#THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WHAT HAPPENED HERE

[legalandnotease]

This is pure headcanon.

There's nothing in Avengers 1 or the Hulk movies which suggests Bruce "can control" himself as Hulk, or is in any way conscious or aware of what he does when he Hulks out.

In fact, Age of Ultron even has a scene which establishes that Natasha is the only person who can calm Hulk down with her lullaby, otherwise he is uncontrollable.

The reason Hulk when on a rampage in AoU was explicitly because Natasha wasn't there to calm him down- that is what the Avengers were relying on.

In Thor Ragnorok, for example, when Thor finds Hulk on a distant planet what is the first thing Hulk does? Attack him. Try to kill him.

Hulk doesn't remember Thor *at all*, despite having worked with him twice at that point.

When he turns back into Banner, he has no idea how much time has passed or how he got to be where he was. And how does he get turned back to Banner? Thor shows him a recording of Natasha.

but they decided "uh no she just showed him his fear this is the same if he had a nightmare (imagine how fun it would be in new york if hulk raged like this after every nightmare that bruce had) this is all completely on stark🙄" like ????

We "decided this" because this is exactly what happened. Not only are we explicitly shown that Tony was already planning to build an AI around the world, but he was acting of his own free will and agency every step of the way.

Tony also knew that the Mind Stone was dangerous. He knew it had mind-bending properties because he's seen Loki use it on his friends a few years earlier. Yet he still chose to take it.

That's why he's blamed- because he is to blame. He is responsible for actions he *chose* to perform. If Tony fans don't like that and chose to make excuses or bad faith comparisons with Hulk, well... that's on them.

The evidence is clear and no amount of crying that he has PTSD or some shit (he doesn't) changes that. In fact... lots of MCU characters have PTSD, but we don't see anybody else using that as a justification for their actions.

we don't blame bruce (rightfully) for what happened in johannesburg, but when it comes to tony he's the only one to blame for "creating the killer-bot".

I don't blame Bruce, but its funny- because Tony fans routinely hold Bucky Barnes responsible for what he did under mind control. There's clearly some crazy double standards going on here.

Tony fans will frequently dismiss Bucky's mind control and torture as if it doesn't count, even though multiple MCU sources tell us he had no control over his actions as The Winter Soldier. Even though we're shown that more than one.

They will still resort to the flimsy excuse of "his body did it therefore his is guilty"- without realizing that on the same basis Tony and Bruce can be held culpable for thier actions too.

I really don't understand people who claim that the vision wanda showed tony didn't affect him in any way...AFTER WE SAW HOW THE SAME MIND TRICK AFFECTED BRUCE AND HOW HARD IT FUCKED HIS MIND

like they seriously saw bruce "I'm-always-angry-but-I-can-totally-control-it-and-keep-the-big-guy-inside" banner goes on a rampage because of the same spell she used on tony (and also, even when hulk comes out, he is not just a stupid monster, he UNDERSTANDS where his enemies are and where are his allies and where are the people he should not hurt. he would never attack a city full of innocent people. and yet we see him losing his mind and doesn't recognize either civilians or an ally in tony)

but they decided "uh no she just showed him his fear this is the same if he had a nightmare (imagine how fun it would be in new york if hulk raged like this after every nightmare that bruce had) this is all completely on stark🙄" like ????

we don't blame bruce (rightfully) for what happened in johannesburg, but when it comes to tony he's the only one to blame for "creating the killer-bot". I mean since wanda is responsible for what happened in Johannesburg I think it's fair to hold her at least half responsible for Ultron.

sorry for rant, but this thought has been with me for a long time and I really wanted to express it to someone. and thanks for all these posts, they are one of the few things that help me stay sane in this brain dead fandom istg

You basically said my whole thought process with the whole thing! He’s definitely not the only one at fault for what happened and I stand by it! He took responsibility for it but so should Wanda she played a bigger hand in it to make it evil with the mind stone of course! I totally agree with everything you said I don’t think I need to add anything else.

[lilylushes]

Luigi as Songs from Every Taylor Swift Album

Debut: I'm Only Me When I'm With You - This song is SO Luigi coded to me bc he's said he feels different from everyone else so the whole idea of letting your guard down while with the person you love would be something that'd be important to him.

Fearless: Jump Then Fall - I think that he'd be scared of heartbreak bc he doesn't appear to have that much relationship experience, so he'd need some reassurance that his person would work through things with him and stand by him (Bonus: Fearless - The whole kissing and dancing in the rain thing is so him to me).

Speak Now: Castles Crumbling - He has a lot going on right now and I'm NOT assuming guilt here, I'm just saying he might have regrets about letting people down and cutting his family off. Going from valedictorian Ivy League grad to being in prison would be an extremely difficult experience.

Red: Run - Luigi is a traveller, and he told people he was travelling to find himself and get away for a while.

1989: You Are In Love - If you don't think he embodies this song, GET OUT. "One night, he wakes, strange look on his face. Pauses, then says, "you're my best friend." PLEASE, this is so him.

Reputation: Literally the whole damn album - lmao but probably Dress or So It Goes bc...you know...ovulation songs

Lover: Daylight - This is how I see him okay ik it's parasocial but let me pls.

Folklore: this is my trying - Luigi's been an overachiever his entire life. On his Reddit, he said that he had brain fog and was barely passing classes. I can imagine that this song would resonate for him (Bonus: the lakes - The same justification as "Run" but add in him wanting to somewhere in nature).

Evermore: gold rush - this has been established lol

Midnights: I literally had to pick 3 from this album lmao - Labyrinth - I think Luigi probably has anxiety about letting go and giving his heart to someone else. It's just an impression lol. You're On Your Own, Kid - I think post-grad life for Luigi was hard (again, an impression I have). He succeeded so much academically and socially at school and could have felt quite lost after. This, coupled with the desire to be accepted, makes this song remind me of him. Snow On The Beach - I'm gonna write something ab this shhhh

TTPD: Robin - Luigi has said that he feels different from others, and I think he's a unique person. I really hope he keeps those special qualities about him no matter what happens. He deserves to be protected from the cruelty of the world.

[alea-jottun]

On dissonance : saying you story did something vs making your story say something

A problem I have noticed with people defending s2 is that they take at face value what the dialogues say (or what the writers have said in interviews), as if it were a complete justification of what happens in s2. But a story cannot simply say it is something, it has to be this thing. Dialogue that is not backed up by the actual content of a story is worthless.

A few examples for instance :

S2 wants to pretend that it has something to say about forgiveness. But what does it do ? Have alternate Silco say that "the greatest thing we can do in life is find the power to forgive" (one of the worst lines of s2 considering the context. I'm not even going to delve into why he was the worst possible character you could choose to prone forgiveness, but let's put aside his character assassination for now) yet never follow through.

That's just a line, said by a character. For it to have value, it has to be backed by the story. But s2 doesn't do that.

The problem is not that s2 wants to prone forgiveness (that was going to come up anyway, because you have to discuss forgiveness in order to put an end to a cycle of violence). The problem is that there is no well-written arc demonstrating the value of forgiveness in s2 : simply characters who suddenly feel bad for what they have done, and other characters who forgive them just like that. The justifications given for their changes of heart are either incredibly superficial (considering the gravity of the Arcane themes. We're talking about forgiving murder, attacks, etc), or absolute crap. The reason being of course that the writers did not bother writing organic, developped character arcs.

No, Caitlyn saying "I know" or fighting Noxus is not her taking responsibility or atoning for her crimes. No, her seeing Vi or being called Cupcake should not be enough to cause a change of heart this radical (and don't say that Caitlyn was feeling bad and was waiting for an opportunity to betray Ambessa, because that's simply not true. She absolutely supported Ambessa through s2. She just suddenly changed her opinion on Ambessa because the writers decided it).

Same goes for instance for the Timebomb subplot (which I have unfortunately seen heralded as another example of how s2 preaches forgiveness) : Ekko goes to an alternate reality and falls in love with an alternate version of a girl who murdered his friends and cursed Zaun, but in his reality Jinx is suddenly sad about what she did to the Council, so boom ! Forgiven with no proper redemption arc, and now Ekko tries to convince her that she can better herself. Even though throughout Arcane Jinx didn't give a damn about Ekko or the Firelights she killed. And no, fighting for Piltover and a fake sacrifice at the end do not count as redemption.

At this point, the writers really feel like a character being sad is equivalent to an entire redemption arc. But forgiveness has to be earned, and it never is in s2.

Another example of constant dissonance which I have evoked in another post, but also fits here :

Caitlyn saying to Jinx "no amount of good deeds can undo our crimes...." .... while the entirety of s2 does just that for several characters, including her and Jinx, ironically.

Again, that's just one line, said by a character at the end of a 9 episodes series. But that's not what s2 says in practice. The reality of s2 is that it keeps trying to downplay Jinx's past actions, it keeps trying to undo her crimes : she does whatever she wants and is seen as a symbol in Zaun, even though she literally prevented the Council from declaring Zaun independant. There is no problem to her presence in Viktor's commune, despite that fact that she killed him, and his dream, and again, cursed Zaun when it was about to be freed. She can literally talk to Viktor without the topic ever being properly adressed.  And then the writers remember that she is a bit more than a troublemaker, so in the last episodes you get half-baked excuses and a tentative to end herself to cause drama (which is incredibly insensitive, but that's not the point of this post).

Same for Caitlyn : despite being the one saying "no amount of good deeds can undo our crimes....", she has one of the happiest ending of s2, without ever taking responsibility for her actions, or going through redemption. She ends up with an even better social position, a girlfriend she mistreated, a victory for Piltover, and never any real punishment or coherent negative consequences of her actions. So yes, her crimes are pretty much undo-ed... and she didn't even do any real good deed.

The dialogue says something, but the whole series contradicts it.

And finally, you have lines that are absolute crap (in the context of s2) and that pretend that s2 was a completely different show : see the "trying to get rid of your imperfections" line (Viktor's so-called quest for perfection doesn't exist apart from a few lines of dialogues, it is never a proper plot point in the show itself). See the "If he had found the letter it would all have been different" line (not even going to go into details with this one because there is so much wrong with it, it's impressive at this point). Or Jayce's "All I want is my partner back" when Jayce is not shown caring about Viktor after he goes back to Zaun (and no, hallucinating him once in the fire does not count. Also it does not help that neither Jayce nor Viktor have much screen time) and then tries to kill him. So what does s2 do ? Have a cheap thirty second explanation in the last episode, introduce the worst "plot twist" of the series, and pretend it did the job.

Add that to the terrible interview of the writer who said that they made the story as "economical" as possible (they genuinely thought that if they implied something once, then they never had to mention it again) when a good story is supposed to be the complete opposite : efficient (say as much as you possibly can).

S2 is all filler no substance. I know we're joking about the people defending it with the "micro-expressions" argument, but that's understandable : that's all there is in s2 : micro-potentials of what could have been a great series, drowned in an ocean of incompetence. 

[forcedhesitation]

why should it just be steve who has all the torturous purgatory realm fun?

[sundial-bee-scribbles]

"my education is my highest priority" everything returns to vocaloid

[smile-files]

i continue to find ii3 baffling. why did they make it (this isn't to hate on the season, i'm genuinely curious)

[mabaris]

that stupid comicbook.com article and also fan response in general to the companion romance situation annoys me so bad for the sole reason that everyone acts like the only people in the game are the pc and playable companions

[hungee-boy]

honestly if you live in a blue state and can afford a decent home and all your meds/food/utilities i want to hear NOTHING in regards to us in red states

i live in greg abbott's red texas. you know, the largest state that borders the most vilified neighboring country and receives the majority of latino immigrants + has a huge black population + a lot of arab and asian immigrants

i will not tolerate blame put on the people in red states who are constantly harassed and belittled because of their race, origin, religion, gender, and economic status

you want someone to blame? blame your party who did nothing to get people out of poverty, did nothing in response to police violence and killings, did nothing for palestine/lebanon, did nothing in response to abbott and desantis' vitriolic anti-latino racism and policies

democrats did what they do best, follow the right-leaning trend and lose to republicans

[starbuck]

HATE when i’m taking a class that i KNOW would be a piece of cake for people who are fans of objective definitions with no exceptions and unexamined moral outrage…

[marcusrobertobaq]

Hank and Connor both romantic and parental shit are hcs. I'll treat u guys the same way cuz y'all doing the same thing.

Including pissing me off with bullshit dynamics that kill the characters.

Now, back to the real interesting shit in DBH: political and tech stuff... 🤙🏾

[mars-ipan]

i keep trying to find a reason for my weird mood i’m in and i just remembered that i don’t need a reason

[alphalesbian]

When I think of the ways people have hurt me - the ways people have gone out of their way to hurt me, the ways people have changed themselves to become hurtful to me, the ways people know my hurt and hurt me right there - I can only see now, how I will not hurt back the same.

[ceilidhtransing]

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

[kittyprincessofcats]

ICJ Ruling

Okay, let's get into this.

First of all, I get the frustration at the court not ordering a ceasefire. I was disappointed and frustrated at first too, since a ceasefire was the biggest and most important preliminary measure South Africa was requesting - and of course we just all want this horror to finally end for the people in Gaza. So I get the frustration and disappointment, I really do.

However, I do think this ruling is still a major win for South Africa, Palestine, and international law as a whole and here's why:

The court acknowledged that it has jurisdiction over this case and completely dismissed Israel's request to throw out the case as a whole. It will now determine at the merits stage (that will probably take years) whether Israel is actually commiting genocide.

The court acknowledged that Palestinians are a "distinct national or ethnic group and therefore deserving of protection under the genocide convention". Pull this out next time someone tells you "there's no such thing as Palestinians, they're all just Arabs".

The court acknowledged very unambiguously that "at least some" of Israel's actions being genocidal in nature is "plausible". South Africa has a case, officially. Israel is accused of genocide, in a way the ICJ deems "plausible", officially. This is huge. (And seriously, how freaking satisfying was it to hear all of those genocidal statements by Israeli politicians read out loud and used as justification for this rulling?)

The court might not have ordered a "ceasefire" in those words, but they did order Israel to "immediately end all genocidal acts" (which includes killing and injuring Palestinians) and submit proof that they actually did. How are they going to comply with this ruling without at least severly reducing or changing what they're doing in Gaza?

In fact, this wording might actually be more appropriate for a genocide (vs a war), as author and journalist Ali Abunimah notes on Twitter:

He's completely right. Israel lost today, by overwhelming majority (I mean, 15 to 2? I heard people predict the rulings would be very close, like 9 judges vs 8, but instead we got 15 to 2 (and even 16 to 1 on the humanitarian aid). Holy shit.) The court disimissed almost everything Israel's side of lawyers said, while acknowledging that South Africa's accusations are "plausible".

And this is important especially because of Mr Abunimah's second tweet there^. Because the question is, where do we go from here?

This ruling means that Israel is officially /possibly/ commiting genocide and that should have huge international consequences. The rest of the world now HAS to take these accusations seriously and stop arming and supporting Israel - and if they won't do it on their own, we, the people, have to make them. This is THE moment to rise up all around the world, especially in the countries most supportive of Israel (the US, the UK, Germany): Protest, call your representatives and demand a ceasefire and an end of arms deliveries to Israel.

We now have a legal case to back our demands: If Israel is, according to the ICJ, "plausibly" commiting genocide, then all of our governments are, according to the ICJ, "plausibly" guiltly of aiding in genocide. And we need to hold that over their heads and demand better. We need to do that right now and in huge numbers. Most politicians only care about themselves and saving their skin. We have to make them realize that they could be accused of aiding in genocide.

(As a German, I'm thinking of Germany here in particular: After South Africa's hearing, our government dismissed their case as having "no basis" - how are they going to keep saying that now that the ICJ officially thinks otherwise? Over the last months, people here have been arrested at protests for calling what's happening in Gaza a genocide. How are the police supposed to legally keep doing that now that the ICJ has officially deemed this accusation "plausible"? I used to be scared to use the word "genocide" at protests or write it on my protest signs - not anymore, have fun trying to arrest me for that when the ICJ literally has my back on this one 🖕🏻.)

So yeah - don't be defeatist about this, don't let Israel's narrative that they "won" (they didn't) take over. This might not be everything we wanted, but it's still a good result. Don't let what the court didn't say ("ceasefire"), distract you from the very important things that they did say. Let this be your motivation to get loud and active, especially if you live in any country that supports Israel. Put pressure on your governments to not be complicit in genocide, you now officially have the highest international court on your side.

[wet-from-water-water-from-wet]

as true as it is, there's more to the appeal of human domestication guide than "the fantasy for trans girls is to be loved unconditionally," it's that the affini can prove it. I'm certain there are people in my life who do love me unconditionally, but even then on some level it's hard to believe fully. it's impossible to prove a negative, "this person would love me no matter what" isn't something I could ever be comfortable testing anyway. "what if it isn't true?" a big part of being trans is having to justify your very existence even to well meaning people, and what happens when your justification falters?

and I think a big appeal to the affini that seems to be lost on a lot of people is how these stories tend to be from the perspective of "the person who is just about as against this as someone possibly could be." consider HDG proper, Elvira is against capture on a moral level for obvious reasons like "kidnapping is wrong" and "I deserve freedom," but she's also personally racist towards the concept of aliens. all of this forces the affini into a position where they can't just show "enough" kindness, to move from that position to one of love and trust, the affini are forced to show so much love and kindness that they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they really do care. they understand that behind every vicious word and lack of faith from their floret-to-be is a subtle hope that the world the affini promise is the real one. such a hope deserves nurturing at any cost; they deserve to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is really true. by assuming the worst case scenario, the affini prove the negative.

that's the real trans girl fantasy at play here; to be at your worst and for someone to love you anyway, to not have to feel like you're hiding some layer of your identity deep down that would ruin everything if it came out. your mistress saw the very core of your being and yet here you are, still wrapped in her loving embrace. you bared your teeth and gnashed at every helping hand along the way, and yet she still says she loves you. she still shows you love and affection beyond what you could have ever imagined. why?

and then at some point you just have to accept that it's true.

[tahbhie]

The Act of Writing Psychotic Characters 

Part 1: Attention vs Intention

It's been a while since I received this request, and I ensured I took my time with the thoughts, evaluation, and analysis. This topic will be covered in three parts, so here's the first.

Before we proceed, please note that I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or any professional in that field. This is just an insight into how this kind of concept can fit into your novels.

Okay, let's begin.

The Attention vs Intention part of this topic will discuss two ways of portraying these type of characters in scenes. 

First, you need to understand that psychotic characters aren't psychotic based solely on their speeches or actions. If that's all you have in mind before approaching a story, you might leave a huge gap in the execution.

Rather, it's how they feel—the desire to satisfy their current emotions.

They have drives and motives, but most especially beliefs which, in most cases, are hardly understandable by other people. It's wrong and unacceptable by society, but to them, they wouldn't do it any differently.

That's why most psychotic characters have no remorse. You simply can't apologize or feel sorry if you don't 'believe' that you're in the wrong.

➜ Attention Psychosis

Psychotic characters whose main purpose in a story is limited to presence (i.e., showing up in scenes and visibly serving the role of a psychotic character) are attention psychotics. You don't flesh out their backstory or why they are who they are.

Their drives and motives aren't talked about enough to the point of justification. Readers hardly care about them, but the action they bring to the scene creates a rich narrative with the purpose of psychosis.

In summary, their role is minor. We see such cases in movies like The Babysitter.

Let's agree that none of the cult characters in that movie are exactly sane, as their main aim is to end their victims’ lives in the sickest ways possible. However, there's a certain character, Max, who simply enjoys the idea of "killing and seeing people bleed."

That has exceeded the central idea of being a cultist who gets involved in blood sacrifice to achieve their 'dream life' like the rest of the characters. It's now something more and different.

Something that has to do with homicidal ideation.

Max worked in a diner where he dealt with people that annoyed him so greatly that he wanted to kill them. So he got the opportunity to join a cult and do just that.

It was plain clear this guy had something else going on for him, but throughout the movie, his character had no special attention or even a peek into his thoughts. Although, it still worried the audience. Job done.

➜ Intention Psychosis

When a story is centered around a character's mental state, their motives, drives, beliefs, actions, and the story actually unfolds by going deeper into this concept, you have intention psychosis.

If not entirely, at least mostly, it defines the entire plot surrounding that character. People get to understand why they are who they are, their mode of action, what drives them, and even a peek into how they perceive the world around them.

Such scenarios are seen in movies like The Joker and Pyramid game (Korea). The audience gets a glimpse into their overall life and understands at least to an extent why they are the way they are.

Their beliefs get twisted for certain reasons, and there was just no stopping them. Here the characters were more than a presence; they were a central core.

In the movie Joker, we watched Arthur’s impoverished life unfold, with every event and incident worsening his condition further.

Baek Ha-rin in Pyramid Game literally created an entire game system to watch a student, who happened to be her old friend, suffer both physically and mentally. She went to great lengths to carry out this nefarious act under the guise of the game. Although this movie encompassed more than just this storyline, it was hard to ignore the unhealthy drive and actions of the young lady with an innocent face.

Before incorporating a psychotic character in your novel, determine their form of portrayal and appearance in the overall story. Are they going to serve as an attention psychotic or an intention psychotic?

Inspired by @sothera

Stay tuned for the next part!

۝ Before you go! ۝

My Characters and I is an extensive one-on-one coaching session designed to create characters that leap off the pages and become best friends with your readers.

What's a great story without remarkable characters? Spots are filling up fast, so grab yours now and get ahead of millions of writers out there.

👇👇👇