#the individual PEOPLE are flawed but the order never is

[duskmachine]

I can't take it anymore. The new Chainsaw Man chapters are so good I have to talk about them. Spoilers for chapters 176-178 below.

Love Yoru here. She undermines the sacrifices Asa has made and describes them as "trifling things" because in Yoru's eyes she has a much bigger goal. She constantly makes fun of Asa because Asa is a child and therefore values things much lesser than the dreams of the War Devil. It's so insane because right in the next panel,

Asa acts like an adult! Would you sacrifice the things you have fought for the sake of your own gain? You say one thing but mean another. Asa is much like Yoru in this regard, she wishes to fulfill Denji's dreams (whatever they may be) and protect him. But in reality, she wants to do these things for the sake of proving she is a "good" person.

This connects back to the church briefly touched on in the previous chapters! What makes a good person? Action or intent? Many people go to church to follow tradition, and follow the values of this religious system because it will secure them in, what they believe to be, heaven. If one does good for the sake of personal gain, can we say that person is "good"?

Yoru and Asa both are willing to destroy what they had wanted to protect in order to gain this "goodness". Asa, without really understanding, is harming Denji while trying to do right by him. And Yoru, who is willing to kill her comrades for...

This! She is willing to give up everything for the sake of proving she is a "more fearsome devil"! She ridicules Asa for the "trifling things" she values, and yet she is sacrificing her own kin for the sake of the most petty bullshit dick measuring contest EVER. One that Chainsaw Man does not even care about. It's not a contest between two of the most "fearsome devils" it's a desperate devil attempting to find any means to remain relevant.

This is some teenager angst coming from a centuries old horseman of the apocalypse.

Armless, mouthless, and with zero agency she comes to realize her pettiness and chooses to steal the freedom of choice from her children. They must serve her as her mouth and her arms. Children then are:

Asa was saved by her mother from the Typhoon Devil. In reality, despite Asa's flaws she is a teenager. She wants go to college, have a home, have friends. Her story reflects Denji's. She wanted a normal life where she was loved and yet, her agency was taken by a devil much more powerful than her and now she must find meaning and power in a position stripped of those things.

In a way she is attempting to find a silver lining, "If I can protect Denji, that means I'm still a good person despite everything". Which is so tragic, because in more ways than one, she was never truly able to make a sound decision due to the lies she was told and the possession of her body.

And come this horrifying sequence of events. Where Asa finds herself as the War Devil, hollowed out of her original heart. Her dream desecrated by war waged for the most petty bullshit dick measuring contest EVER. And isn't that all war? As the Statue of Liberty reveals itself to be a cocooning child of war. True freedom, in the hands of law makers and of devils, is defined by one's ability to wage war and decide who, in the end of mindless violence, is the true victor.

Individuals willing to kill children understood to be a parents' property, or a state's property, are devils through and through.

This is the fundamental horror of being a child, of being poor, of being irrelevant. This is the fate devils and humans similar to Yoru avoid by constantly participating in petty bullshit dick measuring contests.

Denji and Yoru are children who have been hollowed out so devils and humans can wage violent wars that destroy colleges, homes, and families with these children's bodies and hearts.

[antianakin]

I read your disagreement on this popular sentiment that "The Jedi Were Flawed" and I couldn't agree more with your disagreement. The Jedi are not the problem in the galaxy. It's everybody else: the Sith for plotting a revenge conspiracy for 1,000 years, the Republic for being plagued with corruption in which the Sith had a hand in (but not all Republic senators were corrupt), the Mandalorians for being warmongering a-holes, the Hutts and other crime syndicates who terrorize innocent people, the Separatists for making problems worse by starting a war with the Republic, the Empire for bringing tyranny upon the galaxy, and if you're an EU fan, the Yuuzhan Vong for starting an unprovoked war against the galaxy that causes the deaths of TRILLIONS of people!

That post came about almost as a reaction to pro Jedi people constantly talking about how OF COURSE the Jedi were flawed all the time and how annoying I find it more than anything else lol. It's very annoying to have to keep seeing posts by people who I know do LIKE the Jedi talking about how flawed they are, how they make mistakes, blah blah blah.

I've had people ask me why the sentiment of "the Jedi were flawed" can't co-exist with the sentiment of "the Jedi were RIGHT" or "the Jedi did nothing wrong" and, to me, it's not that they can't coexist in a more general sense, but they don't coexist NARRATIVELY to me. "The Jedi were flawed" is just a bullshit statement because the entire point of the narrative is that the Jedi were RIGHT. So what does it add to that particular theme and storyline to insist that the Jedi were flawed all the time, or that they made mistakes? How does it add to the message about being selfless and compassionate to insist that the characters who are in the story specifically to showcase why it's important to be selfless and compassionate are in fact also flawed and make mistakes?

It ALSO bothers me because the people who most often say it are the ones who mean "the Jedi were flawed" as "the Jedi deserved what they got" or "the Jedi were wrong the whole time" or "the Jedi should've changed their entire culture to accommodate one person" or "it was the Jedi's fault that everything bad in the galaxy happened." So when fans who LIKE the Jedi and don't actually believe any of that continue to insist "OF COURSE I believe the Jedi are flawed" it just smacks of desperation, of trying to appease these other fans who will never change their minds. Why bother trying to insist on a middle ground when what they mean by "the Jedi are flawed" is not the same as what a real Jedi fan means by it? What does it add to try to find a middle ground with someone whose interpretation is so completely the opposite of your own? Why bother?

So yeah. I never say the Jedi were flawed because I don't find it a particularly useful way to analyze the story or the Jedi's position within it. The Jedi were right, the Jedi are always right, and it's not honestly any more complicated than that.

[sysig]

Anime good :) (Patreon)

[fionnaskyborn]

one day when i am not busy dying on the inside and out i will write an honest-to-god essay about how people are, for the lack of a better descriptor but simultaneously for the lack of a more perfect one, too edgy about five.

[barblaz-arts]

As someone who ships Chaggie as well, I want your opinion on this.

Someone made a kinda good point about Charlie and Vaggie’s relationship; the point being that there’s a power imbalance between them. Charlie is the princess of hell. She wouldn’t physically loose anything or be hurt physically if she breaks up with Vaggie. But Vaggie would loose both the love of her life and her home and friends if they break off. And so they see this toxic dynamic because Vaggie is “walking on eggshells” in order to stay in Charlie’s favor and not getting on her bad side.

So….thoughts?

The problem is people who say these things treat the terms "power imbalance" and "toxic" and "unhealthy" as the same things when they are not.

There is a power imbalance, yes, definitely. I constantly make jokes about the fact that Charlie and Vaggie have a forbidden love story in a Boss/Employee HR violation kinda way for pete's sake. It's just a lot more funny thinking about the fact that that probably has more weight than the demon/angel situation.

But the thing is, no matter what Charlie will ALWAYS have a power imbalance with whoever she dates because she is literally the princess of Hell, as they have said. Even if she dates a fellow hellborn royal, the fact that Charlie is in a higher position of power will always be a fact because her parents are literally the only ones above that. So what? Should she just not date anyone??? Also, isn't the one has a higher position of power but still loves the other a super popular ship trope? Rich x poor. Royalty x commoner. Goddess/immortal x normal human. Popular in school x the social loser. The list goes on. So why is it a problem now?

The fact that they think Vaggie "walks on eggshells" around Charlie is a bit...? I'm just a little confused you know? Vaggie is definitely not afraid of Charlie. When they had their fallout, she wasn't afraid of losing the things she was dependent on Charlie if they ever broke up(i.e. a home, her safety, money etc) because Vaggie damn well knows Charlie wouldn't do that. Everyone in hell knows Charlie goddamn Morningstar wouldn't do that. Vaggie was merely afraid of losing their relationship, which is a perfectly normal thing to be afraid of. Vaggie's dedication to Charlie isn't rooted in fear, it's rooted in devotion in the name of what she thinks the person she loves deserves.

The thing that makes Chaggie so great despite that power imbalance is the fact that Charlie is an absolute sweetheart. She isn't the kind of person who would take advantage of that power and Vaggie, as someone who knows her so well, is perfectly aware of that. Vaggie is safe with Charlie in every way that matters, and this is where toxicity and the unhealthy elements come into play.

Charlie and Vaggie as individuals have all the ingredients for an unhealthy relationship. As Husk so plainly pointed out, Charlie would rather fix everyone else's problems than help herself. Meanwhile Vaggie has deep self-hatred that seeps into how she feels about everyone but Charlie. They're both the type of people who would rather think about others rather than themselves. This is the root of their codependency, and why their relationship can be quite unhealthy. It's extremely evident with Vaggie, which makes perfect sense since she probably never saw herself as a person before Charlie.

Those flaws can so easily be taken advantage of in a relationship, but the thing is, do they do that? Do either of them think the other ever would? As Rosie did say...

While Charlie likes to shoulder everyone else's problems, Vaggie looks at the love her life and decides she'll take some of that load so she doesn't get crushed under the weight of the world. Vaggie reels Charlie in by being the realist to Charlie's dreamer. Vaggie used to essentially be Heaven's living weapon, but she has now sworn to be the armor for someone who looks out for everyone but herself.

On the other hand Vaggie's self-worth is shrewed because she's an ex-soldier who thinks she should always be under someone's service to be deserving of anything. But here Charlie is who constantly calls Vaggie her partner and blatantly treats Vaggie as an equal and still loves Vaggie "more than anything" and doesn't doubt that Vaggie loves her in return even after finding out Vaggie's lie and true origins.

So are they good for each other? Maybe not, but there's still more of the show to see. They can be unhealthy, but not to the point that being together damages each other in any significant way. Their relationship is imperfect, which is fine. No relationship is. Especially not in fucking HELL. And perfect for a story because, yunno... They are still in an ongoing story. They aren't a lost cause yet. It's something they can develop from, something we can get to SEE them develop from.

Are they toxic though?? Are they harming each other physically, emotionally, sexually, or financially? Definitely not. Because although whether they're good FOR each other still remains to be seen, it is an undeniable fact that they are good TO each other, despite all the ways they could not be. The unhealthy elements are due to how they treat themselves, but their relationship can't be deemed toxic because of how they treat each other. And for now, that's what matters and that's why I love this ship.

[vanderdyks]

I geniunely cannot stand when allistics try to say Resident Alien is actually making fun of autistic people because they believe Harry is too childish now because I JUST-

In the beginning, Harry tried SO MUCH HARDER to fit in with the humans around him. He mimicked their speech patterns, consistently observed them, emersed himself in their activities so they wouldn't suspect he was different.

The Harry now? He doesn't care. He's loud in places he should be quiet. He talks how he wants. He laughs FREELY. He's learned large crowds of people? Not for him. He doesn't like being touched by strangers.

He's just Harry. Himself. Because he can be. Because he's realized even if some of the people of Patience find him strange, it doesn't matter. They'll never guess he's from outer space.

Have you noticed that every other alien we have seen is not like Harry? Not the greys, or the half human hybrids, not even Heather. When Heather is around humans who know she is an alien, we get to see the difference, but when she isn't? She fits in so well with any other neurotypical human.

Not Harry though. So yes, he is autistic because I said he is. Because I am autistic. And if you're allistic, you don't get to tell autistic people they shouldn't headcanon Harry as autistic (even though it is very obvious they're purposefully playing him as neurodivergent now.)

When you take an autistically coded character that a lot of autistic individuals relate to, and try to argue the character is actually a "child" and being "infantalised," you're actually being ableist.

You're saying that the traits we have resonated with are childish... Harry seems like he's "regressed" because instead of trying to adapt and pretend to be human, he is becoming something else entirely. Not human, but not fully alien either.

The body of doctor Harry Vanderspeigle was once just a disguise. Now it IS Harry's. It's his body, his own skin. And he's gotten comfortable in it and you know this because you deliberately witness times where he might be holding his hands like he would his claws (primarily when he's sleeping.) His brain doesn't realize he's not in his normal form, because in many ways, this is his new normal form.

He has emotions. He cares. He's in completely new territory and finding himself. And in doing so, that carefully crafted human mask? It's fallen a bit.

So that thing you label as "regression" is a thing I label as progress. He's learning still. Let him learn. Let him be. And give it time. And I hope to GOD Harry never becomes fully human to the point we can't recognize him. I hope he never loses his unique inflictions, or his love for pizza and pie. I hope he continues to love the quiet. I hope he ALWAYS laughs obnoxiously. I hope he always runs like he doesn't know what to do with his limbs. I hope you always see his emotions throughout his body because they simply cannot be contained. I hope he continues to jump when excited or pace when he's angry. I hope he stays obsessed with Law & Order forever.

Because if you take all that away, you're taking away the bits that make him Harry. You want a carbon copy human. I want the autistic alien struggling to understand human nature.

That being said, of course you can express your opinion him. And it can be discussed because everyone is going to have a different perspective.

But you don't get to dictate an autistic perspective if you are not autistic. Or try to cancel anyone for it either.

I love Harry. And I relate to him SO MUCH. And I love how much representation I can see him through him for me. Because I personally believe Alan and the writers have chosen to keep presenting this character as ND.

It's okay to dislike the direction of his character development. It's okay to find the flaws. It's okay to share that perspective. What's NOT okay is dictating the feelings of others because they might not agree with you.

I don't find him childish. I see him as an autistic individual trying to navigate a society that his brain hasn't been hardwired to understand.

And if you think he's too childish, please look closer at the why you think he is. Really be introspective on this one.

Because Harry is a parent. And has a child. And he has relationships. And he takes care of himself. Not only that, he is the town doctor and takes care of everyone else too. He is the smartest. He is the strongest. None of the characters have had to worry about the wellfare of Harry specifically. Its why no one realizes the greys have captured him. Because of course Harry would be fine, hes the alien expert. He knows what he's doing. So while everyone else spent so much time worrying about each other, no one was left to worry about Harry.

So ask yourself why you believe Harry has become "too childish" and if your answer comes down to any of his quirky traits or his misunderstandings of human nature, then you really need to consider if what you're actually uncomfortable with is autism/autistic traits.

[furious-blueberry0]

Are there people out there that really think that Star Wars is too political? And say that as if it is a flaw?

Like, I’m sorry, but did people seriously look at a saga literally named Star WARS and manage to complain about the fact that it has politics? Did these people watch the movies and only saw the lightsabers, the cool music and the pew pews? Is that all their brain could comprehend?

I’m not saying that you can’t do that, if you want to look at the fun side of the saga only than good for you, but using the argument of “too much politics” and make it the flaw of the story is so stupid.

Like that’s the point, THAT’S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

George Lucas didn’t just make a story of a good guy vs a bad guy, he made a story where a Republic, a just system that has become corrupted to its core, finds itself into a devastating war and is pushed to its limit by a slimy and disgusting scheming bastard (inspired by George Bush), who then uses its weakness to take control of it and transform it, from a free system to a fascist dictatorship (inspired by Nazi Germany and the USA of the Vietnam war) and whose one of the first things he does is a literal genocide and ethnical cleansing of a religious order.

And this is only the Prequels, because in the OT the story is about how this Empire, whose head and right hand are literally the most powerful beings in the galaxy, gets utterly destroyed not by other powerful beings, not by superpowers, not by mystical forces that the human mind can’t comprehend.

But by people, normal people, the average person, who can’t fly, who can’t use mystical objects, who cannot move things with the mind or other tricks.

The heroes of these movies are the rebels, who are not fighting because of some ancient prophecy, or because of a quest given by mystical beings, or because they have to restore the fabric of the Universe, they fight because it’s the right thing to do, because this is what happens when you take away freedom from people, when you destroy their homes, when you kill their loved ones, when you obliterate everything they have ever known and loved.

Treat people like animals and they’ll react like animals, by biting the hand that carries the stick and then ripping it into shreds.

And yes, Luke is the hero that saves the day by killing Sidious and Vader, but he would have never, and I say NEVER have arrived at that point without the help of the Rebellion, it’s something that no one could have ever done alone, a single individual against an entire Empire is a suicide, no matter how powerful you are.

And I love it. I don’t even know how to put it into words, I love how this ancient and meticulous plan gets annihilated by normal people, who just wanted to be free.

THIS is Star Wars: a fight against tyranny.

And it makes me sad how people forget and ignore it. With the Rebellion it’s not just the special people who can be heroes, everyone can! And they don’t even need to do the heroic actions described in the stories and the myths.

A Hero says “No” when the Stormtroopers ask if they saw the young and scared boy who ran and hid behind the bins near their home.

A Hero gives extra blankets and food to the neighbor that is hiding refugees.

A Hero “accidentally” blocks the way of a squad of Stormtroopers, to give others the time to escape.

A Hero hides the weapons of the rebels in their well while the Stormtroopers raid all the houses.

A Hero runs through the streets and into the woods to go find the rebels that are hiding there, to tell them it’s time to run

A Hero talks loudly about the atrocities that the Empire is committing, forcing those who are silent to listen.

A Hero comforts the mother who lost all her children to the Empire.

A Hero organizes the funeral of that same mother, after she tried to take her revenge.

A Hero doesn’t let the Empire enter their head, they don’t let it change their being.

It’s all about the small acts of insurrection that pushes the line forward.

[fullmetal-scar-simping]

Handing out a pamphlet to any mangahood fans giving the 2003 anime a shot:

Ed and Al (and Hohenheim) are not Xerxian. In fact there is no Xerxes. Don't interpret these characters through that lens. Similarly, Xing has no relevance here (it's a single line in a discussion of Amestrian geopolitics, and that's it)

Ed does not metaphysically supply Al's body with energy and nutrients. That's not how the Gate works here

Alchemy itself is handled differently from the manga and Brotherhood

This version of the story will not coddle or spoonfeed you. You will have to deal with complex themes and upsetting scenes, and you will have to pay attention to what's going on in order to understand and interpret the story and characters

In fact, if you're so inclined, repeat watches will absolutely reveal new layers to the pathos, mysteries, and themes presented, and answer questions you will still have after your first watch

I am begging you not to take everything at face value. The characters are not treated as infallible encyclopedias nor are they dispensers of morality lessons. They are treated like people. In that they are flawed, they are not omniscient therefore they do not have Complete Objective Knowledge over their own lives and the world, and the world/other characters will contradict and challenge them regularly

To put a finer point on the above: Don't take Ed and Al's perspectives as gospel. They are not the arbiters of righteousness who shine the light of Goodness and Reason onto the rest of the cast, they are orphaned teens scraping by in world that, by its nature, looms larger than themselves

Romance is not a big element here. You will not be eating well from the Edwin and Royai troughs this go-around

In mangahood Scar was right in killing state alchemists, but prepare yourself for: Scar was right in killing state alchemists, AND he never relents in being anti-military, AND he escalates that fight to magnificent proportions. Your fears about the "scary racialized radical who doesn't reform to your side nor assuages your guilt for the gains of imperialism you enjoy" are made real in 03

No doubt you've already heard that homunculi work differently in the 2003 anime. But to emphasize one of those major differences: the homunculi are not split aspects of one guy. They are all separate, unrelated, individuals

The characters shared between mangahood and the 2003 anime are, ultimately, not the same characters. Character design and some basal core traits link them to the manga, but their backstories, choices, character growth, and even their perspectives end up completely different from the source material

[nhaneh]

Honestly I like the fact that Gaius seems pretty good with kids. He's done monstrous things - many of which he's come to regret - but he's not some cackling fool possessed by naught but evil, nor is he someone fundamentally incapable of human connection: he's just a man who had internalized some really terrible ideals, and was given the power to act upon them.

He has done a great deal of evil, no question about it - his actions has caused untold harm to countless individuals - but not so much out of cruelty or spite, but out of a mistaken belief that it would make the world better. It was the eggs he was willing to crack in order to make the omelette. The point isn't to make his actions somehow excusable, because they aren't - it's how easy it is to believe that you have all the answers, and that if you could just make people fall in line behind you, the world would be a so much better place.

Gaius has done monstrous things, but he's not necessarily a monster - he never stopped being capable of kindness or empathy, he just found ways to rationalize either how his actions were somehow a kindness to his foes, or why they didn't deserve either in the first place. He's someone who was blinded to the nature of his actions by his ideology, and who couldn't start seeing the error of his ways before that ideology came crashing down around him. His flaws are all very human, and never made him incapable of acting with integrity, or showing kindness to those he thought deserving. People are messy, and Gaius absolutely is - he's a man haunted by horrors of the past all of his own making, and he'll never stop atoning for the things he's done. But he's also more than just his sins, and that makes him more compelling to me as a character.

[drakaripykiros130ac]

What is it with this Targaryens are blood supremacists bullshit?

Let’s make some things clear right now:

1. Targaryen blood is superior. It’s not some sort of twisted Nazi belief, like some people make it out to be. It’s actual fact.

Sue the Targaryens for constantly pointing that out and lacking modesty. It doesn’t make it less true.

Their blood gives them godly features and the ability to ride dragons. The hypocrisy of Andals never ceases to amaze me: they have a tendency to complain about how Targaryens have ‘queer customs’ but what actually bothers them is that they choose to keep their ‘superior blood’ within their family and not share it with others. Andals criticize Targaryens for being different and yet trample over one another for a chance to marry into their family so that their offspring would have godly features and ride dragons. If Targaryens are so “bad”, then why don’t Andals keep to themselves too?

2. When did it become an actual problem to want to stick to your own kind?

Valyrians are not originally from Westeros. Their home was destroyed. They found another home, of people who constantly judge them and look at them differently despite hundreds of years after conquest.

Despite the many flaws in the show, there is something that actually stuck with me: when Daemon said, “Valyria is gone. We don’t belong anywhere.”

This actually broke my heart a little and got me thinking: how many Targaryens actually felt like strangers in their own home despite having been born and raised there?

I mean, Andals constantly treat them differently and yet blame them for wanting to stick to their own Valyrian kind (Targaryens, Velaryons and Celtigars).

The Conquest in itself is no excuse. The Kingdoms were divided and at constant war with one another, which destroyed the smallfolk. The Targaryens took away their individual powers, united the Kingdoms and gave the people a better chance at peace. The Andals are pissed because they lost their autonomy? Well, considering what they used that autonomy for, they shouldn’t have had it in the first place.

I applaud the Targaryens for taking charge and conquering Westeros for a better future. I mean, do you honestly believe that they would have been accepted in Westeros if they hadn’t? That they would have showed up with their dragons, asked to be a part of the Andals’ world and they would have been accepted with hugs and kisses? Don’t make me laugh. They would have never survived if the Andals kept control of Westeros.

And do keep in mind that if their intentions were actually bad, the Targaryens would have turned Westeros into the new Valyria. They didn’t do that though, did they? They even accepted and converted to their faith.

3. Valyrians are actually attracted to their own kind. So what? It’s their custom and nature. It’s the one thing they asked for. The only exception. To be able to keep their traditions of marrying within their family, not only in order to keep their blood pure for the purpose of controlling dragons, but also because they feel comfortable with one another. They connect with one another. They don’t want to lose ties with their true home, with their history, language, culture etc.

Andals will never be able to understand Valyrians. It’s called having a connection with someone. It can be both physical and emotional (like it was with Daemon and Rhaenyra). Why is that such a crime?

Targaryens are constantly criticized for wanting to stick to their own kind, yet the Andals have been treating them like strangers for hundreds of years simply because they are different.

Who is the blood supremacist here?

Who are the ones who constantly discriminate and create the division lines? Answer: the Andals.

[modernrifle]

it's crazy how few people talk about how clearly codependent anakin & obi-wan were - they were two halves of the same whole, so without anakin, obi-wan cannot exist as a complete person, and without obi-wan, anakin cannot exist as a whole person either, because in order for him to be himself he needs obi-wan as, again, they are part of eachother. their two identites are so comingled they cannot be separted and be how they were, because a huge part of who they were was eachother. obi-wan will always be anakin's and anakin will always be obi-wan's so they both had to become someone new. because jedis' relationships, on a deep level, are practically nonexitent they had to be everything for eachother, neither of them had anyone else to fill the roles of their lives. obi-wan was - had to be, wanted to be - anakin's master, his teacher, his father, his brother, his best friend. i mean, they are even potrayed as light/dark, and we both now the light cannot be without the dark, and vice versa. they even failed to excavate eachother from their focus as reformed individuals - vader obsessed over obi-wan, was only able to show glimmers of his past self when in his presence, obi-wan was so dedicated and devestated by anakin's change/fall/perceived death that he literally locked himself in a desert simply to watch over what remained of anakin (his children), thought about him 24-7, at least in the novels, and actually hallucinated him as some twisted manifestation of guilt, love, grief. obi-wan, the perfect jedi, forsaked his vow to form no attachments simply because he loved anakin too much to do otherwise, his one flaw was always and will always be anakin, and his pure, simple, unadultered love for him, despite everything. anakin latched onto obi-wan and obi-wan never found the strength to pull him off. the loss of eachother destroyed the both of them (though of course anakin was also destroyed by padme, in his mind). even before the betrayal anakin would always want obi-wan to simply stay when he had to go on missions, and obi-wan could not act the same and constently thought about anakin when away - he even in a novel offhandedly mentioned that it was super strange to not have anakin fighting with him, like he forgot he needed both hands. their bond, affection, was deep enough that even after anakin was knighted they stayed close, became closer than brothers, even after death they both sought eachother out. obi-wan gave his life and death to anakin, and anakin the same. obi-wan's death belonged to vader, as the last part of anakin that he needed to kill, and anakin's entire life was centered around obi-wan. this is PURE MADNESS.

[nordickies]

What's your opinion on rusfin? And the time Finland spent in Russian empire

While I don't really vibe with "Russia/Soviet State" ships in general (RusAme, RusFra, RoChu, etc. are more of my thing), I don't really have strong feelings about RusFin one way or another. It's not quite as unbalanced or overused as some other Russia ships, I feel like? Plus, like I stated earlier, I kind of like the idea of Russia being disinterested in romance, at least in the traditional sense. I personally don't have an interest in exploring them as a serious couple in my writing; I just can't see them ever working out. They'd become too toxic at some point and it wouldn't be fun anymore. And I think they have enough to deal with each other even without romance getting involved

And I'll be honest: I have never focused on Russia's character, and I'm always a bit lost on what I'd like to do with him. How would I characterize him? I think all hws characters should be allowed to have nuance and let be individuals at the end of the day. So, I don't think Ivan is the manifestation of all the evil things in the world. To me, he's an extremely flawed person who is easy to blame and villainize. For many of the characters, he embodies the worst memories and moments of their lives. Surely this is the case for Finland, too, which makes their friendship extremely complicated.

I think Fin is quite naive at the end of the day and always tries to see the good in people. He values mutual trust more than anything, which can be an admirable trait but also makes him prone to ignoring warning signs. Fin, in his youth at least, was rather easily led, and he unsuspectingly followed others and their orders, counting on them to have his back no matter what. While his trustiness can backfire at times, with Russia, it might have been the right approach. Because right away, Fin managed to build trust with him and Ivan, being calm and respectful, expecting them to handle this new situation in a professional manner. Perhaps Ivan is used to people being terrified around him, giving his paranoia reason to doubt their loyalty. But he never had that problem with Finland, and they got along surprisingly well.

Historical context: When Finland was seized by the Russian Empire in 1809, the Grand Duchy got a pretty good deal in exchange for the Estates swearing loyalty to the Russian Tsar; Finland would remain an autonomous region in the Russian Empire, and it got to keep its Swedish constitution, laws, language, religion, and even the right to keep the taxes it collected for itself. Finns were also exempted from the Russian military. The reason why Finns got such a good deal came down to Tsar Alexander I wanting to avoid excessive fighting during the Napoleonic Wars (he only seized Finland to pressure the King of Sweden in the embargo against England to begin with). By making a good enough offer, the Finns, who had been getting tired of the Swedish monarchy's growing incompetence and turmoil, wouldn't fight back. Also, the Tsar was interested in westernizing his Empire, so Finland's western state structure was perfect for that. Finland's and Tsars' relationship was rather special in the Empire, and Finns were viewed as exceptionally loyal and cooperative by the state. Finns had an easier time remaining loyal to the Tsar due to their freedoms and autonomy status, which they sought to protect by subjecting. For example, Tsar Nicholas I abolished various autonomies and freedoms in his Empire during his reign; except in Finland. This was partly due to Finnish soldiers' voluntary participation in crushing the November Uprising in 1830. When the Tsar's officials criticized Finland's independent status in 1850, Nicholas had allegedly said: "Leave the Finns alone. Finland is my large Empire's only province that has not caused me a minute of worry or dismay during my reign." Nicholas was not the only Tsar who viewed Finland so positively. Most Tsars had a summer house in Finland, and many of them wrote about their time in Finland being some of the most serene they have ever felt. For example, in 1891, Tsar Alexander III shocked his court by deciding to travel through Finland via train instead of by boat. When the court opposed this idea, calling it unsafe, the Tsar called their worries nonsense, stating "I have never needed any guards in Finland."

During his time in the Empire, Finland tried his best to get along with Russia, never provoking him and more so trying to keep attention away from himself, just so he didn't accidentally upset him. Like the aforementioned references tell us, I think Ivan actually trusted Finny and felt comfortable giving him more responsibilities, which inevitably let Fin get closer to him. And while Fin was aware of Russia's flaws and his own privileged position, he surely was also grateful for the freedoms that he had been granted. As bad as it must have felt, he had more possibilities there than he did with Sweden.

Finland probably had his own place, and he was free to come and go as he pleased. He was allowed to join Russia's events and meetings, probably as some kind of assistant, which was crucial for Finland to learn how their job operated and all the responsibilities that came with it. Traveling around Europe from event to event also meant Finny could build his first diplomatic relations with other nations he had never even met before - and even put his own name out there to begin with. It was all new and exciting to him, which in return made him want to keep up the positive relationship

However, Russia's clear favoritism toward Finland would not go unnoticed, and I think that could create some unfair gossip at Finland's expense. People probably think Russia is never nice or does anything good without wanting to gain something from it, so Finland must have done something really special to get his position. Without a doubt, this would sour Finland's relationship with some other people around the house who wouldn't respect his "bootlicking" and respect for Ivan. In the worst case, Finland didn't even know such rumors were spreading about him initially, leading to confusing encounters. I doubt Russia had any intention of clearing such rumors. After all, he didn't suffer from such gossip himself; more than anything, he could use it to his advantage. Whenever he wanted to annoy his old enemy Sweden, all he had to do was wrap his arm around Finland or move him closer - Innocent enough for Fin to not consider it too weird but powerful enough to upset Swe, who couldn't do anything about it. I also think Ivan would try to manipulate Fin's thoughts and insecurities just like anyone else's, being one of the tactics to keep people dependent and loyal to him. He'd feed misinformed ideas to Finland about his past, painting Swe in a worse light than he actually was.

I can really only talk from Finland's point of view, but I doubt Finland himself would have had romantic feelings toward Ivan. I think he saw their relationship as purely beneficial, something to better his own status after living in someone else's shadow for centuries. But he still respected Ivan, at least in the beginning, and believed they could work it out as friends. But I could also see Finny being prepared to act passive to Ivan's potential advances - at least to a certain point, if it meant a more favorable position for himself. Finny can be more cunning than people give him credit for. So even if something had happened between them, I doubt it was genuine, at least on his part. But again, I really don't know if Ivan would even care or try anything.

But in the end, their mutual respect wouldn't last forever. There's no way Finland's and Russia's relationship didn't crumple during the Russification period from the 1890s onwards. Finny most likely lost a lot of his previous freedoms, and he wasn't going to accept it, becoming uncooperative and dishonest. Due to this, Ivan quickly lost his trust in Fin as well, treating him like everyone else around the house. Unfortunately for Ivan, by letting Finny get so close to him in the beginning, it had opened Finland the opportunity to learn all of his tricks. By having had so much freedom and experience in nationwork, Finny was ready to seek his independence as soon as possible, when the moment was just right.

I could always write more, but maybe this is a good overview of their situation during the Empire years specifically. The decades after Finland's independence have been their own rollercoaster entirely. Also, I think personifications' relations are way more complicated than drawing one-to-one comparisons between real-life emperors and people, but here the emperors' favoritism just somehow works for their characters? Anyway, I just really don't know where I'd like to take Russia's character, so I can only write from Finland's point of view here. You can come to your own conclusions and ideas, I suppose!

[antianakin]

I never, ever say the Jedi were flawed, and here's why.

It's not because I don't think people can BE flawed, or that I don't think GOOD people can be flawed, of course they can. Even people who are genuinely doing good things and making good choices and trying their best to be selfless and kind and compassionate can make mistakes and have a bad day.

But there's really only two reasons I see anybody bring up "the Jedi were flawed."

The first is from Jedi fans who are trying to stave off the Stanakins and the anti Jedi crowd by adding that in as a disclaimer. "OF COURSE the Jedi are flawed, but it doesn't mean they aren't good people!" It's a meaningless statement because the side saying it doesn't even really believe it to be true and the side they're saying it TO thinks the Jedi being flawed means they all deserved to die. This is the kind of statement that leads to people deciding that individual Jedi are okay but their culture needs to be completely reformed in order to allow people like Anakin to just do whatever they want whenever they want and then they can all live.

The second is from people who DON'T really like the Jedi much and will insist that "the Jedi are flawed" is part of the whole point of the narrative of Star Wars, especially the prequels. This is the kind of statement that leads to people like Leslye Headland INSISTING that George Lucas intended for the story of the Jedi to be one of failure and criticism and casting the Jedi as "the evil institution" in her interpretation of Star Wars. This is what leads to stories like the Ahsoka show insisting that the Jedi were elitist bastards whose arrogance led to their own genocide. These people usually try to claim they like the Jedi, but they'll still cast the Jedi as the bad guys in the story instead of, say, Anakin. These are the people who genuinely have no idea what attachment is and don't care to learn. These people believe that, at best, the Jedi THOUGHT they were doing good, but that they had completely lost their way and were truly not that much better than the Sith anymore and their destruction was necessary to create balance in the galaxy.

I have no desire to appease people who don't like my interpretation of Star Wars, and I don't think that "the Jedi were flawed" was ever the point of Lucas's story and I genuinely think it takes a lot AWAY from his story to say that it does. So while I am perfectly happy to admit that people in general, even overall GOOD and kind and selfless people, are always flawed and can make mistakes, I will never, ever say that the Jedi were flawed. The Jedi lost, yes, but not due to their own flaws. They lost because of EVERYONE ELSE'S flaws, so what does it MATTER if the Jedi were flawed or not? If you truly believe the Jedi were good people who did everything right and simply lost due to other people's selfish choices, then what does it add to the story to insist the Jedi were flawed? How does it change anything, for the better or otherwise? The Jedi were right IS the point of the story, so insisting they were flawed actually takes away from that by distracting from how the Jedi were RIGHT, and it's people choosing not to listen to them or trust them or act like them that brings about the downfall of an entire galaxy.

The Jedi weren't flawed. The Jedi were RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING and that is the hill I will die on.

[stardustizuku]

PART 4: Royalty Kinda Sucks

So, here’s the situation: When we are first introduced to the concept of Nobility, as seen through the Nobility’s eyes, it becomes apparent that there’s a reason behind every nonsensical tradition there is. 

You must always smile and conceal your emotions because else, you’ll be in danger, making yourself the enemy of someone you cannot refuse. Civilians must be devoted to their Lord/nobles because they’re the ones with Mana, and without Mana, the farmers suffer. There’s no food, there’s no agriculture. 

And at the beginning of the series, Rozemyne accepts this as the truth.

She sees how the amount of Mana offered correlates to the very livelihood of the commoners. Just like her, we as an audience, believe this story 100%. There’s an order to things, Nobility is inherently superior, some people just wield more power than others. 

Despite this, however, Rozemyne never fully buys into this idea. 

Ferdinand and the rest of the nobles say “There’s no need for commoners, they live entirely by the kindness or lack of it from the nobles”

While, on the surface, Rozemyne agrees to it (or more like, cannot find a way to counterargument), each every action since proves that she very much disagrees. 

She keeps listening to commoners, keeps trying to employ the orphans, educating the kids, and forming connection with the merchants. Her instance on staying on the temple is very much a way for her to cling to her commoner origins and refusing to let go of them. And, whenever someone tries to take advantage of them, she tries her hardest to stop it by any means possible.

My favourite argument she makes, is when she explains, in Part 4 to Hartmut that: 

“If we view this as nobles thinking up trendy goods and commoners making them, then nobles are the thinking mind while commoners are their hands and feet, no? Overloading commoners with unreasonable demands is no better than crippling one’s own arms and legs”. 

On the surface this is an argument that appeals to nobles, seeing commoners as nothing more than another tool that must be properly utilized. However, Rozemyne is inadvertently sneaking in one of her own core views: Nobles and commoners and equals. 

Rather than seeing commoners as an entirely detached object, she introduces the idea of commoners and nobility existing in an ecosystem. And here comes the first bit of proper commentary: 

Hierarchies are fundamentally flawed, and what we need in a society are communities. 

Rozemyne, being a chronically ill person, depends on others to do her work. To survive, we need communities and support networks. Some of the most brilliant minds and powerful players of the game do not thrive in a society that rigidly adheres to power structures such as nobility. Those so quick to toss away and dispose of whoever doesn't "fit in". Best example is Ferdiand - who was stiffled by Veronica.

This is juxtaposed with Ferdinand Hirschurl and Christine, all geniuses in their own right, extremely capable and talented. Neither of which was able to survive Ehrenfest. Even nobles of other duchies state that a single talented individual is incapable of turning the tides of their duchy. 

It’s only when Rozemyne comes into the picture, forcing people around her to function as a community, as a system, that any real change is made. She’s remarkable, perhaps more than for her intellect, in her ability to raise people. Her ability to form systems and networks of highly skilled attendants what allows her to be perceived as a saint. 

This is a direct contrast to her days as Urano, where she only ever submersed herself in books. I don’t doubt that Urano was as much of a genius as Rozemyne is - but her inability to connect and create a community to help her out was what caused her to be isolated. Only ever to see books and nothing more.

As Myne, she was forced to confront how vital to her survival family and community mean. As Rozemyne, she was forced to build her own, due to how nobility absolutely destroys said community in favour of a hierarchy. 

And all of this, is a microcosm of Royalty. 

The same attitude the nobles have to commoners is a direct 1:1 to how royals treat other nobles. They see nobles as little more than objects to be ordered around, and just like noble destroy communities and networks, royalty destroys them. Just on a much larger scale. 

Rather than seeing other duchies as, you know, arms and legs to make Yurgenschmidt more powerful, capable or rich, they see them as pawns to move around to protect/save Royals themselves. As if they are Yugernschmidt.

Whenever they say “for the good of Yurgenschmidt” it’s always synonymous with the “good of Royalty”.

The duchies only exist to serve Royals, and not the other way around. They’re more than happy to cut off Ehrenfest and let it struggle, even though it’s slowly becoming the new hot spot for technological inventions in all the country. They’re essentially crippling their own body, to save themselves. And sure, in other contexts maybe it could work. Rather amputate an arm rather than lose the head. But that’s not what they’re doing. They see their “arms” as disposable. Why bother to save one, when you have another that can work as well? (Which is dumb)

This is a direct criticsm of politicians, or position in powers, that see for themselves, rather than for the greater good of a country or the collective. People who would exploit the most vulnerable in a community to keep the status quo, all while claiming it's "for the greater good".

Sisgwald in particular is a great example of what Wilfred could have become if Rozemyne had no stepped in. He very much sees his wives as nothing but ways of attaining more power. He refuses to even think of other people reaching the throne and sees nothing past his own ego.

That’s why he is so taken aback by Rozemyne. Here comes a girl, with so much more experience at negotiating than him, calling him out directly over the many faults that royals are committing. As she points out, they went into a meeting expecting to extort her so completely blind they couldn’t see why Ehrenfest would be unwilling to enter negotiating. 

Ferdinand explained in Part 3 how, whoever has more information in a conversation between nobles has the upper hand. This ought to be the way everyone approaches anything, but Royals very much can’t comprehend this in regards to a lesser/middle duchy. To them, all duchies are the same (much like all commoners are the same to nobles) and do not require the information. This is, to put it bluntly, idiotic to the point of impressive. 

The best example? The very same meeting they had.

Rozemyne was able to get what she needed. Sure, the Royals also got what they wanted. But that’s it. They were able to obtain the bare minimum. While Ehrenfest was able to walk away with extensive concessions and much more room to make preparations. All while bruising the ego of Royalty.

And because they lack this ability to see nobles as a network, they also have the same problems nobles have. Their petty family drama gets dragged onto the surface for all the country to see. They're giving away information that's critical for negotiations without even noticing.

Hell, they almost exploded a war because Anastasius couldn’t tell Eglantine he liked her. Instead of raising each other up, like Rozemyne does, they drag each other own. Their lack of communication causes Rozemyne to be thrust into the middle of their family feud, trying her damnest to solve their problems, while they worry abt their own selfish desires. 

But perhaps the most crucial network that they’ve lost is: Information. 

Due to the fact that Ascendance of a Bookworm is a light novel about books - it’s inevitable that we would stumble at some point with the importance of achieving information preservation. Urano herself, as a librarian, is acutely aware of how easily information is lost. Rozemyne on her hand, has had to see the direct impact this has. 

The reason why the Grutrissheit is lost, is not just the war. It’s the lack of any real information preservation. And this is artificially created by the Royals themselves. 

The Grutrissheit was passed by from heir to heir, but this also meant that very few people were capable of accessing the information. When war struck, those few people were killed, and the texts that remained were written in ancient languages. A language which all but few could read (Let’s put a pin on that*).

And now, we find out that Royals of the past (possibly) implemented a barrier so that no one BUT royalty could access the Grutrissheit. This makes it so that the best Zent candidate they have right now, cannot even touch it. 

In an attempt to shield themselves from others, potentially, stealing what they think their “rightful” position is - they’ve blocked access to information. And now that they’re been killed NO ONE HAS ACCESS TO IT. 

This is something that Rozemyne, as a librarian at heart, is desperately trying to avoid. Through her transcriptions and the rapid spread of the printing industry, she REFUSES to gatekeep information. She wants it to be accessible to anyone who wants, as long as she can get something of equal value (aka, other stories/books), and that's only to emphasize the VALUE books inherently have. 

This is all to say, that the politics of AoB are quite simple if looked through these perspectives, and framing Royalty as the flawed institution it is. 

It’s about how hierarchies of power are bad. The few, who have not proven their worth, have the power to deny information to a large population and deny themselves any responsibility for their actions. 

Ascedance of a Bookworm initially presents you with the idea of Nobility as something rational, just to later point out all the ways it which it’s failing. The only reason why many things are working or improving in Ehrenfest is because of Sylvester and his ability to properly integrate Rozemyne’s ideas. 

Ascedance of a Bookworm also states that this is not a fix that can be solved in a single action, in fact it cannot be fixed in single generation. Something that Rozemyne critiques of Sisgwals is his insistence that all problems ought to be solved quickly so they cannot cause harm in the future (again, amputating an arm to save the head). 

But this is proving to be a flawed response. This idea of cutting all crippled arms is what gives way the purges, and the mana crisis they’re having. 

Rozemyne, perhaps as a chronically ill child herself, does her best to avoid this. She recognizes that just because someone isn’t “up to standard”, doesn’t mean they cannot be rehabilitated and integrated back into society. She does this believing human life to be valuable regardless of what can it offer - but because of the world they live in she has hidden this behind the “so they can give back to society”. 

It’s way more productive to save someone than to kill them. This creates a bunch of problems, yes. But it’s worth it. Being a leader it’s not an easy job. 

It’s something even Ferdinand comments on. To be a Zent, you have to give up everything you love for your country. And that means EVERYTHING. Something that, if I’m being 100% honest, I don’t think Sisgwald understands. The mere idea of him waiting to be Zent simply because that’s what he’s been told all his life is tantamount to laughable. 

At this point, the best option is undoubtedly Eglantine. If he fails to understand this and clings to a throne he’s no longer the best suited for - it’s nothing but useless pride wrapped in a cocoon of delusion. 

There’s so much that needs to be learned and work to be put in. Rozemyne does not accept the role, not because she’s humble, but because she understands this. Leading takes hard work, it takes time, it takes effort. She does not want it, and why should she? She has been offered none of the privileges of royalty, yet she’s expected to perform their labour and duties.

Those who benefit from Royalty are basically dumping all their work on her lap. Well, granted, not all the work. But definitely a good chunk of theirs. For example, transcribing ancient languages to find their stupid bible, instead of asking the temple. 

(*PIN: And mind you, people can absolutely still learn ancient languages. But another huge fault of the royalty, as it is right now, is that there’s no one willing to put in the time and effort to preserve or revive their own goddamn culture).

Yeah, sure, maybe Rozemyne has a duty to rule, as she’s the most capable…But. She shouldn’t. Royalty, who’s been trained their whole lives to rule, or support rulers - should be more than well-equipped to solve their own problems. Hell, they have attracted top talen- No. They’ve stolen top talent from other duchies, they have all the resources they could want, and they have the ultimate say on absolutely everything. Tell me why they want to poach another talented person from their duchy? 

It’s not Rozemyne’s responsibility to solve the problems of royalty. In other words, it’s not our duty to solve politicians’ problems. It’s not our duty to solve the problem of first-world countries, it’s not our duty to solve other people’s problems. 

Ugh, I’m getting heated. 

This is all, mind you, after Rozemyne was told in her early years she wouldn’t be able to achieve anything because she’s just a commoner. Which, again, bullshit. She’s the prime example that there’s nothing that prevents a commoner from being on the level of an archduke, or hell, becoming a Zent, other than a social one. Truly, Yurgenschmidt’s nobility as made-up as our own. 

The introduction, or rather, the direct criticism of royalty in part 5, is the house of card toppling in all the themes touched barely in previous parts.

The issues with meritocracy, the absurd power inbalances, the outdated view of older generations that refuse to give way to a better future for the youth, as well as a hierarchy based on an entirely made-up concept. 

It quickly proved to be absolutely a political story. But I find it so impressive that it’s not something you would notice, or at least be explicitly made aware, until Part 5. 

Part 1 - 4 made sure to lay the ground of how this world works, then in Part 5 it decided to break the illusion that it is, in fact, working. 

PREV <;< MASTERLIST >> NEXT

[thehollowprince]

A good Screenrant article? Color me surprised.

"Most viewers assume Qui-Gon was right to believe Anakin needed to be trained - but surprisingly, George Lucas seems to think it was a mistake.

"George Lucas believed Qui-Gon was wrong to decide to train Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Many viewers see Qui-Gon Jinn as the perfect Jedi, the embodiment of everything the Order was supposed to represent. He is a rebel against the Council, alone and uncorrupted, a champion of the underdog who recognizes Anakin Skywalker's potential. The reality, of course, is that Qui-Gon is a lot more nuanced; he's as flawed as any other Jedi, and in fact, George Lucas considered him even more flawed.

"Lucas expressed his own view in an interview with Cut Magazine in 1999 (via David Talks SW). In his view, Qui-Gon shares the same faults as Anakin; he is spontaneous and reckless, with Obi-Wan Kenobi providing him a sense of balance. What's more, Lucas surprisingly suggested Qui-Gon made a mistake in insisting the Jedi should train Anakin.

"I think it is obvious that he [Qui-Gon] was wrong in Episode I and made a dangerous decision, but ultimately, this decision may be correct. The 'phantom menace' refers to the force of the dark side of the universe. Anakin will be taken over by dark forces, which in turn destroy the balance of the Galaxy, but the individual who kills the Emperor is Darth Vader - also Anakin."

"It is certainly ironic that Lucas believes it "obvious" Qui-Gon shouldn't have trained Anakin. The modern consensus is that Qui-Gon was the one Jedi who could have saved Anakin, the only one who truly understood the prophecy of the Chosen One.

"The general view is that the Jedi Council was wrong to initially reject Anakin. Lucas takes a different view, though, suggesting Anakin's training was, in fact, the mistake that doomed the order. It's fascinating to imagine how the Star Wars saga would have played out if Anakin didn't join the Jedi; the most likely scenario is that he'd have been taken in by the people of Naboo as a hero, and no doubt he and Padmé would have gotten together anyway. Padmé wouldn't have held Anakin back when he began dreaming of his mother's death, so this Anakin would never have built up the fear of loss to the cataclysmic degree seen in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. Amazingly, this is probably the happiest path Anakin could have taken - and he was denied it because of Qui-Gon Jinn's choice.

Personal Note: I don't like the insinuation that the Jedi "held Anakin back" from pursuing his visions to save his mother because by his own admissions, they were just dreams. By the time he himself finally decided to do something about it, it was too late. But aside from that, I agree with everything else.

"It's significant that the will of the Force had Anakin brought up on Tatooine, a world outside the Republic, where he wouldn't be found by the Jedi. In his impetuousness, Qui-Gon insisted the Chosen One should be trained by the Jedi - but there's nothing to indicate the prophecy of the Chosen One suggested any such thing. Unsurprisingly, Lucas' perspective on the Star Wars saga is entirely convincing, even if it does run against the general view. Things worked out in the end, of course, but only after a whole lot of chaos on a galactic scale."

[qweerhet]

To your latest post: https://www.tumblr.com/aronarchy/723133162841047040/

mmm... i can understand why twitter user butchanarchy's rhetoric sounds good to people who posit "survivor" as a coherent category that is in direct opposition to the ontological category of "abuser," and i can definitely understand why some people see "reclaiming power" as a positive (in that their frameworks see "power", as in "the ability to control others via negative consequences," as a thing that must continue to exist, and we should support existing), but i've had a long and storied history of disavowing butchanarchy's critiques in the general anarchist online sphere precisely for these reasons--that is not the lens i am coming from, and i disagree fundamentally with multiple of their premises.

i do not agree that the power to control other people via threat of violence is good, nor that it should be utilized in community contexts. social contexts that arise out of necessity during class struggle are, imho, inherently flawed and dysfunctional in the context of forming strong community on equal footing. treating community members as if they were militant arms of the state (provided they are not, in fact, literally acting as militant arms of the state i.e. police officers, prison guards) is fundamentally flawed as a mode of operation.

i also do not agree that victims of harm are necessarily experts on how to stop that harm from happening by virtue of being traumatized; again, i'm speaking as someone who decided almost a decade ago, due to my own trauma, that the best community response was to attempt to run the person who date raped me out of town, and now regret that because it caused more harm and did not stop future harm from occurring. positioning "survivor" as an ontological category of expert on harm reduction necessitates believing that victims of harm not only always and invariably have a robust emotional toolkit with which to operate and to make decisions for other people who are not themselves, but also never have any material reason to perpetuate further harm and abuse, and that's... simply not true. it gained me a significant amount of social clout to run an impoverished 18-year-old transfem out of every community space and isolate her with her abusive father--i operated for a handful of years on the social clout i gained from that! i got popular in the local communist scene because of that!

i don't think that any one person should direct any community response to interpersonal harm, tbh, and harm reduction/prevention requires a large support network of dozens of people working in parallel. it also requires robust social welfare networks that inherently predispose someone's ability to get their crew to run someone out of town or kill them; unconditional housing, food, utilities, medical care, and home aid (i.e. cooking and cleaning) cannot coexist with the ability for these things to be removed based on someone's individual desire, regardless of if that desire is morally justified or not (and i don't agree with frameworks that apply a universal system of morality to begin with, but that's a digression).

i think it's rather shortsighted and myopic to overlook basic principles of community care in order to justify furthering pre-existing systems of violence in non-state contexts, and i also think it's pretty myopic to not integrate the inherent power structures of targeted violence into your analysis + your harm reduction praxis... like. it's literally already the case that a white woman can point at a black guy she has literally never met before, say "that guy raped me," and get all her white friends to jump him at a bar. it is literally already the case that she can utilize her social networks to get him run out of town. it's not particularly revolutionary to be like, actually, we should make that more possible and do more of it.