#you see i have a lot of feelings and opinions on how many people we kill in Inquisition

[hacked-by-jake]

To be honest, you can disagree with me, of course. And I absolutely don't want to attack anyone.

But there are circling Screenshots of things other studios said about Everbyte.

And while I definitely can understand critism, I don’t like the way they make jokes about them. Very unprofessional.

And whether they like it or not, they are really lucky that Everbyte exists. Because Duskwood was the game that made this scene, indie games, popular in the first place. When I started Duskwood, there were only games that were released after Duskwood came out.

And as we know, there are many games that have been, let's say... "inspired" by Duskwood.

I don’t want to say their games are bad. Absolutely not.

But Duskwood is by far the most popular game in the scene. And the success that Duskwood brought.. try to keep up.

Also... glass house and stones and... You never know what is going to happen in the future. And as other developer studios.. No one thought that this here, the critism, would ever happen. But it happened. And the same can happen to everyone else. Even if you could never imagine this yet.

Okay, I said it before, I don’t want to spread hate here, I just wanted to make my point clear.

This here is about serious criticism. It's not a joke or anything. Give constructive feedback to Everbyte. This is how they can learn. And they deserve this criticism.

But right now, it's a wave of hate and it seems to catch lots of people who just jump in and participate.

I'm sorry. I truly don't want to offend anyone. But this here is not a trend. And for other developers definitely no opportunity to eliminate the competition. As for me, it's makes me even more unwilling to play there games when I see how they talk about other devolpers.

As I said, critism is absolutely fine. But please, keep in mind we're still talking about 3 people here. Real people. Hate is shit and won't make anything better.

And I feel like this flood makes people more and more mad. And I don't know if that's how it should work. If every post you read increases the level of your mood even more negative, maybe you shouldn't read more.

I say this because it really feels like it. People criticised and the more people left their criticism, the angrier some got. And that's not how it should be.

Talk about the problems, post about them, leave your opinion. But stay constructive and especially be careful that you don't fall into the flood of other people's anger. That should not affect you. Your time deserves to be spent better.

As I said, I don’t want to attack anyone with it. And I do understand the frustration and sadness about all of this.

But still, I mean of course I also want to share my opinion. But I also want to try and remind people of the real problem here.

Thank you, once again, for reading. 💚

[lesbiansforboromir]

Been scouring your blog to see if you have a specific take and i only managed to find the post where you said you are more for people coming up with their own meaning for Tolkiens work. anyhow, after reading you boromir post on how hope is his poison I am super curious as to what meaning you personally ascribe to it all. A lot of scholars will tout hope over despair as the ultimate meaning here (and the ultimate meaning of real life...ugh) and considering your very gut wrenching but meaningful takes on boromir i was just curious. Your thought process is fascinating from a scholarly viewpoint (which is not my strong suit) but also an artistic, emotional, philosophical, and human viewpoint. Whew sorry this ask is so long and disorganized! Have i mentioned I am not a scholar? :D

First off I love this ask it made me so happy to read I had to do so like five times before I felt qualified to answer it and then I spent like months writing this response which is over 4000 words now if you want to know. And, on that note, dw about scholarliness or whatever this ask has more desire to engage with lotr in nuanced ways than most tolkien scholars achie- (gets hit by a piano) anyway~!

It's also just extremely flattering that you're curious of my personal opinion at all so thank you so very much!

(this is the post anon is talking about for context)

As with all things, my answer has many layers. At the most basic and applicable level, and when taking only my Gondorian/Stewardship investment into account, I am engaging with the story for personal catharsis.

The fact that Gondor felt hopeless, that the enemy was merciless and invincible, that even those figures who were supposed to help had only judgement and platitudes to offer until it personally benefitted them, that Boromir and Denethor were isolated and generally condemned and that many only showed them pity after their deaths, feels extremely cathartically familiar to me and my story with chronic illness. I've spoken about this before here and there, but that is the kind of simplistic, energy giving, 'he's me fr fr' comparison that brings me uncomplicated comfort and inspiration.

But that is definitely not 'what lord of the rings is about' not even just to me, it's not even just what BOROMIR is about to me, it is an element of the story and worldbuilding that I have isolated and consumed but that still exists within a far larger whole. And that whole is also fascinating and compelling but in a far more esoteric and harder to define way.

BUT before we get into it, I do also feel the need to explain the limitations I percieve within the 'lotr is about hope over despair' narrative since you've brought it up but neither your ask nor the post you mentioned properly explains it and it'll enhance my point later. SO.

As far as my experience has lead me to believe, when people say 'lotr is about hope triumphing over despair' they mean it in a moralising fable kind of way. This is definitely the narrative the films latched onto, like a leech. Good characters have hope, lose it only to reclaim it again, teach others to have hope etc, and that is good of them. Bad characters are despairing and therefore have no hope, and they do evil deeds because of the despair and lack of hope. The Aragorn vs Denethor film paradigm.

But nothing within the books is anywhere near as cut and dry. As I said in the linked post, Boromir gains hope after having none (the hope that he can save Gondor by using the ring) and that is bad, it is something he has to 'pay for' according to the narrative. Meanwhile charmed and blessed Faramir admits that he never had any hope quite a few times, yet he is not punished for it. Theoden also has no hope and is explicitely going to war to die, but his death is not considered evil or selfish by the majority. Saruman is very hopeful, he's hopeful that Sauron can be reasoned with, that if they work together they can make a better world, but he suffers 100 indignities and then is killed by a cannibal! And most of all, Frodo also rarely (if ever) shows any signs of hope, he merely doggedly marches on regardless and in the end even takes the power of the ring for himself, essentially the ultimate evil act of desperation, but that saves the world!

For the record the idea that LotR is a fable-narrative of any kind seems exceedingly erroneous to me, like the idea that we are supposed to glean any universal Good Moral from the tale due to Tolkien's 'emminent wisdom' feels bizarre in and of itself. But at the very least this aspect is more complex, I think we can all agree.

But even more than that (and this is more perspective than narrative analysis I suppose but I think it bears saying), ‘despair is evil’ is a kind of horrible thing to teach! If the villainisation of people driven to desperate actions or anhedonia because of the deep despair they are suffering is what LotR is about then that’s.. awful! That sounds like a bad book and I don't think I'd want to read it. But lets put a pin in the concept of condemning people for despair for now, look out for the pin cus it’ll be coming back later. 

FOR NOW lets get back on topic, if I don't think LotR is 'about' hope triumphing over despair, what do I think it's about?

Well. I know what I'm about to do appears highly out of character for me so please remain calm and gird yourself before I say this but; Let us start with hearing what Tolkien had to say on the subject.

I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly 'a setting' for characters to show themselves. The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete.

(this quote is actually from a letter to a fan who suggested lotr was an allegory for atomic power and he was pretty mean and dismissive about it in reply, it's kind of funny)

Now I've been a bit glib about this in the past, along the lines of 'tolkien's own opinion on what his book was about changed for every year of his life and by the time all his friends started dying around him it became about death, what a surprise' mainly because, again, we've had enough people caring about Tolkien's opinions to do us for the rest of civilisation. But I've always known this glib comment to be pretty baseless and unconsidered, since death was a major aspect of his life from his earliest childhood and it makes sense for that to have been a large part of his work. And since I am being sincere I will, just this once, take Tolkien's hand instead of ignoring him.

For him, the theme of his book was not power or domination (or the evils of war or hope over despair), it was about death. It was about people trying to deal with the realities of death existing for them, not existing for others, and what love (loving the world) meant in that context.

On it's surface I find this quote kind of clinical in it's first impression. There's a prescriptiveness to it that does not inspire me, which isn't surprising since this came from a letter full of veiled snootiness on his part.

But mostly, as a concept.. it seems pretty distant from what actually happens in the story itself, right? What aspect of death and immortality was the fellowship embodying? Boromir certainly died, but he was not looking for immortality and his death is far more concerned with guilt than the fact that he is dying. Theodred is dead already, but not even his father appears all that bothered about it and it's quickly set aside to focus more on the war. Denethor kills himself but his and Gandalf's last interaction says far more about despair and faith than death.

And then no other main character 'dies' at all, unless you count Gandalf. And the only main immortal character we have (other than Gandalf) is Legolas whom, whilst he does have quotes associated with his immortality, is far more invested in his and Gimli's relationship than anything else. It's no wonder people choose 'war is hell' or 'hope over despair' narratives over 'death' as the main theme for lotr from their perspective.

It also does not satisfyingly link to one of the most compelling aspects of the books as a whole; that of how they are presented. The thread connecting death and immortality to writing a story that is from in-universe historical accounts, editted and compiled by many subsequent in-universe hands, is there but hazy. The intense catholic-ness of the story is also intuitably related to death and immortality, but not explicitly.

In essence, death does not feel like the main theme of the books when you are reading them, at least I don't think most experience them that way.

However, in spite of all that, Tolkien's opinion on what his books are 'about' is still the closest I have seen anyone come to my own. Which I assume is hard enough for you all to hear, but imagine how I feel 😩

To me, LotR is most themactically consistent when viewed through the lense of Frodo and Gandalf's ever misquoted early interaction;

"Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought.’ ‘It is not,’ said Frodo. (emphasis mine)

It is not comforting to know that the suffering in front of you was always meant to happen, no matter how comforting the idea of a divine plan might be to some. And that is what Gandalf is offering Frodo in this moment, the relief of a divine plan and its ‘high beauty for ever beyond [the Shadow’s] reach’. But this is never comforting to Frodo in the books, the comfort he finds on his martyr's journey is in Sam. Indeed, it is actually Sam who finds comfort in 'the high beauty', this reminder that beyond all his own suffering there is an imperishable and eternal light that can never be dimmed.

But not Frodo, how can he? His eventual fate is to grasp the power of a weapon so unholy it sickens his soul, to do that which he has been told is irreversible and unforgivable, so that he can never be at ease or even survive in the lands he has loved ever again. The 'High Beauty' is what is doing this to him, what made the rules, what meant for this to happen, what he is doing this in service of. And Gandalf, whose soul will be present to see the very end of this tale, cannot possibly understand what it is for your whole life to be encapsulated by just your own small painful part of what Gandalf would propose was a beautiful and universal tapestry.

And lack of agency against the divine plan is precisely the narrative thread that ties every character together. To some it is a comfort, Aragorn and Gandalf and Sam are all gladdened and encouraged by the knowledge that there is some higher power ordering their lives, some greater beauty they are all a part of beyond any earthly pain or suffering. They are not in control and to remember this is a relief. It inspires them to better fulfill their ordained duties and drive themselves through terrible trials.

To others it is no comfort at all, Boromir and Frodo have no faith in the prospect that the divine plan will include success or happy lives for them at the end of their tasks. But it is a hopelessness and uncertainly that they both accept. They simply believe their duties must be attempted anyway, hopeless or not, even if it makes no difference to the outcome in the end. Lack of control is just a reality they live with.

And to some it is a horror. Denethor and Eowyn want to fulfill their duties, but these duties are torture. They demand loved ones die, they demand relentless fear and sacrifice, they demand ceaseless and hopeless toil. And in the end both of them are given rebellious breaks from these duties by the narrative, ones that are horrifying in and of themselves (and portrayed as wrong to one degree or another) but that are still extremely cathartically presented as attempts to reclaim control of their lives away from a callous divine. Even if, ultimately, this also was out of their control.

Merry, Pippin, Legolas and Gimli appear to have never quite had to confront the realities of their powerlessness before. But through the story they become intimately aware of it in ways that force them to make choices they are not ready to make. For Merry and Pippin, this leads them to ultimately empathise with Eowyn and Denethor’s positions, wracked with guilt and equally horrified, attempting to find agency in death where (it appears) none can be found. For Legolas and Gimli, they confront the spectors of lack of agency/death for the first time in the narrative (sea-longing and the Paths of the Dead) and are irrevocably changed by them, eventually leading them both to attempt to circumvent their fates by illegally sailing to the uttermost west. Obviously fandom likes to believe they made it and live happily, but narratively it is also suggested that they died at sea in the attempt.

Now, at the risk of indulging in my ever-derided biographical criticism, I do think that all of these characterful arcs are represented in Tolkien’s own life. I feel comfortable saying that Tolkien was not a happy man by default. He was wracked with guilt from a very young age (wow a catholic with guilt, groundbreaking) but that guilt followed him and found new reasons to manifest until the very end of his life. And a lot of this guilt had to do with death, his father's death, his mother's death, his friend's deaths. And a lot of it had to do with fear of leaving unfinished or poorly finished business behind him at the time of his own death: guilt about how he had taught his students, about his scholarly work, his parenting skills, his so-oft-mentioned faith. 

And being a man of faith, he would have experienced all these things as a part of the divine plan, even as they were also his guilt to bear. So, clearly, Tolkien's experience encompassed all of these characters, right? The despair and the torment and combined love-of and frustration-with the divine. The failure. He knew them all. And within all of them, as well as within the narrative and world itself, there is a wrestling, there is an ever-shifting complexity and multitude of different opinions to how one experiences a life that hurts in a beautiful world that you love but that you eventually must leave, with the sensation that you have no control over any of it.

However, a complication to any declaration of ‘what LotR is about’ is that it is a self-admittedly unreliable narrative. If you cannot necessarily believe everything the narrative is telling you, then suddenly additional layers of complexity come into play in determining the meaning within an already complex text. In LotR you can actually track which characters are recounting which parts of the story to Frodo or Sam at the time of writing. But it is also just obscured enough to make it ambiguous and to enforce the idea that this is a version of this original story edited and compiled for many generations after it's writing.

So not only are these characters and events transient, uncertain and being (sometimes bluntly) misrepresented by the narrators, YOU are now complicit in that. You are yet another interpreter to alter this narrative through your perspective, just as all works and all lives are interpreted by those who view them, with no way to control that judgment. You are also a character now, making it even more difficult to make definitive judgments about a question like 'what LotR is about'.

The clearest example of how this narrative unreliability and reader interpretation comes into play within the text itself is when Frodo describes the fellowship's entrance into Lothlorien to Faramir. He is being blindfolded in order to be lead to Henneth Annun, and he recounts;

‘As you will,’ said Frodo. ‘Even the Elves do likewise at need, and blindfolded we crossed the borders of fair Lothlorien. Gimli the dwarf took it ill, but the hobbits endured it.’

But we, as readers of the previous book, know this is a gross mischaracterisation of Gimli. He did not take issue with being blindfolded, he took issue with being singled out as the only member of the fellowship who needed to be blindfolded.

‘As was agreed, I shall here blindfold the eyes of Gimli the Dwarf. The others may walk free for a while, until we come nearer to our dwellings, down in Egladil, in the Angle between the waters.’ This was not at all to the liking of Gimli. ‘The agreement was made without my consent,’ he said. ‘I will not walk blindfold, like a beggar or a prisoner. And I am no spy. My folk have never had dealings with any of the servants of the Enemy. Neither have we done harm to the Elves. I am no more likely to betray you than Legolas, or any other of my companions.’

In this one moment Frodo has taken what was a reaction of justified indignation against racial prejudice, and made it sound like a minor tantrum over a shared burden. He has also used it to further aggrandise his own people in Faramir's eyes. And it is up to YOU to notice this, to review it in your mind, to choose what it leads you to believe about all characters involved. The narrative certainly never helps you, or addresses it ever again. You have to wrestle with what it means in your mind.

I believe this is the reason I have observed that every person who reads LotR and loves it and keeps rereading it feels like they are excavating something. There is a narrative under the narrative for every new pair of eyes on the tale. And that narrative is you, it's who your experiences and sympathies lead you to listen too harder, it's the story of the experiences you understand. And in that excavation, you are also reclaiming a moment of control for yourself in conversation with the story and whatever you have chosen to excavate. One might say these are all aspects of every story, but LotR is unique in its investment and immersion into the concept.

Because, to me, when Tolkien says his story is about 'death and immortality', what I read is that it's about the ultimate lack of control we have (death) and trying to empathise and accept the unfairness of what will become our inherently false legacies (immortality). And then just the vast spectrum of experiences and emotions those things conjure. It's not just about those things, it is an attempted soothing of those fears and struggles, it is an offer of comfort or catharsis or applicability. It is also an acknowledgement of the love that drives you and that you will eventually grieve.

Frodo leaves the shire to save it because he loves it, but he knows the entire time he will never be able to fully return. He is frustrated, it hurts, but a piece of the Shire in Sam comes with him and whilst it cannot save him, Frodo is still comforted. 

Sam leaves the Shire because he loves Frodo, and he loves the high beauty as embodied by elves and magic and history. He also knows implicitly that this is a task he cannot refuse, but these things comfort him. He is glad to be guided and strengthened to even greater feats the more he trusts in a higher power, but he has a life and a family in the end. And if that is what the Higher Beauty decrees for him, where it has doomed Frodo to incurable soulful wounds, are we surprised at either of their choices? Can we blame anyone for their hope OR despair in the face of powerlessness? Oh! Look at that! It’s that pin I mentioned quite literally last century ago. TOLD you it’d be back.

And that brings us back to the question, what do I think LotR is about. 

We are all powerless in the face of death and in writing a book about death Tolkien’s work has an inherent universal applicability in this regard. Tolkien asks an unconscious question within lotr, how should we cope with being creatures that love the world but that are doomed to die and leave it? And then he leaves that question entirely unanswered. This is what sets lotr apart and truly creates a story in which people can read narratives therein that appear entirely separate from death or any other recognisable theme others might see, without losing the sense of universal appeal. He offers multiple perspectives, including that of the dominant religion’s prescriptive decrees of right and wrong, but there is no solution brought forth in the story that saves anyone from grief or death or regret in the end. Not even Aragorn or Arwen, who are in essence the most holy and faithful characters barring Gandalf within the story, end without heartbreak and despair!

‘‘I speak no comfort to you, for there is no comfort for such pain within the circles of the world. The uttermost choice is before you: to repent and go to the Havens and bear away into the West the memory of our days together that shall there be evergreen but never more than memory; or else to abide the Doom of Men.’’ ‘‘Nay, dear lord,’’ she said, ‘‘that choice is long over. There is now no ship that would bear me hence, and I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or I nill: the loss and the silence. But I say to you, King of the Numenoreans, not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men, it is bitter to receive.’’ ‘‘So it seems,’’ he said.

There is no such comfort!! … Or is there?

To me, the appeal of Boromir is in the solution he offers; the comfort is in the wrestling! 

Aragorn and Arwen did absolutely everything they were supposed to do, unquestioningly, to the point that Aragorn goes to the Silent Street and just lies down to die because it’s ‘the right time’ and he mustn’t become ‘unmanned and witless’. And then he dies and he makes a beautiful holy corpse that cannot comfort Arwen or his children or his people for even a moment. 

But Boromir dies with a smile. Aragorn promises that Minas Tirith will not fall, and that does comfort him, because that was the wrestling he chose, the love he decided to hold, the meaning he decided to find and fight for beyond all his powerlessness to protect it. So that’s the answer I find and it might be different from yours, but it’s in LotR to be read because the story is about the wrestling as much as (if not more than) it is about the end. The road DOES go ever on and on, after all!

So ye das wat lotr was about I fink thanks 4 askin 👍I REALLY hope it makes sense. I also really hope Anon manages to see it after it took so goddamn long to respond 😂

[eponastory]

Gotta apologize again for practically swimming in your DMs lately, but I remembered why people like 'Toph x Aang', and often cited Toph's honesty and lack of glorification to Aang as a reason why she would've been a better romantic interest for Aang than Katara. And I don't disagree with that, Toph is much more likely to put her foot down to let Aang know when he's wrong, which should urge him more to grow. But despite Toph theoretically being a better love interest for Aang, I have a question:

Would Aang be a good love interest for Toph?

Because since you, @longing-for-rain , and other Zutara supporters described Aang's immaturity very well, I have to wonder if Toph would be happy with Aang, knowing how hurtful he can get (Desert, Ember Island, did Aang even apologize for those instances?). What do you think? Do you think Aang has the qualities to be a good love interest for Toph? Could I ask this question for Ty Lee too? Because I see lots of people believing that Ty Lee would've been a good choice for Aang, but would Aang have been a good choice for Ty Lee? You know what, let's just get every popular alternative candidate out of the way, since people ship Aang with Toph, Ty Lee, Zuko, Sokka, and even Azula and Mai. Run the gauntlet (if you want to). Would Aang make a good love interest for literally ANY of the main characters?

Unpopular opinion, but as Aang is written in the show... he's not a good candidate for anyone.

Wait wait wait...

Hear me out before everyone gets up in arms...

This is where we have to acknowledge that Aang is a fictional character and not a real person (we are not going to count LA Aang because technically that would make him an actual person because he is portrayed by an actual teenage boy) therefore everything is written to be as it is. However, because fiction is subjective, we can debate whether or not to treat Aang like an actual person.

So with that in mind, let's begin this deconstruction of Aang's character and how he is not a good fit for any sort of romance as he is written in the show.

Aang's Selfishness

This right here is glossed over many, many times in the show. What I mean by selfishness is the fact that he is unable to look beyond his nose when it comes to other characters and their feelings. In real life, this is a very twelve year old thing to do, but unlike real life there is no one there to call him out on it. Just the writers, and they don't even do that. That coupled with the fact that he is written to be a child, it really doesn't make sense to me. That and he is the McGuffin and 'The One' of the entire show.

Bryke sets it up to be a good show by giving us the premise right from the start, but as the seasons move on, I don't really see any development from Aang. Only the characters around him.

That being said, because you don't get that development, any relationship going forward is going to feel shallow, like most of the relationships (except sukka) feel. Zuko and Katara progress in their relationship well because there was growth from both of them.

When it comes to Aang, he is more concerned with his views than taking a moment to think about everyone else's. Of course, I applaud those who actively seek peace in their lives and with dangerous situations, but Aang is incredibly naive. He doesn't get any better, even when Zuko calls him out on it. We see Aang struggle with the solution, but then Deus Ex Lionturtle shows up and doesn't really encourage that growth.

Because you don't get that growth and him moving past how HE feels, that is where a relationship is going to fall apart. It's not toxic, but if he doesn't change then it can become that way. Again, Aang is not a narcissist. He is just selfish and naive. These are two big things that cost him.

[glassesntea]

Levi and female!reader developing a relationship (Canon Universe)

Part 2/2

How your foolish idealism land you into the Survey Corps

After your guard duty he invited you to a tavern where he has gathered some of your comrades. Sat on a bench with other soldiers you listened to Floch musing about the situation of the island.

"Commander Hanji shows too much trust in these outsiders. She is far too lenient and for what? A technological advancement? As if it can erase a century of being nothing else but meat for Titans."

The others grumbled an agreement. Many in the army were not happy about the government's plan: working with the Marleyans was challenging at best and you were wary about Hizuru's involvement.

Mikasa hadn't said a thing to you regarding her official meeting with Kyomi's delegation, but the somber shadows in her eyes suggested that they weren't the allies you all hoped for. In the end, the island was alone against the world. Pretending otherwise would have been stupid.

Was it really possible at this point to really trust anyone who didn't suffer as the people on the island?

Floch invited you out with his group several other times.

You hung around with them, exchanging the same worries, and it was during one of your convos that you first met Levi Ackerman.

You all were in the mess hall, finishing the supper before the afternoon drill. It seemed that the new recruits would've been training with the infamous Captain of the Survey Corps.

Up to this point you and the others have never met him. Floch and some other soldiers that followed him religiously knew him pretty well.

"He really is that strong?" You asked, and you saw Floch's face produce a tiny grimance "What?" You tilted your head but his expression turned neutral once again.

"He is." He said, drinking from his mug "But not enough, if you want my opinion."

You frowned "What do you mean?"

"I mean that letting your personal feelings play a role in life or death's situations could potentially waste other's sacrifices," he looked at you "and doom everyone else as a result. That's his weakness: he cares far too much. "

"But he effectively guided the soldiers through difficult times. And since he joined the military the percentage of death outside the Walls has decreased a lot. It seems to me that he knows what he's doing and he takes objective decisions."

Floch pressed his lips together, abruptly turning his head to the side "And yet a single foolish decision may have changed everything. And what are we gonna do at this point?"

It seemed something personal, this veiled distate tinged with anger, but you didn't have the time to pry further that a scuffle broke out at your table.

Two boys of your cadet's regiment that participate to Floch's little assemble have started to push one another after shotting up of their seats. You have heard their mumbled conversation getting progressivly more heated while speaking with Floch. One was your friend but the other you couldn't stand him since the training day.

"Oi!" snapped Floch "Quit it, already!"

You stand up, gripping your friend's arm and putting a hand on the other's chest "Stop it, you two, you want a squad leader to put you on stable duty?"

"This moron has the gall to feel pity for fucking Marleyans POW when you Wall Rose people looked down on us when these fuckers brought down Shiganshina. You left us starving in the street!" He pointed at your friend "And now you talk about pity?!"

You lightly pushed him when he tried to come closer "Cut it, Otto. He isn't guilty of what happened then. We shouldn't..."

"Mind your buisness, Y/N! Always getting in the way, alway flaunting your good nature bullshit act as if we don't see how much of a poser you actually are."

You rolled your eyes "Wow, straight for the throat? Tell me something you haven't already said to me in training."

"Gladly." He hissed, ignoring Floch's call for order "You and Franz pretend to be, oh so good, but you know nothing of real suffer. You are nothing more than a Sheena bitch" he shoved you "that grew tired of fucking rich boys and wanted to see misery like it's the next exciting thing before sweeping in and proclaim to have the solution for everything. We are not your fucking playground for you to feel pleased with yourself!" He shoved you harder and Franz shouted and bolted forward just for him to be hitted by a punch.

However you were able to intercept Otto's arm when he retracted it and you twisted your body to slam him on the table, back first.

Otto spranged to his feet, ready to retaliate. Your fist closing, your arm pushed back ready to collide with his smaug face, but someone clasped your wrist thightly and before you knew, Otto was sent tumbling on the floor by a swift kick in the stomach.

You turned around, startled. A short man with a dark undercut, dressed with the old Survey Corp uniform, was looking at Otto weezing in pain. The mess hall was eerily quite.

He lifted his eyes, letting go of your wrist "Care to explain why you three were bawling like lunatics?"

Levi Ackerman. You have seen his portrait on newspapers. He was a legend in the military. And you realized that he must have seen your three make a fool out of yourselves and throwing fists like foolish children.

"I asked you a question."

You composed yourself "My apologize, sir. I didn’t mean to cause a ruckus.”

You looked down at Otto, rolling on the floor and groaning, holding his stomach as if it threatened to spill out. You winced, bringing your eyes again on the Captain’s.

“He… uh… he started to insult me and my comrade. I…”

Levi crossed his arms “And you body slam him onto the table because of it?” He turned to Floch “What did he said?”

Floch was less than thrilled to be dragged into the mess and he shot you a dirty look before answering “He said Wall Sheena’s brats shouldn’t talk about how hard life is since the Fall of Maria.”

It was a pretty sanitized version of the truth, but the core was legitimate. You winced again, fuck I’m such an idiot.

“So you hit him because he badmouthed you,” his voice was dry as a leaf “that’s a pitiful excuse, if I’ve ever heard one.”

“Captain, I…”

“You three are soldiers now, not tugs ready to rip each other apart just because your pride got hurt.” He lowered his stare to the groaning figure “Get up. I fully expect you all to be this lively in today’s training as well.”

He called for everyone in the room “Everyone out. Start with ten laps around the perimeter.”

“Yes, sir!”

“Regarding you three, I hope you don’t mind the smell of horse shit, bacause you will shovel it around for two weeks.” He turned his back to you after your response and you ran outside the mess hall with your cheeks burning in hot shame.

That was humiliating, but served you right for not thinking things through.

Your first meet with Levi went on like this: as a mumbling brutish idiot who kept on smelling manure on the clothes for the following weeks.

To be continued...

[heckitall]

I don’t know if you talked about it but what’s your opinion on Raph both iterations

Ayo o/

by both iterations, im assuming you meant ROTTMNT Raph and 2k3 Raph? Because i have many thoughts on all Raphie boys, but those seem the most obvious in this context/most different.

lucky for you, im coming off the heels of my essay which was the history of media (comics mostly) and how economical, political, and expectations of each era drove narratives and characterizations. TMNT you can see it pretty obviously by looking at its history - Batman, too, is another good series with a long running and multiple changes.

basically, i love all Raphs. i think all of them are wholly a product of their time, and i love them even more for that. with 03 Raph and the early 2000s in general, we still see the angry, gruff "bad boy" rebellion characterization that came from the 90s still being utilized. the difference now though is audiences were getting bored with an unchanging character, so a lot of these bad boys got redemption arcs.

in the 03 series, we see it a lot with Raph and Leo more so than the B team kids, but Raph's is always handled very... I would say, almost subtly? compared to Leo's character arc. Usually Raph's anger issues push a plot forward, introduce new characters, or force Raph to change (in good or bad ways).

even tho the core of Raph never changes, his attitude in the show grows and matures with the series. i love those types of characters, probably because the early 2000s is when i was really getting into media as a whole.

ROTTMNT Raph is completely different in a lot of ways. he's introduced as having anger issues in the past, but has gotten past them (mostly). i think as far as archetypes go, he's still played as that guy with the grumpy pants on, but altered in that maybe he was forced to grow up more quickly than 2k3 Raph was. that responsibility tempered his anger early on. which makes sense narratively for the ROTTMNT as a series, but also makes sense as a character because of the time it was made for.

real late 2010s media recognizes that the angry, rebellious character has been played to death. a lot of them are done very well (Zuko comes to mind instantly), and others not so much... (i would argue Loki, but that's a whole other can of worms). and i believe as a society, people are tired of that one angry person that disrupts a cohesive team - there's nothing new or interesting about that. but a character who has had to change his entire life to take care of his baby brothers because their dad has severe PTSD? uh, yeah, of course we want to see that. in the early 2000s we didn't even know what ptsd was when not attributed to combat.

So in-charge, post angry raph is still hugely popular and a hit because it feels more real to us who are living in the time he was made for. if he was introduced in 2003? he'd be boring and flat. same with 2k3 Raph in ROTTMNT. he'd be boneheaded and dumb.

anyway

long story short, i love my raphie boys but i am so glad the angry rebellion boys are finally taking a backseat. gimme nuanced characterizations, writers!

[dee-the-red-witch]

hi so. i'm sorry if you feel like this is something you've talked about too much but i'm genuinely having a hard time understanding- what's the issue with femboys? or is it a finnster-specific issue...? idk i can see how it's an issue of like. performing femininity but not really accepting what womanhood really means but what makes it different from drag in that case? or am i going in the wrong direction trying to understand? i have amab as well as afab ppl in my life that identify as femboys and use it as a loosely-nonbinary term but i also know a couple femboys that are. hm. probably eggs leaning on the term that's less "scary" when it comes to confronting gender, is it about that....?

sorry if this is exhausting for you to discuss i'm just confused and trying to understand

Ok, keep in mind, this is a nonny. Which means I need to treat this with the intent that it's bait. Because that's what fucking happens a lot to folks. So I'm picking my words. 1. Show me where I said I have a problem with femboys in general. Because honestly? No problem with the identity. No problem with the concept. Same with drag, same with Crossdressers, same with sissys. They're all just as valid. What I have a problem with is when people specifically use and abuse things like F1nn5ter's (last I checked, still using he/him pronouns, so that's what I'm using here) use of trap content. Content that gets trans women beaten, abused, exiled, ostracized, and killed on a daily basis to make profit, and does it scot free of any societal penalty, partly because of a massive supporting userbase and fame, and partly because he wasn't out about being a trans woman yet. That right there is where my problem is. People can and should explore, play with, perform, exist in femininity however and whenever they want, but the problem is ONE GROUP OF US KEEPS GETTING PUNISHED FOR IT while the others see far less, if ever. So again, no problem with the femboy identity or femboys in general, but oh yeah, big problems with the difference in treatment. 2. I'm also gonna ask this in return- why am *I* your expert on this subject? Because this happens to so many trans women- we're out, we get seen enough to be noticed, and suddenly we're supposed to be the pillars of the community, delivering Julia Serrano level philosophy, flawless looks, opinions, and knowledge? There's lots of other folks to ask this kind of thing about, why go to the terminally weird, 46-year-old, *OUT AND TRANSITIONING FOR LESS THAN THREE YEARS STILL* writer, artist, leatherworker, and tattooist, who's still VERY clearly in the process of dealing with her own self identification and a lot of past and present trauma, and think I'm going to be the one who's going to give you the perfect answer for this? (lbr, again, so many trans women get quizzed like this, then publicly crucified for saying the slightly wrong thing- see that bit about bait again? because oh yeah, this tactic, intentional or otherwise, has been seen a LOT this year.) Because honestly, there isn't a perfect answer. It's yet another messy human subject because all of us are messy to some extent to begin with. It's never going to have perfect sense or logic. I honestly don't think that it should. Perfect answers tend to not encompass being human answers very well at the same time.

And also, I'm not an expert. Nor should I have to be one. Especially when in my usual fields, I get to charge 50-100 bucks an hour for consulting, and here, I'll be lucky if you kick five bucks in my paypal or gfm in exchange for this. That said, nonny, hope you have a good night. Keep in mind this whole #2 section? Is rhetorical. I'm not expecting a dialogue or reply, and I don't really want one, at least not one with a greyface and shades. If you want to talk more? come off anon.

[rayclubs]

Which tf2 merc do you think gets mischaracterized the least?

Good question! Let's do a rating.

In my opinion, there are three aspects to characterizing someone.

Facts - you have to get basic character backstory right. This includes all objective canon truths, events, and, well, facts about said character.

Behavior - you need to understand how the character acts, how their interpersonal relationships function, what they're like in their day-to-day life. This is the nitty-gritty of fanfic and fanart, this is dialogue, line-to-line characterization.

Integrity - you need to understand the character's core beliefs and principles, what their values are and how they view the world around them. This isn't something you can easily quote or point to as a mistake in fanfic, it's more of an overall idea of a character.

Each of these is going to be worth up to three points, with zero for terrible characterization that gets everything wrong. This would ideally total to nine points. I'll be awarding an additional bonus point for character interpretation that doesn't make me scream "he would not fucking say that". Let's go.

Scout:

His backstory is fairly simple. He has an absent father, half a dozen siblings, and a crush on his boss who doesn't reciprocate. People mostly get this right, except they also call him a virgin despite the fact he canonically lands the fried chicken queen, and seems to do it with ease. 2/3.

His behavior is also mostly portrayed accurately, in that he's loud, obnoxious, self-absorbed, and can be kind of a dick, though not completely without endearing qualities. The fandom is, admittedly, guilty of making him more insecure and self-conscious than he actually is, to amp up the drama. 2/3.

His core values, however, are completely off. The main interpretations I see of him are "depressed Scout", "homophobic Scout", and "baby Scout", neither of which is true to his character. This is a grown man with a force-a-nature complex. The homophobia is just projection and internalized prejudice, but that phenomena is too complicated for me to dissect here. I talked about it before and might make another post later. Anyway, 0/3.

Scout does not get a bonus point. He would not fucking say "poggers" but he would say "daddy-o".

Overall characterization score: 4/10

Soldier:

Very little is known about Soldier's backstory so there isn't really any room to be wrong about it. What we do know is also vague and unreliable, so it's open to interpretation. Given how little room for error there is, I'll give him a 3/3.

His behavior is completely off in most cases, often shown to either be overly aggressive or so dumb you start to question how this man functions in his day-to-day life. Canon Soldier has plenty of endearingly stupid moments but a lot of them can be read as deadpan jokes on the character's part, and many turn out to be secretly clever moments, such as him infiltrating the robot base with a goofy cardboard disguise. Likewise, canon Soldier has plenty of aggressive and mean moments, but he's not cruel and very clearly not a threat to his teammates, which isn't captured at all in fanworks that decide to go that way. 0/3.

Soldier's core ideals are mostly captured well, as in - yeah, he calls people communist as an insult in fanfics. I feel like he should mention God more often than he does in fanon, it's, like, one of the two ideologically meaningful things he ever talks about. The importance of "America" as a concept to him is mostly preserved but left unexplored. 2/3.

Soldier does not get a bonus point, he would not fucking say [homophobic slur] yet here we fucking are.

Overall characterization score: 5/10

Pyro:

His backstory is nonexistent yet people still fuck it up. His technical knowledge is clearly extensive and impressive, as shown by the complexity of his weaponry - which, mind you, looks HAND MADE - but people treat him as if he's altogether incompetent and maniacally stupid all the time always. He also ran an engineering company for hell knows how long and people just forget about it because they're allergic to adults or something. God this pisses me off so much. I mean for fuck's sake, people act like his full job description is "Pyromaniac" and not "Pyrotechnician". I'm so tired. 0/3.

His day-to-day characterization and dialogue is also completely off. People treat him as if he's INCAPABLE of communication, make him obsess over childish things he's only shown a moderate liking to in a manner that's borderline creepy and insulting, and take away his whole entire agency in everything he ever does. I will literally not give y'all a single point, you do my man Pyro so dirty. 0/3.

His ideology is complex and vague in canon, and I don't blame people for getting confused by such things as Pyrovision, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. In my time on Ao3 I've seen animal Pyro, cryptid Pyro, monster Pyro, alien Pyro, evil mindless maniac Pyro, incompetent baby Pyro, nonbinary Pyro (HENCE MY PROBLEM WITH THE HEADCANON, do you see how it looks next to all these other interpretations?) but I've rarely, if ever, seen competent adult Pyro with actual hopes and dreams and agency. 0/3.

Pyro does not get a bonus point because he would not fucking say "uwu" but he would say "fuck", let Pyro say fuck.

Overall characterization score: 0/10 are you fucking surprised

Demoman:

Oh poor lad what have they done to you. So, Demo's backstory is arguably the most detailed and fleshed-out in the entire canon. Too bad nobody fucking read it. Admittedly, in the recent years I've seen people mostly manage to remember he has several jobs and is overall a competent and successful man, but it's rarely - if ever - explored, I've seen exactly one fic where the author bothered to explore what one of his other jobs might be (and it was not a good fic for many other reasons, don't ask me for a link), and it honestly feels like people don't want to dwell on it? Like, they mostly mention it to fill a quota, y'know? Here, I'm not racist, I've acknowledged one of this character's achievements, leave me alone. Also the subject of him being fucking adopted as a kid never comes up. 0/3.

His day-to-day characterization suffers a lot because people think alcoholism is the most morally repugnant thing that can ever happen to a human being. This man honestly barely even has a presence in the fics he's in. Are you wondering where Demo is? Well, he wasn't there! He was BUSY! He couldn't come! There is a handful of writers who bother to write his actual inner monologue and point of view, and this point goes out to them only. Also there was a pretty good Boots and Bombs fic in which Demo was a dick to Soldier but then got better, and it stuck with me. 1/3.

His core character is fucked up by fandom because he's either all flaws or not allowed to have any flaws, and there's no in-between. Ever since I joined the fandom I've seen a lot of critique floating around, and people mostly seem to listen and realize they've been mistreating the man for long enough, but it created a whole separate problem of Perfect Demoman which is bland and boring. People don't want to write an offensive caricature but don't feel like fleshing him out either, so they just make him great at everything and never let him fail and grown in ways that are meaningful. Except that one fic I mentioned earlier, but I've already awarded a point for that. 0/3.

Demo does not get a bonus point. I couldn't find a meaningful example of bad dialogue because, like I said, he has no presence in any of the fics he's in. He would fucking say something.

Overall characterization score: 1/10 and honestly it's too generous on my part.

Heavy:

Okay so Heavy's backstory really confuses people. I've got like a dozen asks in my inbox when I called his father a revolutionary AND a counter-revolutionary. Wait till I call him a royalist, it'll blow your tits clean off. I don't feel like explaining the history of the communist regime in the USSR on this post, let's just say people are mostly faithful to canon but don't really "get" Heavy. 2/3.

His day-to-day characterization is plain bad. He's treated like a mother hen to the mercs when he's more of a stoic friend with a mean streak and a crude sense of humor. I think the main problem is the dialogue, people just can't give him the dignity of speaking in an intelligent manner. It's honestly also pretty bad in the comics. 1/3.

His core ideals are fine, if oversimplified. He's not a complicated man, he loves his family, his guns and his doctor. People rarely give him any more depth than that but it's not offensive to his character or anything. I feel like he should have more political opinions than people give him. I also feel like people make him way more protective of Zhanna's romantic pursuits, to a creepy degree. I mean, yes, he's annoyed by her marrying Soldier, and seems horrified for a brief second, but it's not like he's against it or anything, he's just kinda surprised? Anyway, 2/3.

Heavy does not get a bonus point because he would not fucking say "da". Pizda.

Overall characterization score: 5/10

Engineer:

Yeah people mostly get him. He's got 11 Ph. Ds. Some treat him like he grew up as an actual cowboy or something but most remember he's a nerd. I'd actually give all the points here because Engie's backstory is NOT complicated. 3/3.

His dialogue and day-to-day characterization is also okay, though people really mellow him down a lot. I had a bit in one of my fics where he said something like "let's teach those sumbitches how the real killin' is done" and like three different people commented on it saying they liked or were surprised by his mean energy. It's not even that mean, I think it kinda shows my problem with his interpretation. 2/3.

I asked about mischaracterization once and a lot of people replied "Engie is the most mischaracterized because people treat him like he's good but he's actually evil" which I think pretty much covers it? It's hard to write someone who is not implicitly strictly good or strictly evil. Engie treads this balance really well, I'm actually convinced his demeanor is not a facade, he is nice at times and mean when he wants to be. Fanon Engie can only be one of two things and neither is right. 0/3.

Engie gets a bonus point as an exception. I actually can't tell why, people just have his voice on-point. Is his accent and manner of speaking really that easy for you? I struggle to write him a lot. I think he should say "bitch" more.

Overall characterization score: 6/10

Medic:

People focus on the fact he lost his medical license more than on the fact he HAD a medical license in the first place. Other than that he really doesn't have a backstory. I dislike that people try to give him a sad one, I think he grew up loved and maybe even a little spoiled, but I can't fault others for not following my headcanons, so. 2/3.

His dialogue is the WORST because it's written phonetically. His goofy yet self-confident energy isn't captured well at all. The best I can put this is "people wife him" but it sounds kinda mysogynistic so really I'm at a loss. Submissivepilled breedablemaxxer. 0/3.

His core values are also all over the place. The complicated thing about writing Medic is that he actually doesn't come with pre-packaged drama. His backstory is vague, his demeanor is optimistic, his vibes are fun, and the worst thing that happened to him in canon was working with the classics for a bit - people amp it up to squeeze hurt out of it, which is fine, but not many people actually like going there. Thing is, fanfic writers aren't that good at writing drama when it hasn't been established before. They have to warp his character, make him edgy, self-conscious, or plain mad evil without redeeming qualities. I remember really struggling with my big Medic fic because I wanted it to be dramatic but had to put a lot of work into actually building up the emotion, because Medic is fine. He's fine. He's alright. He's fine. He's doing well. 0/3.

Medic does NOT get a bonus point, he would not fucking say "babygirl" and I'm not even sure if he would say "yass queen slay" I'm SORRY

Overall characterization score: 2/10

Sniper:

People mostly get his backstory right, probably because it's the most well-explained in the comics and it gets the most "screentime". It's also literally a Superman parody which is funny and memorable in concept. 3/3.

People can't find a good balance between stoic professionalism and social anxiety. I think Sniper is actually pretty simple, in that he's a little self-conscious which pushes him to actively better himself as a professional, but also makes him a little awkward so he comes across as standoffish and a little mean. He's a solid bloke that's balanced and feels real. Fandom has to go for the extreme every goddamn time with him. It sucks. 0/3.

People kind of get his drama, his relationship with his family and whatnot - mostly because a lot of us losers can relate, I bet - but, again, go for the extreme in making him anxious, whiny, and sad as a wet kitten. Unless it's a porn fic in which case he's an absolute freak that growls at people. I don't know what it is about Sniper that makes him so difficult to characterize. Manic pixie dream boy. Dark and moody lover love me like no other. 0/3.

Sniper does NOT get a bonus point because he doesn't say "cunt" nearly as often as he should. Also send me asks about my Sniper takes I want to stir up some shit.

Overall characterization score: 3/10.

Spy:

The only piece of his backstory we actually know is that he fathered the blight of the earth that is Scout TF2. 3/3.

His obnoxious and insufferable demeanor is mostly captured well. A lot of his portrayals aren't nearly as classy as people think they are, but that's because most authors are themselves proletarian, myself included, which is fine. Not many make the effort to pepper his speech with French words it would actually be natural for him to say, and blame it on the nonsensical complexity of the French language, but I'm not buying it as an excuse. 2/3.

His core values are off in regards to Scout - he's often portrayed as soft, mellow, overbearing, and critical of Scout's love life to either a comical or an uncomfortable degree. His fandom portrayal often also lacks the self-confidence he's demonstrated in the comics. Spy is not above strangling a man with a chain that holds the shackles around his ankles, he wouldn't consider it a blow to his dignity to fuck any of his coworkers either, come on. He's also funny and goofy but the fandom tends to neglect that. 1/3.

Spy does not get a bonus point because he would not say "perchance" but he would say "your mother".

Overall characterization score: 6/10

The final scores are:

Spy - 6/10

Engineer - 6/10

Heavy - 5/10

Soldier - 5/10

Scout - 4/10

Sniper - 3/10

Medic - 2/10

Demoman - 1/10

Pyro - 0/10

There we go! Pyro is the most mischaracterized, Demoman is a close second, and nobody is characterized well. Cheers!

[hey-i-am-trying]

So, as someone who was watching the stream and watches many of Roiers specifically, but is not Hispanic, first it was clear from when the admin logged on it was someone different than who had been (07) for almost a week. After a bit of the admin playing as a more solitary egg and more standoffish, they told roier to "leave them alone", then roier tried talking with them and explaining how things had been during the week (him trying to explain stuff lore and week events Roier & pepito had)

the admin then said, "You smell like ass too, you son of a bitch. No one asked you"

After Roier let the admin leave to do whatever, after spending at max 30 minutes together, he was clearly uncomfortable being called things, especially by someone he had had no interactions with. He did his own things for a little bit longer.

But afterwards, Aldo, who was watching, spoke about how it wasnt okay specifically. Many tripoiers were thinking Roier would scold chat the next stream, for speaking out against how this admin was acting, but he didnt just. And then later said that they day just wasnt canon anymore. So many believe, he personally reached out to the admin team or Q about it.

From what has been explained to me, by Hispanic friends and other fans, the main issue is that this was obviously said in an insulting manner to Roier, but even if they were trying to "rp" or jokingly say it this admin had 0 relationship with Roier prior to this. Saying these things out of nowhere is never okay and was not okay.

And saying the reason they acted this way was because they were sick and Roier spoke too fast, which aggravated the situation?

And their "apology"? " i never realized that it wasnt in rp that you were uncomfortable "? But they had been online seeing the things said about the situation?

Thank your for explaining! I was no aware it was this bad! It is not anyone else 's place to forgive the admin but Roier, so really I can't say much.

It was definetly rude, and while I will again say we can't make a judgement of a complete person for a moment, in my opinion Roier deserves a better apology.

I can't go inside the admin's mind and say for sure if they meant what they say in rp or not, because I had in the past stumble on social norms like a train rack and I get it not realizing how rude you are sounding in the moment. But again, I would apologize after I realize how I acted.

And about not seeing the posts online, I can't say for sure. I will give an example of a situation I actually saw unfold and why assume that someone saw posts, not metter how "viral" it was or how many they were, is honestly a bad idea.

When Empanada was first introduced, there was a sever moment of hesitation in the brazilian qsmp community, Bagi was one of the most active brazilian players and people liked to go to her stream to just have a portuguse speaking player to listen, but since Bagi has become Em's mom, she barely would speak portuguse and would mostly talk in english with her.

Some brazilians fans expressed very politely why they were feeling bad with this situation, explaining how it made them feel like they were "losing" a portuguese speaker, and in a smp where the principle was having the ccs being able to speak their native languages, it felt like their language was being side line again.

At the same time, they were people not so politely saying what a dumb decision was to give a german egg to a brazilian cc, that they should kill Empanada or fire her admin and hire a brazilian admin for the role.

Bagi's and Em's admin saw the rude posts and not the polite ones. So when they decided to talk about in stream, Bagi was obviously furious about it and was very harsh.

That generated a lot of hate to them and especially to Em because believe that was their answear to the polite posts.

Bagi later read the more polite thread and talked about it in a calmer manner, her and Empanada try to use more of the translator to speak in their respective languages.

I know this feels like a unrealed rant at the end, but I wanted to just give an actually example of how making assumption of what people saw or did not saw is kinda useless and even harmful because we can not actually be sure about it, yes they metion the twitter posts on their letter, but who knows what tweets they actually saw.

Coming back to the situation. They said they are an autistic person, which while not an excuse to be an asshole to someone, can explain losing the grasp social norms, and being unware of what was crossing rp lines, that happens. Not an excuse but an explanation, they are an adult and after understanding they were rude they should have apologize properly.

Life is a bit more complicated than black and white, being an asshole once to somebody doesn't mark them as an asshole for the rest of their lives, I hope the admin can get something out of this situation and learn, hopefully they will reach out to Roier to say sorry.

[mastersoftheair]

Sorry but am I the only one that thought that episode…sucked? Like it was straight up bad. Horrible pacing, no wrap up of all the random characters and plot lines they’ve thrown around all season (the tuskegee airmen, Westgates spying, literally all the guys beside like the main 4). (Seriously it makes me so mad that the three redtails got all of 5 seconds of screen time, almost no lines. Literally what was the point of introducing them other than to pretend the show was iNcLuSiVe) Even at the end of BoB and the Pacific you get a much better idea of what happened to all the remaining guys. In this they’re like what happened to DeMarco or Hambone or Brady or (insert character here) we don’t know! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The concentration camp scene felt shoehorned in compared to how it was done in BoB. Unless that actually happened to Rosie (which i haven’t heard anything about) but it was just like.. ok? It all felt so rushed and emotionless to me. Maybe I’ve just fallen out of love with MoTA but it’s been downhill for me since episode 6 or so.

i already made a little (read: long) post-finale write-up here, where i talk about the use of the tuskegee airmen, l'sandra, and overall editing/pacing issues i felt the show had. but i don't agree with the notion that adding the redtails was in any way insincere or trying to halfass being "iNcLuSiVe", i just think they suffer from this show's obvious time constraints. and to summarize what i wrote in my linked post, there's a limit to what white writers/directors/producers can do when creating a story about black people. there are some stories i'd feel uncomfortable with them telling on their own, truth be told. dee rees wasn't the sole nonwhite director, but she Was the only black one. i think she did her job well given the limitations and i appreciate that they let her direct those episodes, rather than leaving it up to a team of white people trying their best to tell a black story.

the worst i can say about the finale is that it didn't feel like That strong of finale, tho i wouldn't go as far to say it "sucked" or call it "straight up bad". i liked it plenty, it's just the weakest of the hbo war finales imo.

as for the concentration camp scene, artistic license was taken with both shows. unlike what's seen in the BoB, easy company wasn't the first to arrive at kaufering, and there's 0 mention of the all-japanese american 552nd who helped them liberate it). similarly, rosie rosenthal did assist in liberating those camps, though it would've been after the events shown this episode. idk if he saw one in that up-close way seen in this episode, but he could've (i should research this when i have time). plus, it would've felt weird Not having him acknowledge them at all. "shoe-horned" is an odd term to use here imo, as both scenes more-or-less center a jewish character (BoB's liebgott and MotA's rosie). the former show has survivors the characters can help, the latter shows no one left to help. the former has all of easy company there, the latter has rosie there all alone. rosie's scene felt deeply personal in that way. at the end of the day, both scenes are communicating different things. that doesn't make one better than the other when they aren't trying to be identical. (disclaimer, i'm not jewish, so i'd be interesting hearing from the perspective of someone who wrt whether or not they felt it was "shoe-horned")

i can understand if you've disliked the show post-episode 6 (and episode 6 was a very strong episode i'm ngl). eps 7 and 8 were weaker in many ways, even to me, so i get it. everyone's entitled to their own opinion (i'd be a hypocrite saying otherwise). just understand that this blog is run by someone who overall enjoys this show despite its flaws! basically, i encourage you to take this energy and make your own posts.

[uncanny-tranny]

Hi! So i apologize preemptively if this seems like a silly or even nonsensical question, but im having a hard time getting into politics and more specifically finding more info regarding Anarchy.

It's been a subject I've been interested in for a while but never really branched out and looked further into bc everwhere I've looked, the info was always mushed into word vomit or it was someone giving their opinion regarding it.

Where could i learn more about it as a whole?

I haven't read anything from this site in a while, but I read a few essays from the Anarchist Library a while back. A few of those essays might be too opinionated, but that's kind of... the point of everything, if I'm honest (in addition to facts and statistics and whatnot). I'll recommend this site specifically because it is a bit more accessible for getting essays and also because you might find more specifics - I've read a few pieces years back on queer and trans anarchy, and found it helpful. Of course, some sources will be better than others, so exercise healthy questioning and interrogate whatever you do read.

Note that the hyperlink will take you to the front page of the Anarchist Library's website.

[oveliagirlhaditright]

I forgot to mention that I saw the trailer for the new the The Hunger Games movie when I went and saw Blue Beetle (the prequel, you know?) and it does look really good (even though at first I was unsure about it). I'm probably for sure going to see it when it comes out. Though this will be the first time that I haven't read the book first... unless I do end up reading the book between now and then.

[trans-leek-cookie]

someone talking about the ways media and common tropes/depictions of things that are either explicitly or implicitly linked to marginalized people are demonized and presented badly is not a fucking opportunity for you to flex how you're doing it Differently And Better

[x-letsbreaksomerules-x]

i think tonight i will draw my inquisitor covered in blood or something. put him through the horrors again

[mrfoox]

God im... Probably too nice but it's fine

[orcelito]

honestly there's smth rly nice about fellow creators who r obsessed with the same fictional character. how our interpretations are all slightly different. but we r just nodding at each other like Good Portrayal, my dude

idk, it's nice

[elysiansparadise]

Composite Chart observations

🤍Jupiter or Part of Fortune in the 1st house not only indicates that you feel more joyful with the other, but that when or after being with the other, many opportunities of any kind can come to you. The relationship will bring with it a lot of self-improvement for both and a feeling that things in life become simpler.

🤍When Sun it's in the 7th, 8th or 12th house we find ourselves in a mirror relationship, in which you will show each other the other sides of yourselves that you had never been aware of. They will be more similar than they look, because in terms of core they can be very alike. The other will openly display behaviors that you repress.

🤍A peculiarity of Mars and/or Mercury in the 11th house is that both are likely to have very different personal opinions but very similar goals. They may be very different at first impression and even have very different ways of behaving, but they can understand each other well and go after what they want as a team.

🤍I have noticed that when Saturn is making just positive aspects on a composite chart, it is capable of helping the tensions that some squares can cause, as it adds stability and durability to the dynamics of the relationship, but above all the willingness to solve problems by fact that both see in this relationship something to maintain in the long term.

🤍The Moon-Venus conjunction gives us that relationship in which if one of the parties is moody and the other enters the room, their day immediately brightens. It seems that they only need to see each other to be happier. They evoke a lot of sweetness and tenderness in each other. They will love to take care of each other in every way, from the most practical to the emotional side, without forgetting to mention how comfortable they feel simply being by each other's side.

🤍Jupiter or Saturn in the 10th house cause there to be a mutual and very strong admiration for the person the other is, what they achieve and their ambition. If these planets positively aspect the Sun, Venus or Mercury will constantly let each other know, and even other people.

🤍Having a Stellium in the 11th house makes the dynamic lighthearted, fun and very pleasant for both of you. You will feel that you can be yourself uninhibitedly and be able to express your ideas and emotions without being judged. Likewise, they will have a great willingness to help each other and will awaken the empathetic and altruistic side of the other. They can have very similar worldviews despite differences in temperament and attitude.

🤍Venus in Aries allows the duo to spend many moments of joy and laughter. They may have many similarities between them and love to joke with each other. It is an indicator of playful teasing, of a lot of enthusiasm and fun. They really love each other's company, even if it's just few minutes. They highly value being authentic and transparent with others.

🤍When the Moon or Venus is in the 12th house, it shows us a duo or a couple who is affectionate or more affectionate in private, they may prefer a moment of greater intimacy since it makes them likely to be very reserved people with their feelings but, surprisingly , very open between them.

🤍Neptune in water houses favors emotional connection and the ability to intuit the feelings of the other, also giving the sensation of understanding each other without words and without much difficulty. They can have a very great feeling of adoration and fascination for each other, as well as devotion.

🤍The Moon-Neptune aspects make them deeply connected to each other on an almost inexplicable level. Both not only read and understand each other like no one else, but they seem to quickly feel what the other feels. They can infect each other with their moods. It is even likely that, for example, if one is thinking about the other, the other will send a message or call them on the phone. They absorb each other's mood and can quickly adopt their usual behaviors or phrases even without realizing it.

🤍With Pluto in the 9th house, both will profoundly change the way the other sees things. Being together and having a regular conversation with each other entails many epiphanies, seeing things from other perspectives and feeling that things finally make sense. Both have the goal of teaching each other a lot and fully trust that the other positively influences their lives. They simultaneously add depth and fun to the other person's life.

🤍Having Mars in the angles makes both of you motivated almost instantly. Being next to each other makes them feel energized, motivated and they easily make the other feel capable of achieving and going after everything they want. They can bring out the confident and sociable side of each other.

🤍When you have Venus or Moon in the 10th house, the duo shows others, consciously or unconsciously, the high degree of affection and appreciation they have for each other. People tend to see them as very similar and compatible like each other and they tend to provoke adoration in others. It may even be a couple or pair of friends that others find admirable or your dynamic may be something that people would like to have in their lives.