#adding all of op's tags because they're such an important part of the post ->

[fionnemrys]

THIS!! Every damn word!

There's a fantastic fic that explores some of this as Kara processes her grief and learns how to live on Earth and camouflage herself as human. I highly recommend it.

moments in the woulds by @lovepotionnumber5

One of the (so many I can’t even begin to name them all) worst failings of CW Supergirl is that they just made her the female version of Clark Kent. Then they put Superman as this absentee patriarchal figure that’s a towering paradigm of goodness and righteousness casting a shadow over Kara where she felt like she had to live up to his example.

It’s absolute bullshit. They bullied her into a corner, into a position of inherent weakness (because she’s a woman) when SHE is supposed to be the freaking star, and they never let her out. I don’t care about her “beating Superman in a fight”. That’s not where true power comes from. It’s not about true strength of character. It’s lazy and stupid and forced. Kara and Clark are so different. I wish they’d shown that. That’s where the really interesting character study lies.

There should have been more friction between Kara and Clark. More awkwardness. More just not knowing what to DO or how to BE around each other. Not just because of his abandonment/complete absenteeism. (Though that was a hard plot line to swallow. Not to mention having JIMMY OLSEN be the one man to show Kara the ways of the world as her “watcher” and show her the Fortress of Solitude? Are you kidding me? It was condescending and infantalizing. She was a GROWN ADULT and he was human). If Clark, for whatever asinine reason, really had to refuse to show Kara a little about his life as Superman and where the last remains of her HOME WORLD existed, she would have found it on her own when she was 15 or something. She’s got superpowers and she’s a literal genius with an IQ beyond pretty much anyone on Earth (another thing they conveniently chose to ignore in the show). As if she wouldn’t have discovered those things even without Clark.

But what I find so egregiously lacking in Kara as a character, is that by making her the female Clark Kent, they erased all sense of her identity as a Kryptonian. We could have had such a brilliant and interesting exploration of how Kara handles things differently as a Kryptonian than a human. How differently she views the world. How her lens is different than the people around her. ESPECIALLY CLARK.

Instead of Kara suffering in Superman’s shadow as a thinly veiled, clumsy, and unimaginative metaphor for women in a patriarchal society, I would have liked to see Kara be totally unfazed by it. Like a silly little bullet pinging off her. In her eyes, it would just be a byproduct of a low class civilization that hasn’t caught up to advanced society yet and it’s one of the many things she has to put up with on Earth. Her whole being would just be a casual defiance to it, she wouldn’t have the patience or even bat an eye, but the Kara we got in the show was definitely framed to stay within the box of Earth’s patriarchal norms.

Kara is an ALIEN and she came to Earth as a teenager. Her world view was already well-formed at that point and she would have had to adapt, but I wanted to see more of Kara the headstrong, proud, willful, even arrogant Kryptonian rather than Kara the cowed little alien people-pleaser, camouflaging to near invisibility to fit in. Clark was raised in hiding, he never knew a different life, but Kara did! She had already lived years not having to hide and she had a greater sense of self than Clark ever would.

I would have been far more interested to see Kara be frustrated with Clark for totally different reasons. Example: Everyone loves Clark? Yes, it bothers her. Everyone loves Superman? Yes, it gets under her skin. So maybe Alex mentions something about jealousy or James says something about envy and Kara EXPLODES. She’s not jealous. She’s not envious. No, she’s ASHAMED OF HIM.

“None of you understand. Not a single person on Earth gets it. You all view him as an alien, but you don’t have a clue…not a clue, just how much more of a human he is than he will ever be Kryptonian. Kal-El may be from Krypton, he may be my cousin by blood, but he is not one of us. He has no idea what it would even mean to be one of us. Yet, everywhere I look, he is the one this planet sees as the representative of my home, the Last Son of Krypton, but he is not Krypton’s son and he never will be. I despise him for it as much as I pity him for it. And it’s all my fault because I was supposed to be the one to save him from that. He is my failure and I can never change that.”

Just one example of something I would have liked to see get explored with Kara Zor-El. But nah.

[idoodlestuffsometimes]

Brother's Keeper AU:

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How did Caleb live so long? How can he still be here after 400 years?

A: Belos wanted him to stick around and so he made it happen. As for specifics: *shrugs* your guess is as good as mine! This is something I've preferred to leave up to the readers. I will simply confirm that he isn't hiding any goop powers or OP palisman-given magical abilities. He is, for all intents and purposes, a regular human who is somehow really, really old.

Q: If Caleb is still alive, where did Hunter come from?

A: The full story here hasn't been told yet, but you may notice Caleb is missing quite a few bones...

Q: Caleb's ears are pointed! Did Belos cut them??

A: Correct

Q: Does Caleb know about the Collector/the basilisks/Belos' plans?

A: Probably! He's been Belos' sounding board for 400 years. Access to things that could "further corrupt him" or provide him a tool for escape, however, are off limits, so there are many things, like the Collector, that he's heard about but never seen for himself.

Q: Where's Flapjack/Amity/Darius/etc?

A: This is basically a canon divergence. If you haven't seen a particular character, it's safe to assume for now that they're up to whatever they were doing in canon.

Q: I don't get it. Why is Caleb insane?

A: I suggest you reread the first few story posts, my friend! You have fallen for Belos' lies.

Q: Do you have a posting schedule? When will the next part come out?

A: There is no posting schedule. I draw (mostly but not always) traditionally in my free time, for the fun of telling a cool story, and some posts are longer than others. That means the timing of the next post depends on how long it is, how much time I have, and whether or not I'm at home with access to my scanner. Sometimes this means I post quickly. Sometimes it means you'll see me next month. Sorry about that.

Just know that if I know there's going to be an extended wait, especially one where I'm not actively working on the next drawing, I will make an announcement about it. If you haven't seen an update in a while but I also haven't said anything, it's almost definitely because I'm actively chipping away at a part of the story that's taking me longer.

Q: Why do some of the story posts have a letter after the number? Are these less important than the regular story posts? Can I skip them?

A: No, I Do Not Recommend skipping them! They are just as important as the others. They have a letter on the end because they were added later and I use letters as a way to avoid renumbering everything. If you see story posts labeled something like "3, 3A, 4", they are meant to be read the same as you would if they were "3, 4, 5".

Q: Can I make art/fic/cosplay of this au?

A: Knock yourself out! If you post it somewhere, please include credit, but otherwise I don't mind, and actually love seeing what you do with it! If it's NSFW though, please keep it in appropriate spaces with proper warnings.

Q: Wait there's fic/fanart?? Can I see?

A: If you look through the tag on my blog "BK fridge gallery" you can browse any content shared with me that I've reblogged. :) People are free not to share it with me too though, and there are some I don't reblog, especially if its gorey or suggestive, so you might be able to find a bit more elsewhere under the Brother's Keeper AU name if you look for it.

You may also notice I have a featured tag called "BK Soundtrack." That's for songs that people have suggested to go with the AU. You are welcome to browse or suggest songs of your own ;)

Q: :( I sent an ask but you didn't answer. Did you get it?

A: Probably, yes. Sometimes it takes me a few days to get to it. However, if it was theorizing about future plot points, I may actually be holding onto it with plans to answer at a more appropriate time. I like to keep many of my plans for the story close to the chest, so don't be surprised if your theory ask disappears only to show up many months later when the story has progressed to a point where I can give you a more in depth answer.

[socialjust-ish]

I reblogged this post, and @butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway responded. I think it's an interesting topic worth discussing, but butts has asked that we not fill up the OP's notes with giant discourse posts. I agree.

Here is a link to butt's response. Below the "read more" is my reply, because it is long and I am not going to ruin your dashboards.

Under what other fundraising circumstances have you asked people to perform their vetting in public for your approval (as opposed to the more traditionally accepted practice in community organizing of providing outlines that describe some but not all of your vetting procedures outside of the context of any specific call for funds)?

I generally work off the assumption that a fundraising post on Tumblr is a scam. Tumblr's search feature is not the best and I am even worse at tagging posts, so I don't have an easy way to search my blog.

But, on July 9th, I reblogged this post, about someone asking for help with a gofundme. I was, full dislcosure, in a sentimental mood and real sad. And the story got to me. So I reblogged it uncritically.

But here are the tags I made:

Maybe not the clearest indicator of "buyer beware" but the intent was for me to say "I believe these people, but you should do your own homework and be warned my belief is because I'm a sucker for a mom post."

Even with that context though, and with fully believing the post, I thought the responsible thing to do was warn anyone who saw the post that my reblog was unverified.

Because what you’re describing as “vetting” is, in fact, what I learned in my organizing work as “modeling vetting procedure for educational reasons” and includes getting the explicit consent of all involved to perform (in part due to the violative and invasive nature of most vetting techniques and approaches) the process in full via case study. This, notably, is not something that can ethically be done for anonymized public consumption, because literally no one would consent to their entire case study being made publicly available forever on the internet, and therefore cannot be ethically performed. Which is WHY the other, traditionally accepted, practice exists. To offer broad spectrum reassurances to an anonymized audience about the fact that vetting of fund calls is being performed, without unethically dumping a person’s entire life online during one of the most traumatic moments of their life.

So, first off, my wording may have been a bit poor, here.

I wrote that vetting is:

"Vetting is reviewing their information and disclosing what was reviewed and how it was validated."

What I should have said, for precision, was

"Vetting is when someone reviews the post's information. That person then discloses what type of material was reviewed (e.g., they spoke to them in person, they met over video chat, they have only spoken by text) but not necessarily the specific details of said material, and how it was validated (e.g., I met in person, I demonstrated it was a live feed, they had one witness with them, the photo includes a newspaper of today's date)."

So that's totally my bad. I shouldn't post on my phone.

My example of vetting was just that, an example. I wasn't suggesting that needed to be done for every case. I also probably shouldn't have added the last line about "here is the video for you to see."

But it's important to remember the context of these fundraisers: These people are already sharing their names, family members health conditions, and photographs of themselves online. It is not any more onerous or invasive for them to post a ~5 second video saying "Hey, it's me." These are non anonymized sources.

They're also, again, asking for five-figure sums of money. Some level of skepticism should be allowed and encouraged.

So I will ask again, being extremely clear about what I am asking and why.

First off, this is a snakry comment on my part, but this is not a clear question. It is 173 words long (113 if you end it at the first question mark), contains a few parenthetical tangents, and so many double negatives that I genuinely got a little bit lost. So, I'm going to break it down and answer as much of it as I can, but if you think me breaking it up loses context, feel free to advise.

In what other circumstances have you demanded the unethical revelation of private (and in mamy cases protected) information in order for you to personally verify the vetting process done by the person performing it,

Couple of points here.

As set out above, I believe my clarified definition of what "vetting" constitutes does not require the revelation of private information. It requires an authority figure stating "I have vetted this post, here's how."

If someone is posting a Gofundme online, and it is being "vetted" by a random blogger, the academic standards of ethics and protected information don't apply. You don't get to play the game of "This example of 'vetting' only works in an academic setting as an example" and simultaneously expect regulations and ethical standards used in the context of academia to apply. There is no "protected information" in the context of these fundraisers. These are anonymous people publicly asking for money from strangers. People considering providing funds can ask whatever questions they want to satisfy their respective level of skepticism.

I haven't ever demanded this information - even in my post above (because I gave an example of one method that vetting could include that disclosure =/= that's the only way to vet something) - because I don't typically donate to gofundme pages. But generally speaking, I demand this information for anything I do donate to. I once got scolded by a fundraising person on the street because I asked what portion of my donation would go directly to the charity, and what portion was a commission their contracting company received.

vs accepting their public conversations about tactic and technique (whatever else may be debateable about 90-ghost, it is NOT debateable that he has openly and publicly discussed his vetting process, even if he declines to publicize specific case studies, per ethical aid guidelines) as confirmation of process that you are within your rights to trust or not trust, but NOT within your rights to claim aren’t actually being done just because they are not being done for public consumption?

I did start my post by writing:

The entirety of the rest of them are just reblogs from 90-ghost. Of those reblogs, I think only two have 90-ghost saying anything, and all they say is "this is legit".

I'm not suggesting 90-ghost needs to publicly disclose the information of each family they supposedly vet. I was suggesting they need to do something other than tacitly reblog it.

I don't know who 90-ghost is. If you go to their page, their pinned post is a request for help for their personal fundraiser.

Their sidebar has two links, one to their twitter, one to their instagram. His Instagram post has two photos on it, one from 11 weeks ago, and one from 2014. His twitter appears to be more personal - sharing and reposting news about the war. A lot of it is not in English, and I'm a loser monoglot, so I don't know what is or isn't being said there.

But to the point: You cannot figure out how 90-ghost vets their posts easily. Despite your claim that it's "not debatable he has openly and publicly discussed his vetting process." It's actually pretty difficult to find. In fact, I can't actually find any posts of his explaining it. It might be easy if you follow him or are actively engaged with this community, but I'm not commenting on this because I follow him, or even OP. I'm commenting because I saw it on my dash.

Here's what I was trying to suggest was needed instead of these blank reblogs.

"Hi, I am 90-ghost. I have vetted this fundraiser. To learn what my vetting process constitutes, see this post [link to a post.]"

The silent reblog and the assumption it's vetted is what I take issue with, here.

If thus is NOT an ask you have made in other circumstances, can you explain to me what *specifically* about this set of circumstances means that the traditionally accepted public-facing vetting procedure discussion is inadequate,

Because charity scams, specifically charity scams related to Gaza, have exploded since October 7th. This is true of every natural disaster, according to Forbes.

and how this has NOT been present in other times when you have interacted with or spoken on the process and procedure of redistributing funds?

Two points here.

I don't typically interact or speak with the process of redistributing funds. I interact with what comes up on my blog. And so I click a link, and see that it's suspicious, and then look into it.

It wasn't until I started seeing posts about the Gaza fundraisers that I became aware of this issue with scam fundraisers. Don't worry, next time a hurricane hits, I'll be just as skeptical about those posts.

Additionally, and this is anecdotal, but you're asking what's different here, so this is the answer.

I reblogged this post on August 2nd. Within one hour of posting it, I had four asks in my inbox from "gazan Gofundmes". Prior to that ask, I had received a grand total of 0 gofundme posts in my inbox. That means one of two things:

Multiple people are watching every single reblog of their posts like a hawk, and critical or not, if a reblog was made, they then go and manually send an ask.

It's a bot network sending asks based on reblogs, like every other bot network on this site.

I deletedthose asks and so they're gone from my inbox, and I can't compare them to the verified list, but I reblogged one post and got four asks for others almost instantly. I assume it's pretty similar for everyone else who reblogs these fundraisers.

Even if they were legitimate, using a botnet to garner attention is... scam-like behaviour, if nothing else.

You have given zero evidence that any of these fundraisers are raising flags of illigitmacy, and are so far merely offering the possibility of illegitimacy and the protection of recipient private info fully in keeping with standard aid procedure ethical guidelines as enough to assume fraudulance.

Again, I'm criticizing the "vetting" done here, and people's apparent willingness to just trust a reblog as an endorsement of vetting. It is exceptionally easy to make hyperlinks on Tumblr. It is easy for 90-ghost or the spreadsheet to simply add a hyperlink saying "Vetting process is here."

The spreadsheet just says "this was researched by us."

What does that mean?

I understand that in the world of mutual-aid communities, you might have shorthand. But you need to understand that if you are trying to send a message to people who don't live in that world (like me) you need to provide some basic definitions and explanations of process.

All I've said (or at least, all I meant to say) in my post is "these "vetting posts" do not clearly explain how the post was vetted. That needs to be done, and people should think critically about why it isn't being done."

If you can, with a straight face, say "hey, silently reblogging a post and having to dig through that person's blog for pages and pages to find the post discussing how they vet things is a good system" then you and I live in different worlds.

That is….a wild speculation on your part that, by your demands, you are ill-equipped to actually validate or support on your own, which tells me you have (heaven forbid) decided to TRUST people in your sphere who tell you that you have cause to doubt these fundraisers,

I clicked a post uncritically reblogging a fundraiser, and went "Oh, these are vetted." I then followed the link to the supposed vetting, that they include, to find that it is a silent reblog from one person.

This was me, following the links on the post, to see how they vetted the post. And I was lead to that every time.

The post said "vetted here." The link it takes me to is not a vetting. It's a silent reblog. Even if we accept your standards for vetting (which I don't think are actually that far off what I consider vetting, I just worded it poorly) these posts don't do that. As I said in my first reblog - literally only two say ANYTHING, and it just says "this is legit."

That's barely any information at all. These people are asking for upwards of $50,000. If 90-ghost is trying to advocate for them, the least he can do is put in the 30 seconds of work to make the posts not look like scams. It's bad advocacy, if nothing else.

even though you yourself visibly lack the understanding of how that doubt should or even WOULD in aid work be put to rest.

Just to be clear, I fully accept the premise that if someone trusts 90-ghost, and 90 ghost says "I have vetted this post." then that's enough to justify donating.

What I'm saying is that a wordless reblog or "it's legit" is not proof of any of that happening. And if people from inside the community think that's convincing to the outside community, they are either naive, intentionally hoping people don't click the links to check, or some third reason.

If 90 ghost had a link at the top of the blog saying "Hey! Here is how I vet a post. If I reblog a post, it is a direct endorsement of this vetting procedure." I would be satisfied.

It's that they're operating on, apparently, an unorganized chain of faith that makes the "vetted HERE" links completely misleading. To figure out how 90-ghost vets posts, you have to dig through hundreds of their posts. To consider a quick hyperlink to a wordless reblog a valid source of vetting is unreasonable, in my view.

So my follow up question, once you’ve answered the earlier ones, is how are the conspiratorial accusations you are leveling here any different from the blind trust you are accusing others of having in things they don’t understand enough themselves?

I'm not entirely sure what the "conspiratorial accusations" here are, but I'm assuming it's my two bullet points re: What 90-ghost could be doing - this part:

There's no reason to trust 90-ghost just because they reblogged the post. How do you know 90-ghost isn't

A) In on the scam;

B) So (rightly) upset that this is happening that they don't care if some of these are scams on the off chance that even 1 is legit, and so are using their goodwill to "vet" posts.

If 90-ghost is doing a thorough vetting, that should be shared

If this is wrong and you're referring to something else, let me know

Again, this may come to me being imprecise in my language, so I apologize.

How I perhaps should have phrased this, is:

"A reblog alone is not enough to confirm a post is vetted. How do I know, from a silent reblog alone, that this post was vetted? If 90-ghost is vetting the posts, he should be sharing that by stating he has done so, and providing information on how he vets posts (again, not the specifics of the vetting for each individual, just a "here are the steps I take" post that is immediately visible and linked in any post he claims to have "vetted").

I don't think that's conspiratorial or unreasonable. I do think that, without that, it is reasonable to make those two assumptions. I don't know 90-ghost, because I don't follow this world closely. These posts are meant to be a "signal boost", so they're meant to go outside the usual circle of followers, right? So you have to assume those people won't know who 90-ghost or anyone else is. So if you want them to trust the process, that process should be explained clearly, consistently, and on each post or fundraiser. An empty reblog does not do this. And the fact that an empty reblog is used as the "vetting" post for every single post except two shows a pattern which is unusual and justifies skepticism.

How is your decision to trust the people undermining the credibility of online fundraisers without understanding enough about EITHER side’s points to convey them yourself with any actual evidentiary support (have you perhaps never actually SEEN the evidentiary support your trusted people claim is responsible for their perspective?) in any way different from the choice of people (knowing the risks) to donate to fundraisers that are being circulated by the Palestinian community and their allies?

Again, you are jumping to assumptions about what made me reblog this, or who I'm trusting. I saw the post, from someone I follow and respect, and saw that it had a bunch of links saying "vetted here." I followed the links, and there was no vetting, and no confirmation of vetting. That frustrated me, because when I read "vetted here" and "please give me money" I expect to be able to... verify the vetting before I consider giving money.

Perhaps they have reasons you have not seen (looked for?) to trust and make their own judgements.

Sure, but words have meaning. And a link that says "vetted here" implies that if you follow that link, you will be given information confirming a post is vetted. To come to the conclusion that "90-ghost reblogging a post = vetted" requires significant time and investment into the mutual aid community that is absolutely not apparent from the link. And so when all you link to are wordless reblogs that, justifiably, raises questions about how skeptical people should or shouldn't be.

Perhaps your condescension goes beyond questioning the capability of Palestinians to know how to organize aid calls and ensure effective distribution, and even extends into believing your fellow non-Palestinians are just too easily duped? Would be just as skeptical of you if they realized how much trust they were putting in another person?

Again, you are making a lot of assumptions from what I think is a pretty simple ask: Provide a clear and easily accessible link to how the vetting process occurs, and specific confirmation that a post was, in fact vetted. A silent reblog does neither of these.

Weird how YOU haven’t seemed to question your trust in the people who started this uptick in shaming of donation posts even though you clearly reference seeing posts that call that trust’s validity into question.

I saw one post, it's been linked above.

I don't actually think I reference any posts that call that trust's validity into question, here. The only thing I do reference is people "blindly" reblogging."

But that was based on the personal observation of someone I follow blindly reblogging the post.

Maybe the problem isn’t that people don’t know they’re choosing to trust someone, but that they have intentionally chosen to trust someone that you have chosen not to, and you cannot tolerate that someone might do that while thinking it was the right choice, because what does that say about YOUR choice if they think that?

Nope! Trust is fine and good.

I take issue with the misrepresentation that the links that say "vetted here" do not, in fact, vet the post.

That's my issue.

I understand donating to any individual fundraiser requires a network of trust, and don't particularly care what degree of trust anyone chooses to use or not use.

But uncritically reblogging a post with a dozen "vetted here" links, of which none actually provide any information on the vetting, is bad and silly.

I suppose saying it's suspicious is probably unfair. I try to follow the "never assume malice when stupidity would suffice" rule. But like... it's either malicious or stupid to think that's an adequate "vetting" - ESPECIALLY when trying to convince outsiders to the community to donate.

Again, imagine you are me: Someone not involved in this community. You have sympathy for Palestinians wanting to flee the country. A post comes across your dash which says "these fundraisers have been verified." You click the "vetted here" button. You are taken to a silent reblog of a post. You go, "okay, maybe this 90-ghost person is some sort of authority." You click to get to their home page. It has no links discussing how, why, or what criteria they use to vet posts. It also doesn't make it clear if a reblog is a "vetting" or just an endorsement. There are two posts in the list where 90-ghost says "this is legit." Why didn't he say that on the other ones? Are the other ones not legit? Has he only vetted the ones he explicitly says "These are legit"? If so, why do only two of these meet the criteria? What does 90-ghost do to vet these posts?

Do you see why that's an issue?

Or maybe you really do just think your fellow non-palestinians are too stupid to know that vetting processes are literally always about deciding who it is worth it to you to trust and making the most of a situation that can literally never be made asshole-proof?

Again, I understand this about vetting processes. My gripe is that a wordless reblog provides ZERO information to suggest anything has been done.

Feel free to just say that next time. It’ll be faster, and you’ll irritate fewer people in the process.

I think I've said it a few times, but just for total clarity:

If someone says they are vetting a fundraiser, they should set out:

Their methodology for doing so (again, not revealing the actual information they received, just what type of information they do receive);

A quick statement that confirms that specific post has been vetted so you can tell which posts are vetted, and which are sympathetic; and

Make access to the vetting process easily discoverable (e.g., a pinned post, a link in the reblog, etc.)

Failure to do these warrants skepticism, especially when the call for aid is meant to be broadcast outside of the community that already knows this information.

[nazuna-tunnel-vision]

re:your post about the she/her-ing of enstars characters! i just wanted to provide A Perspective on it. i recognize this probably isn't everyone's perspective and i don't want to claim to speak for everyone but i figured providing a perspective could maybe be helpful in some way and i do like thinking about fandom behaviours critically yknow! (and ig disclaimer ahead of time that i always use she/her for arashi, she's the exception to whatever i'll say below bc canon transfem character)

for me at least i tend to refer to characters with she/her if they're ones i specifically headcanon as transfem/mainly using she/her pronouns or if it's specifically requested by op of an art/etc and i'm reblogging it and adding commentary in the tags. for me the regulars are ibara/mayoi/sometimes hokuto or tomoya or hiyori, with veeery occasional one-offs of other characters . which is a fairly small group of characters in the grand scheme of things! but if everyone in the tag was doing that for the small group of characters they personally have those headcanons for, then eventually at some point it'll go around to every member of the cast. that might be part of why it seems to be oversaturating the tag; there's a lot of unique people here on enstarsblr with their own unique interpretations of the characters' genders.

another thing i think is worth pointing out is that since the characters for the most part in canon are cis men, it's not going to be as visibly obvious when someone headcanons a character as transmasc, since for the most part a transmasc version of an existing enstars character will be referred to similarly as they would be in canon. unless op specifically states it, there's no way of knowing if the he/him they're using to refer to an enstars character is meant in an adhering-to-canon cis way or an i-hc-this-character-transmasc way. i personally headcanon every iteration of nazuna, natsume, or jun that i talk about as transmasc, but that's not going to be as visibly obvious as my ibara/mayoi/etc. headcanons because there isn't a difference in pronouns between canon and the headcanoned version of them that exists in my head.

additionally, i'm asian - which has a big effect on how i personally approach trans enstars hcs, because my view on gender + the social structures informing it is directly informed by my lived experience as a trans asian person. i've personally lived through a LOT of microaggressive feminization sourced from the general feminization of the 'East' and asian people and bc of that (+ my general interest in studying gender + related expression as a social construct) i can say that i, at least, am critical of those potential sources of headcanons because of my personal experience and awareness of them. i can't guarantee this for every enstarsblr blogger obviously but idk. you can't know a person's entire lived experience and why they have the headcanons they do just by seeing them use she/her for a character consistently. i do think that you're bringing up a good point in that asian men - and in particular the specific kind of 'soft' masculinity that asian idols generally try to achieve - are overly feminized by the west, and it's definitely a good thing to keep in mind when making these hcs, but i also think it might be less of a source of these headcanons than we might think. nevertheless i will always encourage ppl to be critical of their own thought processes and think about why they make the headcanons they do!

i hope this uh. i dont know if this will help at all it got a bit long and rambly but i hope the perspective i brought could at least add something to the conversation!

hiya, thank you for writing this thoughtful reply! i was hoping for someone to provide some perspective when i wrote that post so i’m glad i got a reply, especially one as long as detailed as yours.

you bring up a very important point that we can't know a person's lived experiences and why they chose to use certain pronouns for a character just from their posts. it definitely would be bonkers to expect people to explain themselves every time they use not-usual pronouns for a character, or to expect them to add disclaimers that they are thinking critically.

(putting everything else under read more bc this made me think a lot. basically lots of thoughts about what it means to engage in fandom with a lot of conflicting interpretations of the work, especially with respect to gender)

---

i’m sort of thinking out loud here but like. i think it's a. very strange conundrum we face regarding gender in fandom. irl i usually use the principle of "we should just use whatever pronoun the person uses for themself". i’m a huge supporter of prioritising that individual above others who might be uncomfortable using a certain pronoun for a person they coded a different way.

i instinctively use this principle when engaging with fiction too, but. "use whatever pronoun the person themself uses" does not necessarily work in fandom because the characters themselves aren't real; they won't feel dysphoria from us assigning them genders or misgendering them. 

i think we should prioritise readers' experiences. but sometimes that reader experience involves headcanons and certain degrees of projection that makes interpretations diverge quite a bit. i'm not saying that projecting on characters is wrong, it’s quite the opposite; i know it can have very transformative and constructive impact on how the reader thinks about things and i 10/10 support it.

but it’s like. which interpretation do you privilege? can they even coexist? it’s not the same as more inane headcanons like “nazuna always cooks fried rice for others bc it’s the only thing he can actually cook”. (this is wrong, by the way. source: Trust Me [this is a joke, i’ve never actually given nazuna’s cooking skills much thought, despite being tumblr user nazuna-tunnel-vision. i don’t actually have thoughts about this. he does cook fried rice for ra*bits on multiple occasions though and they all love it. sorry for the sudden nazuna fun fact intermission. i couldn't help it])

gender headcanons inadvertently become a lot more personal and political. i can just ignore or skim over whichever fic or post that incorrectly talks about nazuna being terrible at cooking and still enjoy other nazuna-centric posts by that person. but i can’t really do the same for posts with differing interpretations of gender bc i’ll be reading normally and then get smacked out of the immersion with “???! the pronoun??”

i'm a little. sad and miffed about this because i think people who assign non-usual genders to characters tend to be very enthusiastic about these characters. i sure would love to read what they have to say and to bask in that energy, but i truly do not enjoy the physical sensation of being metaphorically hit in the face every time i come across a pronoun i did not expect to be used for that character.

---

and i know that this reply has already gotten plenty long but i’m also starting to wonder how much of me preferring people to stick to the pronouns that i’m used to comes from a place of privilege or conservativeness. there is my concern about people needlessly feminizing men who aren’t Buff Hollywood Male Men, but also the majority of my reply so far has basically just been “man i would prefer if people just stuck to my interpretation of gender where i can see it :/”. it reminds me a lot of straight pride and the protection of prevailing gender norms - you know, when people are homophobic and transphobic not necessarily because they’re evil and want to actively want to repress people, but because they’re personally uncomfortable with it. they just don’t want to see it and be made uncomfortable. the whole political stance of, “i don’t care if people want gay sex - they can do their own thing, it’s none of my business. but i do NOT want them to demand marriage equality where the rest of us can see it”. because marriage & the law is in the public sphere and isn’t easily blocked out. obviously these things are not of the same severity because we’re talking about headcanons about fictional characters here, but you get the idea. 

in hindsight i do wonder if my previous post should be archived because it does sort of send the message that it’d be nice if people change the pronouns they use for everyone-sans-arashi in the public enstars tag. like yeah it would be nice for my personal fandom experience, but i don’t want people in the tag to feel like they have to censor their words to make others in the fandom comfortable - especially if their gender headcanons for characters help them to explore their own conceptions of gender. or if it just makes their engagement with the story more fun. you guys have my full support even if the she/her-ing of enstars makes me instinctively flinch and bang my knee on the table every time i come across it. i will grit my teeth - or find some way to mute or block you guys if it really comes down to it - but never change!!

---

the topic of the privilege of comfort & the fact that i flinch at the she/her-ing mostly because of how it conflicts with my own interpretation of the characters also makes me wonder - is it the same for you when you come across people using he/him for characters that you identify as using she/her? since from your perspective, we are misgendering them.

my current guess is that it’s a little different because he/him is generally the more popular & mainstream interpretation. so you might be more aware of and prepared for he/him misgendering. or you’re simply more accepting of different gender interpretations because that was already your starting point to begin with. it probably doesn’t hit you out of the left field like it always does for me. i think! i dunno.

or maybe the characters’ gender identities are like little secrets between you and the character. so looking at people who misgender them might instead make you go, “haha look at this idiot who doesn’t know”. (i’m not sure if it’s appropriate to bring this up in a discussion that unexpectedly became pretty serious, but i think that’s a fun way of engaging with fiction and fandom.)

if there is a difference in the way we react to gender interpretations different from our own, i think it might reflect, to an extent, the way people irl deal with queerness and the whole sentiment about how being queer is valid, but somehow not valid enough to be seen in public (like at gay pride) or in the public sphere (like in laws). again, how we address fictional characters really doesn’t have the same gravity or consequence, but i think the sentiments behind it might be similar.

(another possible explaination is that i unfortunately need to touch grass because i'm taking headcanons and fictional characters' genders too seriously. can't cross that out!)

you don’t have to answer this though; it’s already more than enough that you took the time to reply to my initial post with my perspective! your reply really made me think a lot. thank you <3

[cacodaemonia]

I'm not adding to this to argue with anyone, and idk what op's follower count is like, nor do I care. But I would like to comment on two parts (second part is under the cut):

people don't come here to network, and it's a little strange to look at your followers purely as a means of distributing your own content.

Some people do. That was why I joined Tumblr in like 2010 when I was doing freelance illustration. It's quite literally an income stream for some artists who do commissions.

For the majority of us who are not hoping to support our livelihoods by sharing work on Tumblr, the complaints regarding low interaction are not about 'distributing our own content.' I've said it a dozen times and seen other people say the same thing: it's about having some sense of community and shared interests with people—not pointless numbers of likes on a post.

I couldn't care less about likes on Tumblr or kudos on AO3; if someone enjoys what I made for my own enjoyment and then decided to share free of charge, what's wrong with me wanting to hear from them? Most artists (including gif makers, podficcers, etc.) and writers on this site aren't here to churn out 'content' for randos who give nothing back. We're here because we love a thing and want to share our creations with other people who love it and will scream about it with us.

I just... don't understand why that seems unreasonable to some folks?

whether you're an artist or a memeposter or just a regular fucking person with 12 followers, YOUR own followers are your primary audience. as in, the people who saw your art and liked it so much they decided to stick around. and those people are very likely sharing your stuff anyway.

I 100% agree, except they're not sharing it. And I have no idea what it's like for other people who have shared art or fics on Tumblr, but over the past few years, I've still been getting lots of followers. And yet, things like reblogs and comments have only gone down. I'd say that, by the time I stopped posting my stuff on Tumblr about six months ago, I was usually getting far fewer than 100 reblogs on fan art (even days or weeks after posting them), which is about 2% of the people who followed me at that point. And most of those reblogs had no tags, so they were still very impersonal.

So no, I don't expect people who don't follow me to interact with the things I share. But I'd much rather have 100 followers who actually treat me like a human being than thousands who take and never give back.

That's why I like AO3 for sharing fics and art: so far, at least, the attitude of, "I deserve fics and art without even acknowledging the people who make it" hasn't permeated the community over there as much.

Finally, I'm not even writing all this for my own benefit; with the exception of a few events, I don't share my work here and don't plan to start again. But I think it's important for Tumblr users to try and consider all this from the perspective of people who are still sharing their creations here.

Imagine if someone irl said they like the things you make, and you just finished something, so you run over and show it to them. How would you feel if they looked at it and just walked away without a word?

Sure, participation isn't compulsory, but fandom wouldn't exist if everyone acted that way. :/

i agree that its a little strange to see just how big the discrepancy is between active users who post and reblog things and passive users who limit themselves to liking posts and/or voting in polls... but i also resent this idea of like. compulsory participation.

if people want to lurk, let them lurk. does it align with the core idea of a microblogging platform? not really, no. but tumblr is a public website and maybe its high time for some people to get more comfortable with the idea that you're always going to have a silent, invisible audience on the internet, who will read and watch and look at and listen to your stuff without making themselves known. thats the main difference between closed social networks like facebook, where you have total control over who sees what, and (semi) public platforms like tumblr.

yes, the whole like/reblog ratio thing has gotten worse recently, and im sure there are a lot of newcomers who simply aren't sure how to get started with a blog of their own (it definitely took me a while to start reblogging things when i first joined. and it was another few years until i eventually started making my own posts lol) and its good to encourage them, but i dont see how guilt tripping people is going to change anything, especially wrt artists

people don't come here to network, and it's a little strange to look at your followers purely as a means of distributing your own content. whether you're an artist or a memeposter or just a regular fucking person with 12 followers, YOUR own followers are your primary audience. as in, the people who saw your art and liked it so much they decided to stick around. and those people are very likely sharing your stuff anyway. next come the people finding your posts via tags. but anyone beyond that point--your followers' followers, and their followers--those people aren't part of your immediate community. they're random strangers who are here to curate their own little blog in whatever way they like. they're individuals with particular interests and preferences and not simply an abstract ~audience~ waiting to be fed. this idea that people who come across your stuff outside of your own little bubble, and like it, then somehow also owe you a reblog is incomprehensible to me. every single day i see art on my dash from fandoms i dont know and dont care about. and sometimes i click like just because it's well-made. that doesnt mean i want it on my blog

[mydaroga]

Would you mind elaborating on the type of behaviour you're talking about? I'm not tryin to cause trouble, i just hate the idea that you feel like the fandom is unwelcoming and I'd like to understand more!

Hi there. Thank you for your interest, because I think this is an important topic. I want to be really careful about how I talk about this, because there's enough uncertainty in these parts and I don't want to be part of the problem. But by the same token... there's a lot of uncertainty in these parts and I think a lot of it comes from a lack of direct communication. I'm also hesitant because I've only been here since January, and I'm hardly an expert. I welcome comments from anyone who feels comfortable adding their thoughts, or who feels I've gotten something wrong.

So let me be clear and upfront about this, to start: I really like this fandom and I'm really happy to be here. I have met some really incredible people that I hope I will be friends with a long time. I have been warmly welcomed and made to feel like my contributions were appreciated. I have been reached out to and I have had my overtures returned.

So when I said, in my tags, that there were unwelcoming elements under the surface, that is what I meant. When I first got here, I actually had more than one person warn me or express surprise that I found it friendly. That's troubling, don't you think? And in the past few months, what I've found is that there is some combination of 1) unwritten rules and 2) different rules for different people? spaces? topics? the upshot of which equals more people than myself feeling uncertain about where and whether their voices are welcome. There's a fair bit of policing, but it's not overt. You more just get the feeling from posts you see here and there that something is bad or wrong or stupid or unwanted, but to me anyway it's never entirely clear exactly what or why. And that leads to people thinking, "huh, they might be talking about me." Or, at best, “I don’t know how to engage with that because I don’t know what’s behind it even if I kinda agree with some of it.”

Whether one is "guilty" of said bad/wrong/stupid/unwanted thing, this only serves to make people feel uncomfortable, uncertain, and unable to respond. And I think that then compounds, because to bring it back to the OP that I was responding to, one thing I've noticed is posts that announce that "everyone who thinks X is wrong" are usually about things I've never seen anyone say, and then I see posts about how "everyone who thinks X is wrong is Y," and it becomes this bizarre game of telephone, based on an original annoyance or irritation that may well be true but is, at this point, untraceable and irrelevant.

And in that climate, it becomes scary to speak up, even about sometimes innocuous things, because people aren't really sure whether they're the ones being complained about, and aren't even sure whether they're "allowed" to speak. I've seen people complain that no one discusses or debates with them, and I've had people message me about being too afraid to discuss or debate. So something is keeping folks who want to from engaging, and I think that is unfortunate. Because there is no fandom without people contributing to it in their myriad forms and formats.

I hope that helps, and I hope I haven't put my foot in it, and as always I do welcome any comment or, yes, criticism. This is a very small fandom. Others I've been in are certainly not free of drama, but it can be a little easier to find "your people" and curate your experience because there are simply more of them. And my personal opinion is that there's not an insignificant number of folks in this fandom who feel this burden of uncertainty about just what is welcome.

And, though no one asked me, I think it should all be welcome barring that which is intentionally hurtful or hateful.

[free-falling-grenade]

I SEE YOUR TAGS IN UR OWL HOUSE REBLOGS. Are you okay? are wE okAY? aFTEr that EPiSODE? HOW ARE WE FEELING FAM. TELL ME EVERYHTING

OP. IM NOT OKAY. WE are not okay. I mean if you are after all that, then i admire your strength.

I'm not even gonna lie to you, I fuckin cried. But I was holding it back. I'll probably watch it later as a reason to ugly cry. Reblogging the posts made me cry. Reading the theories made me cry.

It boggles my mind coz we forget a bit despite all the fun and cute times Luz is havin the past few episodes, this kid is literally traumatized and not okay.

The way she talks about her problems like they're nothing, that shes a burden, how it didnt matter hit too close to home. Because I was that kid. I was that kid when my grandpa died and no one knew but I was so off. When I said those words before a deeper part of me BEGGED to be noticed. That's why that look on Amity's face when Luz was tryin to downplay it? Or Eda figuring out something was bothering Luz? That fucking broke me. Coz I get it. I really do.

We forget that Luz is really just a kid. And with everything going on in her life there isnt really much time to grieve. To sit down and take it all in. Regardless of whether or not Luz wants to. Her life is full of adventures, and trouble, and chaos, both fun and life threatening. Time used to sit down and reflect is time wasted on finding more clues on how to make the portal. Or more information on what's gonna happen on the Day of Unity. Luz really has no time to stop. And we obviously see, she really doesnt want to. Coz stopping is admitting that this is real. She knows that already but this is very very real. Everything she went thru. Shes a person who needs a solution fast. Shes someone who's eager to solve other people's problems before solving her own. So by helping everyone, shes convinced to be helping herself.

Also I saw on a post how the fact that shes away from her mom during this time is probably added weight. That's why I believe is why she wore Eda's jacket as assurance and physical comfort, or her willingness to help Amity with her dad. She has to do something. Coz she cant do anything for herself rn.

There was alot to unpack in that episode tbh. I loved ALL the cute parts. EDA being a TOTAL mom with Luz. With the Blight twins getting adopted by Eda, mostly Edric but the twins are a package deal. The twins looking like REAL teenagers and Emira lookin like shes not ashamed of it as long as she gets to help Amity. Alador I still lowkey dislike. Its gettin to the neutral zone but he is not a good parent. I'm glad they showcased that. Ahh and everything else I'm not gon mention coz it's too long and I'm lazy 😭😂

Anyway, that was an absolute real and vulnerable episode. It was heavy for me coz this show just never fails to disappoint. Also the most important part is that the emotions in that ep was very real. And it's quite rare to see that nowadays.

Kudos to the whole toh team

[lucifer-is-a-bag-of-dicks]

Thank you for asking people to back off on the op of that vivisection post, but I think it needs to be more visible than in the tags. I get that the phandom is a friendly bunch, but it seems no one has actually read deeper than the notes on the post (as most people on tumblr are wont to do) and seen that the op on their blog has stated they don't like the constant "this is what DP is about!" and "sorry for ruining your innocence/you had to find out about the phandom/angst/gore this way" responses when they are (1) a fan of ACTUAL non-DP-related gore and therefore not "innocent" (and that they're a bit freaked out by the constant implication that they are/the phandom acts as if they invented gorey fics) and (2) did not ask for anyone to tell them why they should watch it (and has in fact said they are NOT interested in DP). Like, I get that the phandom is super enthusiastic and wants to share their love of the show/fandom with others, but at this point it's like unsolicited advice from a stranger--unwanted, unasked for, probably irrelevant to their own interests, and annoying. All the unsolicited badgering only seems to make them more adverse to getting into DP, it's not like a best friend saying they're ok with listening to you ramble about your hyperfixation. I feel bad for OP. The phandom IS one of the friendliest and well-behaved people though, and you're really well-articulated (unlike me, look at me I'm rambling), so can you maybe help come up with a way to curb this kind of thing in the future? Maybe encourage people to pick up the behavior of not only checking the notes but checking the blog to see if the OP already got answers or even wants them? Making sure others know to do that too?

you know what, I'm glad you sent me this because that post really bothered me too

I actually added those tags as a direct response to the op telling people to stop

yeah like this stuff really doesn't happen to us very often so it is really funny and exciting to see 'outsiders' react to our weird shit, but it got very excessive very quickly, and a big part of that is something that bothers me about MOST of the internet tbh and that is

people don't check the comments before commenting

what that means, is that you get fifty people commenting the exact same thing, and that is not fun, in fact that can be very frustrating, especially for someone who isn't actually interested in the topic to begin with, op's activity would be drowning in this content they don't actually want to see

the first couple of responses to that post were VERY funny, and even op was playing along! but seeing them be dogpiled like that was really upsetting and I hate to admit, kind of embarrassing to watch

our fun shouldn't come at the expense of other people, I love this phandom to death (ha) but we do tend to get overexcited about things and that can lead to people being unintentionally inconsiderate, this is one of those times

also? some of those comments were just kind of... hm, 'not like other fandoms'-ish? which personally does not sit very well with me, it's a somewhat toxic mindset, yes our phandom is remarkably discourse light, it's a very friendly and cohesive place to be and I LOVE it here like no other fandom, but we shouldn't be acting like we're... special, we're no more special and important than any other fandom

just, no shame to anyone to be clear, this so rarely happens to us and was clearly a matter of people getting VERY overexcited and just lapsing in judgement, but I would ask people to be considerate of this in future, this would have left a really bad impression of us and that's something none of us want

[glimmering-brainfamily]

hgfhgf ok this was all supposed to just sit politely in the tags but apparently tumblr has a tag limit so it's going under a readmore instead I'm really sorry

jewblog criticises op for centering their own experiences so I hope adding mine in the tags is alright. but I do think they are illustrative of jewblog's point

I'm an atheist (agnostic. its complicated), and my parents very deliberately raised me to be atheist. They'd both had christian upbringings themselves but neither of them were very pious, and my dad in particular was a staunch exchristian athiest. so growing up I was not put into a catholic school (despite those being cheaper and easier to access, and often being held to a higher standard of education than secular public schools in australia)

Even then, the secular public school had a 'religious studies' class that needed a parent's note to opt out of (which mine did). This class was pretty much just bible studies taught by a pastor. Only xtianity (specifically catholic xtianity but who's counting?).

Basically the point I'm driving home here is that my parents did e v e r y t h i n g in their power to raise me atheist. They fought the System tooth and nail. Buuut. School holidays each year revolve mainly around easter and christmas. The families of other kids all had christmas trees in their homes, and organised easter egg hunts in their backyards, so of course my parents had to do the same thing otherwise they'd feel like barbarians.

And obviously while I never had to go to church I knew what a church is. A lot of literature and media would talk about religion (xtianity) or had religious (xtian) themes, a lot of nonreligious people use religious (xtian) language and themes as a way to express really big or profound feelings or ideas... I really couldn't help but absorb a lot of it through cultural osmosis. Which is how you get to the kind of culturally christian atheist headspace where you're like, 'well even I know that cain killed abel with a rock because cain was jealous that abel gave god a better offering, everyone knows that', 'yeah abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son isaac and was gonna go through with it before being stopped by an angel. everyone knows that one'

I didn't read any of that in a bible or get taught it in school! I just know it because the entire world has been built in such a way that it's really hard not to know at least some of it!!! and you know what??? this fully does not apply to any religion other than christianity. did you know that I only just learned TODAY what a rabbi actually does??? I always thought a rabbi was roughly analogous to a pastor or priest. it wasn't until I saw a post, I think by vaspider, where it was exasperatedly but politely explained that a rabbi is more like... a professor or teacher of jewish laws. like an expert to consult about stuff you're unsure about or make sure important events adhere to jewish law. and that's it!!! they're not ordained by god to have special prayer powers or whatever, this block of tags has gotten so so so long lmao sorry well it's not tags anymore but im still sorry

but you gotta understand when people talk about cultural christianity, they're not precisely talking about you- well they sort of are but only in the sense that you exist and are part of the world, like. cultural christianity is 100% a societal thing. and the society for humans is THE WORLD. IT'S THE WORLD!!! TURN YOUR HEAD THERE'S JUST MORE WORLD TO LOOK AT!!! YOU CAN'T BLOCK IT OUT IT'S THE FUCKEN WORLD!!!!!!

and yeah it's not the whole world but unless I uproot my whole life and move to a country that doesn't speak english it's going to be MY whole world for the rest of my life. so. yeah.

it's wild because you don't start really seeing it until after you've been quietly listening to your jewish friends for a while and you realise you're living in the culturally christian matrix

Things I would prefer to be called rather than “culturally christian”

+ Raised christian

+ Has a christian background

+ Exchristian

These still acknowledge a person’s history with christianity while also respecting the fact that they have left it. Hope this helps!

[seilahsacress]

I've seen the original post and your reblog while searching the appropriate anti tags. I guess it's ok if I respond to your arguments?

Note: I mean no personal insult to you whatsoever, you can have any opinion you want on the series. You don't even have to read this if you don't want to debate. It's ok.

1-) What to do with the tradition of Shinobi would be too long of a debate, let's drop it for now. I have two major concerns with the 'peace between 5 nations'.

How did they manage to create peace after decades worth of wars? What makes the peace permanent? (Note: One can argue peace can never be permanent but that's another debate)

Why is it peace between only 5 nations? Why is it not peace between the entire Shinobi world?

Now... Let's look at both of those concerns of mine seperately.

Shinobi Alliance of 5 nations was founded for the 4th World War against a common enemy: Akatsuki, Madara, Tobi, Zetsu, whatever you call it. This alliance, by nature, is temporary. We can expect the nations to go back to what they used to be once this common threat disappears.

In order not to have repeats of the first 3 wars, nations should address what caused those wars and what their parts in those causes were.

And as far as we know, the sense of blind nationalism is still there. The notion that soldiers are expected to give up their loved ones, freedom, human rights and even lives for the village hasn't been officially debunked yet. Also, nations used to look out only for their own interests. Example: Kumo's attempts to steal bloodline limits. I don't think any nation admitted their past wrong-doings. Those selfish parties cannot achieve peace, especially not when their foundation relies on lies.

And my other concern, smaller nations... Yeah, why don't they still have the right to represent themselves at Kage Gatherings? And if a war was to break out, what stops the Big 5 from using their territories as war zones?

2-) ---

3-) So? Why should we be happy with this off-screen cop-out?

Besides, the Branch Members still have the curse seal. What stops the Main House from activating them again?

4-) Neji's death was completely stupid, both from a meta and in story perspective.

Anyway, that's not what I'm gonna say.

Neji was like "yeeey, I'm free!" at death. How is this message ok? He was a slave. Slaves are freed when they reclaim their basic human human rights and live, not when they die or "choose" to do what was expected of them. They're free when they have the right not to do what their owners tell them to do.

Neji loved his cousin Hinata and friend Naruto, good. He was ok with sacrificing his life for them, good again. However, he absolutely was not free. His death wasn't a resolution to the Hyuga slavery at all.

5-) The Third Hokage failed to stop a genocide. Then, he swept this government ordered crime under the rug and didn't appropriately punish the advocaters. I personally blame him quite a lot.

6-) He pointed that out because a 12 years old child dying in a war is fucked up. And the OP didn't claim that all what Obito did were just, he meant to say that it was Shinobi system's fault that a 12 years old went insane.

7-) ---

8-) Xenophobia against bloodline limit owners wasn't a one arc thing, it was one of the biggest flaws of the Shinobi system. And at top of Mizukage's orders to wipe out clans with bloodline limits, we also see similar fears and objectifyings over the course of the series too. For example: Kumo's attempts to kidnap Kushina and Hinata, Uchiha Massacre etc.

9-) Yeah, you're right but that wasn't what OP was talking about at all?

10-) Sasuke still doesn't have any political power to change the fucked up system that caused suffering to him, to his family and to many others.

And here comes the number 11, the most important part of OP's post...

"Naruto didn't change anything"

The OP listed reasons as to why the Shinobi system was wrong and how it's responsible for the sufferings of many.

Then he added... None of those issues were solved by the end of the series.

When he said Naruto didn't change anything, he meant the Hokage Naruto and the Shinobi system.

He did some inspiring talks and gave hope to people. Yes. Did he make radical political reforms so that no one would suffer as much as they did again? No.

That was OP's problem with the ending.

But my dude my friend my pal you see my problem, my biggest problem, with the Naruto ending is the complete lack of change in regards to the shinobi system and the way Sasuke was treated there after.

-Children are still being trained as child soldiers, which means this is not a time of peace. I know it’s unreasonable to think that every village would have no ninja but at least raise the age level requirement for admittance to the ninja academy? Like instead of tossing practically toddlers together and teaching them how to murder each other raise the age limit to 16? 18? Make them old enough so that they at least get a childhood and are old enough to be able to form coherent opinions on things for themselves instead of swallowing whatever “will of fire” bullshit is fed to them.

-Smaller villages still lack representation in things such as the Kage meetings and the Chuunin exams which is one of the main reasons the Akatsuki was formed in the first place.

-There was never any indication as to whether or not the Hyuga stopped using the forehead seals that enslaved the side branch. In fact clan oppression was never addressed at all. The people who spoke out against it and actively worked to change it were Neji Hyuga, Sasuke Uchiha, Haku, Pein, Obito Uchiha, Madara Uchiha, and Konan. Six of the seven listed above were murdered. Three of them are Uchihas. Six were all, at some point, viewed as villains by the narrative.

-Neji, who had been bitter about his destiny to die for the main branch just as his father was forced to do before finally beginning to believe that destiny and fate could change and that he didn’t have to throw his life at the feet of his cousins, ended up not only accepting the fact that his destiny would be to die for the main branch but died protecting Hinata as she tried to protect Naruto. This could have been avoided if Hinata had, I don’t know, used her clan’s technique of protective tri palms. Or at least summoned clones to take the blows.

-Sasuke wanted justice for his clan’s genocide at the hands of the Third. The Third threatened Itachi with emotional blackmail, saying that Sasuke would die if he didn’t do this. Itachi was already mentally traumatized and could see no other option. Sasuke wanted vengeance for the death of his family. First he was going solely after Itachi, but Konoha ninja had to chase him anyway even when he said his mission had nothing to do with them. Then he turned his sights on the village and the five kages, wanting to try them for war crimes that they very truly committed. But after being forced to give up on his desire for justice by Naruto and forced into silence by Kakashi he left and never looked back. Thank god for that.

-Obito was thought to have been murdered as a twelve year old child. Let that sink in. Obito Uchiha was thought to have been murdered as a child. He lived with the desire to create a dream world where nothing like what happened to him or Rin would ever happen again.

-Madara was initial supposed to be the Hokage but because Hashirama turned into a chicken shit and let Tobirama, who would later go on to oppress the Uchiha to the point where they were isolated and hated by the village, convince him to hold an election that Tobirama knew Hashirama would win. After Madara tried to warn his remaining clan members only to be ignored he left on his own and was seen as a villain for it.

-Haku was abandoned and abused by his village because of his bloodline ability, something that is never addressed again.

-Pein and Konan were children that, once again, were forced into war and suffered for it.

-Sasuke is supposedly treated as another Kage but there is a very big difference; he doesn’t hold the political power of one. Sasuke can’t change the system that failed his family and left him to grow up abandoned and alone as a child. Sasuke can’t fix the system that oppress clans like his everyday. Sasuke can’t put systems in place to protect people with bloodline abilities. Sasuke can’t stop things like what Danzo did with his family’s eyes and Root from ever happening again. All of these problems fell to Naruto to fix.

-And Naruto failed to change a single thing.

So listen friend I have problems with the ships but I have much bigger problems with the fact that nothing is ever addressed beyond “And now there’s peace.”