#I am not making a moral judgment on something when I disagree with you or don’t like something!!!!

[itspileofgoodthings]

Nina and i have been communicating better lately because she keeps letting it slip that some of my opinions make her feel like I’m morally judging her when I’m not, I’m just disagreeing. And it really helps to know that she feels that sometimes because it would never occur to me.

[secreteviltwin]

I haven't seen bridgerton, (outside of like clips) but I am actually curious about your opinion on eloise. Everyone reduces her to a not like other girls and annoying and privelidged but personally from the clips I've seen she does makes valid points (maybe awkwardly so and a little condescending but I just can't help but roll my eyes at the people who hate her because it always seems to come from such shallow...choice feminist lense) i have plans to watch it (mostly BECAUSE of the Eloise clips ive seen ngl) but I wanted to see your opinion on her as it seems you have a different take on her compared to what I've seen.

absolutely i will take the bait i love talking about my opinions. eloise is there to discredit feminism so you can turn your brain off and enjoy the show

eloise is my favourite character she says exactly what im thinking and she's right about everything. the "marriage mart" IS demeaning. the rules and norms of polite society ARE ridiculous. she IS being restricted and oppressed because of her sex - principally she is denied education when ALL her brothers are college educated

maybe i relate more than most because i also know what it's like to have a mother who is constantly on your ass about finding a man and getting married and how it's the highest form of happiness a woman can achieve

but eloise's feminism is put there for you to mock and roll your eyes at. the script wants you to see her as annoying judgmental and hypocritical. they frame her against daphne: isn't daphne so admirable for being so pragmatic? she doesn't complain like eloise, she plays the game even though she knows it's not fair. why can't eloise shut up and appreciate she's not the only one suffering? why can't she be happy for her sister's success with romance?

they frame her against theo: how dare eloise be concerned with her own experiences oppression and not prioritize the plight of the poor? she doesn't know anything about real suffering, she just victimizes herself because she's bored and narcissistic. if she REALLY had any conviction in her beliefs she would burn her life down to make a point.

they frame her against penelope: how insensitive and bullish she is for forcing her friend to agree with her radical politics (even though penelope never says shit to eloise that implies she doesn't agree). see how penelope can be smart and entrepreneurial AND appreciate romance? why can't eloise do the same? she's just bitter and lazy when compared to the TRUE feminist: a woman who can walk both worlds. see how feminism doesn't have to come with an annoying antisocial distain for romance? see how eloise is complaining about nothing actually and everything is fine for women because she could just shut up and make money by writing?

annoying? - i don't find women speaking up about their oppression whiny but the writers obviously want you to

judgmental? - all of her judgements are correct. "why can't she understand other women want different things ☹️" choice feminism indeed

hypocritical? - it's not hypocritical to acknowledge and complain about the ways you're being hurt without testing the limits of your chains, being oppressed is not a moral fault. dignity and freedom are not actually things eloise should have to earn, they are owed to all women regardless of action. and she IS doing something: she's avoiding marriage, she's reading as much as she can, she's writing a novel, she's TALKING and facing social consequences for refusing to conform

you ever notice how eloise is the only character ever condemned for being wealthy even though all the other characters in the show are also wealthy? and she doesn't even have her own money - it's her brother's money

eloise is, consciously or unconsciously, a message to young outspoken women to shut up and assimilate and be happy for patriarchal conforming women. it's just a phase, it's silly, you'll grow out of it and find a man

she also reinforces the perspectives of women who want to disagree with her: the penelopes and daphnes and violets of real life. women who want to make decisions about romance and femininity while feeling superior and not like a vapid antifeminist. they've secretly known all this time they're more practical and intelligent and happier than those miserable radicals, and now they can happily hate eloise in the open

most importantly she's there to sell the lie of the bridgerton fantasy. the bridgerton setting is unromantic and uncomfortable for exactly the reasons eloise proports, for women to be able to enjoy the show they need to be able to banish the eloise in the back of their thoughts and the easiest way to do that is to set up a character to embody those ideas and discredit her. oh you've noticed how this premise is suffocating and nightmarish? good now that we've acknowledged that let's move on with the steamy romance

the writers said how do we frame perfectly reasonable normal feminist ideas so that women feel comfortable disagreeing. eloise is a feminist but her character is antifeminist

[tracesofdevotion]

I have gotten really good at lying. I could make you sit there sobbing over some fabricated story that never actually happened. I could make my eyes well up and my voice tremble. I won’t though, but I know I could. People trust me. But I’m not someone that deserves it. I don’t know what I have done to deserve the kindness of the people around me.

This one time I was on a car ride and the person I was with said, “You’re a good person, you know?”

And I just kept looking out the window and I couldn’t respond. I kept repeating the words in my head. “You’re a good person.” For some reason it made me want to cry. I knew I wasn’t but I couldn’t bring myself to disagree with them.

I don’t know what being a good person is. I just know that I’m kind and that people like to be around me and listen to me when I talk. But I don’t feel like a good person. I know that good people are patient and kind. I am impatient. I am selfish. I am judgmental and envious. I lie a lot. And yet people still like me when I don’t care about myself and I act like a complete dick most of the time.

I don’t think people are inherently good. I don’t want to believe in the innate morality of people. Being kind is something to be earned. Everyone is capable of being bad so why not judge everyone based on that?

[a-trick-or-two-with-lepers]

Religion in Relation to Jesus Christ Superstar

(CW: Religious trauma, slight stream-of-consciousness, imposter syndrome)

It's no secret now that I love Jesus Christ Superstar. The music, the way the story is presented, the history of the musical, and the talented actors are what drew me to it and kept me interested. Hell, it even made me download TUMBLR just so I could interact with others who enjoy the show (which is lovely, you're all lovely and I'm having such a good time).

Sometimes when I'm doing my wholely unnecessary research on JCS, I find a bad review from a devout Christian, claiming it to be blasphemy of the highest degree. This doesn't particularly bother me, as I am no longer a religious person, and I can easily brush these reviews off as extremists finding things to complain about.

I've found myself researching the book the rock opera was based on. You know the one. It's a fascinating story; I don't think many people disagree with that regardless of what religion they align themselves with. However, as with most things on the internet, it's hard to find information that is unbiased (unless I choose to read the full Bible, which I'm not interested in doing at the moment). I see how passionate these people are about their faith, and how many use that as an excuse to belittle and isolate others. This is something I've always been aware of, and it's something that's affected me personally.

When I come across these kinds of things online, I start to feel a pit of anxiety growing in my chest. I respect anyone of any religion so long as they do not use it as a means to harm others (physically, mentally, psychologically - in any way). But when I am presented with a Christian explaining why everything I believe in and stand for is inherently wrong, I begin to feel as if I'm still a young girl being berated for going against the Lord. To make matters worse, I am queer, though I am well aware that any accusations that this is a shortcoming are without truth.

Part of what drew me into JCS is what I and some others believe to be queer undertones. The intense relationship between Judas and Jesus is captivating to me, and I find it healing to examine the story of Christ this way. I had been avoidant of all Christian-related media for such a long time after I decided to detach myself from the religion. Any mention of it brought back years of shame and fear that, in my opinion, do not align with the morals the Bible depicts. If that is not what I am meant to feel when presented with the power of the Christ, then why should I subject myself to it? But when I found this musical, I was so intrigued that my inhibitions became insignificant. I only notice now how unprepared I was for the feelings that arose within me when re-introduced to my experience with religion.

I think the main issue comes with Christians believing they are entitled to the words and story of the Bible. Against my better judgment, and due to my past, I feel sometimes as if I'm intruding on an aspect of human culture that was not meant for me. In reality, I recognize that all I'm really doing is enjoying a story that I relate to and that inspires me to create and live my life as I want to live it. My learned instinct is to feel repentant when any person says I am wrong, especially when it comes to my experience as a queer woman. I read the relationship between Jesus and Judas in JCS as romantic. I have seldom seen such an intense portrayal of homosexually-charged angst, even if that is not how it was meant to be read. And I relate to it. And it heals a part of me. And I may be reading way too far into this, but I'm already devoting so much of my time to this property, so I may as well get something useful out of it.

I wonder if any other fans of JCS have felt this way. Like we are not allowed to enjoy something simply because it is not a story that is meant to be heard as we are hearing it.

My mother wonders why I haven't since converted back to Christianity after watching Jesus Christ Superstar. But this is the furthest from Christianity I have ever felt. And it the most at peace with Christianty I have ever felt.

[black-butler-meta]

Expanding on my last post about BOC…

Recently there was a post that was obviously related to what I recently wrote regarding the PTSD scene in Book of Circus. That person chose to make their own (not so) vague post rather than communicating directly via the ask box or a reblog, so I’m not going to reblog it because I’m guessing they don’t want to interact with me (totally fine, btw).

But I do want to make a new post to clarify what I apparently did not communicate correctly before, in case others are curious for a response.

First and foremost, I actually DO understand PTSD. I have a history of CSA and child abuse that persisted across multiple years, and it most definitely is an important part of who I am, and something I am still working through. So please refrain from making accusations about a stranger online just because you’re upset.

Now, about the post….

When I was describing the discomfort I felt between Sebastian and Ciel during the PTSD scene, I was not doing so as a generalization of “this is how their dynamic always is” and “their relationship can only be toxic/bad,” etc. I was only referring to that scene specifically. The discomfort I spoke of was referring to the viewer (which is subjective - I never said it wasn’t), not to the characters’ relationship.

It felt uncomfortable because of the contrast between Sebastian’s manipulative, predatory nature (which was very soothing and calming) and Ciel’s fragile mental state, emphasized by his regression in response to trauma. It’s about finding (as the viewer) Sebastian’s sensual actions arousing contrasted with Ciel’s obvious suffering that makes the scene have an underlying layer of unease. The dichotomy of arousal and discomfort would be there as well if Ciel were an adult, because the manipulation is the same. BUT, the discomfort is worsened because in this moment, Ciel’s behavior is more childlike than the way he usually is. It’s not to make Sebastian out as a pedophile/groomer, but to show Ciel at his most weakest, and Sebastian is taking that opportunity to push him over the edge into violence. Additionally, Ciel’s childness is also there to remind us that he’s not out of his trauma yet; that, in many ways, it’s still ongoing for him.

Of course not everyone has that reaction to the scene… maybe others find it protective, which I can also see those undertones, especially when Sebastian carries Ciel while fulfilling his orders, instead of simply leaving him on the floor by himself. Maybe there are those that find it romantic, a white night coming to save. I personally don’t, but if you do, then good for you! We can agree to disagree and leave it at that. I’m not here to cast moral judgment on others over fictional characters, and I’m not here to speak for everyone. These analyses are simply my own and so it’s about how the message comes across to me.

I had never said that Ciel didn’t find comfort in Sebastian. In fact, it’s the very reason that he finds comfort in him that Sebastian’s tender approach worked, and got Ciel to finally open his eyes and give him the orders that he wanted. But I did find the lip touch to be something that felt out of place, more the indulgence of a hungry demon inspecting his future meal rather than something done to console, and Ciel’s lack of reaction to it demonstrated how far gone he was in his panic attack. Yes, Ciel allows Sebastian to dress him, bathe him, carry him, etc.; but he also at times expresses boundaries either through body language (frowning, pulling back slightly) or verbal protest (e.g., when Sebastian tried to spoon feed him). Just because Ciel lets him care for him in some ways, doesn’t mean he’d give Sebastian a free pass to touch him in other, more intimate ways outside of his butler duties. That was why that moment felt unnerving.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that their relationship is largely positive. I wouldn’t call it entirely negative, either. In actuality, I would describe it as complex. Sebastian, first and foremost, is a demon and his purpose is to cultivate Ciel’s soul. Yana herself has described him as elite trash, hyper-narcissistic, and that he enjoys seeing Ciel struggle. And it’s because of this characterization that it’s so interesting to see Sebastian slowly evolve into someone who does care. There are absolutely clues of him learning to “care” in his own weird way. He’s been shown to be protective, and will do kindnesses that he doesn’t have to do, for Ciel and others, and worry when Ciel is in danger that seems to go beyond losing his meal. These glimpses contrasted with scenes where his demon side really comes through is what makes him such an interesting character to begin with.

Yes, in a strange way Sebastian is helping Ciel heal, but it’s in a warped sort of way, like a broken bone that never gets set properly and heals wrong. Sebastian’s goal isn’t to truly heal Ciel; it’s to help him complete his vengeance and ripen his damaged soul in preparation for eating. And yes, he’s likely going to grow attached to it by the end of it, which will make the act that much more personal and meaningful if/when it does happen.

The entire thing is complicated, dark, beautiful, and yes, in some ways toxic. The discomfort is there (for the viewer - or at least some of us), and that’s okay. It’s literally a part of dark fantasy, and, if you want to go there, dark romance. It’s the moral ambiguity of decisions and motivations, that blurring of lines between good and evil, and finding comfort in darkness and violence. If that discomfort wasn’t there, then the story wouldn’t be what it is. It wouldn’t be Black Butler at all.

[mbti-notes]

Hi mbti notes, I’m an ENTJ having issues with a superior at work and would appreciate your perspective. I find myself reacting with anger to a lot of her decisions, more than just frustration at what I consider to be bad policy changes. I try to stay polite in the moment but I recently had to rant about her to trusted friends. I am not the sort of person to hold grudges, so this is a weird and bad feeling for me. I think it is because her decisions are just plain mean and I have no way to argue against them since they arent necessarily irrational or illogical. They will save the business money, but I feel uncomfortable with them (being vague for privacy). No one else working there seems to be bothered so I wonder if I am more angry than I should be, though my friends agreed it sounded unnecessarily mean. I guess my question is how to deal with authority you disagree with without going straight to confrontation. And also why my anger feels so out of proportion. Thank you

You are entitled to your opinions and your feelings are valid. Feelings and emotions reveal important truths, which is why accounting for them is necessary for good decision-making and denying them can be harmful. Feelings and emotions become disruptive or unhealthy when you aren't able to acknowledge them, understand them, process them, and use them to enhance your existence - these are all important elements of emotional intelligence.

Anger is an indication of significant injury or brokenness. Whenever you encounter an unfair, unjust, or unethical situation, anger is the appropriate response to the relationship fracture, the betrayal of trust, and/or the damage done to the victims. Without anger, humans wouldn't have the motivation to rectify/prevent problematic social situations. When you don't address these problems properly, the social environment easily becomes toxic and harmful to everyone.

Anger is a very strong and draining emotion because it's meant to quickly spur action that stops/prevents harm. Where people often get confused is they experience all this anger burning inside themselves and they have no idea how to handle it or where to channel it. Some people can't handle the intensity and repress it, only to have it pop back out in destructive ways. Some people get consumed and express it, which only fans the flames of an already tense situation. Are there alternatives to repressing or expressing?

To handle feelings and emotions wisely:

Take them. Accept them. Allow yourself to feel them fully.

Listen to them and hear what they're telling you to do.

Try to look at the situation from different perspectives in order to prevent yourself from getting too biased in judgment.

Pause and tap into your better self to determine what the best course of action is.

Moral problems aren't black-and-white most of the time. Complex moral problems do not have perfect solutions, which is why they are difficult to reason through and resolve. No matter what, someone's going to lose something, so all you can do is try to minimize the losses by carefully considering several possible outcomes, i.e., use Ni to visualize the best possible course of events.

In your case, there seems to be three separate issues to address:

1) The Merits of the Decision: By putting yourself in the company's position, you are able to acknowledge that the decision was advantageous, so you have no logical grounds to counter it. Okay.

But keep in mind that such decisions are never perfectly justified. They are usually based on some data as well as some underlying value judgments. Perhaps a different manager/executive would've looked at that data and made a different decision based on a different set of values. The devil is in the details. Expose the details of the decision-making process and you may find grounds for objection.

For example, although it was an "advantageous" decision for the company, was it absolutely "necessary" to decide in that particular way? Asking this kind of question changes the angle and opens up a different avenue of inquiry. Of course, you might not be in a position to answer the question. But you asked for perspective, so that's one alternative way to approach the argument.

2) The Ethics of the Decision: You take issue with the manner in which the policy change was communicated or implemented ("sounded unnecessarily mean"). You pin the blame on a particular superior. How you handle this depends on what your ultimate goal is.

E.g. If your end goal is to get the policy amended, then you'll have to speak with the people who have the power to change it and convince them with compelling arguments. If your end goal is to get this superior to communicate better, then you'll have to determine whether she'd be open to feedback and come up with a constructive way to deliver the criticism to her (i.e. without blaming and shaming). If your end goal is to alleviate the suffering of the people who will be most impacted by this policy change, then ignore the superior and deal directly with the victims.

3) The Power Differential: You are constrained by the rules and norms of a superior/subordinate relationship. To continue point #2, you have to determine what your end goal should be, but what you set as your end goal is largely determined by how much influence you have over the situation. Since I don't know your status in the company, I can't make any judgments on this matter.

Even when you don't have the power to influence the higher-ups or make big sweeping structural change, doing so-called "smaller" things to alleviate suffering is also very important for mending injury or brokenness. This would be a positive, constructive, and ethical way to channel and release anger. Even venting about the problem with colleagues can be productive, if it leads to greater unity among staff for pushing back against future injury. From anger's perspective, it's better to do something, even in part, to right a wrong than just do nothing and submit to it.

[maya-matlin]

I'm embarrassed to even admit this (and am thankful that you have anon on!) but I actually like Lucas Scott more than Dan Humphrey. Please don't think I'm disagreeing with anything you wrote in that Jess vs Dan vs Lucas vs Jughead analysis, because it really was brilliant and totally on target. But Dan kind of desperately wanting to be accepted by the snotty high society Upper East Side crowd even while judging and mocking them (and apparently secretly stalking and humiliating them all as gossip girl lol) just bothers me and for me isn't at all something Lucas - or Jess or Jughead- would care about. Lucas is a lot of not great things, but he's truly not into status, pretentious or desperate for acceptance. And as you've pointed out, Lucas is actually a decent and generally honest human being outside of his romantic relationships---I just can't ever see him playing a secret 'gossip girl' type role in OTH or even caring enough about gossip to constantly read and write about it. Even if we pretend Dan wasn't Gossip Girl, which he shouldn't have been for several reasons, he's got more of a Julian thing of caring more about status and popularity than Lucas, Jess or Jughead imo. I still like Dan and think he's a great match for Blair---I just also think he's a little more deceitful, hypocritical and into status than Lucas, Jess or Jughead...but then again he's a character on Gossip Girl, where pretty much everyone is fairly terrible in that way :) As for Lucas---yeah, he's indecisive and lies to himself and therefore others about his romantic feelings, and the center point in any love triangle always justifiably grates on everyone's nerves lol. And like the other three guys mentioned here, he can definitely be judgy and self-righteous. But there's a lot I like about Lucas too---he's smart and cerebral, he's brave and protective, he's very insightful (except when it comes to himself lol) and I really do think he cares about people deeply. But I get that that doesn't excuse his flaws :) Thanks for reading this - I have no idea how or why it's so long!

Aw, you don't have to be embarrassed! I respect your privacy, though. It's funny I gave the impression I don't like Lucas. The truth is, I like him a lot and spend most of the show actively enjoying his character. Seasons 1 and 5 were pretty terrible (though season 1 at least gave him a solid foundation compared to season 5's constant fuckboy behavior). I bash Lucas because I genuinely care and get so frustrated because I know he's capable of being better than he ends up being. His whole arc went to shit because of multiple love triangles and the bizarre idea that he needed to be "in denial" over his feelings for Peyton, multiple times, rather than just owning up to the fact he had complicated feelings for multiple women at the same time. And unfortunately, this behavior manifested itself in multiple instances of cheating because the dude was desperate for love and needed validation when it came to his love life. Anyways. Needless to say, I also prefer Lucas to Dan simply because I'm way more invested in One Tree Hill than Gossip Girl.

I appreciate the compliments. 💙 It really wasn't anything. Just random thoughts I threw together LOL. Your critique of Dan is fair. The thing about Gossip Girl is that the morality is upside down. Everyone screws over everyone and it's generally accepted that the wealthy elite can do no wrong. Dan doesn't quite fit into this crowd yet benefits from much of the privilege due to attending the same private school and later becoming Lily's stepson and eventually, Serena's husband. So he ends up being an honorary member of the core group, though he grew up in a very different environment, meaning it's much easier for Dan to be judgmental of the other characters. I think I just ignore the "Dan is Gossip Girl" reveal? There's no real way to make sense of it or to claim everything adds up based on what we saw on screen throughout seasons 1-5. It was a mistake for any character we saw on a regular basis to be revealed as Gossip Girl. But if I'm forced to acknowledge the reveal, you're correct that none of the other three would ever in a million years do such a thing. This implies there was a part of Dan that was so desperate to belong and to fit into the upper east side that he schemed, manipulated, stalked, gaslit and essentially pretended to be a different person to keep up the ruse. It's very dumb, as is the idea that everything was actually a secret love letter to Serena, someone he'd stopped seriously loving years before. To be fair though, I still haven't seen the final season of Gossip Girl. Your point about Dan being a Julian type is probably accurate. The thing about comparing those four characters is that it doesn't 100% add up. They're similar archetypes, but don't necessarily play the same roles on their respective shows. Dan was never presented nearly as heroically as Lucas was. By the time season 2 premiered, it was pretty clear the morality of the show had shifted with Chuck Bass becoming the male lead. The focus shifted to awful, privileged people doing underhanded things while looking beautiful (and Ed Westwick was there too) rather than viewing these characters through the eyes of the less privileged Humphreys. I mean, it was always a stretch due to Rufus being a rockstar, but in Gossip Girl world Dan is the poor one.

I have nothing to add to your thoughts about Lucas's strengths, but I 100% agree. Lucas has a lot going for him and is truly good at heart. He just doesn't need to be in a relationship until he gets some therapy. Unfortunately, he masked his problems by rushing down the aisle and starting a family. At this point, I have to assume he and Peyton are divorced, but that's just my wishful thinking.

[clare-with-no-i]

I think that Petunia’s drive to prove herself to be better than her origin, which we mostly see in a way she runs her house and tries to fit in perfectly with her neighbourhood and friends, could be indicator of the fact that she consciously trained her accent to fit in. Of course it would be easier to do while living in the south, and there are many factors at hand, her insecurity being a main one. The fact that we never see her talking about her home (and while her refusal to speak about her sister can be understandable knowing how their relationship deteriorated -mostly because of Petunia’s actions and decisions, once again fuelled by her insecurities) but to never mention her parents or childhood friends, while maintaining a rather good relationship with her sister in law, who represents in my opinion the worst of class divide (at least amongst muggle characters) it can serve to drive the point of her trying to cut her ties with her place of origin. Environment in which she lived in since fairly young age is huge factor, i’m not denying that, but knowing what we know about her, and her tendency to appear perfect, it isn’t far fetched to say that she at the very least welcomed the idea of teachers training students out of their accents, which as you suggested is a real thing. Petunia needs therapy for sure, but that is a very different conversation to have

But yeah, accents are a very weird thing. My country doesn’t even come close to the variety of accents that UK has, but it’s still a touchy subject, mostly due to very turbulent history. It’s just my personal pet peeve to see people from my part of the country try to fake being from capital, by using words that are native to that part of the country, or faking that accent (which in cases i speak of, is faking them i assure you) and Petunia gives the energy of those people to me, just my opinion

I mean yeah I don't disagree with the points you posited in this ask, I just think it requires a lot of examination of the sociological/historical context in which she lived before we can make a value judgment. I absolutely agree that there are a ton of problems with Petunia as a person—you'll get no argument from me there! I even am completely amenable to the idea that she leaned into it/started the process of training her accent by herself.

but I still think that to place inherent moral value on code-switching, intentionally or not, is not something I'm comfortable doing, even within the confines of this character. a lot of people did/still do to fit into spaces in which they're not welcome—honestly I'm sure there are a lot of women who were in a similar place to Petunia socioeconomically who absolutely would have done the same thing if possible. It's moments like this, when we grapple with the ways that English class systems and social hierarchies are subtly shown throughout the HP canon, that I become uncomfortable designating something as plainly 'good' or 'bad', etc.

I think it reduces her a bit by making every single thing about her cartoonishly malevolent and calculated. like, yes, she was terrible, and she treated Harry and Lily terribly and should have been held accountable for such things, but I feel like it's a little boring to just make everything about her into a pursuit of being the prim negligent aunt we know her to be. something, somewhere, made her that way!

anyway. thanks for sharing your opinion on it! it's a big complex conversation to have, and one that's slightly out of my depth. and I appreciate the context of how you see this irl.

[medschoolash]

(I sent that first anon, I don't feel I conveyed what I was taking issue with super well) I don't mind Daemon doing bad things or being morally grey, I LOVE morally questionable characters, and p much all of GRRM's are. It's just that there is still a line for me, and I would struggle to root for a couple that felt it was all built on a man going to serial killer lengths to possess a woman, especially as a woman myself. There'd be a difference in murdering someone for (insert various political reasons here) and walking up to a random infant and killing them, in terms of doing bad and or morally questionable things, if that makes sense? I am not at all trying to preach or argue so I hope it doesn't come across that way, I just feel like they're being blunt and there's more complex things they can do than that sort of plot, if they go that way. (I also don't like how they've made the Targaryens seem worse and Alicent seem so much more innocent compared to the book, I don't trust HBO with this family)

oh, I understood you anon no worries! I totally think it's okay to have a boundary you won't cross when it comes to bad behavior. I personally wouldn't care but I don't think there is anything wrong with people finding it unsettling that a character they want to see with their favorite romantically might become a very homicidal serial killer. I can see how something like that would sully the relationship you enjoy between two people. At the end of the day, everyone has their limits so I get it.

I'm personally hoping we get to see obsessive jealous daemon but I don't think we'll see him take it that far . I agree that there are a lot of ways they can show Daemon being morally grey and I'm sure we will see plenty of that which is another reason why I don't think they go that particular direction with him even if I think it wouldn't be pure character assassination for him if it did happen.

I'm gonna kinda disagree that they have made the Targaryens seem worse than Alicent. I don't think they've truly drawn any lines in the sand when it comes to the two families. So far the Targaryens haven't done anything horrendous. Viscerys is a weak king but he's not a horrible king. Most of his better decisions have been pretty decent. Sure Daemon ain't shit but even his foolishness is isolated to his family dynamic or war. We don't see him out there terrorizing the common folk just for the hell of it. Rhaenyra is a pretty sympathetic character most of the time even when she's being a little reckless. Alicent so far has been shown to be a pawn of her father who has been shown to be a manipulative weasel but I wouldn't say she's been completely innocent. She made the choice to keep her relationship with viscerys a secret from Rhaenyra, she could have told her. She has also willingly done her father's bidding during her marriage. She was also extremely judgemental towards Rhaenyra last episode even though I did like that she went to bat for her. Ultimately I think the only takeway about Alicent the show has firmly established is that she's a young woman trapped in the patriarchy like most high-born women and Rhaenyra and the things going on around her are slowly shaping her into the woman that she will eventually become. We have yet to see exactly what that means yet so it's almost impossible to make a judgment on whether she's good or bad. At least that's my perspective on it. I understand that book readers have a much different perspective since what we see at this point in the show is different from what was written on the pages. I can also understand not trusting HBO but I wonder if having George himself involved might help put you more at ease? I always thought book readers would like that aspect.

[maligns]

ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ♡   just some rosado hcs / verse ideas under the cut !

misc headcanons !

rosado is a confident king !!  he’s perfectly comfortable in his own skin ; whatever misgivings / associations other people may have about him do not bother him .  especially so if they’re only hung up on appearances .  he just likes being cute  &  making his wyvern  ( camilla !! )  equally so by adorning her with frills  &  bows  --  as much as she allows ,  anyway .  in fact ,  he does get a kick out of fools under - estimating him on the battle field ,  serves them right for when they judge him by his impractical outfits  -- he fights fine with his hair styled like cat ears , thank you very much .

very emotionally perceptive . he’s able to sense when someone’s off their game / upset by something ,  &  is more than willing to reach out first to lend people an ear .  he’s values friendships  &  establishing connections a ton .

he has a strict moral code & is pretty inflexible on this front . he’s quite divisive about what’s right & wrong , & is not shy with his words -- if he disagrees on a point , he’s more than ready to be direct with it . while this may come off as judgmental to some people , it speaks to his unwavering ideals & loyalty . he’s the type that , once that connection & trust is fostered , will stick through with someone to the ends of the earth .

fe3h compliant:

i can see him being a member of the golden deer . the axe / wyvern combo really reminds me of hilda  ( bear with me bc i haven’t played fe:e ; idk if they have a similar playstyle per se )  &  i can see him vibing well with claude  &  his goals . like tell me this doesn’t sound like what claude says about uniting fodlan  &  almyra , but like , rephrased ?? :

“ there are forms of beauty out there we don't even have names for . unique ,  precious things . if I can show people even a little more of the diversity in the world , i'll be happy . it'll mean i've helped build a world where folks accept and appreciate each other's differences . ” -- rosado to alear .

feel like a part of him would be initially weary about claude’s intentions ?  but he’s emotionally versed enough to see through his sly bs .  in the end ,  he knows where claude is coming from  &  that his heart is in the right place .

i could also see him being a retainer to one of the heirs of minor territory  --  so think sb equivalent to a retainer for petra .

he is empathetically  not  the type to switch houses .  think the canon routes that are most compatible with him ,  in order of most to least are :  vw / ss / cf / am .

[thingstotellthem]

I fucking hate my toxic ex-friend.

She is a disgusting, pathetic person. I should have left when she said she used to play her friends against each other. That she f*cked her best friend‘s boyfriend. That she hit her mother, her father, and various nurses. That she thinks she‘s a narcissist. I should have believed her best friend that she is manipulative. Her best friend who has not been talking to her for years, even though they were BFF‘s for life.

I kept thinking she is just talking poorly about herself, that she is blaming herself for things, and that her best friend is wrong. Or maybe that she‘d changed because we‘re all humans who make mistakes.

Those were all warning signs.

She‘s a fucking pathetic bitch. She compared me to my abuser, she kept criticizing me constantly, saying I was lacking empathy, that I was cold, antisocial, harsh, etc.

I listened to every single one of her problems. I was always there for her, no exceptions. I always helped her out. I always comforted her. ALWAYS! I sometimes listened to her for hours. Fucking hours.

Yet, she claims I was never there for her, and that my advice wasn‘t helpful, and that it‘s wrong of me to say that her sexual abuse isn‘t her fault. She guilt tripped me over something like telling her that SA is not the victim‘s fault! What the fuck?!!

What does she expect of me?? She said I couldn‘t help her, and that all I do is give words of comfort and listen. What more can I do?? I gave her gifts, I distracted her, I comforted her and listened. Why is that not enough??

I am honestly shocked every time I hear my other friends say they value my advice, that they think I‘m super empathetic, warm, friendly, because I was constantly being told the opposite. I was shocked when my friends disagreed so strongly with the way she characterized me.

Well hear me out, I‘m not the one that hits her mom, dad, various nurses and her boyfriend. I‘m not the one that glares at women for just looking in the direction of her boyfriend or saying hi to him. I‘m not the one who constantly belittles her friends, or who tells them they‘d be prettier with make up on when they didn’t even fucking ask. Who forbids her boyfriend from interacting with any women.

I‘m not the one who ignores her friend, who listened for her for hours and helped her with everything, completely once she has a new boyfriend to screw.

I‘m not the one who tells her friend she is „judgmental“ yet, who mocks her friend for her clothing style & her interests. Or who mocks her for calling her abuser a bitch, saying you‘re not supposed to speak this way of an abuser. Fuck you and your shitty sanctamonical moral talks.

Victoria, you‘re pathetic, immature and stupid. You‘re a 24 year old woman, yet you act like a cringey 13 year old. I‘ve met teen girls way more mature than you are.

You think you‘re ugly and stupid, so to feel better, you put other people down. You don‘t have any real friends, which is why you mock people like me for only having few friends, unfortunately, for you, I have two amazing best friends and I know you‘re jealous.

Let me tell you something. You are stupid. And this has nothing to do with your lack of high school diploma or IQ or anything. It‘s your shitty attitude and immature behavior. It‘s how you act and what you say.

Get a fucking life, asshat.

[greenteaandtattoos]

I think it’s time we stop talking about RWBYtubers

At this point, it’s bringing more toxicity into the fandom than the so-called “toxic” RWBYtubers are. 

I don’t agree with a lot of Judgmental Critter’s opinions and criticisms, I feel that they are too negative for my particular tastes. 

Calxiyn has done some things I don’t agree with, including her response to rosegarden shippers getting excited when the V9 teaser dropped at RTX.

But what is being said to and about them is disgusting and often out of context, complete lies, or said in bad faith in an attempt to cause mass hatred in their direction. 

The opinions and actions that I don’t agree with don’t automatically mean that they are horrible people. And the assumption that they are just because you disagree on something is pretty fucking toxic.

We need to stop taking every negative post about them at face-value, especially from people who might find enjoyment in deliberately causing discourse. 

If you see something that suggests that they did something you morally cannot agree with, or that they said something you find a genuine problem with, then it’s my suggestion that you go directly to the source and find out for yourself if what you saw was true or not.

Calxiyn’s twitter is here: https://twitter.com/Calxiyn

Judgmental Critter’s twitter is here: https://twitter.com/JudgmentalThe

If you see something you don’t like, then don’t just post about it without getting the full story. Go to them, ask for clarification. I am almost certain you will get a reply in the comments. 

You cannot rely on second-hand information from Tumblr accounts that often enjoy sewing the seeds of discourse by using the so-called toxicity from RWBYtubers as their cover and excuse to be toxic themselves. 

Judgemental Critter may be more harsh with their opinions, but the defend their fellow RWBYtubers, and do not let people bash on other people with baseless and often inaccurate opinions. 

Calxiyn might associate with people you don’t agree with (VexedViewer, Judgmental Critter, twiins iink) because you personally have a problem with how they act, but they are rather fair with their criticisms and how they interact with people. 

GO TO THEM. ASK THEM QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING THEY DID, ASK SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THEM, OR BETTER YET, ASK THEM DIRECTLY!

I am guilty of this, I will admit. But I’ve talked to them, and while I don’t agree with some of the things they do, they’re really, truly not as bad as some people will make them out to be. 

And if you do all this, and still find a problem with them, BLOCK THEM. UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THEM. MUTE THEM. DON’T WATCH THEIR VIDEOS.

They don’t deserve to be lied about and slandered when they can’t defend themselves because others don’t like them and decide to use their dislike to cause more discourse. 

Just recently, Raijin Rising released a video commenting on the topic of toxicity in the fandom, and without even giving him a chance, people were ready to categorize him as a “hater”. What you didn’t know was that he was fair, he did not separate the fandom into positive toxicity and toxic haters, he addressed the fandom toxicity as a whole. 

That’s what the bloody word “fandom” means. It encompasses the people who watch the same show. 

But people have been so immersed in the “you vs us” mentality that they cannot imagine that a person who does not agree with them can still be a decent human being. 

You can’t judge someone based on their opinions on a fictional show. Do you know it’s called when you do? 

Toxic positivity.

In the end, we are contributing to the toxicity of the fandom just as much as they are, and if we want that to stop, we have to first learn to stop and think for ourselves. Don’t just take what someone says at face-value, certainly not a stranger on the internet. 

GO TO THEM SOURCE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. 

And a PSA:

The tumblr blog known as CanonSeeker cannot be trusted as a source for reliable information. They have often lied and taken things out of context in order to sew chaos and get people to stop following certain individuals. 

Just last night, they went into Calxiyn’s Discord server, pretending to be someone else, in order to justify their actions and turn people against Judgmental Critter. 

In all honesty, there is honestly no reason to get into a feud with these RWBYtubers, not Calxiyn, not Judgmental Critter, because if you just asked them for clarification or blocked them if you really didn’t like what they said, we wouldn’t have this problem. 

What’s been going on is toxic, and I’m tired of it. 

The necessity to ask for clarification and proof applies to everyone, including me. If you want proof of any of this, please come to me, Calxiyn, Judgmental Critter. There are screenshots and text messages that can be shown.

If you would like more people to corroborate, there are many individuals in Calxiyn’s Discord Server who can do so, and you will also be able to talk to her yourself and get the proof that way. 

Her Discord is here: https://discord.gg/2s5xjdqvH6

Think critically, people, and think for yourselves.

[filipinoizukuu]

hello mr simp do you have any thoughts on the leeks 👀

FIRST OF ALL. THEY CAME SO FUCKING EARLY??? BRO I WAS ASLEEP

SECOND OF ALL

holy SHIT YALL

Okay, it's no secret that I'm an All Might stan. I LOVE All Might. Very very much. Not just as a simp, but genuinely, I enjoy his character SO MUCH.

--And unlike what some people may think, I'm not totally blind to his flaws. I know he sucks as a mentor and that he's done way more harm to Deku than good. He's.... not perfect. in every sense of the word. The whole point of AM's character is that he is a DEEPLY FLAWED individual— but at the end of the day, still good.

This new chapter gave me SOOO many new feelings. I'm not gonna lie to y'all and say I was a Stain apologist beforehand because I wasn't. I disliked Stain to a certain degree, but I also knew he was morally grey enough that I was able to still quite appreciate him as a character. This chapter was about EVERYTHING to me because I honestly did NOT expect Hori to go in this direction and for things to happen the way they did. It was too good to be true! Too fanfic-y! The disbelief I felt when I read what happened was on par with when Bakugou and Deku had that apology and kinda-hug in the rain!

But this disbelief is not because it was a bad thing.

I think the writing in Chapter 326 is phenomenal. The moment that All Might was really beginning to lose hope in not just himself as a hero, but himself as a PERSON... we finally hear the opinion of someone who would abso-fucking-LUTELY make or break the last of his spirit.

Stain is, as much as his views are pretty agreeable and his label is that of a vigilante, still a pretty shitty guy. He's tried to kill literal kids who got in his way, even if said kids made pretty dumb decisions. AM hearing what he has to say is absolutely mind-boggling to him because he knows all of that. He knows Stain is a shitty person and that his worldview is perhaps terribly skewed. He knows Stain has spent a hot minute frying his brains down in Tartarus and isn't good at making judgment calls. Knows that for all intents and purposes, Stain's opinions are not to be trusted.

But the thing is... Toshinori also knows that Stain, regardless of the soundness of his mind, is telling the truth.

Regardless of how fucked-in-the-head Stain is, we as readers are able to acknowledge that he isn't blinded by hero worship. Sure, he's bitter, cynical, and quite the absolutist--but Stain is still clear-headed enough to be able to see AM's flaws for what they are and accept them, ultimately proving to Toshinori that the power of All Might was never his own but rather the legacy that he inspired.

The society MHA takes place in is flawed. We all know this. Heroes, as a concept, had been corrupted into being purely about good and evil. Purely winning fights for money or fame or the abstract concept of victory (coughs Endeavor and the no.1 spot coughs), making heroism as we know it about flashiness and power instead of mercy and the desire to help others.

All Might symbolizes the ideal version of the Hero Society. He represents doing the best you can. Being a hero until you reach your limits, and then going even past that. He symbolizes pure intention and the desire to be a hero not for material gains but because of the pure want to make society a better and safer place. Stain refers to Kamino Ward and the statue as a "holy land" because he believes that through and through, AM's only had the purest of intentions and morals. To him, Toshinori was like a deity that had no fault in making society what it was in the present because that accountability fell on the generations of heroes that failed to fulfill his legacy.

The point being, Stain understood that All Might was fundamentally not about 'being there' for everyone 24/7, but rather the message his presence had sent.

All Might's monologue at the beginning of the chapter essentially boiled down to the ideas that:

A. He regrets not being there properly for Deku

B. His image was a delusion that ultimately led to the downfall of hero society.

To break this down, his problem with Deku is his inability to be a competent mentor. It shows that he has led him down dangerous and horrible paths (Deku's stubbornness to do things by himself and his 'dark' arc post-war), and is unable to bring him back into the light even if he tries. It was only when Class 1-A had intervened that they were able to get Deku to rest and let people tag along, after all, which is why Toshinori was far too embarrassed to follow him into UA's walls even after everyone had come out with umbrellas.

Stain disproves this in two ways.

First, he says that it was never about All Might's ability to actually be there for people. The whole point of what inspired Deku to be the inherently good-hearted "true hero" he is today is because of the values that AM's brand had instilled in him as a child. AM's biggest positive impacts came from behind the screen where he was used as the proof that true heroes can and do exist. Deku does want to be exactly like All Might, yes, which is why we see Toshinori leading him down the same path that he walked--but the underlying message of this is that the very first thing All Might gave him even before OfA was the courage to help fix society.

I do believe Deku is an innately compassionate person. Most people in the series are. However, what makes All Might's smile so uniquely impactful to what it did to Hero Society is the way it gave people courage to help people. Less hesitation. Less bystander syndromes. The ability to move without thinking. Because you can feel the want to help a person, but the courage to be nosey and actually do it? That's portrayed as something AM's image teaches people.

The second way he disproves AM's insecurity of dragging Deku down is that he makes it clear that this pain is somewhat of a necessity in reforming society. He says, interestingly enough, that this is but the 'middle process' in reforming society. This spills over to how he addresses Problem B, but what Stain is essentially saying here is that this sort of brutality and isolation that Izuku faces is impermanent. A phase. It implies that even if Deku is struggling and Toshinori is unable to help him, it is something that needs to happen before they re-realize the ideal heroes All Might's image is meant to create.

The second problem in regards to how All Might feels about current society (how it's collapsing because of him, etc. etc.) is more interestingly addressed. There are many things that Stain says--like how Toshinori doesn't need to actually be the one to fix society with his bare hands. The current society is not his fault because of the fact that it is not finished developing. I'm not sure if I can go so far as to say that Stain means this in the sense of the Scorched Earth method of tearing everything down to build it back up better-- but I can say that Stain still has faith in society to rebuild after this period of chaos.

This rebuilding starts with the old generation of heroes correcting what they messed up (i.e. Endeavor v Dabi) and more importantly, paving the way for a better generation of heroes that was inspired by All Might's image. Heroes that are led by people like Deku, who is defined by his proclivity to help without thinking. The violent deconstruction of society is about exposing society to the raw truth of All Might's image that not everybody can be as strong as him-- which is why we have to take care of each other.

When the lady comes in to remove the sign and start cleaning the statue, it's symbolic. It's a clear metaphor that the past few chapters are the turning point for society as a whole, and how people are starting to remember what real heroism is. From the distrust that was seeded in society ever since LoV had surfaced, we are seeing that trust being returned TEN-FOLD now that people can see not only the mask of a hero's smile, but also the person underneath.

I think it's some really neat symbolism here too about how Deku, who's metal mouth guard was literally all about representing All Might's smile, is shed.

This is hero society dropping their masks. Letting people see them for as they are. Toshinori revisiting the statue in this form makes all the more impact because he shed his mask ages ago during the Kamino Bust, so this is him coming face to face with the image he's created and seeing the differences between them, and how his image continues to live on even after he's almost completely Quirkless. The lady cleaning the All Might statue shows off the fact that things can be repaired again--that society can be clean (hehe stain pun) again.

It's interesting to me here how Stain offers the information from Tartarus.

He doesn't care anymore about his life. It's evident. He disagrees with what the LoV is doing, but believes enough in Deku to think that it's time for him to retire the mantle of 'Stain'. Unless this is another test, it's very odd for me to hear that Stain is offering a blade and his life to someone he isn't even sure is All Might.

But the impact of this action reads loud and clear.

This is Stain taking pity on All Might. This is him realizing that All Might too is a person behind the hero. That Toshinori Yagi is incapable of doing anything past the image he had already created. By offering that knife and information on Tartarus, Stain is giving control back to Toshinori. He is giving AM the chance to do something big again to help society's reconstruction. To be a part of the revolution that he so badly deserves to see. That knife is essentially an exit ticket from the sidelines, and one last chance for All Might to be able to see what his image has done for people.

I personally think that the main reason Stain is willing to die then and there by Toshinori's hand, despite not being sure that he is All Might to begin with, is because of the final impact it creates that it isn't about Toshinori Yagi's true power as a person, but the image of All Might. It is because he looks like the symbol of peace, that Stain (the literal HERO KILLER) feels comfortable laying his life in his hands and giving away valuable information.

If that isn't a great testament to the power of AM's image, I don't know WHAT is.

I guess all I have to say is I absolutely love what Stain did in this chapter. Everything felt so incredibly symbolic and emotional and as someone who absolutely ADORES All Might and what he stands for in the story, this felt like a cool balm after seeing Deku tragically reject his bento box a good few chapters ago. I have a few more opinions about symbolism, and how I think Deku's generation of heroes is going to stray from the old gen, but I think that's a discussion for another time.

Thanks for reading 'til the end!

[amysubmits]

Hi! What do you do, or better phrased, how do you adapt, when he makes a decision that you think is wrong, the wrong decision or the wrong direction, that you simply don't agree with?

Hi! :)

First, I'd share my view with him. I'd respectfully explain my concerns about his idea like why I think it may not work or why I think another path may work out better.

By "respectfully" I just mean the vanilla meaning of the word. As long as I don't use harsh wording or a condescending/judgmental/etc tone of voice then sharing my concerns or disagreement is seen as respectful.

He'll hear me out and respond. There have been times where he hadn't really considered my concerns or where I hae information that he didn't have, so he may change his mind after considering what I said. In other cases, he'll understand my view or my concerns but just disagree with me.

If he disagrees with me he'll usually explain his thinking more thoroughly while showing respect for my view. "I hear you, A may happen, but I think doing B is still best, and if A does happen, then we'll XYZ and it'll be okay." or whatever.

Usually, just knowing he's really heard and considered my worries helps me enough to make it possible to submit without feeling friction, even if I continue to somewhat disagree.

If he has a plan for how he'll respond if my worries come true, that helps me as well. That's not to say that it always completely satisfies me, or that I don't ever struggle to submit to his decision...I do have lingering discomfort sometimes, but I basically just try to submit still. and usually am able to do so without too much difficulty after I've been heard.

I see it as part of our relationship style (not necessarily D/s in general but specifically the way CD and I do it) that I am expected to basically 'suck it up' and let him do things his way even when I disagree, sometimes. I want him to lead our relationship and have the final say on big issues, and we do have really similar values, morals, priorities, etc so we agree a lot...but no two people are always going to think the same way. So I see letting him lead in a way I somewhat disagree with is part of letting him lead in his own way. I wouldn't want him to only lead in the ways that I would lead...I like him leading based on who he is.

This thing of 'sucking it up' and submitting is only something that happens if I'm somewhat disagreeing, not if I am strongly against what he's doing. If I really was deeply against it, I would have to voice that I just can't agree to this, similar to safewording or setting a limit. I don't think that has happened yet. But we have had times where even after talking something out, I still am not 'all in' on his decision...but thankfully that isn't very common.

Him hearing me out and addressing my views and concerns reminds me of his respect for me and how he values how his decisions impact me. Basically, I'm always reminded that if he is deciding something I disagree with, i's never because he doesn't care about my beliefs or thinks my perspective is stupid. It's always just that he really thinks his way is best for us both. So knowing that it comes from a place of wanting to take care of me (and us) as best as he can. So that makes it feel very different than a scenario where someone would be disagreeing with me because they think they are superior or who see me voicing my respectful disagreement as a threat to them or what not.

The whole idea of D/s where the sub just has to say 'yes sir' to everything unless it's a hard limit would never work for me because I need to feel like my voice/views/beliefs/concerns/etc are heard in order to willfully submit, sometimes. CD is the same way. He's used wording before like...he's the pilot but I'm his trusted copilot, or something like that. He thinks two heads are better than one, and he deeply values my input. He doesn't want to be a dictator, he wants 51% of the vote.

Also, occasionally we miss the mark on either side. If a issue is really important to either of us, we might not express things as respectfully as we should, or if we're insecure we might get defensive or respond poorly even if the other was being respectful. Like maybe he did hear me out and tried to soothe my concerns but I still feel dismissed because he continues to disagree with me and in my insecurity anything other than agreeing with me may feel like rejection. Or maybe I respectfully raised my reasons for disagreeing but he took it as a rejection of his dominance even though it really wasn't. We're both imperfect, I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But those are rarities because usually maintaining respect on both sides makes things go smoothly.

[maggot-monger]

Survey Writing Guide: Fandom Edition

Sooo! People are collecting survey data on fandom! Makes sense — fandom is an interesting population to study, and getting data on attitudes/behaviors/etc is a great way to try to find out the truth about popular points of contention about media. To get unbiased, meaningful data, though, you’ll want to make sure your survey is in good shape. This is a guide to try to help you do that.

I am assuming, if you are reading this, that you want your survey to be unbiased and interpretable, sampling from as many viewpoints as possible and getting data on opinions you might agree and disagree with. In other words, I am assuming that you want to do your fandom research in good faith. If that is not why you are making a fandom survey, then you can ignore this whole post. I would ask you to reconsider running a bad-faith fandom survey, but I can’t stop you. But just know that my assumption is that you’re out here in the honest pursuit of truth.

I’m not accusing a survey of being done in bad faith if it doesn’t follow my suggestions. I also realize most people are conducting these surveys in their spare time because they’re passionate & curious, not for the purpose of serious publication or whatever. I’m not telling you that you have to follow all or even any of the advice here. Do what you feel good about doing. Fandom should be fun! 

This guide is only about surveys themselves, and will not help you get a good sample of your fandom. In other words, none of this advice will make sure your survey reaches obscure corners of your fandom, insular communities you aren’t in, or casual fans. A good survey is important, but it’s only one part of getting accurate data, and participation recruitment is a whole other thing. 

This is also only intended to help with survey setup, not analysis or results reporting. You can write a great, unbiased, easy to understand survey, and still present your results in a way that is biased/doesn’t include good information/is hard to understand. Furthermore, once your results are public, they’re out of your hands: you might be well-meaning, but please keep in mind that some people might use your data to make unfair or incorrect assumptions about others, support biased arguments, or generally behave unpleasantly. That’s just part of survey work; don’t let it stop you, but don’t be surprised if/when it happens.

Now, onto the survey tips ~

Think about how to structure your questions

Use multiple choice answers/avoid free response answers as much as possible. This is going to be really helpful for you when it’s time to analyze your data: it’s so much easier to analyze responses that are just clicks of a box than responses that require you to read someone’s long explanation of an opinion and try to figure out what they mean. It also makes answering easier on your participants: clicking a box is a lot easier for them than writing out what they think. Giving an option for them to expand on their answer in a free response text box is great, but try to capture as many possible responses as you can in multiple choice questions.

Consider: should participants be able to give more than one response per question? A good rule of thumb for this is if different responses to a question are mutually exclusive or not: if they are mutually exclusive, only give people the option of clicking one box; if they’re not, let them choose as many as they want. For example, if you want to know somebody’s ONE favorite season of a show, only let them choose one season. If you want to know ALL the seasons they like, give them the option to choose multiple.

Only include one question per question 

A LOT of surveys ask questions that are actually several questions in one, and that makes answering them difficult! For example, you might THINK you’re only asking one thing if you say “Are you introverted or shy?” as a yes/no question, but that is actually two questions: some people are introverted but not shy; some people are shy but not introverted; some people are both introverted and shy, and some people are neither. People who respond “yes” might mean they are one or the other or both, and people who respond “no” might mean they are one or the other or neither — and you’ll have no way of knowing, because your question was too ambiguous.

If you’re asking a question about a nuanced topic, make sure your question and possible responses are nuanced too

People in fandom have a lot of complex views, and giving them only a black-and-white way to tell you about those views means you will miss out on nuance and get inaccurate results. If you are wondering about opinions on a controversial pairing, asking “Do you think it’s okay to ship Reylo?” (for example) and only letting people respond yes or no is not going to capture the range of opinions that exist on Reylo. If you can include multiple answer boxes for people to click, do that! 

Analyzing free response data (where people can write their own answer) is hard on you, as the survey writer, and people might not feel like explaining their opinions. Definitely include a free response box if you want, but also provide a lot of options for responses. 

The more controversial the topic you’re asking about, the more nuance you should let your participants give in their responses. People in fandom often have very strong and very complex opinions about certain issues; you’ll want to make sure not to flatten those opinions too much, while still keeping them simple enough to analyze. Asking “do you enjoy reading fluff?” is (probably) not going to be too complicated, and you’ll likely be fine giving people 2-3 response options (yes/always, sometimes, no/never). But you should give a lot more response options if you’re asking “is it ever acceptable to ship two siblings together?”: some people will be fine with “yes, always” or “no, never,” but a LOT of people are going to want to specify conditions like “only if they are not blood relatives” or “only if it is framed as being bad” or “it’s acceptable sometimes but I personally avoid it,” etc. Make sure people without clear-cut opinions have the ability to give you their opinions too.

Use simple, clear language

Use language that is as simple and precise as possible. Keep questions short when you can. Avoid using a lot of slang and regional idioms: people come from all over the place in fandom, and might not know what you mean. People also have a lot of different reading levels: you want to make sure most of your participants can understand what you’re asking them. 

There are some terms you can assume everyone in your sample will know, and some that you can’t: it’s up to you to figure out which terms are which. For example, most people in tumblr fandom space will understand what a ship is. They might not know what “IC” means though, so you might need to write it out as “in character.” Further, pretty much everyone in the MCU fandom might know what “Stucky” is, but not as many will know what “Coulwhip” is. You can make these kinds of technical terms easier for people to understand by just writing out all abbreviations and writing all pairings in the Name/Name format.

Use neutral language and keep your personal opinions out of it

Avoid inserting your own opinions into your survey, even if you expect that almost everyone participating will agree with you. Even “obvious” jokes won’t read as jokes to everyone; you might upset/offend/put off some group of participants disproportionately such that they won’t complete the survey, and you’ll miss a chunk of data you want. This is a problem, because say, for example, you really want to know if people’s favorite Supernatural ship has any correlation to fans’ personality traits — but if you poked fun at Dean somewhere else in your survey in a way that made Dean fans click off the page, then you’re going to lose a lot of Dean fan data that it would have been really useful for you to have, since Dean is a very popular character to ship with a lot of other characters. 

A good-faith survey is also not the place to moralize. Fandom can be a very polarized place; you are not going to be able to predict which things you ask about are going to be morally objectionable to your participants, and if they’re going to agree with your moral judgments. Your results might surprise you! A survey where you hope to get accurate data is not the place to defend a problematic character you like or to call some group of shippers gross. Your best bet for not causing issues is to include stuff that’s controversial and to be as neutral about it as possible — for example, if you are asking about ships people like, include every reasonably popular ship (potentially excluding rarepairs/extreme rarepairs just because it’s hard to include all of those), even the ones you hate/think are harmful/whatever, and don’t comment on the goodness or badness of any of them. 

Avoid “leading” questions to avoid bias

If you say, “Do you love this awesome TV show?” that’s going to be awkward to respond to for everyone whose answer is anything other than “yes.” Something like “What is your opinion of this TV show?” (with responses like: I love it, I like it, I have mixed feelings about it, I am neutral toward it, I dislike it, and I hate it) will give you a better sense of people’s genuine thoughts.

Select your multiple choice options thoughtfully

Be as egalitarian as possible in the options you provide to your fandom-specific questions that aren’t free response. If you leave out a major character on a list of favorite characters, for example, your participants are going to wonder why you did that — and you might not get data about that character, especially if you don’t include a free response option. 

Avoid bias in your multiple choice answer options

If you ask people for their favorite and least favorite [something], make sure the list of [something] options for both of those questions is identical. For example, if you’re asking about people’s most liked and most disliked ships, make sure the list of ships you include for both questions is the same. Including Sylvie/Loki only on the “ship you most dislike” but not the “ship you most like” list might seem like a reasonable move to you if you don’t know anybody who (openly) likes Sylvie/Loki, but doing that will bias responses and make your data inaccurate. Some people will stop filling out the survey, some people who like Sylkie just won’t want to bother filling in the blank, some people might forget that they like Sylkie unless it’s right in front of their eyes as one of the response options, some people will feel judged and so they won’t answer your survey honestly, etc. 

Follow common best practices advice for demographic information

Collecting information on respondents’ ages, genders, race/ethnicity, employment status, education history, etc is, luckily, very common, so there are a lot of standard questions about those things. I’ll just go ahead and list what I sometimes collect in my own surveys:

Age: for anonymous fandom surveys, I suggest using age groups (under 13, 13-18, 19-25, 26-35, etc) instead of asking people for their precise ages. Just make sure to include all possible age brackets. For example, don’t assume everyone in fandom is under 50.

Gender: unless you want a lot of nuance in your responses, it’s typically enough to include a list like: man/boy or male, woman/girl or female, nonbinary, genderfluid or bigender, and other. If you are interested in trans people specifically, I suggest asking that in a separate question (like: “Do you identify as transgender?”), rather than including binary trans identities in addition to binary cis identities in the same question. The exception to this is if you are including a very long list of gender options.

Race/ethnicity: (disclaimer that most of the data I collect comes from the US, so my best practices are most suited to that population. I welcome any feedback about the best way to ask about this for an international and/or non-US population.) I typically ask something like: “Which category best describes you?” and then give the options: American Indian or Native Alaskan, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latinx, Middle Eastern or North African, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, White, and other. Ideally, this list should allow multiple responses, so that multiracial/multiethnic people can give accurate reports.

Employment status: “What is your employment status?” with responses: employed full time, employed part-time, unemployed and looking for work, unemployed and not looking for work, self-employed, homemaker, student, and retired. If possible, let this be multiple choice, so that, for example, people who are students AND work can select both applicable options.

Education level: “What is your highest level of education?” with responses: some high school, high school diploma or equivalent, some college, college degree, some graduate education, Master’s degree, Doctorate degree, professional degree (e.g. M.D., J.D., M.Div, etc) 

Sexual orientation: like with gender, you probably don’t need to provide a long, comprehensive list unless your survey is about sexual orientation specifically. Something like the following is probably enough to cover most of your respondents: “What is your sexual orientation?” with responses: straight/heterosexual, gay/lesbian/homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and other. 

Other questions: just try to make sure you are providing response options that will cover the majority of your participants, and include an “other” option if you’re not sure you’ve covered everything. There are a fair number of basic best practices documents for common demographics questions that you can find through Google, so if you’re not sure how to ask something, give it a quick search. You can also ask people you know who might know more about some specific demographic quality than you do to weigh in!

That’s it for now! I hope you find this helpful, either in writing your own surveys, or in evaluating surveys you are participating in!

[beguines]

do you think someone can be both a pacifist, and still be into liberation theology? like i believe in conflicts, and standing up for oneself, and i also think i believe that violence is at times necessary for justice - is it still pacifism if i support other acting violently? is it liberation and solidarity if i refuse to harm another, even if it's the only way to change things? is pacifism fundamentally neutral?

Those are all complicated questions and I'm perhaps not the most qualified person to answer them, but I'll try my best! I very much think that someone can be both a pacifist and very invested in liberation theology. I think that's actually the most common stance among liberation theologians, although there were certainly some outliers (Camilo Torres, a priest who went on to join the ELN and was killed in combat, is the first to come to mind). Pacifism is certainly not fundamentally neutral. You can be quite partisan or committed to a specific issue/side of a struggle while still being a pacifist.

As for your other questions, they're sort of personal? Someone I was close to back in 2011 (when Occupy and other social movements were in full swing) struggled with issues involving anger and self control. He was personally committed to pacifism in recognition of those issues and what he saw as a potential inclination within himself towards violence. In his case, it was less of a commitment to an ideal and more of a recognition of personal limitations—but I think it's a very interesting take on the issue. I think that pacifism can encompass a wide range of opinions and viewpoints. Mohandas Gandhi (who was awful, for these and a number of other reasons) believed that Jewish people should not have resisted Nazi violence, although he also actively recruited Indians for the British Army during WWI. Shane Claiborne, a present day Christian activist, is staunchly pacifist to the point of not believing personally in using violence in self defense. There are others who identify as pacifists who would disagree with that, however. Stanley Hauerwas' position on Dietrich Bonhoeffer's (very loose and generally unspecified) involvement with an assassination plot against Hitler is that Bonhoeffer believed violent action was antithetical to his theology and willfully engaged in what he believed was a sin for which he would be thusly judged by God.

I wouldn't personally identify as a pacifist. I am very specifically opposed to state violence in all its forms, regardless of who the intended target is. I certainly don't think anyone should pass judgment on how a person acts in order to try to escape a violent or life threatening situation. I've posted this Arundhati Roy quote (from an interview with Stephen Moss) on here before, but it sums up my feelings on nonviolence well:

As for the question of you personally being a pacifist, refusing to engage in acts of violence, and believing that violence is necessary in some situations—well, that's complicated. I think it's important to recognize our personal limitations as well as to interrogate our morals and beliefs (for example: why is it that you're personally opposed to committing acts of violence in the context of revolutionary struggle but consider it acceptable for other people to engage in that behavior? If you consider it to be morally wrong, why is it okay for others? And how do you justify thinking something is both morally unacceptable and necessary?). I think it's also extremely difficult to definitively answer the question of whether or not one would engage in violence in the setting of revolutionary struggle when they aren't enmeshed in conditions that immediately necessitate that sort of action. Unless you're living it, it's ultimately just a thought experiment. This makes it a fundamentally unanswerable question until you find yourself in a situation in which you're actively forced to make that decision rather than simply ponder it and its implications.