#Also legality doesn't always equal morality

[arcadiabaytornado]

"Frank probably waited until Rachel was 18 to sleep with her -" The Frank sold hard drugs to teenagers, pulled a knife on Chloe, and bet on dog fights???? The grown man Frank who was hanging out with a teenage Chloe???? The Frank who admits Rachel was to young for him??? The Frank who was eyeing Rachel when she was fifteen??? That Frank????

Sometimes If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's just a duck.

[the-zine-directive]

The Zine Directive FAQ

We will update this information periodically, but wanted to "put some words on the page" so to speak. If we missed your question, please DM us!

So, what's going on here?!

Will the zine have a theme?

Will it be explicit?

What is the timeline?

How much will the zine cost?

How can I get a copy?

How do I become a contributor/Why wasn't I asked to contribute?

I was asked to contribute, but I haven't heard anything. Should I be worried?

How else can I help/get involved?

So, what’s going on here?!

We're making a fanzine with one mission: To pay homage to those who came before us in this wonderful, timeless fandom that is Star Trek. The goal is to produce something that will be directly comparable to the fanzines of old; Typed on typewriters, printed & copied at a print shop (yes, even those pages), bound by hand, and sent to recipients in the mail. There are some aspects that may not translate to the 2020s, but we will try our best to be as authentic as possible. Luckily, we've secured involvement from several of the lovely women who were actually there making zines in the 70s, 80s, and 90s to guide us :) More on this will be announced soon!

Will the zine have a theme?

Not exactly, but it will exclusively feature Star Trek: The Original Series (+ films). This is not done to exclude AOS, SNW, or other Treks, but rather to celebrate the one that started it all. However, it will be a K/S slash zine (mcspirk also welcome!) so if you're not into seeing Kirk and Spock smooch, this one might not be for you ;)

Will it be explicit?

Yes :) How explicit will depend entirely on our artists and authors. Purchase age will be strictly 18+.

What is the timeline?

The 60th anniversary of Star Trek is September 8th, 2026. So while the official release is TBD, it will be around this time. Fics (and other writing, like poetry) will need to be finished earlier than artwork so we have time to organize companion illos. We also need ample time to type everything by hand on our typewriters, leaving room for broken equipment and/or user error (both of which are equally likely to happen). We expect assembly to take several months since us editors are doing this for the first time and also have jobs/families/school to think about. Once we have a more concrete timeline, that will be shared directly with our contributors to include deadlines and check-ins.

How much will the zine cost?

To be perfectly clear, this project is 100% nonprofit. That is very important to us not just for legal reasons, but moral ones. This means the cost of the zine will not exceed what was put into the materials, assembly, postage, etc. Similarly sized zines in 1970 were in the range of $3-$5, which is about $25-$40 today. We will do everything in our power to keep the price as low as we possibly can.

How can I get a copy?

We will make several announcements leading up to sign ups. As of right now, it is very likely we will have to limit the zine to < 200 copies. After some time has passed we will release it digitally, so don't fret if you're not able to get your hands on one! If there’s enough interest we may also do a second publication :)

How do I become a contributor/Why wasn't I asked to contribute?

As of right now, we do not have an open submission process. We would love to include EVERY piece of art, but with a physical zine we are limited by physical space, so we will have to be more discerning than we might like. As time goes on and the table of contents is decided we will announce more opportunities to contribute, so follow the blog to be aware of those! You can always feel free to DM us if you're interested, but we can't guarantee there will be room for everyone who does this. If your idea doesn't fit exactly, we'll try our best to find a way for you to be a part of it.

I was asked to contribute, but I haven't heard anything. Should I be worried?

No!!! We are working diligently to get everything set up, we promise. We have not forgotten about you <3 Kat (spirk-trek) is dealing with difficulties on Tumblr at the moment, in that she's unable to send or receive messages. If you're trying to get ahold of her please do so through this blog or on discord (katruyck) until further notice.

How else can I help/get involved?

First of all, thank you for asking. This kind of question really warms our hearts! If we decide to take donations of any kind, we will share that further down the line. This would be to cover costs only, and any excess would be donated to fanlore or other archival efforts. We won't do this if we don't have to, and would really rather not. If you're interested in taking a more involved position in the process, please message us about becoming a mod, especially if you're good with discord, have experience making physical zines, have a working typewriter, or are really passionate about fanzine history like we are!

Thank you for reading, and for being here at the start of our journey :)

[stolitzsings]

This is a sort of response to a post I've seen floating around, drawing parallels between the chains in Blitz’s trip that bind him to Stolas and the chains that bind Husk, Angel, and Fizz to Alastor, Valentino, and Mammon respectively. I'm not commenting on that post directly bc I avoid Discourse (tm) at all costs for the sake of my health, and I don’t want to get drawn into an unproductive argument that will mess with my anxiety for a week. I'm not trying to start a fight, just get my thoughts out on why I feel that comparison is inaccurate, and hopefully provide some helpful context and nuance.

So! Let's start with a few disclaimers! First of all, I'm not going to debate the moral purity of any of these characters. I just don't think it's an interesting or valuable critique. On a related note, I am not trying to excuse any of their behavior. I'm happy to admit that my favorite characters in this show have hurt people and are sometimes total assholes. Stolas treated Blitz very poorly at the beginning of their relationship, frequently pushed or even ignored boundaries, and was just kind of a dick about things. My objection to a direct comparison between Stolas and the other characters mentioned above isn't because I think Stolas hasn't done anything wrong; I just think that saying they're similar without further clarification or commentary ignores the nuance of the situation.

Read on below the cut, it's gonna be another long one folks!

Let's start by examining the "agreements" forged by Val, Mammon, and Alastor. I think it's important to note that, in their cases, the person they got to sign their contract could have been anyone. Husk and Angel could have been any sinners, Fizz could have been any imp. They aren't interested in them as people; they were only using them to gain more power for themselves. The only thing that matters to them is, "What can you do for me?" Angel and Fizz quite clearly become cogs in the machine of Val and Mammon's businesses, and Alastor only thinks of Husk as a tool to be leveraged in specific situations to further his own mysterious goals. Each of them has demonstrated to their subjugates that they own them, body and soul. They have signed legally and spiritually binding contracts that essentially surrender their autonomy to a more powerful demon.

Stolas and Blitz’s agreement is... not that. In the most literal sense, they don’t appear to have made any sort of binding deal. They just made a verbal agreement, which I sincerely doubt has anywhere near the force of a signed soul contract. Additionally, Stolas did not ask for and does not seem to want that sort of total control over Blitz. He very clearly does not view this as any sort of power exchange (which may actually be part of the issue, since it leaves him blind to Blitz’s discomfort with their class difference), he sees it as "favors for favors." While this agreement is inherently unbalanced due to Stolas's status, it's worth noting that they’re both putting something on the line here. The other three risk practically nothing (if the person bound to them fails they can always get a new one), but Stolas IS taking on a real risk by letting Blitz access the living world illegally using his book. Again, that doesn't make his actions right, and probably helped him to justify them, but it does set their relationship apart from the others.

In my opinion, some of Stolas's greatest flaws are his thoughtlessness and his ability to justify his own actions to himself. This manifests in the fact that he clearly doesn't see the ways in which their relationship is hurting Blitz. He convinced himself that this was just an equal exchange, and a continuation of the dynamic Blitz established in their first encounter as adults: "I fuck you, and you give me the book". As he becomes more aware of his feelings for Blitz, though (stay tuned for a deeper analysis of this progression later), he also begins to realize that Blitz isn't happy with this relationship. And this, as @masonshmason pointed out, is the central fact that separates Stolas and Blitz from the other relationships. Stolas did not realize- or chose to ignore- how he was hurting Blitz. Once he came to terms with it, though, he understood that he had to make things right. He specifically says this in "Just Look My Way"; "I will try to make amends/ For making you means to an end". None of the others could say this, because in their case, that was the POINT. Angel, Fizz, and Husk were ALWAYS a means to an end, intentionally trapped for that purpose.

We also need to talk about the CONTEXT of the scenes in which the chain imagery appears. For both Angel and Husk, the chain is at least semi-literal, a physical (and perhaps supernatural) manifestation of the way their souls are bound to an overlord. In "Two Minutes Notice," Fizz purposely CHOOSES to represent his relationship to Mammon as chains around his wrists. However, Blitz's scene is part of a drug trip after being forcibly dosed with hallucinogens. It does not exist in any literal sense, nor is it a representation of Blitz’s conscious, literal thoughts. What it DOES do is showcase Blitz’s deepest fears and his greatest flaws through symbolism and metaphor. Blitz is not literally afraid of being forced to wear a clown costume; he is afraid he'll never escape his past traumas or Fizz's shadow. THIS is the context in which Blitz sees himself being chained by Stolas: a bad trip all about his fear of intimacy and vulnerability.

Stolas appears in this trip as someone elevated high above him, something he's climbing towards, reaching for, even though it means being chained to him. It's directly preceded by his ex girlfriend and his former best friend berating him for how he pushes people away even though he hates being alone. Then Stolas directly asks him, "Are you afraid to love people, Blitzy?" Furthermore, the WAY in which he is framed is alluring, slightly hazy, golden and tempting. It couldn’t be further from the ugly, slime-covered past he's fleeing. It's a new start, a chance for something better that seems too good to be true. This trip is all about Blitz’s inability to be vulnerable with another person. The chain around his neck is a representation of the fact that, by getting closer to Stolas, he's giving Stolas the power to hurt him emotionally.

And man, there's a part of him that wants to give Stolas that power. At this critical moment, he's not baring his teeth in defiance or anger. He's blushing, just slightly, and he looks... nervous. Blitz's instinct, when things get too real, is to cut and run. Hurt them before they can hurt you. Abandon them before they have the chance to leave you. It’s how he tanked his relationship with Verosika. This is a manifestation of what might happen if he stays. This is the sort of trouble he can't fight his way out of.

This is the emotional climax of the scene. There are so many ways they could have gone with this if they wanted to represent Blitz being chained and trapped by his agreement with Stolas. If that was the fear--if that was the POINT--they could have had the chains wrap around him until he couldn't move, or glow white hot and burn into his skin, or a million other more direct metaphors. But the chains aren't the thing that hurts him. It's the feathers: the thing that's left behind after Stolas abandons him, sing-songing "you're going to die alone" right alongside two other people who he loved and who now want nothing to do with him.

Finally, let's look at Blitz’s reaction to this scene. It's a moment of revelation for him, in which he realizes he's pushing everyone away and starts to make an effort to change. It's why he's a bit more open with Moxxie in the next scene. The trip sequence ALSO inspires him to get closer to Stolas, indicating that the trip didn’t make him realize "I'm trapped and I need to get out of this" in the same way Fizz did. Rather, he realizes that he doesn't want Stolas to leave him like everyone else, and he wants to start feeling out what it would be like to deepen the connection between them. As I've mentioned in other posts, their kiss at the end of "truth seekers" represents a level of intimacy that we haven't seen before; it's teasing, affectionate, shows Blitz’s interest in making Stolas happy, and takes place in front of M&M, who have repeatedly teased him about their relationship before.

In summary, while the image of chains may have been invoked in all four of these relationships, they don’t necessarily mean the same thing across the board. Blitz and Stolas's relationship differs substantially from the others in its dynamic, and the context of their scene also sets it apart. It's important to look into the details and the nuance of their relationship to interpret what's going on under layers of trauma and unreliable narration.

[thevisualstuff]

The Illusion of the American Dream in Godfather I (1972)

I've watched The Godfather I more than a dozen times, and every time I did, there was always something new I discovered. Be it Michael's gaze, the dim room in the first scene, or those oranges.

When I was younger, I wrote essays largely on the what-ifs—the alternate reality in which Michael Corleone gets his happy ending with Apollonia in Sicily, never to return to America. That idea struck me deeply, because a lot of things could have gone right. Almost. But they just didn't. Now, much older, I've learned to accept Michael's fate—one that mirrors the "lesser" lives some Americans live— because the idealized version of it has been lost. The idealized version of freedom and equality the American Dream supposedly offers, that is.

From the opening scene, the film already suggests that people often turn to alternative forms of justice due to the ineffectiveness of the legal system. In that scene, Bonasera seeks justice from Don Corleone because the court failed to deliver true justice for his daughter. In Bonasera's eyes, the law was too lenient on acts of violence against women. So her case establishes the idea that true equality doesn't exist.

This dissatisfaction with the justice system is transferred to the film's protagonist, Michael Corleone. Michael initially held a different idea of justice—that justice should be served by following the law and allowing the legal system to deliver verdicts for wrongful actions. He saw violence during the war, and this experience hardened his resolve to choose the law rather than outright violence. He wanted no part in the family business and avoided it.

But reality is cruel. Police officers and authorities—the very people meant to uphold the law—conspire within a corrupt system, nearly killing his father. Later, when Michael tries to start a new life in Sicily and seeks refuge from all the violence and his family's criminal legacy, his real love, Apollonia, is tragically murdered. So is Michael's brother. These experiences deeply shape Michael’s thinking, making him cynical and leading him to believe that he must take justice into his own hands.

Michael's transformation—from an idealistic war hero to a disillusioned, ruthless mafia lord—stems from his changing perception of the American Dream, especially justice.

That scene when he told his second wife, "Who's being naive, Kay?" shows a different Michael—one who is now ready to avenge his brother's and Apollonia's deaths. And he did. He did it in an ironic way, too, as he was inside the church praying while his men went on a killing spree against his enemies. But that's a powerful juxtaposition that shows Michael's public declaration of the moral corruption he has finally embraced.

In the end, Michael becomes a reflection of his father—a man who sacrifices morality for survival and power. Yet, unlike Vito Corleone, who still values family loyalty, Michael rejects not only the legal system but also the very ideals he once held.

The total abandonment of values.

Maybe that's why I end up watching The Godfather again.

Because I've known people like Michael—people who once believed in justice, opportunity, and equality, yet these things remained unattainable to them.

[ephemerasnape]

Hello! We don't know each other at all but you appeared in my feed, and I am sorry but I can't let you say people "conflate" a child and a minor.

Please take into consideration I didn't turn on the anonymous setting, because I won't hide my position just like you won't hide yours (And it's always better to know who you're actually talking to). Also english isn't my first language so I hope you will understand what I'm saying.

A minor is a child for a reason. The law created the notion of minor because even if you're a teen, like 16-17 yo, you can get influenced. You can get manipulated. And you can not realise it. At 17yo you don't have the ability to properly defend yourself against adults.

What I mean is : Adults are socially superior. We're all taught as kids to respect them. Going against them is difficult for some teens. And they know that, which is why preserving kids' innocence and teaching them about the possible adults taking advantage of their youth is important. With an adult, in an intimate relationship, their consent will be biased.

Cause no adult should be attracted to a 15 yo. No adult should have a relationship with a minor, who's a child thank you very much, because their relationship will never be equal.

Picturing a 15yo with a 30yo man is sick. That's what it is. She didn't even finish to grow up, she doesn't even have a mind of her own. Did I also specify that the human brain ends developing at 25yo ?

That you have traumas you need to deal with, fine. This could be your way to interiorise what happened to you, to feel less lonely about it and I understand it. Or maybe you're still young, picturing yourself with Rookwood because you like his face and don't realise how wrong this is. You could still write age gap with another adult, some BDSM child play for example.

but a real 15yo???? with a 30yo man???? This is clearly hidden patriarchy, teaching you that the younger women are the more attractive they get, that youth is purity and men should own it and corrupt it. It's completely and utterly toxic.

Do you realise this really happened to people and that they struggle with it now that they are adults ? There is no romance in it. Only sickness.

This is the internet. I guess no one will stop you from ever writing what you write but you have to hear it isn't right.

Hello @mianeryh!

First I'd like to thank you for your very decent message, and for coming to me directly instead of hiding behind anonymous sniping.

A minor is a person under the age of 18. Child has a different connotation to most people.

As you can see there are multiple definitions of "child." In this context I am using the first one.

I'm not saying an adolescent is an adult - far from it! I'm just saying they are not a child in the way that people are using the term.

Sixteen is a common age to legally give sexual consent, drive a car, and in some places they even want to give sixteen-year-olds the vote.

Obviously, a sixteen year old is not a child. But that doesn't mean they are an adult either. They're in a weird in-between state called an adolescent or a teenager.

Then again, I don't think an eighteen year old is really an adult. Hell, I still don't feel like an adult!

Regardless, in no way do I condone sexual activity or a relationships between an actual adult and an actual minor with more than a couple years between them. I am not young, but I myself was involved with a man who was 28 when I was 14, I met him in person when I was 16 and he was 30, and we had sex. I didn't feel like a victim at the time, but in retrospect I know I was.

I assume overall you are talking about my Victor Rookwood x MC fics and my Rookwood x Anne Sallow fic, but it seems you've made a lot of presumptions about them without reading them. In neither scenario have I presented the interactions as morally correct, wholesome, or even desirable. In the first scenario, the reader is MC, so you can be whatever age you want. No, I don't "age up" anything. If people want to age themselves up when imagining the scenario that's fine, but since it's fiction I don't see a problem. Nothing is presented in a positive light here.

If you'd read Devoutly, you'd know that romanticizing the relationship between Rookwood and Anne is the last thing I'm doing. I am presenting it as the nuanced, fucked up thing that it is. There is nothing glamourized there. Really. Please read it, because it's a very important fic to me.

There are two major points to be made here, and the fact that rarely are people actually glamourizing such relationships in their works is one of them. But even if you find a "Happily Ever After" scenario that involves rape or statutory rape or whatever, the important point is it's fiction.

What people write in a fictional context should not be presumed to represent what they want to happen, or what they support happening in real life. In the Harry Potter fandom, which I come from, fiction featuring underage characters involved with significantly older adults is common and rarely met with this kind of reaction. I am not sure when people became so moralistic about fiction.

Fiction is a place to explore our deepest, darkest fears and fantasies, and also to make things happen solely to be shocking or provocative (guilty as charged). We don't need an excuse more than "because I wanted to."

In the real world, I am (of course) very much against rape. I'm very much against sexually-exploitative relationships involving real people. I am even against eighteen-year-olds participating in pornography, the pornography industry in general. I could go on. In fact, I have spent much of my life being way too upset about these things, which is probably why I write a lot of fucked up stuff.

But even if you write fucked up stuff just because you enjoy doing so, it's not wrong. It doesn't make you a bad person. It's fiction.

The onus is on you, as a sensitive person, to avoid media that upsets you - it is not mine to avoid creating such media or to hide it from you, and I will not accept that responsibility.

As far as the patriarchy assertion goes - like it or not, I do believe that 95%+ of adult men would have sex with a sixteen year old girl if they wouldn't get in trouble for it. This is just my experience with men. Is it right? OF COURSE NOT! I hate that. Is it realistic though? Am I only allowed to write things that are aligned with my own values and the law as determined by any such government? There we disagree.

These are pixels on a screen - words on a page. No humans are involved. Even in its most gratuitous form, fiction is fiction. You can like it or dislike it - you do not have to embrace everything out there, but I do believe you should support my right to create it, and you should definitely not be assuming that someone's creative writing reflects their own values.

I hope this helps clear things up.

[dojae-huh]

Why SM "doesn't protect" its idols. An explanation from a corporate lawyer. Google translate again. (source)

Why "SM does nothing" or how to find the guilty in the real world.

From the point of view of a fan and fan feelings, of course, you want justice for Seunghan, because he did not deserve all the wave of hatred towards himself and "friends" who are ready to leak personal correspondence for the sake of profit, so you can always help and report hateful comments or support the guy who is being bullied for literally living a normal teenage life.

From another point of view, in situations like this, I always find it very funny to watch the wave of fan hatred towards agencies that allegedly "do nothing". Just today, I have come across several comments indignant at why SM does not punish haters/sasaengs/choose the right one. And as a corporate lawyer with a focus on litigation in a company from a related field, I also want to make my contribution. So, why do agencies "do nothing"?

Let's start with the basic legal concepts, the cornerstones, which everyone somehow forgets at such moments. An idol is an ordinary citizen of his country, the same individual with equal rights before the law, like his sasaeng or hater, like an ordinary office worker of the agency. SM is a legal entity. An ephemeral concept created by capitalism for the purpose of carrying out activities for the purpose of making a profit. Any entertainment agency is equal in its rights with an ordinary grocery store on your street, a restaurant or an entire dental clinic, which are also legal entities. Got it?

Now let's delve a little deeper into the boring story of how this situation actually looks. A hypothetical hater leaks personal photos and private correspondence of an idol on a social network. Who does this harm first of all? An individual. From a legal point of view, in this case alone, several completely different types of offense can be distinguished (which are provided for by the provisions of the Korean Law on the Protection of Personal Information, the Law on the Promotion of the Use of Information and Telecommunication Networks and the Protection of Information, articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Korea): violation of the secrecy of correspondence, violation of privacy, dissemination of information defaming the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen, causing moral harm, causing damages. And any citizen has the right to protect their rights under the law in two ways: within the framework of civil and within the framework of criminal proceedings.

How does it work?

Within the framework of civil proceedings, a citizen can apply to the court with a claim for recovery of damages that were caused to him in connection with the dissemination of information defaming his honor, dignity and business reputation. For example, now the whole country is discussing the personal life of an idol and his public image has fallen so low that advertisers have terminated contracts, demanding a penalty, because now their product is being boycotted because of this idol. These are the idol's losses. The idol can also demand moral damages for the moral suffering caused, because he was worried, did not sleep at night and generally fell ill due to the disclosure of personal information. And the idol also has the right to demand a public refutation of information that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true. It is unlikely to prove this when videos and photos of the idol are posted online, right? After the idol makes these demands, the court, taking into account the evidence in the case file, in accordance with the principles of reasonableness, adversarial proceedings, and based solely on its own conviction, will make a decision indicating whether the case file really contains evidence that confirms that the idol has suffered moral harm and material damage, and how much money the idol will receive from the hater as compensation.

What are the pitfalls here? There are many. The idol must first find out who is distributing this information. It is unlikely that anyone can file a lawsuit in court where the defendant will be listed as "Naver account owner *". Even if the idol sends a request to the office that owns the social network with a request to tell who the owner of the account is, no one will tell him anything, because this is personal data that is protected by law. What if the idol magically finds out the hater's personal data, but it turns out that he is a citizen of another country, permanently residing there? Well, good luck to a South Korean idol suing a hater from Brazil. This is just one hypothetical example, but when there are ten, a hundred, a thousand such haters? Litigation becomes impractical. If the hater does live in Korea, and miraculously the idol finds out his personal information in order to sue him, then a long process begins that cannot be resolved in one hearing. The number of hearings increases and the gap between their dates increases too, because the parties need to prepare documents that will prove their position, and the court has a schedule of hearings

review of cases, because there are thousands of court cases, an idol is not the only one: today there is a divorce, and tomorrow a dispute over construction. Therefore, when once a year some idol or entertainment company issues a press release that “the hater was punished in accordance with the court’s decision,” no one notices how the statements contain no information about the essence of the case or the date when it happened. Because the hater could have written a controversial comment a year, two, or three years ago.

Another option is criminal proceedings. Under South Korean law, such cases are considered exclusively at the request of a citizen, because this is a private law charge. That is, no one except an idol can go to the police and think that their statement will be accepted for consideration and a criminal case will be opened. The idol attaches to the statement all the information he has about the unidentified person - here they are, the blessed screenshots with insults that are sent to Kwanya 119 - and then… That's it. The idol can no longer do anything, because now only the police have the powers established by law: they will find out the personal data of the owners of social networks upon official requests (here, by the way, the idol will be able to get acquainted with the case materials, find out the details of the account owner and also go to court with a civil lawsuit!) and if suddenly this turns out to be a resident of Korea, then the investigators can quite happily initiate a criminal case, go and have a conversation with this person, offer to apologize to the idol in order to try to resolve the issue peacefully. Or otherwise, transfer the case to the prosecutor. The prosecutor will look at the materials collected by the investigators and decide whether there is enough evidence to charge in court. Insufficient - the case will be returned for further investigation and the consideration period will be delayed; sufficient - the prosecutor will go to court with the charges, where the situation will repeat itself. The court will again look at the case materials, listen to the parties and decide whether there is any violation in the person's actions and to what extent.

Notice how there is no agency anywhere in these chains? But it is all very simple. Because legally they are not a party to any of the above relationships. Yes, the artist who has a contract with the label is harmed and this affects the artist's image, because the idol on stage and the person behind him are inextricably linked, and this also directly affects the group, namely, what is legally called business reputation. But within the framework of legal concepts and the evidentiary process, there is a distinction between causing damage to the business reputation of a group, all rights to which belong to the agency, and damage to the honor, dignity and business reputation of an idol, that is, an ordinary citizen who, by law, must protect his rights himself, just as a sasaeng or hater, or an ordinary office worker would protect his rights… Therefore, most often agencies, understanding this entire chain that directly affects their profits, and also taking into account the incompetence of idols, whom the label raised almost from childhood, taking all the responsibilities of their independent life upon itself, create things like e-mail boxes or Kwanya 119, where they can send documents, which will then be reviewed through lawyers for the advisability of working with them. An agreement is concluded between the idols and the agencies or a power of attorney is issued, according to which agency representatives can file lawsuits on behalf of the idols, find out about the progress of the police case on their behalf. And agencies also write letters to social networks, forums or news portals demanding that they remove articles or comments that violate the law, but they do this in a claim procedure that does not oblige anyone, so a social network may well refuse a label if the article or comment complies with their site usage policy and does not violate the law. No entertainment agency has the right or authority to punish anyone, demand money outside of court, and even more so to find commentators from the Internet and threaten them with reprisals. Because here a completely different process of close attention from government agencies to the company itself and their activities, and not to their idols, begins. This is a labor-intensive process that most often does not bring any benefit, because it is impossible to disclose specific data about the case and the personal data of haters, and template statements that the agency will take measures in accordance with the law or that someone has already been punished will not benefit anyone, because they do not contain specifics and any confirmation for the public. Otherwise, every entertainment agency in Korea could issue statements every Saturday stating that five or six haters were punished in the previous week. Would there be any level of trust in such statements? Not to mention that no legal entity is required to disclose such information or report on their legal cases, and fans demand statements from labels simply… because they think everyone owes them something. Of course, some agencies issue such statements once in a while.

per quarter. But for people who understand the whole process, such statements are just empty replies.

I could provide links to the provisions of the law and Korean law textbooks for each action I described, and even translate them from Korean, but then this post would look more like a thesis on Korean procedural law, and I'm too lazy, so here's a short conclusion: are entertainment agencies obliged to do anything in such situations? According to the law, no, but they will do it anyway, because it affects their profits and the image of their artists, whom they want to keep for many years. How effective are the methods for solving these problems? Well, not as effectively as we would like, but this is a problem of the law and its enforcement, not entertainment agencies. Should fans report all this? The expression "a bad result is also a result" does not work here, so no, there is no point in this. But why agencies (don't) issue statements regarding scandals at a certain time and in certain wording is a question that needs to be decided not only by lawyers, but also by PR people and public relations specialists. However… this is a completely different story.

[wobblyprinny]

Just Some Random Thoughts....

You ever have those days where seeing/hearing/reading one thing leads you down the rabbit hole of a million and one other thoughts that, no matter what you do, won't leave?

Yeah, that was me these last couple of days.

I won't go into too much detail seeing as I'm both not sure how interesting philosophy is to other people and all this is more off the cuff than any structured discourse on my part.

But, basically, the gist of it comes down to things like....

'If we haven't succeeded in fully normalizing things like gender and race equality yet, then I'm not at all surprised we haven't that we are getting push back on things like LGBTQ+ or trans right'.... to say nothing of consang relationships between consenting adults or anyone further afield of that.

I mean, it's easy to talk about 'freedom and equality for all', 'universal human rights' or 'free speech', but...

I honestly don't think we value those things as a species nearly as highly as we claim to.

For example, in the UK, even though there's no general 'right to free speech' in British law, the right to 'freely express yourself' is protected, at least since 1998. Kinda crazy to me growing up here in the US, but then... looking into a little more, a lot of the censorship can and will be deployed in the name of the 'public good'. You can imagine the number of loophole abuse scenarios that can come up with vague logic like 'corrupting public morals/peace' and all that but there you go. Of course, you also have cases like the race related stuff going on with the anti-immigration riots rocking the country since earlier this month and the disinformation about the suspect who committed the attack that sparked them, which itself was more of a symptom of some way bigger underlying issues... but my point is, you do have instances where censorship tactics have sound reasoning, at least on the surface and in specific cases...

The major questions then, I think, would be, 'In what circumstances, specifically, and in what way?'

Again, loophole abuse abounds, like the UK police cracking down on more than they should as far as what I would consider 'free speech' as an American. But again, the UK doesn't actually have free speech rights.

All that being said, and even though there are cases where censorship is deployed, it ranks 23 out of 180 countries according data collected by 'Reporters Without Borders'.

Contrast that with here in the US where the freedom of speech is legally protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution and even ranking in the top 10 for countries whose citizens value free speech (at around 78 according to the the free speech index, iirc).

However, free speech here in the US has always been a slippery slope.

For one, you have the fact that, up until just after and even to this day to some degree, the concept of 'protected free speech' only really applied to anything passed by federal/national law, which meant that local and state laws were free to censor the crap out of you if they so wished. Of course, these attitudes changed after the Civil War where any form of governmental censorship was looked at with more scrutiny. Of course, I'd argue that Americans more generally don't really trust the government to begin with and never really have.

But I digress.

So, more recent cases of heavy censorship include the so called 'Red Scare' of the 1950's to pretty much any moral panic movement in the history of ever where slogans like 'think of the kids' comes to mind.

This is best exemplified in the 1973 Supreme Court case of 'Miller v. California' which ruled the First Amendment does 'not' protect speech/expressions that could be considered 'obscene'.

Not only that, but free speech protections do not extend to corporations, just those under the law. So yeah, say you have a view that supports Palestine(NOT Hamas. I really hate that people conflate the two) or expresses views that criticize the Israeli government and those views gets known... Censorship out the ass and you could very well lose your job.

So, even though we in the US rank high on lists that value free speech and have said rights protected under the law... in practice, we do a crappier job about upholding those values than a country that has no such rights in their law code.... ranking at 55 out of 180 countries in the same 2024 'Reporters Without Borders' index.

More recent examples include the Pro-Palestine protests at the DNC and the recent rejection to even allow a Palestinian-American to speak at the DNC even though they let the family member of one of the hostages Hamas too... giving only hte Israeli perspective on the issue.

My points here, are just like in the case of the 'Red Scare' of the 50's and the obvious loophole abuse of precedents like 'Miller v. California' where you can just call something obscene and therefore censor it with some nice sounding but logically fragile reasoning, then it's no wonder we haven't moved very far on the path to normalizing things that really should have been non-issues literally hundreds of years ago seeing as gay, trans, and consang relationships have been around for as long as human civilization has.

Even worse is the tendency to pendulum on some of these issues... Periods of time where such behavior was seen as unequivocally 'normal'.

If anything, we've swung too far in the other direction where the only real and 'acceptable' response is to react negatively.... which is not helped by our collective tendency to be reactive rather than proactive.

... And that's not even getting into stuff like 'human rights'.

Anyway, sorry. I just... had some thoughts and this is where they took me and I didn't want them stuck in my head....

[seonghwasblr-moved]

aw cute you only post anons that agree with you. guess i couldn't have expected better.

anyway sometimes we have to be adults and face down things that may gross us out or be morally reprehensible to form real, grounded opinions on them. i didn't want to watch it based on what i heard but i did because i couldn't form an opinion based on other people's out of context screenshots and not once did it cross any lines into pedophilic content. people were blowing it out if proportion.

the point is the world doesn't revolve around twitter discourse and it's highly unlikely they knew anything about the author's behaviour before turning on the show. also "the way they talk about it"??? only woozi praised it. soobin said he watched it and wouldn't recommend it. mingi just said he watched it recently without giving his opinion. calling yourself a fan and then jumping at the chance to attack him over something that's been exposed as a bunch of lies is so shitty. please learn some critical thinking skills and stop hurling "pedophile" at people as if it isn't an actual legal accusation that has WORLDS of trauma bound up in it. actual victims deserve better than your wilful ignorance

Please tell me where I called the idols pedofiles. I only called the author of anime/manga a pedofile. I would NEVER call someone a pedofile for watching/reading an anime. All I said was I find it problematic that you would talk about a show like this to your fans, when you know a big part of them are probably underage. I also never said any of them praised the show. I said, Soobin said it was disturbing and didn't recommend it, and that from that, I understand that he understood how problematic the show is. I don't know where you understood that I attacked anyone, but okay. I can be a fan of someone and still criticize them, when I don't agree with their behavior or similar. I also explicitly said, that I didn't know the context of the Mingi mention, and therefore I didn't want to explicitly state any opinion on that.

I don't think "being an adult and facing things that may gross us out" includes watching a show with weird undertones, but okay. To me it is enough to read about the show, understand the criticism and then form an opinion. Each to their own I guess.

I'm not sure why my opinion matters so much to you, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Again, I don't believe that what you consume of media always equals your morals. I do however believe, that when you talk about the media you consume, you also open up for other people to critize it and you for watching it.

Also to make it clear, once again, I would never call an idol a pedofile for this. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but please let me know, so I can change the wording of it. I wouldn't want others to get the same misunderstanding.

[greatwyrmgold]

I just want to vent about my dad on a website I know he doesn't use. (He's a Reddit/Facebook man.)

These are two texts from our D&D group's groupchat. In it, Dad reacts to finding out that WotC hired the literal Pinkertons to intimidate someone who got sold the wrong trading cards by criticizing the guy who the Pinkertons intimidated.

This is typical for my dad. When these tales of corporate misdeeds happen, Dad always defends the corporations. If they are not breaking the law, he takes that as evidence that they're in the right. If they are breaking the law, he tries to downplay the severity of the crime. He's a corporate bootlicker, and I don't think he realizes it.

This bootlicking is a bit ironic, since my dad is a "Don't Tread on Me" libertarian. Well, if you asked he'd say he had disagreements with the Libertarian party, but he's never explained exactly what those disagreements are. Which is actually pretty similar to his relationship with the Republican party; Dad will say he holds Democrats and Republicans in equal disdain, but he's complained long and often about Democrats with their gun control and Obamacare and taxes. By contrast, the worst thing he's said about Donald Trump is that he doesn't protect gun rights.

Now, I don't think Dad actually agrees with the alt-right. He's voiced support for minority rights and stuff, even if it's in a milquetoast "We've basically achieved equality, and also the government shouldn't stop businesses from discriminating because the free market will put them out of business" way. But when he talks about politics, he doesn't complain about conservatives. He complains about liberals.

And he talks about politics a lot. My dad might espouse disinterest in the country's political parties, but he has strong opinions about politics. His political discussions, which he made sure to include me and my brother in, are a big part of why I care about politics as much as I do—and to his credit, he encouraged us to think for ourselves instead of just following his politics. I too was a dumbass libertarian for a while, but when I was presented with new evidence, I could change my mind.

But, well. Having a politically-opinionated dad, while being politically-opinionated in the opposite direction is a bit of a problem. And in case you didn't pick up from the way I described my dad defending WotC and also have not noticed any other political post I've made on this blog, I am firmly opposed to capitalism in general and capitalists fucking over employees (or other individuals who annoy them) in specific. So there's a bit of tension there. And I don't know what to do with it.

So far, I've mostly tried to avoid it. That's successful most of the time, but not all the time. Everything is political; even if my dad wasn't the kind of guy who talks with his kids about the president's health care policy or California gun control, politics would come up sooner or later. The friend in the group chat wasn't trying to be political; he just relayed an interesting news story relevant to the group's shared interests. But corporate malfeasance is a political issue, whether you want it to be or not. Politics are gonna come up.

I guess I could argue with him, point out that WotC's actions are morally bankrupt, no matter how legal they are. Question why making a video about some cards that you bought is grounds for getting goons sent to your house. Hell, maybe I should do that, push back against shitty political ideas. But what would the result of that be? I'd get mad, my dad would get mad, neither of us would change our minds, and it's not like the rest of the group would care.

For now, I guess I'm venting my frustrations on Tumblr. I hope that's a healthy outlet.

[kawhh]

i just skimmed all the drama from tonight and oh:( im so sorry about all those anons. i'm honestly too tired to add anything productive to the argument that you haven't already said but there's nothing wrong with your content. you tag it, you don't force anyone to read it, and they should just block if they don't like it.

i love your content so much, please never let people like that discourage you. they seriously just don't understand. i get stuff all the time for being into men older than me even though it's legal (of course legality doesn't always equal morality but yk) and it just hurts but it's also so annoying. they don't know anything about me or what ive been through to be into the type of men i like, in age and in terms of 'dark' stuff. i completely understand people who dont like it, everyone has limits but people shouldnt be making their limits into the limit. i think it's always people like us who are into this sort of thing that are more understanding and accepting. i don't even wish for other people to be understanding, i just wish they would lay off. i promise you someone else's sex life or love life or kinks or the type of literature they're into does not effect you.

I SAILED MYSELF DOWN THE RIVER ANSWERING THE FIRST ONE, BUT I'VE NEVER CACKLED SO HARD AT BEING SHAMED FOR FINDING A 25 YEAR OLD HOT AT 27.

It's okay! Honestly I'm glad, it's let me talk to so many other people and I truly feel loved. My heart is full. (My heart is also full of simmering rage for some asks in there)

I hope I haven't come across as too much of a dick with any of my replies, I just got sick of people asking me shit just trying to have a "gotcha!" moment for some weird reason.

I'll understand if people do unfollow me or get mad for my moderation rant.

Things in life aren't black or white. They aren't always one thing or the other.

I've seen other people start to get shit for it before me and I'm not fucking having it. I'm not having people shamed. Block me, block them, block whoever the fuck you want.

I don't care what opinions people have and I'll listen to them, I think I've made that clear, but listening doesn't mean it becomes my opinion.

I've had so many people thankful that I even give them a space to talk about things. I'll start giving out drunk aunt advice too. My asks are open.

[leviathan-supersystem]

You're doing it again, saying someone's opinion can be "closer or further from accurate."

well that's my opinion 😌 and it's just as accurate as yours 😏 (according to you, that is. according to me my opinion is more accurate than yours.)

There is no accuracy because there is no measure for accuracy.

if someone says "if we legalize gay marriage society will collapse into blood drenched chaos" then there is in fact a measure for accuracy, when we legalize gay marriage and that doesn't happen. and thus we can determine that was inaccurate.

There's always a judgment defining well-being, which is empty and foundationless. It's only an aggregate of empathy, learned morality, and personal observations.

if it's founded on empathy, learned morality, and personal observations, then it's not "foundationless" and in fact I'd say empathy and personal observations are a great foundation for judging well-being. whether "learned morality" is a good foundation depends on where you're learning if from (which is what this post is about).

Religion is more efficient at communicating morality than anything else because 80% of people on Earth are religious, and most of them derive some or most of their values from their faith. It doesn't matter whether it's factually grounded, because people believe it and live according to it.

okay but now we're not really talking about fiction. we're talking about religion. and- you may be surprised to learn- religious people usually don't consider their religious beliefs to be fiction. usually quite insulted by that suggestion, in fact. you've shifted the discussion away from overt fiction as a goalpost moving tactic because you can't defend the notion of fiction novels as ethically probative, which is what the post was about.

religious people are also usually quite hostile to the idea that all ethical opinions are equally correct. like when you're going around saying religion is fiction and all ethical claims are equally valid, most religious people will correctly identify you as someone fundamentally hostile to everything they hold dear.

like, on some level, you must realize "no ethical claim is any more correct than any other. religion is fiction. also, we should use religion as a way to impart ethical values on people" is a bewildering and incoherent set of beliefs to hold, right? you must realize that on some level.

People don't generally care about provable truth. They care about what feels true.

that's funny, because I care a lot about the fact that what your saying is completely unsupported by evidence. it sounds like you're projecting because *you* just care about what "feels true" whereas myself and most people care about what's the evidence shows is actually true. including religious people, who though they may disagree with me on the facts, don't disagree on the idea that facts are important.

It would be better if everyone was scientifically minded, but they're not, and it's useless to place that expectation on others. Materialists could confront this and use it to their advantage, but they typically dryly and stubbornly try to convert others to their cold and scientific outlook of the world. Many find this mechanical dogmatism unappealing.

this is an utter strawman. you don't need to subscribe to an atheistic materialist viewpoint to think that real events have more weight in ethical arguments than the plot points of fictional narratives, as evidenced by the many people with religious and spiritual beliefs agreeing with this post in the notes. the point of this post isn't to convert people to atheism, and treating "don't get your ethics from fiction" as synonymous with atheism is much more insulting to religious people than anything I've said.

furthermore, religious people generally are actually receptive to factual arguments relating to human well-being, because most religious people take it as a given that divine edicts are good for human well-being. so for example anti-gay christians didn't just say we should have anti-gay laws because god says so, they said god's anti-gay edicts would result in better human well-being, and that failing to follow god's anti-gay edicts would cause blood-drenched chaos.

and this position wasn't changed by converting anti-gay christians to a new pro-gay religion, nor using their existing christian religion to convince them to support gay rights, it came from using fact-based arguments relating to overall well-being, and when (some) christians were convinced that being pro-gay was better for human well-being, some christians changed their beliefs about god's stance on gay people of their own volition, because they take it as a given that god supports human well-being. so religious people are capable of being won over by fact-based arguments without needing to be converted to a materialist atheist standpoint.

moreover, the fact that people who use religion as their main source of ethics ended up generally being on the wrong side of history when it comes to gay rights puts a pretty big hole in your claim that religion is the best method for teaching ethics. but if we were to take your argument that all ethics are equally valid seriously, that would imply that putting gay people to death is no better or worse than having legal gay marriage. personally, I disagree on that, I think it's bad to execute gay people. hopefully you respect my opinion.

while it's all well and good to teach people how to understand and criticize the messages and morals in fictional media, i think it's ultimately more important to teach people that they shouldn't be getting their understanding of ethics from fiction full stop period.

[collymore]

Utterly disgusting and quite thoroughly, revoltingly sick!

By Stanley Collymore

Purposely mixing your supposedly known biological father's sperm with your own, to ensure that your partner gets pregnant, posing an obvious possibility, that you basically either knew, or effectively suspected that at best, you possibly have a low sperm count, or are crucially, literally azoospermiac is very reprehensible. And any genuinely, moral individual will fully recognize that as the case.

Seemingly, however, Britain is now so thoroughly morally and simply discernibly debased, that clearly even High Court judges are essentially a crucial element undoubtedly of this sick debauchery! For obviously what else can one call it when evidently a senior UK judge, literally sickeningly in his ruling naturally condones this undoubtedly, nakedly unequivocally debased concept - having asininely ruled in this bloke's favour that him having naturally, registered himself crucially but quite dubiously as the biological father of this undeniably very unfortunate child, he basically distinctly then doesn't have to take a DNA test to ascertain and legally unquestionably ascertain that he's specifically, the putative biological father, of this distinctive child, and simply, not its bastard half brother.

(C) Stanley V. Collymore 15 February 2024.

Author's Remarks: Conduct and universal general behaviour quite characteristic of and wholly epitomizing the utmost decadence of broken Britain and quite llkemindedly so the routine behavioural patterns of the American Deep South!

Not in the very least different from the quite obsessive and utterly delusional, incestuously inbred notion firmly and deeply ingrained itself, within Britain's purportedly monarchical and likewise other equally so, distinctly hereditary families, and has obviously, distinctly and rather literally been the case for generations; and which, consequently to all sentient and intelligent persons, but quite obviously not to this odious hereditary bunch and their undeniably evidently fawning and unquestionably categorically brownnosing, distinctly sycophantic acolytes, categorically in their individual and equally collective sick minds determine, and effectively generally likewise also, consolidates what they simply and essentially very passionately, but clearly pathetically, regard as treasured "royal" blood! Just how insanely can anyone get!

Amidst all this, and from my own very personal perspective, all such persons would both individually and collectively automatically and constructively simply become appropriate fuel, considering the human detritus that they distinctly and undoubtedly are, evidently for our power stations; no different essentially from their detrital kind serving that very same useful purpose, requisite to the same requirements, circa the 1930s and middle 1940s quite discernibly of Auschwitz, Dachau, Belsen Bergen and other such, rather discernibly, relevant and indubitably, commendable power utilities.

Meanwhile, and quite significantly so, from my own personal perspective, all those who're asininely castigating the respective local authority of this vilely odious threesome, of quite decadent reprobates, for taking them to court, are either seriously need their heads obviously examining or are actually themselves unquestionably, actually carbon copies of these undoubtedly intensely very immoral, lowlife scum; significantly, simply not really all that hard to correctly guess or accurately ascertain in Brexit Britain and equally quite significantly bastardized Britain; truly in which innumerable numbers of this country's lowlife scum aping the monarchy and hereditary, effectively basically distinctly breed each other incestuously or specifically obviously haven't the foggiest notion who their biological parents are!

The council acted because the matter became a benefits issue - just as to discerning minds it was always going to be as such individuals rarely work and quite vaingloriously but delightedly love being maintained ongoingly at the expense of the hardworking workers, who conscientiously pay their taxes. Inevitably, and simply not in the least bit surprising, this couple has split and now they're all of them, granddad and effectively the  putative biological father are all claiming benefits as the "parents" of that child. And therefore, quite unsurprisingly from you caustic scum having a go at the council simply for sensibly going to court to get the requisite clarification naturally on this matter, you're up in arms because the action of this council, fearfully struck a raw nerve with yourselves! Hasn't it?

What discernibly odious scum you self-evidently are; actually allowed to procreate and accordingly infest the entirety of decent humanity with your puerile carnality!

[thatforgottenbasilisk]

something about shattered glass

Words: 1557 (AO3)

Summary:

Kurogiri remembers his dreams perfectly. He also knows exactly when he is dreaming, and when he is awake. They are always the same: a conversation with a boy who is eternally seventeen.

My twenty second bad things happen bingo entry! Prompt: Restraining Bolt

Kurogiri sometimes wonders if it's unusual for him to be aware of when he's dreaming.

He's heard idle talk of "lucid dreaming," only in passing, in inane small talk that people make around the bar. They say it's about knowing when you're dreaming, and being able to influence your environment within the dream- but he's never known a time when he hasn't been aware of when he's dreaming and when he isn't. Maybe that's another thing that he should write off as another oddity caused by his unknown past, or "unusual" quirk.

He also has the same dream every night, with little variation. Is that unusual too, he wonders? Do others have different dreams? How do they keep track?

It's nothing too pressing, of course, and there's no use dwelling on it. It's an interesting question, something neutral that takes up his thoughts when there's nothing else to do.

He supposes that dreams are always odd, no matter who's having them. Maybe his own are that much more so, due to the circumstances around his brain and memories and everything. Amnesia may cause changes in dreams, changes in brain operation, personality, he knows this. The Doctor told him that when he awoke for the first time in his memory.

It was a long time ago, now; about fifteen years since Sensei found him, presumably saved him from some sort of awful conditions- he'd never asked about his past, even when he'd had the chance to. He's curious, of course, though not nearly to the extent that he sometimes thinks that he should be. He's been content where he is, serving drinks in his bar and raising Tomura into a good successor for Sensei's empire.

He doesn't think it's anything less than a fair trade, for him to serve the man who saved his life. He doesn't mind the work, and he is proud of some of the things that Tomura has grown to accomplish in his life now that he's grown up.

He thinks he used to hate it, though; something in him used to scream at the very idea of working for a villain, though he hasn't got the faintest idea why. He thinks that whatever incident caused the amnesia may have also had an effect on his moral compass- or perhaps that change has come with circumstance.

Something still irks him about doing the dirty work himself, though; he's rarely asked to dispose of anything untoward, but on the occasion that he is, he's always much more reluctant to comply. It's like something older than himself is fighting the very idea, like some other person inside of him is so violently against it that it affects the rest of his reasoning so heavily. No, no, he mans his bar and cares for his ward, anything other than that is... outside of his job description, shall he say.

At the moment, though, he merely provides transportation for Tomura and his operations, which he isn't nearly as opposed to as Sensei's, possibly because he views Tomura as being in his care, still, even though he is now a legal adult.

Kurogiri isn't doing any of that at the moment, though. He finishes wiping down the counter, and arranges the barstools on top of it, the same as he does every night; he looks over the room, making sure he hasn't missed anything, and flips the lights off. He's sure that Tomura is still wide awake in his room, but that's nothing of concern at the moment. He gets himself ready for bed, and merely raps on Tomura's bedroom door to remind him that it is getting late and time does, indeed, still pass when he plays his games.

-----

He is standing in a plain white room. In front of him is an equally white table, with two steaming mugs in front of the two chairs sitting opposite each other. He sits in the one on his right; the one on the left is already occupied.

"Shirakumo." He nods at the boy sitting across from him in the other chair, reaching out for the mug in front of him. He seems much calmer than he used to be, when they'd first met within this realm of sleep.

"Kurogiri." Shirakumo nods back, but does not make eye contact. He rarely does, now, this quiet avoidance having come with the calmness hard-won from time. Still, Kurogiri is glad that they are no longer coming to blows; his days are exciting enough, he does not need more conflict in his dreams.

"Any interesting crimes today?" Shirakumo asks with no small amount of venom, and Kurogiri knows that tonight will not be one of the pleasant nights. Sometimes, on occasion, he and Shirakumo have been able to get along; they haven't done so since before Tomura's USJ attack, but they did, once. He suspects that Shirakumo holds a grudge over his participation in that.

"Only if you count unlicensed quirk use. I threw some brawlers out of my bar, otherwise, no. Today has been quiet."

Shirakumo brings his mug to his lips, and says nothing. Kurogiri does the same.

It's tea, this time. Oolong. One of the few varieties that he dislikes. He suspects that it may have been Shirakumo's preferred variety.

"He's older than I was. He's older than I ever got to be. Why..." Shirakumo trails off, not sure in what he wants to ask other than "why?" He still isn't looking at Kurogiri, eyes trained on a random point to the side.

"Why was he so lucky?"

"No. I know he wasn't. Why am I still... why was I ever your equal? You spoke to me as a fellow adult, when nobody else did, even in life- you know what you are. You will always be older than me, always growing and changing, and I will always be the same."

Kurogiri puts his mug down. He'd been holding it for its warmth, but the question demands his full attention. It demands empty hands.

"Because you did not deserve this. To be me. I did not deserve to lose my memory, to wake up with only the knowledge that something had been done to me, but you had it worse. You did not deserve to die."

"I'm not dead. My body is alive. You would know."

"Yet you are as static as a ghost. You are aware of what I live through, what I do, and yet you can do nothing about it. You cannot even make me aware of your presence until I am asleep. I am sorry, Shirakumo, but though you may not be dead, you are as good as."

Shirakumo holds still, eerily so. He appears to be contemplating his answer, turning it over in his head. Finally, he asks, "Do you know? Do you know what you are?"

Kurogiri sighs, softly, and replies, "An experiment gone wrong, I think. An accident. I was found like this- "

"No you weren't."

It's not like Shirakumo to interrupt. He didn't do it even back in the beginning, when he was angry and grieving for himself and everyone else he didn't know the fates of. He would choose not to listen, of course, but never did he interrupt.

"I remember what you don't, Kurogiri. I should have asked you years ago, if you remembered, but I guess I'd just assumed that you did. I'm... I don't think I should tell you. Now that I know."

Kurogiri is quietly confused. Just what could be so bad that Shirakumo feels the need to hide it from him?

"Very well. I was not found like this, then. Am I to assume that the Doctor had a hand in me, then? Sensei, perhaps?"

Shirakumo traces the edge of his mug with a finger, mulling over the questions. "... Yes. They did. I won't go into detail about it."

"... It does no good to dwell on the past."

"It doesn't, you're right."

"Still. I feel this information will be useful in the future. For Tomura."

Shirakumo's head darts up, looking Kurogiri in the eyes for the first time in a very long while. "Just what are you planning on doing? Why would he benefit from this?"

"It is always good to know who to trust, and who not to. He is as close to a son as any can get, Shirakumo. I will not put him in danger that can be avoided."

-----

Kurogiri sits bolt upright in his bed, the dream having come to a sudden and unceremonious end.

The clock still shows the time as being in the early hours of the morning, when neither he nor Tomura would normally be awake just yet. That's quite alright, in his opinion- it gives him enough time to prepare.

He knows that Sensei and the Doctor are planning something to do with Tomura. It has to do with encouraging him to kidnap one of the students in the UA Sports Festival, though he doubts that any particular student matters more than another.

He does not think that he wants this plan to come to pass.

It will be difficult, of course, to convince Tomura to abandon Sensei; more difficult still to hide the both of them. He will try it, though, because though Tomura is not technically his own, he is in all the ways that matter.

[redshiftsinger]

I think it's important to realize that sometimes there are two (or more) kinds of people, and what discourse you see might also depend on how curated your online experiences are. Particularly if you've previously blocked a bunch of the kind of person you found really annoying/shitty the last time there was a Whole Big Thing.

I don't harass people for writing HP fanfic. It's not giving JKR more money, so while I personally don't care to engage with that fandom these days, it's not something I think automatically makes someone a "bad person". I do think people who take it to "disney adult" degrees are baffling, because I really don't think it holds up to adult standards for good writing, but that isn't a stance based on "JKR is a terrible person", it's based on "why are you still THAT hung up on a piece of mediocre kids' fiction in your 30's, there are so many better-written things to enjoy with an adult brain, including plenty of stuff with the same amount of nostalgia potential because it was also originally made for kids but it actually holds up when you return to it as an adult".

So I'm also not going to take the stance that people must stop writing Good Omens fanfic, and I'm not going to say it's baffling to enjoy Gaiman's work as an adult because unlike HP, it DOES hold up in basic quality. A large amount of it was originally intended for adult audiences, and "author is a bad person" does not equal "therefore their books suck" -- It's possible to write a mediocre book while being a good person or a bad one, and it's possible to write an excellent book while being a good person or a bad one.

My stance on both things may not always be consistent with the entire Discourse At Large, but it's internally consistent, and I don't appreciate that consistent stance being called hypocritical based on something someone else has done or said. Which may not be what you meant to do, but you DID reblog this from me, so whether you meant that commentary to be personal or not, it's feeling a little personal. It would be hypocritical of me, personally, to be willing to let people do what they want regarding HP fanfic but get mad at people for continuing to write Good Omens fanfic.

It's also worth mentioning that there's one key difference between JKR and Gaiman: one of them is currently actively spending their money on hate campaigns aimed at passing legislation to oppress an entire marginalized demographic, and the other is not. The moral obligation to withhold money/attention from someone who you know will use it to actively and intentionally try to get oppressive laws passed is simply not the same degree as that to punish a guy for having really shitty sexual ethics by destroying his career (to be clear: I think he deserves to be blacklisted from fame, but I don't think it's practical or reasonable to try to enforce "therefore don't engage with any of his work at all even in ways that don't give him money"). And that doesn't mean that really shitty sexual ethics are just fine and no consequences are warranted whatsoever, of course (I shouldn't even have to fucking say that, but this is the Piss On The Poor site) but the scale of JKR's malice is an order of magnitude larger than Gaiman's selfishness, frankly. These two situations are not the same just because they bear a passing similarity in "formerly-beloved author exposed as a massive piece of shit". It's not "just misogyny" that the response is different. People sending death threats over writing HP fanfic IS wrong, but it's a little more understandable when you realize it may be coming from trans people who are actively being harmed *personally* by JKR's rampant bigotry, including but not limited to those who live in the UK and are facing actual legal bullshit aimed at legislating them out of existence or at least out of public spaces altogether, and who very reasonably see her as an existential threat to their own safety. As far as anyone knows at this point at least, Gaiman is only a threat if you're a vulnerable younger woman and you get close to him in some way so he has something to hold over your head. It's easier to behave rationally when you're not personally in danger. (Or maybe you're not seeing it this time because you've blocked more chronic drama llamas in between. I've definitely seen some bad takes on the Gaiman stuff, including jerks being nasty to people who are even so much as openly sad about stuff like Dead Boy Detectives getting canceled or, yes, still writing Good Omens fanfic.)

Neil Gaiman is still following the PR playbook

I'm so sick of how Neil Gaiman is continuing to manipulate the conversation while displaying ZERO accountability or remorse.

Do you think him leaking that he's apparently offering to step back from Good Omens Season 3 is a sign that he realizes he fucked up and is trying to make it right? Absolutely not.

What he's doing is making the first moves to launder his reputation so that he can keep making money off of his IP and, eventually, return to the spotlight. All of the overjoyed reactions here and elsewhere are part of that plan.

One part of that Deadline article really stuck out to me.

[Highlighted Text: Deadline understands Gaiman’s offer is not an admission of wrongdoing...

Gaiman’s position is that he denies the allegations and is said to be disturbed by them.]

This is what makes me think that it is actively irresponsible to publicly celebrate or advocate for the continuation of any media project that involves or enriches Gaiman. The fact that Amazon has even announced that Good Omens is on hold shows the credibility of the accusations. And yet Gaiman leaking this information suddenly puts them on the backfoot. "Just take the deal!" cries the fandom. Neil is no longer the bad guy, it's Amazon who are now denying you your comfort show. It's blatant manipulation and it sickens me that it might actually work.

Boosting Good Omens or Sandman or Coraline at this time is not a victimless crime. True, no one person is going to be the difference between Gaiman facing consequences or not. But it's public opinion that will truly determine whether his legacy will be impacted. That's why he's spent a considerable amount of money on the same PR firm as Russell Brand, Prince Andrew, Danny Masterson, and Marilyn Manson. Their specialty is helping rapists get their lives back.

So please think of the long-term implications of breathing a sigh of relief and going back to posting about Good Omens, or signing a petition that gives Gaiman a way out of finally facing the consequences of his own actions.

Yes, none of these shows were 100% made by Gaiman. It sucks that this is going to affect people other than him. But maybe he shouldn't have chosen to sexually abuse at least 5 women and very likely more. In a just world, you fuck around and find out.

[horizon-verizon]

Alicent provided House Targaryen with four healthy dragonriding Targaryens when the Targaryen bloodline was most vulnerable. In return, the least the Targaryens could do is allow her son to ascend the throne to allow House Hightower to have more power in exchange for them helping to create four healthy Targaryens. It’s really weird how Viserys referred to Aegon as Otto’s blood and Rhaenyra as his own blood when Aegon is also his child and therefore his blood.

The Hightowers behaved like any other family married into the royal family would, so I don’t get why they’re so hated. If Viserys didn’t want the Hightowers gaining more influence then he shouldn’t have married Alicent in the first place. It was stupid of him to expect one of the most powerful noble houses in Westeros to accept Targaryens of their blood just being spares instead of kings.

Disclaimer:

The parts about explaining feudalism is supposed to recontextualize how the hierarchy is not itself based on a good ethics system or fair/good morals, not to justify said hierarchy.

The system (unjustly) does not enforces nor expects the King to be equally sociopolitically or emotionally accountable to his Queen Consort.

................................................

A)

You make the mistake of thinking that in a feudal society/Westerosi/Andal culture, the King and his house are obligated to do anything for the Queen Consort except to:

not publicly humiliate her (and "humiliate" can look different according to the thing done) -- with Aegon IV, it was an exceptional situation since he targeted Naerys and Aemon simultaneously out of jealousy. As long as the King doesn't disinherit her children (if they are OLDER than his mistress' kids AND those mistress' kids ARE NOT legitimized) he is, by custom, not seen to be doing anything wrong

not deny her access to the appropriate clothing, shelter befitting her station, and food

take care of any child she brings forth

In feudal societies, the Queen Consort’s “job” is to provide heirs and like everyone else in the kingdom, she has to obey her husband’s orders. She is subject to him, she has no privileges or rights over him. 

The King/Monarch is always the legal/official/customary authority over literally everyone else. This is not a democracy nor an oligarchy. 

Therefore, it is actually Alicent who customarily should obey Viserys’ commands and declarations. That is her place in this hierarchy. *EDIT 12/16/24* The "law of the land" is not as solid over a monarch's head/word of law, and she knows that or no one would be pursuing kingship! *END OF EDIT*

You may think this is unfair (it obviously is), but:

Alicent was definitely a victim of her father & Viserys, but she blames the wrong person for it (Rhaenyra) bc the answer is to totally buy into the sexist and authoritarian ideals against female sexual and other sorts of autonomy--as Alicent fails into & chooses to perpetuate.

That is feudalism (the economic-socio-political system) AND absolute monarchy (the form of government). Again, she's fallen, then chooses, to sincerely buy into this system partially bc she has no choice but she also is much too inflexible to reflect on how she's essentially hurting herself and those around her or performing a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. That was the entire point! Alicen tis not unique, too, in how the patriarchal feudal system uses her up! Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, etc, too!

@rhaenyragendereuphoria states it quite simply HERE:

Feudalism is a system of servitude based on giving up your freedom in exchange of protection by a higher lord. It binds serfs to their lords, and lords to other lords all the way to the king. Yes, the whole “Protector of the Realm” is propaganda, but it’s what they believe the job of the king to be. They will give it to the strongest who can protect them from foreign invasions: and it’s hard to think of stronger than “family that literally owns dragons”. This fandom has feudal mentality completely upside down, thinking they loathe their subjugation because subjugation is an affront to freedom. Feudalism IS subjugation. What they loathe is to submit to a weakling. They despise (and hunt, and murder) the Free Folk, calling them “wildlings”, because they’d rather be free than be bound by feudal oaths of subjugation. Feudalism is the rule of “might makes right”. At its roots, it’s a military hierarchy of warlords who bind each others with feeble and fickle treaties until one of them decides to break them and attempt to conquer the others, and either wins or fails.

And in this POST:

However, no one is given rights in these societies, not even men - not the way we would define rights. Their idea of “right” is just as arbitrary as their idea of “freedom”. They are societies based on privileges, and privileges are always revocable, unlike rights.

Alicent has no independent “rights” apart from what I already listed above. At all. Especially since she isn't blood-related to Viserys. Rhaenyra has a birthright, but only once Viserys bestows it upon her. 

Alysanne was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant. Visenya & Rhaenys had more law-changing power than Alysanne did while being Consorts and not Regnant Queens, but Aegon’s word was final and he was the Monarch.

And all these women were the sisters of the then-Kings as well as their wives. You’d think that they would have more say, but no. They were (publicly) defer to their husband-kings' final words by Andal/feudal/monarchial custom and law.

There is no contract where it says that Viserys owes Alicent or the Hightowers -- all of them his subjects -- anything except military protection. This is feudalist absolute monarchy as GRRM sets it up and models after the common set up of real life feudal monarchies.

B)

You:

Alicent provided House Targaryen with four healthy dragonriding Targaryens when the Targaryen bloodline was most vulnerable.

Already addressed what a Consort’s repeated purpose is. 

a.

And when was this dynasty “most vulnerable”? By all accounts, Viserys’ court and reign was prosperous and peaceful (expect with the Stepstones and towards the end of his reign with Rhaenyra, Alicent, and their kids of course -- but the Stepstones war didn’t affect the actual subjects [peasant or nobles] of Westeros too much to make huge differences in and the stuff with his personal family happened insularly):

Many consider the reign of King Viserys I to represent the apex of Targaryen power in Westeros. Beyond a doubt, there were more lords and princes claiming the blood of the dragon than at any period before or since. Though the Targaryens had continued their traditional practice of marrying brother to sister, uncle to niece, and cousin to cousin wherever possible, there had also been important matches outside the royal family, the fruit of which would play important roles in the war to come. There were more dragons than ever before as well, and several of the she-dragons were regularly producing clutches of eggs.

[...]

The reign of the Young King, as the commons called him upon his ascent, was peaceful and prosperous. His Grace’s open-handedness was legendary, and the Red Keep became a place of song and splendor. King Viserys and Queen Aemma hosted many a feast and tourney, and lavished gold, offices, and honors on their favorites.

(“A Question of Succession”)

b.

If you mean Viserys having a girl as his only scion, I must remind you that:

the Targs had dragons (more dragons than ever and Aegon I/Visenya/Rhaenys, conquered Westeros with only 3)

there were no mentioned, burgeoning signs of rebellion against Rhaenyra until Alicent and Otto started to make waves (post by @theblackqveen)

While this is in the text:

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty.

After Viserys makes it clear that he won’t change his mind, it gets more settled, and again, we hear absolutely no mention of any real attempt to prepare against Rhaenyra except from the greens, or Rhaenyra's brothers, Alicent, and Otto and whatever nameless lackeys at court they used.

I wrote a 2 posts on HotD Alicent and Book!Alicent’s foolishness and narcissism.

c.

THIS is what GRRM says about laws of succession:

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases… but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars.

[...]

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms. The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

Still, if Alicent really is all about just following the rules and being “good” and sticks to her conservative background, then she would follow her husband’s order and not antagonize or contradict Rhaenyra. Because part of her Westerosi/Andal customs is that the King/Monarch is paramount and their word is law. *EDIT 12/16/24* But this is a critique of the argument of how Alicent tries to justify herself against Rhaenyra, and I do recognize her position as a woman who lived her entire life thinking that the woman who births boys "wins", that she'd feel affronted at being blocked from getting the one win women don't really get or one of the few granted to them....that's no excuse for child mutilation, "beefing" with another child, covering for rapist-sons, covering for kin-slaying sons, sending her disabled 8-19 yr old granddaughter out to kill another child, etc. Like, Rhaenyra is not an angel and she also def leverages her power as a queen against a child; while her losing several children is not an excuse for that plus she herself has never been as smallfolk-forward or politically radical, we do know that if she had ruled, there would not have been a war like the one we got nor any war most likely AND there would have been some good in her setting a political precedent for female rulers exisitng as worthier rulers. What happens w/Alicent bein Queen Consort and er son bein Kin? More of the exact same phenonmenon. So it's difficult to feel much sympathy on my end, esp when she didn't and wouldn't have lost much if Rhaenyra ruled but Rhaenyra more liekly would have had to fear moves from the greens bc the greens would be creating the enemies they'd have to kill off later as they were and always had been the usurping entities.*END OF EDIT*

She hypocritically doesn’t follow the law to such a particular "degree" or whatever that she ends up going against the authoritarian regime's ideals of King's rule and all that for her own stake...mostly unconciously.

So really, she’s really about power and misogyny at a unique level since she chooses to still make her rapist son King and reap the rewards from his ascendance (who’d follow along for her and her house’s interests more than Rhaenyra would). In the show, she goes after Rhaenyra for presumably sleeping with a man not her husband....while she gives up her feet to fulfill Larys' sexual titillation in exchange for information. So Rhaenyra's sleeping with another man in a consensual setting is wrong, but somehow Alicent allowing herself to be used (she is Queen Consort, she can definitely order Larys around) and silencing one of her son's victims is okay? Both of these things that support sexual abuse?

In the book, she turns against Rhaenyra when Rhaenyra is 10, and we can see the implication that they began to actually fight ever since then, so Alicent antagonizes a 10 year old. At the tourney where Daemon comes back in the book, there were Essosi people who witnessed the tension between the two.

And why does she do all that? Because she wants to empower herself, her son, and disempower Rhaenyra. At the same time, Alicent fosters an environment where this is justified.

This is why she is hated. Book!her tries to use Rhaenyra having extramarital sex as pretext for deposing her, yet she is the one going against the King’s word when it is obvious he doesn’t give three shits.

@theroguewyrm answers this ASK where the asker breaks down more of Alicent’s hypocrisy:

[...] Alicent as she has constantly held Rhaenyra accountable for having illegitimate relations with men but when it comes to her she can do it as she cloaks it under the hood of duty. The hypocrisy was also shown when Alicent tolerates every single sexual crime committed by her son in the premises of the Red Keep and outside. If it is benefitting her then she’ll permit them, she’ll stay quiet, but will simultaneously use Rhaenyra’s affair with Harwin to vilify her.

C)

You: 

It’s really weird how Viserys referred to Aegon as Otto’s blood and Rhaenyra as his own blood when Aegon is also his child and therefore his blood.

That’s because he distrusts Otto and knows Otto wants his grandkids/these green boys to inherit the throne. Otto went so far as to continue to demand/suggest Viserys change the order of succession several times until Viserys dismissed him:

The amity between Her Grace and her stepdaughter had proved short- lived, for both Rhaenyra and Alicent aspired to be the first lady of the realm...and though the queen had given the king not one but two male heirs, Viserys had done nothing to change the order of succession. The Princess of Dragonstone remained his acknowledged heir, with half the lords of Westeros sworn to defend her rights.

[...]

The matter had been decided, so far as King Viserys was concerned; it was not an issue His Grace cared to revisit. Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself. Loudest amongst her supporters was her father, Ser Otto Hightower, Hand of the King. Pushed too far on the matter, in 109 AC Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong. “This Hand will not hector me,” His Grace proclaimed.

(“A Question of Succession”)

Viserys was being a bad dad here, I agre (unless this is about Aegon deserving to be named King, in which case, no, this is exactly how Viserys should act). Otto was also stupid as fuck for this. Both him and Alicent. And when it comes to feudalism --and most political systems tbh--the personal and the political are one and the same often. Viserys never learned, I think, to separate himself from kingship because the position and society doesn’t allow for this metaphysical existence, or for it to be practiced seriously and without consequences.

And these are the details of Rhaenyra’s naming-as-heir:

Disregarding the precedents set by King Jaehaerys in 92 and the Great Council in 101, Viserys declared his daughter, Rhaenyra, to be his rightful heir, and named her Princess of Dragonstone. In a lavish ceremony at King’s Landing, hundreds of lords did obeisance to the Realm’s Delight as she sat at her father’s feet at the base of the Iron Throne, swearing to honor and defend her right of succession.

(“A Question of Succession”)

Now from a more "pragmatic" standpoint, these lords already gave their oaths to Rhaenyra. To go back on it, while maybe welcome to some lords and others have canonically doen so in canon, would also diminish Viserys’ monarchial word’s value because of how huge the chnages are, and how he seems (publicly) to value oaths in general. 

While Tyland Lannister says that he never took oaths, oaths are still very seriously taken and regarded generally in this society (or like to think of themselves as doing so).

Viserys was not the best dad all the time to all his kids. Doesn't make what Alicent did excusable.

D)

a.

You:

The Hightowers behaved like any other family married into the royal family would, so I don’t get why they’re so hated.

We’re talking about the greens, here, not the Hightowers. Two, though related, separate entities for now.

The greens (Alicent, Otto, Aegon, Aemond, Daeron [Helaena is not a real active player], and any court people who sided with Alicent even if they didn't participate or couldn't during the war) are hated because they are misogynists turned up 11, with an over-inflated sense of their own male privilege. It causes them to maim, rape, cause genocide, attempt assassination against Rhaenyra, even disregard and turn against each other. And at last, make a 10 year old watch as his mother is eaten alive by a dragon. 

*EDIT 12/16/24* Incorrect Statement *END OF EDIT*

BTW, you slipped. Aegon, Aemond, Helaena, and Daeron and the kids from Aegon/Helaena are all Targs. Not Hightowers.

b.

You:

If Viserys didn’t want the Hightowers gaining more influence then he shouldn’t have married Alicent in the first place. It was stupid of him to expect one of the most powerful noble houses in Westeros to accept Targaryens of their blood just being spares instead of kings.  

Here’s the text:

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty. Grand Maester Runciter was the first to urge His Grace to remarry, even suggesting a suitable choice: the Lady Laena Velaryon, who had just turned twelve.

(“A Question of Succession”)

We understand through this and through real life feudal politics that a king/Monarch was expected to have as many kids as possible so that in the event one or some die, the others could take their place.

The moment that Otto allowed Alicent to marry Viserys after Rhaenyra had been heir for 2 years, all of Alicent’s kids would have been “spares”. This would be true if Rhaenyra was male. 

Alicent and Otto both signed up for this, or really they pretended bc they depended on misogyny (them, tradition) toeventually send them to the top. So, I, in better conscience, can never stan if they depend on misogyny to send them forward, similar to when Rhaenyra uses classim and misogynoir against Nettles way later.

However, Rhaenyra is female, so Otto got greedy. It is only the thought that Viserys would automatically change heirs that Otto even contemplated it would be an easy thing to have Alicent’s kids as Viserys’ heirs because he thought Viserys would pass her over.

Take a look at the sociopolitical patterns. This is always the deal/sociopolitical expectation for second wives/Queen Consorts. If the monarch had kids from a first marriage , those kids are always before the ones in the second because they came first/are older.

Viserys makes Rhaenyra continue to be his heir and kinda treats her like he would his male heir in that her siblings remain the “spares” they would be if she were male. Thereby putting into practice equal primogentiure.

Otto has been with Viserys as his hand for years.....why did he not anticipate something like this?

[littledead-ridinghood]

wait when did tom taylor make jason a cop?

So this is such a basic simple question which is why the response is going to be a nice 1.5k word long post like a normal reasonable person would do!

So Tom Taylor wrote the 2021 Nightwing Annual with Dick and Jason being all brother-y. Overall, it's pretty cute and I could totally nitpick* if I so desired but also bby robin jay and Discowing Dick as well as Adult Dick and Jason getting along, absolutely precious. Anyway, Tom Taylor didn't make Jason a cop but he still has Jason endorsing the Justice system.

He wrote Jason saying to Dick: "You were right. Sometimes seeing them get justice, Seeing their power and freedom get taken away, is better than dealing out violence." This is in relation to Jason sending one of his mom's main drug dealers to be tried.

In the context of looping, the statement isn’t 100% bad. It's supposed to loop back to Jason as a child, in the flashback scene of the annual, saying "you want to hit a kid? Hit me." in relation to a kidnapper and how dick says Jason went too far when dealing with the man.

The problem isn't Jason saying "[violence isn't always the answer]" but it's him trusting the system. Jason's foundations, even when his backstory was him as a blond circus boy, has him questioning the police and their actual motives. Jason staunchly believes that the system doesn't work. So him saying it's better seeing justice in a situation where he doesn't actually know if justice will be served properly is OOC. Jason knows that the rich can get off much easier due to money and the connections they may have. (circa lost days: that child sex trafficker that Jason murked because he found out bringing him to the authorities wouldn't do any good as the man had connections within the police that would keep him free). Jason is the kind of person who knows that vigilantes (in comics) only exist because the system does not work. One of his most major driving motivations is the fact that he understands intimately that most people do not care for victims. He gets deeply invested in cases because he knows what's it's like to be on the bottom and for the powerful above him to get of easier just because they have more power.

Jason calling Arkham a revolving door highlights his belief that no one is actually doing anything to help stop the violence in Gotham, but instead perpetuating a cycle. Fuck, in BftC, Jason criticizes Bruce for always teaming up with Jim Gordan and the police in B's search for "validation".

Jason has been heavily implied to be a victim of police brutality as a child. He has seen them do fuck things which readers can infer by Jason's first street rat appearance and how he doesn't trust cops. Furthermore, he believes the police and vigilantes should not mix because they are directly in opposition to each other. If the cops were "good" they would be trying to stop the bats because the bats are literal criminals taking action into their own hands, violently. So, even if we all understand that, for example, Gordan being on the side of the bats is morally good as he understands the system is broken and that the bats do good work, he is going against the legal system he is supposed to uphold to keep the collective safe. The legal system should not be your compass for morality as the legal system was created and always changing to, most usually, keep the powerful in power and the marginalized, marginalized. Alas, Jim still needs to uphold the law so he doesn't jeopardize having other officers following their personal morals over the law leading to what would probably lead to higher rates of police brutality. If the police partner with Batman and see Bruce being so violent towards perpetrators, and he's on their side, endorsing what they, as cops, do, that opens up the doorway to make it okay for cops to be as equally violent as the Bat towards people they take into custody. Jason is one of the vigilantes who understand this exemplified in his staunch avoidance of Cops

Future State on the other hand (which, for transparency, I never finished bc A. I'm terrible at finishing runs, whether they're ongoing (which is even harder for me then) or not, and B. It just wasn't really my cup of tea), DC had Jason undercover in the magistrate (i.e.the authoritarian police state enforcers) for Bruce....? (i heard some people say it wasn't actually Bruce but Clayface? idk. he was undercover for who he thought was Bruce) which was pretty obv he was undercover, yet, in the end, I'm pretty sure, Jason stays willingly in the magistrate to bring it down further? I'm not sure. I'm not sure, but that's where they made Jason a cop and, even if he was undercover, I couldn't bare to read it.

Literally one of my least favorite tropes: where the kid from the messy background who distrusted the system for good reason grows up and ends up joining the system. The only time I could except cop!Jason is that one fanfic where after B slits his throat so Jason joins the force and makes the bats obsolete by being the cop Park Rowians trusted while also still backgrounding as RH therefore he can be untouchable when he finally kills the Joker. I'll link it:

Best Served Cold 3k oneshot by Balrog_Roike

*This is where I'm going to nitpick for my own sense of peace. All in all, the annual isn't bad, personally, I liked it. It’s only if you think about it too much and dwell over it all. But the subtleties are where the biases are able to sneak in so this is like way to much for like 6 panels total....

Jason being mad at the kidnapper isn't bad nor do I think Jason getting so violent with someone for hitting children is OOC(actually Jason getting in between beatings for others is a very common theme of Jason's. Not just defusing, but legit just taking the beatings so someone else doesn't have to). It actually falls in line with OG Jason slamming that pimp for hitting a woman in broad daylight and him saying "How do you like being on the receiving end, for a change?!" compared to "Hit me. Go on. Hit me!" Both situations are Jason pissed the hell off that people think they can just push around others weaker than them. I just really want a modern story with a happy Jason. Like, we get it. In situations like this, Jason gets super emotionally invested, but I think DC has ingrained in the audience enough that Jason is angry over the concept of injustice. I see enough "Jason was the angry robin" takes. I just want my baby to be sweet for me!!! If every story we get of Robin Jason is him being angry, whether he's in the "right" or "not", it's just further pushing the idea that he was angry over everything all the time if that's all we see, and he wasn't.

As with most every story with Jason and the other bats, there's always that underlying theme of Jason "giving up" for the other bats and him being rewarded with being allowed to be family with the rest of them because he finally fell into Bruce and their's wishes. It's super subtle but with the "Bruce and I are proud of you for putting down the guns" and the "you were right..." Idk. it's just can be read as a ‘you're doing stuff how we want you to rather than how you want to’ superiority complex thing. It's 'i understand everything I did and thought was actually wrong, but now I see the light.' But the 'i'm proud you're doing what I want" pothole is kinda inescapable when writing Jason with the other bats

The crowbar joke goes without saying. Again, Jason never gets to properly address his murder but everyone gets to poke fun at him for it. I just wish one bat cared enough to ask Jason if he's okay rather than also beating him down about it. It comes across tackless.

When other bats call adult Jason “robin”, it rubs me wrong. Like in WFA, Jason's tracker symbol is apparently his robin symbol. It just seems like a lack of acceptance that Jason is alive again and now is the red hood. In the annual, if it’s supposed to be Dick having a minor flashback to when Jason was robin, I think that’s fair (for example: if Bruce saw Jason hurt and called him “robin” bc he was reminded of dead!Jay I wouldn’t fault him either, PTSD and memories and all that). On the flip side, if Dick is trying to get Jason to stop, the effect comes across as disrespectful to Jason's actual existence now by constantly relaying him back to what he used to be. Living in the past and all that with no ounce of respect present Jason. Some people think it's cute, all the power to them, it just rubs me wrong. I just mention this cause to me it seems like just Dick trying to get Jason to stop, but it’s unclear by Jason’s body language if he’s shocked out of the moment(it doesn’t look like he was).

Again: Those four things are pretty nitpicky in, overall, a story I liked. Especially compared to my main issue, the justice system thing. T.Taylor’s has a habit of being super performative in his social commentary(think how people think that can write a character as a man or white person and then just switch the pronouns or descriptions like that doesn't completely change the character’s outlook on life). 99% of the time he has super shallow takes that are incredibly harmful and tries to use characters as mouthpieces rather than following through on already established beliefs(i.e. Jason not trusting nor liking cops). 

The annual's art is so goddamn pretty. I can't stress enough how much I love the composition and inking. We get pretty Dick and pretty Jason, we get flippy Jason, we get shirtless Jason. We get both bby and discowing as well as adult Dick and Jason getting along, have fun, smiling and laughing and cracking jokes. We get Dick trusting Jason. Their relationship doesn’t come across as fan-servicing which T.T also has a problem with so I’ve heard in the current run of Nightwing. 

Ya, anyway...Big brother Dick grayson and Baby brother Jason Todd soothed my soul at least