#critical thinking about something can lead to a positive conclusion

[ssaalexblake]

the life of a 13 era dw fan who doesn't like doing negative fandom things, as in, spending my time going on about what i dislike about it and would rather discuss positive or neural things about it, and how this genuinely Genuinely bothers some people lol

[ilikekidsshows]

The Totally Spies-ification of Adrien

Okay, it's been long enough that I can actually discuss how Adrien's slavery is depicted in the show without anger-fueled exaggerations and hyperbole. I want to discuss how Miraculous treats Adrien's slavery very flippantly and how it is, like everything in this show post-retool, all about Marinette. The show has a lot of stuff that hints that the writers intend for Adrien to be viewed a very certain way. I believe the writers made Adrien a slave for Marinette’s benefit and I will explain how I came to this conclusion.

I’ve joked before about how Astruc has worked on Totally Spies, “one of the kinkiest cartoons ever made”. I’d like to tackle this idea and how it relates to Miraculous more seriously. I’d like to tackle the topic of titillation and how it relates to how this show approaches slavery with such flippancy. My claim is that Adrien being a slave is not meant to be horrifying, which is why the story doesn't treat it as such; it's meant to be titillating.

I usually don't use Read Mores, since they can lead to broken links later, but this is really long. Strap in, folks.

Titillation for the context of this analysis means “content with the intention to excite romantically or sexually”, basically it’s about “kinky” stuff. The purpose of talking about sexuality in relation to Miraculous is not to paint the writers as some kind of fiends, but to present the fact that many teenagers are curious about romance and sex and will think about sex unprompted. This means titillating content in cartoons doesn’t even need to be related to sex to be titillating. And Astruc has a history of putting titillating stuff in his work, with Totally Spies being a very notable example of how you can include non-sexual titillating content in a kids’ show.

It all comes down to expected audience reactions. Adrien is meant to be sexy. I don’t mean that in a “the writers think this is sexy” way, but a “the writers think the projected audience of straight teenage girls will think this is sexy” way. He gets put into bondage three times in ‘Copycat’, ‘Anti-Bug’ and ‘Reverser’ and all three times the camera seems to like to show him off. He is meant to be an object of attraction for the audience. The people criticizing this show have been pointing out how Ladybug's costume accentuates her butt for years, but this is not something that occurs with just Ladybug. When he isn't posing for the viewers, Cat Noir gets whacked around by Akuma’s a lot, but a lot of the time it ends with him in a prone position that is also titillating, in ‘Pixelator’ it goes as far as having his butt jut out. However, the idea that Cat Noir is the one who gets hit when an Akuma needs to show off how dangerous they are is also part of the power dynamic where Marinette or Ladybug gets to show off, so it’s not purely for titillation, which is why other examples, like ‘Stormy Weather’ are more comedic.

It’s likely that Adrien-as-Adrien doesn’t get to participate in the show’s slapstick much, since that aspect of the character is presented as the perfect beauty, a role usually reserved for female characters who only ever get a little bit flustered or banged up to make sure they keep looking attractive. Marinette screams "waack" and runs face first into a wall in the same episode where the silliest thing Adrien gets to do is sneeze (Mr Pigeon). Adrien is meant to be attractive, sexy, titillating, in different ways in his different forms. As Cat Noir he is more active and more sexy, as Adrien he’s more passive and pretty, much like how female love interests can fall into these categories. It’s the Betty and Veronica dichotomy; in the Archie franchise Betty and Veronica are shown as the wholesome and sexy romance options and the reason the writers go out of their way not to resolve the love triangle is to keep the appeal of these both options going. People’s tastes differ, so it would alienate some audiences to pick one over the other. With Miraculous they solved the problem by having the two romance options be the different identities of a single character.

Frankly, as of the season five finale, Adrien is approaching “sexy lamp” levels of replicating sexist ways of writing a female character but just changing the gender. What else do you call him lying on the floor in despair while his love interest gets his superpowers and uses them to beat up his abusive father, while somehow being perfectly fine and happily kissing Marinette later after said father is dead and gone? Adrien’s trauma is debilitating when it serves the writers’ purposes, but stops being a problem as soon as they need him to smile and look pretty. The main reason Adrien’s trauma is so inconsistent is so that he can act as Marinette’s trophy so that Marinette has somebody to kiss in the final shot. If Adrien was despairing about not being good enough for her, or grossly crying about being an orphan, Marinette wouldn’t have a fun time kissing him. And if Marinette isn’t having fun, the members of the audience projecting onto her aren’t having fun either.

Speaking of how Adrien’s depiction relates to Marinette, here comes the controversial part of this post: while Marinette is not depicted as a literal slave owner in-story, narratively, she is very much treated as Adrien's owner from a meta perspective. We, the viewers, are meant to see Adrien as Marinette's property, and the twist of Adrien being a part of a slave race in a dynamic where Marinette holds all the cards is meant to be a good thing. We have been primed to view everything about Adrien to actually be about Marinette, because Marinette is the center of the universe of Miraculous and Adrien belongs to her because he’s the main character’s love interest. Adrien being revealed to be a slave that Marinette could control but then chooses to “merely” manipulate is meant to be glorifying to Marinette and titillating to the viewer. I will elaborate.

Marinette has been incredibly possessive of Adrien since day one and she is only occasionally depicted as being in the wrong about this, when she goes too far by the show’s standards. She stalks Lila and Adrien whenever she sees them hanging out together and she’s unreasonably jealous of Kagami. The only time she is depicted as being in the wrong is not when she's sniffing Adrien's pillow after breaking into his room, but when she actually bullies Kagami out of jealousy, and even that is depicted as more of an unfortunate misunderstanding than Marinette actively doing something wrong. Marinette is more sympathetic towards Kagami when she finds out she and Adrien aren't as close as she thought, that Kagami’s pursuit of Adrien is more hopeless than hers. Basically, Marinette is only in the wrong because Kagami isn't a threat, not because she was doing anything wrong by bullying her to defend her “territory”.

This gets flipped near the end of the season, though. When Adrien and Kagami do start dating, it's depicted as this big tragedy even more so than Master Fu losing his memories. Master Fu going missing is an afterthought, while Adrien choosing someone else over Marinette is the big “darkest hour” moment of the season three mid-finale, the cliffhanger moment of her crying in Luka’s arms while all hope is lost. Marinette isn’t directly crying about this, she is crying from “all the pressure”, but Marinette breaking down happens immediately after a scene of Kagami leaning in to kiss Adrien that has a somber dirge playing in the background. The first part of the finale has everything going wrong at the end; Master Fu is missing, Chloé gets willingly Akumatized, Marinette breaks down, and Kagami leans in to kiss Adrien. These scenes being put closely together is telling us that these are all bad things to happen.

Adrien ending up with Marinette is a given, but it's also taken for granted. Every girl with an interest in Adrien is depicted as an antagonist, while Marinette can do whatever she wants in pursuit of Adrien and will still be morally correct. Chloé and Lila, even Kagami to a degree, are villainized for their attraction to Adrien in a way Nathaniel, Luka or Zoé are not with their attraction to Marinette. Chloé and Lila are full-blown villains while Luka and Zoé are some of the most selfless members of the cast. Kagami is aggressive and socially awkward in a way that is used to justify Marinette's initial distrust and dislike of her (in ‘Ikari Gozen’ Alya voices her pity towards Marinette for having to spend time with her) while Nathaniel is just the pitiful bullied loner who’s still a liked member of the class friend group. Girls who want Adrien are bad for trespassing on Marinette’s territory and trying to “steal” something that “belongs” to Marinette.

The writers thinking Adrien belongs to Marinette is also not just subtext. Later in season five, when Marinette and Adrien finally start dating, Marinette even outright states that Adrien “kinda does a little” belong to her when she’s scared that Zoé has a crush on him. The fumbling of the line means that the writers are aware of how toxic it is to consider your partner your property, but they want to include that sentiment anyway, because that’s how they view the situation. Marinette’s boyfriend is her property and other people can’t even look at her property. ‘Emotion’ continues on this increased possessiveness by having the entire Marinette plot happen because she can’t conceive Adrien keeping things from her, because he isn’t allowed privacy from her while Marinette lying to Adrien (or Cat Noir) is a show staple.

This same attitude of Adrien not being allowed to have romantic options outside of Marinette has also been in the fandom for years. Every time a new female character was introduced, there was a worry that she’d “try to steal Adrien from Marinette”. Marinette and Adrien are endgame, the writers know this and the fandom knows this. The characters don't know this, but it doesn't matter because Adrien was already seen as Marinette's (future) boyfriend even back in season one when he barely knew her. And this attitude the writers and audience have is extended to the characters more and more as the show goes on, as almost every single character becomes an Adrinette shipper in support of Marinette in season five, while no one thinks to ask Adrien what he thinks about this. Only once, in ‘Desperada’ did Alya suggest that Adrien could make his own choice on who to date, but it was implied the choice should be Marinette specifically (Marinette smiles at this, while Kagami frowns). The cast is lucky the writers have decided Adrien already is Marinette's, or he’d be really uncomfortable.

Season five episode ‘Pretension’ goes as far with this as having Marinette basically ask Gabriel for permission to be with Adrien, convinced that she and Adrien can be together with no problems if she can just get him to approve of her. And then Gabriel tells her he’s promised Adrien to Kagami. You know, like a piece of property women were treated as before women were allowed to live without a man to control them. The finale then ultimately does have Gabriel agree to hand Adrien over to Marinette by dying and leaving her in charge of Adrien. Just because she uses the privilege to do some things for Adrien’s benefit doesn’t make what happened any less of a patriarchal transaction. In fact, the writers wrote it that way on purpose, with the knight and princess parallels they set up between Marinette and Adrien earlier in the show being something they are prominently proud of (the “reverse fairytale” as they put it). Adrien is the princess the dashing hero Marinette gets to earn with her feats of bravery; he’s handed to her like a piece of property and Marinette is too happy with her acquisition to even be outraged on Adrien’s behalf. And Adrien wasn’t even allowed to know about any of this, instead it gets handled solely between Marinette and Gabriel, like his opinion on the matter didn’t even matter. And why would his opinion matter, since he already is ready to promise himself to Marinette, even as the writers deny him the agency to actually make such a promise.

The goal of making it obvious that Adrien is cool with being objectified like this is probably why they make Adrien so obsessed with Marinette in season five, constantly repeating her name to himself and saying stuff like: “I can’t stop thinking about you” in ‘Pretension’. They need to drive it home to the audience exactly how okay Adrien is with everyone forcing him to be with Marinette. After all, you can’t force the willing. As of ‘Confrontation’, Adrien’s official goals for the future are: “I love Marinette Dupain-Cheng.” I guess, from the perspective of the writers, the childhood dream of wanting to be what his parents wanted from ‘Wishmaker’ wasn’t sad because of Adrien’s lack of agency; it was sad because he wasn’t forsaking all of his personal pursuits for Marinette specifically. As far as the writers are concerned, Adrien should only care about Marinette and nothing else.

This same entitlement is also present in Ladybug and Cat Noir's relationship. Every time Cat Noir is upset with Ladybug, like in Frozer, Glaciator, Syren, The New York Special or even Kuro Neko, they never talk about what caused it. This is especially blatant in cases where Ladybug has wronged Cat Noir personally, like Kuro Neko or the NY Special, where she never has to face up to what she did wrong because Cat Noir comes back because she “needs him”.  Cat Noir will always come back to her without her having to do anything because she is the main character and she says she needs him. He exists for her and her needs. He exists for her; it’s just another way he’s hers.

Speaking of how Adrien is treated affects Marinette, even Adrien’s trauma actually belongs to her in the writing.  I pointed out earlier that Adrien’s trauma shows up when the writers need to put him out of commission, but disappears as soon as he needs to be Marinette’s trophy, but it goes further than just inconsistency. The early seasons spend several episodes on how Adrien is being locked up by his father and unable to hang out with his friends and, between him and Marinette, Marinette is the one shown to be more upset and hurt by this. They don’t do this in every episode, as ‘The Bubbler’ actually does a phenomenal job of making Adrien’s upset actually about him, but the big point in ‘Glaciator’ is that Marinette is so upset that she can’t see Adrien that she accidentally leaves Cat Noir on read so he’s upset about that. Adrien is only upset because he didn’t get attention from Marinette, while Adrien’s literal abuse at the hands of his father is only important because it makes Marinette upset. Even Adrien himself gets in on this action in ‘Conformation’ when the writers go as far as having Adrien chastise himself of not being more worthy of Marinette’s love when his dad is once again busy ruining his life. Even Adrien himself makes his abuse about Marinette; him being abused is bad because it’s inconveniencing Marinette and inconveniencing Marinette makes him less worthy of her.

‘Cat Blanc’ is possibly the worst offender of all, though. This episode should be all about how Adrien is abused by Gabriel, culminating with Gabriel turning him into a monster that destroys the world. And yet, what is the episode actually about? It’s about Marinette. The worst thing that could happen to Adrien is about Marinette. Only Marinette gets to remember or even know about the possibility of Cat Noir getting Akumatized and only Marinette is traumatized by it happening. After all that the writers later dare to use this event that didn’t actually happen anymore, that Adrien doesn’t know about, to justify him giving his powers to Marinette, because he’s “scared of getting Akumatized” when something like that has never happened as far as he knows. But the writers had him reason this way anyway, because apparently the culmination of Marinette’s character development in the show means taking Adrien’s power as her own and then failing to win even with that at her disposal.

Another note about ‘The Bubbler’ that has to be pointed out is that it’s also the first example of Marinette being presented as good for Adrien simply because she treats him better than Gabriel. The final scene of Marinette giving Adrien his best birthday present yet and letting him think it comes from Gabriel is done to show how selfless Marinette is by letting Adrien keep thinking good things about his abuser. This idea that Marinette is morally good simply because she’s better than pond scum Gabriel is also present in the season five finale, where Marinette manipulates, gaslights and keeps important information from her abused slave boyfriend. Marinette is presented as being in the right because at least she didn’t literally control him with a magical geas like Gabriel did and gave him the object with which to do so (while notably not telling him what it does). Marinette will do the bare minimum of not taking literal ownership of Adrien and we’re meant to see her as a paragon of goodness for it, while she still has no respect for Adrien’s autonomy and hasn’t had any since the show started.

The way the Sentimonster “reveal” is handled shows this utter lack of respect for Adrien’s autonomy that the writers, and Marinette by extension, have. The reveal is not for Adrien, but for Marinette, just like every other piece of Adrien has been made to be about Marinette. Marinette gets to know and she gets to decide if Adrien gets to know, and she decides “no”. She will manipulate him and lie to him to keep him happy for herself, she will keep important information about him to herself that he might never find out if anything happens to her, because Adrien is hers and no one else’s and she has the right to make that decision because the world revolves around her because the world of Miraculous was created to be her playground. “Adrien” is just a toy on that playground for Marinette to play with as the writers see fit.

Now we’re coming back to Adrien’s role as the sexy, titillating love interest character that I talked about at the start of this essay. If Marinette granting Adrien the bare minimum of freedoms as a slave while manipulating him “for his own good” is meant to be a good thing, why is Adrien even a slave? Well, outside of the writers wanting to add a plot twist that doesn’t come with any messy plot they’d have to write about characters other than Marinette, Adrien being a slave is also meant to be titillating. What really is magical super slavery than very, very off the wall bondage and power play stuff? The idea that Marinette could rob her love interest of his free will with ease but won’t because she cares about him so much is very empowering in two different ways. It gives Marinette all the power in the relationship and it makes her out to be such a good person that even having ultimate power over another person won’t corrupt her. Adding to that, we have Adrien’s people pleaser abuse victim personality, which makes him fawn over the people he loves. If Marinette ever wanted to have control over Adrien, Adrien would give it to her of his own volition, no need for magical super slavery or unbreakable geases.

As I stated earlier, Marinette is meant to be the point of view main character the audience of teen girls projects themselves onto. So, really, Adrien’s slavery and abuse responses are all about that fantasy of having a cute boy you have all the power over but not needing to use it because the boy is so nice and devoted to you anyway. Adrien really is “perfect”, the perfect object of attraction, a being who technically has free will but whose free will you never have to take into account because he’s been designed and trained to value other people’s wants and needs over his own.

Marinette doesn't literally own Adrien within the story, but the writers make it very clear that they think she should. In fact, in all ways except the literal, she already does.

[lunasmysteriouspath]

🎬 The Art of Being Comfortable for Others🎬

Conformism is the tendency to align oneself with the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of others to create comfort and behave agreeably within a group. People often conform to fit in, avoid conflict, and evade criticism. From this definition, one can conclude that being comfortable for others is not necessarily a positive thing. There are several reasons I can confidently state that being comfortable for others can negatively influence you. Let’s take a closer look at them:

Loss of Authenticity: When you agree with something that you’re not truly okay with, you lose your genuine opinion about the situation. While conflicts aren’t enjoyable, you can navigate your words and actions to avoid entering an aggressive or toxic debate. As humans, we all have opinions. It is a well-known fact that intelligent people do not aim to offend others or hurt their feelings or self-esteem. However, intelligent people are not afraid of conflict; they control their words and actions and know how to navigate situations with dignity, even when they lack complete information. Don’t be afraid of conflicts; they are beneficial for building self-confidence and quick thinking. The real art is exiting a situation respectfully.

Self-Sacrifice: Being comfortable for someone else automatically makes you uncomfortable for yourself because it goes against your best version. People often use those who are more capable just to get ahead. Yes, you are one of those capable individuals that they envy. Because you possess skills and character traits that they wish they had, they may take advantage of you. However, developing a skill requires effort, patience, and hard work.

Stepping Out of the Shadows: Being in someone else's shadow instead of showing who you are and what you can offer leads to low self-esteem. Many people struggle with low self-worth precisely because more talkative and confident individuals overshadow them. Don’t do that; don’t diminish yourself or hide behind the curtains. Be the main character in your life; you deserve it.

In conclusion, beautiful people, trust yourself more and be yourself. Don’t copy or follow other people’s ways of dressing, thinking, or behaving. Listen to your own voice; don’t mute it. Follow your heart and do what makes you happy. Don’t put yourself down; you are more than you think. If you are an overthinker, it means you are an intelligent person living in reality. Be comfortable with yourself, find peace within, and defend your opinions—they matter!

[ms-demeanor]

Any tips or hacks on how to go about writing the introduction and the conclusion of an academic text? I have finished the body of the text but introductions and conclusions always stump me. The deadline isn't until october but I worry I will piss away the entire summer agonising over how to do this last damn thing.

The simplest advice is "tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em, tell 'em what you told 'em."

I like to start from an extremely straightforward position on writing introductions and conclusions. I'm writing a paper now about the US healthcare system and my placeholder introduction paragraph is "The US Healthcare system is bad for X, Y, and Z reasons and should be changed." My placeholder conclusion is "Now that I have illustrated that the US Healthcare system is bad in X, Y, and Z, ways, I hope we have all learned something and take A, B, and C steps to change it."

Basically I write out the most basic thing I want to say in each paragraph and then embellish it. Sometimes this will actually lead to restructuring the paper a bit as I organize paragraphs to make sure that X, Y, and Z are in the proper order.

I have more trouble with conclusions than I do with almost any part of a project, but one of the things that has helped me with more academic-y texts is recognizing that if you've done your job properly the reader should know why you're making the argument you're making so you don't have to have a rabble-rousing, inspiring conclusion, you can functionally just say "Hope that clears things up! Here are the implications I want you to leave this paper with and my policy suggestions for the future."

Intros are a little easier for me because I just see them as scene setting. Treat it almost like an abstract, if that helps. "This paper is about this subject, here is my opinion on this subject, here is a brief summary of the evidence that supports my opinion on this subject. Here are some considerations to keep in mind, and here is why I think you should agree with my opinion."

Depending on the norms for the subject your intro can also include a brief history of the scholarship around that subject, biographical matter about a person under discussion, or a short explication of theory. I personally love multi-paragraph intros that spend a while getting me up to speed, but I also read literary criticism recreationally so I may be a bit biased. I would definitely say to find some field-specific papers that you liked and found useful to read and see how they constructed their introductions and conclusions and take some cues on structure from them. You can even go sentence-by-sentence and break down what each sentence is saying in the conclusion of a paper you liked ("As you can see from the previous paragraphs on SUBJECT, there is ample evidence of THESIS. We have responded to counter-arguments by addressing ISSUE and OTHER ISSUE. Our findings support THESIS, and you should agree for REASONS.")

Actually you know what that's my advice to everyone having trouble with intros and conclusions: find some intros and conclusions that you like and turn them into mad libs because that's basically what they are. That's a really good way to practice seeing what parts of your paper are unique (to fit into the blanks) and to figure out the structure of an academic intro or conclusion (the frustrating bit that is difficult to write).

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

Could you explain a bit better what you meant with this sentence about your thoughts on jikook?

"But I also wouldn't be totally surprised if what looks as obvious right now to actually not mean what a lot of us think simply because we're missing information."

What I meant was how can I be absolutely convinced that my perception and understanding of what I see is right when there's so much information that I don't know. Big puzzle pieces missing because I don't have access to them and I shouldn't anyway.

I too see what so many people who ship/support Jikook see. Of course I can say that I'm not blind, it's so obvious that both of them leave a certain impression that leads people to believe they are/might be in a relationship together. And we say that based on what we see and our own understanding of relationships. Wether we are in one ourselves or maybe we recognize the romance signs from those around us or from fiction. The point is, most of us are able to identity certain markers that can indicate that. I'm starting to sound way too technical by using this language, ugh. Anon, we all know what love is or what it looks like. The same with attraction. That's it. It's that simple. And we see it when we look at other people, be it on the street, in a cafe, at the cinema or on the screen.

But does this mean there are no chances of us being wrong? Of course there are. We show our social self to the world and we perform our own self and in connection to others. And it differs depending of where we find ourselves in private or public spheres.

In that case, Jimin and Jungkook have this entire life outside of what we see and most importantly what they want us to see and what not. They have friends and acquitances we have no idea about. Maybe they spend their day with those people on an almost daily basis and we wouldn't know because perhaps there are no photos. You see what I mean?

Nevertheless, shipping within common sense is fine. It's about having fun and getting giddy at seeing how they are together and thinking there is more to it. But of course it's not always like that. It's more of an ideal situation in which not many people find themselves in. The rest are invested. Which on a surface level would be easy to criticize or mock, but aren't all fans invested, regardless of their interests in BTS and their role in the fandom? There's that common understanding that the group showed up in people's lives when they needed it. And while it is true in a positive sense, it also showed up when people are having some unfulfilled emotional needs. That's not something to feel ashamed about. We humans can be so miserable and unhappy and depressed more and more and we see it everywhere. That's another facet of getting into the fandom and consequently going down the shipping/supporting road. Because whether we are sad or happy with our lives, we are still sappy and in love with the idea of love. And we go down the rabbit hole and it feels so nice. Until it doesn't and suddenly it's ugly and some people want out. They get miserable and instead of making their peace with it, they send anon asks that start with "I'm an ex-jikooker" and so on.

Anyway, bear with me, I'm close to having a conclusion to all this. So, what does this mean? Should we all have or always express some doubt because we have to be anchored in reality? So we don't find ourselves being called delusional or sick for believing something so simple as two people who might be in love? No. And you know why I don't feel guilty? Because I'm not the one doing it. I'm not the one behaving in a way that makes people believe I may be in love with my bandmate. I'm not the one ok with having that being made public or have flirty conversations on public platforms. And they are also not idiots. Let's be very clear about that. They are not. If we can draw conclusions so easily based on everything we see, rest assured they too are aware of how they come across. They are not some rookie idols six months into their debut at 15 years old. They are adults and this is the image they are fine with projecting. Be it real or not. Me or you and everyone else who is interested in them will see it. And if turns out we were wrong, two things to have in mind. Some people will feel shitty for various reasons. Some selfish and crazy, but a more common one would be having to accept that our beliefs are wrong, that we spent time and time again talking and thinking about something that made sense, based on logic and all of a sudden, it is not. But that's something each has to deal with.

What it is very important to note though, is that this is not a one way street. Opinions were made based on content and things those two people have said to each other and about each other. If one is delusional for drawing conclusions it's also because Jimin and Jungkook had their contribution to it. What we do with that is entirely our own responsibility. Some go bat shit crazy, like a group did when holding hands on the street of Paris was the rave for a few days and others will have other reactions. But let's not demonize fans completely and diminish the role of those who are actively offering the "material".

Seeing so many people in the fandom holding their breath waiting for "jikook to be debunked" is a lot more pathetic than those who ship them. I wonder if that same expectation is there for all the other ships that involve Jimin and Jungkook. My guess is not, which tells you a lot. It's a waiting game that is done through sending the same ill intentioned ask to bloggers to rile them up. It's making blogs or turning them into spaces for ex-jikookers. It's about making polls to have shippers and ex-shippers talk about how they would react when/if it ends. It's a game in which there is the need to win. Those who are not enjoying or aren't directly involved are not only eager to participate, but they are the ones who create the games, which says a lot more about how this one damn ship can really affect people from all corners of the fandom.

[fymagnificentwomcn]

I still have plenty to say on the topic, so bear with me, the original link is here, it would be too much there I think.

Anyway thank you Sol @palaceoftears for these tags that succinctly sum up the main point of the original post, let's bring them as starting point here:

#joanna you ate this!!! missed reading you#truly love how deeply you analyzed that confronting suleyman IS confronting the system!#also the freeing aspect because like freedom doesn't have to mean happiness?#yes ofc hurrem wouldn't be happy knowing ultimately suleyman didn't love her & her children over himself#but it's still freeing to not live yout whole life brainwashed lol?#like I never get how ppl that loves her watch her going from 'i'll kill the sultan' & 'don't treat us as animals' to dependant on suleyman#and just go 'happy ending :D' about it#mahidevran sultan#hurrem sultan#sultan suleiman#magnificent century#muhtesem yuzyil

You know how much I dislike Surrem, but I absolutely get people shipping it without getting it like "happy in love" (huge kudos to my sis Tisha) since it's an extremely complicated, mutually toxic relationship, while yes they do love each other at same time. But they are both each other's heaven and hell simultaneously throughout the whole show, with Hürrem being in worse position due to power imbalance. Power imbalance that never fully goes away. He might also be dependent on her in emotional way since he himself comes to belief she is the only person who would never betray him (because she truly had least benefit in it). Don't be fooled though, if she had e.g. crowned Bayezid in S3 as Sah intended, he would have shown her no mercy. /I once mentioned a bit about them, also historically here./

And LBR she got mistreated by him (please, he told her to kill herself for him, and the goal was not to determine whether she had poisoned Mustafa truly) multiple times before S4, it was only because of the topic covered I mentioned S4 stuff, especially related to how he screwed her kids.

People think of stuff in "tangible" categories and why stuff like mere "awareness" (without leading a revolution or whatever lol) seems to have little meaning.

Which is again one of the main themes of the show - to give voice also to those who lost and as such do not have the "but we won, we were happy, we lived" defence always acting for them. Bah, even controversies or discussions surrounding them. They are losers, not even worthy to talk about, and put on sidelines. We often discuss what motivated the "big figures" who got to become rulers, even if we do not approve of their actions or criticize them. Rarely we talk about "losers". Which is what Mustafa's letter stressed - people will deem me as traitor, while your name will be written in golden letters because of all your victories. This alone will make your name remembered. And even considering that Mustafa was lucky in that people generally did not believe him to be a traitor, with Bayezid it was much harder because yeah he did openly rebel and it's not something we can deny. But some jump to conclusions like 'he was insolent and one day decided to rebel for no reason' (yes, I've seen such takes) is very simplistic. I do not even approve of a lot of his actions there since while I get his anger at Suly and Selim I hate how he involves plenty of soldiers in a fight without a chance to succeed as long as Suly ass lives, but damn takes like above truly erase what brought him to such point. Because he was the prince with bigger support at that time. He could have waited for his father to die soon and easily taken the throne. /And historically - yes if you actually dig up sources, he didn't wake up and decide to attack innocent cookie pacifist Selim lol/. Show! Bayezid telling Defne that he would be labelled as a "rebellious prince" for future generations with obvious evidence backing it up means a lot because even though he IS one, there is so much more to this story and what bought him to this point, starting from his father's attitude to him since he was a kid.

And damn I do need to stress the need for the critical approach to SOW (which does not preclude stanning the characters/getting interested in historical figures ofc)? Maybe not here, but I still see TikTok shit on “The big 5” introducing feminism to Ottoman harem. There is no revolution we can talk of in any case, but truly, where is feminism involved in Haseki institution? It only privileges one woman over others. The others are still required to serve them, which is why we had the Hürrem/Gülnihal and Nurbanu/Valeria stories. And what it ties with what Sol says once Hürrem tries to kill Gülnihal - her parents' ghosts appearing to tell her It's not revenge. It's not what you promised us. Meanwhile, the men are still in power, with a person like Suleiman having unlimited agency. More.. the man selects the woman he gives those privileges too. And even if he grants her freedom (if HE pleases so), it has little actual effect because we all know she is still forbidden to leave him and would have lost her kids anyway if she had done so. Thus said, the moment when show Hürrem slams the door to Sulyass' stupid face is one of my fave Surrem moments without a doubt and one of fave H moments in general ahsmshs. / BTW One day I will finally talk how Westerners focus more on say legal marriage when it that system having multiple sons was more ground-breaking because even free brides from noble families who did not have children had little power and agency. /

There is plenty of irony involved, just as Mahi finally freeing herself from attachment to Suly once he rejects her freedom to which he is entitled by the System. Bah, only he has the power to do so regarding his women. It's all only at his own discretion.

It is precisely what I also mean by "taboo-breaking" and the questioning Mahi does of Suleiman and the way he (as Sultanate) operates. In that world mere questioning could break the taboo. We do not know what future lay ahead for anyone, but damn what he kept doing was neither just nor wise according to the very norms of the times themselves. Yes, Mustafa was the most promising and fitting candidate for the throne and he did not betray his father, so Suleiman removing him from "open succession" was not even why this method of succession had been established in the first place and demanded from princes assembling their own support, also ensuring that he would be easily accepted to prevent discord and rebellions. Mustafa did it too well, the horror. And that him wanting to do something (also as he himself stated, since he got privilege of being the prince and be able to rule, he should not sit idly, but use it for good purpose and the people) only brought him troubles because of Suly ass own ego only shows again the problems with this system and being centered on one person so much. Suleiman violated a lot for his own agenda, centered around himself, not the future of the state. This is what Mahi is criticizing and stating it to his face when he tried to paint his son as a traitor to present himself as just and acting for the state IS taboo-breaking in itself. Asking the question instead of dismissing it all as "fate", as Mihrimah tried.

Mahidevran tries to awake Mihri, who while rich and "still in power play", is very similar to her in many ways (also with the one big sin that has weighted on them silently). They all lost. Even Selim. Getting Mihri's brother (Hürrem's son) on the throne did not mean triumph and happiness for her. Heck, even Selim is a walking wreck. It's not even about sides because SS truly managed to destroy everyone's lives, not only one side's, so in the end it's not even favoritism. All for him to go with his beautiful words, a show-off victory, and his beloved throne (while saying something else in his monologue). Mahi telling Mihri to stop holding her father blameless IS the moment making someone else's eyes open and maybe do not let actively go for something that will not help anyone out at this point, like causing discord between Selim and his son. These are small things that are important for the theme and how mental freedom is also of value. Same with awareness. Nobody expects revolution or claims something. And we are at a particular point when Mahi already lost Mustafa and says it already in the context with him gone. She won't resurrect him with her words ofc LOL. And Mahi truly didn't have to do this, just take popcorn and look at Hürrem's kids & other descendants fighting even more.

You can precisely see when SS decides how to dispose of Bayezid when Mihri says she will never forgive him and will be dead to him if he executes her brother. The lightbulb over his head in this moment lol. So her continuing to hold him blameless, while putting everything on Selim and Nurbanu is buying his shit and rules of the Sultanate. Mihri might have power, so she can stir things up in attempt to still "win", but.. they all lost. Her acceptance of it and stating it out loud before leaving Topkapi again has meaning. One might continue to have power and live in palace (unlike Mahi), but they all lost anyway. Mere meddling that can cause only chaos to still try to win is meaningless and can ony be harmful. As such, Mahi's words can have at least some impact.

Mahi and fate as Sol's post with Plami's commentary also has this delicious tidbit with mirror - most likely Hürrem would have never ceased to hunt down Mustafa after Mehmed's death because she had decided on eliminating him long before that and kept carrying out the plan via concrete & repeated actions. However, Mahi still questions herself on that because she can never know. And even if it changed nothing, it still tormented her and polluted her conscience. Because culpability is still there, regardless of "system" and circumstances" and whether it has any tangible effect or not. Same with Selim still being culpable even though SS wanted Bayezid executed. He still chose to do so anyway. Bah, he is actually very self-conscious and states clearly that he won because unlike the others he was able to kill his brother.

Similarly, Mustafa, Cihangir, and Bayezid also made their choices. Mustafa could have axed Suleiman and it would have been hard to blame him for this in the situation it boilt down to. Actually, he was the one with biggest support at that moment, so rules of the Sultanate definitely allowed him to dispose of an aging ruler who began making a multitude of mistakes. He had the biggest power at his disposal if he wanted to. Moreover, Musti also chose to invite the member of the opposition faction because she was his sister, despite said sister openly declaring her standing on the opposite side and speaking to him "with her mother's words" last time they met. Once more, instead of rules of Sultanate and how the system expected him to act, he chose familial bonds.

Then again, Bayezid did have Selim on his knees in front of him and chose not to kill Selim, despite Selim never promising him any change or begging for mercy.

They both died, but they also could have chosen differently and compromised their conscience and values in the process.

Yet the opposite choice to adhere to the Darwinist rules and get the throne at any cost is not something mechanic that promises happiness or safety, either. Actually, it can make you painfully blind. We see Hürrem deciding blood will be spilled only of her enemies once she learns her son is going to end up on the throne. When she meets with the witch after Mustafa is dead and the throne for one of her sons IS a certain thing.. it's not what she wanted to hear, starting from her own imminent demise from natural causes. Same with her trust in the "human face" of the Sultanate aka Suly ass:

The "right, sultana?" is an ironic call-back to the beginning of the episode when she uses same words about Suly's power to exclude herself from the matter of Mustafa's death.

Also let us note the use of the word "destiny"😱 .

Also, Hürrem did not come back to ponder her preceding conversation with the witch earlier, as she had another proof of herself not interpreting it correctly - when she assumed Nazenin's baby would be the one the witch predicated as the Sultan. Nurbanu was after all pregnant with Murad at the same time.. so no, the witch was not mistaken, Hürrem was simply so caught up in her own vision of how it would go (also with Baye taking the throne) or assumed the witch to be mistaken, so she didn't notice it was about her grandson.

Another interesting thing is that the witch also predicts Mihrimah's future and that while her physical illness will pass soon, the spiritual pain will soon start and persist.

Because even if we "win" in that we survive, it does not need to bring happiness with it. At all.

It doesn't work like this either (Mihri talks about sacrifing Musti and Cih), while we are at it. There are no simple mechanisms like that! And how Mihri adopts her mother stance and calls her out that only one of her sons can survive according to the Darwinist rules (which is also what Rüstem advocates in any circumstances, only for him there is no support for Bayezid really... any can go) is just irony at its finest, and it stems also from her feeling of guilt - I already tainted my conscience and went again familial bonds, so let it at least mean victory for my favourite brother. She is now quick to accept one of them will die, she just wants to ensure it's not Bayezid.

Another of Hürrem's children that do adopt her "survival no matter the cost" agenda (and no, it's hard going for that to "pacifism" agenda shortly after getting what you wanted), and to a bigger extent, is Selim obviously.. Selim states to Bayezid that he will live because he is capable of killing his brother for his own survival. But we know what sort of life this is (and that he won't live long from history). He might later quote his mother to Mihrimah and convince himself that since nobody is innocent under this dome, so only the deserving win, but outside that, he does call himself a "brother killer" and does consider it a burden. /And Selim being his mother's son is another fascinating topic, since he was like.. her least fave and yet he is the one most alike her and who most absorbed her views and agenda.. to later emerge as sort-of third unexpected faction /.

Neither Mihrimah nor Selim ever found peace after adhering to the System's rules of fratricide. Bah, they cannot even be a family again as the only surviving members.. instead they openly accuse each other of being brother killers. Judging by history, they will eventually learn to co-operate, but nothing will be the same ever again. There is no moral victory in it for sure. Selim does not claim it any point. Actually, he is the one to point out that: We all lost. Innocence died and nothing will be as before. We can accuse Selim of many things, but he is a pretty self-conscious character indeed.

The others might be dead, but they did adhere to their principles and values due to choice.

The power of reflection or questioning is also tied to to the concept of choice as what makes us a human. MC never promises us happy ending (how it could, we all know the ending point), but the mere presentation of choice, of humans trying to create something positive, like Mustafa, Bayezid, and Cihangir deciding not to fight against each other as expected, is meaningful.

Instead we got nobody truly winning or benefitting from what happened LBR. It cannot get worse than that, really.

The whole issue again reflects what I said earlier in that post on how Erdogan historical propaganda works. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but there is no questioning at all. Instead we have normalization of violence and presenting it as something necessary, and that there is no choice or alternative to what happened. The sultan killed his brothers, but he had to. It was necessary, it was automatic. There is even no person behind it, but a robot always doing the right (even if brutal) choice because "it was like that".

And to some up the great ironies of life, we can remember that Mahi who lost it all... survived them all, so she won the Darwinist game in the end despite being rejected by System multiple times:

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Fallacies

The philosophy of fallacies examines the nature, identification, and implications of errors in reasoning. Fallacies are deceptive or misleading arguments that can undermine the validity of reasoning processes. The study of fallacies is a crucial aspect of logic, critical thinking, and epistemology, as it helps individuals recognize and avoid faulty reasoning. Here’s a detailed exploration of the philosophy of fallacies:

1. Defining Fallacies

Nature of Fallacies: A fallacy is a flaw or error in reasoning that weakens an argument. Fallacies can be either formal, involving a structural flaw in deductive reasoning, or informal, involving errors in reasoning that are often more context-dependent and related to the content of the argument.

Types of Fallacies: Fallacies are broadly categorized into formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structure of an argument, while informal fallacies are more related to the content and context of the argument, including linguistic, psychological, and social aspects.

2. Formal Fallacies

Affirming the Consequent: This fallacy occurs when the form of the argument is: If P, then Q; Q; therefore, P. It incorrectly assumes that the converse of a true conditional statement is also true.

Denying the Antecedent: This fallacy occurs when the form of the argument is: If P, then Q; not P; therefore, not Q. It mistakenly assumes that the negation of the antecedent leads to the negation of the consequent.

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It essentially involves circular reasoning, where the argument’s premise relies on the truth of the conclusion.

3. Informal Fallacies

Ad Hominem: This fallacy involves attacking the character of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It diverts attention from the argument’s merit by focusing on the individual.

Straw Man: This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. The straw man argument is a distorted version that is easier to refute than the original.

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): This fallacy involves claiming that something is true because it has not been proven false or vice versa. It relies on a lack of evidence rather than positive proof.

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): This fallacy presents only two options or outcomes when, in reality, there are more possibilities. It forces a choice between two extremes while ignoring other viable alternatives.

Slippery Slope: This fallacy assumes that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect, without sufficient evidence to support this inevitability.

4. The Role of Fallacies in Philosophy and Logic

Critical Thinking: Recognizing fallacies is a key aspect of critical thinking. By identifying and understanding fallacies, individuals can better evaluate the strength of arguments and avoid being misled by faulty reasoning.

Epistemology: The study of fallacies intersects with epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, as it involves understanding how reasoning can go wrong and what constitutes good evidence and justification for beliefs.

Ethics and Rhetoric: The use of fallacies in argumentation raises ethical questions about the fairness and honesty of persuasion. Philosophers examine the ethical implications of using fallacious reasoning in various contexts, such as politics, law, and everyday discourse.

5. Implications of Fallacies

Miscommunication and Misunderstanding: Fallacies can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding by distorting the truth and creating confusion. Recognizing fallacies helps improve clarity and accuracy in communication.

Manipulation and Deception: Fallacies are often used deliberately to manipulate and deceive. Understanding fallacies equips individuals to recognize and resist manipulative tactics in arguments.

Intellectual Honesty: Avoiding fallacies is crucial for intellectual honesty and integrity. It ensures that arguments are based on sound reasoning and evidence rather than on misleading tactics.

The philosophy of fallacies is a critical field that enhances our understanding of reasoning and argumentation. By studying fallacies, we learn to identify common errors in reasoning, improve our critical thinking skills, and promote intellectual honesty in our discussions. Understanding fallacies is essential for effective communication, sound decision-making, and ethical argumentation.

[deanstudies101]

4x10, Heaven and Hell

[mid-season finale]

Critical theory: Doubt, disobedience. Fathers. Secrets and confessions pt. 2 [Dean]. The handprint <3 Perfectly normal reactions. 

Discussion point/question(s): What do we think about the heaven/hell positioning of Sam and Dean? 

Key quotes: Dean, “How I feel… This… inside me… I wish I couldn’t feel anything, Sammy. I wish I couldn’t feel a damn thing.” 

Further reading: 

Perfectly normal reaction to seeing your buddy kiss a girl (@bloodydeanwinchester)

Discussion: 

[I love the one perfect tear as much as the next man, but. Damn I love to see Dean sobbing.]

John is God confirmed. 

Dean wants to be an angel—Anna says angels can’t feel anything. She wants to be human, to feel. He wishes he couldn’t feel anything. 

Dean/Anna, the handprint, destiel. Iga, “This is just a loaf of bread.” Me, “Buddy, this is nothing. We’re just preheating the oven.”* 

[I looked up when Cas was supposed to leave.] [They gave a lot of Anna’s stuff to Cas. Dean and Anna just fucked on screen. So.] So obviously Dean and Anna would’ve had significant romance. And they took her out of the show and replaced her with Cas. And then… Well. [I think certain plotlines, ie. the finale, would’ve been less impactful if it had been Anna. We’ll discuss.] Did Jensen have a say in this character switch, was it partially because of their chemistry? 

[We’ve discussed that demons are camp. I mentioned in the episode that angels are homophobic.] It’s giving disney villain. Was flamboyant demons an acting or writing choice? Was homophobic angels a response to this? Iga, always imagined demons as very emotional, very chaotic (Vampire Diaries vampires, bpd), and angels as stoic, not giving a shit about humans etc. And this… is kinda that? [I’m talking about Paradise Lost, of course. Lucifer is emotional, emotionally driven, persuasive etc. He convinced a whole chunk of the host of heaven to fall.] They have to be like that for it to make sense! 

We’re seeing how humans become demons. They get tortured until they break and start to torture, and we can assume that leads them to becoming demons… so what happened with Lucifer? Did he fall, become human, and then go through this process? Or did he go straight to hell, and go insane because he was alone? [I just read them Paradise Lost Book 1 242-263 aka my favourite bit.] 

Ruby is a real one. She literally put herself through torture for that plan. They love the alliance, the relationship between her and Dean. A lot of feelings

Ruby understands Dean in a way that Sam doesn't. They exchange looks that Sam doesn’t get. He doesn’t feel the need to put up the protective wall, to protect her. He doesn’t need to parent her. And she sees him. And maybe Dean sees her in a way Sam doesn’t, they’ve both had the hell experience, and maybe he respects the fact that she would’ve been in hell much longer than he was. Iga, “Sam doesn’t see Dean and never will, because Dean is his mummy.” And this isn’t an attack on Sam, he’s religious and has a lot of guilt about himself and him and Ruby, and now he knows the angels kinda sucks maybe he’s looking for something to fight for. He sees demons as evil—he trusts her and doesn’t consciously see her as evil—but he does see demons this way, so he has a lot of shame. 

Re: the sex scene. Dean is intimate and soft and… always on the bottom. 

Julio, maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, but if Sam is the antichrist, Dean is the new Jesus. He’s destined to go to heaven. He masks it in his dedication to his job, but he is sad at the state of the world, and mourns what is going on. Ying to Sam’s yang, which makes him the new Jesus, which is why he has to be kept alive, because that is his purpose. Kai’s addition, Jesus doesn’t have a good time on earth. He suffers. He dies on a cross because God told him to. Deancore. Julio again, Dean has all the elements to be Jesus. 

Anna, even as a two-year old human, was terrified of God. She was convinced he would kill her—and eventually the angel’s orders were to kill her. The demons love Lucifer, they’re excited for him to rise, they worship him in a “chill Christian kinda way.” That’s embarrassing for the angels actually. How is God the good guy? He’s not. He’s a dick. Even outside of the ~they just obey, they follow orders, kill humans, kill their own kind. This child was so scared of her father. [I would like to add, though. A lot of demons didn’t believe Lucifer really existed, he was ~just a story told in demon Sunday school. Whereas the angels truly believe all their orders are coming from God. Does that change things? Is it not easier to love something whose presence you don’t feel as much?] If you know someone better, you see their flaws more.  If Lucifer is just an ideal in their minds, they can project on him. However, it seems like Lilith knows Lucifer in some way? And she’s terrifying. So. Not a good reflection on Lucifer.

Re: heaven/hell positioning. Kind of on the nose. Can’t infer much from it literally, Sam having demon blood, Dean saved from hell, Dena is Sam’s guardian, he fucked an angel. Julio, “angels have an affinity for Dean.” Demons have plans for Sam, angels have plans for Dean. But, before the angels and demons got this involved, Sam was the pious one, Dean was the ‘sinful’ one. So a nice reverse. 

[Cas is autistic. He just stands there like (does the Kubrick stare)] Julio, I feel like he’s not really looking in the eyes though. [The thing is, often when he’s talking to people he’s like. Looking around. But with Dean it’s. Full on intense eye contact. Obsessed.]

Mid-season finale—finale predictions. Iga, Angels will be in the finale. Something about Dean’s time in hell, losing touch with his humanity, he doesn’t want to feel anything, he was transitioning into a demon. Kai, Big clash between heaven and hell. Lucifer is gonna get out, and now God is back too. Lucifer and God have some kind of face off. Julio, Sam and Dean need some time apart, they’re going in different directions. Kai, ohh, maybe Sam and Dean fight each other. Iga, Sam, or someone, comes up with a plan to make both sides fight each other again. Maybe Dean has to choose between his brother and someone else to save. Kai, Dean 1v1 Lucifer. Iga, Ruby gets in a predicament, and they have to sacrifice something to save her. Kai, maybe Dean has to die again… following the Jesus route. Iga, no, it’s Sam’s turn, he’s demon Jesus, and he gets reborn slightly more demon. But we’ve already done ‘came back wrong’. 

Star student: Julio, antichrist/Jesus analysis. Also commented mid-episode that maybe Sam’s powers come from drinking Ruby’s blood. This was ignored by everyone. Good job king. [Iga is annoyed by this because apaprently she knew but didn't say it because it felt too obvious.]

Notes: Visiting student Julio. 

*the trail of breadcrumbs is just entire loaves of bread / "the bread we made on supernatural" post (@tiktaalic), which I reference almost daily with lines such as "there's no such thing as bread" and "wouldn't it be crazy if bread was real" etc. etc. a very common tag on my main

[true-blue-sonic]

When people criticize the "optimist but also a realist line" I think they're confusing optimism for idealism(which is the opposite of realism) Silver always tries to see the best in people and his situation but he's still very pragmatic.

I proposed this ask to the number 1 hater of "optimist but also a realist" in the world, and their inquiry was whether Silver is pragmatic to begin with. So I went and looked up that term, coming to the conclusion it means something along the line of "the quality of dealing with a problem in a sensible way that suits the conditions that really exist, rather than following fixed theories, ideas, or rules" or "a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems". So... practical, going for the most logical solution, following your mind instead of your feelings.

As for whether Silver is pragmatic... hm, I would actually say yes and no! We see in especially '06 that, when presented with a solution that sounds logical and clear-cut, he'll take it with no hesitation. Furthermore, when his argument with Amy leads him to having doubts about whether he's doing the right thing and what "the right thing" is in the first place, Blaze's encouragement that nothing will change if they don't take this chance makes him try the exact same course of action once more. Thus, he's still following the "logical" and "clear" situation despite his feelings on the matter. But all that goes right out the window at the end of the game, with Blaze's sacrifice. Silver is distraught! He all but begs her not to do it: he says he can't do that to Blaze, he doesn't know what to do without her, he even questions their friendship, and yet he can't make himself stop her. All these are incredibly emotional things! And even if the most logical action there is to make Blaze go through it to save the world, which she herself points out is their end goal... Silver can't do it. It is Blaze who activates the Emeralds and seals herself away in the end.

Of course, '06 is the extreme example, but I can think of a few others where Silver is more pragmatic. In Forces, he's the one suggesting sending their Rookie right into Eggman-occupied territory as a distraction, despite the fact the Rookie is about the least experienced person there. He's also the one pointing out that they can't take out Eggman's Mystic Jungle base if he's got a factory active for supplies. Also, don't forget him just not caring for what Knuckles named Operation Big Wave in favour of the strategy being good, haha. And at the start of Forces, he is indeed the one trying to move everyone away from their feelings of despair and (then-believed to be misplaced) hope of Sonic's survival, focusing instead on rallying the people and turning the tides. But I would say also here he's got moments of more emotion-fuelled responses and ideas, like shooting down Infinite's comment about there "being no hope" through simply stating he is lying (which I figure means Silver himself does still have hope and other such positive emotions). And, as pointed out by my friend: the whole reason Silver takes a pragmatic approach in the first place is because of his desires for justice and happiness for everybody, which can indeed make him more emotion-fuelled and snappy, like in the Rivals games. The pragmatic approach is plowing through everybody and getting back Eggman Nega and that is what he is doing, but how it takes form in practice is definitely shaped as well by emotions like irritation and impatience (which actively works against him at times, I would even say). So overall, I can agree with the idea that Silver is somewhat of a pragmatic person, but that pragmatism does not take away his emotions and his desires. And multiple bios and such state he wears his heart on his sleeve and keeps up a positive mindset despite his past.

I feel as if I'm getting a bit off-track from your ask, apologies. But overall, I can see where you are coming from. Pragmatism and realism are noted to be synonyms, and Silver is indeed not a character who lets his optimistic mindset take over everything he does. In a way, I would say this is yet another of the dualities that makes up Silver's character! His emotions and optimism lead to him desiring justice and happiness and a world that is safe, and the way to get there for him is through an approach that he deems logical and "the best way". But the best way is shaped by his black-and-white thinking and tunnel vision, meaning he is likely to pick fights with people simply because he perceives them as opposition, and meaning it will take a long time for him to change his mind even when his views are challenged or proven wrong. So I guess he can indeed be an optimist (wanting happiness for others, possessing a positive mindset wherein he endlessly believes in himself and his friends and rarely gives up hope) but also a realist (knowing the world isn't only sunshine and rainbows, not afraid to take action to protect what he cares about, doing what he himself deems the most logical).

Though, to be quite honest... I think that a criticism many people have about the line is that it simply sounds silly, haha. Just not something you'd expect a person to point out so randomly in a conversation about your friend you all think got murdered six months ago. But you might certainly be correct in that it doesn't seem to be as big a contradiction as people perceive it as. Perhaps with a better word choice, that would have been clearer? In Japanese he apparently says "I wish I could believe that, but the reality is... Sonic is gone. And Tails... he's still missing." You could argue that him saying he wishes he could believe that is indicative of his more optimistic hopeful mindset, but immediately after he points out that the reality is that Sonic is gone: thus, there is no place for empty wishes that can't come true anyway. I do feel like that carries a clearer tone than "I'm an optimist, but also a realist".

[a-secret-bolton-vampire]

CW: Misogyny

(This is not an essay. This is a manic-induced rant about the fandom.)

HotD time soon, which means the dudebros will be out and about shaking their firsts cursing Sara Hess (who apparently is to blame for everything bad and must be removed from the show at all costs cuz she rightfully did not understand why people defend Daemon's actions) for hating men or whatever manufactured outrage they'll cook up next...

So, let's talk about what the show is not about first. It is not a misandrist piece of media that says men evil women good. That's so blatantly false it's genuinely baffling to me how anyone can reach that conclusion. It is also not about how the Blacks are better than the Greens or that the writers have a bias (what writer doesn't have a bias? I know I do). Remember, the Blacks and Greens are not real. This is fiction.

Yes, we get emotionally attached to characters (as I have) but there is no slander or character assassination going on. Hell, these characters literally have zero characterization (and sometimes contradictory characterization) in Fire & Blood. The writers haven't gone on twitter to cancel Aegon because he said something controversial. Because they are characters and they serve a purpose in the story, whether good people or not.

Now, let's talk about the way the fandom doesn't get certain themes. There is this recurring motif that the men want war and the women want peace. Think about it for maybe two seconds. In this very patriarchal gendered world, men are expected to be tough, hold in their emotions, be warriors and fighters. While war is considered maybe not ideal, knights are revered and men still have a particular expectation in this society.

Naturally, the toxic masculinity of Westeros is going to make quite an impression on some of the male characters in the show; Aegon, Aemond, Criston, Daemon. Mix that with their numerous neuroses and you don't get the most peaceful, calm, and rational people in the world.

Even disregarding that, there is a more thematic reason why the show went this direction. It explores the way patriarchy is an inherently violent, self-destructive system. Rhaenyra and Alicent, despite being in positions of power, are restricted by what the men around them allow them to do. This in turn adds to the tragedy of them trying to desperately avoid war even though it is unavoidable. It's sad, it's frustrating, and it's showing the flaws of the system.

This leads into a discussion for Alicent and Rhaenyra. The fandom is completely normal and not insane about these two. There is a lot of criticism about the characters being too "perfect", and that they lack agency and thus are less compelling than their book counterparts. There is so much to unpack here so lets take them one at a time.

No, Alicent and Rhaenyra are not perfect. Both make a ton of mistakes, do awful things, all the while they try to be decent and honourable. Rhaenyra has lied and killed for her own gain. She spared Laenor, but still killed an innocent servant and caused a massive deal of grief for the Velaryons by making them believe their son was dead. Not saying she is the worst person ever, but that was a pretty big political mistake even if she needed Daemon to be her sword to wield.

Alicent too is imperfect. I have so much sympathy for her and Rhaenyra, which is good since they are the two people at the core of the story, and being sympathetic is a very good trait to have in a protagonist! For me the biggest highlight of all is the way she treats her children. She is abusive. They do not feel that unconditional love from her. Aegon especially had a raw deal, with the way she not only verbally and emotionally abuse him and put immense pressure on him to becoming king, but also the way she physically abuses him. He's probably got PTSD from a lifetime of parental abuse (a lot of what Alicent and Viserys do to their children is something I have personally experienced with my own parents). This isn't even mentioning Helaena or Aemond. All of her and Viserys's children are like this. It's a huge, huge flaw of hers.

Now, what about agency? Alicent and Rhaenyra lack agency and they can't be the bad bitches like Cersei before them. I'm just gonna say it: I am glad they aren't like Cersei.

This is a story that, at its core, is about patriarchy and misogyny. Anyone who says that is not present in the book is honestly delusional or stupid. Is it the only theme of this story? No! But is it a major theme? Yes! It can still be about this and something else too! But anyways, the complaining about "lack of agency" is so weird considering this. Did we not watch the same episode 9? I feel like I took crazy pills with everyone talking about the "inconsistency" of Alicent's character.

Genuinely, this is such a pervasive idea in the fandom and it drives me insane trying to figure out how they missed the fucking point of episode 9! Or to explain more calmly, that was an episode of Alicent trying to regain agency. When she is upset by the Green Council, it is not because she doesn't want to crown Aegon. The opposite actually. She is upset they plotted behind her back without her input, and so the race to find Aegon is the race to find who will ultimately influence the king. Alicent finds him first and Otto accepts defeat.

And yet in the end her actual influence is in question. Because Alicent is trying to work within the confines of a patriarchal system, which further restricts her actual agency. This is a Shakespearean tragedy, and Alicent's own decisions ultimately spell her doom (based on what we have been told of season 2, which I will get to later).

Here is the thing: in exploring a show about misogyny, you do not need the characters to be triumphant. The story of the Dance is not a story of triumph. It is a story of trauma, bad decision making, bloodlust, and loss. To think this is gonna be a story about how Alicent and Rhaenyra stick a middle finger to the patriarchy is a fundamental misunderstanding. Instead, this is a show about how patriarchy is not a stable or rational system of power structure. Having Alicent and Rhaenyra have to claw their way to have agency is the fucking point.

Also I might add that in the book neither character actually displays much agency. Rhaenyra sits around and cries while her son makes the big decisions, and Alicent just disappears from the story after Aegon is crowned. What "agency" is there to be had? I have a sneaking suspicion that chuds don't like Alicent or Rhaenyra not being misogynistic caricatures...

People say that women should be rich, complex characters all on their own and then want them being literal caricatures of what misogynists view women in power as. That is not complexity. Saying "mayhaps the whore will die in childbirth" is not complexity. That's just Alicent being an asshole. Rhaenyra's entire character going "this is my birthright and I will have my brother's head!" is not complexity. "Rhaenyra not leading is the point" is not complexity.

As much as I really don't like Fire & Blood, even I am aware that the book is bias due to the perspective of the maesters that wrote it in-universe (and yes the book is the book and the show is the show but I'm making a point). Women are often smeared in the histories, and even today men pay much closer attention to any real or perceived faults women have and hone in on that with intense scrutiny men don't usually have to worry about (especially women who go outside gender norms).

This bizarre call to make Alicent and Rhaenyra more unlikable because "muh complexity" is nonsensical because it's asking to fall into the same stereotypes about women the book does (uncaring power-seeking bitches who are incapable of friendship and have uncontrollable emotions).

On that note, Rhaenyra and Alicent's old friendship is the best change made book to show. There is an extra layer of tragedy to it all and makes the characters a lot more complex. But wait, isn't the war between Aegon and Rhaenyra? Why is this Hightower whore stealing the spotlight on my war crime king?

No no no. This is another misunderstanding. The war is between Rhaenyra and Aegon, yes. That is how everyone remembers it. Aegon is a character I actually quite adore for just how messy and utterly vile he is. I can't wait to see him in action. But there is no relationship between Aegon and Rhaenyra. Not in the show, and definitely not in the book either. The main rivalry has always been Rhaenyra and Alicent.

This is in Fire & Blood. Who created the Blacks and who created the Greens? Rhaenyra and Alicent. Who has an established relationship and history (as badly written as it is)? Rhaenyra and Alicent? What was the novella in which the Dance is first described called? The Princess and the Queen. The war may be between Queen Rhaenyra and King Aegon II, but the rivalry has always been focused on Rhaenyra and Alicent. This insistence to remove Alicent off the promotional posters and place Aegon is... kind of misogynistic? Like, Alicent is narratively more important to the story and people want to replace her with her son who, while important, is not as important?

And also, you can like Aegon and want to see him have a larger role. I know I do, even if he is a fucking bastard. You can dislike the show or what I said for any number of reasons. Some people who aren't raging misogynists have perfectly valid reasons to dislike it. I'm just explaining about the most vile part of the fandom that grinds my gears so badly it hurts.

Also, I'm not even going to go into the whole Team Black/Team Green thing. All I'll say about it is: I hope they all look sexy while doing war crimes <3

[soltiana]

tristamp ep 11 ramble

I almost forgot that if I had longform (IF INCOHERENT) thoughts about something I could just...blog about them?? i'm still getting used to having this power again. cut for spoilers of course, this ep was so fucked (positive). I have thoughts/hopes for the finale too but I'll keep those to myself so I don't get hooked on them lol whatever will be will be.

meryl and wolfwood exchange pretty standard pleasantries. it's obvious ww is going to come back to try to help vash despite his contract. i still think his chances of making it out alive are pretty good, but i guess we'll find out.

then we're directly thrown into the pussy juice tank. like. last week the episode ended on knives throwing vash into what looked like an oversized version of a plant bulb container, so I was like haha he threw him into the pussy juice funny :) but tristamp pointed directly at me and was like this person knows exactly what we're doing here. what a smart person. yes. the entire tank is pussy juice and it's FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH KNIVES' EGGS. there are plant "buds" everywhere, following up on conrad's discussion last week about how knives has been "helping" him create the perfect living creatures, like himself, but the conclusion they had both come to is that knives' offspring were missing an ingredient, what humans call a soul. the new plant lore dropping is that while humans originally created plants they don't quite understand where their powers come from, other than a "higher source" (god).

tesla vash and knives are what conrad and other plant scientists call "independents" because they have:

souls (from the higher power, presumably)

wills of their own

biological non-independent plant mothers (who died giving birth to them)

and, according to conrad's analytics, while knives "gate" is receptive to the higher power from god, vash's "gate" can not only receive but transmit this higher power (souls) as well. in other words vash is. just. chock full of sperm. he's a humanoid vector for getting other creatures god pregnant, so since they couldn't air vash literally fucking knives pregnant, they settled for him inseminating knives' dozens of pre-laid eggs like a horrifyingly beautiful deep sea nature documentary.

so to get back to the meat of the episode, knives connects his body to vash by stabbing into him with his chains of knife tentacles, and immediately after losing his senses from this black roots begin to grow out of the points the two brothers are connected. the roots seek out each of the eggs, and glowing energy begins to transfer, through knives' manipulation, from vash into each of the eggs.

then we take a trip inside of the twins shared headspace and watch knives brainwash vash one memory at a time, erasing his past for him so that he can be wiped completely blank. when this process reaches a critical point, vash's external body starts reacting defensively - this part is speculation but i think he senses that knives is seeking his memories of rem, and starts instinctively re-creating her before it even happens. so new roots start to grow, this time straight down, following vash's will instead of his brother's, and through the rest of the episode this set of roots expands and becomes a monstrously enormous tree literally in the shape of rem, covered in bio-luminescent blue geraniums.

this is also the moment where instead of knives seeking vash's memories, vash begins visiting knives' instead. vash begins appearing both in memory form as well as his current dream self, which implies a subtle growing grip that vash has on the situation, despite being at 90% synchronization physically. so it's vash who starts entering doors in the ship that leads to knives' memories, beautifully complimented by the fact that the next one he accesses is him solving a problem knives can't figure out on his own. we get our tesla reveal moment and it's fucking incredible.

birthday confirmed canon july 21 happy birthday boys. it also says they were born in the year 2455 so let's just hang in there a couple hundred more years and say hi to them.

vash looks into another door that rings with mechanical sounds, but when he tries to enter it knives takes him instead to the rec room, where they both seem to be recovering from their discovery of tesla. the mechanical door memory is skipped, either for vash, the viewer, or both. in a reversal of their manga conversations where knives is more manipulative and vash is more depressive, knives despairs of human wrongdoing while vash urges knives to have faith in humanity's ability to change. knives interprets this to mean that vash, who has no powers of his own, feels the need to bow to human might and expectation out of self preservation, and makes up his mind to eradicate them so he doesn't have to. adult knives appears in the memory he's curated to explain this, and to tell vash once again that the fall was his fault, since knives did it all for him, to protect his vulnerable twin from human cruelty.

this is the point of mind break for vash, and knives, taking advantage of that vulnerability, becomes empowered and moves in to finally remove rem from vash's memories. symbolically, as soon as he does, vash's red coat carbonates, and knives synchronization (the tristamp version of melding from the manga) reaches 100%. with no memories left to access, we return to knives in the physical world, quietly elated, wishing his brother a happy birthday since believes he has literally re-made him in his own (rem-free) image. while knives and his plant eggs all give off light in the pussy juice tank, no part of vash is glowing anymore, he only reflects light.

then (through vash's power) knives opens the final pussy, the opening to the higher plane where plant power is drawn from. this is the moment that vash's mega-rem geraniums begin to bloom as well. and the plant eggs, still attached to vash's insemination roots, open, revealing non-independent female plants that are connected to vash via their enormously swollen pregnant bellies.

conrad is revealed to be dying, a hostage knives took as an adolescent to fulfill his wishes. this is not news but it is sexy. the knives conrad relationship in tristamp is weird and really good. knives finally disconnects from vash, leaving his motionless shell behind in the pussy juice tank as he crosses through the gate vash opened for him. all the while, vash's giant rem tree is growing, literally suffocating the entire city of july and killing or driving its people to flee. at the moment that knives seems about to make contact with the core he believes to be the source of their power, vash's tree rem fully takes form, and blooms.

[esther-dot]

Going by GRRM's logic if princesses can't marry someone lowborn bc it's unrealistic, as he was consulted on this likely new Kit's project, wouldn't it be contradictory if Jon (as he's not a bastard) ends up with a random or Val as many have been speculating?

Well, I think we’re gonna have to keep in mind that this sequel is taking place in the Game of Thrones cinematic universe, not ASOIAF which makes it pretty hard to say what can/can’t happen.

And this show isn’t merely in GoT-verse, it’s a direct follow-up and the problem there is that what s7-8 didn't make nonsensical, they left unclear. In s7 I thought it would have made more sense for Jon to have suggested a marriage alliance with Dany (or Tyrion or Davos, our darling matchmakers), but instead D&D had him bend the knee and then had the advisors talk about marriage in s8 when it was totally pointless? Like, Dany had the North, she could use marriage to peacefully bring another region into the fold. So, at that point the logic wasn’t really present and if Kit was influenced by that, where the relationships are  distinct from the political situation, I’m not sure that Martin would be able to course correct this until it makes sense with his opinion.

And, more to the point of your question, the confusion in which D&D left everyone means we don’t even know if Jon is still known as Ned’s bastard or if the news of his parentage got out? Varys found out about Jon and attempted to send that information elsewhere, but I don't know that he succeeded? It may only be the Starks, Tyrion, and Sam who know about it, and since D&D didn't include Robb's will, Jon isn't a legitimized Stark either. Of course, D&D did have him riding around on a dragon, so the Northerners might put two-and-two together in the sequel, it all depends on which story Kit wants to tell. The show could open with his parentage being common knowledge, or the show could take place entirely removed from the Northern Lords and be about Jon and the FF where Jon’s parents don’t matter / the political stuff isn’t a consideration. 

Now, even if his parentage isn’t known, as a former king, if we’re thinking about the politics, Jon 100% cannot have kids or it would be a threat to Sansa’s reign. Does Kit think that? Idk! And, even if it isn’t common knowledge, since he knows he was the heir to the Iron Throne, you’d think that would make him hesitate as well or his kids/grandkids might be used against the realm. Does Kit think that? Idk! I also don’t know how much Martin will push to make any of this reasonable. I believe he gives notes on scripts, I don’t know that he gets to give an emphatic no to any developments? And even if they all wanted to bring it closer to ASOIAF because of those developments in GoT, they may be screwed.

As in, in the books it’s possible Jon refuses to be legitimized a Stark or crowned king which means he would have the freedom to marry/have kids without it being a threat to Sansa/her kids after the dust settles. If that’s Martin’s endgame, he might allow it even though in GoT, not only is Jon a legitimate Targ, he was also KitN. So yeah, I would agree with you that marrying a rando doesn’t quite work in that world, but then again, Jon has no political position, so maybe they’ll decide it doesn’t matter? Martin can’t walk back what D&D did, and maybe he’ll be happy with something let’s a little less offensive than s7-8. And they are really leaning into Jon being a Snow for the show (title, Kit made some comments...), so it’s hard to say.

Going back to the confusion in s8 tho, not only do we not know who knows what about Jon’s ancestry, we ended the show not even knowing if Jon was in the Watch/leading it, or if Bran was telling him he was free to go live with the FF which is, to some, what the closing shot indicated. I had one impression, the next day when I got online I saw fans and critics alike all coming to different conclusions, in the months that followed Kit said Jon was with the FF, one of the D’s said he was still in the Watch. I believe different things posted by HBO gave different impressions...It was a mess.

However, Kit’s recent comments made it sound like Jon is at the Wall, and if he’s in the Watch, the question of marriage would be off the table. He could still have an affair, even a kid (insert my previously stated objections), but unless Sansa or Bran (we don’t even know how the North being free impacts things with the Watch) pardons him, he’s not going to be marrying officially even if we do ignore the concerns about him being a former king. I mean, I say that, but I suppose now that the Others are defeated maybe the rules will change/the Watch will evolve? Idk!

Ignoring all the political stuff, Kit’s recent comments in which he made a connection between Cat and his romantic partners in a very negative way made me think he wouldn’t want Jon with a similar woman in his sequel, as the goal seems to be getting Jon healed and happy. That surprised me, and it did make me wonder where Jon’s next love interest would be coming from and doubt that it would be Val when it seemed likely before. While Val isn’t a fighter the same way Ygritte was, she still holds the traditional FF beliefs, she’s already talked about killing a kid and threatened to geld men, she even delivered the “You know nothing, Jon Snow” line once which Kit hates. Obviously they could rewrite her personality, but based on what Kit was saying...I’m not sure that Kit would read her scenes and choose her as the love interest.

All of that being said, in the books Stannis intends to legitimize Jon and marry him to Val,because he perceived Val as a princess, making her a viable prospect.  Jon attempts to explain that Stannis is misunderstanding the FF by   calling her such, and we know that he’s right so this really isn’t a great plan. But, Martin did include a character planning to marry Jon and Val for certain  political ends which I believe was the point of the quote about the princess not being able to marry a stable boy. Highborn people marry other highborns because it’s about benefiting the family/doing something for a specific advantage/accumulating wealth or power or solidifying peace etc, so depending on which scenario they start with, I suppose Kit & Co. could try to run with that? As in, they could take the idea of Jon and a woman of the FF marrying to try to help the two cultures coexist? At the behest of Bran and Sansa who first pardon Jon an then offer him his own lands?  A lot of us thought the idea of the FF going back beyond the Wall was odd, so maybe they’re thinking about going with a settling the Gift idea and this could be included with that.

I suppose I just don’t know what the limits are for the writers and none of the cast or Martin himself have criticized s7-8, so it’s really hard to know what to think!

[yvesdot]

Hi! I saw on your Drac Daily posts that you read Ooku last year- what did you think? I thought it was a really interesting look into what feudal Japan was/mightve been like under a woman Emporer

Halloa! I'm so glad I'm not the only reader of Ooku. (Ōoku? Oooku? I sound like a fool trying to pronounce it out loud.)

Strangely, it made me sympathize more with Lin Manuel Miranda in creating Hamilton. (<- Everyone in the world is welcome to stop reading right here.)

It's kind of a doomed endeavor, because it's trying to make empire feminist, and you just... cannot do that. When I come at the text more diagonally, poking through for evidences of how you cannot do that (e.g. the way the female shoguns treat their male concubines; much of interest suggested there re: gender, sexuality, power, etc.), I enjoy it a lot more...

...because it's not that much of a political text, perhaps? Every time I snarked or read it harshly I wondered whether I wasn't simply misinterpreting a historical drama. To be clear, I don't know what Hamilton is trying to do-- I've never watched it-- but there are points in Ooku where it seems clear to me that Yoshinaga is here for drama, dress, and all those lovely things implied by a historical manga like this one; perhaps I'm the rude one for expecting deep political thought just because she's won some feminist SFF awards. Frankly, maybe she's not even trying to make empire feminist; maybe she just wanted to write this premise.

And that premise binds her pretty tightly to a variety of ideas: e.g. that female shoguns could and would have acted exactly as the male ones did; that is, that there is no difference in perspective or experience which a female emperor might have which would necessarily lead her to an alternate conclusion. Obviously, that's the point of the series, as it tries to metatextually convince you that real life Japan really was run by women, and here's how that was possible... and I don't think that's a bad thing; it's a lot of fun to write something you know can't be 100% correct or perfect. That's why it made it to the top books of the year list! I think it was one of the best at doing what it wanted to do, and it was certainly a defining series of the year for me. 2022 Roundup still coming, um, whenever it comes.

Also! Under-Glass (the idea I explored in my plotting-a-short-story livestream) was inspired by the fact that I simply thought more could have been done with how terribly ashamed all those men feel to get dressed up as women and be concubines. What's so shameful about girlclothes, hmmm?

So you can tell I quite liked it. I tend to be very charitable with books I've enjoyed in any way (to everyone's chagrin), and I think Ooku has a lot to positively say for itself. I'd also like to have a more robust English-language manga criticism community (<- do these words mean anything?), so we could get more into the meat of it.

Admittedly none of this tells you anything about my awareness of feudal Japan, which is... nil. I'm sorry. I like learning about Japan, and I'm doing it bit by bit, but history and geopolitics have always been my weak suit. I think Dracula is a particular exception because it's so in-your-face about a lot of the things I point out; it's also worth noting I know nothing of Dracula and hardly anything of vampstudies as a whole. I'm just chatty.

(And, yes, it took me a really long time to get into the faux-Shakespeare dialect. But then, I'm no @butchhamlet.)

P. S. Thank you so much for reading the DracDaily commentary! It's so silly I've not been advertising it all too consistently; I'm very happy it's beneficial to people.

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

https://www.tumblr.com/reflections-in-a-critical-eye/724473325594755072/could-you-explain-a-bit-better-what-you-meant-with

Wow I loved this and it was such an accurate description of how I feel/felt about the whole shipping discourse and just jimin n jungkook in general. I have always approached the topic sensibly and have always been cautious about coming to conclusions that are based on edges that aren’t sharp/conclusive. I don’t entirely believe they are together nor do I believe they’re not? I hope this makes sense because they have shown us so much but like I just don’t have an exclusive/certain opinion on them. And your so right there are so so so so many things that we don’t know about them so therefore it’s kind of hard to make these assumptions about them in a conclusive way but I think for me in a personal sense what they’ve presented to us has always hinted in one direction and it’s that they’re not just ‘friends’. I think in my case I wouldn’t be so invested in this if GCF in Tokyo didn’t exist and if GCF Saipan didn’t to be honest those two were very very clear on what they’re intentions were and the message they tried to push. Honestly I can go on forever because everything they do/done and presented has always pushed me to see their relationship in one way but I’ve never made that a conclusive mindset but more like a skeptical possibility. Like they know what message the things they do put out, they obviously have to be extra self conscious about it being who they are. I don’t know if half of what I said makes sense but I entirely agree with your answer to that anon and I agree with you post in so many ways I can’t describe. I wish more people approached the topic the way you have and your amazing for that thankyou.

I find myself situated in between certainties in this situation. I couldn't possibly pick a side which tends to have heavy extremist tones (No! They are not and Yes! They are). But to each their own, right? As long as it doesn't turn into speech influenced by how miserable one feels or on the contrary, seeing clues and hidden meanings everywhere. Those are positions that don't reflect the way I think.

Not being sure of something is not a bad thing. Saying I don't know is better sometimes. In life and in a situation such as this one. Regardless of its importance/relevance for us.

After all these years in the fandom and especially in the last year, I'm in a place in which I genuinely just enjoy the stuff that happens when it does. And that's it? I don't go mopping around every day and making theories over theories about every single gaze or sentence that might indicate disruptions or incoming revelation. I find it a waste of time. When there is no "content", I do and talk about other things. It's that simple.

This only shows that each and every one of us focuses and takes away from the interest in a pair/ship whatever we feel necessary and what suits best our personality. Which leads to clashes, or forging friendships or perhaps staying neutral and taking a peek inside from time to time. Like a little indulgence.

[mightyflamethrower]

AMA: Taxpayers should fund uterus transplants for males

Buckle up, campers, because things are going to get even weirder this evening, courtesy (once again) of the folks at the American Medical Association. According to a recent report published in The Daily Mail, a representative of the AMA has suggested in the June issue of its Journal of Ethics that taxpayers could be put on the hook for a $300,000 surgery to transplant a uterus into a male patient to “subsidize” the cost of the very expensive and totally experimental surgery. And why would anyone need to do this? Two reasons. First, it could alleviate ‘psychological dissonance’ in the trans patient. But even better, they seem to believe that they may be getting closer to allowing a man to actually get pregnant and deliver a baby. Your head-desk response is assumed.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has suggested that taxpayers should subsidize uterus transplants worth up to $300,000 to help transgender women get pregnant. Arguments were made to reduce the cost of the surgery in its Journal of Ethics issue in June titled Patient-Centered Transgender Surgical Care. But the AMA has been criticized for floating the idea and has been accused of holding an ‘activist position’.

As usual, I will preface my response with my usual disclosure that I AM NOT A DOCTOR and don’t even play one on television, so do your own research and reach your own conclusions. But I don’t think any reasonably intelligent (and, let’s face it… sane) person needs to be a doctor to see what’s so very wrong about this entire story. And you can also see what is increasingly wrong with the American Medical Association, which has been hijacked by activists from the trans movement and is now simply spouting politically correct and, in this case, potentially lethal nonsense.

You can read the full article in the Journal of Ethics here. The entire June issue is dedicated to nothing but transgender medical issues, but the one about transplanting a uterus into a man is really over the moon. I should also warn you that the linked article at The Daily Mail contains a rather graphic cartoon walking you through the process of performing such a transplant, so be prepared. It’s unsettling, to say the least.

One thing you may notice if you read the Journal article is that they make reference to “Swedish researchers involved in the initial successful uterus transplants resulting in live births.” This might lead the unwary to believe that these trans-plants (sorry… couldn’t resist) and births are already happening. That is not remotely accurate. The transplants in question were done using a donor uterus from either a deceased woman or a patient having hers removed for other reasons, with the organ being transplanted into a living woman. (Not a “woman with a penis.”) She already had all of the required parts and needed a replacement uterus. Still something of a medical miracle, but not related to the topic at hand.

As far as the proposal in question goes, the entire idea of male pregnancy is still entirely theoretical. It’s never happened and it probably can’t. There is a lot more involved in bringing a baby to term than the “simple” act of combining a sperm with an egg and seeing if the resultant zygote attaches to the uterine wall. The woman’s body is doing a lot of work throughout the process, work that a male body is not equipped to perform. And the initial procedure (as described in the illustration I mentioned above) involves incredible medical gymnastics to attempt to wedge a donor organ into a place that it was never intended to be.

This is full-on Doctor Frankenstein territory. If you intentionally create an embryo in a place where it almost certainly will not survive, that’s not just massive medical malpractice. You are tiptoeing up to the territory of murder. The idea that the AMA could endorse such a thing, to say nothing of calling on the taxpayers to subsidize it, is an atrocity. The AMA is completely out of control at this point and ethically undocked. They are an unregulated group that still wields enormous influence and power and they are using that position to promote evil here. Something needs to be done. I just wish I knew what it was.

[kob131]

https://www.reddit.com/r/RWBY/comments/z877af/the_problems_with_gatekeeping_in_parts_of_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Now here’s the full deep dive.

While i am "cooking" my next batch of threads, mostly covering RWBY: Arowfell for now, i have decided to cover some issues that i am seeing rising up once again. Its not uncommon for critics of the show to be maligned in any and every way imaginable.

Gee, I wonder why critics in general within the RWBY fandom are so maligned. It couldn’t be that on top of the vast majority of them being incapable of doing bare minimum quality control, you also lie about the show and creators constantly, attack both constantly and act in heinous ways like trying to use a man’s death to emotionally manipulate his co-workers/friends/family into complying with you. Not to mention said vitrol is directed AT the creators at a much greater frequency by self proclaimed critics who themselves cannot take even the mildest form of criticism themselves.

However, from time to time a trend and an "opinion" is spread or attempted to be spread in the community, and it is my belief that such things need to receive push-back before they become common-place, otherwise it can lead to.... Poor decisions as back in the past.

What am i talking about? Well, first of all, the increasing sentiment of gatekeeping and some parts of the fandom seemingly deciding to choose who is a "fan" of the show or not. The strange purity testing that seems to be taking place on reddit of all places.

Can you really call it strange when the act of not doing it was basically seen as acceptance to act as horribly as possible to creators?

Dex, I do not care how much you preach about how innocent your fellows are. They are still the same group that has asked Miles when he’ll die so he can be replaced.

At the same time, there is the related issue of people seemingly thinking that criticizing a work means inherent dislikeability of it, which is a very wrong conclusion to draw in my opinion. And the last but not least is the somewhat strange sentiment that critics are out there to stop fans from enjoying the show.

What kind of conclusion would YOU draw at people doing nothing but bitching endlessly about the show, about things they misconstrue and about things that DIDN’T HAPPEN? All while declaring how much they hate the creators who make the damn show and demand that it be completely different huh?

Critics do not care if you watch the show

I think this claim should be addressed first despite its position in the intro. There has seemingly been an increase in a very peculiar sentiment, the sentiment that critics do what they do out of some kind of malice, or with an intent to get people to not watch the show.

I have seen RWBY ‘critics’ take sadistic glee in bullying the writers. I’ve seen outright BIGOTRY from them. You cannot argue a lack of malice.

Now, do not worry, i can tell you very simply and openyl. We critics simply do not care of what you do in your free time. Why should we? Many people here spend very little time on RWBY or being involved with the RWBY community, at least in comparison to the rest of our lives. For example, i log in multiple times a day, but rarely write unless a thread interests me, and i only have 2 days of making posts weekly. I have other things to do in my life like Cross-stitching as a hobby and of course, work.

Cool.

Now look me in the eye say that about the creators.

... That’s what I thought.

Let us be real here, what would any of us gain by getting other people to not watch or enjoy the show? Especially since it is something that we most likely would never even find out about? It just makes no sense.

Validation. Those people want validation for their feelings, to make it look like their feelings have a factual basis.

This has been especially prevalent during my critiques of RWBY: Arowfell, people were questioning if they should buy the game, or if i am doing the critique threads to stop people from playing the game. To which i could only say "I do not care" nor other critics. Of course, as long as it does not involve supporting a corporation like RT. Then we do care, but watching/enjoying RWBY content is mostly unrelated to that.

Gotta love that he brings up his Arrowfell posts, which DIRECTLY GO AFTER THE CREATORS MIND YOU, as he completely ignores an entire side to this conflict.

Look, there is no need for this self-victimization and thinking that critics are "out to get you", we aren't. Especially since many of us (With a few exceptions) still enjoy the show ourselves.

A. No, you fuckers usually target THE CREATORS. Your own fucking subreddit proves this. Type ‘miles’ into the search bar and watch as the first result is everyone bashing Miles Luna for liking tweets criticizing RT, trying to blame him even though it is VERY public knowledge that he alongside the other writers overwork themselves.

And B. I call bullshit. You bitch about so many things that have a more logical, positive interpretation so often I can only assume you WANT to see the negative. That and the times that, again, you bitch about shit that NEVER HAPPENED.

And just honestly want it to get better. Which actually leads to the next point.

I have seen your rewrites. All but one ALWAYS deviate majorly from the original to the point of barely being AU. Your definiton of ‘better’ is ‘panders to me’, which just underlines how self centered the lot of you are.

Yes, critics do enjoy the show, they express it differently, but they still do, at least most of them. Criticizing or only criticizing something does not show that a person is not enjoying the thing they are playing at hand. For example, go to any Paradox game forums and see what most often liked memes are, they are memes of either funny occurrences or some part of the game that is bad. And those are the games where people will spend 200+ hours playing, and thats the lowest estimate.

Cool. Now show me the ones where Paradox games try to get the developers fired so that they can place people more like themselves in charge.

At the end of the day there are too many ways to express enjoyment of a show or to interact with the fandom. Be it making fan-art, making AMV's, making fanfictions, rewrites. There are so many ways to engage with the fandom and a person can choose any of them. It is their choice to make and it does not indicate their enjoyment of the show.

Also gotta love that be brings up fanfics and rewrites as separate things,even though the latter would just be a more specific form of the former. Almost like he knows that rewrites aren’t made out of affection but rather entitlement and smugness.

An artist might even HATE a show that they make art for. Its possible, because artists do also get paid for their work. One cannot judge people just by their content, at least not entirely, especially with things like these.

Does the artist constantly say they are better the creators and that the creators are inferior people to them?

Not to mention. Where does this purity testing end? So if i mostly criticize a show im not a fan now? Ok. Who is next? The people who half criticize and half praise the show? The people who criticize the show at all? And before anyone accuses me of "Overstating" things, one of the main deciding factors of the critic sub forming was the belief that the main sub was hostile to critique post V6, which it kind of was and i experienced it myself first hand.

Gee, not like there was a sudden surge of people acting like amoral dipshits who constantly tried to browbeat the creators into making their OC versions of Adam canon or anything...

And again, ignoring the creator side of things really fucks you in the ass here because it sounds more like ‘So if I threaten the creators, lie about them and their work constantly and outright show that I know this is wrong when people do it to me- Am I not a fan????’

Hell, fan-artists have been harassed over the art they make. Cosplayers were harassed over characters they chose to dress as. These things can easily escalate. Purity testing is an never ending spiral of doom.

You’re right Dextixer.

... Too bad the critics started it in the first place, demanding that the creators weren’t pure enough themselves. How’s it feel getting fucked by your predecessors’ actions?

Also, i have to say that accusations of people not being "fans" of the show because they criticize it to be rude at best. Especially since i do not think any of us unlocked mind reading powers just yet.

But we do have this nifty little thing called ‘basic pattern recongition’. Like ‘people do nothing but lie and be jackasses constantly towards thing and creators -> they no like thing.’

Also, if getting slagged off is rude- what do you call suicide baiting and racism? Attempted murder?

This kind of claim is usually tied in with the claim that a critic "must not enjoy the show" and that they should "leave the fandom for something they are fan of" and the like.

These critics constantly interpret the show and people behind it as negatively as possible, beyond any form of logic or reason. All while acting miserable and pissy.

They should.

To which i can only say...

Something does not need to be good to be enjoyable.

Cool. Not why so many hate critics.

Talk about how you treat the people responsible FOR said thing.

I do not think there is more for me to say about these points. Just to clarify, i am doing this almost as an "outreach" program from the critic side, basically trying to tell you that we arent these "scary" and faceless mass of people who want to stop people from liking RWBY. What i want to show is that we are fans like any other, just making different choices in our expressions. That is it.

You know, unless you criticize them or call them out for doing far worse shit than 

Or if you commit the cardinal sin of ‘Being Miles Luna’.

Then you’ll be harassed and attacked and lied about and slandered until they think they’ve broke you.

Also, do be aware that this is not calling out the entire fandom and the like, this is me pushing back against some of the narratives i have been seeing recently, nothing more, nothing less.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the narratives exist for a REASON? That maybe your community has crossed so many lines that no one cares about your pleas of innocence?

For fucks sake, the person you are indirecty referencing (Lilith Fairen) outright said she watched RWBY SPECIFICALLY because you fuckers got so loud and obnoxious that she had to check it out. She wouldn’t have come into the fandom if you hadn’t been such massive assholes.

Your bullshit caused your own boogeyman. Twice, considering that I originally came to the RWDE tag believing I would find some decent criticisms to discuss instead of a swamp of bile and toxic puke.