#i miiiight be biased

[frozenhi-chews]

I freaking love his sprites in his fight. Hoooooly crap it's so pretty. The way he moves, his expressions, what he says. HOOOO I love it. I love it all. He also looks so HOLDABLE here. I wanna pick him up and hold him. Pleas. Pls lemmie hold him <3

[jewishvitya]

hi riki! this is a bizarre question ngl, but im wondering if you could please tell me about why you are anti-Zionist? Since i have FRESHLY (last month!! Woohoo!!) become bat mitzvah, and I’m not going to beit Sefer every week now, I’m starting to realize that what I was told about Israel and zionism miiiight be innacurate. Please feel free not to, but I would personally feel more comfortable hearing about Antizionism from somebody who is for sure not hiding any antisemitic biases. Thanks and I hope it’s not a bother!

Mazal tov!

I was debating if I should reply to this and how. You're only one year older than my son and I never considered talking about this with a kid other than my own children. But if you're online reading and looking up information about this, I'll just answer the way I would for anyone. Like I said, I don't mind explaining. But I don't have the energy to collect sources for you. I'll do that later if you'd like. For now it'll be a bit of a rant.

Basically, if you ask different people what zionism is, you'll get different answers. Some people say that zionism is just the acknowledgement of our connection to this land. That's not what I'm going against. I'm not denying that this is our ancestral homeland. I've never known a different home, I grew up near Hebron. Our history means everything to me. So maybe you could create some definition of zionism that I wouldn't be against. But then I'll be against the use of the word because in practice, politically, the movement has been colonialist. And that reality is more important to me. So when I say I'm antizionist, I'm not talking about whatever pretty idea someone might have, I'm talking about things that to me are very concrete.

Zionism uses whatever political terminology is useful to it at the time. Currently, it tries to paint itself as a sort of landback movement, placing us as the indigenous population of this land. This is a distraction. If you mean "indigenous" as "this is where we originated" - both us and Palestinians are indigenous, which makes this term pointless to this situation. If you mean "indigenous" as "a local population facing colonization" - they're indigenous and we're the colonizers. That's the more politically useful distinction.

And the thing is, zionists knew they were colonizers. Ben Gurion was welcomed by the local population and expressed hope that they're nomadic and could be persuaded to leave. Ze'ev Jabotinsky argued that no land has been colonized with the consent of its natives, so we should just take what we want like other occupying forces did. They knew what they were doing. At the time, there wasn't the broad political pushback against colonialism that you see today, so they didn't really hide it. They saw themselves as the colonizing force and the Palestinians as the natives and this distinction had them placing themselves above the Palestinians.

When I was in school, I was made to believe that Palestine was never truly a country and the population here was never a cohesive nation. You might see questions like "Who were the Palestinian prime ministers and presidents? What was the Palestinian coin? What Palestinian wars were there before the creation of Israel?"

These questions tell you nothing other than the fact that Palestine has been under foreign occupation for a very long time. They try to lead you to believe that Palestine and the Palestinian identity are fictional constructs designed to deny us our place in this land.

But Palestinians have their own dialect of Arabic. They have their own varieties of Middle Eastern foods. They have their own clothing, their own embroidery patterns, their own dances. They have a very rich culture that wasn't just made up from nothing within the last century. I still have to battle against cognitive dissonance every time I find something of the sort, because Palestinian culture goes against everything I was taught.

The truth is, the British had no right to occupy Palestine, and they had no right to offer it to us. If we pretend there was no population that was wronged when we took Israel, we can be "the good guys" with Palestinians being a sinister plot to ruin us. This turns normal families, normal people, into a conspiracy made to hurt us. We're not fighting a military force - every Palestinian person is a threat to our legitimacy. Israelis don't even really use the term "Palestinians" - they're just Arabs, their individual identity is stripped from them. We pretend that they belong to other countries around us.

Israeli propaganda will tell you that we only ever act in self defense. It's in the name of our military, it's called a defense force. Israel boasts that it has the only ethical military in the world. The only defensive one. But like I said, we define threats very broadly. And we whitewash a lot of history. I was taught in school all our fighting was defensive - and then I spoke to an elderly man and he said "of course we killed whole villages, it was war, that's what you do." Only as an adult I found out about things like the Sabra and Shatila massacre and our involvement in it.

For the existence of Israel as an ethnostate, every Palestinian is a threat. A lot of people are all in favor of Israel, but against the government actions of ethnic cleansing. The truth is, the ethnostate is not sustainable without the ethnic cleansing. You can't accept one and expect it not to lead to the other. An ethnostate is never a justified goal, and that's always been the goal of zionism as a practical movement.

And I know why this exists. We've had two millennia of persecution. Antisemitism is one of the oldest forms of bigotry. And we just experienced an attempt to industrially exterminate us, we lost millions, including from my own family. We want shelter and safety and the ability to defend ourselves. I just can't see that as justification for what we did and continue to do.

You can look up our human rights abuses, but personally, there were moments that hit me. When I saw a whole warehouse of mail intended to reach Gaza, mail that's been kept from them for years, including items like wheelchairs, in such bad conditions that some envelopes got moldy. I still think of the people who spent all that money to get a wheelchair and were prevented mobility because we decided to hold their mail.

I watched the biggest apartment building in Gaza collapse under our bombs and I cried thinking about the people inside, and about the potential survivors and everything they lost.

I watched our people beat up the pallbearers at the funeral of Shireen Abu-Akleh, a Palestinian reporter. They almost dropped the casket from all those beatings. They were no threat. They just carried her. There was no reason to hurt them.

On the news, after Shireen Abu-Akleh died, the description of the Palestinian response to her death was that they're "חוגגים על המוות." The literal translation is that they're celebrating over the death, but that's not what it means. The meaning is that they're exaggerating their pain and their grief. They're acting, pretending, milking the injustice of it for show. And that's a common Israeli narrative, that Palestinians make a big deal out of things and pretend to suffer more just to make us look bad. We've dehumanized them to the point where we don't believe their grief.

And before all of this, growing up, I saw what the "us vs them" mentality caused in children. I grew up in Kiryat Arba and the population there is very strongly zionist. It's a settlement. It's largely Dati Leumi (national religious? I'm not sure how to translate, dati means religious and leumi means national). Over there I saw children as young as six cheerfully talk about joining the military and killing Arabs. I saw a kid throwing chocolate past the electric fence separating us from them, and laughing when a small Palestinian child went looking for that chocolate, calling her a pig. I saw my high school classmates questioning if they should help the family of a six-months-old baby, first demanding to know if the sick infant is Arab.

The Israeli left has a bit of a slogan. הכיבוש משחית. The occupation corrupts. It means that being an oppressive force changes what we are. It ruins us. And I truly believe that. It taints so much about us and our culture, about our compassion and our ability to have solidarity with other humans. Many principles that kept us safe in diaspora are used now to harm gentiles living under our control, and Palestinians suffer most of all.

So these are the reasons I'm antizionist. I hate what we do to Palestinians. I hate what it does to us. And more fundamentally, I'm against colonialism.

[andiree]

GUYS, the cover for Ready or Not was just revealed by SimonTeen! 🤗 I’ve been sitting on this for what feels like millennia, and I’m so excited to finally get to share it with you 💞 And I miiiight be biased, but this is my fave cover yet. It’s really really wild seeing my name up there. TY to Karyn Lee for the direction, my color balancing queen 👑 Pre-order yours today, tell your friends, tell your mom, tell the rando on the subway 🗣️ And read more about Ready or Not and other upcoming titles of Summer 2024 here!

[pub-lius]

What in your opinion makes a good/well written history book? Can you give some examples?

i miiiight have talked about this before like 6 months ago so you might be able to find more info from me on this but idk. to answer this, im just sitting on the floor in front of my bookshelf HEJWBW

So contrary to popular belief, there are just as many factors that go into a non fiction book as a fiction book, and they all have their different styles. to make the comparisons im making, im gonna keep it between Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, Black Flags, Blue Waters by Eric Jay Dolin, Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates by Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger, The Three Lives of James Madison by Noah Feldman, and John Laurens and the American Revolution by Gregory D. Massey and George Washington’s Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz, just referring to them by their author(s)’ last name. these are all books i have on hand that ive fully read and annotated

Most history books will be in a biographical or chronological style, where they retell events relating to a person or period in order, and others will take a more narrative style, like what Kilmeade and Yaeger have done, but this is often used to enhance understanding by not constantly referring back to previous events. neither one of this is better or worse, but they open different opportunities for how the author will broach certain subjects.

this is where we get into the author. just like in fiction, the author’s opinions, biases, and preferences alter the way the book is written, mainly because they will highlight certain information that they personally believe is important, and their historical reasoning will reflect their personal biases.

the two authors that i think are most different in this respect are Feldman and Chernow. as we all know, i really don’t like Chernow, for the primary reason that his evidence is contradictory and his theories tend to be misogynistic. the contradictions in his book make it hard to take anything he says at face value and it eliminates all chance of his book being easy to read, along with the fact that he is very wordy.

when it comes to Feldman, his biography of James Madison is a lot shorter than anything Chernow has ever touched with a pen, even though Madison lived a great deal longer than Hamilton. this is because Feldman utilizes brevity more in his writing. the thesis of his book is in the title: that Madison��s life can be broken down into three sections, and he spends the book proving that while also describing his life. this book is therefore more academically reliable, but also easier to read and more trustworthy. he also uses sources for each one of his claims and chernow just pulls things out of his ass but thats neither here nor there.

speaking of sources, when you’re buying a book, flip through the index and see if they have both primary and secondary sources listed. they almost always do, but it’s important to make sure. don’t trust a book with no primary sources. there also should be a LARGE index, like enough that when you separate it from the rest of the book you’re like “oh! i dont have as much to read as i thought i did!” not only does this give you hope that you might have a life outside of this book, it shows that the book has been thoroughly and adequately researched

another factor is how much information is in the book. this has less to do with how long it is and more about the subject matter along with the length. for example, Dolin’s book is about pirates, which are largely very obscure historical figures, so you can infer that the book will be less about the individuals and more about the time period, being the Golden Age of Priacy. and it is! and there’s nothing wrong with that, its just going to give you less information on the individuals.

now when it comes to a book like Massey’s, it seems like an adequate length for a biography of one person. however i think a larger issue with Massey’s book is that he doesn’t give you the full picture of a lot of things, and that is my biggest gripe with this book. he doesn’t give the reader a lot of wiggle room when it comes to making their own theories, because he tends to state his opinion first and give minimal evidence afterwards.

im always on here ranting and raving about how good of a job Lefkowitz did, but he doesn’t really fit the criteria ive mentioned here. his book isn’t in formal writing (which isn’t a requirement but i prefer it), he leaves out a lot of details, and his book is pretty lengthy. however i think he can really be praised for just easiness to read. the truth is, history is boring, and its hard to find authors who don’t make it worse. Lefkowiz’s book is well sourced and well written and does give a really good picture of the time period and a good starting point for further research, and that is how you become my favorite book and my most frequent recommendation

its always gonna depend on your personal preferences and biases. studying history isn’t about getting rid of your biases, and more of using them as a tool or at the very least factoring them into your research. my biggest tip: just keep reading! find what you like and what you don’t bc im still doing that. get nitpicky. get funky with it. GO TO THE LIBRARY‼️

and remember kids, Ron Chernow meets his maker when he encounters me in the Denny’s Parking lot, bare fisted and ready to throw down. you can’t outrun destiny, Ron.

(for legal reasons, that’s a joke)

[snakes-on-skates]

@shippin-it-faster-than-fedex asked me to do bill :D

i miiiight be biased about the screen time one. bUT I WOULDVE LIKED TO SEE HIM MORE OKAY.....

wasted potential + works better as part of a dynamic because him and mabel are so INTERESTING i wanna see them interact soooo much more!!! also i think he shouldve been a little sillier. like the deleted dreamscaperers scene. he was so much sillier. we were robbed fr

the bottom right corner is mostly a joke hes done so much bad shit obviously but i do talk about him like that a lot so i think i get a pass for it

and yeah i project onto him a lot. ooo autism 👻

[brownhairedbookworm]

“True, but I’d move to Maldia if you wanted to move there. It’s a helluva lot better than Japanifornia, I gotta be honest. Then again, I miiiight be biased”

"Beach hater~"

[seyaryminamoto]

From what I remember in your story, even taking Iroh's initial biases into account I thought part of his intense hostility leading up to his report to Ozai was that he was truly convinced that Azula's true nature was either no better or even significantly worse than Ozai's due to the Iroh's suspicions arc. Azula herself told Sokka she was worried that by throwing him of the trail of their relationship that she may have brought the worst out of him. Honestly this was probably my favorite exploration of their conflict, because if they were truly able to trust each other and talk they could have avoided so much pain and trouble, but both of them over the course of the story had developed genuine and/or biased reasons not to trust one another and viewed themselves as doing the right thing despite their actions ultimately resulting in the worst outcome. Azula was trying to prevent a known adversary from having ammunition to ruin their lives and future plans, and Iroh believed that he was essentially hindering the fire nation by turning what he thought were essentially two Evil Ozais with a good relationship with one another into enemies. I can't lie that I'm not slightly disappointed that in the latest chapter that this aspect of their conflict wasn't brought up more explicitly in the conversation with Zuko when Iroh was talking about his biases. Was I personally thinking that the dynamic was more significant than it actually was or is that dynamic being saved for a future conversation Iroh may have with Sokka and Azula?

Uuuuuh, as for the last question... I don't really know if I'll bring it up some more since I do think I've had Iroh acknowledge why and how he fucked up in that respect in the past + exteriorized that if Azula had acted differently he might just have done it too? Am I crazy for thinking so? Did I write that or didn't I? That's a complicated game to play when you're almost at 5 million words of a story... 🤣

Azula and Iroh miiiight have one more conversation in the future and maybe this will come up there, but I haven't written it yet so I won't make any promises on that front. Admittedly, I don't expect their future encounter to be particularly fruitful. Iroh is 100% genuine in what he has understood and learned, though, that can't be denied and I always have hoped to portray him not as a super wicked villain but as a character who thinks he understands far more than he actually does, with motivations that push him into making mistakes he very much comes to regret.

This being said, the Azula-Iroh and Zuko-Ozai parallels in this story are and always have been 100% intentional. Those two tugs-of-war have been going on forever, and the crux of them was very much the fact that Azula and Iroh distrusted and second-guessed and suspected each other soooo much... because they have similar natures, similar thought processes, and they're both intellectual, suspicious, hiding what's REALLY going on underneath the surface, and immediately wary when they recognize all those traits in each other too. Likewise, Zuko and Ozai have some REALLY ugly parallels and one of those parallels, already given away by the chapter you sent this ask over, is going to be the driving force of the conflict between those two, much as a similar thing was the driving force between Iroh and Azula, in its own way: the more they fight to push the other away, the harder they reject the other, the more they end up embodying the flaws they see in that other person, to an extent where they could do absolutely TERRIBLE things just out of wanting to push the other one as far away as possible.

So yeah, the point was never for Iroh to feel like some sadistic mustache-twirling villain who wanted Azula to suffer just for shits and giggles. He had his reasons to do what he did. Doesn't mean he was right. Doesn't mean he should've done it. What it means is it made sense in his head due to his biases, the information he had at hand at the moment, and the particularly awful relationship he had with Azula. Likewise, Azula's rejection of Iroh back in "Iroh's suspicions" caused her uncertainty and anguish because she KNEW she had taken it too far. She was afraid of the consequences. A part of her KNEW that if she acted differently, there was a chance, however slim, that Iroh might not have made the choice he did. And that's why this is such a messed up situation! :')

Ultimately, I want my characters to have motivations that just... add up. That can be traced. That, upon looking at their actions and choices, anyone can go "oh yeah, this is why they did whatever they did". This is good when it comes to establishing ultimate goals, and it's also good when you want to put characters to the test: how far are they willing to go, what are they ready to do to achieve whatever they're trying to achieve? How much are they willing to sacrifice for it? And the answers to those questions can be VERY extreme and painful. Just so, we can find characters who decide to back down and simply surrender over their goals when they realize that there are other things that matter more. But it's a manner of game a writer plays when it comes to gauging and figuring out what a character wants vs. needs, what a character will fight for and what it will take for them to surrender, and so on. Fundamentally, that's how I built up Iroh and Azula's chaotic dynamic. Whatever comes from that in the future, ultimately, their biggest problem may just be that they were just too smart for their own good, tried to outsmart each other a little too much, and never allowed themselves to just... accept each other properly. They came close to it once, yes! But... they failed. And it's depressing as hell, but complicated characters will always be challenging this way...

[whumpshaped]

YEAH I CAN’T FIND THAT TAG ON YOUR BLOG EITHER..... big sad

back to helle and pretties in their hair i. miiiight draw that at one point but only if i have time 🙏🙏 one thing’s for sure though i am definitely one of those humans in the helle harem

- 🎉

Helle perks up immediately. "Oh, a portrait of yours truly? That would be quite lovely, I have not seen this face since the 1730s. Besides, I am a rather talented model."

Be careful, they're prone to a bit of favouritism. If you were to give them such an offering, there's no telling just how biased they may become towards you. And you wouldn't want that, would you? All that pressure that comes with being the chosen one? No, surely not.

[sanguine-salvation]

[via bleedinghearth] 🗣 TEDDY BOY

[ Send '🗣' + a character to hear the mun's opinion about that character. - ACCEPTING ]

TEDDYYY.

Oh Teddy, I have known him for a short time and have not yet had the joy of playing much with him, but in the short time I have, he's become a really reaLLY fun presence on my dash.

First off, I am a sucker for dragons. I'll admit it. I dunno if my giant monster dragon OC that I've had for two decades, or the fact that my first tattoo I promised baby!Draig I'd get is going to be Spyro, made it obvious that I miiiight be a little biased, BUT it's not just that.

I love his personality and sense of morals. Something about very powerful creatures, ESPECIALLY THE DRACONICALLY INCLINED, who are generally peaceful and kind and wanting to avoid suffering just really gets me in the heart, y'know? He's such a lovely presence, he's got mischief and fun and a big heart, too. I haven't gotten deep into his lore, but just my few interactions so far? I love how he bounces off Viktor. These two are going to be a riot, no matter what direction their relationship goes, for real. But I love that despite Viktor being a little freak, Teddy believed them and was right there to help when a mutual ally was in danger.

Man, I'd read a book about this man. I'd read a whole series of books about this man. I'd watch the inevitably mediocre Netflix TV adaptation of the books about this man and still love it.

For real, just scrolling through his verse list alone is a wILD RIDE, and I cannot wait to read and interact more. Please at the very least go check out this big gentle man, his stories so far are a delight.

[pedropascalito]

Aries and Pisces tend to be very different, it's true, but he's also deeply emotional, mature and empathetic too. I suspect he may have Pisces somewhere on his birth chart.

I mean, Pisces are pretty awesome, so I can believe he might have a little Pisces in him 😁. (I miiiight be biased.)

[piers-official]

유: Who was your first muse?

♚: Do you and your muse get along?

((@underground-boss-clay ))

// My VERY first muse I RPed on tumblr was from a bit of niche fandom. There's a music video from Fall Out Boy called "America's Suitehearts", and I roleplayed the drummer Andy's, character 'Donnie the Catcher'. He wore lots of green, played sports and loved to garden! He still holds a soft spot in my heart, and I believe his blog is still up, although it's been like... 10 years now? Here's what he looks like:

I still love the fandom and reblog stuff from it on my main blog~

//I think Piers and I would get along! We're both a part of the punk scene and pretty easygoing in attitude. But I miiiight be biased because I have a crush on Piers already lmao

[ankhisms]

going to be very interesting at the script read thru on monday because ok actually im gonna ramble under a readmore about this

disclaimer yet again if youre not aware this is unpaid community theater i am NOT a scab

anyway when my director from the last play i was in called me to offer me the understudy roles i got a little bit of hints that this show miiiight end up being a little rocky so i guess well see how it goes. for context she is not the director of the show shes the producer where shes doing all the props and sets and im gonna be helping her with that, shes kind of like an assistant director offering advice to the director but she doesnt actually have any directoral control over the show yknow. she sounded VERY uncertain about the directors casting choices, she said the director is a good director but he hasnt directed in like 10 years and that he made rash choices about his casting where he was basing his decisions on who he saw first and she literally said that he based one casting choice just on how he liked someones haircut for a role rather than yknow. their actual performance. she said that she had really advocated for me and encouraged him to cast me which is really sweet of her and i really really appreciate her support but im also kind of like uh oh! uh oh! that casting doesnt sound great! which i mentioned this before but it feels especially like. hmmmm when the show specifically has an entire note from the playwright about the issues of biases and bigotry in casting in theater and film and encouraging people casting the play to cast a wide range of actors and not just cast conventionally attractive white able bodied cishet actors yknow. so to hear that the director was casting people entirely on their appearance feels very ironic. but i guess well see.

also from what she said when talking to me it seemed like the director wasnt even going to have understudies until she went hey you should really have understudies which kind of makes it seem like shes not sure how many of the people cast are going to be reliable or might drop out of the play. but again. I GUESS WELL SEE! all i can do is just know my lines and blocking of my 3 understudy roles and help with the props as much as i can

[revvethasmythh]

changeling (which miiiight be obvious but please feel free to continue to campaign lolol) and wizard (because I am who I am) for the cr ask game!

changeling: who is your favorite campaign 2 character?

Okay, I know this seems obvious, but HERE'S THE THING. Few of you who follow me these days probably know this, but I have almost always said my favorite c2 character is Caleb, actually. Back in the yonder years (idk, like, 2020), this was fully a Caleb stan blog. Somewhere along the way I think I just got annoyed with how little attention Veth got (especially compared to how many Caleb stans there are out there) and, like, ended up changing MY OWN opinion on who my favorite character was by talking about her so much. It's only quite recently I would probably say Veth has topped my M9 favorite character list.

That said, yeah, of course it's Veth and RIP Pumat but she's better than you. #VETHSWEEP

wizard: what is your favorite party name?

Am I biased to always choose the Mighty Nein? Yes, of course I am, but also I DO really like their name. It's got a nice ring to it, feels strong, but not as pretentiously Latin as Vox's (shoutout to the S.H.I.T.S. tho because THAT'S a grade A party name). Bells Hells cannot be a favorite but only because I have accidentally misspelled it due to the sheer quantity of Ls in it so many time that all my tags are fucked

Ask me some Critical Role questions!

[unbreakable-red-riot]

So I have a VERY strong opinion about what Hogwarts house Kirishima would be in, but before I share my opinion, I wanna hear you guys’ thoughts!

[anarchy-and-piglins]

Btw /genq are you a c!dream apologist?

This was a really weird question to get like dsjdhhghfjq what have I possibly posted to give you that impression?? I don’t feel like I post about Dream all that much (unless I’m writing meta about Techno and Dream’s relationship). ANYWAY:

Short answer: no

Long answer: I hate the term apologist with a burning passion and do not trust people who use it unironically because thinking any character could be held to a standard where all their actions are automatically apologized because you like them is super sus. Everybody does good and bad things.

(Using the term jokingly is another matter. I will jokingly claim I’m an emduo apologist because it’s funny and because I love Phil and Techno an unreasonable amount, they’re allowed some war crimes as a treat uwu When it comes to serious meta though, I know they both have flaws and have done things that are Wrong)

I miiiight consider myself a c!Dream sympathizer only in some regards. I’m pretty open about my views on the prison and my belief how no crime justifies violation of basic human rights. What happened in there was just generally fucked up, period. I’m also not a big fan of portraying c!Dream as doing bad things ‘for the lols’ or because he’s ‘just evil’, though that has less to do with my own feelings about his character and more about how this is something directly contradicted both by the lore and the meta. c!Dream has very strong internal motivations for why he commits the atrocities he does, which have convinced him they’re for the nebulous ‘Greater Good’. And that’s what makes him an interesting villain, so I don’t like to see that reduced to ‘c!Dream evil abuser because evil’.

Though the greatest bottom line is I don’t really care too much for c!Dream either way beyond his interactions with Techno because I’m biased lmao ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[leogichidaa]

I am rather attached to the - what I think is fanon - that the Blacks had French roots, and they had a place in Paris they liked to go to periodically. In my outline for my own idea of Regulus surviving the cave, he manages to first arrive at his family's apartments but eventually is chased (by Death Eaters, I thought there'd probably be rumors that would be investigated about Regulus being alive/dead), and he eventually arrives in the south of France. (1)

I'm biased because I find the Cote D'Azure a drop dead gorgeous place to be and I adore the architecture of Southern France, but I then dropped him in Avignon for a few years. Afterwards, he travels through a number of places both to get rid of the dark mark (he ends up having to chop off his forearm, and get it replaced with a wizard metal prosthetic), and to find material to destroy a horcrux with (long story, but he finds out Kreacher is struggling to destroy the locket after the war).

I thought about placing him right on the southern coast (like Nice), but I realized he miiiight want to stay a little farther inland.

Ahhhhh I'm glad I didn't answer that first ask with NOT FRANCE then because I almost did 😂😂

I think the French roots fanon stems from the fact that their family motto is French? And I'm...kind of resistant to it, personally. But I also know nothing about France and I've never been anywhere but the US and Canada. I'm just a boring contrarian.

Re: rumors about him being alive. I would have been convinced he was alive. No body? Just up and disappears and no one knows what happened? It totally makes sense that esp the Death Eaters, who know that they didn't kill him, would be sus that he was still alive.