#definitions from merriam-webster and oxford | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

andy-wm · 3 months

Text

I have thoughts on Jimin's SGMB

It's the gayest thing I've ever seen.

And by that I mean it's joyous, light-hearted, bright, and fun.

We can all agree, I think, that this is a happy and totally harmless song. Who could criticise Jimin for declaring his love in such a sweet and innocent way?

Of course not everyone will like it, and that's fine. You don't have to like everything he does - or everything BTS does - you are an individual with thoughts and feelings of your own - I hope. But putting that aside you'd have to be a troubled person indeed to take offence at anything here.

So, it is definitely a fan song, right? Jimin is singing to his fans... isn't he?

Maybe.

But if it is (I and I'm not convinced) it's not just a fan song.

It's sweet, so sweet, but....

Maybe it's a little too sweet?

We know Jimin is CUTIE SEXY LOVELY and LOVELY LOVELY LOVELY, but let's be honest, he's also a grown man. And Army are not children (mostly). In fact we have had many many conversations about how ARMY are not children.

But this whole production is pushing the sweet and innocent barrow so hard that I can't help wanting to look underneath and behind and inside to see what's really going on because it's so sweet it's hurting my teeth.

Compare the sophistication and self awareness of FACE to the bouncy, bright and child-like song-and-dance in the SGMB music video. They are WORLDS apart and we were told very specifically that the albums were linked.

"Following his first solo album, “FACE,” where he sought to explore his true identity, “MUSE” documents his journey in search of the source of his inspiration." said the Weverse notification.

So what's really going on here?

What are you doing Jiminie?

And more importantly, why are you doing it?

You could call it a pageant, or a carnival, or a circus - with Jimin as the ringmaster.

But my view is:

This a pantomime. And it's very clever.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a pantomime is "A dramatic entertainment, originating in Roman mime, in which performers express meaning through gestures accompanied by music." Yes, that describes it.

Merriam-Webster tells us "[A pantomime] is an ancient Roman dramatic performance featuring a solo dancer and a narrative chorus" That also makes sense.

Oxford also specified that it's a modern BRITISH tradition. "a theatrical entertainment, mainly for children, which involves music, topical jokes, and slapstick comedy." It's a perfect fit.

The British link is already there - Jimin clearly told us he's influenced by The Beatles' Sergeant Peppers Album. There's also the styling of his suit. The stovepipe pants, narrow tie, and fitted jacket are very 1960s (and 1980s) British pop.

There's something old-school about a pantomime. It harks back to childhood, and to the nostalgia of holidays. And the styling of the MV is in keeping with that nostalgic feel too - from the Mountain scene with the vintage film title, to the intertitles - or title cards , to the circular frame of the opening scene.

But back to the Pantomime itself...

A quick google search told me the following are important elements of pantomime. And we have most, if not all of them in this production.

Gender role reversal - TICK

Slapstick comedy - TICK

Colourful costumes - TICK

Audience participation - TICK (the children ARE the audience)

Exaggerated facial expressions - TICK

Take another look at the music video - it's all there.

Wikipedia tells us that pantomimes traditional told fairy tales or folk tales - often love stories - and that the primary role in a Pantomime was:

The 'Principal boy', a hero or charismatic rogue, traditionally played by a young woman in men's clothing.

Smart, very smart. With all the other conversations we've been having a round gender this is totally on the money.

Wikipedia goes on to say "Another pantomime tradition is to engage celebrity guest stars... Contemporary pantomime productions are often adapted to allow the star to showcase their well-known act.... If the star enters into the spirit of the entertainment, he or she likely adds to its overall effect"

Welcome, Loco.

(yes, I know collabs are de rigueur, but that doesn't change the fact that it fits - celeb guests are an established practice in Panto.)

So if this IS a Pantomime (and I'm not saying it definitely is but it looks like one to me), then it's intended to be a sung-story, told as much through dance and gestures as through words.

If it's a pantomime, what is it about?

I'm glad you asked! This little charade is the story of a young person called Jimin who is looking for love. He finds romance easily enough...

but real love takes a little longer.

Fortunately for our hero, he's brave (he will confess to his lover) and he is patient (he encourages them to do so too).

In between, there are shenanigans and goofing...

But our Charismatic Rogue is charming (if devilish) and wins the hearts of the audience - and his lover.

Let's take a closer look at how the story unfolds...

At the start of the MV, as the initial credits appear, Jimin is on stage vibing with his band. Loco is chilling on a rock like a lizard in the sun.

We get the ye olde intertitles, welcoming the audience and introducing.... SMERALDO Garden Marching Band

It's not Smeraldo Garden - Marching Band. It's Smeraldo *pause* Garden Marching Band. Smeraldo (secrets) has the emphasis.

After the intertitles, the scene opens on a group of children - they are ostensibly the audience of the band. They're playing paper-scissors-rock to see who will call for Jimin's attention.

The children run over to him and the tale begins.

Jimin, the main character of this story, immediately launches into song.

He starts off singing about Bangtan - mentioning their harmony (song and personal I think), he shows the Bangtan hand gesture we all know so well, and he sings "we gift happiness every day".

But he mentions June 12th.

Why June 12th?

Why not 13th, their debut day?

BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A SONG for ARMY. He's making it clear that at this point he's referring to Bangtan specifically, not the whole juggernaut of the fandom and fame. June 12th precedes ARMY.

He's made it clear from the start - this is NOT ABOUT ARMY.

Then he leans in and whispers to the children - and the camera -"lets talk about us".

Look at the kids' faces - they're miming shock. Ooooohhh! This is a big secret he's about to tell them - and us.

Look at Jimin's expression - he's just a tad smug. This is not a shocking secret to him, this is a fun secret.

Yes, he is indeed the charismatic rogue of this story.

He sings:

"All the things we couldn't say before

And your hidden feelings too (just for you)

Don't you worry anymore

Since we're together now**

Let's be a little more honest."

So it seems our main character has a LOVER. Someone who couldn't be revealed and who hid their feelings.

<Wow, I have no idea who this could be...>

Hang on, what's happening in the MV??

On his journey, it seems our young hero has a few short-lived romances. And if you look carefully, they are all with men.

He accepts the rose from a man, and plants himself on the bench right up close to .... a man. He jumps up unperturbed, and gifts the rose to (you guessed it) another man.

Jimin manages to sidestep (or completely ignore) all the women except one, who he sends graciously into the arms of a random man before continuing on his journey.

Wait one moment... his romantic partners were ALL MEN??

ALL MEN??

ALL MEN?!!!!!

Yes darling, all men. Let's continue.

So, it seems none of Jimin's previous romances grew into anything more, but he takes his own advice with his mysterious lover and confesses first.

He smirks. He flicks his jacket with pizzazz. He's ready.

He sings:

"Ooooh I love you babe,

I'll come closer to you

I want to hold your hand,

I want you babe (yessir)

Please note the hand gesture in this choreo - it's another one we've seen many times.

The dance ends and Jimin scans the surroundings and spots his old friend...

[Enter stage left: Loco]

Oh look, the friend is a rapper a few years older than Jimin. They seem to have a lot of fun together, Jimin and his rapper friend. There are ZERO romantic overtones here. This guy happily goes along with all the goofing and silliness even though he looks a tiny bit mortified. Either they are both very good actors, or a lot of the time, Loco was holding in his laughter. And Jimin seems incredibly amused by that.

They hang out together until.... something in the atmosphere changes:

The colours become richer, light become warmer, and oh look....

It's *The Golden Hour*

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP, PEOPLE. HE REALLY DID THIS.

Jimin leaves Loco, chasing the golden light as he sings about "the dazzling sky." Golden confetti (champagne, anyone?) falls all around him and then ...

fucking sunflowers bloom.

SUN FLOWERS.

BLOOM.

FOR HIM.

SUNflowers...

Remind me again what sunflowers are known for? Oh yes, they are symbolic of the sun. Guess what else? They turn to face the sun.

Yup, the sunflowers all turn their faces toward the camera. I'm not crazy, okay?! I'm not.

SMH... let's move on.

Jimin re-joins his band, and the sunflowers do their sunflower thing, and Jimin sings:

"So tell me how you feel,

let whatever you feel

wash over you"

Then he sings

"I love you babe, (yessir)

I'll come closer to you

I want to hold your hand,

I want you babe (yessir)

Please note the hand gesture again

👉 👈

The bridge is next, and Jimin takes us back to Bangtan. As all the stars appear (that ocean of purple light that surrounds them at concerts) and everyone takes their place on stage, they turn up the music. <Are my eyes watering? Perhaps>

"I think we're ready now

Lets begin 1, 2

Put your hands up"

*cute wiggle-dance commences* and Jimin spots his good friend the rapper again, hiding on the sidelines. He pulls him into the chorus line and they do more silliness and everyone is having a great time.

Confetti- flower petals fall, there's laughter and happiness all around, and they bow and bid us good bye.

The show is over.

*THE END*

But wait, I am not done.

A few more things bear mentioning here:

I saw quite a few comments saying this song is for ARMY.

It is categorically NOT for ARMY. Besides the fact that we already have Closer Than This - a fan song - on this album, Jimin specifically chose a date before debut - before ARMY existed - to place in this song. No mention of ARMY at all. Accept it graciously, this is not for you.

I wanna hold your hand

This lyric is a reference not only to the Beatles song "I Want to Hold Your Hand", It's also a common theme with Jimin and Jungkook. We see them finding any feeble excuse to hold hands, shake hands, touch hands. Yes, we see you two...

I am you, You are me

The gesture used in the choreo when Jimin is singing his confession - I failed miserably to catch it in my screengrab but there's no doubt it's their "I am you, You are me" gesture. Take a look for yourself.

All Jimin's romantic moments happened with men.

I'm not saying in his life, I am saying in this MV. All of them. The only interaction he has with a woman is one brief moment where he grabs her wrist as she passes by and he swings her into the path of a guy behind him. He even scoots around the women and sidesteps them. That can't be accidental. He's making a point.

The addition of 'yessir' in the lyrics makes it clear that he's confessing to a man.

I cannot see any reasonable way to refute this. The BH subtitles include it even though you have to listen carefully to catch it. THAT IS A CHOICE, NOT AN ACCIDENT.

"Even though we're together now"

These lyrics could mean theyre an established, committed couple. But if we think a little broader than that, and a little more literally, who is he together with right now?

It's strategically brilliant.

This is his 'tell all expose' but he has built in a rock solid escape clause by using the panto format. Staging the whole love story - including the prior boyfriends and the man he's now in love with - as an over the top comedy show makes it easily dismissible as pure fiction. By including the fantasy/magical elements he just makes it more so. Deniers will be able to come up with a dozen reasons to reject this... 'It's a fantasy story', 'not all songs are autobiographical', 'he's making a point', 'he's raising LGBTQIA+ awareness'... all true maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that this is HIS song, about HIS muse. If you've been paying attention (and even if you haven't) you will know this is certainly not pure fiction.

AND FINALLY....

The most important one, I left till last. I actually want to scream this, in all caps, in the biggest font possible. But I will restrain myself.

The song is bookended by references to BTS.

That is hugely important. For those who may not be aware, this is a literary device. Bookending a story provides a start and end reference point. Here, the Bangtan bookends provide context for the rest of the lyrics - they frame the lyrics within them. That means the events happening in the song, happen within the context of Bangtan. Reading between the lines, the person he is singing to/about is within Bangtan.

This is not reaching. This is like mixing blue paint and yellow paint together. You will get green paint.

💛+💙=💚

So yes, this song is the gayest thing I've ever seen.

And I DO mean it's joyous, light-hearted, bright, and fun.

But yes, it's also absolutely and totally really really GAY

🏳️‍🌈🐥🦄🌈🏳️‍⚧️🌻🐰☀️🏳️‍🌈

Thank you Jiminie

#park jimin #jeon jungguk #jikook #kookmin #국민 #true love #jungkook #bts jimin #jimin comeback #jimin sgmb #smeraldo garden marching band

488 notes · View notes

potato-lord-but-not · 7 months

Note

“There’s something aesthetically pleasing about the word noon. Its palindromic spelling feels appropriate for the middle of the day, when the sun is directly overhead and the hands on the clock are pointed upward in a straight line. It’s even spelled with letters found more or less in the middle of the alphabet.” (“What Time Is…” par. 1)

Perhaps unfortunately for my argument, this article goes on to explain how the word ‘noon’ originally referred to the ninth hour of the day, that of course being 3 o’clock; because the sun and with it the people rose at six. It is derived from the Latin word for ‘ninth’, ‘nonus’. The word’s meaning apparently shifted during the twelfth century, because of the prayers of monastic orders. The second of three daily prayers would occur at noon, and the time of this prayer eventually became earlier, landing at twelve. This is believed to have been so the monks could break their fast sooner. Of course, this is not universally agreed upon and other theories include shifts in seasonal daylit hours, and European Medieval people’s struggles to have accurate timekeeping.

None of my sources suggest that three o’clock was considered the middle of the day at any point in time, therefore I would like to argue that the word noon did not originally refer to the middle of the day, but eventually, when it was given to the time that is more deserving of that title, came to do so. I believe that the denotation “middle of the day” is something that is both scientifically and culturally awarded, and that for whatever reason the people (however unknowingly) creating the Old/Middle English language believed twelve o’clock to be so. If you wish to create your own cultural norms, by all means go ahead, just remember that the word culture refers to a group, so you’ll need to find some people who agree with you. (Which, hey, maybe you already have, maybe most people agree with you and I’m just being pedantic.)

Anyways um hi, sorry about this, I did in fact make a tumblr account solely to send you this, because the idea of doing so was too funny to me to not. Also, I just discovered that the Oxford English Dictionary website has a pay wall these days and I am DEVASTATED I tell you, devastated. But yeah, I’ll stop, have a good weekend, I love you, I hope your morning spent on public transit hasn’t been too boring.

Works Cited

“Culture Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.

“Noon (n.).” Online Etymology Dictionary, www.etymonline.com/word/noon. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.

“What Time Is ‘Noon’?” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/noon-history-ninth-prayer-hour-nones. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.

OFC you’re leaving citations on A TUMBLR ASK OH MY GODDD anyway I do believe I’m starting a cultural shift because everyone I’ve asked so far has NOT said mid-day is noon they’ve ranged from 11-1 to 1-2 (albeit a bit earlier than my 2-3 answer but STILL)

Yknow what fuck it let’s do a poll bb

anyywayyyy everyone say hi to my girlfrienddd give them a nice warm welcome to tumblr <3

#HIII GIRLFRIENDDDD HIIIII #I love you toooo #getting on the metra rn wish me luck <33 #ask #polls but not #starry eyed

177 notes · View notes

aspecpolls · 4 months

Note

Ace-spec and/or aro-spec people: Do you feel alienated and/or erased by common definitions of what "platonic" means?

Platonic is commonly defined as "a close bond which does not involve sex," and also sometimes specifies an absence of romance. Definitions also often imply that sex and romance go hand in hand. Some definitions use words such as "spiritual" to describe the bond. Some definitions stem from cisheteronormativity, using the word especially in reference to "two people of the opposite sex."*

Aroace - yes, I feel alienated/erased

Aroace - no, I don't feel alienated/erased

Aroace - unsure

Aroallo/non-ace aro - yes, I feel alienated/erased

Aroallo/non-ace aro - no, I don't feel alienated/erased

Aroallo/non-ace aro - unsure

Alloace/non-aro ace - yes, I feel alienated/erased

Alloace/non-aro ace - no, I don't feel alienated/erased

Alloace/non-aro ace - unsure

Results button

*Examples of these definitions taken from top "platonic definition" search results on Google:

(of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual.

- Oxford Languages Google Definition

of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex

- Merriam-Webster

Platonic describes a relationship that is purely spiritual and not physical. If a guy and a girl hang out all the time but aren't boyfriend and girlfriend, they'd describe their friendship as platonic.

- Vocabulary.com

A platonic relationship or emotion is loving but not sexual

- Cambridge Dictionary

being, relating to, or involving the kind of love that characterizes a friendship; free of sexual desire or romantic overtones

- Dictionary.com

a relationship that is not sexual in nature

- Wikipedia

Platonic relationships or feelings of affection do not involve sex. [...] designating or of a relationship, or love, between a man and a woman that is purely spiritual or intellectual and without sexual activity [...] purely spiritual; free from sensual desire, esp. in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex

- Collins Dictionary

of, relating to, or having a close relationship in which there is no romance or sex

- Britannica Dictionary

#aro #aromantic #arospec #ace #asexual #acespec #aroace #aroacespec #aroallo #alloaro #alloace #aceallo #aspec #anonymous #polls

84 notes · View notes

haleswallows · 4 months

Text

I'm so happy to post more Tim & Uncle Frighty!

Teaser:

Fright Knight levels an unimpressed glare. Truly, the glowing eyes are unfair. Tim could never look so intimidating with just a look.

“I believe you are familiar with the definition of insanity.”

“Sure, I am. Would you prefer Merriam-Webster or Oxford English?” Tim quips with a smirk. The glare intensifies and he can't help but laugh.

“You are a menace of the same caliber as the High King.” Even without breathing, Fright Knight manages to huff.

“That's a compliment. You like Phantom.” It's said to his chest, Tim scrubbing a wet wipe over his front. “Can you grab my – thank you.”

Fright Knight easily grabs the snagged cape and brings it to Tim. He might be jealous of the ease the spirit does it. But well, Tim's kind of over being jealous of superpowers.

“You wish to return to your duties.” Fright Knight presses a finger to the gauze over Tim's palm, holding it in place so he can tape it one-handed.

“Yeah, Spoiler needs company on a stake-out.” He says it around tearing the tape with his teeth. “Just need to stop over at my place to grab a new grapnel and glove. Maybe some caff too.”

“I propose a trade.” The tone is an edge snootier than usual. Tim tilts his head, but doesn't look up from starting to tape his toes together. “The sacrifice is not sufficient. I shall transport you to the Nest in return you consume solid nourishment before your return to patrol.”

Tim's attention snaps to the helm and gapes. Fright Knight has the gall to look smug. “Not sufficient, my ass! That's inconsistent. I have records of over two hundred summons with just a drop of blood in return to being flown all over Gotham!”

“It is my summoning pendant. It is my prerogative that sets the conditions of the gate.”

The logic works, but only just. He squints at Fright Knight as he shoves his boot back on. “Counter offer, transport and I promise I’ll cook after patrol.”

Fright Knight tilts his helm. It’s an animalistic gesture, and Tim finds it endearing. “Transport, and you consume a small meal in addition to a proper meal after retiring for the evening.”

“How is that a counter offer? You’re making more demands!” He scrambles to his feet. The tape definitely helps a lot with the toe. Tim pokes Fright Knight’s breastplate. “I’m a CEO, and you suck at negotiating. Transport, I cook after patrol.”

“A proper counter offer demands a revision. You did not change your offer.” Fright Knight swats his hand away. Tim meets his glare, hands on his hips. Absolutely does not hiss when he jostles his hand.

Trying to win a staring contest with the Lord of Fear is a fool’s errand, especially when he doesn’t need to blink. Tim tries it anyways. He takes the loss poorly and swipes his cape back from the spirit. “Fine! I’ll eat something.”

#dc x dp #dc x dp crossover #dc x dp fic #tim drake #fright knight #my writing

48 notes · View notes

essayist-unexpectedly · 23 days

Text

Love, Codependency, and the Accidental Toxicity of Mafuyu and Yuki

While Given is centred around Mafuyu and Uenoyama’s relationship, the lasting impacts of Mafuyu’s romance with Yuki are undeniable. The relationship between Yuki and Mafuyu was one from childhood that grew and evolved with them, eventually landing them in a romantic relationship. While some think that the two were made for each, one character being Hiiragi, a childhood friend who watched the duo evolve, however there can be another viewpoint to this. The other implication when reading Given can be the idea of codependency between Yuki and Mafuyu.

Codependency is defined as “excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner, typically one who requires support on account of an illness or addiction” by the Oxford Dictionary, as “a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person manifesting low self-esteem and a strong desire for approval has an unhealthy attachment to another person and places the needs of that person before his or her own” by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and finally as “a relationship is when each person involved is mentally, emotionally, physically, and/or spiritually reliant on the other” by the VeryWell Mind website. While all varying, these definitions all seem to agree that codependency is an unhealthy/excessive psychological reliance on another person, often with negative reasons and consequences. Going forward with this definition created from the previous definitions, it could be seen that Mafuyu and Yuki were codependent on each other, rather than just a one sided codependency, like some people experience.

One of the first hints to Yuki and Mafuyu being codependent comes from their constant being together. From the moment that they meet up until they go to different high schools, Mafuyu and Yuki are known to always be together. Even if the two weren’t directly interacting, they are consistently within each other's radius, easily within sight of each other. When appropriate, the duo would also be touching, leaning on each other, or holding each other, really whatever touch could happen in the moment. While the constant togetherness and touch may not seem too serious, it is important to remember that codependency is reliance on another person. Their consistency and wanting to be together constantly is possibly a subtle but real sign of codependency.

The next sign is their general relationship with each other. The two were childhood friends to lovers, a trope that can be built on drama and love triangles, but in this case seemed to be a natural progression between the two characters. Yuki found Mafuyu when they were young children, likely around the age of 5, give or take a year. As the two grew up, they also grew together, becoming intertwined together, becoming inseparable. The duo were almost always together, and with that they also grew to have ‘complimentary’ personalities, as Mafuyu was a quiet and small presence while Yuki was a loud and massive personality. The duo seemed to mold themselves to fit into each other, creating a reliance for the other to be what they were not. One such way this would create a reliance is them needing each other to bounce off of. This is meant as in Mafuyu needing Yuki to speak for him and bring a sense of loudness, of life and excitement for him, while Yuki needed Mafuyu to provide a quiet and reliable space for him, someone to listen and be consistent. Not only do the two seem to have become what the other needed, but another part is their communication. The partners seem to have developed communication that didn’t always require speaking, at least when they were younger. The two seemed to be able to understand each other, understand what the other needed, and it made them even more suited for each other. Every factor of how the two were weaved together throughout their life contributed to the codependence that the two appear to share. It was the evolution from children to young teens together in such similar and at times lonely situations that caused them to grow so close, and likely so reliant on each other for a certain stability and love that they both needed, showcasing the psychological effects of codependency.

Another point towards their relationship being unhealthily dependent is Hiiragi’s view of their relationship. In some ways, Hiiragi seems to view the two as a perfect love story, perfect harmony, due to how they seem to compliment and grow with each other. In some ways, Hiiragi appears to consider Yuki and Mafuyu as perfect for each other. It was Hiiragi who, in the manga, called Yuki a “dominating and moody” person, while claiming Mafuyu to be “submissive and reserved” in terms of personality. It was observed by Hiiragi that Yuki seemed wholly and purely in love with Mafuyu. Through the chapters where Hiiragi narrates his own view on the two, there is a rose-tinted glasses look at the duo. Every character holds a bias when it comes to memories of Yuki as well as his relationship with Mafuyu, with mayhaps Shizusumi being the least biased of the old group. It is because of this bias though that Hiiragi’s view feels like he considers the two to be true love and harmony in romance, he idolised Yuki, and always cared for Mafuyu, making it difficult to point out any flaws in their relationship because of this care. It also seems that Hiiragi, likely accidentally, can be used to point out how close they were, and how reliant they were. Hiiragi stated that “Yuki needed Mafuyu, and Mafuyu needed Yuki” within episode 8 of the anime. The use of the word needed specifically is what matters so much. To claim that they needed each other, Hiiragi was admitting that it wasn’t as simple as them wanting to be together, it wasn’t as much of a choice or a want, but rather the word need has a more definitive feeling, they had to be together, never straying far or else they would suffer - which ended up being true. The truth of Hiiragi saying they needed each other was realised when Mafuyu went to a different high school and Yuki got a job, distancing them. And everything comes together during their fight, which Hiiragi and Shizusumi were witnesses to. This fight is another time where one can spot Hiiragi’s rose-tinted view of Mafuyu and Yuki’s relationship, as Hiiragi claims that the fight was a small, dumb fight, one that every couple experiences. The reason this is seen as optimistic at best is because it is clear to readers and watchers that the fight was big, it was yelling and it was mean - cemented by Mafuyu’s final sentence in the argument. Everything that Hiiragi says about Yuki and Mafuyu’s relationship feels like he was observing with rose-tinted glasses, keeping optimistic about it even as it became worse towards the end. The clear bias may mean this section shouldn’t exist, but it can also be seen as someone witnessing a codependent relationship and thinking all is perfect, when they are watching an active trainwreck. Hiiragi thinking about how the two were an opposites attract relationship, saying they needed each other, and downplaying their fight, all feels like him trying to make sense of what appeared to be his definition of a perfect relationship, and it was as if he himself could not see the codependency that someone reading or watching the series could see through him.

The fourth reason one can see them as codependent is Mafuyu's social life outside of Yuki. While yes, he also had Hiiragi and Shizusumi, it appears like he didn’t have anyone else, and even the other two were not as close to him as Yuki was. That statement isn’t meant to diminish Hiiragi, Shizusumi, and Mafuyu’s friendship, rather it is meant to lift the relationship between Yuki and Mafuyu as being on an entirely different level. It’s easily seen that Mafuyu does mainly socialise with Yuki and the other two, but more Yuki than anyone else. It feels like the two were together first, before anyone else could join, creating their little bubble of just Mafuyu and Yuki. Where this truly becomes a concern however is when one looks at Mafuyu’s social life outside of Yuki. As previously stated, at times it seems like Mafuyu felt a certain disconnect at times to Hiiragi and Shizusumi, and this suspicion is furthered by his complete shut down after Yuki’s death. While not everyone will be able to reach out and talk to others while going through grief, perhaps part of their cut off was not only Mafuyu’s depression but also him worrying that he was not close enough to the other two to be able to reach out. Ignoring that speculation, one can take into account the character page of Mafuyu, which states that he was never a part of any clubs or teams, meaning he never really branched out socially. While not much is explored about Mafuyu’s life before Uenoyama outside of what is with Yuki, this feels intentional to show that there wasn’t a lot for him outside of the other boy. The flashbacks seen in Mafuyu’s point of view are consistently with Yuki - their first meeting, their school days, dates, their fight, and finally, Yuki’s death. Nothing else seemed to truly exist, it was as if Mafuyu could ignore all others for Yuki, as he was his world. The lack of a social life can definitely be seen as a sense of reliance on Yuki, solidifying the idea of him being codependent on the other.

The second to last point within Strawberry Swing, specifically the fourth part being a supposed dream sequence that honestly feels like an actual connection to Yuki in the afterlife that Mafuyu has. This dream is where the two actually seem to say goodbye to each other, a certain feeling of peace and melancholy flowing from this section of the manga. Within part four of Strawberry Swing, Yuki and Mafuyu talk on a swing set, with Yuki telling Mafuyu that the redhead has to go, and Mafuyu then leaving. After this, Yuki states that there is a gaping hole within Mafuyu left behind from Yuki’s suicide, and while it may get smaller with time, it shall never be fully repaired, and Yuki would always reside in that hole, listening to Mafuyu as he sings. Overall, this section of the story is a beautiful look into Yuki’s mind on Mafuyu’s healing, and totally feels more like a spiritual encounter than just a dream thanks to the point of view appearing to be Yuki’s, and the outside look at Mafuyu and his grief. Its beauty is only enhanced by the tragedy that speaks within this section though, as it seems to admit that Mafuyu will never fully be able to move on from Yuki or heal from his death. That being said, grief is of course an extremely long process, and it isn’t a linear path to moving on or somehow getting rid of grief, that is simply not how it works. It is not the grief itself that is interesting in this section, but rather the way that Yuki swears to always be in Mafuyu’s heart. Even in death, Yuki will forever stay with Mafuyu, even if he isn’t alive or physically there. Not necessarily a sign of the two being codependent, but definitely an interesting aspect of the manga to consider when it comes to their relationship.

The final point is a line brought up in the Strawberry Swing story within Given. This line is said by Yuki’s mother, Saeko, who states that “Mafuyu… I selfishly believed… that you were that child’s anchor”. She believed that Mafuyu was Yuki’s anchor to the world, that he was the one who kept the other boy alive and stable, tethered to the world. There is also a line where she mentions how Yuki was “like his father”, who is either outright dead or at least implied to be dead, and this line also basically tells the audience it was suicide, and a mental disorder was likely passed down to Yuki from his father. It is made clear in Strawberry Swing that Saeko believed that Mafuyu would be able to keep Yuki alive and well, which isn’t something two children/teenagers should have to do for each other, which she even admits to, saying she was selfish in believing Mafuyu was his anchor and that it was wrong of her to think. This part screams of a mother who watched her son become extremely psychologically reliant on another boy, and only after his death is able to reflect and see how unhealthy it was for both of them. After all, the role of the anchor is extremely dangerous for both parties, as it puts so much pressure on the anchor to keep a good and stable presence, while it leaves the other person with one person who truly connects them to the world, rather than them feeling as though they have a full support system. These roles become even worse in the case of Mafuyu and Yuki, who are two teenage boys in love with mental health issues. They were not stable enough to be in the roles of anchor and tethered person, even if they wanted to be that for each other. So, while terrible for them, the anchor comment definitely implies that Yuki was extremely reliant on Mafuyu to keep him tethered to the world, keep him living, which is a sign of codependency.

In the end, there are codependent tendencies that seem to exist in Mafuyu and Yuki’s relationship. The two boys appeared to rely on each other mentally and socially, which can qualify people for a codependent relationship. While peers, especially Hiiragi, appeared to see them as two perfect halves of a whole, idolising the weaved together nature of Mafuyu and Yuki, it can easily be seen as a rose-tinted view to the duo’s relationship and end up revealing more negative than expected. The additional view of an adult, specifically Yuki’ mother, Saeko, seeing Mafuyu as an anchor for Yuki only enhances the idea of an imperfect and overly reliant relationship. Although it is painful to admit, there is little doubt that one can pick up on hints and read Yuki and Mafuyu as an accidentally toxic codependent relationship.

#Spence does Essays (Given Edition)#given #mafuyu sato #yuki yoshida #essay #analysis #I have so many thoughts #and their relationship is so good to analyze #oopsie daisies this is over 2000 words long <3 #posting this today because it’s a companion to the other one i posted today #screw having a posting schedule i’m mentally ill and like to ramble #and discuss #love hearing others thoughts #but yeah these bitches were not healthy or perfect <3 #you can pry this dynamic from my cold dead hands #but yeah welcome to the codependent Mafuyu/Yuki discussion

14 notes · View notes

tooies · 1 year

Text

you know what actually. i'm gonna say it. water is wet. and this is supported by the dictionary:

merriam-webster says: "consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)"

oxford says: "consisting of moisture, liquid"

dictionary.com says: "in a liquid form or state" and "something that is or makes wet, as water or other liquid"

wiktionary says: "made up of liquid or moisture, usually (but not always) water"

water fits at least one of the definitions from each of these four dictionaries. saying water isn't wet is like saying the the knot i use to tie my shoelaces isn't a bow because it isn't used to shoot arrows. just because it doesn't fit one definition doesn't mean it also doesn't fit another. in conclusion, i probably care too much but it is so annoying

110 notes · View notes

anotherhumaninthisworld · 1 month

Note

What does being a Robespierrist mean?

Going by official definitions found in dictionaries, it really doesn’t mean much more than being a supporter of Robespierre and the ideas he stood for:

Merriam-Webster:

a follower or supporter of Robespierre

Oxford references:

A follower or supporter of the French revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre (1758–94), described by Thomas Carlyle as the sea-green Incorruptible.

Encyclopædia Universalis:

Partisan de Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794)

The term is most commonly used about people who were political allies of Robespierre at the time of his death in July 1794, in particular the 102 men executed as alleged ”accomplices” of him on July 28, 29 and 30. However, as is the case with most of the ”political parties” in the French revolution, it’s hard to say if these people really saw themselves as a group, much less followers of a specific individual, or if this is a post construction (I especially don’t know if it’s been investigated how many of the people executed on July 29 and 30 were actually active supporters of Robespierre).

When it comes to robespierrists from the 19th century and forward, it’s harder for me to say what exactly it entails to identify as such, or to what extent you need to ”support” Robespierre in order to call yourself that. My personal perception is that you need to think Robespierre was in the right throughout all the major turning points of the revolution in order to call yourself robespierrist, you cannot choose to agree with only some of his actions or think he and an opponent were ”equally valid” at some point. But since there appears to exist quite a lot of people who actually identify as robespierrists on tumblr, why don’t you guys come forward here and comment what value it is you put into that term?

#robespierre #maximilien robespierre #ask #ok but i was actually surprised ”robespierrist” is included in the english dictionary #but was the ”sea-green incorruptible” part really neccessary??

16 notes · View notes

938475824521 · 2 months

Text

Rox (BlushCrunch Studios)

I meant to make a longer post detailing all of Rox/Joji/Qwel's claims in "Our Final Response To Allegations", however I do not simply have the time or spoons to rewatch the video to its fullest. I had a blog post drafted, but it's fairly long for the 10 minutes-ish I had already written about.

This is not comprehensive. Please watch Rox's video to actually get each point. It is more important to listen to how he speaks about the allegations to form your own opinion about the situation.

CW for grooming, CP, just generally gross shit all around due to the allegations.

The long TL;DR of the history (without rewatching the video, only using my notes from initial watch) is:

Rox says that he was not attempting to hide from the allegations, rather only moderated people talking about it in public chats as the nature of the allegations are inappropriate for the server. He also only banned people if they were acting antagonistic towards him, not willing to hear him out and only were there to harass him.

Rox (17 at the time) had made a bunch of inappropriate conversations which were geared toward "Buddy" (victim, 13). While working with Pixel-Bit on Tower Heroes, he was also a part of a group chat where he had also said inappropriate jokes (though not aimed directly at anyone), one of which included him moaning into a microphone over voice chat.

Rox, under the influence of a group chat (though unclear if it's the same group chat he would say inappropriate things in), also had created CP, to which he would say that he regretted ever making the art and called it disgusting in the video. (Notably, he only ever called it "art" in the video, never directly saying it was CP.)

Rox was banned from Pixel-Bit Studios Discord server after the CP Rox drew resurfaced. Later, when DataBrawl and Tower Heroes were considering a collab, SudoMesh joined a VC in BlushCrunch Studios and Rox said some rude things about the members joining to Qwel, which started an argument between them.

Rox would later apologize to SudoMesh, both about the argument and the document, to which Sudo accepted and told him to "stay out of trouble". SudoMesh, when later being one of the people spreading the Google Doc exposing Rox, would delete these messages on his side of the conversation.

Rox makes an argument that, according to the Oxford and Merriam-Webster definitions of grooming, he did not groom Buddy, saying that he is just "sexting" them. He also makes a point that SudoMesh calls him both a groomer and a pedophile (words that Rox points out are used interchangeably and do not apply to him), and noting that the original document does not call him a groomer.

Rox was locked out of the JSnake account due to two-factor authentication so he cannot verify the screenshots, and he also says that context is missing from a lot of the screenshots. It does not show who he is sending the messages to, nor what else is in the conversation, making the point about him sending messages to Buddy completely up in the air.

When discussing more about the group chat he was in during 2021, Rox picks apart their wording of "mostly 14" and him being "almost 18" rather than saying 17. He also recalls that there were also people ages 15-16 in the group chat. This is also where the "lewd jokes" argument comes in from points 1 and 2.

Rox was banned from the PHIGHTING! server due to the allegations. While the doc argues that Rox was heard out through his friend, Rox argues that if the admins really wanted to hear him out, they would have not shadow banned him or refused a one on one conversation.

Rox had said the people involved creating the Doc claimed he had "not shown his side of the truth", which Rox says both videos are responses to.

Rox points out the biases of xtriel (Google Doc creator and developer of DataBrawl), as Duncan (owner of DataBrawl) was also involved in his own alleged grooming scandal of a person named Maya who he made Roblox R34 with before figuring out she was underage, never having asked her age. xtriel defended Duncan vehemently. Duncan is also responsible in sharing the Google Doc exposing Rox, and both he and xtriel attempted to get a YouTuber to cover Rox (despite xtriel wanting to leave the situation behind). SudoMesh is also another developer of DataBrawl. Rox makes this point to show the double standards in how he and Duncan are treated.

Rox made "CP" of Gary/gecbomb and another person in order to make someone, who Gary harassed after they were banned, feel better. According to Rox's memory, he only made two drawings; Gary kissing the person, and stick figures with Gary and the other person's head slapped on top in a sex-like position. In Gary's video, it is so blurred/censored it's hard to tell what's going on. In gecbomb's video, he refers to himself in the third person. Rox also says that Gary used to be chill in the BlushCrunch server until he began saying strange messages, mute-evaded by joining with an alt account, and when he was banned, he began spreading the Twitter thread about Rox.

Rox talks about Duck Adam, a YouTuber who's made videos on Flavor Frenzy and Dandy's World. They continuously called Rox a pedophile in their videos. (I intentionally skipped over this part of the video during my initial watch because Duck Adam just seemed like one of those trash YouTubers, my bad. If you want to watch it, Rox talks about them at 37:24.)

In Qwel's side of the allegations (43:40), she claims to be 16 at the time she was banned from the Pixel-Bit Discord, and had previously been a collaborator for Tower Heroes for 4 years, creating concept art for characters like Sparks Kilowatt. The CP Rox drew was shared in an art channel in Pixel-Bit Studios Discord, which sparked a lot of debate. The messages with Qwel in it had actually been Spookiner, who Qwel VC'd after the images Rox drew were leaked. Qwel was explaining the situation to them and trusted Spookiner would do the right thing. Spookiner had talked about demoting Rox. They instead banned her and Rox the day after this VC happened. (Qwel does make a note that the point about racism was removed from the Doc after they realized it was stupid.) Qwel also claims she had no idea about the art before it was leaked.

Qwel was also accused of being transphobic because she broke up with her trans partner... except Qwel claims she broke up with them before they came out. There were also accusations of racism because the concept art she drew of Sparks had a darker skin color than what she actually appeared in-game. She was also accused of being ableist. Qwel defends herself by saying she is not racist/ableist/LGBTQ+phobic and has always been a supporter of these communities, being a lesbian herself.

Note:

For timestamps: Rox talks about the document at 3:25. Gary/gecbomb is discussed at 17:29. Joji talks at 22:38. Duck Adam is discussed at 37:24. Qwel talks at 43:40.

Joji's part of the video wasn't talked about because honestly he seems like Just A Guy that got mixed up in all this. He essentially got harassed for doing his (trial) moderator job and isn't relevant to the allegations. If you want to listen to his testimony, it's at 22:38.

#dandy's world #dandys world #flavor frenzy #blushcrunch studio #blushcrunch #blushcrunch studios #roblox #tw grooming #cw grooming

11 notes · View notes

literaryvein-reblogs · 2 months

Note

other words to use instead of walk?

Advance - to move forward; proceed

Amble - to go at or as if at an easy gait

Canter - to move at or as if at a canter (i.e., a 3-beat gait resembling but smoother and slower than the gallop)

Footslog - to march or tramp through mud

Hike - to take a long walk especially for pleasure or exercise

Journey - travel from one place to another

Lumber - to move ponderously

March - to move in a direct purposeful manner

Meander - to wander aimlessly or casually without urgent destination

Mosey - to move in a leisurely or aimless manner

Pace - to walk with often slow or measured tread

Pad - to traverse on foot

Parade - to march in or as if in a procession

Patrol - keep watch over (an area) by regularly walking or traveling around or through it

Perambulate - to travel over or through especially on foot

Plod - to walk heavily or slowly

Prance - to walk or move in a spirited manner

Promenade - take a leisurely public walk, ride, or drive so as to meet or be seen by others

Prowl - to move about or wander stealthily in or as if in search of prey

Ramble - to move aimlessly from place to place; to explore idly

Roam - to go from place to place without purpose or direction; also to travel purposefully unhindered through a wide area

Saunter - to walk about in an idle or leisurely manner

Shamble - to walk awkwardly with dragging feet

Shuffle - to move or walk in a sliding dragging manner without lifting the feet

Slog - to plod heavily

Stalk - to walk stiffly or haughtily

Step - to move (the foot) in any direction

Stride - to move over or along with or as if with long measured steps

Stroll - to walk in a leisurely or idle manner

Strut - to walk with a proud gait

Stump - to walk over heavily or clumsily

Toddle - to walk with short tottering steps in the manner of a young child

Tour - make a tour of (an area); a short trip to or through a place in order to view or inspect something

Traipse - to walk or travel about without apparent plan but with or without a purpose

Traverse - to move or pass along or through; to move back and forth or from side to side

Tread - to step or walk on or over

Trek - to make one's way arduously

Troop - to go one's way

Trudge - to walk or march steadily and usually laboriously

Wander - to move about without a fixed course, aim, or goal

Hope this helps. If it inspires your writing in any way, please tag me, or leave a link in the replies. I would love to read your work!

3K notes · View notes

arosesstorm · 11 months

Text

BTS as the seven deadly sins ♛

Superbia (pride, hubris)

↳ Pride is defined by Merriam-Webster as "reasonable self-esteem" or "confidence and satisfaction in oneself". [1]Oxford defines it as "the quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's own importance." [2] Pride may be related to one's own abilities or achievements, positive characteristics of friends or family, or one's country. Richard Taylor defined pride as "the justified love of oneself",[3] as opposed to false pride or narcissism. Similarly, St. Augustine defined it as "the love of one's own excellence",[4] and Meher Baba called it "the specific feeling through which egoism manifests."

Acedia (sloth)

↳ Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholic teachings. It is the most difficult sin to define and credit as sin, since it refers to an assortment of ideas, dating from antiquity and including mental, spiritual, pathological, and physical states. [1] One definition is a habitual disinclination to exertion, or laziness. [2] Views concerning the virtue of work to support society and further God's plan suggest that through inactivity, one invites sin: "For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do." ("Against Idleness and Mischief" by Isaac Watts).

Avaritia (avarice/greed)

↳ Greed (or avarice) is an insatiable desire for material gain (be it food, money, land, or animate/inanimate possessions) or social value, such as status, or power. Greed has been identified as undesirable throughout known human history because it creates behavior-conflict between personal and social goals.

Invidia (envy)

↳ Envy is an emotion which occurs when a person lacks another's quality, skill, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it. [1] Aristotle defined envy as pain at the sight of another's good fortune, stirred by "those who have what we ought to have". [2] Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness. [3]Recent research considered the conditions under which it occurs, how people deal with it, and whether it can inspire people to emulate those they envy.

Ira (wrath)

↳ Anger, also known as wrath or rage, is an intense emotional state involving a strong uncomfortable and non-cooperative response to a perceived provocation, hurt or threat.

Luxuria (lust, fornication)

↳ Lust is a psychological force producing intense desire for something, or circumstance while already having a significant amount of the desired object. Lust can take any form such as the lust for sexuality (see libido), money, or power. It can take such mundane forms as the lust for food (see gluttony) as distinct from the need for food or lust for redolence, when one is lusting for a particular smell that brings back memories. It is similar to but distinguished from passion, in that passion propels individuals to achieve benevolent goals whilst lust does not.

Gula (gluttony)

↳ Gluttony (Latin: gula, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning "to gulp down or swallow") means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food or drink. In Christianity, it is considered a sin if the excessive desire for food causes it to be withheld from the needy. [1] Some Christian denominations consider gluttony one of the seven deadly sins.

source -> here

48 notes · View notes

pitiful-sermon-ask · 3 months

Note

sermon. you're meant to give us wise and useful information. this is life or death stuff. is a hot dog a sandwich or not?!

} i think this depends on what you refer to as a Hot Dog. The Oxford dictionary states that a Sandwich is "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal." Which is technically what a hotdog is. Though, this might not always be the case, as hotdogs, most of the time, are still connected underneath the hotdog meat. But, a split roll is still a sandwich. Which means this also depends on the definition you use. Which brings me to another point: a hotdog is referred to as a HotDog in, and out of a bun. So what really is the hotdog?

} let's start with what a hotdog is, and where it comes from. A hotdog is, according to Merriam-Webster’s hot dog definition is: “a frankfurter with a typically mild flavour that is heated and usually served in a long split roll.” There has been tons of historical research on hotdogs that dates back multiple centuries. The name appears to come from Germans that emigrated to the U.S. with vendors called "dog wagons" and eventually changed the name of their sausages to "Hot Dogs" because they resembled the dachshund dogs. In 1987, the hotdogs 500th anniversary was celebrated.

} as for the Sandwich: According to Merriam-Webster, a sandwich is, “two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between.” A secondary sandwich definition is, “one slice of bread covered with food.” Which, by definition a Hotdog could be a sandwich. If you get a sandwich from subway, it can resemble a hotdog in shape. Hotdogs, typically, have a different kind of meat than a sandwich. Because again, a hotdog is a hotdog with or without bread.

} now, I think it really all depends on what you feel defines a hotdog and a sandwich. And if we applied this logic to everything, then our categorization systems would fail, and nobody would know what anybody is talking about. Plenty of things that are, technically, defined as fish, aren't truly fish. And if your friend told you they were going out and buying you a sandwich and they came back with a hotdog, you'd probably be very confused.

} hope this helps!

#pitiful sermon #squip ocs #/long post

10 notes · View notes

engagemythrusters · 1 year

Note

????? i literally never said that you’re infantilizing yourself . it’s just weird to see posts about autistic coded characters being UNABLE to be people in power all because they aren’t social like jesus christ

Ah, but you see, this is not at all what you said in your last ask. What you said was, and I quote, "stop fucking infantilising din djarin bc he's autistic coded! [...] it's weird how you're putting it out there that people with autism 'no like people uwu'" Which. Absolutely implies that you think people not liking being around people qualifies as being infantilised. But! Maybe that was unintentional. I'll grant you that.

So, instead, we will talk about infantilisation, and how my post was not even CLOSE to infantilisation.

To start with, we need to define infantilisation. I'll give a couple decent definitions from multiple sources, just so we can get a good picture.

1: "to treat as if infantile" (Merriam-Webster), with the definition of "infantile" being: " of or relating to infants or infancy" and "suitable to or characteristic of an infant" 2: "the prolonged treatment of one who is not a child, as though they are a child" (Wikipedia--not a great source to pull directly from, but reputable enough to get my point across) 3: "the action of prolonging or perpetuating a state of infancy" (Oxford Dictionary)

So, from this we can extrapolate that "infantalisation" means "treating a non-child like a child." Great! We know the word. But this means nothing if we don't know how would someone treat another person like a child. How do we treat a child? How would that treatment be demeaning?

There are multiple ways people reduce a child's personhood. There's the matter of cuteness, where people only see how sweet and adorable the children can be, and treat them as if a doll or a pet. Then there's how dependent children are, which can be easily manipulated by elders. And, similarly, children are often considered non-autonomous.

Okay. So now we've discussed what infantilisation is and how children are treated. Let's put it together. What are some examples of infantilisation?

Here's one: today I saw a video of a fairly attractive East Asian woman in a frog costume. She was embarrassed to be seen without the costume's hat. The many, many comments only addressed one thing: how adorable she is. How cute and sweet it is. How does this relate to infantilisation? This would be that first one--only seeing how doll-like children (and this lady) can be. There was no discussion about how "relatable" it is to be embarrassed about something, no discussion about why she was in a frog costume, not even a comment about why someone was videoing this in the first place (after all, she did not consent to this, and it was embarrassing to her!). There was not one single comment relating to her being a person. It was all gushing over her adorableness. Not attractiveness. Adorableness. Akin to the way someone would fawn over a cat. (This is a huge issue with how Westerners treat East Asians, by the way.)

Now, that subject isn't particularly relevant. So let's try another one, this time relating to Din Djarin.

In a hypothetical scenario, say someone said, "Din Djarin can't rule because it requires him to make all the decisions and he can't do that." This would, in most scenarios, be infantilising. This takes away his independence, making him rely on others. This makes him non-autonomous, unable to govern himself. BUT. This could also be interpreted another way. Certain autistic people--myself included--cannot always make decisions for themselves. I find it absolutley impossible to make some decisions sometimes. Deciding exactly where I want to sit to eat dinner can put me off of eating dinner at all if I can't figure out what I want. Not able to decide which type of food I need to buy makes me not buy any food at all. If I do not get outside help, I will severly impact my life.

So, there's two sides to that one. Maybe Din Djarin couldn't make decisions for himself (he can, but again, hypothetical). That would be just fine. Now, would it be great in a leadership position? No, not really. I wouldn't be able to be in a leadership position because of this. I need directions, very specific ones.

When does it become infantilisation, then? If lack of independence means just that someone needs help sometimes (or a lot of the time! or even all of the time!!), where's the line between "help" and "infantilisation?" The answer is: intent and generalisation.

In the case of intent, infantalisation (in this hypothetical scenario) is that "he should not be allowed to rule as Mand'alor because he is too stupid to make decisions for himself." This implies negotive connotations to the inability to make decisions always. Lack of intelligence is not inherently bad. Lack of decision-making skills is not inherently bad. Not being able to lead is not inherently bad. BUT when the implication is that all of these things ARE bad, that's when it becomes infantilisation. He can't do anything; thus, we consider him childish (and we consider children useless). The intent is to harm and demean. (Non-infantilisation--aka viewing him as the adult and person he is--would be saying "he shouldn't be Manda'lor because he needs help in a way that would be counterintuitive to himself" because it would be, in this hypothetical, detrimental to expect him to constantly decide. This is acknowleging his limits and respecting his boundaries. That's never, ever a bad thing.)

In the case of generalisation, infantilisation would be, "autistic people should never rule." This is based off stereotype. And, while stereotype does indeed come from the fact that some people DO fit that stereotype, we can all acknowledge and accept that treating every single person in one category as if they fit that is WRONG. So, to generalise that all autistic people cannot rule, even though some truly couldn't (people with high support needs do exist!! we low support need autistics can't ignore them in our conversations. they can't always add themselves to the conversations like we can), would be stripping every single autistic of their identity. Making everyone of any minority out to be the same is removing identity. Meaning, stripping them of their autonomy and personhood.

That's infantilisation.

Here is why my post is absolutely not infantilisation.

My post states that Din Djarin should not rule over all of Mandalore because he "literally wants nothing to do with people a good two-thirds of the time. Man likes his son and that’s about it." Does this "cutesify" him beyond acknowledging his personhood? Nope! Does this strip him of dependence, either in intent or generalisation? Nope! Does this remove his autonomy, again in either intent or generalisation? Nope!

I also said that "this guy fuckin loves his job and he’d get way fuckin agitated if he couldn’t shoot someone down every few days" which... definitely implies a lot of competency. That is completely the antithesis of infantilisation. So, cutesifying, stripping independence, removing autonomy? Definitely nope.

What I have said can be summed up, in a rather basic and nuance-less definition, is that Din Djarin is too much of a "lone-wolf" trope sort of guy to be governing people all the time. Aka. He would be tired of people. Aka. Need for independence. Aka. Autonomous. And like... where's cutsey in that?

And even the comment on "He’d end every day crying himself to sleep. Either that or staring at the ceiling so hard it collapses on him and he never has to get up again." Again. No cutsey. No dependency. No non-autonomy. The closest I can get to thinking how this would relate to infantilisation is that I said "cry" which is something children do indeed do. But so do adults. Everyone can cry. There's no age limit to crying. ESPECIALLY if you're mentally exhausted all of the time.

Maybe you think the tag "man is so full of autism" is generalisation? That one I guess I can see if you misinterpret it. And maybe you did! Messages can get mixed--I again grant you this. It was not intended to be a generalisation. It was, in fact, based on ME. MY autism. and how it can QUITE OFTEN look like how DIN DJARIN acts. I don't like being around people for very long. He doesn't seem to either. I can make a veeery detailed post on this (which would also literally elaborate further on what the original post said) but that is neither here nor there. You misunderstood. That's okay. Move on.

BUT. Now that we've cleared up there is NO INFANTILISATION IN MY POST, let's clarify what YOU think I said.

You think I said that "autistic people are unable to be in power." This is not what I said. We've just covered the entire post, so I think you can see where I did not, in any case, say this. I said Din Djarin would not want to be in power, because it would be awful for him. There's NOTHING about ability in there. I did not say he couldn't. Nowhere! Not once! He's a very capable man--which I did indeed connote later!

So. NOT ONCE DID I EVER INFANTILISE DIN DJARIN'S AUTISTIC-CODED, BESKAR'GAM-CLAD SELF.

What you have done is taken a well-founded opinion I have (which I am still fully willing to back up with canon proof) and twisted it up because You. Didn't. Agree.

You don't HAVE to agree with me. You can think he'd be well-off in that position. Good for you. We all deserve opinions.

But you do NOT get to throw "infantilisation" around at A DISABLED PERSON like a fucking buzzword just because YOU DID NOT AGREE.

Sit on this. Reflect. And next time you find something you don't agree with. Remember your literature classes, rather than making a baseless "call out" on anon on the fucking internet.

#I have a degree in rhetoric. I know. What. I'm. Talking. About.#anyway. I'm tired of people throwing out important terms like buzzwords.#as someone with multiple disabilities. THIS WAS VERY CONCERNING TO ME.

14 notes · View notes

amporella · 2 years

Text

Kyle, Aggressiveness, and Anger

I see a lot of posts around about how Kyle is an aggressive character (as opposed to other characters in the show), and I was curious about how much that label actually applies as opposed to the more generalized one of angry. So, I figured the best way to go about it would be to take a look at all of the notable fights he's been involved in, in chronological order, and then draw a conclusion based on that. Let's take a look!

(Warning that this may not be as clean as some of my other metas; I am writing this in the actual Tumblr interface instead of Google Docs because I got 500 words in here and I am stubborn.)

First, as usual, some brief (<- lying) clarification:

The word "aggressive" actually has some slight variance in its definition, which I'm going to try and explain. I haven't done this in any of my past metas because the definitions tend to be very similar, but in this case, there are a few key differences; Merriam-Webster specifies that aggression is typically unprovoked, and often

Below are the definitions of 'aggressive' (or 'aggression') from the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary, respectively.

There are actually some key differences between the above dictionaries. Synchrony and diachrony are two different perspectives within linguistics; Merriam-Webster is synchronic, and Oxford English Dictionary is diachronic. Synchrony, within the context of linguistics, essentially boils down to taking the definition of the word within a modern lens. Diachrony is the opposite; it relates more to the history of the word rather than how it's currently used. This means that Merriam-Webster's definitions are more technically accurate within the modern day; when considering what someone is saying on Tumblr.com, for example, they are probably subconsciously using Merriam-Webster's definition. It's the one that's more ingrained into modern culture, while Oxford English Dictionary's definitions may quickly become antiquated.

Hence, because this post is referring to aggressiveness in the context of how it's used on the internet within the past ten years (which is considered recent within a linguistic timeline), we're going to be using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition. Thus, for us to consider Kyle an aggressive character, he must not only engage in forceful actions, but they must also tend towards being unprovoked, AND he must have intention to dominate or master the other person involved.

That's your Linguistics fun fact of the day; let's move on!

Furthermore, we need to discuss what I meant by 'notable' fights in the intro paragraph. What makes a fight 'notable'? It's a very blurry line, so I'm going to try and set some guidelines:

For a fight to count as notable, it needs to involve Kyle and only one other person. This excludes situations such as in Tweek vs. Craig where all four of the main boys get into a fight played for laughs, and in Bebe's Boobs Destroy Society, where every boy engages in a huge fight over Bebe. Neither of those would apply as notable fights, namely because they're not Kyle-specific.

I'm also going to only be covering fights where they're at least somewhat plot-relevant. Kyle hitting Cartman once and not engaging further doesn't count as a notable fight, especially when it's exclusively played for laughs within the context of the show. Otherwise, there would be WAY too much content to cover, and this is already longer than I wanted the whole meta to be god dammit. That's the same reason why I'm not counting verbal insults as attacks; all of the boys sling insults at each other constantly, and most of Kyle's verbal insults (especially in later seasons) are a response to an insult rather than an initiation.

CONSIDERING ALL OF THAT, I've narrowed the fights we need to focus on down to nine, all within separate episodes. The episodes we're going to consider are Cow Days, Prehistoric Ice Man, It's Christmas In Canada, Cartoon Wars Part II, Tonsil Trouble, It's A Jersey Thing, Doubling Down, and Post Covid: Part 2. We're also going to take a brief look at a deleted scene from Gluten Free Ebola, which I'll touch on at the end because the events aren't technically canon.

Not all episodes are created equal, either, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Kyle. Matt and Trey have explicitly stated that Kyle's character was changed around season 6 (and likely even more later) because he was too similar to Stan; hence, while I do very much hold a flame for Kyle being a little asshole in earlier seasons, I'm going to take his behavior more seriously the later it occurs in canon. Doubling Down is a much more accurate portrayal of Kyle's current aggressiveness than Cow Days, for example, but I've chosen to cover all them anyway to try and paint the best picture that I can.

SO, one by one, let's talk about them! I'm going to give a few screenshots, summarize the events leading up to the fight, and then give my take on whether Kyle's behavior fits the definition of aggressive. Then we'll sum it all up!

Cow Days (Season 2, Episode 13):

The first episode in which Kyle gets into an Actual Real Fight is as early as Season 2, albeit in the second half. Seriously, does anybody even remember this episode? I didn't until I started looking. Here's a brief summary of the episode premise to jog your memory:

The main four are attending South Park's Cow Days festival, and they're trying to win Terrance and Philip dolls from a ball throwing game. However, the game is rigged and the festival sucks, so the rest of the episode consists of shenanigans as the main four try to rustle up enough money to win the dolls. The instance in which the fight occurs in this episode is when they run out of money to continue trying to win, and Kyle is pissed at Cartman for miscounting the money.

Okay, this was actually kind of a dick move. I don't think that Cartman miscounting the money technically counts as provoking Kyle, and in this instance, he is technically trying to assert himself over Cartman; the last few lines carry the implication that he will kick the shit out of him again if he doesn't figure out a way to afford another few rounds of the game.

In this episode, I would actually consider Kyle's behavior aggressive; yay? Whether that's a good or bad thing, that's a point for canonically aggressive Kyle.

Prehistoric Ice Man (Season 2, Episode 18):

Prehistoric Ice Man is an interesting one; I wasn't quite sure whether I should incorporate it, but it's also one of the only scenes on our list where Kyle fights someone other than Cartman (in this case, Stan) so I figured it was worth bringing up.

In this episode, Stan and Kyle fight over various aspects of a man frozen in ice, and eventually 'schedule' a fight. They then engage in the most unenthusiastic fight in the history of South Park.

To be honest, even calling this scene a 'fight' is a stretch; it's very obvious that neither one of them actually wants to fight, and it's actually Stan who implies that he wants a fight first; he's the first one to threaten Kyle, and Kyle only agrees to fight when Stan does. Kyle puts up his fists first in the actual fight, but not before both of them hesitate.

One of the reasons I included this fight was because if Kyle had been willing to attack Stan without hesitation, it would have been undeniable evidence that he was an aggressive character; he would have been feeling violent towards someone who he's close to, and it would have been fairly unprovoked; arguing over a name generally isn't a good reason to start a fight.

But Kyle doesn't attack Stan; despite being very obviously angry at him, that anger doesn't translate to the desire to fight him. For a seemingly aggressive character, Kyle rejects all expectations in this episode; therefore, that's a point for him not being aggressive.

It's Christmas In Canada (Season 7, Episode 15):

It's season 7! We're still not in modern South Park era, but we're past the seasons that are very dubiously canon. We can take the following episodes a little more seriously in the grand scheme than we did the prior episodes.

In 'It's Christmas In Canada', the boys end up in Canada to try and bring back Ike, whose birth parents suddenly want him back. Cartman is pissed that he's spending his Christmas in Canada (title drop), and he picks a fight with Kyle. Kyle ends it quickly.

Something notable to consider about this fight is that Kyle ends it as quickly as he possibly can; he doesn't pummel Cartman, or threaten him excessively; he clocks him enough to get him to stop posturing, and that's it. He may engage in a fight in this episode, but he's not violent.

Was Kyle provoked in this fight? I would say definitely! Cartman actively goads him into a fight and threatens him, and Kyle gives him a good amount of time to shut up before he ends up engaging. All things considered, this was a pretty reasonable reaction. I don't think this episode counts in favor of aggressive Kyle.

Cartoon Wars Part II (Season 10, Episode 4):

In Cartoon Wars Part II, Kyle and Cartman battle over Cartman trying to get Family Guy pulled from the air. In a previous episode, Cartman manages to stall Kyle by sabotaging his Big Wheels using Cheesy Poofs, and this fight picks up when Kyle tracks Cartman down again.

A few things to note about the actual fight in this one; Kyle makes the first threat, but Cartman is the first one to initiate the fight by pulling off his mittens. Furthermore, Cartman calls for a time out in the fight, and Kyle actually adheres to it; similarly to the fight just above, Kyle isn't particularly violent here. He doesn't want to fight; he's only doing it out of necessity, and he stops as soon as he thinks that Cartman's conceded. Kyle's not trying to dominate him here, as the definition of aggressive suggests; he's just trying to get him to stop.

But was Kyle provoked in this episode? Maybe not in the overarching plot, but considering the events of the previous episode, absolutely. Cartman knocks him off the side of the road, and does so viciously enough that Kyle injures his shoulder. Kyle very much has a reason to want justice; before Kyle even considers threatening or fighting Cartman, Cartman hurts him first.

Is Kyle's choice of adult comedy show absolute garbage? Totally. Was he justified in fighting Cartman? I would say so! Kyle has a good reason to be angered, and he's willing to let go as soon as Cartman ends the fight and concedes. This episode doesn't seem to contribute to aggressive Kyle.

Tonsil Trouble (Season 12, Episode 1):

In Tonsil Trouble, Cartman is accidentally infected with HIV during a routine surgery. When Kyle laughs at him, he gets revenge by sneaking into his room and infecting him during the night. Kyle finds out, and confronts Cartman to kick his ass.

I honestly don't think this fight involving Kyle needs much justification. Cartman gave him an (at the time) incurable disease; Kyle was absolutely provoked and well within his rights to kick the shit out of Cartman. Any character in his position would have done the same; it wouldn't be fair to consider his behavior in this episode aggressive. Cartman totally deserved it.

It's A Jersey Thing (Season 14, Episode 9):

In It's A Jersey Thing, a Jersey family moves into South Park, and it's revealed that Sheila conceived Kyle in New Jersey. This brings out Kyle's 'Jersey side', during which he has an angry, impulsive streak, similar to the other Jersey folks who are moving to town.

This also isn't technically a fight, but Kyle shoves Cartman against a tree, so I figure that it falls within the general category of Kyle 'attacking' someone.

Is Kyle provoked in this episode? I would say that he is. Cartman says that his blood is tainted and insults him for being Jewish; I don't blame him at all for being pissed, especially when the obviously bullshit concept of 'blood purity' to justify discrimination against Jewish people has been a thing since the 1400s. I doubt the mention of 'tainted blood' was unintentional.

And even beyond Cartman provoking Kyle, it's important to note that the way Kyle behaves in this episode is not his normal behavior. Were Kyle naturally aggressive, there wouldn't be a reason to differentiate him between normal Kyle and Jersey Kyle; seeing as aggressiveness is one of Jersey Kyle's primary traits, if Kyle was already aggressive, Jersey Kyle would have no point in existing.

It's a similar concept to Goth Stan; in Raisins, Matt and Trey take Stan's occasional tendency towards depression and turn it up a notch by making him a member of the Goth Kids. The same thing happens for Kyle; they take him exhibiting anger and turn it up to the next level of active aggression.

Did Kyle attack Cartman in this episode? Yes, he did. Did he attack him for less than Cartman usually says to him? Definitely; Kyle's dealt with much worse from him. But was he aggressive? No, and I'd actually say the very existence of this episode proves that Kyle isn't as aggressive as he's often made out to be.

Doubling Down (Season 21, Episode 7):

Season 21! At this point, we're pretty much in the modern era. That means we're almost done with this meta (<- lying)!

Doubling Down is the last actual episode we're going to look at. In this episode, Kyle convinces Heidi to break up with Cartman, citing his abusive behavior as a reason. She initially agrees and decides to date Kyle instead, and Cartman is furious; he responds to confronting Kyle in the school hallway and initiating a fight.

The key words here are that Cartman initiates the fight, and Kyle remains calm about it for an impressively long time. Cartman insults him and slams him into a locker, and Kyle only decides to retaliate when Cartman actively goes in to hit him. Even then, he takes him down in one punch; he doesn't shove Cartman, or kick him, or attempt to drag out the fight any longer than he has to. He ends it as swiftly as he possibly can.

Was Kyle provoked here? Definitely. It's implied he only even hit Cartman to defend himself; there's a reason he didn't try and hurt him until Cartman was swinging. Could Kyle be considered aggressive for what he did here? Definitely not.

Post Covid: Part 2

Post-Covid has a LOT to sum up, so I'm just going to sum up the part leading up to the fight; Cartman, who has seemingly converted to Judaism (which I hope we all know is absolute bullshit by now), wants to go back in time and kill Kyle to make sure he can't reunite their friend group as children. He does this under the justification of wanting to protect his family.

An important bit of context to consider here is that Kyle showed up here to stop Cartman from killing him. Did he necessarily punch Cartman in the face for that reason; maybe not, as Cartman was obviously taunting him directly beforehand, but it's worth considering. When determining whether Kyle was provoked in this scene, I ask you not only to consider Cartman's actual words - which taunt Kyle for his lack of a family - but the implications behind them.

This is Eric Cartman we're talking about - the same Cartman who's spent his entire childhood hurling antisemitic insults at Kyle, and going so far as to literally attempt genocide - and now he's calling himself a "real Jewish person". He's fetishized Judaism to the point where he's built his whole life around it after making Kyle's life absolute hell for being Jewish, and he's now rubbing it in. While simultaneously trying to send someone back in time to literally kill Kyle.

I don't think there's at all a debate on whether Kyle was justified here; responding to Cartman's antisemitic attacks is not aggressive.

Gluten-Free Ebola (Deleted Scene):

In this deleted scene, Clyde insults Kyle's startup company (from the previous episode, Go Fund Yourself) and Kyle punches him in the face. Woah, okay. Kind of an overreaction there. This is very out of character for Kyle; the HUGE majority of fights that he engages in are with Cartman after being provoked, and right now, he just clocked Clyde for a snarky comment. Wtf.

This would be great for aggressive Kyle (as his behavior up there would definitely be considered aggressive)... if the scene wasn't deleted. I don't know exactly why it was deleted, but it's worth noting that it was; I personally think it's because they acknowledged that Kyle's behavior in that scene was out of character. This is the first time (at least in fairly modern South Park era, early Season 18) where Kyle does something like this to someone he usually considers a friend with no provocation at all.

A deleted scene generally shouldn't be seriously taken into account when determining a character's personality trait, but I found the fact that it was deleted to be interesting enough to bring up!

Finally, we're done looking over the episodes: let's talk about what we've learned.

Conclusion

First, let's take a count: out of the eight non-deleted episodes I mentioned above, Kyle fits the definition of aggressive in one of them, and doesn't fit it in the other seven. Further worth noting is that the episode in which he IS aggressive is in Season 2, when Kyle's personality was not solidified yet. In fact, I'd go so far to say Kyle's behavior towards Cartman in that episode was much more similar to how Stan would behave; that's further solidified by Matt and Trey stating that Kyle was too similar to Stan before Season 6.

So, it doesn't look like Kyle really fits the definition of aggressive; he rarely if ever engages in a fight when he's not actively provoked (whether that's verbally, or with a character actually choosing to fight him), and even when he does, he typically doesn't drag it out. Kyle is not a character that relishes in fighting, or violence, or is impulsive enough to pick fights without being provoked; he simply isn't an aggressive character.

Is he an angry character? I think so! A great example of this would be in Post-Covid, when the doorbell won't shut up and he's getting increasingly pissed about it; he's absolutely prone to being riled up even by really little things, but he doesn't fight the doorbell. He interacts very politely with every person who comes to the door, even though the noise of it is pissing him off. His temper is fairly short, but he's not aggressive.

But why does it matter that we acknowledge the difference between short temperedness and aggression? Isn't it really just a difference in semantics?

No, it's not. The reason why we need to acknowledge that Kyle isn't naturally aggressive is because it plays a HUGE role in the tendency to diminish Cartman's attacks against him. If we say that Kyle is a naturally aggressive character, we can't blame Cartman's antisemitic insults for Kyle's hatred of him, and his tendency to fight him in particular; we can say that Kyle just happens to be that way, and that Cartman's insults don't actually have a significant effect on him. It forces the logical conclusion that Cartman and Kyle are actually on the same level, and that there's no difference in power between them. This is harmful for a myriad of reasons, the most obvious one being that it fuels the false concept that Cartman and Kyle are abusing each other, as opposed to Cartman merely abusing Kyle.

If Kyle attacks Cartman for no reason (which he would do, were he aggressive), then he's the abusive one. Calling Kyle aggressive hands Cartman apologists literally everything they need to claim that Cartman isn't that bad on a silver platter.

And even furthermore, calling Kyle aggressive for nearly any of the fights up there implies that someone being abused - or someone of a marginalized group - fight back against their abuser/oppressor is aggressive behavior. It's not. The word 'aggressive' carries the connotation of unprovoked behavior, and of irrationality; it's a terrible thing to imply that someone abused is for fighting back.

On the other hand, admitting that Kyle isn't an inherently aggressive character solves that issue; it acknowledges that when Kyle lashes out at Cartman, it's because of something Cartman did, as opposed to his natural personality. It acknowledges that Cartman's antisemitism is a serious issue that has legitimately traumatized Kyle.

Acknowledging the effects of Cartman's antisemitism and calling Kyle an aggressive character are not thoughts that can exist simultaneously; you have to pick one or the other, because the logical conclusion from one naturally contradicts the other.

South Park is a very long running show - there's leeway in determining personality traits for most characters. It's really hard to keep track of 25 years of character development! And the point of this essay isn't to say that Kyle is extremely passive, or that he's not opinionated, or strong, or prone to anger; he clearly is all of those things. But it is to say that Kyle's aggressiveness is not something that should should be up for debate, and that if you're about to make a post about a select number of Kyle's more 'powerful' personality traits, such as the above ones mentioned, choose your words carefully.

#south park #kyle broflovski #meta #i wrote this in like 2 days :( sorry for messy #i'm going to make another one about stan at some point #BUT this was as concisely as i could get the message across

47 notes · View notes