#but then like i just see this discourse like

[genericpuff]

every now and then i get folks asking me "puff do you have any opinions on hazbin hotel"

and i know why they're asking because if there's any fandom that puts LO to shame, it's hazbin hotel / helluva boss and surely i must have some Very Strong Opinions(tm) about the show

but i seriously have never watched a single episode of that show and despite all the controversy and drama i've seen come from the discussion of both the show and its creator, the only thing that really bugs me out of the blue when i'm reminded HH exists are those exclusive playbills that people pre-ordered months ago and still haven't arrived

that is it, that is literally the extent of my engagement with the HH fandom, there will be no further questions about what i think regarding HH because i literally have no idea, they are best asked to whoever comes close to being the generic-puff equivalent of the HH fandom

[nqueso-emergency]

Well I won't talk about today's discourse, but about Tommy. I think that those who don't like Tommy (besides projecting their own desires and visions onto the characters and having some level of homophobia) can't see beyond the typecasting of characters that LFJr is usually cast to play. The roles he's played before (and which Tommy fit into before Bobby Begins) are the big white guy who is usually the antagonist, or he's very closed off, or when in romance stories (like in HIMYM) he's the boyfriend before the chosen one, but never The One. He's almost perfect, very standard, but not the right one, so the kind of character that is expected to be explained only on the surface so that the viewer with little information about the character is able to read him through the stereotype that he is collectively associated with.

So that's one of the things I find interesting about Tommy's return to the show, how Tim saw him in action, and after Bobby Begins realized that LFJr had chemistry with the rest of the group (Chim, Hen, Bobby) and since he still had little information about him, he could be a character to explore, doing something different, allowing him to break the stereotypes that come along with the image of what Tommy usually represents (and this is done even in the episodes 7x4 and 7x5 expressed in Eddie's reaction "Tommy is gay?")

And more interesting is how LFJr embraced this, bringing, in the little screen time he had, several micro expressions and feelings that can give Tommy what Tommy was originally not meant to have: layers, a backstory, a point of connection with the audience. If he has more time, it will be good for him to be able to deepen this and if Tim continues with the project he seems to have started last season, he can offer a good story not only for Buck, but he can also show a good case of how to humanize a secondary character, making the character relatable and not just a stereotype in any way.  Tim seems to have liked this possibility by the way he talked about LFJr and Tommy in s7.

Yes, anon! I agree!

[centrally-unplanned]

Academic History YouTuber Premodernist released video recently on "State Flag" discourse, and flag discourse more wildly, that I thought was pretty good! I agreed with 50% of it. For those who don't know, there is a longstanding movement in the vexillology community to push for more simplified flag designs, and they hate the state flags of the US as their antithesis; a movement that catapulted into the internet mainstream when YouTuber CGPGrey released a video riffing on that debate and grading all the state flag designs.

That video is great by the way (it's hilarious, CGP Grey is just very talented as a performer), and the biggest thing Premodernist is wrong about is that the state flags do suck. But what he gets right is that the so-called "principles" briefly referred to in the video are themselves pretty weak; some are fine but others do not hold up to much scrutiny. The state flags largely suck for the boring reason that they just suck; they are shitty designs and often repeat each other in a domain where "standing out" is the point. Like what the fuck Montana:

This is something a 5th grader whips up in PowerPoint for a class presentation. Helvetica Bold?? "Mandated by law in 1985" yeah I didn't need Wikipedia tell me this decision dates to the 80's.

But that is boring and subjective, right? You can't just say they suck. So you had to make a theory about it - and I won't go into too much detail but it generally boils down to:

Make it simple, "something a child could draw"

Make it "distinct at a distance", since it is a flag you are supposed to see it at a distance

Three colors or fewer

No words on flags

Which I think you can get the philosophy for. These principles, which CGP Grey outlines, actually come from the work of Ted Kaye, who is a big figure in the aforementioned flag reform movement and the focus of most of the video. As part of the original CGP Grey video I just rolled with that, but I did remember him showing Utah's newly designed flag at the end which embodied these principles, and uh:

This is kind of mid? Like it doesn't suck, but it looks like a corporate redesign of a hockey team logo or something. A bit of a red flag (hah) if your front-and-center case is weak.

Anyway this is what Premodernist digs into in the video. The stuff I agreed with the most are the parts where he just ???? at some of these rules. "No finicky bits", a "child must draw it", "distinct at a distance"? None of these actually track for say this one:

A child drawing the US flag does not draw 50 stars and 13 stripes unless they are a budding librarian; you absolutely cannot tell if this flag has 50 stars on it from a distance, and that level of detail is clearly some kind of finicky. Of course your response is "okay sure but still, I can tell what the flag is from a distance, I can't count the 50 stars but I get the gist". But that is true for almost all flags!

It's a fern and a peace pipe and a brown thing and the word "Oklahoma" below it, you absolutely, 100%, will be able to tell what this flag is at a distance. You don't need to count the leaves to get the general shape, and when you think about it, it is actually kind of silly anyone would claim otherwise. There just isn't any need to appreciate the tiny details on a flag to understand whose flag it is. (the only valid critique here is that everything should be bigger - too much dead space)

Not to mention the "see from a distance" thing even being a metric. That isn't how you encounter flags most often today? Maybe in the 19th century on a battlefield that was (and even then you had battle standards), but it isn't now. You see it in textbooks, on your computer screen, as an icon for a football game team, right next to you in a government office. Why privilege distance? You just made that up as a value. 99% of "flag consumption" is not seeing it at a distance.

The "only use ~3 colors thing" is the funniest, you can just argue this with...no? No you don't. You don't. What? No. You can...you can just use more colors? Here is an example from the "manual" Ted Kaye wrote on the subject:

And the 5 bands on the chinese flag are fine! They are not "hard to look at" or whatever. Also, I am screenshotting a tiny corner of a youtube video, this image is like 240p, and I can tell its a dragon - and that isn't even the color point it is trying to make, dude just deviates off into another critique. Meanwhile the Amsterdam flag looks like a traffic warning sign. Chinese flag needs to not have the white stripe connect into the white seal background, that is an error, but otherwise I prefer it.

It is annoying how many of the state flags are a blue banners with a round seal in the middle. That does make them hard to distinguish from each other. But that isn't a problem with seal-on-blue, that is just a collective action problem! Flag-reform-favourite the tricolor can run into this too - here are the flags of the Netherlands and Luxembourg:

Like one of your needs to go home and change, that is ridiculous. Though if you had a complex seal in the middle that might avoid this problem! Funny that.

Even the "no words on a flag" argument, which I am more sympathetic to, doesn't hold up too well because too often you find yourself going "unless it is good" which just isn't a rule. The Iranian flag is the stand-out he mentions:

The middle crest is a stylized rendition of the name Allah, and the cursive lining on the tricolor bands are text as well - God Is Great, 22 times, marking the anniversary date of the Islamic Revolution. Stylistically beautiful, also words on a flag. The state flags just didn't try to do anything artistic.

I think the best point Premodernism mentions is a sort of stylistic unity Kaye & Co are pursuing above all else - everything sacrificed for corporate minimalism. Kaye's book will say it respects history and symbols should be meaningful, but then hates any symbols that require complexity. He singles out Turkmenistan as an ugly flag for example:

And as I said I only 50% disagree sometimes, I do think there is a complexity limit, and this flag goes over it, that is too detailed. Though the main reason this flag is bad is the weird choice to not put the banner at the edge, and have the crescent just...float off center? If it was this:

Two seconds in paint, already better, you can play with it. But anyway, you can say the symbols are too complex, but if you also say you care about historical meaning? Turkmenistan is a nation of traditional semi-nomadic tribes, who populated the Silk Road and made textiles as their ultimate expression of art. These carpet guls are traditional symbols used in those carpets that represent the five major tribes that compose the country. You can't just invent new symbols that have equal meaning to these, right? Like you can try if you want, sure, new symbols become meaningful all the time. But a rule that says "all art from before 1950 is tossed in the dumpster because it wouldn't pass muster as a Pepsi logo" is a weird rule to adopt if you say you value historical meaning. Turkmenistan does not have to look like France, and it is weird to want every national symbol to be aesthetically coherent to each other. Let 100 flags bloom! It is certainly "distinct at a distance" lol.

Anyway that is enough summarizing of a YouTube video - as I mentioned, he actually likes the state flags, I don't, I do think you have to balance a lot of this with just "general design principles". Never have your name on a flag in Helvetica Bold, amazing I had to write that one down for you. But a lot of these flag-specific rules derived from Kaye's work I often see bandied about are silly, and I was glad to see someone point that out.

[maybe-boys-do-love]

Anticipating the ending of The On1y One, I've been remembering an interview with director Celine Sciamma about Portrait of a Lady on Fire. She said,

"The ending of it is really climaxing. Because when we watch love stories, it’s harder, the frozen image of two people leaving in a car, you know, marriage, whatever. Like the romantic-comedy ending where they end up together, then that’s the end. Eternal possession as a promise of fulfillment. Or, it’s the tragic ending, where they will never [be together]. And I really tried to find another way... It’s a love story about emancipation. And that’s so much what we’re trying to tell: it’s not about whether you end up together, or you don’t. A good love story isn’t about that, it’s about: did it give you emancipation?"

Both Portrait of a Lady on Fire and The On1y One are about queer memory and history. While one is about recovering the distant past and the other is about the past of adolescence, they each lean firmly into the ambiguous spaces of what could and couldn't be articulated. How does a work simultaneously acknowledge the potential queer feelings and relationships from our pasts alongside the limits that impacted people's ability to come-to-terms and act on those queer feelings?

So many queer plot pieces of The On1y One are left unresolved in the last episode, and it's important that we look at that as intentional. It's a disservice to a show so deeply passionate about poetry to read its narrative from a straight forward perspective. It's filled with symbols, patterns, and gestures instead of a generic plot structure. @toastofthetrashfire wrote about what we might make about the symbols of circular and linear time regarding Jiang Tian and Sheng Wang, and I think consideration of those themes ought to be applied across all the plots that mount up into irresolution at the end. Jiang Tian's history of neglect and abuse at the hands of his closeted father, the disruption of queerness into the teachers' intense platonic friendship, and, of course, Sheng Wang's young gay panic: how do we incorporate these failed models of behavior into our queer timelines? How do we offer the potential of freedom and mercy to our recollections of them and our imperfect past decisions?

We have to believe in potentials and futures that didn't necessarily arrive for them. The last image we get in the series is that ellipsis of belief, moving us forward without truly moving. We return to the image of the glass pitcher filled with mint lemon water, whole again, at least for now, and we hear a promise from Sheng Wang to come back. It's ostensibly a promise to return to Class A for Jiang Tian, but it speaks to the desire to revisit the our past and to let it revisit us in new forms, the way you're meant to return to a poem or the best books not recall an end you forgot or to learn it but to be moved.

[thomas-jefferson-miku-binder]

I hate Mel Medarda discourse because she’s an insanely well-written character with a lot of depth, but people almost always have only two things to say about her: 1) evil girlboss or 2) never did anything wrong. both make me want to krill myself 🦐

In front of you, there’s a female character born of war who rejects the physical brutality of her family’s name and the regime she was born under. except said violence never really goes away because if it ever does leave, nothing else would remain

This character can and will reproduce the hatred she has always known, just in more palpable ways, ways where she’s allowed to look away — or even better, ways where she’s so distanced from the action itself that where she “looks” doesn’t even matter

It’s also so interesting to think that maybe Mel doesn’t dislike physical violence because it’s “bad” but simply because she does not excel at it The thought that if Mel was maybe stronger or a more skilled fighter, she would be just like her mother tickles my brain. yaaaas Although, to me, that's a more "what-if" scenario than the actual characterization Arcane deceipts

By the way, I do not think Mel is a monster. She clearly does try to be what she considers a "good" person, but the violence she’s always known sometimes escapes (just like in the Viktor scene above — she does not like to be disagreed with).

Sooo insane that she’s a diplomat/politician because yes. what other job in the world would allow her to exercise that repressed violence while also giving her the sense of duty—of goodness.

Mel is stuck at the scene of the execution form her childhood. All she does is repeat the same scenario in her head with different outcomes: sometimes one where she saves the prisoner, another where she doesn’t hesitate (that being the keyword here) to kill her

This reverberation of the violence she suffered is just her manner of coping with that traumatic scene. a way of lessening the pain without actually confronting its cause.

I feel like I need to clarify that no, I do not think Mel is “evil”. I don’t even think she is intentionally manipulative (most of the time), I think she handles people the only way she knows how to, which is probably one of the only reasons she survived Noxus at all (as, to how I see it, there's only a certain extent your House will guarantee your protection in Noxus).

I know the fandom talks a lot about Viktor and Jayce being idealistic, but I rarely see people mention how Mel is just as romantic. Jesus- that’s literally a huge source of conflict with her mother: Ambessa thinks Mel is naive, which to her means weakness, which to her is unacceptable.

I hate that Mel Medarda is forced to be subjected to fandom spaces, because, no, she is not a small bean. no, she’s not an evil girlboss.

Do I believe she is a good person? I think she tries to be (even if her notion of goodness is so heavily aligned with honor, too), and that tells me a lot more about her character than how successful she is at it

[mermaidsirennikita]

Sadly, the Wuthering Heights furor has also led to people (many of whom, let us be real, simply dislike the book or otherwise only think of it when it's brought up) to discourse about the content of the novel versus the wrongness of Emerald Fennell's choices with regards to the movie, which of course, has opened up the classic "IT'S NOT A ROMANCE! IT'S NOT A LOVE STORY! BAD PEOPLE! HATE STORY!"

... Which is... also a bad take.

First off, to be very clear, "Romance" is not inherently "genre romance", which is the thing I blog a lot about that was solidified in the latter half of the twentieth century (and which, no doubt, was influenced on some level by WH as much as Jane Eyre, Austen novels and so on). Wuthering Heights is a romance, it's just not a genre romance/romance novel. And indisputably, Wuthering Heights is a love story.

It may not be a love story you like. It may not be a love story with a happily ever after (though I will say—this is one of the few books where I think it's pretty debatable, as "wandering the moors as ghosts", if that is what happened, is kind of... what Cathy and Heathcliff would've wanted... and their ultimate desire was to be TOGETHER, regardless of whether or not it damned them, so is it an HEA in their freaky minds? Maybe so lol). It may ALSO be an abuse story in which the lovers act horribly to each other.... though, I gotta say, MUCH WORSE to literally everyone else in their lives than they do to each other...

But it's a love story. That is one of several things it happens to be. The entire novel is driven by this central love story between Heathcliff and Cathy—a love that is, contrary to what a surface-level reading or reading by word of mouth would imply... very much mutual. I've already gone on about how Cathy Earnshaw is not Heathcliff's victim the way Isabella Linton is, and how Cathy is very much as involved in the love affair as he is. But truly, while their individual internal struggles are the framework and what keeps them apart in many ways—Heathcliff being a man of color and subject to racist abuse, Cathy conforming to society and classist pressures when her natural temperament is very much not of society—what propels the story is this romance.

Because they are supposed to be read as extremely similar, and as two people who do not truly identify with anyone but one another. They're supposed to be read as like minds. They're supposed to be read as thwarted. Some of the things those two say about each other and to each other are legitimately some of the most romantic lines I've ever read.

I mean, are they also kind of sick and wrong? Sure! But I do find it kind of rich to see people who are totally fine with reading dark romance wring their hands over the public at large interpreting Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship as an epic romance. I don't have an issue with anyone enjoying either! But. Let us be real. Part of why y'all are even enjoying work like that is the standard that books like WH set, and the fact that WH does speak to the lure of the dark and the tragedy of people who are super imperfect... and also super in love... continuously fucking up their own lives (and the lives of basically everyone around them) in this push-pull of denial and desire.

When people say "HOW COULD ANYONE EVER INTERPRET THIS AS ROMANTIC?" I just have to question... did you read the book? Because even if it's not for YOU, if it's not romantic TO YOU, surely you can see why other people (me and mine lol) read lines like these and go, "Wow, romantic":

“Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living. You said I killed you--haunt me then. The murdered do haunt their murderers. I believe--I know that ghosts have wandered the earth. Be with me always--take any form--drive me mad. Only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you! Oh, God! It is unutterable! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!”

(fun fact: I do have a part of the above quote tattooed on my body and I'm very happy about it)

"My great miseries in this world have been Heathcliff's miseries, and I watched and felt each from the beginning: my great thought in living is himself. If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger: I should not seem a part of it."

"Hush, my darling! Hush, hush, Catherine! I'll stay. If he shot me so, I'd expire with a blessing on my lips."

[said when her damn husband is almost at the door lol]

"I’m not wishing you greater torment than I have, Heathcliff. I only wish us never to be parted: and should a word of mine distress you hereafter, think I feel the same distress underground, and for my own sake, forgive me!"

"'Heathcliff, dear! you should not be sullen now. Do come to me, Heathcliff.’

In her eagerness she rose and supported herself on the arm of the chair. At that earnest appeal he turned to her, looking absolutely desperate. His eyes, wide and wet, at last flashed fiercely on her; his breast heaved convulsively. An instant they held asunder, and then how they met I hardly saw, but Catherine made a spring, and he caught her, and they were locked in an embrace from which I thought my mistress would never be released alive..."

"Kiss me again; and don’t let me see your eyes! I forgive what you have done to me. I love my murderer—but yours! How can I?"

[Read: she is the murderer he is talking about. He's saying she doomed herself to death a long time ago, and he hates her for it. While also crying and kissing her lmao]

They're sickos! Nobody can argue otherwise. But that does not mean they're not in love, and it doesn't mean this isn't a love story, and wagging your fingers at people who read this as the obviously destructive love story this is and find it romantic... doesn't change that.

And the thing is that the book makes it pretttyyyy clear that even if Heathcliff and Cathy has assholery programed into their personalities, WITHOUT the contexts of how they were raised and the society that expects them both to conform to prescribed roles, they would probably just... be together. Like, they victimize people, especially Heathcliff. But they are also victims. The book isn't about a critique of two people Emily Bronte dreamed up; it's a critique of the CIRCUMSTANCES by way of Gothic, subversive melodrama. At the end of the day, their feelings, however passionate they are, are not inherently subversive. Their feelings are NATURAL. But they're twisted and contorted into something ugly through circumstance and the characters' responses to those circumstances.

For Heathcliff, A LOT of those circumstances that did twist him are in fact out of his control. Which is why we hate that casting, right?

But all that said, a love story being dirtybadwrong and about Bad People doesn't mean it isn't a love story, lol. Again—we don't even expect genre romance to be about good people.

Like. Yeah. We know Heathcliff and Cathy are assholes. You're not breaking new ground with that take. The book is still, in many ways, about those assholes being in love.

[trans-androgyne]

Heyyyy guess who’s back from the psych ward B)

In all seriousness though, there are gonna be some changes to my blog. A huge contributor to my recent suicidality and resulting involuntary hospitalization was the current state of the online trans community. Seeing this discourse devolve into so much unabashed transmisogyny and transandrophobia (in addition to drowning out the voices of non-binary and intersex folks) feels like it’s slowly killing me. I feel even worse than I did when I almost detransitioned over it last year.

Radical feminism has become pervasive in the queer/trans community, with different branches discriminating against both trans people afab and trans people amab by considering one group or the other to be The Oppressor and categorically attributing them power that they simply do not have as trans people under cisheteropatriarchy (I don’t like agab terms in this context, but that kind of binary is how radfems sort the world: amab/afab, victim/oppressor). Too many folks refuse to listen to the experiences of trans people different from them and insist certain experiences are exclusive to their demographic and/or that one kind of oppression is objectively Worse than others. Not to mention just blatantly misunderstanding sexism and intersectionality.

So, I’m disengaging from as much of it as I can, at least for now. I won’t be checking the tags anymore, I won’t be reblogging quite as many posts. Instead, I’m going to focus on transfeminism from actual researched/published sources, not what random tumblr users claim it to be. That doesn’t mean there isn’t incredibly valuable theory on here, but I haven’t found a way to access it without also ending up knee deep in some of the most hateful and vile behavior I’ve seen within a minority community yet. I’m going to do my best to focus on trans positivity, my own life as a non-binary transmasc, and intersectional transfeminist theory grounded in real trans experiences. I'll start posting slowly again as I recover--it won't be as frequent as before, but what I do put out should be more well-researched and constructive.

If you’re still in the discourse trenches, responding to every incident of intracommunity transphobia on here and arguing on 10-note posts claiming to summarize transfeminism, I wish you the best of luck. Just please, take care of yourself and know when to step away. Stay safe out there.

[venice-1987]

An annoying phenomenon I've noticed

Alternatively: Whatever you do, don't go onto the TDP reddit

(Alternatively, let people ship things)

[anxiouspotatorants]

I don’t know if I think season 4 is as good as 1 and 2 so far, but it’s such a relief to have a season where Mabel doesn’t have a one-off love interest.

Like, by the time we got to Tobert it felt so obvious that both him and his relationship to Mabel wasn’t going to last more than one season, and since he had so little to do with the events of season 3 otherwise I stopped seeing the point in caring about his character. Just like Alice in season 2, and almost Oscar in season 1 who was set up to last so much longer only to be completely written out in the start of season 2. It’s not like romance is everything (certainly not in a crime comedy show) but since Mabel’s love life has had so much screen time it got to the point where I felt the whole show got weaker because of its half-assed portrayal of it. «Either invest properly in a love interest, make them the killer again or just go at least a season without one» is what I thought when I started the new season. 5 episodes in it seems like they’re doing the third and I’ve got to say I’m relieved.

[flutterbyoz]

It's 2024 and still the Rick/Jessie discourse is still making an appearance 🙄

It's something that seems to pop up every now and again and just becomes another excuse for people to voice their dislike for Michonne and Richonne. I get everyone has their own opinion, though many of these opinions have little to no evidence to back them up, but let's just make one thing clear, Rick loves Michonne. He loved her when he met Jessie, he loved her when Jessie cut his hair, he loved her when he and Jessie shared that awkward garage kiss and when he chopped off Jessie's hand. He loved Michonne then and he loves her now, more than life itself. Had Jessie lived he still would have fallen in love and married Michonne.

Some people like to invalidate Richonne anyway they can, even grasping onto crumbs like Jessie, but in the end none of it matters because Jessie was never supposed to be anything more than a plot device, all she did was delay the inevitable. The believability of Rick having feelings for her was dashed pretty quickly given the heart eyes he gave Michonne every time he saw her and I'm sorry but no one can compete against Andy and Danai in the chemistry department.

If you can't see the electric chemistry between Rick and Michonne/Andy and Danai then I do feel a little for you because you're missing out on experiencing what I believe is the best love story to have ever graced the screen.

I do sometimes wonder if I'm watching the same show because the way some people interpret storylines and character interactions can be so polar opposite that it makes me think that they must just be purposefully ignoring the facts just to make it fit their opinion. I'm all for differing opinions but when the facts go completely against those opinions and clearly prove them wrong then it's not so much someone giving an opinion as them just saying whatever just to arouse a response. And yes I know I'm feeding into that with this post but I just needed to say it and sadly I think we all know the reason for most of this dislike and hate towards Michonne and Richonne.

Michonne is not Rick's second choice, she's not his third choice, she's not someone he got with just for the physical side of a relationship or because Jessie and Lori died. Michonne is his first, last and forever choice, the love of his life, the mother of his children, the woman he'd kill and die for, she is his entire world. This has been confirmed multiple times throughout TWD and TOWL, there are no ifs or buts about it, all of this is canon and fact and ignoring it doesn't make it any less true. I always have this thought that if you mentioned Jessie to Rick now it would take him a moment to remember who she was.

This ended up being longer than I thought but when I began writing I just kept going! People will always find a way to disrespect and invalidate Rick and Michonne's relationship, no matter what canon tells them but their negativity changes nothing. They can have as many opinions as they wish but Rick and Michonne will still be married, living happily with their children and being more in love than ever and if we are lucky enough to see them again then that will be shown over and over again.

Forever and always it will be Rick and Michonne

[anghraine]

It's true that minimal effort or qualifications in white men go a lot further than for most others, and is absolutely a significant issue worth engaging with. That said, I think the "mediocre white man" catchphrase is often a bit of a trap, because it's so easy for it to devolve into arguments or self-congratulations or anxiety about just how mediocre the man in question is.

IMO the question of mediocrity mostly matters when it comes to the much higher demands for qualifications or abilities or talents placed on everyone else and the smoothing of professional paths for less qualified white men. That absolutely does happen, but most of the time when I see the "mediocre white man" thing, it's about a white man who has done something morally abhorrent and not about some random guy undeservingly getting breaks in his profession.

And the thing is, if you're condemning a man for doing something horribly unethical, it doesn't matter whether or not he's actually good at writing or directing or music or speaking or inventing things or cooking or programming or lifting heavy objects or whatever. Some dreadful moral affront committed by this guy doesn't become somehow more acceptable if he's genuinely talented, nor worse if he's not. And bringing his supposed mediocrity in his profession or hobbies into the argument invites a separate and usually less important debate that dilutes the one about the guy's RL fuckery.

(This may sound like I'm just vagueblogging about Neil Gaiman, but it's not—I've seen it many times and this specific post was actually set off by seeing virtually identical discourse about a completely different, long-dead guy that had one valid criticism buried in a sea of irrelevant and IMO untrue tangents that did nothing to elevate the point worth talking about.)

[neyafromfrance95]

what's wrong with haladriel tag today? everyone is spreading hate or getting baited by the antis. doom and gloom. only a few posts are of the shippers goofing or discussing the ep in a way that doesn't feel like the show ended haladriel for good.

yeah, idk. i try to not scroll down the tag nowadays. i finished the episode and it was fine to me. i understand everyone's complaints and frustrations as i myself wished for sauron to see galadriel being in captivity at least (and my main issue is galadriel's shortened screentime), but i feel like we might be overreacting a bit and ruining our own shipping experience?

what saddens me the most is that i don't see the fan creations getting appreciated. the shippers would make great gifsets, edits, art - no reblogs. write fics - no comments or kudos. maybe the fandom is still small but i look at the stuff from s1 and it had so much more interaction and encouragement from other shippers.

even the metas from s1 aren't all about "when will celeborn appear and can galadriel be shipped with sauron when she is married to celeborn?" it seems like haladriels didn't give a f about that forced discourse back then and were just wholly enjoying the ship.

as i've said, i think elrond kiss is not the worst thing for haladriels. it might indicate that celeborn won't be introduced (yet), so galadriel won't have to "go back to being his wife". elrond/galadriel won't turn any more romantic than this, at most it will be ambiguous. and they might be testing the waters for how the audiences react to canon divergence. if elrond can be galadriel's jacob, why can't sauron be her edward?

listen, so many of the most iconic ships have never kissed or were never officially a couple. if the dynamic is shippable then why stop shipping just bc a season doesn't go exactly as the fans wanted it to go in their wildest dreams? we still have s3, there still might be the mind-palace communication explored in s3. after all we know the whole show was inspired by the idea that sauron ever so gropes to see galadriel and at some point galadriel closes the door on him but he still allows her to roam his mind freely!

+ this season still was like a continuation of sauron and galadriel mirroring each other, it confirmed that galadriel has feelings for sauron and that sauron is obsessed with her. there is still one ep left where this slow-burn build-up is supposed to climax.

my point is, let's try to be more positive? and being positive isn't necessarily confined to being delulu. it means creating fan content or hyping up fan creations, it means taking what we get in the episodes and dissecting it with passion, engaging with analysis, having fun!

i have been in many other fandoms and i know that a fandom can't be longevous if it's sustained on frustration and negativity and discourse 80% of the time.

for what's it worth, let's let the creators know that we want haladriel, not that we hate the show the same way the lorebros hate it. yk?

[solisaureus]

oh my god was the discourse after tsats came out literally unbearable. good on you for setting boundaries because yeah there were valid critiques but the discourse was insane and some of it just plain nonsensical 😭 but I’m so excited!!! i really hope they delve even more into Will as a character! Idk if they’ll do more angst or maybe this will be more light hearted but I’m sooo ready either way and can’t wait to see your reaction to it!!

im also really hoping for more will angst 👀 he never talked about all his dead siblings in tsats which i thought was a huge missed opportunity. he mentioned once or twice his guilt over losing patients but that was also kinda glossed over. i’d love to see that get dug into some more, i think it could be an important point of bonding for him and nico!

some other things i’d love to see

naomi solace please please please pleeeeease i’d give anything to see nico meet will’s mom

similarly. apollo reappearance?? 👀

just like. more about will. i wanna know more about him. does he have friends? what was it like for him to become head counselor so young? how did he find out he was good at healing?

anything about nico’s friendship with reyna and what his reaction was to finding out she joined the hunters

how the cocoa puffs are fitting into camp half blood

more solangelo kissies. little hugs and stupid pet names. let’s see it

mooooreeee details about them getting together…..i want to see nico di angelo falling in love in real time

[centrally-unplanned]

For some object-level discourse I haven't been following the events in depth like I sometimes do (dealing with health woes & other priorities rn), but the Israeli escalation in Lebanon seems like some classic sunk cost times. As is I think decently well-established, the pager plan went off half-cocked; they were gonna be found out, it was now-or-never, so they pulled the trigger. And then you "have" to follow-up, right? That was the plan after all. Can't waste all that Mossad budget. So despite the plan of "hit Hezbollah so hard their will breaks" is some Bomber Harris Bullshit that has not and will not work, they went ahead.

Though I will credit that capabilities degradation seems to have been severe. As mentioned before, if this was say Ukraine against Russia or the Taliban against the US, fighting a struggle for your political existence, I would still have Opinions but I would be much more understanding. Since Israel's plan is generally Forever War I don't value it here, but tactical wins are what they are and you can see how "this plan is operationally really good" compensates for its dubious strategic value in the mind of those calling the shots.

From a wider lens I view the escalation as a domestic political move. Israel is just out of cards when it comes to Gaza - neither side really wants a cease-fire, Israel is running out of targets to blow up, and the governing coalition is a fractured mess. Since every crisis is an opportunity, to keep momentum going "eliminate Hezbollah" is the kind of pivot one would envision, really rejuvenate things. And "returning Israelis' to their homes in the north" is the kind of thing that both appeases a rebellious faction and also compensates for their near-total failure to rescue hostages, the goal Israel decided to crucify itself by committing to. You can't get a win in the south, you pivot to the north; politics is weird that way!

No real read on how effective it will be - I actually wouldn't be shocked if it works a bit. Maybe fair to say the strategic goal is just cover, like you have to say you have one right? They might not believe it themselves.

[sensorydephrivation]

Amatonormative assumptions and the language of a hard launch: a rambly DnP essay thing

I have a lot of Discourse Thoughts about hard launching and all that, but there’s not much I can say that hasn’t already been said. This fandom is one that generally has significant representation on both sides of any major issue; any take you look for you can find someone genuinely believing. What I am interested in analyzing is how some people are insistent, whether or not they want it to happen or believe it will happen, that they haven’t Hard Launched, and others are equally insistent that they have. Because on the surface those should be completely contradictory takes, but a large amount of people believe each to be true.

I’ve seen posts making comparisons to PJ and Sophie, and I definitely think that’s a useful tool because it brings up the real question here: how do we speak about romantic and platonic relationships, and what underlying assumptions are at play when we use or don't use certain words?

Firstly, this issue is obviously mostly to entirely due to homophobia. Why do people assume PJ and Sophie are a couple just because they live together, even though they've never used the words? Because they're a man and a woman. Why couldn't DnP be publicly open about their relationship back in the day? Because they're gay. I'm not going to spend too much time on this point because it's obvious, but I feel like it's important to remember that Dan and Phil's relationship wasn't some Great Secret for no reason. They weren't no-homo-ing because of privacy or whatever, but because they weren't yet ready to face the immense challenges being publicly out sticks you with, especially in the early 2010s. If homophobia wasn't a thing, everything else I'm going to say in this post would still be true, but it would all be significantly less charged. Just remember that gay marriage wasn't legal in the UK when DnP met each other, and that 2000s pop culture overall was routinely, openly, virulently homophobic. Just keep that in mind. (Also, everything I talk about in this post refers to 2019 onwards, after they came out. I wasn't around for the no-homo era and can't speak on it. I'm also not going to be talking about the speculation around their relationship, because that's been talked about so much. It definitely is a factor in all of this, but you know that already)

Onto the main point of this post. The reason DnP haven't "hard launched" (that term itself is incredibly vague, but its popular meaning in this fandom seems to be explicit confirmation of a romantic relationship, which is how I'm using it here) while also having clearly done so is because their use of language does not line up with conventional expectations of how language around romantic and platonic relationships should be used.

The concept of "dating" as we think of it today is relatively recent, and language around it is even newer. The terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" only became prominent in the mid- to late- 20th century, and it took a while for them to gain the connotation (of almost always meaning a romantic relationship) that they have today. And yet people have still had romantic relationships for forever! How these things were described would depend on the society's norms around marriage and sex and often on the exact social dynamic of the couple. Today, we think we're better than all that and can find words for anything.

I'm no expert on what makes a relationship romantic vs platonic or even how to define those terms. I find it hard to define the concept of romance in a way that doesn't bring with it centuries of heteronormative amatonormative assumptions. And boy are there assumptions. (No, people who live together for life do not have to be romantically involved, that's a silly thing to believe.) When people see a relationship that lines up or does not line up with those assumptions, they expect it to have a clean, simple label. But the words we used for romantic relationships outside of marriage, due to how new they are, are completely not simple!

While these days they seem to be the most "unambiguous" terms to describe a romantic relationship, "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" are essentially euphemisms that can seem infantilizing and demeaning of the seriousness of a relationship. It's easy to see how they aren't for everyone, even if many people are fine using them for serious committed relationships. "Partner" is kind of ambiguous on purpose, thought like bf and gf, I think it's on its way to becoming a word with mainly romantic connotations. The term "significant other" is out of fashion these days, but just like bf, gf, and "partner," it's basically a euphemism that doesn't mean much in and of itself. We have no words to describe an unmarried romantic couple that aren't on some level unclear or unindicative of the actual nature of the relationship.

Dan and Phil have acknowledged that they were once in a romantic relationship, have made many many jokes about having sex with each other, and are committed life partners. On some level, you can take the combination of these things as a very clear confirmation of a current romantic relationship, which many do. Yes, this requires making a few assumptions, but they aren't the craziest assumptions in the world. In fact, as one can see from the PJ and Sophie example, they are assumptions that are often normal and expected to be made in social situations. So why do so many others not see it this way?

Well for one, we are a mostly queer community that understands the complexity of queer relationships and how these assumptions do not get applied equally. We see how these assumptions are often used against queer people to devalue their identities, especially those on the ace-aro spectrum and/or in queerplatonic relationships. We also are an extremely online community, familiar with the complicated layers of discourse around RPF and shipping, and hesitant to make assumptions in a way that could potentially damage relationships or invade someone's privacy.

But honestly? It's because DnP don't call themselves boyfriends. They don't explicitly frame their activities in romantic ways (e.g. call things dates). The terms they use and jokes they make, even in 2024, are not the sort of things we expect from the set of assumptions that go with a committed romantic relationship. (This is also where the discourse about whether or not they're open/poly comes from, but that's a topic for another day.)

The Date Night video stretches this to its absolute max. The game is full of cards about kissing and other things that fit cleanly into the set of romantic relationship assumptions, but they didn't use any of those cards. They only used things that were ambiguous, and tried to downplay the romantic implications as much as possible aside from the lampshading of it at the start of the video ("this is a great game to play with your best buddy as well" "phil says no homo" as well as the entire "ugh i can't believe they send us this" tone of the intro). The use of "partner" in this video is the clearest example of this. The game uses this word exclusively- after all, it's a standard, accepted, gender-neutral word for people in a romantic relationship. Phil confidently reads it off the card, with the "I don't care which set of assumptions this assigns us" attitude that's been prevalent over the past year and past few months especially. Dan avoids it half the time, and at the end of the video, seems to clearly mock the term, saying it in a silly voice and then comparing it to how stereotypical cowboys use the word. This stuck out to me; it made it very noticeable that they don't use that word at least in videos, and made me think about the connation of the word they do use-- "friend." That term, unlike any of the words I've mentioned so far, implies literally nothing. "Friends" can be people with a barely positive relationship or people with an incredibly meaningful relationship they center their life around. With no other qualifiers, it also implies that the people in question don't have a romantic relationship (are "just friends"), or even (because of amatonormativity) that their relationship is not especially deep or meaningful.

Dan and Phil have defined their relationship in quite a few ways-- or rather, Dan has, in BIG and in his interviews for WAD. These quotes circulate on here constantly as people discuss the meaning of them. I'm not really interested in talking about those as they've already been talked to death. I do think it's worth noting that we only get these things from Dan-- the one time Phil has ever spoken on his "current dating life" it was just to say "I don't want to talk about that, the door is closed." Obviously some of this is because the interviewers were pushy, but also I'm sure Dan enjoys his elaborate poetic metaphors enough to not be able to shut up about them haha. (Very unrelated but I wonder if this will come up if they end up doing interviews for TIT?) The thing is, these definitions show a deep, meaningful, complex, committed relationship. They include directly romantic terms like "husbands," "soul mates," and "normal gay relationship." You would think being willing to call someone your husband, even with a million other words around it, would mean you wouldn't have a problem calling them your partner, right? Yet these words do not reflect the language they use when speaking about each other in videos!

There are times when they say "friend" "buddy" or "mate" in a clearly humorous, ironic way, and seem aware that it isn't a term that makes people think of a committed, long term relationship. Other times, they use the word as if it is a fully accurate descriptor of their relationship-- in the glue story, Dan jokes about being ashamed to be seen as "the friend of the glue guy," and in How Phil Nearly Died, he quotes himself telling the hospital staff he is looking for "my friend." I use the hospital stories as examples because they are high-stakes (or seemingly high-stakes in the case of the glue story) situations and examples of how other people in their real lives perceive them. The way they choose to tell these stories to the internet is one in which the fact that a random hospital worker would likely interact differently with Dan if he was Phil's friendly roommate as opposed to his life partner doesn't matter. In other words: if they actually do call each other "friends" irl around strangers, those strangers probably have a very different impression of their relationship than we do. Their consistency in describing themselves doing so just means that they want to consistently use the term "friends" in their videos, not that they actually do that in real life. But to a viewer who is unsure about their relationship status, the fact that they are clearly life partners, no matter platonic or romantic, but in all situations opt for a word that does not imply that seems to be confirmation that their relationship is not clearly romantic, or at least that they don't want to refer to it as such.

If I have to draw a conclusion from all this, it's that DnP consider their relationship very complex and unusual (ymmv on if it is, lol) and have had to deal with a ridiculous level of scrutiny about it nonetheless. Again, Phil has almost never spoken on this, but Dan clearly dislikes any descriptor that carries with it a sense of assumptions about the nature of the relationship, hence why he uses like fifty contradicting ones or strange metaphors instead. "Friend" carries with it no assumptions. You can be "friends" and be in a romantic relationship-- plenty of people say "I married my best friend." But our society considers romantic relationships to be more meaningful and important than platonic ones. People assume that if you are in a romantic relationship, you would want to describe your relationship exclusively using terms that carry that set of assumptions, because that is the most important part about it. I honestly think Dan is being quite subversive in refusing to do so.

I have no idea if or when this will ever change, but I hope I've given enough context for those who are convinced they've already hard launched to understand why others are still waiting, and for those who don't think they have to understand why the issue is more complicated than it seems. This topic has fascinated me ever since I first started watching them, and I hope this post can help people reach a bit more of a understanding, rather than inciting more discourse.

[miupow]

would txt members rather a younger or older gf?

about to start some more discourse w this but oh whale hehe

soobin - older. also has milf hunter tendencies like taehyun (has admitted to liking women that take charge in the relationship,, also him w kara and bebe rexha lol)

yeonjun - younger ! partly because of the definite oppa/daddy kink but also partly because i just generally think he would like having a partner that was younger/more inexperienced

beomgyu - i don’t think he would care much, but i see him going for an s/o that is close in age to him. also kind of obsessed with the comedy of beomgyu having a gf that was late ‘00 so even tho she would be only a few months older than him she would technically be his noona (like soobin lol) i just think he would be silly about it like he is with soobin

taehyun - literally can’t take him anywhere if there’s going to be hot moms (another controversial take but second biggest milf hunter behind tyun is jeongin skz)

huening - younger !! i know that huening w noona gf is pretty popular and this might be me projecting a little as a dom kai obsesser but i think he would love a shorter younger chubby gf that’s just as inexperienced as he is !! if u get me u get me