#your behavior is what matters and you can think all the most positive supposedly moral things in your head

[bardicious]

I think it's also important people know they can think like a judgmental twat, but not act like a judgmental twat.

[audreydoeskaren]

do you know Chinese symbolism for homosexuality?

tw homophobia, pedophilia

Hi again, for gay men there are a couple really well known ones but I’m not sure if they were real or fabricated, because all the articles describing them always cite the same couple sources from Antiquity... I tried to verify them but the only articles that didn’t copy and paste from the same source came across as extremely homophobic, so I decided to give up. The most common and reliable one is probably 断袖 or “cut sleeve”, which I mentioned in a previous ask. I would like to use this opportunity to talk about some tangential but more important topics regarding homosexuality in China though.

As a followup to my previous ask where I said I'd look through some Ming and Qing novels to see how homosexuality was perceived at the time, the conclusion I (unfortunately) came to was that homophobia was very much alive and well in Chinese literature and society. A lot of people like to argue that gay people fared pretty well in China historically by either pointing to emperors who were or were rumored to be gay or time periods where gay sex was prevalent as a form of consumption. This is extremely shallow and also kind of Orientalist in my opinion, these arguments always go for the emperors and do not take nuance into consideration or dive into wider societal discourses on homosexuality in imperial China. If you research homosexuality in Europe by only looking at royalty, you’ll find plenty of homosexual behavior too, does that mean gay people had it very easy in Europe historically?? Not to mention that they usually don’t differentiate between dynasties, let alone centuries or decades, even though public opinion on homosexuality in China (or anywhere in the world tbh) could change very quickly. This is also sort of Orientalist, assuming “imperial China” to be a never changing entity with a never changing stance on homosexuality. Since I know nothing prior to the Ming Dynasty I’ll share some of my random findings on homosexuality and homophobia in the Ming, Qing and 20th century.

Gayness as disease

Nowadays the symbol of the cut sleeve is just a benign historical allusion but historically it seems that it was used in a negative and condemning sense, implying that people thought of homosexuality as a disease or deviation from the norm. The common phrase used for the cut sleeve is "断袖之癖", usually translated as "the passion of the cut sleeve" nowadays, but the meaning of the word 癖 here leans more toward "fetish", "obsession" or "hobby" with pathological connotations. I thought maybe this word had a different, nuanced meaning historically but it seems that it was used to describe what it means :(( The only silver lining is probably that with the progression of language it isn’t offensive anymore.

In a lot of popular novels from the Ming and Qing, homosexuality was depicted as a "perversion" and a decadent lifestyle that plagues morality, and gay characters were often either killed or straightened out by the end of the story. An example of this is the story 黄九郎 Huang Jiulang from the series 聊斋志异 Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio by 蒲松龄 Pu Songling written in the 17th century. In this story, one of the protagonists was gay; he died after confessing his love to the other guy in a very fast paced bury your gays arc which somehow reminded me of the Supernatural finale, and reincarnated as a straight man because of his piety. Thanks I hate it. Pu uses the symbol of the cut sleeve to refer to the protagonist, presumably in a negative manner.

Gayness as power/status symbol

Another thing was that historically in China a lot of people confused homosexuality with pedophilia. This is a global thing, but its presence in China is often overlooked. This could be seen in the popularity of another term for homosexuality, "娈童", meaning something similar to "pederasty". I read somewhere that since the late Ming, pederasty was considered a type of tasteful consumption for high society, along with things like fashion, food, music and art. This was not equivalent to the "cut sleeve" or homosexuality as we know it nowadays, which refers to a personal sexual orientation, pederasty historically often refers to an imbalanced power dynamic where a wealthy, privileged man takes advantage of a young boy as a leisurely activity. It’s more to show off that someone in a position of privilege and wealth has the power to procure sexual objects, gender and age don’t matter much in this regard. I cannot help but cringe violently whenever someone brings up pederasty as proof of China’s historical “openness” toward gay people. Talk to me again when in this time and place you could marry someone of your sex (not a minor) and be considered a respectable couple instead of two jerks with a degenerate fetish (not saying that gay people have to marry, it’s just that the ability to do so is an important indicator of equality imo). Pedophilia and homosexuality are not one and the same good heavens.

I hypothesize that the reason why Chinese society was historically homophobic despite having no religious condemnation of homosexual individuals was the idea that having many concubines and male children was a status symbol for men. Women of marriageable age were seen more or less as commodities and male children could supposedly "continue the bloodline" 传香火 and were vessels for passing down prestige, so having them were of utmost importance to a privileged man. Being just gay or lesbian, however, meant that you didn't perform the "man strong working woman weak making babies" heteronormative family prototype, and was thus prone to criticism. When gay men didn’t have children they “couldn’t continue their bloodline” and were emasculated, when gay women didn’t have children they failed to “fulfill their duties as a woman” and were shamed.

It kind of makes sense considering how being bisexual was never a problem in comparison, especially for men. If you were a rich guy who had both male and female partners, you would still have children and concubines both male and female so nobody gives a shit. Emperor Zhengde of the Ming (reign 1505-21) was presumably bisexual and had both male and female lovers, nobody had a bone to pick with that; he famously liked to fuck around but those who criticized him did so for his debauchery instead of focusing on the gender of his partners.  This is different to homophobia in Europe where same sex attraction was considered evil and immoral in and of itself because of religious reasons, in China it was rather the other practical implications of homosexuality (not having children or a family) that attracted hate.

By the way can we just take a moment to talk about bi erasure in Chinese history. From all accounts of Emperor Zhengde I’ve read he comes across as extremely bisexual, but a lot of people try to make him a gay icon? I mean, he liked women too.

One interesting homophobic angle in ye olde China which I find kind of funny was straight women who wanted to climb the social ladder by marrying rich men talking shit about them after figuring out they were gay lmao. Historically, there were not so many work opportunities for women, so the easiest way to improve social standing was to marry a rich and powerful guy. Not saying that women didn't work, they did but their upward social mobility was restricted because they couldn't enter the imperial examination system which was how men became rich and powerful. This angle is relatively benign and kind of helps illustrate that historical Chinese homophobia was indeed fueled by classism and patriarchy.

Gayness as crime

I used to think that there were no anti-sodomy statutes in China (laws prohibiting sex between gay men), but it turns out that there was one decree in the Jiajing era (1521-67) and one in 1740, and private gay sex was not actually decriminalized until 1957. Same sex marriage is still not legal in China at time of writing. I couldn’t find detailed information on what these laws entailed or how they were enforced, but they’re enough to prove that homosexuality in China was legally punishable from the 16th century onward. On top of that, even when there was no law prohibiting private sex acts between people of the same sex, displays of gay affection such as kissing or holding hands could still be legally punished under “public indecency�� or “hooliganism”, which was frequently what happened in the 20th century. 

[itsclydebitches]

You know, we’ve been continuing the conversations lately about the group’s inability to practice what they preach, what with Yang’s Raven secret and Ruby’s decision to perpetuate Ozpin’s decisions, but at least those two things are... acknowledged? Sort of. What I mean is, the story clearly thinks the Raven issue isn’t relevant. It absolutely is, but after three whole volumes and a dropped end credits scene, I think it’s pretty clear that RWBY considers it unimportant and has shuffled it off screen. Not worth your time, folks, and that in and of itself is some kind of acknowledgement: you should just let it go. Meanwhile, Ruby’s choices are frustratingly excused with a, “You’re different” speech, but at least an explanation exists, no matter how absurd. A dislike of the explanation doesn’t erase the fact that we got one. It’s still hypocritical, still stupid, still built on rewriting the themes as we go, but at least it’s something. 

You know what hasn’t been dropped from the story and likewise hasn’t been given at least a shoddy excuse? Oscar’s secrets. 

He (along with the rest of the group) lied to Ironwood for weeks/months about Salem and Ozpin

Then he kept the fact that Ironwood had gone off the deep end and tried to murder him quiet

Then Ozpin returned and he announced that he wouldn’t be sharing this crucial piece of info until he felt like it

Then he tops things off by, apparently, learning at some point that he had an insanely powerful weapon at his disposal and just... never brought that up 

I don’t like dragging the farm boy because I love the farm boy, I spent a huge amount of time throughout Volumes 5 and 6 defending him, but he’s suffering big time from the writing flaws lately. Ruby (rightfully) gets most of the heat for lies and secrets because she’s the leader, the show’s main protagonist, and the one who actually speaks them to Ironwood, but Oscar is in his own unique trouble due to being Ozpin’s “better.” At least supposedly. I mean, I personally despise RWBY’s message that the younger generation is inherently superior to the last - “We don’t need adults” and all that - but I don’t think we can deny that such a message exists. Ozpin had his successes off screen, that extraordinary time of peace, yet when the show starts he’s in the process of a downfall. The school is taken over, he’s murdered, and two volumes later he’s literally on his knees, having what little control he retained snatched away. Who replaces him? Oscar. The young, hopeful, bright-eyed child who is now - literally, due to the merge - stepping into Ozpin’s shoes. He’s accepted by the team when Ozpin is not (even if it took way too long). He’s got the wealth of optimism when Ozpin falters. This last volume we saw him straight up go, “No, we’re not doing your escape plan, we’re doing my turn-the-villain plan.” Oscar exists to provide that contrast, the new and improved Ozpin 2.0. The story is essentially saying that Ozpin, the ancient planner, failed spectacularly, but Oscar, the young go-getter, succeeds. Oscar-as-Ozpin will do what Ozpin 1.0 failed to accomplish: helping to defeat Salem by the end of the series. 

... so why is Oscar keeping so many secrets? 

That’s the snag for me. That’s where RWBY’s intended message falls apart. Not because the message was never there in the first place, but because they’re writing it badly. Ozpin’s way of doing things is, according to the show, defined primarily by controlling information. Keeping things close to his chest, as he says in Volume 6. For Oscar to exist as his better, he needs to reject the actions that - again, the story says - are dangerous, hurtful, and bound to fail. We see that a little bit in his willingness to trust Hazel (which, imo, is far too much of an extreme in the opposite direction), but beyond that Oscar is acting exactly like Ozpin. He’s keeping that info close to his chest just in case Ironwood proves to be an enemy. He’s reducing a traumatic event to “a long story” so as not to upset his teammate and cause further distress in an already stressful situation. He’s deciding that there’s a time and a place for revealing Ozpin’s return and that he will wait until such a time works for him. He, apparently, has a wealth of knowledge at his disposal now, from weapons to information about the Relics, that he’s doling out only when he feels the group absolutely needs to know these things. The cane nuke is just the new moment on the train: we need to escape Salem so I’ll reveal that I have the power to do so; we need to avoid the grimm so I’ll reveal that the Relic attracts them. You get this information when I consider it relevant, not before. And as far as we know, the merge isn’t really happening yet. Oscar is no less Oscar than he was at the start of Volume 4, minus a tendency to stand straighter. That’s the lack of acknowledgement. The story isn’t saying that Oscar is getting cagey because evil Ozpin is infecting his soul, it’s positing this as normal development for him as an induvial and... ignoring the problem with that. 

It’s real easy to point to Ruby as the main culprit here and critics (myself included) are absolutely right to. You really can’t do any worse than a whole volume of denouncing secrets, having Ruby parrot Ozpin’s near exact lies, and then try to hand-wave that away with, “But you’re different, Ruby.” RWBY’s moral themes shattered in that moment, but I think, beyond that hugely glaring flaw, there’s something a little subtler going on with Oscar - yet no less frustrating. The story clearly wants us to believe that Oscar is an improvement over Headmaster Ozpin, the new man (boy) who actually puts his trust in others... but who is he putting that trust in? Like the fandom’s worries that the group will eviscerate Jaune (the friend) after insta-forgiving Emerald (the enemy), it doesn’t sit right with me that Oscar is out here keeping major info from his teammates while handing out war intel to the guy torturing him in Salem’s whale. RWBY’s got its ideas of trust and forgiveness backwards and the crew doesn’t appear to realize that any excuses or explanations we might apply to Oscar will always apply to Ozpin too. Like Ruby and Ozpin, there remains a double standard at play between Oscar and Ozpin. You just can’t have this kid keeping so many things to himself now and ignore that this is the exact thing the story said was what made Ozpin the bad guy. Either acknowledge that and fix Oscar’s behavior, or acknowledge that and have the characters realize that Ozpin was right. Because without considering these choices, Oscar doesn’t actually exist as the contrast that I think RT wants him to be and the few nods to their differences - like trusting Hazel - come across as stupid decisions, not improvements. Rather than writing a kid from the next generation who is truly able to do better than the man who came before him, RWBY is writing a kid who is becoming exactly like his elder, with the exception of some incredibly foolish mistakes... all while claiming that he’s different in the way Ruby is different: just because, I guess. 

[dwellordream]

“Antifeminist jest and satire against alewives, shrews, and gossip soften grouped together as gossips' literature-provides a rich site for this sort of excavation. The word gossip itself requires more careful treatment than it is usually given. Respectable for centuries, gossip (from godsip) referred primarily to a godparent of either gender. By the sixteenth century the word was being applied to any close female friend, though it was sometimes used for male friends as well. In the late sixteenth century "gossiping" described a "merry meeting" of women to drink, laugh, and talk; it was not until a century later that Johnson's Dictionary equated gossip with the obnoxious woman "who runs about tattling like women at a lying in." Early modern speakers drew important distinctions between scold and gossip. The words were by no means equivalents. 

Unlike talking about one's neighbors, scolding was a chronic, legally actionable offense; and the connotations of shrew varied from mild to damning. In Brathwait's Essaies upon the five senses (1619), a scold "goes weekly a catter-wauling, where shee spoiles their spice-cup'd gossiping with her tart-tongued calletting." Whatever those gossips are up to, the scold is wrong to spoil it. Such a distinction suggests that women had certain rights of assembly-despite all the injunctions that women should stay indoors, avoid all gadding, and strive for silence. Traveler Emmanuel Van Meteren marveled that Englishwomen spent so much time visiting their friends and keeping company, conversing with their equals (whom they term gossips) and their neighbours, and making merry with them at child-births, christenings, churchings and funerals; and all this with the permission and knowledge of their husbands, as such was the custom.

Daniel Rogers warned husbands that they would be foolish to forbid their wives to attend gossipings and even advised them to give wives money "to bestow upon the meetings and lawfull merriments of their kind, which it were a poore thing for a husband curiously to enquire after." Robert Cawdrey urged moderation rather than abstinence: gossips should meet only as often as "the law of good neighbourhood doth require." John Stephens's character "A Gossip" predictably conflates a woman's volubility and mobility with sexual and bodily incontinence. 

Her knowledge is her speech; the motive, her tongue; and the reason is her tongue also: but the subject of her eloquence is her neighbours wife, and her husband, or the neighbours wife and husband both. Shee is the mirth of marriages, and publicke meetings .... Shee carries her bladder in her braine, that is full; her braine in her tongues end, that shee empties .... Shee emulates a Lawyer in riding the circuite, and therefore she keeps a circuit in, or out of her own liberties: striving to be both one of the judges, Jury, and false witnesses: that is her freedom only, to censure .... Her truth is, to make truths and tales convertibles: tales be her substance, her conceit, her vengeance, reconcilements, and discourse .... If she railes against whoredom it savours not of devotion; for she is only married to escape the like scandall; from the doore outward.

The irony, of course, is that the author rails in the catty tones of a censorious neighbor. Despite the formulaic hostility in this character, one may glimpse a shadow portrait of a neighbor and a neighborhood. Like neighbor, the term gossip implies a relationship between peers. Always on hand for disputes and interventions, she also serves as a chief relayer of news and knowledge within the community. As the sarcastic phrase "one of the judges" indicates, she operates as an informal social arbiter. Ironically, it is precisely her narrative skill that qualifies her for this role. No matter how caustically "tittle tattle" was scorned, gossip "gave women a particular standing in neighbourhood social relations," as Gowing puts it. "Telling stories and judging morals made women the brokers of moral reputation."

While Stephens derides his gossip for gadding and tattling, he fails to suppress an uncomfortable social fact: such women can never be excluded from the crucial labor of maintaining social order. Pamphleteers and playwrights devoted much energy to trivializing women's talk at gossipings, betraying their fear that the effects on men's reputations could be far from trivial. In a merry meeting in Thomas Deloney's Thomas of Reading, some gossips "talkt of their husbands' frowardnes, some shewed their maids sluttishnes, othersome deciphered the costliness of their garments, some told many tales of their neighbors." Some jest gossips are two-faced, greedy, and leaky, such as those in Middleton's Chaste Maid in Cheapside. Others are almost witchlike. 

The author of The Gossips Greeting (1620) rants against "the proud, peevish, paultry, pernicious shee-pot companions, those curious, careless, crafty, carping curtizanicall Gossips ... dangerous as hell, / None of you beare a modest womans mind / You do infect even with your smell." These representations must be read alongside gossips' texts that are more nuanced and altogether less bilious. Samuel Rowlands's best-selling Tis Merry When Gossips Meet (1602) and A Whole Crew of Kind Gossips (1609) painted alehouse meetings with a mix of humorous voyeurism, mild satire, and unusually candid social realism. In the first pamphlet a wife and widow give a maid fairly standard advice about men and marriage. The widow buys them rounds with an evident pride in her ability to pay, providing a strong contrast to the many jests in which drunken men cheat the hostess. 

Satire is directed largely at the widow, who gets tipsy and garrulous. But for the most part, the pamphlet leaves the impression that it offered readers a glimpse of women indulging in a merry pastime that formed an important and familiar part of neighborhood socializing. To repeat Wrightson's argument, the ideal of "good neighborhood" required everyone to accept neighbors "as a reference group in matters of behavior and to promote harmonious relations among them." How could a woman fulfill this obligation without asking, "What news?" The surprising answer is that she couldn't. What we now call gossip was, in fact, essential to being a good neighbor, and talking about neighbors and strangers was not considered the prelude to scolding or near kin to slander. The obligation of neighborhood made constant comment not only normative but a prime regulating device. 

To use Merry Wives as an example, the Windsor wives' censure of Falstaff and gossip about Ford initiates action that will eventually involve their neighbors in neutralizing the threats to the common peace posed by a sexual adventurer and a horn-mad husband. Their joint consultation and campaign of mockery lie firmly in the bounds of "good neighborhood." Censorious gossip "could be an effective informal method of control: it indicated community disapproval, and shamed its subject. If the subject of gossip did not stop the behavior, at least everyone else knew what to think about it." Gossip, defined this way, could maintain and reiterate social boundaries. Fueled by curiosity and pleasure in ridicule, gossip also primed audiences to recognize the more cutting forms of wit and the aesthetically engineered moral judgment known as satire. 

Proficiency at this narrative form, so often salted with jests and proverbs, promoted rhetorical efficacy in life and art, while skill at telling believable stories about one's life and neighbors held much weight in the courtroom and on the streets. Gossip was not always conservative in effect. By asking "What news?" women also had a chance to learn about and talk over events in the larger world, out of the hearing of husbands, fathers, and masters. According to historian Steve Hindle, gossip is both a "female subculture" and a "formative stage in the development of 'public opinion' over a whole range of issues, local and national, private and public, personal and political. To ignore gossip is to ignore one of the few channels of participation in this 'public sphere' that was open to women."

Gatherings during working time or in leisure moments, such as christenings, may have given women a place in which to articulate opinions and to plan for common action, such as the many enclosure protests, grain riots, and religious disputes in which they participated. Some fictional gossips poach eagerly on male discourses supposedly closed to them, such as biblical interpretation, the worth of stage plays, and the fate of kings. In The gospelles of dystaves (c. 1510) a group of women meets secretly to hear a new kind of preaching by "apostles" named Dame Hengtyne and Dame Abunde, while a male scholar transcribes. Their chat mixes homely proverbs and bawdy laughter, interspersed with more serious challenges to religious teachings about women's subjection. 

While the pamphlet obviously satirizes ignorant and unruly women, it also suggests that women did talk together about what they heard in church and that they were given to interpreting biblical passages in favor of women's interests. Female association could be dangerous to the state: the weird sisters of Macbeth carp about their neighbors, crack jokes, practice riddling prophecy, and rearrange Scottish history. Like gossips in their cups, they "scorn male power" while "their words and bodies mock rigorous boundaries and make sport of fixed positions. " In The Staple of News, Jonson attempts to silence and discipline unruly women in his audiences by presenting caricatures of neighborhood gossips. 

Underlining the close association between the juries of the threshold and the theater, Tattle, Mirth, Censure, and Expectation boldly invade the stage with their stools, sitting down to cavil about the actors and the sweaty playwright, forming a jury of women who judge a play together as if they were judging gossip and scandal at home. Despite the satire, Jonson casts them as the prime producers and consumers of news and rumors; he cannot help but make them sharp-eyed judges of the staple, which commodifies word of mouth" by printing it. Occasionally gossips are painted as resourceful and clever. In Dekker and Webster's Westward Hal, citizen wives furnish themselves "a commodity of laughter" by leading their jealous husbands and eager suitors on a wild-goose chase up the Thames. 

As in Merry Wives, this pleasure carries a risk. When they plot to scare their husbands with the prospect of horns and turn the tables on their arrogant suitors, one wife warns the others that they must deflect any resulting slanders using shrewd foresight: tho we are merry, let's not be mad: ... It were better we should laugh at these popin-Jayes, then live in feare of their prating tongues: tho we lie all night out of the Citty, they shall not finde country wenches of us: but since we ha[ve] brought em thus far into a fooles Paradice, leave em int: the Jest shall be a stock to maintain us and our pewfellowes in laughing at christning, cryings out, and upsittings the twelvemonth. 

Similar scenes of female complicity are rooted in the social reality of women neighbors and gossips who rely heavily on each other's judgment in matters sexual and romantic. Such interdependence was especially important for unmarried women. Comedies featuring maids satirizing suitors (like Portia and Nerissa in The Merchant of Venice) or coolly ranking types of men (like Franck and Clora in Fletcher's The Captain and Celia and Rosalind in As You Like It) probably did stoke masculine anxieties about patriarchy's vulnerability to the desires of women. On the other hand, the very same scenes may have delighted women or taught them sophisticated new ways to squelch unwanted suitors. 

The antimasculinist satire and complaint that fill gossips' literature function in a distinctive way in Margaret Cavendish's Convent of Pleasure, which virtually reproduces passages from gossips' literature and from women's tirades in controversy pamphlets. Poor women meet in the street to moan about the flaws of their husbands, which include wife beating, heavy drinking, and gambling away the household funds. Other scenes show the terrors of childbed and the persecution of a gentlewoman threatened with rape by a married man whose proposals she rejects. Neighbors and friends cannot stop rapine suitors or worthless husbands in this dystopia; so Cavendish creates a gender retreat that takes female complaint seriously, dedicating her earthly paradise to women's association, education, and delight: a high-toned gossips' feast.”

- Pamela Allen Brown, “Ale and Female: Gossips as Players, Alehouse as Theater.” in Better a Shrew than a Sheep: Women, Drama, and the Culture of Jest in Early Modern England

[twenty-one-froggy-pilots]

Yeah I'm honestly a bit surprised by how passionate and vocal people are about hating twenty one pilots? It's kinda upsetting that when I try to interact with content about them I'm always a bit worried in the back of my mind because I'm a pretty sensitive person and it's hard not to let stuff get to me.

I don’t know why it’s always felt like twenty one pilots has gotten a ton of hate for no reason? I’ve been into them since 2013-2014 so pure unadulterated vessel era, I’m a very old fan of them and their music, like one of the oldest picture in my phone is this

(This picture isn’t important I just love it, plus something fun to look at with a not so fun subject material)

(Long history as a fan rant incoming lol)

I’ve been an emo kid for a really long time, back when all of the emo bands were big, when seeing another kid wearing a panic! shirt always meant you talked to them in the mall, I still remember when I would wear the one twenty one pilots shirt I could afford outside, that anyone who knew who they were would come up and start a conversation with me

And it’s like through the years the hate has changed to be... somehow worse

Back in the early days tøp used to get called not a true emo band because they didn’t have anyone playing the guitar so everyone hated them because they weren’t emo Enough

Plus there was the whole ‘emo trinity’ ‘emo quartet’ infighting nonsense but that’s so long past idk if anyone even remembers it lol

Then blurryface rolls around and fans are being made fun of for dressing funky and going through that one fandom phase where everyone was calling the boys smol beans it was great and cute, we were all really close, we called each other frens, told each other to stay street it was great! So what people made fun of us or whatever we were absolutely vibing

Twenty one pilots felt like the coolest secret gang of fans, we were absolutely huge, more so than most people would think, and man it was awesome!! If you saw a tøp fan you knew that you were cool with that person and that person would be cool with you!! It was amazing!! Sometimes I do miss this vibe!!

But then Stressed Out ended up on the radio...

I feel like it really all changed here, all of the sudden the old fandom things were cringy, the boys were sell outs, and every family member you knew was suddenly the biggest fan despite only knowing stressed out

I remember being upset around this time because of strangers invading my space, this was my group, filled with people who understood what the lyrics meant and knew and understood how much they meant to all of us, and suddenly it was filled with people who didn’t belong

I didn’t blame the pilot boys, obviously they can’t control what’s on the radio, I’m fact, there’s plenty of pilot songs that mention never being played on the radio because of one reason or another, so my problem was never with the boys, it was with the influx of new people, and by new people I don’t mean new fans, I mean news outlets and tv show host, and with that influx came the people who didn’t get it, you know? That were rude and outright nasty and refused to understand anything about the genre and effort put into the story and why it mattered to us

(Tw for suicide mention, and uncomfortable themes involving people making fun of themes involving it, tw for mentions of school shootings)

All of the sudden we were the fans of Tyler Joseph the man who ‘Glorifies Suicide’ and actively is supposedly encouraging that behavior

We were the cringy fans everyone knew in high school and hated who were described as being ‘JuSt So QuIrkY 🤪’, instead of the mentally ill kids we all were, by people who hated us

We were the fans of those ‘white boys who look like school shooters’ (this one honestly rocked me to my core, it still hurts to even see??? Like idk why but it almost makes me want to cry)

At the same time a lot of the old fans were turning their back on the pilots, they didn’t want to be involved anymore, they hated ALL of the new fans whether they were respectful or not

It was a REALLY hard time to be a new fan, very few people were open to having them involved in anything, I think this is when a lot of hatred happened in the fandom not only fan-fan fighting/hatred but also fan-band sentiments weren’t great either

The more songs that ended up on the radio the more the hatred grew, in fact this got so bad Tyler did this

Here’s a transcript in case it’s hard to hear

Like... this was the state of our fan group.... it was suddenly cool to hate all the songs that ended up on the radio so much it affected every part of our music journey

There was a lot of infighting, it was an awful time to be a fan, new or old

Then came silence era, in which every tøp blog I followed except like 2, became kpop blogs and I’m not sure any of them ever came back lol, I actually really disliked kpop because of this for a bit in like a jokey kind of way in my own head lol (ahh how the turn tables have turned... kpop and tøp are the only things I listen to now haha, actually because of all my tøp mutuals becoming kpop blogs I vowed to myself to not change this blog to another group so I have two music blogs now, which makes me laugh but also shows how important music is to me so it makes me happy anyways you know?)

It was kind of a sad way to have the fandom disappear, everything was strangled, the boys were gone, and no one kept up with the fandom, it felt really lonely

When Trench era clues started back people started coming back, the mood was different, we had something to do and it was fun to work on something with others, we had the Clancy letters, and all the clues, and the tower of silence and the vultures!! It was great! It started to feel like we had rebuilt something from the rubble of what we had been

The fandom started calling Tyler stinky and he called us b*stards it was great, sometimes people were a bit meaner than I think they thought they were being, but it worked you know?

When the album released we had more people come back and things slowly started fitting back ok again, more songs ended up on the radio and a lot of older fans said the same things they’re saying now, but it wasn’t that bad, it was mostly very positive

And then we got to the over the summer drama, which........... is a sensitive subject, but I legitimately do not understand how it was Tyler’s fault that people assumed he was talking about something when he wasn’t talking about it at all... especially when people have been begging him for years to talk more about mental health, he wanted to introduce whatever he was going to do with a joke, I personally never though he was talking about the big issue at the time of the incident, but it blew up like wildfire and the next thing you know he’s canceled because Other People Assumed Something

So now it’s ‘Morally Justifiable’ to hate Tyler because he’s r*cist or something, despite it never being his intention and because people assumed something

It’s literally not even with good reason that people are doing this, but because it blew up when it did and about what it did, no one knows what really happened and people just wanted a morally justified reason to hate them because you can’t just dislike something anymore without it being justifiable I guess? I feel like with all of the years I’ve spent on the internet everything has only become more hateful...

All this to say.... yes, it hurts when people hate the things that you do, I get really sensitive about it as well, especially with how long and how many arguments I’ve seen, and I am extremely sensitive to discourse and hatred, it’s why I don’t engage with much of it online, in fact I was about to delete the post complaining about everyone hating on them before I saw it was really resonating with you guys

I guess my best advice to you anon, would to try to understand where it’s coming from, that’s what’s helped me, I know a lot of people dislike the pilots because of the fact that they became ‘mainstream’ during blurryface era, and people are really upset by that, so understanding that, even when it hurts, I can acknowledge that they feel that way and that it’s ok that I feel differently

It’s easy to take that point and test it against your own morals, ‘do I think twenty one pilots became mainstream, or only makes songs to get on the radio?’ If your answer is no, then you can both say ‘I don’t agree with them but they’re allowed to have their own opinion’ and kind of give yourself a wall and barrier against what they say

I know this isn’t perfect advice, but it’s helped me a lot

I know there are two big arguments against this album, that it’s mainstream and made to have radio singles (the underlying argument here I guess being Tyler and Josh are money hungry and no longer care about the music)

And that it’s no longer lyrically meaningful, but I think this has to do a lot with how involved people are in the Dema lore, if you’re not a fan of lore I would imagine this album being propaganda and supposed to be fake and bright to prove a point would really bug you if you didn’t really get it

To best thing to do is digest an argument (only if you can handle it emotionally of course 🖤) and know it’s ok that think differently than other people, and that the chances of someone being mad at you are very slim

A lot of things I’ve enjoyed have been stolen by the fear of getting hated on for something - while in actuality, the very few times I’ve gotten real hate over something barely affected me

I admit the fear of getting hate bothers me a lot more than actually getting it, but I just want to encourage you to stay strong in the face of it, it will pass, as it all does, but if nothing else in this post resonates with you, PLEASE HOLD ONTO YOUR JOY FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN! And don’t let ANYONE take it from YOU!!

If twenty one pilots makes you happy, just remember that the only person who can take that true joy away from you is yourself, remove the people who make you feel sad out of your life, I apologize if this is a physical person in your life as this makes it a lot harder, and sometimes impossible depending on the situation, but on the internet unfollow anyone, block anyone, don’t engage and leave them alone, it’s not with your energy or effort, and they’ll never change their minds but they can change yours you know?

Being sensitive in a time when everything is hateful is hard, especially when everyone tells you you’re a bad person if you aren’t engaged, but you really don’t have to be, you get to choose your own destiny you know? Don’t let other people choose it for you

[agent-cupcake]

Hey AC! I love your blog and was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. I've seen some people complaining that Ingrid and Hilda are treated by the fandom, with Ingrid stans saying that Hilda is also racist towards Almyrans (which, granted, she is) but doesn't get nearly as much hate about it as Ingrid does. But personally I feel like their attitudes and the way they react towards Dedue/Cyril are wildly different and Hilda generally seems less hateful/irrational about it. Thoughts?

This is... kind of a touchy topic... I like it though! It’s worth discussing, especially since I feel like it’s broke criticism to simply deflect blame onto a character in order to prop up another.  Full and obvious disclosure: I very much dislike Ingrid and very much love Hilda. That said, I don’t think it’s fair to compare them for the sake of which is worse. I fall into the trap of character criticism through comparison far too often and it's not really valid unless you can fully explore each character in their own right beforehand. Which is why, while writing this, I came to the conclusion that the ways these two characters are interpreted and the reason people view their racist tendencies differently has far more to do with the characters themselves than their actual beliefs.

From first impressions to subsequent playthroughs, this is pretty much how I feel about Ingrid: she brings up her hatred of the Duscur people and Dedue unprompted and uncontested several times at the very beginning of the game, putting it front and center to her character. This is important, it sets a foundational component for how I could come to view her. According to her introduction, she is honorable and respectful, a model lady knight trope. But, as mentioned, she's really racist. Literally standing around thinking about how awful it is that Dimitri would trust a man of Duscur because they are all bad people. Yikes. And nobody calls her on it. Again, this is very important for perception. People judge Sylvain for his bad behavior in a much more harsh way than they do Ingrid for her vitriolic loathing for another classmate who we have seen as nothing but respectful. It's weird. And then, despite the fact that her close friend Sylvain was able to reason out that it’s not possible for the Duscur people to be at fault for the Tragedy, despite the fact that the prince of the country she supposedly hopes to serve with unwavering respect and loyalty has made it clear that he does not believe that Dedue or Duscar are responsible for the Tragedy, and despite the fact that Dimitri, her close friend and the one most affected by the Tragedy (seriously, she lost a guy she might have married and he lost his best friend, mother, and watched his father be killed in front of his eyes) continuously insists that neither Dedue nor Duscur are at fault, she loudly and openly believes that the ensuing massacre of Duscur was deserved and Dedue is inherently culpable simply because of his race. Her motivations for this hatred feel even more cheap considering her dogged hero worship for Glenn was born out of the fact that she was promised to him, making the fact that she’d use his death as reason enough for the destruction of countless innocent lives even more unsympathetic in my eyes. I mean, seriously, she was around 13 and he was older than her, how close could they have truly been? Dimitri says they were in love, but she was a child. Abandoning my modern sensibilities about age of consent or whatever, kids at that age don't have the emotional or mental capability. Maybe this is just nitpicking, but I have a very hard time caring about that relationship. But, if her actual justification is because of what happened to Faerghus as a result of the Tragedy and feels duty-bound as a knight to find justice through the systematic destruction of the Duscur people, then it just circles back to confusion considering the future leader of said country doesn't hold Duscur or Dedue responsible. The importance of perception comes in because despite these paper thin excuses and her seemingly willfully ignorant hatred, she is never challenged on her racist beliefs. The reason she seems to change her mind about Dedue and consider that maybe excusing a genocide is wrong stems from guilt that Dedue continuously comes to her aid in battle at the potential cost of his own life. I can understand, to a certain extent, why she might feel the way she does. But, again, I have such a hard time with any justification when nobody that she's close to is even nearly as hateful as her, there is plenty of evidence (evidence that the people close to her have found!) to provide a very reasonable counterclaim to Duscur's guilt, and that none of that even matters when it would require her to openly contradict the prince of her country to make the claim that Dedue was in any way complicit in the Tragedy. Which would be fine if she wasn't established as the model Lady Knight archetype, which also brings us into Ingrid's moral high horse. Admittedly, I hate the Lady Knight trope. I have a significant bias against these types of characters. However, I really do think that this moral crusade is where she lost me completely. Without even a shred of empathy or self awareness, she lectures Sylvain about his shitty behavior even though their circumstances are at least somewhat similar and he has his reasons (bad ones, maybe, but ones worth understanding if she actually cares about him), she lectures Felix about not being interested in knightly endeavors (an aspect of his character that is born of the trauma she has appropriated), and she lectures Claude about behavior that is befitting of a man in his position. Not because she cares about the girls Sylvain is hurting, not because she thinks there are any grave stakes from Felix choosing to do his own thing, and not because she knows that Claude's behavior affects his ability to lead, but because she doesn't like these behaviors and thinks they should be fixed. Yet, at the same time, she believes Dedue deserved to lose his family, country, and culture based on his birth and nobody ever does anything to morally correct her, it is something she eventually is forced to acknowledge on her own. It's frustrating, infuriating even, that the game lets her get away with being so grossly hypocritical. And, all the while, she is being painted as sympathetic. Again, I have a hard time feeling sympathy for her about Glenn, and I certainty don't feel sympathetic towards her issues about marriage because there's never any actual tension there. Of course she won't be forced to marry, she's a Lady Knight. Beyond being unsympathetic, I also find her massively unlikable. Awful design, poor voice direction, food-loving-as-a-personality-trait, the fact that she's written as one of those stock "feminist" characters who hate makeup and girly things until it benefits them, and constantly butting in on other characters to give her opinion without taking any criticism herself are all aspects that I just personally dislike. Ultimately, Ingrid being racist is only a symptom of the many reasons her character is one of my least favorites. Most of these points can be countered by someone who doesn't take issue with the things that annoy me and to point out that Ingrid DOES get over her racist beliefs. It's not fair to say that she doesn't change but, for me, the damage was already done by the time she became tolerable so I still have a hard time appreciating her. My assumption would be that there are a lot of other people who feel similarly to me regarding their dislike of Ingrid so they focus on one easy character flaw, her being racist at the beginning of the game, as a reason to validate their dislike of her overall.

On the other hand, Hilda's racism isn't a main trait of her character. It's related to her overarching character flaws, but she doesn't bring it up unprompted and can actually be pretty much missed without the Cyrill supports. Like you said, Hilda does seem less hateful and irrational, it doesn't take willful malice and an active rejection of reason for Hilda to dislike the Almyrans, they pose a genuine and provable threat to her family and territory, seemingly senselessly testing the borders and throwing away lives for the sake of conquest. To be clear, her "you're not like those OTHER Almyrans" schtick is legitimately nasty. Her behavior is gross and condescending and it really underscores the fact that Hilda is ignorant, lazy, inconsiderate, and incredibly comfortable in her privilege. She accepts what she's been told at face value because she's too lazy to look into it further. Cyrill does tell her she's stupid to think that way, though. Which is satisfying because Hilda in those supports is insufferable, it really highlights the worst aspects of her character, dismissive, manipulative, and very selfish. However, for me, she's also very likeable. I'm not interested in going over my opinions on her like I did with Ingrid as I don’t feel it’s as important to my point but a few reasons I really like her is because I think Hilda has a fantastic design, cute supports, amazing voice work, and is secretly sweet in a way that absolutely tickles my fancy. I am sure many people do not agree with me, which is fine. Additionally, just as Ingrid grows out of her racist beliefs, so does Hilda. They both end the game as more tolerant and caring people. Still, for the same reason a person could argue that Ingrid is actually great and I'm being unfair, they could argue that Hilda is terrible and I'm too biased. That's fair and true..... but I think the fact that Hilda is more generally appealing in conjunction with the less obvious nature of her racist attitude makes people less likely to dismiss her as a racist in the same way they do Ingrid. Unless they dislike Hilda, in which case, it’s all fair game.

Anyyyways, a main takeaway from this is that I highly doubt people are truly arguing on the individual basis of who's more racist, but that they're engaging in the age old waifu war. As with many characters in this game, it's easier to argue moral superiority when you can't quite articulate what you like or don't like about a character. Or, even worse, when you're arguing opinion. Even now, as is clear by reading this, I am arguing my opinion of why I don't like Ingrid. Not because she's racist, but because of the character traits and writing choices that make her unlikable to me. I like Hilda because, flaws and all, I find her to be compelling and enjoyable. From the people that I know, at least, that is basically how the Ingrid stans v Hilda racism argument is structured, even if they dress it up in different language.

By the by Hilda never talks about how the Almyrans deserve to be wiped out. I think that probably sours a lot of people's opinions of Ingrid no matter what happened afterward but that’s fine we can just pretend that didn’t happen

[plutoswrath]

i’m sorry to annoy you with this again. i just look up to your kpop mixed with astrology content. but lucas’s neptune contact with his mc is going to annoy the shit out of me until this is fixed. the cloudiness that neptune brings to his public image is something that i think possibly fuels these situations further. false accusations and mixed perceptions based off of them is exactly what makes these scandals to continue on and on. and i’m sick of it. both sides ignore what the other is saying and it gets nowhere. neptune, the malefic bastard.

Hello! I saw your recent asks and I appreciate your words regarding my content, thank you so much for the kind words! <3

I will touch on astrolgy under the cut, but before this happens, I want to leave a few words. There's a reason why I didn't answer the previous questions I received (not only yours op) regarding the Lucas situation so far. For several reasons I didn't want to feed into any sort of (perceived) sensationalism in regards to the Lucas situation, even though I'd really love to look at the situation from an astrological point of view. That people are divided on this topic is to be expected, but I think the way it has been handled by majority so far is very bad. I really want to elaborate on my reasoning why we should rethink the way we talk about/represent the Lucas situation right now, but as this topic is very kpop specific everything will be under the cut.

My reasoning for avoiding any questions about it until now:

1. People already don't take the situation seriously enough: Regardless of what your standpoint is, I'd like for people to consider looking at it from a more critical point of view for a second: The allegations are not about him being exposed as ‘just a f-boy’ as some people make it out to be, they are more serious than that. Lucas allegedly manipulated and used these women for his own emotional/sexual/financial needs and ego boost. The fact that he has money and allegedly still used other people to provide financially for him just demonstrates the power play underneath it all. He abused his position of power as an idol, the power dynamics between him and fans who idolize him are plain and simple just completely off. Please think about the fact, that he allegedly decided who to date on at fansigns. This alone gives no security to any fans that want to attend fansigns in the future. TW SV: he also talked one of these women into having sex with him + doing it unprotected, which is not only emotionally/sexually manipulative/coercive and can possibly be traumatic for them but also heightens the risk for transfering STD's as END TW he was supposedly seeing people at the same time/cheating. In general, the behavior he gets accused of leaves trauma and is abuse, to be more specific abuse of power on multiple levels and his social position makes it just easier to continue abusing that power. As you've mentioned yourself op, there is a huge back and forth about the allegations, and I know people like to take situations like the one of Taeyong as an example to justify that not every public apology is real and that allegations turn out to be false years later, but I believe it's different this time and that the allegations that came forward were real. Even his cbar closed, a fanbase that works closely with Label V (!), that alone shows that there is 'at least' some truth to the story, or else his hardcore fanbase wouldn't have decided to turn their back on him in matters of just days. Also, all the 'jokes' and the portrayal of 'juicy gossip' people make about the situation just downplays and ridicules the possible traumatic experiences of the people that were hurt by his actions. If anyone decides to not believe these allegations until SM gives a more specific statement, that's fine, but please do so without making fun of the people who were victims of his behavior, as there is already little to no sympathy for them online. It makes it just way harder for any survivors in the future to speak out on their experience. People say it's 'nothing illegal, just morally wrong' but given the fact that he is also a person in power, the line between 'just' morally wrong and illegal can be very thin in some cases. And please overthink arguments such as: 'this is typical boy behavior for someone in his 20's'/ 'he's just an f-boy' or 'boys will be boys' because they are deeply misogynistic and we shouldn't normalize behavior like that, thus making the root of the problem actually way deeper than most people think.

2. WayV's future: This mainly goes for people who are fans of WayV. I know not everyone probably likes to hear this, but another thing why wild speculations, sensationalism or even possible defence about this situation should be kept on the low is WayV's career. I want to be honest here, but I'm scared for their future, their comeback for october has been cancelled for now and they are put on a hiatus for several months as far as I know. They were on a good path of gaining more and more recognition and establishing themselves even better as a c-pop group, but now Luca's reputation in China (their target audience) is as good as gone and that pulls all of WayV down to rock bottom with him. People really need to try seeing the story out of the eyes of the korean and especially chinese fans as well, their perception of the allegations (especially after the Kris Wu situation!) are way different and more serious than the ones of i-fans and i-fans have to accept that. Also, we all know how companies (especially SM) handle these type of situations: keep the people on the low till the storm has calmed down. But will the storm ever calm down for Lucas when his public image is basically destroyed, and thus WayV as well? What I want people to understand is that this whole situation affects WayV and their career directly, actually on the biggest scale possible. All the work so far is at risk to be for good and I think a lot of fans tend to forget that, things look especially critical for HenXiaoYanKun if WayV would be to continue/redebute/fall apart. It doesn't matter if Lucas talking bad about the members/the companies/shows he works with/for was real or not in the end, because unfortunately damage is already done, WayV's image (WayV= family) is already tarnished and WayV as a group will suffer from this. You summed it up with malefic Neptune the best actually: We all don't know the full confirmed truth about the situation and will most likely never know it. (small astro insight here as well, but part of Neptune is to accept fantasy for what it is: fantasy, and thus turn to cold reality when you're in too deep)

3. What O'd advice the fandom to do right now: Regardless of your opinion on the situation, what we as a fandom can do best right now is staying on the low, wait things out, and stop adding more fire to the situation with our actions and wait how the situation actually developes, since a) we can not fasten the process and b) a lot of rumors, false information and unnecessary details get exposed to mudd the waters and to discredit the statement of the victims as well. I've seen some strong reactions from both sides, but as someone who's a big fan of nct in general I really just want to say that part of the fandom throwing a fit on the internet leads basically to nothing, it actually only reflects even worse on nctzens/weshennies and thus on WayV's (and also NCT as whole) image as well. Things right now are handled internal, not extern. Whatever gets through to the public will be half of the story anyway. A lot of people seem to forget, that we talk about SM and all they care for right now is saving themselves economically (think about the domino effect this situation has on the whole group/company), so we will have to see what their final decision is going to be, if anything will happen at all. For now, be patient, wait and see. Last words: It's okay to feel hurt/confused/angry/drained. Even though most of us are aware that we dont know any celebrity's character, it's still hard to swallow and to digest because you were a fan of that artist. Let it take time and vent. Take a break from it if it gets too much! Talking about it to process your emotions better is okay and very valid, but keep in mind that you should not worsen the situation by doing so - it's already absolute chaos.

Also: This statement is by no means a direct attack to anyone or me trying to push my opinion onto you, just my two cents in how to handle the situation best right now, because our hands are basically tied. Also: agree to disagree. If you don't like that I side with the victims (unless there is an official statement that Lucas is proven not guilty, which I doubt, unfortunately) then so be it, but don't start a war in my inbox for our opinions differing.

-------

Now, to astrology:

Disclaimer: This analysis will not be very light-hearted, but remember that it's just a theory and not me trying to confirm anything!

First of all op, sorry for just answering you know, but I neded some time to think through how to adress this without adding to the fire with my astrological analysis! Boy, does the birth time fit the shoe right now. To be fair as I did my short rising sign analysis about him recently, I cancelled out every other fire rising except for Leo, because I got stuck on the ego part a bit. Anything for me made sense, as long as it highlights his ego, which by itself doesn't have to be a bad thing automatically, but there's always two sides of the coin as we all know.

I looked into the transits the past week and added a few asteroids/mathematical points as well. An anon before pointed to the full moon happening in his tenth house, conjunct his sun, etc. (I deleted the ask because I didn't know what was going on at that time and thought it was just the 'usual' rumors that once in a while get spread around, but after looking more into it I decided this was not the right time to stirr the pot in any kind of way or treat it as funny, hot gos). But yeah a full Moon in Aquarius happening in his 10th house AND on top of that Saturn in Aquarius, conjuncting that Moon and his natal Uranus in the 10th! Talk about destrcution of any stable foundation and a change in a public image! Honestly, looking at astrologically the way his public image just got radically destroyed over night, with Saturn and the Moon having been in a conjunction (in his chart it was in the 10th house) is kinda eery even. Talk about collective consciousness - not only exposing quiet literally the feelings of the collective, but also doing so in the favor of others and gaining collective emotional consciousness. Take this with a grain of salt (!), because we're still in a tense situation, but I'm tapping into the darker, unfriendlier side of astrology now. Taking his confirmed birth time, he has Nessus in Sagittarius in his 8th house and as I saw that I could feel myself shifting into the surprised pikachu face. I am not saying that this prooves the allegations whatsoever, but as you seemed to be very interested in anaylzing the case in-depth as well, the allegations fit his Nessus - jumping from partner to partner, carelessness (regarding physical intimacy as well), making people share all their ressources with him/finacial gain, and basically the whole jist of gaining control/being in a power position in intimate connections. Keep in mind that this is only one interpretation of Nessus though, Nessus can also show the complete opposite to someone 'turning to their dark side'. On top of that, his Nessus was conjunct transit Phollus the past week, so if anything, we can see that a large event triggered him to 'open his eyes' and face anything of an 'obstacle' that hinders him from seeing the 'truth' to a larger picture and his own nature/destiny. Pholus can symbolize change that will alter your perception of the responsibility you have for yourself and others.

But my latest new interest with these two asteroids aside (asteroids just add a little more nuance to a situation after all), I want to touch on Lilith too, since you (op) have mentioned Lilith before in one of your asks!

He has his Lilith exactly conjunct his Descendant when we consider his confirmed birth time. What happened just now can be seen as 'backfiring' of his actions, either Lilith embodying the women who expose him now for his 'inappropriate' behavior, but also simply fans shaming him now for his alleged manipulative/imoral behavior, especially shaming him about who he chose to date and how. Next to that, you've mentioned Lilith opposite Moon and it just makes me think about him possibly feeling very indecisive and potentially in denial about what he actually needs to be fulfilled in order to be emotionally happy and thus leading to him appearing to have this 'second, dark side' to him now. BML is not necessarily opposite the Moon in my opinion, it's just the side of the subconscious we don't really like to deal with and all we're told not to express and desire because it can be conflicting in the eyes of others (thus BML also leading to a lot of recklessness on the negative side). I think if we take the allegations into consideration, regardless of how much of it is true of it, it can be a good example what happens, when an opposition gets out of balance, as it also manifests outwardly a lot! Lilith shows in his 'double life' aka what he allegedly did with fans. Lilith wanted an outlet and found one by working behind the scenes. If we take in his supposed Taurus rising, which his Lilith is in an exact opposition with, it's a good example of what can lurk underneath the surface.

And of course, last but not least, Neptune and Sun conjunct his MC. People are quiet literally blinded by him more than they would like to think. Also: Lucas was always known for his 'flirty & charismatic' nature, this is another reason why people think we shouldn't be surprised he 'turns out to be like that in real life'. I'm not analyzing this argument right now, but what I think is very interesting is how Sun conjunct MC literally ties a good amount of their personality to their career - they want to be accepted and shine for their personality/big part of their individuality. Idols play a role, no matter how transparent they appear to us, but it's really funny how this 'image' of him melts almost seemingly with parts of his personality (almost af if you were to quiet literally sell your self) and as you've mentioned: Neptune only adds to that, unfortunately.

[corwynnasmith]

In honor of posting the first chapter of Put That Kid Down’s sequel, What You Wanted, I’m gonna give everyone what they never wanted.

Volatile, untested writing tips on making your murdery character sympathetic from an amateur! (These can also be used for making sympathetic villains, with or without murder, but I’m just going to focus here because my most morally screwed characters are usually the protagonists).

1. You can introduce the character in a non-murder, positive context. First impressions matter! Don’t start off a supposedly sympathetic character waist deep in entrails and gore. (Though you could pull that off with a joke, if you’re cool enough.) This could be through:

    1a. A #gooddeed. Help a child get a kite from a tree. Save a worm from drowning. Etc. This gives a positive impression of the character that can cause readers to forgive flaws more easily down the road. Like murder.

    1b. A relatable situation. Get stuck holding the door open for a whole line of people. Worry about what to get their never satisfied mother for mother’s day. Etc. This makes the character more human, less murder machine. People look for reasons in humans, and don’t immediately write them off just because they do terrible, terrible things.

    1c. A positive relationship & interaction. Pet the cat they take very good care of and call “Baby.” Hug a friend goodbye with a thanks for the advice. Etc. This is a Redeeming Connection that can make people look a bit harder at the character for explanation when they show their true colors, instead of shoving them in the murder box right off the bat. HOWEVER this one can backfire into making them seem more terrible if manipulation/deceit is the basis or SEEMS TO BE the basis of the relationship. (The Murder Beard Syndrome - ‘I’m not your ordinary serial killer because I have a real FRIEND’ becomes ‘they are definitely just a serial killer using that person for cover’ - so be careful).

    1d. Miscellaneous because I bet you can come up with more, am I right, folks?

2. You can give your character a plausible reason. Sure, we all want to occasionally write a rebel without a cause, but characters that murder for seemingly no reason can be a hard sell outside certain groups (know your audience lol). This can be:

    2a. An actual Good Reason. The people killed by your character are in a kill or be killed situation with no real alternative. Or they are infected with something that cannot be cured (coughzombiescough). Or they are being forced to by an outside power. Or it’s a mercy kill, even. Etc.

    2b. A seemingly good reason. This reason can be explained. It may not be the best option or the most moral option (or even a moral option at all), but it has weight. For example, killing prisoners of war. This is not good morally, but from a utilitarian standpoint, can be explained. Revenge schemes also follow this viewpoint - taking vengeance can be explained, even if it’s morally iffy to bad.

    2c. A bad reason. I know I just said MAKE IT PLAUSIBLE. I know I just said that. But hear me out. This works best when combined with (3) below, and is seen in the popular show Dexter. Your character wants to murder people for a reason, but it’s a bad reason and they should feel bad.* For example, they crave something about the murder, like it relieves a stress or gives them a sense of control. This could even be the character that just finds killing fun, though that is a thin line to tread. Maybe your character can’t stand rudeness or hears certain people’s life force like a thin, high pitched noise and is just trying to make it quiet (though that is almost 2b). So many bad reasons out there. Run free.

*Feeling bad is not actually a requirement. See Dexter again, in the beginning.

3. Give your character a code. This doesn’t have to be a moral code, but the closer it fits to the popular sense of morality, the more sympathetic your character will be. This lends itself well to vigilante killers, which tend to hover between 2b and 2c regarding motivation.

4. Remember your character needs a life outside killing / doing terrible things. In order for anyone to have a fully fleshed character, there needs to be depth. Hobbies, jobs, dreams, fears, goals that aren’t necessarily geared towards (in this case) murder. A past and a future. Relationships, good and bad. Of course, throwing in random tangents to your plot could through your readers for a loop, so it’s best to work these things in as actual plot elements. For example...

    4a. Introductions. Does your character need to meet someone plot relevant? Have them attend the same sewing circle - you know, the one they joined because they didn’t want the skills passed on by their beloved elder to go to waste! The same business meeting where you reveal your character’s work ethic / passion for their job! Speed dating to show your character’s desire for love! Etc.

    4b. Complications.** It isn’t a story if your character never struggles! Introduce a relationship as a barrier to getting terrible things done due to obligations, hilarious and inconvenient timing on the part of the loved or hated one, or simply scheduling problems where your character’s calendar is #toofullforcrime. Maybe tear your character between two conflicting goals, the first being your murder-adjacent plot and the second being a passion for a hobby/job/relationship/etc. Have fun with it! Torment them!

    4c. Facilitations!** Sometimes, things go right! Maybe your character needs to infiltrate an organization, so they use their skills gained from a certain hobby or past employment to ingratiate themselves with the target organization! Every hobby has a potential application in murder and villainy if you just try hard enough.

**If you use a hobby, job, relationship, etc. as a facilitation or complication, it is best to have it be mentioned briefly as part of a daily/weekly routine, or during the plot’s “downtime” before having it spring out of the box in its True Form as a plot element. This makes the story seem planned ahead gasp. However, having it spring out of the ether can be a good reveal for it if you’re aiming for comedy or shock value.

5. Judge your audience’s Taboo Level / know your audience. Or choose your own Taboo Level. Draw a line somewhere. This is not a line your character has chosen, or will mention, or even knows about. These are just actions your character will not be doing in the story. Some Evil Deeds are instant death for a character’s sympathy standings, based on your audience’s values. Some almost universal ones*** are:

    5a. Betraying the Connection to Humanity. Unless your story is about descent into madness / darkness specifically, your character taking the very thing that made everyone sympathetic to them and murdering/destroying/giving up on it can be Very Bad without a strong redemption arc planned. (If it is about the descent, then this is the turning point that makes your story lol) This can be played off as Very Dramatic instead if it’s for a good reason / seemingly good reason. Popular ones would be: 

For Your Own Good

Because I Don’t Deserve You

The Connection is Actually Evil

The Connection is Accidentally Killing the Character

Etc.

    5b. You- you should be able to come up with this list on your own lol Please just know your audience and also your own limits. And whether or not you’re willing to take the chance the behavior might be normalized by your depiction, too.

6. Emotions are important. What your character is thinking and feeling and telling themselves about what they’re doing are key to sympathy. If the POV permits, you can have some thoughts and feelings floating around, but it’s best to show it. Let your audience sleuth out the truth through your character’s body language, actions, word choice, tone, etc. You can, of course, explain the cues as you give them, like a nervous fidget or an impatient glance. If your readers can’t understand your character, ever, they will not empathize. They will not care. Don’t just have a string of actions one after the other - let your character react.

7. Have fun with it. If you don’t like what you’re writing, chances are your readers won’t, either. I know writing itself is hard and arduous, so maybe you won’t have fun with the actual writing, but the end story should be something you want to read. You can keep these tips in mind or throw them out the window as long as you’re writing for yourself. (But Cor, you JUST SAID- yes, keep your audience in mind for readability/understanding/values, but when it come to the actual story and its characters - those are yours).

Keep writing!

[sagebodisattva]

Meta Ethics

In a follow up to the last video, “Morality and Spiritual Training for Trolls”, we’ll continue our expansive evaluation of morality, and start out by clarifying the actual subject matter of the expatiation. The consideration here really isn’t morality. That would be technically incorrect. Better to classify it as “ethics”; and in this particular case, even more accurately described as “meta ethics.” And this will be the main focus of today’s video, with more content to come in follow ups, as we’ll continue to broaden the scope of the examination, and convert this exploration of morality into an ongoing series. But before we even get into the specific implications of meta ethics, let us first understand the reason why we should make a distinction between morality and ethics.

Just referencing a “morality”, doesn’t speak to the ideological considerations behind a moral code. Saying you have morality is essentially the same thing as saying you have rules or regulations. It’s just basic terminology referring to a generalization, and says nothing to the possible equity or inequity of such a generalization. We could very well have instances of ill conceived morality, or of morality founded on questionable principles. That’s why the ethics are of upmost importance, as they deal with the philosophy behind the rules of conduct. If you want to understand whether or not a morality in question is either solid or slipshod, you need not look any further then the underlying ethics. This is the main reason why it’s significant to distinguish morality from ethics.

So, when speaking on ethics, it should also be clarified that conventional ethics are very low minded. Conventional ethics are the worm eyed position. Conventional ethics are constructed by, and revolve solely around, the illusory egoic identity. That’s why “meta ethics”, are a far better alternative for consideration; as, ethics that are based solely around the primitive desires of a desperate needy ego will, necessarily, lead to low minded standards, inequity and moral turpitude. And that’s because the ego is an inherently selfish repository by default, and due to this, simply can’t be trusted to make a mindful decision about anything. The ego is just too selfish.

But what’s wrong with that? After all, “Richard Dawkins and The Selfish Gene.”, right? “Ayn Rand and The Virtue of Selfishness.”, no?

Right. A genetically selfish waste producing vacuum who thinks it’s a virtue just by being a genetically selfish waste producing vacuum. How admirable! Is there anything wrong with that? I dunno. Is there anything wrong with a man who spends all day, every day, licking his own balls? If so, what would that be, exactly? What would be your diagnosis, for a man who spent all his time with his head between his legs, lapping at his own testicles?

Whatever. Go ahead and lick your own balls; but why is it so hard to lick your own balls without impinging on others? That’s all you gotta do. Lick your own balls without impinging on others.

“But why is it wrong to impinge on others?”

The mere fact that this needs to be explained to you is an indication of mental derangement. Let’s pick up this conversation with you strapped in the interrogation chair. I’m sure we can straighten out your mental confusion about why it’s not cool to impinge on others in a fortnight, all with nothing more then a knife, a fork, a spoon, and a bottle of salt.

If you need a mundane reason why: because it isn’t civilized. We’re trying to imagine that we’re building a civilization ova here, and sociopathic actions such as lying, cheating, stealing, raping, and murdering, are recklessly barbaric uncivilized behaviors. You want to be a savage? Fine, be a savage. You’ll be treated just like any other rabid animal rampaging the landscape, and simply be locked in a cage, or put down. There’s absolutely no issue with hunting you to extinction. You can then take your place next to the saber tooth tiger and the dodo bird.

If you want to hear the higher reason why: because preying on others is a delusional behavior; and hiding in a delusion is a cowardly way to elude the truth.

So, a ravenous short sided ego, struggling to survive, will find all kinds of ample justifications for immoral behavior; and, in some cases, will also discover that it can derive sustenance or perverse indulgent gratification, at the expense of another; and, due to this, supposedly lacks the capacity to understand how, and why, this is wrong; which is further reinforced by cues taken from “nature”, which seem to endorse predatory exploits. This is where the idea of moral relativity comes into play; the view that:

“Moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period), and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.”

The language of that description tells you everything you need to know about why moral relativity is a pile of archaic garbage. No standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others? Are you kidding me? With the plethora of knowledge now so widely available, due to the mass digitalization of information and a global connectivity facilitated by way of the World Wide Web, are they actually suggesting with a straight face that a contemporary man doesn’t have an advantaged educational position over a man of antiquity? Are you serious? As it stands today, the average modern individual has potential access to more information in one day, then the average ancient individual had in an entire lifetime! Whereas the ancient standpoint only had knowledge of it’s own current period, and perhaps a partial knowledge of limited history, the modern standpoint has knowledge of the ancient standpoint, all the history preceding it, and everything else that unfolded thereafter, all the way up to the present moment. It’s not even a contest. Hence, one of the reasons why I posit that the whole idea of moral relativity is archaic. After all, moral relativism is a *view* that is sympathetic to a *standpoint*. In other words, a worm eyed position, referring to another worm eyed position: the low minded domain of the hungry ego.

Ego based ethics produce substandard moralities; and we have seen countless examples of this from various civilizations throughout history. These are the types of ethics that made sinister methodologies, such as slavery, torture, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and pederasty, culturally acceptable in their particular times; of which, makes it truly questionable whether or not these populations could rightfully be considered “civilizations”, proper. A true civilization is defined as a stage of human development that is considered most advanced; and it should be obvious that the populations that engaged in these type of wicked practices would hardly be qualified as civilized.

So yes, they were substandard morals absolutely, because they were based on substandard ethics; which was often the direct result of ignorant myopia and stubborn superstition. And we shouldn’t be afraid to denounce or condemn these subpar morals due to some idea about cultural differences. Let us not forget that the biological definition of “culture”, is the cultivation of cellular organisms in an artificial medium containing nutrients; with “artificial”, being the key word to remember here. And that’s because culture is artifice. Culture is contrived.

And some of you may say:

“Hey, whoa, Sage! Are you gonna devalue my culture?”

And I say hey, you bet your damn ass I will. I’m a reality deconstructionist, and everything you hold dear is on the table.

Your *culture*, huh. How insipid. That’s like saying I’m devaluing your cosmetics. I’m not sure where you get this idea that anyone should pay homage to your luggage. To uncover the truth, know thyself. And the way to know thyself is by letting go of all the artifice you’ve clung to, in desperation for an identity. No, you are not a gender. You are not a sexuality. You are not a race. You are not a religion. You are not even a human being, so forget about all the heritage and traditions of human beings that you cherish so deeply. These are *all* illusory identifications; other wise known as “bullshit”, and culture isn’t exempt from being part of the bullshit. Stop taking your ego so seriously. So what about multiculturalism? Fine, but no less bullshit then singleculturalism. Multiculturalism is a reference to different layers of fake contrived bullshit, all getting combined! Yum yum! Just what a cauldron of one type of bullshit really needs; a blend of additional types of bullshit to give the bullshit stew the real nice unique savory flavor of diverse bullshit! Eclectic bullshit is so much tastier then regular bullshit, didn’t you know? A bullshit so palpable, it’s palatable. Ah yes! How sweet it is! And it attracts quite a sundry of nasty flies and shady scavengers. So yeah. All culture is fake. Stop using it as a shield against the empty truth.

And, needless to say, by the same token, you can do the exact same thing with god; the idea in your head that you use to justify all the other bullshit identifications you’ve become attached to. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that having a supreme being in the mix changes anything, or did anything to justify abhorrent behaviors throughout history. If anything, it just made the situation ten times worse; as, nothing emboldens a myopic ego more then the imagined personal endorsement of an almighty god; which, as we all know, is a path of complete willful dishonesty, or maybe just superstitious stupidity, as the case may be. This is a type of ethical formula that leads to nothing but pure corruption. In fact, you can’t even rightfully say that the morals of religion are based on any true ethics. Ethics are the product of deep minded philosophy, and there’s nothing at all philosophical or deep minded, about binary rules designed to acquire feeble acquiescence. There’s nothing philosophical about blindly adhering to dogma out of fear of some judgmental entity. That’s why it’s called “theology”, and not philosophy.

In truth, the concept of god is a projection of man. See, they tell you that god created man, so that man could, in turn, worship god; (an insane tale unto itself wherein a manic depressive deity with an isolation phobia finds solace in masturbation with self imposed amnesia.), but, the truth is that, man created god, so that man could worship himself via an imagined god by proxy. (an even more insane tale of rampant self important impotence trying to pass off masturbation as legitimate divinity.)

And, of course, this became a very effective method of dominating fellow egos; setting up dogmatic dictums and the subsequent punishments for non-compliance, all under the guise of having a religion. A complete con job. But who could really blame these ascendant hustlers? Most egos are weak and docile, and cannot survive by their own wits, and need a strong outside factor to command them, and they will be submissive to this dominance in exchange for room and board, all of which only increases their overall slavery, but yet relieves them of all responsibility!

What a fantastic tradeoff for a lifelong slave! Everything you need to survive will be provided at a minimum, in exchange for complete servitude. And never forget, in addition to the commitment of being a full time slave, you will also OWE your master for the service of providing you with the bare minimum. That’s the reason why you can’t just leave. It’s not like you can decide to back out of the deal because you now suddenly think you can find a way to be independent, no; it’s too late. You *owe*, motherfucker. Always remember that. And it doesn’t matter that it’s contrived debt. You owe.

“You owe. You owe. You owe.”

Got a clearer picture of what’s really going on here? This type of organized corruption is the main reason why an “atheist”, was even ever born, and why morality became tainted in the eyes of such atheists. Religion and morals developed a sordid association, and almost rightfully so. But this is a good thing. Stop trying to use god as a shield against the empty truth.

So, this is why I submit a proposal for meta ethics. And what exactly is meta ethics? Meta ethics would be fundamental principles with a wider domain then that of the first person perspective of the worm eyed ego. This would be ethics based on lucidity as the highest ideal. These would be ethics that make determinations and develop morals, from the outside looking in, so to speak. A standard that would be a lot more closer to objective, (as in, an outlook that’s impartial to any particular identity’s personal feelings or opinions.) then anything we’ve imagined could exist thus far. I argue that it has never existed, because the awakening is still in an embryonic stage, therefor there is no such animal as an ego that isn’t partial to it’s own bias. Mental slavery demands that you be prejudiced to the personality you’ve associated as an individual identity. This is your sacred attachment. And you will not deviate from it, one bit. You will remain obedient to it, damn it. You will be shamelessly obedient to it.

Meta ethics are exactly what they imply. Ethics that are of a higher order, and are self referential to the ego from this higher station. Only from this position are all egos seen as the same, and therefor can all be treated the same, and will have a code of conduct that applies to them all equally the same. From this position there isn’t any relative aspects to morals. They are always absolute, because they cover the entire framework and do not concern themselves with any selfishly biased worm eyed considerations. In this way, there won’t be any exceptions because of cultural or historical standpoints. There won’t be any allowances set aside for a reckless predatory ego who wants to gain something at the expense of another. There are no grey areas, or ambiguity, concerning the right and wrong of conduct. Lucidity is the foundation, and a context outside the ego is the reference point. This is where the high minded standards of meta ethics finds it’s ground.

[arcticdementor]

In yet another sign of our tortured political moment, the most meaningful civic discussion currently raging is being waged not by our elected officials, spiritual leaders, novelists or celebrities, but by two writers engaged in what may appear to be an intramural intellectual quibble in niche publications.

It began last week when Sohrab Ahmari, the op-ed editor of the New York Post, took to the journal First Things to point out what he believed was wrong much of American conservatism, a bundle of self-contradictory tics embodied, he argued, by National Review writer and dedicated Never Trumper David French. It didn’t take long for French to jab right back. A host of other pugilists, including New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, soon entered the arena, framing the argument in personal, sometimes quasi-slanderous terms.

…

Even worse, today’s social justice warriors, Ahmari continued, see any dissent from their dogmas as an inherent assault. “They say, in effect: For us to feel fully autonomous, you must positively affirm our sexual choices, our transgression, our power to disfigure our natural bodies and redefine what it means to be human,” Ahmari wrote, “lest your disapprobation make us feel less than fully autonomous.” This means that no real discussion is possible—the only thing a true conservative can do is, in Ahmari’s pithy phrase, “to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”

…

Almost immediately, French delivered his riposte. Ahmari’s call to arms, he wrote in his response, betrayed a deep misunderstanding of both our national moment and our national character. “America,” French wrote, “will always be a nation of competing worldviews and competing, deeply held values. We can forsake a commitment to liberty and launch the political version of the Battle of Verdun, seeking the ruin of our foes, or we can recommit to our shared citizenship and preserve a space for all American voices, even as we compete against those voices in politics and the marketplace of ideas.”

Which means that civility is not a secondary value but the main event, the measure of most, if not all, things. Bret Stephens agreed: In his column in The New York Times, he called Ahmari—who was born Muslim in Tehran and had found his path to Catholicism—“an ardent convert” and a “would-be theocrat” who, inflamed with dreams of the divine will, had failed to understand that it was precisely the becalmed civilities of “value-neutral liberalism” that has made his brave journey from Tehran to the New York Post possible.

…

You don’t have to be conservative, or particularly religious, to spot a few deep-seated problems with the arguments advanced by French, Stephens, and the rest of the Never Trump cadre. Three fallacies in particular stand out.

The first has to do with the self-branding of the Never Trumpers as champions of civility. From tax cuts to crushing ISIS, from supporting Israel to appointing staunchly ideological justices to the Supreme Court, there’s very little about the 45th president’s policies that ought to make any principled conservative run for the hills. What, then, separates one camp of conservatives, one that supports the president, from another, which vows it never will? Stephens himself attempted an answer in a 2017 column. “Character does count,” he wrote, “and virtue does matter, and Trump’s shortcomings prove it daily.”

To put it briefly, the Never Trump argument is that they should be greatly approved of, while Donald Trump should rightly be scorned, because—while they agree with Trump on most things, politically—they are devoted to virtue, while Trump is uniquely despicable. The proofs of Trump’s singular loathsomeness are many, but if you strip him of all the vices he shares with others who had recently held positions of power—a deeply problematic attitude towards women (see under: Clinton, William Jefferson), shady business dealings (see under: Clinton, Hillary Rodham), a problematic attitude towards the free press (see under: Obama, Barack)—you remain with one ur-narrative, the terrifying folk tale that casts Trump as a nefarious troll dispatched by his paymasters in the Kremlin to set American democracy ablaze.

…

Conspiracy-mongering doesn’t seem like much of a public virtue. Certainly, the Never Trumpers should have known better than to join in the massive publicity campaign around a “dossier” supposedly compiled by a former British intelligence officer rehashing third-hand hearsay and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. You can still find many faults with Donald Trump’s behavior in and out of office, including some cardinal enough perhaps to merit impeachment, without buying in to some moronic ghost story about an orange-hued traitor who seized the highest office in the land with the help of Vladimir Putin’s social media goons. All that should go without saying, especially for people who ostensibly devote their lives to elevating and enriching the tone of our public discourse.

…

It is true that French took care to sound unfailingly fair, a lone voice for reason in a political reality inflamed by lunatics left and right. The thing he was being reasonable about, however, was an FBI investigation that emerged out of a blatant politically motivated forgery. Now, it’s perfectly plausible that French was carrying on his arguments in good faith, even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary was always there for a slightly more curious or skeptical journalist to discover. What’s disturbing, from the public virtue standpoint, is that French has yet to admit his own failings, which are compounded by his less-than-courageous misrepresentations of what he actually wrote: In his reply to Ahmari, he strongly denied he had promoted the collusion story, a point of view that’s difficult to defend when your byline appears on stories like “There Is Now Evidence That Senior Trump Officials Attempted to Collude with Russia.”

French and the other self-appointed guardians of civility, then, should do us all a favor and drop the civic virtue act. They’re not disinterested guardians of our public institutions; they are actors, working in an industry that rewards them for dressing up in Roman Republican drag and reciting Cicero for the yokels. This is why Bill Kristol, another of the Never Trumpers, could raise money for his vanity website, The Bulwark, and why he could expect his new creation be lauded on CNN as “a conservative site unafraid to take on Trump,” even as the site was staffed by leftist millennials and dutifully followed progressive propaganda lines. Like anyone whose living depends on keeping on the right side of a leftist industry, they understood that there’s only so much you can say if you care about cashing a paycheck—especially when the president and leader of your own party won’t take your phone calls.

…

To tell an Iranian immigrant that he doesn’t understand the way American liberalism works because he ended up on the side of faith rather than on the side of deracinated cosmopolitan universalism isn’t just an impoverished reading of America’s foundations or a blatantly condescending comment; it’s also indicative of a mindset that seeks to immediately equate any disagreement with some inherent and irreparable character flaw.

…

So much for the cocktail party chatter. The larger problem here is that at no point do Stephens, French, et al. deliver a concrete explanation of how they propose conservatism go about opposing, to say nothing of reversing, the new social and moral order that the progressive left has been busily implementing in America for a decade or more. At best, they claim that there’s no real crisis after all.

…

Ahmari, not unlike the zealous left he opposes, has a very distinct idea of where he wants the country to go. He doesn’t want it to end up where objecting to lunatic theories, forged by crackpot academics and defying millennia of lived human experience, gets you called a bigot and fired from your job. He doesn’t want to try and engage in dialogue with people who believe that disagreeing with their opinions causes them some sort of harm and that speech must therefore be regulated by the government or large tech companies. He doesn’t want an America in which color of skin and religious affiliation and sexual preference trump or mute the content of your character. Looking at public schools and private universities, Hollywood and publishing, academia and social media, Ahmari sees the threat posed by progressive doctrine to established American norms and values as entirely real. That he wants to fight it doesn’t make him, as Stephens suggested, a Catholic mullah-in-waiting. It makes him a normal American.

Which is why American Jews, too—whether they identify as liberals or conservatives—would do well to take this squabble seriously. The liberalism that American Jews have defended so ardently, the reason so many of us ended up voting for the left and supporting organizations like the ACLU and cheering on firebrands like Bella Abzug, was geared to secure precisely the values and rights that Ahmari champions, without which it would have been impossible for us to survive, let alone thrive, as immigrants to a white, Christian-majority culture.

A religious minority cannot expect to last very long in a society, like the one the progressive left advocates, that is allergic to tradition and intolerant of dissent. Only in an America that takes faith seriously, that respects and empowers community, and that shudders at any attempt to censor wrong beliefs and incorrect thinking, can Jews hope to thrive.

[46ten]

Beloved Matthew Clarkson, part 2

EH to Matthew Clarkson, 17Sept1804. 

Part 1 here. 

I haven’t been able to get much further with the Clarkson-AH relationship specifically, but thanks to @runawayforthesummer I do have more information about Clarkson after AH’s death, including his assistance to the Hamiltons. 

Gouverneur Morris wrote in his journal [transcribed by runawayforthesummer]: 

Mr. Hammond, who dined with us, desired me to think of some means to provide for poor Hamilton's family. Mr. Gracie and Mr. Wolcott called for the same purpose. I had already mentioned the matter to Mr. Low, who seems to think a subscription will not go down well, because the children have a rich grandfather. Mr. Hammond mentions certain engagements in bank, indorsed by Ludlow and David Ogden. The same thing probably exists as to him, Gracie, and Wolcott. Be motives what they may, I will use the occasion and freely pay my quota. Clarkson will unquestionably do as much. David Ogden says he, Clarkson, will do more than he ought. He is a worthy fellow, as, indeed, he always was, and is extremely wounded. He said to me on Thursday, just after our friend had expired: “If we were truly brave we should not accept a challenge; but we are all cowards.” The tears rolling down his face gave strong effect to the voice and manner with which he pronounced this sentence. There is no braver man living, and yet I doubt whether he would so far brave the public opinion as to refuse a challenge. The Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris, vol 2. pg 458

A rumor circulated that Rufus King had said that Clarkson had said that the duel between AH and Burr was “unavoidable”, with the implication that Clarkson approved of this duel; Clarkson wrote to King about it and provided his own feelings about the duel:

New York

August 20th, 1804

My Dear Sir

Since the late melancholy event that deprived us of our friend Hamilton, a report has reached me, that yourself in conjunction with Mr. Pendleton and myself had given it as an opinion that a duel was unavoidable; a report of this nature (as I abhor the practice) has occasioned me great uneasiness, and as I was only a hearer of what you related to me and had no other agency in the business, you will much oblige me by a line to this effect. I promise you that no other use shall be made of the letter but only to show it to two persons from whom I received the information-whom I am very solicitous should be rightly informed on the subject. Previous to the fatal event the silence you imposed on me was most scrupulously attended to; but which agitated my mind exceedingly; immediately upon my hearing of its having taken place I directly went to our friend, who I found had already requested that I be sent for. The scene which I witnessed has almost been too much for me, and the idea now suggested has not contributed to my repose. Let me request, my dear sir, to hear from you as soon as possible. 

P.S. We are endeavouring to obtain by subscription some property for the children of our friend; is anything of a similar nature likely to be done in Boston?  -  Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol 4, pg 399

King responded to Clarkson:

Waltham near Boston

August 24, 1804

My dear Sir

I lose no time in replying to your letter of the 20th which I received last evening considering the reserve I have observed upon this subject of national affliction. I am truly surprised that any such rumor, as that you mention, should have got into circulation upon my authority: No person can be justified by any observation that you ever made to me, or that I ever made to another, in reporting that you had given an opinion that a Duel between our lamented friend and Col Burr was unavoidable.  

It was not until the challenge had been given and accepted that I mentioned the affair to you, and then under injunction of secrecy – [insert] knowing our friend’s determination to be positive [end insert] my mind was agitated with strong forebodings of what had happened; and though the correspondence was closed by the agreement of the Parties to meet each other, I nevertheless mentioned the subject to you, and asked if you would perceive any mode of interference; your answer, expressive of much sorrow, was in the negative -; I did not however infer from this answer that in your opinion our friend might not have declined a meeting with Col Burr, but merely, by the acceptance of his adversary’s challenge, that the interference of third persons was precluded.

P.S. You are absolutely to make any use of the above that you may deem proper.

There exists in this quarter a difficulty that may disappoint our hopes of pecuniary succor for the family of our lamented friend – I allude to the misunderstandings that existed between him and Mr. Adams. Should we fail in procuring money, I understand that certain persons who purchased a tract of land in Pennsylvania of Col. Pickering, and for which they paid him $25,000 will be disposed to convey the lands to the family of the deceased. This will be a valuable property at a Distant Day, but cash only will pay Debts- *

original letter here, also found in Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol 4

King follows up with another letter to Clarkson less than a week later: 

Boston

August 29, 1804

Dear Sir

Mrs. Hamilton having written to Mr. Cabot to endeavor to procure for Alexander a situation in a reputable commercial house, Mr. Higginson has readily consented to take him, and until a suitable family can be found to take Alexander in as a boarder, Mr. Higginson will receive him into his own family. This will give to the young man an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the respectable persons of the town, and with such young men as are of the best reputation-

In my answer to your letter of the 20th I omitted to say anything concerning either Mr. Pendleton or myself in regard to the Report to which your letter alludes. I have no recollection that Mr. Pendleton ever expressed to me any opinion whether General H. could, or ought to, decline a meeting with Col Burr; though I very well remember that he soberly agreed with me in opinion of the inconsistency of the General’s determination to receive the fire of his adversary, and to throw away his own –

No person can view with deeper abhorrence than I do the practice of dueling, and our lamented friend was not unacquainted with my opinion upon this Subject. 

-original letter here, also found in Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol 4

So King told Clarkson about the planned duel to see if he could do something about it; Clarkson said he could not interfere at that point, but someone thought Clarkson was saying that AH was right to accept Burr’s challenge, while all of these men expressly disapprove of dueling, of course. 

By the way, King left NYC and was in Boston at the time of the duel. Washington Morton, “a young man of strong passions” (whose “conduct, as usual, is preposterous” haha) spoke “indignantly of the conduct of King, giving the impression that such was the feeling of his wife’s family” (pg 391-392).  Pendleton supposedly said at a dinner party that King’s behavior could be construed to show, “great coldness of heart,” although he didn’t hold it against King. More ammunition for James A. and JCH to sue King 20 years later.

Back to the Alexander Jr. situation and Clarkson...

In addition to the letter from Elizabeth Hamilton above, transcribed by runawayforthesummer here, and by aswithasunbeam with photo of original letter here, there’s the following letter (see this post for more context): 

EH to General Matthew Clarkson (in NY) 

Albany, September 29th, 1804

With thanks permit me to acknowledge the receipt of your Letter. The advantages my friend of placing my son [Alexander] in Boston are great, but they are all with respect to acquirements in the knowledge of making property. And his Moral and Religious Character must be entirely depending upon himself and how few are there at his age that do not want a watchfull parents care to guard them, and even there they are Hazarded by a short absence. The present day has evils of every sort assailing a young mind, that has but just stepped from the studies of a college class. The advantages of having a home, ware [where], he will meet with tenderness, to make[?] him domesticated, books that will be suited to him and see a tender virtuous father’s Bust that will press on his mind, that goodness, and Religion must be his Chief support.

With respect to myself how little am I fitted to bear the anxiety for an abscent child, the alarms for his health will be many and fears I shall constantly have, I have several children let the pain of separation be a little protracted and the eldest remain to give me some consolation and by prayers for his prosperity attentions on my part endeavor to make up any loss he may attain by a different situation.

With Esteem, E. Hamilton

This is all very sad. Clarkson does seem to have been regarded as “the bravest man,” who will do more than he “ought,” who could teach a young man about Religion and other subjects that “marked his character.” AH asked for him while dying, and Clarkson seemed heartbroken by AH’s death. All around, a good man and friend. 

*If one wants to read more about this property, check out pages 405-411 of the Rufus King volume linked above.

[orlandri-tl]

[Sukamoka Vol. 1] Chapter 2 Part 2: The Winged Guard’s 5th Division

Feodor Jessman disliked his appearance.

His wavy and dull silver colored hair was difficult to comb. His deep purple eyes glittered with natural menace, and had to be hidden by black-rimmed fake glasses. As expected of an Imp, his unblemished skin was pale white.

He had no horns, fangs, or scales – the clear, unavoidable appearance of a markless.

A hated kind, the markless whose numbers included Feodor were looked down upon by most of Regul Aire’s inhabitants. The whole bunch were rotten to the core, and Feodor had on several occasions mused to himself half-seriously that it’d be considered a favor to the world if every last one of them were to disappear.

Like many of those living in the cramped environment of Regal Aire, Feodor’s own race was mixed. His father’s great grandmother was a troll, and far up his mother’s side were ancestors who had been fox-beastmen. However, Feodor’s blood didn’t appear to have done anything for him; his appearance and traits, like the majority of the Jessman family, were that of a typical Imp.

The Imps were a subspecies of Ogres, the descendants of a demonic race that arose within Emnetwyte civilization long ago. Lurking in the shadows of the Emnetwyte, they had lived a most misguided existence, leading individuals towards debauchery and ruin with their cursed eyes and dark whispers.

The Emnetwyte were long extinct now. For no apparent reason, their shadows lived on.

Imp eyes were once said to hold an outrageous power capable of confusing and manipulating others. When their activity was at its height, one great individual supposedly drowned a small country in revelry and depravity with their eyes alone. However, through the passage of time and mixing of species, the Imps no longer possessed such splendid power. They were now just another typical markless race, perhaps slightly better with words and lies than most.

Feodor Jessman was but one of the many sorry descendants produced by that pitiful race.

Boom! An explosion-like sound rang out. Slamming his feet into the bronze-paneled floor, the wolf-headed beastman launched into the air. He violently twisted his large body forward and swung his arm down. The mass of conditioned muscle arced, whiplike, and down from the sky came roaring a mighty punch that could split someone from skull to groin.

It was a cleanly executed fist technique with graceful form in every seemingly-brash movement. One might call it refined brute force; believing in one’s strength, obeying that strength, and ultimately relying on it. The idea was to entrust everything to one’s own muscles and power, one’s greatest weapon. It was a state only attainable through solely pursuing the concept of “crushing,” something that the beast races born with “rending” claws could not easily reach.

Well, I doubt I can stop that.

His opponent was just too ridiculously strong. Even if he were to try and push that incoming arm, its trajectory likely wouldn’t budge an inch. He could go for a leg sweep, but the foot his opponent pivoted on was currently midair. Before any of that, considering his opponent’s momentum, it was obvious that he would be sent flying no matter where he made contact.

He dropped into a low crouch, his right hand hidden in the shadow of his body. The beastman’s eyes reflexively darted there as Feodor shifted his center of mass onto his left foot, then made a sharp sliding motion with his still-hidden hand. The almost magician-like flourish imitated the moves of a dagger-wielder; it hid the user’s intent, the blade’s shape, and all other information from the enemy until it struck.

If one thought it through, of course, that was an impossible scenario. They were in a training arena, sparring with bare hands. There was no way for a fighter to bring in a real weapon. Still, the beastman flinched, his inborn instincts and hard-won warrior experience instantly perceiving the most dangerous attack Feodor’s actions could result in, and he twisted his body to avoid a fatal blow. His head – having eyes, nose, and ears, all areas impossible to toughen no matter how strong one might be, all weak points through which his skull could be pierced – jerked back and out of the way of any angle Feodor’s attack might come from.

The graceful sequence of movements faltered, a fatal error introduced into it.

No matter how rapidly a top spins, it will lose control and motion if its axis is shifted. Every ounce of momentum that had served to support the beastman’s landing instead became exhausted by his hasty dodge. By the time the first inklings of regret surfaced in the beastman’s eyes, everything was over.

Bam! Wham! Whaaam!

The beastman tumbled, flipped upwards, and rolled through two nearby sparring soldiers, sounding much like someone pulverizing a barrel with an axe, until he came to a stop against the wall.

A few seconds passed as everyone present turned their eyes to the fallen beastman, their own matches long forgotten. An uneasy silence filled the training field.

“...Gahahahaha! Oh, that was great stuff. You’re good, you know!”

The beastman raised his head good-naturedly. “To think you got the better of me with that sneaky trick of yours! If it weren’t for that little counter move, I would’ve pummeled you flat!”

Feodor shook his empty hands. Of course, he wasn’t holding any real dagger. He had merely made a suggestive movement in front of a master, which had caused his opponent to reflexively dodge and lose balance.

One by one, the questions rose among the people surrounding them: What happens now? Why is this giant beastman so happily declaring his defeat? Only the two involved could understand the situation.

Feodor fixed his misaligned glasses back into position. “Your assessment boosts my confidence, Portrick.” He went over to the toppled beastman, took his extended arm with his own hand, and pulled him up with all his strength. “Though, you don’t need to praise me. After all, I cheated rather than used my own power. It’s something that could only work against an overly strong person like you.”

Imps were a deceitful race. The affinity for deceiving others was rooted within his species. It was only natural that the methods of his fighting style would reflect that wicked nature.

"What strange humility! Still, that’s not a bad way to put it.” Portrick slapped Feodor’s shoulder with explosive bams until it hurt. His words aside, his body language was like that of a pleasant old man towards the neighborhood troublemaker. A lycanthropos known in the division as “Bruiser,” Private First Class Portrick was the strongest, perhaps the second strongest, of the soldiers belonging to the Winged Guard’s 5th Division.

"It hurts."

"Ah, my bad." He withdrew his hand with a half-baked apology, laughing heartily.

Just then, the flighty voice of Private First Class Nax came floating in from a nearby doorway. “Oh, hey – hey, Fourth Officer Jessman. The Division Chief’s calling for ya. Didya get up to anything you shouldn’t have?”

"Hmm? The First Officer wants to see me?”

I wonder what it is.

Feodor wasn’t sure why he was being summoned. As Fourth Officer, he had irreproachable conduct and was an exemplary soldier. His actual personality and behavior aside, he should at least have that much of a general record.

On the other hand, if any of his past misdeeds turned up in his records… That would be unpleasant. But if he was summoned for that reason, there would’ve been some forewarning. Probably.

"Could it be? A talk about promotion?"

Feodor vaguely smiled at Portrick’s wildly positive guess. “If that's the case, I'll be happy.”

As he started towards the corridor that went to the general headquarters, his thoughts went back to the earlier physical training.

How idiotic.

In the first place, the army was formed to battle the 17 Beasts, destruction itself given form. All it took was witnessing the Beasts for one to lose the will to live. Punching or kicking them was unlikely to be of much use.

Our training is meaningless. It's nothing more than the excuse that ‘we’re doing as much as we can’. Supposedly it’s intended to keep us ready to go, but it just exposes how much we’ve become complacent in peace.

“Absolutely idiotic.”

After making sure nobody else was in the corridor to hear him, Feodor vented.

The Winged Guard was the sword and shield of Regul Aire. For better or worse, that was what their entire existence hinged on; their greatest strength and weakness.

To begin with, Regul Aire was not a monolith. Countless races called it home, numerous communities flourished within it, and endlessly differing values clashed. No single system of morality, no single definition of good and evil intentions, could be shared by all who dwelt upon the floating islands.

And this unnatural state of existence was born of the Winged Guard’s creation.

Roughly four hundred years ago, a Teimerre had drifted up from the gray plains below and come to rest onto the 27th Floating Island. Because of the great threat to all other islands presented by the Teimerre, it was then suggested that all those who inhabited the islands should band together to battle it.

What had happened next could only be called comedy.

First, goodwill groups obstructed military operations one by one, insisting that attempts at communicating with the Beast should be made.

Next, a fleet was unable to even leave its port because it was swarmed by civilians demanding that they should also be allowed to fight.

Another incident came about when soldiers were detained and prevented from fighting by groups who waxed philosophically on the evil of life-or-death battles.

Again and again, emergent governments competing among themselves subverted one another’s plans of attack. An army appeared one day, pretending to work in concert with the Beast. Conspiracies that the Beast’s entire invasion was nothing but a false flag were thrown around. The value of the silver coin was rewritten almost every day, certain people becoming extremely rich while others lost out. Groups that were disliked from the start were blamed for the arrival of the Beast and wiped out one after another.

Around that time had been the birth of the “Heaven’s Arrival” cult, who claimed, among other things: The Beast is a messenger of death sent by the Visitors; for those of us who dwell in sin, we must accept our deaths joyfully and without resistance... The cultists, believing in their righteousness that everybody should be sacrificed to the Beast, worked in unyielding conviction towards their goals.

Throughout all this time, though not a single ship reached the 27th Floating Island and not a single shell was fired at the Beast, dozens of airships crashed and tens of thousands of lives were lost.

A decade or so after the disaster, the Winged Guard was established.

Regardless of what those on the islands might believe, the Winged Guard existed only to protect Regul Aire, obeying the Constitution of Regul Aire alone and disregarding any other laws or customs. It was only dispatched to go against confirmed invasions of the Beasts and defeat them. Furthermore, any military power aside from the Winged Guard was strictly prohibited from participating in these battles. By single-handedly assuming the responsibility to deal with internal and external threats, further problems were therefore prevented from occurring.

The Winged Guard was founded under that principle, and uphold it to this day.

"Of course, I don't intend to talk about any minor wrongdoings,” the First Officer said. The smoke from his cigarette wafted through the general headquarters office of the Winged Guard’s 5th Division. "Though, I suppose something like, say... a military officer slipping out a hole in the chain-link fence to buy and eat donuts... would go against regulations."

Feodor winced. That’s one crime exposed.

"If you do sneak out and buy something, you should get something forbidden like alcohol. That way you’d gain prestige even if it was found out, right?”

No, wait a minute, what’s he going on about now?

"Ah, well,” the Armado sighed. “Now, about what I actually called you in here to talk about..."

"...what you said just now wasn't the main topic?"

"Nope, just a little chitchat. There’s a matter I want to put you in charge of.”

Among the military officers belonging to the 5th Division, Feodor was particularly outstanding. Individual martial arts, knowledge of tactics through the ages, battlefield artillery operations… he was more proficient than anyone else in pretty much in every skill required for military officers. That was why, despite being an Imp with poor physique, he’d been able to rise up to the position of a ranking officer.

If there was any obstacle to his success, it would be that he was still quite young and hadn’t yet been blessed with the opportunity to distinguish himself in actual combat. That was a problem that would in time be resolved, however. There were whispers that he’d soon be charging up the ranks to 3rd and 2nd – and he intended to do just that.

The First Officer nominating him for the upcoming duty meant it should be an opportunity to rack up achievements. It seemed like a good chance.

"I'm glad to receive your assessment, but it's a bit intimidating to be selected as the person in charge,” Feodor said. “Have we even discovered the plans those Heaven’s Arrival fanatics have in mind for causing mass destruction?”

"No, but fortunately that won't be your mission. It's a bit more of the peaceful variety."

Huh? That was strange. If it was that kind of thing, it didn’t seem like Feodor’s talents would be needed.

"I understand what you want to say, but I'm certain that you’re the most qualified individual." Finished speaking, the First Officer glanced at the wall clock tiredly. "They're late."

"Sir?"

"Your duty will be the supervision of four first-class equivalent soldiers dispatched from the 11th Floating Island by the Winged Guard’s 2nd Division.”

"...Huh." The First Officer was moving at his own pace, forcing Feodor to rapidly digest what he was saying in order to keep up with the conversation. Because of that, his responses were delayed. “They’re equivalent soldiers?”

Although the term was unfamiliar to him, he had memorized the Winged Guard’s military regulations, and thought he recalled a description about such a rank.

As it went, the rank of “equivalent soldier” was special, temporarily issued when it became necessary for someone to have the same authority as a regular soldier over a period of time. By itself, it seemed like a convenient framework; scattered among the various races of Regul Aire were individuals whose raw strength equalled a trained soldier, and to obtain their cooperation without creating confusion in the chain of command was attractive.

In reality, however, it was impossible to put into action and had never been done before.

That was because the requirements were strict to the point of being unrealistic – specifically, a line stated ‘The signatures of three ranking officials of first rank or higher are required’. The Winged Guard currently possessed within its ranks thirteen First Officers and 16 First Technicians, and above them only seven generals. Obtaining approval from three of those thirty-six people was a request on the same level of uniting the entire army in agreement. Consequently, it was pretty much impossible to utilize in response to the immediate needs of a combat site.

If you wanted to treat an ordinary civilian as a soldier, it was much quicker to give them an actual military title rather than the troublesome position of equivalent soldier. As a matter of fact, there were positions such an event: purely decorational officer ranks like that of Third Patrol Officer and Second Enchanted Weapons Technician, for example. The fact that someone on the 11th Floating Island didn’t do just that meant that there was some reason to not do so. In other words…

“Infamous criminals, I'm guessing..?”

As he muttered, the thought seemed plausible. They need to be used as military personnel, but can’t actually be given military status. If there’s some politically delicate situation, it makes sense to jump through all those hoops.

He sketched out his mental picture of one possible first-class equivalent soldier. The fierce, hardened criminal is known to everyone on the 11th Island. His physique is the same as or larger than Private First Class Portrick. Perhaps he could be a member of the Giant tribe. His hands dyed red from the countless people he murdered, his prominent blood vessels pulsing along his bald head, his eyes constantly bloodshot, his mouth distorted into a heinous grin.

I understand. I definitely wouldn’t give somebody like him a regular military rank. The decision to treat him as an equivalent soldier is understandable.

The Armado nodded, as if he had read Feodor’s mind. “If nothing else, they’re certainly a troublesome group to deal with.”

“But why now?” Feodor questioned. “We still have time before the day comes to make an attack on the Croyance, but there’s not much time left either. The 5th Division already has its hands full.”

"That's true."

"Right. Which means there’s no time to deal with some outsiders who have their own problems–”

"That's why I asked for you."

"...What does that mean, if I may ask?"

Knock-knock-knock.

A steady tapping came from the door of the general headquarters. A young woman’s voice, sounding very much lost, spoke. “Um, sorry for being late. We’ve arrived.”

"Please come in," the First Officer said.

"Excuse me…"

The knob turned. The door slowly opened–

"Sorry to keep you waiting!”

The door vigorously banged open and a girl with orange hair came tumbling forward into the room, accompanied by a slight shriek. She had probably been the one knocking.

A girl around the same age with cherry blossom-colored hair energetically strode into the room next. "Is this the general headquarters?"

She was followed by a quieter young girl with purple hair, who bowed. “Pardon the disruption.”

All three of them possessed no fangs, horns, or any other extraneous features. They were markless.

Feodor was silent for a long second, then looked back over his shoulder. "…Um, First Officer?"

Three girls in front of him. First-class equivalent soldiers visiting from the 11th Island. His wordless gaze asked, Surely not?

“They are the soldiers.” The Armado’s answer was straight and to the point. It was also exactly what he’d hoped to not hear.

Feodor looked back at the girls. By their appearances, they were only fifteen years old. "Question. When did the Winged Guard start training children?" He himself was seventeen, not actually that much older than them, but that was of course an entirely separate matter altogether.

"As I said, they are the soldiers.”

Annoyance was clearly present in the First Officer’s voice, but Feodor persisted regardless. “No matter how you slice it, they’re delicate ladies. To put it mildly, our division is a den of vulgarity, isn't it? Is this really a good idea?”

"Hey now, are you calling this place a den of vulgarity in front of the officer responsible?"

"Are you going to deny it?"

Just then, Private First Class Talmareet’s angry shouts could be heard from the training grounds; a morally questionable tirade of words whose utterance outside the military base would have vigilante groups dogpiling the speaker. The orange-haired girl blushed and looked downward, while the cherry blossom-haired girl tilted her head, looking puzzled, and the purple-haired girl chuckled strangely.

"...See? Isn't this place a vulgar den?" Feodor’s lip curled; he was beginning to feel a sinking sensation. "Whatever, I don't care anymore."

“Be that as it may, Fourth Officer Jessman,” the First Officer waved his hand, “I wasn’t asking for your personal opinion on this assignment. Your orders are to supervise these first-class equivalent soldiers, and I won’t permit any objection.”

Well, that’s that. This was the army. Whether or not the explanation was to your taste, you couldn’t choose what you wanted to do.

"I have no particular objections. I am honored that you entrust important tasks to an inexperienced person like me,” Feodor replied grudgingly. “But at the very least, let me ask something. I’m a military officer, this is the armed forces, and we're in an emergency situation. Our capabilities are limited. What in the world am I supposed to do to supervise these children?"

"Nothing."

"...What?"

"These first-class equivalent soldiers will be stationed here. As far as peacetime training and duties are concerned, treat them the same as any other soldier. They've passed the basic training curriculum on the 11th Island, so you won’t need to worry about their ability at that level."

The cherry blossom-haired girl added a cheerful “Yep, yep!” in agreement.

"However, they’re still our precious guests. As much as I’d like to allow them to run freely without restraint, that’s impossible under the circumstances. These girls must always be under the supervision of the military, and their overseer must be of the officer rank or higher. A superior officer in name is necessary. And furthermore–”

His stumpy finger jabbed in Feodor’s direction. "Just as you’ve said, the 5th Division is a vulgar place, and one would be reluctant to simply throw these girls out into that chaos. So in short, they need a chaperone. That person needs to be somebody who’s glad to help others, understands the 5th Division well, doesn’t have prejudices against markless, and has a logical mind. It just so happens that, in this entire division, there is exactly one ideal Fourth Officer who satisfies all of these conditions. Any questions so far?”

“...None, sir.” It was a reasonable evaluation of him. Feodor Jessman was a good person. He was calm and conscientious, kind to everyone and yet strict. He excelled at many things, but didn’t lord his superiority above others. He always remained positive, had grand goals, and never slacked off.

At least, others looking at him would assume so. That was the image he’d carefully cultivated.

"Of course, I don’t make the decision without any concerns. Your races are similar and you’re close to them in age, not to mention you’re male and they’re female – so that makes me slightly uneasy. Say, you’re an Imp, aren’t you? When exactly is your mating season again?”

"I don't have... that kind of thing." Why is this old man talking about dirty things in front of girls?

"Uh huh. Well, whatever, as long as there’s consent involved I don’t care what you do. It’s a delicate time for all of us though, so don’t do anything untoward or else the whole division’s morale will be damaged–”

"I won't,” Feodor interrupted heatedly. Feeling the girls’ gazes on him, he reconsidered. Maybe immediately rejecting the idea was a bit too much. I don’t want them to think badly of me. “Er, that is to say, while I do think they’re pretty enough, I’m devoted to my fiance. I’m not about to drift away to other women.”

That wasn’t entirely a lie. His family had once chosen a fiance for him.

But I’ll never be able to see her again. He hid his innermost thoughts behind his smile.

"That so? First I’ve heard of it."

"Yes, well, it's not something I spread around too much. By the way, First Officer..."

"What?"

"Earlier, didn't you say ‘four first-class equivalent soldiers'?"

"I did," the Armado nodded.

Feodor turned to the girls and did a head count. The orange-haired one was blushing bashfully, the cherry blossom-haired one had boldly puffed her chest up for some reason, and the purple-haired girl just stared back amusedly.

"...I seem to count only three present.”

The orange-haired girl seemingly mustered up some courage and raised her hand. "Ah, um, may I speak?!" she asked a little too eagerly.

"Oh, what is it?”

"Erm… First-Class Equivalent Soldier Tiat Shiba Ignareo isn’t here."

That’s an overly long name.

"S-she's not feeling well. She might be a little late, b-but she'll be right here..." Going off her attempts to stand still and the cracks in her voice, the girl was desperately trying to cover for her missing companion.

“Ah, I see.” In contrast, the First Officer’s reply was delivered with almost breezy nonchalance. “That’s fine.”

Out of the six divisions of the Winged Guard, the 5th Division is said to possess the highest grade of laziness and irresponsibility among its troops. Whether or not that reputation is caused by the people in charge having the personality to match, or else those leaders are chosen by the top brass due to the notoriety of the division itself, remains a mystery.

"It’s not like you girls have a schedule to follow yet, anyway,” the First Officer was saying, “so as long as you’re not late for something important it’s not a probl–”

The door, still half-closed, suddenly burst all the way open as if kicked.

"E-excuse me for being late! First-Class Equivalent Soldier Tiat, reporting in!"

This one has poor timing, Feodor mused. As he’d expected, the newest girl was the same age as the other three, with grass-colored hair. She’d probably run here as fast as she could; her face was flushed and she was out of breath.

She was the girl he’d met atop the abandoned theater the other day.

Ah… Feodor found that he wasn’t entirely surprised by this new development. Somehow, I had a feeling it’d be like this.

The girl swiveled her head around, taking in everything her wide eyes could see in the room as she rushed and tried to catch up with the situation. Once her gaze landed on Feodor’s figure in front of her, she froze.

"...Wait, y-y-you?! Wh-why are you here?!”

"Er…” He wasn’t sure if he was still supposed to have forgotten about her. Nevertheless, Feodor took the first move, acting in accordance to what she’d wanted from him back then. “It’s a pleasure to meet you, ladies. Apologies for the late introduction, but I am Fourth Officer Feodor Jessman. Just now, I’ve accepted the duty of being your supervisor and guide to our humble 5th Division.”

He placed his hand on his chest in salute and flashed them his best smile. "You may already be aware of this much, but the 5th Division is currently engaged in battle preparations. I believe this can be confusing even for the 2nd Division’s elite members, so if you have any questions please come talk with me. As your superior, I shall try my best to be of assistance.”

"Y-y-yes s-sir – ow!" The orange-haired girl had bitten her tongue. "It’ll be… pleashure worhking... with you!”

"Oooh!" The cherry blossom-haired girl exclaimed, oddly impressed. "The smiling face of a womanizer!"

"Nice to meet ya, Fourth Officer." The purple-haired girl grinned at him. "I'm sure we’ll get along. Hopefully it won’t be too brief.”

Feodor turned to the girl with green hair, the one he’d seen slip and fall into the water tank yesterday.

"Nnh… Nice to meet you..." Her eyes flickered back and forth nervously, the situation having passed her by long ago, but she managed to keep up with his act. “I-it’s my… pleasure to work with you…”

[itsclydebitches]

RWBY has Ozpin say "Leo's betrayal doesn't detract from all the good he's done". Then it turns around, looks at Ironwood doing a few "bad" things, and has the heroes, the voicepieces of the show, say "he's unforgivable and Bad now, no reasoning with this guy", despite all the objective good he's done that means he can be "redeemed". I can't tell what the show wants me to take away from this. Was Oz just arguing for the sake of a "grey" situation? Are we meant to conclude he was somehow wrong?

I think we’re absolutely meant to believe that Ozpin is wrong here. As always, I think we need to take the whole scene into account and this scene has the overarching message of, “Ozpin is making all the wrong choices.” It’s a message I don’t agree with, but the primary message RT is trying to feed us all the same. 

Because remember that before this Ozpin is already getting attacked by Yang and the others over the relic. That’s the lead-in to the comments about Lionheart: You were wrong not to tell us everything about the relic. You were wrong not to trust us. Why would the audience assume Ozpin is right about Lionheart when the story is already insisting he’s wrong about everything else? 

Note the expressions and the body language. These are our protagonists - our heroes - displaying disgust at Ozpin. That sets us up to uphold their perspective over his, even though logically the story doesn’t do a good job of writing a scene wherein the group is actually right. But unless someone is paying careful attention to these pieces and trying to view the situation objectively, they’ll be inclined to take the side of the heroes by default. Especially when the animation is doing all it can to say, “Hey, hey, this guy? What an asshole! See how mad all the heroes are? See how, as women, they’re trying to make this about a man deciding things for them, drawing parallels with Jacques? See how much work we’re doing to insist how horrible he is? Don’t pay attention to whether any of this holds up, just run with the emotions of the scene. Everyone is Big Mad at Ozpin right now so obviously his perspective is Wrong.” 

You’ll note at the start of the scene that, instead, Yang’s perspective is prioritized. She starts by laying into Maria for being a “defenseless old lady” and Qrow actually calls her out on it. Not because she’s taking her frustration out on a stranger, but because her attitude may draw grimm. The story highlights a practical concern (anger brings monsters) rather than a moral one (don’t take your anger out on innocents) which then puts the writing in the position to undermine Qrow’s criticism. Which is precisely what it does. Blake comes back with, “Does that even matter? We’ve apparently been drawing grimm since we left Haven.” 

Note the construction of all that and the position it’s supposed to put the audience in: 

Yang is doing something bad

Qrow acknowledges that she’s doing something bad... but it’s only bad for this one, particular reason 

Blake claims that reason doesn’t matter

So is Yang still acting badly? Guess not

Who is acting badly then? Ozpin! Because he’s presented as being responsible for the current grimm problem. Does he have control over the relic attracting grimm? No, but the story doesn’t acknowledge that. Is Yang still responsible for drawing grimm despite the relic’s “faint” attraction? Yes, but the show doesn’t acknowledge that either. Will the show later have the group willingly carry the relic around for weeks despite having a vault to put it in, completely undermining this message of, “We’re justified in our anger because you’ve endangered us”? Yes! But again, story doesn’t acknowledge it. 

So we’re left with this simple setup: Yang is supposedly in the right here and Ozpin is supposedly wrong. That’s what drives the entire scene. When Ozpin tries to explain himself Yang gets hung up on his word choice.

When Ozpin corrects his language and reiterates that the situation is more complicated than ‘Lionheart is irrevocably bad,’ Yang ignores that point. She doesn’t engage with it, thereby denying the audience the chance to easily realize/acknowledge that she may be wrong to simplify Lionheart’s situation. The second Ozpin makes a good point that undermines Yang’s perspective the writing takes a turn and runs away before it can overtly say, “Yeah, Yang might be wrong.” By erasing the criticism of Yang at the start of the scene (your attitude doesn’t matter because the relic is already drawing grimm) and then by straight up ignoring Ozpin’s attempts to defend himself (we’re not going to talk about Lionheart anymore now that you’re making good points), the story ensures that Yang is continually presented as justified in her anger and correct in her assumptions. This is compounded by the story likewise ignoring Yang’s own lies later in the scene. Once she abandons the Lionheart conversation she insists Ozpin can trust her. 

Ozpin counters that he doesn’t mistrust them as individuals, but his “behaviors are backed by experience” and others - including Lionheart - have told him those exact same words. So what proof does he have that they’re different? 

Right now it’s a he said/she said situation. Only problem is, Yang proves herself a liar a minute later and the story, again, doesn’t acknowledge that. Yang demonstrates in no uncertain terms that her previous words were bs. Ozpin can’t trust her. She does betray him. The second she finds out about this information she rejects him precisely as Ozpin believed she would. The actions of the story prove Ozpin’s point... but the story still upholds Yang’s emotions. By never calling her out on her hypocrisy. By punching Ozpin. By driving him away. By ignoring him for nearly two volumes and giving us other moments - like Yang ignoring Oscar, like Yang accusing Ozpin of spying on them - that reiterate the overall message of, “Yang is right and Ozpin is wrong.” Which extends into everything else we learn in this conversation. Was Ozpin, the most hated character right now, correct to sympathize with Lionheart? The story says no. Was Yang, the beloved hero who has supposedly been “manipulated” this whole time, right to insist he’s irredeemable? The story says yes. Logically none of it works, but it’s the takeaway RT wants us to believe in anyway. 

What stands out to me is that Ozpin points out that Yang and the others never knew Lionheart before Salem got to him. Like everything else, the writing doesn’t give that point any weight. However, the group did know Ironwood. They knew him as a school headmaster, as a member of the inner circle defending the world, as the man who gave one a new arm, protected another from her father, gave them all the best welcome they could have hoped for in Atlas... they knew him and that still wasn’t enough for them to put any trust in him, let alone (so far) any forgiveness. The group is not Ozpin. In that they aren’t currently able to admit that someone can do a lot of good alongside some, or even a lot of bad. Which leads to the reverse: they don’t believe that as good people they’re capable of any bad. The group doesn’t think they’re anything like the people they criticize even while they repeat the same actions of betrayal (Lionherat) and secret keeping (Ozpin) because they believe they’re inherently good. If they can’t see the potential for bad in themselves, they’re not capable of seeing the potential for good in anyone else. If Lionheart messed up he was always bad and Ozpin is a fool to think that any good he did matters. In the same way that Ozpin himself is bad for keeping secrets and none of the good he’s done matters after making a mistake. The group post-Volume 4 hasn’t once acknowledged that human complexity. We were always meant to believe that all three of these men were wrong... but RWBY did a staggeringly bad job of making me believe it. 

[freedomfighter2033]

Conditional love

Conditional love

As someone who grew up in an environment in which love and affection were predicated on my agreement and support of a specific religious system, I was never really taught what unconditional love was. I didn’t learn until much later that it's not normal to worry about your family abandoning you for questioning your groups religious doctrines or that it’s not normal to sever all contact with a person you considered a close friend simply because they did something the group deemed unacceptable. Instead I was taught that obedience and humility were synonymous. That the only life worth living is one that centerd around service of and subjection to the organization. That my life depended on being an active member of the group. That was my normal.

As one might have guessed being raised with these precepts was not without its consiquenses. Throughout my young life and even into adulthood the fear of being completely cut off from my friends and family if I did something my religious group forbid kept me isolated. This fear stunted my ability to form meaningful lasting relationships as a child and young adult. Even now I still have a very hard time trusting people and opening myself up to others. My experience is far from unique, many who grow up in high control groups suffered from and perhaps continue to battle similar insecurities.

Another consequence of growing up surrounded by conditional love is that not only do you develop a feeling of insecurity regarding your personal relationships, but you too are trained to love conditionally. The idea and sometimes the practice of cutting someone out of your life is praised as a demonstration of loyalty to the group, organization or possibly even god. Every bond you form within the group is made with the understanding that if you or they were to ever break the rules or question the groups teachings the relationship would cease to exist. This can make it extremely difficult to form deep connections with friends and family. The possibility that that relationship may have to be abruptly ended constantly looms over head and can be almost suffocating. In most cases a high control group will encourage its members to report on each other if they discover that their friend or loved one is breaking the groups rules. Simply confiding in one whom you believe to be a close friend about something you’ve done, something you feel or even something as simple as doubts about the groups teachings can result in them reporting what you’ve said or done to those in charge of administering punishment or discipline. This also makes it extremely difficult to truly trust even your closest friends who are members of the group.

Of course growing up with conditional love can also have the opposite effect. Rather than making it difficult for an individual to form connections with others they may find themselves indiscriminate with whom they enter into romantic relationships or choose as friends. The desire for strong meaningful relationships can sometimes blind them to the toxic nature of those individuals and relationships. This can be true of people they choose as friends both inside and outside of the group. Because most high control groups restrict who you’re allowed to associate with and usually encourage members to only befriend other members your options are often limited. This may lead to group members choosing friends out of necessity rather than due to the quality of their personality or friendship. It doesn’t matter how poorly they treat you obedience to the cult requires that these be the only people that you associate with. Worse yet is the fact that these groups will often turn any discontentment back around on the individual positing that the problem is with them and not their fellow members. Any claims of mistreatment or cruelty is attributed to the individual having “unreasonable expectations”, being “to emotional” or perhaps that they think they’re “better than everyone else”. This is a form of victim blaming that silences those who are being mistreated and shames them for simply expressing their feelings. This is also a form of gaslighting(a subject I intend on writing about in a future post) that makes the individual question the validity of their own thoughts and feelings. “Maybe this is just the way people are” “Maybe this is how all friends treat each-other”. Although self evaluation and introspection are very important and should not be ignored, it’s also important to recognize ones own self worth. If not this type of manipulation can lead an individual to drastically lower the standards of the treatment they permit themselves to endure. This is the ultimate goal the cult is trying to achieve. Their hope is that the individual will succumb to the criticism and social pressure placed upon them, to the point where they no longer react to or perhaps even recognize the fact that they’re being mistreated.

The situation can be just as bad for the individual when trying to form relationships with people outside of the group. Again the desire for friendship and for meaningful relationships can lead one to overlook negative qualities or personality traits. This problem can be exacerbated if the individual does choose to leave the organization and their fears of being cut off and shunned become a reality. The loss of everyone they care about can drive some down a very self destructive path.

In a desperate attempt to fill the hole left by their former social group they may settle for friendships that are abusive and or toxic. They may also engage in self destructive behaviors such as over drinking, drug abuse and or risky sexual activity. In most cases these behaviors are an attempt by the individual to cope with the pain of not only losing their friends and family but in some cases losing their sense of purpose as-well. For many the group or religion is all they had and all they knew and so for them leaving can be especially emotionally unsettling. Some also engage in these behaviors either in an effort to integrate into a new friend group or because they have been led to believe that these behaviors are the default of those who do not belong to their former faith. High control groups often present those outside the group as being untrustworthy and morally bankrupt. It may be implied or directly stated that non members or those who leave the group are inevitably going to be involved in the aforementioned behaviors (drug addiction etc..).

This negative image is not only meant to create a feeling of prejudice and distain for those outside of the group but it’s also meant to instill a fear of leaving.

In contrast to how it portrays those outside, the group will present itself as a physical and moral safe haven, protecting members from those on the outside who would take advantage of and or abuse them. This gives their followers a distorted idea of what it’s like to be an non or ex member. As mentioned before prejudice for nonmembers and instilling fear of leaving are the overall goals of this type of propaganda. Unfortunately as also mentioned before some who leave a high control group do end up getting involved in these self-destructive behaviors and some do end up forming friendships with abusive or toxic people. This works in the groups favor as it seems to confirm their claims not only regarding the behavior of non members but also their claims of the group being a protection from a treacherous world. It’s not uncommon for individuals to leave a high control group only to return sometime later with stories of abuse by nonmembers. Those who’ve left the group and encountered or befriended unsavory individuals and then returned may then caution others not to leave the group for fear that they may suffer the same fate. These testimonies supposedly confirming the organizations claims often dissuade members who otherwise would have from leaving.

Ironically although members are often encouraged to heed the warning‘s of individuals who have left and returned, they are simultaneously dissuaded from listening to those members who’ve left and who have chosen not to return. Many of these individuals did not choose to engage in self destructive behaviors and instead were able to rebuild their lives eventually becoming very happy and successful. This obviously runs counter to the narrative the organization wishes to put forward. This is part of the reason why they dissuade their members from and sometimes even punish them for speaking to ex members. The idea that one can be happy and content outside of the group is detrimental. There are however ways in which the group will try to counter this, these usually involve defamation of character. On top of already presenting nonmembers as immoral and untrustworthy the group will likely try to present ex members especially those who speak out about their experience, as dishonest, blasphemous, corrupt, bitter and perhaps even violent. If the group is religious they may even imply that those who leave or who speak out against their former faith are servants of the devil. Any success that they have will be attributed to their aligning themselves with the enemy or enjoying the spoils of a sinful lifestyle. Again this rhetoric is meant to build a hatred and prejudice for ex members as well as to instill a fear of leaving. After all if you believe that opposition to your group or its leaders is opposition to God himself and is perhaps even aligning yourself with the devil you will be unlikely to take such a step.

All of these things compound making the issue of relationships and love within such groups very complicated. A member may have or have had a very strong relationship with one who has since left the group. Due to the negative light the group paints such a decision and such individuals in, it may be impossible for the group member to reconcile what they have been told about ex members versus what they know to be true about their friend. This may cause them to question the validity of the groups claims regarding ex members. In some cases this creates an opportunity for the member to be introduce to the opposing arguments or information hidden from them while in the group. Unfortunately situations like this are not the norm. In most cases the fear mongering and character assassinations have the desired effect. For some members it may indeed be difficult to reconcile what they know to be true about the character and lifestyle of an individual who leaves versus what they are told such people are like, however because of the potency of the groups propaganda they will likely still believe that the individual is making a life threatening mistake. In these cases although they may experience great emotional pain the group member will still most likely follow the organizations instructions and cut off all contact. As horrific and disgusting as the practice of shunning is it must be stated that those who choose to do so are more often than not doing so because they are firmly convinced that what they have been told by their group or its leaders is true. The member may truly believe that he or she is doing the right thing and that by taking such actions they may in the long run be saving their friend. As stated before the group often praises those who shun former members for their loyalty and devotion to the group, they will also likely present shunning as the only means of getting the ex member to return to the group. When all this is taken into account it can be understood how someone can be convinced to do something as abhorrent as shunning a friend or family member.

That being said the damage done to someone’s mental health due to the sudden loss of their entire social network including their family cannot be overstated. Unfortunately many who grow up in high control groups and especially those who’ve experience shunning (also called predatory isolation) develop abandonment issues, depression and in some cases it has even led to suicide. Groups that advocate this practice do so with the hope that the mental stress and anguish of losing their loved ones will either dissuade someone from leaving the group or over time cause enough pain that they return.

So what’s the solution? Well once again(and I'm starting to feel pretty useless here) I don't necessarily have an answer for that, not an all encompassing one anyway. For me it was a matter of educating myself on the psychological underpinnings of what had been done to me and why I thought and felt the way I did. Introspection and deprogramming were and are vital tools in breaking free from this sort of indoctrination. Relearning how to love is extremely difficult but in my experience it's worth the effort. One resource that helps many who are leaving a high control group is a website run by cult expert Stephen Hassan he has written two books on the subject and is devoted to helping people rebuild their lives after leaving a destructive cult.

https://freedomofmind.com

[paganchristian]

Prints we saw on the narrow ledge of a railing, and I am thinking that they’re bobcat tracks.  They were about that size, much bigger than housecat tracks.  Because what else would walk up off the ground, on the rail on such a narrow walkway?  They are good climbers of trees, so that makes perfect sense.  Anyway, my daughter then wanted to take some pictures. It is fun for me, remembering.  How narrow of a trail, it makes me think...  Can you walk?  How narrow can you balance upon the fine line?  It takes both practice, as well as learning, and support and also resources, strength, agility, ability.  It makes me think,...  The whole “help-resistant complainers”, which is a term I read about that is supposedly a psychological term, anyway,... And the whole being negative and becoming angry when other people offer you good ideas, even though you asked for ideas, and the ideas given were given in a kind, non-bossy, nonjudgmental, take or leave it, take what resonates and leave the rest (even if you don’t take any of it at all, ok) sort of way,...  And the whole asking you know, let me know if I’m burdening you with too much complaining and negativity, but then not being able to really tolerate any criticism so there’s no way the person will tell you, knowing that you are so fragile that any criticism might make you break down and become extremely depressed, and you’re already suicidal fairly often enough that no way will they directly confront you with criticism, however “constructive” it might be said to be.  Some people just aren’t able to take any criticism, neither constructive criticism nor any other kind, and I understand.  There is a time for being open to criticism and there’s a time when you just need to be at peace with where you are in your own process and life and not have to question and reevaluate and try to improve yourself.  You’re just barely hanging on and can’t try to change right now.  So as far as the whole “change-resistant complainer” label, many would judge a person who complained but never changed, and yet, I can relate to that whole way of being.  Sometimes you really either cannot change or it feels like you can’t.  Sometimes, you need to complain even if you cannot change, so that you can keep it clear in your mind what is happening, how there are all these problems.  Some people repress their awareness of problems for fear of being negative and complaining and thus forget and become distorted about what is really even happening.  I’ve been there, when I wasn’t allowed to voice my feelings without being attacked. So I repressed my thoughts and feelings and became somewhat delusional, full of hate and despair, and callousness, and emptiness and numbness and meaninglessness and anxiety, all based on things I couldn’t even explain, that made no sense, when I tried to express them.  The real reasons were entirely buried and beyond my reach at that time, for years on end, and it was one of the most miserable times in my life, ever, the most destructive and self-destructive times in my life.  So I want to be the listening ear for the worries and pains of those who need me, but only if it will not destroy and delude me in the process.

But I think that, for many of these “change resistant complainers”, it doesn’t matter what anyone says, ...  they won’t convince you because to you, it absolutely, irrefutably feels like you can’t change.  And sometimes you really can’t change, because you’re too overwhelmed, confused, and the energy it takes to change and the chaos and instability that change might create in your life would be too much to handle.  Only you have any qualification to be able to definitively say if you think you can try to change or not.  I very much feel that way, though many would argue the point.  I understand all that.  I don’t like it though, because it leaves a big gaping hole open for people to abuse or be confused about just when they can or can’t change, and sometimes people need someone to shake them up to wake them out of their narrow minded perspectives and rigid, fearful avoidant behavior.  And I am not against that when it’s used in the right kind of way.  If it hadn’t been for some people really confronting me and persistently trying to help me see outside the box I didn’t even know I was living in, then I might have stayed stuck forever.  It feels to me that many people are very scared of doing that, they’re so scared to disrupt the box someone lives in.  They are scared to make waves,  and maybe make the person upset.  Orr maybe they’re scared by suggesting the person change, they will make the person choose wrongly in case they really can’t change after all,... and they try to change and it makes them get helplessly worse then before.  It’s possible.  It’s happened to me, more than a couple of times, that I followed really bad advice, that sounded good, and I got lost for a long time and was only worse off in the long run (the only lesson gained was to be careful in the future, and to sympathize and be careful in regards to others and their need for my constructive criticism).  And then sometimes people can be scared of messing up the relationship, another very valid thing because it feels ot me that some people are completely angry inside, waiting to destroy things, to burn bridges, when it comes to certain issues, and if you give constructive criticism, you will make them lash out and burn bridges.  And I feel like this is how it is with my family member, who I’m most close to.  I am afraid that is how it is.  

The thing that keeps people locked in patterns is often something like this, which isn’t about their environment only, and it isn’t just about their intelligence (if it’s that at all, their emotional intelligence, or anything like that), but it’s about hardened patterns of mindset that will not open themselves to another view.  Maybe to the point of viciously burning any bridges with anyone who even gently tries to suggest they open up at all in those ways.  They have trapped themselves.  It sometimes or often I think, is reinforced by their lifestyle and social relationships and the views and attitudes that are held by the people they spend the most time with and if they are pulled forth on a continual rush and overwhelm in their life, they don’t have the time or energy to examine or question themselves, so like a thinly held together shack that waits to collapse, they still hold it together because at the end o f every exhausted day it’s still the only shelter they have, with no time or resources to even question finding a better one.  Maybe they could find a better one, but they’re too rushed and exhausted and confused to listen to anyone who would suggest it so they just shut them out of their lives angrily instead. That is how it feels to me.  And I don’t say it judgmentally at all, but it is true.  I think I’ve been there.  I think when you’re in that position you can’t see it.  Who on earth would see that and keep doing it, unless they saw it was possible, but not sure if it was true, so to maintain their security they stay with the devil they know.  That was how I felt, often, in the past, for many years, I knew I might be awfully mistaken and flawed and wrong in my approach and habits and choices, but I felt too trapped to try, and I didn’t know that anything I would try wouldn’t just make things worse, and I was just walking on the thinnest line, or balanced, precariously, clinging to a flimsy ledge, unable to move, lest my ledge collapse.  Yes, maybe if I tried to follow advice it would help but it wasn’t safe to experiment and see if it would all just collapse in an avalanche instead. 

The only thing I can hope is that one day their  life will improve, both in the outer conditions and the support they have and in the inner conditions, their awareness and their ability to let themselves try little steps of things that they can decide might feel safe enough to just try, whenever they feel able.  Till then there feels like there is only the slightest thread of connection that I can maintain.  Everything more than that feels too draining and frightening and volatile and prone to blowing up and destroying the fragile thread of good that is there.  And so,.. I will, and I will pray, which is part of my fragile thread of good, in my eyes.  Even though it doesn’t mean whatsoever I think the prayer will save anything in a clearly visible way.  But maybe there is only so much a person can do for another sometimes.  But I’m glad I don’t feel compelled to judge, the sad way that I see many doing, that would feel worse if I couldn’t sympathize with the person who is suffering and trapped.  But I see too how people are also trapped in that, they’re trapped into narrow perspectives.  Because of the same thing, the same feeling of being pulled along by the force and speed of life, of your surroundings and the way you were raised, not able to slow down, step outside the box and see or feel or consider anything different because it could all collapse.  Or so it might feel. It seems to me most people feel their life is fragile, and cannot be changed much, in those ways.  Even if they’re very strong people, but their sense of morality, and philosophy and such aren’t flexible, because they’re repressed when it comes to things that might challenge their social norms, their moral dogmas, and such things, because their identity is built on it.  Who wants to threaten their identity and social relationships that are built on certain shared moral assumptions?  Most are very resistant and unconsciously block the whole possibility before it can even become a real consciously considered thought whatsoever.  

[terresdebrume]

So I finally finished rewatching Thor (my laptop doesn’t like playing a movie after a day’s work) and tbh it’s interesting to think of how my interpretation of Loki’s situation has gone over the years.

When I first saw that movie, honestly, I was not only 100 % on Loki’s side, it was simply impossible for me to like Thor, or Odin, or basically anyone else in the movie no matter how badass they were (sorry, Sif). I was in a pretty bad place that winter and Loki’s emotional position struck me as so deeply relatable it hurts...which kind of showed, since I wrote 80 fics featuring (and, often, starring) Loki out of, at the time, something like 115 stories1.

After a while and some navigating through the Thor vs Loki fans/stans wars on Tumblr, it kind of evolved into thinking that yes, Loki’s feelings of hurt and betrayal were real, but since his family loved him he should just work on his own insecurities and get over it, so to speak. The part where Loki was a Frost Giant and how that put Odin’s actions in a different light (whether you assume Odin’s reactions to Loki were 100 % conscious or not) was...pushed aside, sort of. I think it was in part because you can hardly reconcile ‘Loki, this is on you, get over it’ and ‘maybe your parents didn’t really treat you as you needed and maybe it’s in part due to your species and their racism’.

The funny bit is, how I view Loki’s situation seems to be tied to how I interpret my own, actually. Back in 2011, I was very angry toward my family and half convinced they didn’t love me (fun times, in case you were wondering). By 2012, when Avengers came out, I’d fantasized so much about Loki coming back and getting the apologies he needed (from his parents, from his brother, from basically anyone in his life) listening to Thor’s jokes about how Loki was adopted physically hurt. I can’t say that raised the character in my esteem, but at the same time, looking back on it...well, it’s kind of a realistic continuation of Thor. I mean, by the end of that movie no one seems to question Odin’s decisions, no one seems to consider maybe there were things that led to this state of affair in the family besides Loki’s own character/judgment flaws.

At the time, if I recall correctly, that kind of felt like a slap to the face. It didn’t entirely prevent me from enjoying the movie, but I still couldn’t help but feel it was one more way to remind me the public that I Loki was making it all up and needed to shut up because my his family loved me him and therefore not being satisfied with that was, in essence, a character flaw.

In The Dark World, Loki gets punished for what he did in Thor and The Avengers which, lbr he deserves (though full disclosure, I subscribe to the manipulation and psychological abuse at the hand of Thanos theory, so I’m less on board for punishing him for that2). Once again though, there is no questioning of other people’s behavior around him. Frigga basically tells him he’s too self-centered/a bit of a hypocrite, people who supposedly mourned for him3 line up to issue death threats...once again, it’s all on him and his core flaw of not being happy with what makes other people happy. And once again, I thought maybe Loki ought to just get over himself and be happy with things as they were. 2013 was a bit of a better year for me4 so in a sense, it was easier to think that maybe, if I just got it through my head that my family loved me, I’d finally be happy and feel content with myself...which in turn made it easier to accept, again, that Loki was probably just a lost cause and should get over himself.

And then came Ragnarok.

I haven’t really made it a secret that I was disappointed by it, in significant parts because the humor trend of ‘let’s ridicule our character’ was taken way further than what I expected from this franchise and strayed waaaay away from the tone of the previous two movies5. But with a little more time to think about it, I think anther significant part of my disappointment with this move is that, once again, I didn’t get the emotional conclusion I was hoping for. I’m no longer in the same emotional state as I was in 2011, but I’ve also let go of the ‘you should get over it’ mindset, both for myself and for Loki. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: how I view Loki’s situation is heavily influenced by how I process mine and vice-versa. The result of that is, as I allowed myself to feel hurt/wronged by the way my family acted around me again, it kind of allowed me to start wishing for...idk, balance? A satisfying end to my emotional arc? And to wish the same thing for Loki.

Thor: Ragnarok was...a painful, but probably realistic reminder that this will probably never happen. Beyond the fact that both Frigga and Odin are now dead and are therefore incapable of evolving in any capacity, I highly doubt Thor is ever going to wake up and realize what it’s like to be in Loki’s shoes, which would be a requirement for him to realize what kind of apology Loki needs to hear and why. Similarly, I highly doubt my family is ever going to wake up and apologize for the way they reacted to how they and I were different and how much that hurt, sometimes.

The common point here is Thor, like my fam, did nothing wrong by the social standards he’s accustomed to. I doubt Asgard sees dismissing un-warrior-like behavior as wrong, I doubt they see asserting your alpha male authority by telling others to shut up as wrong, and I doubt they see the constant mocking and belittling of Frost Giants as wrong...so for Thor to admit doing these things are wrong and hurtful would require him to admit not only that he has been hurting someone he cares about by accident but also that the entire moral landscape he (and his country) based his worldview on is flawed, which is complicated and painful and which Thor hasn’t shown any sign of doing so far, and neither has my family6

From there, the logical conclusion is that the moment of emotional justice I crave for both myself and Loki will most likely never happen. I don’t think there’s ever going to be a moment when Thor looks Loki in the eyes and says ‘I didn’t mean to, but I hurt you anyway, I get how, I’m sorry, and I’m not gonna do it again’. I don’t know how they’ll deal with that in the movies, if they’ll keep this craving as part of Loki’s characterization or if they’ll eventually reach a point where Loki is just a-okay with his situation even without the emotional closure7 but either way, it’s not going to happen for Loki, and it’s probably not going to happen to me either and that is...something I have trouble mourning, I guess. Which, well. There’s always fics, and things I could write myself, but it’s not exactly the same thing, is it?

I’m doing a rough estimate of my cumulated AO3+FFN count of the time here. Might get it wrong.

Also for what it’s worth I think it’s super fucked up (though utterly unsurprising) how the entire franchise dropped Loki’s frost-giant-ness and how that probably influenced the way Odin (and, consequently, everyone else) treated him, not to mention the hot mess that is his decision to exterminate all Frost Giants only after he discovers he is one.

Not very long if we got by the ending of Thor but, you know. Let’s pretend they did. (Also I acknowledge that, post Thor, they have rock solid reason to assume he’d be capable of attempting murder on Thor and to distrust him in general. I guess I just feel like they mourned their supposed friendship with him really fast).

Shoutout to my tumblr friends and to the awesome Winnie for helping me through so much bullshit.

The most frustrating part of that is that there are many things to like in this movie, from the criticism of Asgard’s imperialism and the whole ‘benevolent conqueror’ narrative that’s been the baseline from Thor and was criticized even then, to the fact that Ragnarok!Loki is probably the closest we’ve seen to the real Loki (given that it’s the first movie where he didn’t start out in the middle of an emotional crisis). Unfortunately for me, the way they were conveyed didn’t jam with my hopes/expectations for the movie.

I never pretended this wasn’t a personal post ^^’

To be honest, what I’ve heard about Loki in Infinity Wars so far kind of makes me fear a relapse, but I’m hoping they’re just planting red herrings. Hopefully.