#individual discomfort is not a moral issue

[zo1nkss]

Venty slightly ranty thoughts in tags about some takes I've seen on twitter if u don't want to see that

[nat20composure]

Astarion and Agency- The Necessity of Discomfort to Self Discovery and the Infantilization of Victims

Minor Astarion discourse ahead that mentions the treatment of SA victims post-abuse:

I want to open this post up just with like. The statement that I don't think there is a correct way to enjoy media and that I LOVE to see individual head cannons and takes on characters in media. I think that is also, to a degree, an integral part of video games because of how unique the experience of playing a game will be to every person who plays it. But it has been making me feel so incredibly sad looking through fan content, art, or discourse for BG3 specifically because of how many people have taken the route of infantilizing Astarion.

I understand the instinct to shield or protect an individual that you love and care for. I also understand that because of the nature of the things that Astarion goes through, a lot of people also feel very deep emotional stakes in him. I'm one of the many fans of the character who is a victim of SA and CSA, I really do get it. That is also why for me personally it is so demoralizing to watch so many people treat him like he is a child who cannot make his own decisions or stand up for himself. Part of that frustration stems from it feeling like a media literacy issue, and the other part of that sense of defeat is just because it feels indicative of a broader attitude that people seem to hold towards victims of abuse, particularly those who are victims of SA.

To explain what I mean by people infantilizing him: I see so many people refuse to allow him the opportunity to be hurt, or to feel uncomfortable. They see this character who has been through an immensely horrible and traumatic experience, and their instinct is to try and shield him from anything else that has the potential to upset him. I get that the people who want that aren't doing it with malicious intent, but frankly it is not really...Helpful? To try and prevent victims from Experiencing Discomfort tm. I also think it kind of disregards the entire thesis of Astarion's character and arc.

When you go through something that robs you of your selfhood and agency, the world can become a crushingly terrifying place. In Astarion, that fear presents itself in a desperation for power, control, and at the core of both of these desires- Safety. One thing the game is clear about is that he has a right to kill his abuser. He has a right to escape his situation. A lot of Astarion's personal arc is centered around being able to finally do that. But the game doesn't just leave it off at getting him to safety. So much of it is also about him needing to take responsibility for himself and his actions, with needing to learn who he as a person is.

The inclusion of the Gur children and Sebastian as characters is a good example of ways in which the game gives Astarion the opportunity to take responsibility. I think that if the intention of the arc was meant to be that "Astarion should never ever have to deal with being afraid or uncomfortable again", then the Ascended arc wouldn't Come with such heavy moral ramifications, like sacrificing the other people just like him, killing the victims he lured in, literal child murder. The game infers that he doesn't deserve to die because of the things he Needed to do to survive, but it also makes it very clear that there is a difference between addressing an Active Threat and using your fear as an excuse to hurt others. Breaking that cycle of abuse when he finally gets the chance to is what separates Spawn Astarion from Cazador.

Taking responsibility for himself, and letting himself sit in the discomfort of vulnerability ultimately ends up being a thing that he is very proud of and cherishes. If you tell him you will make sure nothing like that ever again he himself says that he doesn't want you to be his protector. And so it blows my mind when people go into all of these discussions about Astarion with this...Weird moral high ground for never, ever making or letting him make choices that might hurt him?

I see this the most when it comes to discussions about the possible polyamorous relationship with Halsin and the interaction with the drow twins in the brothel. So many people are just...outright angry? At other people engaging with either of those options? And I feel like that anger is one) rooted in the projection of their Own feelings on non-monogamy and what a victim of SA can or cannot look like. and two) Relies on undermining the agency that Astarion BEGS you for at every turn.

When it comes to the drow twins, the game adapts Astarion's response to them based on where he is in his own personal development (a really cool thing imo). Obviously, if he still doesn't feel good or safe about engaging with sex he declines and says you can feel free, though he hopes you aren't just doing it because he hasn't had sex with you. I think this makes sense: He's just gotten out of a situation where his Safety and worth were directly tied to him having sex. I imagine he feels afraid that not wanting to have sex with you makes him replaceable or inadequate because at this point in the game, he feels like that's all he has to offer. The interaction is relatively the same if you ask him for a poly amorous relationship with Halsin: He just asks you to reassure him that you aren't only doing it because he hasn't had sex with you, and then tells you he isn't worried about it otherwise.

A lot of people have taken the expression of that insecurity in combination with him still allowing you to go forward and do these things as him just "sucking it up" because he's afraid of losing you. (I am aware Shadowheart says he wouldn't be able to handle it when you ask her if you can date both of them- But keep in mind, Astarion says she wouldn't be able to either, and THAT obviously isn't true of her. For the purposes of this discussion I'm only including interactions with Astarion as a judgement of his character.) I understand that concern, but I feel this take disregards so many other points of dialogue, and is also continually rooted in the baseline vilification of discomfort.

To further go into it, the way that he speaks about both of these interactions changes significantly if you speak to him about it once he is completely free from Cazador, and has had time to allow himself to start reconnecting with himself and his sexuality on his terms. He has absolutely No reservations about an open or poly relationship with Halsin, and says he trusts that things will be ok because he one) feels secure in Your relationship and two) Knows Halsin is experienced and trusts him to not be a messy bitch about it.

I think that shift, in combination with the in game explanation of why he isn't ok with being in that sort of relationship with the other Origin Characters (for Lae'zel and Wyll, he says they'd never agree to that. For Shadowheart, he says she's not experienced with open relationships and that he doesn't think it'd work out. For Karlach, that it would break her heart. And for Gale, he says you need standards.) is a pretty good indicator that he doesn't actually care about polyamory or monogamy. I think the vilification of that choice relies on you picking and choosing when you do or do not believe Astarion or just outright not liking non-monogamy in the first place. This interaction has more to do with the player's choice and comfort level, and so is not as important to the broader discussion I am trying to have in this post.

The interaction that is more pertinent to not Allowing him to make decisions is, I think, the drow twins. If you interact with the drow twins after the completion of the Cazador questline, he is outright giddy at the prospect of interacting with the Drow twins. Specifically stating that he is excited to see how he likes these sorts of things now that he's free.

NOW- I do NOT think that he enjoys the act. The game makes that abundantly clear, and I'm not arguing that he has a great time. He obviously does not, and dissociates during it. That being said, allowing this interaction to happen does not make a player evil or selfish. You are not playing the hero if you decide to moderate his choices just because you do not think he is ready for it. Once again, no one is evil for Not doing it either, and I am not saying anybody has to want to. I am just saying that treating this choice like it is an evil choice to make relies on completely disregarding what He wants to do.

Astarion says so many times in the game that he is anxious about finally having the freedom to find out what he wants to do, and I think that his excitement for the drow twin exchange is one of the opportunities the game gives him to make a choice. He makes that choice- And it sucks for him. He doesn't enjoy the act, and having done it he would be able to move forward knowing that. I think it's really cool and important that the game represents that facet of recovering as a victim. While you are trying to renavigate who you are, you are going to make a million new choices you never had before. And sometimes those choices are going to suck ass. It would be a different matter if he knew these things would hurt him and went ahead and did them anyway. But so many people expect him to move forward avoiding even the Potential of being hurt, and I think that is extremely reductive of his arc and who he is.

Beyond the matter of interpersonal relationships, the choice between Ascending or not Ascending Astarion is not a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is a choice between his fear and his humanity. Between letting his trauma and his fear define him for the rest of his immortal life, and allowing him the vulnerability of deciding who he is when he isn't running from the world. When he's willing to listen to the parts of himself that want to do right, that wants meaningful connection, that wants to be proud of himself. That wants to meet himself. To confront who he is when someone else isn't deciding that for him.

Astarion as a character is extremely ambitious, inquisitive, and adventurous, three traits that only become more and more evident as he breaks free from letting his own fear dictate how he lives his life. I don't understand how so many people can see him and want to take the core of his character away from him, when he spends the entire game fighting desperately to take it back.

Victims are not casts of the abuse they have gone through. Their shapes may be changed by the hands of others, they may have to relearn how to be the person they want to be. But they are not broken or irreparable or fragile. They do not need to be freed from the grip of one person to be held tight in the grip of another. It is so fucking unfair and self-important to think that your hands will be the ones that fix them. That your hands know better than theirs. I think the kindest thing you can do for a person is to trust them with themselves, and to listen when they tell you who they are and what they want. Please listen to the voices that have only just learned to speak. It is the only way they can get better at doing it.

[eelfuneral]

To all my friends with Moral OCD/Scrupulosity: people do not mean “inundate yourself with the most graphic news videos you can find for all hours of the day” when they say “don’t look away” in the context of issues like war, genocide, and disasters, but rather “be aware of what’s going on and do what you can, even if it’s something small”. “Being aware” means checking in on an issue and potential ways that people can help those affected, not forcing yourself to compulsively watch as many videos of people dying as you can. Doing this is, in fact, a compulsion, and your brain will keep pushing you to watch more graphic death videos. Digital self-harm helps no one, and you don’t have to absorb every instance of individual suffering to have an awareness of it being an ongoing problem. Hell, you can take a break from checking the news for a bit if you find yourself spiraling and you can always catch up on it again once you are in the headspace to do so. Understanding how dire a situation is can be very important, but you can’t remove suffering and death from the world by compulsively looking at it. Your brain is lying to you, and it is much more productive to look for little ways that you can help people.

If you donate money to NGOs, know that every cent counts. If you are not financially well off and can only donate a small amount, that is still a wonderful thing. Forcing yourself into a place of financial risk (like risking eviction or forgoing food or medical care) to feel like you’re “really” donating “enough” is an OCD compulsion. OCD is taking advantage of the discomfort and sorrow that we feel when something big and horrific is happening and there is little that we can do, and we have to sit with some of that discomfort and avoid falling into patterns of self-harm like what I described above in an attempt to escape from it. If you’re feeling hopeless and not caring for yourself, then you can’t help people at all! No one can single-handedly save the world, but we can do little things to make it that much less unpleasant.

Be aware and be helpful, but take care of yourself, too.

[meanbossart]

I finally thought of a question! What does your Astarion think of all that's happened to him, now that it's all Over, and what does Drow think about what he knows about Astarion? Does he ever contemplate and compare, does he have passing thoughts like "Oh yeah, he told me this" brought on by nothing in particular? If Drow or Shadowheart were to bring it up either when drinking, or after a heated moment, what would happen?

Thank you so much for your art and your words! Your handle on Drow made me really crack open my Tav like a nut

AND WHAT A GOOD QUESTION IT IS.

(I use some dialogue excerpts from for A Novel Experience here to illustrate my points that some might consider to be spoilery, I don't think it's stuff that would affect one's reading enjoyment too much. Still, just figured I would mention it for anyone who minds it.)

In regards to Astarion, it is understandably complicated. I think the way he's found to get by so far is by not dwelling at all in what has happened. He's tried to turn the symbolic new leaf that night in the cemetery and likes to think of himself as not only freed, but a new man open to what life has to offer him and unburdened by his past - when memories rush back, he pushes them away. When something bothers him for reasons that relate to his past experience, he tries to push past the discomfort because he doesn't want to be defined by it. He is fairly self-conscious of being seen as a weakling or a victim, especially when he's constantly confronted by DU drow's utter indifference to his own past.

He has, by all intends and purposes, done well. He understands that he's a grown man who's been given a second chance at un-life by an exceptionally lucky turn of events, he absolutely does not want to waste a second more of his own time by being sullen, broken, or guilt-striken. He thrives for as long as his past doesn't directly confront him - but when it does, the avoidance catches up and he very easily loses his cool.

His feelings regarding the decisions he made underneath Cazador's palace are mostly rigid. He's happy to not have Ascended and content that the spawn were set free, but he does not like to dwell on what their lives may be like moving forward and, if ever discussing it, does so with callousness and indifference, shutting down the conversation before it can begin. While he doesn't bask in the feeling, he does take the smallest bit of pride in the fact that he has sacrificed eternal power for the freedom of thousands - when doubt arises and he's haunted with the could-have-beens, he soothes himself with the fact that his sacrifice had a purpose.

DU drow has no moral quandries with what Astarion did while under Cazador's control or regard for the people he victimized at all, but he dwells constantly on the suffering he's endured. He flip-flops between thinking of Astarion as a perfectly capable individual and someone who is overly sensitive and finicky the moment something upsets him - someone who needs protection. He has a grand hero's complex about him and at times difficulty trusting Astarion's capacity to make his own choices - since he didn't have the opportunity for such a long time. He isn't controlling, but Astarion knows him well enough to read the doubt in his face even when he's quiet about it.

Interestingly enough, this seems to mostly apply to when Astarion's ideas go against his own, or make him feel powerless or unneeded in some way or another. He's perfectly happy to go along with his impulses otherwise - even when they seem to be made in bad judgement.

It also applies to intimacy for a while, with DU drow proceeding to avoid sex even after he's rid of his urge - not only because he's still afraid of his own desires, but also because he doesn't trust Astarion to express his agency during the act.

But that's an issue that they solve fairly quickly (well, ten-chapters-in quickly. sixteen if you only count when they first have sex since the events of the game) , especially as Astarion asserts himself as the more dominant half of the relationship.

I don't think either DU drow or Shadowheart have the nerve to use Astarion's actions while enthralled against him. DU drow because he doesn't care or thinks he's held accountable in any way, and Shadowheart because she knows better. That said, things do come up between him and other characters and then - well. He doesn't deal well with it at all:

[lyinginbedmon]

Oh lordy is there bad things going down across the VTuber space right now so I’m gonna try and unpack them for ease of comprehension.

Real quick: A VTuber is essentially just a regular livestreamer but instead of a facecam they have a custom model (usually made of layered images but also often a full 3D object) that tracks their face and such. Big tiddy anime girl representation to say the least but it’s a very creative space.

Next: Silvervale, Silver for short. Silver is one such big tiddy anime (wolf) girl, who is part of a corporate group of VTubers called VShojo. I probably don’t need to describe much more for the purposes of this post.

Hogwarts Legacy is a video game based in the bigotry-entrenched universe of the Harry Potter franchise by notorious face-of-transphobia Joanne K. Rowling. Since its announcement in 2018, trans individuals and groups have quite rightly highlighted numerous ethical and moral problems with the game ranging from the inherent bigotry of the setting, to the involvement of literal far-right YouTubers in its development, to just the basic stuff like its success greenlighting further instalments all while Rowling pockets royalties to (expressly) further fund her anti-trans projects (which includes her writing Literally being read into record to quash things like the Equality Act).

The general advice, which would be true regardless of your actual thoughts on the game or franchise, was to just not play it. That way Rowling makes less money, fewer future games are made, and nobody gets hurt as a result. You end your day $60 better off that you can spend on some other big game that isn’t basically radioactive.

To say the Video Gamers did not take that advice well would be an understatement, but things get really ugly when a streamer who otherwise professes to creating a calm and friendly atmosphere, who makes claims to being an ally, gives in and plays the Wizard Game. I’m not going to say that people haven’t been harassed for playing it, almost certainly someone has, but I just don’t have the data to be certain that it goes much further than just posting “trans rights” in chat.

Enter Silvervale. Despite half a decade of advance warning that she shouldn’t play this game, she played it anyway. Live on camera. The community she’d fostered for years didn’t take this well either, and the stream ended early amid purported harassment from the chat. Silver wasn’t the first VTuber to play the Wizard Game, but she was one of the first English-speaking ones.

Things could have just quietly ended there, but Silver then returned to streaming with more of the game and a statement that she had been “harassed” by “freaks and degenerates” on Twitter. Not her best choice of words, but the damage was done.

Because of the 5-year leadup to the Wizard Game releasing, the right-wing mob had already noticed the controversy around it and had made Huge investments into buying and promoting the game as well as spewing vitriol against anyone who even slightly suggested that doing so was in poor taste. They naturally then flocked to Silver’s defense and, following her unfortunate description of “marginalised people making their discomfort known as they had declared they would Years in advance” using language straight from 1930s Germany, started directly attacking any streamer who voiced their intent not to play the game however detailed their reasoning.

As a brief aside, there’s some confusion over how Silver’s chat moderation is set up, seemingly blocking such phrases as “trans rights are human rights”. Some say it’s an overzealous automod, others that her moderators are actually blocking the phrases, it’s unclear and not hugely worth focusing on here. But I mention it because it’s one of the common points made as people state their side on this issue.

This has essentially made Silver the face of transphobic bigotry in the VTuber community, whether or not she actually considers herself aligned with such bigots. Multiple smaller and independent trans VTubers have completely stopped streaming because of the bile being spewed at them by people with the likes of #IStandWithSilver in their bios. The overlaps between accounts on social media posting in her defense and numerous far-right hate movements is as undeniable as it is unpleasant to catalogue.

And boy that’s just the foundation of this whole sorry affair.

Another VTuber who is part of the same company as Silver, VShojo, is Apricot (more commonly called Froot). Froot not only decided to vocally not play the Wizard Game, but to post a tweet saying that she would personally donate to UK trans children’s charity Mermaids for every like the tweet received. She added that her brother is trans and she supports him immensely.

So the bigots that leapt to Silver’s defense very predictably started calling Froot a paedophile and child groomer, which is more or less what they label every pro-trans individual ever these days. Froot had to lock replies on her charity post and her post about her brother as a result, though the tweets remain up.

Most recently, a third peer in VShojo called Ironmouse came to Silver’s defense specifically in opposition to the alleged harassment she received which, again, anyone could have seen coming in the last 5 years by googling the Steam page for this game.

And honestly, at this point, whatever actually happened to Silver in that first stream is completely irrelevant because she’s become the rallying cry of people who actively want to exterminate the entire trans community from cradle to grave and literally beyond. And so much of it could be resolved or at least get the wind out of its sails if she took 5 minutes to just apologise for and disavow everything that happened in her name after she decided to keep playing the Wizard Game.

But, and I say this with no disrespect to Silver, I’m not holding my breath.

[madtomedgar]

something i think gets dropped a lot in fandom discussions is the category of stories that both operate within a particular moral framework and are uncomfortable with it. there’s probably a word for this and i’m not articulating this super well but.

i think modern western storytelling, particularly the kind of stories that attract fandom type interactions, either have a morality system that the narrative wholeheartedly agrees with and has set up as “good,” which is being challenged by an outside “evil” (think lotr) or the system is framed as immoral, and our heroes see through that and overthrow the system to establish a reign of “good,” (start wars, original flavor).

And there are other kinds of storytelling around systems of morality. in western lit/media, they usually belong to more serious, high-brow works that don’t work well with fandom. but the kind of framework i’m talking about is one that also shows up in antigone. in that, there is a set way that Creon has to act, as a good ruler. If he doesn’t act this way, he isn’t a good ruler. And there’s a set way that Antigone has to act to be a good sister. And those two goals are at deep odds, so you wind up with Creon doing the right thing but also doing something so deeply wrong, and Antigone doing the wrong thing to do what’s right. And there’s a read here that’s like. Creon was sticking too closely to the letter of the law and therefore couldn’t see what was really right, like Antigone did, and so is a tragic villain. But you can also read them as both being right, and being unable to resolve that.

And in discussions of mdzs/cql, I feel like I see a lot of either people deciding that society and its moral requirements are bad, and the protagonist who rebels against them is good, OR people upholding the societal moral requirements against the protagonist in a way even the story doesn’t. Because what Wei Wuxian does in leaving the Jiang sect and breaking his promise is wrong for the society of the story. But it’s also true that he’s doing the right thing by protecting the Wens, and the problems with his brother are that they can’t resolve the issue of them both being right in incompatible ways.

And like. Taking revenge for your family by killing the entire family of the people who wronged you is socially acceptable, but I don’t think you can say that the story is happy about it. Being a good and obedient child is a social moral requirement, and the story isn’t framing telling your parents who suck to go fuck themselves, or having them fucked to death, as good. Instead it’s wrestling with the question of what happens when your parents abuse that loyalty and affection, or don’t accept it? What the fuck are you supposed to do when you have to both can’t inter a traitor in the city but you have to bury your family honorably? And there isn’t a neat answer!

Like... Wei Wuxian does owe the Jiangs, and also the handling of that debt is disastrous and unfair to everyone. Jin Guangyao is being a very good son, and therefore a very bad man, until he becomes a terrible son and then a good man (as in once he’s out from under his father, he chooses to do things that enhance the common good for no benefit to himself, and puts a stop to the demonic cultivation experiments that used live people, and generally seems to perform the role of a wise and good leader. I’m not saying what he did to his father or the sex workers was good because it wasn’t, though it is fun narratively). Wen Ning is a traitor to the man who took him in and raised him and to his sect, and he’s also a member of that sect with a potential moral obligation to take revenge, and he did the right thing by helping the Jiangs out. But it was also very much the wrong thing.

And so much of this push and pull and discomfort with, but not rejection of, this moral system is bound up in conflicting moral obligations, to parents, to individuals, to sects, to leaders, and what happens when they conflict. But it’s important, I think, that it’s not actually a rejection of these obligations and their weight. Yeah.

[ariaste]

I just finished RUNNING CLOSE TO THE WIND—highly enjoyable, loved the tumblr humor—and also felt totally called out (affectionate, respectful) for being on Kadou's side for a solid half the book. Do you imagine this anxious prince surviving the eventual revolution?

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it!! :) As for anything that happens next, I'll leave that in the hands of the fanfic writers for now! y'all have fun out there, you hear? Godspeed and good luck

(Also, a small reassurance: I wouldn't say the book is calling you out for being on Kadou's side, per se -- the point of RCW and ATOGAI held side by side IS the cognitive dissonance between "this individual truly and passionately cares about doing good for the people under his care" and "there are no ethical billionaires". Both things can be true in fiction as well as in real life, and when we encounter issues of troubling complexity and nuance, it is a great act of mental strength to practice sitting with the discomfort of those shades-of-grey ambiguity and making peace with the lack of a single, perfect, morally pure and clear answer. Pointing out and critiquing systems of injustice does not disqualify us from extending grace and understanding and compassion to a person who exists within those systems through no choice of his own, y'know? So it's not a bad thing to love Kadou. He is very lovable; I love him too.)

[heavens-moonlight]

𝗕𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗥𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦 | 𝗦𝘆𝗻𝗼𝗽𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀

𝟬𝟭 : 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘

Hiding deep affection for someone is one of life’s most difficult games to play: secret glances, hesitant conversations, and heart-pounding moments filled with anticipation.

Or so you thought.

But when a school trip takes a turn for the worse, you and your fellow classmates find yourselves entangled in a chilling mystery under the guise of a mafia game orchestrated by an elusive creator, the stakes for victory become just that much higher.

With tension escalating, friendships, loyalty, and concealed sentiments are put to the test as secrets unravel, forcing everyone to their limits. Faced with the option of life or death, just how far will the desperation of human nature push against the borderlines of morality?

Authors Note: I didn’t think I’d be back to writing for another series in full so soon, but clearly, I have a love for high school-themed horror stories so here we are once again. There is a face claim (Jung Da-Bin) as well as a name (Han Seol-Hwa) for those who don’t like to imagine themselves in place of the main female lead while reading! This is a story where you don't have to watch the show beforehand to understand (as long as you know how the mafia game is played!) Here’s to hoping this will be a fun ride for Night Has Come fans, Kim Jun-Hee enthusiasts, and lovers of green-flag characters ♡

𝐌𝐀𝐈𝐍 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐓

It is necessary to issue a warning regarding the upcoming horror and gore apparent, as this genre can provide an exhilarating and thrilling experience for those who seek it, yet caution is urged in proceeding further for those who wish to avoid it. Viewer discretion is advised when engaging with this work, for content will include the darkest recesses of human nature, graphic violence, visceral descriptions, and unsettling themes such as bloodshed, dismemberment, psychological torment, death, and explicit language that may be disturbing to some readers.

This book is purely a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are entirely products of the author's imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, locals, persons, living or dead, is absolutely coincidental. All credit goes to the creators of Netflix's Night Has Come and the webtoon it's based off of by the same name for the characters, plotline, and overarching flow of events. I do not own anything aside from the creative license of elements that deviate from the original works including, but not limited to, dialogue, characterization, narrative, and reader-insert.

Understand that this fictional narrative does not condone or glorify criminal activities nor any form of violence. The portrayal of mafias and their actions is purely for dramatic effect and storytelling purposes. It is essential to approach this story as a work of fiction that should not be taken as an accurate reflection of real-life situations or individuals. Moreover, the depiction of high school characters should not be misconstrued as an endorsement or encouragement of any behavior that may create fear, discomfort, or harm among individuals in educational settings.

As is such, readers are advised to engage with this story responsibly, keeping in mind its intended entertainment value while differentiating between fiction and reality.

PLEASE DO NOT PLAGIARIZE, TRANSLATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR UPLOAD MY WORK ELSEWHERE AND CLAIM IT UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME.

𝟬𝟭 : 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘

[deluxewhump]

This isn’t about any one thing specifically, but in my 4+ years here and 3 million years in fanfiction circles it’s something I’ve thought about more than once regarding dark topics in fiction and harassment (and if you're sick to death of the subject, i feel you, skip the read more, it’s just my opinions)

I try to imagine what I would think if I was someone who anonymously (or not anonymously) harasses and tries to censor writers on the internet. I assume I would feel pretty righteous. And if you’ve ever felt righteous you’ll likely agree, it feels really good. I wouldn’t do something like that if I didn’t think that I was clearly in the right. This would probably come from the idea that the content in question is harmful. Harm itself is a large, ambiguous concept. If I believed that writing certain things was inherently harmful (not just to certain individuals who don’t want to see it, which is their right, but in general), I would certainly feel vindicated in my behavior.

Personally I think harm is more complex than that, and I think a majority of people here believe censorship is more harmful to society than any illegal, immoral, or disturbing thing someone can depict in fiction. The issue with crying “harm” is that it is so subjective when it comes to fiction. I’m not saying fiction exists in a vacuum, but it is not the same thing as real world harm, which unfortunately can also be leveraged in bad faith to distort arguments with hyperbole and diversion.

If I was in the business of trying to censor writers on the internet, and I was a stickler for nuance, I might say that the *way* someone depicted something was not correct, responsible, or heavy handed enough in the moral messaging of “X is bad.” This might be a mental compromise I would make in order to justify to myself the fact that I’m advocating for censorship. Criticizing someone’s handling of something is fine by the way, it’s the harassment and trying to get them to stop writing it bit that I’m taking issue with. I would probably feel really good about harassing and criticizing people I thought were wrong for depicting serious things in a way that didn’t sit well with me. I would probably secretly feel (because to admit it plainly would be embarrassing) like a bit of a vigilante. It might come from a deeply personal and complicated place, or just a place of general beliefs I’d picked up. I’d bet money that I would consider myself left leaning on most things, maybe even strongly so. I wouldn’t like to consider that my goals are ultimately conservative, because that would cause me mental discomfort. But “conservatism and liberalism” in the sense we’re usually talking about them is not a binary. It’s more of a circle, and you can find yourself batting for another teams tactics real quick if you’re not methodical and honest in your thinking.

These conversations often devolve into and circle back to “for the love of god just please tag everything” which I agree with. But that is not the reason why people continually harass other people. It’s more that they think the content should not exist at all, which is what I just don’t fundamentally agree with. I also think human beings tend to enjoy feeling like they have intimidated someone they’ve decided is wrong or bad. I try not to be too dug in on absolutely everything I think. If I’ve put personal biases into my little profiling opinion feel free to suggest where I’ve gone wrong lol. One other thing— there’s all kinds of things in books these people would have to say, to be true to their own logic, should not be in print. What do you say then, should we pull it? I wonder if they’d say that with their chest or if it’s relegated to the internet for them.

[wisehearts]

Random thought that occurred to me as I was rewatching season 1, is that why are so many people against an implied/leading up to sexy scene for byler?

We literally see Steve and Nancy have a pretty obvious intimate scene in season 1 and I don’t want to hear ‘Byler are minors’ SO WERE STEVE AND NANCY THEY WERE LIKE WHAT 16?! At most. I get that there’s not a happy correlation with it because of Barb but that’s not the point. The point is that the Duffers could very well make byler go there if they wanted to.

It’s a different story if you’re to say the actors are minors but that’s the thing they’re not any more and by the looks of it they could possibly be onboard with the more intimate Byler scenes.

Idk like I’m not gonna be outraged if it happens because it’s pretty clear the show runners and writers aren’t afraid to include something like this within the show

You're right on all accounts honestly! There is nothing wrong with it. it's homophobia, straight up. I can hear a "you're calling me homophobic for not wanting to see two gay teens have sex?" in the distance but I mean... yeah? technically. The characters are fictional. 17/18 is a normal age to explore sex. The actors are adults. The characters are fictional. sex - especially gay sex - isn't dirty and if you (collective you) think mike and will heavy petting or having sex taints them and makes them less innocent (pure) then yes you're being homophobic. even if you yourself are queer. and I encourage them to learn their queer history to see why it'd be impactful if they did give us a scene (AIDS!!!) and stop holding conservative beliefs 🙂🙃

Being uncomfortable with sex or sex scenes (or not yet being mature enough for them) =/= they shouldn't happen, and that they can't happen between teen characters. s1 sex scene being "bad" as it's not right for nancy and plays alongside barb's death =/= sex is bad, which is what those people imply they think when they say sex was only used negatively in the show. And it wasn't anyway, nancy and jonathan have sex right after their first kiss and it's a positive thing.

The major thing is that the goal posts keep moving. they can't decide why it's bad, they confuse their personal individual discomfort with it being a collective moral issue so it never makes sense. A big ol' echo chamber.

"No byler sex!" > "okay you can discuss sexuality in st but you can't fantasize and write fics!" > "okay you can write fics about their sexual attraction or the time period but pure smut is fetishizing!" 🤦‍♀️

"they're minors!" > "okay they're adults but you watched them grow up and if I can't let that go then obviously that means you can't either so you're weird!" *I glance at incredibly long list of hollywood heartthrobs that have been acting since they were very young* 🤦‍♀️

The latest one I've seen is "they're gonna be 18 in s5 but I don't want them to be because we can't protect them from the weirdos when they sexualize". like okay cool thank you for the heads up that it'll be okay by your standards then?

I personally don't have an opinion on whether I think there will or won't be a scene for byler, but of course if there's anything intimate I'll cheer it on because a terrified teenage gay couple saying fuck society and letting go of fear to love and be with each other physically, is so much better than spitting on the importance of more queer intimacy in media.

[notbeyondbirthday]

When will humans figure out we actually do need to talk about and explore and channel our ugly, dark and fucked up parts into things that won't harm people or we WILL harm people? Violence sex and taboo isn't going anywhere, people are always going to do things they shouldn't and we're not going to be able to understand or deal with it if we never even allow ourselves to engage with those topics as ideas.

As a victim of abuse fuck anyone that thinks it's wrong to explore these harmful topics in stories...fuck you, genuinely. Stories help me process these experiences, it gives me a place to express myself where I don't have to worry about being palatable to the sensibilities of people who can't understand what I've gone through. Uncomfortable stories deserve to be told and must be told because this sanitized world you're imagining can't ever fucking exist.

Your discomfort/disgust is not a moral argument. And guess what! You don't have to engage with media that makes you feel that way. You're not obligated to examine it critically and justify your feelings about it, you can actually just decide it's not for you and that's fine.

You don't actually have to shame and make wild assumptions about people who do engage with it, either! An individual consuming media, in and of itself, is not an inherently harmful act. If it were, research and investigation and journalism and art and archiving would be inherently harmful, but they are not, they are necessary.

If we're going to discuss the ethics of consuming a piece of media, we need context. It is not enough to say, 'you laid your eyeballs on it, you thought about it, and that's the material harm!' No it isn't, and that reductionist, puritanical view really only keeps us from understanding where the harm is actually coming from. We need to do the work, people. Without nuance we can't address these broader social issues, we just create a neverending list of thoughtcrimes.

[forgot-how-catflap-works]

Sitcoms perpetuate “harmful stereotype” of having friends in adulthood, experts insist

Hundreds of experts across the country have signed an open letter stating that friendships portrayed by modern media are damaging the nation’s mental health. 

The letter comes in response to rising concerns from childless layabouts who claim that having friends as an adult should not be an unobtainable fantasy. 

“The whole structure of our late-capitalist hellscape society completely disincentives adulthood friendships,” said Ololade Fren, spokesperson for the adult friendship advocacy group The Friends of Friendship. “Our lives are consumed by work, the cost of living crisis continues to spiral out of control and our wages have stagnated. 

“The desire to maintain and foster friendships stands in direct opposition with a system that wants to bleed us dry. The rancid ghouls that run everthing leverage the vacant, hollow feeling that remains in order to sell you a fucking smart watch by making it look like a fun time with friends.”

But experts have refuted the Friends of Friendship as “naive children”. They claim that television shows and sitcoms in particular promote an “unhealthy and unrealistic expectation” of prioritising joy over meaningless toil. 

“When you watch a television show that features a tightly-knit friendship group, this can trigger what’s known as sitcom lifestyle dysphoria,” says Professor Chad Blokesworth from Brosdown University. 

“This intense discomfort arises from the incongruence between an individual’s perennial loneliness and the feeling that they should have a core friendship group of their own. Not only do they feel this friendship group should have always existed, but it should be able to withstand seismic vibe shifts such as members starting new jobs, going through breakups or having children.”

Since the global financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent atomisation of society in the social media age, friendships have increasingly moved online. But depictions of friendship in modern media haven’t kept pace with this trend, and it’s causing emotional distress. 

“The freeform antics depicted in television shows reinforce a harmful stereotype that broke millennials and zoomers with emotionally draining, pointless jobs are able to enjoy themselves,” said Dr Winnie Gurlsbrunch, from the Gal Pal Institute. 

“We have to accept that regular, in-person interaction with our friends is simply an outdated cultural standard. It’s long past time that we moved away from this monolithic view of social interactions as something we do in person as a vital part of our mental wellbeing.”

While some thought leaders have suggested that the refocusing of modern sitcoms around workplaces is a positive move, Dr Gurlsbrunch said it creates an unhealthy expectation of having fun at work.

"As each new generation enters the workplace, they are shocked by the grim and soulless nature of modern employment,” she said. "Shows like The Office or Parks and Recreation are creating an unobtainable standard and distorting expectations. It's only making things worse and it needs to stop.”

Loneliness advocates also chipped in, telling Totally Unbiased News that the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion. 

“It’s an issue of entitlement,” said Rupert Sadboi, a loneliness influencer on Instagram with a single digit following that we included in this article because our slavish devotion to being balanced means we report all viewpoints as being equally valid no matter how demented they are.

“I have no friends, so why should anyone else? Human misery is an essential operating requirement for the machine. It needs us to be physically and emotionally isolated from each other in order to function. Therefore we all have a moral duty to fall in line and make that happen. If we don’t, the entire system could collapse, and then who will plunder the earth’s natural resources or uphold its genocidal regimes? The system is working as intended, and I have an Apple Vision Pro, so I think it’s working pretty great.”

The Labour government recently classified friend groups as a “bloated aspiration that cannot be justified in the current economic climate.” 

The Friends of Friendship were met with indifference after calling upon government ministers to realign society with the founding principles of the Labour party by prioritising the needs of working people over racist oligarchs. 

“You are supposed to be working, not having fun,” said Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer from her reinforced machine gun nest at the heart of Westminster. 

“Decades of neoliberalism has left a blackhole in this nation’s finances that successive governments have failed to address. Now that we’re in charge again, it’s about time someone carried on trying basically the same strategy. To attempt anything else would be insane; like allowing transgender women to compete in women's sport or using women's spaces. 

“What it comes down to, ultimately, is that If your nan can’t have a warm home this winter you certainly can’t have any friends. You all have to make sacrifices. It’s called austerity. Look it up.” 

(Inspiration: The Core ‘Friend Group’ Is a Myth—and It’s Making Us Feel Bad About Ourselves)

[secretsofthewilde]

About your post about misogyny in fandoms and shipping spaces, I do 100% agree how a lot of female fans do have internalized misogyny based on how they navigate fandom spaces. It doesn’t have to be extreme like hating all women, but people do have biases where they tend to gravitate to more male-dominated shows or would justify why they hate m/f or f/f bcuz it’s uncomfortable for them to write about the female body due to personal reasons. Which i used to be as a teenager but overtime i learned to come to terms with my own version of feminitity and became more comfortable with writing m/f ships. Sometimes when i see that brought up, im like “okay dont u see there is a problem there? like u discomfort of the female body has some ties to misogyny and u cant just write it off as an excuse for the majority of female fans.” Even the defense of the lack of female characters is also flawed due to the fact that some ppl would desperately two male characters together even tho one character was in two scene for less than 2 minutes yet completely ignore the other female ccharacter that has more interactions with the male lead. You could also throw in racism as this is also always used for WOC and justified as “oh not everything has to be about shipping” when those the same ppl that ship anything and everything in other fandoms

Yes, you are so very right!! And thank you for giving me an excuse to continue to talk about this. (Post anon is referring to is here x)

I tried not to generalise too much in the initial post bc I think there's different reasons and I guess flavours of internal misogyny which contribute to individual fans dismissal of f/f. Your example isn't exactly relatable to my personal experience, but it is one that makes sense to me and is something I assume is the case for many others too (including one of my best friends actually!). For me personally, I knew I was queer around the same time I got into fandom (so quite young), but despite being aware of this I still found myself feeling uncomfortable or even guilty for looking for anything f/f. I think that this was bc there was this ingrained fear that by engaging with female characters in any way I was sexualising them*. Which is ridiculous in retrospect, considering there's no sense of guilt for so many of us to engage with male characters in ways that are actually sexualising them.

Bc of the patriarchal society we live in we tend to see male characters as "neutral" ones (the same way whiteness is considered "neutral"**). By engaging with male characters repeatedly and normalising both the general celebration of them but also the sexualisation or queering of them, we ended up somehow creating an environment where male characters being queerified in fandom is seemingly more neutral than doing so with female characters - by which I mean that we expect to see people in fandom creating and celebrating m/m or m/f ships of male characters in any given fandom regardless of who they are canonically, whereas to do so with female characters is often considered to be unconventional or strange. I mentioned briefly in the post about the projecting of self onto male characters, and I think that's because they offer us a "neutral" character to explore queerness but also just multifaceted characters in general. There's so much more fanworks exploring things like the nature of morality or mental health issues using male characters than there are with female ones. That's because our engagement with female characters is kind of stuck in this area where we can't be neutral with them.

With the way that fandom discourse works nowadays we often analyse our characters as being figures of representation***. This means that even though we are now getting more media with female characters at the front of it, we often view them through the overly critical lens of "how is this representing us?". Even something as shallow as a joke about the character enjoying retail therapy then becomes something that is used as an excuse to tear the character apart, because we don't want to be seeing what we have been taught to view as negative female traits on our screens. Women can be bitchy, they can be jealous, and even evil. We need to learn to recognise that our discomfort in seeing them portrayed as such on our screens isn't always due to being upset about the representation of all women, but rather our discomfort in seeing these traits within ourselves.

*There's something particularly difficult about combating internalised homophobia when you're young and also learning about feminist ideologies where we want women to not be viewed as sex objects. I think this may also be a huge contributing factor for queer fangirls' tendencies to subconsciously project themselves onto male characters.

**'The Matter of Whiteness' by Richard Dyer explains this theory really well and is an academic essay that I highly recommend everyone read. I also think it's a pretty good starting point if you're not familiar with reading academic texts and are interested in intersectionality, racial bias, media analysis etc

***I'm borrowing from Dyer's theory here, which essentially argues that a black character's existence will always be viewed (and judged) as a representation of all black people. In comparison we will watch white characters and view them as their own individual character. To apply this to my above points; we don't question whether it's bad representation for our male lead to enjoy watching action films because we just view that as a character trait of his, whereas we will be critical of the female lead who enjoys watching chick flicks because we will then view her as a shallow representation of women.

[mothyandthesquid]

A beautiful colour with a beautiful message. Be tolerant, even if it initially feels weird. Adjust your expectations of those who are different.

****

Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort a person feels when their behavior does not align with their values or beliefs. It motivates them to engage in actions to reduce their personal negative experience. Whilst altering the behaviour at issue is one option, often people attempt to relieve this tension in different ways. They may reject, explainin away, or avoid new information. If this does not alleviate their internal displeasure, they may become angry and lash out.

I live in terror of causing cognitive dissonance. It might seem that, if an autistic person says the wrong thing and causes offence, an apology and explanation might resolve the matter. Autistics can be responsible for harm and held accountable for that in a fair manner. But to actually blame them, when they cannot help their neurotype, is harsh, and punishment is frequently disproportionate.

When I miss-step, I do everything I can to salve the ego of the wounded neurotypical. There are two reasons for this. I have that strong autistic sense of moral duty, which for me includes not harming others. I’m horrified when I accidentally hurt someone and want to make it right. I also know that mistakes put me in danger as a vengeful neurotypical person has all the social power. I have every reason to be fearful.

You have to understand that I can’t readily tell the decent neurotypical majority from the occasional unpleasant individual who likes to get their own back for perceived slights. To tell such a person that I am autistic and I am sorry is likely to further enrage them. Now they have not only been offended, their ableism is showing too.

“Autism is not an excuse to be rude!” is said, and this resolves their cognitive dissonance. They are free to blame and punish whilst feeling righteous and justified. The consequences for the unfortunate autistic can be severe and include permanent social and occupational exclusion, wildly incommensurate to accidentally causing momentary discomfort.

****

TL;DR. Cut disabled folk some slack. Actually, maybe give everyone a bit of leeway - we’re all just doing our best!

[beardedmrbean]

Politics play a huge part in our lives, but should we bring our beliefs into the workplace? It’s a big question for corporate leaders this year—and for good reason. 

About 36% of U.S. workers say they would consider leaving their jobs if their CEO expressed political views they don’t agree with, according to a March survey from job search platform Indeed, conducted in partnership with the Harris Poll. That figure is even higher among younger employees, with 46% of 18 to 34 year olds, and 44% of 35 to 44 year olds saying they would leave if their views conflict with those of their chief executive.

“We spend a lot of our life at work, and politics is a very personal part of our life,” Kyle M.K., talent strategy advisor for Indeed, tells Fortune. “People wanting to separate from those that they would consider to be unhealthy, or views that what they would consider to be unhealthy or toxic, doesn't surprise me.”

Political conversations seem to be a fact of workplace life, despite how awkward they can be. Around 43% of U.S. workers have heard colleagues talking about politics in the office, according to the survey. But 56% of employees say talking politics in meetings makes them uncomfortable—a number that climbs to 62% for women. And nearly one in five employees admit to avoiding coworkers with different political sensibilities. 

This discomfort can lead to serious workplace disruptions—four out of 10 U.S. employees say politics have affected team morale, and that number grows even higher for younger workers.

Employers have to navigate the upcoming election with the utmost care. HR experts previously told my colleague Paige McGlauflin that when it comes to politics, companies should create a consistent company policy, train middle managers how to handle potential conflict, and set clear expectations around social media use. They also advised executives to be aware of how much weight their words really carry for employees.

But M.K. believes business leaders shouldn’t avoid the topic altogether. He advises discussing larger issues rather than specific politicians, and proceeding with the company’s values and mission in mind. 

“A culture is really what makes or breaks a thriving work environment for each individual,” says M.K. “So leaders should be a little bit open to having these discussions and talking about their politics. Because we can't ignore it.”

[nelithic]

acanthus :   is your muse deceptive ,   or willing to lie or deceive to achieve certain means ?   why or why not ?

▀▀ 　BOTANICAL HEADCANONS　₊　

the short answer is yes absolutely.

the long answer contains fell xenologue spoilers beneath the cut.

the long answer is gestures at all of chapter 4 of the fell xenologue. as much as i would have liked for some of the writing decisions in that chapter to be different from what they were, it's easy to see that nel has no issue keeping things from everyone else, even people she trusts, when she feels like the ends justifies the means. her decision to take out the corrupted rulers of each of the nations was one she made without consulting the winds or nil, or even letting them know that most if not all of elyos was corrupted already to begin with.

　——— ⟢　why?

her reasoning for it in canon is simply:

nel: i thought it would be best to conceal such an unpleasant truth.

to which alear pushes back that nel is always making decisions on her own judgment without consulting others ( which is true ), and while i think this is part of her reasoning for doing what she did, i don't think it's all of it. it's true that the protector side of her wanted to safeguard the people she cared about, alongside alear, who is the recipient of nel's projected desire to posthumously safeguard her own world's divine dragon, and to have any necessary ugliness be entirely her own problem to take care of — this is a habit likely originating all the way from her upbringing in fell!gradlon, where the work of killing that was necessary for survival was a rite undertaken by the strong, and strength was something possessed individually, guarded jealously, and not to be shared.

　——— ⟢　why, pt. 2

but i think what nel says out loud here is only the part of her reasoning that she knows would be forgivable to a listener. i think the other, equally deeply-ingrained rationale behind why nel tends to make independent judgment calls is because she believes in the efficiency of a singular unquestioned authority.

if she had told everyone that they were fighting corrupted, everyone might have lost crucial hope that there was ever a hope of victory to the fighting.

if she had told everyone her plan to take out the leaders of each nation, there would have been pushback, maybe even sabotage. in particular, she feels she can't trust alear, who does not come from this world and does not know how things are done in it, but who seems to push their morals into a situation to which they are an outsider and feels the need to approve every action the group takes — and because of their status as the divine dragon, nel has to take into account that there's a very real chance others would instinctively listen to them instead.

nel sees a real risk to the group's ultimate goals if she doesn't lie — or at least conceal some truths where it's needed. she knows that far-away goals often get lost and forgotten in the crossroads of individual wants, gripes, discomforts, etc. at the very least, any discord, tension, or loss of morale within the group as a result of knowing her plans would be additional things to have to navigate, and very likely jeopardize some aspect of the effort, making things a lot more difficult to accomplish effectively even if it didn't outright put a stop to anything.

given that there's no surprise or protest at all from anyone else but alear about anything she reveals as well, it could also be assumed that everyone else is very used to this being nel's way of doing things for a long time now — although the four winds answer to both her and nil, it's pretty clear that it's probably been primarily nel calling the shots and making most of the final decisions. so that aspect of being used to doing things this way and not wanting to fix it if it ain't broke is probably part of it too.

　——— ⟢　rai fistfights intsys' easy friendship writing

because of all this, i don't personally think nel would have apologized as readily as she did to alear in that scene for her deception. it's especially difficult to match the same nel who, 2 chapters prior, says:

nel: and it is is not your choice to make, divine one. while it is true that we summoned you for help, this is not your army. whatever authority you are accustomed to in your own world does not apply here.

to the nel who now apologizes as soon as she's accused by the same person of being autocratic in how she makes decisions she sees as being in the group's collective best interest.

even if nel recognizes that she has a tendency to railroad things ( which i think she does, even if subconsciously ), i don't think she feels particularly sorry for it — its why their 6-person guerrila force been successful this long; her judgment is usually sound and born of experience, and she's making these decisions for everyone's benefit. we've also seen plenty of times throughout the xenologue by this point that nel has no issue being plain about that even when she can see that someone would be upset to hear it.

in her mind, when you're an authority in charge of everyone's wellbeing, you don't go around asking every single individual for their thoughts and worries and two cents about every little choice and consideration; that just muddies the water. you stay mindful about their needs while you weigh the factors, and then you make the decision and follow through.