#but the world and its people simply are a lot more nuanced than such a black-and-white viewpoint

[true-blue-sonic]

Silver says that he can't lie in his Sonic Channel intro story, I don't know if I agree that he's supposed to be gullible since he's been shown to be both paranoid and perceptive at times and even the specifics of Mephiles deceiving him and Blaze have been debated. Outside of comics no one has tried to deceive him since the Rivals games so I can't say for certain.

In '06, while I think a large part of Silver's actions can be explained by his desperation about the world being destroyed and his frustration about Iblis being undefeatable, I do feel that he simply is gullible there. A complete stranger shows up and rattles about chickens and eggs and origins, and what he says checks out and provides Silver the exact solution he's been looking for! And Mephiles furthermore never tells Silver any actual lies or direct misinformation! But Silver is not shown to question anything about Mephiles' motives, why he only shows up now, why he is interested in saving the world, and why he suddenly disappears when Silver and Blaze are sent to the past to strangely reappear later and not even offer them more help. And to me, that does indicate a sense of naivete and gullibility. It's what I described in this post as well: the way I interpret is is that Silver is so honest and straight-laced and direct, he expects everyone else to be the same, for no other reason than that he is and he wants the world to be just and fair. Because he wants to save the world and undo Iblis, he expects Mephiles to share those exact same desires, just simply... because. Because it's the right thing, for him, and his line of reasoning at that point in '06 seems to be that if he thinks it is right, it is right. And that comes off as naive and not at all grounded in reality to me.

As for whether Silver is gullible in Rivals 1 and 2, I'd say a little bit yes and a lot more no than in '06. I've remarked before that Silver in the Rivals games can definitely be shrewd: he deduced correctly that "Eggman" was actually Eggman Nega based on context clues, paying good attention to what got actually said, and "Eggman's" own strange behaviours that were too familiar to the Nega he knows. He does let "Eggman" goad him into unnecessary fights with the promise that he'll be given answers if he defeats his opponents, which is then not fulfilled when he wins. But, well, the entirety of both Rivals games is built around that premise, so it wouldn't be fair to blame solely Silver for it if the manner of excuses used to start fights is nothing much deeper than "Rouge tripped Shadow", lol. So for Rivals, Silver seems to be less gullible, but his straighforward honesty mindset is definitely still present. He enters agreements with people (heroes and villains alike) who promise him information if he can fulfil their requirements multiple times despite nothing ever coming from it, and a simple "I believe you" from Espio with no further clarification for this change of heart is enough for Silver to immediately suggest a team-up despite the earlier antagonising between them. So not outright gullible and definitely more on top of the facts than in '06, but still not giving some of the situations he's in the thinking-over they require, I see it as.

The only two attempts of someone trying to 'deceive' Silver in the more recent 2010s that I can think of are Sonic in Generations where Silver states he thinks Sonic might be an imposter trying to get the Chaos Emerald, and Infinite in Forces waxing about crushing heroes and hopelessness. The former is solved easily enough with a battle ending in Sonic's favour, the latter is shot down by Silver accusing Infinite of lying and going on to the attack. But I quite like how Sonic Channel says that Silver cannot lie in his story (I believe he even specifically says it himself, right?); it aligns very well with his honest mindset, in my opinion! But overall, I figure Silver has actually become less gullible over the course of the games; he's a lot less trusting of whatever Eggman tells him in TSR and goes to his friends for help immediately after gathering information. So I do think he's come a long way from that specific bit of characterisation in '06!

[punkpandapatrixk]

❤️‍🩹I Just Want to be Loved ♦︎ Timeless Pick A Card

We attract terrible loves for various reasons; so many lessons; but now sorrow has got to lessen. Let’s reveal patterns by exhuming roots. We’ve got to stop this cycle of disappointments. Done being made to feel as if we’re hard to love.

We’re not hard to love. Many of us were simply denied love, warmth and affection as we were growing up… Don’t know how to love self; don’t know how to love others; basically don’t know how to even receive Love… Who’s to blame now?

Why the hell were so many children denied love, warmth, affection…?

What are you going to do with yourself when you were denied love, warmth and affection as you were growing up?

☆♪°・.

‘The child who isn’t embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.’ – an African proverb

People denied warmth and affection tend to fall into a desperate loop of fishing for attention as a result of love-deficiency, right? Some learn to lick love off a knife; some pursue success (whatever that means) all too frantically; some…shoot complete strangers in broad daylight; and some who ain’t got the guts to murder complete strangers in public places go instead for antagonising strangers on social media… Gosh, that is desperate.

But you know what, not all hope is lost because there’s still plenty of us who are blessed with this incredibly RARE thing called self-awareness. There are plenty of us who will take our traumas to the graveyard than pass them down the next generations.

You, don’t deserve to have your sanity and your Life ruined by some psychos who didn’t know how to love you. Reclaim lost pieces of yourself by understanding THREE Houses in your natal chart, babe:

4th House: your roots; tells you what was lacking in your home; explains your erratic 10th House ambitions

8th House: your marriage or your desire for a bond like it; this the House where trauma manifests itself in full spectrum

11th House: your wish fulfilment; where you connect with people who support your visions; breeds a healthy sense of connection, even community

SONG: Emptiness by BoA

MOVIE: Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)

[PAC Masterlist] [Part 2] [Part 3]

[Patreon] [Paid Readings]

☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・.

Pile 1 – Because I Can’t Even Trust Myself

VIBE: Trust by Hamasaki Ayumi

lost pieces (pertaining to 4th House) – Ace of Pentacles Rx

It’s clear your childhood didn’t offer a sense of stability or security—the physical kind that children usually need. It could be that a grownup left early or it could be that you moved around a lot, so you easily lost contact with new friends you’d just made. In essence, it feels like you grew up feeling ‘everything disappears eventually; everyone leaves eventually’.

Some of you might’ve grown up not having a lot of material resources, but for the majority of you tuning into this Pile, it was more a feeling of a lack of warmth. For children, the pain of neglect and a lack of emotional connection do really affect our physical health more severely. You might’ve grown up poor and sickly due to all the grownups around you being inattentive, unaffectionate, and just…unreliable at best.

Because of this awareness, from a young age you realised you would have to do everything yourself. You wanted to grow up quickly and do your own things your own ways. It’s not like you had to grow up fast, you wanted to grow up fast to have your freedom and power! It was…hard to trust adults. It was hard to trust the world at large.

growing pains (pertaining to 8th House) – 8 of Pentacles

On the path of growing up, I think you became a hard worker of sort? This is very nuanced though—there are layers to your developing yourself to become a hardworking person. In many ways, you grew up responsible because you didn’t want to become like the adults who had disappointed you. But since this sense of ‘responsibility’ is a product of neglect and trauma…this is coming off as your feeling responsible for everything. Everything!

Some of you could’ve been too hard on yourself, expecting way too much for your age. You’ve felt like you’re always the one with everything to prove. It’s hard living like that. It feels like you’ve put so much effort into keeping everything together, and yet, nobody sees how much you care. Nobody truly understands the fear in your mind and pain you carry in your heart.

In matters of relationship, you cling extra hard to friends or lovers, too; because deep down you’re afraid of losing things and people, again and again. This unhealthy attachment—and to some extent, controlling behaviour—is truly your wounded inner child attempting frantically to keep your Reality from falling apart…

reclamation (pertaining to 11th House) – 4 of Cups

I’m very sure that at some point in Life, your Higher Self and team of Spirit Guides are going to kick in and meddle with your Earthly business. For some people, it’s possible you could lose contact with everybody you’ve ever known in Life and go into a hermit mode to find yourself again. For some, it could be that your whole Life is simply flipped, without necessarily losing key people in your Life, for you to look at Life and human connections from a very different point of view.

It’s going to be hard, of course. Emotionally, it could be devastating. Themes of abandonment and betrayal are big in your incarnation. But you know, ultimately, all of these challenges serve to remind you that the Cup of Love and Affection you’ve been looking for has always been right inside of you. You’ve had a bitter time with a lot of people because deep down you couldn’t trust them. You couldn’t trust other people’s loyalty because you didn’t even believe that you’re worthy of that Love and Loyalty you yearn for.

Your Spirit Guides are saying, that although at some point in Life things are going to get really tough, know that when you’ve graduated those lessons, you’re going to be rewarded with the most beautiful Soulmate-shit friendships, familyship and relationship. Truth be told, part of your Soul’s scenario in this incarnation is to find your Soul Tribe; and find your Tribe you shall~

A L O N E🔻💗

ALL of you – Red Alchemist (John Dee)

becoming ONE and whole – Priestess of Healing

Access full reading + cards on Patreon🌸

☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・.

Pile 2 – Misled by My Own Compassion

VIBE: Cry Me A River by Julie London

lost pieces (pertaining to 4th House) – Knight of Cups

It’s very likely your 4th House is in a Water sign, but if not, you’re still very much a Water-y person; perhaps your Ascendant or Moon is in a Water sign, or that you have Neptune/Moon near/in your 4th, 7th or 11th House. All of this generally makes you a deeply compassionate person. No matter what outer appearances give, you strive to look deeper into a person’s Soul. You have so much empathy and you want to believe in the good of people.

Alas! This rotten world doesn’t make it too easy. This world is not a world where kindness and compassion are truly rewarded, if we don’t learn to be a tad cruel ourselves. You’re not in the wrong for being so genuinely good and compassionate; it’s this world that’s the wrong world. You know that? Therefore, it is paramount you learn to be a bitchilante! But I’m getting ahead of myself.

In spite of this PAC’s intro, I sense the majority of you tuning into this Pile actually grew up quite well. Many of you actually grew up in loving homes and that’s why it’s been quite challenging for you to grapple with the realness of the ugliness of the world outside of your loving home. Really…people in the real world…are monsters! And you were taken aback!

But some of you instead most likely grew up in chaotic, battlefield-esque homes and that’s why you’ve striven to be so good to a point of detriment.

growing pains (pertaining to 8th House) – 0 The Fool Rx

Be that as it may, you being you… Well, you do put in the effort to try and understand what makes monsters the way that they are, right? It’s all good and wonderful, until you get yourself in deep trouble where nobody can save you but your own monstrosity. Depending on your age when reading this, this could be something that’s happened in the past or will happen; where you will be forced to grow up in the sense of seeing the world as it is and get firm with assholes!

Dr Jordan Peterson has this gold shit to summarise this spiritual lesson you will be taking at some point in Life: ‘You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn to control it.’ Well, that’s male speech. In female speech, we just say: ‘you gotta grow up and be a bitchilante!’

Be a bitch only to those who deserve it. How would you protect yourself from monsters if you don’t have the strength to fight them at their own game, darling? If you’re harmless, weak as a fawn, if anything, the real monsters in the world are going to toy with your sanity: ‘I saw my “crazy” side once and decided I wouldn’t be involved with anyone that would take me out of my peace like that ever again.’

Be a bitchilante. That whole concept of ‘good, harmless, love and light, positivity-only’ bullshit was put out there not to really make you good but to weaken you against the truly monstrous ones. WAKE UP, BITCH!

reclamation (pertaining to 11th House) – 4 of Pentacles

So? So what if you’re selective with your affection? Not everybody deserves your compassion. That’s for sure. There are many people in the world and you can’t be nice to all of them. One at point or another, you’re gonna be a villain in someone’s story—so what? Everybody else is the main character of their own Stories; that, you can’t control.

Be careful that you’re not falling victim to your own narcissism in wanting to be praised in everybody’s Story, yeah? So then, pertaining to your 11th House, weirdly enough, your wish fulfilment is in the form of a psychological liberation from your own idea of yourself in the minds of others. I sense that if you’re East Asian this is gonna resonate much harder and louder LOL

Anyway, I want to assure you that once you’ve graduated from your spiritual lessons, you will be met with unique, courageous, rebellious weirdos who will be just as clear as you are about what it truly means to be a good person in a world that’s often very bad. How good should a person be to truly be considered a good person?

‘If I offended you, cry me a river. I’ll bring snacks and a raft. I will literally float down your tears eating chips and working on my tan.’ – Fuckology

A L O N E🔻💚

ALL of you – Green Geographer (Gerardus Mercator)

becoming ONE and whole – Priestess of Success

Access full reading + cards on Patreon🌸

☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・.

Pile 3 – Lights Out; I’m Out to Find Myself

VIBE: To. X by Taeyeon

lost pieces (pertaining to 4th House) – Ace of Cups Rx

I’ve to preface this Pile by saying this the pile that gets a little violent…

You were originally such a positive, happy-go-lucky kid, but quite early on, this world gave you so much darkness. So many reasons to be sad. It’s not been a very kind life, to be honest. Defo many of you have tragical placements here—your 4th or 5th House could start or end in Scorpio; have Lilith/Pluto/Chiron/Saturn there or in the sign of Cancer/Pisces; or it could be that your Venus/Moon is imprisoned in the 8th or 12th House and harshly aspected, too...

If your childhood has been violent or mightily confusing, it’s a group thing, OK? You can think like that. It’s not your fault. Know that practically everybody who has these harsh placements has gone through very similar things as you. So you’re really not the only one who’s failing—whatever that means. You’ve been gaslit a lot into believing there’s something wrong with you, but it was your environment that was just filled with totally terrible Human beings. That much I’d like to assure you.

It wasn’t natural how you were abused psychologically and emotionally. The people around you drew a parallel to Cinderella’s stepsisters in the Disney classic. It’s ridiculous like that. I think you grew up terribly lonely and created comfort characters in your head to console your sorrows? It’s very likely that your comfort characters were in actuality a mirror fragment of your Soul Family’s existence locked in your memory bank.

growing pains (pertaining to 8th House) – XIV Temperance Rx

Life, unfortunately, isn’t a Disney movie. As a result of the psychological and emotional abuse you’ve endured in childhood, your friendships and relationships might’ve been quite turbulent, at times even violent. Juuust a small number of you could’ve dealt with being called a violent kid, or you could’ve struggled with anger management and have terrible tantrums. All of these have made human connections quite difficult to navigate.

It’s not like you want to be a nasty person, right? Many times, you couldn’t help the way you react/respond to what’s being said and unsaid because, somehow, there are many things that people do and say that trigger a trauma response in you. There’s a very difficult Mars thingy going on here. I think many of you resonating with this Pile have some difficult Mars (ruler of Scorpio) placements/aspects that affect the way you manifest human connections in your Life.

Speaking in terms of synastry, it could be that you’ve attracted a great deal of people whose Mars aspected badly in your natal chart—consequently triggering bad traumas and manifesting violent outbursts in your connections. Ultimately though, these negative experiences with other people could’ve enforced your belief about how unlovable you are, which, really, is a false belief…

reclamation (pertaining to 11th House) – 5 of Wands

It is a false Reality that you’re unlovable or unworthy of a healthy relationship. That bullshit was implanted in you through the creation of a harsh environment that caused you a great deal of rage. Of course, you’re accountable for how you behave towards other people, but your foundation was never quite healthy or peaceful or harmonious, so… How about we put it all behind us and focus on healing? After all, it’s not like the people you’ve had a beef with were completely innocent? XP

It's kinda selfish to think like that, but you can depend on your own discernment to distinguish who amongst the people you’ve hurt or had a beef with to apologise to. Remember: sometimes apologies only make you weaker and looking at the unique bullshit astrological placements you were born with… apologising to the wrong fucker would only get you gaslit even more! So, don’t. Don’t apologise for the distress you experienced under other people’s lack of support.

Burn that bridge and detach yourself from that old stinking world. With your sheer willpower, you have it in you to rebuild your own little world of love and peace. After all, those harsh placements you were born with, are you aware of just how much power they bestow you? These placements come with a lot of turbulences but once you graduate your first Saturn Return, they also give you a burst of power unlike any other!

Lights out. Not entertaining aenergies that seek to nip your power at the bud anymore. Burn, baby, burn strong! Burn the whole Tower and find yourself on new lands~!

A L O N E🔻💜

ALL of you – Gold Alchemist (Roger Bacon)

becoming ONE and whole – Priestess of Solitude

Access full reading + cards on Patreon🌸

☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・.

[PAC Masterlist] [Part 2] [Part 3]

[Patreon] [Paid Readings]

[thrashkink-coven]

Okay I’m going to say it because I’ve seen like 10 posts about this in the last week and it’s kind of aggravating.

Before you start practicing paganism or dual faith or anything of any kind PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn the meaning and history of Syncretism. PLEASE.

Please stop saying that Christmas is only a Christian holiday, please stop saying that Christmas was stollen from the pagans. Please stop insisting that Yule and Christmas are the same holiday! Please stop saying that pagans cannot celebrate Christmas or that Christians shouldn’t celebrate Christmas! Christmas is many things to many different groups of people and ideas and customs evolve through time!!! There is NUANCE to these very complex ideas!!! Christmas does not need to be reclaimed, please stop.

Please stop saying that it belongs or doesn’t belong to any given group especially when humanity is so prone to spread messages and customs amongst eachother!!! “Similar” does not equal “the same” and different does not equal “the enemy”. Please stop trying to create these illogical divisions where they do not exist!!! Please read about the history of faith !!!! I beg of you!!!!

So often we see the blending and unity of concepts as “appropriation” and I’m sick of it. Our beliefs connect us so much more than they divide us. We learn so much about the world from each other and our different interpretations.

Likewise, just to touch base- nearly every single mythology or faith in the entire world takes its inspirations from somewhere. You are no superior to a Christian because you think your faith and customs are “older”.

We live in a paradoxical universe where multiple things can be true at once. You DO NOT get the authority to tell a Christian that their God is XYZ just because you’re a pagan. You do not get the authority to redefine how a group of people sees and interacts with their personal name of God. And you by no means get to claim credit for how different cultures interpret the natural world.

Yes, Christians obviously have a lot of practices that mirror pagan ones, they are not pagan, do not call them pagan. I don’t care how you feel about the Abrahamic God. So many of us hold a deep resentment towards Christianity because of religious trauma and I completely understand that, but when you try to massively oversimplify such complex topics like religion and faith, you not only risk sounding like an asshole but you make yourself look straight up stupid because you’re just wrong.

I am a devotee of Lucifer and I believe him to be the divine masculine aspect of mother Venus. I still need to understand and respect that for Christians, Lucifer represents something entirely different and that’s okay. They’re not necessarily wrong even if I fundamentally disagree. I disagree with what Lucifer is among other Luciferians and Satanists. That’s OKAY.

We have GOT to stop talking about mythology and folklore so literally. It leads us to have this “one or the other” mentality when more than one thing can be true at once! These myths are flexible and meant to change with culture. We can have respectful debates and conversations but holy moly please stop insisting that Christianity has “stollen” from you, and please for the love of God please stop trying to ruin a day that is significant to them by telling every Christian you see that Christmas is actually a pagan holiday.

(- and when I say this I am not referring to the atrocities of assimilation and slavery that forced pagan cultures to become Christian/catholic due to racism and xenophobia, that’s obviously very bad. My argument is simply that the entire Christian/Jewish/ Muslim faith cannot be discounted simply because historically, bad people used it to do bad things).

Thank you. 🙏

[xclowniex]

How is people pointing out the atrocities committed by the IDF/IOF whatever the hell they are immediately labeled “allies of Hamas” when ya’ll constantly always use the whole “you can disagree with the actions of others” excuse to justify why Israel does whatever they do

Please point out where I have ever said that. It's honestly pretty tiring getting asks where people try to put words in my mouth that I have never said.

What you can find on many posts on my blog is me saying that I myself do not agree with the actions of the Israeli Government or the IDF and that you can criticize the Israeli government and IDF without being antisemitic which a lot of people fail at doing.

A lot of "criticisms" come from modern day blood libel where people will straight up say an antisemitic trope and swap out jew for zionists or Israel and that is not okay. Changing jew to zionists or Israel or anything similar does not remove the fact that it's still an antisemitic trope being used towards either half of the world's jews (as half live in Israel) or towards 80% of jews (as 80% of jews believe in some form of zionism, the most popular form amongst jews is a peaceful two state solution)

Another from of antisemitism which is masked as "criticism" is when people will only say something is bad if Israel does it yet is fine with any other country doing it. This is antisemitism as why is something only bad when the only jewish state in the world does it?

If a criticism does not fall into either group, then it's not antisemitism.

I also have not labeled everyone as "allies of hamas" what you are thinking about is when I have replied to anons and people saying they are riding hamas's dick or have drunk the hamas koolaid. This is simply me calling out people who are falling for hamas propaganda. Microsoft literally did a report earlier this year on Iran pushing pro hamas propaganda online and getting a lot of engagements. You can search the research findings yourself online as it's free to view.

Whilst I do understand that my replies can be harsh, from my perspective, I am getting a lot of asks, a lot of which I just delete and do not answer, of people who do not understand the basic concepts I have explained here and also like to do the whole "oh you only post about pancakes, you must hate waffles" thing. And it gets tiring and annoying. I do get fed up with people who do not understand nuance when it comes to things or that I might only focus on the Jewish and Israeli side of things because there are already so many great voices there speaking out for Palestine. Adding my voice won't do much more for palestine so instead I lend it back to my community, trying to fight antisemitism and xenophobia.

And the thing is, antisemitism deserve to be spoken about. It deserves blogs which only speak about it or is the main focus. I've experienced a lot of it in my life. I'm not gonna just trauma dump right now but I have been hate crimed before. It was not fun. And when I see levels of antisemitism which is worse than during the time I was hate crimed and a lot of the rhetoric being said that I was hate crimed for, I can't help but to not want to lend my voice to speak out about antisemitism.

Onto your last point, I have never justified any Palestinian civilians deaths. The closest I have ever gotten to it was on a post talking about the hostages where I say it is a difficult situation as Palestinian civilians have died during the hostages rescue and that Palestinian and Jewish and Israeli lives are all equal in value. And that its also hard because if the hostages were not rescued, they would likely have been killed at some point in the future and it's just a hard situation as my heart goes out to all the Palestinians who died that day as well as that I am happy that 4 hostages are home. In that post I also mentioned that my ideal scenario is no one dead, both in the operation and in the war in general and for everyone to be safe.

The other thing which I get a lot of anons about is whenever I bring up the war crimes done by hamas, such as in that same post about the hostages, I mentioned how it is a war crime for hamas to have the hostages in a civilian area and that in the eyes of international law, those Palestinian deaths are due to Hamas.

I honestly don't think that either of those things is justifying the IDFs actions. What I do think is that you, and so many others are afraid of nuance. As soon as someone like myself goes "these are all the factors at play and it sucks that things have turned out as they have" and not "idf bad no nuance ever" you get uncomfortable. And its fine to be uncomfortable. But what isn't okay is taking that feeling of uncomfortableness and directing it into misreading jews online to try and feel secure in your world view again.

I honestly hope that you have read all of this, as I know it's a long post, and you consider everything I have said.

[cosmicjoke]

One tactic that some Eren fan once tried to argue to me, in trying to defend Eren's actions, is that Isayama, halfway through his story, suddenly decided that fighting back was "bad", and that's the cause of Eren's supposedly sudden shift in character at the end of the story. This person basically tried to blame it on Isayama changing his mind about the themes of AoT and, thus, on bad writing. They couldn't just accept that that was who Eren was all along; a whiny, selfish child that put himself and his desires above everyone else. Eren isn't bad because he was "fighting back", he's bad because he used the justifiable cause of self-defense as an excuse to commit horrific atrocities, when the real reason behind his actions was a childish inability to accept the way things were. It's why Eren's murder of the two sex traffickers who had kidnapped Mikasa was, on its face, justifiable, but the real reason behind Eren's actions wasn't. He did it because he was bored and enjoyed it. He could have waited for his father to get the authorities, but he didn't. And he didn't because he wanted to do what he did. He wanted to commit murder. It wasn't self-defense, it was self-indulgence.

Isayama never condemned the concept of self-defense or fighting back, and I think anyone who thinks he did wasn't paying any kind of attention to what they were reading/watching, and they aren't giving AoT enough credit for its nuance and sophistication.

The thing about AoT is that it doesn't present or force any sort of black and white moralistic world view on the reader/viewer. I talk about this with Levi a lot, how Levi is really representative of how morality isn't a static concept. How it varies and depends on the circumstances. He's a good man, the kindest, most compassionate man, that does quote on quote "bad things". Bad things within the context of normal society. But context always matters, and violence and killing isn't always wrong, even as it's always tragic. Jean, for example, very harshly criticizes Levi for killing people, only to be placed shortly thereafter in a position of having to kill in order to defend both himself and the lives of others; and when he falters and fails to do so, it's Armin who's forced to take that burden upon himself. We see in that moment how Jean's static morality and stubborn world view caused great harm to one of his friends, because he was more interested in preserving that static idea of morality and, thus, his own self-comfort, than he was in protecting his comrades. Jean's unmoving morality costs Armin dearly. Jean, in that moment, was extremely selfish.

And yet Levi later says to Jean that he doesn't know what's wrong or right, and he doesn't condemn Jean for his inaction, but simply states a fact; that Armin saved his and others lives by taking action in his place. Isayama's themes are never so basic or self-righteous as to present a definite answer on moral questions. He never tries to convey any kind of black and white world view. Rather, he presents the complexity of morality, and it's ever shifting conditions, while also showing us the oft tragic outcome of violence, even when that violence is justified or necessary.

Eren's actions weren't actions taken in self-defense or defense of others, they weren't necessary to his or anyone else' survival, and so they can't be defended and aren't justifiable. But Eren was given the power he was in an attempt at self-defense. Because a group of people was being persecuted and punished for things they weren't responsible for. That act of giving Eren power is justifiable. And that's the tragedy. Of having to rely on a bad person like Eren in a desperate attempt to survive. Just like Armin's emotional distress at having to kill in order to save Jean was a tragedy. Armin was justified, but it didn't stop him from being damaged by the event. It's not the self-defense itself that's wrong, but the fact of people being placed in a position of having to defend themselves at all, and all the many consequences of that, including the trauma is causes, both to ourselves and others, the sometimes ugly things it forces us to, and the cyclical, inescapable nature of it, that's tragic.

So it's not about questions of right and wrong, good or bad. Really, AoT is more a study on the tragedy of human nature and of nature itself. The world is cruel but beautiful, as Mikasa says. It's designed this way, and we're designed this way, and that's the way it will always be. Kill or be killed. Nature itself is predicated on that truth.

[gemsofgreece]

Καλημέρα! I'd like to ask you about the colours of Classical statues and temples. Have you seen any reconstructions you liked? Bless the people investigating them, it seems they didn't wanna assume too hard so they ended up making the statues look somewhat on the very gaudy side. (I sent the same ask to @alatismeni-theitsa just to be sure)

Haha this is a sore spot for me because I really do love the woren all white look!

However, we all have to acknowledge that the preference for the bare white look is largely a bias infliltrating our minds through the presumed superiority of Renaissance Art. The colour of the ancient statues had already faded by that time, making Renaissance artists believe that this was the actual classical prototype that was supposed to be imitated and glorified.

I believe our love for the all-white classical look in sculpture is based on both this bias, but also the aetherealness, distance and solemnity that was believed to be communicated through this lack of colour and the exposition of the work done on the bare luxurious marble. That second reason is what I find beautiful in it too.

Of course, actual Ancient Greek art was coloured. Given that Greek art of antiquity aimed at a naturalistic approach, it is absolutely reasonable that the artists wanted their artwork to have the colours of the real subject / object it was depicting. What you see now are recreations based on whatever colour-tracing methods we have available today, which are not infallible yet. While the general conclusions must be more or less accurate ("this part of the chiton was red and the hair was black" etc), they still remain hypothetical because the methodology cannot perfectly detect hues, paint layers, different pressures on the paint and all those techniques that provide nuance and are integral to art. Having said this, we should also remember that creating paint hues in antiquity was extremely difficult and obviously the paint job done could not be equal to that of the last centuries. Therefore, with our modern criteria, ancient paint job must have often be underwhelming but, again, I believe we also are in a position in which we do not get the precise, fully accurate picture yet.

In a way, this conviction we all have that coloured statues are kitsch is kind of arbitrary, simply because the notion that sculpture reached its peak with the Renaissance is so very deeply engraved to our minds. Think about modern art for a moment: modern paintings, figures and figurines, ceramics with paint... or even sculpture from other cultures of the world outside the Greco-Roman sphere: none of this is considered kitsch, simply because none of this is directly compared to Renaissance scupting. (Although of course other cultures' arts are often viewed derogatorily through this very pervasive presumption that the Renaissance was the peak.)

We also should return back to the considerable probability of poorly made recreations, which lack nuance. Take these examples:

Jesus Christ Superstar

Not the best, right? However, if we see paintings and art from earlier times i.e Mycenaean and Minoan and contemporary ones like rare surviving Classical, Hellenistic and Grecoroman art, we realise that colours were used wisely and there was the concept of layering, shading and creating detail and nuance.

In this art of Alexander (100BC, exhibited in the Museum of Napoli) we can see an extensive use of highlighting, layering and creating shadows, which is very different from the blast of thick paint you will see on these recreations.

There are also recreations which prove exactly that a lot of the responsibility regarding how we perceive them lies on the very quality of the recreation itself.

Source

Honestly, for me this is totally fine. You can find fine modern art - even modern Greek folk art - of similar styles or colouring. The quality of the recreation here is far superior than the ones above.

This one, I am also totally fine with it, especially the last of the colourised ones. It took exactly the same amount of extraneous work for the artist to sculpt plus the struggle of painting it. And it gives us so much additional information about what fashion looked like.

The recreations made for ancient Greek temples prove more how colour could actually be used in good taste:

If I told you this was some late medieval manuscript art, you'd not think of it as kitsch. The idea immediately kicks in when I say it is a recreation of a Parthenon frieze colourised. (Source)

In this recreation IMO the Parthenon looks hella fine!

I confess I struggle with the Caryatids of the Erechtheion:

but I suppose it's partly because to us it looks like you took all the redhead Barbies you had and assigned them to carry the building. Without all the preconceptions we have, which are informed by kitsch cheap art of the last decades and the axiom that Renaissance sculpture is the best, Ancient Greeks were probably astonished by the beauty and realism of six different beauties making the temple stand. For me, who I am influenced by all that I have analyzed, my colour tolerance would go as far as having all of them like the Caryatid in the middle, with the white peplos. Apart from that, the paint in the temple is totally beautiful and elegant. (Source)

The neoclassical Academy of Athens uses paint like in antiquity except it draws the line in the statues (and perhaps it uses more gold). The Academy of Athens is exemplary.

Zappeion also has colour and it's marvelous:

I believe this was the aesthetic ancient artists were going for.

In conclusion, I think ancient artists tried to use paint in the best of their abilities, no differently than how we also almost always add colour to our modern art, except of course there must have been limitations to the qualities and varieties of paint hues that could be produced at the time, which would inescepably sometimes lead to results less than ideal. Regardless of how well or poorly painted any particular ancient artwork was, we are predisposed to view it negatively anyway because we are wired to believe that the Renaissance style set the standards for what is beautiful and what is not and that when it comes to colour in sculpture, less is obligatorily (much) more.

That's all I got to say! From my side, καληνύχτα! (I'm posting this way past midnight lol)

[cienie-isengardu]

There is visual storytelling with Bi-Han's frustration with Liu Kang, but story mode does nothing to validate his frustrations at all, making said frustration seem unjustified, and that he's in the wrong for feeling this way, as he's the only Lin Kuei who actually is frustrated. Not everyone saw his frustration, so is the visual storytelling intentional, or coincidental? It's ironic, as Mortal Kombat is not known for its subtlety at all.

In advance, forgive me for starting with introduction-digression about Mortal Kombat 1’s storytelling - I promise it has a point related to Bi-Han.

Mortal Kombat 1’s main purpose is to set the ground for future storytelling so understandably, we can’t expect this game to spell out every detail to us at once right away. We, as freshly introduced guests to Liu Kang’s timeline, take a lot at face value about characters and setting because we simply don’t have enough knowledge about them yet. However I wouldn’t say MK1 lacks subtlety or it didn’t show us a pretty nuanced world already. The best example is the Edenia admired and praised by Liu Kang, as a beautiful, knowledgeable and wealthy place

and indeed the first impression fits well what Fire Lord told his champions. Yet under the gorgeous facade lurks the much darker, uglier side of Edenia - and by extension, of Royal Family. 

When the wonderful and joyful parade was disrupted,

the scene following was there to explain the conflict between Li Mei and the Royal Family, however the visual side of story foreshadows what Baraka’s chapter will reveal - the sick people are treated like unwanted trash. Here alone, they aren’t peacefully led outside the city, they are bound like criminals - both (potentially) sick and those who refused to hand them over to the authorities for "quarantine" (a word used by Li Mei, but as next chapters will shown, the quarantine means banishment and dying slowly in miserable conditions). This one chapter alone gives us two sources about Edenia - Liu Kang’s words and the background details which frankly paint two different pictures. Liu Kang noted how Sindel spared no money for the festival and Tournament (Mileena added it is to honor the memory of Sindel’s late husband and her father)

and how he does not judge the Queen, only admire 

- but apparently the Queen cared more for Festival/Tournament and to make Edenia look as a great nation than she cared for her sick subjects who for years were dying in poverty, excluded and persecuted by edenian society. She even blamed Mileena for getting sick and said that to her face. Sindel also accepts Umgadi system that literally forces edenian families to give up their first daughters for training (indoctrination), so the ruling Family have a loyal Palace Guard to uphold their safety - and power -  and Liu Kang, like most of characters, admired those warriors showing no criticism toward such practices that strips born-free citizens from their freedom, family, even from right to fall in love. All in the service of Edenia’s monarchy. 

My point is, what we are told about Sindel - the beloved good Queen - and what we are shown by details happening in background or brought by tie-in materials (character BIOs, intro dialogues) are not mutually exclusive, but those for sure highlight the contradictory and flawed image the new Mortal Kombat saga introduced in its first installment . However the main criticism toward Sindel is not focused at presented by story flaws and errors, only at her relationship with Liu Kang and Earthrealm and comes from General Shao and his allies. Considering who he is, it is easy to side with Sindel yet we can’t say the game didn’t laid some solid ground for a very serious criticism, both for Sindel, the ruling Family and Liu Kang who always spoke highly about the Queen, King and Princesses.

Now, let’s talk about Bi-Han.

On one hand, intro dialogues and story mode itself are too consistent and repetitive about Bi-Han’s firm take on freedom & enslavement to think it is coincidence, especially for a character so sidelined as Sub-Zero was. Clearly, someone made a deliberate choice to emphasize those two values in regard to motives behind Bi-Han’s action, even if the official BIO itself appointed POWER as his main theme. 

On another hand, there is no doubt that the game was not intended to focus on Sub-Zero’s frustrations nor examine its roots in any great detail, at least not at this early stage of introducing a new timeline. It doesn’t help that Bi-Han was seen in two first chapters, one his own (ch. 8) and in following Scorpion’s (ch.9) to disappear from the story for good and returning as the Champion/Titan Sub-Zero only as an alternative choice of player.

However! Even with such limited focus, the game in my opinion laid enough ground, both as what we are told and what we are shown by story mode alone, to get the feeling Bi-Han’s frustration didn’t come out of nowhere. Could it be handled better? Of course! But I must disagree with the opinion that visual storytelling didn’t do its work. It may not hit fans straight in the face with all its nuances, yet there is a clear difference in how Lin Kuei characters are treated by Fire Lord in contrast to other Liu Kang’s Champions and friends.

And this is not just about Bi-Han, but also about the treatment of Kuai Liang and Tomas. 

For one, the story always presented Lin Kuei doing Liu Kang’s bidding - be it testing the new Champions or eliminating a threat (black op mission). We do not see Fire Lord interacting with them outside of Lin Kuei servitude, while he clearly spent time with Johnny, Kenshi, Raiden and Kung Lao outside of their main (game) purpose. This is especially visible at the end of the story, when all of them dinner together at Madam Bo’s, clearly celebrating their success. Bi-Han’s lack of presence is understandable, yet Kuai Liang and Tomas? All we are told about Scorpion is that he was tasked with making a new clan to replace the rebellious Lin Kuei (thus he is doing another bidding of Fire Lord while Champions are allowed to take a break and enjoy time with friends)

while Smoke is completely omitted - even though the man fulfilled his duty to Earthrealm as any other Liu Kang’s Champion did and now helps to build Shirai Ryu clan. 

Frankly, not acknowledging Lin Kuei in itself contrasts a lot with how Liu Kang interacted with his Outworld friends and Champions. Bi-Han has never been addressed as Grandmaster of Lin Kuei (nor by his codename?), even during introductions to Kung Lao, Raiden, Kenshi and Johnny. Meanwhile, the edenian Royal Family’s titles are always respected. Jerrod is called outright a friend and so is Geras - yet not once in story mode Liu Kang expressed regret over the premature death of Bi-Han, Tomas and Kuai Liang’s father. Smoke actually was omitted all the time by Liu Kang and visually/story-wise speaking, Liu Kang alienated Tomas more than Bi-Han did in the few scenes the brothers shared together.

Even the recruitment of new Champions is questionable. Liu Kang took Bi-Han - a Grandmaster who had his own duties to a whole clan  - on a trip to test the new fighters. Since Bi-Han and his men weren’t fighting to the fullest of their strength, what was the point of dragging Sub-Zero in the first place instead of just picking fighters more closely in level to Kung Lao, Raiden, Kenshi and Johnny? Was Bi-Han’s presence there truly necessary, when already two other sons of the late Grandmaster took part in the test too? All done just to lose so the precious Champions could brag about their victory? That alone must be frustrating if we remember that members of the Lin Kuei weren’t trained to fight the “honorable kombat match”, as in one on one, but to kill the enemy as fast as possible - as chapter 8 and 9 clearly showed.

Sure, the story mode - be it the words taken at face value or visual storytelling alone - didn’t go out of its way to hit us in the face about Bi-Han’s frustration yet there is a clear contrast in how Liu Kang treats his Lin Kuei subordinates and how he interacts with people he openly admires and likes. There are plenty of nuances laid out for people who will bother to look for those hints and compare them to the rest of presented material. 

Also, a thing worth to remember: just because Kuai Liang and Tomas are content with their life and duties, it does not mean Bi-Han shouldn’t be frustrated by things the way they are. Just because he is not trying to be sympathetic, doesn’t mean his feeling of injustice is invalid or that his points have no merit whatsoever.

I may be disappointed with the creators' choices, but I can't say that MK1 is devoid of nuances and interesting contradictions. All comes down to fans and their personal perception of what the story tells us through characters and what shows to actually happening.

[princess-of-the-corner]

This is just my take, https://www.tumblr.com/princess-of-the-corner/755414313197617152/yeah-thats-what-i-meant-about-tim-killing-joker?source=share

Tim can be rather interesting when looked at through a lens of "Willing to do a murder" but only if he's not self aware about it.

What I mean is, when Tim's introduced his whole thing is wanting to see Batman back on the straight and narrow. Tim by and large has an extremely rigid and inflexible morality that he didn't inherit from Batman but his own parents/society.

This is why he hates/hated Catwoman, she is a thief and therefore bad.

HOWEVER

Tim also would lose his shit and try to kill or aim to kill and in one scenario only avoided killing by technicality far more often than people realize. The thing is though the narrative and framing never really... Realize this.

Basically:

When Tim tries to kill someone its because he's feeling so much, and the situation is so hard and even if he did almost or maybe did kill someone it doesn't say anything about Tim!

In contrast when Stephanie tries to murder her abusive dad, and is indifferent to the possible death of a guy who tried to kill her & Tim with a chainsaw, that does reflect her morality. That means she's a problem!

Its a pretty consistent double standard that gets bandied around a lot and can be quite vexing. But as said, to me he interesting way to view it is basically that between say, Tim & Steph, she is actually the one with more control.

IE, she went out with plans to murder her father, he knows her identity and tried to kill her moments before. She could still be talked out of killing him & chilled out.

In contrast, & assuming I remember this right, pretty sure I do XD

Tim tried to kill someone who had killed a classmate he didn't even seem to like that much. Said shooter was in a messy situation and the guy shot had been threatening him before and even brought a gun to school before 'straight as an arrow' Tim told on him to to his father, Jack Drake. Tim had to be forcibly held back from killing him by Stephanie and Connor Hawke.

As before, Stephanie's intro has her framed as a anti hero at best. While Tim, even after like 12 months of Bat training and plenty of case experience almost loses his head over a too personal case and goes to murder.

So yeah, I can see Tim doing a murder, but only in the context of. Tim losing his temper or getting too personally involved in a case and basically having a "My murder is morally acceptable" mentality. While still refusing to see anyone else's nuanced experience.

Honestly, Tim's a fascinating character if one leans into how Tim was very much not cut out for the life he threw himself into.

Hence steadily becoming so bitter and broken and in a "Dark Future" becoming a gun wielding Batman.

While in contrast, characters like Stephanie & Cassandra are kind of used to overcoming horrible shit and so super hero work isn't notably worse than what they're already dealt with.

Or in other words, Tim comes from a place of privilege, both in universe and in the narrative.

This informs how he has a simplistic view of the world and why he fails to register his own hypocrisy or 'moral weaknesses' and why the narrative never recognizes it either.

Which all fed into him not handling it well when he those privilege's were steadily made redundant or simply not enough to compensate for hew new circumstances and challenges, causing his hard lines to waver far more easily than he or the story realize.

That's my take anyway.

makes sense!

[skateboardtotheheart]

in every fandom, I see a lot of posts that are always like "if you don't like this character you're wrong" or "you just don't understand them" and seeing those kinds of posts just makes me so frustrated???

most recently I've seen a lot of those posts about the cat king from dead boy detectives (just because it's my latest hyperfixation), and frankly, yeah, I don't really understand. and I will read your entire long post explaining why he's got all these little nuances or subtle tones or genuineness that I missed and I can grow a little more understanding about him. but hey- when I'm done reading your post? unfortunately I still do not like him. I can appreciate him and what he brings to the show, but I just don't like him. it's not because I think he's creepy or gets in the way of a ship or anything most people automatically assume - he's just not my vibe. he simply doesn't fit in the scope of characters I enjoy.

and why is that wrong?? why do I need to be lectured at because of that?? when did fandoms get to a point that people aren't allowed to have differing opinions on a character or dislike a character just because? yes, a lot of the time it is, but it doesn't always need to be deeper than that.

YOU relate to that character on a deeper level, YOU understand their intrinsic motivations, or at least what you perceive them to be, and YOU love that character. fantastic!! I'm happy for you!! enjoying media in a way where you can do that is how it is meant to be!! but in absolutely no universe will everyone ever have the exact same interpretations of a character or piece of media. we all see different aspects of people and relate to things/characters differently. I've been on both sides of things! sometimes my favorite character in a show is someone that everyone else hates or doesn't care for, but I'm okay with that! if they disagree with me, then they disagree with me. I've done the deep dives into why I think the character acts the way they do and taken time to devote myself to better understanding them.

but some people just don't do that. you can be a fan of something without doing that with a character. hell, you can be a fan of something by only ever consuming the source material at its surface level and NEVER going deeper if you do not want to do so. it's allowed.

maybe while you're interpreting a character to have a deeper trauma that results in them acting the way they do, they're reminding someone else of trauma they went through and that character makes them feel bad. maybe you see someone trying to help, but someone else sees it as manipulation. maybe you see someone cold and bitter while someone else sees the kindest person with years of walls built up around them. maybe what someone else interprets as funny, you have never laughed at.

((if we're keeping with the dbd example, think about when the Night Nurse watched Charles' death. what she saw was the quick and utter devotion that Charles developed for Edwin and how deeply he cares for him; she's seeing that Charles will truly not give up in getting Edwin back from hell. what Charles saw was the pure kindness Edwin had done for him even after all those decades in the worst place imaginable; he's seeing who Edwin is on a deeper level. neither interpretations of the memory are incorrect. but after watching the exact same thing, they are thinking in two entirely different directions))

so why does everything seem to start off with "you're wrong" and "I'm sad for you because you just don't get it"? we should be HAPPY that there are people out there who take different approaches and have different interpretations. that is how media is meant to be consumed. and I'm not saying that you shouldn't make your long posts explaining why you love a character- by all means do that!! you understand something that others don't and that should be put out in the world!! but if you're going to do that you also need to understand that there are a lot of people who you WILL persuade, and there are a lot of people who you will NOT. don't be upset about that and certainly do not put down or lecture anyone who doesn't agree with you. it's OKAY. it is not the end of the world just because someone doesn't like a character you like.

everyone interprets media differently. and that's amazing.

[brongusthearcanist]

Sci-fi and Fantasy are linked in a strange way. Both deal with impossible premises and both typically have what we call "magic" but we don't normally call Sci-fi shenanigans magic, unless they are strictly spiritual. Sci-fi approaches the impossible as if it's simply not possible yet, and that this world has made a break through, allowing them to make this possible. Sci-fi also tends to spend a lot more time explaining how something works with science, or a modified version, while Fantasy explains it through the supernatural and mysticism.

Obviously no series in either category perfectly follows these rules. The cosmere explains that the supernatural is actually natural and measurable, therefore spiritualism is just another part of science. Star wars in my opinion does the opposite. It takes place in a society with future technology and all the trappings of Sci-fi, but it does it in a very fantasy way. Lightsabers are I think the best example, why would you ever need a sword when everyone else has laser guns, because cool fantasy that's why, it's a laser sword. The futuristic elements are portrayed with a mystic elements. And of course there is magic, they try to make is sciency later by explaining that the force is medicorians or whatever, but it still operates on a spiritual and mystical level, and truly isn't completely comprehensible. Which is in contrast to the Cosmere where all the mystical elements just feel like science that hasn't been explained yet.

Dune is where it gets a little weird to me. I think most people would put this in the hard Sci-fi camp, but I disagree. Yes this series is to Sci-fi what Lord of the Rings is to Fantasy, but I think there's a lot of Fantasy in there. I mean the voice? That's magic, Bene Gesseret being able to transmute substances in their body including poison? Magic. Prescience? It comes from a magic drug, made by magic worms! Yes the books do try to approach this from a very sciency way, but a lot of it just feels like magic, no matter how much Herbert tries to make it scientific. (Btw Sanderson's favorite book series other than the Wheel of Time is Dune, so you can definitely see a lot of his inspirations in this, in fact Taldain, the setting of white sands, is definitely just Cosmere Arrakis, like it even has its own version of sand trout.) There's also a shit ton of mysticism in Dune, and yes much of it is discussing the manufactured nature of religion and aspects of spirituality to control the masses, but there is also a sense that not all of it is made up, that the people in power are manipulating truth without really knowing what it is, just so they can get ahead and stay that way.

Obviously genre, especially in books are really just marketing terms designed to help find the right audience for a particular story. This is the same with YA. YA is an even less concrete genre as it requires very little. Mistborn was not originally marked as YA, it's an epic high fantasy, but after a couple years the boys at TOR figured out that it has a lot of the trappings of YA. It's fast paced, has a young strong female protagonist, a dark dystopian setting, and is written in pros that don't require an incredibly dense knowledge of vocabulary, making it easy to comprehend for all ages. It was a no-brainer for Tor to start printing a YA version(just a paperback with a different cover that is stylized in a way that is very common for YA). YA really just means a teenager could read this without feeling like it's homework. That's really it. There are a lot of people who hate YA for incredibly weird reasons. I personally am weary of YA, simply because I enjoy a slower plot with more room for nuance and sitting in the moment. YA tends to be more fast paced, which I enjoy, but it often comes at the cost of depth. There are a lot of YA books that I enjoy and a lot that I would enjoy if they were written to be a little more "boring". But some of y'all really just don't wanna read anything that is labeled as YA, and I'm positive it is just misogyny. Like y'all just don't wanna read books that are popular and "primarily" marketed towards women, and it's really, really pathetic.

I don't know how this turned into what it is, and I don't have a final point to end this on that will tie it all together. Enjoy this ADHD clusterfuck of a post where none of my points are truly taken to completion

I do not know how to end this, I just wanted to talk about it

[mogai-sunflowers]

okay i know I hate discourse but…

i think the thing that people don’t get about mspec lesbianism is that they think it’s just a synonym for mspec. they think bi lesbians is just another word for bi women. but it’s NOT.

a majority of bi women aren’t lesbians, and a majority of lesbians aren’t bi. the whole confusion is that people think we’re trying to completely change the meaning of both labels. they think bi women are calling themselves lesbians because they’re attracted to women and for no other reason.

but that just literally is not what is happening. i am not a bi lesbian because I’m wlw. I’m not a bi lesbian because i am bi and like girls. I’m a bi lesbian because there’s a lot of complexity and nuance to my identity that doesn’t exist for a lot of other people. by and large, most bi lesbians I’ve met have been more than willing to acknowledge that perception and community surrounding the lesbian label HAVE shifted. and there IS a lot more emphasis on lack of attraction to men now and that is PERFECTLY FINE! bi lesbians aren’t trying to redefine anything. they’re just acknowledging that they deserve labels for their nuance as much as people who have it more figured out do. i deserve a label that makes me happy just as much as the girls who have never questioned their lesbianism.

if you stop going into queer discourse with the view that people are out here with malicious intent, purposefully trying to hurt others with their identities, and instead realize that we have thought about and analyzed our identities more in the past hour than you ever could have in your lifetime, that we are not trying to steal but to share, then the world of queerness will open up for you.

it’s like… blue and purple are different colors. they appear distinct on the outside. and most blues have no purple in them and vice versa. and yet, there’s also indigo and violet and lavender. and none of these change the fact that blue and purple for the most part are distinct colors. sure, purple has elements of blue in it by default, but it is still its own color that can have overlap sometimes.

queer identities aren’t math equations. it’s not “one scenario breaking the mold invalidates the whole scenario” because queerness has room for an infinite amount of nuance and different scenarios. bi lesbian does not mean bi woman. it simply means that not everyone fits as cleanly into the mold and it’s okay to blend colors sometimes if you don’t belong on the current spectrum.

[little-sw33tie]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

I'm unsure whether the living conditions of the Toons would fall into race stratification, as they're less their own race than their own species? In any event, there's plenty to cover.

Most if not all Toons have jobs in the entertainment industry, not only because it comes naturally to them but also because it's essentially the only jobs they can get outside of Toontown. "Gender" plays a role too. Characters like Jessica Rabbit work in what are essentially Gentleman's Clubs as it's all they can get as a job due to the way they're drawn, which is viewed as oversexualized by the humans in the world (and the viewer). They cannot control how they are drawn, nor perceived, but it determines their status and role within the world. I put gender in quotation marks as the Toon characters do not seem to value gender or sexuality as appealing/attractive/of note, so much as the ability to make someone laugh.

Toontown in its entirety, the place where all Toons live, is owned by Marvin Acme. The plot of the movie follows attempts to secure Toontown so it does not get turned into a highway. This makes the Toons a vulnerable and marginalized group. Their society, from the small amount covering the topic, seems to fall the most into the Elite-Mass Hierarchy System, though not quite perfectly. The land they live on is less governed by one person than owned, but while Acme owned it they did have equality of opportunity.

What is certain is that the Davis-Moore thesis would not be "correct" in this context. There are higher paid Toons, even though they're nearly all in the entertainment industry. Work isn't entirely skill based, but also has to do with a Toon's very makeup- they have certain abilities from birth. One of the characters is a huge movie star because he remains a baby, even though he is a full grown man. This is not really a skill or talent so much as just profiting off of his appearances, and yet he is rewarded highly for it. This aligns with opposition to the theory centering around "hey, this doesn't really take race, class by birth, gender, etc. into account" (to put it simply).

I'm not sure what the filmmakers are trying to convey about social stratification. It almost falls more under Hegel's views about interdependence and a slave-master relationship. There's a blatant power imbalance, but also a lot of interdependence. The Humans provide the jobs, and control Toontown, but the Toons desire the amusement of the Humans. The Humans give them jobs. The movie is hard to fit into a certain lens because Toons are treated as a strange mix between people, property, and characters. The rules of their very living and dying is different- bludgeoning one wouldn't kill it but making it laugh to death works. How do you apply the gravity of starvation and poverty to a "hobo" cartoon caricature which is made to be poor? Is it even suffering? Are animal Toons to be considered less than Human if they look and act like animals.... but are sentient? Dumbo in the movie is paid in peanuts! Is that fair to him, when his costars are making real world money? What is of more value to an elephant? Is the whole issue of Betty Boop and Jessica Rabbit working in a Human Gentleman's Club to be ogled even though it's not applicable to Toon culture and values considered exploitation of "Women" (do they even count as women or are they just perceived as women by human society?)

There's more nuance to overthinking this movie than you'd imagine. There's certainly many angles you could view it from.

Anyhow, movie stars like Roger Rabbit are high up in the "layers of rock" so to speak. They have a lot of money, a lot of publicity, and rank even in Human society. He and his wife Jessica are celebrities, after all! Big name characters like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are also in this category. It's hard to judge standards of living amongst Toons. Eddie, the detective (Human) is shown to be on hard times. He experienced downward mobility after his brother died. This resulted in him becoming an alcoholic and he neglected his duties, stopping engagement in his detective work. So desperate for money (and presumably below the poverty line) he takes a job far below his skill level (a snoop job (taking photos of Jessica "cheating" (playing literal patty cake)), despite having been a well respected detective). He would, at this point in the movie, likely fall into relative poverty. He is still eating, still has the agency and as such a home, etc. but he's not living comfortably by any means. This is also probably an example of anomie affecting a person.

Whose theory is the most applicable in explaining social stratification in the movie? Probably neo-Marxist Erik Olin Wright. Because there's so much nuance in what's happening due to the complexities of Toons existing, a perspective that asks a lot of questions is important. You cannot be black and white when some of the "people" you're talking about are literally drawn in black and white. There's a lot of power dynamics to be discussed, and a lot of oppression that can be viewed in a semi-Marxist lens (particularly since the main plot of the movie sort of centers around the destruction of public transport in favour of highways and all that entails).

Might I have your hand in platonic marriage?

[deep-sea-anemone]

I don't know you, I don't know who or what you ship, but my understanding of anti vs. pro means being anti vs. pro-shipping children with adults and if you think the majority opinion is that that is perfectly fine and normal, you need to go outside and touch grass.

Hi!

I assume you're referring to my addition on that poll post. I'm happy to clear a few things up.

Firstly, Proship IS the default opinion and only in recent years has this anti-ship ideology come about (I have my own theories as to why that is, but that's its own can of worms and I specifically just want to adress this ask).

Any Pro vs Anti definitions were made up and forced on proshippers (again, because pro is the default and Antis are new). As such, Antis have skewed the meaning of proship into basically stating that "all proshippers like and endorse this content, and do not discriminate between content or judge the individuals who make it". This actually goes against what proshippers believe. The entire pro-ship philosophy can essentially be boiled down to "don't like, don't read".

There is a whole hoard of fiction that grosses me out. For instance I hate yandere and non-con, and find incest and minor/adult relationships incredibly gross. I even block the "age-gap" tag because even if they are both consenting, having that much of a power imbalance wiggs me out. I've unfollowed some of my favorite artists because they've posted dynamics and scenes that I don't like (Most recently I unfollowed a very popular artist because I found out they ship Sukufushi: a ship between a 16 year old and an ancient demon possessing another 16 year old. Since it's fiction and not reality, you get these wierd nuances that could never happen in the real world and it is up to the individual to decide what they are comfortable with).

A lot of proshippers actually WILL tell you that people who like pedophilic ships or other dark content (such as rape and snuff fics) ARE gross and sick in the head and that the people who think otherwise are delusional. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that they don't have a right to create that content. I just want them to keep it away from me. Hence why I have those tags blocked on tumblr and why I filter them out when I search for fics.

The proshipper philosophy isn't that problematic ideas/ships are good and should be celebrated, and everyone certaintly doesn't believe that it is "perfectly normal", we just think that if you don't like it then, rather than berating the "freaks" who do, simply block and move on and do your best to keep them out of your thoughts, because ultimately, as disgusting as it is, there is no actual harm in it.

Secondly, Antis seem to believe that we proshippers endorse gross/dark content in real life. I assure you that that is NOT the case. And if an individual does, in fact enact their ficticious-but-irl-illegal fantasies, then that is not an example of the pro-shipper caving in and acting out their sick desires in the real world. It is the case of a REAL LIFE pedophile (or whatever) coming into fandom spaces and then interacting with or creating dark content. Is it possible that this happens? Sure. That doesn't mean that it is the default or even common, and basically every proshipper is in agreement that they are disgusting individuals. Again, this is because proshippers believe that fiction should remain fiction. Any time that make-believe turns into real-world actions, it is no longer make-believe and is now a real danger. Antis refuse to see the difference between the two.

You also mentioned touching grass which I think is a little ironic. The proshipper philosophy is that as long as fiction remains fiction, it has no bearing on the real world. It is Antis that have a hard time recognizing that playing pretend isn't the same as physical wrongdoing. Hence, why proshippers use the term "touch grass": it's meant to remind people that there is more to life than fantasy and online discourse, That it's important to log off and go "touch grass" to remind yourself that there is a difference between the tangible real-world and the imaginary scenarios that people create in their heads.

If you (and others! This isn't meant to be a callout, just informative) have difficulty comprehending this, I encourage you to consider the following scenarios:

1) Murder Mysteries: just because someone writes someone getting murdered, does not mean that they would want to see it happen,and certainly not commit it in real life.

2) BDSM: no party that willingly engages in bdsm is truly getting hurt (except to the extent that they want to be). Smacking someone during sessions does not mean that that person would ever do it in real life, and certainly wouldn't support others doing it

3) rape fantasies: this sort of goes along with bdsm, but there is a large difference between having faith that your trusted partner would never hurt you and only acts out a scenario because you ask them to, and being forced against your will to engage in harmful and/degrading sex acts.

4) Shooter Games: For a long time, people believed that playing violent video games corrupted children's moral and made them crave violence and increased the likelihood that they would want to renact that violence and turn into school shooters. There was actually a study done a while ago examining the link between video game violence and real life consequences....and they found nothing. There was no correlation between committing fictional violence and real world impact.

Fiction =/= real life.

Secondly, Antis have a tendency to invade people's inboxes and leave hate comments everywhere. Sometimes this is just saying "this is gross", but often Antis start harassment campaigns, recruiting multiple individuals to scare and intimidate people whose content they don't like (One tactic is to dump hundreds of graphic, gory images into peoples inboxes. I'm sure you can see how that would be traumatizing). Antis also have a history of doxxing people and causing this ficticious content to cause real-life harm to come to people. This is especially concerning since one of the most common things Antis like to parrot is some variation of "kill yourself".

A lot of Antis actually ARE proshippers, they just don't realize it because they get so caught up with the Anti's hate philosophy that they believe that willingly not engaging with content that they don't like (rather than harassing and condemning people who do) is what proshippers stand against. This is why some proshippers use the terms "anti-harrasment" and "pro-censorship" rather than proshippers and antishippers because it helps to clarify what the pro-shipper philosophy ACTUALLY is.

*phew* that was a long post, wasn't it? Let's both go touch grass together 🤝

[bropunzeling]

11, 22, 37!

11 Three tropes that are fine but overrated

oh gosh hmm. some of these are gonna come across as hypocritical lmao and also insert a healthy dose of "for me specifically" but: (1) i think soulbond/soulmark tropes can be done well, but mid executions of the trope focus a lot on ~finding~ the person rather than interrogating what it means to have bonds or marks or things of that nature, and leave a lot of interesting nuances about choice and free will and conflict between romantic relationships and other things you might want (career, friendship, autonomy, etc) on the table. i wish more takes on the trope let it be messy! (2) hurt/comfort done well is really fun but when people are just like. aggressively making their little guy sad and pathetic and a poor little meow meow whose never done anything wrong it gets grating. i love a sad guy but i prefer when they're sad because of shit they did to themselves instead of external factors. (3) curtain fic/established relationship stuff can be fun sometimes but like. there still needs to be a smidgen of conflict or growth or change or a shift for me to be interested. there has to be a point imo! even when i write my silly self-indulgent post-fic time stamps its important to me that there's a point to it beyond just "im love them" (though im DO love them)

22 What is it about watching the same two idiots falling in love over and over again?

i think the thing is, there can always be a new dimension to how these two idiots fall in love!!! every story is an opportunity to get at some new nugget of like, how people are, or what it is to be vulnerable and open and willing to risk heartache. with two different people you have so many opportunities to look at different shades and facets of their character. especially with rpf where real life events can shape characterization in real time. The Trade opened up a whole new dimension of matthew that creates new angles to investigate matthew&leon and what it means to fall in love with someone thousands of miles away and who you see even less (or, someday, for my break up/make up agenda)! jamie getting dealt to philly opens up new ways to poke at the jamie/trevor relationship by adding distance and tragedy and the potential of falling for other people! even picking a new trope or time period is just so fun for being like, now how would they be under THESE circumstances? also like, i LOVE flip-flopping who gets to be down bad immediately and who is oblivious because it's not only a fun creative challenge but also just opens up new worlds. idk! there's so many possibilities and so many facets to explore and to me that's delightful.

37 Do you research before writing or while you write? Is it fun or boring for you?

id say i do some up front, just to nail down the broad beats of the story and to minimize how much reworking i have to do later on (or for period type fics, to make sure that i dont introduce plot points that simply cant have happened in that time frame!), and some i do as i go -- for example, for a while there i just HAD the battles of alberta in 21-22 down pat because i was using them so often to shape story beats, but the games in between i had to look up as i went. i also am constantly pulling from new articles or features that offer new bits of characterization i want to use. tbh with the current wip i DO feel very wobbly because i don't have my normal anchors of the schedule/have to make things up, which is simultaneously freeing and hard because it's so much easier for me to write about sports games that really happened than the fake ones im constructing for the narratives 😂. but yeah id say mostly i research as i go!

[cupcraft]

Why is that when people are fat phobic about America they sometimes conclude its because "American food is poison and you're all on medication and etc etc type points". Like what is up with this shit and weird pseudoscience? And please dont respond to this "but american food is poison" with absolutely no nuance or science whatsoever because i will block you and will refuse to entertain it.

Like I'm sorry but American food is not "poison", or at least this generalization is just simply frustrating to me. It is true there are ingredients that are legal in the US but are not in other parts of the world, but you can't generalize that as "american food is poison" as it's more complicated than that. You can't make up claims about american food in order to be fatphobic. You can't make generalizations about american diets and nutrition without understanding the social determinants of what go into diet and accessibility of food. You can't have conversations about this without discussing socioeconomics, racism, ableism, food deserts, transportation access, healthcare, and etc. You can't just push bigoted and bullshit diet culture talking points and think you're saying something good here.

And on the science end, you can't look up how a preservative/ingredient that's in food "is also used as a paint thinner/[insert scare tactic]" without understanding food science and what makes something food grade. You can't say GMO's are evil without understanding what a GMO is and how its developed and what it actually means. You can't say "natural and organic is better! that's why american food is toxic" without really understanding food safety/what organic labels mean/etc. You can't say preservatives are evil without understanding why they're important for foods to be shelf stable and accessible, and also just the fact is they are not evil and bad.

And this is not to say there are not things that are able to be criticized about the american food system under capitalism. There is plenty to criticize. There is plenty to talk about within nutrition, access to food, farming/livestock practices, and much more. There's a lot to talk about with water runoff and the effects of american agriculture on the environment. There is so much to talk about with our food within capitalism but the thing is you dont want to talk about it. You don't actually care about improving the health and access to food and minimizing hunger and mitigating social determinants of health. You don't care, because if you did you'd be talking about these things in nuanced scientific and empathetic ways. But instead, you're just fatphobic and you really just want to make it seem like youre not by making up fake pseudoscientific and ableist points about american health in order to justify it. I'd much rather people admit that instead of scaremongering and spreading misinformation that could cause harm.

And for the recordthat's just my short point on the food topic, I haven't even gotten into the "americans are on too many meds" point which is just fucking terrible to say in itself, and ablelist. Like i for one people take meds if they want im glad people have medications that can help them. I'm glad medications exist. I hope to take my meds for the rest of time actually if it means I don't suffer from my shit 😭!! Instead of worrying about the amt of meds ppl are on as a moral failing focus on how we can make meds better more accessible and with less side effects. The end.

And feel free to rb and reply and send asks and add on btw!! There's a lot of nuance to my very short rant on a huge topic. Just don't be weird and rude.

[gregorsamsairl]

Nietzsche and Nihilism

If there's one thing that really grinds my gears it's when people treat Nietzsche as some sort of face of nihilism. I think anyone who is well-versed in Nietzsche's work would agree that the guy is definitely not a nihilist, as he is very openly against it in almost all his works.

I believe this misunderstanding of Nietzsche's philosophy mostly comes from the averages person's understanding of worth.

When Nietzsche said, "God is dead," he was referring to the objective meaninglessness of the world. A lot of people take this at face value, understanding objective meaninglessness as absolute meaninglessness. However, this is not the point Nietzsche was trying to make at all.

In our age of enlightenment values and reason, the western man values objectivity and shuns subjectivity (If you want to read more about the negative effects of enlightenment principles, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment is great). This sort of "facts over feelings" mindset is exactly what led to the nihilist interpretation of Nietzsche being so common. When people read that this guy thinks that objective meaning does not exist, they can't fathom any other meaning existing, because their whole life has been built around putting objectivity on a pedestal, they cannot begin to think about finding anything of significant value through their own subjectivity.

However, this is exactly what Nietzsche is proposing in his work. Objective meaning may be gone, but that does not mean that meaning is impossible, we should instead chose what has meaning to us, based on our own subjectivity. That is what he means when he speaks of the "will to power." My personal understanding of the will to power is simply the desire to be yourself ("simply" is perhaps the wrong word, it's much more nuanced than just "being yourself" but I think it sums it up nicely).

In fact, Nietzsche's main criticism of the modern Christian church was actually that it was "necessarily nihilistic." Modern Christianity puts all its focus on the afterlife. Even if they claim to be worried about being kind and spreading the truth of God, at the end of the day they are only doing that so they can go to heaven when they die. Taking the emphasis off of this life and placing it on the afterlife is precisely what makes modern Christianity nihilistic to its very core.

A notion Nietzsche touches on briefly after his denouncement of modern christianity is that of eternal recurrence. On this, he claims that we should live our lives in such a way that we would be happy to live it over and over again for all eternity. A lot of people dislike this claim, and point out that a lot of people aren't born in circumstances in which they can be happy over and over again (ex: because of poverty, discrimination, political situations). I don't disagree with this at all, there are an incredible amount of people who have to live in situations out of their control which make them unhappy with their life. However, you have to remember that Nietzsche is much more metaphysically inclined. When he says you should live a life you would want to life over and over again, he is more talking about the person you are. You should make choices about your virtues and your morals which would make you happy about the person you are, so much so that you would want to be you over and over again, no matter your external circumstances.

I actually used to hate Nietzsche, as I had only heard of him through this sort of depressed high school boy view that twisted him into a nihilist. However, once I read him for myself, I found his message extremely inspiring, and helped me mentally a lot. The idea of being yourself no matter your circumstances is a beautiful one, and I think it's really sad that most people just view Nietzsche as the nihilism guy.

Remember to be yourself!!!! Nietzsche said so!!!!!!

For anyone who wants to read it, here's a bonus question from an exam that I took this semester where I basically said the same thing as above, but it's worded more concisely I think:

"It is often claimed that Nietzsche is a nihilist and his philosophy is nihilistic in nature. Do you agree with this claim? Indeed what is behind Nietzsche’s denying modern society, traditional values, morality, and Christianity? How would you argue?

I strongly believe that Nietzsche is not a nihilist. In his claim that there are no objective virtues, he is not negating the meaning of human life, he is stating that there are no universal values. I think a lot of the misunderstanding of this claim making Nietzsche a nihilist comes from people's view of subjective vs objective value. Objective values are not inherently more "real" than subjective ones, and I believe this is where the most common mistake is made. Nietzsche advocating for subjective virtues does not make these virtues any less significant than objective ones. Life still has meaning, but it's up to every individual to decides on those virtues for themselves. In Nietzsche's denying of society, traditional values, morality, and Christianity come from his advocation of individuality, and subjective values. He denies society, and Christianity because it values a slave mindset, and thus hatred (ressentiment) of "the other," even denouncing modern Christianity for being "necessarily nihilistic" for focusing on the afterlife rather than our current one. He denies traditional values as well as morality because they are both discussed from a universal, objective standpoint. In all four of these, he does not deny them because they give meaning to life, or because he advocates for people doing whatever they want, he denies them because they take away the existential value of the individual. Thus, I would conclude that Nietzsche is definitely not a nihilist. Life's meaning is not removed when we don't have the guiderails of the objective to tell us how to make choices. If anything, life would have a more personal, passionate meaning when the individual gets to decide for themselves what gives their life meaning."