child or young person they could have had a side to them that was very altruistic, but through life’s trials they may have found more strength or empowerment by focusing on the self. There is positivity in both - the Aquarian nature to be driven by humanitarian pursuits and Leo’s self-love. They need to balance these parts of themselves. The outer self craves recognition for talents that may have been ignored or criticized when younger. The outer self may crave excitement and zeal the younger self was never allowed to explore and experience. They need to be careful of falling into egotistical behavior, arrogance, or chasing after fool’s gold. Confidence can also be a complex subject. Some play into a false, larger than life confidence to hide their fears while others grapple with a desire for real confidence but tend to fall back into the background. There is comfort in observing others rather than being in the limelight, this comes from the cool, airy IC. The charisma and ambition of their MC will take them far, the quirkiness, playfulness, self-reliance, and inner wisdom from the IC still needs to be respected. 

Pisces IC - Virgo MC: This person has a very sensitive, fragile, intuitive, and imaginative inner self. When younger there can be a lack of boundaries, a lot of uncertainty, vagueness or confusion, manipulation, illusions,  sheltering and over protection, or even spiritual or psychic attacks. To have a sense of boundary and stability they may grow to have a very cautious, maybe rigid, maybe prudent, skeptical, shy or reserved, and logical outer self. The Pisces IC inner child is fluid, indulges in fantasy, can be dreamy or whimsical, is kind, and giving. The Virgo MC locks this away with criticalness and maybe even harshness. This person can be prone to beating themselves up, especially with their interactions and performance in the outer world. The Virgo MC strives for perfection, always seeks to improve, likes to be seen as useful, smart, and put together. It is very important that the Virgo MC is appreciated for their help or talents and is seen as capable. The Pisces IC can indicate a person who is seen as “soft” or overly sensitive by family or close loved ones. There may be an urge to prove ones self or to seem like they don’t need help because of this. Pisces has a desire to heal and Virgo to serve, this person can feel pulled to help others. However Virgo’s over practicality can stunt the caring side or creative side of their IC. The Virgo MC’s desire or knack for helping other people can lead them to fulfilling careers but there can be a part of them that is too focused on trying to be flawless to really dive into their best path. The Virgo MC’s reliability, attention to detail, and realism can help protect them from being used and helps them set up boundaries. The Pisces IC has a gentler inner voice that they need to be careful not to ignore. 

Aries IC - Libra MC: Anger, identity, and independence are focuses in childhood or earlier years. Aries IC can be taught and raised in a hostile environment, an environment that promoted conflict, competition, anger, and aggression. They may have been raised with a lack of closeness and nurturing, promoting independence and separation. The Aries IC may be used to fighting. They had to develop thick skin as well as a defensive ego. The Libra MC gives them a chance to find peace and detachment. Due to a harsher environment growing up the Libra MC can have a huge need to be liked. They could have felt like they were always criticized and battled against when younger, in the outer world they present a calmer, charminger, and pleasing persona. With all that “battling” they may have learned or adapted to mediate. Both Libra and Aries tend to be social, dynamic, and sit on a contrast of self-awareness. Aries has a focus on self-love, identity, setting boundaries, and going after their wants and needs. Libra many times has been pinned with being the least self-aware sign. Libra can be associated with shallowness, detachment, and wanting to hide away from pressure, intensity, darkness, or flaws, especially the flaws and conflict within the self. Allowing their individuality to shine and to find inner peace among their internal conflicts is important. While the Libra IC - Aries MC is about fighting to express identity, the Aries IC - Libra MC is about finding peace and love for the self and identity. 

Taurus IC - Scorpio MC: Routine, stability, and security are important to the Taurus IC. This person may have grown up with a lot of structure and stability or a very chaotic environment that made them crave dependability and solidness. Early on they developed into a more pragmatic and reliable person, either by being raised this way or out of necessity. Taurus desires unchangeability and assurance, Scorpio can desire control and power. This person may learn that the best way to stay in control of their world is through intuition, intensity, and manipulation. The Scorpio MC allows them to follow their passion and gives them curiosity about the unknown, it can be a pathway from breaking free from their fear of instability and change. But this person will always struggle with letting go of control. The inner self can find peace and stability within them, but the Scorpio MC can be hypnotized and tempted by the idea of just letting their emotions go wild. They can also have a side to them that feels power hungry once they realize all they are capable of. The Scorpio MC tends to be attracted to all types of careers and they are known for a reputation that makes a mark on others. This placement reminds me of a timid child or overly practical person who tries something dangerous or crazy once and then it changes them forever. While following their passions and intuition can be freeing, they will always need to battle a need for inner security, overcome unhealthy dependency or attachments, and learn that they can’t worry about things outside of their control. 

Gemini IC - Sagittarius MC: The Gemini IC is known for struggling to have their voice heard as a child. Communication and learning are key so this can also mean struggling in school/education, a lack of knowledge and encouragement from family members, or it can also mean growing up in a household that was highly communicative and/or focused on education. Both Sagittarius and Gemini are curious and are eternal students. Their curiosity stays with them even throughout adulthood. The Gemini IC can be used to a highly changeable environment, their Sagittarius MC can help feel more focused and at ease by always looking towards the future. But the Sagittarius MC still tends to be impulsive, maybe reckless, and scattered when trying to pick a career, go after a goal, and finish a project. Learning to work with their flexibility and taking advantage of their energetic nature is important. The Gemini IC can feel ignored as a child. The Sagittarius MC can be loud, opinionated, snappy, and passionate - this allows them to gain the attention they need and to be heard. In the outer world the Sagittarius MC is heated and goes off instinct, in the inner world the Gemini IC is more detached, is driven by logic and intellect, is airy, maybe playful or whimsical, always willing to learn, share, and listen. They may act like the student at home and teacher in the professional/external world. Sagittarius and Gemini are associated with both “student” and “teacher” archetypes. Knowledge is power to this person but what matters most to them is finding those who are willing to listen to them. The inner self craves someone who is open to hearing their thoughts, dreams, needs, and gossip or stories. The outer self, what their reputation is based off of desires to be the person others get advice from, get knowledge from, and are inspired by. 

Cancer IC - Capricorn MC: The Cancer IC comes from a sensitive place much like the other water ICs. They could have grown up in a highly close and attached family, a family that was overprotective, being very close to their mother, was raised where family loyalty was everything (maybe taught that they had to be loyal to family, even if their family wasn’t the healthies/treated them right), could have been coddled, and abandonment or lack of nurturing is also associated. The Cancer IC marks an inner self that is very soft, nurturing, caring, affectionate, and vulnerable. But the crab always hides behind a touch exterior. Even as a child while they may have been hurt easily they learned quickly to hide tears. Their closest loved ones likely see them as a nurturer, caregiver, protector, or healer. The Capricorn MC is highly ambitious! They tend to present a self-controlled, disciplined, no nonsense, and authoritative outer self. This person may have felt too sheltered, undermined, or taught that their softness wasn’t valuable and learned how to interact with the outer world through a hard and commanding approach. The Capricorn MC is calculated, logical, and their hunger for material and social success can be great. While the Capricorn MC can be helpful in gaining boundaries and inner authority - there is always a quest for more and the subject of self worth can be tricky. The Cancer IC is about caring and it could be they were forced to take care of themselves and others at a young age, hurling them into adulthood early and towards a colder form of independence. But both Capricorn and Cancer have a desire to attach and depend. Many times chasing after material success helps boost their feelings of worth, it makes them feel more secure, and respected. Finding a balance between career and the physical and family and the emotional is vital for them. 

Leo IC - Aquarius MC: A lot revolves around attention and praise for the Leo IC. They could have been the center of attention, an only child, spoiled, or the golden child. They could have also been neglected and attention starved, or maybe they were constantly put down and scolded, rarely hearing praise. Disappointing their family may be their worst nightmare. They could come from a family with a high standing in the community, has a very demanding and set code of beliefs, or a family that places a lot of emphasis on honor and good behavior. The Aquarius MC tends to go after careers that are unconventional, they have a unique reputation, and may have a drive to help others on a big scale or change the world. Leo and Aquarius are both leaders and this person has an inner leader and an outer one. The inner one can sometimes come from a selfish place of wanting power and adoration. The outer one see’s things with clarity and objectivity and acts in the best interest of a group/collective. The inner leader may have been taught entitled and arrogant values but learns about the human condition and to be tolerant and giving throughout life. Or the “inner leader” could have had selfish streaks when young as a rebellion towards the hurt they experienced. The Aquarius MC may act "quirky”, extreme, or try to stand out to gain attention they lacked in childhood. Or through a healthy sense of self-esteem they were able to grow into the unique individual that they are. The Leo IC at their best can be good-hearted, affectionate, loves in a big way, and generous. The Aquarius MC in relation to the big hearted and generous side of their IC wants to give back and does so with intelligence and originality. 

Virgo IC - Pisces MC: The Virgo IC could have grown up with a lot of expectation, with strictness, and a lot of criticism. Their parents may have held them to higher standards than other siblings or have demanded perfection from them. They can also grow up in an environment that was highly rigid, structured, and didn’t have a lot of room to explore emotions, creativity, and intuition. The Pisces MC finds it hard to deal with practical matters, doesn’t bother with the details or logic, and operates in a much more fluid, creative, and intuitive way. The MC in a way can act like a rebellion against the pragmatic, humdrum they are used to. The Pisces MC gets labeled with a lack of drive and ambition, I think this is an unfair take. They can just prioritize other things in life other than work or material things like friendship, family, spirituality, and art. Also they can take a more relaxed approach to goals and ambition in order to be free of high standards of their upbringing. They may have grown up being taught a very certain way to behave and interact with others. The Pisces MC allows them to take things personally and they treat others how they treat them rather than with fake politeness, or the opposite - judgment. While the Virgo IC needs stability and maybe devotion in their private life, they want to be seen as the easygoing one, the imaginative one, or elusive one. There is healing and awakenings through their MC, but giving their inner child some sense of security is important. Combining the caring and subtle, humble wisdom of both signs can be powerful. They may find a lot of fulfillment by helping or taking care of others, as long as it is on their own terms. 

[urdearestmom]

so happy to see you back here because the takes on mike ever since the season (by bylers, locals and even people who claimed to love him but are now mad and not even trying to understand him) are driving me crazy. he needs protecting

I am tumblr’s Mike Wheeler defence squad

No but actually I think the problem is so many people just consume media without thinking critically about it (which like, it’s FINE to just watch things for fun, but if you’re going to pass judgement on something then perhaps you should spend more than 2 seconds thinking on it. maybe analyze the scene past your first reaction to it).

I'm going to talk mainly about Mike's interactions with Will and El in the early episodes of season 4 but there will also be references to earlier seasons.

Now, Mike's not an angel by any means!! The boy makes mistakes. He WAS dismissive and kinda rude to Will (also everyone forgot it was Will's birthday?? including me LOL) but it's not like he was behaving that way with the intent to hurt Will. Mike tends to hyperfocus on El whenever he's around her (which we've seen since s1: drifting from Lucas, Dustin's claims that all Mike cared about was El; s2 Mike's emo phase when she wasn't around and his subsequent focus on her once she returned; s3 Mike's entire emotional arc being about his feelings for El). In the scene at the rink, El had JUST been publicly humiliated and Mike found out she had been lying to him about her life and emotional state, so of course he was more concerned for her and focused on finding her than he was with listening to Will. Duh, anyone would be.

That hyperfocus is a completely natural thing that happens when you have strong feelings for someone; you tend to drop your friends a bit. The goal is to find a balance between the attention you give your friends vs the other person, but it's a learning process. Also Mike is at the maximum only 15 years old and this is his first relationship, so he is very much still in the early stages of figuring all that out. The important thing is that when you realize you hurt someone you apologize, which Mike did and Will forgave. I loved that scene a lot because I really really appreciate their friendship and the fact that they were both even tearing up a little bit really moved me :') It's also a development for Mike because he brought up the situation himself and apologized without anything else prompting it, which has been a difficulty for him in the past (remember him refusing to apologize to Lucas in s1? or the fact that we never saw him apologize to Max after s2 either). It takes emotional vulnerability to recognize that you were wrong and apologize to someone for hurting them, and he is a character that struggles profoundly with putting his feelings out there, so this is a win for him!!

The thing about his vulnerability leads me to my next point: the fight with El. El was completely valid in wanting to hear Mike say that he loves her, I think definitely in part due to her terrible upbringing and some in part to media she'd been exposed to since escaping the lab. Before she got out she was clearly in an abusive environment, where likely the only form of affection she received was words (Brenner's actions were obviously not those of someone who cared for her, but his choice of words and tone of voice helped him manipulate her), which would have some effect on the way she expresses herself and the way she accepts affection from others. During her time in isolation, we saw her watching soaps and those are the kind of stories where love is presented as this grand, sweeping thing that can only be demonstrated and affirmed through an extremely dramatic declaration. That's not a thing that usually happens irl, it's part of the entertainment factor, but El wouldn't know any better and she probably came to expect something similar.

Mike, on the other hand, is a person who struggles to verbalize any of his feelings, much less something as all-consuming as his love for El is. Some of that is simply part of his personality, but some of it is also home influence. It's obvious by now that the Wheelers don't have a great marriage, so Mike has more than likely not often or ever heard his parents say that they love each other (interestingly, I don't think Nancy has told Jonathan to his face that she loves him either). Mike has learned to express his love for people in a different way: through his actions. He is usually the first to jump into action/planning mode when a friend is in danger, he takes care of people who need help (El in s1 and Will in s2, and the way he comforts El at various points during s3 even while they were broken up), and consistently acts recklessly when it comes to someone offending or endangering his loved ones (aka, the cliff scene, or him attacking a possessed Billy armed with a skinny piece of metal, among others) because he feels as though he is their defender and keeping them safe is how he shows that he cares. Let us also not forget the fact that he handpicked those wildflowers in El's favourite colours because he knew they would make her happy (he also dressed in the same colours, which I LOVE even though his airport outfit makes him look like a muppet).

At the moment that they had their argument, El had been experiencing a lot of changes. Not only did she lose her powers, the thing that defined her as a person for almost her whole life, she also moved across the country, away from almost everyone who cared about her, and started school. Being bullied in general is difficult enough, but being bullied when you know you really are different and there's nothing you can do about it must be hell. The loss of her powers caused her to question her own self-worth because without them, who is she really? That's something that El is still in the process of discovering. Being the victim of bullying at the same time has reinforced this idea she has that her powers are what give her worth. With them she can defend herself, intimidate her enemies; without them she is a target. She must feel that people only liked her before because they thought her abilities were cool. This thought, plus the emotional toll that bullying causes, plus the fact that she only ever overheard Mike say that he loves her and it was while she still had her powers, and the fact that he hasn't said it in words since then has probably made her extremely insecure about whether his feelings for her are from a genuine place of love, like hers are for him.

Because El is struggling, and because Mike hasn't yet worked up the courage to vocalize his feelings, they fight. El is upset because she has probably started to doubt whether her boyfriend, who she cares about immensely, genuinely loves her or not. Mike is upset because he loves her so intensely and he tells her that in the way he knows how but she isn't receiving the message, and he doesn't know how to fix it. It's an unfortunate situation all around but I thought that it was a very realistic problem to present Mileven with and I absolutely adored how many layers there are to what's happening. Millie and Finn's performances were also spot on! The way you can see Millie's anger through her sadness and the absolute sincerity in Finn's whole person (his face, voice, even the little extra movements he does while speaking) really lend the emotions to the scene and make it feel real.

Anyone who says "El deserves better" is delusional or just hasn't considered how wonderful Mike actually is. How could she do any better than the boy who has cared for her unconditionally since the moment he met her? I mean, he put himself in danger to protect her and she's literally killed multiple people in front of him and he didn't bat an eye. All he wanted was to know that she was safe.

Anyone who says Mike doesn't love El: see the above. I don't know what show you're watching

ALL OF THIS TO SAY: I love Mike Wheeler because he is a flawed character. He's not perfect! He makes mistakes! But guess what, we all do. It's part of growing up and part of being human, so all it does is make him feel more like a real person to me. He's a lovely lil boy and I will defend him to my last breath, tumblr!!!!!!!

(i know this got really mf long but i will probably be active for a bit so send me more asks friends!!)

[fangirleaconmigo]

I like hearing the thoughts up people who watched this season 2 of twn so I'm very excited to see your thoughts!

Thank you, nonny! Sorry for the delay. I had so many feelings after I watched it that I've just been silently processing and stewing.

I think TWN season 2 is a very different experience depending on whether you've read the books and are attached to the characters as written or not. It also depends on your expectations of fantasy action shows.

I used to waitress, and a restaurant owner I worked for once told me that the most important element of how someone evaluates service is their expectations going in, and I still think about that a lot.

Spoilers, and extremely critical thoughts under the cut. (Some positives too.)

Before you hit 'keep reading' I also want to make clear that this is all personal. Other people are allowed to feel differently and are no less valid. We are all unique mixes of culture and experiences and identities and will by nature see this all differently. That is fine and good. In fact, that's what makes art, and our interactions with it, so fascinating and dynamic. Now, here goes.

If your expectations are...a fun fantasy action ride, I think it fit the bill. The Witcher S2 was better than the average fantasy show.

The cast is phenomenal this season. I think the acting leveled up all around. (Myanna Buring just slayed me, so did Anya, Joey, Mimi, Henry, Freya, Anna, they were all amazing)

The locations are stunning.

The monster fights are fun.

There's more magic, more sign usage, and lots of intrigue.

There were some characters that were magical onscreen together. (Yen and Jaskier, Yen and Tissaia, Fringilla and Francesca, Geralt and Istredd were fucking delightful, and I did love a lot of the Geralt and Ciri scenes. )

Yasen Atour was a delight the little we heard from him

The bruxa was fantastic, Ep1 was great.

I was shocked and pleasantly surprised that we got the Rience torturing Jaskier and Yen saving him scene.

Ciri training!! Wooo!!

Nenneke! Wooo!

Also, I loved a lot of the new (non book) plot points even some others didn't.

For example, I thought Yen losing her magic was a great opportunity to show how resourceful, gutsy, brave, and brilliant she was without magic. She was a force of nature and I loved watching her go.

I also loved everything they added about her mixed heritage.

I loved the Sandpiper concept.

I love that they gave Istredd his own plot points apart from Yen. I think when you make 'exes' (and in the context of the show, one of the few men of color) into cardboard cutouts its unsatisfying. So, I appreciated that they gave him a real role.

I appreciated that, unlike the games, they actually kept Triss's scars, and didn't try to force the love triangle that a lot of fans seem to want. So, on one hand, there was a lot to like.

However, on the other hand, if you you want consistently good writing when it comes to character work and relationship development, we didn't get that, whether you've read the books or not.

TWN pretty obviously comes up with the plot, then stuffs 90% of the relationships and character development into the cracks. Then they step back and go...Ehhhhh it’s fine.

In response to critiques that the show lacks organic character and relationship development, the showrunner essentially said on social media that the books are too slow and you can't just have people hanging out and getting to know each other in a tv show. (In fact, according to the showrunner herself, several conversations that do happen in S2, only happened at the insistence of Henry Cavill)

I think that's dismissive of a vast middle where you can have conversations AND action. There are shows and movies that do so just fine. It's tricky, and it'll never be as deep as the source material, but it can still be great and satisfying. But you do have to put a bit of trust in your audience.

Also, it's not just time spent. It's cohesion and consistency. So whether the character/relationships ships work for you (with all the jerks forward and backwards and jarring missing bits) is whether, through your personal experience, you can fill in the blanks with your own imagination. If you can, you may not even notice. If you can't, you're left scratching your head.

(For just a few examples, why didn't Yen and Geralt talk about the wish???? She was devastated and dumped him for it and now they're kissing? It's resolved?? When?? Why aren't we taking her feelings of betrayal about that seriously? I want that conversation!

What happened to Tissaia's dimeritium poisoning from the prior season? Jaskier's burns from the prior scene? Why in season two, does this supposedly epic male friendship still feel so one sided and thin?

Fil is Francesca's husband???? Why did I not know that until the moment the baby emerged?

Why did Lamb blame Eskel's death on Ciri BEFORE we knew she was attracting monsters? Etc etc etc).

Further, relationships go through hamfisted conflicts, since the only bumps and barriers they seem to be able to conceive of are assault, consent violations, and betrayals, which they glide past as soon as they need to move the plot along.

(That's why when people were like..."Geralt and Ciri didn't have a bonding arc. It was flat." I just feel like...shhhh don't let them hear you. They'll have one of them horrifically betray the other and call it an arc. Let's just leave it, I'm begging you.)

Also, they have the showing and telling working at odds with the story. They tend to TELL the foundational stuff, ie, who people are, how they feel about themselves and each other. Then they SHOW the “exceptions”. And yet, showing is so much more powerful!! Therefore, the exceptions become the rule in the eye of the viewer.

(Geralt SAYS that Kaer Morhen is protected and secret because of pogroms against witchers and threats of genocide, but then you SEE it as party central, like everyone in the continent goes through there to be drugged or killed or just to pick up a vial and be off.)

The actors valiantly elevate their scenes emotionally to imbue them with nuance and contradictions and emotion. (Myanna and Joey were both fucking heroic in imbuing lines with meaning that wouldn't have been there without them.) But they can't do it all.

The show also continues to raise interesting social themes it doesn’t quite know how to land and lay out amazing characters it doesn’t quite know how to truly value. TWN and race or TWN and sexuality could fill up several other posts.

So, if you want a fun action fantasy show that you don’t want to think too hard about, you’re golden. It was 10/10. I have shows like that. I watch and I refuse to read the source material or think about things like plot holes or inconsistencies. If you're watching The Witcher like that, you are blessed.

If you want a GOOD show with quality character and relationship work, it was a 7/10, and it was only that high because Henry Cavill is powerful enough to push for script changes on set.

(The showrunner said she had written a joke for after Roach died and he pushed for something heartfelt instead. Also, Henry said that the script called for a sex scene for when Geralt and Yen reunite, and he and Anya pushed for that sweet family scene with the three of them actually bonding. Also, Geralt's lines to Ciri from the books were added at his insistence. I think the writing would've been a 6/10 at best without him.)

NOW how was the show for me?

Well I'll let you guess.

I read the books between S1 and S2 and fell in love with them. I watched the showrunner tweet that she'd read Blood of Elves twenty times and was taking it seriously as an adaptation. That she wasn't going to have to make up much because there was so much there. She said she heard all of the constructive critique about how the relationships were treated S1.

So, I am a book fan, and I had hope. Expectations. Not that they would be duplicated exactly, but that the spirit of the themes and the characters would be treated respectfully.

I also happen to be a person who has written several hundred thousand words of fic about Eskel, (and read more) because I connect with him and love him in particular. One of my most popular witcher posts is the character analysis I did of him.

I also happen to be a person who loves Yen and Ciri's relationship so much it almost hurts. I could probably write a Phd thesis on what that relationship means to me.

I also happen to be a person who loves Kaer Morhen more than is reasonable, and was so excited to see it onscreen. (It was aesthetically pretty! Beautiful gowns sets. But I was more excited for the wolf witchers inside of it.)

Those were my most anticipated pieces of the story going in.

Now, I know I said that I'd let you guess how I like it, but when have I ever shut up about anything? Well, I loved ep 1. I recapped and reviewed it and gave it an A. Then, the rest of the season happened.

And for my favorite, most anticipated characters and relationships, other than some good Geralt and Ciri moments, it was character assassinations and missed opportunities.

I'm sure there are those who would disagree with me. I'm sure they could make cases for why it made sense for Yen, the woman who never let down Ciri a day in her fucking life, would turn her in to the deathless mother (changing her mind when it was too late, and only because Ciri's power made her 'special'). How it made sense that a woman who, even though she struggled being vulnerable and committed romantically, always always worked in Geralt's best interests behind the scenes, would betray him in matters of his own daughter.

I'm sure they could make a case why Vesemir, a man who passed through a long hard journey and rocky moral past, to become the moral center of the world of witchers, (I could bring book quotes to back this up if anyone is interested in my Vesemir thoughts) would betray Geralt and accept 'consent' from a traumatized, grieving, child.

I'm sure they could claim that one gauzy flashback of Eskel being nice to Geralt once in a hallway made up for what they did to that character. I'm sure they could explain why the misogyny of how the sex workers were treated, and why they were in Kaer Morhen in the first place didn't take the entire concept of the witchers out back and shoot it execution style.

But I'd disagree with all of them. Very strenuously. Very emphatically. I may still write some specific critical posts about TWN and Yen and Ciri, or Eskel, or the witchers in general, just to get these things off my chest.

It's actually turned the show into something a lot more difficult for me to interact with. I have to work a lot harder now to separate out the good and still enjoy it. I still adore the cast, and love parts of the show. But dear anon, that shit felt fucking brutal. I stared into space for an uncomfortable amount of time after finishing the season. I considered deleting all my witcher social media and abandoning my wips. I texted my friends. When my son asked how it was I said very slowly....well...it gave and it took away. I didn't know what else to say.

I calmed down. I'll keep watching the show. I'll keep loving and hyping the cast. But now I have a fundamentally conflictual relationship with the show. And now my expectations are on the floor. They are subterranean. Maybe having zero expectations, no matter what is promised to book fans on twitter, will help. It's all about expectations, after all.

I hope my feedback isn't too much of a downer. I'm sorry if it is and you regret sending your ask. D: I try really hard to see the positives of things and to be fair and to consider other perspectives. But there's no way around how fucked over I feel as a book fan of witchers and of Yen and Ciri's relationship specifically.

But thank you for asking and feel free to ask for clarification on anything or for any sources cited. XD

[idkhowtopickausername]

I really do think that if Sasuke and Naruto were actually treated as complementary it could’ve been really powerful. Like the thing about Naruto’s ideology is that it’s so focused on feelings that towards the end it becomes more about mitigating conflict than about creating any kind of systemic change, whereas Sasuke is unafraid of creating conflict and directly focused on bringing about some type of revolutionary change.

Talk no jutsu, at it’s core, I think is an attempt on Naruto’s part to replicate what Iruka did for him, which is acknowledge someone’s suffering and the fact that they’re deserving of compassion despite their own feeling of isolation and hopelessness. But its formulaic repetition takes on a preachy quality after a while and serves to falsely equate his own suffering with everyone else’s, while placing the responsibility on the individual who has been hurt to simply change their mindset without seeking any outward change or accountability. On a narrative level it ends up stripping characters of any aspect of their ideology that poses a challenge to the broader social order until they praise Naruto and then die or fade into the background.

Despite the fact that their suffering and sense of isolation is something that connects them, Sasuke is very aware that his suffering is different from Naruto’s—he points it out at the first VoTE fight when he says that Naruto doesn’t understand what it’s like to have loved ones and then lose them. His entire focus is on the fact that he needs some outward form of justice or closure and that he cannot heal by simply changing his mindset. He doesn’t suppress his trauma the way Naruto does but is very honest with himself about it. It would make sense for Naruto to have to change his ideology in order to reconcile with Sasuke, just as Sasuke has to accept that cutting himself off from love and bonds is something that he simply can’t and shouldn’t have to do.

Sasuke is also very aware of the superficiality of the village’s favor because he was popular and considered a valuable asset but was still offered no genuine support following the massacre and was quickly treated as an enemy by everyone except Naruto following his defection. He understands that the village rewards usefulness with high status in a way that’s objectifying and conditional, whereas Naruto still needs to acknowledge that for himself. Naruto on the other hand understands how unbearable complete ostracization and loneliness is—something that Sasuke needs to accept. Their storylines are reversed in that sense. Naruto’s need to feel a sense of belonging leads him to uncritically absorb and parrot a lot of the village’s propaganda, while Sasuke is able to openly criticize the shinobi system and form his own ideas in a way that is largely uninfluenced by popular opinion. But Sasuke’s attempts to forego relationships and outside input altogether and take everything on himself is impractical as well. Compassion and human connection on a personal level are important, they’re just not solutions in and of themselves.

Instead of embracing Sasuke’s ideas but still acknowledging that he shouldn’t have to carry them out alone in ways that are impractical and self-destructive, the narrative uses Sasuke’s self-destructive methods to undermine his ideas completely and validate Naruto’s. This is incredibly frustrating because the reason he was driven to isolate himself and try to put himself through hell was because of the very problems he was trying to solve in doing so. 

[star-anise]

I wanna reply to a reblog someone added to one of my posts, because I want to wrestle with the ideas in it without singling out the person, who I do not think deserves any kind of dogpile for being wrong. That said, I think this person is incorrect in a way that’s both common and dangerous.

TW: Domestic violence and abuse, sexual assault

This person says:

So  hear me out: I am too weak to abuse a woman.

I live a very sedentary lifestyle and  most of the women i’m interested in and who have shared interest could easily beat me in a fight. [...] so I would never raise a fist to them not just because it’s wrong but because i’m afraid of getting hurt back.

As a society, we are way, way too obsessed with punching people as the ultimate form of domestic violence. This is dangerous and wrong. It causes a lot of people to think, “My home life isn’t a boxing match, so I’m not being abused,” and/or “I’m not actually hitting them, so I’m not really abusive.”

I am a 5′1″/155cm disabled woman with weak and noodly arms who can’t perform a lot of basic household tasks like carrying a week’s groceries up a flight of stairs. And I could absolutely abuse someone. It isn’t about physical strength.

Abuse is not just a “man bad, woman victim” dynamic. It can happen to and by people of every gender. We need to focus on the realities of abuse and the many ways it can manifest.

In this post: What domestic violence can look like, other than hitting; how domestic violence can happen without huge explosive fights; what healthy relationships would look like instead; why it’s wrong to think of abusers as a different species from normal people.

Domestic violence might look like:

Criticizing or belittling someone’s interests or self. Making negative statements about who they are as a person. Treating them with contempt or derision. Calling them names.

Controlling everything about where a person goes, what they do, and who they talk to. Never allowing them privacy or outside relationships. Monitoring their emails or texts; listening in on their phone calls. Refusing to allow someone reasonable boundaries.

Breaking a person’s belongings. Damaging or wrecking their personal space. Throwing things at or near them.

Controlling their access to basic needs, eg. depriving them of access to money, transportation, food, medicine, or communication with the outside world.

Failing to respect someone’s personal and sexual boundaries. 

As well, these things count as abuse whether or not they happen as a Big Loud Scary Confrontation, or quietly, in the consequences afterwards. Like, it counts whether you say “You will never be allowed to leave this house without me!” or just quietly spend the money that was going to repair your partner’s car on something else. It counts whether you force a sexual act on someone who’s visibly resisting, or refuse to speak to or even acknowledge someone for several days after they’ve set a sexual boundary.

And it can be hard, in a relationship, to figure out what healthy and reasonable boundaries are. These are rules that abusers can use to their own ends, rhetorically maximizing the harm to themselves and minimizing their harm to others. “By being in the house when I’m on work phone calls, you’re denying my right to privacy,” they’ll say, ignoring that forcing their partner to be out of the house for eight hours a day is denying them access to basic shelter and they need a different solution, or, "By pointing out how scared and hurt you were by my violent behaviour, which I cannot possibly be expected to change, you’re criticizing me and belittling my feelings.”

At which point it can help to focus on what a healthy relationship would look like:

Consensual: Everyone involved is freely choosing to be there and can, if they want, leave the relationship without serious impairment of their ability to live an independent life

Surrounded by resources: Partners are able to turn outside the relationship, if they want, to express their emotions, achieve their goals, pursue their interests, connect with family and friends, receive support, or take time away from their partner. This is regarded as enriching each partner’s life and strengthening the health of the relationship.

Safe: No one feels threatened or in danger. People are able to assume that their partners will have their best interests and happiness at heart. Partners ensure that everyone in the relationship has what they need. Nobody has to worry that a disagreement or bad day with their partner will make other parts of their life unmanageable.

Respectful: Everyone’s emotions and values matter and are given equal weight. Everyone is seen as deserving the same basic rights to material security, safety, emotional validation, and physical space.

Fair: When there is a conflict, partners work together in a respectful and non-combative way to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to everyone.

Honest and accountable: People admit to the part they play in things and are willing to own their contributions to both success and conflict.

Mutually enriching: Each partner is committed to the goal of a relationship that leaves them all, collectively and individually, better off as people: receiving everything they need, capable of independence, supported and validated, and treated with respect.

Healthy relationships are complicated! They can be really difficult. They demand a lot of interpersonal and social skills that don’t come naturally, so if you haven’t been taught them, you can really struggle. I can really struggle. Anyone can really struggle.

It is really important to realize that abuse doesn’t result from someone waking up like, “I think I will be a Horrible Person to my partner today” and getting ready to rumble. It results from people with limited coping skills and particular attitudes about relationships and how to handle conflict trying to get what they want. Someone could be a really great partner, up until they encounter a problem they don’t feel able to solve any other way than overriding their partner’s feelings and using what force is available to achieve their goal.

But those are things we have the ability to address and improve, if we want to. A few starting places:

Positive ways to avoid toxic conflict

Signs of emotional abuse

Resources for domestic violence

If you want to support my work writing this kind of content, please consider supporting me through PayPal or Patreon.

[simplepotatofarmer]

technoblade: a takedown - pt. 1

(not clickbait)

aka i go over every argument people make against c!techno one by one and determine whether they’re valid, false, or a mixture of both. i rewatched every single stream/video, including those on his alt channel, so i could approach this with the most information possible. i’ll be breaking this up into parts because there’s just too much otherwise. all about the characters unless stated.

techno believes in a ‘dog eat dog’ world - false

this is an argument i see used a lot when people discuss techno so i wanted to address it first. luckily, the stream in which he says this is only his fifth stream on the server. there’s one major reason why this argument falls apart and one minor reason that isn’t objective like the first.

first and most importantly: techno has never acted on this. even at the beginning - which is when this comment was made - he was helping his allies, from building railings to keep them from falling, making a potato farm, and all the gear he grinded for to equip his allies in pogtopia with. moving forward, he’s also helped out plenty of people: giving tommy a place to stay and items, telling phil to reach out to ranboo after doomsday, as well as giving both tommy and ranboo food when asked. there’s more, of course, but the point is he’s never once followed up on this statement. he teamed up with quackity to stop the egg. he spoke to niki about how he was giving anarchy a bad reputation because of the violence and wanted to take a different approach which he has.

when people use this argument to insist that techno is the villain, it doesn’t hold up because it’s merely taking one statement he made and upholding it as a main part of his character when his actions and later statements have shown that he doesn’t actually believe in this randian view point. objectively, i can’t see how this argument can extend beyond ‘well, he said it’. regardless of what he said during the pogtopia arc, he’s said the opposite later - wanting everyone to live free with no oppression or imperialism - and has never acted on it nor brought it up later. this take honestly seems disingenuous and was in fact the driving factor of this post.

second and not as critical, techno mentions multiple times during each of his first streams that he’s not sure who all is on his side. this is a reoccurring point for him. he makes the comment about wanting a dog eat dog world during the red festival stream, while speaking to bad and sam. the first part of the conversation is techno asking about state secrets since they’re (as far as techno knows) on manberg’s side. bad mentions schlatt killing cats and techno launches into a spiel about massive anarchy and the weak being huddled in fear, asking them how does that sound. bad says as long as there’s no cat murder, perhaps. bad then asks techno what his ‘single issue’ is and techno responds that he wants to destroy the government. to me, the context of the conversation, who he’s speaking to and what his opinion of those people is, is an important thing to consider.

techno’s ‘we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it’ comment means he was always going to betray pogtopia/l’manberg - valid but not how you think it is

i’ve seen people say that techno saying ‘we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it’ is a clear sign that he was always intending to betray pogtopia/l’manberg which, yeah? 

but i wouldn’t call it a betrayal. 

he says the ‘we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it’ line at the end of the ‘eve of revolution’ stream while he’s talking to quackity, ponk, and sam. the conversation is as follows:

techno, to quackity: i’m glad we could get to know each other. i heard you’re on our side now. i heard you betrayed schlatt.

quackity: yeah, that’s right. are you betraying anyone?

techno: no. i would never betray my personal ideals.

[some chatter from ponk and quackity]

sam: what does that mean? what if the people you’re fighting along [sic] have different ideals than you, though? doesn’t that mean you’d betray them?

techno: listen... we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it.

then techno states that he ‘said what he said’ when sam questions him about his choice of metaphor.

he actually uses the same malaphor at the beginning of the ‘revolution’ stream when they (quackity and tubbo) question him again and in that case techno definitely avoids the subject which isn’t a good thing but considering everyone was so worked up about the possible traitor, i can completely understand.

overall, techno is extremely upfront about his intentions. yes, there is definitely some miscommunication between all the parties because none of them were on the same page but that doesn’t make techno the bad guy here nor does it mean he betrayed anyone. he was upfront about his intentions from the start.

in his first two streams, he makes a joke that if they happen to set up a new government/president that he would just take that one down and it would be a never-ending cycle. over and over, he says that he wants to do destroy the government/manberg. when tommy mentions taking it back, techno says, ‘what do you mean, take it back?’ though this kind of gets lost in the middle of everything else - dsmp (lack of) communication strikes again. 

the takeaway that i see here a lot is that techno always intended to betray them because he knew tommy wanted to take back l’manberg and knew that he would go against them if they set up a new government. and this is true to an extent! he did know that tommy wanted l’manberg back and he did know that he would go against them if they set up a new government. but wilbur was also telling techno that he was on board with the whole anarchy thing. 

none of them were on the same page and that surely led to a big chunk of what happened and hurt feelings on both sides but that doesn’t mean techno betrayed anyone or that he was the bad guy for doing exactly what he said he would do from day one.

techno destroying (l’)manberg was wrong - it’s complicated

the first thing to address here is that for most anarchists, destroying a government isn’t a bad thing. in fact, taking down the government/state is basically our goal. now, i don’t speak for all anarchists, of course, but overall the general feeling is that violence in the name of overthrowing an oppressive government is not inherently bad. there’s no way to do a one-for-one here because it’s minecraft but the general sentiment remains. so while violence enacted against the state is a bad thing for people who aren’t anarchists, techno has no reason to and would not view it as inherently bad.  

but it did hurt people and techno himself acknowledges that fact. he’s acknowledged what he’s done when confronted about it. he hasn’t said he was wrong because understanding that it was hurtful doesn’t mean he believes he was wrong. to him, he wasn’t. destroying what he viewed as an oppressive system was the right thing to do, even if it hurt people.

(also this isn’t any kind of meta but i think it needs to be pointed out that wilbur had already set off the tnt and techno summoned two killable mobs which did plenty of damage but he didn’t say wilbur was the great who came before them for no reason.)

again, this is going to be the most controversial part of this post because i don’t believe destroying government is a bad thing and i don’t believe techno is wrong for believing that as well. there are better ways to address the problem and techno is adjusting his tactics but if another government was to be established, i don’t believe he would be in the wrong to destroy it because he’s an anarchist.

the tl;dr of this section honestly could just be summed up with ‘watch less marvel, read more ursula k. le guin’.

‘techno is the villain because he called tommy the hero’ - so very false 

this is a take i’ve seen that to this day i don’t understand.

techno calling tommy the hero does not mean he was setting himself up as the villain in any capacity. it was merely pointing out tommy’s habit of putting himself at the forefront of almost every conflict, trying to shoulder everything, no matter how it hurts tommy himself. the speech was directed at that and nothing else. it doesn’t mean techno is the villain, it doesn’t even mean there is a villain; there are more stories to be told than the classic hero-villain and the hero-villain narrative doesn’t always apply to stories. (i’d certainly argue that it doesn’t apply to the dream smp but that’s a different conversation.)

techno is to blame for tubbo’s death - false

i think this one has been done to death but what would a techno post be without it?

no, techno is not to blame.

he said over and over that he was outnumbered and believed that if he had done anything, everyone would’ve turned on him and ‘torn him to shreds’. even if that wasn’t the case, it is what techno believed. he had no reason to think that he could take the entire crowd out until he actually fired the rocket launcher. and remember, he tested the rocket launcher earlier during the festival on niki (who volunteered) and it didn’t kill her. when he realized the amount of splash damage it did, he gives a surprised laugh and then begins firing into the crowd. 

as for saying he was under ‘mild’ amounts of peer pressure, techno has a habit of minimizing. not just the things he’s done, but often situations that he’s been in that were stressful. he stated that he deals poorly with high stress situations and one of the cognitive distortions that can come with anxiety is minimization. techno doesn’t actually believe it was ‘mild’ peer pressure - it was a situation that caused him enough distress that he brings it up later at doomsday - but it’s easier to deal with a situation when you downplay it, it’s easier for techno to keep up that calm façade when he’s acting as if whatever happened wasn’t that big of a deal even if it was. again, the way he speaks about it on doomsday was clearly upset and emotional. 

the only person to blame for tubbo’s death is schlatt. he was the one pulling the trigger and techno was the gun.

if you made it this far, thank you for sticking it out! i spent so many hours rewatching all the streams, some of them multiple times, while taking notes to be able to do this. i’m extremely passionate about techno and i feel as if a lot of the arguments against him tend to miss the nuance of his character. this project is on-going and i’ll be going over the butcher army/retirement storylines next. feel free to submit any points you’d like to see addressed! 

[herorps]

shadow and bone and racism

shadow and bone just came out so i can now finally break my silence bc holy shit do they go ham on the racism and me being me, i just have to tell you all about it. possible spoilers and triggers for anti-asian racism and microaggressions.

to preface, i was very privileged to receive a screener for the entire first season last month and i was actually excited to watch it bc i have friends who love the books and the show piqued my interest since it was announced. and i also have to say that i never read the books and i probably never will ( tho i’ve been told i would like soc ) but i did like the show overall. 

i think sab is a good adaptation and that the fans will like this show. i thoroughly enjoyed it and as someone who had very little to almost no knowledge about the books, i didn’t have trouble keeping up with the fantastical world. 

however that doesn’t mean i can’t be critical of it. 

i think the show can actually benefit from people being critical about it because so far, it feels like they took a very tone deaf direction and ran a marathon with it. 

what i’m talking about, is alina starkov being half-shu. 

now, i said before that my interest was piqued for this show when it was announced and one of the major reasons is the casting of biracial actress, jessie mei li, in the role of alina starkov. i can’t tell you how happy i was to see that a half-chinese actress was cast as the lead in a series based on such a beloved ip, especially since the creators of the show consciously changed alina’s ethnicity to be half-shu before casting calls were even sent out. ( for those of you who are also non-book readers, shu is the race of people from the country, shu han, and is based off primarily mongolian and chinese cultures ) 

so i was endeared with the idea that this character, that is coded white, was deliberately changed to be coded asian ( and coded mixed race to boot ) because the producers wanted to include diversity into the show. i commend that, i love that, i support that. but i believe the way they handled it, shouldn’t have been the way they handled it. and it’s because alina’s race is constantly brought up. 

obviously of course race is going to be brought up at some point. alina in the show is surrounded by white people when we first see her, and her home country of ravka does have a hostile history with shu han----i get it. racism is going to play a part in alina’s story. but it doesn’t necessarily need to go so far as to constantly remind the audience that she is shu in almost every interaction she has with someone she meets. 

and that’s a big part of the issue, is that nearly everyone she meets will bring up the fact that she’s part-shu. and a lot of the time, it’s said with hostility. now i’m not exactly sure if i’m just being particularly sensitive because of certain recent events, but the anti-asian racism hits differently these days. idk. 

because that’s what it is, at the end of the day. it’s racism. alina is often the target of very hostile racism and it seems to mainly be directed at her character and her character only. 

and honestly, on a surface level it makes sense, i sort of understand what the producers are trying to do. ravka has a turbulent history with shu han and were involved in wars with them and they’re often seen as the enemy so obviously that would affect a shu-mixed person growing up in ravka, a very white country. but on a deeper level, it reminds me a lot of the anti-japanese sentiments during wwii. the production team even created a banner that i felt called back to those anti-japanese propaganda of that era. ( mind you it was shown multiple times, in main focus, and acknowledged by characters that were coded shu ) 

but on the other hand, they’ve done a considerable job to diversify at least the ethnic makeup of ravka. there are black and brown grisha at the school and there are people of different cultures ( noted by costuming, etc. ) in ketterdam and there’s even a shu-appearing trainer that teaches the grisha to fight. so my question is, why is this very hostile treatment primarily geared toward shu people and geared toward alina specifically? it just doesn’t make sense to me. 

and when i say it’s specifically geared toward alina, i mean that it’s very apparent that they’re targeting her specifically, because mal  ( played by a possibly mixed-race archie renaux ) is also coded to be of mixed shu blood. while it is not explicitly stated that mal is shu, it is heavily implied that he is mixed, but he is never subject to the treatment that alina is, and the only times he is subject to racism is when alina is also present. in scenes where we see alina and mal as kids, they are often both referred to as “mutts” or “half-breeds”. but when they are older, only alina is continuously called those things. 

this isn’t even touching the microaggressions she faces after she’s at grisha school and this one line that made my gut wrench so viscerally i had to pause the episode and replay the part so i could confirm what i heard. [ episode 3 spoiler warning ] i’m trying to avoid posting screenshots or from spoiling parts of the show but there’s a scene where alina is being cleaned up and made presentable by servants and one of them says “I’d start by making her eyes less Shu.” [ end episode 3 spoiler ] i don’t think i have to explain to anyone how offensive that is. and i understand that the intention was to show how racist this servant is, that the entire point of of this weird racism plot is to show how the people of ravka can be racist and ignorant, but to have that line be written by a white writer, approved by a white showrunner and said by a white character to the face of an asian actor/character feels very tactless. it feels like another antagonist alina has to go against is racism itself. 

what also turns me off about this scene is that jessie mei li revealed that this scene is what actresses had to audition with. “...the sides that they sent for the audition, like Alina is talking to Genya and they’re talking about her eyes and they’re talking about her Shu ancestry.” having actresses of mixed-asian ancestry come in and act out that scene for white producers doesn’t really sit right with me. and i know that there’s an argument to be had about how it’s important to show the minutia of what it’s like to be ethnic in a world ruled by white supremacy and that it’s important to show how alina’s race affects her story, but i don’t think that going this far is necessary to the development of plot or character. 

and i don’t personally know jml, i don’t know how she feels about the show apart from what she’s probably briefed to talk about in interviews, but it is perfectly valid for me to feel iffy about the microaggressions while she feels that it’s necessary for character development ( again, this is just an example, i have no clue what she thinks of the racism ). our experiences are different, our upbringings are different, but we’re both happy to see representation and i’m happy that she’s happy to see an actual mixed-chinese character on screen as the lead. 

i’m glad that the producers were open to diversity and were open to making the lead a person of color, but it’s things like the treatment of shu characters and exchanges like “Tell her...Oh, I don’t know...good morning.” “I don’t actually speak Shu.” and “I didn’t know the Zemeni had such talent.” “She’s Suli.”  ( zemeni is a race of “dark-skinned” people and suli are coded south asian/mena/wena so this exchange is just white people mixing the brown people up )  that remind me the majority of the writers and producers are white. 

now i’m not saying that you should boycott the show or that this show is the most problematic thing to ever grace my retinas, because i really enjoyed watching it and i want to see what season 2 has in store ( more crows content please ). but, i want you all to please keep all of this in mind when you watch the series and think critically of what kinds of unconscious biases these producers had. you’re allowed to have nuanced opinions, you’re allowed to be critical of the media you enjoy so long as you understand where some people’s criticisms are coming from---where my criticisms are coming from. i just hope in future seasons the treatment of alina gets better and that she actually learns to love her shu side because otherwise it’s just going to be problematic as the show continues. 

[markets]

ok well c!shittypenis analysis essay under the cut

c!shittypenis is so fucking sad. let me explain.

during season 1, c!shittypenis was inseparable. they had the most beautiful relationship on the whole penissmp imo (you dont have to agree, that opinion does not affect the points made in this essay as i tried to keep it as unbiased as possible). c!penis kept c!shitty grounded when necessary and showed him the importance of sacrificing things for those you care about, while c!shitty helped c!penis be ambitious and stand his ground when necessary, showed him that he didn’t have to settle for anything less than what he deserved. if they hadn’t had each other, they wouldn’t have been able to survive the cockberg war and dethrone c!admiral_anal. and that was what made their love (whether you interpret it as platonic or otherwise) so special. it was about survival and growth, whereas so many others on the smp (eg c!hairballs and c!gargle) were about power, about one of them wanting something from the other. it was refreshing, the only reason cockberg won the war (c!pisskink69′s betrayal would have decimated them otherwise, since they had little to no resources or morale left afterwards), and the driving force between season 1.

but during season 2, we saw c!shitty slowly distance himself from c!penis. props to cc!shitty for this, because it was really fucking subtle. he showed up to the bridge where they would hang out less and less, didn’t help c!penis during the confrontation with c!milfboss that ended up taking one of his canon lives (which directly paralleled the fight with c!pisskink69 at balltown from season 1, but thats for another essay), among other things. 

but it all culminated when he destroyed the bridge. the one they had built together at the start of season 1, the one they started a war for. and it was such a heartbreaking scene. cc!penis’s voice acting really does not get enough recognition. but im getting off topic. the point is, c!shitty did all this for one thing and one thing only: power.

 after freeing cockberg and becoming vice chairman of the cabinet, he was in a vulnerable position: the war, especially c!admiral_anal’s threats towards c!penis, put him in a really bad mental state, one that made him doubt every decision he made and made him desperate for some kind of security. that combined with the amount power that being vice chairman held, just enough for him to see what it was like to have power but also leaving him hungry for more (if you still don’t believe this, rewatch the scene where he imposed taxes on c!glorp’s neighborhood, shitbitch, from the beginning of the season, it foreshadows the conflict super well), made him unable to resist c!bigfuckingboobs’s offer. 

c!bigfuckingboobs is arguably one of the most, if not the most, powerful people on the server: she’s the richest member with the best pvp skills. if they teamed up, there was no amount of power he couldn’t have, no height he couldn’t reach. even if it meant cutting of his friends, it could guarantee them safety in the long run. it could be worth it. it was extremely risky, but then again, c!shitty was never one to shy away from risk. so he took it. c!bigfuckingboobs used this to manipulated him into craving more and more power, until she could use his position in the government and the distance he had placed between him and his friends to take over cockberg and either make it hers or destroy it. 

that’s why c!penis killed c!clitoris on the ruins of the bridge. he saw what power was doing to his friend, and that was his ultimatum, his way of letting him know that he had gone too far. that was the reason c!shitty felt the need to distance himself from c!penis in the first place: the second c!shitty started craving more power, c!penis was wary, if not outright critical of it (dont forget that after the shitbitch dispute, c!penis went to c!hairball behind c!shitty’s back to try and take him out of office). however, he now had what season 1 c!shitty probably would’ve viewed as a valid concern, since the way he was acting directly paralleled c!admiral_anus. hence c!clitoris’s murder, which i personally don’t agree with, but i will say that many c!penis antis ignore the fact that, since its minecraft, pets arent regarded in the same way as they are irl, so while still bad, its not as harsh as many of them are making it out to be imo.

but anyway, c!shitty knew that c!penis was warning him. he knew. but the way c!bigfuckingboobs had twisted his worldview, he saw it not as c!penis trying to keep him safe, but as him dragging him down, trying to keep him from achieving what he wanted, which had originally been safety for c!penis and the others, but was now power for him and c!bigfuckingboobs. the meaning behind c!clitoris’s death, not the death itself, was what prompted the electric chair execution, which so many people seem to not understand. 

and that was what was so sad about it: c!bigfuckingboobs was using the very things they had learned from and taught one another to turn them against each other. c!shitty’s ambition and what c!penis had taught him about sacrifice had caused him to take her deal and distance himself from c!penis in exchange for what he thought would guarantee them safety in the first place, while c!penis’s careful nature and the things he had learned from c!shitty about standing up for himself caused him to directly oppose him. this all led up to c!penis’s execution, directly paralleling c!hairball’s in the cockberg war arc.

c!bigfuckingboobs let them drive one another into ruins, because with that, the very foundation cockburg had been built upon would crumble, and she could take power without ever having to lift a finger. the war left c!shittypenis with different desires, and c!shitty’s desire for power and c!penis’s outright aversion to it due to his trauma with c!admiral_anal clashed and ruined everything they had once had. that is why c!shittypenis is the most heartbreaking dynamic on the penissmp, and why they are some of the best written narrative foils i have ever seen. 

TL;DR: c!shittypenis contrast each other perfectly, and these differences ended up pulling them apart after the war for cockberg

[linkspooky]

Do you have any thoughts on the Pro-Hero's discussion about Shigaraki and his hatred from chapter 311?

My thoughts are this, from both Jeanist and Hawks utter cluelessness to why Dabi could possibly have turned into a villain despite Dabi just telling them why, on tv, and being next to the man who pushed him into it, and from how all three of them fail to understand how Shigaraki could have been so easily groomed into hatred reflects an unacknowledged shadow for all three of them.

In Jungian psychology the concept of the shadow exists. The Shadow is an unconscious aspect of the personality which is outside of the conscious ego. While our consciousness is mainly made out of behaviors and memories, we judge as positive, and our Shadow differentiates by holding emotions, behaviors, and memories we label as adverse or painful. In a shadow, constructive perspectives might be incorporated, but most of the parts remain camouflaged under the thumb points of low self-esteem ness, anxieties, and false beliefs. "Everyone carries a shadow," stated Jung "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. To know yourself, you must accept your dark side. To deal with others' dark hands, you must also know your dark side.

In other words, for characters like Enji and Hawks, all of their bad traits define them just as much as their good traits, to be a whole and complete person they have to recognize those bad traits instead of being in denial of them however, both of them choose to only see themselves as heroes.

Anyway, now for something completely different. Let’s talk about batman and the joker. Batman uses Jungian symbolism a lot, of all the heroes he’s the most famous for being a normal person, who dresses in a costume to fight crime specifically in shadowed alleyways, and has a rogues gallery that also consists of mostly normal people in costumes. Batman’s villains are batman. Batman plays with both the relationship between himself and his villains, and also the relatinoship between Bruce and his own Shadow, because his Shadow is part of who he is. 

Now the most iconic batman villain is obviously the joker, and he’s a character like All for One who most of the time is just written as a character who does evil for evil’s sake, but more serious looks at the Joker like The Killing Joke which My Hero Academia directly references make this comparison between the two of them. The famous One Bad Day speech is also, notably, an attempt for Joker to connect to batman, to try to explain himself to him. 

He’s not just spouting a villain speech, he’s also looking for sympathy and trying to give sympathy, because that’s just what humans do. Because deep down, both Batman and the Joker were normal people once. The connection between Batman and the Joker is that they were both normal people, but one of them became a hero, and the other one a villain, and therefore that potential exists in any normal person. 

However, the heroes in MHA still don’t acknowledge their connection to the villains. Hawks and Enji did apologize yes, but what’s also important is their actions after, which is to choose to continue fighting villains as heroes.

It’s been pointed out by Shoto before that what Enji really needs to do to heal his family, is act like a good father, rather than a good hero. However, when given the chance to reach out to his son, he chooses to fight it instead. There’s a reason that the public isn’t reassured by the actions of Hawks, Jeanist and Endeavor and that’s because they continue to keep playing heroes instead of acknowledging what’s wrong. I’m not saying they are good or bad people, both Hawks and Enji have bad sides of their personality that they are almost completely ignorant of. They, like any human being have the potential to be driven to villainy. That’s why Enji can’t reach out to his son, because his brains have still made the connection that he was what drove Toya to villainry. 

It comes across in the casualness which Enji remarks upon what AFO did to Shigaraki and the complete lack of self awareness. Enji did the same thing, he had a child for the sake of passing on his quirk, raised that child to hate all might and want to do anything to surpass him, and he even wanted to live vicariously through the success of Toya and then Shoto so everyone would know him as Endeavor’s son. He still only cares about Toya to the extent that his dreams were once resting on him. 

So when Enji makes the connection to AFO, he asserts that there must be something wrong with him to do all those bad things, because he’s unaware of the resmeblance between his own deeds and AFO’s. He sees himself as a human being with reasons for his bad actions, he didn’t mean to neglect Toya, he didn’t know what to say to him, he was too guilty and hid from his guilt for so long but he doesn’t allow his enemies to have that guilt. This is a pattern that repeats with Hawks, and Jeanist as well, they can’t understand why people like Twice and Dabi would feel like they have a right to be angry at the society that mistreated them. 

Jeanist’s defense is why can’t he just keep quiet about it. 

Twice’s last words were hating Hawks and wishing the worst for him, yet Hawks still thinks they were best friends somehow.

Hawks and Twice were not friends, because Hawks chose not to be his friend, and to hurt what was most precious to Twice which was all of his other friends. Enji chose not to be a father to Toya and not be a father. Enji and Hawks are neither heroes nor villains, they are not good or bad, they’re just humans and as humans they have the potential to be both. 

In only seeing the hatred that Shigaraki was groomed to have they’re also fundamentally misunderstanding him. The thing is Shigaraki has reasons for his hatred, and not just because AFO forced him to feel that way. It’s not just AFO, that’s what they critically misunderstand, it’s Shigaraki’s experiences with how the society around him has neglected both him and his friends.

That’s something that the heroes can never see, because Shigaraki has been assigned the role of a villain who hates society. It’s not just AFO, Shigaraki can’t be at peace with a society that is designed to reject others.

That doesn’t come from his hate either, it comes from his sympathy with the victims. Just like they only see their own good traits, they can only see the villain’s bad traits. The thing is we have witnessed Shigaraki constantly been challenged on the fact that he only has empty hatred, first by Stain, then by Chisaki, and finally be Re-Destro. We also witnessed the moment he changed. 

The conclusion Shigaraki comes to as the result of his arc is that while he himself doesn’t care about the people, he’s not alone anymore, he wants to give the future to the others around him. 

That’s why Shigaraki’s actions aren’t driven just by hatred, but also by a deeply broken sense of empathy. Not only is he a crying child himself, he’s also someone who acknowledges the feelings of others. What converted Spinner from being someone who didn’t particularly care about the goals of the league, and doubted Shigaraki in front of everyone to his most loyal follower. 

It’s because he came to recognize that this human side of Shigaraki was there. The same way that underneath his mask, Spinner was just a pathetic NEET struggling with his own feelings of inadequacy, Shigaraki gets close to broken people, he tries to protect them, he tries to give some kind of validation to their feelings. 

Shigaraki has grown from just hating all of society because it rejected him, to realizing the real reason is because it rejects everyone around him. That means while there’s hatred to his character, there’s also a very selfish and intense love that applies to a small group of people, but the potential for love is still there. Shigaraki reaches out and saves people the same way that Deku does, he tries to do all the fighting himself to protect others just like Deku, it’s just that he’s been hurt again and again and that’s twisted him to act on his worst trait. None of the heroes understand Shigaraki’s love, because they can only see his hate. 

It’s not just that he’s been victimized or that he’s a crying child. Shigaraki is constantly compared to a child both in a negative sense as a man child, and a positive sense as a child pure heartedly pursuing their dream, because there is that potential within Shigarkai, to grow up, and grow into a better person if he was given the same chance to atone that characters like Hawks and Enji have already received. 

Shigaraki and Deku just like batman and the joker both reflect that in perfectly normal people, there’s the chance for great good, or great evil. For Shigaraki there’s an added level of complexity, that you can still grow into a better person, after everyone has written you off as too far gone. You can still grow to love the people around you when you thought you were only capable of hating. 

Enji and Hawks still have the oppurtunity to grow just like that, not as heroes, but as people. 

However to truly grow as people they would have to learn to empathize with the villains, especially because they have done wrong things too, Hawks killed because he had to, Enji hurt his entire family. Defeating the villain really is not the solution, because sometimes you yourself are the villain. 

In order to fully grow as people they have to learn to see themselves as people, and not heroes. That also means admitting the villains are just as human as they are. If Endeavor is someone who can become better after realizing that he made so many mistakes in the past and the only thing he can do about it is try to do better from now on, then Endeavor’s ending point should be realizing that since he was given that chance by his family, others deserve that chance too, especially his own son.  People are not villains, or heroes, Endeavor is just Enji Todoroki and Dabi is Touya Todoroki deep down no matter how they see themselves. 

[kinatalks]

Let’s talk about DiaLuci.

Look, this isn’t a judgement call. This is merely a flat out explanation and something that should be recognized. There will be a few S2-3 spoilers, but it’s mainly vague, not going into details.

Be aware: This covers sensitive topics regarding the ship, toxic behaviors, abusive relationships, and the angel event.

Firstly, if you support DiaLuci, good for you! I’m not here to shame someone for their ships. But this fandom has a habit of attacking others who aren’t so fond of this ship. Someone can like Diavolo, and not support Dialuci. You can support Lucifer, and not like Dialuci. Or hell, you could dislike either/or both characters and fucking love the ship! No matter which character or ship you like or dislike, you are completely valid.

But this is a post, about the issues with the ship that I personally see, and why it should be more outspoken.

Now lets get to the point of the subject, shall we?

I fairly like Diavolo. He’s charming, joyous, and someone who would be the star of a party. Someone cheerful and bright. However, the way that this fandom persecutes anyone who doesn’t like Diavolo or feels uncomfortable around him is not ok.

In my opinion, Diavolo has shown signs of immature and insensitive behavior. I.e. the way he treats others like toys. Yes, he cares about them, but often doesn’t consider their feelings in things he considers ‘mere pranks.’ This may be because Barbatos constantly assures him that the future will be fine, since Barbatos can manipulate and choose timelines.

He wants the best for the people around him, but doesn’t exactly take criticism or resistance to his advances kindly. “Well duh, he’s a ruler!” So? Yes, he’s a ruler, but that doesn’t mean he should be inconsiderate about others around him. The fact that he disregards others opinions unless it fits his agenda, is a sign of his childishness.

Which means, that over time, Diavolo doesn’t hold much regard to his actions, as Barbatos is always there to catch him. Now that doesn’t mean he constantly is reckless. When it comes to official Devildom matters, Diavolo is an apt ruler, who makes decisions for the Devildom’s best interests.

The problem is, no one has told Diavolo about his less than savory behavior. Because they fear him, and fear the punishments he could inflict upon them. So I can’t really say that he’s a completely bad character.

He wants Lucifer to be his equal, and acknowledge the fact that Diavolo sees him as an equal. Diavolo’s lonely, and it’s explicitly stated as so. He envies the closeness the brothers have. So, he goes about it in the only way he knows how. Which we’ll get to a bit later.

As for Lucifer, I can’t deny I’m quite fond of him. He does his best to overcome his pride for MC, and gradually (in S2-3), he becomes more open with his feelings. Yes, he’s a deeply flawed character, but he’s not a complete villain. The world simply isn’t as black and white as some would like it to be.

Yes, his relationship with some of his brothers is toxic. The way he treats Mammon at times is unacceptable, and possibly abusive in my opinion. The fact that he acts cold and distant to his brothers at times isn’t ok. But one thing I’ve seen others overlook, is that Lucifer is the Avatar of Pride. Does this excuse his actions? No. Does it explain some of his habits? Yes.

Don’t get me wrong, he still has a lot to work on. But he’s getting there, and actively trying to get better.

Now for the ship.

You do not need to like a ship, just because a character from that ship is constantly seen with the partner. Like I’ve said above, you can hate or love Diavolo or Lucifer, and dislike/like the ship.

As for the oath, I won’t delve too deep into this, as it would take essays upon essays worth of information. But we all know that, Diavolo had given Lucifer an ultimatum. Save Lilith, at the cost of Lucifer’s unquestionable loyalty.

Which as we’ve seen, Lucifer had agreed to the terms. And so, he is now Diavolo’s most trusted advisor, his right hand man.

Even though Diavolo says or implies that he sees Lucifer as an equal. He doesn’t always seem to show it. The power imbalance in between both characters is evident, throughout the plot of the story. If Lucifer denies Diavolo’s advances, Diavolo will continue. Why?

Well, you could argue that his behavior is due to him being royalty. Which is true, he’s royalty, and has never been told no. Barbatos has always been there, fixing his mess, so why would he need to worry?

Diavolo praises Lucifer, in a manner that is clearly uncomfortable to the latter. It’s evident that Lucifer despises being praised for his beauty, and just his looks. I’ve seen blogs see it as ‘just a joke’ or ‘being playful’. But time and time again, Lucifer has denied these advances, very obviously disliking the attention and focus on his looks.

But Diavolo continues, and in his defense, you could say, ‘because Lucifer doesn’t say that he’s uncomfortable!’. It’s very obvious that Lucifer isn’t an equal to Diavolo, no matter how much the latter insists he is. We’ve seen Diavolo brush off other’s discomfort at his actions, and we’ve seen him continue.

Diavolo is not evil. This is quite clear, even though he may be suspicious to some. However, his relationship tactics and methods of relationships have toxic, and quite possibly abusive effects.

For example. The angel event.

We all know, that the bangles controlled the 7 avatars, turning them all into angels. Their outfits, and minds, were taken over. The brothers, (excluding Satan.) had gone through traumatic events in these outfits, that’s for sure.

The celestial war, and losing Lilith, all were incredibly traumatizing events forever affecting their mindsets from that day forward. The bangles attempted to brain wash them, and we can see it when Satan states that he doesn’t feel like himself, that he felt calm.

But you might think, “But being calm is great! Isn’t that what he always wantd?’. Not quite.. All Satan had known before was wrath, and being calm completely took away an important part of him. Even though Satan had always resented his wrath, his sin, he had felt like a part of himself was miserable without it. He wasn’t himself, and felt as if he were being forced to be calm, something he loathes.

In all of the brothers, we can see that they are clearly distressed, and may come out of this situation traumatized. 

Lucifer is no exception. We saw how visibly upset he was, the fact that the snow-white wings on his back gave him a constant reminder of the war and Lilith, throughout the entire ordeal.

What was Diavolo doing this entire time? He was being provided entertainment, and reveled the sight before him. He enjoyed seeing the brothers in their angelic uniforms, where they had fought with tooth and nail for their sister, and who knows what else. He enjoyed the fact that the brothers were having angelic ideals forced inside their heads.

And when someone speaks up against him? He’s passive aggressive about it, until the person opposing him gives up, begs for forgiveness, or embarrasses themselves.

While criticism of any of the characters is deemed valid and peachy in this fandom. I haven’t seen any criticism of Diavolo that wasn’t met with backlash and intense hounding. Lucifer, Satan, Belphegor, have all been criticized, but has the majority really deemed those opinions as invalid? No. We can all see why those arguments are valid, and people have their own reasons.

Hell, we’ve all seen people Lucifer left and right. And you know what? They’re completely valid! Some people may have triggers/squicks in regards to his behavior, and it’s completely understandable.

But the moment someone criticized Diavolo, we see fighting and targeting. The person who speaks up gets pushed down and insulted, until they either give up, or agree. If you like Diavolo, good for you, you’re valid! If you don’t, you’re completely valid!

Now back to the ship. Apologies for getting off topic, but oftentimes, when Diavolo and Lucifer are mentioned separately, they’re roped together.

Abusive/toxic relationships aren’t always one where the abusive/toxic partner is an outright terrible person. Oftentimes, they come with charm, a dazzling smile, and friends that would fight tooth and nail for them.

Diavolo has Lucifer in an....uncomfortable position to say the least. In power dynamics, that is. Lucifer is constantly embarrassed publicly and privately by compliments, and Diavolo knows this. He’s demeaned by the oath, and as for work, Diavolo often adds to it, just for fun. I.e, leaving the Devildom to come to the human world, leaving his responsibilities behind.

“But he’s lonely!” Yes, and? He is lonely, yes, but there is a time and place for fun, and time and place for work. He is going to become a King, and if he puts all this responsibility and stress on Lucifer, it simply isn’t right.

They have their good moments, but that absolutely does not make up for the state of the relationship as a whole. Just because someone has their good moments, doesn’t mean you accept and forgive them. That’s like saying that someone who physically abuses their S/O, is a good partner because they occasionally make them dinner. It simply isn’t correct.

Majority of the time, Diavolo is fine with Lucifer being reduced to a pretty face and belittled. In public, which very clearly hurts Lucifer’s pride and reputation.

Many people can resonate with some of these behaviors, having seen them in their past.

So please. Tag your works as DiaLuci for others uncomfortable with it, stop attacking others who dislike the ship, and for fucks sake, enough with hating people who dislike a character and/or ship.