#and this is good for him. he's notable to the people who love him. there are plenty of doug eiffels in the world. affirmations.

[mcytanti]

manehare analysis i looooove this freakish duo.

on the surface this team seems very sudden and doesn't make sense i mean they were enemies for such a long time, however, i think they make Perfect Sense Actually.

manehare makes sense because both of them gives what the other wants while acknowledging the place they are coming from. they have a distrust now but i think if they play it right they can have something that lasts across seasons.

we got confirmation today manepear really just loves his little chunguses. (his comment about being a mama bear really stands out to me it was awesome). we saw it earlier in the server with zam, then later with wemmbu and bacon. but all 3 of them didnt satisfy mane in the way he wanted. zam was friendly with the brothers but he was for the most part self sufficient, mane let wemmbu into the bandits thinking he would have to be taken care of but it turns out wemmbu was secretly good at pvp and while he lazy could take care if himself in a fight. bacon never wanted to play ball with mane and refused his advances.

however kab is perfeeeect for mane, she needs his help and his protection but she isnt lazy like wemmbu was. she's intelligent, cunning, and willing to learn so he gets all if the ego boosting of taking care of someone who wants his help but none of the annoyance of a resource drainer (sorry wemmbu but its true 😭).

mane is also perfect for kab, he's filling the void clown has left.

since the start of the season kab has wanted a powerful ally who can stand beside her when she wants them to, someone who can guide her, but someone who is also willing to crush her enemies when asked. she thought clown would be that but when given the opportunity he's been lack luster in the role. she then turned to zam as a guide and a teammate, but he didn't want to be her guiding light and thought it was far too sudden to team plus he was unwilling to do her dirty work so kazam fell apart.

mane, however, has a deep blood lust (wanting to death ban all the revived people is the most notable example of this) so he's perfectly fine with carrying out kab's plans as long as it means they agree on killing. he's also willing to train kab without her having to prove herself like she has to with clown (its in my personal opinion kab would have never proven herself to clown. not because she isn't good but because clown simply isnt interested in her development but thats another matter).

in my opinion the 14 killings is actually really good for this team! it means that kab cannot idolize mane the same way she did clown or zam because she knows that no matter what, mane is dangerous, he's able to kill her and is more than willing to kill her. and for mane despite the 14 killings kab still being willing to work with him must give him a crazy amount of validation because it proves that no matter what happened before kab needs him now

i think as long as the focus on their shared goal they can build a real trust with each other. not like a "i trust you not to kill me" trust but a trust the older lifesteal pairs have, that "i know how you think i know you inside and out and no matter what happens we will comeback together" trust.

however they still have all the potential in the world to fall apart in a pretty spectacular way. like if one of them gets too paranoid and betrays the other, or if they're influenced to betray by people outside the dynamic, or maybe kab's planning to betray from the start and we're all fools for thinking manehare could ever work, or simply losing sight of their shared goal and becoming enemies again. all those things could still happen!

no matter what i just love manehare as a duo. they indulge each other's deepest desires but they have so much potential to fuck it all up it a horrible terrible way. its such a careful balance with them im so excited to see where they go from here

[starstruckbyacomet]

A Feedback to ABC

🎄All I W❄️nt for Christm⭐️s Is L❤️U☃️

Below is a copy of my feedback to ABC. I wrote the feedback on a Microsoft Word document, because it was too long to be written on the description column of ABC's feedback page.

I'm not suggesting people to read the whole thing (it is a long-ass letter). However, there are some points in it which I think worthy to be mentioned, if anyone still want to write feedback to ABC:

1)) Criticism on the writing of Season 7 and Season 8. I made a list of '13 reasons why' 🙄 I thought the writing of Season 8 was crappy, and actually called it 'crappy' on my feedback. The list included everything which has bothered me, except 2 things: Ortiz and Eddie storylines. There is a possibility that Ortiz would come back as a stronger villain in the future, and Eddie's issue with Shannon might be resolved in Season 8B. Thus, I withheld my judgment. It's important to tell ABC how bad the writing was, because you wouldn't guess it from all the positive publications and adulation about the show out there. The higher ups on ABC might also not be aware about it.

2)) Mentioning that fans have noticed the three-baitings: the thrill-baiting, the Buddie-baiting, and the Tevan-baiting. Even if the show or ABC didn't mean to bait anyone (which honestly I doubt 🙄), at least ABC would be aware of the distrust and negative perceptions on the show, and hopefully would take actions to counter them.

3)) Reasons why we don't want to see Buck with any love interests other than Tommy.

4)) Suggestions of possible storylines for Tommy. Initially I was hesitant to write this part. I thought, these professional writers surely didn't need suggestions from someone like me. But then I remembered how they'd botched Season 8A (*shudder*), and I was afraid that they wouldn't bring Tommy back, because they didn't know what to do with him. So, fuck it! Someone, anyone, got to tell them. And if that someone had to be me, so be it.

5)) There was no mention of the online harrassment. In my criticism about Buddie-baiting, I called the Buddie fans "obsessed", instead of "toxic" or "hostile". I want my feedback to be read pass the social media team. Mentioning the online harrassment might make the social media team tossed my letter to the garbage bin, because they didn't want to be blamed on their passivity.

I'm sorry that I couldn't participate in financial donation this year. I've been out of job for quite a while, because I was bullied on my previous workplace. This is also the reason why I've been so adamant against online bullying. I hope however small what I do for this movement, it still helps somehow.

🎄..☃️..✨️..❄️..🎄..⛄️..✨️..❄️..🎄..☃️..✨️..❄️..🎄

Dear ABC,

I've been watching 9-1-1 show for years, and have been involved in its fandom for quite a while. There are growing concerns among the fandom about the show, which is the reason why I'm writing this letter:

A. THE WRITING

The writing of Season 7 was not good. Shannon's doppelganger storyline was hard to believe, and Amir storyline was rushed. Buck was the only character who got a decent story with his new relationship with Tommy. However, most of us were willing to look past those shortcomings because it was a shortened season, with only 10 episodes instead of the usual 18 episodes.

We'd expected Season 8 will be better, alas, it's been worse:

Gerard was retconned to be a bumbling old relic. It's hard to believe that he was the same menace who had ruled the 118 firehouse with iron fists in the Begins episodes of Season 2.

In episode 8x05 "Masks", Hen and Karen had a disagreement about Hen's working schedule. Why did this issue come up now, after their 7+ years of marriage? Hen never changed her job during their marriage. Karen has even been very supportive when Hen was enrolled in a medical school, while also working as a firefighter from Season 4 to Season 6. At that time, she was notably busier than she is in this season.

In episode 101 "Pilot" Abby mentioned that Tommy was her ex-boyfriend. Why did in episode 806 "Confessions" Tommy say he was Abby's ex-fiancé?

In episode 8x06 "Confessions" Maddie told Chimney, her husband, that she was pregnant. After her unexpected pregnancy back in Season 3, we expected the couple would be more careful with birth controls. Apparently they didn't. It is a running joke within fandom that birth controls don't exist in 9-1-1 universe. Also, why didn't Maddie have a discussion with her husband before she got pregnant? A pregnancy should be a couple's decision, not forced by half of the pair to the other half.

In episode 806 "Confessions", Tommy gave Buck two Lakers tickets as anniversary gift. It is implied that Tommy didn't know that Buck did not like basketball. We're not sure what the show wanted to tell with this scene. If it meant to imply that Tommy was not a good boyfriend because he didn't know that fact, it achieved the opposite effect. Buck was the one who had given the impression to Tommy that he liked basketball on episode 804 "Buck, Bothered, and Bewildered". Thus, if Tommy still didn't know that Buck disliked the sport after 6 months into their relationship, it was Buck's fault for not coming clean to Tommy.

Buck was flustered when talking with a woman on his anniversary date with Tommy in episode 806 "Confessions". Buck is 33 years old, not twelve. He's been dating a lot of people before. Buck should have known better than showing his attraction to other people while being on a date.

Still in episode 806 "Confessions", Buck asked whether Tommy was attracted to women. At the time, they've been dating for 6 months. Previously, in episode 705 "You Don't Know Me", Buck told Eddie that Tommy was gay. If Buck had known that his boyfriend was gay, why did he ask Tommy whether Tommy was attracted to women? Buck might be not the brightest bulb in the box, but we didn't think he was so stupid or ignorant that he couldn't differentiate between being gay and being bisexual.

Again, in episode 806 "Confessions" Tommy broke up with Buck because he was afraid to go further in their relationship. Tommy that we knew was mindful to other people's feelings. In episode 704 "Buck, Bothered, and Bewildered" Tommy visited Buck to clear the air after he'd sensed that he might have inadvertently created a wedge between Buck and Eddie. This mindful Tommy wouldn't date Buck in the first place, if he knew that he couldn't go to the next phase.

After Tommy broke up with Buck, Buck didn't seem to fight for their relationship. In episode 405 "Buck Begins" Athena said that being Buck meant never give up. In the past, we have seen Buck fought for things which mattered to him. He sued LAFD to get his job back. He broke the law to save Maddie when she was in danger. However, after Tommy broke up with him, Buck didn't even try to communicate with Tommy like an adult. Instead, he was... baking? This is not the Buck we have known.

In episode 807 "Hotshots" and episode 808 "Wannabes" Buck didn't even look sad when he was not baking. He did look anxious when Tommy was mentioned, but other than that, he acted normal. Tim Minear mentioned in interviews that Tommy was important for Buck, but we didn't see it on screen. Fans have been mourning the relationship harder than on-screen Buck.

After the break up, why didn't any of Buck's closest people encourage him to clear things up with Tommy? In episode 709 "Ashes, Ashes" Bobby told Buck that Tommy was good for him, and Chimney has asked Tommy to fly into a hurricane, practically made Tommy risked his own life for the 118 team. However, after Tommy broke up with Buck, none of them told either Buck or Tommy to talk with each other and clear things up.

In episode 807 "Hotshots", Chimney encouraged Buck to "jump back in the pond", and Buck answered with "I don't know which pond to jump back into." The conversation seemed like a subtext that bisexual Buck now could sleep with both men and women. As a bisexual person, I am very offended by this scene. Like other people, bisexual people cannot control to whom we fall in love to, regardless of the gender. The implication of the scene is that bi people are 'easy' or 'loose' and used to pick partners to sleep without giving much thoughts on it. It is a common prejudice which we've been fighting against for a very long time. Watching it implied on the scene is insulting, to say the least.

The prolonged screen time of Brad Torrence. Initially fans didn't hate Brad. However, we couldn't help but notice that a big portion of Season 8A was spent on Brad, while other main characters we actually cared about were put aside. Now, Brad Torrence becomes a bitter joke among fans. Most of us couldn't stand him any longer. On top of that, the scene of Brad saved a suicidal Hotshots fan in episode 806 "Wannabes" felt like an undeserved pat-on-the-back to the show, considering the crappy stories the show has been giving us since Season 7.

B. THE BAITING

B.1. THE THRILL-BAITING

Fans have noticed that 9-1-1 has been seemingly baiting new viewers to watch the show, but didn't give them what they were looking for. One example is the big disaster emergency stories at the beginnings of Season 6 and Season 7. There was no other big emergencies during the rest of the seasons and audience knew that. Long term fans like me were delighted by those stories, and ratings indicated that the big emergencies have attracted additional viewers. However, surely you've noticed that ratings were back to normal right after the big emergency stories had ended. The drops were not even gradual. It's because new viewers knew that the thrill ended after the 3rd episode of the season. And with such crappy storylines which I have explained in Part A, new viewers hardly wanted to stay.

B.2. THE BUDDIE-BAITING

Another baiting that we've noticed is the Buddie-baiting. There are fans who want to see Buck and Eddie (a.k.a. "Buddie") in a romantic relationship on screen. These fans are not subtle about what they want. Tim Minear, Kristen Reidel, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Oliver Stark, and Ryan Guzman have acknowledged the existence of the fans in various occasions. The Buddie fans have been voicing their demand since Season 2. Unlike normal fans they are very obsessed about the pairing they root for. Other 9-1-1 fans like me, who don't root for Buddie, have concerns regarding how the show has been portraying Buck and Eddie's interactions on screen. In our opinion, if the show didn't want to pair Buck with Eddie romantically, then it should stop giving nods or hints about them as if they were a couple or a couple to-be. Those nods or hints only give false expectations to the Buddie fans. For examples:

1)) In episode 7x06 "There Goes the Groom", there was a Buck & Eddie drunk karaoke scene. The scene should include Henren and Ravi, or at least Ravi in the scene, to avoid misinterpretation by Buddie fans.

2)) In episode 8x06 "Confessions", Eddie talked about beards, right after he mentioned that he was straight. Buddie fans has interpreted this scene as a clue that Eddie was hiding his sexuality. Here's the actual conversation on screen:

Father Brian: "And you, you have that... very handsome mustache." Eddie (chuckling): "Do you wanna know why I grew this?" Father Brian: "Tell me." Eddie: "Because the LAFD doesn't allow beards. Too flammable. Otherwise, I'd have gone full mountain man." Father Brian: "So, it's a disguise?" Eddie (averting his gaze): "Something like that." Father Brian: "What're you afraid of seeing when you're looking in the mirror?"

The conversation could be done without mentioning beards at all. For example:

Father Brian: "And you, you have that... very handsome mustache." Eddie (chuckling): "I'm glad someone likes it." Father Brian: "Nobody else likes it?" Eddie: "Well, sometimes my friends tease me about it. But I think they're just not used to see me with a mustache." Father Brian: "So, it's new? Is it a trend that I didn't know about?" Eddie (chuckling): "No, not a trend. I just want to see something different when I look in the mirror." Father Brian: "So, it's a disguise?" Eddie (averting his gaze): "Something like that." Father Brian: "What're you afraid of seeing when you're looking in the mirror?"

If a non-writer like me could come up with an alternative conversation with the same ending without talking about beards, so could the writers. Even if the conversation became longer, the show could cut some time off of Eddie's dancing scene at the end of the episode. Inserting beards in the conversation feels like baiting Buddie fans without actually giving them what they want.

3)) In episode 8x06 "Confessions", a pantless Eddie opened his door to Buck after Buck was dumped by Tommy, and proceeded to let Buck sat next to him. Eddie was pantless because he had been doing the Risky Business Dance. There are other iconic dances which Eddie could do without losing his pants, like Michael Jackson's Moonwalk, the Footloose Dance, John Travolta's Staying Alive Dance, etc. This sexual innuendo only gives a false message to Buddie fans.

There is a growing concern that the show has been baiting Buddie fans to keep watching without actually making Buck and Eddie a couple. This feels deceitful, exploitative, and manipulative. Fans don't need 'nods' or 'hints' or 'subtexts'. A few decades ago, when homosexuality was a taboo, giving nods and subtexts about the subject on TV shows seemed brave. It doesn't work that way in this modern era, when marriage equality has been a law for quite a while. On the contrary, it feels deceitful and cowardly. As if the show was afraid to upset its queer-averse audience, but also wanted its queer-leaning audience to keep watching.

B.3. THE TEVAN-BAITING

After 9-1-1 re-introduced Tommy back in Season 7, a lot of fans were captivated by this character and his love story with Buck. We dubbed the couple as 'Bucktommy' or 'Tevan'. In the fandom, a lot people have shared how they could relate to Tommy. I'm one of them. Like Tommy, I came out later in life, although only to selected people in my life. Like Tommy, I also have done less than honorable things to cover my sexuality, which I still regret even now. A lot of fans, including me, also relate to Tommy's longing for a family who could fully accept him. That's why we were rooting for his relationship with Buck.

We were shocked and heartbroken when the couple broke up in episode 806 "Confessions". To add salt in our wound, everyone involved acted out-of-characters like I mentioned in Part A. It makes the break up felt like a rushed afterthought, instead of a well-prepared storyline. It's very contrast with how the story of Brad Torrence and Hotshots were told. Furthermore, Tommy had been portrayed as a loving boyfriend to Buck in the previous episode (ep. 805 "Masks"). We felt that the show has played with our feelings, and for what? To make us cried our hearts out on the internet and gave the show hypes and online engagements for free? Once again, it feels like the show has deceitfully baited us. Looking back at how it has seemingly baited thrill-seekers viewers with emergency scenes only at the season openings, and how it gave 'nods' to Buddie pairing without ever make it happened, the thought doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

A lot of fans have noticed a trend of ship-baiting in TV shows. Unlike queer-baiting, these TV shows have included openly queer characters from the start, so people don't accuse them of queer-baiting. However, there's usually only one queer couple who has a long-term relationship which lasts until the end of the show. Other queer characters either end up single or appear single (e.g. Guilermo de la Cruz of What We Do in the Shadows), have elusive romantic partners who appear very rarely on screen (e.g. Paul Strickland of 9-1-1: Lone Star), or have a string of failed romantic relationships until the shows ended (e.g. Travis Montgomery of Station 19). The story of Travis Montgomery of Station 19 is very telling. He was the only main character who didn't get a 'soulmate' at the end of the show. He was dragged from one failed relationship to another during the whole 7 seasons. This was a notably different treatment compared to other main characters in the show. It has made fans wondered whether the fact that Travis was gay had something to do with it. There had been one queer couple, Maya Bishop & Carina DeLuca (a.k.a. "Marina") who was prominently on display and got a happy ending in Station 19. Why didn't Travis get a lasting relationship like other main characters, instead of being paired with a brand new partner in the end? As if there was a diversity quota, where only one queer couple per TV show was allowed to be prominently on display and got a happy ending.

C. WHAT NEXT FOR BUCK

Reflecting from what happened with Travis Montgomery of Station 19, some fans have predicted that 9-1-1 planned to drag Buck to a string of failed relationships before pairing him with a woman at the end of the show. There's also a speculation that Buck would be paired with Tommy or even Eddie right before the show ended, because by then the show would not have to portray his queer relationship on screen further. Until then, the audience might have to watch Buck jumps from relationship to relationship again.

There are several issues with this scenario:

1)) Buck has gone through FIVE failed relationships since the beginning of the show (with Abby, Ali, Taylor, Natalia, and Tommy). It would be NINE if we include hook-ups and kisses (the unnamed firetruck hookup, the snake-keeping lady, his ex-therapist, and Lucy Donato). Giving Buck another failed relationship is beyond repetitive. It screams "we run out of ideas what to do with this character." A lot of us simply don't want to watch that repetition.

2)) It would be hard for any other partners to measure up to Tommy. Tommy shared a unique connection with Buck: Buck was Tommy's replacement in 118 firehouse and they shared a same ex, Abby. Tommy also had a good relationship with Bobby, Chimney, Hen, and Eddie, and has been portrayed as a good boyfriend for Buck. If an ideal partner like Tommy was thrown out of the window, why should we care about Buck's next love interest(s)?

3)) Tommy's unique connection with Buck and how Tommy has been portrayed on the show have given a lot of potential stories for Buck and Tommy together. For examples:

Tommy has done terrible things in the past, probably while he was in the military. This would give Buck a dilemma: would he leave Tommy, or would he love and trust someone with a checkered past although that person has repented.

Tommy could have a trauma or PTSD from his time in the military, probably related to DADT. This would give Buck a new role as a caregiver to who tried to help his partner struggles with a serious issue. It would be more serious than accompanying Taylor Kelly to meet her estranged father.

Tommy might apologize to Abby. Not only Buck and Abby deserve a closure, Tommy and Abby do too. Buck might even facilitate this.

Those examples have never been shown before. Any of them would feel fresh and better than having Buck goes through several romantic relationships again.

4)) As I mentioned before, a lot of us feel that the show has been baiting us, the queer-leaning viewers, to watch the show without giving us the queer relationship that we want. Our experiences with TV shows like Supernatural, Station 19, and the latest one, What We Do in the Shadows, have taught us to recognize the baiting signs. A lot of us refuse to be exploited again. Several fans have quit watching the show after episode 806 "Confessions", others were waiting until the half season hiatus to see whether Tommy was coming back or not, before quit watching it for good. We plan to watch the show again only if Tommy and Buck get back together.

This is not the first time I was disappointed by a TV show. Several years ago, I quit watching Grey's Anatomy because it messed up Jackson and April (a.k.a. "Japril")'s relationship with a love triangle story for too long. Although disappointed, at the time I didn't care enough to express my concern to ABC. I simply quit watching the show, because it didn't give me joy anymore. However, I care more about Tommy and his relationship with Buck, hence this letter. I hope the show will bring Tommy back and restore his relationship with Buck once more in Season 8B. I know a lot of fans have a similar hope.

#All I Want for Christmas Is Lou

Best regards,

[My name]

[the-cybersmith]

@the-cybersmith @autisticexpression2 it is becoming obvious that both of you either know nothing about brechts life history or are choosing to chivalrously set this knowledge aside so as to conduct a fair debate with an apparently ignorant opposing party. this is somewhat tedious.

(comment by @loving-n0t-heyting)

I don't think you're being entirely fair.

I am putting the rest under a readmore, but here's the TLDR.

TL:DR I do know a bit about Brecht's life. I think what I have said about him stands up to scrutiny in light of that information.

He did literally everything he was capable of doing to support the murderous actions of his political allies. He was not a killer himself, and indeed he was not physically capable of being one, but he endorsed the killings others carried out. People who knew him personally made the same accusations against him that I am making now.

Brecht never laid hands on a weapon himself, I know, but he was an avowed Marxist who notably chose to live in the Soviet Bloc, and who didn't criticise Stalin's purges whilst he was alive. I think his work, including (especially?) the poem you quoted, could be read as supportive of Stalin killing people.

Put it this way, if someone like Carl Schmitt or Julius Evola (both great thinkers, who deserve respect for their contribution to their fields, no less than Berthold Brecht) had written otherwise-identical about bombing people or killing them with poison gas, it wouldn't be at all controversial to say that they were endorsing politically extremist acts of violence.

"History will pay its respects to the revolutionary impatience of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. The great discussion [exchange] with the masses about the speed of socialist construction will lead to a viewing and safeguarding of the socialist achievements. At this moment I must assure you of my allegiance to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany"

I haven't been able to find the text in its original German, but this suggests a certain level of support for political violence, considering that he wrote it in the aftermath of the East German police (under the instruction of the Socialist Unity Part of Germany) suppressed a political protest.

By the same context, we can read "The interrogation of the good" as a pretty full-throated endorsement of Stalinist killings!

Consider: the method is the same. Just as the Nazis preferred to kill using toxic gasses (initially, Carbon Monoxide, later Zyklon-B) and then cremate them, Stalin's preferred method of killing was to "put [people] before a wall", and "shoot [them] with bullet[s] from a gun" before "burying them in the earth".

In that context, Brecht is pretty clearly endorsing Stalinist purges, and is even saying that it was right to carry them out IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THEIR VICTIMS.

I'm really not sure how else you can interpret this than as saying it is morally appropriate to kill one's enemies whether they are good people or not!

Likewise, let's consider the details of Brecht's life.

He was extremely politically outspoken from a young age, and condemned Imperial Germany's ideals as Propaganda. Owing to his youth, and his enrolment in Medical School, he avoided conscription for the First World War until it was almost over, and never saw combat.

Later on, in his 30s, he was still an outspoken Marxist... which made him a political enemy of Hitler. So, he fled to the USA. He was later found to have been part of a communist conspiracy to undermine the USA though his plays and marxist ideals. Indeed, he explicitly wanted to create what he called a "dialectical" interpretation of theatre, a perverted socialist interpretation different to pure, wholesome, Aristotelian theatre

He then moved to East Germany after the War in the late 40s. Notably, this was not motivated by homesickness! He was born in Augsberg, which is in WEST Germany. The only reason I can think of to do this is that he preferred to live under a (Stalin-aligned) communist government.

This was WELL AFTER the Kronstadt Rebellion, WELL AFTER George Orwell revealed the horrors of Stalinism in Ukraine, WELL AFTER the Katyn Massacre.

Any well-educated person knew by then what kind of leader Stalin was.

Now, you may well ask, why would a man so motivated by soviet fervour restrict himself to writing plays? Why not directly enact violence?

Well, for the simple reason that he couldn't. He suffered from a deformed heart, speculated to be Sydenham's chorea. By the age of 30, this would almost certainly have manifested in uncontrollable spasms in his hands (described by some people who knew him) that would make him extremely ill-suited to using a firearm safely.

Berthold Brecht couldn't shoot people himself, so he endorsed Stalin.

I'm not the first person to make this complaint, people said this about him during his own life!

Fritz J. Raddatz, who knew Brecht personally, condemned him for it!

Now, yes, I know that Brecht did eventually write some anti-Stalin policies... after Stalin was dead, and a new (somewhat anti-Stalin) government had come to power.

Tepidly criticising Stalin AFTER the "secret speech" becomes public is not an especially meaningful stance! I don't feel inclined to give him a pass on endorsing murder in light of the fact that he (privately) changed his tune once it was TOO LATE TO CHANGE ANYTHING!

multiple ppl in the notes of my bertolt brecht poem post are effectively accusing brecht (and by extension, me) of being more-or-less a nazi. cant decide whether to be mildly indignant or mildly amused

[turtleblogatlast]

I think a lot about Leo standing up for his brothers in the things that really matter to them.

Like- Leo is the one who immediately pushes Mikey and Donnie into finding Raph the second it’s clear that their oldest brother is missing because he knows Raph can’t handle being separated like that.

Leo is the one who stands up for Mikey when Mikey wants to go on a solo mission, actively vouching for him and being the one to convince Raph into letting Mikey go, because being independent and proving himself just as capable of standing on his own two feet as everyone else means so much to Mikey.

And Leo defends Donnie’s honor in particular when his brothers’ intelligence is insulted because Leo is well aware of how important Donnie’s smarts are to him - and how important having those smarts valued and acknowledged is as well.

All this goes right into just how well Leo knows his brothers. For as much as he’ll tease or fight with them, he knows them, and he loves them.

[crossbackpoke-check]

yOu'Re gOiNg fOr a LiTeR? | "Habs react to Quebec Maple facts", 10.22.24

[leupagus]

So I'm sure there's different versions of this

But the one my cantor* told us when we were in Sunday School was this one:

Two rich men go to a cloth merchant's shop. This merchant is known for having beautiful silks, even though he has but a small humble store in the outskirts of town — so small that his infant son is sleeping on one of the chests!

These rich men want to buy these silks, so they demand to see them at once.

The merchant says, "I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow and I would be happy to show them to you."

The rich men, knowing that this merchant is a Jew, think "ah-hah, he wants more money!" So they offer him a tremendous sum.

"I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow, good sirs."

The rich men are puzzled, but they double their price. Quadruple it. Anything this merchant wants, they can give him.

"I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow, if you please."

So, the rich men leave, annoyed, but they present themselves the very next day and sure enough, the merchant goes to a chest and pulls out the most beautiful silks that these rich men have ever seen. And when they offer to pay, he will only accept the price that he himself has deemed fair — many times less than even the first offer these rich men made.

"But why would you not give us these silks yesterday?" they ask, happy but baffled as they (or more probably their servants, but the cantor didn't get into that) pack up the silks to leave.

Just then, the merchant's wife comes in from the back, carrying their infant son. The merchant smiles and says, "Because my child was sleeping on that chest, and I did not wish to disturb his slumber. His peace is more precious to me than all the money you, good sirs, could ever provide."

[danielnelsen]

so if you romance and ascend astarion you can kick him in the balls when he tries to turn you and it’s just very funny, he’s so pissy about it. so much for the most powerful vampire of all time or whatever, he stamps around like a toddler and then leaves forever

[starbuck]

i can’t remember if i ever actually made the Ravenous Ghost Bell analysis post, but i wish i had time to make it because i feel like it would be received well in this moment…

[homoeroticvillain]

oogh not really happy with this, but i finally drew rey, who is teddy's betrothed [lore dump in tags]

[commsroom]

Dear listener, happy birthday!

Your writing is always a joy and seeing you on my dash always means smiling and also bracing for excellent angsty emotion (and the occasional necessary horny posting for eiffel, high five).

Here is your present, a silly little eiffel question I’ve been mulling over. Do you think he’d be a social media guy? I mean, he’s hilarious and loves an audience but while he seems slightly tech adept its always very tactile clunky retro tech in vibe, and i guess the baseline shame and guilt he feels could tip him either ways vis a vis having a large online following . I’ve always liked how ambiguous time on wolf359 felt because i guess making it more pointedly feel like our time (even though it is set in our time) didn’t feel like the energy they were going for, but as a result i just do not know how to feel about eiffel on twitter or something. Thoughts?

aw, thank you! that's sweet of you. i love everything about wolf 359, but i post first and foremost for people who want to know eiffel carnally. well. and people who see hera as a trans woman, also.

and this is a great question! i love to think about eiffel and social media. he is absolutely, 100% an analog guy; i think he resents how much has been digitized. which isn't to say he sticks to his principles about it. eiffel is a creature of comfort above all else; he's going to use whatever service is most convenient. but he's going to complain.

eiffel has a huge collection of physical media. eiffel still has his blockbuster card in his wallet as a point of pride. eiffel listens to the radio, and complains about what they play on the radio (90s music on classic rock stations? blasphemy), while people are constantly telling him to just listen to his own music. he likes doing this! i honestly think eiffel is relatively offline - his star wars opinions are too normal for him not to be. social media for eiffel is, like... a couple of pop culture news accounts he follows. his youtube recommendations are mostly just music, simpsons clips, the livestreams of radio guys with call-in shows, and, like, old tech repair stuff.

maybe eiffel still posts on some forums that he's been occasionally posting on for the last decade, but he's not in tune with modern social media or internet culture. if eiffel wants to show you a Funny Internet Video, it's going to be, like, star wars bad lip reading. he absolutely wants to have an online radio call-in show, but he can't commit to being consistent enough to build an audience. eiffel might listen to podcasts sometimes, but he thinks 'podcasts' are just guys chatting about movies. he also thinks he could do that, but there's nobody who wants to make a podcast with him. if he did manage to convince someone, he would post like five episodes at once, forget about it for six months, post one or two more, and then get bored and move onto something else.

[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?

[mashmouths]

i need to make a venn diagram of character traits shared between mizu bes, simon ss, and lancelot timk because oh? my god.

[vadlings]

Represention of Autistic Frustration in Laios Dungeon Meshi

Like many other autistic people, I related strongly to Laios Touden while reading Dungeon Meshi. This post isn't going to spend time disputing whether he displays autistic traits or not—while I could do that, I want to focus on why specifically his portrayal struck a chord with me in a way the writing of most other autistic-coded characters has not.

Disclaimer: as the above suggests, this post is strongly informed by my own experiences as an autistic person, as well as the experiences of my neurodivergent friends with whom I have spoken about this subject. I want to clarify that in no way am I asserting my personal experience to be some Universal Autistic Experience. This post is about why Laios' character feels distinct and significant to me in regard to autistic representation, and while I'm at it, I do feel that I have interesting things to say about autistic representation in media generally. This also got a bit long, so I'm sticking it under a read more. Spoilers for up to the end of chapter 88 below.

The thing that stands out most to me in regard to Laios' characterisation is the open anger he displays when someone points out his inability to read other people. This comes up prominently in his interactions with "Shuro" (Toshiro Nakamoto):

The frustration pictured above (Laios continuing to physically tussle with Toshiro, using crude language toward him) becomes even more notable when you remember that this is Laios, who, outside of these interactions, is not easily fazed and often exists as a lighthearted contrast to the rest of the cast. Then we get to Laios' nightmare.

In Falin's words: "Nightmares love emotional wounds. Wounds you hold in your heart. Things that give you stress, or things that were traumatic for you. They aggravate memories like that and cause the dreamer to have terrible dreams." (chapter 42, page 10.) (damn. i'm properly citing for this post and everything.)

Thus, Laios' nightmare establishes an important fact: even if he is unable to recognise social blunders while he's making them, he's at least subconsciously aware that other people operate on a different wavelength to him, and that he's an outsider in many of his social circles (both past and present). His dream-father's disparaging words stress the impact this has had upon his ability to live up to the expectations set out for him, and we also get a panel of kids who smirk at him (presumably former bullies to some degree). Toshiro's appearance only hammers home how much Laios is still both humiliated and angered by his misunderstanding of their relationship.

I've thought a lot about anger as concomitant to the autistic experience. When autistic representation portrays ostracization, it's generally from an angle of the autistic character being upset at how conforming to neurotypical norms doesn't come easily to them; as a result, they express a desire to 'get better' at meeting neurotypical standards, a desire to become more 'normal' (whether the writing implies this is a good thing or not). In contrast, not once does Laios go, "I need to perform better in my social interactions, and try to care less about monsters, because that's what other people find weird." His frustration is directed outward rather than inward, and as a result, it's the people around him who are framed as nonsensical.

The Winged Lion starts delineating Laios' anger, and Laios' reaction is to think to himself, "It can sense all my thoughts, huh?" (chapter 88, page 16.) This is the scene that really resonated with me. I'm not saying I have never felt the desire to conform to neurotypical norms that is borne from insecurity, but primarily, I know that I don't want to work toward becoming 'normal'—I don't want to change myself for people who follow rules I find nonsensical. It's the difference between, "Oh god, why can't I get it," and, "WHY CAN'T YOU GET IT?" (phrasing here courtesy of my friend Miles @dogwoodbite). And for me personally, Dungeon Meshi is the first time I've seen this frustration and the resultant voluntary isolation from other people portrayed in media so candidly. Laios' anger is not downplayed or written to be easily palatable, either.

The culmination of Laios' frustrations in this scene wherein we learn that Laios has fantasised about "a pack of monsters attacking a village" drives home just how alienated he really feels. I need not go into his wish to become a monster himself, redolent of how many autistic people identify/have identified with non-humans to some degree as a result of a percieved disconnect from society (when I was younger, I wanted to be a robot. I still kind of do.)

Obviously, wishing death upon other people is a weighty thing, but the unfiltered nature of this page is what deeply resonated with me. The Winged Lion is laying Laios' deepest and most transgressive desires bare, and they are desires that are a product of lifelong ostracization by others (whether intentional or unintentional). This is the brand of anger I'm familiar with, and that my neurodivergent friends express being familiar with, but that I haven't seen portrayed in writing so explicitly before—in fact, it surprised me because most well-meaning autistic representation I've experienced veers toward infantilisation in trying make the autistic character's struggles easy for neurotypicals to sympathise with.

Let's also not neglect the symbolism inherent to Laios' daydream. "A pack of monsters attacking a village". Functionally, monsters are Laios' special interest—he percieves everything first and foremost through his passion for monsters. His daydream of monsters attacking—killing—humans, is fundamentally a daydream of the world he understands (monsters) overthrowing the world that is so illogical to him, that has repeatedly shunned him (other people). I joked to my friends that it's an autistic power fantasy, and it actually sort of is. And in it, his identity is aligned with that of the monsters, while his anger manifests in a palpable dissociation from the rest of humanity. This is one manga page. It's brief. It's also very, very raw to me. I think about it often.

To conclude, I love Laios Dungeon Meshi. This portrayal of open frustration in an autistic character meant a lot to me, and I hope I've sufficiently outlined why. Also, feel free to recommend media with autistic representation in the notes if you've read this far—I would really like to see if there is more of this nature. Thank you for reading. I'm very tired and should probably sleep now.

[lukosei]

Rewatching death note after TEN YEARS with some friends and we are horribly susceptible to theorizing animation student au headcanons for like every piece of media that has our attention so here’s their meet the artists with some stats :3 ridiculously self-indulgent + catered to our own personal experiences of being in cartoon school. How fleshed out is this??? Not very. But it’s fun (tried drawing them kinda sorta how they’d maybe draw if they were actually like people) (I’d love to put the music they listen to and movies they like but tbh idk light especially does not strike me as someone who listens to music for fun so they’re a bit minimal). Also thing to note I know the personality-database site says light is an entj instead of i which while it makes sense we motioned that he’s a bit more meticulous and while of course he can do social situations he doesn’t seek them out per se nor get fulfilment from them BUT BOTH TYPES ARE STILL GOOD

Now you may be asking how does the actual plot of death note translate into this. Well you see they are in their 3rd year ryuk is light’s goth alt roommate who shows him this cool site called twitter dot com and light IMMEDIATELY starts anonymously cyberbullying people notably school peers and it gets so bad the faculty has to get involved and they also need to bring in this mysterious transfer student from England who gets put into the same 3rd year film group as light to further investigate suspicions and also has a twitter handle/acc that has been actively challenging light’s + has like a gazillion followers. Also yeah they fall in love and stuff

[turtleblogatlast]

“Haven’t You Noticed (I’m a Star)” from Steven Universe works so ridiculously well for Leo

[lenaellsi]

One thing that really gets me about the opening with angel Crowley is that he's not just excited by how beautiful his stars are, or how fun the process of creation is, or how impressed he's made Aziraphale. He’s not in it for the glory or the aesthetics. He’s actually horrified by the idea that the universe will just be "fancy wallpaper" in the future, even though Aziraphale assures him that humans will "marvel" at his creations.

What Crowley loves about his stars is their potential. He is building, essentially, a nursery. Most of the universe's stars, he explains to Aziraphale, will come pre-aged--but his are just starting out! After they're given time to grow, who knows what could happen! Good or bad, black holes or new constellations—there are so many possible futures ahead of them, and Crowley can’t wait to see what happens.

And then Aziraphale tells him that he knows what will happen: those stars will never grow up. They will never shine or burn out or implode or become anything new. They’ll be destroyed before they get the chance.

"You can't kill kids."

“Whose side are you on?” “God’s, of course!” “Same God that wants me to whack the kids?”

"People die." "They do, don't they?"

“Great pustulant mangled bollocks to the Great blasted Plan!”

"Don't test them to destruction."

"It's always too late."

"Nothing lasts forever." "No, I don't suppose it does."

This fear has been chasing Crowley since before the beginning. It’s what caused his first doubts, put the first traces of gray in his wings. He’s been raging at the futility of watching beautiful, complex things be damned or destroyed for his entire existence, and that’s why he seems to the audience and to Aziraphale to be a mess of contradictions.

He loves to follow the trends of the times, but he clings to his classic car in an era of planned obsolescence for vehicles. He lives in an ultra-modern flat, but finds his greatest comfort in the unchanging security of aziraphale’s old shop. He hates the idea of killing children, but is willing to see a child die if it preserves the rest of the universe and foils the Great Plan. He “goes too fast,” but his most unique and notable power is that he’s learned to stop time.

Crowley hates predestination. He hates divine intervention and the removal of agency. Crowley, the architect of free will, is constantly torn between his love of change and choice and potential and his terror that everything will be destroyed by an unstoppable, incomprehensible higher power. That’s his driving conflict in the way that Aziraphale’s is learning to find his own path without following Heaven’s rules, and I am fascinated to see how it resolves.