#nuanced discourse

[burr-ell]

The narrative is one thing, but I think it's really weird for fans to think Ludinus "has a point" about the gods in general causing the destruction of the Calamity when we know better. We objectively know better. It wasn't Sarenrae mutilating Vespin Chloras into a mindless puppet. It wasn't Melora sending Zerxus manipulative dreams and visions. It wasn't the Raven Queen destroying Exandria's protections against extraplanar threats. It wasn't Kord sending fiends into two inhabited cities to slaughter people indiscriminately. It wasn't Bahamut trying to release two emperor titans to destroy the planet. It wasn't Pelor killing and resurrecting Zerxus multiple times just for kicks, calling living breathing mortals "worthless paper dolls" and "a bad first draft".

It wasn't they who were responsible for the cloud of ash covering Exandria, or even most of the casualties. We know it was "not only in the first year, but in the first moments of Calamity" as Rau'shan and Ka'mort were destroyed—to prevent unleashing them on the world and everything being lost—that a large amount of that two-thirds of living beings were killed. We know that the "eruption of ash and fire, molten stone" from the destruction of Toramunda caused by the release of energy from the Astral Leywright sent up a cloud that covered Exandria for about a hundred years—up to the point where Downfall takes place, in fact. We know who then saw that destruction, done in the name of saving the world from the worst of his carefully plotted scheme, and then decided to shatter Exandria's teeth.

It's interesting how fixated some folks have gotten on the idea of "history being written by the winners", that maybe we don't really know the truth of what happened. It's not only ironic to then give infinite benefit of the doubt to the perspective of someone we know is a liar, it effectively wishes away how much of the history we've seen play out for ourselves. Under this...let's charitably call it understanding, the gods that we objectively know caused the Calamity's destruction are never the gods being referred to as oppressors and tyrants (even when they've explicitly identified themselves as oppressors and tyrants!).

For Bell's Hells, and the people of Exandria, much of this information has in fact been lost to time, and I don't look askance at them for not knowing what happened. I do, however, look askance at the real-life people who do know what happened, who can reasonably piece together the information we've been given, and are still so desperate for Ludinus to "have a point" that they're hiding behind tautologies and clichés so they can demonize the gods regardless. Because "what if the good guys were bad" is subversive, you see. When the black-and-white mindset is true but just casts the heroes as the villains, well, that's nuance, right?

[acequinz]

I don't know why people are on the opposite spectrum only.

It's always either Jiang Cheng did nothing wrong or Jiang Cheng did everything wrong.

Did Jiang Cheng love Wei Wuxian? Yes.

Did he also in a way abandon Wei Wuxian? Yes.

Would Jiang Cheng die for Wei Wuxian? Yes.

Would Jiang Cheng prioritise something over Wei Wuxian? Also yes.

Why are people acting like him being angry and/or upset Wei Wuxian about literally anything he has done(and he has done a lot) negates the love he has for him?

Also about Wei Wuxian's morality, the author has said that Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji are morally good people, this does not mean they can't do something wrong. And having made a mistake doesn't make them bad people either, it's just that morally speaking Wei Wuxian was in the right to defend the Wens. But life doesn't fucking work on morals.

Hell Wei Wuxian holds too many regrets that even he won't admit that he's a perfect person because there're too many things he would want to do differently. But under no circumstances can you question his morals because they have always been in the right place. All his acts of purposeful cruelty were against people who hurt him first.

Jiang Cheng being unable to stand up with Wei Wuxian during the Wen situation is because he's young and has no support but it's still disappointing because Jiang Yanli still managed to stand with Wei Wuxian in a way and then we see Jiang Cheng be unable to, it's also because the scale is different and he prioritised his sect over Wei Wuxian.

Then the other part of Jiang Cheng lashing out on Jin Ling physically that I see many screenshots of it and it's always when Jiang Cheng is under high emotional distress situations. Which is not to say it's okay and should be allowed. But the world setting and situation also matters.

But guess what that also does not take away from the love Jiang Cheng has for Jin Ling.

There's too many connections in the story itself especially around Jin Ling and his uncle's.

Now of course a relationship can have all the love but unless it has active care and affection it means nothing.

Which is why Wei Wuxian and Jiang Cheng fall apart. They have the love, they even have the care but because they just can't share affection they fall apart immediately after Jiang Yanli because before she had been the bridge of affection between them.

With the final bridge down, their relationship could not stay afloat and just sank.

[neiptune]

keep in mind that these are stories... that people are writing as a hobby... for free... most times for you to bust a nut...............

[taradactyls]

Something I love about how Pride and Prejudice is told through an omnipresent narrator, aside from the witty remarks and insight into other characters it allows even though it's usually focused on Elizabeth, is how it plays on the audience's own prejudices and assumptions.

The narrator tells us very early on, chapter 4, that Darcy is "haughty, reserved, and fastidious, and his manners, though well-bred, were not inviting." We've already seen that when we meet him the previous chapter, and will see more of it in those following. But it's the readers, along with Elizabeth, who take that observation as not only a list of flaws (despite only the first actually being negative) but presumes even more damaging flaws must be attached to it. Darcy can be off-putting, especially so in the setting we meet him in: he dismissed Elizabeth within earshot of her, didn't engage with people attempting to converse with him, etc. It's easy to assume the worst of him in a world so driven by social niceties, and because we follow Elizabeth, who is so lively and playful amidst the rules which govern society. Elizabeth thinks he's bad tempered? It would make sense - he hasn't shown consideration for others much socially, why would he care when he's angry? He acted from resentment and jealousy and went against his father's will? That's not such a jump after the conclusion of a bad temper, his own acknowledgement of implacable resentment, and evidence of pride. The awareness of one offensive trait so naturally leads to prejudice against it, that we easily assume still worse qualities must exist. We are as mistaken as Elizabeth.

Even the idea that 'No, Darcy was never haughty or rude, he was just shy and misunderstood, the narrator is wrong' is just magnifying that prejudice. Yes, we do find out later that Darcy is not at ease among strangers, and was always intrinsically good; his morals and core values meant he was never as bad as Elizabeth believed. But that doesn't mean he was without flaws, and it's so fascinating that some analysis of his character seek to completely remove the negative traits which he eventually overcame after acknowledging them in himself. The logic seems to be that they feel if he had them in the start that he isn't actually such a good person. It's just another example of being so prejudiced against certain flaws that it's impossible for some people to reconcile that there doesn't have to be more serious failings attached, and someone can still be a good person despite being arrogant and not always nice. It's, ironically, being prejudiced in the exact same way that Elizabeth was at the start of the novel. It's amazing that Jane Austen was able to tap into that aspect of human nature so deftly, and invoke in both in her main character, and readers to this day.

Now, of course, the story is so well known it's rare for anyone to read it blind, so it's less likely anyone will be unaware of Darcy's good qualities despite first seeing his worst. Even if they do, Pride and Prejudice has become so genre defining that new readers who are the slightest bit genre savvy will be more aware than contemporary audiences were. But even if we know the story it's still so understandable why Elizabeth feels the way she does. We see what she sees and feel her conclusions make sense. Just as, even though the narrator tells us Darcy is starting to catch feelings for Elizabeth, we fully comprehend her not noticing and believing there's a mutual dislike. And though that is concrete evidence of Elizabeth not reading Darcy and his motives correctly, we are still so sympathetic of the basis of her prejudice that her continued belief in Darcy's lack of virtues makes sense from her point of view. We can see, as she later will, that she takes it too far, and should have noticed evidence to the contrary, but her prejudice against him based on his early behaviour and her pride at reading people correctly is so understandable.

Basically, in a story about the characters' pride and prejudices, I love, love, LOVE how the narrator's voice brings out those same traits in readers the exact same way we see it presenting in Elizabeth. We're all on that journey with her, and we can likewise learn the same lessons about ourselves as she does. Pride and Prejudice feels timeless, because even though society and thus the nuance changes, the book is about human nature, and that remains essentially the same.

[cupcraft]

I think why the the discourse around "don't being your cishet significant other to pride" bothers me is because you're going down three shitty rabbit holes:

1. How are you going to police this? Does everyone who goes to pride have to disclose their partners gender, sexuality, sexual history, relationship with gender expression, genitalia, etc. Before they're allowed to bring them to pride? -> you are being a cop rabbit hole

2. Pride is a protest and it always has been and will continue to be. -> the burden of change is on queer people and no cishet person is allowed to be in solidarity in fact we discourage this solidarity for some reason rabbit hole

3. You assume that for example a bisexual person dating a cishet person makes them and the relationship less queer rabbit hole.

That's why it pisses me off thanks. And for the record this isn't me saying that harm should be allowed at pride by any means but you really need to consider why exclusionary politic is bad and why it goes further than just what you think it does and why exclusionary talk around liberation and pride causes harm and makes you a fucking cop.

[mazeyphaedra]

helpppp kipperlilly copperkettle’s dad is literally just some guy and her mom works at the finance office. she is NOT a nepo baby!!!!!! she’s an embezzler

[zorosdimples]

there seems to be this common sentiment that you’re only allowed to feel lonely when you’re physically isolated—when you don’t have friends, when you’re estranged from family, etc. but the truth is that loneliness is much more of a mental struggle—a frame of mind—than it is a physical state of being or a verifiable fact.

for example: think about a point in your life where you have felt incredibly and all-consumingly alone. sure, maybe you didn’t have many people around you. but i’m also willing to bet that there was at least one person in your life that cared—be it a friend or a partner or a teacher. but you didn’t confide in or open up to anyone because you either 1. were embarrassed; 2. thought they wouldn’t understand; or 3. didn’t want to be a burden.

none of these hang-ups are indicative of us actually having no one to speak to—no loved ones to comfort us. rather, they’re our own mental struggles which reflect our personal insecurities and emotions. at the end of the day, having friends around you doesn’t mean that you can’t (or won’t) have days where you feel isolated. you can have a sea of friends and family and mentors who adore you; but they can’t exactly reach out to that solitary place in your mind.

it’s silly to gatekeep feelings of isolation, especially on the internet. when people bring up “cliques” on tumblr, it’s usually rooted in a place of insecurity—one that we can all empathize with, as social media tends to exacerbate our personal feelings of inadequacy. but also, these individuals are generally pointing to small friend groups. a group friends isn’t inherently cliquish, because calling them such would mean that they are at their root exclusionary.

defining inclusivity within an online space is difficult, but often, people are quick to cry “clique” without any nuance. if someone is kind to you, i wouldn’t call that exclusionary behavior—would you? are they barring you from public spaces? are they actively targeting or harassing you? if not, your feelings are exactly that: your feelings. we can’t project our insecurities onto others and assume the worst; we need to give others the benefit of the doubt. we all have lives offline that are often more difficult than we will ever divulge.

i guess what i’m trying to say is that while we all are allowed to (and do, at times) feel lonely, we are each responsible for regulating our own emotions. going out of your way to blame others for your problems—when you have no evidence, no established patterns of behavior to reference—is childish. instead, let’s assume good intent, love on one another, and always be open to growth.

[wyllapproves]

The oppression of mages and elves is inherently intersectional with one another and therefore neither Fenris nor Anders are completely correct but yall aren’t ready for that conversation.

[synchodai]

"But Jace inherits the crown through Rhaenyra, so it shouldn't matter who his father was." How many times do we have to have this discussion: a bastard cannot inherit, especially if he has trueborn siblings. Marriages are political agreements that decree that the child born from said marriage gets their parents' lands and titles. Harwin and Rhaenyra made no such contract and therefore Jace is entitled to neither parents' holdings and/or titles. Rhaenyra could legitimize Jace, but doing so would acknowledge that he is a Strong and not a Velaryon which makes her sons forfeit the Driftmark wealth and navy.

"Jace doesn't need a dragon to prove that he's a Targaryen when he's obviously Rhaenyra's son." Jace being upset over the lowborn dragonseeds wasn't because him being Rhaenyra's son was ever in question. It's because he knows that being a bastard will not make people respect his right to rule and so he has to surround himself with other signs of legitimacy like a dragon. Dragons are seen by Jace, and a lot of Westerosi, as status symbols. By giving dragons to the lowborn, they are being devalued as indicators of a divine mandate. In short, he knows people won't care that he's Rhaenyra's biological son if he doesn't have the Targaryen might and mystique to back it up.

Again, this is feudalism. Marriages are political contracts. Biological parentage alone is not sufficient to argue your right to succession, because people had children outside of wedlock from multiple women all the time. A marriage contract between parents is what secures a child's inheritance, and Jace doesn't have that.

[noodlesarecheese]

Full disclosure I'm a couple episodes behind in WWW, so I'm not 100% on every thing that's being discoursed about, but I've seen enough that I just want to remind people/beg people to remember:

You are watching The Nuance Show, DMed by Mr. Philosophical Nuance and played by Notable Lovers of Nuance.

[hneycmb]

"we need more morally complex female characters!!!!!" you guys couldn't even handle mabel pines

[ingravinoveritas]

Following up on this excellent post from @nightgoodomens, it really is astonishing to see so many people in the GO fandom misunderstanding the characters/personalities of Aziraphale and Crowley. While I by no means am against people having head canons or differing interpretations, it has become frustrating to see people pushing their ideas about Aziraphale and Crowley onto others and declaring them to be official canon, leaving no room for any kind of discussion.

One of the things spoken about in the above linked post is the denigrating of Crowley, which seems to be a near constant in the fandom at this point, particularly in relation to the "apology dance" scene. (Which, to be fair, is chock full of soft!Dom Aziraphale vibes--thank you, Michael Sheen.) What seems to keep getting missed is that the entire apology dance routine is something that Aziraphale and Crowley do to each other. There is just as much of a possibility that Crowley sat there with a similarly smug look on his face and let out a guttural, snakey "Very nice" when Aziraphale did the dance in the years he listed off, because they play this game together.

Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship is one of equals, and I think this is also something people seem to not understand well. It seems as though a lot of fans who project themselves onto Crowley want to be taken care of, and so they want to believe the same of Crowley, and that the reason he wants to be taken care of is because he is broken. But someone doesn't have to be broken to want someone to take care of them. Sometimes the people who are a shambles on the outside can be dominant, just as sometimes the most buttoned up, put together people can also be submissive. And sometimes the people who look in control on the outside can feel not at all that way on the inside.

But this nuanced thinking seems to increasingly be difficult for many GO fans, particularly those who spend a great deal of time on social media, a place where people are either blindly praised or denigrated and torn down, and where such behavior greatly reinforces that binary, black-and-white mindset. We so badly want the world to be clear-cut--good vs. evil, heroes vs. bad guys--but very often that just isn't how things work. And it is exactly what Terry and Neil were trying to speak against in the GO book (and subsequently, the TV show).

The other thing that I think influences a lot of fans' perceptions about Aziraphale and Crowley is their chosen corporations (i.e., Crowley being thin and Aziraphale being plump). There is an automatic assumption that thin somehow equals more vulnerable, and for all of the emphasis that is placed on Aziraphale and Crowley being genderfluid/nonbinary/not subscribing to traditional gender roles, it's Crowley who seems to be viewed as more androgynous/femme, and is therefore looked at as inherently vulnerable. Meanwhile Aziraphale is thicker and viewed as more masculine, and therefore he is somehow inherently not vulnerable. Yet if the body types were reversed, it seems highly likely that fans' attitudes toward them would be much different.

(It also saddens me that this seems to mirror the fans' treatment of Michael and David, where Michael serves as a target for the fans' venom and is seen as less desirable/more threatening because he presents more traditionally masculine, while David is not targeted or attacked and is seen as more desirable/less threatening because he presents much more androgynously. Consequently, many fans find it easy not to sympathize with Michael, and when you can readily disregard someone's feelings, it becomes easier to see them as "less." In the case of Aziraphale and Michael, it leaves no room for either one to be vulnerable and is unfair to both of them.)

What I have always taken away from Good Omens--and from Michael and David's portrayal of Aziraphale and Crowley and how deeply they both understand these characters--is that Crowley doesn't need to be a perfect angel for Aziraphale to like him. He just needs to be a little bit of a good person. And Aziraphale doesn't need to be a perfect demon for Crowley to like him--he just needs to be enough of a bastard to be worth knowing. Neither one has to fully subscribe to the other's outlook or point of view to listen to what they have to say.

Aziraphale and Crowley meet in the middle. In the place that becomes their side, and where they take care of each other, fight with each other, and love each other. And that's more than most of us could ever ask or hope for...

[griem]

ijbol idk man releasing screenshots of very polarizing things said in a private discord server between friends in a public "callout" post is #the most #tumblrific thing ive ever seen LOL.

#opinion 😱 in tags

[onceamadhouse13]

On Defensiveness and Anti-Gaylorism

Of course, plenty of people who refuse to see Taylor Swift as queer are just plain homophobic. But I think there’s another segment of anti-Gaylors that we don’t talk about.

I think sometimes straight swifties are so aggressive about Taylor Swift being straight because they see queerness as this ₊⁺✧cool, exclusive club✧₊⁺ that they don’t get to be a part of, and they’re afraid that if Taylor Swift is queer then she’s yet another member of the cool exclusive club. They want her to be in THEIR club, because all the cool celebrities are queer, but at least the straights have Taylor Swift. So they get defensive about the possibility of her not being straight, because they don’t want to lose her as “one of us.” When Taylor Swift goes to the Queer Side, all the other straight people become less cool.

Less defensive straight swifties are often open to the possibility of her being queer - or can even see the signs themselves. That’s wonderful, and we appreciate those people. ♡

And gay swifties who call gaylors “delusional” are using this as a way to defend themselves against homophobia and be accepted by the dominant group (straight people). They’re saying, “I’m gay, but not THAT kind of gay” - it’s like cis gay people who are transphobic, or gay people who don’t associate with gay CULTURE. The kind of people who identify with “gay but not queer.” “I’m gay, but I’m not a WEIRD gay.” That’s internalized homophobia.

Anyway, I feel bad for these Defenders of Taylor Swift’s Straightness. I think they’re navigating a world where queer folks have fought tooth and nail to make queerness more accepted—and celebrated. To lots of people, Pride looks like a big, colorful party. And queer people deserve that space! But I get that some straight people might feel left out, and may feel disappointed when their fave gets to join the party and they don’t.

[phalaraluve]

normal people log off. i want to be alone with the gale dekarios understanders

[nintendont2502]

btw i will forever recommend just. refusing to engage in discourse. its free its easy and you literally arent missing anything LMAO - 99% of discourse on here is just on the most pointless petty shit that literally doesnt mean a single thing to anyone in real life (i am looking directly at you "pRo/AnTi" shippers), and the other 1% is genuinely important shit... that isnt going to be solved in any productive way by insulting '''the other side''' online. arguing with strangers online never changes anyones mind all youre doing is making yourself *and* your cause look annoying as hell :thumbsup: maybe chill out. find a hobby.