#I have seen a lot of opinions on this matter

[mightyostanes]

Why Jews Aren't "Trying to Trick G-d"

(Note only secondary sources are cited in the bibliography)

For my second post I had originally planned on writing something more fun but unfortunately, I feel the need to write this. Lately I’ve seen quite a few people on twitter saying that the way Jews interpret Halakah is that Jews are trying to trick G-d. While this is obviously a bad faith argument designed to be shitty, I still think this subject should be explained in greater detail. Mostly because I think there’s a fundamental disconnect in the way people imagine religions should interact with their deity and how Judaism has historically interacted with G-d. Furthermore, due to the Haskalah and Counter Haskalah I feel that a lot of these ideas have been lost to a lot of Jews in the English-speaking world. Replaced by Platonism that has much more in common with Philo and Maimonides then it does with anything the sages actually wrote or believed. Or to put it in much franker terms the toilet demon Rabba Bar Rav Huna mentioned in Gittin70:A6 probably wasn’t a metaphor. Instead, it seems incredibly likely that both he and Rabbi Tanhum Bar Tanilai believed in a literal Sheyd that lived in literal toilets no matter how embarrassing that sounds. 

    The reason this bizarre tangent is important is because if you actually look at the biblical, rabbinic, medieval, kabbalistic, and hasidic literature it utterly destroys the idea that the relationship of the Jew to G-d is of one sided kowtowing submission. Granted, it’s quite easy to interpret it that way but that’s mostly due to conditioning in terms of what people think a theistic religion should be about rather than any wiggle room in the texts themselves. In fact, I’d wager most arguments against this have more to do with people’s idea of the Tanakh than the Tanakh itself. 

      The biggest reason for this misunderstanding in my opinion is that very few people actually know what a covenant is let alone its context. To illustrate my point, I’d like you to think back on the last time you made a covenant with someone or something. Assuming you aren’t a ceremonial magician the answer to the question just posed is probably never. In the modern world covenant has become almost solely associated with the Bible and has almost no context. Especially because the idea of the ‘New Covenant’ talked about in the works of Paul the Apostle has very little to do with what covenants historically were. Rather than statements of blind faith, covenants in the Ancient Near East were more analogous to contracts and treaties. There are even some scholars who think that the covenantal theology in Deuteronomy may be based on Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. (1)

    In these treaties a bigger state or kingdom would make a treaty for a smaller kingdom to accept fealty to them. (1) In these treaties, at least in paper, rather than being a slave the ruler of the smaller nation was supposed to be a junior partner. Said vassals would also continue to be junior partners to the larger power if they held up the obligations given to them by the treaty. (1) Similarly, just as the smaller party holds obligations to the larger party the larger party also holds obligations to the smaller party. Including ostensibly having to listen to complaints or suggestions the smaller party made. 

   In the Tanakh or Five Books of Moses, there are exactly three covenants mentioned that occurred between G-d and humans. These three aforementioned covenants are the covenant with Noah and his descendants once the Ark lands, (Gen 8:20-9:13), The covenant for Abraham’s descendants where an unknown light phenomenon signifying G-d passes through Abraham’s sacrifice (Gen: 15), and the famous covenant between G-d and the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-24). Shortly after the establishment of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants G-d or an emissary of G-d appears and holds a banquet with the covenant members (Gen 18:1-10, Exodus 24:9-18). In the Ancient Near Eastern context that these texts were written in, banquets and feasts thrown by a king or senior covenant partner were incredibly important tools for control or consolidation. In both the Neo-Assyrian Empire and in the kingdom of Mari not only eating with the king but being at the table with him showed that you were considered as part of the king’s metaphorical family (2). These constructed family hierarchies would be clearly delineated by how close one sat to the king and how one sat, with the people right next to the king being seen as close immediate family members analogous to sons or younger brothers. In the two previously mentioned covenants the Elders of Israel and Abraham’s family sans Lot were sitting with G-d or his emissary suggesting an incredibly close relationship instead of merely that of master and servant. Especially as the angels or heavenly host were not seated ahead of the human participants at the metaphorical dinner table. 

          This idea of man as junior partner and consultant is also seen in the way that humans can critique, give advice to, or argue with G-d and G-d takes their words into consideration. A famous example of this post covenant is Abraham giving G-d suggestions on what to do with Sodom and Gomorrah and G-d accepting his input (Gen 18). An even more extreme example is in Exodus 32 when Moses actually argues with G-d and seemingly wins the argument thus saving the lives of the Hebrews. Similarly, complaints were by no means unknown by the rulers of vassal states to their overlords. The famous Amarna letters addressed by Egyptian allies and vassals to Pharaoh Akhenaten are filled with complaints and requests, with a few even being acknowledged (3). Considering that Pharaoh’s considered themselves living gods this just adds more background to the precedent of complaining towards, making suggestions to, or arguing with the divine.

    Beyond the kinship of all the community of Israel, and not just a singular son, with G-d there are also many notions that have to be cleared up in regard to humankind’s place in creation. A famous Midrash Tanhuma Tarzia 5 has a Roman Consul asking Rabbi Akiba why Jews circumcise male children when G-d has them born uncircumcised. In response Rabbi Akiba shows the consul grain, created by G-d and bread which is that same grain altered by man. Rabbi Akiba then asks the consul which one is better, before giving the obvious answer that most people prefer bread. This little story besides giving a philosophical explanation for circumcision also gives a good summary of the main ethos of Rabbinic Judaism. That G-d made the world unfinished so that mankind in general and Jews in particular could finish it. To establish the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than merely waiting for it. The translation of ‘Tikkun Olam’ as repairing the world was meant to be understood literally and not just as a metaphor for social justice.

    Lastly and perhaps most shocking to an Abrahamic Gentile reader, the G-d of Judaism was not traditionally portrayed as unchanging or infallible. The idea only gained traction in rabbinic Judaism after Maimonides inserted it into his theology after borrowing it from Aristotelian, Islamic, and Christian ideas in the 12th century. Historically the G-d of Judaism has been shown to change their mind, and according to Moshe Idel is even affected by theurgy (4). As evidenced by many stories in the Torah where G-d explicitly changes their mind on what they want to do. The mutability of G-d’s mind in terms of human prayer and action carries over to the realm of Halakhic interpretation assuming the other party has a good point. The most famous example of this rabbinical overturning G-d’s decree is in Baba Metzia 59B where Three Rabbis tell G-d that G-d and Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation of a ruling regarding an oven is invalid. They achieve this by citing Deuteronomy 30:12, and Exodus 30:2 stating that the Law is not in heaven and is for the majority to decide its correct meaning. Instead of smiting the group of Rabbis G-d simply laughs stating that ‘My children have beaten me’. Indeed, the Great Maggid even goes as far as to say that G-d, like a parent teaching their child Torah, actually prefers a novel interpretation instead of just parroting the interpretation given by the parent (5).

           In Pauline Christianity Deuteronomy 30:12 which states, “The Law is not in Heaven” has been taken to mean that Halakah isn’t binding in the kingdom of heaven. However, the mainstream rabbinic interpretation means that only living humans can truly follow the Torah and perform Mitzvot to their fullest extent. In the Talmud in Shabbat 88B there is one of many Moses vs angels battles found throughout Jewish literature regarding whether humans should receive the Torah. Just like all of the other stories with this mytheme, Moses obviously wins this battle and takes the Torah to Israel. What makes this story different is that rather than using theurgy to bind the angels or just beating the tar out of them, Moses defeats them with a well-reasoned argument. I’ll let the passage I copied from Sefaria speak for itself.

     Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, the Torah that You are giving me, what is written in it? God said to him: “I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of Egypt from the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Moses said to the angels: Did you descend to Egypt? Were you enslaved to Pharaoh? Why should the Torah be yours? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Moses said to the angels: Do you dwell among the nations who worship idols that you require this special warning? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). Moses asked the angels: Do you perform labor that you require rest from it? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7), meaning that it is prohibited to swear falsely. Moses asked the angels: Do you conduct business with one another that may lead you to swear falsely? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). Moses asked the angels: Do you have a father or a mother that would render the commandment to honor them relevant to you? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13) Moses asked the angels: Is there jealousy among you, or is there an evil inclination within you that would render these commandments relevant?

-Shabbat 88B (Babylonian Talmud)

       The Mitzvot, something occasionally seen as higher and holier than the immanent aspect of G-d (6) were meant to be performed solely by humans. Because just like the angels, G-d lacks many of these physical imperfections that give many of the Mitzvot any real weight. Therefore, as the ones who do the most mitzvot, how we interpret and follow them is fundamentally up to us.

    Admittedly I could go on and on about the theoretical frameworks behind the ideas. Such as the status of the Torah vis a vis the status of G-d, or the tradition of prayer as legal battle with the divine realm but that’d be a whole other bag of cats. One that’d probably take 20 pages to accurately give my thoughts, thoughts that would be at best heretical to at least a fair number of Jews. So instead let us end this here, there is no way for Jews to cheat Halakhah because it fundamentally belongs to the Jews. It is our burden that we have to bear and our most cherished treasure. Even if it did indeed come from G-d, like any gift the receiver usually is the actual owner and the one who decides what to do with it.

Citation List for non primary sources

Koller, Aaron. “Deuteronomy and Hittite Treaties.” Bible Interpretations , September 2014. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/09/kol388003. 

Milano, Lucio. “Naptan Ḫudûtu Aškun". Practice and Ideology of Neo-Assyrian Banquets.” Thesis, Storia Antica e Arceologico Ciclo , 2013.Section 3. Eating With The King: The Earthly Banquet. PG 60-80

Nutter, Nick. “How the Great Kings Managed Their Vassal States during the Bronze Age.” nuttersworld.com, August 15, 2024. https://nuttersworld.com/civilisations-that-collapsed/managing-vassal-states/. 

 Idel, Moshe. Middot: On the emergence of Kabbalistic Theosophies. Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 2021. 

Idel, Moshe. “The Son of God as a Righteous in Hasidism .” Chapter. In Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, 531–85. New York, NY: Continuum , n.d. 

6. Idel, Moshe. “The World Absorbing Text.” Chapter. In Absorbing Perfections Kabbalah and Interpretation, 26–45. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press, 2002

[valleyian]

Thoughts on Cursed Child becoming a movie

A very random late night rant, but here we go. I’ve seen a lot of fake trailers circle around the web and on social media in regards to a potential HPCC movie. And whilst that’s all fun and games, I also want to talk about the actual consequences a movie like that would have on both the fandom and people.

First off I need people to understand that HPCC is an (almost) separate entity of the Wizarding World franchise, being mostly excluded or regarded as “non canon” by the mainstream. However this does NOT mean JKR doesn’t receive royalties from the play, she still earns money from it. The ethics of spending money on the play is also something to be discussed, however I want to specifically talk about the consequences that a potential movie would have on the HPCC story and the representation within it.

First of, HPCC although it has controversies, is in my opinion the best installation in the Harry Potter universe when it comes to representation. What do I mean by that? Since HPCC is a theatre play, it follows general casting rules which in most cases is colour blind. This is implemented in most theatre productions where ethnicity of actors do not matter, HPCC is not an exception. This means that a lot of POC actors get opportunities to be on stage and portray these characters, not to mention the deliberate casting of Hermione Granger. (Although I will note that this casting has caused a lot of stir, in addition to the fact most of the productions have yet to cast a POC lead in the role of Albus, not counting Tokyo or Brazil).

Although only speculation on my part, I can’t imagine a HPCC movie would be able to deliver on the representation shown in the play, with the numerous casts that have been. I also would assumed they’d return to the white casting of Rose and Hermione, which obviously would erase the theatre play castings purpose.

Then onto my second point; being queer representation. Although it’s not confirmed 100%, and also wouldn’t be able to be confirmed as long as JKR has her dirty grubby hands on the IP, Scorbus is as close to canon as possible. This became evident after the script rewrite, a rewrite that was deliberately written by the current queer actors of the play. It was also written as a retaliation agains JKRs bigoted statements which she had began to spread at that time. So as of now, the play leaves the relationship between Albus and Scorpius ambiguous, yet it is very obvious there is a romantic undertone. This is the closest to any LGBTQ rep in the Harry Potter Universe, (no I will not count Dumbledore and Grindewald) and it means so much to people. A movie by Warner Bros and directed by JKR would most certainly remove all aspects of this, and return to the original script with the very forced addition of Scorpius x Rose. (Nothing against the ship, but I’m against the way it was used as a last minute ploy to remove any assumed gayness).

A subsection to this topic I want to touch upon is also queer representation within the casting. It’s not uncommon for theatre to feature a diverse cast both in ethnicity and orientations. HPCC again is no exception. Over the shows 8 year long run, there has been countless of queer and trans actors who have played in it. There have been gay and trans leads in the roles of Albus and Scorpius as well as the ensemble, and this representation is crucial. Especially since this is an IP within JKRs hands, casting people of said groups is such a powerful move. I can almost guarantee a movie would NOT be as inclusive.

And lastly, if there is a movie, should you support it? It’s not my place to say, and I will also acknowledge I am hypocritical when it comes to what I chose to consume and spend money on in regards to the Harry Potter franchise. However I also want to acknowledge that when you are supporting the theatre play, you do give money to JKR, but you also give money to the numerous queer and POC actors in the cast, a lot of whom are activist. I personally will stay away from any HPCC content that erases any of the current representation added. Unless the movie follows the new script, with POC and queer actors, as well as minimal influence for JKR, I WILL NOT support it. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

Also, feel free to correct me if I stated something incorrect or false in this rant!

[obsolete-stars-if]

Update on the Archive:

We r currently doing the last few uploads to the drive, afterwards we will continue with the catalog.

Any private games will not be published with the archive. And we have taken note of many games where the Author has said they'd prefer their games not to be archived.

If we did somehow miss your game; or you afterwards would rather yours not to be included, there will be a submission form to reach out to us so we can resolve the problem quickly. (That is a maintenance thing that I'll be doing alone, so please be kind when it takes time to respond.)

I'm aware that this is sort of a pretty controversial topic whether or not it is okay to archive every game. I'm not trying to persuade anyone's opinion on the matter, but I'd like to explain why our Team decided to do it. All of us care a lot a lot about all the games and don't want to see any of them go.

Personally, I care a lot about art, regardless of if I've read or seen it, art is a right imo, art is humanity. I've not read most of the games in the archive, and most of them are dead games, but allowing them to die and be forgotten, is allowing a part of humanity to die and be forgotten. Even if there is only one person who cares about a game, that is enough to try to save it, even if that person may never see the archive or forgot about that game. Someone sat down and wrote and cared enough to create something, and that is worth preserving, regardless if it's "good" or "bad" or "abandoned". It was important enough to create, so it's important enough to preserve.

We are trying our best to listen to everyone's reasons and opinions on this matter, to find solutions and compromises for this archive so everyone can be satisfied with it in the end. But we're also a very small team and if we end up overlooking something or mess up somehow in the end, please inform us and have patience while we correct the archive.

[shadamyheadcanons]

Thoughts on Shadouge? I used to ship it casually years ago just because I was looking at possibilities of a love interest for Shadow which I didn't consider for a long time, but it quickly lost its appeal for me. I know you said you don't think it works which I agree with and I'm curious about your reasoning.

Explanation under the cut. There’s nothing too negative, but I always feel bad when these wind up in tags and searches for the ship name.

To start, I will say that it doesn’t feel “wrong” to me like most Shadow ships do. I get where shadouge fans are coming from, and I’ve never met a shadouge shipper who was pushy or unpleasant about it. That’s rare in fandoms. I like how low-key they are. :)

As for the ship itself, I don’t buy it because they’re just so solidly best friends. I’ve never seen anything that I’d call romantic between them.

For Shadow, I see two important (living) women in his life right now:

One is a consistent, reliable rock who’s always going to support him and back him up because of who he is.

The other is a light, a beacon who guides him and inspires him to be the best version of himself he can be.

To me, one of those looks like a best friend, and the other looks like a love interest. He needs both, but in my opinion, it’s clear which one’s which. He’s level-headed around Rouge, and while he probably trusts her more than anyone, he looks at her the same way he looks at everyone else. Heck, he looks at her the same way he looks at Omega. I can’t imagine Rouge successfully convincing him to dress up for a murder mystery birthday party or getting him to go to a silly pop concert the way a certain pink hedgehog can, nor can I see her trying to in the first place; Amy’s the only one who can pull him out of his comfort zone like that. The most Rouge does is convince him to go to Sonic’s birthday party, and even then, she has to bribe him. Rouge’s flirtation just bounces off of Shadow, too. He doesn’t have a weak point for her. Looking at Shadow’s behavior, I think he has a soft spot for cute girls, and Rouge isn’t cute.

As for Rouge herself, she’ll support Shadow to hell and back, but we know what love looks like in her eyes. I’m not getting out of bed until she looks at someone else like this:

Rouge and Shadow are too similar in a particular way. They’re both Machiavellian, willing to go to questionable lengths to get the job done. The same goes for Omega. It’s what makes them such a good team, but a good teammate isn’t the same as a love interest. Knuckles won her over by doing the right thing and saving her life even though he had every reason not to.

I actually have some headcanons about Rouge’s past that feed into this concept. I believe Rouge grew up poor and didn’t have too many people she could trust. She had to steal for her own survival, and she learned to cling to whatever wealth she could find. She keeps a lot of secrets to this day because it’s safer. She learned the hard way that no one can hurt her if she won’t let them in.

In time, Rouge met one guy who was on her wavelength who she knew she could trust, and she met another who swept her off her feet, whose altruism upended her pessimistic outlook of how people are.

One of those looks like a best friend, and the other looks like a love interest. She needs both, but it’s clear to me which one’s which.

And of course there’s the matter of commitment. Rouge can’t stay grounded, so to speak, in the kind of stable relationship that would do Shadow a world of good. She’d rather flit around and tease everyone in sight, delighting in all the blushes she can bring out; in her own way, she likes cuteness, too. Amy, meanwhile, prefers to cling to one person, sharing the same steady devotion Shadow could provide in turn. She’s sunshine incarnate. He needs that.

Thanks for the ask!

[wield-the-mighty-pen]

To specify (because there is a character limit in polls), I am asking if it’s okay for consumers of your work to leave comments with criticism of the show and also if you are okay with people leaving comments with constructive criticism of your work

If you can, specify what type of creator you are in the tags!

[cdroloisms]

a little ramble about dreblr, meta, and the ever evolving nature of this fandom, i guess?

i don't mean to soapbox, this is mostly just going to be vomiting some thoughts into a post. some recent stuff and a post or two have had me thinking about this fandom and how different it is from when dsmp was ongoing. it's,, pretty obvious that the fandom is quite a bit smaller and less active than that time, and there are generally a lot fewer people actively posting meta and such every day--which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and is natural obviously considering that the dsmp ended almost 2 years ago, but does mean that the culture around (?) meta and such has shifted, as well. it's one of those things too i think that is felt so much more obviously in dreblr, which is an even smaller group within this fandom that formed in response to uhhh being very much considered unwelcome by the greater fandom at the time.

that being said, as is the nature of all fandom, dreblr is still a community of people who are largely strangers who have gathered together because of one commonality: very strong feelings and often very strong opinions on the dream smp and c!dream. and i think when the fandom was more active, the entire fandom felt a lot more like a "pvp enabled" zone, lmao -- it was every other day when there'd be some new batshit meta about c!dream or some stream to react to and analyze and fight people about and whatever. since then, though, with the dsmp gone, the fandom has become quieter -- which i think has allowed some of the variation in opinions within dreblr become more and more obvious? and also become a sort of source of friction.

again, this is normal for any fandom. i'm certainly not here to agree with everyone about c!dream always, lmao. but the vagueing of takes is always more awkward on both sides when it's someone where you share more of the same circles. at the end of the day, it's up to each individual blogger's discretion to choose what they will or won't post on their own blog, but at the same time ... when it comes to the community, just speaking for myself, i don't want a super high barrier of entry when it comes to people feeling like they can't join this fandom unless they've got [xyz] experience or [xyz] takes.

when it comes to actual analysis of the source material, though, keeping meta a safe place for people to say "no, i don't agree with this take because of [xyz]" is important as well, which always raises the question of how said disagreements should be handled. and again, i'm no authority, i'm not here to tell people what to do. personally, when it comes to my own blog, i don't like to post very much directly about any one blogger, but I know I've definitely written posts inspired by specific takes before as well as screenshots of takes from the fandom's heyday, etc. i don't necessarily feel uncomfortable with this ...? but at the same time, i know that vagueposts can be a source of discomfort, especially if they're about your take in particular (speaking from experience) -- so it's you know. not the easiest line to draw, I guess, especially when we're talking about a community where different people are going to have different levels of comfort with what they post on their own blogs and what other blogs do in response to their takes. and whatever.

vagueposting, i think, has been common in the tumblr dsmp fandom for a long time, and especially in dreblr -- direct engagement in the past errr usually went badly, so a habit formed of keeping everything we did kind of within our own spaces (hence why many of us don't even tag c!dream or even dreblr on most of our posts; keeping everything untagged, or keeping the tagging system restricted to our own blogs, limited the possibility of trouble). that being said, vagueing within dreblr has become more common, i think, as disagreements within dreblr have become more and more obvious in the time since the dsmp ended. (just for the obvious example: i think it's a bit of an open secret that i, personally, strongly disagree with much of the common depictions of c!drunz in this fandom. i've written some meta about this before, as well as some responses to meta--which i enjoyed greatly, believe me--but i've also noticed (perhaps coincidence) an uptick in c!drunz positive meta every time i or someone else makes a post that maybe skews more negative. which is normal, don't get me wrong, but also a pattern i've noticed. i'm also very aware that someone the arguments i may bring up as counterarguments or structure my posts around arguing against are based on actual arguments i've seen while in this space, which i'm aware is an easy source of friction within dreblr.) and it's easy to say "don't take it personally when it's just metaanalysis," but that's easier said than done, lmao, especially depending on the tone of the vaguepost and a myriad of other factors.

i'm not saying that i have the answers. or, for that matter, a single answer. the boundaries i set aren't going to be the same as the boundaries other people set, for one, and i have no desire to police what other people do on their own blogs. i do miss, sometimes, the more collaborative and discussion-based meta experience of this fandom when it was more active--i might try to more actively reblog posts (including those i don't necessarily agree with) to discuss this server and these characters, bc at the end of the day that is kind of why we're here. personally, i've always drawn a pretty sharp distinction between fanwork and analysis -- i think it's pretty bad form to criticize people's AUs In General (not that i've not. been guilty of it in the past, but i try at least to keep it to criticizing more general patterns within fanwork; look, i'm not going to claim a moral high ground, i love bitching way too much and should probably get a handle on that but asj;lkfdsaf) but when we're talking meta about the source material, barring shit like. you know, harassment and otherwise abusive behavior, i do consider it more of a free-for-all. at the same time, i know that these standards can lead to newer fans feeling like they're going to be booed out the door for sharing their thoughts, which, i mean, isn't great 😭😭😭 fresh eyes can bring a lot of really cool new insights, and it'd suck pretty damn bad to miss that because they don't feel welcome, yknow?

anyway, this is a very inconclusive post, but i thought i'd just throw some of my thoughts out as someone who has been here for a decently long time. and if you want to discuss w/ me, inbox and dms are always open :)

[lurafita]

Things I wish the Shadowhunters TV show hadn't done, part 2

(Again, there are a few of those, but I'm limiting myself to only 2 things that are Magnus and Malec centric and struck a nerve with me)

I'm aware that this one is a very unpopular opinion. And it's not exclusive to the Shadowhunter series, as many series and movies have made use of this plot point and I have never liked it, but it is somehow widely popular so it keeps getting used...

Anyway, the deal Alec made with Asmodeus to get Magnus' magic back.

Give up your relationship/Break their heart to save them.

- This is something that has been used in many stories, by many characters, in many different situations.

I hate it.

It is framed as this noble sacrifice, this selfless gesture.

But I can't find it anything else but patronizing and demeaning.

I'm not blaming Alec the character for it, because as stated, this is something that has been around for a long time and gets used a lot.

But let me try to explain why I don't like it using Alec and Magnus' situation as an example.

When Magnus gave up his magic to save Jace (and by extention save Alec), he gave up something that was his and his alone. This was Magnus' decision alone to make. When Alec gave up their relationship, he made a decision that affected two people. This wasn't something that he alone gave up, but rather forced Magnus to give up the same. Had Asmodeus asked for Alec's runes, for example, that would have been a price that Alec, and Alec alone, had the right to make a decision on giving up.

And now some will say "But Alec wasn't given the option to pay with anything else but to break Magnus' heart. And Asmodeus said it would kill Magnus to not have his magic." And yes, that's true, but that doesn't change the crux of the matter. Magnus chose to give up his magic, when it was either that, or Jace's life. He then chose to not chase other methods of getting his magic back, to live with Alec after Lorenzo's magic transfer almost killed him. And yes, he was struggling and grieving, but that is to be expected. Alec witnessed one breakdown and decided that Magnus would never recover.

People don't recover from trauma because others break their hearts to get them "fixed". They recover from trauma because the people in their lives support them and stay with them and love them.

And let's just say for arguments sake, that the deal had gone over with as originally intended. Look at it from a later point of view.

Alec breaks Magnus' heart, Magnus gets his magic back.

Is all well now? No. Of course not.

One of Magnus' greatest fear was that he was unworthy of love, if he didn't have magic, if he couldn't be useful.

That his magic was the only thing that made up his spark.

And, in order to fulfill Asmodeus deal and break Magnus' heart, Alec enforced those believes.

Alec can walk away from this whole mess with the knowledge that he lied in order to get Magnus' magic back and Magnus would in time recover. Magnus on the other hand has just had his worst fear confirmed, and will likely not recover from it.

Again, this is not an attempt to bash Alec. I do not blame his character for the writers choices with the story line.

This is just my opinion on this particular matter and why I wish it hadn't been done at all

[sonknuxadow]

I’m honestly surprised that people are saying Keanu reeves is a bad choice despite the popular fan discussions about it. Where I’m at in the internet, he’s considered a good choice and people were excited.

i cant speak for everyone obviously but ive always thought he was a bad choice for shadow ever since the idea started going around 2 years ago. because from what ive heard personally he doesnt really sound like shadow + i hate it when big movie stars are given voice acting roles in movie adaptations just to have a big name attached to the project even if theyre not good for the role. and this definitely feels like that. back in the day people were only saying he should be shadow NOT because his voice actually fits but because hes an edgy action guy or whatever and movie sonic is canonically a fan of him/his movies and they could make jokes out of that. and i feel like thats Still what a lot of peoples reasoning is which annoys me because shadow isnt just an edgy action guy and i dont think his voice should be chosen based on a joke of all things especially if the voice isnt fitting enough to justify it

not gonna say my opinion is the most popular but i know that there are a lot of people who agree with me on this, or at the very least are unsure about it. a lot of people dont want him

[athene-owl]

Look, I like Ghibli stuff but I'm not super involved in the fandom so maybe someone more knowledgeable has spoken about this BUT.....the way some of y'all talk about Hayao's son Goro is flat out gross and weird as fuck. You absolutely NEED to take Hayao off of whatever pedestal you've put him on and stop making your funny little memes about how his mistreatment of his son/family is OK because you don't like Goro's films. This is just like basic decency???

[yomigaere]

fandom please stop having bad takes about Shiori and Juri challenge (BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE)

[oobi-oobi-rambles]

As a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, I would like to wish a very fuck you to anyone who believes its okay to gatekeep the queer experience

[berrymeter]

i'll be honest i didn't even process the homophobia in paprika as such bc all of it was expressed by a character who turned out to be the villain's henchman, & maybe that's on me but like, it really did not hit me like that at all.

it was a lot of background details, but it did hit me on the second rewatch that osanai doesn't yell at paprika for bringing up himuro bc he feels guilty about himuro's comatose-dead state but bc he's disgusted himuro liked him. osanai is not shown as a sympathetic character again from the moment you learn he's working against the protagonists, and frankly he's not too sympathetic either before then - at least if you don't trust him, everything he does & says comes across as him potentially becoming a problem later. again, on the second rewatch, i was able to retroactively notice another part that showcased that 'homophobia' mentioned by that person ; when they visit himuro's place & there are men's magazines all around his house, to which osanai makes a grossed out face (on first watch i thought it was more exasperation due to the previous fatphobia & general infantilisation of the fat characters).

the thing though, is that the messiness of the room, the 'gross' aspect, it doesn't hinge on the fact himuro is gay as much as it does on the fact he's fat. and it's weird to pinpoint homophobia without mentioning the glaring elephant in the room. they do the same shit to tokita! it's the exact same shit and tokita is straight as far as anyone's concerned! idk, tokita & himuro fit into a certain view of the 'nerd' that a lot of people hold, & the magazines are frankly the least of our problems with that view! if you want my opinion, the only reason tokita escaped the magazines treatment was that he was infantilised enough to not even be allowed the ability to be sexual. everyone constantly insists on how he's "a genius with the mind of a child". the fatphobia is absolutely paprika's biggest problem & it pisses me off someone would say the HOMOPHOBIA puts them off. like?! did we watch the same movie??

[crescentmp3]

can't believe i have a communist relative by the way. in Turkey

[byanyan]

being friends with byan is so weird bc they say they want you to have the balls to be bluntly honest with them, but then the very moment you're honest about something they don't like, they're peacing out, all "lmao ok friendship ended byeeeee"

[snowstories]

[Timmy Turner voice] I wish every Links Meet AU that uses Marin as a phantom to haunt and traumatize Link goes to hell no matter what

[agapi-kalyptei]

When Blood Red Shoes said "I'm scared to let go / Of a hurt so comfortable" I learned more about abusive relationships than I have learned from some of the abusive relationships I lived through