#I think there are like. Generation gaps in fandom culture

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

To add onto that Malleus popularity speculation, I think another major reason why that you never mentioned is the simple fact that characters of Malleus' archetype are just more popular in general in the west amongst working age women.

There are plenty of adult novel containing male supernatural love interests. Fae and vampire romance novels are still extremely popular amongst adult readers. A Court of Thorns and Roses is technically an ADULT novel, NOT YA. Even m|m supernatural stories even fall into this category with Stolas/Blitz from Helluva Boss being an extremely popular over here. That pairing is from an adult animated show. Stolas shares a lot of similarities with Malleus.

Hell, even if you step into western contemporary romance novels, the male love interest tends to be more brooding and angsty with flawed leads. Everything from classic literature like Jane Eyre to modern shit like anything Colleen Hoover writes. (Don't get it twisted. I'm NOT saying that Malleus is anything like those leads. Just using those very popular example of brooding bad boy love interests in adult contemporary fiction in the west.)

Meanwhile in East Asia, those sorts of leads tend to be geared towards teenagers. Working age women want a more stable, realistic love interest that would take care of them like Trey.

Westerners seem to prefer more complex, intense romantic relationships, where the stakes feel higher and the emotional payoff is more significant. They will naturally write Trey off as a "big brother" character instead of seeing him as a romantic lead material thanks to being more used to seeing characters like Malleus as the love interest in stories.

I could be way off base, since I'm not Asian and far from being an expert on Japanese culture, but that's my two cents based on my observations. This is also based on broad generalizations. Neither culture is a monolith.

[Referencing this post and (more specifically!) my speculation here!]

Oh, for sure 💀 I made a post a while ago talking about how Malleus (especially from the yumejoshi/self-shipping perspective) reminds me a lot of the new "Shadow Daddy" archetype that has emerged in the romantasy genre. I mean, just look at how many of the Shadow Daddy traits Malleus ticks off:

is a nonhuman being (usually fae)

500 yrs old (or at least several hundred years old or a significant age gap between the Shadow Daddy love interest and typically female main character)

looks young and hot/conventionally attractive despite the age

is OP (usually with shadow/night/darkness related magic)

is royalty or in some kind of position of power

dark hair and/or skin (sometimes both)

“morally grey” and/or has issues (you can fix him)

brooding

looks or is rumored to be intimidating but is actually lonely and misunderstood, with a heart of gold

animalistic in some manner (usually with bat/raven/dragon-like wings)

has a tattoo or some kind of bodily markings (Malleus has the scales under his hair; you could also count the OB facial markings I guess)

Outside of romantasy novels geared towards older teens (18-19) and adults, the west seems to really love brooding bad boys as love interests in a lot of its media. Something else I noticed is that the "good guys" or the "boy next door" types like Trey tend to be "the other man" in heterosexual love triangles, which miiight also explain why he gets looked over in the western fandom. (I discussed some of my own observations, which are similar to the points mentioned here, in the posts linked above.)

I wouldn’texactly phrase it like westerners preferring "more complex, intense romantic relationships [... with higher stakes and more significant emotional payoff]", as that unintentionally implies that there has to be brooding or angst in order for the story or character arc to be "good". I feel a lot of it actually depends on the execution rather than the tropes present. For example, I've seen many "Shadow Daddies" that exist purely for wish fulfillment rather than emotional or story/character complexity (which, to be clear, there's nothing wrong with if this is the kind of thing you enjoy!). Wholesome or "normal" romances also have the capacity to be complex, intense, high-stakes, and emotionally significant too! Again, it all depends on the quality of writing and what one's personal preferences are. You'll find outliers regardless of culture as well--as the asker has stated, no culture is a monolith!

[beloved-child-of-the-house]

i see way way way more posts yelling about how wrong it is to tell middle aged women that they’re too old for fandom or tumblr than I see people saying anything of the sort to middle aged women. Like I’m 36 and I’ve never had anyone tell me I’m too old to be here 🤷🏽‍♂️

[pro-sipper]

"Dead Dove: Do Not Eat"

About the tag, the origin, and why I think no one on either side of the fandom divide knows how to use it

First of all, I'm crosstagging because I think it's a general issue, not just something for pro or anti shippers. I see the tag get misused on both sides and I just wanted to throw my two cents in

So, where did the term originate? Like all culturally significant things online, it started as a meme. More specifically, a meme from the television show Arrested Development. Character A has put a dead dove into a brown paper bag to store in the family's fridge. On the bag, he has taped a sign that reads, in big bold letters, "DEAD DOVE. Do Not Eat!"

Character B comes across the bag, reads the warning, and opens it anyway. When he's met with, you guessed it, a dead dove, he proclaims "I don't know what I expected".

This is an example of (and has since basically become the spiritual successor to) the "Exactly What It Says On The Tin" trope.

If you want to check out the full history and countless examples of the trope, please check out the page on tvtropes. But for a slightly shorter history - it originated in a British commercial for Ronseal's Quick Drying Woodstain, which the tin claimed "dried quickly". And in the commercial they told you "It does exactly what it says on the tin!" So, the tin says what the product does, then the product does it. You get the idea.

In fandom spaces, the trope just means that the title of Thing (be it movie, show, fanfic, etc) tells you exactly what happens IN Thing. If a show is called "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", you already know it's about a girl named Buffy who slays vampires. If the movie is called "Cocaine Bear", you can bet a bear will get into some cocaine at some point. If there's a fanfic called "Fluttershy Has Tea With Jesus"... you get the idea.

While both tags started out with the same intentions and meaning, I don't think it's any wonder that "dead dove do not eat" has been so easy to misinterpret. For one, "exactly what it says on the tin" sounds more straightforward. You don't have to understand the specific reference to infer it means to check the label (in this case, tags) before purchasing (opening) the product (fanfic)

But dead dove is harder to understand if you don't know the reference. And at a glance, it sounds much darker. Doves have symbolism in multiple religions, and are seen as a symbol of peace. A dead dove evokes images of gore, violence, general unpleasantness. It must only apply to something sinister, right?

The thing about "exactly what it says on the tin" is that the tin needs to say something. You can't point at a blank label and say "here's what you can expect". People would be much less likely to engage with your product if that were the case

In the same vein, slapping "dead dove do not eat" on a fic with no other tags can lead to confusion. In this tag's case, it's a warning. But what are you warning about if you don't also put it in the tags? It leaves people's minds to conjure up only grim and upsetting images of what might be in your fic. Especially when, as it's also common to do, the tag gets shortened to simply "dead dove".

And while, yes, the tag is most likely to get slapped onto fics with dark or upsetting subject matter, that means something different for everyone who comes across it.

Most people seem to think it only applies to inappropriate relationships (age gap, incest, etc). But I've seen it applied to a variety of things, from potentially triggering material (like suicide) to things that simply may not be everyone's cup of tea (like excessive gross-out toilet humor).

In the end, "dead dove do not eat" is a tag that, in my opinion, should not be used as a descriptor as to what type of content your story contains. But rather, a gentle warning to say "hey, I'm specifically telling you what you're about to encounter, so whatever happens next is up to you".

After all, if you read the warning and still open the bag to find something you don't like...

I don't know what you were expecting.

[milliebobbyflay]

Okay so I've spent a while thinking about how to word my actual problem with homestuck 2, and the works that make up post-canon homestuck more broadly. I think a lot of people resort to nitpicking bits of awkward writing or art in some attempt to pinpoint a source to an underlying sort of hollow uncanniness, which is funny because homestuck's supposed golden age of acts 1-5 are themselves FAR more of a tonally inconsistent mess of odd character beats, jokes that don't always land, and janky looking art.

Homestuck 2 has been written and drawn by very talented and passionate artists from the beginning, I think the actual issue comes down to a mix between the general pitfalls of hiring fans and the particulars of hussie's outsider background and unorthodox writing style.

First is the issue of hiring fans in general; while it can seem like an easy shortcut to finding talented writers already familiar with the voice and story of the original work, you have to be very aware of how fan culture operates. Beyond the obvious pitfalls that fans are unlikely to approach the story from a detached perspective, there is the larger issue that past a certain point fandom becomes essentially self sustaining. Once a fandom has existed for a long enough period, its most avid members have likely spent FAR more time engaging with other fan works than they have with the original art object. Fandom and the art it produces are, in this way, a sort of a folk tradition; artists are imitating and responding to other artists, characters become archetypes through which to explore certain ideas and dynamics, and the values and tastes of the most prolific and influential fan artists become as inseparable from a participants mental image of the character as the original work itself.

For an example, the affected theatrical mannerisms and cruelty Vriska adopts while in her Mindfang persona have become inseparable from the popular view of the character. Despite the fact that it's heavily signposted as a sort of role playing performance from the jump and she's more or less dropped it by the back half of the comic, it was nevertheless how she had acted in the bulk of her scenes around the time the ur-texts of homestuck fandom were being written, and as so an understandable misread of a character became inscribed into the fandom canon, and by extension her characterization in Homestuck 2.

All of this is extrapolated by the sort of unorthdox, building-the-plane-while-flying-it manner in which Hussie's writing style developed.

Based on his commentary, I get the sense that Andrew is an incredibly clever and thoughtful writer who lacks the theory and vocabulary to precisely describe his process. He tends to communicate in sort of abstract metaphors which aim to bridge the gap in explaining the actual conscious process he uses to plot his stories, but the way he talks about technical nuts and bolts writing craft stuff gives me the impression that his approach is largely intuitive, bordering on unconscious. He's a lot better at describing how he writes than what he writes or why.

You can of course piece a lot this together—his approach to art draws from the tradition of videogame spritework, where the visuals exist as a utilitarian vehicle for conveying information first and a work of illustration only inasmuch is needed to serve the greater story. His character writing draws more from a synthesis of literary fiction, sitcom writing, and "making up a guy" style posting humor, where characters are defined more by their life experiences and underlying psychology than by their goals and values, but also seem to have largely been constructed backwards from a starting point of a funny or interesting manner of speaking. Importantly though, I don't get the sense that these were conscious decisions, just that to Hussie they seemed like the logical way to approach these tasks, and I don't really think he could outline them in a way that would actually help a new team of creators grok how to draw and write in a way that feels like homestuck. I also don't think Hussie could actually explain the psychology that undergirds his character writing, I think he was mostly just drawing on his own life experience and imagining how this sort of character might logically speak and act.

As a novelist, and Hussie is one, both your thought processes and the sum total of your worldview and life experience are just as important to your work as the actual conscious decisions you're making, and I think that where there are gaps in understanding, the new writers are filling in the gaps with both a more conventional approach to the creative process and over a decade of accumulated fanon, and I think that's why homestuck 2 never really rises above feeling like a very well-made fanfic to me?

[majaloveschris]

I hate that this is going to be an unpopular opinion but I feel it has strong merit:

The main reason people have been up in arms about AB since she entered the chat is because of her age.

I’m willing to bet 100% that if she was about 10 years older, or simply around his age, there would 50% less toxicity, while 50% of the fandom would still dislike her simply because she was with him. They would still dig up on her and the fact that she’s an obvious lazy opportunist would still be factored in, but they would treat her more like how they treat Annabelle Wallis since she is dating SS. Some don't mind her, some hate her, some like her/don't care. She'd be another boring blip in the radar.

The big thing here is that many of CE’s fandom wanted him to be a guy who “doesn’t date younger women” because that’s such a big deal for some of these people. It’s not for me, because despite whatever bs some people love making up on the internet, CE has always dated women his age and seems to get along best with people in his age group. If you look at his known relationships, both romantic and platonic, he gets along with women and men and his best friend of forever is older than him. His known exes are his age. His friend group outside of HW (and within it) are mostly people he’s known since HS and they’re all in his age group. His known flirtations with women in the industry have mostly been in his age group. these are real patterns that reflect and trying to make assumptions because he followed actresses or influencers in their 20s makes little sense because hate to say it, thats most guys married or not. He clearly connects best with people who understand the same references and cultural upbringing. You can see it when he talks to others. People bring up his old GQ interview where he was flirting with the reporter who did the spread. Guess what - they seemed to vibe because they were the same age and from the same area. She even wrote how he seemed to love that they got the same references and it just made it easier to connect. You usually do that with people in your same generation or demographic. I think the same thing happened with him and Jenny. Same age range, from the same area, got each other and just connected despite however their physical looks differed.

It’s due to his IG followings of some younger actresses and then AB that these rumors about younger women really began and to me, that’s projection. Also, lots of men do like younger women and that’s a pretty normal thing despite however you want to feel about it. It’s only a real problem now because people are much more aware of things like grooming and etc that they’re drawing attention to age gap relationships. But even Ryan Reynolds and Blake have a big age difference and he married her in 2012, when she was barely 24. He married Scarlett when she was also in her early 20s. Ryan is beloved (and now also hated) in the industry and known as wholesome family man but think about how his relationships being accepted but tbh could there also be some grooming involved? He was well into his thirties when he dated/married both these women but more or less the GP doesn’t bat an eye.

For CE, they couldn’t accept AB and that’s why the whole racism and problematic friends came into play so quickly after they went public. IMHo, the fandom needed a reason to dislike her even though she is easily able to be disliked even without her dumb friends tweets. She has no talent, no charisma, seemingly no work ethic, and is an obvious clout chaser with a very bizarre Lolita obsession and a weird obsession with older men.

That’s enough for me to side eye her but having the fans project things to hate on her makes them look worse and her like a victim.

But if she was the same age as CE, would it matter if she looked younger or did weird Lolita things? At that point, people would chalk it up to her just being a weirdo or at least compliment her for having good genes, but at least they’re the same age and then she has even less of an excuse to be as immature as she seems.

Her age and “inexperience” in Hollywood are the only passes I see her getting.

Also, CE clearly doesn’t find her attractive as his body language shows that literally for the past three years. Some of you need to stop attempting these gymnastics in your head and just admit that the relationship looks off because it is. It is most likely heavily manufactured and he needs to be married to someone to really uphold his rebrand. She clearly spends alot of time in a different country no matter what people wanna think and hollywood smoke and mirrors have a lot to do with it.

Yes, they are married and yes a bunch of PR rehearsed answers to push this and make people think it’s true love. But really…he is in the business of smoke and mirrors. Anyone who takes this stuff to heart really shouldn’t. It’s not that deep and will never be that deep.

I disagree but agree with you at the same time. I think her age plays a huge part in why people dislike her, but at the same time I don't think that's people's biggest problem with her. What I say is that even if she was older or closer to Chris's age, her behavior would still be the problem. I'm not saying people wouldn't just simply dislike her because she is dating Chris. That's a real thing and has always been in this fandom or even in different ones. I'm not in the Seb fandom, so I don't know how they treat her or what they are saying about her; however, the two situations aren't really comparable, since Seb is kind of over something similar to what Chris is still in (minus the kinda weddings part).

I think most people would've gotten over the age gap if she was a decent human being and if they actually looked in love with each other. I'm not saying that people wouldn't have disliked her just because, but it's much more than that. Her behavior is the problem; her friend's behavior is the problem. The age gap is also a bit problematic because she was only 23 when they got together. Their little trollings didn't help either. It's about her and her friend's personality and the way they behave around each other; the rest would've been forgotten after a while. 

As you said it, it's not that deep. Whether this is real or not, it doesn't really affect our lives. It isn't worth it.

[worflesbian]

Klingons & Racialisation - the Long Post

This post is an overview of the racial coding of the Klingons from their first appearance to the present day, illustrated by quotes from Trek writers, actors and crew members taken from the Memory Alpha article Depicting Klingons, with my own interjected summaries and explanations. It is by no means comprehensive (I likely missed some stuff), and does not offer critical analysis of the quotes provided, but nonetheless is intended to demonstrate irreproachably the open fact that Klingons have always been intentionally written and designed as non-white -- something that fandom consistently fails to take into account when perpetuating racist stereotypes and reiterating racist canon content. I recommend reading the whole article for a more in-depth understanding of the subject, as well as seeking out the existing writing of fans of colour. This post is primarily for reference purposes so I've tried to limit my own analysis and opinions, but I do post those in my Klingon tag as well as more general headcanons and worldbuilding and I'm happy to answer any (good faith) questions this post may raise.

As always, if I have overstepped in any way as a white fan in making this post, I am grateful to be informed and will make any required changes.

Content warning for outdated and offensive language under the cut.

The Original Series

"There is some suggestion that the Klingons represent a Cold Warrior's view of China in the 1960s – swarthy, brutally repressive." (Star Trek Magazine issue 153, p. 66) "And I think he was basing a lot of it on the kind of attitude of the Japanese in World War II...." ("Errand of Mercy" Starfleet Access, TOS Season 1 Blu-ray) The script of "Errand of Mercy" introduces the Klingon look by saying, "We see the Klingons are Orientals," "Spray my hair black, give me a kind of swamp creature green olivey mud reptilian make-up, and we'll borrow some stuff from Fu Manchu, and put a long moustache and eyebrows on me." ("The Sword of Colicos", Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - The Official Poster Magazine, No. 8) "I think the makeup was called 'Mexican #1 or #2.' That was the name of the original makeup foundation – they actually had kind of racist names at the time, like 'Negro #1' and 'Mexican #2' – which was the basis for the original Star Trek makeups." (Star Trek Magazine issue 172, p. 59) "In the original series, all they wore was a dark face and their black hair," Michael Westmore observed. ("Michael Westmore's Aliens: Season Two", DS9 Season 2 DVD special features) The Klingons' appearance changed within the original Star Trek series; although dark makeup and heavy eyebrows were the norm, the Klingons of "The Trouble with Tribbles" were much lighter-skinned and more Human-like in appearance.... He noticed that they are not only less like Mongol warriors by having less of a swarthy appearance but also by being slightly not as fierce... ("The Trouble with Tribbles" Starfleet Access, TOS Season 2 Blu-ray) "...they were meant to represent the Communist foes of the United States specifically during the Vietnam War, which was being controversially fought at that time. (Star Trek: The Original Series 365, p. 222) "...let us never set up a situation whereby those adversaries of ours [Klingons] give any indication of ever being anything but highly aggressive and self-seeking opponents." (These Are the Voyages: TOS Season Three)

Here it is explicitly stated that the Klingons were based on various Asian cultures, with the USSR also being mentioned heavily in the article. This influence and the use of "yellowface" is covered more comprehensively in this youtube video Klingons & The History Of Racial Coding. However, the video has some notable gaps which I hope to cover in this post.

Post-TOS (movies)

The Star Trek III portrayal of Klingons took inspiration from Japanese history. "Harve [Bennett] had the notion that the Klingons were like Samurai warriors," explained linguist Marc Okrand. (Star Trek: Communicator issue 114, p. 27) Robert Fletcher agreed with Bennett, later saying of the Klingons, "I always liked to think of them as authoritarian, almost feudal, like Japan had been." (The Making of the Trek Films, UK 3rd ed., p. 52) Regarding the make-up, Michael Westmore observed, "Until now, Klingons were brown. Some had a bony ridge running down the middle of their foreheads, long black wigs and facial hair." (Star Trek: The Next Generation Makeup FX Journal, p. 28) "I thought it was an ideal way for us to have our closure too, because the Klingons for us have always been the Communist Block, the Evil Empire. It just made sense to do that story." (The Making of the Trek Films, UK 3rd ed., p. 100) "Gene was really bothered by the Klingons in VI [....] [They] were, in his words, 'too civilized, too decent, too much of the good guys in the story.' [....] [The Klingon detente] was not the way Gene would have handled it. He would have reversed it, he would have had the Klingons being the ones who couldn't handle the peace, with the Federation saying, 'Come on, let's try and work this out.'" (Star Trek Movie Memories, hardback ed., p. 289) "The story never explored the Klingon culture the way I'd hoped it would [....] I was hoping for greater insight into the Klingons." (I Am Spock) Nimoy hoped, in specific, that the movie would provide some important insight into why the Klingons had "always been so angry, such nasty, vicious murderers." Nimoy wanted the insightful knowledge to be an intellectually transformational force, changing the thinking of Kirk and the audience. (Star Trek Movie Memories, hardback ed., pp. 287-288) In an interview in the DS9 Season 7 DVD, Robert O'Reilly observed that a long-running joke among actors who have played Klingons is that they do not want to appear in the Star Trek films as, he believes, the only purpose of a Klingon in one of the films was to be killed off.

Although these last three quotes may not seem relevant, I believe they highlight an important facet of the racialisation of the Klingons. It reads as though Gene Roddenberry was against depicting the Klingons in a more sympathetic light than the Federation, and considering that the Klingons are intended to be non-white, refusing to give depth or motive to their anger in favour of keeping them "nasty, vicious murderers" comes across as fairly racist, especially when these kind of reductive and harmful stereotypes could've been challenged as Nimoy suggests. The treatment of Klingons as disposable villains is also concerning in this context.

The Next Generation

African-American actors were often cast as Klingons in TNG and subsequent Star Trek productions. This practice wasn't racially motivated but was instead carried out because it lessened makeup time, as the performers already had a brown complexion without having to have their skin painted that color. (Stardate Revisited: The Origin of Star Trek: TNG, Part 2: Launch, TNG Season 1 Blu-ray) Tony Todd, who portrayed the recurring Klingon character Kurn, stated, "I don't look at the Klingons necessarily as African-Americans, but it's about tapping into something–they're certainly an alienated people, so maybe that's why African-American actors can identify with those characters. But that doesn't mean it's exclusive to them." (Star Trek: Communicator issue 116, p. 54) Michael Westmore actually changed the Klingon facial design in numerous ways, though. He stated, "I added a Shakespearean style of facial hair and a forehead bone structure based on dinosaur vertebrae and I was able to modify motion picture Klingons for television." (Star Trek: Aliens & Artifacts, p. 59) In "A Matter Of Honor", the Klingons were intended to be used to shed some light on a common social problem prevalent at the time of the episode's making. This was, namely, what it was like to be the only person of either white or black skin coloration while surrounded by people of the other color. The Klingons were selected to illustrate this theme as a spin on the usual arrangement of a predominantly Human crew serving aboard the Enterprise-D alongside Worf. (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, p. 176) Two historical societies, the Samurai and Vikings, served as other inspirations, Moore perceiving about Klingon culture, "There was the calm, elegant reserve associated with the Samurai but there was the 'party-down' like the Vikings." (Star Trek: Communicator issue 114, p. 58) "I stopped thinking of the Klingons as the Cold War adversary," he explained. "I didn't think it fit [....] The place where the Russians were when I was doing the Klingon shows just wasn't as relevant any more." (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 1, Issue 19, pp. 64-65) "The Klingons are not evil, tyrannical pirates bent only on pillage and plunder. They have a strict, almost unyielding code of ethics and honor and take their responsibilities as rulers seriously." Following a description of the Klingon homeworld, the memo continued by saying, "Klingon society could most closely be compared to that of Sparta or feudal Japan." ("Sins of the Father" audio commentary, TNG Season 3 Blu-ray) Having recently seen the film Malcolm X, he imagined the Klingons in the "Birthright" duology as metaphors for black people. (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, p. 274; Star Trek: Communicator issue 105, p. 16) "There's a certain way you have to carry yourself. You have to really be able to project the violence and the anger [....] All you have to do is think of the Spartans. They say, 'They'd rather have you come home dead on your shield than come home a coward.' [18]

This is where I feel the video essay previously mentioned falls short -- in the next gen era, Klingons are now explicitly black-coded. While some Asian cultural influences are still cited, they learn more towards the historical and are intermixed with other historical European influences (Spartans, Vikings, Shakespeare) rather than being fueled by contemporary prejudices towards the political enemies of the US as they were in the TOS era.

Deep Space Nine

Fields also generally based the Klingon group on American Western prototypes from the film The Magnificent Seven or, to a lesser extent, Japanese prototypes from The Magnificent Seven's movie source material, Seven Samurai. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion (pp. 131-132)) "So, the hair [...] was permed. So, it had more of a curl instead of the straight type look, and by perming it, they were able to kind of give them larger, bigger hair, so it was more like a mane." ("Michael Westmore's Aliens: Season Two", DS9 Season 2 DVD special features) "I don't know how you could equate Klingons with what's going on in the world today," he admitted. "I think the intention was to make them like samurai. That hairdo they gave them is very much a samurai hairdo. A lot of the fight sequences, the moves with the bat'telh, are very much taken out of the Asian martial arts [....] It's very romantic you know, these three old guys, the Klingon over-the-hill gang." (The Official Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Magazine issue 15, pp. 17-18) "It was different for them to get into this makeup, because [...] [the makeup was more elaborate and] the beards were bigger, and they were greyer, and they had curls to them, and the moustaches, they had the Fu Manchu look to them. So, they weren't used to sitting that long to be a Klingon." ("Michael Westmore's Aliens: Season Two", DS9 Season 2 DVD special features) For recreating some old-style Klingons in "Trials and Tribble-ations", the Klingon-playing actors had to be made up with the same swarthy, shiny brown makeup as used in the original series. (The Magic of Tribbles: The Making of Trials and Tribble-ations) ...he had them unite in song, thinking this was "just the kind of thing that Klingons do" because they are, in his opinion, similar to Vikings. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion (p. 449)) "I always saw the Klingons as a combination of Japanese Samurai who haven't had their morning coffee (or tea!) and African Zulu warriors." [25]

In DS9 the only inspirations cited seem to be historical, once again leaning towards feudal Japan and the Vikings. Interestingly although the Klingons here are predominantly dark-skinned, I don't think that J.G. Hertzler, who is white, had his skin significantly darkened to play Martok (at least, not compared to the obvious brown makeup worn by other white actors playing Klingons). Having a white actor play a Klingon without dark makeup could've set a precedent decreasing the use of such practices later on, but no one seems to have picked up on it.

Enterprise

The Klingons of ENT: "Sleeping Dogs" were based on the crew of the Russian submarine Kursk. "For me," said Dekker, "the point was to acknowledge the Klingons as 'people' – to find them in a clear position of distress [....] The idea to 'humanize' their plight was mine, and it wasn't anything I thought about as far as canon. It just seemed right." (Star Trek: The Official Starships Collection, issue 41, pp. 10-12) In the final draft script of "Affliction", the altered Klingons were initially referred to as "fierce-looking aliens" and were further described thus; "The aliens have a swarthy complexion, and dark facial hair... they could easily be mistaken for Humans. We'll eventually learn these are Klinqons... but their cranial ridges have disappeared."

At this point in time it seems the Klingons had essentially done a 180 from one-dimensional villains to sympathetic fan favourites, while still retaining the skin-darkening aspect of their makeup and "barbaric" characterisation. Although this is not mentioned in the article's section on the Abrams films, the images provided do demonstrate a level of skin darkening for the Klingons' brief appearance in Into Darkness.

The final section of the article is incomplete, meaning I don't have a lot of information for Discovery's redesign of the Klingons. The sources I can find cite ancient civilisations such as the Byzantines as well as Islamic architecture as inspiration for the set design, with a baroque influence on the costumes. I have heard rumours that the crew of Discovery have cited North African cultures as their inspiration for the Klingons but I can't currently find a source for this. Despite the lack of direct quotes, it's visibly clear that the Klingon makeup is still darkening the skin of white actors, although this time also to non-human blue and purple colours, as well as altering certain features in a racialised way. To elaborate: Mary Chieffo, who plays L'Rell on Discovery, is white and has a very thin nose and small lips, but in costume these are broadened in a way that seems imitative of African ethnic features.

As of the making of this post (early August 2023) I haven't seen any of Strange New Worlds, but from some cursory research its latest episode (Subspace Rhapsody) seems to have put a white actor (Bruce Horak) in brown makeup to play a Klingon. I am deeply disappointed that on a television set in 2023 people can still be darkening an actors skin like this without questioning the racial implications of what they're doing.

Thank you for reading to the end of this post. Please feel free to link to it if you found it useful enough to cite in another context. I would like to reiterate that I am white and while this is an issue I care deeply about it is not one I have an emic understanding of, and if anything I've said here is inappropriate I would be very grateful to be made aware.

[hamiltonconfessions-but-better]

I highkey hate Jamilton haters. I'm (not) sorry, but their reasons for hating the ship are either hugely similar to purity culture or just plain double standards. Before I start, I'd like to say it's completely fine to dislike Jamilton, I'm not forcing anyone to like it, I'm just explaining why it's stupid to hate on it. Let's debunk some of the most common arguments Jamilton haters use: "They had a huge age gap" 12-14 years is not that big of an age gap and by the time they met they were both adults. "It's toxic" Tell me you've never seen an enemies to lovers ship without telling me you've never seen an enemies to lovers ship. I do agree with the fact sometimes the way they're written is basically toxic waste, but that's not the ship itself, it's some portrayals of it. "Hamilton was in love with Laurens" First of all: no. Lams is not historically canon, if you wanna know why, read the crashout on here (i did not write it btw, full creds to them) Second of all: it's just such a close-minded argument, to be honest. i really don't understand why shipping one ship makes you automatically hate on the other. "They were real people" Okay, and? Me personally, I don't care about "preserving their legacy" and what would they think if they saw it, because, newsflash!! They won't see this, because they're six feet under. They were slave-owning, homophobic, racist, and just generally terrible people. Their legacy can rot in a hole, for all I care. "Hamilton was happily married to Eliza" And he cheated. If he did it once, he'd do it again. This is not that big of a dealbreaker and I say this as a Hamliza shipper. Besides, most people that say this ship other slash ships in the Hamilton fandom, and to that I'd like to say: And the characters you ship were not? When has that stopped you? Never? That's right, because it's only bad when you don't like the ship. "They were straight" When has that stopped any fandom from shipping characters? If you don't like shipping, fandom isn't for you. That's just the truth. This isn't an argument against a ship, it's just you showing you don't belong in fandom.

To the haters, who are going to make fun of me for defending a ship in this way: I really don't care. Give me more arguments, I'll debunk every single one. Genuinely, you are so miserable for hating a ship in a fandom so passionately. I can't imagine hating on people for what they like. It's just pathetic. If you're gonna just say "im not reading allat'', you're just gonna prove to me you don't have the reading comprehension to think past basic ship dynamics and enjoy the more complex and layered ones. It's jarring how people only decide if they like the ship based on how "morally good" it is. Live a little, explore different dynamics. Don't limit yourselt to just "friends to lovers who never argued once", because that's the only dynamic I see not being ruthlessly shitted on. Please, either find reason or just shut the fuck up.

.

[petefromarma]

okay wrt that other ask asking abt bottom pete

i also find it interesting that despite a lot of people suddenly preferring bottom pete, there's still a lot of recent bottom patrick fics coming out.... but ig not everyone reads or writes fic so idk. actually thinking abt it, im not even sure why it's become so popular?? /gen

another iteration that comes to mind is petekey, like especially on tiktok 😭

and also i want to ask abt the tags bc what is your interpretation of patrick as a bottom then...

ok thats all thank u for letting me ramble and like i read your blog like the morning paper everyday 💜

aw anon you're so sweet thank you 🥺❤️ thank you for the ask and it means a lot that you like MY ramblings lol

so in terms of the preferred dynamics of the pairing changing, i think this shift probably happened sometime in the last five years; imo it was sort of a slow crawl and then the emergence of smfs sped things up because fob gained a lot of new fans and also attracted old fans who were still around but maybe not creating anything during the gap between mania and smfs, whether it was art or fic. primarily i think it has to do with the fandom's general perception of pete and patrick having changed since the 2013-2019 era

the fact that they've grown and changed as people over the last decade (and when speaking about fob in its entirety, the last two decades) has in part something to do with this; fandoms are inherently predisposed to tropes, imo, which can often lead to characters (this term i think is appropriate since we are talking about fiction written about real people and to a lesser degree the people as they actually exist themselves) being shoehorned into fitting the confines of a specific archetype based on surface level aspects of their personality or physical attributes. patrick and pete for a significant amount of the band's history were perceived as sort of a wallflower and bad boy combo; this wasn't entirely incorrect, and imo most fic authors wrote them with a degree of nuance rather than purely relying on archetype, but you could usually find some form of that interpretation of their characters in most fic or fandom discussion relating to their personalities and relationship with each other. because of this and the fact that it was common in the 2000s/2010s to work within a context of assigning arbitrary personality traits to sex positions, such as 'bottoms are shy/tops are outgoing' (and with bottom always referring to sub bottom and top always referring to dom top), this lead to total bottom patrick cultural victory etc (obviously i agree with the outcome here but i don't completely agree with the journey it took to get there lol)

in part patrick and pete both had a hand in this perception of themselves; patrick mostly during the 2010s and pete mostly during the 2000s. like i said i think these are both actual aspects of their personalities rather than what some people claim, especially in regards to patrick (that the sweater paws era was all an act), but the choice to exacerbate this image of themselves was definitely for PR purposes. imo they both still kind of do this but in different ways; the intent is the same but the form is different. i don't mean to be cynical and i do think they are happy and settled and that their expressions of self are mostly genuine but they are still celebrities and i think they're both relieved to be considered by a majority of fans, who are largely unwilling to talk about their (p2's) flaws, as 'soft' and non-threatening

ig the dark haired top/light haired bottom thing could have also played a part in the popularity of bottom patrick but i don't really think that's the case here because of. the inherent way that they are lol. i feel like some people would argue that the popularity of patrick as specifically a sub bottom during 2013-2019 can in part be attributed to his whiteness and the conflation of whiteness with femininity and bottoming as an inherently feminine and therefore submissive act, which i think probably has merit enough to be acknowledged in any discussion of an interracial ship especially irt to m/m and f/f, but i don't think it's particularly relevant to peterick because i do not buy that patrick has an especially domineering presence that is being subverted in order to incorrectly portray him as submissive, which is something that does happen in a number of ships where one character is white and the other character is black or brown. i think there ARE domineering parts of patrick's personality, and that he craves control, especially wrt his art and his creative process, but we also know that he often gives in to pete's suggestions and that pete's instincts are usually correct whereas patrick's are usually wrong. this doesn't scream hypercompetent in control dom top to me and it doesn't scream service top either

anyway. i think patrick's change in fashion and aesthetics played a not insignificant part in this shift in dynamics; pete's self expression has always been relatively androgynous, but that isn't inherently connected to his gender or his personality. i don't think he's ever done or said anything to imply that he's anything other than a cis man who sometimes likes to wear skirts. which, i mean, there's a not insignificant discussion to be had about his relationship with gender as a biracial black man but this answer is already too long and i don't want to get into that now lol. so patrick grows a beard, pete bleaches his hair and grows it out, oh they're masc and femme now, patrick is a bear (despite being straight?), masc = top and femme = bottom, etc. some people will argue that this has always been the case (patrick being masc and pete being femme) but i'm going to be honest, i think pete and patrick both leaned toward androgyny in self expression until around futct and even then i don't consider patrick's street wear as being super butch or whatever

people also like to discuss patrick's weight as a factor in the perception of him as either a top or a bottom but i've seen too many claims that there's an epidemic of fat men being portrayed as sub bottoms simply because they're fat and i have literally no idea where this came from and i really don't want to lend any legitimacy to that argument because i think it's ridiculous so i'm not going to get into it. but just know i think it's silly and cope

so i think partially the change in dynamics has come from the manner in which they present themselves within the public sphere; patrick reads now as more masculine and outgoing and pete reads as more shy and feminine

i do think that the interpretation of them as characters by people who prefer bottom pete and write fic is more nuanced than people who don't write fic and are just kind of going with the flow (same with people who were around in 2013-2019 when bottom patrick was more popular); i still don't agree with the majority of their analysis but considering they're creating actual art there's generally more critical thought involved than just following a fandom trend imo

fob is also not really a fic based fandom, honestly; fanart tends to get more interaction and fandoms that skew younger don't seem to write fic as much. this is kind of a sidebar but i am actually genuinely worried about the use of chatgpt and what it means for the writing and critical reasoning skills of young people in the west (i don't know if this is as big of a problem in nonwestern countries) and imo the manner in which it's wormed its way into all aspects of academic and creative life, whether professional or amateur, is frightening. but anyway i think a lot of the authors who write or prefer bottom patrick have been around a lot longer (just, like, in life, but also in the fandom lol) and since the younger fans aren't really interested in writing fic, it makes sense that there's still an even split on ao3 despite bottom pete seeming to be more popular with the greater fandom

anyway like i said in that other ask i do think there are situations in which pete would bottom; like, he is not topping andy hurley, lol, and probably not travie, but i just don't see him bottoming as realistic, long term, or as a constant, in his relationship with patrick. the time at which pete came into patrick's life means he was both an authority figure and peer to him; he guided patrick professionally and, at times, personally. pete viewed him as his responsibility, and he was protective of patrick in a way that he wasn't with joe (i've spoken about this before, and while i do think that maybe this has to do with pete maturing somewhat from twenty to twenty-two/twenty-three, there is a world of difference between what pete allowed his friends to do to joe and the way pete spoke of patrick with reverence and protected him, to the point that patrick's release the bats skit was him drinking garlic butter). and while i don't know if i would say the same currently lol i think pete was once a highly competent and successful businessman; he deeply understood the culture of the 2000s/early 2010s and for all the stress and heartache it brought him, i think there were aspects of fame and that feeling of being on top of the world that he very much enjoyed. i think he likes control, but in contrast to patrick, he's far more competent and adept at gaining and keeping himself in a position that affords him that control

has their relationship evolved to the point that they're on more equal footing? yeah i think so, but i also think that your dynamic when you meet someone is going to remain, in part, a constant, even as your relationship evolves and changes. so there's that, for me, that push-and-pull power dynamic where pete is almost always the one who comes out on top (lol), and while i understand the appeal in subverting this wrt peterick, in an abstract sense, i just don't see the evidence in their relationship that that would realistically happen or that pete would want it to happen

moving on to patrick, the reason i said his stroke game is mid is because obviously he does top he's straight but i don't think he's particularly good at it; he fumbles through a lot of life (that doesn't involve his art) and i think this translates to his sexual expression. more realistically, i could see him as a dom bottom because of how bossy he is; this i think would be something pete would enjoy because he does desire submission somewhat but it doesn't involve penetration, which i believe he considers a degrading act, at least to some degree. tbh i don't really think pete's dick game is bomb or whatever lol but i think he's better than patrick. and i know this is a matter of contention because of the specific way in which patrick's misogyny manifests and how defensive he was about not being gay, but i think he's too autistic to really give a shit about bottoming; maybe he could even be convinced to take the strap because he would just get to lie there and not do anything like the way elisa cooks all his food for him. i think this could actually also be argued with pete potentially but it would be more difficult to bring him around to it lol

i have more to say but i think i should cut myself off now 😭 i do want to say though re the thing about petekey; i was actually just telling a friend how petekey is similar to bottom pete because they're both so popular and yet the amount of fanworks doesn't seem to match their supposed popularity

[pathfinderyderss]

Heads up! The user barbex is a proshipper (supports romanticizing abuse in fiction).

Hi! So, I apologize for my delay in responding to your message - I have had a lot of thoughts and wanted to make sure l was expressing them in the best way possible.

I want to be honest, when I first read your message, I didn’t know what pro-shipping was, but I do know @barbex --I've been following her for the better part of a decade and she is an excellent author and l enjoy her views on the Dragon Age lore (and her views on Anders). I've also done more than a few of the prompt months that she's put together.

With all of that said, I wanted to better understand your viewpoint and see what it is that is defined as part of your block list. So, I hopped on your blog! I found your blocklist and the items you've listed as egregious enough to report users and as a former Literature Major, it saddened me to see such Puritanical and Orwellian views being broadcast with such vitriol.

The first thing I want to address is that in my fifteen plus years in fandom I have always subscribed to the “Don’t Like, Don’t Read" mentality. I am unafraid to block people on this website for a single take I don't agree with, and with that I am a FIRM supporter of accurate community labels as there are many things that I myself do not enjoy or want to read - so my blocked tags are plentiful and the blogs I block are many and that curated experience is why I do not get involved in any sort of fandom drama. 

I implore you to do the same. Fandom can be such a wonderful, constructive experience when you surround yourself with like-minded individuals. A dear friend of mine reminded me of the phrase, ”No Good Fandom, Only Good Friends” and nothing could be more accurate. Your tiny corner of the Fandom is an amazing way to flourish socially and mentally; however when your energy instead is spent on searching for others with ideological differences the experience instead becomes a witch hunt full of dog piling and negativity.

Now, on your blog, I noticed that you bemoan that you are unable to have a conversation about Fandom/Purity Culture/Fanfiction and I feel like this is an important topic to discuss so l am going to indulge in this against my better judgement, and at the end if you don't like what I've said, l implore you to block me as well.

My primary issue with your block list is that it derives from anti-intellectualism and a puritanical view of fandom. Which, if that is how you want to experience fandom, that's fine, but publicizing it is beyond ridiculous and leads back to my earlier point about witch hunts and dog piling.

Based on your list, your primary concerns in your block list stem from the following topics: rape, incest, pedophilia- including predatory age gaps and abuse. And I wonder; do you devalue fiction in the same way?

The first thing on your list that caught my attention was your adamant disapproval of the Thanatos/Zagreus ship in Hades. Is this just a general distaste for all Greek/Roman mythology as all of it could meet your block list above? Does Disney's Hercules get a pass due to the inaccuracies in the retelling — does the Hera/Zeus relationship get a pass because it isn't explicitly mentioned? And does it matter that it is a more inaccurate retelling of the myth?

In that same vein; are stories like Jane Eyre (which contains both a predatory age gap and a horrific example of a mentally ill character) or Wuthering Heights (which contains incest and abuse) not worth telling to a modern audience because they show these things? Are we forgoing media literacy and critical thinking now because these things glorify the worst parts of humanity?

And regardless of if it is a piece of classic literature or a piece of modern fanfiction making the decision for others that they cannot read these things due to them being "bad” or "wrong" or "shameful" is no different than banning books. And you devalue the readership of these pieces of literature by saying that they are unable to critically think for themselves and find the value of an individual piece of fiction.

I emphasize again, YOU as an individual do not have to view or interact with this material if it makes you uncomfortable, but I beg you not to police others in an Orwellian fashion over the media they choose to produce or view. Use the block button and blacklist tags you don't like or make you uncomfortable - that is what they are there for. Instead, talk to people who share your views but do not turn this into a witch hunt or an NC-17 purge that we've seen so damaging to our communities in the past.

All of this is to say; find joy Fandom — whatever that may mean for you and let others do the same. 

I hope this was informative.

- Ryder

[direwolfrules]

Here, have some random Satine Rambles

I like to take a lot of the fandom misconceptions about Satine and the New Mandalorians and headcanon them as in-universe Death Watch propaganda.

Like the idea that Satine banned Mando'a. This is a weird one to me. So, Mando'a script is all over the place in Sundari. It's on the police speeders, it's on signs, it's on the wall of the Cadet Squad's dorm room, all of which is official government property and would have been some of the first places to have Mando'a removed if the ban was an actual thing. Also, Satine speaks Mando'a and Concordian (the dialect from Concordia and in Legends Concord Dawn). We as the audience don't see her speak Mando'a often because when she appears she's usually either:

1) Talking to someone whose primary language is Basic.

or

2) In a setting where slipping into Mando'a to talk to one person would be seen as undiplomatic at best.

Also, we as the audience don't primarily speak Mando'a, a fictional language with massive gaps in the canon vocabulary, and why would the Clone Wars crew put effort into translating a bunch of conversations into Mando'a for a kids show. They barely had an animation budget, you really think they had the money and time to translate politics into kid/teen-friendly language and then translate that into Mando'a?

Also, Pre Vizsla doesn't speak Mando'a in the show. I don't think he even says a single Mando'a word, which is less than what Satine says.

Or, the idea that Satine banned beskar armor. Here's the thing about armor, based a bit on real-life history. Armor is expensive. Especially well-forged armor. Especially well-forged armor made of a rare, extremely valuable metal with important cultural significance. And if centuries of strip mining depleted the supply of that already very rare metal, and damaged the ecosystem enough that mining it was banned? Well, now the price is at a point where anyone who isn't a noble or exceedingly wealthy can't afford new beskar. Even then, most noble families passed on their beskar through the generations, partly because of legacy and religion and also partly because obtaining new beskar was already ruinously expensive unless you took it from an enemy in war, which would have been ruinously expensive in other ways.

The fact that we barely see anyone wear beskar in Sundari isn't indicative of a ban on beskar armor, it means armor isn't a practical or attainable expense for the average citizen of Sundari. Sundari was a city at peace, before Sidious' plots and Vizsla's attacks. There was no need for anyone but the Mandalorian Guard to wear armor. Does a midlevel office worker need to wear armor to go about his job? Does a retail employee need the weight of beskar plate in addition to whatever stock they have to shelve? Unless you were a member of the warrior caste, which was primarily made up of nobles who either already had or could afford new beskar, you didn't need to be constantly armored.

And since we're talking about armor, the next logical misconception to discuss is the "weapons ban" that keeps getting brought up in every single "Satine Bad" fanfiction ever. When we first meet Satine, there is no weapons ban. Carrying weapons in a city at peace like Sundari is probably frowned on the same way carrying weapons on Coruscant's upper levels is frowned upon (if you're not Padme "Constantly-dodging-assassination-attempts" Amidala that is). It's a case of why would the average citizen need to carry a weapon, not them not being allowed to.

The first and only mention of a weapons ban in the show is when Ahsoka is welcomed to Sundari in "The Academy". Everyone's least favorite corrupt worm-man Almec says that after the trouble surrounding Master Kenobi's last visit, offworlders can't bring weapons into Sundari. It's literally just a ban for offworlders, which is reasonable when you figure out most of the terrorist group threatening to destroy your hard-fought peace and overthrow your government is based off-world.

And like, we see Mandalorians carry weapons. Satine has her deactivator, which we know from the actions of Rush Clovis and Lolo Purs can be a lethal weapon if used against organics. We see the Mandalorian Guards carry stun batons and shields, and some, like Captain Patrok Ru-Saxon, carried blasters to use as a last resort option. The Protectors, who at this point were Satine's bodyguards, had blunt-tipped spears that, judging by how they could be used to block blaster bolts during the warehouse raid in "Corruption", were probably made of beskar. Also in that same warehouse raid we see the Guard use flamethrowers.

Another common misconception is that Satine is opposed to any kind of violence, even in self-defense. This is not true.

As stated above, Satine carries a deactivator, a weapon primarily used to disable droids, but by its very nature of being a weapon designed to output high-level energy blasts can be lethal to organics. When she's using her deactivator she tells Obi-Wan, "Just because I'm a pacifist doesn't mean I won't defend myself".

And this is true. If Satine was so opposed to violence that she wouldn't fight back if threatened, she either would have died on the Coronet or been taken captive by the Separatists. She would have been killed back during the first confrontation with Vizsla, or during the arc on Coruscant. She would not have taken part in the warehouse raid. Satine was not opposed to violence in self-defense, she was opposed to violence as the first option and lethal violence as anything but a last resort.

One of the only times Satine doesn't fight back is when Pre Vizsla and his Death Watch soldiers invade the palace during the coup. If she had fought back, she would have given Vizsla exactly what he wanted: evidence of her betraying her ideals just when her people needed them the most, and an excuse to kill everyone on her side of the throne room. Satine made a choice to let herself be captured in order to spare as many lives as she could. And the minute she has a chance to escape, she takes it.

Then there's the common fandom idea that Satine is destroying Mandalorian culture, which is just ridiculous. Culture is more than just martial abilities and rigid clan hierarchies. It's food, art, clothing, language, etc. Satine telling her people they're not allowed to kill and bomb each other indiscriminately and empowering a central government over the hereditary clan-based caste system is not destroying Mandalorian culture, it's trying to save Mandalorian culture. After all, who'll be left to practice their traditions, to speak their language and sing their songs, if they wipe themselves off the face of the galaxy?

Mandalore had been jumping from one massive civil war to the next for generations, not to mention the wars against outside powers like the Republic. These are massive depopulating events. Each successive war does more and more damage to the planets in the Mandalorian sector. Mandalore went from a lush jungle to a desert. Concordia was nearly entirely deforested. A third of Concord Dawn is rubble drifting through space.

Satine made decisions that, until the machinations of the Sith, brought a level of prosperity and growth to Mandalore that it hadn't seen in living memory. The forests of Concordia were growing again. Trade was beginning to flow. Her people were happy and not constantly fearing war if one of the Houses took offense to something another one did.

Satine encouraged and promoted the aspects of Mandalorian culture outside of the martial domain. She was a patron of Mandalorian artists, and favored geometric designs and art styles, something that most Mandalorians also enjoyed. Her personal yacht was designed to display Mandalorian goods to representatives of other sectors/governments/galactic powers in order to promote trade and encourage a demand for Mandalorian goods. Her iconic dress with the massive headdress is meant to look like a mythosaur, with her earrings serving as the tusks.

She had that classic Mandalorian love for children. The only times we've ever seen her come close to compromising her principles was when children were threatened. When Mandalorian children were being poisoned by black market tea, she threatened the school's superintendent with violence. She was so enraged by the senseless deaths of many of the poisoned children she ordered the warehouse the black market goons had set up in burned down. When Almec went to torture Korkie and his friends she almost gave in to his demands, despite not cracking when she herself was under torture.

And New Mandalore in general was not a society built on cultural genocide like so many people in this fandom like to claim. In New Mandalorian Society a traditional kar'ta was present on many buildings, clothing (there are like five on the Academy's uniforms), and even hairstyles. Sundari's architecture was filled with geometric buildings that only really differed from the Clan Wren stronghold in height and number of turrets.

The real major difference between New Mandalorian culture and the old ways is those not of the noble, warrior caste had much less political power under the old system. New Mandalorian society is committed to peace, because many New Mandalorians are everyday individuals who now get a say in a diplomatic government instead of watching their system get crushed under leaders who only need to know how to fight well. Farmers don't have to worry about their local lord and his dumbass kid pissing off the neighboring lord, leading to a war that burns their fields and orphans their children. Business owners and employees don't have to worry about losing their shops/factories/office spaces in constant bombings.

Speaking of New Mandalorian society, another common misconception I see is people claiming Satine/New Mandalore was racist because it's all white blondes and brunettes. So like, that was a bad design decision by the Clone Wars crew, who wanted to make Mandalore look like space Scandinavia, and it's compounded by the reuse of models and assets. Korkie's class at the Academy has three groups of identical triplets. The crowds of Mandalorian citizens have so many repeated models, hairstyles, and the like, that there are more identical individuals there than on Kamino. The explanation there isn't "Satine is racist", it's "Cartoon Network gave them zero animation budget". Mandalore only got more diverse after Filoni got called out for it and had the budget and opportunity to fix it, which happened after Satine's rule ended.

Also, I see a lot of people taking the word of Death Watch members, children of Death Watch members, and Death Watch-aligned groups as gospel when it comes to Satine. Like, holy unreliable narrator Batman! If the person criticizing Satine is a member of the terrorist group dedicated to her death, a child of one of those terrorists who has probably been indoctrinated in Satine hate from day one, or a member of one of the splinter factions of that terrorist group, they're probably just a little bit biased, ya know? Satine's people genuinely loved her, Pre Vizsla had to stage elaborate schemes with Sith backing to sway the people's support away from her.

Oh, and people like to say that Satine was a bad leader/bad politician because she "left Mandalore weak" and "wouldn't join the Clone Wars". Which is just— did we watch the same show?

Joining the Clone Wars would have been Bad with a capital B. Palpatine wanted a Grand Army of the Republic presence on all the major worlds to facilitate his takeover when the time for Order 66 came. Mandalore was a priority target, remember when he doctored that footage of Satine's Deputy Minister to get the Senate to vote on sending troops?

Mandalore was along the Hydian Way, a major hyperspace route that was the site of frequent conflict. Mandalore's place on the Hydian Way, if they had joined either the Republic or the Separatists, would have made it and its vassal worlds battlefields. It would have devastated the hesitantly recovering Mandalorian people and the even more hesitantly recovering ecosystems of the planets.

Mandalore's position along the Hydian Way also meant that for some trade goods it depended on the CIS and for others it depended on the Republic, so committing to one side or the other would have made the already dangerous black market situation during the war even worse. What Satine did by declaring Neutrality and forming the Council of Neutral Systems was protect the interests of her people and form a voting block to prevent those interests from being trampled over.

Even with all its problems, Mandalore under Satine was strong, just going through issues many other worlds underwent during the war. Death Watch was a relatively new problem, as Pre Vizsla and his followers only got up the guts to act when their Sugar Daddy Dooku gave them Separatist backing. The food shortages were directly tied to the war disrupting the major trade route Mandalore depended on. Corruption amongst members of the government was a plot point in half the episodes of the show.

Mandalore only fell because Satine fell. Satine kept the war away from Mandalore as much as she could. Sideous couldn't get troops onto Mandalore while Satine was alive. With the exception of the very vocal Death Watch minority, the people were united behind her. It was only by running false flag operations with Maul's Shadow Collective that Death Watch was able to generate enough support to stage a coup. A coup that involved killing any government officials and trained warriors who refused to forswear their loyalty to the Duchess, thus robbing Mandalore of a considerable number of possible defenders and the people who knew how things ran and where the paperwork was filed.

If it wasn't for Vizsla's coup, and Maul's second secret coup, there would have been no need for Republic troops at the Seige of Mandalore, because there would have been no Seige of Mandalore. But there was, and Mandalore fell to the Empire. Which led to more internal Mandalorian on Mandalorian violence, which killed even more warriors. Which paved the way for the Night of a Thousand Tears.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for trying to reconnect with someone I ghosted, possibly violating their boundaries in the process?

Disclaimer- This is a long and complicated story bc the context of the ghosting is important to the conflict, everyone involved are all in their early 20s, nobody in this story is a saint.

I was once part of a D&D group with my friends Alice (IRL best friend), Bob (IRL friend, DM), Chris (Online friend) and Fran (Online acquaintance). A couple sessions into our campaign, a couple of players were removed, and my IRL friend Gary joined to fill the gap they left, which everyone was okay with at the time. Gary and the group had a bit of a culture clash for a while, as the group all grew up on Tumblr and were pretty typical fandom Tumblrinas, whereas Gary was more used to Reddit and Youtube's culture and was just pretty offline in general, so we often had to learn each other's memes and references. Because Gary was my friend, I often took the role of "translator" for him, because I'd had more exposure to his jokes and enjoyed explaining them if people didn't get them, and liked translating the group's jokes back to him for the same reason. We found out later that Gary also liked to play D&D differently than the group did - we used it to provide structure to our RP, so our characters were built based on what sounded cool or fit the OC, rather than what necessarily was the best idea mechanically. His characters, on the other hand, had some RP ideas behind them, but they were primarily built for good mechanics, with a class and feats that suited their stats, so they were really good at combat and skill rolls. We didn't find this out until later, because when he first joined the campaign, he played a character that was really poorly built because it was a character that had been built FOR him by the DM of a different campaign, and they were BAD at it.

Some time passes, and it becomes pretty clear to both me and Gary that Gary's character is just not being engaged in RP as much as everyone else's. I tried to help him get more involved, thinking that we just needed to work his character into the plot a bit, and when that consistently didn't work, he contented himself with at least being pretty good at the combat part of the game. However, Bob eventually realized that he'd been misreading a rule (that Gary had been taking advantage of to BE so good at combat), and Gary's character was nerfed so hard by the way the rule was MEANT to be interpreted that he became borderline useless during combat. Fed up at this point, Gary decided to work with Bob to kill off his character and make a new one that he'd build himself. I helped him brainstorm ideas for this new character to help him make one that meshed better with the group's RP, and he made the character better mechanically to avoid being useless in combat like the last character was.

Unfortunately, this character was just as ignored in RP as his last one was. And she was so tightly optimized that whenever Gary made a roll with her, he got a success, or at least only a very mild failure...to the point that one day, after several sessions of this, Alice, Bob, and Chris got Gary and I in a Discord call and accused Gary of lying about his dice rolls. He was ruining the game for them so much, Alice said, that they wanted him out of the campaign entirely. The thing is...I sat next to him for every single session. I knew for a fact that he wasn't lying about his rolls because I saw every one of them. And after all the work we both put into trying to get him involved in the group's dynamic and their game, it felt wildly unfair to get him booted without at least giving him a chance. I tried to explain this, and even tried suggesting that he made his dice rolls public to the whole group (via roll20, which we were using for our combat maps anyway) so he COULDN'T cheat, but instead I was kicked from the call. After that, he left the group on his own, not wanting to argue anymore.

Here's where it gets complicated. This incident reminded me of the circumstances around the players that left at the beginning of the campaign, before Gary joined. They were online friends of Alice and Chris's at first, but turned out to not be the nicest people, and often didn't mesh well with the group. Problem is, Alice and Chris both have anxiety and were very conflict avoidant, and these two hadn't actually done anything WRONG aside from make people uncomfortable with rudeness from time to time. So Alice and Chris and I used to vent to each other about them in private, and stay polite in public while avoiding them as much as we could, and at Alice's request, we also kept an eye out for some bit of misbehavior that we could point at as a good enough reason to kick them out without feeling bad. We eventually found it, and out they went. Fran was IRL friends with one of these people, though, and for a while afterwards, despite very much NOT wanting to talk about the two people that weren't in the campaign anymore, or anything about the circumstances of kicking them out, Alice would still comment on how Fran seemed uninterested in the game to us in private, and how maybe she should just leave too...she only stopped when Bob told her to knock it off.

The culture mismatch between Gary and the group, the polite detachedness towards Gary's characters, the suddency of him getting kicked, and the complete return to normal the day after was similar enough that it made me suspect that Alice had pushed everyone to kick Gary out just like she had with those two, and my closeness with Gary made me worried that I'd be treated with suspicion the same way Fran was for a while...and that if I tried talking to them about what happened, I'd end up causing another big argument and getting kicked too. I was too attached to my character and the RP for that, and Gary didn't want me arguing for him anymore, so I just...kept my mouth shut and carried on, trying not to let it bother me. It still REALLY bothered me, though, and it soured my feelings towards my friends enough that after the campaign ended, I let them know I no longer had time for D&D, and left the server amicably...and also quietly left every other group I was in with them. I didn't block anyone, but I still effectively ghosted them.

After a year away from them and a lot of therapy to work through my feelings on the situation, though, I realized I missed them a lot, and that ghosting them like that over my own speculation about what happened with Gary was an AH move. So with some encouragement from Gary, who understood why I felt that way but had never wanted me to lose my friends like that, I messaged Alice to see if I could meet up with her IRL again so we could reconnect. She said we could, but with a condition: she never wanted me to even mention Gary in conversation. Considering I mostly wanted to meet up so I could talk to her about what happened a year ago so we could apologize to each other and get a fresh start...that didn't seem like it was gonna go well. So I said "sorry, can't do that, so I'll go ahead and leave you be, but my DMs are always open if you change your mind", and that was that.

At this point, seeing how Alice reacted to the very IDEA of Gary coming up in conversation, I began to worry about Chris. Gary and I had messaged Chris on and off several months after I left, though we hadn't done much more than send her a couple links to art resources we thought she'd like, or memes that were up her alley. She replied like normal to us at the time, but now I was worried that we'd put her in an awkward position with Alice by talking to her, so I messaged her next to tell her what happened with Alice and see if she wanted us to cut contact with her as well. I was still hurting from what happened with Alice, though, so when Chris asked me why I left the group to begin with...I told her everything I was going to tell Alice IRL. My full speculation over what happened with Gary, how it made me feel, how I felt like I couldn't talk about it without reprisal, and how I came back anyway because I realized I did the wrong thing and wanted Alice and I to talk things out right, get closure, and move on...and how I felt like I STILL couldn't, because of what Alice had asked of me.

Chris didn't take it well. Maybe I worded things poorly, but she reacted like she thought I was still blaming Alice for everything that happened, and that I'd dropped Alice and the group the instant I thought Alice was mean to me, because I was a bad friend. She claimed that I'd disrespected Alice's boundaries by not agreeing to them and choosing to leave her alone instead, and that with how much of an AH I was, we all clearly had never been real friends in the first place. I tried again to explain how she'd gotten that wrong, that I was trying to reconnect because I knew I'd treated Alice unfairly, but she didn't want to hear it, claiming that I was just contradicting myself to try and get her sympathy at this point. I gave up after that and just agreed to quit talking to her, at which point she blocked me.

It's been a few months since then, and I'm still hurt over it. I know I was an ass for leaving the way I did, but...Was I the asshole for trying to reconnect when I realized I was wrong? Did I really violate Alice's boundaries?

What are these acronyms?

[spinbitchzu]

ok I may alienate a bunch of mutuals I respect for saying this and I will be bummed if thats the case but its on my mind...

I think maybe the culture around having morally-correct ships in the ninjago fandom is kind of restrictive and creates a weird vibe? n im not even talking about lloydXninja, I'm thinking primarily about llorumi. every piece of art I see of them in any context has this crazy "NOT SHIP not even CLOSE HRHGHRHHR" type disclaimer on it and ofc ppl are free to leave that if they feel strongly about it but sometimes I feel like they're afraid that if they don't expressly say it that they'll be cancelled? or something?

idk it just confuses me bc Lloyd and harumi dont seem to have an age gap or anything so as far as I can tell its been somewhat blacklisted because... harumi betrayed him? maybe im in the wrong for this or I'm not seeing things as they are, and im open to having a conversation bc im not married to this position but I feel like its kind of weird that if a ship isn't blatantly morally-righteous and straightforward and healthy, its somehow evil and anyone who has interest in it is cast in a bad light.

tbf I came from the locked tomb fandom where every ship is complicated and messy and kind of toxic, and I just generally believe in the school of "sometimes ships are better if they're kind of fucked up". I also preemptively just want to say I dont feel strongly about llorumi or even really want to pursue posting them I just think the vibe around them is kind of weird. but also w ppl supporting zane ships while considering the very dark ice emperor arc as canon im just confused on where the line is drawn

[aqours]

the issue with the anti-petribell/simonna camp isn't that they dislike the ship so much as part of a growing problem in shipping in general where you can't just dislike something but it has to be morally justified now.

at the risk of sounding mean i think like, anybody with half a brain would understand why people don't like fionna/simon. i would not consider an argument in good faith where someone says they sincerely don't understand it. it's a large age gap even if it's both with consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with people disliking it.

but a not insignificant amount of the hate comes from an idea it must be bad. there's a lot of people who say they see them as found family (i could go on an entire rant about modern fandom culture with found family that but that'd for another post and it's not necessarily related to petribell so i wont' go off on it) which is fine, but it must be like that now. they see it as such, so you have to as well and if you ship it then it's dirtying the sanctity of that family! one post i saw on twitter had someone talk about being frustrated with petribell shippers not seeing how they are "justifiably" disgusted by it and its shippers are bad for it.

it's not enough to just say "oh dude i just do NOT vibe with that age gap at all and so it's a NOTP for me" and it reaches a point where like, even outright canon and facts get ignored in favor of basically clinging to headcanons:

there's objectively nothing morally wrong with it but people cling onto fandom headcanons and this idea it must be right and thus it's creepy if you go against it and it's gotten. really weird that people can't just say "yeah it's a notp for me/it just makes me personally uncomfortable sorry" vs. being determined to make a point about it that shuts it down by making it wrong

[alpaca-clouds]

Okay, let's be real for a moment. I saw this comment yesterday about how anti-shippers will go about: "Oh, if it is so normal, why don't you tell your colleagues/teachers about the stuff you are reading."

And, I am like: Here is the thing... Most people find fanculture in general so weird, that they do not even bother with the details. Literally.

I will usually write or read fics during my break at work. Even if I work from the office next to my boss. Yes, he looked over my shoulder before when I was doing that. No, he fucking doesn't care, if I am writing a fluff scene, a smut scene, or a brutal torture scene. He literally could not care less which one of those it is.

To him, I just have this weird hobby, where I hyperfocus on video game characters and write about them doing stuff. He doesn't get it. But he also doesn't get video games in general, so he does not worry about it. Which is how most people view fandom culture.

Most people do not care about shipping in one way or another. Most people think it is weird to care about shipping in that way. They think it is weird to sit in your room and fantasize about your ship all day. But they also think it is weird for someone to get so angry about a shipping, that they go harass people about it.

Really folks. Just go and touch some grass. People in the real world don't care.

Also, people in the real world do enjoy Game of Thrones a lot. Like A LOT. Which does include all those things. Pedophilia, rape, age gaps, forced marriage and lots and lots of incest.

People in the real world don't care. They just don't. lol

[applecherrytea]

𝔄𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢'𝔰 ℜ𝔲𝔩𝔢𝔰 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔓𝔯𝔢𝔣𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔫𝔠𝔢𝔰

Hello again! This is Apple, and today I’m here to tell you all about my rules and preferences!

Rules:

Please don’t send me inappropriate asks.

I think this should be clear enough, but if ever you DO send in something inappropriate or mean towards me, or directed to a reader or character, you will be blocked. I hope this came out as clear as I’d like it to.

You can send me any type of ask, but please be detailed about what you want

Again, it’s very clear what I’m asking for. Your ask can be as short as it can be, but please, do not leave out any details from your asks!

Do tell me if you want to be posted anonymous 

In relation to rule number one, I turned off Anon asks. This is to protect me from possible harassers, even if I’m not popular, I know some people just love to hate! Therefore, I turned it off.

You can ask to be dubbed with anon symbols

I’d also like to experience having my own anons so please, if you’d like to, feel free to be called so!

Preferences:

Relationship wise:

Romantic:

Only ever send me romantic requests for characters 16 and above

Don’t send me requests for characters like Ortho Shroud from Twisted Wonderland

You can send me requests for any gendered reader, I will try my best to write them as close to the gender as possible

Platonic:

I’ll write any familial relations with any gendered reader

Platonic to Romantic relationships are also okay, as long as the characters start out as friends and don’t have canonical familial bonds (character x character) or have large age gaps.

General:

I write for these fandoms mainly, but feel free to ask for any other fandom you’d think I’d have a fun time writing for.

DC

 Twisted Wonderland

 Danny Phantom

 COD (maybe)

 Dandadan

Arcane

I don’t do R18 requests

I would love to write about readers who are from other nationalities! But please excuse me if I don’t post it fast enough! Other than still being in school, I’d also like to do some research about said culture(s).

You can request any kind of !reader as long as they aren’t toxic characters and/or characters with very difficult attitudes.

Tags:

Anons Tags: (currently none)

Work Tags:

↭≡;- ꒰ °𝔄𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢'𝔰 𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔨𝔰 ꒱ - For any work I'd post

↭≡;- ꒰ °𝔄𝔰𝔨𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔄𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢 ꒱ - For any asks regarding any works I'd post

↭≡;- ꒰ °𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔠𝔥𝔶 𝔞𝔭𝔭𝔯𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔦𝔠𝔢 ꒱ - Used for submissions

[yourlocaldisneyvillain]

i would like to be in and foster an online environment in which discussions abt controversial topics can be handled civilly without ppl ganging up and sending an influx of anon hate. i think internet in general is a space where ppl love to be outraged and i want to challenge that. that's partially why i wrote this fic. i am tired of purity culture and of fandom/online hivemind. in a fandom where a lot of ppl clearly enjoy age gap ships, i say, what makes one better and more "morally correct" than another? what makes a sugar mommy au better than a college student x teacher fic? so many fics featuring dark themes are popular in this fandom (don't wanna name any names bc i don't wanna get anyone involved), but THIS is the one ppl are upset about?

i wanna ask a question -- is it possible to write a fic where ppl are NOT morally pure but still somehow manage to live and find happiness? why is it forbidden to explore those themes in fiction? when you look at ppl in real life and how weirdly their lives shape up, and how ppl are flawed and make mistakes and live unconventionally or sometimes immorally or unhealthily, doesn't that interest you? in a sense that you would like to read about it? explore what goes on in the minds of these ppl/characters?

ppl forget exploring a theme in fiction doesn't equate to condoning it in real life. each individual has to use their own best judgement when consuming a piece of fiction. i assume everyone reading my fic is an adult (as i write fics intended for adult audiences) and can form their own opinion.

i would like it if people could use their reading comprehension and critical thinking skills when reading my fiction, without me having to put up exact and specific 1826372929392 word disclaimers, so ppl's fragile feelings wouldn't get hurt. would it really be okay if i wrote in all caps before the story WEDNESDAY IS 22? you could have read the first paragraph and figured that out. i tagged it as teacher-student bc it's playing with the concept, even if they are not a student/teacher in the timeline of the story. i use implied underage sex as a tag bc in the 2nd chapter, and repeatedly throughout the story i reference larissa and morticia's relationship, that has occurred when they were underage. i mention that they engaged in sex. it is only mentioned, and not explicitly described. do you need me to write all of that out under the title in order not to send anon hate and clutch your pearls in disgust? or can you just read the story and decide if it's for you or not?

i implore you to read all of my works as a story, without attaching a moral judgement to characters' actions. if and when you do attach a moral judgement and form an opinion, pls remember those are fictional characters, and i am an author exploring certain themes bc i can and it interests me to do so. i want to write unconventional stories, controversial stories, romantic stories, funny stories, horror stories, i want to explore everything. everybody who reads is invited to look at them as a piece of fiction they can enjoy or not enjoy, and nothing more. i hope to take you on a journey that leaves you with something to remember, good or bad, but impactful.

from now on, i will probably write longer works and venture into darker themes (next thing i'm planning is murder mystery/thriller). there will still be fluffy pieces, but i just want to push myself out of my comfort zone. i would like to associate with fandom ppl who are open-minded and can read a piece of fiction without going ballistic. if you look at things black and white, you likely won't like my fiction -- and that's okay.

however, if for any reason you want to send me hate, you will absolutely be blocked. i am a person, and i do not deserve insults and rudeness in my inbox. it's easy to feel empowered and feel like you're fighting for A Cause (TM) and attach the Bad Guy etiquette to a single person. that can feel like you're solving something. esp when ppl accuse me of promoting actual p3dophilia -- that's a cause everyone can get behind. banish the evil p3do apologist!

i am a victim of child sexual abuse, that went on all throughout my formative years, and into my adult age, simply because i thought that's how it must be. that experience has scarred me beyond belief. i don't want to share the details. it's not smth i'm sharing for pity points, nor do i need anyone's sympathy. however, it is an experience that has shaped who i am, and perhaps for that reason, combined with other things, is why i'm drawn to certain themes in fiction. i don't owe anybody an explanation as to why i choose certain topics, but since there have been idiots in my inbox who have accused me of harming victims of minor sexual abuse, i feel compelled to say something. fuck you for using a group of suffering ppl to support your own flimsy arguments born out of puritanism and inability to cope with heavy themes in fiction.

you are absolutely welcome to CIVILLY discuss your opinions about the fic with me -- off anon, exclusively. but i know nobody will, bc this isn't about the actual contents of my fic, this is about the delicious morally righteous thrill of a witch hunt.

enjoy the fic. i will post next wednesday.