#cause I inherently don't like myself as a person and I don't see what people like in me

[pretty-weird-ideas]

Anne Rice, Literature, and Literacy

As a Black book reader of Anne Rice, seeing racist IWTV fans doing the "Black kids in Brooklyn don't even know what a computer is" bit by stating Black fans that they are "anti-intellectual" for discouraging or telling Black fans to not read the books (or simply implying that reading the books aren't important) is disturbing.

Black people are allowed to protect their peace, and not read a book written with racist themes, by a well-known controversial author. Furthermore, the implication that not reading a specific series from an author that had a sharp downward turn in quality after Memnoch (I know hot take, I'm sorry) makes a person immature and unintelligent is a level of self-aggrandizing racism that not even Rick and Morty fans could pull off. Black people refusing to read racist content and instead choosing to prioritize content with Black characters and less harmful political themes being associated with a lack of culture and media literacy is repulsive.

Anne Rice fans (not fans of her books, but fans of HER) are in such a large fandom bubble that they have forgotten that people have been actively harmed by Anne Rice THE PERSON who was alive and isn't a figment of fandom imagination. You can READ her opinions and her political beliefs, you can read what she has said and done to real-life people who are still alive and are in fandom TODAY.

People have been harassed by Anne Rice, and people have been threatened and doxxed by Anne Rice and her supporters. She isn't a figment of imagination or a historical figure without living memories. Fanfiction.net isn't Fanfiction.net for no reason. AO3 isn't aggressively "like that" (positive and negative connotations) without cause. The existence of modern fandom culture was built by her horrid actions, and the further and further we get from acknowledging the harm and change she brought to fandom culture, the closer we get to losing fandom culture altogether.

I'm not going to say names, but once again it is repeated offenders who I have spoken about who have once again implied that Black fans are "encouraging" stupidity in Black people. That Black fans are unintelligent and that they are "uncultured" of their own volition. I'm not going to mince words here, the IWTV fandom is full of pieces of shit who believe that Black people are unintelligent and that their unintelligence is "self-inflicted". That their lack of interest in reading a singular book written by a controversial figure is a sign that they are inherently inferior. We've seen this with "Black culture encourages unintelligence" and "Black culture encourages violence" so seeing it within the confines of a space made up of queer losers (for lack of a better term as I am one myself) isn't surprising. But it is disappointing in ways that words, barring expletives, cannot describe. The xenophobia and racism towards African Americans in a show that centers African Americans is revolting. If I want to hear a rant about how Black Americans are encouraging vice and delinquency I could listen to Richard Spencer or Nick Fuentes wax poetic, I don't want to hear it from fans of a woman whose harassment campaigns towards critics are continuing from beyond the grave.

I don't want to be the person that begs people to read Black literature, but I wish a black person would walk up to white people and scoff when they say they haven't read N.K Jemisin or Octavia Butler. That we shall roll our eyes and say "What has literacy come to?" when someone says they don't know who Zora Neale Hurston is. Who walks around and rants about how "White culture is in such a bad spot because their people don't encourage listening to Jazz and Hip Hop. And how I shed my Black savior tears about how destructive their culture is,". Maybe then we would start to see shame.

[befuddledcinnamonroll]

I've been thinking a lot about expectations this week.

A number of years ago, when I was visiting my brother, he criticized me for not doing something that he expected me to do. It was a frustrating talk because he wasn't at all willing to hear my perspective. But what bothered me the most about it was when I said "you can just ask" and he said "I shouldn't have to".

I was doing everything culturally expected of a good guest, I didn't even know what his extra expectations were, and yet he felt entitled to be mad at me for not automatically knowing them, and not living up to them.

It can be so easy for us to let our expectations get ahead of us, to make assumptions based on our own perspectives, and to then feel let down.

And I feel like I'm seeing a lot of this kind of thing in people's experience with media these days. There seems to be a clash happening between expectations and reality. And people feeling genuinely upset when the reality is not what they wanted.

I'm seeing a lot of complaints and "critiques" that seem to fall in to the category of "this is not how I personally want this to go" or "this doesn't resonate with my personal experience".

To be clear, I'm not saying this in a pointing fingers kind of way, because I have 100% done it myself.

When the trailer for Cutie Pie first came out, I got so excited imagining Kuea as some bad boy living a double life. He was going to be so hard to tame, he was going to put Lian through the wringer, and it was going to be amazing.

What I got was something very different from what I expected, and I struggled with the show.

But it was a really valuable learning moment for me. Because everything in the trailer was in the series. It was my interpretation of it, of those few minutes out of hours of material, my assumptions about the moments not yet shown, that caused me frustration.

That was a turning point in my "let's see where the journey takes us" philosophy. And I have to say, engaging in QL has been a hell of a lot more fun since I learned to let go of what I thought should happen.

I still have critiques of shows, of course I do. Nothing is above criticism. But I don't get so personally affronted now when something doesn't do what I expect. I'm more willing to see where the destination takes us before I decide the journey isn't working.

Of course I am still human, and I still get caught off guard sometimes by expectations I didn't realize I had let slip in.

But I have found my experience immeasurably improved by considering a few things when I'm watching a series:

Am I leading with curiosity, or judgment?

What is happening here culturally? What assumptions am I making based on my own background and country of origin? What happens if I step back and look at the bigger picture of how this culture engages with media? Do I even know, or do I have more to learn?

Is this actually bad... or is it just not for me? Is this just not resonating with me? Is it making me uncomfortable? What can this discomfort tell me about myself? Is it a bad show, or just a show I need to walk away from?

Am I more focused on the story I want told, and not paying enough attention to the story that the creators of the series want to tell? What assumptions am I making about their intent?

Am I only focused on what the value is for me as an individual, and not considering how this may be making other people feel seen or be meeting their needs? Can I acknowledge that there can be inherent value in things that do not give value to me personally?

There is value in critique, but there is also importance in self-reflection and understanding why we are feeling the way that we are, and when our own setting of expectations may be playing a role.

It's funny that in some ways this seems to be a reflection of what a golden age of QL we are living in - there are so many options, and time is so scarce, that I can see why people are frustrated when they feel like a show is not living up to what they wanted.

But as someone who has lived multiple decades without this kind of media, and only relatively recently having been able to experience it...there is a lot more to be gained by reveling in what you are loving than over what you are hating.

[hana-no-seiiki]

& what happens when Y/N just. Refuses to accept the baby? I'm actively avoiding having kids, I cannot trust myself to be a parent in any capacity, really. So when they present a child? That they had made BEHIND MY BACK? as a way to GUILT-TRIP ME? Both them & that baby can rot in hell for all I care, if they don't have me locked up already I'm skipping town. God that sounds heartless but I can't be a parent, I just can't -💗

that’s the thing they’ll guilt trip you to death, have people write articles about you, sue you. and you won’t be able to do anything because they’re the waynes.

money is power and the batfam have way too much of it

babytrapping is the mildest thing they can do to you. because at the very least you can somewhat benefit from it. hell you don’t even have to take care of the kid they’ll hire people for that. they just need you to be emotionally attached.

if you don’t want the kid then they can simply make your life hell so that you’ll come crawling to them.

and the best (worst?) thing about them being rich and all is that unless you’re an inherently paranoid person you won’t even know that they pushed you into staying with them. you’ll see them as your saviors as they actively destroy your life in the background.

you can’t even escape them via death cause you bet they have 24/7 surveillance over you.

this is why i often write reader as a vigilante/hero/villain with superpowers so the well- power dynamic wouldn’t be so jarring. some writers like that shit and good for them but im a brat/dom reader person

in anycase

they’re also extremely patient, mostly because bruce is there to hold back his kids with doing something drastic

they can hire actors, even create a completely fake life for you. university, work, or otherwise. and make those actors break you down so that they can pick up the pieces and make you into something that — in their eyes — is more beautiful.

[snakeredbirdbatkatana]

Alright I'm gonna throw this out there write whatever the fuck you want.

I notice a lot of "Oh you never read a comic" or "that's not how so and so would act."

"It's Not realistic"

A little secret I would sure god damn hope it's not or else Superman/Batman really suck at their fucking jobs and need to fired.

Fanfiction especially write whatever the fuck you want and for all the oh well I'm sick of only having this option or whatever.

Go write something different you don't get to bitch about what other people are reading or writing.

As long as it doesn't hurt anyone whatever.

I might say oh I'm not a huge fan of this or that but at the end of the day I would read almost anything cause I love writing.

So write Tim drake as a sad peice of shit who needs a hug or only a happy go lucky Dick Grayson.

It's up to you have fun do whatever cause at the end of the day someone will love it.

Do what makes you happy no matter what anyone says.

It's literally FANFICTION the whole point is it's not canon compliant.

Have a good time don't listen to the haters ship your shit and read whatever have fun. 

*good explain of teaching and not being a dick look at my reblogs that's what you should be doing try to teach explain give a different perspective. Have constructive arguments not just inherent negativity.

*I was sleep deprived it was 4:00am I didn't explain myself well I am encouraging changing it reconizing the blatent sexism, racism and everything inbetween cause there is a lot. Giving people a voice through These characters.

But you can't change other people but you can educate.

My point was you gonna see things you disagree with or things you really love don't go out of your way to be a dick.

I shouldn't see a random headcannon and 50 comments that's wouldn't happen he's not like that.

Someone's gonna write Tim Drake as a annoying asshole whatever. Someone's gonna write Jason Todd as a peice of shit. A person is gonna completely butcher Damian. Someone is gonna forget Cass or Duke just don't be an asshole think explain have an once of kindess for people. They just want to enjoy stories so do you.

So write we have 50,000 Tim drake so let's write more for Cass. Shift our focus give more content remember someone put time and energy into that story don't shit on everything they have ever done but shift the narrative.

Don't complain add to the pot cause I know a lot of people would love to read whatever you have. I have multiple long fics that focus specifically on the female superheroes because I want to read more Oracle and far less Dick Grayson so I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

You should read comics I meant in the example of assuming people haven't.

Better?

[anxiouspotatorants]

Actually you know what I need to rant about this: while literati is technically a good girl x bad boy dynamic it is written so incredibly well and avoids so many pitfalls and stereotypes that it makes a good girl x bad boy hater like myself (I’m only half joking — I don’t think any trope is inherently good or bad but I tend to dislike most pairings with this dynamic) fall head over heels for their story and relationship.

So much of what makes the two of them work is the contrast between how others perceive them and how they truly are. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who understand who Rory is as a person (Lorelai, Lane, Paris, Richard and Emily to a certain degree for starters), but she's constantly met with the expectation that she just does good and is supposed to make everyone proud 24/7. Stars Hollow as a group especially are big on this, as seen f. ex. through how Taylor takes Rory's one comment about an inappropriate DVD and twists the whole thing into a censorship crusade and makes Rory its poster-child even though she wants nothing to do with it and tells him so repeatedly. But instead of hearing Rory disagree with him (like he would Lorelai and Luke) he assumes that she actually agrees with him - and why shouldn't she when she's the perfect sunshine paragon of good who would never disagree with her elders? Also her grandparents treat her as incredibly fragile and childlike, like she must be too innocent to ever do anything wrong and so whenever she does something it has to be somebody else's fault (usually Lorelai, but occasionally Jess or whoever else was present). Time and time again Rory is treated like something innocent and naive and weak — but not by Jess. He sees her as a person.

And it obviously goes the other way too. Jess is treated like shit by pretty much everyone else. Either people hate him unprovoked or very much provoked (he did do a lot of pranks in his first few weeks and while I'm a Dean-hater I'm not blind to how much Jess picked fights with him), or they’ve simply given up on him. He tells Rory himself that every authority figure he had back in New York gave up on him too, from teachers to principals to his very own mother. But Rory doesn’t treat him like a lost cause, she treats him like the smart, brilliant and asshole-ish teen that he is. By having faith in him she also often holds him more accountable than others. Where f. ex. Lorelai or the other adults just roll their eyes, Rory physically drags Jess into doing his shifts at the diner. While others write him off, Rory chews Jess’ ear out for not helping Luke more and for willfully making enemies out of the Stars Hollow adults.

They don't put each other on pedestals or below each other. Jess doesn’t try to make a sinner out of Rory and she doesn’t try to make a saint out of him. There’s genuine respect between them. They expect each other to have integrity and treat others with kindness and honesty, and the rest is good old chemistry and common interests.

I particularly love how in so many of their scenes (especially pre-relationship) when they spend time alone they just get to be these goofy nerdy kids. They argue about controversial authors and dig through records shops and eat hot dogs and make fun of each other and try to make each other laugh. It’s not just sexual chemistry as it too often is in a dynamic like this (and often uncomfortably sexual when writing teenagers - looking at you Gossip Girl), and not just well written intellectual chemistry — they have platonic chemistry too. A hell of a lot of it actually.

While I don’t think ASP wrote them through a purely deconstructionist lens on the good girl x bad boy dynamic (if she did plan on writing the dynamic at all), there is something to be said about how where many around them treat them like stereotypes they treat each other like people. To so many people, Rory is a perfect small town princess, a little miss sunshine with booksmarts for days but too delicate and sweet for anything with grit and weight. To a lot of the same people and many more Jess is a pathetic brutish and maniacal lost cause, hell personified in a chainsmoking leather-wearing teenager. But to each other they are actual human beings. Kind and mean and flirtatious and scared and reckless and smart. Rory really thinks that with the right motivation and mindset Jess can be the kind who does (and at the end wrote) incredible things. Jess really believes that with a little more practice and support to step out of her comfort zone she can be the amazing journalist she wishes to be.

They don’t have this stupid «we’re so bad for each other but we can’t stay away» thing that too many trope users rely on and don’t even justify in the plot. Everyone else might think they’re not fit for each other, but they knew they were each other’s person from the very first day.

[wildissylupus]

You know what I think is wasted potential? The Junkers and Junkertown. Specifically in the fact of them being the foil group to Vishkar. Cause in my opinion the way Australia and Junkertown were implemented into Overwatch's story is the weakest to me, especially since I myself am Australian and actually know how Australians act.

The biggest thing to me is the wishy washy attitude the writers have with Roadhog being Maori, he has a skin and his name, that's it. The thing is though, I have never met a Maori or Aboriginal person that didn't show a significant amount of pride in their heritage. Now this also comes into my favorite part of Junkertown and the Junkers implementation, and that is the history.

Part of the reason why Junkertown exists is because of the fact that the Australian government did consult the Aboriginal people in the area about giving the Omnium to the Omnics. Inherently Junkertowns formation was partially because people had pride in their indigenous heritage, so there being basically nothing for Roadhog other then his name and a skin name genuinely makes me mad.

The voice acting would also make me mad in this wasn't just a thing that happened to Australians and New Zealanders in general, I have hardly ever seen an Australian character be played by an Australian, the same goes for New Zealand characters. Hell even Junker Queens voice actor feels like she's being told to play up her accent, and she's actually Australian.

Not only that but to me the Junkers fail at being a foil to Vishkar. The thing about Vishkar is that they pose as a benevolent organization when what they're really doing is gentrifying poor neighborhoods, practicing child labor, and are literally working with a terrorist organization. Junker town is supposed to be the opposite to that, but they're not, not in the way that makes them a foil to Vishkar. To be a foil to Vishkar Junkertown and the Junkers would need to be treated as the complete opposite, basically being this place of complete freedom and chaos, a place of equal intelligence but opposite morals to Vishkar. It has the foundations of that don't get me wrong, but it's not enough to make me see them as foils.

Story wise there also isn't an obvious conflict between the two groups. Overwatch and Talon have a rich history together, Null Sector and the Shambali monks have Ramattra and Zenyatta to represent both groups, there is basically nothing for Vishkar and the Junkers. Hell if there was history for those groups it would give the Junker characters more of a reason to join the fight and leave Australia other then "there's a fight". Cause right now the only Junker character to actually have stakes in the current lore is Hammond because of his connection to Winston.

Environmentally I would have loved to see more vibrant colors and Aboriginal art in Junkertown, I would love it to be more the "Mad Max but Overwatch", I would love for the Junkers to feel like complete opposite of Viskar cause so far we have the other two group rivalries be explored, Talon and Overwatch are mirror foils, there are a lot of similarities between the two groups but their goals are polar opposites, Null Sector and the Shambali monks are philosophical foils they have the same end goal but opposite methods to get to that goal. Vishkar and Junkertown are very obviously supposed to be complete opposites, yet they have none of the nuance that the other groups do have. Vishkar erases the culture of places they go, yet Junkertown isn't that culturally rich, Vishkar pretends to do good but is very much bad, Junkertown is just bad, Vishkar is control and order, Junkertown runs on chaos and freedom yet also has rules that got Junkrat exiled, taxes and harasses it's citizens and is just as elitist as Vishkar? This would make sense if this is how Junkertown worked before JQ's rule but fundamentally, nothing is different from Junker Queen and Howl's rule. They could have still done this plot line, just with Vishkar trying to take over and tax Junkertown rather then JQ.

Basically, Junkertown would be much more interesting to me if they had gone fully into Vishkar and Junkertown being complete opposites. Instead they get a faction that doesn't have any depth and characters who hold little to no stakes of the plot.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Not really sure how to start this, so I guess I'll just go straight into it.

Is there a name for having sex fantasies where you're a child in them?

A lot of the time, I need to dissociate when I'm getting off. I know a lot of my kinks & preferences stem from either trauma, or dysphoria, or a combination of the two. Most of them make sense & I can say “yeah I like X because of Y.” or “oh yeah, Z happened, and now I'm really into X.”

But the one thing that doesn't make sense to me is needing to put myself in a frame of mind where I'm a child, or imagine myself in a scenario where I'm a child, in order to get off.

Is this just another form of ageplay? Or is it something else?

A lot of the time I feel guilty & gross for it - because *why* do I need to see myself as *a child* getting abused or put in a sexual context, in order to get off? I should be seeing myself as an adult, I should be getting treated as an adult, because sex is for adults. Yet the easiest way for someone to rush me towards getting off is to call me a kid & treat me like one & for me to see myself as one in their eyes - for me to be helpless & naive & coerced & unprepared for what's about to happen or the consequences.

Sometimes the fantasies are based on memories, sometimes they're pure fantasy.

To be clear: I have no desire to go back to being that age, or to be around kids that age. Kids are gross to me, there's 0 attraction to them, nothing like that. If someone's even a few weeks younger than me, or the same age as me, it's a turn off - I only get attracted to people older than me.

But if someone gives me a Stitch sippycup & a hoodie I wore when I was 12 & wants to fuck me on the couch while a cartoon plays, I'll be rolling over for them within seconds, and in my head, I'll see myself doing those things as a child. I used to be really into littlespace & agere & ageplay, but negative experiences really put me off of them. Is this just… idk, another version of them? Or something else?

Does this have a name? And is it something I should feel so gross & guilty over?

hi anon,

it sounds like you're just into ageplay, dude. which is fine, by the way, like any other roleplaying between consenting adults playing horny make believe games is fine. you obviously have a really clear sense of the difference between you, personally, wanting to act like a kid and wanting to actually do sexual acts to real children, so I'm personally not seeing anything to feel gross or guilty about here. obviously if this is something that causes you to feel bad about yourself I wouldn't recommend engaging with it, but that's entirely due to your actions rather than anything inherently evil about what you're into.

as to your questions about why this - not every kink or fetish has a neat, tidy solution, and they don't need to. for most people, we're just into what we're into. but you may find this ask, written to another person worried about being turned on by things reminiscent of their abuse, to be helpful.

I do have, like, some questions about why you aren't able to see people the same age as you as viable sexual partners, but that's a question for someone with way more degrees than I have.

[doberbutts]

Do you or your friends see a difference in household or play behaviors in a dog after mondior or IGP kind of training? My breeder is concerned that once you flip the biting switch you can't really take it back, but obviously there's a whole lot of wonderful protection sport dogs out there who aren't biting random people. I figured I'd ask someone who has had dogs both bitework trained and not bitework trained for comparison. Personally I think it is a beautiful sport and the dogs seem to love it the way I love, say, stage combat or LARP.

Hope you and the beasties are having a good day

Well. No, in the way you're probably thinking. But also yes.

Truthfully I have only taken 2 dogs through any amount of protection sport and both I would still be considered very green in. Fenris is no where near trial ready, after all, partially because I'm deliberately taking it slow and partially because I am very poor and unwilling to throw a large amount of money at seminars or training that I feel may be subpar for what we need- I would rather pay these amounts for training that I can verify is the quality he deserves than chance it on someone fucking up what we've built thus far.

It is my belief that your breeder's concern is valid, and it is something that I warn people about myself especially when dealing with off breeds or with dogs of temperaments not well suited to the work. You are, regardless of what anyone tells you, teaching your dog that biting humans is a perfectly acceptable and even expected behavior depending on the circumstance and behavior pattern. Do understand that this means your dog will see similar contexts and at some point have to make a judgement call. Not every dog makes the right judgement call for the situation.

I'm thinking of a friend whose husband was dying of cancer, and he fell in their house, and as she rushed to help him the dog tried to attack her to protect his owner. This is an extreme case of "worst case scenario"- but ask yourself if that is a scenario you can handle with the levelheadedness she did in order to prevent anyone from being bit. This particular case was a matter of both genetics and training, however the dog in question was not an off breed and in fact was bred with protection in mind.

I'm thinking of a different friend who had border collies show up at club. One day the owner of the border collies was walking through an aisle at a pet store with their dogs, and a man in a puffy winter coat approached to ask them a question. One of the border collies latched onto the man's bicep exactly like how it was trained to, and the other performed a near perfect bark and hold. This person voiced regret of ever having opened that door, and now they have two dogs with recorded bite histories. It is my personal opinion that this is a case of two dogs with temperaments poorly suited to the work more than anything else, however that does not change the undesired outcome.

That being said, I can pet most of the dogs at club without any real concern, though I still keep my hands to myself unless the owners actively tell me to pet and play with their dogs. The few I can't also aren't off breeds, for what it's worth, but in fact are malinois which the sport was more or less designed around. I also don't think the training caused the inability for these specific dogs to socialize with trainers- I think that is a genetic temperament question, and all the training did was give them an outlet for their inherent aggression.

Fenris is a hideously social and friendly doberman. He is best friends with every human at the club and frequently licks the decoys right in the face as he wiggles and jumps on them before they agitate him. He just spent two hours hanging out at the car repair shop yesterday while I was getting my new tires put on. Anyone who stopped to pet him got wiggles and licks and puppy behavior. Anyone who didn't was ignored. While he is a mite too friendly to me, I have not seen any real change to this friendliness or his willingness to accept friendly and neutral strangers despite the decoys telling me that he is really becoming quite a monster in training.

He's also very suspicious, and fairly possessive. I have seen that increase, however at his age it's sort of difficult to determine if that was always going to increase or if the training had anything to do with that. Personally I think it is a mix of both- he was a suspicious and possessive little asshole from the start and now he is learning that there is a time and place for that to really come out of him, so he is more inclined to showing this behavior as he ages through his teenage phase and matures in his training.

For example: we started defense of handler last month, an exercise where the dog heels closely beside the owner and turns its body to watch the decoy waiting for an aggressive move towards the owner. Fenris now watches closely when we are approached by strangers at night while on walks, not acting but simply waiting to see what they might do. This behavior may have come out of him anyway, because even when he was a young puppy he would occasionally give the stink eye to anyone who rushed us (usually panhandlers asking for money in parking lots, but also the occasional person looking for trouble and an easy mark). He barked at a homeless guy who lunged at us on the sidewalk* when we walked past 6 months ago- well before defense of handler. He may have always been inclined to be wary of fast, jerky movements towards us.

That is what a doberman is for. They were never meant to accept suspicious or potentially aggressive strangers, and these sorts of situations are exactly what many dogs would consider suspicious and aggressive behavior. Homeless Guy I think was just high or having some mental episode and not actively dangerous to passersby, but lunging at someone from the shadows is a really stupid way to get bit (if they have a dog) or punched/shot/stabbed (if they don't but think they need to defend themselves). The panhandlers that literally run up to us from across the parking lot- same thing, if someone spots you at a distance and starts running towards you with intent, many times this is going to get read as aggressive behavior. Again, not actually harmful, they're just begging for money. However, how is my dog supposed to know that when the behavior says "I am going to hurt you" to a dog?

For example: we started object guard, where he stands over an object and stops the decoy from snatching it out from under him by biting. Coincidentally, he's also started low rumbling at the other dogs when they're near stuff he likes, and he lays directly on top of these objects and hides them under his legs/body. While I do think the training definitely intensified this behavior, he's always been a bit punky with his stuff and not been keen on sharing. I manage it so we don't have a dog fight, and I have a bunch of dogs that are allergic to conflict anyway so it's a pretty easy situation to work with. All four of my dobermans including the one that had never been in any bitework scenario ever have been somewhat guardy when it comes to high value resources (in fact the only one that never did any bitework also is the only one that started a dog fight over a guarded object (ME, I was the guarded object)), so it is also very possible that this would have developed in him regardless of training.

Funny enough, however, I will also say that Fenris specifically has become exponentially more velcro and cuddly immediately after every protection session. It does something magnificent to the bond between us, and his affection is through the roof when we get back to our bedroom after a long day on the club field.

Creed, my other dog who I took through this type of training, I felt was actually more confident afterwards. He had a lot of reactivity as a teenager and getting him to a club more often seemed to have a significant amount of positive impact on this behavior. I have seen other dogs experience the same. Probably something similar to how my nephew had a lot of PTSD and anxiety immediately after a horrific domestic abuse situation he and his mom had to flee from, and the thing that helped him resolve that was getting him started in martial arts classes. If nothing else, you learn to trust that you can handle it if a situation that makes you feel powerless comes for you a second time, I suppose. I'd be interested to know if that's connected to some behaviors I see from dudes who are obsessed with weapons and fighting, but that's another post in and of itself.

However I was fairly reluctant to move forward with this training with Phoebe, my soft scared girlie, because she had a panic response of "pick a direction and run very fast don't look back" and I was nervous that taking her to protection training would bleed into her panic attacks and instead of running she would hit the end of the leash, realize the flight was not an option, and start biting. And I was not particularly interested in chancing that, because regardless of how scared she was she would choose flight and freeze over fight every time and this made he very safe to be around. My first doberman was a very anxious rescue who was taught that biting is an option when running isn't working, and I ended up having to behaviorally euthanize him because his previous home fucked him up so bad. I want to be clear that this was a result of bad training and worse temperament, but knowing Phoebe's temperament I was unsure if I wanted to chance it with her.

I never did take her to club before her weird GI/liver thing that ultimately killed her, but she ended up loving tug and her confidence did soar once she learned the game. And it did bleed into other areas as well- she was much happier and more confident when out in public even though we only played tug in my living room. If her health hadn't crashed like that, I would have been taking her to mondio with Fenris the first week I had him to see if she liked it and if there was anything in here to play with.

So. A long winded answer to say that yes I have seen the training change behaviors off the field, but probably not in the way you're expecting to hear.

[witchspeka]

I dont think Mob is naive as much as he's socially unaware, like the reason why he trusts Reigen so blindly is a bit more complex than just him being naive

Cause Mob reached out to Reigen because he was desperate to find someone like him, someone who understood his psychic specific issues, someone that could truly know what he's feeling and going through and give him guidance and support

Post incident Mob's thinking process was something along the lines of my powers hurt people -> my powers are bad -> my powers (my emotions, my instincts, myself) cannot be trusted

So he lost all confidence and trust in his own actions, resigning to being as passive as possible to avoid any further damage to anyone else, thus he started doubting his own perception of reality too

He's a kid already struggling with being ostracised for being socially inept, who just got traumatised and all of his insecurity increased by the tenfold, he doesn't know how to process what he's going through. He needs help.

And here comes Reigen, seemingly reliable, a responsible adult in a child's eyes, someone who claims he can understand him

Even tho Reigen doesnt. But it doesn't matter, because Mob finds comfort in his words and takes them to heart

Even if Reigen doesn't fully get it, even if he doesn't see the bigger picture, even if his advice isn't always the best

Eventually, Mob grows up, realises Reigen isn't as honest as he seemed through his 11 year old perspective, but like most things, he refuses to acknowledge it on a deeper level

Mob knows, but never tells Reigen, never thinks about what all those lies mean to him (ofc until he forces himself to face those doubts regarding Reigen, to properly acknowledge both of their flaws and accept them as they are, I should scream into the void about Confession Arc more God)

Due to his lack of trust in himself, Mob has relied on Reigen for years now to shape his moral compass, his thoughts, his decisions

Because well, Reigen lies, sure, but he isnt a bad person. When he hurts Mob, it isn't intentional or with ill intent, he still wants the best for him, what's the issue?

Except that it stunts Mob's growth. He doesn't develop as a person, doesn't have goals or wishes or ambitions, can't make choices on his own, he doesn't even let himself acknowledge his own emotions, he refuses to let himself exist

But Mob realises in time that he wants more than that, he wants to become better and be independent and feel again

Still, he puts the acknowledgement of the lies on hold for as long as he can, unwilling to question the way things are

This can make him feel a little naive, he constantly relies on Reigen and trusts his decisions and raises questions rarely until separation arc when he finally puts his foot down

And I do think that moment is the most resounding proof we have that Mob knows and allows himself to be used by Reigen, not wanting to shake the status quo, until he gets fed up

I mentioned the social ineptitude at the beggining but idk if I should even elaborate on that, you've watched the show, you know what I mean

He's blunt and can't read social cues or tonality that well and can't speak in front of crowds and is overall pretty awkward and I do think some people conflate that with naivety

Mob is still a child, he doesnt fully understand how the world works at the ripe age of 14 years old, but some folks take that as him being inherently naive/innocent/whatever which I don't find true

[polyamorousmood]

Question on supporting my partner -

My wife and I are poly, she has a 2nd partner and currently my wife is my only relationship. I'm open to exploring other partner(s) for myself, just haven't found anyone yet. It is what it is.

My wife has met additional people and there is some potential to explore something with them, but she's hesitant to do so, thinking it's "unfair" that she already has a 2nd partner when I don't, and she feels selfish for wanting to explore more, while I only have my one relationship with her. I worry that she's holding herself back for my sake.

How can I reassure her that I support her exploring as much or as little as she wants with whoever she wants independent of my situation at the time? I've tried saying this plainly but I can tell she can't shake the score-keeping feeling of a supposed "imbalance" being inherently wrong or unfair somehow.

Okay, so I believe that you ARE comfortable with your wife exploring more, and that's amazing!! I do, however, see your wife's concerns, because a LOT of people wouldn't feel that way. Or would overestimate how okay with it they actually were.

I think one way to help your wife get over this worry would be, perhaps counterintuitively, to ask for something as a consideration to you in the process. It doesn't really matter what that is, as long as it gives her something to look at and say "right, I'm doing this for them, so I'm allowed to do the thing I want". Don't make it insane or huge, just something small she can do in this process to show her love for you. Some examples might be a protected weekly date night with you🗓️ (or her being home at certain times more generally), or a set space for you to be able to discuss how you're feeling with everything, maybe its you meeting the person🤝 (or meeting them after a certain point), or maybe she stops and buys you a soda🥤 or snack on her way home whenever she goes out to show she cares about you.

It can often feel wrong to get something for nothing. And she's already getting one partner "for nothing", so doubling that makes sense she'd feel guilty. If she can "give back" to you somehow, that may really help your wife with that feeling of guilt!!

Perhaps you could set up a dating profile and show your wife who you're hopeful about, so she can feel like you're tangibly making progress at finding someone so things can be "more equal". Though if you have a lot of 💥crash-and-burns🔥, that does run the risk of backfiring.

And of course, if there is a fair cause for these worries, like if you've reacted badly to her starting to date someone before (it happens), you'll need to address that.

Best of luck out there! I think its super sweet and amazing and rare that you're THIS gung-ho about her seeing other people💗💗. You sound like quite the catch!

[xclowniex]

you've reblogged some posts about how people hide their antisemitism in antizionism. I'm trying to educate myself further, could you please explain how?

It's great that you are reaching out to educate yourself further.

Zionism as an ideology just means that the State of Israel should exist in one form or another in Southern Levant.

Zionism is not an inherently violent ideology. Just like with any ideology, there are those who are violent and those who aren't. Not all zionists are jews and not all jews are zionists.

Zionism also doesn't mean that Palestine can't exist. Palestine isn't even mentioned in the base ideology of Zionism. You can have zionists who believe in Palestine not existing, however that is not zionism. That is an added on opinion to zionism, like a side to a main meal if we are to use a metaphor.

If you believe in a two state solution, you are a zionist as you believe that the state of Israel should exist.

Some people hide their antisemitism behind antizionism. People who do that usually wouldn't have the opinion that they do about Israel for other countries. Whilst not all Israeli citizens are jews, Israel is mostly comprised of jews. The fact that a person is having a certain opinion only about a jew majority country and not any other country is cause for concern. What about that country is different to other countries? The answer is a majority Jewish population.

An example of anti a country when it's really about hating jews, which does not involve Israel is South Africa's immigration policy in the 1930's. SA limited the amount of immigrants from countries with a high Jewish population but did have any limits for low Jewish population countries. On the Wikipedia page about that, it is called antisemitism and I think most people can agree that it is antisemitism as the only reason why those high Jewish population countries are limited is because if their high Jewish population.

So as you can see, before Israel's existence in the modern world, jews have faced antisemitism hid as being against a country.

If the amount of jews a country has is the only difference as to why they are getting special treatment negatively vs other countries, that is antisemitic.

Genuine critiques of the Israeli government is valid and is not antisemitism. Critiques of the Israeli government which you wouldn't have about any other government is antisemitic.

A lot of people will call unvalid critiques antizionism even though it counts as antisemitism.

The best way to know if someone is hiding their antisemitism as antizionism is to go "does this person hold the state of Israel to different standards than other countries" if the answer is yes, then you are seeing antisemitism.

Another form of antisemitism being held as antizionism is if someone views all zionists as being violent and anti Palestine. As I touched on earlier, zionism is not inherently either of those two things. Yes some people can be both of those thing, a zionist and violent/is anti Palestine, however zionism is inherently neither of those things.

If you believe that a state of Israel can't exist without Palestine being destroyed, why? Because it's never been successful as peace? Communism has never been successfully implemented yet a lot of antizionists believe in Communism and don't think doing so is wrong or harmful. Israel has never broken a ceasefire before. So its not like there hasn't been attempts for Israel to exist alongside Palestine from Israel.

If someone believes that all zionists are violent and hate Israel, it also poses the question of why someone believes that an ideology born by jews is inherently violent?

Now getting into my personal opinion to take this as you will.

Antizionism is impossible to implement without harming jews. If you got rid of the state of Israel, what happens to the jew who lived in Israel?

Jews are not allowed to immigrate to Gaza by Hamas. Hamas wants to kill all jews. Do you really think that will stop once Israel no longer exists? What's the other alternative? Forcing all jews to immigrate to other countries? How well do you think that is going to go when over 6 million people need to move to other countries. Think about refugee crises. Those have not been handled well. Do you think that potential crisis of having to rehome 6 million jews will be handled with ease? Wanting either of that is antisemitic not antizionism.

A one state solution for either country will not work and therefore a two state solution needs to be put in place which Israel has wanted since its existence in the modern day.

[jewishvitya]

I was having a conversation about "narcissistic abuse" with a person with NPD. We were talking about the need to call out toxic behaviors that might come with unmanaged NPD, and how it's nothing like what we see now online. We talked about how people like them, who want to treat others well and manage their disorder, deserve to have resources that help them have healthy relationships. And they thanked me for not immediately assuming the worst of them. Which. Just shows you how they're used to being treated.

They got suicide baiting from random strangers just for the fact that they have NPD.

I've seen people getting told "this is doing nothing but making me feel awful about myself" and responding with "you should feel awful about yourself, you're a narcissist!"

It's dangerous to equate abuse with narcissism. It's dangerous to see people with NPD as deserving of harm. Most people with NPD will already be victims of abuse - that's how the disorder is usually developed. If you buy into the idea that they're abusive by nature, you're harming survivors.

There's no harmless way to dehumanize an entire group of people. Especially not over a trait they can't help.

Victims and survivors of abuse should get to talk about their experiences. This doesn't require diagnosing anyone and it doesn't require using a term that's associated with a disorder that's already seen as an inherent evil. There's no kind of abuse that's inherent or exclusive to a specific disorder. I hear the term "coercive control" which sounds really good for the kind of emotional and psychological abuse that gets discussed in those conversations, without adding ableist stigma.

If your opposition to ableism doesn't include people with the most stigmatized disorders, how deeply are you truly thinking about things.

The harm caused to people with NPD through stigma is enough for this to matter. But in addition to that, it's harmful to other people too.

First of all, because you buy into having a group of people who become acceptable targets over a condition they can't help.

Second, because you teach yourself to armchair diagnose people. Which means that you get to put whoever you want into the "acceptable target" group.

When you have a group of people that you think don't deserve to be treated as people, it's easier to persuade you to put unrelated people in that category. Think of the way accusations of "child predator!" are wielded against queer people too. This is not an uncommon tactic.

And it's already a thing here. Sam Vaknin was the one who coined the term narcissistic abuse. That's a man with no credentials to talk about mental health or about abuse. He's a hateful bigoted person. The things that he considers narcissistic include homosexuality, transgender identities, and women who sleep with multiple men instead of settling down with one.

If you buy into the idea that having NPD essentially means being abusive, and then all these things are all narcissistic things. At that point we have a line drawn between queerness and abuse, using the line that was drawn between NPD and abuse.

And another point, about the harassment people with NPD get, is - we shouldn't be punishing people. Just, in general. Punishment isn't justice and it isn't accountability. Withstanding whatever harm people see fit to inflict on you because they were convinced to hate you, rightfully or not, isn't justice or accountability. Even if you convinced yourself that the harm isn't real because… it happens in the virtual space? And that makes it fake somehow?

Think of the way people online talk about narcissists. Think of how easily they armchair diagnose NPD, calling any abuser a narc, and sometimes from one sided stories. And the way people hurry to cyberbully and dogpile.

Abusers will often paint their victims as the abusive ones as a way to escape being known as abusive. And if you take the job of punishing people that you decided deserve it, you will at some point become a tool of an abuser trying to further harm their victim.

Even if you see evidence, it's easy to fake and manufacture. And it'll only become easier with voice and video AI tools. And even if it's all true, punishing people does nothing good.

Convincing you that a group of people is inherently dangerous is a way to make you willing to harm them, or stand by as harm is being done to them. People with NPD don't deserve that.

Stop looking for people that it's acceptable to harass and punish and ostracize. Most of us are susceptible to mob mentality, and having acceptable targets makes you dangerous.

[peonycats]

So I was recently informed that my latest post caused someone to accuse me of posting Chinese imperialism apologia, specifically for my tag comment that says: "If you accuse me of being hypocritical because I'm so anal about tying the nations to their states when it comes to the West but shy away when it comes to China, 1) you clearly don't know how Sinophobia works and 2) I ain't no coward."

Now, it may perplex you how people can accuse me of being a CCP apologist for a post where I called China a slut and specifically noted China's poor treatment of Uyghurs, but unfortunately, it's not the first time I've received accusations of being pro-CCP despite no supporting evidence.

I know I don't talk a lot about my personal life or internal goings-on on this blog, but I want to say this- I'm not completely unaffected by these frequent accusations. It hurts to see me being reduced to my Chineseness. My Chineseness being weaponized to discredit me as a wumao feels incredibly dehumanizing, and it hurts even more to see people believe those accusations. 

To give you my background, I was raised in a fairly nationalist household; my grandfather was born as an illiterate peasant and consequently came to hold very pro-Mao beliefs. From an early age, I often came to verbal blows with my parents (and my extended family) over these beliefs and argued frequently with them over Taiwan, Tibet's annexation, and China's policies towards minorities. I remember representing Kazakhstan for Model United Nations and was assigned to write a paper on the Kazakh reaction towards China’s unlawful detention of Uyghurs. Just mentioning this simple fact to my parents sparked a heated “debate” where they accused me of being brainwashed by Western propaganda, and that I was incapable of understanding China’s actions because I was born in the US.

I haven’t brought up any of this because I’m a private person by nature, and I felt that my posts should speak for themselves about my political beliefs. And yet, I find myself in the position of where I need to bring this up in order to defend myself from accusations of supporting Chinese imperialism, for disagreeing with another person, or calling something sinophobic/promoting sinophobia.

Sinophobia overlaps with other forms of racism, especially anti-Asian racism when other Asians are mistaken to be Chinese. However, we have to recognize that the specificity of China itself in "mistaken to be Chinese" is also what distinguishes Sinophobia from the more general anti-Asian racism. It indicates a designation of China as a prominent actor on the world stage, and most importantly- an inherently antagonistic one. The symbolism of China being inherently antagonistic is what justifies the conflation of Chinese people with the Chinese state; if China is by nature antagonistic then Chinese people must subsequently be extensions of the Chinese government, and every action they do must be politicized.

What are the implications when the fandom gives the okay to depictions of America hanging out with countries that the actual USA has fraught history with, but as soon as China does the same, questions and concerns arise about “making light” of China’s irl actions? That China can’t be disassociated with his state the same way other imperialist powers are in the fandom?

Bear in mind, I am saying this as someone who personally interprets all the nations as inherently political entities. China is no exception to this- my most recent post was parodying an Onion article about Biden and Xi, where Alfred and Yao literally take on the roles of their heads of state. I am the last person who shies away from politicizing all the nations. 

Rather, I am pointing out how China is being exceptionalized from wider fandom trends of depoliticizing the characters; I find this pattern troubling, as over-politicizing a Western nation (like America) does not have the same implications as over-politicizing China. 

The latter reflects dangerous trends on how Chinese people, especially Chinese communities abroad, are perceived, how we’re expected to answer for and answer to the Chinese government and its actions, and how, at best, we’re dismissed as being simply brainwashed, and how at worst, we’re seen as enemies of the populace, threats to national integrity. When we are seen to be “acting out of line,” we are viewed as perpetual outsiders, agents of a foreign regime. The same judgment is not levied towards white Americans, even those who live in America, vote in America, and benefit from American imperialism. 

I witnessed the dramatic rise in anti-Asian hate crimes and Sinophobic rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic: I was living in Atlanta during the 2020 spa shootings and I didn’t leave my dorm room for a week afterward. I worried over my mother, who every week, went to shop at local Chinese grocery stores in the area. I heard people spread conspiracy theories about how the virus was engineered by the Chinese government and spread by Chinese in the West as part of some grand conspiracy to ensure Chinese global dominance. All of this, led me to become conscious (in a way I hadn’t been before) of how conflating Chinese people with the Chinese government was frequently employed by bigots to mask their violent prejudice under the guise of “being anti-CCP.”

As a result, being Chinese diaspora is an emotionally fraught experience. Not only are we under constant scrutiny by others, but Chinese Mainlander diaspora specifically like myself face rejection when we choose to go against our families’ beliefs. But despite that, despite me being born and raised in the United States and living with this sort of bigotry all my life, it still cuts me deeply to see someone so quickly accuse me of supporting Chinese imperialist actions, despite me never posting in favor of the CCP in the past, simply because I pointed out how sinophobia manifests. It cuts even deeper to see people, people I know, agree with that assessment, and how I have to go out and publicly reveal details of my personal life to try and exonerate myself. 

It really does hurt.

[olderthannetfic]

I feel like many social justicey analyses would be improved by the realization that some biases are caused by assuming other people are like you, and some biases are caused by assuming other people are different from you. Both kinds of biases can be harmful, but both stem from impulses that are part of normal social functioning and not inherently evil.

Assuming your experiences are universal is the other side of the coin from general empathy and thinking that other people have the same basic needs and thoughts as you do. Assuming other people are different to you and those differences must be accommodated for is the other side of the coin from the other kind of empathy, when you recognize that someone is different and put yourself in their shoes to figure out what they might want. Both can be considerate in some circumstances, and othering or offensive in others, and it's not always clear.

For example: Let's say you have an immigrant co-worker who's not fluent in your language. Is it better to A) talk to them the same way you talk to everyone else because you don't want them to feel like they don't belong here, or B) intentionally speak slower and use simpler words around them so they don't struggle with slang and fast speech patterns?

A can look indistinguishable from native speaker privilege and harmfully assuming/expecting everyone to speak on your level.

B can look indistinguishable from as assuming immigrants are bad at your language and things must be dumbed down for them.

Both have their uses, their pros and cons. As an immigrant myself who's struggled with this, there have been situations where I preferred one or the other. I have seen other immigrants complain about both. (If I had to guess, I'd say people complain about A more. Native speakers rattling on at ten miles a minute is a much more material obstacle than hazy feelings of alienation or feeling talked down to because people assume you don't speak the language well.)

But a certain social justicey crowd will be prone to making such reductive statements as how A or B are always racist or anti-immigrant or whatnot, as if it's that black and white.

Hell, a lot of the times whether something is othering or considerate will depend entirely on how likely it is that your guess is right. Assuming a random passerby doesn't speak your language has a very different contextual weight depending on if it's in the middle of the street in a crowded city, in the middle of the street in the non-native diaspora part of the city, in a classroom of grad students in an international program, or in the middle of an airport. But for one thing, that doesn't change the fact that you're still guessing and going by assumptions, and there's always the chance you're wrong. For another, that means that's as much an issue of correct situational analysis as it is of bigotry and bias, and yet, again, people will act like things are straightforward.

I also see this lot in discussions of disability and health. Some people want to be treated the same as everyone else instead of being reminded of the way in which they're different, others want tangible accommodations that will improve their quality of life, which means not being treated as everyone else. But so often people will see vent posts from one group or the other and conclude that THIS is the one and true way to handle X disabled group, and if they see someone doing anything else, that means that person must be an ableist bigot.

I think some people don't realize that when we say "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated"... many people wouldn't be able to agree on what the second part of that looks like.

(Yes, people in the notes, there are situations where you can just ask what a specific person would prefer - at least if the asking itself is not too othering and awkward. But that doesn't change anything about the dilemma of these different approaches.)

--

[menofsweaters]

okay so

y'all seemed unusually chill about my last Endeavor rant, and that has lulled me into a false sense of security. General disclaimer that everyone is allowed to engage with media however they want and no one is ever obligated to like/appreciate/forgive/whatever any character and this is all fictional barbie doll playtime so who cares -

BUT

Whenever I see a lot of anti-Endeavor rants, it just screams to me that the person posting has maybe not fully internalized the idea that parents (and adult figureheads in general) are human beings who are quite fallible and capable of making terrible mistakes just like everyone else.

Most people who abuse and neglect children do not realize that they're abusing and neglecting them. I know this is a tough pill to swallow.

Heck, most people who abuse other people in general do not realize they're causing harm. We as human beings generally like to see ourselves as the main character - as a person who's making the correct choices, who knows best, who's out for the greater good.

When parents and guardians abuse and neglect their children, they're generally not thinking "I want to hurt a child," they're thinking that they need to teach the child discipline, or that the child is ungrateful, or that they're somehow doing what's right for the child and the family even if it's hurtful at the time. Or, perhaps at the same time, they're not examining their actions at all, due to lack of understanding, mental health issues, addiction, etc. Makes me think of that post that circulated about how "child abuse is inherently irrational" because YEAH. IT IS IRRATIONAL.

This all very much tracks for Endeavor, who married Rei and started having children when he was quite young, and by all accounts did not have anyone in his life to offer a good example of what a healthy, loving family looks like. We also see his descent into emotional disturbance pretty starkly when you look at the memories of Touya and Fuyumi when they're very young versus the at height of his abuse. We also don't see any other heroes of Endeavor's age who are parents in canon.

Endeavor's thoughts were always "I need to protect Touya from hurting himself, and the best way to do that is by distancing myself so he stops wanting to be a hero" and "I need to train Shouto to be as strong as possible so that he can surpass both me and All Might and become a great hero." Both of these are selfish and short-sighted to some extent, but they're not sociopathic.

He was never thinking, "I want to hurt my children and my wife." No one thinks that way. That's some family annihilator thinking, and there's no indication that Endeavor thinks this way. Very, very few people are that cartoonishly villainous in real life, and Horikoshi has made a point of showing that Endeavor is multifaceted. He only recognized his own shortcomings with his family when he was older and saw the consequences. Would it have been better if he realized these things earlier (and maybe got some damn therapy)? Yeah, of course! That would have been way better!!

Anyway, I think the point that I'm trying to make is that people seem to have this assumption that Endeavor KNEW what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway, when that's simply not what's shown in the canon and also is not realistic in terms of actual bad parenting.

Not to get too deep on main or whatever, but as a survivor (ugh) of childhood abuse, and someone who's dealt with abusive partners as an adult, letting go of the idea that abusers are fully aware of what they're doing and are purposeful with the harm that they do was a HUGE hurdle for me to overcome, but it made my life way better to accept that people are just selfish idiots who have no idea what they're doing in most cases. This doesn't mean that abusers are innocent in any way, or that they can't be held accountable for their actions, or that you have to forgive blah blah blah, but I really genuinely encourage people to reexamine the idea that abuse is always purposeful because it very much is not.

Thanks for coming to my rant, no tags because I don't want to get harassed by teenagers. This is just me spitting out my internal thoughts on the internet and I have no desire to engage in arguments about it.

[prodigal-explorer]

I disagree with the idea that basil is unforgivable because the entire point of Omori is forgiveness and grief.

To say that basil is irredeemable is to go against the theme of the game

homie...

hate to break it to you but actually the point of the game being forgiveness and grief doesn't mean that every character should be forgiven. everybody has different standards and morals and values when it comes to forgiveness. some people are able to forgive basil and others aren't, but the people who are able to forgive aren't inherently better or more "right" than the people who cannot. to say that the message of omori is "you should always forgive people no matter what they do to you" is brain-dead.

just because sunny and basil smiled at each other doesn't mean that all that damage was reversed, or that true forgiveness even happened.

the point of omori is not forgiving others.

it's forgiving YOURSELF.

that's why aubrey, kel, and hero's explicit reactions to the truth weren't shown in the game. because it's not supposed to be canon that they forgave sunny and basil. and the lesson is NOT that kel, aubrey, and hero SHOULD forgive sunny and basil.

it's easy for sunny and basil to forgive each other because they both royally fucked up each other and their friends.

what's not easy is kel, hero, and aubrey forgiving them because unlike sunny and basil, they had ZERO CHOICE in the matter when it came to the presentation of mari's death. they spent four years living a lie.

hero blamed himself, believing that he was a horrible boyfriend who caused mari's death by not being there for her and he was extremely depressed for years, which caused him to lose motivation for his number one favorite thing to do:

cook. as a result of hero's depression, kel was pushed aside and ignored by his parents, becoming something like a glass child to them, which led to him viewing himself as less important or worthy of love/attention than hero.

and don't even get me started on aubrey. the whole town turned against her, and nobody cared about her. not even her friends. the only person in the world who truly understood her was mari, and seeing her hung was the worst possible thing to happen to aubrey, a mentally ill little girl who already believed she was bad for everyone who cared about her.

if basil had JUST TOLD THE TRUTH. all of his friends' lives would have been infinitely better.

and i don't mean to like rag on basil without addressing sunny, but i never see sunny stans acting this idiotic and "holier-than-thou". now since you're so up in my business, i will explain myself more.

the biggest unforgiveable thing isn't even basil hanging mari. it's basil blatantly lying, and staying silent for four years, pretending to be innocent, painting himself as some victim, when really, the whole time, he was the reason why everything crumbled and destroyed itself.

it would be fucking stupid to walk out of playing that game saying, "well, aubrey, kel, and hero need to forgive basil for what he did because forgiveness is important."

that's easy for BASIL LOVERS to say because BASIL WAS NOT THE VICTIM IN THE SITUATION. HE WAS THE PERPETRATOR.

and furthermore, the game emphasizes self-forgiveness way more than forgiving others.

things only started to get better for basil and sunny when they started to forgive themselves. sunny's hallucinations were a manifestation of his shame and guilt. and shame and guilt are a result of being unable to forgive yourself. what the other characters did to support sunny was helpful, but it didn't solve the root of the problem. the only thing that really made something go away, the only thing that really brought color back to sunny's world was him letting go of that shame and guilt and allowing himself to keep going forward.

THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE GAME IS THIS: you cannot control how others react/respond to your bad actions. you cannot expect forgiveness out of anyone, and sometimes, you SHOULDNT. but the one thing you can control when you fuck up is how you pick yourself up and dust yourself off. how YOU move on from what you did so that you can grow and become a better person in the future.

and to me, that is a way more relevant, impactful, and TRUE message than the stupid, idiotic, honestly super problematic idea that "we should forgive and forget when people hurt us because they feel guilty". that's not being a good person. that's being spineless and devoid of values. just because i personally have experiences, traumas, and values that make me unable to truly forgive basil doesn't make me a bad person or someone who failed to understand the game's message. so before you come up in my ask box and attempt to shame me and accuse me of not understanding the game, brush up on it yourself, buddy.