#how they should just accept the status quo

[ialwaysknewyouwerepunk]

Hello, what are your top 3 moments that comes to your mind when you think about Larry?

not really moments but:

their matching tattoos

come so far from princess park

the carpool karaoke food and drink sharing

[misterradio]

ah ................. quite a bleak ending ::-(

[monsterblogging]

"I know JK Rowing is a terrible person but her books are so good-"

You sure about that?

I mean, just for a start, have you taken a good look at her fantasy creatures lately? A whole bunch of them are straight-up based on malicious and dehumanizing stereotypes about actual people.

Remember the werewolves? And being a werewolf was made into a kind of metaphor for having AIDS?

And you know how AIDS was first associated with gay men? And how conservatives back in the day were claiming gay men were preying on children in order to convert them to gayness?

Remember how Fenrir Greyback preyed on children in particular? Yeah, she put that subtext in there. She was an adult in the 90's. She knew damn well what she was doing.

Remember the house elves? Remember how most of them loved to serve and needed to have a home and a master or else they just wouldn't know what to do with themselves?

Did you know that's literally what slavers in the American South said about the Black people they kept enslaved? Go look up the happy slave myth.

Do I even need to get into the goblins and the antisemitic tropes they're based on? No, folkloric goblins were not gold-hoarding bankers waiting for their chance to stab humanity in the back.

"But the characters are so good!"

Are you kidding me?

Most of her characters are pretty one-dimensional, including Harry. Her idea of making a morally complicated character is giving a tragic past to a bully. Numerous characters are little more than stereotypes. (Looking at Fleur right now.) Literally anybody, including you, can easily make dozens of characters just as good, if not better. (It doesn't exactly take a lot of character designing skill to go, "hey, actually, having a sad backstory doesn't make it okay to bully children" or "hey, maybe I should not base a character on the first stereotype that pops into my head.")

"But the rest of the worldbuilding!"

Sorry, but her worldbuilding is just as basic as her characters. Magical castles and secret passages are stock tropes. Magical people who keep their true nature secret from humanity is the premise of pretty much every White Wolf TTRPG. Most of her fantasy creatures are just common European fairy tale and folklore creatures with shitty stereotypes projected onto them.

I'm not saying "basic worldbuilding bad." I'm saying, you could do just as good, if not better, with minimal effort.

Also there's her magical bioessentialism, where only Harry's abusive blood relatives could provide him with supernatural protection from Voldemort. Rowling thus effectively declared that non-biological family isn't quite real family, and that abusive biofamily can give you some essential thing that a loving, supportive family that isn't related to you just can't.

The Hogwarts houses are one of the most insidious elements of her worldbuilding. The idea of being sorted gives you a little dopamine hit because wow now you have a li'l niche where you belong!

But the actual function of the houses and sorting system and the House Cup is teaching children to see each other as rivals, and ensure that the most toxic views of the upper class get passed on to every new batch of kids sorted into Slytherin.

Hogwarts effectively prepares children for a dystopia where magic serves to distract its citizens from how nightmarishly awful it is. Economic inequality is so bad that people like Arthur and Molly Weasley can barely afford to put their kids through school, casual sadism is just an accepted norm in everyday society, and non-humans are second class citizens. Rowling sorta acts like she thinks this is a bad thing with certain lines she gave to Dumbledore, but in the end, her special boy protagonist becomes an auror; IE, a defender of the status quo. So.

If you've never seen it, Lily Simpson's video goes into even more detail on how the worldbuilding of Harry Potter is actually incredibly fucked up, and how it betrays small-minded attitudes on Rowling's part. There's no separating the art from this artist, because Rowling's rotten values pour out of nearly every page.

Yes, there are many things in Harry Potter that evoke feelings and inspire people, but there's absolutely nothing in it that this series has a monopoly on. You can find those same experiences in much, much better media.

[fairuzfan]

AMAZING article about what it means to participate in anti-Zionism work both online and in person.

If your anti-zionism does not in any way acknowledge that it is a way of thought and practice led by and for Palestinians, then you need to reevaluate your "anti-zionism" label.

Some passages that felt especially relevant to tumblr:

If we accept, as those with even the most rudimentary understanding of history do, that zionism is an ongoing process of settler-colonialism, then the undoing of zionism requires anti-zionism, which should be understood as a process of decolonisation. Anti-zionism as a decolonial ideology then becomes rightly situated as an indigenous liberation movement. The resulting implication is two-fold. First, decolonial organising requires that we extract ourselves from the limitations of existing structures of power and knowledge and imagine a new, just world. Second, this understanding clarifies that the caretakers of anti-zionist thought are indigenous communities resisting colonial erasure, and it is from this analysis that the strategies, modes, and goals of decolonial praxis should flow. In simpler terms: Palestinians committed to decolonisation, not Western-based NGOs, are the primary authors of anti-zionist thought. We write this as a Palestinian and a Palestinian-American who live and work in Palestine, and have seen the impact of so-called ‘Western values’ and how the centring of the ‘human rights’ paradigm disrupts real decolonial efforts in Palestine and abroad. This is carried out in favour of maintaining the status quo and gaining proximity to power, using our slogans emptied of Palestinian historical analysis.

Anti-zionist organising is not a new notion, but until now the use of the term in organising circles has been mired with misunderstandings, vague definitions, or minimised outright. Some have incorrectly described anti-zionism as amounting to activities or thought limited to critiques of the present Israeli government – this is a dangerous misrepresentation. Understanding anti-zionism as decolonisation requires the articulation of a political movement with material, articulated goals: the restitution of ancestral territories and upholding the inviolable principle of indigenous repatriation and through the right of return, coupled with the deconstruction of zionist structures and the reconstitution of governing frameworks that are conceived, directed, and implemented by Palestinians.  Anti-zionism illuminates the necessity to return power to the indigenous community and the need for frameworks of justice and accountability for the settler communities that have waged a bloody, unrelenting hundred-year war on the people of Palestine. It means that anti-zionism is much more than a slogan. 

[...]

While our collective imaginations have not fully articulated what a liberated and decolonised Palestine looks like, the rough contours have been laid out repeatedly. Ask any Palestinian refugee displaced from Haifa, the lands of Sheikh Muwannis, or Deir Yassin – they will tell that a decolonised Palestine is, at a minimum, the right of Palestinians’ return to an autonomous political unit from the river to the sea. When self-proclaimed ‘anti-zionists’ use rhetoric like ‘Israel-Palestine’ – or worse, ‘Palestine-Israel’ – we wonder: where do you think ‘Israel’ exists? On which land does it lay, if not Palestine? This is nothing more than an attempt to legitimise a colonial state; the name you are looking for is Palestine – no hyphen required. At a minimum, anti-zionist formations should cut out language that forces upon Palestinians and non-Palestinian allies the violence of colonial theft. 

[...]

The common choice to centre the Oslo Accords, international humanitarian law, and the human rights paradigm over socio-historical Palestinian realities not only limits our analysis and political interventions; it restricts our imagination of what kind of future Palestinians deserve, sidelining questions of decolonization to convince us that it is the new, bad settlers in the West Bank who are the source of violence. Legitimate settlers, who reside within the bounds of Palestinian geographies stolen in 1948 like Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem, are different within this narrative. Like Breaking the Silence, they can be enlightened by learning the error of colonial violence carried out in service of the bad settlers. They can supposedly even be our solidarity partners – all without having to sacrifice a crumb of colonial privilege or denounce pre-1967 zionist violence in any of its cruel manifestations. As a result of this course of thought, solidarity organisations often showcase particular Israelis – those who renounce state violence in service of the bad settlers and their ongoing colonisation of the West Bank – in roles as professionals and peacemakers, positioning them on an equal intellectual, moral, or class footing with Palestinians. There is no recognition of the inherent imbalance of power between these Israelis and the Palestinians they purport to be in solidarity with – stripping away their settler status. The settler is taken out of the historical-political context which afforded them privileged status on stolen land, and is given the power to delineate the Palestinian experience. This is part of the historical occlusion of the zionist narrative, overlooking the context of settler-colonialism to read the settler as an individual, and omitting their class status as a settler. 

It is essential to note that Palestinians have never rejected Jewish indigeneity in Palestine. However, the liberation movement has differentiated between zionist settlers and Jewish natives. Palestinians have established a clear and rational framework for this distinction, like in the Thawabet, the National Charter of Palestine from 1968. Article 6 states, ‘The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.’ When individuals misread ‘decolonisation’ as ‘the mass killing or expulsion of Jews,’ it is often a reflection of their own entanglement in colonialism or a result of zionist propaganda. Perpetuating this rhetoric is a deliberate misinterpretation of Palestinian thought, which has maintained this position over a century of indigenous organising.  Even after 100 years of enduring ethnic cleansing, whole communities bombed and entire family lines erased, Palestinians have never, as a collective, called for the mass killing of Jews or Israelis. Anti-zionism cannot shy away from employing the historical-political definitions of ‘settler’ and ‘indigenous’ in their discourse to confront ahistorical readings of Palestinian decolonial thought and zionist propaganda. 

[...]

In the context of the United States, the most threatening zionist institutions are the entrenched political parties which function to maintain the status quo of the American empire, not Hillel groups on university campuses or even Christian zionist churches. While the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) engage in forms of violence that suppress Palestinian liberation and must not be minimised, it is crucial to recognise that the most consequential institutions in the context of settler-colonialism are not exclusively Jewish in their orientation or representation: the Republican and Democratic Party in the United States do arguably more to manufacture public consent for the slaughtering of Palestinians than the ADL and AIPAC combined. Even the Progressive Caucus and the majority of ‘The Squad’ are guilty of this.

Leila Shomali and Lara Kilani

[psychotrenny]

The way that US Liberals talks about voting is such a classic example of how American Civil Religion has absolutely rotted their minds. Like voting isn't a tool to achieve political ends; it's a ritual that you are morally obligated to partake in to maintain the spiritual health of the nation. You don't use voting as a strategy in order to directly affect the material conditions of the world, giving power to representatives who will pursue specific policies and holding them accountable if they fail. No, goodness and justice will metaphysically spring from the wellspring of democracy as long as everyone does their part to keep it full. As long as everyone does their part to honour the Founding Fathers and the core values of the nation then everything will be in order, the system will function as it should and all world's problems will naturally solve themselves. If this isn't happening then it means not enough people voted hard enough.

Denying your vote isn't a a tactic you can use to affect politics; it's a violation of your sacred duty. Denying your vote in response to political failure makes as much sense as denying your prayers and sacrifice after a bad harvest. Clearly the problem here was your lack of devotion and you aren't gonna solve it by reducing your devotion even further. You're just letting the forces of evil win; you might as well be directly in league with them.

Like I'm not even a believer in Liberal Democracy and yet the way that Yanks talk about it simply boggles my mind; utterly detached from anything resembling the material conditions of the world we live in. Like I can think of no other way to describe it but a religious belief in the ontological superiority of their institutions and that they need only faithful participation to properly function. A ridiculous way to approach politics and yet one that holds enough mainstream acceptance that you are forced take it seriously. Very unfortunate for any who hold hope of meaningful change through electorialism, but convenient to those who wish to maintain the status quo

[fatliberation]

ever notice how fatphobes who are against the movement always refer to it as fat acceptance? I think there’s a reason for that. working towards acceptance reinforces the status quo that right now, being fat is unacceptable and so they are comfortable saying it should stay that way. we shouldn’t have to “accept” this!! whereas fat liberation implies a much more political existence of fat people. we are an oppressed group who are not asking for your acceptance, but demanding our liberation. it’s just funny how everyone is so comfortable being “anti fat acceptance” yet I have never run into anti fat liberation.

words hold power.

[garbageday]

By now you have, no doubt, heard all about the dangerous new TikTok trend sweeping the nation. China’s great and powerful cyber weapon has convinced the innocent teenagers of America that Osama bin Laden was actually a pretty cool guy and now they’re all sharing his 2002 “Letter To America”. Well, first, just to get it out of the way, Osama bin Laden was actually bad. Also, a nepo baby.

After spending most of yesterday digging into this, I’m pretty convinced that this was never a real thing on TikTok. Even though it has since snowballed into a full on moral panic that is beginning to feel dangerously unstable. The Biden administration released a statement about the supposed trend and alarmed big-name creators and actors also reportedly met with TikTok this week to discuss the rise of antisemitism on the app.

Baseless generational in-fighting, aging millennials who refuse to accept the new status quo of the internet, easily monetizable rage bait, lazy TikTok trend reporting, and bad faith political actors swirled together to create a perfect storm this week.

The story has morphed from what should have been a weird curiosity — and perhaps even a moment to reflect on America’s post-9/11 legacy — into a full-blown national scandal with dumb-dumb headlines getting written about it, like CNN’s “Some young Americans on TikTok say they sympathize with Osama bin Laden”. I mean, I haven’t even had time in this piece to point out that a lot of the people I saw sharing the letter were millennials! But, yeah, teens fucking love Bin Laden. They’re saying 9/11 just hits different now no cap fr. Gen Z wants Baby Gronk to lead Al-Qaeda in a victorious jihad against the western imperialist hegemony gyatt!!

We have invented a version of TikTok that simply does not exist and now many people in power are ready to tear apart the foundation of internet to prove it does. And what’s worse here is that there are very real issues with how TikTok works. It is a major source of misinfo and disinfo. It still has a terrible bullying problem. And, ironically enough, it’s also one of the most oppressively censorious social platforms that has ever existed. To the point users had to create a puritanical version of leet speak to communicate on it. But we can’t even begin to address those issues unless we start to look clear-eyed at what is actually happening on the app. And it is most certainly not the digital hub of a large-scale Gen Z Bin Laden fandom. Be fucking serious.

The internet is an extremely chaotic living ecosystem and it’s constantly reacting to itself and all you accomplish by amplifying something like this is give more ammo to those who want to who want to take that away. You turn bizarre discourse into something bigger than it was ever meant to be. You pointlessly villainize normal people who aren’t public figures and don’t deserve this kind of scrutiny. And you help conservative political movements continue their culture war. You also just look like clueless boomer to anyone even slightly younger than you.

[Read more over on Garbage Day]

[sergle]

what I was talking abt earlier. we have fully looped back around and away from feminism, societally, whereas before it was very Feminism 101 to acknowledge that many parts of existing as a woman in a misogynistic society are painful and upsetting. not that being a woman is Inherently Negative in a bubble. but that living on this earth, in the conditions we're living in, is hostile to women. and that gender is a performance. that many of the Staples Of Femininity as accepted by society are things that you have to create and perform and mold artificially and aren't inherent, that COMPLAINING about day to day difficulties of existing as a woman is something that you're allowed to do. acknowledging these basic, again, feminism 101 things, that something tied to womanhood is more time consuming or more expensive or more dangerous Because Of The Problems. does not CREATE the problems. that when women complain about having to perform femininity, they are not, in fact, oppressing themselves. the call does not come from inside the fucking house. saying that you HAVE suffered does not fucking equate that you believe you SHOULD have suffered.

like I could talk about this for hours. how braindead and one-dimensional the Takes are getting. "being a woman is looking in the mirror and going fuck yeah i'm a woman" damn. I guess any negative experiences you have by living in a misogynistic world... are your fault if you are anything but positive? "you don't actually want liberation" we've fully gone back to telling feminists "you WANT to be oppressed" when anything negative about our society is pointed out. it's not real until I say it out loud, I guess, and then I'm actually the one who caused it. if anybody expresses any unhappiness with how they're treated or the status quo or the language and culture surrounding womanhood and femininity. they've created it, right that second. they invented it just now. it wasn't a problem before somebody complained, right? also trans women aren't braindead zombies who just follow the flow of whatever cis women around them say. I am pretty fucking sure they are very much aware of pain, and are MORE than aware of the swirling torrent of misogyny and standards of femininity than anybody else. actually. and I am pretty sure someone complaining on tumblr that being a woman means always putting on a performance is going to make someone change their mind about transitioning. also "performing femininity" as a necessity to being treated well as a woman is not fucking NEWS to your Local Trans Woman. I AM PRETTY SURE SHE GETS THE CONCEPT. using trans women as a scapegoat for this braindead perspective on gender politics is spineless, meritless, and pathetic.

[cookinguptales]

*spins the meta wheel* yeah okay, let's talk about Nandor.

One of the things that's always fascinated me most about his character is the way he desperately wants change but also seems to be more terrified of it than all the other characters put together. He talks about wanting things to be different a lot, but he always sabotages anything that might really materially change his life.

Like -- this quest for love. He talks about how much he wants a partner, he wants his life to change, but what do we actually see? In s3 and the beginning of s4, he's just consistently going after women who don't really want him instead of spending time developing the relationships he already has. He dips into shallow relationship after shallow relationship because the real relationships, the ones that might actually change his life, terrify him. The best/worst of these is probably the cult dedicated to literally living in a fantasy version of the past, which like. Not really helping him beat those afraid-of-change allegations.

(You can learn all the 80s and 90s songs you want, Nandor, we both know only Guillermo is exposing you to modern pop culture! And yeah, there's more than one metaphor there...)

And then in s4, he decides he wants a wife, so he chooses one in the most haphazard way possible and makes both of their lives miserable. He is constantly changing her to make her easier for him to deal with without actually changing his life, and then he gets rid of her when he's fed up with the monster that he's created.

His whole thing with the Djinn is that he's constantly asking him to change things -- and then change them back. He wastes so many wishes on things like Marwa. I want this. No, that. No, that. No, put it all back to the way it was originally.

He does this over and over and over, and nothing seems to perturb him more than finding out that things have changed when he wasn't looking. (See: his difficulty accepting that Laszlo is creating relationships with other people, his spiraling over the big bang, etc.)

So... how does this pertain to Guillermo?

Guillermo's frustrated with Nandor at the end of s4 because Nandor likes the status quo. Things are different, are constantly changing, but Nandor refuses to acknowledge any of that. (He even mentions off-hand that he forgets Guillermo is a slayer sometimes.) Guillermo has always worked for them all under the promise of change, so you could see why this would freak him out a little. He's realizing that things will never change with Nandor because Nandor won't let them. He's so scared of change that he just straight-up ignores it and hopes it will go away -- when he's not actively trying to stop it.

Nandor, who has been making and breaking plans with an almost manic frenzy for the entire season, is finally calm at the end of s4. Why? Because he thinks that everything has gone back to normal. Marwa is gone. Freddie is gone. Guillermo is no longer talking about leaving. Those are the important ones for him, but then Colin Robinson also returns and the house is set to rights, too, so like... why should he worry?

He has no idea what he's already lost. That's what's making me crazy. He doesn't know that he's already lost everything that matters to him. But I think he suspects.

The thing is, Nandor throws himself into his books and his self-help and everything else because I think he can tell, at least on a subconscious level, that things have changed. Indelibly. He knows that Guillermo has changed, and that's probably the one kind of change that scares him more than anything else.

But despite the fact that Nandor can tell that something is up, he still keeps insisting that it's no big deal. It must be some small perceived slight or something. It can't be a huge change that Guillermo is keeping from him. No, no, he already figured that out. He managed to reel Guillermo back in with the wedding scheme. He doesn't have to worry about Guillermo straying again.

:')

He's afraid of losing Guillermo to change, so he prevents change and ignores what he can't prevent. He doesn't realize that that's exactly what's driving Guillermo away. That it's already driven Guillermo away. Nandor's put the idea of Guillermo's transformation up on a shelf, nice to look at occasionally but not a thing he really has to interact with. The theoretical option for change is there, but he doesn't have to worry about it actually affecting his life.

As always, he's attracted to it, but it also scares him. He'll make a glitter portrait of a vampiric Guillermo at his side, but he can't seem to fully get his head (and heart) around the reality of giving Guillermo that kind of power and freedom.

He's afraid that giving Guillermo that kind of power/freedom will change their relationship further, when he's finally gotten it the way he (thinks he) likes it, and he's even more afraid that if Guillermo's leash is taken off, he'll run. He spent all of s4 trying to keep Guillermo from running, but he still seems to believe down deep that he'll do it.

And... he wasn't wrong. Guillermo did go elsewhere to get his bite. But Nandor is very much the one who drove him to do it. I think that's the tragic thing, isn't it? He was so afraid of his relationship with Guillermo changing that he forced Guillermo's hand, which caused the exact kind of change that he was most afraid of. Guillermo distancing himself, Guillermo leaving, Guillermo -- well, cuckolding him, really.

I think it's fixable, but Guillermo's not the only person who's going to need to eat dirt here. He may have been the one who "cheated", from the vampires' POV, but Nandor wasn't upholding his end of the deal, either. And he's going to have to acknowledge the way Guillermo has grown and changed throughout the course of the series, stop regressing to calling him his familiar, and apologize for his own inaction. It may not be the vampiric way, but it certainly would not be the first time Nandor has thrown away vampiric customs for Guillermo.

Nandor, friend, you gotta sit back and learn to embrace change. You gotta enter the 21st century. You gotta allow your relationship with Guillermo to grow organically.

Because Guillermo's gonna change one way or another, and it's really your decision whether or not he leaves you behind. :')

[randomness-is-my-order]

one great thing about percy the show is effectively highlighting is his ability to form his own opinions, question things and critique a system/status-quo that others have already accepted as the default. grover saying one should never stand up to bullies and percy immediately going “meh, that doesn’t sound right” to annabeth explaining how the gods and their mythic world work and percy being like “hmmmm, that makes no sense to me” and yes, part of it is his upbringing with sally but also part of it is his innate ability to analyse something critically and refusal to be complacent with a system just because it’s already widely in practice or is coming from a friend he trusts. i think percy’s pov is paramount for grover and annabeth to really start seeing some of the most unpleasant realities of their world for what they are.

[craycraybluejay]

Literally, people who joke with me about how psychotic and crazy I am are a million times better allies than some asshole who wants to debate the validity of psychotic disorders with me, an individual who has one. And people who are so scared to think about someone they know having a psychotic disorder, not because they're worried for them but because they can't see us as just people. They will dance around the issue with "oh youre just weird thats okay!" "Im sure everyone can see things if theyre really stressed" "maybe youre just depressed?" Underhanded 'compliments' about how normal they're Sure you are and how theres no way youre like "that weird guy i saw rambling to himself a few months ago in the park" or "my friend nancy who thinks she's an alien." Because they can't dare to see you as a person if you're Like Them.

You can say PSYCHOTIC. You can say SCHIZO. They're not dirty words. I love my schizotypy. It's a part of me, and it is dare I say quite a part of the reason I have the talent and drive that I do in certain fields of study and arts. Maybe other people on the schizo spectrum don't like it, and that's their choice and feelings, their experience. But one thing's for sure, accepting and destigmatizing schizo spectrum disorders is important in the madpunk movement. I don't need double-edged "praise" of how I'm "not like them." And what if I am? What if I'm stark-raving mad, speaking in tongues and trying to fight demons and falling in love with things that don't exist to anybody else? What if green-yellow butterflies fly around my field of vision while I look at you, while we talk? What if I hear the voices of people I really don't like while you and I have a pizza at my place? What if the world tilts and shifts, and suddenly I'm not sure where I am and everything feels possible and god is talking to me and the shadow government is watching me? What then? Am I no longer a person? Is my reality less important than yours? Do I deserve to be unpersoned for seeing the world differently, whether that be due to a mental disorder or simply because I don't agree with the status quo?

We all deserve to be treated equally and fairly. Some differences we are born with, others we attain later in life unrelated to genetics or anything like that, some are simply quirks. No one should be forced to identify under labels they don't agree with, and conversely, no one should be denied the validity of their own experience of themselves and their life. And all differences, psychotic ones especially, because that's what this post is about, are beautiful in their own way and worthy of acceptance and respect.

[inbarfink]

I will admit that before F&C came out I was a bit worried about the Simon stuff. Because I was one of those folks who really appreciated Betty’s arc in ‘Adventure Time’ as a really beautifully tragic parable about obsession and love and the need to embrace change. 

Betty was giving so much of herself to this quest to bring back Simon as she remembered him, and despite every possible sign and omen telling her this was impossible and she should just accept him as the Ice King now - she succeeded. But in the process she was irrevocably changed into someone else and then into something else. Something who couldn’t even be on the same plane of existence as her beloved newly-restored Simon. 

I always thought it was a wonderfully executed arc, so I was kinda worried about the possibility of continuing it. I mean, I wasn’t against giving Betty and Simon a happier ending - I was just worried about how they could pull it off without weakening the themes of the original Betty arc. Or on the other hand, a story where the ‘Come Along With Me’ status quo for these two doesn’t change has the risk of coming out as, well, kinda unsatisfying. 

But I held out hope that, like many times before, the AT Crew were going to come up with another option I wasn’t even considering at the time and this one will just totally knock it out of the park and…. Yeah, that’s basically exactly what happened. They managed to turn Betty’s tragedy into something more bittersweet, not really by adding in a new resolution - just by taking her situation ever since the finale and recontextualizing it.

Because while expanding into an incomprehensible goddess of Chaos beyond any mortal understanding was certainly not a fate Betty ever wanted. It turns out becoming a grand cosmic being to which any mortal life, including Simon Petrikov, is a mere speck is….. Exactly what she needed to outgrow her unhealthy codependent obsessive mindset that got her in the situation to begin with.

After giving up so much of her life for his sake, because Simon was her ‘everything’ - now her perspective and existence has expanded so much that she can finally see Simon as she should’ve seen him from the start. Not as her entire life, but as a lovely and wonderful part of it.

I mean... obviously it would’ve been better for everyone involved if Betty didn’t need to become a literal eldritch abomination to get this perspective, but with all the various Bad Choices Simon and Betty have made over the course of their lives, this still adds a bittersweet streak of relief and peace to what was originally a very straightforwardly tragic ending for a character. 

[emblemxeno]

I really like how Corrin is an outsider in multiple senses, but especially in relating to his presence in the stories.

Corrin's abnormal. He's a sheltered prince despite the Nohrian siblings routinely going on missions. He fights with moves that aren't necessarily powerful like his older brothers and sisters, but they're so wild and unpredictable, that he's a very talented fighter in his own right. He's able to take a dragon form, but the initial reaction from Hans and the Hoshido siblings are that he's a freak from the former, and utter shock and surprise from the latter. He routinely gives others the benefit of the doubt, and has an infinite well of trust and kindness, provided you don't take advantage of it.

And his abnormality is important, because it challenges the norm of Fates' setting. Why is he kind to strangers, including enemies? Why does he see the good in everyone? Why is he averse to taking lives like his duty demands? Why doesn't he just learn how the world works?

Corrin challenges Ryoma's views on what being a leader is and what they should accomplish and challenges Xander's views on justice and to work against the unacceptable no matter how painful it is. He doesn't lay down and accept that animosity and hatred between Hoshido and Nohr is the way of things and won't ever change. He never falls into a neat box of black or white.

Corrin challenges the status quo of the Fates world by being himself, and having the resilience to keep being himself no matter what threatens him. He falters when he begins believing the doubts and poisoned words of his enemies, and flourishes when his loved ones support his personhood and character to the fullest. He gets proven right at the end of all three routes, that you don't have to just embody what Nohr and Hoshido or even your family wants from you; just remain authentically yourself and refuse to back down, and others will start to respect your resolve and put their faith and trust in your actions.

I just think that's dope!

[borzoilover69]

do you have any posts that kinda expand on jake as a character? i want to like him in theory, but i just dont Get him, you know? its kinda like that with me for all the alphas but its the most for jake.

Oh my gosh yes!! Yes i do!! Heres some i recommend rather than me typing at length points more articulately said before or by someone else. Please please PLEAAASE message me again after you’ve read some of these and tell me if your opinions changed and what you think you get abt him!!

Jake English writing guide - expansion on his mannerisms. : a rhetoric of shit hes said that made me side eye him.

Jake english: a fandom analysis : long discussion i had with two friends abt jake

Facade, dirk and jake: small but to the point

Jake english is a jackass, not an infant.

Why tony artreactor likes jake

Harlenglishes: “when you fuck up its ok! if i fuck up its the worst thing in the entire world.”

Not required but recommended:

His ass was not being serious with these comments man. : the caliborn jake convo is my fave out of these.

Alpha kids and why i like them : personal opinion alert

Other than that i asked my friend @tipsygnostalgy their opinion on jake and they gave these wise words (roughly paraphrased)

“for me jakes appeal is fundamentally about whether humanity can overcome their own insecurities in terms of engagement with others and grow to accept true love in this essay ill be pushing him into the neongenesisangelion shinji ikari role and analyzing him thr—

Kidding, but listen. The first sentence is the crux of it. He constructs personas (believing in himself but the facade version of it) and relies on hope ketamine (believing in others) because its easier to do than to confronting the reality that he doesnt know who he is or whether he likes that person at all. This doesnt mean he lacks a self; he cant fully break but he cant fully give either. he exists in this weird limbo state where he chooses neither to be completely passive (actually letting someone walk all over him) nor completely active (refusing it outright) demonstrated best by the way in which he "breaks up" with dirk i.e. he doesnt.

He doesnt like the status quo but also doesnt believe in himself to fix it proper and i think that signifies how a lot of people make decisions when youre in this weird passive middle area. the world fucking sucks but what can you do about it, youre just one guy. No business knowing how to do that. On the other hand the way he plays people should be studied.

the jane crocker patented question of "Does he know?" is what he asks himself every night and its so utterly interesting that hes not sure of the answer”

[epickiya722]

Damn, look just how devastated the entire city is during AM flashback, even those giant spikes probably left over from a huge battle that are just left there since there is definitely not resources or people brave enough to try and remove them. One thing is being told that the time of AFO reign of terror was awful to live in, and another is seeing it. And this is probably just the accepted status quo for everyone living at that time.

Just by this conversation alone...

Yeah, Nana and All Might lived in a time of terror that a quirkless middle schooler felt that he should take up a role of protecting people and become a symbol of peace.

Even Nana's attitude here comes off that she has accepted that things will be like this seemingly forever. She fights, she is a hero, but even here she seems sorrowful and hopeless.

Both have accepted that they're living in a time of terror, both are used to living in this time. It's even more so a cruel reality given that they lost their families to this.

However, one is hopeful. And in doing so, Toshinori kinda became that light in Nana's life. This is this first meeting. And with the scenes we seen before when Toshinori talks about her, piecing it together we can figure that Nana started to be more optimistic about the future and believing in him to be a great hero, just as Toshinori does when it comes to Izuku.

[canary-song]

Due to what little on-screen interactions we see between Noir Peter (Pete) and Peni in ITSV, it's no surprise that a lot of people have agreed upon the popular fanon of them being a sort of father-daughter duo (or, for those who subscribe a bit more to Pete being younger due to the comics, a sibling-like relationship). It's cute so I support it, but it got me thinking about the two in comparison to eachother, specifically in terms of corrupt systems and how they're handled in their stories. I think the two have a bit more a contrast than just the surface level stuff, so let's look into it!

(Essay + comic panel evidence beneath the cut)

From the very start of Peni's (unfortunately short) comics, she's shown as very resigned to her fate - when brought in to discuss her father and her future "career" in the SP//DR program, she's upfront and blunt; My father is dead, and I'm the only one who can replace him, so I will. It's a foregone conclusion, and one she doesn't shy away from.

Furthermore, even though we see how, throughout the comics, she's basically given no life beyond her work, and even her school hours are eaten into, she's told again and again that all of this cost means something.

She has to sacrifice everything, because there's no other choice. Her own Guardians, her Uncle Ben and Aunt May, work for the very organization that her father did, and persist to remind her of the importance of the job, even if they do try to remind her that she can't handle this alone. Very telling, when faced with threats to the multiverse, she briefly asks her Uncle Ben if she should stay with him, only for him to tell her to go.

Duty calls.

This isn't the point of this, but of course she joined Spider HQ and went along with what Miguel was telling her - she's grown up surrounded by very like-minded, sacrifice-willing adults. Of course she has to do this. What other option is there?

On the other end, Pete is quite the opposite of Peni's story. Yes, 100%, like all Spiderpeople, there's the element of responsibility, that looming recognition that not doing what you can gets people hurt, but while Peni's story is set up so that she's fighting for her system of authority, Pete is unsurprisingly against his. At any point that he can, even pre-spiderbite, he's picking fights and trying to fix things. He's so set in his beliefs and outspoken that he makes his own mentor question his actions, constantly in pursuit of a better world.

It's the responsibility of the people to give a shit, and Pete cares so much that it drives him a bit mad, I think.

Where Peni is told that this is the way things work, Pete is demanding that it change, asking questions. Peni was raised to accept her responsibility, whereas Pete was raised to fight against the expected status quo.

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THEIR RESPECTIVE BENS.

I'll try keeping this fragment of a thought short because we're already clocking in 6 paragraphs pre-edits and I need to feed the dogs their dinner soon, but the TLDR is that Uncle Ben is the last surviving legal Guardian of Peni, and though distant, he tries his best to support her while she's in the SP//DR program. Pete's Uncle Ben is, by no such surprise, dead, but specifically, he was a WWI veteran, decorated but guilty.

Uncle Ben is, in the Noir comics, yet another symbol of how doing what you're told can haunt you. He was very vocally against the war machine he was a part of, while Peni's Ben has known nothing else but his work.

This is how completely dead opposite they are in so many regards. They contrast eachother!! It's really interesting! Honestly, I could see Pete getting into an argument with Peni's Ben over how she's been treated, even if it probably wouldn't go well. He cares too much to keep his mouth shut, often.