#'to the point that even talking about it positively does real harm in the world'

[morayofsunshine]

ecosia search: how to break it to your dad that jk rowling is a huge pile of shit and giving her content attention also gives her bigotry a platform

[fortunately-bi]

...... If I went on a hiatus for who knows how long again would y'all hate me....... 👉👈

[leviathan-supersystem]

i know this is quite an open-ended question, so apologies in advance, but as a marxist-leninist what are your main issues with post-modernism/post-structuralism as a school of thought? from libs to anarchists, lots of (so-called) progressives/leftists seem to really enjoy it, but its reception is a far less positive among communists/marxists from what i gather. what are your thoughts on it, and on the work of people like foucault, deleuze, guattari, or even more recent ones like judith butler etc? once again sorry if this is too open-ended, but i really value your insight on politics and philosophy etc etc.

well, to be clear i do think there are some good critiques which have come out of the post-modernist camps, and consequently i would consider myself more of a neo-modernist than a classical modernist, as i do think mdernism as a concept needs to be updated in response to post-modernist critiques.

at it's best, post-modernism offers genuinely useful critiques of the limits of our ability to know things, genuine good points about the inherently fuzzy and indefinable boundaries of any system of categories that human beings could ever create.

at it's worst, post-modernism rejects the very notion that there's a material world that we can understand, and rejects the very notion of categories as a whole. once it crosses the boundary into this sort of solipsism is utterly useless to me.

ultimately once post-modernism crosses the boundary into this sort of solipsism- which it often does- it becomes completely incompatible with marxism, which is fundamentally based on the notion that there is a material world and we can learn things about it. no, we can never know things with 100% certainty, but we can know with better than 0% certainty

i really love deleuze and guattari's Capitalism and Schizophrenia, but ultimately i think it's more of a piece of poetry than a piece of real scientific theory. and i do believe, fundamentally, that the approach to analyzing capitalism must be a scientific one.

i'm not very fond of foucault at all, because frankly i'm a bit of a panopticon apologist. these sorts of "panopticons" are just part of living in a group with other people, and while i certainly think there are points to be made about how these sort of systems of sousveilance need to be regulated in order for them to not be excessive and harmful, but ultimately these sorts of regulations on those systems are themselves enforced by social systems of sousveilance. so for example, the idea of taking pictures of people in public and posting them online, i agree that there should be social conventions discouraging that behavior- but inevitably these social conventions are enforced through similar "panopticon" style social systems- that when someone sees someone posting a creepshot online, the observers collectively disincentivize that behavior, tell them "dude don't take pictures of random people in public and post them online to talk shit about them you dick" etc. anyways, that's why i don't think the foucaultian persective on "panopticons" is particularly useful though i agree that obviously those social systems exist.

[imustbenuts]

nuts reading trigun in japanese 3 - "weirdo" and vash's pronoun switching

disclaimer: my jp reading posts are all for triangulation purposes and nothing else. scanlating mangas is tough work. @-@ i know this.

"Weirdo"

the word 'weirdo' in 2024 english carries connotations of neutral-bad or positive depending on the context of the speaker. depending on how one curates their internet space, weirdo often leans more positively with the same meaning as eccentric, but not always.

however, but in JP, "weird" is more specific and often negative. there's the well known, hentai 変態 (ie. deviant, pervert, freak, extremely negative in tone), and in this case, kimochi warui 気持ち悪い (gross, off-putting, bad vibes). eccentrics are more as 変人 henjin and carries a more neutral tone.

in this panel here papa nebreska uses 気持ち悪い in katakana キモチワルイ in reaction to vash busting his ass saving people and putting out of harms' way. vash's vibes are so off putting to this wanted man he's actually creeped out.

this is particularly interesting to me bc the english translation didn't end up portraying how utterly weird vash's mindset is fully. it wasnt until wolfwood points out how flawed vash's pacifist mindset do i get a proper frame of reference of norms in this world, but i might be having skill issues in english comprehension. ;w;

Pronoun switching

quick. 俺 Ore! 僕 Boku! 私 Watashi! they all mean "I", and there's 2 spectrum of expressions going on here thats commonly believed. 1st being Masculinity to Femininity. what's the 2nd?

the answer is... Rudeness/Assertiveness to Politeness. and gosh does vash switch a lot between Boku and Ore in the first 4 chapters of this manga lmao.

(to be clear, while i am aware of trans hc thats very popular in the fandom, im not at all diminishing or talking about gender expression specifically. im talking about what vash is presenting himself as in context.)

so to perhaps oversimplify this, in JP the idea of politeness and hierarchy is so super duper important, its very built into the language itself. and Japanese is a very high context language. if someone of a higher or equal standing uses "Ore", its totally fine. but if someone of a lower standing uses "Ore", they've committed a social faux pas.

as an obvious example, if a fresh new employee approaches his Boss with "Ore", he's potentially getting dressing down in the company. maybe in front of his coworkers. if this employee forgoes polite speech (keigo) and uses a too Assertive and Casual speech, they've Really Fucked Up and are one foot out the door.

this is also tied up in gender to some extent, hence why girls using Ore is incredibly uncommon, but guys would use Watashi in certain contexts such as talking to their Boss. (woo woo the forces of hierarchy/patriarchy... or something.)

so. vash switches his pronouns for the same effect. when he uses Ore, he's making himself sound more assertive and confident. when he uses Boku, he's often making himself sound less threatening, smaller, open, and trying to avoid conflict.

sound familiar?

bc if you translated all of that into a character design instead of relying on just jp pronouns, we'd get TriStamp Vash.

slight spoilers, but this is even true in one of the tensest moments between vash and wolfwood, where the latter provokes vash and tears into his pacifism ideology. vash sticks with boku in this scene as he says his piece.

if he ever uses watashi, it's bc he wants to be polite straight out of the gate with an air of formality. (this is japanese manners and the proper approach to talking to strangers. mainly to get a feel for each others standing without offense until context changes.)

i also wanna point out maybe something obvious here but.

real life pronoun switching in japanese is a COMMON thing. no one ever really sticks to 1 pronoun bc of Good Manners and the aforementioned hierarchical systems in place. it is only mostly in anime/manga and video games where characters overly prefer 1 due to this being a good shorthand for characterization. this being how rude or polite they are, and in some cases, Gender.

[luniviravosshipper]

Okay, so this is going to be a very low effort post because it’s late where I am and I’m tired, but I honestly really want to talk about this so I’m going to anyways.

So. About Sol Regem eating Pharos.

This is most definitely one of my most favorite scenes and moments in the show for many different reasons. But one of the many aspects I thought was great about it was that it did the opposite of ‘tell no show’.

The show has been hinting for ages how the dragons see the humans and elves as ants for them to stomp on or to toss around. It’s always been implied or explicitly said. There’s several moments in the show where we see the dragons threatening the lives of the main cast whenever they are even slightly displeased with them. All in all, they see them as just small things that they can disregard the lives of whenever.

Although they perhaps have more of a bias against humans, in general they look down upon both humans and elves and view them as less then. They don’t value their lives because they find their lives to be so short and them to be so minuscule in comparison to them.

And yet when we finally get to see a dragon prove this sentiment by literally eating someone, they end up choking. It’s only fitting for a dragon who believes himself to be so powerful and shows absolutely no remorse for harming the lives of others around him to end up dying literally by doing just that. His pride and arrogance, as Aaravos calls it, finally caught up to him. And in a way, as awful as it probably was for Aaravos to basically sacrifice Pharos here, it helped prove a point. It proved Aaravos’s whole argument regarding the dragons, and how selfish and apathetic they are. How they do not care about life. In this situation in particular, Sol Regem did this knowing that Pharos wasn’t the real body of Aaravos and that he was only manifesting himself through him and still ate him rashly and in a fit of rage, not even considering for a moment that he’s hurting this other person and not even remotely doing anything to harm Aaravos. If anything, again, he only helped his argument.

(I can talk about this more in another post, but I just realized that it’s also ironic how much Sol Regem hated humans because he thought they took life and showed no care for it when that’s literally all that he does. And I think that specifically is actually what Aaravos was kind of trying to prove all along. His personal vendetta against him started off with him wanting to get back at him for ratting out his daughter for sharing magic with humans, but I can imagine that after he discovered dark magic it started to shift and became more so about proving to Sol Regem that he simply had no place in general to judge dark magic or humans who use it.)

This works very well thematically and really helps to better shape the viewers understanding of the role the dragons take in the world building of this universe. As these creatures who have been put into positions of power throughout Xadia’s history, not because of what knowledge or wisdom they have or because of some special capabilities that they possess that others don’t, but because they’re so feared. They’re these big, angry, and violent creatures that everyone has just grown too fearful of to actually face.

And when we’re finally shown why they have been so feared, we see one of them face the consequences of his own actions within the very same moment he acts. And it’s great.

[huiyi07]

GENSHIN MANGA SPOILERS! but honestly if you haven’t read it by now it’s your fault alone

So why did Kaeya initially try to hurt Collei?

The obvious answer- he was trying to defend Mondstadt, Collei was a very suspicious figure at the time, and he knew that being aggressive towards her would probably draw out her hidden powers and reveal herself as the culprit of the Black Fire incident.

But there’s more to it than that.

Kaeya canonically loves, LOVES kids. He adores them- there’s lots of times in the game where he talks about how precious childhood is and how he wants to protect the purity of childhood dreams for as long as possible before kids have to grow up and face the real world (kinda similar to Childe). In 3.8, it shows how he is literally willing to do anything to protect a child- Klee, when he literally throws aside his own sibling issues in order to shield Klee from being exposed to the same thing and scolds a couple of bickering brothers for upsetting her.

Additionally, there’s his whole thing with Mika and how he’s basically a big brother figure to the entirety of Mondstadt’s population under 17. The highly implied bond between Bennett, Razor, Fischl and him, even.

Anyway this whole aspect of his character obviously stems from his own childhood and how tainted it was by his hidden identity, so like he probably doesn’t want any other kids to have to go through such hardship especially while they’re still young.

So if he loves kids so much, and wants to protect them so badly, why did he not hesitate to become a full blown villain against Collei, literally wounding an innocent 12-year old girl?

Because he sees himself in her.

Collei hates herself (or at least she used to LOL). She hates the burden (her powers) that was forced upon her from a young age, and those powers inevitably label her as a bad person, one who can harness evil powers to kill And hurt and whatever. It makes her feel like she has no real control over herself, and that she has no self-identity- she doesn’t think of herself as a regular person, instead a monster. And she hates, hates, hates herself for it, but she shoves all of it down under a mask.

Sound familiar to a certain cavalry captain?

That’s why Kaeya didnt hesitate to Go after her. He knows her too well, knows that she’s hiding her true identity under a well-crafted face, that there’s something evil and dark in her- because that’s exactly who he was as a kid.

But then this panel happens.

Collei, evidently so tired of living such a torn life, gives up and offers her life to Kaeya just so that the torment can end, which stops Kaeya in his tracks, because that’s when she reminds him off himself just a little too much.

Kaeya, so caught up in her uncontrollable evil, forgets that she’s just a child, one who never should’ve been forced to deal with such a thing, and certainly not want to die because of it.

That’s exactly what happens internally to him, as well. Over the years, Kaeya internalized being a traitor so much, that often he convinces himself that he’s truly not a good person. Yes, he acknowledges that it’s really not his fault, but that still gets lost and it shows through when Kaeya shows us how willing he is to get himself harmed- because of his self hatred, he places so little value in his own wellbeing and his own life, because he thinks that all harm that comes to him is deserved and that it’s better off if he’s dead anyway so that he doesn’t have to deal with being torn apart every day.

No I’m not making this up, it’s in how he literally covers for Diluc all the time and risks himself in the process, and how Adelinde told us about that one time Kaeya literally took Diluc’s punishment for himself when they snuck into the wine cellars. There’s lots of times, even throughout in the game where Kaeya tries to convince us he’s not a good person- he quite literally says that, at some point.

Only when Collei shows that she’s in the exact same position does Kaeya realize what he’s doing and stops himself. Only then does he remember how painful and hard it really is, and he ends up helping to save Collei and removing her powers, because that’s one burden he can help take off, unlike his own.

Idk man for me the Kaeya vs Collei fight (I like to call it the chapter where collei gave us the hottest panel of Kaeya choking ever) told a story about Kaeya’s internalizations, too, and his own-self hatred and how deep it really goes. BRB CRYING

[finisnihil]

2.2 Sunday analysis spoilers ahead

I think a scene that perfectly sums up the Dreammaster and his relationship with Sunday is the one where he’s breaking the news to Sunday that Robin was shot.

Sunday has just appointed head of the Oak Family, given a position of upmost power. The Dreammaster leads in by giving Sunday Robin’s letter and then he innocently asks if she mentioned a stray bullet. A stray bullet? Why would she mention a stray bullet? Robin is safe and happy, wherever could she run into a stray bullet?

Well, a war broke out on that planet she sought it out because of it. For the sake of the Harmony and saving lives… she went to the front lines. You know, where stray bullets tend to shoot down innocent birds?

Well, holy shit, is she okay? Of course I mean it only struck her neck directly but I guess because she is doing such glorious deeds Xipe saw fit let her sing a while longer still. You should write to her- oh no, you stupid boy, only after you finish your pressing work now that you're head, hm?

Let's break down the interaction, shall we?

Firstly, this show was meant to sever Sunday's trust in Robin and isolate him. Robin is the person Sunday cares about the most, his life is but a tool to maintain her happiness and he's not quiet about the fact he'd chose Robin over the Family. When Robin didn't want to sing for Ena in the final plan, Sunday betrays the Dreammaster by taking her place as the sacrificial lamb instead. Point being, Robin is Sunday's only real support system and his only access to something that hasn't been rotted by the Family's corruption. The Dreammaster starts the conversation by highlighting how Robin withholds information from Sunday. She didn't mention getting shot, she didn't mention going to a planet because of war, she didn't mention anything. She isn't telling Sunday when she's in danger. Sunday is already terrified of the world around him, of how bleeding hearts like his sister's and his suffer for their kindness. The Dreammaster going about things this way instills a layer of distrust, Sunday can't trust Robin to be honest with him, he can't trust Robin to be safe, he can’t trust her to trust him. Thus, Robin is taken out of the equation and Sunday is alone with only the Dreammaster in his ear.

Next, we drill in a blame of the Harmony. Robin serves the Harmony like a good child of Xipe but it's precisely that which put her in harm's way. Would she have gone into that situation if not for the ideals of the Harmony? The Dreammaster twists this logic in Sunday's head, whispering it was the Harmony that got his sister shot and mockingly noting that maybe the only reason Robin wasn't dead from it was because she served Xipe so well; he implies that if she failed to meet that nonexistent standard next time, maybe Xipe will let Robin die. Sunday can't trust Xipe to protect Robin because it was Xipe's will that almost killed her. Now he's more vulnerable for the ideals of Order to sing their claws in.

Finally, Sunday's lack of control is emphasized. Sunday has just been appointed Oak Family Head but he still has no control over anything. He can't act out of line because those who supported him may stop and if he fails to uphold the pristine image of the Family there will be hell to pay. Still, I think the most sinister thing about his lack of control is seen when the Dreammaster stresses that Sunday can only write back to Robin after he has finished his "outstanding tasks". He was just coldly told the person he cares most about in the world was almost killed without her deigning to inform him, and he can't even talk about it with her and make sure she's okay until he does his paperwork. The position of Family head is nothing but a formality and it isn't enough to save Robin, it isn't enough to save anyone. Sunday has never been in control so maybe... He should create a world where he has it through Order.

In the credits we see the Dreammaster refered to as "Sunday's Servant" but it's obvious the Dreammaster was the one who manipulated and pushed Sunday to this point, intensifying his trauma and pushing Robin out so he could be the only whisper in Sunday's ear, so he could warp Sunday to be the vessel of Order he wants from him.

This entire scene would have gone so much differently if the Dreammaster actually cared about Sunday but we can tell he doesn't. From the start Sunday has been a bleeding heart that bleeds more heavily every time he tries to alleviate suffering. He's trapped in the cage of Penacony and has come to think the buildup of broken dreams and pain he's exposed to is the way of the entire universe. Robin escaped but Sunday can't.

Sunday is ultimately responsible for everything he did but you can't ignore that the path he took to get here reeks of the Dreammaster's malicious influence. Gallagher notes Sunday is just like Misha in a lot of ways and I think that's why the Dreammaster honed in on him so intensely. Sunday had the potential to ruin everything if he took the path Robin and Misha did so he had to have his wings clipped and taught to think a cage means love, that Order is the way, not Harmony.

It's genuinely such a good sequence, the tension of it all makes it work so well. The fact that Sunday is haunted by it and that the Dreammaster so successfully got into his head without him really noticing. He basically did what Aventurine bragged about doing, exploiting Robin's suffering to hit Sunday where he's soft. The Dreammaster functionally set up a bomb and coaxed Sunday into being the one to set it off.

Sunday is a wonderfully written antagonist, but the Dreammaster is a wonderfully written villain.

[itsabouttimex2]

A lot of people go with the “you can’t hold fake characters to real people standards” with the SE Macaque discourse

thoughts?

“Real Life Standards”

I guess if these nebulous individuals are holding ALL characters/actions to that standard then yeah it’d be fair…

But they don’t, and they aren’t.

If it was a situation where someone said “MK is so brave for putting himself in danger to save the city!” and these people whipped around and said “Erm, he’s not a real person! Don’t hold him to real life standards! He’s not at risk of dying, so he’s not brave!” Then I’d understand their viewpoint of “not holding fake people to real standards and rules”…

But instead of any of that, this perspective is entirely one-note in defending Macaque’s less than stellar redemption arc, which just makes it… deflective of criticism at best.

If these people were also saying things like, I don’t know, “Stop saying Sun Wukong is bad at communicating! He’s fake! He can’t miscommunicate with people! He’s not real, no one is! They have no agency to be communicated with!”

Or maybe “Sandy is not pacifistic! He’s not a real person living in the real word, so we can’t judge him by our standards of non-harmfulness!”

Or something like “Tang is not a mooch! He’s not real, so there’s no point in attributed a real-life negative word to a character who doesn’t even need to eat on account of being a moving drawing!”

And maybe even “It’s not sad that MK wanted to sacrifice himself! He’s not a real person, and is only doing what the writers want him to! Stop applying real world logic and views to fiction!”

Then I’d at least respect their iron-grip on fiction≠reality, but instead it’s literally just a desperate attempt to defend some awkward writing.

It’s only ever in response to “Macaque was kind of an awful person, and everyone is just… okay with him? They should like… have thoughts and feelings on that. And they don’t, which worsens them and Macaque as characters.”

It’s never a situation where this is applied to any action or character except for Macaque and all the shit he pulled, you know?

​I just personally think that you can like a character with flawed writing while accepting those flaws, and also without… for arbitrarily deciding ‘actually THESE actions are worth disregarding when you take into account the character” and not applying it evenly?

(I criticize Macaque’s writing all the fucking time, and I still like him enough to write for him? That shouldn’t be like… a rare perspective. It’s healthy to criticize the things you like. Being able to pick out good from bad is a fundamental life skill in every area that you can theoretically apply it to.)

But the arbitrary nature of “no real-life standards” UNLESS it’s in a good/positive way… is silly and deflective.

So I don’t really care for that perspective at all, I guess, especially since I’ve gone on at length about all the things I don’t like about his arc?

And how I wish he was able to face like… actual narrative consequences for his actions? And not in way where it’s like… The Gang Tries to Arrest Mac but instead a way where it’s like…

Mei is violently angry at him for hurting her friends and family. She doesn’t want to work with him. MK has to talk her into it. She can’t say no to him. Not over so kind a request as “Give him a second chance, Mei”. So she does, after some grumbling. She pretends to be okay with it. But she’s scared, deep down. Hurt. Secretly, she covers up her old bruises before going to have dinner with her parents.

Secretly, she’s scared of being hurt again.

Sandy is grateful to him and supportive of this newfound morality. Offers up tea and clean clothes. Lends an ear to complaints and frustrations. Lends a bed, if maybe he doesn’t have one. Keeps the monkey fed. Tries to lend self-help books. “You helped me. Maybe there’s something I can do to help you,” he says.

Maybe Macaque actually takes one, eventually.

Tang is scared, doesn’t want to be around him. He’s read the book. He remembers every word. He’s seen Mei and MK and Pigsy suffer at Macaque’s hands. He doesn’t want it to happen again. But he trusts MK, and wants the kid to be happy. So he bites back any fearful words and instead just… frets. Quietly. And far away, thinking: Sanzang insisted on mercy for a demons before. Tang got to see firsthand how that turned out. He had to help put her down.

What if it happens again?

Pigsy is tired. His friends, his kids, always, always in danger, always battered and beaten and hurt. Broken, sometimes. Tears and blood and bruises. He’s not sure how much longer his heart can take the stress. He wants to be angry, but can’t. Between Tang and the store and MK, Pigsy has too much on his metaphorical and literal plate to be angry. So Macaque gets a bowl of noodles. Because by now, Pigsy has learned that he can’t say no to the kindness that MK throws around, scatters like candy thrown from a festival float.

So much heart in his son, and he knows that it’ll end up broken at the end of the road.

Or smth I guess

He deserved better is what I’m saying

[xx-slug-xx]

Honestly, I think being proship is really cool and antis aren't thinking about things as critically ash they should

I mean this in the way that most people who are proship or profit also are in support of freedom of speech and are against censorship. Both are innatly good btw!

I just think it's crazy that antis say that we're all "chronically online gooners" when it's really not out of the ordinary that people's interests in activism and freedom of speech overlap with their interests in fandom. Like, I'm being so serious when I say that free speech is good and that my views against censorship affect how I interact with art in a healthy way. I really don't understand it when antis talk about how we don't do anything productive with our stance in fandom spaces when being against the censorship of art and literature has an impact on the real world in more ways than antis seem to realize.

Book bans are bad. The erasure of queer art/writing is bad. The silencing of BIPOC voices and representation is bad. People should have access to libraries, art galleries, and archives to house the things that aren't in those places. Information being readily available is a good thing, and it goes without saying that the more information we have access to then the less people will believe things that are simply untrue. Bigotry controls how a lot of the world works, and you can see that fact everywhere. Anti-censorship means that, yes, bigots have the right to voice their god-awful opinions. But that also means that people who aren't full of hate also have that right. You can't take away someone's right to express themselves just because you personally don't like it. This goes for fiction as well as opinions that bigots may have. At the end of the day, fiction is just a means of expression in some magnitude. Everyone benefits. And even if bad people do benefit from it too, that just means that people who want the world to be a better, kinder place have just as much of a say on the matter. (Also, people giving out death threats and harassing people isn't exactly cool and doesn't qualify as freedom of speech when it's the threat of harm. That's just a crime at that point). You can't magically make the world a better place by being mad at people though. Hate only leads to more hate. But you can use your hate in a positive way by helping others and spreading information that people can actually benefit from. You have to take some sort of action to do something about making a difference in a positive way.

And I'm sorry, but just because loliso makes someone personally uncomfortable (me included), that doesn't give people the right to make it a crime to create or view it unless an actual child was harmed in the process of making it. And even then, it's when CSEM is used as reference material, and that's already illegal as it is. You can't get rid of something just because you don't like it.

I feel like the overlap that proship has with these real-world things can't be ignored. What do antis do though? Perpetuate censorship and witch hunts for something they don't like? Which really does more good in the real world and which does more harm in the end?

[malloryrowinski]

u talk about trans women being violent as if they're not one of the most discriminated against groups. trans folks are over 4 times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape and SA

So? Does experiencing violence make a group somehow “pure” or incapable of violence themselves? Women, as an oppressed group, also experience higher rates of violence, yet no one claims this makes women incapable of committing crimes, and no one silences those talking about female criminals. Actually, the media and public often focus on and sensationalize female-perpetrated crime. Marginalized or oppressed groups can and do contain individuals who commit violent acts—being a victim doesn’t erase that fact.

This trend of denying that men can exploit gender identity policies to harm women is exhausting. There are real cases of men hiding behind gender ideology to gain access to female-only spaces and commit abuses. This isn't hypothetical—it’s documented in cases around the world. Ignoring these risks doesn’t erase them; it just lets them go unchecked. Read the news, and you’ll see that this concern is grounded in real events.

My point has always been that gender ideology and the uncritical acceptance of it create loopholes that violent, misogynistic men exploit to victimize women. Are we supposed to ignore this out of "political correctness," because you can't say anything trans-related that isn’t overwhelmingly positive? How is silencing women’s real safety concerns politically correct? Women are being assaulted and even killed in spaces that are supposed to protect them—this should matter!!

To be clear, I don’t condone violence or discrimination against the trans community—no one deserves that, obviously. But acknowledging the reality of violence against women and advocating for safety in female-only spaces doesn’t contradict this. Anyone capable of basic critical thinking should recognize that I’m not attacking the trans community, nor am I labeling all trans women as “bad” simply by raising these issues.

[aro-culture-is]

Aroallo culture is constantly feeling like a degenerate

I have... more than a few things to say on this topic, but I will restrain myself to the two major points that have caused me to delay posting this.

For one: Internalized sex negativity ahoy!

In all honesty? I genuinely do not understand how sexual attraction without romantic attraction (or any other form of attraction, really) is supposed to be bad. I genuinely cannot tell you how wild it is to think that sexual attraction, one of the instincts that has generally been selected for among all sexual species similar to us, is somehow... morally incorrect? How much must we hate ourselves, see ourselves as the monster in a bedtime story, for the invisible Thought Crime of feeling like another person is attractive? It's okay. Literally the only "bad" is if your actions in response to a feeling are performed in malice or cause harm, and even then there's nuance that requires thought and communication, not mind-reading and assuming others will be disgusted.

Sincerely, please please please look into sex positivity. Read about it. Follow sex positive accounts, movements, and people. Let yourself feel in response, and ask yourself what does and does not speak with you. Engage in the topic. You don't have to believe it right away, but I promise you, it is well worth your time to expose yourself to resources that teach you another perspective that does not demonize the vast majority of the world in some strange and non-productive way, producing shame and little to show for it.

Secondly... degeneracy.

What a very, very loaded word. To summarize some points from Wikipedia, in terms of fact: the concept of degeneracy in this usage originates from the 19th century theory of social degeneration. The concept of heredity had yet to be fully understood in social degeneration's 18th century development, and this movement largely believed that habits of parents changed their child's biology. This, in turn, was used to explain a perceived decline in civilization. It took little time for the theory to appear in medical and zoological works, with the intent to explain why different ethnic groups exist. You may recognize this concept by a directly related one: eugenics.

The theory of degeneracy first grew fame when used to explain racial differences, and quickly spread from the medical field to psychiatry (ie, mentally ill individuals will produce more severely mentally ill children, and therefore should not continue their lineage) and criminology (particularly when combined with phrenology). It was associated with authoritarian political attitudes such as militarism, scientific racism, and support for eugenics. The development of degenerate theory both partially predates and partially follows the works of Gregor Mendel in describing the theory of evolution, and frankly, largely based its so-called scientific backing on incorrect understandings of evolution and poor science, using such understandings to prop up eugenicist beliefs.

Why do I say all this? I think it is very, very important to recognize the sociopolitical bullshit that props up the absolute pseudoscience that social degeneracy revolves around, and to state that anyone who truly believes in degeneracy does not actually have the best interest of other's in mind or heart except that of the current in-groups. if people in your life are using these theories and words, I want to empower you with knowledge that they are, scientifically and historically, very much in the wrong. I want you to be able to look at their words, and understand the context behind their beliefs, even if they themselves do not.

also, real talk: if you can, form other social networks. join a club, play social games, go to community events, anything it takes to experience people outside of those who give you this message. it'll do wonders for you to build social circles outside of that stuff.

tl;dr:

the origins of the theory behind the word "degenerate", as used today, are scientifically bullshit, politically and socially motivated, and largely were used to justify eugenics. i would recommend not trusting people who genuinely believe in degeneracy to have anyone's best interest at heart but their own, and that you are perfectly normal and fine as you are.

[lucystark12]

mike wheeler and jaime lannister are the same character and that also means byler is real 🥳

my last post about game of thrones versus stranger things where i talked about writing and what went wrong with dan and david did pretty well so i figured id elaborate just a bit on my quick side note i had in there about mike reminding me of jaime because it’s something i literally cannot shake. they are so similar it causes me extreme amounts of stress. and im on a two hour flight so i have time to explain it all to you 🥳🤗

to begin, my favorite stranger things characters are mike and nancy and my favorite game of thrones characters are sansa and jaime. if you already see a pattern, then you’re on the right track, because yes, i am a believer in the misunderstood character who is widely hated amongst fans but is arguably the best written one in the given source material. sansa and nancy are both fundamentally similar characters- they both start out as naive girls who are very singularly focused on their reputation and how they’re perceived by the people around them. this is evident in nancy’s relationship with steve and with basically every single action sansa takes in season one of game of thrones. through being forced into a dangerous environment however, both characters learn to shed the ideas they had about what it means in their given world to be “successful” and “important.” i tend to love characters like that because their so realistic. even if we aren’t all being abused by kings or shooting demegorgans, most of us can relate to wishing we were something we weren’t and having to learn the hard way that it’s just better to be yourself

i just wanted to get the nancy sansa pipeline out of the way first before i talk about mike and jaime, because where nancy and sansa are similar, jaime and mike are practically twins.

let’s look at both characters at the beginning of their respective story-

- mike is 12 years old and knows close to nothing except for the fact that he wants to be able to protect the people he cares about. throughout the first season, we see mike’s guilt for not being able to find will metaphorically eat him alive, coming to a head at the cliff scene where when his other best friend is in threat of being harmed, he decides that he would rather die than not be able to save someone he cares about again.

- jaime is mike on a twenty year delay, but his story begins about where mike is at in ~season 3. however, when jaime was about 15, he was appointed to the kings guard, a position he partly sought out to be close to cersei (his affair partner (and sister but that’s a conversation for another day)) (also, mike acts the way he does when will goes missing partly because he’s lost somebody he subconsciously loves too and if you don’t think mike has been subconsciously in love with him this whole time ily but womp womp ur wrong) but also partly sought out because of his notions of what it meant to be a knight- it means that you’re fighting for the people and essentially saving as many as you possibly can. jaime is a character who cares very much about the people around him, similarly to mike. jaime’s situation comes to a similar head when he kills the king to prevent him from essentially bombing the capital city and killing half a million innocent people, which in doing so he puts his own life and reputation at risk

these characters are both so similar because they both value life. they are willing to sacrifice themselves and their reputation in the interest of other people. this is who they both are at the core of their person. however, at some point throughout their arc they both go back on their previous behaviors. they don’t so much regret the way they behaved, but the pressures about their roles that have been put on them by society lead them both to believe that their behavior is wrong in some way.

with mike, i’m talking about how affectionate (?) he was with will in season two. i’m naming what happened after the whole hospital “best thing i’ve ever done” sequence and before season three as mike going through the same thing jaime does in the period between when he kills the king and when the show starts. i think in both of these time frames, the two of them start to have this realization based on the people around them that what they did was wrong and won’t be widely accepted. jaime’s king slaying was treasonous and mike realizes that his love confession coded monologue to will in the hospital wasn’t necessarily normal behavior. this is also the exact time period in which the raegan bush election is happening. they literally probably voted during season 2. id also like to point out that both of them come from very rigid and strict families. and if you’re denying me this for mike, they have a raegan bush sign in their yard.

now we pick up in season 1 for jaime and season 3 for mike. this is where im going to bring up the singular most important part of both of their respective arcs- the love triangle. season 1/3 are the most important times for both melvin and jercei (?). melvin is at peak affection, and basically mike’s entire story for a good portion of this season revolves around her. this is basically the peak of jercei because it’s right before they get separated and their whole dynamic changes. but uh oh! there’s trouble in paradise for both! suddenly mike and el are broken up and jaime and cersei are separated by the war of the five kings. this next part bleeds into season 2/3 for jaime and season 4 for mike, when mike and el are quite literally separated.

so, both of them are separated from side one of their love triangle, who both are using as a gateway to solve what they think is their biggest flaw- jaime his narcissism and mike his sexuality. then, and this is one of my favorite little parallels, they are both literally escorted home by the other side of the triangle, where “home” (hawkins for mike, kings landing for jaime) serves to say the truth about who they are as people that they weren’t quite ready to face before they set off on their respective physical journeys. (mikes trip to california, jaimes push north)

obviously in stranger things mike and will literally go back to hawkins together. in game of thrones, jaime gets captured by the opposing army and is escorted back to the capital by a knight for the opposing army, brienne, under the condition that he will safely return the king’s sisters to him. throughout both of their returns home, they both are forced to come to terms with their feelings just a little bit. jaime admits the truth of his kingslay to brienne, and mike is given the painting. i don’t think mike has put ANY of the dots together on the painting yet, but once he does, this will serve as a HUGE influence on his character development and relationship with will (another thing i could talk about for hours). then they both get home, and jaime’s view starts to shift just a little bit… he starts thinking “hey wait… maybe brienne is onto something. maybe i don’t have to be so terrible all the time and conform to what society wants me to be.” now obviously we don’t know if mike is thinking this way yet, but my guess is that he probably will start having a similar thing next season.

the reason both brienne and will are so important to their character arcs are because in the context of the love triangle or decision their romantic interest is making, they serve to symbolize non conformity and embracing the truth about who you are and what you stand for. brienne isn’t conventionally attractive like cersei and actively goes against what was expected of women at the time. being with will would make him a part of a gay relationship, which was very nonconformist at the time. where cersei and eleven serve in the relationship to show pretending, insecurity, and lies since they are literally the exact opposite of brienne and will. and guess who doesn’t lie? FRIENDS.

so, what i’m saying is that will is essential to ending mike’s character arc just like brienne was to jaime, and that if stranger things fumbles the bag and doesn’t make it happen like game of thrones did, then mike will live in infamy as an unfinished character who had a stupid ending just like jaime did.

also, i am a “jaime should have killed cersei and then died in the fire with her” truther and similarly believe that mike should sacrifice himself in the last summer to come full circle to the sacrificial person he used to be. i also don’t believe in happy endings because they’re boring ❤️

this is why im SO FUCKING NERVOUS about mike. i’m literally having ptsd god help me! 🤗🤗 pls matt and ross learn from the mistakes of your elders and break the game of thrones curse!! as daenerys targaryen would say- BREAK THE WHEEL!!

[autogyne-redacted]

tbh, your recent post about transandrophobia synthesizes my thoughts about it very well, and im surprised you're getting backlash. the only additions i would make is that the gender/sex binary in the west was originally very explicitly a white supremacist creation, even down to the categories of male/female, and lionizing any aspect of that tends to get really racist really fast no matter how feminist or well intentioned. i guess you'd call me a trandandrobro bc i hang out in the tag and sometimes use the word for specific things (like when the lab threw out my cervical cancer test cells bc the cup was labelled M) but, i genuinely don't disagree with a single one of your points. i've been getting uncomfortable with the increasingly reactionary nature of the conversation on transandrophobia and i appreciate your take a lot.

Rambling about transandrophobia

Tbh It's been really surprising to see transandrophobia types interacting with that post all around.

And mostly it boils down to me having had windows into transandrophobia discourse that makes it seem bad*. And other ppl treating these aspects as exceptions to a discourse they see as basically good.

And I recognize that in part this is just how polarized internet discourses work. Like, if my windows into transandrophobia are largely when something egregious gets said and passed around in my circles, that's gonna give a way different impression then if ppl are part of the discourse and curating a slice they agree with.

And the consistent overall harassment of any attempt to talk about transmisogyny and constant bad faith engagements (eg attacks on agab and cagab language, cafab attempts to ID as trans women and as direct targets of transmisogyny) mean few of us are still in a position to assume good faith with internet strangers we run into who identify with a discourse that very much seems to have a massive transmisogyny problem.

.

My slightly more extended position on transandrophobia, since I've been thinking about it the past few days is:

1) I'm broadly supportive of ppl talking about their experiences and trying to find common ground even around shared ~privilege~, so long as it's done with a commitment to broader, collective liberation. (Eg cis men getting together from a feminist perspective to talk about patriarchy = good, cis men doing so with no specific opposition to normative masculinity = fashy).

2) the general attitude I've seen from transandrophobia world is to say: this has nothing to do with anyone other than trans mascs ppl other than trans mascs aren't welcome as part of this discourse: it's by us for us. Intentionally creating an insulated discourse especially around a point of (partial) privilege has a terrible track record. But regardless of relative positionality insulated discourses are just going to be more limited. They can create theory that's empowering for the creator group but it's probably not gonna get much mileage beyond and it's easy for it to be actively harmful.

3) I've thought for ages that trans masc experience seems ~under theorized~ and that transphobia is rly under theorized too. And it'd be really cool to see this addressed in a way that isn't rife with transmisogyny. It does seem like transandrophobia discourse is addressing a real hole, it's just doing in a way that rly sketches me out.

4) really I think gender discourse overall is just not in a great place rn. It was 1990 when Judith Butler questioned whether it makes sense for women to be the sole/primary subject of feminism, and we had major interventions that I'd say reached a peak in the early to mid 2010's (criticisms of white feminism, of cis feminism, intersectionality becoming a dominant framework).

There's a strong tendency to say that we're basically in a post gender world, or that race is just a more fundamental framework (which I strongly disagree with)** and I do think we really need a rebuilt gender theory that has teeth to it. Trying to build theory around transmisogyny I've found it necessary to do a lot of general theory building around gender. How normative masculinity and femininity work, how gender is policed. I don't think we're gonna be able to make a clean break from identity politics until we can have a strong theory framework that lets us talk about this shit from outside identity politics.

5) this is v rambly but I'm inclined to engage with transandrophobia discourse a little more than lots of my circles in part because I really want there to be more good theory building going on around gender, from different positions and across positions. One day, maybe.

*full of transmisogyny/denials of transmisogyny, trans masc exceptionalism and a failure to recognize and be in solidarity around shared issues with trans fems and cis men.

**getting back to the part of your ask about the history of gender and white supremacy, there's a huge entanglement between gender and race, gender and civilization. Normative gender differentiation has been a classic way the civilized set themselves apart from those they deem savage.

Broad claims like the one you make in your ask anon get messy tho. Like, a largely binary model of gender is older than history but you can also talk about the modern binary having really only come about over the past couple centuries (and obviously it's heavily contested and changing rn). Similarly you could say the modern concept of whiteness came about through the trans Atlantic slave trade (and then has been constantly shifting and getting redefined ever since) but there's obviously much older histories it's building off of.

I'm realizing now that maybe you meant the binary divide between sex vs gender as opposed to the male vs female binary but I can't tell which. Either way, my position here is mostly that it's really really messy to make big historical claims. It's such a high level view you can tell a lot of different stories with the available historical evidence. Ideas about gender and race have a heavily entangled history tho and it's certainly gonna go poorly if you treat either as natural.

[gaelfox]

Hey! I've read your analysis over why Law choose Love over hate and sincerely made my day! It's so touching and deep. I wish you could give your opinion over Law and Cora more. How did you see them both? Like just some dad and son doomed dynamic? Like Bellemere and Nami? Cause I think they're so more!!

Ahhh thank you! I could talk FOREVER about Law and Cora and their story and their dynamic. So I will. Lol. So, I think where Law and Cora's relationship falls for me, after thinking on it for awhile, doesn't really fall under the Father/Son dynamic. We've got a lot of that relationship with, like you said, Bellmere and Nami, and also with Kyros and Rebecca, and now Kuma with [REDACTED]. Parental relationships in all their forms are something that is touched upon a lot in the writing, but Cora and Law never really kind of felt that way to me. In the context of Family - the Donquihote Family specifically - it's pretty damn clear that Doflamingo holds the "head of household" that's normally associated with The Father Figure. He's authoritative, he protects his own, and he provides. Despite their actions that affected the outside world, the Family was well taken-care of. If anyone had a Father/Son dynamic in terms of societal and familial dynamic stereotypes, it's Doflamingo and Law. (And we know, Doflamingo would be a horrible father - he's teaching all the wrong lessons)

So, where does Cora fall in? Where does his aloofness-turned-overprotectiveness fit the best? His sacrifices, his joy and his rebellion against the family? Cora is, at heart, The Eldest Son and Sibling. It kind of goes like this: if you've ever grown up with an elder sibling as I have, you know that they fulfill a role in your life that is unique. While your parents are responsible for teaching their kids the ins-and-outs of societal expectation, setting standard role model behavior and passing on life lessons, elder siblings are the ones setting the example for such expectations for their younger siblings in real time. They are our first real role model that we can understand.

Cora follows a lot of the Elder Sibling Tropes, especially those of being the Rebelling Figure as well as the Secret Protector. To Start, Cora is obviously working undercover. Even before Law came into the picture, he was already working on dismantling the Family from within, and saving Baby 5 and Buffalo, mere children who were dangerously close to falling in line with Doffy's ideals. Cora was already Rebelling Against the Authoritative, Abusive Father of the Family -- but he couldn't draw attention to himself for the safety of his plan. So he plays the Mean Older Brother. The kind that pulls your pigtails and calls your names and pile drives you into the couch. Every action by which you curl your lip in disgust. But we know, his message is clear: Get out of this House. I'm Stuck Here, but You Don't Have To Be. It's a cruel understanding that only harm and violence would ever get the kids to second-guess their want to be in the Family, but it's not like he could entice them with kindness or understanding when that and more was being provided by Coolest Dad in the World Doflamingo. Cora had his hands tied. Up until Law.

Law was a different story. Cora's method worked(?) up until the point where discovering Law's name (and the impending pressure of his dying sickness) forced his hand to act completely differently than he had up until that point. Cora was then able to be the Guiding Sibling, the Protector, and the First Best Friend. After all, Dad was about to do something dangerous that the Kids couldn't stand for anymore. It was time to act. Cora Rebelled completely. He was the kid that was finally fed up with Dad swinging his fists each night, packed up his meager belongings and hit the road with little to nothing to his name. He stepped up as a role model and positive figure where Doflamingo had failed completely. Dad was an asshole, but the Eldest Brother we now understand has the capability of being kind - and his actions are now more understood. We know now that even though he thought it was "uncool" that you were tagging along in the back of his car with his friends, it was when Dad was becoming unruly again, and he was saving you from having to witness it.

Then the script and facade change, and he's no longer the Cruel, Unrelatable Older Sibling. There's awkwardness and tentativeness as he navigates this new dynamic of "Hey, I'm actually on your side...let's try to get through this together? It's okay, he's not here". He tries to be cool. He tries to be relatable, and he tries so hard to connect on Law's level. He's been there, he understands. There is nobody on earth who knows just how cruel and awful the World can be, but this is the Generation that Breaks the Trauma. This is the child that looks at the sins of the Father and says "No, no more."

And of course, we see how that goes. We see how, albeit slowly, their relationship grows close and fulfilling. Law's eyes are opened to a new path in life, a new understanding of love and sacrifice. Cora stands strong despite all odds, selflessly helping his Younger Brother overcome his obstacles, both physically and mentally - he's the new role model, the first person to say "I love you" in years. The first person batting on his side. The first person that cared and saw him at all. So yeah, not Father/Son, but much like Ace, Sabo and Luffy, I definitely feel that Cora's overall story fits so well with the Sibling Dynamic. So many older siblings are unfortunately forced to step up where their parents fail, that's a cruel fact of life, but I feel like it gives them both an opportunity to grow together and confront Doflamingo as a team -- it's a perfect rendition of what's happening in Cora and Law's story together. Thank you so much for the ask!

[invertedfate]

Hey different anon here, i always thought floweys actions in the canon was supposed to be a kind of dark reflection of the players own actions, and a parallel with how WE treat video games. I never really thought it had anything to do with trauma, cause like think about it, how many players abuse save states in video games to get away with evil shit? Most of them i would wager, and if you had the power to save, load, and reset, maybe you WOULD start to treat even your own reality like a video game.

Like, is it wrong when flowey does these things when we do the same? Because to him its real but to us its just a game or is it ok for him to do so because it really IS a game.

And flowey DID say he also spared everyone, in the same sentence he said he killed everyone, implying both are things he doesnt really place value in doing, he didnt do it for fun, he did it because he got bored, and we do the exact same things in video games when we play one a bunch, we start to experiment, we start seeing how different "npcs" react to different situations, we start making challenges for ourselves, we start analyzing characters and putting way more thought into their actions then the person who wrote them probably did.

When flowey has that power taken away from him, only then does he start to change from this desensitizing and feel intense emotion like rage when you don't do what he wants, or fear when you're about to kill him, both are caused by him not being used to not being in control, he spent so long being the one who gets to "play" the world that he can't accept a world he's not the "player" in.

Another factor might be that not having a soul inhibits his ability to feel empathy, but thats just headcanon, sorry for this long tangent, i just really like flowey, favorite character in undertale, just wanted to express my thoughts since everyones talking about him.

I think from a metatextual level, Flowey 100% is meant to be a dark mirror of the player, which is likely why his full backstory is only given in geno, since at that point you're treading a similar path as him if you go all the way on that route. That being said, I don't think there's a lack of trauma. At the end of the day, the buttercup plan involved watching his best friend/sibling die, said sibling sharing control of his transformed body (which is implied to be VERY unsettling in appearance), his refusal to take a single SOUL, which led to his death, and then awakening in a new form, unable to connect to others the way he used to and assuming he was broken as a result of it. He did try to take his own life, after all, and only came back from it because he got scared and his determination brought him back. His power allowed him to avoid consequences and grow detached, of course, but there is absolutely room to read trauma as a PART of how he got to be this way. Not the sole factor, but a pretty significant one, especially if you interpret his loss of compassion as an undiagnosed PTSD symptom misunderstood due to toxic positivity culture among monsters. e.g. this idea that their souls are made of love, hope, and compassion and that makes them different/better than humans. Considering how many monsters force smiles to deal with their pain, I legit this mindset is super harmful to all monsters and they might not even realize it. Flowey is a great and complex character, and losing his abilities definitely also impacted his actions, for sure. I definitely am not a fan of the immense woobification of Asriel in the fandom, like, at all, and it's part of why this arc in IF is taking its time to do more character exploration and stuff since in UT, a lot of his depth is locked behind a route the game actively doesn't want you playing.

[sankttealeaf]

crying my eyes out at the parents!ruetash things. it all makes so much sense!! the DRAMA. ok but i'm still curious so if you feel like talking about them some more - did they plan to have kids or was it more accidental? i know rue had some real issues re: pregnancy in the fic, how did she ultimately deal with it? and since she was afraid of hurting their kids, do you think there were ever any close calls? sorry i. love them

i am ALWAYS down to talk about parent!ruetash especially because theyve been on my mind lately!!! <3 thanks for indulging me :D

it was purely accidental, these two are NOT safe when it comes to getting it on. when rue finds out she's pissed and doesnt tell him for like a tenday while she tries to come to terms with her options. ideally she would like to remove it, but then if it were to ever get out people may try and turn it into a Big Deal and she doesnt want the hassle

she tells gortash eventually and he is both overjoyed (woo he gets to continue his legacy) and kind of concerned because rue is being Too Calm about this. he wants this, she feels trapped in it but sure, he'll indulge in his little happy families fantasies - when their kid tries to kill him one night she wont stop them. its his fault for fucking a bhaalspawn

rue, despite how against children she is, uses her pregnancy to her advantage. gets her way all the time. loves the power trip. "gortash, you have to get me the imported fruits from the south. the babe wants it. i cant help it" or "im not moving from this chair my back hurts so i need you to feed me - this is your kid, pull your fucking weight"

calls their children "his problem". he wanted them so he has to deal with them. i think the actual act of giving birth is hell for him specifically and gortash is forced out of the room because she is trying to kill him for putting her through this (sorry rue, you do it again in a few years time)

i think theres been a few close calls. some nights gortash wakes up and rue is just. standing over the crib watching their child sleep. he has to coax her back to bed and on nights she feels really bad she's locked away in one of the guest rooms. (i like to think the reason she Is That Way is she sees their kid as a threat to her position in the temple of bhaal. even tho they are tiny and cannot kill her, one day theyll grow up and maybe discover their bloodline and try and kill her and she cant have that. best rid them early on)

its also why she distances herself from them. cant harm them if she isnt around them, right? its not until they have their son does she realise that she can feel when her urges are worsening, she's able to control herself. its fine.

when their kids grow up and none of them have tried to kill her, i think she becomes a better mother to them. thinks back to her foster family and how they treated her and tries to do the same despite being in a far better position than they were.

also slight tangent but the kids are like, a spitting image of gortash. i like the idea that there's no "tiefling" traits in them (because rue isnt a tiefling) & the only trait she passes down are the odd patches of skin discolouration or the freckles or maybe little flecks of white in their hair. bhaals flesh doesnt translate well, because the whole point (to me) is to blend in with the world. so when rue is stuck looking after the children she's always remembering her own childhood and Not Having A Good Time :)

i love to make her suffer. girl i am sorry.

THANKS for the ask!!! i love rambling about these two and ive had them on the brain a lot lately!! one day ill name these kids. we'll see