#but people are making this into a culture war instead of actually engaging with the allegations and the evidence

[waywardswords]

I obviously believe we should take the allegations and the victims seriously.

I also believe that even if everything was/had been consensual, Gaiman’s relationships to the victims were still predatory.

I obviously believe that parasocial relationships with famous people are harmful and we could all do well to remember that these people are strangers, that we do not know them and that they can do things that contradict their public personas.

I have unfollowed Gaiman and will alter my perception of him. As I never really engaged with him outside of Tumblr and reading good omens this is all I can even do about this. Still, this is sad to me because, even though I wouldn’t call myself a fan, I always admired his work and thought he seemed like a good guy, but well, see my previous point about this.

I am horrified and disgusted.

I also think that everyone should actually read the actual allegations and their context, listen to the podcast or read a summary of it and try to gather all the facts before passing any kind of public judgement like calling Gaiman a rapist or, on the other hand, saying that if the allegations turn out to be untrue it will be ok to publicly support him again. The reporting is biased, this is true, but the actual testimonies and the other evidence, like contemporary text messages from the victims etc. need to be taken into consideration instead of building your opinion on secondhand opinions from a tumblr post without sources or context.

I am not saying these things didn’t happen, on the contrary I think we should engage with what happened instead of getting lost in Tumblr discourse TM.

I am saying that the facts aren’t as clear-cut as most posts are making them out to be and while Gaiman remains incredibly suspicious and, as I said, definitely engaged in predatory behaviour, do not jump to calling him a rapist and a pedophile without actually informing yourself about the events, just as you shouldn’t excuse his predatory behavior towards younger women even if the specific SA allegations turn out to be false.

This should be common sense and the fact that it isn’t is the reason that the internet is the place nuance goes to die.

[allthingswhumpyandangsty]

the key to happiness while in a fandom is accept the fact that there will always be people who love the characters you hate, and there will always be people who hate the characters you love. and every ship you think is disgusting has already been shipped by a group of people. and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that. making “call out posts” and engaging in witch hunt campaign/cancel culture will not stop any of these things that you don’t like from keeping happening. the only think it will achieve is make your fandom experience toxic and exhausting for your own mental health. fandom is supposed to be your getaway and your safe space. it never is supposed to be a courtroom or a war zone.

but what if I tell you fandoms can actually be your getaway and your safe space? all you’ve got to do is mute, block, refrain from engaging with things you don’t like and only focus on things you do like. because there will also be people who love the characters you love and people who ship the ships you ship. do engage with these people instead.

that’s it, that’s the key to happiness in a fandom. have fun!

[vaspider]

So I need a more adult persons take on this. Is it wrong to ask people to tag gory/graphic images from gaza? I'm not trying to bury my head in the sand. I don't want to block mention of palastine but god these images are triggering the shit out of me and it isn't making me more aware or more empathetic, I'm already angry and heartbroken and praying and donating what I can.

It is never wrong to ask someone to tag something for any reason. I've asked people to tag animals that I have a phobia of, and mentions of Laika (the first animal in space), because Laika was a good girl and she didn't deserve what happened to her. It was cruel and horrible and it upsets me in a way that I recognize is out of scope for the death of a single dog seventy years ago. That person may decline to tag things for whatever reason, and if that's the case, it isn't wrong for you to unfollow them, block them, add their username to a filter list, whatever you need to do in order to curate your online experience. Without talking directly about the topic you brought up, 'cause it's something I don't do, as I've said about ninety squintillion times -- I used to reblog/post pretty disturbing images of human bodies out of a misguided sense of justice. I have been online for a really long time, and a lot of the stuff that was posted as 'necessary education' Back In The Olden Times were images of police and/or mob brutality visited on Black & brown bodies. Out of a sense of white guilt and a feeling that I should be 'bearing witness' rather than turning away, I perpetuated some of those images, until -- very kindly and gently, I think, for the scope of what was happening -- it was pointed out to me that:

it is unkind to subject the people who have been or might be subject to that sort of racialized terror to images of bodies broken by it, and

it is almost invariably the exact opposite of what the families of those people want, and

it does nothing to actually make me a better person or to advance any sort of real justice, and instead

it simply acts as a grotesque sort of terror tourism or war porn for people who can simply turn off their computer or phone screen and go about their lives.

I am really grateful to the person who took the time to gently shake me. They didn't owe me that, and I'm glad they thought I was a worthwhile investment of time and energy.

Whoever is posting images of bodies or gory images of victims from any injustice like that, especially without appropriately tagging the images so that people don't have to engage with that? They may be motivated by the best of intentions, but as long as they are engaging in that sort of casual, continual terror tourism, they're ... not helping.

There was a great article about this back during Ferguson that really flipped a switch in my head about the subject, where it basically said this is just another way that dominant cultures, Americans especially, seem to treat the bodies of people they view as Other as theirs to consume. There are ways to talk about whatever is going on which do not require people to utilize the bodies and blood of the dead as tools of persuasion (or emotional bludgeoning, tbh), as symbols to show how Righteous we are by "not looking away," and at the cost of those who have been or are more directly affected by the images.

Doing that sort of thing isn't a good idea in the first place, and you're not wrong to ask anybody to tag anything, or to disengage from those people if they find themselves unwilling or unable to tag that content so that you can care for your own mental health.

[intermundia]

i personally think it's a shame how far much new star wars media has wandered from what i consider to be the beating heart of star wars, which is the explicit moral authority and inspirational altruism of lucas's jedi. there are certainly still pockets of media that honor that spirit and operate in the realm of mythological and archetypical space fantasy, but much of disney star wars is targeted at a demographic who are too jaded for kids' media and cannot tolerate the idea of narratively sanctioned good guys actually being good; they want realpolitik, they think all religions and all institutions are inherently corrupted, and they want the jedi to be a cabal of flawed political operatives instead of an idealized fantasy group of space wizards in a golden and more civilized age before the empire, with a vibrant monastic culture and a community of healthy bonds between monks, who understand the fabric of their fictional universe and how to live in harmony with it, and who live for duty because of their generous love for others. obi-wan and yoda in the OT carry the seed of that culture and pass their hope and devotion to duty on to luke, and i find that potent and inspiring even if it's not realism, you know? it's myth. i understand people who want to engage with star wars in this mode of absolutely no pure black and white, only shades of gray, but that's not the spirit of star wars that i love and what makes star wars transcendent and profound to me. luckily star wars is big enough to accommodate everyone and i wish people happiness with jedi critical stories. the realm of myth and heroes is where i vibe and do enjoy it there greatly lol

[thethiefandtheairbender]

my hot take is that i would've been fine if natla had changed virtually everything... character names, aesthetics, plot beats, character choices, etc. IF it had been more culturally accurate and respectful.

instead natla changes virtually nothing except the removal of sokka's sexism while increasing pakku's and the general north's, while also not being willing to commit to it (see: yue breaking off her engagement pre-show with zero consequences, which also undersells their new angle of her resenting/disliking the expectations her community has for her). we get one scene of katara doing braiding/weaving with her gran gran and mother. no other elements of water tribe culture are present that weren't there in the show, and others are removed. the water tribes don't even get to explain their own culture and relationship to the spirits, the fire nation does it. iroh being called out for ba sing se by an angrily grieving earth kingdom soldier is undercut by iroh coming off looking better when he spares the man and the man still strikes him afterwards from behind. because, y'know, the show that literally has fire nation characters critique an earth kingdom soldier for being corrupted by war, calls jet an outright terrorist and remove all of his nuance, and have katara say jet is just like the fire nation to his face isn't both sides'ing an imperialist genocidal conflict at all, obviously /s.

like, what the fuck are we doing here?

if natla wanted to radically change character arcs, struggles, backstories, and plot beats (avatars having glimpses of the future and that's why we head to the north, etc) they should've just wholly committed. the httyd movies are nothing like the books, but they change enough to be their own story in their own right (literally, they only keep a father-son relationship and the setting and half the character names; everything else is different). and they told a different, but really fucking good story.

for example: why not have there be zero sexism, and katara fights pakku for the right to learn any waterbending (healing or fighting) because they see her as an outsider who can't understand their culture, the same way there are stories about indigenous people working hard to reconnect to their culture after being separated from it due to colonization? why are we doing the same things, but worse, every time?

i'm not mad at natla for not being a 1:1 adaptation. i'm mad because every single unnecessary change it makes to the characters' core backstories and personalities are less effective than the OG, are not adequately addressed in story at any point, or has things ham-fisted in for no reason (yue being able to go into the spirit world has no bearing on the actual plot, for example; it's just There, because...?).

it's not more culturally sensitive than the og; instead, in many ways, it's less, and i think that's the biggest waste of it all.

[balkanradfem]

The christian side of tumblr found a post where I made a little joke about how religion puts women into servitude and it's going around gathering bible quotes and arguing whether this is about christianity or other religions x_x I never thought this day would come.. I didn't think christians were on here. And even though the majority of people arguing are christians, I never wrote down 'christianity', I meant all abrahamic religions.

I'm itching to go argue but I know deep in my heart there is nothing to be gained. These people are eager to mock and personally attack whoever is disagreeing with them and that is not a honest intellectual discussion that I crave. I think if you're religious you just have to avoid thinking things like 'why is that so' and 'isn't that awfully convenient' and 'what if this promised thing fails to materialize' because once you start having those thoughts, the entire thing falls apart.

I remember being 15 and realizing that the christian god has no actual use of us, no point in caring about us whatsoever, and no incentive to pay attention to what we do or don't do, but humans very much have a need to believe in the higher power that works to their personal advantage, and that there's someone 'up there' who will make things alright for them, that they have a higher purpose and that if they follow certain rules it will pay out. And this was enough for me to figure out that god didn't create humans, but humans created god, because humans have a need of a god, while god has no need or use for humans at all.

It was only later when I learned about feminism that I realized it wasn't only that, but that it was specifically made to control, exploit and oppress women, praising them for endless servitude, sacrifice, submission and platitude, all while consistently telling them they're filled with sin and never good enough. It's now ghoulish and bizarre to me that the symbol of their faith is a m*n being brutally tortured, that what we feel is holy is endless suffering and pain and death. We're told to aspire for that. That has nothing to do with spirituality, nothing to do with human nature or healthy and happy human lives. It's a worship of death.

There are promises that religious people make towards women, to make them believe it's a path towards true love, or endless rewards for being 'faithful' and 'pure' or a life where they feel safe from disasters, safe from being abandoned and betrayed. There's nothing in life that can guarantee that. Religion can however, offer certain people a community, it can provide services where you come and listen to stories, and stories come with morals (convenient and confusing morals, but people love engaging with moral-type stories and feeling they've learned something), it provides rituals and celebrations that cultures have integrated in their life (after it destroyed the original rituals and celebrations, but we don't talk about that), and it can provide a common ground of understanding for people (sadly the common ground is that women exist to serve and that this is natural). Sometimes it also provides a feeling of superiority for some people, enabling them to mock, humiliate and patronize others for their 'lack of religion'.

So I understand there are community related reasons a person might feel safer within a religion and having this common ground and community, common beliefs, familiarity and stories, rituals and celebrations, it doesn't come off as a horrible thing, especially when the majority of the culture does it. But other things it brings are painful for women, and often hidden. Encouraging hidden suffering, sacrifice, servitude, centering torture and death, and admiration of torture and death, instead of celebrating nature, life, the world we live in and how we interact with it. Centering males as creators when everyone alive was created by women. Dismissing wars, rape, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, genocides and male brutality, while endlessly shaming women for having feelings and not doing a good enough job pleasing the violent males. And generally making a hell for women when they have any thoughts about sexuality or lust.

I know me writing about it here will not have any effect on people personally attacking me for being ignorant and uneducated, but it feels good to write down the thoughts I've been having all day! Being forbidden from thinking in certain direction, forbidden from questioning my own beliefs, is something that plagued me for a big part of my life, and I will not have it anymore. I can say 'this is awfully convenient' when religions declare that m*n are leaders and women are supposed to follow and serve. I can say that putting up statues of a m*n dying in torture is fucked up and morbid. I can say that making me believe that I would go to hell, for not following every order I've been given, is a horrid thing to do to a female child. And I'm happy and grateful that I can think and say whatever I want, without any threat of damnation ever looming over me.

[genderkoolaid]

I think people forget that atheism ≠ anti-theism. Like in the same way, say, asexuality ≠ anti-sex/sexuality. Somebody talking about how antisemitism is bad is not saying people who don't believe in god are Bad, they're saying being against religious people is bad. And for asexuality, not being sexual yourself does not automatically mean you are against people who are

From what I've seen the basis for antitheism is "religion is inherently harmful and getting rid of religion will improve the world." but the problems with that imo are:

religion is a made up concept that's almost meaningless. like its a well known issue that "religion" is such a vague concept that is deeply western which is why its often really really hard to apply it to the vast majority of human spiritual traditions. hell even "religio" in the context of roman polytheism doesn't map exactly onto the concept of "religion"! like in a lot of cases the line between "religion" and "philosophy" is blurred or nonexistent. not to mention that there are religious atheists. jewish atheists are probably the best example since judaism tends to be far more open to that kind of complexity & fosters a culture which allows people to engage with judaism in a variety of ways. but there are people who don't believe in god or jesus-as-savior but are christians for cultural or philosophical reasons. there are tons and tons of atheists buddhists because its a helpful way of engaging with life regardless of whether or not you believe in samsara literally. the idea that there is this strict binary between Religion and Atheism is, like all binaries, made up.

scapegoating religion for all of humanity's problems is just unhelpful. the idea that religion is this force will propels people to do bad things, and that without religion we wouldn't do them, ignores how humans shape religion to our benefit. there's a reason that wealthy kings who want to maintain power emphasize interpretations of the bible or quran that endorse war while downplaying the ones that endorse peace and compassion. for the same reason that people will support philosophies that view humans as inherently mean and violent and in need of control instead of ones that view us as capable of communal care and cooperation- you don't need to believe in a deity to create a reason why you need to kill another group of people and take their shit. religion is a way this happens, and its important that this is dealt with, but this is not a unique feature of religion. getting rid of religion will not fix our shitty behavior.

going off 1 and 2: trying to get rid of "religion" will inevitably mean fucking over marginalized groups who have already had their spirituality attacked and whose culture cannot be so easily separated from their spirituality. and even beyond that, antitheism is just another way of trying to force a belief onto people. believing in no god is no more objectively correct than believing in one, or any other spiritual concept. there are always going to be spiritual people. also you can say "but there are nonwhite/formerly nonchristian antitheists!!" as much as you want but that doesn't change that saying shit like "all your beliefs are childish and mentally ill, you need an educated intellectual to make you realize you are being stupid and irrational and make you think correctly" is absolutely some classic colonial white supremacist bullshit.

also trying to force atheism on people actually does not help atheists. because it in fact only makes it easier for people to stigmatize atheism as inherently destructive and hostile.

anyways now that anon can get mad for being a wretched child ranting about antitheism. now i've earned it.

[jackoshadows]

What I don't understand is why Sansa stans, who want to get rid of Arya in Winterfell, go for the laziest fanon of Arya being a tourist - a theory that's borrowed from ultimate hacks D&D and the garbage TV show and which ending GRRM has repeatedly disavowed.

Arya becoming some kind of world explorer at the end pretty much ignores her book story, narrative arc, characterization and throws away the material in her so far written 32 pov chapters for an ending they came up with because of a made up headcanon. An headcanon which is far removed from the book character.

If one wants to get rid of Arya in Winterfell to make way for Sansa, the least they could do is actually read Arya's chapters and attempt to come up with an ending that makes more sense for the character.

Arya is a character who wants to help. From Mycah to Weasel to Samwell Tarly, Arya is someone who stands up against injustice even at great risk to herself. She's selfless and would sacrifice her personal happiness for the greater good. She wants things to be better, for herself, for her friends, for the smallfolk.

One ending could be Arya Stark as a leader of the Riverlands, helping rebuild from the ravages of war, helping the people who survived. Arya, who has the empathy and the skillsets to help them, who has listened and learned from her father on how to govern. We see Willow Heddle take care of orphans and managing an inn with a quiet efficiency that mirrors Arya's and Gendry hanging around helping her. I could see Arya and Gendry continue their relationship, fall in love, marry and settle down in the Riverlands while Arya either rules the Riverlands as the Tully heir/Cat's daughter or as Lady of Harrenhal helps Edmure Tully rebuild the Riverlands.

Or, if Jon Snow leaves for beyond the Wall as the leader of the new territories and lands there, maybe Arya goes with him. Considering their close bond and love for each other and the fact that home is where each other is - something else that is again established in the books - if she had no choice but to leave Winterfell, going with Jon Snow to help him lead the freefolk beyond the Wall could be another option.

Or if Bran does end up becoming King on the Iron Throne, then she could stay in KL to help her much loved baby brother. She wouldn't like leaving Winterfell, but Arya is a character who sacrifices and does what's right, no matter how hard it is for her to do personally. Plus, she wanted to be a king's councillor and build things. Her training and skillsets with the FM would also make her alert to any future LF/Varys types trying to plot against Bran - not that someone who can see into the past and present needs a master spy...

Or Arya and Brienne start a school for young girls who are interested in learning different things and have teachers who actually develop their talents based on what they are good at instead of being hateful for what they cannot be.

In my opinion, any of these endings is better than 'Arya, world explorer' an empty, nonsensical ending that has no connection to the character's book story and is actually contemptuous of the suffering and trauma this child has been through over several books. Meet new people and learn new languages? What do these folks think Arya has been doing so far? The girl's been traveling from her second AGoT chapter, meeting countless people. sailed the narrow seas, engaged with new cultures, learned new languages. She's been there, done that.

What's even more ridiculous is that it's Sansa stans who often engage in the oppression olympics of Sansa having suffered the worst, that Sansa 'deserves' Winterfell because she suffered the most abuse, that the only ending that makes sense for Sansa is being back in Winterfell because she suffered so much etc. And yet according to these very same folks, Sansa is going to roll up her sleeves and tirelessly work to lead the people of the North, while Arya is going on a cruise ship vacation and vlog about the new cuisine she is trying out...Hey, maybe after having suffered the most of ALL characters in the series, maybe it's Sansa who deserves the cruise ship vacation, you know?

We have the author himself saying that Arya's harrowing experiences and journey through Westeros and Essos has aged her up so much that he considers the character older than some of the 40 year olds in the books! And yet there are still people harping on and on about tourist Arya ffs.

I personally think Arya will be in Winterfell at the end of the books, either helping her younger brothers Bran/Rickon lead the North or more probably as a leader in her own right.

Arya is a central character in the series, the female character with the most POV chapters. There's no way GRRM has one of his lead female characters end up playing a supporting role in her brothers or sister's story. No way.

The author has given her the character development in the books to lead the North. She has a hulking huge grey direwolf at her side - the sigil of house Stark. She is the lone Stark who has the Stark look. Her direwolf is named after the first Dornish princess who changed female inheritance in Dorne - a big clue for a character who has chafed against patriarchal restrictions on what women can and cannot do. I mean this is how we are introduced to Arya Stark in her very first AGoT chapter:

“The Lannisters are proud,” Jon observed. “You’d think the royal sigil would be sufficient, but no. He makes his mother’s House equal in honor to the king’s.”

“The woman is important too!” Arya protested. - Arya, AGoT

It's clear to me that her arc is heading towards her being the first Lady of Winterfell/Wardeness of the North, nicely bookending her arc which started with her wanting the woman to be as important as the man, arguing for equality when it comes to their house. That's how organic story telling and building a narrative actually works.

I am aware of the principal Internet forums about A Song of Ice and Fire and I really used to look at the American and English groups. Nowadays, the most important site is Westeros, but I started to feel uncomfortable and I thought it would be a better idea not to get to these sides. The fans use to come up with theories; lots of them are just speculative but some of them are in the right way. Before the Internet, one reader could guess the ending you wanna do for your novel, but the other 10.000 wouldn’t know anything and they would be surprised. However, now, those 10.000 people use the Internet and read the right theories. They say: “Oh God, the butler did it!”, to use an example of a mystery novel. Then, you think: “I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal!” To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well you work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure up the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar. - GRRM

[eff-plays]

So my problem with AA stans claiming to be "dark romance enjoyers" is that it's uuh. Incorrect.

I'm a fantasy romance writer and I have been in the same circles as dark romance enjoyers and writers. Like full on omegaverse non-con type shit. I don't like it myself and think it's wack, but the reasoning of the people who enjoy it is that they have lingering shame around wanting sex, around purity culture, potentially homophobia with men who enjoy omegaverse stuff, so a bigstrong alpha man who forces them to enjoy something they secretly want is a sexual fantasy to them. They can hold onto that "purity" and "innocence" and not have any shame around wanting sex, because technically someone else is forcing it on them. They can explore that safely within fiction, and don't necessarily want that to happen to them IRL, unless it's within kink scenes etc. And yeah I don't get it, but it is something people do and own doing, and I can't stop them so as long as they're doing it over there, it's none of my business.

But AA fans claim to love the "dark romance" of it, but then turn around and say that no!! He's NOT abusive!! He's NOT going to assault or mind-control Tav, it's NOT an unhealthy relationship, they're EQUALS and he ADORES them and won't disrespect them!! Just look at the backlash to the "kneel" kiss, people who got so mad that Tav looks distraught.

But look at what BW said in the infamous Discord screenshot: it's fine to enjoy the fantasy, but it's not healthy in-universe. The game itself says "maybe you enjoy degrading yourself."

But AA stans looked at that and went "UM NO!!! IT IS HEALTHY!! I'M BEING SHAMED!!! >:(" and "OH POOR BABY THINKS HE'S BELOW US AND THAT'S WHY HE THINKS WE'RE DEGRADING OUTSELVES!!"

And that's where my problem stems from.

An actual dark romance enjoyer would be like "ough yes Daddy Astarion brainwash me and make me your brainless little fuckdolll sex slave and make me take your cummies every day." Not "YAAS BABE YOU AND ME ARE EQUALS AND PARTNERS IN CRIME UWU UWU UWU (ignores all the red flags and pretends they don't exist)!!!"

So like. You claim you enjoy dark romance, but you're constantly, desperately trying to erase the actual, in-game, canon darkness of it. Any hint of it you try to excuse away, or blame on the writers, or say is OOC and wrong.

You whine and complain about "fixers" and "moralizers" and "fandom police," but you yourself are policing the very romance you claim to enjoy by sanitizing it and making it into something more palatable instead of accepting how dark it actually is.

I've yet to see any AA stan have a Tav who's like a brainwashed sex slave, or in an abusive relationship with AA. All of them are just girlbosses who are co-rulers, which leads me to believe you don't enjoy "dark romance," but privilege. That's the thing that gets you off, privilege and power, particularly a priveleged and powerful man putting you on a pedestal and giving you whatever you want, taking care of you, letting you get away with bad things because he has the power to make all your issues go away. (Is this why so many AA stans are also Russian ... who said that)

And that's FINE. But just admit that? Admit that Astarion's story isn't what draws you to him, that you just enjoy the idea of a beautiful man who has power sharing it with you, and AA just happens to have those surface-level traits if you don't engage with or misinterpret the source material. Hell, I'm a villainmancer myself, who's writing a villain origin story for shits and giggles where a girl becomes a war criminal with the loving help of her edgelord goblin king.

But y'all don't do that. And that's the problemo, lads. You made up a story in your head that isn't in the game, you idolize that story, and get mad when people go "Wait, that's not in the game???"

[notyourgoodjew]

hi, may I ask what BDS means?

Hi! Of course you may :D

BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. It's a movement that promotes boycotting Israeli goods, universities, cultural institutions etc., divesting from companies that provide military supplies to Israel and calling for sanctions in hopes of pressuring the country to meet their demands. Which are to withdraw from the West Bank and remove the barrier, equality for the Arab-Palestinian citizens, right of return for Palestinian refugees etc.

Obligatory warning! I do NOT support the far right Israeli government and its policies (fuck Bibi and his cronies)! I do not see any joy in deaths (both Palestinian and Israeli), I want this war to end as soon as possible, I want peace in the region for everyone!

While their support from Palestinians is high, their tactics had little to no positive effect... in fact it has been quite the opposite, considering the movement has been active for almost two decades...

They have failed to pressure Israel economically, their effect on the economy being negligible, although they have been successful in convincing quite a few unions, and organizations to endorse their cause and pull support of Israel, but due to their boycott of Soda Stream, the company closed their factory in the West Bank, costing a lot of Palestinians their jobs...

So far they've only really been a useful tool for the Israeli right. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Some people see the movement as being very wishy washy I would say. Their definitions are broad to the point that everything Israeli can potentially fall under a boycott. Like hummus, which they allege "provides support for the Israeli military" (I assure you, hummus export is not a significant part of the Israeli economy).

And while they claim to be pro peace and advocating for a two state solution, they unconditionally support anything Palestinians do and rarely if ever condemn terrorism on their part. Which just endorses more violence instead of a dialogue towards peace. Also due to their focus on Israel they single it out as a uniquely oppressive regime (while ignoring other, often worse, atrocities around the world), which while I agree that Israel has done a lot of awful things, it is far from the worst human rights abuses and certainly not unique in its cruelty. Of course it is right to condemn Israel for its wrongdoings, but the movement has been very ineffective so far in the "let's put economic pressure" sense, only demonizing Israel and everything related to it.

They refuse to engage with anything Israeli, including art (and causing several artists to cancel their shows in Israel) and more importantly a part of the movement (specifically the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, or PACBI) has condemned an Israeli-Palestinial grassroots peace organization(!!!) Standing Together (which I highly encourage you check out) which has been doing actual work towards conversation between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of a Palestinian state and peace, which has condemned the occupation of the territories, which has been protesting despite the police refusing to allow them to (facing arrests and police brutality because of that) and so much more. BDS sees this as "normalization", a "distraction", and "whitewashing" (somehow?), which just reveals that a lot of people in the movement just want Israel gone, not caring about what would happen to its population.

From what I see and where I stand (barely, I'm a cane user, badum tss), BDS is ineffective in achieving its actual goals, however it has successfully divided college campuses and politics both in the US and Europe, inviting even more antisemitism, they are extreme and very narrow minded, accusing American Jews of dual loyalty. Their support of the Boston map being the prime example (which they later distanced themselves from, kinda).

But of course, look into this yourself to make your own opinions. I'm far from an expert and if I've been factually incorrect, please let me know.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Why would a battle fought 54 years ago provide key insight on what Hamas' strategy is today?

Asymmetric Warfare. It's a term that most people don't really understand. Before I did this, I was a United States Army Green Beret and I did a couple of combat tours in Iraq. And needless to say, asymmetric warfare was kind of our thing.

So, in practical terms, it is a type of war between belligerents whose relative military power, strategy or tactics differ significantly. And as a result of this, the weaker opponent will use unconventional tactics in order to maximize one's strengths against a stronger opponent's weaknesses or vulnerabilities.

For instance, an Insurgent force does not have the freedom of movement or firepower necessary to attack a forward operating base or a heavily armed column. So instead, they focus on softer logistical targets. They may choose to use a remotely activated roadside bomb instead of engaging in direct fire.

In many situations, the weaker adversary has fewer personnel and resources. And so, a significant part of their strategy is to preserve those limited resources and use the munitions that they have to the greatest possible advantage.

But here's the thing. To pull this off long term, you generally need a consistent means of supply combined with enough territory to hit, run and then hide. And Hamas doesn't have these things, at least not in sufficient supply to win against the IDF.

So, what's their strategy? What can Hamas leverage that will allow them to conduct offensive operations against a much stronger opponent and then avoid getting destroyed by the IDF's vastly superior military capability?

And the answer to that question as horrific, as it is, is civilian casualties, but probably not the ones you're thinking.

To understand this, let's discuss that example 54 years ago. The Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War virtually wiped out the Viet Kong. It was by every objective measure, a complete tactical failure. But strategically, it was invaluable. Because while achieving none of its military objectives, the Tet Offensive shattered Americans' perspective on the situation on the ground.

Opponents of the war were able to effectively use the offensive as a demonstration of the futility of American involvement. Hollywood, Academia and many in the mainstream media went to work convincing the American people that the war couldn't be won. Or perhaps just shouldn't even be fought. And in a representative government, when the electorate decides that a war is lost, it is, regardless of the situation on the ground.

Now, understand something. I'm not making an argument for the pros or cons of fighting the Vietnam War. I'm merely illustrating a point about modern Asymmetric Warfare. The lesson of the Tet Offensive is when fighting the West, you don't defeat their military. You win their electorate. And the way to do that is through the institutions which shape culture in the West, namely Hollywood, the Media and Academia.

If Hamas had decided to engage in a conventional military attack directed at only legitimate military targets, the IDF would have effectively destroyed their war fighting capability within days, and Hamas knows it. So, they engaged in asymmetric strategy.

Once we understand this, their actions on October 7th, as horrific as they are, begin to make more sense. Hamas didn't just target civilians because they were easy targets or because they despise Jews, although both of those things are true. The attack and the subsequent taking of hostages was actually designed to elicit a major response from the IDF.

But why? Well, maybe it's because to achieve their strategic objectives, Hamas needs civilian casualties. And more specifically they need Palestinian civilian casualties. And this is why.

The two entities in this conflict that lose the most from a greater peace agreement in the Middle East are Iran and the terrorist organizations they support. Upsetting this process requires much more than the random launching of rockets into Israel or strikes against legitimate military targets. The IDF is more than capable of handling such incursions, and the Israeli people have become all too accustomed to weathering such attacks without demanding an overwhelming military response. something more significant was required.

And October 7th created the kind of conditions that demanded a significant and sustained response. They needed something so obscene that Israel would have no choice but to hit back hard.

And this is where the second component of Hamas' strategy plays out. How to get Palestinian casualties. Any government actually worried about civilian casualties dedicates resources to evacuating their own civilians from hostile areas and attempts to separate the civilian population from legitimate military targets. So what conclusion should we come to when a governing body decides to do the exact opposite?

In this asymmetric environment, Hamas is not only incentivized to kill Israeli civilians, they're incentivized to maximize their own civilian casualties in the short run in order to elicit Western intervention on their behalf. As easy as it might be to explain Hamas's strategy away as nothing but mindless bloodlust, it is actually more sinister than that.

Hamas is responding to the incentive structures certain elements within the West have created. Hamas understand that the real Battlefield is not in Gaza but in the streets, University halls and newsrooms of the West. And so that is their target. And while a ceasefire seems like a humanitarian response to the tragic death of civilians, leaving Hamas intact as an operational and governing body will ultimately just reinforce that the perverse incentive structure remains the same.

And that while the West may claim to "not negotiate with terrorists," they always seem to force Israel to as soon as it becomes politically inconvenient for them.

So here's the hard reality. If you actually want to achieve anything resembling a lasting peace in this part of the world, you're never going to achieve it by creating conditions where terrorists are incentivized to hurt both the civilians of their enemies, and their own in order to achieve their political objectives.

==

This, of course, was completely obvious from the moment of the al-Ahli Hospital hoax, where Western outlets worked overtime to spread Hamas propaganda without regard for truth, all the way through to the present-day "protests" which are anything but organic or grass-roots.

[zedecksiew]

WHO GETS TO BE A PERSON?

The opening of my soon-to-be-real Cairn RPG adventure, The Tide Returning, is a crime scene.

The king of Zum and his sceptre has gone missing in the night. Hired to find him, you are allowed a tour of the royal bedchambers, to find clues to where he's gone.

Design objectives for this opening:

Give players an idea of who and where their quarry is. Who did the king prefer spending time with? Why did he write a letter to the governor of a nearby town? Why was he swimming the span of the canal?

Allude to the faction politics of the adventure. These are mainly embodied in the characters present in the intro, and their relationships with each other. What is the culture of Zum like? How do they treat the indigenous witch-folk culture? Do the witch-folk resist? Do the witch-folk disagree on how to resist?

Present complex setting detail in an evocative, gameable way. The fact that the Zum-folk practice slavery, and how that slavery functions, isn't just set dressing, and shouldn't be conveyed via lore dump. Players should be engaged, alarmed, invested.

+

Particular to culture of Zum is canny-ware: human servants permanently bonded to heirloom objects or furnishings.

This is what the adventure text says about it:

CANNY-WARE To the priests of Bowed God Market bring 500gp, a thrall you own, and the inanimate object you wish to make canny. There will be one night of fearful rites. In the morning: your thrall is permanently joined to this object—if physically separated from it, they are wracked with agony; harm done to it transfers to their flesh, instead. Henceforth your thrall is no longer a person. They are called by the canny object’s name. Their own is expunged from all record. War galleys and weapons are never made canny. The priests insist murder is the province of actual people, not mere things.

+

The idea that things have their own spirit is pretty common, ya? You beg your computer not to crash; you plead to your car to go just one more kilometre on an empty tank.

Plus: the baseline animism of Southeast Asia.

Plus: the fantasy trope of the sassy talking sword, the whispering One Ring.

So: if things have spirits and personalities, worthy of respect and consideration; if we already treat our possessions as characters in their own right---

Could the things we own be people?

Why not?

Considering we own animals which we believe have rich interior lives. Considering our history of owning actual humans; our ongoing objectification of whole genders; our industrial extraction and toolification of whole classes, cultures.

+

In Zum a magical self-propelled cart is not powered by magitek nor combustion engine. It is pulled by a person whose personhood has been erased.

Canny-ware expands on an idea I used in (of all places) a personal essay on language and being a bilingual writer from the third world:

A prisoner of war is given to the sultan---"At the palace she was called Dagger. Because that was her function: to bear the royal dagger." Because the magic dagger is, in her cultural context, considered more worthy of personhood than she is.

+

Who gets to be a person?

What degrees of personhood are they allowed? How are these various degrees of personhood changed, or challenged?

I've fixated on this question for most of the time I've been thinking about and making art.

A perennial, perhaps now-overplayed question in science fiction: "OMG are robots / AI human???" "Do you lose your humanity the more cyborg you are???!!!" etc.

I like the question better in fantasy, though.

Asking whether a robot is a person gives the question a "Is this where we are headed?" speculative frame. Asking whether an ancient tree is a person lends the question a mythic "Maybe this has always been an issue?" air.

Its proper register, I think! Contained within the question is---everything, honestly? Everything in history, everything happening now. Colonialism, imperialism. Race, sex, gender, class. The webs of relation / power / violence in all these subjects.

+

Anyway, back to the intro for The Tide Returning.

The royal chambers are full of precious heirloom canny-ware. They include:

The front doors---a pair who can tell you who came in and out of the rooms that night. The chamberpot---a blind fogy who's kept the king's hygiene and confidence since boyhood. The pillow---a jealous girl who was the king's lover, before he started favouring the sceptre instead. The writing desk---a prim woman who scoffs at indigenous traditions. She is indigenous, herself, but has grown accustomed to present luxuries.

The peacock fan---an agent working with local rebels, trying to maintain her cover. The silk parasol---who bristles at their bondage, the only one who will tell you their own name (Kanan) and that of the missing sceptre (Shiri).

+

Essentially: looking through the king's room is a series of interviews.

Less CSI, more Murder On The Orient Express. Clues aren't facts passively waiting to be discovered, but NPCs with personalities you have to roleplay with.

Having play-tested this introduction with my home group I am pleased to say it is a fun time, and works as intended!

My players came away with the facts they needed; a better idea of what to expect in the hexcrawl ahead; and a deeper understanding of the stakes.

Playtest highlight:

"Wait wait, how does this canny-ware thing work, actually? Is it Beauty And The Beast? Because if it's like Beauty And The Beast, then the chamberpot---" (cue horrified faces)

+++

( Image sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canopy_Bed_of_the_King_at_the_Chakraphat_Phiman_Hall.jpg https://yayahkiki.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/cari-keris-berdiri-berani-harga-tinggi/ https://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/objects/1725 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:China;_a_woman_carrying_buckets_of_night-soil._Wellcome_L0056427.jpg https://www.theatreco.com/galleries/beauty-and-the-beast/ )

[sunnysam-my]

Dark Academia is a subculture and it isn't problematic, just misunderstood.

I am so tired of people that aren't a part of this community shitting on dark academia literally any time it gains popularity again, claiming that it's pretentious, elitist and racist. It's not problematic, at least not in a way most people criticise it for.

What all of those people don't seems to understand is that there's the dark academia aesthetic and there is the dark academia the subculture. Even when they do understand they still put people who are only interested in the fashion and overall vibe together with people who are dark academia.

Why is dark academia a subculture?

First let's start with what even subculture is?

It's a cultural group within a larger culture, often sharing a collection of values, beliefs, rituals and traditions. Despite what many believes, it doesn't have to have any connection to music, like Star Trek and Star Wars fans, but there's no need for having a shared fandom at all, like the gays, bikers and youth.

Participation in the dark academia subculture is not limited to following a specific set of fashion. It suggest preferred activities, hobbies, philosophies and lifestyles. The focus is on reading and expanding one’s horizons, on becaming the best version of oneself no matter the cost, especially by engaging in classical literature, history, foreign languages, mythology, art and philosophy. On top of that DA is actually connected to certain music (classical and neoclassical) and fandoms.

The (incorrect) criticisms:

1. One of the more common criticisms of dark academia is that of its superficiality and pretentiousness – that it is more a fetishisation of intellectual life than real intellectual life. "Instead of being a reading society, it's a Dead Poets Society cosplay." This is just simply untrue. Yes, there are people who are purely here for the aesthetic and vibes, but they aren't part of the subculture. People who are genuinely part of this community do read all those books, write poetry, journal e.t.c regularly and try to be well educated.

2. The money issue. Now this is where it gets funny. Dark academia is often called classist and racist because of it's "idealised vision of the academic lifestyle in which the money is simply there". Obviously in places where higher education is strictly financially driven studying is a bitch. Nowadays there are even a lot of doctors who are homeless, especially in US. But DA is mainly a European thing, and in a lot of EU countries studying isn't that expensive, it's not cheap either (books costs a lot and not working doesn't help), but you don't need to pay for a good education, you need to study hard and compete with others to get good education.

This however is not a dark academia problem. It's a harsh reality. One that we need to fight with. Getting higher education shouldn't make you get into a debt. It shouldn't make you sacrifice social life for studying all your life only to end on the streets.

3. "Eurocentric obsession". This is so dumb I don't even know to say. How can you possibly call people, mostly from Europe, problematic for being fascinated by Europe's history, it's past culture, Greek mythology, mostly European philosophers (but American too), Latin that is still fucking taught at many schools here, etc. All of things are taught in schools here. There is nothing wrong with you being obsessed with Asian royalty and making it part of your personality, but God forbid, you, a white person, are obsessed with the best parts of your history and culture 🙄.

4. Another criticism of dark academia is that it encourages unhealthy behaviour, both physically (caffeine overconsumption, smoking, drugs) and mentally (perfectionist, constant competition). The pursuit of perfection comes at a price. The entire idea of DA is to study as hard as possible so you can reach enlighten. It's workaholism, except it's school, not work. Now this is why I think dark academia isn't problematic in a way people think, but is misunderstood.

A melancholic comforting dream

It's easy to understand why people think DA is unhealthy or fake. Nights spent studying, writing essays for hours on end, drowning in books and writing excessive notes. For many this sounds like a nightmare, but dark academia romanticise it. It see it as the true joy of university life. At the same time there's taking joy in reflecting on what is irretrievably lost, pessimistic and melancholic.

In reality most people in this community are overworked neurodivergent, usually twice exceptional, youth who struggles mentally. So many people are twice exceptional and it's very obvious. The hyperfixetions, the love for linguistics and humanities, the hate of math.

For many Dark Academia is a coping method.

Staples of dark academia fiction explore intellectualism, classic literature and self-discovery, but also the struggle of fighting for your identity, the way humans are shaped by their trauma, the way they destroy themselves to be better. The word "dark" in Dark Academia is primarily about those dark sides of the human nature, not just the dark colours of the DA aesthetic.

If you think that Dead Poets Society romanticised suicide or Kill Your Darlings academicly motivated drug use then you're the crazy one here. People loved those movies, because of how relatable they were, even the suffering.

Studying is a bitch. If you make it fun then you are less depressed about the fact that you don't have the choice to not study all night. It's not just nostalgia for what you haven't experienced, but what you have to endure all your youth. Some people are forced to study to be the very best and sacrifice their (social) lives, because the system is so broken, but if you can make it into your own, comforting, time - it's better. Sure, the movies and books have lots of harmful copying mechanism, but irl (or in this case online) this community encourages healthy methods like reading, making art, journaling, acting etc.

I do think there's a lot of to talk about when it comes to, for example, sexism, and I do agree DA needs more diversity than just white cis man, but like I said, it's not problematic in a way most people criticise it for.

[autistichalsin]

A fic writer's guide to leaving comments

I'm sure you've seen posts from fic writers expressing dismay at the death of feedback culture, and especially lamenting the phenomenon of people making private Discord servers to share fic recs, so that instead of having a chance to stumble on nice comments in the wild on Tumblr, Twitter, etc, fic writers are increasingly less likely to see good comments left about their work.

I also see the comments on those same posts flooded with people with concerns about commenting, so I am writing this as a guide for those new or unsure.

Firstly: some of you are probably asking, "why do fanfic writers need feedback at all? Shouldn't they be writing just for themselves?"

Well... No. Not really. People can and should create things for themself, yes, but that doesn't mean "continue to post content when no one seems to be engaging." Imagine cooking for someone who eats in utter silence and never says a single word about the meal. Imagine putting on a concert and receiving not a single applause, a cheer, nothing at all. It sounds utterly horrifying, doesn't it? Maybe even humiliating?

Writing for oneself means that positive reviews shouldn't be the sole factor in deciding whether to write/post/continue a story, not that a writer should feel obligated to write thousands of words for a story no one really reacts to in any way, especially when the writer sees creators of similar content (edits, fanarts, fanvids, fansongs, etc) get praised effusively for their work without this expectation being placed on them. It is very rare that artists are told they should draw for themselves the way fic writers are.

Further, and this may be a hot take, but I actually don't think it's inherently wrong to make positive reviews the main or even sole reason for writing or making art to begin with. People like being praised for things they do well. It's one of the most basic parts of human psychology. Human beings want to be praised, encouraged, validated, and celebrated sometimes; why do you think we celebrate birthdays? It's not egotistical. It might, perhaps, be setting oneself up for disappointment, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it, anyway.

Basically, all that to say: it's nice to tip your Uber drivers and baristas. It's nice to thank/compliment your spouse when they make you dinner. And it's nice to thank fan artists and fanfic writers when they make arts/fics that you enjoy.

Moving on: I also know some of you have some specific things you worry or are confused about, and those things might be stopping you from leaving feedback. So here is an FAQ of sorts:

Q: What if the story has a lot of chapters/the author has written many stories? Won't it be weird to go and leave so many comments on them?

A: You definitely can review only the latest chapter/fic and future installments if you so choose, but for the record, fanfics aren't like Instagram/Facebook; mass-commenting and kudosing old stories and chapters isn't seen as stalkerish. It's seen as a sign you're enjoying the content we made. Think of it this way: if a new Star Wars came out, and you were new to Star Wars, it would only make sense for you to go and watch (and post about) the previous movies, right?

Q: What if I don't know what to say?

A: That's perfectly okay! I have a guide at the bottom of this post if you need some ideas. But honestly, writers would rather a single ♥️ than nothing at all, so if you really can't think of anything, that's a good last resort.

Q: I'm afraid of saying the wrong thing and upsetting the writer.

A: There is almost no chance that you will say the wrong thing, unless you are giving unasked-for criticism (see below).

Q: What if I don't like the fic? Should I still comment?

A: No, it's definitely better to silently move on when you didn't enjoy it at all.

Note that while in the past, giving criticism was common practice, this has generally become less of something authors enjoy over time (perhaps tied in with the general lack of feedback; getting fewer comments in general can make it far more frustrating to get critical ones). If you are close to the writer, or if the criticism is just a SPAG issue, you can try asking the writer if they'd like to hear it, but otherwise, leave it be unless the author has indicated somewhere they're open to it. But please be nice. Anything you wouldn't say to an artist, don't do to a writer, please.

Q: In the past, I commented and the writer got mad at me.

A: If you weren't leaving unasked-for criticism, then likely the problem was that particular author. Don't let it deter you from commenting on others. Every group of people has assholes, including writers.

Q: I saw an author who requested no comments on their fic/turned off comments on their fic.

A: Not every writer ultimately DOES want comments, though the majority do. Likely that person was having anxiety, or had recently been harassed/received rude comments and didn't want to bother with it.

Q: An author limited comments to registered users only.

A: See above; likely they did this either as a harassment mitigation member or to prevent minors from reading their fics, especially if it was an NSFW work.

Q: I saw a note that a writer had "enabled comment moderation" on their story. Does that mean they don't want me to comment?

A: Not at all! It means they likely have been harassed/received rude comments, or have reason to fear they will (I.E. have recently posted a story dealing controversial themes, or have received such comments on other sites), and are activating a setting where you can comment, but they need to manually approve the comment before it shows up, which will prevent nasty comments from being read. In these cases, a nice comment might actually mean even more to them, because it shows they have support- so by all means, show them some extra love!

Q: Are there any cases where I shouldn't comment?

A: Yes, but these are mostly individual cases, not a hard rule. In addition to the circumstances listed above (author preference or leaving a negative comment), please do not comment if you are a minor and the fic is rated higher than teen (you shouldn't be reading these to begin with, but if you are, please don't make it obvious you did so), or conversely, if you write higher-than-teen-rated fics and the fic is written by a minor. Also, if the author has blocked you on other platforms, do not comment, as this is block evasion.

Q: Is it okay to comment just to ask for an update/to prompt another fic?

A: It depends largely on context, tone, etc. "I hope this updates soon" is 100% fine. Guilt trippy messages, like "it's been two years, I know you have been going through a lot but you have an obligation to your readers" are NEVER okay. Similarly, with prompts, saying "I hope you explore (thing) one day" is fine, especially if you know the author, but if your first comment to them ever is requesting a fic for a completely different scenario, ship, etc than they wrote, with little or nothing about the actual fic you're replying to, it will come across as rude.

Q: Is it okay to ask an author for permission to translate the fic into another language or make another derivative work?

A: Absolutely, but not every author will want this to be done, and you need to be prepared to respect their no if they give one. Think of it like asking a restaurant for one of their recipes. Some will happily give it out, others consider it a personal/guarded secret.

That said, do not even dare ask about feeding the work to an AI. Fanfic writers DO NOT want AI touching their work. Same for artists. Yes, this includes trying to make an ending for an abandoned fic. Do not do it.

Q: The author of this fic has held their story "hostage" by refusing to update until they get a certain number of reviews. What should I do?

A: This is a hard one. Of course, no one owes an author reviews, and this sort of thing is considered cringey, and endlessly mocked, for a reason. However, please try to do some perspective-taking and practicing empathy here. Authors are having to put out PSAs on this site and others just to try and get people to engage with their content. Imagine being a musician, getting on stage, performing song after song, and being met with silence, or maybe a single courtesy golf clap here or there. You'd start to doubt yourself, wouldn't you? You might feel inclined to stop playing unless you start getting an indication people actually care about your music, because performing to utter silence is absolutely humiliating. The manner of doing so is all wrong in this case, but try to show a bit of compassion, and imagine how awful, how utterly crushed the author must have been to do this in the first place.

It is definitely your right to not engage with the fic/author anymore, especially if you had been reviewing before the fic got taken 'hostage' and felt the author wasn't grateful for your comments. But if you wanted to be especially kind, you could take some time to try and lift the author up instead, and show them that even if others are not leaving comments, the fic ultimately does mean something to you. It just might be enough for the author to rethink their position.

Q: Why isn't a kudos enough?

A: It's not that a kudos isn't enough, per se: we all enjoy getting likes. But to continue my metaphor above, well... when you perform music, a cheer does feel very different than a courtesy golf clap, you know? You appreciate the golf claps, they are very kind and always welcome, but cheers, "YEAH!"s, and such are what you really live for. And a standing ovation? That could literally change your entire opinion on your art.

Q: I want to leave a comment, but I'm really scared/don't know how/don't know what to say.

A: That's totally okay. Below, I give some ideas of what to say, but keep in mind that if you really don't know what to say, emoji are totally fine! A ♥️ is still really great and will make us smile. Put some keysmashes! Put in just a ton of exclamation points and nothing else! "AHHH OMG!" Those are all perfectly fine!

BUT, if you want to leave something a little more in-depth, here are some great places to start! Trust me, fanfic writers LOVE all of these and would be delighted to get these comments.

ASK QUESTIONS! "Does this mean x?" or "I'm curious, when x said y, is that a sign that z is at play?"

Tell us how you felt while reading the story/chapter. If we made you cry in a particularly sad scene, PLEASE TELL US FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! WE LOVE THAT!

If you are in a Discord or other space that's talking about the story, tell us what you/your mutuals/your friends are saying about it. This is a great idea for if you don't know what to say! Even just a "we never shut up about this fic in the Discord" is wonderful to hear.

Tell us what drew you in to the fic (did you like the summary? Was it recced somewhere?) and what made you stay.

Say something you found unique/intriguing about the fic. Maybe you liked the characterization, or the author did a really good job of setting the scene. Let them know!

Make a personal connection to the text, especially if the author wrote something that felt very real to your lived experience.

YELL IN ALL CAPS THAT YOU WANT TO HURT THE VILLAIN OR HUG THE SUFFERING WOOBIE OR SMACK THE MAIN PAIRING FOR BEING OBLIVIOUS ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS!

If this story has changed something for you, tell us. If it changed how you see a character, made you ship a ship you never thought of before, changed how you see canon, opened your eyes to a societal issue, gave you a line you think about a lot- please tell us!

Indulgently play along with our cliffhangers. Pretend you don't know that the character will be fine. Pretend that we would actually do it and you're SO SCARED RN for this character.

Wanna know a secret? Wanna know a writer's catnip? Want to know an instant way to make a writer print out your comment for motivation to read later? Quote/paraphrase/reference a bit of text that you loved and tell us your exact thoughts and emotions on it, why you loved it, etc. Quote half the damn chapter back at us in the comments and we will probably propose marriage to you on the spot tbh.

Remember, if you truly can't think of anything to say, just a single emoji still does wonders!!

Hope this guide helps! Happy commenting!

[imfromthemiddlekingdom]

Felony saying that everyone in the universe can access the force if they tried hard enough makes me want to deck him in his fugly face

He’s ruining all established canon in real time. Speed running the absolute destruction of continuity of the SW universe and people are still rooting for him and his blorbo self inserts like there’s no tomorrow. Literally the whole reason I no longer engage in Ashoka content is because he massacred my girl and made her so one dimensional that my Mary Sue self insert fanfics OCs I wrote when I was 14 looks well developed compared to the absolute bland “girlboss kick ass take names” personality Ashoka has right now.

There were so many opportunities for him to explore the absolute potential of angst and conflict within Ashoka in this new series, to give her character a believable story of grief loss and growth yet he threw it all away because he wanted his OC to be the specialist girl that ever lived. This series could’ve been used to explore Ashokas conflicting feelings regarding the Anakin that taught her and was a mentor to her whilst trying to connect it to the monster that killed her family and hunted her culture into almost extinction and tried to kill her, a person he confessed to love as a sister, on Malachor. It could’ve been a good send off to a great character, to have her face that the Skyguy she put on a pedestal in her mind was in actuality the worst sort of scum and have her try to come to terms that just because she can forgive him for being the genocidal maniac he was and still hold love in her heart for who he used to be and also understand why the Jedi, her family, wasn’t the reason for their own downfall.

But alas. We got another series of “the Jedi caused their own downfall!!! Anakin did nothing wrong ever and him killing all my family and everyone I’ve ever known is so not his fault!!! It’s definitely the fault of the unbending stuck in the past council!!!”. Instead of a series that could’ve made Ashoka’s “departure” (literally never going to happen with felony at the helm, he’s going to find a way to make her immortal and then show up 200 years in the future to be the protagonist of another light v dark fight since she’s his special SI) from the series tie in nicely thematically and canonically with every other Star Wars media we have, he decided that the best way to have this series go down is 1) everyone is force sensitive if they tried hard enough ig and 2) the Jedi were bad!!! Their protocols don’t work! They were mean to my little meow meow Anakin Skywalker the greatest Jedi of all times™️ therefore he got to kill them all!!!!

Got a bit off topic but I’m still so mad that he had this chance to make Ashoka truly experience growth like the first 5 seasons of TCW yet he decided maintaining the badass rebel without a cause aesthetics for her was more important then good story telling.

Honestly though, my main problem with this series is that he decided that apparently everyone in the universe can be force sensitive if they “just tried hard enough”. Like your Midichlorian Count no longer matters since even if you were Force-Null you can still be special!!!!

This takes away any and all urgency in the Jedi Fallen Order games. It makes Cals journey absolutely redundant. It throws away all the tragedy contained in having inquisitors being force sensitive kids kidnapped from their parents and tortured till they give into the dark side. If all beings are able to use the force in his universe then there are no consequences to the inquisitors not finding the Holocron that holds the names to all force sensitive children in the universe. There would be no need to them to chase Cal and the Mantis Crew throughout the universe to obtain what they have. They could’ve just went down to any random level in Coruscant and take homeless Force-Null kids and train them.

Even better! It makes the entirety of the KOTOR games redundant!!!! Oh and I guess the hidden path is also redundant since everyone can be force sensitive and no one truly needs more saving from the empire over others :/ totally not like these kids that were saved by the path would’ve been taken and tortured into inquisitors, definitely not since EVERYONE is force sensitive nowadays or is it just the ones Ashoka trains herself because she’s the “living embodiment of the daughter uwu she’s so special and unique look how well she can train a non force sensitive to be force sensitive!!!”

Everyone in the Star Wars universe has Midichlorian’s in their blood. That is a fact. It is also an established fact that the amount each person has is different and is not determined nor dependent on lineage. Force-Nulls typically range in the 1000-3000 count and you need 7000 to be force sensitive and higher to be accepted into the order. (The order isn’t the end all be all of force cultures, Rouge One shows that Jedha’s force culture isn’t restricted to only force sensitives as the Guardian’s were never specified to be only a religious order of force sensitives. And high canon doesn’t depict many other force cultures but we know that there are many force cultures in the universe that co-exist with the Jedi with which the Jedi weren’t in opposition towards; literally not even the witches of Dathomir were oppositions anywhere outside of the battle fields.) You don’t need to be force sensitive to be part of a force culture (Jedha literally has pilgrims who come far and wide to make a pilgrimage to the holy site and not all of them were force sensitive), Sabine could’ve very easily been taught the tenets of the Jedi without retconning her to be force sensitive or making everyone in the universe force sensitive.

No where in either the EU or High Canon did anyone ever say that you have to be force sensitive to be a badass or to make a difference. Hera did not hold the title of the best pilot in the universe just for some rat of a man to come and say that Anakin was the best because *muh force sensitivity!!!!* Some of the most heroic and most influential (good or bad) people in the franchise are Force-Null! And that’s great! It means that the force doesn’t make anyone better than anyone else! It’s a quirk of the universe! To retcon that everyone can and is force sensitive if they tried hard enough is literally cheapening everything the franchise stands for. Andor did not literally give us an entire story about how Force-Nulls in the Galaxy makes just as much of a difference as force sensitives for felony to come out and say that “you know what??? Midichlorian’s are a scam! You get a force sensitivity! You get a force sensitivity! Everyone gets a force sensitivity!!!!”

Sabine was great as she was in rebels, why cheapen it with “oh she’s actually force sensitive all this time!!!” When we could’ve stuck with badass Force-Null Mandalorian can kick your ass five ways to Sunday with her paint bombs and blasters you force wielding asshole!!! Like why even do that felony. Do you want people to hate her??? Nvm ofc you do, you need Ashoka to be the best in every way possible even if it means ruining every other beloved character in this franchise👍

[atopvisenyashill]

Was Jon/Ygritte nonconsensual?

idk if you’re the right blog to ask but, I see a lot of people hate Jon/Ygritte and specifically Ygritte for “raping” Jon and these ideas are in most circles that involve another ship (Jon/Sana (tho not that I’ve seen you say it, I don’t think) and Jon/Dany mostly) but I don’t get why it’s popular opinion at all?

if there was any lack of consent on anyone’s part it was Ygritte bc Jon lied and slept with her to keep up appearances of being fully with the Free Folk. But a lot of these Ygritte haters claim that bc she’s older and tells everyone they’re fuckin before if actually happens that that’s not consensual. 

like I said idk if you’re the right person to ask maybe if you’ve come across it before you can lead me in the right direction unfortunately people only seem to talk about it negatively to prop their own Jon ship which is not a legit answer imo, comparing ships instead of clarifying the situation

i would say i'm the right person to ask in that i have complex feeling towards this ship & ygritte as a character. but if what you're looking for is a clear "yeah she's a nasty rapist and i spit on her whole character" (which is reductive & hypocritcal of anyone to say especially with main characters like tyrion, victarian, and theon) or "no she's a perfect uwu baby and jon snow is completely at fault for leading her on" (also incredibly reductive and completely ignores the context in which he's making these decisions) than no, i'm not what you're looking for. i do think she takes advantage of jon’s feelings to a degree i feel is sexually exploitative yes, but i would frame her more as like, the dark gray version of gendry (someone lowborn and baseborn, with a romantic story with someone who has immense privilege over him yet is much more naive and younger than him), on par with other characters that Are bad but also not beyond the point of redemption, like theon, dontos, sandor, than a female khal drogo. and a lot of my feelings on that stance is because like you say, you can't ignore that jon is from a people who are at war with ygritte's, that jon is part of a group that is specifically gung ho over oppressing the wildlings, and that jon specifically is engaging as essentially a deep undercover spy. that element is not present in any of the other dubcon romantic dynamics we have in this series and I think that gets glossed over a lot when discussing whether this relationship is toxic or not. like, it is toxic but it's toxic for a lot of reasons that can't be easily summed up because you can't divorce either jon or ygritte from the politics they are currently involving themselves in. you didn't just fall out of a coconut tree, etc.

when it comes to the undercover, lying, honeypotting, whatever, thing, that's where things get complicated. there's two prongs to this - what ygritte is willing to acknowledge out loud and what ygritte actually knows. it seems very clear to me that ygritte is fully aware that jon has not truly broken from the night's watch, that he isn't pulling a mance 2.0, that he's concealing things from her and the other wildlings because he is planning to betray them. she just doesn't want to believe it - she basically calls him out on this when they're flirting during the "is that a castle" scene. and of course, there is a context here that imo people overlook which is to say - jon is a member of the martial force that believes their sole purpose is to keep wildlings from crossing the wall, purely because they are an out group culturally. ygritte is a soldier in an invading army that has banded together because they think it’s invade or die. mance - and several others - are already suspicious of jon. if they didn’t fuck soon, jon was going to be killed and not by ygritte. i think similar to sandor stopping sansa from killing joffrey, ygritte feels this is a stupid thing to die over, and wants him to live to fight another day. is it her place to do this? well, she thinks it is even though jon doesn't think so, because she's vouched for him to mance and taken him on as her own "responsibility" so if he fucks something up, she has to face some level of consequence.

i think in general, ygritte is fascinated and challenged by jon snow, and genuinely falls in love with him while they're together. she's lying to herself about jon's feelings because she's hoping that if she gives him a reason enough to stay, he'll stay. i think this is really clear in the cave scene, where she asks him to stay in the cave and get lost together - she knows his loyalties are pulling him away from her, and she wants to deal with the problem by promising him a future with her, a happy future, where he doesn't have to break his vows any further because they aren't involved in the conflict anymore. so when it comes to “it’s dubcon because jon is lying” the thing is that ygritte is very aware jon is lying to her face; unlike drogo, who just does not see dany as a person with thoughts, unlike arya who is too young to realize the class differences between herself and gendry, and unlike tyrion who swallows sansa’s lies hook line and sinker because he genuinely believes she’s a sweet idiot, ygritte knows jon is playing her, she just thinks she can convince him that his life will be better, easier, more fulfilling if he leaves the night’s watch and stays with her. i guess this depends on your opinion of honey potting - if ygritte knows he’s lying, and jon knows ygritte knows he’s lying, does that make it better or worse? if ygritte knows jon empathizes with the wildlings, but also wants to go home, and jon knows if he doesn’t betray his vows well enough he’s getting shanked, and they have sex, does that make it better or worse? if ygritte knows jon is uncomfortable having sex, but knows if he doesn’t have sex mance will have him killed, knows he is interested in her sexually, knows he is lying to her, and puts him in a position that both protects him and backs him into a corner, and doesn’t understand how cornered jon really feels bc he isn’t telling her, and also she just does not have the framework to understand his hang ups and thinks his hang ups are stupid and don't matter, does that make it better or worse? i think this is really obviously meant to be incredibly dubious consensually, bordering on sex crime territory

this is a woman who has lived her entire life in that grey area - she’s got an even worse idea of what consent looks like than most characters, she has lived a life that is physically and mentally much more strenuous than nearly any other character bc of the extreme climate and lack of freedom of movement than even most smallfolk have. the rest of westeros can be truly ugly when dealing with the wildlings in the vale and wildlings in the north - they don’t have the option of being Westerosi the way everyone else born on that continent is allowed. osha doesn’t even do anything wrong but bc she exists as a wildling south of the wall her entire EXISTENCE is illegal. “but they rape and kidnap-“ yeah so do the ironborn but because they were born on the right side of the wall, they’re allowed freedom of movement. what is the difference between ygritte’s view of life and theon’s, at the end of the day?

if u want my opinion here, i think people just don’t like engaging with ygritte because of this complexity. she is right to be angry and hateful, and she’s even right in who she’s directing it at, but you can’t ignore the fact that her very one sided view of morality has her making a lot of decisions on jon’s behalf that he wouldn’t make if he had a choice. because she is just another cog in the machine, she has no way of making any sort of meaningful change; she’s just another nameless soldier that dies in battle. in a way, she’s exactly like the broken men septon maribald mentions. these broken men are not good people, but they are victims as much as they are perpetrators. and THAT, the idea that her relationship with jon can exist in this complex gray space where two gears in the wheel can meet, find commonalities, and it doesn’t matter because their lives don’t matter, they are just two people in a conflict that’s been going on for a long time, and they can’t fix it, and they can’t escape, so they hurt each other again and again until it finally kills them both - i think the senselessness of it all makes both fans and antis of her uncomfortable. she’s not easily consumable, so she has to be either the snarky fiery great love or the evil pedo rapist (once again madonna whore complex coming for us all) and i just don’t think she, the wildlings, or this entire series are meant to be engaged with on that level.