#fanti mention | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aronarchy · 1 year

Note

You and alot of the youth libration posters on here: "adults need to listen children and teens and take them seriously"

Me who is trying to understand better: "I agree with that"

The overmajority of the children and teens I take to on platforms other then here: "We don't like media and stories that sexualize us in anyway"

You and alot of the youth libration posters on here for some reason: "That's bad and here's why you should ignore them"

I'm legit confused bruv

(I’ll assume you’re talking about fiction not depicting specific real-life minors here, because that is usually the topic of discussion.)

Your experiences have been very, very different from mine, then.

I’ve had a few IRL friends whom I had discussed or mentioned the topic to or vice versa when I was a child/young teenager; they were generally supportive and didn’t take issue. I met far fewer children and teens IRL who were opposed to it. (I actually can’t remember any specific incident of someone being opposed to it around me. Although that’s probably because it wasn’t really a topic of discussion much. But yeah.)

I am a minor, and I have met many, many minors online who are proship. It’s actively difficult to be a proship minor, even more difficult it is to be a proship or antiship adult, or an antiship minor, because of how we’re commonly erased, how both antis and adult(ist) proshippers like to assume we just don’t (and can’t) exist, and we are rarely listened to.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of fantis I’ve met have been adults. It’s also adults who have driven public discourse for moralizing dark fiction, and adults who lobby for and pass laws censoring art.

I knew a (fanti-adjacent) adult who sexually harassed and abused multiple minors, building his brand on being a “predator-hunter,” protecting minors. He severely stalked and harassed many people, adults and minors, perceived as sexually deviant or problematic, for long periods of time. When my friend, a minor, went public about their abuse from him, they were branded a liar by his friends and supporters, all or almost all of whom are fantis. Many were minors themselves. There were more minors supporting him than supporting my friend, because he had more supporters in general. Should I have agreed with them, because they were minors? Erased the victims?

My friend has experienced sexual harassment from a minor for being interested in “problematic” art depicting fictional CSA. That same person also harassed me, including with bigotry and suicide-baiting, for my related stances and my sexuality, and sexually objectified me (in a mostly unrelated context). Would you support him because “we need to listen to and agree with minors more”?

There have been innumerable cases of adult fantis online being caught grooming, sexually harassing, or abusing minors, including minor fantis, and running exploitative, cult-like communities. Even one (at least one, whom I remember) who raped someone IRL. It’s become almost an expected occurrence that adult fantis go around sharing the “problematic” art they call “CSEM” and make others, including survivors with PTSD who are distressed by it, and even minors, to look at porn they otherwise would not have seen. And trivializing CSEM, calling depictions of fictional characters “CSEM,” and, like what I once saw done to a friend who is a rape and CSEM survivor, being dismissive of them when they are, naturally, offended and triggered by claims that fictional material could be possibly equivalent to actual recordings of rape or abuse.

(Yes, many proshippers are CSA survivors; you can read some testimonials from them here.)

Many, maybe even most minors support the “stranger danger” myth and other adultist, authoritarian beliefs to some degree. Believing that sexual “deviants” or “degenerates” are the cause of CSA and that purging them in a fascist manner is the solution. They would likely invalidate my claims of having been abused, because most people are conditioned to downplay child abuse, even as children themselves. This dynamic is replicated with any other marginalized group. Fully liberationist beliefs are rare in general. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, or not what we all need, ultimately. (That does not also mean it would automatically be paternalistic to disagree with someone else on what would constitute liberation or whether liberation is good.)

Many minors, like people living under a CSA culture in general, believe in victim-blaming myths like “children and teenagers wearing ‘over-sexualized’ clothing ‘tempts’ adults into sexually assaulting them; we need to promote [modesty standards for clothing] to prevent CSA.” Many people, even survivors, claim that abusers abuse because “they can’t help it,” because they lack emotional self-regulation, because they are mentally ill… or because they looked at some fiction or art depicting abuse in a not-entirely-condemnatory light, and suddenly pro-abuse beliefs magically entered their head entirely against their will, or they got “hooked” on it and developed a “porn addiction” or uncontrollable sex drive until they couldn’t help but “escalate” by attacking real-life minors, as if abusers only abused because of fiction and not from any volition of their own. As if that excuses it, or can adequately explain it away. As if that’s not an excuse SA’ers have been using for a long, long time.

Many of those minor fantis would likely defend my CSA to me, or at least try to paternalistically overwrite my own perceptions, memories, interpretations, and understandings of my experiences, because they don’t fit their preconceived narrative.

These are deeply destructive myths, harmful to minors and survivors, but they are still extremely prevalent.

Does that make them okay?

The vast supermajority of minor fantis I have encountered or observed (and a far greater proportion than among proshippers) are adultist, often violently so, and defend the nuclear family and mock me for advocating abolition, and connect their fanti stance with their adultist stances in logic and framework. They would dismiss me on the basis of my age. They think purging fiction is a sufficient solution to abuse and take issue with my efforts at more concrete activism against abuse culture within communities and political causes of abuse. They think adults should use parental controls and censor minors’ media and coerce us to not view content perceived as problematic or corrupting even if the minor does not agree to that. They either pretend minors with kinks or other “deviant” sexual interests don’t exist, or demonize us and sneer at minors’ experiences of distress and trauma from societal kinkmisia. They would help adult fantis harass proship minors and minors who view dark fiction/create “problematic” art. They play into culturally adultist notions of “childhood innocence,” adult control over youth sexuality, denial of agency, and paternalistic condescension, but also turn to aggression and overt hostility when a minor doesn’t buy into it. See, for example:

I grew up in a conservative, abusive, sexually repressive, censoring environment. Then when I first went online I encountered a ton of the same negativity. I felt a lot of shame and internalized stigma and constant self-doubt because I was worried I was somehow being immoral for enjoying dark fiction and accidentally harming myself in the long run or indirectly wronging people I care about. That was deeply detrimental to my mental health for a long time. I felt a lot of clarity and felt much safer, more validated, more comfortable existing as myself, and less self-hating when I encountered other people who did have similar views which were supportive and who were interested in pursuing the real causes of child abuse (which I didn’t really know a lot about until I started unraveling all the propaganda I had absorbed which scapegoated unrelated things, and has been immensely helpful to my understanding of my conditions and beginning my ability to advocate for myself and others), and things finally made a lot more sense (fanti views were contradictory, confusing, and I knew even when I had a lot of internalized problems that they were very wrong on some level). I also unlearned a lot of adultism in the meantime. I’m not sure where this recent trend of “antishipping is youthlib” is coming from. I’ve always only ever seen fantis promoting adultism along with their ideology, and that it’s been implicitly understood everywhere that if you support antishipping you support adultism too because they’re part and parcel.

I do believe in a standpoint epistemology, where one predicts that a marginalized group is on average much more likely to have correct opinions about issues pertaining to their oppression and blind spots generated among oppressor classes through that oppression, because of the disproportionate pressures and incentives they experience to understand more, or else they suffer more. However, this does not make me a relativist; it does not mean that I repeat “listen to and uncritically agree with whatever marginalized group X says about Y, because reality is subjective and if someone believes it they automatically can be right.” I still believe that there is objective truth, and while I try to find wherever possible where they may be blind spots in my perspective, my goal, ultimately, is still to rely on methods of evidence and logical inference. I don’t go about this in a way anywhere near how the average normie does, and they wouldn’t like my methods either. But still—I recognize, yes, that marginalized people are not monoliths, and we are not going to all agree on everything; at some point, even the privileged will have to look on and deliberate and choose what they think is true. And, sometimes, there’s a reason why one perspective is more rare on the surface (suppressed? claimed to be impossible? threatened?) than another.

Fanti communities are abusive. Fantis are abusive. I still have a lot of trauma from how individuals and groups have treated me, especially online. It was cruel. It was fucking unfair. I don’t think ritual harassment, bigotry, trying to cut someone off from resources, abuse apologia, and enforcement of authoritarian norms are somehow youth liberationist. I don’t think silencing minors or making them afraid to exist in spaces because of harmless beliefs or fictional interests is youth liberation.

This is also how many conservatives have treated fictional depictions of violence. (I can attest to that from personal experience too; that was also incredibly traumatic.) Do we have to censor GTA before we advocate against murder and torture and assault?

It feels very distressing being told that I can’t possibly support views that are important to me and my freedom of expression and in helping resolve the trauma and violence many people I care about experienced without somehow secretly or inadvertently undermining myself and other causes I care about. This paradigm keeps people trapped in toxic communities, feeling like they are being forced to choose either one or the other, which makes it easy for abusers on both sides to exploit us and then moralize against us. It’s suffocating and cruel.

I don’t just disagree with minor fantis when I encounter them. I feel triggered, afraid, threatened/in danger. I remember a whole slew of awful past incidents, and a long time feeling a lot of confusion, feeling gaslit, feeling like my whole self and existence are wrong. I anticipate hostility and possible violence toward me and people I care about. I feel angry, because I remember what people like them did to people I care about (and to me), and tried to do. I feel even more angry that people will run apologia for them and try to gaslight the rest of us into thinking there’s no problem, everything’s fine, shut up and get in line or else you’re next.

Recently, fantis effectively killed a proship CSA survivor for drawing cope art on a private account after a years-long harassment campaign. Do you think your friends would defend this? Do you think they would agree, that this is protecting children?

But this is only my perspective. I know that fantis will always have the moral and discursive advantage over me and that it would be much easier for someone to accuse me of being adultist/corrupting through this, or tokenizing myself/having internalized adultism/being predatory/a dozen other things I’ve been accused of other the years to discredit and invalidate my words which I do, in fact, sometimes worry over, as I argue with myself in my head, as I internalize gaslighting and doubt myself and wonder if I really am wrong and should just abandon trying to carve out a space for myself, to exist as myself and with dignity. It would be easier to be mad at me and think I have insidious or misguided motives or am trying to guilt-trip.

I wouldn’t even really blame you. It’s always been easier for me to blame myself.

(Except then I look around and see all the people, minors, CSA survivors, extremely traumatized and fucked-up people who’ve been badly hurt who feel doubt too who really need this activism and it doesn’t seem so hard then, does it? Cruelty is cruelty. Abuse is abuse. Trauma is trauma. Bigots can fuck right off.)

#ask #anon #late answer #shipcourse #fandom discourse #fiction discourse #ageism #adultism #proship #profic #profiction #CSA mention

28 notes · View notes

sisterdivinium · 2 years

Text

At the end of my post about Jillian Salvius' clothing and how it mirrored her inner happenings, I briefly mentioned Mother Superion and her attire, planning to develop a fuller analysis at a later date; this is where I attempt it.

A glance suffices to notice how Mother Superion stands out compared to the other members of the Order of the Cruciform Sword, given how starkly her all-black habit contrasts with the hues of blue that characterise the other nuns.

However, it is not common amongst nuns for such dissimilar, distinctive appearances to exist within a same order. The flashback in episode six of season two, through which we are speedily acquainted with the dress code of Suzanne's own Mother Superion, proves that the striking black silhouette she eventually adopts is exclusive to her, Suzanne, rather than some peculiar tradition within the OCS. The other woman, after all, even despite her hierarchical position, wears blue just the same as all other sisters.

Of course, we know that Suzanne is ultimately responsible for this Mother Superion's death and we could assume that, as a Queen Victoria in mourning until the end of her days, her choice in wardrobe could constitute some sort of morbid tribute to her "victim". It might serve as a reminder of her tragic blunder — in Catholic logic, so steeped in ideas of sin and guilt as it is, it would not be unreasonable for Suzanne to wear her own dark grief on her literal sleeve, adding yet another symbol of her failure to the gallery of signs of mortification that the event had already left on her. A grim cloak of funereal black goes along rather harmoniously with a large facial scar, a limp, a cane, all constant reminders of what her mortal sin of pride had done to someone she loved.

Could it be a pesky remnant of that same pride, setting herself visibly apart from her sisters as well as physically? Would penitence not be more properly lived in the humility of looking just like all the others do? Perhaps, but these are conjectures and there is still much more to this our twisted female Oedipus, the unwilling killer of a mother whose place she takes by "marrying" to her same duty. This black outfit Mother Superion dons strangely brings to mind that of an Orthodox priest.

Surely, the reader will recall some defining traits of the Orthodox church, namely its total independence from Rome following the Schism, as well as the autonomy and authority that each of its branches possess; the reader will also kindly remember the definition and etymology of the word "orthodox":

orthodox (ˈɔːθəˌdɒks) adj 1. conforming with established or accepted standards, as in religion, behaviour, or attitudes 2. (Ecclesiastical Terms) conforming to the Christian faith as established by the early Church [C16: via Church Latin from Greek orthodoxos, from orthos correct + doxa belief] (via The Free Dictionary)

Correct belief, as in faithful to its origins, to its heart — to what is understood as and felt to be the truth, uncluttered by scholarship, free from control by a single ruler. Let us keep those words in the back of our mind: correct belief.

For now, we must return to season one, to the inner conflict faced by Mother Superion as she oscillated between choosing to follow Duretti's lead or to stick to what we might tentatively call her own conscience. It is clear that she finds herself at a complicated crossroads.

She does attempt to "conform with established standards", to follow the orders received, to act in accordance with what is expected of her in her position — simply put, to be orthodox in her approach, as much as it seems to disturb her.

I have spoken of verticality before (and, to be honest, so has Sylvia de Fanti herself), so these moments of reasserting her adherence to the rules serve to place Suzanne in that scheme, where she is the superior to the girls but also always the inferior to someone else. They establish how she fits into all of this — and how she must squirm to do so, smothering herself in the process (smothering the same confidence, the same pride which up until then had been a cause only for shame?) so as to serve her purpose within the structure.

The issue of authority and the struggle of accepting or rejecting it are not novelties for Suzanne.

Here is what is most fascinating about our Mother Superion when considering her unusual looks: she is simultaneously orthodox and unorthodox.

Fidelity, methods and intentions mix in her, pulling her in the direction of the church's rigidity or in that of her own individuality, torn between duty (or what is understood as duty) and what we could perhaps call faith... Real faith.

We needn't indicate how unorthodox it is for a nun to defy the orders of a higher-up, most of all when that higher-up is the Pope himself, and yet Suzanne does it; she confronts Duretti both indirectly, while protecting Ava from Crimson (whom he had himself reintroduced in the OCS) and directly, openly questioning him about what at that point was assumed to be Adriel's bones, and, later, even questioning and criticising his way of dealing with the situation involving Adriel.

At the same time, with someone with this image of hers, so reminiscent of the Orthodox, these were the most orthodox actions she could possibly take, distancing herself from Duretti, thinking for herself, splitting from him just as the two churches have done.

Yet there is still more to examine.

It is already quite unorthodox to picture a member of the Catholic church — she being a sister warrior notwithstanding, with all the unconventionality that entails — wanting to acquire a "more modern approach" to something, but it is more so when we consider that this touch of "modernity" in Suzanne arguably comes from the alliance forged with Jillian Salvius and the technology she brings — the very same Jillian who served as antagonist to Duretti and the church, to whom Mother Superion is bound, in season one.

Still, a certain orthodoxy permeates this unorthodox, almost blasphemous choice.

This is because what directs Suzanne, what guides her after she has broken free of her spiritual, intellectual, emotional, symbolic imprisonment is what can only be called her correct belief: her devotion to her girls.

Suzanne's "orthodoxy" has little to do with theology. The issues of transcendence and god are not in question for her, not that we've seen (if Camila mentions a slight concern given the events of season two); the crux of the matter for her is, to again borrow Sylvia's own words, the "root" of religion, etymologically speaking — religion, "religare", the idea of tying together, fastening, binding... This tie which defines her "correct belief", her "religion", is the one with the other members of the OCS.

As much as the trauma of killing a mother might have pushed Suzanne into the stable, predictable place offered by "order", by a severe structure such as that of the church, necessarily stifling that murderous sin of pride lurking within her troubled breast, there is only so much anyone can bear to bury within oneself. The cage of penance is all too likely to end a tomb and one's genuine self must break through eventually so that life isn't brought to an end while the heart yet continues to beat — Mary provided the key for Suzanne to free herself of this fate.

Duretti is not the church, he is not a woman and he is certainly not directed by selflessness, on the contrary, and all of this runs counter to her "correct belief" of, as Mary knows too well, caring too much about the other nuns.

After this truth is expressed and accepted, it is never again a secret and we are witnesses to how profoundly Mother Superion is moved by what affects her sisters, be it in the loss of Mary herself, that of the countless women slaughtered during the global attack on the OCS, or even in quieter moments such as the ones shared with Ava or when learning Camila and Yasmine are still alive after a failed incursion. As much as a certain stoicism remains about her, feelings do find their way outward much more easily.

It is also in the name of those very same sisters that she so vehemently punctuates her participation in Duretti's bloody conclave.

Again, Suzanne proves to be both orthodox and unorthodox at once, for it is highly unorthodox for a woman to speak thus (as highlighted by the Archbishop of Canterbury), but it is also the most orthodox course of action for her to take in respecting and honouring her own correct belief — remaining true to her convictions, devoted to her sisters, those who are now around her, not above or below her. This is what I (and, once more, the very actress that breathes life into the character) have elsewhere called a relationship of horizontality.

Curiously enough, at the conclave, Mother Superion is placed right beside the one Orthodox bishop present at the meeting.

The camera avoids showing them side by side, perhaps to equally avoid the recognition of how alike their clothing is, but it is notable that they should be close: here are representatives of autonomous churches, almost solidifying how much Suzanne stands for what is a faith all in itself.

And perhaps it is, in a way. For the proximity in vestment is, let us repeat, due to the similarity to the robes worn not by Orthodox nuns, but by priests — it is the masculine garb that sees itself reflected in her looks, that which is worn by men, that very sex holding real authority in either of the two real churches. A priest, a minister, a shepherd, one invested with the necessary knowledge to perform sacraments in the faith...

Even though her cane is no longer necessary following the miracle performed by Ava, we see Suzanne using it post-resurrection. This opens intriguing paths of inquiry, for, yes, the cane might serve as a signature weapon, effortlessly hidden in plain sight, but it might also hesitatingly draw a connection in light of the priest comparison... Perhaps, symbolically, the cane is as a discreet crosier in the hands of this apostle of "correct belief", now prepared to welcome others into the same family-faith of fellow women...

But this is egregious speculation and possibly tainted by the present author's own wish fulfilment, going well beyond the scope of this text; we must not pursue this line of investigation further, not without the aid of more concrete evidence to ground it.

Be it as it may, it is enough to conclude that Mother Superion presents a rich, delightful paradox in her successive "states" of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy, often at the same time; she who first appeared as a figure illustrative of the strictest order in her stern black might be one of the most subversive characters in a cast already marvellously distinguished by its psychological depth and how full of life it is.

#warrior nun #mother superion #with all of these links to myself i'd ought to just change my url to mothersuperionwiki #(it's a joke i'm not going to change my url!! but yes i might not be entirely Normal about suzanne oops)#(and this is a post solely about her clothes jfc)#analysis and similar #exercises in observation #also the links are not me fishing for notes in other posts #i simply do not expect readers to be acquainted with everything else i've been writing about suzanne and the show in general #and it might be useful for someone just stumbling upon this post to know where it's coming from

78 notes · View notes

xx-slug-xx · 10 months

Text

//cw- self harm and substance abuse mentions

“Using dark fiction to cope is self harm!”

Self harm is self destructive by nature. It actively causes physical and/or mental harm to the person. That’s why self sabotage is also a form of self harm. Self harm can be done by simply trying to get yourself fired from your job for no other reason than the fact that you feel like you don’t deserve it. It can also be in the form of becoming distant from loved ones. Self harm isn’t always about hurting yourself physically, but I don’t feel like I need to really explain that part too much. If you do something that you know will cause mental or physical harm to you, but do it anyway, it’s self harm.

It’s true that not all coping mechanisms are healthy, but it really depends on how someone is using the coping mechanism as well as the coping mechanism itself. If someone is smoking weed to cope, that’s valid and there’s tons of research that tells us that it can be beneficial. However, if someone is using weed to cope, is having panic attacks because of their personal reaction to weed, and is struggling financially because of how much weed they are smoking, then it’s absolutely not healthy. Specifically for that person though. But I can’t tell someone how to live their lives. I can recognize it’s unhealthy and give people advise, but their struggle with their mental health isn’t any less valid because they are not coping in a healthy way. I’m also not going to assume that everyone who smokes weed to cope will react to weed the same way, and have the same financial struggles, that this individual is experiencing.

I feel like a lot of fantis who cry about how exposing yourself to dark fiction is self harm got it wrong though. The people who use dark fic to cope are able to gain something positive from it. It is what works for them. It’s self expression in the form of art and I think that’s beautiful. However, I see so many fantis purposely exposing themselves to dark content that’s properly tagged. They know what’s going to happen, they read the warnings, they know how they will react to this sort of content, but they still choose to expose themselves to content that they know they’ll have a bad reaction to. This, by deffiniton, is self harm. It baffles my mind that fantis keep pointing fingers at people who use dark fic to cope, meanwhile, they’re pointing three more at themselves. If anyone is harming themselves with dark fiction, it’s fantis.

I’m concerned by this honestly, if anything else. Mostly because I’m 90% sure most fantis don’t realize it’s self harm. I’m positive that fantis are projecting onto those who do use dark fiction to cope though. Mostly because they can’t imagine getting any benefits out of this coping mechanism, only negative reactions to it, and assume it must be true for everyone else too. I feel bad for them, too a point, as I’m obviously not excusing a lot their actions they do in response to seeing said dark fiction. But then again, starting drama with people and risking getting doxxed and harassed could be a form of self sabotage too. Overall, I’d argue that being involved in pointless internet drama and arguments is self harm just because of how much of a negative affect it has on people. Surrounding one’s self in constant negativity is definitely not healthy.

(Side note: anyone who harasses and has doxxed a fanti still isn’t cool imo, but that’s not the point of this post lol. But when you start drama online, it’s always a risk regardless and I wanted to mention it)

#tw self harm mention #tw substance abuse mention #tw self sabotage #proship #profic #anti anti #profiction #comship #anti censorship #anti harassment #fandom discourse #dark fiction #coping mechanism

17 notes · View notes

masaotheheckindog · 11 months

Text

One thing about fanti rhetoric is that it can be genuinely triggering. Not in the popularized definition of 'makes people mad' way, but in the activating trauma way. cw for talk about CSA, CSEM mention, general talk about abuse and harassment.

I know in my own case (and certainly in the case of many, many other victims of CSA) that one of the people sexually abusing me would tell me how perverted and sexual I was, in an inapprorpriate and disgusting way. Of course, I was a small child being sexually abused by this person so looking back on that as an adult, I understand that she was saying these things to me to justify what she was doing to me to herself. Maybe she even believed it in a way, but it was a tactic to make me easier to abuse and to feel like I was the one at fault for it so I would never tell on her. I was the one who was guilty because I was the degenerate little pervert. And so, I deserved it. I made it happen, even. Regardless of the fact that I was too young to even know what those words meant at the time, they most certainly stuck with me throughout the years until I did know what they meant. And I've processed that trauma well enough that seeing the things that antis say doesn't put me into a trauma-induced shame spiral, but not everyone is there, yet. And I think that's why you can't just 'log off and walk away' if targeted harassment of this kind is aimed at you, people are telling you you deserved to be sexually abused, or even go so far as send you CSEM of yourself. It's more than just activating trauma, it's genuinely retraumatizing and abusive. Like when you're literally saying things to people that the people who sexually abuse them as children say to them, you are abusive.

#proship #pro fiction #anti harassment

8 notes · View notes

jtl07 · 1 year

Text

jt (finally) watches warrior nun - s1 e9 (pt 3) & e10

Last episode 9 thoughts and brief-ish thoughts on episode 10

I was thinking again about the fight vs flight critique that Ava and Bea had and was pondering that in the context of all the other interactions they’ve had thus far - and how it kinda bridges over to the interactions (esp the arguments) they have in s2.

As in: This is the first time that we see Ava kinda bite back at Bea - not like how she does in s2, mind you, (e.g. their arguments re: Miguel and the FBC) but it’s a little hint of it. In the same vein, for Bea, it’s a step further from the critique she had of Ava in the hallway in s1 e3 but not yet as emotional as the apartment fight in s2.

There’s not really a point to this observation, more like a, huh that’s interesting, in terms of how their relationship is slowly evolving.

That said, I … don’t have much to say about e10. I’d been dragging my feet mostly because I did not want to watch Adriel being manipulative, and woof, I was right. What I mean: they knew how to cast Adriel as evil via manipulation and lies, and they did it well. It really turned my stomach to watch it, and I was going at 2x speed plus had a completely unrelated movie running in the background (if you’d like to know: it was one of the Ice Age movies lol).

[Things I was pleasantly surprised by and some frustrations under the cut]

The reveal of Vincent’s loyalty was really well done - probably the only time the short scene edits served a purpose. Interweaving Vincent going to Adriel with Mother Superion confronting Duretti (and goddamn, Di Fanti was amazing) reminded me of old Hong Kong Triad movies for a sec. That said: It actually took me a moment to realize what they were doing because they’ve been doing those damn cuts so much prior to this that it nearly lost its effectiveness. All in all, really showed that they’d been setting up Vincent’s betrayal from the very start.

Speaking of old school HK movies, I was really frustrated with the lack of tension in the editing - or maybe it was the angle of shots? I can’t put my finger on why I wasn’t getting the tension I wanted from the girls’ reactions to Vincent’s reveal. (I was, however, hella amused that it took three of them to hold back Mary lol)

I will say that I was surprised by the scenes of the girls waiting for Ava near the beginning, namely Beatrice’s calm - which was highlighted by everyone else’s reactions: Lilith’s restless anxiety, Mary’s tense cynicism. Part of my surprise was because of that fight vs flight convo in e9. I mentioned in my e9 writeup that I found it really odd that Beatrice frames the reason why she has the extra explosives as more of a contingency if Ava fails, rather than how she simply says here in e10 that it’s their worst case scenario. She presents an almost serene sort of faith in Ava here - is it because she’s not alone with Ava (and therefore more critical of Ava)? Is it because she’s with the others (and therefore more presenting as “faithful”)? It’s very curious, human even, how she is both critical and trusting of Ava in these two episodes.

(Or: Perhaps Beatrice can’t find it in her to praise Ava to her face? Hm. Curious, curious)

Oh last thing: I did like - and hadn’t known! - that twist of the fight with Adriel actually being them buying time for Ava. That said, hadn’t it already been 7 minutes since she phased through the wall and yknow, had been talking to Adriel? Also what uh, what were they expecting Ava to do? Like, she still isn’t much a fighter lol. Again, weird tension/build/logic issues - there were plenty of “cool” moments but they didn’t seem to make sense…?

All said, kinda happy to be done with season 1. It felt really disjointed to me in terms of storytelling and editing (goddamn the short scene edits killed me), though it served as a good “introduction” to the main characters. The things it felt like they really wanted to, and did, nail was: let Alba shine as Ava (mission absolutely accomplished) and build Vincent’s betrayal (mission also accomplished).

In any case, looking forward to finally get into s2!

#jt watches wn #jt ramble time #warrior nun #finally done with season 1 #only took me 2 months lol #hopefully season 2 will be faster

8 notes · View notes

madamlaydebug · 1 year

Text

“THE PRIMITIVE BLACK NATIONS OF AMERICA” by professor Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, c. 1832

An often ignored and forgotten part of American history is the fact that Europeans encountered dark-skinned people (later referred to as negroes) when they arrived on the shores of North, South, and Central America…

This passage, taken from professor Constantine Rafinesque's publication, Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge, details the various "Black Nations" that existed pre-Columbus in America…

Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge was based off of over 33 years of travel and research by the esteemed professor…

"The Primitive Black Nations of America."

By Professor C. S. Rafinesque.

“The Society of Geography having offered a reward for the best memoir on the Origin of the Asiatic Negroes, I sent them last year two Memoirs; one on those Asiatic Negroes,'wherein I demonstrated the affinities of their languages with the African and Polynesian Negroes, as well as with the Hindus and Chinese, and renders it probable that all the Negroes originated in the Southern Slopes of the Himalaya Mountains, as they did once exist all over India, South China, Japan, Persia and Arabia...

My second Memoir was on the Negro or Black Nations, found in America before Columbus, wherein I proved their existence and connection by language with the Negroes of Africa and Polynesia…

These Memoirs have been rewarded by the learned Society of Geography, with a gold medal of 100 Francs, which was lately communicated to me by Messrs Warden, our former Consul in Paris, and Jomard member of the Institute…

This gratifying intelligence will be acceptable to all my friends, and furnish another proof of my ability to unravel at last, the origins of all the American Nations and Tribes, in pursuing the path which I have opened, by comparing all the Languages mathematically and numerically with each other…

To many, this fact of old Black Nations in America will be new…

Yet it is important feature of American History…

I will here merely enumerate the Black tribes of which I have found evident traces and remains in North and South America…

1. The ancient Caracols of Hayti, represented as a Nation of Beasts by the Historical Songs, see Roman and Martyr

2. The Califurnams of the Carib Islands, called Black Caribs or Guanini by others, are a black branch of Caribs. See Rochefort, Herrera

3. The Arguahos of Cutara mentioned by Garcias in the West Indies, quite black.

4. The Black Aroras of Raleigh, or Yaruras of the Spaniards, ugly black or brown Negroes, yet existing near the Oronoco, and language known, called monkeys by their neighbors

5. Chaymas of Guyana, brown Negroes like Hottentots, see Humboldt

6. The Mangipas and Porcigis of Nienhof, the Motayas of Knivet, & all of Brazil, brown Negroes with curly hair. See also Vespucius and Pigafetta

7. The Nigritas of Martyr in Darien, yet existing in Choco under the name Chucnas or Gaunas or Chinos. See Mollien. Ugly red or black Negroes.

8. Those of Popayan called Manabi, blackish with negro features and hair. See Stevenson.

9. The Guabas and Jaras of Taguzgalpa near the Honduras. See Juaros, now called Zambos.

10. The Enslen or Esteros of New California, ugly blackish Negroes. See Vanegas, Langsdorf.

11. The Black Indians met by the Spaniards in Louisiana in 1543. See Soto’s invasion.

12. The Moon-eyed Negroes, and albinos, destroyed by the Cherokis, and seen in Panama.

Among these the Yarura language has 50% of analogy with the Gauna, 40% with the Ashanty or Fanty of Guinea, and about 33% with the Fulah, Bornu and Congo languages of Africa...

In Asia it has 39% of numerical affinity with the Samang Negroes, and 40% with the Negroes of Andaman as well as those of Australia or New Holland...

All this and many other details are given at length proved by authorities and compared vocabularies in my Memoir"

7 notes · View notes

operationrainfall · 2 years

Text

Labyrinth of Galleria: The Moon Society - New Gameplay Trailer

Labyrinth of Galleria: The Moon Society – New Gameplay Trailer

NIS America has just put out a new gameplay trailer for their upcoming game, Labyrinth of Galleria: The Moon Society. Feel free to check out the new trailer down below. NIS America also mentions in their latest press release, that a new contest has just started as well. If you vote for your favorite Puppet in the Fantie’s Favorite Puppet Contest, you’ll be entered for a chance to win one of a…

youtube

View On WordPress

#Labyrinth of Galleria #Labyrinth of Galleria: The Moon Society #nintendo switch #Nippon Ichi Software #NIS America #PC #PS4 #PS5 #Youtube

0 notes

afiaadomaablogs · 2 years

Text

The President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has emphasised his stance on illegal mining and said he will put a stop to it before his tenure of office ends.

He mentioned that of late, there had been so much talk about the illegal mining activities, popularly called “galamsey” and that “means that serious work to end the menace was ongoing.”

The President had paid a courtesy call on the Asantehene at the Manhyia Palace, yesterday, as part of a four-day working tour in some parts of the Ashanti Region.

Prior to the interaction, the President and his entourage had worshiped at the St Cyprian’s Diocese at Fanti Newtown, where a visiting Bishop of Warrington, Liverpool in the United Kingdom, Bishop Beverly A. Mason, preached the sermon and offered a special prayer for him.

Many people, the President noted, had been saying my government had done nothing in the Ashanti Region, “but after the four-day tour, they would see what have been done.”

#politics #sports news #news #celebrity news #general news #football news #national #president

0 notes

butterflyinthewell · 3 years

Text

I don’t care what side of fandom discourse you fall on…

But this is meant for fandom antis who claim to be against pedophilia and incest (but are liars and are not.)

I say this as a proshipper who hates most of the same ships fandom antis harass people for. There are posts in the proship tags I don’t touch because it’s not my thing.

If you fight so hard against seeing underage fictional characters getting molested, yet tell a real underage person who got molested that they deserved it for being proship, you don’t actually care about csa survivors and you are a disgusting person.

I thought you fandom antis cared about protecting children, yet you’ve mocked children for getting molested and even driven some to suicide. Are you fucking proud of yourselves?

Proshippers aren’t into getting molested. Nobody is into that.

It doesn’t matter if their AO3 account is full of fics about characters getting molested, nobody is into that actually happening to them. (Barring kinks with consensual noncon, but that’s still consensual and it stops with a safe word, real molestation doesn’t stop with a word!)

Look, someone can say Ed Elric deserves to get fondled all they want because he’s a fictional character from FullMetal Alchemist and it doesn’t matter. I think that’s gross, but I won’t care much that someone said it. He’s not real, go wild, I can look away.

I do care when you say that about real people. When you say a 13 year old deserved to get molested because they’re proship and “into that”, you cross so many lines that shouldn’t be crossed.

If you say someone deserves to get raped, hurt, murdered or abused because they created fiction you don’t like, you are the bad person and you are not wanted in fandom.

You don’t belong in society either.

You don’t belong anywhere until you can tell fiction apart from reality and realize real people matter more.

No, having psychosis or delusions isn’t an excuse either. Those are terrible to deal with, but they don’t give you permission to be shitty in fandom.

No, “people can care about more than one thing” doesn’t fly either because fictional characters cannot thank you for protecting them from a creepy adult.

Aaaaand no, “some pedo freak might use it to convince a child this is okay” doesn’t work either because that’s the fault of the predator misusing the material, not the material itself or its creator (unless the predator made it, then it’s still the predator’s fault!)

I don’t care how vile someone’s fiction is because I pay attention to how they treat real people. If someone who makes gross fiction does gross things to real people, I’ll judge them based on how gross they are to real people.

You can write wholesome, sweet, cute stories, but if you’re vile to real people, you are a vile person. Period.

Fictional characters can hold meaning to us. There are characters you don’t want to see or think about in a sexual way, and that is fine.

What isn’t fine is prioritizing them over real people.

Fandom antis have a body count and a track record of being horrible at real people to protect fictional characters, but ohhhh noooo they claim they’re the good ones who are here to keep fandom safe.

Yeah, right... 🙄

Real people matter, fictional characters are just actors or ink.

Get the fuck out if you won’t tell the difference. Everybody is sick of you.

150 notes · View notes

jtl07 · 1 year

Text

jt (finally) watches warrior nun - s1 e9 (pt 2)

So I finished s1e9 earlier this week but I’ve been putting this off because … I didn’t like it very much. The only thing that I found mildly thought-provoking was the Avatrice scene where fight or flight was mentioned, which I’ll spend the bulk of this post ruminating about.

Just to get it out of my system, I’ll note my main criticisms under the cut. Jump to the paragraph that begins “Fourth and lastly” for when I start talking about Avatrice.

The main problems I had with this episode were four in total (trying my best to keep them concise lol):

First, the length of the scenes, or rather, how there’s an aggravating tendency to cut to a different scene before any sort of value change has been established (I’m thinking specifically about Robert McKee’s “Story” - this post summarizes the concept) - resulting in confusion instead of a tension that builds throughout the episode (not to mention a sort of “color-by-numbers” feel as we hit different plot points, rather than a cohesive, inevitable narrative).

Second, the blocking/staging and overall logic in the Ava-Bea-Lilith-Mary confrontation scene - Bea pulling a throwing star instead of a knife was strange, Mary shouldn’t have been able to put Lilith in any sort of effective rear naked choke with that height difference, plus if Ava had actually shot Lilith, she’d have hurt Mary as well - while Toya Turner killed that speech to Lilith, I couldn’t help but think that gosh, it could’ve been supported better. Anyway, it would’ve been nice if it had been filmed with less close-ups and more ensemble to really capture the chemistry and layers. (I’m thinking about this video by Every Frame a Painting re: ensemble staging)

Third, speaking of support: There was no support for Mother Superion’s reveal as a a former halo bearer here, and I was extremely frustrated by that. I’m not sure if they were trying to give her an air of mystery, a sort of “will she help Ava or will she not?” tension. But there was nothing to support even that. Like, yeah, her fight with Crimson was cool, but even there was no build up; no tension, just confusion. Then in the grottos scene when Superion tells Ava that she’s worthy, I found myself not believing her - because there were no scenes I could point to that showed me that she’d changed her mind about Ava. From what we'd seen so far, it seemed to me less that she started believing in Ava and more that she stopped believing in Duretti. Lesser evil sort of thing, which didn't really match the content of that scene. Again, while Sylvia De Fanti absolutely killed it, I felt like it could have been more than the disconnected, “oh we have to hit this plot point” moment that we got.

Fourth and lastly, there’s Beatrice’s criticism of Ava, aka the fight or flight conversation. I have a couple issues with this, centering around context and content. First, the context: This scene is following both the fight with Crimson’s gang - where we see Ava struggling with holding herself back to not get involved (which I sympathized with hardcore - Alba sells those moments so, so well) - and Mother Superion expressing her trust in Ava.

While Beatrice may not have been present for the latter, she must have been somewhat aware of Ava during the former - after all, Ava didn’t get involved, she did her job! - but instead of praising Ava for her growth, she disregards it (at best), ignores it (at worst). While the criticism itself is in character for Beatrice - after all, Bea did call Ava thoughtless and self-centered - it felt out of character for her to not have noticed the effort Ava had made during the fight.

Also, zooming out a bit further, Beatrice did do the right thing in bringing more explosives. She’s always been one to think of contingency plans, worst-case scenarios. That kind of planning isn’t personal, it’s mitigating risk - for both Ava and the rest of the team. Here, Beatrice is fulfilling her side of the trust equation: if something goes wrong - regardless of if it’s caused Ava or not - she will have some kind of plan to rectify the situation. That’s her job, that’s the value she brings to the team, to every mission. The fact that the conversation centers around Ava so personally just felt very off to me.

Second, the content of Beatrice’s criticism really rubbed me the wrong way. I hate that physiological reactions are presented not only as choices, but also as a binary - from what I’ve learned, there’s upwards of four responses (fight, flight, freeze, fawn). Additionally, I hate that flight is considered lesser, weaker - more selfish, more cowardly.

It really depends on the situation. Whenever I’ve taught self-defense, we’ve always expressed the importance of listening to your instincts and leaving a situation when you think you need to. Additionally, to take a different perspective, there are plenty of military examples where standing and fighting was the wrong thing to do. I feel like we glorify fighting for the sacrificial element of it - but man, living is just as important. Flight has its purpose - it would not have been built into our brains, into our bodies without good reason. Fight is not a superior response. It's just one of many that a person can have.

It’s a very black or white sort of statement from Beatrice and the only leeway I could think of to give her was that maybe for Beatrice, fight is all she’s ever known. That she was never given the chance for flight - or that it was drilled into her head that flight was selfish and cowardly. Taken from a queer and/or Asian perspective, that kind of makes sense. Especially if “fight” encompasses things like “enduring” - as in, enduring the shitty hand that you’ve been dealt, where you learn to survive despite the pain.

After all, Beatrice did say “pain is what made me a sister warrior” - it’s possible that she sees flight, running to be seen as an insult to all the fighting, all the pain she’s had to endure thus far. (Which I suppose that makes it all the more meaningful that she leaves at the end of s2…)

Anyway, I just wish there had been a bit more nuance in that conversation, or at the very least, less of the whole “let’s shame Ava for wanting to live without addressing all the trauma she’s been through” agenda that seems to permeate so many of these episodes in this season.

Sorry this came out much more rant-y than my other posts. Alba was really the only reason why I made it through this episode, she was wonderful to watch in every scene. Just wish there had been a bit more to it, yknow?

#jt watches wn #jt ramble time #warrior nun #sister beatrice #ava silva #mother superion #this episode wasn't exactly bad i just ... wish it had been better yknow?

4 notes · View notes

louis-damien · 6 years

Photo

hhhh here’s a pic of @dmnfox‘s FAnti cause I love her

She just woke up and hasn’t had coffee yet

Also haIR?

@septicart-appreciation

#antisepticeye #fanti #jacksepticeye #my art #digital art #not my character #but like did I mention how pan I am?#cause like fanti #she hot

29 notes · View notes

thefirstknife · 3 years

Text

I possess more Thoughts™.

Remember this post about the names of Expunge missions and Override bosses?

Well, I made notes on the names of Expunge bosses. I didn't originally notice they have different names (because every time when I run Expunge, I try to speedrun to get the time trial). I was also waiting to see how many of them there would be.

Now we know it's three (I know there will be a 4th as a finale, but that's not in the game yet so I will not discuss it):

Expunge Labyrinth: Fantis Expunge Styx: Dikast Expunge Tartarus: Dimio

Fantis is a Latin word and it comes from "fans" which means "speaking, saying." Fantis would mean, roughly, "of the one who speaks." It's interesting that this is in Labyrinth, invoking a confusing place with many potential paths that is governed by the one who speaks. Or perhaps something about someone who speaks in a way that is confusing and offers multiple potential paths and explanations, like a labyrinth.

Dikastes was a political body in Ancient Athens made of 6000 Athenians who were chosen annually to serve as judges. A dikast is a member of that political body, a judge. Interestingly enough, this ties closely into the Thesmotae boss from Override, for which I noted that a thesmotete was a lawgiver in Ancient Greece and someone who was overseeing the selection and allocation of the dikastes. These two appeared in the same week. I'd also like to point out that while Styx is often only about the river leading into the underworld, Styx was also a goddess in Greek mythology. Due to her being the first one to help Zeus when he battled the Titans, he made it so that her name is invoked when one had to make an oath. Everyone, including the gods, would be bound by any oath spoken in her name.

Dimio is also Greek. It comes from the word "dimios." It means "executioner" or "hangman." This boss appears in "Tartarus" which is the deepest abyss of the Ancient Greek underworld, reserved for most heinous criminals. It also serves as a permanent prison for the Titans, the same ones Zeus fought against as I mentioned above. Tartarus is also not only a place, but a deity as well; it is one of the first deities that sprung into existence.

I'm sensing a pattern here, especially when combined with Override bosses. There's a clear theme, and a message, being relayed to us.

Encoded (scytale) in the names of the Vex, someone who speaks in confusing ways and secrets (Tacitas, Fantis, Labyrinth) is telling us about a court, a body of judges, and a law being passed on under an oath (Thesmotete, Dikast, Styx) about a gateway into the deepest abyss where an execution of some sort should take place (Portunos, Dimio, Tartarus).

Or something like that, idk. I feel like Eris trying to decipher Darkness' messages, except I'm over here dealing with Savathun and Quria who are far less direct than the Darkness. Help me, sis. Eris please respond.

#destiny 2 #override #expunge mission #savathun #quria #lore vibing #long post #becoming more unhinged with every new second that passes #but these things aren't random that's for sure #like these are some really obscure ancient latin/greek language and mythology things #you don't randomly choose these words and concepts

107 notes · View notes