#and like i am far from a w&c apologist

[emmashouldbewriting]

Kensington Palace is not their private residence, it’s still their official residence. And while it probably would’ve needed to be renovated anyway I doubt it would been as expensive if no one was moving in to live. William grew up at KP, he knew what it was like so why then accept it in the first place when they were planning on having children?

I know you may disagree and that’s fine — but they knew they couldn’t justify their move which is why they sneaked it by with only announcing the children’s school and nothing else. Nothing is known about who pays for the cottage, it’s an assumption that it’s with duchy money but they haven’t said. It’s also not known how much, or even if they pay for it. I suspect it’s a lot less than market value hence no transparency. It also meant moving their security detail from London to Windsor which is an extra cost on the public. And considering how detrimental it’s been to William’s work and the imagery of his homelessness projects while having 4-5 homes… I have many thoughts about this move and honestly not many of them are kind.

Okay, so KP is their official residence - then that doesn't really count to me. It's essentially a live-in office. They still have staff that work and reside there, so I really don't think that's as a big a deal as people make it out to be. William probably chose it for that reason - it's a place close to him, but he also knows how effective it is for the work they wish to carry out.

They could justify their move to Windsor, they just chose not to, and tbh that's the worst thing they could have done. They really did just have to say, "We've decided this is the best school for our children for their long-term education," and that really would have been the end of it. Who's going to say "Oh no, stay at KP, who cares about education?" lmao

It doesn't look good, I completely agree, but only because they have a tendency to just do things and not think through the ramifications of it/how they'll be perceived, and that's a major issue for them. And I'll die on that hill. So they have a live-in office, an estate William will one day own anyway, and rent (?) a cottage on another royal estate that's already well-protected. (Am I missing a house? I might be. I feel like I am lol)

On the other hand, nobody really complains about Charles and Camilla having two private houses *not on royal estates* that they disappear off to separately every now and then aside from everything else. I'm sure the cost of that security for their private time is more than it is for W&C on the Windsor estate for the sake of childrens' education 🤷🏻‍♀️

[bengiyo]

Shuffle your on-repeat playlist and then list the first ten songs!*

*any playlist on any platform will do!

I was tagged by @troubled-mind and @lurkingshan. I suppose it's time to see how much synthwave has taken over my listening. I use Spotify, but I'll leave links to YouTube for easier access.

Can't Stop Falling in Love - W O L F C L U B - This is definitely a byproduct of basically doing mixes of The Midnight, who are probably my favorite current band. I love the simplicity of this song's lyrics and the strength of the drums underpinning the emotions.

Into the Light - J.Views (feat. Wildclub) - I just really love the vocals of this so much. It's a song about being a bit lost in yourself and finding your way out through another person, and then going forward together. I don't think this song has left my On Repeat in over three years.

Los Angeles - The Midnight - I really love when songs about cities feel really specific to them. This feels like an homage to nights in LA in a way that I find makes me yearn for a place I've never been outside of movies. The Midnight have been the first band to really shake up my listening habits in a long time.

Summer Love - Trevor Something - This is another byproduct of The Midnight listening. I like this song because a lot of songs about summer love sound like they're for teenagers, but this feels adult in a nostalgic way. Do the 20 somethings even drop acid anymore?

Dawn / Sea - Dem Yuut - I don't think this song will ever leave this playlist. There's something so honest about admitting you wanna know "what it feels like when you can't quit it."

1984 (Reprise) - Siamese Youth - The primary appeal of synthwave and outrun is 80s nostalgia. I was born in the 90s, but many of my favorite movies were made in the 80s and there's a sense constantly that things took a turn after that.

Seasons (Waiting on You) - Future Islands - If I don't see them live in the next few years I will lose my cool. Prior to COVID, Future Islands spent most of their time on the road, and many of their songs are about how they feel distant from all of the people they love. Sam Herring has a knack for poetry in his lyrics, and I often think about the line "People change, but you know some people never do. You know when people change, they gain a peace but they lose one too."

Gloria - The Midnight - They were bound to show up multiple times on this list. This song kind of feels like a high in the midst of a manic episode.

Sleepwalker - The Wallflowers - This one is kind of surprise. I don't remember listening to The Wallflowers that much recently. I love Jakob's voice, and I think I was amused by his reference to Sam Cooke's song Cupid in this track.

Ran - Future Islands - My biases remain so consistent. Most of the time this is my favorite Future Islands song. It's hard to love people when you're far away from them, and I like the way this song captures that from the perspective of a band always on the road.

That was a lot of fun! I am kinda glad that some of my classic obsessions haven't been completely shoved out by The Midnight, and also surprised by the Wallflowers making an appearance on this playlist. Spotify is so weird sometimes.

I'll tag @twig-tea , @waitmyturtles, @so-much-yet-to-learn , @shortpplfedup , @liyazaki , @meteorjam , @negrowhat , and @parralex0889 , @wen-kexing-apologist , @happypotato48

[enderspawn]

It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?

Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this

i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.

to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore

so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).

in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)

so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.

NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"

techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.

in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)

one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.

but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.

for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)

the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.

to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.

thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.

now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.

techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.

when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.

however its more nuanced than that:

1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.

2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.

3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.

Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:

1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)

2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it

but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.

what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.

so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?

personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.

(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)

so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.

what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"

this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:

i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?

there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).

but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.

if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.

if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.

miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:

would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.

but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.

your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.

part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it

[masked-puppetmaster]

hey, i saw you asked a while ago why dream & techno apologists are apologists for those characters (and you liked a bunch of my posts concerning that, actually) i was wondering if you still have any more questions - and also i wanted to ask if you wanted to talk a bit about c!tommy and what makes you like him so much? like is it just the emotional attachment to him? is it the trauma? anything specific about the way in which he is written? i've always watched his pov & i'm very curious! / - red

yo yo yo hey! I think I understand it a bit more now, for the dream & techo apologists, I think I’m still a bit confused when it comes to technoblade. I see a lot about people only using him as a weapon/ him not being able to trust people / no one sticking up for him and I’m not sure where it comes from? In all fairness, I only know him as the guy who executed Tubbo / spawned withers but im assuming that’s in large part because I came into the story so late (iirc I didn’t really get into the dsmp until around doomsday, and I got most information of past events just by like. osmosis or reading wikis) so I might simply just not have enough information on techno to get it. Like, he executed Tubbo under a lot of pressure iirc but that doesn’t take away from the fact he did execute him? or things with the withers, I know technoblade doesn’t like the government and I’d go as far as to say he has a point, but was it really necessary to destroy lmanburg (iirc, multiple times). I know he was mad, but I feel like he shouldn’t have taken in that far, like from what I see and understand it’s like yes he had his points but he hurt people and doesn’t seem to care that he hurt anybody, just kinda stands there assuming he’s right about everything and not rlly looking at the situation from anyone else’s perspective. That being said like I said I came into the story really late and so my arguments might be able to be chalked up to just a lack of proper context, and even if I’m kinda annoyed at Technoblade’s behavior I still like him as a character & when techno does stream I enjoy the content so I’m not like a technoblade hater or anything I just don’t see why people can be apologists for him bcos from my pov he’s just kind of hurt people and not taken any personal responsibility for it (I mean this as in acknowledging to himself he was ever in the wrong; ex. The whole Tommy / techno betrayal situation which I think was a p complicated matter to be fair he just keeps saying over and over how Tommy betrayed him and it doesn’t seem to me like he’s even bothering to look at the situation from Tommy’s pov or rlly reflect on his own actions at all)

I just rlly like Tommy! I think at least some part of it can be chalked up to Tommy being the first streamer I watched in the dsmp and one of the ones I watch the most from (half the time I’m watching the dsmp it’s a Tommy stream) so there’s just gonna be some inherent bias towards him there like there is with literally any of these streamers. As you put it, it is kinda the trauma, haha. trauma and emotional attachment lol. I think part of it is I relate to him a lot, and I can see where he’s coming from on a lot of things, and I also just like the way his character is written. Smthn abt him that people have pointed out is that his trauma isn’t pretty and romanticized it’s ugly and yk he acts out and all that, which I appreciate. I can see where he’s coming from on a lot of things or at least understand why he thinks the way he does. I like seeing him learn and grow I like seeing his arcs both personally with himself and with other people. He’s an interesting and complex character and he’s been through a lot and I think it’s just super interesting to see how what he’s gone though affects his mental state and his actions as a character, like just from like a mental analysis standpoint there’s a lot to talk about which I think is pretty cool. this isn’t to say that he’s never fucked up or done anything wrong, because he has, but to be fair so has everyone else on this server I don’t think there’s a single member of the server who’s done nothing wrong (except maybe like. Charlie. Charlie my beloved). He’s made his mistakes but every good character fucks up that’s what makes them a good character is their flaws and so with the ways that he’s messed up and the ways he’s hurt people I’m an apologist because I can see why he acts that way, where the feelings and actions are coming from and I can forgive him for it because I understand the why. Also I just think the punishments he’s received for his actions are rlly unfair, easy ex with exile he did something many people on the server have already done at one point or another and was exiled and mentally broken down over it and rlly it’s just been like one thing after another and even if he’s made mistakes he gets way more harshly punished than I think was fair. I’ve seen people talk about how annoying and selfish his character is and when I read the posts (not all of them, there’s a nice chunk of people who are civil about it) it just seems like they’re not rlly thinking abt his character and his experiences. I’ll see people explain his signs of trauma and say it’s annoying because it’s not soft crying trauma it’s messy acting out trauma which it’s just like you do not understand this at all, do you? Or with the discs, I’ll be honest with you here. I will defend Tommy’s attachment to these stupid little music discs till the day I die. Why can’t he have his discs? They’re his , they’re not even that valuable outside of the fact that they’re his, why can’t he have things? why isn’t he aloud to have items he’s attached to without someone taking them for the sole reason of he likes them. And all I see is people saying he is selfish and cares about the discs more than people, which is literally disproven in the rp. Ranboo flat out says he’s not selfish, when Tommy takes the blame for George’s house (also keeping in mind here tommy and ranboo barely knew each other at the time, and if Tommy was actually selfish he could’ve very easily dragged Ranboo down with him) and when it comes to the discs he’s given up the discs multiple times in favor of helping other people (he gave them up for lmanburg, and then for Tubbo I think twice actually) and the one time he told someone the discs were worth more than they were, that was the moment yeah made him realize he didn’t like who he was becoming and he immediately backtracked and allowed the disc to be handed over. TL;DR he’s not selfish he’s just got a lot of strong attachments and his attachments are both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. And he’s a kid, he’s been though a lot of things, he’s got a lot of trauma he’s dealing

with and it’s not always pretty but he gets better, he has his arcs and he gets better and learns from some of his actions, and I think looking at him and his yk. Timeline and character development and arcs and his whole like mental deal and just general character choices are super interesting and I find it fun, as someone who enjoys character analysis, and all in all I love him I relate to him in some ways and some of it also might just be emotional attachment and bias towards him as Tommy being one of my comfort streamers

& it’s fully possible someone could have just as much of an argument for c!techno, my deal w looking at c!tommy making mistakes and c!techno making mistakes and being able to be an apologist for Tommy and not for techno is more about me understanding tommy’s character better and understand the reasoning and the why behind the things he says and does, vs. techno who i dont really get and i can’t be an apologist for him if I don’t understand anything hes doing or why he’s doing it and then seeing him over and over dismiss other peoples perspectives and never rlly reflecting on himself (not to say Tommy couldn’t use at least a little of that himself- I am Looking over at his relationship w Jack Manifold lol) can be kinda frustrating but as I said earlier that might just be me not knowing all the proper context

I could probably write more about Tommy especially when it comes to the whole technoblade vs Tommy thing but this post is already way longer than you probably ever wanted to read so I’ll stop now I’m sorry I’m just hyperfixated haha and yk if anyone wants to like add arguments or points or if you or someone rlly likes technoblade or dream or whoever and wants to talk to me about that go ahead I encourage that like I rlly enjoy having those conversations w ppl provided theyre civil abt it bc like we’ve all said a million times over before eveyone in the dsmp is an unreliable narrator and you’re just going to automatically have a bias towards a character if you watch their POV most and all that so. Yk I am a tommy apologist but I watch his streams most and I’m also just emotionally attached so anything I can say has to be taken w a grain of salt bcos I’m biased towards his character

[loser-lenny]

The syndicate/unknown syndicate member?

the syndicate is kind of a hard thing for me to really get into for a few reasons.

two of the characters are some of my favorites, love them to death, i’ve spent a lot of time analyzing their characters etc. my relationship with the other two can pretty much be summed up by “i am a huge c!tommy apologist” (which has been made really evident to my followers these last few days lol)

not only that but so far, we’ve only gotten two syndicate streams, that i never really cared to rewatch, so going in depth with anything is hard. but i can name a few things that i thought were kind of cool in a bullet list style:)

dreamxd’s existence is most likely an improv bit that came around about the same way as karl being a time traveler did. his first appearance to my recollection was him logging on to break the end portal, which is what started the idea that he was some sort of god or protector

ranboo and technoblade’s relationship took a bit of a turn here that i still haven’t really been able to interpret. they from techno saving him from the egg, attempting to direct bad’s attention away from him etc to ranboo being cautious around him, techno backing ranboo up into a corner when talking about the syndicate ykykyk. dunno what happened to them

his relationship w/ phil tho makes me very happy:) the syndicate stream had a really good balance of comedy and lore, and i think one of the funniest bits they did was the thing with michael. philza frantically telling ranboo to hide him or to not let techno know about him n so on. again, is a bit of a gap in the three of their’s dynamic but yk i’m excited to see it be explored and in the meantime, it’s really funny

wasn’t going to talk about niki because i don’t know much but just to get her in here, i like her dynamic with the three of them. i’m not sure if niki has already been through a recovery arc of sorts but in any case, i’m glad that she has a glorified book club that she can go to now.

as for the fifth member, i have no idea who it is honestly. maybe it’s a new person, maybe it’s someone on the smp already i guess ?? i originally thought it was hannah but techno used he/him pronouns and shdhhd. no thoughts head empty on that one m8

[sokklare]

oh sorry !! i saw this earlier and was gonna reply later bc i was busy but i forgot abt it mb <3

thank you for this ! it was very insightful and i really don’t have much to say you make very good points

ah, nuance

“two statements can coexist” ABSOLUTELY YES

my only two cents is introducing a whole other idea - was l’manberg doomed to fail from the start?

i argue yes - and this is important due to the fact that this would mean that wilbur essentially led his citizens (largely consisting of minors like you said rip) into a fight they were never going to win

i wish i could post in that rebuttal of you talking about how while l’manberg started from something insubstantial it grew into something more but i am on tumblr mobile it is all very scuffed and i do not know how to do that please forgive me

my main point right now is that is that wilbur set his country up for failure and is therefore (at least partly) responsible for the consequences. he did this in establishing l’manberg’s morals and values - no armour and the resolving of conflict through words, primarily

these laws put l’manberg at an immediate disadvantage compared to those around them (as we’ve seen with time and time again, but i’m mainly thinking abt the first war and dream putting up the walls rn)

dream + etc were essentially free to pressure l’manberg anyway they’d liked as they had power through resources (like maxed out gear) and were always ready for violence - techno also used this to his advantage

enemies of l‘manberg could hold the country at gunpoint at basically any given time and what could they do about it?

your country has built itself up on conflict resolution through peaceful ways, but what happens when your enemies insist on violence?

your country falls, why are you surprised?

“it was never meant to be” it never Could be, it was never Allowed to be

i believe i’ve now largely departed from what was originally a c!wilbur morality discussion (oops), but i beg the question

was it moral of wilbur to lead children into a revolution against which all the odds were stacked against them? for which they could only win using the sacrifices of children?

(i’m probably missing something right there but i’m thinking about tommy duelling dream and dying, then giving up his discs, then tubbo being basically sacrificed at the festival, then tubbo being forced to exile his best friend, etc)

l’manberg could only be when people - children - suffered, and for that it could not, and should not have been

and so i guess to try and come back to the initial point in the previous posts and all, with intentions vs outcome (btw your spiel on black and white with grey was very poetic thank you), i think it comes to the point where your intentions no longer balance out your actions (in terms of good intent vs bad actions)

(i hope i’m not being redundant you may have said this and i misinterpreted or missed something oops)

(can you tell at this point i’m struggling to remember what i’ve said)

i hadn’t looked that far into wilbur and tommy’s relationship so i hadn’t realized just the extent to which wilbur could have cared for tommy but that was a good explanation especially in pointing to how wilbur likely had a sort of tunnel vision in trying to care for his loved ones

is it okay to say i’m still skeptical of how well intentioned wilbur intially was?

(i am about to become a slight dream apologist i can’t believe i’m doing this please forgive me, also my memory of the early smp events are Poor please correct me if i’m missing something)

wilbur starts l’manberg so he could sell drugs w lil brother tommyinnit (and also bc of tommy’s imprisonment which wasn’t necessarily unjust)

the declaration of independence is written, focussing on a true freedom of the people (but how were their freedoms truly obstructed in the first place? was it oppressive to say they couldn’t deal drugs? was it oppressive to imprison someone, a child, yes, on the basis of murder? - i can’t believe i’m talking this way about a fucking minecraft server)

l’manberg is created so wilbur and tommy (and the rest of the citizens who join thereafter) can escape the harm/consequences from the dsmp, despite those consequences not being unjust

so rebellion for the sake of rebellion isn’t morally justified, and technically wilbur had no real moral justification to create l’manberg in the first place

(i think i’m accidentally talking in absolutes and i hope it doesn’t come across that way)

and so while we’re all (mostly) in agreement that the outcome of wilbur’s actions were Bad, we are discussing his intentions and whether he was well-meaning or not

i guess now we’re stepping into a sort of moral relativism:

wilbur’s initial intentions stem from protecting his loved ones, but are they “good” intentions if creating that protection (ie establishing l’manberg) is perhaps unjustified and leaning towards immoral?

i myself don’t have an absolute answer but am looking forward to your response !!

I really dislike the takes saying that Wilbur was a manipulative asshole from the start, and that L'manburg was created with ill intentions.

From a meta writing standpoint, "surprise! I was an asshole all along! :D" just isn't compelling. It really takes away the impact that Wilbur's villain arc had and everything he had to deal with/went through to get to the point of snapping like that. In general it really rubs me the wrong way.

I can go on about this for ages- picking apart the revolution, L'manburg's creation, wilbur's character as a whole, just generally debunking (?) this take as best as I can but that's a post for another day.

(I didn't mean for the intro to be that long oh my god tea this a tumblr post not a fucking essay-)

Anyways one of the main defenses for the "Wilbur was always manipulative" take is the whole scene where Wilbur asks Tommy if he's dedicated to L'manburg (or specifically him pressuring Tommy to give up his embassy/live in L'manburg).

I talked about it with my homies on our discord and I thought I'd share :]

ft. your friendly tommy apologists @astro-blade @mcmoth and @morning-glory215

Translation : astro being smart as fuck while we simply cower in awe and fear /j

[zagenta]

I don't mean to be annoying, but what's wrong with liking Hamilton? you don't have to answer btw I understand if you don't want to I just want to know why

It’s… complicated… I don’t even know if I should be the one to explain it. Keep in mind that at any explanation I personally give on the situation is essentially going to be far too forgiving and apologist bc I rly like the musical. Just.. Yeah anyone reading this just keep in mind that I’m inevitably going to fall in favor w the show despite its flaws bc I suck

Anyways for anyone that doesn’t just take the show as a popular thing at face value & therefore popular = good, It’s somewhat controversial bc ppl laud it as this super diverse show full of Pee Oh Cees & but there’s also been some fair critique of the show’s possibly anti-black elements b/c it treats white racist slaveowners as cool hip guys you’d wanna spit bars with.

To be fair, the show is critical of the characters/historical figures but I can understand this criticism bc it only seems to be critical up to a point? Like. Sure Hamilton is a dick for cheating on his wife and TJ is called out for being a demon but it still glosses over some of the more unpleasant & ngl sometimes downright despicable elements of the characters/historical figures, PARTICULARLY the ones we’re supposed to root for such as Hamilton, Eliza, Mulligan, Laurens, Washington, etc.

And perhaps more worryingly although Lin claims the intent is to “put PoC back into American history” (im paraphrasing), the show erases instances we actually do appear in history, such as Mulligan’s slave Cato. Or making a kind of tacky jab at Jefferson abt Sally Hemings—which to be fair that entire song is supposed to have this dissonance between the cheery tune and how messed up TJ actually was, but it’s still… weird.

Tbh I think this was inevitably going to happen bc musicals abt revolution are rly popular but always end up being reproductions of the status quo bc the majority of ppl who support & can afford to see shows on Broadway are rich & white, they don’t want anything too challenging to their worldview.

Also Lin’s not black, he’s Puerto Rican so he has a somewhat tenuous claim to the history he’s trying to reclaim in the first place, other minorities are definitely affected by America’s racism & history but this specific part of history addresses white owners of black slaves.

And he’s using rap a historically & largely black genre to tell the story, too. I mean, there’s overlap between the experiences of the Latinx/Chicanx community and the black community, but they’re not the same. & it doesn’t really have to do with “ownership” of a genre either, but the reception to Hamilton is super off-putting bc a Latinx guy is getting all this praise from rich white ppl while they don’t give a crap abt the rest of the genre. They don’t even get all the homages in Lin’s music. (If you need proof, literally any post by a basic white person talking abt how the rap they like is abt cabinet battles unlike that “other rap” about bitches and money).

(Sidenote: I know a lot of ppl have developed negative feelings towards the musical & while that’s fair I literally give 0 fucks abt white ppl’s opinions on the show. It’s important to listen to criticism from black people definitely but they fail to treat it like the complex phenomenon it is. Too often they have annoying self-righteous superiority complexes bc they think they’re better than the nasty Pee Oh Cees who just don’t get it man.)

Tbh I’m personally unsurprised that the first real hip hop musical to be a big hit is about the whitest thing ever (remember, musicals have to hit that perfect balance of revolutionary and complacent).

Also there’s the problem with fandom too… Like… People have rightly gone “what the everloving fuck” at the realization that there’s a Hamilton fandom at all & I mean that’s completely fair. I personally don’t see a problem with like… Drawing a pretty fanart of scene you like or of Daveed in his Rad Velvet Maroon Suit, but ham fandom is just descending into this huge pile of wtf bc people ship and fangirl and look up weird minutiae abt American history to justify their headcanons and it’s just bizzaro. Also thank god it’s relatively died down bc early on it was just the biggest cesspool of disgusting racism and fetishization & apologism in the world.

“Why do you still like it, Janelle?” Because I love suffering

Now some people just like the musical for its catchiness and artistry and are rightly weirded out by the hardcore fan community, and honestly I’d recommend that approach bc ngl I’m never ever going to forgive myself for being convinced that TJ & JMads were totally a Thing™

But I like both. Honestly I like them for almost entirely different reasons. Honestly at this point if I didn’t think Hamilton was literally a Masterpiece™ I would probably end up hating it just bc there was so much discourse surrounding its hype, but I think it’s just a tribute to how catchy the songs are and how talented the cast is and just the combination of everything that I still love the show despite its problems. I know it’s not great of me but I know pretty much everyone is an apologist of something they like despite its Problems.

& the fandom in my experience is a fascinating phenomenon to me personally bc in my headspace it’s practically this entirely different entity to the musical itself? Like a lot of people think it’s cringey & it definitely is but the entire reason I still am engaged is bc I found my niche of practically a handful of close knit mutuals and Only care about Their Content, except for like… The occasional drawing. Bc our personal niche is so detached from the reality of the show or the history that it’s practically original content & has lead to some rly creative works that are much less Problematic Musical abt Demon Men but with Catchy Songs and much more along the lines of Intriguing Character Studies on the Themes of Parenting, LGBT+ Experiences & Relationships, PoC’s experiences,( and also lots and lots of self-destructive behavior)

I think Hamilton is a very interesting phenomenon. In my personal opinion even in this somewhat glorification, I’m glad Hamilton is getting people interested in history, even if people are way too excited abt it and tread the demon father’s like they were Fun Quirky Guys. I understand the horrifying response to everyones giddiness, but I don’t think it’s wrong to be excited abt history/interested in history even if it verges into dark territory, heck, learning abt history in its entirety important so we don’t glamorize the terribleness that is the past. That’s why posts abt Hamilton’s bisexuality doesn’t matter bc he was a slave owner rub me the wrong way—I mean he definitely isn’t someone we should treat as the pinnacle of ideal representation, but we should also acknowledge the totality of him as a person.

Also the show a good stepping stone that will hopefully lead to more hip hop musicals in the future. I know it being a “baby step” is a rly lame-ass excuse for why the show is good but it’s making me hopeful for the future.

Sorry abt how long this was.