#of course others might disagree but this is from what i've seen

[insurged]

🎙️ can u rank ur muses into the most to least likely to be called babygirls

most likely: gojo, zhongli, hawks, hanzo maybe likely: wriothesley, grimmjow, cross, knives least likely: madara, benimaru, garou, muzan, higuruma, vincent, wesker

[meatsuit]

Is Juri's problem really idealizing Shiori in some way? The prevailing interpretation I've seen is that Juri should accept she fell for a snake so she can remove Shiori from the pedestal of her love. Incidentally Ruka also shares this opinion. I disagree and I'm here to be a contrarian about it!

A nonzero number of takes base their "Juri idealizes Shiori" conclusion on the "innocently cruel" line, the interpretation being she's percieving Shiori's personality as sweet and innocent. But that's not what the line is getting at. Juri's emphasis here is not innocence as a synonym for purity, it's innocence as a synonym for ignorance and naivety. Both Utena and Shiori are "innocent" because they are unable to anticipate the queer dynamic, the deviant lesbian desire, that Juri is operating from, and "cruel" because, in their misunderstanding, they step on Juri's toes in unintentional ways.

Even though we, the audience, know in retrospect that Shiori meant to fuck Juri up, the exact way she did it was a freak accident, and at this point in the story she has no idea that she managed to hurt her. Shiori is operating from a different understanding, one that assumes Juri's absolute conformity to and supremacy in heteronormative gender roles. Shiori's whole mission is proving her value over Juri on that axis, obviously because as a suppressed homosexual she feels insecure about her continuing obsession with Juri. She assumes "beating Juri" at attracting men will balance the scales-- render Juri's image less appealing, and hers more. And of course that would hurt Juri, who must value her success with boys so much. That lack of awareness is what Juri is referring to, and she's right here actually, about both Shiori and Utena-- they are unable to conceptualize desire for other women as a potential outcome, and in part it's because of this that they end up harming themselves and others.

Moreover the "innocently cruel" line does not imply that Juri thinks Shiori is an innocent person because, if anything, Juri does nothing but doubt Shiori throughout the series.

At no point does Juri say anything positive about Shiori's personality or their friendship. She is unable to frame her ex-bestie's existence outside of the pain she's caused her. The narrative purposefully never tells us why she fell in love with her in the first place, or what their friendship was like. We don't know why she chose Shiori specifically, and that's part of the mystique of Juri's feelings and of their relationship, that the audience will never see who Shiori is outside of Juri's heartbreak. She could have a vibrant personality, but it's thoroughly obscured by the opacity of Juri's despair, and Ohtori 's miasma. Not to mention Shiori's own internalized homophobia, compulsory heterosexuality, and chosen constructed persona-- just like a lot of other bitches trapped in Ohtori. This is what the place does, it chews up queer teenagers and doesn't spit them out so much as it arranges them neatly into a series of possible stage roles.

Juri's current image of Shiori is of a witch. It's possible she used to think of her as a princess, sure, but then she inverted the role once Shiori acted out. If anybody's idolizing anybody, it's Shiori. She is the master of rendering other people into shining beacons!

I have more thoughts forming on how Juri's "casting" of Shiori plays out through her final duel (does Shiori's mistreatment by Ruka briefly return her to her role as a princess to Juri's gallant prince-- but this proves unsustainable or undesirable, because princehood makes her too vulnerable or liable to corruption?) but they're half-baked at this time.

I do think though that Juri's "miracle" might be "making [Shiori] understand [her] feelings" literally-- not necessarily having Shiori return them (though that idea looms over her including in her understanding of what a man could do in her place, thanks to Ruka for the reminder). The miracle may be finding some way for Shiori and others to understand who Juri actually is without making herself vulnerable or diminishing the ease with which she moves through the world. She doesn't want to get stabbed with those swords of hatred. So many people don't seem to understand her, yet Juri is terrified of embodying anything other than an impenetrable image of excellence...! Girl watch out!! You're just embodying the reason why Shiori resents you in the first place!!! Those swords are coming at you no matter what!!!

[itsnothingofinterest]

A thought as we go into Deku's very questionable attempt at tearing down Shigaraki's walls by forcibly throwing quirk vestiges at it to seemingly find his inner child inside:

I've often seen it said, both in the manga and by fans, that Shigaraki is a man-child; a 5-year-old in a 21-year-old's body. And I've just as often strongly disagreed with this take, finding it reductive to his character by readers or other characters looking to simplify him But in making a recent post, I think I've realized it's...sort of true from a certain perspective...but only in the same way that Deku is a 5-year-old in a 16-year-old's body.

Make no mistake, Shigaraki has grown up, experienced the world, and matured significantly from when he was a child same as anyone (in a general sense I mean; his upbringing was of course quite unique). But it it true that a part of him has not grown up, that still holds on to beliefs that sprouted in his youth. But I think why I always take offence when people say this is that they act like this makes Shigaraki unique and demean him for it, like he alone is the immature one; when all of the above is true for Deku as well. As well as Dabi, Shoto, Toga, Uraraka, and everyone interesting frankly. (Some like All Might or Spinner are presented more as having young teens or pre-teens than inner 5-year-olds but it's the same principle).

Shigaraki is not unique for being moulded and motivated by his past. And Hori knows he's not unique for trying to solve what he sees is wrong in the world through proper application of violence either. Frankly half the cast has at their core, a child doing whatever they think is right. Call him immature if you wish but he's not special for it.

[pinkeoni]

During his emotionally charged speech in the van, Will says one particularly potent line.

"When you're different... You feel like... a mistake."

This line is highlighted visually by the camera shifting positions to outside of the van, a shot that is only used one other time to punctuate the end of the scene. This line holds extra weight and the show wants you to know it.

I already made an analysis on the word mistake and what that means for Will, but I want to look at the word different, which feels emphasized in the delivery of the line as well.

"When you're [pause for effect] different..."

It's popular headcanon among st fandom that "everyone in Hawkins is gay!" which sometimes bleeds from into their belief of real canon. Sexuality headcanon lists suddenly are seen with an air of truth to them, and a number of fanon queer ships are accompanied with evidence of their supposed endgame status.

I realize that this is kind of a... weird post to make. I'm not really making this to tell people to stop doing something, this is more of just a rattling off of some opinions I've had for awhile.

I do wanna start off with the obligatory: Do whatever the hell you want. I'm not here to stop you from doing something or tell you that you are wrong for thinking that a character is gay or for shipping something. You are allowed to ship whoever you want, think whatever you want about any character, any ship I don't like I have filtered. But I'm also allowed to not like these ships, or disagree with how others view certain characters. Just as others are allowed to have and express their opinion, I'm also allowed to have and state my opinions on the opinion website.

I think the important thing regarding Will being different is the fact that he is different. As my good friend @karenchildress once put it, if everyone were queer, it would cheapen the message the show is trying to give. Sure, the show displays a variety of ways of being different, but being gay is, among other things Will has been through re: being taken into the Upside Down, is Will's way of being different in Hawkins.

And of course Robin is gay as well, and while there is some crossover, the lived experiences of a gay man is different from that of a lesbian woman, which the show does touch on. Will's story is part of an extended AIDS metaphor, and Robin struggles to gain the attention of women in a world that seems to revolve around the attention of men.

It might be nice to have a moment between Will and Robin, although that alone won't solve Will's problem, i.e. his belief that being different makes him a mistake. Cause that's the thing: the resolution is that being different is a good thing.

If everyone character were queer, this would cheapen the message. Suddenly the resolution isn't that being different is a good thing, but that he isn't different after all.

So then, are queer stories meant to have only token characters?

I think it depends on the type of story, and what it's trying to say. Heartstopper has an eclectic queer cast, but it's also a show that embraces finding community and other people like you. Sex Education has a variety of different sexual identities, but it's also a show that aims to explore a lot of different perspectives.

And there are also queer stories where the queer character's disposition, and their struggle because of that, is a big part of the story. I believe this is what this show is trying to do— highlight Will's difference and how that pertains to his personal struggle and the resolution of that.

One argument that I hear against Will with powers is the idea that making him more different would be bad for his character, because he hates being different. But the thing is, Will is going to learn that his differences are a good thing, which may include any possible powers.

Of course Will isn't the only one with powers, and he also isn't the only gay one. El, Henry, and Kali all have powers, and Robin, Vickie, and Mike (and maybe Henry? I haven't seen TFS myself so I'm not commenting on that) are all gay. So while he's not alone, these things are still a rarity. It's not a case of a headcanon list with mostly everyone gay and some token straights.

"Characters are not straight by default."

This sentiment isn't unique to the st fandom and also didn't originate within this fandom, but it is something that I hear often. And it's... not really true, although it kind of depends on the piece of media we are talking about. It might be easy to say this about a show made in the 2020's, although this same sentiment is hard to state about, well, most shows made before the 2020s. And even then, it depends on what the show is going for.

People being not straight by default is a true statement in real life. You shouldn't assume a sexuality for anyone, gay, straight or what have you. But characters are made by people, and people have different biases on how these characters should be written. Calling the Duffers "two straight men" would go against what I just said, although I don't think that the show was written with everyone being gay in mind. Aside from the 4 (maybe 5) I listed, the other characters are not written to be queer. They just aren't.

All of the queer characters have arcs that feature their queerness. Will's queerness has been mentioned since season one. Robin's romance becomes part of her plot in season 4, and Vickie is introduced as her love interest. Romance has always been an important facet of Mike's story since season one, and his failure in a straight romance is highlighted in seasons three and four. Chekhov's painting of season 4 seems to solidify a gay Mike.

Elmax and Ronance as endgame options not only have no lead up but are also mean spirited towards Lucas and Vickie. Elmax gets together, breaking up Lumax, which has been built up since season two, and Lucas is supposed to be okay with this because????? Ronance get's together, effectively writing off a queer character that the show had introduced, and she can't even fulfill the reason she exists in the first place? Rockie is not the most well developed relationship out there, but it's the one that the show has decided to go for. Maybe Ronance could work, in an alternate universe where the show actually wrote that in.

For those that argue that both Max and Nancy are queer I simply... disagree. And you can disagree with me too, we'll both just agree to disagree. I'm not against headcanons, which are usually harmless, but also usually driven by the desires of the headcanon-er and less so the canon of the show. Which again, is fine, but it's also these headcanons which are being used to drive an argument for actual show canon. Usually the argument for any character being queer that wasn't already listed in canon rests solely on vibes, not any concrete evidence that may suggest actual attraction to the same sex.

More substantial evidence usually comes when someone applies a queer lens to a certain character, but an interpretation can be different from authorial intent. And sometimes, the viewer may be so focused on the metaphorical, that they fail to see the literal.

I do think that you could easily apply a queer lens to El's story. Her story is about, in her words, "not belonging," in society, having to remain in hiding, and deviating from feminine norms. I can easily see how you can derive a queer message from this, but all of the traits listed above are a result of her having powers and being raised in a lab, not being attracted to the same sex. Metaphor alone cannot prove that she likes girls.

Going back to Nancy, Nancy's romantic options are between Jonathan and Steve, although the show seems to make it clear that it's going with Jonathan in the end, what with Jancy holding hands at the end of season 4. Steve get's brought up in conversation between the two, alluding two some unresolved tension that's likely to be brought up in season 5, and Robin is... at the high school with Vickie. That is the end of the season establishing the arcs and romances for the final season.

"Gay people didn't exist in the 80's."

That's an argument on the opposite end of things that just isn't true, although I've also heard the counter for this argument, that gay people did in fact exist in the 80's, as evidence that everyone is gay. I'm not really here to argue whether or not gay people existed in the 80's (they did) I'm just here to argue what I think the canon of the show is presenting.

That being said, the show taking place in the 80's is still significant. It may not be a hyperrealistic depiction of the 80's, but the show does seem to understand the idea that at that time, it was very difficult for gay people come out and to start relationships. It's the reason that Robin can't just go up to Vickie and ask her out, and it's the reason that Will can't just say that the painting is from him. It's the reason why Mike hasn't quite yet left his relationship with El and accepted himself. It's the reason why Rockie has to discreetly flirt through peanut butter sandwiches. A character who hasn't had queerness built into their plot, or a relationship that has no buildup, isn't suddenly going to become canon in the last season.

I was talking about this once with a friend who used the show Only Murders in the Building as an example. In the shows second season, Selena Gomez's character is revealed to be bisexual and dates a character that Cara Delevingne plays for most of the season. The show doesn't build up to her character being bisexual, she doesn't come out as such, the other characters don't make a big deal out of it, she just is. So why can this show do something like that but Stranger Things can't?

Well, Only Murders is a show that takes place in present day, and is a light-hearted comedy (albeit with murder). A character suddenly being bisexual with no set up makes sense for the tone that the show has established and when it takes place. Stranger Things takes place in the 80's and establishes within it's first season and maintains it throughout that gay people get killed and are seen as social pariahs.

It's not that I don't understand where the desire to have more characters be queer comes from, especially characters that people already like and relate to. I don't think it's harmful to think that these characters are queer, I'm making an argument purely with regard to authorial intent and the actual outcome of the show. Again, feel free to disagree with me and continue to do whatever you want, these are just some thoughts that I have had on my mind for a while and wanted to put out.

[poetry-protest-pornography]

Let's talk about Sand.

I love Sand, and even though it hurt to see him use Ray last week, I loved that he was capable of the scheming required to do so: breaking his phone, lying to Nick, etc. And I love even more that when he saw how he had miscalculated, and how Ray was going off the rails, he tried to course-correct. Ultimately, he recognized his mistake (not accounting for how deeply fucked up the rest of Ray's friends are) and did what he could to take care of Ray.

I've seen a lot of people say that Ray is using Sand to get taken care of, and I very much disagree. Ray is enjoying getting taken care of, yes, absolutely, but he's not using Sand; not since that first time that he's paid for Sand to keep him company at least. Even then, I genuinely think that was Ray attempting to get what he needs without burdening others -- if he's giving Sand money, something he needs, then he's being useful -- but we're talking about Sand, sorry for the digression.

Sand has zero illusions about who Ray is.

He calls him out for being a lonely rich boy, for being a needy mess, for not being careful about people's feelings-- including his own.

Sand has seen Ray at his absolute worst. Has seen him drunk and throwing up and not remembering the next day. Has seen Ray drunk and asking to be left alone, because he's not worth it. Has seen him systematically blow up all of his friendships, and say goodbye to his best friend, and get behind the wheel of a car (something Ray has not done since meeting Sand, always seeking a ride from him or already being with him instead).

Sand chased him anyway. Sand let Ray chase him anyway.

Sand shows his love through caretaking; it's what he knows from how he was raised, as more of a friend and confidant to his mother than a child. It's not a healthy dynamic, but it's what he knows, and it's shaped his love language. Sand is a care taker, and he has so far sublimated that need to care for others by sticking to his routine, working, saving money, and making sure his mom is okay, avoiding relationships in favor of hookups.

Enter, Ray. A walking "please love me" sign that is also absolutely overflowing with love in need of an outlet, and Sand was never going to be able to turn away from such a kicked-puppy of a man.

When your primary way of relating to others is to take care of them, you do tend to ignore what might be best for you, but there's no way to turn off the deep seeded need to fix what's wrong for those in your circle (I mean, there's intensive therapy to try to keep from actually hurting yourself in the process, but you're always going to want to take care of people).

But Sand isn't doing anything to his own detriment. He's got his eyes wide open, and he is choosing to care for Ray anyway. He sees something in Ray worth loving, and Ray desperately needs to feel worthy of being loved, so that he can let all the directionless love inside him find a place to land. They both need to feel needed and wanted, in different measures, but they are both uniquely able to offer those things to each other.

Sand is a giver, but he's not being taken advantage of.

Ray is not a black hole, he's just been empty of love and affection for a very long time, and Sand, with his patience and his giant heart and his unwillingness to take Ray's shit, is happily waiting for the opportunity to fill that emptiness as soon as Ray stops trying to self destruct.

Sand is a good man, and I hope that he gets everything he wants (namely a world tour with Ray at his side).

[deripmaver]

Which is worse, rape or murder? - Or, should Casca have died during the Eclipse?

Unlike most of my meta posts, this is one I'm making as a direct critique of a specific take I've seen. It's similar to my meta about apostle Casca in that regard, where I want to look at a specific idea and why I dislike it, as opposed to wanting to explore my thoughts on an aspect of canon. To be clear, this is only something I do if I've seen a take a bunch of times, enough so I know it's not a one-off. It's also not something I do because I want to engage in discussion with the people who've said whatever the take is, it's something I do in case other people who agree with me might be interested in a meta post that's more in line with their viewpoint.

I provide this disclaimer because, as I've said a few times now, the idea that it's the better choice to have Casca die during the eclipse is one that I just really dislike, and I make that preeeeetty fuckin clear. I can't control who sees this or who comments, but I did think I should make my stance explicit.

Berserk fandom is an absolute treasure trove of bad takes about rape and sexual assault. Considering the seriousness with which the manga takes rape, despite it's sometimes quite dodgy framing and portrayal, the fact that the fandom is Like That is fully a testament to cishet men's inability to consume media without turning into a brainless amoeba of toxicity.

I have to say, though, what shocked me the most was that this particular take, that Casca should have just died during the eclipse, was not from the dudebro side of fandom ('cause if she had they couldn't make their silly little "casca enjoyed it" jokes).

I'm coming right out of the gate with my opinion, which is a firm no, Casca should not have died during the eclipse, and the story would be weaker if she had. I'm going to presume during this analysis that the people who say this assume that her death would be instead of her rape, as opposed to her being raped and then dying, which would be... Horrific. Even more horrific than canon, lol.

I do have sympathy for some of the people who wish she had died, and in a way I understand, though I vehemently disagree. Some of the posts with this POV sound almost traumatized as they proclaim I wish she would have died, it would have been better. As this is something I've only noticed in the tumblr fandom side of things, where most people are women, I think this comes from women readers feeling furious and sick about one of the most vile rape scenes out there. In some ways its intentionally vile, in others - ie how grotesquely sexualized it is - it's unintentional. Then, of course, she continues to suffer in her disabled, infantilized trauma state. I hear these readers wanting to shout at Miura that he should have just killed her off rather than force her, and us, through reading that. It would have been kinder.

I have... Far less sympathy for others. There's a side of fandom that simply does not care about Casca (in a different way than the dudebros who don't care about her despite gushing about how she's peak tomboy waifu). It's amazing the veneer of progressivism these people put on as they say that Casca should have died, because she did not contribute to the narrative before the eclipse, and she certainly hasn't after. Going to get even spicier for a second and point out fandom's long history of wanting female characters dead because they get in the way of mlm ships, and how I think this is SOMETIMES simply another manifestation of it.

To be fully fucking clear, I do NOT think that being a grffgts shipper (censored so this doesn't show up in the tag LOLLLLL) precludes being shitty about Casca. I think tumblr's demographics, and those demographics' typical shipping preferences, mean that grffgts is naturally going to dominate. By simple statistics, most of the people whose opinions I hate are going to be grffgts shippers. Same with most of the people's opinions I like on tumblr tbh. I do, however, think it's prudent to point out old school fandom misogyny, and how I personally feel it's showing up in the fandom, and also point out that it pisses me off that Casca dying during the eclipse is at all presented as the least misogynistic outcome.

I'm also going to say now that this is firmly being kept in the realm of fiction. In real life, there are horrific discussions about how being a victim of rape defiles you for life, and that it's better to die without the "shame" of being raped than live with it. While I have to be blunt it's difficult for me to separate some of the discussion of Casca dying during the eclipse from that anti-survivor bias I see in real life just because ~we live in a society~, I in general think this sentiment is coming from a place of simply analyzing, narratively, which outcome is less misogynistic given how the rape in canon is portrayed.

Would it narratively have been better for Casca to have died? What about the impact of her death versus her current storyline?

First, I think I need to outline my interpretation of the eclipse rape. I don't think that the decision to have Griffith rape Casca was Miura simply being a misogynistic cishet dude who threw in rape for the hell of it. I also don't think it's OOC. Again, there's much to critique in how it's drawn, but not in the fact that it happened. Griffith, in his moments of feeling out of control and powerless, uses sexual advances to reassert his control over the situation - see Charlotte, or the wagon scene with Casca. A distaste for sexual violence committed by his enemies doesn't mean Griffith is incapable of wielding sexual violence as a weapon himself. In real life, there's a paradox where rape committed by political or social enemies is seen as the worst crime one could ever commit, while the mundane rape committed as a consequence of patriarchy is excusable and the victims should be blamed and shamed. Did Miura have the gender studies acumen to think about that when writing? I dunno, but neither does anyone who thinks he didn't.

I also think it's supposed to establish his actions during the eclipse as fully over the moral event horizon. Without it, it's easy to ask if ultimately, Griffith's decision to sacrifice his followers to a cruel death is justified to create a perfect utopia. With it, it establishes Griffith as acting fully on cruel, malicious impulse in moments of emotional turmoil, which puts his future utopia in jeopardy. I can't be the only one who sees Falconia as a ticking time bomb. Of course, this doesn't mean he needed to rape Casca, but simply that I think it was necessary to his character to do something that crossed that moral line. He could have raped Guts I suppose. Killerbambi has entered the chat.

While I think this might sound strange, I actually think it's immensely validating to have a character who is a victim not just of rape, but of rape committed by someone she already knew. That's genuinely unique in media on the whole, which plays into that paradox I mentioned earlier - in real life, the vast majority of assaults are committed by someone the victim knew. Having the story surround the continual, horrific trauma of betrayal, of having to watch the person who hurt you move on while trauma keeps you in horrible stasis is almost so realistic it's... uncomfortable. Painful. Hard to read.

There's no greater purpose to what happened to Casca. She didn't grow from it, instead she regressed.

Her general lack of agency post-eclipse is much critiqued in the fandom and like. Fucking yeah fair LOLLLLLL BUT ALSO... But also. Fandom on the whole can be so cruel about traumatized female characters, like there's no way they can do trauma "right." In Casca's case, her lack of agency is turned into a reason she should simply have been killed off instead, as though there aren't so many survivors who, while not as literally as she does, retreat into a shell of themselves and are frozen with trauma as the world begins to pass them by. Of course, the critique would be that she's not a real person, she's a female character written in a misogynistic way by a man, but I personally think this overstates Miura's issues with his portrayal of rape. To me, it presents what they think are his biases as justification for their own biases.

Time and time again, I see survivors discuss feeling validated by Casca's trauma response after being assaulted. Even the parts of the rape scene that I vehemently dislike, such as the hyper-focus on Casca's body and the physical reactions she's having, I've seen more than one person say they felt validated because they too had an unwanted arousal response during an assault. I'll still critique the scene, but regardless of if this was Miura's intention, its impact is clear.

I'll again plug this article by Jackson P. Brown, How Berserk’s Casca challenges the myth of the “Strong Black Woman.” Just to show a quote from it:

All of the action of the story after Conviction Arc is in service of restoring Casca's mind. During Conviction Arc and after, Casca has groups of women who love and protect her, with women as her source of safety. Guts is single mindedly focused on bringing her back, putting his body on the line again and again to protect her and restore her. I wondered about including Guts here because I'm sure I'll get some anon about the Beast of Darkness, which again fair LOL. I have complicated feelings on that, but mostly I think the importance the narrative puts on her mind and her protection is touching, and I think this outweighs how the negative things apparently mean that she should have died.

Her story and trauma, despite its flaws, is shockingly realistic and validating to so many people. She's also a key narrative component post-eclipse, and not just ~for Guts' manpain~ or as a helpless plot device, her story is her own. I've written about Elaine as a character and what she represents, but in brief, Casca doesn't disappear after the eclipse. Miura wrote Elaine with these moments where Casca comes to the surface, and while I wish we had more of her POV I think you can look at how she's coping from how Elaine reacts to the world around her.

I also think it's necessary to have Casca at the Hill of Swords. There's Guts, who Griffith torments in the way only a bitter ex can, and Rickert, who doesn't know what happened the day of the eclipse, but I think Casca is the key component in that scene that cuts through all of Griffith's posturing and Guts' anger. She is there, making the real, human cost of what Griffith did during the eclipse unignorable in a way that no other character could. It's one thing for Guts to be furious with him and Rickert ignorant, it's another to have someone who loved him so innocently and dearly trembling just at the sight of him. Let's not pretend that the depth of betrayal in this scene would be the same if you swapped her for, say, Judeau.

It's funny, Miura is quoted as saying that his initial reason for keeping Casca alive was to provide Guts an ever-burning flame of vengeance, an eternal reminder of everything that he lost during the eclipse. What's wound up happening, on a meta level, is that Casca provides the reader a constant reminder of what happened during the eclipse. As more and more focus is given to her PTSD with her revival, the cruelty with which Griffith acted (and continues to act) becomes harder and harder to ignore. It becomes more difficult to push it aside as just bad, misogynistic writing.

And also, quite simply, I like narratives about trauma recovery, and therefore I'll always find Casca's story worth telling despite my frustration with a lot of it. It's absolutely wild to me that for how often I see the fandom complain about her being "fridged" they think it would have been better to see her ACTUALLY fridged, no chance of coming back at all, just dead to fuel Guts' revenge arc. Would it really be better to have her be just another dead girlfriend? Really?

That's really what it comes down to. I like Casca as a character, and I want her to have lived. The people who wish she had died, many of them simply don't like her as a character. Not all, particularly in that first group I mentioned at the start, but many. Everyone has their preferences of course, but I don't think I need to respect when someone thinks a character has so little influence on the narrative that they should have just died, especially if that character is Casca.

If Casca had died during the eclipse, it would not have been a good death. It would not have been brave, or triumphant, or worth anything for her as a character. Judeau died to protect Casca, but even his death was not brave, it was just sad. That's the whole point of the eclipse.

To have Casca die that way would be a disservice to her as a character, far moreso than to have her struggle on as a traumatized victim of sexual violence. That's genuinely what I believe.

[ultrainfinitepit]

Out of the scale of 1 to 10 which version/interpretations of angels look horrifying or majestic?

1. Bayonetta Angels

2. Evangelion Angels

3.Diablo Angels

4. Legion Angels

5. Night Vale Angels

6. Classical Biblically accurate angels

7. Angelerium Angels

Oh goodness Anon, what a question! Well I'll give you all my thoughts but I haven't engaged with all this media so a lot of my thoughts will just be based on what I see from a Google search.

Let's say on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 is most horrifying and 10 is most majestic.

Bayonetta Angels: these are so beautiful and intricate. I love all the gold and statue-like design elements. These seem more majestic than horrifying to me. 7/10

Evangelion Angels: these were a formative experience for my love for angels, so I'm biased. They're so varied it's hard to rate them, some tend to be more majestic and others more horrifying. But the lore pushes them overall into horrifying for me. 2/10

Diablo Angels: another formative experience. I love them a lot so I want to rank them at the top of everything always. But I think they are more majestic than horrifying. I am so in love with the tentacle wings that they have become friend-shaped to me, so the only other horrifying thing about them would be that they have no faces, which is rather low on the horrifying scale in my opinion. 8/10

Legion Angels: I haven't seen this movie but it's on my watchlist! And I've seen the bit where they scream all scary at the characters. Other than that they kinda seem like just guys with wings - which is fun, I do love some classic "guys with wings" angels even if I don't draw them often. But that puts them low on the horrifying scale compared to others I think. I suppose being person-shaped with wings makes them slightly more majestic than horrifying, that's the type of angel we see in classic art the most. 6/10

Night Vale Angels: I have yet to listen to Night Vale but I've seen fanart of them and they look really cool! The designs are definitely some of the best eldritch angels I've seen and are inspirational to me. There's so many interpretations that I'm not sure how to rate them fairly, so I will rate them equally on majestic and horrifying. 5/10

Classical Biblically Accurate Angels: this is a tough category to rate because it could to refer to so many things! I've read that the angels people usually think of as "biblically accurate" aren't even technically in the Bible. So I'll say this is referring to the Christian angelic hierarchy, which has a variety of angels in all sorts of shapes and roles. With the potential to be both horrifying and majestic, I will rate them equally as well. 5/10

Angelarium Angels: I'm a big fan of these designs! They definitely have some horrifying elements but they're also so beautiful that I think I have to rate them leaning toward the majestic side. 7/10

Well anyway those are all my thoughts and opinions, you might disagree of course and that's okay! I hope you had fun reading all this anyway :))

[chernikastan]

So yesterday I said I had ✨opinions✨ on the DLC and today I have come to the conclusion that as per usual, I will not chill until I dumped them somewhere lmao. It's mainly focused on what I've seen people say about Carmine and Kieran online, be it on tumblr or other websites.

Teal Mask Spoilers under the cut :3

I have no idea if I used the under the cut feature even right lmao I've kinda always just been a douche and ignored it when talking about spoilers as I've realised gfjdjrc

Ok anyway so. I think what personally bothered me the most is a lot of people saying "they just have a perfectly fine siblings relationship, nothing unhealthy to see here" and "Kieran is a coldass douchebag who view others as objects and only cares about strength". Both statements I strrroooongly disagree with.

First about his and Carmine's relationship, since it plays into the other thing. It seems that their parents aren't around, though it's unknown why. The grandparents are apparently pretty lackluster in taking over their job and because of that, it seems that Carmine has taken it on herself to take somewhat of guardian role for Kieran. Which is a role she's visibly overwhelmed by, which makes sense, because that's not a role you should have to take when you yourself are maybe like 17/18 lol. You can see that she absolutely does care for and wants the best for him, but at the same time she can't wrap her head around his actions and how he's feeling. So a lot of the things she does she does out of good intentions (for example telling the player for him that he's interested in them because she says he couldn't ever ask on his own, or the whole lying thing where she believes not telling him you guys met Ogrepon prevents him from feeling left out), without understanding that they have quite literally the opposite effect (Kieran feeling like he's unable to do anything on his own BECAUSE she does everything for him, and of course him feeling left out BECAUSE you and her keep meeting Ogrepon a secret). On top of that she clearly has issues keeping her own emotions down, so instead of reacting calmly she'd yell at him whenever he does or says something she doesn't like. And whether you want to see that certain one-liner as her implying she does also hit him when she's not "being nice" or not, she seems unaware of what effect these reactions have on her brother. I do think the implication might very well be on purpose, but it's just not as obviously stated as it could be because this is still a Pokémon game and we don't gotta be too in your face about child abuse in a game that like 8 year olds play lol.

Anyway, aside from him thinking he can't make decisions on his own and stuff, there's a lot of ways this treatment shows in Kieran. Notice how while Carmine is pretty open about showing her anger, he keeps trying to repress his own until later in the story where he's starting to be unable to do so? You can see that when you battle him the first couple times and he loses, the light in his eyes leaves briefly (yknow, the anime thing they both do where that shows them being angry/frustrated) before he grabs his head and just says aw man or something. And when she outs him on his crush or whatever on you, he also looks angry like that, but she immediately shuts him down like usual. I'm pretty sure that's a learned behaviour on his part, aka "when I get openly angry or sad my sis will yell at and/or hit me so I have to keep it down". That's why he always switches the topic, runs off or just goes quiet when he pisses her off or he thinks he pisses her or someone else off. It's optional dialogue so idk how many people have seen it, but Carmine confirms that at the festival, though she again misunderstands why he does it.

Have a high quality photo of what I mea-

So yeah, in short, in regards to their relationship, I think it's clear that it's pretty dysfunctional. For some reason Carmine's stuck with taking a caretaker role she cannot possibly fill given her own issues and age. As a result, she takes it out on her little brother who in turn has to suffer the double bagage of lack of parents and dealing with his older sister's moods. And with next to no social contacts outside of her, he's stuck in that situation and he's got no one to help him learn how to deal with this in a healthier way (same with Carmine really). All he knows that if he was "stronger", he could deal with this better. Like that cool ogre from the folktale that does not care what people think of it and keeps fighting for its right to be respected regardless. Stronger being a very arbitrary word here, as the only specific goal he mentions (in the beginning) is able to stand up against his sister.

Now onto the whole "Kieran sees Ogrepon, the player, probably everyone but him, as an object" thing which... yeah no, he's not a sociopath kcngjtc

More precisely, the player character comes in as this cool person who has no trouble beating his sister in a battle. They don't seem to have all that much trouble socialising either. Good thing he doesn't know all the kewl stuff we did at Area Zero and all or he'd lose it completely. I think a big bonus is also that we're not from his town, so we don't have any bias against his ogre idol. So like, he's head over heels for us, he actually gets to hang out with us and warms up as we realise we're interested in his stories and all and wow. He's found an actual real friend omg. He might not be 100% aware of that, but that's all he really wanted. He wanted to befriend the ogre because it sounded like it would be someone to understand him. And now there's suddenly this super nice person who's taking that role.

But then suddenly, that person hangs out with his meanie sister and stops interacting with him almost entirely. I have a feeling that Carmine hanging out with people he'd want to befriend and them making fun of him is just a thing that happened before and that's why he jumps to that conclusion right away. Keep in mind, the reason Carmine came to us in the first place is literally to make fun of his lack of skills at the mini game lol.

So yeah, the reason Kieran is so massively pissed off is because he does view the player character as a human being, and one he really really liked and put up the courage to open up to, yet from his POV we shamelessly take advantage of that and leave him alone again to hang out with his sis instead. Would probably come off to him like you just pretended to be his friend because you had to and now you're hanging out with the cooler kids and giggle about how silly he looked when, idk, he asked to have a sandwich with you lol. Of course this is not what the player intended (or is meant to intend) and I too felt physical pain when the game gave me no option but to lie xD but I'm pretty sure you guys making up and giving each other another chance is what's gonna happen in Indigo Disk.

For Ogrepon, instead of as an object, I think he just keeps seeing the ogre from the story in her. You gotta remember that he never gets to properly interact with her, he doesn't even refer to her by her actual name like Carmine does once she learns it. He doesn't understand that, ironically just like him, what she really wants is just acceptance and a friend. He thinks that the reason she's distrusting of him is not because she has trust issues and needs to warm up first just like him, but because he isn't as strong as you are, the one she does trust much easier. He's so convinced that nothing in his life will change for the better until he's "stronger" that... presumably the Dokutaro thing somewhere during the mid point starts influencing him. Not like, straight up possession, but more it taking advantage of his instability and promising to give him the strength he wants if he does what it wants. Just like the dex entries of the loyal three says what happened to them. So Dokutaro moreso takes the role of some guy who's a really bad influence and convinces you to do things that will harm both you and others with some sneaky lil psychological tricks. Because I mean, self-sabotaging is something Kieran literally does around the time he presumably comes in contact with Dokutaro. He completely stops trying to talk to you, he boxes the furret he apparently raised from an egg, he doesn't come along to help beat the loyal three to get the masks. I wonder tbh, if Dokutaro was influencing him, if it didn't lead him away from helping with that on purpose, since it originally made the loyal three steal the masks in the first place. I guess that would also explain why he would have been fine with Ogrepon just going back to the cave so he could get the masks back later. And while there definitely is the whole jealousy aspect, I think it's also Dokutaro leading him into actions he wouldn't normally do to get the masks. Because if he gets the masks it'll give him what he wants or whatever. I think without the Dokutaro influence, honestly, he'd probably just have locked himself up in his room for the rest of the story after you lying and sobbed into his Furret pal's fur lmao.

Soo yeah, I think that's about it. They both have quite some issues and continue the trend of ScaVio characters that really need a therapist lol. I like Kieran especially though, he's really adorable despite having his own set of flaws of course. So I do hope the next part will take his (and Carmine's) story into a satisfying direction. And I better get to give him a hug because he needs one smh. Maybe Arven can make him some top tier candy apples. Oh oh yeah, noticed btw that he adds Dipplin to his team after he gave us a candy apple at the festival and told us there's a mon that looks like one? Pokémon likes to do storytelling via the team, so maybe the Dippling reminds him of our broship 😔😔

[eashgirl]

What are some things you hate about fandoms? Just wondering

There is quite a lot of things actually, I know some may disagree with me on these, which is perfectly fine to each their own.

1- I don't like how when some of the widely accepted fanon headcanons are treated as truth by everyone even though there is no basis for it in canon, I'm totally one for headcanons, I love seeing ideas,and creating them myself but I don't like how when one headcanon is so beloved by everyone that it's treated as canon and anybody else who has different opinions are shut down for not accepting that. Again I'm not objected to people having their own interpretations, but sometimes it really does get to a point when I try to point out it's not canon several people would attempt to correct me and say it was.

2- this part mainly concerns shipping, another thing I don't like about certain fandoms is they can't seem to accept that people will like different things as them, just because a certain ship is canon will not automatically make people like that ship more or stop them from shipping those said charecters with another person. Canon is canon I understand that, it's important to respect the creator's work and what has been established but at the same time the amount of times I've seen people deliberately writing hate comments under a post of a ship they don't like, and even create anti- blogs for the ship is insane.

Is it that hard to respect someone's opinion? Even I have certain ships I don't like and am even grossed out by(we are not talking about child/adult ships those are a whole another thing entirely),but the amount of dedication haters have to constantly put down others just to feel superior everytime I see something like that all I think about is how immature that is.

One time when I was thirteen I legit had one of my followers stalk me on instagram and screenshot a photo of a ship account I follow, that person hates that particular ship yet constantly checks accounts posting that particular ship just to write hate comments,they were blabbing about "ship loyalty and all that" I remember feeling so aggravated when they told me that, I instantly blocked them. It's that sort of childishness I'm talking about.

I'm open to discussing about opinions as long as it's a civil conversation, sometimes people just like different things, is it too much to expect some decency and respect?

3- Another thing that annoys me from time to time is the villainization of a particular charecter, evidence from the media does show that, that person has their flaws, major flaws and people act like that person is a devil's incarnate and anyone who has the audacity to feel a shred of sympathy for them is automatically labelled a horrible person.

Now I'm not suggesting at any means that trauma justifies your actions, no one has the right to harm anyone under that excuse,you can acknowledge the fact they are a horrible person and still feel bad for them because they are caught in a never ending cycle of abuse and are unable to escape it, this leads to them committing even worse actions.

Something else that ties into this is liking villains in general, it's important to understand that liking a certain charecter does not mean justifying their wrongdoings, you can like a charecter but still agree that yes this is a horrible person. This might seem like common sense but I have seen people trying to outright justify murder, SA, terrorism just because they happen to like that charecter. On the other hand there are certain villains who are objectively just as bad and are baby-fied because they happen to be more likable, when that person is just as bad.

Of course some topics may just feel too personal for people who have experienced it first hand I can understand that really I do, someone who went through a toxic relationship would probably not enjoy a relationship dynamic between two charecters that can be considered to very unhealthy for eachother. And some people may not prefer an otherwise sweet relationship if it's not enjoyable, we use media for entertainment and as humans we all have different preferences so it's important to understand and respect that

At the end of the day I'm not trying to villify anyone, I'm really not

Thanks for the ask anon! Hopefully this doesn't lead to me getting attacked again 😅

[elstreem]

Got to finish Percival's Interlude and as usual seeing the Knights of the Round Table shenanigans got me to thinking, so here is a long, rambling post about Percival, Tristan and of course Bedi!

So as usual, Percival's Interlude ends with him going big brother mode and telling Mordred, Gareth, and Ritsuka to eat up, and you can agree or disagree with two reactions...

And if you chose (Avert eyes), kind, sweet, childishly innocent Percival says in reply:

Which is funny, but you know what's funnier?

The fact that this is the 2nd time that a "usually kindhearted platinum blond Knight of the Round Table has offered Ritsuka food in a way that borders on threatening during an Interlude."

The 1st time, of course, being with Bedi and his "let's eat that monster we caught!" moment.

Though, it should be noted, according to Bedivere's remarks Ritsuka actually ate the whole meal, so this Interlude indicates he actually cooks very well, ingredients aside.

One of the story ideas I have brewing is Bedivere taking Beni-Enma's class and actually passing some of the courses, because I think Bedivere would actually love the chance to improve his skills at serving Ritsuka...

Anyway, I just think it's funny both Bedivere and Percival, who are probably the kindest members of the KotRT, have their own aggressive moments that occurs around food. So after this is where I ramble with some more thoughts I'll put under the cut. And I do mean ramble - it involves some thoughts about Bedivere, Percival, and Tristan.

Anyway, seeing as Bedivere and Percival had their similar moments, and honestly are very alike in a lot of ways, I got to thinking.

When it comes to being nice, I think Percival might be nicer in some aspects compared to Bedivere - probably sounds weird coming from me, Bedi-brained as I am, but here's what I thought -

Percival is noted to get along with just about every Knight of the Round Table - he's the only knight to not feel any annoyance with Merlin.

By contrast, Bedivere has explicitly stated he once hated Agravain like his fellow Knights, and that he's "never been really good with people" like Sherlock Holmes, whom he was commenting on in this particular screenshot, and by extension the same sentiment goes for Merlin. I take this to mean Bedivere is also annoyed by Merlin ahaha.

So I think, that while Bedivere and Percival are both among the most upstanding and kind members of the KotRT, the way that they show it is in different ways and so they never come across as copies of one another.

Percival is described to be innocent, and the only harshness in his his demeanor comes out in combat, but he never fights out of anger. He gets along with everyone.

By contrast, Bedivere is kind, yes, but he definitely has people he can't get along with. He still has a tendency to see the best in everyone (say, his My Room comment on Mordred is him acknowledging what a good knight they make) but he can also honestly say there are people whom he dislikes. (That being said, I think Bedivere has gotten over hating Agravain when he realized he was in a weird way holding the KotRT together.)

All that said...

There is one person Percival is seen scolding, and it's Tristan.

Which I do find funny, because otherwise Percival is so happy to greet everyone else, but with Tristan, he's immediately "stop cheating" lol.

Gareth actually gets into it too in her My Room line for Tristan:

However - Bedivere never actually brings this fact about Tristan up, and I think this is where the game shows without telling that Bedivere and Tristan are good friends who understand each other.

I usually do focus on BediGuda interactions on my blog, so I've been really slacking off talking about Bedi's relationships to fellow Knights, but here is how I've come to see Bedivere's view on Tristan on the matter of the Iseults.

I think that while Bedivere disapproves of the whole "going behind Iseult's back to cheat with Iseult," he never accuses Tristan of cheating because he understands it was a difficult matter for Tristan - and while Bedivere CAN push Tristan's buttons on some issues, Bedivere doesn't bring it up because he understands it's actually a hurtful topic as a whole for Tristan.

When I look at interactions with Bedivere and Tristan and how they talk about each other, Tristan frequently mentions Bedivere is strict with or hard on him (say, during the Summer Fest Bedivere was quick to remind Tristan owes him a lot in cash) but, I don't think there is ever any time Bedivere ever call Tristan a cheat.

During Tristan's Interlude, Bedivere does tease Tristan about being a whale-man - and it does hurt Tristan a bit that even Bedivere uses an animal to be a metaphor for his personality, but he does agree the comparison was correct on that note (friends do be like that).

I don't think Bedivere meant for his comment to hurt Tristan, it kinda just blows up into this mess with Tristan having a bad day and the whole "possibly Morgan messing with Tristan" later on in the Interlude.

Notably, Bedivere actually is the first to tell Tristan in the confrontation that whatever is bugging him, they could work through it:

And I know Bedivere is very sincere about what he's talking about, he knows all about sins and atonement with everything that happened in Chapter 6.

Ultimately what brings Tristan to his senses in this Interlude is a combination of Mordred calling Tristan out, LArtoria bonking Tristan on the head, and Ritsuka telling Tristan he is capable of love.

But I think Bedivere actually also understands Tristan has always been conflicted because he loved the two Iseults - if you play Bedi's Interlude and stay quiet when he suggests you listen to the waves, he says this:

The phrasing "torn between the two" seems to indicate Bedivere knew about Tristan's struggle with love, so the long and short of it:

Bedivere never calls Tristan a cheater because as his friend, he understood that it's a painful topic for him. Which is much more respect than the game actually gives Tristan most of the time lol, being a butt monkey in just about every event who still chases skirts.

Soooo tl;dr Bedivere and Percival are the nicest members of the KotRT, and while Percival is a bit nicer than Bedivere, Bedivere does understand Tristan in ways the other Knights might not on account of their friendship.

[rainbowsky]

Hello RBS! I hope you're doing wonderfully. 😊 So I see people talking about Zhanzhan's hands being small. Is this a reference I am missing? They might be smaller than Bobo's, bc Bobo has enormous hands. (And gorgeous. Gigorgeous? I may or may not have paused shows when his hands are on screen so I can stare. 👀) But Zhanzhan's hands don't seem small, and are much bigger than any of his female costars that I've seen. What's the gist?

Also the app I use when I save fandom photos can sort faces, and it thinks GG and DD are the same person 😂 So it's not just humans who confuse the two of them!

Hi, I'm doing well, thanks! Hope you are too! 😊

GG is perfect in every way. There's nothing to see here!

Ah, you've hit upon a (good-natured) dispute between my sister and I that's been simmering for years! 😅😅😅

My sister is a huge GG stan, and I may or may not enjoy teasing her about how small GG's hands are. And she may or may not respond that DD hasn't yet grown into his "oversized puppy paws." 😅

Ultimately I think it's the fact that DD's hands are a bit bigger than average and GG's hands are a bit smaller than average that exaggerates the difference between the two. DD's hands aren't outrageously big and GG's aren't outrageously small, but when you compare the two of them the difference makes them seem so.

GG in general has proportionally slightly small hands and short arms for his body. There are some shots where it's more obvious than others, but if you start looking for it you may notice it more.

This in no way detracts from his incredible beauty, (nor from his masculinity, despite fans who exaggerate things to make him appear more feminine and delicate). It's one of the distinct characteristics people can look for when doing those "which one is it - GG or DD?" photo challenges.

Fan comparisons are inevitable - especially since it aligns with assumptions a lot of people have about GG and DD's relationship, about their sexual dynamics and roles, etc. - but AFAIAC, GG and DD are both absolutely perfect in every way, and their hand size says absolutely nothing about their relationship dynamics.

Don't be ridiculous, people!

Of course, like everything on my blog this is just my own opinion. If you disagree that's fine, but no hostile messages, please! I don't see anything about GG or DD as a flaw. I love them the way they are.

And before anyone claims that hand size has anything to do with the size of other body parts, that's a total myth (although some studies have shown that men whose index finger is shorter than their ring finger tend to be more well-endowed. Do what you will with that information 😅).

[lunar-years]

Ngl when I see ppl shipping Jamie and Dr. O'Sullivan I think they're at least a little homophobic and very straight.

well, i disagree with a blanket accusation of homophobia, but I do think it's an opinion that holds a very ~straight appeal~, definitely, lol.

there are honestly a boat load of reasons i hate it but they boil down to:

i kind of get why people (esp. a segment of the general audience) might be attracted to it because it's soooo something (bad) shows/sitcoms would do. Like, my god is it TRITE. Predictable, formulaic...boring as all hell! Of course he's going to get with the nameless sister who has less than five minutes total of screen time, just for a little added spice and drama, sure. That's what happens in (bad) shows. But luckily for the rest of us, Ted Lasso even at its worst is not that brand of bad, lol.

it's completely baseless? Nothing wrong with a baseless ship i guess, but at the same time...literally why this one? lol. Like, Jamie and Roy's sister share one scene together in which I don't believe they even say anything to one another directly? There is no chemistry, no...anything? The entire premise for the ship seems to be Jamie telling Roy his sister is hot. Which was very clearly intended as a way for Jamie to get under Roy's skin. Nothing about the scene makes me want to see those two dating.

the big proponents of it i've seen (often, definitely not always) seem to fit into one of two categories 1) people who don't really like Jamie and/or are upset Jamie "got in the way" of their ship, and thus want him to be written into a corner that pulls him away from their preferred couple/inherently shuffles up their dynamic. they don't actually care to watch a plot between Jamie & Roy's sister, they just want Jamie firmly categorized as Taken and thus Not Interested in Roy and/or Keeley, and this is a convenient and predictable(y stupid) way to do it. lol.

OR 2) people who DO really like Jamie and in fact really like Roy & Jamie, but in a very "no homo" way, who want to see more of their dynamic and have a way to define/further explore their closeness, whilst also justifying their own enjoyment of it, that's well set apart from "they have homoerotic tension." Jamie & Roy's sister dating holds an appeal because it more explicitly puts their relationship into firm "brotherly" territory. And I unabashedly loathe that for the same reason i loathe "Roy is Jamie's father figure!" ...foremost because no really, they can just be best friends!! Even if you do not want to ship roy-jamie romantically, you do not need to slap different familial labels on them (or put them into random other pairings) to make their relationship "more." Their relationship is already "more"...they are canonically best friends!! idk if I'm explaining this in the best way but the mindset behind it often feels very rooted in ~the nuclear family is the most important relationship a person can achieve~ and thus a need to fit everyone into traditional family roles (and in some cases that PLUS blatant homophobia) and it gives me a personal ick. Ew.

If you want to see quirky jamie & phoebe antics or roy and jamie bickering, Jamie x Roy's sister getting it on is in fact not actually necessary for any of that? (and imo doesn't add anything to anyone's arc) Going back to point one...using that pairing to get there feels TO ME very boring and sitcom cartoony.

(i also obviously dislike it for my personal shippy reasons and must acknowledge my bias. 🫡 Jamie dating his best friend's sister when he clearly has a crush on said best friend is a relationship-based mental low point/cry for help i do not actually want him to go through as my fav character, LOL.)

(disclaimer: people can of course feel differently and are entitled to ship whoever they want without even needing a clear reason or explanation! that's totally valid! i want to reiterate I don't think it's inherently problematic as a ship. I just personally think it's a rotten tomato of a plot point and i'm so beyond glad the show didn't waste time entertaining it.)

[sophieinwonderland]

you switch between arguing that tulpamancy has nothing to do with tibetan buddhism and arguing that it's actually cultural exchange which are contradictory and also the second is just regular cultural appropriation but also, what exchange? i've repeatedly seen people in the tulpamancy community assert that southeast asian buddhists can't be accurate sources on what tibetan buddhists think(as opposed to non-buddhist northern americans, who are somehow more accurate sources) because tibet is in china. it's in southeast china which directly borders southeast asia and has centuries of cultural exchange with southeast asia because they are neighbors and at many points in history did not have borders between them..... and to that end i have to ask, what cultural exchange? if you can't be bothered to do any deeper research than the first page of the google panel and every time a buddhist tries to argue with you it's time to whitesplain wikipedia to them, forgive me for doubting that you even have surface level knowledge of tibet let alone any actual connections to any region with a prominent buddhist population and history. like the accusations of orientalism are because your engagement with the topic is fundamentally shallow and all you are doing is taking. exchange is when you EXCHANGE. if a buddhist invites you to celebrate vesak with them, that's cultural exchange because you're participating in their religion with them and sharing your time and enthusiasm. if your tibetan friend gifts you a chuba, that's cultural exchange because you're friends sharing culture with each other. that's what distinguishes exchange from appropriation, that the people whose culture you're being inspired by are relevant to you and that you have made an attempt to understand them beyond the ways their culture can be useful to you, which i have seen mountains of evidence is not the case in the tulpamancy community. and while i do think this community should consider talking to and befriending modern practicing buddhists beyond one redditor who claimed to be a tibetan buddhist once, perhaps even with the respect to consider that asians might know more about asia than you do( and not even to force them to litigate whether or not sna tshogs sprul pa can be fire emblem characters i just think yall should diversify your social circle a little), i should also say that on this topic that i actually don't care if you would rather just switch to saying that tulpamancy has nothing to do with tibetan buddhism to avoid learning about tibetans/buddhists/tibetan buddhists. firstly thats just another excuse for your shallow engagement with those cultures because that's still the origin. that's still where the name is from. and it's still cultural appropriation to ignore that- actually it's the first examples of cultural appropriation. the term was invented to describe white people taking aspects of nonwhite cultures and pretending that they invented them and doing their best to separate themselves from any responsibility to treat the people whose culture they're taking with any respect. so if you want to use the term tulpa, and especially if you want to insist that it's not cultural appropriation, your community needs to do the work to not just be shallowly appropriating. instead of only bringing up religious tulpas in the context of christianity, look into the actual nirmāṇakāya. talk to some of the buddhists you're currently focusing on epicly owning the second they don't 100% agree with you. also tenzin gyatso was a slaveowner pre-exile so you should consider not using him as an authoritative source. now, of course, this runs the risk that you might run into people who disagree with your view of tulpamancy or even outright reject it as a thing you should do(as a lot of buddhists on here have), which is again the point, to care about people beyond how they can serve to reinforce the thing you already wanted to do. if the tulpamancy community became known for their strong bond with/respect for practicing buddhists this would be a non-issue

You... don't think the Dalai Lama... should be used as an authoritative source... on Tibetan Buddhism?

Wow! That's certainly a take!

Sorry, I'm going to circle around back to this in a bit.

In any case, the arguments are not contradicting. When we discuss Western tulpas, there are two distinct types of tulpas that come up.

The first is the Alexandra David-Neel tulpa, which I'll call the ADL tulpa for short. The ADL tulpa was first brought to the West by Alexandra David-Neel, a French Buddhist and the first European woman to be given an audience with the Dalai Lama.

This version of the tulpa was recorded by Alexandra David-Neel who relied on the translation services of Lama Kazi Dawa Samdup, who himself had an interest in esotericism and may have influenced an interpretation of the tulpa that incorporated concepts from Western Theosophy.

The ADL tulpa was a creation of a cultural exchange. This was the type of tulpa that permeated Western culture for nearly a century prior to modern tulpamancy which came about in 2009.

The tulpa of tulpamancy borrows its concepts from the ADL tulpa rather than any practices the ADL tulpa was based upon.

It is so distant from the sprulpa and tulku as to be unrelated in anything but a vague etymology. Even the word "tulpa" isn't one typically used by actual Tibetan Buddhist practitioners. Basically, nothing in tulpamancy from the concept to the name is directly from Tibetan Buddhism.

With that explanation, back to the Dalai Lama.

This actually highlights one of the key reasons why I'm hesitant to just believe any story by anyone who lives in or has come from the general area.

Tibet and its history is incredibly politically charged with bias and misinformation on both sides.

It's true that the structure of Tibet resembled that of European Serfdoms, which is naturally unacceptable and indefensible. But I will point out that many scholars would draw a distinction between this system and what we think of when we discuss slavery.

But accusations of the Dalai Lama being a slave owner persist, being pushed heavily by the CCP as a justification for their invasion of Tibet and their dismantling of the Tibetan religion and culture. Conquerors always love to portray themselves as liberators, as we can see happening right now with Russia trying to justify their invasion of Ukraine by claiming to be trying to "denazify" it, and pushing a narrative that the people of Ukraine are supporting Russia's invasion.

I also have to point out that the Dalai Lama took power at 15, and China bullied Tibet into signing the country's sovereignty over to them that same year. He was a kid managing a country thrown into chaos. And he ultimately was forced to flee his home at 23.

I find it unrealistic to expect a kid with no real first-hand leadership experience while surrounded by aristocrats who don't want to lose their power to just be able to instantly change the entire governing system while dealing with an outside force trying to take its rights.

All of this is huge red herring though.

The Dalai Lama's past doesn't invalidate his authority as a source on Tibetan Buddhism, as the most prominent member of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism and as one of the most respected Buddhist figures around the world.

Who else would you prefer us listen to? The puppet Panchen Lama chosen by the secular CCP invaders who have claimed exclusive right to choose the reincarnations of Lamas over the will and the traditions of Tibetans?

But who really knows? Perhaps I'm overstating the importance of the Dalai Lama in modern Tibet. I would love to see survey results from modern Tibetans. Perhaps the CCP propaganda is true and the Dalai Lama is actually hated by modern Tibetans.

But then, I honestly wouldn't trust the validity of such statistics anyway. After all, who would admit to supporting the Dalai Lama in a country where that can get you arrested or just disappeared without explanation? "Yes, I do support the Dalai Lama, now take me away for splitism."

The complete oppression of free thought and expression in Tibet and massive propaganda put out by the CCP has made it impossible to trust information coming out of the region in relation to the Dalai Lama. Especially from non-Tibetans who are going to be drawing a lot of their impressions of Tibet and its history from the CCP's state-run media.

When the propaganda campaign is that strong, proximity creates more opportunity to be informed, yes. But it also creates opportunity to be disinformed. Again, look to how many Russians legitimately believe they're fighting to denazify Ukraine at this moment. Despite being neighbors, would you consider the Russians well-informed on the opinions of Ukrainians or qualified to speak for them?

Can you understand why I'm hesitant to believe non-Tibetan Buddhists speaking for Tibetan Buddhists on this actually have the best interests of Tibet in mind?

And can you understand yet why I find the concept of "we're the same race as Tibetans and live nearby so we get to decide what's offensive to their culture" problematic? After all, silencing and speaking for Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists is what the CCP has been doing for 70 years.

So moving back to the topic of tulpamancy: The Dalai Lama has said other religions can benefit from Tibetan Buddhist meditations and has encouraged that. If the specific practices tulpamancy was based on, and their terminology, were super closed and sacred and off-limits to outsiders, then that should be decided by other Tibetan Buddhists. (Ideally, actual spiritual leaders and teachers.) It's not up to any random people who just happen to reside in the same region to decide when Tibetan culture is being appropriated or in what ways they're allowed to share their culture.

Especially not ones like you who come at me parroting CCP propaganda and arguing that I should trust non-Tibetan Buddhists in the same region over the Dalai Lama on the matter of Tibetan Buddhism.

[lostsoulaltair]

Owari no Seraph Chapter 133 - Analysis & Review

Hello everyone, it's been a goddamn while; I've been busy with things, also learning constantly a new language; thus, given that I did like the latest chapter, I wanted to talk or discuss about it; as always, feel free to discuss, disagree, or share your thoughts; though of course, the only thing I request is respect.

Thus let's proceed

A destroyed world a talk about the "meaning of life" & "what it means to live". At the end, we're young.

The chapter might joke a lot between the girl's conversation which it might feel unnecesary or perhaps not worth it but given how the two characters were build; Shinoa is the type of character that does know when there's certain tension when someone is concerned about her.

But let's focus on something more important; the chapter begins with Mitsuba finally finding Shinoa who has been far away from her squad after Guren, Mahiru, Krul and company left to most likely the place where Yuu is.

Mitsuba after for so long finally made an appearance which is something I'm glad for; and as a good friend, she shows her concern given that she's never seen Shinoa act out of her usual demanor.

Something that I do find adorable is the very fact that Mitsuba is trying to be supportive given that there is a weight being carried on Shinoa's shoulders; while it's true Shinoa has never spoken about what she endured as a child; Mitsuba does want to understand her friend and no matter what might happen, they're there for her.

Thus leading to the next panel; Shinoa has always seen herself as a character with no value or rather, that thanks to her existance, the lives of innocents were screwed given that she was compatible with the monster that made sure the world ended in the way it is.

But once again, Mitsuba does convey the message of how Yoichi, Kimizuki and her feel towards her given that there's absolutely no one to reasure her that her life is as valuable as others.

And of course, we got the author with its weird interest on female bodies but; jokes aside from such panel; there's an aspect of truth to it. They are teenagers, they're no longer kids; they're characters that were forced to grow up at a very young age, forced to change to endure all the struggles of their surroundings to the point they had to mimic adults in a sense.

Many might find it pointless, boring, and perhaps even unrelated but the very fact that they touched the emotions of Shinoa does lead to a heavier topic.

Such topic is reflected in the next panel:

While it's true that Yuu has constantly talked about "a reason to live", "family", "friends", etc. Yuu does not know the weight of those words; he says he's going to save everyone, but in order to save somoene, there are consequences, losses and the sort in such path; nothing can be obtained for free in life and that's something that perhaps he might face eventually.

Returning with the squad, Mitsuba at first dismisses such question about the "meaning of life".

There is a huge relevance to the question; and this of course, reflects to the very first issue; that they've been working on how to save their lives that they haven't ever thought about themselves.

While it is very common to see that whenever someone says "that person thinks about themselves" it can come in a negative connotation; but that's not entirely the case; there's a difference between being selfish and understanding one's self.

When it comes to being selfish, it does relate about not caring a bit about what your actions may eventually do to others, how much harm you may cause due to them, willingly or not; it is literally dismissing a reason to as to why there may be something halting something one may want.

But, when it comes to understanding one's self; it is not only a superfitial level of understanding; it is knowing what one person may want, may long, may fight for, what may make them sad, what may anger them, etc.

In this case, Mitsuba realized that she has never given a deep thought to what she, as Mitsuba Sanguu truthfully wants. She grew up to be a soldier, to battle every time in order to protect those who couldn't protect themselves but with the development of the squad, it was not just a journey of sticking together, it was a journey of finding out that love can develop after getting to meet someone.

Eventually, Mitsuba does understand that it's not the typical joke mood or non serious conversation but rather a very important one.

In the next panel, Mitsuba's first longing or desire was to be acknowledged or to be validated. To be recognized; which of course, Shinoa mentions that she does understand that and it is true; Shinoa as a child did want validation from everyone or rather, instead of the term "validation", what it is more proper is "recognition or acknowledgement of existance".

True, in the current chapter Shinoa mentions she was luckier given that they never bothered with her; there's a difference between Mitsuba and Shinoa, which was showing what they could do in order to seek that. Mitsuba tried her best to show that she too held talent; alas with Shinoa, she simply ditched the idea, there was no reason to even fight about it.

But thanks to the very fact that she remembered what Mahiru did even if I too, agree that it was a really harsh method; she did know that at least someone cared about her existance.

Mitsu states that Shinoa was loved in contrast to her that no one loved her; which makes Shinoa to reasure her that she does love Mitsuba. And of course, while it's true that the original source uses the kanji Ai (愛) it does not carry a romantic context (Yes I've been studying if you wonder and there's still a longer way ahead).

Shinoa is reasuring Mitsuba that she too is loved; just like how Mitsuba expressed on her best way that Yoichi, Kimizuki and her cared about Shinoa's safety; Shinoa too knows that the squad itself cares about each other; after all, they're a small family that can only encourage each other to keep going.

But here comes something important that perhaps it might be to personal interpretation but Shinoa does state something important:

Because love exists for someone, it does not mean that's the sole reason to the meaning of life or for a reason to live.

What does that mean?

Us as humans, be in the different envioroments we end up growing, we end up finding purposes for our existance, sometimes it takes longer, other times we have certainty that we found out what we want to do with our lives; along such trail, we will find friends, perhaps a person we might fall in love; we might suffer about a heartbreak or two or so on; but despite that, it's a path we've chosen to walk because very independent of the bonds we forge along the way; there are things we want to do out there, we long for new experiences, new insights, new spots to visit, and of course, we can never suspend the time; we grow up, we mature, we gain interest in other things as we grow which is visible how from childhood, we change a lot when we become teenagers, so as adults too, we change.

In Shinoa's case, she is truthful that she does not find value to her life, given how many chains of events involving her lead to misfortune for others; but despite that, she is thankful that there are people out there that do love her despite the harm her existance may has brought up upon Earth.

Nevertheless, we get a follow up, once Shinoa expressed herself, Mitsuba asks her directly about Yuu's acknowledgement, recognition or validation. Which of course, she responds honestly to it.

It hurts; and it is natural that it hurts her; it's the first time she fell in love with someone but not in the same way Mahiru did, not in the same turn of events Mahiru went through; after all, it's something I'll discuss a bit further from here. Let's continue.

Shinoa eases the mood by asking Mitsuba about how she feels towards Yuu which of course she knows very well that she too has a crush on him. But despite that many might feel the conversation as pointless, there's something certain to the panel itself; it is letting the weight and torment of many mixed emotions go, finally opening up to someone who understands you, to have someone you can trust unconditionally.

The mood eventually soothes to the point the two of them are in peace; having talked about such things when they've never had the opportunity to act like teenage girls, it was a rather refreshing experience for them.

I can't say that's correct or not but even in movies that face the end of the world, characters tend to talk about things they long to do and the sort.

Once Mitsuba asks Shinoa about her first real reason to live; one could understand that it is left to free interpretation given that both girls are simply enjoying their youth; they still haven't found a very truthful reason as to why they're there but for now; they did understand something.

Life is not just about existance, it's more than just hoping validation or acknowledgment, it is akin to what exactly you want to experience, it is about what you want to do instead of what others want you to do.

This leads to the new path I've mentioned before and this shall be discussed in the next point

Moving onwards to a new goal

After a girl's talk; Mitsuba points out about Shinoa's talent that is way above Mahiru's; such talent has always been hinted since the LNs were created.

Shinoa mentions that given that at that time she lacked a motive along goals within her reach; and of course, even Shikama pointed it out that she lacked desires, there was not so much she could do despite being more powerful than Mahiru, nevertheless, Mitsuba is aware Shinoa has gained something she lacked from the very beginning. Confidence.

This leads for Shinoa to have a discussion with her squad, but of course, they were eavesdropping the girls; they gave them their privacy. While they too are clumsy, reckless, immature in general, they too understand that people need some time alone to recollect their thoughts; they understand that there are things that sometimes can only be discussed with a certain someone not because of a lack of interest but rather because there is something that can be conveyed way better.

But very independent of that, it just reflects that Yoichi and Kimizuki have been worried as well about the girls after Yuu's departure along Guren and Vampires.

The next scene is actually something I am rather thankful that I actually thought I'd never see in the story in general; and that is the very fact that they're taking independent action for once; they're no longer following Guren's orders, they're no longer following a vampire's guidance that ends up falling in Guren's hand or Shikama's; nor they are following Yuu's wishes but rather; they're trying to open up a new path but exclusively for what they do label as "family".

Within the squad members, Kimizuki, Yoichi and Mitsuba long to see their families back due to the unfair deaths they had; Shinoa despite not having someone to call family or rather simply accepting the course of nature; she does want to see her friends having their families back, she has seen them struggle, she has seen the desperation of Kimizuki, the longing of Yoichi to have a miracle granted. But instead of following someone else's agenda given that Guren and Mahiru do have knowledge that they simply won't share to the squad; it is the first step for them to walk and open a new path for them.

Shinoa is very aware that their knowledge is limited, along the fact that they're not on an equal ground in terms of power; but given that now she does have confidence and something else; as I mentioned briefly in the other point; Shinoa has a deep understanding that the actions her sister took, do not defind her present or future nor how she will eventually turn out; such outcomes are only decided by her alone and if she wants to create a path along her friends, she has to fight for it giving away for the first time, the real power she has within her.

The very fact that Kiseki-O and Gekkouin were manifested by force instead by their wielders says something about what Shikama sought with Shinoa, what could it be?

Correct. Shikama or Sika Madu, was once an angel that served God but due to his arrogance, he lost his path leading to his eternal punishment for it; but even still, even if the angels that fell with him deemed or viewed him as a God. There was something even the reincarnations of such Fallen Angels were never subjected to.

Absolute control.

And thanks to reading the RAW version of the catastrophe at 16 manga; the purpose of Mahiru and Shinoa at the beginning was to control the punishment the Seraph of the End experiment held. But in contrast to Mahiru; Shinoa was born capable to control demons, she was capable of seeing them from a very young age but given that she has motivation along an objective; that power finally has shined. Leading to a new battle:

Perhaps you, dear readers may wonder how Shinoa was able to connect with Shikama despite him sending her off or cutting their ties; and of course, she does mention there was a small connection; truth to be told; even if Shikama wanted, she was born with him; they were together ever since she came to existance, hence that even if he tried to severe his ties to her, there will be something chaining him down.

And of course, the battle between Shinoa and Shikama has begun

Shikama gave away his power for light BUT, given that Shinoa could devour such darkness; it can only lead this

All the power that came from God's light may be stored in Shinoa's body and as they say, even if darkness tries to consume light; light always finds a way to cast aside the shadows that darkness creates.

Quite long huh? What do you think?

Let me know!!

[liskantope]

I think part of the reason I tend to get so argumentative nowadays about "what your side proposes kills people" -type political talking points is that it seems that this is being used more and more frequently as a rhetorical bludgeon, mainly (though not entirely) from the Left. There's a lot of shutting down of arguments based on "but HUMAN LIVES", and it's begun to feel to me like a disturbing trend. For instance, a good bit of the rhetoric in favor of shutting down schools in 2020-2021 seemed to center on "here, look at my computation that the expected value of children's lives lost if we don't shut down schools is greater than zero; anyone who disagrees with us doesn't VALUE HUMAN LIVES", with the effect that a lot of us (including to some extent me) were blinded for a long time to the absolutely devastating effect such extensive school shutdowns (in some geographic areas) had on children and their whole families, an effect that is still scarring them today. I'm not saying anything about whether or how far those school shutdown policies went wrong, just that they had very substantial harmful effects that don't vanish relative to the VALUE OF HUMAN LIVES.

Then there's the now-everyday claim that the anti-trans culture warriors "ARE KILLING US [TRANS PEOPLE]", which is true under a particular interpretation of "killing" and tragically true to an extent pretty well beyond some vanishingly rare extreme cases but is also transparently being used to drown out most other aspects of the debates around trans issues. Much more disturbing still is the accusation I now semi-regularly see casually flung that conservatives "actively want us [trans or LGBT+ people in general] dead" (I think I've occasionally seen left-wing variations on this that aren't even about LGBT+ people). A couple of months ago I called it "stomach-turning" ("it" being both the content of the accusation itself and the fact that so many people in our cultural discourse have seen fit to use it; this of course was semi-willfully misinterpreted by someone as my saying that trans people turn my stomach), and I reiterate now that it's still completely turning my stomach. This example is different from others in some fundamental ways, some of which make me more sympathetic with why people feel driven to use it (and it's not being used to drown out completely unrelated issues, for instance, like the guns thing is), and the general rhetorical weapon of "the other side wants to kill us" deserves its own effortpost which I intend to write later this summer.

So anyway, yeah, I'm also getting a kind of short fuse around insinuations of "what they show kids in school won't kill them, but guns could, so that's the only issue involving schoolchildren that anyone should care about" that I now see daily.

Of course, invocations of "my cause is the one whose stakes directly involve life or death so it outranks everything else" isn't exclusive to the Left at all. The Right has been doing it for decades with abortion to shut down both the abortion debate and whatever unrelated debate they didn't want to have ("millions of babies are being MURDERED each year, while liberals obsess over [women's bodies] [or] [just about any totally unrelated issue which appears frivolous next to MURDER]"). I also vaguely remember something that sounded like this in the post-9/11 years ("we're the ones looking out for Americans who might be KILLED in the next terrorist attack, that has to be the only priority right now"). And there was that bizarre "death panels" accusation around 2010-2011 when Obamacare was being debated which I guess might also count.

Only loosely related, but I'm reminded of a moment in the very first vice presidential debate, between Bob Dole and Walter Mondale in 1976, where Dole invoked a computation of the number of deaths in wars the US engaged in under Democratic versus Republican presidents, and apparently he got a lot of blowback from how underhanded this rhetorical move came across.

[twilit-creature]

I was thinking and I just want to share my thoughts on the ancient hero.

Something that always bugged me was how different the aspect looks in comparison to the mural we saw in breath of the wild. I really think it's in actuality just a retcon because the Zonai changed so heavily between the games. But in-universe there could be an explanation too. So I'll just get my thoughts on that one out - I think there is three possibilities as to why they look like this and not, you know, what they actually looked like.

Possibility 1. It could be that they needed to use some kind of magic or technology to disguise themselves as Hylian. It could be the Hylians of that age didn't remember the Zonai anymore and were/would have been freaked out if they just saw them the way they are.

Possibility 2. It needed to be kept a secret. What if for some mysterious reason, nobody was allowed to speak of there being a Zonai amongst them? The Song of Time was kept a secret so why shouldn't this be a secret?

Possibility 3. Racism. The Hylians just didn't want a non-Hylian to be their hero. They don't want someone of another race to be their chosen hero, to be the one that wields the Master Sword. So even if they might not have directly acted racist toward them, it could easily be they just erased that part from history. We know the royal family erased a lot of things from history, like we learn in the Shadow Temple in OoT.

Just some food for thought but I do believe there is a secret fourth option to all of this. But firstly, I would like to take a closer look at the hero depticed in the mural.

First off all, I want to mention that I saw someone say we only ever saw their right arm - however I disagree. We only ever saw their left arm. The mural is of course not anatomically accurate but it does section individual body parts. While arm and body do bleed together, there is no section that would indicate their arm being on the other side. Listen, I just want left handed hero back.

I would also like to point out here that it's very interesting how their whole body aside from legs and head is blue and green. And aside from those parts, the one thing that also stands out is their hand. It's golden and looks like it has 2 fingers on the blade and I find it so surprising that I've not seen a single soul point that out - because we've seen a golden/yellow hand with 3 fingers.

The secret fourth option - It's a construct.

Now, of course that might sound weird but given the proportions of the whole mural, I think we can safely say they are not accurate. If the mural were accurate, that would imply that the ancient hero and the other Zelda looking person, are taller than the Sheikah Guardians. If the hero did use a construct, it could have simply gotten too stylized in the mural to be recognized as a construct.

It could be the ancient hero used a construct like Mineru's to fight Calamity Ganon. I don't think that is too far of a stretch, given that they were Zonai (at least from what it looks like, maybe they're something entirely different).

Mineru's construct doesn't look like it's in the best shape. It looks aged, parts of it are cracked and lost color over the years. It could be that the ancient hero just had a newer construct or an entirely different model. That could explain the differently colored legs and head. Maybe the hero even made the construct themselves.

Eitherway, I don't think I'm right with any of this. I just think about it and decided to share. I kind of do hope we get a game with the ancient hero as main character and get to see what happened 10000 years ago but I kind of doubt that. Maybe in a spin off though, like Hyrule Warriors, who knows.