#does make me think it's purity wank

[katyspersonal]

me: I do not really understand the hardcore insistence of some Mohg fans/simps that he could not or must not have done any sexual-incestous crime! Not only it is a reasonable version, but also extremely interesting and intriguing to explore how not all victims of oppressive system are good people! Soulsborne is super fitting for fucked up themes and characters, any Mohg is valid and fun including the darkest you can get, right? Extremely messed-up interpretations of Mohg don't THREATEN other fans in any way shape or form!

fandom clowns: *passively-aggressively shun Mohg fans from the circles, attack Fromsoft for """homophobia""" (wtf), confuse acknowledging the event with enjoying the event, will label Mohg fans as insensitive or danger to real SO/incest victims, fear Mohg as an awful scary taboo to bring up in memes compilations or fanart that could obliterate all fun despite him being part of the canon, demand blacklisting anything about him in their clown Discord servers thus making lore chats weird, shame or block people with flattering interpretations for MeDiA iLiTeRaCy uwu, treat hating Mohg as a moral act rather than personal stance and generally cause a lot of hostility in the fandom, ALL because whereas seeing Mohg's SO as canon they then got mad at this canon instead of either swallowing it or move onto another videogame free of this theme*

me:

me: Nevermind, this fandom is chronically incapable of handling the dark themes and think the fandom owes them sanitised experience.

[scoobydoodean]

what is your opinion on people calling dean a heavy misogynist? i don’t agree personally but i feel like you could put my thoughts into better words

First, I have to chuckle a little at "heavy misogynist". Apparently, some people have begun to realize their fave is also guilty of misogyny crimes therefore they focus on making sure all of us know Sam is a light misogynist and Dean is a heavy misogynist. I just find that amusing.

This is a broad topic in a long show, so I won't endeavor to address every conceivable incidence of misogyny in the show I can think of. Instead, I'm going to create a few headings, at least one of which I think most criticism falls under.

Misogyny through the writing team

How Sam's misogyny gets a pass

Purity culture wank and Dean performing for Sam

How Dean actually treats women

Misogyny Through The Writing Team

First, Supernatural in of itself has issues with misogyny—as in, the writers of the show (including female writers) have issues with misogyny which they are happy to put on display semi-frequently. The show started in 2005, during a period of time where casual sexism was absolutely rampant on TV and no one thought anything about it. Female celebrities were regularly mocked and dragged on cable television in a way men simply weren't. They were called bitches and skanks and whores, and even "progressive" voices were inundated with casual misogyny and a fixation on purity culture (that largely applied to women only). Quite simply, I think fandom tends to be far too generous toward the writers, assuming certain things were "flaws" the writers intentionally wrote for the characters.

Put another way, there are some criticisms I prefer to level at the writing team rather than the characters, because what is written plainly reflects their ignorance in the real world rather than any intent to give Sam or Dean or any other character meaningful flaws—much less outright terrible ones that greatly harm their image. I'll give a few examples:

2.17 "Heart" makes me very uncomfortable as I sit here in 2024 and observe how Sam and Madison's romance develops. Me feeling that way does not mean the authorial intent of 2007 Sera Gamble was that I think to myself, "Man Sam comes off as uncomfortably rapey here." Hopelessly bad with women, perhaps—but not creepy.

In season 2, the writers begin to develop a running “joke” that Sam is afraid of not just clowns but also little people. The latter “joke” is (wisely) dropped fairly quickly. I have never criticized Sam for being afraid of little people, and I never will. It is readily apparent to me that this running "joke" reflects the ignorance of the writing team rather than an intent to give Sam meaningful or interesting flaws. Their intent was to use little people as the butt of a joke. I personally find this "joke" distasteful, and the idea of trying to take that and somehow "dunk" on Sam for the bigotry of the writers is more distasteful to me.

This is also how I feel about the running "joke" of a porn magazine and website (BAB) that solely features Asian women, that is put on display on multiple occasions during the show—first in 2.15 "Tall Tales", where the context is Gabriel infecting Sam's laptop with a virus from the website and making him believe Dean is responsible. BAB continues to make "Easter Egg" appearances in the show afterward. While often associated with Dean by fandom, the writers clearly think of BAB as a general, "funny" (it isn't), running gag with no more depth than "haha men like porn funny". An issue is stolen by a sentient teddy bear in 4.08 "Wishful Thinking". An issue is owned by the teenager who swapped bodies with Sam in 5.12 "Swap Meat". The Men of Letters also collected a considerable number of issues (8.17). I simply do not believe the writers thought for a single moment about BAB being a grossly racist gag. They most certainly did not write it as an intentional criticism of Dean from that perspective. It reflects nothing but their ignorance and racism here in the real world, and absolutely SHOULD be criticized from that REAL WORLD impact.

How Sam's misogyny largely gets a pass

One of the things I have not been able to stop noticing on this rewatch is Sam's issues with misogyny, and how often Sam's misogyny comes out in conflicts with Dean... starting from the very first episode of the show. Pretty much any time you get anything that feels like it might be a misogynist Dean or horn dog Dean moment... Sam either just has or is about to follow that up with some misogyny of his own.

In 1.01, right after entering Sam's apartment and meeting Jess, Dean mentions the Smurfs on Jess's shirt. We think to ourselves "Okay. A little misogynist... a little horn-dog Dean." Sam is happy to 1-Up that in two ways. First, Jess voices her intentions to go get dressed. Dean dismisses this, but while doing so, makes it clear he intends to leave the room with Sam, as he'd like to have a private conversation with Sam anyway. Sam objects, walking over to Jess and putting an arm around her, demanding Dean say whatever he needs to say right then and there. Maybe this would feel supportive if Jess wasn't in her underwear and hadn't just made it clear that now that the panic over a possible break-in is over, she'd really like to not be in her underwear in front of a stranger. But nope. By god she needs to stand there so Sam can prove a point about misogynist Dean! Second, Sam immediately (and I think quite erroneously) jumps to imply Dean is trying to cut Jess out of the conversation because she's... a woman? Or... something? He makes a big show of moving over Jess and standing beside her, saying anything Dean has to say, he can say in front of Jess. However, the moment Sam actually understands that Dean is here because John is missing on a hunting trip, he dismisses Jess to speak to Dean alone... because he's lying to her. By painting Dean erroneously with this "The men are talking" bullshit that had nothing to do with anything, Sam sets himself up to be viewed as a misogynist by his own framing of the situation and what it means to leave Jess out of a discussion. He also reveals his own alleged principles as a performative illusion. Despite being his intended life partner, Sam never intends to tell the woman he loves about his past as a hunter (he makes this clear later on the bridge). However, I think because Sam's actions usually co-occur with what gets called out more directly or more immediately recognized as misogyny from Dean (should have gotten him for the Smurf's comment, Sam!) Sam's misogyny often flies under the radar... and he's really... pretty bad.

I spoke here at length about how Sam tends to look down on women who interact with Dean (often before meeting them). There is absolutely an intersection with purity culture here and there's discussion in that thread about that as well, and whether this is a "2000s writers" issue or intentionally written flaws.

In 1.06, Sam cuts Dean off before Dean can accept an offered beer from Rebecca, but then as soon as Sam needs Rebecca out of the room, Sam asks her to not just bring them those beers... but also fix them sandwiches. Rebecca says, "What do you think this is, Hooters?" and Dean mumbles, "I wish" and we somehow lose sight of the fact that Sam literally just asked a woman to make him sandwiches which is possibly the number one misogynist man trope. Sam vaguely suggests Dean is a misogynist in 1.19 for nudging Sam to go on a date with Sarah Blake and possibly get information on the case, because that would be "using" her, but Sam wants to "use" Meg Masters in 1.22 and he wants to "use" Ruby to get what he wants, and when he said getting information from women was "Dean's job", he was also showing he was perfectly willing to use Dean and Sarah—he just doesn't want to get his hands dirty. It also comes to light in 1.19 that this is more about Sam's belief that he has to protect women from him, and Sarah herself ends up calling Sam antiquated for it.

I mentioned before that Sam doesn't plan to ever tell Jess who he is, and he makes the same plans with Amelia. Dean, meanwhile, confides in Cassie (it's what leads to their breakup) as well as Lisa.

I also have to mention... one of the funniest things I see deancrit samgirls in particular dig at time after time after time is Dean calling women "bitches". Never mind that Sam also calls women like Ruby and Bela bitches and calls a woman a bitch in front of Madison. Apparently none of these occurrences count because... *looks at notes* reasons. "Bitch" only counts as misogyny when it's Dean saying it. Also, let's not mention that Sam exclusively uses the word "bitch" to refer to women, while Dean also calls men and creatures bitches at different points so it isn't a gender specific insult for him.

Dean is definitely the "heavy" misogynist here... right? (I guess Sam is a "tall" misogynist instead).

Purity culture wank and Dean performing for Sam

Dean is commonly treated in fandom as if he's some kind of sex pest, and quite blatantly... he isn't one. Women almost always proposition Dean first (thejabberwock has sets on this here and here), but him asking people out also isn't inherently creepy in any way? Co-occurring with Sam's purity culture inundated judgements, we often see fandom's own as well, where Dean is some kind of sex pest because he... likes women? Or... because he has sex with consenting women who also want to have sex with him? Sometimes it's giving purity culture wank, sometimes it's given big radfem energy... but regardless, I sometimes see people talk about Dean like him so much as making eye contact with a woman is a violent sexual threat, and that's just laughable—as is denying the agency and autonomy of consenting women in general.

Even though it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, I'll also add that Dean... doesn't even actually have sex with the frequency that people talk about it? Dean has sex with Cassie—who was a long term partner of his in 1.13. He has sex with an actress in 2.18, and with Doublemint twins in 3.01. He has sex with a waitress 4.05. He plans to have sex with someone in 3.04, but turns her down when he realizes she's a prostitute who's working. This happens again in 10.07. I'm on season 4 of my rewatch and haven't been formally keeping up... but Dean is not actually having a lot of sex? We get implications he's been out partying a few times, and can maybe infer he scored, but we don't actually know.

I'm not a huge fan of performing Dean, in the sense that I think over the years I have seen it wildly overstated far too many times. But I do think Dean sometimes plays a character for Sam especially. Dean tells us this himself in 2.03 "Bloodlust" when confiding in Gordon. He never says so directly when it comes to the sexy sex guy doing sex persona, but his actions reveal him. One can think of plenty of examples of Dean saying horny stuff about women to Sam... but what about his actions?

How Dean actually treats women

Finally, there's how Dean actually treats women... and one would be very hard pressed to prove to me that Dean is sexist toward the women in his life. He's been close friends with multiple women and worked with women on hunts on multiple occasions and never once batted an eye. Jo in 2.06 is sometimes floated as an example, but it's actually discussed within the episode. Dean makes it very clear that he thinks women can do the job just fine. What he has a problem with is Jo's lack of experience and her romanticization of the job (especially during a period where Dean has fallen deeply out of love with the job himself). Everything we see as the series progresses supports Dean's assertion as truth. He's very good friends with Charlie, Jody, and Donna and doesn't go around excluding them on hunts while favoring men. That is not a thing that happens. While he initially tries to talk Claire out of the life (as he does everybody—this is not unique to women—see Adam for example) when she decides to hunt, he supports her regardless. There is nothing uniquely overprotective about how Dean treats women who hunt. End of. Dean has no illusions about traditional gender roles or any of that nonsense, jumping to clean dishes after dinner at Jody's and cooking breakfast for Lisa and Ben. (Our knowledge of Dean and the chores he does for his family already tell us this—but regardless). Even Demon Dean, an entity with no love for anyone and close to zero principles, targeted men who abuse and threaten women, and when Crowley ordered him to kill Lester's wife to fulfill the terms of Lester's demon deal, Demon Dean instead became so deeply annoyed with Lester's hypocrisy (he cheated on his wife first) and his assertion that it's different when men cheat, that he killed him and smiled while doing it.

So anyway, nope—I don't think Dean is a "heavy" misogynist.

[pearwaldorf]

Have you heard about what's happening on dreamwidth/FFA and volunteers talking about the dysfunction happening in the OTW and the CSEM incident?

I have! It's real fucked up!

(Blanket warning for discussion of CSAM/CSEM, as well as exposure to such in a volunteer context, in text and links below.)

For those who are unaware, failfandomanon (FFA) is an anonymous meme community on Dreamwidth for people to discuss all things fandom, serious or not. I think it tends towards kneejerk anti-purity wank, but it is one of the few places where people can talk openly about fandom things without it being traced back to a publicly identifiable handle. This context will become important later on.

You may remember last year AO3 got hit with emails containing CSAM and they had to lock everything down while they dealt with it.

A few days ago somebody on FFA asked about what happened re: the AO3 volunteers working through that period. Here is the tweet chain where I found out about it, with screencaps from FFA. Basically, said volunteers got a list of links to mental health hotlines and the names of people who volunteered themselves as resources for dealing with this stuff. Yeah. (As a tangent, the OTW has an estimated ~$2mm cash reserve. At no point did they decide to hire a counselor or any other sort of professional help to assist their volunteers in dealing with this.)

Impertinence has a good rundown of the timeline of events.

azarias, the person who became the defacto CSAM resource person (a truly horrifying statement), was traumatized dealing with this. The OTW used this opportunity to force her out because people on the Board didn't like her, realized they wouldn't have a defacto CSAM person, and reinstated her, expecting that she would go back to doing what she did previously. This goes beyond benign neglect into real actual harm inflicted upon volunteers.

Then! Then! THEN!! This message (FFA original) was sent out to everybody in the OTW volunteer Slack. Which basically says to volunteers "If we don't like you we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks if you talk about how we abused you."

I don't know who's keeping up on this on Twitter, but somebody started a Dreamwidth aggregating most of what you see above.

I know this is a lot of information to throw at people. I encourage you to read it and process at your own pace because this is important to understand. And while I believe this is trustworthy information (as far as I can tell), I'm not a substitute for your own personal judgment and brain.

It is clear to me the Organization of Transformative Works has abrogated its responsibility to its volunteers as people and as laborers on behalf of the organization. There is no formal mechanism for us as AO3 users or as people the organization claims to represent (members of fandom) to demand remediation on behalf of azarias or other volunteers who have been traumatized by this.

I expect there will be a lot more people than usual at the next board meeting (I do not see one scheduled currently), but they still don't really answer to us. If you donated at least $10 during the last pledge drive you're eligible to vote in the board elections, but that does not fix the current situation or the culture that lead to it.

As somebody who has been in fandom longer than some of you have been alive, and as somebody who's had an AO3 account since 2009, it grieves me to come to terms with the rot in the OTW culture, which is deeper than I could have imagined. It's one thing to see an organization drag its feet on things it promised to do years ago or misread the room regarding new technology. It is a whole other thing to have evidence it harmed people through active malice because they didn't like them and refused to make amends when confronted. That is not something I can support, regardless of what it may have done for fandom in the past.

[lokiinmediasideblog]

Operation Olive Branch: Help a Palestinian family

Call your reps to allow Gaza aid!

If you can't donate to Palestine, click here for ad revenue to go to them

Donate E-SIMS to Gaza! (Nomad, Mogo, Airalo).

TOURNAMENT OF LOKIS 2024:

Tell your representatives to OPPOSE THE EARN IT ACT!!!! And KOSA!!!

Adopt an axolotl. This amphibian whose likeness has become popular for merchandise and art, is endemic to Lake Xochimilco. Funding for the preservation and rehabilitation of its habitat was cut by the Mexican government:

IF YOU CHOOSE TO FOLLOW ME:

This is my cringe blog. PLEASE make sure to turn off recommended and "In your orbit" settings. Do me and yourself a favor to avoid seeing my likes. That just gives me anxiety and you might see something you don't like that isn't explicitly warned in this blog.

My Tags

IStartShit-If you want to avoid seeing me argue with people and being annoying, block this tag.

myth!Loki-Refers to the Loki from Norse Mythology

mcu!Loki-Refers to the Loki from the MCU (not the comics)

comics!Loki-Refers to the Loki from Marvel comics

I will use similar tags for other norse myth inspired figures (e.g. myth!Thor).

lokiInMedia-Refers to miscellaneous depictions of Loki

LokiBookClub-I review books based on Norse myths

FicRecs-Fic recommendations

hot takes-My possibly divisive views on Loki-related media and Loki-related media fandom

Disclaimers:

I will block you if you don't have any posts on your blog.

When I say I hate a trope, it doesn't mean I think it should be banned. I am against banning content. I am just very critical of it and personally hate it and/or avoid it. Criticism does not equal harassment or censorship.

I am not Norse pagan. I am an Atheist.

I try to keep the myths separate from Marvel properties, and other media by using the tags mentioned above.

I do not condone harassment based on fictional media.

My MCU OTP is Valki (Valkyrie/Loki). I am neutral/indifferent to pretty much other ship. I am bound to defend those ships if I see too much wank because I am a huge contrarian. I think the only Loki-related ship I dislike is Frostiron because I can't stand Tony Stark. I try and don't want to be moralistic about it though.

I hate purity culture, right-wingers, and "radfem" and TERF rhetoric. Thought crimes are not a thing. And there's nothing liberating about bio-essentialism.

Comic books for free:

There's also the Hoopla app, based on your local library.

[jaskierx]

The whole block party thing is too eye rolling for words but something in that post you shared really stuck out to me, and it's the same thing I've seen from these sorts of people re: boycotts too - bragging about how even when the person/brand you're targeting *does* change or speak out, you're still going to punish them. That's not how this form of activism works! The point is to make the terms of what would get you to engage with the person/brand again clear, and then use the pressure of withholding yourself to get them to change! What incentive is there if you make it very clear you're done with them no matter what? (Also people are bragging about blocking celebs they never even followed...that does literally nothing even to the pointless metric of a follower count. This is all so fucking *stupid*) Ugh

that was the key bit that stood out to me. bc they’re acting like the ideological purity matters so much more than the impact. i think it’s actually pretty gross that people are laughing and wanking themselves off bc lizzo tried to encourage people to donate to palestinian funds and their response was ‘haha fuck you it’s too late’. like what the fuck man. surely money going to gaza is a good thing. people are starving to death and sleeping in tents and being killed in the streets and you’re trying to act as if certain people have missed the deadline for trying to help and just shouldn’t fucking bother anymore? congrats on doing the israeli propaganda machine’s job for them tbh

[fishboneart]

Fishbone #005

They weren't kidding, that history can rhyme

Only 9 layers and 5 source images this time. Things don't always have to be a federal fucking issue.

With how much ai art wank discourse is rooted in purity politics, especially but not exclusively on tumblr, I was amused by the mental image of slipping into a hazmat suit before venturing into the dangerous and repulsive wasteland of ai art to retrieve alien salvage like the stalkers in Roadside Picnic. It doesn't feel like that, it feels like being a grabby little corvid in the shiny trinket factory, but I still enjoyed the concept.

The rest of the image is about art as alchemical process and I'm not going to explain it.

I've been observing for some time that the objections to ai art are indistinguishable from the objections to photoshop ~20-25 years ago (including the one about "it's different this time bro trust me") so I want to look at some of them a bit closer.

It's not real art

Stop getting your talking points from fascists.

But-

I don't care how you justify it, it's a fascist talking point. Stop.

It's stealing

At risk of resurrecting stupid bullshit I was already bored with 20 years ago, I honestly think there's a better case for this regarding PS than machine learning. PS artists actually do use elements from existing images, lots of them (ideally with permission/license). However, consensus opinion has long since concurred that PS artists substantially transform and recontextualise those elements and the result is an original creation, same as physical collage.

As I've come to understand it, ML doesn't use elements from existing images, just mathematical descriptions of image attributes. It doesn't incorporate images on any level, or even pieces of images, so I'm left wondering what's being stolen here? I'm not being shitty I genuinely can't see anymore what is stolen when ML simply does not use any part of any existing image to generate an image.

There's no skill/creativity involved

The first time I ever used adobe photoshop (I've long since switched to GIMP, change the name, FOSS 5evar, etc.) I spent about fifteen minutes excitedly stacking filters on a picture of a butterfly, before the person showing me how it worked dismissively explained that filters don't make art.

Elements and principles of design are learned skills. They're taught at art school because they're not innate and they're important as hell. I often feel like people are tacitly arguing all that stuff's just padding--and if you're staunchly anti-ai-art I promise that's not an argument you want to make, it will backfire spectacularly on you.

And yeah, I think everyone still agrees that just piling filters on a photo isn't very creative and takes no particular skill. I doubt anyone thinks instagram filters take a good photo for you. I think (or hope) that we all understand now that complex image editing and manipulation does in fact take skill and creativity.

I can't help but wonder how much of the vapid trash we're seeing in the explosion of ai art is the equivalent of the 2000s explosion of shitty filtered photos.

The computer does it for you

There's so much more to PS art than filters, and the computer emphatically does not do any of that stuff for you. It doesn't do composition or colour theory or concepts or art history for you. It just does what you tell it to, you still have to make the art good. Fishbone #001 involved manually isolating dozens of fucked up hands from ML images, and I complained about it the entire time and the computer didn't even get me a cup of tea.

A lot of people used to actually genuinely believe that photoshop was a magical plagiarism machine that you stuck stolen art in and it automatically made perfect composites for you. Probably some people still do, it's a big world. But it never was true, no matter how hard they believed it.

Is there more to ML image generation? Idk I'd have to try it to find out for sure and I'm very tired. But the more I learn about it the more I think there could be. The frequency with which I see very elaborate and specific prompts with garbled and all-but-irrelevant images does at least suggest that the magical ease of making ai art has been somewhat oversold.

Using it in any way is cheating/cheapens your art

I think the cheating idea mostly came from the photography community, who thought PS was a shortcut to better photos for undisciplined talentless hacks who couldn't be bothered to learn to take a good photo. The irony. But for me, since I wasn't using it to improve photos, this was such a weird take. Cheating at what? At photoshop art? I'm cheating at photoshop by... using photoshop?

And the idea that using PS at any stage in your process irredeemably sullies your art is just stupid on its face. It's not radioactive. It's not a PFAS. Sin isn't real. Santa isn't putting you on the naughty list for photoshopping. The Galactic Council of Artistic Integrity aren't checking for pixels.

Needless to say, since 100% of the source images I use in this project are ML generated, I also think it's a bit of a silly objection to ML image generation.

It has no soul

I am not and have never been christian. I do not and will never care what your imaginary friend thinks about art.

Also, this is a repackaged fascist talking point. I told you to stop that.

It sucks

Most of everything sucks, what's your point?

People are going to lose their jobs

Unfortunately this one had some connection to reality. By about 2010 there were almost no painted book covers, and painters who'd made their living from them were forced to adopt PS or find a different job. It wasn't just book covers of course, commercial artists across the board felt the pinch of automation. That's not exactly PS's fault, the parasitic owning class will simply take any opportunity to fuck over a worker for half a buck, and PS art is generally cheaper because it's generally faster to make.

I actually have some questions about how this will play out with ML though. Currently, yes, it's looking very much like in ten years there won't be any PS book covers any more, but I think the parasitic owning class are going to quickly remember they don't actually want art that they can't hold copyright over, and human artists will remain necessary. No one wants a logo they can't trademark. No one wants commercial art if they can't control the licensing. I don't even think it'll take a wholeass test case, just a few things like selfpub novels using the same cover image as a major release or folks using pure ML images from the big stock sellers without paying, and as soon as they realise they can't sue anyone about it they'll come crawling back, cap in hand, to hire you back as a contractor at an insultingly low rate.

People will lose their jobs or find their billable hours severely cut, but, unfortunately, as the brave Luddites showed us, you can't stop automation by fighting the machine, no matter how noble your motives. You need to actually change society somewhat.

But I think this should be enough of a concern without having to also make shit up. You can just object to ML on the basis of tangible harms it will be used to inflict on individuals and society. That's plenty to be mad about, you don't need to put lipstick on it.

It's different this time bro trust me bro

Plenty of people sincerely believed that rise of PS was fully automated skill-free art theft and the sky was falling, and pointing out that all the same things were said about the invention of everything from the photocopier to home video to the printing press to the camera didn't even slow them down because this time it's different, this time it really is that bad. It wasn't.

And I honestly don't know anymore if it is.

[loveoaths]

Any controversial Star Wars opinions?

i do not find obi wan attractive. he is just a guy to me. which is why i appreciate him as a character; he’s just some morally upright, posh, at times snippy, well-meaning, anxious, and oh so human guy. i love that he is all those things, but visually he does absolutely fuck-all for me.

on that note: i love the scene in TCW’s series finale between obi wan and ahsoka. lots of people point out that ahsoka isn’t being fair like it’s a failure of the scene/her character, when in reality it’s just like… yeah, that’s how conversations and conflict work. people have agendas. they take cheap shots to get what they want. that entire scene hinges on the different expectations ahsoka, anakin, obi wan, bo katan, and rex all bring to the table not getting voiced or met! that’s why it’s such a good, tense moment! anakin expects ahsoka to come back; ahsoka is avoiding anakin and refusing to get his (or her) hopes up about returning and focusing on mandalore; obi wan sees how ahsoka’s coldness to anakin is hurting him and behaves distantly toward her in turn; bo katan’s cynicism makes her blunt and short-fused; and rex is trying to coordinate everything and settle on an action plan, while also hovering between ahsoka, obi wan, and anakin, the three people he holds strong emotional and military allegiance to. ahsoka and obi wan’s snippiness toward each other, her comments about coruscant, and the lines about her not being fair/“i’m not trying to be” are the entire point. they’re all being forced to choose sides and the outcome isn’t fair because war isn’t fair and what’s about to happen to all of them, the clone, the jedi, the republic, is about to be so violently unfair it changes the course of the entire galaxy. that is the entire point. this feeds into my larger controversial take: focusing on the morality of a character/their actions, rather than the reasoning behind their actions or what a writer is doing for the story by moving a character a certain way, has led to some of the most baffling relationships to media i have ever seen. the trickle-down effect of purity culture has us so focused on aligning ourselves with who is “right” rather than asking ourselves “why would someone make this choice? would i choose the same if i was in their position? how does this choice factor into the work as a whole?” has turned media and literature into the world’s worst sunday school lesson.

i wish people in this fandom would sit with their gut reactions to other peoples’ headcanons and posts before responding to them. so often i see a post like “anakin did a bad thing!” and the notes and reblogs will be a cacophony of people going “but here is the reason he did it and also it’s not his fault!!!!” and while i get the impulse of wanting to defend a character that you love and likely see parts of yourself or people you love in, you’ve missed the point of the post. you’ve assumed they are saying the character is bad, when all they really said was an action was bad. explaining to people the reasons behind the action means nothing. they probably know why the character did it! loving something does not always mean defending it over and over. you can ignore or disagree with someone’s opinion, but if you spend every second debating people, you will make yourself miserable and discourage people from engaging with you.

i’m sure i have more controversial in-universe opinions (for example, i think more human-coded/human-passing characters should have deviations from modern humans, like extra organs and/or biological mutations relating to the planets they’ve settled on) but fandom wank is on my mind today, apparently.

[angels-heap]

It's been a few days and the takes keep getting worse. The discourse surrounding this incredibly important and heartbreaking documentary is one of the reasons I refuse to perpetuate the myth that fandom purity culture wank is "just" a fandom thing.

One day, you're participating in dumbass black-and-white thinking about morally grey fictional characters, and then the next day you're watching actual human beings talk about horrific trauma they experienced (as children!!) and your only response is "I don't think this person deserves a 'redemption arc' because they still did some sketchy shit." (As if you're not talking about a real-ass human being who is also a CSA victim!! Just say you can't stomach the idea of supporting someone who isn't a "perfect victim" and go.)

Or "should we cancel this person? Or un-cancel this person?" (RIP nuance. And is now really the time to have this conversation about, again, a living, breathing human being?)

Or "is it still okay to watch old Nickelodeon shows?" (It's up to you to decide if you still feel comfortable doing that. Choosing to watch the shows does not make you a bad person. Refusing to watch them ever again does not make you a good person. I am begging you to stop viewing media consumption as the ultimate signifier of human morality.)

Or "wow, these people gave up their childhoods so I could have mine." (THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. Do not center yourself in this conversation about real people's trauma!! Also, they didn't "give up" their childhoods in some heroic, self-sacrificing way. Their childhoods were brutally stolen from them and then they continued acting because they wanted to or were forced to. They didn't do any of this for you, you self-centered, internet brain-poisoned asshole.)

I just... listen, I am not and have never been a die-hard fan of any of the people or shows featured in this documentary. I'm not upset about this because of some parasocial relationship or stan-level obsession. I'm upset about this because I care about real human beings more than I care about internet discourse points. I understand how complex and painful these topics are, and seeing people online talk about (and to!!) victims of abuse like they're fictional characters in a fucking children's cartoon disgusts me to my core. Grow the fuck up, log off, and do better.

I know my Half Life blog is not the place for this conversation, so I'm holding back from posting a fucking dissertation here, but goddamn, the lack of nuance and empathy in the conversations surrounding the Nickelodeon documentary is appalling.

[not-poignant]

[1/3] Hi Pia, I wanted to ask u something cuz Im getting shit for an OC Im writing & idk what to do. When I read ur Fae Tales I was v confused by Gwyn&Augus' relationship as I felt like Gwyn hurt more than felt better during their scenes. W time tho I kinda understood that in order for Gwyn to overcome part of his trauma, Augus was having him deal with it by doing stuff that Gwyn hates. Im trying to deal with a similar topic here, but Ive been told that my dom OC is abusive & that its disgusting

[2/3] of me to think abt it as something acceptable. My OC has been abused since he was a kid, both physically & emotionally and he’s now at a poit of his arc where hes desperate to feel better and not disgusted w himself. So he asked his dom to help him break (and he’s v resistent, since he bottled up everything since he was young). Im not writing that the dom enjoys it in any way, but I still get shit like “youre sick, you cant do this, you know nothing abt ptsd”. // [3/3] I really feel bad for this, since I dont wanna pass the message that I condemn abuse in any way. I dont understand whether this is fandom purity or me not doing my research right and fucking up. Also bcos it’s a one-time thing, it’s not something that will go on and continue, since I myself am not comfortable with writing abuse. Idk what to do, can u help me?             

***

It is really tough for me to give advice on something I haven’t read. I mean I kind of…can’t? I can only really give like, very very general advice, to you as a writer, and I’m not sure how helpful it will be.

Like, maybe you are misrepresenting PTSD. Maybe it is coming across a certain way. I can’t tell you whether that’s happening or not. I don’t know if you’re getting any positive comments, or any positive feedback, and I don’t know what fandom you’re in to say whether it’s definitely purity wank (like Dragon Age, where it often is, but still doesn’t mean that some people don’t make good critiques of things).

However, I will say this:

An author has the right to write the scene you’re describing, and even misrepresent PTSD or BDSM or whatever is happening, and it still has a right to exist in the world. That doesn’t mean it will be free from criticism, and if you write controversial or ‘dark’ content, it likely won’t be free from criticism. Them’s the breaks.

You have the right to delete comments, ignore them, or choose to take them on board. And probably some other choices (like taking some of it on board, adding an extra warning in your story like ‘this isn’t a representation of a healthy relationship’ or whatever, and then deleting the comments or ignoring them).

You’re clearly being bullied, and getting personal hate. As soon as someone takes the feedback from ‘this is unhealthy and squicky’ to ‘you’re sick’ - they are erroneously assuming that you are the same as your writing, and that’s not okay. It’s not accurate, not correct, and usually indicates the comment itself is only really fit for the trash. It strongly points towards purity wank bullshit. You don’t have to honour attacks on your personal character, and I strongly believe that folks shouldn’t bother engaging with people who attack their personal character in fic feedback.

I get comments like this on my work sometimes. I delete them. On the very rare occasion I might respond, when I think it’s more valuable for a reader to see a sound, reasoned, non-defensive response that calmly explains what I’m doing in a way that shows both sides of the situation. That’s rare. I just delete them. Once or twice those people have chased me into my inbox, where I block them.

I can’t comment on your story, the quality of your story, or whether you’re achieving what you set out to achieve, or if it’s being done well. I haven’t read it, I can’t do that. The only thing I’d say is make sure that your tags are comprehensive, and if you don’t have one already, maybe consider a warning in your author’s note at the beginning that you’re not trying to write a realistic/healthy relationship and anyone expecting that should exit stage right (or something similar).

I warn for the same with Gwyn and Augus. Honestly you’d think people would know this, being in the fiction tags, but they don’t. Especially people who toe the purity wank line.

I can say that you - as a human being - do not deserve to be personally attacked for what you’re writing, and the delete button is within your reach re: these people’s feedback (if it’s on AO3 anyway). You need to make sure you can look after yourself, and also that you don’t cave to people who cast aspersions on your character. Maybe there are flaws in your fic, all you can do is change that in the future or choose to edit now, if you decide to do neither because you’re not comfortable with abuse, then that’s that. You still have the right to protect yourself from people who are hounding you, and blocking folks who don’t understand one of the most fundamental laws of fanfiction - The First Law of Fandom: ‘Don’t like? Don’t read.’

And maybe take some time to remember what you like about writing fic. Go find some positive comments you’ve had, or read some stories you’re proud of. I’m not sure if any of this stuff helps, because it always hurts a lot to get these kinds of comments, but haters will always exist in the world, and sometimes the most important thing is to just let them know that you won’t tolerate them around the things that you’re creating out of love, for free.

[deacons-wig]

I am not sure how coherent this will be, but I have some Thoughts because my brain won’t leave what is happening in the Fallout New Vegas fandom alone. Major content warning for vile things in the link. This isn’t the first time this shit has come up, and as angry as it makes me, I can’t imagine how traumatizing this is for the Indigenous people in the fandom. 

People of color are not your playthings. 

If you want to write about abusive, toxic, or otherwise unhealthy relationships, fucking go for it. Power fantasy, catharsis, vent, smut, whatever. Don’t like, don’t read is fine. Tag it well so you can avoid harming people who don’t want to see it, etc etc. I don’t know if it's particularly healthy to write or consume and I don’t particularly care because I’m not responsible for anyone’s mental health. I’m fully aware that people who write darkfic are probably capable of separating fantasy from reality, and while fiction does impact reality and reflects how we see the world, pearl-clutching purity culture can impact reality in an equally negative way. The key is critical thinking, and because Tumblr, and social media in general is terminally incapable of fostering this sort of nuance, I don’t really care. I’m a kinky, queer, ace-spec person with scrupulosity-themed OCD, and my brain already spends enough time telling me I’m a horrible person without trying to navigate this minefield. 

Except when people hide their racism behind proshipper discourse. 

The second you start including POC identities into power fantasy, and you’re white or from a dominant racial group that holds significant privilege over other POC—stop it. Just fucking stop. Don’t cry “historical accuracy” or “it’s just fiction, I wouldn’t actually do this or want this to happen to someone.” Ask yourself why you think writing wank-material replicating real world horrors that are happening today is in any way acceptable? Spend some time learning about Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and then ask yourself why the fuck you think genocide is sexy? Because! You’re a bigot and either in denial or you enjoy being one. 

As a white person, I’m happy to educate. I’m happy to reach out in good faith and talk through issues and point out when bias or even outright casual racism shows up in your work. But if you’re really going to double down in the face of being told the content you create is perpetuating cycles of violence, I will be first in line to deplatform your ass and cries of bullying and harassment be damned. Block lists are a public service, and deplatforming is the best way to keep racists out of fandom. Get the fuck outta here.

[straight-to-the-pain]

You reblogged that antis post so I just wanted to be sure, do you support shipping adults with minors?

(To clarify- am asking because the terms are vague and used for multiple things and I didn't want to assume anything)

I was debating whether or not to answer this because frankly ‘support’ is just as vague a term as any other but like, I’m not invested in shipping discourse, I mostly stick to original fiction and stay out of fandom wank.

I reblogged the post in the context of purity culture and people being harassed for using fiction to explore things that they know are immoral and harmful irl. What does shipping mean to you? Does it mean that the characters in question would have a healthy, loving relationship? Or is it a dynamic you think is interesting to consider through a fictional lens?

I don’t care what people want to write about. If we didn’t let people write about bad things that would be the definition of censorship. Creating fictional content doesn’t somehow make you a criminal and it doesn’t equal harm unless you specifically use that content to hurt someone.

If you’re asking me if I supporting pedophilia then, no of course I don’t. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone here who would tell you that they thought that it was fine for adults to date children irl. If you’re asking me if I think that it’s a topic that should never be written about in fiction, frankly I don’t think such a topic exists.

Do I think that context and intent matters? Undoubtedly. But unless a writer is actively saying things and doing things that lead me to believe that they condone the things they write about irl, I’m not going to stop them from creating the fiction they want to create.

I write about torture and murder and rape and civil war and people being abused and hurt and assaulted, all things that I would never support irl. The fact that I enjoy writing and reading about these topics doesn’t make me a bad person. I don’t personally want to engage with any underage nsfw content in an enjoyable context, and it’s not something that I find fun, but I’ve seen it explored well, and I think it’s a topic that has to be written about if we want to be able to understand it and challenge it in the real world too.

We’re all too happy to call people online pedos and never quite willing enough to tackle the abuse that happens in plain sight all around us.

[iamanartichoke]

Aren't u tired of the "Taika hates tom" thing? I don't think its tom. Taika just doesn't like the british

(Sorry anon, I started to answer this last week and then completely forgot about it until last night, bc I was thinking about Tom's apparent lack of attendance at the London Thor 4 premiere.)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't think I ever got invested in any of the "does Taika like Tom y/n?" wank in the first place. I mean, I'm sure I've been snarky about it, but it's not something I gave a great deal of thought or speculation to.

There's a real issue of lack of ability to separate the person from the work, both in fandom and in life. This is not an issue that's limited to just one side of the wank or even just this fandom (I mean, the whole ideology of purity culture stems from the belief that one cannot separate reality from fiction and therefore fiction depicting Certain Things is inherently ~problematic~ and immoral, but that's another conversation), but it's an issue that is at the root of the "Taika vs. Tom" wank.

By that, what I mean is that my perception of Ragnarok is that Taika was, at best, dismissive of Loki as a character and, at worst, actively disliked him. His comments about Loki being a wannabe goth or emo space orphan or whatever, his "jokes" about Loki getting locked in a porta-potty, etc (deleted, but still scripted and filmed) are indicative, I feel, of an overall sense of disdain toward the character - perhaps coupled with a vested interest in actively making Thor look better to compensate for Loki overshadowing Thor in the previous films.

Now, whether or not Taika actually feels that way or if that's just, like, his sense of humor, man is impossible to say; all I can do is speculate based on the evidence presented (ie, the aforementioned comments and deleted scenes).

^^ This is just my opinion, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me or stating that these are definitive facts. What I'm saying, though, is that I am certainly not the only person to have this opinion and when viewing Taika's personal feelings behind-the-scenes through the "ugh, Loki" sort of lens he's put out there, it's very easy to fall into the assumption that Taika dislikes or hates Tom, or that Taika and his bff Chris were sort of "conspiring" against Tom to ensure he/Loki didn't steal the show again, etc. when that may not be the case at all.

We don't know. We don't know what these people's feelings are - we can parse things from what they say publicly, but even public statements are filtered for, yknow, consumption by the public and aren't necessarily 100% factual, either. Additionally, we don't know what happens behind-the-scenes, we don't know what happens in negotiations and what happens once the execs get their hands on the product or who's ultimately responsible for what, and how. And this is the case for all entertainment, not just the Thor franchise and not just Marvel.

When you're enmeshed in fandom, it's easy to let the lines between person and product get blurred; it's easy to get so invested in these people that we feel like we know them - we're on a "first name basis" irt how we refer to them, their lives and their work is on public display, and we are increasingly living in a world that wants to categorize everything as black or white. All of which makes wank like "Taika hates Tom" flourish. (And, incidentally, is what makes the anti "anyone involved with the Loki series" wank flourish in its spaces, as well, like for example how some people prefer to believe Mike Waldron or whomever made a shitty series bc he had a personal vendetta against Loki bc of Reasons, rather than believe what is more likely the truth: dude's a mediocre writer and part of a larger team that set out to explore the character in ways that are inconsistent with previous characterization [which is kind of the point, though, in that the whole premise is Loki as a variant; I digress] and regardless of the fans' emotional responses, the motivation is Not That Deep.)

Which was an awful lot of word vomit to basically say yes, I am tired of the "Taika hates Tom" thing but in my defense I didn't put much stock in it in the first place; however, I understand where it came from and why it's still a Thing in this fandom, so it just ... it is what it is.

As for Taika not liking the British, well, I'm pretty sure that's an entirely separate conversation but also, again, this is an assumption of Taika's feelings based on limited interpretation of his public words and action and whether or not it has any merit is anyone's guess.

Incidentally, all of that aside, no one has to like anyone else. Sometimes people just don't vibe and neither side is wrong for that. So make of that what you will, too.

[sokkastyles]

I saw your recent posts about Iroh and Ursa regarding Azula. Why do you think people are so quick to judge the adults in AtLA like that? Is it because people have heard many stories of “abusive, negligent” or imperfect parenting and so seeing this causes a knee jerk/hair trigger response?

Regarding Azula as a victim and seemingly ignoring that she is an antagonist and therefore designed to be bad. Is it a sense of virtuous morality? Is it people trying to act in the belief that every person no matter how bad deserves sympathy and a chance for mercy and redemption? Does it have to do with the fact that people want are acting out of a desire to see true equality? That seeing villainous women is harmful to women as a whole? And therefore somehow misogynistic?

I think there are a lot of different reasons, and I can't say definitively what other people are thinking, but on the misogyny thing first. There ARE definite criticisms you can make with the portrayals of the female characters on the show, but blaming the characters or insisting that the narrative is actually telling a different story altogether doesn't address those criticisms, just sidesteps them, which is why a lot of these discussions are just bad faith wank.

I do want to say, though, that the idea that "seeing villainous women is harmful to women as a whole" is pure bunk. Yes, there are legitimate complaints to make about trends in media, particularly when it comes to female villains and how their villainy is gendered, however, the idea that women just being villains in general is somehow harmful is itself quite misogynistic. Looking at media through a feminist lens ALSO means advocating for good female villains, for letting women be bad in the same ways men can be. Because women are people, it means that some women are also bad. Not all women are kind or nurturing, some women are hateful and mean and they don't see anything wrong with their behavior or secretly have good intentions.

I do think that in some cases it's people being overly optimistic in the "everyone has the potential to be good / deserves sympathy" kind of way, although being good or having the potential for goodness and being worthy of sympathy are not the same thing. For example, I would say that Azula is sympathetic, but that doesn't make her a good person. That's the kinder interpretation, if you believe that these fans are well-meaning individuals who want to be optimistic about the media they consume. The problem with these individuals, though, is that they can't handle anything with a conflict darker than My Little Pony. I touched on this in my last post but I also think it's related to people rewatching shows they grew up with only to discover that the original media did not age with them, and they expect it to. Not that I think there is anything wrong with adults engaging in kids' shows, but I do think that there are a lot of adults in fandom who exclusively consume children's media which they expect to cater to them, explicitly. So you wind up with this bizarre dichotomy where fans demand that there has to be a happy ending but also every conflict is made into Serious Business. That's how you get so many interpretations of kids' shows that insist that the characters are all abusive war criminals, but these same fans will scorn media that actually deals with those topics in adult ways.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying adults can't consume media meant for kids. I love ATLA and I also think there is value in consuming all sorts of media, and obviously I am an adult. But I don't expect ATLA or any other children's property to take the place of adult media and I don't engage with it as if it's a story meant for adults. I consume a wide variety of media so that I have different flavors depending on what my needs are at the moment. I don't need ATLA to be everything all at once.

The more pressing issue, and where I think this kind of thinking leads eventually, is in purity culture and the way some people engage in fandom in a way that's overly focused on virtue signaling and performative activism. Because the thing about purity culture is that it's always an "us vs them" mentality. In order to prove you are pure, you have to prove that someone else is impure. A lot of "feminists" in fandom spaces who are deep into this kind of mindset fall into the belief - strongly linked to radical feminism - that women are inherently good and men are inherently bad. A lot of people who make excuses for female villains repeat purity culture and radfem talking points. I've referred to this before as "me feminism" because it's "feminist" in that it focuses on one single woman, usually the woman making the arguments. Azula deserves redemption because Azula suffered, the narrative is misogynistic because it doesn't validate Azula or make excuses for her behavior. Never mind that Azula not only abuses her brother, but her female friends as well. Never mind that she's a violent racist imperialist who believes in power by birthright. Never mind that her "winning" involves stepping on the backs of other women and marginalized people.

This kind of "feminism" is popular in online circles because it's tempting, it focuses on what you deserve. It's also largely missing the point of the show in order to make a bad faith interpretation. A lot of people who engage with ATLA in this way act as if the sympathy built into Azula's narrative is accidental, because they believe the show is against her. Which misses that you can have sympathy for a villainous character but still want to see them defeated because they were ultimately wrong. Just because we feel sorry for Azula doesn't mean she gets to be forgiven. And the reason a lot of people push back against the kind of "redemption" Azula's stans often advocate for is because it is always focused on her and what she deserves and never about the people she hurt.

It's nice to say "if only they could get along" but people have to understand that the reason Zuko and Azula, for example, cannot get along is because she keeps hurting him and still thinks she's better than him even after her breakdown and defeat. I've seen a lot of posts about how Zuko should realize what Azula suffered but have NEVER seen a post about how Azula should realize the same about Zuko, and that is an immediate red flag because Azula was always the aggressor in their relationship. Yes, she did it because Ozai conditioned her to behave that way, but she internalized the attitude that Zuko was lesser and deserves to be mistreated. Zuko never felt that way about Azula. As I said before, there is an inherent power imbalance that needs to be addressed before Zuko and Azula can have a relationship with each other, and it is NOT on the person with less power to fix that relationship, and treating it that way increases the likelihood that the person with less power continues to be mistreated.

And therein lies the issue. Feminism that focuses on the individual is always going to be about maintaining inherent power imbalances because it makes us feel good. Azula doesn't WANT to give up the power she has over Zuko and a lot of women, especially young women online get into performative activism because it means they don't have to examine the privileges they have. If all men are bad, it means you can feel oppressed without having to realize that oppression is intersectional and all men and women experience privilege and lack of privilege in various ways, because sex-based oppression isn't the only kind of oppression. If the show is against Azula because of misogyny, though, it means we don't have to consider how her actions are bad, and it mirrors the way many people in real life who call themselves feminists can and do use social justice rhetoric to abuse others and uphold oppressive systems.

I'm not saying I think all Azula fans are attracted to the character because of this, but enough of them are that it gives me serious pause.

[cockneydio]

As residents ‘giorno is a bitch’ meta writer how do you think he would run the mafia ten to twenty years post canon? In other words what so you think he’ll do with all that human and sex trafficking, the organ blackmarket, and the sweatshops? They don’t exactly fit with either his or Bruno’s dream, but his mafia still needs to make money, especially if he does get rid of drugs...

So....

It's incredibly important to understand right fucking here and now that Giorno Glitterati Giovanna doesn't give a single shit about cleaning up all the dirty bad no no drugs and sex and other stuff the mafia does. It's THE MAFIA. Like. I feel silly pointing that out every time we talk about these characters?? But Passione is a criminal organization. It exists to exercise order and control over the illicit industries in and around Naples, and, presumably, as far as Giorno can expand his power and reach.

Vento Aureo wasn't Giorno's campaign for mayor of Naples. He wasn't fighting to rid the town of the scourge of Diavolo and Passione as a whole, after which he would return as the people's savior to usher in a new age of light and righteousness. It's how a lot of people interpret the story, and to be fair, it's how the story is presented, with Giorno as the HeroTM. But that's the rose-colored view. The Joestar journey, like all the others before it... except this time, the fight for justice is a no-win situation. Because when this Joestar returns from his journey, he becomes a crime kingpin, and we saw just how far he was willing to go to make that happen, so we know he'll stop at nothing to hold onto the power he's gained.

There are no good guys in Part 5. This is so incredibly important to understand about this part, which makes all the moral purity fandom wank this past year especially absurd. No one in the mafia is good. Even Bucciarati, who I believe Araki intends to be a fundamentally good person, has so much blood on his hands. The whole VA cast are tainted souls with varying potential for redemption, some victims of shitty circumstances but all conscious actors in their current ones. We're given a set of characters to root for - Bucciarati's gang, the Protagonists - but we can't mistake them for Heroes. Unfortunately, a good 95% of the fandom has.

Which is all to say this:

Giorno Giovanna has a dream - to become a Gang⭐️Star, and take over the mafia. That's it. His whole goal, what he's fighting for, what Bruno and Abbacchio and Narancia (and La Squadra and Diavolo and god knows who else) die for. He's not doing it so that he can make Naples a better place, or make the organization more fair and equitable. He's a bad kid already, and he wants to be the king of bad kids. Fate smiles at him on the day he meets Bruno, because he notices the weakness in Bruno - that kid with the track marks on his arm. It's the opportunity of a lifetime, and Giorno seizes it for all it's worth.

He tells Bruno:

"There are people in this city who would sell drugs to kids. They're unforgivable. That's what you believe. But the one selling those drugs is your boss. You can't help but feel conflicted about that. That's why your heart ached when you saw his arm.

"...In order to get rid of gangs that sell drugs to children, I'm going to have to become a gangster myself."

Stopping the fight was a bluff, and Bucciarati fell for it hook, line, and sinker (heh). It was an easy sell, then, to say to Bucciarati, in the same breath, "I won't kill you, you're a good person, you think drugs are bad, so let me join the mafia and I'll do something about it [because you can't]."

Giorno Giovanna has no qualms about drugs at all whatsoever. He won't stop selling them. Not to honor Bruno, not for any reason. They're an income leader for the organization. Maybe he'll make a rule about not selling within a hundred yards of a school or whatever, or not recruiting ten-year-olds as pushers?? Because it would make Passione look good to the community, like he was keeping the scourge of drugs away from kids. But is he really? Of course fucking not.

What Giorno does for Passione is bring it into the daylight. Make it seem like the organization the people can trust and rely on. Do illegal things with tacit approval of the people entrusted to uphold the law. That's the truest way he can honor Bucciarati's legacy, and that's what makes Don Giovanna so dangerous.

[golden-witch]

So, uuh, does shipping BatBeato count as incest shipping or does her being a fictional witch abstracted from the actual, dead-and-buried-at-the-bottom-of-the-sea Sayo make Golden Land Smooching Hours okay? Like the second reborn Beato is essentially still Beato at the end of the day so I'm having conflicted feelings here. I think the page crashed the first time I clicked send so I hope I'm not spamming you here orz

I think its largely up to individual fans to decide how they feel about the incest implications of beabato and to consider why they ship the characters. Most fans of BeaBato aren't drawn to the ship bc theyre attracted to the relationship taboo. Without talking abt ~fandom purity culture~, I think youre pretty safe shipping an unrealistic and fantastical pairing that happens to be, for convoluted reasons, incest-- survivors of that kind of abuse probably do not see their trauma reflected in a relationship where two ppl had no idea they were related, fell in love, then committed a double suicide. Incest pairings in fandom spaces are usually premised around moral transgressions as fetish. Cousin/Yasu pairings seem more like Greek tragedy rather than a nasty sinnamon roll fandom wank rag. Kind of like how Oedipus prophetically fell in love w his mom and that sucked and led to his demise but we arent writing callout posts for fans of Sophocles bc ppl understand the unbelievable story is not perpetuating societal harm...

Please dont feek guilty or ashamed for liking a relationship that has some toxic aspects. You probably dont ship them for the "wrong reasons" and you probably arent shipping the other family members bc you think the same logic applied to Battler/cousin ships should apply to like Rosa/Eva or Battler/Ange. I think thats what counts the most.

I hope this amswers your question! You didnt spam my askbox, and I would never get mad abt something like that. I rly enjoy talking to my followers, so feel free to send me more asks or dm me if ya wanna chat again!!

[btsinwonderland]

A Drop of Poison - Ch. 1: The Beginning

A Loki fanfiction!

Next Chapter

Full Chapter List

---------------------------------

It’s your third week back in school and you're slumped over a tower of textbooks as some kind of makeshift pillow. Your head rests on the 394th page of “The Dream Oracle” where you’ve begun to drool. You raise a hand to wipe it away, which takes up nearly as much energy as trying to stay awake.

It was cold in the dark.

Chills ran up your arms, from your fingertips to your neck as you floated through the darkness. It was frightening the first few times you dreamt of it but now it was familiar. The cavern formed slowly as your eyes adjusted to the minimal light emitted by a fire below you. Small sticks and papers created a meager flame which reflected off the black pool of water you looked into. You always wondered who made the fire, but there was never anyone there.

In the centre of the cavern was a small lake, its ripples moved like serpents. On queue, your body flew over to the middle of the lake and dove in. You swam - more like sunk - to the bottom. It may have enveloped you in utter darkness, but you saw the glow. The bluish light of the object drew you in like a moth to a flame and you reached out for it. Once again, you were thrown out of the lake just as you were about to touch it.

You looked around at the empty cavern and noticed the shadows moving. This was new. Usually, you woke up as soon as the lake threw you out.

Near the shore, by a dangerous jut of rock, there was a man. He was tall, with raven black hair and a proud nose. His expression was one of wonder and fear. There was a green light that emerged from his hands and he waved this light in front of him and beside him, almost erratically, as if he was warning someone - or something - to stay away.

“Don’t come near me!” he shouted. It echoed through the cavern.

You came closer and recoiled at what he was speaking to. Every dark shadow was, in fact, a body. The green light that the man emitted showed their decaying, pale faces. These bodies moved towards him. Not a sound, but each expression was contorted painfully. Their bony hands reached out to him, and he threw a green ball of fire at them. Some flew backwards into the lake, but there were so many.

They surrounded him. You saw him put up the fight of his life, and yet they came closer still. Until he had nowhere to run. You reached out to try to help him, but your body was already being pulled away. The last thing you heard was him scream your name, “Freya!”

Hands slapped onto the desk, and your head bounced on the pages.

“My god, have you been sleeping here this whole time?” An annoyingly familiar voice said. “You wouldn’t believe it! They’re finally getting a replacement for Professor Rattowl.”

It took several seconds for you to remember where you were. You lifted your head and look into a pair of inquisitive brown eyes and an aloof expression.

Her hair was braided on the sides and drawn into a high ponytail. Her robes were wrinkled as usual. “Valkyrie, how did you find me in the Hufflepuff common room? I specifically told Thomas to throw you off.” Your voice was thick with sleep.

Valkyrie snorted. “Thomas is a fool for a flirty conversation. You’d think that boy had never had a wank before…”

The memory of the dream hit you, and your heart sank. “Valkyrie, I saw something.”

She glanced at you and then to the wall of the hallway. A long shadow approached swiftly. “Oh shit, the prefect!”

“Quick! Hide!” You said to Valkyrie, pointing her to the coat closet.

A gleaming head of blonde hair turned around the corner and walked towards you. His eyebrows were raised, and he adjusted his rectangular glasses, glaring at you. You tried not to look guilty.

“Eves, what are you doing? This is a quiet area, and I heard voices.” he walked around your desk, looking around suspiciously.

“I must have fallen asleep. I had a poor sleep last night so…”

“Hmmm,” he said, walking near the coat closet.

You held your breath as he reached for the brass door handle. “You know we don’t allow any other houses in our quarters, Eves.”

“Of course.”

He turned to you, reaching away from the handle. “Then you also should know we don’t condone dirtying the sacred pages of our texts,” he said, gesturing at your books with a frown. “Clean this up and head to the Great Hall. Headmistress Frigga has announcements to make.”

He left, adjusting his glasses again but with his shoulders straightened out as if he had done a good job. You wondered if he would pat himself in the back afterwards.

Valkyrie all but crashed out of the closet and mocked Gerald. “Sacred texts! What a prat.”

You chuckled as she took a chair beside you. “Sacred or not, this damned thing cost me twenty galleons!” You wiped the drool away with the sleeve of your robe. The inside was a warm yellow. You glanced at Valkyrie. “How do you keep sneaking into our common room?”

She winked at you with a mischievous smile. “I have my ways, my sweet innocent Hufflepuff darling,” she said, reaching out and patting you on the head. “I wouldn’t dare want to corrupt your purity with treasonous talk.”

You punched her in the arm. “You are a jock in the land of intellectuals,” you said with a smirk, glancing at her red and gold tie.

She linked her arm through yours and dragged you away from the desk. “Alright alright, miss intellectual, now that you’ve stopped drooling, let’s go eat.”

***

The great hall was washed in the warm light of the candles that hung beautifully in the air above you. It was a sight that had never ceased to amaze you, no matter how many times you saw it. The flames flickered in a soft dance. You followed the path of candles over to the head table where all your professors sat.

Professor Odinson was there, with his chiseled youthful face that made all the ladies, Valkyrie in particular, swoon. He was a handsome man, though he did not occupy your thoughts as often as he did for others. Beside him was Professor Sif, laughing humorously at something Professor Odinson said. Then there was Professor Fandral nodding and smiling at Professor Hogun - whom you guessed was discussing the riveting growth cycles of the mandrake.

Headmistress Frigga was in the middle, in her silvery blue robes with sequins sewn into intricate patterns. Her aura was one of a Queen, with a gentle and kind face. On her one side there was an empty seat and on the other side was Heimdall, the divination professor, with whom she was in a deep discussion with. His sunset coloured eyes drifted around the room before settling on you. He always knew. You smiled back and waved at him. He nodded, though his expression was strained, perhaps even troubled.

For a moment you wondered if he knew what you had dreamed. Heimdall was one of the greatest seers of your time, and you happened to be his favourite student. He already knew of your repetitive dreams regarding the cavern, but you needed to tell him about the strange development - and the mysterious man you saw. Most of the time your dreams were fuzzy, but you remembered his face with an aggressive lucidity. Blue eyes that reflected the green magic in his hands before they disappeared into darkness remained on your mind. You took a deep breath and pushed it away.

“Did they already do the first years?” You said aloud to your table.

Mo, a fellow seventh year Hufflepuff, nodded. “Yep, and I guessed about 25/30, not bad, eh?”

You smiled at him and turned around to Valkyrie, who was right behind you, seated at the Gryffindor table. She winked at you when delicious food marvellously populated the table and you all tucked in. She filled her plate and then roughly rocked Mo to the side and sat down beside you.

“What were you saying about Rattowl?” You said, biting into a chicken hand pie. The rich flavour of creamy peas and carrots filled your mouth, and you reveled in it for a brief moment.

Valkyrie had half a mouthful of sausage and chewed loudly. “Well, it’s been what? A month since he croaked?”

A Hufflpuff girl across from you both, Nila, balked at Valkyrie. “How can you say that? He was...killed.” She could barely say the last word.

Valkyrie gave her a look. “What? It don’t make no difference, does it?”

Nila huffed indignantly. Mo interjected. “Well, it’s not every day a professor disappears for three weeks, only to be found ripped apart in the Forbidden Forest.”

You all wrinkled your noses in a few seconds of awkward silence. He was right. It was a bizarre and terrible thing to have happened. You had no love for Professor Rattowl. He was a cranky old man with awful manners, but he did not deserve such a fate.

Valkyrie said, “Well I heard that the Headmistress’s son is going to be the new potions teacher.”

You raised your brows. “Professor Odinson has a brother?”

Valkyrie’s eyes lit up at the mention of him. “If there are two Thor Odinson’s, then I will die this very moment.”

You, Mo, and Nila rolled your eyes at her when the doors crashed open in an echoing sound. All the chatter in the Great Hall was silenced when a lean and tall figure in a black cloak strolled into the room. His languid pace revealed a streak of arrogance - or confidence - as he walked down the hall, towards the head table. He walked between the Gryffindor and Hufflepuff tables and slowly removed his hood.

You audibly gasped when you saw the raven haired man with his high cheekbones and proud nose. His blue eyes snapped towards you, and you felt your face heat up in seconds. He kept his eyes on you briefly before looking back at the head table. You breathed again once he was well past you.

Valkyrie looked at you questioningly. She whispered, “what’s going on?”

You could not take your eyes off of him and whispered back, “later.”

Everybody at the table rose, and Headmistress Frigga spoke with her wand pointed at her neck. “We will never forget our dear Professor Hubert Rattowl and the legacy he leaves here. The tragedy of his passing will remain a bitter memory in the long colourful history of Hogwarts. It has been a terrible time trying to fill this role, and our surprise guest has been gracious enough to accept our invitation. Professor Loki Laufeyson’s entrance may give you a taste into his exciting curriculum as the new Potions Master.” She gave him a warm smile.

He walked over to his seat and placed his hands on the table to look out at the students. There was something both inviting and dangerous about him. You could not look away.

He smiled widely and raised his hands. “Your potions saviour is here!”

The students clapped and eventually broke into applause. The Slytherin table was particularly ecstatic. There was no mistaking what house he belonged to. He looked at every table with a wide grin, a mischievous gleam in his eyes. They rested on you and your heart stopped. They flickered away, and he moved on before sitting down as the Headmistress continued her announcements.

Your hands were still clasped together in mid clap as you looked at the same man that was in your dream. His screams echoed in your mind and you wondered if this was all a nightmare. Regardless, it was going to be an interesting semester.