diaryofdarkfemininegirl

[binders-and-beanies]

Idk why people get sooo mad when a word applies to something they think it doesn’t. Like. I’m diagnosed as being mildly intellectually disabled (because I am severely dyspraxic), it is medically and legally in black and white and there is Thorough ass paperwork that goes into detail as to how. (I won’t get too specific here but I’m categorized as “severely impaired” in the areas of motor speed and coordination, rapid mental flexibility, and spatial perception and orientation.)

Quantitatively and qualitatively doctors have tested and retested to figure out that objectively i fit the criteria, and therefore am officially categorized as such. That’s not a political statement or something I *want* to be true or false, it’s just fact. Not as in my ✨lived experience✨ but as in science. There’s not a secret other definition that doesn’t apply to me, just because an acquaintance is uncomfortable with it for whatever reason. You don’t know more about intellectual disability than neurologists do just because you have a tumblr account

[txttletale]

big fan not even particularly involvd i just wanted to say hi because i love a debate and i thought your last post was a little fallacious especially in the pesto analogy. because obviously your point is that pesto being good has nothing to do with sexual assault and neither do "problematic kinks" -- however, regardless of whether problematic kinks correlate sexual assault, discussion of whether problematic kinks make someone more likely to be a sexual predator obviously is a discussion inherently related to whether someone is a sexual predator, because what makes someone a sexual predator is one of the topics being discussed. i think it's worth checking ops in those scenarios because it can harm the ethos of your (very well thought out & presented) stance if it turns out that someone who you referenced as saying "liking bdsm doesn't make someone a sexual predator" was someone accused of being a sexual predator for other real reasons. imo it's more comparable to how i check blogs i reblog "stop dismissing feminism as terf rhetoric, being a feminist doesnt make you a terf" posts from to make sure that they are not actually transmisogynistic, because as much as i believe the post is objectively true, it's also something terfs like to use to try to delegitimize criticism and it makes my argument weaker if i rb that as support. or in the pesto analogy i think it would be more like if a post said "pesto is good and eating it doesn't mean you're an evil clown" and it turned out op was an evil clown who liked pesto. i agree with the post bc i like pesto and am not an evil clown but if someone wanted to disagree with me i gave them a pretty easy target, no matter how well reasoned my argument they can point behind me and say "evil clown! they're an evil clown apologist!" and internet users will believe them because there is demonstrably an evil clown behind me. so even if you don't check every blog you rb from (i don't), it is probably worth denouncing posts that turn out to be attempts at that kind of camouflage even if the content of the post is true and you didn't know the context at the time IF you're trying to be as persuasive as possible.

imo i think this angle holds much more water & is a pretty fair point i more or less agree with! thanks for providing this viewpoint, i appreciate it.

[raw-law]

I actually think myself to be pretty good at debates. Its just that i really cant discuss anything with overly emotional people. I know it sounds kind of mean but it stresses me out when I present my logical and well constructed arguments and the other person starts crying?? Like I get being passionate about an issue but calm down I am not attacking you i respect you and am simply interested in your point of view while also wanting to explain my own. Idk maybe its just cause im autistic. This doesnt apply to discussing stuff like basic fucking human rights btw bc if im forced to do that i will definitelly get really angry, but yeah thats a different story cause that kind of stuff shouldnt even be up for debate you know.

-♀️

L:

ahhh. that's understandable though. it can get frustrating when others get are clouded by emotion to listen to any other viewpoint. whenever i'm trying to convince people like that to see my side of things, i usually just try to play to their emotions, vocabulary, etc. to show that i'm just trying to have a genuine conversation with them. usually when you find the right language and tone, they begin to understand there's no threat and start engaging back. that happened a lot with aizawa, actually.

it can be a tedious and very much like walking on eggshells at first, but it's satisfying to see, and makes it easier to understand each other in later conversations. and, when i think about it, it's a little ironic how you have to control your own stress and frustration when the person you're debating starts getting stressed and frustrated too. huh. just noticed that.

anyways. that bit about the anger with debating human rights is absolutely true though. i still don't get why people try arguing those at all.. it's sickening, but sentient flash sacks will be sentient flash sacks, i guess.

Light:

I mean. I suppose I can understand being frustrated when you're trying to explain something to someone in a calm manner and they get so worked up over it they burst into tears...I get why you'd react that way.

I guess you should just try to keep the other person calm? As in, try to take a less argumentative tone, so that both of you are calm enough to present your points on a logical sequence to the other. If they're still worked up, then the only thing you can do is back off.

Another interesting alternative to consider is having these debates over text. Like RD pointed out, it is indeed less taxing emotionally to debate on text compared to in person. And I certainly prefer it to in-person. So...if you really care about debating with the other person, you could try to do it over text.

[isekyaaa]

Questions abt the last day of the event because I have no reading comprehension.

What is the "truth" Alhaitham is referring to here? Granted, he's quoting something, but I digress. The true defense against nihilism? Is little decisions being the defense against nihilism the "ignorance that blinds them?" Or is the ignorance the idea that the idealist can bring happiness to all?

I could probably find the answer to this question if I did a better analysis on Kaveh. Honestly I still don't understand his mentality. I don't really get how his idealism relates to his lack of self-worth. I don't get why his idealism is a defense against coming to terms with the truth. Actually, I'm not even really sure what his "truth" is and why he doesn't want to face it. I can come up with a one-size-fits-all answer, but nothing more personalized to Kaveh's situation.

Going off of what I've seen in real life, the ignorance that blinds empaths is the belief that they can make everyone happy. But why? Hmm... Is it perhaps that they believe making others happy will bring them happiness? And to admit this isn't the case means that they have to become selfish to pursue their happiness?

But if this is the case, how would it relate to the concept of nihilism in this event, i.e. that at humanity's core, it is darkness and will continue to perpetuate darkness into infinity? I'm guessing Sachin held onto his ideals that humanity at its core was good, but continuous observations and failed experiments proved him wrong. The truth to him was that humanity could not be saved nor save itself. But how is that supposed to relate to Kaveh?

Unless it's not supposed to relate to Kaveh? Sachin assumed they were similar, but Kaveh's idealism stems from a different place than Sachin's? Aka Sachin chose wrong? Speaking of which, I never really thought of Kaveh as an empath. Bc tbh through this whole event I suppose there was supposed to be a parallel between Sachin and Kaveh, but I didn't really see one and perhaps that was the point? They're both idealists yet still very different. Their cores are different. None of Kaveh's issues stem from empathy. They seem from guilt.

But that doesn't answer my original question. What does "truth" and "ignorance" refer to? Granted, they made it clear that there is no one truth in the event. People's truths can be different. So then what's the ignorance? This quote seems to be in support of Sachin than pointing out his flaw. He got rid of his ignorance which brought him to his version of the truth. So is this quote supposed to be an argument? A support? Or is it just... an observation? Probably the latter?

I think my issue with this whole thing is that I'm trying to understand this under the assumption that Kaveh parallels Sachin. Which... I really don't think he does in the slightest. And because of this, my base that I was trying to build my understanding upon was flawed from the very start.

Anyway

Are they actually disagreeing about anything here? I'm guessing Alhaitham is basically saying that history will repeat itself. But Kaveh doesn't necessarily say that it absolutely will not. Kaveh's responses contain no absolutes. And if Kaveh does admit it's a possibility by not using absolutes, why is he rejecting Alhaitham's viewpoint? I'm guessing this is just pitting Kaveh's idealism vs Alhaitham's realism? But what's so wrong about admitting that Alhaitham's right? What does this have to do with standing by his views?

And then it goes back to wiping away ignorance so one can face the truth. I don't get it. I don't get Kaveh. I get how guilt relates to him trying to help people and being unable to accept good will. But what does that have to do with ideals? Actually what even are his ideals exactly? Mentally I keep switching in "optimism" for "idealism" and maybe that's my fault?

Okay let's break it down then. We know from Alhaitham that Kaveh's idealism comes from his inescapable sense of guilt. Guilt over what? Guilt over (what he perceives to be) causing his father's death and ruining his mother's happiness. Because of this, he feels he deserves to be punished. Hmm.... So that means he subconsciously knows that his idealism is the source of his problems. But in admitting this, it would be admitting that he's purposefully idealistic to punish himself. And he doesn't want to admit it because this pain is comforting and numbs his sense of guilt. To admit his idealism is a problem would be the same as yanking his security blanket from his hands and throwing it into a fire.

....

Tbh I think I already knew all of this, even explained it to someone once, but the difference between then and now is that now I can see everything concretely instead of just going off of intuition haha.

[sundownvalentine]

I fear that im gonna sound rly chronically online when i say this but yall need to include intersex people (even cis* ones) in discussions on gender affirming care and young trans kids

AND BEFORE YOU GET MAD: I AM AN INTERSEX PERSON!!

Anyways;

The phrase "children arent receiving gender affirming surgeries" is TRUE to an EXTENT. Some of the surgeries included under the term "gender affirming care" are absolutely preformed on young intersex children, sometimes even without the consent and/or knowledge of their parents. The issue with that phrase is that the situation it refers to is not black and white, it does happen but not in the context you may be referring to. And not many people know about this either! Hell, i didnt know i was intersex until the 6th grade when i got my first period! Intersex children and infants have surgeries preformed on them without ever knowing, and their parents may be pressured into it or not even get a say at all in it.

I am in no way trying to tear down that argument in a "raghh i hate trans ppl" way bc i personally identify as transgender, i just aim to give a new viewpoint for people to consider they may not have thought about before.

*by cis i mean intersex people who were assigned a gender at birth and continue to live comfortably as that gender. Intersex people are usually assigned the gender their sex organs most resemble/ have the higher perceived function

[echoesofadream]

Hi hi! I just wanted to expand more on the post you reblogged from me ☺️ honestly there really isn’t a problem with boycotting it—I don’t have a problem anyway bc I understand that the conditions are horrible and all. My problem comes from the fact that people are only calling jungkook out and not the other artists that perform. There are other big names performing at fifa but everyone is only focusing and calling jungkook out. Imo performing at fifa or at a soccer/football game isn’t the same as condoning the actions of a country’s government. If that were the case then bts wouldn’t be able to perform at any country, especially in the US or Europe since they have done so many atrocious acts as well. For me, the hypocrisy truly bothers me and that’s the entire problem with it. Because a lot of western fans only care about calling out the non western countries and forget about the atrocities of their own/don’t boycott those either. They only care when it comes to minority countries, which we should still call them out on ofc, but the hypocrisy is truly what’s disheartening. Also, they’re not calling out any of the football players that are already there or the other performers, just jungkook. I understand wanting to boycott it and all, really, but personally I’m mad at the hypocrisy that some fans show and not the actual boycott itself.

Sorry for this long winded paragraph! I just wanted to explain my own viewpoint! I understand if you feel differently ofc! Just wanted to expand on some points more 🥰💜

Hey sorry i missed this. Thanks for responding to me i appreciate you taking the time to type this out

To be honest i havent seen any real criticism towards jungkook and honestly i have missed that kind of very valid criticism from army who in my eyes just uncritically praise anything the boys do. And then there are the antis who ofc use every chance they have to smudge the names of members who arent their favs especially popular ones like jk. I think its natural if army are disappointed in jk in particular rather than the other celebrities performing. Now if people who arent even fans of jk or the boys only criticize jungkook then thats obviously very weird and suspicious of being anti asian racism (idk what other big names are performing).

My point wasnt that performing in a country means condoning the actions of that countries government, even though i honestly dont see the problem with critisizing that either if you have valid arguments for it. Real world issues are more important than kpop.

That said, this is not that kind of situation. People have DIED when working for this particular sports event and someone in the notes of that post were talking about ”selective activism when it comes to jungkook” hello??? Even if that would be true it doesnt take away from the cause of boycotting this. If that is your reaction then you should think outside of fandom dynamics for once. Even if people are using this against jungkook that is SUCH a non issue in the context of this. I understand and appreciate being protective of my favorite kpop boy but this is just a very disrespectful and flippant response.

And I hear you, you are more mad about the hypocrisy, not the boycott. I agree and I think it is completely valid to critizice and boycott anyone who is involved with this, whether its the football players, other artists, etc etc i know nothing about football. If not boycotting means directly supporting what is essentially modern day slavery.

And yes, you can always take it one step further. While this is directly supporting it you could take stands against indirectly supporting atrocity committed by different governments etc. But i dont believe in using a variant of ”there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” (or in this case rather imperialism) argument when it comes to a migrant workers dying so that some people can kick balls into nets and artists sing and the crowds just cheer. I think that is pretty straight forward and not some ethical dilemma.

[literaphobe]

Ngl I'm kinda really worried about noxcrew saying they wanna change dodgebolt so that teams can't use the funnel strat, which let's be real would nerf only Dream and his team cause he's the only one I've seen able to use the strat the most effectively and consistently. Like it's a genuinely hard strat to pull off well. And even then he adapts and changes to let others shoot too, and all his teammates agree to it so it's also unfair to say "it's against team spirit" and I feel like saying it's not entertaining to watch is just a completely subjective viewpoint.

But anyway, I feel like if they do go through with making changes (esp to a game which doesn't actually need any) we're just gonna get another parkour warrior where they decided to make it more difficult for dream to win they had to keep upping the difficulty to try and make it impossible to win (which tbh was a really weird direction to go?? Why make a game and decide that it should actively be unwinnable???) And they'll end up making dodgebolt unenjoyable for everyone

i doubt they’d actually do that since they probably would foresee some pushback + there are a bunch of posts on the mcc subreddit already w hundreds of upvotes detailing why they should not do that and why the funnel strat isn’t as ‘against team spirit’ as they think it is etc etc (side note: i don’t think noxcrew was that serious or trying to shit on dream that much this is more directed at people who are REALLY rooting for the ‘funnel strat nerf’)

i suppose my two cents are that calling the funnel strat ‘boring’ is kind of insulting and also really. dumb! because it misunderstands the strat entirely and ‘entertainment’ is entirely subjective also assuming dream ‘hogged’ the arrows in mcc16 is simply not true

okay so. some people think funnel strat is ‘boring’ because it’s too ‘sweaty’ and the game ends ‘too quickly’. and like mf. that dodgebolt felt like a century. every time a shot was missed bc dream and fruit were so fucking cracked at dodging i wanted to die. this dodgebolt had me SCARED. mcc15 was way less scary bc dream never died. up until this mcc i had NEVER seen dream die live in dodgebolt before my heart was POUNDING :(

anyway. u can make the argument that clean sweeps are ‘boring’ because it ends too quickly. likewise, anyone can claim that dodgebolts like mcc16 took too long and all the missed shots made it hard to watch, etc. u can make anything sound boring. thats how subjectivity works

and then some people are like ‘but some of the ccs don’t like the funnel strat!! get rid of it bc mcc should make the players happy, it doesn’t matter what the fans want!!’ and jesus christ. if a cc doesn’t like the funnel strat they don’t have to use it? dream has literally never forced anyone to do the funnel strat? i’m pretty sure dream’s mcc13 team didn’t plan on doing it if they had made dodgebolt bc scott doesn’t like it. like. come on

and also. the funnel strat isn’t as simple as ‘only the best shooter takes shots until they die’ because it honors feed the hot hand and in order to test the hot hand u have to let the other players shoot which dream DID. bad didn’t get to shoot but that’s because he died right before the arrow got handed to him

people complaining saying ‘all the team members should contribute equally in dodgebolt because that’s how teamwork is supposed to be’ are ignoring the very nature of mcc. every player… contributes and carries at some point. every player gets carried at some point. just because dream gets an ace or some shit n a member on his team didn’t take as many shots doesn’t mean they’re not contributing and that the games they played as a team didn’t matter. sometimes people wanna stand back and dodge and body block for players w better shot accuracies. and that’s? still really important? it’s still vital to the team’s victory? just because it’s not as ‘flashy’ doesn’t mean it has to change

idk what else i had to say on this. but about parkour warrior im sick of people acting like ‘they removed parkour warrior bc it was a bad game n people hated it!’ when what happened was they were so obsessed w making the course unbeatable that when dream kept beating it they kept making it unnecessarily hard in the beginning when they should’ve just done that towards the end if they wanted to nerf dream n that’s what made people dislike it, not that it was ‘a bad game’

[pumpkinpaix]

this is gonna sound so harsh but im legit tired of chinese diaspora people who think that bc they are of chinese descent and they have pleco they can act like voices of authority in the fandom. if modao is the 1st chinese book you have read pieces of with a dictionary, if you have never interacted with the actual chinese fandom, you are not part of the intended audience and your biased opinion is not the One And Only Valid Truth 🍵

strongly agree | agree | neutral | disagree | strongly disagree | this is really hard for me to express in terms of an agree/disagree axis lol

genuinely cannot tell if you’re trying to shade me here anon lmao 😂

this got long and rambly (of course) asldkjfslj. i would love to make the excuse that it’s bc i’ve got a migraine and had No Sleep but. let’s be real i’m always like this.

ok i’ll start with where i agree: i don’t think anyone has the right to act like an ultimate voice of authority in fandom. i think different people with different backgrounds have varying realms of expertise and they should be respected when they share that knowledge, but that the instant someone starts to use that kind of power as a weapon against people they personally don’t like, i think they forfeit that privilege. no one has the one and only valid truth about a piece of media because that’s fundamentally impossible. i have definitely interacted with diaspo who behave like their heritage gives them some kind of incontrovertible authority over everyone else, and they’re fucking insufferable and often rather cruel, even/especially towards other diaspo. meet me in the denny’s parking lot and fight me for real. i’ll kick ur ass. >:c

however, I also think it’s true that there’s a lot of dismissal of heritage fans in this fandom, if that makes sense, from both sides of the equation: non-Chinese fans ignore our cultural hangups because they’re inconvenient, and non-diaspora disdain us for being not Chinese enough. that puts a lot of us in a position of feeling disrespected just for being who we are, or having our very real knowledge and unique experience as individuals devalued because of it.

regardless of my identity, I have formally studied a lot of things: literary translation, media analysis, the politics of oppression, film critique, religious studies, philosophy, four foreign languages etc. and that is all knowledge that I had to work for, and work hard for. I do have a certain measure of authority on all of these subjects over a layperson (to varying degrees), and there are going to be times when i will be more correct than someone who disagrees with me -- but I’ve also absolutely experienced people talking over that specialized knowledge because of who I am, which is, to be clear. extremely infuriating and hurtful. like, i have cried so much about it in the last 18 months. people see my racial and cultural identity before they see anything else, which is understandable to a degree, but upsetting when it becomes the basis for how my work is judged, whether positive or negative. i don’t want you to trust me blindly because i’m abc. I want to you to trust me because you have examined my work critically and judged it to be trustworthy!

so i guess this is getting into the strongly disagree part of the answer: i’ve been speaking a lot with other diaspora fans lately, and it’s been simultaneously hugely relieving and also really saddening. relieving because oh thank god someone else Gets It, and saddening because pretty much all of us, no matter what kind of diaspo we are (north american, european, SEA, taiwanese etc), we’ve all experienced a lot of pressure in this fandom, from non-Chinese, Chinese, and other diaspora fans alike. we’re all acutely aware that we are not modao’s intended audience because being diaspora vs being “from the mainland” or whatever, are actually quite different things, but modao still feels close to home. even if it was not written FOR us it is still familiar to us.

and, because so many of us are multilingual and multicultural, we end up being the bridge between the “actual” chinese fandom and the english-speaking fandom, which is largely made up of non-chinese. (sidenote: I hate it when people say things about being “actually” any identity because it’s almost always for the exact reason you brought up: to use heritage as street cred. it’s like damn, being “actually” chinese doesn’t make ur opinions any less rank. sure you might be “actually” chinese, but do you have basic reading comprehension and literary criticism skills? no? ok then sit your ass back down) many of us are most comfortable in english! so we produce our content in english! but we also DO often have a somewhat privileged access to the culture that underlies mdzs and can explain it in a language that other non-Chinese fans can understand. so it’s not surprising that people flock to us for answers to their cultural questions. and like. if we think we know the answer, it’s natural for us to try and help. this is fandom! we’re here to have fun and find community! and it is definitely a little bit nice to have my culture treated as something desirable for once instead of just like. a weird exotic curiosity that no one really cares too deeply about. and, since a lot of us are able to do things that non-Chinese fans can’t (research in chinese, for example. ask family members for help and more information etc.) we end up just having more information to share.

I think this sometimes results in a tendency for fandom at large to put heritage/diaspo fans on pedestals and tout them as authorities (or use our conflicting viewpoints as ammunition in fandom drama) when the diaspo in question have repeatedly stated that they should not be taken as authorities on something -- and then, once you reach critical mass, your reputation starts to precede you, and I think there’s a lot of misconceptions of how a lot of diaspo act in this fandom simply because of that phenomenon. most of us know that we’re not ultimate arbiters of some kind of cultural gateway, and it can be very tiring both to be treated as such when we insist we are not, and then punished by other people who assume that we acted like we were.

i don’t think there’s a benefit in trying to keep en fandom and cn fandom totally separate, and I also think it’s unfair to consider the cn fandom the “real” fandom. i think that way lies deeper misunderstandings, gatekeeping, etc. i think we can definitely acknowledge the differences between them, but i think trying to make meaningful connections between fandom circles is really valuable! i don’t think i’ve ever made it a secret that modao is my first cmedia fandom? so it’s also the first time i’ve had reason to interact with chinese fandom, which has been super enlightening and interesting! i’ve made some super cool friends and learned a lot about how fandom works in china, how it’s similar and how it differs from the fandom i’m familiar with.

and then, kind of circling back around, there’s also a bit of a sense like, okay, so if diaspo don’t belong in the CN fandom, but we can’t talk about our own culture with some degree of confidence in EN fandom, then like..... where do we go...? if we see EN fandom doing something that contradicts our cultural knowledge, do we just. not say anything? do we not count unless we’ve already ingratiated ourselves to CN fandom? that’s probably where the core of my strong disagreement comes from, because criticism of diaspora fans as like, acting above their station so to speak, feels just like a tired continuation of the same shit we’ve had to deal with for our whole lives, being told we’re not good enough for anywhere and that we should just be quiet and keep our heads down and get over it. that our opinions, despite coming from a unique perspective with a unique relationship to the subject in question, are less valid or real than “actual” chinese people, you know? and sometimes i see that and im like lmfao just sneer at me for being jook-sing and leave then if you’re so eager to think of me as lesser.

so yeah, basically im of a few minds: true! diaspora fans don’t get to throw their weight around just because they’re diaspo. they don’t get carte blanche to act like bullies or try to shape the fandom to their own personal liking and crusade against people who disagree with them. they don’t get to pretend their heritage makes them superior to everyone else, and i think western diaspora especially need to be careful when asserting any kind of moral lens over the text to acknowledge that we have our own biases to interrogate. i am not immune.meme etc. on the other hand, this vein of criticism tends to put all diaspo in a bit of a double-bind, and also, however unintentionally, plays into the general, continuous trend of dismissing diaspora for being diaspora, and i’m really not about that. i don’t think that’s the motivation behind opinions like this, but i do think that when the basis for the argument hinges on the idea that diaspora are not “real” chinese, no matter how much I too have beef with certain diaspora fans, the argument needs to be revisited. 

(ko-fi)

🍵 ((un)popular) opinions meme

[wewinbees]

“you only saw me as a weapon!” an in-depth analysis of tommy and techno’s relationship /rp

a mild focus on techno’s thoughts since it’s his speech, but not one or the other is in the right here. a lot of this might have been said, but this is a BIG collection from pogtopia to doomsday to address as many angles as possible. to preface, i don’t think tommy sees techno as a weapon and nothing else, but the point remains that techno feels like he does, and that’s important.

this is from like january btw lol

we’ll start with “the blade” tommy’s nickname for techno, which got adopted by a lot of the server (as tommy’s nicknames tend to be). most other people have the Big [X] format, but techno gets this specialised nickname. i think the reason he developed a negative association with it was because of when it was used; when they need him for fights. the most important would be the vault reveal, with wilbur getting everyone to victoriously chant “we have the blade!” to boister morale. this would have been fine in and of itself, if it weren’t for the events of the rest of the day and what that name would come to represent. it ends up becoming a taunt to him, because that’s what people get close to him for. his use to them as the blade rather than his friendship to them as technoblade

tommy’s always very happy to call in techno for help, and techno usualy sorts it out with... minimal effort required. i do see this more as a blend of tommy’s pride in knowing techno and smugness at having that kind of upperhand in a fight over him viewing techno solely as a weapon to use, but this still ends up being detrimental to their friendship because of how much it happens. remember, the entire reason techno joined the server was to help wilbur and techno form pogtopia. techno doesn’t mind helping tommy out, but at some point it’s going to be frustrating, being called in for any and all minor struggles. but in the end of the day, it’s fine, because they’re brothers under the same cause. destroying manberg. Oh Wait.

the main issue came after the festival, with that faith and trust tommy had in techno being shattered; rightfully so, because watching tubbo get murdered was traumatic for him, because for tommy the pit was no way to settle that conflict (which reminded, wasn’t techno’s suggestion, it was proposed and pushed onto them by wilbur). since tommy sees technoblade as unbeatable, he couldn’t understand why techno was so easily peer-pressured by manberg. he was threatened by how many people were against him, he was stressed dealing with the voices telling him to do it, he didn’t see any other way out, he wasn’t getting any support from his only other allies even though he was looking right at them and they still did nothing.

but tommy didn’t understand because he thought techno could have won. techno did try to stall as well, but without orders from his friends he ended up following schatt’s, and once he realised he had the power to kill everyone on stage, he just gave into that power. the miscommunication during the pogtopia arc was why techno felt as betrayed as he did, and why the victim complex argument annoys me so much, since he was kept in the dark for that long while grinding resources for the army. also, since techno wasn’t there for l’manberg’s peaceful days or the start of the disc saga he would never understand how important those attachments were to people, so he’d feel little remorse blowing them all up (especially since he knew that was the backup plan for pogtopia anyway, and just because people were unhappy about it didn’t change the fact that it was a plan)

a lot of people say that techno should have known that pogtopia’s goal was to form a new government, that at some point he should have overheard the real plan. everyone agreed to ‘destroy manberg’ (as in the government not the land) but somehow techno never found out about the ‘restoring l’manberg’ part of the plan. how that happened, who knows, but in the end of the day, the writers chose for that miscommunication to happen for the story. it’s not a how or a why, it’s just a fact that was written in. he didn’t find out until it was right in front of him, and he was bound to feel betrayed by that, enough that he was driven to do something irrational. my personal theory is that techno was mainly following wilbur’s orders, and because wilbur was the real traitor, chances are he never mentioned any forming of a new government since he knew that would lose techno’s support. wilbur was probably using techno as a weapon, that was his mentality for a lot of people back then, but since he was the leader of pogtopia then that negative transference carried on to the rest of the members for techno, most of all tommy as he was the other key founder, and not as underhanded about getting techno’s help. i’d say wilbur’s address of techno during the final speech was the a key reason as to why techno doesn’t feel as used by him than he is with tommy, solidifying the anarchy bros before dying, meaning anything else could be revealed.

after the war, the bedrock bros were completely alienated from eachother. tommy started to blame everything about l’manberg’s destruction on techno, since wilbur died and ghostbur isn’t really at fault for anything. techno distanced himself from everything, going into retirement for the unforeseeable future because he felt like his violent anarchist tactics were futile and grew tired of constant conflict. he talked to tommy a few times during retirement, and every single time, he asks tommy how the government was working out for him. when he was at risk of being exiled, just before being exiled and immediately after exile. he wanted tommy to see the government in the same light as he did, because when l’manberg sold him out he realised they were the same. they’d both been betrayed by the government and from that point on he fully believed tommy would be better off away from l’manberg. but every time tommy said no, because he believed in the original dream wilbur had for l’manberg and because he trusted tubbo’s leadership. techno was smug when he was proved right because of course he was he’s technoblade. plus, they did view eachother as enemies at this point, so it’s not unacceptable for them to argue with eachother right now.

that brings us to the execution. traumatising! the refusal to run a fair trial and the dehumanising treatment from his old allies in pogtopia hammer this home, but importantly they rope philza into the chaos this time. ALSO it’s important to mention that techno was killed; he just got an extra life from the totem. he was actually killed and his character experienced that pain as punishment. he was pushed out of retirement, which was unjust in his eyes, since he believed he had genuinely changed. it didn’t help that quackity explicitly told him it wasn’t actually punishment for the withers, but instead a move to consolidate power, furthering his view of the cabinet as corrupt. from that point on he left retirement. he’d been doing well without violence, building connections with new people like vikk and lazar and finding a fragile form of peace, but in the end this shattered it. he’s back to being the blade, speaking with violence, because l’manberg made it clear there was no other way for him to be heard at this point. so he’s going to destroy them, even if he has to do it alone.

enter stage raccooninnit.

tommy taking refuge in techno’s house because he knew techno was rich enough for him to steal his resources and strong enough to defend him from dream is... interesting. he couldn’t go back to l’manberg, but he took refuge with a man who he viewed as a villain. this probably doesn’t help techno’s opinion of him, since he is quite literally using him for his resources, but in the end of the day tommy was desperate and quite literally on the verge of death, so he seemed to take some kind of pity on him. the exile period of their relationship is definitely the most important part of this argument, because it was just the two of them: no wilbur or pogtopia as an external force (though the pressure of dream and l’manberg still affected things) but in the same way ultimately doomed to fail. they fight for a moment, but ultimately settle as ‘business partners’. which quickly evolves back into a friendship like the one they had before the festival.

my least favourite take is that either one of them never valued the other at this point because this is just.... violently not true. they started off working for mutual benefit; tommy explicitly agreed to do minor terrorism in l’manberg and to help techno get his weapons back in return for techno’s help getting the discs back and taking refuge in his house. from the start both of them stated their limits:

techno was always planning on getting revenge on l’manberg for what happened on the day of his execution

tommy never wanted to upset tubbo, and wanted to put getting his discs back first

should note that tommy changes his mind on the disc’s priority later on, but at the point of their alliance he does make it clear that’s what he wants out of the partnership. the issue is that from the start both of them went in with blind optimism. neither of them lied to eachother or forced them to change their viewpoints but in the end of the day they could never be on the same side as long as l’manberg was involved. (note, i think some people think he wasn’t but techno was actually planning on helping tommy getting the discs back, with him getting annoyed at tommy letting tubbo give dream the disc because that made both of their jobs so much harder, but it was more of a long term goal bc he knew dream was hard to beat. plus before his execution, he visited tommy and strongly implied he would be willing to help with the discs, and that he would be a better ally in those personal aims than NLM were)

i don’t understand the ‘techno was only using tommy’ accusation here because like... how? what would he have to gain by having tommy on his side? he could definitely have blown up l’manberg without his help, so why bring him in at all? it was a very mutual agreement of ‘we’re using eachother’ that developed into genuine friendship. i’ve always seen it as a teaching experience: techno knows tommy had been wronged by NLM, and by extension tubbo, and by taking him on these minor terrorism trips, he’s showing tommy the worst of l’manberg. look, look at this execution stand, look at what they’ve done. and in doing this, he’s trying to prove to tommy that what he’s going to do to l’manberg is right. and in showing him the worst of NLM, he’s neglecting all of its good parts, but again, techno cant see any positives in l’manberg, and is trying to show tommy that everyone, especially tommy, would be better off without it. and tommy had criticisms of l’manberg before he was exiled, especially in regards to tubbo. he told ranboo the reason he chose wilbur to be president instead of tubbo was because he was worried the presidency would ruin their friendship, and Look At Exactly What Happened. techno highlighting the flaws of the country to tommy was easy because it WAS flawed and it hurt both of them. and techno’s hope was that tommy would join him in the eventual destruction of it, because he wanted to share his revenge with tommy and for him to get his own justice against l’manberg. but it... didn’t quite work out that way.

they both tried to make it easier for the other; techno told tommy he didn’t need to fight against l’manberg if he didn’t want to, but tommy came with him to the festival anyway to confront dream, despite techno’s mission being against the government in that situation. tommy started to view tubbo’s cabinet as corrupt for the execution and neglecting him during exile, and ended up helping techno out around the base and even toning down the purposeful annoyance (per techno’s ooc request). and the day before the green festival, he told techno he would help to destroy l’manberg (not knowing how quickly things would escalate the next day, since doomsday was fairly spontaneous) but in the end they would never be able to find a full compromise: techno would always be an anarchist and tommy could never hurt tubbo.

people accuse techno of not caring for tommy, which really annoys me because it’s not?? true??? if anything he shows more outward affection than tommy did. he didn’t have any benefit from taking in tommy, but he still did it. it’s not really basic decency either, given that they were technically enemies beforehand. he picked up on tommy’s fragile state around dream and defended, hid him despite the fact that he owed dream, he kept him away from logsted and the final control room after realising how upsetting they were. he exchanged the christmas presents, he jumped in to defend him against the rest of the server and when tommy betrayed techno, he was genuinely hurt! he was wrecklessly impulsive in a way the calculated blade usually wasn’t, almost blowing up half his house (including almost killing his villagers) because of the negative association with dnret.

that’s not to say tommy doesn’t also get absolutely crucified for betraying techno because of all of techno did for him. again it was somewhat inevitable. tommy said it himself, he was turning into someone he didn’t want to be, he was hurting people, and it was somewhat because he was living with technoblade. he was so powerless under dream, and he liked the feeling of power he got from teaming with techno, so much so that it drove him to cruelty, with even techno telling him he went too far with fundy. in the end, it’s probably for the best that he set that boundary and left to go back to l’manberg, but ultimately it was upsetting to both of them. techno felt betrayed because he genuinely thought tommy was his friend, only to be turned on last minute once again, now surrounded alone by enemies he was trying to protect tommy from. to him, allying with dream was just as bad as tommy allying with l’manberg. a betrayal for a betrayal, absolute reciprocity.

we all know the doomsday speech, with techno’s arguments being consistently stronger than tommy’s and much easier to defend, but we can’t just dismiss him. tommy had a lot of emotional input that day, and was angry at techno for a Lot of reasons, so he was more focused on shouting than making sense. he was more accusatory, while techno had fairly focused rebuttals (which, fair, i’m pretty sure that was techno’s first big addressal of most of that with other characters). it ended with tommy calling techno selfish for destroying l’manberg and techno coldly shutting tommy out for the betrayal.

betrayal was the driving force for techno’s “weapon” speech. tommy used him in pogtopia, tried to use him to stop dream exiling him and terrorising NLM) which he laughed at when told in character) and used him for getting the discs back. tommy wasn’t just using him, he genuinely felt like they had built a relationship beyond that, but when techno acted under his own ideals that went against his, then it was over. because tommy doesn’t value techno’s ideals, because they’re ‘selfish’ to him since he’s one of the only ones who believes in them. in turn techno sees that as making tommy selfish and as such they’re unable to compromise.

living with techno was an important part of tommy’s recovery process, which is still ongoing now. he saw immediate changes from his time with dream, claiming he felt “more me-ey” around techno and genuinely valuing his company. but he viewed techno’s alliance with dream as a betrayal, and he viewed the nov 16th incident as a betrayal. because he see’s techno’s belief in anarchy as selfish. something i never hear people point out is that tommy ADMITS he betrayed techno. after doomsday*, he says “all this time, technoblade told me i was betraying him. and you know what? (whispered) i was.” he’s guilty about it, and he understands that techno’s hurt. but he still can’t see him as being in the right, because techno took l’manberg forcefully and violently, and because tommy was hurt by their separation too. techno was powered by revenge more than anarchy during doomsday, which i think is important to point out. tommy had focused in on the threat of dream, and forgotten all the trauma techno went through with l’manberg, and left techno to rejoin l’manberg.

BOTH of them have explicitly stated “i viewed him as a friend but he never viewed me as one” and that’s just... devastating. at one point we can only hope that they have an in-canon conversation to actually settle all of this, but for now their storylines are separate and we’ll just have to live with that.

if anyone has anything they’d like to ask/clarify, or additions from any side i’d love to see it bc character analysis of dsmp characters is what’s keeping me going rn lmao. i said betrayal so many times here i am very sorry for clogging up the tag bc my readmore isn’t working yet (edit SAVED)

*i actually think this speech from tommy is very important, and not looked at as much as other stuff so im gonna link it here [55:52].

[ouyangzizhensdad]

I have to say all this vitriol from western danmei fans, particularly towards mxtx, is ridiculous because BL all across Asia is studied as a niche internet-centered way to engage with social taboos. It’s called BL Studies, and it’s at the intersection of feminist, queer, and sex studies in academics. And most readers aren’t concerned with “representation” because there is traditionally published queer literature in China, but these ppl don’t know bc they’ve never looked into Chinese texts before.

Hi anon, 

While I’m the last person to be anti-intellectualism, I also don’t think it’s productive to tell people that because something is in academic writing that it makes it automatically true. Even the existence of a field of studies arguing a certain perspectives or certain methodologies doesn’t inherently a convincing argument. Hell, half of my master’s thesis was just the vibe equivalent of a Youtube take-down: This Field of Studies Sucks, and Here’s Why. So while I think it is important to remind people that things are--big shock!--generally more complicated than what some tumblr/twitter posts sold them as a new crusade for finding one-dimensional Problematic Villains, and that it’s important that they learn how to think through the ideas that are presented to them critically, it would be a disservice to even suggest that academic writing does not require critical engagement either.

That’s why, while I think it is important to remind people that the sort-of-liberal and simplified discourse on representation as a meter of progressivity or goodness of the work is one that emerged and was articulated mainly in the EN-language West (with the West generally generating what makes for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ representation’ as if these are not situated, context-dependent), it is not helpful either to suggest that representation as a process only is relevant inside this specific set of discussions. Representation is much larger than ‘does it include X type of person or X stereotype': to produce art, to produce a retelling of events, to use language, is to represent. And we cannot pretend that any engagement with any type of media can be divorced from the implications of representation in terms of meaning-making or how it is imbricated in ideologies. 

But yes, I do wish that people who make shitting on “fujos” or BL-danmei a part of their online presence spent a little bit more time making sure they had an informed opinion which considered a variety of viewpoints, and not just the same posts reinforcing their beliefs. Like, if you are going to put this much energy and time into hating something, at least make sure you understand a little bit what you are talking about, and whether you’ve been fed a reductionist narrative that you bought into because it felt emotionally right. 

[not-poignant]

Hi Pia! Hope your day's going well~ I noticed in one of your recent posts that you talked about RPF shipping, and since the line between fiction and reality gets sort of blurry to me personally in that regard, I just wanted to know what argument could be given to prove it's okay to ship it? I personally have nothing against it, it just that most people seem very against it bc it appears to promote a behavior that can have real life consequences on real life people.

The best place to read about RPF viewpoints, both pros and cons, is probably fanlore. You can see some of the pro arguments here. As well as look through their RPF meta page.

Some of my favourite ones are:

Because We Love Our Gods.

Celebrity Gossip vs. RPF.

Let’s talk RPS in open debate (inc. comments). I like the one comment in this one that basically says that most RPS/RPF is ‘original fiction with familiar faces’ which is also how I see it and has certainly been fundamentally true in the Hemsworth/Hiddlestone fandom.

On RPF/RPS.

Our Community/Our History, a History of RPS/RPF.

It has always been very cool and trendy to hate on people who write/read RPF.

I would say that the media turns all celebrities into fictional characters to a degree already. Any media celebrity who has a ‘brand’, and even those who don’t, are fictionalised and mythologised in our media to a huge degree. Anyone who’s ever read and enjoyed news media that involved their favourite celebrities, is guilty of participating in a fictionalisation that can have real life consequences for real life people. Not everyone thinks this is true, this is just my take as someone who did media studies, and knows how easy it is for journalists and similar - and actors etc. themselves - to alter and change their images.

Imho, there’s a huge double standard to me personally re: people who might say, participate in that news mythologisation by reading those articles and engaging with that media, who then go on to hate RPS/RPF, which is largely written in small circles, rarely shared beyond those circles, and is often composed primarily of women and queer people.

It reminds me a great deal of antis who hate noncon and think people who write noncon are ‘basically’ rapists who are inciting rape but have zero problems with largely patriarchal popular media showing murder in most of their television shows, and never being cognisant of the serious irony of that.

But anyway, it’s always been trendy to hate people who write/read RPF. Always. I’m very much in the minority for my views, and I’ve certainly been aware of the hate we’ve gotten since like... idk, the early 00s? At least? RPF has been considered the most cardinal sin, beyond noncon, underage etc. since kind of the dawn of fandom.

(There is a certain squickiness in the fact that RPF gen is generally always accepted, implying that there’s something implicitly wrong with slash specifically. And that RPFanart is widely circulated with absolutely no sense of responsibility or judgement. There are further discussions to be had about the multiple double standards around the way people vehemently hate one thing that falls under the umbrella, but then might take out 4 or 5 other things that fall under the umbrella by their own definition, because it’s convenient to them).

[common-blackbird]

it’s time... for a dragon age 2 playthrough post. scroll on!

The things i loved most:

1) the frame of the game - Cassandra interrogating Varric.

What a great way to get hook the player. Like, the opening of guards dragging this poor dwarf with cuts of the title, and then Cassandra demanding answers... Whoaaa! I have no idea if that’s usually done in games or not, but it’s definitely such an amazing intro with characters introducing themselves as well as the story so perfectly, it captivates instantly. The tutorial has a charm to it bc varric is messing around. Which serves to show more of his character. Cassandra’s personality was pretty much blank here but her presence is so powerful. Something happened, something huge and they know and i was about to find out. I can’t describe how excited that intro made me feel. Each time the scene cut to the interrogation scenes, my eyes were glued more than ever. Just GREAT.

Also it makes for a very convenient scapegoat for every plothole ever with the argument “it’s just his version of the story”.

2) The story.

It’s tragic. It’s amazing! The further you play, the more you can see that no matter what you do, everything leads to a disaster. Hawke doesn’t want to take sides, tries to mediate, does not want to get involved, but just can’t stop it. For every thing gained, Hawke loses two more. Your friends come with packages that get you involved in terrible stuff. Your good intentions result in disasters. The whole game you spent time climbing  the social ladder not only to reach the top hauntingly alone after losing all of your family, but also losing even that empty title and watching as the city you started to find your place in fall apart in blood. UGH! GAH! FEELS!

3) Kirkwall.

“ But, I beg you my dear readers, never forget that, no matter the subject of any story that might ever be explored between the cliffs of Kirkwall, She will find a way to steal the thunder of the protagonist. Or become the antagonist. Kirkwall is never a mere background. We could even understand it so: the challenge for you dear readers is to prevail against the smokescreens and observe to what extent our characters are players or played by the merciless black souled stone giant. Enjoy playing the dare of the ages between the lines of these humble memoirs. “

Memoirs from the Downfall - Act I. Mirage    by Pfefferminze on ao3 (fic rec!)

This paragraph summs up what Kirkwall is better than I ever could. This shrouded mystery that surrounds Kirkwall keeps you on toes. From the first intro when Varric describes it (paraphrasing from memory) “Kirkwall. The city of chains. It is a free city - keeping in mind i use the  the word loosely”. You already start seeing how dark Kirkwall gets. The name, that derives from its black walls (interestingly, the walls in the game aren’t black...), the history of slavery etched into every corner of that city  and its surroundings - the names (The Gallows, the Bone Pit, the Wounded Coast, the pub The Hanged Man), the scenery (sculptures of slaves, the sunken ships by the Wounded Coast, slums and underground of the Lowtown and the Darktown).

I was really digging the History of Kirkwall and it loved it. Kirkwall has a history of violence, from the times of slavery of the Tevinter Imperium, to Qunari conquests and liberation from Orlais. Many revolts and uprising. And though free now, it’s suggested that, seeing that the Templars hold the most influence, Kirkwall is in the hands of the Chantry.

It’s full of cultures mixing together. I love how not one of your companions is a native to Kirkwall, and it feels like a crossroads to every character’s life. a very tragic crossroads in their life, seeing there’s nothing ever good waiting for you in Kirkwall.

Also there’s these codex entries you look for about the Enigma of Kirkwall. It was when i started digging that up that i fell in love with the city and all. Combined with the History of Kirkwall and every codex entry for every place in and out of Kirkwall, I was pulling my hair out reading about the Enigma. I..i’m still not quite sure what happened. Did the magisters use blood of thousands upon thousands slaves to unbound a forgotten one? if so, is that corypheus? And around what time did that happen?? I get that part (or all?) of Kirkwall’s mysterious violent agency is owed to corypheus slumbering relatively close to the city, but is that all? or is there something more? In either case, the Band of Tree are my heroes.

4) The characters.

I’ll talk more about them later, but in general, i just love how they oppose each other, how complex they are, and there is just not pleasing everyone. They feel genuine. They are all deeply flawed. They all have a solid background that makes their beliefs and actions convincing. The friendship/rivalry points are shaky though, and sometimes really don’t fit the character, but i guess there must be someone hating/loving your bad choices for the sake of the game regardless of characterisation. But all in all, i really appreciated each and every character, and loved how their viewpoints challenged me.

First i want a disclaimer: i love each and every character in the game, whatever i say against them doesn’t diminish my liking of them. My issues really aren’t significant. Also, i might and probably will say smth wrong bc i’ve only played it once. I’m a baby.

let’s start with Family:

Mama Hawke:

i really loved mama hawke. after reading her codex entry and an excerpt of some book on this site, i really feel for her. I mean, imagine going back to your home city where you only remember being respected and wealthy only to find out everything you remember is gone, you are forced to live in poverty, your kids are doing dangerous jobs and you can’t stop them bc you do need that money, you write letters trying to get the old connections but keep failing (at least it was implied?), it’s really been hard for her. I get why she was so obsessed with her legacy. She wanted her childhood home back. She can’t feel like Kirkwall is her home until she is home.

Also loved her antagonism towards Hawke. It seems she can no longer treat him like a child, so she criticises him instead. and honestly, hawke is doing some crazy things so he defintiely deserves some criticism. And stopping Hawke from taking carver with him is just logical to me, idk. since she knows she can’t stop Hawke from going, she will at least attempt to prevent the last kid from going into mortal danger. I’d do the same. AND AFTER HAVING CARVER DYING IN DEEP ROADS I AGREE WITH HER

All in all, i don’t think she’s a perfect mom, but there is no perfect mom, and Leandra does care a lot for her kids. The All that remains killed me too :’(

Bethany

RIP :(

Her codex is not long, but i guess she wasn’t happy with her magic :(

CARVER

My favouritest bestest bro in the game. A secondary character with an inferiority complex towards his sibling, with no sense of humour, blaming everyone else for his inability to get a life? I see a lot of myself in him.  He is sooo bitter, but doesn’t even realise (or at least doesn’t admit) that he’s his biggest obstacle. He feels like it’s Hawke’s fault for Carver not getting his place in the sun, but honestly, it’s Carver’s devotion to Hawke that keeps him from getting a life. He’s just tied with that responsibility and can’t break from it unless forced to.

His interactions with other characters are so funny. Either he’s bitter or he’s awkward, i die every time ;;__;;

Anyways, he became a templar in my game and i thought it fits better thematically (throughout the game the grey wardens felt more like a fanservice material since they really aren’t connected to the story), but after reading that meta about carver and seeing the striking difference between warden!carver and templar!carver i wanna reload and redo everything ;;__;;

i mean... carver isn’t exactly a templar material. The codex entry for templars says that the wanted characteristics of templars are strong faith and utmost  obedience, none of which carver really has... . But that moment when he stands up against meredith was *chefs kiss* worth it. I’m just wondering what happens after, is he still a templar? is he with hawke? is he in Kirkwall or if not, where did he go?? so many questions ;A;

Uncle Gamlen

I feel bad for him. Mostly he’s mean but i like to think it’s bc he’s so ashamed that his sister sees what he’s become. And he’s bitter about his own life. I was so happy when i realised he has a personal mission ;__; I feel bad that he didn’t come to live in the hawke estate tho, especially since Hawke is also alone there :(

COMPANIONS!

Varric

There are no words that can properly convey the amount of love for this guy. He is simply flawless. He’s a charming godfather of the dwarven mafia. I wanna have a charming godfather of the dwarven mafia in my life... He already becomes interesting with the intro, and i gotta say, out of all ~storyteller~ types of characters, he is the best. he puts a disclaimer at the beginning with that game tutorial, and during the whole interrogation he’s like “well, how do you know i’m not lying? i could be.” Also, his voice is the second best voice in the game. 

As for his personal missions, oh wow, that thing with his big bro really hurt. I also gave him the red lyrium... was that a mistake? will i regret it? ;__; I know the true friend would prevent him, but i also trust that varric knows how to handle dangerous stuff...

On a side note, since i’ve read the comics (no self control whatsoever), i loved the beginning of the Until We Sleep, where varric mentions it’s easier to imagine all the people he had to kill were evil than to face the fact that those were normal people just doing their job or trying to survive. Man, it hurts TAT

*garret hawke’s voice when he looks a certain way at the family crest in the hawke estate* ISABELA!

Ok ok, so, i love Carver bc i relate,  i love Varric because he’s simply perfect. But I love Isabela because she’s the most intriguing.

She just crashed in Kirkwall and really didn’t sign up for all the trouble she got. She never likes to have deep conversations, she is always downgrading herself and you just wonder, what is it that happened in her life, and you know her past mistakes haunt her, and she’s doing her best to move on. Her arc was i think my favourite. I think the comic Those Who Speak really adds a lot to her arc in DA2 and makes some of her choices more understandable. Her whole story is about her internal conflict of whether to survive or do the right thing. Her story about freeing the slaves got her ship wrecked is great and all for making her be a pirate with a golden heart, but that story about her drowning all the slaves few years previous make this freeing of slaves a big character moment for her. She finally did the right thing. And she got for it was more trouble, because she’s a pirate which means she can’t afford to just do the right thing. And throughout the game, that same story is going back and forth. She runs off with the Relic bc she’s done the right thing before and it got her nowhere, so now she decided to put her own survival as a priority, but comes back bc she’s too kind to just leave Hawke standing like that. And again, with the slaver papers, it’s the same reasoning: it’s her or the higher cause. She needs that ship. She chooses herself. It’s her biggest flaw. But hey, between pros and antis in your party, it was really refreshing to have someone who, along with varric, just gives you a break with moral high-grounds.

I only wish we actually got to see her more as a captain in power in the game or that she showed me that amazing hat she saw in lowtown. It’s cool that it’s implied that her crew doesn’t like her and she also lost most of them during the crash while the others probably left her after.

I love it when she says she goes sometimes to the docks just to watch the ships. That there is no feeling like sailing. I just want a spin-off with captain isabela’s terrible adventures (´A`)

Also, isabela’s VA is my fave, she really did an amazing job. she voices so smoothly, i wouldn’t know if i was playing a game or watching a movie. And has such a pretty way of talking...

Aveline

I’m really neutral towards Aveline. I like her personality and i like that she’s found herself a purpose and advanced in the guards, and she’s always looking out for everybody. I just wish her personal missions went in the vein of the one in act 1... i feel it would have been more interesting to see her having trouble in her position and that you can’t just waltz into Kirkwall and take command. It’s implied she’s being pressured, so i guess she’s just dealing with it herself, but i just... eh. She’s ok.

Merrill

Merrill actually has one of the if not the most tragic story-line that really challenges you both morally and emotionally. 

Her cheerful and cute personality is dampened by her constant dark leitmotif of willingly practicing blood magic. And i think her story really showed well the indirect consequences of it.

Not in one instance was Merrill’s practice of blood magic an active culprit for all tragedy that surrounds her. First, it seems that blood magic is practiced in the clan, seeing there is no freeing Flemeth without it, but i’m guessing it’s seldom practiced and with great caution. So Merrill wasn’t in any danger of being prosecuted for her blood magic. It’s actually her wish to study it further with the help of the demon that makes her an outcast. That and the magic mirror that apparently is forgotten for a reason. Also, it’s made quite clear that Merrill would be welcomed back no questions asked if she at any point decided to ditch the demon and live without the study of magic mirror. She, on the other side, is driven by the higher cause, the idea that figuring out the forgotten purpose of some evil mirror might help her clan, and is willing to be an outcast if it means reaching her goal and helping her clan. Fast foward to act 3, the clan is still there when they should have moved away, and it’s only when you face the demon possessed Keeper, you realise why. She knew Merrill would sooner or later bargain with the demon again. And she sacrificed herself, trapping the demon within her, as to prevent it. And i think that is why the clan stayed so long there. She waited for Merrill because she wanted Merrill to kill her, and hopefully with her the demon. It didn’t go as planned, obviously, but i really think she had good intentions. When Merrill does manage to kill the Keeper she’s forced to face the clan and i chose the wrong option of telling the truth which resulted in a massacre. Merrill gets back and regrets everything. She, however resolves to help the alienage.

The thing is, there is no one to blame Everyone had the best intentions. Everyone is working for the safety of the clan. it’s a story of sacrifice and when sacrifice feels like the wrong choice (whether it truly is or isn’t depends on your worldview) and it’s really done well.

But here are my issues with Merrill. I love her as a character, but i don’t agree with her decisions.  It’s a personal issue. Merrill is giving up everything as to help her clan by learning history of the evil mirror. And while this is a game where old things are important and significant, her mission is always explained as this duty of preserving history. And while i agree that preserving history is very important, there is a limit to it. you should never put history before the present. If your research endangers the present, you give up on that line. The other is that you need to make peace with the fact that many, many things are forgotten and will be forgotten. It’s sad, but you gotta make peace with the fact that some things are just gone.

And Merrill, who is a magic historian, fails to see that. So that kinda irks my historian moral codex. And in the end, as far as i know, Merrill doesn’t succeed in reviving the evil mirror and dedicates herself to help the alienage. It was a terrible way to learn that some things aren’t worth it.

The other, less personal issue, is that none of this had to happen. I mean, the keeper obviously didn’t think Merrill was experienced enough to actually deal with demons and therefore distrusted her and warned the clan about it. So, if Merrill was a little bit more patient she could have just studied normally under the keeper, and when she herself becomes the keeper, she could have fraternize with that demon however she wanted without much complications. So yeah... i guess youth is made of idealism.

But as i said, minor issues. Her story is really, really great.

Fenris

Fenris and Anders are my “i love you but i am soo annoyed by you but i still love you” characters. Half of the time they’re just there to make you feel guilty for being a neutral party. Which sometimes has me rolling my eyes. If Fenris and Anders actually got along with each other, slavery and mage oppression would have ended in 2 days. Which makes it all the more frustrating that they do not.

Fenris.. his voice. What a nice voice colour. So elegant, but kinda rough, sometimes he talks like he’s 80 years old, sometimes like he’s a teenager. I love it.

As for the rest, i mean, i don’t agree with his methods, but very often, the guy’s got a point. I get his experience with mages colours his view on them, so while i symphatise, it’s really hard to have him on my “free mages” missions when he’s my best tank and i want him to be on friendly terms with Hawke so this makes things... difficult. That aside, it’s interesting that fenris doesn’t see mages as evil per se, but rather victims who, in his experience, will always, always going to succumb to a demon. It’s an inevitable reality to him. And this makes me wonder if he ultimately, despite being his friend or lover, is just waiting for the day he will be forced to kill Hawke too :(

As for his missions, they were ok, it led up to culmination and i didn’t let him kill his sister bc Hawke has just lost his mom, don’t do smth you’ll regret ;__;

also, somewhere around the end of act 2 i decided to romance fenris bc i love to suffer, so i worked the whole act 3 trying to get more aproval points and also wondering why are there no romance options when i talk to him... turns out that one night stand with isabela romanced her and canceled fenris. But i never even finished the romance with her so i’m just ??? about it all.

I wish it was more explained about the tattoos fenris has? I just thought the tattoos would play a big role somewhere in the game and it just never happened. There was a banter with Merrill about how his tattoos are similar to valaslin, so i thought, hmm, interesting, maybe the two are connected. But nah they just glow in the dark and make you pass through walls. Whatevs.

also dude just goes and kills without a second thought, i’m just “mate, you gotta calm down”. But that’s his thing. He’s constantly bitter and is very bad at anger management. I can’t blame him, considering he lacks around 10- 20 years of experience due to amnesia.

He’s the only one who left me when Hawke sided with mages, and i was like, “ok i getcha, it’s been nice knowing you”, but then when i asked him to join me 5 minutes later he just went “ok changed my mind” which was so funny, like, where did all that integrity dissappear??? It would have been more impactful if the dialogue went in the line of “i want to stand by my principals but you’re a living breathing proof that not all mages are weak to succumb to demons so i’ll join you in the end” (and then side-eye “i told you so” when orsino turns into a demon)

And i wanna read the fenris comic now bc my question for every character here is what is their fate after kirkwall. I only know that isabela & varric are working for alistair and merrill wants to help the alienage. Aveline is i guess either dismissed from her job or got a pass after cullen took  the command.  But Carver?? Fenris?? Anders?? They never talked about long term plans...

Anders

ooh boy, here we go. there are many questions i have for him and am generally just hmmmm. First, as for his pro-mage rights - it’s like opposite fenris so i just have the same feelings: you mean well, i don’t agree with your methods, your experiences define your worldview so i let some things slide, but other things i will not agree with. Though, question: in how many circles has Anders been? He knows the kirkwall circle, he knows the fereldan circle. Seeing he has excaped 7 times, did they send him to a different circle each time or was the fereldan the last one? or the first one? Or maybe it was his boyfriend they transferred? did i miss something?

I’ll just whisper: awakening!Anders >>> da2!Anders. I just miss the old anders. Which says a lot bc during the awakening i was just “shut up anders”. I miss his bad jokes, his terrible attempts at flirting, his enjoyment of freedom, nagging all the time, and generally being more moderate in pro-mage rights. Like, in awakening, because it was not the only thing he talked about, it felt more personal and intense. Here mage-rights are the only thing he ever talks about + justice. I mean, please correct me if i’m wrong, this was just general impression. But to defend da2!Anders here, it makes sense that merging with mixed both of their personality, and i like that they did that. It’s also very sad.

The thing is, when i’m thinking about anders, i love his story and character. Just as it’s terrible that Fenris, having no memory from before being Fenris, Anders can never go back to being just Anders. And this, people, is why you don’t fraternize with spirits. He’s obviously afraid of how justice is affecting him and there are some bare traces of his old personality and i guess he wouldn’t be as radical if he didn’t have justice personality that can’t stand the injustice. And in combination with anders quite selfish personality (form awakening, and i say that lovingly), it makes him do things that justice wouldn’t condone. Anders is literally a walking bomb.

Again, same problem as with fenris, i really thought that the justice glow would have a incredibly significant culmination, and it didn’t, it was just to show that anders and justice are very bitter. Eh, ok.

Also, i let anders join after he blew up the chantry, bc he started it, so might as well follow it through.

Some minor characters that i remember

Senechal Bran for the next Viscount! He hated hawke so much but still put up with him.

Feynriel is the coolest mage in Kirkwall. I think his missions were my favourite. Dude goes from “oh no i’m a mage” to “i will just dreamwalk to tevinter and learn control the reality” to “i dream-killed bad people from thousands of miles away”. Does he appear in the next game? I want him on my side. He’s so cool.

I think the Maker is sending Cullen signs to quit being a templar. First job: evil mages that tortured you. Instead of “this job will kill you” h took it as  a “never trusting mages again, got it”. Second job: your boss is evil possessed paranoid maniac. Man, talk about bad luck.

What is the story of the Lady Elegant?

Flemeth had that big great talk at the beginning of the game and i thought by the end of the game i’d realise what it meant, but nope, still no clue.

Ok so I defeated Corypheus, but there was this looong shot of Larius walking away. Corypheus possessed larius, didn’t he? He’s out there. In a madman’s body. I know he appears in inquisition.

Many thoughts

I gotta say, in Kirkwall, at least, it didn’t feel like much of a challenge to pick a side. Like, there was no mage who said “hey i actually really like it here in the circle, the templars aren’t so bad”, and having templars actually smuggling mages from the circle says a lot to say the least. Every time a mage talks to you, unless you go with “oh they’re 100% lying”, their stories invoke sympathy and of course you want to help them. And then in 99% cases they turn to blood magic bc there was no other way. Except that dude who always hanged out with the wrong people, he only did blood magic to save Carver. But yeah, that turning to blood magic was like having Fenris side-eye me with an unspoken “i told you so” bc every mage, whether in desperation or hunger for power, will turn sooner or later into a demon. Regardless, blood magic was always in the act of desperation and self-defense. The only times where magic was actually evil was the slavers and the serial killer, who is a madman.

When i was reading the Enigma of Kirkwall, there was a part that talks of a blood-mage conspiracy and i was all, oh shit, there is a reason why templars are mean to mages! maybe the conspirators are framing innocent mages on blood magic crimes that they actually commit, maybe Meredith is actually on trail of the conspirators, maybe there is a reason for animosity on both sides. After all, Kirkwall was known for having a bigger number of apostates, a bigger number of blood magic cases and far more ruthless templars. It added up.Thinking back now, i never even got any specific reason why meredith was so intensely anti-mage, other than going mad.

But yeah, no conspirators. Just sad mages and mean templars, and good templars that get screwed by desperate and mean mages.

While in Kirkwall it’s easy to be a pro-mage, i was thinking a lot about mage-rights in general so let me indulge myself: there are circles, but the mages aren’t oppressed. Rather, the circles would be educational centres and society in every larger city where one learns how to properly handle magic bc magic is dangerous. You can leave when you pass the final exam and also come back anytime to hang out with mages who decide to live there since the institution would support mages.

Also, when one gets possessed, i’d invest more into “walk into their head and free them of demons” specialists. It’d be cool if you could have a dreamer who does that bc no lyrium spent. Honestly, why don’t they ever do that? How did the keeper do that rite for Feynriel? Was it blood magic?

I guess, you’d still have to answer for your crimes, tho no death punishment and degradation allowed. Blood magic wouldn’t be punishable by death, but rather have specialists who study it, but practice with extreme caution and use of another person’s blood is strictly prohibited.

Templars would still exist but completely reformed. No more “mages are all potential disasters”, but i’d rather make it that mages can too be templars, since they both have abilities that prevents the others from casting magic. This way the control system would be much like the dalish: if the keeper(mage) is possessed, the clan (which means the non-mages and the first(mage)) need to kill them. You could argue that you don’t need templars as non-mages, since mages can do it too, but seeing that in general people fear magic and feel inferior to it (since there’s a collective memory of the great tevinter imperium), having non-magic specialists would make them feel like on equal ground. The extra-reformed templars would be under Circle, not under direct command of the chantry, and circle, depending of whether chantry is reformed, might or might not be under chantry.

(a side note, i was thinking about templars recently and i can’t recall an instance where it says who had the clever idea to chew lyrium first? i just wanna know)

I know that DA2 wasn’t about grey wardens and therefore not about darkspawn, but seeing as in legacy we get corypheus being... an evil version of the Architect(??), i was only wondering do we get more answers about the darkspawn? is there hope for them? is the Architect still alive?

And oh, to turn to the Anders question:

Is he a terrorist, or was that just activism? I mean, i don’t see why those two can’t go together. blasting a building with a symbolic significance killing and harming many innocent people to get a message of your radical activism across belongs into a schoolbook of terrorism. Does he have a good cause? He sure believes so, and i, too, agree that mages should not be oppressed for just being mages. But does that mean this is the right way to do it? Personally, i do not condone any act of violence in service of a political or religious cause. I know it’s sometimes inevitable, but i like to believe there are more diplomatic ways, or at least not including an attack on civilians.

That aside, the moment where anders goes in front and just announces that the church was gonna blow up in a minute was the best anders moment for me. Until that point i more or less just viewed his activism as a hobby since he just did it in his free time, but now he put his money where his mouth is and freaking went all out. Cool character moment. And incredibly heartwrenching. He was aware of how many innocents he killed, but just didn’t see other way to get the point across.

I still don’t agree with his idea of blowing up the church tho. Maybe if he told Hawke, they could have done something to empty the church previously and further people away from it and then blow it up?

But still, blowing up religious buildings isn’t the answer. If i was the radical mage activist, i would have gone for the open assassination. Seeing it worked in WW1, i don’t see why it couldn’t start a fantasy war.

Some random things i liked:

uniportant but lovable interractions in the house: it starts innocently with gamlen’s house, to see how you’re doing, and becomes really fun during act 2 when you see your friends have been here and left you things. In act 3, however, it feels melancholic. no more family to come back to, just ghosts of friends that have visited, Bodahn and Sandal being there for you, Orana still not getting some sunlight and your dog at the fireplace. The Hawke Family Suite is playing, and you feel older than you are, lonlier than you should be. just... ouch. I hope Bodahn adopted Orana and took her out of Kirkwall :(

t i named the dog “Maker” which is very funny to me bc every time i summon the dog i just imagine Hawke yelling “Maker help us”. Carver hates the name bc he needs to chase the dog often in the streets. Mama Hawke never ever calls the dog Maker, but she never has to call the dog anything: he’s super obedient towards her.

Fighting wasn’t as hard as in origins, i like that.

The haunted house mission was so cool.

When random people greet aveline in Hightown.

And that’s i think about it. There are probably plenty more things i loved, but i think this is already enough. if somebody told me i’d be playing so much this year, i’d laugh, but I already want to play the next game ;;___;;

[andoqin]

Stuff I watched recently

So I recently finished Secret Forest S2 and I loved it. The writing was smart, the acting was on point and the directing editing was once again top tier. Secret Forest S1 is one of my all time favourite dramas and I’m glad this got a second season, since the fight against abuse of power and to do what’s right doesn’t ever stop. 

I loved that this season we got to see Seo Dong-Jae from a slightly different viewpoint, because last season he felt like pure slime, and while he’s still not really all that *better*, he is actually good at his job and ferreting out information and uncovering the truth. Of course, that being said he’s still mainly motivated by his self-interests but it was such a delight to see him and Shi-Mok being the unlikely pair this season. 

That being said, it meant a reduction in Yeo-Jin/Shi-Mok screentime which was a shame, because those two are and always will be righteous soulmates who get each other in a way no one else does. His first smile wasn’t until late in the season! And of course she was the one who prompted it! 

One thing that I loved about the writing though, was that the arguments in their little reformation council meetings made sense, on both sides, but because all of them (well the higher ups at least) could only see it from partisan perspectives and how to maximise their own power, they just had shouting matches and got nothing done. It felt very true to life, while also letting the viewer take the arguments and making their own decisions as to who is right. 

All in all I’d have to say I still prefer season 1, the emotional highs just hit me a bit harder, this time was more muted and understated. This is not a bad thing, but as a drama watcher I’m more likely to remember something that really got me, emotionally. The second season is still a very solid 8.5/10. I hesitate to bump it to a 9, because as I said it didn’t quite touch me emotionally, plus the Hanjo Plot never felt fully integrated.

The next thing I saw/finished: Flower of Evil! Talk about getting me emotionally, hahaha. A bit of a tonal whiplash when compared to Secret Forest, because the writing here sometimes bordered on makjang, but well. Lee Jun Ki suffers like no one else, and who am I to say no to that. I loved loved loved the connection Hyun Soo and Ji Won had and as @dangermousie​ can attest, I pretty much clapped like a demented seal whenever Ji Won was on her way to Protect Her Man! 

We truly need more dramas that use this trope, because there’s not much I love more than woman who goes avenging angel or hell, goes feral, bc someone hurt her man. And the whump in this show is worth the price of admission alone. Even if it might not be your bag usually, let Lee Jun Ki convince you he’s worth it anyway. That man can bleed in my abandoned swimming/bathing pool any day!

But how rare is it, to see a marriage that a) stands the test of time and kdrama b) is loving and sweet and c) very horny. 

Speaking of very horny... I mean, not to out myself or anything, but GOOD LORD Kim Ji Hoon. I don’t think I’ve ever thirsted for him harder? Granted he’s a psychotic murderer, but everyone’s gotta have hobbies and with his family... it’s not exactly a surprise. I mean, can you blame me??

I mean, there’s worse faces to bleed out to is all I’m saying. 

All in all it was a very whumpy, fast paced drama with great action and romance, a hot villain a cute family and *so* many daddy issues. I think the ending was uplifting but suffered from the kdrama disease of time skip plus amnesia etc. I mean we could see that the amnesia was at the very least wearing off at the end and Hyun Soo hugging his daughter and then getting enveloped into a family hug was A+ television, but some of the Hee Sung stuff made me work extra hard at turning off my brain (how can he walk so well after 15 years of coma and no PT???) so my personal score is 8.5/10 once again. Yay for two very solid dramas that give me very different things to enjoy haha. 

[sageblogsthings]

okay heres a real one whats your thoughts on philosophy and how people sometimes think it's "pointless" to study

if anyone would prefer to read this as a google doc rather than tumblr text post since this got HELLA long, here is the link!

oh lawd u really just wantin me to go OFF first thing in the morning huh 😂 i think about this a lot though actually so i may or may not have half a response to this just floating around in my brain at any given moment lmaooo 🙈 this is the first time i’ve put it in words tho so pls forgive my mad ranting. y’all lmk in the tags on a scale of -10 to 0 how coherent this was 😂

the first thing i would say to someone who thinks it’s “pointless” to study philosophy *cough cough most of my family cough* is that that in itself is a philosophical claim. the reason that i love philosophy and science, and think that they fundamentally go hand in hand, is that for both you have to have evidence, and clear, methodical logic (my virgo is showing, isn’t it?). you can’t just make a claim that something is useful or useless based on your own personal assessment of it and consider that a valid or sound argument. it’s an opinion, sure, but in every sense of the word that is not an argument.

i think what a lot of people mean when they say that it’s pointless to study philosophy is that it’s pointless to get a degree in philosophy, and i think that’s ultimately just a personal decision but one i don’t inherently disagree with. the whole point of philosophy, imo, is just to broadly analyze the world around you and try to make sense of our place within that world using reason and critical thinking. there is no reason why that should only happen in the context of an academic institution, and i could go on a whole other rant about the uselessness of most academic philosophy and how it actually works against the goals of philosophy as a whole in many cases, but that would be a very very long essay, perhaps another time lol.

now onto the good stuff! i think that a lot of people have this impression of philosophy just being “analyze this text written by this long-dead white dude who didn’t really say anything that profound” *cough cough Kant* and while that is definitely true of a lot of academic philosophy, i think that is very much not the point of philosophy overall. to me, philosophy is largely about asking the questions that characterize human existence: “what is our purpose on earth?” “how do we know which actions are good or bad?” “do moral grey areas exist?” things that are very likely unanswerable at the end of the day but which i think are still important to consider. and this brings me to my very hot take, which i know would annoy a lot of my professors to no end and that brings me great joy: it does not matter if we never answer a single question that philosophy lays before us. the importance of philosophy does not lie in answering the questions, but in asking them. why do i think this? because philosophy does not exist in a vacuum, as much as a lot of philosophers would like to pretend that it does. whatever questions we ask, rational steps we take, analytical tests we perform, we are always taking those actions in the context of our human society. a lot of philosophers like to think that their moral views and practices do not influence their philosophical stances, but they definitely do because they’re human and bias is inescapable. so the reason i say that asking the questions is important, answering them is not so important, is because how we ask and attempt to answer philosophical questions is largely colored by our societal biases whether we want to admit that or not. so, for example, let me trash my favorite worst philosopher (fight me on this), Kant. everyone knows that Kant was sexist and racist, no philosopher worth their salt will argue with you about that. what they will argue with you about is how his prejudices did or did not affect his moral and metaphysical theories. now this might be a “hot take” on my part but the bio major in me is screaming that it is physically fucking impossible for his prejudices to not have influenced his views bc that’s not how brains work. this is why i say that it’s the questioning part of philosophy, not the answering part, that is important. the questioning part is what gets us to look at our biases, recognize and face them head-on, and tackle them in the hopes of reaching an answer. we may never get an answer, but isn’t tackling prejudices like racism, homophobia, sexism, etc more important than being able to answer how ladder schema and limit paradoxes relate to mind-body dualism? (yes, i took an entire fucking course on that, no i would not recommend it lol). if we do come up with philosophical solutions, great! bonus! but i would argue that most of our “moral answers” are actually just sociocultural viewpoints we’ve come to adopt and that philosophy had nothing to do with them, so even when we think we’ve answered philosophical questions we really haven’t. i think a lot of philosophers get hung up on trying to create these impeccable moral systems from the ground up, and imo that’s impossible. what philosophy can do for us though, is give us the tools to question systems already in place, and evaluate our role within those systems so that we can improve them. soooo to summarize, bc this is getting so incredibly long-winded i’m so sorry, is that philosophy may or may not be able to answer any questions ever, but it can help us ask questions and it is in asking these questions, not in answering them, that we can critically analyze our minds and the world around us and recognize what we need to change.

whoooweee i feel like i went through a whole zuko-did-one-good-thing-and-ptfo arc over here tryna write this lol but i hope that my overall point was clearish?? maybe?? i lowkey might turn this into an actual paper later bc i am in full on Spicy Philosophy Mode now lol

tldr: philosophy probably doesn’t ever answer anything, but it does ask a lot, and ultimately asking questions about morality, existence, etc are more important than answering them because asking them is what allows us to critically assess established structures and biases.

ask my thoughts on things

if u dare after this lmaooo

[calypsolemon]

@canonescapist​ making this a new post bc I dont particularly like adding on too much to my posts, but the latter part of this is kind of a viewpoint i... disagree on a little? its complicated, but like.... I feel like this idea that there’s some sort of separate ‘queer community’ comprised of people who explicitly identify as queer as opposed to a more general ‘lgbt’ community isn’t really helpful in any way, and furthers a divide that exclusionists and anti-queer types want. When i refer to the queer community as a whole, i do not want my meaning to be misconstrued, i am referring to all people who are not allocishet, and that includes people who don’t really call themselves queer, or people who dislike the word for whatever reason. The thing that must be understood is queer as a term used to refer to the community on a broad sense is fundamentally different than saying everyone within the group actively identifies as queer. After all, this is the same issue that “lgbt” (and yes, even extended variations) has; the use of the label ‘lgbt’ doesn’t necessarily indicate that everyone within the group explicitly identifies as lesbian, gay, bi, and/or trans. You can never truly fit everyone who is part of the community under a single label accurately.

Trying to create an arbitrary divide in the community as a gotcha towards queer exclusionists isn’t really an effective way of rebutting their arguments, its more of a concession. There are no queer spaces exclusively meant for people who only self-identify as queer, and rarely are there conversations only self-identified queer people can be a part of. The nebulous quality of the label inherently negates that. It really kind of only further serves to drive home a false idea of queer people as othered from “true” lgbt’s. But thats just kind of my take on it, I haven’t seen it discussed as much as I think it should be.

[notsimplysusurrus]

Now I'm... Confused what they meant in their last reply. They said not to respond to them anymore, so I'mma respect that cuz I thought we were having a civil discussion, but. So they were saying dark works aren't inherently p*rn? That's true... Never said it wasn't. I just thought my example was a good one. Guess not. Anyway I am confusion as to what the argument even is anymore.

Well, for starters, they said “don’t respond if you’re just going to prove my point uwu” which…..they’ve yet to demonstrate we’ve “proven” their point solely by virtue of our responses, so I was just like “eh this is a waste, I’ll fuck off but only bc it’s a waste of my time”. 

Secondly, what their point came across as was “I, by virtue of being me, can establish what romanticisation in fiction looks like, and ‘normal’ people (somehow) have the exact same objective view of ALL literary subjects that I don’t like, so all romanticisation looks the exact same way”. And that’s complete bullshit? 

So, predicated on that homogenous pool of “x literature portrayed y way = bad”, they come to the conclusion that porn they don’t like (i.e. minor/adult, which seemed to be the big thing but probably also rape, incest, etc.) is inherently romanticised because it’s porn, and its purpose is to arouse. 

Again, that’s not true because “””romanticisation””” is a literary term that doesn’t have a singular, 100% of the time definition BECAUSE IT’S SUBJECTIVE–like I was trying to make them understand. 

For example, when I was like 13 or 14, I found the weird, rape-y sex scenes in the novel 1984 to be highly arousing–even though I doubt the majority of those analysing these same scenes would agree. Is 1984 meant to be porn? Hell no. Did that stop me from treating certain scenes in the novel as if they were? Also hell no. 

In this same vein, we can consider that certain individuals do look at erotic writing critically–i.e. at the writing itself, not the subject matter. I’m afraid the world is more shades of grey than the black and white antis insist on it being.

I don’t even know if I’ve answered the question or not at this point, but like M has pointed out: so many students have these bizarrely rigid viewpoints, and because a lot of education systems don’t teach you well enough to think outside of your own, personal experience/understanding of a subject, you get young adults who are stuck in their own, narrow-minded view of the world (this is me extrapolating just a little bit from his exact point, but I don’t think he’d find my interpretation to be offensive of his main idea). 

That said, if they choose to attend university, they’re going to get a huge wake-up call really quick. And the adjustment is going to be rough.