#and i mean morally wrong not factually wrong

[beachytablecloth]

the first time i watched i hated katrina for antagonizing mike but now on my second watch i have to say. the video she makes is objectively hilarious

[mangled-by-disuse]

"literally no one forces you to have sex with anyone"

pal I have some terrible news for you

waiting for a politician to asssert your "bodily autonomy" "reproductive freedom" or whatever lingo those people use those days is CRAZY because literally no one forces you to have sex with anyone

You are de facto "free from sex" by your own very decision to not engage in sexual activity with anyone

What you guys actually want is "sex without reproductive consequence" access. This is a better term to objectively convey what you want.

But I get why some of you may be uncomfortable with it because it debunks the feminist ideal of being in "control" of their sexuality. Truth is many of you are not any more sexually disciplined than men. You want to have accesss to casual sex as much as they do. Just without the risk of pregnancy. That's why it's so funny to see (radical) feminist screech about how men are too sex obsessed...and then turn around begging to upkeep birth control & abortion : if you guys weren't obsessed with accessing to sex you wouldn't make those cause the crux of your movement. You love & need sex as much as those moids.

And by enabling casual you de facto allows to mediocre men fancying acess to women's body. Which somehow pisses you off because "how dare mediocre men think they deserve access to female body for sex??!" right? But you can't whine about the consequences of a cause you cherish.

And yes, more & more feminist are speaking up in favor of celibacy and more against sexual liberation, which is good. But the fact a significant portion of them still get veeeery uncomfortable if not angry when (non feminist) women argue that celibacy is actually a form of birth control and that "reproductive control" is irrelevant to the access to chemical substances or procedures altering your reproductive system. This behavior makes me believe this whole "vive la celibacy" is nothing but a posture and that self proclaimed feminist are aren't as much interested toppling the status quo as they pretend to be.

[ineffable-suffering]

Why Aziraphale is an unreliable narrator

Part 2: The Story of wee Morag

This is Part 2 of 3 total metas. Here are:

Part 1, in case you want to read about my analysis of the Story of Job first

and Part 3, in case you're impatient and want to jump ahead.

Fair warning though, for the sake of understanding some of the references, you're probably better off reading this chaptered meta chronologically. However, every part should work just as well as a standalone! I'll do my very best to make it so.

Alright, off or on you go beyond the cutty cut!

I'll start this second part off with a very brief summary of the main take aways and points from Part 1, which go as such:

Memory, as opposed to a third party's narration, is not a factual, objective retelling of a story or event. It's mingled and mangled with emotions, imaginations and exaggerations, projecting both the feelings and impressions you had back then as well as those you might have now in the present time back on whatever it is you are remembering. (Which is why we need to put everything that Aziraphale is remembering into the context of what he might have felt in the past, as well as what he's feeling right now.)

While this doesn't mean his (or anyone's) memories are lies, it does mean they're a very subjective and sometimes factually distorted representation of what actually happened, which, in our case, gives us a lot of subtext and a lot of not-there furniture to figure out and look at.

So, let's continue with S2E3 and the Story of wee Morag. We start our flashback with a scene of Aziraphale writing his diary entry on the 10th of November, 1827. Immediately, it's firmly established that this is once again not an outside-point-of-view narration, but rather what Aziraphale remembers and wrote down.

One thing that immediately stuck out to me here, is how helpful and kind Crowley is to Elspeth, pretty much from the very beginning when they meet her in the graveyard. Not only does he take on a Scottish accent so she won't perceive him as English (as she does with Aziraphale), but he also helps her drag the barrel that has the fresh body in it and, in the end, even pulls it all by himself while Elspeth simply follows behind them. Here's a rather poor-quality picture, for reference:

Now, we know that despite not showing it very often, Crowley has always been very fond of the humans and never really put himself on a pedestal simply because he's an immortal being himself. He likes humans, just like Aziraphale does. But, just like this story will tell us, Crowley knows that on top of liking humans, you can't just put them into boxes of good and evil and expect them to always do what is supposedly the "right" or "divinely good" thing to do. (Which is what differentiates him from Aziraphale in the way he understands and treats them, as we're shown in this minisode).

Him immediately and unspokenly helping Elspeth with dragging the barrel therefore might also be a first sign of a tiny projection from present day Aziraphale, as opposed to what Crowley might have actually done (probably just walked beside her, like Aziraphale) because he has the knowledge that Crowley really was so very kind to her in the end, wasn't he? And that he's kind to humans in general. ("Not kind! Off my head on Laudanum!" Sure, babe.)

Most of this minisode, in my opinion, is actually there to establish how Aziraphale's view of morality and good vs. evil used to be quite flawed and elitist –– and how Crowley has always been there to gently nudge him towards questioning his black and white view of heavenly right and hellishly wrong. That's why I think there's not as many hints in this minisode about Aziraphale's memories not being an accurate portrayal of what happened, as there are in the Story of Job or the magic show in 1941. (And, fear not, the latter will definitely be the most hint-heavy one). Alas, there's still a few bits and bobs in the Story of wee Morag that stuck out to me, that make a brief yet good case of the whole unreliable narration thing.

First of all: The way Aziraphale describes all of it in his diary is so different from the way we see him actually remembering it. It's almost like he tried to write this entry (and possibly all of his diary) as a bit of a thrilling short story, with himself as the main character. Which makes sense, given the fact that he adores books and would certainly be keen on dabbling in the art of capital-w Writing himself. It's yet again hinting at the fact that sometimes people (and angels) try to polish and bedazzle stories (and memories) to make them seem more exciting and adventurous, often to distract from the not-so-fun parts of it.

Like when Aziraphale's diary narrates:

"It was with heavy heart we arrived at Elspeth's destination. I was determined to thwart her monstrous plan!"

... and yet we see Crowley and Elspeth casually walking down the alleyway, very obviously not heavy-hearted in the slightest, while Aziraphale nervously scurries on behind them, very obviously not determined to thwart. (Timestamp-wise, it's around 17:38 in S2E3, in case you want to see for yourself.)

We get another cinematographic/auditory hint at the fact that Aziraphale's memory is heavily influenced by what he's feeling that very moment, when Dr. Mister Dalrymple –– FRCSE, thank you very much –– shows him the tumor he removed from the seven year old boy. You can see the shock and horror on Aziraphale's face once he learns of this child's cruel fate. We then proceed to hear Mr. Dalrymple's voice grow sort of echo-y and far away as the sad music swells up and drowns out his voice almost completely. It's awfully similar to what it feels like when really horrible news are broken to you and you dissociate and drift into a state of shock. Here's the clip of it, so you may listen for yourself:

It's clear that this is a very subjective portrayal of what Aziraphale is going through during this part of the memory. He's deeply horrified and saddened about the little boy having passed away so early in life – and we hear and feel this shock with him. Through him, because this is his memory. Whatever it is he's feeling and thinking, we're feeling and thinking it too because we're seeing it through his lense.

Another (less sad) hint at a possible exaggeration is the abnormally deep hole Crowley makes the two graveyard watch keepers fall into. I'm pretty sure he's very much in charge of his miracles, making this random slip-up seem a little silly – which is why I'm also pretty sure the "Might have slightly overdone it on that hole" is a wee bit of a meta hint at this just being another one of Aziraphale's dramatic bedazzlements of this story. For the *flings feather boa around neck* drama!

You know what else might be exaggerated? Hm, I dunno, maybe Crowley growing into the size of a tree for no apparent reason. Sure, yes, he's pretty high on Laudanum which is making him a bit loopy. But apart from that, it does seem an awfully big cinematographic euphemism for him being the metaphorical (and, once again, for the drama of it) literal bigger person in this scenario. He's the one who ends up saving Elspeth and who manages to secure a safe life without poverty and grave robbing for her. While Aziraphale was so tangled up in his own moral journey and main character-ism, missing that wee Morag was seconds away from death already, Crowley is the one who actually ends up growing stepping up for the human in need and saving them for good (pun intended).

In a way, it might just be Aziraphale's view of/feelings for Crowley in this very moment. Watching the demon outgrow what, according to Aziraphale's heavenly logic, is supposed to be a foul fiend, bestowing evil upon humanity – and growing into someone who does the exact opposite and saves Elspeth instead. Another larger-than-life character development, in Aziraphale's eyes. Literally.

Let's switch back to the topic of the diary entry one last time, so I can make my final point of the this minisode's unreliable and a smidge over-dramatic narration of Dr. McFell. If you pay close attention, Aziraphale starts the entry we're all getting to experience with: "Last month, Crowley and I both happened to be in Edinburgh." Which means it didn't actually happen on the 10th of November, but rather at some point in October, 1827. Once we see Crowley get hydro-pumped back to Hell after rescuing Elspeth, the minisode ends with, presumably, the last sentence of Aziraphale's diary entry: "And that was the last I would see of Crowley for quite some time."

Take my hand and let's look at where the furniture isn't: This very clearly means that Crowley couldn't have been gone for more than a month, at best. Read again: "It happened last month and that was the last I would see of him for quite some time." This, albeit indirectly, clearly implies that when Aziraphale had sat down to write the diary entry, he had already run into Crowley again. Otherwise his phrasing would have probably been more along the lines of "... and I haven't seen Crowley since" or "... and Crowley has yet to return from wherever it is Hell's currently keeping him".

What's the point I'm trying to make? Good question. I guess my main point of storyteller Aziraphale being a bit over-dramatic in his narration is simply backed up by this, since A Single Month would barely pass as "quite some time" for an immortal being like him. And yet that's how he puts it, in his little Confidential Journals of A.Z. Fell, Vol. 603.

And another point that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this meta (but I'm still gonna make it 'cause this is my memory post): The meeting at St. Jame's Park in 1862 that so many, post-S2, took to be their first run-in after the Story of wee Morag, actually wasn't that at all. They saw each other at least once only a month later, as Aziraphale's diary lets us know. Which explains why he wasn't very surprised or concerned when he met Crowley in London, 1862. If there really had been 35 years in between those two events, the first one ending with Crowley being sucked back Downstairs to receive more than three decades worth of hellish punishment, wouldn't Aziraphale have been at least a tiny bit worried or more interested than:

Just saying.

Alright, let's string this inflated hot air balloon of a post back together so we can outline some invisible furniture. This time with only two humble points:

Crowley through Aziraphale's lense Backed up by how we are introduced to Bildad the Shuhite in the Job minisode (suave, cheeky, smart, passionate in shoemaking and obstetrics), it's growing quite clear that Aziraphale's memories and impressions of Crowley are very fond and impressed ones. He sees him as someone who's not only witty, funny and cool, but also as someone who has figured out way sooner and faster than him that nothing's ever black and white. Not God's plans and not the human's choices either.

Aziraphale as a bit of an exaggerating adventure author With the direct parallel we get of inkslinger journalist!Aziraphale in the present day, it's quite apparent after this minisode that Aziraphale's memory is not only deeply influenced by his emotions, but that he also tends to have a bit of a dramatic touch to him. Although, you gotta give it to the guy: A month without seeing the love of your life, even if said life is eternal, can indeed seem like "quite some time".

Well, would you lookie here, we've reached the end of Part 2! What a journey it was. I hope you forgive me for the fact that I drifted off-course a few times. I just can't seem to reel in my silly little observations, even if they've got nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. But hey, doesn't that just make me a little bit like Aziraphale's storytelling, in a way?

I'll let you be the judge of that.

See you in Part 3! And in case you haven't snuck a peak yet: here's Part 1 again.

Ta!

[morlock-holmes]

A pointless, overly long, barely edited review of White Fragility

Well that book sucked.

The end I guess.

OK honestly the process of reading White Fragility was incredibly draining, I started out annoyed, then became amused and fascinated by Robin DiAngelo’s peculiar definition of “Individualism”, then got annoyed and angry again, then just… drained. It’s an exhausting book.

As I try to put my feelings out there I’m having trouble linking them together coherently but this book is just so exhausting that the idea of editing this and doing several passes is just draining to think about. So here are some scattered thoughts:

Before anything else, it’s just not well written or edited

White Fragility is very repetitive, ambling, and just kind of… not very well arranged in general. It’s clear that the book desperately needed a proper editor, or maybe it didn’t, since it became incredibly successful despite everything wrong with it. Here’s an example I’ve already mentioned. 

Towards the end of the first part of the book, DiAngelo puts together a list of a “common set of racial patterns” that are “the foundation of white fragility” and one of the bullets on that list reads,

“Wanting to jump over the hard, personal work and get to ‘solutions’”

Not once, anywhere in the preceding 111 pages or the succeeding 128 is the idea expanded on in any way whatsoever.

And it’s a truly baffling statement if you don’t expand on it. Why are solutions somehow opposed to “hard, personal work”? Is hard, personal work not part of a solution to some problem? If not why are we doing it?

The whole book has a similarly sloppy vibe; there’s very little factual information inside and what ideas there are are explained very badly.

A Christian apology for non-Christians

The more I read of White Fragility the more it seemed to me to have in common with badly written Christian apologia.

First off, modern, right-wing American Christian religious material often contains a sort of confusion that anybody could respond badly to the Gospels. After all, the good news of Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection is both obviously factually true AND self-evidently good news, but somehow when you go out and preach the gospels, non-believers will often act with derision or anger.

And there is a certain kind of Christian who will respond to that anger, not by considering that there might be factual or moral objections to the gospel, but by essentially asking, “What kind of bizarre psychological condition would cause somebody to get angry about something that is obviously true and obviously good?”

This is an ongoing thread in DiAngelo’s writing, starting with the introduction,

“In the early days of my work as what was then termed a diversity trainer, I was taken aback by how angry and defensive so many white people became at the suggestion that they were connected to racism in any way…

“I couldn’t understand their resentment or disinterest in learning more about such a complex social dynamic as racism. These reactions were especially perplexing when there were few or no people of color in their workplace, and they had the opportunity to learn from my cofacilitators(sic) of color. I assumed that in these circumstances, an educational workshop on racism would be appreciated. After all, didn’t the lack of diversity indicate a problem or at least suggest some perspectives were missing?”

Well gosh, why wouldn’t these people be excited to hear about all the things they’ve been doing wrong? Truly a mystery.

Secondly, most of the arguments DiAngelo makes are made very sloppily, and are only really convincing if you have already been well-convinced. To demonstrate this I would essentially have to just quote the whole book to you, but for an example see the bit above about wanting to jump over hard personal work. You and I have spent too much time in the fever swamp, we can guess what she means from cultural context, but she never explains it.

Third, as others have pointed out white supremacy in this book takes on the qualities of sin in Christian theology. All of us white people, simply by virtue of growing up in a white supremacist society, are racist. This isn’t really proven so much as assumed. 

You might assume that in Christian circles the fact that everybody is a sinner might level out hierarchies. After all, the Pastor is as much a sinner as you are.

But in many cases there is this kind of passive-aggressive jiujitsu. Oh, sure, the pastor sinned, but why should we criticize him when all men are sinners? Aren’t you failing to practice the virtue of forgiveness? 

Oh, what’s that, you did something bad? Well that’s a different story. It sounds like you haven’t been really giving yourself over to God. Maybe we haven’t been doing enough to help stop you from sinning. You should talk to the pastor and really think about where you’ve been going wrong, and of course we would just be enabling you if we didn’t call you out publicly, it’s an opportunity for growth on your part, and of course if you disagree with how we think you should atone, that's just further evidence of your sinfulness.

Anyway, speaking of passive-aggression:

The Passive-Aggressive style in Woke Politics

Robin DiAngelo comes off as one of the most passive-aggressive people I have ever read. And also, ironically, one of the most clueless people I have ever seen when it comes to the most basic aspects of ordinary human psychology.

Here, have some examples:

“I am typically received well when speaking in general terms–for example, ‘Your requirement that applicants have an advanced degree rather than equivalent experience is automatically disqualifying some of the applicants that could bring the perspectives and experiences you say you are looking for.’ Yet when I point out a concrete moment in the room in which someone’s racism is manifesting itself, white fragility erupts.”

Oh, what, seriously? When you say, “We all need to try harder to improve at this” people agree, but when you go, “Especially you Greg” Greg somehow becomes defensive? Crazy!

“For example, in a conversation about racism, when white people say that they work in a diverse environment or that they have people of color in their family, they are giving me their evidence that they are not racist. If this is their evidence, how are they defining racism?”

I mean… Literally the same way you do? DiAngelo talks extensively about how white people don’t understand racism because we often have very few interracial friendships or relationships. Like a lot. Like it’s one of the major themes of the book and, in her mind, one of the major sources of white fragility.

I mean, imagine you are talking to someone, and you go, “See, here’s the thing that people who have never been to Cleveland don’t understand” they might respond with “Oh, actually I was born in Cleveland and spent the first twenty years of my life there” and their reasons for doing so are so incredibly obvious and natural that it’s kind of hard to even articulate them. Like… yeah of course if you tell a room that they don’t understand racism because of their shallow relationships with people of color, fucking of course the people who have deep relationships with people of color are going to bring it up!

“White people are receptive to my presentation as long as it remains abstract. The moment I name some racially problematic dynamic or action happening in the room in the moment–for example, ‘Sharon, may I give you some feedback? While I understand it wasn’t intentional, your response to Jason’s story invalidates his experience as a black man’--white fragility erupts. Sharon defensively explains that she was misunderstood and then angrily withdraws, while others run in to defend her by re-explaining ‘what she really meant.’”

Sharon, let me stop you right there. Can I just take a moment to completely ignore the substance of what you just said, while pointing out that you are objectively annoying to the people around you?

“When another police shooting of an unarmed black man occurred, my workplace called for an informal lunch gathering of people who wanted to connect and find support. Just before the gathering, a woman of color pulled me aside and told me she wanted to attend but she was ‘in no mood for white women’s tears today’ I assured her that I would handle it. As the meeting started, I told my fellow white participants that if they felt moved to tears, they should please leave the room. I would go with them for support, but I asked that they not cry in the mixed group. After the discussion, I spent the next hour explaining to a very outraged white woman why she was asked not to cry in the presence of people of color.”

Hi, thanks for coming to our meeting where we coworkers can support each other and connect. Before we start, I just want to tell Donna, Tammy, Jim and Bob that your coworkers don’t really want to support you too much, so if you need support please go somewhere else and get it from people other than your coworkers.

Look, I get it, that black lady finds the idea of comforting some distraught white woman in the aftermath of a black man being shot absurd. Maybe don’t handle that in the most ham-handed way imaginable though?

I want you to reimagine some of these scenarios as though they were addressing a less politically fraught issue than racism. In order to do that, we need something with the following qualities:

It is often unintentional;

The people who do it are often unaware that they are doing it;

It is genuinely difficult for others to live with and should probably be corrected because of that;

There is a social stigma to it so people feel embarrassed when called out for it.

I think having really bad body odor is the perfect analogue. But can you fucking imagine some of these if that’s what we were talking about?

Imagine somebody saying, “When I say that proper hygiene is important as a way to respect your fellow employees, I get broad agreement, but when I publicly point out that a particular person has bad BO and many of their coworkers have complained, instead of being grateful for the feedback, they often get angry or defensive”

That person would be a monster!

The dirty secret of Robin DiAngelo and her ilk is that as much as they talk about “systemic racism” they really think of racism primarily as an interpersonal problem.

Here’s another quote, “The dominant paradigm of racism as discrete, individual, intentional, and malicious acts makes it unlikely that whites will acknowledge any of our actions as racism.”

I mean… All the examples I just cited above involve DiAngelo calling out discrete, individual, intentional acts. I guess sometimes the discrete, individual, intentional acts are non-malicious.

That’s the kind of central hypocrisy and profoundly passive-aggressive style of this kind of discourse. You call out a specific person for a specific act in a very public way, and then, if they get defensive, you can talk about how sad it is that when you told them that the specific thing that they personally did was bad, they didn’t realize you were just talking about systemic racism and it’s awfully silly that they are getting so defensive when all you are talking about is systemic problems, not individual faults.

DiAngelo often talks about how whites need to be less sensitive because we are not in any danger, but, like, most of the concrete problems she addresses aren’t dangerous to black people either.

Which brings me to the last section,

What is the goddamned point of all this?

DiAngelo constantly talks about the absence of cross-racial relationships between blacks and whites, but never really addresses the question of why the hell a black person would want to be friends with a white person. Honestly it sounds like it sucks; we’re all racist. Frankly I don’t see what we bring to the table other than an endless parade of microaggressions and neuroses that could just be avoided altogether by sticking to making friends with your fellow minorities.

A couple of people responding to my blog have called the book racist against whites but that’s not quite right, there’s also this bizarre sort of… Apologizing for how much better off we are then everybody else. It’s taken as basically a given that black people all wish they had the position that we do, but we just don’t let them and they’ll never get it unless we shape up and learn to give it to them.

There’s a tremendous amount of guilt but it’s combined with a massive self-absorption. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that for DiAngelo, the entire world revolves around whites and our conception of ourselves. And I mean that literally:

“...[W]hite supremacy is circulated globally. This powerful ideology promotes the idea of whiteness as the ideal of humanity well beyond the West…

“In his book The Racial Contract, Charles W. Mills argues that the racial contract is a tacit and sometimes explicit agreement among members of the peoples of Europe to assert, promote, and maintain the ideal of white supremacy in relation to all other people of the world. This agreement is an intentional and integral characteristic of the social contract, underwriting all other social contracts.”

Like… All of them? Like relations between China and the Democratic Republic of Congo are underwritten by the belief in white supremacy? White supremacy is in fact integral to the politcal relationship between those two countries?

One of the things I wondered when reading the book was why on earth DiAngelo gets paid so much money to consult. In her telling there are two forces, a white supremacist overclass dedicated to ignoring and minimizing evidence of systemic racism and a minority underclass which is nearly helpless in the face of white supremacy. Which of these groups is paying her five figure speaking fees?

Anyway to continue that quote, 

“Mills describes white supremacy as ‘the unnamed politcal system that has made the world what is is today.’”

I mean… I feel like it has a name. It’s named white supremacy. Robin DiAngelo wrote a best-selling book about it that people only bought because they already agree about it existing and being really, really important.

Hey, so, how does Tammy from HR crying about the police shooting a black teenager maintain a global white hegemony that undergirds literally all other social forces?

One thing, at least, that made me glad that I finished the book was seeing DiAngelo state overtly something that I feel has been implicit on much American thinking about race lately:

“When white people ask me what to do about racism and white fragility, the first thing I ask is, ‘What has enabled you to be a full, educated, professional adult and not know what to do about racism?’...”

Uh… You’re asking me how I graduated college without knowing how to upend a massive collusion between every nation in Europe that undergirds all of global politics and economics?

I mean I didn’t actually graduate, maybe “Overturning the entire global paradigm 101” was one of the classes I didn’t get around to.

“If we take that question seriously and map out all the ways we have come to not know what to do, we will have our guide before us. For example, if my answer is that I was not educated about racism, I know that I will have to get educated. If my answer is that I do not know people of color, I will need to build relationships. If it is because there are no people of color in my environment, I will need to get out of my comfort zone and change my environment, addressing racism is not without effort…”

Hey, yeah, but what about the part where I make minimum wage and probably can’t even overthrow Luxemburg, let alone all of Europe?

“Next, I say, ‘Do whatever it takes for you to internalize the above assumptions’ I believe that if we white people were truly coming from these assumptions, not only would our interpersonal relationships change, but so would our institutions. Our institutions would change because we would see to it that they would.”

This is exactly what I have been saying seems to be the dominant belief in America today. If we just teach Sharon from accounting to stop talking over her black co-workers, if Sharon internalizes exactly the right ideas about white supremacy from exactly the right corporate consultants, eventually, once we get our heads straight, there will be a kind of spontaneous eruption of will which will end racism forever.

From talking to more right-wing acquaintances I have come to the belief that many of them essentially agree with that premise. That racism sort of emerges as a kind of spontaneous emanation of wrong-think, and once we have used social pressure and the threat of being fired to get everybody to say the correct things about racism, racism will vanish.

And so the debate in America is no longer about policy; we don’t believe in a racial policy. The debate is about how we ought to talk about racism, with the parties disagreeing on what kind of talk will ultimately cause racism to disappear.

Do we solve police shootings by hiring a diversity consultant to tell the employees of our tech firm about white fragility, or should we hire a different consultant to teach them about color-blindness and treating people as equals?

[badaziraphaletakes]

I have some questions

Hi... Aziraphale had no way of going to hell in search of Crowley??????

Oh wait that's not a question, that's a statement. Lol nvmind.

And how would Azi even get him back out? Stop blaming her for what the heaven/hell apparatus is doing to Crowley and to her. (Y'know what, I'm gonna be referring to Azi as "she/her" in this post, because we all deserve more of that. So deal with it.) Do you think she hasn't been racking her brains trying to think of a way to save Crowley ever since the Fall, and even before that?

Also - If Aziraphale went to hell and got stuck there, she'd probably be forced to torture people and that's not cool. (She probably wouldn't get a job on earth like Crowley.) Whereas there is no evidence whatsoever that Aziraphale has to actively do harm as part of her current role on earth. There are very good reasons Crowley doesn't want her to go to hell / become a demon / whatever. He doesn't want Aziraphale to suffer the same moral injury that he has.

Also also - Aziraphale mouths "Crowley" instead of screaming it because she knows it'll only get them both in more trouble if heaven/hell finds out they have an acquaintanceship, let alone that they care about each other. As an ab*se survivor, it's one of the most painful moments in the series for me, seeing Aziraphale distraught and having to hide it.

Azi mouthing "Crowley" while frantically trying to keep a straight face is the equivalent of Charles immediately trying to run after Edwin. It's arguably even more loving, I'd say. Aziraphale loves Crowley so much that she saw her worst nightmare come true (or rather, didn't see it? you know what I mean lol) and still managed to keep her "We don't know each other" mask more or less intact. Utterly devastating. This was the ultimate test of her love for Crowley, and she passed it.

*** Side note: If Aziraphale behaved the way fans want to demand she behave, hell would have killed Crowley so many times already lmao. And then of course the fans would be blaming her for that instead. << Babygirl can't win. She's damned (ha) if she does and damned if she doesn't. ***

You can see the horror and terror and devastation in her eyes.

Here's a really good post about it:

But even if we didn't have that glimpse of her face at that moment... FUCK thinking Aziraphale wasn't worried about Crowley then. There is literally NO reason to assume she wasn't upset about seeing him dragged to hell to presumably be killed. (And yes, Azi knew hell was ab*sive and violent to Crowley, even back then. I'd argue she's known since NLT Uz. After all, she knows Crowley didn't "kill" the goats and the kids because he wanted to. She knows it was because hell made him do it.)

Also also also: She literally did go to hell to save Crowley, later on?

And wtf is wrong with what she wrote in her diary? "That was the last I was to see of Crowley for some time" is (so far as we know) a factual statement. She's writing about an upsetting experience. Journaling is a healthy coping technique. But apparently that's bad now lmao. (Not to mention there were so many things about that diary entry that were so blatantly weird that it's clear we can't take anything about Aziraphale's journals at face value anyway. But I guess we're just ignoring that.)

OH AND ONE MORE THING! That's "husband" or "wife" or "spouse" to you, not "friend"!

[communistkenobi]

I always get a little annoyed at posts saying “btw did you know conservatives don’t know what they’re talking about? did you know that they’re incorrect about x?”. And it’s not because that’s wrong per se (conservatives don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re almost always factually incorrect, which is a significant part of why their politics are awful), but focusing on the factual substance of their claims tends to obscure the reason why they’re being incorrect in the first place. like yes they sound ridiculous when they say “I don’t believe in pronouns” but its not because they don’t understand how grammar works. The purpose of that statement is to argue that gender should not be negotiable through language, that to use “pronouns” is to attempt to alter someone’s god-given ontological gender and is therefore morally wrong. And because this discussion is dominated by English-speakers (gendered pronouns are not universal) living in imperial countries, a deeper claim is being made, that trans people are perverting the most enlightened language, the language of the West, the language that dominates all others. This also very neatly fits into right wing antisemitic conspiracies about the oncoming death of western civilisation, which is not an accident!

So conservatives are latching onto a word that has been recently infused with fresh political meaning in public discourse and using it as a rhetorical platform to be disgusting. They know how language works - language is contestable, it is both subject to constant change and a medium through which that change is negotiated. Trans people are making a claim (gender is partially mediated through language and therefore gender is reinforced and expressed linguistically) and conservatives are making a counter claim (no it isn’t). “I don’t believe in pronouns” is not an argument about the technical structure of language, it is an argument that trans people are so perverse that we infect and degrade the base components of language itself.

So yes, point out that they’re incorrect, but they aren’t incorrect because they’re stupid or ignorant, and being incorrect is not the primary problem with their rhetoric. That is a strategic statement which is deliberately inflammatory, can fit neatly inside both tweets and headlines, and makes a very grand conspiratorial claim about reality (any mention of pronouns is evidence of a transgender plot to destroy western civilisation and indoctrinate children), and this is all accomplished with a 5-word sentence that can be repeated ad nauseum. So the issue at hand isn’t a failure to observe the basic components of language, it’s a violent call to action to remove trans people from public discourse, and eventually public life entirely.

Conservatives are incorrect for a reason. They are incorrect on purpose because they don’t care what the truth is. They are politically savvy and incredibly successful at gaining and maintaining power. They know what they’re doing, and if your only critique of them is that they don’t have their facts straight, I think that’s just a really weak position to hold. What happens when they saying something factually correct? What happens when they know more than you? What happens when they’re well-spoken, well-read, and reasonable? What will you object to then?

[kurtmustdie]

okay heres the fucking thing about this script controversy that some people don't seem to get.

just gonna say it blatently:

strap in babes this is gonna be a long one!

The way Miguel O'Hara is written in the leaked transcripts is blatantly racist, here's why from a Latino himself!

all wrapped up in a sweet little bow for everyone who doesn't know how to comprehend what they're reading, cheers!

er. i mean.

¡Salud!

Miguel fans are not mad that they depicted him in a bad light and that they made it clear that he is in the wrong

WE FUCKING KNOW. WE'RE NOT STUPID.

Miguel has been depicted as a morally grey asshole since the early 1990s, which is when Spider-Man 2099 was initially debuted. And while yes, the movies are.... inaccurate, to say the least, it still stands.

The issue here is how he is depicted. They directly call Miguel O'Hara, a Latino man, an ANIMAL (he is directly called an animal TWICE. FUCKING TWICE.)

[1st image id: Miguel leaps onto Vulture, Clawing his way in past the renaissance armor. he is an ANIMAL. (keep in mind ANIMAL is literally in all caps.) /end id]

[2nd image id: Miguel SLASHES at the walls of light that surround Miles. Clawing the energy field apart, an animal in the throes of bloodlust -- /end id]

I need you to really soak in the fact that he is called "AN ANIMAL" twice. I'm awful at alts and ids but I feel I must so you can read it in plain text. sorry if they suck.

Our issue is not that the writers seem to have a bias against the character. a lot of writers write characters they dont particularly like and in turn tend to write them from a foggy lense of their own perception. An example would be Kate Cary and how she didn't like Crowfeather, a character she had to write about. I'm sure some of her bias seeped through. but this is different.

writing a Latino man as a bloodthirsty animal, implied to be called a predator because they call one of the people he fights (im not sure if its miles or the vulture, im leaning towards believing the former.) his "prey", THOSE ARE ALL RACIAL STEREOTYPES. ALL OF THEM.

[3rd image id: But Miguel can only see his prey: /end id]

There is no context to be needed here, the context is that this is miguel we're talking about and that they call him an animal. it does not matter if he is a villain or not (which he isnt, factually he fucking isnt im tired of having this conversation, fuck you). it matters that he's depicted in a racially insensitive way.

and this person brought this up pretty well actually, I didn't even think of it:

[4th image id: Tumblr user @/404-505 saying:

i want to be so mean to them

they couldn't write miguel crossing the border and stealing a job so they wrote him crossing into another universe and stealing his own identity

they couldnt write miguel as a drug addict so they gave him spider steroids instead /end id.]

They bring up a really good point about these clear stereotypes being seemingly. . . disguised behind points that are narratively relevant? This could literally just be pure coincidence, but noting how the writers wrote him before... it isn't looking too good for them. Sorry. Not sorry.

It is clear that there is some kind of bias against miguel that led to really disgusting, racist retoric. Whether or not it was intentional or if it was a first draft or whatever, the writers, which may i remind you were white, still wrote this at some point.

it makes me question whether or not they hated him because of his "bullshit utopia", their words not mine, or because of their own racial biases.

We cannot know because miguel is the only mexican character on the cast. I know Miles is Puerto Rican, but there are differences between how they were portrayed. also Puerto Ricans and Mexicans come from competely different cultural backgrounds that share simularities but are still different dont even try i will destroy you.

Using another users words again, but:

[5th image id: Tumblr user @/transmiguelohara says:

Don't talk to me about the Miguel parts in the script. I'm so disappointed in how the writers view him.

The difference between the way Miguel is written (antagonist, not the villain) vs Spot (the villain, whats to kill Miles' dad and everyone he knows) is soooo.....I don't know man it just screams racism in sorry. Describing Miguel as a bloodthirsty animal? Repeatedly? Treating him like he's mindless and has no motivation beyond having a hair trigger temper? It sucks man. /end id]

It also strikes me that now that we finally have a brown-skinned miguel, they write him like, well. this.

I don't really know if this is petty or not, but I want to wrap this back to the way the fandom also sees Movie Miguel.

Because TRUST ME it is not good either.

Miguel O'Hara Vs. FANDOM: Spoilers, it's been troubling since the beginning.

From the beginning (and by beginning in this case I mean since he was announced to be a character in this movie) Miguel has been continuously sexualized, beyond belief. He is repeatedly called "papi cholo" which NEED I REMIND YOU "Cholo" is a derogatory term used to call someone, usually a mexican person, a criminal or a delinquent.

FUCK YOU if you are not Latino OR hispanic and use this to describe people. from the bottom of my heart.

I'm pretty sure the majority of the people who called/ still currently call him "papi cholo" are mixing it up with "papi chulo" (white people moment.) which means something completely different but is still troubling as hell.

"papi chulo", which is slightly different in the way, just directly translates to "big daddy". Which again, Latino men being overly sexual "Latin Lovers" is ALSO A RACIAL STEREOTYPE. also its just blatant fetishization. Point blank fucking period.

Not only that but I notice a lot of art and fanfiction depicts him doing a lot of violence, or being very overbearing and demeaning, or in short terms.

a lot of people write him as physically and sexually aggressive.

fuck do you mean he growls during sex i can and will send you to space with no return.

which

for the millionth time

racial stereotype

halleluiah or however you spell it.

Having him say random spanish phrases you don't know the meaning or connotations of in your fanfiction is icing on the cake at this point.

fucking end me.

it isn't even only sexual depictions, since he's been shown in the movie, a lot of people seem to just see him as this guy who goes off and tries to kill children at a hairs trigger. which uh. fun fact no he fucking doesnt.

you clearly didn't watch the movie as well as you thought you did. hes just sarcastic and generally pretty level headed through the majority of his runtime, whether its implied by how characters around him act, or its just what we see on screen.

He doesn't necessarily have anger issues, the moment we see at the climax of the film is quite literally a mental break. he is not acting in a way that he usually would because he was cracking under the stress of holding the multiverse together with some scotch tape and orange glitter glue.

Also side tangent but he also has a mental break in the comics that's a little more... droopy and sad as compared to the movie, but it still happens. he has shitty mental health is what im saying. he only really lashes out angrily when hes at his wits end because that's how he grew up. he was taught to suppress his feelings and seem smaller when he was upset.

he is the result of abuse and neglect. of course he wouldn't be amazing at emotional regulation.

Which before anyone says it no, this is not an excuse for his actions. just an explaination that isn't "hes an angry animal that has it out for miles UwU" that everyone seems to have in their brain. I'm tired of you all. truly.

the sentiment that hes agressive and angry and his only emotion is anger and upsetness unless he's horny which is when he experiences all these emotions tenfold is. racist. idk how clear i have to be for people to get it through their damn skulls that the way the fandom depicts him is harmful. do i need to slap you in the face with a fish until you understand. do i need to burn your fanfiction. will you get it now that a 15 year old latino boy has to scream it in your face.

and dont even get me STARED on how inaccurately he is written

this is a more light hearted section because idk. feels like i should have it because this part is just comical, pun intended. How can you fuck up this hard guys.

I was gonna give them the benefit of the doubt because "Miguel has fresh trauma!" "He only shows up for like 10 minutes!" "insert 3rd reason!" for his drastic change in demeanor and personality, which, without context, are valid reasons for him to be a little different. trauma fucks you up man. we only see 10 minutes of him. but at this point im chalking it up to complete incompetence

it doesnt take that long to read a comic book guys. you could have done a little research, I know you can do it.

first off:

[6th image id: Miguel's SPIDER-SENSE goes off! He races to the edge if the building and peers into an empty alley -- /end id]

LMFAO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN "SPIDER-SENSE"

Unless you didn't get the total of TWO jokes that they made in ONE scene (the vulture fight scene), Miguel doesn't have a spider sense. at all. He has elevated senses, but he doesnt have a spider sense.

guys

guys.

you made TWO jokes IN A ROW about it. YOU WHACKED HIM IN THE HEAD TWICE WITH IT. HOW DID YOU FORGET

I cant help but laugh! this is a rookie mistake! these are seasoned writers! They could have done at least a little research, or at least remembered that he doesnt have one, no? is it that hard? or does his lack of a spider sense only matter when you're making fun of your least favorite character? thats what I thought.

this one is less funny. not to sound like a stereotypical comic nerd but this infuriated me a little bit I'm not gonna lie.

[8th image id: tumblr user @/darksidecorner reblogged tumblr user @/spiderxpawz with:

They definitely didn't

a screenshot of the script reads:

AN INDUSTRIAL TANGLE OF HUGE PISTONS -- the literal DARK UNDERBELLY that undergrids Miguel's bullshit Utopia.

Miles doesn't know where to go... but he doesn't need to: SOMEONE YANKS him up into the safety of an alcove.

the user then continues:

This in particular made me PISSED because they quietly canonized that Miguel is CEO of Alchemax while conveniently ignoring that he did everything in his fucking power to BETTER Neuva York. Downtown wasn't built by him. It was built by people WAY before him.

I can excuse and defend some comic deviation, but THIS? Holy FUCK /end id]

I honestly cant tell if I find this part funny or pathetic because seriously. he did not do this. why are you blaming him for something he had nothing to do with. i dont think he decided "hey i should build a city for rich people over poor people because reasons" when he was like... not even alive. Alchemax did this before he was even sentient. it had always been this way since he was born. he also actively hated this decision. because he actively hates alchemax.

but right MIGUELS bullshit Utopia yeah HE did this that EVIL LITTLE BABY i cant believe him

kill me.

In conclusion:

I. . . Don't really know, to be honest. I'm still processing all this. I am genuinely disappointed and upset because this isn't okay. It never will be, and if it takes yet another blunt essay with absolutely no filter for people to understand it then so be it. I don't care if this comes off as mean. This is something I feel qualified to talk about and I will express my disappointment and anger if I want to.

All of the posts I reference I have reblogged within the last 24 hours of making this post, they shouldn't be that hard to find, but if you want the links to them here they are:

https://www.tumblr.com/spiderxpawz/735344322114977792/live-mexican-reaction?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/404-505/735289664739606528/they-couldnt-write-miguel-as-a-drug-addict-so?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/transmiguelohara/735289238625648640/cant-believe-the-writers-have-the-same-reading?source=share

if you want your image to be removed or for your link to be removed just ask and I'll do it. but currently im kinda bummed out and tired.

goodbye.

[captainpikeachu]

So, Screen Rant recently released an article on the 6 rules of being Captain America in the MCU, mostly it's just about how Steve and Sam fit those rules and John doesn't.

But this article is terribly written and incredibly inaccurate to even just basic factual things, and I'm going to go through and address each of the point it makes against John and tell you why it is wrong and hypocritical.

First, the article claims that Cap must be a strong and sure leader. It claims that it's always hard to imagine John ever having this leadership role and that's why his downfall is spectacular. Yet it completely ignores that John has been in leadership roles AND been successful. He's a Captain, he's been serving and leading his men into war and successfully completed missions for decades. We are not talking about some green young soldier with little experience as Comics John may have been. MCU John has been in the military for nearly 20 years. He has a clear and effective record. This claim also ignores that John's leadership ultimately failed in the MCU because no one wanted to listen to him, they were all still angry about Steve being gone and John getting the shield (that he didn't ask for). They were angry and had no intentions of wanting to listen since day one. He wasn't failing because he didn't know how to lead, he was failing because they had refused to let him lead.

Second, the article claims that Cap must be a skilled and brave fighter. It describes in a previous paragraph about Steve and Sam's fighting skills but when it gets to John, it immediately backtracks to dismiss the point. Even in the one "rule" that John can clearly fit under, this article refuses to do so and instead moves the goal post to talk about John's morality and doing questionable things. Implying that if he thought his time in war were the worst days of his life, then it must not make him a good Cap. But let me just ask here, who the hell thinks war is a good time? Steve and Sam's worst days were also when they were serving in the war, they have all done questionable things, do this now mean they aren't good Caps either? Steve even admitted to Fury that they've done their share of questionable things during the war. Sam served in the same wars in the Middle East that John served in. Pretending that John is somehow the only person to act like their worst days are during war time is to display an ignorance to the realities of war and military service. NOBODY thinks war is a walk in the park, wars have always been the worst days of a soldier's life. There is a reason people end up with massive amounts of PTSD!

Third, this article claims that Cap must make fast and tactical decisions. It claims that John's "quick thinking" led to him killing a Flag Smasher, so this is why he isn't good at quick thinking. But I just want to ask here, since when is a heat of the moment trauma response now considered "quick thinking"? If someone kills your loved one right in front of you and you scream and lash out, are you now bad at quick thinking and tactical decisions? So are we now saying trauma responses are bad tactical decision making? Was T'Challa bad at tactical decisions when he decided to seek revenge on Bucky in Civil War for the death of his father? Was Thor bad at tactical thinking when he chopped off Thanos' head? Was Clint bad at tactical thinking when he went on a five year murder spree? Was Steve bad at tactical thinking when his own rage led him to beat down on Tony after Tony blasted and incapacitated Bucky in Siberia? So not only does this article not seem to grasp that a trauma response is not a judgment on anyone else's tactical acumen, it also ignores the number of times that John IS capable of quick thinking. When Karli kicked Lemar off the truck, it was John's quick thinking and throwing out the shield that saved Lemar. In fact, in that same fight, it was John's quick thinking that saved Sam from getting his head bashed in by one of the Flag Smashers.

Fourth, this article claims that Cap must have a strong moral code. It uses Steve fighting against Loki and Thanos and protecting Bucky while Sam tries to talk down Karli as examples of their strong moral code. It claims that John doesn't have this "gift" because John would rather see Karli dead and killed an "innocent" Flag Smasher. If the act of wanting to fight villains to save people and not wanting to kill someone is enough to fit this rule, then John should too. Why does this article ignore that John taking on the mantle of Cap and willing to risk his life to protect others satisfies this rule demonstrated by its own examples? What about John saving Sam and Bucky and Lemar in that truck fight? What about John risking his life doing hostage rescue? What about John grabbing that truck full of hostages to prevent them from dying? And let's not forget, John NEVER had any intentions of killing any one of the Flag Smashers, he was always trying to simply arrest them. Death was something that only happened after they tried to kill him first and killed Lemar instead. He didn't walk into Episode 1 just going all excited about murdering folks.

Fifth, this article claims that Cap must be willing to pay the ultimate price. It claims that it's hard to imagine John ever willingly sacrificing himself for others. This is perhaps the most egregious claim and the most obvious demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of John Walker as it can get. He's risked his life for Sam, for Bucky, for Lemar, for his own fellow soldiers during his years of active duty service, for the hostages in that truck and any other hostages he's saved previously. He's even jumped on grenades FOUR times. To claim that a THREE TIME Medal of Honor recipient can't sacrifice himself for other is to claim that Simone Byles can't do a flip or Michael Phelps can't swim. Why don't we ask families of dead Medal of Honor recipients who got their medals posthumously, just how willing the recipients are to sacrifice their lives for others? Maybe not everyone knows this, but the military doesn't even like to hand out MOHs, you have to do the most high level and extraordinary kind of sacrifice to even be considered for ONE medal, and some people who have done that don't even get their medals until decades later. For John to have received THREE before he's even hit 40 years old speaks to a level of willingness for self sacrifice that readily matches any MCU hero. And even if we don't count the medals, he's demonstrated in the show itself that he is willing to sacrifice. He threw his only weapon, the shield, to save Lemar, even though it left him unarmed to face all those Flag Smashers. He left himself open to attack and death when he refused to let go of the truck filled with hostages even as the Flag Smashers pounced on him from all sides.

Lastly, this article claims that Cap must be "a good man". It states that the serum has corrupted many greedy and egotistical people over the years and that John taking the serum only made him even worse. Only worse? Are we just going to ignore that despite having taken the serum and supposedly being "corrupted" and have all this evil in him amplified, John still CHOSE to let go of revenge and do the right thing and save people? He didn't need Sam or Bucky to tell him, HE made that choice ON HIS OWN. If he is so corrupted and bad, then why did he willingly make a conscious decision to do good? How much goodness does John have to ALREADY have to overcome all the bad in him and still make the right decision? And when will we realize that the serum isn't a "good becomes great" or "bad becomes worse" but rather "good becomes great" AND "bad becomes worse". Everyone has light and dark, the serum amplifies all, and if John's bad qualities are amplified, then so are his good ones, and those good ones are the reason he CHOSE to make the right choice. And that choice matters. In Ms. Marvel, we have Kamala learn that very important lesson, "good is not a thing you are, it is a thing you do".

The irony of this whole article is that there are actually reasons why John is not suited to being Captain America, but none of those reasons are actually even properly addressed in this article.

It doesn't talk about John's insecurity and how guilt and untreated PTSD plays into that emotional volatility and fear that drives him to make wrong decisions.

It doesn't talk about his lack of a solid self-identity, and how that leads to him being easily manipulated and exploited by others (particularly those in power that he feels loyalty and duty towards) because he has tied his self worth to other people's opinions. And how a Captain America needs to know who they are and be firm in their own self, which is what John does not yet have.

Instead, this article lists a bunch of "rules" and inaccurately applies them to John in some half ass attempt to show how he's not a "real" Captain America. What is even the point of writing an article like this if you're just gonna demonstrate that you were clearly watching the Falcon and the Winter Soldier with your eyes, ears, and brain closed?

People continue to fundamentally misunderstand John Walker, and I can only hope that the Thunderbolts movie will fix this problem.

I don't claim John to be perfect, I don't even claim that he makes a good Cap, but the way some of yall still to this day refuse to recognize any kind of good in John is baffling. He isn't Steve's "total opposite", he IS Steve but 200% on crack. Wyatt Russell himself has even stated that John and Steve share the same desire to help and defend innocent people, but where they differ is the method to achieve that result. JOHN GENUINELY CARES. Even if sometimes he makes bad decisions in that care.

[bestworstcase]

Your thoughts about Salem possibly intentionally ascending to be what is essentially a Grimm Faunus makes me think:

I wonder if Salem chose to ascend to become a Grimm because she believed Grimm were endless beings that could endure her current nightmare better than anything else. Instead, the end result of that ascension was finding out that the Grimm weren't just eternal manifestations of evil like she and many others were led to believe by the God of Light, but rather independent living creatures with their own unique morality system who could live and die like anything else. I'd imagine such a revelation would only further sour her on the God of Light, because she'd basically realize that the Grimm were just another victim of the God of Light's existential crisis.

oh i don’t think she On Purpose set out to turn herself into a grimm. for one thing, the lost fable is an unreliable narrative in a really specific way: jinn answer’s ruby’s question exactly, this is information ozpin knows or believes to be true and actively chose to hide from the kids. none of it is new information to oz—so how does he know what salem did during the parts when he wasn’t there?

salem told him.

thus, any factual incorrectness during these parts of the story must be the result of either:

salem outright lying to him, or

ozma misinterpreting what she said, or

ozma making baseless assumptions to fill in the gaps of what was (given how long ago it all was and how long she was alone) quite likely an incoherent story.

now generally speaking i believe that salem hesitated for some time before telling him of her involvement in the rebellion but otherwise told ozma the truth, because the text supports this (she “blamed the end of the world on the gods,” rightly), because she has no reason to lie about what the gods did, and because the thematic narrative requires that the lost fable be a biased account of real events, not a complete fabrication.

anyway, the point is:

If the fountain of life granted her immortality, then surely, the pools of Grimm will finally take it away… She was wrong. This force of pure destruction could not destroy a being of infinite life, so it created a being of infinite life with a desire for pure destruction.

jinn ascribes a specific motivation to salem’s choice to drown herself in the pool of grimm, and states that salem’s reasoning proved to be wrong. this passage, like the rest of the lost fable, articulates what ozpin believes—but i think this is his misinterpretation of something salem told him when she recounted this part of her story.

she says, “the fountain gave me infinite life. i thought the pool of grimm would take it from me.” he hears, “i was trying to kill myself.”

but what i think she meant was, “i thought the death in the pool and the life in my soul would mix together. maybe it would kill me, i didn’t know or care, but isn’t that how the brothers made us? darkness brought you back to life, and he called that creation, and i wasn’t thinking clearly because i was going insane from isolation but i thought that maybe if i sacrificed myself i could bring everyone back.”

she says, “i didn’t expect to become this, but of course one can’t destroy creation, so it changed me.” and he hears “i was mistaken, and now i’m cursed.”

because the thing is, as i’ve noted before, if you take away from an infinite quantity, an infinite quantity remains – because ‘infinite’ does not mean incomprehensibly big number, it means numberless, countless, boundless. so was salem suicidal, or was she doing math?

what happens if you take some life from infinite life? where does what is taken go?

she returned to the place where, millions of years ago, she’d seen the fearsome god of destruction claim the powers of creation as his own after bringing a dead man back to life. and then she poured INFINITE LIFE into the dark well of that god’s power which still, she’d seen, continued to birth living creatures long after the gods had gone.

what was she trying to do?

just die?

…or claim the powers of her creators in order to bring the world back to life?

the results being her own transformation plus animal people is probably not what she expected to happen, exactly, but – certainly it is an improvement over her previous circumstances and so i doubt she had any complaints, until humans proliferated and began to persecute the faunus.

the question of whether salem, in the grimm pool, did or didn’t experience ascension in the literal sense – as in, meeting the blacksmith and being given the choice to “choose for yourself one who could leave your burdens behind, or choose one who’ll be enough to bear them” – is a secondary but also interesting question.

i’m inclined to think that she did, and that’s interesting, because if true that implies salem had the chance to escape her curse – shed her old identity, leave all her memories behind, and be reborn new – and actively chose not to take it. and that’s so compelling because – why? what inspired her to refuse? to keep going? think about everything salem’s said about hope, that even the smallest spark can ignite change, breathe fire into the hearts of the weary, that hope is mankind’s greatest strength; think about how that hits if—

—these are the same picture.

and then there’s ‘the shallow sea’:

“They didn’t do anything to us,” the people on the shore called. “The water hasn’t changed us. It has washed away the lies to reveal what we’ve always been, just under the surface. Our old forms were just a shallow disguise. This is who we are.” A few dozen more people on the boat were convinced. They dropped into the ocean, and though they transformed more slowly, by the time they stepped out of the water, they, too, had become their true selves and were welcomed onto the island.

like, think about what it says about salem for this to be how she sees herself, how she conceives of her transformation – that in becoming grimm she became more herself. true, we haven’t yet gotten hard confirmation that ‘the shallow sea’ is an allegorical account of salem’s metamorphosis, but the writing is on the wall. lol.

she’s the same person as before but she isn’t human, doesn’t feel human anymore, doesn’t want to be human. certainly there is a degree of trauma and isolation and dehumanization at work here, but at the heart of it – and this is why, i think, she chose to return as herself, if she found the blacksmith in the grimm pool – is this idea that her human-self was a ‘lie.’

the brothers made humans and made certain promises to humankind – light especially presented himself as a benevolent adjudicator who invited people to come before him, pray to him, worship him. they made salem. she believed in them. trusted them.

and in the end, they destroyed the whole world to spite her. the last thing either of them said to her was to blame her for the massacre they committed (light) and mock her for “still demanding things of [her] creators” (dark) – so why would she ever consider herself human again? why would she do them the courtesy of calling herself their creation?

cause here’s the thing – notionally, they made humankind to settle their differences. to make peace with each other. humans were the symbol and seal of the brothers’ harmonious coexistence, and salem proved the lie, and then she went ‘fuck you both’ and created herself: a person, a grimm, the living breathing combination of the waters of life and death, light and darkness, that the brothers refused to intermingle. she proved them wrong.

salem is not the one who sowed division between them.

they separated creation from destruction and enforced that dividing line with horrific violence. salem is the one who, left behind in the ruin of their world, brought the sundered halves of destruction-and-creation back together to create herself, and in doing so created a new world.

she isn’t the flawed human who disrupted the delicate balance and ruined the world forever. she’s not the divider. salem is the balance. the unity of opposites. the very embodiment of what mankind was meant for!

and they hated her for it! the god of light intends to wipe out remnant from existence to punish her because she saw through his lies about how the world was meant to be and revealed the truth he’s afraid of.

and yeah grasping that the grimm are not ontologically evil is a part of that (and i have no doubt also factors in her hatred of the huntsman academies because she knows humans and grimm can coexist with each other – evernight itself is proof of that.) but i think it’s less significant than the union she achieved, exposing the lie that creation and destruction are not one and the same.

[homestuckreplay]

Liberty. Reason. Justice. Civility. Edification. Perfection.

(page 1116-1128)

As it turns out, there’s no such thing as a DEAPPEARIFIER. Such a machine is actually called a SENDIFICATOR, and funding for this technology drastically improves the postal service’s ability to carry out their work, as gloriously demonstrated by PM. This machine is presumably why things keep appearing, as well as disappearing, around Jade’s house (p.770).

I shed a real tear when PM successfully delivered the package – it’s only been a few hundred pages since her first mail spiel (p.894-6), but AR’s erratic shooting and the clear danger of the current situation mean this still feels like an earned victory. There is a song called ‘The Courier’ by Richard Shindell that I’ve been obsessed with for years and this is PM’s theme song to me. I’m actually so taken with this broader theme of mail and with this drive to carry information and items between people even in a world that’s not set up for it, that I want to explore other media that has this theme, and maybe even base my next D&D character around this.

Thinking about AR’s characterization, they’re mad at themself for shooting incorrectly, bonking themself on the head for it (p.1119) meaning they are not above their own laws. This doesn’t make them less dangerous, but it makes their moral code more consistent. The same is true with their attraction to PM – AR has this urge towards forbidden romance with the opposing side, but isn’t going to make a legal exception even for this carapaced hottie. AR is also extremely stubborn and doggedly convinced of things that are factually untrue – for example, they ‘don’t give a shit about’ their weapon being magazine-fed and not clip-fed (p.1101), they think of themself as a ‘crack shot’ despite not landing a single bullet (p.1119), and they think Serenity is a ‘little blinking bee’ (p.1122).

I think black and white thinking, strict ideals and no mercy for those who disrupt them, have to be more traits programmed into all chess pieces (for all its intellectual complexity, chess does not have much nuance to its lore). So this next part might be a reach and might be confirmation bias, but I wonder if these folks have similarities to the kids they command. WV was socially inept at first, prone to flights of fancy, and not great at prioritizing, which are also some of John’s flaws. PM is focused on her delivery tasks to the point of putting herself in danger, and Jade is behaving similarly as she harpoons herself across the ruins and evades Bec’s protection to deliver the time bait as per Skaia’s will. AR’s stubbornness and refusal to question their own biased perspective could fit with either Dave or Rose, but their immediate resorting to violence is a better fit for Dave – the kid who was so mad about being named ‘insufferable prick’ that he destroyed the input box (p.310).

Pretty fucked up that WV just sacrifices one of his pawns. One of his beloved citizens, martyred for the cause. Pour one out for- shit nevermind wrong phrase.

One complaint: there is no possible way WV and PM have read Sweet Bro & Hella Jeff. Even if they could access it from their command terminals – and I do NOT believe Skaia has programmed that functionality – they do not exist in the right cultural moment to appreciate the humor. When the narrative text references SBAHJ during the kids’ sections (for example, p.915) it works for me, because it’s an actual thought they might be having. It doesn’t work for me here on pages 1123-4, because the narrator’s inserting it where it wouldn’t naturally fit, using SBAHJ to distract me from the much better comic I’m currently reading.

UNLESS. I have been interpreting the scribbly pages like 1118 and 1124 (above) as Jade’s understanding of events upon waking, the way a dream that seems perfectly crisp and clear while asleep becomes vague and blurry after waking up. Again likely a reach, but I could buy that the SBAHJ is Jade editorializing on her own visions as she creates this note and draws the map for WV and PM to follow. That feels neater to me, at least.

> AR: Shoot at bass guitar to repair elevator.

[kuruk]

Literaly why does it matter so much how someone else treats something in THEIR relationship.....nobody ever said they HATE all polypeople or whatevers.....just that they wouldnt be happy rlly if their own partner suggested that. Thats it....why does it matter so much to these ppl.....? I got no issues with polyamory but the self appointed tumblr representatives r giving you guys a baaad look..

right help.. they don't want to imagine a scenario where anyone could be mad at them but like we're not dating you relax literally a normal thing to be upset by.. "I'd kill us both" is just an overdramatic way to complain about receiving bad news that ruins a relationship I mean literally who said Let's kill polyamorous people for bsing poly. No one. because it was a personal question.. and the way some people are imagining breaking this news to hypothetical monogamous partners seems a little emotionally detached as well like you may not want to feel like you did something "wrong" but your partner isn't a crazy irrational bigot fascist for thinking negatively of you for it if that suggestion you brought up hurt them. it doesn't make you a bad person for your wants to hurt someone when they conflict with their own wants but stop focusing on being right so no one is allowed to think poorly of you ever.. like yeah that could definitely make someone you were dating suddenly not want you in their life anymore which doesnt mean you should kill yourself but sometimes people have these things call "feelings" like you're not a bad person for making someone hate you but you are kind of a dick if you think it's like factually morally and reasonably wrong of them to feel that way just so you can feel more comfortable...

[max1461]

Hmm. Right, ok, so, there's two grounds on which you can evaluate an "ideology".

One ground is like, its abstract correctness. Are its factual claims right? Are its ethical claims agreeable to you?

This is how you should evaluate your own belief system. Being correct is very useful, so it's in your interest to try to be correct.

The other way you can evaluate an ideology is like... does it produce generally ok policies? What are its effects?

This is a lower bar. An ideology which is factually and ethically correct (by your standards) will necessarily produce ok effects (by your standards) when you believe it. Uh actually this probably isn't strictly true but it's true enough.

Anyway, it's the second criterion that you should use to evaluate other people's belief systems, I contend, unless you know them really well and know them to be amenable to certain kinds of rational debate.

Why?

Because asking that everyone be actually correct is far too much. That will never happen. It's a pipe dream. You're going to have to get used to living in a world full of people you think are wrong about shit. On the other hand, asking that everyone (or most people, or everyone in power, or whatever) believe stuff that leads to not-too-heinous consequences is a more reasonable goal. It's something I can get behind.

"This ideology produces observably ok results, but it's Wrong" is not a complaint I find very sympathetic. Ok, it's Wrong. So don't believe it and move on.

I think this follows from my "leave other people be unless you really have to" moral intuition. A guy believing a wrong thing is not enough to make your frustration at him sympathetic to me. I mean in a serious context, not just in terms of shooting the shit and complaining online. It's not enough. The guy needs to actually be doing something problematic. Otherwise "he's wrong and I don't like that" doesn't compel me.

[its-the-sa]

Different anon. God just boiling down the slugcats to 'animals' angers me in a way I didn't think I could be angry. Yes, they are animals, but by all means they are cognitive and understand complex emotions, communicate with a supposedly complex language, are able to be taught to do things. Why else would the iterators use them as messengers constantly? It's not like they're messenger pigeons where it's just going from point A to point B, they understand exact instructions. If this was just some random animal, making groans and grunts, they wouldn't be able to understand what Five Pebbles even meant when he was explaining how to ascend. Even with the mark, could you imagine if he told a lizard this? Artificer, arguably, is a prime example of this. Just an animal would get over their fallen children, sure they'd grieve but in the end they'd just make more. Arti not only is so enraged by their death, that she is physically incapable of ascension, but also swears vengeance upon a whole other species. This isn't just some animal who lost her children, this is a mother who is enraged at her children's murder. Sure, they aren't on the same level as humans are. Like obviously. But I'd argue it makes sense that a scavenger and a slugcat could fall down the path of enemies to lovers. Especially when you consider the fact that death isn't permanent in Rain World's universe. That would definitely change one's perspective on it. I dunno if I make sense, I'm juggling like three things at once, but I had to say what I needed to say. Wording bad, slugcat smort.

tbh it took me a minute to figure out what this was even referring to, because honestly I don't think that anon meant to use the word 'animal' to dehumanize arti in the first place. it sounded to me like they were just using it as a non-human equivalent for 'person', like "why would anyone fall for a person who committed hate crimes against them?" which is a valid question. it never even occurred to me that they could have meant it in the sense of calling her an inferior creature.

that said... you ARE 100% right and you should say it, lmao.

I very nearly got into this exact argument once, bc i saw some comments from a guy scoffing at the idea of arti showing mercy to baby scavs. because by his logic, 'she is just an animal, so she isn't bound by human morality. in the wild, animals kill any young that don't belong to them without hesitation'. and it just pissed me off so much, because not only was it such an edgy "mercy is for the WEAK!" alpha-male bullshit take, it was also just factually wrong. many animals can and do adopt the young of other animals, even other species, especially when they've just lost their own. and like you said, they can grieve, but then they move on. they keep surviving, and making more babies. they don't dwell on injustice, or let rage consume them to the point that it becomes a hindrance to their own survival. they don't go on single-minded revenge quests. they dont try to justify their own violence by demonizing entire species, and they dont end up plagued by guilt in their sleep. those are very, very human things.

and yeah, i see a lot of people theorize that it's the mark of communication that grants the slugcats higher intelligence, but I don't really buy that either. i think the mark just lets them understand the iterator's language. they must've already had the capacity to understand it, or else it wouldn't work at all. it'd be like trying to install windows on a calculator. also, even without the mark, slugcats are obviously shown to communicate with each other. they have their own culture, they tell stories and make art, and they're apparently able to understand karma and the nature of the cycle at least enough to be able to ascend. so like... any creature thats capable of spiritual enlightenment must at least be sapient, right??

it seems like in the absence of the ancients, both slugcats and scavs are beginning to move in to their niche in the ecosystem

[david-talks-sw]

So, why should I care about Lucas’s narrative? Like seriously why should I care? Not to sound dismissive but a genuine curiosity? Man sold it for one thing and the EU and the fans that made it showed Star Wars was may more then his narrative at some point.

If anything Star Wars moved beyond Lucas’s narrative even before he sold it. Even from a grande perspective his narrative stopped mattering in some sense the minute A New Hope arrived and became a hit.

Oh, you're free not to care about it.

But the fact remains:

When Lucasfilm creatives promote new content, they’ll use George as an authority figure to legitimize what they say.

Big chunks of the fandom do the same by using Lucas’ words to make authority arguments on why they believe the new films and the current direction of the franchise is good or bad.

Seeing as there seems to be a general consensus that Lucas’ word holds some power, I'd rather set the record straight on what he actually stated and intended.

You totally can just say “death of the author, what Lucas intended or what he said outside the movies doesn’t matter, what matters is what’s actually on screen” and I’d have nothing to counter that argument with because this is a subjective stance. We can debate its merits, but that’d result in a much larger discussion about the place of authorial intent in fiction.

But again, you can discard my posts and analyses by simply saying:

“I don’t care what Lucas stated, I’m a free-thinker and I can interpret any movie I watch however I want.” 

At which point, the only answer I can give you is “cool, good for you”. 

You wouldn’t be the only person I’ve met who takes this approach, either. I have friends who are older than me, saw the Original Trilogy films in theaters and felt Lucas’ dropped the ball as early as Episode VI: Return of the Jedi or the Special Editions, let alone the Prequel films. These friends don’t put Lucas on the same pedestal as everyone else seems to do, and flat out tell me:

“David, either the Jedi are the problem or the Prequels are bad, I don’t care what Lucas was going for, the result is crap and the only thing that makes it all have some degree of sense is that interpretation.”

And I mean… what do I say to that? What can you say to that? That’s a personal interpretation of a movie, it’s not an opinion that’s less valid than anyone else’s. 

But when I’m taking this approach, I’m not saying “your read of the movie is inferior to that of George Lucas” (unless you confer some degree of power to his word, as the creator of the franchise).

All I’m saying is “Lucas’ message was X”. 

You can agree with the message, you can disagree with the message, the message may be factually/morally/philosophically right or wrong, that’s all debatable. 

I’m just pointing out that, when you look at all the data and you go by what George Lucas stated, it’s X, not Y, like most of the fandom and even authors of the franchise seems to keep stating.

Finally, on a personal note:

I don't like the fact that every time I see my childhood heroes on screen, nowadays, they're portrayed as protocol-worshipping stoic assholes.

I don't like that 90% of the fandom thinks that's how they're meant to be seen when the data demonstrates it's not.

I don't like that the reason my childhood heroes keep being portrayed in this uncharitable light is because the fans from the generation prior to mine - whom these characters weren't meant for - wanted to ensure that their childhood hero, Luke Skywalker, would be preserved as "the ultimate Jedi" and concluded that the only way to do so would be to reframe the Prequel Jedi as dogmatic and emotionless.

So now the OT fans have Luke, the Sequel fans have Rey, the TCW fans have Ahsoka... all unsullied protagonists.

Whereas pro-Jedi PT fans need to mentally ready themselves for when Lucasfilm decides to release the nth "Windu was more strict than a droid" case.

[babyhedonistt]

TOO CLOSE TO TOUCH - TEN

WARNING // Some themes in this chapter may not be suitable for all audiences, viewer discretion is advised

Nick stares at Noah like he was a dog with his tail between his legs. He had been caught, but Noah was not quite sure he feels guilty about what he did.

Because he didn’t.

“How long have you known?” Noah asked him.

“Known what?” He sighs, throwing his hands up.

“How long you have had your eyes on her or how long you two have been sneaking around?”

“Either at this point Nick. You’re not acting like yourself.”

“No. I am acting like myself. It’s just the first time you’ve actually pulled your head out of your ass to actually see it. Ever since you started hanging out with her again, you haven’t bothered to pay attention to the rest of us. Your band. Your brothers.”

“That doesn’t give you a right to separate us. You’re not her older brother and you’re not my Dad. I thought if I were to get involved with anyone, you’d be happy it was her.” Noah scoffed.

“It’s not that I’m unhappy Noah. I just don’t like how even though she’s higher on your priority list, you still don’t treat her like it.”

Ouch.

That hurt more because Noah knew he was right.

“I’ve never been in a serious relationship before.” Noah admits. “So you think it gives you free range to pick Folios sister of all people to fuck around with.”

“I didn’t fuck her.”

“Doesn’t mean you weren’t planning on it.” Nick shot back. Noah swallowed the dryness in his throat.

“I’m sorry. About the NDA. Truly, but I figured it would be the easiest option to suggest to Matt to get through our tour. And then Folio got hurt…… she took the position. Shit just got messy… Noah I really wanted you two to be together, but I didn’t want it to fuck the band up to a point the fans would start noticing. How would that look?”

Nick wasn’t wrong. In fact, Nick is never wrong, factually, at least. Morally on the other hand, he had to have been the worst offender next to Noah.

The room filled with silence, the two of them soaking in each others words before Noah finally broke the silence. “I haven’t been putting this band first. I thought I was doing that when I finished the rest of the album, I guess it wasn’t enough.” He sighs

“Noah, you’re the lead singer dude. You already carry so much responsibility and I don’t think we cut you enough slack. But, a girl can’t just come in and fuck that shit up when we have stuff we need to get done.”

“She’s different Nick. I feel like there’s a fire inside of me when I’m around her.”

“And if you don’t contain it you’re going to get burnt. You haven’t even told Folio how you feel about her. He’s one of your best friends and he’s in the dark. “

“I know..” Noah sighs.

Nick walks over and slaps Noah on the back comfortingly. “Jolly’s known for a bit too dude. Expecting him to keep that secret? A lot on him too.”

Noah’s realization of his stupid actions finally caught up with him as be planted his face in his hands. “ I’m sorry, Nick.”

Nick pulled Noah up from the seat and embraced his friend in a tight hug. “I’m sorry I fairly kicked your ass.” He jokes and a light laugh escaped Noah’s lips. “I let you win mother fucker.” He slaps his back lightly.

“Cmon dude. We have a show to do. It’s our last one.” Nick smiles before the door to the dressing room opens and Jolly peaks his head in. “You guys coming?”

The two nodded as the three of them met you backstage. You felt Noah’s large hands grasp each side of your hips, his front against your back, and warmth spread across your cheeks before you rest the back of your head on his chest. “Everything good?” You asked, looking down at his tattooed hands. You hear him sigh in your ear before clearing his throat. “Yeah. It will be.” He says before the lights dimmed in the pit of the audience.

The crowd went insane. You were used to being in front of the large fan base that Bad Omens had. Something about Noah's hands being secured on your hips, almost reassured that he was right about everything being okay.

Granted, given everything that has happened already, you weren't sure it was capable of getting worse.

The beginning of the show went as expected. You performed the usual set list. The crowd seemed to be higher in energy today, perhaps due to the fact that it was the last show of the tour.

The crowd eventually settled through the show; the energy seemed more positive compared to how you left the boys. Nick and Noah actually made eye contact and it didn't look like they wanted to kill each other.

You thought everything was going well, until Noah began talking to the crowd between songs.

You could see him at the front of the stage, holding the microphone in front of his mouth while his sweat-dosed hair hung over his eyes. The makeup covered his bruises well, if anything it added to his on stage persona. The more you watch Noah perform, the more you could see the differences between the real Noah and the person he makes himself into for the sake of his fans.

"So. How many of you know a song called ' Just Pretend '? "

The crowd went expectedly loud with an uproar. Noah held the microphone with both of his hands as he quickly looked back at you at the top of the stage behind the drum set. You sent a half smile down to him, and it seemed as if you gave him the confidence he needed.

He turned his attention back to the crowd before he continued. "For the second half of this tour, our drummer Folio had an unfortunate accident which handicapped him temporarily from performing on stage with us."

The crowd was awed as Jolly and Nick bobbed their head. "But. In Folio's absence, our band was saved by a talented drummer who is fortunately here to fill in for her brother while he heals."

You felt your heart in your throat and the air felt almost too thick to breathe through your nose. What the hell was he doing? The feeling seemed to be mutual between the four of you because Jolly and Nick turned their heads up to you, their eyes looking at you for some form of answer as to why Noah was doing what he was doing. Unfortunately you weren't much help for them.

"Her name is Y/N. She's one of the closest people in my life, and one of the biggest inspirations for many of the songs this band sings. Including this one, Just Pretend."

Authors Note: Hope you enjoyed this chapter <3 Lots of love, as always.

@Flowery-mess

@Lizzyanthony3

@Darkmxgician

@Blackveilomens

@Jilliemiw86

@Skulliecadaver-blog

@Starvingarsyn

@Laurpartyprogram

@badomensls

@Lma1986

@sammyjoeee

[cross-my-heartt]

I am so sorry for prattling on about this but I'm a million miles down the Crosshair rabbit hole and I WANT TO HUG THIS MAN SO BADLY.

I'm supposed to make this post about all the reasons Crosshair had for wanting to stay with the Empire in season one right? And I wanted to make it solely based on the information he has (from his limited pov) without involving morality or the role his personal biases play in his decision.

I decided to leave all that for another post. Look at just what he has to work with from a factual standpoint for now.

But then I was going through Aftermath and it's so interesting to hear what Crosshair has to say about the Republic and the Empire. I mean sure, he has his chip then but some of the things he says don't sound like chip talk and are all stuff he echoes when he's free of it.

And oh my god, the level of cynicism of this man. I am going to make a full post about it but there's just something heartbreaking when you think about how distrustful and paranoid and just pessimistic he is.

The reason the batch desert is because they believe the Empire is worse than the Republic. If Crosshair doesn't because he's naive that means he believes that's false, that the Empire is just as good as, if not better, than the Republic.

Except that Crosshair is the opposite of naive. He's not naive he's cynical because to him, the Republic was just as bad as the Empire.

To Crosshair the world is a sh*tty and merciless place. The Republic couldn't be trusted, the Empire can't be trusted, leaving either is a death sentence (and is he really wrong? just how many times do the batch have a close brush with death after they desert and survive for the sole reason that Crosshair is on the other side?), the rest of the galaxy is dangerous and the only way to survive is selling your skills for the basic right to live.

You're on your own (nobody wants to help you right? the regs rarely did. the Kaminoans saw you as an experiment. the Republic sent you on suicide missions) and the only thing you have is the handful of people you love and the usefulness you have to offer to those who hold power over you.

This is the nature Tech spoke about - that unyielding cynicism, that perpetual harsh distrust that paints the word in such a brutal light.

And all of this makes the rage he feels at the end of the Outpost so much more impactful. Because Crosshair played the game. He felt like he saw through every slimy institution that ever threatened to wipe him and his family out, he did what was necessary, he calculated the risks, he took all the facts into account and still, still, the universe crouched down, looked him dead in the eye and spat in his face.

And I honestly don't know how you even begin to recover from a blow like that.