#also a fan of not attributing things to malice

[flock-of-cassowaries]

Very much agree. Hannibal is a preening show-off who needs everyone to acknowledge his superior intellect.

Will is just exhausted by the people around him and needs them all to shut the fuck up, because they cannot keep up and he does not have the patience to explain to them the things he gets implicitly.

Jack is probably medium-smart, but also a fucking idiot, because in season one, he completely buys into Hannibal’s peacock display, but treats Will as if he’s just an unusually-clever trained seal with particularly useful trick.

Related fic rec:

darling little idiot by @divinetheatre is a delightfully explicit one-shot that directly works with Will calling Hannibal out on his intellectual vanity in the most withering way possible (but also in a way that Hannibal, despite his being extremely flustered, is very, very into).

Perhaps not for everyone - mind the tags - but definitely a favourite of mine.

OKAY I am a little sick of people thinking of Will Graham as uneducated or unintelligent.

This man owned a huge amount of well-loved books, he was familiar with the works of Dante Alighieri, he outsmarted the FBI, and he could keep up intellectually with Hannibal fucking Lecter. On top of that, he manipulated Hannibal, a master manipulator, and even fooled him. He outsmarted the smartest man he knew.

As far as his education goes, Will had a degree in forensic science (a notoriously difficult field of study, at least in the U.S.) from George Washington University and was implied to have more than one, or at least multiple areas of education, due to his ACADEMICALLY PUBLISHED WORKS in entomology.

I'm not sure where this idea that Will is not as intelligent or educated as Hannibal (or other characters for that matter!) came from, but it seriously grates on my nerves. I am begging some of y'all to give him more credit. He's canonically incredibly intelligent, and that's not just from his empathy disorder.

(And before anyone comments, yeah, I know it's probably from the poor kid who grew up at the boatyards in NOLA fanon, but still.)

[lesbiancarat]

every time jun has gone back to China for activities I become more and more done with XCSS (Pledis China)... it's so clear they're incompetent and don't understand how the Chinese entertainment industry works 🙃

[good-to-drive]

how would you say the fab four's self-esteem issues manifested differently, and thus affected the way they were perceived?

i was reading some comments saying how george didn't have an ego at all, while john was a complete narcissist, for example, and many people agreed but i don't think i do. what's your take? btw i love your insights <3

Thank you so much for this ask!! It’s such a fascinating question, which is why I took a little while to try to answer it well. (Also, thank you so much, I’m so glad you enjoy my ramblings!! <3)

I considered breaking this up over four posts, but it's only about 2.5k words altogether, so y'know what it's fine...

JOHN

I think the question of John's self-perception (and how this manifested in his behaviors) hinges heavily on whether you think he may have suffered from borderline personality disorder.*

I once read a really poignant description of BPD (and many other personality disorders) as someone whose inner self is a “dark room," meaning that when they look inward they see only darkness and emptiness. There are things in the room – they absolutely have just as much inside of them as everyone else – but because they’ve never been able to see it they feel like some sort of empty, subhuman creature who could never possibly be loved.

Over time (and usually through therapy), the person can begin to “raise the lights”, so to speak, and see who they are on the inside and begin to develop a sense of self and identity and from there a sense of worth. Unfortunately, I think John didn't get the opportunity to do this work until late in his life, if ever. He spent most of his adult life contending with that perceived emptiness and the constant psychic pain that accompanies it, and I think that's what most defined his self-perception.

In terms of how this manifested in his behaviors, while the intensely idealized relationships often formed by people suffering from BPD largely function to reassure them that they aren’t completely and totally unloved, they can also be a way of soothing that feeling of unworthiness. The thinking is something like "At least one person thinks I’m worthy. And it’s this incredible, amazing, perfect person who’s too special for everybody else, but they’re not too special for me. And no one who's a part of something this special could truly be unlovable."

But, of course, those relationships also tend to be extremely volatile. And when the person switches their "special connection" to another person, everyone else who came before becomes a threat to this connection and therefore an enemy. And when you're on the wrong side of this kind of thing it feels exactly like malice or cruelty. So, in regards to how this defines the way John is seen by us/fans, I get why it's so tempting to frame him as a cruel or malicious person.

It's easier and perhaps more satisfying to attribute his volatile relationships to cruelty rather than a deep-seated schema of unworthiness, or to attribute his determination to be seen and loved to ego and then characterize that ego as reprehensible. But, with the benefit of time and distance, I think we can probably see that it was a way of trying to survive inside of a broken schema that put him constant psychic pain.

There's also a whole 'nother conversation about to what degree John did or didn't use his public image to self-soothe his feelings of emptiness, which actually brings me to the idea that John was a "complete narcissist."

I’m not sure if the comments you saw meant it in the reddit-y “narcissists are assholes so therefore all assholes are narcissists” kind of way, or if they mean that narcissists have insanely high opinions of themselves (which is true of neither narcissists nor John), or if they were actually using the word correctly.

But if they were using it to refer to the personality disorder, it's probably worth mentioning that people on the NPD spectrum also often struggle with those same intense feelings of unworthiness, emptiness, and self-hate. And John most likely did have some narcissistic tendencies that affected his behavior, but overall I honestly think he was more aligned with the BPD tendency to over-rely on idealizing a personal connection than the NPD tendency to use outside praise and approval as a replacement for internal self-worth.

*I recently became aware that some psychologists believe BPD is actually a form of CPTSD. I’m continuing to use the term BPD, but the truth is I’m not in a position to say whether people with BPD should more accurately be placed under the umbrella of CPTSD.

PAUL

I think the most important consideration when we look at Paul's self-perception is the fact that he most likely was on the NPD spectrum, and I genuinely think to some extent he relies on his public persona because he was denied the opportunity to develop a strong sense of self as a child.

(Off topic but it drives me fucking crazy that narcissist is slowly turning into a synonym for asshole and people with crippling childhood trauma and mental health issues now face even more of a stigma because whiny bitches on reddit couldn’t come up with a better word than “narcissist” when they were big mad. Argh.)

Okay, with that out of the way, I think in looking at Paul's self-perception we have to look back at his adolescence and take into account the fact that he was heavily burdened by his father's addiction and later his mother's death.

There's a quote from Paul about the day Mary died and Paul saying something to the effect of “What are we going to do without her money?”, which people erroneously interpret as Paul being cold (????) but I think obviously indicates a child who was pushed to take responsibility for his family’s financial problems (and by extension his father’s addiction and by extension their continued survival) from far too young an age and was existentially terrified that they wouldn't stay afloat.

(To be clear financial stress is just one tiny piece of being the child of an addict, but I think it's illustrative.)

Anyone growing up under that kind of pressure would be affected by it, and I think in Paul’s case it overwhelmed him with a sense of responsibility and corresponding fear that put his mind more on his family's survival than on himself. Which meant that as an adult he didn’t necessarily have a strong internal sense of identity to fall back on when he was experiencing internal doubts or outside criticism, and other people’s opinions became even more important to him than they are to most people.

In terms of how this manifested, I honestly think it turned him into one of the most media-savvy people I have ever seen. Which, yes, sometimes reads as performative. But for some people their feelings are realer when they’re seen. By making it public/visible they make it a part of how people see them and by extension a part of themselves.

This is also why I think it’s a little bullshit when people try to assign this duplicity to the way Paul intentionally/consciously overhauled his brand after the beatles – just because he wanted everyone to think he was Ultimate Wife Guy/Number One Dad it doesn’t mean he didn’t actually want to be that person. In fact, I think it meant that he did.

All that being said, it’s probably smart to remember that any image we see of Paul (and any other celebrity) isn't a reflection of who they are but rather of how they wanted to be perceived during that particular conversation. Every conversation has an audience, and sometimes for Paul that audience is a literal audience, and it's a little naive to treat the statements he makes publicly like some kind of unfiltered stream-of-consciousness peek into his mind rather than, y'know, public statements.

It’s not that anything he says is necessarily false, rather that things we enjoy hearing may be overrepresented, things we don't care about may be underrepresented, and it will all likely be portrayed in a way that's generally pleasing. In that way, Paul might sometimes function as a mirror to our own feelings about the beatles and their legacy (or our feelings about Paul and his legacy). I talk a little more about this in the replies here.

It kind of reminds of a quote from Marc Maron's podcast about Paul that I can't find the exact text of, but it was roughly "He's become a theme park where people go to relive their memories of The Beatles, and he's okay with that." Paul is a generous, savvy performer trying to perform something we will enjoy without totally selling out the sense of self/identity that he experiences vicariously through his public persona. So it’s both very sincere and very performative. They’re not incompatible. 

GEORGE

There’s arguably some conflicting ideas about George’s self-perception, with the general fan assumption that he was overwhelmed with insecurity not really aligning with how the people around him often described him as having a strong internal sense of identity, individuality, or confidence. That being said, it can absolutely be both.

I think we in the beatles fandom tend to assume that George had terrible self-esteem because we tend to see him through the lens of the beatles (actually I guess we see them all through that lens, but it’s arguably the most limiting with George), and it just seems like common sense that if you were trying to be a songwriter in the shadow of the two greatest songwriters of all time you’d end up feeling pretty shitty about yourself. 

Then, on the interpersonal level, there’s the fact that both of the people we often see as George's most important friendships (although I’m not at all sure they were the defining relationships of his life) were extremely focused on conveying to everyone around them that they preferred each other. Which is a very natural thing for a hyperidealized bond to do, btw – oftentimes people with BPD need everybody to know that their idealized bond is extremely special and their idealized person prefers them to everyone else.

(That's not to say Paul and John were friend-excluding jerks, btw. It's obvious they were very close with George, not to mention Ringo. It's just that it was probably soothing to them to perform the specialness of their relationship in front of others, to convey to people that their closeness is extreme and important and unlike anything they have with anyone else, or, indeed, unlike anything anyone else has ever had.)

But I honestly think this perception of George as someone overwhelmed with insecurity is yet another perspective on George that only really makes sense if you insist on exclusively seeing him in the shadow of the beatles. Put it up there with “George didn’t play well with others." It’s something that feels intuitively right… as long as you don’t really know anything about him that doesn’t directly involve Paul and John.

I'm not saying he was never insecure and never tried to talk shit about himself, but look at how many people described him as individualistic, confident, etc., from a very young age. Also, frankly, he just never seemed super concerned with controlling how he was perceived or searching for validation via his public image. I don’t think it’s a case of outgrowing John and Paul’s shadow, either, because apparently he was literally always like that.

I know people will immediately point to George's bids for connection in Get Back, how they sometimes took the form of "I'm bad at music" and then waiting for the "No, you're not!" and how this contrasts to Paul's bids for connection, which were more like "No one likes me" or "I'm bad at being in charge."

I have my own issues with GB (it's got every reality TV red flag under the sun) and even more issues with how it's perceived, but, yeah, this definitely points to George at that point in his life feeling a sense of musical insecurity. Or, at the very least, using his perceived musical inferiority as a bid for connection.

And it’s also probably worth noting that George really did describe himself as a “pretty good guitarist” who wrote songs that “weren’t that bad”. Which honestly doesn’t strike me as someone with horrible self-esteem (especially because he seemed basically fine with that tbh), maybe more just someone with a self-deprecating sense of humor who was self-aware about being “economy class” and didn’t think (or expect other people to think) that he was one of the best musicians of his time. But, yes, if we’re looking at him in contrast to someone like Paul who once described his musical oeuvre as the only true equivalent to Mozart, it’s obviously pretty different.

So I'm not saying we're all totally delusional when we say George seems insecure compared to the other beatles. Rather, I'm saying that his insecurity seems more like it existed against a larger backdrop of security in the self that probably came from a relatively stable childhood.

I’m semi-familiar with a difference in psychology between self-esteem issues that develop in response to childhood experiences and self-esteem issues that develop in response to things that happen when you’re an adult, and I know George joined the beatles well before he became an adult, but I honestly think it might come down to something like that. Maybe having a base/core of knowing yourself and feeling some degree of inherent value as a human being meant that while he certainly had a lot of experiences throughout adolescence/adulthood that could theoretically make him feel unworthy, it didn’t really get at the core of his being.

RINGO

With Ringo, I do question a little if his self-perception was actually that well developed when he was young. I talked about this a little bit elsewhere, but some of the stories about his childhood make me think he experienced some degree of emotional neglect that prevented him from learning how to identify and cope with his own emotions.

Which is a really common thing for people who grow up to self-soothe with alcohol – because you don’t know how to recognize your emotions you can’t even begin to cope with them, so you feel your only option is to numb them with alcohol.

(It can actually cut both ways, too – depending on how young you were when your parents realized they could shut you up with alcohol, you might have been prevented from learning how to recognize and cope with emotions by the fact that they were always being numbed. Given that he first got black-out drunk around age 9, I think this might be true for Ringo as well.)

I think in a weird way this is also why people tend to overlook Ringo and/or not have a particularly vivid image of him as a person who feels things or does things. We don’t always portray a very complex inner or emotional life in him, but obviously he has one, it’s just that for a long time he himself may not have known that he had one. And I sometimes think this perceived "blankness" (as opposed to emptiness) defined his self-perception, defined the way he was seen by the people around him -- as a blank space where they could pour out their own emotions, and now defines how we see him as fans.

Which is a little frustrating because he's been sober for over thirty years and I strongly suspect that he has a very developed sense of self and self-worth at this point in his life or he wouldn't have been able to get and stay sober for thirty fucking years. Also, frankly, even back in the day he was probably living in the same repeating prison that all addicts live in, but because he wasn't overtly aware of it he wasn't overtly expressing it and as a result we all sort of fail to see it even looking back.

(I'm not excusing myself from this either, btw. The other day I caught myself saying John and George were probably the most open to changing as people, and then I remembered that Ringo was an alcoholic until he was almost 50 years old and still managed to get and stay sober and realized I'm an asshat.)

Self-esteem issues and self-hate come rolled together with any drinking problem. It’s hard to get sober without facing what you’ve become and it’s impossible to face what you’ve become without hating yourself. I suspect Ringo has had a profound and painful journey with his own self-perception and sense of identity, I'm just not sure I know what it is. Which, yes, makes me the asshat.

All that being said, the blankness/simplicity we project onto Ringo does sometimes work in his favor. He's been very open about the fact that he considers his behavior towards his wives to be abusive, and he almost never gets called on it the way beatles fans call out John, and I suspect it's partly because we insist on seeing so much more complexity and importance and frankly more humanity in John's story than in Ringo's.

[mgu-h]

Them saying it's just a professional relationship makes it easier for them on track. Carlos already said he leaves extra space when he's racing Lando and he got ton of shit for that, so admitting to the public they're close makes things way more complicated on track and in f1 in general. Also they both seem to gatekeep their hangouts these days unless they chose to post an ig story here and there and I kinda understand why, this sport is ruthless 😅

Yeah like.. it's absolutely not in your own or your team's best interest to allow sentiment to interfere with driving on track. I think Carlos saying that he'd treat Lando in any way different is entirely wild, and I'm not surprised he got pushback about it. It's not... done. When Lando talked about his relationship with Max Verstappen as being "split," I don't think that's in any way unique to Max. It really does apply to Carlos too. Too much bleed between a friendship off track and sentimentality on track would be career ending.

At this level of competition, all the drivers when they are in the mindset of racing are in an altered state with most private issues are stripped away. Racing is a mental sport just as much as physical, and since they were small boys in karts they all practiced more than just how to take an apex. They also learned how to put on their racing focus the way they put on a race suit and helmet, and go out to destroy their friends. The world on track is entirely separate and much more simple, or else they just wouldn't be able to drive at 200mph and go wheel to wheel around corners. 

Seeing a friend on track, there's absolutely no room for putting his interests above your own. Lando seeing the 55 car, the driver "Carlos" is not even really a person at that moment, it's a set of attributes that will help predict how the car is going to behave when you get close. It gives you information like how desperate will he be to defend the position? Can I trust him to not move under breaking or drive me off track? Can I trust him to look in his mirrors and know that I'm here? A driver will have learned over the decades of being behind the wheel how to attack or defend differently given all that data. It's in no way personal, it's a calculus done instantly based on intuition and race prep. 

Lando would not expect Carlos to yield, though he may instinctively trust that he will not race dirty, and that's the extent that their friendship should guide their racing. It's one of my biggest pet peeves with how this sport is reported on and how many fans talk about interpersonal relationships on track. It's like people don't use their empathy to imagine what it's like to be doing such an insanely risky thing as driving F1 cars. They like to think of the drivers as fearless and just as detached as the audience is on the couch, but that's not true. Fear is physical, it's arousal in proximity to danger, and other cars are real threats and targets, not mere human people.

In order to succeed the drivers have to be able to let their fight or flight adrenaline response move them faster than conscious thought. They have to be guided by irrational emotional reasoning without sentimentality, like trust without friendship and distrust without malice. Carlos's gut reaction cannot be to give way to Lando, and vice versa. It's ruthlessly logical and clinical in a sense, chess at 200mph, and intensely driven by insane, irrational desire to win and dominate the others on track, friends or no. Once the helmet is on, they're not the same person anymore, they're both more and less than themselves.

Once they're out of the cars and the adrenaline slips away and they remember who they are and who they are to each other, a private and warm friendship can resume, if it exists, though resentment from incidents bleeding into private life seems easier and more likely than the reverse. There are just absolutely no friends on track. There are cars you trust, and cars you don't, and you're trying to beat all of them no matter what.

[altocat]

Something that bothers me about people who trash or mock Sephiroth fans that can sympathize with him or look deeper in his story is that, well, we are already so few. In this fandom, the majority of people that like Sephiroth either just enjoy him as a villain or simp for his looks. Just watch the majority of FF7 YouTubers or streamers. I rarely find people talking about his story and character in an actually thoughtful way. It’s become a tad more common in recent years maybe, but everything about Sephiroth gets stripped down to the most basic or one-dimensional interpretation.

“Oh, Hojo is his father? No way! Not with Hojo’s looks lol!”

“Oh, Sephiroth couldn’t handle thinking he was a monster and went insane. That’s all there is to it. It’s a prideful ego thing.”

“Sephiroth was always secretly evil. Tifa said he was “cold,” remember?”

“Sephiroth is being controlled by Jenova! No wait! Sephiroth is controlling Jenova and doesn’t actually care about her!”

It’s also really frustrating when people attribute his evilness to his insanity, as if it is his madness and delusion that made him into the villain, and not the fact that his mind broke but it was his rage and hatred that drove him to form the worst and most harmful delusions about himself and others.

See, I think we need more people that sympathize and try to understand him, because these bas interpretations and misunderstandings about a broken character can even be harmful. Sephiroth isn’t a monster because he’s insane, he is a monster because he chose to violently turn against mankind, and even then, he is still just a person lashing out in malice and cruelty, reminding us all of our own potential for evil.

We can acknowledge that he needs to be stopped and die, but we can also observe how he got to the state he is in and empathize. Especially without simply being accused of “wearing fangirl goggles because he is attractive” or “woobifying” the bastard. Some of us just like good writing.

Very well said.

My hope is that Rebirth (and to a lesser extent EC) can actually alter more public perceptions on how Sephiroth is viewed. He is an incredibly complicated and tragic villain with a lot of layers, a cautionary tale that deserves respect and empathy. I hope that someday he's better understood for what he actually is, and that fans are able to appreciate him more as a villain in examining his fall from grace.

One can only hope.

[nunyverse-scribe]

If there’s one thing I noticed in recent times when it comes to fan engagement with art and artists (TV shows, books, movies [franchises], etc.) is that a big factor in the downward spiral in media literacy and critically analyzing what we engage with is that a lot of people… feel sort of obligated to getting defensive for the specific things they like. And they assume any critique or criticism is a form of ill will or malice towards the piece.

Which I think is SUCH a terrible mindset to have when engaging with any piece of art or media, especially in a time where there’s this general push for dumber downed media for the masses to consume and likewise less critical thinking. I notice a pattern where there are people that will give a million disclaimers about how much they love the media they’re about to critique because they know the average fan will dogpile on them and assume it’s someone who doesn’t like the art that’s critiquing it. Or I notice when a subsection of fans of a media start critiquing it, there’s another crowd in the fandom that say “if you don’t like it so much, then why are you watching it 😒” even though that’s not the case, the critiques come from a place of love. That’s not right, it’s not good to have this general consensus that to love something means to ignore or outright accept glaring problems in relation to it.

We as audience members, we as fans of a certain thing, need to be able to be ok with the fact that the shows, movies, books, etc. we enjoy might have some negative elements to it that we HAVE to be critical of. Sometimes the thing we dislike is something as small as a trope we’re tired of seeing. Sometimes the thing we dislike is a LOT bigger, though, such as questionable messaging subconsciously implemented due to the writers’ internalized bias.

And honestly THAT is what matters most to me when it comes to this type of thing.

Because EVERYONE is susceptible to the subliminal propaganda in a piece. You, me, your neighbors, your parents, kids, the elderly, everyone. And even moreso when we choose not to question or challenge the things in the media or art being fed to us.

Why? Because to just accept any glaring problems in (with the example I’m typically using right now in this rant) a specific narrative purely because as a whole you like the story means that you are allowing that narrative—and likewise other narratives you’re bound to consume and internalize—make the decision on your thoughts and the decision on your principles and moral compass.

To combat that you have to do as I stated above: challenge those attributes of the story or art or whatever that are relaying questionable messages. Even if you, generally speaking, really like it.

QUESTION why that creator will depict women, or POC, or disabled ppl, or queer ppl, or another marginalized identity in the certain way that they do. QUESTION why a creator’s art relays a certain commentary on the systems of fascism, or capitalism, or the patriarchy, or police brutality, or any other oppressive system. Especially because this art and these stories we engage with don’t exist in a vacuum: what came before it to lay the foundations was experiences of the creator, what was there alongside its creation was the creator’s personal principles and ideals, and what comes after it is the impact it will leave on minds and ideologies it will spread.

I dunno, I say this because I enjoy critically analyzing the stories and the art that I love. I will watch a TV show or read a book and I will connect with a lot of aspects of it, I will love it, I will recommend it to others. However, I will also have long conversations with fellow fans (usually friends) about the pitfalls, I will take note of certain aspects of the story that were questionable choices, and I will view it with a critical eye. And maybe it’s just because I’m a writer myself, but I feel like being that nuanced and careful with how you view the art that you love, to praise AND critique it, is in itself a form of love or passion for the art.

And I really wish more people understood that? Especially when it comes to art, things aren’t black and white. They are allowed to be good and bad at the same time. Characters are allowed to be likable but also horrible people. And I feel that having this mindset of “I like it therefore I see it as perfect” is a very, VERY dangerous one to harbor.

[thenightling]

So Jack Skellington is problematic Now...

Ugh... In my re-embracing of my childhood favorite (Nightmare before Christmas) which turns thirty years old this year, I have had the displeasure of encountering "New" interpretations of the characters. I kind of hate that the Tumblr generation has discovered Nightmare before Christmas.

I'm stumbling across hot take after hot take about what an awful person Jack is and people "Cleverly" pointing out that Jack didn't listen to Sally, that he talked over her, that he does a lot of harm... Yeah, that's kind of the point. He's a f--k up. And he is oblivious. But he's not evil. And he's not abusive.

I even came across one tonight that said he's mentally unstable. No, his emotions are conveyed in a musical with song numbers by a very expressive and eccentric man who likes to play with his own vocal range and emotional expression in song. That's not "emotional instability." That's passion. All of Jack's emotions and reactions are warranted in the story.

One of the earliest hot takes I came across called the movie a "Dumpster Fire." And the person essentially said that Jack needs to be punished and that the mayor should strip him of his Pumpkin King Title. I think they don't realize a king out ranks a mayor, usually, and Jack isn't some beauty pageant winner. He is the king of Halloween. I think this new backlash against the character stems from interpretations that the movie is about cultural appropriation. People thinking Sally is too passive because they're used to "Strong women" actually fighting and kicking ass. But Sally is a strong character. She just doesn't do physical combat. I think we need to veer away from this shallow interpretation of "strong" requiring brute force. Sally is defiant. She questions things. She poisons her creator to escape him on a regular basis. And she even almost got away with freeing Santa Claus (almost at the cost of her own leg). That and a cultural stance of being anti-monarchy. It's kind of depressing seeing this sort of hate toward Jack. I know it's a children's film but it says a lot when people can't forgive the protagonist of a children's film for being oblivious (toward Sally and about taking over Christmas). There are actually people who think Jack will eventually get bored and lose interest in Sally because she's just "another high" for him and think he's a narcissist. If Jack was a true narcissist he would not have rushed to their rescue the way he did. Also The soundtrack album and novelization both tell you that Jack and Sally had "Four or five" children together. Jack never gets bored with her. The thing that Jack was missing the whole time was love- an emotional connection to another on a personal level. That's why he became obsessed with Christmas. He sensed the pure love attached to the holiday. He just didn't realize how close that potential connection- that love actually was. To think Sally is just another high for him is to miss the entire point of Jack's Lament, what the emptiness and longing was inside of Jack, and also ruins the intended sweetness of the ending. Despite what a lot of sequels do today with romances, these two were meant to be a Happily Ever After- without question. The idea was that Jack's obsession with Christmas came from a high, yes, but that high came from sensing the love innate in the holiday itself. That's the longing and emptiness he felt in the song Jack's Lament, the lack of deep interpersonal connection- love. He had fans but he didn't really have someone actually care about him as a person and get to know him or try to.

Jack would probably have other adventures and screw ups. But I don't think he'd get bored with Sally, she is a connection he has with no one else. And that's very important to someone who has experienced profound loneliness.

In regard to Jack's behavior in the movie... "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." Jack isn't stupid. But he IS very naive. And he makes horrible mistakes. Once he realizes he has made these mistakes he sets out to make things right. A more adult version of this issue came up when I first got into Neil Gaiman's The Sandman. Someone sent me an anonymous ask on Tumblr that read "Do you acknowledge all the terrible things Morpheus has done or do you ignore them because he's your fave?" He's my favorite partly BECAUSE he's a screw up. I like characters that make terrible mistakes and then attempt to set things right. I like redemption stories. I like character growth.

Has our culture reached some very unsympathetic and rather cruel point that protagonists can't make bad mistakes, can't have faults and failings? They need to be perfect and always do the right thing at all times lest forever be condemned as problematic?! For God's sake, I'm reading rants on why the King of Halloween wanting to do Christmas and not listening to the girl who has a crush on him should result in a beheading. Kids... Calm down. Not everything needs righteous rage.

[300iqprower]

thanks for the tl;dr. While I don't agree with all your opinions, I get where you're coming from. Highkey, if you don't mind, what do think of Urobuchi as a writer? I frankly can't stand the man's writings, not only in regards to his "DeCoNsTrUcTiOn" of the magical girl genre with Madoka, but also Fate/Zero and his work on Kamen Rider Gaim.

It's......really hard for me to not blame Urobutcher himself for how Madoka basically killed the entire magical girl genre by causing it to be flooded with edgy tryhard tortureporn.

Like from an objective and analytical standpoint, Madoka is an incredible and meticulously crafted story. ...but subjectively, i fucking hate it, and then on top of that also hate it for what it (again, indirectly) did the genre and really just mainstreem anime in general to a certain, albeit obviously much lesser, degree. I feel like that's an entirely different discussion though, and really it just boils down to a case of "it's good" and "I don't like it" are not mutually exclusive. That's my read anyways.

Fate/Zero i love when watched bit by bit but dont like as a coherent story for much the same subjective reasons I'm personally not a fan of Madoka. For all my negativity I don't actually like nihilistic or cruel stories. Fate/Zero is actually what made me realize that, being the first time I had to as aforementioned go "it's good....but I don't like it." I love pretty much everything that doesn't involve Kerry, which is an issue when the whole story revolves around Kerry.

It's by no means without some serious issues though. Urobutcher wrote Artoria as a completely different character and it causes some serious inconsistencies that had harmful long-term repercussions, the banquet scene is a great setup that as I've discussed before falls completely flat in retrospect because nothing talked about was delivered on, and characters like Abs Hassan and Kariya got beyond wasted, just to name some of my issues with Zero.

But unlike with a LOT of Nasu's writing, actually just FGO writing in general frankly, those flaws don't contradict the ethos of the story. They come across less as contradictions that the writer couldnt be asked to rectify, as much as they do human error and an inability to make everything perfectly coherent and loop back around to the an overarching point. None of the things i've mentioned really detract from the message Fate Zero wants to give. They detract from the quality and consistency of the storytelling, absolutely, but not from the intended purpose of that storytelling. That sort of thing is HUGELY different than something like FGO just making up alternate history to suit it's narrative despite said narrative supposedly being about unity through our shared real world history.

I suppose what it really comes down to is that I don't feel malice or narrow mindedness from Urobutcher's works the way I do from Nasu. Kirei is the best example of this - i'd go so far as to argue Kirei's character didn't have ANY of the depth people now attribute to it before Urobutcher got involved. That's not even a dig at Nasu, that's just how much Urobutcher clearly GETS the kind of character Kirei is [now] meant to be. Same goes for Gilles and Kerry, those are characters that were perfect for someone like Urobutcher to execute (in multiple senses).

Again, Urobutcher is not a flawless writer by any stretch, no one is, and his style is by no means for everyone, because no style SHOULD be universally appealing...but I feel like he very much gives a shit. I feel like whether its all the way back with Fate Zero or his relatively more recent return for Lostbelt 3, Urobutcher gave a shit and did everything with as much purpose as he could. On that ground alone, I'm willing to be a lot more sympathetic to the parts of his writing i don't like, since I can at least convince myself those things (be it intentional choices or simple mistakes) were done in good faith.

[vivvy-of-the-lake]

I'm gonna go on a dumb rant but this means a lot to me because it just hurts so much thinking about it. I feel stupid and silly and immature getting this worked up over it but also entirely justified and valid in my feelings and I need help (more under the readmore)

so I've been reading the manga for Bocchi the Rock after having finished the anime (no spoilers in this rant, don't worry) and even before having started reading it, I had come across all the major 'gay Bocchi' meme panels and i was definitely keeping an eye out for them as i was reading

(also i was reading it at https://bocchitherockmanga.com/ which for reasons i will get into I do NOT recommend AT ALL. all the issues i'm about to talk about aren't there in the mangadex version)

i've gotten through most of the series with no issues whatsoever, until I got to chapter 58. These latest chapters were being scanned by someone new to scanlations as a whole, and in particular bocchi stuff (I won't name names because that's not what this post is about, you can find who to blame just by reading it yourself from anywhere that isn't mangadex)

I was very keenly on the look-out for this panel, because for very obvious reasons it's become a very popular bocchi meme:

...but reading the version i was reading, not only were there very blatant grammar and spelling issues, but when i finally got to the panel-

what the fuck. what the fuck is this bullshit

"I've it's been popular nowadays..." doesn't make any fucking sense and had i not read the other version first i might not have understood what it was trying to say, and all of the text is so horrendously scaled and placed so awfully

but the real issue is in that "fine print":

"I already know the scope of the test, and it seems I'm going to be that one big-breasted popular girl on the exam!"

what.

the.

fuck.

this makes ZERO FUCKING SENSE given the actual illustration, i know bocchi has big boobs in the manga but WHO'S THAT GIRL WITH THE BIG BOOBS, HUH??? WHAT'S HER SIGNIFICANCE???

it doesn't take an expert to realise that what bocchi's saying here doesn't even make any sense if she's not even the one with big boobs in her fantasy of what will happen if she repeats a year

now i always lean on the side of never attributing to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, and i was ready to just assume this was a piss-poor translation

but i found the scanlator making a post on the MangaDex forums about the situation, and in it they said this (reminder that the panel in question comes from chapter 58):

so it was intentional. it was a person actually trying to censor the original intent of the author because they didn't like that there was gay representation.

...

i'm done. i'm so fucking done with this.

"i have given up on the lame goal of censoring bocchi the rock" yeah that's a little too late pal. the damage this guy has done is still apparent because in almost all of the places online, including the TOP RESULT for searching "bocchi the rock manga", they still use this guy's awful, rushed, and - let's be honest - homophobic scans instead of the new ones that are actually good.

oh and of course only one guy in the thread actually calls out OP for censoring it in the first place, and then another guy backs up OP and that's the end of that.

these things are small, but it feels like being queer is just kinda not possible nowadays. everyone tries to take it away from us and it's inescapable, even in the places we go to in order to get away from all the bullshit and awful stuff happening in the real world.

stuff like this seems minor but it sends a very real message to queer fans of stuff like this:

we can't have anything.

[charles-leclerc-official]

Hi I’m so sorry if you’ve addressed this in the past, but is it true/possible that Mercedes are actually sabotaging Lewis? Like is it within the realm of possibility that they’re PURPOSEFULLY not properly warning his tyres before qualifying and purposefully withholding important information on the radio during the race?

I am probably not the best person to ask about this, as while I do keep up with all the teams, especially the top teams, I am not plugged in to every single thing happening at Mercedes especially on the details of what is going on over there politically/socially etc.

To me it does not look like anything is intentional that we've seen thus far, and I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that is a serious concern(again I haven't seen everything so there may be and I just have missed it)

I think the tyre warming thing was likely that they didn't have them on long enough, or that one or multiple of the blankets is faulty. That is to me the most likely explanation.

I apply this rule with everything, and it usually holds true. Never attribute to sabotage/malice what can be explained by incompetence/bad luck. Has Mercedes really had their shit together this season? Is anyone claiming that operation is running smoothly right now? Because to me these are symptoms of a struggling team that has been in an obvious state of disarray since the start of the season.

Lewis has also been on board with say, George getting certain upgrades first etc.

You ask is it possible? I mean yes it's possible. Is it likely? No I don't think so. I think there are several far more likely explanations.

I think people in F1 are very quick to jump on sabotage conspiracies the moment anything seems off(usually people who don't understand how cars work are the ones starting things) and this is applicable for every team. I am not saying we don't have instances of sabotage in this sport, but they are rare. If the number of times stuff that people claimed was sabotage was actually sabotage none of the cars would be running by the end of the season. It's a possibility, but I prefer to examine the far more likely explanations before turning to something more malicious.

I need to see something that makes me really go "that's weird" to start thinking a team is doing something. It can't just be vibes.

This feels very similar to what certain conspiracies that Ferrari fans have cooked up in the past. And they aren't correct either. Very similar "evidence" is used there as well.

A lot of the time people are unwilling to accept the dull truth that sometimes one person gets a streak of bad luck, and yes the chances of that are higher than direct sabotage.

Now I think we are seeing Mercedes go through a season long divorce with Lewis. George is going to be more priority because he's staying with the team. You don't have to like it, but I am pretty sure that's what they are doing, and strategically it makes sense for the team. As a Lewis fan it is frustrating to watch. It does seem some communication is breaking down between them, and that's where I think the issue is.

My final thought is that Toto has been too focused on Kimi and Max joining Mercedes to also have time to create plans to subtly sabotage Lewis. And maybe that's the problem, they aren't doing anything to Lewis but rather just ignoring him. Which would create a lot of the same problems. If his feedback isn't being as valued etc, if there are meetings he's being left out of (we've seen many teams do this with outgoing drivers because they are making plans for next season and cannot have that info getting out)

I won't rule it out, because we cannot know for sure, but without more to go off of I can't really do a whole lot with it. I say all this because people always start these rumors and then it gets blown way out of proportion usually to no productive results.

So that's my impression. Again, I imagine I am missing a lot because I have to always be plugged into whatever Ferrari have going on.

If anyone who is more involved on the Mercedes side of things wants to weigh in or provide some more context or evidence I'd be very interested to see it.

[yesterdayiwrote]

F1 Ask Game

tagged by @autumn816

Who is your favourite driver? George and Alex. Probably in that order but some days it's closer than others!

Do you have other favorite drivers?: I have a complicated fan relationship with Lewis. He was my absolute ride or die during my late teens/early twenties but I still support him. Oscar's growing on me as well for sure.

Who is your least favorite driver?: I have a lot of drivers I can't stand, and a lot I just... barely register are there week in and week out. I wouldn't say I have one stand out least favourite though.

Do you pull for drivers or do you like teams as well?: I tend to gravitate towards drivers, but most of my drivers come from the same teams.

If you like teams, what team do you pull for?: Mercedes and Williams are my two teams I root for more.

How long have you been into F1?: It was definitely sometime in 1994. I have absolutely zero recollection of the events in Imola that year, but I vividly remember the contentious crash between Schumacher and Hill that decided the championship in Adelaide, so evidently some point between there.

What got you into F1?: My dad. I used to be a proper daddies girl so watched it because he was and now we follow in separate rooms and don't talk about it! Yay for adulthood!

Do you enjoy Fanfic/RPF?: Yep, reading more than writing these days, but Im mainly into Galex and a little bit of Gewis. I'm kind of picky sometimes with what I read.

How do you view new fans?: I think it's great F1 is getting new fans, but I also think there are some newer fans who view F1 as scripted entertainment like WWE because they've come in via DTS. I think you have to take F1 with a liberal dose of 'shit happens and it sucks' and sometimes that gets lost amongst people looking for someone to blame and be angry at for stuff. Noone tends to crash into other drivers on purpose, the team probably doesn't have a vendetta against your driver, and absolutely none of them are putting as much thought into what they say on the radio as some people put into analysing it. Sometimes the discourse gets a bit wild. Never attribute that to malice which can be attributed to stupidity is a phrase F1 fans need to remember at all times!

If you could take over as team principal for any team, who would it be and why?: I mean the temptation is to say Merc, but it seems like such a big task recently and if I fucked things up for my faves I'd be gutted. Probably better to take on Haas and then I won't feel too guilty when I cause their implosion.

Are your friends and family into F1 as well?: My dad is, my brother in law is a bit hot and cold on it, but they tend to discuss it with each other (and I'm not included!)

Are you open to talking to other fans/making friends?: Definitely! My ask box and my DMs are always open and I love having chats about anything really!

tagging: @ohblimeygeorge, @foul-milk, @userkritaaay anyone who wants to do it I guess! (Sorry if yoube already done it/been tagged!)

[ilikekidsshows]

You mentioned that fans become angry if a story doesn't go how they want, but can't admit this, so they insist the creator must have "told his own story wrong." Basically, the problem is that the fans' worldview is not "falsifiable". For a claim to be falsifiable, there must be a "failure condition" that would potentially prove the claim wrong (if I claim the capital of Australia is Sydney, and you look it up and it's Canberra, that "falsifies" the claim). But fans have no "failure conditions".

The issue here is that what many entitled fans view as facts are actually just their opinions. An opinion is how we experience something, but our experiences are not universal, not everyone experiences the same thing the same way. For example, you might find the taste of broccoli awful, but that doesn’t make “broccoli tastes bad” a law of nature and an undisputed fact. I’ve said it often on this blog that entitled fans treat their opinions as facts.

The difficulty of grasping the difference between opinion and fact comes from the reality that the internal process that creates your opinions is real. You can test that you really hate broccoli by tasting it repeatedly, with the same results; it can’t be “falsified”, as you put it. Broccoli tasting bad to you is your reality, so the idea that others experience broccoli differently can be difficult to grasp. The entitlement comes from when this difficulty in understanding becomes willful ignorance, where people can tell you their opinions straight out and you shut them down by claiming they are wrong. Entitlement is thinking that your experience is more enlightened than everybody else’s based on nothing other than that it is your experience: “The writers wrote the show wrong, because I would have preferred it to go another way.”

The point where things get dicey, however, is when we start attributing malice behind dissenting opinions. It’s one thing to say that people with different opinions from your own can act obnoxious about it, but a wholly another to claim that they hold those opinions out of some malicious intent, or that they’re outright lying about their opinions just to hide some personal agenda. This is where we get the claims like: “Astruc had a bully in school called Chloé and that’s why he hates Chloé the character,” because this kind of thinking can cause people to jump to ideas like: “Even the writers knew the story would have been better the other way around, but wrote something different because *insert conspiracy theory*.”

Even so, even if someone has a specific reason behind an opinion (like: “I hate the taste of broccoli because I was forced to eat it when I was small”), that just makes the reason part of the process for creating that opinion. Trying to explain someone else’s opinions away this way doesn’t really accomplish anything, mostly because we can’t really know what someone’s internal process is unless they entrust us with a lot of very personal information, and also because that just means that, because your opinions are most likely also caused by your past experiences, your opinions are equally invalid. You can claim your opinion is objective all you want, but you can't actually prove that because we are fully capable of forgetting events that shape even our strongest opinions.

Opinions might have no failure conditions, but they don't really have win conditions, either.

[cannibalistic-cucumber]

Tbh I thought this was an ask game at first (Probably is, but I've been inspired)

Yes, and that seems to be a rarity around these parts.

Probably one of my parents. Either that or a mutual.

Regret is something that is affordable only to those who can change the past. Despite this, I have had many regrets over my years. However, the past is the past and all I can do is move forward.

Not really. My egotism gets in the way of it too much.

Single and available ;)

On my own terms.

I had a banana and some choccy milk for dessert (nothing better was available today (I don't do cheesecake)).

I am in intramural volleyball 👍

Yes, to my own detriment. I have no idea how to use clippers for my fingernails.

My last one was never.

All of my mutuals :] (As for irl, idk probably)

Nope and I have no idea how anyone would (I don't do caffeine :/ I only do hard drugs)

I would not be able to give you non-mainstream examples, so we'll go with ronald reagan.

Many people. I have carved myself a place in each several places I've been and even Lost a friend. Rest in peace, Jack.

Not on-site. I live on campus, but they live in the apt con mi familia.

A little bummed after remembering the fallen. Need to be more hype if I'm going to be of any use for my vball game.

Never had a person with which to do so.

Not particularly. If it's not a swarm and it's not on me, I'm actually quite nice towards them. My father, on the other hand, has arachnophobia.

No. Do not ever even try to tempt me.

See: Question 17

I need to raise my bed, if I haven't done it by then. Maybe get a haircut. Maybe get a giant skeleton to put in the dorm.

I could not be a father. Nor a mother.

Never had any, never want any.

Love it or hate it, I like math, and it pains me when I can't apply it. Econ has been slowly killing me dead.

See: Question 14.

The banana and milk was not enough to satisfy my sweet cravings. Also craving noisy songs, so send those in.

See: Question 17.

See: Question 17.

I don't think (I hope I haven't) I have made anyone cry.

The United States "justice" system and the existence of American nativism.

Yes, many people do. And I also love many people <3

Big fan of blue

Any trust issues I have are counterracted my my solemn belief that it is the duty of the other person to communicate effectively

Myself, getting stabbed by who knows who

Idk, it's been a while since I've had a cry be triggered

Possibly, but again it's due to my core beliefs. "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity."

Memory is a fickle thing. Forgive.

Quite possibly. Either way, manifesting

See: Question 17.

Maybe as a baby?

Corn. And crawfish. Bisque.

No, but there doesn't have to be one. Sometimes we create our own meaning, sometimes we have to.

Put on my Sleep Rotation playlist.

I do not subscribe to the monogamist mindset. It's not okay when it's a violation of trust.

I'd like to think otherwise, and I actively attempt not to be (Not directly to people, anyway. If it's not worth saying to their face, then it's not that serious.)

See: Question 10.

It might exist, it might not, but I personally believe that love is created and maintained.

Its 69 degrees, and the winds are howling, courtesy of the storm that's incoming. Dark heavy clouds cover the visible horizon, headed your way. You can already see the sheets of rain crashing down from the heavens. The anticipation sends adrenaline shooting down your spine. Lightning strikes, and you count the seconds before the thunder, One... two... thre- And finally you hear it, A little over 2 miles out. Get your siblings and the car inside, and prepare the candles. It's gonna be a long, exciting, restless night.

Snow is fun, but it be cold.

Perhaps, perhaps not. See: Questions 44 and 47

Yes, but it hasn't happened yet :(

Many things :]

No, I'm committed to the bit of being me

See: Question 17

I'd be flattered, but more importantly I'd be upfront about my views and potential aromanticism, but that despite those, I'm more than willing to give things a shot.

Yes, and I am very grateful for them, as I am all my friends.

A friend 👍

I had a moment of sincerity with one of irl friends over Discord.

See: Question 47.

No, because I know I am preferred alive by others.

70 horrible questions ... Fuck it

01: Do you have a good relationship with your parents? 02: Who did you last say “I love you” to? 03: Do you regret anything? 04: Are you insecure? 05: What is your relationship status? 06: How do you want to die? 07: What did you last eat? 08: Played any sports? 09: Do you bite your nails? 10: When was your last physical fight? 11: Do you like someone? 12: Have you ever stayed up 48 hours? 13: Do you hate anyone at the moment? 14: Do you miss someone? 15: Have any pets? 16: How exactly are you feeling at the moment? 17: Ever made out in the bathroom? 18: Are you scared of spiders? 19: Would you go back in time if you were given the chance? 20: Where was the last place you snogged someone? 21: What are your plans for this weekend? 22: Do you want to have kids? How many? 23: Do you have piercings? How many? 24: What is/are/were your best subject(s)? 25: Do you miss anyone from your past? 26: What are you craving right now? 27: Have you ever broken someone’s heart? 28: Have you ever been cheated on? 29: Have you made a boyfriend/girlfriend cry? 30: What’s irritating you right now? 31: Does somebody love you? 32: What is your favourite color? 33: Do you have trust issues? 34: Who/what was your last dream about? 35: Who was the last person you cried in front of? 36: Do you give out second chances too easily? 37: Is it easier to forgive or forget? 38: Is this year the best year of your life? 39: How old were you when you had your first kiss? 40: Have you ever walked outside completely naked? 51: Favourite food? 52: Do you believe everything happens for a reason? 53: What is the last thing you did before you went to bed last night? 54: Is cheating ever okay? 55: Are you mean? 56: How many people have you fist fought? 57: Do you believe in true love? 58: Favourite weather? 59: Do you like the snow? 60: Do you wanna get married? 61: Is it cute when a boy/girl calls you baby? 62: What makes you happy? 63: Would you change your name? 64: Would it be hard to kiss the last person you kissed? 65: Your best friend of the opposite sex likes you, what do you do? 66: Do you have a friend of the opposite sex who you can act your complete self around? 67: Who was the last person of the opposite sex you talked to? 68: Who’s the last person you had a deep conversation with? 69: Do you believe in soulmates? 70: Is there anyone you would die for?

[hexhomos]

top 5 jay/vik pet peeves? 👀

I let this ask simmer a bit in the back of my inbox because... oh man you guys really want to see me rant like that? Unbelievable. But I'll indulge anyway since I could on about this forever:

#1 the way people straight up delete everything about Jayce as a character, be it talis or giopara, just to turn around and act like he's "leeching off viktor's genius" or "a big stupid dumb idiot who cant grasp simple concepts XD" "brainless idiotic himbo" like… this is so tiring to me. Are you trying to call him braindead? Because that's what it sounds like. I don't find it funny or charming anymore thanks to the sheer density and frequent malice adjacent to this kind of content.

#2 Related to above, but also found on its own, SPECIALLY in arcane fandom bubbles: a fixation on Jayce's body as a sexual object or sexual accessory to other people as his "Only redeeming character trait". It's become so prevalent I don't like browsing content for him anymore. Fans will legitimately make up bullshit reasons as to why Jayce is lesser than other characters (the council, mel, heimerdinger, viktor, vi, whoever, you name it) and then hold up more brainless no personality idiotbad himboXD porn as the only thing his character could ever amount to. Way to go! You're treating this show's singular brown lead as actually subhuman. There truly are no words. And it's not like it's hard to give Jayce an ounce of interesting things to do: most of what people attribute to viktor as sciency and driven and passionate is something that he shares with jayce; sometimes, its straight up things jayce came up with and worked on all his life getting penned as "viktors thing". I just find fandom, for one reason or another, holds a severe disinterest in treating them as equals. And it makes their dynamic worse. (This last point is not exclusive to arcane, sadly.)

#3 Viktor woobification, and an insistence that he could neeeeever do anythiiiiing wroooooong, regardless of verse. It makes him into such an uninteresting non-character. Viktor was created to *BE* the mad scientist archetype; this was his initial concept and it persists to this day, you can't take away his responsibility for his mistakes, or pretend it was Jayce's fault, and still expect him to be a good character. I don't even know what you're stanning at that point. I've had ppl genuinely argue with me that viktor never hurt anyone in game canon and that JAYCE had stolen blitzcrank and its like ????? Do you even know who Stanwick is. Please just read their bios. Both of their bios. Viktor lies to clean up his own story and even before the lore rewrite he was the one who'd initiate violence by Invading Jayce's Lab And Blasting Him With Laserbeams. This guy's ingame kit requires you to kill 100 minions before evolving a weapon prototype. He has an ability called "death ray". You don't think that's funny? Your loss. (Related: a lot of able-bodied people treat viktor's arcane disability as something to patronize him over, and it can be really, really uncomfortable to see.)

#4 this is gonna seem minor compared to above but watching people try and vilify Jayce at every turn to make Viktor or other characters look better can be so unintentionally funny. They never pay attention to anything about his character, just spin a wheel of bad generic adjectives and go: "JAYCE is an out of touch gazillionaire SOCIAL CLIMBER queaking for STATUS who eats diamond dust, shits gold and hates lesbians; he also PISSED on my WIFE," whole time the guy is just minding his business, indentured for life thanks to vampiric 'patrons' making him swear fealty for project funding, canonically stated to have built a name making gadgets for the working class, doesn't even like socializing in Any Universe (and this is the exact thing him and viktor bond over), etc etc etc... this shit is embarrassing brother

#5 unironic googoo talk jaymel or melvik or anything that exists in the middle genuinely makes me roll my eyes. Sometimes I feel as though people watched the bomb scene and then immediately erased out how disrespectful and manipulative it was. I don't care for any of these pairings nor the implication that you have to 'make good with billionaires to reach ultimate peace uwu' that comes attached to most of their content. The TVshow being as centrist and corporate as it is explains why this exists, sure, but I feel so ?????? When I see people acting like viktor and mel would be best buddies, as if she isn't canonically the richest person in Piltover before we even have a timeskip and *Directly Responsible for enabling and profiting off much of the fuckshit going on in Zaun* lol. Where do you think that money came from? Seriously?? Come on. I cannot fathom how people can see Jayce's interactions with her as leading to any sort of positive outcome. They get 0 romantic buildup worth caring for and are boring as all hell. And the next one is less common but: whenever people try to fit her plotline into leagueverse I just, LOL. The ruling Medarda in league is a 70-something manlet white geezer. Jayce giopara is a fag and his entire bio was designed around viktor. The council plays no part in their story and they're far more interesting for it, thank fucking god.

[fastcarsgovroom]

Don’t really know what to make of still it but here goes (the Lando Norris issue) Pt 3

This is about the Lando Norris and Max Fewtrell (and other involved streamers) issue so you don't need to read it if it's not in your best interest to. I don’t know if this thing is supposed to have blown over or anything, but I’m posting because heck this is my blog and I want to post about things I think are in line with my personal philosophy (and maybe in-group).    

The entire rant is in five parts:  

Part 1 is where I describe very basically the entire situation, essentially what I saw happening through posts on the tumblr, twitter, and reddit Lando Norris tags  

Part 2 is me trying to describe why some fans felt what they felt and reacted the way they did  

Part 3 is the videos and what was said of them and how I interpreted them  

Part 4 the ‘misinformation’ idk

Part 5 is like, a rant.

Part 3: What was actually said?

The clips of Lando and Max F saying things that were, for the lack of better words, questionable. Clip urls taken from one of the OPs who brought the issue to our attention (hope it’s all right I didn’t credit).

TW for talks about sex, sexism, and misogyny

If anything, listen to the clips for yourself and ignore the wall of text. Make up your own mind. I’m only writing what I’ve seen, and as a way to make sense of it. 

Under the cut

The relevant videos are (not in chronological order)

1. Star signs

https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_qqblm5bUU51y0rtc3.mp4

How I’d describe it: Max F brings up star signs (like, the zodiac) because his chat was discussing it. Lando reacts by saying that if a girl asks about star signs, ‘you get up and leave’, apparently in reference to his personal experience with a girl in conversation about star signs. Max F comments that the girl has ‘dodged a bullet’ based on how, for the lack of better words, passionate (’salty’) Lando’s reaction was. Lando retorts that Max F ‘wouldn’t have wanted to be with her,’ providing some information (where the girl was sitting), which causes Max F to recognize the girl and react in an amused but equally passionate way. The other streamer quoted “she crazy”, supposedly in relation to the girl.

How people have interpreted it: Others have interpreted is as being a sexual encounter, Lando being dismissive of a female-skewed topic of interest (star signs) and only listening to her in hopes of a sexual encounter (edit: the more ‘obvious’ “listening to women in hopes of a sexual encounter” is clip 4, added below. But I’ve also seen people claiming  ‘dipping’ (said by Max F) and ‘coughing’ (said by Lando) here to be references to sex, along with the ‘you wouldn’t have wanted to be with her’ as, of course, having sex, so I’ll leave this interpretation up. Again, I may be getting this wrong), that Lando and friends were making fun of the girl (’she crazy’, ‘you wouldn’t have wanted to be with her’, how Lando said the topic was ‘so boring’ at the mention of star signs, etc.) 

How I interpreted it: Personally, I don’t think we have enough context as to what really went down. I can see how you could come to the above interpretations, but I also, personally, find relating it necessarily to a sexual encounter a reach. Yeah, it could be the men hanging out and getting to know a young woman (girls) but just not jiving with her, or thinking that the woman’s interests were weird and boring. Personal conversations, essentially, that probably has no place on a public stream, but it comes across as being said carelessly and immaturely rather than with malice.  

2. ‘Stealing’, ‘don’t want to talk about it’, ‘that [descriptor]’ 

https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_qqbm90Esu01y0rtc3.mp4

How I’d describe it: This clip starts with a streamer (honestly I can only identify Max F and Lando, sorry) saying Max is bitter, to which Lando adds that it’s because Max F ‘did not receive love from a girl’. This seems to upset Max F, who retorts that if he should ‘tell a few stories’ about Lando, implied to be embarrassing ones. There was a lot of ‘yours’ and ‘mine’ (Lando and Max F) thrown around about the women. Max F brings up that Lando ‘tried to steal mine (Max F’s)’. Lando refutes this, and Max F looks more upset and says repeatedly that he does not want to ‘have this conversation’ with Lando. Lando continues on, referring to the girls as ‘the [descriptor]’, i.e. “the old one?”; “the top golf one?” and “I did not try to steal that one.” 

The other streamer appears to take issue with this, saying ‘that one?”, and Max F adds “can we stop talking about it like that?” and doubles down and tells Lando to stop the conversation. 

How people have interpreted it: This is the more egregious clip; people took offense at how the women were spoken about (’yours’, ‘mine’), the implications that they can be ‘stolen’, and how Lando referred to them as ‘the [descriptor]’. Some also interpreted Max F’s it as referring to a girl. This all leads into the perception that Lando and Max F were objectifying the women and talking about them in terms of conquests (presumably sexual). 

How I interpreted it: I think Lando and Max F were quite disrespectful in how they were talking about the women, more so Lando because he continued with the conversation (in a public stream) despite Max F telling him to stop. It does sound like ‘locker room banter’ about relationships, which is still, ultimately, misogynistic, immature, disrespectful, and inappropriate, especially in a public stream. 

What I don’t get is how ‘the/that [descriptor]’ was taken as intentional and malicious objectifying, and how the ‘it’ was referring to a woman and not the entire situation. 

3. ‘Cowboy’

https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_qqbq6nhmZR1y0rtc3.mp4

How I’d describe it: The clip starts in the middle off in-game banter, with Lando asking Max F if has any other digs at him, to which Max F replies that he does have ‘plenty off digs’ at Lando. Lando brings up ‘cowboy’ as an apparent dig, to which Max F retorts is ‘not a dig’, but was ‘brilliant’ and ‘very good’ for Lando. The Toy Story reference of ‘there’s a snake in my boot!’ is brought up, to which someone says ‘not the only snake, haha’ in a mock-jokey voice. 

How people have interpreted it: There’s probably more backstory to this in previous streams, as OP mentioned. Some have taken issue with, again, discussing personal situations involving a third party (OP has mentioned that the nickname ‘cowboy’ is in reference to a woman). Some also claimed that the nickname ‘cowboy’ is a sex position, so took offense to how it sounded like Lando and Max F nicknamed a woman they knew after a sex position, then openly talked about her in a public stream. Some said the nickname was from the woman’s social media handle, which had a cowboy emoji. 

How I interpreted it: This one is weird. I have no idea what the context is. I have no idea how people came to the conclusion that ‘cowboy’ was a sex position. Is the ‘snake’ in reference to male genitalia? I don’t know? I have no interpretation of this other than things without context always sound so weird. There’s entire twitter accounts about shows and podcasts lines taken out of context, which just sounds bizarre. 

4. ‘Reward’

https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_qqbfwzG9GC1wg3eue_720.mp4

How I’d describe it: I’m not sure if I can describe it without transcribing the whole thing or putting my own interpretation / narrative here. It’s a public stream, sure, but it sounds as coherent as a bit of disjointed conversation you’ve eavesdropped on (To me, anyway. I’m not being obtuse on purpose maybe I’m just dim).  

Clip starts with Lando and Max F sounding very amused with something, with Lando telling Max F about an encounter(?)/incident(?)with ‘cowboy’, referencing ‘rounds’ (round 2… round 6). There’s more banter, Max F saying he was ‘worried’ that Lando was talking about someone else, that he will whatever Lando is doing is ‘good for [him]’, and is ‘healthy’. 

Lando says it was “bit boring, really”, to which Max F says ‘oh, 100%, yeah waffle. Complete and utter waffle’ and “gotta do you what you gotta do, listen to her sometimes you know what I mean? Sacrifices do bring on great things.”

How people have interpreted it: Essentially, Lando is telling Max F about his hookups with ‘cowboy’ (the rounds being, well, rounds of hookups). Lando is saying that being with ‘cowboy’ is a bit boring, but Max F saying that Lando has to make sacrifices (his time? listening to boring conversation (’waffle’)?) in order to maintain said hookup partner. The takeaway was that Lando and Max F discussed sexual encounters with a woman (’cowboy’) on public stream, called her ‘boring’, and implied that she should only be listened to in context of getting a hookup is disrespectful. Many were disgusted. 

Some, perhaps not having watched the clip, attributed the ‘sacrifices for women’s attention / sexual gratification from women’ comment to Lando. Others are angry and disappointed that Lando did not speak up against the comment, which indicates that he too is complicit with the notion that women should only be listened to for sexual gratification. 

How I interpreted it: There’s a lot of innuendo here and ‘keywords’ that are attributed to sex and hookups (i.e. ‘rounds’ being hookups / rounds of sex; Max F’s implication that the many rounds (6) are ‘healthy’, a common description for sexual activity as being a healthy part of the human experience.) So, yes, I’ll believe that they’re most likely talking about their sex life. Why did I use so many words to come to that conclusion, and not just say ‘they are talking about their sex life’ out of the bag? Because that was my thought process so idk what to tell you other than what I did. Maybe it’ll come across as being apologetic and intentionally obtuse, who knows. 

Without the context, it’s not going to be very obvious.

So if I’m taking it as their conversation about sex, then the “sacrifices do bring on great things,” will very heavily imply that Lando has to have boring conversations with ‘cowboy’ for sex. Let’s be clear, this is a very disrespectful and demeaning take. It’s also unfortunately a very common one that’s thrown around everywhere in media, among immature men (young or old, lets be real). It’s also very normalized, so I get when people say they find it ‘normal’ or ‘typical’. This doesn’t excuse the comments or topic of conversation. 

On the other hand, I can also see a POV that Max F may have said things ironically or sarcastically, since it is a sentiment often used (women are nags) and both Lando and Max F are known to be sarcastic, dramatic, and dry at times. This is a reach to the other end of the ‘harmless banter’ spectrum, but without context, maybe it’s possible.

Still don’t know why ‘cowboy’ is necessarily a nickname derived from a sex position. 

Part 4

[a-student-out-of-time]

((Mod, since you value respecting different opinions and everything, something's recently happened: the Youtuber Kubz Scouts said he didn't like a character and was happy they died, so fans of that character are now screaming insults at him and demanding that he be "canceled". Because if there's one thing that drives Danganronpa fans into a screaming at the top of their lungs frenzy, it's other people daring to have a different, and perhaps unpopular, opinion about fictional characters.))

//Did you want my opinion on this? Because I can’t really give you one, since I haven’t watched his DR playthroughs and I’m not at all interested in internet drama.

//As for that kind behavior, if you do want my opinion on that, I’ll do my best to provide. I’ll put it under here for anyone who’s not interested.

Let’s not pretend this is exclusive to Danganronpa fans or that this is a new development. I remember the days when everyone was playing Undertale and anyone who didn’t go for the Pacifist Run and didn’t do everything perfectly was subject to a lot of discontent. Hell, I remember when Superwholock was a thing and people genuinely and unironically used threats like “You messed with the wrong fandom.”

Someone disliking a game or a character in a game is not a personal attack on you because you like them. We cannot assume that just because someone likes or dislikes something, they are by extension directing their feelings toward people who do not share their feelings on the matter. I examine media on its own merits and never try to list the fandom as a reason why I dislike something. Media and fandom are exclusive things and we can talk about the problems and merits of one, the other, or both.

This is the biggest one: Cancelling is not a real thing, at least not the way many of us think it is. There are people who’ve been “cancelled” and yet still have fans, still talk about things the same way, and still have a voice in public despite doing shitty things or just things deemed “unacceptable” by some group of people. Cancelling is more often than not just momentary outrage followed by mass attempts at character assassination, and it’s often filled with baseless accusations and quotes pulled out of context rather than real evidence for bad behavior. And in most cases, it will fade away. While I absolutely do think that people should be held accountable after saying and doing horrible things, there are people who’ve been “cancelled” for honest mistakes or behaviors they themselves did not realize were bad, or even for very minor things like people not liking the way they draw or for not liking a popular character. And this kind of thing really just takes the form of sending hate mail and demanding that they disappear or die. The kind of behavior people are supposed to discourage in any circumstance. The thing I dislike the most about this behavior is not just that it’s just reskinned cyberbullying, but that it actually makes the problems worse. When you harass and insult people for not holding your opinion, that is not going to endear them or anyone to your side. In fact, it’s probably going to make them stick to their opinions even harder. And when that happens, it makes it so easy for shitty people to co-opt that as a sign of how irrational and cruel your side is. It also hurts that it feels like most people who engage in this stuff think they’re doing the world a favor, when all they’re doing is harassing someone whose reputation they don’t have the power to destroy. I think most people do this either because they’re genuinely ignorant of their inability to really damage someone’s credibility, that they think it makes them a good person for stopping “unacceptable” behavior, or maybe they’re just in it for the drama, because it’s “fun”. But what really hurts the most is this expectation many of us now have, that we’re one opinion or one stupid post away from getting showered with hate mail, doxxed and maybe even pushed to the brink of suicide, and for things that we may not have even meant. To be crystal clear, I will not excuse genuinely repulsive behavior and you shouldn’t either, but this is not the way to handle it. If you want people to change their opinions or understand where they went wrong, communicate with them and help them understand. You need to engage with them openly and kindly. Compassion is the key. I say this not for the people who’ve been “cancelled”, but for the people who think it’s a good idea: it can be so easy, but you will not get anyone to agree with you just by answering hate with hate, and you will never be able to completely silence anyone in today’s world. You simply won’t. Most importantly, this kind of behavior does not put you on a moral high ground, it makes you no better than the people you claim to be standing against. Sending death threats and hate mail to people is wrong regardless of who’s doing it, and if one person does it, you’d be the bigger person by not responding to them. Most of all though, remember Hanlon’s Razor: never attribute to malice what can equally be attributed to ignorance. Some people make mistakes and post things without realizing what exactly they mean- I’ve done this myself and I had people point out how bad they were, so I simply deleted the posts. People are often much better and more understanding than they’re given credit for and I want people to understand that. And if you try and get them to listen, but they still refuse to see things your way, ignore them. Move on from them and try to find people who will. You can’t simply force opposition out of existence, but you can try to at least get more people to see things your way through kind words, sharing of thoughts and understanding alternative viewpoints. I would never ask anyone following me to try and “cancel” people who don’t like my writing. I want to encourage kind communication and open discussion, because that’s how we learn and how we improve. What I do ask is that you be good to others and to yourselves, ignore the drama, and talk openly and kindly with other people. Compassion and understanding is how things truly improve.