#AND i got to use those evil posts!

[agendratum]

the spirealm as text posts (2/?)

[fave-fix]

hey guys do we realize that the main difference betwen how kai and midori developed is that kai was given the chance to learn what normal life and love and family was like by working with chidouins while midori was kept under asunaros thumb all his life. do we realize that just a few changes could have kai acting just as cruel and merciless as midori. do we realize that midori is a victim of asunaro too, and though that doesn't excuse his actions it does make them more tragic. do we realize this or are we all being serious when we say midori is the only character who isn't worth redemption.

[greencheekconure27]

Lmao the tankies in my notes:

"Red Scare is Alive and Well on tumblr"

"We're doing McCarthyism AGAIN"

Well I was hoping people wouldn't be trying to bring Stalinism back in the year of our lord 2023 either, but apparently *genocide bad* *genocide denial also bad* *benevolent dictatorships do not exist* *imperialism is still imperialism regardless of what country does it* and *maybe shut up and listen to people about their own history* were all too difficult concepts for you lot to grasp.

[randomnameless]

Genuine question, not trying to start a fight, why do you get so upset about gods and churches being presented in a negative light in fictional works?

No pbs!

I guess it's a mix of being too common, too forced and having, in general, the cast use common tropish arguments to fight /defeat them.

I rant a lot about this game, but take TS where we have three sort of factions opposing each other, and each are supposed to suck. Who is the faction who never receives any "positive traits" or "pet the dog" moment?

The game force fed us a scene where an Aesfroti soldier - when Aesfrost is depicted as a highly militarised nation with a cult of personality towards their current ruler, that invaded the protag's home and slaughtered several civilians and NPCs in the process - say goodbye to his wife and kids before going to "war" to defend his land against, well, the protags who are invading it to kill their warmongering leader.

As force-fed as this scene was, it, I believe at least, tried to tell us that even the Aesfrosti who pillaged villages and killed their inhabitants are humans, and care about their loved ones, sure it's corny, but it's all about not deshumanising any party.

When we attack Hyzante? Niet, zilch, nothing. No similar scene where random soldiers, or NPCs, worry about what is going on and if they're going to die when their wall has been breached. They just, don't exist in this context.

I think the cherry on the cake is the Golden Route scene, where, apparently, nationalists Aesfrosti decide to turn back against their ultra charismatic leader because, uh, he "lied" when he declared the war and used a false pretense, so the soldiers and people who were butchering babies and invading a city where people were preparing a marriage apparently now have morals and rebel.

There's no similar scene for Hyzante when the cast reveals that the teachings of their Goddess were made up and salt wasn't exclusively given to them by divine intervention, because rock salt exists everywhere. Sure it would be a bit weird and forced that people thinking they're chosen ones and looking down on everyone else suddenly, hm, don't break down when their entire system of belief is shattered, but hey, if the Aesfrostian Gregor can have morals after washing his hands of all this Glenbrookian blood, why shouldn't religious npc #55 not make the same heel face turn?

And then, we have the slavery/human experimentation plot - in general, when TS tries to give nuance, they more or less explain/justify why something that "sucks" is done, it's basically Silvio's character.

Aesfrost' Gustadolph manages to push his "freedom" mentality because his land is a harsh place where people are desperate to survive, salt smuggling is reprehensible, but it's the only way to give some to the ones who cannot afford it. Of course is everyone is free, no one is because, as Gustadolph puts it, they're basically free to die for his ambitions.

Hyzante? Follows a racist creed where Rozellians have to pay for some great sin, and are slaved away in a lake to recover salt until they die. It's, later, justified by Hyzante wanting to keep its salt monopoly else they don't have anything, and wanting to curb down the Rozelle people because they know about the exitence of rock salt (and I guess getting free workers to harvest salt from the lake + having state enemies make his own population docile/not willing to rebel ?).

And then, we have the human experimentations, that are just done for, uhh, Idore's lol. When Hyzante is known for its "advanced medicine" and we could have had the usual dilemna of, idk, having those humans experimentations used to develop this medicine that is reknown in the world (idk, sacrificing a Rozellian to save someone else's life?) - it's not the angle the devs picked. Rozellians are sacrificed to power up an idol, Idore wants to control the world through his idol and soft power (compared to Gustadolph's hard power) and manipulates his people (just like Gustadolph) to do so.

The two are very similar, but who is the final boss? Complete with a transformation in an eldritch monster? The war-mongering imperialist or the jaded old man who is leading de facto a religion?

Hopefully there's the entire "human experimentations for no other purpose than the lols" to settle them apart.

---

I recently watched Dune, and even if I have some issues with the adaptation, the Bene Gesserit isn't portrayed as "comically" evil-er than the Harkonen Empire, I reckon the comparison isn't adequate, because Dune is multi book series when I'm mostly talking about video games.

Symphonia's church of Martel is a font for the Big Bad (tm) to put in motion his nefarious plans, and yet, through the game, we see how random clergymen use their, uh, religious buildings to help people around. Ultimately Martel herself is reincarnated through plot device and tells the big bad to stop being an ass and the story is less about "church and gods evil" but "big bad distorts Martel/church's teachings and role for his plans because he has a tragic backstory"

(but then Symphonia ends with the biggest whitewashing from every Tales I've played for its big bad so I'll stop talking about it because otherwise I'm going to be salty).

Abyss' church is more or less the same thing - the Church is supposed to help people deal with the fact their verse has "predestination stones" where the future is already written, and in the course of the game, we see how it has several factions and one opposes the group (who has the pope as a NPC!) - but it's not a story about "gods bad church BaD".

I remember playing Suikoden Tierkreis a long time ago, and while the game seemed to go through familiar "church bad gods bad" route and we end with defeating a god-like entity... I pretty much loved the twist that, in a game that relied on alternate dimensions/universe, the god-like entity was actually the protag if he made different choices!

In those games, if you fight a religious body and someone pretending to be a God or what not - it's not because people fight against an eldritch creature who wants world domination and to erase puny insects, or is the reason why everything goes wrong, but because, at the end, the conflict/fight is ultimately caused by someone, generally a human or at least a non "god like" entity, wanting to destroy the world.

I don't remember if FE was my first JRPG series or not, but I always liked the idea that if the world is doomed in those games and the heroes must prevent said doom, it's not because a god-like being wants to destroy the world, but because people, humans/randoms are the most shitty ones out there.

---

As for the "tropes" often used to deride fictional churchs and religious people, well, I will again point to TS - which did a splendid job in the Benedict Route where you smash Hyzante after allying with Aesfrost.

There's one battle where out protags diss Hyzantese because they worship a goddess and have no free will, listening to Her teachings and Her says (the traditional "religious people have no free will and listen to their churches who tell them how to think!") - which is immediately countered by one of those Hyzantese characters asking Serenor if he's not the same, but instead of blindly listening to a Goddess, blindly follows Benedict. And it ends with the final chapter title referencing automatons/puppets : who is that title talking about ? The fake "idol" Idore created, or the fake "king" Benedict created?

Anyways, the usual "religions people have no free will because their church/religion tells them how to think" trope reeks of r/atheism and the double standard - bar in this route of TS, but I guess, in TS itself in the Roland route! - is never called out, blindly following a charismatic leader is okay, as long as charismatic leader isn't religious?

Regardless of my IRL thoughts about religion, usually those tropes are presented as a "gotcha!" when they are... not at all, but the games/books leave it at that and we're supposed to roll with it.

I'd say it's lazy writing or, as we saw in Naruto, a quick way to end a story without having to dwelve in characters and their motivations : "you're a god/alien/other being and you're bad, so let us do what we want!" - end of the story.

Hopefully some fillers and to an extent, Boruto gave her more meat bar being the 11 hour villain we had to defeat quick and who manipulated the previous sad'n'lonely antagonists - but it still felt rich from Naruto, known for his famous "talk no jutsu" and trying to understand people he's fighting against, to drop the ball with Kaguya, calling her pure malice and ending with some "let us live the way we want" to wrap up the plot so he can wrestle with his boyfriend later on.

In the end, we often end up with "religion bad bcs the big bad manipulates people through it", as if those mangas/animes/vg never have other examples of charismatic people not using religion to manipulate their randoms/people or "gods bad they should let humans do what they want" when we've read/seen/played through various, uh, really fucked-up shit humans did - but on their own! and ultimately, but it's more in fandom spaces, with have Projection 101.

TLDR : church/religion/gods are too often used in those works as the ultimate scapegoat to either wrap up a story in a rushed ending or to pretend to have "nuance" but still have a common enemy where all the "nuanced" characters can grow/be whitewashed and side together against that "common enemy".

Just like in all things I guess, I prefer when something isn't painted as purely negative and all of the positive traits are erased because there is a need for a perfect scapegoat - sure, bring out too much "nuance" and writing/designing a game/manga/anime becomes harder because there's no "clear cut" antagonist, and yet, the one who always gets fucked in this scenario is the religious/church side.

Want a generic stock villain who will destroy the world so the heroes have to fight against them? Just create a "religion" in your setting, and have the big bad either hell bent on resurrecting Chtullu to destroy the world because Chtullu BaD, or have them be the most corrupt piece of shit who manipulate everything in the shadows, so the rest of the world, even the ones who slaughter others bcs they feel like they must start a war, can be whitewashed at the end.

I mean, there's a saying about diverting attention from a fire by starting a bigger one near, or a trope of "aliens made them do it" : who cares if Madara started a continental war and targeted a village full of random civilians he swore to protect because he lost the elections? Did y'know he was manipulated by a woman, I mean, an eldritch thing created by a woman, regarded as a God, who ultimately wanted to get out of her fridge to kill everyone?

Roland must get over his hatred for Aesfrost for barging in his kindgom and killing hundred of his people while they were preparing for a wedding, because hey, Idore is evil and plans on ruling the world through his sham religion!

I'll forever be salty at TS for not giving Kamsell the occasion to rise against Idore, or not even have minor NPCs get the same treatment as Sycras suddenly going all "u lied to me gustadolph so i won't listen to u anymore + sad goodbyes to my wife'n'kids".

Extremism of all kinds can lead to wars/tragedy/fucked up shit - Sure I don't want to get my History lessons in video game medium when I play lol, but what I really don't like is how it feels like depicting "they're extremists because they're religious" feels like the default/easy answer : want a bunch of brainwashed people the heroes must fight against and can't talk no justu their way out of this fight/will fight without looking too BaD? Depict those people as "misguided" members of a corrupt church/believers of a religion, no one will givea fig. If they are instead supporters of a charismatic leader who throws them through the meatgrinder to further their goals? Well, there's no automatic loyalty so either you have to show/depict it on screen, else it can be challenged at key points to demonstrate how those people - who follow the charismatic leader - aren't completely "mindlessly listening to their leader" or how their leader "isn't that bad after all".

[katyspersonal]

Effect I've shown to have on people in this fandom from time to time that I am proud of is making them actually speak their opinions and put them in the TAGS! Like, you guys don't know how it feels, to see someone go from "no I am afraid to say a thing because I don't want to be harassed" to "fuck it we ball tonight *passionately disagrees with the takes of toxic popular people and tags the post with fandom and character* 😎"

Like... guys, this IS the way to go, okay? More of you should finally beat it in your head that bullies draw their power from people that are AFRAID of them! If nobody covered in fear before them, they'd be nothing but stupid clowns in their stupid echo-chambers that just block away from the world and eventually having no one left to torture eat their own! This is NOT the norm when people are scared to post their interpretations in the fandom for videogames that specifically demand interpretations, shamefully resort to lurking in some private Discord servers just to share their art and thoughts, stay away from discussing a character they like because too many toxic fans put their claws on them and so on! I don't understand why many people are okay with this kind of fandom experience? And so many of them are older than me or unlike me have enough reputation to make REAL difference in the fandom, why?? I don't remember who owns a blog for suggesting headcanons for Soulsborne games but iirc they allowed bullies to scare them into making a rule against suggesting headcanons about Gwyndolin's gender because "people are mean to each other so it's a nono now and Gwyndolin is only they/them now 🥺". Like.... congratulations, you've betrayed the very point of your blog, which is to share different headcanons, to do what? To cover in fear before jerks that didn't grasp the concept of "up to interpretation"? Why would you do that, instead of showing people who can't respect different interpretations that they are NOT welcomed?

I don't know, man.. it is normal for autists to care about fandom a bit too much, I suppose. I don't see it as something inherently inferior to The Reeeeeal Life uwu. And so, I just hate to see people just willingly lend the power to bullies? Of course they are going to continue to make the fandom unpleasant, if they see that they can own the place by just leaving disheartening comments, laughing at someone with their mindless sheep mutuals in a reblog or sending a couple of anon hates! But like, when I realized a few other people saw this is unfair and should not be encouraged, and started at least saying something too.. idk, it gives me hope. It is hard to explain but I think 20+ or even 30+ age category is more than enough to move past the dumb high school dynamic! Not in the passive "eh who cares about fandoms anyway, it is not worth it and I am too mature to care" way, but in the "nah I won't stand for Cool Kids and bullies and nor should others" way

[lotrmusical]

My high school did a yearly poetry recitation contest (Poetry Out Loud), so Oh Boy do I know some poems. My favorites are Ozymandias and "the world is about to end and my grandparents are in love," by Kara Jackson. Also in 8th grade we had a Poe unit and had a class contest to make the best music video of the Raven, so I still know a good chunk of that.

i hadn't heard of the kara jackson one! just read through it and enjoyed it, particularly these lines > 'grandma returns to her love like a hymn, marks it with a color. // when the world ends will it suck the earth of all its love? /will i go taking somebody’s hand, / my skin becoming their skin?'

[dreamteamemojis]

.

[todayisafridaynight]

Religiously i think about one of my twitter mutuals pointing out how aoki's design is subtly asymmetrical while ichiban is more symmetrical

when i think of it, masato's design is fairly symmetrical as well isnt it.....

[scatterpatter]

I HAVEN'T DRAWN MY LIL EDGY BOY IN SO LONG... I MISSED HIM...

alt version with less effects under the cut!

[healingheartdogs]

Saw a post earlier of someone being like "see how my puppy isn't bothering me while I eat and is minding his own business playing in the other room? That's because in this house animals aren't ever allowed to have people food from the moment they come home with me so they never even learn to want it." The post and most of the comments on it were very high and mighty "I'm a better owner than other people, I'm the boss of my dog, I don't allow my dog to offend me by showing desire for highly desirable resources" attitude and were very much judging other people for not having the same boundaries and annoyances about dog behaviors around food with their own dogs in their own homes and I just like... absolutely can not relate at all, tbh. There is a type of person who uses phrases like "people food" unironically, thinks that dogs being allowed to have good things that are usually intended for humans is somehow offensive and wrong, gets annoyed by a dog even being allowed to exist in the same room when people are eating, and thinks a dog just looking at them for more than 30 seconds while they have food or hanging out watching them doing stuff is the dog bothering them and being rude, and every time I encounter this type of person it makes me wonder why they even own a dog when they clearly hate natural dog behaviors and are bothered by dogs just wanting to be around people, do things with them, and receive human attention more than once in a blue moon.

When I make breakfast after I wake up and take it to my room to eat Hermes always eagerly follows right behind me because he expects he's going to get something from me. That expectation is almost always correct, and I feel absolutely zero shame about it. Him laying calmly at my feet or next to my chair quietly watching me eat is not "bothering me". He's quite literally not doing anything to be a bother, he's just patiently chilling. If a dog hanging out nearby and calmly watching while people eat bothers you enough to consider that bad nosey behavior that is deserving of you ridiculing other dog owners for allowing it that's uhhh... weird af? At least to me it's weird, sorry not sorry. Like maybe you actually just don't like having dogs around then if they can bother you without even really doing anything? Cuz IDK about y'all but I love my dogs hanging around me and wanting to be close to me and even seeking engagement from me. I love them being excited about being around me and following me around because they know I give them good things. I also like having their attention and eyes on me in general - especially Hermes, as a dog of a breed that is often more environmentally focused than handler focused and whose attention I've had to work for and earn. Looking at me is something that I specifically reward all my dogs for and immediately start to capture during their initial introductions to clicker training because I find it to be beneficial during training sessions (as well as a good way to charge the clicker), so it would be ridiculous and unfair for me to get annoyed by it and discourage it in other scenarios like when I'm eating. In fact, I see Hermes calmly laying down nearby and politely seeking eye contact with me whenever I look his way while I'm eating my breakfast as a sign that he knows how to act to get what he wants because he understands his training well, and that he is putting that training to work by being an attentive calm good boy and waiting patiently for me to respect my end of the deal that I have taught him and give him his reward for the behaviors he's offering that I have repeatedly asked him for in the past.

Also like... if he is in the way somehow while people are eating or if we're eating something he can't have and I don't want him near us just in case someone drops something (even though he has an extremely solid leave it, still better safe than sorry) then I just tell him to go to his bed??? and then share a little bite of my food with him to reward him for going to lay on his bed if it's safe or give him something else like a couple of small dog treats or a pork chew on his bed if my food isn't dog safe. After that he will stay on his bed and keep being a calm patient boy because he's learned that staying on his bed after being told to go to it means he will continue to occasionally get more treats or small pieces of my dog safe food tossed to him for the duration of his time there until he is released. Often times because he's working so hard to be calm and patient to earn a few bites of my food he just ends up falling asleep next to me or on his bed, which is definitely the opposite of being bothersome. I like to thank him for that patience and calmness by gently waking him up to share the last bite of my food or give him a little treat jackpot and some praise before releasing him.

Maybe I'm a "bad" trainer (lol) but I enjoy spoiling my dogs by sharing some of my dog safe "people food" with them in moderation, and you can definitely share "people food" with dogs without making them annoying or untrustworthy around food. Despite what the person who made that post seems to incorrectly think, simply letting a dog have a taste of "people food" sometimes does not create unwanted bothersome behaviors around food. Rewarding unwanted behaviors that bother you instead of wanted behaviors that don't bother you is what causes that. That's it, that's the sole cause. Like... you could just only share food with them if they're being calm or waiting patiently on their bed or whatever it is you want from them during meal times. Boom, the "bothering" problem is solved and your dog still gets to enjoy a special treat. In fact, my experience as a dog trainer is that the high value and novelty of that special "people food" treat often makes the rewarding of the not-bothering behavior you want from them while you eat much more motivating and effective than giving them one of their regular treats or chews as a reward or distraction, so the settling down not-bothering behavior you want is even more likely to be consistently freely offered up in the future since it is so highly rewarded.

When I've had clients in the past express concerns about causing begging by giving their dogs "people food" or tell me they feel guilty about it because they've been told by people like that poster I saw that it's a bad thing to do in general, this has been my advice to them - not to stop doing the whole sharing thing that makes them and their dog happy, but just to make it more productive for the kind of relationship they want to have with their dog and the behaviors they are wanting to see. It's a simple solution that can turn a meal into a nearly effortless high value training session for teaching settling during household activities and around food, which is something that is a common frustration to achieve for a lot of inexperienced dog owners. If you handle your dogs sometimes being given bits of food scraps as treats this way then everyone wins, especially the people who like to spoil their dogs and share food with them (which is VERY NORMAL TO WANT TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE A SOCIAL SPECIES THAT BONDS THROUGH RESOURCE SHARING) because now those people can turn that desire to spoil their beloved companions into some easy training. Just be sure to consider if ingredients are dog safe or not and be mindful of oversharing and sharing foods with high fat content because maintaining a balanced diet is important for health.

Also that OP apparently doesn't realize this yet based on the wording of their post, but if you have a dog that is at all decently food motivated then just ignoring them while you have food and never sharing is not going to teach them to leave people alone in the presence of food and never try to seek food from anyone. This is especially true if anyone ever accidentally drops something around your dog (it'll happen eventually) and they snag it and self reward because you never actually taught them not to do that, or if anyone else in your house isn't as firm with that boundary or is unable to enforce it consistently and ends up giving them food purposefully or accidentally (as can often happen in households with children or that sometimes invite guests over). "I don't ever share people food with animals in my house starting from day one and I ignore them when food is out so they never learn to even want it to begin with" is not training your dog to leave food or people who are eating food alone. That's doing nothing and hoping that your new puppy or dog doesn't care about the delicious smells of food or people gathering together in the house for food related activities multiple times a day enough that they will quickly get bored and give up on trying to investigate all "people food" related activities for the rest of their lives without you training them, which is an absolutely ridiculous expectation. Just not ever giving a dog any of your food doesn't make it stop smelling like food to them and won't magically make them never be curious about seeing what you have and if they can get some of it. They don't have to be given food by you off your plate to know that it smells interesting or to figure out that seeing you eating it means it might be something they can eat. Having a superiority complex about NOT actually training your new puppy how to act around food and ignoring them as "training" instead is certainly funny, in a "not funny haha, funny weird" kind of way. It's also pretty irresponsible since some foods that humans eat are dangerous to dogs. Instead of just ignoring them when food is around and hoping they'll learn to leave all food that isn't their dog food alone on their own, a responsible owner should actually be actively teaching their dogs to leave food in general alone unless it is offered to them, even when food is left where they can easily get to it.

Anyway, if people could just stop being weird about dogs doing normal dog things and existing in spaces around humans, do some basic research on dog behavior and how dogs learn before getting a dog, actually train their dogs to the minimum level required to make themselves not be regularly upset at their dogs for acting untrained and "bothering" them, and stop developing weird superiority complexes because they get lucky for a while right after bringing home a new dog or puppy and it manages to not cause them any problems or upset them yet... that would be cool.

[starpros-sunshine]

You can use a lot of words you know? You don't have to talk yourself around stuff like "It's famous Nazi code for an abbreviation for their popular motto which I won't be repeating here" when you really can just explain that 88 is supposed to represent the Hitler salute because H is the 8th letter in the alphabet? You don't even have to say the words but I mean wouldn't it make more sense to actually explain something instead of vaguely talking around it for some sense of...of what? What's the use in nor calling the thing by it's name? Won't that do more harm than good? I mean if people know they shouldnt do something but don't really know why then they won't take it that serious no?

[coulsonlives]

I just had to share this video because holy shit, it hits the nail right on the head! So well spoken. This stuff needs to be circulated more, esp with the growing number of people thinking they have this because of misinformation, or just outright faking it.

[ssruis]

I know I make funny little jokes about tsukasa tenma not leaving me alone (when I’m not actively trying to pull for him. Never forgiving him for the New Years lim incident) but I think he should give me his doll festival card during the free pulls/when I pull during pandemonium. so I can complete my Tsukasa Suffering collection.

[oflgtfol]

woe. random 30 minute non-evil scourge be upon ye

[nasty-garden-rat]

you guys realize that voting doesn't actually prevent you from taking direct action, right? like, you can do both? yes you should take the middle arm off park benches and yes you should vote for local officials that think homeless people should have resources. yes you should protest and riot and yes you should vote to keep fascists off your local school board. voting doesn't bring about systemic change (this is a lie we were told) but it does still matter. by voting we have little individual sway over things like presidents but comparatively large sway over things like increasing funding to the fire department or electing local judges. there's a reason why conservatives try to suppress the vote, and why so many people have fought so hard for it. it's not the end-all-be-all, but it genuinely impacts your community and if you're not investing in community then i dunno where you expect your movement to begin in the first place.

[snekdood]

Vaush almost seems manipulative in the way he talks about religion, like i feel very strongly that he doesn't actually think religion is *quite* as bad as something like toxic masculinity but he wants his audience to feel that way, so he keeps drawing comparisons between religion and all these other fucked up things like antisemities or whatever, to give the impression to his audience that he genuinely thinks its that serious, and knowing how a lot of ppl can be in his audience, whatever vaush thinks they decide to take as like the best most intellectually and well thought out take ever, no self analyzing, no questions asked, and i feel like hes manipulating that fact to his advantage, he literally said in his debate w oceankeltoi (which i wasnt gonna watch but did eventually bc i heard vaush kinda sucked in it (and he did)) that hes okay with using peer pressure to try to discourage people from being religious. It seems like hes going to try whatever he can socially to like. Shun anyone whos religious or any of their beliefs and is probably even totally okay with ppl bullying religious ppl so long as the social pressure gets people to stop. Which. Uh. I feel like i shouldnt have to say is a pretty fucked up philosophy