#inferred racism

[quill-of-thoth]

Letters from Watson, catching up

The Speckled Band: Crimes in Context Inheritance The Speckled Band is the first example we’re getting in this reading order of a sub-genre of Holmes’ cases: inheritance crimes against women, so to understand it we’re going to have to take a look at the structure of Victorian inheritance. Thankfully, it is usually spelled out what each woman in canon is entitled to - unfortunately this is because the law could not be relied upon to guarantee her anything.  Modernly, inheritance is something that someone might get when a relative dies: It was a more common concern in the victorian era, where the life expectancy for anyone who survived to the age of five is cited by papers I was able to find as anything from 60 to 75, (Compared to pre-covid numbers of early 80′s - 79 for males, 83 for females - in the UK, according to the ONS [Office of National Statistics], and 79 in the US according to the CDC.) Infectious disease prior to antibiotics, the number of wars that the British empire was waging at any given time, and a maternal mortality rate of around five percent meant that adults dying young, or suddenly, was more common than today. It was also not expected that middle and upper class women would work outside the home: if they did it was usually a sign that the family was not doing well, and in danger of no longer being middle class. A number of Holmes’ clients are women in this specific economic position: with less economic security or control over their finances because they were unmarried, often working as a governess, one of the jobs considered appropriate for unmarried middle class women. The majority of them have some sort of inheritance or trust that they have extremely limited access to until they marry - at which point the money is legally theirs, and they can set up trusts for their children as they see fit.  The structure of these trusts and inheritances makes them ripe for abuse by male guardians: while a parent might leave their daughters a hefty sum, they might also leave the money somewhat accessible by other male relatives to provide for the daughters’ schooling, social opportunities, etc. Since the daughters would have no means of securing more money of their own (due to not working) this custodial arrangement could last indefinitely.  Helen Stoner’s mother had, either via a trust or inheritance, a thousand pounds (92,000 pounds / 113,000 USD) per year. She was married to an officer, and widowed when her twins were less than a year old (inferring from the two year mourning period.) Likely she didn’t know Dr. Roylott very well at the time of their marriage, but a marriage would mean that she and her children didn’t have to find their own way back from India. Dr. Roylott had an estate but not the money to support it - a thousand pounds a year plus whatever he made while in India,  would definitely help in that regard. 

About ten years ago Dr. Roylott murdered a member of their household staff in India, and only barely escaped execution for it. Possibly because the man he murdered was Indian rather than British, possibly because the Roylotts were pretty rich by the standards of where they were residing and the murdered man was a servant. Either way, the family returned to England legally and financially in the power of a very violent man, and although the Stoner twins were in their late teens or early twenties at the time they were as powerless to leave the household as their mother, who had signed over her entire fortune to the man until her daughters’ marriage. Mrs. Roylott died in an accident shortly after their return. I can only infer that her husband having sole control of six figures (four figures at the time) except for a post-marriage portion for each daughter was only in effect until her death. Therefore, Dr. Roylott decides to return to his hereditary estates and isolate his stepdaughters there - much less chance of their getting married if they’re removed from London society and all the neighbors are terrified of him.  Family Abuse Helen doesn’t go into a lot of detail about Dr. Roylott’s behavior to herself, her sister, and their mother, but based on what we know modernly about men who are constantly committing violent acts in their community, and the evidence that he abused Helen, it is very likely that Dr. Roylott abused his wife. While Watson records Helen as saying that her mother died in a train accident while the family lived in London, he would have had a motive to fictionalize that - if Mrs. Roylott was killed, likely beaten to death like his previous victim, by her husband it would be more scandalous than him beating a servant to death in India, more traceable by acquaintances of the family, and less suitable material for a family magazine. A man murdering his stepdaughters via snake may have felt more appropriate to the Victorian audience than spousal abuse.  Murder, and Milk-Drinking Snakes Dr. Roylott definitely murdered Julia Stoner, is attempting to murder Helen, and for the purposes of Watson’s story, the murder weapon is a venomous snake. There are a lot of inconsistencies surrounding the snake. Julia’s autopsy found no trace of poison, but it’s always possible that faced with a venomous snake from India, the coroner didn’t know what to look for. There are no obvious snakebite marks, but it’s also possible to miss those. The snake is apparently trained to respond to whistles and rewarded by drinking milk. Snakes, are, however, reptiles: while you can train them to be accustomed to human handling, training them to enter a vent and return is very implausible. They also don’t digest lactose, and don’t even need to drink very often. There’s also the fact that you can’t just throw a snake in a room with a sleeping person and be sure that it will bite them, and that it will deliver a fatal dose of venom if it does. This is a lot of implausibilities, bordering on impossibilities. It makes a person wonder if one of the alleged “impossibilities” that were previously examined is possible after all. Particularly if one has coincidentally been reading how locks work. The modern door lock is not infallible, but it is significantly more complex than the late victorian door lock: we have better precision machining, so on average there are more springs and pins inside the lock, and more and smaller teeth on the key. Meaning that it takes longer to pick a lock using little tools to press each pin into the correct position, and also that you have to be more precise about the position. Because Stoke Moran is an old manor that was uninhabited for approximately twenty years while the Roylott-Stoner family lived in India, and the family fortunes were low since the regency, it’s unlikely to have modern (for the era) locks. At a guess, the latest the locks could have been updated is the 1810′s.  It is extremely possible for a doctor, who presumably has some skill with surgical tools, and who has plotted for several months to murder his stepdaughter to prevent her marriage, to spend that time learning to pick a by then obsolete lock, instead of importing and training a snake. It’s equally possible for him to have access to a variety of poisons, whether they were thought to have any medical use or not, since the Victorian household used a lot of poisons as pesticides. Then too, he receives goods from India regularly - it doesn’t have to be a common poison. It could even actually be snake venom: though the first process of milking snakes for venom in order to test antidotes was published in 1891, it’s possible that there were significantly earlier, unrecorded attempts. Especially considering how many people throughout history have wanted to poison each other.  A more plausible scenario is that Julia was murdered in the following way: Dr. Roylott looked through the vent, which must be large enough to try to see through if a decently sized snake can squeeze through it, to check that she was asleep, making a slight noise and shedding just enough light that he could see if she was lying awake in the dark or not, and on the nights that it did not wake her, he opened the door, possibly by picking the lock, possibly because the doors to his stepdaughters’ bedrooms were never actually secure, administered some kind of poison, possibly by injection, and left her there to die. Julia woke up as the poison ran its course, tried to light a candle, screamed, and was found by her sister. Dr. Roylott gave her brandy, knowing that it would do nothing, and waited.  When the time came to murder Helen, he first attempted to intimidate her. “Livid” bruises, or bluish black ones, are two days to around a week old. Dr. Roylott, if the housekeeper leaves once Helen is gone, cannot maintain the family home on his own - as a landed gentleman he would not know how, and when he attempted to hire servants they left immediately. Helen is doing some, possibly still a full half, of the work of the house that keeps him comfortable.  She also worked her hardest to keep the family name in acceptable shape whenever he attacked another person in their community, it’s possible that made life much easier for him. And a coroner faced with two mysterious deaths in the same household in two years is going to be suspicious, even if the official cause of Julia’s death is basically listed as fright.  Maybe he tried a similar tactic on Julia, maybe he didn’t: both twins were slightly old for a first marriage, with Julia dead at thirty and Helen now thirty two. If he could scare either into calling it off, the chances of their marrying would decrease every year. 

 The intimidation of Helen failed - he had her moved into the bedroom he could most easily access. He checked whether she was asleep. She wasn’t: she lit the lamp immediately, but he had plenty of time. He was already going to london on business in the morning, possibly even to make sure he would have no trouble accessing her inheritance (though likely under the pretense of checking in on it so it would properly be distributed to her upon her marriage). If he’d managed to administer the poison that night, an early morning trip to the city might even give him an alibi - of course he hadn’t seen her since a decent hour the night before, he was up early to do business in town! He assumed the dear girl was still asleep. She works so hard, you know, and with her wedding coming up - and remembering her sister’s tragic demise only two years ago - she must be exhausted.  Either the housekeeper would discover her death at some point in the day while he was gone, or he could “discover” her death quite late upon his return, leaving even less for the coroner to conclude, but that won’t stop him from trying again tomorrow night, since he can always adjust his story, with only the elderly housekeeper able to deny it.  Imagine his surprise when he finds that she’s gone to London - to see a detective, no less! She has no evidence, and even if Holmes sees her bruises it’s not like he has any standing to intervene, but Roylott rages and threatens him anyway. And when Roylott finds Holmes and Watson on his estate at night, investigating, with his stepdaughter missing, he attacks them: one of them shoots him in self defense. It’s also possible that he did meet his end because of one of his exotic pets, loose in the night, while pursuing them.  Nearly a decade later, perhaps immediately after successfully publishing a dramatic tale regarding he and Holmes coming to the aid of a young woman connected with exotic crimes in India, Watson recalls the adventure, begins to write it up, and realizes halfway through that it’s a simple tale of greed and cruelty. Eventually, he inserts the snake for a dash of the fantastic, obscures Helen’s identity further, and publishes it anyway, because although Helen is dead, he’s still proud of the work he and Holmes did saving her life, freeing her from her abusive stepfather, and allowing her to spend her too-brief married life in relative peace. If he had to, he’d do it again.

[elodieunderglass]

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me out with a word I've forgotten? I'm trying to remember the name for a concept that (I think) talks about how people better understand or process Things once they have vocabulary to describe it - I've heard it talked about in regards to the colour orange, or coercive control, etc.

long story short i've just read a paper saying ancient Greeks and Romans weren't racist bc they had no word for racism and am trying to form an argument against!

(no worries if this is unanswerable, i'm aware its a bit of a long shot but you struck me as a person who Knows Things)

That’s extremely kind and funny of you. i don’t know much but i am ok at synthesis.

I think you might be thinking of the concepts loosely called the “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis”, which describes something called “linguistic determinism.” This idea has been “disproven”, as it is just too reductionist as a concept - people are clearly perfectly capable of having experiences that are tough to describe with words. There will be plenty of papers showing how this reasoning is applied.

but it is still commonly thrown around and still considered a useful teaching framework. That’s why you’ll see it referenced online as if it is fresh, new, and applicable - people learn about it every year in college. Also, elements of the framework are probably perfectly sound. It definitely seems to be the case that language shapes brains; it just doesn’t seem to be the case that humans who don’t have specific words for them can’t experience orange, or the future.

(Many things in college are taught using teaching frameworks that may not be, technically, true; the framework is intended to give a critical structure for interpreting information. Then, when we later find evidence that disproves the hypothesis, that single piece of information doesn’t destroy our expensive college education; what we paid for is the framework. This is mostly frustrating in the sciences, when fresh crops of undergraduate students crash around on social media, grappling with their first exposure to (complex concept) and how it’s DIFFERENT to what they learned BEFORE and their teachers LIED TO EVERYBODY and they’re going to save the world from POP SCIENCE by telling the TRUTH. You’ll notice that these TOTALLY NEW INFORMATION reveals map along the semester schedule. The thing here is that getting new information, or information being different from what you were previously told, does not cancel out the fact that you are getting what you pay for - an education. Learning new facts that change our relationships to hypotheses isn’t a ✨huge betrayal ✨ , but the expected process of academia. Anyway.)

You have an interesting response here, and can start by looking at the ways that Sapir-Whorf has been disproved. There will be loads of literature on that.

However, it would be interesting to look at the argument as an unpicking of the other side’s rather weird, ritualistic superstitious belief that a behavior doesn’t exist if the creatures doing it can’t describe it. It is not on the ancient Greeks and Romans to categorise and interpret their behavior for a modern educated audience. They do not have the wherewithal to do so. They are also fucking dead. We can name the behaviors we see, and describe their impacts, however the hell we like.

Sure, the ancient Greeks used “cancer” to refer to lumpy veiny tumors. We can infer that they still had blood cancer, because their medical texts describe leukaemia and their corpses have evidence of it - they just didn’t know it was cancer. But we do, so we can call it cancer. Just because Homer said “the wine-dark sea” in a flight of girlish whimsy doesn’t mean he was unable to distinguish grape juice from saltwater, which we know, because we can observe that he was an intelligent wordsmith perfectly capable of talking about wine and oceans in other contexts. We are the people who get to stand at our point of history with our words, and name things like “this person probably died of leukaemia” and “poets say things that aren’t necessarily literal” and “this behaviour was racist” and “that’s gay” and “togas kinda slay tho” despite Ancient Greeks having different concepts of cancer, wittiness, prejudice, homosexuality, and slaying than we do today.

Now just to caveat that people do get muddled about the concept of racism. Our understanding of racism from here - this point of history, with these words, probably from the West - is heavily influenced by how we see racism around us today: white supremacy and the construct of “whiteness,” European colonial expansion, transatlantic chattel slavery, orientalism, evangelism, 20th century racial science, and so on. This is the picture of racism that really dominates our current discourse, so people often mistake it for the definition of racism. (Perhaps in a linguistic-deterministic sort of way after all.) As a result, muddled-up people often say things like “I can’t be racist because I’m not a white American who throws slurs at black American people,” while being an Indian person in the UK who votes for vile anti-immigration practices, or a Polish person with a horrible attitude about the Roma. Many people genuinely hold this very kindergarten idea of racism; if your opponent does as well, they’re probably thinking something like “Ancient Greek and Roman people didn’t have a concept of white supremacy, because whiteness hadn’t been invented yet, so how could they be racist?” And that’s unsound reasoning in a separate sense.

Racism as the practice of prejudice against an ethnicity, particularly one that is a minority, is a power differential that is perfectly observable in ancient cultures. The beliefs and behaviors will be preserved in written plays, recorded slurs, beauty standards, reactions to foreign marriages, and travel writing. The impacts will be documented in political records, trade agreements, the layouts of historical districts of ancient towns.

You don’t need permission to point out behaviours and impacts. You can point them out in any words you like. You can make up entirely new words to bully the ancient romans with. You are the one at this point of history and your words are the ones that get used.

Pretending that “words” are some kind of an intellect-obscuring magical cloud in the face of actual evidence is just a piece of sophistry (derogatory) on the part of your opponent here. It’s meant to be a distraction. You can dismiss this very flimsy shield pretty quickly and get them in the soft meat of them never reading anything about the actual material topic, while they’re still looking up dictionary definitions or whatever.

[linka-from-captain-planet]

Florrickology, Part 1: The Thong That Launched 1000 Headcanons

My favorite thing to do as a background character fan is to co-opt things that were definitely not meant to be characterization by making them characterization.

Thus, I have looked way deeper than intended into every possible pixel, moment, and mention of my beloved Counsellor Florrick and developed the exciting new field of Florrickology to report my findings.

Obviously the first place I'm going is this fucking dress and how I use it to infer upon her the two sexiest characteristics a woman can have:

Unflinching vanity and a deep-seated, yet subtle, insanity.

This dress is more than a bit of an enigma because... why?

It really stands out because, while Larian gives players plenty of opportunities to sexualize their avatar and their companions, they don't really sexualize NPCs. Most women, like men, are dressed very modestly. Outfits that female NPCs wear are even often much more unisex than the equivalent outfits available to player characters (e.g. tunics that male PCs can wear may turn into tits-out dirndls on female PCs for no apparent reason, but female NPCs wearing the same outfit get a tunic). The only characters who are sexualized are presented as Sexy Characters, like Abdirak or Sorn Orlith or Orin or even Mystra and Mamzell Amira, who also wear this dress.

Mostly.

Florrick, despite being beautiful, a two-time damsel in distress, and a certified MILF, is not presented as a Sexy Character. She's presented as a no-nonsense, somewhat domineering, loyal-and-virtuous-to-a-fault fed. This is the only description of her in the game files (see img description), highlighting these bare-bones characteristics:

So... why? For this character whose appearance truly doesn't matter beyond being eye-catching enough to communicate her importance to the story, who has no even vaguely flirtatious dialogue and no implied sexuality or romance (even with the man she spends the entire game chasing!), and not even a weird torture porn moment which she has ample opportunities... why dress her like this? Why emphasize her body over any other similarly-prominent NPC like, say, Alfira?

My assumption would be that they did it to soften her to the average Redditmod McGamerbro because the story really is better if incels don't kill her for being "bossy"... if they didn't also code her as a middle-aged black woman and give her a custom face sculpt with a prominent nose, large jaw, and non-Western features, all famously accepted with no problematic reaction from this demographic whom Larian doesn't not cater to. In fact, as the #1 Florrickposter in the universe, I often see people say in tags and comments that they didn't even notice how revealing her dress is while playing the game. While racism is definitely at play (plus misogyny, rendering this middle-aged black-coded woman invisible, whereas a younger and white man in the same role would be ALL OVER THIS DAMN PLACE), it also speaks to just how discordant her outfit and explicit characterization are.

Now, this outfit does make a little sense on a glance and I think that's a big part of why it flies under the radar as well: she's important and presumably wealthy, so of course she wears this very posh and expensive-looking dress. She's a wizard (a fact everyone manages to glean on a glance, despite it never being stated and basically never being relevant), so of course she's wearing something obnoxious and purple. From the waist up, it actually looks like a pretty reasonable outfit for a person of her DnD class, social class, and occupation.

It's from the waist down where it gets out of hand.

But first, this isn't even Florrick's original outfit or face (which I'll talk about in another post), or the first iteration of her current outfit. Originally, she wore the ostentatious yet modest feathered peacock dress that eventually ended up on Lucretious (and took the thicc waist with it RIP). According to my research, there was a reason for this: it was too baller for Waukeen's Rest and kept causing crashes, so they had to put her in a less graphically-demanding outfit.

The original peacock dress sent the necessary "I am an important quest giver, engage with me" message, so why not just remove the cowl that was causing the issues? But instead, they changed her outfit entirely, keeping it eye-catching and posh (suitable for a big-city government official), but randomly making it super revealing (strange, for a big-city government official). Further, Florrick got a major va-va-voom upgrade between Sexy Dress v1 and final release, with a new dress model that makes it clearer that the front and back panels are sheer, subtly showing even more skin, and which unsubtly emphasizes her hips and breasts.

Based on extensive academic research using mods, I determined that the dress is what conveys the extra curviness (see img description in the left-most pic) vs her having a custom body sculpt (weak). Further, when viewed from behind, the dress pads out her ass, also making it look bigger and rounder than the standard body type 1 (see img description in the right-most pic).

What's more, if you look closely at the waist seam of the final version of her sexy dress, it looks like they went so far as to skew it to make her hips stand out even more when she takes the cocked-hip stance (which she seems to only stand in) and perhaps draw even more attention to her thong sticking out. Notice how the waist seam is even and straight across in Sexy Dress V1 above, but Final Florrick has it like 2 inches higher on her right, without fabric bunching to explain the different seam lengths. You can also see how the dress subtly pops out farther than her actual hips (and from the side view, over her lower stomach), giving her the impression of curves the standard body type doesn't have. They were very intentional with it.

Shockingly, I don't actually have much to say about her exposed thong in and of itself (it is what it is) except that I think it actually makes the outfit look substantially skimpier because it draws attention to just how high those hip slits are, compared to leaving the area blank so eyes gloss over it (even if that would imply she runs around commando all game). It's a small detail that drives home the overall design.

All this is to say, since this dress is only worn by 4 people* with Florrick being the first you see and by far has the most screen time, and it isn't lootable, it seems this outfit was developed intentionally and specifically to emphasize her body to make her look sexier.

*Florrick, Mamzell Amira (slightly different lower half), a random patriar at Gortash's inauguration named Lady Alia Durinbold, and Mystra

So, this takes us back to the question of 'why'. Why spend all this time and these resources fine-tuning this dress to make it as sexy and flattering as possible? Why put it on a character who has literally no reason to wear such a thing? Why put this dress which is nothing but nonsense on a character who's pretty much only characterized as being no-nonsense??

And this is also where the real tinfoil hattery comes in, as I doubt Larian really meant anything by it aside from creating a hot NPC for players with good taste to enjoy across all 3 acts.

But that's not what this nuclear caliber simp post is about; it's about overthinking shit because I love her and she is a main character to ME.

So, whatever Larian's intention, there's only 1 in-universe reason why Florrick wears this outfit:

She woke up that day in Waukeen's Rest, in the middle of nowhere a full tenday from the city, on her way back from literal hell to deal with yet another crisis, and decided to put it on. And continued to do so every day thereafter.

It's logical that she can't change right after being rescued since the inn is burning down presumably with her luggage in it, but why did she choose that outfit in the first place, considering she was travelling? She's been travelling for months; it can't have been her only clothing. Did she not have a Fist uniform? A pair of leggings? She runs right off after she's done talking; does she hike all the way in and out of the shadow-cursed lands in a thong and flat macrame boots? It doesn't even have any indication of cinches or buttons despite having all the logical seams and it's clearly tailored to fit her bananas hourglass figure, like there's no way she can just pull it on or step into it, so does she have to expend her valuable magic to wear it? Does she take the time to sew herself into it every day instead of sucking it up and wearing *barf* pants??? There are plenty of people around in Act 2 that could and would give her something more practical to wear, even if she did have a good reason to wear her original dress that day in Waukeen's Rest. Yet, she continues to wake up every day and put that outfit on. Even after returning home.

(In my head, the video game convention of every character only having 1 outfit is shorthand for what their "typical" outfit is, and they "really" have a wardrobe of similar clothing. So when I say she wears that outfit every day, I mean she has a couple of similarly-bonkers dresses in her bag and chooses to wear one every day vs something more practical).

So the simp's question isn't what Larian is saying about her by dressing like this, but what she's saying about herself by choosing to dress like this.

Clothing is self-expression. Look at the many analyses of the main characters' outfits. Larian may or may not have really meant anything by giving Florrick this outfit, but just as Astarion's careful mending of his shirt necessarily says something about him and his personality in the universe he lives in, so does Florrick's decision to wear flashy, revealing clothing.

It almost makes no sense... until you think about one of Florrick's explicitly-demonstrated characteristics:

Confidence. Over confidence. Hubris, even.

I'll have more to say about Desiré "Fuck It, We Ball" Florrick and her personality in another florrickology post, but the long and short of it is that this woman is not afraid of shit and sashays into every situation fully confident in her ability to charm or steamroll it to her liking. "She is used to getting her way", indeed. Her epilogue letter betrays a bit of self-doubt, but it seems to have been brought on by her perceived failures in relation to the player character's successes, so likely not her ordinary attitude. Whereas this seems to be her ordinary clothing, since she took it with her to Elturel and back for no apparent reason and chooses to wear it for no apparent reason.

She has nothing to gain from it, no one important to impress at least until returning to the city in Act 3. Otherwise, she's in bumfuck nowhere with her boss-friend and lackeys, or cursed!bumfuck nowhere with her lackeys and a bunch of vigilantes planning a war. While I wouldn't doubt that she has or might be willing to use her beauty and sex appeal to meet her goals (TadpUlder does, curiously, call her a "black widow"; is his tadpole capitalizing on stereotypes--could it be slut shaming her??, or is it referencing things that the shreds of Ulder's mind know she's done?), ultimately, there can't be a tactical explanation because there's nobody more powerful than her around 90% of the time.

She also doesn't flirt with anyone and nobody flirts with her (philistines). She has no mentioned spouse or lovers, nor any implied sexuality at all. The closest we get is Mizora saying "she misses the Duke" after Florrick's ambush in Act 3, the only time anyone implies she's on a crusade to find him because of romantic feelings and not duty, loyalty, and friendship... which means Mizora is probably just talking out her ass and belittling people, as she does.

So, combine self-confidence with the decision to constantly wear a sexy dress that shows off her body for no practical reason, and what do you get?

Balls-to-the-wall, unapologetic vanity.

(If it wasn't clear, when I call women "vain" I think they are objectively correct and this is a compliment of the highest order.)

Sure, maybe wearing this kind of outfit boosts her confidence and that helps deal with this unprecedented crisis and possibly the first self-doubt she's ever experienced, but this is evidently her usual clothing and she isn't usually dealing with those things.

So, she wears this intricate and revealing dress mostly she likes it and how she looks in it. This means she likes that it's revealing. She likes showing skin to literally no end except her own enjoyment.

Notice she doesn't really do her hair (it's shiny and neat, but not really styled) or bother with makeup (she lost the EA smoky eye in favor of a quick swipe of eyeliner). One may think that perhaps she isn't as confident in her facial beauty since she does have unique features, so she calls attention to her body instead, but she's so devoid of modesty that I can't help but assume she simply looks in the mirror in the morning, thinks "no notes" (correct) and moves on to pouring herself into her favorite skimpy dress. She's proud of her natural beauty, and she's not about to cover it all up with goop or fabric!! She never mentions it and nobody who knows her does; she's not trying to stunt on anyone or even attract other hot people.

She's in it purely for the love of the sport and, sexiest of all, herself. This woman doesn't think she's the sexiest creature in any given room, she knows it.

And she knows that being hot doesn't affect her ability to do her job and protect the city she loves. She doesn't have to cover herself up, doll up her hair and makeup, slap on like 400 pettiskirts, etc, to be taken seriously. It's possibly even giving 'malicious compliance'. She commands so much respect that even horny gamers don't notice her entire ass is one breeze away from being out.

The deep-seated, yet subtle insanity part has pretty much already been covered; maybe in her day-to-day life of attending meetings and walking all over everyone in Wyrm's Rock, it's not so impractical, but it's a completely insane thing to wear in any sort of crisis or outdoor adventure. That this woman is willing to risk chafing or being cold (womankind's public enemy #1 and #2) simply for the drip is delightfully nutty. There is not a single moment she appears in this game where this outfit would be reasonable.

She presents herself as a stalwart, serious, determined woman, but then squeezes into a dress so tight and precarious that it knocks off her Fleet of Foot speed boost, for literally no reason aside from being vain and lowkey kind of crazy.

Good for her!

[racefortheironthrone]

Was the Comics Code as bad as the Hays Code?

That's a really good question!

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "as bad" - are we talking about the overall impact of the Code on American pop culture or are we talking about the actual content of the Code and what it banned and/or mandated in terms of artistic expression?

I've written a little bit about the Hays Code here, but my main focus was on subtextual judaism in Hollywood generally rather than what the Code was and what its impact on American cinema was.

So what did the Hays Code actually include?

One of the few positive things you can say about it is that the men who devised it were quite clear and forthright about what would and wouldn't be allowed, in comparison to the vagueness and inconsistency of the modern MPAA. So here's the list of what couldn't be shown:

Pointed profanity—by either title or lip—this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled; (You'll notice that the Code is very much a snapshot of the transition from silent movies to "talkies," with the discussion of how profanity is spelled as well as produced via "lip.")

Any licentious or suggestive nudity—in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;

The illegal traffic in drugs;

Any inference of sex perversion; (i.e anything having to do with LGBT+ people and culture. For more on the impact of the Hays Code on the LGBT+ community, see the excellent documentary the Celluloid Closet.)

White slavery; (the 1920s version of sex trafficking, but with added racism!)

Miscegenation;

Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;

Scenes of actual childbirth—in fact or in silhouette;

Children's sex organs;

Ridicule of the clergy;

Willful offense to any nation, race or creed; and (this one was really honored in the breach more than the observance when it came to nations, races, and creeds of non-dominant groups in society.)

The following things could be shown, but "special care be exercised in the manner in which the following subjects are treated, to the end that vulgarity and suggestiveness may be eliminated and that good taste may be emphasized:"

The use of the Flag;

International Relations (avoid picturizing in an unfavorable light another country's religion, history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry); (again, depended a lot on what country you're talking about.)

Arson;

The use of firearms;

Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, et cetera (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron); (I guess the idea was that the MPPDA believed very strongly in the idea that media could affect people's behavior through imitation, but the use of the word "moron" gives me eugenics vibes.)

Brutality and possible gruesomeness;

Technique of committing murder by whatever method;

Methods of smuggling;

Third-Degree methods; (i.e, torture)

Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishment for crime; Sympathy for criminals; (this was a big one; Hollywood had done very well from gangster films, so a lot of creators had to do some careful threading of the needle to keep the genre alive. One dodge that they came up with was that they would have a duplicate "final reel" in which the gangster would have their inevitable comeuppance, and then remove the final reel when the censors had left the theater. Very popular with white rural teens.) Attitude toward public characters and institutions; (again, Hollywood shifting from being anti- to pro-establishment.)

Sedition;

Apparent cruelty to children and animals;

Branding of people or animals;

The sale of women, or of a woman selling her virtue;

Rape or attempted rape;

First-night scenes; (i.e, wedding nights)

Man and woman in bed together; (hence the eventual TV practice of showing married couples in separate beds in the 50s)

Deliberate seduction of girls;

The institution of marriage;

Surgical operations;

The use of drugs;

Titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers;

Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy".

So in general, we can say that the Hays Code was extremely sex-negative, very concerned about crime and anti-establishment thinking, sexist, racist, and homophobic, and in general afraid of offending anybody.

So what about the Comics Code Authority?

So this is what the Comics Code looked like in 1954:

Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals. If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.

Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.

Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation. In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.

Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, the gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.

No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.

All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.

All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated. Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.

Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.

Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.

Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure. Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.

Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.

Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes, as well as sexual abnormalities, are unacceptable.

Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.

Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.

Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.[16]

You'll notice the similarities when it comes to the Codes' attitude to sex, sexuality, crime, and symbols of authority - so to answer the first part of your question, I would say the CCA was pretty similar to the Hays Code (in part because Charles F. Murphy, who drew it up, was deeply unoriginal and basically cribbed off the Hays Code throughout).

However, there are also some significant areas of difference that have a lot to do with the unique circumstances of the 1950s moral panic over comics. See, in the 1950s, superhero comics were considered deeply uncool and old hat - they had been huge in the 40s during the war, but by the 50s the biggest genre in comics were horror, crime, and romance comics (with cowboy comics bringing up the rear). To quote myself from another post:

"This gave rise to a moral panic in the 1950s, although more accurately it was part of the larger moral panic over juvenile delinquency. The U.S Senate established a Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee in 1953 to investigate the causes of juvenile delinquency and comics became a major target. While Wertham’s book is best known today for its assertions that Batman and Robin were teaching young boys to be gay and Wonder Woman was teaching young girls to be lesbians, the main focus of the Subcommittee [edit mine: and Wertham's academic work] was on horror and crime comics for their depiction of sex, violence, and “subversive” attitudes to law and order."

The CCA made it impossible to publish two of the most popular genres in the industry for a generation (the CCA relaxed its stance on horror stuff a bit in the 70s, which is why Marvel trend-chased werewolves and vampires the moment they could get away with it), which not only scrambled the medium (and potentially created space for the Silver Age of superhero comics to flourish) but drove the former titan EC Comics practically out of business. (Indeed, William Gaines of EC Comics believed that the CCA had been specifically worded to drive him out of business.)

So in some ways, the CCA was worse.

[samueldays]

Contra Yishan: Google's Gemini issue is about racial obsession, not a Yudkowsky AI problem.

@yishan wrote a thoughtful thread:

Google’s Gemini issue is not really about woke/DEI, and everyone who is obsessing over it has failed to notice the much, MUCH bigger problem that it represents. [...] If you have a woke/anti-woke axe to grind, kindly set it aside now for a few minutes so that you can hear the rest of what I’m about to say, because it’s going to hit you from out of left field. [...] The important thing is how one of the largest and most capable AI organizations in the world tried to instruct its LLM to do something, and got a totally bonkers result they couldn’t anticipate. What this means is that @ESYudkowsky has a very very strong point. It represents a very strong existence proof for the “instrumental convergence” argument and the “paperclip maximizer” argument in practice.

See full thread at link.

Gemini's code is private and Google's PR flacks tell lies in public, so it's hard to prove anything. Still I think Yishan is wrong and the Gemini issue is about the boring old thing, not the new interesting thing, regardless of how tiresome and cliched it is, and I will try to explain why.

I think Google deliberately set out to blackwash their image generator, and did anticipate the image-generation result, but didn't anticipate the degree of hostile reaction from people who objected to the blackwashing.

Steven Moffat was a summary example of a blackwashing mindset when he remarked:

"We've kind of got to tell a lie. We'll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn't have been, and we won't dwell on that. "We'll say, 'To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we'll summon it forth'."

Moffat was the subject of some controversy when he produced a Doctor Who episode (Thin Ice) featuring a visit to 1814 Britain that looked far less white than the historical record indicates that 1814 Britain was, and he had the Doctor claim in-character that history has been whitewashed.

This is an example that serious, professional, powerful people believe that blackwashing is a moral thing to do. When someone like Moffat says that a blackwashed history is better, and Google Gemini draws a blackwashed history, I think the obvious inference is that Google Gemini is staffed by Moffat-like people who anticipated this result, wanted this result, and deliberately worked to create this result.

The result is only "bonkers" to outsiders who did not want this result.

Yishan says:

It demonstrates quite conclusively that with all our current alignment work, that even at the level of our current LLMs, we are absolutely terrible at predicting how it’s going to execute an intended set of instructions.

No. It is not at all conclusive. "Gemini is staffed by Moffats who like blackwashing" is a simple alternate hypothesis that predicts the observed results. Random AI dysfunction or disalignment does not predict the specific forms that happened at Gemini.

One tester found that when he asked Gemini for "African Kings" it consistently returned all dark-skinned-black royalty despite the existence of lightskinned Mediterranean Africans such as Copts, but when he asked Gemini for "European Kings" it mixed up with some black people, yellow and redskins in regalia.

Gemini is not randomly off-target, nor accurate in one case and wrong in the other, it is specifically thumb-on-scale weighted away from whites and towards blacks.

If there's an alignment problem here, it's the alignment of the Gemini staff. "Woke" and "DEI" and "CRT" are some of the names for this problem, but the names attract flames and disputes over definition. Rather than argue names, I hear that Jack K. at Gemini is the sort of person who asserts "America, where racism is the #1 value our populace seeks to uphold above all".

He is delusional, and I think a good step to fixing Gemini would be to fire him and everyone who agrees with him. America is one of the least racist countries in the world, with so much screaming about racism partly because of widespread agreement that racism is a bad thing, which is what makes the accusation threatening. As Moldbug put it:

The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins’ day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

But part of Jack's delusion, in turn, is a deliberate linguistic subversion by the left. Here I apologize for retreading culture war territory, but as far as I can determine it is true and relevant, and it being cliche does not make it less true.

US conservatives, generally, think "racism" is when you discriminate on race, and this is bad, and this should stop. This is the well established meaning of the word, and the meaning that progressives implicitly appeal to for moral weight.

US progressives have some of the same, but have also widespread slogans like "all white people are racist" (with academic motte-and-bailey switch to some excuse like "all complicit in and benefiting from a system of racism" when challenged) and "only white people are racist" (again with motte-and-bailey to "racism is when institutional-structural privilege and power favors you" with a side of America-centrism, et cetera) which combine to "racist" means "white" among progressives.

So for many US progressives, ending racism takes the form of eliminating whiteness and disfavoring whites and erasing white history and generally behaving the way Jack and friends made Gemini behave. (Supposedly. They've shut it down now and I'm late to the party, I can't verify these secondhand screenshots.)

Bringing in Yudkowsky's AI theories adds no predictive or explanatory power that I can see. Occam's Razor says to rule out AI alignment as a problem here. Gemini's behavior is sufficiently explained by common old-fashioned race-hate and bias, which there is evidence for on the Gemini team.

Poor Yudkowsky. I imagine he's having a really bad time now. Imagine working on "AI Safety" in the sense of not killing people, and then the Google "AI Safety" department turns out to be a race-hate department that pisses away your cause's goodwill.

---

I do not have a Twitter account. I do not intend to get a Twitter account, it seems like a trap best stayed out of. I am yelling into the void on my comment section. Any readers are free to send Yishan a link, a full copy of this, or remix and edit it to tweet at him in your own words.

[nancydrewwouldnever]

Warning - long post coming through.

Ok, so let’s say they’re married (honestly don’t know, don’t care) what happened to get to this point?

I don’t know him, but previous relationships have seemed more genuine. It’s obviously hard to compare because of all the hiding and trolling. He seems to be quite a broken individual (aren’t we all), and it’s evident from previous relationships he’s toxic e.g. telling Jenny to go to therapy or inferring Minka was boring and disliking qualities in her that he shares too (pot, kettle).

But with everything that’s been exposed about her, the racism, trolling, shower incident, sugar daddy account, cheating rumours, thin-skinned reactions to critique, moulding herself into his life…what am I missing? Loads I bet. What happened to make them both say, “yup, let’s get married! This is real love, we’re both genuinely happy with each other. Let’s capitalise on our love with some profile too!” He genuinely seems ashamed and unhappy when in public with her, is he embarrassed?

Like I said, I don’t know him or her. I just can’t see how anyone looks at all this and doesn’t go, “woaw, this is fucked up. Why are we together?” Are they both that deluded? Do they need exposure so much that they’re blinded to how shit it probably is?

I don’t want to say, “I give it a year”, because I feel like that makes a mockery of marriage. That you could make such an important decision in life on the basis that it might not work out and meh, that’s fine. Children would be worse, let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

Maybe they should take this opportunity to step back, enjoy their relationship and drop all the PR shit and toxicity. But that won’t happen, I feel he lacks the dignity for that. He’s curated an image of himself and burnt it to the ground, not sure there’s any coming back from this. Disappointingly, he doesn’t have the acting chops to keep his career afloat either.

What an odd choice. I really do hope it’s all been worth it for him.

Yeah, every day this gets just stranger, because in all the stuff they've released (pics, videos, pap walk), I fail to see anything that looks like deep affection or love. Now, personally, I don't see the point in marriage without those things. I just don't see the point in the expense or the stress of it without true emotional enrichment. But, you know - I'm not them, clearly. Let's see if they can manage smiles that reach their eyes in any possible wedding photos.

[chrkrose]

I’m gonna catch heat for this, but I’m gonna say it anyway:

The Velaryions should have stayed white and racebending them was a racist decision disguised as representation.

I can’t expand on this without giving away spoilers, so read more.

As a black latina woman (giving y’all my credentials before anything else), since it was announced the Velaryons wouldn’t be white, I didn’t like it. Which was a conflict for me because hellow, of course I love to see shows where the characters aren’t all two shades of beige.

But the racebending of the Velaryons was made the for the sake of appearances only, and the lack of real representation inside the writer’s room is clear in the ramifications of what this decision brings to the table. To add more salt to the injury, racebending them absolutely undermines the original narrative’s essence.

Valyrians are white, and this plays a significant role in the story.

The reason why this is annoying the hell out of me is because spoilers suggests that Addam Velaryon (Corlys Velaryon’s bastard) won’t have his Valyrian white-silver hair. So to anyone else’s eyes, he is a black man with no blood of Valyria running through his veins.

Which means that Nettles and her entire arc is severely compromised, because a lot of her story is based on the points that:

she is the only black character with a crucial role to play in The Dance and

she has no Valyrian looks.

Nettles journey lies in her distinctiveness: she is a black woman who lacks typical Valyrian features. The narrative emphasizes her experiences with racism from the white Valyrian families, who consider themselves divine. It is IMPORTANT that this happens to her.

Yet, the showrunners chose to racebend the Velaryons, and by doing that, took away from the experiences and uniqueness of Nettles and her story. And what happened when they changed their race? They treat the Velaryons like shit.

And I can’t help but think it’s because they are, now, black.

The only conclusion I can infer from this is that the choice of changing the Velaryon from white to black was solely for appearance’s sake, because the writers clearly not only don’t know how to write for black characters, they also surely have the biased view that a character once turned black will definitely lack in comparison to a white one. What the Velaryons got in return for being black was their storylines made worse, as if they don’t deserve the same treatment now they are no longer white characters.

An example is Laena Velaryon.

Laena went from being universally acknowledged as the woman Daemon Targaryen truly loved/loved the most by the fandom before the show aired (because funny enough they ignore the existence of Nettles, which is a whole other topic for discussion)… to become “second best”, to be portrayed as a secondary choice, feeling inadequate and as if she would never be enough in comparison to the white thin woman. Her death was changed from a sad bittersweet scene between herself and her husband to a violent traumatic scene where she suffered until the very end.

And now, if Addam Velaryon indeed has absolutely no Valyrian traits whatsoever to his physical appearance, then what this changes will mean is that the sole canonical black dragon rider in the entire lore of ASOIAF, who endured racism and discrimination due to her non-Valyrian looks, will be stripped away from several key aspects of her story. Nettles distinctiveness is minimized, and the absence of Valyrian traits in one of the Velaryons further erodes the significance of her narrative.

Nettles’ importance is already being downplayed in certain discussions across several HoTD boards. Nettles “isn’t that special anymore, is it even necessary to have her in the story” and “you can’t say that rhaenyra is racist because she married Laenor, Addam will be her ally according to several spoilers, it makes no sense. The maesters lied to make Rhaenyra look bad”. In an effort to make the white Targaryen family (and the white Targaryen woman) more appealing and palatable to the public, they stripped away the only canonical black character of important plot points in her story, all to prevent the Targaryens from coming off as antagonists.

Like I said before, the fact that Targaryens and Valyrians in general are white is important to the narrative. Their whiteness encapsulates their sense of racial superiority. Black characters never get to have their own “I’m special” moment, they never get to have a hero journey like white characters often do, and then we have a story where a black character has exactly that, where her story arc mirrors the ones often given to the white heroes, in all of its tropes and awesome achievements… and that gets stripped away from that black character as much as possible just so your show looks diverse? (Although we know the real answer: it’s so your white characters don’t come off as shitty as they are in the original story).

[therobotmonster]

My Retro-Cartoon Ramblings, Part 2

I reserve the right to use theme songs to make my points.

M-M-M-Mask is a testament to the power of a good theme-song and opening sequence. It's a Shuki Levy tune, of course, probably the platonic ideal of one.

And MASK is the ultimate example of an 80s Cartoon. I do not mean that it was the best one, not at all, but it is the most demonstrative of its genus. If MASK didn't exist, it would be the "80s cartoon show" that characters in other TV shows would watch.

It's 1/2 Transformers, 1/2 GI-Joe, with a bit of Knight Rider and the A-Team swirled in. The kid has a robot that's C3PO and R2's love child. It's most unique feature is that the hero is literally just somebody's dad.

Thanks to the realities of toy marketing, the show hits its head and wakes up thinking its a race-car driver (or am I thinking of Fred Flintstone?) for the last season.

Oh, there was one other aspect of MASK that stands out, unfortunately, and that's the casual racism. It generally seems to be of the tone-deaf well-meaning Hollywood brand of the era, but if anything qualifies as problematic, Bruce Sato's treatment does.

Dude's kick-ass, he's a toy designer and race driver who invents cool machines and comes up with the solution to almost all the problems. Only he does the latter, typically, by cluing Matt in via a Confucian proverb of dubious origin. It's a whole lotta yikes.

Speaking of theme songs, Thundercats! The best show you remember from your childhood. In reality it's a real-life Candle Cove situation: We all shared an experience, and what was on the screen was not that experience.

The people who made Thundercats were masterful. And I mean that without reservation or irony. Because they pulled off one hell of a magic trick with the budget and raw materials they had. The voice cast is tiny, the animation limited, the budgets obviously minuscule.

But they used what they had where it counted. They essentially played Dungeons and Dragons with the audience, using inferences, lore crumbs, and stone-faced sincerity to invite the audience to fill in the holes with their imaginations.

Thus the reboots' troubles. No one can agree on what Thundercats was because everyone experienced a different Thundercats. Everyone who goes back and watches it comments on how its not like they remembered. It is the Rashomon of fandoms. As much a mass hysteria as a TV show.

On to part 3!

[johannestevans]

Pirate Media Recommendations

Along with Ryann Fletcher, Kate Heartfield, Juliet Kemp, and F.D. Lee, I'm going to be on the Queer Pirates panel at 3pm this Friday at EasterCon 2023!

Our Flag Means Death and other pirates: a panel discussion including fandom and canon of Our Flag Means Death and other series such as Black Sails. This item will start around 15 minutes after advertised start time to minimise clash with the Opening Ceremony.

You can still sign up for virtual membership of EasterCon here if you'd like to attend online, as there are going to be a great many panels and discussions throughout the con, which are gonna be great.

Coming up to the panel, I thought I'd make a list of some of my favourite pirate and nautical media to point people to, as I'm probably going to mention a bunch of it on the panel and this is a particularly fierce interest of mine!

So for Our Flag Means Death, we know that it's an interpretation of the historical relationship between Edward Teach and Stede Bonnet as a romance - two other famously queer pirates were of course Anne Bonny and Mary/Mark Read. I'm personally super excited to see if these figures will feature in Our Flag Means Death S2.

Podcast Episodes & Videos:

Ching Shih: The Pirate Queen, from Puppet History

The True Story of a Pirate Queen, from Ruining History

A History of Gay Pirates with Rebecca Simon, on the PRIDE Podcast -

Sailing Through Queer Pirate History with Rebecca Simon, on the PRIDE Podcast

Pirate Queens with Rebecca Simon, on the PRIDE Podcast

Were Some Pirates Poofters?, from the History is Gay Podcast - Going through Anne Bonny, Mary Read, Calico Jack, and Pierre Bouspet.

Queerness in the Golden Age of Piracy, from Queer as Fact

Books & Essays:

FICTION: The Aubrey-Maturin Series, by Patrick O'Brian - The Aubreyad is not about pirates, but is a nautical-historical series of 20 books set in the 1800s. I love these books a lot, they're ridiculous and very homoerotic with a lot of background gay dynamics - you can absolutely infer a romance between Captain Jack Aubrey, a hot slab of beef, and his doctor, Stephen Maturin. They're funny and they're rich with nautical descriptions, really immersing you into the language and feel of the period and the sensation of being on these vessels. While I'm not holding these books up as a bastion of queerness compared to other texts, Maturin is a fervent abolitionist and despite being a member of Aubrey's crew is actually vehemently anti-colonialist in his views, and those discussions do play out on paper again and again. Because of their realism these books do kind of poke a hole in the naval officers being held up as inherently noble or honourable, and particularly regularly criticises the actions and ideas of the state.

FICTION: J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan - I love Peter Pan, and obviously I talk and blog about it a lot. What's particularly dear to my heart is the relationship between Hook and Smee, which is such an intimate marriage even though it's not explicitly described as such, and it makes me very emotional. This book was written at the beginning of the 20th century, and I do want to warn anyone before going in about the racism inherent - the text treats the existence of the Natives to Neverland as part of an "adventure", and there's also anti-Black racism toward many of Hook's crew, as well as the description of Hook himself as "swarthy" despite being a white Etonian. Peter Pan is a story about working class white children in London whose parents has dreams of them ascending to middle class, and the children's fears of growing up are heavily influenced by economic anxiety, but also they desire a return to a time when as young white kids "adventure" would have been more accessible to them, as is typical in the classic adventure novel.

FICTION: Peter Darling, by Austin Chant - The Lost Boys say that Peter Pan went back to England because of Wendy Darling, but Wendy is just an old life he left behind. Neverland is his real home. So when Peter returns to it after ten years in the real world, he’s surprised to find a Neverland that no longer seems to need him. The only person who truly missed Peter is Captain James Hook, who is delighted to have his old rival back. The oft-recommended trans man!Peter Pan/Hook romance novel. Please don't talk to me about this one as I haven't and can't read it for some personal trigger readings, but it's recommended all over and is well-loved for a reason!

FICTION: Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island - Treasure Island is of course, one of the archetypal adventure novels. What a lot of people might not know is that the TV series Black Sails is a prequel to Treasure Island! If you enjoyed Our Flag Means Death, you might be delighted to realise that the real life pirate Israel Hands features in Treasure Island, and fights with Jim Hawkins, the protagonist.

NON-FICTION: Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth-Century Caribbean, by B.R. Burg - In Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition, historian B. R. Burg investigates the social and sexual world of these sea rovers, a tightly bound brotherhood of men engaged in almost constant warfare. What, he asks, did these men, often on the high seas for years at a time, do for sexual fulfillment? Buccaneer sexuality differed widely from that of other all- male institutions such as prisons, for it existed not within a regimented structure of rule, regulations, and oppressive supervision, but instead operated in a society in which widespread toleration of homosexuality was the norm and conditions encouraged its practice.

ESSAY: Our Flag Means Death and Queer Utopias at Sea, an essay by Seth LeJacq

TV Series:

Our Flag Means Death - Of course, duh! Our Flag Means Death, a queer romcom interpreting the historical relationship between Stede Bonnet, the Gentleman Pirate, and Edward Teach, Blackbeard, as a romance.

Black Sails - A "gritty" and brutal prequel to RL Stevenson's Treasure Island, exploring the tales of Long John Silver and how he came to be what he ultimately is in Treasure Island. There is a lot of gay shit in this and it's extremely anti-imperial in its outlook - with that said, I'm personally not a great fan of Black Sails to watch, for me personally it's either too upsetting or too dull to stick with, oscillating between the two extremes. If you haven't tried it and do want to, I do recommend sticking through at least the first season and seeing if you get into it! With that said, it's got particularly brutal onscreen treatment of its WOC, especially Max, a Black woman who is violently raped onscreen (as well as onscreen abuses of other women), and I would recommend treading with caution if this is something that will be difficult to watch.

Neverland - This miniseries is near and dear to my heart - it's not huge on the pirates, but it actually has Bob Hoskins reprising his 1991 role as Smee, and I find it to be an interesting and quite different exploration of the Peter Pan prequel that really explores class some. More importantly, it actually has Natives playing Natives, and features Q'orianka Kilcher as Aaya!

Movies:

Love, Death, & Robots: Bad Travelling (2022) - This is a short film that's part of the LD&R series, and it's really good nautical horror. That's all there is to it.

Master and Commander (2003) - Taika Waititi said this movie is his favourite romance movie, and he's so fucking right. Anyway, this movie is based off the first five of Patrick O'Brian's Aubreyad, and it's so loving and so gay.

Treasure Planet (2002) - There are so many adaptations of Treasure Island, but this is my favourite every single time, it's just so well-done, it's so full of care, it really captures the wonder and excitement of sailing and the sense of freedom, and honestly? Jim Hawkins is sooooo transmasculine, he even has an ugly shitty mullet haircut and a little gold earring, he is the blueprint, he is perfect. If piracy in space tickles your fancy, I also might recommend Space Pirate Captain Harlock (2013).

Pirates of the Carribean: The Black Pearl (2003), Dead Man's Chest (2006), and At World's End (2007) - Listen. Are there technically other POTC movies? Yes. Should you watch them? Oh, fuck no. I have seen On Stranger Tides and Dead Men Tell No Tales/Salazar's Revenge and let me tell you: you do not have to, you do not need to, and you do not want to. On Stranger Tides tried to tell me that Hector Barbossa fell in love with a woman. My man. Hector Barbossa. A woman!? Please! Anyway, I grew up on these movies and unfortunately they are overwhelmingly and unrealistically white - there are some really cool characters of colour and I especially love Tia Dalma. Remember not to watch these movies legally, by the way - watch them on an old cheap DVD or do some piracy yourself. Fuck Johnny Depp.

The Pirates of Penzance (1983) - This is an adaptation of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, and it is so over the top, so ridiculous, so much fucking fun. Kevin Kline has some of the sexiest fits in this movie and so much thick, thatched chest hair, and the music is good, many of the jokes still land, and it's just fun.

Peter Pan (2003) - Don't watch the Disney Peter Pan. Never watch it, it's garbage, it's ugly, it invented a bunch of anti-Native racism that isn't in the already racist original text, and you know, fuck Disney. Is the 2003 Peter Pan perfect? No. But is it better? Yes. Jason Isaacs is so hot as Hook, and while I am not the biggest fan of PJ Hogan's take on the book that's all about Wendy wanting to fuck her own dad on top of cutting the Hook/Smee dynamic back significantly, the Neverland aesthetics and the silly piratical ones are a lot of fun.

Hook (1991) - Spielberg's sequel to Peter Pan is glorious for one reason and one reason only: Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins were like, "hey, these two dudes are married. They're old queens in love!" and they played it like that, and they were so fucking right. Hoffman's Hook is so queer and so effete and so incredibly mentally ill and he is the biggest mood throughout, as is Smee trying to keep them both alive. I adore this movie to death, I really do.

Down Periscope (1996) - Okay. So. This movie is a little bit different. It's not set in the Golden Age of Piracy or even just after it - it's set in the 1990s, and is about a Yank Naval Captain doing wargames with other members of the navy. With that said, it's got a lot of pirate hijinks and a lot of found family dynamics with a lot of freaks and neurodivergents packing the crew - note that there's some misogynistic harassment in this for the only female crew member, but she's one of my favourite characters and she's so much fun, much like the rest of the crew. Listen. The captain has a tattoo on his dick. They all dress up as pirates while making one of their crew members walk the plank. Their ending credits feature the cast dancing and singing along with the Village People, to the iconic gay anthem, In The Navy. It's good, I swear.

And I've tried a bunch of pirate videogames, but none of them has measured up to Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. Unfortunately, this game is an Assassin's Creed game and all the AC plot stuff sucks, because that's what AC games are for.

When it's not doing their terrible meta plot in the "real world", though, this game has such excellent gameplay, it's great fun, and the soundtrack is tremendous. Even if you don't play the game, absolutely consider giving the sound track a listen, because it's just great!

An old album I would recommend is also the Robert Shaw Chorale Sea Shanties one! It's from 1960, and they do some really fun arrangements of different sea shanties - their Drunken Sailor is one of my absolute favourites!

If you'd like to see a different take on the sea shanties and would still love some more space piracy, I would also recommend Once Upon A Time (in Space), by the Mechanisms!

My Stuff

And separate to the general rec list above, here's some of my work that's relevant to my takes on queer pirates, and why I'm on the panel:

Communicating Want, by me, DictionaryWrites - 75k, rated E, Frenchie/Izzy. Izzy's just so buttoned-up, how is Lucius supposed to resist the urge to seduce him? It doesn't go well. Just a silly thing exploring sexual trauma and stuff with Izzy Hands! Love that bitch.

Our Flag Means Death S01 E01: Close Textual Analysis — Examining OFMD E1: Pilot in close detail and liveblogging/analysing the text. On Medium / / On Patreon.

Gerald Poole and the Pirates - A distinctly queer adventure full of internal conflict ensues when a gentleman and a sailor are captured by pirates. Read on Medium: Part I / / Part II / / Part III / / Part IV / / Buy as an eBook on SmashWords, $2.99 / Buy as an eBook from Amazon.

The Coffin at Sea — 400w. A vessel picks up a coffin afloat at sea. On Medium / / On Patreon.

The Pirate Accountant — 4.5k, rated M, MB. A quartermaster works up the nerve to finally mount a seduction on their accountant. Dark humour and biting banter throughout, between an exceedingly cautious and paranoid accountant and the quartermaster who’s finally worked up the courage to ask him out. On Medium / / On Patreon.

Saint Jude’s Kitchen — 20k, Rated M, MB. After an injury stops him working, a failing deckhand gets a new lease on life. Themes around cooking and nurturing, identity and sense of self, and complex family dynamics. Adapted from a TweetFic. On Medium / / On Patreon.

[overleftdown]

i dont wanna make your post too long by rbing back and forth, but that tiktok sent me into the stratosphere too like if it wasnt felix himself who swept the entire discussion under the rug 😭 you know the quote thats like "hell is full of other people"? my personal hell is filled with those who refuse to recognize felix's flaws and insist hes an angel good guy who's done nothing wrong EVER lmao. im not an expert on farleigh but calling him a villain is insane especially in context of his relationship with felix and ollie respectively

i will talk about this always and forever. and this fandom makes it easy to. every time i say my piece and post it, i'm dragged back to the same discussion over and over cuz people are just... so wrong. i'm pretentious and my ego is a flaming torch. HAHAH.

the tiktok you're referencing (for context; tiktok OP was saying that the "race/class discussion" of saltburn was... bad?? i don't even know. they implied that it was bad because it wasn't overt) is so insane and i'm just gunna go on a brief rampage about why.

this concept that white people have, that discussions of race and racism need to be dramatic, and they need to blow up in your face... it pisses me off. it's living proof that people making this commentary how no idea how racism has evolved and changed into what it is now. saltburn and farleigh, in my opinion, is such a perfect race commentary. because it's not overt. archie once said that his otherness was just present in the room. archie as an actor and farleigh as a character; their otherness was THERE. if anything, i would've made the same inferences if farleigh and felix never had the on-screen conversation (although that conversation is a great foundational piece of evidence). i would see the ways in which farleigh has to compensate, mirror, mask, hide, exceed, etc. the viewers woud've noticed, almost like second nature, that farleigh is black in a white-dominated upper-class environment. whether they choose to recognize that, whether they choose to understand what that means... well, you can already see how that's turning out. race commentary doesn't always have to be dramatic and loud, because modern racism is often so quiet. this is amplified in a family dynamic. the racism in my family is despicably, horrifyingly quiet to everyone but me. it's loud as fuck to me. i'm sure it's loud to farleigh.

it's this sort of idea that real racism is overt, that it can only be validated and discussed through boldness and rudeness. when, in fact, modern racism lingers in the air. to quote the historian thomas holt, “What enables racism to reproduce itself after the historical conditions that initially gave it life have disappeared?” saltburn and the cattons is a brilliant representation of this. the viewer is (or should be) fully aware that aristocratic english wealth has been built by the suffering of others. there was a period in time when english wealth was feeding off of enslavement. but overt racism is no longer normative, it's no longer acceptable. the historical conditions of anti-blackness (slavery, legalized racism and segregation) have disappeared, so how does anti-blackness reproduce itself? the answer is, you can see it within the movie.

[thatlittleegyptologist]

hey sorry i didn’t mean to seem mad about it, i just follow you and noticed you tend to get upset a lot, it can’t be nice for you. But the advice was uncalled for, of course you can and should do whatever you want

Apology accepted. I don't know how long you've followed me, but you should know that stuff like this doesn't happen very often. At least not in the volume it has been today. You also seem to infer that I'm upset by it or that it surprises me. I'm not. The levels of misinformation to do with Ancient Egypt have long since stopped surprising me or upsetting me.

However, I'm an educator. One of my roles here for people is to clarify or debunk misinformation about Ancient Egypt. So, when someone is in my activity page using the phrase 'correct me if I'm wrong' while posting misinformation, I'm going to do just that. If someone comes into my notes and accuses my field of deliberately destroying Jewish burials in favour of Christian ones, I'm going to tell them they're wrong. What you don't see is the mountain of other hot takes and bullshit I don't respond to on a daily basis. There's a lot of it, trust me. You guys only see a fraction of what I see every single day. I do in fact 'let it go' on a daily basis. However, Tumblr, and the internet at large, is very much of the mind that 'misinformation should be corrected' as well as 'Egyptologists should be doing something about the racism that's present in the field'. So I've been doing just that. Except I get a lot of people who've watched one documentary telling me how my field works. I get a lot of false information built on those racist assumptions that if I don't combat it I get anons telling me I'm not doing enough to combat it. A frustrating catch 22.

What I also get when discussing misinformation is a lot of tone policing. I long ago discovered that the way I write upsets a lot of USians who, for cultural reasons, find the way I write (direct, unambiguous, not always happy and smiley) to be 'bitchy' or 'you seem upset maybe you should go outside'. It happens every time I respond to a couple of people or express my frustration with things on my own personal blog. Someone, like yourself, will show up and tell me I need to check my tone and lighten up. I've learned to expect it. Being a woman in academia means things like 'expressing frustration' and 'correcting people' is seen as poor behaviour and I hope you understand why I don't react well to anyone sending me that sort of thing.

[7grandmel]

Todays rip: 15/02/2024

Corridors of Vine

Season 6 Featured on: SiIvaGunner's Highest Quality Rips: Volume FF

Ripped by Heboyi

Right, okay, we've had a good streak recently of covering more "traditionally good" rips for the blog - arrangements and remixes like NIGHTMARESCAPE 〜Unrestrained HyperCam 2〜 (Final Boss Phase 2), genuinely good arrangements like mlp racism anthem (comix zone arrange), even the premiere of a new Season with the Joke-Explainer™ 7000 Fusion Collab. I think its about high time we change the clock to something "stupider" - the kind of rip that reminds you just how much SiIva is driven by the wild imagination, skill, and commitment-to-the-bit of its contributors. Only within a community like SiIvaGunner's will you get something like Corridors of Vine.

With memes as a whole, there seems to exist some sort of...invisible hierarchy that defines their public perception, that I've always found really fascinating. It's not impossible to understand why this hierarchy exists: Memes like the Hampsterdance in Wario's Hampster Mine, the Sparta Remix in THIS. IS. SOLEANNA. and more call back to a different, more innocent time in internet history, wheras memes like Despacito in Plains of Des-passing-to and It's Everyday Bro in It's Everyday Lake are oft met with comments like "I hate that I love this", or other similar sentiments. Memes generally follow a trend where, once one has worn out its period of inferred relevance - typically once it stops being a niche internet activity and spreads to marketing teams and unfunny people in general - its labeled as "dead" and unwanted, left as a relic of a smaller period of internet activity. That is, of course, unless it gets brought back into fashion by virtue of nostalgia and given some sort of new spin, as we've seen happen with Doge as of late - until that then too becomes co-opted by unfunny people (this time crypto-grifters) and the cycle begins anew. Yet part of what makes SiIvaGunner as a channel so great, is that very few of the memes it uses ever reach that state of abandonment: the team is so good at finding new, inventive ways to use memes as old as from Season 1, to where they rarely feel stale. And if they do feel stale - well, then that can ironically become part of the joke, playing into just how samey and played-out the joke is for a sort of ironic appeal.

All of this is to say, that I always find it immensely funny whenever the team decides - seemingly at the drop of a hat - to begin using memes that have been thoroughly labeled as dead for years by that point. A meme like the Harlem Shake didn't have so much as a pulse by the time Season 6 rolled around even past its sole revival to relevancy a few years back from being attached to Ajit Pai - yet The Harlem Shakeover of that very season was one containing over THREE HUNDRED rips utilizing the joke, next to none of which were made with the intention of sounding bad. Funny enough, then, that one of the first events we'd see during that same Season would be doing the exact same thing to a meme that's likely far more loathed than the Harlem Shake ever was - Damn Daniel, the core joke to Corridors of Vine.

Damn Daniel is perhaps the closest we've ever gotten to having a meme that felt like a social experiment - a complete non-sequitor of a joke starring an average, marketable teen and his immaculate footwear. At the peak of Vine's age of randomness humor, the series of various videos on Daniel's Vans absolutely blew up - and immediately, there were cynics from outside of Vine, older internet dwellers mainly, who made a big point about how lacking-in-funny the videos were. Yet the guy, Daniel, made it onto the damn Ellen Show of all things within mere weeks after his debut, and in a way it kind of made Damn Daniel a symbol for everything considered wrong about Vine: its mainstream appeal and focus on short, memeable videos had created a form of shitposting that...no longer felt like they were part of a community.

That is, of course, just my summary of the opinions I gathered from all the way back in 2016 - back when SiIvaGunner itself was first revving up into gear. And I find it so incredibly befitting that it was during Season 6 that the Damn Daniel event occurred on SiIvaGunner - the Season all about letting go of the past. To have it begin with SiIvaGunner, itself a 2016 meme, acknowledging its near polar opposite made around the same time: A meme that was, for a solid while, one of the most wanted-dead memes of all, one that the internet as a whole frankly felt a kind of hatred toward during what would come to be a rather cynical, hateful year in general.

There's definitely an overarching aura of irony applied to the anniversary celebration's rips regardless, of course - part of the joke with Corridors of Vine is that its using a song otherwise so closely enveloped in emotion and vulnerability (one SiIva itself used to similar effect with 時の回廊 ＜ver. CCC＞), alongside a joke that's so bitterly remembered that its mere inclusion makes it difficult to take seriously. Yet Corridors of Vine takes itself as seriously as the concept could be, it is a genuinely fantastic YTPMV using several of the famous Damn Daniel Vines in conjunction with one another, resulting in an infectiously catchy combination of lead- and backing melody instrumentation. I do think the commitment to the bit worked excellently, and the comments of the video itself appear to agree with me - despite how beloathed Damn Daniel itself was, the time to properly acknowledge and accept it had arrived, and we were for once actually...enjoying the meme?

To circle back to the point made in the second paragraph here - the truth is, there are very few memes that wind up actually full-on dead for long. Dead memes as a concept are a label we put upon jokes we feel have ran their course, yet especially in the world of YTPMV there will always be people out there able to prove the naysayers wrong, even if the intentions are purely ironic. Ironic or affectionate, the end result is the same, isn't it? You've got a smile out of your audience through your work in adapting the meme! And through all the comments expressing their concerns over returning to the hellscape that was 2016s meme culture, those smiles - even through the barrier of the internet, felt as if they were shared by all of us. The entire event - and Corridors of Vine in particular - showed Damn Daniel a sense of affection it likely hasn't had since the days when the SiIvaGunner channel's name began with a G.

Here's to 8 years, Daniel.

...Stussy man, Damn.

[al-n-cartoons]

Hi, I'm on a spree.

I was thinking about that one episode where the show writers decide to use all of their most blatantly monster themed aliens for a lesson in racism, which…

[Deep inhale,]

Was certainly a decision. That they made.

Anyhow, I was thinking about how Ben from the Story Told au would act in that episode (and arc) and realized that he'd probably take advantage of the fact that the planet is perpetually dim so as to use his Omnitrix's Starlight feature. Basically, the Omnitrix took a form that Ben had taken the sample of directly, that it had downloaded onto its hardware (rather than through a connection to Galvan Prime), or from a form the Omnitrix had copied the data from and then customized such that the final form is an equivalent to Ben's human one.

This Loboan form is that lattermost option; it is a Loboan with a few slight modifications— such as the extra digits on the claws and the thinner fur in some places. It is a juvenile, just as Ben is, which actually inspires some interesting storylines.

We refer to our adolescents as “teens”, but that has its meaning from the fact that a stretch of years end with that. If you walked up to someone who had never before seen a human, who came from an entirely different species and with wholly different biology, and you referred to yourself as a “teen”— that alien would have no frame of reference. What that alien might do is try and make an inference based on how that person acts and where they are.

In this instance, Ben is on a work trip thousands of miles away from home with seemingly no caretaker, so…. This human is an adult?

And then the human shapeshifts into a version of that alien's species and is a child.

I mean…

There's story potential there…

……

Someone slap my hands away from the screen now-

[iwtvdramacd18]

🔥 just in general on iwtv or the fandom around the show lolol

ok so. I'm going to put this as politely as I can but I think that a notable portion of a target audience that is like into specifically VC novels stuff have not come into the show with the depth needed to really engage with a character like Louis... I don't think it's something that can't be learned but there's so much stuff I come across I'm like oh my god. How are you missing the context behind why he's acting like this in x space versus y space. How are you not understanding the stakes at play. Why are you so upset he's flipping out like this there is a race riot outside can we stop thinking about Lestat for five seconds and give Louis the space to stumble through the streets full of black people being tormented and pick up a random 14 year old to doom to eternal damnation

I think the show really does provide enough off the bat to interrogate both Lestat and Daniel's whiteness but that's also going over a lot of peoples heads. I think there's such a huge incorporation of fan knowledge of the context of Devil's Minion that people are reading like sensuality or desire into scenes where Daniel is just being like. Micro aggressive to Armand and he's not having it. And then a number of comments that Daniel makes to Louis that have people going "yeah tear his narrative down!!!" And Daniel is like. Very shittily throwing the very unhealthy unbalanced racial dynamics in Louis' face like he doesn't know.

Also related to that I think a lot of people find it really easy to brush away actions in the show as "they're vampires they're blood sucking monsters they kill people human morality doesn't factor in here) as if the show hasn't made it abundantly clear that it is taking very human questions of morality into perspective it also very literally is showing that with Louis and Claudia not being able to escape racism despite being vampires. And also it's just a lot more engaging that way to me that way? I think the show takes both the very real world/human stuff that Louis and Claudia will always be saddled with as well as Lestat's disconnect from humanity and being elevated (in his eyes) to this different set of ideals into consideration and I really like that. It'll be really interesting I think going forward especially taking armand into consideration with his ancient ass

Tldr; a lot of people don't understand the racial dynamics at play in the show and are missing a bunch from it because race in fact. Is, while obv not the only important theme, important in the show about a black vampire from Jim Crow era which is shocking I know. I think we could separate more from relying so heavily on book canon to make inferences about relationships and dynamics that haven't happened in the show yet.

also why the fuck Marius got a defense squad like that

[pocketsizedquasar]

you asked for lore questions so. do you have any particular starhab Thoughts today

HI I MISSED THIS SOMEHOW but yes the answer to this question is always yes. i always have Them thots

recently, i’ve mostly been rotating what i’ve been uncreatively calling Good AU (AU where Starbuck actually Talks To ahab and they have a proper conversation and convinces him to turn around but not before at least 3 therapy sessions which may or may not involve passive-to-active suicidality on both their parts wahoo)

which is generally the AU i’m always rotating; @coulson-is-an-avenger have been talking abt it for literally 9+ months (n they have made some related fics before me, bc i’m slow <3 /positive) — but right now specifically, since i’ve finally started Actually writing it in the past couple weeks, i’m thinking a lot abt the beginning/setup of the au, which is aforementioned conversations/therapy sessions/breakdowns

more specifically, i’m thinking lots about how melville writes both ahab and starbuck as such deeply, intrinsically lonely people in different ways, and about how some of that loneliness is self inflicted and some of it isn’t. w starbuck especially… (i’ve talked abt this in the comments of a comic page before but) there’s the obvious element of loneliness that comes from losing most of his family to whaling, and having to be away from his wife and child for so long, and being seemingly the only person for a while on this boat who thinks there might be something wrong with ahab, but there is also an element of self-inflicted loneliness too: in Dusk, he specifically mentions the “heathen crew” and how much he feels apart from them. “Oh, God! to sail with such a heathen crew that have small touch of human mothers in them! Whelped somewhere by the sharkish sea. The white whale is their demigorgon.” his whiteness (and racism) and christianity is an element of isolation for him.

melville very regularly and deliberately highlights whiteness as a tool of isolation. ishmael only heals and becomes less lonely when he eschews christian “kindness” — “I’ll try a pagan friend, thought I, since Christian kindness has proved but hollow courtesy.” ahab is excluded and isolated from this world, for various untold reasons, though we can infer that some of them result from his disability (and, if you’re like me, an argument for reading ahab as nonwhite): “socially, Ahab was inaccessible. Though nominally included in the census of Christendom, he was still an alien to it.”

and starbuck—starbuck is of this world, this world of hollow courtesy and alienation, this world of nantucket quakers, which ishmael so poignantly describes as stifling and insular and strict. it is this — this whiteness, this hollow christianity, this learned racism — which prevents Starbuck from meaningfully emotionally connecting with his ‘pagan’ / ‘heathen’ crew, even as we know he is generally in other ways good to them. it is also this worldview which prevents him from meaningfully getting through to ahab.

like, ahab is obviously a traumatized specimen of a man (affectionate), but starbuck is also so deeply entrenched in his hyper specific worldview, just as much as ahab is. he can't connect with ahab more because he's so entrenched in seventeen layers of protestant guilt & conditioning, which is partially just the gay thing, but also like. being unable of conceiving ahab's pain through another framework. bc xtianity and protestantism and whiteness and all these things so wildly distort your concepts of what suffering is and who experiences it and who even has the Right to it, and what the right and wrong ways to experience pain are.

all his reasoning for why ahab giving himself so wholly to vengeance and eschewing all human connection is like… “bc god said it’s bad.” in all the times starbuck (in some ways rightly) gets at ahab for what he's doing, he doesn't ever really get to the point of trying to understand why it's happening? or where ahab is coming from? when what ahab needs is to be met where he’s at, in all his messy ugly pain and trauma

so w/ these conversations in the au it's like. part of it is starbuck letting go of this moral judgment and just coming to ahab with a genuine desire to understand hey. why are you doing this. tell me why this is so important to you. why this whale. why so hard. what is driving you to this. and like. understanding the very real amount of pain that ahab is in. the very real mess of a world that is constantly traumatizing and retraumatizing him. a world of whiteness and christianity and capitalism that has so thoroughly abandoned him to his trauma and his pain that he legitimately sees no other way out, no other alternative for alleviating that pain, than this quest.

basically in order to cure ahab’s loneliness starbuck needs to break his own. he cannot break down the walls around ahab without first reaching out beyond his own. and that’s why he fucking doesn’t in canon and tdjdhdhshdjwhdsjdhsj this is why i am so fucking mentally unwell about these two gay losers hfhehdhdhdhehddh

[elf-insert]

Something I've noticed within high fantasy fandom community is real world concepts and terminology being used liberally and without consideration for historical application and actual human experience.

Not all fantastical experiences or situations have real world equivalents, and false equivalents should not be made.

Drawing ties to real world historical atrocities and bigotry without textual evidence and direct implication within canon can result in the rapid degradation of understanding of these concepts in real world situations and how they affect real people.

Drawing inference through context or creating AUs that expound upon these themes to make them more relevant and therefore accurate to the real world descriptions is fine, and a great exercise in world building. However, throwing around words like racism and ableism when you are working with monsters and creatures with no real world equivalent, you can easily play into stereotypes that plague real people every day.

Please be cautious with your words, and consider the historical meanings and applications behind them before applying them to a fantasy scenario.