#not meant to cause any sort of discourse

[kazoolol]

SONIC N SHADOW INFORMAL CHARACTER ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION

WARNING this analysis, opinion thing jumps from scene to scene as it's made with the idea you've seen the games and I'm also writing this sort of on the spot so apologies for any typos etc. Also please be nice I'm just some guy.

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Sonic and Shadow being so hostile towards each other. Now I'm not referring to their rivalry, because I love it. They're the only people who match each other in almost every aspect, so competition and a little rivalry is welcome and expected. But what I dislike is how nowadays they're not even capable of complimenting one another. Or even getting along in a more casual setting?

Like, in their Tailstube or the line change in SxSG ("You got this, Sonic." -> "On your feet, Sonic.") It feels sort of unnecsesary and disingenuine rewriting genuine hostility between the characters when there wasn't any to begin with.

Sonic and Shadow have always had a competitive push and pull that leaned towards playful from the get go despite the danger both parties presented.

When they meet, Shadow doesn't even seem inherently aggressive like he's depicted to be nowadays. He simply just warps away from Sonic when he comes at him.

Shadow at this point just sees himself in higher regard to Sonic and deems him unworthy of his time. This represented by the fact that Shadow is not only positioned to be looming over Sonic, the cinematography having him look down at him and exclaiming once he teleports onto the roof of the building that, "Theres no time for games, farewell."

We know that Shadow however quickly changes his tune the more he gets to know Sonoc throughout SA2.

He expresses disappointment in what he assumes to be Sonics death.

This line is so cool and extremely telling of their relationship at this point because it implies that Shadow saw him as MORE than just some hedgehog that resembled him.

Note the "You never cease to suprise me" "So, there's more to you than just looking like me."

(Small note thats kind of off topic) It's interesting to me in a lot of these encounters Sonic is actually the one to START the fight (other than when they battle each other on the ark). This is within reason though since hes being blamed for crimes he did not commit.

I wish Shadows hostility was toned down some. As he seems pretty amicable all things considering even hes working against Sonic. For example trading quips with Sonic in Adventure 2, doing numerous callbacks to such quips. In the hero story when you fight Shadow on the island as Sonic, he even admits Sonic is an impressive fighter. ( I would take SS but I'll just link a video to the scene)

In fact he gives Sonic credit where credit is due and vice versa numerous times throughout the story, and even the little talk they have before the fight on the Ark Shadow is genuinely curious about Sonic and who he is as a person.

Shadows curiousity surrounding Sonic is something I've always found incredibly interesting about their dynamic. I don't think Shadow would be so no nonsense and dismissive of Sonic, because Sonic intrigues him. Not only due to their similarity in appearance, but how Sonic carries himself as a person.

Not only is this an amazing character moment for Sonic, emphasizing he is not a hero but just a guy who loves adventure. Shadow after this revelation is not aggressive, mean or dismissive. He only fights Sonic because he's in the way, not due to some hatred on Shadows end, just because Sonic was in the way. He treats Rouge similarly.

I also liked the inherent connection the two of them had, like how in Sonic Heroes where Shadow lacks memory of any of SA2, he shows immediate interest in Sonic of all characters.

He's confused about why they look similar, yes, but he still shows immense interest in Sonic and ONLY Sonic even though Tails and Knuckles are also extremely suprised by his return.

I also think it's important to note that, even when Shadow remembers very little of Sonic, they still maintain that playful push and pull dynamic. Shadow never brushes him off, engaging with Sonic and vice versa.

Notice how Shadow isn't insulting, degrading nor putting down Sonic. He isn't so no nonsense as he is protrayed to be nowadays. He plays off of him, going "Is that so...well then, it will be a date to DIE for." Before smirking and running at Sonic.

Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding something, maybe I'm just being oblivious or misinterpreting their scenes, but I feel the removal of Shadows friendliness admist the rivalry and competition makes it feel less compelling because where their dynamic was established to be both parties pushing and pulling each others limits, yet also holding an air of respect and liking to one another feels lost with how most just deem Shadow and Sonic just hating each others guts. What reason does Shadow have for wanting to "finally defeat" Sonic?

Even in games where Shadow a bit more "aggressive" or has a less than friendly dynamic with Sonic (Think Sonic Battle and Shadow 05) theres still an air of respect between them. Sonic actually is the one who continues to push Shadow to take the path thats best for him. Sonic pushes him to be honest about his feelings, that it's okay for him to simply live and feel in the moment. And even when Shadow disagrees with this notion, claiming he has no heart, or Sonic is misunderstanding him, Sonic remains by his side.

That's what I've always loved about Sonic and Shadows relationship. That respect and care for one another I feel is completely lost nowadays to their dynamic. Big moments like Shadow directly stating that the ultimate lifeform is Sonic (I stole this off someone on Twitter I believe. Thank you to that person!) Sonic inspiring Shadow to live just doesn't really exist anymore.

And even in Sonic 06, the respect and trust the two have remains and is even stronger than before. When explaining where they find themselves to Team Hero, Sonic immediately picks up what Shadow is trying to communicate, that they need to work. Neither parties are apprehensive to one another, Sonic giving a thumbs up and Shadow nodding in approval.

And later when the teams are off on their own, theres the small but to me very memorable interaction where Sonic points right at Shadow and says, "Don't be late." And where I feel in recent titles where Shadow would either ignore him or just brush him off, he gets extremely close to Sonic and goes "Same to you."

And of course the iconic "chaos control" they do together not ONLY being noticably closer than it was with Silver, but they exchange NO WORDS throughout it all and just...know what to do. That is so special to me. That they just know what the other is thinking with no words said. Another moment that supports this is when Shadow comes in to help Sonic and no words are said besides a nod and smile. Would the two really do something like that if they hated one another and had no interest in each other?

I never see their close bond anymore between the two in both canon and fanon content and it's really sad disappointing in my opinion.

It makes Sonic and Shadows dynamic as a whole way less compelling.

The point of this character analysis is to point out how much of what made Shadow and Sonics dynamic actually engaging and have an incredible amount of depth is just...gone nowadays. With them leaning into making Shadow and Sonic rivals, they lost what made that dynamic so special in the first place.

Now I'm not saying I want Sonic and Shadow to be openly really friendly and lose their banter but I wish more moments of care and trust between them was also more common place.

What do you think? Do you think I missed the mark in some of this? Do you prefer their older dynamic or the newer one?

Just to be clear this is not a hate post directed to any of the Sonic Team, this isn't an Ian Flynn hate post this is just me pointing out how I feel about the more modern take on the characters. I really like how Shadow generations handles them but I also feel some line changes in Sonic Generations don't sit well with me personally.

I'm not a big fan of much of the Sonic and Shadow material outside of the games other than the Sonic movies and stories from Sonic channel so I tried to stick to the games primarily when discussing their dynamic.

Please be nice in the replies!!!!!

[asksweetvanilla]

AU Infodump and Rules - Please Read

Alright, here is the full run down on the au thus far.

The AU

Pure Vanilla Cookie's slow spiral into Beasthood and the corruption of his Souljam began with him falling out of the public's favor after he allowed the Five Beasts into the Vanilla Kingdom in an attempt to rehabilitate them into redeeming themselves from the corruption of their Souljams, with their powers bound by some sort of means.

This attempt actually seemed to be working, enough for Pure Vanilla to feel emboldened enough to allow other questionable cookies the same open hand.

He trusted the wrong cookie at some point, and Custard Cookie III paid the price, being stricken with a curse likely meant for the king himself and not the child.

This caused public outcry and unrest between Vanilla and the rest of the ancients for a time, since they warned him against naively accepting just any cookie. That he was already playing with fire with the beasts.

If they wanted a judge of truth....Vanilla concluded they would have their judge, and began research into forbidden magics to relieve himself of the one thing clouding his judgement. What he once saw strength in he now saw as a poisonous weakness. Compassion.

Cleaved from the original a cookie both old and new was born, dough as brittle as could be, and that Pure Vanilla attempted to crumble with his own staff. Destroy his compassion once and fore-all. A chunk of his Souljam, though, splinted off, saving this brittle cookie from himself. It held him together as well as it could.

The cookie awakened with no memory, no past far away, while a new beast rose with the new name of Righteous Vanilla. The Beast of Judgement.

The brittle cookie was given a name by a kind older cookie who took him in for a time. Sweet Vanilla...though it didn't take too long for him to get run out of the village. He has the face of a monster after all.

Now Sweet Vanilla had settled at the abandoned Blueberry Yogurt Academy, hoping to find a bit of peace.

Additional Information

The Beasts are at least somewhat redeemed, and some of them may have had formed a friendship with Pure Vanilla over the course of time with him. I would say Shadow Milk was the closest to Pure Vanilla, because of their souljams. He likely noticed something going odd first.

The Beasts left the Vanilla Kingdom with a good chunk of the other residents when Righteous Vanilla rose to Beasthood. They are likely with one or more of the other ancients.

The Ancients did not see this coming and there's regret about how they handled things.

Righteous Vanilla's rule is more calculated and cruel and controlling as compared to Pure Vanilla's kind and compassionate ruling style.

They do not know about Sweet Vanilla. Yet.

There is a magic well on the grounds of the Blueberry Yogurt Academy and that's where the asks are coming from lol. It might connect to multiple wells and multiple places.

SWEET VANILLA HAS AMNESIA.

Rules

No exceptional hate, use of slurs, racist remarks or homophobic/transphobic remarks in the ask box. You will be blocked.

You can be mean, in character, but not that kind of mean.

Shit can and will probably get dark. Please be prepared for that. Trigger warnings will be given as needed.

This is an AU. Please read the above information before you send things. If you send something that doesn't make sense within the context of the AU I will delete the ask.

I don't want your ship discourse in my ask box. I can see it happening in my mind's eye right now and I will tell you right here and now....don't, just don't.

[manifork]

Amatonormativity in objectum relationships

Completely ignoring the whole "which community belongs where" discourse subject, one thing that affects us especially sharply is amatonormativity. It's easy to see what it does on the outside - most of our partners aren't even considered partners at all by society. You can have as deep of an attachment to an object as you want, but the second you try to name these emotions a relationship of any sort, you instantly face opposition.

There is also, however, a layer of purely internal amatonormativity to talk about here. Because plainly speaking, objectum relationships are rarely ever structured like human relationships by the simple nature of reality. Even if you are a highly perceptive POSIC individual, and have perfect communication with your partners, there is still a physical reality aspect to it all that is hard to avoid - in human relationships, there is a strong expectation that your partner will help you in life financially, emotionally, physically, medically... and yes, there is a very clear ableism aspect to this preconception.

And many object partners are simply unable to give the societally expected help back. Even if you are dating a factory machine hard at work every day, it's never going to earn money to bring you back. Even if you're together with your cane that helps you walk every day, it can't be either the nuclear family breadwinner nor the housewife. Many more of our partners simply don't have anything at all that they can help with. Societally speaking, it's as if we're stuck forever in our un-settled teenage crushes, unable to move onto the "next phase" as is expected from us.

By their very nature, objectum relationships get pushed outside of the hierarchy. There is no space in the dating ladder for a tool you are bound to for life, or a weapon you have a warrior's bond with. It is a completely unique type of attachment that can involve deeply strong emotions, be much more important than any of your human relationships, and yet will never get recognized as legitimate.

And even further is this a problem for those of us that, like me&, can't hear their partner's thoughts or feelings. Those that love a completely inanimate object, and are even further thus removed from any possibility of their relationship ever resembling a human one, anything "within the hierarchy triangle".

Even the most "casual" of relationships within it still require direct communication. Even the most one-sided "parasocial" attachments still place a lot of expectation on that eventually, you will get your way and the celebrity or stranger will notice you and like you back the way that "real" partners do. Every single mode of expressing affection has to be reinvented for the objectosexual, because if kisses don't mean anything to either of you, then what does?

Still so many posts even from fellow objectums rely so heavily on human expressions of love. Keep sucking on that flat screen. The anthopomorphization of technology, equating their parts to human body parts regardless of accuracy. Shooting from your crossbow is just like sex. If you love an object you've been using every day, you should confess to it and get together for real this time.

This is not meant to put down how others express their affection - you know your relationship best, and keep posting about what works for you. This is moreso meant to point out the lack of even as much as acknowledgement of the fundamental differences that are present for so so many of us.

More than anything, though, the main cause behind this as I& suspect, is the fact that there is no script for how to date an object. There is a clear script and societally assigned plan on how you are meant to date and then marry a human. With polyamorous relationships, the script barely needs any changing, since you are still dealing with humans. With aromanticism, you have to rework your life plan to not include the marriage you don't want. And with OS/OR, you have to reinvent what a relationship even is. So it is no wonder that so many fellow objectums simply try their best to apply the ill-fitting human standards to their relationships, because it's all we know.

[skibasyndrome]

why are your kinktober stories all bottom Simon heavy? I trusted we would see more bottom Wille from you /gen

Anon, up front, genuinely sorry if you meant well and are now about to get the brunt of my frustration that I've built up for over a decade of existing in fandoms and fanfic spaces surrounding queer men and their sex.

Ooookay, I try not to engage in this discourse normally because frankly? It's kinda draining, because the way queer men's sex lifes are picked apart in lots of online spaces is not okay and, frankly, hurtful. But, okay:

I have posted 10 of 31 stories

I intentionally don't tag any of my smut as top!/bottom! anything (tho I don't mind other writers doing it - go off) cause frankly? I don't believe that's something that should matter. It doesn't to me when I think of wilmon. Preferences are fine, cool, awesome, both irl and in reading, there are couples who like to do things one way only and there are couples who mix things up and there's lots of stuff in between. People love to bottom! People love to top! People love any- and everything in between and that is great for them. All of that is fun and cool and absolutely awesome if everyone involved is on board. I simply don't have any one way I headcanon wilmon, I literally just go with whatever the vibe is. That also means I don't believe in having to strike a 50/50 balance or whatever. Also because

sex between men (and, since in one of the stories Wille is a trans woman, between all people, for that matter) is about more than anal and/or penetration. I love to read and write about Wille bottoming, love to write and read about Simon bottoming. But that's noooooot all there is. One thing I do try to do with my smut is write about some of the other ways sex can look. Which includes (mutual) masturbation, hand jobs, blow jobs, intercrural, frottage, a myriad of other acts. All of these are fullfilling ways of having sex, all of these don't follow top/bottom "logic" or whatever you'd like to call it. So what do we do about that?

I know some people - not saying you do, this, anon - like to conflate topping and bottoming with power dynamics, be it sub/dom type of stuff, or just... some vague idea of who is superior or whatever. And that very much CAN be the case, I'd argue Wille bottoming in my vampire fic or even Wille during the wax play in the one fic and the intercrural afterwards is definitely bordering sub-y territory. But you know? That also very much doesn't have to be the case. In the fic that includes 69 it's Simon "calling the shots" or whatever you'd like to call it, despite being the one that's being penetrated. I have fics planned out where the opposite is the case, I have plenty of fics where bottoming doesn't have anything to do about being sub or being dom or anything like that. I think there's this idea going around that somehow, (gay) sex acts are linked to power and power exchange and that there needs to be some equilibrium or... justice??? And. No. That's not how consensual sex, be it in relationships or hookups, works in my mind. In consensual sex, there is no disadvantage in bottoming or no need for any of the partners to bottom to fix some sort of hierarchy. Because there is none. Not in the consensual sex of two (or more) partners that want to have sex to have a good time or feel close or relax or any of the other reasons people have sex.

Fair question to ask, just know that I don't write bottom anything for the sake of making a point, I just write whatever feels like the characters would enjoy it in that particular moment in time, whatever suits the POV I wanna go with. I don't keep a tally of times penetrative sex has been part of a story and who did what. If that's a no-go for you, that's fine and I won't hold it against you. I have a bunch more stories coming up with all kinds of dynamics, all kinds of sex acts, all kinds of differently written versions of our two blorbos.

hope this was concise enough and I recognize that I've definitely put all kinds of other, adjacent, points into this, but this gay man right here is kind of fucking sick and tired of seeing stuff assigned to gay sex acts that are just. sex between consenting partners

[matt0044]

I like Evermorrow but… I feel like it’s cheating at times with their outright canon changes. :/

I think they're more uncomfortable with Adam being abusive because, well, of headcanons of him being "fixable" or at least a good man gone bad without being so... petulant as it were.

I've often seen a take that says that many who might advocate for a redemption arc for a bad character is because of this new age guilt of feeling bad for liking bad characters. Thus if they're "good," their past transgressions can be seen as a rocky road to a better place in retrospect.

I don't think that's fully true but it certain holds water when you look at things like Adam and Ironwood. Before the Iron stans rallied together come the end of Volume 7, I saw some assume that even with his ill treatment of Mantle, he would be brought around to see the light.

I feel like this is why the bad take of "Ruby lied so he got mad" is so prevelant. They think if he knew of Salem not being able to die, it'd help him ease off on Mantle's state of martial law. Not true but it's something to grasp at.

Adding to it, I feel like some Evermorrow is trying to be… a bit Centrist in the fandom. The creators don’t want to make any waves and actively dissuade viewers from declaring “This is what RWBY is meant to be.” But they don’t feel comfortable with the idea of Adam being an abusive lover of Blake or want to make the Bees a thing seemingly to appease those like Celtic Phoenix working for her.

It’s not something I blame them for since I wouldn’t wish this sort of discourse on anybody. Buuuuuuuuuut one should see it for themselves and parse out who’s being more egrigious in their behavior.

Like I was hoping for an alternate timeline where elements are the same as in canon but a different route like Cinder being found out leads to a butterfly effect of Salem pivoting her plans. Who were Cinder, Mercury and Emerald if they weren't with Salem?

I really don't wanna put the creators on blast or cause a harrassment campaign by accident. I just feel like given constructive criticism. I like their arc with Ilia so far and connecting it with Weiss.

[mdhwrites]

I’m disappointed by how unpopular Amphibia is on this site- I never even see it trending. I remember when Marcy’s Journal came out, and I was certain that it would trend then, yet it didn’t. Then the official art book for the show came out, and still, nothing (you’d think it featuring explicit sashanne and yulivia art would be a big deal on here, but apparently not). And now the other day, info about the upcoming graphic novel was revealed, and zilch. Meanwhile, The Owl House trends on here literally every other day despite no new content for it being released (outside of Chibiverse shorts, but those don’t seem to be the reason why it trends). It saddens me how Amphibia continues to get completely slept on while The Owl House is still extremely popular despite it not being as good of a show. It’s not fair honestly.

There is SO MUCH that goes into this. I'll actually try to keep this short on the analysis side but before I even do that: A piece of advice. Your media does not need to be the most popular to be special to you. To matter a lot to you. Nothing can take that from you. As someone who has been dealing with their fandom imploding and trying to put a little distance from it for that reason, it's good to have that joy be personal rather than too reliant on fandom. Not trying to say you haven't but it's good to be reminded.

Anyways: Why isn't Amphibia popular on social media?

1: It's non-controversial. There's no lingering elements that people are going to bring up anytime it comes up. TOH comes up and you always, ALWAYS get people talking about the shortening. There just isn't anything like that except people who probably saw the comic announcement and went "UGH! Marcy and Sasha got screwed over for the frogs AGAIN!" -_-

2: It's didn't play to a fandom. It didn't lean into shipping or fan theorizing that could be going on to this day besides Sprivy, which was less leaning into shipping and wanting to just talk about relationships, and the trio. You don't have ongoing shipping wars in part because there isn't a lot of fuel for that sort of thing. There isn't a whole plethora of attractive people that people want to ship Anne with, or unanswered questions about the show besides "Why didn't Domino let them go between the worlds!?"

3: There's no discourse. Like TOH stated a lot of things that were hot on social media. Put its thumb on the scale. Stuff like that. Then people like myself dissected what it had to say and how it said it and TOH's problems have created a community in and of itself on here dedicated to punching each other until the other gives up. This is how you get a new blog called 'DefendingtheOwlHouse' pop up almost two years after the show ended. Meanwhile, I got an ask yesterday about how people didn't ask Anne about Sasha and Marcy also having gone missing at the same time as her because with Amphibia... *shrug* It talked about universal topics like change, community, relationships and what not and did them extremely well and thoroughly so the big thing to say for that is "Go watch the show." This is how you get the unhinged takes that were making me LOSE MY MIND at one point as people kept bringing them to me because you have to go way afield in order to find something to talk about the show, good or bad, that the show doesn't just do already.

There's probably more I could think of if I tried, like the gay elements, but these are some of the bigger ones for what causes something to still drive engagement now versus a solid product that isn't constantly clamoring to be noticed. I also already made this longer than I meant to. ^^;

But again, the important thing is just to hold it close to you and let it be what it is in that way. It's cliche but everyone else's opinion doesn't matter. It's not easy of course, it's something I could do with internalizing more myself, but it's important nonetheless. See you next tale.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[familyabolisher]

Would you elaborate on why you don't really believe in addictive personalities? I find that a useful descriptor for myself that reminds me how easy it is for me to get into unhealthy behavior patterns. I have to fully stay away from tiktok and gacha games(I will never go gambling) because I know I can't trust myself with them. I also have to be REALLY careful with alcohol, etc. I have adhd and bi-polar, and I like having a phrase that describes my experience without being too over-medicalized and relating everything to diagnoses. I'm curious why you don't like it as a construct/whatever your opinion is!

personal explanatory power is one thing and i wouldn’t begrudge you that but i don’t really see how it has any materialist usage; and ultimately, like, i’m a marxist, any way in which i evaluate a framework that’s supposed to explain something in the world has to come from the assumption that the world is best explained through historical materialism. ‘addictive personality’ with no further elaboration is an idealist claim which obfuscates crucial points of discourse around addiction and the conditions that give rise to it—and indeed the conditions which cause us to name one substance or action as ‘addictive’ over another in the first place. addiction is materially punished; through social stigma, but also through housing discrimination, workplace discrimination, policing & incarceration, psychiatry, the sorts of forces that add up to eventually facilitate the conditions of social murder. we only have to look as far as the war on drugs to understand how ‘addiction,’ the consumption and circulation of substances regarded as ‘addictive,’ is not a prediscursive state but one that can be leveraged to violently enforce conditions of hegemony and quell insurgence through carceralism and social murder. i also just heavily distrust psychology as a field and certainly don’t buy these appeals to an essential self as a self who ‘has’ xyz tendencies as though xyz tendencies (such as the traits given in the five-factor model which is applied to ‘explain’ a predisposition to addiction) are anything other than postdiscursive descriptors we’ve imbued with meaning relative to a postdiscursive normalcy. i think psychological theorising around personality tends to obfuscate materialist frameworks in favour of methodologies which presume and reify normativity (eg. the claim that those more vulnerable to ‘addictive personalities’ have a stronger tendency towards ‘social alienation’ and ‘nonconformity’ without defining what constitutes ‘alienation’ and ‘conformity’ in the first place—as though personality traits simply appear out of thin air).

as we’ve seen dozens of times, “addiction” is a slippery term easily wielded towards reactionary ends. “porn addiction” is a line taken by anti-sex work radfems; “food addiction” is infamously unscientific and preying on cultural predispositions towards fatphobia; “internet addiction” is similarly flimsy and frequently deployed in theories of cultural degeneration. this doesn’t mean that the clusters of behaviours we term “addiction” aren’t “real” in the sense that some people do develop dependencies on particular substances, but that the term can be used to draw connections between the reactionary attitude held towards addiction & its attendant connotations (of infantilisation, justified removal of autonomy, incarceration, psychiatric intervention, and so on) and whatever the wielder wants to malign (porn, food, using the internet). if we reify the idea of there being an ontological state within ourselves by which we are more or less prone to “addiction,” we by implication act against the necessity of interrogating what is meant by “addiction” and why it is being invoked in the first place; we also place all our explanatory eggs, so to speak, in the basket of the individual cast as “addicted,” rather than turning our attention towards the source of the “addictive” substance or object and its material origins + usage.

so it bears asking what we’re obscuring and what we’re facilitating when we give legitimacy to the idea of an ‘addictive personality’ in the public discourse, which is what i meant when i said that the term has no materialist explanatory power for me—casting someone in the role of an addict, even if only in the hypothetical, allows others to enforce the stigmas that such a role entails, through, for example, infantilisation, denial of autonomy, and reluctance to treat the individual’s behaviour as worthy of respect, compassion, and mature response. it creates a telos out of addiction under conditions wherein addiction means incarceration (literal or psychiatric), discrimination, ostracisation, everything i just laid out in the first paragraph. it makes addiction into a fundamentally individualist discourse which must therefore have individualist solutions, rather than a complex nexus of social conditions and discourses that we can describe and then fight against.

[gemsofgreece]

Sike

Initial info snippet: Βεργίνα (or Vergina in English) is pronounced ver - YEE - nah. Just saying, for no particular reason whatsoever.

Perhaps you know that there is a country in the periphery of Greece that has a flag with a sun. This alongside other issues has been a cause of contention between Greece and this country, as it using this sun as a symbol of its non-Greek nationality was condemned by Greece as an act of cultural appropriation.

That sun looked suspiciously like (as in, it was identical down to the last line) to the Vergina Sun, or sometimes called Vergina Star, most famously discovered in the tomb of King Philip || of Macedon, in Ancient Aegae, Vergina, Macedonia, Greece.

The golden larnax with the Vergina Sun found in the tomb that is believed to be King Philip's.

For some time the Vergina Sun was mostly perceived as a symbol of Macedonia or Macedonian royalty, except that meant polar opposite things to Greeks versus to their neighbours. The Vergina Sun became the symbol of the administrative and historical region of Macedonia within the Greek state, which has this local flag:

The flag was first created in the late 80s after archaeologist Michael Andronikos made the huge discovery of the tombs in Vergina. The Vergina Sun was added as a national symbol at the Hellenic Parliament in 1993.

Meanwhile, in 1992 the newly founded neighbour state (risen through the collapse of Yugoslavia) adopted the EXACT same flag as their official national flag, except the background was changed to red. Greece condemned the use of this symbol, accusing the country of appropriation. Due to the rising tensions between the states, the neighbouring country eventually changed its flag.............. which means it's still the same red flag with the sun except now the sun is "designed differently". Of course, the implications behind it as well as the claims have not changed one bit. The neighbour country was mad at Greece for preventing them to express their true ethnicity and for using her immense evil power (which, as we all know, Greece definitely possesses) to steal THEIR history, because Greece is jealous of THEIR history. Anyway even though there was a legal agreement of sorts between the countries in the last years, it is honoured so little you might as well believe it was never done. And it is crap for our side as well, so everybody hates it.

But here's the funny thing. Even if one argues the true issue is what being a Macedonian entails (which shouldn't truly be a discourse but let's pretend it is)... the hilarious truth is that the Vergina Sun..... is actually not a symbol of Macedonia and Macedonians.

You see, the symbol has been discovered all throughout Greece since at least the 6th century BCE, way before the Kingdom of Macedon rose to any prominence.

Vergina Sun originating from… Sparta, 6th century BC, exhibited in the Louvre.

This famous amphora by Exekias, 6th century BC, depicting Achilleus and Ajax playing a board game. The Vergina Sun decorates their cloaks. Exhibit in the Vatican Museum.

Hercules fighting the Amazons. The Amazon bears a shield with the Vergina Sun. Early 5th century, Gela, Italy. (So it was crafted in the Greek colonies in Magna Grecia, South Italy.) Exhibited in the Regional Archaeological Museum "Antonio Salinas", Palermo.

Jar with the Judgement of Paris. Athena's shield is decorated with a Vergina Sun. Athens, c. 360 BC.

So you know, not only it wasn't an exclusively Macedonian symbol but it actually seems to have been an Archaic symbol of Panhellenic (encompassing all the Greeks) warfare.

Dem evil Griekos stealing other pipl's history.

[devildomwriter]

*TW*- i*cest, r*pe, g*re, p*dophilia, some general discourse

Ok so I am trying to ask this in the most respectful way because I don't wanna snowball this into a huge discourse; but I wonder if you've been seeing the Dark Content Discourse here on Tumblr?

It basically entails that despite your personal preferences, attacking/ demeaning other ppl who create/ consume dark content is a big no no because it's their safe space to be able to explore these topics. This includes all sort of stuff like i*cest, r*pe, g*re and even p*dophilia. Now you may not agree with any of these things, most ppl don't, and they might disgust you; which is totally fine. But there is a huge leap b/w something that is fictional and something that is real.

Fictional characters are literal lines on a paper. Doing anything with a fictional child does not mean you are harming a REAL child. This might still disgust you and that's fine too. You can block that person so you don't have to look at it again but to call everyone like this and start a campaign against them is well...

I just want you to know that I am not defending that person. I didn't even know them at all before this...Neither I am advocating for anything they are saying or confirming/claiming that they are good irl. I don't know them.

I just want you look at this from a different perspective and know your thoughts about this ordeal. Like for one moment step away from your pre-existing feelings and bias and look at this objectively. Everyone likes something that's even a lil problematic, so if we went on these campaigns every time, literally no one will be left in fandom. I don't agree with p*dophilia but I don't agree with this either...AGAIN THIS IS NOT MEANT TO CONDONE ANY OF THIS BEHAVIOUR! But to paint someone as a bad person for things they do in fiction in their safe space no matter how problematic, is somewhat disconcerting.

I again wanna say that this is not any hate against you or anyone else. I don't want to cause any discourse myself . I think you are an amazing writer and a valuable member in our fandom. Which is why it's important to me to hear your stance on this. But if you'd rather not answer this at all that's fine too! :>

I appreciate your perspective and I sometimes enjoy certain dark content as long as they warn others but pedophilia— fictional or not— should never be written/glorified/accepted. If it’s written as a horrible incident or traumatic backstory (like Lolita) then I understand why it’s written but glorifying or romanticizing it in any way is unacceptable.

If no one is left in the fandom after going on these “witch hunts” then the fandom is toxic, preditory, and unsafe.

As for the huge leap between fiction and reality, everything starts as a thought or fantasy. The more you think about it the more likely you are to commit or watch such an act.

Tumblr should under no circumstances be a safe place for pedophiles.

[a-very-tired-jew]

"It's not my job to educate you."

How often have you seen this statement?

I've personally lost count, and I'm a scientist that has been active since the anti-GMO, anti-Ag, and anti-Vaxx discourses of the 00s.

I've seen it for years used as a way to completely halt discussions when the speaker is backed into a corner and cannot support their position. I've seen it used as a defense when they try and put forth extremely biased and/or outright incorrect resources and are called out for it. I've seen it used when a person wants to make their opinion and outrageous claims known without defending them whatsoever.

And here's the thing, you're right. It's not your job to educate others.

But you've also entered into a conversation, discussion, or debate where people are backing their opinions with arguments, experiences, and citations. When you use this statement you essentially say you want to enter this conversation with no confrontation to your own personal beliefs, thoughts, and ideals.

That's childish. That's the kid on the playground saying "nuh uh, you didn't get me cause I'm actually on base right now. Yeah, I know it's a stick on the ground, but I said it's base so it's base."

Personally? I hate this statement. In my own circles I've seen it used by the most uneducated ignorant people to justify conspiracies or beliefs that actively harm them and/or others. I've seen my friends with no formal scientific education or experience who fell down the anti-science rabbit hole use it as a way to deflect from their ignorance.

In Leftist spaces I've seen it used to bring discussions to a stop and dismiss another person. "It's not my job to educate you!" while the very same person was just trying to educate the other on the topic being discussed. This is often accompanied with the "Do your own research", which inevitably leads to the person not coming to the same conclusions as the person who uttered the aforementioned phrases. Said person then becomes upset when the other doesn't come to the same conclusions, but again..."it's not my job to educate you (I'm just mad you're not educated in the way I want)".

In a professional setting I have seen it used to justify outright ignorance, conspiracy, and vitriol by people who have no understanding of the subject matter at hand.

People often say they love discussion and debate, but in reality they just like making their opinion known with no opposition.

And this leads me to the point of this wall of text...it's a very culturally goyische thing to do.

The conversations on Cultural Christianity made me think about this and it sort of hit me. We, Jews, are a "contentious" people. We question, argue, and debate to the point where it's a stereotype in media (an accurate one, but a stereotype nonetheless). But what this stereotype leaves out is that discussion and debate is often accompanied by education. We, typically, revel in this type of discourse and love to argue and learn from the argument. Even if none of us come away with a new position.

The joke "2 Jews, 3 opinions" actually highlights how we come to a greater understanding through our "contentiousness". Our discussions are often meant to educate one another and explore trains of thought we didn't previously have. At no point in the Talmud do you ever see someone state "It's not my job to educate you" and only after every avenue of argument has been exhausted do they devolve into sniping at one another about dick size. If you've seen any posts since 10/7 by Jews on here you will often see an active discussion with an attempt to educate if and when people interact.

However, there is the caveat that some people end up sealioning. In these situations it is completely fine to shut down the entire thing as they're simply wanting you to waste your energy until they have a "gotcha" moment. Eventually you will say something that does not necessarily agree with a previous statement and they will pounce on that. In such a situation you just need to leave the conversation entirely. Sealions are bad faith actors and not actually interested in anything outside of their own opinions.

Healthy discussion and debate, which is encouraged in Judaism, does not look like sealioning. It does not look like getting answers you don't like so you keep asking the same thing in a different way until you get what you want. It's like someone arguing with the DM repeatedly to get a spell to do something outside of its defined application and way outside of its possible application even when the DM says no.

Now, you might be saying "but in my non-Jewish household we encourage this kind of thinking!" and that's good. But we are talking about cultural generalities and trends here. If you live in the Midwest or Southern USA you will have encountered a multitude of Culturally Christian people who have their own personal history about how discussion, debate, and education is shut down (sometimes in a violent manner). If you've existed anywhere a hot button topic becomes discussed there is a strong chance you have experienced this statement, either online or in person, and witnessed the complete halt and shift in dialogue it causes. This is by no fault your own or the other persons, but there is a distinct cultural difference in general.

If you're someone who is offended by this, I want you to sincerely ask. Is questioning, discussion, and debate earnestly encouraged in your culture? Is it encouraged towards authority figures? Does it make certain topics taboo? What happens when children question authority figures?

[war-in-time]

I’m so glad anon brought up the rigged reaping idea. I find the idea of rigged reapings so odd. I feel like the issue with the discourse on this, and a lot of hunger games things, is that people refuse to hear out or acknowledge that the way Suzanne Collins portrays the themes in the book are not the only way to do it. And the message she’s choosing to send and highlight isn’t the only thing that can be taken away from the situation.

When I’ve tried to have this conversation with people before, I don’t even try to argue about it I approach the situation as if their belief or theory is true and just try to explain that even if that is the case that doesn’t mean I have to find it more compelling than the alternative and they just can’t wrap their mind around it.

Going back to the og trilogy I’ve seen some people posit that the reapings are rigged in the sense that the capitol somehow picked prim so that katniss would volunteer (the VAST majority of people acknowledge this is horseshit) but it then being people to other theories. A lot of people posit that the reapings are rigged in the sense that the capitol has the power to pick the tributes if they want since they’re the sole controller of the hunger games, but they don’t do that rather what they most often due is rig the reaping for demographics to make them as entertaining as possible, sort of like how they look for certain traits when casting reality tv to make high chances for it being as dramatic as possible. So some people say they picked prim but never meant for katniss to volunteer.

I personally feel that while this isn’t out of the question, it’s just less compelling. Sort of like how I feel about sotr and the rebellion recruiting haymitch in rather than him and the other victors being drawn together by their shared trauma caused by the capitol. I think that there can be something interesting in a government that sets up these games where kids get randomly picked to fight to the death but they’re lying about it being random, but I find it more interesting that they would keep their word and the kids are random, that they truly think what they’re doing is justified and this is a punishment for the war, that they can take any child and make entertainment out of them.

Idk this is too long already sorry 😂 but yeah idk TL;DR while I don’t think rigged reapings are out of the question there’s something almost more interesting in what is being implied if they are completely random. I wish people could understand that we can acknowledge that Collins may choose to covey a theme or message but there are different ways to do it that can be just as interesting. (You talked about the reapings already though so you don’t have to comment on any of this if you don’t want that anons ask just got me rambling lol)

I did already have a reaping question yes, but I don’t mind going a little further into it. I in no way shape or form think that the capital is looking at a list of kids from every district and picking out specific kids to be tributes. Could they rig the games to pick a specific age groups for the tributes by district? That one is actually pretty plausible but it only works if we ignore sotr. Maysilee and Louella were different ages so I think this one would have been a fully blind draw, otherwise picking two 13 year olds or two 16 year olds would have probably been a bit sus.

If people have theories about the reaping being rigged by all means they can. There’s nothing in the text that completely proves or disproves this to be the case. This one is fully and 100% my opinion but I just like the idea that the reaping is truly impartial. That and I’ve worked in an environment where gambling occurs every day so I do truly believe in just sherry luck (good or bad) when to comes to draws. The system is definitely rigged in a sense against poorer kids from the worse districts that need tessera to survive so I don’t see a need for anything further than that really.

This ones really just up to how you interpret the capital and the games. I still don’t like how Haymitch was ‘reaped’ but I don’t like majority of sotr so oh well.

[the-indigo-symphony]

Thinking about how people think retail work is "easy", the idea that "unskilled labor is a myth", and some discussion/discourse I've seen about workers preferring to do sex work over retail. And I think many people just don't realize that retail work has a physical danger to it – and no, not just from other people.

Exactly what people do in their jobs will vary depending on the business, but as for me? I work with sharp metal and plastic at high speeds. Heavy objects could be dropped directly onto my head if I'm not extremely careful, and even then, all it takes is a slip of the hand. Due to our refrigerators and freezers, I am jumping between temperatures several hundred times a day, which leaves my body suffering from the whiplash. I am thankful to have a manager that enforces breaks, but my job takes a toll on me even on the mildest of work days. I could get seriously hurt, and a lot is already being asked of me.

"Retail/fast food/etc. is unskilled labor –" okay but I am not selling expert labor to you, I am selling my well-being. I am being paid to do not just the things you don't or can't do, but to damage and risk my body and overall health in these specific ways so that your day might be a little better.

And honestly, I'd be fine with that, if I got some recognition for it (in both pay and general attitude). I am fine with a little risk and damage so long as it's for proper compensation – I don't view this work as demeaning by nature, and I take pride in my skill at doing it. It's just that I wished others around me cared more about this side of my job.

On a similar note, restaurant/fast food/etc. workers are not just being paid to make and bring out your food. They are being paid to risk oil burns, regular burns, scaldings, being stabbed or sliced, their hands being mangled by equipment, their fingers being crushed by machinery, any number of diseases that food can carry before it's prepared, and death if something goes wrong with the gas. All for your convenience.

It doesn't matter if it's unskilled, or if "anyone can do it". A good salary is one that takes into account what one is sacrificing and risking to complete this job. It takes into account the damage to one's body and the everyday dangers they are in. Salary is, as people know, payment for energy and time, but it is also a reimbursement for the expense of putting oneself in harm's way, and a person's salary should reflect that.

This isn't meant to shame customers. I think it'd be a little silly to shame people for taking on my services when I am well aware of the risks in them (although I acknowledge that gets complicated when people have to take these kinds of jobs regardless of the risks, due to desperately needing money). It's more of a perspective I don't see others talk about often. Even before factoring in shitty bosses, crappy work environments, and the like, these sorts of jobs have dangers and cause damages that should be acknowledged. And people should be properly compensated for taking them on.

[paragonrobits]

hmm villain concept meant to play on a common element in fandom discourse that bothers me a lot; the lionization of ruthlessness

it really bothers me a whole bunch when you get this glamorizing of ruthlessness; the idea that what you want is the only thing that matters and any end to achieve it is acceptable. To some degree it also infects political discourse. You see a LOT of people with this kind of callous attitude where they go 'kill everyone i don't like, that'll solve anything' and get downright hostile at any kind of... discussion that this kind of attitude might be a bad thing, or at least counter productive. Its the same kind of thing where you get fandom talk that boils down to 'superheroes should just kill all their villains' or 'if you dont want a protagonist to instantly murder all their enemies except for the Good Ones, you're a coward and probably a fascist supporter'

same thing with steven universe haters who really despise a loving protagonist who doesn't want to see people get hurt, or in general, heroes that dont want to kill people if they can avoid it. is the whole 'aang should have killed Ozai' crowd, so this character would be meant at sort of dissecting that attitude

so I'm thinking that this character, meant as an antagonist opposed to the protagonists due to incompatible goals or desiring the same resources and plot impetus, at one point was a warrior striving on behalf of their people; much as the kind of people I referred to write as though the only thing that matters is what you want, and killing everyone in your way will work out just fine, had an increasing escalation of thier activities until they gradually became a bloody minded dictator, gaining victory at the cost of eroding their capacity to care

doing that sort of thing makes it easier to do it again, and do it harder. more importantly it also makes it harder to NOT resort to it as soon as its convenient. once you've gotten a position through bloodshed, its likely that you lose patience with dealing with former allies; now you have competiting factions and feuds within your group, so much talking and arguing and factionalizing and it used to be so much easier...

so they do what always works for them. They got rid of it. Its hard to put down a weapon you're used to, and after killing their enemies, now they kill their political opponents, becoming a brutal tyrant.

This, however, backfires; in the setting there is a spiritual element to all things, and they get the attention of a spirit of retribution whom is displeased at their escalating actions, and it allows an invasion of fiendish entities, viewing the bloodshed as an acceptable reprisal. (The spirit is indifferent to the morality involved, it should be said.)

It causes a massive disaster, and so this warlord is left one of the few survivors of an enclave of humans, with blood on their hands and not much else. They've learned from the experience, but are still deeply bitter and having a hard time truly accepting (though they intellectually understand it now) that absolute ruthlessness doesn't do much in making things grow.

Currently thinking of this character being explicitly human in a setting where humans are just one of many creatures (and possibly being a subtle human supremacist, but chiefly concerned with long term survival of their people that believes all other beings are simply threats, and resents that the multi-species faction of the protagonists is a walking contradiction of their wariness), leading a faction of mass produced and simple-minded boisterous clones made to die young as expendable soldiers. If the protagonists have a theme of liberation and growth (from programming, from biological limitations, from apparently powerlessness), then this character is chained, and they know it. Chained by grief, chained by bitter resentment, chained by the knowing that everything they built is in flames because they just couldn't stop hurting others, or accept that they were never in control...

Consequently they would probably work best as a mid-level antagonist; not someone who ultimately pulls the strings (since that might be better reserved for truly evil characters, because the less I have to characterize them the less it compromises their malice), but as a commander or leader of the immediate antagonist team. Probably superpowered themselves, since in the settings I go that goes without saying. If they are powered by the respect and loyalty of their followers, this might also feed into their personal issues; they used to be far stronger, and they can FEEL how much weaker they are, because so much of the people who once followed them are gone and the weakness they feel is a reminder of what they've done.

[sophieinwonderland]

im a bit nervous to say this cause i really dont involve myself in tulpa discourse other than stating im accepting of tulpas, but its my understanding in life that people can't own actions. yes certain cultures and religions may have their specific way of doing something and make it their own, but that doesn't mean they own that action, they own the way they do the action. (im using own kinda liberally im not trying to imply they have some sort of legal ownership lol) but so with tibetan buddhist tulpamancy (i cant for the life of me remember the word they actually use) they dont own the concept of creating another entity in your mind or "self" but they do own the way they do it and their beliefs attached to it. im trying to relate this to something but i cant think of any analogies that would be as specific as this, and i dont want any anti-tulpas to see my general example and think im comparing to very different things.

Yeah, I think tulpacourse can be pretty difficult to wade through sometimes. Personally, I'm not entirely sure I even agree with the concept of owning your own beliefs. Even in a figurative way. Aside from, maybe, actually totally closed cultures.

I see beliefs as things that are meant to be shared, adapted, or sometimes even torn apart and scavenged for scraps. And sometimes, I do think the way these things happen might be offensive to some people who feel connected to them.

I don't really feel like this applies in the case of tulpamancy at all because I think it's so far divorced from Tibetan Buddhism as to not share any beliefs with it whatsoever.

But this was something I thought about a lot during the whole thing about God being plural. Because there, I'm playing directly with people's very sacred and personal beliefs. And I'm doing so in a way that some people are going to find offensive.

And the thing I decided is that... I don't feel like Christians have ownership over their beliefs. Not in a way that they would get to dictate who can use them or how they're used.

Yes, they can complain if they find something offensive or blasphemous. And some will do that very loudly. But I don't think I should feel obligated to avoid offending people either.

Especially when Christianity is itself based on Judaism. In fact, basically every old religion is a permutation of a permutation of a permutation, dating back thousands of years to religions which would look very differently from anything that's practiced today.

And I also think again on certain practices that some might consider offensive, such as the conversation on Godspouses where some people believe they both can communicate and marry certain deities. I don't see that people from those religions have any sort of right to police the beliefs of others. They can be offended by godspouses if they want. But that doesn't mean the godspouses are somehow in the wrong for their beliefs and experiences nor should they feel obligated to change how they worship and connect to their deities to please others.

...

As a side note, there was another fun note to come out of the tulpa AMA that I wanted to share. Michael Lifshitz is working with a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism to write an article on the practice tulpamancy was based on, going over texts that have never been translated to English!

So that's something pretty cool to look forward to! 😁

[astronomodome]

recent twitter discourse under the cut bc I hate everything good in the world and love making myself suffer

It just frustrates me so much to see Doc and others hounded so much on twitter for not speaking out about the genocide in Palestine. Of course I have to preface this discussion with saying that yes it is terrible and it’s morally correct to speak out about it and offer resources. However (and I mostly see this on twitter) a lot of the pressure being put on ccs to post about it is not only performative but in fact harmful to the ccs’ wellbeing AND to the cause it’s meant to support.

All the tweets I’ve seen about getting the ccs to post about this issue sort of have this air of moral superiority to them despite coming from a place of genuine concern (I assume), like these youtubers have some moral obligation to do stuff for their fans. Serious world issue aside I think this comes from a very parasocial place, this idea that ccs owe their fans whatever the fans want to ask of them. They’re not your friends. They have thoughts and opinions that you don’t see and they have the right to develop their thoughts themselves just like any other person. So much of this demanding stuff dips into harassment territory and it’s just so disappointing to see.

The worst part, to me, is that the statements that ARE given at that point are meaningless too because they come not from a place of genuine thought and emotion about the issue but because a bunch of twitter users demanded them to talk about it. Maybe they would be able to make a statement more meaningful and helpful than just ‘hey look at these three links’ if they were given the grace everyone else is given to study the issue and speak out if it means a lot to them.

The ccs don’t owe you anything. Get over yourselves. Do what you can to support Palestinian voices, donate, signal boost on your own platform and stop pretending it’s some huge moral failure that a minecraft youtuber won’t tweet what you want them to.

[danmei-confessions]

Not to jump on the JGY discourse badwagon, and please don't tag this with JGY for reasons I'm about to outline, but what JGY fans consider 'bashing' is really absurd to me. I've never been in a fandom like this. I admit, I'm new to the fandom and there seems to be a lot of history that has caused people to become over-sensitive but BOY OH BOY are they over-sensitive.

I've seen people accused of bashing JGY for calling him a villain. Which is just... true? I suppose if you prefer the term antagonist but people often (erroneously) use the terms interchangeably and antagonist is a more accurate definition of his placement in the story (antagonist being a character who is opposed to the protagonist, regardless of morals or who might be 'right' or 'wrong'). I think there's a fair case to be made for defining him as a 'villain' as well but I think there's a fair case to define most of the characters in MDZS as 'villains' so that isn't really meant as some sort of condemnation of his character, just an acknowledgement that he has done villainous things and some of those villainous things for villainous reasons. All that to say, I do think it's totally fair to have interpretations of his character that are far more blameless. It is a story from an unreliable narrator so if you choose to read the narrative as being completely inaccurate with regards to him, I think that's actually a really fair interpretation of the text. I prescribe to a watsonian death-of-the-author view of literature so whatever you get out of the text is an entirely valid interpretation. My point is merely that it's an equally valid interpretation to view him as a 'villain' and calling him such, especially in a series such as MDZS, is a neutral statement. And yes, someone could use the label of villain as a jumping off point to start bashing him but what I'm trying to point out is the fans who call it 'bashing' if you call him a villain alone, regardless of whether the person calling him a 'villain' is a fan of his character or not.

And that's only one example. People have been accused of bashing him for simply stating things that he did within the novel. Which again, it's totally fair to interpret things like NMJ's death as justified or unjustified depending on your interpretation of the text but the fact is that he did it. It's also fair to think his involvement in JRS and QS death is dubious at best, but it's also a fair to interpret the text that he did do it. So again, if someone says "he killed JRS and QS" that is not bashing, that's just saying a thing that is entirely possible within the text. It would be bashing if they say "he killed JRS and QS and that's why he's the worst character ever and he should die etc etc etc" and I'm sure that this hyper-sensitive fans have dealt with that sort of nonsense in the past and that is why they're so hypersensitive and quick to call everything bashing, but it is really odd to watch.

Basically any statement that's even mildly uncharitable or even just goofing on his character a bit (in a light hearted or affectionate way) I've seen be called bashing. At this point, it feels to me as an outsider looking in that the only way you're 'allowed' to engage with his character is if you have the absolute most charitable interpretation of him. You can't be a villain-fucker who likes a morally dubious and manipulative guy, you have to interpret him as the most innocent little guy who never did anything wrong or you're bashing him.

And it's just very absurd to me. I'm a fandom veteran in my 40's and I've been through so many fandoms over the years and I've never seen any fandom be quite like this about a character. Yes, the JC defenders are also quite obsessive but from my perspective, I've seen more of them willing to acknowledge JC's faults than the JGY fans (of course, this is completely anecdotal and it's entirely possible that I've just only seen small portions of both fanbases that made one of them seem more defensive and aggressive than the other, in which case I do apologize. I'm really not trying to be uncharitable). But even with JC and XY and other widely contentious characters, I still see a lot more defensive/aggressive behavior than I'm used to seeing in other fandoms.

Again, this is anecdotal and just my path through fandoms and as a long-time villain-fucker, but in all the other fandoms I've been a part of it's been "omg he's the worst and that's why I love him" or even "he's the worst, why do I love him" or just any iteration of "I love this character, he's the best to me, but yeah he does shitty stuff sometimes".

This is just I guess an actual confession rather than real discourse because I'm not really interested in having discourse over this. I'm a bit exhausted seeing all the discourse and I might even start distancing myself from the fandom because the more I talk about it, the more I realize it's just a lot more exhausting for me than I realized. This is just an observation and a confession about how I've felt while observing the hyper-defensive nature of some fans within this fandom. Mostly just triggered by seeing someone comment "stop putting bashing in the tag" and I read the post and I was really struggling to see what the bashing was. Again, maybe there's dog-whistles I'm blind to or maybe people are just too hurt over past drama to see clearly or maybe I'm just too old for this stuff. I guess I'm just used to bashing to be... bashing? Not "look I love the guy but he's kinda mean lol" or "he's a good villain".

Back in my day (LOL) bashing was just defined differently I guess.

Anyway, continue to love your blorbo and in any way that brings you joy, I'm not the blorbo police.

For the record, JGY is my favorite character and I find him deeply sympathetic even in less charitable interpretations of the text. I just like who he is, regardless of whether he's 'justified' or 'good'. My personal interpretation of his character is somewhere in between the most charitable and most uncharitable. I think he's a good person in an impossible position who had to struggle for everything in life and those struggles twisted him up inside until he made lots of mistakes and committed a lot of unforgivable acts. His story is tragic to me and deeply engaging. And the fact that I wrote this up as a huge JGY fan and I don't want it tagged because I legitimately think there are parts of the JGY fanbase who would interpret this as bashing is why I think I need to give up this fandom.

.