#and i don't think that this post in itself is anti black

[opbackgrounds]

The Romanticism of One Piece IV: Revolution

AO3 Part I Part III

“The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates.” ― Alexandre Dumas

When it comes to the idea of freedom in One Piece, there are two related yet separate tracts the manga takes. Both are worth looking into, and both have parallels within the broader Romantic movement. The first of these is the idea of personal freedom as exemplified by pirates. The other is the pursuit of systematic freedom by Dragon and the Revolutionary Army. Robin explains the difference between the two in the post-Enies Lobby arc. By raising the flag, pirates label themselves criminals as they go out to sea, but unless they’re the Straw Hats they don’t usually go around picking fights with the World Government. The goal of the Revolutionary Army, on the other hand, is to overthrow the Celestial Dragons, which would in essence end the World Government as it currently exists. 

I’ve seen criticisms thrown at the series that One Piece doesn’t go far enough in its revolutionary politics in that it’s not explicitly anti-monarchy. There are good kings and bad, and whether or not an island is a good place to live or not seems based more on the actions of individual people than the system overall. There are even strange cases like Iceburg who as mayor is in an elected position, but who also holds ridiculous power over the entire island’s economy after turning its biggest industry into a monopoly under his control. In the real world that would be a horrific amount of power for one person to hold, but because Iceburg himself is a good man, it doesn’t matter. 

While this train of thought is worth exploring, I think that many of these arguments miss the forest for the trees. One Piece is not a story told from the Revolutionary’s point of view. It’s a pirate manga that elevates any individual brave enough to dream. It’s through this lens that paragons of virtue like Iceburg are allowed to exist without being hashtag problematic. The Revolutionaries themselves sidestep much of the messiness that tends to follow real-world uprisings by having them portrayed as principled and virtuous to a fault. In chapter 1058 Dragon promises harsh disciplinary action against Sabo if it’s found that he killed King Cobra, when as an allied nation of the World Government, the king of Alabasta should technically be their enemy. 

This lionizing of individuals and specific institutions goes back to Mirriam-Webster’s 4a definition of romanticism, and as a children’s manga whose primary themes aren’t centered around systemic revolution, this simplicity is perfectly fine, although I personally think it would be more interesting if the Revolutionary Army was portrayed as more morally gray within the series. Despite this, there are also deliberate links between the Revolutionary Army and the historical Romantic movement. 

It starts at the very foundation of their concept and character design. Many of the highest ranking Revolutionary commanders have a European steampunk look to them, while Mariejois seems based on the Palace of Versailles. Oda would not have paired a shirtless man in a black feathered coat with a cravat had he not wanted to tap in at least a little into the design language of European historical fashion, and by extension, the French Revolution. This is best seen in the design of Belo Betty, who seems to be explicitly based on Eugune Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People, a French Romantic painting depicting a personified Liberty leading Frenchmen from all walks of life as they strive to overthrow the despotic King Charles X in the July Revolution of 1830.

The term French Revolution is itself wonderfully imprecise, as France has endured several revolutions, uprisings, and revolts. One does not go through two empires and four republics without a history of civil unrest, and to this day one of France’s favorite pastimes is protesting against the government about things they don't like. But for many scholars, the first of these Revolutions in 1789 was one of the major sparks of the Romantic movement, drawing sympathy from and giving inspiration to writers and poets throughout Europe. The Revolution itself was brought on by many factors, including writings of late Enlightenment/early Romantic writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose work The Social Contract pushed for for a free populous living under elected governments.

It seemed that all of Europe would follow suit. Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Poland, the German Confederation, and Northern Italy all saw liberal uprisings of some sort during the early 1800s. Some were successful, others weren’t, but all were instrumental in destabilizing the political landscape that had existed for centuries. This followed a process that had already started globally, as the United States, Haiti, and much of Latin America had already become independent of their colonial masters. There’s a push and pull that’s often seen between art and history, with one influencing the other in an eternal tug of war. Romantic artists painted the pursuit of freedom in a positive light, which inspired frustrated men and women to take up arms against governments they felt did not adequately represent them. In turn, these revolutionaries inspired the Romantics to write and paint about the heroic deeds they saw all around them. One of the most famous Romantics of all, Lord Byron, even died in 1824 after joining the Greek war for independence. Although Byron himself had no strong political ideology and thought all governments as equally bad, the mere act of revolution inspired his romantic spirit to take up arms and fight. 

While there is no real-world equivalent to the World Government of One Piece, the greatest atrocities committed within the manga have their basis in real life, including many of the cartoonishly evil acts of the Celestial Dragons. The Atlantic slave trade, genocide of indigenous peoples under colonial rule, and the crushing poverty of the underclasses were all everyday realities, and these were all things people fought against during this time of world-wide revolution.

Again, some of these movements were more effective than others, and not all of them required violence to achieve their goals. 1807 marked the end of the slave trade in England while in 1838 slaves were freed in British colonies across the world, something once thought unthinkable. In 1861 the tsar emancipated some 23 million Russian serfs, while the Romantic era in the United States ended with the American Civil war and its bloody quest to end chattel slavery in the States.

In a twist of irony, the very same political instability brought on by decades of war ensured that the Romantic movement in France developed later than it did elsewhere. By that time, the Reign of Terror and Napoleon’s wars split Romantics abroad, and several quietly distanced themselves from France and its Revolutions. It was in this post-Revolutionary world that Victor Hugo looked at the smoking wreckage left all around him and began writing Les Miserables. In the preface of this book, he writes, 

“So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation which, in the midst of civilization, artificially creates a hell on earth…so long as the three problems of the century - the degradation of man by the exploitation of his labour, the ruin of women by starvation and the atrophy of childhood by physical and spiritual night are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible…so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, there should be a need for books such as this.”  

The three problems Hugo described exist now as they did then, and One Piece is in many ways a story of ordinary people with extraordinary dreams rising up above this artificially created hell to make a better world for themselves, and the people they care for. 

Other Romantics, disillusioned by a world that did not change as they would have liked, turned their search inward. For these, systematic change wasn’t the goal; personal freedom was. And it’s this inward, more spiritual journey that exemplifies the ideal pirate within the context of One Piece, as best seen by our main protagonist, Monkey D Luffy. 

[dungeon-master-mike]

Mike Possibly isn't Biologically Related to the Wheelers — [deep analysis]

(Part 2)

This ties in with my Alien Mike theory. But I wanted to write this to better explain why I think Mike may not even be related to them, just generally without touching on the supernatural aspect of it. (well, i do but only a little because of his superman parallels lol)

Appearance

This one is the quickest piece of evidence, although it isn’t strong enough to stand on its own. Mike’s hair is very dark brown, appearing almost black. He has dark brown eyes and freckles. Nancy and Holly both have lighter hair tones, matching Karen and Ted. The Wheelers being related to the Creels is a popular theory. While I think Nancy and Holly do look like they could be related to them, it still does not explain Mike’s features. The Creels all have blonde hair and blue eyes with no freckles in sight.

However, while Mike does look vastly different, the main physical feature Mike does have in common with Nancy and Karen is his cheekbones. I still don’t consider that enough though.

ST does a great job casting their families. I don't understand why a cast a family that all look similar except for one. Even if you consider the Creelers, there's still no one that strikes any resemblance to Mike specifically besides cheekbones.

Holly's new actress shares resemblance to Nancy. They have the same button nose and eye color.

There are No Baby Photos of Mike

I go over any sort of photos I spot at the Wheelers in this post. Mike is not spotted in any. It's primarily Holly and Nancy. This is probably my biggest and most explicitly there kind-of piece of evidence. You have several of photos of them in these big frames all set up and not one - just one - is of Mike? Something is very wrong here.

During S5 filming, they posted a picture of Mike's likely only picture sitting somewhere by itself, away from any other family photos. Underneath the photo is two vinyl records of children stories that were both released in January of 1971 - Mike's birth year. Could this be hinting at scenes of Mike as a baby next season? Why would seeing him that young be relevant?

Side thing: It's interesting that while Mike was the first main character introduced, we actually know so little about him when he was younger. We know things about Will and El, but the only thing we know about Mike is that he felt scared and alone on his first day of school. Perhaps this is intentional.

Mike is Treated Differently -- For Some Unknown Reason

Now before I get into this section, I wanna say this: I am NOT a Karen anti. I think it is important to understand the kind of situation she is in with her marriage, while also recognizing how she treats Mike in comparison to Nancy. I'm gonna be mentioning Karen far more, and that is because she at the very least is doing something, even if it isn't the best. Ted does nothing at all, period. So there isn't much to say about him. He needs to step up as both a father and husband.

In S1, we immediately learn how dismissive Karen is of Mike's interests and how dismissive Ted is of anything happening with the family in general. When he mentions how the campaign took 2 weeks to plan, Karen rolls her eyes dramatically. When he looks for an answer from Ted, he simply leaves it for his mom to answer, careless.

In the next episode, Karen approaches Mike to talk about Will's disappearance. This is a sweet scene. But later you catch onto how she approaches Nancy. There is a clear difference in how Karen communicates her support. "You can talk to me" vs "I want you to feel like you can talk to me." There is a subtle but huge difference between the two.

I'm not sure how to put it, but when Karen talks to Mike, it's almost like there's some sort of barrier that she isn't comfortable crossing. There's emotional connection missing. To me, their "talks" feel more like a counselor talking with a student rather than a mom talking with their child. "You can come to me if you'd like, I'm here for you. But I won't intervene myself. It's your job to come to me. I can't do that."

When Will's body is found, Ted and Karen are sat in their living room watching the news. Ted proposes they go down to Mike's basement and talk to him about this. Karen instead insists they give him time, believing he'll come to them instead eventually. This scene occurs exactly after Joyce hesitates to talk to Jonathan, who is sobbing in his room, and ultimately chooses not to, leaving it for him to handle alone.

The next day, Karen lets Mike stay home due to what had happened the previous night. She makes sure Mike will be alright on her own. She asks if he'd like to tag along and that she'd let him rent an R-rated movie, while she gives someone else the time and day to talk about everything going on. I ain't gonna lie, if I hadn't watched any of the show prior to this scene, I wouldn't even think his friend died because of how she's approaching this situation. As I said above, she weirdly sounds more like a counselor than a mom, like there's an invisible line she feels she can't cross.

Throughout S1, we see Nancy make consistent effort to get to Nancy, to understand her. She wants and seeks to make sure Nancy knows she's on her side. She fights with her for an answer and persists. She gets involved. Because of this persistence, Nancy does inevitably open up to her, she trusts her. Karen has told Mike once that she's there and that she doesn't have to hide anything... But we have yet to actually see him go to her to have a talk. Going for a hug at the end of the season after everything's already blown over isn't going to her to talk. We have yet to see the payoff of that scene in S1.

We go into S2. Mike is facing grief and showing signs of PTSD. Owens talks with Joyce about symptoms of PTSD and how it will get worse before it gets better, to just wait it out and pretend it's not there. However, Joyce refuses. She knows it's something more than this. She knows her son. She knows what happened last year. And guess what? The next scene is literally Ted and Karen shaming Mike for his misbehavior that matches up exactly with the symptoms Owens described right before. They then punish him and tell him to donate two boxes worth of his toys. When Mike refuses to do this due to his toys having way too much emotional value, they mock him for it. Mike eventually complies and goes down stairs in basement to do what they said and grieve over El again.

This is never resolved. Mike finally ends up releasing his pent up emotions but to Hopper in the end of the season, a character that is clearly meant to serve as a father figure to him. There is no hug with his mom like there is in S1 or S3 and S4. And still notice - Mike actually uses his words and expresses himself to Hopper, unlike he does with his parents. He cusses this police chief out and punches him, something his parents would've very well scolded him for. But Hopper saw through that and saw a hurt kid.

Nancy and Karen have a heart-to-heart in S3 that is very sweet and very genuine. Later in the scene, there is a joke that implies one of the Wheeler kids isn't biologically theirs.

In the end of S4 before the California group all finally reunite with the Hawkins group, Karen insists Nancy holds onto her stuffed animal because of its emotional value. Interesting. But when it's your twelve year old son, it's unacceptable. Nancy still decides to donate it. "No, he'll be more loved in another home." Moments later, the California group arrives and Karen runs to hug Mike. She tells him, "you are staying right here." Interesting choices of dialogue being made here hmmm.

Now all this treatment in of itself doesn't necessarily indicate he is adopted. What leads me to believe he is adopted is the lack of reasoning for this treatment. Why? What is it that makes Karen and Ted unable to cross that barrier that they set up? Why is it set up in the first place and only for him?

You understand why there's a gap between Joyce and Jonathan. Jonathan was put in the position as the father for the sake of their survival. He wasn't able to be son. There's a distinct reason why Jonathan is treated differently than Will by Joyce. Will was treated differently by his father because Will is visibly queer. Lonnie wanted to change that part of him. He wanted to make him a "real man." But when you look at the Wheelers and Mike, what reason is there? We see he gets different treatment when it comes to emotional support, but why? That's just not something that's ever been clear.

I think S5 is gonna share with us that reason "why." There is an issue with Mike and his family, his parents especially, that needs to be resolved next season. You cannot resolve conflict in a story if you don't provide the reason it begun in the first place!!

Mike is Isolated From Them

There's a weird separation the show depicts between Mike and his family. Visually, we're often shown him set apart from them. He seemingly doesn't fit in with them. He's the odd one out in dinner table scenes. His picture is now away from the others in S5.

When Mike explains what a friend is to El, he says they're someone you tell things to - Things parents don't know. He hides things from them and doesn't see a reason to tell them things.

Mike offers El his entire bedroom all to herself, telling her that he's always in his basement anyway. In words I cannot put together... That just feels so isolating. There's a sense of separation. El, Holly, Nancy, Ted and Karen would all be on the same floor... While Mike is in his basement away from everyone else.

Irl, why not, right? If a kid is happier sleeping in the basement, that's fine. But, this isn't irl. This is a story constructed a specific way to say something about a character. His basement is very crucial to him, a safe-space. We see him cope with the hardest of emotions here alone and by himself. We know no one's going down there to check on him. This is saying a lot about him and especially his place in the family.

As stated in the other previous section, they posted Mike's photo by itself away from the family photos, separating him from his family.

Mike and Loneliness

This section doesn't necessarily equal he must be adopted. However, if it is true he is adopted, it can give more reasoning for the deep sense of loneliness he experiences.

Despite having several friends, Mike is depicted as lonely and outcasted within society and his family.

In a ST comic, Mike tells us that before DND, he used to feel scared everywhere including school and his home. Finn also describes Mike as a "natural outsider."

For his monologue to Will in S2, they chose to tell us about Mike's first day of school ever. He tells us he felt so scared and so alone because he had no friends and knew nobody. This is alarming to me because for a child to feel so alone and scared barely on their first day tells me they've already been feeling this way prior. He's only five at this point.

There are a couple songs on his playlist that scream "I don't belong":

"You leave in the morning with everything you own in a little black case. Alone on the platform, the wind and the rain, on a sad and lonely face. Mother will never understand why you had to leave. For the love that you need will never be found at home." — Smalltown Boy by Bronski Beat

"Here in my car, I feel safest of all. I can lock all my doors, it's the only way to live, in cars." — Cars by Gary Numan

"Made to feel the way that every child should, sit and listen, sit and listen. Went to school and I was very nervous. No one knew me, no one knew me. Hello, teacher, tell me what's my lesson. Look right through me, look right through me." — Mad World by Tears for Fears

Mike and Being Different

Here's the thing with Mike - He's invisible. He has privilege that Lucas, Will and Dustin don't have. Whatever makes him different, he can hide. Or rather, he doesn't even need to do anything to hide. He slips between the cracks. Besides being bullied for his interests and appearance, he is still seen as the "normal" one amongst his friends.

But within his family, he is different. Something about him makes him different. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be so isolated from them. He would be right next to Nancy and Holly in their baby pictures. He wouldn't stand out in dinner table scenes. He wouldn't be scared and alone even before beginning school. He would be approached with the same effort by Karen the way Nancy is approached. The show would be emphasizing his dynamic with Karen but they don't. They choose not to.

We get this one parallel in S4 that is so. it's so. god. We're so gonna find out next season what makes Mike so different.

El talks about being different and not belonging. Will talks about being different and feeling like a mistake for it. Both are framed the exact same way, with Mike blurred in the background. Will is a character seen different within society. El is seen different within society and family. For Mike, I think he would be seen different within his family.

Will doesn't feel like he belongs in society due to his sexuality identity and his trauma with the UD. El doesn't feel like she belongs anywhere due to unfortunately growing up and being abused in a lab, making it harder for her to adapt to the real world. Mike doesn't feel like he belongs in his family due to his identity as a whole (sexuality, interests, etc,.) and not being their biological child (I think if it is true he isn't blood related, it would have to be tied to something supernatural, which would explain other things)

His parents finally coming around and telling him how much they love him and actually go after him instead of waiting for him, inviting themselves into the little world they let him close himself into, is something that I think is much needed next season for all their development. His relationship with his family is something that will be very crucial to his arc next season, I don't doubt that in the slightest. The Swiss Family Robinson record, the increase in Wheeler Family focus for S5, Smalltown Boy, Family being a core theme within the story, etc., you get the idea.

The writers have to tackle where Mike's internal issues sprouted from and that would be his home.

Mike's Name and Superman

This was originally meant to be for the next section but it got wayyy too long. This one does cross more into Alien Mike territory but I think is still important to include regardless.

A while ago I realized: Mike introduces himself to El as Michael but Mike for short. He then gives her the name Eleven, El for short. I thought it was interesting that if you combined both their nicknames, you'd get Mike-El.. Michael. Then I remembered.. Superman's actual name is Kal-El. His biological father is named Jor-El.

The suffix "El" means God.

Kalel = Voice of God

Jorel = Father/"God will uplift"

Michael = "Who is like God?"/A Gift from God

Jane = "God is gracious."

Yeahhh. I'm sensing a very intentional pattern here lol.

Mike's character itself and his role in Will's painting matches closely with Michael from the Bible, an archangel.

[x / x]

Michael is also associated with the color blue, which reminds me of our Mike, the Upside Down and of course — Superman. Not just that, but the meaning behind Michael reminds me of exactly what Superman's character is all about. He represents justice. He's a moral compass. He's a protector and a guiding leader who inspires others. He is selfless and willing to sacrifice. He's exactly the person that people need in their life. (hey remember that one pic shawn levy posted w finn lolol).

"They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you - My only son." - Jor-El to Superman

Michael = Gift from God... "I have sent them you" ... Mike being the Heart... Superman being the light people need... "Everyone needs a Mike in their life"... Mike guiding the whole Party and inspiring them.. Mike being the Key... Bruh. Y'know.. I'm just saying. Clearly, if Mike's whole thing was realizing he doesn't need to be Superman, they wouldn't have designed him to literally represent who Superman is more than the character that *he* thinks should be Superman.

If that was truly the point of his character, what happened with Mike in S4 would've been something set up for the next and final season. Not the season where they all lose in the end. Just a thought.

Possible Foreshadowing/Hints

This section is primarily about smaller details within the show that could serve as foreshadowing for the reveal.

Hopper tells Enzo, not literally, that his son (Mikhail, the literal Russian name variation of Michael) is not his son.

Karen jokes with Nancy that she could've been swapped at the hospital because she has no clue where she gets her positive traits from. Nancy tells her she gets it from her. Karen looks uncertain of this and responds with "Well.. Wherever you get it from..." This could be hinting at a future reveal that one of the Wheeler kids isn't biologically related.

In S1, the kids lie about El being Mike's cousin. During the ending of the season, before Mike kisses El, Mike tells her with certainty that his mom will adopt her. Nancy and Holly would be her sisters, his mom and dad would be hers. El then asks if he'd be like her brother, to which he responds with "No.. It's different." I don't think Mike would be aware he is adopted yet, but there could very well still be a hidden double message in that line.

Almost every film/story Mike brings up or hangs up in his room contains a main character that is an orphan. Superman, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Conan the Barbarian and The Dark Crystal. This is 5/7 films associated with Mike.

There's a painting in the Wheelers house of a family of birds. There are only 4 birds - Three adults and one baby. The Wheeler Family is a family of five. Someone's missing.

Conclusion

I really wonder what would've happened if Mike told them about going crazy and seeing El in S2. It's certainly something how he just never resolves anything with them that same season.

I think the fact the Wheeler parents have yet to learn Mike's involvement with supernatural shit is due to something that they're going to reveal in S5. I don't think Mike keeping all this from them including his own personal struggles for the entire show is for no reason.

This all being said, I am starting to strongly believe Mike isn't their biological child. You have all these things he deals with and doesn't get from his parents.. You look at it side by side with Nancy and Holly.. Yet you're still missing the "why." You need the "why." Holding off the "why" for this long could be indicating something big.

[sillyfreakx6]

radqueer enneagram stereotypes!!!! (silly + exaggarated, all affectionate)

(pls someone here tell me they're also into the enneagram TwT. if not just tag yourself as to which one you are /lh /nf)

1: the discourser

They have the most specific, black and white discourse takes. Discourse and being correct is their LIFE BLOOD. Most likely to harass others for having Wrong discourse opinions, but just as likely to be strongly anti harassment.

Discourse isn't just intellectual stimulation for them, it involves a lot of rage and anger. Most likely to have been an intense anti radqueer, only to realise (often with difficulty) that they were mistaken.

*2: (wants to be liked/loved by people)

3: the popular blogger

NEEDS to become a successful, popular radqueer blog. Would often post a lot as a result, have a good theme, etc. Wants that sweet sweet radqueer fame, to reach the pinnacle of radqueer success. (doesn't actually care about being LIKED in and of itself as much as 2 does)

4: the cluster b stereotype

Less concerned about what others think of them. The mentally ill blogger. Less concerned with the discourse and ethics. Contrasted with the 1, they're most likely to harass someone if they personally annoy them. "IDs to be quirky" and embraces it.

is also just. a walking cluster b stereotype. idk how else to put it XD (this is the type i most yearn to be like btw :P)

5: the intellectual

Most likely to be a lurker. Wants to UNDERSTAND everything that's radqueer, needs to analyse and intellectualise. Less likely to actually engage with the community though, despite finding it and experiences under it fascinating.

*6: (can probably be somewhat similar to the 1? but more driven by anxiety and relates to social groups)

*7: (probably get some positive experience out of the community? most likely to be a horny poster MAYBE)

*8: the yandere

Needs CONTROL over someone. Can't have their autonomy or security taken away.

9: the identity crisis

Has a poor sense of identity so uses radqueer labels to define, conceptualise, and find their identity. They can often "merge" with the identity of another, hence transIDs being even more relevant. Most likely to have a HUGE list of IDs.

ALSO most likely to be the kinda peacemaker, think the blogs asking for calm discussion with antis. That comes hand in hand with wanting to avoid conflict though. Doesn't know who they are = won't be very forceful in advocating for themselves, yk? (except for when the straw breaks the camels back and then RAGE)

*don't understand these types as well / don't have a good radqueer stereotype for them so they're either blank or very minimal, sorry!

[mariacallous]

Trump is staffing his cabinet with billionaires, who will break the government out of incompetence, spite, or avarice. So why not just go for class politics, and forget about everything else? As the country reaches unprecedented levels of inequality, why not just tear off the oligarchs' masks? Why not present them as merchants of death?

We should all know who they are, how wealthy they are, from what sources, and how they profit from holding power. And, in some better future, we should all benefit from anti-oligarchical policies that make us all more free. We have to talk about inequality, about class.

But America cannot get to social justice only by talking about class. I want to consider the last few weeks and months -- the campaign, its outcome, the CEO assassination -- to think through how an effective opposition might work.

The election itself gives is an important clue. Oligarchy could have been halted at the ballot box. Harris would have been very different from Trump on taxes and redistribution. Sure, she might have run from further on the Left, but she was not herself a wannabe oligarch, and would not have built a cabinet of oligarchs. Had the Democrats controlled Congress, her policies would have continued a trend toward redistribution that Biden had begun. Even without Congress, she would have prevented the Trumpian oligarchical orgy. So if people had wanted to prevent rule by billionaires, they could have done so.

Harris suffered from an incumbency problem. It was a "change" election. Around the world and for several years, post-covid, it has been strikingly hard for incumbents to win. The question, though, is why Trump got to be the "change" candidate. Here is a hint of why just referring to class will never be enough. The candidate who would have changed American society in the direction of equality was not the change candidate. The candidate who was associated with wealth was. This can only be understood as culture.

Rule by the wealthy is not change. The wealthy, putting it gently, have been in charge before. The oligarchs don't actually need the support of the voters to have more than sufficient power in the United States. Why did voters support them? I spent most of October in the Midwest and Great Plains, entirely in states that went for Trump (except Illinois). It is harder and harder to have these conversations, but I think I have some notion.

Trump voters saw their guy as the outsider, even though he has already been president once, and has been very present in media for forty years. For Harris voters, the fact that she is Black and a woman make her an outsider; for Trump voters, or at least for many of the ones with whom I spoke, they make her an insider. And that notion that women and Blacks direct a deep state is a cultural construct.

For Trump voters, or at least many of the ones with whom I spoke this fall, Trump's (supposed) wealth also made him the change candidate. Anyone who is wealthy is seen as a daredevil who broke the rules. The image of Trump as a trailblazer was created by the man himself, not by actual earnings. More deeply, though, the notion of the wealthy person as a hero is an American cultural construct. It makes of voting a cultural act: I want to feel like I am a part of that.

So when people say we need a class war, I sympathize. The grotesque inequality of wealth in the United States is at the root of countless problems. I dwell on this in both On Freedom and Road to Unfreedom. And, of course, in the coming years, cities and states should redistribute wealth and provide social services, thereby helping people to become free. At the national level, though, you cannot just declare a class war, because you cannot decide what class people belong to for them, or tell them what their class interests are. Even basic interests, like staying alive, being safe, or having money, are experienced in emotional contexts. Class anxiety can lead right to oligarchy or fascism or both.

If you are an oligarch, you know this. You win the class war by fighting the culture war. You engage negatively with both class and culture. You never say: "hey, I am Elon Musk, and I care about you, therefore I am writing every American family a check for $5,000." You stay away from numbers and math. You tell a story about how the wealth of the wealthy somehow benefits everyone. And you reinforce the idea that the people who threaten the prosperity of your voters are those who threaten their culture. And so Blacks or immigrants or transsexuals (or whoever) are always presented as threatened both prosperity and identity.

On the other side, those who want democracy rather than oligarchy must engage positively with culture in order to engage with class. That people even have a class identity is not given by nature. It is a result of education, experience, camaraderie. The welfare state was curtailed at its foundation in the 1930s and weakened in the 1980s because of racism. Labor unions became effective at defending wages when they became effective at admitting non-Whites. Americans deny themselves the policies that would serve them because of culture, because of who they see as the real people, the real citizens. And that is why we cannot effectively care about economic inequality without practical, everyday understanding of racial other sorts of inequality.

Orwell said that it is a constant struggle to see what is right in front of your nose. Culture can blind us to the obvious. Non-Blacks tend to project onto Blacks political irrationality and "identity politics." But who in America votes consistently with their economic interests? African Americans, in general. And is this because they are somehow free of culture, and just more rational than the rest of us? Perhaps. Or is it rather that they are not subject to the dominant form of identity politics, and can see through it? And that this knowledge is not just the experience of one life, but generationally transmitted, deeply connected to the actual history of the country? The very notion that African Americans are the savviest voters is practically unsayable in American English.

Let me give a second example of how culture frames what we see. Affirmative action by universities on the basis of race has been banned by the Supreme Court. But the largest affirmative action at universities, as an honest admissions officer will tell you, is on the basis of gender. In college admissions, boys with worse grades are favored over girls with better grades. (Did you have to read that sentence twice?) But it is unthinkable that a woman could bring and win a case at the Supreme Court on the basis of the discrimination that girls inarguably suffer in university admissions. That all of this is practically unsayable is a sign of how the culture works.

When we say "identity politics" in American English, we are usually invoking women, or Blacks, or gender or sexual minorities. That is itself a sign of how deeply culture affects our judgements, and by "culture" here I mean a deeply rooted sense, among many of us, of what is normal and therefore unworthy of comment. The most powerful form of identity politics is Trump's, and it goes something like this: "I am a rich white guy who breaks all the rules and who therefore gets to make them, and so you should enjoy the feel of my hand in your pocket as I pick it."

Of course, we should pass policies that address economic inequality where and when we can. But there are barriers to the success of this at a national level, barriers that the coming Trumpomuskovite regime will raise even higher. The oligarchs understand all this, and those who wish to resist or defeat them must know how to turn a vicious circle into a virtuous one.

The work that has to be done on American racism is hard, and it is part of the work that has to be done on American social injustice. This might seem to make matters harder. But it doesn't, really. The impossible is harder than the difficult, and so avoiding the impossible is a good idea. Trying to do things that are impossible, like addressing class without addressing culture, is not the right use of energy.

And in an important way these realizations makes matters easier. The work that needs to be done in the culture has to be done every day. But that means that it can be done every day, in small ways, by all of us.

Some of that everyday work involves our analysis of the election. Personally, I hold the unpopular view that Harris ran a good campaign, if not a perfect one, and that the reasons she lost -- anti-incumbency, the internet generally, Twitter bias, Musk's money, Trump's talent, media cowardice, U.S. history -- were not things we can really blame her for not overcoming in a few months. I do agree with some lines of critique: I think that she should have let Walz be Walz, and used more grandiose language about her economic policies.

Where I disagree is the notion that Harris lost because of her "identity politics." She did not run her campaign on "identity politics" in the sense that is meant. Harris did not emphasize being Indian, or Black, or a woman. Trump's campaign, however was identity politics from start to finish. Trump ran as a rich white guy and won; Harris ran as an American and lost.

Trump succeeded because of his identity politics, which brings race and class together in a certain way. By connecting the desire for change with emotions that make it impossible, he (and many others) generate, in the end, sadopopulism: a politics that works not because all benefit but because some learn to take pleasure in the greater suffering of others. Deportations have to be understood in this light: they are a spectacle of the suffering of others. So does mass incarceration.

A test for this, as we have been recently reminded, is health. Persuading people that it is normal to pay for shorter lives is the litmus test of sadopopulism. In America, we do in fact pay exorbitant amounts of money to harmful middlemen who kill us by denying us care that we could afford if their scam did not exist. (It is a sign of our cultural problem that we say "insurance" or "health care" when we mean "death grift.") The recent assassination of the CEO of the misnamed company UnitedHealthcare brought the middleman problem into focus. On the internet, people on the Right joined people on the Left is sharing family stories of expense, uncertainty, suffering and death.

Will it matter that almost everyone agrees? Why did people who want better health care vote for Trump? Why do we not have a single-payer system? Who do we pay so much more and get so much less than other people in other countries? Why was it so hard for both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who were very popular presidents, to pass the kind of health care reform they favored? Part of it is, of course, that we have too much money in politics (a class factor, let's say); but part of it is that many people who would gain security, prosperity, and lifespan from a better system don't want it if they have to share it with others (a culture factor, let's say).

How this will play out under the coming Trump regime is a test. If Trump were a true populist, which he is not, he would seize on the issue of health care to gain support from Americans all over the political spectrum (this is an idea I steal from Kate Woodsome). The grifter king must protect all grifts. UnitedHealthcare, a company that makes lots of money by delivering a lethal absence, represents just the sort of capitalism that a Trump regime must celebrate. Indeed, the plan in the middle term (RFK JR.) seems to be to make us all sicker, so that even more advanced grifts are possible.

And so in Trumpomuskovia a way will have to be found to change the subject from health care, to blame the Blacks or the migrants or the trans people for all the lethal dysfunctionality, to connect the assassin himself to some conspiracy of unlikable figures, or something. It's not clear just how this will work -- most likely, the first move will be not to move at all, in the reasonable hope that the policies of January and February and March will be so frightening that people will forget about health care. And maybe this will work.

If it does, we can look forward to a new kind of fascism. In the traditional sort, your children had to die on the front to perpetuate a vision of racial glory. In this iteration, your children have to die of diseases so that people who are already billionaires can become wealthier. The Trumpomuskovian policy will be to keep the death-grift billionaires we have, and create new ones by ending vaccinations and thereby opening the snake oil market.

This is a deepening of class differences, between the wealthy and the long-lived and the financially and existentially precarious. It is possible future thanks not only to greed, but also to a culture in which we don't see our own health care problems as everyone's, and in which we can be easily drawn, by personal fears that activate prejudice, away from seeing ourselves as part of a larger class of people who could be living better and longer lives.

All the same, it won't be enough to be outraged at the terrible injustice in the abstract. Even when the issue is life itself, "class not race" won't work. We need the mode of outrage at the numbers. But we will also need the mode of empathy for African Americans and others whose marginalization has been used to keep health care -- and good policy generally -- from coming about. This is the most important effort, over time. How shock, including the shock of illness, strikes a population depends on how that population has prepared itself. And, yet, we will also need empathy for people who voted for Trump and who get sick. People change their minds, but not usually when they are suffering alone. This is a different kind of move, hard for different reasons, but necessary.

About class, about differences in wealth, we need clarity, and we need outrage. But we will not get far without equal clarity about race. Without empathy for others, we cannot see ourselves. Without empathy, every inequality can get worse, and will. But Trump and Musk and other oligarchs can be stopped when they try to blame our health care debacle on those who suffer the most from it. They can be stopped when they try to ban vaccines and profit from further disease and death. With empathy, health care might just be an issue where the oligarchy fails to consolidate, and the people begin to hear themselves speak.

[abyssalzones]

apologies if i'm interpreting wrong, but do you not like the family aspects in gravity falls?

I enjoy the family aspects in gravity falls in terms of surface level enjoyment... but even then I do agree wholeheartedly with the post I reblogged and I think it's definitely applicable to a critical examination of the story, as it would be in Any story. mainly in terms of stan and ford's dynamic.

I've thought before about how stan's tumultuous relationship with ford really comes down to the failings of "the family" and particularly masculinity and the concept of The Family Man as a breadwinner and every time it frustrates me for what it is and intrigues me for what it potentially says as a deconstruction, even if an unintentional one. stan's core values are familial in nature, which to the audience is a purely noble goal. therefore, when stan does the things she (and I'm using she/her as always for stan because I interpret her as a trans woman) does, it's "all for this family", which is a very empathetic goal. but it's also one that snowballs into the devastating rift between her and ford: ford wanting to go to college and remove himself from The Family is implicitly depicted as a betrayal, if not to the audience then at least to stan. and yet it's perfectly understandable Why he does this if you actually examine the stan twins' childhood, which is that of two siblings being forced to compete in a black sheep/golden child dynamic in a poor household, overseen by the abusive patriarch figure that is their father. when ford refers to his dynamic with stan as "suffocating" (expecting dipper to relate), it's simultaneously insight we're meant to read as selfish and anti-family, as well as being perfectly logical. stan and ford depend on one another for survival and recognition as they deal with both the trappings of their home life and peer abuse at school- and, at the same time, are locked into their roles as "potential breadwinner" and "the fuck-up twin". would that not be suffocating? would you really feel secure trying to maintain a close relationship with your twin like that, even if you did love them?

I refer to this as a matter of masculinity because at its core the trappings of the (american, western, whatever you want to call it) family are often patriarchal in nature: everything revolves around the authority of The Father, who is succeeded by The Son. stan's lack of success in terms of bringing money to the family reflect her failures to perform as a man. the only time she begins to succeed in this role is when she's impersonating ford. (and here you can kind of see the foundations of my headcanon for her as a trans woman... but that's off topic) at the end of the day, ford's desires for agency outside of his family are punished by the story: "you care about some dumb mysteries more than your own family? well then-- you can have 'em." and this is only truly rectified when ford relents, admits the true importance of family, and gets on a boat with his twin. even if I think it's elaborated on in ways that lend itself towards a more complex story, even if I think it could work perfectly well as a deconstruction if you were to read it that way, I think this is the type of story they're trying to tell and the one that is most commonly related to by an american audience.

I say that this frustrates me because as much as I wish it were the case, I don't believe gravity falls intends to make a critical commentary on the nature of the family. I think it says a lot about how those dynamics can be strained or muddled by factors such as miscommunication, trauma, abuse, etc- but at the end of the day it's intending to be a very "familial love surpasses all" type of story. does that mean it's unwatchable garbage? not really. I obviously love the show and still enjoy familial dynamics for a lot of reasons and think there's good to come of those kinds of stories. however I also think there is a lot to be said about how dangerous the idea of "family comes first" is, both in terms of justifying violence and absolving or enabling abuse.

*note that my specifications of the structure as "american" or "western" are due purely to a lack of perspective. I'm sure there are examples of these types of trappings across various cultures I just can't confidently elaborate, and in the context of the show we're talking about a story that takes place with american characters. kind of a pointless amendment but just in case.

[marjoriestotch]

Pls give me your opinions and headcanons about Shelley Marsh

Hooo boy. Where do I begin.

I love Shelly Marsh, and she's an incredibly underrated character within the fanbase and also within the show itself.

It is no secret Trey Parker based Shelly off of his own sister, and his portrayal early on of her is meant to mock his sister and also express his turbulent relationship with her when they were children. He talks in detail in the season 1 commentary track of how his sister used to beat and bully him, so obviously the character Shelly within South Park isn't portrayed favourably. (He also describes with glee on how people in real life mock his sister knowing of the reference of her in South Park, which he says did annoy her. I have feelings about that on it's own but it's besides the point.) She's ugly, anti-social, friendless, a bully, violent, etc.

Though I do want to say that Trey's view on Shelly as a character did seem to shift early on, what with Cat Orgy portraying Shelly as a sympathetic victim, a lonely girl, who is starving for love. I would give Trey a lot more merit for that if that episode isn't then followed up with a huge gap of Shelly having next to no prominence in the show.

I believe that Trey Parker and maybe also Matt Stone started to take a little more interest in Shelly in recent years due to having daughters of their own, wanting and being able to flesh her out more and give an actual relationship to Randy who the show very blatantly states has treated Stan as his only child for many years. I hope they do continue with this trend of Shelly having more prominence - we had her be the inciting incident for Tegridy Farms, being more vocal about her unhappiness being there, her hatred for weed, her terribly relationship with Randy, her interest in music and social media, and Randy seemingly expressing more interest in her.

As for the fandom...I get exhausted if I have to think about how the fandom has treated her for decades. No, she is not the golden child. She is the one who is neglected and forgotten.

Randy outright forgets Shelly exists, and a recent example of Randy cropping Shelly out of the photo they took with the Black family during The Big Fix. Even Sharon neglects her, doting mostly on Stan, which Shelly expresses in her outburst during the season 19 finale. We never see Shelly taken to the doctor or to a therapist (which she desperately needs) when Sharon and Randy rush Stan to both multiple times during the show.

A lot of the time Shelly does not exist within fanart or fanfiction, it really is as if Stan is just an only child. Shelly is nowhere to be seen within or outside of the household, and damned do we find out what she's up to when Stan reaches adulthood. It's Shelly, right, who cares? I care. It upsets me.

I feel they toss her aside because Trey Parker did for many years, which, uh, is not a good excuse in my opinion. There are fans who cling onto s1-3 single episode only characters for DECADES while Shelly had more prominent and genuinely touching moments in that same time frame and beyond. I think we're all afraid to just admit that it's due to misogyny, and I don't want to hear that well South Park is a misogynistic show (and it is) when Trey Parker himself has expressed and provenly demonstrated he is interested in writing female characters more within the show. How are you doing worse than TREY PARKER at writing female characters? Embarrasssing. (That could be a whole post on its own, I digress.)

I feel like I could ramble on and on about this forever, and it's kinda getting exhausting lol, so I'll try and segue into the headcanons.

A recent headcanon I had has to do with Shelly's clear interest in Wicked since we saw her posters of it in her room. Though before this I did imagine Shelly to be averse to the musical given what had happened with Larry, I wonder if perhaps she clings onto the musical in memory of her short lived romance with Larry is one of the reasons she loves it so much. I like to imagine she heavily relates to Elphaba, and that her and Cartman like to act out the songs together with Cartman acting as Glinda (picture his tooth fairy princess costume reused for the Glinda role.)

Adding onto that, while, yes, we don't see them interacting all that much after Cat Orgy, I still like to think that Shelly and Cartman are friends, even distantly, because they bonded over the events in that episode.

Speaking of those events, this fandom glosses over MANY of Shelly's traumas, and being groomed by Skylar is one of them. It frustrates me to no end that we have people in the fandom pontificate over sexual assaults in the show (which are often played comedically) but ignore Shelly outright because she's just not one of the boys. Shelly was groomed by a grown man at 13, and is neglected to the point that none of her family has noticed. We watch him kiss her and grope her, which always makes me feel uncomfortable, much more than any other instances of assault on the show, because it feels so REAL.

Continuing on that, TO THIS DAY Shelly has a picture of Skylar framed in her room. Again, her family isn't shown to wonder why she has this photo or ask her who he is, nothing. The reason I think Shelly clings to this photo of the man who groomed and abused her is because, yes, what he did IS ABUSE, in Shelly's mind, he is the only person who found her desirable, wanted to kiss her, introduced her to his friends and made music with her (which she's clearly passionate about.) Yes, we have Larry, who I miss dearly, but their relationship was unfortunately short lived before any real romance could bloom. And, well, Amir was a boy she talked to online. Skylar, you see, was her first and only real boyfriend, and I think she clings onto that photo to remind herself that maybe she can be loved romantically, which I know is twisted and incredibly sad, but thats just what Shelly is to me.

Speaking of Amir, I like to think Shelly is a little chronically online. We always either see her on her phone or she's reading books (which I'll talk about in a second) when she's not at the dinner table. She has online friends she bonds over music, books, movies and maybe over their own struggles as teenagers. It's an escapism for Shelly when it seems like she's isolated from most of South Park for being known as the ugly bully of her little brother.

She clearly has an affinity for music, I like to think she loves both girl pop (Lorde, Miley Cyrus, etc) while also having an affinity to that teenage girl alternative music (The Smiths, which me and my hubby @bullborn have discussed in great lengths.) She wants to sing! She wants to get lost in daydreaming to music in her room.

Her room is also interesting because we often see horse posters in it, so clearly she is a horse girl of a sort. I'm sure when she was younger she would've learned to love horse riding, but Stan always took priority, so she's left daydreaming with her horesgirl novels and movies.

Shelly is just a very feminine girl, you guys. She loves pink, LOVES pink, loves flowers, loves Live Laugh Love posters, loves pink hearts, rainbows, butterflies, loves girl magazines, just everything girly girl. Even though she is tough, strong, and abrasive, she still has a clear soft feminine side to her that maybe she's afraid to express, what with keeping all this in her room where she feels safe from ridicule and to upkeep her bad reputation.

My favorite part of Marsh family dinners isn't Randy, Sharon and Stan arguing, but watching Shelly and Grandpa Marvin Marsh eat quietly together. I like to think they did have a close relationship, which only lasted briefly before Marvin was taken to an elderly home. I think Marvin still loves Shelly dearly, which is painful when you remember how he wanted to buy her jewelry even though she's outgrown any interest in them. I think it must have hurt Shelly to see the one family member she had a positive relationship with go.

I like to imagine Shelly moving out as soon as she can and going straight for an apartment in a city. She wants to get away from it all, start fresh. Good for her.

Speaking of growing up, I am a sucker for an ugly duckling story for Shelly, where she loses her head gear and grows into her face and body and becomes a beautiful woman, which can be symbolic of her growing out from under a toxic household and reaching her full potential.

I've recently considered that she would become pescetarian, sharing Stan's belief in anti-animal cruelty, etc.

I think Shelly's love of reading is also a form of escapism for her as well as a trait of her more loner self.

I headcanon her as being bisexual and you can't argue with me cuz actually is it true.

This headcanon is moreso my hubby, @bullborn , but I'll say it here. I do like to imagine she was also a girl scout as Stan was a boy scout, being a leader of her den to boot.

Despite everything that I've said before, we finally did get a reveal of Shelly's friend group during the Obesity special (I don't know what the actual name of it is and I don't care 🙄). I want to know more about them!! I doubt we'll get any real depth to them beyond that small appearance. Can we as a fandom turn them into ocs with their own fanlore. Please. I beg.

And I'll tap this off with my list of Shelly ships even though no one asked.

I love Shelly/Scot Tenorman (yes him, again thanks to hubby @bullborn), and Shelly/Tammy Warner, Shelly/Kenny McCormick, and finally....big shocker I know.....Shelly/Tolkien Black. This me coming out with that, I guess. Oh and I do like Shelly/Kevin McCormick, but it's more so platonic thanks to @bullborn 's influence.

And yes I spell her name Shelly. I'm sorry.

If you want me to elaborate on anything go ahead and ask! Hopefully this is a good enough answer for now

[fullofwoe5321]

Howdy Weyler Nation! WS2 Part 2 - Is Wednesday cursed? Who is the killer? What is Tyler's role on that?

As I told on the last post, the only thing I can trust now is those 6 minutes, BUT I will use some isolated scenes from teasers to illustrate some insights. ONCE AGAIN: THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN! IT'S JUST THEORIES. NOTHING IS CONFIRMED. Only for the voices in my head.

Here it lies more questions than answers but I decided to share because there's always someone clever than me (You guys) to helpto crack the code about Wednesday's plot and a possible Weyler's plot as well.

1- Is Wednesday cursed?

In my opinion, NO. But I need to explain: At first, I thought it was a curse, but now I don't think it is anymore. She is crying black tears because she is messing with Goody's book of spell. She is messing with High Dark Magic and she is not able to handle it. She wasn't supposed to cry black tears during a vision while being touched by someone else. She was supposed to trigger visions whenever she wants. But once again, she passed out when the serial killer touched her.

She was supposed to be trained by an ancestor and now she is training herself alone using ancient magic and her mom warned her how dangerous it could be to lead Goody's path and advices.

But another point here is that Goody lives inside her because Wednesday would have died and Goody didn't see any other way. LAUREL DIDN'T PLAN FOR CRACKSTONE TO KILL WEDNESDAY. Laurel just needed some blood. Crackstone's act was a surprise. I guess it was not Goody's intention to live inside Wednesday, but she couldn't do differently. However I guess she had plans to have her revenge in future and probably she thought she could influence Wednesday at some point. But now things took a dark turn....

The fact they both were a Raven shows us how they are powerful witches/psychics but also there is a real possibility they suffer from the same destiny: madness.

Is this girl Goody? hmm... I believe the Black Tears is the consequence of using Raven's powers uncontrollably.

"Secrets can have deadly consequences." As we could see Wednesday hasn't told anyone she's been training alone and I dare to say that she hadn't told anyone Goody had saved her from death as well. NO ONE KNOWS THAT GOODY LIVES INSIDE HER.

So my theory is that Wednesday will lose sense of reality and will lose control litlle by little because we all know she is going to use her psychic abilities to solve the cases, but she will suffer the consequences. She is going to use those powers like there's no tomorrow. She will be drunk by the power and she will overload her systems until the point she gets literally nuts. I think she will do things she won't remember and I dare to say, evil things. She will be out of control.

It would be a clever mirror to Tyler's Hyde. But I'll be come back to him soon.

2- Who is the killer? HERE IT LIES MY BOLDEST THEORY! LOL GET READY!

When Jenna said the Death of Red Masque was as inspiration for the plot, I got curious and I googled it. SPOILER ALERT:

In "The Masque of the Red Death," Prince Prospero attempts to escape a deadly plague, the Red Death, by isolating himself and his courtiers in a fortified abbey. He throws a lavish masquerade ball within the abbey's seven elaborately decorated rooms, each representing a stage of life, to distract from the plague raging outside. At midnight, a mysterious figure, resembling a Red Death victim, appears and walks through all the rooms, culminating in the black room where Prince Prospero confronts him. The prince dies upon confronting the figure, who is revealed to be the Red Death itself, and all the revelers die soon after. 

Today they released a new teaser about Barry Dort and how he is going to lead Nevermore. He is anti normie. He is a proud outcast.

If I was going to theorize something about it, I would say Barry Dort would represent Prince Prospero. But let's not say it literally. Let's say that the fact he is an anti normie and wants to protect the outcast from normies, it would make him to isolate them at Nevemore because in his mind, he is doing the right thing for his community. It's better isolation than integration, because I assume Jericho now is against all types of outcasts after Tyler. I assume the normies can't stand to be near outcasts anymore which complicates the situation once Nevermore is the responsible to prop up the town. Let's move on...

Once the murders starts to happen or even when Tyler escapes form WH, Dort will become more and more protective over Nevermore and students and he will isolate them there eventually. I mean, the outcasts will be first suspects around the crimes And maybe the normies just need an excuse to show how outcast are dangerous and close the school. So I assume Dort will do everything to shield Nevermore and students.

Ok, but what does it have to do with the killer? PAY ATTENTION NOW:

The killer is wearing a RED hood. I assume this person is representing the death according to the reference of the Death of Red Masque. Bart will be so worried about protecting students inside Nevermore that he won't realize that DEATH IS ALREADY INSIDE the school. Yes, I assumed it's a student. and now... WHO IS THE KILLER?

OK, IT'S JUST THEORY!!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!

Have you paid attention that the killer is wearing a doll-face's mask? Who was surrounded by dolls recently?

Yeah, the first thing I noticed, since the beginning, it was how the hands of the killer were small. It made me think it is a girl.

Then i noticed how the killer is short:

We can see the victim is taller than the killer. So the killer knocks the victim down and straddles his chest to choke him.

But what really makes me support this theory is the plot of the death of red masque: the Red Death is the Prince Prospero, THE MAIN LEAD!! The illusion of control is being explored here! Wednesday thought she was in control of her ability and herself, but she was never! She is totally taken by her power and she cant do anything about it. She cannot win anymore and the prediction of Rowan's mother was right: she would destroy the school and everyone in it in one way or another.

Jenna herself said that Wednesday would be in a situation she cannot win.

Yeah, i know it sounds delulu, but who knows?

Another point there is that Wednesday is a celebrity and has a fan named Annie. She looks a bit nuts. Take a look:

OF COURSE IT COULD BE HER AS WELL!!! THE WAY SHE IS CLEARLY OBSESSED WITH WEDNESDAY! LOL

I wouldn't doubt if she is killing some people to get some attention from Wednesday because she know how our girl loves to solve mysteries.

But she could be a red herring as well. Another ginger? Of course she will be first suspect.

3 - What about Tyler? My shayla!

If there's one person who can totally understand Wednesday in the middle of the chaos, this person is Tyler!

He knows how it is feels to do thing you don't remember, to do things you would never agree to do and to be controled by his own power.

I can totally assure he will be the first person to realize that something's wrong with Wednesday.

It would be a great opportunity to show Wednesday and to viewers how Tyler couldn't do anything about Laurel's orders. It would be a chance to clarify how things worked. Because I don't think Tyler agreed with killing people but he couldn't do anything about it. He couldn't stop his Hyde because he couldn't control him just like Wednesday can't control her abilities anymore. She thinks she doesnt' need help and she can do it all by herself, but everybody needs help. Tyler didn't have any and he is the example of how things turned totally wrong. It's more about a development about your emotional issues than the abilities themselves.

What makes me worried is the fact that Wednesday might be his master at some point of the show! But I dont think they will repeat the same old story: Wednesday making Tyler kill. I think they will make things differently now and I have one good theories about them.

I want to talk about Weyler and Tyler tomorrow because I have theories about Wednesday being his master and Tyler is masterless. This post would be massive if I start now. So I'll leave it for tomorrow.

What are your thoughts about my delulu theories? lol

Let me know everything!

[z0mbiel0v3rr]

One of your posts has a few issues. It frames Ethel Cain’s trans identity as a “shield,” which echoes a lot of reactionary rhetoric and unfairly dismisses how often trans people face bad-faith attacks. It also assumes people only defend her because she’s trans, which erases the valid reasons someone might push back on the way criticism is being delivered. Saying folks are “weaponizing” transphobia is a really loaded accusation and shifts the focus away from addressing harm without bias. You can absolutely call out racism and harmful content while still recognizing how identity impacts the way someone is treated. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

If Ethel Cain was not trans, do you think the white queer community would be as adamant in defending her? I'm not saying that Ethel Cain herself is weaponizing this, I'm merely pointing out the majority of responses of her fans which I've been exposed to, who are predominantly white and queer, are labelling this outrage and criticism as a bigoted "smear campaign" (her words) based on her being trans. Her identity in itself, is not a shield but it certainly can be used as one, that's not wrong to point out in the similar way that some poc who do wrong can use their marginalized status to absolve blame or repaint the situation as race focused. This can be exemplified through P Diddy (I am not comparing the two mind you, its just an example), some of his fans have weaponized his blackness to silence victims and outrage against him, framing people against him as being anti black as opposed to being against his actions. Any and all identities can be weaponized, I don't think its wrong to say that.

you absolutely don't have to agree with me, its why I started the post with "I think".

[mmmmalo]

I'm reading one of the textbooks for my hip-hop media class, called "Prophet of the Hood." It analyzes the political and literary art form of hip-hop (It's extremely insightful, and I recommend it).

In the chapter, “B-boys, Players, and Preacher,” Imani (the author) breaks down black hyper-masculinity and white American's contemporary media “obsessions with the size of black male genitalia show us that an earlier era’s paranoid fixation on black male sexuality and the fear of black humanity” (Imani 120). It made me think back to how you explore Homestuck’s anti-black imagery in Slurquest.

Spectically, Gamzee serves as its manifestation (or at least Karkat's manifested envy for Blackness). Homestuck's BBC obsession can be applied to Gamzee’s Codpiece from reactions of ridicule, aggression, and sexual fixation.

Like one of the Myststuck with Jane; if you click on Gamzee’s codpiece, she becomes transfixed by it and expresses her inability to look away (4827). Karkat and Dave's conversation centers around it for a bit, to laugh at the sheer absurdity and joke about gamzee sexually defiling the Utopia.

KARKAT: I DON'T KNOW!

KARKAT: I DON'T THINK EVEN HE KNOWS.

KARKAT: MAYBE TO MAKE A "GOOD IMPRESSION" ON HIS FAKE ASS RELIGIOUS IDOL, AFTER HE THRUSTS HIS SACRED COD PIECE THROUGH THE GATES OF SHANGRI LA.

DAVE: ahahaha the best thing we ever do together is slam this assholes dumb religion (5937)

I apologize for the length and quality, and I'm wondering about your opinion on this? Or if you have made previous posts regarding the subject? I’m still new to exploring your blog.

This racialized reading of the cod piece def works in the Epilogues, where trolls face discrimination and Gamzee plays the stud to Jake's cuck under the cover of blackrom... But I needed some time to assess whether race is central to the codpiece's symbolic function in Homestuck proper. I think I basically agree, though I have some qualifiers

1 - To your point, the Myststuck appearance is sandwiched between two anxious fantasies of phallic inferiority: Hussie's empty wand/pistol losing to Lord English's staff/AK-47 (declaring magic fake is here a sour grapes expression of the loser's impotence) and Tavros remarking that he "attacked [Vriska] with [his] bogus self-esteem... and paid the ultimate price." No clear racial polarity in the latter encounter, but the first could pose Hussie's whiteness against the blackness of LE's pimp/pharaoh affectations. I also think that scene might reference Drop It Like It’s Hot lyrics? But anyway, these being on either side of the Gamzee's appearance could imply that the codpiece itself is rhetorically positioned as an object of envy (as with Karkat) -- most likely envied by Jane (a transmasculine sentiment like her mustaches), but perhaps also envied by the reader, who gets positioned as the cuck by dint of watching Jane express interest in the package.

2 - But before we get ahead of ourselves, we should also note that the codpiece itself could be the link between the "fake" phalluses on either side. The story later dwells on how Gamzee's godtier costume and his wings are fabricated -- this also calls his codpiece and its contents into question. This preturns us to the eternal question of whether Gamzee "is" (or represents) a black guy or if he "is" (or represents) a white guy affecting blackness... and I don't have an answer for that! Sometimes he seems to occupy both terminals of that binary at whim.

I had a similar problem apprehending Karkat post-Slurquest -- does he represent a trans dude with his Bloody gash aspect symbol and blood-covered planet insulting his efforts to conceal himself, or does he represent a white cis dude who is being ruthlessly feminized by the racist porn tropes that inform the story? I'm not sure that question can be resolved, but both perspectives are useful in apprehending the story around him. The story is engaged with the gendering of race, and narratives around race bleeds into the presentation of individuals' genders.

3 - Bonus: if we narrow our scope for "codpiece" parallels to Myststuck itself, the closest in form (and rhyme!) are probably the "seedpods" that litter Jane's planet. Karkat jokes about thrusting the codpiece into Shangri-La, while seedpods fly up into heavenly Skaia. The pods shoot out water/seeds to fertilize the ground as they fly. The name "seed pod" was earlier applied to Demon Mobster Kingpin's weakpoint, which was some sort of thorny baby/penis.

The potions Gamzee sells are ALSO shaped like the seed pods, but troll "genetic material" is linked to blood so the implicit sexualization of blood vials doesn't really surprise me at this point. And I have a whole other post dealing with the decapitation motifs that involves, but we don't need to get into terrorism theming here I think...

4 - More bonuser bonus: worth noting that the initial penis to haunt Jane was on the Dr. Manhattan poster that Jake gave her. One of Gamzee's functions was to sell love potions to Jane (to coerce Jake into returning her feelings), so his codpiece feels loosely connected to the GIANT MUTANT PENIS jokes that Jake gets from Manhattan and Hulk. If the ambiguities of attraction/identification seen with Gamzee apply, we might infer Jake gives Jane gender envy.

[silent-sanctum]

"Jotaro as a Father"

Alright, this is another popular discussion about Jotaro's character. It also falls victim to the fandom's tendency to resort to "black and white" thinking, perhaps combined with other minor factors (and another case of me liking to overanalyze my favorite characters because Araki left so much about him vague)

This user has posted this on another "opinions that I will defend until the end of time" and garnered thousands of likes. This was probably the most liked quoted retweet. And it irked me. Am I surprised? Not really. Disappointed? Absolutely. And they are probably the 80% Jotaro fans that don't understand him.

And as your local Jotaro defender and anti-Jotaro mischaracterization person, I am here with another essay exploring more of his mentality. This time, it's about him being a parent, and while he isn't the best father, he isn't that bad either, or at least how the majority of the fandom thinks him to be.

I have made a previous character essay that talked about Jotaro's crippling weaknesses under the facade of strength and competence in detail. If you're interested, I'll leave this sentence linked to the post.

Now keep in mind: This character study is all assumptions and headcanons, BUT they are grounded in canon (e.g., pattern of behavior, general personality, actions he took, etc.) instead of what is popular in fanon interpretations. And much like how I wrote my previous essay (with the CEO and her POV on her emotional reservation), I will be drawing a lot of thematic comparisons with another show I've watched.

Why? Because sometimes, there are patterns on how groups of people can function in life, and it's not just the writer's bias and blind defense of their favorite character.

Second, I need to make this clear also: Jolyne is valid for being mad at her father. I am not invalidating her feelings at all. This essay is about exploring his headspace and what led him to do what he did. That's it.

Okay. Now onto the essay itself.

"Is he a bad father?"

Ehh, I can say that while he isn't good, he isn't bad either. His parenting lands more in the grey area, instead of either end of the spectrum. Because we all know at the surface level that he got married, had a daughter, went AWOL, divorced his wife, and stayed away from his family for their safety.

The action was bad: Neglect is neglect, no matter the excuse, and it can cause the affected people to respond to it negatively in the long term, especially for children with an absent parent.

However, the intention was good: He chose to stay away from his family because he attracted danger to his loved ones, who couldn't see the threat. He's a Stand user who could likely draw in other Stand users. He cared for them, and he wouldn't want to risk their safety by being around them.

It's complicated and nuanced. I feel like it's wrong to just shoehorn him into the "bad father" category, when the generalized view of what a "bad dad" is being abusive or leaving the child with malicious and/or selfish intent. But he doesn't hold up the "good father" title either, when being a "good dad" involves being a constant support for one's child, which he didn't do in Jolyne's late childhood to her teens.

So, he's neither good nor bad. He's a father doing all that he can with his current circumstances.

And yes, while I could leave it at that with the whole "he's neither good nor bad, but somewhere in between", many have placed their arguments about why he's a bad father and the alternatives he could've taken instead of completely choosing the self-isolation route.

The most popular one was this question:

"If he knew he was a danger, why did he have Jolyne? Why did he choose to have a family when he was going to stay away from them in the end?"

Here's the thing though… He didn't.

Jotaro doesn't have the hindsight that the audience has. He couldn't have known until he noticed it later down adulthood, where he grew to become more observant of his surroundings.

And even if he did know, is he not allowed to be human? Do you want him to just be a lonely marine biologist who just does the Speedwagon Foundation's (SWF) Stand work 24/7? Is he not a person who is capable of feeling love for someone else, and has wants for himself outside his job?

Yes, he's diligent. He is capable of self-preservation. He is powerful. But even the strongest individuals have families of their own. They have close bonds with others that they treasure. Why? Because being able to love and feel love is what makes someone "human". Jotaro is a human just like most of us. He isn't a working machine who just does his job.

Let me introduce this show called "Moving." It's a show where basically "superpowered parents who used to be special agents, hide their superpowered children from organizations who wish to exploit or kill them." It's a relevant show to this essay since the protagonist's father behaves similarly to Jotaro.

In the show, this man is the government's best agent with special abilities. He carries out his missions and reports back after completing his task. He does his job seriously and rarely fails an assignment. In isolation, he describes himself to be cold and stoic, who is unable to socialize much due to his role as a special operations agent.

One day, he encounters the protagonist's mother: The organization's top graduate with exceptional marksmanship, who also possesses special abilities.

And despite both of them knowing the risks of getting too personal and intimate, guess what happened?

They both fall in love, even if it means being locked into being exploited by the government. And not only that, guess what else happened.

They have a child together.

Let me remind you: They know they are high-profile agents. The best of the best. They are aware of the risks that come with interpersonal connections, but they had that family anyway. Why? Because they were human. To find normalcy in the midst of their circumstances.

My point is that Jotaro is a person who's allowed to have a life, even if it couldn't be completely normal given his situation. Jonathan got married and had a kid. Joseph got married and had children. What makes Jotaro any different? Because he's workaholic, stoic, and reserved like the dad in the show? That's not a fair assumption if you ask me.

Another thought raised was this:

"Couldn't he just have given and trained Jolyne with her Stand?"

It seems plausible, and it sounds cool. But you have to know how Jotaro operated and why that couldn't be the case. His life after Egypt went down the drain. Heck, you could even say that his life changed when Star Platinum awakened in him. When Stands became a permanent thing in his day-to-day.

No matter how much he likes to focus on his day job as a biologist, he now had to shoulder being the SWF's go-to investigator for the supernatural. Not only did he work hard in his profession, but he had to do the Foundation's tasks as the Joestar bloodline's active patriarch and as the one who slayed DIO.

He couldn't have a normal life anymore. Not with his involvement with the Foundation and the enemies he attracted.

Now answer me this- What parent who loves their child will subject them to a life like theirs?

"Moving's" main premise is the lengths that families will go to protect their children, including from their past. The couple I mentioned raised their superpowered baby in hiding. And here's the kicker: It's the father who chose to suppress his son's abilities so he could live a normal life.

Again, this is the same cold, stoic man whom the organization treats as its best agent. And it's not just this family. There are multiple examples of parents in this show choosing to let their kids hide their powers.

Your daughter has caught the teacher's attention because of her power? Fake her death.

When you see the organization's leader smirk at you after learning that powers are hereditary, and you have a child? Go off the radar and leave everything, but your family, behind.

Jotaro never wanted Jolyne to be involved with Stands. He didn't want her to risk her life fighting a random Stand user when she could live the life of a normal teenager. She didn't have a Stand. Her mother didn't have one either. Why burden his child with the responsibility he had?

And did his isolation work? For the most part, yes. That is, until the incident with Romeo.

But then you ask yourself:

"He could've called her! Texted her! Sent an email- something! It's the 2000s! Technology's a thing by this point!"

Remember what his main character flaw is… Communication. If there's any fault that he has without debate, it's his inability to connect and socialize with others properly, and his poor maintenance of his bonds (as I have stated in my previous essay).

This argument could go in two ways. One is the whole communication issue, and maybe he was either too caught up in his job to update them, or he didn't want to share any details, thinking it's best for them not to know. As flawed as that thought was.

OR we could go the Snipster route, wherein he DID call Jolyne to check in on her, but because he kept making excuses as to why he's not coming home and is always away, she gradually grew to resent and hate him through the years, up until at one point, she yells at him to not call her anymore if he was going to continue being an absent father.

Pick your poison.

This leads to the next argument:

"He's a bad father because he's completely absent from Jolyne's life! He rarely bonded with Jolyne at all!"

Then why does Jolyne have so much anger towards him? If he were a fully absent father (as in I-didn't-know-you-existed type of absent), she shouldn't be holding so much resentment toward Jotaro. So, why is she hateful to him?

Because at one point, he was a present parent in Jolyne's childhood before he left. Yes, he could be busy working, but he could've spent his few moments of respite taking care of his daughter to the best he could as a loving father. She is the child he cherished after all. His weakness.

Not to Jonathan or Joseph levels of "golden retriever" and "grandiose" type of affection, but perhaps in more domestic, quiet ways: Cook her meals, read her books, listen to her talk about her day, help and teach her with homework, etc.

If he were a fully absent father, Jolyne should've felt apathetic and confused when meeting him again, not anger. If he were completely absent, Jolyne wouldn't have engaged in delinquent activity to catch her father's attention.

Again, in Moving, the protagonist is raised by a single mother from his childhood to his teens. He does not know who his father is, because when the dad was present, he was a toddler and therefore couldn't remember him. To him, his father is a stranger.

And how he reacts to the father at the end of the show is him not being upset or mad. It's him being surprised, confused, and neutral toward him. Why? Because he doesn't know him.

I would show the images but there's an image limit and I'm sad

Heck, you can say the same for Josuke and Joseph if you want an in-universe example. Josuke never knew who his dad was and was raised by Tomoko all his life. And when he meets old man Joseph for the first time, he's confused and is generally neutral to him. He's shy even when he helps him after his cane broke.

---

Jotaro leaves a lot to interpretation, and while I see a gem of a post here and there sometimes, I have to trudge through a sludge of mischaracterization and an oversaturation of memes that downplay what's canon in favor of fanon validation.

And I get it. I browse Twitter, check the timeline for updates, and notice that most users are impressionable teenagers who are from the West and go about their days living with Western individualistic values.

Maybe, just maybe, some people will project the "bad father" image to Jotaro as a result of their own daddy issues. Just like how misogynists will project themselves onto a favorite character like Jotaro.

I'm not saying this as a definitive truth, but as a possibility. Jotaro is fictional after all, and people will use fiction as a reprieve from reality.

TL;DR? He isn't a bad father, but he isn't a good one either. He's a father who does what he can to protect his daughter, with all his flawed mentality and caring heart.

[agentem]

Emily watches "The Thunderbolts*

OVERALL: I liked it. Yay ladies getting to be the lead. I didn't think it was "the best Marvel movie since Endgame" because that was Wakanda Forever. But it's a nice change from the big CGI punchfests.

Further talk below. I am annoyed I have to start with what I consider to be the dumbest part that I am sure tumblr will have a lot of feels about. Sam and Bucky.

Basically, at the end Valentina announces this team as "The New Avengers" but in the post credits we learn Sam Wilson is also building and Avengers team and there is a fight over the "copyright" (it would actually be over the trademark but whatever, this scene was clearly rushed in).

I am sure tumblr will freak out about a rift between Sam and Bucky. Oh noes. And probably defend Bucky—and be mean to Sam—even though he is clearly working for the bad guy.

But I don't believe for a second that Bucky thinks this team is an Avengers team. I think he's keeping an eye on Val (she must still be up to something to have done that press announcement) and helping the anti-heroes do better. But he knows Sam's team is really the Avengers. He has eyes. (Either that or he is totally regressed emotionally from any growth he experience in this film, TFATWS, CABNW and Infinity War and Endgame. Back to just petty fighting about moving your seat forward.)

Anyway, I sort of hate that this post credits is like overshadowing the movie a bit. Because I really do think it was some rushed thing and a different tone, and I would rather talk about the movie itself.

And honestly, if you haven’t seen it yet, just leave after the mid credits joke, you will be happier.

It's about two things I am interested in: mental health and Yelena Belova (it is her movie, for sure). Yelena is depressed and doesn't know how to tell her Dad that she needs help. I believe Bob is bipolar--he mentioned highs and lows and it sounded like the people in my group therapy who have bipolar disorder, but obviously I can't diagnose him. Also he's on drugs. Probably the only Marvel movie with multiple mentions of meth.

Anyway, so they basically use The Void as an allegory for Depression. And Yelena is the one to get through to Bob because she knows it, which is a fun different thing than being the one that punches the hardest. (There is actually a scene I thought was really funny when Bucky squares up to Bob/Sentry after the others have failed, and I think people in the audience thought he would actually do some damage, but Bob rips his arm off.)

I was happy to see my girl Yelena. I want to figure out how to do her eye makeup because it was black eyeliner with a bit of blue and I thought it looked cool. The scenes with her and Alexei are great.

No romance with Bucky, thank god. Stucky shippers are so awful to any character who gets in the way of their ship.

And I was happy Val survived. Not because I like that character but because Julia Louis-Dreyfus is fun, and I saw an interview with her where she mentioned seeing Samuel L. Jackson at an event and she kept poking him, saying "we're gonna fight." So I don't want her to die until her and Nick have their fight, because she wanted it.

ETA: Oh I do have one criticism to add. I thought they severely underused Ava. She didn't have a character arc really. Her power set is the most unique (three super soldiers, really?) and she could've had some cool fight scenes.

[everything--random]

Look guys I understand we're all used to calling Darkiplier an emo vampire but I don't honestly see that at all... I personally have started to call him a goth. Why you ask? Well I don't think he'd be listening to My Chemical Romance and all the other stuff in his off time. Many fanfic writers have made the 1920s the decade that Who killed Markiplier happens so I personally think Dark would either prefer absolute silence or music from around that time. Now what does this have to do with Dark being goth? Well we all know Dark is a depressed motherfucker and goth music most of the time is really chill and mellow music and most goth songs are about being sad. I know you're only goth if you listen to the music but style wise Dark also fits into the goth style category because goths also wear eye liner and are unbelievably pale and wear black and white like there in a back and white film so it just seems to fit him more. I'm sure Dark wouldn't mind listening to music like the Lumineers or maybe Fiona Apple because these artists aren't really known for being loud and focuses mainly on the words.

Emo makeup and the style itself seems very obnoxious (yes I know goth makeup can be very obnoxious sometimes too) and has a lot more color to it besides just black and white. , I mean I doubt he'd be listening to Boys Don't Cry by The Cure. I see Anti being the one to listen to My Chemical Romance and so on. Hell I'm sure he'd be blasting Metallica or some other metal band. He himself is quite obnoxious so emo fits him pretty well in my opinion.

Just wanted to get that brain worm out of my head. I'm hoping I didn't offend anyone in either of the communities I've talked about in this post. I've made playlists for Dark and Anti on YouTube music but they are unlisted so if any of you would like to see those I can make it public if you all really want. Tell me what you think about Dark being goth and Anti being emo if you really want and ya... Bye!

[gxlden-angels]

I've had this account now for 5ish years now. I've been in therapy for years, not exclusively for religious trauma but it's a major part. I've gotten better. I have a lot of content here I could reflect on, but I don't think I want to. I like knowing I progressed. I don't like looking at what from. Usually religious trauma comes up in therapy as an "oh yea...." instead of by name now. It's indirect. Enmeshment. Parentification. Vaginismus. Scrupulous and Harm OCD. Alexithymia. Derealization and Depersonalization. Paranoia.

I'm like, a real adult now I guess. I have a bachelor's degree now. I walk this upcoming weekend. I live in a house and I'm renting out a room with my own money. It has a backyard my cat likes to run around in. I had a job interview in my chosen field today. It went well

Then I'll go back to my family for the weekend and I find out they're spiraling into AI generated christian conspiracy theory videos. Their pastor is preaching about Trump being the anti-christ, and any non-Trump or Conspiracy message is the same thing he's said for the past decade, sometimes word for word. My uncle is convinced he's a prophet. He tells a story about a girl that was paralyzed after not listening to his message. My grandfather is convinced us black people are the true Israelites and chosen people. I thought I was the only one medically neglected by my aunt who's a doctor. I was not. I show her my emotions chart app. She tells me it's good so I can recognize when I feel bad and remember Jesus's love until I'm happy again. It's not normal for your joints to pop out of place apparently. We all learned this at the same time. It's Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. That explains a lot. My grandfather fell asleep to a video about the Ethiopian bible and how other bibles were made to take out miracles by Jesus and angels again. The remote is lodged in his hand so we can't change it

Then I talk about plants and food with my dad and my grandmother. My dad jokingly complains about his mom making him garden with her all day half a century ago. I give her a little kiss on her forehead before I go. My dad sends me home with leftover peach cobbler he made. I eat it with my lunch at my job. I answer phone calls at a front desk. I paid real taxes for the first time this year. I go to therapy and I talk about everything from my sex life to my graduate school plans to my opinions about generative AI (I hate it). I'm like, a real, breathing adult that has autonomy I guess. I'm not even claimed as a dependent anymore. I built my own desk that I bought from Big Lots.

You get where I'm going with this right? I'm not cured or healed by any means. Far from it in fact. I still get a pang of anxiety using the lord's name in vain and a chill down my spine when manifesting feels too close to confessing. It's harder making a personal post about religious trauma now though. It's not necessarily that I'm cured, it's just so engrained that I've created atheistic excuses to stay stuck in my religious trauma. I can pinpoint the source of it if I think about it long enough, so I don't think about it long enough

I'm not afraid to think lustful thoughts because holding lust in your heart is a sin, it's because I feel like a creep. I'm not worried I'll be sent to hell if I make mistakes that take me further from Jesus, I just think making mistakes would make me a bad person and an asshole. These beliefs popped out of nowhere, of course. They aren't influenced by the religious trauma so deeply buried in my head that taking it out would feel like taking out the gray matter of my brain itself. I'm schrodingers's man where I'm only a human when I'm observed. It used to be a deity but then it was you. I'm observed by you and that proved I'm human just long enough to get by when I most needed it. I still have that problem, but I'm seen outside of here. I see myself more often too

I don't want this post to seem like a good-bye, because it's not. I'm just currently in a period of limbo and I feel like the next generation of religious trauma bloggers are rising. I'm too busy arguing with my therapist about why I'm a bad person in a way that doesn't just boil down to "I'm a sinner in need of redemption" in a desperately-secular way. I'm self-aware enough to know that's what I'm doing, but not progressing enough to stop yet. I think what will happen is I'll eventually get frustrated enough to give up on the secular origins of my mental distress. I think a lot of you are in a similar place. You're out long enough that it feels like it should be over. You don't live in the bible-thumping, belt-wielding, gay-bashing, hellscape you once did. You might even be no-contact. You pay taxes now in your apartment. But it's not over. It's still there. It's just harder to say it's Jesus's fault I'm like this. It feels like it's been too long to still blame the bible.

It's not. It's buried in your synapses and neurons and muscles and bones and skin and hair and teeth and it's hard to remember that after 5 years. It's not oozing out into your bloodstream and filling you with enough cortisol and adrenaline to fuel an elephant anymore. It trickles though like a leaky faucet. I think I've lost the plot at this point, but you get it

Like I said, not a goodbye despite what it seems like. I just have to remember that a leaky faucet is still a concern

[friendofyourboyfriend]

Hi! My name is Arrow! I noticed you're a fan of the Boyfriend's Webtoon (Dw, I'm not here to be hostile, I'm simply curious) Could you explain why people think it's problematic? I didn't enjoy it that much while reading it, mainly due to the grammar and the weird stereotypes, but I'm curious to what your opinion is!

hiya arrow! a lot of people are waaaay more eloquent than I am. I know its not for everyone and I don't want people to feel obligated to like something that just isn't a good fit. however, I'll do a lil overview of all the shit refrainbow's been accused of. warning, will make you want to slam your head into a wall!

drawing porn of a bts member when Ray was 17 and the BTS member was also 17 (I think it was Jungkook). while Real Person NSFW art seriously icks me out on a personal level, I need to say that there are currently 61,508 EXPLICIT FICS of the BTS boys on ao3. the culture of sexualizing them is really fuckin weird and I'm not touching it with a ten foot poll, but odds are if you're a specific age, you or a person close to you has been somewhat guilty of this sin.

Using the N word in a tweet over a decade ago.

there's no real defense for this except the fact that while a lot of people are making fun of him in the comments of this tweet, there is a majority of black fans commenting about how they forgive him and how they're eye-rolling at all the non-black fans who are clutching their pearls about this. also, he is not a native english speaker and would have been about 14 in the post...

Drew Venti in a sexual-ish way

Venti is a 2,000 year old loli situation who honestly looks anywhere between 13 to 21 depending on the artist, and you really need to get into his lore to figure out what he is. whether or not sexualizing him is okay is a masterclass in it of itself...anyway, refrain apologized

"Anti semitism"

I am jewish so this one feels particularly stupid. in simple terms, a hate group in indonesia was trying to ban pokemon go because they thought it was a part of a jewish conspiracy. in an old tweet, Refrainbow was making fun of this thought process, but his tone might've seemed a little flippant. he apologized. this was dumb.

apparently as a joke in a deleted tweet nerd was said to be a pro-shipper? I cannot find the tweet and I'm currently of the opinion its just a rumor? refrainbow has never reblogged or made art of anything bizarrely "problematic" to the best of my knowledge, and the original tweet is often referred to as being a poorly received joke. idk what to tell you, I don't think its currently canon if its been deleted, or if it ever was. refrainbow's media opinions are vanilla as can be.

"having an all white cast" - no they aren't

"being a white woman projecting fantasies for fujos to get off on-"

THIS IS A TRANSGENDER QUEER MUSLIM ASIAN MAN FROM INDONESIA, A COUNTRY NOTORIOUS FOR BEING SHITTY TO GAY PEOPLE. LEAVE HIM THE FUCK ALONE

ahem anyway

the boyfriends webtoon is NOT problematic, it never WAS problematic, and it's probably never going to get the chance to be problematic because the internet successfully cancelled it!

if the stereotypes are a problem, tbh I'd reccommend skimming the first season and then getting into the second with fresh eyes. the characters do have a few subtle traits that go outside their basic personalities, but those get fleshed out more in the 2nd. and sometimes something isn't for everything -- doesn't mean you gotta be an ass about it tho!

whenever I see hate for this comic, I take a moment to look at the pictures of refrainbow that he sometimes posts on his twitter, and think that's a person who is being emotionally impacted by actions on the internet. that's not anonymous, that's a guy.

[izavella21]

Designing suits for the Danganronpa girls and dresses for the Danganronpa boys (or at least trying to)

Inspired by this post by @bad-but-sad-boi

I know nothing about fashion, but I like this idea and I want to give it a shot.

I'm not going to do everyone, so if you guys want to pitch your own ideas for other characters, or even the characters I already did, feel free!

Let's get started!

Kyoko: Royal blue jacket, royal blue pants, pale gray shirt, darker blue vest, navy tie, either ankle boots or lace up dress shoes.

Asahina: Turquoise blazer with coral piping and shortened sleeves, coral pants, casual white shirt, white sneakers, and a charm necklace in the shape of a wave. Everything is breathable, she needs to be able to move!

Chiaki: Lavender blazer, Slight pixel pattern on the shoulders (I wonder if she borrowed that idea from a certain someone), light grey shirt, black pants, either gamer sneakers or dress shoes. Or a hybrid of the two.

Kaede: Pale pink blazer, the inner collar has a piano key design, ruffled white shirt, maybe a cravat? Dark purple pants, music note/treble cleft earrings and necklace, all the metal on the outfit is rose gold.

Maki: Long, dark red blazer, floral embroidery at the collar, black blouse, black vest, black pants, combat boots, and either a black choker or a ribbon tied around her neck. I said black, but I’m imagining more of a charcoal color. (I love the idea of her and Kaede’s outfits being the anti-each other)

Himiko: Purple jacket with a subtle star pattern, also it's long in the back, white shirt with a ruffled collar, metallic colored vest, either purple or charcoal pants, black heeled shoes with buckles. She looks like a proper magician- sorry, mage. Optionally, she has a cloak as well.

Makoto: Sage green dress, flowy, layered skirt, long sheer sleeves that are fitted at the wrist, black flats. I’ve heard someone call one of his outfits “suitably plain”, and I think that would also be the case with his dress.

Hajime: Short sleeved golden yellow dress. Olive green apron thingy (I don't know what it's called) on top, sunflower embroidered on the chest of the apron thingy. The hem of the dress has little lines on it, which makes it look like a sunset or petals depending on how you look at it. Brown lace up boots. He has a lavender flower in his hair. Huh, that’s the same color as a certain someone’s suit… (should I give him a lavender corsage as well?)

Nagito: Basically his anniversary outfit but in dress form. The jacket is trimmed to about waist length. Then the dress itself is a gorgeous black evening dress. One that looks like it’s floating when he moves. (Maybe it also has a slit? I feel like that’d be overkill though). And he’d be wearing these silver heeled shoes with ribbons that wrap around. The hairstyle stays the same, it’s perfect! Maybe tie a ribbon around the ponytail?

Shuichi: One of the starry night dresses. I’m leaning more towards the first one (the ball/dance dress). He wears tights/leggings underneath it, and lace up ankle boots in either navy or gold. Maybe also a gold hairpin/ hair accessory?

Kaito: His dress would match or compliment Shuichi’s. Purple and galaxy themed. Obviously. Gold accents/details. Fairly long skirt (longer than knee length at least). He’d also make his own modifications to the dress. Gold sandals/slippers. Or maybe ballet flats? (Based on the headcanon that he hates most shoes)

Kokichi: Puffed sleeves, skirt is short and fluffy. The dress is made from multiple fabric patterns, some parts are solid purple, some are black&white checked. Mismatched socks, either heeled ankle boots or platform mary janes in black. Maybe also gloves? Kinda giving Queen of Hearts or harlequin vibes, but purple instead of red. I'm thinking some kind of head accessory: a miniature crown or tophat, or a bow. (Also, he has probably hidden stuff for pranks all over)

What do you think?

[blackbird-brewster]

Meta: Jemily Queerbaiting

With the huge influx of posts saying 'Jemily is gonna be canon', I really appreciated seeing this post because OP was completely correct. I didn't want to write an entire dissertation as a reply, so I'm making my own post with my personal opinion on this. (All sources are noted in footnotes)

Before I began this rant, for anyone who thinks this is anti-Jemily. It is not. I have shipped Jemily for 18 friggin years and that's never going to change. This post is specifically my thoughts about queer baiting.

First off, I need to note that the showrunners (and the cast members who use social media) KNOW what a huge queer following this show has and that's why we got pansexual Tara Lewis in S16 [1]. Which, in itself, was SOOOOOOO important!!! Our first canonically queer main in SIXTEEN seasons was a middle-aged Black woman!!! That's phenomenal. (The fact it was horrible rep, because they instantly ruined her relationships once her queerness served it's plot point is a whole other post entirely)

In my opinion, the 'big Jemily moment' Paget posted about on Twitter [2] (and AJ hinted at during a recent IG live) is simply queerbaiting to get people to watch S17. I know a lot of you are newer to the fandom and I love your enthusiasm, I really do, ship and let ship, but listen, let's be real, Jemily is not going to be made canon. The showrunners aren't going to suddenly say (after 17 seasons) 'Surprise, Jemily is endgame'. This show has never cared about queer rep and now that CBS/Paramount have already ticked their queer rep box with Tara, they won't be in any rush to add any other characters to it.

Please buckle in, I've got a lot of thoughts on this matter --

What is Queerbaiting?

If you aren't aware of what queerbaiting is, here's a good definition:

Historically, queerbaiting has carried two meanings: the first is an act of aggressive heterosexuality to shut down queer subtext on screen while still teasing and catering to the queer audience in advertising, public relations, and fan engagement strategies; the second is an existing homoerotic tension between two characters played up on screen while met with derision by the professionals behind the scenes. [3]

The Medium article quoted here is from 2017, a time when parasocial relationships were really starting to take over social media. In 2024, actors are now only a mention or tag away online, they have direct conversations with fans, and this process has allowed for an even deeper form of queerbaiting.

Oftentimes online, actors are asked directly about certain ships and while some ignore these questions (usually to avoid breaking their contracts or other repercussions), others (looking at you, Paget) choose to instead tease fans about queer ships. She's done this for years upon years and if I've learned anything in the past twenty-years of existing in fandom spaces it's this -- don't hold your breath. In it's original meaning, for something to be deemed as queerbaiting there had to be malicious, or at least, purposeful intent to string queer fans along by teasing them with suggestive content about the ship in question, while knowing this ship will never come to fruition in canon.

The thing to remember is, Paget and AJ aren't the only ones who know about Jemily shippers -- the network and showrunners are well aware of this ship too. When networks/showrunners figure out they have a strong sapphic fanbase, they love to use that to their advantage to get more viewers and higher ratings. Queerbaiting is a goldmine to keep fans watching long running shows, look at Rizzoli and Isles, Supergirl, and OUAT for examples of this.

Jemily and Queerbaiting:

Ever since Emily joined the BAU in S2 (2006), there have always been fans who ship JJ/Emily (shoutout to the old LJ forums!). Way before celebs were just a tweet away from fans, back when all our fics began with disclaimers so we wouldn't get sued by networks, we went to great lengths to keep our fanworks far removed from actors/showrunners attention.

As far as Jemily goes, this reply from Paget in a 2009 interview with TVGuide.com [4] (which has now been deleted from their site unfortunately, but there are quotes on Tumblr still [4.a]) confirmed some fans' worst fear -- the actors had found our fanworks online.

TVGuide.com: Of course, a band of fans want her to hook up with Hotch.

Brewster: I know! I didn't realize that fans make these videos on YouTube? A.J. Cook sent me a hilarious one that made it look like Prentiss and J.J. were having a secret lesbian affair. You know, when Hotch was blown up in the SUV, we shot this scene where he's in the hospital and I'm standing next to him, looking at his bleeding ear. Our director came in and said, "Paget, you're looking at Hotch like you're in love with him. It looks really weird." So now, every day, Thomas [Gibson] and I flutter our eyelids at each other.

This was the first time I recall anyone acknowledging Jemily shippers publicly and at the time (Jan 2009), the show was still in Season Four (just before CBS fired both AJ and Paget [5]). Paget genuinely said it's 'hilarious' that fans shipped JJ/Emily. Even now, I'll see people say 'We know Paget and AJ have seen Jemily fanvids, so they obviously ship it too' -- but those same people rarely acknowledge the full context of the original answer. Paget not only thought JJ/Emily were 'hilarious', but then she doubled down and turned her reply back to how she and Thomas liked to play up the chemistry between Emily/Hotch.

While no one can say for sure which video it was that AJ sent Paget, just knowing they were watching JJ/Emily fanvids sent a bit of a shockwave through the femslash side of the fandom. To some it felt like an invasion of privacy, fanworks are by fans for fans -- knowing the cast were poking around in fandom spaces added an extra layer of worry around what we fans were posting online. Fifteen years ago, it used to be quite taboo for actors to outwardly discuss shipping or other fanon for whatever show they were in, and we fans were usually comfortably removed from the actors altogether.

Of course, now it's the norm for fans and actors/showrunners to co-exist online and interact with one another. This connection has opened new ways for shows to queerbait their fans. Pretty much every show has some form of social media account now and there is no doubt that the people running those accounts keep up with the most popular ships and hashtags. Not to mention that actors are constantly barraged with questions about whether they ship their character with x,y,z, or whether they think a ship should be made canon, etc. These interactions only serve to benefit the shows themselves, because whether the conversation is for or against a certain ship, it's all just free publicity (Why do you think CM now has a TikTok account?)

Every time AJ or Paget say anything about Jemily, the queer side of the fandom loses their minds. But this has been going on for YEARS now and every single time, it turns out to be nothing but social media hype and queerbaiting. Remember this AJ post? [6] Or what about the notorious reply by Paget to a fan, where she talks about how she and AJ held hands under the table 'for the shippers' [7] I've seen this cycle over and over again, so perhaps I am cynical, but I'm not getting my hopes up that Jemily will ever seriously be canon.

It's widely known now, after both Kirsten [8] and Paget [9] have talked about it, that there was an early idea where Prentiss was supposed to be queer, but that was ultimately scraped before it ever made it on screen. For context, please remember, this show has been airing for nearly twenty years. It began in 2005, during the highly conservative Bush administration. Queer people didn't have rights in the US, we couldn't get married, we were rarely protected under discrimination laws, and we could even be fired for simply being queer (in some states). Diverse queer representation on screen was extremely limited to things like 'The L Word' and 'Queer as Folk' (both aired on Showtime, so they were behind a paywall. And as far as tLw goes, that show was extremely male-gaze focused and is horrible in nearly all regards if you try to rewatch it now). As far as prime time shows went, queer rep was even more rare. Which is why Emily wasn't queer from the get-go.

Yes, things have changed since 2006 in terms of queer rep on TV. We have a myriad of queer identities represented in TV and film nowadays, which is why I think it's so easy for newer fans to say 'lf she was supposed to be gay anyway, they should just make Emily queer in canon!' I know this is what fuels most fans' demands for Emily being confirmed queer, and I get it, I DO. I would be all for it! However, I do not, in one hundred years, actually believe that is going to happen after they already canonically queer confirmed Tara in S16. The fact we even got ONE queer character is ground-breaking for this show.

It's also worth noting, that in the time between Paget's departure in 2012 and her return in 2016, she became very active on Twitter. This was when more and more fans began asking her about Jemily and after Kirsten's AfterEllen interview, fans also pushed for Paget to address the possibility of Emily being gay. 'Pushed' is actually an understatement for some of the outright harassment she would receive. (AJ received some of this harassment too, but less so because she doesn't use social media ass often) Back then, neither of them replied to these things directly. Yet, no matter what either woman posted, the replies were full of Jemily stans begging for her acknowledgement. (Did you know 'stan' is literally a term coined for stalker fans?) I remember one time AJ's friend was missing and she posted info on her IG about it, you know what the replies were? People asking her about Jemily. It was genuinely sickening.

Within this context, it was no surprise to fans when Emily came back in S12 , she and JJ's friendship was seemingly erased. The two women were rarely on screen together in the late seasons, plus the writers saw fit to even give Emily not only one (Mark in London, but two, on-screen boyfriends for the first time in the entire series. I personally do not think these changes to Emily's character were coincidence, I saw the hellscape of what people would say to AJ and Paget online and I fully believe that upon Paget's return to the show, the showrunners purposely tried to distance JJ and Emily to dissuade the more abusive side of the fanbase.

Can I prove that, no. But it is the only reason I can think of as to why Emily S12+ seemingly didn't care about JJ anymore, despite their deep and meaningful friendship. I mean, they both CROSSED THE WORLD to go rescue each other in prior canon -- but when Emily comes back, they acted like they barely knew each other. This was even more prevalent in S16, when JJ's main storylines all revolved around Will, and Emily barely looked at JJ in the entirety of ten episodes. (Remember how Prentiss didn't even hug JJ after bomb, but she did go hug Luke?)

So, do Paget and AJ earnestly ship Jemily, or are they continuing the long tradition of queerbaiting us? Who fucking knows, not me. But based on the history of this fandom, I think I can make a safe bet. (Interestingly, if you search all of Paget's twitter for the word 'Jemily' [10] she only has 3 direct tweets mentioning the ship. I don't think it's a coincidence that two are within the past few months since they started filming S17 (the other one was a RT of Kirsten (who tagged something Jemily)

This is all to say --

Just because Paget and AJ have publicly talked about Jemily,, this doesn't mean it's ever going to happen on screen. And you know what, THAT'S OKAY!! There has been this constant outcry (after Tara became queer confirmed) of 'Do Emily next' or 'Why wasn't it Emily with a girlfriend!?' and 'Jemily needs to be canon in S17!' -- as if people believe their ships aren't worth anything unless they are canon.

That couldn't be further from the truth! Fandom is built on headcanons and fan interpretations and rare pairs and all types of shippers. Your ship does NOT need to be canon for you to enjoy it. I will ship Jemily forever, no matter what. I don't think there will be some magical queer plot in S17, at best, we might actually get to see Emily/JJ on screen together again and after the train wreck that was S16 -- I'll take whatever I can get.

And hey -- if I am completely wrong, if Erica Messer pulls a Korrasami out of her hat, I will be ecstatic. I will be happy to be proved wrong, but at the same time, I'm not going to lose sleep over it and I'm DEFINITELY not going to go hound the actors about it on social media.

Sources:

[1] 2022 Digital Spy article about the importance of Tara's coming out

[2] 04/18/24 Paget Tweet

[3] 2017 Queerbaiting article from medium.com

[4] 2009 Broken TVGuide link

[4.a] Tumblr quote from the above TVGuide Interview

[5] 2010 Kirsten interview screenrant.com

[6] 2019 AJ Instagram Post

[7] 2020 Paget video on Twitter (via @karasluthqr)

[8] 2015 Kirsten interview AfterEllen.com

[9] 2016 Paget Interview CriminalMindsFans.com

[10] @PagetPaget search 'Jemily'