#totally understand if you don’t agree but I wanted to explain the nuance in their characterization ☺️

[ahundredtimesover]

Hello lovee iwyts bt I just wanted to vent about something (just my opinion) , I really think oc is kinda selfish with her "relationships" thing in life like she's scared for making commitment n that's fine bt isn't it really unfair to her partners who genuinely fell for her and wanted to win her trust yet oc continues to act like the victim and shuts them out. Pretty sure if the gender roles were reversed suddenly everyone would've been on her side again 🤡

Hi! 😊 Omg long post I’m sorry but these are the most complex characters I’ve ever written so these asks are interesting!

I understand your point. And I agree that she’s a bit selfish bc she doesn’t want to commit; she can’t exactly expect for the other person to not eventually like her - that’s the usual case in fwb scenarios. That’s one quality of hers (maybe flaw?) in that she wants to be loved and wanted but she won’t open herself to it, which is the contradiction of her character. And she acknowledges that as well when she said it’s her greatest fear to lose a person which is why she doesn’t allow anyone to be important enough for her to lose. Even her best friends think that Hajoon could’ve been the guy for her but OC shuts out.

But I’d like to point out that her partners may have genuinely fell for her but they’re not genuine people. One was a bit possessive (more like a stupid drunk haha I wrote Hajoon to be decent enough but he shot himself on the foot), the other stalked and harassed her.

Interesting you point out about gender roles bc that’s one layer to it! OC enters casual relationships with the clear intention of having sex, which isn’t that much different from JK who hooks up with various women; the difference is that OC sticks to one person for a time but JK doesn’t do repeats (sorry for the term). OC’s men are the ones who ask to date for real and she doesn’t, so she breaks it off, and they act out. There’s that expectation from the men that she would change her mind, that she would naturally want to have a relationship (she’s also too honest of a drunk haha) and that the men are a match for her even if she says she doesn’t want them. Whereas JK’s hookups may question why he doesn’t want to commit but they just accept it, they accept that yeah he’s a guy and he doesn’t want to commit it’s fine the sex is good anyway. Someone pointed out that OC and JK are actually parallels and that’s true.

But there’s a sad element about it though - OC, knowing that she’s afraid to commit, just accepts what Hajoon and Chi-won say about her at the end. They call her selfish and a lot of other things, and that affects how she sees herself; that becomes who she is, and so she’s convinced that no one would actually like her outside of the sex-driven relationships she had with the men. Same thoughts that JK has, but he never hears that he’s selfish or that he doesn’t deserve happiness.

[transbutchblues]

could you please elaborate on your feelings on the gods' characterization in the wisdom saga? Not forcing you tho!

sure! keep in mind that i love EPIC and that even if i complain about things here, i totally respect the choices that Jorge makes. it’s his musical and i admire all the work put in the songs.

disclaimer : most of the time i try to dissociate EPIC from the Odyssey in my mind, because thinking of EPIC as an adaptation tends to make me upset due to how different it is. but it’s also amazing on its own! there are creative liberties that i deeply love (like having Odysseus know about Scylla but not telling anyone, and changing the context of the mutiny), others that i don’t like that much but that i can get behind, and others that i really dislike. i understand why everything is done the way it’s done, but i still have opinions.

before talking about the Wisdom Saga i’d like to explain how i felt about the gods in the other sagas. as a classics student and a hellenic polytheist i tend to dislike most modern portrayals of the gods, mostly because they’re usually flat and lack nuance. up until this saga, i had never been disappointed by any choice done regarding the gods in EPIC. they were all so interesting.

i loved Zeus in Thunder Bringer. it’s one of my favorite songs, and i found that Zeus was beautifully portrayed. he’s the villain, sure, he offers an awful choice (for the second time), but the situation was created by Odysseus and his men. i loved the lyrics and their double meaning.

this all fell apart in God Games, for me. it just didn’t feel like the same Zeus anymore. and as much as i try to dissociate EPIC from Homer’s epics, i love the Iliad and the Odyssey too much not to point out that Zeus would never be like that. in the Odyssey, Zeus immediately agrees with Athena on the fact that Odysseus must be freed from Calypso’s island. Poseidon is the only god who really wants to stop Odysseus, Zeus doesn’t exactly care about him. he knows Odysseus’ fate and he won’t go against it. besides, Athena is Zeus’ favorite daughter in Homer’s works. he loves her. he doesn’t like it when she defies her, that’s very clear in the Iliad, he even threatens her when she does that, but he loves her dearly and he gives her nearly everything she asks for. he would simply not strike her down like that. and Zeus has no reason to go against his own word. if he sets a challenge, he respects the terms. he’s a fair god, he’s a ruler, he’s all about divine justice. i don’t mind changes, but i dislike these ones.

and Athena… Athena was always the deity i felt the less sure about in EPIC. don’t get me wrong, i love her in the previous songs. but i never knew where exactly her character arc would bring her and i felt uneasy. now i know i was right to feel this way.

there had to be an explanation to the fact that Athena hadn’t helped Odysseus during the years he was imprisoned by Calypso. i understand why in EPIC, this explanation is that Odysseus and Athena fought and fell apart. in fact, i love My Goodbye. i think the way Odysseus is portrayed in the Cyclops Saga makes him way more of an asshole than he is in the Odyssey (and that’s alright by me!), because he’s stupid and hubristic and he refuses to listen to Athena. in the Odyssey, Athena never abandons Odysseus, she helps him during his entire journey. but if he had talked to her like he does in EPIC, she probably would have left him! i find their fight interesting, how cold Athena can be, how betrayed they both feel.

but! here comes the Wisdom Saga. and i love Athena in Little Wolf. i like her in God Games too. maybe even in Love in Paradise. but i can’t get over We’ll Be Fine, it just doesn’t sound right to me. i like Telemachus. but i hate that this is how Athena suddenly decides to go back to Odysseus. "i could sleep at night", really? why would she feel guilty about leaving a hero who refused to listen to her? i enjoyed how cold she was in My Goodbye, it was an interesting choice, and i would have liked for her to remain this way. or to change more slowly. the loneliness aspect could have been great if it had been explored more in depth (which i know wouldn’t have been possible since she doesn’t have enough songs to allow for slow character development). this just felt rushed and strange.

i would have liked for Athena not to reach out until Odysseus does. the moment where he cries out her name at the end of Love in Paradise is heart-wrenching, i love it. that’s when i would have loved for her to suddenly hear him and go back to him, instead of already being there. that would have been a moment where she could have decided to help him despite what he said and did, because she still cares about him and she sees him being so desperate. that could have been a moment where she feels guilty or lonely.

i know it’s done that way so that Telemachus saves Odysseus’ life by giving advice to Athena. it’s fine, it’s a nice idea. i understand why people like it, and i’m glad they do. it just feels off to me.

regarding the other gods: firstly, Calypso is great and i love her! now, on the other ones: i think instead of all this weird Zeus portrayal in God Games, it would have been nice to mention Poseidon. if there had to be a reason for Zeus not to want to release Odysseus, it could have been something to do with his brother. Apollo’s appearance felt unnecessary, his argument was weak, i’m still glad he was there but i didn’t love his portrayal. my opinion for Hephaestus is similar (though i liked his portrayal better, he just felt unnecessary), with another thought: i’m already starting to see more art of him and i really wish people would depict him as disabled, because not everybody does. i liked Aphrodite’s and Ares’ part, and Hera’s was fun. i don’t necessarily like the overall vibes of God Games but that’s just a matter of my music tastes, there are multiple songs in EPIC that i don’t really listen to because of that while still enjoying their role in the storyline.

obviously most people disagree with me, and i’m glad everyone seems to love that saga. some parts were just really not for me, namely, We’ll Be Fine, the beginning of Love in Paradise, and the end of God Games.

[slyandthefamilybook]

If you don’t mind, can you explain why you want Israel to be abolished? Not in the anarchist sense of ‘I want all states abolished as an ideal’, but actually wanting it dismantled while states are still a thing. I think that’s your view anyway— I remember that, in the post heritageposts and his minions went after you for (really sorry about that btw, I’ve also been harassed on here but luckily haven’t had one of the big bloggers come after me), you said that you want Hamas to surrender and then after that have Israel dismantled. You don’t have to reply if you don’t want to, I’m just trying to understand that view a little more when it’s not egregiously Jew hating, even if I won’t agree with it, and also you seem like a very nuanced and compassionate person. I hope you’re doing well, and have a nice day!

It is very much in the anarchist sense. I don't think Israel is the only state that should be abolished; I think we should get rid of all nation-states. It's not something I've really had the opportunity to talk about much outside of the Current Situation so I understand that it may have come off like I think Israel is singularly...idk. Dismantle-able. I think we tend to think of these things in terms of immediacy; countries that are currently at war are constantly teetering on the verge of collapse and are therefore primed for anarchy. On the flip side we also often forget our political idealism when real people are suffering. No non-Jewish anarchist is calling for Hamas to be dissolved, despite the fact that they ostensibly abhor centralized government in all its forms. To them Hamas is the final bulwark between Israel and total decimation of the Palestinian population and so calling for them to step down in the anarchist sense is tantamount to signing the death warrants for everyone in Gaza. They're wrong, but the idea is sound. You can't defeat the mechanism that allows people to organize at a national level while its people are currently endangered. That's why I've said no "revolution" can precede peace which is where I differ from the Hamasniks who think the revolution will bring peace (because they don't care about the safety of the Israeli population). Ultimately I think liberalism is like a sword: it's a tool that I need because everyone else has one, much as I would rather none of us needed on in the first place.

Sorry if this is incoherent, I haven't haven't had my coffee yet. Tl;dr is: Would I like to see all nation-states including Israel be abolished? Yes. Do I think that will happen? Not in this lifetime, especially not with the Current Situation. So I'm not going to go around pretending it is, because then everything I do will be utterly useless

[molsno]

Hi, I’ve read your recent answer to the ask and the within linked post about transphobia and misogyny and I absolutely agree with the points made.

I moreso have a question about further nuances in that conversation since for me personally , perhaps by misunderstanding it very often feels like the trans mascs imagined in those statements are of one specific type: masc and passing.

Please excuse me if that’s a genuine misread, while I have been reading up on it all I’ve only been doing it for a month or so. Basically I wonder about the position of extremely feminine trans men and bigender/genderqueer/genderfluid in this. I myself am a very feminine looking trans masc and also bigenderqueer. And while it pains me so much that people without me constantly having to explain myself will never see me as a man and treat me as masc when I am I don’t want to change how I look because I love myself this way.

Not that long hair, boobs and dresses are inherently female but I do possess them and to the average cis hetero person that just immediately reads like woman. Because I don’t want to change this aspect of myself I also always sadly aware that even In my masc moments I will never be free of misogyny, and especially not when I feel like a woman. Not to even the mention of trouble this brings with most parts of the lgbtq community and their judgement. This still doesn’t mean that like I experience the interception of both but it just feels a lot closer to me. Especially in the regard that I don’t really know what spaces I should belong in. Trans mascs going into woman spaces (because they barely have their own and don’t feel safe with cis men [and even among cis women ngl]) and them not being accessible to trans woman is definitely an issue and we have to advocate for you all definitely. But I know male spaces won’t take me or be safe for me and I feel wrong and intrusive even in my female moments in woman spaces. I know that I still hold tme and kinda cis woman privilege (although my question there would be: if trans women never had male privilege how come trans masc ever have cis woman privilege). But I just feel like most conversations shutting off these nuances in fear of rightfully hated transandrophobia truthers just does no one and good.

TLDR: how should non passing feminine, closeted even, trans men address the misogyny and the nuance of „being percieved like a woman“ and the dangers that come with it without being seen as trans masc special oppression truthers (Because obviously misogyny comes from being seen as a woman or treated as such it’s not like because I’m masc but please do tell if you want to if something like this is also happening to trans fems)

on the contrary a lot of transandrophobia truthers have this mindset of "I'll never pass, so I don't experience male privilege" which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what oppression is. it isn't just something that comes from strangers (nor is it strictly interpersonal but I won't get into that rn). even people who know beyond a shadow of a doubt what your gender is can be some of the most viciously transphobic people in your life, and I think you're aware of that, so I'll spare you the details.

that being said, I get where you're coming from. I'm pretty well off as a trans woman considering I pass well enough to not really get clocked when I'm out in public, but I totally understand feeling like you don't really belong anywhere. I felt that a lot in the past, and I still do in a lot of circumstances. no matter who you are, it's hard being trans! the world really was not built for us, and that needs to change.

I will say that in the same way that I don't believe trans women held male privilege before coming out, I don't believe for a second that trans men held "cis woman privilege" before coming out, especially because that's not a thing that even exists. cis privilege is undeniably real, but trans people don't possess it. when we talk about the phenomenon of transmascs playing up their victim status on the basis of having been afab, I believe what is actually happening is that they're weaponizing white privilege - because let's be honest, transmascs of color are not seen as helpless victims the way that white transmascs are.

as for your main question, I believe that trans men SHOULD be discussing misogyny and how to combat it. it's imperative for them, even - ending misogyny would make it far easier for them to transition, for example, just by virtue of the fact that bodily autonomy would be guaranteed to everyone regardless of gender if misogyny didn't exist. the problem comes when they act like they're experts who understand misogyny better than women, especially trans women. I do think that a lot of trans men have a better, more nuanced understanding of misogyny than cis men do, and that can serve as a helpful foundation for discussing it, but talking over (trans) women to shut down our own discussions of misogyny is textbook mansplaining. and worse, trans men weaponizing their understanding of misogyny against trans women really plays into the "female socialization" terf rhetoric, which I've already critiqued at length here.

[dyns33]

Flufftober 13 - Vulcan Michael

Vulcan Michael Langdon x reader 

For Michael, Halloween was totally illogical.

But most of the things humans did were totally illogical, so he shouldn't be surprised by this weird party where people pretended to be someone else, sometimes other species than their own, or even worse, beings which did not exist.

For several days, Y/N had tried to explain to him why it was important, a kind of custom, that you shouldn't look for logic in customs, just see that it was a good time, to share, to relax, during which people could have fun and forget their worries for a night.

           "Yes, okay, the way of having fun is not logical, and it's also ridiculous to ignore your problems instead of trying to solve them but... But that's it !"

           "But that's it ?" he repeated, raising an eyebrow.

           "Yes, that's it !"

           "Very well, t'nash-veh ashaya."

           "... So you agree to dress up and come go candy hunting with me ?" she asked with a small pout, knowing that he was illogically having a hard time resisting her when she was doing that face.

           "I don't see why I would refuse, as long as the costume is not offensive."

"          I had thought of an elf."

           "... That's a bit offensive."

           "A vampire then. And I'll be a young princess, under your spell and totally at your mercy."

           "Illogical."

           "But that's it !"

           "Yes ashal-veh." he sighed, trying not to smile, even though smiling wasn't as illogical as the Vulcans thought. It showed that we were happy.

It was just better to be happy inside, in a controlled way.

It was therefore filled with discreet joy that Michael accompanied Y/N in the streets to collect sweets. Of course, he didn't dare hold her hand in public, it was highly inappropriate.

And he repeated to her that sweets and other delicacies were not good for her health.

He also noticed that there weren't many disguised adults knocking on doors.

           "Michael." Y/N said kindly looking at him with wide eyes. "You know very well what I'm going to answer you."

           "Hmm. That's this is what this celebration is about, so you won't be logical, you will do whatever you want with regards to holding my hand, eating, and going out in costume, and that's it."

           "Exactly."

           "Just promise me not to eat everything too quickly, I don't want you to get sick."

Despite his grunts of protest and the fact that several people were watching them, Y/N kissed him on the cheek, saying that he was cute, and promising to be reasonable.

It didn't really convince him, because he knew that his human and he didn't have the same definition of what was reasonable.

So he wasn't really surprised to find her on the sofa, still wearing her big dress, her face covered in sugar and chocolate. Using her little pout, she tried to avoid his criticism.

           "Whether I eat them now or later, it's almost the same."

           "The nuance is in the 'almost', ashal-veh. You promised me."

           "I only ate five ! Well... Maybe seven. Or more. But there's still plenty left. You can take some if you want. You chased them too, you deserve them. Oh Michael, come on, try one !"

           "No, it is not..."

           "Michaaaaael ! For me, please !" she begged, holding up a candy to him, waiting for him to eat it straight away.

It was illogical, but he couldn't refuse it. He could never deny her anything.

And he didn't realize at all that he was eating chocolate, sitting next to her, letting her feed him again and again.

Since Michael had never told her about the effect of chocolate on Vulcans, he couldn't blame Y/N. She hadn't really forced him to eat it either.

He was the only responsible for this situation, which his mate did not understand right away.

It was a real surprise for her to see him smiling and laughing like it was perfectly normal, moving oddly.

           "Your cheeks are all green. Are you sick ? Oh, I hope you're not allergic to something ! I can call a doctor, I..."

           "It's all right, ashal-veh." he chuckled, taking her in his arms. "I'm fine. I've never felt so good. My love. My life. I'd like to take you far away, to a cave, where no one can take you. I'll build you a house and we'll have plenty of children."

           "... What ?"

           "I don't like it when other people touch you. Or when they look at you. You're mine. You're mine, aren't you ?"

           "Yes Michael, I'm yours. But you're not in your normal state, you... Are you purring ? And you...  Are you biting my neck ? Michael ?!"

           "You smell so good, t'nash-veh ashaya. T'nash-veh ashal-veh. T'nash-veh ta'hal. Nash-veh ashaya du, weht do kanok-vei. Worla trasha nash-veh, sanoi . Wuh panu tor gu'gelik heh herbosh rik' du."

Vulcans having a denser mass than humans, it was not easy for Y/N to drag Michael to the bedroom. He didn't really help her, before falling asleep in the middle of the bed.

The next morning, his head hurt terribly. With great difficulty, he prepared tea and meditated for several hours, until Y/N woke up.

Despite his meditation, he behaved slightly illogically by "sulking", refusing to talk about what had happened and decreeing that they would never again participate in Halloween, which was a holiday as dangerous as it was illogical.

He later tried to banish several other holidays where chocolate was present, such as Christmas when Y/N served him hot chocolate, or Valentine's Day, before accepting that he could not escape this toxic product, and that anyway, Y/N found him so adorable when he was drunk that he could eat some from time to time to please her.

But only if there were no other witnesses to see it.

[rise-my-angel]

I think it is so frustrating and sad you have to not even tag things to avoid getting hate like adding anti tags should be enough but even then I just don’t understand why people are so so so sensitive about opposing opinions. I have a more nuanced opinion of Dany than 99% of Dany fans in that I acknowledge her darkness although I also don’t fully agree with everything you said about her. It’s not worth writing it up bc that’s not the point of this ask (long story short I think she’s inclined to violence at first but we see her being sickened by the memory of it aside from burning MMD which is a special case I could talk at length about, and I am intrigued by that conflict within her character). And I am so wholly unbothered by your interpretation and opinion of the character. I like your content a lot and it’s nice to be able to read opinions that conflict with mine mixed in with things I agree with and I honestly don’t understand why other people don’t feel the same way. Which isn’t judgement. People are allowed to want to see only things they agree with. But it is so foreign to me. We are talking about a book series here.

As an entirely unrelated side question: do you have a post anywhere talking about the reader in your fic or have you left her as more of a blank slate? I’ve never been interested in x reader fic but I love Jon and want to read yours but what I worry about x reader content is that the reader won’t be enough of a blank slate. I am also simply curious about what you have thought up about her whether or not the fic ends up being for me

I'm totally fine with other opinons, but I have had issues before of being harassed over my opinons of Dany before and I would rather not tempt fate because it was pretty brutal last time. I also don't enjoy debate, because I don't use my blog as a platform to entertain that kind of discussion, I like open minded discussion of similar ideas and using different opinons to explain my side. But I do not wish to have a back and forth of totally disagreeing sides, that is not fun to me that gives me anxiety.

I'm fine with people thinking my interpretation of Dany is overly extreme, because I do understand what about her people like and why one may disagree. But debating someone about those issues isn't why I like talking about her. I like exploring a character not defending why I have a stance over and over again. But Dany stans have been unforgiving in the past and I don't want to risk it. And I don't want to platform debates and hostile arguments on this blog.

I made a Sansa post earlier which stemmed from someone whom I follow that made a point I did not agree with, but I did not go directly to them or add to their post. I made my own as to not be negative in a space talking positively about a character or subject. I dont belive in hijacking someones post to argue against what they are saying or going into there inbox to yell at them for it either, I dont think it is a productive way to get your point across. I prefer making my own posts where I can logically display my opinions and why in a well thought out manner, not argue with someone personally.

But Dany stans are not fond of me, and so I sometimes don't tag at all, soley out of anxiey because having a barrage of disagreeing opinions angry in my inbox insulting and demeaning me was what happened last time. So I avoid it to not create a hostile enviroment for my own followers as well.

As for my story, I appreciate you expressing interest but I cannot speak as to the degree of a blank slate reader. I try to not inundate the story with an overly vocal or overly involved reader, I try to blend her into the background of the story without being obtrusive or give her to strong of a vivid personality, but the reader does have a character consistency throughout.

I would suggest reading a little bit of the first chapter, because its pretty indicative of the style in which I portray the reader and make your decision from there. I don't want to mislead you one way or another but the first few scenes should give you a solid idea as to if it is your cup of tea or not.

Either way, thank you for your message I appreciate when someone who thinks differently then I do does not see the value in personally attacking someone for it, and expressing interest in my story, if you read it or not I am flattered either way you are very kind!

[arotechno]

Jughead (2015), Issues 9-11: Discussion and Commentary

This brings us to the first arc written by Ryan North, who saw that the aroace Jughead train had left the station and simply could not resist tagging along for the ride. If you’ve followed anything about Jughead as a character at all, then you’ve probably seen many screenshots from these three issues before. It’s the Sabrina arc (that’s right, as in the teenage witch)!

I have a lot of analysis at the end of this one, so buckle up!

The gang ends up at Pop’s, as usual, where Jughead meets the shop’s new mascot, a talking burger lady. Jughead is, unsurprisingly, thrown off his game by this. After all, burgers are his one true love, but girls? He doesn’t really have an interest in them. It’s a confusing moment for him, and when his friends witness this, well… they assume he’s got a crush on her.

This is an iconic page in the “aro Jughead” canon. Here we have Betty trying really hard to be a good friend and doing what in her mind is the best for him, trying to help him through what she and the others perceive as his first crush. Jughead, meanwhile, is diving headfirst into a spiral of confusion (and later, discomfort) at the idea of having any sort of interest in another person.

I want to give my utmost respect to Ryan North for explicitly having Jughead say that he doesn’t get crushes. It’s not the only time that North does this during this arc, and I think it makes all the difference between making this awkward and relatable rather than making it seem like Jughead is being stripped of or “cured” of being aro.

Betty pushes Jughead to talk to Sabrina (the burger lady—it’s Sabrina), and after a while of running into each other day in and day out as Jughead frequents Pop’s on a regular basis, they strike up a friendship. Jughead has gotten what he wanted—to be friends with the cool burger lady—and he seems genuinely satisfied.

…But unfortunately, things do not go as planned for Jughead. The next time they see each other, Sabrina asks Jughead out. And Jughead, in true stereotypical oblivious aro fashion, agrees, without realizing until it is much, much too late that what he has just agreed to is a date. Like, a real date.

If you think about it, Jughead has probably never been asked on a real date before. And this is something I ABSOLUTELY would have done (and may still do today, if I’m completely honest with myself) as a teenager. Jughead’s immediate regret is so palpable here, and so relatable to me as an aromantic.

In his panic, Jughead turns to his friends for help. They are… not helpful. They’re trying to be helpful, sure, but whereas Jughead doesn’t really seem to want to go through with this at all, his friends are more set on giving him romantic advice (with varying degrees of usefulness). Jughead really has to go out of his way to defend himself and insists on multiple occasions that he thinks the girl in the burger costume is cool and interesting, but that he doesn’t like-like her, he doesn’t even really know her!

Unfortunately for Jughead, he ends up going on the date. And who does he call for help? His only other openly queer friend (I say openly because let’s be real with ourselves, none of those kids are cishet), Kevin Keller.

And okay, this scene with Kevin is genuinely kind of funny. You get the impression that Kevin has had a lot of practice dealing with straight bullshit, and that he’s more than a little disappointed that Jughead’s “big emergency” turned out to be something this totally mundane and not worth his time.

Ultimately, Kevin is also super not helpful, even after Jughead steals his phone in an attempt to get him to come to the table and diffuse the awkward situation Jughead has found himself in. So Jughead resorts to what I can only assume is plan Z, which is to call Archie for backup.

Only semi-related, I really love the way Ryan North writes conversations between these two. It just feels really genuine and believable. And anyway, I don’t know what Jughead was expecting, but resident himbo Archie Andrews is of no help to him, and only ends up making things a hell of a lot worse.

This leads to Sabrina rushing off to the bathroom and casting multiple spells to try to get Jughead to at least play along, if not outright fall in love with her, all of which fail spectacularly and only end up making her far angrier with him. I don’t blame her for being upset—the date was a total disaster, and right at the moment Jughead was about to be honest with her, Archie showed up and made things worse. Sabrina storms out, and vows that she’ll get revenge on Jughead for this, somehow.

All of Sabrina’s subsequent spells on Jughead also backfire. She tries to make him fail his classes, and he passes with flying colors; she tries to make him spend the whole day with resident asshole Reggie, but he ends up befriending him against all odds. She even ends up unleashing a giant eldritch horror by accident, and—well, that’s not important.

In the end, Jughead decides to make things right. He never meant to hurt Sabrina, and she seems to be in a tough spot, having just moved to town, so he brings her some food as a peace offering and explains what really happened. And Sabrina is… surprisingly receptive, in fact more receptive than Jughead’s friends were when he came to them for help, despite the fact that this is something they should already understand about him. Being upset with Jughead wasn’t doing her any favors, so Sabrina already seems to be at peace with what happened and is more than willing to forgive him and be his friend despite all that transpired between them.

This is a really great scene. There’s a nuance to it—the way Jughead acted on their date was unfair, both to Sabrina and to himself. He needed to be honest from the beginning, but instead, he just kept trying to escape. At the same time, Sabrina gets it, and it wasn’t very cool of her to try to use magic to get what she wanted, either (not that Jughead knows she did that).

Jughead helps Sabrina re-enroll in her old school and quit her job at Pop’s to move back in with her aunts, so that she can live out the rest of her teenage years the way she’s supposed to. Afterwards, Sabrina and Jughead both seem really happy, and thus volume two ends on a positive, quiet note.

I really like this arc, for the reasons I’ve already stated and more. It’s funny and awkward and endearing (I say that a lot about this series, don’t I?), and it portrays a realistic and relatable aromantic problem without it being aboutaromanticism. It’s more about Jughead being honest about his feelings and making a new friend than about Jughead being aro, even though that contextualizes the situation. A great deal of the series is about that—Jughead being honest with himself and others. In the first arc, it’s Jughead shaking off a persona of apathy. In the second, it’s Jughead being honest with Archie about their friendship and the way Archie’s behavior has been making him feel. Here, it’s about Jughead being honest about who he is at his core, and accepting it about himself—and Sabrina accepts it, too, no questions asked. Even if he never says “I’m aromantic,” the sentiment is there plain as day, and it’s a refreshing beat for the story to land on.

That said, I do have a bone to pick with this arc. There’s a line in the sand here between Zdarsky and North. In the last arc, we saw Zdarsky portray that really subtle but meaningful interaction between Archie and Jughead, in which Archie seems not only keenly aware of Jughead being aromantic—even without the word—but also tacitly supportive of him, such that he knows immediately when he’s crossed a line. Here, we see Ryan North take a bit of a step back from that, such that Archie may be aware of Jughead’s orientation but seems way too quick to assume all that’s changed the moment there’s even a sliver of possibility that Jughead has a crush. That’s the reality of having different writers stepping in to interpret the same characters in loosely connected stories like this, but it still bothers me. I prefer Zdarsky’s style of storytelling in general, but in particular I also prefer his portrayal of Archie, as much as Ryan North’s on-the-nose aro moments and undying love for Reggie make me very happy. As a whole, nobody ever stops to ask Jughead what he wants, they only tell him what they think Sabrina wants. Jughead says so himself:

I suppose one could make the argument that Jughead’s friends, or even Jughead himself, are only really aware of the asexual bit (if at all—for all we know Veronica and Reggie have no idea, for example) and that’s why they don’t only never mention aromanticism but also sometimes seem ignorant of it. It’s possible that the aro side of Jughead’s orientation is still something he doesn’t have the words for, despite it being a truth he knows about himself, and in fact I think that would have been an interesting angle to take, had this series continued beyond 15 issues. But what I have an issue with isn’t so much the fact that Jughead’s friends are unhelpful (because let’s be real, sadly a lot of us have been there), but the fact that never are they asked to apologize for pushing him to do something he so clearly didn’t want to do. Whether he or they know he’s aromantic or not, he was clearly uncomfortable with the idea of going on this date—and not just due to a lack of experience. I would have liked it had Archie, or Betty, or Kevin apologized, or even once asked him what he really wanted. Betty comes the closest, by talking it out with him in the first place, but even she still earnestly pushes him to go through with the date anyway.

Anyway, there are two arcs left for me to discuss, and frankly I’m not as enthused by either of them as I was for these past three, for a variety of reasons. The Ryan North train continues for one more arc, and then it’s on to Mark Waid and Ian Flynn’s big finish. Those two updates might come a little slower. Until then, I was going to include a compilation of Jughead looking uncomfortable, but I've only got one image slot left thanks to tumblr, so instead I leave you with this:

Same, Jughead. Huge same.

[oh-mother-of-darkness]

Hi hello I am OBSESSED with your most recent fic, it’s pacing and emotional points hits so good. I just have two questions, 1) does Tim realize the suicidal ish thoughts Jason is/was having and 2) I know its a cliff hanger on purpose but HOW do they deal with this after and irl

Howdy yes I would love to talk about that actually :)

Here is the fic I’m talking about, and I guess this is the directors commentary

1) I think if you had asked Tim before the fic took place whether he thinks Jason is or has been suicidal, he would have come down somewhere along the lines of “I mean probably,” just because I do believe suicidal ideation is Tim’s normal state of being, and I can say from experience that if you are a person experiencing suicidal ideation you tend to assume others do too. Also like… Jason’s life has kinda sucked. It’s a relatively safe assumption.

I don’t think, however, that it was on Tim’s mind during the events of the fic. When I was planning and writing the thing, I imagined Tim as (1) extraordinarily uncomfortable with the entire experience and (2) responding to that by treating Jason as a puzzle that Tim can solve, even going as far as to think that he’s more equipped than Jason to do so. More than once in the story, Tim treats Jason’s mind as something Tim can poke into doing what Tim wants.

Tim didn’t exhibit a lot of empathy during that fic, and that was an intentional choice. He wasn’t really trying to help Jason feel better; all his problem-solving was oriented around getting out of the situation. He was scared and impatient in weird circumstances where he didn’t have a lot of control over what happened, and it was supposed to show.

I think the most important thing to hammer home about Tim’s perceptions and motivation is that when it comes to trauma, Jason and Tim overlap in a really uncomfortable and difficult way. Maybe a different sibling (the earliest mental draft of this story actually used Damian instead) would have been able to approach Jason from a place of understanding and validation, but Tim can’t really do that. Tim isn’t going to stand there and say that Jason’s right because he doesn’t believe that, and I don’t know that he could really be convinced otherwise.

Now could he have approached Jason with kindness? Could he have engaged with the nuance of the situation and their history? Yeah, totally, but that wasn’t the story I wanted to tell. I chose Tim over Damian here because I think the idea of Jason explaining his own consciousness to Damian is interesting, but the idea of Jason defending his own consciousness against Tim is fascinating.

The fic is loosely inspired by a therapy exercise that I saw a few times in IOP— the therapist places an empty chair in front of the patient and tells them to imagine a younger version of themself sitting there. What do you say to your younger self? What does your younger self say back? I’m not a huge fan of the actual therapy technique, but I did think it was an interesting idea to play with story-wise.

I ended up deciding on Tim as the secondary character because Tim personally experienced the aftermath of Jason’s death and has a completely different perception of events, with the maximum potential for conflict. That sets up a situation where Tim pushes back against everything Jason says, and Jason gets to defend his current and younger self in the argument.

I played with this concept for months, asking myself just what Jason needs out of an interaction with his younger self. If he’s looking at that empty chair from therapy, what needs to happen? The first thing I arrived at was validation. Jason needs to acknowledge that what happened to him was horrible, and though he doesn’t agree with everything his younger self thought or decided, God, he had every right to be fucked up about it.

What better way to do that than to have someone else standing there belittling the whole thing? And Jason gets to yell back, validate his younger self, come to his own defense in a way where he can see himself as someone worth defending. It puts him in the headspace to look at himself and say, hey you were in so much pain, and you didn’t deserve that, and you don’t deserve to stay in pain. I want you to get better. I want good things for you.

I don’t know that Jason could say it the other way: I was in pain, and I didn’t deserve it, and I don’t deserve to stay in pain. I want to get better. I want good things for myself.

Once he brings himself to say all that, once he decides that about himself, he gets the opportunity to move past what happened. He, Jason, is really the only person that can heal the part of himself that has stayed hurt and alone and locked in a state of desperation and self-destruction. You may remember that my 2021 new year fic was on that topic. It’s a shocking amount of consistency from me, I know.

So no, I don’t think Tim caught onto the state that the younger Jason was in, at least not until Jason acknowledged it out loud.

2) Since Jason did say it out loud, though, I think it’s safe to say that Tim walked away from the experience knowing. I can confidently say that the two of them finished business with Hatter speaking the minimum amount to each other, left as quickly as possible, and did not acknowledge each other for at least two weeks, and only awkwardly after that.

I imagine that if you gave Tim awhile to review the whole experience, he might end up feeling a certain amount of shame, and I guess there’s potential in that for some kind of resolution between the two of them. Personally, I wouldn’t advise Tim to specifically bring it up again, but I think he has the opportunity to take the new information he has about Jason/Jason’s motivations and act differently in the future, maybe in a way that’s a lil more supportive.

If I were to invent a scene for the two of them to settle their differences over all this, I would probably have Tim make some kind of olive branch gesture that Jason accepts without comment. Maybe Tim very awkwardly says something to the effect of “I guess I’m wrong sometimes” when he’s technically talking about something else, and they both understand that he’s sort of apologizing for some of the things he said and the assumptions he made. Less is more here, I think.

My original intention was to publish the fic we’ve been talking about on Christmas, and then sort of follow it up on New Years with the fic I ended up actually publishing on Christmas (the mostly comedic one about going to therapy). In the original draft of the therapy piece, which assumed y’all had already read the Hatter one, Tim has looped Damian into what happened, and Damian very intentionally goads Jason into talking about (and eventually agreeing to) therapy.

I think I’m glad I didn’t end up going down that path, because I prefer them as separate, unrelated fics. But there’s your insight into my intentions, I guess.

[ljf613]

Zuko’s Memory Bias

I’ve talked about Azula’s potential memory bias towards her mother. In that same thread, I mentioned that Zuko also has memory bias towards his parents. What I didn’t think about until I was writing my recent post on his relationship with Azula is how those same biases may have affected the way he perceives her. 

(Warning: This is a very complex topic, and I suggest not reading/engaging if you find it potentially triggering or are unable to deal with it in a nuanced way. I am NOT trying to downplay abuse, nor am I trying to gaslight those who’ve been victimized by it.) 

Azula the Liar 

In “Zuko Alone,” we get a good sense of what Zuko’s life was like as a child. We see him interacting with his mother, sister, and (briefly) his father. And we get some insight into a line from “The Avatar State.” 

[ID: Excerpt from the transcript of the ATLA episode “The Avatar State.” Zuko: “You lied to me! [Cut to Azula, who appears confident.]” Azula: “[Smugly.] Like I've never done that before.”/ End ID] 

There are two scenes in “Zuko Alone” where Zuko accuses Azula of lying to him. Look at these lines, and see if you notice a common denominator. 

[ID: Excerpt from the transcript of the ATLA episode “Zuko Alone.” Young Azula: “[Sing-songy.] Dad's going to kill you! [Seriously.] Really, he is.” Young Zuko: “Ha-ha, Azula. Nice try.” Young Azula: “Fine, don't believe me. But I heard everything. Grandfather said Dad's punishment should fit his crime. [Imitates Azulon.] ‘You must know the pain of losing a first-born son. By sacrificing your own!’“ Young Zuko: “Liar!” Young Azula: “I'm only telling you for your own good. I know! Maybe you could find a nice Earth Kingdom family to adopt you!” Young Zuko: “Stop it! You're lying! Dad would never do that to me!”/ End ID]

[ID: Excerpt from the transcript of the ATLA episode “Zuko Alone.” Young Zuko: “Where's Mom?” Young Azula: “No one knows. Oh, and last night, Grandpa passed away.” Young Zuko: “Not funny, Azula! You're sick. And I want my knife back, now. [Zuko tries to grab it, but misses as Azula quickly moves out of the way, and loudly grunts.]”/ End ID]

Do you see it yet? Twice Zuko thinks Azula is making some kind of joke, and both times (as far as canon shows us, though I’ve seen headcanons that argue differently) Azula is actually telling the truth. 

Azula has no qualms about lying to acheive her goals. We see this multiple times over the course of the series. But if all we had to go by was these two scenes, we might paint a very different picture. 

Because there’s another, more subtle thing that both of these scenes have in common: both times, Zuko chooses to believe that Azula is lying, rather than accept that a parent (read: Ozai, because both of these things are really his fault) has failed him. 

The Beast 

There’s a kind of cognitive bias that often occurs with victims of abuse. Rather than try to explain it, I’ll give an example of a fictional character from a different story who is a very clear example of how and why it happens. 

In book one of Trials of Apollo (The Hidden Oracle), we’re introduced to a girl named Meg McCaffrey. Meg is strong, tough, and great in a fight. She explains that it’s all because of her stepfather, who took her in off the streets and trained her. She seems to genuinely care about him, and talks about him affectionately. 

But there’s another man in Meg’s life: The Beast. The Beast is a constant presence in her nightmares. He killed her first father, and we soon learn that he’s one of the primary antagonists of the story, and planning on destroying the world. 

But eventually, we discover the truth: The Beast and Meg’s stepfather are the same person. 

Meg’s stepfather is an abuser, one who’s used a common tool of abusers everywhere-- detatching from the tool he uses to abuse her and anthromorphizing it. “Don’t make me angry,” he says, “or you’ll wake up The Beast, and then whatever happens is on your head.” 

And because Meg needs to believe that her stepfather cares about her, she projects all her negative feelings about him towards this figmentary “Beast” and blaming him for all the problems in her life. 

Are we noticing the connection to Zuko and his relationship with his father yet? 

My Father Loves Me 

For the first two and a half seasons (especially in season 1), Zuko is convinced that deep down, his father loves him, cares about him, wants him back home. He has to believe that, because if he doesn’t, then what has been the point of everything he’s done until now? 

Which means that tricking him into an Agni Kai and then burning his face must have been justified. It means that capturing the Avatar really will get him back his honor. It means that everything that’s gone wrong in his life is his own fault. 

Or, at least, almost everything. 

You’re Like My Sister 

The first time we ever hear of Azula (other than that shot of her smiling at the Agni Kai in “The Storm”) is when Zuko is talking to (unconcious) Aang after he captures him in “The Siege of the North, Part 2.” 

[ID: Excerpt from the transcript of the ATLA episode “The Siege of the North, Part 2.” Zuko: “I finally have you, but I can't get you home because of this blizzard. [Stands up and looks outside the cave.] There's always something. Not that you would understand. You're like my sister. Everything always came easy to her. She's a firebending prodigy, and everyone adores her. My father says she was born lucky. He says I was lucky to be born. I don't need luck, though. I don't want it. I've always had to struggle and fight and that's made me strong. It's made me who I am.”/ End ID] 

There’s something interesting happening here. This is the first time Zuko’s been able to be totally honest about his feelings around Aang, and what does he do? He starts comparing Aang to, of all people, Azula. He’s projecting. He clearly has all of these negative feelings towards Azula, but he can’t do anything about them. So instead, he’s taking it out on Aang. 

Take every single interaction between Aang and Zuko in season one. Now realize that from Zuko’s perspective, he was dealing with his sister. 

Taking Aang prisoner on his ship? Azula. Constantly trying to capture Aang, only to be outsmarted by him? Azula. Shooting a blast of fire when Aang extends a potential hand of friendship? Azula. 

Because Aang, like Azula, is a perceived obstacle between himself and his father’s love. 

Father Says She Was Born Lucky 

Ozai didn’t just belittle Zuko-- he pitted his children against each other. He made it clear to Zuko that, even from the moment he was born, he would never, ever be as good at his sister. 

And all of this has caused a lot of rage and turmoil inside of Zuko. As self-depricating as he is, he does realize that not everything that’s gone wrong in his life is his fault. But we’ve already established that blaming his father would shatter his worldview. 

So who else does he have to blame? 

Azula. 

Azula, who was born lucky. Azula, who’s just so perfect. Azula, the prodigy. Azula, who everyone adores. Azula, who got everything. Azula, who always lies.  

Azula Always Lies 

Zuko talks a lot about honor. He talks a lot about capturing the Avatar. But when he’s stressed, when he’s feeling pressured, when he’s thinking about all the ways his life has gone wrong, he uses a different mantra. 

[ID: Excerpt from the transcript of the ATLA episode “Zuko Alone.” Young Zuko: “[Chanting in a low voice.] Azula always lies. Azula always lies.” Cut to the older Zuko, lying in green grass, holding his traveler's hat to his chest. Zuko: “Azula always lies.”/ End ID]

Azula always lies. 

”Azula always lies” is comforting. It means “father doesn’t really consider me a miserable failure.” It means “he was never really going to kill me.” 

Instead of getting angry at all the ways his father has failed him, Zuko can just blame it on Azula’s lies. That way he doesn’t ever have to admit the real problem. 

Now, I’m not saying that Azula was a perfect sister, or even a particularly good one. I’m not saying that she never lied, because we know she did. I’m not saying she didn’t hurt him, or trick him, or manipulate him. What I’m saying is that Zuko’s skewed perception has lead him to blame her not only for all the ways she hurt him, but also all the ways Ozai failed him. 

“Okay,” you’re saying. “Say I agree with you. Say we assume that all of his negative feelings that really should have been directed at Ozai were instead directed at Azula. But that doesn’t matter now. Zuko eventually did realize that his father was wrong. They had a whole dramatic confrontation where Zuko told him what a horrible father he was and everything! He’s not projecting anymore, and his current feelings towards his sister should only be indicative of her actions and behaviors. Right?” 

Wrong. 

How Cognitive Bias Works 

Cognitive bias is insidious. It doesn’t just affect one memory, it ripples outwards, affecting all of them. And the vast majority of the time, we don’t even notice it happening. 

Zuko called Ozai out for two things, and two things only. 

[ID: Excerpt from the transcript of the ATLA episode “The Day of Black Sun, Part 2: The Eclipse.” Zuko: “For so long, all I wanted was for you to love me, to accept me. I thought it was my honor I wanted, but really, I was just trying to please you. You, my father, who banished me just for talking out of turn. [Points a broadsword at his father.] My father, who challenged me, a thirteen-year-old boy, to an Agni Kai. [Cuts to shot of Ozai, looking angered.] How could you possibly justify a duel with a child?”/ End ID]

Zuko blames Ozai for his banishment, and for the Agni Kai. That is it. 

To be clear, I am not saying that Zuko thinks Ozai was a perfect father before all of this. Not at all. Zuko is aware that Ozai is “the worst father in the history of fathers.” 

But it isn’t like he’s gone back and inspected every single memory that involved Ozai and pinpointed all of the ways Ozai abuzed, manipulated, and gaslit him. He can’t. That requires both a level of objectivity he hasn’t reached, as well as a frame of reference for what normal looks like. Any victim of abuse-- especially childhood abuse-- will tell you that even though they know they were abused, they will often have or witness random interactions that will leave them thinking, “wait, this is what normally happens in this kind of situation? You mean [x] was also part of the abuse?” 

Not to mention that while Zuko didn’t examine his feelings towards Azula at any point before the finale. He had his epiphany about Ozai, and realized that his father had been wrong, but he’d always thought Azula was wrong. 

So while Zuko is aware that he had a bad father, he hasn’t actually stopped to consider how much of his anger towards his sister is actually about his father. 

(Again, I’m not blaming Zuko. None of this is his fault, any more than he’s at fault for the Air Nomad Genocide or the war. It’s just the reality of his situation.) 

Conclusion 

So what am I saying here? 

I’m saying that Zuko’s perception of his sister-- his anger, his frustration, his understanding of who she is-- is fundamentally biased. I’m saying Zuko isn’t viewing her from her own merits. I’m saying that Zuko doesn’t actually know her. He thinks he does, but he’s wrong. 

I’m adding another thing to the list of reasons why Zuko is not the person to try and help Azula through her trauma. 

I’m giving yet another example of how the fandom’s perception of Azula is also biased-- because the vast majority of our understanding of Azula’s character comes from Zuko. 

And unlike Zuko, we can detach ourselves from the narrative enough to realize that it might be worthwhile to re-examine our view of her.

[darlington-v]

I know different interpretations of a work are generally enriching and cool... but c!dream villan interpretations is like how to tell me you only watch Tommy without saying you only watch tommy.... which would be fine but its not a great place to be making statements about the whole nature of the dsmp lol

Wild speculation, but sometimes I wonder if like, because the dsmp didn't really start as a narrative, and a lot of fans don't nessecarily enter it expecting a narrative, but then there is one and the fandom is really discourse heavy and everyone is sort of excpeted to have an opinion while maybe not expecting to form one from the begining or not having a ton of experience with narrative in a way that would "expect" them to have an opinion or not take things at face value??, I don't know if I explained that well at all... and I don't really even think thats right nessecarily... but like wow sometimes some of the takes about power and government and villany...

Honestly, it makes sense!!!

I think something interesting is like.... looking at how animatics have shaped the like tone and culture of the fandom essentially. Like, an interesting fact that I didn't really fully grasp until SUPER recently is like...

c!Wilbur out the gate admits he is manipulating c!Tommy. Like his first youtube video on the Dream SMP he admits his goal is to manipulate c!Tommy and people like c!Tommy into helping him achieve a potion ("drug") empire to monopolize on potions because there were a lot of people on the server who like to min-max, which is to put all of your effort into this one specific skill essentially. so like... i know minecraft doesnt have a skill tree but if it did, it would be putting all your points into that one specific branch of a skill tree. So he wanted to exploit the labor of all the TommyInnits to.... maintain a Potion Empire.

THIS IS A LONG POST BC I GOT CARRIED AWAY SO BUCKLE UP

And I don't think a lot of the fandom who joined later on knows this. I certainly didn't until like a week or so ago? Like... I knew c!Wilbur had been manipulative from the start because I'm a mod of (shameless self promo incoming) @dsmpanalysis and we have a lot of different POVs in that mod team and discord and we talk about it really frequently. I joined the fandom as someone who was really big on L'manburg ESPECIALLY crimeboys, and have turned into.... *gestures vaguely to my blog*

And ngl I owe a lot of it to @1-michibiki-1 in terms of c!Dream "Apologism" but all of the mods there have expanded my thoughts and views on the storylines of this narrative.

My application consisted of like largely essays about like... how I think Dream was the villain but he was meant to be the villain because you don't get any insight into his character WHICH.... IS A FAIR ASSUMPTION AT FIRST GLANCE. People are easily villainized when you cannot get a glimpse into their thought process. It's easy to dwindle someone down into this flat character and starting out I knew Dream didn't stream the SMP on purpose.

And I personally came to the conclusion of "Oh! So Dream is supposed to be the villain." However as the story continued and I learned more about what Dream went through I began to realize that... it's more than likely a form of a red herring. My opinions on this were immediately solidified when I watched Ranboo's 2 MIL stream because both Ranboo AND Dream agree on enjoying red herrings.

There have been MANY times were Dream has said that c!Dream is a complex character and he's not a wholly evil guy and there have been times where the narrative has honestly just proved that.

Anyways, what's important though was that... I learned most of this from other people who were more focused on c!Dream rather than myself. Eventually I shifted from c!Tommy to c!Ranboo and c!Techno after c!Tommy betrayed c!Techno and I began to realize.... everything I learned before hopping in wasn't exactly what it seemed.

Part of this is because I'm older, I heavily identify with c!Techno's sense of loyalty and philosophies on government, but I especially identify with the anguish c!Techno voiced in... a lot of lore but especially the lore around Doomsday.

I'm not 16 anymore. I don't always feel wronged by adults, or older people in my case, whenever they absolutely have done something wrong by me, but I do feel wronged by my close friends. I also felt like c!Tommy's sense of loyalty didn't line up with mine after what felt like him constantly flip-flopping and refusing to understand c!Techno's morals on government didn't line up with his.

In short, it was easier to identify with Tommy in these animatics versus in the actual stream content because c!Tommy is played by a 16 year old. I'm not a teenager and my line of thinking doesn't entirely line up with people that age anymore. It's harder to place myself in the same shoes of someone's OC who is played closer to their actual age, because I'm not that age.

Regardless, I was still on the c!Dream is a villain train. I wasn't ever like... c!Dream is repulsive I hate him, but I was like omg hot villain lad go brrr.

Even when the first like... mellohi, panic room, Ranboo lore stream popped up I thought "Oh! c!Ranboo corruption arc?"

And I was excited because I really wanted this shy, nervous character to turn into villain buddies with his good pal c!Dream. I'm a total sucker for villains and corruption arcs and all that good shit.

SO I STARTED GETTING REALLY INTERESTED IN ENDERSMILE. I'VE BEEN ON ENDERSMILE SQUAD OUT THE GATE. NOT THE SAME WAY I AM NOW, BUT I'VE ALWAYS WANTED THEM TO TEAM UP.

So... upon not really keeping up with c!Dream and being relatively??? indifferent? I don't think I started arguments on c!Dream back then, but I might have. But I remember like... starting to participate more whenever c!Dream came up and looking more into Dream's character BUT ESPECIALLY TALKING WITH OUR SERVER'S C!DREAM SPECIALIST MICHI ABOUT DREAM A LOT MORE.

And because Michi has been a watcher since day one and was a DTeam fan rather than a SBI fan, she was able to provide me with more information on how the server worked pre-Tommy but especially pre-Wilbur.

Now, you could definitely argue well Michi probably has clear bias but it made sense to me when I looked back on how the storyline had been constructed and was going along, and everyone in the server talks a lot about our own biases and how we want people to maybe not lean so hard on them. Michi would also provide like anecdotes on what had happened and I'm sure links were probably provided at one point but the point was I felt like Michi had no reason to lie or manipulate how the story was told and if she did, eventually someone would have pointed it out because... Group of like... right now it's around 20 or more analysts but I don't remember how many at the time there were. POINT BEING, WE'VE ALL GOT POINTS TO PROVE AND IN MY EXPERIENCE NOT MANY OF US HAVE BEEN SHY TO PROVE THEM.

So if anyone ever had any differing opinions they would be talked about and we literally had and still have discussions.

REGARDLESS.... I DIDN'T FACT CHECK IN DEPTH BECAUSE I THOUGHT PEER REVIEW WAS ENOUGH WHEN YOU HAVE LIKE HOURS UPON HOURS OF STREAMS TO WATCH.

Anyways. Eventually I started paying closer attention and looking more into c!Dream lore but only recently have I started to triple check before speaking about c!Wilbur lore because I know everyone has biases and while I did trust everyone's thoughts and analysis in the discord, whenever I make essays I typically like it to be largely air tight and if theres a mistake, I want it to be because I forgot not because I just trusted what was said. Plus, I wanted to get down to the specifics of how Wilbur had always started with manipulation on the mind.

SO I WATCHED HIS FIRST VIDEO ON THE DREAM SMP.

AND WHAT I WAS NOT BY ANY MEANS EXPECTING WAS WILBUR TO SAY WORD FOR WORD, VERBATIM,

"SO WHY DON'T I START AN INDUSTRY WHERE I USE THE TOMMYINNITS OF THE WORLD TO WORK FOR ME, TO CREATE THINGS THAT THE MIN-MAXERS OF THE WORLD WILL WANT."

Like... this is in no way an attempt to like hardcore villainize c!Wilbur like everyone does Dream, it's just more so to like REALLY outline how far off a lot of fandom interpretation of c!Wilbur is....

Because of SBI focused animatics.

Now, when I joined I watched A LOT of animatics that really highlighted like... Wilbur being this self-loathing JD-esque, "I destroyed it because I had to because the world was against me because no one loved us, Tommy" type of character. At least... that's what it came across as.

And it definitely highlighted the fact that Tommy was a victim, which he is. He is undoubtedly a victim and no not even any dream apologist can change my mind otherwise. Tommy, despite being an instigator sometimes, didn't deserve the abuse he received.

But these animatics never shown the fact that c!Wilbur started L'manburg as a shady ploy to exploit people like c!Tommy and vilify c!Dream so he could have power.

And that was easy because Dream and Tommy had wars before. They had spars and pranks and here's the plan to take back my disks and here's the plan to out smart the thieving little child etc etc.

And all of the animatics I watched never mentioned this. Neither did the recaps though. The recaps gave the events flat out, there didn't sound like there was bias, and honestly I don't really know if there was rather than like... a lack of nuance. And it's hard to provide a recap with that much nuance in a short period of time for a youtube video, to be perfectly fair.

However, this creates a perfect formula for entirely rewriting the history of a server. c!Wilbur quite literally fucking succeeded TO A META LEVEL. He slandered and ran smear campaigns against Dream and like he even does that with Sapnap in the beginning. But what's crazy is that it transferred over into the meta! Most of this fandom understands Wilbur as a victim of mental illness, and yeah maybe? He definitely wasn't mentally well by the end of pogtopia, but he never started out with honorable intentions. L'manburg was never a victim, only its citizens. The TommyInnits of the world.

I just think it's like... such an interesting case study. Because this is like... an opinion like shared by at least half of the fandom, but the vilifying of c!Dream is shared by MOST of the fandom I would argue. Which is like even more crazy for me because that was c!Wilbur's goal!!!

LIKE I GO INSANE WHEN I THINK OF THIS BECAUSE HIS REACH IS JUST TOO POWERFUL. HE'S NOT EVEN ENTIRELY REAL, JUST A MANIPULATIVE PERSONA OF SOME BRITISH GUY.

And I mean... maybe people who have watched Wilbur's video on the SMP still maintain this idea that Wilbur wasn't always the bad guy, but honestly... I wouldn't be surprised if their introduction was still an animatic. Like bias is hard to check and I'm not going to lie I could have sworn I watched both Wilbur's AND Tommy's video on the SMP in the beginning and yet I STILL was a ride or die for tragic yet on some level still honorable Wilbur and a resilient Tommy.

Like... upon watching Wilbur's first video... possibly again I was surprised because I thought I did watch it like right before I even started watching the streams and yet I was still so invested in c!Wilbur as this tortured anti-hero.

It took 6 months of... not being in an echo chamber, full of multiple different people of different ages, different stream POVS, and people who joined the fandom at different points in time.

IDK IF THIS WAS EVEN ENTIRELY RELEVANT IT JUST FELT TANGENTIALLY RELEVANT AND THIS WAS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT FOR A HOT MINUTE AFTER LIKE WATCHING WILBUR'S FIRST VIDEO AGAIN.

TLDR;

SBI CENTRIC ANIMATICS HAD A LASTING AFFECT ON THIS FANDOM AS IT'S HARD TO GO BACK AND ACTUALLY CHECK THE NARRATIVE FOR SOLID FACTS FOR YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS NARRATIVE SPANS OVER HUNDREDS OF HOURS WORTH OF TWITCH STREAMS.

[woman-loving]

your blog talks about bi lesbian identity so im sure its fine to put my thoughts here?

to me its not an oxymoron to identify as bisexual and lesbian because the terms are grounded in totally different concepts/perceptions of sexuality. lesbianism is defined as an action and bisexuality as an inaction. i dont want this to be really long so ill try to be brief when explaining

lesbian historically and arguably still today is defined as a woman who seeks relationships with other women. whether or not they also experience attraction to men is irrelevant.

bisexuality on the other hand is an inaction. someone who has never experienced attraction to a particular sex can identify as bisexual. someone who doesn't seek relationships with a particular sex can identify as bisexual. the only prerequisite for identifying as bisexual is if they see their sexuality as a grey area. so bisexual identification more or less means "im not interested in putting myself in a box since sexual fluidity is normal and natural".

so "bi lesbian" would mean someone who sees their sexuality as a grey area, but actively pursues other women. these statements dont contradict each other in any way

i hope this makes sense xoxo. i get really annoyed at this discourse because everyone seems to have very surface level, no-nuance understanding of sexual identity.

-----------------

My perspective is similar in some respects and divergent in others.

I generally agree that lesbianism/homosexuality and bisexuality (as concepts) aren't entirely parallel. (See here.) And I think the fact that each one can be conceived in multiple ways and with different emphases means that the area they cover can overlap. (You can see my "bi lesbian" tag and and sidebar link. The second link especially talks about bi sexuality as potential, which might fit with your interpretation of it as inaction.)

However, bisexuality means more than just “a grey area of sexuality.” I spoke more in these threads a long time ago that the definition of bisexuality has had positive content beyond “not gay, not straight.” I certainly don’t object to people who use it to mean a gray area or a field of potential (as I have described it). But I would totally disagree that bisexuality is a rejection of identity categories while lesbianism is an acceptance of rigid categories. It’s also not true that attraction/desire toward men has never been relevant to lesbian identities in the past. “Lesbian” can be used with a range of meanings, including “any woman in or seeking a relationship with a woman” and “a woman exclusively attracted to women.”

So yes, you can mix and match which dimensions of lesbianism and bisexuality you emphasize in your definitions of each, so that they can overlap in meaning. But I wouldn’t say that lesbianism is only ever defined through action while bisexuality is only ever defined through potential or outlook.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[buffysummers]

I totally understand your point. I think as content creators there's a lot of unseen love and care that goes into gifsets that people forget about. But I think the problem is that Tumblr is a discourse site. The implication I'm reading is people not use tags for negative thoughts on chars. When people see a set, their thoughts go to the chars/their opinions. And the thing about compelling writing is that often those characters are divisive. People use tags for discourse/fandom/personal resonance

I'm not trying to be rude or anything here, btw. I'm genuinely just trying to figure out your side of things as you're obvs someone who does put a lot of love into it. Is there another way you think people could add these thoughts? Is it just not tag them onto gifsets? Have the discourse without the visual representations? I agree that it's pretty frustrating to see hate...but isn't having an avenue for negative discourse on chars (not just positive) important too? Just maybe not in tags?

I’m assuming this is from the same person so I combined it. If it’s not, I apologize! But it very much seems like it is.

I am not sure how many more ways I can say this, but I don’t really see how me saying simply, “Don’t reblog gifsets of shit you don’t like and then attack the person/character/ship/etc in the tags (or comments)” is somehow a controversial opinion, or an opinion that is hard to grasp. I am not the only content creator to speak about this, and I definitely won’t be the last.

There is nuance to this discussion here. The fact of the matter, is that I agree, compelling writing often gets a divisive response because it evokes something from us. Maybe you see a gifset of a divisive character, for instance, I will use Ross Geller. He is someone that people seem to have a VERY strong opinion about. And we should all be allowed to have our opinions. But there is a difference between stating your opinion in a respectful way that INVITES further discussion, or perhaps prompts a person reading the tag to re-evaluate, and a difference between saying “Man, Ross fucking sucks.” It comes down to manners and courtesy. Why would OP want to see that? OP just spent hours working on their set.

Yes, tumblr is a discourse website. But there are BETTER ways to get your point across, and better ways to have a discussion. You could literally make your own post about Ross. Or you could go into OP’s inbox and try to express yourself, in hopefully a respectful way. I am not condoning anon hate.

Hell, you could even screenshot the gifset (and maybe blur out the URL to be as respectful as possible) and post your thoughts about the set on your blog.

And that’s my point. There are better places to have discussions than on a gifset, but also, very rarely to people state their opinions in a way that facilitates discussion. It’s just hateful. Hate does not promote productive discussion, like it accomplishes absolutely nothing. I have discussions on my blog all the time. I write critical analyses all the time. We should, of course, be able to have negative discourse, but there is a fundamental difference between negative discourse and hate. I have posted several metas on here, and you know what people do? They like it, maybe reblog it, add to the discussion, or they come into my inbox and talk to me about it.

I’m not stifling people’s opinions, but rather, I am criticizing how they present their opinion, and if their opinion adds anything at all to what the OP has in their set. I did not ask for their hateful opinion, but rather, I saw it because I saw their hateful comments in the tags. And it feels shitty. The straw story was used to demonstrate an addition to a gifset that is unwarranted, hateful, and adds nothing meaningful to the conversation. But my post was also very specific to my experience in the Buffy fandom, which I pointed out in the post.

Now, it’s Friday night and I don’t see how else I can explain this. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If my point is still lost, I fold.

[whitehotharlots]

The point is control

Whenever we think or talk about censorship, we usually conceptualize it as certain types of speech being somehow disallowed: maybe (rarely) it's made formally illegal by the government, maybe it's banned in certain venues, maybe the FCC will fine you if you broadcast it, maybe your boss will fire you if she learns of it, maybe your friends will stop talking to you if they see what you've written, etc. etc. 

This understanding engenders a lot of mostly worthless discussion precisely because it's so broad. Pedants--usually arguing in favor of banning a certain work or idea--will often argue that speech protections only apply to direct, government bans. These bans, when they exist, are fairly narrow and apply only to those rare speech acts in which other people are put in danger by speech (yelling the N-word in a crowded theater, for example). This pedantry isn't correct even within its own terms, however, because plenty of people get in trouble for making threats. The FBI has an entire entrapment program dedicated to getting mentally ill muslims and rednecks to post stuff like "Death 2 the Super bowl!!" on twitter, arresting them, and the doing a press conference about how they heroically saved the world from terrorism. 

Another, more recent pedant's trend is claiming that, actually, you do have freedom of speech; you just don't have freedom from the consequences of speech. This logic is eerily dictatorial and ignores the entire purpose of speech protections. Like, even in the history's most repressive regimes, people still technically had freedom of speech but not from consequences. Those leftist kids who the nazis beheaded for speaking out against the war were, by this logic, merely being held accountable. 

The two conceptualizations of censorship I described above are, 99% of the time, deployed by people who are arguing in favor of a certain act of censorship but trying to exempt themselves from the moral implications of doing so. Censorship is rad when they get to do it, but they realize such a solipsism seems kinda icky so they need to explain how, actually, they're not censoring anybody, what they're doing is an act of righteous silencing that's a totally different matter. Maybe they associate censorship with groups they don't like, such as nazis or religious zealots. Maybe they have a vague dedication toward Enlightenment principles and don't want to be regarded as incurious dullards. Most typically, they're just afraid of the axe slicing both ways, and they want to make sure that the precedent they're establishing for others will not be applied to themselves.

Anyone who engages with this honestly for more than a few minutes will realize that censorship is much more complicated, especially in regards to its informal and social dimensions. We can all agree that society simply would not function if everyone said whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. You might think your boss is a moron or your wife's dress doesn't look flattering, but you realize that such tidbits are probably best kept to yourself. 

Again, this is a two-way proposition that everyone is seeking to balance. Do you really want people to verbalize every time they dislike or disagree with you? I sure as hell don't. And so, as part of a social compact, we learn to self-censor. Sometimes this is to the detriment of ourselves and our communities. Most often, however, it's just a price we have to pay in order to keep things from collapsing. 

But as systems, large and small, grow increasingly more insane and untenable, so do the comportment standards of speech. The disconnect between America's reality and the image Americans have of themselves has never been more plainly obvious, and so striving for situational equanimity is no longer good enough. We can't just pretend cops aren't racist and the economy isn't run by venal retards or that the government places any value on the life of its citizens. There's too much evidence that contradicts all that, and the evidence is too omnipresent. There's too many damn internet videos, and only so many of them can be cast as Russian disinformation. So, sadly, we must abandon our old ways of communicating and embrace instead systems that are even more unstable, repressive, and insane than the ones that were previously in place.

Until very, very recently, nuance and big-picture, balanced thinking were considered signs of seriousness, if not intelligence. Such considerations were always exploited by shitheads to obfuscate things that otherwise would have seemed much less ambiguous, yes, but this fact alone does not mitigate the potential value of such an approach to understanding the world--especially since the stuff that's been offered up to replace it is, by every worthwhile metric, even worse.

So let's not pretend I'm Malcolm Gladwell or some similarly slimy asshole seeking to "both sides" a clearcut moral issue. Let's pretend I am me. Flash back to about a year ago, when there was real, widespread, and sustained support for police reform. Remember that? Seems like forever ago, man, but it was just last year... anyhow, now, remember what happened? Direct, issues-focused attempts to reform policing were knocked down. Blotted out. Instead, we were told two things: 1) we had to repeat the slogan ABOLISH THE POLICE, and 2) we had to say it was actually very good and beautiful and nonviolent and valid when rioters burned down poor neighborhoods.

Now, in a relatively healthy discourse, it might have been possible for someone to say something like "while I agree that American policing is heavily violent and racist and requires substantial reforms, I worry that taking such an absolutist point of demanding abolition and cheering on the destruction of city blocks will be a political non-starter." This statement would have been, in retrospect, 100000000% correct. But could you have said it, in any worthwhile manner? If you had said something along those lines, what would the fallout had been? Would you have lost friends? Your job? Would you have suffered something more minor, like getting yelled at, told your opinion did not matter? Would your acquaintances still now--a year later, after their political project has failed beyond all dispute--would they still defame you in "whisper networks," never quite articulating your verbal sins but nonetheless informing others that you are a dangerous and bad person because one time you tried to tell them how utterly fucking self-destructive they were being? It is undeniably clear that last year's most-elevated voices were demanding not reform but catharsis. I hope they really had fun watching those immigrant-owned bodegas burn down, because that’s it, that will forever be remembered as the most palpable and consequential aspect of their shitty, selfish movement. We ain't reforming shit. Instead, we gave everyone who's already in power a blank check to fortify that power to a degree you and I cannot fully fathom.

But, oh, these people knew what they were doing. They were good little boys and girls. They have been rewarded with near-total control of the national discourse, and they are all either too guilt-ridden or too stupid to realize how badly they played into the hands of the structures they were supposedly trying to upend.

And so left-liberalism is now controlled by people whose worldview is equal parts superficial and incoherent. This was the only possible outcome that would have let the system continue to sustain itself in light of such immense evidence of its unsustainability without resulting in reform, so that's what has happened.

But... okay, let's take a step back. Let's focus on what I wanted to talk about when I started this.

I came across a post today from a young man who claimed that his high school English department head had been removed from his position and had his tenure revoked for refusing to remove three books from classrooms. This was, of course, fallout from the ongoing debate about Critical Race Theory. Two of those books were Marjane Satropi's Persepolis and, oh boy, The Diary of Anne Frank. Fuck. Jesus christ, fuck.

Now, here's the thing... When Persepolis was named, I assumed the bannors were anti-CRT. The graphic novel does not deal with racism all that much, at least not as its discussed contemporarily, but it centers an Iranian girl protagonist and maybe that upset Republican types. But Anne Frank? I'm sorry, but the most likely censors there are liberal identiarians who believe that teaching her diary amounts to centering the suffering of a white woman instead of talking about the One Real Racism, which must always be understood in an American context. The super woke cult group Black Hammer made waves recently with their #FuckAnneFrank campaign... you'd be hard pressed to find anyone associated with the GOP taking a firm stance against the diary since, oh, about 1975 or so.

So which side was it? That doesn't matter. What matters is, I cannot find out.

Now, pro-CRT people always accuse anti-CRT people of not knowing what CRT is, and then after making such accusations they always define CRT in a way that absolutely is not what CRT is. Pro-CRTers default to "they don't want  students to read about slavery or racism." This is absolutely not true, and absolutely not what actual CRT concerns itself with. Slavery and racism have been mainstays of American history curriucla since before I was born. Even people who barely paid attention in school would admit this, if there were any more desire for honesty in our discourse. 

My high school history teacher was a southern "lost causer" who took the south's side in the Civil War but nonetheless provided us with the most descriptive and unapologetic understandings of slavery's brutalities I had heard up until that point. He also unambiguously referred to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshmia and Nagasaki as "genocidal." Why? Because most people's politics are idiosyncratic, and because you cannot genuinely infer a person to believe one thing based on their opinion of another, tangentially related thing. The totality of human understanding used to be something open-minded people prided themselves on being aware of, believe it or not...

This is the problem with CRT. This is is the motivation behind the majority of people who wish to ban it. It’s not because they are necessarily racist themselves. It’s because they recognize, correctly, that the now-ascendant frames for understanding social issues boils everything down to a superficial patina that denies not only the realities of the systems they seek to upend but the very humanity of the people who exist within them. There is no humanity without depth and nuance and complexities and contradictions. When you argue otherwise, people will get mad and fight back. 

And this is the most bitter irony of this idiotic debate: it was never about not wanting to teach the sinful or embarrassing parts of our history. That was a different debate, one that was settled and won long ago. It is instead an immense, embarrassing overreach on behalf of people who have bullied their way to complete dominance of their spheres of influence within media and academe assuming they could do the same to everyone else. Some of its purveyors may have convinced themselves that getting students to admit complicity in privilege will prevent police shootings, sure. But I know these people. I’ve spoken to them at length. I’ve read their work. The vast, vast majority of them aren’t that stupid. The point is to exert control. The point is to make sure they stay in charge and that nothing changes. The point is failure. 

[tundrainafrica]

So, what's your overall opinion on snk 139?

Something doesn’t sit well with me with how people on Twitter are complaining about 139. Personally (Hange backstory aside), it was satisfying and despite what people are saying that it ‘romanticizes genocide,’ I do not agree. I wanted to give my thoughts on the chapter overall so I decided to write it out. 

In fact, I have another take on the overall message of the story and I hope people would give this a read. 

Disclaimer: Sure, I am defending the story line and the ‘message’ that’s coming with it but I in no way, agree with the genocide. But there is a more nuanced take on this which I think will help people understand that there is an underlying message to all this and I wanted to just talk about it below. 

Also, I found some cringe-worthy moments, I do not agree with Armin’s take on ‘Thank you for committing genocide for us’ one of the most horrible lines ever and I like to retcon that and never think about it again and I intend to read the Japanese raws though to check if it was just a translation error.

Maybe there is someone who already explored this but yeah, I’ll just write this in case no one has. 

For now though, allow me to give a more detailed analysis of the message over all so people stop hating on the ending for ‘romanticizing genocide’ because I think this is a low key pretty shallow take on the whole thing and I want to provide some information, some analysis and some comparison to make people realize, this isn’t as easy as people claim it to be. 

So let me start by mentioning something about the war with Marley to give people some perspective. 

Yams pretty much set up a trolley problem on a wider scale and Eren was the one with the lever. 

For people who don’t know what the trolley problem is, allow me to explain it below. 

Here is a sample I found online: (See this link for details) 

“A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Adam is standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If Adam diverts the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved.”

There are a lot of variations to this like: 

“A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Adam is on a footbridge over the tracks, in between the approaching trolley and the five workers. Next to him on this footbridge is a stranger who happens to be very large. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to push this stranger off the footbridge and onto the tracks below where his large body will stop the trolley. The stranger will die if Adam does this, but the five workers will be saved”

And there are so many other variations of this.

The runaway trolley is going after your mom vs. five escaped prisoners. 

The runaway trolley is going after Pope Francis vs five serial killers. 

These trolley problems show the moral tension between two schools of thought which are in two different ends of the moral spectrum: ‘Utilitarian ethics and ‘deontological ethics’ which are both either way, inherently flawed yet not totally bad. Utilitarian ethics focuses on the net happiness of doing an action as a determinant of whether something is good or not. So a utilitarian will find a way to kill less people and will probably go for the action which will actively kill people if it means saving others. 

Deontological ethics emphasizes that the attention should be on the act in itself not the result is what makes something good. So ‘NOT pulling the lever’ even if it kills five people is the good thing to do.  

The thing is, the trolley problem is not completely applicable in real life because you cannot really predict what’s gonna happen. Utilitarian ethics assumes that you will know what will happen in the end. 

And here’s the thing, in the massive trolley problem created by Yams, Eren was the one with the lever. This was already proven in 138 and there were clear cut results. Eren knew what was going to happen. If he could, he would have just yeeted off to the woods with Mikasa and lived their remaining life together. 

If he didn’t do anything, Paradis would have been completely destroyed and lost in five years or so. Marley was gonna overrun Paradis, the other nations were going to destroy it, take their resources and massive genocide was going to happen anyway. 

Sure, Zeke and Hange offered their own suggestions to stop it. But as the founding titan, I’m sure Eren knew it probably wasn’t going to work. Because his daydream or the reality he saw where he lived in the woods with Mikasa implies  that someone else took over the peace negotiations and Eren said himself, they had at least five years of peace before Marley and the other countries invade. 

So with the results of both choices of the ‘trolley problem’ in Eren’s head at that time, he had a clear choice to make. Lemme quote the trolley problem again and apply it to his case. 

“A runaway trolley (aka the war) is heading down the tracks towards Paradis who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Eren is standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of the people of his hometown  is to divert the trolley onto another track that has the rest of the world (or at least the victims) on it. If Eren diverts the trolley onto the other track, the genoicde (the intended genocide), but Paradis will be saved.”

Okay fine, it looks like Eren did do something horrible because he pulled the lever and let more people die which is considered bad under the paradigm of both utilitarian and deontological ethics. 

But lemme show you another variation of the trolley problem which can put Eren’s choice into perspective:

“A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks towards your beloved family who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. You are standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of your loved ones is to divert the trolley onto another track that has complete strangers that have only hated you and are ready to fight back and kill everyone you love if you let them live. What will you do?” 

This is difficult right? I don’t think it would be easy to make a choice to kill your family right? 

So Eren went for the easier choice...

“A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks towards Eren’s loved ones who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Eren is standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of his loved ones is to divert the trolley onto another track that has complete strangers that have only hated him and are ready to fight back and kill everyone he loves if he lets them live.. So Eren diverts the trolley onto the other track, this trolley kills the current victims of the rumbling, but his hometown Paradis will be saved.”

So, what fueled Eren’s choice? Can love fuel Eren’s choice? Is love a valid reason to push or to leave the lever?

I personally believe love is the answer. But here my explanation. 

Utilitarian and Deontological ethics are on two different sides of the ethical spectrum and at their extremes they are both inherently flawed paradigms to live by. Most people actually flit between the two when making decisions in morally gray situations which I believe is generally the most appropriate way to navigate ethics. 

Let me introduce one new ethical paradigm to this discussion. “Aristotle ethics’ or Nicomachean ethics which claims there is a golden mean for everything. So goodness is finding that golden mean. 

So I personally believe the most ethical and the best option is the finding that golden mean in between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics, and what is the golden mean? 

It’s difficult to find but I always believed the golden mean for something as complex as morality is the ‘most loving option’ but believe me, the most ‘loving option’ is very difficult thing to find. 

I never believed that ‘true love’ was an emotion. I always believed love to be something born of deep discernment more than everything else. Although Eren had touched on love when he made the final decision to kill, he lacked the discernment which makes his decision still inherently flawed in the grand scheme of things. 

So what was the whole point of the story? 

I never believed AOT to be a manga that ‘romanticizes genocide’ regardless of what people are saying. 

I think what Yams was trying to set up here, after giving Eren the very difficult decision, was ‘who set up the tracks in the first place?’ 

Who forced that young boy from Shinganshina to stand at the side of the tracks and have to make the decision to kill millions or to let his family die? 

Was it the cycle of hatred? Was it the crapsack world that just forces everyone to be an asshole?

And the thing is, their world is a shithole. Just like ours.

Everyone is forced to do evil every once in their life (even through small ways)  but it doesn’t mean that these people are completely at fault. There are structures in society that force us to do ‘evil’ to survive and the Catholic concept of social sin explains this. I won’t go into detail about this but I just want to say...

Morality is incredibly complex and I do not believe a clear cut right or wrong exist. But I believe if everyone discerned for themselves what right or wrong is, if everyone did their part to make this world a better place, maybe so many people wouldn’t be faced with their own version of the ‘trolley problem,’ maybe so many people wouldn’t be faced with the decision to make such an ethically gray and questionable decision like Eren. 

So what’s the message that I believe Yams is trying to relay with his story? 

Stop the cycle of hatred, start talking, start discourse. Stop fighting. And I think he has shown it multiple times with Eren and Reiner’s conversation and with Marco’s screams of ‘WE HAVEN’T EVEN TALKED THIS THROUGH YET.” 

Anyway, I hope this meta or this rant whatever you think it is, just gives some new perspectives on the ending. Don’t get me wrong, Eren made a very ethically questionable decision but it had never been an easy decision to make to begin with. 

And I hope this type of analysis and reflection could be useful to your own thoughts and your own ways on how you choose to navigate life.

[wisteria-lodge]

snake primary + snake secondary (bird model)

Hello! I recently discovered your blog and really love the thought you’ve put into the nuances of the SHC system. I’m super into these kinds of personality analysis systems (I’ve probably been through them all at this point) because I think it’s interesting to know how people tick - I also think self-awareness is important so that you know why you do what you do, essentially. I took the SHC quiz and it told me I was a Snake Primary with a Bird Model, and a Bird Secondary with a Snake Model. I agree that I’m probably a (somewhat petrified) Snake Primary with a strong Bird Model, but I’m not sure which is my true secondary and which is the model. Maybe you can help?

I can sure try :)

Some things about me: I’m an oldest daughter, and I’m almost 100% sure my dad is a Bird Snake and I *idolized* him as a child - I thought he had it all figured out. He was the Zeus to my Athena in my child’s eyes, and I think I got my Bird primary model very early from copying him.

I mean, I know what you mean in a “sole creator” sense, but there is no *way* Athena thought Zeus had it all figured out.

My two younger brothers are a Lion Snake and a Lion Badger, and my mother is possibly a Double Badger, though I’m not as sure about her - maybe she just thinks that she *should* be a Double Badger. I think all that is important to help illustrate that I didn’t really feel *at home* when I was with my family, though I loved them, since I was the only Snake. My parents also had a terrible relationship and are now divorced, so there’s that as well. I think the only time I have ever been truly morally outraged was the revelation that my dad had engaged in infidelity against my mom, and then again when he started dragging his feet over a promise the he had made my youngest brother. We didn’t speak for a long time after that incident, but I was really cut up over dropping him.

Oh yeah. That’s very Snake primary. Morally outraged because your People are getting hurt.

We eventually started to reconcile, and the only reason we did was because he called and said he was driving through my city one day, and even after all of that, I said yes to meeting up because I felt sad that I had dropped him. I think this family dynamic, plus some other childhood stuff, led to me sort of “checking out” and petrifying pretty early.

Just a theory - I think it’s possible that this hit your secondary more than it hit your primary. You seem pretty strong and confident in your Snake primary so far. Even the fact that you can identify it coming from such a non-Snake environment, and don’t feel guilty about it, is big.

I had a lot of trouble making friends in school.

I’m thinking this might be more of a secondary thing.

and generally ended up with like one friend who was the other weird girl, and who I always sort of kept at arm’s length emotionally. I moved schools several times as a kid and after the first best friend (who was the daughter of my mom’s best friend and was like a sister to me until she moved away), I really didn’t try too hard to make new “best” friends.

Hmm. See, this reads like a *default* friend to me, not a friend of choice. The other weird girl. The daughter of your mom’s friend. That’s an easy friend to have… and not one that you necessarily sought out. I’m not surprised that your primary didn’t latch onto her with that Snake intensity.

Even now, though I definitely have concentric circles of loyalty and a significant other who is my “top person”, I’m not sure I have that blind Snake I-would-literally-die-for-you loyalty toward anyone - I’d kill or hide a body for my top circles

That *is* Snake loyalty. Snakes aren’t going to die for someone else, are you kidding? That’s a sucker’s game. They value themselves too much.

I would give up a lot of my own comfort for my significant other. Maybe I’m just afraid to let myself feel that unquestioning loyalty, though I want to feel it, or maybe I’m really a Bird and just want to be a Snake because that would mean I could be un-broken eventually.

Let’s talk about your secondary, I want to hear about how you think you’re broken, because so far you seem fine. Congrats on the SO!

I don’t think I’m an Idealist though - I’m surrounded by them and I know I don’t care about “principles” the way they do. Then again, maybe I’m a Bird whose truth is that moral relativism is the truth lol. Anyway, I think for my primary, I’m probably a petrified Snake with a Bird model unless I’m totally wrong about myself.

I think you’re just a Snake who… is a Snake.

(you’ve got that Birdy influence though, from your dad, and they do like to complicate things.)

As for my secondary, I loved to read (everything - all kinds of fiction, especially sci-fi/fantasy/mystery and, like, Victorian sci-fi/horror adventures, nature books, medical texts, etc. Wikipedia was a revelation when it came out), and I was smart and good at taking tests and knowing the answers in school, so at a certain point I think I just defaulted to being “the smart one” and used that as armor to help keep people from getting too close.

yep yep yep, welcome to the ‘fun Bird model’ club, we have snacks

I do genuinely love to learn, and I’ve always been known among friends and family as the one who either knows the answer or will look it up. I love pop culture trivia and nature facts. I also love and am good at debate, but not really when real feelings are involved - I more love the “battle of wits” aspect, where I can match up against a person to see if my knowledge and ability to adapt my argument on the fly can stump them. 

I also would argue the unpopular point, or the point I didn’t agree with, just for sport. Fun Bird secondary model.

I developed terrible anxiety and probably some depression as well in high school.

Okay, now I’m seeing the problem.

and now that I’m older, I suspect that I may have ADHD, though I haven’t been officially assessed. I didn’t discover my executive function issues really until college, when suddenly being smart and being able to figure out the test answers through context clues and what I remembered from lectures and readings + whatever trivia I had gathered about the topic wasn’t enough anymore.

I suspect you’re right about being ADHD. Or at least being neruodivergent.

I am horrible at studying! I would plan out my study sessions and make these nice little cheat sheets (these were allowed on exams) and they didn’t work at all! I did very well in my literature minor though, because all the graded assignments were papers rather than open-answer tests, and I could get my thoughts out better and with more resources at my disposal if I forgot something and needed to go back to the book to check.

Oh ouch. Yeah, I’m not even relating this back to a secondary, because I’m reading this as a working memory thing? Like ugh tests are such a terrible way access knowledge. What is even the *point* of memorization anymore? You should have been able to have a college career that was completely writing papers, like I did.

I was at one point very jealous of my Lion Snake brother, who I felt could do “whatever he wanted” with minimal consequences, while I always felt constrained by being “good” and not rocking the boat too much with my family.

Yep. That’s being an oldest daughter.

I couldn’t understand why he didn’t seem to care about being considerate to everyone else in the household (especially my chronically overworked, can’t-say-no Badger mom lol).

It’s because he’s the youngest. Mine’s the same.

This attitude was definitely influenced by my anxiety issues at that time, since I had (and still have) a lot of trouble asking for anything - help, permission, whatever. I’d rather do things and explore on my own, without anyone watching, so I don’t have to ask and don’t have to explain.

Did you low-key raise your younger siblings? Because it sounds like you raised your siblings.

I feel better with a little bit of distance, and definitely wear masks in most situations. I’d say my masks are half conscious and half reactive - I do have some idea of how I’d like to be perceived, but it’s only kind of systematic.

That makes me think Snake or Badger secondary.

I have a few “characters” that I use as touchpoints when I’m going into a new situation, but once I’m there I mostly just act nice and funny and see what happens.

So far I’m going with Badger secondary (be nice and and assume it’ll be fine is very badger) with a fun Bird secondary model, that you can do an Actor Bird thing with. Although liking to “just see what happens” is pretty snake.

The characters are really just costumes I use to give off a certain first impression, although I do really like the costumes and find them fun. I love clothes, makeup, and perfume too, because I enjoy the idea of making multidimensional costumes for different settings. I actually enjoy the mask a lot of the time - I have tattoos that are purposefully in places that I can cover easily, because I enjoy the idea that there’s something under the professional mask that people only know about if I show them. I’m a bit socially awkward I think (I repeat myself and talk a lot), but most people tend to either like me or tolerate me, and I don’t get into a lot of interpersonal conflicts. 

Hm. Either Courtier Badger or Snake secondary, fun Bird secondary model. However. Especially after talking about your Actor Bird in such fun, positive, happy language… I am going to call you out for “socially awkward” and “people tolerate me.” Which tells me you don’t have as much faith in your social skill set, and it’s *maybe* a little burnt.

(Also, not to get too armchair psychologist tell-me-about-your-mother, but if your mom has a  “chronically overworked, can’t-say-no” Badger secondary… that’s going to affect how you see Badger secondaries.)

Right now I work in a very Badger/Bird workplace, and it’s really a terrible fit, even though I can squeak by enough to fool my superiors into thinking I’m doing a good job. 

oh we’ve got some imposter syndrome, that can also be a burnt secondary thing.

It’s all long-term planning and daily maintenance tasks, and I really don’t like it. I change most of my plans partway through, but I’m not sure if it’s because I’m really an improvisational secondary at heart, or if I’m truly a Bird that’s just bad at planning for all of the variables.

I’m going to say you’re not a Bird. Making cheat-sheets (which is a very Bird secondary strategy) also did not work, and you feel confined by, not comforted by plans. You’re not a Lion, you enjoy keeping your true self to yourself too much. You could be either a Badger or Snake. And if you really hate daily maintenance tasks… that could be coming from a few places, but it makes me lean Snake. 

I love being in situations where I can iterate on a plan, or make a new plan on the fly. I love escape rooms and am pretty good at them; I still get stumped and need hints sometimes, but when I *get* a puzzle, it sort of just clicks for me? I don’t think in a very linear way and am not a good chess player, but I also have never studied chess so perhaps I just am at a knowledge disadvantage in that game. 

This is also you using Bird to have fun, and we know you *love* using Bird to have fun.

One of my proudest moments

okay this is definitely going to be helpful

was when I was on a day trip with my significant other, and we needed to find a place to buy food quickly so we wouldn’t miss a specific ferry and then a specific bus - we were on an island, and near the ferry station the restaurants were all too expensive and we were worried they would take too long anyway. He was starting to get frazzled, but I was able to think on my feet, and we just grabbed a calming beer (lol) at a creepy neighborhood bar, then got on the ferry and bought microwave meals at a 7-Eleven by the bus station. It was awesome and I was very proud of myself for staying calm and looking around myself for options.

Well that is VERY Snake secondary.

I generally take a long time making decisions when it’s not a crisis situation, because I have to *weigh all the options*, but I often end up in analysis paralysis. Crunch time is where I really shine as a decision-maker.

Snake again. From what I’m seeing, your Bird is a fantastic toy, but actually kind of makes you miserable when you have to depend on it for the important stuff. (studying, your job, making important decisions)

All of this long post is to say, I’m not sure whether my Bird secondary is a fun model that got repurposed into an executive dysfunction compensation tool and anxiety/depression soother to supplement my Snake secondary

I think you hit the nail straight on the head right there. 

 or if Bird is my true secondary and Snake is a model that I learned from my dad and brother + characters I admire in media 

oh your favorite characters are Snake secondaries are they? That’s a big tell.

and that I use when I fail to plan adequately given my executive dysfunction. 

Executive dysfunction is a whole thing, but you don’t have to “”plan adequately”” for everything.

I find both fun and both useful, but I’m not sure which is innate and which is the model! 

My money is on snake secondary, Bird secondary model. 

[alittlefrenchtree]

I have a PR question. How do we know if a non-paparazzi photo is staged/arranged or not? I’m talking about random pictures someone takes of him and his supposed dates. ☺️

I don’t think you can know for sure, Nonny. That’s kind of the beauty of it 😊

If you’re interested in joining today’s class and read a little more about stuff, click below.

Disclaimer 1) I really shouldn’t be any kind of authority in terms of pr and of famous people pr but since many people here are presenting things as true statements without knowing anything about anything, it’s only fair that I tried to explain some stuff while knowing, like 5% of stuff.

Disclamer 2) I’m not really interested about talking specifically about Timmy’s situation. His dating life is either a private thing that shouldn’t be commented as a public topic or a pr thing that I don’t want to encourage it by commenting. Or both and see all of the above.

What I’m interested in, is talking about pr strategy and public images in general ways, why it’s there and how it works and that’s about it.

That being said, let’s start today’s class.

My belief when it comes to pr and related stuff is that knowing the ‘truth’ is less important than having as much knowledge as possible on the subject. It’s kind like math. If you have an equation and someone gives you the answer but you don’t know how to get to there yourself, knowing the answer doesn’t get you much. But if you have all the keys to resolve the equation, you can try to find the answer on your own. And, even if you don’t find the answer, knowledge will help you understand the logic of it. Why it’s there. What it says.

So what’s our equation today? A content of one (or more) public person/people taken from a smartphone camera of someone we don’t know.

Smartphone content isn’t inconsequential. Using ‘low’ quality camera instead of a professional one says something different. It’s supposed to bring more authenticity, closeness to the audience, spontaneity. It feels truer because you could be the one taken it, since there is a large chance you own a smartphone when you probably don’t own a professional camera. It has to be genuine if you could be the one taking it, right? You would have any interest in taking part of something fake, wouldn’t you?

It can feels logical like everybody knows that or it’s not really important but it’s something that is actually thought through by professionals when it comes to create content. There is that brand of cooking videos (you know the one you stumble on when you remember Facebook exist and that show you recipe that always look really easy to make at home and delicious (and also overly greasy and/or overly sugary) that was explaining how they could totally shot their videos in professional kitchen with high quality stuff but choose to do the complete opposite instead? Because their goal is to make their audience feel like they can make the recipe at home so they shot their videos on small kitchen with smartphones.

Creating professional content on un-professional devices is a real thing. Half of the business of influencers people is built on this. To think that the strategy has stayed only in the influencers people business would be very naive. In the famous people world, content created on smartphone is used for these bts vibes. We’re showing you what you’re not supposed to see so you feel like a part of it. This is how the famous people you love are in real life, when the camera is off. Except they’re not off, since you’re seeing it.

You’re not part of it, we’re showing you just enough for you to want it, to envy it but you’re not.

Let’s go back to the casual pic of that public person. Truth is, you could be taking the picture yourself and still don’t know what you’ve taken.

Say I’m well known top model who has signed a new contract with a clothing brand. I have pap walks to put the clothes in online articles and magazines. Of course pap pics also ends up on social media but they aren’t the type of media design for the platform. Pap walks create some distance from the audience because they often looks like real photo shootings. Part of the audience is defiant towards it. Either it’s an invasion of privacy or it’s staged. It’s not that positive.

What’s positive is me going out in my brand new clothes and cross path with people who recognize me. They wouldn’t know anything about my contract but would do all the job themselves without knowing they’re doing it. They would take a picture from afar, maybe a selfie, share it on social media with a cute context. A story. Write about that cute dress I was wearing, what my coffee order was (omg, she likes almond milk like me!), what’s the interaction was like. Was it staged? I like that dress and I really wanted to go for a walk and for that cup of coffee. And the fan was nice, everything was genuine. Yet, I still went out to be seen and the clothing brand is happy.

The problem with that scenario is that I’m not in control of anything. Maybe nobody will recognize me or care enough to take a picture or something went wrong with the fan/person I’ve seen and instead of a cute story I have someone insulting me all over the internet. Lot of time lost, some risk taken, not much result. Wouldn’t be easier to take a friend or a PA who would snap a few pictures and we’ll be home in 5 minutes, job done? Pr team get the pics and share them with the world with one of the twelve stan accounts about me they’ve been running for years. Even write a little story to go with it if they’re inspired enough. If you think it’s too much, you’re naive. Everything that can be faked or staged to save time, money or give you more control of the result, has already been faked and staged by someone. Multiple someones.

My take on this would be, the bigger you are, the more money you have to carry on your shoulders, the less you let things to chance and the more you take control of your narrative. PAs, agents, PR people,… When you have a whole team around you, you don’t (overly) pay them as secretaries. They’re not just here to handle your planning and bring you coffee or you would only need one person, not 7 of them walking around you all the time.

But what if there is no contract? What if I’m just wearing that dress because I like the brand? Or maybe there is a commercial deal with the brand but I have no obligation to wear it on my daily life or been seen with it. Wouldn’t the pics look exactly the same to an outside eye?

Of course I can go low key, move only inside cars with tinted windows, don’t walk around in popular places and only go in isolated, private places. I can. But maybe sometimes I’m tired of it. Maybe I just want to meet my non-famous friends where they like to go and fuck it if I’m seen there. Pics taken by people would look like they’re staged. Except maybe they’re not.

But if I stop caring, I indirectly accept that however I’m seen becomes part of my public image. And if it has become part of my public image, I should accept that it will be monitored to some extend by my team, and eventually by myself.

So how do we find the answer? We can’t. Based on a single photo alone, I don’t think we can. Unless you’ve seen contracts or you know the person personally, you can’t really pretend what’s going on being doors. Even so, would you know everything? Sometimes a contract is just a contract. Something a commercial deal is also a friendship. Sometimes a real friendship became public et become part of your public image. Sometimes you don’t really feel like talking about commercial deals with that cousin you’re seeing 5 times a year and doesn’t really care about what the details of your fucked-up public job are. So even your own family doesn’t know the truth about everything.

What we can do, if we’re interested in doing it, is look at every piece of content and ask ourselves. What are we seeing? How is it made? For what purpose? How that type of content is used in different contexts?

With more context, you can make interpretations for yourself. Will everybody will have the same? Of course not. Mathematicians, physicists, chemists, spent their time disagreeing on interpretations of stuff, how can we expect people to agree on the interpretation on something based of human behavior?

From what I’m seeing, PR conversations seem to be going on in many (many) fandoms. From a PR point of view, I don’t think it’s not a bad thing, whether what we’re talking about is real or fake in the first place. Having people think it’s fake and people think it’s real makes the conversation going. They’re always be people who would want to defend their point of view, their opinions, their favorite celebrities. Names will keep being mentioned, pics shared, word spread. SEO (Search Engine Optimization) and algorithms are happy.

My best advices, I guess, is, first, remember that you aren't obligated to have opinions on everything or to care about every aspect of the life of an artist you love, even when media and people would like you to think you are and you should. There is even things, such as dating life of other people than yourself, you shouldn’t really have opinions about at all.

If romance, love and sex keeps getting used to sell, it’s because it works. Think about all the books, all the movies, all the stories where a love story is integrated in an action movie/horror story/sci-fi scenario even when it has nothing to do with anything. Romance/love/sex sells since forever and probably for a long time. Because most people think falling in love is the main purpose of life and the most important thing in the world.

My second advice would be, don’t be naive but don’t be cynical either. Contexts and nuances are always important.

Anyways, like always I don’t have an answer and I’m barely even interested in the answer but I hope I'm able bring some perspectives to things because it’s important. More than ever, content is a tool. Since everyone is part of an audience, if not potentially part of all audiences , we should all learn more about how the tool works.

Of course i'm joking about the concept of class. I'm not a teacher. I'm only sharing some personal knowledge and opinions. I can be wrong or contested. No hard feelings against anyone.