#this doesn’t invalidate other valid criticism of characters

[fuckalicent]

one thing i hate ab the hotd fandom is that back in my day u could just like joffrey and not get crucified for it because we had the brain capacity to understand that yes he is a terrible terrible person and a literal tyrant but he’s still a fucking compelling character. w hotd everyone is desperate for some moral high ground and it’s soooo annoying. let us like our fucked up characters in peace nobody here is perfect, that’s literally the point of the dance. they all commit atrocities and comparing them like this just to shame each other and prove one side is better than the other is such a waste of time.

[tamelee]

Hi… what do you think about people hating on naruto and saying that sasuke deserves better than naruto and that he doesn't love sasuke as deeply as sasuke does. And the way he talks in ch 698 like he doesn't want to come out. And he marries the first girl who chases after him to hide his sexuality like a closet gay behavior and live up to society's expectations (following according to his mother's word). Sasuke looked soo sad in Gaiden because Naruto had rejected his love for him. Some SNS shippers say that's why they hate Naruto.

I highly doubt you’re talking about SNS shippers/fans though. I have a feeling I know exactly what kind of stans these are because they’ll take every opportunity to hate on Naruto (and other characters as well). And if such people do claim they are then I’m pretty sure that the ‘🍥’ joining the ‘🍅’ is just in the bio for show. As if to say, ‘I ship SNS, therefore my unsolicited and biased criticism against Naruto is extra valid :)’ when it’s really not, (and vice versa) but I‘ll spare you the rant.

Using secondary source material (anything ’Boruto’) in order to invalidate main source material (’Naruto’ Manga) to then try and rationalize secondary source material-outcomes (the sequel) with assumptions to fill the gap in between these two (blank period) when it’s completely void of all previous logic in the first place, makes a well grounded argument in what way exactly?

In other words; why the hell would you look at the sequel and willing let that change your perspective as if it holds any merit to what we’ve already come to learn?

There is nothing wrong with a good hypothesizing session. I know from experience it can be somewhat soothing to rationalize a way towards something unwanted. In this case, it’s the sequel. ‘Gaiden’ is interesting for its own reasons. It’s sort of like, trying to come up with an explanation that makes an outcome seem a little less… bad. Which becomes easier because Naruto and Sasuke’s misery is fully on display. In the case of these haters though, they make it worse and just blame a character for a company’s money-grabbing decision. To let that be the deciding factor for them that fuels these unhinged claims about him being a bootlicker that acts through hatred or whatever strange mumbo-jumbo they also come up with. But anytime someone tries to make an argument about ‘Naruto’ and uses “because in ‘Boruto’…” you can already cast it aside as invalid.

Connecting two unrelated idea’s doesn’t say nor prove anything. You can’t even disprove it either because the argument doesn’t make any sense.

So it’s also ironic to hate on Naruto using Ch. 698 as an excuse to say he ‘doesn’t love Sasuke as deeply as Sasuke does’, when it’s primarily Naruto trying to explain how deeply he loves Sasuke as best as he can lol. I’m not sure if I’m impressed by the creativity or just dumbfounded that someone can read Ch. 698 and then come to such an irrelevant conclusion as if it has anything to do with ‘coming out’. It’s like having a conversation with someone about a very specific type of bird when another person barges in to ask why they’re discussing how to create your own carrousel. And besides, Naruto may exaggerate his denial profusely when someone brings it up (which is by itself very telling), but he never was good at hiding how he felt about Sasuke or how far he’d go (literally the entire story), even threatening war on behalf of Sasuke, dragging Konoha in it, indicating revenge for Sasuke if he’s harmed when really it was just a matter of his own personal feelings. As… obviously Konoha couldn’t care less and in fact would most likely side against Naruto anyway. He’s already boldly shared his intimate thoughts with the entire world during the war though, didn’t he. He literally connected his Chakra with everyone and spilled his brainrot about him freely.

You can create your very own narrative towards the outcome that is ‘Boruto’ and make it as crazy as you want, but it will still be based on assumptions. In fact, go ahead and write that story if you must, they tried and failed with Hinata’s movie for a reason. I'm sure an SNS-fan can do a better job, in fact, they have.

The idea that Naruto would probably struggle to accept how he feels and what it means, could very well be true. It would definitely be conflicting with the role he is expected to play as Hokage and it’s also something I’m exploring in the story I’m writing. But, so would it be possible that Sasuke will struggle, because we haven’t forgotten that love caused him to experience the most horrible pain through betrayal, yes? Naruto does care about how he’s perceived and he is a people-pleaser that was on a journey to realize that there is a difference between the conditions he must meet in order to soothe his sense of feeling unworthy of love and the unconditional love Sasuke proved to hold for him, regardless of anything else. “Because I feel relieved just looking at you as it reminds me of the love I’ve lost”.

Acknowledging is one thing, accepting is a whole other and then taking the action-steps to pursue it freely would imo require another story which would’ve been a fitting follow-up after Ch. 699 if that was even possible in the first place for Kishimoto to do. But it’s not.

Stop for one second and think about the amount of value you put onto the money-grabbing shit-stain on the franchise that is ‘Boruto’ and whether you want that bullshit, no matter the label, to invalidate everything you’ve loved about it in the first place. Rationalizing something when the bridge toward it is missing completely and where the outcome isn’t followed by logic is just people inventing an explanation to justify their own unhappiness with something. Aka; their hatred for Naruto.

[shotofstress]

Response to an aggressive post.

User @toaster-trash made a post basically to mock and attack me with fallacies bc I disagree with them, so I'll make this post to reply since replying to their own post would be giving them reblogs and promoting their toxic behavior that is fulled by their followers.

You open the post by saying that you had a bad week and that you are pity. Sorry you feel that way or someone make u feel that way and that ur week was bad, but this is not relevant to the argument, is just a falacy of emotion. I disagree with you and u made a tantrum. You first of all don't know what is text and what is disidentification, also called misrecogition. which is enough to call out your post as having zero relevance. But given you are just a misguided person i will continue.

You said "we’ve got to decipher because English apparently isn’t this person’s forte for someone who is, apparently, such an avid reader and esteemed critic of English literature". So you mocking my english, doing ad hominem fallacy, that's sad. Then you keep the shitty tone saying that, according to you i am an "avid reader and esteemed critic of English literature". So you are literally need to mock bc i disagree with you, and u have to put me in a fake altar that i didn't put my self, u are trying to look pity. U tried to attack me by impliying that i feel myself some sort of academic or authority figure bc is more easy to use the apeal to pity. All this is ad hominem fallacy (an attempt to invalidate an opponent’s position based on a personal trait or fact about the opponent rather than through logic), a straw men fallacy, and appeal to pity fallacy . You are not a fighter for saying u embrace ur petiness, at countrary, is like when dude bros are reactionary.

"Wonder what kind of backup they’ll have for that argument." The whole book. We literally have the whole book. When u tell basically that nothing matter bc we are on tumblr, and that"Who actually gives a flying fuck? I don’t.", but then rant in a angry post.

The whole paragraph of "autistics have always existed and ppl can see themselves in old texts" is trying to fight an imaginary comment that i didn't make bc I didin't said that we can't see ourselves in the texts, I said that Victor is not autistic. You read in a wrong way my comment and create from the thin air that I think (which i don't) that we can't see things that reminded us of our experiences. One thing is text, and other is desidentification.

"Just because in the 18th century people didn’t necessarily have the language for things doesn’t mean they didn’t exist". I didn't say that we didn't exist, so u are lying, and saying fallacies.

"do we have to revert back to speaking in early 19th century English every time we want to refer to a character who was written back then as neurodivergent or lgbt or anything else??" Fallacy again. I didn't say we need to speak in 19th century English when talikng about texts from that period. You are going off topic, going on a tangent of your own making to attack. You constantly deviate from the argument you intend to make because you know deep down that you are wrong. We've always been around, no one is saying the countrary. I find your attacks disrespectful.

"I can’t even be bothered to explain and to be honest every single other person I’ve said “Frankenstein is autistic to” has immediately responded “oh yeah, obviously” U can't bothered yet u make a post in which u bothered, and really lack of evidence. U are doing desidentification, nothing else, which is not bad, is valid, but is wrong and shitty when u need to make reactionary posts bc I disagree with you and u keep telling Victor is autistic and gay even when what u mean is desidentification and giving no actual text evidence, you are just giving opinions. I don't think Mary would had made Victor gay and as a blatant representation of Percy if he were gay (or queer) bc at the time that would have been like putting a bulleye in Percy's back and I don't think she wanted him hanged.

You keep saying that "what’s the harm in reading him that way?", but really keep writing in the whole post that is not a opinion, but text. I repeat, you need to understand the diference. You can feel that a characters speaks to you, but that doesn't make the character be autistic or gay nor both. You want to see yourself? support and read books about bisexual people wrote by bisexual writers.

"Also, they’re cousins/adopted siblings. If you don’t think that’s fucked up, even by the standards of the time, I’m not really sure what to say to you." Was that someting discused in your post? no, it wasn't, and that it was something that happened back then dosen't make it ok or make me agree with it. "If you don't think", well, we never discused it, it never appeared in the original post so u don't asked nor i speak about it or my opinion about it. I find it fucked up. Not part of the argument still, u just implying with no evidence that maybe im ok with it. More fallacies on your part and deviations from the argument.

You bring up The Vampyre, written by Polidori. It's not on topic, is not even part of the books that the Creature reads. The Vampyre was one of the texts that took place during the famous stay at Byron's mansion, where he, Polidori, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, and Percy Shelly went. The Vampyre is based on the nasty Byron who treated Polidori (and a lot of other ppl) badly. Everyone in the group considered Byron to a greater or lesser extent as an unpleasant, petulant, egotistical man and that he believed that he could do whatever he wanted just by having money, being a man and being famous. You know who else was like pretty much like that? Percy Shelly and too many other writers of that time, and anything of this makes Victor gay, it just shows that Polidori and Shelly could draft bad men indifferent to women and others for disinterest, lack of empathy, and patriarchal behavior. Even if Percy was gay (I say gay in place of queer bc is what u say, he could had been pan for all matters), that doesn't make Victor gay. If Mary would wanted to make an statement on bad gay men in Frankenstein she would had make Clerval a copy of Byron or being pretty explicit about it.

"For one thing, just the fact that he’s so particular about creating “the perfect man” is subject to a lot of queer readings in itself". Head canons, personal readings, valid ways, but not text. Victor don't care about his girlfriend and future wife bc he cares only about himself and his fantasies of power and be superior to others and god. You can say that u feel some queer element, but not that Victor is gay. Victor is deeply mysoginistic and patriarcal, he wants to create the perfect man bc he don't think women are any ideal being, is infered that he finds them inferior, and that only the man can be perfect. For him, then, only a man can create perfection bc is not a women. Only a man, that is seen as logic, no controled by his emotions like women, and all that mysoginistic shit, can make the perfect human which is, of course, a man. Shelly show us that society by killing a mother, a bride, a maid, a little girl. In patriarcal society the norm is being homo afective, all must love men, specially men bc they see themselves as perfect and better than everyone else. That a society encourages that men see the world througth patriarcal lents don't make all men gay. Clerval makes us see how bad Victor was by contrast and how his behavior led Clerval and all the other characters to die. Mary W. S. portrait (we could say in some degree) her feelings about Percy and their situation in Elizabeth Lavenza and her interactions with Victor and other characters. Clerval can be seen not as the love interest of Victor, but as the type of friend that Mary would liked that Percy had bc non of his friends cared about her really nor cared well for him. Let's remember that Byron was ok with Percy leaving Mary, who recently loss a child and was deeply depresed and in bad health in general, going on a boat even when he didn't knew how to swimm and ended with Percy dead. Victor, as Percy, prefered men over women bc mysoginia, not bc he was gay. We really need to stop this idea and reading, this troop of gay men been bad like if it was bc they are gay and not bc they are men in a patriarcal society.

U are just driven by ur opinions and who you want to be gay, and not about the text. You are just reaaaally angry and frustrated, and even go to my archives to seek for a Frankestein quote bc to this point you can't really make a solid argument. You just keep off topic and even bring other arguments that no one is making bc you know that you are wrong. We need to deal with the fact that not everything has queer text or subtext. Life and literature is not a shitty tv show that makes queer baiting for u to love, sometimes characters will not represent you. Is hard to accept, but is true, and that's why there are tons of queer novels and libraries that just sell that books. We can't keep to see ourselves in media created by people that is not from our communities and that lived centuries ago. We need that gay men write about gay men, trans ppl about trans ppl, bisexual ppl about bisexual ppl, etc.

"“Victor is sexist for cutting women out of the creation process” takes – Christ that’s just gross. And feels mildly if not explicitly homophobic" No one is talking about that, why you try to talk about being homphobic from a quote that, apparently, i guess, point to the misogynistic aspect of Victor? from who is that quote? bc is not mine, i didn't put it in your post, so I don't know why are u using it. You set a quote for a discussion that is irrelevant that I did not say in your post, but that you want to make believe that I said or that I agree or that it is about the topic we are talking about, that victor is not being gay or autistic. Don't make sense. Why is homophobic that quote that u take from who knows where, huh? doesn't make sense unless you want to say that gay men can have kids, and that other ppl besides cis women can have kids which is true, but we are not talking about gay people having kids, nor trans ppl having kids, nor enby ppl having kids.

I think is important to add that Victor was a cruel father to the Creature and Mary Shelly knew too many bad fathers, like her own father (her mother died), she felt abandoned. Percy abandoned all his children as well basically constantly abandoned Mary. Victor don't make a human, a man, bc gay feelings, he did so bc he was a bad men full hybris, misogynia, patriarchy. Victor created a child and then abandoned them as all men in Mary's life did with their own. In the novel women are just a few, but are the ones that cared about children, wellbeing, and life in general, but then they die. Victor cared more about men (father, professor, friend) than about women.

Is worth noticing that Mary believd in free love and was also queer as many of her friends so why would she portrait Victor as an evil gay men? doesn't make sense that she make him a gay that created life bc wants a gay couple or whatever if we try to follow the claim of the tumblr user. She would make the Creature for what? if he already had Clerval, his very best friend? if Victor loved Clerval, then how is the Creature a gay thing? like Toaster could have made other points, but didn't bc their claim is just an opinion without arguments. The Creature didn't have a mother only a father that rejected them but also molded them with the books that were from Victor. Mary didn't have a mother, and was formed by her father and their books, but was rejected by her father. We can say that Mary was the Creature, as we know that the 3 books mentioned that the Creature read were read also by Mary; Lost Paradise (about the pain of Lucifer being rejected by his father god and that the Creature also see themselves in Adam being rejected by god too), Wherter (about an unrequited love between a boy and a girl that end in the young men killin himself), and Lifes (Plutarch wrote bios comparing lives of famous Greeks with those of famous Romans from were the Creature learned about ethics, wrong and virtue). See how the Creature is not a methaphor or reference to gay love?

You constantly and in all the post tried to shift focus by introducing an irrelevant point, mislead, make false dilemas, appeal to ignorance, say or imply inaccurate things and do hasty generalizations for the lack of evidence and that the whole novel don't support your opinions. Your really fell in all the fallacies, including the circular one bc ur whole post is basically "Victor is autistic and gay bc I think victor is autistic and gay". You even did the pity fallacy at the begining. You tried to cherry-picking info, but that didn't even work bc didn't make sense with the real discusion, just with the ones u put to distract, and not even for that worked.

You are just unable to have a real argument, you don't want to admit that you are just complaining bc you didn't liked i disagree with you and can't deal with your feelings and a bad week nor you know how to channel that anger, frustration, and tiredness in a way that is not being a little troll of internet basically. You have nothing. But you can learn to do something about your angry issues and your reactionary behaviour, talk to someone about it, you gonna feel better than having a little validation of reblogs that will not hug you when u feel bad, nor make u a happy person, nor growing up to be a person that is fine with their life. Ur angry mutuals that only validate ur attacks or anger don't want you to be happy or fine, just that yall keep feeling miserable. Being a reactionary troll is just gonna make u feel more alone and angry with yourself and everyone, not making people be part of your life in a good positive way that makes you feel loved.

Edit: i added two paragraphs.

[soft-persephone]

Not so Serious Conversation Starter

I just watched an amazing video essay (I highly recommend it)!

AN: a lot do this won’t make sense if you don’t watch the video, but it’s still ok to read it if you don’t. The video is a lil long😭) but it’s so worth it

It made me realize that even though I am shy and introverted, the fanfiction I read in my youth was mostly all white and not inclusive, and that has an additional effect on how I write my shy/introverted black women characters and reader inserts.

A lot of it is actually a part of white women centering themselves and whiteness as the main part of the story/media/fandom, and I had no idea!

I am not upset, more so than morbidly curious.

Excited even! Because who knew that could be a thing!?!?! This doesn’t make everything I’ve written invalid or tarnish what I’ve created, but I will be doing things more mindfully going forward.

I wanna change that, or rather point out how the way I write “shy” and points out why now I’m the forwent that there are more people of color sharing and writing their stores, it feels so different even if we are doing the same thing. I kinda wanna use this as an opportunity to start that conversation.

I think it’s important to engage with these kinds of things even if it’s hard to hear. If we want to continue to make fandom spaces more inclusive, it’s a must!

A lot of the video is using Reylo as an example, so please don’t make that a whole thing with me if you don’t like it.

Please, give it a chance!

It’s not just blantant hate, it’s thought out well constructed criticism and she’s not saying it’s “wrong”, just pointing out another perspective I am sure not everyone is aware of, but I think it can be taken a step further.

The infantilization, the “virgin”, the shy girl…. while those are valid experiences, hell even My experience in some cases, I think a lot of it is more ingrained in us than we think, not just because it’s “relatable/validating”, but because we have all grown up on heavily white female centered OC’s, or e dishing characters used as a self insert for the white experience.

Reading that over and over and over again, had more of an effect than we think!

This doesn’t apply to everyone at all, but if there is a small chance that this may be possible for others, I just wanted to share! To start a conversation. (Take a shot every time I say “start a conversation”🥴)

This YouTube video just kickstarted this thought process and I am in desperate need to talk about it.

While this is just one case, I would also like to add, I think they shy or inexperienced thing is different from writers or color and queer writers as well.

It comes from a different place within us because we aren’t upholding whiteness or the “stereotypical” experience regurgitated to us for so many years, but from a place of not seeing out experiences. We are combatting all the stereotypes laid against us against our will, so it always reads a little different. It will automatically feel different.

However, I know when I was a young writer just starting out, a lot of the times we are just doing what we think “works”. What other people are doing.

But that is slowly changing for the newer generation of writers, because fandom is still major Italy white, but there are increasingly small corners for queer, make, and writers across so many cultures and ethnicities that didn’t exist back in 2014/16.

[meowzahzzz]

since according to the q&a, dhmis has no real meaning or conspiracy/theory attached to it, here is my interpretation of the webseries since day 1 bc i feel so validated

dhmis has always felt like a critique of children’s media. it’s inspirations very clearly take after kids shows, typically those at very young children who need to learn concepts like time and creativity.

i would also say it’s a critique of the values we teach our children. in the first episode of the youtube series, the characters are taught about creativity and how it’s about expressing yourself. one would assume, correctly, that creativity and one’s expression is never “wrong”. but when yellow guy says he likes green, or something to that degree, the sketchbook (our teacher) says that green isn’t creative. there’s no rhyme or reason to it; it’s not creative just because they said so. they strip away that part of yellow guy’s creativity for no real reason, they invalidate the entire point of their lesson then and there.

it says something about what we teach to our children when we don’t uphold the values we’re giving them.

the same goes for the love episode. yellow guy is taught that love exists but there are rules and strictures, and everything has to be a certain way. only a man and a woman can be in love, you can only love if you have this or that. love, itself, is abstract and nuanced, but is portrayed strictly for the sake of a very obvious cishet agenda that much of the media uses to silence and hide the existence of gay people. this is something we see a lot of media in general, not just kid’s media, but there’s always been this hesitance to even imply gay people exist to children---some find it better to water down love and simplify it to the extreme than to acknowledge the vastness of the concept at all. that’s just what i feel this episode in particular is criticizing/acknowledging, and how toxic something like that can very easily become over time.

and again, we have the food/healthy eating episode. what the teachers say is healthy versus what isn’t is extremely inconsistent. we can, of course, see a correlation with this and a lot of research done with food and its health benefits and drawbacks. in the U.S. at least, many companies have villainized fat and made it the cause of being fat. however, actual research shows that it’s sugar, not fat. yet we’re constantly bombarded with so much information at once, that what we know about food and health is very inconsistent. and i could say the same about the needed calories one takes a day, how it’s hardly a bare minimum and much of the research done is extremely biased. and when that’s in the adult world, it leaks into the world of children as well. when adults are our teachers, we rely on them to teach us correctly. we’re told to eat this and not that, but suddenly it’s the other way around. we’re taught some food is even bad, that maybe even eating it makes you bad. if there’s ever been a question as to why so many kids are vulnerable to eating disorders, it’s the lack of consistency in food information, the way we teach kids about food, and our bias against anything that isn’t the beauty standard norm.

there’s also the family episode, the work episode, etc, etc. but i think you get my point by now. it’s a critique of not just what we teach children, but how we teach children. we are their teachers, and so much of what we teach them will impact them majorly. we cannot afford to teach them poorly, yet in so many cases, we do just that to reach our specific goals. whether it’s for money or for religion (cough cough christianity and its other siblings) or whatever else, children are just another means to an end. and when they’re just a means to an end, what we do to them doesn’t matter.

and when they don’t matter, we aren’t teaching them as much as we are enforcing a response.

sketchbook didn’t make the three characters more creative, did they? they simply did what sketchbook considered to be creative, or at the very least, what they thought being creative was. they didn’t learn anything about actual self-expression or what creativity means to them. yellow guy wasn’t actually taught about love, how to love others and himself, he was taught to sit and shut up and follow the “rules” of love, even when he didn’t like it. and again, yellow didn’t learn anything about nutrition in the food episode. he was told to eat whatever they gave him, and because they’re the teachers, the ones with power in this dynamic, he did it.

and when you fall out of line, and you don’t do exactly what you’re told (ie. red guy, duck guy), you’re punished. you’re isolated, you’re left out, whatever it is... that’s meant to teach you that when you’re not sitting down and taking whatever you’re given---you’re a bad student. you’re not learning at all. you’re dysfunctional.

all in all, i have always believed that dhmis, the webseries was a critique at children’s media, as well as the values we teach them and our hypocrisy regarding these values. we can directly see that these lessons are distressing to its students, and the teachers don’t care so long as they don’t fall out of line. the goal, it seems, is obedience: do it because i said so, not because of what it means. this is why red guy is gone and why when duck guy tries to fight back, he’s ultimately discarded. and of course it’s distressing, but the students were never the focus, so why should they (the teachers) even care? the goal is obedience. no matter the lesson, no matter how traumatizing it is, no matter how much is destroys us and each other.

[cinna-wanroll]

On Homophobia Surrounding Queer Obi-Wan

Queer people get asked to settle or let things go so often that it baffles me. As a genderqueer, bisexual, and gray romantic person, my experiences get invalidated or criticized daily. It is exhausting. I feel that queer people are often pushed into scenarios where they have to prove who they are, but not too much, lest you cause discomfort to some cishet people who may be sensitive to "that sort of thing." Queer characters and expressions are, unfortunately, no different. 

What's my point? My point is that I should not be up at 3 am, my stomach turning, because of something I knew was bound to happen. As soon as I read that Obi-Wan's identity was going to be elaborated upon in Padawan, I expected the incessant whinings. I expected the shocked, ridiculously wounded alpha-male routine. And yet, as @sunflowersinheaven 's post: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/view/sunflowersinheaven/691110776621219840?source=share crossed my dashboard, I began to spiral. At first, sure, it was vaguely amusing. Then, it became sickening.

Still, I have a few things I would like to address:

This is not new. Obi-Wan was referenced as bisexual in the Revenge of the Sith novelization. Those claiming that this is to fulfill Disney’s queer agenda need to admit to the fact they didn’t know everything prior to this now, and if they have such a problem with it, then why not call out Lucasfilm too? They aren’t trying to preserve representation that is marginally accurate, they’re being a bigoted assholes. 

People saying this "doesn't prove Obi-Wan is queer" are fooling themselves. No, it's not pushing lgbtq+ identity(s) onto him just because he's around queer people. Obi-Wan uses gender-neutral language when expressing attraction, and he even addresses the fact that he generally finds the group of people he's with attractive. Obi-Wan says that he may want to kiss ALL of the people he's surrounded by, except for a character who uses she/her pronouns. Hmm. That does not sound super heterosexual to me. As a side note, for those who read this more in an a-spec interpretation, I am approaching this from an opinion that Obi-Wan experiences sexual attraction. I read this as Obi-Wan being confident that he finds people attractive but unsure whether he wants to act on that attraction. Therefore, somewhere in that bi umbrella is where I see his identity. At Obi-Wan's age (now, obviously, everyone's experiences with attraction are different and equally valid), I was sure I liked many genders. Now, what I wasn't so sure of was my romantic or sexual attraction toward them. Writing a character uncertain about their identity does not invalidate their current feelings. Sexuality and attraction (romantic and non) are fluid. And Obi-Wan being young is not an excuse to use homophobic/invalidating rhetoric to try to flip around on queer Obi-Wan supporters. 

People who blame the author for "ruining Obi-Wan's character," need to do some serious self-reflection. Why does a character being queer ruin their character for you? That is astoundingly ridiculous to me, especially coming from a group of people who so often express the opinion, "Oh, well 'gay people' always make their sexuality their entire personality," and various other bullshit. Really? And yet, you can't seem to overlook a character's sexuality, which ruins everything they are to you. Some of these people are the same ones who were creaming themselves over the Kenobi show, TCW, etc. Which, I mean, hey! Kenobi has been my favorite man since I was five. I get it! And yet, I'm still a fan, unlike the manchildren wailing about the fact that Obi-Wan likes men. Sad. Now, if they're claiming that Obi-Wan being anxious and emotional in the book ruined his character... leave your fragile masculinity at the door and remember what it was like to be a teenager for fucking once. I only say "teenager" in this circumstance not because I feel adults can't feel this way (I am an emotional, anxious WRECK y’all), but because these are not traits Obi-Wan keeps into adulthood. 

People who say this is either trying to invalidate his relationship with Satine or can't be true because of his relationship with Satine need to shut up. If you know my blog, you know I am a day one Obitine stan. What I refuse to engage in is bigotry based on my personal ship preference. (Although I am a multishipper). Select members of the Obitine fandom; do better.

To the people complaining: Please stop. I am tired, and people on the internet need to work on their goddamn (not so critical) thinking skills. If you don't want to accept part of a character, examine why. Your prejudice and weak claims that this is only to feed the "woke agenda" are rooted in misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia, and I hope I never have to meet any of these people in real life. 

[tiger-moran]

You know something else I am still so tired of is people basically trying to erase/deny/invalidate/talk over any aroace people who still have/want romantic/sexual relationships. 

This acting like we don’t exist at all. 

Or acting like we do exist but that people like that are SO rare you can just ridicule and shit on them (us) without that mattering. 

Or trying to assert that any aroace who wants a romantic/sexual relationship must not be a “””real”””” aroace, they’re mostly or all actually grey/demi romantic/sexual, and trying to foist these labels on to other people despite these labels not actually fitting many of those people (and seriously, how many times have we got to go through the concept that actions or relationship status are not orientation? That idea is not just an aphobic concept it’s also a hugely biphobic one and very often a homophobic one too but it’s still being perpetuated). 

Or outright mocking the idea of aroaces ever having a ‘relationship’ of that kind. It doesn’t even matter that often this is in response to people who are not ace and not aro taking a character who is either canonically aroace or that a lot of people perceive to be aroace and shipping them and justifying this by stating that some aroace people still have romantic/sexual relationships (which is, however much some people may not like that, a completely true statement!). It still hurts many real actual aroace people to ridicule that idea (meanwhile the allo people they were trying to criticise probably don’t give a shit about their criticism; they are not the ones hurt by it). This whole damned sarcastic ‘sOmE aRoAcE pEoPlE sTiLl HaVe SeX’ shit in response to someone stating that some aroace people do still have sex/romantic relationships is still mocking the idea or denying that that ever happens, or treating it like it’s so rare (which by the way I don’t even believe for a moment it actually is) it doesn’t matter if you hurt those people. 

And this trying to assert that only aspec people who are actually grey/demi can have or desire sexual/romantic relationships is still talking over those real actual aroace people who are neither grey or demi and still have/want that. And did you know you can criticise allo people doing something shitty with the very limited aroace representation we have without mocking and demeaning and hurting the real aroace people who do exactly what those allo people are pointing out that some aroace people do! Or without making it sound as if aroace people themselves writing this kind of thing are terrible people. And this is bad enough when it is coming from people who aren’t asexual or aromantic but much of this is coming from within the aroace ‘community’, so is it any wonder people like me have never felt a part of that community or any connection with it (or the broader asexual and aromantic ‘communities’ either)? That we’re left feeling invalidated and ridiculed by and excluded and isolated from what is meant to be our community or communities too?

(And this happened over and over and over again already with that whole oriented aroace mess, people erasing aroaces who are ‘just’ aroace who still have or want romantic/sexual relationships or who experience any other kind of attraction; denying us a useful microlabel of our own; trying to foist the grey/demi terms onto any/every aroace who experiences any other kind of attraction or has/wants a sexual/romantic relationship. Grey and demi sexual/romantic people are great and completely valid too but just because those people exist doesn’t mean every or almost every aroace who has or wants sex/romance isn’t actually what they say they are and is really grey/demi. And aroace people who don’t ever want any kind of romantic/sexual relationship are great and valid also and I am sorry, I am, that often people are so awful about that kind of aroace person, but their experiences and attitudes aren’t the only ‘valid’ ones and just because sometimes people can be really shitty about the idea of some people never wanting any of that kind of intimacy or relationship, that doesn’t mean they’re not hurting other aroace people with some of the things they themselves come out with or that they’re not contributing to overall aphobic ideas which do hurt other subsets of aroace people and I think also by the way this often does tie in with the other issue that older aspec people are regularly being ignored and erased and invalidated and god I just really am so so fucking tired of going through all of this shit over and over again.)

[helicarrier]

Feb 16, 2023: I’m no longer using this blog. Contact me privately @angerissue for my AO3 or discord if you want to keep in touch.

Please call me Jazz! 28, NB, she/her, Canadian.

Psychonaut, oneironaut, spoonie, lover of houseplants, visual effects artist in the film and television industry, once an essential worker, and newbie advocate for walkable cities. My official MBTI test result is INTJ. Mark Ruffalo reblogged my post and I'm still not over it.

I post original gifsets, and commentaries on subjects like critical thinking and the recent proliferation of online censorship culture. I also post occasional salt about the MCU. I lost interest after Phase One because of the creative decisions, among other reasons. I strongly dislike how Disney treats IPs.

See my tag list here!

I don't owe you a list of my traumas, disabilities, orientations, or other attributes to prove my validity, and neither do you.

I don't judge people based on their ethnicity, orientation, and other inherent traits. This includes majorities. I'm the furthest thing away from cishet, but seeing death threats and mean-spirited jokes about them makes my brain curl.

I don't care what conditions or illnesses you have. If you're a good person who doesn't hurt, coerce, or invalidate others, and you don’t spread hateful rhetric around, you're welcome here.

Write what you want. I won’t hurt real people to protect fictional characters, and as a trauma survivor, I certainly don’t want purity police speaking for me like I’m too weak and helpless to carve out my own space myself. I’m on the internet and I understand I’ll see stuff I don’t like. So you do you.

I'm a very kind person, but I block liberally for childish behaviour. People who can’t be respectful, who advocate for censorship, who dehumanize others, and/or who threaten violence will be blocked.

I block people with absurdly long, performative, or vague “standard criteria” DNIs. I don’t know what your “etc” means either.

I don’t vibe with flanderized Bruce Banner content, including Ragnarok, Infinity War, and Endgame stuff, or stuff that makes him out to be a “dumbass”. I usually block for that too, because I don’t want to keep running into it. No harm done, it’s just not my cup of tea.

Totally open to conversation. Message me if you want to chat!

Also find me @angerissue, my collaborative writing blog for an independent retelling of Bruce Banner. I’ve written him for over 11 years.

[verifyandmailaddress]

Autocomplete Verify Validate and Standardize Addresses

In order to ensure accurate address data, businesses need a solution that is capable of verifying, standardizing, and cleaning up the format for each and every address field on their website. Whether they are collecting customer information during sign up, checkout, or an online form, or sending their products to customers at the click of a button, accurate address data is critical for conversions and delivery reliability.

The best address verification software should be user-friendly and easily integrated with the Content Management System (CMS) or Shipping Delivery systems a company uses to deliver products to their customers. In addition, it should be fast enough to support the volume of traffic a business receives.

Ideally, the address verification software should also return results in the correct language, character scripts, and formats. It should be able to handle both English and non-English addresses, and provide both upper and lowercase text for each result. It should also be able to support both numerical and alphabetical character sets. Finally, the best address verification tools should be compatible with all major browsers and mobile devices.

Some companies need a full address validation and verification solution, while others simply need an API to clean up existing address data. For example, Google’s autocomplete API can help reduce the number of invalid addresses people enter during forms, but it doesn’t validate these addresses. This leads to a poor user experience, as users must select an address from suggestions that are often inaccurate, unstandardized, and typoed.

SITES WE SUPPORT

Verify & Mail Addresses – ​Wix

[apidirectmail]

Address Autocomplete API Free - Considerations For International Addresses

A good address autocomplete api free is key to making your online forms easy to fill out. It saves time and prevents typographical errors, resulting in better customer experience and increased conversion rates.

But, not all address lookup & autofill solutions are created equal. Some have a negative impact on user experience and can result in form abandonment. Here are some considerations you should keep in mind when selecting an address autocomplete API:

Considerations for International Addresses While it may seem simple to offer global addresses on your website or app, getting accurate data is a challenging process. Not only must an address conform to the unique language, character sets and addressing standards of local postal authorities around the world, it also must be validated to ensure that it is real and mailable.

Another major consideration is displaying accurate secondary unit numbers. This is critical for delivering items via the post office or for shipping food and other products, but it’s a feature that many providers don’t support.

One provider, Algolia, is an open-source project that uses OpenStreetMaps to provide street and house-number-level addresses. But, this doesn’t provide accurate apartment numbers and results aren’t populated with post office box information.

If you need to capture accurate addresses across the globe, it’s essential that your address autocomplete API provides address validation baked into the service. If it doesn’t, users will receive suggestions containing invalid, unstandardized, and typoed addresses that will result in an unhappy user experience and increased form abandonment.

SITES WE SUPPORT

Api Direct Mail – ​​​Blogger

[thebibliosphere]

So I'm currently unemployed because I got fired for taking too much sick leave (it was legally sketchy blah blah blah but in the end I just can't work and take care of myself and investigate my mystery health problems at the same time). So I've been spending more time writing!

I really admire your writing and loved Hunger Pangs. I'm looking forward to the poly elements developing and I'm wondering if you have any advice for writing about poly. I've made one of my projects a snarky take on "write what you know" ... Apparently what I know is southern gothic meets Pacific northwest gothic, chronic illness pandemic surrealism, and falling back-asswards into threesomes.

I know this is a very open-ended question and I don't expect an answer, I'm just curious about it if you have the energy. As a writer, trying to write honestly / realistically about polyamory/enm, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on what's different about portraying monogamy or nonmonogamy in books, romance or erotica or otherwise.

I'm trying to read examples but it's hard to find examples that fit the niche I'm looking at. Excuse me if this question is nonsense, it's the cluster headaches.

I'm sorry to hear you've been dealing with all that and solidarity on the cluster headaches. But I'm glad you're finding an outlet through writing! And I hope you're happy with an open-ended ramble in response because oh boy, there's a lot I could talk about and I could probably do a better job of answering this sort of thing with more specific questions, but let's see where we end up.

There's definitely a big difference between writing polyamory/ENM (ethical non-monogamy) and what people often expect from monogamous love stories.

Just even from a purely sales and marketing standpoint, the moment you write anything polyamorous (or even just straight up LGBTQIA+ without the ENM) you're going to get considered closer to being erotica/obscene than hetero romances. It's an unfair bias, but it's one that exists in our society. But also the Amazon algorithm and their shitty, shitty human censors. Especially the ones that work the weekends. (Talking to you, Carlos 🖕.)

So not only do you start out hyper-aware that you're writing something that is highly stigmatized or fetishized (at least I'm hyper-aware) but that you are also writing for a niche market that is starving for positive content because the content that exists is either limited, not what they want, or is problematic in some fashion i.e. highly stigmatized or fetishy. And even then, the wants, desires, and expectations of the community you're writing for are complex and wildly varied and hard to fit into an easy formula.

When writing monogamous love stories, there is a set expectation that’s really hard to fuck up once you know it. X person meets Y. Attraction happens, followed by some sort of minor conflict/resolution. Other plot may happen. A greater catalyst involving personal growth for both parties (hopefully) happens. Follow the equation to its ultimate resolution and achieve Happily Ever After. 

But writing ENM is... a lot more difficult, if only because of the pure scope of possibilities. You could try to follow the same equation and shove three (or more) people into it, but it rarely works well. Usually because if you’re doing it right, you won’t have enough room in a single character arc to allow for enough growth, and if ENM requires anything in abundance, it’s room to grow.

And this post is huge so I’m going to put the rest under a cut :)

There's also a common refrain in certain online polyam/ENM circles that triads and throuples are overrepresented in media and they may be right to some extent. Personally, I believe the issue isn't that triads and throuples are overrepresented, but that there is such minuscule positive rep of ethical non-monogamy in general, that the few tiny instances we have of triads in media make it seem like it's "everywhere" when in actuality, it's still quite rare and the media we do have often veers into Unicorn Hunter fetish porn. Which is its own problematic thing. And just to be clear, I’m not including this part to dissuade you from writing "falling back-asswards into threesomes." If anything, I need more of it and would hook it directly into my brain if I could. I'm just throwing it out there into the void in the hope that someone will take the thought and run with it, lol.

I’d love to see more polyfidelitous rep in fiction, just as much as I’d like to see more relationship anarchy too. More diversity in fiction is always good.

Another thing that differs in writing ENM romance vs conventional monogamy is the feeling like you need to justify yourself. There's a lot of pressure to be as healthy and non-problematic as possible because you are being held to a higher standard of criticism. Both from people from without the ENM communities, and from the people within. Granted, some people don't give a shit and just want to read some fantastic porn (valid) but there are those who will cheerfully read Fifty Shades of Bullshit and call it "spicy" and "romantic," then turn around and call the most tooth-rottingly-sweet-fluff about a queer platonic polycule heresy. That's just the way the world works.

(Pro-tip for author life in general: never read your own reviews; that way madness lies. I glimpsed one the other day that tagged Hunger Pangs as “ethical cheating” and just about had an aneurism.)

And while that feeling of needing to justify yourself comes from a valid place of being excluded from the table of socially accepted norms, it can also be to the detriment of both the story and the subject matter at hand. I've seen some authors bend so far over backward to avoid being problematic in their portrayal of ENM, they end up being problematic for entirely different reasons. Usually because they give such a skewed, rose-tinted perspective of how things work, it ends up coming off as well... a bit culty and obnoxious tbh.

“Look how enlightened we are, freed from the trappings of monogamy and jealousy! We’re all so honest and perfect and happy!”

Yeah, uhu, sure Jan. Except here’s the thing, not all jealousy is bad. How you act on it can be, but jealousy itself is an important tool in the junk drawer that is the range of human emotion. It can clue us in to when we’re feeling sad or neglected, which in turn means we should figure out why we’re feeling those things. Sometimes it’s because brains are just like that and anxiety is a thing. Other times it’s because our needs are actually being neglected and we are in an unhealthy situation we need to remedy. You gotta put the work in to figure it out. Which is the same as any style of relationship, whether it’s mono, polyam or whatever flavor of ENM you subscribe to* And sometimes you just gotta be messy, because that’s how humans are. Being afraid to show that mess makes it a dishonest portrayal, and it also robs you of some great cannon fodder for character development.

Which brings me in a roundabout way to my current pet peeve in how certain writers take monogamous ideals and apply them to ENM, sometimes without even realizing it. The “Find the Right Person and Settle Down” trope.

Often, in this case, ENM or polyamory is treated as a phase. Something you mature out of with age or until you meet “The One(tm).” This is, of course, an attempt to follow the mono style formula expected in most romances. And while it might appeal to many readers, it’s uh, actually quite insulting. 

To give an example, I am currently seeing this a lot in the Witcher fandom. 

Fanon Netflix!Jaskier is everyone's favorite ethical slut until he meets Geralt then woops, wouldn’t you know, he just needed to find The One(tm). Suddenly, all his other sexual and romantic exploits or attractions mean nothing to him. Let's watch as he throws away a core aspect of his personality in favor of a man. 

Yeah... that sure showed those societal norms... 

If I were being generous, I’d say it’s a poor attempt at showing New Relationship Euphoria and how wrapped up people can become in new relationships. But honestly, it’s monogamous bias eking its way in to validate how special and unique the relationship is. Because sometimes people really can’t think of any other way to show how important and valid a relationship is without defining it in terms of exclusivity. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how ENM works for a lot of people and invalidates a lot of loving, serious and long-term relationships.

This is not to say that some polyam/poly-leaning people can't be happy in monogamous relationships! I am! (I consider myself ambiamorous. I'm happy with either monogamy or polyamory, it really just depends on the relationship(s) I’m in.) But I also don't regard my relationship with a mono partner as "settling down" or "growing up." It's just a choice I made to be with a person I love, and it's a valid one. Just like choosing to never close yourself off to multiple relationships is valid. And I wish more people realized that, or rather, I wish the people writing these things knew that :P

Anyway, I think I’ve rambled enough. I hope this collection of incoherent thoughts actually makes some sense and might be useful. 

----

*A good resource book that doesn't pull any punches in this regard is Polysecure by Jessica Fern. It's a wonderfully insightful read that explores the messier side of consensual non-monogamy, especially with how it can be affected by trauma or inter-relationship conflicts. But it also shows how to take better steps toward healthy, ethical non-monogamy (a far better job than More Than Two**) and conflict resolution, making it a valuable resource both for someone who is a part of this relationship style***, but also for writers on the outside looking in who might have a very simple or misguided idea of what conflict within polyam/ENM relationships might look like, vs traditional monogamous ones.

** The author of More Than Two has been accused of multiple accounts of abuse within the polyamorous community, with many of his coauthors having spoken out about the gaslighting and emotional and psychological damage they experienced while in a relationship with him. A lot of their stories are documented here: https://www.itrippedonthepolystair.com/ (warning: it is not light material and deals with issues of abuse, gaslighting, and a whole other plethora of Yikes.) While some people still find More Than Two helpful reading, there are now, thankfully, much, much better resources out there.

*** Some people consider polyam/ENM to be part of their identity or orientation, while others view it as a relationship style.It largely depends on the individual. 

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

do you have any unpopular opinions/controversial opinins/hills you will die on about twdg?

Of course. I think everyone has at least one hill they’ll die on or an unpopular opinion they’ll never change their mind on. I’ve actually answered this type of ask twice before. Once in 2019, and once in 2020. Some of my opinions have changed since then.

Okay look…. I’ve stepped away from this blog and the fandom for a while. I needed a break. I wanted to get back into my personal writing/art, I’ve gotten into Dragon Age and exploring its fandom, I’m reading through Tillie Walden’s other works in preparation for the Clementine comic and the review I’ll do of that. This time away has been good for me- I’ve done a lot of soul searching, looking deep inside myself as I reminisced about how the fandom has progressed over the years, all the good times and the bullshit, anons getting pissy with me, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t give a shit anymore.

So before I tell y’all about my unpopular opinions and show you all the hills I’ll die on, here’s a disclaimer that should be obvious and yet in this fandom it needs to be explicitly said: These are MY opinions and how I view twdg and it’s fandom. I’m going to say things like “I hate this/this choice is awful.” There’s a certain ship that I’m going to call bad. I’m going to criticize certain parts of the fandom and their behaviors I disagree with.

Understand that Bad/Worst DOES NOT EQUAL Invalid.

Whether you and I like it or not, ALL of the choices presented in twdg that don’t end in an YOU ARE DEAD screen are valid and canon. I don’t give a shit if you hate, let’s say… the ending where you don’t trust AJ and Louis or Violet die saving Tenn, for example. I don’t care if you think that ending is garbage, or it doesn’t count because it’s a determinate choice, or if you don’t understand why someone loves it. It’s still a valid and canon choice players can make.

You’re allowed to hate choices, characters, and ships or think one is better than the other, but that doesn’t make it the more or less valid choice. If you disagree with my takes, that’s fine. I respect that, and my feelings about the choices are not a reflection of my feelings toward you. You are allowed to do that just as I am allowed to disagree or agree with you.

And really, the only people I'm side-eyeing are the people who don't respect this.

You’d think that after all this time we would learn the concept of “agree to disagree,” instead of taking the Kenny route of “Agree with me or fuck you.” but here we are.

We have different experiences with these games, and no amount of shitty anons or petty vague posts are going to change that. If you think I'm a piece of shit for anything said here, good for you. Have fun with that.

I’ll start off with the more mild things and get spicier as we go. Cool? Cool. Buckle up, it's a long post.

Wellington is the best ending in S2. There’s no changing my mind about that, one of my hills is the Wellington ending.

I’ll fully admit that some of my meta knowledge plays into this. As someone who has played these games over and over again, I know Wellington exists even if the characters don’t. I know there are things that don’t add up about it, but despite those things, for me it’s the best chance Clementine and AJ have after all the bullshit they went through.

It’s the most satisfying ending, story wise. I don’t like Kenny, lemme just throw that out there. I view him as one of S2's antagonists, just to a different degree than Carver. By the end of s2 I just want him the fuck away from Clementine and AJ, but I won’t deny that it’s emotional watching him finally let them go because he knows this is their best chance, even if it leaves him alone again in the end. He's so possessive of them to the point where it endangers them so to see him immediately give them up? for their safety? It's like he finally gets it.

Staying at Wellington and watching Kenny go gives you an uneasy feeling knowing that by doing this, Kenny could fall onto one of two paths- self reflection and healing where he sees who he's become and actively tries to change his behaviors moving forward, or utter destruction that pulls him into a tragic grave. His fate is unknown. It’s so good.

I’m aware Wellington falls eventually and I’ll always be salty that ANF doesn’t give as much attention to it as the others even though it’s the best. Before it falls, Clementine and AJ get to feel safe in a community, have their own room together, be around other people and socialize. They’re away from Kenny which makes me feel better, they’re behind high walls, and they get some sort of normalcy back before everything goes to shit. It makes it feel like something was achieved. We lost everyone along the way, but Clementine isn’t completely alone anymore. She has AJ, and she has a new community that will feed them, keep them warm, protect them.

My only big gripe with the Wellington ending is that I have to let Kenny kill Jane in order to get it. Being completely honest, even though the part with Kenny in this ending is good.... if I could go to Wellington with Jane, I would. Which… uhhh….

I like Jane. She’s a good character.

I know, how dare I? Don’t I know “Kenny good, Jane bad”??? Liking Jane goes against at least three of the Boat God’s 10 Commandments! I’m practically a sinner for liking this fictional video game character who is not real. Pray I repent lest my soul gets swallowed by the unruly locks of Kenny's beard.

Cheeky absurdities about the extreme Kenny stans aside, I do genuinely like Jane. She’s not a favorite character or anything, she's definitely not making it into a top 10 list or anything, but I will jump to her defense when the mood strikes me. She gets a lot of criticism, and I totally get it. I have my own issues with her.

Where it starts to lose me is claims that Jane is the worst for being a manipulative asshole who hates children, for gaslighting Clementine into thinking the way she does and turning her against Kenny, for attempting to murder little baby AJ, and Kenny is the better option because he cares about Clementine more so we should all happily put our guns away and let him stab her. All those things are one way to interpret events. All of which I disagree with to a degree, if not entirely.

Honestly, I could do a whole deep dive into Jane’s character but for the sake of not making this a million words long, we’ll keep it contained and I'll go into detail about claims that Jane doesn't care about Clementine, yeah?

If Jane didn't care about Clementine, she wouldn't have helped her and Rebecca get out of the walker herd, she would've ditched the second she was free. She wouldn't have taught Clementine any survival tricks or engaged with her about personal stories about herself and her sister, something that's still a sore spot.

A big issue with Jane is the Sarah stuff, and believe me, I agree that leaving Sarah behind the first time is the wrong move, but I recognize that's a response she's having after having flashbacks to what happened with Jamie.

But y'know, when Sarah's second death comes along, Jane will try to save her if Clementine asks her to. Jane will put her safety aside to help Sarah and it's not her fault that she couldn't be saved. It's not her fault that she was staggered after getting hit with a piece of wood and couldn't get Sarah out before the walkers got to her. And she is genuine in her apology to Clementine for Sarah's death.

Jane leaves, but she comes back for Clementine, and ends up saving them by killing one of the dudes attacking them.

Oh and you wanna talk about Luke's death scene? if Clementine goes after Luke and falls through the ice?? Who is the one to pull Clementine out of the water and carry her in a panic to land and only cared about starting a fire so that she didn't fucking freeze to death?? Jane. Like... if Kenny cares about Clementine sooo much more than Jane ever did, then why the hell was he so hyper focused on beating the shit outta Arvo than on the fact that Clementine could drown or freeze to death? Kenny always puts Clementine first? No, Kenny always puts his feelings first.

Jane actually listens to Clementine and puts in an effort to see things through her perspective, even if she doesn't agree with it. She tries to tell Clementine that if all else fails, she can survive on her own. Jane makes it clear that she's not very comfortable with babies, but will still hold AJ when Clementine offers and tries to her best to bond with him.

And yes, the final fight is stupid. That's a huge mistake on Jane's part. She left AJ in a car to prove a point that if something ever happened to AJ and if Kenny saw it as Clementine's fault, this is what would happen and she felt this was the only way to make that clear...... it's not a great plan and she fucking knows it if you shoot Kenny.

I'm not claiming that Jane is the best character in s2 or that she doesn't deserve criticism, but I don't think she's nearly as bad as some insist she is. I could write more but hhhnnngggg long post is long, and we still have a lot of hills to climb.

BUT I WILL SAY THAT ANF DID A COMPLETE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF JANE'S CHARACTER AND THAT RIGHT THERE IS A HILL I WILL DIE ON. THEY DID HER DIRTY.

....Anyway. Speaking of ANF- Kate should’ve died in place of Mariana in ANF. I don’t hate Kate or anything, don’t love her either, but I will die on the hill that if ANF had killed Kate off and completely removed the terrible love triangle aspect of the story and instead focused on Javi, David, and the kids, it would’ve been soooo much better.

A story where Javi and Kate canonically end up together romantically. They’ve raised Gabe and Mari this entire time, they raised those kids and had each other through it all. But then Kate dies, and not only did Javi lose the woman he loves, he lost his partner to helped him with these kids. Everything rests on his shoulders now, he is completely responsible for them… and not only that, but Gabe and Mariana lost their step-mom. Everything hurts, we still could’ve had the burial scene in you stayed with Clementine to finish things or to go with your family because Mari got shot instead, or Gabe got shot.

So these kids are all Javi has left, and one of them is shot and could possibly die. He’s desperate to save them by any means necessary, even if it means appealing to those who are responsible for the wound and for Kate’s death…. Only for David to show up. It all worked out in the end, right?

Well, Richmond doesn’t like Javi and he has to leave, and the kids can’t come with him. David IS their father, they’re HIS children… but Javi raised them from the beginning of the apocalypse and taking them away from him feels fucking cruel.

THAT is sooo much more compelling of a family drama than just “aw shit man I kissed my brother’s wife because I thought he was dead but he’s not dead oh no better not tell him I’m in love with his wife until she tells him at the worst possible moment”

Again, don’t hate Kate, but letting her shine in one episode is better than her downward spiral over the course of the season.

Alright, ready to get extra spicey? Because the hills are burning from this point on and we're outta marshmallows.

Louis getting all the blame for voting Clementine and AJ out when he wasn’t even present as Mitch suggested they take the vote and everyone else went along with it only happens because certain Violet stans view him as a “threat” to their ship so they want to find any excuse to make Louis an asshole, including ignoring his trauma and everything else canon with his character, to fit their narrative. ..... Yep. Uh-oh.

To me, if this WASN’T the case, these people would give Ruby, Omar, Willy, and Mitch waaaaay more shit, but Louis is singled out because he's the other love interest.

Louis is not the sole reason Clementine and AJ were kicked out and acting like it’s all his fault that AJ was shot is blatantly ignoring the fact that Ruby, Omar, Willy, and Mitch also voted them out. Mitch gets heat for it sometimes, but the whole “Louis’ vote could’ve made difference! It could've made it a draw so the group would have to discuss further!! It’s ALL his fault, he’s such a shithead, he doesn't get to feel bad for what happened because he voted them out! Clementine would never love him when he put her and AJ at risk by voting them out like that!” argument is weak.

Ruby’s vote could’ve ensured that they stayed.

I guess that makes Ruby a shithead for kicking them out, too.

If she had voted for them to stay, they would’ve been tied and had to discuss it more. She was also upset about Marlon’s death, and was mad at AJ. Surely Ruby knew if they were voted out that AJ would get shot. How could she put Clementine’s sad murder baby in danger like that?? Being mad at AJ AND voting them out is enough to ensure no positive relationship can grow from that point forward. Because Ruby voting them out is always gonna be there, y’know? Ruby might as well have shot AJ herself when she voted them out. AJ is just a big ol’ baby boy who shouldn’t be held accountable because he’s a baby child! He doesn’t know any better! No one taught him anything!

It’s going to be a constant thing on Clementine’s mind at all times every time she talks to Ruby and she will never forgive her for that one vote she made when she was grieving because her grief doesn’t matter when it doesn’t benefit me. Ruby’s reasons for voting them out do not matter because the only feelings that are valid in this situation are Clementine’s and everyone else who voted for her to stay. Y’know, if only there was a way for Ruby to get shot in the arm as karma for her vote. That would show her for having feelings that I don’t like, make her regret ever crossing Clementine! And if she ever apologizes for voting Clementine out [which she never really does] I’ll tell her to fuck off because that is what she deserves. Let the raiders take her, I say! It's what she deserves for voting them out!

...Have you had enough or should I keep going? Because if I keep going, the Ruby crowd might get mad and start poking me with pitchforks and I don’t need them upset with me while I already have the Violet crowd shooting arrows at my hill.

Now someone who is of the opinion that Louis is the worst and clouis would never work because he voted them out might look at that and politely point out, “Well CJ, Louis and Ruby are different. Ruby forgave Clementine and AJ the day after the vote when they came back to the school. Louis didn’t forgive her until two weeks later.”

And to that I say you’re right. Louis and Ruby are different.

Ruby, to our knowledge, never actually apologizes for her vote. Louis does.

Ruby’s forgiveness happens sooner if you help her bury Ms. Martin as she’ll tell you that she’ll tell the others she’s changed her mind about you. Louis’ forgiveness doesn’t happen so soon or as easily.

Louis had a stronger connection to Marlon. Ruby didn’t.

Now my point with all of this is Ruby doesn’t get as much shit for voting them out, even though her vote could’ve possibly prevented AJ from getting shot just as much as Louis’ vote. She was in the same position as Louis and gets no shit. It’s easy to change her mind about you once you come back, and she’s not a love interest for Clementine, therefore she isn’t viewed as an interference, if you will.

A big point of argument against Louis is him putting AJ in danger with his vote, and as a love interest, that makes him a bad one whereas Violet voted for them to stay, hence not putting them in danger. Violet in her full romantic route never puts AJ in danger, but in his full romantic route, Louis does.

Except I would argue that Violet does put AJ in danger at least once in her romance route: in ep3 while they’re on the boat. The moment Violet chose to stay with Minerva she not only put AJ in danger, but the rest of the group as well. She could’ve easily left Minerva there and gone with Clementine to get AJ. She could’ve helped Aasim carry Omar [who was still shot] and Louis [who had his tongue cut out], but she didn’t. Despite the emotions she is feeling, she should be aware that if she lets Clementine go alone, something could happen, the danger on this boat is immediate. The raiders won't hesitate to kill Clementine if they have to, they won't hesitate to hurt AJ. Violet knows this.

“But CJ, that’s not fair, that’s not comparable. Violet stayed with Minerva because of her past trauma! She couldn’t leave her to die on the boat, she has abandonment issues! It’s not okay to blame her for that when it’s not something she can help!”

That's fair. I understand that Violet has her reasons for staying with Minerva, and while I may not like that she chooses Minerva after stopping her from murdering Clementine, I won’t invalidate reasons that I as someone watching from the outside may not understand.

But may I ask why is Violet putting anyone, not even just AJ, in danger as a result of those things seen as understandable, sympathetic, better… but Louis doing the same thing isn’t?

Louis found out who Marlon really was after years of blind faith. Marlon admitted to murdering Brody and pinning it on Clementine. If you appealed to him, then Marlon pointed a gun right at Louis and had to full power to kill him right there and yet, he didn’t back down. If you appealed to Violet, Louis saw Marlon with the power to kill his friend. Marlon admitted that he gave away the twins, admitted that he would do it again if he had to. All in a short period of time.

Then Louis watched Marlon get murdered…… and you assume that wasn’t traumatic for him? You assume that he’s turning against AJ and Clementine because he’s just a shit head and not because what he saw not only hurt and horrified him, but is something that he will carry with him for the rest of his life? He’s not having a response to trauma, he’s purposely just trying to screw you over?

Just get over it, Louis. Marlon was a murderer, and AJ apparently doesn't know any better. This pain your feeling? Stop it. You don't get to vote us out and feel bad.... right?

No. Ignoring all of that just to make an argument that he sucks and isn’t a good love interest for Clementine doesn’t sit well with me. Choosing to get him shot in the woods by Abel as an act of karma for his vote, being offended that he doesn’t grieve on your time schedule, getting annoyed that he has conflicting feelings about Marlon because to you it’s cut and dry that Marlon was bad and Louis should just get over it, telling him to fuck off after he makes an effort to repair your relationship, romantic or otherwise...

And y’know, whenever I see someone condemn Louis for taking two weeks to grieve before going to Clementine and forgiving AJ but praise Violet for taking the same amount of time after AJ shoots Tenn to grieve but isn’t ready to forgive him, it screams double standards, hypocrisy. Violet is allowed to lash out at AJ when she’s hurt, allowed to snap at him for killing Tenn and take as long as she needs to grieve, she’s allowed to not forgive AJ right away for hurting her, but Louis isn't because you don't like him and don't want to respect/acknowledge his issues.

I know we always get upset and insist on not comparing trauma because each character is different and they handle things differently, and it’s not okay to invalidate that….. But it’s also not okay to ignore those things just because they don’t benefit your favored ship. It says a lot.

I could go on and on, I’ve written several posts about Louis in ep2. at this point if you still don’t like Louis or clouis, that’s fine. Agree to disagree.

And just to be crystal clear, this isn't a dig at Violet. Her issues and pain are understandable and I respect that she handles things differently. Just because I don't prefer her route that doesn't mean she's invalid.

Now if I didn't have any unburnt bridges left, let's rip the bandaid off: clemerva is a bad ship. I fucking hate clemerva.

I don't care if it's in an au or taking place in canon, in my opinion it's a terrible ship that's built on a canon where they try to kill each other. Clemerva is about aesthetic because most Minerva stans care more about her looks and sexuality than they do her actual character or the bullshit she went through.

Now this bothers me so much and the reasons I will die on the hill that clemerva is bad deals with a lot of little personal things.

Firstly, I have a history of not liking Minerva. Go back to posts from a year ago and you'll find me saying things about how I can't stand her, I don't like her, I don't get why people love her........ and things have changed.

I fucking love Minerva. She is such a fucking tragedy, her role in the story and how it's executed makes more sense now, and she's fascinating. What changed my mind was throwing away everything people have said about her and playing the game by myself and looking at her character, making my own interpretations, drawing conclusions.... and it clicked. It makes sense, Minerva is great!

And this change of heart only made me hate clemerva more because it does such a disservice to her character all for the sake of making her kiss Clementine, someone she fucking hates. Like... that's it. Throw her at Clementine, who cares if Minerva would NEVER want her.

If you want a more in depth look, I have this post I made about Minerva's character, and the only thing that I would change is that I don't dislike her anymore. I am a Minerva fan now.

it just gets under my skin that a wlw ship with two queer girls who physically harm one another on several occasions- the spitting thing really gets me because spitting at someone is so demeaning and gross and ugh .... y'know, that's why Lilly's character is ruined the moment she spits at and calls James "it"- they have no friendly chemistry and Minerva is too far gone at that point... that's the wlw ship people insist is good and that I'm wrong for not liking it and like...... you can't just argue that away.

You can't convince me that Clem and Minerva could eventually have a healthy relationship in canon if Minerva made it back to the school without erasing her trauma or the murder attempts.

And when it comes to AU's where Minerva wasn't taken by raiders or whatever... I can understand someone who likes Minerva wanting her to be happy and so they make an au where she didn't get traded to the raiders. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I want her to be happy, too, even though I know it'll never happen. My problem is the fact that shipping her with Clementine is viewed as more important than anything else.

if anything, some fans are kinda like Violet where they have this ideal, romanticized picture of her in their heads but the difference is Violet sees who she's become and eventually accepts that, she doesn't try to erase it. but when certain Minerva stans see her in canon..... no, don't like that, she doesn't fit the mold I made of her when her character was first teased and I am going to blame the writers for giving her ugly bits that I don't like, they are wrong for not giving my redemption arc, I want to see the tall, pretty, happy, queer girl I made up in my head kiss Clementine or Violet and you're wrong for not giving me that. I will use her trauma against anyone who criticizes her but I won't actually take it into account myself because that part of her isn't important until I say it is.

I can't with clemerva, it usually erases Minerva's character and replaces her with an OC wearing her face and it's just not for me.

You can vague post shit about me or send me anons like "wow imagine hating clemerva lol couldn't be me'" or "if you don't ship clemerva you are a coward lmao" or "clemerva haters are sexist/lesbophic/biphobic" all you want, it's not gonna make me change my mind about a ship between two queer girls who canonically try to kill each other on several occasions, where one spits blood in the other's face, and the other shoots her. Sorry that I don't think all Minerva needs is a new girlfriend instead of a therapist to overcome a years worth of trauma and brainwashing.

Look, I hate the ship but remember what I said in the beginning? Just because I hate it, that doesn't mean I hate people who like it. You have your reasons and I respect that, and I ask that you respect my reasons for not liking it. My only annoyances are with those fans who try to change my mind because I'm "wrong" or shame me for it by completely ignoring my issues in the first place.

Ugh..... anyway, there they are.

There's all my dumb unpopular opinions and hills I'll die on. Wasn't that fun? I'm gonna go make myself some tea because my salt train doesn't end here- I have asks about the Clem comic to answer next sksksks

[c-aureus]

My opinions on the relationship between Link and Zelda in BotW, and why I personally detest romantic BotW Zelink:

A strong title, I am aware. I'm aware of the risk this runs of causing a right shitstorm lol.

I'd like to preface this essay with the disclaimer that all of the following are merely my interpretations. It is completely fine if you disagree with me.

My views are not any more or less valid than anyone else's, and do not invalidate conflicting opinions.

Nevertheless, if you are an avid BotW Zelink shipper who does not wish to hear a great deal of criticism about this pairing, then I suggest you do not read this post.

If, however, you are curious to hear my opinions, then I merely request that you keep an open mind, and be respectful of everyone else's interpretation. I will admit that these interpretations are integral to my characterisations within my fanfic series.

OK, so. Firstly. I do not think that anyone can reasonably argue with the fact that Zelda treats Link AWFULLY in the earlier memories. Indeed, BotW makes a rather large point of showing just some of the ways Zelda mistreats Link.

For context, Link is appointed as Zelda's Royal Guard by her father, the King. It is, therefore, his sworn duty to protect her, and he doesn't really have any say in the matter. But I believe that he would be proud to serve his kingdom in this capacity.

Zelda, however, takes great offence to his presence. She takes out her frustration by constantly belittling and berating Link, (knowing that she will not face repercussions for her mistreatment due to their respective positions) and repeatedly trying to escape his escort, despite the fact that he is there for her safety, and despite his best efforts to be as unobtrusive as possible to her.

And then, when Link finds her, because he is devoted to his duty of protecting her, she berates him again.

For merely doing his job.

What Zelda is showing here is that she holds utter contempt for Link and his duty, and actively tries to make his job, and his life, miserable. I cannot imagine the stress Zelda's constant absconding would have on Link, given that if he fails his duty to keep her safe, it's his arse on the line. Plus the entirety of Hyrule's arse too, given Zelda's destiny that she needs to perform.

We know from Zelda's diary that Link, despite his blank facade, IS hurt by her blatantly hurtful actions, as is completely natural and normal in his circumstances.

Now, to be completely fair, I believe that Link is highly sympathetic to Zelda. He understands why she mistreats him, especially since Urbosa spells it out in her cutscene. He understands that Zelda is in an unenviable position, and that she is taking out her frustration and anger for not being able to live up to her destiny on him.

However, despite this understanding and sympathy, that does not mean that the hurt Zelda has caused him vanishes.

He has an explanation for her behaviour. But it is NOT an excuse.

So anyway. Zelda's behaviour continues until the Gerudo desert. Remember that Zelda fled from Link's protection (again) to go to the Gerudo Town, where Link is not allowed to set foot as a male. After he tracks her down to Vah Naboris (in the dead of night - dude must have been walking all day across a desert to reach her), Zelda's first reaction when she sees him is scorn. I can't imagine how hurtful that must be.

Anyway, the next morning, Zelda ditches him YET AGAIN, making her way across the desert alone.

When she is jumped by Yiga Assassins. Who come within moments of killing (or worse, capturing) her, until Link comes flying out of nowhere to save her.

(On a little side note, some people think this is where Zelda fell in love with him. And really, at this point, Zelda knows nothing about him, since she'd never before given him the time of day. She, at best, has a crush on the concept of a Saviour)

Now, fair play to Zelda in that after this pivotal moment, she changes her attitude and behaviour towards Link, even admitting to her previous faults in her diary. This shows a surprising maturity that contrasts her previous childishness.

However, again, this does not make all of the hurt she caused him just vanish.

Now, over the next months, I believe that Zelda and Link became very close friends. Especially given that Zelda was so starved for relationships. And they come to know each other very well, especially with Zelda sympathising with Link's lack of choice in his own destiny, similar to herself.

However, well... even after this point, Zelda still mistreats Link.

I'm referring primarily to the Frog Cutscene.

Now, to preface this, in this instance, I do not believe that Zelda is behaving maliciously to Link intentionally. I believe that she is trying to tease him.

However, her behaviour is not ideal.

In this cutscene, Link shows extreme discomfort with Zelda's insistence that he eat the live frog. This is especially significant, given his usual stoicness. The fact that Zelda causes this reaction means that he feels extremely strongly about this issue.

However, Zelda keeps insisting and pushing him, effectively taking her teasing too far, and causing Link more discomfort. Because who would want to eat a frog? (No offence to French people).

Now, coming from my own experience of having friends take teasing too far with me, and having unfortunately done the same with other people, I can say with absolute certainty that Zelda's behaviour here is not ok. Especially given Link's very apparent discomfort here.

However, there is also another aspect here that I've never seen anyone else mention.

Namely that, despite Zelda's wishes of friendship, she holds authority over Link, as Princess of the Kingdom.

As a Knight, he is duty bound to follow Zelda's orders and instructions. And one could argue that Zelda's insistence could be viewed in the context of her 'ordering' Link to eat the frog. Of course, I do not believe that this is her intention, but, from Link's perspective, there is definitely cause for reasonable doubt.

Which forces Link into the exceedingly awkward decision of having to refuse what MIGHT be an order from the Princess.

And, especially framed in the context of Zelda's previous immature, unfair behaviour towards him, he doesn't know if his refusal might cause Zelda to get all stroppy with him. Let alone other, more significant consequences that might arise from disobeying his superior.

And I feel sorry for Zelda here, seeing that she wants to view Link as a friend (or potentially more), however she must know that they are both bound by their respective positions at this point. Her behaviour is... inappropriate, and as sorry as I feel for her, that does not change the fact that she's dumping Link in an extraordinarily awkward position, and being very unfair to him.

Because, if Link does take issue with her behaviour, what can he do to stop it? Zelda is the princess, and he has no right to tell her what she can and cannot do.

Now, that is effectively the crux of my argument, however I will also note that I interpret Link to be extremely depressed in BotW, due to how much he has lost, and how he is grieving the deaths of well... everyone he's ever known, many of whom he cannot even remember. He's grieving the death of an entire civilisation, as well as people extremely close to him.

In such circumstances, it would be natural for him to resent the fact that Zelda did not awaken her power sooner, and resent Zelda's decision to have him resurrected, even in spite of him understanding the necessity of it.

Basically, whilst I interpret Link and Zelda to be very close, I am very strongly against the idea that Link would form romantic feelings for her, due to his formative impressions of her being filled with mistreatment and abuse. Whilst I do not doubt that he forgives her, the fact remains that first impressions are important. And Link's first, second, third... (and so on) impressions of Zelda are... unfavourable.

If this happened to me, then, perhaps with a healthy dose of sympathy and understanding, I could come to forgive the one who has mistreated me so extensively, as I believe Link does for Zelda.

However, I do not think that I could ever fall in love with them.

And, whilst this was not meant to involve my interpretations about Miphlink, I will say that during the whole time Zelda was abusing and disrespecting Link, Mipha was nothing but kind, accepting, caring and devoted towards him.

As such, if the sequel explicitly puts Link and Zelda into a romantic relationship, or even just strongly implies it, I will be...

Honestly, I'll be furious. Because this would run so completely contradictory to all of my interpretations about BotW and the characters.

I pray that they write with subtlety and leave reasonable room for interpretation.

Once again, these are only my interpretations. If you wish to add your own, then feel free. I'm all for having a reasonable, respectful and informed debate on the matter. However, please remain respectful of other opinions, whatever your interpretation is.

[fandomshatelgbtqpeople]

Today I want to talk about critical thinking and the difference between a person’s feelings being valid versus a person’s feelings being justified. Some of this advice will be more or less applicable depending on the situation, but these are all things to keep in mind.

Critical thinking is about considering available evidence from multiple sources and, if relevant, your own worldview and concept of morality.

Sometimes people online will tell you to think critically about something when what they really mean is “think about it until you agree with me.” Those people don’t actually want you to think critically. If they did, they would be open to the possibility of you coming to a conclusion that’s different than theirs. Doing whatever the loudest person in [x marginalized group] on tumblr says is also not critical thinking.

To use an example that’s come up before on this blog, if you were following us last year, or you probably saw a lot of people encouraging others to “think critically about” or “critically interrogate” why they headcanoned Zuko as gay when he had a canonical relationship with a girl. People making those posts generally aren’t asking you to do real introspection taking into how you project onto characters, what kind of characters you have queer headcanons about, or the frequency of your bi headcanons compared to your gay headcanons. They’re asking you to think about it until you don’t headcanon Zuko as gay anymore. Those posts were not actually asking for critical thought. They were asking for compliance.

Likewise, if you see someone make a post that’s like, “As a bi person, Zuko means a lot to me, so if you headcanon him as gay, you erasing and invalidating the lived experiences of bi people,” and you go, “Oh, I didn’t know. I guess I’ll change my headcanon,” without thinking about it any more deeply than that, that’s also not critical thought. Doing whatever someone says because they have a marginalized identity isn’t actually that different from doing whatever someone says because they’re an authority figure. You’re flipping the script on who has the power to be obeyed without question, but it’s the existence of unquestioning obedience that’s actually the problem. It’s like how the problem with billionaires isn’t that they’re mostly white men, it’s that they exist at all.

Disclaimer: My intention here is not to paint bi fans as the villains. Stucky shippers pulled this shit on Steggy shippers (who are definitely not all straight). Proponents of Pidge being a trans girl did it to anyone who had literally any other headcanon about Pidge. No one is immune to this behavior. This is just one example.

Here’s where the validity of a person’s feelings versus the justification of a person’s feelings come in.

What “Your feelings are valid” means:

You are allowed to feel what you feel

I acknowledge that you feel that way

What “Your feelings are valid” does not mean:

Your feelings are justified

Your feelings are reasonable

It’s okay for you to act on your feelings however you want

The person who tells you they feel invalidated by you headcanoning Zuko as gay might very well actually feel that way, but feeling something doesn’t necessarily make it true. They’re allowed to feel how they feel, but acknowledging that they really feel that way doesn’t automatically mean that you have a moral responsibility to change your behavior. This is where the critical thought comes in.

The first thing to ask yourself is whether what they’re saying is reasonable or justified. Does does it mean to invalidate someone’s experience? What does it mean to headcanon something? Is anything you’re doing materially hurting anyone? Do other people have a right to expect you to prioritize the things that are meaningful to them over the things that are meaningful to you when it comes to fandom? Is the sacrifice that’s being asked for proportional to the harm, if any? Is there anything in this person’s argument that jumps out at you as not making sense? Is there any reason to think they might have an ulterior motive? These are the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself, and the decisions you come to should be your own.

You also need to do some introspection on your concept of morality and figure out what your duties are and where they end. If your morality dictates that it’s your responsibility to minimize unhappiness in the people around you regardless of the sacrifices it requires from you, maybe you will abandon your old headcanon. If your morality states that people who aren’t hurting anyone have no duty to change their behavior regardless of how other people feel about it, you probably won’t. And if you decided back in step one that what you were doing was actually hurting people, your calculus will probably be different. 

Finally, you need to consider that “keeping doing exactly what I’m doing with no changes” and “abandon my current headcanon and stick with the more fandom-approved one” aren’t the only two options. Maybe your morality dictates that you acknowledge that other people have good reasons to headcanon Zuko as bi and that the headcanon deserves more respect than you’ve been giving it. Maybe you decide that your duty is to stop writing Mai as the villain in all your Zukka fics. Maybe it’s to start a tag for all your meta posts so they can be blacklisted by people with different headcanons. It’s important to listen to and consider what marginalized people are saying, but no marginalized person is right about everything and some are wrong about a lot of things. If someone is telling you you have to headcanon Zuko as bi, but neither they nor you can come up with a reason that makes sense, it’s okay to decide that you disagree with them. It’s okay to decide that your duty begins and ends at not hating on other headcanons or whatever else you decide.

But why would you prioritize fandom over the feelings of real people?

Stop. You are a real person with feelings. Someone telling you to ship their ship or headcanon their headcanon instead of yours isn’t asking you to value real people’s feelings over fandom. They’re telling you to value their feelings over your feelings. Shipping and headcanons are deeply personally, and if they’re completely disregarding the reasons you have for your headcanon and how meaningful it is to you, then they’re not willing to value your feelings at all.

Sometimes, prioritizing other people’s feelings over your own is a reasonable thing to ask. For example, in a situations where there is material harm involved and you are directly contributing to it. One of the things you have to ask yourself is whether this is one of those situations. Did you directly contribute to actual harm, or are you just not doing what someone else wants you to do? Is the thing you’re being asked for going to materially help people, or is it a performative gesture? Is this something a lot of people seem to be asking for, or is this person an outlier? Are you being asked to make a sacrifice that’s proportionate to the help or harm? Did the person asking for the sacrifice have to make it themselves or were they exempt for some reason? Is their argument well reasoned or does it just rely on buzzwords? Do you think it would be reasonable for you to make the same demand of other people in a similar situation? Are there other solutions that would accomplish the desired goal?

[kinatalks]

Let’s talk about DiaLuci.

Look, this isn’t a judgement call. This is merely a flat out explanation and something that should be recognized. There will be a few S2-3 spoilers, but it’s mainly vague, not going into details.

Be aware: This covers sensitive topics regarding the ship, toxic behaviors, abusive relationships, and the angel event.

Firstly, if you support DiaLuci, good for you! I’m not here to shame someone for their ships. But this fandom has a habit of attacking others who aren’t so fond of this ship. Someone can like Diavolo, and not support Dialuci. You can support Lucifer, and not like Dialuci. Or hell, you could dislike either/or both characters and fucking love the ship! No matter which character or ship you like or dislike, you are completely valid.

But this is a post, about the issues with the ship that I personally see, and why it should be more outspoken.

Now lets get to the point of the subject, shall we?

I fairly like Diavolo. He’s charming, joyous, and someone who would be the star of a party. Someone cheerful and bright. However, the way that this fandom persecutes anyone who doesn’t like Diavolo or feels uncomfortable around him is not ok.

In my opinion, Diavolo has shown signs of immature and insensitive behavior. I.e. the way he treats others like toys. Yes, he cares about them, but often doesn’t consider their feelings in things he considers ‘mere pranks.’ This may be because Barbatos constantly assures him that the future will be fine, since Barbatos can manipulate and choose timelines.

He wants the best for the people around him, but doesn’t exactly take criticism or resistance to his advances kindly. “Well duh, he’s a ruler!” So? Yes, he’s a ruler, but that doesn’t mean he should be inconsiderate about others around him. The fact that he disregards others opinions unless it fits his agenda, is a sign of his childishness.

Which means, that over time, Diavolo doesn’t hold much regard to his actions, as Barbatos is always there to catch him. Now that doesn’t mean he constantly is reckless. When it comes to official Devildom matters, Diavolo is an apt ruler, who makes decisions for the Devildom’s best interests.

The problem is, no one has told Diavolo about his less than savory behavior. Because they fear him, and fear the punishments he could inflict upon them. So I can’t really say that he’s a completely bad character.

He wants Lucifer to be his equal, and acknowledge the fact that Diavolo sees him as an equal. Diavolo’s lonely, and it’s explicitly stated as so. He envies the closeness the brothers have. So, he goes about it in the only way he knows how. Which we’ll get to a bit later.

As for Lucifer, I can’t deny I’m quite fond of him. He does his best to overcome his pride for MC, and gradually (in S2-3), he becomes more open with his feelings. Yes, he’s a deeply flawed character, but he’s not a complete villain. The world simply isn’t as black and white as some would like it to be.

Yes, his relationship with some of his brothers is toxic. The way he treats Mammon at times is unacceptable, and possibly abusive in my opinion. The fact that he acts cold and distant to his brothers at times isn’t ok. But one thing I’ve seen others overlook, is that Lucifer is the Avatar of Pride. Does this excuse his actions? No. Does it explain some of his habits? Yes.

Don’t get me wrong, he still has a lot to work on. But he’s getting there, and actively trying to get better.

Now for the ship.

You do not need to like a ship, just because a character from that ship is constantly seen with the partner. Like I’ve said above, you can hate or love Diavolo or Lucifer, and dislike/like the ship.

As for the oath, I won’t delve too deep into this, as it would take essays upon essays worth of information. But we all know that, Diavolo had given Lucifer an ultimatum. Save Lilith, at the cost of Lucifer’s unquestionable loyalty.

Which as we’ve seen, Lucifer had agreed to the terms. And so, he is now Diavolo’s most trusted advisor, his right hand man.

Even though Diavolo says or implies that he sees Lucifer as an equal. He doesn’t always seem to show it. The power imbalance in between both characters is evident, throughout the plot of the story. If Lucifer denies Diavolo’s advances, Diavolo will continue. Why?

Well, you could argue that his behavior is due to him being royalty. Which is true, he’s royalty, and has never been told no. Barbatos has always been there, fixing his mess, so why would he need to worry?

Diavolo praises Lucifer, in a manner that is clearly uncomfortable to the latter. It’s evident that Lucifer despises being praised for his beauty, and just his looks. I’ve seen blogs see it as ‘just a joke’ or ‘being playful’. But time and time again, Lucifer has denied these advances, very obviously disliking the attention and focus on his looks.

But Diavolo continues, and in his defense, you could say, ‘because Lucifer doesn’t say that he’s uncomfortable!’. It’s very obvious that Lucifer isn’t an equal to Diavolo, no matter how much the latter insists he is. We’ve seen Diavolo brush off other’s discomfort at his actions, and we’ve seen him continue.

Diavolo is not evil. This is quite clear, even though he may be suspicious to some. However, his relationship tactics and methods of relationships have toxic, and quite possibly abusive effects.

For example. The angel event.

We all know, that the bangles controlled the 7 avatars, turning them all into angels. Their outfits, and minds, were taken over. The brothers, (excluding Satan.) had gone through traumatic events in these outfits, that’s for sure.

The celestial war, and losing Lilith, all were incredibly traumatizing events forever affecting their mindsets from that day forward. The bangles attempted to brain wash them, and we can see it when Satan states that he doesn’t feel like himself, that he felt calm.

But you might think, “But being calm is great! Isn’t that what he always wantd?’. Not quite.. All Satan had known before was wrath, and being calm completely took away an important part of him. Even though Satan had always resented his wrath, his sin, he had felt like a part of himself was miserable without it. He wasn’t himself, and felt as if he were being forced to be calm, something he loathes.

In all of the brothers, we can see that they are clearly distressed, and may come out of this situation traumatized. 

Lucifer is no exception. We saw how visibly upset he was, the fact that the snow-white wings on his back gave him a constant reminder of the war and Lilith, throughout the entire ordeal.

What was Diavolo doing this entire time? He was being provided entertainment, and reveled the sight before him. He enjoyed seeing the brothers in their angelic uniforms, where they had fought with tooth and nail for their sister, and who knows what else. He enjoyed the fact that the brothers were having angelic ideals forced inside their heads.

And when someone speaks up against him? He’s passive aggressive about it, until the person opposing him gives up, begs for forgiveness, or embarrasses themselves.

While criticism of any of the characters is deemed valid and peachy in this fandom. I haven’t seen any criticism of Diavolo that wasn’t met with backlash and intense hounding. Lucifer, Satan, Belphegor, have all been criticized, but has the majority really deemed those opinions as invalid? No. We can all see why those arguments are valid, and people have their own reasons.

Hell, we’ve all seen people Lucifer left and right. And you know what? They’re completely valid! Some people may have triggers/squicks in regards to his behavior, and it’s completely understandable.

But the moment someone criticized Diavolo, we see fighting and targeting. The person who speaks up gets pushed down and insulted, until they either give up, or agree. If you like Diavolo, good for you, you’re valid! If you don’t, you’re completely valid!

Now back to the ship. Apologies for getting off topic, but oftentimes, when Diavolo and Lucifer are mentioned separately, they’re roped together.

Abusive/toxic relationships aren’t always one where the abusive/toxic partner is an outright terrible person. Oftentimes, they come with charm, a dazzling smile, and friends that would fight tooth and nail for them.

Diavolo has Lucifer in an....uncomfortable position to say the least. In power dynamics, that is. Lucifer is constantly embarrassed publicly and privately by compliments, and Diavolo knows this. He’s demeaned by the oath, and as for work, Diavolo often adds to it, just for fun. I.e, leaving the Devildom to come to the human world, leaving his responsibilities behind.

“But he’s lonely!” Yes, and? He is lonely, yes, but there is a time and place for fun, and time and place for work. He is going to become a King, and if he puts all this responsibility and stress on Lucifer, it simply isn’t right.

They have their good moments, but that absolutely does not make up for the state of the relationship as a whole. Just because someone has their good moments, doesn’t mean you accept and forgive them. That’s like saying that someone who physically abuses their S/O, is a good partner because they occasionally make them dinner. It simply isn’t correct.

Majority of the time, Diavolo is fine with Lucifer being reduced to a pretty face and belittled. In public, which very clearly hurts Lucifer’s pride and reputation.

Many people can resonate with some of these behaviors, having seen them in their past.

So please. Tag your works as DiaLuci for others uncomfortable with it, stop attacking others who dislike the ship, and for fucks sake, enough with hating people who dislike a character and/or ship.

[unofficialadamtaurus]

you were probably expecting this ask eventually so i'll be the first to go at it... thoughts on twiins iink's new video on adam? she basically tells adam fans to get over him and move on, which i found funny since she hasn't done the same for ironwood... but regardless. i thought i'd ask your thoughts, since you seem to know adam better than me.

Okay now that I've actually watched the video, I can respond with more than knee-jerk twiins said what?

The main thing is that this video isn’t directed at Adam fans like me. At least, that’s not the impression I got. The “cream in their pants” (she actually used that phrase??) when they think Adam does something cool fans almost feel like a strawman for her to vent at, but at the same time, there are screenshots and it’s clear that they do, in some capacity, exist. Which, sure. You can dislike the way other people engage with media you enjoy. But to make a 10+ minute video ranting at them?

I kept waiting for her to acknowledge that other kinds of Adam fans exist. As @ironpines pointed out on Twitter, there are people who latched onto him because he was a minority fighting back against his oppressors, among other reasons. Y’know, the fans who were uncomfortable with the implications of Adam’s character and arc and end.

“Get over it” is…the wrong response. It’s been years; almost everyone is “over it.” No reasonable person thinks that Adam is coming back. They don’t think venting on some subreddit is going to change anything, they just want to feel validated. At least in my case, it’s not anger. It’s disappointment and resignation. I AM over it. I’m still disappointed and bitter. The two are not mutually exclusive; being over something doesn’t mean you have no opinions on it.

God, and the whole video, she was hounding the idea that Adam fans are these slobbering fanboys who refuse to acknowledge any textual reality that doesn’t conform to their headcanons. That is blatant stereotyping (in the most denotative sense) of fans for reasons I don’t understand. I’m not sure why she painted Adam fans as so one-dimensional, especially since I’d expect her viewers to already view rwby with a critical eye. Some are likely at least somewhat uncomfortable with canon Adam, so to not hit that middle ground at all is a noticeable oversight, and now anyone who watches her channel and did like Adam may not feel comfortable voicing a dissenting opinion given a) the tone of the video and b) how off the rails she went in her responses to negative feedback about it.

Why make this video? What was the point? It wasn’t to change minds; the content was too condescending and aggressive for that. It feels even more like an angry rant than her other videos, even the Ironwood one, which she (understandably) put a lot of emotion into.

The whole message boiled down to “if you have negative feelings towards the Adam story and character at this point, you’re wrong” which is invalidating opinions for no reason that I can think of. Why did she focus on Adam fans now of all times? Why is them making more posts such a problem? Why is a bunch of strangers on the internet expressing disappointment about a fictional character so apparently frustrating for her? Or, in short: why police these people’s opinions?

I guess I’m just at a bit of a loss why this video, like Adam’s entire storyline, was necessary.