#and often contradictory

[metanarrates]

for real i think that ascribing even a significant percentage of kim dokja and yoo joonghyuk's feelings and actions towards each other as being motivated by romantic love will HEAVILY flatten your understanding of their relationship. there's so much going on there - projection, rivalry, frustration, admiration, feelings of betrayal in many cases, comradeship, alienation, understanding, desire to save and protect - that loses a lot of its complexity through a standard shipping lens. and I'm saying this AS a yhk shipper. i think their relationship at the end of the story could meaningfully translate to a romantic connection but there's so many other things going on besides that!

[angelellipsis-devilofdots]

since autism often involves strict planning and routine whereas adhd often cannot function under such plans and routines, do audhd people have two wolves inside them who are constantly fighting like. "we NEED a plan" and "there will be NO PLAN or there will be NO MOTIVATION"

[gayofthefae]

Redemption is about remorse: Steve Harrington vs Martin Brenner

Steve Harrington is a famous example of a very successfully redeemed character. Martin Brenner is commonly misinterpreted as the writers attempting to even slightly redeem a character and failing - I categorically disagree with this idea as a nuanceless interpretation of what is actually the writers communicating "no attempt by the character to redeem himself is enough to make up for his actions".

But what is the actual difference between this attempt at redemption towards other characters and the audience vs an attempt at redemption towards other characters but not the audience?

Remorse.

Steve-

My favorite scene of Steve's redemption is when he comes to Jonathan's house to apologize, the moment, of course, but specifically one detail: He was surprised to see Nancy there.

As writers, they made sure to erase any possible doubt as to his motives. That surprise was a clarifier saying: this was not for her in any way shape or form. His story to him was as follows:

He was cheated on by his first love. He then ran into her with the guy she cheated on him with, who he insulted a bit out of anger. He also, however, insulted his mother's mental illness, his brother's death, and even brought queerness into it. But after sitting with it, he felt bad for his comments, and he went to The Byers' house with the intention to see solely Jonathan to apologize for what he said because though he was rightfully angry over being cheated on, insulting his family let alone a recent death in his family was majorly crossing a line and Jonathan was owed an apology for that. He went to Jonathan's house believing that Nancy had cheated on him with Jonathan, that she would not be there, and that she would have no reason to ever find out he even apologized in the first place.

My point is no room was left up to interpretation that he had ulterior motive to get her back. There is no version of that story because of his surprise in which he was going over there to say 'look how nice and cool I am Nancy - apologizing to Jonathan'. The same is true of him cleaning the sign. She would have no means of knowing he did that and he didn't seem to intend on telling. He didn't do it to show off, he did it so the sign would be gone faster. He didn't apologize to seek absolution from his guilt, he apologized to minimize the pain he had caused. The key is that in both cases, specifically relative to Nancy - the only person who could give him any sort of reward he valued for this effort - he was fully willing and intending to repay his actions completely anonymously.

His remorse was genuine as it was motivated by a desire to repair what he had broken, not a desire to rid himself of the burden of guilt or to seek reward for his growth.

Brenner-

Brenner does not display remorse like this. The way they balance this representation is by showing him displaying occasional objectively moral acts like sacrificing one's life, but not only having him lack remorse or apology, but immediately following by re-emphasizing his beliefs about himself.

Where Steve was redeemed via remorse, Brenner feigned redemption by defending his actions aka lacking all remorse. Steve was redeemable because he communicated 'what I did was wrong and I will stop doing it'. Brenner believed himself redeemable but we were never supposed to because they purposefully emphasized, just like they specified Steve's surprise, that as Brenner died, his final words were to defend his actions.

Steve's final act in season 1 was to alter his behavior and apologize without ulterior motive. Brenner's final act was to tell El that he had actually always been in the right and never done anything wrong. In the statement he made, he never even acknowledged responsibility for the harm he caused - whether he might have felt it or not. He only verbalized sentiments about how he tried his best and was well intentioned.

The way to redeem a character is not for them to believe they are in the right. It is for them to acknowledge that they are in the wrong. This polar opposite also proves that Brenner was not intended to be redeemed here and failed, as the writers used the opposite tactic to their known successful one.

Brenner and Steve both seemed to experience guilt, but guilt does not absolve, it is how you react to it that's important. Both also pursued some sort of apology to their victims, but the key difference here is motive. Steve's apologies had the intention of rescinding his words and minimizing damage caused. Brenner's apology had the sole intention of receiving forgiveness.

Steve apologized to heal pain he caused. Brenner apologized to find peace in death.

Brenner's apology was SELFISH. THAT is why it doesn't work and why it is SO important that she did not provide him with that forgiveness. His sole intention was to free himself of guilt, not free her of pain. A good apology like Steve's is something you provide someone. Brenner's is so overtly selfish that by the end he even repeatedly demands something from her.

"Tell me you understand. Please tell me you understand."

Steve sought to act and leave, apologize and leave. He saw apologies as a gift - something you give and receive nothing back for, and that does not need to be accepted by the person you give it to. Brenner saw them as transactions. He provided Eleven with the currency of apology with the sole intention of receiving back the service of absolution. We know this because was Steve cleaned the sign, he left immediately and anonymously without receiving reward. When Brenner did not receive his reward, he desperately requested it repeatedly.

It was not an attempt to redeem him, in fact, it was purposefully written as one of the most dislikable qualities: a combination of believing one can do no wrong and expectancy of reward for any moral actions.

Gift, Anonymity vs Excuse, Demand

"I just wanted to apologize- Nancy? What are you doing here?"

"I only ever wanted what was best for you. Please tell me you understand."

[lonestardust]

carlos' eyes in the meeting room........ carlos' eyes at the hospital..... at the IC room..... his guts are boiling with hot rage!!! this very stubborn hope. it's in the clench of his jaw since the funeral. the lump in his throat that he swallows back every time because that's how the gut-wrenching vestige of murder that hasn't received its justice yet feels like."i see it now. the eyes.." because that's the glimpse of the resolute unswerving gabriel in him that echos 'if there are tears to weep we do it when the time comes, not before'. you grief but you don't get defeated when there is still work to do in order to rest in that grief. and GODDD carlos is so righteously resolved about getting there. i want him so so bad to solve the case. finally bring that retribution and avenge his family and himself. he's been in the waxing and waning throes for too long he only deserves the purgation and finality of it more than anything!!!!!

because no way all of this relentless endeavour and sharp stubborn wit would culminate to anything but cracking it. even storytelling wise that would be disheartening not to bring it to its desired ends. because imagine. all this time carlos was so right about the rangers from the start. then he looped in. was kept so close under their wing. and then he now realises that he wasn't really truly '''stuck''' but he was trapped and misled instead and it's all tumbling down now over their heads and he's seeing through the cracks. finally the darkness makes sense and he can move in action through the pinnacle and into the resolution!!!

[chaos-in-one]

The way that people on tik tok in particular will get so incredibly MAD if you don't explicitly hate whatever niche group of people 90% of people irl have never even heard of will forever be wild to me

Like it happens on most socials to some extent, but I see it a lot more often on tik tok where people will get angry if you even just don't give a fuck, literally any opinion other than explicitly hating them

[wuhoh]

The intermission in the new tadc episode is my favorite thing to come out of the show tbh

[seoafin]

Anybody interested in the moralization of desire and porn, desirability politics, or just any text that confronts popular narratives of sex and porn and deconstructs them in an easily digestible way should read a right to sex by amia srinivasan

[sskk-manifesto]

Sure Akutagawa... 🤨

[wackywatchdotcom]

i think with how pomni is shown to dissociate that it is easily assumed that its always a big deal but frankly she probably spends a lot of time at least a little out of it and i also wonder if she gets like. hyperaware of this

[noisytenant]

Being reminded once again that a lot of people have fucking sleeper cell agent triggers that make them instantly fail to see the human being in front of them, regardless of any personal history they have or any rapport. instantly, that person is an Enemy that cannot be reasoned with. Permanent fight or flight.

And that instead of this being seen as, you know, a rather maladaptive attitude to bring to your relationships that will permanently strip you of the capacity to experience full love and companionship, there is a dominant strain of thinking that this is a reasonable, righteous, moral good.

That a "boundary" looks like building an impenetrable wall that nobody can see but you; That conversation, negotiation, and collaboration aren't just avoided--They're treated with contempt. The very notion of trying to understand why another human being that you care about may suddenly act in an unpleasant or even monstrous way is spat upon and trampled underfoot. Complete abandonment is considered a first line of defense rather than a last resort.

I think we all need to do our best to get over this kind of thinking. And I don't mean that we should be push-overs; In actuality, moving away from this kind of rigid "boundary" often means advocating for yourself and fighting for what you think is right. I think we all deserve friends and allies who can compassionately challenge us when we adopt ways of thinking and behaving that hurt others without immediately assuming the worst.

[uncanny-tranny]

I wonder if the discontentment some people have with their gender stems from the contradictions in expectation for their gender.

I mentioned this in passing, but as a man, I've found there's this simultaneous expectation to be hyperindependent and hyperindividualistic while also being concerned about if the people around you accept your masculinity or manhood. It's an interesting paradox to both be expected not to care but also to care so deeply that it alters how you see yourself. It's the contradiction of hyperveneration and hyperscrutiny and, even, hatred of manhood.

This isn't even touching on the intricacies of nonbinary and intersex experiences with the way people enforce these (cissexist) contradictions of what you "should" be.

[gyokutoll]

I shouldn’t be typing this up on mobile after my work out but fuck it we ball. Dash talk inspired me to discuss the types of men Hotaru likes and I’m rolling the thoughts around in my head like a marble because I’m not sure if there’s actually a good word, or series of traits for it.

I don’t really believe Hotaru has any aesthetic preferences. Maybe sharper features comes to mind but that’s so? It’s such a non-thing nor something he really thinks about. Because Hotaru is frequently judged for his appearance due to his work, he’s not inclined to judge others by their appearance. Especially not after Sadao. He knows that appearances are deceiving and just because someone looks like what you’d want doesn’t mean that they actually are.

So that’s where I really struggle to verbalize Hotaru’s type. I think his type is rooted somewhere in stability. This isn’t even necessarily meaning mentally stable nor having a full time job or anything like that. Which is even weirder to try and explain. By stability, I mean rooted in something. Whether it be a belief, a conviction, a cause. There has to be something a man needs to anchor himself to. It can be tangible like a career or intangible like an idea or principle, even if morally ambiguous. Hotaru doesn’t see himself as a person worth loving, and this low self esteem and belief that humans are inherently self-serving fuels this flexibility in his type.

Hotaru isn’t above developing feelings for someone who does illegal things which is insane when you consider that Hotaru is just Some Guy. Horaru also doesn’t have the expectation that he’ll be romantically loved in any meaningful way, and because of that, he’s more inclined to fall for someone on the basis of sincerity and earnestness. They don’t need to be morally perfect or even socially acceptable, but if there’s a genuine care there, he’s willing to overlook a lot.

And it begs the question of whether or not this makes him saintly, desperate, or self-loathing. I think the most important component of being a saint is being a martyr, if you understand what I’m getting at. I think it can be all of those things at once.

Hotaru also isn’t closeted or shy about admitting that he’s gay. I’m not going to get into the long winding road of queer history, especially not one pertinent to a culture I myself don’t necessarily belong to. But I will say that there are countless sources which cite hook ups as prevalent in the culture amongst gay men. Hotaru partook in this culture years ago and burnt himself out on it. I bring this up because it makes dating other men very difficult when going to bars because a lot of times it’s to take the edge off. The unfortunate reality is that Hotaru has slept with men with wives and girlfriends and men who didn’t want anything from him except for a night.

Hotaru isn’t inclined to try gay bars again due to that and because the time he did landed him with Sadao. It’s a very complex situation with decades of communal trauma and the limbo of rights and representation in a country like Japan.

Hotaru has no expectation of romance and has a host of intimacy issues that I think makes his type very nebulous. Hotaru is past the age where aesthetic is a concern of his and he’s almost sort of. Post conventional morality. Again, I’m tired from my work out and don’t know how eloquent I am in explaining this. There are a lot of cultural nuances here in the culture of gay men and not only gay men, but Japanese culture that requires at least 12 cited sources and a Japanese sociologist with an emphasis in LGBTQIA+ study lmao. I’m almost half debating if I want to start citing things for these more sociologically-oriented analyses so it doesn’t seem like I’m talking out of my ass.

But it’s all to say that, due to the culture and trauma that Hotaru bears, he does not carry this inherent expectation of acceptance. He is used to being an object of desire due to his work and the fact that he’s still young and beautiful. But he’s tired of being an object of desire and rather wants to be desired and known and accepted in sincerity, which does not lend itself to an aesthetic type or even the conventional classes of person we come to expect in romantic conversations.

I really need to shut up because I’m getting so technical and in the weeds here you’d reasonably think I’m doing circuitry, but Hotaru reads as sex and romance positive ace, which already fundamentally changes his relationship to the idea of romance as opposed to other people not on that spectrum.

It ultimately results in someone who interfaces with romance and potential romantic candidates differently. This isn’t even to say that Hotaru doesn’t want love and is above it, but rather to say that the complexities of his trauma, employment, sexuality, and intimacy crisis beneath capitalism result in a person with a more conceptual type than any solid image that can be constructed.

[nancywheeeler]

you know your series is running out of steam when you're reprinting the entirety of "the raven" in the fifth book

[diaries-of-a-deadbeat-dyke]

DC needs to pick one person to write Jason for like 5-10 uninterrupted years. Let someone actually make a character with him. Y’know. A consistent personality, consistent traits, an actual moral framework to work with. It’s gonna be divisive and people are gonna piss their pants if he isn’t a tragic softboy victim who does no wrong but whatever, grow up. Commit to something. He’s just not anything and never has been post-resurrection, despite having nothing but interesting potential. Let someone do something with him, and make it stick.

[sunfoxfic]

"There are a lot of complicated reasons why fandom tends to focus on male characters and ignore female characters" and "fandom focusing on male characters and ignoring female characters is a product of misogyny" are two sentiments that can and should coexist