#do NOT send discourse

[janiedean]

i know you don't write asoiaf meta anymore but there are some things about cersei fans that bother me therefore i must ask.

why do you think some of her fans says jaime is boring and uninteresting and he brings nothing to the table even though he is the most interesting character in the series. are they envy his redemption arc because cersei didn't get one? (because most of her stans say they love cersei because she is evil but at the same time they say she is a better person than jaime 🤡 and she is the one who deserves redemption.)

and they also blame others for liking characters such as jaime, tyrion, robert and rhaegar when they themselves stan cersei. I find this very hypocritical.

hey anon!

first thing: it's not that I don't do asoiaf meta anymore but a) I'm currently not in a great mh place and I need to save my energies, b) last time I wrote long meta it was *again* about the azor ahai thing and someone sent me lit 600 suicide baiting asks the same night and I have no patience force or mental strength for this so I just haven't partaken but I'm always up to reply to asks or anything and when george wakes up I'll be more than happy to be back on track ;)

second thing: I want, ONCE AGAIN, to premise that when I reply to this ask I'm talking about THAT kind of cstans anon is discussing, that this does NOT apply to ppl who like cers and are civil, it does NOT apply to ppl who ship jc in peace and let others live, it does NOT apply to anyone who likes either cers or jc bc they're problematic and it's MY opinion and I'm not speaking about the whole group please if you're not in the above bracket this isn't about you yes okay thanks

third thing: I am aware that my opinion on cers is MY opinion and as a literary char she's objectively way better than I give her credit for but she's everything I find boring in a villain so like not saying I'm the best and I know best but y'know

anyway going into your ask specifically

why do you think some of her fans says jaime is boring and uninteresting and he brings nothing to the table even though he is the most interesting character in the series.

problem: you and me agree (I mean I think theon's the most original objectively and grrm's best creation on a literary standpoint but jaime's right behind I ranted about it once). other people might not gaf about jaime but can admit he's a good character, but like beyond the cers stans problem: a bunch of ppl have decided jaime was shit since he pushed bran because they missed the with loathing when reading that scene and this fandom as a whole is choke-full of bad faith takes on jaime so idt that's a thing that just cers stans do. I'm not gonna even try to unpack why it means literacy is dead in general, but when it comes to those cers stans in general I think they genuinely don't gaf about anyone in these books that's not cers. it's not just jaime, it's like literally anyone. sometimes you read opinions and you're like 'are y'all talking about catelyn', then you read takes like brienne has an agenda (??) and whatnot, but like: *those* cers stans don't care about anything or anyone else.

now: ofc everyone is free to consume a piece of media on account on one character only even if they think the rest sucks or they don't find it interesting, the problem is admitting it instead of passing it as an objective opinion or whatever or passing your biased opinion as literary analysis, but never mind that.

point is: the moment you only like cers and also presumably relate to her/project on her or smth (bc some takes I can only presume exist out of projecting) then saying 'yeah but she's terrible' doesn't work, so she has to sound better than she actually is in canon. at that point jaime, having actually a conscience for one, and not being someone that can be projected on, becomes boring/uninteresting because of that, and everything he has going for himself either is ^^^ or gets turned over. (I once read ***meta*** saying 'i dreamed of you' was actually about cers and it was before s2 aired, I'll leave it here.)

now, continuing into:

are they envy his redemption arc because cersei didn't get one?

well, I saw ppl call grrm misogynist because cers didn't have a redemption arc/didn't see her as redeemable while conveniently ignoring he has 50% of female povs in these books and a shitload of good female chars with all different personalities but somehow cers is the only one that matters, see above.

also: the point is that those ppl see jaime the way cers does as in they're convinced he's actually the horrid person she says he is bc he's her or whatever so the moment he actually shows he's not like that it gets swept under the rug called boring or whatever. because he can't be projected on when he's busy having a personality.

now: I personally find it idiotic because you can enjoy a char and dislike the general plot regardless of you projecting on that or not, but again i'm not those people and idek.

now like I'mma just throw it out as an example staying within asoiaf, but: not counting brienne, the person I relate most to in those books on a 'this person is like me' level is... stannis. goes unsaid I like stannis as a character and I'm generally more forgiving of his shit than most people would be because I get where he comes from and why he's like that, but.............. like. stannis has done some incredibly stupid shit in those books. idg how tf he can atheism like a pro and then fall for melisandre's shit. he's a downright ass at times. every time davos called him out on his shit he was 100% correct. the way he's extreme when discussing morality or taking decisions is a thing I *get* but I think is an immense fault. I'm never gonna go and try to find a way to twist it into 'yeah but he was actually not like that and davos was actually a heartless ungrateful pos for calling him out'. also: I don't like that I relate to stannis 80% of the time because everything we have in common is stuff about myself I don't think is a great trait. because I can admit I'm wildly projecting a lot of shit and it doesn't make him more likeable than grrm intended for him to be.

those ppl don't do any of that. they think that since they relate to cers then she's better than she actually is. end.

(because most of her stans say they love cersei because she is evil but at the same time they say she is a better person than jaime 🤡 and she is the one who deserves redemption.)

again: if she's projected on then she has to be problematic so we justify our own problematic-ness but she has to be better than jaime bc then we can not admit that cers has horrid traits you can't squirrel away from and you can't chalk to misogyny (again cat is a victim of misogyny and she doesn't deal with it using sex to coerce her underage *cousin* to kill her husband but whatever) and we can pin them on jaime while we say he's bad like actual canon cers.

does it make sense? nah. am I going to try and make it make sense? nah. I'm not paid enough for that kinda free therapy xD

and they also blame others for liking characters such as jaime, tyrion, robert and rhaegar when they themselves stan cersei. I find this very hypocritical.

again, I had to read pres2 that liking jaime or tyron but not cers meant you were a misogynist because all lannister siblings are bad, conveniently forgetting that jaime and tyrion are immensely flawed ppl but are not horrid at the core and aren't written to be villains. tyrion is a shakesperean hero and jaime has the redemptive/romantic sl. cers is a villain. other women who aren't villains exist in these books. that's how it is. and I've had enough nonsense wrt liking jaime and not cers (or tyrion and not cers or THEON and not cers which.. lol) to agree that yes it's wildly hypocritical but point is: cers is a villain who has blatant npd and no conscience whatsoever like during the walk of shame she sees melara that she killed at 12yo and instead of thinking hmmmm maybe I was wrong she goes like 'well she liked my brother she deserved it' like??? again irl everyone can go to therapy but this is fiction and it's clear to me that grrm is not interested in making cers redeemable, which is his prerogative. but then admitting it means admitting you project on a literal pos without a conscience who cares only about herself and that doesn't look good.

then again the ppl you mentioned are men so whatever but I just find it hilarious that no one lit no one accuses ppl of misogyny for disliking catelyn or lit any other woman in those books except cers and I speak as someone who is ride or die for cat and thinks she was heinous to jon so X°DDD

also cut bc this is me speculating about grrm's personal life based on other chars in other stuff of his that imvho resemble cers so

anyway last thing I'll say: cers is not the first time grrm does that char, it's just the most in-depth/better conceived one for obvious reasons, but for the record there's a character exactly like her (whose name starts with c- too) in the first tuf voyaging short story and she ends up eaten by alien cats after having been insufferable all along and there's another one exactly like her in nightflyers (idk what they did with the show IT DOESN'T EXIST but in the short story it was blatant) including the forced codependency with a relative that was supposed to be her literal clone and fell in love with a masculine-looking mercenary girl instead HMMMM, so my general theory is that grrm knew someone like that or had a gf like that or smth and knowing whoever that person is gave him enough trauma/issues that he's been writing catharsis about it for what forty years at this rate. when you put a person who hurt you on page with the idea to work through it, unless you're the most forgiving person ever it's not to redeem them or give them a happy ending. considering that twice on three times cers-like-char ended up left by the guy she thinks she owns for a much less better looking but infinitely more likeable woman i think that looking for a redemption arc for cers or presuming she'll ever get one is 100% wasted time but again that's not my circus and not my monkeys.

yes it's hypocritical thinking people are problematic for liking jaime sandor tyrion robert anyoneproblematicever while liking cers. problem is, cers herself is a damned huge hypocrite and these ppl project on her wildly bc they see themselves in her, so it all evens out. I said my piece ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[nyancrimew]

you're a pathetic criminal who should be arrested, charged, and executed for your hacking crimes.

ok, let me guess, you're a US liberal? how's that been working for you? have you tried growing a spine yet?

[kenmarlenn]

Heads up, in case you've seen the VAs tweets.

I'm the one who informed Reed, Davis, and Kat about the whole situation with users [EDIT 9/1/24, 9:20PM EST: sending anonymous asks and making blogs] planning to send documents to the VAs to complain about harassment in response to the post [EDIT 9/1/24, 9:20PM EST: by Alex] about the harassment. I informed the VAs because I moderate for many of them, and for TSBS on Discord, so I wanted to be sure they were prepared and not confused if someone tried to message them. I also did it to ask what should be done about the topic being brought up on their Discords (as they are not involved in that situation/it is not relating to TSBS or their personal content, it will be removed).

Neither Alex, Ceph, Dana, Witchy, etc. interacted or sent them anything since they posted the documents - they said they're not interacting with the situation anymore, and they are sticking to that. Just so we are clear.

[taradactyls]

So I could be totally wrong but, I believe it was sort of expected that men/gentlemen lose their virginity before marriage in regency times. But I also there’s some fandom ‘debate’ about whether or not Mr Darcy would’ve had sex before getting married. So I was just curious about what your canon for Mr Darcy in T3W is. Is he a virgin or not?

I knew someone would ask me this eventually, haha. I've actually had really long conversations with my beta reader about this trying to figure it out. It sounds like this might all be stuff that you’ve already seen discussed in the fandom, but I’ve never thought about it deeply before and so these are new thoughts to me.

I keep going over the historical real-world likelihood, the authorial intent, and the text itself but I’m still not 100%. I’ll explain my thinking and what I find most likely, but here’s your warning that it’s not a clear cut yes/no.

Because on one hand, at that time period it was most common for men in his position to have seen sex workers or have casual encounters/mistresses with women from their estates. Though I do absolutely believe not all men did that, no matter how much wealth and power they had. To go back some centuries, William the Conqueror seemed to be famously celibate (no hints of male lovers either according to the biography I read) until his marriage, and there's no evidence of affairs after it either. The best guesses as to why are that it was due to his religious devotion and the problems that had arisen from himself being a bastard and not wanting to recreate that situation. Concerns over religion and illegitimate children would certainly still have been applicable in the regency to men who thought that way. And in modern times I've seen sex workers say that when an 18/21yo is booked in by his family/friends to 'become a man' often they end up just talking and agree to lie about the encounter. After all, it’s not like every man wants casual sex, even if they aren’t demisexual or something in that vein. But, statistically speaking, the precedent of regency gentlemen would make Darcy not a virgin.

On the other hand, just how aware was Jane Austen, the very religious daughter of a country rector, of the commonness of this? There’s a huge difference between knowing affairs and sex workers existed (and no one who had seen a Georgian newspaper could be blind to this) and realising that the majority of wealthy men saw sex workers at some point even if they condemned the more public and profligate affairs. The literature for young ladies at the time paints extramarital sex - including the lust of men outside of marriage - as pretty universally bad and dangerous. This message is seen from 'Pamela' and other gothic fiction to non-fiction conduct books which Jane Austen would have encountered. Here's something I found in 'Letters to a Young Lady' by the reverend John Bennett which I found particularly interesting as it's in direct conversation with other opinions of the era:

"A reformed rake makes the best husband." Does he? It would be very extraordinary, if he should. Besides, are you very certain, that you have power to reform him? It is a matter, that requires some deliberation. This reformation, if it is to be accomplished, must take place before marriage. Then if ever, is the period of your power. But how will you be assured that he is reformed? If he appears so, is he not insidiously concealing his vices, to gain your affections? And when he knows, they are secured, may he not, gradually, throw off the mask, and be dissipated, as before? Profligacy of this kind is seldom eradicated. It resembles some cutaneous disorders, which appear to be healed, and yet are, continually, making themselves visible by fresh eruptions. A man, who has carried on a criminal intercourse with immoral women is not to be trusted, His opinion of all females is an insult to their delicacy. His attachment is to sex alone, under particular modifications.

The definition of a rake is more than a man who has seen a sex worker once, it's about appearance and general conduct too, but again, would that distinction be made to young ladies? Because they seem to simply be continuously taught 'lust when unmarried is bad and beware men who you know engage in extramarital sex.' As a side note, Jane Austen certainly knew at least something about the mechanics of sex: her letters and literature she read alludes to it, and she grew up around farm animals in the countryside which is an education in itself.

We can also see from this exert that the school of thought seems to be 'reformed rake' vs 'never a rake' in contention for the title of best husband, there's no debate over whether a current rake is unsuitable for a young lady. And, from Willoughby to Wickham to Crawford, I think we have a very clear idea of Jane Austen's ideas of how likely it is notably promiscuous men can reform. This does not preclude the possibility that her disparaging commentary around their lust is based more on over-indulgence or the class of women they seduce, but it's undoubtedly a condemnation of such men directly in line with the first part of what John Bennett says so it's no stretch to believe she saw merit in the follow-on conclusions of the second part as well. Whether she would view it with enough merit to consider celibacy the only respectable option for unmarried men is a bit unclearer.

I did consider that perhaps Jane Austen consciously treated this as a grey area where she couldn’t possibly know what young men did (the same reasoning is why we never see the men in the dining room after the ladies retire, etc) and so didn't hold an opinion on men's extramarital encounters with sex workers/lower-class women at all, but I think there actually are enough hints in her works that this isn’t the case. Though, unsurprisingly, given the delicacy of the subject, there’s no direct mention of sex workers or gentlemen having casual lovers from among the lower-classes in her texts.

That also prevents us from definitively knowing whether she thought extramarital sex was so common, and as unremarkable, as most gentlemen treated it. But we do see from her commentary around the consequences of Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford's elopement that she had criticism of the double standards men and women were held to when violating sexual virtue. Another indication that she perhaps expected good men to be capable of waiting until marriage in the way that she very clearly believed women should. At the very least, a man who often indulges in extramarital sex does not seem to be one who would be considered highly by Jane Austen.

She makes a point of saying, in regards to not liking his wife, that Mr Bennet “was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice.” This must include affairs, though cheating on a wife cannot be a 1:1 equivalent of single young men sleeping around before marriage. However, the latter is generally critically accepted to be one of the flaws that Darcy lays at Wickham’s door along with gambling when talking about their youth and his “vicious propensities" and "want of principle." Though this could be argued that it’s more the extent or publicity of it (but remembering that it couldn't be anything uncommon enough that it couldn't be hidden from Darcy Sr. or explained away) rather than the act itself, or maybe seductions instead of paying women offering those services. I also believe Persuasion mentioning Sunday travelling as proof of thoughtless/immoral activity supports the idea that Jane Austen might have been religious enough that she would never create a hero who had extramarital sex.

So, taken all together this would make Darcy potentially a virgin, or, since I couldn't find absolute evidence of her opinions, leave enough room that he isn’t but extramarital sex isn’t a regular (or perhaps recent) thing and he would never have had anything so established as a mistress.

I’ve also been wondering, if Darcy isn’t a virgin, who would he have slept with? I’ve been musing on arguments for and against each option for weeks at this point. No romantasy has ever made me think about a fictional man's sexual habits so much as the question of Darcy's sexual history. What is my life.

Sex workers are an obvious answer, and the visits wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Discretion was part of their job, it was a clean transaction with no further responsibilities towards them, and effective (and reusable, ew) condoms existed at this time so there was little risk of children and no ability to exactly determine the paternity even if there was an accident. It was a fairly ‘responsible’ choice if one wanted no strings attached. In opposition to this, syphilis was rampant at the time, and had been known to spread sexually for centuries. Sex workers were at greater risk of it than anyone else and so the more sensible and risk-averse someone is (and I think Mr Darcy would be careful) the less likely they would be to visit sex workers. Contracting something that was known as potentially deadly and capable of making a future wife infertile if it spread to her could make any intelligent and cautious man think twice.

Servants and tenants of the estate are another simple and common answer. Less risk of stds, it can be based on actual attraction more than money (though money might still change hands), and is a bit more intimate. But Wickham’s called wicked for something very similar, when he dallies (whether he only got to serious flirting, kissing, or sleeping with them I don’t think we can conclusively say) with the common women of Meryton: “his intrigues, all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman's family.” And it isn't as though Wickham had any personal duty towards those people beyond the claims of basic dignity. Darcy, who is shown to have such respect and understanding for his responsibilities towards the people of his estate and duties of a landlord, would keenly feel if any of his actions were leading his servants/tenants astray and down immoral paths. Servants, especially, were considered directly under the protection of the family whose house they worked in. I think it's undoubtable that Mrs Reynolds (whose was responsible for the wellbeing - both physically and spiritually - of the female servants) would not think so well of Mr Darcy if he had experimented with maids in his youth. It would reflect badly on her if a family entrusted their daughter to her care and she 'lost her virtue' under her watch. Daughters/widows of others living on the estate not under the roof of Pemberley House are a little more likely, but still, if he did have an affair with any of them I can only think it possible when he was much younger and did not feel his duties quite so strongly. Of course lots of real men didn't care about any of this, but Darcy is so far from being depicted as careless about his duties that the narrative makes a point of how exceptional his quality of care was. Frankly, it's undeniable that none of Jane Austen's heroes were flippant about their responsibilities towards those under their protection. I cannot serious entertain an interpretation that makes Darcy not, at his current age, at least, cognizant of the contemporary problems inherent in sleeping with servants or others on his estate.

A servant in a friend’s house would remove some of that personal responsibility, but transfer it to instead be leading his friend’s servants astray and in a manner which he is less able to know about if a child did result. That latter remains a problem even if we move the setting to his college, so not particularly likely for his character as we know it… though it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to be more unthinking and reckless in their teenage years than they are at twenty-eight so I don’t think having sex then can be ruled out. Kissing I can much more easily believe, especially when at Oxford or Cambridge, but every scenario of sleeping with a lower-class woman has some compelling arguments against it especially the closer we get to the time of the novel.

Men did of course also have affairs with women of ranks similar to their own, though given Jane Austen’s well-known feelings towards men who ‘ruined’ the virtue of young ladies we can safely say that Darcy never slept with an unwed middle- or upper-class woman. Any decent man would have married them out of duty if it got so far; but if he was the sort to let it get so far, I think it impossible Jane Austen would consider him respectable. Widows are a possibility, but again, the respectable thing to do would be to marry them. Perhaps a poorer merchant’s widow would be low enough that marriage is off the table but high enough that the ‘leading astray’ aspect loses its master-servant responsibilities (though the male-female ‘protect the gentler sex’ aspect remains) but his social circle didn’t facilitate meeting many ladies like that. Plus, an affair with a woman in society would remove many layers of privacy and anonymity that sex-workers and lower-class lovers provided by simply being unremarkable to the world at large. It carries a far greater risk of scandal and a heavier sense of immorality in the terms of respecting a woman’s purity which classism prevented from applying so heavily to lower-class women.

I think it’s important to note here that something that removes the need to think about duties of landlords towards the lower-classes or gentlemen towards gentlewomen is having affairs with other men of a similar rank. But, aside from the risk of scandal and what could be called the irresponsibility of engaging in illegal acts, it’s almost certain that Jane Austen would never have supported this. For a devout author in this era the way I’m calculating likelihoods makes it not even a possibility. But if you want to write a different fanfiction (and perhaps something like a break-up could explain why Darcy doesn’t seem to have any closer friend than someone whom he must have only met two or so years ago despite being in society for years before that) it does have that advantage over affairs with women of equal- and lower-classes. I support alternate interpretations entirely – it just isn’t how I’m deciding things in this instance.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that, at the very least, Darcy hasn’t had sex recently and it was never a common occurrence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jane Austen felt he hadn’t done it ever. Kissing, as we can see from all the parlour games at the time, wasn’t viewed as harshly, so I think he’s likely made out with someone before. But in almost every situation it does seem that the responsible and religious thing to do (which Jane Austen values so highly) is for it to never have progressed to sex. I also don’t think it conflicts with his canon characterisation to say that he wouldn’t regard sexual experience as a crucial element of his life thus far, and his personality isn’t driven to pursue pleasure for himself, so it’s entirely possible that he would never go out of his way to seek it. So, I’m inclined to think that the authorial and textual evidence is in favour of Darcy being a virgin even if the real-world contemporary standard is the opposite. (Though both leave enough room for exceptions that I’m not going to argue with anyone who feels differently; and even if you agree with all my points, you might simply weight authorial intent/textual evidence/contemporary likelihoods differently than I do and come to a different conclusion).

Remember that even if Darcy is a virgin this wouldn’t necessarily equate to lack of knowledge, only experience. There were plenty of books and artwork focused on sex, and Darcy, studious man that he is, would no doubt pay attention to what knowledge his friends/male relatives shared. Though some of it (Looking especially at you, 'Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure') should NEVER be an example of appropriate practice for taking a woman's virginity. Darcy would almost certainly have been taught directly or learnt through exposure to other men talking to make sex good for a woman – it was a commonly held misconception (since Elizabethan England, I believe) that women had to orgasm to conceive. It would be in his interests as an empathetic husband, and head of a family, to know how to please his wife.

Basically, I’m convinced Darcy isn’t very experienced, if at all, and will be learning with Elizabeth. But he does have a lot of theoretical knowledge which he’s paid careful attention to and is eager to apply.

[starryroe]

people in discourses are so good at accidentally radicalizing others against their stances bc they'd rather tell anyone who doesn't fit their exact definition of A Good Stance to kill themselves than take someone who clearly just hasn't thought about things much before and have a honest conversation to try and persuade them

[cloudysfluffs]

REALLY considered not posting this one.......might delete later

ns//fw and/or ki//nk blogs please dni!!!

[ingravinoveritas]

This is absolutely despicable. Rachel Johnson, who put out the Tortoise podcast last year that first addressed the allegations against Neil, now says that she didn't want Neil to be "cancelled" and admits there was an agenda behind the podcast after all.

To be clear, the concerns people expressed last summer did not and have never had anything to do with the allegations themselves, or not believing the survivors. It is crucial and imperative to believe survivors, but believing survivors does not mean that the people presenting these stories have good intentions. It felt like these stories were being sensationalized/treated as true crime "entertainment" instead of being taken seriously, and sadly this article confirms that those suspicions were merited.

What Rachel has done here is center herself instead of the survivors. Not only is she now defending Neil, she states in the article that she first learned of the assaults in October of 2023 and did nothing with them for several months. And in doing so, she has made it clear that when the podcast was released (on the eve of a UK general election) and how it was presented was entirely intentional and aligned with a TERF specific, transphobic agenda.

This is what many of us feared, and it seems that those fears have now been realized.

Since the release of the Vulture article, Neil has (rightfully) been excoriated and cancelled. It should never have even been necessary for the survivors to give such detailed accounts of their ordeals, but we now unfortunately see why it was. Rachel Johnson's comments and the Tortoise podcast now stand to undermine the survivors and the Vulture article alike, and it is beyond shameful and disgraceful...

[call-me-copycat]

I want to make another poll! Give me your favorite fandom "fanon" events (concepts/ideas/additional information that fans make up that are widely accepted or widely used in fanfiction but don't officially exist in the canon work) from MHA!

They have to be widely known and used, the age doesn't matter and it doesn't matter if it's not popular anymore/has fallen off.

Some examples of fanon are:

- Villain Deku

- All For One being Deku's Dad

- EraserMic + Shinso Family dynamic

- Shinso's hero name being "MindJack" (similarly, Bakugo's hero name being "Ground-Zero")

- Deaf Bakugo/Present Mic

- Quirk Cancelling Equipment (no, it doesn't exist in canon unfortunately)

- Dadzawa (as a whole)

- Dabi's quirk being called "Cremation" (this was before it's name, Hellflame)

I haven't read too much outside of my bubble so I'm probably missing a lot! That's why I want to hear everyone's favorite fanon theory! I'm going to pick 12 then put it all into a poll for everyone to choose their favorite :⁠-⁠)

Reach out to me however you'd like! Feel free to comment on here, in the tags if you reblog, through asks, messages, or any other way - I really don't have a preference ^⁠_⁠^

I hope you all have a great day! (⁠ ⁠╹⁠▽⁠╹⁠ ⁠)

[atthebell]

i don't think it'll be qsmp 2 (i think quackity is not stupid enough to do that right now) but i do think everyone assuming if it is it'll have the exact same issues is being deeply unrealistic i think if it were to be qsmp 2 they would obviously try not to have the same problems they had previously (many of which were due to poor management and communication moreso than intentional withholding of wages, although that obviously was a factor in some of it). not saying they would actually succeed at that, but they are not stupid enough to do the exact same thing twice (and who knows how many of the same people are even involved).

also i think putting sole blame of everything that happened on only quackity is utterly batshit he absolutely fucked up and should have been more involved and more responsible but be fr people are mad at him mostly because there's no other individuals to be mad at and he's the face of the project. quackity wasn't personally involved in most of the previous issues—that was the entire problem! he should have been more involved with management and more aware of what was going on!

[paper-mario-wiki]

i have now watched all of what has been animated of Overlord, here is my review:

okay i'll watch the fifth season but if Renner doesn't act like a fucking freak openly on-screen in at least half of the episodes im gonna be pissed. to be quite frank, and quite self indulgent, there are SO few yandere women that are given proper screentime these days-- and that's in manga AND anime. why is nobody brave enough to go full yuno gasai? what's wrong with these people? have they forgotten one of the core dere archetypes? my god. the only time girls get to act crazy on screen in anime is when they're an abusive guardian, a power ranger tier villain, or traumatized into helplessness. i want to watch someone whose derangement gives her power and i dunno, maybe she wields them selfishly for the one she loves! and that SEEMS like it's whats been promised to me in the 5th season, but ive been wrong before!!! theyve strung me along with the promise of seeing her do some real insane shit with no more than 6ish minutes spread thin over the 1248 minutes of animation the show's runtime has been composed of thus far. but god dammit. im still gonna watch.

anyway, everything else was pretty cool too, at least enough to keep me interested in the meantime. the animation was pretty bad for most of it. but the writing, voice acting, and overall direction were able to keep the story enjoyable despite that. to compare it to another isekai with a similar premise, though executed very differently; the politics are more interesting in this show than in Slime Show, but Slime Show's world feels more consistent, and the events contained within more justified, where Overlord does ass-pulls often. but i like this world too. i like these characters. i like how complicated they are. much of it is very edgy, and it's chock-full of what i'd call "anime bullshit", but that's a seinen story for ya.

my ratings for the seasons are as follows

6/10

7/10

6/10

7/10

Overall verdict:

this show is hard carried by its sprawling cast of deeply insane women, and god dammit they carried my girl-loving ass through 52 episodes. and probably 13-26 more depending on whether or not the studio really does end up wrapping up the story in the next season. due to the shamelessness of this shows content, i don't know that i can think of many people who i would recommend it to without feeling embarrassed about it. HOWEVER. if you're the kind of person who kept reading this because of the multiple mentions of really, really insane women, and that was enough to get you to read this whole thing, you'll like this show. i mean. as long as you can tolerate all of the *blech* Heterosexuality.

[rat-rosemary]

Anyway I am exhausted.

Hey are you a Tommt fan or just on his side? Have you not watched Dream's stream? Are you confused about something, are hearing conflicting information, or just want someone to explain some context or something you heard saw?

Drop me an ask and I'll try to explain about it, I watched the whole 3:30-ish hour stream. I do not give a fuck if you hate Dream, you can hate him if you want, but misinformation is fucking dangerous and if I can I want to help dismiss it. Plus, I'm sure yall want to deal with the real issue as much as anyone else, and having misinformation in the way just makes it harder for everyone

[sukirichi]

PLEASE STOP COPYING FICS ‼️

I am by no means gatekeeping concepts or tropes. We all know that it’s normal to see the same tropes or AUs be used differently, and that is not plagiarism. However, I recently found a fic that was oddly similar to my old (and discontinued) Gojo x Reader series, Reckless. The CEO! Gojo is nothing new, and neither is an accidental pregnancy trope. The only reason I am concerned is because this Gojo series I found has the exact same themes as Reckless that consists of: a playboy CEO Gojo with a very notorious reputation, a poor reader who is an employee and asset to the company (someone who works closely with Gojo), reader getting knocked up from a one night stand with Gojo, reader with a seemingly dead/absent mother yet still in contact with her father, Gojo with a very traditional family who does not like reader, and Gojo with an ex he struggles to let go of - which are all elements of Reckless.

The first chapter of that Gojo fic is also eerily similar to my first chapter with the same flow of: YN finding out she’s pregnant and her friend being there for her, Gojo saying he’ll take responsibility because ‘they both made the baby’, YN having to move in with Gojo to take care of the baby, and both of them coming to a mutual agreement that their ‘relationship’ will be purely for the baby’s benefit. The flow of events and specific details about the characters’ backgrounds are too similar to mine.

Again, I am not gatekeeping concepts, just as how I’ve had other writers ask me if they could write their own stories or takes based off of the NAOYA’S TROPHY WIFE COLLECTION or the BONTEN HUSBANDS EXCLUSIVE, and I’m fine with that. I’m even happy people are inspired by what I write. But being inspired is completely different from taking someone’s story and posting it as yours. Please trust your own creativity and skills in writing. You can write amazing stories and have people love them without having to steal from others.

It’s sad to say this is not the first time I, and other writers, have been plagiarized. It’s even more upsetting to know that a friend of mine who has also written a Gojo series (that I’m sure you all know and dearly love) experiences the same issues with the same person. The fact that this is happening to many writers out there is disheartening. We work hard and pour a lot of love in the stories we create. None of us are getting paid for this, and we simply want to share our passions with others. So please, let us be kinder with one another and show love and support the right way. If you love a fic, you give feedback and rb/comment + show support to the writer. You don’t steal their ideas and play it off as your own because you liked it.

[wikiangela]

it's so crazy how people think a 10-ish year age gap is big and inappropriate and wrong or some shit

especially for people who met in their 30s and 40s lbffr the age gap is so not an issue

(I need some of y'all to remember buck is in his 30s, he's a grown man, tommy could be 20 years older and it'd be fine 🙄)

[qishylia-adelia]

Lanyan my babygirl,I wish people would treat you more than who they ship you with (when she finally release)

[aiphelix]

Hi, I'm Cen. I draw a lot of FMA and OC stuff. Gonna -try- to post here but I probably won't be active outside of that and answering asks.

I'm mostly active on Bsky but that's a mixed bag of ship content-- I highly suggest reading my Carrd before you follow, but all of my content here will be SFW, mostly Ed, EdWin, oc stuff. Yeah.

BSKY

Twitter

Patreon

Linktree for everything else

[ingravinoveritas]

I just wanted to tell you, I remembered the red bikini post as well as your offer of dinner and dessert.

At the time, for whatever reason, it felt “off” and kind of creepy that Neil responded the way he did. Never in a million years, thinking something like this would happen.

One of my first thoughts after the allegations came out about him was, “some of Gods greatest gifts, are unanswered prayers.” With a nod to Garth Brooks who has had his own demons to face.

I’m glad Someone kept you safe. ♥️

(Grouping together due to similar themes/ease of answering.) @amagnificentobsession and Anon: Thank you so much...this is very, very sweet of you both to say and I truly appreciate it. ♥️

One thing I do want to make clear is that I am in no way trying to equate my experience with Neil to the absolute horrors his survivors went through. But it felt relevant to mention because I do think it gives us a glimpse into how he operates--how purposeful he is, how deliberate.

My default response tends to always be to blame myself--either for not knowing better, or in this case because I took certain actions (sending him that photo of me). And I'm fully responsible for that. In my mind, I know that he worked very hard to come across as someone safe, someone that I would feel comfortable sending that photo to--but in my heart, it still hurts so much. Not because I was such a huge fan of Neil's, but because it's yet another instance of me being a terrible judge of character. It's something that's happened in my life on multiple occasions--usually romantic relationships--where I've incorrectly thought guys felt the same way about me that I felt about them.

It's a funny thing, though, because in several of those cases, it turned out that those men were using me to feel better about themselves. To boost their own fragile, pathetic egos. Obviously, this is not an identical situation, as I was not in a relationship of any kind with Neil, but the playbook still feels eerily similar. And like those situations, I'm left wondering how I could have not seen what he was, and how I could have been so wrong. Especially because in the years since those relationships, I have definitely encountered more than my share of creepy guys, so I thought for sure I would know what to look out for by now.

But despite that, I didn't clock Neil's responses as creepy, or think that something like this would ever happen. The things he said were so calculated to be what they were--goofy, funny, sweet, harmless--that I was blinded to reality. He weaponized being Neil Gaiman, wielded it with surgical precision, and I fell for it. And it fucking hurts.

As you both have said, though, it does feel like direct corroboration of what we now know, and it seems like I did ultimately did dodge a potentially terrible experience. I only wish the same could've been true for all the women he hurt...