#but i struggle to understand why there are people out there who try to justify their hatred for it

[qoldenskies]

Hey, you're the donnie guy

Thoughts on kendratello?

i genuinely do not understand the weird vitriol some people have for it

[thetableshavetabled]

I saw a comment u made on another post about andrew drugging neil and I thought one thing u said was rlly interesting -

it was about Roland's and andrews relationship, I'm paraphrasing but I think u said something like Roland wouldn't get the 'yes or no' that Neil does because andrew 1) doesn't rlly care about Roland personally & 2) Andrew has no promise to protect Roland

I agree completely, but I've never seen anybody else say it! Andrew often gets portrayed by fans like he would always ask for consent this way, and I never rlly agreed. I don't think he would ignore Roland telling him to stop or anything, but I don't think he'd be considerate or careful like he is with neil.

If u have anymore thoughts on their relationship or andrew or roland in general, I'd love to hear it :)

Thanks for giving me an excuse to dig into this! To talk about Roland I first want to talk about the fandom's misconceptions of Andrew.

The way some fans try to retroactively frame Andrew's handling of Neil as a universal consent practice completely misses why it exists specifically with Neil. This comes up especially now that AFTG has reached platforms like TikTok, where I often see claims like "Andrew wouldn't have drugged people, he cares about consent" or the Allison incident or even, most insane to me, how Andrew shouldn't have kissed Neil that first time on the rooftop without asking first. These interpretations fundamentally misunderstand Andrew's character.

Frankly, I don't understand why you would bother to advcate that a character is acting out of character in the canon material. That just means you don't like the character, which is fine. "The monsters were never redeemed" (which was the original post where I left my comment) is much more textually accurate and a much better take than trying to sanitize Andrew's actions.

Understanding why Andrew and the other Monsters act as they do isn't the same as justifying their actions and people should be a lot more comfortabe enjoying morally gray characters, or, even better, just admit you don't like them. Fans do that with Kevin, Aaron and Nicky all the time, but with Andrew they struggle because they love this cute little gay ship with their soft kisses and touch him and die trope. The desire to ship Andreil seems to create this pressure to soften and force Andrew into a romance booktok mold when the real beauty of their relationship lies in how they accept each other's sharp edges and scars.

Take Andrew drugging Neil, for instance. We can understand the strategic reasoning (keeping Neil from running, maintaining control, protecting Kevin) while still recognizing it as a violation. The same goes for his violence toward Allison or his blowout at Katelyn or how he treats Aaron. Understanding that these actions stem from Andrew's trauma, his protection mechanisms, and his "nothing" philosophy doesn't require us to retroactively frame them as morally acceptable.

We are repeatedly shown that Andrew is not a character who cares about others' boundaries. From the moment we meet him and right until the end he shows this. Andrew is not a good person, and he is not mentally well. He's complex, traumatized, and his actions make sense within his characterization, even when, or maybe especially when they're morally questionable.

This brings us to Roland. With Roland, Andrew has a pragmatic arrangement that lets him focus on his own needs without managing someone else's trauma or emotions. Their dynamic works because:

Roland is experienced and emotionally self-sufficient.

Andrew doesn't have to manage his emotional state or trauma responses.

There's an established history that makes Roland a "safe" option.

Neil was always going to be different. The combination of Andrew's promise to protect him, Neil's extensive trauma history, and his complete inexperience with intimacy shattered every one of Andrew's patterns. Where others fit into clear categories - threat, asset, occasional outlet - Neil defied classification from the beginning. With Roland, it's pragmatic: they both know what they want and can handle themselves accordingly. With Neil's inexperience and extensive trauma and the deepness of the relationship it shakes up everything. If Roland had shown the kind of ambiguous consent that Neil does on the rooftop Andrew would never have pushed through or done anything but stop immediately, but he wouldn't have worked through it either. He would just simply not have approached Roland again.

It is less about "yes or no" even though i initally used that phrase and most about "I won't be like them. I won't let you let me be." It exists specifically because of Neil's circumstances and Andrew's promise to protect him. It's not a universal approach to consent, it's about their unique dynamic and mutual understanding of trauma.

This ties into a larger discussion of how Andrew sometimes gets "fanon-ized" in ways that smooth over his complexities and contradictions. He is not someone who is conventionally "good" or mentally well, but whose actions make sense within his own internal logic and experiences. The Andrew who shows careful consideration for Neil's boundaries, who gets in the shower fully clothed, who asks 'yes or no', is the same Andrew who drugged Neil, nearly stabbed Nicky, and almost killed Allison. Not to mention driving under the influence and, of course, literal manslaughter.

This is not to say Andrew doesn't evolve as a character, of course, but not in a conventional redemptive way. Without turning this into a full character analysis I will sum it up like this: Andrew's character arc is about him going from nothing to something.

[obligateweirdo]

What’s Really Magic About Aziraphale

Aziraphale: terrible magician, cringey speaker of bad French, laughable dancer of antiquated steps. Even defenders of the angel say “What a dork!” and giggle over his clueless antics.

I don’t, and have never, seen them in that light, and I’d like to talk about why.

First off—maybe most importantly—I don’t laugh at good-hearted people who are dorks. I try to see their challenges and celebrate their achievements on their own merits. I strongly dislike people who cut others down because they don’t measure up to an arbitrary standard.

Angels, presumably, and demons as well, are functionaries. They sprang fully-formed into existence equipped to perform the duties that were required of them (this may or may not jibe with the GO universe, but it seems likely to). Both Crowley and Aziraphale challenge their boundaries, and both should be appreciated for doing so.

We forget the main characters in GO aren’t human, because the actors are humans cosplaying supernatural beings cosplaying humans. We see them as human in the show when they’re actually not physically embodied, and because all fictional beings are, at base, cosplaying humans by metaphorically representing our humanity.

But they’re not human, and I like it like that.

Aziraphale loves humans. His first great act of rebellion is to give away his flaming sword with the intent to protect them. We don’t know a lot about what his directives actually were, but in both books and show he’s protective of them. He loves cosplaying humans, with his portly, comfortable shape, his reading glasses, his love of creature comforts.

I think Aziraphale is fascinated by human cleverness, and wants to understand it.

Aziraphale can speak all languages, but chose to learn French “the hard way.” (In truth, this is very likely to explain why his French was “rusty” in the prison scene in S1, but it becomes an important plot point in itself.)

How does a being who was created to speak all languages learn a language “the hard way”? You can’t learn a language badly when you already instinctively speak it perfectly; can can only pretend to speak it poorly.

To actually undertake this feat, he would first have to forget the language—presumably with a self-applied miracle. This is an important point in itself because it suggests that the supernatural beings in GO can choose to forget at will. But specifically it means Aziraphale cared enough about something to go to extraordinary lengths to explore it.

Crowley is baffled by the angel’s linguistic struggle, as he fairly frequently is about Aziraphale’s special interests. As Crowley says, Aziraphale is unpredictable; and it’s one of the things Crowley adores about him, no matter how cringey or frustrating the demon finds it from time to time.

I expect if you intrinsically speak a language, it may be exceedingly difficult to relearn it. Adult humans may struggle to learn a new language, and we’ve needed to do so many times over the course of human existence. We’re born with the ability to learn languages, and learn new ones if necessary.

Aziraphale was made with the ability to speak all languages; he isn’t naturally equipped to learn them word by word as humans have to. It’s outside of his skill set. Of course he isn’t very good at it, but he had the persistence to make the attempt, and is justifiably proud of his progress, no matter how we feel about it. Aziraphale is the only angel (or demon) we know of to have taken this radical step.

It’s been pointed out that French is known as the language of love, and that it’s beyond relevant that Aziraphale learned it from a Monsieur Rossignol. We might say that metaphorically he’s the only angel who has forgotten what Heaven has taught him about love (if anything), and relearned it, haltingly, the way a human learns it—by heart, the hard way. I hope he speaks it fluently some day.

The Gavotte. Ok, it’s cute and funny that Aziraphale learned something as antiquated and obscure in modern times as this dance, and it’s so adorable to watch him enjoy his skill. But let’s take into consideration that, canonically, angels don’t dance. Like they really don’t dance, like, “it’s one of the distinguishing characteristics that marks an angel” don’t dance. They don’t dance the same way orioles don’t tie their shoelaces, and even demons (presumably laxer about decorum in general) apparently aren’t very good at it.

This is something no other angel has ever done. He’s not a two-left-feet guy who has to work to get a mediocre skill, he is a pioneer of an art form that his species has never explored.

But Aziraphale, although he took to it like “a duck to merchant banking,” persisted, and (unlike French), he became “quite good at it.” If that’s not a triumph against your conditioning and your toxic heritage, I don’t know what is.

Then there’s magic. Yeah, yeah, yeah, usually he’s embarrassingly bad at it and it’s very funny at his expense. Why is he bad at it? Because, as Crowley points out as he tries to fathom what the hell is up with his angel, he can do real magic, and he’s good at that. That engineered Austenian ball was a tour-de-force of miraculous orchestration.

But he loves human magic—prestidigitation, sleight-of-hand. He was made with the talent for miracles; the skill for illusion he has had to fight for and to persist at.

I think about ancient cultures where the imitation was more valuable than the original—imitations of natural objects made of cloth or precious stones where the value is in the human ability to mimic, to fool the eye of the observer. I’m a sculptor in a small way, and I know a good statue of a cow will generally enthrall me more to look at than a living cow (no matter how fond of cows I may be), and in a different way.

NO HE ISN'T “GOOD” AT IT. Of course he isn’t. It’s actually against his nature, but he does it anyway. Why would an angel need an aptitude for stage magic? He doesn’t have the aptitude, but he persists.

And I know, I know: Crowley was so very gentle when he told Aziraphale—right after Aziraphale’s magic trick saved his demonic bacon—that he really is “terrible at magic.” I think it may actually be the worst thing Crowley does in the series. It always makes me cringe. He could just as well have said “retire the act until all the kinks are worked out” (which is also a fun double-entendre, of which they are fond), or something of that nature. Give the angel a break—it was his first time on a big stage, with a dangerous act that hadn’t been rehearsed, in the chaos of trying to perform with an unexpected miracle blocker in action—and they pulled it off. Aziraphale scarcely missed a beat.

Terrible at (stage) magic? Aziraphale is better at it than any other angel. That’s pretty impressive, really.

Angels are also presumably not engineered to lie, which is another form of human magic. We often see Aziraphale as a bad liar, but when the chips are down, he lies as well as any demon (or any human, more germanely).

In Conclusion

Aziraphale is not just funny and clumsy; he’s actually a trailblazer. We all know Crowley asks questions—but so does Aziraphale. The questions are just different ones. I think he loves how humans work and delights in experiments to celebrate them.

We see Aziraphale being brave a number of times—in the Final Fifteen, certainly, in the confrontation in the dressing room with FurFur, and—my favorite—when he goes balls-out (with apologies to Jane Austen) to defy the hectoring martinet of a quartermaster, to desert Heaven’s army and defect to earth despite being handicapped by the lack of a body, in search of someone to possess despite having no idea how any of that works. He figures he will just learn on the job, and he did.

But I think he deserves recognition for the bravery of doing so many things he isn’t good at, will likely never be good at, likely never can be good at. He delights in them for their own merit and doesn’t judge himself by others’ standards.

Maybe your own victories are worth celebrating, even if your best friend thinks you’re terrible at them.

[glamourscat]

Thoughts on Kaiser

a/n: be respectful about it please in the replies and reposts, i would like to hear your thoughts on the matter! :)

✦•················•✦•················•✦•················•✦•················•✦

Truth is, I struggle in writing for Kaiser. As a literature enthusiast, I have this bad habit of over analyzing things. I cannot enjoy things simply for the life of me, thus, every headcanons, every oneshot is a way for me to incorporate how I see the character through my eyes, adding little anecdotes and fun facts about them. But ultimately I base myself off of canon very strongly. I just use a different key for writing.

This is why if I had to write for him, my Kaiser would not be a “nice Kaiser”. Unlike other characters, like Rin, who in their complexity are somewhat salvageable– for how Kaiser is written and how his story has been progressing so far– I cannot see him any different than how canonically wise he is portrayed. Let me explain.  

He is the meaning of the sentence “the one abused turns into the abuser”. Objectively speaking, he had a horrible life. Abandoned by his mother, left in the hands of a father who turned abusive and neglectful. Kaiser has suffered both physical, emotional and mental abuse at the hands of the same person who was supposed to be “his guide”, his “how to” starter in life. He was left alone as a child, trying to figure and parenting himself out. 

The abuse he suffered has shaped his life from the smallest to the biggest things. From not being able to enjoy milk anymore, to how he views and relates himself to other people. We can argue that now, pushing 20, he is old enough to know different as he is surrounded by people who did not have the same upbringing as him. We can argue that because of this he should be able to tell that what he is doing, what he is saying, is wrong. 

And deep down, I believe he does understand. That he does realise it. But realising it and actually making the conscious choice to change are two separate things. But, what does this mean? It means that he is a flawed, if not tragic, individual. This does not excuse his behaviour nor justifies it in any shape or form. He does not want to be like his father yet he is doing the same things, even if toned down, to Ness. 

His actions are not miscalculated. His actions are not random. From the first moment he saw Ness on that field he knew, he sensed by just looking at him that he would be an easy target to use. Ness, who has faced his own battles, is an easy prey for Kaiser because of his good, if not naive even, heart. 

We can acknowledge that Kaiser is a victim but we cannot remove the fact he is an abuser at the same exact time. Two things, although quite different, can coexist. I do hold hope that he can change, that as the story progresses we will see a different Kaiser. But the truth is that the trauma he faced made him apathetic. His resolution, if it will come, will not be an easy one and most likely will be a life time work.

This is why I cannot physically write for him. Relationships for him are a way to gain something from, if not to control someone. He does not even know what love is. He won’t be cold on the outside but sweet once the doors are closed. He won’t be this sex god. It’s fanfiction, at the end of the day everyone is free to portray a character as they wish. For me personally, on my blog, I simply can’t find it in me to portray him any differently. Because that’s who Kaiser is. 

[causeimcrayzeebee]

In defense(?) of Tamba Ruiko with the trajectory of chapter 5 so far and what the YouTube comments have been looking like, im seeing very mixed feelings about tamba, so lemme become a defense attorney real quick and give some of my thoughts on her!

now obviously, tamba isn’t everyone’s cup of tea so I totally understand people who just don’t like her. reminder that people do not need very deep reasons (or any at all tbh) to not like a character, people can not like a character for whatever reason n that’s valid!! id just like to give my thoughts n insight into her actions for people to consider (and ofc im not von so this is my interpretation).

yes, tamba was an asshole for exploding at hiroaki. accusing him of faking his apology, of planting the threat, and proceeding to tell him every moment of the killing game he was a shitty person? kinda insane to do, especially when hiroaki has genuinely been trying to get better. not to mention how she pointed out him passing his punishment onto others while she herself did that exact same thing.

but the thing is that episode was tamba calling out hiroaki for shit that she likely knows is a fault of her own as well. tamba and hiroaki clash because they're two sides of the same coin. they are loud, obnoxious, hypocritical people who have looked out for themselves and tried to find someone to blame. they're both flawed people. the difference right now in their stories is that hiroaki has been improving, and tamba hasn't gotten to that point.

let's also remember that hiroaki's outward development hasn't been happening for too long. of course, us as the audience who has seen his growth know he's been struggling in the kg as much as anyone else, and is really trying to be better. ojima, yanagi, and wada especially know that. but those who haven’t been close to him don’t; hasegawa doesn’t understand him as he’s seen the same ups and downs that tamba has. like trial 4, hiroaki has had some regression at some points (which does not discount his general upwards trajectory!!) but out of curiosity, i do want to know why i saw hardly as much of criticism towards hiroaki when he said shit at wada…. im super confused about that. I think it's understandable for tamba to assume what kind of person he is. she hasn't seen what he's gone through. she's upset because she seen him be a dick countless times and assumes he sent the threat because he's the only one left who has been like that towards her.

tamba isn’t as level headed like everyone else has been. she lets fear n paranoia get the best of her, and can you blame her? she is surrounded by people who are all able to solve murders and conduct plans of escape, and while she's tried her hardest to do that too, she isn't as good at it. what she is good at is not something that she can use to contribute to the group, so she feels useless. tamba has said that she doesn't even know how she's still alive and if she even deserves it. with the last trial approaching till the game is supposed to end, i think she's absolutely allowed to be that worried over the threat-- who says she won't be killed for the sake of everyone else's escape? I still have no idea who sent the threat, and I don't think it was hiroaki, but she's in no way overreacting. tamba has been paranoid, especially recently, because she, just like everyone else, doesn't want to die, and knows she'd be an easy victim. while her paranoia has pushed her to do things that would cause her to be even more of a target, it's clear she's just really stressed out about being next. that doesn’t justify trying to look for a scapegoat, but it makes sense as to why.

tamba hasn't gotten the chance to live her life to the fullest. her life has revolved around gymnastics and numbers on a scale. it didn't matter to her parents that she wanted to play soccer, cause "she didn't have the body for it". she couldn't be in theater cause it was too much of a commitment that would take away from gymnastics. she hasn't had agency over her own life, so she has been trying to start doing things on her own. she finally does something about it and rejects hayashi's help.

this doesn't discredit hiroaki's life and what he has/hasn't done, neither does it discredit any other student. it's just human nature for someone to prioritize their life over others in a life or death situation. tamba is trying to make sense of a situation that makes less and less of it.

everyone is exhausted. a month of being trapped in an underground school forced to kill strangers and watching them die one by one? that'll kill you (literally). tamba is just someone who is cracking under the pressure.

of course, if I misinterpreted or missed something, please let me know! my understanding isn't the objectively right one or anything LMAO so please lmk if I am thinking about things the wrong way. thank you for reading ^^

[bamsara]

Howdy! I just want to take a moment (or two…or three..yeah this is longer than I thought it would be) to talk about your characterization of Narinder in your TRoD fanfic, specifically his grievance over what he perceived the lamb to be and betrayel.

I like to think Narinder repeatedly calling Lambert a traitor (I think at least once a chapter actually lmaoo) over and over, is trying not so subtly to avoid thinking about the why behind the betrayel and the pain that comes with it. Especially since he'd already spent an eternity wondering about the previous betrayal of his siblings. How emotionally torturous it must feel to be in this cycle of rejection, from the people he depended on, even now from his own followers who don't recognize him. And then, when he and Lambert finally appear to be on the same page about something, Lambert goes and spares Leshy, reminding Narinder once again that his divine commands hold as much weight on the Lamb as they will decide to hold.

It isn't up to Narinder to decide how the lamb will act, as much as he wants to. It's one thing for Narinder to have people listening to him, but it's another to actually be heard, and after an eternity of silence during his imprisonment he's absolutely desperate for some form of control and impact. For someone to truly hear him. Which is a shame, because Lambert does, but Narinder cannot recognize it since they don't always give Narinder what he wants (since being a God is all about what you want), and instead are more interested in giving him what he needs.

I assume at this point, after being revived into a mortal form, he's actively given up on trying to understand why everyone just keeps "betraying/rejecting him" and would rather use his own inferences of their behavior as explanation, once again, for that feeling of control, since he's utterly mortified of hearing those words come from their mouths instead of his own (doesn't help that he can actually read minds either). He'd rather kill his siblings than hear the why (not saying the siblings were justified ofc, but understanding one's motivations is, y'know, important to effectively communicating with them in a way that's healthy) Despite needing to be heard, he's internalized that many won't bother listening unless he has control over them in some way, like he did before when he was powerful. When he mutilated his siblings, had Lambert create a cult in his name, being heard isn't just an emotional or mental aspect to his wellbeing, but is literally part of his power as well.

He was/is a God, he's used to followers prostrating themselves just to hear the time of day, giving their all to listen, hear, and follow him. It's why he struggles to separate the aspects that are ingrained in a follower, from those who are a friend. Unless they're also God he can't comprehend much of a difference, and expects them to be of the same or similar standing. He was friends with Lambert when he was Godly, yes, but he still saw himself as above Lambert, and expected them to lay down their life to him like a follower would. Yes, Narinder didn't want to cut them out of his own life in their death, but still expected them to just..die for him. He didn't ***just*** see Lambert as a friend, he saw them as a friend that was also his follower. An exceptional follower he loved, but not an exception. There was a power imbalance that Lambert now sees.

It's why Narinder's utterly baffled and offended, fearful even, at Lambert, someone he deemed as "traitorous", investing their time into still trying to talk to him..listen to him.. for virtually no gain…at his lowest point...when he himself is now "lesser".

Narinder tries so hard to not become invested in those he deems as "lesser" or "traitors" but its near fucking impossible, because like it or not, his desires and needs are so inherently mortal and genuine (desire for power, companionship, love, understanding, control, etc) that if he doesn't close himself off, he may have to face falling into the same pit of disappointment and failed expectations he fell in with Lambert/his siblings once again. So he doesn't, and hides away in his shack until Lambert comes knocking.

And now, as the cherry on top of this emotionally constipated bundle of angsty cat woes, he has to live and breathe as the very thing he deemed as "lesser". Being forced to invest in these mortal needs, now that they're a necessary component to his survival. This is also why I believe he goes on these little crusades with Lambert in the first place as well. Not only because they return to him a sense of routine and normalcy (also pining, coughocoughghhrbogh who said that?), but also because it allows Narinder to forget about investing in his own wellbeing for a while.

He was a God, he didn't have to go through the work it took to just do your laundry, eat, brush your teeth, or take care of yourself since he never had to. The thrill of adventure and battle, the adrenaline rush of near-death experiences, can't hold a candle to the mundanity of work. So when he's not crusading, he just..sleeps..wanders around..the fact he's not socially accepted by his own followers doesn't encourage him either. I mean fuck, he such a complete wreck after Lambert spared Leshy, he crusaded and neglected his health for so long he passed out.

His life is all work now, investing in himself, in others, being forced to have his ego get knocked down a few pegs, and care again despite how much it hurts. None of these things are "given", Lambert's love is not just given (as in, blindly follow) and that's what I believe will be an eventual "eureka" moment for him.

Living is work, but it's worth working for

He ain't hot shit anymore, but that's ok.

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded ramble this was all actually just a very roundabout and ineffective ploy for me to talk about how I relate the song "Don't Speak" by No Doubt, to your Narinder's character. Happy belated New Year, hope you're doing well. :]

LKSDHGKLSDHGD HELLO. This is such a well articulated analyzation of Narinder holy moly, I hope you don't mind me answering this with not much to add on because WOW I'm really vibing with your takes on him and I wanted the world to read this too slkdghlksdhgs. I have a lot of my own takes on Narinder and how he'll progress to be as the story comes along, and eventaully some of this will be talked about in TROD either with the lamb and/or with other characters, particularly Ratau, as he comes to an understanding that others are understanding.

I have not had coffee yet this morning but I could go on for a day and a half about Narinder being used to getting what he wants as a god and the entire process of how actaully lonley and isolating it can be to be continously pedastaled and worshipped verses being on equal, human level with other beings and how long it takes for him to realize that.

HAPPY BELATED NEW YEAR

[thatfeelinwhenyou]

safe & sound recap! (spoilers)

so.

i did it. i actually finished this series. honestly, i went into this with zero confidence i’d see it through, so i planned to write everything in advance before posting. . but… my self-control? nonexistent. cause i ended up posting prematurely. when i first announced the series on my blog, i had up to part 4 written. i thought, “hey, it’s just two more parts” (at that point of time i only had plans to write 6 parts). i figured i could get it done on time. i was wrong 😀

i had a plan, sure, but the more i wrote, the less certain i felt about the direction i was taking. even up until the very end, i wasn’t sure it was something i wanted to release. hence, why part 7 took so long.

and for everyone who was convinced y/n was going to die… you weren’t completely wrong. i was supposed to kill her off. i actually have a whole draft written in my docs. but it felt wrong to write about humanity and human nature without offering second chances.

i mentioned somewhere before that the core notion that inspired the creation of safe & sound was, “would i still be capable of falling in love if the world was ending?” and i wanted the reader to feel this dilemma for themselves. killing her off would’ve made it impossible to explore this idea.

because isn’t it human to fuck up and try to redeem yourself? hope was the central theme of this fic—hope as the driving force for survival. killing her off would’ve made all that hope meaningless. and that’s when i realised i wasn’t writing the story i wanted to tell. so i rewrote the entire ending and delayed part 7. and i’m so glad i did because i’m proud of the way it turned out. so in case anyone is planning to ask, i will not be posting the draft 😂

i also took on a new form of writing. with safe & sound, i was writing it in a loose first-person pov. i'm pretty sure many of you noticed, i wasn’t diving into jungwon’s or anyone else’s internal monologues. everything was filtered through y/n’s perspective because i wanted the reader to learn new information at the same time as her. this approach was intentional in the sense that i wanted to heighten the sense of isolation and fear. in a zombie apocalypse, survival is rooted in what you directly experience and perceive—there’s no omniscient clarity, no clear insight into what others are feeling or planning. it’s all about y/n’s limited understanding of the world around her.

this pov choice also reflects y/n’s own internal struggle—how she processes trauma, how she pieces together hope and love amid chaos. it was a deliberate attempt to keep the reader emotionally tethered to her journey. but with that also comes the struggle of justifying the actions of other characters. even now, i don't think i did a very good job. but it is what it is. let me know if you guys prefer this style of writing, may or may not explore it in future projects!

but of course, the most important reason i even managed to finish this series is you guys!! a huge part of my motivation came from all the love and support i received from all of you. every time i post a part, i’m just sitting there, waiting to see what you guys think. maybe that sounds superficial, but it genuinely feels good to be praised and appreciated.

it still amazes me that people take time out of their busy schedules to leave me reviews and send me asks about how much they enjoy my works. i know i’m not the most active author on tumblr. i take forever to reply to anything, and i know some of you try to catch me when i’m online. it really, really means a lot to me. just know that all the energy i receive, i put right back into writing!

so, with that, i’m excited to let you guys know i’m working on a one-shot (still undecided on the member) and maybe even another ot7 series. who knows? 🤔

i’ll also be replying to asks and reblogging some of your posts, so feel free to mute me LOL. i'll definitely be taking a big fat break but don't worry, i'll still be coming online and replying to any comments and asks! until then, please stay hydrated, happy, safe, and sound! ❤️

xo, nat

[sukibenders]

Glinda mentions to Elphaba how Fiyero can't stop thinking about that moment in Dillamond's class, or that he's having thoughts in general and how it worries her because it's not something she's used to from him (which is him thinking about actual things), in contrast to Elphaba, who doesn't seem all that bothered and, even more so interested in the manner when Fiyero brings up how he can't stop thinking about when they rescued the lion cub. I don't know about everyone else but for me, even with this scene probably being added for lighthearted value, I also see it as another piece in the puzzle cementing how Fiyero's and Glinda's actions will, eventually, either pull them closer or further away from Elphaba. I lowkey don't like it when people act surprised or confused as to why Glinda was spelled or get annoyed that Fiyero is in her place but I, personally, don't think she would have helped in that moment, specifically in the movie.

Prior to the train scene, Glinda is shown to, not only, be completely rude and spoiled (as shown with her literally fainting over not getting her way), when in class, she publicly points out Dillamond's inability to pronounce her name correctly even though it's an obvious struggle, parading in front of the class how easier it was for her other teachers to do it, then being dismissive during the rest of the lesson when learning the importance of history and why to learn from it (correct me if I'm wrong, as it has been a minute since I've seen the movie). All that already tells me that she doesn't really care for the animals' cause, let alone enough to follow Elphaba and Fiyero into the woods after stealing the lion cub and I think, subconsciously, Elphaba knew that. In fact, I can only see Glinda trying to sway them to leave the cub and how what their new professor wanted to teach probably wasn't all that bad (not saying that she would want the cub to be harmed, just that she would try to rationalize what's going as we've seen her do before). This is the same woman who, after learning that the Wizard was a fraud and responsible for the missing and harmed animals, still tried to justify his actions and berated Elphaba for not "acting accordingly" to the news, but yet we still think she should have been there to save the lion cub? That she would have helped those animals alongside Fiyero and Elphaba? I think it could allude to how Glinda could/will be used to help further push propaganda for the Wizard, especially given how it benefits her socially, as figures of propaganda often don't think too hard, or enough to critique the system around them not because they aren't smart enough too (for the most part), but more so because they understand how their world works and understand the consequences that follow when stepping out of line.

You don't have to like Fiyeraba or even find Fiyero interesting, but to purposely ignore what the movie is presenting you is such a cop-out. Fiyero enters the film being a sort of anti-establishment-like character, caring little if he gets kicked out of Shiz for breaking the rules, or just hardly caring in general (something Elphaba calls him out for), and so on. Why wouldn't he be down to rescue the lion? Even if it was to just feed his rebellious streak, he still would have gone, but when he and Elphaba meet, he's on a talking horse and they are conversing like lifelong friends. That might add another layer to the pair saving the lion. Even if he wasn't on the same level as Elphaba at that moment, the train scene shows that it had a profound impact on him that he couldn't shake. I think, had he been presented with the choice of joining Elphaba or staying, he would have gone, not only for her but also because he now knows that the Wizard is a fraud and most definitely wouldn't stand for what he [Oz] is doing. This is what sets him apart from Glinda which, isn't necessarily me hating on her but just stating facts. Glinda isn't/won't be willing to sacrifice her position and what it brings her, until it's too late (which is the tragedy of her character and her relationship with Elphaba), while Fiyero risks everything, even to some extent his own body (Scarecrow) and, in the end, gets to stand with Elphaba.

[iatrophilosophos]

"Everyone" is not "worse at driving now" because of long covid. Yall.

Long covid is real, it is fucking people up, it seems relatively common, and that is precisely why everyone needs to stop attributing everything under the sun to it and actually adopt a sense of interrogative vigor*, especially among people who are 20-30 and have, lbr, SO MANY reasons to be miserable and ill including:

Shitty moldy apartment buildings & similar environmental hazards of slum&overcrowded housing

Dietary deficiencies/cheap mass-produced and fast food (no judgement! Eat what you can get down! But not eating vegetables WILL make you sick and crazy)

Onset of chronic illnesses folks would've gotten anyway &/ may be caused by factors like air & water pollution esp wrt environmental racism

Getting older 🤷 and conversely, being a young adult struggling to take care of oneself in a world that doesn't prioritize teaching you those skills & is often actively hostile towards using them

*by interrogative vigor i mean looking for information about why something ISNT covid or isn't long covid: lots of ppl are doing gr8 keeping up on the releases around covid! But yknow, when ur hammered you wanna nail everyone. Everything deserves a good faith effort to try on several explanations, you will learn a lot more even if it turns out to be your first thought.

I'm not saying any of this to try to downplay or deny anyone's suffering and im not interested in arguing with specific individuals about whether or not they personally have long covid (idk you! Idk ur history! Not for me to say! Lots of people definitely do!). I also understand that when doctors say things like the above^ it can feel really shitty and be really unhelpful. No one wants to feel like they're miserable and dying for months, finally get in a clinic visit, and be told "idk clean ur apartment, thatll be $400. Come back in six months to pay me another $400 when it doesn't work". That sucks!

What i can say is that whether or not any given individual has long covid, you almost definitely have at least one(1) other problem. this...really ain't my first rodeo. I have been watching especially younger adults who are breaking down & being disabled by the weight of The Everything get a pathology diagnosis, apply it as the root cause of most of their problems, proselytize how everyone, actually, probably has this pathology, and watch it catch on as the definitions get vaguer and the symptoms pool gets bigger. It almost always happens with diagnoses of exclusion & diagnoses that are very subjective: ADHD, autism, crohn's disease, hEDS...

Pathologies are most useful when they define a problem in a way it can be solved. I think in a lot of spaces, especially online, they can be leaned on as a source of validation or emotional support: it's the explanation that makes your misery make sense and justifies it to others. I would suggest that, as disability activists have been saying for decades: we do not have to justify our misery. We don't need an excuse to feel. We don't need an excuse to need help.

What we do need is a) a political critique of the state of disability that doesn't let the rest of the everything off the hook in favor of yelling about individual actions, and b) a personal and community scale understanding of misery that is useful to remediating misery AND!!! GATHERING BETTER DATA about the things that are making people miserable so we can fucking! Work on it!

One of the main things I do like, with my life tbh, is help disabled people understand their health and be less miserable, and when i work with clients in a more professional setting or just chat with friends, we don't start with a pathology: we start with a map. We look at housing, we look at food access, we look at environmental conditions, all in really granular detail, because everyone has so! Many! Problems! And we start work on solving like, two of them. How are we gonna beat the mold in your home back? How are we gonna get more food into you? & this starts to clarify things. One, regardless of what's wrong with people, these kinds of steps almost unilaterally help ease the burden p immediately, and two, fixing as much junk-data misery as we can gives us a WAY better understanding of what's going on and like, lets my clients have more productive relationships with their doctors because they can work up a smaller and more detailed list of complaints to investigate (& that are more within the realm of what those docs are actually trained to handle, most medical professionals just do not have skills for helping ppl with shit life syndrome.)

Caring about long covid as a mass disabling event (which i do, very much so!) should be pushing us to define DOWN the criteria for long covid by building a deep & rich understanding of the multiple other sources of misery and disability and using real tactics to help ourselves&eachother live with that misery. This in turn lets us build more concrete models of the things that are not currently well defined and thus strategize to figure out how to deal with those; rather than lumping everything into the nonspecific symptoms disease de jour and continuing to rot six deep in apartments where everyone's literally allergic to the fucking walls.

[strawberriesandspoons]

In all my teen wolf fics, I ALWAYS make Derek 19 in s1. There are multiple reasons why. One, I can't justify his weird antisocial stalker behavior otherwise, two, it makes more sense narratively, and three, I don't feel comfortable with Sterek if there's a larger age gap.

A 19 year old Derek being fucking scared out of his mind and struggling with the loss of his sister, but desperately trying to play it cool and aloof while having no idea how to actually talk to people is something I can completely understand. Like, yes, he's absolutely a creepy stalker at times, but he genuinely has good intentions, (and, in my fics, he's a stupid teenager too) He can be rude and insulting, and threatens Stiles and Scott multiple times, but that doesn't change the fact he doesn't want Stiles and Scott to actually get hurt. Derek's still actively protecting them, despite all the honestly kinda terrible things they say and do to him (mostly s1, it's a shit show, so I don't hold it against any of them too much, and I don't blame Stiles and Scott for being harsh at times, they were scared and didn't know Derek at all, I'd be scared too)

I think Derek's a little less mature due to his trauma, honestly. For starters, he was hiding in new York for 5-6 years with just his sister, and it seems like that's the extent of the social interaction he got. He never really had to learn how to talk to humans, since he just had his family of werewolves, who are experts at reading people and especially each other (being able to smell feelings and all) so yeah, of course Derek has no clue how to actually talk to Stiles and Scott. Secondly, he blames himself for the fire (and pretty much everything else, from what I remember) that would absolutely fuck you up, thinking you're responsible for your whole family's deaths. His anchor is literally anger, he's constantly punishing himself. Like, no wonder he's such an asshole. Thirdly, he has no trust in humans whatsoever (and I don't blame him) so yeah, he gave Stiles and Scott extremely vague answers and wouldn't elaborate on anything, because the last time he was open with a human, his entire family died. It's obvious in the way he talks to Scott about Allison. Like, when Scott says, "She doesn't know anything!" Derek replies, "What if she does?" And then later on, Derek yells at him, saying, "You're 16! You're not in love!"

I didn't even notice it till my most recent rewatch. He's so harsh about it because he lost everything to an Argent, because he thought he was in love, and doesn't want the same to happen to Scott (and Derek believes that humans, especially hunters, aren't safe. He doesn't want Scott to get hurt, and doesn't want to get hurt again himself)

And, alternatively, I think Stiles is more mature due to his trauma. Despite losing everything, Derek could still rely on his sister, while Stiles didn't have anyone, really. From what I remember, it really sounded like he was the one trying to take care of his dad, who was usually busy, and when he wasn't, had a drinking problem. He had to grow up fast, and yes, I know he doesn't always act like that, but we all know he just uses humor as a coping mechanism, and to prevent people from seeing how he's actually feeling.

He's dramatic and sarcastic, but he's also the one who immediately accepts Scott's a werewolf and spends all night researching it, he takes care of Scott and sticks by his best friend even when Scott tries to murder him, the few times he lost control. He tries to take care of everyone, honestly, and sure, he's an asshole about it, sometimes, but he's still there. He might be bitching about it the whole time, but, for example, in Magic Bullet(S1ep4) despite barely knowing Derek and being outright scared of him, Stiles never abandoned him.

Plus, at the end of the season, Stiles defends Derek! He snaps at Chris, who is threatening him verbally and physically. Like, he so clearly allies himself with werewolves as whole, not just Scott, even when ppl are threatening him, and he continues to do so, he never ONCE throws Derek under the bus (after he corroborates Scott's lie about Derek being the murderer) and like, that's kind of everything. Especially to someone who lost everything at the hands of an untrustworthy human, I imagine.

And, I mean, both Stiles and Derek make threats, but they rarely actually mean it. Stiles had no intentions of dumping Derek on the side of the road, and Derek had no intentions of actually killing Stiles or Scott.

The fact that Derek still tries to help Scott, after Scott accuses him of murdering multiple people and puts him on the run again, is proof of that, in my opinion.

Now, for Sterek, a 3-4 year age gap doesn't really bother me, but anything larger than that, when Stiles is still a teenager, is just too much. But, for Stiles and Derek specifically, I think 3-4 yrs is totally reasonable. See, the thing is, one of the main problems with most age gap relationships is that the older one has more life experience, but in this case, I'd argue Derek doesn't have much more life experience than Stiles does.

Derek's life was essentially put on hold for 5-6 years after the fire, he never had the chance to be a normal teenager, after that. Stiles might be younger, but both of them have lost people, they know what that kind of grief feels like, and I don't think there'd be any sort of power imbalance between them. They're equals. Stiles has no problem talking back to Derek and speaking his mind, and vice versa. I don't think Stiles was ever scared of Derek because he's a werewolf, I think he was scared because they thought Derek murdered someone. So, like, that's not a point of tension between them, it's not like Stiles (later on) is actually worried Derek will hurt him, and Derek (later on) trusts Stiles not to betray him or their pack.

It makes sense why they disliked each other at first, there were plenty of reasons to. Derek didn't trust Stiles because human=unsafe and Stiles was, admittedly, an asshole, and Stiles didn't like Derek because he was a weird stalker who he thought hurt his best friend.

But once they get past those things, I can totally see them being close friends, and more. Sure, there's plenty of things they disagree on, but they're also similar in a lot of ways, too. Like, this isn't an opposites attract situation (which I do love) because they're not opposites, even if it looks that way sometimes.

They both care way more than they let on, they both build walls and keep their friends out, they're both pretty jaded when it comes to trusting others (moreso later on, for Stiles) but help regardless. Oh, and they both blame themselves for shit that isn't their fault and take on huge amounts of responsibility even though they don't have to. I also think they're both nerds and probably have a good few shared interests. They'll argue on methodology but they value the same core things. Like, Loyalty? SO important, to both of them, same with trust. Plus, I think Derek's dry and blunt humor, and Stiles' sharpness and sarcasm, is a lovely combination.

So, in conclusion, I love them together and separately and think they're more compatible than they seem on the outside.

It's funny cuz I just made a post about how half the time I feel meh about Sterek, and then I get super carried away and rant about them for multiple paragraphs lmao. Basically I saw some character analysis posts (I adore everyone who makes those, btw, y'all are awesome!) and it revived my love for them.

(Again, if anyone disagrees with me or has anything to add, that's completely valid, this is just the way I interpret their characters, and I love hearing other ppl's thoughts!)

[sysmedsaresexist]

Changing mindsets, from a Real Anti Endo™️

The Release of the (Pro/Endo) Golden Goose

I hope everyone from all sides will give this important, heartfelt post a read.

It's likely something you'll want to be aware of if you have a vested interest in syscourse and the validity of endogenic systems. Please give this a chance.

It's been almost three years since I started my blogs. Wow. I've been on tumblr a hell of a lot longer, but I really wasn't involved in the system community. I started out firm and loud. I probably inadvertently fakeclaimed (I went into this with the rule that I would NOT directly tell anyone they were faking, it was a boundary that I knew would ruin me socially if I crossed it, but I'm sure I probably did without meaning to), I name called and made fun of people and things. I was disrespectful to people. I invaded tags to get my message out there, though I was quick to stop once I realized I was making the tags unusable for the community I claimed to want to protect.

I learned very quickly what was appropriate and what wasn't, what I could get away with and what I couldn't. It started to become a numbers game, influenced by the risk of the post.

I made a lot of friends and a lot of enemies, and I amassed a following of over 2k. More people have come and gone from my little community than I ever thought possible. People made fanart of me, and I cherish those so deeply. I have over 300 asks because I struggle to delete the ones thanking me.

And the more I was thanked, the nicer I got, the more thanks, the nicer I got, rinse and repeat until I had trouble NOT empathizing with pro/endos. The more I was willing to listen, the more legitimate sources I came across that disproved my original ideas about consciousness. The people sharing the sources were more respectful than I thought they'd be. Things were starting to look a bit cloudy.

I talked to my colleagues about how they, as therapists, would handle some of these endos in their practice, and while their belief in the concept varied, kindness and attempts to understand was the consistent answer. When had I lost that kindness and understanding that had driven me to that field to begin with?

Colleagues, yes. For those who don't know, I have a degree in social services and counselling (plus three other degrees). It's why the current situation with the antis turning on me is so funny. I still can't get into the mindset of some of these new anti endos, I just can't imagine justifying that level of cruelty. I had lines that I wouldn't cross, and I didn't think people could be worse than me.

... That might have been a trauma thing, looking back on it.

So I got desperate.

I spoke to the actual doctors who wrote some of these papers all of us are quoting. Everyone was arguing the meaning of the words, so I went directly to the source.

Dr Colin Ross, who wrote about endogenous multiplicity in the 80s. I told him everything-- about plurals, non-traumagenic systems, syscourse, what was being debated, how I and others interpreted his words, and what I wanted to learn.

Was plurality only trauma based?

And back and forth and back and forth we went, with me asking over and over again in different ways, NEEDING to hear that it was.

But I never got that answer. He meant what he meant. He said what he said and he meant it.

That plurality was not only found in the aftermath of trauma.

And I said nothing to anyone because I couldn't reconcile it.

Don't try to read between the lines, I assure you, there isn't some hidden meaning to be found there. I can't share all of the messages because some contained personal information, but my final response will tell you all you need to know.

(It did NOT, in fact, make sense, and it took me three years to "rethink my paper" that endogenic plurality wasn't possible, I did not win that conversation, it was a dying stance that was not supported)

I've been accused of paying too much attention to my follower count, but I can't really help it. It's really scary when you make a post and see a sizeable drop. It means a lot of different things. My posts have less reach and support. I've upset people. I've done something wrong. My community is leaving me.

I'm in a weird spot, where I'm blocked by so much of the pro/endo community that I have nothing to join, and the anti endo community, who I still wholeheartedly support, continues to leave me for -checks smudged writing on hand- being too nice??

Misinformation about DID is a massive problem, and it's why I still consider myself anti endo and support that community. I relate to them in such a way that I'll always gravitate to and empathize with them.

Or at least, that's what I thought.

At this point, though, how can I not be pro/endo when Colin fucking Ross says it's possible?

I've already written about how I'm really struggling with these labels, and I love the people that have stuck around while I struggle to figure this out.

I hurt when I see the people that once supported me leave.

My (online) world is shrinking. Literally.

That's scary.

When you've watched so many turn away, you start to wonder, with every post, where is the line where the rest are going to leave? Is it this post?

I just want to be me, us, we want to laugh at the stupid crap people say, system or not, I want to talk about my disorder, I want to combat misinformation, I want to have productive, fun conversations about ideas and concepts with people who disagree and have different interpretations. I want to play devil's advocate and get people thinking. I want to be able to comment positivity and kindness on any post I see, I want to feel comfortable talking to more people about their ideas. I sympathize with anti endos, I relate to CDD systems, I still firmly believe that CDDs and plurality are different, unrelated concepts.

My priority will always and forever be the CDD community first and foremost.

However, I am a hypocrite. I have gone straight to the horse's mouth and failed. I've seen so much research that I finally get it. I'm grappling with holding on to this conversation with Dr Ross, wondering what harm I could have prevented if I'd gone public with these emails earlier.

Since when has being open to change been a bad thing?

Since when has showing respect to lived experiences been a bad thing?

What am I? What label describes this?

How do I go forward from here?

What are you going to do with this information?

I promise you, hate isn't the way forward.

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

“Aang fans have to reach hard to find any sort of “development” in his story, and to justify why it’s acceptable for him to put the lives of millions of people at risk to maintain feelings of purity despite other Avatars (including an Air Nomad) telling him his decision is selfish”

Thoughts on this take? I found it on “longing for rain” blog.

1 - Zuko had THE perfect opportunity to end the war by killing Ozai during the day of the eclipse, but he didn't do so because "It's Aang's fate" and Zuko has a very rigid idea of what "fate" means and how it should affect one's behavior. Iroh also refused to even try to HELP in the battle because it'd make him be seen as a power-hungry kinslayer (even though he had zero intention of becoming Fire Lord). Both of these things can be seen as selfish, especially since they're all about how it'll affect their OWN image, yet only Aang gets labeled selfish. If everyone is throwing the burden on his shoulders, they can shut the fuck up about how he handles said burden.

2 - One of Aang's reasons to not want to kill Ozai is because HE'S TWELVE AND DOESN'T WANNA MURDER SOMEONE, even someone who deserves it. He never asked for this responsibility. He cannot be blamed for Sozin and every Fire Lord after him being a monster, or for Roku's inability to do anything despite being an adult. He's a child. This is not his mess to fix, and yet...

3 - He's not simply going "Sorry, guys, I don't feel like killing Ozai, guess you're all gonna die." He's trying to find alternative solutions - and when he can't find one, he ACCEPTS killing Ozai (and even almost does it AFTER being taught about energybending), despite...

4 - Him being a pacifist and wanting to stay true to his beliefs. He's not trying to be "pure", as in "I'm better than all of you 'cause I don't want to kill", but as in "I don't wanna be a hypocrite that preaches one thing but does the opposite" - thought I suppose I can understand how someone how tries to get praised by trying to pass off AI bullshit as actual art made by them would have a problem with a main character that vallues being an honest person.

Aang's development is not the same as Zuko's of "I need to completely alter my way of thinking" because AANG WAS NOT THE ONE SUPPORTING GENOCIDE. This doesn't make Zuko a better written, more realistic, or "more developed" character, it means he used to be a monster and now he isn't one anymore.

Aang's entire struggle is constantly having the world trying to beat his innocence and humanity out of him so he is nothing BUT the Avatar, just a super soldier/weapon that lives to sacrifice everything for everyone else's sake, while getting nothing in return because "it's his duty." His character arc is about realizing these "necessary evils" aren't actually necessary at all, and that he CAN save the world without destroying his spirit and identity in the process. He doesn't have to see the "error of his ways" because he was not the one in the wrong for saying "Fuck you, I'm a PERSON, not your sacrificial lamb."

And idiots like this particular dumbass would realize it (or rather, admit it) if they only they didn't have a giant stick up their pretencious ass and could get over the fact that their fanon ship "lost the ship war" TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO!

[maxdibert]

It shouldn’t surprise me that the Arcane fandom has a hefty dose of internalized misogyny, but honestly, it’s exhausting to constantly see how female characters are judged, condemned, and demonized for the simple "sin" of being complex, layered, and morally questionable, while the fandom favorite is a drug lord who used a populist, nationalist rhetoric to justify child exploitation and drug trafficking that poisoned the very people he claimed to defend. Yes, I’m talking about Silco. The same Silco who threw a little girl in prison and took her younger sister, making her believe her older sister didn’t care about her anymore. The same Silco who projected his traumas onto a kid and manipulated her into being his weapon. The same Silco who posed as the "people’s champion" while being one of the main reasons the people were dying in the first place.

And don’t get me wrong—I love Silco. He’s a fantastic villain, and his relationship with Jinx is as fascinating as it is deeply uncomfortable at times. But it feels incredibly cynical to see people excuse all the atrocities he committed, or at least try to understand them, while they spent all of season one attacking characters like Mel for being ambitious and power-hungry, doing morally questionable things. Sorry, but none of Mel’s actions in season one even come close to Silco’s level of ethical depravity with the whole shimmer situation, yet Mel got dragged.

Vi—perhaps the series’ ultimate punching bag of suffering—who lost her parents, stepped up to take care of her sister, carried the responsibility of being the eldest (as tasked by Vander to protect the group), lost her "siblings" and "father" in one night, got wrongfully imprisoned as a kid, spent years in jail for nothing, only to come out and see that her sister had turned into a monster and that the man responsible for their adoptive father’s death was now the kingpin of the Undercity—was treated like absolute crap by the fandom. Why? Because she didn’t understand or accept that her younger sister was suddenly cool with a man who was poisoning the city? The same man who killed their father figure? I remember people calling Silco the "Father of the Year" and Vi the "Worst Sister of the Decade," and I was genuinely floored. Like, as a meme, sure, it’s funny. But as an actual take? The level of cognitive dissonance is wild.

And now, in this season, of course, the hate is all directed at Caitlyn. Why? Because instead of being the idealistic nepo baby who dreams of coexistence like in season one, she’s dealing with severe PTSD after being kidnapped and witnessing a missile nearly obliterate her mother. And people just can’t seem to grasp that. They can understand a man going from revolutionary to drug lord, using the idea of freedom and the people’s anger to expand his shady business and exploit children, but they can’t understand a young woman becoming incredibly violent out of a thirst for revenge.

What these reactions tell me is that men can be the absolute worst scum narrative writing has ever birthed, and it’s fine because everyone will bend over backwards to understand their motivations or at least where they’re coming from. But if we’re talking about women who aren’t compliant, who overreact, who struggle to manage their emotions or trauma, or who don’t behave the way women are "supposed" to behave, there’s no room for understanding. No excuses, no empathy. They’re just bitches, villains, or—like people are now saying about Caitlyn—"fascists."

Look, the fact that people are calling Caitlyn a fascist while never using that term for Silco—who was literally a despot—isn’t just cognitive dissonance; it’s hypocrisy at its finest.

[mailka]

The thing about Aemond this season is that the show can't make me care about him or his motivation. And it's not because I think the ideas the show presents are bad it's because the execution of these ideas is atrocious.

Why does the show (and the fandom) need to coddle Aemond? His actions caused the death of two of his nephews (directly or indirectly)*, he committed kinslaying which is one of the worst crimes you can ever commit in Westeros, which fucked TG cause much more than the execution of a dozen nobodies ever could and it made any sort of peace talks impossible.

But the show refuses to hold him accountable. The only one that voices their displeasure is Alicent and even that happens in passing. Otto gives that stupid speech about how Aegon is the one that fucked up but outright tells Aemond "I understand", Aegon (or Helaena) is not allowed to snap at Aemond about B&C (instead the brothel scene presents it as "Aegon bad, poor Aemond uwu") and we hear no-one beside TB care about Lucerys murder.

And instead we have Aemond presented as that "poor little meow meow" and will have him commit fratricide because Aegon bad. Why? Why not have Aemond, who is established in s1 to believe himself to be better than his brother (or anyone else for that matter), to struggle with the idea that he fucked up and fucked up bad? Why not have him to go out of his way to blame everyone around him and try to justify his actions (like Daemon)? Why not have him have a fallout with Aegon because of B&C? Why not have his actions be the reason why so many houses (in the Reach in particular) side with Rhaenyra or remain neutral? Why not have Otto blame him for why Aegon's support (which Otto spent 20 years on gathering) is diminishing?

IMO, his Rooks Rest action should be about him trying to prove himself to still be better than his brother and when Aegon shows up that makes Aemond angry and make stupid decisions like use dragonfire on both Meleys and Sunfyre, not because he deliberately wants to kill his brother but because he doesn't care if Aegon is hurt or not because it was supposed to be about him and him only.

And then they go back to KL and it's not a victory like he wanted it to be but also yet another fuck up, because TG now has only one useful dragon and Aegon is almost dead and the succession and stability are messed up and people are talking about him being kinslayer and even kingslayer and that makes him spiral even more.

But we don't have that, he has like 6 minutes of screentime that are spent in the brothel and minimum amount of time is spent on establishing his relationship with his family. And I honestly don't care about his struggles. Maybe the second part of the season makes me change my stance but so far he's pretty disappointing.

*yes, B&C is the fault of Daemon/Mysarya and B&C themselves but Aemond basically gave him carte blanche.

[aristaspark]

My opinion on Sammy's reaction to Brooklynn

Chaos Theory : Season 3 part 6

This post will just be me trying to figure out my on thoughts on Sammy's reaction to Brooklynn because while I understand where she's coming from, something bugs me so yeah.

I said it in a previous post: when it comes to the campers' reaction to Brooklynn, funnily enough, I find Sammy and Kenji's stance to make MUCH more sense than the others. With how Brooklynn has been treating them, it's to be expected that they'd react that way. But as I also said, the reason Sammy and Kenji refuse to go after Brooklynn is different, and I found myself leaning more towards Yaz's side on the debate she had with Sammy about Brooklynn.

Kenji is justified in his refusal to go after Brooklynn: he has seen countless things that have shaken his trust in her (her going to see his dad, the bag full of money, the secret appartment, all the lies when they were living together), and then he found out that not only was she capable of all that, but she was also capable of making him believe that she was dead for several months AND to reject him coldly afterwards, him, the man she was supposed to love. Kenji has absolutely no reason he should trust Brooklynn, going after her would straight up be masochism with how much she's caused him suffering and anguish. Brooklynn actually wronged him even though she hadn't intended to, simply by virtue of him being her boyfriend.

But Sammy is slightly different.

It's not to say that Brooklynn's actions haven't caused her suffering, they have, they were friends, family as she put it. But I believe the reason Sammy is so mad at Brooklynn finds its root in a fondamental difference between them: to Sammy, family is everything, it has always been, but Brooklynn has always been "on her own", a loner living her life independantly. And you know what? Both are fine.

Neither should have to change to please the other, because friendships don't work like that. And so, my point is that Sammy's anger towards Brooklynn is rooted in something that isn't inherently bad, it's like she's angry at Brooklynn because she doesn't value family the way she does. It was a flaw she already had in camp creataceous, a flaw that makes its return here. She struggles to accept that other people don't live the way she does and it makes her look like she really lacks empathy.

As I said, Brooklynn actively hurt Kenji, he was a direct - dare I even say the biggest - victim of her actions, so in their case she's the one who has to show empathy to him (and even with that being the case, Kenji STILL showed empathy towards her when he looked at her arm at the end of last season, despite everything she had done to him).

But Sammy, while being hurt over Brooklynn's lack of care for her family, puts that above everything else to the point where she doesn't even stop to wonder why she does what she does, or what she has been through. I repeat myself but Kenji and Sammy are not the same, Kenji is hurt because of the things Brooklynn did to him, while Sammy is hurt because she assumes Brooklynn doesn't love her family simply because she doesn't treat them the way Sammy expects people to treat their loved-ones. I get that she wants to protect herself and that she has her own exterior reasons for feeling like this, but they're exactly that, exterior reasons that have nothing to do with Brooklynn. Brooklynn isn't responsible for Sammy's fall out with her family and neither is she for Sammy's initial fall out with Yasmina, but because of these two factors, Sammy immediately gives up on Brooklynn. She's only focused on the hurt she feels and never even tries to wonder if Brooklynn could have a reason to be doing what she's doing or what she's been going through. Brooklynn has lost an arm and, as Yasmina reminds Sammy, she has been all alone for months, but Sammy is too focused on her feelings and on her pre-existing struggles to even care about what could have been going on in Brooklynn's life. Sure, Sammy said it, she deserves better, but just like Sammy had stuff she had been going through, Brooklynn also did. I think what I'm trying to say is that Brooklynn at least deserved Sammy to give her the benefit of the doubt. She at least deserved that Sammy asked herself what had happened to her. But Sammy didn't, because of what happened with her family and Yaz, and instead redirected all her anger at Brooklynn.

Simply because Brooklynn doesn't treat her family the way Sammy wants to be treated doesn't mean that in her lonely, traumatized and socially akward mind she doesn't consider them family, but Sammy never considers that, she doesn't care about that.

But this isn't me saying that Sammy isn't justified in her anger. Brooklynn IS a shitty friend. But she's not being a shitty friend on purpose. She's just being her obsessive, unsensitive, clueless self who struggles and has ALWAYS struggled with her relationships. Sammy has always known that Brook was a shitty friend, but she only has a problem with it now that she has been wronged by other people.

[osokasstuff]

on topic of AAC users & proper grammar (or lack of it)

i think there is another aspect besides struggles with language & cognitive struggles & other internal stuff. and besides some AAC apps/methods don't support creating proper grammar.

have people considered that it's difficult to communicate with all proper grammar, punctuation, etc. when you have to type out most or all of your communication?

fully verbal people with no speech impairments don't always speak with proper grammar. because it takes time and energy. because conversations can be fast, emotionally loaded, or just low efforts. people don't communicate only in perfectly articulated essays with all proper grammar and all thoughts perfectly structured. people interrupt themselves and each other, use shorthands and slang, just mess up with grammar, and it's totally fine! because they still understand each other, and if they don't, they ask for clarification. and same for typing. fully verbal people with no speech impairments use shorthands, use memes, use slang, use simpler grammar, mess with grammar, etc.

but gods forbid AAC users do the same. we're suddenly stupid and unreadable and whatever. we suddenly have nothing to communicate. our communication is suddenly flawed.

i know a lot of AAC users' struggles with grammar go beyond "regular grammar mess that people with no speech impairment can do." i don't say it's same thing. i don't try to diminish AAC users' struggles with language.

i just mean that. even if someone has zero struggles with words & grammar & expressing their thoughs through written language. it's really exhausting to communicate everything or a huge chunk of your thoughts by text on daily basis. it's impossible to communicate in perfect essays on daily basis. that's why we have essays and have regular speech.

but AAC users get denied in having daily language style that can be messy and lack of proper grammar and not perfectly articulated AT ALL [PT: at all].

because A LOT OF [PT: a lot of] "support" for AAC users is something like "actually, you/they/we can communicate in always perfect grammar & style, you/they/we are actually always well articulated and can explain everything and express your/them/ourselves through essays constantly!" our right to communicate and value of our communication is justified by saying that we can communicate perfectly ALWAYS. ALL DAY EVERY DAY EVERY TOPIC EVERY MOMENT OF OUR LIFE. [PT: always. all day every day every topic every moment of our life]. and when we can't meet this unrealistically high standard, our right to communicate and value of our communication is immediately questioned. because our right to communicate & value of our communication were initially tied to that unrealistically high standard.

(and these ideas throw AAC users who can't communicate with proper grammar or express their thoughs perfectly through text under the bus. which is extremely ableist).

let AAC users have REGULAR DAILY SPEECH PATTERNS PLEASE [PT: regular daily speech patterns please].

(and again, all AAC users, regardless of their ability or inability to communicate with perfect grammar, have right to communicate & their communication should be listened to, taken respectfully, and not dismissed).