#<- kicking the hornet's nest

[neallo]

What’s your most unpopular DN opinion? (It can be about canon, fanon the fandom)

hello! thank you for this question!! i am feeling mildly spicy tonight so i will say:

matt's oversized presence in fanon specifically when compared to near's presence in fanon is at best insanely confusing and at worst fairly irritating.

now. before i am misunderstood. notice that what i said here was not "i don't like matt." it was not "i don't think people should make fan content or talk about matt." i do like matt!! i write matt!! he is very fun to write and i am very fond of him!! however near is my favorite little guy in the world and i am selfish so i would like for him to get more attention. sorry.

also — and this is where i'm going to perhaps lose some of you — if you discuss mello without discussing near's significance in his character and his arc in the story, that is fundamentally an incomplete character analysis. if you discuss mello without discussing matt... i do think that's less complete than it could be — mello's interactions with matt do add texture to his character — but you can do a pretty passable job.

i would like for this to Not be misinterpreted as me telling people what to do. i am not telling anyone what to do. i am not even saying "your headcanon / story / idea is worthless unless you do x, y, z." not everything has to be a character study, for one — i write a whole lot of really lighthearted things that do not engage with the character arcs seen in canon at all — and it is also just not that deep.

[lycandrophile]

you're gonna detransition in 10 years.

so i get a whole decade of living happily in the body i’m creating for myself now, and then i get to go through the process of metamorphosis and rediscover the joy of chasing gender euphoria all over again? i’ll take it!

i know people like you only see detransitioners as rhetorical tools to use against trans people, but the truth is that detransition is just another kind of transition. why would i be any more afraid of that one than i am of the one i’m in right now? if i was afraid of transitioning, of taking matters into my own hands when the body i have doesn’t feel like home anymore, i wouldn’t have transitioned in the first place. i’m where i am because i truly love this process, because it brings joy into my life, not because i fear it. being human means a life of constant change; none of us are the same people we were ten years ago. i for one won’t run from that change — i intend to greet the person i’m becoming with open arms, however different they might be from who i am now, and i’m sure that whoever they are, they wouldn’t want me to make my life miserable now just so theirs might be a little bit easier.

one of the greatest joys in life is that all of us are capable of change, and capable of enacting that change upon ourselves. i’ve been lucky enough to remold and remake myself once and, should i find myself faced with the opportunity to do so again, i’ll embrace that as the gift it is. there is no greater honor than to be reborn by your own hand.

[sweetums0kitty]

Dear Universal Studios, please replace Harry Potter world with Barbieland. Please and thank you!

Or like I wish there was a cool big budget Gotham world.

[theodysseyofhomer]

even at absolute most, the number of women paris kidnapped is still less than your greek fave. but anyway

[valehour]

I swear to god if I read one more "Messmer/Marika did nothing wrong" post I'm gonna fucking lose it.

Guys, Gals, Nonbinary Pals etc.

Be fucking serious.

it's somewhat obvious that Marika's people's oppression, and the subsequent domination of the social order was inspired by christianity's oppression and then rise to power within the roman empire- going on to be the dominant religious order which, in turn, persecutes religious minorities. Like. that's only just subtext by tooth and nail. It does not at all justify either religious regime's atrocities. It is Exceedingly obvious the game expects you to understand that, to quote Leda "They [the hornsent] were never saints, they were just on the losing side of a war". this line, alongside the black knight helmet, and the crusade insignia Expects us to understand that maybe the whole "Marika ordering a crusade to genocide a people in the name of revenge" is wrong, actually.

As for Messmer, he is indeed a victim of Marika, like most of the demigods. it's just that he's also (arguably Firstly) a willing collaborator in these atrocities, he's not an innocent uwu snake sadboy.

If we are forced to compel a singular unnuanced 1 dimensional archetype onto Messmer, the game expects us to understand that it's "Demon King". he's doing Authurian Romance Villain shit as filtered through the lens of dark fantasy. it's not a coincidence that most of the information about him comes from other people about how much he's personally destroyed their lives. He lives in a castle called the "Shadow Keep" for god's sake, his soldiers torment the people and we, adventuring wanderers and followers of grace/Miquella fight and defeat him, which, were this a traditional story ultimately lets us access Enir-ilim and fix things. That were this a tradiitonal story, then defeating the "Demon King" sets the land back to right by enshrining the True, Good King (or god, such as Miquella is, in this case).

The fact it doesn't is the complication to this otherwise simple story- the fact that Messmer is also a victim of Marika's pursuit of revenge is important nuance, and adds to the tragedy of this story- simply killing The Bad Guy In Charge doesn't fundamentally fix things. It's that complication that makes them so deeply fixating as people. But there is a mountain of difference between "I find Messmer's tragedy Sympathetic and Compelling (and thus want to fuck him)" and "Messmer did nothing wrong". You do not get the title "The Impaler" by being innocent.

you are, in fact, allowed to be horny for the snakeboi or for Marika without actively ignoring the realities of their casual brutality. Actively making a pair of complicated, messy, tragic characters into something simple and easily digestible for maximising fuckability is not a sign of like, actually liking them. Love your genocidal warmongers as they brutally murder civilians or like, admit you don't actually like them, you like the flanderised imaginary version of them- an attraction no more substantive than the kind of R34 art that gives Ranni tits and hips broad enough to change her aspect ratio, instead of her cool weird fucked up doll body. You Cowards.

[nerfpuncher]

[beifong-brainrot]

Characters who are incredibly similar but one is one of the most beloved in the franchise and the other is one of the most hated

[griddleharkbrainrot]

I love making polls of my otps vs. Spirk because 10,000 star trek fans will rise out of the grave and kick my ass then fall into a coma until the next poll rolls around

[froschli96]

As an asexual Good Omens fan

There's something I've noticed in this fandom that makes me really uncomfortable, and that is the way that Crowley and Aziraphale's possible asexuality is constantly being connected to and justified by them being not human.

I just honestly really hate that, because implying that asexuality is something that somehow "logically" follows from characters being nonhuman is ... not great. Like, I hate having to be the one to point this out, but asexuality is, in fact, very much a human attribute.

And unfortunately, most of the time when I come across this take, it doesn't feel like someone seeing themselves in the characters and relating to their experience, but rather an othering, this kind of otherwordly pure non-sexualness, where people put these characters above such trivial things like sexuality.

I am not asexual because I am somehow confounded by this oh so complicated human concept of sexuality, or because I don't ever think or care about sexuality at all (a lot of thinking was unfortunately involved actually before I finally came to a conclusion about my identity) it is just a fact of who I am, as a human being, it’s a part of my human experience.

And let's be honest, attributing asexuality to nonhuman characters is not the hot new take a lot of people seem to think it is — this trope has been around for ages. And it hasn't done a great deal to normalize asexuality. In fact I'd argue it's perpetuated an othering of ace people, but you take what you can get, really. (This is not to say that it is in any way wrong to identify with these kinds of characters, I definitely do, too! It's just sad that the topic of discussion is always about how "human" someone can be considered when they don't feel sexual or romantic attraction)

To be honest, I don't actually see A&C being asexual as canon — as a lot of people seemingly do — just because the author kind of suggested it in a tweet where he basically conflates "asexual" and "sexless" (for the record, this is not a dig at Neil, I just think the implications were kind of unfortunate, even if it might not have been intentional, which makes it all the more frustrating that a lot of fans just ran with it). And yeah, going around calling people aphobic for seeing the Ineffable Husbands as gay rep or any other identity, when they’re oh so obviously canonically ace, is honestly kind of insane.

I get that it might feel nice and tempting to be able to "claim" these characters and this relationship and being able to tell other fans off whose headcanons on their sexuality differ from your own because it is hard to come by any kind of representation when you're ace and there's finally a creator who's not only not contemptuous towards but even supportive of fans reading his characters as queer. And if you feel represented by A&C as it is then all the more power to you. But the thing is, it doesn't matter what kind of justifications there are or what canon might or might not say (bc when has that ever mattered in fandom spaces) or what the creator says, you cannot convert people to your opinion about a character, and you're going to have a bad time if you spend your time in fandom trying to do that.

And really, I am just wondering why we necessarily even need an explanation or justification for them possibly being asexual. Why does it have to be that all angels and demons are asexual by virtue of being nonhuman, and so A&C have to be too? why can't that just be an aspect of them that is completely unrelated to them not being human? Could these characters maybe not simply identify as asexual, not because they're nonhuman, but in spite of it? (btw, in the same vein it is equally stupid to argue that A&C can't be ace because they have "gone native", which is also an argument I've come across)

Honestly, I'm not even asking anyone to fundamentally change how they see these characters here — if you think they must be asexual solely because they're angels and have no concept of human sexuality, then whatever, I can't stop you and I don’t want to police anyone's headcanons bc as I said that's stupid and a waste of time. What I am asking you is that you maybe reflect a little bit on why exactly it is that humanity and sexuality are somehow so intrinsically linked in your mind to the point where you automatically use it as a way to distinguish between human and nonhuman characters.

Anyways.

Tldr: please stop equating asexuality with non-humanness thank you and good day.

[hopalongfairywren]

society if inniters acknowledged how fucked up c!Samskids would actually be

[gffa]

Every time I have seen a post tagged "I know I'm kicking a hornet's nest with this one", it has turned out to be the most timid, milquetoast take I've ever seen and the notes are just full of people saying they agree. If you're going to kick a hornet's nest actually kick a hornet's nest, you cowards. Tell me Reylo is good actually or something at least.

[luckthebard]

A portion of people on here seem completely unable to interpret Imogen as having any flaws, and I can’t tell if it’s a Women Must Always Be Good And Pure Or They’re Evil So She Must Be Good thing, a 3rd campaign hat trick of Being Weird About Laura’s Characters thing, a Queer Women Can’t Be Wrong Actually thing, or some awful combination of all three.

[aturnoftheearth]

and if i said it’s the 5th of the month again .

[ugly-anarchist]

"Yeah sure transmisogynists want you to stop existing and vilify intersex women the exact same way they do trans women, but you're afab so you're exempt from experiencing transmisogyny and also you're an oppressor who actively benefits from transmisogyny."

[daenerystemper]

do you think show!sansa's antagonism towards daenerys is because she saved jon beyond the wall & that really ruined sansa's plan to undermine jon's power until the northern lords eventually agreed to name her qitn similar to the way it was an accident that the knights of the vale saved jon despite sansa's best efforts to keep her mouth shut about it

[snapcracklepop-myjoints]

I've been seeing this a lot lately, but a little while ago I mentioned something to do with disability in a discord and someone asked me if I was a "spoonie". Not if I was disabled, but a spoonie. I need y’all to fucking get it into ur heads that disabled is not a dirty word. You can use the term spoonie for yourself all you want, but the second you start imposing it on other people and generally using it in place of the word "disabled", its just another woo-woo euphemism that seeks to soften and make comfortable the vocabulary and concept of disability.

Like at a certain point it becomes clear that a lot of people now are using “spoonie” in the same damn way as “differently abled” or "handicapable". The origin and intent of the term become moot within that usage because what it serves to do is invoke disability euphemistically, obfuscating and softening it in service of compulsory normative able-bodymindedness.

If you want to use that term for yourself, fine. Have fun. It doesn't have these same connotations when its used as a self identifier rather than as a replacement for the word "disabled". But stop applying it to others in place of "disabled" I’m so fucking serious.