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

[thefirstlioveyou]

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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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!

[akookminsupporter]

https://www.tumblr.com/akookminsupporter/774617578661445632?source=share

Your tags on this post speak to me so much! I'm not a shipper but obviously I'm very interested in Jikook's dynamic which is why I'm here. And I'm so sick of coming across videos about Jikook that are embarrassingly slowed down accompanied with unnecessary commentary from the editor of the video. Like sweety, there's no reason to do that. Of all the ships in Bangtan, Jikook is genuinely the least one that ever needed "analyses" on all that nonsense because 99% of the things those two say or convey to each other are clear for anyone who uses their brain to see and really don't need any analyzing.

Just the other day on Instagram, I came across that cute video of JK watching Jimin cry on stage and you can just *see* how it's affecting him, so much so that at the end of Jimin's speech he decides to go to him and comfort him when it's obvious he initially planned to stay where he is. It's like his body reacted on its own.

But here's this delusional ass shipper putting commentary on the video like "nah I don't care my Jiminie needs me" the moment you see JK act on his emotions. Like I really don't know if that's just me but it annoys the shit out of me. And I just can't help but argue all the time with Jikookers about it and of course they call me an anti-Jikooker or Taekooker cosplaying as a Jikooker in response.

Yes, I can share your overall views about something and still call you delusional in how you talk about it. Thinking you're delusional doesn't mean I'm saying you're delusional about believing your ship being real, just in how you behave about those beliefs (don't know if I'm making sense here but I hope you get what I'm trying to say)

That moment is one of the most beautiful (and very underrated by Jikook shippers, might I add) moments between Jimin and Jungkook and it SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. Anybody with eyes and well-functioning brain would look at it and think "oh it really hurts him to see that one cry, oh there he goes to comfort him and tries to cheer him up" WITHOUT someone inserting thought bubbles on their heads in the video, God help me🤦🏾‍♀.

I'm sorry but it's giving Taekooker. The ships that need slow-mo, red arrows, thought bubbles, moments taken out of context and all that exaggerated analysis video jazz are the ones who have absolutely zero to show when the content is real and unedited. Jikook has never been one of those ships. Y'all need to get a grip.

Anyway, I absolutely love the clip you shared. I know the way Jungkook looks at Jimin is considered one of those cliché reasons many Jikookers have used to express why they believe in them. But it's my number one favourite thing about them idc. Jimin is so beautiful, inside and out - one of the most beautiful people to ever bless this world with their existence. But when you look at him through Jungkook's eyes, it's as if he becomes even more so.

I have the exact same problem with Jikookers but on TikTok. My God, that place is a nest of misinformation and delusion. And it’s so annoying because there’s just no need for it. There’s no need to slow down videos to “prove” something that isn’t there. No need to slow down videos to hear voices or things that don’t exist. And absolutely no need to claim that some random person in the background of a video was one of them just because they were wearing black or white and had a hat or a beanie. And it’s definitely not necessary to insist that Jimin was in Qatar with Jungkook.

I'm sorry but it's giving Taekooker. The ships that need slow-mo, red arrows, thought bubbles, moments taken out of context and all that exaggerated analysis video jazz are the ones who have absolutely zero to show when the content is real and unedited. Jikook has never been one of those ships.

I completely agree with you.

If that reason is cliché, then I’m the most cliché fan in the world LOL. Every time I see a clip of Jungkook looking at Jimin like that, I just imagine him thinking: Damn, he’s way too cute. aajajajajajajaj.

[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.

[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'

[foreignswaggersession]

there are definitely iwtv fans who love acting like they care about racism when it comes to fictional characters, but have no issue with being condescending towards actual black and south asian people in this fandom.

Btw making "brown man has mid dick" jokes to prop up lestat is also clownery and it's even more stupid how some people would choose to double down on it after hearing about why it's degrading and uncomfortable. like i couldn't believe the bullshit i was reading from some of these so called "fandom anti racists", but they're clearly not mature enough for this discussion.

sorry for taking so long to respond anon - i wanted to make the posts with screenshots first so i could show my work and not be accused of merely reaching to support my ship. i think most the condescension from these fans comes from their selective memory of the show as filtered through their long-held headcanons, and i wanted to respond by citing the show itself. the fans started claiming louis was never attracted to armand as plainly evident, when the show clearly says the exact opposite, repeatedly. i watched the "armand has mid dick" joke/theory develop in real time and snowball within the pro-louis section of the fandom. it got twisted up in the 'louis hates topping' + 'lestat's dick is uniquely amazing' + 'armand can't satisfy louis' takes, all of which i disagree with. i understand your discomfort anon, it's part of why i started posting in the fandom - 'louis only wants pink dick' also became a thing this season and it broke me (louis didn't get it up for jonah while eating rats for y'all to act like pink dick does anything for him but sure, believe what you want).

to give some credit, i think some of these fans you're talking about started making these 'jokes' in reaction to the overwhelming (and undeserved) sympathy towards armand that dominated the fandom at the time (probably still does tbh). it's fair to point out that armand is not just any brown man but is in fact an extremely manipulative abuser who threatened to kill louis, set him and his family up to get killed, killed his daughter/sister, lied to him about it for years, sadistically let him suffer after a suicide attempt he instigated, erased that memory and covered THAT up for years, and to also suggest that those acts negatively affected louis's attraction to him. and yeah, i too am tired of reading takes about how loving armand was (girl when?) and how louis wasn't nice enough to him 🙄. that said, armand is attractive as fuck in universe and in our reality, so it's weird to pretend louis would not be attracted to him, despite his off-putting nature (see season 1).

most importantly, louis's desire for armand is a key plot point essential to the breakdown of his and claudia's relationship. claudia didn't say "picked another one over me" and "you were lestat's, now you're armand's" out of ignorance - she understands louis better than anyone. it's wishful thinking to suggest that louis suffered in silence for claudia through eps 11 and 13 and only stayed with armand for 70+ years to protect claudia/punish lestat and no other reason. it would have been really great if louis kept his commitment to claudia, probably would have saved several lives...alas, tragedy.

like i keep saying, just say you don't see the chemistry in / can't support loumand, or prefer the chemistry / want to support loustat. but claiming that louis never fell in love with armand prior to claudia's murder - that just is not supported by the show's text.

just fyi, i think saintarmand has a great answer to a similar ask, so i will also refer you to her response here.

[ofmdsalt]

the izcourse tipping point

so i started this post a long time ago during #BulgeGate (lol simpler times) but since DJenks has been fanfiction posting on bluesky i thought i might clean it up and give it its fair dues

this fandom is toxic.

it's always been toxic.

this post is going to centre on a reflection of Izzy as a character, the terms thrown out about him, the perceptions of him, and why this character has become a cudgel in dumb fandom wars

is izzy a villain

no. but not a hard no.

when people try to define izzy, they're going to use one of two literary terms: villain or antagonist. and it has to be a firm villain or antagonist and that this makes him irredeemable. this makes the people who post about him positively irredeemable. this makes the actor of said character questionable about the opinions he has of said character. and this makes the showrunner who wrote the character also questionable about the opinions he has of said character (i'll get more into this down below)

do we see how this snowballs? do we see how this black and white rhetoric makes a situation so fucking toxic?

and i do want to say that the veneration of izzy, the sanctification of izzy (though i have yet to see any of those posts and im not about to go trawling on twitter for them), the inappropriate behaviour by some fans of izzy definitely needs to be scrutinized. people get obsessed with things and that obsession can get out of control. it makes people forget common decency or that all of this isn't as serious as the fandom makes it out to be.

and this behavior happens in the antis too. so let's not try and pretend that one side of this fandom is better than the other

at this point the discussion of what Izzy is within the show has lost all meaning because every single argument comes down to 'he's the villain/antagonist so therefore your argument to the contrary is invalid' as if that's not an incredibly reductive way to criticize something.

many of these characters do bad things in the show. many are shown to be antagonistic towards each other and other characters.

hell Ed is shown to be antagonistic. does that make him irredeemable? no. he's a complex character. Izzy is a complex character. but the use of these terms to justify a certain interpretation as the right interpretation of the character removes all nuance and is just bad media literacy at play.

2. izzy is ed's father figure

no.

for a fandom that prides itself on ITS CANON ITS ALL CANON ANYTHING THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF CANON PALES IN COMPARISON AND MEANS NOTHING really did take David Jenkins line in an interview and run with it all the way into hell for their assertions that Izzy is Ed's father figure.

which goes on to then reduce Ed's agency as a character with how they go about talking about this! that Ed isn't responsible for his actions because of the latest bad white man in his life. how sad. but look! there's a good white man to save him! (i'll touch on this in another post some day)

i don't buy the father figure comment. i think it's weak and has no standing in the 'it's canon' thread because it doesn't exist within canon. it was said by Jenkins in an interview. i don't give it any weight, so why should you?

3. izzy is ed's abuser

the conversations that have happened about the topic of abuse continue to make the rounds with questions of 'what is abuse? how does abuse manifest? who is an abuser and who is a victim?'

i think a lot of this big, serious conversations get lost and bogged down when applied to fictional characters. because now it's evolving into 'Con's comments about Izzy hurt me because i see my abuser in Izzy.'

that is not Con's problem. that is something someone will have to address with a professional. and this is not my problem nor is it any other fan's problems.

because other fans see their abusers in Ed. in other characters. if these types of comments are media depictions are going to unsettle you, then log off. take a break

how i see Izzy and Ed as characters with a complicated relationship is something along the lines of co-dependent and toxic. they both need each other but they need each other for the wrong reasons. hell, you could even hazard a guess that maybe they trauma bonded, but the relationship they had has served its purpose but both are too afraid to let go of what used to be a comfort to the other and are now hurting each other.

it happens. it's unfortunate but it does. but portions of this fandom are unable to view their relationship with any semblance of nuance because Ed must be excused for his actions as not being responsible for them because he did them under duress and Izzy is a mere scapegoat for everything we must hate

again, it's reductive

4. izzy would call the cops at Stonewall

i find it insulting to use a historical event about queer liberation in your ship wars and dumb nitpicky arguments OVER A FUCKING FICTIONAL CHARACTER

5. any ships that involve izzy are bad

guys, this is just ship war nonsense. do i have to break out the fandom rules again?

6. conclusion

because the show is cancelled, the renewal efforts have largely failed (for now. it could be that a rabbit gets pulled out of a hat and this show somehow gets a third season or a final movie. who knows), there is no more new content. there will likely never be any new content. that sucks but it's the truth.

since this fandom is hemorrhaging fans and has been for the past year, content will slow down. it happens. im a notorious rarepair writer and a lover of small niche films that came out 30 years ago. but because izzy fans have left in droves due to the harassment, the antis have to move onto something else. there is only so much meta to go around before the arguments get stale. so now it's moving onto the actors.

it's moving onto to Con as seen with #BulgeGate

and it's moving onto David Jenkins with his Merry Christmas season 3 fanfiction BlueSky thread

i'm worried it will move onto Vico who performs as Izzy in their drag shows. because apparently if anyone says anything positive about Izzy, they are wrong and deserve to be dragged for filth. do we see how bad this behaviour is

because to sustain this beast that's been created, it must always be fed. the posts must always be made. it can never stop. no matter how much people hate this character, they can't stop talking about him. they will never stop talking about him. he's dead and in the ground and they will still go out of their ways to bitch about why he was buried in front of the inn when he's already a corpse and had no say in where he was buried because he's fucking dead.

i'm not here to say that people need to like this character. people can do what they want. but the beast will always be here, and it is always hungry. and if you continue in this cycle of bitching about a character you hate, it's going to bite you in the ass because it always needs to be fed.

it's a sunk cost fallacy here

[daenerystargaryen06]

I saw a comment on another post about how fans of Daenerys (and those who also support TB) cannot accept criticism of Daenerys' character and go overboard with our love for her.

This statement is entirely false. Daenerys fans do entirely accept Daenerys' flaws and criticism to her character- so long as the criticism is done properly and makes sense. We only go against criticism when said criticism entirely misconstrues Daenerys' character in a false and gross way. Bending the text of the books or even early seasons of the show as an excuse to "criticize" Daenerys is obviously going to be ignored because it presents an entirely false narrative. The ones who do this mainly are Daenerys antis/Sansa stans/Jonsa stans. Most critical points/metas they make against her can be disproven (and have been many times) by reading the text of the books and analyzing Daenerys' show scenes early season before her character became entirely ruined by s8.

Daenerys fans do accept criticism of Daenerys and we do acknowledge her flaws. But the difference is that those who do criticize her often tend to paint her out to be 'evil' or the main villain for ASOIAF/GoT, when she isn't. Daenerys, like every other character in the ASOIAF series, is a gray character. Us fans see and know this. But Daenerys antis only look at her through a lens of black-and-white, which is an issue of itself, considering she isn't meant to be viewed that way. The reason why us Dany fans/stans go against criticism of Dany so much is because it's often wrong and entirely out of proportion, in which we make counter points/arguments backed up with actual textual evidence from the books or scenes from the show. The criticism against Daenerys isn't just critically analyzing her as a character, it's blatant hate and often misconstrued to paint her in a light that makes her seem worse than she is.

When we look in the world and setting of ASOIAF/GoT, Daenerys' actions are just like any other character in that world, only not as extreme, and when she makes the decisions she does within the books she questions the choices she's made and thinks heavily over them.

When you look at the men of ASOIAF and GoT, their actions are in line with/far worse than what Daenerys has done. Tywin has eradicated an entire house, slaughtered countless people, treated his son with disdain for being born a dwarf, etc. Robb executed a man for going against his orders. Jon killed a child (despite the child having taken part in his murder- it was still a child) and is much darker in the books. Tyrion has fantasies of violence towards Cersei, expects Sansa (a child) to want him when they're wed, etc. Robert nearly slaughtered and eradicated an entire House, laughed over dead bodies of children, r*ped Cersei often when drunk, etc. Ned executed a deserter of the Night's Watch. And we all know how terrible Euron and Ramsay are in the books/show.

And yet Daenerys receives more hate than these men over her actions, is viewed more critically, and is 'criticized' far more than said men. Which is unfortunately driven by misogyny. The difference between Daenerys and the men of ASOIAF is the fact that she is a woman. If she were a man, I doubt her actions would be so heavily analyzed and torn into by antis. Anyone could say that isn't true- and yet, it's evident in the way Daenerys is heavily hated and discussed most over compared to anyone else who has done far worse compared to her.

It's not the fact that we don't accept criticism over Daenerys. It's the fact that us fans have to always constantly defend her over hate that is unjustified to her character. Is it even so wrong that we show love and support to her character anyway? I'm sure everyone else does that for their own favorite characters as well and deny criticism to them often if the criticism is actual bullshit over a valid critical and neutral analysis. Why is it so wrong for us fans to do so?

A blog I will always recommend that actually does amazing metas character analysis- @rainhadaenerys.

[dicenete]

Hey, I'm rambling about IkePri again

Okay, I just need to get these thoughts I have about Gilbert von Obsidian out because I enjoy predicting stuff and overthinking design and narrative choices even tho they might not be right. :P But there really isn't that much predicting other than me overthinking about narrative and design choices. This time there will be most likely spoilers of Gilbert's route so far, and route of Clavis and some thoughts I have just gathered while playing the game in general. I try to put these thoughts in cohesive order, but well... I don't know if I can really, because I just need to get these out of my head. These are my thoughts, ramblings and opinions. Feel free to form your own and certainly disagree with me! I apologize about the lack of art in this post. I'm busy with work currently so no fanart for a while. I'm also not native English speaker, so there might be grammatical errors and such. Sorry about that. Everything under the cut.

To start with Ikemen Prince is a romance visual novel first and foremost. That doesn't mean it can't be deep (and it certainly has been deeper than I initially expect, which left me positively surprised). I suppose there is somesort of thematic vibe that there is no prince whose ideals are the main thesis of the game itself. But that also kinda leaves that fact there is no huge catharsis regarding the world and it's state. Everything so far has been left quite open. And the more I have learned about lore of the world, I really feel like anti-monarchist here xd Clavis really sold me the idea for real. Or atleast throw away the absolute monarchy. That's where I think things should go, but that's my own belief. (really, the last king of Rhodolite... He umm... I have some opinions.) Chevalier and Gilbert First things first: I don't hate or dislike Chevalier as a character. There are just some things that give me Deus Ex Machina feels. But I know it is what they are going for with him. This genius that so far ahead of everyone that it is so alien concept to rest of the people. And well that is a very hard concept to pull off without being a genius yourself as a writer. Or that is what I feel like. But what I do love is what the writers are doing with him and Gilbert in thematic sense! (Hence why Chev x Gilbert sounds so juicy to me)

I really took steps to the deep end as I started to think about why I have enjoyed Gilbert's route or was interested in his story to begin with, but have little interest in trying Chev's one. Because they are so similar but they really aren't.

How I would describe it is that where as Clavis is the complementary to Chev, the purple to his yellow, the emotionality vs rationality, the heart vs the brain, Gilbert is more like right brain to Chev's left brain. If it makes sense like that xd Their color schemes are harmonious. Not opposite. Almost like how Nokto and Licht's color schemes are harmonious with each others.

(Nokto (Blue + white + gold) vs Licht (Blue + black + gold)) Not to mention that their names clearly are meant to mean light and dark. (Licht: variant for light, Nokto: comes form latin nox or noctis, meaning night = dark) But that is a rambling for another time.) Both their crests are tigers. White and black tiger. Chev's color scheme is White + gold and black. Whereas Gilbert's is Black + gold and white. But then the overall color that game devs use to signal about the characters baffles me a bit. Gold/Yellow vs Black/dark red. They don't seem to have too much connection or that of which comes to my mind quickly and without digging deeper. (because I believe that if you dig deep enough, you have digged yourself into a trap of overthinking about things. (Justifying things because you want to justify them, which I'm not big fan of. And sometimes things don't need meaning and we have to live with that. As much as it pains my overthinker brain.)) But here is my impressions about Gilbert so far. I'm at the point where MC has left the Clavis's party (I loved it btw). Gilbert really does give me toxic INFJ villain feels, but let's not get too hang up on terms such as that. But he is someone who is driven forth by his own ideals and desire to change the world better. He, like Clavis, seems to cloak himself in this idea that he is the villain and is okay, even happy, to take that role. He is the one who, like Chevalier, has thrown away emotional attachment out of the window (or so they say) unlike Clavis who makes his choices based more on emotion rather than rational thinking. Maybe that's why I like Clavis and Gilbert, they push MC out of their black and white thinking. That things are not so easy peezy as "choose a right king and everyone will be happy". There will always be someone who is mad about it. That's why I really loved the scene with Gilbert with the orphaned kids and the Clavis's party. He seems to enjoy the company of children (who are not morally corrupted or tainted) and he really empathically listens to those who are angry. He believes in the idea that "no one remembers what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel". (A quote with debatable origin, people say that it was coined by Maya Angelou. But I really love this quote, because I think it is the truth.) Gilbert isn't trying to rationalize against someone's choices with pure intellect. He uses empathy to guide him to the most rational outcome in that emotional scope. But he also uses this to manipulate people with fear. He uses fear extensively and he does it actively. Where as I feel like Chev just has that aura about him automatically. Hence my next thought: Action vs Stasis!

Gilbert and Clavis are action oriented. They shake the gameboard, they make the first moves. Gilbert probably more than Clavis. They both want change. Is it change for the better, we will see, I still haven't finished Gilbert's route but he really gives me this "I'm willing to become the greatest threat so that people unite to defeat me." or "I will conquer all so there will no longer be wars.". Chev, on the other hand, symbolizes stasis. His goal is to keep the kingdom of Rhodolite going. That's his duty and he is willing to take it. (even tho we can debate if that is something he really really believes in or even thinks about that much. I feel like it is out of obligation rather than of personal ideal. But alas, I have not played Chev's route yet.) Chev is reactive rather than proactive. He waits for the opponent to make the first move and reacts accordingly. (I'm not saying he is not reactive once game is on. More like "if there was not threat to deal with, he wouldn't create one".)

Chev doesn't care what you think about him. Gilbert does. He might seem like he doesn't but he is really there to prove a point. (I will pick up his dislike for lying later >.>) Chev is not. Chev knows that his way is the right way for him and that is enough for him. Chev also actively makes a "gettaway plan" for himself in Clavis. He knows that Clavis is the final thread that keeps him from going overboard because he understand that he has to be blind for "individual people" aspect to be a good ruler. Gilbert probably understands this about himself too, but he is trying to prove a point. So he needs to go overboard. Because masses of people need absolutes to react to. If it is something banal, it won't do. His evil actions need to shake the very foundation of ideas. The people have to face those things head on and see it for themselves. They cannot be sheltered. Gilbert gives me the vibes that he is willing to sacrifice himself not for the kingdom, but for the betterment of all mankind. He is happy to become the villain #1 if that means that other people will rise and take down the corrupted Obsidian or the corrupted idea. I would say that he is Lawful Good going on about things like Lawful Evil.

Gilbert asking questions means that he wants you to think, he wants to challenge your opinions and how you look at the world. Same as Clavis. They yearn for change. They want to change the world. Where as Chev wants to maintain things as they are. Chev "If it is not broken, we don't need to fix it" Michel. Where as Clavis and Gilbert want to improve the system. They are idealistic. Gilbert and lying

This is something very interesting. At first I thought that he was all "I dislike when people lie to me." but he really is "I dislike lying in all its forms." And he does say that he doesn't lie. And I'm starting to believe that is really the case. All the things he says are true. But because how other people see him, they are suspicious anyway. Like MC is. Like we all probably are when we start the route and think "So what is your trauma, baby girl?" When he is unsure or knows that he shouldn't say the thing he really thinks or that is true, he will deflect or give a very vague response. Which makes me quite happy to replay his route at somepoint with this in mind. In conclusion: Welcome to my TED talk, with no head or tail, just me overthinking about things about a otome gacha game. If you read this far, thank you for your time. Remember, if I ramble about it, it just means that I'm invested. Have a good day~

[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

[sciderman]

Hi Sci! You always have the best Peter Parker Takes™️, so I was hoping you could help me with something! I like a lot of things about Peter, but I find it so hard to reconcile the fact that he tends to be written as pro-police and politically moderate. I personally headcanon that he was more of a morally black-and-white hothead when he first started Spider-Manning, but as he grew older and wiser, he started understanding that everything tends to be shades of gray and thinking before swinging in with punches. Still, you’d think a kid who grew up poor in Queens would know better than to just go “ah you are stealing and therefore Bad” ya know?? I know these grievances are more with what the comics/film industry will publish, but still, my kingdom for some nuance!!

oh, bless you anon! god - the cop question is so interesting in superhero media, it really is - and, honestly, my take is kind of the opposite of yours. peter parker wasn't aligned with the cops in any way when he started. in fact, he kind of had a general distaste for cops because, you know, the cops kind of had it out for him.

never forget, peter being a bitchy little bitch boy to the cops is kind of his origin story.

when peter started he actually had very little respect for other heroes or law enforcement at all. he kind of just worried about himself, and his aunt may and that was all. he wasn't any sort of beacon of morality who was seeking to deliver justice or anything. he kind of just wanted to take photographs and make a buck. it took him a long time to start playing "hero" - and even when he did, law enforcement and him were generally not on the same side.

i think his first real positive relationship with someone on the side of the law was captain stacy - peter, obviously, respected him a lot and, you know, captain stacy died heroically.

still, spider-man's relationship with the law continues to be rocky at best - he's constantly being hunted by the law but also some individual cops kind of have a soft-spot for him and let him off the hook - sometimes he helps them, sometimes he's on the run - they love him, they love him not - kind of fluctuates. i think the spider-man comics are generally noncommital about the cop question and kind of just play whatever song will give peter parker the most drama. spider-man comics were are generally lighthearted about this sort of a thing.

i think it's not until a post 9/11 world where copaganda kind of became a lot more prevalent in superhero media and you suddenly started seeing all the heroes working with law enforcement. suddenly, i think, it became unquestionable - a hero had to respect the law, even if they were a vigilante. i think - especially with spider-man comics being set in new york - there was a desire to see these heroic figures working alongside "real life heroes" - so, i think all of the sentiment that peter is pro-cop came from a post-9/11 world, which - to be fair, with the first spider-man movie coming out when it did, it's no wonder that the public consensus on spider-man is that he'd be pro-cop.

andrew's spidey - andrew's spidey isn't full-on anti-police, but he doesn't exactly hold law enforcement in the highest respect

the movie itself isn't police-critical but peter is portrayed as your general "no respect for authority" kind of kid in tasm1 who's relationship with the law i guess shifts after captain stacy helps him and dies heroically. andrew and the cops are presumably bffs in tasm2 – he's kind of just totally beloved by the city in tasm2. i feel like tasm2 probably really severely under-explores spider-man. in fact, it feels like spider-man is barely in tasm2. he's barely a character. i think maybe that's where the tasm movies stumble, actually. those movies really aren't about spider-man at all. they're entirely about peter parker. and yes, there is a difference.

tom holland's spider-man is a cop. police don't really feature in his story, but he is one. funded by the elite class and basically tasked with looking after their property. hate that. gross.

i think it's why i hate seeing peter working with the avengers. the avengers are cops. he doesn't belong there. it's only a recent development where we started getting spider-man on team-rosters - he was always a solo guy who didn't really particularly want to play with others. he had his own stuff to deal with and it didn't matter to him hugely whether he was playing on the side of the law or not. he was dealing with his stuff.

personally i'm not about seeing a morally black-and-white peter parker. i don't think he's ever been that way and i still hate seeing him reduced to that - i think we see him painted as politically moderate because spider-man stories really aren't often about asking greater questions - i don't think it's the platform for it. peter is always too concerned with his own personal troubles to pursue any sort of activism - i think it's quite funny - as active as spider-man is, peter parker is generally an apathetic figure, and i think that makes him a certain degree of relatable. i think characters like gwen and mj and even aunt may are more politically active than peter parker is. peter's kind of too busy just trying to survive.

i love the thought of a peter parker that does punch first. i think that's his whole bag. he's not thoughtful. he's quick to anger. he actually isn't particularly thoughtful and doesn't always approach situations with some moral wisdom. sometimes he punches the wrong people. sometimes his anger is misguided. his energy is practically always going into the wrong places. he doesn't always know what's right and wrong. but he tries.

i'm so not into the stories that paint him as a moral beacon because - more often than not - he's doing it for himself. if he really did have unwavering respect for the law and his morals perfectly aligned with the cops, he wouldn't put the mask on. it's like, the whole point. a vigilante exists fundamentally by it's disobedience to the law. otherwise they'd be carrying a badge.