#That’s just one example of this that I think everyone understands | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

akitossohma · 2 days ago

Note

i wanted to say your post about lu guang's morality is currently my favorite thing ever. im not sure if you're just incredibly smart or have the gift of prophecy but you are so right and the post is very very good

hi! i'm so glad you enjoy my post >.<

i tragically do not have the gift of prophecy, but i'm happy to explain my reasoning! spoilers ahead.

first off, i wanna say that when i made that post, it was less of a prediction and more of a reading of what the show had already laid out.

i've seen a few detractors of my post on twitter, all of them saying things along the lines of "this is a misguided take because lg is selfless. lg only killed vein bc vein killed csx. we have no proof that lg is sacrificing others." there's a lot to pick apart with these rebuttals, and i'll get to that, but i feel there is one essential point they are all missing: time travel in an of itself is an act of hubris.

going back in time with the intention of changing the past is one born out of great hubristic selfishness. anyone doing so is automatically (and wrongfully) assuming the role of a god.

the show is well aware of this. take the earthquake arc for example. as csx takes it upon himself to try and evacuate the village, lg points out that in doing so, he could end up inadvertently killing more people. this is because the butterfly effect is uncertain and lg knows this. that whole interaction functions two-fold. one: it establishes that the narrative itself is aware of the stakes here. it is an in-universe acknowledgment that changing the past, even if it's to save lives, is extremely risky and ultimately selfish. two: it establishes that lg is very aware of this truth, which is what makes the s2 reveal so shocking. despite being aware of the consequences, lg is still trying to change the past to save csx.

it also tells us that lg's steadfastness about csx not changing the past is likely born out of a fear of csx accidentally messing up the timeline lg is cultivating, and not out of some noble effort to minimize their impact on others' lives, which is how it was previously framed. all this evidence paints a very clear picture: lu guang is not the morally just character we once thought. he is placing his own happiness above literally everyone else's wellbeing. yes he is trying to save csx, but he's only doing that because he can't stomach the idea of living without him. his motivations are objectively selfish at their core.

back to the detractors: i feel some people are conflating lg's actions being done out of love for his actions also being selfless. and while i agree there is an (albeit twisted) form of love behind all this, there is nothing selfless about what he's doing. why does lg get to decide what the future should hold? why does any one man get the final say on what happens to the rest of the world, and all the billions of rich lives within it? hell, why does he even get to decide what happens to csx? yes he's acting under the pretense of saving csx, but does csx even want to be saved? would csx even be okay with what he's doing? i honestly don't think so. when csx believed lg had died, he contemplated using his powers to go back in time and save him, but ultimately decided against it because as far as he was concerned, lg wouldn't approve. he understands the potential chain reaction that comes from saving even one life because lg drilled it into his head. even if he is impulsive to a fault, at the end of the day, csx would never want to cause harm to others, especially not at this magnitude.

even if this effort to change the past/future fails, the fact that he was willing to take this massive risk in the first places says a lot about his priorities and overall character. while he probably doesn't actively want to sacrifice others, he absolutely will if it means keeping csx in his life saving csx.

in this most recent episode, just minutes before killing vein, he says to him, "do you know the butterfly effect? in a dynamic system, any subtle change in the initial conditions may lead to different outcomes. i've been thinking how to change a destined ending completely. if there is an additional point before this, an unchangeable point, what will happen? no need to fear the deviation. just let it happen more completely." lg killed vein partly out of revenge yes, but also to create another unchangeable node in the timeline. he is trying to secure csx's future by taking another life.

and none of this is even touching on how lg possessed a woman's body, which is a COMPLETE violation of her autonomy, to kill vein, knowing damn well she'd take the fall for his murder. lol.

so yeah. lu guang is (and always has been) a selfish, immoral bastard (she said with love), and the writers were very deliberate in setting that up.

there's so much more i could say on this but then this would get way too long, which it already lowkey is haha. thank you for the ask! i genuinely appreciate the opportunity to word vomit all this <3

#sympathetic =/= morally grey #link click #shiguang daili ren #link click spoilers #asks #ask #i forgot what tag i use for asks oopps.#i did this instead of working <3

57 notes · View notes

adolfusraptor1985 · 21 hours ago

Text

I think it's interesting how what's considered a "delusion" is so reliant social factors.

For example, a lot of people would say that me believing I'm nonhuman is a delusion. And honestly, that makes sense. Clearly I have a human body and human DNA, so how could I possibly be anything else?

Some people think it's only delusional to believe myself physically nonhuman. And again, this makes sense. Internally, my identity can be whatever I feel like, but I clearly am still physically human.

And lastly, some people believe my nonhuman identity to not be a delusion at all. Reality works differently for everyone. My identity is my own. I don't experience any form of psychosis or other major mental health issues. How could I be delusional?

At the end of the day, I can honestly understand the backing for all of these claims, and don't have a problem accepting any of them as true. In my opinion, zanthropic delusions are so hard to "reality check", or even label to begin with. Someone's personal identity is always going to be way too complex to disprove or falsify with real science and logic. I just want to make one clear closing point: My nonhumanity may be a delusion, but that doesn't make me any less nonhuman.

#a-r-yips #nonhuman #nonhumanity #alterhuman #alterhumanity #holothere #physically nonhuman #clinical zoanthropy #therian #therianthropy

47 notes · View notes

xjulixred45x · 2 days ago

Note

Hi! Could I ask for some yandere headcanons for Adam's family and a human daughter reader? Please and thank you 💜

Alright!

Platonic!Yandere! Adam/Eve/Caín and Abel x Reader

Genre: Headcanons

Reader: female

Warnings: Yandere content, Yandere behaviors, Platonic yandere, yandere behaviors, unhealty mindset, mentions of being an still born and it's consecuences, overprotection.

Adam

• I think that Adam's obsession with his daughter's safety would be affected if she had had a particularly complicated birth, after all, it was his third baby, it was supposed to be something easy after Abel and Cain, but that didn't stop the reader's life from being in danger multiple times.

• When the reader was finally born, she was small and fragile, she was born prematurely, and she needed constant care, something that her family was more than willing to provide.

• Adam is obviously the most overprotective with his first daughter, in general the world outside of Eden is very dangerous, he has to take care of all the members of his family. Obviously including the new acquisition.

• Since the reader was born, Adam had a certain favoritism, precisely because the little girl had a great resemblance to Eve, her eyes, her hair, her laugh, which also leads him to be more indulgent with her.

• Adam is against the idea of any of his children feeling left out, so he makes sure that Cain and Abel interact with Reader. Very carefully, though, after all, their sister is VERY fragile, get it?

• He enjoys the stage where Reader is a baby, being able to hold her, play with her, make her laugh with funny faces, in general he enjoys the time when Reader is a pure and innocent being, not knowing the cruelty of the outside world.

• Adam, as I said, is very overprotective of his daughter, more so as she grows and begins to learn things, like walking, how to talk, what she can and cannot eat, etc.

• Adam is always a few steps behind his daughter, just to make sure she is taking a “safe approach,” and there is no way to escape or sneak away, not with the divine reflection on his side.

• Adam is very patient with his children, especially when reader starts some kind of rebellious phase, he understands it, we all have a moment like that (after all, it's thanks to this that they were born), however, the primordial man will not let his daughter put herself in danger.

• For example, he will not let her go somewhere where the gods are. This may be the most rational of all, considering his past with them and the role they played in banishing Eve. That is something reader can understand and respect.

• What she cannot respect is that Adam even restricts her interactions with other humans! even scaring them so they don't talk to her! that is just unfair!

• Although we agree that talking to Adam about it is like talking to a wall, it is impossible to move. He believes that everyone is a potential enemy, that everyone can harm his family, especially his little girl.

• Adam is one of those Yandere parents who thinks their kids can do absolutely nothing wrong, no matter if the evidence is right in front of them (whether they try to run away, tell them they hate them or insult them, be a bad person, etc.). Nope, his babies are ANGELS.

• And even more importantly, he's the kind of Yandere parent you can never get rid of, no matter if you try to be more independent once you're in Valhalla, you'll never be too far from Daddy Adam. Good luck.

Eve

• Eve was the most affected by Reader's birth obviously, not only physically but mentally.

• She had never had a birth as painful as Reader's, not even with Cain, which definitely made her so exhausted when Reader was actually born, that she couldn't even hold her.

• A part of Eve was so scared that Reader would die, because the pain was so bad (and she didn't want to imagine if Reader was going through the same pain), praying to any god that would hear her not to let her baby die, being so relieved when she heard her cry for the first time.

• It was only a few days later that Eve was recovered enough to hold her daughter, it was the first time she saw a girl (she had already seen other babies with Abel and Cain, but this was totally different), and she was the most precious creature in the world.

• Eve is much less invasive, she is overprotective, yes, but she wants her daughter to grow up, she wants her beautiful offspring to become a full-fledged wild flower.

• For this reason, she is Reader's greatest ally when it comes to calming Adán's insecurities, she is the only person he will really listen to, who will pay attention to over his children. She can either distract him long enough for Reader and her siblings to sneak away or she can directly convince him to tone down some of his tendencies.

• That doesn't mean that Eve herself doesn't have unhealthy tendencies regarding her children, she just knows how to control herself better.

• She collects absolutely everything that children leave behind when they grow up, be it toys, clothes, probably even teeth when they start to fall out.

• She is also very dramatic when Reader gets sick, constantly bringing her homemade food and medicine, crying at her bedside, begging her not to die, to the point where Cain and Abel have to drag her out of the room.

• Eve is also somewhat possessive, she likes to spend a lot of time with Reader, and will automatically be bitter for the rest of the day if anyone (other than Adam or her sons) decides to interrupt said “quality” time between mother and daughter.

• She excuses this as “since Adam and the boys have the right to have boy time, they also deserve girl time” but it is just an excuse to have more time with her daughter just for herself.

• She loves to talk to Reader like she is a baby, generally spoiling her a lot, but she doesn’t realize much of the time that this can make her feel embarrassed or uncomfortable. Uncomfortable? From her family? Who put those ideas in her head?!?

• She is also very quick to make assumptions. As you can see…

• Fortunately, she is much more naive than Adam, so if you play your cards right, she can be your greatest ally when it comes to having your alone time or getting away from this crazy family for a while.

Caín and Abel

These two share a braincell i swear

• THESE TWO ARE THE EPITOME OF NOSY BROTHERS.

• But really.

• I feel like initially, they were both very excited to have a younger sister, having been just the two of them for quite a while, a new companion wouldn't hurt at all.

• However, when the time came and reader wasn't born, causing Eve great pain, the brothers started to get very scared. This was something new, and something they didn't like, their mother was suffering a lot. When was this going to stop?

• When reader was finally born and Eve was laid up for several days, both Abel and Cain acted like they were standing around eggshells, thinking that the baby would put them through great pain like it did with their mother.

• Fortunately, they were scolded by Adam for even thinking that, and he made Cain hold his sister for the first time (even if he was shaky).

• And you can imagine his surprise when he felt absolutely no pain, just something heavy and warm on his chest. Looking at him curiously.

• After verifying that the baby did not cause them any pain, it became a tug of war to see who was still holding her between the two, but at least the issue of rejection towards reader was resolved, perhaps too well.

• Cain and Abel tried in many ways to become reader's favorites while she was growing up, whether it was playing with her, bringing her nice things, but above all protecting her.

• They act very similar to their father in many ways, they are overprotective to an unhealthy degree, wanting to prevent reader from doing this or that, preventing her from stepping in puddles of mud or water because “she could get sick”, going so far as to accuse her to Adam if she did something “dangerous”.

• This created a love-hate relationship between the brothers and sister, on one hand Cain and Abel would do anything for her (except give her absolute freedom. Who needs that with a family that does everything for you? Silly), while the reader didn't see them any differently than an inmate sees his prison guard.

• Fortunately, just as they resemble their father, they also inherited several aspects from their mother.

• Both are very needy of the reader's approval, as I said before, they would do ANYTHING for her.

• If the reader uses words well, she can make them, involuntarily, help her escape more than once (or simply accept certain conditions like her having friends/partners), either by asking them for things or some objects, in exchange for being her “favorite brother”

• And they fall right into her trap. But that doesn't matter, even if they eventually realize that their sister is only using them for her own benefit, to do things that their father doesn't approve of and that distress their mother, they don't care.

• All that matters is that she is happy because of them, even if they receive some punishment, they are okay with it, they would endure it all over again, all to see their sister happy.

• If that's how things are, they will play along. For her.

Shares, reblogs and comments are very welcome!

37 notes · View notes

stupidlittlespirit · 2 days ago

Note

i've seen the "he'd never date a woman" thing with ford so much, which i think about a lot. like it's one thing to just headcanon him as gay but there are a lot of posts where internalized or blatant misogyny shine bright. one i saw straight up had multiple people going "he respects women too much to want to date/fuck them" like hello? do you realize what you are implying ab real women when you say that?

i'm not great at articulating my thoughts but i think it's especially prominent with ford because of his intelligence + unconventional demeanor. he's off-putting and a genius and didn't want to give up his work to settle down into a standard marriage with kids. women can't be weird or smart in the same way men can for example and all women want the typical white picket fence nuclear family american dream. therefore you are off your gourd if you think he'd ever want to be with a woman. so there’s that on top of the already rampant misogyny present in fandom spaces with shipping especially.

there's also the whole "gibe the oracle your phone number" / "i miss dimension 52" that could have some implications if you want but ig i can't blame people for forgetting jeselbraum because hirsch barely expands on her LOL. but basically it’s all up to interpretation and it really isn’t all that wild to think he could be attracted to women.

personally i just enjoy projecting my own sexuality onto him. “what gender are you attracted to?” don’t care. can i show you my isopod colonies. “how would you describe your sexual attraction?” uhhhhhhhhhhh (<- is probably demisexual)

So, I deleted my post because I felt like I was rehashing points I'd previously made a million times before, but I stand by it.

I want to address what you said and then I want to kind of go on a tangent (shocker, I know) about the interpretation of GF at large because I've been engaging with a lot of Lynch stuff recently, who we know was by and large the most influential person for Hirsch, and one of the biggest things around Lynch's work is the beauty of subjectiveness. I think Hirsch carries that legacy with him at the heart of his work.

So yeah, the comments about Ford 'respecting women too much' is insane. If anyone thinks that they are probably the kind of person who doesn't respect a woman anyway. If your hands sully the one you touch, perhaps your hands were not so clean to begin with, yknow? That's the vibe I always get with those kinds of comments.

Society approaches women so differently from men in this regard, as you said. Where a man is 'quirky' and 'cool', a woman is 'annoying' or 'trying too hard'. She suffers for her differences where as he profits for them. She can only commit the crime of being Cringe, and in my experience, people will forgive many things but never that.

There is certainly merit in the way in which a lot of people recognise that Ford is partial to things that are 'weird' or that are shunned by society, especially because of his hands, and that plays well into Queer culture. It's a feeling most of us (if not all of us) experience. So I can see where there connection comes and it's totally cool to hold that belief. Queer is BIG umbrella and I think he falls under it myself, what with the ace/aro stuff. We're given much more canon evidence of him being ace/aro, in fact, than of anything else. I maintain personally that canon Ford is asexual and aromantic, and that romance doesn't factor into his life in the way it does for 'normal' people. It's why when Bill mentions that quiz Ford does in his dreams in TBoB it makes me think of my own struggles with asexuality: "I'm not normal, everyone else is feeling this type of way and I'm feeling that type of way. There's something wrong with me. I'm weird. I need answers." It feels very much like Ford is attempting to understand that side of himself and is very afraid of the answer.

The Oracle stuff makes me so sad it was never expanded on more. I really love Jheselbraum and it felt like she was one of the first people that Ford met who was of higher intelligence than him, and who actually did just want to help. She extended an extreme kindness to him. Whether it was more than that doesn't even really matter. There was still a relationship formed there that can't be discounted. But again, it can be interpreted in lots of different ways.

This is the other thing. There's nothing wrong with projecting yourself onto your favourite character. We all do it. I do it. It's fun and it brings comfort. And that's okay! But that means we can all do it. So it's unfair for someone else to say "you're wrong for thinking XYZ about Ford" because we're all just kids in a sandbox playing house with these characters. You can't gatekeep someone else's enjoyment.

You can believe Ford is gay. You can believe Ford is ace. You can believe Ford is whatever you want him to be, but what you can't do is then rescind that privilege from someone else just because you don't like it or because it makes you feel better about yourself to punch down on someone else. People are entitled to their own interpretations of media, even if they make you feel uncomfortable or whatever.

Which brings us onto Lynch. Now, I'm not a huge surrealist fan, I like Lynch most for the person that he was (ugh I'm still so sad to type that). One of the biggest things about him was that he valued the intelligence of his audience and respected them enough to allow them the space to interpret his works as they saw fit. He never wanted to define his films in a way that would prevent another person from taking their own meaning from it. There was no definition, only feeling.

There's a clip of him being asked to expand on his meaning for one of his films, I forget which one, and he just replies "no". It's so fucking good because that, to me, is art. It is fundamentally subjective in its existence and the way I view something is not going to be the way someone else does, so why take that interpretation away from one to give to another just for their approval? We may align in thoughts but the way we process the media is going to be entirely different. Why? Because we're different people. Our experiences throughout our lives have informed the way we interact with things.

I think Alex Hirsch enjoys other people making their own interpretations of his work in a similar way. Just as Lynch does. Hirsch wants you, the audience, to derive personal meaning. He doesn't need (or even want) to tell you how to engage with the themes because why would he? It would only make him work harder to get a simpler point across and it would risk alienating parts of his audience. He wants the audience to connect and to find their own familiarities, and he respects his audience enough to give them the space to let them do that. He's often evasive when he's asked to tie things down firmly. To be honest, I think he should be braver in just saying "no, I don't want to answer that" sometimes. You can tell he wants to but he also wants to engage with people so it can be hard.

People are very desperate to want to have answers in black and white. They need things to be canon in order to feel vindicated, when in actual fact, an idea is just as legitimate when it comes to fiction. Fiction IS an idea. It isn't tangible and therefore cannot be quantified, so it can be interpreted however.

Anyway, by forcing your interpretation of the work onto others (ie. 'Ford would never', 'Stan would never' etc), I think you fundamentally misunderstand what the purpose of the work is. You're taking away the light of other people because you're scared yours doesn't shine bright enough. And you're scared because other people previously took your light away, but all you're doing is repeating the cycle and taking away from the rest of us.

Your ideas can coexist with others. No one is right and in that, everyone is right. Does that make sense? Idk.

I voice my opinions of disliking certain ways the fandom engages with elements of the show, but I don't think they have less right to have those ideas than I do to have my own. I interpret Bill as one way and someone else will interpret him another. That's okay. You're allowed to do that. But I don't think you're allowed to be actively vicious to others over it.

Engage with honesty and recognise that other people enjoys things in different ways, and it's okay not to control the narrative of that sometimes.

I have my criticisms of Hirsch but I also have a lot of love for the guy, and one of the biggest things I respect about him is him allowing us to draw our own beliefs. Do I think he could stand to do some things better? Yes. But that doesn't mean I don't love what I already have from his work.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, I'm having a bit of a Day, but I hope it at least reads well enough to convey my meaning.

#asks #anon #gravity falls #this is so silly i didn't need to get into it this much but idk #it's important to remember that we're all just playing around with fictional things

23 notes · View notes

nikalaeva · 1 day ago

Text

Why don't I think Feyre is an unreliable narrator?

Remember that "unreliable narrator" is the literaly device. The author CONSCIOUSLY forces readers to look through the eyes of such character for the sake of plot.

In ACOTAR, Feyre can be considered an unreliable narrator, but the narrative should show this. For example, Feyre calls her sisters evil and useless, but the reader sees that they cook, wash, clean, care for disabled father, which means Feyre’s view is limited by her feelings. But with fairies it should be the other way: let Feyre admire them, not believe the stories about their cruelty, dream of breaking out of poverty into a fairytale, but the facts say otherwise, and the reader again sees that Feyre is still naive and emotionally immature, so her view is unreliable.

And if SJM added the inability of fairies to lie, glamour and some sorts of illusions, it would create a cool contrast, like, the fairy world is not for human, it's fabilous on the outside, but on the inside ugly and nasty, and only a smart person with iron willpower will not go crazy there.

Many people say that Nesta is more reliable than Feyre as a narrator because ACOSF is written in third person with Cassian, and Feyre loves Rhysand, but Nesta hates him. I disagree, because obviously, despite the third person, the author pokes in me with Feyre's opinion (= Rhysand's opinion = SJM's opinion) throughout the entire narrative, but only from the beginning of ACOMAF Feyre ceased to be as unreliable as she was or could be in ACOTAR.

Proof that in ACOMAF Feyre is, unfortunately, reliable narrator is the Rhysand retcon. Just because Tamlin turned out to be an abuser with anger issues doesn't negate Rhysand's acts in UTM. There is no reason why Feyre suffered from nightmares and bulimia in the Spring Court, but suddenly was healed in the Night Court, went to CoN, which is exactly like UTM (after how long, remember?) and obediently went to the Weaver so that precious Rhysand would be pleased with how strong she is 🙄😮‍💨.

And further in the story there are no consequences for the shit that Feysand does. Deception and theft from Tarquin, responsibility for turning Nesta and Elain into fairies, destruction of Tamlin's Court, disgusting behavior at the meeting of the High Lords. Indifference to other people's traumas and losses, to everything, except sweet little Velaris, nepotism, public sex, irresponsible attitude to planning pregnancy - should I continue?

At the same time, everyone who is against Feysand is presented as unreliable - they are villains, like Nesta and Tamlin, idiots, like the Illyrians, who call Rhysand a half-breed and clip wings of their women, or just fools, like the High Lords, who just don't understand, that Rhysand had it the hardest of all.

(if I was one of them, I would be shocked hearing something like that, and I would never have anything to do with this Court of Crazy Cretins (CoCC, read like "cock").

But I understand why Feyre is considered an unreliable narrator. Otherwise, it's just impossible to accept so many plot holes and retcons and remain sane 😅

#sjm critical #anti acotar #anti acomaf #anti acowar #anti acosf #feyre critical #anti rhysand #anti feysand #anti night court #bad critic

20 notes · View notes

pearlsdefenseattorny · 2 days ago

Text

i feel like some su fans don't realize Pearl isn't keeping a promise when she covers her mouth, she literally cannot speak of it because Rose made it a command, not a suggestion/request.

picture from end of an era

we know from an interview (cant find it) that Pearl's compulsion to obey the command is unique to Pearl - that no, Garnet wasn't forced by Rose to never ask questions. Pearl is uniquely programmed to obey a direct command like that because she was designed for Pink. this is a horrifying little bit of worldbuilding lol, thanks crewniverse - but it definitely makes Rose's act go from manipulative to outright egregious

what Rose does here to Pearl (by gagging her), is what the diamonds do to all gems. it's a highly institutionalized violation of agency that robs every gem, especially those of lower caste, of freedom, individuality, and autonomy. quantifiably, the gag order doesn't rob Pearl of much (there's only one thing she can't do after all), but for Rose to silence Pearl at all, to take away her voice, has enormous implications thematically and for Rose's character. Rose knows Pearl isn't able to resist the command, she gives it with the intention of taking advantage of her innate programming (designed by, and representative of, a system they both hate!) to forcibly prevent disobedience. this is WHILE she's trying to establish equality between them! if i were Pearl, i know id struggle with understanding where i stand. the signals are mixed as hell.

and we know Pearl wasn't sure she was equal, even after Rose's death. one example being - "who am i now in this world without her? petty and dull with the nerve to doubt her." i think occasionally members of the fandom fail to recognize or overlook that especially in her worst moments, Pearl STILL felt less than Rose, not only hierarchically but just fundamentally worth *less.* it's a struggle she eventually overcomes, yet during the run of the show, she's still fighting that battle. we also know from ep 2 of future (wherein steven tries to give all the gems non-homeworld-purpose related tasks), we know gems tend toward their original designed purpose.

but this isn't a Rose hate post and i wouldn't be caught dead writing one.

so what was happening when she gave the gag order? we know from the episode "bismuth," rose told bismuth she could be anything she wanted to be, that gems could choose for themselves. rose fought a whole war to free any gem who wanted to be free and to protect humanity. she told garnet (practically) to make her own identity and create her own purpose. how is this the same person who abused her power over pearl to make her keep a secret?

in end of an era, rebecca says: "[rose] makes sense once you know she is her own worst enemy. she dreams, achingly, that she could become compassionate, because she's sure she is incapable of compassion. her lack of respect for herself makes it impossible for her to respect everyone closest to her."

and that therein is the tragic heart of the problem. Rose hates herself. she wants to change, she wants to be good, but even when she IS good - she can't see it for what it is, past her own shame and self-disgust. it makes it "impossible to respect everyone closest to her" - including, and most damagingly (becuz of her purpose on homeworld and accompanying trauma), to Pearl. Blue and Yellow planted the seeds of self-hate, and developing her own value system on earth and learning to despise the diamonds' for the system they upheld reinforced that she, by just being a diamond at all, MUST be bad. she longed to be good but could conceive of no pathway to do so, except hiding her "villainy" permanently behind a "hero" mask and running away.

Rose couldn't even tolerate the slightest chance Pearl might say something, that's how deep the fear and shame ran, that she felt the need to do an absolutely horrible thing to a gem she very dearly loved in order to make sure her worst fear could never come true. people who need control need it to feel safe. it's kinda like that. the irony is that in trying desperately to hide that she's a diamond, she makes the fatal mistake of doing what a diamond does - controlling those beneath them in the hierarchy and reducing them down to their designed purpose. she tried hard not to be pearl's owner and not to treat pearl like her slave, but in this moment of finally escaping those roles, she embodies them briefly - with lasting consequences. it's an ego-dystonic betrayal of her own values impelled by self-hate and fear. it's heartbreaking for both of them.

Pearlrose's issues were varied but miscommunication was a big one. now they can't ever talk about it. what a difference it would have made if Rose hadn't done what she did. i wonder how often she wished she didn't (thought to herself, "pearl doesn't deserve that, how could i do that?"), then felt that fear creep back up, and maybe even wondered whether pearl's love was even genuine, or if it was totally hollow. in greg the babysitter she says, "When a gem is made, it's for a reason, they burst out of the ground already knowing what they're supposed to be, and then.. that's what they are. Forever." She says it almost sadly. like she's not sure she's anything but what she's always been, maybe even unsure pearl's anything but what she's always been. how can you trust someone to keep the deepest, most shameful secret of your life, if you're not even sure this person loves you sincerely?

we know Rose is tragically wrong here. she could grow and change. the gems are entirely capable of growth. every central character grows over the show- including Rose, we just watch it backwards! but she can't see herself for who she is and it's what doomed her.

isn't that the essential symptom of shame? Rose's self-loathing hurt not only herself, but Pearl (and Bismuth, Sapphire and Ruby, etc.) and she spent thousands of years healing from it. by hiding and hurting ourselves, we hurt others inevitably.

#steven universe #pearlrose #rose quartz #pearl su #rose quartz su #steven universe analysis

21 notes · View notes

ginnyw-potter · 1 day ago

Note

Do you consider yourself a Harry Potter fan? Ginny Weasley was a fan of him as a child, just because he's a character from books. Ginny wants this character for herself and continues to "never give up on dreaming about him." It's a pitiful sight, as she hasn't overcome her childish behavior. There is not a single example where it would be shown that Ginny loves Harry just like that. And you know what?! After everything Harry's been through, he needs a normal family of his own, which Ginny definitely can't give. Ginny is absolutely not kind. She calmly insults, ridicules, and physically beats people. Ginny is "understanding" only when it suits her. So you're Harry's biggest hater if you want Ginny Weasley for his wife. Ginny wouldn't even have looked at Harry if Harry wasn't Harry Potter, a hero.

Ginny Weasley sucks

hahah anon I turned my anon asks back on less than a day ago. I must occupy so much space in that brain of yours

I hope you heal from whatever ails you, anon.

Ginny's first meeting him she has heard tales of him for years and she's a curious kid! She just wants to meet him on the train. We don't know if there were literaly books about Harry, but she grows up with hearing of him. Not only through tales, but perhaps also through hushed voices by her parents, talking about a couple younger than them who had a kids the age of Ron who tragically died and leaving the boy to go to muggles.

Harry is a mystery to her and one she never hears the full story about because she's too young and her brothers would never tell her the details they find out. She is curious.

Harry watches her run after the train when it leaves. He is paying attention to her. He is the one running after the train to wave off his own kids in the epilogue. it's a full-circle moment.

Then she heard Ron talk about Harry all through summer and finds out he is every bit the boy he is said to be and brave. but he is still a mystery, who is suddenly in her kitchen?? Yeah she gets a little spooked. and then that nervousness builds up to the point that talking to him becomes hard and he gets put on an even bigger pedestal.

And you can hardly take him off that pedestal when he saves you from Voldemort and kills a basilisk.

After that point they start to gradually get to know each other because Harry stays at the Burrow etc. This is the point where she gets to actually know him more until they start dating She stops liking him for being famous and starts seeing all the wonderful sides of him.

They share the same values, humour and interests. They're both snarky. When Percy walks with his chest out to show off his badge while talking to (I believe it was) Penelope, they look at each other because they both think he's being ridiculous and need to hide their laughs. They don't even have to speak and they're not even close friends then but they laugh together.

I'm not sure where you got that Ginny isn't kind? While she appears to have many friends, she is often seen with people like Luna and Neville who are kind of seen as underdogs. Yes, she calls Luna Loony once, but everyone was doing it. They become friends and they're close. Ginny lost her brother at the Battle of Hogwarts and she doesn't stop helping, she goes out on the grounds (while Harry has been asked to sacrifice himself, which she also has to cope with) to get wounded people inside and is seen comforting a girl who doesn't want to fight anymore.

Ginny continues the DA together with Neville and Luna to protect the younger students and continues to speak up.

We never see her physically beating people? You know who is always ready to fight? Ron, who will absolutely throw down his wand to pummel someone. You know who actually punches Draco? Hermione.

We see Ginny use a bat-bogey hex twice. Once in the Department of Mysteries, against literal death eaters. The other time she uses it on Zacharias Smith, who is canonically just a little annoying. He was being nosy and trying to find out all the gossip about the battle in the Department of Mysteries and Ginny puts a stop to it.

She has the same amount of snark as Harry does, that's why it works out. Harry is never going to be normal and he knows that. what he needs is someone who isn't scared by him and his story. Ginny is the only other person he knows that has been possessed by Voldemort and the only person who dares to speak up to him when he gets in a mood.

He is not weak, he doesn't need someone who babies him. Ginny is gentle and kind, but also strong and firm when she needs to be. Someone who balances him out.

Most of all, that man needs to have someone where he feels safe and who is a comfort to him.

Remind me again, I'm suddenly a bit fuzzy on the details... who is said to be Harry's greatest source of comfort? I'm sure it'll come to me in a minute...

#anon #ask #reply

16 notes · View notes

agent-placeholder · 2 days ago

Text

I've been quite irritable as of late, so I apologize for my earlier response. This my actual response. First, understand that mixing MBTI functions and Socionics elements is controversial because they are defined very differently. In my opinion, Socionics and MBTI are two different attempts at describing the same thing, so comparing them to each other is useful for understanding different perspectives, but were developed under very different conditions, not to mention that Aushra, who did most of the work on classical Socionics, was influenced by the work of a whole host of other Russian psychologists. If they are combined like you seem to like to do nowadays, you have to understand you will be working with something that can't be called fully MBTI or fully Socionics.

socionics is full of arbitrary dichotomies and then incorrect ones too.

Reinin dichotomies are called reinin dichotomies because this mathematician called Reinin figured that the socion (term for all 16 sociotypes) could be split evenly between 15 dichotomies based on certain traits. They're not arbitrary, they're based on patterns in the arrangement of IMEs in the types that are shared between any eight types, which I will go into more detail about in my next few paragraphs. There's no incorrect dichotomies, but I will concede that people do disagree on what traits shared between types in certain dichotomies are, not to mention that some of them are nearly useless in typing, although how many dichotomies and which ones is a subject of debate in the Socionics community, with some saying almost all Reinin dichotomies are useless and most asserting that there are around 3-5 useful ones.

for example central and peripheral. central is se and periphral is ne users. in model g, gulenko says alpha and delta quadras are peripheral. hmmm, i wonder why?

You say this like it's some sort of gotcha moment. Alpha and Delta quadras are peripheral because they consist of types who value Ne and Si, which would correspond to all xNxPs and xSxJs in MBTI. This doesn't contradict anything. Also, "Ne users" isn't a thing. Socionics makes it very clear that all types use all elements, which makes sense because the eight elements altogether account for every aspect of reality that can be percieved by humans.

merry quadras are just fe users. judicious / decisive dichotomy is actually the same thing with central and peripheral. what makes a type decisive? being thing-centric. being se direct. what makes a type judicious? preference to see things from different perspectives. just how many times you will rename the same thing?

"Thing-centric" and "preference to see things from different perspectives" is meaningless. "Thing-centric" could refer to anyone from logical types to sensorical types to extroverted types. Everyone focuses on things, dipshit, it came free with being able to assign sentimental value to objects.

Just because a certain dichotomy has several names doesn't invalidate it's existence, especially because the central/peripheral dichotomy is absolutely crucial to socionics as a whole, being the fifth strongest dichotomy after the four basic Jungian ones, so of course different socionists are going to come up with different names that they think are fitting. Centrality/Peripherality is also referred to as Altruism/Antagonism, or Cooperative/Competitive, or Reasonable/Resolute, and there's probably three other ones I've never heard of, but every socionist knows what central/peripheral means.

People have different opinions about what traits correspond to the Central/Peripheral dichotomy. Generally, people agree that central types are competitive, more willing to push themselves to the limit to get ahead of others, and more willing to push others aside to get their hands on what they want. In contrast, peripheral types are characterized as being more relaxed and altruistic, with more emphasis on working primarily to get a safe, comfortable, and enjoyable life, and helping others achieve this standard of living as well. Central types are more likely to be center-stage in global affairs, and peripheral types are more likely to live on the periphery in relative peace, hence the rather abstract name. It is important to note that most Socionics authors are Alpha NTs (ILEs and LIIs) who are Peripheral types with Se in their Super-Ego block, which means that many descriptions of Se and related behavior paints us as ruthless, cold-hearted, almost psychopathic bastards who will do anything and everything to get our grubby little hands on as much power as possible - basically, central types and centrality as a whole get demonized. In my opinion, centrality is characterized by a willingness to act to get ahead of others rather than fall behind, from which logically follows the inherent belief that the world is a place of struggle where resources must be taken from others and protected from others, who surely wish to do the same. Peripherality, on the other hand, is characterized by a desire for personal comfort, safety, and enjoyment, from which logically follows the inherent belief that the world is a place of plenty where resources should be shared freely and mutual cooperation is more beneficial than competition. (Being a central type, my personal understanding of peripherality may be skewed.)

farsighted and carefree dichotomy makes no sense whatsoever. you can say this dichotomy is dipshittery just from the introductin text here: Carefree / Farsighted is one of the 15 Reinin dichotomies. More research is needed to fully understand this dichotomy. no matter how much research you put into this, it won’t make sense. entj is carefree with te and ni? esfp and estp is farsighted with ni inferior? intp (lii) and infp (eie) is farsighted (procrastination monsters) while istj and istp both carefree? pure bullshit.

Your entire mockery is a fallacy of personal incredulity.

Where did you get this from? Wikisocion? Sociotype.com? Doesn't matter, this is one of the old ones. By the way, did you know that there are several organizations in Eastern Europe that actually do rigorous studies from which empirical data is taken? Talanov's gargantuan questionnaires and statistics come to mind. You can find some of them here, and more of them here, which I found from this Reddit post and is confirmed legit by the Reddit socionavigator account, who goes into some detail about how the statistics are collected.

The Farsighted/Carefree dichotomy makes perfect sense if you read about it for more than 5 seconds. It is also known as Incidental/Cautious, and imo "incidental" describes the carefree dichotomy better than the word "carefree." More more abstractly, it is known as Field-dependent/Field-independent. Carefree types are either ENxx or ISxx, and Farsighted types are either ESxx or INxx. The dichotomy is named such because whoever named it thought those adjectives best fit the shared traits observed from either side of the dichotomy.

Carefree types have evalutory Ne and Si*, meaning they make strong judgements about those functions, which means that they are inclined to use information in the immediate environment/timescale rather than planning ahead very far or trying to anticipate everything, because they make strong judgements about the available resources ("Don't worry about bringing too much - if we need something, we can find it.") Their solutions to a problem are typically adapted to that specific problem. They make strong judgements about Si (material safety, comfort, homeostasis in a given environment) and Ne (potential opportunities and ways to overcome obstacles).

Farsighted types have evalutory Ni and Se, meaning they make strong judgements yada yada yada which means they are more inclined to try to proactively prepare for anticipated changes or issues. ("We should bring a camera, and two towels, and decide which places we want to see, and….") They make strong judgements about Ni (anticipated surprises and issues in the long-term) and Se (accumulated power advantages and material resources).

*Evalutory means the element is either one of your strongest (leading or demonstrative) or weakest (suggestive or PoLR) functions.

negativist / positivist dichotomy is not that bad but whoever this “reinin” guy was, he didn’t have ti for sure. you can’t possibly find the underlying ti “law” why some types are negativists and others are positivists. enfp is a negativist but esfp is a positivist? okay… you think, so maybe ne makes a person negativist because after all these types share fi at the same slot? no. because entp is a positivist according to him and estp is a negativist.

I will give you this point, because negativism/positivism is based on something which a large number of socionists, including myself, find "logically superfluous." There's this idea that elements have plus or minus signs, which affect how they manifest.

Logic has a minus sign when blocked* with intuition and a plus when blocked with sensing.

Ethics has a minus sign when blocked with sensing and a plus when blocked with intuition.

Intuition has a minus sign when blocked with ethics and a plus when blocked with logic.

Sensing has a minus sign when blocked with logic and a plus when blocked with ethics.

*blocked refers to the Ego/Id/Super-Ego/Super-Id blocks, which essentially refer to any pair of elements next to eachother in a sociotype. For example, the Ego block of an ILI is NiTe. This means they have Ni+ and Te- despite being negativist, but I'll get to that in a second.

Positivists are either static with a plus leading function or dynamic with a minus leading function, vice versa for negativists. Static corresponds to MBTI xxxP and dynamic corresponds to MBTI xxxJ.

While plus/minus signs are weird, I have been able to observe positivism and negativism in others and myself, though my sample size isn't large enough to find anything conclusive.

strategic / tactical is the worst. most obviously, intj (ili) is a strategist, not a tactician. ni dominance (intuition of time) is a “dynamic” function with which you simulate the future and that IS strategizing, straight up. if ni dominant, ne ignoring, se inferior is not strategic then you know you are reading a dimwit.

Damn, your last take was so solid I almost forgot how dogshit the rest of this post is.

Tactical/Strategic has the same deal as Carefree/Farsighted, where the name is just because someone thought it was the best descriptor for the behaviors shared between any eight types with a certain theoretical similarity, not because some fuckwad thought it sounded cool and tried to turn it into a dichotomy like you seem to think.

Ahem.

Tactical types have inert intuition and contact sensing, which is commonly interpreted as tactical types having clear methods with goals subject to manipulation, while strategic types have contact intuition and inert sensing, meaning they have clear goals with methods subject to manipulation. That's it. Because "goals" is linked to sensing, in this case it specifically refers to "things you want in real life" whether that be an object or state of being.

INTJs are strategic because their leading function is intuitive and their suggestive function is sensorical, which means they have inert intuition and contact sensing. That's it. That's what that fucking means, not your MBTI INTJ-glazing "b-but INTJs strategize!!"

THEN THERE IS INTERNAL/EXTERNAL WHICH IS THE DUMBEST! socionists believes ti, te, se and si are external functions while all the rest internal. for example fe is VERRRRY internal as we all know, lol. si is external? go to wikisocion your bible, click information elements. see what’s the first word describing si? let me help you: homeostasis. which of course we know external huh?

"External" means explicit. The information is there. It can be directly observed, or can be qualitatively/quantitatively measured. Ti, if A implies B, and from B follows C, then A implies C. We can measure/detect A, B, and C. It's there, it's explicit. Te, so-and-so has increased yield by 20% over the last nine days. We can measure that. It's there, it's explicit. Se, so-and-so object is made out of this material in this shape so it's relatively strong. We can measure that. You can put it under a hydraulic press and see at what number it breaks and check how big the number is, but if you have strong Se you wouldn't need to do that and you could just use so-and-so object to beat the shit out of someone because you know it won't break.

Oh also, Wikisocion isn't my bible. My bible is random Reddit posts from 8 years ago, lol.

more quotes from main si page: Si is associated with the ability to “internalize” sensations and to experience them in full detail….. A strong ability to recognize internal physical states in themselves……… Individuals who possess Si as a base function are drawn to situations that satisfy their inner physical experience………. The avoidance of discomfort is one of the primary motivations of these types. (discomfort happens within hence internal. you focus on your inner world and you keep things nice and cozy with your endless subjective rules there).

You know, I think your problem is that you take the dichotomy names too literally. (Also you're mistaking external/internal for extroverted/introverted, which is a reasonable mistake, but that's not my point nor is it yours.) They're just labels for something we don't have any one precise word for. That's why there's so many different names.

Si is the most "internal" of the external elements because it concerns subjective relations about material things, but it's still there. If you're physically uncomfortable or comfortable, there is directly observable quantitative/qualitative phenomena that influences your (dis)comfort. Maybe you haven't been eating healthy. Maybe your clothing is itchy, your shoes too tight. Maybe you haven't gotten much sleep. Maybe you have a headache. Maybe you're too hot or too cold. Maybe you're covered in sweat and dirt and really want a shower. Those things are there, they can be directly observed. Si is called homeostasis because that's how it manifests in types with particularly noticeable Si. There is directly observable phenomena that influences your bodily state, so you manipulate it to benefit and stabilize your bodily state as much as you can to keep yourself comfortable - stabilizing your internal bodily state despite changes in the external environment. That's what is meant by Si is homeostasis.

AH OKAY THEN. you meaan si is sensing so that’s what makes it external? your bully smacks you and you feel inner discomfort thus its cause is external? i have big news for you: ne is external too then. i see a cloud, then i think aaah this cloud looks like a witch riding a broom.

No. Ne is internal because it's implicit. Ne concerns things that can't be directly observed. It can't be qualitatively or quantitatively measured, at least, not on its own. It's not concrete. Si concerns sensations so it IS concrete. Your bully smacking you is external. Their hand is hitting your face, which you can see directly, and you feel pain in response, which you can feel directly.

"This cloud looks like a witch riding a broom" isn't close to external. It's certainly not directly observable, and definitely can't be quantitatively or qualitatively measured. What makes a cloud look more like a witch riding a broom than say, a car with a party hat, or a particularly fat pig, or literally anything else? It's not directly percievable. Human cognition aside, a cloud isn't anything other than a cloud with the explicit properties of a cloud.

Besides, "This cloud looks like a witch riding a broom" isn't an example of pure Ne. It's Ne working in tandem with Si (relations between material things -> aesthetics -> "Hey this looks like _") or arguably pure Si, because what a cloud looks like doesn't have anything to do with the potential of what that cloud could become. Then again, as an Ne polr my understanding of Ne isn't great, so maybe I'm wrong on this point.

and then ti is external? ti is logical analysis function and fi is ethical analysis function they are both internal. analysises made out of many inner steps and calculations. i mean you can make this external / internal dichotomy and show your left ear with your right hand going through your legs after fingering yourself while you are at it but it would just MUCK the typology and wouldn’t help anyhing.

Vulgar. I already explained why Ti is external, but I guess I should compare it to Fi to explain further just how one is external and one is internal.

Ti describes the relationships between explicit, inanimate phenomena. ILEs and LIIs excel in fundemental sciences, where delineation and analysis of inanimate things is crucial. Think pure math - you need to be able to think strongly about abstract, logically consistent relationships. SLEs and LSIs, besides being good at the normal engineering stuff, excel in resource and organizational management. Think any sort of military or law enforcement, where you need to "engineer" a system that is secure, resistant to stress, and can be viably enforced. Ti is external in that concerns variables and the relations between variables that have directly observable properties, or that can be qualitatively or quantitatively measured. Basically, you can slap numbers on it, or you can see it.

Fi describes the relationships between implicit, animate phenomena, so it is internal. People, usually, but this also counts the attitudes people have towards certain ideas and objects. It's common for ethical types to mentally imbue inanimate objects with personalities, or animate traits (ever heard an INFx apologize to a piece of furniture? I have.)

IEEs and EIIs excel at understanding the core personality, motivations, and "morality" of a person. Think applied psychology, uncovering and addressing "deep" issues in an individual. SEEs and ESIs excel at, essentially, identifying people's "morality" and understanding their desires and quality of character. They're good at networking in unfavorable environments, facilitating exchange of resources between people who want them and establishing contacts (not without something in return) and protecting themselves from "evil" people who may wish to do them harm. (My personal understanding of Fi isn't great either, so the type examples might be incorrect or inapplicable, but the "implicitness" of Fi should be clear.)

The character of a person isn't directly observable. The relationships between people aren't directly observable. Their desires and attitudes aren't directly observable. Same thing with Fe. While it is visible, emotional expression is just expression of Fe. A person's fading and rising emotions aren't directly observable. The atmosphere or collective emotions of a crowd isn't directly observable. You can't see, touch, smell, or otherwise directly percieve these things. There's no feelings-o-meter that can measure the closeness of a relationship or the strength of an emotion and give you a number. That's why it's internal - or implicit, whichever term you prefer.

Maybe read about things before you go on a social media rant about them.

socionics is full of arbitrary dichotomies and then incorrect ones too.

for example central and peripheral. central is se and periphral is ne users. in model g, gulenko says alpha and delta quadras are peripheral. hmmm, i wonder why?

merry quadras are just fe users.

judicious / decisive dichotomy is actually the same thing with central and peripheral. what makes a type decisive? being thing-centric. being se direct. what makes a type judicious? preference to see things from different perspectives.

just how many times you will rename the same thing?

farsighted and carefree dichotomy makes no sense whatsoever. you can say this dichotomy is dipshittery just from the introductin text here:

Carefree / Farsighted is one of the 15 Reinin dichotomies. More research is needed to fully understand this dichotomy.

no matter how much research you put into this, it won’t make sense. entj is carefree with te and ni? esfp and estp is farsighted with ni inferior? intp (lii) and infp (eie) is farsighted (procrastination monsters) while istj and istp both carefree? pure bullshit.

THEN THERE IS INTERNAL/EXTERNAL WHICH IS THE DUMBEST!

socionists believes ti, te, se and si are external functions while all the rest internal. for example fe is VERRRRY internal as we all know, lol.

si is external? go to wikisocion your bible, click information elements. see what’s the first word describing si? let me help you: homeostasis. which of course we know external huh?

visit my main blog @ demonwindu.wordpress.com

#mbti #mbti types #mbti personalities

16 notes · View notes

cowboyfarooqlane · 25 days ago

Text

I hate when I feel negatively about myself and I am aware logically that those things don’t determine my worth but I can’t change how I feel!! And then I feel bad about feeling bad 🔄

#Beauty is really a curse #by which I mean the concept—not being beautiful.#That’s just one example of this that I think everyone understands #I actually think that I’m quite pretty tbh like I know in some sense that I’m beautiful but I don’t always feel that that is true #but that’s not even what I try to convince myself of! I just want to not equate that to my social value and worth but like in my relationsh #I’m aware of the fact that I felt that because they were more beautiful than me I felt weirdly grateful (?) and like I had to make up for #that in some way #Not a driving factor in the relationship but it was a weird emotional undercurrent that I tried to suppress and get over that none the less #would occasionally bubble up and make me make weird decisions #But a more emotionally relevant example is my trouble with my desire to be useful and be good #and help other people so I’ll be worthy and people will like me #like I think it’s a strength of mine that I’m caring and like to help other people #but when it comes at the expense of myself… that’s not great. And I don’t want to equate my worth to my usefulness #I’m not a shovel…#*I feel like I should say I don’t blame myself for insecurity about my appearance. But calling it insecurity feels weird it more feels like #an obsession or soemthing #I used to repeatedly go to the mirror to look at my face and reassure myself that the ugliness I felt wasn’t reflected back #and I would be like oh I look fine and then later feel intense worry about that again #so in some ways it wasn’t that I didn’t like how I looked… but a preoccupation with it and fear of perception #like I would feel anxious when looking at people or being viewed especially when with someone I felt was beautiful #and then later I’ll get over it and like how I look without that nagging feeling #I think it also crops up in connection to sadness and loneliness/feeling a lack of connection as well as general anxiety about my worth #Ugh idk what I’m saying

0 notes

puppppppppy · 8 months ago

Text

i feel like im not making any sense but does anyone else feel like there are stories that let u run with them and ones that spell everything out for you

#im reading that post that says artists are directors of audience reaction and not its dictator:#'you cannot guarantee that everyone viewing your work will react as you are trying t make them react. a good artist knows that this is what #allows work to breath. by definition you cannot have art where the viewer brings nothing to the table ... this is why you have to let go of #the urge to plainly state in text exactly how you think the work should be interpreted ... its better to be misinterpreted sometimes than #to talk down to your audience. you wont even gain any control that way; people will still develop their opinions no matter what you do #im thinking abt this again cuz i was thinking maybe the thing that lets adventure time work so well the way it does is cuz it doesnt #take itself too seriously that it gives the audience enough room to fuck with subtext and then fuck with them back yknow. i think it was #mentioned somewhere that they werent even planning to run with the postapocalyptic elements that are hinted in the show but changed their #mind after the one off with the frozen businessmen and dominoed into marcy and simons backstory. on the other side there are stories that #explain too much to let the story speak for itself and i think it ends up having to do more with the crew trying to lead ppl in a certain #direction than expand on what they have and i see a lot of this with miraculous. like when interviews and tweets are used as word of god in #arguments and it becomes a little stifling to play around with it knowing the creator can just interject. u can say its the crews effort to #engage with its audience but it feels more like micromanaging. and none of this is to say there ISNT room for stories that spell things out #theyre just suited for different things. if sesame street tried abstract approaches to themes and nuance itd be counterproductive #a lot of things fly over my head so i need help picking things apart to get it- but it doesnt have to be from the story itself. ive picked #picked up or built on my own interpretations listening to other ppl share their thoughts which creates conversation around the same thing #sometimes stories will spell things out for you without being so obvious abt it that it feels like its woven into the text. my fav example #for this might be ATLA using younger characters as its main cast but instead of feeling like its dumbed down for kids to understand why war #is bad its framed from a childs point of view so younger audiences can pick up on it by relating to the characters. maybe an 8 year old #wont get how geopolitics works but at least they get 'hey the world is a little more complicated than everyone vs. fire nation'. same for #steven universe bc its like theyre trying to describe and put feelings into words that kids might not have so they have smth to start with #especially with the metaphors around relationships bc even if it looks unfamiliar as a kid now maybe the hope is for it to be smth you can #look back to. thats why it feels like these shows grew up with me.. instead of saving difficult topics for 'when im ready for it'#as if its preparing me for high school it gave me smth to turn in my hands and revisit again and again as i grow. stories that never #treated u as dumb all along. just someone who could learn and come back to it as many times as u need to. i loved SU for the longest time #but i felt guilty for enjoying it hearing the way ppl bash it. bc i was a kid and thought other ppl understood it better than me and made #feel bad for leaning into the message of paying forward kindness and not questioning why steven didnt punish the diamonds or hold them #accountable. but im rewatching it now and going oh. i still love this show and what it was trying to teach me #yapping #diary

101 notes · View notes

bumblingbabooshka · 7 days ago

Text

Every time I watch the cold open of Memorial and B'Elanna tells Tom about how she ASSEMBLED a 50's television set from SCRATCH just to surprise him (there's no reason beyond that - just an incredibly sweet and thoughtful gesture) and replicated popcorn for him to eat while he watches and Tom says "They didn't have remote controls in the 50's ♥ Also where's my beer?" I contemplate murder ESPECIALLY because B'Elanna responds cheerfully to it - GIRL!!! LEAVE HIM!!!!!! IS HE SUPPOSED TO BE CHARMING IN THIS SCENE????

#AND THEN SHE TRIES TO TELL HIM ABOUT HER DAY AND HE DOESN'T EVEN LISTEN TO HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#-KILLINGHIM-#also a line that always makes me smile is in the mess hall scene #a group of crewmen enter all laughing and one person says 'that's the best joke I've ever heard!' it's so on the nose and I love it #also I LOOOVE the scene with Neelix Chakotay Tom and Harry all bouncing off each other in the briefing room #AND HARRY GETS TO SHIIINE~!!!!#anyway Tom is a shitty enough partner he does NOT need violent war ptsd #ALSO!!! Seven & Neelix are a severely underrated friendship they're really sweet to each other #'Memorial' is a really good episode I love the sci-fi concept and the intensity from everyone <3 #Chakotay's dry: 'Fascinating.'#I also love Neelix's resistance to turning off the memorial - it fits so well with his character (and backstory)#and I love the tried and true 'every alien planet is just some park <3'#I forgot Janeway made them recharge the insta-ptsd memorial and was gonna be like WHAT???? WILD CHOICE MA'AM #but then she put a content warning in space and I waslike OK...ok!! That I can accept v_v hehehe #I 100% understand both sides of the 'do we leave it on or turn it off?' debate bc it DOES instantly give you debilitating war ptsd #so it's not like it's a heartless or un-empathetic choice to want to turn it off - I think Janeway's solution is the best of both worlds #I am interested in how being spontaneously afflicted with severe ptsd-causing memories of brutally murdering almost a hundred people would #mm....affect almost the entire crew (I say 'almost' bc it doesn't seem like it was EVERYONE: Naomi - Seven - and Tuvok are all fine for #example)#like what if someone (and this is dark but in a real-world way a real concern) kills themself because of that guilt??#what if the ship gets in a battle and around half the crew starts experiencing flashbacks??#Again - Voyager not having a counselor/therapist is HORRIFIC

38 notes · View notes

feyreshumanheart · 3 days ago

Text

Okay, I had to pull out my books but there's some very important context I think this is missing and I just wanted to explain better since I wrote my first response quickly-

the tithe itself is described to be income based...

The Tithe is described based on both income and "status" so it's actually not necessarily egalitarian or accommodating to the less well off like I think you're assuming. Just because it's income and status based doesn't mean it's fair per that income and status either.

Like there's been tons of historic examples of taxes that are supposedly on paper appropriate but are actually asking an undue amount- offhand, I can think of some examples of governments demanding high portions of a harvest that was supposedly fair but wasn't because the harvest was rough that year but the amount didn't reflect that, local officials misrepresenting the harvests, etc. and literally led to farmers starving because too much of their crop was seized by the government.

So going outside of acotar for a second, I don't think it's fair to assume income-based means that the taxes were reasonable and manageable because that assumes 1. the government understands and knows the exact income consistently, 2. asks an amount of that income that leaves enough for the individuals to live off of.

Back to acotar - I also don't know if I think giving just 3 months when it's established everyone is rebuilding is a lot of time after 50 years of slavery; this is how Lucien describes the state of the people who are not noble or "favored" right before the Tithe we see:

Lucien literally says they're still "trying to remember what it is to be normal" and Feyre says the village they see of the normal citizens is "halfway to being built"; Tamlin didn't tax them during Amarantha's rule because they were literally locked up or being worked for Amarantha and then they only get 3 months after to get things sorted and we know for a fact that theyare far off from getting everything in order.

which i did get the impression tamlin did not plan to do that

I'm curious why because Tamlin suggests he would and that the wraiths should know "the consequences" in the Tithe scene:

we only get one person who cannot pay for it, which is the water wraith, which canonically consumes everything in front of them, which makes it impossible for them to actually have something left over to pay the tithe

Putting aside that the fact that we have any examples of someone willing to risk the consequences because they literally can't pay at all (vs. not a single indication of this ever being an issue in Velaris in the 4x the time we spend there compared to the Spring Court), Lucien tells Feyre that the Tithes are not routinely paid and this is way more common than you suggest:

"It can get ugly" and "keeping track of who does and doesn't show up, who doesn't pay" tells us that it happens frequently enough that Lucien is expected to keep a tally as standard for a Tithe. The difference with the water wraith is that she showed up to ask for mercy and the whole scene in showed to us, not that she's considered unusual for having issues not paying.

while velaris is generally prosperous. we do learn in frost and starlight (which is where i'm at right now) that there are slums. nesta is living in one.

No, Nesta is living in what's considered the worst Velaris has to offer and it's notable because Velaris has no slums:

This is Cassian's description of where Nesta lives, as somewhere that's "grim" compared to Velaris as a whole, but way better than other places he's stayed, and reconfirming "the city itself had no slums".

I definitely feel you on the Tithe as a "show of power" and equating it to almost feudal practices though because the way Lucien described Tamlin giving protection in exchange for the Tithe made me think of that. A sales tax, by contrast, is much more modern.

however. there is never any pushback. amren presents it as a good thing, as superior, they are being unreliable narrators of their own system, and i find that interesting! i prefer to read this as unreliable narrators and illiteracy, than a SJM mistake

Feyre and Amren are representing what sjm is showing us and wants to get across, the Tithe isn't good.

And I think the disconnect is that you're thinking the Tithe as implemented is done in a way that asks a fair amount of the least fortunate and should therefore be a more progressive system than just a sales tax- when that's not what we're told and shown.

And Tamlin's explanation to Feyre on why the Tithe exists, why he asks stuff of his people this way and enforces it highlights that it's less progressive, which is what Feyre (and presumably Amren) are responding to:

Here Tamlin establishes why exactly he enacts the Tithe and demands of the water wraith and it establishes several aspects of why this is a broken policy that Feyre takes issue over "the unfairness of":

They don't need this tax from the wraith or others because what they're being given is a big deal to those less fortunate but not a big deal for a High Lord

When asked why not instead help his people who can't pay, Tamlin says "we have enough to deal with as it is" and that "handouts" won't be helpful

He also says the only reason he does this system even though it demands things that aren't needed of his people is "that's the way it is" and even cites prior High Lords, including his canonically bad guy father, and how they did things that he won't adapt, change, or rethink

The wraiths suffering is acceptable because Tamlin doesn't want to set a precedent that it's ever okay to have "exceptions"

He doesn't want Feyre to help anyone who can't pay because of the optics making him, the Court, look weak in his mind; he considers it a flaw to give "handouts" and "help" because enforcing the rule is a show of the strength of his rule

Feyre specifically calls out that she doesn't want to "let them starve, because of some ridiculous rule that your ancestors invented"

This has nothing to do with Feyre's literacy or knowledge of taxes- arguably Tamlin is shown to give less thought to and understanding of tax systems than Feyre despite being not just literate but enacting taxes for centuries.

In the centuries of rule, Tamlin has never considered deviating from or updating a tax system that came from his ancestors that is noted to "get ugly", asks for things that "they don't need", and has people unable to pay at all and even being hunted down for it. And his reasoning is because "that's the way it is".

Feyre is reacting to all of that, not a lack of understanding taxes. Your original question was:

considering she was poor, wouldn't she understand that a tax on bread harms families a lot more??

And the fact is in the books she sees and is told and shown that the Tithe in fact harms families more because it's asking things that aren't needed to directly benefit the most well off (the High Lord). Meanwhile, your concern about this:

a sales tax means that both rhys (who is rolling in money) and the poorest velaris resident, is paying the same tax, which is making goods and services more expensive.

Is also something Feyre sees Rhys take a different approach to:

Rhys actively speaks to the locals of Velaris, hears their concerns about prices increasing and confirms they'll do something about it. It's a purposeful contrast from when Feyre asks why doesn't Tamlin help his people who can't pay and he says they don't have time for it.

And then there's the context of Amren and Feyre's discussion of the Tithe:

Feyre asks about a Tithe in the Night Court because Amren says that Rhys doesn't punish rule-breaking that is reasonable/well-intentioned. This makes Feyre think of how Tamlin doesn't care about the reasons, the rules are the rules with the Tithe and enforced with big consequences if you aren't obedient.

And that's what I meant about your post ignoring what we're shown is true and thinking these systems should mean things when we're shown/told otherwise. These concerns you have aren't shown to be true and in fact, the opposite is. It's a fantasy and sjm doesn't give a ton of detail on economic policies or whatever but Feyre, Amren, and everyone are only responding to what is in-universe, not maybe what potentially could be more logical with these systems.

Though I'll say, any system that's good on paper can easily become bad depending on how it's enforced, corruption, etc. and I think that's what we're shown with the Tithe. In theory, could be progressive; in practice, it's exploitative of the least well off and not effective really.

I think maybe your question should be not why does everyone acknowledge that the Tithe is bad in-universe (because it's shown to be in practice and not well-reasoned) but why did sjm write a sales tax as more progressive and equitable compared to a system that is tied to income.

To which I would guess, it's because she purposefully contrasts aspects like traditional, set in their ways, formal, archaic and brutal rule in Spring Court vs. progressive, modern, forward-thinking "dreamers" in Night Court rule. And since the Tithe seemingly has inspiration from the feudal era whereas sjm herself has definitely paid sales taxes, that might be how she got to a tithe is barbaric vs. a sales tax modern.

i know it is not the point, but i cannot stop thinking about the tax system in acotar

in the spring court, which is an agrarian land, which does not appear to have large cities, they have a tithe. which is usually a certain percentage of your income + it was used in older times as an opportunity for people to come before their ruler and ask for what they needed. [i will not get into tamlin's actions surrounding this cause... really, i just want to talk about taxes].

in a court of mist and fury, amren says that people in velaris have to pay a sales tax (what illyrians and the court of nightmares pay is not clear).

and feyre sees this as a good thing, taxes vs tithe, but i'd actually argue, that the system tamlin had, is usually regarded in modern times to be more progressive, as it effects those with greater means the heaviest.

a sales tax means that both rhys (who is rolling in money) and the poorest velaris resident, is paying the same tax, which is making goods and services more expensive. therefore, the same good is a lot more expensive (to the overall budget) to someone who is poorer, while for rhys, it is a bargain! think about it: he is not paying income tax on his enormous wealth!

like, i know feyre did not know how to read. but... she had to hunt. she had to haggle in the market. were there no taxes on the human land?? considering she was poor, wouldn't she understand that a tax on bread harms families a lot more??

21 notes · View notes