#and the arguments for him being sexist are sexist themselves

[tacitusk1llwhore]

Don’t cancel me for this, y’all, but I’ve seen a lot of politically charged posts about RDR (as I should; games about outlaws and the corruption of big and small government are and always will be inherently political), but one thing has really bothered and stuck out to me the most, especially in male-dominated spaces in the fandom. The idea that the Arthur Morgan in this day and age would be a raging MAGA conservative—I’ve gotten so, so many posts about it on my TikTok today, and this is finally me snapping. Here are a few arguments I’ve heard for this. “When he hears that the Democrats want to take his guns, he’d say hell no to that.” “He’s from 1899; you really think he would vote for a Black woman?” And my personal favorite: “Arthur says in-game he doesn’t engage in politics.” I’m not going to go through each of these and explain, in detail with evidence from the games themselves, why I think these are the dumbest takes I’ve ever heard in my life. In a space I hope is more open to this discussion, I hope you’ll join me.

1.) The gun control issue. I know, I know, this one seems pretty obvious; I mean, he’s a red-blooded American man and cowboy. How could anyone possibly think for a second he’d be for the party of gun control?? While this is true, you know what’s also true? The fact that he lost a child to gun violence. Now, of course we don't know exactly how Isaac and Eliza were killed, but judging from the time and efficiency, we can assume they were shot. Now let’s get away from assumptions. Arthur mourned the loss of his son, felt the agonizing, intense pain of losing a child, and said that it changed him forever, hardened his heart. Do we really for a second think that Arthur would listen to the story of Sandy Hook, Parkland, Uvalde, and countless others and say, “No, guns are more important.”? Absolutely fucking not. Not only has Arthur felt that loss, that pain, but he is deeply empathetic; hearing the testimonials of children in these buildings, families that lost their babies, would be more than enough for him to understand and push for common sense gun laws. The erasure of Arthur Morgan's trauma of losing his son and the erasure of his empathy for children and families is rampant in political spaces of the fandom; to simply assume that because Arthur is an outlaw, in modern times he would be this “don’t tread on me.” “Cares more about guns than kids” kind of guy is asinine to me. Even if he hadn’t felt that loss and that pain, there are multiple times in the game where he is given a deeper understanding of things he has never experienced; he becomes angry at that pain inflicted, takes the mission with Charles and the Bison, and hears about the vaccines being diverted from the reservations, and the Black doctor (I think he’s a doctor) you meet in Rhodes. Once he heard these stories, these testimonials, or saw the pain, the hardship, he was quick to step in and do something to make a change. He would not value weapons over the lives of people, as we can see from the game.

2.) This one is always fun to see because it assumes that Arthur is inherently racist. Now, I’m going to state one of my least favorite but still valid arguments: he has minority friends. This is very true; look at Charles, Lenny, Javier, and Tilly. Here is why it’s one of my least favorite arguments: you can have minority friends and still be racist, sexist, homophobic… Having friends doesn’t make you antiracist, so what makes Arthur antiracist? One camp interaction stands out to me the most in regards to this, the one with Tilly when they first move south. Tilly comes to Arthur in specific to talk about how nervous she is being so far south; she understands that the south is a dangerous place for dark-skinned people, especially the location they’re in. Arthur, while he tries to soothe her, pointlessly at first, claiming that it's a good place to run from the law, also understands this, almost immediately changing his tone and telling Tilly not once but twice that e personally will keep her safe, that she has his word that he personally will keep her safe; a man that has hate in his heart for POC would not do that, ever. Another interaction is one with Lenny, where Lenny points out that Arthur wouldn’t notice the difference in the more southern states because the worst they’ll do to him publicly is say that he is friends with POC (less soft than that, watch the clips of it on YouTube if you want the full dialogue), whereas for Lenny the worst that can happen to him publicly is a lynching (which he states all the way back in chapter one where he almost was lynched). Arthur is not ignorant of racism; he knows that it exists—I hate the whole “Arthur doesn’t know about racism.” Because he does, and saying he doesn’t is an insult to his intelligence and awareness of the world around him. He knows racism exists; he personally just cannot fathom it; he cannot picture himself perpetuating racism (again, see the scene in Rhodes with the Black man), which is where I think that confusion that people say he doesn’t understand it comes from—he isn’t confused by racism; he’s confused why that man assumes he’s racist, because in his head he simply can’t fathom being bigoted.

This one has two parts, so bear with me. This also assumes that Arthur is sexist; the argument I see for this is the one-off comment he makes to the working girl at the saloon, "I didn't know I was talkin' to a lady." Was this an ok statement? No. Does it make him a raging sexist? Also no. Let's look at his relationship with Sadie; he does not underestimate her because she's a woman; he trusts in her and her abilities with unwavering confidence, so much so that he entrusts the safety of John, Abigail, and Jack to her. Now let's look at the camp interactions, one of which Arthur states that he sees no difference between men and women (bi king) and that most are bad, but some are worth loving. A man who is a raging sexist would never say something like this; he would never equate men and women, but Arthur does see them as equals. I see a lot of people point out that Arthur is far more protective of the camp girls than most, but this isn't because he sees them as less than him; he just understands that a lot of them lack the ability to fully protect themselves (Love you, Tilly and Mary-Beth). He isn't quite as protective of the women that he knows with confdence can and will protect themselves with confidence, but even then he will stick up for them if needed. Arthur Morgan is a protector of women, which is so incredibly important today and back then.

3.) Here’s my favorite. Arthur doesn’t engage in politics. Looking at this in terms of the game, he absolutely does engage in politics; he has opinions on rights and the government; that is, in fact, political—he doesn’t vote, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make political statements or isn’t even unintentionally political. Now let’s look at this in the frame of today. Being non-political in 1899 and being non-political in 2025 are two wildly different things; politics has changed drastically in the last almost decade where thngs have circled back around to be voting for or against human rights, and from my evidence above, Arthur would be voting for those rights. In modern times it is almost impossible to be nonpolitical; I dare say it's impossible. Everything now has politics attached to it; that argument is their gotcha moment because they don't understand that, which is why they make the argument in the first place.

So, why does this matter? Arthur is a pixel outlaw in a fictional setting of 1899 America. I guess in the grand scheme of life it really doesn’t, but in fandom culture it absolutely does. Many people, including myself, come to fandom spaces to escape, to cope with things from their past or events of the day, to chat about characters, and to share theories and art, and so on. Imagine someone who lost a child, sibling, or friend to gun violence logging on for their daily dose of distraction only to see someone making points as to why a character who is comforting to so many people wouldn’t care about the death of their lost loved one, just guns. A POC or member of the LGBTQ community doing the same and seeing arguments as to why Arthur is homophobic or racist. Seeing something like that is in fact harmful; taking things and stretching them to fit your narrative despite the actual source material pointing in the opposite direction requires erasure and explaining your own personal biases publicly. Someone stating that Arthur is a racist is just them stating that they themselves are a racist or that they themselves care more about guns than lives—as we’ve seen, the public stating of controversial things or overall morally reprehensible ideals when gone unchecked spirals and spreads, and soon we have a space of people who will openly state bigoted things and push the people in the fandom here for reasons of a shared enjoyment for whatever reason or the people who use things to cope or as a distraction out of the space, effectively ruining it and potentially the outlook on the content of the game. Fandom spaces shouldn’t tolerate bigotry, and lots of Red Dead fans have been expressing bigotry lately, and these people have started to go completely unchecked. It bothers me; it always will, even if it is just a silly cowboy game.

[the-badger-mole]

This idea that Zuko is sexist is an annoying and ridiculous argument that seems to have popped up out of nowhere. Whenever someone accusing him of sexism can be bothered to even pretend to have evidence of his sexism (and they usually can't be bothered to pretend), they cite his fights with Katara. Let me be perfectly clear- just because Katara happens to be a girl, doesn't make Zuko sexist for fighting her. She is presenting herself as an opponent and Zuko is responding in kind. That is the opposite of sexist. What would be sexist is if he refused to fight Katara because she's a girl. Zuko has his faults. Sexism isn't one of them, and if the people accusing him of it based on their meager evidence would pull their heads out of their butts and got a breath of fresh air, maybe they would realize how sexist their arguments are.

[swiftiethatlovesf1]

What is this feeling?

Heyy guys, I hope you enjoy this Max one-shot let me know if you want p2. If you want to read more stories of mine here's my masterlist.

In the world of Formula 1, Red Bull Racing had always been synonymous with innovation and dominance. The team’s latest bold move, however, had set the paddock abuzz—YN, the first woman in decades to race in F1, had been signed as Max Verstappen’s teammate. It was a decision that polarized fans and media alike. Max, a four-time World Champion, was less than thrilled.

“She’s untested at this level,” Max had muttered to Christian Horner during the preseason testing. “And she’s… peculiar.”

YN, on the other hand, had heard every sexist remark and skeptical murmur from the moment she stepped into the paddock. She’d grown a thick skin, but being partnered with Max Verstappen—arrogant, aloof, and undeniably brilliant—was a challenge she hadn’t entirely anticipated. From the moment they were introduced, sparks flew, and not the good kind.

“You missed the apex again,” Max’s voice crackled through the shared radio channel during practice.

YN gritted her teeth, gripping the steering wheel tightly as she took the next corner. “Thanks for the advice, Coach,” she snapped back, her tone dripping with sarcasm.

In the garage later, their tension spilled into the open.

“Maybe if you listened to me, you wouldn’t be three-tenths slower,” Max said, arms crossed and an infuriatingly smug look on his face.

“Maybe if you focused on your own setup instead of micromanaging mine, we’d both be faster,” YN shot back, glaring up at him. She wasn’t intimidated by his height, his trophies, or his reputation. Max was taken aback, momentarily at a loss for words, which only fueled her satisfaction.

Despite their mutual loathing, Christian and Helmut had made it abundantly clear—their success depended on cooperation. Red Bull’s dominance was fragile; they couldn’t afford this. And so, YN and Max found themselves paired for strategy meetings, team-building exercises, and post-race debriefs. The team’s insistence on unity only seemed to intensify their animosity.

Yet, there was something else—a charge in the air whenever they were near each other. It was an unspoken, almost forbidden undercurrent that neither wanted to acknowledge. Every argument crackled with more energy than it should have, and every accidental brush of hands or shoulders lingered just a moment too long.

During a heated argument after qualifying in Monaco, the tension boiled over.

“You can’t keep cutting me off during debriefs, Max,” YN said, her voice low but dangerous. They were standing in a narrow hallway outside the media center, their voices echoing faintly against the walls.

“Maybe if you made a valid point, I wouldn’t have to,” Max retorted, stepping closer.

“You’re such a… an asshole!” YN’s cheeks flushed with anger, her chest heaving as she met his gaze.

Max leaned in slightly, his blue eyes locked onto hers. “And you’re impossible to work with.” His voice was softer now, almost a whisper, but the intensity remained. The space between them felt electric, and for a fleeting second, YN’s breath caught in her throat. She hated how he could disarm her with just a look—hated how her heart betrayed her by skipping a beat.

“Good thing we’re not here to make friends,” she finally managed, stepping back and breaking the spell.

The tension wasn’t confined to the paddock. During a sponsor event in Austria, the two were forced to engage in a game of go-karting against a group of contest winners. Max, of course, took it as seriously as a Grand Prix, while YN approached it with her usual mix of competitiveness and charm.

“Ready to lose again?” Max teased as they lined up on the grid.

“To you? Never,” YN replied with a smirk.

The race was fierce, filled with playful jabs and a few borderline moves that had their team manager raising an eyebrow. By the end, YN managed to edge Max out by half a kart length. She jumped out of her kart, raising her fists triumphantly.

“Enjoy second place, champ!” she called, her laughter ringing out as Max approached her.

He stopped in front of her, shaking his head but unable to hide the small, begrudging smile tugging at his lips. “You’re insufferable.”

“And you’re overrated,” she shot back, but there was no venom in her voice this time. For a brief moment, their eyes met, and the world around them seemed to fade. Max’s smile faltered, replaced by something softer, more contemplative. YN quickly looked away, clearing her throat. “Anyway, I’ll be sure to remind everyone of this victory during the next press conference.”

“You wouldn’t dare,” Max said, his tone half-joking, half-serious.

She winked at him. “Watch me.”

As the season progressed, their animosity remained, but so did the unspoken tension. It was during a rain-soaked race in Spa that things shifted. YN had been leading when a sudden downpour caused her car to spin out. She managed to recover but dropped to fifth. After the race, drenched and frustrated, she found Max waiting for her in the garage.

“Tough luck out there,” he said, his usual smugness replaced by something almost empathetic.

“Thanks,” she muttered, surprised by his sincerity.

He hesitated before adding, “You drove well. Better than most would have in those conditions.”

She blinked up at him, caught off guard. “Is that… a compliment from Max Verstappen? Should I record this moment for posterity?”

He rolled his eyes but couldn’t hide the small smile that crept onto his face. “Don’t get used to it.”

By the time the season finale rolled around, their relationship had evolved. The arguments were still there, but so were the moments of camaraderie and even—dare they admit it—something resembling affection. After a grueling race in Abu Dhabi, where they secured a one-two finish for the team, they found themselves alone in the motorhome, celebrating with a quiet drink.

“Not bad for a peculiar rookie, huh?” YN said, raising her glass in a mock toast.

Max chuckled, clinking his glass against hers. “Not bad at all.”

The silence that followed was comfortable, a rarity between them. Max studied her for a moment before speaking. “You know, you’ve proven a lot of people wrong this year.”

“Including you?” she asked, her tone light but her eyes searching his face.

“Especially me,” he admitted, his voice barely above a whisper. The weight of his words hung between them, heavy with meaning.

YN’s heart raced, and for once, she didn’t try to hide it. “Maybe you’re not so bad either,” she said softly.

The corners of Max’s mouth twitched upward, and for the first time, there was no animosity in his eyes—only warmth.

Perhaps, YN thought, loathing could evolve into something far more complicated, and far more exhilarating.

Part 2

@justaf1girl

[cindersnows]

the problem with mitsi (or as i like to call it. mitsogyny)

(context: this was written under a youtube video, which i'm sure most of us have at least seen pop up in our recommendeds, in response to many people taking criticism against the new episode. it has been edited a little to be more cohesive as a somewhat-essay)

ok, i wanted to write out a rant/essay/ramble/whatever sort of summarising the criticism against mitsi's plotline because a lot of the people here seem to be misunderstanding the fundamental issue that people have with it, including some of those people themselves.

first off, an analysis that i think tell both sides of the argument very well which i feel should be read before reading the essay: Mitsi: What Makes A Fridged Character (and why y'all are wrong about it) | an AvA essay by InksandPensblog. i will note: i don't care to discuss whether mitsi was fridged or not and that won't be of much importance in this post. the above link gives some insight into some of the fandom's criticism of mitsi and how she was "fridged", defining common tropes for examples. that's what's relevant to this post.

the main issue with mitsi, in my opinion, is less with the fact that mitsi's a girl and moreso the fact that she's one of the only female-coded character in the series, and that her character's main purpose was to further victim's own development. the other arguably female-coded character in the series is pink, who (like navy) only really exists to explain purple's motivations. i don't have much of an issue with that since they're not meant to be important or sympathised with at all. that's not their job in the story.

with mitsi, i've seen people point out that she has more character to her than just victim's love interest and supporter: she invents rocketcorp, she's smart, she's kind, innocent and helpful. narratively speaking, she shows other creations' relationships with their animators, parallels her innocence with victim's trauma, and introduces victim to the outernet (as most fans call the stick realm).

but most of this things imo are either stretches or invalid arguments. she's not really a 2/3-dimensional character in any way; her main character traits boil down to the fact that she likes to be in service of others with no nuance behind why she likes helping people. she hypes up victim for the villagers, she starts a company with him to share his talents with the world, and she helps him overcome his trauma from alan's torture. all of her main plot beats center around victim: and while technically the sticks are genderless and free to be interpreted however the viewer wants, alan and most of his team see all the main characters as male, and that subconciously affects how they're written. mitsi, the first major female-coded character, spends most of her storyline in service of victim, a character not written as female.

there's also the issue of her being victim's canonical love interest. i feel like this statement from alan is important to keep in mind (don't mind the sound effects and edits, this is the only isolated clip i can find at the moment). in particular:

"i just assume that [the ava/m characters] are just a bunch of bros]. i haven't thought of adding any female stick figures but i think it'd be good. i don't want to introduce any romance though, i don't want that to be a theme."

he seems to have changed his mind on that last part, which is fine, but the notable part for me is that he seems to associate female characters with romance from the getgo. before anyone misinterprets this, i'm not trying to call alan sexist or anything. but there's a common issue with women in stories being reduced to just a romantic partner for the male lead, and mitsi falls under this, with her entire character existing to serve victim. (not to mention people will make things about romance whether you like it or not. that's just basic fandom. search up grapeduo or chodark.) even her death is to put victim on the path of vengeance--- it doesn't need to happen to show the extent of tco and tdl's destruction, because that's already made pretty clear in ava s2 the flashback and the earlier scenes showing various characters escaping burning buildings. when you write a female-coded character whose only purpose is to serve a male character, you're contributing to sexist narratives.

a counter i see many people point out with the idea that she has no character is that she does have character traits, it's just that they're generic ones like "kind" and "innocent". the issue is that she has no flaws to counterpoint this; it's not that she didn't have enough screentime. in ava4 for example, we see tsc's flaws pretty clearly; they can be very mean when they want to, they're petty (albeit for a fair reason), they're a little impulsive. this is shown in 11 minutes (from the moment they come alive to the end of the video).

with mitsi meanwhile… she doesn't seem to have any flaws? she helps victim whenever she can. she's nice to all the villagers. her customers all like her and she's a great leader at rocket corp (to note, specifically as part of a pair with victim. they're a power couple, she's barely given credit for her work alone). she has 13 minutes of screentime, or 10 if you count from her waking up in the outernet. there's plenty of opportunities to show her having flaws; maybe she acts a little selfish during tdl and tco's attack, only wanting to help herself and agent smith, or maybe she overworks herself, or feels awkward at having too much attention (and that could also be why she redirects so much attention to victim, she's shy). you could argue that the episode needs to develop victim and agent smith too, but ava4 shows that's easy to do too: just a few seconds dedicated to showing rgyb fighting over who leaves first shows that they can be selfish and childish. it's very easy to insert a moment like that for mitsi.

it's a little disappointing when the first major female-coded character in ava is completely flawless, with no personality outside of being nice and helpful for others.

also, slightly unrelated, check out this quote from mitsi's plushie website: "her white featureless face seems to ooze mystery and feminine power all at the same time." her main character trait, as a woman, is being feminine. it's irritating as someone who's been raised a woman to see her reduced to just her gender. she feels more plastic than a person, like the concept of what a woman should be (perfect, kind, useful) and not an actual character/person.

i would expect more from the writing in the series seeing as it's not just an independent passion project anymore, and has multiple writers that all could've worked to flesh out mitsi, or at least get a sensitivity reader of sorts to point these issues out. it's extremely disappointing and i can understand why people were upset.

tldr: the problem isn't just that mitsi's a girl, or that she's nice or dating victim, it's that she's written in a misogynistic way.

[chaoticbiguysblog]

I feel like initially most people were on the same page about Tommy Kinnard, they were like ok let's see where it goes and we got Bi Buck!! Like, in April, I was on top of the world bc of Bi Buck, and I was so excited for him and eager to see where it goes, even the ones who didn't want him for Buck from the start were indifferent to him.

But I feel like the divide and the ship wars intensified was when people started using the "healthy male friendship" and "why can't two men just be friends" argument against Buddie, we have hundreds, if not thousands of those in pop culture and homophobes often use this argument against lgbt rep, so to see a group, some if not most of which are queer themselves use the same argument is off putting.

Then, whether you're his fan or a hater, you gotta agree that Tommy's character is a blank slate, he's not been given much to do, besides a few moments, and a significant part of that is him being racist and sexist to two fan favourite characters: Chim and Hen respectively (similarly people disliked Taylor for what she did to Bobby, the redemption and forgiveness before she started dating Buck was implied but it's not enough). Other than that he doesn't have a lot of qualities. And what happens is fans project a lot of things on him. What made me abandon the Tevan ship was people "stealing" Eddie's character traits and projecting it onto Tommy, while labelling him a terrible mentally insane father who uses Buck for his own gain, yada yada yada. And I love Buck and Eddie equally, so to me that was irritating.

Also, since he doesn't have many character traits, his lines, which are intended as sassy can come off as him being a dismissive and condescending dick.

Then for the off screen side of things, we were constantly told Buck is straight, by the actors and the showrunner but everyone was like eh whatever, and then our headcannons were proven right, but suddenly theorising about Eddie and that a lot of queer people including myself identify with him is looked down on if not straight up mocked, and that the canon storylines are the only ones that matter have made the fandom a bit toxic.

Buddies are often accused of blindly hating on Tommy, that he's hated only bc he's not the guy we wanted Buck to kiss, so I feel like I should lay it out as to why a lot of us went from being indifferent or open to the guy to straight up hating him.

[charlotttte-427]

As much as people claim that transmisogny and other internal prejudices are just the domain of the terminally online, the reality is just so much worse. As a poor trans woman, nothing will radicalise you more than going to university and seeing how tme people treat tma people when they have no community to protect them.

I've seen trans women be abused and socially annihilated by trans guys on a whim, because even if a trans guy doesn't pass well enough to access male privilege he can always leverage the instability of a trans woman's womanhood to paint her as a monster, no matter the circumstances. A trans woman is the only type of woman you can easily sexually abuse and then smear as a rapist when she speaks out about it.

The idea that trans women hold any amount of power over trans men is infuriating precisely because it flies in the very face of everything you can see happening to your sisters day by day. I've tried discussing materialist transfeminist theory with a trans guy -- the same one who abused and alienated that women -- and he undermined me at every turn, determined to keep gender as this ineffable essence precisely because it benefits people like him if it's kept that way.

I came to university expecting revolutionary action and what I got was a bunch of misogynists rebranding ancient sexist tropes to me and dismissing my every attempt to organise. The reality is that privileged queer people will fight you at every turn when you do anything which upsets the power balance that allows them to exploit those beneath them without consequences.

Yet, despite how self-evident this all is, I still see people online making the insane argument that transmisogny isn't real or that it's equal to "transandrobrobia" or "transmisandry". Maybe it's uncharitable, but I see no difference between this male exceptionalism and any other attempt to elevate the comparatively minor inconveniences that men suffer from Patriarchy to the very real and deadly violence that women suffer from it.

Trans guys will degrade themselves by invoking some essence of womanly victimhood in order to undermine and revoke the womanhood of trans women. This isn't internalised transphobia, it's a deliberate act of violence. They do it because they know that being a woman is better than being a freak and by pretending to be the former they can force trans women into the latter, thus exposing them to much worse violence.

Trans women are women, that means they are the intended targets of misogyny. Nothing about it is accidental. Trans men are men, that means they are just as capable of wielding Patriarchy against women. This includes trans women.

I've lost sisters in my community. They were good women who never hurt anyone and they were systemically torn apart limb by limb from every possible support system. All they had left was quiet communities. Communities which these men weaponised against them. These brothers betrayed their sisters and became accomplices in their systemic social murder.

Despite my anger and grief, I still love trans men. Just as I love men in general, no matter how naive it may feel at times. But I will always be afraid of what they can do to my sisters and I. We will never be safe in our own community unless trans men learn to listen to us and call out this behaviour when it happens.

Because like it or not, trans men are the men of trans people and they do have power over trans women. If you want our trust then you have to earn it. We want to trust our brothers, we really do. So, don't be another reason why we don't.

[lucysarah-c]

Headcanons masterlist part 2

-> Is Levi a regular smoker?

-> Levi's reaction to his partner's mother being a sexual worker

-> Levi's s/o suffering from asthma

-> Arguing with Levi

-> Levi's s/o treating him badly because she's on her period

-> Levi with a pregnant s/o

-> Is Levi good at cooking?

-> Levi's sexist thoughts?

-> Levi's s/o enjoying tacking him

-> Levi's s/o being a titan shifter

-> Levi overhearing y/n confess her feeling for him

-> Levi's reaction to his s/o using the safeword NSFWish

-> Levi tracking his s/o cycle

-> S/o drunkly confessing her feelings for Levi

-> Levi's reaction to someone who loves him romantically

-> Levi's S/o giving him a boudoir album

-> Levi arround his s/o siblings

-> Levi's s/o who had trauma of a sa

-> Waiting until marriage with Levi?

-> Levi with an athetic parner?

-> Levi saying something he regrets during an argument?

-> Giving Levi silent treatment

-> Arguments with Levi

-> Levi's love of his life getting married to someone else?

-> Excessive skin care?

-> Sick! Levi

-> Hiding a pregnancy from Levi?

-> Saying to Levi that he needs to rest!

-> Slapping Levi in the middle of an argument

-> A cadet with an attitude and Levi?

-> How does Levi confess his feelings?

-> Is Levi stingy with money? part 2

-> Confessing feelings to Levi

-> Lunging into Levi with tears in your eyes

-> Levi's reaction to you having to stay at the hospital for over a week

-> Levi's girlfriend gets molested at the bar

-> Levi's girl doing cosplay

-> Levi's girlfriend getting her period

-> Levi's girlfriend getting her long hair cut short

-> Giving Levi a tea he wanted as a present

-> Levi yelling duing an argument?

-> Controlling Levi?

-> What type of music is Levi into?

-> Does Levi drink tea during Summer?

-> Levi's ideal girl?

-> Tomboy girl for Levi?

-> Levi's insecurities

-> Levi's s/o liking coffee

-> Actor! Levi answering interviews

-> Being close to Levi and having social anxiety

-> Is Levi religious?

-> Levi with a Bi! s/o

-> Levi after a break up!

-> Flinching away as Levi moves to touch you, his reaction

-> Post-war Levi view on marriage

-> Breaking up with Levi because you feel he doesn't love you

-> Would Levi cry in front of his lover?

-> Openly complementing Levi!

-> Is Levi a Boy's dad or a Girl's dad?

-> Is Levi the type of boyfriend to remember special dates?

-> How does Levi find his s/o?

-> Levi with a very smart s/o!

-> Levi's s/o being an scout and getting injured during a mission, his reaction

-> Levi with a s/o who was in a previous abusive relationship

-> Life inside of the walls! Meta analysis?

-> Levi getting a girl pregnant during his days as a thug

-> Levi handling a miscarriage (TW: sensitive topics)

-> Levi talking about his past to his s/o

-> Levi's s/o being a scout, would he like her to drop?

-> Levi's ex dating someone new

-> Levi's Hogwards house

-> Levi's s/o likes to talk to themselves

-> Would Levi sacrifice himself for his s/o?

-> Would Levi name his kids after someone else? (Kuchel, Erwin, etc)

-> Someone confess to Levi but he's interested in someone else

-> Asking Levi to punch you so you can see his strengh

-> Is Levi circumcised?

-> Does Levi likes cats?

-> Modern au! Levi what kind of videogames he likes?

-> Levi with a very skinny s/o

-> Levi's squad talking about how his girlfriend is hot!

-> Levi with a s/o with low self-esteem

-> Levi findind out his s/o has royal blood like Historia

-> What would make Levi think his s/o is the one?

[kaphzzz]

so i saw a couple posts about how arthur is sexist and racist and i'm not defending him because ive got a filter on but i do think some things are debatable. a few things got blown out of proportion and overanalysed i think.

first off i agree by today's standards hes definitely got some views to correct such as gender roles and not resorting to telling a woman to go to the kitchen as an insult, but at that time hes about as feminist as you get from a man. he says he doesnt think women and men are all that different, and he doesnt show any doubt at all regarding the capabilities of the women in the gang. many times hes expressed his belief that the women such as tilly or mary beth are skilled and capable of fending for themselves. he frequently shows his vulnerable side to the women in camp. when sadie made it firm that she wanted to be a fighter he allowed her to do it, barely even hesitated. i think he only mocked her because hes irritated at the commotion she and pearson caused in the middle of the camp, and also when isnt he sarcastic?

about the womens suffrage march: yeah he goes only because he's getting paid but he doesnt mock them for their cause and isnt afraid to be seen among them or to be perceived as an ally to their cause. considering the amount of angry men gathered at the protest who would have died of shame if anyone thought they were allies to feminism i think the contrast is clear enough.

'arthur as a lover would force gender roles' i genuinely dont think he would. the girls in the gang do chores because ms grimshaw is in charge of them and arthur has nothing to do with it, hes in fact more assured of their mission success when the girls are involved. he trusts sadie in a fight with his life. he meets charlotte and offers to teach her, without her asking him, to handle a gun to hunt and be independent, not once does he tell her to go back to her cozy life in the city or find another man to rely on beyond offering to get her somewhere she can get food. he goes out of his way to help mary, even when he realises he has nothing to gain from it. these are his views on what a woman should or shouldnt do and it wont change just because said woman is his partner. and i dont even ship him and sadie but i totally get it, i think he'd love a woman who can handle herself both in life and in a fight. this is also why so many people thought he had insane chemistry with black belle and there are even fanworks out there of the two. he doesnt get to meet too many but he's nothing but impressed and respectful when he meets a strong woman. and sure, if his partner is and just wants to be a wife in a traditional wife role, arthur'd be totally fine with it, he'd probably love to have someone stay in their home caring for it and waiting for him. but i also think he wouldnt be opposed to someone who can accompany him when hes out and about and who he can entrust his life to either.

'he lost his temper at mary' okay why wouldnt anyone? thats an understandable reaction for anyone in the circumstances. he's gone to meet who is probably the only person he has ever loved romantically and still loves, and all she does is criticise him for his outlaw lifestyle while at the same time expecting him to help her using the skills he gained from that life. im not going to say shes using him or being manipulative but it comes close, which is a whole other debate and i dont want to get into it but mary isn't in the right either. they talk to each other as equals too, their argument and the way they talk to each othet just supports that. when he got angry he realises his mistake and tries to calm himself down immediately when mary tells him to be kind to her. any truly sexist man who believes in a man's role in a relationship wouldnt even have listened. there were and are enough men in relationships who dont listen to their female partners or accept criticism from them or would even escalate the situation but arthur is not one of them.

about him being racist - this is a no brainer honestly he wasnt racist in 1899 and not racist now. sure you can say hes ignorant and uneducated on racism issues but thats not the same as being racist or accusing him of racism. the only thing i see people have to support the racism argument is that he referred to javier as a 'greaser' during the boat heist, but thats i think the only time he says a slur and thats only because he's got a role to play and hes simply saying whatever the manager expected from his act. he thinks of javier as family and all of the non white people in the gang too, quite obviously.

and lastly yes i agree hes a flawed person, charles calls him out on not wanting to help the germans or the tribe of his own will, lenny calls him out on not realising that the south is dangerous for him and tilly and charles to be in, in fact many people put him in his place by telling him exactly where hes wrong. he is often offending people whether he means to or not, and in certain situations quick to lose his temper or resort to violence, but he is also a kind and caring and sensitive person. i dont think we need to be squinting so hard between the lines to know that hes a good person when he doesnt have to be the violent brute dutch shaped him into for the gang.

so anyway i totally agree hes not some pure pookie wookie cinammon roll capable of no wrong and definitely has a lot of flaws besides the crimes, but i dont think racism or sexism are among them.

everyone has their own understanding of a character, i dont normally want to get involved in debate but if anyone does want to discuss then do but keep it civil

[blossomthepinkbunny]

Talking about Adam and the villians of HB

Adam is such a dissapointing villain for Hazbin Hotel that absolutely doesn't make use of the great opportunities they had for the bad guy of this project. Like, what is Adam? A sexual, irrational, rockstar asshole who kills demons for fun and is shown to be completely idiotic and unable to make any good point for his actions. And that sucks.

Atleast to me, them making Adam an irredeemable asshole type just seems like the show acknowledging that they can't take any actual feedback on Charlies idea. He is a strawman who never really gets to be anything else until his final moments, when they want you to care about his fight. The show doesn't want you to actually think critical about what Charlie has planned it just wants you to think she is right, by making you hate Adam, by making his side actively carry out genocide. The fact that a show all about revealing that people have layers and presenting seemingly morally grey areas in them has a villian who is completely one note and just evil and irrational because the show needs him to be is not great.

There are actual things that can be criticized about the Hotel and the idea of redeeming sinners, but Adam can't call any of these out because then Charlie would have to defend herself, which she can't do and then you would realize that the writers couldn't think of arguments for why she is right. And then Charlie would come off as not as great as they want you to think she is.

What if he had called out the fact that genuinely no demon seems to give a shit about being a better person. We don't get a definitive time for how long Charlie has been working on the Hotel but we can assume that it has been atleast a little longer. We see her advertise her idea on the news in the pilot and the Hotel makes an advertisement in the first episode, so we know that it's pretty open information that a place where demons can redeem themselves exist. Yet in the entirety of the pilot, season one and however much time lays between the two, only two sinners came to the hotel to change (im not counting staff members because they are there to work, not to be redeemed).

Angel Dust and Sir Pentious are the only ones who came to stay, which either means that just no other sinner cares to be better or that Charlie is not taken seriously and that her hotel is viewed as stupid in concept alone. And you have to remember that even these two didn't initially join because they genuinely wanted to change.

Angel just decided to stay because it was a cheap place to live where he wouldn't have to see Val. And while Pentious does decide he wants to be better, we don't know if he would have even done that, had it not been for the agreement he made with Vox (which made him come to the hotel with bad intentions in the first place).

Why doesn't Adam get to point out that sending Sinners to heaven might be a bad idea when there are probably people that they hurt or may have even killed up there. Like, Angel Dust was in the Mafia and you can assume that he has quite the killcount and it's very possible that some of his victims are in heaven. That goes for every other demon too, they're down there for a reason. And while sometimes that reason might be something stupid or irrelevant, just giving every demon the benefit of the doubt and a chance to get to heaven (in theory) seems pretty irresponsible.

That is also completely ignoring the fact that Charlie's method has no proof of even working. Seemingly in the entirety of hell existing no sinner has ever redeemed themselves and went to heaven until Sir Pentious, which was mostly an accident as well.

I'm not saying Adam had to be likeable or relatable, but it's pretty obvious that they made him so hateable just because. He can't just be an obnoxious, sexist asshole because that's not blatantly evil enough apparently. He also has to commit genocide for no reason other than that he enjoys it. Again, im not saying his genocide should be excusable, but he should have a reason that isn't presented as him just doing it for fun because hes a jackass (he should have a reason that would make what he is doing okay in his own eyes where the viewer could understand how he views the world without having to agree necessarily).

Writing evil characters who are purely bad because they just are can work. But in my opinion that shouldn't be the main villian, especially not in a show where the central idea is supposed to be discussing morality and moral greyness.

Cioccolata from Jjba is a villian where this works in my opinion. He is just evil and Araki really plays that up. He isn't just a crazy doctor type who violently experiments on people for fun, his backstory also shows that he has been doing this since he was 14 and started with driving elders to suicide. And also he films everything he does because he just likes watching people suffer. Cioccolata really is just irredeemably crazy and sadistic but it works for him because he is just a side antagonist and therefore doesn't have the burden of playing as a direct counter to our main protagonist and because for all his immoral actions he still has philosophy behind that. A fucked up philosophy but an understandable (not excusable) one nonetheless. He explaines that in his eyes people can only experience true happiness from two situations. Either when your own despair is replaced with hope, or when one watches other people fall into despair themselves. In his eyes, the more people he watches die, the more he understands the human race and the stronger he gets, which leads into another aspect of his philosophy, which is that the strong have have the right and responsibility to rule over the weak. That is why I think he works.

We actually get some insight into Adams deeper character motivation in his last moments. When he gets upset that the demons aren't just falling at his feet, worshipping him, even though he is the original man all life came from. And that would be a good idea to expand on, that Adam has this intense sense of entitlement that leads him to despise the demons because he doesn't have power over them, when he feels like he should. And because a crowd of people that don't worship him, feels threatening to him, he would want them gone as to not possibly risk his position of power with their ideas.

That could be the reason for why he despises Charlie, because she is a demon who makes her own plans to save her people, which would mean they could start to follow her and work with her, rather than idolizing him. Something like that would work so well for his character and would fit this saviour attitude that some religious people have when "helping" atheists by recommending that they should be religious to make all their problems dissapear or something (no shade to people who genuinely find peace and safety in their religion I think that's actually great but it's not a solution for everybody). The last moments he has give great insight into what his character could've been, had they focused on this, rather than always just having him say how much he enjoys killing demons for no reason.

And in the song he has he also nearly approaches giving another possible reason for his actions (that being that he just doesn't care because demons already had their chance to be good, didn't choose that and now don't deserve a second chance), but that is also never expanded on and is pretty much ignored throughout the season.

Also I find it interesting that Adam has to be completely and irredeemably evil, hated by everyone, while Lucifer gets away with just letting the people he is supposed to rule die like it's nothing. Lucifer didn't to anything to stop the exterminations, he didn't contact his daughter in quite some time and actively mocks her idea when first meeting her after these months of not giving a shit for her or what she does (her idea that is supposed to save his people from literal death btw).

We see him easily finish Adam off in the finale which begs the question for why he just never cared to do anything before. But it's fine because he's just so silly and goofy and actually cares a lot for Charlie say's the show. That is why he gets to be redeemed in the same episode he appeared in for the first time and no one is allowed to question him because then you're just not nice and understanding.

Lucifer didn't have to like sinners. I think his approach of basically leaving the sinners to their own devices is pretty interesting. But HH wants you to hate Adam and like Lucifer without acknowledging that people who just watch bad stuff being done without doing anything about it are also shitty. And for Lucifer it seems extra shitty because we see he can literally just defeat Adam and he just didn't do anything for this whole time.

Helluva Boss has this problem too where it picks characters it wants you to like and if you don't like them then you're just wrong. And therefore no villian gets to call these characters out without being shown to be either stupid, irrational or mean.

Striker was genuinely interesting and cool when he first appeared. He was an antagonist who had understandable goals that tied in well with the trajectory of the story. The classism in hell's society is a pretty relevant theme for HB. We see that Blitzø has to sleep with Stolas to be able to even do his job and earn a living, we see Imps just being tossed around and abused and hear Stolas say stuff like "impish little plaything" to Blitzø. Striker wanting to take the demons of high rank down to make hell better for the Imps by ending classism made sense and was an interesting take to see. Especially since at that point the show didn't insist on Stolas being this misunderstood good guy who just cares soo much for Blitzø, there was a sense of suspense maybe to watch wether or not Blitzø will go along with Striker or if this interaction might influence how he views his clearly predatory "relationship" with Stolas.

But all of that got thrown out the window because in s2 we just can't have people criticise Stolas, since actually acknowledging the fact that he benefited and actively made use of hells classist system would mean that we wouldn't see him as a poor confused bean anymore and that one might actually think of some of the pretty bad implications the Stolitz relationship has. So now Striker is a completely obvious, self obsessed bad guy who loves himself so much that he monologues about how great he feels when torturing Stolas instead of just killing him while they also gave him a weird gimmick where he doesn't like it when someone makes a sexual remark and gets so upset that he drags out Stolas' killing and gets defeated by Millie and Moxxie because of it (the same guy was established as a great assassin in another episode).

They also removed all the backbone to his ideology. He still talks about Stolas diminishing Imps in "Western Engery" but it lacks any point because they have gone so far with woobifying Stolas that he is presented as sympathetic and Striker as bigoted. Striker also acts like he can't kill Stolas because Stella called off the assassination on him. I get him being upset that he won't get his money for the kill but he still has very clear reasons for why he would want Stolas dead regardless (atleast he had when he was still a cool character). It's not like suddenly not being hired anymore would make a big change for him.

Killing Stolas could have consequences because Stolas is royalty, but these consequences always existed for him even while Stella was requesting the assassination. Stella would obviously not want others to know that she is reponsible for Stolas dying (then again we don't know if that would even matter since demons generally don't care about killing others until it's plot relevant) and the point of an assassin is that people are killed in a way that can't be tracked back to someone, so Striker should also not face issues, especially since he is apparently a really good and threatening assassin.

Striker was interesting until the show decided it liked Stolas too much for people to call him out and be presented as reasonable. Stella was turned into just an abusive, whiny and stupid bitch who just hates Stolas and wants his money instead of acknowledging that she pretty much has the same backstory as Stolas, who we are constantly told to feel bad for because of his childhood (arranged marriage, forced to have a child and a set-up relationship neither of them wanted).

Verosika is really not relevant but usually also falls into the "bitchy and just rude" category because she doesn't like Blitzø (it's not as bad for her as it is with Stella but still). Asmodeus and Fizzarolli where really mean and exposed and embarrassed Stolas and Blitzø publicly. But the next time we see Asmodeus interact with Stolas he is just chill with him? Why? Blitzøs and Fizzarollis relationship was atleast handled in a way and we see him act rude towards Blitzø until they make up. But it still followes the theme of people who dislike Stolas and Blitzø either changing their mind or just being shown to be horrible to make their opinion seem invalid (also notice how these male characters in the story get to be forgiven for how they acted and show different sides to their character while the women are reduced to being bitchy).

Barbie Wire was also handled soo bad. She only appears in the last few minutes of her début episode and never gets to talk about specifically why she doesn't want to have contact with Blitzø in the first place. The focus is mostly on how hurt he is by the fact his Sister wants nothing to do with him, even after he worked soo hard to find her and just wanted to make things right with her soo bad. They also basically made her a groomer which just doesn't help her come off as reasonable at all.

For a show that wants it's main characters to do bad stuff and have to deal with being called out for that it surely doesn't like people actually calling them out.

The double standards applied to the villians as opposed to the "good guys" are also just amazing. Like Millie and Moxxie can complain about Chaz being a bad partner in hindsight, but when Verosika talks about Blitzø being selfish in their relationship it's all about how he feels. Loona literally throwing stuff at Blitzø, hurting him just because he dared to carefully point out a true fact about her behaviour is played for laughs, but Stella abusing Stolas is super duper evil and we all hate her now (not saying it isn't bad but the show shouldn't pick and choose who is funny when abusive and who is evil when abusive). The I.M.P taking out random people because they were paid to is fine, but Striker attacking Stolas after being hired is bad just because he also happens to have a (understandable) motiv for why he would want to do it regardless of his job and because Stolas just so happens to be a main character. Blitzø and Loona commenting on Moxxies weight is funny, but when Mammon remarks that Fizzarolli gained a few pounds he is just bad.

That's just my opinion on some of the antagonists in HH and HB. Mammon is pretty much the only villian I really care for in both shows (also Stella and Striker before they got ruined). I mainly think antagonist are either really underused (Vox, Velvette, Verosika) or were just incredibly mishandled (Adam, Striker, Stella). Part of this post was just an excuse to talk about Jjba tho, which I always love.

[rookflower]

seeing nightheart arguments again as with every asc release so once again, a reminder that when people say "nightheart's arc (or that of any other warrior cats character for that matter) is sexist", 99% of the time they are not calling the character, themselves, within the universe, a misogynist. nightheart in the books does not hate women. liking nightheart is not misogyny. what IS sexist there is the choices the authors make when they are writing a character. because at the end of the day, the characters themselves are not real.

in nightheart's case, at the start of his story almost every female character in his life (sparkpelt, finchlight, squirrelflight, lilyheart, myrtlebloom, etc) was written as being needlessly cruel to him, in spite of their own characters, and the male characters in his life (bramblestar, alderheart, bayshine) were written as far kinder or more reasonable towards him. the issue was not the FACT people were being mean to him, but the blatant trend and malicious gendered stereotypes going on with how it was handled.

"but they've been redeemed by Thunder! they're all being nicer to him now!" yeah, but isn't it super fucking weird that it was written like that in the first place? that finchlight changed personality like the weather when she should have been a prominent enough character to have an established one, that sparkpelt needs to redeem herself for absences in squirrelflight's hope and tbc that were unfairly out of her control and were not even considered an issue until now it's convienent to make her son sad, that squirrelflight was treated as antagonistic and cruel over asking her adult grandson to do some chores or whatever?

"but that's the author's fault, not the character's!" the character is not real though. he doesn't have feelings that can be hurt, what is there are the words on the page, and a lot of people will look at a character's arc rather than imagining them as a real person or making up headcanons to fill in gaps. there is also nothing wrong with people disliking a character you like. that is always going to happen forever.

"so are you saying i'm sexist because i like or relate to nightheart?" no, nobody is saying this. nightheart is an insecure angsty young adult protagonist in a tonally silly book series who has a complicated relationship with his family and gets into relationship drama, of course a bunch of people are going to latch on to him, and there's nothing wrong with that. i know a ton of nightheart fans. people criticising him is not a personal attack on you or anyone.

"you're looking into this too deeply" man this is warrior cats tumblr, what are any of us doing here. sometimes engaging critically with a text is fun. sometimes, texts have genuine flaws and harmful biases within their writing and it's useful to learn to identify and analyse them. warrior cats is not and never will be peak literature and i don't think anybody expects it to be but that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to take critical approaches to it on anything more than a surface level.

[thebreakfastgenie]

Imagine, if you will, that the democratic nominee in the 2024 election had been pro Palestine, but had also been anti women and anti lgbt. Could you imagine the outcry from leftists if women and lgbt people decided not to vote for them? It would be absolutely vile. But they have the gall to say we’re wrong for expecting them to vote democrat. It disgusts me

Yeah the bad faith American leftists who use the suffering of Palestinians as a rhetorical cudgel would have been furious. There is also a contingent of nominal leftists who just hate the Democratic party, and they would probably have just reversed course and yelled at anyone who said "yeah this candidate sucks on these other issues, but since there is no good option, it's worth voting for them to at least try to improve this one issue."

And in case anyone objects to this hypothetical as unrealistic, it wouldn't happen because of how US politics work, but it's not outrageous. Being pro-Palestine is left-coded in the US and a lot of the west, but it's not an inherently left or right position. Pro-Palestine, anti-women, anti-LGBT describes a lot of right wing political parties in the Arab world, and it's worth noting that in many (not all but many) cases they're pro-Palestine more because opposing Israel serves their own interests than because they care about Palestinians. Palestinians have spoken about this before. I don't want to spend too much time speaking on an issue I don't feel especially qualified to discuss in detail, but I wanted to acknowledge that.

There was kind of a microdose of what you're describing in the 2016 and 2020 primaries. Bernie Sanders isn't anti-women or anti-LGBT, but he did choose not to focus on those issues. His whole thing was about class and corporations and money and while Bernie himself was at worst mildly dismissive, his following did have a tendency to deride those issues as identity politics that were a distraction from the true cause. Bernie supporters complained that Hillary didn't focus enough on Citizens United in one of the debates and completely ignored that she chose to focus on Roe v Wade instead and I remember this because I am still mad about it to this day. I don't think Bernie Sanders is a raging misogynist (though a lot of people around him are) but I think he's a fairly standard level of sexist for a man born in 1941, and as often happens he's given a pass on it and even portrayed as a male feminist hero because he's progressive. A lot of people don't seem to think progressives can be misogynists or homophobic or racist. In any case, early in the 2020 primary there was some tension between the Bernie and Elizabeth Warren camps and some women were complaining about Bernie's history of sexism and I distinctly remember some Bernie supporters getting really mad about it. And I was like, is saying "I agree with these policies but I don't want to vote for a candidate that doesn't value women" so unreasonable? They made that exact same argument for other issues themselves. But when it's about women... And obviously if Bernie had won that primary I would have been all aboard in the general, but it was still the primaries and I was making a point.

The wild thing about all this behavior is we live in a country with a two party system where one party is an unhinged fascist death cult. They're evil and inept at governing and certifiably insane. It's nearly impossible to produce a Democratic candidate that isn't obviously leagues better than the alternative. If a meteor had landed on all the other candidates in 2020 I would have voted for Bloomberg against Trump. The only time we really have to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different candidates is the Democratic primary and it's rare to get strong primary candidates who are wildly different from each other (Hillary and Bernie's voting records in the senate were like 95% identical; obviously the campaigns were going to focus on the differences but they're far more alike than different). We also have to spend primaries taking into account which candidate we think will have the best chance of winning a general election so the fascist death cult people don't.

And honestly I think we should take a minute to appreciate that Democratic candidates are pro-LGBT, because a lot of other center-left parties around the world are abandoning at least trans people.

[stvrpst]

The amusing part about the whole “shipwar” issue was how bummy shippers painted buddie shippers as these nasty individuals who had no business being upset or furious.

Like any other fandom, I acknowledge that there are people in this one who are utterly repulsive and say questionable things, but what bothers me about the bummies, is how they exaggerated the situation. Because, in my opinion, what I saw when the shit was going down was actually very mild.

Like I genuinely have seen worse.

Now, personally, I never liked Tommy and was never neutral about him. I've been here since the beginning of the show, and I've seen that little dick behave like a racist, misogynistic jerk. So, no, I've never cared for him and never will.

Obviously, my natural reaction to other people's displeasure with Tommy's set-up was not to be upset. Because, as I previously stated, he has treated members of the 118 with such contempt. I thought it was very understandable that people disliked him.

But the way the bummies made it seem like not liking Tommy was a forbidden sin, and then couldn’t comprehend why people viewed liking Tommy—again, a racist/misogynistic man—as a bad thing was wild.

Of course people are gonna think you’re a weirdo for liking him, SOLEY because he kissed Buck, and then dismissing his shitty behavior- behavior that is sadly a lot of women and people of colors reality that they have to deal with everyday.

I was not surprised to find out that the vast majority of people justifying Tommy’s behavior were white people, cuz they LOVEEE dismissing shit like this for no reason. As long as it’s not an issue that affects them.

It is weird and bad that you would want Buck to be with a racist and sexist man with no redeeming qualities, just to satisfy your mlm desire. But, nah, let's be furious at the ones who have legitimate reasons to despise that dick.

And then making it seem like we didn't care about bucks bisexuality because we didn't agree with the idea of that dick stick being bucks LI? We didn't want Buck with that dick because we care deeply about his bisexuality and believe he deserves to explore himself with someone other than a huge fat bitch.

Somehow they managed to twist it and accuse us of homophobia.

I have never understood, and I never will, the pressure on others to like Tommy. That, in particular, was the most perplexing thing to me, and it helped me to realize that not everyone can think rationally.

Because there are valid reasons for people to detest a character, how are you going to get upset and start saying stupid shit just because people don’t like Tommy, because he engaged in behaviors that women and people of color experience in real life?

But all they had to say was

(1). “Y’all don’t care about bucks bisexuality”

(2). “Buddies are homophobic”

(3). “Let people ship who they want!”

(4). “Let us enjoy this!”

Over some asshole too.

They actually acted as if others were jumping them for no reason. They genuinely couldn't get how jumping ship because your favorite dude kissed a racist, misogynistic man and not exhibiting ANY concern that he kissed a RACIST, MISOGYNIST MAN just because Buck got to kiss a man is fetishistic as fuck.

They acted like the victims the entire time because people refused to tolerate it. So they altered their argument to "we jumped ship because of buddies behavior," and to this day I'm still trying to figure out what behavior they claimed was so terrible other than the fact that people were calling all their asses for being so fucking odd.

They were apart of the buddie shipper fandom weeks ago. They were apart of the group that “ran Oliver off twitter.” They were apart of the group that “ran the women off the show.” Crazy how when they were apart of the fandom, they didn’t speak up about the shit they’re not pulling out of their asses.

But now that they’ve jumped ship, oh it’s a big issue now.

And it’s so funny because they constantly tell on themselves all the time😭 the jokes be writing themselves.

“I didn’t jump ship because Buck kissed a man, I jumped because he was finally happy.” But when I go on your tumblr, Bree, to go see some of the support you showed when Buck was with Taylor since he was happy then too, I don’t see it? Why is that? So you just pick and choose when bucks happy right? As long as it fits your narrative right?

“Buck and Eddie are not co parents” but when I scroll down 5 months ago, everybody and their moms was calling Chris Bucks son and Buck a dad/second father figure.

“Eddies not a good dad/person” but you have Buckleydiaz as your username?

“We didn’t like Bucks other LI because they had no chemistry or build” but when Tommy pulled up out of ass crack with zero chemistry or build up, y’all still folded.

“Eddies a bad friend!” Yet, when I scrolled down your profile, all your asses were buddie shippers regardless.

“We didn’t like Taylor because she was bad.” Yet, tommy has treated members of the 118 like shit just like Taylor, in fact, maybe even worse. They both have treated members on the 118 horribly, interesting how they’re only excusing one of them tho. I wonder why.

They’re a bunch of losers I swear, and the vast majority of them are a bunch of old hags beefing with minors/young adults online over a damn fictional ship. Shits embarrassing. (No offense to all the good older people in the fandom, ily<3)

That weirdo Bree literally has kids and she’s out here triflin over a ship and going at it with literal teenagers. Get your shit together and maybe start putting food on your kids table because I know they’re hungry. you’re a whole grown ass messing with teens/young adults whose frontal lobes aren’t even fully developed while your kids are starving at home.

They would be so much more bearable if they literally didn’t try to dismantle every single dynamic between Buck and Eddie every single day.

And for no reason at all too. They want bucktommy endgame because they’re a bunch of fetishistic weirdos, and we want buddie for Actual LOGICAL reasons that makes sense and has substance.

Not only that, let’s not forget how

(1.) when Ryan Guzman did that podcast, talking about is mental health and past suicidal thoughts, a bunch of them were in the comments saying they wished he would’ve went through with killing himself.

You don’t have to be a fan of Ryan, and it’s 100% understandable if you’re not, but to fucking wish death upon a real living fucking person is disgusting, and suicide at that.

(2.) they decided to justify Tommy’s behavior by calling us ableist and claiming he’s autistic. I cannot even put into words how weird and nasty that is. Like you actually have to be dumb as fuck to go that low and justify an assholes obvious disinterest and behavior and double it down to “autism.”

Even if he was autistic—which he’s not—that doesn’t justify anything? You can be autistic and still be racist and misogynistic. That’s the shit y’all love to pull. The first time, they said Tommy’s behavior was justified because he was a closeted gay. When they realized people weren’t falling for that shit, they tried to switch it over and call us ableist and claim he was autistic.

It’s actually funny cuz it’s the complete opposite, cuz to associate shitty behavior to be autistic is so unbelievably ignorant.

(3.) They decided to contact and invade Tim’s privacy multiple times to the point Tim had to make it known that he only responds to not be rude.

(4.) They started bullying Oliver stark for not posting about bucktommy to the point that Oliver ended up allegedly blocking someone who asked why he wasn’t talking about it. (Which proves they were the mfs who ran Oliver off twitter)

(5.) They started to actually ship Lou and Oliver, two real life people.

(6.) They told people not to participate or donate to a charity event that was helping the people in Gaza just because one the mods in the server didn’t like bucktommy.

(7.) They thought it was okay to speak on Ryan and his characters identity claiming he was white and doubling him down to just that, while trying to erase his Mexican identity saying he wasn’t Mexican(he is.)

(8.) They started harassing journalists because they only mainly talked about buddie when they have stated multiple times that they’re buddie shippers, always have been even before tommy showed up and Oliver and Ryan have no issues discussing buddie anyways.

(9.) Completely dismissed the idea of having an openly queer MEXICAN character for other Latino/hispanic people to relate to because it would get in the way of their ship.

(10.) Called fans/stans of Eddie Diaz—a main Mexican character— “beanstalks.”

I’m still so shocked about this one because it was so unbelievably racist, and the person who came up with it is disgusting.

I’m sorry to any Mexican fans who had to witness that.

(If you’re confused, just to clarify, there is a slur used against Mexicans that starts with bean and ends with an er. Since Eddie is Mexican, they thought it would be funny to give Eddie fans an extremely racist under-toned nickname, hence “beanstalks” :/ )

(11.) They love to weaponize Ryan’s past actions as a way to deflect from the fact that Lous ass is just as fucking bad, but in reality don’t actually give a shit about what Ryan did or said and are only bringing it up to use Ryan’s past shitty behavior to deflect Lous shitty ass. Which is literally insane and stupid.

The list goes on. Yet buddie shippers are the bad ones, okay.

[rhaenyraism]

I really wonder where you got the idea that the greens consider Aegon a worthy king. No one thinks of him as such, including his family lol. Even he himself says that he does not want the throne and is not born to rule. People support the greens because: 1. They just like these characters more. 2. They believe that the greens in general would be better rulers than the blacks in general. 3. They believe that the greens have usurped the throne to protect themselves. In neither case is it a question of Aegon being a good king. Stop attributing thoughts to people that they didn't express.

i’m going to need y’all to read my post front to back at least three times, and then back to front thrice more. no where in the fucking post did i put down that the greens consider aegon to be worthy to the iron throne. the whole worthy statement literally goes “…aegon did nothing to prove he was worthy of being named heir, let alone being king.” the key words are ‘did nothing to prove’, HE did nothing. no where in the post did i mention the team green fandom, minus putting the tag ‘anti team green’. you’re nitpicking because otherwise you wouldn’t have something to whine about. i get that media comprehension can be tough, but really? is this the best you all can come up with? i understand all of the ‘reasons’ why people support the greens over the blacks. that’s why i’m not team green. it’s a comparison. how many times have you and your buddies haha-ed over rhaenyra being a privileged brat who did nothing to secure her claim? i’m guessing quite frequently, considering i still see the same dumbass talking points despite blocking the tags. your precious uwu aegon and his stans can handle having one of your arguments pointed out as sexist, right? you can’t come after rhaenyra for one thing and then give aegon a pass for the exact same reason. it’s hypocritical and contradictory to do so. use your brain. i PROMISE *pinky promise at that* it’s not that difficult to do.

[ladysternchen]

Open Letter to the Silmarillion- and Wider Tolkien-Fandom

Dear fellow Tolkienists, Middle-Earth-fans, Elves-, Dwarves and what-not-else in disguise, you who call Middle-Earth (and especially long-lost- Beleriand) their home,

On this blog, I have written about this matter many times already, but I can't miss this opportunity to reach out once more to the wider community and again plead for a little more compassion and awareness within the fandom.

Everyone who knows me -in person, through my fanfics, through this blog- knows that my one and only within the Tolkien-legendarium is Elu Thingol, so it will maybe not be surprising what I am going to say. ;-)

I think that the argument that has been ongoing between those who like Elu Thingol and those who don't (which were, funnily enough - and I'm being sarcastic here- often those who most ardently love the Fëanorians) has at least vaguely been noted by most within the fandom. It got rather dirty on both sides. And that REALLY shouldn't happen.

It is inevitable when different people from different backgrounds read a book that there will be different preferences between those readers, and characters will be perceived and interpreted differently. A character that will be the hero to one reader may be the villain to the other, that is how things go, and given that the Silmarillion is not exactly a book of nursery-rhymes, I think we can all be expected to be mature enough to know and honour that.

Only apparently, we can't.

All sorts of stuff get dragged into those arguments that really have no room there, such as political views and the mixing up of canon and fanon. No, I'm not saying keep politics out of the fandom at all cost. Not when in recent years human rights, the adherence to science and protecting the world on which we all live has gone from being a consensus to being the agenda of one side of the political spectrum. This is frightening. And yes, it needs to be addressed. Or at least, everyone should be free to address it.

But by the Valar, please do it right. Do your research. Know what you are talking about. Specify.

It is so very easy to call Tolkien out for the views he shared with many of his contemporaries, and yes, at least I for my part am glad to see that we have moved on from these times -at least in parts. But to understand Tolkien, we must look beyond that. We must look at what he wrote despite being a white male academic in 20th century Britain.

An example of that: over the years, countless people have called Tolkien a sexist, because within the Hobbit and the LotR, women are so shockingly underrepresented. That is a fact, and one doesn't really get around that. But we also have to look at the Silmarillion and what the women are like in there. How Tolkien in drafts that reach back to the 1920s crated a society that treats males and females equally, how all the women he did write into his works were strong, independent women who would not bow to men safe perhaps in love- do we really want to call Tolkien a sexist per default then?

And if you call out Elu Thingol and those who have him as their favourite character for being racist, please stop one moment and read and think it through. Elves, Men and Dwarves are different species. Whatever attitudes there are between them, this can never be racism. Yes, it is compelling to see different ethnical (human) groups in them, but they are not. There can be racism amongst Elves (and I might point out that it is not predominantly the Sindar who see themselves and their works above other Elven people; it is not the Sindar who demand that others yield to them the works of their hands and hearts only to steal and later destroy them, just because they can; or who seek 'free lands to rule' in an already inhabited country), there can be racism amongst Men (and there sure is, and that is an issue!), there can be racism amongst Dwarves (we also know about that). But there can be no racism between Dwarves and Elves and Men.

And even if you choose to read the situation that way, and put fanon over canon, please don't assume that those real-life-people who love the characters that offend you share those beliefs- in short, stop calling me a racist for liking Elu Thingol, and I promise I shall never accuse you of plotting murder just because you love the Fëanorians.

So please, when discussing characters, do keep it civil. Keep accusations out of it, keep fanon out of it. If you're criticising a character, please do that based on canon rather than fanon (I'm not talking about liking someone based on fanon, I'm talking about picking the character apart based on fanon). It can be so incredibly rewarding to listen to someone who really feels a character and may explain things that other readers miss easily. It is fascinating to explore the reasons why someone turns to evil, or makes mistakes, or acts in the way they act. You need not dishonour other characters to love your own, and you can love your own with all their faults and negative sides. Listen to other people, and try for some compassion. Please. It never hurt anyone.

PS: And of course share with us all the art you do on your favourite characters, all your fanfics, all your meta, all your headcanons. Tell us about your faves backstories that Tolkien never got around to writing, tell us about your textual ghosts and OCs. And readers, give feedback. And see what comes of those conversations.

@silmarillionwritersguild

[rei-ismyname]

Bishop is a bootlicker and the O*N*E suck part 1

A while after M-Day, the US president signed an Executive Order authorising the Office of National Emergency, or the O*N*E (fuck that's annoying to type.) The O*N*E's remit is kinda confusing - publicly they're meant to protect mutants but the rhetoric used shows they want to contain them with an excuse to kill them - they're not good friends to have. As you can see, Beast is staggeringly naive here, but Kitty knows what's up.

They put Val fucking Cooper in a position of authority and rabid bigot called General Lazer (seriously) in charge of everything. The big plan is to force all 198 remaining mutants to stay at The Xavier School and have human-manned Sentinels to enforce it (as well as to insult and provoke, I have to assume.)

Val is being asked leading populist questions here, but she does a shitty job of controlling the narrative. She insists that most mutants are law abiding citizens, but that's a ridiculous metric when the law is a permanent concentration camp guarded by symbols of genocide. Many, such as X-Force, agree. There's no ulterior plan here, they simply believe that mutants should be allowed freedom of movement and not have guns pointed at their heads. They stage a riot and break out.

Oh, and Bishop works for them too. Not as an inside man or double agent, but because he believes this is a good idea. Notice how he doesn't object to General Lazer (lol) switching to lethal ordnance.

Bishop is shooting people and firing energy attacks towards a group who are mostly civilians. Caliban says fuck that and uses his PTSD episode powers. It's pretty effective.

The X-Men do show up but they don't fight very hard and it's implied that they let them escape. Bishop is still on the ground reliving his worst traumas when Emma Frost steps in and sorts him out.

Cyke is explicit about his reasons for standing down - he didn't want to risk mutant fatalities. Bishop embarrasses himself by getting very personal, making accusations based off a very generous reading of Chuck's relevance to mutants, and caps it off with a sexist jab at Emma. He then invokes the authority of the president with a not-so-veiled threat, so Cyclops hints that living as prisoners guarded by Sentinels should be triggering alarm bells.

What's super fucked up is that as registered superpowered individuals, the military can order the X-Men to deploy as they see fit. Prisoners, wardens, and whatever else they like. The X-Men can choose to do that job ineffectively, but it does carry risk.

His bizarre thesis is that mutants must police themselves (which aside from his presence, isn't happening) otherwise 'chaos' which gives birth to children being branded as mutants. He stops Cyke from preaching (he wasn't) by literally covering his mouth with his hand. His position and argument are ridiculous.

Note that in the meeting of the fascist brains trust Lazer and Stark refer to the mutants as internees and inmates respectively. Stark's biggest concern seems to be the possibility of these civilians joining Cap, and Lazer that the O*N*E isn't authorised to use enough force. Bishop sits at this meeting, says nothing, and does not object.

Some fine architectural additions to the Xavier mansion there - huge prison vibes. The living members of the O5 tool up and prepare to break some laws. Scott says that 'soon enough we'll have to go up against Bishop and the Sentinels' - no illusions here about Bishop's position.

Emma wishes Scott would 'let her go with them' and while I don't love the characterisation, Scott does make a good point. I feel like they'd have already discussed this privately, frankly, but Emma is indeed the most qualified person to be the politician and deal with the soft power/protecting the students. She's walking back to the prison/school after da boys leave when a Sentinel busts her for a frivolous reason - flexing power, basically.

Emma objects to that shit, but Val fucking Cooper doesn't care. She wants to know where Cyclops and co have gone. After some half-hearted evasion she basically tells her to go fuck herself. It's a really solid line too.

Obviously judging people on their (second) worst act can be unfair, but Bishop has consistently been a cop. Event comics, especially this one, have been known to present people wildly OOC. In Civil War, pretty much everyone with authoritarian leanings loses their fucking minds. It's laughable that the creators thought the Pro-Registration side would be the popular one, but they did - so this shit is intentional. Running this mutant concentration camp story as part of the event was a bold choice, but I think they overegged the pudding. Bishop, with his trauma, fear, and growing up in a hell future could have been written as a tragedy. In a critical time, a man keeps making compromises and mistakes until he slowly realises he's helping oppress his people. Unfortunately, we didn't get that story and Bishop still tastes boot leather every time he eats. Don't forget he and Lazer are both black either, as if that makes it better or says anything profound. The O*N*E are still around to this day, showing that what one dumbshit president does fucks people over for decades, especially minorities.

Next time, shit gets a lot worse and Lazer gets himself a quisling voodoo doll, sort of.

[in-g-major]

ATLA Unpacked: Kataang is Reactive, not Constructive (Part 2)

(Part 1) Still no Kataang in sight (B1:E11 - B1:E13) As of B1:E10, we've been given no text or subtext which demonstrates Aang and Katara having a romantic bond. Beyond that, all of the romantic subtext involving Katara has been with three boys other than Aang, and Aang is completely uninvolved in all three dynamics. With this in mind, we can dismiss the argument that Kataang was an integral part of the show from the beginning. This will continue for another few episodes, until we come to our first instance of bringing romance into Aang and Katara's relationship The Fortuneteller (B1:E14): Strike One This is our first Kataang episode, and it doesn't put us off to a good start. What seems like a fairly innocuous episode about young love has some serious problems in terms of romantic agency and sexist double standards. So we establish Aang as now developing a crush on Katara with another shot of her from his POV.

(Oh hey, Aang made Katara a necklace! It disappears later in the episode because it wasn't really important to anyone involved) Now this does make sense in terms of Aang's perspective. Aang is young and this is probably the first time he's had these kinds of feelings for anyone. He already has a rather idealized view of Katara as established in B1:E1. However, in the context of how Katara has previously been depicted in her interactions with Zuko, Haru, and Jet, how she's depicted in this shot is a step backwards. Those interactions gave her agency and depicted her as the wonderfully well-rounded character she normally is. Here, by contrast, we're seeing Katara an an ideal, not as a person. One image alone can't fully explain what I'm getting at, so let's proceed through the remainder of the episode. Once we get Aang's new perspective on Katara, something immediately presents itself as an obstacle: Katara simply doesn't see Aang the same way.

Sokka: Smoochie, smoochie, someone's in love! Katara: Stop teasing him, Sokka! Aang's just a good friend. A sweet little guy. Just like Momo. Aang: Thanks. Putting my own personal annoyance with this trope aside, it creates a serious disconnect which hinders communication between Aang and Katara. With this disconnect, the problem of Katara seeming less like a character in the context of her relationship with Aang only grows. Already we're only seeing Aang's side of this anyway. After some shenanigans involving a stranger in the woods who tells our young heroes of a fortuneteller named Aunt Wu, they go and see this fortuneteller. The one most excited about seeing Aunt Wu is Katara, which could have been the setup for a story about a character flaw we've already seen from Katara: she doesn't have much confidence in herself. - In B1:E6, Haru encourages her to take credit for helping him and his fellow earthbending prisoners stand up for themselves after she downplays her role in the prison break. - In B1:E9 she's insecure about her lack of waterbending skill to the point of getting quickly upset when Aang learns techniques faster than she does. - In B1:E10 she's easily wooed by Jet's charisma to the point where she becomes naive about any possibility that he's not what she thinks. Despite not being fully honest with her, Jet does encourage her to have faith in herself, which she later uses to turn against him. What made those episodes with Katara and the dark-haired boys in her life compelling was seeing Katara overcome various challenges and develop in her journey of becoming a remarkable young woman. Before we come to how "The Fortuneteller" backtracks on Katara's character arc so far, we experience something extremely revealing about this episode's contradictory approach to Aang's one-sided crush.

Everyone, say hello to Meng! She's Aunt Wu's assistant, and her only purpose in this episode is demonstrating that someone in the writers' room realizes what's wrong with the Kataang dynamic but can't stop the powers-that-be from going ahead with it anyway. There's a term I haven't used yet but is extremely relevant to both this scene and the POV shot of Katara: the male gaze. Put simply, the male gaze describes how women and girls are often depicted in stories written from a male point-of-view. Since ATLA fits the category of an action/adventure fantasy aimed primarily at boys aged 12-16, written and directed mostly by men, we can easily apply the male gaze as an analytical tool here. So from Aang's POV, we get an extremely idealized view of Katara rather than the more complex reality of her as a person. From Meng's POV, we get what's framed as an idealized view of Aang, but what we see is far closer to who he actually is. The double standard is extremely telling, and more than a bit concerning given how the episode ultimately turns out. Moving on, the first member of the Gaang who gets their fortune from Aunt Wu is Katara, and it establishes a pattern for the remainder of the episode. Katara becomes dependent on Aunt Wu's predictions, even going as far as asking whether she should have mango or papaya for breakfast.

(Mango >>> Papaya) Having Katara be this gullible isn't automatically a bad thing. Again, the show has already established that she struggles with confidence in herself. Had the episode gone in the direction of having her realize this flaw and work to overcome it, it would have been far better. Let's head over to our young airbender for a bit.

The prediction Aang gets from Aunt Wu mentions nothing about love. Seeing Aang's reaction to this, Aunt Wu concocts a platitude to help him feel better. Once again we get a double standard: compare what Aunt Wu tells Aang to what she tells Katara. Aunt Wu (to Aang): Well, look! I must've missed something. Right here. It says "trust your heart and you will be with the one you love." Aunt Wu (to Katara): I feel a great romance for you. The man you are going to marry. I can see that he's a very powerful bender. Aang is given a message that encourages him to be proactive in finding the one he loves. Katara is told whom she will fall in love with, and simply accepts it. This double standard is only reinforced when our heroes save Aunt Wu's village from being burned down by a volcanic eruption after Aunt Wu incorrectly predicted that the volcano would not threaten the village.

Aang: You didn't really see love in my fortune, did you? You just told me what I wanted to hear. Aunt Wu: I'll tell you a little secret, young airbender. Just as you reshaped those clouds, you have the power to shape your own destiny. For all the many problems with "The Fortuneteller," I do find Aunt Wu extremely relatable. Besides my own experiences in customer service, I've befriended two middle-aged Asian American small business owning women in my life. Now I can't watch this episode without thinking of them. Her being voiced by Tsai Chin, a veteran actress with an incredible career, is a huge bonus. So, what revelation does Katara come away with after this awe-inspiring experience?

Sokka: Man, sometimes I forget what a powerful bender that kid is.  Katara: (surprised) Wait, what did you just say? Sokka: Nothing, just that Aang is one powerful bender. Katara: ...I suppose he is. Not only is Katara much more confused than enthused by the prospect of Aang being the one Aunt Wu predicted, both in the way she's drawn and in Mae Whitman's delivery, but we're ending this story with no indication of how she feels about Aang other than him being a friend and "sweet little guy." She had an obvious crush on Jet, who was quite a different type both physically and in personality. Nothing we've seen from Katara so far indicates a mutual attraction to Aang, which ultimately makes her nothing more than a "prize" in Aang's "quest" to win her over. If you think later Kataang focused episodes rectify this, I have some very bad news. What's especially frustrating is "The Fortuneteller" could have been an easy setup for Katara learning more about what kind of boys she's into and seeing Aang more in a romantic light over the course of the episode. Them actually interacting and becoming more aware of each other's feelings would have kept Kataang from being completely insufferable and sending a pretty lousy message to its young viewers. Piling on the insult to the injury is that there is a truly good message within "The Fortuneteller" which is ultimately ignored. Until now I haven't commented much on Meng's cute but ultimately shallow crush on Aang because all that's worth addressing is how it's established and how it's resolved.

Meng: You don't like me, do you? Aang: Of course I like you. Meng: But not the way I like you. Aang: Oh, I guess not. Meng: It's okay. It's just really hard when you like someone, but they don't think of you that way. Aang: I know what you mean. Meng: She's beautiful, by the way... that Water Tribe girl. I can see why you like her so much. She's sweet, she's a bender, and her hair seems so manageable. Aang: Don't worry. You're going to meet a great guy who's going to completely fall for you. I know it. Now this is good! It brings up what having a one-sided attraction feels like and gives a positive example of resolving it. There's no vindictiveness, or jealousy, just Aang being as reassuring as he can. It's not just a good message for ATLA's target audience, it's something relevant to people in later stages of life too. This could have also been a great setup for Aang realizing later on that the advice he gives Meng here is just as relevant to his relationship with Katara. Alas... In conclusion, "The Fortuneteller" sucks. I didn't even get into the most misogynistic moment in the episode, which is the underage slut shaming from Meng that destroys her wonderful moment with Aang earlier. Ultimately it's a symptom of the lousy romance tropes which plague this entire episode and undercut what could have been a good story. Easy fix: have this be an episode where Aang and Katara discover feelings about each other they didn't anticipate. They're given conflicting advice on their romantic prospects by Aunt Wu, and they help each other resolve their respective dilemmas. Aang helps Katara become more independent and not simply depend on everything Aunt Wu tells her. Katara helps Aang not be so anxious about deciding his future and instead allow things to happen more "naturally." By the end they begin seeing something "more" between them, and it teases the possible beginning of a love story. As it stands, B1:E14 contradicts Katara's established characterization, ignores her romantic agency, and sets a very bad precedent for how Kataang will be handled going forward. Fortunately, Kataang is no longer relevant to the remainder of Book 1, so next time we'll skip right ahead to Book 2. Get ready, because this is where the story puts Kataang through a stress test it's absolutely not prepared for. Related Meta & Additional Reading - Romantic subtext in "The Fortuneteller" by marsreds