#I understand the view point of the person who made this

[maxdibert]

What are your headcanons on Severus and the Malfoys? Do you think he genuinely considered them friends, or was it part of his cover? Or were they ever really friends at some point?

I have so much to say about this! I actually have two different versions of the story, and I think both of them could be canon. I can never decide between them because both seem plausible, so I’ll share my opinion on each and let everyone decide which one fits best.

Despite being a poor, scruffy, half-blood kid from a working-class background, I think Lucius took Severus under his wing because, after all, Lucius was already a 15-year-old teenager who was likely quite involved in pure-blood extremist circles and had probably heard of Voldemort by then. He was probably trying to make a good impression by recruiting as many people as possible. And despite Severus’ background, treating him with respect was a pretty shrewd move to maintain unity within Slytherin and promote that “us against the world” mentality. This would ultimately foster the cult-like environment that developed during that era. I also think that, after seeing that Severus, beyond his background, had a strong interest and talent for the Dark Arts and was a good student, Lucius probably saw that Severus’ skills could be useful, which is why he kept him under his wing. Lucius Malfoy is often portrayed as a snobbish buffoon, but besides being a shrewd man, he’s part of high society, old money. And even the classist aristocrats know how to make use of the working class and recognize talent because, historically, they’ve maintained their position by exploiting such talent.

I think Lucius and Severus maintained that mentor-pupil relationship for many years, and once Lucius graduated, he intervened to help Severus be accepted and valued within his House while also using him as a sort of personal charity project. Like Cher in Clueless (who’s based on Emma Woodhouse from Jane Austen) taking on an awkward kid from the North without wealth or pedigree and turning him into someone fit for high magical society—a kind of social experiment, if you will. I think this made Severus feel indebted to him, at least before Voldemort killed Lily. I also believe that, during Severus’ school years, his gratitude stemmed not only from this “mentorship” but also from the fact that, for the first time, someone believed in him and motivated him to pursue his ambitions. Lucius was like a father/older brother figure whom he respected and appreciated for seeing him as more than just a poor kid with nothing.

That said, my interpretation of their relationship splits into two possibilities once Severus becomes a double agent.

On one hand, there’s the idea that, after Lily’s death, feeling guilty and determined to actively work for Voldemort’s downfall, Severus emotionally distanced himself from the Malfoys as much as possible. The relationship they developed over the next 18 years would then be solely a means to an end—to gain favor with someone influential within the Ministry and among the most important dark wizards. Deep down, it was all a façade because the Malfoys also represented everything he despised and regretted being a part of, so he decided to cut off any emotional attachment to them. Basically: it was all fake.

The other version, and the one I prefer because it feels more realistic, is that Severus, as the abused and abandoned child he was, would always experience cognitive dissonance toward people who treated him well during his most vulnerable years. It’s something evident in his view of Lily, even though he was joining a group that literally wanted to kill people like her, and I can see it applying to his view of the Malfoys as well. Though they were a family actively working to end people like Lily, and Severus would ultimately have to confront them if it came to it, he’d still struggle to sever his emotional ties with the Malfoys. Just as he couldn’t understand why his friendship with Lily was ending because of his choices, I don’t think he’d be able to emotionally cut off the Malfoys, even if he knew they were terrible or knew he might eventually have to face them in battle. Much like how Lily being the first person to treat him with kindness was enough to make him risk everything to atone for his indirect role in her death and his support of Voldemort, I think Lucius “taking him in” also carved out a streak of loyalty in Severus toward his family. Severus strikes me as someone fiercely loyal to anyone who’s shown him kindness or understanding, even if that loyalty is against his own interests. And despite everything, I think he genuinely cared about the Malfoys. While he no longer admired Lucius, I think he still respected him in a certain way, like a younger brother who knows his older brother is a jerk but still sees him as his older brother.

I also think Narcissa had a kind of “older sister” vibe for him—that when she and Lucius were dating and Severus was still a kid, she saw him as this scruffy little guy, like a cute but poor puppy. And that impression probably stuck with him too. I think he always felt more comfortable with her than with Lucius, since she was associated more with the maternal than with authority. While his favoritism toward Slytherins was partly to maintain appearances and partly due to resentment toward Gryffindors, I believe he genuinely liked Draco. This affection, though, was likely another form of cognitive dissonance because Draco was far more similar to James than Harry ever was (in terms of character, classism, and using his status, family name, and influence to torment others). But just as his hatred of Harry was a reflection of his resentment toward James, his affection for Draco was probably a reflection of his relationship with Lucius and Narcissa.

[anpanman95]

so I just read a post from @everythingiloveblog and—first of all go check it out it has incredible insights and constructive criticism— I feel OP has made an incredible point which brings me to something that bothers me from episode 10:

Okay. I understand Jack and Joke have a…very unusual relationship. I know they’ve been through hell and back, together and apart, and their bond is stronger than ever.

And, ever since the beginning, they show us a dynamic that doesn’t promise to be all “lovey-dovey” or cute or anything like that.

That’s fine. We’re all here for it. Every relationship is different, and actors Yin and War have made it clear Jack and Joke’s dynamic was going to be different.

But, and this is a big, big but, there are things I do not agree with, and I’ll start by casting light on this moment right here where they say “I love you” for the first time.

Emphasis on the first time.

That was not a first time “I love you”. That’s not how you say I love you for the first time to your lover with whom you’ve been through hell and back.

I mean yes, they’ve shown it plenty, but still. This moment was, and I’m very sorry if I ruffle some feathers, to me, very bro-coded (there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just not very engaging for me)

And as much as I love their dynamic, as much as I love their characters, it felt incredibly underwhelming and lacking of a tenderness I was desperately craving after such a long slow burn. I know I may be coming from a more “romantic” point of view, but what’s wrong with a little romance?

I really would have loved them to be a bit sweeter, or more tender about it.

Another thing is the closing scene at the hospital; sure, Joke later tells Jack he was the one who betrayed, but Jack didn’t know that right away, and the first thing he saw was the man he loves in shambles, bawling his eyes out, visibly in need to be held, and he didn’t take him into his arms nor made any move to get at least physically closer to him.

That put me off, if I’m being honest. Aren’t they supposed to be in love and care for one another? Jack did say “I’ll only focus on you” and, yeah, he’s angry and confused about Save and worried about his daughter but it would have been very human of him to at least seek and give comfort to the person he loves.

They do have their moments, their chemistry is top tier, and that’s undeniable. But there are certain little actions that would be very realistic for them to partake in, and it leaves me a tad unsatisfied when they don’t.

Of course, I’m still eating this up, I’ll take anything. Yin and War did an incredible job with this show, and this is just a bit of criticism, done in my most humble, respectful opinion.

Thanks for reading! I know some will not agree and that’s fine! Let’s just all be respectful about it! ✨🫶🏽

(post from OP)

[sophieinwonderland]

@systeminquiry

Comments like this make me want to ask, how educated are you on the history of DID?

You speak of small sample sizes, and yet DID as a whole didn't even have more than a couple hundred cases prior to the 70s. Large scale studies prior to the increase in diagnoses weren't feasible. You say that the proof is "word of mouth," and yet you seem to ignore that a lot of psychology and psychiatry has been based on listening to people.

A lot of psychological phenomena can't be objectively measured. And even for what we have found indicators for in the brain later, much of that wasn't until long after the conditions were recognized as real based on psychological research. On talking to the affected group and understanding them.

Despite "multiple personality" being recognized for a hundred years as a real condition, and added to the DSM in 1980, it wasn't until the late 90s that the first neurological studies started being conducted into DID systems.

You expect a higher standard of scientific evidence for endogenic plurality than DID could reach for most of its existence.

And while I would agree that proper sourcing is important, you expect sources for things that aren't reasonable to have source for, like the definition of a community term. You use it as a gotcha when his source for the definition of a community term is from the community that coined it as if that invalidates them as a source.

Because of the nature of community terms, all sources will inevitably lead back to the community. If a doctor isn't citing the community directly, they'll be citing another doctor who is. Or a doctor who cited a doctor who cited a doctor who cited the community. All citation roads for community terms are inevitably going to lead back to the community in question. Because the community is going to be the primary source for definitions of their words.

Moving away from the community terms like "plurality," we come to the actual psychological terms. Despite you repeating the false claim that there is a "massive body" of research that systems only form from trauma, you ignore the quotes from the creators of Structural Dissociation model saying that it might be possible that spiritual practices and hypnosis involve self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality.

Do you believe the creators of the structural dissociation model would be saying this if they agreed with your view that non-traumagenic systems weren't possible? If they believed it was only possible to form self-conscious dissociative parts through trauma?

You also have repeatedly ignored my citations of the World Health Organization's ICD-11. Not only here, but on the post you originally made your reply to.

But maybe you will dismiss this since it also has no sources other than being written by the World Health Organization?

But that seems like a dangerous game to play.

At a certain point, denial of endogenic plurality becomes straight-up dismissal of experts.

If you believe it's impossible to be plural without trauma or a disorder, then that means the America Psychiatric Association is spreading psychiatric misinformation.

If you believe it's scientifically impossible under the theory of structural dissociation to form self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality without trauma, then you are asserting that the creators of the theory of structural dissociation are spreading misinformation about their own theory.

If you believe the only way to experience multiple "distinct personality states" is through DID, then that means the World Health Organization is spreading misinformation about mental health.

And if you do believe these psychiatrists and institutions are indeed spreading medical misinformation, and that there's some scientific consensus that contradicts these works published by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, then the burden of proof is on you to show that.

Something which sysmeds have been unable to do, because there is not one single psychiatrist who has ever gone on record claiming it's impossible to be plural without trauma.

https://www.tumblr.com/systeminquiry/764873762516697088/debunking-plurality-in-transgender-mental-health

Prefacing this by reminding people that Transgender Mental Health was reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

The main reason that this is being cited here is because of the reputation of the publisher in their commitment to making sure that their publications are accurate to our current understanding.

Asking this at the top for anyone who supports this "debunk," is your position that the American Psychiatric Association is publishing medical misinformation?

Anyway, I find that this is a pretty weak "debunking."

The first section defines being plural as "Having two or more people existing in one body or space" (Yarbrough, 2018). The highlighted sections on plurality have no source - these are unsubstantiated claims that contradict the scientific general consensus and research on how systems form, leaving the reader unable to determine whether the information came from a legitimate/reputable source or not. As it is now, the fact that the sections about plurality have no source seems to imply that the author couldn't find a legitimate source with their definition of plurality, instead fabricating explanations.

I'm not actually sure what would constitute a "legitimate source" for the purpose of defining plurality, given that "plural" is itself a community term popularized by non-disordered systems, as opposed to be more medicalized term "multiple" which had previously been used. It would be like trying to find a source for "Otherkin" or "Alterhuman." Any source that you get is going to be from online communities because they are community terms.

Also, the link they use that discusses how systems form is a now-deleted Tumblr post. I doubt it was very credible to begin with, but it's gone now so there's no way to know. 🤷‍♀️

This entire section makes claims about plurality that directly contradicts the body of existing research (see Dorahy et al., 2014 and Dell & O'Neil, 2009, but there are more) with no sources to support what they're saying. I cannot call this reliable or legitimate information if large sections are fictitious.

So basically, the reason this isn't reliable in saying non-traumagenic plurality exists is because... it says non-traumagenic plurality exists?

Can I just say something about a difference I notice when I cite sources compared to when anti-endos cite sources?

Generally, when I cite a source, I'll include a screenshot or quote so people know I'm not just making stuff up. Because I know that most people aren't going to click a 20 page document to read through to find whatever random line I'm using to support my position.

While the author of this Tumblr post does technically cite sources for their claim that Transgender Mental Health contradicts existing research, they don't provide quotes. And when you actually scroll down to their sources and read them, they aren't actually relevant. For example, the Dorahy source...

Entirely about dissociative identity disorder and doesn't address non-DID plurality AT ALL.

It is 100% useless and irrelevant to the topic of plurality in Transgender Mental Health, which discusses non-disordered plurality.

I can't find the Dell study, but seeing as it also is focused on DID, I'm going to assume that it also makes no statements on the existence of non-disordered plurality, and that the person doing this debunk is relying on readers not checking their sources.

The actual scientific scientific consensus!

This "debunk" is unable to find sources saying you need DID or trauma to be plural. The reason for that is because those sources DO NOT EXIST.

And the fact that they use these other sources that only talk about dissociative identity disorder so deceptively, and pointedly refuse to post the exact quotes or screenshots that would relate to plurality in general, makes me think that they know that.

It makes me think that they are intentionally lying and deceiving people, knowingly posting irrelevant sources with the hopes that nobody will look into them.

Many academic sources won't use the word plural because plural is a community term. But what they are painfully clear on is that you don't need to have a disorder to experience multiplicity.

For example, the World Health Organization's ICD-11 phrases this as a saying that you can experience multiple distinct personality states, a term it uses synonymously with DID alters, without having a disorder.

Back in 2012, when defining dissociation in trauma, the creators of the theory of structural dissociation commented on the possibility that spiritual practices and hypnosis could also cause the formation of self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality, albeit in a different way from dissociative identity disorder.

The actual consensus seems to be pretty clear to me.

Despite different words being used, all of these sources are saying the same thing. You don't need to have DID or trauma to be plural, you don't need to have DID or trauma to have multiple "self-conscious dissociative parts." You don't need to have DID or trauma to have multiple "distinct personality states."

The American Psychiatric Association did not publish misinformation when they published Transgender Mental Health. They did not publish something that went against a scientific consensus. They published statements that affirmed the scientific consensus.

To this day, system medicalists have continuously failed again and again to provide even so much as a single Doctor who has said that you need trauma to be plural.

To the extent that they provide sources for these claims, the sources never actually will say what they claim they do. They are consistently misrepresented just as they were by the OP.

Finally, there's one thing that I really want to drive home for sysmeds. Which is that, whether you like this book or not, it is still going to exist. It still was published by the American Psychiatric Association. It still is going to be used to educate psychiatrists and psychologists on how best to treat transgender people. And many of them are going to learn about plurality from this book.

It's very possible that if you are going to a psychologist or a psychiatrist right now for gender related issues, they could have read this book already and have been informed by it.

I just want you to remember that it exists, that it has the American Psychiatric Association's credibility backing it, and every psychiatrist who reads it is going to be just a little bit more accepting towards plurals and a little bit less tolerant towards your hatred.

Enjoy that final thought.

[thoughts-of-insufferability]

Probleme die die Welt bewegen, wirklich 👏/sarc

[kahluah]

*puts hand up* sorry I’m very new here what’s the context with what’s happening with the tag war??

Alright, I will give my run down, but I will not be naming any blog names on either side even if I have the info and the action was net positive. I just like to use my blog to scroll and reblog for the most part and refuse to embroil myself in the drama more than just giving my view on it as a bystander. One that definitely has an opinion on the events, but also as someone who would rather curate my own experience than fight.

So all this fighting that is going on, it used to just happen in the normal "Jiang Cheng" tag because back then there was no "canon Jiang Cheng" tag; it had not been created yet. (By that I mean it was not a tag used as a tag, Tumblr's shitty search algorithm might still show posts if one typed it in to the search bar because those posts had the words 'canon', 'Jiang', and 'Cheng' in the tags separately, but there would not be posts with "#canon Jiang Cheng" because nobody normally creates a post with a tag like that when "#Jiang Cheng" was suffice. Sometimes I see irrelevant posts in the canon Jiang Cheng tag, but the actual tag isn't on the post, the tags just happen to have all three words in them. Those I ignore because that is Tumblr's fault, not the poster.)

The fighting was between people that like the character and prefer to see the good in him and the interpretation of his character, and those that may or may not like the character (just because you like a character does not mean you need to defend their every action after all) but do not share that opinion of his character and have a more neutral or negative portrayal by contrast. The former also tended to favor or have only read the novel as it is the source material for all other adaptations.

Now things really came to a head when hate and threats were being thrown about on posts that were just quotes from the book showing the negative actions of Jiang Cheng. The people posting the quotes were basically told "if you hate the character why don't you just tag the post as anti-JC?!" but is it really right to call those anti posts when they were posting how the character acts in the source material? That is the character. That is how he acted. Look it is in the book! The character really did that! It is not somebody's negative headcanon that the character may act like that, it is something the character actually did. Personally I can not consider that as an anti character post, and neither did the people who made posts like that.

But things did get heated enough that some people finally took a step back and said "Fine. You want us to make our own space to make these posts so that you do not have to see us talk about JC this way? We will. It will be #canon Jiang Cheng and you can block it if you don't want to see the posts." Was the name picked in the spirit of schadenfreude? Very probable, but it is also not an incorrect name as the people who wanted to use it base their opinion on the novel. But the point was that the tag was created so that people now had their own space to make the posts they wanted and those that did not want to see it could block the tag. Curate your own experience; we can block tags on this site for a reason and advertising tags to block is a courtesy. (Because as said previously, the search here sucks, because the posts contain the character's name they are still likely to show up in the main tag, but block the newly created tag and you will not see those posts either way). Could the other people come into the tag in good faith and make arguments with textual support? Yeah, that was welcomed, but in the spirit of debate they should expect rebuttal. Was that what happened? No.

No instead what happened was basically this meme

They did not like the name chosen for the tag. They read the novel too and still believe that JC is good, so they should be able to use the tag too! Never mind the fact that the tag was made so they could block the posts they didn't want to see. So that they can go on with their days no longer having to deal with the people they constantly fought with. No. Instead of curating the experience of this website, they would get so hung up on the fact that there was now a tag called #canon Jiang Cheng in use that they had to use it too to defend JC from the people that post 'negative' things about him; even if it is novel text!

So while the fighting didn't stop, it did get slightly better because not everyone felt the need to jump into the new tag to defend their fave. Some people actually did curate their experience. Plus there is a block button and people do use it, so things got to a point where I would say it was relatively stable even if there was still fights here and there. (But once again I lurk, I do not participate. Things may not have been the same for more outspoken people).

But then a certain muskrat bought Twitter and a chunk of the fandom there fled here. That's when the main push to "reclaim the tag" and the new influx of people hopping into the tag to argue and defend their fave appeared. These people did not know why the tag was made, they just saw blogs that they liked telling people about the "JC-antis" that made it and how with the new people pouring into the Tumblr fandom from twitter, they had a chance to flood it and reclaim it. And since then the fighting has not really stopped.

As for what has happened in the past few days, you have JC defenders flooding the tag with fan art (not canon), screen caps from CLQ (not canon), and screenshots of a sentence or two from the novel (canon, but usually out of context or lacking additional lines that go on to rebut what was previously said) in the tag and the people who made the tag for a specific purpose getting mad about the spam. (I block so I have no clue how big the influx was or whatever but there was definitely like at least 3 new people I had to block). So when they made posts venting the anger, you got JC defenders coming back to them and going "But I never sent any hate or harassment! I just used the tag to talk about the canon character!" And perhaps they didn't, but these people in their defense always ignore and never respond to the question of why they are in the tag instead of blocking it because that is what the tag was made for. Instead they come back with "Well if you want to talk about JC that way, why don't you post in the anti tag or make your own tag!"... Remember that meme picture I used above. Yup.

The tag war began because people did not like negative posts about JC in the main character tag for JC. When told to use the anti tag or make a new tag, a new tag was made, but instead of curating the experience the stans of JC got so tilted at the name of the tag that they decided that they would come into the tag and continue the fight instead of just blocking it. Twitter fallout made the fighting worse. And now we have come full circle to the JC stans once again telling people to just use the anti tag or make their own tag.

[mars-ipan]

Hi, it's me again. I decided to follow your advice and try to seek out your 'actually serious' analysis, which led me to your komahina bible, the most easy to find compilation of this supposed analysis. Here are my thoughts-

1) Overview

- Most of this 'analysis' isn't analysis but a summary/overview of the game. It's not so much a 'bible' as a children's book summary of the bible, which at that point it would be better to play the actual game itself. It's clear it was made for a presentation on the 'uninitiated' if you will, but if that's the case, you shouldn't be advertising it as the literal bible on the subject.

- When you are not regurgitating points from the game beat by beat, the screen is halfway filled with either manga panels or fanart. My gripes with manga panels are, that even though they do depict the events of the game, the way they can be depicted by the artist can be pretty subjective due to the freedom of the medium in comparison to sprites, and that the role of one character can differ depending on whose pov manga it is (chiaki vs nagito). Fan art therefore should be scrutinized even more since it fully depicts abstracted and even the fandomified version of events, leading to situations where it's either unclear what is actually happening or betrays your more shallow view of the characters (i talk abt this later.)

- When you do use pictures directly from the game it's either a possible screenshot from a memorable moment or dialog from the wiki, limited almost exclusively to the freetime events. This leads me to believe that you haven't actually played the game(there are other factors hinting towards this) or watched a Let's Play of it, but going off of merely information that's already widely known and circulating within the fandom, and easy to search on the wiki.

2) Incorrect/Questionable information

Here I'll compile a lot of information that's either plainly wrong or baffling to having come to that conclusion , leading more credence to the theory that you either haven't actually played the game or your memory of it isnt as good as you think.

-"if Nagito's plan went off of without a hitch, he would have killed anyone that was closes to him at the time" plainly wrong. Komaeda's goal from the start was to make himself the victim, so by dying this way his death could have meaning and help the others. For somebody that keeps talking about Komaeda's "Martyr complex" this is truly a weird take to have.

-"Nagito...got the nurse for sure sick" is there any proof that specifically points to Komaeda for this? I believe the takeaway should've been that Mikan got sick because she was around all of them AND she overworked herself trying to take care of them. Is this just an awkwardly phrased attempt to make more of a connection between Tsumiki and Komaeda? I don't think you needed more than the ones that already existed.

- "he helps Junko brainwash a bunch of students" Kamukura at neither point in the anime or Danganronpa 0 was ever specifically implicated in the brainwashing. He never 'helps' Junko, especially in that way. If you meant, participates in the student council killing game, you should've said that, but even then his agency and influence is limited.

-"they found the Remnants and captured them!"...no, they didn't. The Remnants presented themselves as survivors and the Foundation took them in. They handed themselves over willingly. It was a pretty big piece of the final part of the game...

3) Komaeda and Komahina

- "Nagito's habit of putting people on pedestals" Where. Sure, he certainly parrots the belief that the "Ultimates" as a unit are at the top of the food chain and should be prioritised, but its clear that doesn't exactly carry over to his classmates like teruteru, Kuzuryu and even Souda sometimes. Just because of a few positive comments refering to them as Ultimates and the trial which he literally breaks down in, this is a hard position to support.

-"Nagito manipulates Hajime into playing the game" How. He literally just told him to play it. How is that manipulation. Also, isn't it a bit unfair to put the blame on Koizumi's death to him as well? I think they were multiple factors playing into this, but sure, how else are you gonna convince people that Komaeda is a twisted fucking cyclepath that loves leading people to their deaths.

-The way that you say the Kuzuryu/Pekoyama relationship mirrors Komahina as 'I will give up my agency for you/ I just want you' is also confusing. Unless of course you mirror Peko's struggle with her agency and harmful beliefs the clan enforced on her with Komaeda's own belief system, in which case, idk man, i feel like you are giving a bit too much credit to the supposed severity of Komaeda's views and trying too hard to make Hinata the 'rational' and 'grounding' one in the relationship.

- Again, the amount of times you refer to Komaeda as a freak for doing something 'weird' or even being drawn weirdly doing it , mostly in the manga, makes me belief this isn't just an affectionate tongue in cheek joke as you claim, but an actual way in which your interpretation of Komaeda is colored.

-"it doesn't excuse his nonchalance towards tragedy and murder but explains it" what needs to be excused here exactly? Komaeda doesn't need to immediately bawl his eyes out when someone gets killed or else he's suspicious and...bad? I am confused with what you mean by this. If you mean that Komeada shouldn't be so nonchalant about murder because he's constantly trying to kill someone else, that is plainly incorrect and i explained above why.

-Posturing about Komaeda's 'black and white thinking' while in the next exact slide you show fanart of him smugly explaining he has Borderline. First, i want you to explain to me the black and white thinking in a way that isn't "oh, the friends and classmates i previously liked turned out to be fucking terrorists". I think that's a pretty justifiable situation for your thinking to go from white to black. Also, if that is enough credence to assign Komaeda BPD, you really don't know how BPD works, especially since you assigned it to the one character you constantly talk about being a freak (and also lust...pseudo lust? after).

- The insistence with Hinata not really understanding Komaeda and running away, even if he wants to understands him is pretty suspect, especially when compared to the game. Hinata is confused and overwhelmed yes, but it's not just that he wants to understand Komaeda but that he still feels fondness for him, he still follows his advice and puts his faith in him and the way he mourns him in Chapter 5 is also pretty indicative of this. It's just another part in the pattern in you making Hinata the confused, rational, 'morally pure' man that's 'tempted' by 'corrupted' manic pixie mentally ill demon Komaeda. Something tells me your priest AU isn't so much playing with dolls as much as...what you actually believe these characters dynamic is.

- The whole page where Servant is basically made into a joke about how hot and sexy and freaky he is doesn't help your point either.

-The most damning evidence of course is a drawing in the second to last slide, wherein Komaeda is supposed to be analogous to 'guy who has something wrong with him' (distorted, freak, mentally ill) and Hinata is analogous to the guy that 'is the only one that understands them' (the rational one, the relationship of understanding doesn't go both ways).

- Your slide with sources is pretty vague and unclear. Also the way that you credit "Your superior mind" before the game itself when all you've been doing is repeating and misinterpreting the plot of the game is ...ironic

So yeah, that's all I got. Feel free to 'debunk' my observations as much as you please, I just want to know if there's actual basis behind everything you just said or I should go digging for 'the actual serious analysis' yet again.

i think you forgot that fandom is meant to be fun

[arcane-ish]

I'm basically the opposite of a JayVik shipper, but to me the scene felt too short not because it should have been more emotional but because I feel like an audience I don't know what Viktor's deal is and why he's leaving.

I don't think that it's a big deal that Viktor is unemotional because I assume that that is the influence of the void/hextech thing that is changing him from the inside.

I kind of don't like how season 2 so far makes pretty much no effort at all to be self contained. It just assumed that everybody remembers everything from season 1 rather than laying out the characters emotions more. Becuse I feel like generally Viktor's story was pretty muted and small in season 1 in the later acts.

He was vaguely against hextech, he was upset about Skye. Okay, how does this relate to what he's feeling now. I'm trying to picture some things that would have "solved" the scene to me. Not in "I wanted an emotional shippy scene", but in "I wanted to understand why Viktor is doing the things he's doing".

If we had a scene of encased Viktor from his POV that makes it clear that he hears and understands everything that is going on around him and he's not happy with somethign Mel or Jayce are saying.

Or maybe the Void was whispering to him. Or if the Void was giving him visions of Skye and void!Skye is telling him what to do.

I think if we boil it down, the big shift of Viktor leaving is not really "zomg, Viktor is breaking up with Jayce", but it's more that when Jayce shows Viktor the notes he made, he probably expected Viktor to go back to studying them.

And studying stuff was a bit personality trait of Viktor's in season 1, so him turning his back on "this should be investigated" is a big shift.

That shift could have been explained by a more emotional reaction. If Viktor had blown up at him and gone basically "you fool, you keep trying to do the thing that brought us into this mess".

I think that's the big shift. That

1.) Viktor is turning his back on science/Piltover 2.) Viktor doesn't think Jayce can be persuaded

Now that isn't really that out of the ordinary. Viktor did his hextech experiments without letting Jayce into it and he also kept the whole Skye thing from him.

So, is there a reason to why Viktor is going to the Undercity?

Ie: I don't trust Piltover anymore, I tried to fix things here and everything to worse anyway, it's not worth it anymore.

or: More science is wrong, it made everything worse, we should be doing faith now.

or: I got lost in sciencing for Piltover and instead I should be with the people who suffer the most. My perspective was wrong.

But IF there is reason to it Viktor doing what he does, the assumption would be that he would express this in his conversation with Jayce more clearly. Either to try to convince Jayce or just to let the audience know.

If his reason is important enough for him to leave, then it should be important enough to state it in an argument. If Jayce matters to him then he should have made an effort to argue his point to Jayce and see if he can be persuaded.

But that's not what happened. Viktor just says their paths diverged. So from an audience point of view, what is that supposed to mean.

Jayce first distanced himself from Viktor by seeking fame and politics. A story where Viktor things that Jayce has been moving further and further away particularly with their disagreements over weaponizing hextech he's at a point where he can't be reasoned with.

But didn't Viktor also distance himself by his secret hextech research? And we know he feels guilt over Skye. In a situation where two people are in the wrong, that would lead me to expect a more emotional argument. (a more muted argument makes more sense in a world where Viktor never did anything wrong and it was just "you betrayed me thrice [abandoned the lab for fame, moved towards weaponizing hextech, continued making hextech against my wishes, put me in the hextech to keep me alive when I didn't want that], I'm done now, you are beyond reaching").

The other approach is that there is no good, logically arguable reason to why Viktor is acting like that. That he's having an impaired judgement, either because the Void/Hex is influencing him and directing him or supporessing his emotions, or because he's being depressed.

There's this theory that he's a paralllel to Jinx with the whole "I was supposed to die and now I'm aimless/kind of chaotic". The thing is that with Jinx we are more accustomed to associating her with mental problems. With Viktor this is new. If Viktor is acting highly unusual (unusual because the hextech is affecting his emotions or unusual because depression) then I would have expected Jayce as a friend to argue over that. Some "what's wrong with you, you aren't being yourself".

I admit, JayVik was low on the totem pole on stories that interested me in season 1 so it's possible I missed things.

As a viewer, I feel like I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get from this. What exactly Viktor's problem is and why walking around the undercity in a cloak if supposed to help with whatever his problem is.

Again, I can deal with "he's aimless, reeling, just like Jinx", but in that case I would have expected Jayce to bring that up in a "you are being weird and off".

In my longer reaction post I wrote that to me it feels like Jayce was kind of in all stories, so to me it didn't feel like he was that emotional over Viktor, because he sort of "did his job" in the Viktor storyline in that scene and then immediately moved to the next storyline with Heimer/Jayce.

Jayce feels like his mind is all over the place (again, having time to visit Caid and build her hextech weapons, squabbling with Heimer and Ekko). As a non shipper, to me it just felt like JayVik wasn't really that high on his priority list. To me it felt like him realizing stuff about The Arcane (including the mini reference of to his childhood) felt like his most important moment.

I guess that this could feed back into Viktor and Jayce if that makes Jayce go "oh, I was wrong when I said hextech wasn't that dangerous". But on the other hand, given the trajectory of the games I would expect Jayce to continue making dumb choices and/or keep being torn between different loyalties (ie still being pulled into Mel or Cait's stories).

Maybe Jayce's next step will be to think he can science his way out of the whole "The Arcane is pissed and/or poisoning everything" and that is the core of his folly?

Is my conclusion to be that Viktor realized that and that's why he went away. But if the conclusion is "hextech is bad and we were wrong to underestimate it", then how exactly is Viktor's "I'll become part hextech and infect other people with it" any better?

I guess the conclusion could be "once they were idealist and then both of them made terrible, boneheaded choices". But as a viewer I have trouble liking this story the summary of it is that they are both being dumb.

Now in theory we could say we have this in Cait and Vi as well. Cait sliding off into violence and superstition, Vi becoming self destructive in the fighting pits. But in that story the show actually takes it time and botheres to give scenes to try to explain the emotion beats of Cait's slide into doing bad/dumb/counterproductive shit.

I just don't see this same quality there with the choices Viktor makes leaving me at "why should I care if they do weird stuff". Very "We got "idealistic person slides into doing things that are a very bad idea" at home".

I didn't like this scene much because I felt it left me unclear about what Viktor's motivations are. And if the motivation was supposed to be "the hextech is influencing him", then I would have liked to see a "what's going on with you" from Jayce, not as a shippy thing, but purely as a signal to the audience thing that still makes sense for the relationships these characters have.

And don't get me started, yeah, these characters live in a world of magic, but Jayce still took it exceptionally well that his friend is now 90% hexcore. Like wouldn't "you aren't being yourself" be kind of the logical first step?

I guess maybe to everybody it's obvious that Viktor going Jesus sheppard is a terrible ominous idea, but I genuinely feel unclear what I'm supposed to get from it. Is "The Arcane" piloting Viktor because it has a plan to fix itself and so it's sending him to the undercity to take people over? Did it divorce Viktor from his emotions and it's causing him to make odd choices based on his old interests? I don't even mind that we don't have the answers yet, but shouldn't then the tone of those scenes be more ominous in a trying to guide us to ask these questions? I dunno, the vibe of the whole story feels off to me, putting it on the bottom pile of stuff I liked or cared about in Act 1.

I think there's still potential for irony or tragedy there (maybe Jayce comes to the conclusion The Arcane is bad just as Viktor comes to the conclusion no it's great and I should put it in everybody putting them again on different sides, or maybe Jayce will just stubbornly dig himself deeper trying to science his way out). Or Jayce will just keep being in different storylines and leave that storyline keep feeling undercooked to me.

im going to say something slightly mean which is that i think there is an imagined aspect of jayce and viktor's relationship that the audience is projecting onto them that actually is not supported by the text itself and that imagined facet is the reason people think their parting is rushed more than the issues with the actual show's pacing 💀

like i do think some of what jayce actually SAYS in that scene feels kind of clunky and unearned and sorta tropey, not because of who jayce is, but because it feels like they had to cut some interstitial tissue for the sake of time constraints, but even if they hadn't had to i cannot fathom that scene being extended more than like....a minute. like what kind of argument are they going to have that wasn't the one that actually transpired?

i think it's pointed that viktor is weirdly emotionally stunted and icy after he was such an impassioned person in s1 and he said everything there was to say anyway, just with a colder affect. i guess jayce could have said "hey viktor wait" like. one more time lol but in general if you take everything we have presented by the text on its face their immediate falling out could never have been that long a conversation because there isn't actually that much to argue about. jayce did what he thought was right and what is the normal human thing to do (broke his promise to save his friend that he loves and cares about) and viktor did not want him to do that. which is literally what they said to each other. very directly.

also it's like...supposed to be cold and sad. i don't think viktor is going to be the sole big bad of the show but i do think that the whole point of what we've seen so far in act i is that the arcane is inhuman and strange and kind of hard to understand and viktor has been partly absorbed into that and jayce is still very very human and full of all his hopes and ideals and therefore not able to grasp the arcane's true nature yet. a like. screaming lover's spat or whatever was not going to happen given the narrative positions that these two characters occupy. it doesn't even happen really between the two characters who are actually lovers — cait and vi have an somewhat equivalently long (so pretty short) moment of disagreement before cait hits vi in the stomach and leaves. anything else would have felt like fanfictiony and cheap imo

[jattendschaton]

Some people are very good at talking to a group and creating an environment where all of them feel very welcome and proactively making sure people are included in all aspects of the conversation and then some people talk to a group as if they are trying to keep everyone divided? Like they are using inside jokes that only one person understands or talk in a guarded way that suggests they are everyone's closest confidant but no one else is allowed to know each other. No real point, I'm just thinking about how much I would rather be the first type of person but how much more common I think the second is

[moobrvoobl-moobmoob-oobmpoobroom]

I just find it mind-boggling that some people will reblog things like “Anakin didn’t care about Rex and his men, he wouldn’t listen to Fives just because he was friends with Palpatine” and then in the next post be gushing over Rexwalker/Rexanidala like???? so you agree. Anakin does care about Rex?

[punctuation-completionist]

you don’t have to answer this ask but wow how are you supposed to be the bad guy fucking apologizing for reacting badly to being told to kill yourself?? i hate this website

well okay hold up i never said i was the bad guy. i said there were misunderstandings on both sides and that i was sorry for an issue in one part of how i handled it. just one.

[orchideae]

In today's episode of 'Sae, do you (...)': the topic of Ningguang and Yelan, and I thought that I should note my opinion more clearly outside of my rules as it's very important information for my portrayal: I do not ship Ningguang and Yelan romantically.

Honestly, while this is of course my own opinion, I don't find that there's anything to really substantiate a romantic interest between the two. For starters, I don't think that Ning, as interesting of a character as she is with a past that might just be similar in its 'rise' to Yelan's (we're left with very little information on the latter's childhood), ticks the right kind of boxes for her, though to be fair: not many do. Yelan craves a specific sort of thrill in her life, I mean she lives it at the roll of a dice because she is, on some level, bored, and craves the unexpected, the unusual, the 'surprise', and Ningguang's life nor personality seem to play into that. Beyond it, Yelan would need a kinship within this very specific 'loneliness' that I talk about too often and I think that Ning is not one who quite meshes into that in the right way.

Second, despite their long-standing history that even predates their mutual involvement with the Qixing, there seems to be a certain professional distance between the two that I'm quite fond of that is shown in brief event cutscenes, and also Yelan's vision story, that I find inherently intriguing. Perhaps this distance plays more into Yelan's character of not investing too heavily, or rather not too easily, into social dynamics than it does Ning's (I'm not one to weigh in on her character), but it seems evident to me that there's also that semblance of professionalism that creates a line that takes away the possibility of growing closer on an emotional level. And whether that's a mutual decision or not is not up to me to judge, but I think it's one that's made rather clearly from Yelan's side. On top of that, Yelan is Yelan and it's my personal belief that shipping her is rather difficult.

Now I'm also inherently of the opinion (unpopular, I know, I apologize) that dynamics aren't always more interesting when written in romantic settings, and I don't think it's a benefit for all of them to veer into a romantic nature. And in my opinion (and most importantly: in my depiction and understanding of Yelan's character), I think that having Ning and Yelan cross the line from professionalism into something inherently more rooted in romanticism, would be a detriment to their dynamic. Because honestly, I think the fact that Ningguang being one of two people (other being Uncle Tian) to know Yelan best, without ever crossing that line, is too good. I would simply, well, just prefer to keep that not only platonic, but professional, but of course not excluding it of Yelan's quips, and the occasional 'confidant' element.

/rambles in tags because I feel like I have more to say that I shouldn't flood the post with.

[thedevotionaltour]

karen is MY special white woman. my problematic fave. because i understand why she sucks. i think in order to be allowed to be a karen fan you have to actually understand why she sucks. if you don't understand why she sucks then you're a bad karen fan i think.

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[guiltyblogging]

Sorry in advance. My tags lost the plot. Take note and get some sleep, kids. Lack of sleep rots your brain, I'm proof.

[valeriehalla]

I am so utterly fascinated by “Saki”, the 18-year-running mahjong manga in which you, the reader, become gradually, frog-boilingly aware (over the course of nearly two decades’ worth of mahjong tournaments) that none of these girls are wearing underwear and most of their boobs are slowly expanding.

I need you to understand that I have, like, an anthropological level fascination with this comic. From the perspective of someone who is also a comic artist and writer, two things delight me about it:

the fact that I understand completely how an artist gets from “the fans can have a little hint of skirted asscheek” to “the pussy is completely out on center page” over the course of 18 years; and

the way in which the pussy being out is treated by the characters and diegesis as being utterly unremarkable.

Okay. Point 1. The frog-boiling.

Let me put this in perspective for you. There was already a meme about how the characters in “Saki” don’t wear underwear when I was in middle school. I am thirty now. Okay? And it’s still going.

In the time since, this has stopped being a joke. It is now indisputable canon. This is not because anyone outright says it at any point. It’s because the underwear ran out of places to hide. I’m obsessed with this thought: somewhere in the over 20 volumes of “Saki”, there is a panel in which underwear was objectively deconfirmed. And it would be so hard to figure out where that panel actually is. Maybe the artist didn’t even realize it when she drew it! The frog? Boiling!!

And of course there is also the breast expansion. I don’t know how to put a spin on this. They are just expanding. Like, this happens a lot with artists: you define a character as being, in your mind, “the one with the big boobs”, and over the years you emphasize that trait further and further so that the signal doesn’t get lost in the noise. It’s just that normally—in like a wildly popular manga series about mahjong published by literally Square Enix, for example—normally there would be a point at which the boobs stopped getting bigger. Like, an editor would step in or something. Or you would get to the point where you cannot draw the character in the same panel as her mahjong tiles without her breasts spilling over the tiles, and you’d go, “Well, this is now untenable.”

That did not happen. There is no ceiling. The frog is soup.

Point 2. The complete and utter mundanity of all of this.

It’s like this, okay: there’s no shortage of trashy ecchi manga out there. There’s a million other comics doing wildly bawdier things with wildly more improbable bishoujos.

The vibe with “Saki” is different.

It’s hard to explain this, but it feels like the world of the comic is fundamentally uninterested in the fanservice happening on the page. I cannot describe it as “leering”, because I cannot conceive of a person in the story from whose point of view one would leer. I think the artist is probably into it—I can’t imagine anyone is making her do this—but “Saki” the comic has no opinion on the matter.

There are essentially no male characters in “Saki”. Like, there was one guy? Kind of? At the very beginning? But he is gone now. They put him back in the toybox. He does not exist. It appears to be some level of canonical that in the world of “Saki”, almost all humans are women. Those women are sometimes romantically into each other. According to comments the artist has made on Twitter (which I cannot source), they have lesbian baby technology, so it’s no problem. It’s so much not a problem that the story is about mahjong, instead of any of that.

So, like, the fiction here appears to be this: this is the, like, meta-narrative of the fanservice of “Saki”, right: it’s just normal that they don’t wear underwear and their boobs are arbitrarily big. It’s been normal. It was normal before the story of the manga began. It’s just how things are. Nobody bats an eye about it, and if they do, it’s in sort of a lesbian kind of way so like what’s the problem, we love lesbians here. This is literally normal for girls.

The fanservice simply diffuses into this all-encompassing aura of disembodied, ambient sluttiness. The framing of the panels demands you acknowledge it, and the story demands you already be over it, because it’s mahjong time now, and we’re playing mahjong.

Do you get??? why I’m so fascinated??? Are you not a little enraptured???

Anyway, I have no idea how to end this weird post. I guess the conclusion is that women stay winning????

[tpwrtrmnky]

hindsight

[ID: A two-panel comic with crudely drawn stick figures.

Panel 1: The lime green person is talking to the leaf green person and the moss green person.

Lime: "I... have a confession to make."

Leaf: "Go ahead."

Lime: "I want to rewatch the Wizard Child movies."

Leaf: "Didn't the wizard author get incredibly chromophobic?"

Lime: "Yeah I just... It's nostalgia you know? They meant a lot to me when I was a kid."

Panel 2: The three are on the couch.

Lime: "All right, let's go."

Leaf: "It's so weird how the wizard author just turned chromophobic though. Like I remember this series being pretty good for its time. It'll be weird seeing their work contrasting with their views now."

Moss: "I'm just glad we got the movies for free through normal and legal means. Heh."

End ID.]

[ID 2: Scenes from three Wizard Child movies.

Wizard Child and the Simplistic Morality: A slightly round child with a propeller hat is talking to a child with no hat.

Round child: "I am so fucking fat and greedy I am textually shown to be fat because I am greedy and also evil."

Hatless child: "You are to infer my moral purity from juxtaposition with this fat child. Woe is me for our shared parent has deprived me of a propeller hat."

Wizard Child and the Goodness of Wealth: An adult wizard is talking to the child, who now has a wizard hat.

Wizard Adult: "Wizard child you are secretly extremely rich."

Wizard Child: "I will form biases regarding the bankers all being triangular for some reason!"

Wizard Adult: "Your wealth is deserved because your true parent was Good and therefore you are also Good."

Wizard Child: "Now we should acquire consumer goods. Buy consumer goods!"

Wizard Child and the Dark Family History: A blue-grey horse person is talking to the wizard child.

Blue-grey: "No, wizard child. You don't understand. I am one of the good ones, because unlike the bad ones I don't try to spread my curse that makes you a blue-grey horselike creature to others!"

Wizard child: "Wow uncle blue-grey you are one of the good ones! I forgive you for being a horse because I am so good I would even forgive horses. I sure hope you don't conspicuously get killed off later in this movie!"

End ID 2.]

[ID 3: Oh hell no there are even more of these.

Wizard Youth and the Tokenistic Relationship Dynamics: A square headed wizard youth is talking to the former wizard child, now a wizard youth.

Square Wizard Youth: "Wizard child, as the only person with a square head in this entire series it is my duty to inform you that you are the savior of all people with square heads, too. Let us build a one-sided relationship that only furthers your character development, after which I will immediately lose all plot relevance."

Wizard Youth: "I will do this because I am a maturing wizard youth and need disposable relationships that don't threaten the endgame!"

Wizard Youth and the Escalation of Stakes: The Dark Wizard, a sort of grey-green person with a cloak, is pointing at Wizard Youth.

Dark Wizard: "Wizard Youth, I have returned!"

Wizard Youth: "Dark Wizard! Why are you green now?"

Dark Wizard: "Evil magic made me green! I am green with envy towards all who are good!"

Wizard Youth: "I will not engage with how you are clearly based on fascist ideologies and yet this narrative plays into fascist aesthetic sensibilities!"

Wizard Youth and the Post-Hoc Revelations: The Wizard Youth is leaning over their Wizard Mentor, who is laying in a pool of blood.

Wizard Youth: "Wizard Mentor no! You can't die!"

Wizard Mentor: "It is fine, wizard youth. My death will further your character development into a wizard adult. Also, I was secretly a very very dark purple this entire time. I never brought it up so I could retain narrative approval.

End ID 3.]

[ID 4: Wizard Adult and the Overdue Conclusion. Three panels. I am sorry.

Panel 1: The dark wizard is dueling the Wizard Adult with magic beams.

Dark Wizard: "Evil green beam!"

Wizard Adult: "Good red beam! Despite the enormous variety of magic in this series this is what our final battle looks like!"

Panel 2: Wizard Adult stands victorious over the dark wizard, who is dying on the ground.

Wizard Adult: "In the end, dark wizard, you were defeated because I am morally superior to you."

Dark Wizard: "I was a product of systemic failures. There will be someone like me again someday!"

Panel 3: Zoom in on wizard adult, who says:

"Not if I can help it. Because I am going to be a wizard cop now. The moral of this story is that all systemic issues can be solved by finding a bad guy to beat."

End ID 4.]

[ID 5: Four panels.

Panel 1: Return to the green trio on their couch, watching the TV say "The End." All are are silent.

Panel 2: They are sitting on the couch. Moss is looking at their phone.

Lime: "Yeah so there were maybe a few signs we missed because we were children."

Leaf: "Yeah. A few. Some."

Panel 3: Continue conversation.

Lime: "So what did you think, Moss?"

Panel 4: Zoom in on Moss, who says: "I've been zoned out on my phone since the second movie. They lost me at the magic stuff. Wizards aren't real."

End ID 5.]

Start - Previous - Next