#b/c it wasn't about them

[alteredphoenix]

Now I don’t mean to come off like I’m knocking on this, but how come Blue Reflection keeps getting games (that are going in a direction that’s apt to piss off its audience) but we still haven’t gotten a third Nights of Azure game.

[sandboxscenes]

You've been challenged! (Pokemon AU)

A/N: This is an experimental piece that I wanted to try out because I was inspired by this Pokemon Battle featuring Delphox. This is a different take on a Genshin Impact Pokemon AU. This was done in conjunction with @xianyoon for their Extreme Bias Game. Special thanks to @floraldresvi for assisting me with the ideas for Thoma's section.

Characters: Lyney, Thoma

Genre: Mostly fluff, with hints of angst

Summary:

Pokemon and Genshin collide in this Pokemon style AU that answers the question: What would happen if the characters you encountered in Genshin Impact challenged you?

If you were challenged by them, what would be their in-game tagline when they challenged you to a battle? What would their title be on the game screen? And most importantly, what would be their character summaries?

In short, it positions the different Genshin Impact characters as in-game coded sprites.

Word Count: Lyney (277 words), Thoma (328 words)

You have been challenged by the House of Hearth's Second in Command, Lyney!

Tagline: "Let's give them a show to remember!"

Brief Summary:

Tricks, Illusions, and Magic galore! Whenever anyone takes a seat at Lyney's shows in the Court of Fontaine, they will be in for a magical time. Charming, charismatic, and talented are all words that describe the renowned magician. Lyney and his aforementioned magic shows are famous across the Fontanian landscape. But few know the man behind the spectacle.

Growing up, Lyney owes much of his present success to his upbringing in orphanage known as: The House of Hearth. His sister, Lynette, and his (adopted) brother, Freminet, also grew up there as well. While not much is known about The House of Hearth, it is full of unexpected surprises.

To Lyney, family means to the world to him. He will do anything to protect it. Second only to the "Father" of the House of Hearth, he is the one that will eventually be "Father's successor." Despite his young appearance, there is a reason that he is the second in command. Anyone who ends up underestimating him, regrets it.

For the Magician Lyney, he always wants to keep people on their toes. His Pokemon are the same way. Some of Lyney's trusted Pokemon partners include the show stopping, Delphox and Meowscarada. They also have some tricks up their sleeves as well.

Special Notes:

Lyney's interest in magic has spread to his Pokemon too. His Delphox is a bit of a magician as well - blink and things will disappear. On the other hand, his Meowscarada is ready for anything. It's able to adapt on the fly, like any good magician does.

-------

You have been challenged by the mysterious foreign fixer, Thoma!

Tagline: "Let me protect you. It's what I want to do."

Basic Summary:

Inazuma is a land of tradition.

However, Thoma himself has a very non-traditional skill set.

As someone with skills in cooking and cleaning, he enjoys using his skills to assist people whenever he can. His earnest kindness, his willingness to help, and loyalty have made him well liked among the Inazuman Citizens, despite their wariness towards foreigners.

As a foreigner, Thoma cares deeply about others. He knows what it's like to have people be wary of you due to things out of his control. As someone with a deep sense of duty and loyalty, he is not someone who forgets his debts or reneges on them.

Thoma's actions have earned him the nickname of fixer, as he is well-versed in the art of fixing problems. For someone like Thoma, resolving things peacefully is always preferable. Whether it's a small fight between children over toys to a fight between foreign and local merchants, Thoma would prefer if both sides could compromise.

But if things things escalate, don't be fooled.

When push comes to shove, Thoma's willing to do what it takes to protect himself and his family from harm. Once you have wormed your way into the heart of the foreign fixer, he will protect you until his dying breath.

For the mysterious Fixer, he is well-informed of any happenings going on in Inazuma. He has to be, due to the nature of his job.

With such a dangerous job, he needs partners he can rely on.

One of his trusted Pokemon partners is Talonflame. Talonflame soars above the skies of Inazuma, its keen eyes alerting Thoma to any potential issues that may arise within Inazuma. And for those conflicts that can't be fixed peacefully and require a 'forceful' touch, Thoma's other partner Blaziken, is there to help - both its master, its family, and the people of Inazuma.

[boilingrain]

I wish that the game actually let me work with them instead of forcing me to be untrusting & kinda mean

[thats-a-lot-of-cortisol]

✨ someone ✨ broke their oath the other night

[unproduciblesmackdown]

also was revisiting a little bmc bway interview ft. william last night & him saying his favorite part of the show was probably doing the agtikbi reprise scene on the couch at the party & mentioning the Nonverbal aspect of jeremy & christine's interacting / communicating there & a way of exploring/depicting Love & Affection in a way you don't always see everywhere and like aaaarghhhhh so true good lord that specific scene. and Again the bway obcr version Existing and being like that, it's just like. winded exhale yeah obsessed 5ever thank you all

[arrowpunk]

Hey does any queer person who has/had evangelical parents, and you like came out to them, and even if they weren't super accepting at first they eventually came around to it, have any tips on how to go about coming out while still maintaining that relationship?

I am NOT looking for ppl to tell me to just go no contact with my parents and cut them off completely. Trust me I have thought about it and I will if I absolutely have to, but I would prefer not to if at all possible. But there's nuance to this situation and I don't think my parents are Complete lost causes.

Also if you are Christian/Evangelical and you try to proselytize to me on this post I will immediately block you. I do not want to deal with people telling me my lifestyle is sinful. I grew up with that rhetoric and I am not looking to debate it with anyone but my parents right now.

[sage-nebula]

Gonna be honest: I am halfway through my second playthrough of P5R and I don't get the Akechi love in the fandom. No hate to anyone who loves him ofc, we all have different tastes, but

[lighthouseborn]

[kaikree]

something that isn't talked about much when it comes to healing yourself is that it might end up killing relationships (both romantic and platonic)

and i don't mean that in a way that should dissuade anyone from trying to heal. i mean you are where you are, on a path to try and get better, to do right by yourself and take care of the child inside you and nurture the things that have been hurt and sometimes you look around and realize that the people that you used to stand beside are a half-mile back on the track, so far that you can barely see them

and you want them to be with you still. you know that if they can get themselves up this hill with you that they'll feel better. things can get better and it's hard but you're up here climbing a hill, you know that it's possible and they can do it too! they can climb the hill with you and look out at this great view

but

you can't move their legs for them. and no matter how you wave or cajole or promise that it's not as hard once you get into it, they will not move from where they are. and you can sit there and try to talk to them from afar, but the healthier you get the harder it is to yell back to where they're standing.

sometimes there comes a point that you have to turn around completely because the path they want to stay on will only leash you back to a lower point. and that's... not actually your fault.

and yeah that can get so very frustrating. there have been times in my life where while talking to friends who were in bad spirals i would get frustrated b/c no matter what i said or did it seemed like they were hellbent on staying exactly where they were no matter how much they hated it or how much it hurt them. i could sit down and walk with them through resources and venting sessions and so many ways to to get out of the place they were in and it just... repeated. in a cycle. at some point i had to come to terms with the fact that you can't help someone who refuses to take the first step to help themselves and sometimes sticking around someone like that is only going to keep you tethered to that mental state.

[talonsandwings]

hey neil and craig great show um how do you expect me to just go to sleep tonight

[kkujo]

people who still think kira and josefumi are related are literally the stupidest people ever oh my god

[theputterer]

good news all. my parents think I should be a writer. lol

[unproduciblesmackdown]

also given that the logic of said superiority authoriority is an entitlement to deny someone's personhood & use them as an object for your purposes, from obviously getting to direct what they must do & can't do, to enjoying whatever gratification from lashing out / demeaning which is also going to serve as an affirming exercise in authority when one can do that from an insulated elevated place....a crucial part of whatever form of this violence, from the most nanoscopic triangle in the sierpiński triangle pyramid scheme hierarchy, to the hypothetical largest (zoom in or out to whatever degree: the same shit also), being that indeed the superior parties need the deserved insulation from any Consequence to exerting their superior status, including indeed from having to witness the consequences For the "inferior" parties, such as whatever externalizations of suffering they recognize as such, which either (a) need to be put away (b) are manipulative performances or otherwise exaggerated (e.g. being a pussy / not even having the sense to realize how little suffering they're Really experiencing) or (c) can be fun to witness if you decide you enjoy that as an affirmation of power as per your ability to completely detach from any avoidance of causing pain, harming for its own sake, b/c you Can

all which is to frame how Interesting it is that after all those moments of going "well, they keep bothering with reaction shots of winston noticeably feeling hurt & expressing it, sometimes also verbally. it's like it could be setting up something" it set up Nothing; while once again just like has been done dozens of times a scene just Ends on winston being rejected &/or hurt, no resolution then, no resolution ever, and in the case of 7x03 was so significant an attack that just like in 4x11 when mafee gets to take out his own Loyalty Insecurity on winston while everyone else hangs around in tacit to overt approval, everyone just leaves the room & we get winston staying behind in the Most distant position aaand scene's over! thread's over! david levien get back here after you Liked that 4x12 livetweet of mine pointing out "so see & winston was right anyways??" like....that is: we are given the Perspective of someone who is also now Leaving winston behind, thus immune to the consequences of however that treatment could actually affect him or how he might struggle to deal with that now (who cares! the answer is: Alone) like Whatever, next time we see him he's completely fine now. and i'm just so happening to think that all the little moments of getting to see winston wither & withdraw & etc in reaction to being shitted on was also us being granted the perspective of Gratification that he's punished for speaking or existing or whatever, without it ever going anywhere or mattering beyond that instant. we too are the ones who surely get to relentlessly bully the autistic person & damn if we don't at least enjoy someone getting to go off the rails restoring their ego by doing absolutely whatever they want to him, which just so happens to be perfectly aligned with getting him Back In Line. pull yourself together winston! the only consequences you're experiencing we wanna deal with are the ones where you give us the algorithm we decided we want, actually. and now let's look across the rest of the season where the consequences for wags for being this way (or anyone else for standing by, ready to benefit, with philip bafflingly declaring as well how actually it was brutal in a good way) is approximately fuckall even as of course nobody's pretending he's one of the personal growth guys out here: rian is though, and didn't have to "grow" out of abusing winston or thinking that was fine & good or that of course she's inherently superior! and in the end we have more affection and interest for the Epic Asshole than their Cringe Targets

[kerra-and-company]

How about a ★ for cio or pliarr from variott?

Gladly!!! Sorry this has been sitting in my inbox for a bit, happy to answer it now and tyty! :D I'll give you Pliarr since I've talked a little about how Cio would feel about Variott before.

Pliarr ★ Variott:

I like you // I love you // You’re one of my best friends // You’re like family // You are family // I dislike you // I hate you // I’d kill you if I got the chance // I want you to like me // I’m scared of you // I would adopt you // I’d date you // I’d sleep with you // I’d marry you // I’m worried about you // You confuse me // You’re annoying // I pity you // I respect you // I trust you // I feel protective of you // I’d invite you with me to parties // I’d lend you my money // I’d borrow your money // You’re good-looking // I’m suspicious of you // I’m hiding something from you // You’re fun // You’re boring // I’m upset with you // You’re nice // You’re mean // I’m envious of you // You’re smart // You’re stupid // I look up to you // I think you’re a better person than me // I think I’m a better person than you // I want to apologize to you // I wish I’d never met you // I never want to forget you // I want to get to know you better

First of all, *handshake* between the two of them re: being small even for asura--Pliarr is Very Tiny too. Second, I think he'd absolutely see a bit of both his sister and himself in Variott, and he'd just genuinely like her. He's not the quickest in the world to trust people, but he'd want to trust Variott pretty fast, and the actual trust would follow from there. (Also evidenced from the "I'd lend you my money" one--Pliarr grew up being very careful with money/spending since it was super limited and is still careful even though he can afford to spend more now, so him being willing to lend money to someone else says a lot.) Also, as someone who has to go on missions to various places but really does not have the best sense of direction, he'd appreciate the hell out of Variott's maps and mapmaking skills.

[ranvwoop]

also I still believe in Amy R*se in aromantic comphet but that's objectively lying and self indulgent

[shivasdarknight]

i feel like we also got to address character C and character D and how person C and person D (...and E and F) interact with them because there's still a level of harm that media can inflict, and that depends on the intentions of the author and the type of fan who engages with them.

character C is a character is an offensive caricature part of an otherwise standard show. they are played off as normal through the show, but everything about them is harmful in terms of how the audience engages with them and how they continue to portray (blank) group in offensive lights. the author may not realize that character C is offensive, but to the audience - especially the group that they reflect - it's glaringly obvious. person C recognizes the harm that this character can cause but they also find themselves liking this character in spite of it. person C's engagement with character C is still positive, but due to understanding the problems with character C's portrayal, most of their engagement with the character comes in as mitigation (rewrites, redesigns, etc.), while also acknowledging vocally what is wrong and never condoning it.

person D also likes this character, however they do not recognize what is wrong and continue to play into how the piece of media portrays character C all the way down into intentionally/unintentionally adding in more offensive material because "it fits." person D can go one of a few ways: denying that the text is offensive and continuing to act blindly; acknowledging that it's bad and learning from it to follow person C; or doubling down on their beliefs and even sometimes finding tokens of the targeted group that agree with them to use them to justify their uncritical love of character C. a person D who takes the last route often doubles down on their interpretation and finds themselves at odds with a person C for their denial of harm. they also use the argument that because it's fiction, that they should be allowed to enjoy it when a person C is still enjoying it while acknowledging the arm it can cause and trying to work around it.

you can also extrapolate this into a person E, who likes character C because of the harm they cause. they see character C as emblematic of (blank) group and are often attracted into fandom spaces by a person D who creates enough of a fuss from being asked to be careful, critical, and respectful when engaging with the sensitive topic of character C's design and existence. a person E often first appears as a defender of a person D who comes into conflict with a person C to portray person C as someone who is trying to take away their right to like fiction, while reinforcing the uncritical love of character C, who perpetuates the harmful portrayal of (blank) group. This causes person D to double down, and slowly be dragged into spaces that person E occupies, where they curate harmful ideas through this media (see: how antiblackness manifests in many fandom spaces and how white supremacists and nazi-types take uncritical (mostly white) fans and turn them against black fans in these kinds of conversations).

character D, on the other hand, was intentionally made to be offensive or represent an offensive idea (see: Rita Skeeter being an early reflection of Rowling's transphobia; the entire dichotomy of AoT, Eren's ideology towards the end, and how titans are designed + later revelations about them) and it's difficult to remove them from the views of the author (Hajime Isayama is a staunch Japanese imperialist, and has gone on record to mock and discredit the existence of comfort women during Japan's occupation of Korea; his characters are named and modeled after notable Japanese imperialists). no matter which way you look at them, they are offensive and harmful, and often times they exist to expose uncritical audiences to their rhetorics (often eugenics, transphobia and general queerphobia, the great replacement theory, antisemitism, antiblackness, and pro-surveillance state sentiments (the last two especially in copaganda media). things like misogyny definitely come up a lot, but they're often red flags for much deeper issues that the author fully endorses; if misogyny is the focus here, it's a lot deeper than just shallow sexism and goes into femicide, the glorification and sexualization of sexual assault, and the reinforcement of "traditional" values. antiblackness functions similarly in that it permeates everything shallowly, but the levels of it can be a red flag for deeper issues - like dehumanization, justification for violent hate crimes, etc. - but im also not qualified to get into this too deeply because thats not my lived experience). they can look kind of like character C, but the important difference is that the author did this intentionally. a place of ignorance can be extremely offensive, but the intentionality of it tries to sneak by audiences and trick them into agreeing with them.

person C may like the character in theory, but it's impossible to deny the reason why the character exists as such. like with character C, person C may try to mitigate the damage, but this more comes in the form of talking about how character D is handled in the source material. there isn't a lot that can be done by these fans because again: the character is meant to harm. they may play into a bit of uncritical fandom, but for the most part just talk about them. person D does not recognize the harm that is does and acts similarly with character D as they do with character C. the problem is, character D is meant to cause harm where character C likely wasn't. so when a person C tells a person D that character D is extremely harmful and you follow those three ways a person D could go, you now have someone who is parroting talking points that may even be antithetical to their own views. they're usually the targets of authors who write character Ds so that their rhetorics get broadcasted to audiences that wouldn't knowingly engage with them.

to bring back person E, this is exactly the kind of person and character they're looking for. people who really like character D are usually like person E - or, they use character D as a way to publicly air out their -isms with the plausible deniability of fiction. entirely depends on the angle of character D. if they're an eren, then person E is one of their biggest fans; if they're a rita skeeter, then person E is using character D to air out their grievances about (blank) group through them and they loathe character D.

we can also introduce person F here. they more align with person C, but the crucial difference is that they will not engage with character D on the grounds of the harm. they can acknowledge the writing all they like, but they will never like, engage with fanworks, or anything unless it's criticism of the character and the author. if anything, they think person C doesn't go far enough in condemning the harmful nature of character D by the fact they still engage with fanworks involving character D and the media they come from as person F views positive engagement (even when it's just a tiny bit, like in person C's case) as tacit endorsement. they are explicitly against people like person E, and often try to work to educate people like person D into moving away from that and more towards person C (ideally further), but often are at odds with person D for the reason that they will double down on fiction and fall in line with person E who reinforces their "right" to consume all fiction. Because the important thing to remember here is that character D was made intentionally to broadcast the author's shitty viewpoints. This means the character is meant to cause harm, as media perceptions do skew worldviews, and it's more complicated than just how people engage with a character in fandom spaces. To reconcile with a character meant to cause harm is a difficult thing, and naturally there are people who choose to divest entirely because of the tangible harm it can cause (again: see copaganda and the perceived rate of solving crime (i think it's around ~75-80%) versus the actual statistics (~30% if you're lucky and more often ~16%); see also the military entertainment industry)

And yeah! It's all extremely complicated because people, their beliefs, media, and media literacy are all really complicated! It's way more than just if a bad character is portrayed as bad and everyone reacts to them as bad - sometimes that bad character is the protagonist and the author wants us to view them as a hero and not a genocidal freak like Eren Yaeger is. Because no, that is not how you portray a "fall from grace", given how many people associate him with sigma male goals and im not joking nor using that term out of nowhere - i recommend this video on the subject, but here's the specific part about eren and the idolization of him and a very fun roast since this is about role models for boys, unhealthy power fantasies, and how anime ties in with all of this. FD's got two other videos on this ("two" and "other" are two different links) on his side channel. Eren's just one of the worst case examples of this since his base full of uncritical enjoyers who don't realize that they're in community with literal fascists who idolize Eren's goals. there are other extreme examples that at least thankfully arent as common as the usual stuff (like Wyll's treatment by Baldur's Gate 3 fans and specifically Astarion fans - links to their wiki pages for people unfamiliar with the characters but tl;dr: wyll's a black man, a sweetheart, and literally has the folk hero background; astarion is a white man who tries to kill you upon first meeting, dislikes it when the player helps people, and is frequently manipulating those around him. it's more complicated than that obviously - especially astarion's motivations - but it still stands that people take wyll's traits and act as if astarion is like that, villainize wyll, and the cherry on top is that wyll has 8 hours of content while astarion has the most content out of all of the companions and the devs won't add more for wyll while astarion (and the others) continues to get more. as an aside, lae'zel - a mean woman who isn't conventionally attractive by virtue of being a fantasy alien - was made to be Less Mean because people didnt like her...not being nice, and fans frequently boast about killing her).

Intentionality is really crucial here, and the way people behave with characters says a lot. You're allowed to engage with not-so-great characters, but you also have to keep in mind other factors such as your own biases and the author's biases - whether they got in intentionally or not. to summarize really quickly:

character C comes about from an author's own ignorance to their own biases about a marginalized group. they are harmful, especially in the fact that the text treats this as normal, but their treatment is like any other character (but depending on the marginalization, they may not receive as much screentime as their less-marginalized counterparts, or are more likely to be antagonistic). authors may or may not be receptive to criticism - those that are will adjust character C in future media or even retcon and republish old media, while those that arent may just ignore criticism or double down and attract people who agree with those harmful tropes

character D is intentionally placed in the text by a bigoted author, and their offensive nature may be either overt or covert. the intention of this is to spread their rhetoric to those that consume that piece of media and introduce it to as wide of an audience as possible - one of the most common forms of this being copaganda portraying the police in a positive light and marginalized people as threats to white society (see: how frequently white women are the victims, while black men or arab men are portrayed as extremely violent and often are the perpetrators). it's not like character A who's mostly just an asshole, or character B where they're bigoted but that can serve a purpose in the narrative: character D exists to do harm - be it as an offensive caricature, or as a bigot to be idolized - through their actions in the text and how that reflects real world issues, or how the text informs people on how to view real people that are like character D (eg: idolizing the police or military, or viewing all black men as thugs). the existence of character D is problematic, but what often exacerbates this issue is when people argue that because they are fictional, they can't do any real world harm. if that were true, then we wouldn't be pushing back against examples of minstrelsy in media or continued use of blackface in fiction. positive representation in media is important and also proves that media has an impact on real people - you can't just say that it doesn't affect the real world suddenly when the portrayal is negative. negative, harmful portrayals do impact people just as much as positive ones - if anything, they impact people more when they're negative. to engage with a character D is to engage with the stand-in of the author's views, and to stand by their reason for existence is to agree with the author who intentionally made them that way (again: people who think Eren's right).

person C is someone who acknowledges that characters can be problematic and tries to engage with them as best they can. they try to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like character Cs, and often try to reconcile with canon in whatever way they can to mitigate damage. while character D is harder to reconcile with, they will still talk about the problems of character D while still engaging with the media that character D is from. they acknowledge harm, talk about harm, and will critique their favorite media while still enjoying said media - even if the character they engage with is intentionally or unintentionally a harmful stereotype.

person D is someone who refuses to engage with media critically and take characters like character C and character D at face value and will often defend them and their right to like them. they do not view them as harmful, and will often expand upon the character without thinking about what other harmful tropes they may be adding. a person D can go a few routes: continuing in ignorance or choosing to remain ignorant, doubling down on their views and arguing that it's not actually an issue (and even going so far as to find tokens of that group who agree with them to back them up), or stopping and considering their actions and taking more after person C. the second route can often lead to them becoming more like person E, even without realizing it.

person E is someone who recognizes the harm in these characters and embraces that because these characters line up with their way of thinking and their world views. they prefer a character D to a character C, while often portraying character Cs as worse than in canon. a person D doubling down on their right to like character Ds will often attract person Es, and they will attempt to pull person Ds further to their side. these are thin blue line people who love cop shows; these are antisemites who love Attack on Titan and Hogwarts Legacy; these are transphobes and literal nazis that get giddy at seeing Rowling becoming more extreme in her bigotry with every passing day. if you are in community with a person E, you need to examine why that is.

person F is someone who recognizes the harm that character Cs and character Ds cause in the real world, and while they will openly criticize character Cs and their authors, their main targets are character Ds. a person F will talk about character Cs to try and educate people on harmful tropes and often fall in line with person C here, though they tend to more focus on the author and the harm this can cause to try and get it to change (rather than keeping that change in fanworks only). a person F will talk about character Ds, on the other hand, to get people to drop them. they view the harm they cause as more important to address rather than their own fandom interests. these are people that will abandon media when they introduce a fascistic character to idolize, or when they continue to play into offensive tropes even after being made aware that the author was doing it. they care more about impact than personal enjoyment in fandom, so they measure things in terms of how the text and metatext can impact the audience. where a person C will continue to read AoT while talking about its harm, person F abandoned the franchise well before it ended and only keep up with it from a distance to discuss its continued harm. they often don't think person C goes far enough when it concern character Ds; they can often be at odds with person Ds because of how person Ds prioritize their personal fan experience over harm, while person Fs prioritizes harm over their own enjoyment; and are antithetical to person Es. this does not mean that they don't enjoy media like a lot of people love to accuse; they just would prefer to drop something they like once they learn the harm that it causes - it's mitigation just like person Cs, but to a much more drastic degree.

yeah, you are allowed to like things. and yeah, who and what you like does says something about you as a person. but the problem is that the third factor - real world harm - isn't discussed much, especially with how people engage with things that cause it. because to like and engage something that causes harm is to perpetuate it. you can try and reconcile with the issues in that character or piece of media, but a lot of people ignore it. and to ignore it is to create a space that lets in people who thrive on it and seek that stuff out - your person Es.

character B exists for a reason and the text criticizes them. the text may not criticize everything, but still shows they are meant for critique. character D does the same things as character B, but the text portrays them as correct and that you should like them. person B will like both regardless and end up a lot like person D, but the both of them are susceptible to being pulled further into bigoted ideologies by the existence of person E who seeks out things like character D and anything that looks like them - like character B, and character C.

we need to examine things outside of the framework of "character is bad and text portrays them as bad" more often. it's not as simple as that. there are a lot of things that show someone doing something would generally be considered immoral, but the author agrees with it so it's portrayed as good. there are things that are portrayed as bad, but when you pick apart why it's bad you suddenly realize they're bad because they're marginalized - or, they're a standin for a real world group and made into the bad guys (eg: how many games have "barbaric" "tribal" enemies (like moblins from LOZ or the hilichurls from genshin) which are just offensive anti-indigenous caricatures, or how goblins (especially in harry potter) are used to perpetuate antisemitic sentiments and conspiracy theories). a fascist can be portrayed in a sympathetic light or have their ideologies be repackaged to sound appealing. a civil rights advocate can have their views warped to make them look like a threat to the white majority and be portrayed as an antagonist often by playing into stereotypes around "barbarism" and violence. there's a difference between having a fascist be a hero and is never condemned (jjba, marvel's zeemo), having a fascist be weakly criticized but be considered sympathetic or even your friend when they're an unrepentant fascist (many characters in ffxiv, this is literally the plot of hetalia and so much nazi chic), and having a fascist be held accountable for their actions and sometimes even maybe working past what made them fascistic to begin with and have them stop being one (terran emperor philippa georgiou from star trek discovery i adore you) - and that difference is the intention of the author in creating that character, the intention behind portraying their ideology for a wide audience, and what ends up happening to them in the end. An author can even kill their fascist off and still be in support of them because they frame it as martyrdom and try to make you feel bad for the character (jjba, ffxiv) - so it's not at all simple.

This is why being critical of the stuff you enjoy is important. No one is saying don't enjoy villains, and I'm certainly not because I'd be a hypocrite. What I am saying is: consider how the characters - protagonist or not - are being portrayed and how it relates to real world harm. Consider the intentions behind them, the impact they have had, and how they can be used against marginalized groups to hurt them and change how others view said group. Again: you are allowed to like things but what you like and defend says a lot about you. I do not disagree with OP. I just feel that the facet of harm and intention behind said harm needs to be considered because you may be putting investment into a character you don't realize is harmful (or you're ignoring is harmful). They don't even have to be a villain in the story to be harmful because again: look at copaganda and the military entertainment industry.

What you like has impact outside of you. How you engage with it impacts others around you. Some people try to mitigate, others try to ignore, while others still double down and get solicited by people who intentionally seek out things that support their bigoted viewpoints.

When the character is just an ass and the text treats them as an ass, that's not an issue. When the character is bigoted for a reason to explore and deal with, that is also not an issue. But if you find out that your blorbo is the focus of critical discussion because they were written to be a harmful stereotype/a means of idolizing bigoted rhetoric, you need to ask yourself this: are you willing to take the steps to mitigate harm - even if it means not engaging with that character or piece of media again - or are you going to continue on as if nothing's wrong and risk alienating those around you that are impacted by the harmful ideologies that are inseparable from this character/media?

What I'm not saying: Don't like villains. What I am saying: Every character - regardless of if they're a protagonist or antagonist - has the potential to cause harm because of the author's biases or bigotry. It is on you to recognize that harm and mitigate whenever possible, and choosing not to reflects on you as a person. You still can like villains. But how you like them and for what reasons says a lot about you, and people may choose to avoid you if you decide that your "soft feelings over the imperial leader working to colonize what is now the empire" are more important than understanding why people are uncomfortable with you, your blorbo, and their rabid uncritical fans.

You're allowed to like villains. What you like reflects back on you. You need to take real world harm into account when you engage with media, because what villains you like reflects on you very differently based on the real world harm that those villains can cause.

hot take but i think that "fictional characters are fictional and liking or disliking them have no real life effect" and "the way you treat certain characters can be an indicative of your character in real life" are statements that can and should coexist

example: character A is violent and makes misogynistic comments. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person A acknowledges that the character is bad but they still enjoy consuming content from the character and they do so unapologetically. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. they don't pretend the character isn't violent, or misogynistic, they just like the character despite that. they post about it constantly. this is a neutral action that shows nothing about person A.

character B is a white man that makes racist comments, treats a black person in the show badly and gains money through anti-ethical means. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person B claims the character is flawed but overall misunderstood and all their actions are entirely justified. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. person B claims the black character that character B treated badly either had it coming or overreacted. all of person B's favorite characters are white men. person B goes out of their way to justify that all of their favorite characters are actually misunderstood and good people, and more people should like them. this shows that person B likely has some favoritism for white men.

just. you're allowed to like fictional characters even if they're awful fucking people but. and im not sure why this is controversial. the way you interact with media says something about you. this isn't necessarily a bad thing. does this make sense please