#for DARING to go against the status quo narrative

[dollypopup]

listen. . .words TRULY cannot explain how vindicated i am feeling in the fandom after all these interviews and snippets

do you even KNOW how much hate I got for writing Come Over Here and Profound for Me? where Penelope was guilt spiraling over all she did as LW? and people accused me of being a 'psychopath' and needing therapy (as if being in therapy is a. . .bad thing?) and being oh so unfair to Penelope because she was beating herself up a lot and her friends were hurt and betrayed?

and then we got the clip of her talking down to herself, about how embarrassing she is and how no one wants her and 'of course you wouldn't want to court me' and how sad he was about how lowly she sees herself.

how absolutely baffled I was over the narrative that every new male character would be a suitor for her? how little sense it made and how Penelope was for us unseen girlies and her being a diamond would be weird and ooc and unfulfilling?

and then it was revealed that Dankworth is Prudence's husband, and that Anderson is a hit with the older ladies, hinting he's there for Violet (as a continuation of her Queen Charlotte storyline) and that Debling is in a grand total of two episodes and that even Adjoa Andoh said the season was for the wallflowers.

how confused i was over monolithic 'Penelope is a girlboss and never did anything wrong!' narratives that happened over and over in our fandom and that Colin would grovel and beg and cry to be in Penelope's good graces again over one comment?

and then the clip came out and the person she was actually dragging was herself and the worst thing she called him was 'cruel' and just about one day later she's staring into his eyes and telling him how beautiful they are and how they shine when he's kind

how peeps insisted he'd be just fine when the truth comes out that Penelope is Lady Whistledown and that he'd find her clever or already knows or wouldn't be upset at all?

LINK

Interviewer: 'How do you think Colin would react if he found out she's LW?' LN: 'He would react. . .worst out of everyone in the ton' NC: 'She slagged off a LOT of people! I'm like 'Girl, you should be worried!' LN: 'He's also a sensitive boy! We'll see, I'm sure'

i'm not gonna name names. . .but some of y'all owe a LOT of people in this fandom a LOT of apologies

[queenvhagar]

I believe Rhys Ifans’ statement “Both sides are genocidal war criminals… I think we should all enjoy seeing how they die[,]” would be wrong because the entire time the story HOTD is fundamentally about how one group, the greens, IE Alicent, Otto, and Aegon Hightower, seek to maintain the status quo of an oppressive power structure versus Rhaenyra, the blacks, whose very existence seeks to jeopardize that power structure (the patriarchal society of Westeros).

It is made explicitly clear that the chief architect of team green in the usurpation of Rhaenyra’s throne that the only reason that they cannot have Rhaenyra on the throne is explicitly because she is a woman. It’s a theme that is present throughout the entirety of HOTD’s season one as this conflict builds up.

For instance, the conversation between Alicent and Rhaenys at the end of season one where Alicent justifies why she is participating in the usurpation of Rhaenyra’s throne to Rhaenys by saying that it is not a woman’s place to rule the Seven kingdoms and instead it is a woman’s place to gently guide the hand of the men who do rule.

The story of HOTD, the civil war for the succession of the Iron Throne following the death of Viserys, the Dance of the Dragons, is fundamentally a conflict that is built on the foundation of misogyny and the writers are making that explicitly clear.

The weird false equivalency when ppl imply that both sides are equally genocidally crazy, that treads to reduce the nature of this conflict down to just simple good old fashioned greed which it really isn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Rhaenyra is perfect and of course I understand that over the course of the war, she’s going to do some pretty terrible things but it’s been made pretty clear that Rhaenyra’s done everything in her power to avoid this turning out into a war in the fist place.

I just don’t think by any stretch of the imagination regardless of what Rhaenyra does throughout this war, that you’re supposed to enjoy watching her die. I don’t think that’s how her character is written and I don’t think that’s what the narrative goal of her end is supposed to be. Her character is a character by all accounts some victim of the patriarchal society that she lives in. Even if she does go down the “mad queen route,” it will only be to explore how the patriarchal society has completely twisted her. How this war that was started because she dared to be queen of the seven kingdoms completely ruined her and ruined her family.

I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this and would like to learn more if this take of mine is confusing and blinded.

I think this take might be correct if you're solely going off of the show and its interpretation of Team Black as modern feminists attempting revolutionary societal change led by divinely ordained and pure Rhaenyra vs Team Green as conservative misogynists led by incompetent and unorganized abuser Aegon...

Fire and Blood is not this, though. Sexism and misogyny is one element of power and power imbalance in Westeros but it's not the only one, nor is it the only factor into why Rhaenyra's claim was disputed, despite what the showrunners are trying to portray on screen.

The reality is two ideologically different sides with fairly equal claims to the throne are trying to seize power, leading to a war that ruins the land and the family that started it. Team Green has Aegon, firstborn son of the last king, following Andal tradition going back thousands of years and most recently reinforced in the Council of 101 AC that made his own father king. Team Black has Rhaenyra, eldest daughter named by the previous king but not supported by precedent. Rhaenyra unfortunately also had some political scandals that went against her in having bastards, having Velaryons killed and mutilated, and marrying Daemon despite fear of him in power being the reason she was named heir in the first place. Any of these are valid reasons why some people might be against her coming into power. It's more than "she's a woman and I don't like women."

Rhaenyra did not press her claim to raise up the women of the realm, nor did she do it out of a desire to save the world. She wanted it because she wanted power that was promised to her. But the show can't let women simply want things for themselves. Rhaenyra has to be an advocate for peace and want the throne for some higher purpose instead of just wanting power for power's sake.

The Greens were motivated by power to push for Aegon's claim, and surely misogyny in the society helped to get Aegon on the throne, but they also put Aegon on the throne out of fear for the lives of all of Viserys' sons, who would have to be taken out of the picture to secure Rhaenyra's atypical claim lest war and rebellion potentially break out against her at any point in her reign, and Team Black had already shown willingness to resort to violence to help themselves (Rhea's death, Laenor's death, Vaemond's death, Velaryons' tongues getting cut out, Aemond's eye cut out without any punishment and instead Aemond threatened with torture over speaking the truth about Rhaenyra). It's not just "we hate the idea of a woman ruling, we hate women, and we're terrible, incompetent people."

Fire and Blood is a tale of two sides fighting for even more power than they already have who are willing to do horrible terrible war crimes against each other and innocents in order to obtain their end goal of the Iron Throne, and realistically you are interested in seeing all of them die and face the consequences of their actions. The story has weight, the characters are real and human and messy and tragic, the war is unjustified in its means and methods and purpose. It's the failure of Viserys' legacy and a reflection of the flaws of monarchy and specifically the ideals Targaryen supremacy. No side is right and the other wrong. Nobody's a hero.

This is where the show has failed in its adaptation. It has abandoned its themes, along with several characters, characterizations, and plot points, in order to create their own narrative that fits a story that they think will sell best to the casual modern viewer: essentially, redemption for Daenerys fans after the catastrophe of Game of Thrones' ending. By making up prophecy and dream stuff to give to Rhaenyra and also giving her some of that Dany "change the world" mentality that was absent in the source material, the writers can cut apart the character of Rhaenyra and make her into a new Daenerys, and this time they can give the fans want they wanted for Daenerys. Except Rhaenyra is not Daenerys at all, and their only similarity is dragon riding queen seeking to inherit their father's throne. Changing the narrative so Rhaenyra becomes the new Daenerys and a true hero of the story ruins the underlying themes of Fire and Blood and specifically the Dance.

Rhys Ifans likely read Fire and Blood and actually knows what he's talking about. The point of the Dance isn't "heroic woman attempting to overthrow the patriarchy is burned and destroyed by the patriarchy and agents of the patriarchy." The takeaway isn't just "misogyny and sexism are bad and hurt women" like the show hammers in so heavily every single episode. It's "the pursuit of power by the already powerful comes at the cost of innocents, war is never justified no matter what (and certainly not justified by manifest destiny, someone's dream of saving the world, or even 'misogynists stole my throne') and the violence of war destroys indiscriminately." There should be catharsis when gray characters who have done good but also horrific bad in the pursuit of power finally face the consequences and die early deaths. Like, for example, the end of Succession: none of the Roy siblings get what they want, and we understand why, and even though parts of their character are sympathetic and tragic to us, we can objectively view them as flawed and selfish people whose decisions led to this ultimate, inevitable conclusion where they don't get what they want, and it's deserved. This is what House of the Dragon should have been. Tragic, flawed characters on both sides acting selfishly but realistically to seize power from each other and ultimately failing. But the writers opted for an oversimplified morality tale of good vs evil to push their version of feminism into the story where it doesn't belong, at the detriment to the characters and the story to the point it goes against the themes and messages of the source material.

[colorisbyshe]

People are arguing about the effectiveness/moralness of self immolation as a protest tactic in the notes of my post and I neeeed y'all to know you are part of the fucking problem. You are absolutely part of the problem.

Self immolation SHOULD be effective. Something that extreme should be effective (though, obviously not encouraged, please do not kill yourselves) and being dismissive of it and immediately positioning yourself as like... more politically savvy than the person who literally JUST killed themselves is fucking disgusting.

Watching a clip as a man slowly crumbles into himself as he is burned alive and saying "This accomplishes nothing" is gross and if you think my post was doing that, I have failed. Pointing out political action is rarely recorded in the history books wasn't me saying it does nothing--it was me saying "history books" love to suppress actual history if it doesn't fit their narrative. If it threatens the status quo and might inspire others to work for change and strike out against structural powers.

Obviously, no one single act or person can totally change everything. There is no radical shift from one life taken (and his life WAS taken by this administration more than it was taken by himself).

It's about the collective total of ALL of our actions--the big, the small, the palatable, and the ugly, which this was. There's a REASON why the press is refusing to report on his death accurately and there is a REASON he went out of his way to fight that and document his death so clearly, identifying himself, live streaming, declaring his intent and cause with his last fucking breath.

It's because his actions do inspire change when properly witnessed. This isn't something that is meant to make Biden go "Oh, shit, stop the genocide" but it is meant to wake up everyone else. People who loved him, people who served with him, people who didn't serve with him but also feel trapped by military contracts, people who felt the genocide was bad but hadn't quite been pushed to action yet.

Viewing this as a singular political event that was intended to change everything shows YOU are the one who doesn't know what is or isn't effective. Political action is ALWAYS about the COLLECTIVE impact and about mobilizing a larger front.

Immediately dismissing what he did as mentally ill or well-intentioned but ineffective is kneecapping the impact. Just so you can feel smug. It's the same energy as people saying donating in small amounts won't do anything, even if those donations add up to something large.

It's obvious to me when y'all are saying shit just to make yourselves feel above everyone else. Where you're doing everything just to prove you're a smart, moral person. Nothing is derived from empathy or thinking of the collective. It's just about you.

Nevermind that even if it is "ineffective," how fucking dare you look at someone driven to one of the most painful forms of suicide, using his final moments to desperately cry for change and say his death doesn't matter. How fucking dare you. Genuinely, what is wrong with you?

[crabcrabcrabmeat]

Anon has got me thinking abt Gundam again -_- apologies. Specifically Gwitch, which iirc had a preproduction w a ton of market research vs First which has more auteurism imo. They have opposite pitfalls in a way.

Gwitch is undoubtedly made with the international market in mind. For example, the UI at the school, on characters phones etc is exclusively in English, and not even basic phrases or wasei-ego a Japanese audience could easily infer or read. (Granted, the font makes it tricky for anyone to, lol) Someone's job was to write it grammatically accurately and meaningful, as opposed to just plunking in filler text about operating photoshop or whatever like someone at the studio did for Wing. It's a notable choice, but also a poor one for narrative flow, because it necessitates fumbling at the edge of the 4th wall a bit (and for anglophones, redundancy) when characters talk abt the text they just sent/read. (It happens multiple times too lol) It's a very good choice however, if part of your metric for success is getting foreign eyes on your show AND having nerds pour over the phrasing as easter eggs to analyze. It's free marketing!

Using English can absolutely be an artistic choice, esp when only a Japanese audience is going to be watching the show (there has been tape-sharing from pretty much the start, but that's not what finances a production) Early UC used English/Anglophonisms all the time for an international and narrative intent, such as calling female federation cadets "Waves" a la WW2 USA, having western name orders ("Amuro Ray" even though "Ray" is his family name) and saying that the canon name spellings are in katakana, even with Japanese names like 'kobayashi' and 'deikun'. Part of that is futuristic world building, but it's a very political choice, even before getting into 0079s obvious themes. I'm no expert on race/ethnicity in anime, but to put in context how new the 'racelessness' design approach was in 1979 as opposed to today, Yasuhiko Yoshikazu semi jokingly told coworkers a possible kanji spelling for "Ray" if any higher ups audit their choices. A non (Yamato) Japanese lead was something artists had to defend! (Another example off the top of my head is Jotaro from JJBA having a Japanese father....who is never even pictured lol. It's a compromise with editors for "daring" to show a minority lead)

In that sense, having characters of color, having women characters who aren't pigeonholed into "women's roles" etc are choices that today are taken for granted. It's fun to point out the silliest Tomino names for example, but it's far better than ethnic homogeneity. And make no mistake, representation is a good thing! I just hold a higher bar for productions that have the benefit of less scrutiny. If my understanding is correct, absolutely no toy sponsors or TV execs back in the day would've pushed for more POC in Gundam but the studio did anyways! Whereas I assume such a thing was a given at sunrise today, not out of anti-racism goodness nessessarily (Shaddiq was done SO dirty) but because it's generally profitable to avoid ruffling too many feathers, as well as to target as wide a demographic as possible. And in this day and age with high-speed internet, quick translation, vast supply chains for producing and and disseminating merch, etc, "wide audience" means an international one. "Representation" is incentivized, not nessessary a choice made against a status quo.

This is all obvious and fun to parse if you're aware of the socioeconomic context in which media is made, questions like "who is the audience? Who is the producer? How is this being made and why?" show a more objective picture of it all. I'm not here to beef w other fans who feel less alone when there's someone like them on the screen, I want people to think About media more is all. If you find Sulemio meaningful, I'm not going to take that from you, as WLW are in fact good. I'm just painfully aware that someone somewhere was calculating, financially, if an onscreen lesbian marriage would be profitable or not (Gundam and other big anime IP are federally subsidized by the 'Cool Japan Initiative' iirc) and the choice to be less gay than possible (and promised, imo) was made, maliciously or not, to bow to the wishes of a conservative, misogynistic nation-state.

[aquamonstra]

Incredible article by Caitlin Johnstone, definitely worth a read! (Link includes audio version)

Full text below the cut:

What’s happening in Gaza SHOULD radicalize you. It absolutely should.

Right now, even as its own criminality hits fever pitch, the western political-media class is fretting with increasing shrillness about young people getting “radicalized” and turned against their government by the spread of information and ideas at campus demonstrations and on TikTok.

But young people should be radicalizing right now. Everyone should.

When you see Israel rejecting a Hamas ceasefire and beginning its long-threatened assault on Rafah (the last so-called “safe zone” in Gaza), that should radicalize you.

When you see US senators assist this horrifying onslaught by publicly threatening the International Criminal Court if they dare to indict Israeli officials for war crimes, that should radicalize you.

When you see Israel shutting down Al Jazeera to quash news reporting about its criminality immediately before launching this mass atrocity, that should radicalize you.

When you see The New York Times receiving a Pulitzer Prize for its scandalously discredited, notoriously biased and widely-mocked Gaza coverage, that should radicalize you.

When you see the US president publicly supporting and encouraging violent police crackdowns against protesters opposing his genocidal actions in Gaza, that should radicalize you.

If the so-called “moderate” position of your nation’s political status quo is to accept, normalize, support and defend the sort of evil that is being inflicted upon the people of Gaza, then you should want to get as far away from that “moderate” position as possible, and you should seek the complete annihilation of that political status quo.

This obvious point is being aggressively attacked with rapidly intensifying frenzy by the empire and its lackeys.

After police violently shut down anti-genocide campus demonstrations in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams said “There is a movement to radicalize young people, and I’m not going to wait until it’s done… I’m not going to allow that to happen as the mayor of the City of New York,” as though preventing the spread of radical political opinions is something a mayor is elected to do in the United States.

NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Operations Kaz Daughtry ominously told the press that there is “some organization” who is “radicalizing our students,” and that the New York police force intends to “find out who that is.” Again, the implication being that it is the job of the police to control the spread of unauthorized political opinions.

In an article with the incredibly propagandistic headline “Anti-Israel protests infiltrated by ‘outside agitators’ who radicalize students, sow violence,” The Washington Times presented these unevidenced assertions from New York City officials as though they are established fact instead of highly convenient fiction.

In a talk at the McCain Institute on Friday, Senator Mitt Romney told Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Congress supports banning TikTok because it shares information that turns people’s opinions against Israel, saying such information has a “very, very challenging effect on the narrative.”

A new report from The Intercept reveals that congressmen Mike Lawler and Josh Gottheimer called on the FBI to investigate campus protesters at a “centrist” political group called No Labels, suggesting there these demonstrations have a nefarious support system which the federal police should look into.

The Wall Street Journal has been losing its mind over the campus protests, posting articles with headlines like “Activist Groups Trained Students for Months Before Campus Protests” and “Rules for Campus Radicals, 2024 — A website reveals the planning and strategy behind the current college mayhem” which suggest that there is something sinister and unacceptable about these demonstrations receiving support from “longtime activists and left-wing groups.”

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough went full Alex Jones on his show last week, telling his audience that these university protests have been happening because Qatar has “poured hundreds of millions of dollars into American universities to have a radicalizing effect on Middle Eastern studies.”

Empire managers and propagandists have been pushing the narrative that foreign governments are behind this new protest movement to radicalize young people against Washington and Israel, though as we discussed recently they humorously can’t yet manage to agree on which foreign government that is.

The imperial spinmeisters have been churning out these talking points about radicalization and nefarious support because that’s the narrative bludgeon they plan on using to stomp out the burgeoning antiwar movement the empire has created with its genocidal atrocities in Gaza. If they can establish a narrative that it is the government’s job to shut down political dissent and stop the spread of unauthorized political opinions, then they can justify doing pretty much anything to stop this movement in its tracks.

All to shut down something that absolutely SHOULD be happening. Young people SHOULD be cultivating radical political positions in response to an active genocide that’s supported by their government. An antiwar movement SHOULD be forming against the imperial murder machine as its murderousness gets more and more insane. People SHOULD be aggressively rejecting the political status quo that has allowed this nightmare to be unleashed upon humanity.

Everyone should be turning against the US-centralized empire right now. Don’t let the imperial manipulators dupe our society into believing this turn is anything but a correct and appropriate response to what the empire is doing.

[sokkastyles]

I keep seeing increasingly bizarre claims by Azula stans about how she’s being discriminated against by the fandom, the other characters, and the narrative, and then these same Azula stans will be like “oh, but why can’t we love all the characters equally?”

I mean, because we don’t have to, nor are the characters meant to be interpreted this way, and this kind of media analysis, while it is something I have seen throughout my years in fandom, always comes across as utterly deaf to the context of whatever media this person is arguing about.

Characters in stories aren’t meant to be loved equally. We aren’t meant to have positive discussions about how this racist imperialist abusive villain really had a point, after all, and doing so is not only ridiculous, it runs the risk of being seriously harmful and propagating harmful rhetoric.

No, we should NOT be treating Zuko and Azula equally, because one atoned for their bad actions and the other one didn’t. One stopped being angry and hurting others and the other one didn’t.

I actually do love both characters but that does NOT mean I am going to talk about them in the same way and pretend they both equally deserve to be talked about positively, because they don’t. This weird performative positivity thing which seems to be unique to fandom is how you get posts arguing that a scene where Azula is belittling Zuko for not believing fascist propaganda in “The Avatar and the Firelord” is a scene of them bonding together. It’s how you get people saying that acknowledging that Katara beat Azula in Sozin’s Comet is antifeminist because it’s “pitting two women against each other” when what actually happened is that Azula was beaten by a woman she thought she was superior to. We should be talking about that. We should be pitting them against each other and acknowledging that Azula lost because this is a story about love triumphing over hate.

I mean, look, I’m all for stanning the villain. What I’m not here for is toxic positivity that makes room for abuse apologism for fear that we might say something negative about a character who hurt others without remorse, or in many cases, blaming other characters for reacting negatively to being victimized. It’s just fiction, which means that stanning villains isn’t a reflection of your moral character, but the fact that it is just fiction also means that it isn’t a moral flaw to be critical of a character, especially when that character should rightfully be criticized.

“But isn’t pitting Zuko and Azula against each other what Ozai wanted?”

No, I’m pretty sure Ozai wanted Azula to be his perfect princess and for Zuko to believe he was worthless. He was perfectly happy when he had both Zuko and Azula under the same roof as long as he could control them, and Zuko believing blatant lies and accepting his sister being cruel to him makes Zuko all the more easy for Ozai to control. I’m pretty sure Ozai would agree with the people saying that Zuko is just so ungrateful to Azula and wasn’t Azula just being nice? Isn’t that more than Zuko deserves, after all? To be fair, Ozai also doesn’t want Azula to realize self-actualization, but as long as Zuko stayed in his place at the bottom, I think he was fine with Zuko and Azula “bonding,” aka Azula insulting Zuko for daring to question the status quo, because that meant Zuko stayed in his place as the family scapegoat, Azula continued to believe Fire Nation propaganda unquestioned, and Ozai got exactly what he wanted.

[bracketsoffear]

Cole Turner Propaganda:

As a child, Cole was a victim of the satanic panic, his nightmares exploited to uphold American hegemony and take media attention off of the Iran Contra deal by playing off paranoia and Christian nationalism by the very agency that ended up recruiting him. Later on, his nightmares were once more made manifest by an alt-right group using the imagery of the Satanic Panic to both try and shape the world towards their bigoted conspiracies and use his trauma as a tool to sway him to their side.

It was this childhood trauma from being one of the children exploited by the media and fed false memories by psychologists as a victim of nonexistent “satanic ritual abuse” that led him to study far-right conspiracy culture and eventually, to the D.o.T. which knew about him (and used him as an asset) long before he ever knew it existed. Like Jon with Mr. Spider, he’s been entangled in this mess his whole life without even realizing.

And the Scarlet Woman, the mysterious manifestation of conspiracies, societal upheaval, and the malleable nature of reality itself who has been playing humanity against against each other for at least as long as the Cold War, probably far longer, has specifically targeted him for reasons no one quite knows. She wants him to know the Truth, the awful shifting truth, from the ice wall at the end of the imagined flat earth, to the infinite answers to the question of what happened in Dallas that day in November.

And then there’s the matter of his boss: Noted Webvatar, Lee Harvey Oswald (see here for more information), who manipulated him into killing his husband’s coworkers for The Greater Good™ as well as being partially responsible for Cole’s childhood trauma. And now he’s almost a paternal figure for him, in a strange way.

Cole’s other questionable father figure is, of course, Hawk Harrison. The “motherfucking magic man of the D.o.T.”, a man who dares ask the question: “What if the state of New Hampshire was a guy and also a wizard for the feds?” He’s probably the one with more hands-on responsibility for Cole’s trauma, also being very Webby, the one who gets things done, creating the symbols and the stories and telling the media the right things to shift the public perception of reality.

[SPOILERS AHEAD]

And when his husband gets sucked in by Black Hat, the alt-right group I previously mentioned,’s lies and comforting good vs. evil conspiracy narrative, Cole is the one who points out that maybe the answer isn’t to just kill him and keep up trying to preserve the status quo with lies. I mean, that’s how that group was formed. With the D.o.T.’s own methods and even some of their own lies. No, they need to go public. Tell the world everything. No more lies, no more trying to shape the world to your narrative. Just pure transparency. (And this is where the fact that Cole’s husband is a Washington Post journalist REALLY comes in handy.)

.

[disco-cola]

actually glad that noa argamani had the guts to go public with her instagram story stating that she was misquoted by the media and that she was not beaten by hamas but instead got her injuries when a wall fell on her after the house got targeted by an airstrike done by the idf. she could have stayed silent about it especially after everything she has been through but she didn’t. also I’ve seen on several occasions now what wide parts of the israeli public do to their own people who dare to go against the status quo (status quo being actively justifying a genocide) and daring to say something critical or anything that doesn’t fit the complete victim narrative so her saying she will not be victimized anymore is a strong statement i guess… hope she won’t be getting death threats now like others did (but israel is soo safe and soo democratic innit?)

[nourfathallah]

Nour Fathallah's Off-Shoulder Gown Revolution: Breaking Fashion Barriers

Fashion has always been a dynamic realm, constantly evolving and challenging traditional norms. In this ever-changing landscape, designers play a pivotal role in shaping the industry's narrative. One such revolutionary designer who has left an indelible mark on the fashion world is Nour Fathallah. This article delves into the fascinating journey of Nour Fathallah and her trailblazing impact on the fashion scene, particularly through her Off-Shoulder Gown Revolution.

Introduction

Nour Fathallah's name has become synonymous with innovation and breaking barriers in the fashion industry. Her off-shoulder gowns have not only graced runways but have also become a symbol of defiance against conventional fashion norms. As we explore the realms of her creations, it's essential to understand the broader context of off-shoulder fashion and its historical significance.

The Rise of Off-Shoulder Gowns

Off-shoulder fashion is not a recent phenomenon. It has a rich history, dating back to [historical period], where it gained popularity as a symbol of femininity and rebellion. Over the years, this style has seen various transformations, with designers continually pushing the boundaries of creativity. Nour Fathallah, however, took this trend to new heights with her distinctive approach.

Nour Fathallah: A Trailblazer in Fashion

Nour Fathallah's journey in the fashion world is nothing short of remarkable. Her background, experiences, and unique vision have shaped her into a true trailblazer. Unlike traditional designers, Fathallah embraced the unconventional, challenging established norms and bringing forth a new era in fashion.

Breaking Fashion Barriers

The essence of Nour Fathallah's Off-Shoulder Gown Revolution lies in its ability to break through traditional fashion barriers. These gowns are more than mere garments; they represent a departure from societal expectations and a celebration of individuality. In a world that often dictates norms, Fathallah's designs encourage people to embrace their authenticity.

Perplexity in Fashion Trends

Off-shoulder gowns, as curated by Nour Fathallah, introduce a level of perplexity to the fashion landscape. The diversity in styles, fabrics, and silhouettes challenges the notion that fashion should fit into predefined categories. Fathallah's designs allow individuals to express themselves in ways that go beyond conventional expectations.

Burstiness: Nour Fathallah's Signature Style

What sets Nour Fathallah's off-shoulder gowns apart is the burstiness in her design elements. Each gown tells a unique story, incorporating vibrant colors, intricate patterns, and unconventional shapes. This burst of creativity is a testament to Fathallah's commitment to offering something extraordinary in an industry that can sometimes feel saturated with predictability.

The Influence on Red Carpets and Runways

Nour Fathallah's off-shoulder gowns have not remained confined to the runways; they have made a significant impact on red carpets worldwide. Celebrities, recognizing the power of Fathallah's designs, have embraced the off-shoulder trend, further solidifying its place in the fashion spotlight.

Nour Fathallah's Off-Shoulder Gown Collections

Fathallah's various off-shoulder gown collections showcase the versatility and depth of her designs. From elegant and understated to bold and avant-garde, each collection tells a unique story. This diversity ensures that there is an off-shoulder gown for every personality and occasion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Nour Fathallah's Off-Shoulder Gown Revolution is more than a trend; it's a statement. Through her creativity, innovation, and defiance of traditional norms, Fathallah has reshaped the fashion landscape. As we continue to witness the evolution of fashion, her influence will undoubtedly be a guiding light for designers daring to challenge the status quo. The Off-Shoulder Gown Revolution is not just a fashion movement; it's a celebration of individuality, diversity, and the perpetual evolution of style.

[tyrannuspitch]

Jumping off @kidrat​ ’s recent post on JKR, British transphobia, and transphobia against transmasculine people, after getting a bit carried away and too long to add as a comment:

A major, relatively undiscussed event in JKR’s descent into full terfery was this tweet:

[image id: a screenshot of a tweet from JK Rowling reading: “’People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

Rowling attaches a link to an article titled: “Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate” /end id]

This can seem like a pretty mundane TERF talking point, just quibbling over language for the sake of it, but I think it’s worth discussing, especially in combination with the idea that cis women like JKR see transmasculine transition as a threat to their womanhood. (Recite it with horror: ”If I were young now, I might’ve transitioned...”)

A lot of people, pro- or anti-transphobe, will make this discussion about whether the term “woman” should include trans women or not, and how cis women are hostile to the inclusion of trans women. And that’s absolutely true. But the actual language cis women target is very frequently being changed for the benefit of trans men, not trans women, and most of them know this.

Cis people are used to having their identities constantly reaffirmed and grounded in their bodies. A lot of cis women, specifically, understand their social and physical identities as women as being defined by pain: misogynistic oppression is equated to the pains of menstruation or childbirth, and both are seen as the domain of cis women. They’re something cis women can bond over and build a “sisterhood” around, and the more socially aware among them can recognise that cis women’s pain being taken less seriously by medicine is not unrelated to their oppression. However, in the absence of any trans perspectives, these conversations can also easily become very territorial and very bioessentialist.

Therefore... for many cis women, seeing “female bodies” described in gender neutral language feels like stripping their pain of its meaning, and they can become very defensive and angry.

And the consequences for transmasculine people can be extremely dangerous.

Not only do transmasculine people have an equal right to cis women to define our bodies as our own... Using inclusive language in healthcare is about more than just emotional validation.

The status quo in healthcare is already non-inclusive. When seeking medical help, trans people can expect to be misgendered and to have to explain how our bodies work to the doctors. We risk harassment, pressure to detransition, pressure to sterilise ourselves, or just being outright turned away. And the conversation around pregnancy and abortion in particular is heaving with cisnormativity - both feminist and anti-feminist cis women constantly talk about pregnancy as a quintessentially female experience which men could never understand.

Using gender-neutral language is the most basic step possible to try and make transmasculine people safer in healthcare, by removing the idea that these are “women’s spaces”, that men needing these services is impossible, and that safety depends on ideas like “we’re all women here”. Not institutionally subjecting us to misgendering and removing the excuse to outright deny us treatment is, again, one of the most basic steps that can be taken. It doesn’t mean we’re allowed comfort, dignity or full autonomy, just that one major threat is being addressed. The backlash against this from cis women is defending their poorly developed senses of self... at the cost of most basic dignity and safety for transmasculine people.

Ironically, though transphobic cis women feel like decoupling “women’s experiences” from womanhood is decoupling them from gendered oppression, transmasculine people experience even more marginalisation than cis women. Our rates of suicide and assault are even higher. Our health is even less researched than cis women’s. Our bodies are even more strictly controlled. Cis women wanting to define our bodies on their terms is a significant part of that. They hold the things we need hostage as “women’s rights”, “women’s health”, “women’s discussions” and “support for violence against women”, and demand we (re-)closet ourselves or lose all of their solidarity.

Fundamentally, the problem is that transphobic cis women are possessive over their experiences and anyone who shares them. Because of their binary understanding of gender, they’re uncomfortable with another group sharing many of their experiences but defining themselves differently. They’re uncomfortable with transmasculine people identifying “with the enemy” instead of “with their sisters”, and they’re even more uncomfortable with the idea that there are men in the world who they oppress, and not the other way around. “Oppression is for women; you can’t call yourself a man and still claim women’s experiences. Pregnancy is for women; if you want to be a man so badly why haven’t already you done something about having a woman’s body? How dare you abandon the sisterhood while inhabiting one of our bodies?”

Which brings me back to the TERF line about how “If I were young now, I might have transitioned.”

I’m not saying Rowling doesn’t actually feel any personal connection to that narrative - but it is a standard line, and it’s standard for a reason. Transphobic cis women really believe that there is nothing trans men go through that cis women don’t. They equate our dysphoria to internalised misogyny, eating disorders, sexual abuse or other things they see as “female trauma”. They equate our desire to transition to a desire to escape. They want to “help us accept ourselves” and “save us” from threats to their sense of identity. The fact is, this is all projection. They refuse to consider that we really have a different internal experience from them.

There’s also a marked tendency among less overtly transphobic cis women, even self-proclaimed trans allies, to make transphobia towards trans men about cis women.

Violence against trans men is chronically misreported and redefined as “violence against women”. In activist spaces, we’re frequently told that any trauma we have with misogyny is “misdirected” and therefore “not really about us”. If we were women, we would’ve been “experiencing misogyny”, but men can’t do that, so we should shut up and stop “talking over women”. (Despite the surface difference of whether they claim to affirm our gender, this is extremely similar to how TERFs tell us that everything we experience is “just misogyny”, but that transmasculine identity is a delusion that strips us of the ability to understand gender or the right to talk about it.)

I have personally witnessed an actual N*zi writing an article about how trans men are “destroying the white race” by transitioning and therefore becoming unfit to carry children, and because the N*zi had misgendered trans men in his article, every response I saw to it was about “men controlling women’s bodies”.

All a transphobe has to do is misgender us, and the conversation about our own oppression is once again about someone else.

Transphobes will misgender us as a form of violence, and cis feminist “allies” will perpetuate our misgendering for rhetorical convenience. Yes, there is room to analyse how trans men are treated by people who see us as women - but applying a simple “men oppressing women” dynamic that erases our maleness while refusing to even name transphobia or cissexism is not that. Trans men’s oppression is not identical to cis women’s, and forcing us to articulate it in ways that would include cis women in it means we cannot discuss the differences.

It may seem like I’ve strayed a long way from the original topic, and I kind of have, but the central reason for all of these things is the same:

Trans men challenge cis women’s self-concept. We force them to actually consider what manhood and womanhood are and to re-analyse their relationship to oppression, beyond a simple binary patriarchy. 

TERFs will tell you themselves that the acknowledgement of trans people, including trans men, is an “existential threat” that is “erasing womanhood” - not just our own, but cis women’s too. They hate the idea that biology doesn’t determine gender, and that gender does not have a strict binary relationship to oppression. They’re resentful of the idea that they could just “become men”, threatened by the assertion that doing so is not an escape, and completely indignant at the idea that their cis womanhood could give them any kind of power. They are, fundamentally, desperate not to have to face the questions we force them to consider, so they erase us, deflect from us, and talk over us at every opportunity.

Trans men are constantly redefined against our wills for the benefit of cis womanhood.

TL;DR:

Cis women find transmasculine identity threatening, because we share experiences that they see as foundational to their womanhood

The fact that transphobes target inclusive language in healthcare specifically is not a mistake - They do not want us to be able to transition safely

Cis women are uncomfortable acknowledging transphobia, so they make discussion of trans men’s oppression about “womanhood” instead

This can manifest as fully denying that trans men experience our own oppression, or as pretending trans men’s experiences are identical to cis women’s in every way

[aniy2k]

Riot Grrrl, Kinderwhore, and White Feminism

Riot Grrrl was an underground feminist movement that began in the early 90s. It was tied to the punk music scene, radical politics and DIY. It started originally with a Zine by Tobi Vai named Jigsaw in 1988 that expressed and spread radical politics and feminism. Vail later on decided to start a band by the name Bikini Kill. 

For most ‘Styles’, people don't even bother looking at the history of where it came from originally, so why is it important? 

While part of Alternative culture is Fashion and a way to express yourself that's against societal norms, there is alot of political significance that comes with it. When talking about it, Riot Grrrl tik tok creators, and other Alternative creators, say the political significance is based on what the subcultures are. Without that, you cannot be a part of the subculture. Obviously there are alot of conservatives in the scene (As you can see from the usage of lace code) Some complain and say that it's “gatekeeping”, but in my opinion, it's honestly… not. This isn’t the same as someone taking a popular music artist, then saying “You don't know this song? Ur fake lolz”.. This is separating mindsets that Alternative people strongly believe in and instead protecting a community that is supposed to be a safe place.

The Riot Grrrl movement provided a space where women in punk music tackled the conflict of inequality and sexism, and decided to fight it, united and organized.

Kathleen Hanna, Bikini Kills lead singer, ended up writing the “Riot Grrrl Manifesto” in 1991, which is a summary of what Riot Grrrl is and what it means to be a part of it. 

Summary: 

“ BECAUSE us girls crave records and books and fanzines that speak to US that WE feel included in and can understand in our own ways.

BECAUSE we wanna make it easier for girls to see/hear each other's work so that we can share strategies and criticize-applaud each other.

BECAUSE we must take over the means of production in order to create our own meanings.

BECAUSE viewing our work as being connected to our girlfriends-politics-real lives is essential if we are gonna figure out how we are doing impacts, reflects, perpetuates, or DISRUPTS the status quo.

BECAUSE we recognize fantasies of Instant Macho Gun Revolution as impractical lies meant to keep us simply dreaming instead of becoming our dreams AND THUS seek to create revolution in our own lives every single day by envisioning and creating alternatives to the bullshit christian capitalist way of doing things.

BECAUSE we are unwilling to let our real and valid anger be diffused and/or turned against us via the internalization of sexism as witnessed in girl/girl jealousy and self defeating girltype behaviors.

BECAUSE I believe with my wholeheartmindbody that girls constitute a revolutionary soul force that can, and will change the world for real.”

I’m not personally too much of a fan of how Kathleen Hannah ended up seeming like the regular ol’ white feminist that basically put WOC in the shadows within this whole movement. While this piece is about educating about the power that the Riot Grrrl scene had within punk culture, it has many many faults. The diversity within the scene isn’t there. It seemed to be a feminst movement, but only showcased one type of girl. White girls. 

Multiple black punks from that era came out and said that they felt that the riot grrrl scene wasn't for them. Honestly? I don’t blame them. You look up Riot Grrrl on pinterest or on tumblr, you can probably count on your one hand how many POC women are showcased.. This moment for women of color is probably the epitome of White feminism in some cases. Author, Gabby Bess, adds that “The history of Riot Grrrl is inevitably written as "predominately white," glossing over the contributions of black women and other women of color”.

Just like the article from VICE states, 

“In contrast to this ironclad narrative of the white Riot Grrrl, black women did participate in the movement. Few and far between, maybe, but they participated nonetheless, and they deserve more than to be swept under a rug of whiteness--These women carved their own feminist pathways into the hardcore scene, precisely because they were rendered invisible by the Riot Grrrl movement.”

One very powerful punk from that time, Ramdasha Bikceem, made up a whole Zine when they  were 15, that illustrates the conversation of race and gender in Riot Grrrl so perfectly 

This would all result in another black punk from that time, Tamar-Kali Brown, to make her own movement called “Sista Grrrl riot”. Out of all of the information that is circulated about the Riot Grrrl scene, Sista Grrrl Riot was probably one of its least talked about movements. Tamir-Kali Brown and her bandmates brought together a community and showed people a version of themselves on a stage where they weren’t represented.

> Kinderwhore 

Kinderwhore is a very popular style within the RiotGrrrl community. A lot of people Champion Hole lead singer, Courtney Love, for this style's popularity, but actually her bandmate Kat Bjelland introduced the style first. Though, with that being said, Courtney Love definitely made Kinderwhore one of many staple styles for the Riot Grrrl Subculture. 

What is Kinderwhore exactly? One thing about styles like this one is, there isn’t a specific definition to what it is. It was a bold, punk and sophisticated subversion of the classic "girl" stereotype, with a mini-feminine dress and bold makeup. The great part of the Kinderwhore Style is that it was about power. The power of femininity. It was so much more than just a style that included small dresses and mary janes. It was taking the most “fragile” feminine image and making it into something that is punk, and that takes all of the power back. 

Another part of Riot Grrrl fashion is just a subversion of regular punk fashion. DIY, big boots, Plaid, Skirts, Spikes. 

The idea of taking every inch of femininity that men manipulate and instead using it to make them realize that they can't handle what we are, is such a powerful thing to me as a fashion lover, but also as an aspiring social activist. As the rise of social media attention of Alternative Subcultures continues, I believe the next generation of Riot Grrls are going to kick butt and be more inclusive than the 90s scene was.

ani ok.

pls give me feedback and for those who obv have more education abt this pls give me feedback as well!! i think this is super interesting and enjoyed researching this <3

[blockgamepirate]

Technoblade’s purpose in the political narrative of the Dream SMP

I can’t sleep so I decided to finally write the post I’ve been struggling with for literal months, except way more casual because I can’t be bothered anymore and also I’m sleep deprived.

So the thing is: to me the DSMP storyline has always been primarily political, probably because I was introduced to it through Wilbur who was definitely going for political, and also because I’m just generally interested in political narratives right now. Obviously I appreciate the character work and the personal relationship stuff, that’s what makes it more interesting than just dry allegory, but when it comes down to it, this story is about politics to me. So that’s the angle I’m going to approach it from.

Also not to spoil the conclusions here, but I’m an anarchist, that’s my lens.

(Obviously all of this is about rp from here on out unless otherwise specified)

Basically the situation as Techno joins the server is this: L'Manburg exists as an autonomous nation and is de facto independent although not officially recognised by the Dream SMP. The self-appointed president Wilbur Soot decides to hold an election and rig it in order to consolidate his power over the nation he founded and he gets his VP Tommyinnit to join in on the plan. Their scheme fails and they end up voted out instead. The new president, Schlatt, immediately establishes himself as an authoritarian figure and exiles Wilbur and Tommy.

A couple of points on what the election arc demonstrates:

1: the appearance of democracy can be used for distinctly undemocratic purposes.

2: even if the elections aren’t rigged, the electoral system could be massively flawed and end up favouring a party that in fact didn’t have the popular vote

3: even if the winning government (the coalition in this case) has the majority vote, that doesn’t guarantee that they’ll actually act according to the popular will.

4: the supporters of the losing parties basically just have to let the majority overrule their wishes, espcially since apparently L’Manburg doesn’t have an established role for an opposition, yikes. That’s actually a MAJOR oversight in the system but I’m not gonna go into that too much.

5: frankly as an anarchist I am just deeply cynical towards representative democracy, and just because you have a token appearance of choice and consent doesn’t mean that it isn’t a hierarchical and authoritarian system. And to be fair, from my point of view this applies even to so-called liberal democracies and progressive parties. Full disclosure: even if L'Manburg was the ideal example of a representative democracy (which it very much isn’t) I would still be opposed to it because I fundamentally do not believe in top down systems, even electoral ones.

6: despite all these flaws, all the characters seem to implicitly accept the electoral system as legitimate. There’s criticism against the actions of individual characters acting within the system, such as Quackity calling out Wilbur for trying to rig the election, but nobody is questioning the system itself.

So at this point I’m sitting there, watching all this go down, and thinking “man, this would be so much more bearable if there was an anarchist point of view being represented in the story.”

And hey, look who IMMEDIATELY SHOWS UP.

Okay, I’m not gonna lie, early installation Technoblade is not the best representation of anarchism. I was mostly rooting for him out of sheer contrarianism initially. I didn’t really even care if it would be another Killmonger/Magneto/Zaheer situation because I’m used to reading against the authorial intent when it comes to these things. Sometimes any representation is better than no representation, even with political ideologies. That’s not to say that him just straight up spouting this hobbesian notion of a “dog-eat-dog world” didn’t grate on me, obviously it did.

That kind of worldview of humanity needing authority in order to prevent chaos and conflict is literally antithetical to anarchism and is the favourite talking point of authoritarians, the least anarchist people there are. It’s literally what people use to argue AGAINST anarchism. I think it’s mostly because cc!Techno obviously wasn’t particularly educated on anarchist thought and was just basically having fun roleplaying with his friends at this point. Which is frustrating but fair enough I guess.

Cynical ideas about human nature are pretty deeply rooted in the mainstream, unfortunately, most people just consider it common sense. And like I said, it’s a huge talking point in the propaganda against anarchism.

(… even though in fact these arguments were originally used against proponents of representative democracy. Hobbes himself was very much a monarchist, the idea of letting normal people vote for their representatives would have been terrifying to him. Like surely the world would descent into a free-for-all war, all against all. Imagine letting commoners have OPINIONS, the horror.)

So yeah, that stuff was pretty ehhhhh. It was basically what I’d expected though: cc!Techno isn’t an anarchist and we just don’t get accurate representation from non-anarchists, ever. What I dared to hope was that Techno’s character would at least stay consistent about his opposition to ALL governments. I was pretty sure that he would, even though it seemed like the majority of the fandom at the time was convinced that he would switch over to Schlatt’s side or something. It would have been a really shitty twist, I would have ragequit immediately. I mean what would have been the entire point of his character then? He might as well have been a random mercenary. Why even have his character be an anarchist if you were just going to make him work for a government?

(ftr this is kinda my biggest problem with the Hypixel Skyblock revolution event lol, honestly I think that was a worse depiction of anarchism than early DSMP Technoblade. I mean the speech was good, but… still became a government official, tho. booooooooo, cringe)

And yes, I was rooting against L'Manburg, obviously, and I would have even if it had meant having to deal with another badly written anarchist villain character. I never understood why people saw L'Manburg as the good guys, they were nationalist and exclusionary and their whole existence was based on trying to scam people for money.

I mean they were definitely funny, they were great entertainers. I have no problems with people rooting for them because they’re fun to watch; I did that for a bit too. But people were starting to get really into the story and talk about Wilbur and Tommy, the corrupt politicians, and the country that literally excluded people based on nationality as the heroes, unironically, which was wild to me. And when Wilbur started his “villain arc” well: people called it a villain arc, as if he hadn’t been pretty much a bad guy from the beginning, constantly just out for money and power and taking advantage of the people around him and then pretending to be the victim when challenged. I mean yes he got worse, but I wouldn’t call it a villain arc, more like just a mental breakdown arc.

More importantly, to me L'Manburg represented so many things I hate about the status quo in real life, and seeing the fandom mostly unquestioningly accept it as good just pissed me off. Still pisses me off tbh. I mean, to be diplomatic I could say that I understand the emotional attachment and the way L'Manburg was built up mirrors a lot of how real nations are built and how they create a sense of patriotism out of symbols and a sense of honour and loyalty, and it’s actually really fascinating how it even works in a Minecraft roleplay. Says something about the human mind I guess. Doesn’t mean I have to like it though.

Anyway, I just wanted to see literally any kind of opposition to power, even if it had to come from a character that was unquestionably a villain, which I fully assumed Techno would be. Because political narratives so often just leave us out, or at best barely mention us. And even from a narrative point of view, adding an anarchist perspective to a political story just objectively broadens its scope and actually challenges people who are used to only arguing along the lines of conservative or liberal, welfare state or privatization, nationalism or multiculturalism, etc. Even if the original work dealt with it poorly, at least it would give me the excuse to rant about it on Tumblr, which is kinda why I revived my old Minecraft sideblog for this. (That and pig!Techno fanart.)

Also how can you have a story so fundamentally about power without its counterpoint: the rejection of power?

(Yes, Dream SMP as a whole is definitely a narrative about power, it’s a huge theme for Wilbur, Quackity, Dream, Eret and the Badlanders at least, as well as obviously the anarchist characters from the opposite direction.)

So yeah, the build up to November 16th for me was mainly about the anticipation for what Techno would do, how would Techno’s character respond to the seemingly inevitable formation of a new government. THAT was the point of interest for me, that was what I was the most invested in. Would we get an actual anarchist opposition as a new side to the conflict or would they just awkwardly drop that whole angle? Or even have him team up with Schlatt like a complete sellout? There was so much potential but I worried they might just waste it.

And I was right to worry since apparently in the original script Techno wasn’t supposed to do anything, he was just there to help fight Schlatt and witness the explosion along with everyone else.

And WOW that would have been so incredibly boring

Not even just from the political perspective, just talking about the narrative in general terms here: imagine November 16th without Techno’s plot points. Not only would it have been boring for Techno’s character but it would have been equally boring for basically everybody but Wilbur and Philza. An anticlimactic fight followed by a big explosion that pretty much everybody had seen coming already. Yes, the button room scene is dramatic and heartbreaking… for Wilbur and Phil. But nobody else was there to see it. For everybody else, it was just a big explosion. It would have been such a huge disservice to anyone watching the other POVs.

Techno’s intervention gave everyone an ACTUAL climactic fight, it allowed characters other than Wil and Phil to witness some actual drama happening and to participate in it, rather than just waiting around for the explosion, while also foreshadowing the explosion. Even better, it provoked SO MUCH discussion in the fandom AND gave a perfect hook for future conflicts to arise. Wilbur’s end was tragic but it was, at the time, final. L'Manburg would have still suffered a catastrophe but it would have been left with just the same exact antagonist as before: Dream.

And at this point Dream’s core goals had barely changed, just his approach was now different. Yes, that makes a difference for the plot, but it doesn’t really change much in terms of ideological conflict. Especially since there really isn’t that big of an ideological difference between Dream and Tommy, because arguably neither of them are particularly big on ideology in the first place, they just have conflicting goals and use different tactics to achieve those goals (well, the tactics aren’t always even that different *cough Spirit cough*).

Techno’s conflict with Tubbo and especially Quackity (and honestly most of the other characters in general) brings in so much more depth to the story, just by introducing another angle, not to even mention how much it brings to focus questions about power and violence. These are themes that exist in other characters’s storylines too but nowhere in the same way or as central as with Techno.

I’m getting kind of ahead of myself here, though.

The real twist of November 16th was the fact that Techno WASN’T a straight up villain, actually. It was a twist to me anyway, because with all my cynicism I just didn’t see it coming, I didn’t expect him to actually start making reasonable criticisms. I didn’t expect him to drop the hobbesian arguments entirely and start making points that actually sounded like anarchism.

I have to assume that cc!Techno must have seen some of the criticisms of his character and been inspired to adjust because the difference is pretty notable.

(Sidenote: I’m just forever kinda sad that Techno’s “I may seem like the villain here” monologue was cut from the video and most people never heard it.)

And I felt SO validated by the way, because it works so well in the story! Everyone is mostly content with the restoration of a status quo of some sort, Schlatt is gone, this is supposed to be the good ending, and then Techno calls them all out and turns the narrative around completely: This was just a coup d'état. This was just the previous political leadership retaking power by force. Why is everyone celebrating the same exact system that lead to Schlatt’s authoritarian rule in the first place?

What he does there is force the audience to question the narrative they’ve been presented so far, that they’ve accepted without a thought. It might not convince them, but they can’t just ignore it either.

Whatever you wanna say about the discourse around Techno on that day, in the ideological narrative THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART. Not who betrayed who or when is political violence justified, that’s about personal relationships and morality and it’s mostly all more relevant to the aftermath than the event itself. In my opinion, the REAL point in the moment is that the characters and the audience were comfortable with the ending only to be presented with a completely new perspective on the events.

It also recontextualises the finale, including Wilbur’s actions! It’s a much more ambiguous end to the Pogtopia vs Manburg arc and to Wilbur’s original run as the head writer. Wilbur’s “even with Tubbo in charge I don’t think [that ‘special place’] can exist again” is vague enough to be dismissed as just part of his paranoia and internal conflict, but with Techno, there’s a concrete question: what if Tubbo, given the same powers as Schlatt, will turn out to be just a new Schlatt? And suddenly you have to wonder what Wilbur meant by his words too. And was all this foreshadowing something about L’Manburg’s future?

Okay I’ve only made it to November 16th and there’s so much more DSMP to talk about but the post is getting too long and I’m starting to lose my energy. Will I ever make a part two? No idea. But I’ll try.

Standard disclaimer: I’m not the spokesperson of anarchism, other anarchists might disagree with my reading

[serpenteve]

Hii, I didn't know with whom to share this and then I thought of you!

This antis are giving me these 18th-19th century vibes when expressing independent opinions that clashed against the status quo was deemed a near crime. Ex- Anne with an E when the female teacher Miss Stacey is condemned for her unique knowledge and wearing pants and many more period dramas where a certain group of people are like - "Dishoner on your family!", "Disgrace to our society!", "Think of lil children!", "You learn what we teach you, must not impure your image with sinful opinion!", "You know nothing!", infantalization women, misogyny etc. and that has always enraged me. Just like how old tropes are subverted and then re-subverted bringing the former back, I feel like those 'traditions' are making their back here. And That is terrifying.

There does seem to be a resurgence of purity culture rhetoric and policing in fandom spaces and I also don't think that's coincidental considering all the terfy bullshit going around on this platform as well.

I was initially annoyed with people calling this "purity culture" because this is a term that usually refers to evangelical pearl-clutching about women's hymens but the attitude, arguments, and even policing about what is and isn't acceptable to ship in fandom is very similar to what I experienced growing up.

The problem is that culturally we are still very uncomfortable with women's sexualities. In church, women must not even have sex drive lest they get shamed for it. In fandom, women can only be attracted to whatever the fandom police deem "pure enough" or "acceptable". The fact that people can ship something toxic like Darklina or dare to have alternative character interpretations or wanted the narrative to allow Alina to be a little more evil or ruthless is too "problematic" to express. But the thing is, people's shipping preferences or fictional interests are just never going to be PC or good enough for polite society. That doesn't make them abuse apologists or evil people in real life. Are we going to go after BDSM community because they are "romanticizing abuse" next? Or harass actors because they like to play villainous characters? Because it's all made-up, it's a safe place for people to explore a toxic dynamic without the actual drama of one.

There's also this narrative that Darklina shippers are either (1) deluded little girls who need to be educated about the toxicity of their own ship or (2) old hags who are intruding on a fandom space that apparently has an age limit of 20 and need to get back in the kitchen. So we can already see the patriarchal assumptions in the narratives themselves: you are either a pure infantalized little girl who needs someone to tell you right from wrong or you're a grown woman who needs to do her womanly duty instead of participating in fandom. Gee, why does this sound so awfully familiar to me 🙄

Every other day, there's a new post in the #darklina tag from a "concerned" fan who feels compelled to talk down to shippers and say "Well, actually, the fact that you guys still ship Darklina after everything he did just proves Leigh's point that you're all stupid whores who would welcome abuse if it had a good jawline 😌". Or a "confused" fan who's compelled to say "How can people ship Darklina? Literally what is wrong with you? Are you fucked in the head to ship X with Y? I'm so glad I'm not like that uwu 😌"

Like, do these people have such little faith in women that they feel compelled to constantly cringe and post PSAs on the dangers of a sexy jawline? How little faith do they have in themselves that they are so obsessed with making sure a group of shippers (who have always acknowledged and always historically acknowledged the toxic aspects of their ship) are sent anonymous hate mail? That they think all this is okay because they can hide under the banner of "activism" and "concern for women's safety" or "think of the children!".

I've seen it all before in church. People who can't stand that others have a mind and body of their own or dare to have fun "the wrong way" and need to be reminded about their "true" social role in society. People who need to constantly slut-shame you because something about your actions reminds them of some part of themselves they are deeply ashamed of and can't acknowledge. People who are just looking for an excuse to be an asshole and are thrilled to hide behind "well im just helping silly little girls spot abusers" rhetoric.

[ignitification]

from what I saw the allegations that people are bringing to say that hawks was the one to take down the HPSC are: (this are taken down from a post that I saw here on tumblr btw)

they doing shady business with redestro (this has nothing to do with hawks), they forcing hawks to do a mission he didn't wanted (okay, they did this but hawks never showed any thoughts of rebellion against them) and hawks keeping his humanity and trying to save hawks until the end (except when he killed him of course), so the redestro clone disappeared in the moment jin died, and the time it took hawks to save twice from dabi's fire allowed that clone to stab the HPSC president (but hawks didn't plan any of this so he didn't have any intentional role into taking them down)

Oh, thanks for the heads up and letting me know where the question comes from! And as I read, let me deconstruct very quickly and briefly the entire argument which is based on nothing concrete.

I. The black market for Hero equipment run by Re-Destro, as you said, has nothing to do with Hawks. He has never been involved with the business in particular, and the only relevant thing which Hawks has done in regards to warn the heroes and the Commission of their plans is to distribute the manifesto of the PFL in a way to let them know what was happening (and even then, not all of his information has ever been complete and/or entirely reliable). 

II. Forcing Hawks to take the double-agent mission and later keeping his ‘humanity’ to save Twice until the end, is first of all not even an argument and second it really does not hold up with the narrative we have during the last moments of Twice. I am not going to go very deep into Hawks’ relationship with the HPSC, which yes he defines as a Golden Cage, but Cage nonetheless, but at the same time he actually condones its actions because they are made in order to protect a greater good and rationalising these actions may be the only possible coping mechanisms Hawks came up with in order to reconcile his persona with the soldier (even though I don’t think it would be entirely correct that he is a soldier for the HPSC, rather a usable pin who might become unnecessary - even though this exactly fits the meaning of a soldier who lives in order to fulfil their orders) that the HPSC presented him as his persona. It also means that Hawks’ chance to escape the Commission is to actively fight like Lady Nagant did and (this is an argument I’ll use later to confute the president clone claim) actively go against them, but at the same time even if he kills a higher-up, will that bring him satisfaction and will that change the situation? The only thing to change would be the person in charge and Hawks’ status, which would go from hero to villain, and the Commission would still flourish with the other soldiers it created. Therefore, Hawks accepting the mission and keeping on his mission is just proof (I don’t mean to say that Hawks is a coward, because that’s not what it is) that Hawks has interesting which transcend his own will to free himself from the shackles he has been bound with. As for Twice, there was no humanity whatsoever shown when he manipulated someone he even dared to call a friend, and then stab him in the back. 

III. ReDestro’s clone stabbing the HPSC President is something that likely the villains planned, and that again confirms the fact that is actually the villains’ actions which have made a difference so far in the current situation of society rather than a plan from Hawks (as I wrote here), who instead just is reaping what the villains had sown. Again, his stabbing the President would have changed very little if the had not been chaos all across society and that many members of the HPSC would have been undisposed and many heroes decided to retire, because it would have just taken one hour in order to substitute the president and let the status quo remain. The thing is, the HPSC is an organisation which has many layers, and one cog less does not determine its fall down. This is why it is highly unlikely that this precise action is what took down the HPSC - but it was the ensemble of thing that happened, which shook society to its core. 

I hope that this argument has been contrasted properly, because I did not want to go in too deep on the thematics which tie the HPSC as a Sybil System of sorts (if you saw Psycho Pass you know what I am talking about), where Hawks, while a victim of it endorses the system nonetheless because it might actually be the means to an end (or accomplishment of the greater good). 

Thank you for the question and thank you for reading!

[mc-critical]

I've been thinking about Gulnihal and i know somebody already said this (i think it was you?) but its very telling how mc hurrem's first immoral action was against her and not mahi,ibrahim,etc. People really dont talk about it much. I also feel gulnihal was wasted she had much opportunity but then i kinda understand why because that would be an entire new can of worms. I saw a post say they should have made raziye mahi's daughter but also she could been made gulnihal's daughter it would have given hurrem a new maybe temporary antagonist instead of the isabella plot.

Hürrem's first immoral action being towards Gülnihal was said by Joanna in this awesome and detailed post. And it's totally true: in a parallel to Mahidevran beating/poisoning Hürrem, she herself did a very similar thing because her supposed best friend dared to go to SS's chamber. Okay, it's understandable why this is widely considered as a personal betrayal for Hürrem, even if we count the fact that she couldn't simply refuse to go there if she were called, but again, was burning her face truly necessary? Wasn't this a tad too far for a person you were friends with before then? Did this girl deserve such harsh "punishment"? Maybe ignore her, not trust her again even, but this? There is no way I can justify it. Besides, Gülnihal has the right to have an ambition for a higher place in the harem, just like Hürrem and all the other girls there. It is what's expected of everyone in this environment and Gülnihal doesn't deserve to be derided for it, especially not when that is her "biggest sin".

This action of Hürrem's certainly sets one thing straight - she's willing to commit to her life-long goal, no matter who or what stands in her way. She isn't against having friends or making alliances in the harem, and at one point she tries hard to earn everyone's trust, following Nigar's advice, but she wants these friends and alliances to commit as well, to be next to her at every step of the way. But when they do the littlest suspicious action, the tiniest mistake, she gets as cautious as ever towards them. I feel the motto of Hürrem's character is: "Pressure made me who I am." Her experiences in the harem have led to paranoia and constant fear that something bad would happen to her, so she's willing to do anything to lower them. If she considers that one friend of hers poses a threat of sorts, she would go against them. In short words, she went through trauma, but she learned almost effortlessly to inflict that exact same trauma on others.

I agree that Gülnihal deserved better from the show. She is so nice and sweet and after that arc of hers ended she became relegated to a more background role than a full-on supporting character. I would've loved to see more done with her and more conflict between her and Hürrem, more doubt on Gülnihal's part. I know that her being supportive and loyal to her friend is the point of her characterization and perhaps the writers didn't want to break the status-quo in that regard, but say, her not willing to forgive and deciding to leave on her own terms and have that explored and shown to us in its finest detail would be much more satisfying to me.

And that said, the way she actually got out of the show is my biggest problem with her writing that unfortunately, goes beyond her, too. Her ultimate fate is perfectly serviceable in isolation - she got married to a guy and ultimately got out of the toxic harem, a much better ending than nearly the whole main cast! I don't even mind all that much that it happened off-screen during a time-skip and we learned about it in the simplest way possible only after it IN THEORY: but it fails so much IN PRACTICE because of the writers' lacking attempt to set it up beforehand with Gülşah's attempt on Gülnihal's life. Episode 23, as a whole, is filled with drama that is intended as a big deal, but solely turns out to be retroactively unnecessary: I would get it if Gülnihal's stabbing triggered them to marry her off, but it truly didn't when you think about it, because, in the context of the narrative, they could've done this particular exit with Gülnihal anyway! They could've freely pulled it off without that whole drama, since the time-skip is in the next season and is in no way tied up to the events of E23. And in the season finale she seemed to be recovering with absolutely no hints given that she would go somewhere else, let alone marry. This sounds like a nitpick, I know, but what empowers this problem even further is that all of Gülşah's doings in E23 themselves are brushed off almost entirely later. E23 is the climax of Mahidevran's mini-arc in S01 about her constant claims that she isn't a killer and refusal to take away Hurrem's life, which make her object Gülşah's desire to end everything for good. This particular thing has been built-up from as early as E16 and it would be normal for it to reach its culmination. And yet, when Gülşah goes fully against Mahidevran's orders and Mahidevran beats her to death, all of which seems to affect the whole castle and Mahidevran breaks down in denial of what she did, it's as if all this is forgotten, not 3-4 episodes later. Two scenes aside, Mahidevran still trusts her unreservedly and there're no long term consequences for the whole thing, which makes it all pointless filler as a result and I feel that extends to Gülnihal, as well. It's almost like the writers drew themselves into a corner about this situation and the following aftermath of Leo's death and since they couldn't focus on every important thing at once, there was no time for Gülnihal left and simply threw the easiest, most convenient solution they could. It still baffles me to this day.

Gülnihal being a temporary antagonist to Hürrem's isn't a bad idea at all and I would love to see that in the remainder of S01B, but honestly not during the episodes of the Isabella arc. {I would also discard this arc entirely, if I were writing the show (because it's just such a tonal mess), but I would instead focus on Hürrem finding more allies like Gül Aga in the harem and delve deeper into her traumatic reactions to Leo's death and spend more time building up what should've been built-up all that time we wasted on Isabella: Mahidevran falling out of love with Süleiman. That's one of my core problems with E55, because despite of the events before her going in Edirne, the only thing it did is make this whole thing a plot-twist (that, by the way, could render Mahidevran hypocritical in the context of the episode) when it really wasn't, but that's a post for another day and excuse me for the ranting.} I personally would also like Raziye to be Mahidevran's daughter, because of her "false second pregnancy" Gülşah spread the rumor of in S01, but then again, her relationship with Mustafa could lose a little of its screentime then and that screentime is precious, because they really had such a well-written and human relationship. And I'm judging this as an alternative we have from what ended up really happening with Raziye, which was the weakest link of S04 to me and honestly, anything would be better than that. I wouldn't mind if Gülnihal had a daughter and if that daughter were Raziye. Then we would see her dynamic with Hürrem in a new and interesting light and it would've spiced up the narrative a little for sure. Temporary rivalry between them and especially, one after what Hürrem did to her, would've been amazing, I won't lie.