#Simple thoughts and views

[cheesenchalk]

i never know how to phrase it but something about the way beatles biographers and people in general view paul's reflexive placating persona and determination to smooth things over as manipulative or duplicitous and john's reflexive barbed persona and habit of lashing out as brave and subversive despite both being equally defensive mechanisms to shield themselves from the world that resulted in them saying things that weren't true says more about how we culturally view kindness or friendliness as inherently untrustworthy or flimsy and anger and carelessness as more believable as someone's true nature than it says about either of them in actuality

[bonefall]

the worst parent poll made me realize just how many ppl in the fandom are willing to jump straight into abuse apologia. bc on one hand you have ppl dumbing down crow's abuse to "him just being mean" and on the other end you have ppl saying that curlfeather didnt abuse frostpaw because she sacrificed herself and frost + her siblings love her so she couldnt possibly be an abuser. truly mindboggling stuff take these serious topics away from the fandom asap.

Part of me feels like it's because many in this fandom have a feeling that if a character's actions are abusive, it means you're "not allowed" to like them. Like there's an impulse where if you liked a character, it MUST mean they weren't THAT bad, because you'd personally never like "an abuser."

As if it reflects poorly on your own morality, as a person, that you connected with An Abuser. Understood them, even. Even if it was just a character.

If it's immoral to Like Abusive Characters, of course your reaction is going to end up being abuse apologia. To enjoy something isn't logical, it's emotional, so you will get defensive about it when questioned. When you do, it's not going to be based on logic because you didn't reason yourself into that position in the first place. It's an attack on you as a person.

I feel like that's often the root of abuse apologia in this fandom, and sometimes the world at large; "If I admit that this character/person IS abusive, it means I was doing something bad by liking them, so I have to prove to everyone else that they weren't or it means I'm bad too."

And to that I say... That's a BAD impulse! Grow up and admit you resonated with a character that did a bad thing! If that's an uncomfortable thought, sit with it!

Sometimes abusers are likeable! They usually DO think they're justified in their actions, or doing it for "a good reason," or were just too preoccupied to care. MOST of the time, people who commit abusive actions are also hurt or traumatized in some way. You might even empathize with them. None of this means their actions have to be excused or downplayed.

"Abusers" aren't a type of goddamn yokai, they're people just like you and me. You don't help victims of abuse by putting the people who hurt us in an "untouchable" category.

In fact, all it does is make you less likely to recognize your own controlling behavior. You're capable of abuse. People you love are capable of it, too. People who love YOU can still hurt you.

In spite of how often people regurgitate "It's Ok To Like A Character As Long As You're Critical Of Their Actions," every day it is proven to me further and further that no one who says it actually understands what that means.

All that said; I think it's no contest which one's a worse parent, imo.

They both mistreated their children, but Curlfeather did it through manipulation without verbal or physical abuse. She politically groomed her into a position of power so that she could use her as a pawn. It can be argued if this counts as child abuse-- but it's firmly still under the broad category childhood maltreatment, which is damaging.

(though anon I'm with you 100% at seeing RED when "but she sacrificed herself" is used as an excuse. Curlfeather's death does NOT CHANGE what she did to Frostpaw in life. I think it's a valid point to bring up when comparing her to another terrible parent for judgement purposes, such as in the context of this poll, but I really hate the implication that redemption deaths "make up" for maltreatment.)

Crowfeather, meanwhile, is textually responsible for putting Breezepaw through verbal AND physical abuse, as well as child neglect. His motivations include embarrassment from a hurt ego, revenge on his ex, and being sad because of a dead girlfriend. This abuse drives Breezepelt towards radicalization in the Dark Forest.

You could argue Curlfeather is a worse person for Reedwhisker's murder, but as a parent? It's not even a question to me. Crowfeather's one of the worst dads in WC.

[angel-archivist]

It's so interesting and so exceedingly frustrating how agab is being utilized now within the queer community as a way to isolate and sort nonbinary and genderqueer folks into binary boxes that determine their moral purity levels, and their authority to do and write and exist.

The way nonbinary writers are being put under accusation of fetishizing gay men while their AGAB is continually brought up in a way that feels like queer-space-approved misgendering.

The way feminist circles that are supposedly trans-inclusive will use the word AFAB in a way that implicitly but intentionally isolates nonbinary people who aren't AFAB from joining. It's for women*.

The way the language is already flawed and leaves out intersex folks from the conversations while focusing on a binary of sex that isn't truthful.

The constant obsessing over whether someone is AFAB or AMAB and whether or not that gives them the privilege to join, do, write, or be present in certain spaces really really concerns me. How are we supposed to dismantle a binary system of gender if we can't even move past forcibly assigning and focusing on people's genders assigned at birth?

[chappellrroan]

i've had a guy say to my face that he does not support lgtbqia+ because his idol is cristiano ronaldo. i can't make this shit up dawg the fuck.

[unreversedumbrella]

sometimes i get really annoyed thad and meloni never got to interact cause you know whatever feelings the kid had towards meloni had to be absolutelly insane. she's a thawne. she's an allen. she's bart's mother. half of her dna is his. she loves bart more than anything. she doesn't know he exists. she looks just like bart. she looks just like him

[kathybluecaller]

Finally got around drawing Aioros :D

[my-thoughts-and-junk]

i like the concept of a huskerdust overlord!husk au but like. it is very much just being sold to one direction

[ghosts-devilman-wip]

Dumping out devilman thoughts today.

I know I'm far from the first person to think about this, but I don't feel like it's given enough attention. What I'm talking about is the really noticeable lack of discussion about god as a character/driving force throughout the story (and I mean the lack of discussion on the fandom's end as well as within the stories.)

Like, you really have the all-powerful being who is the only thing in existence with the true ability to completely stop the war - to completely halt the cycle of violence. But they never intervene. Not until humans and devils have all destroyed one another. Not until Lucifer has finally killed Akira, and he's all that's left, alone on a rock on a decimated earth, watching the stars and expounding on the concept of love to a cooling corpse.

THEN god intervenes. To scorch it all and start it over again, only for the same story to play out time and time again. The only consistent exception to this, really, is whenever divine force is shot down in the beginning phases of the war. Though usually, this just ends up causing destruction in a different way. It never saves anyone, it just overpowers a show of force from the devil's side.

You could make the argument that god isn't the same all-powerful being here that he's seen as being in a larger cultural sense outside of this story. But I'd both disagree and say that's a bad take. He clearly carries more power than anyone else, as again, when he does intervene it overpowers everything else. And yeah there's the idea that he didn't make devils, but that doesn't make sense to me either. So much of this story is based both on christian mythology (or dantes inferno, but still).

To rewrite the concept of god in this way. And to practically ignore this character's existence. ESPECIALLY in a story that is so much about the cycle of violence and the failings of humanity. It does the whole thing such an injustice.

In devilman, the war between devils and humans is ultimately constructed by god himself. Because it all comes back to the fact that he had to have created the devils in some manner - how else would they have come about? - and then tossed them aside to make room for humans. Running parallel to the way he tossed aside one of his own angels for going against god's authority. An angel who then went to the devils, joined with them and led them toward liberation.

What else were the devils supposed to do? What else was Lucifer supposed to do?

God is absent from the story until there's nothing left. Then he does it all over again. For what? To punish lucifer and the devils? Again and again for their refusal to lay down and die quietly? And it's not to protect humans - how many human lives are destroyed in the process?

God is absent from this story and we continue to let him be. We focus so much on Akira and Ryo, and on trying to save them and rewrite their connection into something that can be saved. We try to rewrite it so Miki lives, and the war is averted. But that doesn't make sense to me.

This story has already been written to be a tragedy. The omniscient, all-powerful god of the story has decided that's what it's meant to be.

As long as lucifer lives to the end of the story, it will be scrapped and retold again and again. And if lucifer were to die? That would still be a tragedy, let's be honest.

The cycle of violence has already been set in motion, and it will not be stopped so easily. That's important to me. Because ultimately, erasing the tragedy of it suggests there would be an easy solution to the world's problems - that escaping oppression is as simple as being kind and quiet in the face of your own eradication, that stopping a war is as simple as crying in front of the right person, and that making the right choices are as easy as listening to what you're told is "good."

Devilman is a tragedy, but I don't think that's inherently nihilistic. I think it can make you think and ask questions and consider layers to the problem. It will not give answers, because it's not that easy - because if we had those answers then the world wouldn't be the way it is. What we see at the end isn't meant to be a prediction, or even a threat. It's simply null - this is complex and painful, and our characters were not able to figure it out, because of that. Possibly, very likely, because they were not able to see outside of their own perspectives and drives (who could? At a certain point, that would mean abandoning feeling. There's a reason Michael is the most unsettling character in any of the stories to me.)

I mean, sure. God always had an easy answer. He probably wants the story to go this way.

[silveryair]

Did anyone else know that there was blood in your bones. Like. Inside of them

[bumblingbabooshka]

Me reading fics where Tuvok encourages other peoples’ romantic pursuits:

[fatelcved]

What kind of love are you?

Love as a Choice

You choose to love. Love does not come to you easily, but every day you wake up and choose it. It would be so easy, wouldn't it, to grow cold and callous and grim. But you rise to greet the world, making the conscious effort to find something, anything to love. When you fall for someone, you do not kid yourself of their flaws. Instead, you resolve to see them for who they are, mistakes and all and you love them all the same. Your love is work, and it does not come easy. Your love sweats and toils. It is calloused and sunburned; it bears scars and comes with stories. Your love is worn, but it is no less valuable for it. Being loved by you is like being loved by a gardener, a mother, a teacher. Your love may not always be the simplest, but it is worth the effort.

Love as a Threshold

Your love does not ask for much. Your love does not take. Your love is free, and unquestioned, and here for wherever needs it. When you fall in love, it is as gentle as a breath in the night. It is quiet, and it is effortless. It is tender. If your love was a house, it would readily welcome all who come through. If your love was a hearth, it would warm the hands of whoever stopped by, whether for a day, a month, a year, or forever. When you fall for someone, it is without strings, without conditions, without need. You love for the sake of loving, for the sake of caring for those who need it. You love with a giver’s heart and a giver’s hands and are made so much stronger for it. Being loved by you is to always feel at home. Your love may not always be well-received by those unprepared to linger, but it is unforgettable all the same.

tagged by: @un1awful thank you very much hehe <3 tagging: whoever sees this and hasn't done it!!

[rukafais]

i think my favourite little horrible (positive) callback in the Generations trilogy is where Drizzt tries to insist that Zaknafein was at peace when he was dead an he was Fine and Okay and you CAME TO ME IN A DREAM AND YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE FINE which is a reference to him having a dream after he rescues Wulfgar from Errtu about his dad, and his repeated ‘i’m really trying to convince myself despite not knowing anything’ litanies of how Zak definitely went to a good place and was at peace after he died because his death has to mean SOMETHING, right, he earned SOMETHING, right,

and Zaknafein’s answer is “I literally don’t remember that. I don’t remember anything. It was just darkness.”

And on one hand I genuinely think Zaknafein getting to Stop Thinking for like a century and it being like no time passed at all, he just went into stasis, was the kindest thing any kind of god or afterlife could have done for him but it also just, doesn’t comfort Drizzt at all. And it’s a really subtle but very interesting underlining of how, even in these basic survival impulses, Drizzt and Zak diverged hard and are sort of mutually ???? about it.

[4uru]

I'm pretty sure me being a child of divorce also has smth to do with me being an atheist.

Even though I wasn't raised to be that religious (I was reading the Qur'an atp but I saw it as a thing to be studied and they didn't tell me the meaning, i could just recite it) But idk having your view of love, respect, trust, relationships and the world on the day you turn 8 does smth to a bitch.

[devotedlystrangewizard]

thinking gabriel thoughts (again)

[lecinea]

I now have seen several people claim that the "morally grey Wei Wuxian" crowd thinks that no one can really be objectively right or wrong when to me it seems the opposite is true?

Like, I think torture is wrong. End of sentence. So it doesn't matter if it's unnamed demonic cultivators, Wen Chao & co or a collection of random innocents who happen to be related to an asshole. All of it is morally wrong. So Wei Wuxian was doing something morally corrupt. Do I understand why he did it? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it the good and just thing to do.

Same goes for the mass murder. I think there is never a good and moral reason for a massacre. Which means I think it was wrong to kill the Wens, it was wrong to kill the Jiang and it was wrong to kill the various cultivators at nightless city. And because I can already hear the shouts of 'self defence!', once the body count hits the triple digits I don't think self defence is still a valid excuse.

To even target Wei Wuxian more, I think the desecration of corpses is wrong. I think what Wen Qing and Wei Wuxian did to Wen Ning is honestly quite horrifying and that the only reason we as a fandom don't talke more about how sad it is that Wen Ning's soul is pretty much trapped in a dead and decaying vessal until resentful energy can no longer keep it together is that there is this idea that any way of being 'alive' is better than being dead. From a daoist view, Wen Ning and other fierce corpses are being kept from the cycle of reincarnation. That's bad! That's not good or moral in any way. Again, I completely understand why Wen Qing wanted her brother back and why Wei Wuxian actually did. But that doesn't make it right.

This doesn't mean that Wei Wuxian isn't a hero, he absolutely is. Most of his actions were done with good intentions and came from a place of wanting to protect people and fix things. But that doesn't suddenly make all of his actions good and moral. And that's okay, that makes things interesting! It creates space for nuanced discussion.

I don't pick and choose what I think is good or bad. I think some actions are inherently bad, no matter the motivations. But in fiction, where there are no actual victims, it's interesting to look at those motivations and try to understand why an action was taken. In a work like mdzs it is quite pointless to try to look for actual moral purity, because pretty much every character has at the very least murdered someone and most have done worse. So why would I weigh Jiang Cheng's torture of demonic cultivators of unknown guilt heavier than Wei Wuxian's torture of Wen Chao and Wang Lingjiao? What if those demonic cultivators were worse? If they gleefully killed babies and made their tiny corpses dance in front of their crying parents, would Jiang Cheng's torture of them then be justified and good? Would that change things? I don't know. To me, action of torture would still be wrong.

So in conclusion; because I have strong morals and do think that some things can be objectively right or wrong, I think Wei Wuxian is a morally grey character.

[redhotarsenic]

Dealing with people is so exhausting sometimes…