#so I might be misrepresenting the argument

[arcsin27]

I don’t like using the word ableism lightly but what else am I supposed to call “lol gender dysphoria is just hating yourself” “how sad and pathetic that you’re unhappy”

What’s with everyone boiling it down to self hatred when that’s not even what it is anyways? I mean, I don’t see progressive people saying “lmao these depressed people just hate themselves what losers.” Granted I only see this directed at people with incompatible beliefs… but does that really make it better?

This isn’t really about my thoughts on the transmed tucute thing, it’s just about how I don’t appreciate making fun of someone’s medical condition just because you disagree with them

[sgiandubh]

Although MPCs website clear about bring a business which contributes a portion of profits post admin costs, Sam regularly in videos and in print interviews misrepresents. He's says my charity abd he says 59% of signup fee goes to charity. If there is a problem l, it's on Sam, who according to original members, basically sold MPC control, in 2017. Your statement of knowing what he's doing with his MPC, is questionable, post corporate change of MPC. It's not just his alone. MPC has sketchy history, since Alex's involvement, and the rumors, look more as truths that a good portion of the administrative costs go to Alex pre-whisky, for a working, guaranteed salary before sales came in. It also begs the question, if Sam is interested in supporting charity with a portion of income sales, why hasn't 10% of whisky sales went to charity partners? The whisky is part of the GGC, Sam and Alex's business. Why wouldn't he plug a Newman Products design? Maybe he's not as interested in charity?

Dear MPC Anon,

It has always been 50%, which is logical. 59% sounds like a demented Asian astrologist suggestion - but you might be unfamiliar with Burmese recent history, so I shall give you a pass, on that one.

Who are the 'original members' who told you MPC was sold? To whom was it sold? When did that happen? I need paperwork to support this statement: the current corporate documents still list ONE officer - pay away from your wallet to find out it's very probably SRH: I am not doing it for you.

Like it or not, Norouzi's involvement in MPC is a reality since at least its creation. You will have to prove me the 'sketchy' part with much more than a stinking grenade thrown by Anon or fandom illiterate gossip.

I will have to see contracts between MPC, AN, SH proving that pre-whisky launching costs of The Sassenach were drawn from the MPC accounts. I will also have to see bank and accounting documents proving so. According to US law, I would also have to be a Court and have enough reasons to subpoena these people and entities to show me those. Stop spreading the shite written by Pufflander once upon a time and ask Puffy, in her retreat, what the fuck did she do with the crowdfunded money for the Harassment PI Report (you know, *urv and co). Now that would be a really interesting question, right? No answer? Bad day, baby. Bad day.

Whisky sales under the umbrella of Great Glen Company LLC, a different legal entity with no charitable mission, were never designed to represent a charitable endeavor. I think you know the difference between a charity and a company, right? Suggesting he should give 10% of all his earnings to charity is akin to a church tithe. This argument is, of course, ridiculous, in the business world, unless there is an explicit and public vow to do so, with a particular company's benefits.

Newman's Own and the Newman's Own Foundation represent Paul Newman's personal commitment to give away 100% of Newman's Own LLC profits to charity: the Foundation serves to direct the funds to the projects its trustees deem the most appropriate, according to the Foundation's values.

This is a different story and I also hope you know the difference between Great Glen Company, a business who wants to remain a business and a ground-breaking CSR commitment like Paul Newman's. Great Glen Company and MPC are separate projects - AN's loud involvement in both does not help, though, especially with an uneducated bigot, such as yourself, Anon.

Assuming he must give 100% of all his profits to charity is absolutely ridiculous, Anon. Why don't you give away all the profits of your lemonade stand to charity and set a blazing, luminous example in this fandom?

Unless you quickly substantiate what you wrote in anger on your phone, with links, facts and names, I am forced to tell you to kindly, slowly, but surely...

FUCK OFF MY PAGE!

[Later edit:] Should I start a US Tax Law 101 course for you, Anon? To me, this rather crude company/charity montage sounds legit. Also, MPC is not a charity, as shown in my previous post.

[dutchdread]

"things won’t go well between Tifa and Cloud, even without Sephiroth", the most misrepresented quote in the LTD.

If you've spend any time looking into the LTD you'll probably have heard the claim that Nojima said that Cloud and Tifa were incompatible and that their problems have nothing to do with Sephiroth. This belief comes from a misunderstanding of the following quote.

“‘Episode Tifa’ … first off, there’s the premise that things won’t go well between Tifa and Cloud, and that even without Geostigma or Sephiroth this might be the same. I don’t really intend to go on about my views on love or marriage or family (laughs). After ACC, I guess Denzel and Marlene could help them work it out. Maybe things would have gone well with Aerith, but I think there is a great burden from Aerith."

~ Nojima

The meaning they're trying to take from the quote is that when Nojima says "without Sephiroth or Geostigma", that this refers to a scenario where Sephiroth had never existed. The implication being that the issues Tifa and Cloud are going through are internal, not external, and potentially even inherent to their natures. But what the actual "internal" problems they're facing are is never brought up, which is weird since this is rather important. What they want you to think is that the internal problems are either somehow inherent to them as a couple, aka, they're just not a good fit. Or else that the internal problem is "Cloud is in love with Aerith".

But the problem is that they don't provide evidence of any of this, and worse yet, we KNOW what the actual issues are. This quote isn't a mystery, we KNOW exactly what Nojima is referring to. This quote isn't a refutation to the Cloti telling of the story, like all pieces of evidence it supports Cloti perfectly but is simply unintentionally misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented. Before we go into the problems themselves though it's important to take a minute to notice something. Namely that inherent in the argument that "things aren't working out for Tifa and Cloud", is the idea that their relationship is one where 'working things out' is applicable as a concept. Much like getting a divorce is proof of marriage, using the fact that Cloud and Tifas relationship is going through a rough patch as evidence that they're not in a romantic relationship is....misguided. The next part of the quote makes this even more concrete: "I don’t really intend to go on about my views on love or marriage or family". So whenever people bring up Tifa and Clouds relationship troubles as evidence against Tifa and Cloud, please thank them for conceding that they're in a relationship.

So based on that, lets clearly lay out what is being asserted here in its most general form. The claim essentially has two parts. 1: "Cloud and Tifa are in a relationship, but it is troubled"

2: "The reason for these troubles is related to Aerith being the real love interest of the story"

Note that if they can't prove point 2, then this quote hard cements Cloti. The argument stands or falls on Clotis inability to address point 2.

So let's address it.

First lets address the "without Sephiroth or Geostigma" part. The interpretation that this is meant to be read as "if sephiroth was never born" is patently absurd. This is an interview about a very specific point in time in Cloud and Tifas life, which specifically points at a thing that happens in THAT point in time, namely Geostigma. He doesn't say something generic like "if Cloud and Tifa had never ran into hardships in their life they'd still be incompatible", no, he points at two specific things, Sephiroth and Geostigma. Geostigma we know is only a problem during the time of advent children, it's not a disease going back right through to Clouds childhood. Sephiroth is but he's also very specifically attacking Cloud DURING advent children, he returns DURING advent children. Clearly this quote is addressing the current events of Sephiroth and geostigma, aka, the movie, not the more generic impact that Sephiroth has had on Cloud and Tifas life since childhood. If that was meant to be the case he'd have said "sephiroth, jenova, and Shinra" or something else more chronically substantial. And what are the troubles they're going through? Well, luckily we don't have to guess, since that's been reiterated again and again and again and again. It's mentioned in games, it's mentioned in books, and it's mentioned in interviews.

"As long as Cloud blames himself for Aerith’s death, he won’t be able to move on with his life. One of the first ideas we had for Advent Children was to have Cloud overcome and resolve that immense feeling of guilt. For Cloud, no one other than Aerith can solve that problem for him." ~ pg. 58 of Reunion files.

Failing to protect people important to him is his sin… Convincing himself of this, Cloud shuts himself off. What does his meeting with Aerith bring him? ~ Cloud Strife profile 10th AU

Two years after returning to the planet, Aerith still lives on in the hearts of her friends who saved the planet. And in particular to Cloud, as a symbol of his failure to having being unable protect those dear to him, ~ Aerith Gainsborough 10th AU profile.

Cloud feels an incredible sense of guilt for not being able to save her, but sometimes he can still hear her voice in a soft whisper. ~ (Reunion Files, Aerith’s profile)

Zack&Aerith For Cloud, they were people whom he can never forget. The two irreplaceable people, Zack, “who was sent to death because of him”, and Aerith, “who met a tragic fate as he couldn’t protect her” became “the unforgivable sin” in his heart. ~ ACC POST CARD BOOK.

“I’m going to live. I think that’s the only way I can be forgiven. All sorts of things… happened.” ~ Cloud in case of Tifa

"Cloud is scared that the peace he has now might shatter, so he is living on his own." ~ Nomura

Deep down, Cloud knew that he shouldn’t be so hard on himself, but at the same time he couldn’t let go of those feelings of guilt for what happened to Aerith and Zack, or the thought that he could never forgive himself for it. But then his companions made him feel better by telling him to let go. - Takahiro Sakurai (Cloud’s voice actor) pg. 15 reunion files.

"She knew that Cloud was in great pain because he couldn’t protect Aerith. Cloud was trying to overcome that and live on" ~ Case of Tifa.

The happier he is now, The more Cloud is tormented by painful “memories” of the past. ~ Cloud’s 10th AU profile.

The more he realizes how happy he is living with Tifa and the children, the more the fear of losing that and regrets toward the past trouble Cloud… ~ Cloud’s 10th AU profile

"when Cloud contracts Geostigma he disappears. Behind these actions lies feelings of guilt towards his past failure to protect people who were important to him, but through his battle with Kadaj’s gang, the legacy of Jenova, he regains the courage to face reality." ~ FF7 10th Anniversary Ultimania Cloud Strife Profile

"Cloud continued to regret the deaths of his best friend and comrade, who were dear to him, in FFVII. In AC, he says “I want to be forgiven.” ~ Dissidia Cloud’s profile

"Cloud’s heart continued to be tormented by a deep sense of regret and blame towards himself." ~ Cloud’s Dengeki profile

Aerith still lives on in the hearts of her friends who saved the planet. And in particular to Cloud, as a symbol of his failure to having being unable protect those dear to him, she was a major factor in causing him to close himself off." ~ Aerith’s 10th anniversary profile.

“I want to be forgiven. Mm. More than anything.”-Cloud “By who?” ~ Aerith

“Isn’t it time you did the forgiving?” ~ Aerith to Cloud.

“But… I let you die…” ~ Cloud to Aerith

“I never blamed you. Not once, you came for me, that’s all that matter.” ~ Aerith to Cloud

“Are sins ever forgiven…?” ~ Cloud to Vincent

“I’m not fit to help anyone. Not my family. Not my friends. Nobody.” ~ Cloud to Tifa in ACC

You're too weak to save anyone, not even yourself ~ Sephiroth to Cloud in remake

"You've failed again I see" ~ Sephiroth to Cloud in remake

"It's just like, when I failed you" ~ Cloud in remake

Man, they sure love to go on and on about Cloud feeling guilty and wanting to be forgiven, about failing and feeling like he's not strong enough, that he can't protect anyone and that he'll fail again in the future....it's ALMOST as if Cloud has other things on his mind that don't have anything to do with his compatibility with Tifa and/or Aerith, it's ALMOST as if these things are central to his character arc. You could even say that these are troubles that have been with him for all his life and have been exasperated by the death of Zack and Aerith and his resulting fake persona. One could even say, that perhaps, just perhaps, CLOUD WOULD STILL HAVE STUFF TO DEAL WITH EVEN IF GEOSTIGMA AND SEPHIROTH HADN'T SHOWN UP IN ADVENT CHILDREN AND THIS IS NOT A GOD DAMN TEENAGE LOVE DRAMA! For the love of all that is holy, if you've ever used this quote to discredit Tifa and Cloud, STOP. Stop making this sorry excuse of a "point", stop linking this quote and thinking it supports Clerith, it doesn't, this is insanity, you are demented. So based on everything I've said, here Is Nojimas quote again, paraphrased by me to steelman its meaning. "Cloud is going through an internal arc, his problems are not just finding a cure for his disease and stopping the remnants and Sephiroth, his real fight is internal, he has to forgive himself".

The quote has nothing to do with Nojima trying to disprove Cloti, and only the most fanatically misguided shippers would ever think otherwise. Shippers are often accused of making everything about romance and when it comes to Cleriths they are right. The idea that Nojima here is just looking at FFVII as a romance story, rather than him addressing the specific events that happen in ACC and OTWAS is childish to the extreme. Cleriths thinking that this quote does them favors only serves as more proof that they simply don't know what they're talking about, this is a childs interpretation of storytelling and anyone agreeing with it should feel a deep sense of shame concerning their own lack of comprehensive reading skills.

[captainjonnitkessler]

Way to reblog that shit totally misrepresenting the “man vs bear” argument.

If you think I'm wrong and you want me to reconsider my stance, you need to present some sort of argument instead of being passive aggressive. Explain why you think it was misrepresented and offer an alternative viewpoint.

If you don't care if I change my mind and just want me to feel bad for having an opinion you don't like, that can't be accomplished by internet randos yelling at me. Look at my blog. You think this is the blog of a person who cares if they get yelled at by internet strangers? But you might want to reconsider how you spend your time if you think lashing out at strangers for fairly minor disagreements is a good use of it.

Anyway I do think I could do better at being more nuanced. Women obviously face harassment and assault from men, including in the woods. I meet men in the woods every time I go hiking and I'm not going to pretend I've never had the fleeting thought of what I'd do if one attacked me. But that's the thing - I meet men in the woods every time I go hiking. It's really weird to have it presented as some sort of hypothetical thought experiment instead of the mundane reality of a very popular hobby.

The biggest problem I'm having is the number of people using it as an excuse to play the "I am in perpetual danger from every man I meet and I have to perform a series of performative safety rituals to ward off serial killers and That's What Being A Woman Is About" game. I've had, over the past couple years, a few people tell me that if I'm not perpetually afraid of every man I see then I must not actually be a woman, or I must be lying, or I'm some naive young waif who doesn't understand the Evils Of The World yet. It's really fucking annoying! Womanhood is not defined by fear and paranoia!

The other problem that I can't believe I'm having is the number of people arguing that bears are basically just big cuddly uwu babies who are more scared of you than you are of them!!! and you just have to shoo them off the path like waving a bird away from a berry patch!!!

Bears are dangerous as hell - even black bears - and you should NEVER assume they're safe or friendly. And sure, maybe 99% of black bears are fairly non-confrontational and don't want to fight you - but the same is true of men! But unlike men you can't outrun, outfight, or outclimb a bear. You're pretty much just fucked if one does decide you look tasty. So again - it just feels very performative to me to make a big deal about how dangerous men are while downplaying the danger of a literal apex predator.

[pinksilvace]

Thank you so much for your post. I have OCD and Belos's depiction has always bothered me in some way, but you finally put it in words.

(Also, I would actually argue Hunter has it too--a particular scene that really resonated with me in this regard is in Thanks to Them when he sees his long hair in the mirror and convinces himself that it means he's literally going to become Belos, and he has to cut it all off so that doesn't happen.)

(the other post)

YEAH!!! A good argument can definitely be made for both Belos and Hunter. Darius comes to mind, as well.

I have OCD as well, and since Belos is my favorite character, I must admit that I enjoy being able to relate to him in this way. The bigger problem is that, as far as canon is concerned, he's the only character with OCD, and it's what drives him to become the evil-evil self-interested "not genuine" villain. If toh had bothered to explore his backstory and express some sympathy toward his character, it probably wouldn't have felt so awkward, but alas.

The thing is, folks with OCD can fall into patterns of self-reassurance and disordered thinking very easily. Something I didn't mention in the last post is the link between OCD and psychosis (x x), which often prominently shows itself through delusions - a symptom that Belos expresses in conjunction with and as a result of his OCD, and one informed greatly by his traumatic childhood.

So much of Belos' character was informed by Caleb's death. His mission might have gone from saving humanity to seeking revenge; we don't get enough insight to know whether that was the case. What we do know is that he was (mostly) alone for a very long time afterward, stewing in obsessive thoughts and reassuring himself again and again with both the things he was taught and the losses he's felt as justification. He can't be wrong; the "or else" isn't an option.

Seeing the show say "he sucks because he just inherently has this disordered thinking" didn't feel good. As somebody with OCD, I recognized his disordered thought patterns. I have those disordered thought patterns, and I'm constantly forced to be careful not to fall into them the same way. Belos is an example of somebody with a disorder that lost the only form of a support system he ever had, and instead of resolving his story with an opportunity to either break out of those disordered thoughts or be destroyed by them, toh just said, "he's evil, so he should die" without the nuance demanded for the main villain. Once again, I need to stress that no other character in the show has canonical OCD.

Alas, OCD is misrepresented so often that I'm not even sure whether the creators realized that they wrote Belos to have it at all.

[antitheticaldreamgirl-13]

tw: I’m horrible at trigger warnings and am not good at wording them, but just know that I discuss a lot of really frustrating and harmful points made by Hetlors and horrible insults directed at Gaylors. Take care of yourselves.

Alright folks the time has arrived to cry and sob and scream about Hetlors, specifically the Swiftologist. His reaction video to the NYT article: https://youtu.be/9Pd9KWKKxfE?si=ByMrJSbyNJOD1T3t

I’m going to go through each of his points and point out the flaws of such points.

*gets out notes*

Okay, so. The first thing he does is call Gaylors conspiracy theorists. Anything Gaylor-related is a conspiracy theory, in his view. Not only that, it’s a conspiracy theory comparable to QAnon and other far-right conspiracy theories, a conspiracy theory with “no merit or factual basis,” a conspiracy theory that is “delusional” and “meth math.” Gaylor theories are “based on misinformation and false beliefs,” according to him.

Whew. This is a very strong reaction. First of all, comparing Gaylor to QAnon is so ridiculous. I mean. Come on. Really? Second, we know that Gaylor theories do have evidence. There is so much, even just within that article. I reblogged just before this a list of all the evidence made in the article. Also, what is the “misinformation” that he mentions? Gaylors just point out the evidence that we have and let people draw their own conclusions. We aren’t misrepresenting anything (most of us, anyway).

Alright let’s continue. Swiftologist then argues that Gaylors have a distrust of the narrative Taylor has created and the “many times she has stated she is not part of the community.” Gaylors apparently do not respect Taylor or her songs and aren’t really Swifties at all—just people who are trying to prove that she is gay.

Okay I really want to know this….WHAT ARE THE MANY TIMES SHE HAS SAID THAT SHE IS NOT PART OF COMMUNITY?! SHOW THEM TO ME! She said that once. *Once*. And that still doesn’t mean she is saying that she is straight. Furthermore, we do trust Taylor. If she says she’s straight, we’ll believe it. I mean we’re the ones looking at all the tiny details of her songs. We’re the ones drawing the connections. Hetlors doesn’t do that, and yet Gaylors are the ones who don’t trust Taylor’s narrative? Like??? What kind of argument is that?

Then he says that Gaylors are trying to out Taylor.

But we aren’t. We really aren’t. We’re just looking at what TAYLOR HERSELF has said and done and connecting the dots. We’re not trying to spy on her personal life or anything like that…we’re literally just looking at her OWN lyrics that SHE put created, knowing what the reaction would be. It’s just. This argument from Hetlors makes me laugh every time.

Okay so THEN he lists a bunch of crazy stuff Gaylors have done. I don’t want to get into them because I agree with the Swiftologist that they were crazy. But, at the same time, it’s not like you can blame the entire Gaylor community for a few Gaylors’ actions and use that to debunk Gaylor theories. That’s just not how it works.

He continues by listing different…logical fallacies you might call them? Different things that are common with conspiracy theories: false pattern recognition, confirmation bias, etc. I won’t get into that right now, but this is a large part of his argument later, so keep that in mind.

He makes a critique of the way the article compares Taylor to Chely Wright. He says it’s a “false equivalency.”

I would say that the author, Anna Marks, was simply pointing out an example of closeting and the effects of staying in the closet on one’s mental and emotional health and an example of coming out and the effects of coming out. I personally don’t think she was saying that Taylor is very similar to Wright…

Then Swiftologist talks about some Gaylor evidence presented in the article. He doesn’t actually give a reason for why they are unconvinced but simply states that it is “so delusional to me that people think this is true.”

He mentions the YNTCD music video and claims that only a straight person could have made it and that it was cringey and even that it portrayed LGBTQ+ in such a stereotypical way that it was “deeply offensive.” I mean. It was definitely cringey. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that only a straight person could have made it. It’s honestly just so odd that he attacks Gaylor theories for their lack of “merit or factual basis,” and yet he literally uses the cringy-ness of a music video to say that Taylor must be straight? I know it was largely a joke, but he was also serious, and for some reason it just bugged me.

Marks talks about how the YNTCD song and music video were mostly perceived as performative allyship but she raises the question of whatever they were genuinely expressing herself. Swiftologist responds to this by saying that this is a false binary (performative allyship vs. Taylor is gay) , but I don’t really think so. If Taylor is straight and she wrote that song and made that video, she probably came at it from a decent place, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t performative. (Honestly if Taylor is straight, a lot of the stuff that she’s done I would consider to be very iffy, so I think Marks raises a good point here.)

Swiftologist then goes on another rant about Gaylors, asking why they don’t just believe Taylor and literally calling them “delusional 9/1 truthers.” Look, I get that he’s upset, but he doesn’t have to insult and name-call and be generally immature. As Taylor would say, why you gotta be so mean?

He continues to simply state that all the evidence provided is not proof and that Gaylor theories are delusional, but he does also say that the Cruel Summer lyrics—“I don’t wanna keep secret just to keep you”—could easily be explained by the fact that Taylor CHEATED ON JOE and/or was desperately avoiding the paparazzi.

Like. Lemme get this straight. He would rather that Taylor be a *cheater* than be gay? He thinks that saying she is a cheater is perfectly fine but saying that she might be gay isn’t. I have no words.

*manages to regain my bearings*

Alright, so then Swiftologist (oh my god I just realized that I could simply call him by his real name, Zach, instead of typing out that long name, but now I’m committed) says that he has an OPEN MIND and is open to different interpretations versus the author of the article, who is a “crazy person,” who is completely close minded, apparently. He says, “point me to one piece of solid evidence in this article.” He then continues with his point about open-mindedness, saying that he agrees that Taylor songs COULD be about women (they probably aren’t, but there is a potential there) and because he believes that it means he is a generous and intellectual and open-minded human being, according to him. But Anna Marks, on the other hand, like all other Gaylors, is *completely* close-minded and has not even THOUGHT of the possibility that Taylor could be straight.

Like jeez. Does Swiftologist not see the hilarity of this argument? I”m seriously starting to lose it.

In fact, I’m going to take a break and continue where I left off in the morning. I don’t even have the energy to revise this so hopefully there are no glaring mistakes.

Thanks so much for anybody who read this! Have a great morning/afternoon/night!

[alpaca-clouds]

Okay, let me talk about the Maria/Alucard thing

You know, I am gonna add my two cents to this topic, because the discussion is rather... weird, if you ask me. Because game fans kinda misrepresent the games.

Here is the thing: Within the game canon never is Alucard ever officially in a relationship with Maria. She is in love with him, but the last we see of them by the end of the audio drama - Nocturne of Recollection - is Alucard opening up to her a bit. But... We never see them in a relationship.

There is no doubt that Maria is infatuated with him. She totally is. In SotN and then, of course, in NoR, where she has gotten him to come with her, to stay rather than doing his whole "sleep until the world needs me again" stick. But that... does not make a relationship. That does not mean they are never going to be in a relationship - but technically they never were confirmed to be in a relationship in the game canon.

So, yeah. No. their relationship is not canon to the games. Alucard never is in a canonical relationship with Maria. Portraying it as if it was is just misleading.

When it comes to whether or not they might be canon in Nocturne?

I personally do not think so, mostly for the reason that Nocturne went and tried to make the teenagers... well, teenagers. Maria is 16 here and she acts like a 16yo kid in the real world would act, while in games she is 17yo and acts like a 17yo anime character (aka, like an adult).

Which is what makes it a lot more uncomfortable to imagine her in a relationship with the very much adult Alucard.

Of course, there might be a chance that she will act a lot more grown up in season 2, after the trauma she went through, given she can no longer rely on her mother. But given that the show does not seem to go the anime route from all we can tell (aka the "oh, yeah, leave those kids all on their own, they'll figure it out"), instead giving them adult characters to go along (Alucard, Mizrak, possibly Juste, too).

By the way, I also saw the weird argument that "but Alucard is shipped with Trevor and Sypha and he is only a teenager". To which I just stand here and stare in confusion. Because for one: We do not know how old Alucard is. He technically can be 19 or 20 years old. But it does not even matter, because the text of the show clearly says, that no matter how old he is, he is an adult, because dhampirs age differently. And he acts like it. He acts like an adult. An emotionally stunted adult - but like an adult.

But most importantly: Trevor and Sypha are in their early to mid 20s. So probably within a couple of years agewise of Alucard.

Of course, technically speaking the entire age difference thing tends to be moot when you are talking about immortal beings like Alucard. Like, technically speaking the difference in age and experience between Alucard and even someone like Mizrak, who is probably in his 30s, is going to be immense.

But... Nocturne's Maria very much is still a kid. She acts like a kid. Really, she has enough stuff to worry about without worrying about romance.

Could some romance happen between the two at some point in the future, when she is an adult? Sure. Why not. But within the realm of the show? It would probably just feel weird. Because, again. Maria is a kid.

[leportraitducadavre]

okay, I’m not a gatekeeper. I swear I’m not. But I genuinely cannot help but be irked when I see a hinata fan latch themselves onto characters like Neji or Sasuke. Pretending like they ~totally~ understand their characters while also horribly misrepresenting them and characterizing them like they’re from a fanfiction. Talking about how noo sasuke would love hinata if he really got to know her! He’s just so cold and unfeeling that a character like hinata could really bring out a nice side to him!1!1!1 Neji is a victim of this too but in a slightly lesser degree as most hinata fans don’t bother to ship them openly as they’re related. But that won’t stop them from characterizing Neji as someone completely and utterly obsessed with hinata to the point he grovels at her feet and is possessive of her like a “big brother.” Because if hinata called him her big brother when he died then that totally makes them siblings! Who cares if neji considers himself that! Hinata said so1!11!1!

god I dunno. Maybe I’m just being selfish in the idea I just want hinata Stans to stay tf away from Neji and Sasuke because if you like hinata and her character, there is absolutely zero chance you will be able to understand Neji or Sasuke.

Well, I don't see an issue with liking a character by itself and proclaiming yourself a fan of the rest (I'm a big fan of Ino Yamanaka and Sasuke Uchiha, two characters that stand in opposite corners thematically), yet this can be sustained as long as we respect their canonical characterizations and understand that not everything about a character is "good" or has to be justified. As for the core of your complaint, I agree, as many of these arguments are sustained on the premise of giving Hinata more relevance (romantically or politically); something that she canonically does not possess and that neither of the two previously mentioned male characters are interested in giving her.

Hinata's sole purpose as a character was based on being Neji's polar opposite during his arc (the Chünin exams are relevant to Neji, not Hinata, who is a supporting character to him) and being Naruto's admirer on certain occasions. That's it, at no point was she even mentioned or observed by Sasuke, and any narrative weight she might have carried disappeared when Neji himself was no longer necessary for Naruto's growth.

Neji's problem isn't just with Hinata (I'm surprised to have to clarify something specifically mentioned in the manga and anime), but with the entire main Hyüga family; which is why his arc doesn't close until Hiashi (not Hinata), apologizes.

As for Sasuke, I wouldn't spend any more time thinking about it since the sole reason for his involvement lies in a desire for romantic reciprocity from the most attractive and powerful character in the manga (at the thought of an offspring with both Byakugan and Sharingan, despite the fact that the Sharingan is infinitely superior to the Byakugan). If with Neji's arc, Hinata possessed almost zero thematic relevance, with Sasuke - with whom she not only never interacts but in his eyes, she's part of the caste he seeks to eradicate, then her incidence is extremely nil.

I've never written a post about SasuHina/HinaSasu, and in part, I refuse because their canonical possibility really is nil, so there's nothing more to analyze than headcanons and fanfictions that have their own rules, which have little to do with Kishimoto's material.

Perhaps in the future, I'll dedicate a post to that pairing discussing some of its more famous theories; like how Hinata, being a character considered by the fandom as "sensitive", could understand and help Sasuke despite the fact that she was never seen comforting or trying to understand any character other than Naruto; going as far as to dismiss her cousin's emotions in order to put herself as a victim of the system on the same level as her cousin, whom her father enslaved.

Hinata being shy is not the same as her being "good" or "sensitive", Sakura used to be shy during her childhood and was bullied for it, yet Hinata stans don't usually consider Sakura to be a good person...

Here are some posts about Hinata and Neji's relationship:

Hinata endorses slavery. A quick explanation of why.

NejiHina or the possibilities of the pairing.

The Hyuga clan. And the Caged Bird Seal. Plus:

Sorry, no, Hinata never hit Pain.

[praetorqueenreyna]

I think one of the most frustrating things about the sequel ACOTAR books is how blatantly and frequently Feyre and Rhysand (and, in the real world, the author) misrepresent or outright lie about what happened in previous books. Especially when it's to the end goal of 1) making Rhysand look like he was a Good Guy The Whole Time, or 2) making Tamlin look like he was a Bad Guy The Whole Time.

I'm not saying that that the Feyre/Tamlin breakup could never have happened, or that Feyre/Rhysand is completely impossible. But it could have been done with a much more deft and subtle hand that doesn't completely contradict what we have already been told to be true.

AN EXAMPLE!

In ACOWAR, Feyre concocts an evil plot to manipulate Tamlin by making him insecure about her relationship with Lucien. I'm going to completely ignore how Feyre describes herself as a master manipulator/criminal mastermind/girlboss by *checks notes* putting on lingerie and rubbing up against her boyfriend's best friend, because frankly I do not have time for it. Instead, let's check out Feyre's explanation for her dastardly plan, and what inspired it.

Even without consulting the scene she's talking about, this is already objectively wrong. If Tamlin was warning Lucien to back off because he was worried that Feyre would prefer Lucien over him, it wasn't because of some macho alpha-male possessive bullshit. Tamlin doesn't have """plans""" that Lucien is threatening. It's because the fate of the entire Fairy Realm depends on Feyre falling in love with Tamlin!!! Something that Feyre knows by this point!!

Anyway, I was curious about this moment Feyre is referencing because I read ACOTAR a month ago and I don't remember anything like this happening. I remember specifically BECAUSE I was expecting a love triangle between Tamlin, Lucien, and Feyre to bloom, and that Tamlin WOULD get jealous of Lucien at some point. It would even make sense in the context of the curse, given that Tamlin needs Feyre to fall for him, and he's kind of awkward and grumpy while Lucien is fun and non-threatening.

So, let's revisit ACOTAR. The only argument between Tamlin and Lucien where Tamlin tells Lucien to "back off" is this one:

There is no interpretation of this scene that would imply that Tamlin is telling Lucien to back off flirting with Feyre, or that he's jealous/possessive of her already. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Tamlin is getting cold feet about forming a relationship with Feyre, because he doesn't want to hurt humans like his father did. Meanwhile, Lucien is pushing him to keep trying, because the fate of their world is in his hands. This is Tamlin telling Lucien to stop hassling him about the curse.

Is this the biggest literary crime in the world? Of course not. But there are dozens of moments like these sprinkled throughout the sequel books. They are designed to change the reader's perception of what's already happened, so you fully accept the (false) truth that Feyre (and by extension, the author) want you to now believe. It makes it deeply frustrating to have any useful conversation about these books, because they aren't consistent. Yeah, if you blindly believe everything the author is telling you about Tamlin, then he seems like a horrible person. But they rely on badmouthing and lying about Tamlin so much that you have no choice but to accept that he's a monster.

Also it's a fucking stupid mistake. Why even reference a real argument in the first book if it doesn't mean what you want it to mean? And I know Feyre thinks she's a diabolical GENIUS for remembering this argument, but you don't need a referenced argument to gather that a dude might be insecure about his partner rubbing up against his best friend. That didn't need a reference. Also this whole plot is stupid and the book is stupid and bad. Thank you and goodnight.

[hardwiredweird]

Can you explain how AI is different from human artists learning from other artists? Or why AI isn't okay but fanart is?

While these are super loaded questions, I will answer this as if you are asking in good faith.

Don't make me regret this.

So, these are two different questions with two different sets of answers. I will answer the second question first, because that is easy and very solidly anchored in the copyright law already:

Fanart, legally, is not okay. Literally, fanart is copyright infringement.

The reason why it is generally considered alright is two-fold:

One because the people making the fanart (so the ones taking the copyrighted characters and transforming them) mostly don't do it commercially and if they do, it usually is on such a small scale and in a way that there is no way that they would compete with the original copyright holder (all of these are points which are codified in the law under Fair Use).

And that brings us to two: While the copyright holder could STILL demand take downs they usually don't (even if it is their legal right) because most companies realise that fanart is free advertisement.

And there is the big crux of the matter: Artists ARE making use of their right as the copyright holders to demand that their copyrighted material is not used for a commercial product (because that is what most image generators are!) which directly competes with them.

Now, to answer your first question:

Even specialists in the field of machine learning will concede that, no, computers do NOT learn like humans. And everyone who says so is either grossly oversimplifying things or actively, maliciously misrepresenting the issue.

Ignoring the fact that the machine does not learn my itself, but that it needs humans to do the learning and classification for it, humans always interpret, while a machine can only ever make copies.

It's the difference between drawing yourself and making a photo collage with random snippets and pasting it roughly where it makes sense.

There is no interpretation, no INTENT behind any machine creation and the results are only given meaning by whoever looks at it. It's finding shapes in clouds.

Here, too, scale is a factor: I, as an artist who studies photos and other artists' works, can only do so at a certain pace. I'm fast, but not billions of images taken in and put out fast. There is no way a single artist, or even a small group of artists, will ever be able to study so many pieces and be able to put out so much work that it puts EVERY OTHER ARTIST out of work.

And that is the issue. It is a borderline monopoly issue that is based in a massive case of billions of copyright infringements.

When we say "theft" we don't mean LITERAL theft. The theft we're talking here is the same as wage theft.

Does an employer actively go in and steal the money out of their employee's pocket? No. But they are taking their labour without the intent of paying them for it.

That is the exact same form of theft artists are facing here.

Against our will, our works are used for a, and I repeat, COMMERCIAL PRODUCT that makes millions and billions of dollars and actively puts entire creative industries out of business.

If you don't see a problem with that, I don't know how to help you.

Image generators SOLELY benefit the already rich. It is monopolising art as a career into the hands of very few.

On the backs of our labour.

That's the difference.

That's the issue.

And we have asked nicely for our work not to be used. We have begged and pleaded with the companies. We have tried to explain the issue and they do not care. Even those companies who allow opt out make it nearly impossible to do so, putting even more strain on those people they have harmed.

The law is working too slowly, slow enough that by the time we have regulations the field of creative work might have forever changed for the worse.

And there really is no "just git gud" argument here, as many are implying. Because companies and the billionaires that run them really don't care about quality as long as they can get it cheap and fast. And no artist who wants to survive can put out enough art to compete with Image Gens. It doesn't matter that the generated pictures have mistakes or plain make no sense. If it's cheaper than a human, they will use it.

[irithnova]

i don't think people seem to understand. your post was to direct attention towards how the majority of this fandom is incapable of making content about poc countries or perhaps poc in general, as seen when they simply racebend white countries and decide that's enough poc content rather than make an oc based on a poc country. it wasn't to go against poc creators that try to see them in the countries they give a little bit of their identity to.

It's because people have serious complexes over subjects like this so they skim over what's actually been written and purposefully misrepresent my argument instead of trying to be objective about it because oh shock horror. (1) person in the fandom with an unpopular account might not have the same preference as they do and this is how you get stupid emotionally charged anons in your inbox which has nothing to do with your original argument.

[trans-axolotl]

If you looked into it, the term Salmacian comes from the sex-transforming Salmacis Spring of mythology. This predates the interpretation of the myth wrote by Ovid, that has the rape. Others myths describe Salmacis as a nurse who take care of the infant Hermaphroditus. You can find the reference to the spring on the salmacian website. From salmacian.org: The flag’s central emblem, the “Sign of Salmacis”, consists of a lowercase sigma for “salmacian”, with waves to represent the sex-transforming Salmacis Spring of mythology.

okay so. unfortunately i read ancient greek and latin and spent quite a bit of time a couple years ago reading everything i could about hermaphroditus. normally i wouldn't bother to continue this conversation but i just got way too into relooking over old translations lmfao. putting this under the cut because it's too long. but long story short for followers who don't want to read the whole thing is that i think this is a really bad faith response that misrepresents the myths and fails to understand the reason why this term feels particularly insensitive to intersex people.

yes, there were other myths before Ovid, and the Salmacis spring was thought to have powers before he wrote the Metamorphoses. the Greek transcription at the spring from 2 B.C.E is a part of a larger poem that's answering the question "What is so honored about Halicarnussus?", and this version of the myth has Salmacis raising Hermaphroditus as a child and then marrying him. there's some really interesting analysis done there, actually, looking at how the the Hermaphroditus & Salmacis story is inserted into this larger epigraph that is largely about colonization, and connecting the promotion of marriage in that version of the myth as a function of propaganda around "civilized" values.

I also would almost hesitate to label the spring as "sex transforming," in the earliest conceptions of this myth--most of the earliest literature says that the water will turn people mollis, impudicus, obscenus, and μαλακός, all of which are words that are being used in a mostly derogatory fashion and could be translated similar to "effeminate" and have sexual, specifically gay undertones. the powers of the spring are more interpreted as making people gay (and specifically in some contexts, making people a bottom), rather than necessarily transforming sex as we think about it today.

Ovid's version of the myth, written in Metamorphoses 4, is the more popular and widespread version of the myth. The sex transforming powers of the spring cannot be separated from the violent rape in this myth: the reason the spring is thought to have sex transforming powers is because Hermaphroditus asked his parents to make everyone who bathed in the spring "half a man (semivir)" like him:

Ergo ubi se liquidas, quo vir descenderat, undas               380 semimarem fecisse videt mollitaque in illis membra, manus tendens, sed iam non voce virili Hermaphroditus ait: "nato date munera vestro, et pater et genetrix, amborum nomen habenti: quisquis in hos fontes vir venerit, exeat inde               385 semivir et tactis subito mollescat in undis!" motus uterque parens nati rata verba biformis fecit et incesto fontem medicamine tinxit.'

i think it is a more fair reading here to say that the spring has sex transforming powers-- I've made the argument before in regards to some other translations that there are some instances where "intersex" might be an appropriate translation of "semivir" (mostly alongside the context of castrati and analyzing how castration narratives are sometimes intersex narratives in Latin, but that's not really the point.) The spring gets powers by the request of Hermaphroditus, and this passage is often translated as a curse from Hermaphroditus to demonstrate his anger at the rape and subsequent merge of bodies. It is much more explicit in this version that this is about transformation of biological sex, although it can still also carry connotations about homosexuality, effeminacy, etc.

anyway. when were are analyzing greek and roman myths, i really don't think it is useful to pretend like there is just one version of the myth, or act like the first version of the myth to get written down is the "correct" version of the myth. engaging with greek and roman myths requires us to engage with multiple and conflicting myths, and isn't just about analyzing the content--it is also about analyzing the author, the audience, the purpose, and the cultural context it is written in. I think that it can be helpful to compare and contrast different versions, understand why priorities differ between generations, what that says about what values people wanted to represent, the sociopolitical context it's written in, etc. and i think that in the context of creating terminology to be used and understood by a modern audience, we also need to consider the context by which myths are read and interpreted currently--what myths people would be familiar with, what myths people would find if they googled, what greek and latin language signifies to people, and what values about sex and gender are present in our current cultural context.

what message does it tell intersex people when the language you use is intimately intertwined with a myth that includes violent rape of an intersex person? what message does it send to intersex people when this myth is directly connected to how we are still understood by society, and the slurs that people use to describe us?

the term "salmacian" is directly engaging with the Salmacis myths, which means that it is engaging with Ovid's Salmacis myth--you google Salmacis and you are going to see Ovid's version alongside others. and i think that anchoring this term in this Greek mythology in the first place has placed salmacian in dialogue with the word hermaphrodite. Which is also one of my complaints with the term, honestly, because the nuances of hermaphrodite as a slur that we sometimes reclaim is not comparable to the dyadic experience with salmacian.

when you use the term salmacian and use it as a reference to greek myth, you are symbolizing a collection of myths that includes a story about a violent rape of an intersex person, and then taking the name of their rapist. as a dyadic person you might feel able to ignore that and pick the versions of the myth you like best. as an intersex person i do not feel able to do that, especially when so much of our community activism is tied to our sexual trauma. especially when the term hermaphrodite carries such a painful history with it, and those myths are where that came from.

anyway. again. like i said in the beginning this is not a term used widely enough for me to feel like it is that important and i don't generally go through life doing in depth analysis of every word that i see lmfao. but if you're going to bring mythology into this dialogue then i will delve into it, because i think it's worth understanding the societal space that hermaphrodite takes up and the reasons why intersex people might feel incredibly uncomfortable with the word salmacian, regardless of which myths you personally like better.

[anamericangirl]

Ya miss this part of the ask "all of the others that closed down were due to government funding to the non-profit organization being severely slashed" or something? Cause that's the part that squarely debunks your argument that they shut down due to lack of abortions. Which none of your sources even hinted at let alone outright said. It's the same with how your claim that PP has abortions as their main source of revenue and your source doesnt say that and shows abortions not being #1 service.

Ok, this is the last time I'm responding to any messages stating "durrrr pp doesn't close because of lack abortions they close because lAcK oF fUnDiNg haha DeBuNkEd." I can provide sources for you but I'm not going to read them to you and if you lack the brain cells to put two and two together, which you apparently do, then you're just too dumb for this conversation.

But the only reason I'm responding to this is not for you idiots who sent the messages and cannot for the life of you read a source and glean any information other than what they point blank tell you and will just repeat your same brain dead arguments regardless of what information is provided for you, this is for people who might be interested in this information and can use their heads and understand what's going without an article stating verbatim "this Planned Parenthood closed because of lack of abortions." I don't know how you idiots made it through grade school with such shit processing skills.

The anon this first idiot claims "squarely debunks my argument"

Misrepresented my argument

Stated an objectively false claim about one of the clinics, proving they cannot read or did not read the article

and they expect me to take them seriously and just pretend their criticisms are valid and debunk the sources.

So the one this anon thinks is super intelligent and "squarely debunked my argument" claimed a Steamboat Springs PP clinic that closed did not provide abortions. And that is a blatant lie.

This very article was in the post they were criticizing. They had easy access to it so there is no excuse for making that bullshit claim and expecting to be taken seriously. And, as it clearly states here: "Planned Parenthood in Steamboat never offered surgical abortions but was able to help with pharmaceutical avenues."

It is a LIE to say they don't provide abortions when they help provide pharmaceutical abortions. They didn't provide surgical abortions but pharmaceutical abortions are still abortions.

And why, if they didn't provide abortions, are the people who oversaw the clinic bemoaning the loss of abortion care in the area with the closure of the clinic? Now the anons who sent these messages can't decipher that on their own because they need articles to explicitly state what something means in order to understand written language, but for people who possess the ability to think, it's pretty obvious that they did, in fact, provide abortion.

Now let's talk about the "LaCk Of FuNdInG" argument these idiots think is completely separate from Planned Parenthood's willingness or ability to provide abortions.

This is one of the articles I linked in the post these anons are responding to. It states "funding challenges" as the reasons these clinics closed. Notice these clinics are in Washington State. They specifically cite "medicaid reimbursements" as the biggest issue.

Now, if we look at this source of state funding of abortion under medicaid from Guttmacher, we can see that Washington state, where these clinics are located, voluntarily funds all or most "medically necessary" abortions.

So it appears they might be possibly be having trouble funding abortions. I know the anons can't make that connection, but most people should be able to. "Funding issues" and their abortion providing issues aren't always separate issues.

And, also, how convenient that of all the sources I gave of Planned Parenthood closures, you picked the one article that didn't directly mention changes to abortion laws among the reasons for their closing and pretend that debunks the entire point.

Like these clinics in Iowa

Or these in New England

This clinic in Idaho

Or this one

Or these

And recently, more in Iowa.

And since you'll care so much about whether the closings were pre or post the overturning of roe v wade (although this qualification was something you'll straw manned and never part of my claim) here's a NYT article, published about a week ago, reporting that "dozens of abortion clincs (which we discover are going to be Planned Parenthoods) have closed since the overturning of Roe (I'm aware not all of them closed, but some did).

So even if I relented with that one article they chose to highlight and said "ok since they didn't specifically mention abortion we can take that article out of consideration" it doesn't "squarely debunk my argument" because the other articles still exist and they are from the same post. So a challenge on one article doesn't debunk all the others like you idiots seem to think.

Anyway, make of that what you will but I am NOT going to respond to another message that consists of anything similar to "hurr durr I am ignoring the sources, didn't read them, or lying about them or I think I found one issue so you're DeBuNkEd."

And for you other idiots, whose asks I will not be publishing, who are dumb enough to think that if lack of abortion provision causes some Planned Parenthoods to shut down then the reversal of Roe V Wade should have seen clinics closing "immediately" you're just exposing, yet again, how incredibly ignorant pro-aborts are. The overturning of Roe v Wade did not make abortion illegal. It is still legal accessible throughout the country so your premise is wrong because you don't know what you're talking about. And if even the overturning had made abortion illegal, the closures still wouldn't have been immediate you numbskull. There's hundreds of Planned Parenthoods across the country and closures would not happen over time. It would take several months or even a couple of years. So you're stupid.

I hope this helps serves as a reminder to how incredibly dishonest and how embarrassingly ignorant you have to be to support abortion. These sad pathetic individuals think they know everything but they know nothing.

[balthazarslostlibrary]

Stop Appropriating Cultures for Horror

Feeling deeply disappointment in the horror writer/artist community's seeming inability to critically examine why they are including a specific monster or creature in their work, especially when that creature comes from a marginalised culture. This is mostly pertinent to white people, but I've seen poc horror artists do it as well occasionally.

Just had an interaction in a folk horror group where I made a very non-confrontational comment on someone's art of their 'modern interpretation of the winter hunger', except they used the other word for it. I explained the use of the winter hunger in horror, how they might want to examine the legacy of its use in horror, and how easy it is to accidentally rely on appropriative/racist tropes.

Next comment was this from the admin (word blanked out by me):

"Art, especially art shared in this group is oft inspired by folklore from specific indigenous groups, this is not deemed by the admins as cultural appropriation. The poor W----- seems to particularly suffer from this argument. Please note that other pieces of art inspired by other cultures shared in the group never suffer from the cultural appropriation argument. The vast majority of supernatural horror films and stories pull from folklore and twist it to fit the plot not just the W----. I am going to be very clear that if you do not like what I have stated please leave the group and do not let the door hit you on the arse on the way out."

Which, you know, extremely disappointing. So much horror is based on appropriation, racism, ableism, etc...

BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE!

Your art is going to be BETTER and have MORE potential to be interesting if you aren't relying on the same tired old tropes, and yet so many people just don't care or stay willfully ignorant. The fact that these creatures are most commonly taken from marginalised or already misrepresented cultures is not lost on me, and just makes it so much more frustrating when (typically white) horror artists and writers continue on this over and over again.

I don't want to be associated with cultural erasure just because I write and make art related to a genre that means so much to me.

Please, if you contribute to the horror genre, don't be like the admin of that page!

Don't stick your head in the sand, don't contribute to racism or cultural erasure, and don't just assume that something 'spooky' you have heard about is okay to make art about without doing research. As contributor to a genre with this history, you have a duty to be more vigilant than the average artist, and please for the love of god, don't be a cunt about it.

[salty-dracon]

Thesis: The big problem with "the curtains are just blue" discourse is that both it, and the backlash against it, misrepresent both arguments for and against it.

To describe the problem, this is with regards to a situation (I forget whether it was in a Tumblr post or a really funny meme which involved Naruto) where an English teacher says that the curtains are blue in a certain scene to represent sadness or something similar. A student argues that the curtains are just blue, and that the English teacher is reaching for symbolism when in reality there is none as intended by the author. In the meme, the MC uses Hokage powers to resurrect the author to ask him why the curtains were blue, and the author says "they were just blue".

Two issues are being conflated here.

If you believe that "the curtains were just blue", the reason why is usually a really bad Literature teacher. There's no doubt that a bad teacher CAN affect you and the way you interpret books for the rest of your life.

But as a person, you should grow out of it and form a better relationship with symbolism. Sometimes, things represent something else, including the colors of curtains. If you're an adult, you don't have to write paragraphs about it or even accept that interpretation. And if you're not, and you've still got that horrible Literature teacher breathing down your neck about it, just wait a few years. It'll be over by then.

If you believe that "the curtains are never just blue", please remember that high schoolers, with bad Literature teachers, who teach you that the curtains are blue, when there is nothing else to suggest that blue meant sadness, are still teaching high schoolers and still pushing the idea that the only way to interpret symbolism is their way. I'd be pissed too. I am pissed on their behalf, actually, as someone who suffered through the same crap.

There is nothing more frustrating than being told that symbolism exists but not being able to see it for yourself, then having to regurgitate lies or else you fail the class. Remember that whether symbolism exists, what it represents, and whether it's even important are all entirely up to the interpretation of the reader. There is no objective truth unless the author says so- and no one's calling the author about the color of some curtains.

So I have the highest respect for teachers who encourage students to seek out their own symbolism within a book, as that not only teaches them to search for it, but also teaches them why it's important. It was those teachers who got me to think more seriously about the symbolism I put into my own writing.

The idea that "the curtains are just blue" is an argument against the use of symbolism in work, and encourages the reader to search for interpretations where everything must be taken at face value. It basically argues that any deeper analysis of symbolism is foolish. The idea that "the curtains are never just blue" forces people into the idea that there is only one correct way to interpret symbolism in a book, because "the curtains are just blue" is itself a valid interpretation of symbolism. In that way, you're acting no different from a terrible Literature teacher.

I propose, "The curtains are blue, but what that means to the reader differs on many levels including the type of book being read, the context in which the curtains are being mentioned, and the amount of time the reader wants to spend thinking about it. Symbolism or the lack of itself can matter to the author and reader, but you have no right to push your interpretation on it onto someone else who has put serious thought into the matter."

As a psychological horror writer, if I choose to make the curtains blue, that might not be symbolism. In my case, I put a lot of effort into describing settings using colors. In the off-chance I chose to mention the color of a room's curtains, it means that it's important to the picture you paint in your head of the scene, but if you're going to study my work for symbolism, I also ask that you study the other words I use to describe the same room. Do I use words that make the room feel drab and gloomy? Or do my words make the room feel dark and secluded? Are the curtains tattered, drooping, or worn? Or are they thick and isolating? What words do I use to describe the specific shade of blue? Ice blue? Midnight blue? How do my words make you feel?

But that's just me. If you read a children's picture book and the curtains are blue, there probably isn't that much thought behind it other than "it looked nice". While in more adult things like Colors by Halsey and Blue Da Ba Dee by Eiffel 65 deliberately evoke the colors. Still, I can't tell you what they mean. I can only speculate that they're about melancholy and boredom. You'll need to figure that out for yourself.

Sometimes the curtains are blue because the main character is trapped in their house in the middle of a snowstorm, and white curtains don't fully make the reader imagine the emptiness and fear that the main character is experiencing, so they need to be cut neatly from sheer, ice blue cloth to sell the drab neatness of the environment and freezing temperature, much like the 1 meter of snow falling outside.

And sometimes, the curtains are blue because a wannabe pop star I used to follow on Twitter who complained that people 1-2 years younger than her say she's "out of touch" said that teal was a shit tier color. And I took that personally.

[kronkk]

pretty sure pissvortex is the same guy who said he deletes radfems responses to his posts specifically to make it look like they lost any arguments they might have been having on those posts. so. it’s a little embarrassing how hard he’s being dunked on by radfems recently. like dude this is your turf, the radfem are the ones fighting an uphill battle: how are you STILL losing. he needs to delete tumblr, read Sun Tzu’s art of war, and come back. remember mr piss: “If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

he is that dude, yeah. And HONESTLY. I think he picked this fight and deliberately is misrepresenting things to try and seem like he has ground and such