#but this concept of 'deserving' is a different thing especially in the context of this fandom where entitlement is an ongoing issue

[kindahoping4forever]

my ultimate wish for this next era is they finally let Ryan go like they did Andy. I'm so sick of not getting the content we deserve. All the gatekeeping of tour diaries and now the crumbs of concert footage in that "documentary" yesterday. he was working for months on that? that's why we didn't get tour diaries? all that footage just goes in his vault now? Please.

Hello! I'm sorry to hear you felt disappointed by yesterday's special. However, I feel compelled to comment on a few objective points in your ask.

- "Live & Backstage in Amsterdam" was directed by James Tonkin, the same director (and production team, Hangman) they worked with on "The Feeling of Falling Upwards" (and the unreleased "Live in Brixton" special). Ryan was credited as director of the documentary footage and as a contributing editor (1 of 3) but the live footage and overall final program was not his work.

- Regardless of the particular creatives involved here (or in any given project for that matter), the fact remains that any directors, producers, photographers, etc are all hired hands operating with full input and specific direction from the band. The band chose to make this a hybrid concert film/documentary. The band chose to condense the setlist the way they did. The band chose this format over the traditional tour diaries. What happens to the unused footage will be determined by the band. Ryan is a friend but he is first and foremost an employee and the band owns that footage. (Likewise, the MYT diaries are not sitting on Andy Deluca's hard drive because he's "gatekeeping" or too lazy to edit it. If the band wanted them released, they'd be released.) All this to say, of course you don't have to agree with the decisions but it's important to clarify who your complaint is with.

- This concept of the band or their collaborators "gatekeeping" and fans not getting what we "deserve" is, to be blunt, entitled and immature. Being a fan does not make an artist indebted to you. They make music, if you feel so inclined, you listen. That's it. That's the extent of the contract. Anything beyond that is optional for both parties. Any content an artist chooses to release is not out of obligation or generosity, it's part business strategy, part artistic vision. Artists do not owe you anything. This band does not owe you anything.

[loemius]

here’s my hot take of the night:

the e-temples that have been cropping up lately are cool, and im glad to see people making specific spaces to come together to worship. that’s awesome! i’m very here for that as a concept. i love nothing more than to see the theoi get the praise they deserve.

that being said, i am very wary about the amount of people i have seen calling themselves priests/priestesses lately. not even just in the e-temples! ive seen multiple people in the tags who have in their bio “priest(ess) of [deity].” i realize most people probably don’t mean harm by it, but it gets under my skin. to call yourself clergy implies a specific level of knowledge and experience with a religion (which isn’t my business to get involved in your praxis like that, that’s personal unless you wanna share it), but more importantly, official recognition by an established institution. there are not that many of these (that i am aware of) for hellenic polytheism. calling yourself clergy is simply that — calling yourself that. there’s no backing for it, and it genuinely concerns me.

we as the polytheist community talk a lot about harmful practices in spirituality, things like spiritual psychosis or cultural appropriation, which are important topics to discuss. it’s been said before and i’ll say again — people claiming to be spiritual authorities of some kind without any kind of proof can be very dangerous. i don’t assume anyone has bad intentions. i give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that everyone is just trying to help other people worship. but it doesn’t change the fact that calling yourself a priest(ess) will make impressionable or unsure people look up to you, and that is a hell of a lot of responsibility. i am concerned that there are minors running these kinds of blogs. that’s a lot of pressure on someone’s shoulders, especially to put on someone who is still growing up and developing their research and critical thinking skills. i don’t want to gatekeep or anything like that. im very glad to see minors having really good experiences with their faith, that they’re excited to share it with others. but it just concerns me.

im certainly not as experienced as other practitioners on this site, having had about two years of experience at this point, but i am very wary of anyone who claims to be any kind of authority on anything unless you can back it up. regardless of if your blog says that you’re not an authority, calling yourself clergy of any kind implies that. people will take it that way. it inherently implies a level of authority, knowledge, and experience on a particular subject, which is usually backed up by having an official institution that recognizes you.

perhaps this is a little callous of me, but in the same way that when someone makes a claim about the theoi academically, i expect them to have sources to prove it, i expect clergy to have some kind of proof of their authority. otherwise, what are you doing that’s different than any other tumblr blog?

to be clear, i don’t have an issue with these devotional spaces. i simply take an issue with people referring to themselves as clergy when that is a particular term with a particular context and a particular implication. words have power. i earnestly think if people just called themselves something like ‘stewards’ of a particular temple, i wouldn’t be so bothered by it. or just call yourself a devotee of a particular god. ultimately, at the end of the day, the words we use have power and implications, and that has to be acknowledged and respected. send tweet

[bowtiepastabitch]

Historical Analysis: class and injustice in 'The Ressurrectionists' minisode

Alternate title: why we're tempted to be upset with Aziraphale and why that's only halfway fair

Okay so first off huge thanks to @makewayforbigcrossducks for asking the question (and follow-up questions lol) that brought me to put these thoughts all together into a little history nerd ramble. That question being, Why is Aziraphale so clueless? Obviously, from a plot perspective, we know we need to learn some lessons about human moral dilemmas and injustices. But from a character perspective? A lot of this minisode is about Aziraphale being forced to confront the flaws of heavenly logic. This whole idea that "poverty is ineffable" basically boils down to 'yeah some people are poor, but their souls can be saved just as if not more easily that way, so it's not our problem and they probably deserve it anyway for not working hard enough,' a perspective that persists in many modern religious circles. Aziraphale isn't looking at the human factor here, he's pretty much purely concerned about the dichotomy of good and wicked human behavior and the spiritual consequences thereof, because that's what he's been told to believe. His whole goal is to "show her the error of her ways." He believes, quite wholeheartedly, that he's helping her in the long run.

"the lower you start, the more opportunities you have"

So here's what we're asking ourselves: Why did it take him so bloody long to realize how stupid that is? Sure, he's willing to excuse all kinds of things in the name of ineffability, but if someone in the year of our lord 2023 told me he was just now realizing that homelessness was bad after experiencing the past two centuries, I'd be resisting the urge to get violent even if he WAS played by Michael Sheen.

Historical context: a new type of poverty

Prior to the 19th century (1800s), poverty was a very different animal from what we deal with now. The lowest classes went through a dynamic change leading up to the industrial revolution, with proto-industrialization already moving people into more manufacture-focused tasks and rapid urbanization as a result of increasingly unlivable conditions for rural peasantry. The enclosure of common lands and tennancies by wealthy landowners for the more profitable sheep raising displaced lots of families, and in combination with poor harvests and rising rents, many people were driven to cities to seek out new ways of eeking out a living.

Before this, your ability to eat largely would have depended on the harvest in your local area. This can, for our purposes, be read as: you're really only a miracle away from being able to survive the winter. Juxtapose this, then, with the relatively new conundrum of an unhoused urban poor population. Now if you want to eat, you need money itself, no exceptions, unless you want to steal food. Charity at the time was often just as much harm as good, nearly always tied deeply up in religious attitudes and a stronger desire to proselytize than improve quality of lie. As a young woman, finding work in a city is going to be incredibly difficult, especially if you're not clean and proper enough to present as a housemaid or other service laborer. As such, Elspeth turns to body snatching to try to make a better life for herself and Wee Morag. She's out of options and she knows it.

You know who doesn't know that? Aziraphale.

The rise of capitalism

The biggest piece of the puzzle which Aziraphale is missing here is that he hasn't quite caught onto the concept of capitalism yet. To him, human professions are just silly little tasks, and she should be able to support herself if she just tried. Bookselling, weaving, farming, these are all just things humans do, in his mind. He suggests these things as options because it hasn't occurred to him yet that Elspeth is doing this out of desperation, but he also just doesn't grasp the concept of capital. Crowley does, he thinks it's hilarious, but Aziraphale is just confused as to why these occupations aren't genuine options. Farming in particular, as briefly touched on above, was formerly carried out largely on common land, tennancies, or on family plots, and land-as-capital is an emerging concept in this period of time (previously, landowners acted more like local lords than modern landlords). Aziraphale just isn't picking up on the fact that money itself is the root issue.

Even when he realizes that he fucked up by soup-ifying the corpse, he doesn't offer to give them money but rather to help dig up another body. He still isn't processing the systemic issues at play (poverty) merely what's been immediately presented to him (corpses), and this is, from my perspective, half a result of his tunnel-vision on morality and half of his inability to process this new mode of human suffering.

Half a conclusion and other thoughts

So we bring ourselves back around to the question of Aziraphale's cluelessness. Aziraphale is, as an individual, consistently behind on the times. He likes doing things a certain way and rarely changes his methodology unless someone forces his hand. Even with the best intentions, his ability to help in this minisode is hindered by two points: 1)his continued adherance to heavenly dogma 2)his inability to process the changing nature of human society. His strongest desire at any point is to ensure that good is carried out, an objective good as defined by heavenly values, and while I think it's one of his biggest character hangups, I also can't totally blame him for clinging to the only identity given to him or for worrying about something that is, as an ethereal being, a very real concern. Unfortunately, he also lacks an understanding of the actual human needs that present themselves. Where Elspeth knows that what she needs is money, Aziraphale doesn't seem to process that money is the only solution to the immediate problem. This is in part probably because a century prior the needs of the poor were much simpler, and thus miraculous assistance would never have interfered with 'the virtues of poverty'. (You can make someone's crops grow, and they'll eat well, but giving someone money actually changes their economic status.) Thus, his actions in this episode illustrate the intersection of heavenly guidelines with a weak understanding of modern structures.

This especially makes sense with his response to being told to give her money. Our angel is many things, but I would never peg him as having any attachment to his money. He's not hesitant because he doesn't want to part with it, he's hesitant because he's still scared it's the wrong thing to do in this scenario. He really is trying to be good and helpful. So yes, we're justifiably pretty miffed to see him so blatantly unaware and damaging. He definitely holds a lot of responsibility for the genuine tragedy of this minisode, and I think Crowley pointing out that it's 'different when you knew them' is an extremely important moment for Aziraphale's relationship with humanity. Up until now, he's done a pretty good job insulating himself from the capacity of humans for nastiness, his seeming naivity at the Bastille being case in point.

In the end, I think Aziraphale's role in this minisode is incredibly complex, especially within its historical context. He's obstinate and clueless but also deeply concerned with spiritual wellbeing (which is, to Aziraphale, simply wellbeing) and doing the right thing to be helpful. While it's easy to allow tiny Crowley (my beloved) to eclipse the tragic nature and moral complexity of this minisode, I think in the end it's just as important to long-term character development as 'A Companion to Owls'. We saw him make the right choice with Job's children, and now we see him make the wrong choice. And that's a thing people do sometimes, a thing humans do.

~~~

also tagging @ineffabildaddy, @kimberellaroo, and @raining-stars-somewhere-else whose comments on the original post were invaluable in helping me organize my thoughts and feelings about this topic. They also provided great insight that, in my opinion, is worth going and reading for yourself, even if it didn't factor into my final analysis/judgement.

If I missed anything or you have additional thoughts, please please share!!! <3

[writingwithcolor]

Dark features/people as blessed, white and light people as sick

ladyoftheseastuff asked:

I'm writing a fantasy story where the world is permanently covered in snow & ice. The people share a common culture & are loyal to their city states, but they are not homogeneous in appearance; there will be many, many characters coded as PoC. The main religion centers on the sun, & those with dark features are 'favoured' by the sun god, while pale people or anyone who has white/blonde hair are thought vulnerable to "snow sickness", a disease caused by environmental factors (1/2) & have other rules and customs to gain religious approval. It's dangerous & infectious but not well understood. It affects social standing and opportunities, but it's meant to be tied with ideas of youth, vitality, & fear of aging & sickness: it's not limited to those coded as white. This is a cultural detail and not part of the main conflict, but I want to avoid unintentional allegories/parallels & fetishization. Is this a concept that's too close to crossing any of those lines? (2/2)

This feels less like a means to show dark skinned people in an empowering light and more like a weak attempt at subversion. My primary concern (which you have not specified) is how do the "blessed" class treat the "sickly" so to speak. We have fantasy stories like The Grisha Trilogy and Girls of Paper and Fire, which deal with magical ability/feature-based segregation and conflict.

In both cases there is a sense of entitlement which comes with hailing from the "favoured" class, quite obvious, since there will always be an inherent othering metaphor whenever you create such a division, whether it was meant to be a source of conflict or not.

However, the two mentioned series use the "magical people are blessed, non magical people are to be pitied" arc which is somewhat more subtle than divisions created just on the basis of skin colour.

Disclaimer as I do not have albinism or vitiligo: The latter can be extremely harmful, and not just in a racial context, but in cases of albinism, vitiligo etc.

~Mod Mimi

The pitfalls of subversions

While it is always lovely to see dark features considered in a favorable way, there are some issues you may come across. Such a story could easily end up dressing those you wished to uphold as bad guys in the readers' eyes, even if the story's society and the sun god etc. thinks they're amazing, and white and light people as the victims of dark people, deserving reader sympathy. This may especially be the case based on how these groups get treated in the story.

These sort of subversions lean dangerously into "reverse discrimination" plots which are not overall accurate or favorable allegories for your real, human audience. There being diversity on both sides doesn't necessary fix this issue or remove racial or ethnic implications. On that note, and as Mimi mentioned, being demonized and ostracized particularly for skin and genetic disorders like albinism is already a thing. What does your concept say of them?

I think Dark/Black as good and Light/white as bad is a doable concept. Your concept differs a bit from simply subverting black/white tropes. This is not just Black good guys and night skies being peaceful or neutral. It's not just white/light villains (as opposed to victims) or snow symbolling death or sickness.

White and light people are quite blatantly being declared as sick and unfavored and they may very well be victims in the reader's eye with the dark people being the villainous, unsympathetic bunch. Is this your intention?

More to consider

Such a concept requires thoughtful, careful planning and intentional writing. You should have an understanding of what your story implies to the readers and the real-life takeaways.

I think it's possible to make dark skin the favored skin of the sun god without it meaning white/light people stand in a negative light and are sick or unworthy.

Consider what it is that you like about the concept of your story. Can you keep the essence of whatever it is that excites you about your ideas, without denying a whole group of people favor? If not, how will you go about telling such a tale that is not meant to symbolize a sort of reversal of roles discrimination?

Why does the sun god get to determine what is good?

Are there other gods that might have different strong opinions? Perhaps who is favored varies by time of day, season, region, culture, god?

Can dark skin get its favor without white and light features being deemed unfavorable as a whole?

How big of a deal does this favor have to be? I advise reconsidering it being the point of discrimination to white/light people for all the reasons already described.

No matter the directions you go, please research and get the appropriate beta-readers for feedback on the in-depth concepts and story.

~Mod Colette

[charmedreincarnation]

My sucess story

Trigger Warning: Abusive, homophobia, mentions of suicide

Hey there, Maya! I just had to take a moment and express my appreciation for all the fantastic posts you put out. I can now confirm, without a shadow of a doubt, that shifting is real, manifesting is real, and so is the void. Our desires and ambitions aren't in vain.

I've been part of the shifting community since 2020 when it exploded on TikTok. It might not matter much, but as a gay man, I rarely saw other guys in the community (though Reddit and Amino have a more diverse crowd). I've always felt more comfortable in women-centric spaces because they tend to be less judgmental.

I never saw success stories from guys, especially the kind I wanted to see - like waking up in a new world, not just manifesting money or a girlfriend (or boyfriend in my case >.<). I've always been spiritual and interested in witchcraft, voodoo, deities, and now manifesting and shifting. But it felt like nothing would let me shift.

Growing up with homophobic and physically abusive parents, struggling with poverty, depression, homelessness, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and more, I began to feel like you could only manifest and shift if your life was okay. I didn't have the luxury of time or safety to practice methods, constantly dealing with noise, verbal abuse, or physical violence.

Then, I read this post

https://www.reddit.com/r/shiftingrealities/comments/14v4lw3/how_to_shift_the_next_time_you_go_to_sleep/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1

It led me to your Tumblr because OP used some of your old posts and talked about the concept of the void. All searched lead to tumblr. A couple of months ago (2.5 ish) after one of the worst days of my life, I went to bed sobbing, trying to block out the noise around me, praying and crying for anything - death, shifting, a new identity...

Everything around me started to fade - it was as if I was being engulfed by a white, serene blanket of nothingness. It was completely silent, and I couldn't see or feel anything. The only thing that seemed to persist was my awareness.

Now, I've read about the void before, but mostly in the context of it being a black, empty space. So, I'm not entirely sure if what I experienced was indeed the void or something altogether different. The concept still baffles me a bit, but I'm learning and growing through these experiences.

Regardless of where I was, my heart was set on reaching my dr.I kept praying and hoping, to wake up in my DR.

I woke up in my Twitch streamer DR! I found myself in a completely unfamiliar yet perfect place. My room was equipped with a high-end PC, top-notch gaming gear, and quaint decor items. Milo, my dog, was there too. I was sharing a mansion in LA with my boyfriend and four other streamers. The house was beyond my imagination, and streaming here was a dream come true. As night fell, my friends and I explored the vibrant LA nightlife, creating lasting memories.

After a week, i can’t lie I almost forgot I had shifted here. Then, I set an intention to shift back into this reality but where I had moved out, lived with my best friend and their supportive parents, mastered shifting and manifesting, had my desired looks, and money came easily to me. And it worked!

Since then, I've been living my best boujee gay life, and I shift all the time. I even created a waiting room where I'm immortal and use it whenever I need a break. I wish I could offer better advice, but like everyone says, there isn't a key to shifting. It's different for everyone. But you can and will shift. You can manifest your dream life. You can and deserve to be happy

Oh my god, I'm so happy for you, love 💕💕. I also completely related to what you felt. I know it can seem like your circumstances are holding you back, but believe me when I say this - that couldn't be further from the truth.

It's that same resilience, and your ability to persist despite the odds, that paved the way to your dream life. There’s nothing, I mean nothing that can stop you. Not wavering, crying, or doubt. Nothing. If you want it, it’s yours.

[michanvalentine]

Things about Vincent Valentine that I read around and piss me off. Vol.2

"Vincent was too shy and passive. He is an idiot."

Usually in reference to his attitude towards Lucrecia after the breakup. As if he could somehow save his relationship with her (and thus prevent everything else). I say yes, perhaps he could have sought further clarification, but for me the situation has never been so simple and linear.

Ok, let's start from the beginning. First of all, Vincent is a sensitive and intelligent person, with an above-average education. A person who thinks a lot, even too much. So calling him an idiot, especially in such a context, is really having a superficial reading of the character. Honestly, this statement bothers me a lot even when it is extended to the other part: Lucrecia. But that's another story... Secondly, let's remember that the two had a real relationship. In DoC Vincent was never a sort of stalker fixated on Lucrecia despite the unrequited love, as he might have appeared in the OG (unless the remake wants to tell yet another story.) Even Hojo was aware of their love story, in fact when Lucrecia pronounces the fateful "Yes, doctor" he says: "So you've come to your senses and chosen me." And I don't think Hojo was exactly the type to care about gossip.

That said, I would add my interpretation on Vincent's "passivity". A while ago I read a comment, something like: Lucrecia went with Hojo to gauge how much Vincent cared about her, since she thought he hated her due to the Grimoire's death. So she was waiting for Vincent to react and take her away from Hojo, but Vincent was just too shy and passive to do something so outrageous. I couldn't help but respond to this comment like this: This would be a really sick way of demanding attention. In this case Lucrecia would be truly mentally ill and Vincent would simply be a sane person who behaves properly. I believe there are several biases in this regard. First and foremost, the old-fashioned concept of Prince Charming rescuing the damsel in distress. Which I hate. Secondly I don't think Lucrecia left Vincent because she thought he despised her for the Grimoire incident. Otherwise she wouldn't have needed to push him away, because in that case Vincent himself would have been the one to leave her. No, the reasons are different:

Feelings of guilt led her to think she couldn't be by his side. As if Vincent didn't deserve someone as bad as her in his life.

Every time she looked at Vincent, given the extreme similarity, she saw Grimoire again and remembered the event that had traumatized her.

Obviously Lucrecia didn't put Vincent to the test, she was determined to put as much distance as possible between her and Vincent because she felt it was right for him and too painful for her to continue. Stop. The relationship with Hojo is an addition, but also desired for other reasons. She neither expected nor wanted to be saved. Not to mention that Vincent is not Lucrecia's father and had neither the responsibility nor the duty to do so. She is an adult. Certainly, by breaking off their relationship, Lucrecia has also made a decision for Vincent. He didn't object, he passively accepted and stepped aside. But are we sure he could have done otherwise? Are we sure he could change Lucrecia's mind? How exactly? Young Vincent was naive and introverted, but Vincent's passivity in this case was also determined by other factors. Maybe he could have made his feelings about Grimoire's death and about Lucrecia more clear. But at the same time I think it wasn't necessary, because they were obvious. It's Lucrecia who no longer knows what her true feelings are. And she will only be able to clarify them for herself later, in fact at the end of DoC she will confess to Vincent: "I finally realized my true feelings. Even if you may never understand them".

But let's analyze the facts and see how they unfolded. Given the above, at first Lucrecia was so focused on herself due to guilt that she was numb to everything else. Even to Vincent. In DoC, when Vincent discovers the file on Grimoire, Lucrecia yells at him to "stop it". She doesn't want to listen and at the same time she doesn't give him a chance to express himself. Likewise, after apologizing to him, she ran away without giving him a chance to reply. And let's remember that out of the blue he was left by the love of his life for no valid reason, at least from his point of view. Not to mention that Grimoire's death must have been painful for him too. Reacting is not easy when you are confused, grieving and heartbroken. From that moment on, Vincent Valentine was completely cut out of Lucrecia's life. Lucrecia keeps him at a distance, due to points 1 and 2 above, and as a final barrier she puts Hojo in the middle (of course, the scientist is there too for other reasons). In the scene around the table, when Vincent asks her "if she's sure", Hojo really seems like a wall between the two that still prevents direct confrontation. And Lucrecia appears clearly angry that he has come forward with objections. At the Shinra Mansion Vincent Valentine seems to have no say in anything. Lucrecia doesn't give him the chance to argue, Hojo first rudely silences him because he's just a Turk and then definitively closes his mouth with a bullet. But even if silenced, Vincent's feelings and intentions remain evident. Even Hojo knew them, in fact when he discovers that Lucrecia is experimenting on Vincent's body he says: "How happy this fellow must be. Helping his beloved even after he's begun rotting away." Lucrecia herself, through her data, at a certain point in DoC will say: "I pushed you away, but… now I realize, I never wanted to lose you." And again later: "I made so many mistakes. And I hurt you so, so much. Why did I do what I did?" Deep down Lucrecia knew she had pushed him away for her own personal reasons, and not because he despised her or anything. She knew she had made a mistake, of having been blinded by fear and guilt, that she had mortified his feelings and that she had made him suffer for it, especially because the breakup had been practically forced on him. So I repeat: should he continue to chase Lucrecia, proclaiming his love like a crazy in the hope of changing her mind? Let's pretend he had the opportunity (always excluding kidnappings or ambushes). He could have to, yes, but in addition to reiterating the obvious and saying things already known even to the person concerned (after all, if there is something imperishable, capable of overcoming pain, time and even death, it is the love that Vincent Valentine feels for Lucrecia), she probably wouldn't have listened to him anyway. Because, as Vincent would say, "she was always like that, only believing what she wanted to."

[skaruresonic]

"Yes, Woolie, you can win any argument if you just change what words mean."

Apologies for bringing up an old debate, but I feel the need to clarify my stance on this topic. Twitter character limits will not allow the space needed for explanation.

There's a reason I mentioned the Erazor Djinn and not Shahra. It's because, unlike the Erazor Djinn, Shahra has done nothing wrong. Sonic helps her because he wants to, not because she's earned it by performing regret to a "sufficient" degree.

"The concept of freedom and redemption is neutral."

No, it isn't. That's a culturally Christian view. Some cultures emphasize rehabilitation instead, which differs from redemption.

Not to mention that morality is, to some extent, culturally defined and will vary on that basis.

"Some people deserve it and some people don't."

Yeah, no, I have Problems(tm) with this mindset.

The reason the idea that anyone particularly "deserves" anything - in this case, punishment for crime - doesn't sit right with me is because some external force must define the crime and impose the punishment. I take umbrage with the very idea that we must relent the onus of our problem-solving to an authority, which is naive at best and dangerous at worst.

In other words, at some point you must defer complex moral decisions to an authority. Historically, these punitive frameworks rarely serve justice and usually leverage their power to target the oppressed.

At best, the "criminals deserve to be punished for hurting people" mindset assumes the just world fallacy is true. Good people ought to be rewarded, but more importantly, bad people ought to be punished. On top of other potential pitfalls and opportunities for abuse, this fallacy assumes victims can never exploit their own hurt, real or fabricated, to facilitate oppression.

What this results in, more often than not, is a culture of anxiety that stunts one's moral growth. People become afraid to speak out, make the normal range of mistakes expected of being human, and sometimes even do the right thing upon pain of being branded a Criminal(tm) onto whom punishment is justified and equally little grace afforded. And since "bad people" and "criminals" are categories upon which cruelty for catharsis' sake is considered more justified than rehabilitation or justice for victims, this system can, has been, and will be exploited.

This is why humans rights exist and are called human rights, not "fuck up hard enough and get your humanity revoked" rights.

At worst, it can feed into an authoritarian mindset that paves the way for fascism: dominant cultures enforcing their bigotry through institutionalized violence. "Undeserving" is a severely loaded term especially given this context and this risk.

The wording of "But the fact [Shahra] wishes to make things right for herself and ultimately regretted her mistakes shows that she is more deserving of redemption and freedom than Erazor" implicitly frames her as someone who, under Sonic's supposed moral authority, must be screened or vetted. It risks lumping abuse victim with abuser. If she did nothing wrong, only suffered being a victim of circumstance, why must she "earn" Sonic's grace where the Erazor Djinn does not?

What did she do that would require punishment otherwise if Sonic had found her regret wanting? Lie out of necessity? How could he deign to exercise the authority to punish her for such a thing?

Add the fact that she defers to Sonic as the master of the ring, and this whole power dynamic becomes horribly problematic incredibly fast. That Sonic insists on seeing Shahra as not only an equal but a friend is the whole point the game was attempting to make about their dynamic. It would have been beyond fucked for him to have exploited his power over her in such a manner, and I'm glad the game explicitly avoided that implication right out of the gate. Shut that shit down before it even had a chance to start.

Ironically enough, we see this framework fail when IDW!Sonic is confronted with an abuse victim in the form of Surge. He callously treats her with the same flippant disdain as with other irredeemable villains (barring Eggman, but we'll get to that in a second) even though Surge makes it clear that she's suffering.

The fact that his solution is not to listen to her, but to instead preach his values and say "I'll just kick your ass until you magically start Acting Right(tm)," as if hurting people who are already in pain ever taught them a lesson other than "never trust anyone," means IDW!Sonic is less interested in harm reduction than in appearing "good" and merciful. He winds up reinforcing his status as the moral authority of this world, which is ironic for a character who supposedly values freedom for all.

But maybe not.

Freedom includes the freedom to fuck up, yes. And what I'm certain IDW!Sonic meant to add was the caveat "...but not freedom from consequences." However, his selective hypocrisy in who deserves what and when is so obvious that it winds up warping the message into "Do what Sonic tells you or suffer the consequences he decides are fit."

Again, this loops back around to my original assertion that the "what you deserve" mindset is authoritarian. Who is Sonic to establish himself as the arbiter of freedom?

At least in SatSR, when he condemns the Erazor Djinn to the lamp, it's for pragmatic reasons as much as it is for moral considerations---perhaps the former even more so than the latter.

Sonic knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that letting the Djinn go free will result in the events of the game happening again. Shahra has told him that the Djinn abused his power once before, and he's seen the evidence for abusing it a second time throughout the course of the game. To say nothing of how the Erazor Djinn basically hammered the nail in his own coffin through his callous disregard of Shahra.

The Djinn's actions determine his fate. If we left it at "he's just a scumbag," that reduces him to an identity that may or may not be permanent and shifts focus away from his choices.

Likewise, Shahra is not a good person simply because she regrets her mistakes hard enough, but rather, Sonic knows her hand was forced because she winds up doing the right thing in the end, even at a high personal cost.

Hence Sonic takes concrete steps, such as tossing the lamp down a furnace where no one would be inclined to look for it or even accidentally stumble upon it again, to diminish the threat the Erazor Djinn presents.

It must be emphasized that he also makes an equal effort to comfort a grieving Shahra. Not because she's a good person who "deserves" comfort after all she's been through, but because it is a good thing to alleviate suffering. Also because Shahra is his friend, and Sonic doesn't need a reason to want to help out a friend.

What concrete steps has IDW!Sonic taken to reduce the harm his villains present?

1.) Convinced Shadow to step down from killing Mr. Tinker by leveraging Shadow's traumatic past against him, rather than argue that Mr. Tinker should be given a chance to live as his own person.

2.) Made a promise to check up on Mr. Tinker to make sure things continued to go smoothly, only to later break that promise by assuming Eggman will remain Mr. Tinker forever with no real evidence.

3.) Decided to let Metal Sonic go regardless of Tails' warnings, on the reasoning that Metal was his own person whose autonomy needed to be respected (despite Metal admitting that he essentially had no free will in a previous issue, and despite Tails later pointing out that Metal remained dangerous as he still had his jet engine and claws). Eggman even calls Sonic out on this, explaining that Metal is programmed to obey his master. Yet Sonic still gets chuffed at Metal for having "chosen wrongly."

4.) On top of exacerbating the metal virus and nearly destroying the world for personal gain, Zavok killed people in the Zeti hunt arc and very graphically threatened to flay Sonic alive while storming Restoration HQ. Yet he's shuttled back to the Lost Hex without any real guarantee that he won't do it again.

5.) Nothing against Starline, except to eulogize his death as "big oof," despite having told Surge that he (Sonic) was willing to give even him (Starline) a second chance.

6.) Eulogized Surge with "That's the real problem with freedom: you can't stop people from making the wrong choice."

[scarlet--wiccan]

Oh God I was really hoping the backstory that was leaked for Billy was fake... just heard about the new episode and it turns out it wasn't. why would they choose this over adoption or reincarnation-

It's bad! I really feel like the M C U goes out of its way to interpret these characters in bad faith and come up with the worst possible versions of their stories. I've said this before, but everything about Wanda's origins and the nature of her power seems designed to make her an objectively worse person who is more directly responsible for causing harm than her comics counterpart, but is also weirdly set on punishing her for existing and having trauma. She's simultaneously more doomed by the narrative, and infinitely less deserving of redemption.

With Billy, they took a situation that, while complex and, at times, difficult to parse, is ultimately miraculous and joyful, and they made it just.... incredibly grim. There is no real distinction between Billy Maximoff and Billy Kaplan in the comics-- they're the same person, given a second chance at life and the great fortune to reconnect with his original family, in a way that doesn't invalidate or erase the second. And, again, I want to emphasize that when YA and CC were written, Wanda had Jewish heritage, so I don't think there needs to be any awkwardness in the transfer between the Maximoff and Kaplan families, and the text never does anything to imply that Billy's cultural upbringing is any less valid, or any less central to his character after his origins are revealed.

Here, they created a false dichotomy between the two characters, killed one them off, and made the other into a body-snatcher. That is so much darker, and so much more tragic for the Kaplans-- and it creates uncomfortable questions about their relationship, and Billy's identity, that I don't think can ever be neatly resolved. I will say that, thus far, I don't think the show explicitly disavows "William's" heritage, or writes off Billy's relationship with the Kaplans, the way some people are reporting. He doesn't actually remember his life before the switch, so it's not a total takeover, and at points, the episode seems to imply that he's somehow both, and neither-- a new gestalt.

But I don't trust these writers to execute that concept with integrity, or even consistency. In WV and MoM, Wanda's motives, sense of self, and relationship to her powers repeatedly change at the drop of a dime, and we're seeing the same thing, here, with the abrupt change that takes place when Billy reveals his identity. The shift in personality, escalation of power, and the vague implication that he's been masterminding this whole excursion makes no sense with the established timeline-- this is all happening within 24 hours of him even learning that Wanda had kids, let alone that he might be one of them, not to mention hearing about both Agatha the Witches Road for the first time. And up until that point, he really was just an earnest kid. The heel-turn feels silly and juvenile, and the needle drop at the end of episode #5 underscores that a little too perfectly-- his "bad guy" act is just as ill-fitting and unsubstantiated as the Eilish's edgy, wannabe-thug aesthetics.

Obviously, the most important issue here is not the quality of writing, but where this character falls into the spectrum of whitewashing and erasure. The fact that Locke is not Jewish but, before the switch, is playing a Jewish character-- and, specifically trespassing on prayer and religious ceremonies-- is a problem. I've seen a lot of different opinions expressed by a lot of different people within the community about who can or can't play Jewish characters, but I think we can all agree that this is worth criticizing, especially given the larger context of repeated erasure and historical distortion against Jewish and Roma people in this franchise.

But I also want to emphasize that, because of what was done to Wanda, and the franchise's insistence on conducting blatant anti-Romani racism, there was never going to be a truly authentic or acceptable version of this character. Now matter how they cast the role, a significant part of his background had already been erased, and he was already saddled with significant racist baggage. I am very, very tired of white people and Young Avengers fans overlooking that fact.

[its-murderous-business]

An Introduction to Nonverbal Learning Disorder

Happy disability pride month! I am celebrating by trying to educate people about my learning disorder, because it is one of the least known learning disabilities and deserves more recognition.

What is Nonverbal Learning Disorder?

Nonverbal Learning Disorder (also called Non-Verbal Learning Disability and other variations on the same name), often shortened to NLD or NVLD, is not a new concept, but the idea of it as its own diagnosis is relatively recent. A common misconception upon hearing the name is that people with NVLD are non-verbal, but this is not the case. The name essentially refers to the fact that people with this disability are affected in almost every area except verbal and language skills, where they often excel.

What areas can NVLD effect?

NVLD can take a lot of forms, and not everyone with it will be affected in every area, and other areas are also able to be affected this is just a general list:

- exceptional skills in the areas of comprehension (understanding) and production (ability to utilize) of verbal language. Basically, we are really good at reading, writing, speech, spelling, and have large vocabularies.

- difficulties with visual spatial processing skills. Fun fact, NVLD was briefly called Visual Spatial Processing Disorder! Visual spatial processing is a term that describes the process of seeing things and then understanding how they relate to one another in space.

- difficulties with understanding non-verbal forms of communication such as tone, facial expressions, gestures, metaphors and exaggerations, and (sometimes) context.

- difficulties with math, including arithmetic, fractions, geometry, telling time, pattern recognition, and much more. This can be very similar to dyscalculia.

- difficulties socializing (often presents similar to the social difficulties faced by autistic people)

- other miscellaneous neurodivergent traits such as hyperfixations, difficulty regulating emotions, distress when faced with change, sensory overload, motor skill and coordination deficits, attention deficits, and executive dysfunction

How does that affect people with NVLD on the day to day?

Let’s use me as the example. I love to talk to people but I often run into issues because I take things very literally, struggle to read social cues, and can have trouble connecting with others. Growing up I was always in advanced English and literature classes, but was in special education for math due to my extreme difficulties with it. I have a lot of trouble dealing with last minute changes in my plans and loud noises bother me A Lot.

I struggle greatly with visual spatial processing skills, specifically for me that can manifest as not knowing where my body is in space (causing me to bump into things a lot), difficulty navigating maps, struggles with knowing left from right, a complete inability to use the knowledge of how an object looks from one angle to visualize how it would look from another angle, and many other things.

NVLD can present in a number of different ways and affect different parts of peoples lives. I have multiple neurodivergent comorbidities which can make it difficult to tease the exact symptoms apart from one another, but there are plenty of articles online where people discuss their own experiences if you look for them.

Is NVLD in the DSM/an official diagnosis?

ehhhhh it’s complicated. NVLD is not currently it’s own differentiated diagnosis within the DSM-5, however it can be diagnosed (as it is with me) under the DSM-5 as Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Mathematics which serves as a sort of catch all for any learning disability that affects math or areas other than reading/writing.

NVLD as its own diagnosis is a relatively new idea, as historically it’s been lumped within other diagnoses (typically autism, adhd, or specific learning disability). However over the last 15 years and especially the last 5 years, there has been a significant increase in academic literature and acknowledgement of NVLD as its own distinct diagnosis. Columbia University has been conducting research on the disorder alongside the NVLD Project, which is the only organization that exclusively does advocacy, education, and research around NVLD. These groups are doing a lot of work to attempt to get NVLD classified as its own diagnosis in future editions of the DSM.

How common is NVLD? What causes it?

NVLD is uncommonly diagnosed due to lack of official DSM recognition, misidentification as other neurodiverse conditions, and lack of awareness of NVLD from neuropsych evaluators. However one study from earlier this year estimated that between 1-8% of children have NVLD depending on what diagnostic criteria is used.

There has been some early evidence that NVLD is the result of dysfunction in the right hemisphere of the brain or more specifically the inability of the right hemisphere of the brain to effectively communicate to the left hemisphere.

Why are you telling me all of this?

The majority of people do not know that NVLD exists, and as such those of us with this condition often get left out of neurodivergent and disability communities. I would like to be included in advocacy and understood by the community since we all face very similar challenges! I really encourage y’all to learn more about Non-Verbal Learning Disability

Here are some links to learn more!

From the Child Mind Institute

Psychology Today article

From ADDitude Magazine

Article from Very Well Mind

Medical News Today article

Learning Disorder Association of America article

From Learning Disability Association of Ontario

And of course the aforementioned NVLD Project website!

[traegorn]

you never read the lilith question from the first edition of lilith magazine you twisted presumptuous fraud and antisemite

So I'm probably giving you more attention than you deserve, but I also hate leaving someone who keeps repeatedly shouting something at me that's so wrong uncorrected.

You brought this up back in September (yes, this has been going on for that long), and at the time I hadn't read it so I assumed it supported your argument. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and trusted that it said what you said.

But here's the thing, I've since read it.

And it doesn't support what you're saying at all.

(Putting the rest under a cut since this gets long...)

So going to the actual piece we have to remember what "Lilith Magazine" is. It's a Jewish Feminist magazine writing primarily for a Jewish audience. Cantor-Zuckoff is talking about how Jewish women may want to look at her story differently. I don't find anything in there arguing for Lilith to be some pan-feminist icon for non-Jewish people. In fact, in the article Cantor-Zuckoff says:

What we have to explore are the uniquely Jewish aspects of the Lilith story, and how they relate to the Jewish experience, to Jewish history. After all, Jews lived among many different peoples and were subject to a bombardment of cultural and religious concepts and myths from all sides. What they accepted is important because it shows us what Jews perceived as necessary and appropriate to Jewish life and its continuity. How they transmuted what they accepted is also significant for this reason. The account of Lilith’s revolt in the Alphabet is, to the best of my knowledge, intrinsically Jewish; no non-Jewish source tells of a female struggle for equality or gives it as a reason for the vengeful behavior of a female demon. This is especially important to us in exploring how the Lilith myth connects with our unique history.

The only comments about universality in the piece are when Cantor-Zuckoff says that there are stories with some similarities in other cultures just prior to those last two paragraphs:

These legends of Lilith-as-demon, the vengeful female witch, are, of course, not unique to Jewish culture and tradition. Many scholars theorize that vengeful female deities or demons, like the Greek hecatae, represent the vestiges of the dying Matriarchy or are an attempt by men to discredit the Matriarchy.

What Cantor-Zuckoff is arguing here is that there are myths in other cultures that have been influenced by patriarchy and serve some similar functions. This is not an argument for other people using Lilith, only that there are elements she shares. To claim they're the same though is bizarre, as you wouldn't claim that, say, Kinich Ahau and Helios are the same god just because they're both associated with the sun.

I think this really goes back to the fact that you've started with a conclusion and just reject anything that contradicts it. You really want it to be true. What I have said from the start is that Lilith is a figure who is unique to Jewish folklore. I backed this up with with the evidence we find in the historical record. I debunked the supposed "non-Jewish Lilith" sources.

And I said listen to Jewish people about what's okay or not okay to use from their culture, as they are a closed ethnoreligion, and not listening to them would make someone an asshole. You've been having a bizarre tantrum at me for like half a year now, and it's getting sad.

I don't know why you seem to care that I, a random person you will never meet, thinks you're being an asshole, but this has to stop.

(Context Note: For anyone who is seeing this post first in this ongoing "conversation" -- this anon has been harassing me for months because I dared say in my podcast that Lilith is a figure who comes exclusively from Jewish folklore, and that members of the Modern Witchcraft Movement should listen to Jewish people when they ask us not to appropriate her. That's right -- my saying "listen to Jewish people" is apparently an antisemitic act.)

[zai-doodles]

Yeah!! Please rank the spirit dresses!

LETS GOOOOOOO

ok ok ill try to not ramble too much but this will def be long lol

im not perfect by any means and these r just my opinions so idk don't kill me ig, if u disagree u can say that but be polite

10. OK so in LAST PLACE WE HAVE

CAPRICORN!

ok put down ur pitch forks and let me talk-

its not a BAD design aesthetically or in concept, I've seen ppl say its kinda leaning into a like, spy vibe or something and I really like the sunglasses and horns!

BUT capricorn never read as a spy to me?? maybe its just me but he always came off as more of a butler parody especially w the tailcoat he gets in this screenshot

i think both capricorn and the stardress suffer from not having a very visually distinct concept so when put together its barely feels like they match at all, its its v clear that putting lucy in a skimpy dress took priority over making a cool design that connected to the story

i dont even love my redesign for this dress anymore bc I feel like I just need to redo Capricorn first to give him a stronger concept then deal w the dress later

OK

9.

AQUARIUS

this is blasphemy i know but PLEASE HEAR ME OUT

this one is way more personal preferance so if u disagree that's so chill there's just too many things w this dress that bother me

I hate the hair, i really do like grown women w pigtails is already a pet peeve of mine bc its so male gazy to me but combining that with the bikini top and super short skirt just annoys me

and let me say again THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH LIKING THIS but in the larger context of this being the AQUARIUS dress it just doesn't read like her at all!! Sure she has a bikini but she also has v ling hair!

where capricorn suffers from too little visual concept aquarius has so much of it!! The gold to me reads v fancy and royalty esque which makes sense for her personality, just changing the hair to something more like what aquarius has would do wonders I feel like

plus i hate the green-

my first redesign ever was this dress bc it annoyed me soooo much

ANYWAY-

8.

VIRGO

this fit is fine, just boring

but virgos design is also boring and the one interesting thing, her chains, NOT being part of the star dress or alluded to makes me angry

also pigtails so it loses points

NEXT

7.

ARIES

again its fine but its boring, mainly bc aries' design is also boring so-

idk i wish they went more bo peep with it cuz I feel like that could have been cute

also more fucking pigtails-

6.

TAURUS

if any fit deserved to have horns its this one TAURUS IS A BULL-

anyway this fits is also fine but damn they could have gone so much harder w the cowgirl thing

i do still stand by my redesign for this stardress bc I think it fits canon without redoing taurus

she should have a nose ring its just facts-

5.

GEMINI

love the concept and idea! kinda meh execution

its fine ig but its also like gemini don't look anything like this? which makes this another one were I feel ud have to rework gemini to give them more visual cues u could take

the headdress specfically confuses me since the wiki says its a Kokoshnik but after looking at the wiki for that I found nothing in the history that makes that make sense for this fit?? like concept wise??

its only so high up bc i respect that they did something different and creative with this dress and the way they split the colors on the dress itself is cute, just wish they went more magician or even jester w it

the only pigtails im kinda ok w bc symmetry

(when i say more magician i did it this way:

4.

SCORPIO

its cute, i wish the tail was bigger and I see v little reason for the fit to be skin tight when scorpio himself literally has a half skirt thing going on

i still like this so here, as u can see I liked the idea with the hair and headband combo I just wish they had pushed it further

3.

SAGITTARIUS

again, cool concept, weird execution?

this one is the only one i feel that THRIVES from not taking any visual cues from the spirit bc honestly his design just sucks I'm sorry ik its supposed to be funny but its just stupid to me idk

however even if i like thaty they did something different AND gave her the bow and arrow, it annoys me still that nothing about the fit reads equestrian or archery? there's SO MANY historical fits they could have used as inspo for this and they just chose not to and that's lazy to me idk

also also i hate that for a while bc of the way the manga was colored it looked like she was fully just wearing underwear bc of the white fabric with nothing on her thighs like that's dumb he's a horse u WANT something there to protect that area when riding

2.

LEO

its cute, it matched loke design AND personality wise, wish there were more lion elements but overall v cute

CANCER

i already talked abt my thoughts on this dress here so yeits just good AND the pigtails r ok bc they r meant to mimic cancers silhouette which I really like

summary:

[ddeck]

Hello, I just saw ur Padme in a tajik dress and I am low-key obsessed with it (as I am with anything related to her lately...) Well ! I can't find anything else about it on your blog so I am just asking u directly if you headcanon the dress as being Naboo or Tatooine fashion ? Idk why I always heavily headcannoned this dress as being a dress Padme borrowed from Beru after realizing her outift was not practical in the desert. Also if u want to rant about star wars fashion Im interested. Bye !

hihi. so about the dress. ages ago i found a picture from the article in one of many star wars encyclopedia books that described the dress as something Padmé took with her for the travel. the article said that she got it from another culture she visited so i choose to believe that it is a form of one of Naboo's many traditional clothing styles. and it doesn't seem out of place with all the other dresses she wore (whenever i think of padme in ep2&3 i always think of kinda droopy long silhouettes like this and that "space nouveau" thing they always talk about)

unfortunately, in true star wars fashion, the article also called the unknown culture "naive" and "primitive", which i think makes the author deserving of being torn into many tiny pieces. especially since the design, as well as the majority of Padmé's wardrobe, was definitely *khm*inspired*khm* by other cultures (side note i tried to look it up and unforch i couldn't find which one exactly because different sources kept telling me different things)

also here's a quote from McCraig about the original concept design for it

"It's based on a Chinese and medieval design, where they would sew giant pockets into the front of costumes..."

so yeah all that makes me think that it's definitely from Naboo

i chose to portray her as she was, wearing traditional tajik clothes because chakan embroidery was genuinely the first thought i had when seeing her poncho in the movie also my grandma was tajik and also i said so

for a bit of context tajik chakan is a form of traditional tajik embroidery. it is completely handmaid. the craft is passed down through generations. the embroidery usually depicts stylized flowers, other plants and images of the sun (hence all the circles) and also works like a charm with wishes of health and luck sewn into it

[steelthroat]

I only have 1 very controversial opinion:

You should have a license for kids and pets.

Long rant incoming:

Like... yeah, I know it's bad, it can be strumentalized politically etc etc. I know I know- controlling natality like that is dangerous and stuff. Fine, I get it, I swear I do.

But seriously after all the [INCREDIBLY BAD] parenting I witness (especially now that I am staying at the theme park) and the straight up animal abuse (because otherwise I don't know how to label that shit) I see from certain dog owners...

GEE I GET IT PARENTING/TAKING CARE OF AN ANIMAL IT'S HARD BLA BLA BLA. Don't have them. Please I swear to God Don't make what are supposed to be good memories fucking miserable to your kids.

Just be humble and seek some help or informations on how to take care of something/someone else.

Look. I've seen poor dogs laying on the floor under the few shadows that are here and there tired, absolutely devastated. And I know for a fact the ground ain't cool, those dipshits that own them walk with fucking shoes on and forget the main reason they do huhhh???

DO NOT BRING DOGS WITH YOU AT THE THEME PARK. JFC IT'S NOT THAT HARD OF A CONCEPT. Your dog will be tired, the floor is literally lava, you CANNOT bring them on the roller coasters and you cannot leave them to the staff. It will be stressing for you and miserable for them, do not fucking do it.

And please parents don't be assholes for a day? Jfc it's the first time your 5yrs old kid has experience something like that, be patient???? My god, they're excited, YOU brought them here, match even a half of their enthusiasm.

I know your kid has asked you to look at [insert thing] 30 times and you've already seen it 3000 times before. THEY HAVEN'T. THEY ARE FIVE FFS. LOOK AT THEM SHOWING YOU THE COOL THING. It takes five seconds, even less and they’ll be satisfied.

And the ones who snap at their kids after they ask them something twice.

I hate you. You should have never reproduced. You made life miserable for both you and your poor kid that DOESN'T DESERVE YOU.

Like I don't get it, kids ARE hard and can be pretty annoying, 100% no doubt in my mind. But also if you listen to them, if you [EDUCATE] them and understand how they think... it does get easier. You're the parent. If you don't know how your kids "work" you're doing a bad job.

And maybe you are gonna think "hey Zero, you don't have kids you don't understand, also there is a difference between a parent ignoring a tantrum and what you're saying maybe they are..."

NO. Nuh uh! I've been around children all my life, I've had to help some parents, spend a lot of time being the babysitter of the friend group to the younger siblings.

And guess what? I was their favorite person, why? I matched their energy, I LISTENED to them and I was KIND to them when they asked something. If I had to stop a tantrum I didn't turn it into a screaming match.

Guess I was doing SOMETHING right if ALL those kids from different backgrounds and contexts decided *I* was someone worth listening to.

______________________________

On a more serious note, I know a license for kids is not a good thing because 100% this would be strumentalized against natives, people of color, poor people, etcetera. Yes, yes, I know. It should never become a reality. I am just venting about the bad parents I see, and I wish nothing for them to see the error in their ways and to not further traumatize or make their kids' lives miserable and start over. I believe in rehabilitation and redemption.

I am just angry and tired mate.

A license for animals, however, is something I am starting to believe in after some shit I've witnessed. These owners are dangerous.

[inusmasha]

One of the reasons I hate the Inuyasha love triangle discourse is bc frankly it bores me to tears.

It rubs me the wrong way when I see ppl go on and on about who loved Inuyasha better, who was more deserving of said love, who failed, and who gives Inuyasha more blah blah. I'm just saying that there is plenty to talk about outside of a romantic context. Especially (imo) when it comes to Kagome.

ahem

Reason #903048301 as to why I love the character Kagome is because she's like this timeless icon of the 90s teen girl archetype. It's wild how you can write fanfiction about her and get this glimpse into what it meant to be a teen girl back in the day. But, that definition varies for everyone, and that's what makes it magical.

When you see someone writing Kagome, it's like a window into their own experiences. Everyone's take on Kagome is a bit different but there's this..all encompassing Kagome-ness that we try to tap into (her kidness? her empathy? her sense of duty? it's different for everyone!). She's this character who somehow manages to resonate even today. Or maybe she doesn't, and that's part of the charm – she's this evolving, undefined concept. If you picture Kagome in high school today, it would def be a different Kagome. And that is so much fun to explore!!!!!!!!!!!

And then there's the fact that Kagome represents us, the audience, in Inuyasha's world. Through her, we get to explore this fantastical and dangerous realm. She grows, and we grow with her. By the end, she's not the same teen girl, but a mature woman. It's like, who is this post-canon Kagome? We all get to project our ideas of womanhood onto her as she takes on the role of the legendary miko of the village. She changes, and we see ourselves in that transformation.

I'm on this journey, trying to figure out how she still fits in today's world and how others put their own spin on it. It's fascinating how characters from that era can still resonate today, even as the definition of a teenage girl's experiences and identity has evolved over the years. These characters can serve as a lens to understand the changing perspectives and experiences of teenage girls through different generations. (SHE LITERALLY VISITS HER (more repressed) SELF IN THE PAST AND AHUghhhhhh!!!!!!!! AND! IS FIGURING OUT HER IDENTITY AND HOW SHE FITS INTO THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS!!!! Her relationshi with Kikyo in that context is something I wanna talk about more)

Writing fanfiction allows you to delve into this archetype, providing insights into the character and the era while also allowing you to put your own spin on it. It's a great to see how different writers interpret and reinterpret this character in contemporary contexts. I can't get enough of Kagome.

[kooki914]

you should make a spamton rant. rip him apart and tell the world every intimate reason he is a disreputable and immoral individual who got exactly what he deserved. we need more spamton hate in this community. people obviously dont understand just how bad he can be

Seeing as the blog that sent this is empty, and the phrasing of this ask is downright comical, I'm willing to bet this is rage bait.

If not, I'm genuinely sorry you think like this, random person, because my dislike of Spamton is, you guessed it, subjective! Just like every opinion about a fictional character, it's entirely up to the reader to form their own thoughts and decide if they like them or not, if they'd put up with their actions or not, and if the context we're provided makes their actions justified or unforgivable to you. Opinions are flexible and valid, and even change over time!

Now excuse me as I write an essay in response to this general concept because you HAVE baited me, just not in the way you wanted.

I'd like to take a moment to comment on the absolute state of discussing "character good/character bad" in fandoms, especially nowadays. Because of the increased politicization of fandom culture, it almost feels like people treat fandom discourse as inherently political and just as serious. And, while I'd love to talk about the rampant misogyny in fandom or how homophobia still permeates even in progressive spaces, I'm specifically referring to the moralization of media engagement.

The "you can't watch this" or "you have to watch this", the people in the old undertale fandom who'd tell you you're a bad person if you decided to play through the no mercy route, the people in current deltarune fandom talking about how Kris' race ambiguity makes Toby Fox racist, and, in this case, someone trying to bait ME into moralizing my opinion of Spamton for the sake of a "gotcha" or fodder for their hatred of me. Sorry to disappoint, I don't think Spamton is reprehensible in our, practical, human terms.

He's just some fictional guy who did shitty stuff to a bunch of kids and kind of got his comeuppance in the end. That exact description applies to him, Spade King, and undertale Asgore even though they're entirely different characters. And, also, I fucking ADORE Spade and Asgore, but my subjective opinion, the Vibe Check if you will, is that Spamton is worse than them. I think we can all agree that In Real Life murder of 6 children is obviously worse than being a con artist. However, this is also fiction, and those deaths shouldn't be treated with the SAME severity as actual, real crimes against humanity should be. They are severe, yes, and breaches of morality, but not REAL morality. Actual children weren't harmed in the making of undertale, believe it or not. These reprehensible actions from the cast are narrative vessels meant to show us the state of mind a character is and how far they're willing to go.

I think Spamton's desperation for reaching his "heaven" is disturbing because he was willing to extort and kill a child for it. In the same vain, I think Asgore is a coward for choosing to go through with his plan when the human that walked into his throne room was a literal child and not someone deserving of the death penalty, which happened 7 separate times. The difference is, I like Asgore and dislike Spamton. Not for moral reasons. Just Vibes.

This ask was 100% spurred on by the video I made about shadow crystals and secret bosses. It's kind of telling of their lack of media literacy, how this (practically) anon took nothing away from that video except "this guy thinks Spamton sucks", because that was decidedly not the point. Even during my rant about him in the video, when I call him a bad person I am simply stating in-universe facts. Things that most people who like Spamton as a character rather than a poor little meow meow can agree DID happen, and DOES make him morally grey. And this is where the politicization of fandom comes in again, because I only felt the need to add that rant into that section because there's SO many people who feel the need to justify liking immoral characters by making them super not bad at all - talking about the grey as if it's white, and if you point out the darker shades, they think you're trying to paint over all of it with black.

The people who over-exaggerate how tragic Spamton's or Spade King's lives were, the ones who justify reprehensible actions through "but he's mentally ill!" (even though a sentiment like that just further stigmatizes mental illness but that's a different topic), the people that say "X character did nothing wrong" without a twinge of irony in their tone.

Spamton is not Satan. He's also not a flawless angel.

The complete loss of being able to view a character as both Bad and Likable at the same time is tragic to me, because 90% of the characters I adore are bad, reckless, stupid, selfish, downright EVIL sometimes, and even if they may be lonely or misunderstood underneath it all, that is NOT something that erases their flaws! The whole POINT of moral grayness and complexity in characters is that we learn to take the good AND the bad in stride. Where do you draw a line in the sand? Does their charisma make them lovable enough to you that you want to keep watching them do The Bad Thing as long as they're having fun with it? Or does their grappling with and regret of The Bad Thing make them so emotionally compelling to you that you want to see where they'll go next, no matter the morality of their future actions?

If you like Spamton, more power to you. If you're in love with the weird funny little puppet man, even better, live your best life. But, for the love of god, engage with him as the character he actually is, without scrubbing away the awkward and the morally dubious for the sake of a cleaner character to play with. I genuinely believe most of the cult surrounding Spamton understands this, most of what I've seen from his most avid fans still paint him as his greedy conniving canon self, it's just that there's a loud minority (and the filthy casuals who don't read any deeper into him and just flatten every character they talk about) who deliberately try to convince you that Spamton is OBJECTIVELY a good person, or OBJECTIVELY someone you have to like, otherwise you're weird and, like, hate mentally ill people or something. I've gotten a Lot of weird comments on that video you guys wouldn't even believe.

All in all I consider that Spadesgore must be canonized.

[sizzlingpatrolfox]

Thinking about JK and seven's success in the context of Taylor's recent streams bomb is fascinating. Yes her numbers are crazy but let's think about it - everyone on social media is talking about her and the album and they have been for weeks. I was listening to a political podcast and they signed off with the guy saying he's going to listen to the album ahead of time to make sure it's ok for his 5 year old daughter to listen to. She's literally a household name - even in households like mine where my parents do not keep up with with western artists. Yeah a lot of her numbers are stacked because of versions and payola and every platform pushing the hell out of her BUT STILL - there's something behind that push. People are tuned in! Everyone who's tuned into the cultural zeitgeist knew TTPD was coming. Same with Olivia Rodrigo - yes she has an aura of industry plantness - getting pushed right out of the gate and becoming a darling of critics everywhere for your debut album doesn't just happen. But again, her albums are GOOD. The songs are well written and she was clearly deeply involved in every step of the way. Everyone knows driving license and the story behind it. Payola as a concept is annoying especially when so many deserving artists get ignored because they don't have it but it's undeniable that after artists like TS and OR get all this payola, their songs become the moment. Everyone's buzzing about them and listening to their albums.

What is seven? It's numbers are at TS and OR levels right? If you think about it seven debuted with more streams than djo's end of the beginning did and it's charted higher for longer. But which song launched who as a solo artist to the GP that Hybe desperately wants? A song with numbers at that level but what is the ground level reality of its popularity? The most telling thing is that after that completely insane debut seven had, if it was really such a great song that everyone incl the GP had tuned in for, those people should've at least checked golden out. That is the point. That was scooters strategy. Have seven become the next baby or driving license and capture the GP interest so it sustains for the rest of his debut.

The point is that people will compare his numbers to other kpop acts but he didn't get a kpop debut. He got the kind of debut and platform push TS and OR get. So his numbers are good at a kpop level but did it achieve the objective? I have to imagine the objective was that JK became the next JB or the next OR or....as Hybe keeps trying to do, it was for him to become the next BTS. No, Hybe can keep trying to push a particular narrative because JK is their sunk cost fallacy, but inspite of goldens streams and sales eclipsing others, his debut was not successful.

It is irony because people can and will bring up his numbers in relation to Jimin or Tae or lesserafim or whoever and act like JK is doing amazing but I'm telling you now that the reason JK's debut makes me so angry is because if Jimin had had that world cup stage for a solo debut, that humongous deal wouldn't have just been a footnote of cool places BTS have performed at. It would have been a noteworthy performance. We have ten years of his solo stage to prove that. It's this wasted potential that gets me so heated up about JK because of all the opportunities he got. Compare the payola put in versus results gotten and the mediocrity is staggering considering what I mentioned other artists have achieved with that payola level in my first paragraph. The only reason I think about JK is because of this - it drives me mad.

Sorry this got...long and ranty 😭

i must've said this last year already but yes, he had a bigger debut and numbers (after debut) compared to other kpop or korean acts, but he was really nowhere people like Taylor or Harry, to whom everyone compared him to. Let's not even talk about Michael Jackson and how hard they tried that he'd be namedropped alongside Jungkook.

The most important difference to me is that people RESPECT Taylor. They respect Harry, and they respect Michael even so many years after his death. Soloist Jungkook doesn't have that respect. BTS might've gotten really close to have it, but not them as soloists. Part of it might be because he's korean, sure; but more than anything, he doesn't have people's respect because he has not earned it. Period. He hasn't done anything that would gain him people's respect or admiration.

Taylor had a moment where she lost people's respect too - she went completely MIA, didn't show her face in public for years, she was the laugh of the town. Granted, a lot of it was pushed by this insane, psychopathic hate culture and spurred on by Kanye West and Kim Kardashian simply because they're people who just like to get involved in shit. Taylor's never really had a scandal (she's actually a really sweet girl and so incredibly smart too), but because they -the Kardashians/Wests- thought it was fun to hate on her, they did it and everyone jumped on the bandwagon because if there's something people on the internet lack, that's a personality of their own.

Now she's regained all the success and people's affection she had before that, and ten thousands times more. The haters moved on, found jobs probably, Kim Kardashian isn't even that "big" anymore, nobody talks about her and Kanye is an unmedicated man roaming around with seemingly no direction whatsoever. Taylor came out of that being in a great space in her personal life, had spent a couple of years inside her home with someone who loved her, wrote and release lover and everyone flocked to it.

Then came folklore and evermore, which were the albums that really did it for her; those albums are crazy good and so different from everything else everybody was putting out that moment. Many people who'd previously thought she was too bubblegum pop, or that her songs were silly, changed their mind, started taking her seriously as a writer/singer and became fans after listening to folklore and evermore; and those people stayed. Those people are still listening to her music. This isn't something I see on the internet, but I went to her concert last November and everyone I talked to had become a fan in 2019 or after.

But she also knows how fickle it all is, and she's talked about it. Is she wrong for wanting to protect what she's worked all her life to build?

She's a business woman, it's true. And many "stans" on the internet hate that, for some reason that I really don't understand. Because taking the reins in their own careers is the only way people are able to survive in music, literally. I don't remember where she said it, but it was Beyonce precisely who said once that she didn't have a seat at the table, so instead she built her own table. That's Taylor, too. Not because Taylor was underprivileged or anything, and but in the business sense. These women don't become billionaires because they "only do music", there's millions of people out there, doing music on the streets. They become billionaires because they're doing business too.

Most people don't want others to be successful, or at the very least they aren't really hoping and praying you'll do well. Mostly they just don't care. And I've said this a lot of times in relation to BTS too - that all the members were looking out for themselves and their own solo careers and that was it. I've said before that Jimin is not a business man, and I don't expect him to ever be one, but I also wish for him to have at least one person standing by him and his decisions. It'd be great to believe doing arts today is all glitter and parties, but it's a business as much as being a wall street guy is.

Maybe it's so overwhelming to me because I've been a Taylor fan since 2008 right before fearless came out, but people really don't get how unprecedented her career is. I was 13 in 2008, the year my sister was born. Now, it's 2024 my sister is 16 and she's a Taylor fan. Without me even intervening, mind you, because we don't live together. We went to the concert because she wanted to go.

How many people can you say they had a career in music 20 years ago and not only are they still at it, but they're getting bigger with each passing year? Because I honestly couldn't name you one single person apart from Taylor.

Maybe I could say BTS if they were active right now, but that it's yet to be seen because the fandom did go downhill after butter. PTD wasn't as successful as butter or dynamite were, and let me not even mention the group songs that came after because that was embarrassing for them.

Also, another point but men rarely -if ever- bring anything new to the table. Armys, especially those who like Jungkook or Yoongi, are the epitome of hypocrisy because what has Jungkook done that's spectacular? Be shirtless? Please.

His songs were mid, the singing was mid, the dancing was below mid. They really are in no position to speak and shouldn't be taken seriously. And this takes me back to the respect thing and how he really didn't do anything to gain it.

For some reason I'm also thinking of Lana del Rey who was literally BEGGING people to listen to her album, and even said that she'd hoped her album would go viral and not that photo of her working in some fast food place. You have loser gays on twitter going lana this lana that, but they don't really respect her either.

This is something I've said before, too; but time really is the only proof of how "impactful" an artist is. Olivia's had a great run so far, but will people remember her or talk about her 10 years down the line? Is she still gonna be relevant? Is BTS still gonna be revelant? Is Jungkook gonna be relevant? Great debuts are great and all, but in the end it doesn't make an artist, as well as a bad debut doesn't break one either. I've also said this about Jimin before; that if he still wants to have a solo career after military, the only way to go should be up. This Taylor type of career where you get bigger with each release is literally everyone's dream and it actually proves that whatever you've been doing until that moment has worked and people can't get enough of you.