#This isn't trying to be critical of anyone

[spiritsglade]

Jason Todd & Critiques of Child Vigilantes

I've always found it interesting that as early as Bruce's opening monologue in Batman #428 - before he even finds Jason's body - DC had already started victim blaming Jason for his death.

Admittedly, I'm cherry-picking a bit here. There rest of the monologue does involve Bruce blaming himself as well, for all the choices he made in raising Jason that led up to this. In The New Titans #55, Dick makes a similar claim - this is Bruce's fault, for letting Jason be Robin before he was ready.

Except then Tim Drake picks up the mantle.

And the victim blaming settles in as the narrative DC's pushing. Jason was reckless, he was angry, he was impulsive. He jumped into this situation without thinking, and that's what got him killed.

And it's obvious why, right? Because Jason Todd dying, Robin dying, is about as effective an argument against child vigilantes as you can get. Because if it isn't Jason's own intrinsic failure, then the blame turns to Bruce. It's Bruce's fault for putting a kid in a costume, for putting Jason in a position where the Joker had cause to kill him.

(Sheila only sold Jason out because he was Robin. Joker only set the bomb because he wanted to avoid Batman's retaliation.)

Because if we really start critically thinking about the implications of child vigilantes in this world, it starts unraveling at the seams. And the first obvious loose thread is Bruce letting Tim pick up the Robin mantle, after the last one died.

Anyway, this post isn't about how blame is shifted onto Jaybin post-death to avoid criticizing child vigilantes. This is about the Red Hood and how he does the same damn thing.

Jason, after his resurrection, has a habit of harassing various heroes and monologuing a whole lot in the ensuing fight. Relevant to the conversation here are the arcs with Tim Drake and Mia Dearden.

It's worth noting that Jason is projecting in both cases, specifically taking his own relationship with Bruce and assuming that the same is true of Tim & Bruce and Mia & Ollie. This is obviously not the case, but it is relevant because it gives us insight into how Jason views Bruce, and where he feels the blame lies.

Life and Death - Teen Titans (2003) #29

TT #29 is the comic featuring Jason Todd's infamous attack on Titan's Tower, in which he fights Tim Drake for 8 pages. While we're here: no Jason wasn't trying to kill Tim, it was a fair fight not a one-sided torture fest, no throats were slit, and while that Robin costume may have been homemade I refuse to believe it was cheap. Jason is not wearing a cheap Halloween costume that thing is fully functional as a vigilante costume I will fucking FIGHT YOU -

Jason repeatedly brings up Bruce during this fight (emphasis mine):

"[Bruce] let you find him. And I bet he said the same thing to you that he said to me, didn't he? That you had the talent to make a difference in Gotham. That he needed someone he could trust in his war on crime. That you're one of a kind. The light to his darkness. Robin, the Boy Wonder. Now... let me show you what the Joker did to me." "Still. You do realize, the whole idea of training a teenager to fight against something he'll never eradicate is a mistake. It didn't surprise anyone when I died. When I failed."

This is Jason criticizing Bruce. This is Jason calling out Bruce for his failings as a parents, for the fundamental wrongness that is a child vigilante. Jason specifically frames it in the context of his own life. This is how he views Bruce's influence on him - his death is something that could have been predicted.

Except: This is DC. Child vigilantes are a genre convention, are a foundational part of how the world is built, and cannot be criticized.

So let's take a look at everything else Jason says:

"You can't be that good." "Now… let me show you what the Joker did to me. And let's find out how tough you really are." "I failed--but I'm still beating you. Do you think you're that good now?! Do you really, Tim?"

It's not about Bruce at all. Bruce is not the one in the wrong, here. It's about Tim. Does Tim have what it takes? Is Tim good enough to deserve this mantle? Jason looks at Tim and says: I was not good enough. What makes you think you are?

"I had to convince Batman to let me try this. All because he'll never stop blaming himself for what happened to you," Tim says. Tim implies that Bruce is wrong to blame himself. Jason's death? That was all on Jason. If Tim gets hurt, if Tim dies? Then it's all on Tim.

Jason also spends some time talking about how no one remembered him. However, this part of the conversation is initiated while they're in the Titan's Memorial Hall, which did not have a statue for Jason. I'm interpreting it as a comment fueled by the environment, and thus not part of the core arguments Jason's trying to make.

Seeing Red - Green Arrow (2001) #69-72

GA #72 is the comic featuring Jason kidnapping Mia Dearden, fighting her in her school's gym before blowing it up. While we're here: Jason was not trying to kill Mia, Jason was not bringing up Mia's trauma to throw call her disgusting or throw it in her face, and Mia was not horrifically traumatized by that encounter.

Let's look at what Jason has to say about Ollie and Bruce, first:

"Is that why you find it so hard to kill? Do you think life is so precious? Or do you have to emulate your new flawed 'Daddy'?" "My surrogate dad comes from the same damned pampered upbringing as your self-righteous mentor." "And I know that sometimes very bad things have to be done to do a great right. I don't think either one of our 'fathers' will ever understand that."

Yes, I'm reaching a bit here. However, there's the same pattern here of calling out Bruce for a specific way he failed Jason - by believing and pushing a specific moral code that he expected Jason to follow.

Even today, Jason killing is far more controversial than it is when other heroes do it, both in or out of universe. This is due to his relationship to Bruce. That expectation that he should align with Bruce's moral code, because he grew up alongside it. This is something specific to child vigilantes - other superhero team-ups where they're around the same age would not expect them to share the same code beat for beat.

It's not... a particularly strong argument, but if we run with it. Once again, Jason shifts the onus of responsibility from Ollie (Bruce) to Mia (himself).

It's a lot harder to find specific quotations where Jason says this, because a lot of it is implied, but throughout the fight Jason is trying to goad Mia into going for the killing shot.

"You're going to keep shooting your lawn darts at me but avoiding every killing wound. You know how easy this is when you limit your options. You're working the same thirty-three. Thirty-three angles, points--thirty-three shots. None of which will be a fatal blow. When that quiver is empty, you know I'm going to come for you!"

(He does not come for her. He gives her a pair of swords and makes her fight him again.) Jason compares himself to her ("You're a lot like me.") and then, after the previous quotation about how Ollie and Bruce will never get that sometimes you have to do the bad thing [kill], he says, "But you do."

Once again, it's not about Ollie. It's not about Bruce. It's about Mia, and what Mia chooses to do. It's Jason saying: Are you going to mindlessly follow what your mentor says? Or will you do what you know is right?

It's the same twist, again. It's not about what morals said mentor/father figures are selling, it's about the child's duty not to listen.

Conclusion

I've referenced a couple of times that DC can't have criticism against child vigilantes. I'm sure others have explained this better than I can, but the general reasoning is because child vigilantes are objectively bad. If you apply any real scrutiny, any level of realism, and you realize that having them is harmful. Harmful to the kids, and it is absolutely the fault of every single one of their mentors for letting this happen.

The kid sidekick is a genre convention. It's part of the landscape of superhero comics. This is the part of the story where you suspend your disbelief, you pretend that letting children fight crime is fine actually, and you enjoy the story that comes out of here. If we acknowledge in universe that letting kids fight crime is bad, you break that universe.

And that's exactly what Jason Todd does.

That's what he did as Robin, and DC responded with the victim-blaming narrative as damage control. It shifted the responsibility for his death from Bruce to Jason.

This trend continues into Jason as Red Hood. His very existence is an argument against child vigilantes. And so he brings it up, and in projecting on other characters he again underscores just how culpable Bruce is for his death. But we can't have that, so even as Jason brings up these points, he undermines them by shifting the focus to what the child is doing. After all, he's confronting Tim and Mia, not Bruce and Ollie.

(And in his actual confrontation with Bruce: "I forgive you for not saving me." Many have pointed out that this is not the same as it wasn't your fault.)

If you're a child vigilante or a kid sidekick, and you get hurt, if you die, that's not your mentor/parent's fault. It's on you. It's always been your own fault.

That's how it has to be.

[jon-sedai]

And remember kids, the next time someone tells you, "George R. R. Martin wouldn't make Jon Snow the typical fantasy hero because that's cliche".....

Oh yes he would!

One viewer wants to know what character would you play (on the show)? GRRM: If I could magically clap my hands and become a different person, it would be cool to play Jon Snow who's much more of the classic hero. Everybody wants to be the classic hero! ABC Interview, 2014

GRRM: And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Meduza Interview, 2017

In fact he already has ☺️

[utilitycaster]

at the risk of making a somewhat fraught political metaphor, so many of the people who complain about criticism of Campaign 3 remind me of anti-abortion states when abortion was federally legal: "Oh no, you can have the clinic, but per state regulation the hallway needs to be exactly 16 feet wide no more no less, and if not, you are violating state law and are going to be shut down (this is not a requirement for any other medical procedural clinics)".

It's obviously uh, far less of a fundamental human rights issue here and the people complaining are whiny, bratty, and deeply unpleasant but do not ultimately hold any power and can be blocked and such criticisms can go forward but it's the precise same mentality. Oh no, you can criticize Campaign 3 but you can't phrase it in a way that makes me feel like you're stating it as objective fact rather than your opinion. You can criticize Campaign 3 but if it's a post longer than 500 words it has to be under a readmore so I don't have to scroll (this is not something they ask of any other post). You can criticize Campaign 3 but I find your tone condescending and arrogant so you're going to have to stop, but how dare you tell me that it's my responsibility to curate my experience. You can criticize Campaign 3 but when you say that I'm being an entitled child for making these demands that hurt my feelings so you have to stop (I've been silent about any harassment or insults you've received). You can criticize Campaign 3 if you're a heartless monster I guess but it was for FUN it was THEIR GAME why are you MEAN (They haven't said this on any posts that insult other campaigns or even the cast directly). You can criticize Campaign 3 but you have to abide by all my demands but you can't ever set off any of my vast list of insecurities and you also can't remark on any of my behavior ever; I can say anything I want to you and you can't ever say anything back.

And it's just like...really, I think there was a world (one that required the fandom to respond differently starting back with Laudna's death at minimum, but one that could have existed) in which this was a somewhat amicable disagreement about the quality of the campaign. But I've so rarely seen a group of people so incapable of seeing fandom opinions outside of their own personal experience or existing beliefs and acting in a remotely adult manner (ignoring or blocking). They always have to go up onto your post or in your inbox and tell you to stop having your own opinions.

[the-prima-vista]

I can't get over people going on about Solas' redemption ending as though it's the best outcome, like... he only agrees to "atone" because he's LOST. If he had won that fight, he would have gone ahead with exactly what he wanted. At no point has he ever considered what he could actually do to help all the people he's wronged, he just wants to fix his own mistake (the Veil).

And to say that his is the best redemption in Dragon Age? When Blackwall is right there? Blackwall gets less content and has a much better redemption arc than Solas could ever dream of. Blackwall makes the decision himself to accept the consequences of what he did, even if those consequences mean death, and he's angry with an Inquisitor who takes those consequences from him. But if he is allowed to live? He then spends the rest of his life making up for his actions. Solas doesn't even consider other options until Rook's holding a dagger to his throat.

[some-pers0n]

I'm really sorry for Hazbin posting again but godddd because this one clip of Alastor and Bill Cipher has been going around late on Twitter reminds me so much of how utterly lame it is when Alastor swears. Like the whole thing that makes him unnerving is how well-spoken he is. I don't even like him saying "fuck you" to Lucifer. Him saying "I'm about to end your fucking life" sounds so lameeeeee he sounds like an elementary schooler who just learned the fuck word

The part that makes him fun and interesting is how well-spoken he is. It kinda plays on the gimmick of radio hosters being kind, chipper fellows and how they don't swear or do anything. It acts as a contrast. I literally don't understand why Viv is allergic to making characters not swear. Him not even swearing would probably be better when it comes to threatening Adam. Like I don't get it. Why is this show's writing like this. He's so uncool and unthreatening when he swears

[cybershock24601]

Not to say Veilguard's writing is perfect or doesn't have any problems because it does but I feel one of the biggest reasons people don't like it is because it treats the dragon age fandom like it is, stupid and reactionary.

When Inquisition dropped in 2014, those were some dark fucking days. People were coming out with the most wild hot takes and ready to start putting heads on pikes over differences of opinion. I totally get why the devs choose to file down some of the rougher edges and not put some of the darker and more problematic elements of the setting into such sharp focus because if my memory serves me right, people were pissed the fuck off that bad things were depicted at all in Inquisition. There were pages and pages of discourse over every little thing so trying to side step the stuff that made people start frothing at the mouth probably seemed like a smart move to the devs especially since the way the fandom talked about a lot of the stuff was like they didn't want to see any of it onscreen at all. It's not like Veilguard doesn't have fucked up stuff going on but its more in the background now and I can see how that decision was made considering fandom sentiment over the years. Also a lot of people who like to roleplay oppression don't get to do that in Veilguard, not saying that's the reason for all the push back on the shift in tone in Veilguard, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms, but there were definitely people that took rping as a fictional minority a little too seriously back in the day.

The other reason people can't stand Veilguard is because it definitely holds your hand sometimes when it comes to the narrative which people get upset about because it makes them feel stupid because duh, its so obvious I didn't need the game to treat me like a child but is it just obvious because the game is explicitly spelling it out? Considering some of the horrendous fucking takes I've seen whenever the writing has some nuance or requires some critical thinking, yeah no shit the writing team decided to be a lot more explicit when it came to certain aspects of the game because oh boy does a whole lot seem to go over people's head. Things go over my head too sometimes since I'm usually more focused on playing the game then analyzing it especially on a first playthrough, but my god do I get why the writing is a lot less complex in Veilguard. Some of it is definitely a result of rewrites and budget and time constraints and EA doing what EA does but there is a reason Veilguard can feel like Dragon Age for babies because when the game does choose to treat people like adults, so many people seem to completely miss what the game is trying to say when it isn't hammering the point into directly into your skull. There are things Veilguard could have done better on but I've seen a lot of common complaints that just seem to be the result of people refusing to do any deeper thinking about what the game is saying and doing very surface level readings.

[spurgie-cousin]

trying to figure out a shorter mid-week video to do, and I'm so lost in the fundie sauce I'm not sure if a Rodrigues family "crash course", ie shorter videos giving some background on the family, Jill's early youtube days, etc would be redundant or something people would be into. so surprise, here's another poll:

*know not more 😑

[pigeonstab]

Y'know that post talking about how ppl interpret sans reacting to Papyrus' death? And how in trying to stray away from the earlier 2017 misconceptions we went too far the other way?

That's how I feel about Swap sans sometimes. Like, I get trying to get away from the whole 'blueberry' thing but like!!! You removed all his whimsy!! If you're trying to make him canon then he shouldn't be completely blasé and tired of life!! He wants to be in the royal guard, and he's funny and he makes tacos and he likes puzzles cause he's just the Sans version of Papyrus!

[rainbowtitania]

I've been chewing on Eddie's absence from 8x14 for a couple days now, and here's where I've landed:

If there's one thing I can say for Eddie's (and Buck's) arc in 8B, it's "deliberately paced." It feels like the most calculated part of 8B right now, with substantial, serialized movement in every episode (already a rarity on this show lol).

Also, if they'd wanted to bring eddie back at the end of 8x13, they so easily could have. one extra line to either chris or helena, "and by the way, we're going back to LA where we belong," and it's done. Add Eddie and Buck to the cake scene at the start of 8x14, maybe one line about being happy to be back at the 118, and it's established. Not well-established, but established.

I think if they truly didn't care about Eddie's character arc, that's what they would do. It's a more efficient use of the episode run time and shooting time/resources, vs needing to write a separate scene in a separate shooting location where he decides to come back. It clears Eddie's plot away in time for the big disaster, and basically sets everything back to baseline neutral. It's way easier to write eddie in the background of an ensemble scene than it is to write him alone. Just like, logistically.

So I guess I'm approaching the next couple episodes from a place of curiosity: why aren't they taking that easier route? what story does eddie not coming back from el paso before 8x14 allow them to tell?

[batlovebites]

Oddly, I've seen EPIC: The Musical brought up a lot in crk x reader stuff, which I love, but specifically people bring up The Challenge a lot, and I feel like people who only know about the Odyssey through EPIC are missing some important context.

See, Odysseus's bow wasn't just any bow. It had insane draw strength (The amount of force that will go into an arrow when you pull back the string and fire), which meant that stringing it took a lot of strength. Strength only Odysseus or a comparable Greek hero would've had. Since the story's a metaphor, none of the suitors are greek heroes of comparable strength (as the suitors are the bad guys of the myth), meaning that stringing the bow itself is impossible for all of the suitors, flat out. Since none of them have the strength the string the bow in the first place, none of them even get to try to do the second part; shoot through twelve axes clean- but it being clean is also an important part. Its not that they are to shoot through holes in the axe head's side like many think, but is explicitly the handle holes which are used to attach the axe head to a handle, which requires incredible precision to do. Again, this is something that is supposed to be impossible for anyone but Odysseus to do- Odysseus is the only person who ever has done it. The only person who is able to do it is the REAL Odysseus in disguise, after which he reveals himself and promptly murders all of the suitors for planning to murder Telemachus, among other things.

Point being? If you want to write a story about a 'The Challenge' type scenario, but characters other than the reader's love are capable of doing it, while you've technically written the same thing, you've missed the actual intent of the story. For example, if you wanted to make a 'The Challenge' type story for Hollyberry x reader, the challenge could be something about defeating Pitaya Dragon and bringing back say, a scale or something, since Hollyberry is pretty known as the one person who's managed to beat Pitaya Dragon. Arguable, any cookie of comparable strength should be able to do that, but the spirit of the story is that even if others exist that could, they don't participate, because the narrative is trying to represent Penelope's loyalty to her husband; Actually, in the original book, Odysseus has already arrived home but is disguised, and it seems that the challenge is just Penelope's way of identifying the disguised Odysseus as being Odysseus. See, he's disguised as a beggar who appears to Penelope and promises to her that Odysseus will return by the next new moon, and he says a bunch of thing that proves he knows Odysseus, but Penelope also says things that implies she's suspicious that the beggar is Odysseus- which she's correct about. So this isn't just a show of loyalty, its a show of loyalty directly to Odysseus, who she knows is there, and hopes presents himself to win the challenge, and prove his own loyalty in turn. So, sure, maybe in the Hollyberry scenario i proposed someone like Dark Cacao is strong enough to also beat that challenge- but would Dark Cacao try to steal a close friend's partner, even if he believed her to be dead? Is that the way you want to characterize him? Perhaps a fitting characterization for one of the Beast cookies, but then you're indulging in a different type of story; Which is fine, good even, but not the actual thematic point of 'The Challenge.'

[queernobi]

Saw a review of Hazbin Hotel that seemed angry that the show seemed to flanderize Angel Dust, and I don't know how to explain to people that Angel Dust was always a pretty two-dimensional character with very little depth.

He's basically like the anime Elfen Lied: ridiculously dark and visually interesting, but ultimately very shallow.

[rossithepixie]

i think sometimes people forget that dazai was also a teenager being groomed and trying to survive in an environment of hyper violence when they try to paint him entirely as a villain in regards to akutagawa in the past. They also conveniently forget the context of the organization that they were a part of. Mori himself calls the PM an organization of resentment and face (depending on translation)

So when Dazai, an executive in the mafia, goes out of his way to capture people for information, makes an elaborate plan to do so, only for akutagawa to kill them once they are captured before Dazai can arrive It is indeed a direct slap to the face. Especially in front of other subordinates. It is indeed something in the context of such an organization that can't be allowed to slide. In normal society Dazai's reaction is horrid but in the mafia? He still let him off with a warning. And i think context and nuisance is in everything a series like this.

And one must remember that while akutagawa is 15 here so was dazai when he joined officially, and at the time of this happening dazai is still only 17. They were both in essence child soldiers.

[loucifersbitch]

thursdays are the WORST because i'm out of the house for 3 hours for appointments and when i come back everything is on fire from this interview or that preview or what the fuck ever

thank GOD it's almost hiatus

[floralovebot]

listen,, i am Not defending all of sky's actions or his personality but he's genuinely just not as bad as the fandom makes him out to be.

a lot of y'all forget that sky is a prince with extremely overbearing and downright abusive parents that refuse to listen to him or treat him with any ounce of respect. and that the whole diaspro vs bloom situation was started directly because his parents forced an arranged marriage between diaspro and sky, constantly telling her parents that it would work out and never listening to sky the hundreds of times he tried to stop it. like again, he's not great, he's my least favorite specialist. but that situation was never in his favor. he was a 16 year old that dealt with strict, emotionally abusive parents his entire life and got forced into an arranged marriage with someone he never loved and was constantly told that it Needed to happen for the kingdom. trying to play it out like he's a serial cheater with some nefarious master plan is like,, really weird. again! not a great person he does a lot of shitty things. but blaming that specific situation on him, a teen with absolutely no say in his life who just met someone he genuinely likes and could love, instead of his parents is incredibly weird to me.

[some-teeth-in-a-trench-coat]

It's not like I've ever seen anyone here have any filter for what political messages they reblog, people just see someone talk about a situation in a way that makes them feel like they know who the villain is and press reblog, without question or applying any prior knowledge to their interpretation, especially if it's something that doesn't affect them personally, and especially if it goes against what they think most people believe so they can stick it to the man and feel like they know better. It's not something new and I usually don't hold it against anyone, I'm definitely guilty of it myself, but man does it feel more pervasive than ever now that every 5th post is taking a very confident stance on a war they only know from news and social media, all saying the same thing, enraged that anyone would ever claim otherwise. And it never hit so close to home for me, it was always someone else's problem for me too, someone I didn't know, but this time I got to spend a day wondering if a loved one was still alive, this time I get to be careful in public so I don't get killed for someone else's crimes.

Can we just all (myself included) think a little more, do a little more research before we decide what nuance does or does not exist? I promise you that you're not obligated to post about everything, you're not obligated to have an opinion on everything, and I promise you are going to be wrong sometimes.

[sturionic]

Activism is not cold-calling.

Activism is not cold-calling, and this is critically important to understand.

I'm seeing a lot of posts on here about 'building bridges' and 'finding community,' and then (extremely valid) response posts saying "BUT HOW??" And I'm going to explain something that can be very counter-intuitive: there is strategy involved in community.

As a longtime volunteer labour organizer, I’ve taken and taught many trainings on the strategy of talking. Something that surprises a lot of people is the very first thing you do in a union campaign. You sit down with your organizing committee, take out pen and paper, and literally map it out. You draw a physical map of the workplace: where are the entrances, exits, break rooms, supervisor offices. Essentially, ‘where is it safe to have a union conversation.’ Then you draw another physical chart of your coworkers. You sort out who is union-friendly, openly hostile to unions, or somewhere in the middle, and then you plan out very deliberately and carefully who talks to whom and in what order.

Consider: If Vocally Leftist Jane walks up to Conservative David and says "hey what do you think about unions," David is going to shut down immediately. He's not inclined to listen to Jane. But if Jane talks to Moderate Jason and brings him into the fold, then Jason is a far more effective strategic choice to talk to David, and David may actually hear him out without an instant reaction.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: If Conservative David turns out to be Alt-Right David, and could be dangerous to follow organizers, we write him off. We are not trying to reach Alt-Right David. We are trying to reach Conservative David, who may actually be persuaded to find solidarity with other employees as fellow workers. Jason is a safe scout to find out which one he is. It does no one any good if Leftist Jane (or even Moderate Jane who is a visible minority) talks to Alt-Right David and puts herself on his radar. Not only has she done nothing to convince Alt-Right David to join a union - she's probably actively turned him against the idea - but now she's also in danger and the entire campaign is at risk. NOBODY WANTS THIS. Jane was NOT a hero for doing this. The organizing committee was foolish and enacted a terrible strategy to everyone's detriment.

Where you can make a difference is with people who will listen to you. You having a conversation with your well-meaning but clueless Centrist Democrat Auntie, and maybe gently helping her understand some things the media has been glossing over, is way more strategically useful than you marching up to MAGA Neighbour You've Met Once and trying to "build community" or "understand" them. They don't care. They're impervious, dangerous, and cruel. But maybe your beloved auntie will think about what you said, and then talk to her friend Anna who IDs as "fiscally conservative" but didn't vote because she can't bring herself to get on board with Trump. Then perhaps Anna talks to her brother Nic who has MAGA leanings but isn't all the way there yet. Proto-MAGA Nic would not have listened to you, nor would he have listened to Centrist Democrat Auntie, but he might absorb some of what his sister is saying.

This is not a cop-out or an echo chamber. This is you spending your time and energy strategically and safely. You are not a useful activist to anyone if you’re dead. Anyone who is telling you to hurl yourself directly at MAGA assholes like cannon fodder has no understanding of the strategy behind community building, and you should feel comfortable writing them off.

Last point: If you are tired, emotionally devastated, and/or in danger: take a break. This post is for people who would feel better jumping into action, not for people who are too overwhelmed to even think about it right now. You are worth so much even if you’re not actively Doing Activism, and your rest is worth more than “a break period so you can recharge and Do More Activism.” We all deserve the individual dignity of being worthy of comfort, rest & safety just on the basis of being human, outside of whatever we're doing for others' benefit. To deny ourselves that dignity is to devalue ourselves, and that’s the absolute last thing any of us should be doing right now.