#This is obviously a bit of a strawman

[sluttyquarantinetheory]

What I hate about the fandom's desire to constantly drag out Aveline's "shut up, whore" is that it so obviously pulls it out of the context for the exact purpose of strawmanning both Isabella and Aveline to further their bitch fit.

That companion dialogue is such a good transition point in their relationship. It's a joking and friendly conversation and every critique argument of "Aveline called her a whore" "well Isabella called her mannish" is deliberately missing the point of that conversation.

I know some of you are pissing on the poor but there is a reason nobody wants to remember Isabella's follow up of "that's my girl." It's a lighthearted chat about not caring what others thinks. It's a test of the waters that builds a rapport of friendship between the two by establishing where the joke lines lie.

It's actually an excellent character moment for the both of them. It's not bad writing to have characters say things like this. Y'all want to live in Everyone is Friends Land, but refuse to believe that sometimes friends are a bit dickish to each other for fun.

[x-lee-cya]

maybe-hot-take here: cc!cuphead and mugman, or at LEAST cc!mugman, both think themselves to be bad people.

think about it. mugman, in the morality debate w the devil, literally SAYS, OUT LOUD, the scenario of thinking he’s in the right when he’s not that he himself is now stuck in. now, i’m not saying with this that cc!mugman isn’t arrogant and DOESN’T have a god complex of some kind a mile long, because it’s plain by now that he DOES — but being arrogant and thinking yourself better then others doesn’t equal into actually, genuinely thinking that the things you do and the actions you commit are unequivocally, morally good.

Look at the morality debate another time;

(credit, obviously, to brightgoat, former owner of casino cups)

now, we COULD focus on mugman’s reaction & all that, but i want y’all to look at the spades card. what’s its reaction to the devil’s card popping up? defensiveness, crouching down as one would do in a fight, all hallmarks of the fight that while the debate may SEEM civil, going by the (fairly obvious, i’d say) assumption that the cards are connected to devil’s & mugman’s emotions. look at the spade (& clubs) cade when the devil says “nonono, we’re talking about you-”

the spade card is disarmed, frightened. the club’s, on the other hand, is just surprised.

but let’s move on from that small detour for a bit. what does mugman say in the second ss? “A villain does not always need bad intentions, some bad people don’t think of themselves as bad, what makes a villain is their actions.”

and the devil replies with [paraphrasing] “doesn’t that make you the villian?”

and mugman replies with the fancy-people equivalent of “yes, but”. now, we may not ever know just what EXACTLY mugman would’ve said after that “but”, but i wager we can guess at what he might’ve been about to say. “we recognised our actions as wrong but i never said our actions weren’t wrong, i said that we had a morally good REASON, therefore making us NOT the villains in that specific scenario.” now, is there a multitude of OTHER things that mugman could’ve said there ‘fore the devil cut him off? yes, yes there are. but to make my point here, i’m going to go off of the assumption that THAT is what mugman was going to say.

the devil next said, “Villains can still recognise their actions and commit them, Mug.” mugman doesn’t respond to this remark; instead deflects with the fact that the devil’s evolution of the scenario/situation isn’t fair bc it doesn’t consider the context. i’ll get back on that l’il remark later, but the devil’s response is to IMMEDIATELY say [again, paraphrasing] “But it’s your debt we’re talking about here, don’t try and deflect off of the previous conversation.” when mugman says “no, this is about the debtors,” that’s a plain lie, because YES, the convo/debate began by talking about the debtors, but it evolved into a conversation/debate on whether the BROS were being morally good during the events of the game, so it IS about mugman’s debt. mugman & cuphead’s debt, technically, but both the devil & mugman’re ignoring that during that portion of the convo, so we’re ignoring it aswell.

strawmanning. what’s the definition of strawmanning? from goofle: “Straw man occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes. So, instead of attacking the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version that is attacked.”

when the devil says that mugman is strawmanning here, he is, as far as i can tell, right. mugman is strawmanning here; he clearly doesn’t entirely believe in what he’s saying, based purely off of how SURPRISED he is when the devil calls him out. i can say, from personal experience, that that isn’t how a person who truly believes in what they’re saying reacts when someone accuses them of lying - if they DO truly believe in what they’re saying/that what they’re saying is true, then getting told you’re lying WHEN YOU’RE NOT is incredibly frustrating. you don’t get caught-off guard, caught-out; you get angry, you get frustrated, and what a person normally does at being accused like this is either double down on their side of the argument, or they just drop the topic altogether because it frustrates one too much to continue interacting with someone who won’t believe them.

mugman does neither of these. what he does do is feebly try to deflect, deny, and move the debate back to the topic the whole thing BEGAN with- the debtors, & the devil accusedly taking advantage of people with his deals- and when that fails and devil turns to dice, the (obviously biased; i’m sorry dice ily but c’mon, you can’t deny he was) judge of the debate, for support and dice gives it, what does mugman do?

he stops trying to argue his point, and while yes, giving in and letting the other person win IS as i said a sign of someone who truly believes in what they’re saying, but here it’s obvious that that’s not the case. mugman, here, is giving in purely because he KNOWS he’s been caught-out, and there’s therefore no point trying to argue for something he doesn’t believe in.

but what exactly in that argument does he not believe in? the fact the debtors were taken advantage of in their deals? he definitely and wholeheartedly believes in that, even if not exactly in the way he presented it as to the devil, purely because if he hadn’t he wouldn’t’ve started that debate IN THE FIRST PLACE. so he believes in that, at least. so is the thing mugman doesn’t believe in - himself? does he not believe in the morality of him and his brother?

does he not think that he, himself, is morally good? if so, does he believe that he is morally BAD, or does mugman simply believe that he isn’t morally good? i wager he believes the former.

let’s take a quick look at Mortal Blues, aka the “Mugsy’s Mental Breakdown” comic strip(s).

here, we see mugman act the most arrogant we have ever seen him act in the entire 'verse of casino cups. he is flaunting his accomplishments in the middle of an honest-to-god mental breakdown and is clearly saying it all more to himself then to quadratus, saying it all aloud as a way to reassure himself that he deserves more, he deserves to know, he deserves to KNOW. so, clearly, he should ALSO be assuring himself of his morality, his goodness—yet he doesn’t mention it once in his list/rant about his 'accomplishments' (or more accurately, traumas).

he lists fighting satan himself, dying and coming back over and over and over again, and he rants about the injustice of it, about how he deserves more then this. how he deserves to know. he lists these things, in my eyes, as a way to reassure himself that he DOES deserve it, he’s done more then enough in his life to be deserving enough, to be powerful enough to know, so it’s only logical that he’d list off his moral goodness alongside all those other things: he’s above LUCIFER HIMSELF in his morality even if not in knowledge, he’s steadfast, he doesn’t break in his beliefs whether by actions or words, he is GOOD where so many other people aren’t-

but he doesn’t say anything of the sort, simply because it wouldn’t be true - or at least, deep down, he doesn’t THINK it’s true.

now, i’m not here to argue about whether or not mugman truly IS morally good or not (because in my genuine opinion, cc!mugman’s morality is more neutral then either good OR bad in my pov for reasons ill prolly expand upon in some other post someday); i’m just here to argue that mugman believes himself to be morally bad. and really, when you look at it all pilled up together, well—the evidence’s kinda hard to miss.

tl;dr: CC!Mugman Has Issues & Desperately Needs Therapy, Here’s (One Of) the Reasons Why

[blushft]

Gordon Freemind Isn't a Total Piece of Shit – Here's Why!

[THIS POST HAS 2 PARTS DUE TO TUMBLR'S VIDEO LIMIT. DO NOT REBLOG WITHOUT THE ADDITION.]

I bet you’re wondering why I called you here today! Or maybe not, because it says it in the title. And I didn’t call you here, you’re just reading my post. AND! I would advise you continue to do so, lest you fail to dismantle Gordon’s facade!

Getting to the point, many of us have seen fan content for all sorts of characters that fall outside of what we’d consider to be accurate. Doubly so for nuanced characters, or characters that are unreliable narrators. Unfortunately, this exposes Gordon to quite a bit of that misinterpretation.

Gordon behaves in an egotistical and self-interested manner. We all know this! Though some use this fact as leeway to imply that he’s a violent person, or somehow takes some form of enjoyment in the killing he has to do.

In canon, we see him express distaste for killing, and not all killing is indiscriminate. At times he even tries to help people! Despite the circumstances, he does make efforts to maintain some semblance of a moral code.

Hold the jeers! I hear you, I hear you. “Ian Riley, you’re insane! Gordon sucks, through and through! You can’t prove anything!”

Well that’s where you’re wrong, strawman I have inserted in the post for comedic effect! I have proof.

(Note: This is not a comprehensive list! These are things my friend, @adrian-sheppy, or myself remember/have made notes of in the past. There are likely many more circumstances in which Gordon is ‘nice’. So without further ado, the evidence.)

01 - BECAUSE I WON'T!

Starting off, we have Gordon running extremely late, so much so that he’s worried he’ll be fired. Yet he realizes the guard is having trouble with his computer and stops to try and help fix it. He’s not even sure that he isn’t fired yet – he says “maybe [he’s] not fired.” Who knows, helping them out could push him into fire-ably late territory, and yet he stops anyway! Is he being kind or humble about it? No, of course not, he isn’t a humble person. 

But on paper, what he’s doing is trying to help someone out at virtually no benefit to himself (other than looking smart, though that isn’t exactly a tangible reward). Even when he messes up, he only gets mad when they tell him off specifically for “trying to get [him] in trouble.” Gordon was trying to be nice, but his effort didn’t come across, which pissed him off. He doesn’t know how to react well to rejection.

02 - YOUR OTHER HAND!

Another example of Gordon trying to help someone. A moment ago he was prodding this scientist for answers about a dead guard, implying that he had somehow killed him. But upon the catwalk collapsing, he offers a hand to try and help him up. To Gordon, the scientist very well could’ve killed that guard, and yet he still tries to pull the scientist to safety. 

He didn’t have to do this. He could’ve walked away after realizing that the trams aren’t a way out, and brushed the death off as the scientist probably being a murderer anyway. And yet he was willing to help pull the guy back to safety – something he’s under no obligation to do. And assuming he actually suspects the scientist of murder, it would pose a threat to Gordon to save him! Yet his first instinct is to offer a helping hand.

03 - SORRY! DIDN'T MEAN TO KILL YOU!

The people falling in the elevator are some of the first people Gordon kills. This wasn’t intentional, obviously. He’s never killed someone before this, and definitely isn’t thrilled about it. He questions what he should do about it, even though they’re dead, and logically he can just move on without needing to “do” anything.

You can’t soundly make the argument that Gordon would knowingly kill people without reason. He feels bad about this. Bad enough to say sorry to a pile of corpses, and bad enough to try and justify their deaths to himself. Hoping that at least if they sucked, their deaths wouldn’t be such a bad thing! He doesn’t like this. Killing people was never something he actually wanted to do.

(Note: The following episode opens with Gordon saying that he’s always wanted to kill people by pressing a button. He says it’s not what he was hoping for, and guesses that maybe it’s because he committed manslaughter and not murder. Gordon makes many hyperbolic statements throughout the series, and much of the “violent intent” he’s given are idle fantasies borne of frustration. He is not actually going to make a button to kill people. It’s a joke.)

04 - BIG BIG DIFFERENCE!

In this one, Gordon is expressing concern for someone he’s just met. This scientist helped him through a few doors, but before this they’d never spoken. This isn’t someone he knows, just someone who’s helping him out. This is their last interaction, and neither of them see each other after this. They don’t intend to. The extent of help he can provide only reaches this far, meaning his welfare is the least of Gordon’s tangible problems. If he dies, it doesn’t affect Gordon at all.

And still, Gordon expresses concern, urging him to take care of himself. After this he does speak semi-harshly about him, saying it’s ironic that the one helpful guy is gonna get himself killed. He can’t do anything more for Gordon, but he’s still upset that the man is continuing to walk on his injured leg. He doesn’t want him to die.

05 - >_<

This one is damning evidence. What kind of stone-cold killer profusely apologizes for simply scaring someone? Gordon shot the gun next to the scientist by accident, who freaked out because of the perceived attempt on his life. And yet Gordon apologizes several times in succession, seeming genuinely upset that he’d scared someone like that.

Why would someone who enjoys killing be so upset by accidentally firing at someone and just scaring them? Why would that person then anxiously apologize for freaking the guy out? Because Gordon isn't that kind of person. He isn’t enjoying this. He’s sorry!

06 - BACKGROUND CHECK

This one gives more great groundwork for Gordon’s characterization, showing some of the cracks in his unreliable narration. The only thing on his criminal record is an acquittal for petty theft. Accused of shoplifting once. I find this one delightful. On paper he’s just a nerd. A complete dork. He talks big shit, but has absolutely nothing to show for it. He acts like someone to be feared – someone tougher than you. 

But he isn’t! He’s a nerdy guy with low empathy and a penchant for edgy sarcasm. He just wants to do physics work in peace. He’s not their guy.

07 - I'LL GO EASY ON YOU

Again, we have Gordon showing kindness to someone! This guy was trying to be helpful prior to this clip, pointing to safety and offering him supplies – though he doesn’t have much. Gordon gets mad at him because he really only has bullets to offer, and he wanted drugs. He starts complaining to the guy and getting rude, but gets closer and determines that he’s probably having a bad trip.

Upon the determination, Gordon lays off, saying he’ll go easy on him. A moment ago he was getting frustrated, but after realizing that the guy is having a tough time, backs off. Being mean to someone during a bad trip isn’t going to hurt them in any meaningful way, but he still decides against it. This man’s welfare, again, has zero bearing on Gordon and his life, but he decided to be nice regardless. He’s not trying to hurt people – not even emotionally!

08 - C'MON GORDON!

Here we see Gordon admitting that he would feel bad about the soldiers he’s killed if his life wasn’t constantly on the line. This is just something he has to do to survive. He can’t make compromises or spare anyone when they’re all trying to kill him! He’d like to have the luxury of morality, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t feel good about killing people, it’s just him finding it difficult to be upset about it. It’s not violent behavior, it’s desensitization.

This piece is also a nice look into his domestic behavior. There’s the implication that he would go easier on someone who he keeps beating in a game – similar to how he went easier on the man having a bad trip in the previous example! Again, dismantling the “super cool” facade he tries to wrap himself in. He most certainly doesn’t want to kill people, and even reveals that he’d show a degree of kindness to others in an everyday setting.

09 - THE LEARNING PROCESS

This is an interesting one! Gordon has had absolutely zero positive experiences with aliens. Not one. Every other vortigaunt he’s met, he’s had to kill in self-defense. And yet he didn’t shoot this one because it didn’t do anything to hurt him. The smart decision in this case – or, the one that gives him the best odds of survival – would’ve been to open fire the moment he saw them.

In Freeman’s Mind 2, he remarks that he’s glad humanity “domesticated” the vortigaunts. At this point he still isn’t aware that vortigaunts are sentient beings, but expresses no desire for them to get hurt/die. He just wants them to stop hurting him. He sees them as separate from humans, lesser, and yet he shows mercy.

10 - ETHICAL DILEMMA THEATER

Ah yes, ethical dilemma theater! One of my favorites. Every single marine that Gordon’s come across has open fired without a second thought, or expressed clear intent to hurt him. He’s encountered quite a few by now, too. He has absolutely no reason to believe that they won’t immediately try to kill him upon realizing he’s there. But they haven’t shot at him yet. To Gordon’s knowledge these two haven’t hurt anyone. So do they deserve to die?

In most other Mind Series, the protagonist’s view on the marines shifts immediately upon realizing that they’re hostile. The killing from that point on becomes indiscriminate. Anyone else in this situation would fire immediately. But Gordon can’t bring himself to fire. They’re not hurting anyone. They haven’t done anything yet and haven’t expressed clear intent to do him harm. These are easily justified deaths to anyone else in this situation. But not Gordon. As far as he’s aware, they’re innocent. He can’t logically justify killing them.

(Note: I think the contrast between Gordon and the others is really interesting. Stark especially. Stark makes it his goal to save as many people as he can. He thinks it’s his fault, so he has to do something about it. At first he tries to talk some marines down from violence, but upon realizing they’re trying to kill him, shows little mercy. Gordon’s been shot at more at this point vs. when Stark realizes he’s a target, yet he still has this internal conflict, because they haven’t done anything wrong.)

[angeldrawsstuffs]

Hi Angel back again to offer her unsolicited meta opinions about Lego themes (specifically Dreamzzz).

So, because of recent leaks, I’ve seen some speculation online Dreamzzz is going to come to an early end, possibly not making it past 2025. Now, before we go any further, let me make something extremely clear:

That is all rumors and speculation based on different rumors/alleged leaks about a canceled large set. To my knowledge, nobody who has actually worked on the theme in any capacity (show or sets) has said anything in relation to either of these. The information about the canceled big set came from leakers and the other speculation derived from that. This is ALL hearsay from the past 24-48 hours. Nothing is official, take it with a pinch of salt.

Ok now that we’re on the same page about the validity (or potentially lack thereof) of the claims/speculation, time to get into a mini rant/ramble I have so Buzzfeed-ishly titled:

Why Dreamzzz Being Cancelled Would NOT be a Good Thing AT ALL For Lego (and why even non-fans should care!)

So, you may ask: “Angel, why would you say this is a negative for Lego as a whole? Themes get canceled early all the time! In the hypothetical-and-currently-unsubstantiated-scenario Dreamzzz is canceled, it wouldn’t have that much of an impact!” well, nonexistent strawman I made up because I suck at making my point, it has to do with the way original Lego IPs are currently set up. Like it or hate it (or in between!), the beginning of Dreamzzz, even a before that, one could argue, was the start of a new era for how Lego handles their IPs. Gone are the days of getting multiple new themes a year, each lasting a planned 2-3 years, before entering a mapped out and anticipated retirement, maybe being cut short or extended a bit depending on sales. From what I’ve observed, it seems the priority is longevity of a theme over quantity of themes. Another factor is this is the ideas from those many themes over the past few decades have been slowly merged into other, larger themes like City, Friends, or even Ninjago. So, back in ye olden days of the 90s to the 2010s, a theme (specifically an original IP) being cut short was no big deal because there were like- 3-4 others running alongside it and several more in the foreseeable future. But, currently, that’s not the case because Dreamzzz is the only new IP to release and be running in the 2020s. Think about Lego’s currently running original IPs, not original themes as a whole (Icons, Creator, Ideas, etc.), but IPs (Ninjago, Power Miners, Atlantis, etc.). As of right now there’s really only four:

City, Friends, Ninjago, and Dreamzzz.

Take Dreamzzz out and you’re left with three. As much as it sucks, Dreamzzz being canceled won’t bring back the old format of IPs, in fact, I personally believe it would push back any return of that format or a similar one even further. Why do I believe this? Well, unfortunate as it may be, we’ve seen this song and dance before with plenty of other brands. New, original thing fails, executive people have to look at the “why”, and the conclusion is that people just don’t want new stuff and we should rehash the same stuff over and over and over again. Obviously that’s the very WRONG conclusion, but look at Disney and Pixar as a prime example of this. Of course I have a LOT (like- a lot a lot) more faith in Lego than I do the mouse, but do we really want to run that risk?

Also, circling back to my point about IPs being cut earlier than planned wasn’t as big a deal back then because there were a bunch of others already out and planned for release that could fill that void quick. But now? With the new formatting for IPs? As far as we know, there’s no new Lego IPs planned for the foreseeable future. Unless Lego’s somehow kept some new IP under such wraps that not a single person outside the company, not even online leakers, have found anything out about it, even its existence, (which very rarely happens to my own knowledge), there’s nothing currently planned. If Dreamzzz goes, there’s nothing to take its place or keep new IPs chugging along.

So then, hypothetically say Dreamzzz is canceled and doesn’t make it to 2026 (which, I am going to say I do not think will happen, I personally believe, if the big set being cancelled is true, it may be to make room for smaller, more affordable sets, since that’s the most consistent criticism of the theme as a whole). What then? Well, if the path most other companies have taken of “nobody wants new things” comes into effect, then that would probably mean not getting another new IP for a while. While Ninjago, City, and Friends all have a lot to offer, it’s clear people want something new. To be clear, it’s not the guaranteed path in this hypothetical-and-currently-unsubstantiated-scenario.

What’s my solution? Well, I’m a teenager on the internet with no business knowledge or expertise in any kind of related field so OBVIOUSLY I’m qualified to talk on this (/lh /s). But, in all seriousness, the best I can say is make criticisms known, but with the stipulation of that the theme should be able to continue and buff out the dents, as I would argue we’ve seen happening. I believe Dreamzzz has potential, a lot of it. But losing that potential to an early cancellation could possibly spell trouble down the road for Lego’s original IPs.

Once again, this is just a sleep deprived Angel spewing her opinions onto the internet. Hope I made my point clear enough and that this isn’t a totally incoherent mess of a post. Also, I’m personally not looking to debate/have to defend my thoughts here, as shallow as that may seem, so if you disagree vehemently with every word: that’s alright! I’m just not interested in an online back and forth about it (especially cuz I’m a terrible debater, lol-). Anyway, thanks for reading this long-ass post if you’re still here, have a wonderful rest of your day/night, and wear your seatbelt! /ref

[read-alert]

The City We Became by NK Jemisin

This is an urban fantasy in which cities literally come alive and are embodied in one of their citizens, and it is New York's time. But when the creature from another dimension that is trying to destroy the city before it can be born drastically injures New York, the individual boroughs become incorporated as well and must find each other and heal New York before the enemy destroys them, the city, and the world. This was another reread in preparation for reading the sequel.

I really love this book. The concept and worldbuilding is so unique and fun, and I am so excited to learn more about this world in the next book. I've seen a couple of reviews saying that you need to really know actual New York City to feel the magic of the book, but I've never stepped foot in a city bigger than St. Louis, and I still felt absolutely swept away and immersed in the story and the city.

Of course, never having been to New York means I can't speak to how accurately the boroughs in the book reflect on the city, but I do love all of them as characters. I do feel that the way Staten Island's racism is written turns her into a little bit of a strawman. Like, her only association with the very concept of coexistence is the bumper sticker? But, she's so pathetic and lonely that it does still make the reader, if not empathize, at least sympathize with her. She's so scared of other people and the world around her that it drives away any possibility of community, which makes her vulnerable to manipulation, even from someone who is obviously using her, doesn't care about her, and actively wants to harm her. It's no coincidence that this book was written during Trump's first term.

But it's not like other boroughs aren't also scared, and they have more reason to be. Even putting aside the extradimensional threats, they're dealing with poverty, racism, the fear of deportation, getting doxxed by alt right weirdos, homophobia, and more that is so much more of a threat than Staten Island being scared of people who don't look like her. But the other boroughs fight against all of that to protect the city and the people they love in it. Because the main theme of the book is that working together despite our differences, community building, love, and the different strengths brought by diversity are all stronger than fear. But at the same time, it does acknowledge that you don't have to tolerate racists to do that coalition building, and that doing so would be more of a threat.

Also, I eread this book the first time around, and this time I listened to the audiobook, and whenever something directly related to the other dimensions- whether that be the cityspace that gives the city avatars their powers or the enemy trying to strengthen her hold to break through- the audio kinda stutters and distorts; the audio equivalent of the characters in the Spiderverse movie glitching. And that was really cool and fun. I was worried at first that it may impact accessibility, but luckily, that fear was unfounded and it doesn't, at least for me personally, impact my ability to process the audio. If you are a fan of audiobooks, I definitely recommend checking this one our.

Gave it 5⭐️ on my first read, and I'm giving it 5⭐️ again.

[doctorhare]

no for incest being fine cause 1. it is a ripe environment for abuse especially when it’s parent/child, 2. potential issues re: inbreeding and the effects this may have on the children that can result from this relationship, 3. the one irl experience of incest i was privy to was this girl in my partner’s end of the polycule cheating on her partner with her twin

tldr i’m no if there’s potential for abuse and inbreeding, besides that who gives a shit

Speaks to you first because you’re the first no who’s been COURAGEOUS and BRAVE enough to SPEAK! Going one by one with you on your points now but backwards

3. That is so fucking crazy but also not the first time I’ve heard of someone in a polycule cheating with their twin. Do you think we could find enough to do a study on this. Also I’m listening to a twincest playlist while answering this so it’s adding to my experience. Anyway that’s crazy. I’ve never known anyone involved in consensual irl incest At least as far as I’m aware

2. So inbreeding stuff is actually the one thing I have a nonnuanced take on in this regard. I think a lot of the issues people have with the idea of inbreeding is a direct result of eugenics and we probably would not consider it such a major issue if not for eugenics setting us up to think about which people/relationships are genetically ok for reproduction. Like to put it another way, if there’s an individual whose genetics mean their child would be predisposed to birth defects no matter who the other parent is, what would you think of them having children? Obviously I’m strawmanning at you but my point is that I think incest is just like, the one scrap left where it’s universally ok to go “these people reproducing would be bad because it would create unhealthy or disabled people”

I feel like I took the long way of saying that LMAO but I’m on my fone and we’re chatting so it’s fine. I’ll rephrase if someone tells me I sound like lorem ipsum hahaha. But basically the inbreeding stuff is the one bit where I’m like “yea this is entirely a nonissue” cus I don’t like the idea that creating children with birth defects has any moral points in either direction. Does that make sense?

3. I agree with this but also I think the family structure as a whole is designed in favor of abuse. If incestuous abuse happens it’s because of familial abuse, not necessarily because of the romantic/sexual aspect. If that makes sense? Like uh ok let me overshare to explain what I mean lol. I’m a victim of both emotional incest & CSA from different perpetrators. I don’t think either of those people thought of what they were doing as sexual or romantic. It was just having power given to them by the standard family structure and abusing it. So we’re looking at incest in both cases but neither of them were seeking incest and the incestuous part wasn’t what caused the abuse to happen. Does that make sense?

I don’t mean to say that incest CAN’T be the origin of abuse but what I mean to say is that the things we treat as normal aspects of Family are often just as damaging if not more damaging than explicit incest. Again i literally do agree with you but when it comes to like, a Morality question, I don’t care about the incest itself as a factor at all. Cuz familial abuse is rooted in family itself, not perversions of family

Very rambly and not super put together but again we’re chatting lmao. Thank u for sending ur take !! I hope my block of text doesn’t scare anyone hahaha

[smosh-fessions]

''I have yet to speak to a single gay man who isn't tired to some degree of straight women pushing their way into their bars.'' Gay MEN have an issue with straight WOMEN. okok. sure... sounds a bit misogynistic on their part but sure... ''The rest of the world is safe for cishets.'' not for women it isn't (i'm NOT saying it's safe or safer for queer people, obviously)

I am talking solely about orientation. It is not illegal anywhere on the planet to be cishet but it sure is illegal a lot of places to be queer. I do not appreciate strawman arguments. Please do not come back with another ask like this.

If it makes you feel better I also know a lot of cishet women who are damn tired of gay men getting away with thinking they can do things like comment on and touch their bodies because they're gay. It goes both ways.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Interesting post about the dispute regarding the successions of Rosby and Stokeworth.

https://www.tumblr.com/mononijikayu/713886501993431040/im-rereading-fb-today-and-found-something?source=share

Hi anon, thanks for sharing that post, it was interesting reading.

And I think that there are two things going on here. On the one hand, the OP is absolutely correct that the Rosby and Stokeworth inheritances were a catch 22 for Rhaenyra. Now, I think framing it as her "protecting" the Rosby and Stokeworth younger brothers from being murdered by the possibly disloyal Hugh and Ulf is a bit of a stretch, I don't think she cared about Rosby or Stokeworth or their heirs in the slightest (it should go without saying that we're talking about book!Rhaenyra here), and if she'd felt like making the daughters the Ladies of Rosby and Stokeworth and marrying them to Hugh and Ulf was the correct course of action, she would have done just that. I think she simply found Corlys' argument to be the more persuasive one-- if she created a precedent for absolute primogeniture throughout the realm she might lose valuable supporters and she could not afford to lose them at the time. Additionally, it's altogether possible that she did not want to ennoble Hugh and Ulf with their loyalty yet unproven. If they'd turned their cloaks not just with their dragons but with their newly acquired lands and armies, forget about the younger Rosby and Stokeworth sons, that would have been a disaster for Rhaenyra. The point is, there are reasons for Rhaenyra denying the Rosby and Stokeworth daughters the right to inherit ahead of their brothers, good ones even.

The other point the OP makes, that women often have to be just as brutal as men, but are judged more harshly for it is also true. You'll find no argument there. In fact, I've argued on this very blog that historically queens regnant have had to be even more brutal than men-- more punishing towards the smallfolk, quicker to war, harsher in their judgments-- in order to be taken seriously. So again, no argument from me there.

The thing is, there's a bit of a strawman here on OPs part. While I admit that there are fans who use Rosby and Stokeworth or Rhaenyra's ruthlessness as something of a gotcha, the point isn't that Rhaenyra should have given those lands to the Rosby and Stokeworth daughters, or that she was singularly worse than men who had sat the throne (she was worse than some, better than others), or even that she's a hypocrite. Rather, Rosby and Stokeworth specifically serve to counter the idea that Rhaenyra being queen would have meant anything positive for women as a whole. Because fans of Rhaenyra can't have it both ways here. They cannot claim that Rhaenyra is the more progressive, less misogynistic choice, but then make excuses for her regressive decisions and policies. And to be clear, I don't blame Rhaenyra for this. Obviously, individuals attempting to thwart the system without enacting broad changes often end up capitulating to existing power structures. In fact, it would be almost impossible not to within the feudal context. But regardless, either putting a woman on the throne is broadly significant as more than a historical footnote, or it isn't. And if it isn't, if Rhaenyra's policies do not benefit any women besides Rhaenyra in any meaningful capacity, then there's no greater good argument for her going to war.

And this only matters because many of Rhaenyra's fans try to frame the conflict in terms of morality, when you can easily reason that from a harm reduction standpoint, the actual moral choice would be for Rhaenyra not to press her claim. It's unfair, but Aegon got there first, was crowned and anointed first, and hold the city. If she accepts his peace terms, she can keep doing what she's been doing for the last decade, chilling on Dragonstone and tens of thousands of people get to stay alive. Now, I don't actually expect her to act morally here, she's acting in her own self interest rather than in the interest of the greater good, and that's fine, but let's not pretend she has the moral high ground.

[velvetvexations]

i'm another one of those nonbinary people that looks like the stereotype. my hair's buzzed now, but i used to wear it in an undercut with a longer dyed bit on top. i'm a neopronoun-using skinny white FTX. it used to bother me more than it does, the way that some people's strawman for "queer people we don't need more representation for / don't need to hear the opinion of" looks exactly like me. now it just kind of makes me tired.

there's something really bizarre about hearing derogatory descriptions of inherent traits of yourself that you can't change... but not in a way that can be called bigotry. it's exorsexism & transandrophobia, kind of? but it usually comes from other nonbinary people, talking up the other gender presentations nonbinary people can have, speaking up for all the people who don't look like me. and that's... good! obviously! being nonbinary isn't just for white people with short hair who sometimes get mistaken for middle school boys when they're not immediately clocked as afab.

but we do exist. and there's this sneering undercurrent to some of those ~positivity~ posts that really reminds me of the anti-transandrophobia bullshit. like being the stereotype actually makes you acceptable to the cisheteropatriarchy, or gets you gendered correctly.

...it really all comes back to finding a group of people afab to declare whiny and attention-seeking and overblowing their problems, i guess.

the thing that still gets to me is the fact that it's considered more "transgressive" to be certain kinds of queer. it's not. like. harmful or overtly bigoted to say that some people are just inherently less special because they're white, or skinny, or for how they wear their hair.

but it is kind of... weird. and it doesn't feel good.

It's not fair to anyone involved, people shouldn't be saying you're less special. I'm sorry anon, I love you. <3

[system-of-a-feather]

Man honestly theres a lot of interesting things worth talking about and I do wanna support the migration of tags and development of a more conversational space to talk about stuff on but now that I wanna bring something up I really cant think of much

I do think though something of a thought I did have back with the syscourse survey and what with how shit the syscourse tag, I really find stance labels are kind of honest to god disruptive in having some productive conversation with people.

I find that once you stand with a label, you just kind of become this general strawman of "the enemy" and most good faith discussion is torched before it even starts. Not saying thats everyone obviously, but I think a large difference between online discourse and the "if you actually went out in the world and talked about it" is that irl you dont have all out opinions plastered on your face and you really have to actually talk for a little bit before you get to "oh (insert stance) my enemy"

I dunno, I'm kind of rambling on loose thoughts but like anti-endo pro-endo endo-neutral like, can we just talk and discuss our perspectives before going on the defense and going NOPE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME

Like I genuinely dont have any ill in my heart for anti-endos just on the principle of the stance or label.

I deeply disagree with the common core sentiment, but 1) I am assuming my understanding of the core sentiment is the same as their understanding of the core sentiment and 2) I both understand and can respect how one would end up with the opinion and I can also see how someone who identifies as anti-endo could actually still be a person worth talking to and getting insight from. Its particularly hard to grow and improve when the only people you surround yourself with are people who will always agree and always approve and always support what you say and do. Having that disagreement is a really important and healthy thing for environments, so long as everyone is civil and respectful.

[lord-squiggletits]

For the Salty Asks (forgive us for the avalanche, if it's too many you can pick your top three): 2, 9, 10, 11, 13 (Optimus), 20, 25 (IDW1), 26

uhhh honestly I feel a bit like a hermit who's out of the loop on what's popular/unpopular so some of these might be completely off the mark but here we go

2. Are there any popular fandom OTPs you only BroTP?

Mmmm I think most of my brotp's aren't shipped as OTPs to start with, so I dunno if I have any that fit this question.

Guess the closest example for me would be OPli/ta. I don't actively platonically ship them but I think platonic is way more interesting than romantic. I don't like the fandom's interpretation of romantic O/Plita at all + I feel like as one of the original "token woman" Autobots, I'd like to see Elita unshackled from Optimus as a love interest, esp because any official interpretation of them is probably gonna be written extremely heteronormatively/token romance between an action hero and The Girl. And the fanon version of them that's Strong Independent Girlboss Elita with whipped simp husbnad Optimus is just as boring and gross.

I just don't like the vibes and would rather them have some sort of friendly or regular relationship together.

9. Most disliked character(s)? Why?

IDW1 Slide, who I've gone into detail about my hatred of in several posts, but the TLDR is that she comes off as some kind of mouthpiece character? Not a mouthpiece as in for the author's beliefs, but it literally feels like she only exists to shit on Optimus and call him a piece of shit. Her dialogue is so cheesily written ("literally fascism" is an actual thing she says) and her bitching/lack of cultural comprehension about Cybertronian history is so prevalent, that for a long time during my IDW1 reading I was genuinely confused as to whether she was supposed to be some sort of parody/strawman/mockery of someone IRL (her character comes off almost EXACTLY like an anti-SJW stereotype of a screeching harpy calling everyone she dislikes a fascist, and it's only Barber's very obviously left-leaning writing in other parts of the story that told me that definitely wasn't the intent). So then I was wondering "okay is she gonna like, randomly become evil and turn against the good guys because she's just that petty? I mean she spends all of her time bitching about how Optimus/the Autobots/Cybertronians in general are the worst ever and she also hates humans too so I mean maybe? Half of this story already doesn't make sense so I can see it happening."

Thankfully that didn't happen, but like. Slide is so goddamn annoying and ignorant and gets way too much page time dedicated to her angry monologuing (in Unicron aka the finale of IDW1 there's literally a whole half page panel of her bitching about how Optimus is an evil tyrant while Trypticon is dying behind her and it comes off as a poorly timed, bad taste joke). The narrative treats her like she's some important individual whose feelings are important and valid, but she's fucking annoying. Any sympathy she was meant to garner is canceled out by badly written dialogue and the fact that she's a Literal Nobody of a character who seemingly only exists to bash the decades old, beloved legacy characters. For the sake of, idk, talking about how fucked up Cybertronians are that they just shrug and move on when people die? Bc apparently it's some sort of sin to be numb after 4 million years of war (and war that's literally still ongoing while Slide is bitching) and just soldier on trying to get through it? God forbid that a military hierarchy fighting to keep neo-Decepticons and various other alien threats from colonizing Earth be run like a military in which orders have to be followed, people die, but you still have to keep fighting anyways? Idefk man I just hate Slide so much she's basically the embodiment of all of the bad aspects of Barber's writing personified.

10. Most disliked arc? Why?

Mutineers arc in MTMTE/LL. I feel like (whether due to early cancellation and/or JRO wasting time on too many side plots to give it its full depth), I dislike how the mutineers were basically boiled down to pure evil morons who are the most disgusting, despicable evil ever and the only reason the mutiny had Good Guys (TM) in it was because they were horribly misled and not because, you know, the mutiny was 100% a valid thing to have happened as retaliation against Rodimus and Megatron's captaincy.

Like, I'm not opposed to the idea of Getaway and his cronies being assholes (I personally thought Getaway was a GREAT slow-burn, puppet master villain/anti-hero), I just dislike how the quality of their writing degraded from MTMTE to LL. Felt like they (Getaway in particular) got passed the Idiot Ball and then the actual reasons behind the mutiny were never addressed, it was kind of just "oh Getaway died horribly so we're all friends now and we forgive each other and Rodimus/Megatron will just go back to being captains now."

11. Is there an unpopular character you like that the fandom doesn’t? Why?

You mean besides IDW Optimus because anyone who's been on my blog for like 5 seconds knows he's my biggest problematic fave skldfjskd

Uhhh I guess in the spirit of the previous question, Getaway. I feel like the fandom's hatred for him is overblown mainly bc it's a combination of Tailgate/Cyga/te fans going "HE GOT IN THE WAY OF C/YGA/TE AND ALMOST KILLED THAT PRECIOUS CINNAMON ROLL" and Rodimus or Megatron stans going "Getaway hates my fave?? But my fave is a good captain and deserves the world HE'S EVIL MY FAVORITE IS BEYOND CRITICISM OR REPROACH GETAWAY IS THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL."

Like to me it seems as if the hate for Getaway isn't normal dislike or even people hating him because he's a well written villain. It feels weirdly like ppl really take Getaway's actions personally and hate him with the kind of passion you normally see reserved for actual real life horrible people. Or they like, see Getaway as an obstacle to [favorite character]'s happiness and not as an individual who, before the quality of his writing tanked, was actually an interesting character who maybe even had good points? It just feels like people mainly hate Getaway because he's the antagonist to more popular characters/ships and so they project their defense of their faves into virulently hating him.

13. Unpopular opinion about (Optimus)?

Honestly 90% or more of the fan content I see for Optimus is really boring/uncompelling to me, or really just comes off as out of character. It's either Optimus being reduced to an accessory to be shipped with someone (usually turned into some sort of moe cutesy uke type) or him being turned into.... idk some permutation of "feral irresponsible gremlin" or "One Of The Good Ones (TM)" or "anxiety-ridden damsel who needs to be rescued by his lover" or, in some circles, "character I project my issues with authority onto and try to frame as evil for things that aren't even evil."

Idk how to specifically describe it, it's just... a vibe? Most of the Optimus content I see doesn't actually feel like him at all. It feels like it's Optimus/Orion in name only, who got so separated from canon and distorted by fanon/flanderization/shipping/porn stereotypes that he now only vaguely resembles the character he's supposed to be.

20. What is the purest ship in the fandom?

Ahahaha I don't really go into the realm of pure ships honestly, plus this is the war criminal fandom where pretty much every character has killed people or committed crimes or is just generally scarred by war so uhhh

Idk I think Thundercracker/Melissa is a pretty hinged ship? They get along and cope surprisingly well with all the shit that happens. There's no angst or betrayals or misunderstandings or enemies, they're just very respectfully together. Sdfklsajfksd

25. How would you end (IDW1)/Would you change the ending of (IDW1)?

Honestly, I'm pretty satisfied with the ending of IDW1 on both sides of the story. On Barber's side I would've preferred if every single planet including Cybertron didn't get fucking eaten leaving them all stuck on Earth together, and I would've also kept Trypticon alive while... minimizing Slide's role, to say the least. I don't have a problem with Optimus' ending bc I actually think that Optimus' arc in Unicron is like, one of the few 1000% good things Barber wrote for him it's just. It's pure Optimus in his best form.

On JRO's side I would've cut out the last panel with the alternate Lost Light and left it ambiguous as to whether the quantum jump successfully copied the ship or not. I dislike the vibes of the canon ending that implied that everyone moving on with their lives (almost universally to new and exciting and happier places) was the "sad" ending and going on a permanent road trip is the "true, happy" ending. In the author's notes I think JRO said that he wanted to give the readers an ending that would allow them to imagine their faves continuing to go on adventures, but I think compromising a good ending to a story to appease fans is fucking stupid + fandom has never needed permission or approval from the author to write alternate, happy endings. So why ruin a poignant, melancholy ending about how endings come with new beginnings and sadness/nostalgia can be mixed with hope and happiness by going "sike lol they're all living happily ever after on their space cruise."

Also I wouldn't have randomly killed off Ratchet for no reason because like. What was that even supposed to accomplish. I'm no stranger to writing major character deaths but like. He just fucking died of disease off-screen and that was that??? Why, like what was the narrative/symbolic purpose of that besides just making the ending more sad? Maybe to emphasize how going back to Cybertron was the "bad ending" and the quantum Lost Light is the "good ending" since on the LL Ratchet is still alive? But see the paragraph above for why I don't like that.

26. Most shippable character?

The most shippable character to me is whichever character I think is the sexiest, because if I think they're sexy it makes me want to ship them with everyone. "Guards, fuck that man for me" etc etc. Lmao

[irkendogma]

i know they're pretty lacking in tak aside from some ship segments, but do you have any favorite issues of the invader zim comics? call me basic but i adore the zimvoid arc especially

man i feel bad about like every anon i've gotten recently because i'm certain i keep coming off as an absolute hater (which may not even be inaccurate but i DO have love in my heart as well) but i honestly don't like the comics that much. i feel like both my grievances and my favorite issues/moments can be summed up by things from a conversation i had a little while back

like, obviously this is not exclusive to the comics - the show itself very much leans on the nonsense comedy angle because it is, in fact, a comedy aired on nickelodeon aimed at children. i'm not about to complain that a 2001 kids cartoon doesn't take itself seriously because i would be insane to expect it to. the problem is, when the comics were released, florpus hadn't even come out yet - the primary audience for them was no longer the "kids" element of the original demographic but the "watched in 2001" element

these comics EXIST to be fanservice - what fuckin 8-year-old is going to a comic shop or browsing online to buy the marketed revival of a show they don't recognize? - but they're written more like meaningless, substanceless comedy than even the original show ever was. there was a fucking wealth of material the original show never got to touch on prior to cancellation, and barely any of it is ever adapted, to say nothing of the entire original cast besides zim and dib playing bit parts to unrelated nonsensical comics characters IF they even appear at all - the fact that many fan favorites, my own included, receive a cameo at the end of a single special issue and nothing else across the comics' like fucking 50-issue run continues to bother me

and rest assured, the comics themselves are at least a little cognizant of this, because they will take every fucking opportunity they have to lampoon and create strawmen out of fans asking for more or even just...making fan content in general. remember mopiness of doom? chammy wamboo is here to make sure you feel stupid about interpreting anything that happened in that script as zim and dib having any form of fondness for each other, and she's going to spend an entire fucking issue doing it (with a very halfhearted attempt by the narrative to go "maybe she has a point about friendship?" that ends up undermined by other instances of the comic doing the exact same thing as this issue). think that the comics themselves aren't as good as the original show? virooz is a fat, sweaty, conventionally ugly manchild of a stereotypical strawman here to puppet around zim's body in dramatic poses that never fail to be drawn as stupid and unfitting in his belief that zim "fell off" from his earlier days. sure, occasionally there are grains of truth or genuinely funny things from them, but overall the whole thing feels incredibly meanspirited and more interested in bashing fans for being invested than rewarding that investment of time, energy, and sentiment into the material

even zimvoid...i WANT to like zimvoid. conceptually, i really like zimvoid. but the comics are deathly fucking allergic to allowing any stakes or sincerity to persist across the plot and it makes a lot of fascinating elements with a painfully compelling antagonist hit like a wet piece of tissue paper slapping on a brick wall, any impact stuff like zib's confession that he lied and winning over zim ultimately didn't earn him anything is soundly undermined by the fact that zim fixes the problem instantaneously with a spontaneous time travel loophole that even the story itself repeatedly lampshades makes no fucking sense whatsoever

maybe i'm just not the target audience for the comics, honestly, but in a fanbase that for nearly 20 years has consisted mainly of adults suspending their disbelief to more seriously adapt the story and melodramatic teenagers doing the same with less self-awareness, i don't know who is the target audience

[hostilemuppet]

I don't think I ever watched the 'Equal Fights' episode but I do agree with the 'people believe the strawman misandrist feminist is real' point you made. A lot of people seem to think that a misandrististic woman does the same damage as a misogynistic man, when then that's really not the case in real life? 'all men are inherently evil' is obviously a harmful statement, but that doesn't mean 'a good deal of men choose to be misogynistic and face little to no repreuccusions for it and going 'not-all-men' doesn't change the fact that we still live in overall patriarchal society' isn't true. Feminists, or at least women who are openly feminists, have been depicted as caricatures in Media for years and I wish more people realised that. Why do we tell girls not to go too far in their feminism but not boys to, you know, maybe not be misgonystic. Sorry if this is a bit of a sudden rant btw I just wanted to bring it up

i think the problem with equal fights isnt even that it says "hating men is bad". obviously theyre not gonna want to teach little girls to hate half the planet, and they ALSO dont want little boys to think that feminism means theyll be the oppressed ones (although if you look at the comments on the wiki page for the episode... clearly that part didnt work out very well 😬)

for me the problem is that it tried to say that, because the professor does household chores and little kids play together in the playground, there is no inequality in the world, because there are good men. while also having femme fatale almost fall to her death, only to be caught by a man who immediately started hitting on her despite her near death experience. you cant criticise the bad men because there are good men out there that could be sad

plus, the way it recontextualises ms keane is disgusting. ms keane, who did nothing when harry pitt chased girls around forcing them to kiss him, decided the girls being a bit mean for a few days needed an intervention? with the fucking mayors secretary? in TOWNSVILLE. SHES BUSY! but no you see, the girls hurt some of their male classmates feelings, which is ms keanes only priority, as we know from her turning a blind eye to mitch torturing animals. this episode establishes ms keane as a boy mom who gives preferential treatment to her male students and values their feelings over her female students

and with the intervention, they really added insult to injury by having it include a girl who was just upset about femme fatale "stealing her hairstyle". they really needed one more "vain woman only cares about he appearance 😂🤣" joke in there didnt they. and then did it AGAIN when fatale complained about her prison uniform... and it is also NOT lost on me that the feminist character has a skin tight costume which draws attention to her boobs and crotch

which isnt helped by the fact that one of the only two recurring female villains is "hot sexy hot woman who seduces men to get what she wants" (and the other is only able to do anything bc her daddy buys everything for her...)

i just hate equal fights and everything it stands for, it is the worst episode of the entire series, maybe even franchise, it pisses me off and i wish it never got made and i never want to see femme fatales face ever again. shes not the sort of character you can save by putting her in a lesbian relationship, she just shouldnt exist, the powerpunks should have been real instead.

members only is a way better feminist episode bc the focus was "these little girls are facing off against misogynist men who think they need to practice being housewives at the age of 5, and prove that the are just as capable as they say they are despite being spoken down to for their gender" instead of "this fake bitch is just trying to steal money, GET HER ASS! dont sympathise with her for the sexual harassment she faces btw. and also dont question her costume design. she chose it herself (she is a fictional character who was written and designed by real people)"

[triviallytrue]

That conversation got annoying quickly, I don’t know why people felt such a need to defend the mental health benefits of war, but it seems everyone conflated very different fields? Obviously, “I am depressed because of immutable characteristics of society” isn’t a useful observation, it’s just one of the basic symptoms of depression. But “analyzing the relationship between societal impacts and psychology is useless because it offers no help for the individual” is just as pointless, as if general relativity is useless because it doesn’t teach you to pilot a plane.

Collecting data regarding an entire population is just incomparable to an individual’s psychoanalysis. The latter may be more immediately useful, but it’s also not realistic treating it as a science until a better working model of the human brain is achieved. Until then, comparing various populations’ emotional and psychological reactions along sociological variables is the best system of data collection in this field.

This is a good ask and provides a convenient opportunity for me to summarize my views and then stop talking about it.

it seems everyone conflated very different fields? Obviously, “I am depressed because of immutable characteristics of society” isn’t a useful observation, it’s just one of the basic symptoms of depression.

A number of people said some version of this, that obviously this observation is useless and trite, but to pull out the tweet that prompted this, I don't think I am misrepresenting it:

And I guess this is on me for making my own post instead of just responding to the prior one, but I felt like a lot of people were more or less implying I was strawmanning instead of talking about a very real type of guy.

But “analyzing the relationship between societal impacts and psychology is useless because it offers no help for the individual” is just as pointless, as if general relativity is useless because it doesn’t teach you to pilot a plane.

Again, I'm going to quote myself here:

i guess i don't really understand the utility of the whole "cultural values and class relations" model of mental illness.

I am not saying here that it's useless to analyze the relationship between societal impacts and psychology. I don't believe that. But I also don't believe that's what the "cultural values and class relations" model is doing. I think it's vaguely gesturing at society using leftist-coded terminology with very little actual analysis.

I take it as a given that these aren't serious analytical models in the same way I take it as a given with trads who talk about the decline of marriage as a major negative impact - there's a kernel of truth here (we have research showing that married adults are happier than unmarried adults) but the selective focus on the speaker's political bugbears reveals that as its primary object, not the widespread improvement of people's mental health.

And in particular, both of these are frequently directed at people who talk about being individually mentally ill, which is why I think it's fair to grade them on their individual utility, even though people will often argue that "they aren't meant for that."

Collecting data regarding an entire population is just incomparable to an individual’s psychoanalysis. The latter may be more immediately useful, but it’s also not realistic treating it as a science until a better working model of the human brain is achieved. Until then, comparing various populations’ emotional and psychological reactions along sociological variables is the best system of data collection in this field.

I think you are overstating your argument a bit here. I think dissing psychology/psychiatry in comparison to sociology is missing the mark - it's not like sociology is some shining standard of scientific investigation. We also can and do perform good studies on psychiatric interventions, and indeed, many of these studies have informed my skepticism of clinical psychiatry.

[pynkhues]

https://www.tumblr.com/pynkhues/779313774413889536/httpswwwtumblrcompynkhues779302191634759680?source=share

Oh yes sorry, I didn't articulate that clearly, I meant that Lestat not being that affected by the stab wound in the pilot doesn't mean he wouldn't be affected for at least a few hours after the beating/stabbing/rough sex of the 1.6 scene--he's already healed enough from the stab wound Louis gives him to seem okay, or at least not-super-injured, but as you said, without feeding it also makes sense it would take a bit longer (and yes I agree that the show doesn't care about perfect consistency on that point lol)

And yeah none of that is about "victimizing Lestat"! It's consensual, for one, and obviously orders of magnitude less serious than 1.5 anyway, but it's still very interesting to talk about in terms of their dynamic and Louis' possible reaction after hearing about Magnus and just how hot the missing scene from 1.6 would be for any writers who take it on (very excited for your fic btw)

Thank you for the clarification, anon 1, and yeah! I agree. Honestly, I would've probably replied to this particular anon, but they read as very young to me (in no small part because they self-censored words like 'rape', which is always something I find both telling and frustrating [genuinely urge everyone who self-censors to ask themselves the question 'who are they censoring for?']), but also their arguments were a bit silly i.e. saying it was libel for fans to insinuate that Louis raped Lestat that night which like, look, I don't know if people are saying that, maybe they are, which is extremely gross, but I kind of suspect it might be a strawman argument, and more to the point - regardless of whether or not it is an argument some are making, it certainly isn't libel. These characters aren't real.

But yeah, the victimisation argument they had was around apparently downplaying Lestat's role as patriarch of the household, and people being 'insecure', which is - - y'know. An argument that feels nursed by a particular subset of this fandom that I'm just not really all that interested in engaging with. They definitely seem to view bottoming and subbing as synonymous though, and - - oh, fuck it, have their closing argument:

Like I said, it's just silly at this point.

[diminished-responsibility-owos]

You know what, fuck it naw I am gonna talk a little bit more about this, I thought Hazbin Hotel was just really fucking boring and uninteresting, and to be honest the fact that it's got an idiot plot and the random details that don't make any sense aren't the main reason why. Nothing the vees do makes an ounce of sense etc. etc. the main reason I don't like it is that it doesn't take its premise seriously at all. When you're writing about Christianity one thing you have to accept is that there is no aspect of Christianity you're going to be able to think of that hasn't already been written about to death, and obviously Hazbin is no exception. The question of how it can be fair for a finite crime to be corrected by an infinite punishment has been going on for a long long time, with like two minutes of googling I was able to find Kant's response to this exact argument, and that's what I want to comment on, there are responses to this criticism. There are so so so many responses to this criticism, none that I personally agree with, mind, but there are genuine good faith attempts to respond to this argument or to communicate why it's fair that "hell is forever". The show however is either incapable or unwilling to communicate these justifications to us, none of the antagonists have anything to say for themselves. Now to stress I agree with the show, having already been familiar with the justifications of an infinite punishment I was genuinely excited to hear that a cartoon that took the question of redeeming those in hell seriously was in the works, but then to see the show get made and the two primary angelic antagonists (Sera and Adam) be either completely incapable or totally uninterested in offering any defense for their actions, any justifications or rationale why what they do is right is bad writing not just because it makes them seem like two dimensional characters that exist solely to portray heaven as weak and evil but also because it denies the protagonist character as well. Charlie doesn't have anything to say because no one ever demands an explanation of her. "If hell is forever then heaven must be a lie", is that not good enough for you? Eat shit, Sera and Adam are both present for this line, and neither say anything substantial in response. To be clear I'm not even saying you should avoid strawmanning the opposition, by all means have Adam offer Kant's defense (which, very simply put, is that some people are born bad and just deserve to suffer for eternity) it would be really funny to watch the weasel squirm having to defend that point against Charlie, who could happily point out that in that case some of those "inherently evil people" are both of his first two wives. Sera could offer that any repentance inside of hell is inherently suspect because people could just be trying to escape hell, Charlie could point out (probably not in these words) that that's a brutal catch 22 that leads to eternal suffering etc. etc. and so on and so forth. A dialogue between these ideas would be interesting and cathartic, as it stands given how everyone perceives Charlie's idea as stupid, and that at the end of the show it's revealed that those who redeem themselves just automatically go to heaven it seems to me that Adam is basically being portrayed as correct, like if anyone was deserving of not suffering in hell they would have been saved, and he's in heaven so...