#and this exists in varying degrees right

[satuurnos]

I think its so funny when ppl have this attachment and loyalty to this one person in their life where they kind of just like them better and therefore listen to whatever they say like it's not only a little strange

[xxplastic-cubexx]

friend notoriously bad at videogames said shed play marvel rivals with me tomorrow chat if i never post after tomorrow night its because a blood vessel bursted

[mangled-by-disuse]

Tried to put this in the replies, but it got long and is relevant to the OP, so:

Less so than the average British/South African white guy of his time, which is to say: yes, but not notably so.

He did also speak very bluntly in his response to the Nazi requests to translate his work, claiming he would have been proud to be a genuine Aryan [that is, from the Indian subcontinent] but unfortunately he's just German and English. Some of that is "Oxford fellow thinks he's being very smart" rhetorical devices, but he also does seem to have been pretty vocally of the belief that different cultures and ethnicities held value, and while he left South Africa very young and considered himself English, he did also remark on the brutality and inhumanity of the apartheid regime there. He also criticised C.S. Lewis' assertion (in The Last Battle) that some people couldn't get into heaven on the basis of race and culture, but "have a theological argument with C.S. Lewis" does seem to have been one of his primary hobbies at the time so idk if that was purely anti-racist.

At the same time: this was at a time when the N-word was in common parlance (including in children's nursery rhymes and even in leftist discourse), when Britain had an empire and Tolkien had been raised in one of its colonies, and when the school system emphasised "the white man's burden" and the savagery and primitivism of "lesser" cultures. And Tolkien was not a radical, and not sufficiently concerned with race as a topic to break fully from that social conditioning. So it's not like he wasn't a racist, but he wasn't a racist by the standards of his time, background, and immediate environment. (Bearing in mind that his immediate environment was the same one that saw the rise of Oswald Mosley and Winston Churchill.)

What Tolkien WAS was a genuine, old-school British conservative, which I think is what right-wingers pick up on in his work. He had an engrained belief in hierarchy and traditionalism, and his arguments against capitalism come from Catholic semi-feudalism, not socialism. "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate/God made them high and lowly and each to his estate" is very much an underpinning of a lot of Tolkien's work, which emphasises the importance of working to, and being satisfied with, your status in life - Sam's strength is his humility and desire to be a simple gardener, but, while humility remains valuable throughout, Aragorn's strength is that he knows that he is born to be King. Ruling is all he can ever ethically do (noticeably, whether or not his people consent to be ruled - note that the first Man of Gondor he comes into contact with is Boromir, whose response of "ok mate where the fuck have you been when we were fighting and dying for the past forty years?", and that is cast as a mistake on Boromir's part, and he is told to sit down and respect the rightful king by Literal Voice Of The Gods Gandalf), and it would be wrong and evil for him to try to do anything else, just as it would be a moral wrong for Sam to try to be a king.

Lord of the Rings in particular is very concerned with noblesse oblige and the burdens of power - while, yes, the core story is "minor gentry [Sam is the only actual working-class character] rises above his presumed station and, through being literally and metaphorically one of the little people of the world, slips under the radar and completes a heroic quest", almost all the surrounding stories are about the difficult duty of managing power. And, unfortunately, this lends itself very readily to a "white man's burden" kind of reading - these people, you see, are simply of superior race (literally, in the case of the Elves, and in the case of Aragorn, Boromir, and the ruling class of Gondor being measured by their proximity to Númenorean bloodlines), and so it is their unfortunate duty to command and to cleanse the lesser (Orcish, and by extension Easterling and Haradrim) races from their nice, functional societies.

To be clear: I do not think this is how Tolkien intended it. I think, in his own traditionalist, cloistered-academic, Catholic way, he was pretty egalitarian. He doesn't treat the ruling class as actually better than the working class - Sam is no less a hero than Frodo, Merry, and Pippin, all of whom are gentry or nobility, and none of them are lesser as people than Aragorn or Elrond or even Gandalf or Galadriel - even if he does view class distinctions as fundamental and immutable differences. He values friendship, peace, and the laying down of grudges (against all the problems caused by revenge, note that Éomer's first and most noble act of kingship is "accepting the Dunlendings' surrender, treating them kindly, and making peace with them", and they are so impressed by this that they too put aside a centuries-long war and help rebuild the country they helped to destroy). While he often forgets that women exist (I will die on the hill that "three out of 22 rulers of Númenor were women, despite equal inheritance being explicit" is evidence that Tolkien just did not think of women as being half the population), he is quick to defend their value in both masculine and feminine pursuits, and to express them as people outside of marriage and childbearing - and his own life, in which he married a much older divorcée from a different religious background against all voices from their families, reflects that same sense of valuing women on human terms. He is a humanist, not in the religious sense but in the sense that he values humanity above all things in his writing; he writes consistently against power for its own sake, against war as glory, and against bigotry and condemnation.

BUT

he was also a traditional, dyed-in-the-wool Tory, Catholic-restorationist, pro-feudal Oxford don who was raised in a much more conservative time, place, and social class than most of us, and he brings that to his writing too. From a conservative perspective, reading with an eye for right-wing ideas:

Éowyn ultimately turns from the aberration of being a warrior and becomes a wife and mother, embracing "feminine" traits of healing and caring as part of her own healing.

Class is reified through Sam's heroism being that of a servant, and Aragorn's that of a king, and the return of the king is the source of great rejoicing.

Some races, and some classes, are simply better at things. Dwarves are better craftsmen. Men are better warriors. Elves are better at everything because they're special. they are also tall and fair and European

The idyllic Shire is a cottagecore dream of traditional British rural life, in which people know their place, women are real women, and everyone has good manners.

Most of the "good" societies are coded with European or Classical trappings (the exception is actually Gondor, which is pretty easily read as Byzantine), and opposed against a literal rampaging horde from the East. Some of the horde from the East are literally inhuman, while others are elephant-riding brutes who hold oblique historical grudges and strange religious customs. Compassion against these foreign invaders is looked upon favourably by the narrative, but only after you've killed them.

With the previous point, and the films, in mind, it is easy to conclude that regardless of species diversity, the Fellowship is a cadre of brave white men fighting to protect their society from a monstrous foreign threat - one in which a cunning trickster from within the main setting has puppeted the less evolved races into destroying Western civilisation.

While the story is anti-war, it is anti-war in a way that allows for cool battle scenes and noble deaths, and there are several points at which Dying For A Cause is lionised and seen as redemptive in a way that slots nicely into a lot of more militaristic ideologies (including fascism).

again, I cannot underline enough, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A FAIR READING OF THE NARRATIVE. I think it's an ideologically-motivated reading that ignores both Tolkien's personal views and large chunks of the text. But the thing is: the people who read it in the way I've described would probably say the same thing of your description.

The thing about Tolkien's much-discussed distaste for intentional allegory is: Lord of the Rings is not 1984. It is not an explicit political polemic. It is one man unpacking his Great War trauma and political anxieties, his expertise in Anglo-Saxon literature, his special interests in folklore and etymology, his love of the English countryside and his dislike of modernity, his Catholicism and his conservatism and his egalitarianism and his loneliness and his loves. It is not absolute in its politics, because it isn't trying to give you a political solution: it's trying to give you morals, yes, but they're as much personal ones as societal ones.

It is not a shock that right-wingers latch onto Tolkien's work, or see parts of their beliefs reflected there. It's still a fucking insult to the work, but it's not a shock.

Seeing conservatives and bigots being fans of Tolkien works is a special type of jumpscare bcs what are you doing here man? In the franchise about folks from different backgrounds and races come together in brotherhood to vanquish the villain? Where kindness and compassion and sinple happiness were seen as the best ways to keep evil at bay? Where war is not glorified and seen as a grim necessity to the point where the son of the author gor criticised the movies for glorifying the war too much? Where men openly engaged in feminine activities and were open about emotions other than anger? Where multiple characters gender presentation varied from those we normally associate with their gender? Where women were empowered in multiple different ways? Where greed was presented as turning one into a literal monster?Where the villains are all thinly veiled depictions of capitalism? Where care for the enviornment is seen as a given?

[vaspider]

While I'm writing things that I've been intending to write for a while... one of the things that I think that a lot of people who haven't been involved in like... banking or corporate shenaniganry miss about why our economy is its current flavor of total fuckery is the concept of "fiduciary duty to shareholders."

"Why does every corporation pursue endless growth?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations treat workers the way they do?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations make such bass-ackwards decisions about what's 'good for' the company?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The legal purpose of a corporation with shareholders -- its only true purpose -- is the generation of revenue/returns for shareholders. Period. That's it. Anything else it does is secondary to that. Sustainability of business, treatment of workers, sustainability and quality of product, those things are functionally and legally second to generating revenue for shareholders. Again, period, end of story. There is no other function of a corporation, and all of its extensive legal privileges exist to allow it to do that.

"But Spider," you might say, "that sounds like corporations only exist in current business in order to extract as much money and value as possible from the people actually doing the work and transfer it up to the people who aren't actually doing the work!"

Yes. You are correct. Thank you for coming with me to that realization. You are incredibly smart and also attractive.

You might also say, "but Spider, is this a legal obligation? Could those running a company be held legally responsible for failing their obligations if they prioritize sustainability or quality of product or care of workers above returns for shareholders?"

Yes! They absolutely can! Isn't that terrifying? Also you look great today, you're terribly clever for thinking about these things. The board and officers of a corporation can be held legally responsible to varying degrees for failing to maximize shareholder value.

And that, my friends, is why corporations do things that don't seem to make any fucking sense, and why 'continuous growth' is valued above literally anything else: because it fucking has to be.

If you're thinking that this doesn't sound like a sustainable economic model, you're not alone. People who are much smarter than both of us, and probably nearly as attractive, have written a proposal for how to change corporate law in order to create a more sensible and sustainable economy. This is one of several proposals, and while I don't agree with all of this stuff, I think that reading it will really help people as a springboard to understanding exactly why our economy is as fucked up as it is, and why just saying 'well then don't pursue eternal growth' isn't going to work -- because right now it legally can't. We'd need to change -- and we can change -- the laws around corporate governance.

This concept of 'shareholder primacy' and the fiduciary duty to shareholders is one I had to learn when I was getting my securities licenses, and every time I see people confusedly asking why corporations try to grow grow grow in a way that only makes sense if you're a tumor, I sigh and think, 'yeah, fiduciary duty to shareholders.'

(And this is why Emet and I have refused to seek investors for NK -- we might become beholden to make decisions which maximize investor return, and that would get in the way of being able to fully support our people and our values and say the things we started this company to say.)

Anyway, you should read up on these concepts if you're not familiar. It's pretty eye-opening.

[act-nat-ural]

It started when Kuroo referred to you as his ‘karaoke wife.’ Kenma’s face twisted into one of clear disgust. “What does that even mean..” Kuroo threw an arm around your shoulder and gave you a smug look. “Care to explain?”

You rolled your eyes but couldn't hold back your smile. “It means we only go to karaoke if the other is going.” The team gave you an unimpressed look as Kuroo gestured for you to go on. You sighed and avoided eye contact, mumbling, “We also only do duets with each other.”

You could feel the heat rising to your cheeks as Fukunaga let out a giggle and Yamamoto muttered, “I wish I had a karaoke wife,” under his breath.

Kuroo chuckled, sensing your discomfort. “What she means is, we’ve got a vibe when we sing together. Like, there’s this chemistry between us that just clicks. It’s like we can read each other’s minds, you know? We can start a song without saying a word, and it just flows. Perfect harmonies, smooth transitions… It’s like we’re in sync. Like we *get* each other, musically.”

The team looked between you and Kuroo with varying degrees of skepticism. Kenma raised an eyebrow. “Uh-huh, chemistry, sure.”

“You know,” Kuroo continued, leaning back and grinning, “There’s a special kind of magic when you’re so in tune with someone. We can make any song sound like it’s meant for us. Ever heard of ‘The Power of Love’?” He looked to you, eyes glinting. “It’s like, you and I? We can turn even the cheesiest love songs into something everyone wants to listen to. And don’t get me started on our ‘Shallow’ duet. We had the whole room cheering.”

You felt the familiar rush of both pride and bashfulness. “It’s not that impressive,” you muttered, but the smile tugging at your lips betrayed you. You were secretly proud of the way your voices blended, the effortless way you made each performance feel unique.

“Are you kidding?” Kuroo scoffed, clearly enjoying the teasing. “I���m pretty sure we make every karaoke night legendary. I mean, do you see how we make the crowd react? They go wild. It's not just the song—it’s us. We’ve got that... thing.”

The team was silent for a moment, trying to process what Kuroo was saying. Finally, Fukunaga spoke up, a teasing smile creeping up on his face. “I don’t know, man. If I’m ever looking for a duet partner, I might just steal (Name)  away from you.”

Kuroo’s face immediately shifted into mock offense. “Try it. You’ll regret it.”

You raised an eyebrow, crossing your arms over your chest. “You’re being a little dramatic, aren’t you?”

“Nope.” Kuroo leaned forward, his voice dropping an octave. “You and I? We’ve got karaoke magic. I’m not just letting anyone ruin that.”

You couldn’t help but laugh, the embarrassment from earlier melting away in the warmth of Kuroo’s words. He always knew how to make you feel special, and even though the teasing never stopped, you had to admit—it was kind of nice to be his ‘karaoke wife.’ The team might not get it, but you knew. When you two sang together, nothing else mattered.

But just as the moment seemed to settle, a voice rang out from Yamamoto, his grin wide and mischievous. “Kuroo, you do know you two are terrible, right?”

Kuroo’s confident smile faltered slightly, his eyes narrowing playfully. “Excuse me?”

Yamamoto shrugged with a grin, and Kenma, looking utterly bored, added dryly, “I mean, you both sound like two dying cats trying to harmonize. It’s not really the chemistry you think it is.”

The whole team, seemingly in agreement, nodded along. “You guys literally can’t stay on key for more than a few notes,” Fukunaga chimed in, barely suppressing his laughter.

You blushed, rubbing the back of your neck awkwardly. “Okay, okay, maybe we're not great... but it’s fun, right?”

“You and Kuroo are the worst,” Kenma said, deadpan. “You sound like you’re trying to hit notes that just don’t exist.”

You couldn’t help but burst into laughter at the realization. “We’re not that bad,” you protested, but even you knew it was true. Kuroo, despite his confidence, was as tone-deaf as they came, and your singing wasn’t much better. 

Kuroo threw his hands up dramatically. “You’re all just jealous of our unmatched charisma!”

The team snickered, and Yamamoto playfully patted Kuroo on the back. “Sure, buddy. But hey, we’ll still cheer you on. You’re great... at making everyone else sound better.”

With that, you and Kuroo exchanged a look, both of you trying not to crack up. Despite all the teasing, you knew one thing for sure—karaoke with Kuroo was never about being the best. It was about having fun, creating memories, and laughing at how awful your singing was. And honestly? That was more than enough for both of you.

note: kinda short but oh well

[hoshizoralone]

a post where i separate every woman in smash by how i would categorize them in relation to samus if she had a dating sim and they had to be assigned a character type (that im saving here in case i ever want to go back to think about this) . and other samus & smash girls shipping thoughts

firstly i originally posted this on bluesky so if you’re not following me there.. go do that!! @hoshizoralone.bsky.social

explanations for the tropes are as follows:

childhood friend - palutena (kid icarus and metroid game overlaps of which there are many. like come on man... this is a nobrainer)

energetic cute girls - peach/daisy/pyra (daisy is jock leaning)

jocks - wii fit trainer/alex/mythra

mysterious transfer student - sheik/mii gunner/rosalina/lucina (though samus is not in school. but i'm not sure how else to explain this trope. maybe just "mysterious character")

the love interest that openly flirts with the mc - bayonetta

(varying degrees of) nerds, the smart girls - byleth/robin/zelda/isabelle (like lets say they were put into a scenario with samus. they would be the brains of the operation. robin would have had the adam stuff in dread solved immediately)

i don't care - corrin (i really tried to think of what trope she could be but i don't even imagine samus would like her)

not viable (teenagers). these two become a background couple - min-min/leaf (well, i had thought this, but after making the post on bluesky someone told me leaf’s canon age is 11. i had thought she was nebulously teenaged…. so either age her up here, or forget this tier exists)

not viable (babies) - villagers/inklings/wendy/nana

i do think the idea of creating a sim revolving around samus would be fun, only issue is the pression has truly kicked my ass this year and i really am all out of writing ability. i have two other games already sitting in my drafts half finished…

it could make for a fun rom hack though. Maybe instead of the chozo giving you power ups its the other girls . And at the end you have to Save The Girls not the animals. Someone make that happen.

~~~~

the above isnt arranged by how much i ship it but the below is. imagine gandrayda (of metroid prime 3 fame) right under samus and then a massive powergap and then the rest of the chart:

two professional girlfailures are facing off head to head in this 500 chapter slow burn sam/palu fanfiction - palutena (palutena is a girlfailure at everything but samus only falls into that category for women. it would be an extremely long time for samus to realize palutena likes her . could they make it work when they're both so busy? read my nonexistent fic to find out)

samus has a one sided crush - peach/rosalina/wii fit trainer. (samus will never confess. peach has mario and samus isnt messing w that. samus thinks she's not cool enough for rosalina. wft is already in a relationship consult the lone wii fit trainer lore)

(in my head samus’s one sided crushes are justified like this:

peach - she is literally so pretty it’s blinding. peak femininity is making samus short circuit

rosalina - parentless lady from space who has been left alone/feels lonely resonates hard

wft - she gives constant positive feedback which i think samus is starved to hear)

i used to love sam/bayo but bayo3 sucked so i kinda dont care about it anymore - bayonetta. sad day.

one sided crush on samus - alex/robin/zelda/lucina

samus-neutral - sheik/byleth/isabelle/gunner/pymythra/daisy/corrin. (they probably wouldnt pass up the opportunity to kiss samus if given one but they're not having their thoughts occupied by her)

one sided childhood crush (thinks she's cool) (not reciprocated) - min-min (samus is sort of like a celebrity. it's sort of like having a crush on zac efron when hes 18 and youre 7)

i consider samus in her 30s so every teenager and baby who doesn't have a cute unreciprocated crush is out of the running - leaf/villagers/inklings/nana/wendy

someone had asked… where’s dark samus. for me as one of the five samus x gandrayda shippers, i think if there was a dating sim and dark samus was in it samus would immediately halt the events of the dating sim to go hunt her down as repayment for everything + the whole killing her girlfriend thing. like she cant exist in this world.

the only other samus thing i ship that isn’t mentioned here already is samus x cortana. it could be cute. i do Naut ship her with any guys. lesbian samus for life

aside from samus x gandrayda which will probably always be my ride or die ship, i think the ship with the most interesting stuff to explore is samus/palutena… they aren’t alike characterwise at all, but it’s just that their series are linked in a metatextual sense, so its fun to imagine them together. in a “we’ve been hanging around each other for a while!” kind of way. well, opposites attract..

anyways that was my post. If you read this and have thoughts let me know. Maybe i’ll draw some stuff in my freetime. Cool thanks love ya bye.

[spacelazarwolf]

so this is a trashfire for many reasons.

lack of historical knowledge and complete lack of perspective

israel was not created by britain. israel declared independence from britain. israel was not "designed to funnel jewish people out of all other countries." israel is not "puppeted by america for the purposes of colonizing southwest asia" and the insinuation that israel's goal is to colonize the entirety of southwest asia is actually a documented antisemitic conspiracy theory.

"Even before the State of Israel came into existence, Arab leaders accused Zionists of seeking to rule most of the Middle East," a secret Jewish plot to establish a "Greater Israel" extending from the Nile to the Eurphrates and the Persian Gulf, and south deep into Saudi Arabia. Albeit "farfetched" and a "calumny," this notion has "become so routinized and accepted" that it "now serves as the conventional wisdom in all the Arabic-speaking countries and Iran." Pipes 1998, 49, 69. This is one of two maps in the collection alleged to provide evidence of the "Greater Israel" conspiracy. (The other is ID #2411, "Jewish Imperial Ambitions In Palestine and Neighbouring Countries," 1967.) This map, "Dream of Zionism," shows Zionism as a giant serpent, its back decorated with a pattern of triangles described as "Freemasons Eye, 'Symbol of Jewry.'" The snake's circular outline marks the "Proposed Boundary of 'Greater Israel,'" an area including all of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Sinai Peninsula; the Nile delta region of Egypt along the Suez Canal and northwest of Cairo; and virtually all of Iraq, including access to the Persian Gulf. It also includes a large portion of northwestern Saudi Arabia, a corridor well over 100 miles wide along the Red Sea, stretching south more than 450 miles from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Holy City of Medina. "Curiously," the conspiracy theorists "see Greater Israel including Medina but not Mecca; the oil fields of Kuwait but not those of Saudi Arabia; and more of Turkey than Iran." The State of Israel is identified as "Occupied Palestine." Pipes 62. This map first appeared in an English-language edition of the fraudulent "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - the infamous blood libel against the Jewish people - published in Iran in 1985. Ibid. This version appears in a new edition, "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," attributed to "The Representatives of Zion, of the 33rd Degree" and published in Kuwait by the "Scientific Research House." The estimated publication date is 2018. The current version of the map varies only slightly from that of 1985 illustrated in Pipes: the words "Symbol of Jewry" have been added in script beneath the legend "Freemasons Eye," and a partially legible signature ("Mir"?) appears at the lower right.

also i'm not sure what the intention was with bringing up the rwandan genocide because rwanda was colonized by germany and belgium, not the british. unless you think literally everything bad that happens in the world is tied to britain... which just so happens to be another antisemitic conspiracy theory that originated in the ussr. all the while jews were being demonized in the uk for being "communist sympathizers." because jews are the symbol of everything you hate, all the problems in your life. that is how antisemitism functions.

2. tokenizing jews for your own benefit

"i had followed [jewish blogs] in an attempt to better understand jewish concerns ... and i've been unfollowing them one by one ... i was getting genuine perspectives on issues i knew very little about - and now, for those blogs in particular, it's impossible to separate what might be a genuine concern verses wht's being weaponised to justify a settler state"

this is an open admission that you are only able to take in jewish perspectives from jews you agree with. and considering the ignorance that's rampant in the rest of the post, my guess is that what you saw was jews who were scared and angry at the way people acted after october 7th and the way antisemitism is rising, but the non jews you follow were insistent that those sentiments could not coexist with palestinian liberation. additionally, the fact you are unable to separate genuine concern verses "what's being weaponised" is your own problem, not ours. the way jewish pain is being downplayed, mocked, ignored, and demonized, the way people have insisted that any mourning for the victims of october 7th or concern for the hostages must be propaganda is antisemitic. and you are actively contributing to that, particularly by saying that western powers arresting people during protests "has been a setup from the beginning" with the very clear insinuation that it is "zionists" who are to blame for the setup.

3. you are really fucking entitled

you are a british goy (not a "goyim" btw, goy is singular, goyim is plural). you literally admitted that you "don't know how to talk about this with the tat and care [you] should be as a [non jew]" and that "certainly there is a degree in arrogance for [you] to talk about judaism as an outsider." and yet you wrote this whole post full of antisemitic conspiracy theories and antisemitic biases while claiming you know how to protect jewish people and while claiming that zionism is "the biggest danger to jewish people right now."

let us be very fucking clear. the biggest danger to jewish people right now is antisemites and the actions they choose to take, and the consequences of those actions.

you say that "if you tell the general public, who are very susceptible to the broader news cycle, that judaism and zionism is the same thing, they very well will be motivated to do antisemitic things, because they believe they are fighting zionism."

this has already happened and has been happening for decades. framing jews as zionists and demonizing zionism as a jewish ideology is not new. it happened all across swana, even before israel declared independence, including during the farhud which was a pogrom that occurred as part of the holocaust in iraq where jews were executed, beaten, and tens of thousands had to flee from government-sponsored persecution specifically and explicitly targeted at jews under the guise of "antizionism." it also happened in the ussr.

the desire to completely separate judaism from zionism as a jewish ideology is not out of concern for jews. zionism is a jewish ideology founded on one possible solution to global antisemitism, as an attempt to keep jews safe from constant persecution, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. it's not a solution you have to agree with, but trying to completely divorce it from judaism only opens the door for the very people you claim to be concerned about who will use zionism as an excuse to attack jews, as they have been for decades.

i have said it before and i'll say it again. zionism is one of the jewish answers to the question "what do we do with the jews?" historically, the answers gentiles have come up with have been "subjugate them, ethnically cleanse them, slaughter them, genocide them." so when you respond to that question of "what do we do with the jews?" with "i don't really care, but not that! and actually your jewish answer is what's causing this in the first place so really it's your fault!" it's kind of fucking bonkers to expect most jews to respond in any positive way. if you expect to have a productive conversation with zionist jews or with jews as a whole, you must present your own answer to "what do we do with the jews?" and if you're thinking "well how the fuck am i supposed to figure out a plan to get antisemitism all over the world to go away? that’s going to take too long!" you almost understand the point. the eradication of antisemitism is a global effort, and one that won't be achieved in our lifetimes. so the least you can do in the meantime is educate yourself, interact with jews in good faith, listen to jewish perspectives even if you don't agree with them, and realize that you are still going to have only scratched the surface.

so yes, you're right. it was extremely arrogant of you to post this, and you are an example of how ignorance breeds antisemitism among the uneducated masses.

[radfemfox5]

Hi there - I'm trans and Jewish and I'd like to share my perspective on the "trans genocide" thing. I don't think we're experiencing active genocide in the US; that's definitely an extreme and offensive statement to make regarding what's happening. However, I do think that the increasing legislation attacking trans rights and autonomy as well as an increasingly polarized public view of trans people points to the potential for a worse situation that moves closer to genocide.

Now, personally, I live in a state where no laws limiting trans rights have passed. I was able to legally begin my medical transition when I was 15, I've never experienced transphobic violence, and the majority of people around me are supportive of my transition. My experience is similar to most other trans people in my area, with varying degrees of familial support.

But nation wide, we have seen an increase of trans people being murdered, and a massive increase in anti-trans legislation. This legislation aims to strip trans people of their autonomy and privacy. It seeks to put trans children in danger, remove information about what it is to be trans or queer from children's access, and enforce archaic ideas about what it means to be a man or woman.

Most of this is happening because right wing politicians can capitalize on moral outrage and fear to win votes. They're scapegoating trans people instead of trying to improve the lives of their constituents. This is kind of politician's thing, so it's not surprising in any way. However, when those policies successfully do win these politicians support, they'll have to make them more extreme. They'll want to make it illegal to exist as a trans person in public.

Now I'm not saying that that's genocide. I think we're an awfully long way off from trans people being mass arrested for being trans, and then murdered by the state. But we are in a rising climate of fear, and I don't think the trans people calling this the seventh stage of genocide are doing so out of bad faith. I think they're doing that because they are terrified of having their right to take life-saving medication, or have protection in the workplace, or be able to use a bathroom, or have children, or wear what they want to wear taken away. And they're terrified of those things because the bills on the table in states across the country put those rights in jeopardy. And if calling this a genocide makes people pay attention? I'm not super mad about it.

Hi, thank you for sharing your perspective on this. I appreciate it.

Your fear is primarily based on sensationalist headlines and interpretations of the law that are unfounded. I can assure you, you are not even in the early stages of a genocide.

But nation wide, we have seen an increase of trans people being murdered

In 2021, the Human Rights Campaign recorded 50 deaths of trans, nonbinary and GNC people.

In 2022, the HRC recorded 38 deaths (source). So. If we take these numbers at face value, that's a decrease of nearly 25% in one year, in a growing section of the population.

Taking these numbers and the size of the transgender population in the US (1.6 million), in 2021, trans people had a death rate of 3.1/100k, and in 2022, this dropped to 2.4. Again, the numbers provided by the HRC include nonbinary and GNC people, and accidental deaths.

Some of these aren't even murders or intentional homicides. They just say they were killed. I wouldn't consider these numbers reliable whatsoever, but they're the only estimate we have for now. There are so few trans deaths that they can fit on a single Wikipedia page, along with a little blurb about their life and who they were. It would be impossible to do something similar with victims of femicide, since there are too many to count. This page lists victims of femicide, only in Canada, only in 2022, and it is nearly as long as the Wikipedia page I listed above.

This is a perfect segue to my next point, which is to compare trans genocide to femicide, which is actually real. Women are killed so often that the UN has to categorize female murder victims as either killings (unnatural deaths), intentional homicides or gender-related killings (hate crimes, therefore considered in femicide statistics).

The intentional homicide rate for female victims in the US is 2.9/100k (data from 2021), and it is steadily increasing after having been on the decline since the mid-90s.

That only includes the pink and red circles shown in the UN's chart, not accidental deaths or unknown deaths like the HRC includes in their counts. Some countries have as many as 10.6/100k women die a year.

TL;DR: The murder rate for trans people in the US is not increasing, it is decreasing. This isn't indicative of a trans genocide in the slightest.

But nation wide, we have seen [...] a massive increase in anti-trans legislation.

As I was saying earlier, this idea stems from sensationalist headlines. It's concerning to me how widespread the misinformation about anti trans legislation really is, when house bills are publicly available online. You can literally do a quick Google search and find that most of these bills are nothing burgers.

Unfortunately, it's easier for you to just go on a website like translegislation.com and have them tell you what these bills say. I'll do some of the work for you and go through how these sites lie to you.

Alabama imposing criminal penalties on providers of trans healthcare? Sounds scary. Let's see what the source they linked, the HRC, has to say.

Ah. So it's specifically regarding transgender youth. As in, minors. This is after going through an insanely long title detailing how bad the bill is. The trans legislation tracker essentially lies by omission, implying that all trans healthcare is being criminalized.

Going to the bill in question, AL SB184, we can see that it actually acknowledges the existence of dysphoria in children.

However, they also acknowledge that this feeling may be fleeting, and that making permanent changes to a child's body solely on account of the child's personal sense of identity is unwise.

I won't go through every single bill here, as this post is already very long, but you get the idea. Feel free to send another ask if you would like me to look at specific bills.

Back to your ask: the way you speak of these bills shows that you've never read them for yourself or know how legislation works, since you're acting like it's the beginning of Armageddon.

This legislation aims to strip trans people of their autonomy and privacy. It seeks to put trans children in danger, remove information about what it is to be trans or queer from children's access, and enforce archaic ideas about what it means to be a man or woman.

I'm assuming by autonomy and privacy, you mean the choice to undergo medical transition and the bathroom/locker room/women's sports issue respectively.

Bills limiting "gender-affirming" care are focused on children, since puberty blockers like Lupron are now known to have very negative and permanent effects. The bills don't ban adults from choosing to take HRT. It's extremely profitable for doctors to continue to prescribe HRT and for surgeons to continue to recommend expensive plastic surgeries. Legislation won't go that route unless there's a massive shift in public perception.

The "Save Women's Sports Act" literally just limits participation in women's school sports to females only. That's it. The trans legislation tracker even acknowledges this.

Most of these bills are copy pasted from eachother, which is why they're all dubbed as "Save Women's Sports." Here's a snippet from HB61 in Ohio:

If someone's sex is brought into question, a simple blood test is all that's needed. Contrary to what the media may have led you to believe, there are no forcible genital inspections. No trans person is being forced to undress for this. Only 6 trans "girls" are affected by this in Ohio, out of 400k total athletes in girl's sports. So I'm not sure why this feels like a precursor to genocide to you.

remove information about what it is to be trans or queer from children's access,

Personally, I don't think children should be aware that medical transition is even a remote possibility unless they are in extreme psychological distress related to their sex. Even then, therapy is usually the best solution. I don't think the "Gender Unicorn," a surprisingly complex graphic created in part by an alleged violent rapist and groomer, should be used in classrooms to teach children about gender ideology. Gender ideology should be taught to college students who are better equipped to form their own opinion, not children who barely know how to read.

There are better, more useful things to push in our education curriculum, like compulsory comprehensive sex ed. That way, young men don't learn about sex through violent pornography, and young girls don't accidentally get pregnant without knowing what it means. This would also be a good time to teach them about sexual orientation. Leaving it up to the parents or focusing on abstinence evidently doesn't work.

enforce archaic ideas about what it means to be a man or woman.

The lack of self-awareness here is pretty astounding. The trans movement actively enforces these archaic ideas of gender by telling tomboys that they might actually be a boy. This implies that femininity is what makes womanhood, which is objectively untrue.

By telling masculine women that they are men and feminine men that they are women, you're literally enforcing the gender roles you say you're destroying.

They'll want to make it illegal to exist as a trans person in public.

You can speculate about this all you want, but you can't see laws limiting child transition and keeping sports sex-segregated as writing on the wall. We're not even close to that.

Now I'm not saying that that's genocide. I think we're an awfully long way off from trans people being mass arrested for being trans, and then murdered by the state.

I'm glad to hear you are moderately sane.

But we are in a rising climate of fear,

Your phrasing reminds me of US politics in the wake of 9/11. When people act out of fear, decisions are made in haste, and wars are started over made-up WMDs. Being fearful clouds your judgement.

Look around you. You're safe and accepted. The trans flag is flown almost everywhere in June. A trans woman won the NCAA National Champion title just last year. For International Women's Day, multiple companies featured trans women. Time Magazine featured many trans women as Women of the Year. Language is now inclusive, so women don't actually exist anymore. We're just uterus havers. This is all to cater to trans people.

Yeah. It's getting to be a bit much, isn't it? Don't you expect the least bit of pushback, especially from women? We aren't living in fear of some invisible boogeyman. We are angry at how rapidly our hard work has been undone.

We're pissed that after decades of feminist progress, we've regressed to being considered non-men once again.

and I don't think the trans people calling this the seventh stage of genocide are doing so out of bad faith. I think they're doing that because they are terrified of having their right to take life-saving medication, or have protection in the workplace, or be able to use a bathroom, or have children, or wear what they want to wear taken away.

Puberty blockers and HRT do not save lives. They actually haven't been proven to have a substantial enough effect on mental health to consider them an adequate treatment for gender dysphoria.

2. Trans people have the same basic human rights as any other human being.

3. Many places are adding gender-neutral bathrooms in order to accommodate the growing trans population. No one is checking your genitals at the door of a bathroom, no one cares that much. I care about girls being assaulted at school by boys in skirts and the school boards covering it up in the name of trans acceptance (x).

4. Trans people remove their own ability to have children by going on puberty blockers, HRT and even eventually physically castrating themselves. If you mean the ability to adopt or foster children, I don't know. Gay and lesbian couples still have a hard time adopting to this day, so progress can be made in that department.

To conclude this hodgepodge of various facts, screenshots and links, I'll leave you with this:

I fundamentally disagree with you that crying "genocide" is in any way helpful for your community. It's not. Most of Western society might have forgotten what genocide looks like or doesn't even know what the word means anymore, but you should know better as a Jew.

The attention trans people get from saying that they're going through a genocide is overwhelmingly negative from people on both ends of the political spectrum at this point. People are annoyed at trans people for making shit up, which ruins your movement's credibility.

When you have to lie to get someone's attention, you've already lost.

[bioethicists]

beer killed my father . he had a disease which destroyed his body and strained his relationships with his wife, his friends, and his children. Alcohol destroys everything it touches, theres a reason you see so many liquor stores in poor neighborhoods. don’t be fucking obtuse. Prohibition obviously doesn’t work, but I wish alcohol was taxed higher. And i want the CEO of Heineken on the guillotine right after Jeff Bezos.

before anything, i want to let you know that i am incredibly sorry about your father. alcohol has decimated entire generations of my family, played a crucial role in the neglectful family structure i spent the first 19 years of my life suffering under, + played a minor but not insignificant role in my brother's death. i would never undermine or dismiss that in anyone.

i used to feel very similarly to you, in large part because my mother is a recovering alcoholic who raised me to believe that alcohol is a magic poison which turns people into monsters + i, being her child, probably inherited a disease which would also turn me into a monster if i chose to drink. it's a deeply painful + understandable response to the pain that alcohol can cause.

my first question is, does alcohol really "destroy everything it touches"? are there not millions of people who engage with alcohol, in varying degrees of recreational use, who experience minimal or no negative impacts? or do you believe that everyone who drinks alcohol in any capacity is experiencing severe destruction in their lives as a result? does the existence of people for whom alcohol enriches their lives (or is a neutral presence) at all invalidate your experience, or your father's?

my second question is, you've identified that there are 'so many liquor stores in poor neighborhoods' (i would add there is a lot of alcohol in rich neighborhoods, just distributed in less stigmatized ways, like boutique wineries + fancy bars), do you think that companies are strategically attempting to create alcohol dependencies among poor people, or do you think that poverty creates the pain, hopelessness, + desperation which can fuel an alcohol habit (which is then exacerbated by intergenerational trauma + community alcohol culture).

i feel no allegiance to liquor companies- they absolutely do make the bulk of their profits off of people who are drinking in a way that is destroying their lives (unsure if i trust the exact scope of the research in that link but i trust the gist). however, liquor companies love the disease model, because it exempts them from responsibility. if alcoholism is truly a genetic disease, then liquor companies, bars, package stores hold no fault in the development of destructive drinking habits + community norms (natasha Schüll discusses this in her book about gambling addiction)- the people were already sick + would be getting it somewhere else, anyway, right? but as you have correctly identified, liquor companies help create the structures which turn alcohol use into an accessible + normalized mode of self-destruction.

my third question is, will taxing liquor help the real problem? yes, it reduces alcohol consumption, but does it reduce addiction? or does it make cheapskates like me say "i'm not fucking paying for that" while individuals who consume alcohol compulsively either eat the cost or turn to more illicit ways of obtaining alcohol. or, rephrased, is the problem that alcohol is too accessible? is alcohol a magical poison which turns 'normal' people into 'alcoholics'? alternatively, is alcoholism a genetic condition, unrelated to any outside circumstances, which is triggered by drinking?

or: is alcoholism one of many ways in which people who are experiencing hopelessness, pain, grief, poverty, trauma, etc use to numb themselves, harm themselves, + make life feel more bearable? at this point, i do believe there is at least a temperament factor which makes people more likely to use substances over other forms of escape (hence why my brother used substances while i turned to anorexia + do not struggle with substance use). are we actually addressing the problem if we make it more expensive (thus, mind you, further impoverishing people with alcohol addictions!)? or are we shifting the pain these people are experiencing to either other avenues (opioids, other drugs, totally different ways of coping which are often just as destructive) or an unregulated, underground alcohol market.

the way you are viewing alcohol, alcohol is a unique substance which is manufacturing or feeding illness in people in order to make them behave in ways which destroy their lives + the lives of others. the way i am viewing it, alcohol is a presence which can fill a void that is being created in people's lives as a response to structural, communal, or social suffering. when alcohol is painted as the cause of this pain, we are able to look the other way from a which world is structured to cause an immense amount of people to suffer needlessly. at the same time, the common sense observation that many of us engage with alcohol in ways which do not destroy our lives, as well as the knowledge that prohibition does not work, prevents the erasure of alcohol from public or private life.

who benefits from the belief that alcohol is a uniquely corrupting substance? what lessons did we actually learn from prohibition- is trying to do it to a lesser degree (make alcohol less accessible) actually going to do anything? when the price of opioids went up due to dea crackdowns, did people stop buying opioids or did the market flood with cheap + deadly fentanyl? is the problem that people are drinking or that they are suffering?

[saiscribbles]

Lily is correct. She doesn't make rage bait. You'd have to be at least a little clever and actually plan out your video scripts to do that.

Lily's opinions are just so off-base, so deranged, so childish, so wrapped up in her own personal bullshit and delivered in that smug ass Ben Shapiro "I'm so right and smart and logical" style that it just stabs painfully into the brain of anyone with sense who hears them.

And aside from this strange deficiency she has when it comes to understanding narrative, she doesn't seem to fully watch or play anything she ever talks about!

Utena? Clearly didn't see it. She didn't even know the name of the villain. If she had watched it she'd have been screaming about the tone and either praising or deflecting on the three sibling relationships of varying degrees of incestuous in it.

Steven Universe? I doubt she's rewatched it since it aired. She constantly gets things wrong or is surprised by things that are in episodes. And the movie? I doubt she watched it beyond just a few clips. She went by a bunch of edgy Reddit fan theories, didn't know what any of the songs were actually about, and then kept disgustingly saying reset Pearl being a Pearl to Greg was gay conversion therapy and cut out Opal's entire existence to maintain that narrative.

Even Kingdom Hearts? Well mah boi Crim from my supporter Discord went over that one. Lily, supposed big mega fan of KH, tells you to just skip a bunch of the games. We now wonder if she's actually played them or only watched cutscenes.

[mariacallous]

The number of people who read for fun appears to be steadily dropping. Fifty percent of UK adults say they don’t read regularly (up from 42 percent in 2015) and almost one in four young people aged 16 to 24 say they’ve never been readers, according to research by The Reading Agency.

But what are the implications? Will people’s preference for video over text affect our brains or our evolution as a species? What kind of brain structure do good readers actually have? My new study, published in NeuroImage, has found out.

I analyzed open source data from more than 1,000 participants to discover that readers of varying abilities had distinct traits in brain anatomy.

The structure of two regions in the left hemisphere, which are crucial for language, were different in people who were good at reading.

One was the anterior part of the temporal lobe. The left temporal pole helps associate and categorize different types of meaningful information. To assemble the meaning of a word such as leg, this brain region associates the visual, sensory and motor information conveying how legs look, feel and move.

The other was Heschl’s gyrus, a fold on the upper temporal lobe which hosts the auditory cortex (the cortex is the outermost layer of the brain). Better reading ability was linked to a larger anterior part of the temporal lobe in the left hemisphere compared to the right. It makes sense that having a larger brain area dedicated to meaning makes it easier to understand words and, therefore, to read.

What might seem less intuitive is that the auditory cortex would be related to reading. Isn’t reading mainly a visual skill? Not only. To pair letters with speech sounds, we first need to be aware of the sounds of the language. This phonological awareness is a well-established precursor to children’s reading development.

A thinner left Heschl’s gyrus has previously been related to dyslexia, which involves severe reading difficulties. My research shows that this variation in cortical thickness does not draw a simple dividing line between people with or without dyslexia. Instead, it spans the larger population, in which a thicker auditory cortex correlates with more adept reading.

Why Size Matters

Is thicker always better? When it comes to cortical structure, no, not necessarily. We know the auditory cortex has more myelin in the left hemisphere of most people. Myelin is a fatty substance that acts as an insulator for nerve fibers. It increases neural communication speed and can also insulate columns of brain cells from each other. Neural columns are believed to function as small processing units.

Their increased isolation and rapid communication in the left hemisphere can be thought to enable the fast, categorical processing necessary for language. We need to know if a speaker uses the category d or t when saying dear or tear rather than detecting the exact point where the vocal folds start vibrating.

According to the “balloon model” of cortical growth, the larger amount of myelin squeezes out left-hemispheric cortical areas, making them flatter but more extended. So while the left auditory cortex may be thicker in good readers, it is still thinner (but much more extended) than the corresponding right cortex.

This hypothesis was corroborated in the recent research. The left hemisphere had generally larger but thinner cortical areas with a higher degree of myelin.

So is thinner better, then? Again, the answer is no, not necessarily. Complex abilities that require integrating information tend to benefit from a thicker cortex. The anterior temporal lobe with its complex way of integrating information is indeed the thickest structure of all cortical areas. An underlying mechanism might be the existence of more overlapping, interacting neurons which process information more holistically.

Phonology is a highly complex skill, where different sound and motor features are integrated into speech sounds. It appears to correlate with a thicker cortex in an area near the left Heschl’s gyrus. While it is unclear to what extent phonology is processed in Heschl’s gyrus, the fact that phoneticians often have multiple left Heschl’s gyri suggests it is linked to speech sounds.

Clearly, brain structure can tell us a lot about reading skills. Importantly, though, the brain is malleable—it changes when we learn a new skill or practice an already acquired one.

For instance, young adults who studied language intensively increased their cortical thickness in language areas. Similarly, reading is likely to shape the structure of the left Heschl’s gyrus and temporal pole. So, if you want to keep your Heschl’s thick and thriving, pick up a good book and start reading.

Finally, it’s worth considering what might happen to us as a species if skills like reading become less prioritized. Our capacity to interpret the world around us and understand the minds of others would surely diminish. In other words, that cozy moment with a book in your armchair isn’t just personal—it’s a service to humanity.

[hazshit-hotel-hater]

@braincnancer I DO.

Im going to list them left to right and also provide names so it’s easier to search for these! For any flags stacked ontop of each other, its left, top, bottom. These first are pretty common, but it’ll get crazier as we progress. Let’s go!

Moxxie

Transmasculine: Someone who has transitioned to present as more masculine. This can apply to many people under the transgender umbrella, Moxxie however, is specifically a trans man and is comfortable in the gender binary of only a man.

Biromantic: Feeling romantic attraction to two or more genders.

Demisexual: Only feeling sexual attraction to someone after forming a deep bond with them.

Millie

Demiromantic/sexual: The same for Demisexual, however one also only feels romantic attraction after forming a bond with someone.

Straight ally: Straight, but supportive of the LGBTQ+.

Valentino

Pansexual: Feeling sexual or romantic attraction to people regardless of their sex or gender.

Masculinx: Where one feels their masculinity is xenic-neutral and nonconforming, anyone can be masc regardless of gender because this describes a type of gnc expression not a gender alignment (taken directly from the flag’s description! Coined by SkhOlstun)

Velvette

Cassgender: Where one feels their gender is unimportant, or where one is indifferent from the idea of gender. (Not to be confused with agender where people have no gender at all!)

Bisexual: Feeling sexual attraction to two or more genders. In Velvette’s case she’s also biromantic, but putting both felt a little redundant.

Vox

Bisexual: Look up at Velvette’s

Cherri Bomb

Agender: Where a person doesn't identify with any gender, or feels their gender identity is neutral or doesn't exist.

Biromantic: Look up at Moxxie’s

Pansexual: Look up at Valentino’s

Angel Dust

Boyfakegirl: Where one is 100% boy but 0% girl. Basically a boy who has a connection to the word "girl" but it’s not related to their gender at all. One might be boy/masc, androgynous, or neutral aligned, however their connection to femininity might feel as though it is fake/xenic somehow or is not the standard way usual femininity is.

MLM/Gay: A masculine person who is only romantically or sexually attracted to other masculine or non feminine identifying people.

Rosegender: A gender that is layered and thorny. Trying to hold onto the gender and pick apart every layer only causes emotional pain and stress.

Husk

Pansexual: Look up at Valentino’s

Charlie Morningstar

Biromantic: Look up at Moxxie’s

Agirligirlgender: Where someone identifies as a girl, but also simultaneously subtracted/separate from being a girl. It's not separate from being a girl by social terms, but rather distinct from it entirely, it's almost a paradox. It's not like being a girl in a fem, masc, or neutral way, it's being a girl without being a girl. (This gender was made with specifically neurodivergent people in mind so some people may just not get this one at all and that’s alright!)

Demiromantic: Look up at Moxxie’s

Evangeline/Vannie

WLW/Lesbian: A feminine person who is only romantically or sexually attracted to other feminine or non masculine identifying people.

Aroflux: Where a person who is on the aromantic spectrum experiences their romantic orientation as fluctuating between experiencing romantic attraction and not experiencing it, and/or experiencing romantic attraction to varying degrees.

Demiromantic: Only feeling romantic attraction to someone after forming a deep bond with them.

Alastor

Aroace: Experiencing little to no romantic or sexual attraction.

Forestthing: Where one’s gender feels less like a gender and more akin to a thing in a forest. What the “thing” is, is up to the person.

Humanthing: Where one feels like a human but not. As if you know you're human, but you don't feel human. You feel separated from your human identity and you feel comforted/more comfortable being seen as a thing & or non-human better.

Niffty

Straight Ally: Look up at Millie’s

Sir Pentious

Transmasculine: Look up at Moxxie’s

Non-binary: Where one identifies as a gender partially or wholly outside of the gender binary.

Straight Ally: Look up at Millie’s

————————

Hopefully this was a comprehensive list! A lot of these are a bit odd and I don’t expect everyone to get it, but as someone with a very fluid and odd idea of gender, it’s all just kinda how my head is. Have fun to anyone who enjoys this sort of thing!

[rin-and-jade]

Are You? What about You? Them? : A Post about Differentiating Types of Parts.

We all know that spiderman meme where they pointed to each other because they share similar qualities that confuses their selves;

Like this. Right?

They all sounded so similar that we neither knew which is which at first glance..

And so, at the end of this post you will be confident in pointing out who is who, just like a spiderman who can tell apart from its own multiverse friends, that is. So let's get pointing to the smaller details!

How it works..

We know what it's like to be conscious, yeah? What if i were to tell you that yes, there are varying degrees of consciousness, and that we all can fluctuate on those levels too?

The levels of consciousness can vary from only being aware of its physical surroundings and react instinctually (lesser level), to being able to self-introspect and understand what they like and dislike (higher level). This is all dependent on many different factors and i want to clarify that it takes more than just 'awareness' to tell a fragment apart from an alter for example. But, still important to know what level its at.

This explains why shards, and fragments are less flexible when facing an issue, as they're more limited or not as equipped as an alter in terms of reasoning or level of logic/knowledge. So why is that? It can be from the intensity of dissociation, and other things like how much implicit and explicit memories it retains, this includes experiences.

How to tell them apart..

Sure, theres a spectrum to this too, as every type of part can be a bit different though still can categorized loosely, not meaning it has to fit perfectly to the box :

1. No sense of identity and, or tangible form/shape outside of performing a specific task, or hold a single memory/mood. (Shard)

2. Small sense of identity (a trait that is distinctive/distinguishable), possibly have a less blurry appearance than level 1 and still performs specific tasks, have little to no memories/range of emotions. (Shard)  

3. Mish mash of small qualities, but not enough to encapsulate an identity/personality, may have a sense of existing, and can emotionally react to environment/situation. Usually have a defined innerworld form, and may retain some memories but depends on origin, still fixed on role. (Fragment)

4. Has a developed dominant facet, which can be seen more lively and autonomous compared from level 1-3,, but still a bit rigid and have a narrow/limited view in general. Can distinguish and identify feelings, and have goals/hobbies/interests, self curiosity/exploration to function outside role. (Fragment, leaning to alter)  

5. Has a multifaceted personality in which it cannot defined by one word, fully knows its likes and dislikes, long term goals, morals, and a complex view on life. May have developed purpose outside role job, pursuing self-fulfillment. (Alter)

So in conclusion, shards are not wholly self aware and rely on current implicit memories, from my own system experience shards feels so blank, lifeless, somewhat robotic. Fragments have a partial sense of autonomy, it can rationalize and react to its own accord, reason, and learn/explore,, though had not fully know who they are. Alters are like any other usual people, where it has accumulated knowledge and experience that had shaped then throughout existing, reinforcing a faceted sense of self and purpose.

Growth to perfection..

Are you also wondering if shards and fragments can grow to an alter? The answer is, yes! Though some can be stuck in a certain stage, which is nothing to be ashamed about, and doesn't need changing.

Though, this takes a really long time and process, i note my own fragments will reach to a stage where it barely matches the loose category of an alter in 6 months, and to be a fully developed alter, it might need a whole year (okay this is my own calculations, other people will have it slower or faster).

To grow a shard towards a fragment category, my theory is that you have to interact with, and let them immerse/exprience the real world by supervision (outside of its role task) to develop more environmental, and self awareness. They will be very limited in terms of knowledge and names so this is a good time to start introducing these, and they may not even realize they exists themselves before sometimes,, try nudging them activities to experiment, and foods to taste, examine emotion wheel.. theres a lot to start from.

To grow a fragment to an alter, start introducing other views and complex topics, the goal here is to create a more developed understanding of life. From my experience, all my fragments have a dominant facet, e.g. angry dog vibes; and slowly let them learn how to be soft, or act more polite,, it will slowly solidify as a new facet, now capable of being kind and not always behaving threatening/i-will-still-bite-you attitude to every situation, as it now can be more flexible which facet it should use depending on situation.

Last words..

So, you are now an educated spiderman who can not only point out, but understand the basics of why,, and how to grow a part to have a better sense of awareness!

Let me know in the comments, i would like to hear why the part you had specifically picked/chose is possibly a shard/fragment/alter from your own reasoning and interactive mini discussion with me,, lets finally put them into real practice yeah?

Also, Happy Valentines, *offers you a free heart chocolate*

- j, your educational fiancée

[literaryvein-reblogs]

4 Great Motives for Writing by George Orwell

George Orwell:

From a very early age, perhaps the age of five or six, I knew that when I grew up I should be a writer. Between the ages of about seventeen and twenty-four I tried to abandon this idea, but I did so with the consciousness that I was outraging my true nature and that sooner or later I should have to settle down and write books. Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:

(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful business men – in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they abandon individual ambition – in many cases, indeed, they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all – and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.

(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.

(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

(iv) Political purpose – using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people’s idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time. By nature – taking your ‘nature’ to be the state you have attained when you are first adult – I am a person in whom the first three motives would outweigh the fourth. In a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties.

Looking back through the last page or two, I see that I have made it appear as though my motives in writing were wholly public-spirited. I don’t want to leave that as the final impression. All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist or understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one’s own personality. Good prose is like a windowpane. I cannot say with certainty which of my motives are the strongest, but I know which of them deserve to be followed. And looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.

Published in Gangrel, No. 4, Summer 1946

More: George Orwell

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

Love is Stored in the Cat: A Nepeta Leijon Character Study

I guess these are a series now! I also have a request for Feferi in my inbox that I'll get around to eventually.

SO! Dear, sweet Nepeta.

Nepeta is the troll that is most against the existence of the hemocaste.

I believe the Ultimate Self speech was originally going to be from her, not Davepetasprite^2.

She's bad at shipping.

These all make her extremely impurrtant!!!

So furst of all, I'm going to start with the same disclaimer as my Eridan essay (go read that first!!! It sets up a lot of ideas that I'm expanding on here), which is that the things Hussie says are going to be lowered in value, because he likes to play coy about plot stuff. I'm also not counting anything but the actual text as canon, and even with in that text, I'm counting everything after GAME OVER as soft canon - a suggestion of what would have been, often truncated for time, often a deliberate middle finger to the shitty fandom.

Okay, so with that squared away!

Nepeta Says Fuck The Hemocaste

I'm not going to bother doing a deep dive on Nepeta's characterization, because fur the most part, I think the fandom more or less gets her right - she wears her heart (h33h33) on her sl33ve, after all! She's a very sweet little catgirl who loves roleplay and shipping, who is also a vicious hunter of wild beasts and lives in a cave. She's very nice and friendly, but has a tough streak and a spine.

She also says fuck the hemocaste, why does that even exist:

CT: D --> Your fraternization with the base classes have 100sened your morals, can't you see this AC: :33 < no! i dont care, they are fun AC: :33 < and i dont know anything about classes or bases or blood color, it doesn't matter! AC: :33 < what does gr33n blood even mean! it doesnt mean anything to me and it shouldnt mean anything to anyone else!

This is a radical stance not outright shared by any of the other trolls. Aradia calls highbloods "hateful sn0bs" that she and Tavros shouldn't have "ever had anything t0 d0 with", the highbloods are, of course, all casteist to varying degrees, and even Karkat seems fairly accepting of the class divide, at one point taunting Vriska that her rejection from the blue team is "ANOTHER INFURIATING VICTORY FOR GUTTER BLOOD OVER ARISTOCRACY". Not to mention his long-held dream of becoming a threshecutioner.

Even Feferi, despite saying to Eridan that "W-E AR-E NOT B-ETT-ER T)(AN ANYBODY!!!!!", is actually perfectly comfortable with the caste system's existence, comparing having to stop using her royal typing quirk to "peasant-IFICATING" herself - and let's not forget that a Beforus under her rule had its caste system 100% intact.

This means that Nepeta is the ONLY troll who has said, in no uncertain terms, that the caste system should not exist. It's stupid, it's bad, and it doesn't meowtter!

AND SHE'S RIGHT.

But she's never able to fully express this opinion, which brings us to:

A COMPLICKATED RELATIONSHIP WITH EQUIUS

Now, before I say anything, I must insist that I do believe these two work as good moirails. That does not, however, stop them from being 13, and therefore, being poor to each other the way 13-year-olds sometimes are. I don't think they should break up; I think they should re-examine certain dynamics, and I think they need some space to breathe apart from each other.

Equius has a lot of problems, which I won't get into overmuch here, because... that's a whole essay on its own (are you people seeing a trend yet). But with regards to Nepeta specifically, he's extremely controlling and protective, to the point where she's a little scared of him before the game begins:

AC: :33 < well it does sound like it will be a lot of fun but i think i should get purrmission first GC: BL4R!!!!! GC: TH4TS SO STUP1D GC: H3S NOT TH3 BOSS OF YOU AC: :33 < i know! AC: :33 < but still im kind of scared of him and i think purrhaps its best to just run it by him first so there isnt a kerfuffle about it or anything

She's also afraid to tell him about her crush on Karkat, since she knows he doesn't like Karkat:

AC: :33 < well AC: :33 < i have never told anybody this not even my moirail AC: :33 < heh, actually hes the LAST guy i might tell, he so wouldnt appurrve X33 AC: :33 < but yes i have liked somebody for quite some time, but alas he doesnt know it

By the time they end their game, she's gotten over this fear, seeing as she spends many hours curled up with Equius in a pile of robotics parts, but it still must be noted that they have some issues in their relationship that were never resolved, primarily on Equius's end. What this means for Nepeta, however, is that in addition to setting her up as the most outright anti-classism troll, the comic sets her up to be socially isolated due to her moirail's paranoia about letting her associate with both lowbloods (seeing them as bad influences) OR other highbloods, seeing them as dangerous.

He's not entirely wrong - his refusal to allow her to participate in FLARP kept her from winding up entangled in the horrible chain of revenge, as Tavros alludes:

AT: iT'S PROBABLY FOR THE BEST, AT: tHAT YOU LISTEN TO HIM, AC: :33 < i dont know AC: :33 < you think so? AT: wELL, AT: iF YOU DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIM BEFORE, AT: yOU MIGHT HAVE PLAYED GAMES WITH US BEFORE, AT: aND SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED TO YOU, AC: :33 < hmm purrhaps

But he's still wrong. And it's probably an uncontrolled manifestation of his Heir of Void abilities - he's both consciously and unconsciously hiding her from other people.

This isn't to say she doesn't stand up for herself! Many of her discussions with Equius are pseudo-arguments, and she does get her way often enough, managing to get him to roleplay with her, and managing to get him back in the roboti% pile to talk about his feelings about Aradia. She also talks to the humans explicitly against Equius's orders, although she's keeping it a sneakret from him:

NEPETA: :33 < but equius already furbid me from doing that :(( NEPETA: :33 < not that i am listening to him, but shhhhh! :33 KARKAT: WAIT, HE DID? KARKAT: OK, THEN AS YOUR LEADER I ORDER YOU TO RP WITH THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BE AS OBNOXIOUS ABOUT IT AS YOU CAN. NEPETA: :33 < yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

But the fact that she has to tiptoe around him like this speaks to them having issues in their relationship that go unexamined and unresolved, especially since it's clear that Nepeta really would like to be friends with more people, were Equius not getting in her way. So, even though I do think they are good moirails for each other - they clearly genuinely, deeply care about one another. But they could use some relationship counselling.

In fact, Jasprosesprite^2 outright calls her lonely:

JASPROSESPRITE^2: Or the girl who likes ships! Cause they made her less lonely. ;3

So, she's anti-hemocaste and lonely, two character traits that were set up and never resolved. And beclaws this is Nepeta, in her honor, I'm going to talk about a third:

Her Unrequited Crush On Karcat

She has the BIGGEST flushed crush on Karkat. It's seen on her shipping wall twice, once with the word OTP on it.

And, despite never discussing it with her moirail, Nepeta mentions it once to Jaspersprite, and once to Jasprosesprite^2.

Now, I'm not really here to debate on the validity of KatNep - I think it's fine, even if I don't personally ship it, and don't personally think it would work out (there are lots of indications that they wouldn't work out, including Jasprosesprite^2 outright saying so). However, her crush on Karkat is both complicated and creates some interesting setups for her character. I am going to discuss it fairly critically either way, so KatNep shippers have been warned.

A lot of her feelings about Karkat - and about shipping in general - wind up being heavily interlinked with her status as a Hero of Heart, so I'm going to expand on it more there. But what I will note in this section is the fact that, despite Nepeta insisting twice that she doesn't think Karkat knows about her crush on her:

NEPETASPRITE: :33 < it was karkat NEPETASPRITE: :33 < but i never told him and im pretty sure he never found out how i felt!

He tooootally did:

KARKAT: OK, BUT TO BE FAIR, I'M PRETTY SURE SHE'S STILL OBSESSED WITH ME. KARKAT: IT'S A VERY UNFORTUNATE, VERY RED AND VERY UNREQUITED SITUATION I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TIPTOE AROUND FOR A LONG TIME, OK?

Interpret that how you will for shipping purposes, but I want to propose that this is a reflection of their statuses as Heart and Blood players. Heart, despite its players' obsessions with romance, is not the romance aspect, Blood is. Karkat displays this very same romantic acumen when he tells Dave that he's known Terezi and Gamzee were a thing for a long time, despite everyone else on the meteor trying to keep it a secret from him. Heart is, instead, about identity, feelings, motivations, souls, and self. In other words:

Nepeta Is Kind Of Bad At Shipping

Let's take a look at those shipping walls.

Let's break this down a little. Nepeta's ships are not entirely wrong, but even the successful ones are kind of wrong. Here's what I mean. We've already discussed how Equius and Nepeta's moirallegiance has some... issues in it. If we go down her list of ships that actually do happen, most of them have some issues in them!

Aradia expresses her regret for getting together with Equius in the Ministrife. Kanaya and Rose suffer some major relationship problems when Rose starts drinking, to the point Karkat feels a need to step in as an auspice. Karkat and Gamzee fail, as Karkat is not calmed by Gamzee, and Gamzee stops listening to Karkat. And while Sollux and Feferi seem to be fairly healthy, after they both wind up in the Furthest Ring, he's pretty much always next to Aradia - he and Feferi don't even get to exchange words with each other once they're in the Furthest Ring. Purrsonally, I think he and Feferi are meant to end up as moirails, but shhhh.

So what's happening here? Well, this goes back to her identity as a Heart player. Heart is concerned with feelings and motivations.

They simply want to understand the one thing we all are stuck with for our entire lives, i.e. our own minds. Forging an identity is extremely important to the Heart-bound, and every decision and action goes toward building a coherent narrative of their own story. That isn't to say Heart-bound don't care deeply for their friends and allies; they just have a tendency to assume that everyone is as concerned with identity as they are.

Nepeta's shipping has also been associated with her isolation and loneliness. When you put this together, it implies that Nepeta's shipping is about her desire to understand others, and much of her ships are based on one of the parties having feelings, regardless of compatibility, feasibility, or broader implications. After all, despite the fact that she has pretty terrible romantic acumen, she IS able to instinctively identify that Eridan's advances toward her were insincere:

NEPETASPRITE: :33 < well ok i guess eridan hit on me a few times NEPETASPRITE: :33 < but his advances always struck me as cr33py and insincere

And that Karkat secretly LOVES and RESPECTS his friends:

JASPROSESPRITE^2: On the contrary Nepeta. You deserve someone who will RESPECT and ADORE you. NEPETASPRITE: :33 < well... yes NEPETASPRITE: :33 < i always hoped to find someone like that some day NEPETASPRITE: :33 < i dunno maybe youre right but in spite of whatever problems he might have i always felt like i saw something in him that made me think he could be that purrson!

Or knowing that Equius loves to play games, and still feels sad about Aradia exploding:

AC: :33 < i s33 right through your stupid act, who are you trying to kid! AC: :33 < look how you go out of your way to use words that have x's in them so that you can use your silly purrcent signs AC: :33 < or use these absurd words that you can shoehorn a '100' into, even if its not strictly replacing 'loo'!!! AC: :33 < you are so transpurrent AC: :33 < i can tell you like to play games, d33p down you are a guy who likes to play games! AC: :33 < i can smell a guy who likes to play games from so fur away with this nose, you have no idea X33

NEPETA: :33 < she was so happy, just like she used to be, and she said she would s33 you soon! EQUIUS: D --> That's a nice thought, and thank you for sharing it EQUIUS: D --> But it was only a dream, and will surely have no consequence in reality NEPETA: :33 < equius? NEPETA: :33 < are those f33lings i an detecting with my wiggly whiskery nose? EQUIUS: D --> Maybe

Because feelings, and not relationships, are her actual domain.

And speaking of Heart powers...

Nepeta and the Ultimate Self

So from this point forward, I'm going to assume you're more or less agreeing with my take that at some point after Game Over, Hussie - for whatever reason - gave up on his original ending, and wound up truncating his ideas so he could finish the comic faster. I go more into detail about that here.

So, in this hypothetical original ending, I firmly believe that the speech about the Ultimate Self would have come from Nepeta. First, let's take a look at what the "Ultimate Self" entails, as it appears within the comic:

DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < everything that ever happens to every version of you is an important part of your ultimate self... like a superceding bodyless and timeless persona that crosses the boundaries of paradox space and unlike god tiers or bubble ghosts or whatever, it really IS immortal DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < but in your physical form there are all these partitions in your mind that prevent you from remembering any of that which makes your existence f33l totally linear DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < which is probably for the best! DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < in a regular body s33ing all that would be too overwhelming ... DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < and after it sinks in for a while you start coming to this understanding of a greater self DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < maybe i "got it" quicker though because of the two people i was and their aspects DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < understanding heart is all about the nuances of a distributed self DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < nepeta never got to make much headway with her aspect but shes finally gettin the chance DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < the time aspect is all about running into different versions of yourself so you kinda get confronted with it in a really literal way that can be disturbing DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < obviously davesprite stuggled with that too, but now its fine DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < hes fr33 from worrying about it all and what it means for his place in reality DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < because he can s33 now all his selves have relevance in painting the full picture of who he truly is DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < im not COMPLETELY sure because im not like some sort of ASPECT MASTER but DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < my avian slash feline intuition tells me that all roads will lead you here eventually DAVEPETASPRITE^2: B33 < gaining the d33pest possible understanding of any aspect will bring you to the same final conclusion about your ultimate self

Now, I believe - and I hope you'll agree - that it's kind of lame, narratively, for Davesprite to have been set up with so much angst about not being the "real Dave," and for Nepeta to have all her issues with loneliness and shyness, and for these two specific iterations of each other to have never interacted, but suddenly getting double-prototyped fixes all of their problems, and they achieve Ultimate Selfhood despite being two total strangers to each other. So let's instead break down the more salient points about what Ultimate Selfhood entails, divorced from the fact that it's Davepetasprite^2 doing the narrating:

Every player in the game possesses an "Ultimate Self," an ultimate culmination of all their experiences and memories, specifically referred to as a "persona"

Normally, people are not aware of this, because it would be too overwhelming to deal with so many memories and iterations of each other.

Everyone will achieve Ultimate Selfhood eventually as the final culmination of their understanding of their aspect.

Heart is all about the nuances of a distributed self.

Let's talk about that last one some more, and by that I mean, let's see what Calliope has to say about it:

TT: I don't know why it had to be this way for me. Juggling these two waking selves at once. TT: I guess I'm used to it, but it still makes for a pretty intense existence. TT: Do you even know what the deal with that is? Like is there any precedent in your readings? UU: i don't know aboUt precedent, bUt it makes plenty of sense to me as the type of path one might expect for a hero of heart. UU: a path rUled by the heart aspect can be a joUrney of splintered self. UU: that is, the player's being may exhibit the same kind of fragmentation which certain classes coUld caUse in others. UU: i think this is what has triggered yoUr dUal-awareness between waking and dream selves, thoUgh it woUld not sUrprise me if the symptoms manifested in even more ways than this.

Now, Dirk has a clawmplicated relationship with his alternate selves, given that he's a Prince, but Nepeta wouldn't have the same struggles, or at least, not to the same degree. The problem is, hampered by Equius and her own shyness about discussing her thoughts and feelings with others:

NEPETASPRITE: :33 < i get so shy and worried what people might think of me if i say how i f33l NEPETASPRITE: :33 < im always so scared that they wont f33l the same way or just think im stupid or pathetic or something

She never actually gets to explore this part of herself.

But What If... She Did?

The way I imagine the original ending going is that each troll that gets saved by John's interference in the timeline then asks John to help them fix their own mistakes, thereby saving somebody else. Each successive trip through the meteor brings new character development, and also riddles the comic with progressively more password pages, which I think would be really funny. And throughout all this the Game Over team is searching for Vriska, Meenah, and the treasure, and resolving their arcs that way, so it's not like they would be replaced - they're the ones who get to kill LE. The process, in my mind, goes like this:

Terezi asks John to save Vriska, and prevent her from getting too spades with Gamzee, as these are her two greatest regrets.

Vriska obviously had great regrets about killing Tavros, both pre- and post-retcon, so she asks for his death to be prevented.

Tavros staying alive means that he and Gamzee wind up hashing out some stuff - Gamzee mentions that he feels "So aT ChIlL WiTh yOu" while talking to Tavros, and Tavros reciprocates the friendship and also - interestingly - acknowledges Gamzee's religion, calling it beautiful even if he doesn't necessarily believe in it. This is interesting because Karkat's inability to do so is explicitly one of the reasons their moirallegiance broke down. So having Tavros back, alive, means that he and Gamzee would likely end up in some sort of relationship, probably pale despite flushed leanings, and would bring Gamzee back into the fold.

Gamzee would then be like, yeah, wow, that time I killed Nepeta and Equius was pretty bad, huh? Especially since his decision to hang onto his friends' bodies and prototype them is often interpreted as him genuinely feeling bad about his dead friends (he tells Kurloz to shut up when Kurloz mentions all the dead friends, and his religion seems to be about a paradise he wants to share with his friends anyway). So he'd ask John to prevent him from killing them, resulting in the two of them getting to live.

Things get much more hypothetical from here, since so much of the character dynamics would have changed, but I think by this point, Equius might command ask John to let him say goodbye to Aradiabot before she explodes, which he expresses feeling very sad about. However, in doing so, John and Aradiabot end up in the same room, and when she realizes that he has the ability to change the timeline without repercussions, she'd seize him by the arm and demand that he take her back in time, to before she died. After all, she expresses regrets about her reckless actions, and how she always felt like it was all one big setup.

She would take Aradia's place in the Vriska revenge chain, being once more freed of her robot chassis, and from there, would trick Doc Scratch and the Handmaiden into thinking everything was still going according to their designs. Meanwhile, Alive!Aradia would be hanging out at Equius's place, borrowing his void powers to avoid notice, coordinating a new timeline that keeps the beats of the original (too much deviation causes unpredictability, and an paradox'd timeline offshoot without John's direct interference would still become doomed), but allows them greater freedom and the ability to overcome the machinations of Doc Scratch and associates.

This would also prevent Sollux from becoming so self-loathing, since it's no longer "his fault" that Aradia dies, although he winds up in that hole again after Feferi gets killed. Now that his Aradia is alive, he wouldn't feel like he might as well stay in the bubbles because his closest companions are there, so he'd make it to the end, and would ask John to prevent Feferi's death.

Eridan still dies; he's so disconnected and isolated from all his friends that his course of actions is largely unaffected even by everybody else's timeline tweaks. But before Feferi can suggest bringing him back, Karkat would butt in.

The Friendship Troll should be the one to demand that ALL of their friends be revived, especially if they had everyone except only one guy, and Karkat and Eridan are heavily implied to be moirails anyway. The course of Karkat's fixes are so comprehensive, and primarily romance-based, that the end result of this final loop is everybody not only being alive, but god-tiered, with appropriate character development.

Now, where Nepeta's Heart powers would play into all of this is that she would start to notice something going on. After all, Heart players are sensitive to their splintered selves, and (Nepeta) is probably much closer to Nepeta than regular doomed timeline offshoots. As the loops continue, and Nepeta has more and more time to talk to people, and meets her dead alternate selves, and even meets (Nepeta), she starts to awaken to her Ultimate Self - to come into possession of alternate memories.

And if the Ultimate Self is a very soul-y kind of concept, such that Heart players have a natural advantage in coming to understand it, then isn't it a natural fit that a Rogue of Heart - one who steals from Heart or steals Heart for others - would be naturally inclined to share the wisdom of her alternate selves, and even the very concept of the Ultimate Self, with her friends?

Because the Ultimate Self is actually, in my opinion, a pretty good narrative device. It turns the sadness of the dead and doomed timelines into something littersweet instead, and makes it so any weirdness regarding time travel and not really knowing your friends anymore will eventually be resolved, even if off-screen.

It's not really narratively satisfying when Davepetasprite^2 suddenly comes into being and reaches enlightenment, but imagine if instead it's a post-character development Nepeta comforting Davesprite on his relevance, or Jade on her loneliness, or John on not really knowing these new post-retcon versions of his friends? It would feel a lot better, since in this hypothetical, she would have reached that point after on-screen character development. Being able to share her true self with her friends on the meteor - by necessity, since what else are they going to be doing for three years - leads to her finally being able to fulfill her role as a Rogue of Heart.

Also, at some point during these repeated meteor trips, she dates Karkat (whether that's successful or not, I'll leave to reader interpretation - you already know where I stand), fulfilling Jaspersprite's musing that she might only be able to date Karkat after she dies.

So that's two out of thr33 of her outstanding plot hooks resolved... okay. So, I try not to make these essays into ship propaganda, but hear me out:

Hate Is Stored In The FefNep

Okay, so, remember that thing about how Feferi is actually a huge casteist hypocrite? Well, let's also note that the comic, post-Murderstuck, seems to put Nepeta and Feferi together a lot - they're a Commodore and Rear Admiral in the ghost pirate army, respectively, and they also wind up as Fefetasprite. So I think it's not entirely out of left field to say that these two were implied to have SOMETHING going on.

And that something... is a difference in political views.

I mean, let's be real, there's a reason Fefetasprite is the most explode-prone after Tavrisprite. Miss "The Hemocaste is Stupid and Shouldn't Matter" vs. Miss "I Love Being A Princess And Call Jade Hornless and Finless (Derogatory)"? Come on, tell me you don't see it.

Without getting too much into Feferi, this hypocrisy, and unwillingness to check her privilege (so glad I found an excuse to use that term unironically), are probably her greatest character flaws - ie, the things you would expect the story to address about her. Meanwhile, one of Nepeta's flaws, which she laments to Jasproseprite^2, is that she feels too shy to talk about her feelings to other people, leading to her having never expressed her views on the hemocaste to anyone but Equius.

I think that they initially think they'd be friends. Each one of them would go "oh man, this other girl is soooo cute, I wish I could talk to her more often!"

And then, once they do, they realize they fucking hate each other. Nepeta would go "X00 < you are such a hypocrite who f33ls like youre better than all of us!!!" and Feferi would go "You're suc)( an uneducated glubbing P-EASANT! 3X0" and then they'd claw each others' eyes out. It would be so funny, and if a homestuck ship isn't extremely fucking funny, then why are we even here.

But more importantly, this would further them along into resolving each others' arcs - Feferi would be forced to grapple with the greater implications of classism, and Nepeta - who is shown having a spine the most in defiance of somebody else - would grow more aggressive about being open about her feelings in defiance of Feferi. Even Equius would get roped into it in a positive way - you can just imagine him going "D --> Can I really believe my auricular sponge clots D --> Nepeta, you are finally taking interest in politi%" and be 100% on board with teaching her so Feferi won't be able to call her uneducated.

And then for flushed, I dunno! Karkat's an option, and Jade and Jake also both love the fuck out of furries, and Tavros seems nice. But yeah I'll die on the fefnep hate ship. Guys it would be so funny.

Thank you as always for reading! Let me know if there's a troll you want to hear me ramble about next.

[theglassesgirl]

Calypso vs Antinous: A Tale of Two Villains

I know this is such a weird topic for me to come back for after not blogging for months, especially I’ve never spoken on this fandom here, as opposed to TikTok. But precisely BECAUSE tiktok is so limiting, even if you make various videos on a topic, someone won’t have all the context and the comment system of that app is pure ass so here I am

Calypso and Antinous are two (out of three!) of the MAJOR villains in the Wisdom Saga, however, both these villains have produced polarizing discourse that has fascinated yet confounded me. On Calypo’s end, she is a villain who many are made upset by when she is interpreted as the villain she is (in varying degrees). On Antinous’s end, he is a villain who many are made upset by when he is interpreted as anything BUT the villain he is (in various extremes). What on earth happened here?

I’ll try to dissect what has transpired as i have come to understand both situations.

PLEASE try to read through the end, but if you like, you are also more than welcome to just focus on one section if you don’t care for both discourses or how i think one affects the other. I totally get it. KEEP IN MIND, that i might speak about something you haven’t PERSONALLY seen, but as i often say in fandom, just because YOU didn’t see it, doesn’t mean it didn’t HAPPEN. It adds context to why/how certain fans are reacting as they are. You could be in one camp, and never have seen what the other camp has, so at any point where youre reading and saying to yourself “is this a thing that happened?” Consider that it did indeed, happen, and you are welcome to expand your knowledge on the subject.

ANY comments that go “you have no idea what your talking about/this isn’t true/i’ve never seen this/when did this happen(sarcastically)” will not be answered and you will be blocked, because it is clear you are not actually open to discussion. You’ve made up your mind about these characters and topics, and my time, at least, is valuable.

GENUINE questions like “I didn’t know this/when did this happen (genuine)/can you explain this point more” are more than welcome. I will absolutely entertain character interpretation as well, so long as we’re not trying to “convince” one another, as that isn’t the point of this post. These are two villains who i find fascinating and am wondering why are being treated so differently in discourse spaces.

For Calypso:

I truly and HONESTLY believe that because Calypso is a unique (and lovable! Mind you!) villain, it had led to many of her newer fans to feel uncomfortable with her role in the story. I have seen numerous sides of her discourse and have come with a few iron-clad rules: it is ONLY acceptable to call someone out if they are harassing Wangui, calypo’s VA (which has NOT happened as i am writing this out) OR if an anti-calypso comes into SOMEONE ELSE’s post saying anything like “if you like calypso then you condone her actions” because as what we sane people know, that is just a silly fallacy, OR if they start shit in a cosplayers/fanfic writer/fanartists comment section. ASIDE from these instances, i will be speaking on what none sense has transpired about how Calypso is portrayed in the Musical within her first song, and her future song, because BOTH have been used for utter bias.

A few things to debunk:

FIRST Calypso is NOT cursed to fall in love with anyone who comes across her island. That is a Percy Jackson ONLY addition that has no bearings on her actions in the musical or the original poem.

ALSO though Calypso CANONICALLY RAPES Odysseus for seven years in the original poem, the CHILDREN from that abuse only really exist in secondary sources/works. They NOT in the original poem.

Having said that:

The Ambiguity of Calypso’s actions in both of her songs means that everyone is right when they speculate on what she has done. Odysseus was trapped on her island against HIS will for seven years. He is canonically seen refusing her advances, trying to kill himself, and begging her to let him go and leave him alone. These are UNDISPUTED facts. As such, regardless of how YOU personally choose to interpret Calypso actions, she will always have a CANONICAL victim in the musical. I feel people are forgetting Odysseus when they speak on Calypso and that’s the whole point of her existence in the poem and the musical.

This leads directly into WHY there has been arguments about Calypso’s character. In the POEM, she very much sexually assaults Odysseus for seven long years. He is seen crying nightly and begging to be free. In the MUSICAL, Jorge has decided to leave the situation ambiguous - which, i have seen, does not sit well with current fandom culture. NEW fans of Calypso seem to be very adamant about NOT interpreting Calypso as a rapist, in levels that range for they’re just not comfy with it so decided not to head canon her as such, to other very concerningly speaking about rape survivors in such a way to justify liking a villain when you dont HAVE to justify liking a villain at any point at all ever.

Let’s break it down.

Those who just don’t like the idea of Calypso being a rapist in the MUSICAL are valid. It’s very easy to block and avoid those who have chosen to explore this aspect of her in the musical because they can and are allowed to. I am very pro-finding a space in fandom where you can talk about Calypso without HAVING to mention she might have raped someone. She’s still a villain for having kept Odysseus captive for seven years, but it’s not important. You are more than allowed to love villains, and without the rape aspect, Calypso’s villainy boils down to her physiological and emotionally torturing Odysseus while physically kidnapping him. That’s still ALOT of bad stuff to unpack, if you so want to. You could also not want to! It doesn’t hurt anyone, and anyone who says it does is not being intellectually honest.

The PROBLEM that I’m seeing, is that many of her newer fans…DONT want Calypso to be seen as a villain. At all. Which…is not how fandom works, I’m sorry to say.

While some EPIC fans have interpreted Calypso of being manipulative / selfish even in their most sympathetic analysis of the story (and the current song), others are treating these interpretation as wholly incorrect and somehow a form of harassment. The main caveat to this reaction appears to be, as TikTok puts it, “That Calypso DOESN’T SA Odysseus on the musical”

As we have pointed out, Calypso canonically rapes Odysseus in the poem, while it’s ambiguous in the musical. As we have ALSO pointed out, the ambiguity of the musical allow ALL INTERPRETATIONS to be correct. Something about the RAPE aspect of Calypso’s characterization in this musical, however, is the primary reason this discourse has happened.

Now, as i have said earlier. You are in your RIGHT to not head canon Calypso has a rapist in the musical. In the same vein others also have a RIGHT to head canon Calypso AS a rapist in the musical. But from what I’ve seen, it’s when others interpret Calypso as a rapist that newer Calypso fans leave comments about they’re not “interpreting the story correctly” and not “Judging calypso based on Jorge’s vision” and at first i found it funny…now it’s a bit concerning.

There are two instances that come to mind. One tiktoker made a video where she was in tears saying that it made HER SAD that people were “judging Calypso wholly based on outside sources material” which is disingenuous. As i have said before, even without the RAPE aspect of Calypso, which i will go further into what her newer fans consider “rape”, she is still an antagonist within the musical - she is a villain who keeps Odysseus against his will. To claim that they are calling her a villain for that reason alone is a blatant and useless addition to the discourse. I did not care for it at all. It would have been MUCH MORE constructive for this tiktoker to say that even though Calypso is a villain, the sexual assault is up to individual interpretation, and as all interpretations are valid, it’s better to find people who agree with your head canons rather than start fights with people who don’t share yours. This tiktoker very poorly worded the discourse as a one-sided thing where one side is wrong, and that is simply not true.

ANOTHER tiktoker, who wisely turned off comments because such discussions are impossible on the app, worryingly claimed that a line in Not Sorry for Loving You was absolute PROOF that Calypso did not “rape” Odysseus so it was wrong to interpret her as such, because, and this is a loose quotation “i don’t think Jorge would make Odysseus say something like that HAD Calypso done that to him” which unfortunately leaves fandom discourse into REAL WORLD victim discourse. Holy shit. The line she is referring to is when Odysseus calms Calypso down when she is in the middle of explaining her actions by saying “Calypso i love you, but not the way you want me to” to this tiktoker, it seems illogical for a rape victim to every say these kinds of things to their rapist…which is….NOT it. At all. Fiction, as beautiful as it is, is meant for you to QUESTION “huh…how would this impossible fictional scenario work? What makes this compelling?” It is NOT meant for you to attribute your REAL WORLD assumptions onto a FICTIONAL SCENARIO in order to justify you liking a villain character when you dont HAVE to justify it. You can like Calypso! It’s only weird when you make real-world comparisons like this because a rape victim can and HAS said as much and even more to their rapists in known history. *bonks you* dont do what this person did! Fiction allows you to explore situation that would be traumatizing outside of it in as safe and consensual way! You CANNOT and should NOT ascribe your personal biases on sensitive topics for FICTIONAL characters. That’s not how this works. “real victim wouldn’t x, so fictional wouldn’t y” is a ludicrous statement! You can’t back it up with facts! “Fictional victim does x, so i wonder if there ever would be a situation where a real victim would do y, and would like educate myself on the topic” IS what fiction was made for! OPENing your mind, not closing it for stupid reasons.

But it got me thinking. BECAUSE these fans anchor their arguments on the rape of Odysseus, even when they themselves DONT consider it, what exactly do they consider rape, and why is that ONE act Calypso may or may not do the ONLY reason to call her a villain when she is one, regardless.

Well, I’ve seen a lot of back and forth. Some anti-calypso’s are okay with the idea that Calypso is more of a “kissy-face” monster, a silly villain who, having no concept of what actual love is and what your supposed to do with someone you love, thinks hugging and kissing is the only thing on the table. It still makes this version of Calypso something of a sex pest and is still in line with sexual assault as we see Odysseus is miserable. The gravity of the situation is based entirely on funny fanfics to Odysseus canonically trying to kill himself because of Calypso’s affection. This interpretation (shockingly enough) is also hated by some new Calypso fans.

Because from what i have gathered. “SA” as used in TikTok, had been boiled down to a literal forced insertion of Odysseus’s dick in Calypso’s vagina. Not the literal words “sexual assault” which is an umbrella term for multiple things. But in this discourse “SA” has JUST been used for the ACT of rape itself. That is what new Calypso fans think is criminal. That is what they entirely base her villainy on. Because we will NEVER get confirmation on whether this happened, it’s impossible to engage with some of the newer fans, who dislike attributing Calypso with the villain title because of this one thing and this one thing alone. Any other line, from Calypso saying “and I’m sorry if i pushed you, or if i came on too strong” in her next song, or even her saying “in bed we will climb” is, for some reason, not grounds for others to be allowed to interpret her as, at the very least, assaulting Odysseus physically and sexually in a way without having to have actually raped him. It boggles my mind. Truly. But every argument i have seen has boiled down to the newer fans saying “welllllll, we dont know the context, and Odysseus said —“ when i have already explained that none of that matters. All interpretations are valid. You CANNOT say with certainty that she did or didn’t rape Odysseus. That’s the POINT. You can’t PROVE either, stop TRYING to, it’s YOUR choice and your interpretation can be backed by lyrics/official animatics, but it is hardly an absolute.

It has become a GROWING problem that in videos where Calypso is portrayed negatively, there are at least a dozen newer calypso fans who have to bring up how she is sympathetic, and therefore, not a villain. Which is not true. She is the MOST compelling villain in the epic musical, thus far.

These “fans” say that she absolutely didn’t rape Odysseus which is theory, not fact. And not a theory that can become fact. In the same way that saying she absolutely did rape is can not become fact. They appear to believe everything outside of this hypothetical act, nothing else she does is deserving of her title as a villain, and start arguments in non discourse posts about all the ways she’s sympathetic when it goes hand in hand with what makes her a compelling villain antagonist.

There’s also a newer cope saying that it’s all Zeus’s fault anyway, which has NO bearings on the conversation as, again, despite Zeus being a dick and allowing Odysseus live while not necessarily enabling him returning to Ithaca, it’s still up to Calypso on how she acts towards HER captive. And she straight up chooses violence lmao. Athena asks for “Devine intervention” to an impossible situation, regardless of if it was Zeus’s actions that led to it, it’s also up to him to “untie apprehensions” because Calypso, being a goddess, has complete control over whether Odysseus can leave and SHE won’t. She has to be ORDERD to. By a HIGHER power. Zeus.

Such argumentations as “well if YOU were in Calypso’s situation, wouldn’t you also do the same” are useless fallacies to get into, because you are NOT a goddess who owns an island and is in possession of a man who does not love you. Even if you were, guess what, it still makes you the antagonist. A villain. A knowing one or not.

In fact, since I LIKE interpretations that Calypso isn’t psychologically torturing Odysseus ON PURPOSE, i go as far as to say that her being a genuine goddess who wants love is in fact…..so much more painful, narratively. Because that means she is INCAPABLE of ever being a good person. Her loneliness and fear of being unloved makes her utterly blind to Odysseus’s misery. She HEARS him saying constantly that he misses his family, that all he hears are screams, and that SHE doesn’t know him, but she in turn CANNOT get passed this because she is, at her core, unable to, and thus accidentally triggers him constantly, is delusional about her island being paradise, AND convinces herself that her love is real (when it is not) and that Oddy will love her back if she keeps trying.

THAT is what you call a compelling villain!

As in all Calypso stories. There is NEVER a moment of clarity where Calypso realizes “if i actually love this person, i should let him go” in the musical HERMES is tasked in telling her to let him go. And she, as in all her other stories, goes on a tirade to explain/justify her actions, however you wish to see her being manipulative or honest. Regardless of how you choose to SEE calypso, at the end of the day, she has NO RIGHT to be upset at Odysseus because he was her captive. And REGARDLESS of whether Odysseus’s words are interpreted as him forgiving her, or just placating her, at the end of the day, he is her victim and she ends her next song upset that he is willingly leaving her once he got the chance. With absolutely no hope of him returning her feelings. It’s not his job to make her feel better, she IS an antagonist, and you are allowed to love her no matter how that might upset others. It is ONLY a problem when you take it to such extremes that you are in other peoples comments acting as if Calypso is a real person who needs defending. You are more than in your right to block people who come into YOUR videos accusing you of somehow being a bad person because you like a bad person. That’s not how fiction works.

Once again. My analysis of the Calypso debacle is that for some, calling Calypso a villain upsets them. Because they like her, and they are uncomfortable with the idea of liking a villain. This is a personal grievance that shouldn’t boil into fandom. Know your truth, have fun. You CAN make silly calypso videos. Many have. Her song is a bop, the meaning of the song is hilariously dark compared to the composition. Jorge did his job VERY well. Too well, that the idea of liking Calypso feels either / or when it’s not. TRUST that i would not be on the side of anyone who says “if you like calypso, youre evil”, but I HAVE seen a pattern that because Calypso is likable, than several people have made it their confused mission to tell everyone who is “mean to her” that “if you DISLIKE calypso, YOU are evil”. That’s bizarre to me. Calypso does enough evil actions in the musical to warrant that title regardless of the reasons for her actions, whether she is being purposely malicious or unconsciously so due to her lack of socialization. Being weird about real life SA survivors for a fictional character is never acceptable. For or against Calypso, whether she is a rapist or not, it is up to YOU to find like minded people who share your interpretation, not to argue with people who disagree with you in their own space. She isn’t real. Get over it.

ANYONE WHO HARASSES WAGNUI, COSPLAYERS, OR GOES INTO POSITIVE CALYPSO INTERPRETATION SPACES TO BE PURPOSELY MEAN* ARE WRONG. Otherwise. Leave them alone, they are as valid as you are. “Defending” a character is a waste of time when you could be creating for them. Calypso is a compelling villian antagonist regardless of how uwu or vile you choose to make her. Thus is the beauty of fiction.

(*purposely mean, would, logically, be someone calling you an idiot or a rape apologist for headcanoning her in a positive way. The ideal interaction with a negative calypso interpreter would be “i dont see her this way, but i understand/like your headcanon”)

WHICH BRINGS US TO Antinous:

Hilariously enough. Antinous has the complete INVERSE problem as Calypso, which was also detailed in her section for fairness sake at multiple points, and this problem is much easier to understand. Antinous is a villian antagonist in the musical Epic, and in his debut in the wisdom saga, he is shown (like calypso) to be in direct opposition to Telemachus and Penelope’s goal.

He alludes to sexual assault much more clearly than calypso. He calls Penelope a tramp to her son’s face AND suggests he let them into her room “so [they] can have fun with her” which is in the same vein as calypso saying “soon in bed we will climb” to Odysseus later on that “you (Odysseus) are mine all mine” in her own song. Like calypso, it is told to us that Antinous has been having this kind of vibe for FIVE YEARS* (a fan pointed this out to me! read here🙏🏼) as opposed to calypso’s seven years. Everyone is, usually, in agreement that Antinous is a villain in the wisdom saga and in the overall Epic musical.

Antinous’s VA is ON TikTok, and has spoken about how happy he is that fans consider him a talented person who did a spectacular rendition of such a villainous character. AND YET.

Inversely from what we saw in the Calypso section, where some of her fans are against the notion of her being portrayed as the antagonist she is, for Antinous we have MANY fans claiming that others are not ALLOWED to portray him as anything BUT an antagonist. Unlike with Calypso, where people circularly argue that her allusions to sexual assault are “too ambigous” and lead to much senseless debate on whether you’re “allowed” to like her or call her a villian, with ANTINOUS, there is this claim that he ABSOLUTELY is alluded to sexual assault and therefore, cannot be liked or treated as anything other than a villain.

As i have discussed AT LENGTH in Calypso’s section, this argumentation is pure fallacy.

There have been NUMEROUS thirst videos that have rightfully said that DESPITE the actions of the character, they still think Antinous is hot and likable (the Gaston affect, if you will). Even WITHOUT the disclaimer, it is OF COURSE understood that Antinous fans are NOT rape apologists. That is a ridiculous assumption that serves only to kill any interpretation that someone else can rightfully have.

It’s utterly devoid of nuance or actual knowledge of how to play within fandom and interact w characters.

There have been SEVERAL posts calling Antinous fans delusional for liking him and “reminding” the fandom that he is a bad guy. This serves no purpose and is utterly useless to the discourse. Antinous being a bad guy is not debated. This is factual. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t, because we cannot speak in absolutes) hurt anyone’s feelings to see an Antinous videos depicting him as the villain he is. Like with Calypso it is ONLY acceptable to call someone out if they are harassing Ayron Alexander, Antinous’s VA (which has NOT happened as i am writing this out) OR if an anti-Antinous comes into SOMEONE ELSE’s post saying anything like “if you like Antinous then you condone his actions” because as what we sane people know, that is just a silly fallacy, OR if they start shit in a cosplayers/fanfic writer/fanartists comment section.

Otherwise. Who cares that someone is saying Antinous is a villain? Block the no fun police and enjoy analysis from others who choose to see him purely as what he is, if you want. If you dont, block them to, it’s your space. You have a RIGHT to headcanon Antinous however you want, even make up AUs for him where he’s nice or lives and gets a happy ending, SO LONG AS you’re not in other people’s posts going actually Antie is my uwu child and he did nothing wrong. Cuz then youre just being dumb. And annoying. Fandom is already impatient with genuine disagreement, being a smart ass gets your head dunked in a toilet. I used to think this was common sense.

(And in case you didn’t read the Calypso section, or didn’t see enough of it there, this IS the appropriate response to people who address newer fans of her as rape apologists too, its in her section, i just also thought it was important to touch on the stranger phenomena of her other fans refusing to call her a villain because it makes them personally uncomfortable - it’s very interesting as Calypso is a female antagonist while Antinous being a male antagonist is being treated very differently for the same subject. In any case, it’s a disservice to either character and Jorge’s narrative to get upset about the very real fact that BOTH of these characters are villain antagonists.)

The very CURRENT discourse surrounding Antinous is that he was recently shipped with Telemachus.

The animator for Apollo’s section of God Games was harassed to such a point that she had to make a public apology regarding her ALTERNATE UNIVERSE scenario. And i, personally, think that’s bullshit.

There have been accusations that she was being insensitive to sexual assault survivors, and that she made a dark joke, all of which she addressed in her apology IN ADDITION to her explaining that she is ALSO a survivor of child sexual assault. She took down her work. DESPITE all of this, there are still others who continue to harass her, and claim that they dont want “a rape creator” in THEIR fandom. To those people: you don’t speak for any of us. In the same way you can claim not to believe that the animator is a survivor, i have no reason to consider your concerns in any way shape or form as being in service of victims. It is absolutely not your call, when blocking and scrolling on will ALWAYS be an option for YOU.

Even in the event someone writes Antonio’s fan fiction keeping his canon personality and characterization in a non-canon divergent way it is not grounds to harass people.

In addition to this animator, there have been SEVERAL Antinous shippers who have expressed disappointment that she was essentially harassed into a corner, as they also liked the ship and the AU she created. These people are NOT “weird” they are allowed to express themselves creatively, and if you disagree, dont even bother with leaving any sort of response — i wont read it, my time is important. Stay in your echo chamber. Even if it wasn’t an AU, and someone wants to write for Antinous as he is in the narrative, they are more than allowed to do so. Dark fiction isn’t going to traumatize you or give you cooties. Grow up.

I am MUCH more willing to ride with Antinous shippers than i ever will be with fans who attempt to control how a character is interpreted by others. Because to ship Antinous with anyone, AU or otherwise, you have to have an UNDERSTANDING of why this would be a compelling thing to write/make fanart for. He is an evil character, and it would be FASCINATING to see him in fictional scenarios that (like in the calypso section) lead us to as WHY this would be an appealing and interesting take on someone. It’s OKAY to do it in fiction. He isn’t REAL. It’s not hurting EVERYONE. And more so than with calypso, it IS understood that Antinous HAS victims in Penelope and Telemachus There’s no senseless debate on what he is, a villain, no one is arguing he is a uwu babygirl so please sympathize w him, it’s inherently understood even among his FANS.

This is why find Antonio’s and Calypso’s discourses so polarizing. Because no one is getting offended or arguing that Antinous only acts villainously because of some tragic backstory or sympathetic reason. It would be absurd to.

That’s the appeal of a lovable villain. Because like Calypso, Antinous IS lovable, but in such a different way that you have fans treating both characters as if they’re polar opposite when at the very LEAST, there’s on the same bracket, just different ends of them. Telemachus/Penelope and Odysseus’s plights are being MIRRORED in parallel.

THAT is what floors me about these two discourses. That they are functionally THE SAME yet are being treating as if they aren’t. I’m positive that there is an Antinous fan who detests Calypso in the same way there is a Calypso fan who detests Antinous. These are called biases. Once you KNOW your own bias, it is up to YOU to act right according to them.

You are responsible for your OWN fyp.

The Epic fandom had yet to experience such backwards discourse as this, and I wouldn’t expect Jorge or any of the VAs to dignify such trivial discourse with a response. If you’re the type to bring it up to them, you’re being awful. The popular fandom Epic tiktokers are already way too involved as it is. And even they are getting things wrong.

It almost feels remiss to say that in the NARRATIVE of the musical, both Calypso and Antinous are villian antagonists, while outside of the narrative they become dolls you can play with however you like, so long as we are not in each others comments being obtuse. I don’t expect any of my essay to even make it to a larger part of the fandom. But i HAD to get my ideas written down, because if you don’t see someone else connecting the dots you have, you have to present them yourself. Very “can’t we all just get along?” But hopefully, not as insufferable nor one-sides as others might have been. I tried to bring up ideas/points that i have not seen discussed about these two villains and why they seem to connect and go hand in hand.

Why is Calypso, as a female antagonist, given more grace than Antinous, a male antagonist, who is very firmly given none at all. It very well could be just how they were presented, and if so, ask yourself WHY these villains were presented so differently. What purpose do they serve? What are they trying to accomplish? These are questions more suited for actual fandom collaboration that is being drowned out by circular arguements. It feels like homework, instead of knee-jerk reacting to interpretations unlike your own.

To ME, these two characters are two sides of the same coin. (though I DO think it’s funny that the NEUTRAL phrase to refer to either character is “I hate them BUT” because in reasonable fandoms, this is understood inherently….but in this fandom such decorum seems to be lost? For some reason?? Wisdom saga has brought out a lack of wisdom, I fear.) This is the kind of purity culture that suggest you can’t LIKE a character of their a villain, so you go out of your way to argue they aren’t, or that no one else should like them: that’s bonkers. You might disagree and it might even upset you, but that’s a you problem to have.

Having said that, and if you are POSITIVE that you want to engage in conversation with me, you are welcome to do so.