#* they are evil and i don't care who doesn't like me saying it

[olenoidedserratuspilled]

This is a lovely thread you have going on here, so I'll go ahead and do that thing when I butt in and shit all over it with my trademark doomerisms. If that's not something you wanna read, ignore the post from this point forward.

I'll preface this response by saying I'm AMAB. Do I identify as a man? I don't know and I don't care to know. I don't genuinely believe any of what I'm about to say, I'm only playing devil's advocate.

TERFy fearmongering about trans women being fundamentally dangerous derives from exactly the same toxic, fucked-up view of male sexuality - and of male existence - espoused by Evangelism: that all men are biologically predisposed to predation, violence and other sexual evils, such that they can't ever really be trusted.

While this is true, it misses the root both sentiments share: humans, regardess of gender, have an innate capacity for violence and harm. Said violence and harm often takes on the form of sexual predation when it comes from men. For much of history institutions enabled that human predisposition in men rather than attempting to combat it. You already know this, of curse.

Why's this relevant? Because you can never tell who has or lacks the predisposition for that kind of violence. It's the poisoned M&M allegory, the old game of hawks and doves. The hawks will always fight you for food while the doves will always share it, but you can't tell the hawks from the doves. Safest bet is to assume all others are hawks.

Violence directed against women by men is a widespread problem! But it doesn't follow that a majority of men are bad by default

Says who? "Many men are dangerous so most men are potentially dangerous" may not be objectively true, but it's a logical reaction to observable fact, and many people hold that view their whole lives without any issue. If there's no incentive, internal or external, to change a belief, why change it? "Because it's wrong" doesn't count as an incentive.

Many have been trained to entitlement and bad behaviour by patriarchal systems and misogynist ways of thinking, which are both things we have the power to change.

Why should we? It's not our job to educate/change them. If they don't want to change themselves, what reason is there to not just go "Fuck 'em"? The majority of female separatists I've seen, for example, understand that first half perfectly well and still arrive at my conclusion. I know I don't agree with them, but my bias on the matter should be obvious.

Attemping to affect this change and bring about equality is the core conceit of feminism, and we can see, very demonstrably, that it works.

Says who? Many feminists ont his very website disagree with it being the core conceit of feminism, or a conceit of it at all. Many posit that it doesn't work, and all indicators of it working are fabrications, outliars or insufficient. Maybe they're factually wrong, but if their message has the wider reach and greater staying power, do the facts even matter? I don't really think the do.

You're not only saying that the long-term goal of feminism is impossible

Oh it's very much possible. What you do is that you just punish all men collectively. Be it through isolation, termination or whichever other method you prefer. I think it'd be morally abhorent to do that, but if there's enough demand for it, what's it matter what I think?

For what it's worth, this isn't me saying everyone with "Kill All Men" on their bio actually means it. I don't think they do, but it'd be ideologically consistent if they did. That's the point I'm trying to get at here: the goal is to end the patriarchy. If you get the job done, who cares how you did it? Doesn't matter the color of the cat, as long as it catches mice, and it definitely doesn't matter what the mice think about it.

you're functionally agreeing with every disgusting, sexist rape-apologist who brushes off assault and misogyny as "boys will be boys" and "men are just like that."

Easy solution. Can't agree with them if they're all dead. Or isolated off in their own separate society. Whichever you find more palatable.

Their misdeeds aren't synonymous with their masculinity, but are rather choices they specifically have made.

Says who? If you decide that masculinity is defined by those choices, then yes they're synonymous with masculinity. Words can mean anything you want them to, if you an get enough people to agree with you. Is that fair? It is if you define "Fair" to include it.

rather than representing some default state of cruelty to which all men naturally revert, misogyny is instead taught

All this means is that misogyny can't spread if there are no men to learn it. Sounds like an easy fix. I know what you're saying! "That's not biologically possible! How will we reproduce?". There are a few answers:

A) It's not biologically possible yet. We just have to make it so.

B) The "good ones" can stay, under our conditions.

C) Who says we need to reproduce?

I find all of them morally repugnant, but then again, who asked me?

The teaching itself, while offering contextual authority to men, can also be harmful to them.

And why should you give a shit? They brought it upon themselves, it's their fault to begin with, they'd never show you the same sympathy you show them. If they hate it so much they can always just choose the rope. All of those are horrific things to say, sure, but who cares as long as the crowd agrees with them?

So why am I saying all of this, exactly? Because I think you're talking at a brick wall. I think the time to talk about this came and went a long time ago, and trying to do it now is only gonna get you grief. You can't reverse entropy. You're on fucking Tumblr, for crying out loud. People here just see the word "men" and start typing up Anon hate.

But sure, keep punching the tip of that knife the rest of your life. Have fun.

I cannot express how jarring it was after being raised by a "Porn Addiction Coach" to get into a relationship with a woman and come face to face with the fact that she did actually want me to sexually desire her.

Like, in Evangelical Purity Culture, male desire was basically poison. It was a threat. It was this constant temptation that would destroy everything. And even after leaving, in the sort of queer, feminist spaces i spend most of my time in that wasn't something that pretty much anyone was spending time actively dissuading me from feeling.

But my desire is good. It's not something that I'm being accepted in spite of. It's a positive thing. It's a bonus. Not even just vanilla stuff, all the stuff I'd convinced myself were these weird terrible desires that were shameful to have.

It honestly took me over a decade to fully accept that. To stop dissociating during sex and confront that I was, in fact, being a massive perv and that was fantastic and preferable and that I could accept that into my self-image without shame or self hatred.

But it's important to do. It's important to leave relationships that don't welcome that part of you. To know that your sexuality is valuable and valid and worth owning and celebrating. Because the alternative is just...not being. Either existing as yourself and repressing the part of your identity that is sexual or allowing that sexuality to exist but turning off your self while it does.

[traincat]

Is Peter sympathetic to his villains?

It depends on the villain and the circumstance. He can be very sympathetic to his villains. He can understand a villain's motivations but lack sympathy for his actions. Or he can just actively not care at all. It's circumstantial.

(Marvel Knights Spider-Man #12)

These don't have to be like, costume villains either. He's famously not cool about violent street crime or anything targeting women or kids.

Peter, please, a man just died. (ASM v2 #42)

There's villains I don't think Peter, if written in character, should ever have sympathy for. Characters like Morlun, for example, or the Jackal, or Carnage.

There are characters I think he understands but should never be sympathetic towards. I think any sympathy he had for Norman Osborn died with Gwen, and then again with Harry. (This is part of the reason the Good Norman plotline bugged me so much. It wasn't really about making Norman Not Evil, it's just that even if Norman could be un-evil and was genuinely remorseful, I don't think it's good characterization to have Peter treat him with anything but scorn.) It's similar with, say, Doc Ock or the Lizard. These are characters Peter has traditionally felt sympathy for, especially the Lizard who, as Doc Connors, WAS his very good friend. But these are also characters who have committed acts so unforgivable that I think any sympathy Peter has for them should have rightfully died. (It hasn't, in the case of Doc Connors, but we all know Spider-Man writing has been beyond lousy the past decade.) In Doc Ock's case, it was bodyjacking Peter. In the Lizard's case, it's that he ate his own son. (Shed, Amazing Spider-Man #630-633. Don't read it. It's bad and it's also genuinely the most depressing Spider-Man story I've ever read.) There are characters like Sin-Eater, where Peter is just not ever going to be sympathetic towards him, and he's right.

(Spectacular Spider-Man #134)

But there are other villains like Sandman or the Rhino where Peter is sympathetic to their circumstances. It doesn't mean he won't punch them in the face, but he gets it, and it keeps him up at night. There's characters who started off villains, like the Prowler, who became card carrying members of his extended polycule his friends. There's characters like Vermin, where, yes, he was eating people in the sewers, but that is NOT his fault, and Peter understands that. (This is a Vermin stan blog. You have to read Kraven's Last Hunt, The Child Within, and The Death of Vermin to understand. CW for childhood sexual abuse.) You have Kaine, his clone, although most of the sympathetic rumination on Kaine's tragic backstory comes from Ben Reilly, his other clone. There's Harry, who has frequently been a villain, who Peter loves beyond reason and is so greatly sympathetic towards.

(Spectacular Spider-Man #183)

(ASM #599)

There's characters like Ezekiel, who, yeah, tried to kill him, but Peter has a relationship with them. A lot of people have tried to kill him. He can't hold it against everyone. And if you want to count J Jonah Jameson as a Spider-Man villain, Peter is sympathetic towards him and does love him, even if he would rather stick his leg in a bear trap than admit it.

In general, Peter doesn't tolerate or show any sympathy towards people who hurt his friends and family. Lay a finger on them and that's the big red line for him. (See above with Sin-Eater, who murdered Jean DeWolff, a detective who was friends with Spider-Man.)

(ASM #665)

(ASM #598) The face of a man who is about to get parts of his face ripped off. Literally.

(ASM #637) And Kraven's wife getting her face ripped off for her part in the death of his clone, Kaine. (He got better. She did not, but that's Kraven's fault.)

(Spider-Man and Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #6) Heavy content warnings on this one again for childhood abuse, sexual abuse, and incest. It also retcons Felicia's backstory in a way I don't love, but it has really good Peter and Felicia interaction and the Peter voice is consistently strong.

(ASM #540) With the man who shot Aunt May. As a note, the black suit here is NOT the Venom symbiote, it's the cloth version of the costume. A lot of the times when Peter is written harder and he's in the black suit, there's an assumption that it's the symbiote, influencing him, and that's simply not true in 616. 90% of the time you see the black suit, it's going to be the cloth variation.

Which leads into a big case of Peter Is Never Going to Be Sympathetic: the Kingpin.

(ASM #542) Please please please read Back in Black please please please. It's so good it's my favorite it's angry Peter at his absolute best yes it leads directly in One More Day and no I don't care. You can stop after the Nine Felonies if that's a dealbreaker.

So the Kingpin is the big one for me, because he hits all of Peter's buttons. He's rich, he's corrupt, he thinks he's the most powerful man in the room. Those are all going to tick Peter off immediately, and that was before the assassination attempt on Mary Jane where the bullet struck May instead. He's just never going to feel sympathy for the Kingpin, ever, Wilson Fisk's gay mob boss son is disappointing him is not an excuse that's valid to Peter.

Then there are the villains that Peter isn't sympathetic to not because their actions are beyond his threshold for sympathy, but because he thinks they're total fucking losers.

(Marvel Knights Spider-Man #11) This comic is so deeply bro-y but also really fun, if you can take that much Mark Millar. This is Mac Gargan as Venom, by the way, not Eddie Brock, and Peter has always thought Mac is a gigantic loser. He's not wrong.

(Spectacular Spider-Man #145) He hates a little rich boy. Unless it's one of the two little rich boys that are in love with him.

(Spectacular Spider-Man #185) Don't make fun of the gay walrus, Peter, come on.

Then there's this fucking guy.

This is the Black Fox, an old gentleman thief who thwarts Peter at every turn by looking like a kindly old man and going "heyheyhey c'man man I'm just a little guy I'm just a little birthday boy" at Peter until Peter just lets him go and the Black Fox gets away with everything and Peter tells himself it won't happen next time and then it happens next time.

Every single time and Peter is left standing there like an idiot.

[tokyo-daaaamn-ji-gang]

Bonten is SO INCREDIBLY FUNNY TO ME because they might look super serious and evil and shit but they remind me so much of the plastics from mean girls, they’re all “friends” and talk shit about eachother ESPECIALLY if their around, Koko picks up Starbucks for them all and then they just sit there and gossip literally just teenage girls. Of course they’d go right back to being evil scary gang executives the next day

I feel like it would be something like this

Takeomi- Always says he's too old for gossip but then joins in every time anyway

Mochi- Groans everytime because he finds it dull, unless it's something to do with fighting like if someone got injured. Then he's fully committed to the gossip.

Kakucho- Is always the one who's being filled in, he has no idea where everyone gets all this info from or how they have time for this.

Koko- Is frequently the one to start the gossip, because of his past he has a lot of connections and knows a lot.

The Haitani's- Also frequently starts the gossip, they, if questioned directly they say they don't care about paying attention to "nobodies" but it's clear that's a lie.

Sanzu- His participation in the gossip heavily depends on his mood, though if someone brings up someone he doesn't like he'll 100% join in.

Mikey- Just sits there not looking at anyone when they're talking and not joining in, it looks like he isn't paying attention at all. But on rare occasions he'll comment too, which always catches everyone off guard.

[whenlifegivesticks-blog]

The long overdue, extremely lengthy Heroes in Crisis Review. Put on your reading glasses because this is long. I just want to give a little summary, The entire comic is the definition of disrespecting existing characters as well as real people and their problems. I seen better writing from 13 year old wattpad kids who are just getting started on their writing journey. It's hard for me to believe professional writers wrote this. Now onto the detailed review.

Brain rot enjoyment meter (how much I enjoyed it without actually analyzing it) : 7/10

Actual rating: 3/10

I'll go on with the analysis part by part.

first of all characters: Half of them are out of character and the other half are random characters that dc hasn't used in over a decade, we don't care about. Only to kill them off and it has no impact whatsoever as we don't know who these people are plus bunch of one panel cameos of characters for absolute no reason and adds absolutely nothing to the actual plot or story. For example, Red Devil, Tattooed man, Hotspot (i later recognized him from teen titans). I am pretty young person so I absolutely did not know half the characters. And they didn't introduce or reintroduce in this case any of these characters. We barely know what their issues are or why they are at sanctuary.

All characters are out of character or completely dumbed down. Wally's entire character is massacred and even by the end I barely understood what was up with him. I'll expand on this later.

Batgirl, Barbara was just frustrating and felt really empty. Like she was just there and really didn't seem to add anything to the story. At least as a character she doesn't. She felt more like a plot device.

Batman was just ??? but he wasn't that bad but suffers from same thing as Babs. Felt like he was just there as a plot device and character wise he added nothing whatsoever. We don't even see him investigating properly.

superman was downright foul And made no sense. Ok so you're working on the investigation with Diana and Bruce, so what's with the tension and secrecy??? Like Clark is that really you?

and louis lane was just evil, will be explained later.

Hal Jordan made one of the one panel appearances and that one panel was enough to show that the writer knew absolutely nothing about him. I been reading old GL comics and that one panel was just... wow.

the bat kids made cameos and they just copy pasted dialogue for them with little differences.

The comic is only 9 issues and is short so it just doesn't really show off a lot of personality from characters that aren't Harley or booster. And even then these two were just... not very satisfactory.

Second of all, plot: Made absolutely no sense whatsoever, I read the ending twice and still don't know what happened or what's the message.

obvious spoilers:

So, in a heroes mental institute called sanctuary, everyone was found dead other than Harley Quinn and booster gold. Booster saw Harley kill everyone. Harley saw booster kill everyone. So its a murder mystery.

Except the comic is all over the place and does not give any needed or required context so it doesn't really feel anything. Like it immediately pulls you in with no context whatsoever, with characters you aren't allowed to build a connection with.

There's this ridiculous segment where Harley Quinn defeats the trinity like what???? Harley Quinn defeating superman , wonder woman and batman is impossible. Ya telling me Harley is stronger than darksied??? Better plot armor than batman...

and superman comments saying how Harley is just as good as Bruce... I call BS. The writers really trynna convince us Harley is stronger than batman.

like what?

she went toe to toe with booster gold and I'm like??? even with half his powers, booster gold wipes the floor with Harley.

And here's the thing, Barry Allen thinks booster killed everyone. Ya telling me he chose to believe Harley Quinn a known dangerous criminal over booster gold?? Booster gold isn't even a anti hero. he doesn't kill. Plus someone pointed out to me Booster probably experienced all this after he watched a version of batman kill himself in front of Booster. Which explains Booster talking about how he sees the blood on his visor despite nothing being there.

Barbara helps Harley and takes down blue beetle (whose helping booster) like even she chose the psycho Harley to protect over booster??

what they smoking!

Now if you take actual culprit. it was wally. Now the story shows a pretty okish segment of wally's downward spiral to a mental breakdown. Except it still was more tell than show. And the plot made no sense.

Wally had a mental breakdown because he believed everyone at sanctuary was faking their mental illness to make him feel better. That he alone was the crazy one. So he "hacked" the system in place and found recordings for everyone's sessions and lost control of his powers accidentally killing everyone.

Ok I can believe he accidentally killed everyone. He was insane and not in the right mind.

but then the writers make him make a plan to frame Harley and booster so he can have time to release all the footage he found as a way to do good for the world what??? people anonymous confidential therapy sessions to louis lane as a way to do good in exchange for his murders and framing others. He also time traveled to kill himself and get a body??

Wally has a segment where everyone tells him he's hope or something. Plus him reliving his Titan days. Him using the stupid mask. But I can't make a sense of it. Because mentally ill people are more likely to hurt themselves than others. The comic perpetuates harmful stereotypes even if Wally killed by accident.

worst part is the writer make it a good thing showing bunch of cameo characters who came to therapy because they realized they weren't alone due to the released recordings???

so Wally was insane enough to lose control and kill and yet still manage to make a supervillain ass plan to frame and kill himself. the story's point is lost in this nonsense.

Plus Clark didn't tell Bruce or Diana about louis having the recordings and only told them after releasing them to the public. What happened to patient confidentiality??? Do superheroes not have rights? Clark went on a spiel about being a reporter- So being a reporter means stomping other peoples rights and outing their private info. The time travel nonsense didn't make sense even with my drawn diagrams to make sense of it. So I'm just left confused. The conclusion is this vague shit where its ok to get help and hope something.

third thing the premise: The premise is mental health institute yet, the writer shown they know nothing about mental health Sanctuary isn't run by people. its run by an AI. The place has chambers where heroes can go in and make anything they want. Any scenario. Now imagine mentally ill people with no guidance and just using the chambers for whatever they want. Wally was using it to relive his dead family in fantasy lala land. Lagoon boy was reliving his ptsd again and again and again Gnarrk was the only one who it helped and that's because he wasn't mentally ill in the way wally or lagoon were. He was just lost and used it as a guidance because he already knew his own issues. Yet dc tries to frame the chambers as a helpful thing and heroes are getting better You cant expect me to believe that after watching wally ignore the AI's questions and pretend has back with his family in a fantasy. The comic is an insult to mental health.

Again, we don't know why 90% of the heroes are at sanctuary. They are just killed off after one appearance. Plus, Jason canonically never went to therapy. Roy was killed off for shock factor. Green lantern apparently doesn't know what "WILL" is... Harley Quinn's word is taken more than Boosters-

I have so many more things I could say but if I have to list everything wrong in this comic this review would be longer than my future. I DO NOT recommend this comic. It's trash and save your sanity. Not even the retcon of this comic salvaged it. Over all, The only good thing in this was Harley and booster interactions because it was funny. That's it.

[darklinaforever]

Jesus Christ, as much as I'm not against people supporting and shipping Ellen x Orlok, you people have got to pull in the reins when it comes to shitting on Thomas. Constantly throwing in his face how he couldn't understand Ellen for who she really was and her powers blahblahblah, throwing on top of it all how he failed to provide both as a husband and a friend and last but not least, ultimately failing to kill Orlok as he intended to. Who's to say those things are even his failings, even if he did say that he will provide for Ellen and tried to be a doting husband, friend etc? Who can claim to have reacted better in his place when faced with A LITERAL MAGICAL DARK UNDEAD BEING, the literal personification of death itself?!! Is there a manual on how to handle your possessed wife that I apparently didn't read, please do send me the link to it?! And also you people WILL NEVER BE ABLE to know for sure how Ellen's and Thomas' relationship would've worked out if someone managed to kill Orlok before he and Ellen got together again, and Ellen and Thomas actually communicated properly, because there is no alternative to this movie!! So whatever you claim about their relationship proves to be just specalution in the end, just like everybody else. What sane man would've let his wife easily into the arms to rotting undead death machine corpse, without trying to kill it and save his wife, whether that wife is a supernatural being herself or not?? Have we forgotten how difficult it is in fantasy stories for a person who discovers they have powers to convince people around them that they do, if they can't actually show them their powers?? Who would believe such a thing, no matter how much you love that person?? Also, for all of you blaming all of that shit on Thomas.. Ellen also failed as a friend, she let a monster inside the Hardings' house and kill her beloved friend Anna and the children and consequentially Friedrich. She also broke Thomas' heart by not only choosing Orlok but dying beside him. And I'm not trying to paint her as the villain but if you're going to play dirty with Thomas then so will I with Ellen. In the end, you people can imagine Ellen bouncing on Orlok crazy style you can imagine yourselves bouncing on it crazy style for all I care, you can imagine them as some sort of vigilante heroes who are fighting against the poor little evil victorian society... but start using your god damn brain when imagining on how to deal with supernatural forces... when they are in fact supernatural??!!

You're honestly getting angry for nothing.

I never theorized about the future of Thomas & Ellen if they had stayed together already.

Then, it's Robert Eggers' words, not mine, that Thomas doesn't understand Ellen even though he loves her and he dismisses her for that.

So be mad at him.

We're just repeating what the creator of the film said because we see it in the film.

Second, Thomas was made to fail, simply because he was a tragic hero.

It's... just facts ?

Also, I'm tired of your excuse of trying to rationalize the fact that people don't understand Ellen's powers and that we should put ourselves in their shoes and that we won't react better, and so we can't critical them, because that doesn't not what the film is about.

The fact that the people around Ellen do not understand her power is meant to be seen as negative (and criticize) because it is the result of Victorian society of which they are the instruments.

Victorian society which is the real villain of this film.

I don't care how I or anyone else in real life reacts because that's not what this movie is about.

When you watch this movie, you're supposed to think about the meaning /symbolism of things. Not see it literally, at least not only.

Damn, we're not in a banal fantasy story where it's complicated for characters to accept that the hero or heroine has magical gifts ?! You are in a huge off-topic simply to try to further justify the actions of the characters towards Ellen and prevent them from being criticized. The context is not the same here as a more classic fantasy story once again. The comparison is ridiculous !

And then, I don't see why I would be upset with you for "playing dirty with Ellen", when I literally made posts talking about her parallel with Orlok, that Ellen is Orlok and Orlok is Ellen, that she is just as much Nosferatu than him, therefore a form of monster. I have also literally already reblogged posts or said myself that Ellen let Orlok into the Harding house signing their death. And @apoloadonisandnarcissus explained very well why Ellen can be considered as a villain. Do you think you're doing something to me by throwing things at me that I already know and have already talked about ?

And at what fucking point did I blame Thomas for what happens in the movie ? No one ever said he was the bad guy either ?The only thing I really say about him is that he's a bad husband. Which is... true (for so many reasons) ?

Visibly you are not a regular on my tumblr and have absolutely nothing to do with what I post about this film.

Also, am I supposed to take you seriously with your comment about how I can imagine bouncing on Orlok ? You are disturbed my word.

Oh, and you obviously aren't capable of interacting properly with fictional stories / fiction to have such a childish reaction.

[camellcat]

I find it so fun how much drusilla revels in being a demon compared to spike who just sorta... is. he likes being a vampire, let's not get that twisted! but one of my favourite lines in the entire show is drusilla going "oh well I'm not a person see" in lie to me and I don't know if spike has like any lines like that? I mean maybe little jokes and snips here and there but drusilla knows she's not human and won't even entertain the idea of being treated as such

[agentark]

whatever you do, don't imagine a young J Corvin waiting every day at the end of their drive, hoping today is the day the mail carrier finally brings a letter from their very best friend

[sysig]

Grump and not so grump (Patreon)

[astro-b-o-y-d]

Thinks about how Anti-Mabel was kicked out of her dimension for being 'so evil'. Thinks about how desperate she was to take over the life of the original Mabel. Thinks about how there's a Dipper out there who was created as a means of replacing the original and just thinks Mabel is the coolest ever, and would probably adore and support any version of his sister, even the most evil version of her.

Thinks about how they're both. Like. Thirteen-year-old kids. Sure, one's apparently the most evil Mabel in existence and the other's just hated for his cool guy swag, but they're kids. Do you think either of them thinks about their twin in passing, and realizes how much they miss them and will probably never see them again? Or if they do, they won't be the specific version of themselves that the twin actually cares about?

Is anyone listening to me??

[guinevereslancelot]

oughhhh new boss hasn't even fully taken over yet but she seems so incompetent 😬

[bijoumikhawal]

People discussing Israel's racist policies and Israel's policy of fucking over non Rabbinic communities and fucking up the transmission of diaspora cultures (such as the teaching of languages) is not the time to go "we don't need gentiles in our intracommunity politics". Foundational to Israel is "maintaining a Jewish majority". These communities are attacked in lathe part because they are seen as not being as Jewish as White, Ashkie, Western European Jews (with respect to how Eastern European Jews are also often mistreated), or their Judaism is otherwise seen as deficient. The maintenance of this majority is also why Palestinians generally, cannot really get an Israeli citizenship, even if they wanted to, and sometimes even if they can prove they are of Jewish descent. "Who is a Jew and what is a Jewish culture" is a constructed boundary: for the past 70 odd years it has been a boundary used for violence. If you want anti-zionists to have politics informed by the needs of Jews, they must be party to these discussions.

[thebongcloudopening]

literally nothing is funnier to me than my own obsession with the emperor

[furrysmp]

congrats to everyone that is still following me after I saw I had way too many followers to not have at least one antisemitic person following me, the fact that you don't think I murder children for fun is truly a comfort

[tonyglowheart]

reading thru old meta posts on qian qiu and there's like, some stuff I agree with sure but there's also a lot I don't lol. w like yan wushi especially. there's a lot of. I think too much conventional-mindedness in approaching yws even from the ppl who did like him as a character. saying he's a difficult character, and is meant to be a difficult character, but then still framing him along more conventional moral frameworks. yet another apartment 'complex'? strange, I find it quite simple moments.

[greenerteacups]

Hey GT why are you reblogging Krumione gifsets huh why is that??? GT?

I HAD A POINT TO MAKE!!!!!

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

i keep having Thoughts about how in so many ways LL has so much potential to be a really hard-hitting, messy, no-punches-pulled exploration of what i call moral agency: not the agency to act on your beliefs, but the agency to have those beliefs at all. like, if you're being abused into internalizing a set of beliefs, or indoctrinated in such a way as to make you resistant to outside perspective, or having relevant information withheld from you even if you would be looking for it... you don't have nearly as much choice in the matter of what you believe as someone who isn't stuck in that position.

and like. the central antagonists alone are literally a massive, horrifically abusive cult that spans generations. and i really wish they had actually followed through on that, and done so with compassion for victims who might need to be held accountable, instead of treating them with hatred and dehumanization.

(and also, y'know. hadn't treated some characters who did bad things as if they had much, MUCH more agency, moral or otherwise, than they did at literally any point. COUGH FIVE COUGH COUGH COUGH)

there's just. so so so much interesting stuff to be dug into there, in a way that's deeply fundamental to the narrative where even a lot of stories about moral agency aren't, and i really wish i could scrape enough brain cells together to talk about it properly