#btw I do not blame anyone who’s been criticising me for this

[lux-xlisbon]

Someone: wow! You’re really good at this one specific thing! I’m so proud of you!

My BPD: yeah, I’m not gonna make you feel sort of ashamed and awkward about this compliment. You’re also going to forget about it almost immediately, just so you know

Someone: *gives me constructive criticism on something*

BPD: See? You fucking SUCK and you can’t do anything right ever! Might as well give up forever! Btw, I’ve made a little compilation of EVERY single criticism you’ve ever received, and it’s gonna play in you hear every single time you do something ever!

[moonlit-orchid]

good evening to everyone except a certain few fucking anons

[xpoisoned-stardustx]

THE SHOWS ARE HOLDING BACK!!!

Tw: mentions of sewer-slide, mentions of mental illness, mentions of trauma (I’m just putting this here for cautions)

And by that I mean holding back on angst

I’m not just talking about TSAMS or TLAES, I’m talkin’ ALL SHOWS (granted, i haven’t watched all of the recent show things but I do know they haven’t been to angst)

Now, you might think, “oh stardust, but we’ve had lots of angst! I mean think of Cassie on TRWAGS-“

Yeah, Cassie, the only one who has recently had a lot of angst, and it was only really her being mad her phone wasn’t working and talking a bit about her dad (im not including The Musical btw). I also feel like we should’ve had a lot more Gregory angst after Rocky’s death. I mean Gregory blamed himself for that, it wouldn’t just go away. And Circus Baby should be had more angst after Gregory almost frickin died!!! The characters recover so quickly and just go back to their goofy normal lives. Obviously I won’t cover everything for these shows but some of my main thoughts.

“uh but what about Glamrock Chica on TFFAGCS?”

Not. Enough. Glamrock Chica was easily back to normal after blaming herself for their whole issue because of stuff out of her control, having an exstistential crisis after being kicked out of the PizzaPlex, getting a message from her parents she doesn’t remember and so on. Also if ANYONE is getting angst it should be Funtime Foxy and his brother. Funtime Foxy almost drowned when he was around 10, Fexy (the brother) tried to stab FT.Foxy while screaming “THIS IS MY BODY, I WANT IT BACK” because they were in the same body at some point, he and his brother burned their house down because when FT.Foxy was running away from his brother they knocked over candles, then his brother literally tried to commit s—-ide by not leaving the burning building and saying “if I can’t have this I’d rather die” so FT.Foxy had to drag him out the house, then Fexy got sent to a mental hospital/asylum/psych ward (idk which one exactly) and lots of other things. And we haven’t seen ANY Lolbit angst whatsoever. Don’t even get me started on Mangle or Ray. (You can just tell this is my favourite show, can’t you?)

“…uhhh TFAFFS??”

Tbh I don’t watch that one alot but FT.Freddy Deffinetly has abondonment issues, as far as I know we never find out where that came from, Shadow Freddy had a bit of angst, Freddy is doing loads of things that I’m not bothered to say and ‘The Evil Gang’ or whatever their name is are another case of ‘comic relief villains’ I think.

“TLAES or TSAMS?????”

I already posted about this by rebloggin soemthing but ‘Sun gets Therapy’ was so disappointing, Lunar acts like things are normal, I feel like Solar should be seeing things after killing his Moon because as the Old Moon said “when you kill someone, they’re not there, but you can see them” or something like that, Moon just screams and gets mad at people for angst and he did apologise to Monty and have that whole “I’m a loser blah blah blah” but that’s it, Sun is hiding ALOT and other things.

“but TMGAFS has alot of angst”

which is why it’s my second favourite show. I’m just sad Foxy said him and Monty are more acquaintances than friends :(… I respect that show. If anyone else wants to criticise the angst there, be my guest.

Anyways I’m just rambling here. I’m gonna go listen to the entire C.C.C.C. album again, toodles.

[lindwurmkai]

who's up for another round of tumblr user lindwurmkai criticising what other people are complaining about? 👉😏👉

no but for real tho. there is a whole, idk, phenomenon i often encounter on here where being rightfully exasperated with certain "popular" behaviours (example: wanting a "canon" answer for every question you have about a piece of media) turns into condescending mockery of anyone who ever behaves that way and treating it like it's completely bizarre when in fact it can simply be an expression of autism.

which makes it all the more puzzling when i see a dozen fellow autistics reblog the post, too. (this was not directly inspired by whoever last put a similar post on my dash btw. i've been meaning to write this for days)

another example is "the curtains are just blue" but i've talked about that before. and struggling to understand that fiction follows different rules than real life!! plus several other aspects of "basic media literacy" that can actually be quite difficult to grasp for a lot of people.

"why does it even matter if something is canon or not? why do you need a wiki for everything? who cares what the character's 'real' favourite colour is?" maybe because to some people, learning fun facts about wizards or dragons isn't fundamentally different than learning fun facts about trains or dinosaurs. i'm not saying we don't understand that they're fictional, but that the desire to find out more is the same. and speaking from personal experience, it never even occurred to me that authors who didn't care about the details of their worlds and characters beyond what was in the story might exist until i literally learned about it on tumblr in my 20s. i understood that tolkien was a bit of an outlier but assumed it was just a matter of degree.

people always blame mega franchises and cinemasins or occasionally the american school system for some reason. or social media. and it's probably true that each of those things have contributed to an increase in certain behaviours that you may find annoying! it's definitely true that certain franchises have contributed to a shift in the average person's default assumptions regarding new media they come across. so i completely understand where the exasperation comes from, don't worry

but this is like the difference between criticising fandom trends and criticising individual fans' preferences all over again, except worse because this time it's ableist. you would not believe the things i didn't understand about fiction a decade ago, and a decade ago i was already 27. seeing people get condescended to for the same misunderstandings when some of them are even younger really sucks.

it is possible for the same behaviour to have more than one cause. maybe that one person really watched too much cinemasins while another doesn't even know what that is and yet analyses media the same way because it's how their brain approaches fiction intuitively. maybe one person didn't pay attention in english class while another tried so, so hard to understand the material and still couldn't. maybe one person thinks there's a canon answer to everything because that's what their two previous favourite franchises were like while another is simply applying the "gathering dinosaur facts" approach to fiction and has yet to realise not every author operates like tolkien.

for a long time i couldn't distinguish between plot-relevant details and extra fluff because to me the point of a story was to introduce me to a new world with fun new characters in it. of course 3 pages of infodumping wasn't a problem! of course the character's hair colour was important! the idea of authors answering questions with "it doesn't matter, feel free to imagine whatever you want" would have confused me so much if i had encountered it back then. i already knew how to invent my own stories, but i wanted to know more about this story???

just because i've (mostly) figured it all out now doesn't mean i don't remember being that person everyone loves to mock these days.

[thedreadvampy]

Like and btw I'm not talking about Anyone Who Dislikes The Story or Anyone Who Dislikes Gaiman As A Writer because I think 'no I don't like this and here's why' is a valid response to any piece of art.

(and as I say I also don't like that story. although I won't get into it as often bc like I say my beef is more aesthetic than political or moral - I think it's trite, shallow and edgy for the sake of edgy in a really adolescent way and I think the inclusion of rape and incest and a sexually predatory child are part of that shallow edginess. I don't think it says anything interesting about the original story or about the world other than 'hey if that happened wouldn't that be fucked up?')

but I'm talking about people who are like of COURSE Gaiman Bad, simply google the plot of this story.

which happens a lot. online. "of course X artist is problematic just Google a summary of a thing they made and see that it contains rape/abuse/incest/transphobia/racism/whatever"

and like here's the thing. if googling a story tells you everything you need to know about it, that's a bad story for reasons other than its contents, right?

especially when it comes to transgressive, taboo, or discomforting types of art

everyone is going to draw the line in different places but some of the most affecting stories I've read in my life sound horrendous in summary. what's ok to write about? rape? CSA? abuse? abortion? sex? bigotry? self-hatred? etc

and this isn't like an All Writing Is Morally Neutral argument. there's a huge difference between a story about how cool and rad violent sexual assault is vs one that's about how devastating it is. but that's not necessarily obvious in summary, and indeed different people might take opposite meanings from it. a lot of the most effective stories about the horror of human cruelty produce that horror by on some level putting the reader in the shoes of the perpetrator.

you know, it's cliche but Nabokov, right? Lolita is a total indictment of pedophilia, but it does that by talking entirely from the perspective of a pedophile and expecting the audience to fill in the spaces where he elides or recategorises details or places blame on the child.

and yeah the thing about that is that a lot of people do misread works like Lolita. and a lot of people bounce off Nabokov because of his interest in exploring grotesque behaviour. but writing Lolita doesn't mean Nabokov is a child abuser, and the differences between Lolita and a work which entirely agrees with child abuse aren't necessarily obvious in a summary or a description of the book.

like if you're going to criticise the text, criticise the text, not the summary of it on Wikipedia. because idk like a lot of the artwork that's helped me feel seen and understood and helped me heal as a survivor of the traumas it depicts has been approached from the perspective of the Bad Messaging About It. because engaging with that head on, reflecting back that harm and pointing out the ways it's pathetic or grotesque or useless, gives us a chance to chew on it. like. it's different for everyone but for me there's works which produce the equivalent of hearing yourself say something really fucked up in therapy and rewinding and going oh. what's that about where does that come from? that's fucked up.

and that's not to say that all depictions of fucked up mindsets do that. but it's pretty hard to make a blanket statement about what's acceptable or unacceptable to write about without writing off pretty much all of that type of discomforting fiction.

and again that's not what I think Snow, Glass, Apples is. definitely not for me. I don't think Gaiman's intended message is 'child abuse is the child's fault' but I also don't think Gaiman's intended message is anything but OOOOOH ISN'T IT FUCKED UP AND EDGY? combined with What If The Story Wasn't What You Think which is like 60% of his oeuvre and can get pretty samey tbh.

but I think the tone of a lot of people being like GAIMAN IS THE DEVIL LOOK AT THIS SUMMARY OF A STORY HE WROTE 20 YEARS AGO is uhhhh. it's reflective of a specific way of engaging with art which I do not like. it's all this long ramble is saying.

btw about Neil Gaiman I periodically agree with the 'Neil Gaiman is annoying' stuff bc I feel like both he and Amanda Palmer seem like people who I would go insane stuck in a room with bc we have very different ideas about art and suchlike. and I also do think that the career trajectory he's on lately is cynically redoing his greatest hits and pretending that was the dream all along when it clearly was not. which is at best meh.

having said which

as far as I can tell by far the most common complaint about Neil Gaiman is "Snow, Glass, Apples is problematic/gross/it's got incest and rape and frames the child as the aggressor"

which strikes me as a weird complaint to pull out of a 40 year body of work tbh when that short story is pretty clearly coming from a place of 'how far can I push this'. like you don't have to like the story. I don't really like the story. but it is. a horror story.

like and this is the thing with particularly 90s alt horror right? a lot of the interest is in transgression and sitting in the worst possible perspective and seeing what happens if you pull those strings. like I really like Clive Barker for example but there's a good chunk of his short stories that I'm like I'm not picking up what you're putting down Clive this seems Kinda Off. but that willingness to write some trite or Bad Message horror fiction that doesn't land is imo a side effect of being willing to try writing uncomfortable and unpleasant fiction at all. which is what horror is for, among other things, it's for creating discomfort as a form of catharsis or engagement.

like I am not a huge fan of the type of sex-horror that pops up in a lot of Gaiman's work and other contemporary horror writers - to me I don't find it upsetting or horny it just ends up feeling kind of edgy and tryhard - but I'm also a bit like. it does seem like a lot of people's beef with Neil Gaiman is that In The 90s He Was A Horror Writer

and this approach to Problematic Horror in Snow, Glass, Apples I find kind of microcosmic of how The Discourse often approaches art in this kind of 1:1 way. if you write a story which seems to line up with rape apologia it can only be because you agree with it. if you write a story about transphobia you're a transphobe. if you write a story that makes me genuinely uncomfortable you're attacking me.

but artwork, especially art like horror that's not necessarily trying to provoke enjoyment as its main response, is necessarily hit and miss. and if what you're shooting for is discomfort then whether it works, falls flat or goes too far incredibly depends on your audience. and making good art - as in art that makes its audience think, art that opens the audience up to discomfort and catharsis and sticks with them and changes them - requires the space to experiment and tbh the space to fuck up. like they aren't all going to be winners and they certainly aren't all going to work for you as a singular audience.

personally I don't see the appeal of Snow, Glass, Apples, less cause it's nasty and more cause it's hack. ooh an edgy monstrous version of a fairy tale where there's lots of rape and cannibalism? you're soooo original Neil. but like. that's fine. I don't really vibe with like 70% of Neil Gaiman stuff I've read but I still like Neil Gaiman because the stuff that works for me really works for me.

idk I think there's a lot of folk on this website who shouldn't interact with horror cause they clearly aren't interested in being horrified. that's not everyone who dislikes Snow, Glass, Apples, but it's a real undercurrent to a lot of the criticism and tbh this kinda vibe is shit for art. making standout art What Is Good also requires being ready to make art which stands out for the wrong reasons. sometimes they'll be the same art to different people.

[fymagnificentwomcn]

t’s truly something how all princes/sultans in tmck are so pressed…I get their life isn’t easy, but all that blaming & truly how it can affect everyone’s perception. Murad even accused his mother of faking an assassination attempt on her life, incredible *sarcasm of course*. And Atike was just his cheerleader most of the time, ugh. All that blaming by people who even weren’t there. Thanks for writing that piece!

Aww thank you so much! This piece is my magnum opus I guess lol (Link here:https://fymagnificentwomcn.tumblr.com/post/610970504341405696/no-she-isnt-the-whole-evil-k%C3%B6sem-thing-isnt )

Murad’s angry 24/7 & gets so ridiculous with blame-shifting – he would need a good anger management therapy LBR.

And there’s one scene that portrays his character in nutshell:

Doctor: you cannot drink anymore wine, Your Majesty.

Murad, literally 5 minutes later: Yusuf, bring me wine!

Murad in 1 minute, another example:

Kösem: Don’t marry Silahtar to Atike, you also have another sister and if you do it, it will end in tragedy!

Murad: No worriez, I’ve thought about Gevherhan, I will marry her to Kemankeş ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I mentioned a lot of blame-shifting in my previous posts, but he even at moment began questioning his mum about Gülbahar and whether she truly committed treason (and Gülbahar herself admitted to it).

Even when Atike asked him for permission to take children with her & Kösem to vaqf, he was totally okay with the idea, but later after kidnapping snapped at his mother that it was HER fault for gaving taken his sons there & began threatening her with exile far away. Charming as always.

Honestly, he’s like a broken record. In all his arguments, while Kösem has her logical arguments, his only argument is usually “I’m the only/rightful owner of Ottoman Empire, “I’m the shadow of God on Earth. Like dude do you realise how boring you are???

Don’t forget how mad he got when Kösem wrote to Kemankeş to have a backup plan if Murad died and Bayezid wanted to take the throne, which could have meant danger for other Kösem’s sons. After all, she didn’t take it from nothing, Gülbahar told her about assassination attempt to come & it actually already had happened by the time Murad received the letter. Yes, dude you are not immortal, you could have been killed, and life goes on you know? It doesn’t mean your mother doesn’t love you or is not going to mourn you, but she also needs to take care of your brothers and state ffs. He’s truly obsessed with this idea that after his death life will  (unfortunately in his view) go on – which is also meaningful since Kösem reminded him like two episodes earlier that state was going to remain even with both of them dead. And well we all know the “masterful” idea he conceived just before his death.

And it’s clear how even some of his siblings fear him – Gevherhan was scared immediately following the announcement of Kösem no longer being a regent (especially since he did in a way to put  blame on his mother for recent events to prop himself up, and he was also engaged in state matters at that point). Kasim also immediately fears being locked up in kafes or even executed. Judging by their conversations, despite problems going on, last 10 years were a peaceful time for their family.

As I said, out of all Kösem’s opponents only Handan and Derviş weren’t worse than her, and she was the only main player that never engaged in mass slaughter – Safiye, Halime&Co., Gülbahar&Sinan, Murad, Turhan - all did.

Same with Atike – she was a baby when when her father died, didn’t even spend her early years locked up as Ibrahim…. she’s honestly so blind it’s painful. The scene where she jumps at Kemankeş for trying to talk sense to Ibrahim not to appoint Genie Master as chief judge… please your brother is now acting contrary to Imperial law and it’s asking for further disaster if Cinci increases his influence among ulema by bringing people who pay him into it & it’s good Ibo is controlled in this way… nah, it’s actually necessary. And how you jump from this to your mother I have no idea either. A true performative “activist”, who talks about protecting her brother, but all is limited to talking  & exposing her moral superiority, while it’s not supported by any real actions helping him.

Well, you got your revenge on your mother for killing the husband who despised you, acted against your youngest brothers at that point, and likely was only praying you wouldn’t follow him also into afterlife.

I also forgot to mention one more example of Mu/rat manipulating the narrative – when he tells Atike following the failed dethronement attempt & Kasim’s death that their mother had lied to her and tried to kill him – he was after all put in kafes, he should be aware nobody planned an assassination attempt, bah he KNEW the whole plan from Sinan… and yes, Kösem being so adamant that nothing can happen to Mura/t cost her Kasim in the end.

Atike herself was aware that Mu/rat would have killed her brothers even if the dethronement attempt had not happened as she told him to his face after Kasim’s death and she stated that he had made the decision long ago. Later however she got the letter from Murad informing her who killed Silahtar and she even released Traitor No. 1 Sinan to spite her mum 😂.

I suppose princes at this point led the hardest existence because they were closed in kafes, unable to get decent education&experience or have families (maybe they were allowed to have sex with cariyes, but contraception had to be used or even abortion if the concubine of a sehzade has got pregnant) but at the same time they weren’t certain whether they wouldn’t be killed because the switch to anti-fratricide was pretty new&the times were turbulent. Osman clearly broke Imperial law by getting fetva from military judge to kill Mehmed, and Murad killed the biggest number of Ahmed’s sons obviously (yeah more than in the show because not all princes appeared in MYK, though we don’t know the exact number of Ahmed’s sons, Murad definitely also executed Suleiman, most likely his full brother). I laugh when people go about “rule-breaker” Murad. Wow by getting back to law that has already began to run its course, clap clap.

Murad was king of hypocrisy and it’s also a historical fact. As Halil İnalcık states in his book Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age: “ The tyrannical Murad IV was a habitual drinker and at the same time the most ruthless supporter of the prohibition againt alcohol”. Mu/rat tried to make use of religion in his attempts to drill absolute obedience, but he wasn’t a religious person himself & definitely tried to take from religion what it most suited him, while ignoring other things, e.g. he kept decreasing zakat, aka income tax that goes to charity. A small bit of trivia: apparently he was a big fan of Machiavelli’s The Prince, there were even some rumours that he translated the book himself (we can only imagine he also took from this book what he wanted 🤪 ).

Similarly Turhan manipulated the narrative, also in a hypocritical way – remember her going like: “how many padişahs you killed?” and she was the main force behind Ibo’s death… the moment Ibo told her that she “was a coward who hid behind his mother’s skirts”… it was clear he was doomed. There was explicit anger on Turhan’s side here. Not only because she felt insulted by him, but also because she felt a need to prove both to him and the world that she was capable to be on top without Kösem’s support.  Not to mention all her actions leading to Ibo’s situation, also her ordering Mehmed to sign his dad’s death order was so chilling “I don’t want dad to die”. Well, now let’s play morally pure, especially while murdering elderly (very elderly lbr :p) Haci in again a brutal way, including twisting his neck. It’s not even that she removed a padisah – she actively worked to make him crazier and for his rule to be total failure, it wasn’t even about her, Ibo or Kösem – whole nation suffered because she was impatient to take power into her hands./BTW pity we skipped the time period when they were both Valides and we know both tried to get rid of each other, without harming Mehmed/ And frankly even with Kösem it was a terrible & undeserved backstabbing because also Ibi criticised Turhan for this saying his mother always “loved and protected her, did so much for her” and I doubt Ibo was biased here considering that he was also on bad terms with his mum at that moment.

Later the situation truly calmed down & later princes could live much more peacefully because the practice of killing truly went out of style and also later there were less and less restrictions on princes and they could for example travel abroad with the reigning padişah. For example, Sultan Abdülaziz took princes for a European trip and they even had a chance to meet Queen Victoria.

And I laugh when people blame Kösem for “failing to protect the princes” instead of you know, blame the actual killer. Ahmed truly replenished dynasty, while Murad axed a number of his brothers, at the same time of course used his own propaganda. It is true that Murad executed the favourite of princes, Bayezid, during celebrations following the successful Revan campaign. Similarly, when Kasim was executed someone spread rumours about the prince impregnating a number of concubines & it was before the Baghdad campaign when even setting out on it Murad had to display his “splendour and glory”.

Show-wise I legit one read that Kösem killed Ahmed because she spared Bulbül following Safiye’s attempted coup lmao. It’s not like Ahmed wasn’t there when she made the decision & it’s not like it wasn’t Hümaşah who after all got Yasemin in, and I doubt anyone could oppose an Imperial princess anyway – she would have found another servant. And Bülbül later saved Kösem’s kids, so… scapegoating truly is in some people’s blood lmao.

I love how MYK played with the idea of historical representation & creation of narrative, how people “see” and how different factors might influence their perception & creation of narrative. And also how S2 put into different perspective some stuff from S1. I admit there were some things that back during first watch of MYKS1 made me go WTF? that I later understood when compared/contrasted with MYK S2. It’s clear that they truly planned a lot of the whole show back in S1.

It’s sometimes interesting how narratives may be created and repeated even without evidence supporting it - there is no historical evidence that Kösem took part in Osman’s dethronement, yet it is something that often pops up even in “historical articles” for example. People deduce since Kösem later became Valide quite soon because Mustafa’s (or rather Halime’s) reign didn’t last long, know Şehzade Mustafa’s (Suleiman’s son) story, and some rumours about what Ottoman women did to secure throne for their children, so they see getting rid of one’s stepson to claim throne for one’s child as logical and usual in Ottoman system,  even when there is no proper evidence backing it up. Because it seems natural and logical, so why not make it more spicy? We know next to nothing about Mahfiruz, but there is this “Betty vs Veronica” trope, so suddenly we learn that Mahfiruz was Kösem’s opposite, not politically involved or ambitious, but gentle & sweet, and even details like light hair pop up as opposed to Kösem’s dark hair (sometimes of course it is also extended to good vs. evil). Taken from where, other than fitting a known trope? Or when she’s presented as some sort of Mahidevran vol.2 as having as close relationship with Osman like Mahi did with Mustafa, perfect prince and jealous stepmother Kösem. I know some of the stuff is also derived from Western, orientalist plays, but those are obviously not sources and should not be treated as truth. And sometimes it it even repeated by historians. For example Uluçay, who  was very against Sultanate of Women & pretty much propagated a lot of rumours (and new approach to the period truly changed a lot of how academia writes about these women now). Let us look at this quote:

Taken from: Necdet Sakaoğlu, Famous Ottoman Women.

It’s clear what narrative Uluçay chose for his research.

It’s common practice to sometimes fill in the blanks (and sometimes even change stuff) with known cliches, tropes, and narratives.

It is truly a topic for an extended discussion, so I will stop for now, but when it comes to Ottoman history I do recommend Daniel Piterberg’s Ottoman Tragedy. History and Historography at Play, which shows how the same event may be even differently presented in historical works depending on chosen narrative that is often rooted in current context.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

c

Below are screenshots of a long PM exchange between myself and an individual the name of RDMacQ.

It continues on from a very long series of exchanges beginning here and continuing here.

It starts off with interactions on a message board before spewing over into PM discussions.

Also below is well...what I would’ve responded to some of RDMacQ’s comments but chose not to so as to hopefully not drag the interaction out yet longer.

I post these so there partially out of catharsis but also so that there is a clear record of what happened and you need not merely trust my word on the discussion, his word, and indeed can cite it if I do make erroneous claims in reference to it. We can then look at it and discuss.

“And this once again highlights your problem- you don't listen, you don't acknowledge what people say, you construct a narrative in your head about them and insist that they follow the imaginary and arbitrary rules you come up with, and you think are are one set of rules for you and one set of rules for everyone else.”

That’s rich coming from you. I apologized multiple times, you didn’t acknowledge this and instead either deliberately or because you are just that stupid decided to take it that I didn’t apologize and instead said it was actually your fault.

And you demanded I not interact with you in your last PM so who’s making up the rules in their head again?

I misinterpreted but you make it out that I’m schizophrenic.

“I told you to stop responding to me via personal email messages, because you weren't listening to me and responding to me with essay after essay trying to tell me how I'M really the bad guy in all of this and you're totally not to blame. You clearly weren't interested in acknowledging any fault beyond the stuff the mods got on your case for, so I told you to stop responding to me.”

a)      I also told you afterwards to stop interacting with me and you didn’t

b)      I wasn’t going to stop interacting with you after you told me to stop because you’d lied and slandered. Why on Earth should I allow you to lie and insult me?

c)       It’s rather rich arguing I responded to you with essay after essay when on multiple occasions you yourself responded with essay length posts. Including this one I am responding to now.

d)      You talk about narratives in MY head. YOU are the one claiming I was saying you were the bad guy. I wasn’t. I never ever said that. That’s all inside your own head.

e)      I also never said I wasn’t to blame, hence I apologized waaaaaaaaaay back in a PM literally entitled apology

f)       Putting aside how I owned up to a mistake in the first PM of this exchange, the stuff I was at fault for was the things the mods got on my case for. Which I owned up to. All the other stuff YOU claim I am at fault for is only YOUR assessment. And we’ve established you aren’t that great at seeing the plain and the obvious. Hence you utterly misread that I was apologizing and wasn’t saying I was faultless and you were to blame for everything. I stated  I was at fault and out of line in a big way then outlined where my anger regarding you comes from and elaborated that essentially there had been fault on both our sides, not fault only on yours

“YOU were the one who said I'd never hear from you again. ”

And I kept to that.

You however responded to a comment I didn’t address to you or indeed anyone specifically, which was an innocent question.

Then I responded to you by accident as I’d misread something you wrote as something Lockdown wrote, which I explained and apologized for.

That was a mistake but by that point you’d already interacted with me, you’d already broke what I’d taken to be an agreement of non-interaction.

My consequent interactions with you were to address this as I’d thought we had an agreement but 2 days in a row you’d talked directly to me.

 “And- again- given your track record and how I have absolutely zero trust in you anymore, I'd no reason to believe that you'd stick by that word.”

You know...except for the fact I did.

 “So when you made that post bitching about the multiple threads, it seemed like there was a very good chance that was a veiled shot at me, given how you've operated in the past, digging up old posts or just deciding you're going to be pissed off at something for no good reason. ”

I wasn’t bitching, it was an innocent question. I didn’t swear (which you accuse me of and just did btw). I wasn’t insulting anyone. I was just asking a question.

 My God you talk about a narrative in my head but you are the one seeing an innocent question not directed at you or anyone else as a ‘veiled shot’ at you.

 Also I already explained my ‘past operations’ were due to extreme extenuating circumstances. You are talking like I’ve been doing this for years on end when I haven’t. You are again demonizing and slandering me.

 “And since I was the one who started these threads and keep them going, that it was probably going to lead to another instance of you sending me a private message telling me what an asshole I am or how wrong I am because I have a different point of view than you do, or have somehow done something to "Offend" you, and you decided that somehow THIS time it would have been "Different" and therefore "Justified" to do this in your mind. ”

 This is some conspiracy level stuff. I asked a question. You take this as a veiled shot that going to lead to me attacking you in PMS.

 I never even called you an asshole in any PMs to my recollection and if I did I apologize for that but I honestly don’t remember ever saying anything like that. Saying you were wrong sure, but never personally insulting you the way calling you an asshole would constitute.

 I don’t even know what you are talking about with ‘different’ and ‘justified’. You just sound crazy.

 “So, yeah, I responded. Because I was trying to get out ahead of it and prevent you from going on a tirade which would then lead to another round of harassment from you. ”

 You are acting like every single time ever I’ve disagreed with you or stood my ground in opposition to your view I’ve harassed you.

 I crossed the line in a big way by digging up one thread and sending you like 3 PMs across a year attacking your points. That was wrong I’ll admit, but you are acting like EVERy instance ever has resulted in something like that and it hasn’t.

 It’s especially nuts in this instance because I just asked a question.

 “And if you don't think that's fair, and if I'm being too harsh on you, keep in mind the reason I decided to be done with you is because you decided to dig up posts from months if not years back and started sending me private messages telling me what an idiot I am, as well as try to insult me in public on the forum, because you claim you had some issues in your personal life and you decided I was going to be the target of your ire. ”

 You are indeed being way too harsh (and utterly unsympathetic); friendly reminder by the way I expressed sympathy for your own issues in our last long PM exchange. You are also being...crazy. I asked. A. Question. That was it. I didn’t criticise. I just asked why we do it one way instead of another. I didn’t respond to your answer. It made sense, it addressed my enquiry. That was it.

 Also none of the things I dug up were from years in the past.

 The only times I ever ‘insulted’ you on the forums were by calling you belligerent; no mod has ever called me on this so you know....either they agree or it’s not an insult in their eyes.

 Not only is this entirely true (remember I’ve explained I wasn’t saying i was guiltless you were actually at fault, you just keep insisting that to be the case), but you yourself have insulted, accused and judged me publicly on the forums. I’ve not been the only person you’ve done that to either.

 Yeah I decided you were the target but I explained and apologized for that in my very first PM in this saga of ours.

  “Which was the absolute last straw in an LONG line of instances of you acting like an asshole to me, which you continued to refuse to even consider. ”

 I don’t refuse to consider it, hence I apologized at the very start which you ignorantly keep ignoring. Notice I’ve not called you an asshole once whilst you’ve done it multiple times across all these PMs.

 “So, yes, I responded to you. Because- and this needs to be pointed out again- people aren't obliged to live by the imaginary, arbitrary rules you set up in your head and insist that they all stick to, while you get to do whatever you want.”

 Uh huh, by the way totally unrelated question, do you own a mirror? Cos I seem to recall among your own imaginary rules you stated i was in the wrong for admitting i was wrong about something because it took too long for me to do so. Didn’t know there was a time limit.

 “I never said I was never going to respond to you ever again. YOU made that claim. Not me. ”

Yes but I took the whole wrap up to that as we were both agreeing to not interact with one another.

 I kept to that. You broke it. then i broke it by mistake and broke it again out of reflex and anger, which i owned up to.

 But right here right now YOU are acting not just as moral arbiter but as ultimate rule setter.

 I can’t interact with you but you can interact with me.

 I might’ve misinterpreted but my interpretation at least included a mutual understanding. You are just dictating i can’t talk to you but you can talk to me.

Unfortunately I lost the screen shot of my next PM. But it essentially read that I didn’t read his above comment (which is true at first I didn’t my above response is merely something I wrote a while after the fact for catharis) and that I’m spelling out clearly if he’ll agree to just not interacting in the future.

A reminder. This is the guy who takes major umbridge with me swearing. Here he is swearing and insulting me. 

I didn’t say this to him but i have to ask why exactly he gets to dictate the terms of what meeting him half way means when what it seems to mean is I admit I’m wrong, that he’s right and change my allegedly bad ways the way he wants me to. 

Doesn’t seem half way since he’s not owned up to doing anything wrong himself.

“And that's the problem.

 Because you seem to expect me to do whatever you request, and if I don't I'm being unreasonable.”

 Never said this. Never implied this. What’s unreasonable is either not reading my responses to you or then taking umbridge when I do the same in turn. Or you know taking an innocent question as bitching and a veiled shot.  

 “But you absolutely refuse to listen or do anything anyone else requests.”

 When it’s unreasonable and based upon slander and character assassination, sure.  

 “*I* have to read the massive two page essay you wrote telling me how wrong I am.”

Except you didn’t and if you had bothered to you’d see how I was conceding some points, apologizing over other things. But seeing how the root of your gripe rested upon you thinking I was saying you were at fault in the first place when I didn’t I was saying there was fault on both sides....yeah I think wrong covers it.

 “But *you* get to just completely ignore what I wrote because you don't want to read it.”

a)      You did the same thing

b)      You chose not to read stuff multiple times I did it once because it was distracting from the point and because you were continuing to insult, slander and character assassinate me

 “You saying "I don't know what you want" means nothing, because you wouldn't listen to me even if I told you.”

If it was unreasonable then sure.

Wholly conforming to what YOU dictate is not reasonable in the slightest  

 “Your attempts to "Smooth things over" is insincere.  You're not trying to do it to make things better.  You're just doing it to get out of trouble.”

I’m not IN any trouble in the first place. I rightly got a warning from the mods. End of story. I chose to try and smooth things over off my own volition.

 “So, fine.  Go back to the way you were before.”

I’ve been more polite and reasonable with you ever since this whole saga began. Much moreso than you have.

 “Getting angry at every single thing.”

Not true but that’s typical of you.

 “Insulting me whenever I expressed an opinion you disagree with.”

Our last half dozen interactions have involved me disagreeing with you but not insulting you. So again lying.

 “Send me private messages harassing me, and dig up months old conversations because you're pissed off at something else.”

Apologized for that. Did it just 3 times across a year. Owned up to that. haven’t done it since.

 And by the way ‘harassment’ in this context amounts to “Here is a quote you made. I’m going to deconstruct it and counterpoint it”

 I didn’t send you threats, or insults or bombard you day and night.

   “I'm sure that will go super well for you second time around.”

Well I haven’t done that soooooo you are chatting shit.

There.

Now I’ve sworn like you always claim I do.

I responded to both of the above PMs but just said ‘goodbye’ basically.

What I would’ve liked to have said is:

You are not a mind reader RD. I was indeed interested in meeting you half way. You burnt that bridge yourself.

I didn’t want you to abide by anything, I wanted us to talk and come to an understanding, some boundaries with one another we could respect.

You weren’t interested and claiming I demanded you abide by everything is hypocritical seeing as you won’t even agree to mutually break off all contact and yourself demand I conform to your prescribed change in behaviour, which involves owning up to negative traits according to YOU. 

You are not a moral arbiter an if you were you wouldn’t be a very good one.

Furthermore you have a humungeous problem seeing the woods for the trees.

You’ve dredged up the idea of meeting half way when I in the above comment made it clear I’m no longer interesting in that. It’s not a topic worth even talking about as it is irrelevent to moving forward.

In fact you’ve ignored so much of what I’ve said, or contorted it or just misread it deliberately I’m wondering if you have some kind of mental disorder.

“ That's you pretending to be reasonable so you could jump on your moral high horse the second I didn't abide by your arbitrary and ever shifting rules. “

That’s a lovely massive extrapolation you’ve got there.

“ You're worse than Dan Slott.”

I’m really not.

I’m not a big shot writer who’s abused my power to hurt a fan.

Second of all if all this allged behaviour of mine (according to you) renders me worse than Slott then you are in the same plague pit with me jerkoff.

“ The fact that you don't see the irony in you expecting people to read and comply with your giant essay long responses, while you won't bother to read a few sentences, speaks volumes, and says everything I need to know about you. Like I said- you're worse than Slott.”

You’re an idiot.

I mean you are severely fucking dumb.

YOU chose multiple times to ignore long posts I wrote.

I do this ONCE because you’ve missed the point and are going off on a tangent attacking my character which isn’t the point (the point was finding an agreement for interactions going forward) and I’m a filthy hypocrite. 

Go look in the cracked mirror sunshine.

I mean it wasn’t a few sentences it was 5 loaded paragraphs insulting my character and had little-nothing to do with the meat of the discussion.

And yet even I wouldn’t stoop so low as to claim you are worse than Dan Slott.

Though like him you do disgust me.

[ruffiorocks]

I can't reply to you on my post so I shall just do it this way. First off dont say sorry, you're noy sorry , you meant what you said so lets not pretend here.

I should like to state here and now that I don't consider myself in any fandom other than the Supergirl one. I like the idea of Supercorp but I don't and never have believed it would actually happen, so please don't make assumptions about me and say 'your' fandom. I also have never once sent hate to any actor or actress of any show. Even if they did something stupid I still don't go after them because it's rather pointless.

Lumping anyone who likes the idea of Supercorp in with the bullies that btw exist in any fandom is just ridiculous and very unfair. I've had a lot of hate thrown at me by people that ship Karamel but I have never once said the Karamel fandom is horrible and toxic. There are lots of Supercorp, Karamel or Karadox or whatever fandom shippers that are very supportive of the cast and don't send any kind of hate, so generalizing is very unfair. If David wants to block people he considers are being arses then that's his perogative and i don't blame him. Any time I see someone in any fandom spewing hate i block them, I don't want to see it, but again lumping everyone in together is just plain wrong, we are all fans of the show, it's a shame a vocal minority of haters are the ones being acknowledged. I have no doubt if Mon El was still on the show, part of the team and Kara was paired with William the bad seeds from the Karamel fandom would most likely be doing the same thing, and they, like the SC shippers doing the same thing would be wrong and should sort themselves out. I personally didn't see any hate towards David himself, but I assume there must have been, but that isn't 'everyone'.

I have no problem with criticism if I've personally done something that needs criticising. I don't like the Kara and William pairing right now because there has hardly been any build up, give me some build up and I'm ok with that, so again please don't generalize.

Lastly I don't hate David's tweet, I simply think he didn't really think it though.

I don't usually address things like this, but this one irks me a little bit. Fair play to David if people are sending him hate personally , blaming him for the plot or quite frankly saying the episode was garbage. David worked hard with what he was given so a little annoyance at hate is understandable.

That being said, I don't agree with the wording of the tweet in regards to what the quote (not David's words) is being used to address.

First off if David is using the word 'nonsense' in regards to people attacking him personally then yeah that's fine, that is nonsense. But that hasn't been clarified in his tweet. So is he referring to the displeasure with the plot or turn of the episode as 'nonsense'? Because that isn't nonsense, that is the way a TV show, even a fictional one as he says is supposed to work. Viewers are left to see things and appreciate or not appreciate what happens on their own. A tv show isn't made with the intent of demanding viewers like and agree with everything and if they don't then their opinion isn't valid, a t.v. show isn't a dictatorship. Imagine watching a show and the moment it goes in a different direction than you thought or wanted it to and you express and opinion only to be told your opinion isn't valid and is total nonsense?

It also boggles the mind that David feels the need to tweet that fictional characters aren't real! Well duh! I refuse to believe David has never watched a TV show or film and at least once it hasn't gone the way he wanted or expected it to go.

Don't half the cast watch Star Wars? I bet at least on one occasion they have been unhappy about the turns its taken at some point just like everyone else who watches it.

The last past of his tweet seems to be more in relation to the death of Kobie Bryant so I'll leave that bit.

What bothers me when I scrolled though just a few of the replies is that a lot of people were blaming SC shippers once again for everything. But why? I saw a lot of displeasure from more than SC fans. I saw upset that Kelly hardly had screen time, I saw upset that Nia has taken a back seat, those don't scream MUST be SC shippers to me.

The issue is David is all up for addressing any criticism the episode got by using the phrase "life's to short to be discouraged" and he replied to the tweets that praised him. But haters/trolls whatever, started to blame the SC shippers in the comments, calling them delusional, toxic, bullies, you know, all the cliche words that they themselves are assimilating by doing this in the first place and the irony is lost on them. David has not replied to those tweets! He could have and probably should have deleted them, or in regards to the main point of his tweet told these people to be kind.

Now i realise that actors getting involved in this sort of thing can go tits up, but if your whole tweet was being upset you are being bullied and about encouragement and things not being real then maybe address the actual hate and bullying in the replies you get rather than just saying thanks to the ones praising you?

This to me is the equivalent of getting in a frump because someone in a red shirt is being mean to you and demanding they stop, only to look across the room and see someone you don't know in a red shirt getting bullied but doing nothing about it because you assume they were one your bullies due to the shirt they have on. It's not your problem if someone you don't know is being bullied, but the moment you are then there's an uproar.

Any way, rant over. As always if you have something nasty to save it ✌

Update: Now I see David replied to and agreed with known SC haters being arseholes purely because of their Twitter pic. Assuming much? Plenty of Katie fans don't like SC. When David replies to and agrees with bullies he's doing EXACTLY what he was trying to tell people not to do. His tweet and whole point has become invalid.