#But I am opinionated and willing to deliberate

[iconicname]

The same goes for anya x curly too it may seem cute, but curly was essentially a boy mom with Jimmy as the "boy." Honestly, I think at most anya and curly could be tentatively reconciled friends post fix-it ending or whatever which would take a lot of work on curly's part and giving a lot of forgiveness (If shes willing ofc) on anya's part.

obviously, do what you want i could literally not care less what yall do i just wish fandoms were less shipping-oriented sometimes :/

weird accidental character analysis/rant below

Look, I too, am not immune to the 'oh, curly's kinda cute' thing people have going on. I get it, but I don't want to be blinded by it.

I think people forget that pre-crash curly was a miserable and incompetent guy who stuck around and kept jimmy around for a reason, (while yeah the birthday scene made it clear that he's a nice enough person that pre-crash crew generally had a good opinion of him and he may seem better when side by side with someone like jimmy but that man is nowhere near the picture of a "well-rounded man)

The reason doesn't have to be deliberate or anything like that, it could be that Curly silently never grew out of the dismissal of SA/the female experience mentality which allowed someone like Jimmy to be his close friend for so long. or, in his own words he preferred looking at the bigger picture but because he was so focused on Jimmy's wellbeing (y'know immediately rushing to fucking Jimmy to assure him that everything was going to be okay after ANYA confessed to being pregnant and said that she fears jimmy enough to hide a gun from him that if it were not for the fact that curly would not allow it she would have used to the gun to protect herself. in that scene, it clearly shows that Curly prioritized Jimmy's well-being but also his feelings over Anya's even if if he didn't realize it. to Curly Jimmy was the bigger picture.

Jimmy is clearly not above abusing people he considers his "friends" especially someone who was catering to him to that degree, i.e the birthday cake scene ("both" of them) and the multiple medicine-taking scenes, etc so over the years of knowing jimmy, Curly could have subconsciously internalized Jimmy's sexist way of thinking, as to not create conflict (which is not an excuse) plus someone who may not be happy might cling to the people and disregard red flags in fear of isolation/losing something they consider positive (still not an excuse).

I don't think Curly didn't care for Anya or the rest of the crew, for that matter, but because he focused on catering to Jimmy, he hurt the people Jimmy hurt.

I like to think that Anya and Curly were very similar early days post-crash not just in the "victim to the same piece of shit" kind of way but that they both had the "thinking the best of bad people out of a sense of self-preservation". One of Anya's iconic phrases "Our worst moments don't make us monsters", I like to think that's in character for Curly to adopt that phrase as well for jimmy out of some hopeful delusion and or lasting affection for Jimmy (plus he was definitely delirious and in pain 24/7 mans not going to thinking clearly), especially since Anya and Curly were often together post-crash. but when Anya reaches her breaking point and ends her life it's Curly's breaking point too because it finally fully clicked how horrible Jimmy really was, as a co-worker, friend, and person. and that's why when Jimmy unlocked the gun case, we got the chilling, sardonic, and scorful laugh.

Ya'll have got to stop shipping Curly with Jimmy. That man is a rapist. He doesn't deserve the Yaoi fantasies.

[mika-you-nerd]

One day I am going to invite someone over and we’re going to do a debate bracket on who is the hottest bullet train character

[shalscumbunny]

The male members of the Gen'ei Ryodan and their S/O's breasts

TW: Female S/O, abuse, fondling, forced intercourse, forced touching, mild torture, pregnancy, breeding kink, forced pregnancy, sexist, misogynist, breastfeeding, yandere, kidnapping and minor injuries

Author's note: I am humanly incapable of writing about Bonolenov (I feel weird), an apology to the fans (if there are any)

Phinks:

Honestly, whenever I think of Phinks, I think of someone who is rough even if he doesn't mean to be, not as rough as Uvogin, but he tends to be a bit aggressive when he has you sitting on his lap facing forward. He knows you're blushing and he doesn't care to embarrass you further, even though he has that stoic expression you know he's enjoying it, you know he's enjoying hearing you whimper and moan as his big hands knead your breasts. After all you feel his hard erection press against you. I don't really think of him as a breast man though (I'm of the inclination that he's a thigh man), so after playing with you for a while he'll just put you on all fours and fuck you hard.

Uvogin:

I have mixed feelings here, just like Phinks, I don't feel like he's a breast man (I think he's a die-hard fan of asses). But unlike Phinks who just hangs around to get bored, Uvogin doesn't mind spending a long time kneading your poor, aching breasts with his huge, calloused hands. You feel his hard penis rub against your pussy as you cry, watching through your tears as he bites, sucks and pulls at your poor breasts. Your breasts will probably be covered in bruises, small wounds and injuries the next day, making him puff out his chest with pride.

Franklin:

Unlike the previous ones, I feel that despite that rough and corpulent build, Franklin is a soft man, he likes your breasts (And yes, I feel that he likes breasts 100%), regardless of their size or shape, they simply captivate him. He usually takes you gently while licking and sucking your breasts making you moan, he sniffs your essence carefully and usually guides you in the way he likes. A pleasure where the majority usually wins.

Feitan:

I'm not going to put it up for discussion, Feitan is a man who loves breasts (And for some reason I feel like he loves small breasts the most and don't ask me why). If Feitan isn't rubbing your breasts, sucking and biting your poor nipples, sadly it's something else. I feel like one way to represent his love and dominance over his S/O is torture. Feitan doesn't see his S/O as an equal, so he doesn't care about your opinion or consent. So sadly sometimes you're tied to a chair with little electric clamps stimulating your poor sore nipples while he forces you to suck his cock. You know he's turned on, his gaze isn't very expressive, but he has that sick sadistic smile on his face, his cock vibrating in your throat.

Nobunaga:

I don't feel like he's a die-hard fan of breasts (He's a thigh man), but he likes to make you feel good and mark you as his. Just like your thighs, neck and shoulders, your breasts are also decorated with little bruises. He's a big groper, he just can't get enough of you because he loves you so much, so sometimes he doesn't mind leaning you on a counter and groping your breasts while he bites your shoulder and his cock pushes hard against your pussy for several hours without rest, until he leaves you dumb, with your pussy and uterus full of his cum, your breasts swollen and overstimulated. He's a man who's a fan of new experiences, so he's willing to suggest (coerce) you to try to masturbate him with your breasts, growling as he feels your soft mounds embrace his hard cock and then grabbing your hair to make you suck his swollen tip.

Chrollo:

Chrollo is a curious being in every aspect and that includes the human body, especially YOUR body. I feel that even though it may not seem like it sometimes, he likes mysticism, when it comes to you, he believes in soulmates, he is a true believer that you and him are pieces of a puzzle. He loves you deliberately, he is obsessed with you and everything about you, he needs you, in every aspect. Even though I personally feel that his S/O's favorite body part is her thighs, he also loves breasts. He fucks you by making you sit on his fat cock, both of you sitting anywhere, be it the living room, the bathroom or the corner of the bed. His hot, cum-filled balls squished by your slippery slit. He is thrusting at a good pace inside you, deep and somewhat slow, looking to fill you strongly. He's pleased by your expressions and moans, he grunts when your rubbery walls squeeze his cock, he growls into your breasts and moans, after giving you a dirty kiss on the mouth he lowers his head until he latches onto your nipple, he sucks and sucks it like he's hungry while his arms wrap around your waist tightly. He pounds into you in a messier way while he licks and sucks your nopples, completely obsessed with those dirty faces you make. He doesn't plan on stopping, he's got a long way to go with you, he loves latching onto your nipple and being one with you. Obviously we know that his goal is to possess you and please you, and he's probably also trying to impregnate your sweet pussy with his child.

Hisoka:

He's a big fan of ass and I'm not willing to argue about it, but that doesn't stop him from suggesting (forcing) you to use flavored body lotions. He lets out that hungry giggle as he latches onto your bubble gum flavored nipples while his fingers with sharp nails move in your tight, wet pussy, obviously those sharp nails hurt and injure your poor pussy making it bleed slightly, but you're used to it by this point, so you just moan and gasp excitedly, tears rolling down your red cheeks. I'll add as an additional note that since Hisoka is a man with such eccentric tastes, he'll probably at some point force you to wear piercings on those cute nipples of yours, maybe pink ones or heart-shaped ones, or if he's really crazy probably one of your nipples will end with an "H" and the other with an "M"

Illumi:

We've talked about this before, a relationship with Illumi without children is impossible, no matter if you're infertile, in this fictional world of HxH, he's willing to find any way for you to get pregnant with his children. Illumi is the kind of man who won't let you leave his bed until a pregnancy test comes back positive, which he so desperately wants. Apart from the fact that even though he loves you and doesn't know how to show it, in this relationship you don't have the right to have an opinion, so you have to accept and adapt. It doesn't matter if you beg him on your knees that you don't want a baby, he doesn't care, he won't listen to you either, he is a true believer that you will become fond of the baby. Due to his upbringing, he has somewhat misogynistic and sexist tendencies, so, since you are his wife, your duty is to accept the children he wants to give you and obey him (The best thing for your mental health is to do so). He's not very good at expressing that he wants it, you've rarely seen him with more than one expression, so learning to decipher it will take you a GOOD time. Only his face usually changes a couple of times and one of those times is when he's fucking you, his face looks slightly more relaxed and even if he tries, the pleasure is something difficult to hide even for a cold-blooded killer like him. Even though sex is very mechanical with him, it's not bad, he gives it to you hard, strong and moderately fast while sucking your breasts occasionally, he will NEVER admit it to anyone, but they are a part of your body that usually generates attraction and curiosity in him. But once he left you round and swollen with his child, now your breasts are a part of your body that obsesses him. He just feels his cock harden when he notices how they grow day by day, preparing to nourish his future child. Of course Illumi doesn't stop fucking you when you're pregnant, on the contrary, he fucks you more, because he simply gets excited seeing you pregnant and swollen with his baby. He spends so much time sucking on your breasts during sex that your milk production gets too early, that only makes him obsessed with your breasts even more. Now he fucks you hard, rubbing the baby inside you with the palm of his cold hand while he fills his mouth with your sweet milk, panting and grunting on your swollen nipple, at the same time, your other nipple drips small jets of milk onto the bed. When you give birth he gives you privacy with the baby when nursing, although it's funny because the baby looks like its father, hugging your breast and latching onto your nipple trying to swallow as much milk as possible. Years later and after 4 babies, it's really comforting and strange for you that Illumi doesn't change, he's not very expressive or affectionate, but he likes to be with you, he doesn't feel disgusted by the after-effects of pregnancies on your body, on the contrary, he tends to be attracted to them He rarely smiles except when you greet him after a long day of murders, with two children hidden behind your skirt, another in a sling on your back, another in your arms sucking milk from your nipple and well, another on the way developing in your swollen belly. When Illumi calls the nannies to take the children away and leave you alone, he really just wants to latch onto your generous milk-filled breasts and fuck your pregnant pussy.

Shalnark: (Everything I say about Shalnark is 100% canon and I don't allow anyone to question it). Shalnark LOVES, NEEDS and ADORES your breasts. He loves them for everything, he uses them as a pillow when he's sleepy or wants you to cuddle him, he loves to cuddle and warm up there, he has a smile on his face whenever he's there, you really think he's just missing starting to purr while rubbing his head there and hugging your waist. He's an addict and he doesn't even think about asking you for permission to touch them, for Shalnark they're his, they belong to him, he enjoys buying you only low-cut clothes to look at them all the time and have easy access to them. He doesn't even need to have his cock buried in your pussy to start sucking on your breasts, it can just be at any time, sometimes you're relaxing in bed reading a book and he'll come over, open your shirt and start sucking and licking them with his eyes closed while hugging your waist. Other times he will call you while he is working on his computer, ask you to sit on his lap and continue working while his cock is buried in your pussy and his mouth is sucking on your nipple. Obviously above all, he loves sucking your breasts while he fucks you on the bed, pushing his hips against yours while the tip of his penis hits your cervix hard. His mouth licking, biting and sucking all over your breast, leaving it with marks, bruises, bites and saliva. I mentioned before in this profile that Shalnark does not like the idea of ​​having children, he really does not want any, but he would probably have something similar to what Illumi did with your breasts if he were to get you pregnant and agreed to allow you to continue with the pregnancy. But on the other hand, you would end up producing milk whether you were pregnant or not, since the stimulation is so great that your breasts begin to fill with milk and of course Shalnark will not allow a single drop to go to waste.

Thank you very much for reading me, if you want a version with the female members of the Gen'ei Ryodan let me know 🖤

[a-dragons-explanations]

First off, thank you for hearing me out and answering genuinely - a lot of people don’t, and I know how hard that can be, especially when it’s a topic you feel so strongly about. Thank you also for taking the time to try to understand us - most people who send me asks like this haven’t, so I kind of assumed you hadn’t either, and it’s good to hear that I was wrong about that.

I can see where you’re coming from on the insecurity point. It can be a little scary, the way people talk about species dysphoria sometimes! But I have to point out, as much as I know people don’t like the comparison, that the same thing could be said of the transgender community about questioning how much dysphoria might be just because it’s them for some people. Why is it different when it’s species dysphoria instead of gender dysphoria?

Moreover, you are probably right that for some people that is true - that the dysphoria came first, possibly from other sources, and the nonhuman or alterhuman identity after. But if identifying that as species dysphoria and identifying as nonhuman helps someone deal with that, if they’re happier seeing themself as a dragon or a fox or a seal, is there inherently a problem with that? I don’t think there is - sure, there probably is the rare case where it reinforces problems instead of deconstructing them, but in my experience that’s not the case for the majority of otherkin. It’s an exception, not the rule. (And again, there will be cases like that in just about any community.) If it helps someone live a happier life and understand themself better, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

“it’s actually hard to stand with my own thoughts on this, especially because I WOULD agree. why not? I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter”

I’m not sure I’m following you here - would agree with what? (I don’t want to misunderstand and then start talking about a point I’ve misunderstood completely, LOL.)

“I should again insist that your community is in fact comprised of humans, but the argument doesn’t hold up if I deny that it’s based on self-perception and you are arguably animals in some way. (arguably.) I do not know you better than you know yourself, but outside perception is also something to consider”

You’ve already said half of what I would here in talking yourself through this point, so I’ll just ask the follow-up question: Is outside perception something that needs to be considered, when it comes to internal experiences and personal identity? And if you think it is, then why?

Personally, I don’t think it is. People perceive a lot of things about me that aren’t true. They perceive me as a woman all the time, and I’m not. They perceive, or at least assume, me to be Christian (that’s the default assumption where I live), and I’m not. I don’t see a reason strangers, or even friends, should get a say in my identity. I’m not a democracy.

““Why does it bother you so much that I am the way I am?” I would say that is slightly confusing and kind of vulnerable to explain. I think I have some idea but I’m not sure”

That’s okay. Think about it for a while, to yourself if you don’t want to try to hash it out to me (while it can help to have a rubber duck, I also totally get that I’m a stranger and we’re in public here, and you’re well within your rights to not want to get into stuff that’s really vulnerable for you in this scenario). I’m curious to hear your thoughts if you’re willing to share them (even if they’re a little jumbled still!), because I think it might help me understand where you’re coming from better, but I get it if you want to chew on it privately for a while. I just encourage you not to shy away from it because it’s confusing and scary to think about - that’s often when we learn the most about ourselves.

To go back a bit and bring something you said earlier in your response back - admittedly, self-contradiction is one of the things that my questions are deliberately meant to expose. I’m of the opinion that if a worldview contradicts itself, that means there’s something fundamentally wrong with it and it needs further examination and refinement. After all, the parts of a self-contradicting statement can’t both be true - so either one of them is false (and should be discarded and replaced), or there’s a complication producing nuance that’s not being verbalized/consciously recognized (which should probably be figured out in the interest of self-understanding). It’s the exercise of asking yourself, what do you truly believe, and what is false biases you’re holding onto? That being said, sometimes you have to say the self-contradicting thing out loud before you can see it for what it is and pick it apart - so please, don’t be afraid to do so.

It sounds like you’ve maybe had some rough experiences surrounding this topic - if I’m right and that’s the case, I’m sorry for whatever hardships those may have been. It’s clear to me that you have a lot of strong feelings about this, and I can absolutely understand that. And I totally understand the fear of having to flip your beliefs on their head, especially if you’ve already had to do it recently! That’s a really hard thing to do, and it takes guts to look the possibility of doing it in the eye even the first time. Good on you for not just shutting down and doubling down immediately - that’s already a lot more than a lot of people are willing to do.

i don’t think my words hold much value to people like you, and i don’t think you would be willing to listen or take it to heart, but it’s still worth trying. i would like you to realise that you are human in every way. you are not an animal, you are not a dragon. (you probably already know this. maybe you’re in denial. i don’t know) either way, none of you would actually be willing to give it even a second of thought because you’re insecure about yourself, and you’re insecure because you know you’re human. i assure you that you will not reach full personal contentment until you live out your life without pretending to be a mythical creature. wtv have a good day

Ooh, I haven’t gotten one of these asks in a few years.

So I ask this, and every other question I will follow up with, completely genuinely, and if you’re willing to really get into the weeds discussing it I’d love to do so (though I’ll probably reblog any follow-ups to my other blog): why do you think you know me and my experiences better than I do?

Why do you think you can armchair diagnose me with insecurity? What evidence do you actually have for that, besides the fact that I’m nonhuman? What evidence do you have that I’m not already content and fulfilled in my life?

Is it possible that identifying as nonhuman is unrelated to those things entirely, and you’re making a false assumption?

I get it. It looks crazy, when you’re completely new to the concept. It’s weird - it is! But pause and listen to us when we talk about our experiences for a moment.

For many of us, myself included, finding nonhumanity is a moment of suddenly understanding - of pieces falling into place, of my life experiences suddenly making sense. Awakening is something that made me more content and fulfilled, not less - there’s a sadness in it sometimes, yes, but so too is there the comfort of understanding yourself in a new way, of realizing, oh. I’m not just weird. There’s not something wrong with me. There are other people like me.

(If this sounds a lot like the experience of figuring out you’re queer, there’s a reason for that.)

To use myself as an example of the flaws in your hypothesis: there’s… honestly not much dissatisfaction with my life right now. I’ve got a stable job with decent income. I’d like to be able to cut back my hours a bit, but that will come in time. I’ve got enough free time as it is to do my art and play my tabletop games with friends in my off time. I’ve got family and friends around me. Sure, I miss my wings, but I’m hoping to pick up powered paragliding in the near future and hoping that’ll scratch that itch at least somewhat. I’m doing pretty well, honestly. This isn’t the case for all otherkin, but it’s not the case for all orthohumans (people who aren’t alterhuman in any way) either. What it does indicate, however, is that your hypothesis that being otherkin inherently means you’re insecure and unhappy with your life is false, or at minimum flawed - if it were true, I wouldn’t exist.

So, I ask again: why do you think you understand my own experiences better than I do? And moreover, why does it bother you so much that I am the way I am?

The name for the thing you’re doing here, intentionally or not, is concern trolling - trying to push me out of an identity by professing concern for problems that don’t exist. Why? Why are you going out of your way to tell other people they’re wrong about their own identity? Why is your reaction, when you see an identity you don’t understand, to decide it’s unhealthy, or just make-believe, or whatever, and then to make that the problem of the people who identify that way? What exactly makes you think this is inherently unhealthy?

Would it not be better to devote that energy to trying to understand us, instead of trying to change us?

You don’t have to answer these questions to me, obviously, but I do encourage you to answer them to yourself at least. Pick apart your worldview for a minute and see if it actually holds up under scrutiny - it’s good for you, and mental enrichment to boot! If you are willing to really get into the weeds of this discussion with me, again, I’d love to do that - I love having discussions like this, and it’s good for me to have my worldview challenged every so often too! Please, genuinely, pick at the flaws in my logic if you see them - if it can be pulled apart under scrutiny, it needs to be pulled apart and rebuilt. No one on the internet is obligated to let a stranger do that, obviously, but personally I enjoy it - it’s a meat pumpkin for me - so let’s talk, if you’re up for it. It’s been a hot minute since I’ve gotten a good interesting antikin to debate with.

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

[prettyboykatsuki]

wyll, in my opinion, gets the standard fare treatment for characters that are unequivocally good. i.e. people think he's boring and uninteresting. standard fare might be kind actually given the level of racism and unexplained slander (which is often just more thinly veiled racism). his reputation about being boring is not helped by the very blatant neglect of his storyline post his rewrite and release. as a wyll enjoyer i am hyperaware of the sorry state of his current story in all three acts

despite all of that and the glaring flaws - i still believe that wylls storyline is worth of being engaged with and explored.

one of the reasons (not the most major one, but one) i think wyll experiences so much neglect as a companion stems from a wider idea that "goodness" is always the uncomplicated, easy choice.

it's something i see a lot. wyll is boring because of his archetype as a princely and universally righteous guy. and this is interesting, because it always seems to functions under the assumption that wylls moral character is innate. that his heroic and righteous actions are in some capacity, uncomplicated.

uniquely among the male origin companions, through the course of wylls story - there is never a point in which he is at risk of making a truly 'bad' choice. both gale and astarions story have them at risk of making choices that are ultimately bad for them and others (especially tav when each character is romanced). gales godhood and astarions ascension are their in game moral failings. they are the result of having not broke the cycle and are 'bad' choices for the individual character.

wylls main choice is however his pact and the choice to break that pact. notably - wyll is never at risk of making a bad choice, only a selfish one.

from the critique i see of wyll - it seems like this is the element of him people find most egregious. he's too smooth, not rugged enough, not gritty enough. but i don't think wyll's character needs grit, necessarily.

if you take any time to dissect wyll at all, based on dialogue and character interaction, many of his choices put himself at the forefront of sacrifice. the game strips wyll of a lot of agency, but wyll also always abides by and sticks to his core belief. so often towards his own detriment.

not only does wyll bear the consequence of being turned into a devil (stripping him of the last remaining shred of identity he's ever had and one of the most important things in his life), he bore the burden of being banished when he made his pact, and was willing to do the same for the sake of his father when he is taken to moonrise.

and unlike gale (who i adore, to be clear) who's concept of self-sacrifice stems mostly from a low self-worth - the belief that dying is the best he can do - wyll truly views that it's better him than them.

wyll does not think twice about allowing himself to be the one to take the fall. he can play any part, take any role, even when these choices haunt him so obviously. wyll claims that he forgives his father, but opens up to you about fearing his feelings of missing him are one-sided. he believes that making his pact was the right choice, the one he would make again - but doesn't deny the obvious pain and solace that came along with being a wandering traveler and banished son.

wylls goodness is so deliberate. he is so staunch in upholding and acting on his beliefs that it is always narrative to his own detriment. when you view wyll like this , and view his choices with regards this character attribute, it is imo very hard to hate him.

wyll's goodness is his double edged sword. it makes him heroic, brave, fearless. and it makes him scared, uncertain and lonely. again, the story itself is bare bones and i understand that - but it is so very beautiful to me thinking of him and tav or just his general romance.

as wylls romance partner, encouraging wyll to break his pact is as tragic as it very beautiful. tav is wylls one selfish thing. one of the only reasons that would move him to not give himself up. one of the only reasons he is okay with forgoing his beliefs. he loves tav enough to break his own oaths, and make choices for himself and no one else. not as the blade, or as a ravengard - but just as wyll.

and that aspect of him is in my opinion, enforced, by the mindflayer tav ending. in which wylls monster-hunting and morals are made exceptions with / for tav. my enjoyment of hero corruption might be speaking for me, but i digress.

in every way though - i truly love wyll as a character. and while im well aware of the critical flaws in his in game story state, i think it's both unfortunate and unfair that people call him boring. to me he is anything but

[howlsofbloodhounds]

THANK YOU for pointing out that killer probably wouldn't be diagnosed with DID bc he was an adult when all the bullshit happened

As a system I am honestly kinda tired of people saying he has DID especially since alot of them can't even tell you what it means

Of course. I’ve heard from both singlets (people who aren’t systems) and systems both for and against the idea of Killer having DID/OSDD1/being a system/being plural, and as im not a system, im not gonna comment on or control how systems choose to interpret or headcanon Killer.

But I am of the belief that misinformation should avoid being spread—both of Killer’s canon (not only purely on the basis of not being true, but because if people start believing Killer is canonically a system/has DID/OSDD1 and also is a literal serial killer, that has an understandably bad rep but it may cause people to harass or spread rumors about rahafwabas that aren’t true), and of already misunderstood stigmatized disorders. It also has fantasy themes such as magic, souls, monsters, time travel, Resetting, coming back from the dead multiple times, etc.

Killer is a character involved in themes of heavy abuse (captivity, high control groups, kidnapping, labor trafficking, cult elements, organized crime, etc) and these are all elements that require nuance and care in depicting seriously and respectively—which can be hard to do while also having to keep in mind stigma surrounding the idea of “murderous” or “evil” alter(s)—because these types of abusive controlling environments very often require victims to partake in illegal or harmful acts and behaviors to survive. And this can also very easily to maladaptive coping mechanisms that aren’t easily understood or pretty.

So im of the opinion that if people want to write killer as if he is plural/system and aren’t one themselves, they should both do research and speak to any plurals/systems willing to help them out—and in the actual writing, avoid using terms associated with the actual disorders such as DID, OSDD1, alter, host, persecutor, etc.

Not only because 1. killer was an adult when the trauma and abuse happened, so therefore he’s unlikely to be professionally diagnosed with those disorders even if he shows symptoms and presentations similar to them, and 2. killer himself wouldn’t know what he has and wouldn’t use those terms in relation to himself and his experiences.

He is not in any position to seek diagnosis or treatment or support —under Nightmare and with Chara, he is surviving. He may have a chance of that with Color and the Chromatic Crew in the Omega Timeline, but again—unless this is deliberately an AU where all this trauma happened and stuff when he was an actual child—he likely wouldn’t be diagnosed with it.

So instead it’d be best to focus on his lived experiences regardless of what dissociative disorder one decides to write him with—and use the terms he applies to himself or ones he may apply to himself, such as his numbered hierarchical understanding of his SOUL and its Stages (either something he came up with to make sense of his own experiences, or something that was decided for him by external forces such as Chara or Nightmare.) and perhaps use words like “my stage(s),” “my other,” “my other half,” “when I’m like that,” etc.

And if the topic of Killer having DID ever comes up in the story, such as another character asking him or another Stage if he has it, dont feel the need to confirm it. Not only because Killer himself likely wouldn’t know, but also because he likely doesn’t exactly fit the full criteria for a diagnosis in a canon adjacent story where he was an adult when it all happened.

Of course that’s my opinion, not really important in the grand scheme of things—im not a system—but there it is. Systems, as always, can add and chime in as they wish—and correct any misinformation or misunderstanding if they want.

[alienoresimagines]

What about blush for the way to kiss prompt? 👀😊

[ blush ] for a kiss on the cheek

Here's 700-ish words of Buck being sleepy and pining, a mix that leaves him with none of his usual reserve resulting in a blushy Bucky 💕 I hope it can cheer you up a bit, Ame 🥺❤️ Also on AO3

Buck has too much to do and too little sleep, or alternatively, coffee, in his veins to be an amiable company. Yet John still insists on driving him to the mess with the jeep he isn't supposed to have and Gale can't say no; he's too tired to walk the 20 minutes to the mess or to bike there. Bucky's driving might just wake him up a bit actually. 

Except that 2 minutes in he finds himself dozing off, despite the bumps he knows to be on the road. Either he's more tired than he thought and hasn't even registered they'd passed them or John is driving deliberately slowly. The thought shakes him from his imminent slumber to find Bucky looking careful of all things as he drives the jeep, slowing down before each bump, driving them smoothly down the road. He hasn't even spoken a word since the engine roared to life, and warmth blooms deep in Gale's chest, spreading to his very toes as though back in Wyoming, lounging in a field under the summer sun.

Of course, Bucky would notice his being quieter than usual and offer him a relaxing drive to give him a few more precious minutes of sleep. 

However, Bucky thinking Gale would prefer silence over his chatter is nothing short of unacceptable.

Rubbing the last remnants of sleep off his eyes with his hand, he wills himself awake and ignores the exhaustion still clinging on to the marrow of his bones.

"You gettin' breakfast with me?" Bucky startles at his voice and frowns at him, as though surprised to see him awake. A sudden fear grips at Gale's heart that the other would offer to sing him to sleep but to his relief, John only rumbles a negative noise as he pulls to a stop to let mechanics cross the road.

"I'm Meatball's lawyer for the morning," that does peak Gale's interest, the mention of the dog enough to bring a light smile to his face. Nonetheless, the engine rumbling underneath him doesn't help his battle with sleep so Gale pinches at the bridge of his nose in hopes it would wake him up. Next to him, John observes him silently for a moment, mouth doing that little quirk it does when he wants to speak but hasn't decided on what to say yet.

The little mole on his chin is entirely too distracting for Gale's sleep-addled mind.

"What does Meatball need a lawyer for?" In Gale's opinion, the dog could do no wrong except howling his ears off when Benny puts him on a plane but apparently, one English farmer has a different opinion, according to John. Eyes slipping closed, lulled by the movements of the car and John's voice -which is decidedly quieter and softer than usual but that's something for future Gale to mull over, he decides-, he drifts in and out of sleep, a fake New-yorker accent washing over him like the warm breeze of summer spent in golden fields. There's a fleeting warmth on his left knee, and if his eyes weren't glued shut he'd open them to check it is what he thinks it is, the broadness and warmth of John's palm unmistakable, but as it is, he can only find comfort in it.

The next thing he knows, the car is pulling to a stop and Gale startles awake at the clamor of men leaving the mess, joyous chatter too loud in his ears compared to John's soothing voice. 

From the entrance of the building, Benny calls out his name then gestures inside, probably to let him know he'd save him a seat and Gale nods, a bit saddened the drive was so short. On his left, John is drumming his fingers on the steering wheel, exchanging a few quips with passersby and he looks so handsome in the early morning light, so sweet in his care that Gale's still not fully awake mind cannot find a reason not to lean over to feel a clean-shaven cheek against his lips. 

Mint and the distinctive smell of John's cologne surround him for a moment that is definitely too short, and all he can think about is how it would feel, now that he knows how soft John's cheek is, to kiss his lips and the coarse hair of his mustache. Against him, John freezes but barely a second passes before Gale mutters a "Thanks for the ride, Bucky" and slips out of the jeep and into the mess.

Behind him, John stares bewildered at his back, mouth slightly open in shock and ears red as berries, slowly bringing his hand to his cheek to trace the ghost of Gale's soft lips with his fingers.

What just happened? 

My other Clegan fics

[ingravinoveritas]

Feeling really normal about Georgia calling Michael "the boyfriend of my husband"

Okay, so...wow. Definitely a lot to unpack today, but first let me wish our own Welsh seduction machine the happiest of birthdays. Happy Birthday, Michael! 🎉🎂

So, there have been a few posts since last night, and my thanks to @moriarty-sisters for including the above screenshots. Posting some larger ones so we can take a better look, starting with AL's post:

And then we have Georgia's from this morning:

(Standard disclaimer that what follows here is only my opinion/observations, and does not mean that I am completely right. As I've said before, if I am wrong, I am more than happy to acknowledge that.)

It appears that a party was held in Michael's honor last night, and David and Georgia were in attendance. There has been some confusion about the pictures because Michael's hair length/facial hair are different in the group photo vs. the party photos, so to your Ask @kime11e (which I did not include here just to keep this less cluttered), I think that the group photo is not actually from last night (which then makes me wonder why Georgia didn't post one from last night, but more on that in a minute).

So, of course the first thing that stands out about all of this is Georgia calling Michael David's "boyfriend." As I've mentioned previously, Georgia has been calling Michael David's "other wife" since the end of 2021. (David has also called Michael his wife in other contexts, which was confirmed by Rob Wilkins.) "Boyfriend," however, is new. And in this instance, "boyfriend" feels very deliberate. While I don't think it's possible to say that this confirms what the exact dynamic between them is, what I think is confirmed is that something about that dynamic has changed.

But let me go back for a moment and talk about AL and Georgia's posts and the differences between them. In Anna's post, I was particularly struck by the difference in Michael between the picture of him and AL vs. the picture of him with the cake. The disconnect to me is so strong that it's like looking at two different people--the real Michael (cake picture) vs. the version of himself Michael becomes in every picture with her, as if he is playing a role. There is no light in eyes, no trademark twinkle that we so often see--he's just muted, somehow. And Anna again is so wrapped up in showing him off and making sure that she looks good in the picture that she doesn't seem to care how Michael looks.

I do want to note that I would not even be saying this were it not for the fact that this is the...third?...picture he's taken with her in the last month and a half where he looks like this (and noticeably only in pictures with her):

I've mentioned this previously on my blog, but even if Michael is doing a "bit," he is choosing to look this way in pictures with Anna. Seeing the response to Georgia's post today, however, I almost wonder if it's because they know the fans will never take anything the four of them do seriously, to where AL could say (just as an example) "Michael and I hate each other," and the fans would eat it up and say how funny they are. So in that sense, I could see them deciding to stop pretending entirely and for Michael to let his true feelings out because it's easier to hide in plain sight. I don't know for certain that is the case, but I also don't know how else to explain AL seemingly having no problem with her partner looking like this in multiple pictures with her.

Going back to today's birthday posts, aside from the pictures, I was also perplexed by Anna's caption on her post. It's so over the top in some ways, but somehow not enough at the same time. Again, this would have been an opportunity to say what a great father Michael is, or how he's such a wonderful person, but instead, Anna's caption focuses on how great she is for being willing to throw confetti on the floor, and to celebrate Michael's birthday even though it's apparently an inconvenience. It comes across as self-involved and self-serving, which is further augmented by this tweet of Anna's from earlier bragging about how great she is for the birthday present she got for Michael. All of this taken together, I think what bothers me is how it feels more like Anna is promoting herself than Michael, and that she saw his birthday less as a special occasion and more as a PR opportunity.

Looking at Georgia's post, what stood out to me (apart from the caption, that is) is the picture. Something I have noticed is that Anna seems to always have that tight, pained smile on when anyone other than her is taking the picture. I think Georgia knows enough about "bits" and narratives to know how to set things up, and it's interesting to me that when she does, Anna sort of looks out of place, even unintentionally. Then we have Michael and David, who are beaming in this group picture, and Michael in particular has a huge smile on his face, as he often seems to whenever David is near. And again, for me it's the massive contrast between Michael's expression in that group picture vs. in pictures with AL, as well as the contrast between Georgia and AL's expressions vs. Michael's and David's. What also stood out is what wasn't posted: A picture of Michael and David together.

Which brings me back to my earlier point about the dynamic between the four of them, and to @phantomstars24's comments. I think what's most noticeable to me is that, contrary to what I have also seen some folks say today, this is not "Oops, we're all dating" or a continued joke about them being a polycule (at least not in the way that many fans are assuming). Because in all of this, not once has there ever been a comment or joke about David/Anna or Michael/Georgia. (Heck, Anna doesn't even post a word about David on social media unless it's a reshared post from Georgia or official promo/behind the scenes photos.) So the contrast between what is available for public consumption (group photos, Michael/AL photos) and what isn't (Michael/David candid photos) is very curious.

With that in mind, what this this feels like is a shifting of a preexisting narrative as a form of damage control. Because, as we remember, Georgia has been calling Michael David's "other wife" since 2021, so why didn't she start the "flirting" with Anna at that same time? Or even in 2020, when the first season of Staged happened? Why wait until four years later, especially when she had ample opportunity to do this well before now? Perhaps we will never know why, but if I had to guess, I would say Georgia didn't have a need or reason to do it until now. And as the saying goes, the best place to hide the truth is between two jokes. "Anna is my wife." / "Michael is David's boyfriend." / "Georgia is my wife." Hiding in plain sight, while also taking the heat off of Michael and David.

Again, I realize everyone has different interpretations of this, and I am not going to tell anyone that their interpretation is wrong, or that they have to agree with me. But for me (and I would guess for many others), shipping Michael and David did not start with Georgia calling Michael David's "boyfriend." There is no way that that statement alone would cause such a reaction, but rather the cumulative effect of everything that has happened since 2018, including Michael and David flirting and adoring and eyefucking each other in countless interviews and appearances and much more, long before Georgia ever said a word about it on social media. Now that she has, however, it would seem almost foolhardy to discount the possible reasons why, and in my opinion, I can't see why it wouldn't be as likely that it's because Michael and David are lovers as it is because they are good friends.

So yes, those are my thoughts on today's events. Glad as always to hear from my followers and see what you think of these latest developments. Thanks for writing in! x

[sapphic-agent]

I keep seeing post about BNHA's missed potencial and about how it's one of the few stories out there to pit abuse victims against each other and yeah. Absolutely agree. No comments there. But I haven't seen it pointed out how much worse that gets if you are still willing to give Horikoshi some benefit of the doubt... which sadly I am since he wouldn't have had a career if he'd always been Like That. And to clarify I'm not saying that he shouldn't be EXTENSIVELY critizised, I'm just saying that (depressive as it may be) we shouldn't forget how heavily character popularity rankings can affect the writing of an ongoing manga.

Bakugou was literaly introduced bullying kids and suicide-baiting the MC but he also consistently ranked N1 in the pools and Shouto N3 so bye Iida and Ocha these three are the main trio now. Envore was literaly introduced through his familial abuse, referred to Shouto as cattle to All Might's face, and even in his disturbingly self-serving flashback (y'know the one where he acts like he's a poor little meow meow for neglecting any kid he can't force into "hero training") it's still heavily implied he commited marital r*pe... but after One "Cool" Fight he kept breaking Top 10 so redemption it is anyway, I guess.

You have no idea how much I hate that this is where BNHA ended up. But amongst the many things that pain me over it one of the biggest ones is the knowledge that Horikoshi didn't get here Alone.

You aren't wrong in that fan opinion are a big part of why Horikoshi tanked the MHA narrative. However shifting blame from the author to the fans doesn't sit right with me at all.

It's, like, writing 101 that you aren't supposed to pander to a specific group of fans. Horikoshi chose to do that. He chose to cheapen a decent story to appeal to the masses. As a writer, you (and your editors) are supposed to decide the direction of your story. Not your fans.

I would also like to point out that while Bakugou WAS getting very popular among a lot of fans, he had almost as many critics in the beginning. Most of Bakugou's fans at the time were literal kids who didn't know any better. Taking that into consideration is a complete blunder on his part.

And in regard to Endeavor, by the time that "cool" fight happened, he had already decided to redeem Endeavor. In fact, I'm pretty sure that fight was deliberately meant to show off how good of a hero he was to the audience. Endeavor didn't really start getting fans until his redemption arc started.

Also, while Izuku does get a lot of flack, he's been consistently high in character popularity polls and Horikoshi still treats him like shit. Same with All Might and Uraraka.

(Character polls are consistently rigged, so we really shouldn't count them anyway)

So yeah, the fans aren't great judges of character. But it was Horikoshi's literal job to know his narrative and characters better

[pluckyredhead]

Can you please say more about the Lanterns' politics?

I am so glad you asked me about this because I've been thinking about it since I reblogged that post but also I'm definitely about to get yelled at lol. ANYWAY THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG.

Tl;dr: John is the only one with a coherent political position or an up-to-date voter registration.

Hal:

So something interesting about Hal is that his stories are often very political but his character is not. With one extremely obvious exception, he rarely talks about politics; rather, he serves as a means through which to tell political stories, usually unintentionally.

What do I mean by that? Well, for example, in the Silver Age, his love interest would occasionally be possessed by a misandrist space jewel that would force her to attack him, but always lose because women are inherently inferior to men and prefer to be subjugated by them anyway. That's the original Star Sapphire concept. It's wildly misogynistic, but it doesn't mean Hal the character is misogynistic. But it's also a very political story, even if I don't think the writer was deliberately trying to make a point so much as...being an average, thoughtlessly sexist guy living in the 60s. (Carol continues to be the subject of mindbogglingly sexist writing and art well into the 2000s. Fucking comics.)

And so you have Hal Jordan, whose love life was ruined by his girlfriend getting promoted above him and who called his best friend by a racist nickname for decades; Hal Jordan, poster boy for chest-thumping post-9/11 kneejerk patriotism; Hal Jordan, lightning rod for a certain kind of regressive bigoted fanboyism. Choosing Hal as the Lantern for a particular story over John or Kyle has come to signify something very specific, but none of that is necessarily reflective of what Hal himself believes.

So what about Hal himself? Well, when we first meet him, he's the epitome of privilege: a white, straight, cis, Christian (I know he's canonically half-Jewish now but that's only as of the past decade or so), ablebodied, upper middle class (Geoff Johns retconned him to have a working class background, but in the Silver Age, he had one uncle who was a millionaire, another who was a judge, and a successful politician brother) man with a flashy job. Privilege tends to lean Republican; even if he is from California, I suspect Hal voted for Eisenhower in 1956.

In GL/GA, the word "Republican" isn't used to my recollection, but Hal is definitely presented as...I'm going to say conservative by I mean lower-case C. He doesn't have deeply held political beliefs, but he's traditional. He doesn't question the system, because he's never had to. He resists things that challenge the way he's always understood the world works, and that's very relatable - most people do! And he will absolutely argue with Ollie, who certainly isn't always right about everything. But he's also willing to listen, and have his mind changed, and certainly reachable via appeals to compassion and fairness.

Once the "relevance" trend of the late 60s-early 70s was over, Hal's stories default back to ostensibly politically neutral, although obviously nothing is actually politically neutral. In the late 80s and early 90s he's the most unpleasant version of himself, and that has political manifestations, like when he allows John to be imprisoned in apartheid South Africa for a ridiculous and unnecessary crime Hal himself committed. It's extremely fucked up, but again, it's less because of Hal's actual opinions and more because Christopher Priest wanted to write about apartheid, even if it does make Hal look incredibly, horrifically racist.

Then jump to the mid-2000s and Green Lantern: Rebirth, and you might imagine that losing his hometown, getting possessed by a giant space bug, becoming a supervillain, dying, and becoming the embodiment of God's vengeance might have some effect on Hal's politics, but that is not what Geoff Johns is here to write. Johns is writing a Hal who teleported in from, like, 1967 - no nuance allowed. He's a summer blockbuster that walks like a man. He's a Baja Blast. He's never had a coherent political thought in his life. In his defense, he has had more and goofier concussions than any superhero I can think of and his brain is smooth like an egg. Still.

Anyway, all of this is to say that I think Hal tends to default to center right positions but can be easily coaxed over to center left. That said, he has never not once in his life had his shit together enough to vote in a single election, not even for his own brother.

Guy:

So Guy's deal is a little bit complicated because his most vocally political era was also in part due to severe and personality-altering brain damage.

When Guy was originally introduced in the 1960s, he had the pleasantly bland personality of all superheroes. Many years later, he suffered a series of major injuries, torture, and a lengthy coma, and he emerged from the coma in 1985 with the aggressive, abrasive personality he's best known for today. Justice League International took that even further, using him to parody the jingoistic, red-blooded American action hero of the 80s.

This version of Guy is a vocal fan of Ronald Reagan and despises the USSR. He's pro-war, proudly xenophobic, and treats women badly enough that it crosses the line into repeated sexual harassment, both physical and verbal. (To be fair...ish, this last also applies to Wally West and arguably a number of other men, and was always played for laughs. It was gross all around.)

Again, this is partially a manifestation of his brain damage. There's also a running gag in JLI where if he gets hit on the head, his personality changes to this cloying, timid, gentle one, sort of halfway between a child and a flamboyant gay stereotype. Hit him again and he goes back to Asshole Guy. I'm not going to pretend I don't find some of the gags funny, but it's obviously all highly problematic, and not just from a medical standpoint.

That said, I don't think we can dismiss Guy's politics or his usual personality as simply a manifestation of brain damage. We see in later flashbacks that he developed the abrasiveness as a defense mechanism from growing up in an abusive home, and as he matures through the 90s, he doesn't actually become a significantly different person, even after his Vuldarian healing factor kicks in and heals his brain. (It's a thing.) I think it's more accurate to say that the brain damage probably affected his impulse control, his filter, and arguably even his paranoia levels.

All of which is to say that as much as I would love to go "Guy's better now, so he's not a Republican!"...that dog won't hunt. I think a really good canon writer could make the case that Guy is pro-union-style working class and also a former teacher so he's at least center left, but as of now canon evidence is pretty firmly on the red side. It doesn't help that the GLC has been written as fetishistically pro-cop and pro-military since Johns got his grubby hands all over it. I will happily ignore the New 52 retcon that Guy was a cop, and you could even try to argue that he dislikes cops because his brother was a corrupt cop who became a supervillain, but I think it's much more likely that he identifies with cops as a Corps member. Although I don't think he would have any patience for killer cops. ("You were afraid for your life even though you were the only one with a weapon? Then fucking quit, coward.")

All of that said, I think Guy is similar to Hal: defaults to center right, can be talked into center left on certain issues but he's more stubborn about it. (They would also both be enraged by Jan 6 and disgusted by the current Republican party - I can't quite argue that Guy Gardner is a Democrat but Green Lanterns don't have any patience for traitors or cowards.) It's also kind of a moot point because he never knows what is happening on Earth and hasn't voted since his pre-coma days.

John:

Oh John Stewart, thank god for you.

John was introduced as an explicitly political character in an explicitly political story. The first time we see him, he's stepping in to defend Black men from a white cop, citing his own knowledge of the law to do so. He shows a much more perceptive and informed perspective on the issue's main plot (a racist senator running for president) than Hal does. Even in the little moment above, we see that he's sensitive to exactly what it means for him, a Black man, to be taking on this role.

None of this is a surprise, since we'll later learn that John's parents were civil rights activists. Not only would he not have had the privilege Hal and Guy did to assume his existence was politically neutral, he was explicitly educated about political realities and progressive advocacy from childhood. He's well-informed, he's passionate, and he's going to tell you when you are being fucking stupid.

John isn't immune from the GL cop/military...thing, although I can't blame Johns for that - it was the cartoon that made him a Marine, and the comics followed suit. But that's never outweighed his origin or his upbringing. Like, he's friends with the DCU's fictional version of Nelson Mandela.

This one is straightforward: John is a staunch progressive. He is, however, in outer space 90% of the time, so he's always at least a little bit out of date. I imagine every time he comes back to Earth he spends the first 24 hours watching the news in abject horror.

Kyle:

Kyle doesn't talk about politics a lot, but when he does, he lands pretty much where you'd expect a young California-born artist living in New York City to land: to the left. My read on Kyle is that he hasn't really thought any of his politics through, which makes sense - he's a character who is led by emotion over reason every time. He doesn't have John's carefully thought-through arguments or knowledge of the law behind him. I feel like when something political upsets him, he's more likely to splutter angrily than make a coherent argument (which: same). When he's given the time to think things through and speak from the heart, though, he can be very eloquent, like in his speech to Terry after Terry accidentally comes out to him.

It's also worth pointing out that his solo appearances were mostly in the 90s, which were prone to avoiding politics or only addressing them in a halfhearted both sides-y way like the story above.

That said, I don't think he ever actually does anything about his political opinions. He never votes in midterm or primary elections, and probably only voted in a presidential one because Alex dragged him along one time. I feel like Donna tried to do the same when they were dating and that was when Kyle realized he'd forgotten to change his voter registration from California to New York. Jennie wasn't responsible enough to Mom him into doing his civic duty, and he's been in space pretty much nonstop ever since, so...

Simon:

In that other post, I said Simon's experiences should have radicalized him, but instead he was created by Geoff Johns. Simon is a Muslim, Lebanese-American man who came of age in the post-9/11 era, and was wrongfully convicted of terrorism and waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. His reaction to this was...to put on a ski mask and wave a gun around. Like, it's been a while since I've read these issues, but aside from the "ripped from the headlines!!!" of it all, I feel like Simon's experiences largely don't inform his actions or perspective except that he's super angry (fair enough).

The thing about Simon (and Jessica) is that he hasn't been around very long, and most comics don't have characters directly expressing political opinions. It's not a coincidence that these characters are in chronological order and each write-up is shorter than the last. I can think of about three times where Kyle has ever said anything I can interpret as political, and he's been around for 30 years. Simon only has a third of that history. So while one could certainly extrapolate what Simon's opinions are likely to be, I can't think of any canon where he actually says them.

Jessica:

Jessica has even less to go on in terms of explicitly political comics. You'd think she wouldn't like guns because of what happened to her friends, but she has one of her own and doesn't seem bothered by Simon's. I'd imagine she has opinions on immigration as someone whose family is from Mexico and Honduras, but it never comes up. If I were writing for DC, I'd make both Simon and Jess leftists, but as for actual canon proof? I got nothing.

I will say that she probably avoids political discussions because anxiety, and I bet she got really good at voting by mail during her years not leaving the house. She probably votes by mail from space. Maybe John's not the only one with an up-to-date voter registration.

Kilowog:

[saintjosie]

Hi! I was hoping to get your advice, from a fellow trans any pronouns person. I just started my sophomore year of college and my English class is requiring people to introduce themselves (on the discussion board) with their pronouns.

I am a closeted trans person who does not pass at all due to my body type. I also don’t out myself as any type of queer lightly due to a bad home and the fact that my college is in my town— I don’t want people reporting back to my family even if it’s a slim chance.

all that to say, I am more open in some classes! I just need time to gauge. So I’m pretty mad that we’re required to post pronouns in this class, because from what I can tell it’s made up entirely (so far) of cis people easily giving name and pronouns. Meanwhile the actual trans person in the room who this is supposedly in support of has to either misgender myself and consent to being misgendered, or out myself in a potentially unwelcoming group. No option to just quietly leave out pronouns.

I’m really pissed and I thought I would give it time (it’s due on Friday) but the longer I wait the angrier I am!! They want to look like allies but they’re throwing me under the bus in the process!! So long story short, is it worth the risk of academic kickback to email the professor about it? Is it worth me pretty clearly outing myself? I know these are questions I have to answer for myself, but I’d appreciate a second opinion. I’m thinking about deliberately not putting pronouns and then emailing the prof if I get in trouble. I would just appreciate any advice you have :/

I’ve had classes with actually queer profs before and they give an option to share pronouns, an option to help you stay out in class but closeted in public, etc.

i think what you are feeling is incredibly valid. no one should have to be out until they are ready.

if you are willing to invest that energy, speaking your truth is powerful. even if the response is not what you wanted, you stood strong and sometimes that’s what’s most important.

things may not go how you want or plan but also defending yourself may mean that another tsan’s person doesn’t have to go through the same in the future either.

which ever you decide, i’m proud of you cause knowing you need to defend yourself is hard to do.

go get em!

[bloodycyrano]

I want to lore dump about my BG3 storyline and OCs so bad, but at the same time I don't want to release any information before it would come out in the future chapters of my fanfic, so to stave off the dark urge, here's.... 🥁🥁🥁

Team Tadpole doing sweet things for each other part 2!

Sometimes, when Astarion has trouble resting at night, Gale will stay up with him and play chess- They started with card games, but Astarion cheats like a fox. He still cheats at chess, but not as often.

Karlach probably notices when her comrades are in pain after battle, and will hug a sack of rocks until they heat up to make a sort of makeshift heating pad for sore muscles.- Bonus points, She'll borrow some scented oils from Halsin to add an element of aromatherapy.

Gale has 100% done talis card readings for Team tadpole when they deal with heavy emotional stuff, if only to help them find their path forward. Maybe he isn't the best at verbal comfort, but magic is one thing he knows he can use for at least some benefit.

I feel like Gale also notices when people aren't dealing well with things, and will purposefully annoy Durge so they have someone to pick on and hopefully feel a little better afterwards. They're definitely the sort of friends that pretend to hate each other, but are there when you need them. Durge definitely brings out his petty side, but its all in good fun. Usually.

While maybe they have a bit of a rocky relationship, I also believe Durge would indulge Gales special interests and let him ramble about things, because they know what it's like to have to shut up to make other people happy. I also feel like Gale would return the favor and deliberately ask about weird, macabre things so that Durge actually has an excuse to bring up topics that interest them.

Wyll has a knitting hobby. You probably wouldn't expect it, but he definitely does. And he's really really good at it, too. He uses every holiday as an excuse to gift people things like socks, scarves, mittens, etc. And I mean EVERY holiday. Earth day, valentines day, national owlbear day (Which is totally not something he made up as an excuse to give people their presents early), etc. The thing is, he notices when people complain about their socks getting worn from traveling, and gets random ideas for gifts at 3 AM, and then spends the rest of the night knitting. He has also been known to make cute little knitted outfits for the group pets in the winter, because he thought Scratch was getting cold.

Adding onto this, Lae'zel is the only person Wyll is willing to go to for a blunt and honest opinion on the gifts he makes before he gives them. Lae'zel doesn't take this lightly, either. While maybe she doesn't show it, she takes this very seriously and is somewhat honored that Wyll came to her instead of anyone else.

Shadowheart tends to replenish Wylls yarn reserve without telling him as well. She asks Lae’zel what colours he's run out of, and then sneak some extra spools into his pack. Wyll still doesn't know who's been doing it, but he's thankful nonetheless. And it's one thing the cleric and the gith can actually be somewhat peaceful about.

Durge doesn't take all of their kills lightly. When it comes to someone they actually respected, there's a ritual they perform afterward that they read about in Withers old temple. They'll grind bone and ash into ink and take time to write out the names of those they respected, and bury it with the bodies. As well as little offerings as well. It isn't a short process either.. Durge will spend the entire night locked in their caravan burning incense, praying their name to Jergal in hopes that the spirit will find rest, and doing little things in honor of the dead.- It isn't hard for team tadpole to figure out when Durge has taken the life of someone they held a genuine respect for, and will be careful not to disturb them, or leave bones or herbs/flowers on the steps of their caravan. Karlach and Astarion will occasionally come to check on them. While maybe it doesn't happen often, it does happen. Withers was particularly surprise to begin receiving prayers after all this time, but it strengthened a sort of bond between the two.

[csuitebitches]

Book Review: Book 1: Stop People Pleasing (a 9-part series by Patrick King, “Be Confident and Fearless.”)

I’m reading a 9-part series by Patrick King, “Be Confident and Fearless.” His books talk about becoming assertive, saying no, not people pleasing anymore and being confident. Generally, such books are quite generic but I found his take on the subject interesting. His techniques to handle certain situations seem to be quite doable too. His techniques have been highlighted in bold.

Book One: “Stop People Pleasing”

A people-pleaser is worried about rejection. They have a need, as we all do, to be accepted and treasured—to be loved. But in people-pleasers, this need is amplified to the extent that they will bend over backward just to not lose that love or acceptance. This is more invalidating than giving an honest opinion.

-

In reality, people-pleasers continued promises and inaction just tick their friends off, as it becomes apparent that they are willing to be dishonest and only say what people want to hear.

-

They’re not really doing what they do to improve someone else’s life—they just want to feel more positive about themselves.

-

Living under the limitations of our own viewpoint, we tend to think everyone in our circle is looking at and judging how we look and behave. At most, maybe a couple of people are paying attention to most of your moves, and they’re likely people you’re already close to who are supposed to know you better than anyone else.

-

When you’re so consumed with the perceived needs of others, you’re not paying yourself any attention. You could be overlooking or ignoring things you need to do to take care of yourself.

-

Avoiding confrontation for fear that it might only make things worse ironically results in the very outcomes it’s meant to deflect. The absence of confrontations doesn’t mean your relationship is all healthy, and the presence of confrontations doesn’t mean your relationship has gone to the dogs.

-

The BLUE model is a specific CBT strategy developed by PracticeWise to help counter negative thinking. BLUE is an acronym that stands for the kind of extremely negative thoughts you should recognize in yourself when they do pop into your head. “B” stands for blaming myself, “L” is looking for bad news, “U” means unhappy guessing, and “E” represents exaggeratedly negative thoughts.

-

What many people-pleasers fail to see is that sacrificing so much of themselves in pursuit of serving everyone else around them is sabotaging their very capacity to continue being there for others when it truly matters.

-

Rejecting an invite is not the same as rejecting your friend and that prioritizing your own peace of mind by just settling into a restful weekend is totally okay.

-

Ask yourself, “What are the things I do to be happy?” or “What are the core beliefs I have about my worth as a person?”

-

Exposure therapy is the process of deliberately placing yourself in situations that cause you fear and anxiety. You’ll need to immerse yourself in your feared situations in a gradual and progressive manner, starting from situations that cause the least anxiety and later advancing to those that cause the most intense feelings of fear.

-

Creating your fear hierarchy. The fear hierarchy is an ordered list of situations that elicit your fears and anxieties.

-

The first habit we must develop is the habit of self-awareness. We don’t understand why we people-please, and we’re not aware when we’re doing it.

This begins with questioning the motives for your actions: “Why exactly am I going out of my way for this person?” “Do I genuinely care for them, or am I just afraid of what might happen without them?” “Would I be doing this out of free will, or am I doing it for someone else?”

Take note of the moment you’re starting to feel internal resistance. When that happens, stop everything and question why you’re doing it.

-

The second habit to cultivate is the habit of personal autonomy. An autonomous person knows what they truly believe and why they believe it. But the differences that you’ve valued your own opinion over that of others. Or you’ve at least valued it equally and not by habit put your own opinion as inferior to that of others.

-

That’s why it’s important to get into the habit of expressing yourself honestly. The more you communicate where you stand, the more people will know where you’re coming from (and what your limits are). After all, people can’t read minds, and to expect others to know what you want is an impossible task.

-

Remain strong under pressure. When you stop people-pleasing, you will face some angry reactions. It’s not necessarily their fault because you have conditioned their expectations. But this is where you must not fold under pressure, like you previously would have. It only takes five seconds of extreme willpower, and it gets easier every time thereafter.

-

How to set boundaries:

1. Determine your core values

2. Change yourself and only yourself. You dont control other people

3. Set consequences of someone else breaking your boundaries. Write down the boundaries you have, the actions others might take that trespass those boundaries, and exactly what you will do when they’ve violated your boundaries.

4. Communicate your boundaries to others in very exact terms. Make sure everybody’s very, very clear on what your limits are.

-

If you tell yourself “I can’t,” you’re simply reminding yourself of the limitations you’ve set for yourself. You’re creating a feedback loop in your brain that tells you that you can’t do something that you would normally want to do.

When you tell yourself “I don’t,” you’re creating a feedback loop that reminds you of your power and control of the situation. You’ve given yourself a line in the sand that takes the situation out of your hands. Your choice was premade to say no and thus you can stick to it more easily.

[antianakin]

I used to love Ahsoka as a character and I thought she was a really interesting foil/parallel to Anakin but at some point I started to disconnect with her character and be all ‘huh that doesn’t seem right’ and for ages I couldn’t figure out why/what it was specifically that was bothering me that wasn’t just *gestures at post-Wrong Jedi!Ahsoka as a whole*

From airing of tcw s7 onwards and also a little before that in some (but admittedly not all) parts of rebels she just doesn’t act like a Jedi.

Like we’re clearly supposed to think that she does and she uses the Force to do things and she uses lightsabre combat and sometimes she even listens to what the Force is telling her(!) but she doesn’t act the way a Jedi would or should most of the time. She doesn’t use or express their teachings or philosophies or act in any way according to them even when she says she does* or the narrative implicitly claims that’s what she’s doing

(*when she’s around Kanan this gets a bit less notable bc she does act more Jedi-like around him and I can’t figure out whether that’s deliberate or accidental or what it’s supposed to say or mean about them both if it’s intentional)

Before that she was fun and also flawed and I think if they’d kept those roots while either showing how she’d manage to overcome/learn from those flaws or that she hadn’t managed to move past them at all but was still trying her best then she would have stayed interesting! But instead her character gets flattened and her flaws get narratively erased (while still being very much there just not acknowledged in any way and/or presented as though they’re not flaws at all) in favour as propping her up as The Best Jedi TM and making her feel like a caricature of an ideal rather than a real character.

Like I am mid-Ahsoka show right now and she doesn’t even feel like the same character! Everything that made her interesting is just gone and the narrative constantly implies that she’s right even when she very clearly is not???

Writers challenge! Accept that characters have flaws and should have flaws to make them interesting and help drive the plot rather than making them perfect bc they’re your favourite!

Yeah, I don't even mind Ahsoka growing OUT of her earlier flaws (which are primarily the same ones that Anakin was given, like impatience and overconfidence/arrogance) and into different ones that reflect her new experiences and maturity. But it also would've been great to see how those flaws she started with, the impatience/impulsivity and the overconfidence/arrogance sort-of grew WITH her.

Like the way the Wrong Jedi arc shows her refusing to trust the Council LONG before she has any reason to do so and going off on her own to try to prove her own innocence which just makes her look more guilty and pushes the Council into more of a corner while also trusting ONLY the person who ended up framing her in the first place. The way that her more childish impatience and overconfidence has sort-of grown into the more dangerous impulsiveness and arrogance in the Wrong Jedi would've been so so interesting to look at if anyone writing it had been willing to acknowledge that she was in the wrong.

And you could keep going with that in later arcs and have her still be sort-of mistrustful of authority (especially Jedi authority), inclined to believe in her own superiority of opinion, and impulsive in her judgments. That's generally what we see in season 7, especially regarding her behavior towards characters like Mace and Obi-Wan. She believes she's right ALL THE TIME and this would be FINE if the narrative actually supported the idea that she WASN'T. Ahsoka can think she's right, but the audience should understand that she isn't. That's how her flaws got portrayed in earlier seasons of TCW and why I tend to prefer them to later ones. And this would've been a great place to follow up on her comment about not trusting HERSELF. Maybe Ahsoka has sort-of wandered away from mindfulness since she left the Order and so instead of continuing to look at the mistakes she made that caused the Order to mistrust her, she just starts blaming the Jedi for everything. And when she starts making accusations at Obi-Wan, have him point out that not only is she not being fair, but she's not being HONEST, with herself or anyone else. Because truly, it's not the Jedi she doesn't trust. It's not the Council playing politics that she's afraid of. It's her own flawed judgment leading her to her own destruction.

And there's SO MUCH you could do with that moving forward into Rebels, to showcase Ahsoka's continuing struggle with trusting her own judgment and how she's grown since Order 66 and into her place as a rebel where she HAS to trust herself more, but she still doesn't entirely trust herself to be a JEDI. Perhaps her uncertainty over Anakin's fate has a part to play in that. Instead, they just made her a spy despite the fact that a LACK OF SUBTLETY was one of her major personality traits in TCW and never once was she shown doing any kind of real spy work and we don't really see her doing any in Rebels either aside from a few conversations with Hera. We have no idea how she ended up growing into that role or WHY she took on that particular role rather than something that would've fit her existing skillset better. Ahsoka's position within the Rebellion is one of the places I think they really faltered with her because it could've been utilized to genuinely help her character move forward and develop her more as a Jedi survivor. Instead, she's just kinda... there and her entire narrative tends to revolve around Anakin, a problem that persists and actually got worse with the Ahsoka show.

I don't truly mind that Ahsoka is perhaps not acting much like a Jedi, at least not all the time, because that could be a really easy way to give her a journey BACK to being more like a Jedi. Much like the Kenobi show had Obi-Wan acting very out of character and unlike a Jedi in order to have him go on a journey to reclaim that identity and become the wise Master we all know and remember, they could've done something similar with Ahsoka. Let the narrative embrace that she's not acting like a Jedi as an intentional choice so that she can move forward from there and BECOME a Jedi again. This is also an arc that Kanan himself is sort-of going on, so it would've been pretty easy to parallel them a little in Rebels if they'd been willing to represent Ahsoka as anything other than a literal angel come to earth.

The problem with the Ahsoka show is that it DOES give her flaws, but the flaws it chooses to give her are the opposite of what they should be. (This paragraph might get a bit spoilery, so if you're trying to avoid spoilers until you finish the whole show, just skip this paragraph.) Instead of showing Ahsoka as impatient/impulsive and somewhat arrogant, they show Ahsoka being too UNFEELING. Ahsoka's primary flaw in the Ahsoka show is that she's too detached because her feelings regarding Anakin's fall have apparently caused her to pull away from connecting to anybody on a deeper level or something. And they choose to show this by having her literally recite Jedi philosophy of non-attachment and have Sabine push back against it. So now it's not just that Ahsoka is too unfeeling but that she's too much like the Prequels Jedi, the BAD Jedi who FAILED. And only once she lets go of those Jedi philosophies holding her back (and instead explicitly chooses to emulate ANAKIN, the dude who let himself be consumed by selfishness and greed and betrayed everybody and threw an entire galaxy into tyranny) is she able to move forward in her relationships. Instead of recognizing that Sabine is impulsive and arrogant and letting that shine a light on Ahsoka's own flaws so that they can BOTH work on them more, it just chooses to justify Sabine's impulsivity and arrogance instead and Ahsoka needs to accept Sabine as she is and support her completely no matter what horrifically selfish bullshit she does. Moral of the story, never hold your loved ones accountable for anything they do wrong!

Long story short, I think Ahsoka was 100% at her best in her bratty teenager phase in early TCW when the narrative actually was willing to admit she HAD flaws that she had to work through and her character has been completely flattened ever since they decided to pretend she no longer has any flaws and is just always right about everything (except for when she's acting TOO MUCH like the wrong kind of Jedi).

[queeranarchism]

Hi! I saw your answer to the question about "Anarchist leadership" and had a followup question. My concept of leadership has been that the practical function of the role itself is how you described a "coordinator," and that the difficulties which anarchism seeks to address arise when team coordination gives way to that individual abusing the opportunity of coordination to divide labor unequally (IE less to themself) or ignore input on how work is done, by whom, or when. To put it simply, my idea has been that the difference between a "leader" and a "boss" is, at extremes, that a leader takes on as much work (or more) as the rest of the group and considers every opinion in the group before making a final decision, while a boss accepts no input and does no work beyond coordination.

My first question is this: When a group is doing work collaboratively, how does an anarchist structure address the potential roadblock of deliberation? If every member is required to provide consensus on a decision affecting the group, what is the method for decision-making when consensus can't be reached? The only option I know of is an individual whose job is making a final decision in a case where one or more individuals refuse to agree with the majority, which is undeniably an authoritarian structure, but are there alternatives that can effectively limit deliberation when there is only so much time available? In short, what is the anarchist method of making a concise decision on something that affects every individual present?

My second question is this: If an individual's responsibility is coordination, or even being the "final say" in deliberation (assuming there is no other option), what is the alternative to rotation of responsibility if there are no other individuals capable of accomplishing that? I recognize that rotation of responsibility is an effective way to avoid one individual being placed in a position where their coordination becomes critical to the function of the group, but there are scenarios where nobody else in the group has the capacity to organize and coordinate and one can't be provided. How does one avoid a power structure when only one person is capable of coordinating?

I also have a followup about how anarchism addresses human vanity & pettiness in both of these cases, but I can save that so you don't have to answer too much in one post. Thanks in advance!

I'm going to start with the simple part: what you describe as the difference between a leader and a boss is, in effect, the difference between a boss and a lazy boss. The authority is exactly the same. The worst bosses I've worked for were willing to work very very hard, they were still my boss and the fact that they worked hard changed nothing about that relationship. A person that has the power to hire and fire others is a boss. If a person can decide that I should no longer have a stable income, I am at their mercy. They are my boss and no hard work or cool attitude can change that.

As for forming consensus: if consensus can not be reached it means a decision that works for everybody can not be reached and to those committed to consensus it is vital to keep working, keep talking, go over all the possibilities, pros and cons, and unorthodox alternatives again until a consensus is reached. For those interested in learning that, i recommend A Consensus Handbook, Co operative decision making for activists, co ops and communities by Seeds for Change. Free pdf here: https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/handbook

This book probably addresses a lot of your follow up questions. A vital thing to understand before you get started is that in order for consensus to work, there has to be:

No leader ad a commitment to dismantle power dynamics. Not just the pretense that there isn't a power dynamic. It has to be real. There can't be anyone with a 'final say', that's just authority with extra steps. A person with the power to have a 'final say' is a boss. There's no anarchism there. None.

An agreement by all participants to work by consensus.

Time and patience.

When people have spend most of their life not living with consensus, they will come in with attitudes that don't fit a consensus process. They will see the goal as 'reaching the decision that I already know we need to make' instead of seriously considering alternatives that others bring to the table. They will try to gain a majority for their plan instead of working with everyone in the group. They will try to get their way by blocking every alternative. It takes time, practice and experiencing the benefits of a consensus process for that attitude to change.