#don’t even say or tell me that I should ignore it either cause racism and insensitivity should be brought to light not ignored

[ghastlybirdie]

N-no… no this is not comedy

[bohemian-nights]

i’m so excited for part two, i’m skipping all the way to end to see masali like idc about anything else! and i have no doubt in my mind that she’s sophie, you can tell her and luke are a perfect chemistry match without even seeing them together like i need this fandom to be fr…. also i expect her role announcement and a season 4 benedict season announcement by 9AM EST from netflix!

Quite frankly it’s because of how disgustingly anti-Black these “leakers” have been that is keeping me from believing them. The ring leaders behind this have either outright said they don’t want Sophie to be Black or have weaponized homophobia and in some cases racism(which is ironic given these people are racist pieces of shit) to silence Black women when we call them out for them ignoring the obvious signs that they have cast a Black woman in the role of Sophie Beckett(and that woman is likely Masali) and how problematic it would be to cast a dark skinned Black woman in a masculine role.

And yes, I do have screenshots in case anybody thinks I’m fucking exaggerating:

Lets start with anyyyyb. She’s deleted her account, but this is the one with the Irish journalist “source”(lie because no journalist had access to those episodes on May 16th when she posted her “spoilers”). Despite that though she claimed that Michaela was John’s sister(lie cause John is a confirmed only child) and that she didn’t know who Masali is. Which was another lie because she wrote this under my mutals post almost a month before part 1 even aired:

I’m pretty sure that she was Cass the morons “source” because anyyyyb was the first of the new “leakers” who mentioned the sister thing and Cass self-admitted to not knowing if her source is credible or not:

This same woman dared to get pissy when she was called out for blatantly lying(sister thing) and spreading shit that hasn’t and will never be confirmed which caused Masali to be unnecessarily attacked:

Cass has independently been trying to push the Michaela “theory”(which is a name made up by the fandom) for a while now because her dumb ass thinks all Black people look alike:

Mind you the woman in the carriage is a crew member(Shanika Ocean) who doesn’t even have the same skin tone as Masali(she’s lighter), Masali also has never been seen on set, but Cass the moron thinks they are the same woman because they are both Black.

And if that’s not enough for you she also wrote this when people were calling her ignorant behind out to try and save face:

The other Tumblr account that claims to have a Netflix employee camped in their inbox willing to feed them info and risk losing their job in today’s economy to do so, is a racist and a colorist who has been against Sophie Beckett being Black since September at the least. She tried to play it cool, but the day part 1 came out she started spazzing the fuck out when people didn’t automatically believe her lies I mean leaks, and said this:

She like anyyyyb has been pushing for an Asian woman to play Sophie which is okay, but when you start saying there are “too many Black people” on a show produced by a Black woman, that she needs to stop casting Black people, and that is why Sophie “can’t be Black” you have lost your fucking mind.

Bitch doesn't think its okay for a Black woman to play Cinderella who gets her prince in the end, but she's a okay with a Black woman playing a role meant for a man where shell have to chase after a while woman and will not be afforded the fairytale happy ending every other woman. Sure Jan, you definitely care about Black women 👍🏽

Again, if that wasn't enough, she’s a fucking colorist because in her racist mind, Indians aren't Asian 🤷🏽‍♀️

Her ass has also tried to use a variation of all Black people look alike just like Cass the fucking Moron to connect Masali to Victor Ali ever since she learned who Masali was back in December/January.

(If she hasn’t deleted it yet like the goofy ass remedial bitch she is it should still be up on her little hate blog).

I could say way more about this one and leak her twitter and her other tumblr(which I know she’ll try to crawl back to once she’s fucking called out for what she is), and there are also the twitter people who I’m sure are feeding “intel” to Cass and both tumblr accounts meanwhile their alleged “source” hasn’t seen all the episodes, but I’ll it there for now.

All I’ll say is that these “rumors” are being fueled by butthurt anti-Black racists who have never wanted Masali to be Sophie and the fandom is so gung-ho about believing these cave dwellers because they too are racist pieces of shit.

Why they are watching a Shonda Rhimes production and begging her to stop casting Black people, her own people, in lead roles I will never know….

Because I’m not a fucking butterface racist ass bitch who has nothing better to do with my life than to try and tear another race down and dictate what they do just to feel better about my pathetic existence.

The fact of the matter is no one has posted shit other than anonymous messages or claiming they know someone or they know someone who knows someone. The fact that these people can’t post a still or audio recording yet they all supposedly have evidence and have seen shit…

[stranger-rants]

people think about racism in a... weird way, let me tell you that. it's either you are, or you aren't. that's a problem because of the way systemic and ingrained racism is built in the roots of our society. people have done racist things out of ignorance or any number of factors and people will continue to do so, even people we admire. people fall into pipelines as kids, people commit microaggressions that they genuinely do not understand, people share racist memes because they don't see the dogwhistles/ don't understand the severity and only think of it "as a joke", whatever.

thing is, billy could be completely innocent in his eyes. he could believe that he genuinely hurt lucas to protect max and nothing else. but his actions still contribute to racism. and it's fine to acknowledge that. whether he was raised to have racist biases, doesn't think of himself as racist but still carries these beliefs subconsciously, or he genuinely isn't, it doesn't really matter because his actions were harmful and they hurt lucas. and again, it's okay to acknowledge that.

i wish people wouldn't really swing the pendulum one way or the other, you know? there's a lot of complexity here. people either characterize him as a violent racist who chose to torment lucas incessantly, or an innocent boy who did nothing wrong. fellow people of colour can have their interpretations, but i like it when the complex nuances are actually acknowledged. billy, whatever he was thinking (even if he was justified or innocent in his eyes), still did something racist, and that's still something he can atone for by apologizing and working to amend his errors. it's not okay, but he can change for the better and do good.

i simply think characterizing him as a violent abusive racist is damaging overall. it paints a very specific picture of racism that renders every other form of harmful discrimination obsolete, especially subtler forms. people think racism can only exist in violent people with hate in their heart, and that's simply not true. anyone can say or do racist things. anyone can cause harm and further perpetuate hurt to the people around them. anyone can thus apologize for these things, grow, and change for the better. as people of colour, it shouldn't be our job to rehabilitate or soothe people who did racist things, but growth they choose is a net good. and acknowledging racism as something that exists outside of plain evil bigots works to tackle the very ingrained racism in our world. just think that's important to consider for everyone, and it makes me happier now that i've understood billy like this, because i don't like viewing the world in such a strict, rigid moral way.

I agree. There is a lot of nuance to the conversation that gets ignored one way or another. It’s easier for people to identify overt racism that manifests in physical violence, but not so much racism that manifests in institutional violence. While I am white and I don’t think it’s my place to tell fans of color how they should feel about Billy, I think a lot of white fans are unwilling to confront the ways in which they are racist and/or contribute to institutional racism. They think that as long as they like the right characters and perform allyship then they can absolve themselves of their own bigotry. Regardless of race, I think fans need to also confront how their own traumas impact their world view because a lot of people use trauma as an excuse to perpetuate institutional harm.

What Billy says and does can be triggering to people for different reasons, and I don’t fault people for that. However, we can’t just use our own traumas to ignore his or ignore the context of his words and actions. If you don’t take the time to contextualize his behavior then you will never understand how to address it. Yet, there are so many people who don’t want to contextualize his behavior because that would require uncovering really uncomfortable truths about society… and themselves. I think a lot of hateful reactions to Billy stem from people’s own guilt and shame and in performing such hate for this fictional person, they are “checking” themselves. Making themselves feel good. It’s much much harder to think, hey, I might have been a bigoted person in my youth and it takes hard work to unlearn it.

That’s why people are comfortable taking a pro-punishment, pro-carceral stance when it comes to “dealing with” Billy’s racism even when that very mindset stems from institutional racism. It doesn’t emphasize growth and change, which are entirely possible with a teenage boy who was surviving abuse at the time they said and did those hurtful things. It emphasizes violence as a solution, which is how institutions already respond to marginalized people who are perceived to have done something wrong - with violence. This isn’t to say people can’t or shouldn’t defend themselves from racists or racism. It’s specifically this idea that Billy needs to be eternally punished for his actions even when he hasn’t shown himself to be a bigot that doesn’t resolve racism but rather feeds into it.

These people don’t want to admit that they’re doing harm or perpetuating cycles of violence themselves, so they need to be right. They need to feel good about hating him, and they need to perpetuate this false idea that people are static individuals who cannot change. You either are a bigot or you’re not to them, and I think feeling the need to defend their investment in such a character many people who like him feel the need to call Billy’s actions something other than racism. It’s still racism. You can be racist without being a card carrying member of the KKK or a neo-nazi. It’s important to acknowledge that, but it also is important to acknowledge that you can learn from that and grow and change as a person. That is what ends the “cycle.” Not more institutional violence.

[blue-jayyy8657]

(somewhat) LONG ASS POST!! redoing my about me post so i can pin it and look interesting:

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

heya:) i’m jay, and this is my blog,, where i do really just whatever the fuck i want and say whatever strikes me as interesting or funny at the time. welcome!! really all im gonna do here is kinda say a lot of random things, go on hyperfixation rants, talk about my creature moments, and occasionally sprinkle in things about my life that i feel must be shared….. and basically all i really wanna do with this blog is just make my own little,,, Place in The World……. like somewhere i can just kind of Be Myself? i guess? so here i guess this is my attempt at that lmaoo

ummm things i should prrrrobably say about myself to either make me more interesting or just kind of warn about:

- i have adhd and all the fun side effects that come with it :P

- maybe asd but im not entirely sure yet? i’m doing my research i promise promise promise

- pronouns: it/he/neos (+they, but preferably the ones i already mentioned)

- sometimes i use Random Capitalization to Emphasize my Point and that’s Funny To Me

- if you wanna talk to me or ask me something or whatever, just,,,, ask!! normally i’m really shitty at responding to asks and stuff but i promise i’m trying and not ignoring you, it’s just im really really bad at it and i think it’s just my executive dysfunction so….. sorry about that lmao but im tryingggg

- I LOVE EDITING STORIES AND THINGS - if you or someone you know is looking for a beta author or really anyone to just read your shit, i would absolutely fucking love to i promise

- i am transmasc genderqueer !! really doesn’t need much of an explanation ig?? that’s just part of who i am and i feel like it should be made aware of lmao

- if you send me an ask, i promise promise promise i’ll try to respond but i’m really not good at it so if i don’t respond to it i’m really sorry but i either can’t find a way to respond or i Forgor and i apologize ;;

- if you don’t like me or something i say or embody, just don’t interact with me? i don’t feel like i should need to say this but just in case,, like just don’t be rude? i will just block you so there’s really not a point but like… just don’t be an ass i guess

- more bullets as ideas warrant i suppose? i’m definitely gonna have more ideas it’s just i’m kinda sick rn so everything’s a bit fuzzy lmfao

my current list of special interests i will most likely post about/reblog posts about:

supernatural, marble hornets, neurodivergency/disabilities, horror, aesthetics (mainly dirtcore, crowcore, goblincore, grungecore, etc), five nights at freddys - movie AND the games!!, detroit: become human, LIST WILL PROBABLY BE UPDATED AND CHANGED AS MY INTERESTS EBB AND FLOW LIKE THE TIDES

MY DNIS:

if you’re just gonna be mean, don’t even bother like just don’t. i’m not gonna do shit with you, i’m probably just gonna block you and i don’t wanna like start shit. also homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, pedophilia, all the good shit - please also just….. don’t. um, i might add more but really i don’t honestly have any specifics, just if you’re gonna be an asshole just like stop lmao idk what to tell you i just Don’t Like You so go away?? thank yewwwww <3

but anyways, i think that’s it? at least until i decide to add more cause i don’t like the way i wrote things ……. i know this will happen because idk man it always does lmao :P hopefully i seem interesting or at least somewhat confusing?? maybe???? yeah but anyways imma shut up now so HAVE A GOOD WHATEVER-TIME-IT-IS !!!1!!!!11!!!

[snifflesthemouse]

This morning, I read an article titled “I went undercover in the sinister world of Meghan Markle hate accounts" posted to Refinery 29. The title gives the impression of a journalist disguising one’s self as a “Meghan Markle hater” for the sake of getting to the bottom of something. However, the content of the article is nothing like its title.

Before I go further, let me stress the importance of perspective. My post isn’t an attack on the article’s author. I’ve never even heard of the author before now, and I’ve no right or reason to attack a perfect stranger because I vehemently disagree with the content of their work. Making assumptions about someone solely on what they write is lazy and sloppy in my opinion. I may be lazy and sloppy, but a hypocrite I try not to be. Therefore, go forward remembering my issues are with content, not creator.

The article starts out explaining the origins of the term “Megxit”. It continues with other hashtags, conspiracy theories, and so on. The article even mentions various media platforms “attacking" the Duchess, as well as crude posts witnessed by the author.

Then the name dropping begins. First with Murky Meg, then Sue Blackhurst, then According2Taz, then Skippyv20 on Tumblr, then Yankee Wally. Eventually, names of Royal Rota journalists are dropped. Then people like Angela Levin and Omid Scobie get mentioned, with interviews from the latter. Instead of an undercover sting, we get a “Who’s Who" of Megxit, a few anonymous Sussex Squad quotations, and Omid trying his best to be fair.

What this article accomplishes is very little when it comes to objectivity. The title is a misconception, and the content essentially paints targets on the backs of the people the author carelessly considers “Meghan Markle Haters". The article reduces anyone who disagrees with Meghan’s behavior as racist, misogynist, conspiracy theorist nutters. So, not only is the content of the article sloppy and lazy, it also lacks originality. We’ve all heard this sad song-and-dance number a million times.

I guess at face value, it becomes very easy, effortless really, for outsiders looking in to reduce an entire group of people with similar views to the basic stereotypes as old as time. It takes very little thought, consideration, or critical analysis, to assume things because they seem to correlate. But correlation is not causation. Just because some people opposing of Meghan Markle’s behavior happen to be racist doesn’t mean every single opposing person is also racist. Again, lazy and sloppy.

Just like assuming every single Meghan Markle fan is also vegan, anti-monarchy, feminist, woke warriors is downright sloppy and lazy. This author has personally interacted with and found common ground with Sussex Squad people many times. Some even became social media friends. They believe what they do, and I believe what I do. We do not agree with most things regarding Harry and Meghan, but we do agree to disagree and be civil.

So, contrary to the article, not all people “hate" Meghan Markle just because they detest her behavior. It’s important to remember extremes exist for all spectrums. Every topic, especially those politicized or made popular by media platforms, have extremes. There is no denying the fact that there are people who hate Meghan Markle because of her ethnicity. Those extremists who hate Meghan for her ethnicity ironically do not discriminate, though. If they hate her for her ethnicity, they hate ALL people of that same ethnicity.

On the flip side of this coin, is the other extreme. The face is the same on each side because the face represents extremism. There is no denying the fact that there are extremists who see anyone opposing Meghan as racists. Extremists who, by default, view every issue in the world through the lens of racism. While racism is a serious problem that deserves no place in society, assuming racism is the root cause of every conflict is also lazy and sloppy. And the same could be said that these extremists do not discriminate, either. If they see race as the only issue for why people “hate" Meghan Markle, they see race as the only issue for most everything.

The problem with both extremes is when everything and everyone is reduced to racial identity, racism only continues to exist. A racist using skin color as a disqualifier perpetuates racism. Assuming racism is the only reason behind disdain for someone only perpetuates racism. Focusing on race or racism allows no room for content of character.

Especially when people defend Meghan Markle being the victim of racism with a racist rule. When opposing critics say “I didn’t even know she was Black" or suggest her physical features, her Hollywood CV, or past involvement with Black causes were nonexistent before she became a duchess or stepped down from being a working royal, the extremists on the other side often resort to the One Drop Rule.

Which means their defense for calling Meghan Markle “haters" racists, even though they might have never knew she was mixed race, is a form of racism. The One Drop Rule was borne from the Reconstruction Era post-Civil War. The “rule" essentially said anyone who appeared to have Black features were considered Black.

The One Drop Rule was the precursor and eventual backbone to Jim Crow Laws of the South. It was used to oppress and segregate Americans based on physical appearance. Considering most people who never heard of Meghan before Harry came along were ignorant to her mixed heritage, it seems grossly negligent to assume race is the real issue. How can one be racist toward Meghan when they didn’t know she was mixed race? This author wasn’t aware of Meghan’s ethnicity prior to it being pointed out (by her and Harry. Repeatedly.), mainly because this author didn’t care.

Like so many, when I first saw Meghan and Harry together for the engagement interview, I was more excited about a fellow American joining the Royal Family. After learning she was biracial, well it was even better. It represented change and progress. Does that mean I saw the Royal Family as racists beforehand? No. It means I saw them as exactly the opposite. Had they been racist, she’d not be a duchess. Her being American and divorced was more a shock to me than being mixed.

The point of all this is there are extremists on every spectrum. For a journalist to say they went undercover, when in fact they did not, to expose the true motives behind Meghan Markle “haters", only to find they did very little to really understand the other side was disappointing. Not surprising, just disappointing. This could’ve been an excellent opportunity for someone to take the reigns and make bridges between two very passionate factions. Instead it became nothing more than a hit piece.

The article fails to acknowledge the possibility – no, the probability – that most people who object to Meghan Markle do so because of how she behaves. The article only considers one possibility behind this “hate". And by calling the objections “hate", the article in turn defines all criticisms as hate speech. Again, unoriginal, sloppy, and lazy.

So here we have it, yet another article grouping and stereotyping anyone who disapproves of Meghan and Harry as racist haters. Yet again, another article name dropping people “deemed racist haters", essentially painting even bigger targets on the backs of those people. Like they didn’t already have enough hate mail. Yet again, another sloppy, lazy, article that never digs below the surface to understand why instead of assuming it.

This isn’t new, it’s just another slop drop from the sensationalism machine that has replaced fair, legitimate journalism. It would be different if there weren’t so many questions surrounding the births. It would be different if Meghan Markle actually lived by the example she so vehemently preaches. It would be different if Meghan Markle would make amends with her own family before telling the world how they should treat people. It would be different if Meghan Markle were a strong woman instead of claiming to be one.

But it’s not different. She hasn’t spoken to her father since two days before her wedding three years ago. She denies the family connections that existed before her fame. She ghosts people once they are no longer of benefit. She preaches equality and universal service while using her title every chance given. She and her husband criticize the “family she never had" while naming their second child after that family’s Matriarch. All of those are behaviors that incite strong emotional responses. Behaviors. And behavior has no racial identity.

A final note… hypocrisy is the main reason people have issues with anything. When one group of people tells another group to stop attacking a public figure, while using assumptions as their crusade call, it’s hypocrisy. One cannot say “if you can’t take the heat, then shut up!” to another without being a hypocrite. When that happens, don’t be surprised when the same exact thing is said back. If Meghan or her fans can’t take the criticism, they shouldn’t participate in it. We all have the right to choose. Just like if I couldn’t handle the criticism, I’d not be writing this.

Life is not fair. The world is a dark, cruel place. When we expect the world to bend to the will of a few, we are setting ourselves above the majority. A strong woman would know this. A strong woman fighting for others would also know that the only person responsible for how one feels is one’s self. External feedback isn’t responsible for internal turmoil. Internal feedback is. That is all.

REFERENCE:

Amoako, A. (2021 June 11). I went undercover in the sinister world of Meghan Markle hate accounts. Refinery29. Retrieved from: https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2021/06/10518195/megxit-meghan-markle-anti-fandom

[mostly-mundane-atla]

Got it. What about Inuit, Yup’ik and Inupiaq stereotypes? Are there a lot of harmful ones to avoid? I do know you shouldn’t make eating meat their entire personality, but what else?

Okay, this is going to get dark, so if you need to blacklist any content warnings (mine are tagged as "[insert content here] mention", do that before reading and if you need me to tag anything specific, please tell me and avoid this post until I get to it.

And again: Disclaimer that simply having an eskimo coded character fall into these stereotypes is not inherently racist or wrong. Keep this in mind as writers of color, and thereby Native writers, often get a lot of shit for writing our experiences as we feel them. Not to mention, yelling at someone trying to do justice to a dark topic, even if they don't succeed, is a shitty thing to do. Some of these have subtextual backing in canon. Remember that although we are looked down on for crimes, wrongs, or unpleasantness we're assumed to have commited, it's the members of our community who suffer most for it. There is value in understanding the pain that comes from the community that's supposed to protect you, and I don't believe the writers of the series had any malicious intentions toward us for writing characters that fall into any of these stereotypes. Recognize the nuance or get off my blog and find someone else to back up your discourse.

I'm going to use the term Native in this context. Natives come from many different cultures and cannot be assumed to be the same, but many of these stereotypes are used against more than just Inuit, Inupiat, and Yup'ik peoples. This is why I find it to be the most appropriate term in this context. I will add my understanding of where these stereotypes came from and why they're harmful, but I am only one person and a full understanding of the topic requires more than one point of view.

"Natives are drunks." The United States used alcohol on Natives the same way Britain used opium on China. They introduced it to us and blamed addiction on our own "weakness of character." This assumption of alcoholism carries with it assumptions of untrustworthiness. For a real life example: I was on a grand jury (a jury that decides whether a case is worth taking to court) years ago and one case was an older Native man accusing his brother of physically assaulting him. For some reason, a nearly all-white jury was deemed to be a jury of this man's peers, and two or three white men violently insisted that it shouldn't be brought to court because it happened at a party and therefore it was just some alcoholics from the village wasting a judge's time. Eventually, after some discussion about how no alcohol was mentioned, it was decided the case should be presented to a judge. I would also like to point out that the Native man in question was entirely sober, well put-together, spoke more cohesively than other cases that day, and had a bad limp.

"Natives are child abusers/molesters." This one actually links to the first stereotype mentioned, and a lot of what I've said on this blog about how abuse perpetuates. There was a lot of physical, mental, and, yes, sexual abuse in the US run schools, especially the Christian ones and boarding schools. (I've heard people mentioning that the priests would more often target the boys because they couldn't get pregnant.) When one gets regularly exposed to this sort of thing, they come to accept it as normal. This normalizing of abuse is bad enough for the one person, but it also affects the way they interact with others when put in similar situations as the abuser. They're hurt and traumatized and weren't effectively told that it was wrong and they shouldn't have been put through that, so they perpetuate it on people as vulnerable as they were when it happened. Movements have started in hopes of bringing awareness and getting help for these people before they can carry out the cycle further. Abuse between adults is also a tricky issue because the ways people are taught to give or not give consent are counterintuitive to cultural norms around verbal and nonverbal communication. See: the "they didn't say no" argument.

"The Stoic Native." There are a number of reasons one culture might emote less than another, especially around people they don't know. This doesn't mean that we don't feel or are too strong or brave to feel. Our emotions are our business and we don't owe anyone an explanation.

"Natives are part of the land." For some reason, a lot of non-Natives have trouble grasping that Indigenous Peoples are human beings in our own right. A lot of media portrays us not as people in the same sense that the outsiders are, but as extensions of the land or the spirits of the land. It's true that generations upon generations of living somewhere means the land will change to reflect the people, but that is due to the influence of people living there and how their culture says to interact with it. This trope reduces us to symbols of "a simpler time" or just as often white people's ideas of nature conservation. It's dehumanizing and infantalizing, ignoring our cultures and civilizations, treating us as either innocent martyrs for someone else's cause, or pests that are done away with once the land is developed.

"The Native Princess." Sometimes the only way non-Natives can see us as people is by pushing cultural norms and forms of government they're more familiar with onto us. Naturally, this means assuming that our civilizations were as successful as they were because they were like the non-Native author's. This is especially gratuitous in the case of Inuit, Inupiat, and Yup'ik peoples because we don't have anything resembling a monarchy. Yeah, this one is explicitly in the text so I can't expect much to be done with it

"Native women are always available to men." I don't know what it is about cultures that consider themselves more "advanced" seeing ones they consider "primative" where women have more autonomy in the relationships they have with men and fewer restritions on their bodies. I don't know how they misinterpret "she can do that here" as "she's there for the taking" but it's so gross and I would like it to stop. Sexuality being more open and not inherently sinful doesn't mean the women don't have standards or won't turn anyone down.

"Natives are broke and/or homeless." This is just the typical racism mixing with classism to make something even uglier situatation. The result is a lot of treatment you see non-Native POC get, such as being followed at the store because they expect you to steal something.

There are more, I'm sure, but these are the ones I get the most. Note that again, it's not inherently bad to write a Native or Native-coded character who drinks or has a lot of partners or is particularly connected to their homeland or poor, but take care to handle it with some sensitivity. Understand that there are implications to these things and real harm can be done by legitimizing racist stereotypes.

[demonsfate]

@hardasstaichou​

lol his mother’s name is pretty easy to remember once you realize it’s just jin but with a ‘u’ instead of an ‘i’! (her name is jun!) and it’s funny because jun is probs my fav tek girl. she’s beautiful, she’s kind, she’s similar to jin in ways. but i just... didn’t find myself loving her as much in the anime. i think because her design was too different (and boring) and i did... view her pacifism as too extreme as times. which would’ve been better had they explained maybe the reason she’s so strict is because she’s paranoid jin will end up like his father. but like... they never tell us or hinted at that. jun refuses to talk about jin’s father, but we never see if she ever actually loved kazuya at all to begin with or how they became a thing, or how she even really felt by his supposed death. the relationship of kazuya and jun just isn’t there. which, yes, it’s not really there in the games either. BUT. in the anime, we were promised we’d find out new things about jin’s backstory that we didn’t see in the games. and guess what? we didn’t. literally everything told in the anime, we already knew happened in the games - or at the very least, we can guess happened. the only “new” thing we got was that jin was bullied lol. which honestly, i didn’t care for the bully story. while yes, it could show jin had trouble controlling his temper... which btw, does a poor job at that - bc in the anime he even STATES they’ve been PHYSICALLY AND VERBALLY ABUSING HIM FOR LITERAL WEEKS - anyone would’ve snapped at that. aaaand jin goes through so much anyway, why add him being bullied on top of everything? if i were writing it, 

i would’ve made it that xiao was getting bullied, for being chinese. (therefore, would’ve acknowledged the elitism/racism that’s in japan) and xiao, being the optimistic and kind girl she is, is able to ignore this even if it does hurt. but jin, however, as we’ve seen in many other games and noncanon adaptations, cannot stand seeing xiao being hurt or disrespected - and that’s what causes him to lose his temper and start pounding on the bullies. perhaps this is why jun scolds him, because if xiao can refrain herself from violence, then so can jin. but of course, jin makes it a point - why should xiao be subjected to such when she can fight back? they obviously deserve it. that’s when jun will snap at jin, perhaps saying something like “i don’t want to see you become your father!” and then everything goes silent. maybe they’ll go into a talk later on where they can come to an understanding. jun doesn’t tell jin that kaz was influenced by a literal demon, but just that his anger and hatred led to him becoming a horrible person that eventually led to his death.

lots of fans, sadly, thought the anime was an IMPROVEMENT for jin. which made me feel they didn’t really understand jin’s character in the first place. i know stoic anime character is a trope, too. but with the way jin was just gasping at everything and being very expressive - just made him feel more like Generic Anime Protagonist, made him feel more like a shell the viewer can easily insert himself into the main character. i think jin’s lack of expressions or antisocial behavior can be relatable - there are people who struggle with this. hell, even i myself struggle with interacting with ppl. not only that, but jin is a highly traumatized individual. who, after his mother’s death, was forced to live with his grandfather - who was very strict, and had pretty abusive training. given how heihachi killed jin in the end, he clearly couldn’t stand having any small talk with jin. so - it makes sense as to why jin would be antisocial in the first place. also, i just like to think of jin as a weird little guy - it makes him more interesting than a sociable protagonist imo - at least, for jin, because that’s what his character is supposed to be - a flawed hero. not just because he struggles with anger, but he struggles with making the right choice, and he struggles with emotion and socialization. also - him struggling with emotion makes sense later on because if he does feel too much, then that means his devil will take over, and cause a lot of issues for the world. therefore, perhaps, jin is conditioned to believe that “emotion = bad” because of the consequences it can have on his devil gene. so, jin being the stoic “-.-” is both badass, and actually makes a lot of sense lore wise, too.

[renegadewangs]

Van Zieks - the Examination, part 2

Warnings: SPOILERS for The Great Ace Attorney: Chronicles. Additional warning for racist sentiments uttered by fictional characters (and screencaps to show these sentiments).

Disclaimer: (see Part 1 for the more detailed disclaimer.) - These posts are not meant to be taken as fact. Everything I'm outlining stems from my own views and experiences. If you believe that I've missed or misinterpreted something, please let me know so I can edit the post accordingly.  -The purpose of these posts is an analysis, nothing more. Please do not come into these posts expecting me to either defend Barok van Zieks from haters, nor expecting me to encourage the hatred. - I'm using the Western release of The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles for these posts, but may refer to the original Japanese dialogue of Dai Gyakuten Saiban if needed to compare what's said. This also means I’m using the localized names and localized romanization of the names to stay consistent. -It doesn't matter one bit to me whether you like Barok van Zieks or dislike him. However, I will ask that everyone who comments refrains from attacking real, actual people.

It’s time to take a close look at Episode 3, The Runaway Room!

Episode 3: The Runaway Room.

We're skipping the first two cases, as they have no relevance to Barok van Zieks, and starting off here.

So Ryu is tossed into the deep. The Lord Chief Justice tells him that he’s basically the defendant’s only hope; if he doesn’t at least try to fight in court, McGilded will lose the trial and die for sure. (HAH… Good one, Stronghart.) So Ryu falls for this would-be motivational speech and heads for the courthouse where he finds out why McGilded doesn’t have a defense attorney to begin with; it’s because of the prosecution. No one dares to go up against Lord Barok van Zieks, also known as the Reaper of the Old Bailey, because all who he prosecutes are damned. This should sound familiar to anyone who’s played an Ace Attorney game before. ‘The prosecution has never been defeated before’ is the implication, which would initially lead us to believe Van Zieks is another one of those prodigies. Sure enough, Susato points out he must be very talented, to which McGilded replies that Van Zieks is not talented, rather, he’s cursed. This sets the mood even further. With words like “Reaper” and “curse” being tossed around, we’re sooner reminded of a prosecutor like Simon Blackquill, who was a convicted murderer wielding psychological manipulation techniques. Either way, with the grim atmosphere set, Ryu is ushered into the courtroom before he can ask any more questions.

As a sidenote, McGilded really scored some negative points with this remark:

Feels a bit softened compared to how fan translations tackled that line, but a nasty jab all the same.

So anyway, entering the courtroom we get our first look at Van Zieks and if the foreshadowing in the Defendant Antechamber wasn’t already bad enough, he honors his eerie reputation.

So far, he’s meeting the requirements then. He’s intimidating and as a wealthy white man, he’s perfectly juxtaposed to Ryu, the rookie from another country. Meanwhile, the first micro-aggression of this trial is actually uttered by the judge:

Which also makes narrative sense. Ryu’s more practical goal isn’t to win the prosecution’s trust. Heck, he could get through any trial just fine with Van Zieks’s dislike. No, what he needs is to win over the judge and the members of the jury. For them to also hold prejudice but put that aside in order to side with the truth is another important end-game here. So let’s continue. Van Zieks also has something to say here:

Initially, the remark about Ryu’s eyes might read as a typical racist jab towards someone from the East, but he is in fact referring to the way Ryu’s eyes are ‘swimming’ when he’s nervous, as evidenced by the next lines. “They shroud your fear, your doubt, your trepidation… They run wild, clinging to some phantom notion of courage.” Van Zieks is saying that while Ryu puts up a brave front, his swimming eyes betray just how nervous and unsure of his cause he really is. So really, he’s targeting the fact that Ryu is new to the courts. He did, however, make a point of tossing the word “Nipponese” in there when he didn’t need to, drawing attention to Ryu’s race in a derogatory fashion.

After the jurors are introduced, something else of interest happens. The judge points out that Van Zieks hasn’t been seen in the courtroom in a number of years. The judge had assumed that Van Zieks had renounced his fame, to which he replies with the following:

This is a very telling line. We learn several things. Firstly, Van Zieks had retired, and secondly, he doesn’t seem to think too highly of his title of Reaper. If he did, he would have gloated. To describe his reputation as infamy implies negative associations with this ‘curse’ that McGilded spoke of. Putting these two things together, one might conclude he retired because of this curse. When asked why he’s returned to the courts, he says that he’ll leave that to the judge’s imagination. So there’s hints of a backstory already being tossed in before the trial’s even properly kicked off.

Which it does now. So the opening statement happens as always and witnesses are brought in, but once it’s done Ryu interjects to say that he doesn’t understand the circumstances. ‘How could the witnesses have seen the inside of a moving carriage’? It shocks the entire courtroom and Van Zieks is the one to speak:

“-But you’re here in London yourself. Are you really so ignorant about our omnibuses? Tell me, my Nipponese friend… Have you even travelled in an omnibus?”

I have to be honest, I struggled to pinpoint just how I felt about these remarks. Sure, I can overanalyze this, looking at how the words “I’d read-” imply he doesn’t know the following sentiment to be true and therefore doesn’t feel confident enough to say something like “I knew-”... But it doesn’t change that he’s being scummy here. In a roundabout way, he’s still saying Japan is far less civilised than Britain and that Ryu is extra ignorant for not knowing about omnibuses when he’s in London. So basically, he gets scumbag points for this. But then there’s…:

Which is just a basic jab at Ryu’s intelligence. It’s the sort of remark we’d get from every single prosecutor. I think even Klavier would say this sort of line with a smile on his face.

But definitely more scumbag points here, because this was a direct attack in more ways than one. Particularly the word “stray” was uncalled for. CEO of Racism, indeed. Something very interesting happens when the knife gets pulled into the story halfway into the first cross-examination, though. When Ryu asks about it, Van Zieks replies with this:

He’s… actually being civil? (I doublechecked with Scarlet Study, and they are in agreement on the timid nature of this line, translating “yes, Counsel” as “Quite so”.) Instead, Van Zieks turns his attention to the fact that there’s an M on the sheath, directing all his offensive attitude towards McGilded. It gets even more curious when the last juror refuses to cast a guilty verdict, instead talking about what a good man she believes McGilded to be. Van Zieks says:

So he’s not only frustrated with McGilded now, he’s frustrated with the people of London for not knowing what sort of person McGilded really is. Van Zieks reveals he’s a dirty money lender who gained his fortune through corrupt means. He even takes the time to inform Ryu of this with the words “Your client is a shylock, sir!” Edit: I feel a need to address this: shylock is a word with antisemitic roots. It originally came from a Shakespeare play involving a very bad stereotype. It later evolved to have a more broad meaning basically synonymous to loan shark and I think that’s the context the localization means to use it in. There’s absolutely no indication of McGilded’s religious beliefs and even if there were, I highly doubt the localization would use that sort of slur. Still, it’s a very unfortunate choice of words and is sure to accidentally sour Van Zieks even more with some players.

With that, the last juror votes, the scale tips towards Guilty and Van Zieks assumes the trial to be over. He thanks the jurors for their work. Unfortunately, once Susato brings up the Summation Examination, Van Zieks gets very frustrated again. This happens:

IIII don’t know what to do with this line. On first glance, I didn’t think much of it and was even willing to consider it was a compliment. Then I thought it must’ve been passive aggressive somehow; that it’s the sort of thing he wouldn’t believe until he’d seen it with his own eyes. A friend directed me to the notion that it might be referencing a stereotype that ‘Eastern women are fierce’ because they were associated with, well, certain ‘paid services’. I don’t think I need to explain, I’m sure you understand what I mean. And if indeed that’s what Barok is insinuating, that’s a new low I never thought he’d reach. However, when you’ve finished the games and know that Barok was friends with a married Japanese man, it’s entirely possible that he’s remembering a story once told to him by Genshin Asogi. So this is either a bittersweet reminiscence or the most scumbag association he ever could’ve made, but I’m not sure we can ever prove which it is. Edit: As another option, it’s possible he’s referring to the Yamato Nadeshiko stereotype, if indeed it already held the ‘touch of iron’ aspect to it back in 1900. He proceeds to toast his hallowed chalice to “the enigmatic East” and to be honest, I’ve once again got nothing. All I know is that he once again drew attention to the defense’s race when he didn’t need to, so… Scumbag point. As a sidenote, in regards to the wine… I don’t count this as a humanizing trait. The same applies to the leg slam. These are animations meant to add some more lighthearted air and breathe more life into Van Zieks, so he doesn’t just stand there like a statue. They’re just quirks meant to have him stand out from other characters. So yeah, fun as the wine and leg slam animations are, they don’t count in the redemption requirements. Anyway, Van Zieks mocks the age of Susato’s book, saying that judging by its bindings it must be fifty years old. Considering the context of the conversation, this isn’t out of bounds. The defense is using ‘outdated’ information on the law, so he points that out. Any prosecutor would’ve done it like this. Simon Blackquill likely would’ve offered to shred that outdated tome to bits for Susato. Van Zieks does toss in a “Hmph, typical Nipponese” later though, which earns him one more scumbag point. Van Zieks continues to dismiss the Summation Examination, but the judge overrules him and allows it. Law is law, after all! And this is what I meant in my previous post when I said it’s satisfying to see Ryu use actual British law against Van Zieks. Ryu is using a perfectly legitimate technique to win the jurors over, and as Susato tells him, he can only do it by turning the jurors against one another with facts. He can’t appeal to them, he can only have them see sense. Which is difficult, because some jurors are more prejudiced than others:

… Yeah. Uh. Calling Ryu a “Dark Jinx” is pretty awful. Scumbag points for Juror No. 1! Meanwhile, Juror No. 4 keeps us updated on Barok’s actions throughout this trial:

Wow. Typical prosecutor behavior, though. Regardless, Ryu manages to win them all over in the end. With enough of the scales set back to not-guilty, the trial is allowed to continue, which leads to this:

Bye, hallowed chalice. A fun animation to keep things fresh and show us that the trial is about to take a turn. Once again, nothing new. We’ve seen prosecutors lose their patience before. What does interest me, though, is that Barok doesn’t direct physical frustration towards the defense. Remember: Franziska snaps a whip at Phoenix, Godot throws coffee at his head, Blackquill sends a hawk to attack the defense or uses that aijutsu slicing move, Nahyuta throws restricting beads… These were all direct physical attacks. Van Zieks, much like Edgeworth and Klavier, directs his frustration more inward and as a result he destroys his own property.

He succeeds in intimidating Ryu, though. Van Zieks explains that he kept silent, as is the norm during Examination Summation, but makes it clear that he considers it a charade all the same.

Van Zieks has been a pretty good gentleman towards the jury up until now, speaking to them politely despite that one remark about having their head in the clouds. Now that he’s seeing them ‘buy into Ryu’s stories’, as one might describe it, he’s getting frustrated with them. Maybe he’s even frustrated they’re choosing the defense’s side over his own.

He removes his cloak, entering what he says to be the next round of their ‘battle’. More typical prosecutor behavior, this. I’m not sure there’s an underlying thought to this, other than to indicate to the audience that ‘things have gotten serious’. When the next bit of testimony is going on, I noticed something odd. Both Fairplay and Furst testify to having seen blood on McGilded’s hands, to which Van Zieks says:

“... Reported that there was no trace of blood on Mr. McGilded’s gloved hands.” So in a way, by establishing this fact, he’s helping the defense and going against what the witnesses are saying. It doesn’t help the prosecution in any way at all.

The trial continues on, with Van Zieks uttering things like “My Nipponese friend” and “my learned friend from the East” and lord knows what else… I suppose to soften the harshness of the original wording a bit and make Van Zieks just a bit less dislikable? Edit: Tumblr user @beevean​ has pointed out that “my learned friend” is an actual term used in courts of law. There’s a tradition (also employed in British courts of law) that when addressing either the court or the judge, a barrister refers to the opposing counsel using the respectful term, "my learned friend". Of course, it can be said with an air of passive aggression and pretending to be respectful to the court while shamelessly disrespecting it is something Barok has always done, so the addition of “my learned friend” to the localization text is amazingly in-character. Then of course we have:

This is both a scumbag remark and foreshadowing. Naturally, those playing the game for the first time won’t recognize it as the latter and therefore take it as nothing more than a harsh blow. Things spiral even further out of control when he starts talking about how people who claim the island nations of the Far East have a learning and culture of their own use those terms ill-advisedly. He also uses the words “artless backwater” and really, this is the low point of the trial right here when it comes to prejudice. Van Zieks is just plain lashing out with these sort of jabs.

Eventually, McGilded is dragged onto the witness stand to testify about whether or not there was another passenger aboard the omnibus. McGilded admits that there was, and Van Zieks snaps at him some more for using convenient excuses. Ryu is forgotten here for a moment. The whole smoke bomb thing happens, Van Zieks confers with McGilded and Gina in his own chambers, then the trial resumes. McGilded testifies, then Gina testifies… The jury votes not-guilty, buying into McGilded’s story about protecting a poor young pickpocket and Van Zieks loses it. He slams his heel down on the bench, pointing out that this is why he doesn’t like the jury system; because emotions are ruling where evidence and facts ought to be paramount. He points out while the cubbyhole Gina had been hiding in was empty now, it had been full of the coachman’s belongings during the police investigation. Someone tampered with the omnibus. This is where things get interesting, because Van Zieks addresses Ryu:

He’s giving Ryu the benefit of the doubt here. He’s offering an option for Ryu to be truthful about this matter. And that’s curious, because any defense attorney would naturally say what’s best for his client- or so it’s assumed. It puts Ryu in a difficult position for sure, but for some reason Van Zieks put the question forward anyway. The game responds as follows:

For the sake of argument, I attempted all three options. So when Ryu says he didn’t look, Van Zieks says: “Hm… Perhaps I credited you with too much intelligence.”

So when feigning ignorance, Van Zieks is kind of a scumbag about it. He is correct in his expectation that any attorney worth his badge would thoroughly examine the details of the evidence, but he didn’t need to be such a jerk about it. Now, when outright lying and saying it was empty, Van Zieks instead says:

The lines are very similar, which is an interesting note. It adds a feel of these responses being 'rehearsed', in a way. Just a default for him to fall back to. But the real kicker comes when Ryu tells the truth and says it wasn’t empty. Van Zieks is actually speechless at first with no more than a “...!” Clearly, he wasn’t expecting Ryu to respond like this. Everyone in court is baffled, McGilded gets angry… Van Zieks is a bit rattled now.

“Your task is to defend the man in the stand. Why would you say something to compromise his position?”

So really, it seems as if Van Zieks had only ever offered the question to Ryu with pessimistic intentions. He too had assumed there was only one answer the defense could give and was prepared for just that with his silly little wine analogies, only to be shocked when Ryu defies his expectations. Ryu confesses that he’s not entirely sure on where he stands in the matter, to which Van Zieks replies with “... Interesting.” 

So now the jury members are doubting themselves again, with some offering guilty verdicts. Van Zieks decides to honor the ‘Scales of Justice’ once more now that they’re back in his favor, like the hypocrite he is. Gina testifies, Ryu points out an inconsistency, Van Zieks takes that opportunity to turn the tables back in his favor by implying Gina is a liar… He passive aggressively thanks Ryu for saving him considerable trouble and whatnot with some more “my learned Nipponese friend” remarks in there… Ryu turns the tables once more by insisting the victim came into the omnibus through the skylight, Van Zieks demands evidence and points out that furthermore, if indeed such a thing had happened, the witnesses on the roof would’ve seen it. McGilded hops into the conversation to imply that the witnesses themselves were the killers, which sends the court into a frenzy. Both Van Zieks and the judge shift the responsibility of the accusation towards Ryu, even though he never said a word to directly accuse the witnesses. Kind of a douchey move. Barok even states that Ryu’s ‘command of the English tongue must be wanting’, since

Yeahhh, that's pretty unfair. McGilded was the one who dropped that implication. However, since the judge basically accuses Ryu of the same thing, it’s a narrative choice to warn Ryu he needs to anticipate where his reasoning will lead him. Fairplay and Furst testify, pandemonium ensues. McGilded eventually gets what he wants when it’s revealed the skylight can open and there’s blood in there. Van Zieks once again turns his attention to McGilded:

He knows McGilded is at the root of all this tomfoolery and evidence manipulation. McGilded is the real enemy here, in Van Zieks’s eyes. The conversation shows this by having Van Zieks point out that he’s well aware of McGilded’s involvement in dubious matters and that evidence is often ‘adapted’ to suit this guy’s stories. And now, once again, he turns his attention to Ryu. Once again, he’s giving the defense the benefit of the doubt:

The game gives you the illusion of choice here. If you choose to say it’s ‘out of the question’ that the evidence was tampered with, Ryu will refuse to say it out loud. If you say it’s entirely possible, Ryu will admit to that.

This is probably baffling to Van Zieks. It would’ve been so easy for Ryu to insist the tampering couldn’t have happened, but he doesn’t. The game won’t even let him. No matter what you choose, Van Zieks is clued in on the fact that Ryu doesn’t condone the deceit that McGilded is resorting to. But it gets even better, because a short time later, we get:

Another option to either draw attention to forgery, or to feign ignorance. Once again, I chose both options for argument’s sake, but having Ryu say he has no idea doesn’t get us anywhere. Susato will instead object to say it for him. With “I have an inkling”, Ryu says it himself. Van Zieks once again confesses, in his own words, that he’s caught off guard.

Ryu clarifies that he thinks the blood stain inside the omnibus is decisive evidence, but he can’t say for certain whether it’s genuine. McGilded loses it and by this point, is outright branding Van Zieks an enemy. Since the player at this point doesn't know whether McGilded is guilty or not, it leaves Van Zieks in a bit of narrative limbo. One might think: 'if the prosecutor is so intent on taking down a murderer, shouldn't we be on his side? Is he perhaps not as bad as he seems?' Unfortunately, McGilded points out that recollection and memories don’t matter, only evidence does. And… Well.

Which means they can’t rule on a guilty verdict and will have to let McGilded go. Van Zieks admits that he has no more witnesses or evidence to present. He’s out of options. As a formality, the judge asks the defense’s closing statement and we get one last option. Do we believe him to be guilty or not-guilty? When claiming he’s innocent, Van Zieks says:

It seems he means “abject” in the sense of “without pride/respect/dignity for oneself”, which… You know, is fair. By this point it’s very clear that McGilded is guilty, and since Ryu has already admitted that the evidence may be forged, insisting otherwise is indeed pretty spineless. Scumbag points to Van Zieks for continuing to draw attention to the fact that Ryu is from Japan, though.

Let’s instead just admit that we can’t say for certain McGilded is innocent. Unfortunately, we don’t see Van Zieks react to this, which is a bummer because this could’ve been very telling. The judge questions Ryu’s sanity (no joke) and McGilded laughs because it doesn’t matter; it was just a formality anyway. The judge scolds Van Zieks, saying that his case was flawed and it was his job to keep the evidence secure. Instead of objecting, Van Zieks just outright takes the blame for this and apologizes. Very interesting reaction, here. He stops pointing the finger to McGilded, he doesn’t attempt to accuse anyone else… He just admits his performance was flawed. Ryu tries to interject here:

(A badly-timed screenshot if I’ve ever seen one.) Ryu is making an attempt here to defend Van Zieks, the guy who has built up like 20 scumbag points by now. Ryu sincerely doesn’t hold a grudge against him. That’s very interesting. It doesn’t matter, though. The judge won’t hear of it, Ryu thinks it’s unfair, Van Zieks warns McGilded that this isn’t over and then we get the not-guilty verdict.

Hurray??? Profit??? It’s a victory that’s bound to leave the player feeling conflicted and jarred.

But after all’s said and done, we get one last cutscene to establish just how ominous Van Zieks really is. The omnibus is on fire, someone is inside and we know McGilded went into the courtroom earlier to investigate the omnibus in question. So really, by putting two and two together we can already guess what’s going on here. Van Zieks approaches the scene and watches silently.

It’s a good reminder to us that every defendant he prosecutes is ‘damned’ and he’s called the Reaper for a reason. Really puts the finishing touch on the eerie undertones of his character.

All in all, a pretty typical first time against a new prosecutor. Now I just want to draw attention to the fact that the first time we face Van Zieks in court… he’s actually on the right side of the courtroom and Ryu is not. Van Zieks presumably specifically returned to the court after those five years to target McGilded, as he knows about this guy’s shady reputation when it comes to ‘adapting’ evidence. Barok is 'cursed' in such a way that every defendant he faces is damned. So long as he stands as the prosecutor, McGilded can’t get away with his crimes. No matter how much forgery is done, the Reaper will go after McGilded and it seems Van Zieks was banking on this happening.

He likely also expected Ryu to have been bought off by McGilded; to say whatever’s convenient for his case. Turns out, Ryu is actually a man of integrity who’s invested in the truth and near the end of the trial, Barok has seen evidence of this. So what will happen next? We’ll have to play The Clouded Kokoro and find out! Stay tuned!

[adiwriting]

So I’m going to preface this by saying that I love Jeanine, Tyler, Vlamis, Heather, Trevenio… the entire cast. I love this cast, but they are human and like most of us, they make mistakes at times. None of them are perfect.

Still, it’s okay to hold people accountable for their mistakes. We don’t have to cancel somebody over them, but it doesn’t make you an anti-fan to question an actors questionable actions and ask them to do better next time. And herein lies the reason for why I’ve been so uncomfortable lately in fandom spaces (fandom spaces in general, but for today, I’m talking about RNM). Fandom has this unhealthy culture where you either stan somebody so hard they can do no wrong and excuse every mistake, or we cancel somebody over a single mistake. We don’t allow actors, writers, anyone in the business to be human… and because of that, I don’t think we leave much room to grow.

2020 has been a year many deeply seeded issues in our country have finally started to receive the spotlight they deserve - racism being one of them. And in that, I’ve been doing a lot of reading about the importance of calling people in rather than calling people out. But I’ve also been reading about how we as a society have to do better about calling out racism wherever we see it.

It’s alright to question your favorite show and still watch it. It is not out of line to question things like why the show allowed themselves to write a storyline that put a black woman in the middle of a queer endgame ship as if nobody could have guessed that it would pit the queer community (another oppressed group) against the only black woman on the show. I don’t think it’s out of line for a fandom to question why the show was allowing so much torture porn for their queer characters. Or ask if the show considered casting a disabled actor to play a disabled character.

If we don’t ask these questions, how is change ever going to happen? It doesn’t mean we have to stop watching (though it’s valid if you do). It doesn’t mean that we harass the show’s cast and crew to the point of being mean. We can criticize actions without criticizing people.

So that brings me to the point I’m trying to make… Or perhaps the question I’m trying to ask.

This past month, we learned from Tyler Blackburn himself that he is not Native. Now, before everyone jumps down my throat about DNA testing, let’s look at the facts Tyler himself gave us. On the Pretty Little Wine Moms podcast, Tyler informed us that he took a DNA test during S1 of RNM and discovered he has no native blood. One of the moms was quick to point out that those tests aren’t always accurate especially if they don’t have much native DNA to test you against. I’m not here to argue that fact or argue the accuracy of DNA testing that tribes themselves rarely use for determining membership. I’m here to discuss what he explained afterwards.

Way back when PLL was casting for Caleb, the casting called for an ethnic actor. Tyler went up for the part. He didn’t get it originally because he wasn’t ethnic and the show was looking to expand it’s diversity. Now, things should have ended there. The show should have been able to find a POC to play Caleb. The casting team should have held to their promise to bring in a more diverse cast and regardless of Tyler’s background, cast a POC, specifically a non-white passing actor. Nobody can tell me that there wasn’t a single POC talented enough to play that part. If they couldn’t find one, they weren’t looking hard enough. And that’s a big red flag on that PLL team and to Hollywood as a whole because these stories are so common and why Hollywood has such a deep problem with race.

The fact that Tyler was cast instead of a POC is a problem with the PLL casting team. But back to Tyler. The PLL team came back to him after they couldn’t find anyone to play Caleb and asked him if he was ethnic. Tyler, not knowing if he was ethnic (pointing to the fact that he had no connection to any non-white culture) went to his grandmother. And his grandmother told him a story. A story many of us have heard… A story of his native american heritage. A heritage that he didn’t know of or have a connection to until he suddenly was up for a job. And a heritage he claimed in order to get a job intended for an “ethnic” actor.

Does Tyler really have native heritage? He claims no. In his own words he says that he’s not native. Even if his grandmother was right, he’s at most 1/32 native with no tribal or cultural connection. But even that seemed like a giant question mark since the people he would need to ask to verify have all passed.

Tyler was cast as Caleb, and later cast as Alex, based in part to a native background he claimed for himself that he now says is not part of his culture or heritage.

This isn’t a stain on Tyler. It’s questionable behavior of a white boy raised in a society that has been racist since it’s founding. We are all guilty of committing racist acts because of this upbringing. It’s not mean to say that Tyler’s actions were questionable and racist. It’s fact. Doesn’t mean I can’t love and forgive him, but it does mean I’m no longer going to allow myself to use “But Tyler is native” as a defense against my own racist comments towards other cast members. And I would hope the same would hold true for the rest of this fandom as well. It’s simply not true and unfair to anyone that actually is indigenous to allow ourselves to defend Tyler as a POC. Especially when we have other cast members of the show who are native with tribal connections. And cast members of color who are repeated cast as villains on the show or otherwise put into very difficult positions that invite racial hate.

I hold the show accountable for casting a white-passing boy as a native. When they decided to cast Tyler, they should have changed his heritage and his disability. Or they should have cast somebody more diverse. That’s on the casting team. 

I’m hoping that Tyler’s admission on this podcast means that he will no longer allow himself to be cast as a POC, taking jobs away from POC who still struggle in Hollywood cause of racism. I hope he learns and grows from this cause I think he’s a great person and a great role model and has the platform to push others to do better.

My frustration with fandom comes in the fact that this podcast and admission has gone ignored. Even those that heard the admission, continue to make excuses for him and defend their right to call Tyler (Not Alex, TYLER) a POC. Yet, other actors continue to not get the same freedom to be human to make mistakes. Vlamis is dragged over the coals for profiting off of the LGBTQ community. I don’t even know if I can go into how badly Heather is treated. I guess I’m just confused why we can forgive some of our cast and not others for very questionable decisions?

I’m not here to drag Tyler. I love the guy. He’s a good Alex. I’m just tired of the double standard and the racism I constantly see in this community. I love this show and I love this cast. I’m not trying to call anyone out, I’m just hoping to call us in and ask our show, cast, crew, and fandom to do better.

[mariaiscrafting]

Let’s talk about the old Techno tweets

For a week now, I’ve been sitting on this ask that linked me to a Twitter callout thread on SBI. Although I have many thoughts about the entire thread, I’ve since only had the time and will to respond to the Techno part, and I figured instead of keeping it in my drafts and waiting to gather the energy to write the rest, I’d just post what I have.

Here is the thread, for reference: https://twitter.com/burner0321/status/1379103348364865536?s=21 Trigger Warnings: anti-semitism, mentions of genocide, racism, n* slur, r* slur, ableism, lesbophobia, racism Please prioritize your health and safety, and do not engage with this thread or this post if you will get triggered by any of the aforementioned. I love you, please take care of yourself, first.

So, let’s talk Technoblade’s history of making “edgy” jokes. When CCs tend to use edginess as a cover for offensive humor, they tend to do so to cover up the fact that their humor involves taking shots at minorities or employs harmful stereotypes, without addressing why people get offended by such jokes. However, when I call Technoblade’s old humor edgy, this is not what I mean. The reason I do not think people are justified in demanding an apology or addressing of the jokes in the Twitter thread is because they do not use the minorities or horrible things they address as the punchline. A joke can be in bad taste, without being malicious. This is edgy humor. In explaining my point, I want to address as many of the specific things in the thread as possible.

1) I don’t fully understand the “was Hitler a lesbian?” tweet or the title of that video, so I won’t address that. If someone has something to say about it, feel free to reply to this post, I’d love to see what you think of it.

2) Next, we have the, “titling my next video ‘mvp++ is worse than nazi germany’” tweet. What is the joke in this tweet? The joke is that the comparison between a Minecraft game and a fascist regime that caused genocide is ridiculous, and as such, would be effective clickbait, and draw people into the video. The joke is not that Nazi Germany should be taken lightly; it is actually the complete opposite.

3) Next, “#askpewds do you have any constructive criticism for Nazi Germany.” Frankly, without the context of timeframe or what the hell was going on within the Twittersphere at the time, I can only make a reach as to what this joke meant. I assume it’s in reference to the time period during which Pewdiepie was being framed as a fascist by several media outlets, and could either be a joke on the fact that people believe Pewdiepie to be a neo-Nazi, or a shot at Pewdiepie himself, by playing on the fact that he actually does espouse neo-Nazi beliefs. Again, the punchline is far from, “Nazi Germany was good,” or anything along those lines. Edgy, not anti-semitic.

4) The vampireZ tweet. The joke here is, “why did vampireZ think this was a good idea,” not, “haha get it, black people kill people.” As with many of these kinds of jokes, the existence of the word, “black” in the joke makes people think he is insulting black people. In reality, the tweet points out that the game is fitting into the history of media portraying black people as the more aggressive, violent, and/or murderous characters, and is like, “hey, isn’t this kinda fucked?”

5) This tweet actually does make an offensive joke that is malicious in its intent. Congratulations, we are five tweets in, and we finally found a joke that makes minorities the punchline. I completely understand people’s criticisms of this one. The punchline here is, “haha, I’m one of those entitled people who claims that racial profiling is the reason I was wronged,” and this minimizes the fact that racial profiling is an real, serious, and widespread problem. This tweet makes it seem like people claim that racial profiling is the reason they are excluded from spaces or that punitive actions that were enacted upon them are doing so unjustly. This can be extrapolated from the fact that it’s ridiculous to think that a) a Minecraft server would racially profile someone, and b) that a white person would be racially profiled.

6) This tweet literally just seems like a sarcastic response to someone who was accused of being a white supremacist and/or racist. Presumably, SealPlays was defending himself of not being racist, and Technoblade responded sarcastically that he was "totally” trying to recruit him to the KKK. I literally see no reason someone thought this was malicious? This does not make light of the KKK, and it doesn’t make black people or any other group or individual victimized by the KKK the punchline.

7) The slavery jokes. Presumably, the slavery jokes are in reference to the times on his Skyblock, SMP Earth, and/or Dream SMP streams and videos, during which Technoblade has done bits about making some of his friends slaves for him, so he has to do less work. Again, slavery jokes might be in bad taste, but there was literally no racial context to this, given that he wasn’t make jokes about any black CCs being his slaves. This is not to mention that he always played up the role of the one telling the people what to do, making it out to be a very negative role that only an arrogant, selfish, and/or callous person would fill. Think, Alec Baldwin playing Trump. This part of the thread is, however, so vague, that it’s hard to know exactly what instances the OP is even talking about.

There are several reasons I am personally angered by this section of the thread, but in an effort to make this post shorter, I’ll only discuss two: One, there are genuinely things that CCs, including Technoblade, have said, that carry ignorant and malicious connotations. The racial profiling joke is just one example. To create a thread where most of the examples are absolute bullshit, lack context, and/or were misinterpreted on your part is a disservice to minorities who want to have productive conversations about genuinely harmful things. I want to talk about this idea that minorities who talk about their experiences with microaggressions, such as racial profiling, are seeking attention/using an excuse/lying. But that one tweet is so buried under this mountain of bullshit that has everyone talking over each other and screaming, that the one conversation we should be having cannot be had. Two, I am utterly exhausted at watching people misinterpet jokes. As I have already said again and again, just because a joke mentions something horrible, does not mean it is malicious, or that it even harms anyone. A joke needs to make light of something horrible and/or make minorities the punchline to cross the line from “edgy” to “explicitly offensive.”

I would like to make a disclaimer: there is always two sides to a CC doing something wrong. There is the CC, who may or may not have had malicious intent, and there is the audience, who may or may not take offense to what was done or said. Both of these are separate, and I will treat them as such. What I am examining in this post is mostly the first thing - were the things said or jokes made meant with racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc., intent, or are people unjustified in stating that they were? That being said, and this is important: anyone is allowed to take offense to and not forgive a CC for making a joke or saying something, no matter what. Even if a joke was meant satirically or does not actually offend minorities, if you, as an individual, take offense to it and were deeply hurt by it, that is fucking valid. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. A CC can apologize for something, and that can mean that objectively, they are not a bad person and/or have grown, but that does not mean you have to forgive them. There are two sides to this coin, and they are not inherently dependent upon each other.

If someone is offended by any of the jokes Techno made, that is perfectly valid and understandable. Even if I or anyone else comes to the objective conclusion that any given joke doesn’t have malicious intent, that doesn’t erase minorities’ very real feelings about such.

[plumrabbit]

DA Fandom and moving forward - Calling In vs. Calling Out

Hi everyone,

As a PoC member of the DA fandom, I felt I have been quiet for long enough on the issues that have been presented recently. I am not here to argue against or on behalf of any individual or group, I am only here to present some information that I hope will be helpful moving forward. This is a long post, but it’s my hope that if you read it and want to help contribute to making this place better for everyone, then you will be willing to try to put what is said here into practice.

Since I am a relatively small blog, I wanted to start with a little personal introduction that will segue into the topic at hand. My name is Liz (you can call me Jade too, that’s part of my middle name), and I am a mixed race, “ambiguously brown”, aspec person from Canada. I grew up around mostly other immigrant families, attended predominantly non-white schools that were run by mostly white admins, and completed my degrees at a very white university in a field that does not have much racial diversity. I have experienced racism first-hand many times including, but not limited to, name-calling/slurs, fetishization/exotification, being followed by staff, people second-guessing my name, jokes about hurting/killing people of my race, etc. as well as witnessing racism directed at my friends and peers. I know exactly what it’s like to be exhausted and feel unsafe or othered.  There is, however, one thing I need to point out about the multitude of instances of racism I’ve experienced - most of them were caused by ignorance, and not malice. Yes there are absolute assholes out there, but personally I can count those people I’ve encountered on one hand (I am not speaking for everyone, though). The vast majority of racism, bigotry and general harmful acts come from a place of ignorance, particularly on left-leaning tumblr (to clarify, this discussion is centered around well-meaning people and not the actual lost causes). When I say ignorance, I don’t mean a lack of education or intelligence, I mean not being able to see or understand an issue from another person’s perspective. It’s not quite the same as empathy either (where empathy means you are able to feel another person’s emotions), but fighting ignorance does require empathy. It also requires knowledge on the context of the specific situation, and that I believe is the crux of the problem.  I think the main reason why this is issue is particularly prevalent in the DA fandom is a result of the too-close-to-reality-to-ignore inspirations that have been confirmed by the devs. Yes, it’s fiction, but there are also a lot of people that see themselves (mis)represented in the themes and characters. And what one person sees as disrespectful, another person may not see at all. This can come full circle, too, for example: one person sees themselves and their trauma represented in a character, another person sees their race misrepresented in the same character. Person 1 uses the character as a comfort character or coping strategy. Person 2 thinks using that character in certain situations is disrespectful. Neither one sees the other’s perspective.  This is where intersectionality starts to come into play, and requires empathy and effort to address the intentions and emotions of the other person. Perhaps person 1 is LGBTQ+ and has been traumatized by being as such, and uses Dorian as a character to explore their trauma. Perhaps person 2 is Brown, and racism towards their people is their trigger, and thinks person 1 did not do Brown representation justice in their creative works.  Looking at this more specifically, person 1 may have put Dorian in sexual situations. Person 2 feels that the way it was conveyed was fetishist or exotified. Person 2 doesn’t know person 1′s intentions. Person 1 is not aware of certain descriptions that are racist (e.g. using food to describe a PoC’s skin tone). Perhaps person 1 was self-inserting and wanted to feel desirable on their own terms, but this gave person 2 that squick factor.  Now person 2 wants to address this issue, and I think this is where a call-in (not a call-out) would be appropriate. Here is a good infographic that compares the two: 

(Original source)

Note that there is quite a large difference in the language used. Going back to the above example, person 2 could privately message person 1 asking them why they chose to represent Dorian the way they did, with specific examples, and using call-in language (and I’m going to get back to this in a minute). 

The point of this post and infographic isn’t meant to tell marginalized groups how they should be bringing up issues (though it is a good guide if you are concerned about being polite, particularly to a first time offender), it’s intended to demonstrate to people unintentionally participating in harmful behaviour what a call-out vs. call-in looks like. For PoC and other marginalized groups, yes it does take emotional labour to use call-in language and to try to understand someone that wounded you (here is a good read that incorporates the concept of emotional labour for call-ins, and discusses asking yourself if you are ready to do so). For the people who have unintentionally hurt a marginalized individual or group, please understand that someone calling you in is not an attack, it’s a chance to explain why you expressed something the way you did. 

That being said, we may have reached another hurdle. What if you call someone in, and the person called in does not want to discuss the fact that they were inserting their personal trauma? I think this is where things start to get a bit messy, but I am of the opinion that if you’ve unintentionally triggered someone else’s trauma through ignorance present in your work, you owe it to them to at the very least mention that you were inserting your trauma, without having to bring up specifics (anyone is allowed to set boundaries). From there, the discussion can be hopefully be opened up to learning from each other, and reaching a consensus. Sometimes that consensus requires the creator to edit or remove their work. As an addendum, if you are a creator that unintentionally hurt someone with your work that didn’t have an ulterior personal motivation, it’s your responsibility to understand why what you did was wrong, apologize, remove the work and do better next time. I know some people cherish their OCs, but you are allowed to change your perspective and make adjustments to your character without erasing them entirely. Now we’ve reached another potential obstacle - what if an offender doesn’t respond to your call-in? First of all, ask yourself, did you actually call them in, or did you attack them? Here is a good opinion piece from a Black professor on this matter. I’d like to clarify that I am not trying to tone police, I am speaking as someone that used to go ham on ignorant people on Facebook and Reddit, and has since changed their tactics and has even gotten through to Trump supporters (some of this stems from my spiritual growth as well, but that is not the point here).  There is another issue to address here now as well - what if you have tried, repeatedly, to call someone in and they just don’t change their behaviour? Alright, then it’s probably time to call them out. But again, ask yourself, did you truly try to get through to them? If so, well, at the end of the day, some people are, unfortunately, lost causes. In summary, a call-in is meant to come from a place of wanting to help someone who has seemingly gone astray, because you are worried about their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours towards a marginalized group. You know that if they made a mistake it isn’t them, isn’t their heart, and you want them to be able to understand why what they did hurt others, and give them the chance to correct themselves. It comes from a place of love and acceptance, because you don’t want your friends to harbour negative beliefs.  Finally, I want to give a real example of this in action. My cousin is a photographic artist, and was recently called in to discuss the nature of one of her pieces. Her subjects are usually people, and they come from a wide variety of backgrounds. To help support BLM (she does a lot of work to help fight racism in general), she auctioned off one of her pieces. The subject of the piece happened to be a Black woman. She was called in by Black members of her art community to discuss how people bidding on an art piece that featured a person from a marginalized group perpetuated the ogling and monetization of Black people. She gave a response that acknowledged that her piece did perpetuate this issue, because she wanted to raise awareness of this historical harm, and recognized that her intention was ignorant of this perspective. The Black community also acknowledged that the piece itself was not harmful in any way, only that the surrounding issue that they were painfully aware of needed to be brought to light. The auction went ahead, and the piece sold for ~$1000, all of which was donated to BLM.  I think as a fandom we should be cognizant of when a work itself is harmful, or when the intention is harmful. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don’t. Both are talking points, and we should not be afraid to discuss them, but this requires respect from all parties. We also do need to be able to recognize what is strictly fiction, versus what has real-world impacts. My askbox is always open and my DMs are open to mutuals if you would like anything clarified or expanded upon. Or, if you’d just like to discuss a topic, vent, or have any questions about my own beliefs, you are welcome to reach out. I am happy to discuss anything, as long as there is mutual respect. 

[techmomma]

YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU ASK FOR

Because OKAY

OKAY

LISTEN

HERE IS WHAT CANONICALLY HAPPENS IN ZORA’S DOMAIN. You get close. Zoras keep telling you that Prince Sidon is looking for a Hylian’s aid. NOTE. PRINCE SIDON. Not King Dorephan. Not Zora’s Domain. Prince Sidon. We’re just gonna keep that in our little brains for now.

We meet Sidon at the bridge. He is very polite, and sends us on our eay. I need to review that scene but for now it’s not terribly important. We get to Zora’s Domain, and we meet the regular people, who know it wasn’t Link’s fault, and the old geezers, who got a nasty case of misplaced trauma guilt goin’ on maskin’ as racism, hate him. But they are also ADAMANTLY turning away hylian aid with disgust. At least one of them is a Councilman, Muzu. Keep this in your brains too

We meet King Dorephan, and it’s apparent that he was not in on Sidon’s plan to get aid from a Hylian. He seems aware of it, “the Hylian the prince was looking for,” something like that, but either is hiding his participation, or was not participating at all. If Dorephan was sending out for help, we don’t see it. My guess is with the reservoir flooding, he had enough on his hands just trying to put out fires as they sprang up.

This was Sidon’s plan. Sidon’s plan was to get the aid of a hylian, who are more immune to electricity, and he was doing this against the opinions of the elders, and at least one councilman. I suspect the other elders we see are also councilmembers, but I can’t confirm it. At most, he had Dorephan’s blessing, but at worst, he was doing this against the council and probably because his father’s hands were tied with a council full of old geezers turning away aid but disobeying them would probably look like tyranny.

But a royal who can more easily get away with this plan? A prince.

Sidon is so convicted or at least so damn fed up that he is going against the elders, possibly against a council, to get help for his kingdom. That takes a lot of guts. That takes conviction. This is not a wishy-washy prince, this is not a dumb prince, this is a prince who has taken on the mantle of leading and protecting his domain.

And he is compassionate enough, like his father, to understand that Link wasn’t at fault. He and his father, if anyone had the right to be angry about Mipha dying, it’s those two. But they’re not. They both treat Link with kindness and in Sidon’s case, endless advocacy. Even after Muzu’s outburst, he treats him kindly, if firmly. He even talks to Link about understanding why they harbor such feelings, even if they’re unfair to Link. He is the ideal prince, protector of the realm and tireless advocate.

Something that he clearly puts great effort into, while his sister exuded it effortlessly. Sidon is working the whole time you’re doing the quest and then going after Vah Ruta. He swims right into battle with you against the thing that took his sister’s life.

Imagine your sibling dying in a particular building—one that looms over your city for as long as you can remember. Do you think you’d have the stomach to even approach it? Maybe you would. Maybe you wouldn’t. I still haven’t been to the place my sister died. It’s a half-hour away.

A reminder that Sidon was a child when she died. I’d say he’s roughly the equivalent of a toddler. He was a toddler when the title of crown royal came to him, and he would have to assume the real training to be king one day, take on the duties of his sister. Dealing with a father forever scarred by the loss of his child, dealing with his own trauma and grief that he’s probably had to stomach down for a century to do his job and do what’s right, all in the shadow of his peerless, graceful sibling who, almost perfect in life, was now perfect in death to the domain. Who could match her skill with her trident? Who could be so easily loving and courageous and strong?

How could a grieving, heart-broken toddler with his childhood ripped away from him compare to that?

There’s aspects of his characterization after this that would entirely be my own speculation and spin on him, such as attempting to fill the space Mipha left behind, seen in how diligently he tries to tell Link how incredible he is, how wonderful and amazing—perhaps also because he never got to tell those things to Mipha, and now will never get his chance. I see him as a prince who looks endlessly enthusiastic—and he is, in a way. But stretches himself thin, pushing himself harder than he should both to fill the gaps left behind by his sister and perhaps, though he’d never admit it, crawl out of them himself. He puts on a brave, strong face, for his father, for his people, for Mipha, and for himself. But it tears at his soul in death by a thousand cuts, a little at a time, every time he can only see his own shortcomings and failures and inability to fill the shoes his sister left behind.

I would not say he is tormented, or that it’s all fake; far from it, I think he genuinely believes not only in Link’s abilities but the abilities of everyone around him. But I believe he aches. An old bruise that’s easy enough to ignore most of the time and healing slowly. But it lingers, aching whenever he thinks he comes up short, pun intended. Reminding him that he is not Mipha. Reminding him that when his father looks at him he no doubt causes him pain, to resemble Mipha. Dorephan is a loving, supportive father, but even the most loving will be different after the loss of their child. Nothing will bring back the days that Sidon probably remembers faintly. And that is, itself, a grief that Sidon is, has, or will have to come to terms with. Your parent cannot be the same parent after the loss of your sibling, and your life will forever become Before Their Death and After Their Death. His father loves him, but grief paints them both. Their love as father and son is forever changed with her death. Each has a hole that neither can fill—and both of them know that. It does not lessen their love; but it remains incomplete.

He has well-earned his fan club, but not for his hot bod.

And no I wouldn’t ship him with Link because yes falling in love with your dead fiancee’s sibling happens irl but like I said before if one of my own dead sister’s old boyfriends came back from the dead and was crushing on me I’d be out of there in a heartbeat, GOODBYE. It’s a perfectly fine ship BUT I GOT MY OWN BAGGAGE OKAY.

Maybe Bazz. Or Yunobo. Or Kass and Teba if they’re down for some polycules. Link and Sidon can be good-but-slightly-awkward-bros.

[neon-junkie]

unpopular opinion: Micah is terrible but he shows instances of having real, human emotions and completely erasing those moments to paint him as a 100% monster is a disservice for the fandom.

arrrrkajslkfjdsglk okay I'm gonna break Micah down and explain why I like him, just bc of everything going on and cause you've summed that up perfectly. Let's make one thing clear - I don't stan his actions, I never have, I never will. A lot of ppl seem to keep ignoring that lmfao. AND we all know that Micah is a fucking piece of shit. He's the devil. We know. Like the list goes on and on and on when it comes down to why Micah's garbage, but I guarantee you, there is NOBODY out there who actually *stans* him. He's a villain and damn good one. Now. Relating to what you've said, this man has just as much emotion as everybody else. I think the people who view him as an emotionless monster have either never seen ANY camp interactions with him, or they just choose to ignore them. For whatever reason. Idk. It is VERY obvious that Micah has 100% been abused by his father, probably physically as well as mentally and emotionally. He openly talks about the monster that his father is, and he KNOWS that he is just like his father. Now, Amos (his bro), on the other hand, has managed to break away from that lifestyle, straighten his ways, and settled down. Micah is so obviously jealous and even takes the time to write to his brother, probably to try and rekindle their sibling friendship or whatever you wanna call it. Amos basically goes 'NO' and slaps that idea right out of Micah's head, so I do feel bad that Micah was rejected. Amos makes it clear that he will only rekindle that if Micah changes, but he doubts Micah is able to change. So now his only 'role models' are gone - his father and Amos - Micah has nothing left to lose. He has no family, friends that encourage his chaos rather than help fix him, and no partner. He's a loose cannon, and without guidance, Micah will only continue to fire. That's why he sucks up to Dutch so much, because he STILL needs acceptance, praise, and guidance, and Dutch gives him all of that. Yeah, it's creepy to see, but that man must be dying inside if he'll literally lick Dutch's shoes just for a bit of acceptance. Micah clearly does try, like his approach to making friends is so cringe, but he's clearly never ever done this before, and he's only following the ways his father taught him. I mean, we see him still try to befriend Arthur at the start of the game, but Arthur barely looks at him and just continues to shoot him down. I know Arthur is probably following his gut, but people can't say that Micah didn't try. And we see him try it on with the women of the camp, he's clearly desperate to at least find a partner, and probably secretly jealous that his brother has that and a family. And if his brother can do it, then maybe he can too? and we do see him try. But Micah's no rapist, and it makes me cringe when ppl say that. There's a good post about it (here) that I won't go into detail, u can just read that for urself. So - Micah has nothing to lose. The camp doesn't want him there, so it's no sweat off his nose if he rats them out. Obviously, I don't agree with it and I think Micah should have just left, but then that'd be a very boring game lmfao.  There's nobody stopping him from causing chaos, and he's just going to continue to do what he was taught to do - be a fucking piece of shit. But to say he has no emotions? You sure about that? It's SO obvious that Micah still craves acceptance in any form, whether it's from a friend, a partner, his mentor, etc. He NEEDS acceptance and he seems very lost without it. And it's so clear that Micahs past trauma still controls his actions, and he clearly has no idea how to even begin accepting and moving past his trauma. That man just needs a therapist asap. Peter Blomquist said it himself, that Micah is essentially just misunderstood. (here) And well, if his own actors said that then why the hell do people continue to ignore it? Because they just want to hate Micah. They view him as an evil and racist piece of shit and just want to hate that, which everybody does cause yanno, it's bad. But they continue to ignore that Micah, like Bill, suffers from a lot of mental trauma and issues, and his past has resulted in the person that he is today. I’ll say this AGAIN, I’m not condoning his actions, far from it, I’ve said many times before that Micah is fucking garbage, we just find him interesting. Honestly, I think if the gang was accepting, or if Micah had someone to shove him in the right direction, then he would have redeemed himself and fixed his ways. Things like racism are taught, and if you can teach it, then you can unteach it, just like Bill begins to learn. Micah is a villain and that's why I like him. Again, I don't support or stan his actions, but it's just so refreshing to see someone so chaotic and loose. People saying that you shouldn't like Micah because he's racist, also choose to ignore the fact that Abigails abusive, so why do y'all still stan her when we see the way she speaks to John? or the way she physically abuses him? So abuse is fine but racism isn't? hmm.  But if we shouldn't like Micah because he's bad then why the hell do we like characters like Darth Vader or all the fucking Disney villains? Have you seen how much merch those criminals have? But a bunch of strangers on the internet having a wank over the ratman is bad? We're allowed to enjoy those but not Micah? big sigh. Peter also said that there's nothing wrong with liking Micah. You're allowed to enjoy villains, it's not a fucking crime, and it doesn't mean you support their actions, it never has done.

PLUS, this is a game full of mass murderers?!?! Arthur does a LOT that is considered questionable, such as beating a terminally ill man into his grave, but people choose to draw the line at Micah. You’re free to enjoy whatever fiction you want, but there’s no line you can draw. Well, you can draw a line for yourself, but you can’t rule what others can and cannot enjoy.

It's just SO tiring (personally) to constantly see happy endings and pure, wholesome, golden characters. I'm a sucker for bad guys and seeing them win, so when I played RDR I was like 'oh yeah, this is what I need' and that's probably why Micah's my fave lmao. It's so refreshing to see, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. Some people just enjoy villains, big whoop. We need to stop expecting characters to be pure cause that's just so unrealistic. Everybody has flaws of all different kinds, and that's what makes these characters human. Like, are we just choosing to ignore the fact that Arthur is the most wanted out of the gang, who has probably murdered the most people? Do we just wanna sweep his kill count under the rug and choose to hate Micah based on the one fact of him being racist? The whole fucking gang are outlaws, they're all essentially villains, even the babies like Kieran!! Micah is just as complex as every other character in this stinky game, and people who refuse to acknowledge his layers and just portray him as a monster are whack as shit. And remember, those who tell you what you can and can't enjoy are just as bad as Micah Bell himself. Especially the ones who abuse you over FICTION.

[aliciadelaplaya]

So what should TRF do, exactly?

Yet again there have been almost defeaning calls on SM for TRF to DO SOMETHING about the  Sussexes.  So, I’d like to address this question, maybe throw in something of a reality check.

Most people should know by now that it is not in HMTQ’s power to remove the Sussex titles.  This can only be done by an Act of Parliament, and primary legislation at that. 

This means that the “motion” has to be debated by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. 

Now, just think for a minute, a debate, in the house of commons, with all those Black Female Labour MPs banging on about removing the titles from the, supposedly, first bi-racial member of TRF. Goodness, if people thought that the Sussexes incoherent and contradictory mud slinging about “conversations” about the colour of Archie’s skin was damaging to TRF, how much worse would it be to hear elected representatives of the British people (however ignorant, biased and downright stupid) accuse TRF of racism in The Mother of Parliaments.  Now that would be seriously damaging. 

And of course The British Government has far more important things it needs to Parliamentary time for.

Also, there is some sort of notion floating around Social Media that if HMTQ asks Parliament, then it will immediately be given.  Anyone who knows anything about the hundreds of years that it has taken the UK to go from an absolute to constitutional monarchy knows damn well that a) HMTQ would never dream of asking and b) HM’s Government would in no way automatically acceed to any request made by the Sovereign. 

Some people seem to think that we live in some sort of medieaval kingdom with an all powerful Monarch. 

Yet,  there are still those who are jumping up and down, calling HMTQ and PC fit to burn because they are “Not Doing Anything”

OK, so put your money where your mouth is? 

What should they do? 

Exactly. 

Go on,

tell us. 

What would you do if one of your sons or brothers, daughters or sisters had got themselves ensnared with a dangerous narcissist? When every word of warning, every well-meant piece of advice does nothing more than drive them further into the arms of their addiction.

What would you do if their mental state before they met this person was a matter of family concern and now, far from your care, deaf to your entreaties, was publicly deteriorating to the point that they have become a world-wide laughing stock?

Tell us.  What would you do?  They are an adult, one who has not been sectioned, free to make their own choices, to lead their own life.  They are your family.  What do you do?

How exactly are you going to stop him talking about you, spreading lies and gossip?  Go on, tell us, we’re dying to know.

What would you do if your beloved family member had made it clear to you that if their spouse leaves them, they will kill themselves?  Go on, what would you do?

What would you do if you believed that anything your family did could be the cause of anger on the part of the narcissist and put your loved one in danger.  What would you do, exactly, to stop them? Please tell us.  There are a lot of people out there who would love to know.

“Cut them off” many people are crying!  But that is what we know PC has done, albeit after providing his younger son and his wife with a substantial gift to help set them up in their new lives, as per the Megxit agreement. 

Tell the truth about the surrogates?  Yes, we would all like that, we know that niether of those children were born of her body, that they are not entitled to a place in the line of succession.  Yet, however much we jump up and down and say that TRF is “public property”, the fact is, they too are still entitled to basic human rights, and one of those is privacy.  It is not for TRF to tell the truth about the surrogacies, it is not their story to tell.  It is for Harry and his wife.  One day the truth will come out, it always does.  The TRF can not be the ones to let the cat out of the bag.  They just can not.

OK, so people jump up and down saying that HMTQ and PC are showing weakness by not responding to all these attacks.  So tell us, what exactly would  you do?  Exactly, what would you have done when?

They said that you don’t own the rights to the word Royal (which is true)? When every single speech that woman made duing lockdown by Zoom has a dig at your family.  Would you respond?  How?  Exactly.

When they set up a photoshoot trampling over war graves, insulting the memories of both the US and the UK fallen?  What would you have done to stop it?  Go on, do tell?

I can’t be arsed to dig out the list of all the insults, swipes etc that these two have levelled at TRF, HMTQ, PC etc.  Geniunely because I’ve forgotten most of them, there have been so many, they have lost their currency, they have been devaluted.  Even the massive fall out from the “bombshell” whineathon with OW, was overtaken by more whinging, it’s a deluge.  How could the sitatuation have been helped if, as it was rumoured PC wanted to do, each accusation was thoroughly challenged.  Can you imagine?

How many of you own or run companies?  How many of you have had, in any shape or form had people complain to you about products or services?  How many of you have received unjustified/maliciious/ignorant complaints - 100% I would guess.  And what is the best way of dealing with these?  Do you engage and argue with every minor point, do you want to “win” the argument.  Does it make you feel better to win by beating the complainent over the head with your greater wisdom, teaching them a lesson, showing them for the stupid, ignorant people they are?  What happens if you engage?  It never bloody stops.  But if you reply thanking them profusely for the incredible amount of time they have taken to give you feedback, if you thank them for their custom, if you offer them a discount/money back.  If you ARE NICE TO THEM.  Guess what?  THEY HAVE NO WHERE TO GO!  NOWHERE. Believe me, I’ve done both and I can tell you hands down which is the most satisfying and, ultimately the most productive in the long term.

The situation is the same here, if TRF engages in any shape or form it will be playing directly into the Narcs playbook and the Sussexes will push back, it will excite them, thrill them, give them power.  It will be more fuel for their global whinging and victimhood. It will be more interminable articles in Hello and Page Six (Does anyone read these publications) Look at the few times TRF have pushed back and H has come in, all guns blazing with legal letters (and what happened to all that, we wonder).   Have you noticed that since the word got out that TRF were not going to stand by silently, the BS stories about HMTQ having zoom calls with the mythical child, buying waffle makers have stopped?

They are much more careful now when they try to bring HMTQ into their lunacy.

“Love me, hate me, but NEVER ignore me” is the Narcs motto and it will be driving Harry’s wife mad that they have been completely iced and are not rising to their constant baiting.  But some of the Megxiteers are.  Effectively, the Megxiteers are doing the Sussexes work for them.  That sure is some fuel for the narc.

It makes me laugh when the MSM and SM get their knickers in a twist about the latest fuckwittery coming out of Montecito (or whever they don’t live).  They want the child to be christened in Windsor with HMTQ present.  Don’t make me larff!  That is never going to happen.  This is absolute kite flying at it’s worst.  It’s poking the bear and all these ridiculous Royal Reporters nod their  heads and make seemingly wise podcasts about the prospect of this happening (and they can do it with - mostly - straight faces), as if it was actually a possibility when I’d like to think that they, like me, believe that H and his wife have been well and truly iced, they are personas non grata. 

When the wife buggered off back to Canada after the Commonwealth service leaving her useless husband to tell more lies on his own, rather than with her at his side, I was convinced then that she will never set foot on these shores again and I stand by that view now as I did then. 

So, the latest stick with which the megxiteers have chosen to beat TRF with is that the second child is now on the website as being in the line of succession.  Yes, it is an absolute abomination, yes, it offends every fibre of my being, yes I want to expose these two evil hypocrites for this egregregious fraud that they are perpetrating on TRF and the rest of the British people.  Of course, like most of you, I want to see justice done, and I want it done NOW.  But life isn’t like that.  and just as Caesar’s wife has to be above suspision so do our (much loved) RF.  Look how we all noticed the careful wording of the Baby congrats on the birth of the second child, they know, we know, but TRF have to play a staight bat, they just have to.

While, in the SM bubble we can all get ourselves wound up, upset, angry, sure that the monarchy will fall etc etc outside, in the real world, most people don’t give a flying fuck about Harry.  He’s an idiot, an ex-royal, gone, finished.  He is not important either inside or outside TRF.

HE IS IRRELEVANT.

And, if anyone is wondering while all this stuff about book deals is coming out  now. I give you this:

The Mail on Sunday appeal - will probably run into next year The Bullying accusations - will probably run into next year. Tom Bower’s book (this is a biggy) - to be published next year?

The Sussexes are aware they are losing popularity, that is why each pronouncement is more and more ludicrous and each Hello article more and more desperate.

The Sussexes are aware they are under attack by forces outside TRF, and they are making their pre-emptive strikes at the low hanging fruit, the soft underbelly of his family. 

TRF are doing exactly the right thing.  Keep Calm, Carry On and while ignoring them won’t make them go away, it will make them look increasingly ridiculous.

This is true strength, not to rise to the bait, to carry on regardless. Remember our Queen has a strong and deeply held Christian faith, turning the other cheek is part of that, whether we like it or not.   TRF should not, under any circumstances sink to the level of Harry and his wife. 

Let’s just enjoy the H show for what it is, a mentally unstable ensnared fool doing everything he can to ensure he continues to receive the favours (sexual and otherwise) of the narcissist he married.  Because, imho, that is what it’s all about. 

Remember the engagement interview.  “I hope she loves me as much as I love her”. 

Sorry mate, that ship has sailed and nothing, nothing you can do will bring it back.

[eretzyisrael]

Our Enemies Deploy the Cognitive Bomb

The first thing you need to know about the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that was released on 27 April accusing Israel of “apartheid” is that the accusation has nothing to do with apartheid as most people understand it, the racially-based system of oppression that was in place in South Africa before roughly 1991.

HRW is accusing Israel of “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution,” which are defined by a treaty called the “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,” based on a UN General Assembly resolution passed in 1973, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

It should be noted that neither Israel nor the USA are parties to either treaty. The 1973 convention was signed by 109 countries, which do not include Israel, the USA, Canada, Australia, or any of the developed countries of Western Europe.

Here is the definition of the crime of apartheid as understood by HRW:

An intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another.

A context of systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group.

Inhumane acts.

The “inhumane acts” referred to by the definition include such things as murder, torture, “arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment,” forced labor, “deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part,” all on the basis of race or ethnicity. While Palestinians often claim such mistreatment, their claims – often amplified and lent authority (the “halo effect”) by HRW and similar NGOs – are overwhelmingly false, exaggerated, or lacking in context (e.g., the claim is commonly made that a Palestinian was “executed” when he was shot in the act of stabbing a Jew or running one down with a car).

HRW also adds that

The reference to a racial group is understood today to address not only treatment on the basis of genetic traits but also treatment on the basis of descent and national or ethnic origin, as defined in the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Human Rights Watch applies this broader understanding of race.

In other words, apartheid doesn’t have to involve “race.” Any alleged discrimination against a national group can be considered apartheid. And given that “Palestinians” have diverse origins, including Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and even the same Canaanite tribes as the forbears of the Jewish people, they don’t even fit this broader definition.

When I hear “apartheid” I think of white, black, and colored beaches and restrooms, laws against interracial marriage or even sexual relationships, laws establishing segregated housing, employment, and public transportation, denial of the right to vote or hold office, and so forth. I think of official classification of people by color. It is not an exaggeration to say that such a system, brutally imposed by force (as it was in South Africa), is a crime against humanity.

And that, of course, is why HRW, an organization that has changed over the years from a legitimate human rights watchdog into part of the well-oiled (and thickly greased with dollars and euros) machine for the delegitimization and demonization of Israel, wishes to accuse the Jewish state of apartheid, a crime that today evokes revulsion throughout the world – and which, following the precedent set by the treatment of the Republic of South Africa, justifies the boycotting, sanctioning, and total expulsion from the international order of Israel.

As the Kohelet Forum notes in its response to the report, no country other than South Africa has ever been deemed an “apartheid state” by a majority of the international community, including China, Sudan, and others that have engaged in massive systematic oppression of minorities.

None of the characteristics of South African apartheid can reasonably be applied to Israel. Everyone who knows anything about apartheid South Africa and Israel knows that. There is simply no resemblance, and HRW’s abstraction of the crime of apartheid and application of the word to Israel is dishonest and is part of the cognitive war that is being waged against her as a prelude to her hoped for physical destruction.

But never mind. Israel is being accused of seriously mistreating Palestinian Arabs, both its Arab citizens and the residents of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza, simply because they are Palestinians. If that is true, it is certainly reprehensible. So we should consider if the report even succeeds in making that case.

The report is 213 pages long, so it is impossible for me to critique it in detail in a short blog. But here are some things that I noticed in the first few pages (see the Kohelet response to HRW for more):

The report says that

From 1967 until the present, [Israel] has militarily ruled over Palestinians in the OPT, excluding East Jerusalem. By contrast, it has since its founding governed all Jewish Israelis, including settlers in the OPT since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, under its more rights-respecting civil law.

This is untrue. There is no military government in Gaza – there is zero Israeli presence there at all – and areas A and B of Judea and Samaria are ruled by the PA. There is a military administration of Area C, the territory that is under full Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords, but that administration governs both Israeli communities and Palestinian ones. There is no “separate law” for the two populations.

In general, the report ignores the existence of the PA and the Hamas government of Gaza. It’s true that Israel controls the borders and airspace between the river and the sea (with the exception of the border between Gaza and Egypt). But it does not control the daily lives of all of the residents of those areas as the report asserts.

HRW criticizes Israel for not allowing free movement of Palestinian Arabs from the territories into pre-1967 Israel, and for not allowing those Arabs outside of Israel recognized by the UN as “Palestinian refugees” to enter the territories or pre-1967 Israel. It dismisses Israeli explanations that this is a consequence of the amply-demonstrated Palestinian propensity to commit murderous terrorist acts against Israelis, saying “[e]ven when security forms part of the motivation, it no more justifies apartheid and persecution than it would excessive force or torture.” Tell it to those thousands of Israelis who have lost friends and family members to Palestinian terrorists.

There is almost no mention of Palestinian terrorism throughout the full report, even though most restrictions placed on Palestinian movement, such as the Judea/Samaria security barrier, were instituted after the murderous Second Intifada, in which more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered by terrorists. The selective blockade of Gaza is criticized without reference to the thousands of rockets that have been fired into Israeli towns, or the numerous tunnels intended to infiltrate terrorists into Israel. There is no mention of the 2015-2018 “stabbing intifada” which took the lives of dozens of Israelis.

The report claims that within pre-1967 Israel, “Palestinian [sic] citizens [have] a status inferior to Jewish citizens by law” as a result of the Nation-State Law, which in fact does not restrict them in any way, and which is similar to constitutional provisions in other ethnic nation-states, including the proposed constitution for the State of Palestine. It also invents or misrepresents other laws, including those concerning citizenship and residence.

The report will probably be a prime exhibit in the upcoming “Durban IV” conference on racism which will be held this September at the UN in New York, on the 20th anniversary of the first Durban conference, which devolved into an “anti-Israel hate-fest.”

Accusations of apartheid and persecution are tremendously powerful, especially in the US in today’s climate of racial antagonisms. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually a national/political one, and not a racial one (although antisemitism plays an important role). It has little in common with pre-1991 South Africa or the racial problems of the USA. It is also a small part of a much larger project by a group of nations, international institutions, NGOs, and others to eliminate the Jewish state. These antagonists are motivated by geopolitics, religion, ideology, antisemitism, or all of these. By focusing only on the Palestinians, the HRW report has the effect of hiding this broader context.

Israel’s domestic political paralysis, which has been ongoing for at least two years, makes it hard enough to respond to the military challenges it faces from its enemies. But it is impossible for an essentially leaderless nation to properly fight a cognitive war. Fixing this has to be Israel’s top priority today.

Abu Yehuda

[anxiouslyfred]

Unofficial Bar Security

Summary: Remus likes fighting and has gotten known at his local bar as someone who will fight anyone with bigoted views. He just hopes that his marks don’t mean he’ll meet his soulmate by fighting them

warnings: sexism mentions, homophobia and racism mentions, bar fight

/\/\

Remus enjoyed fighting. He always had and it had only gotten worse when he realised how many bigoted self-absorbed bastards there were around, all to ready to lecture, insult or attack him because of the pride badges he wore, or just because he didn't care about wearing popular fashions.

When the bar he liked going to most often started doing specials and hosting events for Pride month or to support the Black Lives Matter movement, Remus was already on watch for anybody causing trouble. In fact he basically became a voluntary security guard given the owners and staff had assured him that any fights started because someone had been racist or queerphobic towards any labels wouldn't get him thrown out. That was basically permission given to Remus to insert himself into any situation he liked and get into additional fights.

The main reason he even thought curiously about getting into fights was that he was fairly sure however he met his soulmate was going to include him grabbing them. He could only hope that was a grab to get them out of a fight rather than starting one with them. It seemed likely given the lighter skin covered his hands and a line down his chest which no matter how many play fights Remus had instigated with his brother couldn't easily be used to attack, only capture and possibly defend as a body shield.

He had visions of meeting them in the bar, possibly someone getting harassed by the one racist group that refused to get the point that their views weren't welcome, and just grabbing them out of the way. There could even still be a fight once he got them out of the way, to show how skilled he is at them.

Remus dismissed the daydreams from his mind, taking another sip of his beer and glancing around the bar. The group of pests was back again, but they seemed to be being quiet for the time being. There were a few groups of teenagers from out of town, probably on a road trip together or something for the summer.

There was a fabulous fellow just waiting at the bar, and looking more than a little uncomfortable. They seemed a bit out of place, hunching into their hoodie and glancing around at the various groups cheering and laughing together. Remus  had to watch for a while, just taking in the lithe form and wary posture. Either this was someone who had been forced to come with their friends or had come out for some space from a bad situation.

Still Remus wouldn't mind on getting his hands on that bum, or offering to keep their company for a while. There was only so much control one could have while waiting for their soulmate and Remus would happily let it go for an adorable... fighter? While he'd been watching the person they must have heard something from the abuse gang and was already glaring and stepping over to them.

Just was the frantic gestures Remus had to move closer, ready to act whether to help or just get the person out of there was yet to be determined. The group had been in the bar longer than normal without causing trouble and tended to react worse the more alcohol they'd had, which could be very bad for the person Remus had been watching.

Whatever was being said was getting hissed too quietly for him to make out the words, but the reaction was obvious. The men that had been laughing together and judging everyone else had started off falling silent but now were all standing, scowling and trying to get out from the table in order to surround the person. Remus barely thought the instant one raised an empty bottle as though about to break it.

The noise of yelling and glass breaking broke out just as he grabbed the person, one hand aiming for their shoulder but hooking around the neck, the other for their bum as Remus pushed into them, the momentum taking them into a booth next to where the guys were getting out from.

“Security! These guys are attempting to attack us with a broken glass! They've been making racist and homophobic comments all evening too!” He turned to yell after checking the person hadn't hit anything in the action. There were battles Remus would love to fight, but the chances of someone completely uninvolved getting hurt with broken glass being used as a weapon was far too high. Plus hopefully if security got involved then the group would be banned forever this time.

From the faces now directed towards him it was obvious they all realised it too. He might be the volunteer unofficial security against bigoted people but as soon as he was calling for the people paid for the role, they weren't likely to be coming back again. Still Remus paid attention to what was happening, using his body to block the fascinating person behind him in case any of them tried anything now. The cameras in the place would show what had happened and his own reports that had been recorded after the previous few fights they'd had should be more than enough to identify them if they tried coming back.

Eventually though he turned back to face the person, hoodie now discarded to the side of them as they were trying to look at the side he'd tackled them from. “Are you okay? Sorry for tacking you, but those guys are some nasty work I've been trying to teach to be better with my fists for weeks. Didn't know what else to do when one raised the bottle.”

They startled, turning to him with a stunned expression, before raising their hand up to their neck. “Yeah, yeah, I'm good, I guess. Um, are your hands...?” They broke off, looking at Remus as though they were torn between finishing the question and ignoring it. Their actions had already made Remus realise that their neck now had a neon green hand print on it though.

Raising his hands up for them both to look he burst out laughing to see they'd turned violet, but just to be sure he was dragging his top and jacket off to look at the pale line on his chest, now a matching purple to his hands. “Oh my god! I actually did that trying to protect you! I mean I hoped, I hoped so much, cause body connections like that are kinda weird to get but with all the fights I've been in I was still worried.”

“I mean that's a better worry than I had. Everyone said one of these marks had to be a birthmark and if they could only see the neck that my soulmate is going to try to suffocate me the first time we touch.” Their voice was shaky, and they were watching Remus as though expecting some kind of bad reaction to his soulmate being them.

“Never. Besides that's like the least interesting way for someone to die. I've got books and books about how different deaths are interesting and suffocation just isn't that good.” he had calmed a little at the mention, reaching out to stroke over their neck for a moment before realising he still knew nothing about this person, and they knew nothing about him in return. “I'm Remus, by the way, and you are fascinatingly dark. He/him pronouns if you will. Can I know my soulmates name and pronouns, or even just whatever battle led you to telling those jerks off?”

“Virgil and  he/him too, currently. I'll let you know when they change. And those guys were making the girls close to where I was stood with the catcalling and jeers they made. I might not know them but nobody should have to hear the vile things they were talking about when they just wanted to have a night out.” Virgil nodded, tugging a pronoun wristband out from the sleeve of his top so it could be seen.

Remus snickered a little. “I have done the same before. Got standing permission to get into fights if people say hate filled things or encourage discrimination while I'm here.”

“What – what do you want to do now? About the soulmates thing, I mean?” Virgil asked, gaze following Remus's hands as he bounced them a bit.

That felt like a loaded question, and just from the way Virgil was shifting in his seat Remus could see he was anxious about the answer. There was a lot of pressure from society over how soulmates should act together, but it all felt pretty meaningless to him. “Get to know you preferably. I'm not jumping into settling down with a complete stranger no matter how cute your butt is, but we could practise fighting together? Message online or something?”

“Thank god. I did not want to jump into soulmates means we have to be joint at the hip thing either. It sounds socially exhausting just thinking about it.” Virgil sighed, giving the distinct impression that if Remus had wanted it he would have gone along with it all for his sake. “It does sound like fun to practise wrestling with you. Where do you train?”

Remus had always enjoyed fighting. He was just ecstatic to know that he didn't meet his soulmate by fighting them.