#don't strawman what i said

[homuraakemis]

So, I didn't have anyone specific in mind when I wrote this post. I was talking about a fandom opinion in general that I disagree with. That being said, I don't think you understood my post at all. You say "For me personally the actions of Vi [...] just work better [...] if her feelings are more universal (care about all people, not specifically about Zaunites)" and "So if even [...] Ekko can have moments of doubt, why shouldn't Vi also be able for have that [...] why shouldn't her commitment to Zaun also be possible to waver?". But that was literally the point of my post! That's what I said! I literally said in the last paragraph of my post that Vi ends as a protector to everyone, that she is a person who cares about everyone (which includes Zaun). And I pointed out that her commitment to Zaun (and her commitment to protecting/caring about people in general) DID waver in her pitfighter era. Also, at no point in my post do I say that Vi cares about Zaun specifically, simply that she does care and that she does want what's best for Zaun.

About what you said in your point (1): at no point did I say Vi cared about Zaun being independent. I said she cared about the well-being of the people of Zaun. That does not have to mean independence, and at no point in my post did I say Vi cared about that.

About your point (2): I have to disagree here. I know you can see everything through the lens of Vi simply wanting revenge against Silco/hating Sevika for betraying Vander, etc. But I think saying it's all for revenge ignores Vi's characterization as a deeply empathetic person, as someone who looks at the Firelights hideout and is regretful that she wasn't there to help out everyone (she says everyone, not just Ekko), as someone who looks at Caitlyn with admiration when Caitlyn says the city needs healing, as someone who is disdainful of Jayce and people who stick their heads in the dirt and do nothing. Vi's motivations might not be purely selfless, but they're also not purely selfish and they're not purely out of hatred or revenge. Saying it's all for revenge ignores Vi's characterization and ignores all of these moments of empathy and desire to help that I pointed out in my examples.

About your point (3): You say "In season 1 we only ever see her seek help fighting help from Piltover, not Zaunites". So what? Piltover has the riches and resources to help her, the people of Zaun don't. In fact, the ones in Zaun with the money and resources (Silco and the chem-barons) are the very people Vi wants to take down. It makes perfect sense to try to get Piltover's help, especially considering that she was handed the opportunity to speak to Jayce and the councillors through Caitlyn, while in Zaun she has no connections after spending so many years in prison, (the one connection she has are the Firelights, and while the Firelights have been fighting against Silco, they clearly don't have enough resources to beat him). It has nothing to do with "Vi having a low opinion of Zaun", she doesn't have a low opinion of Zaun. It also has nothing to do with Vi "not seeing Zaunites as allies". It's a matter of pragmatism. Vi is simply working with what she has. Also, saying Vi "supports pretty rough measures against Zaunites" is incorrect. Vi supports rough measures against Silco and the chem-barons, not against innocent people. As I pointed out in my original post, she puts herself between Heenot and Caitlyn (even though Heenot is a criminal), she protects Isha, she is against a full scale invasion, and so on. Vi is never in favor of police brutality against the people of Zaun, and she shows this with her actions.

About your point (4): Vi doesn't merely "go along" with Caitlyn. In Caitlyn's house, she first asks Caitlyn to go after Jinx alone so that no one will get hurt. So she clearly had her own opinions on how to proceed, and these opinions are different from Caitlyn's. In the scene after the memorial attack, she has this conversation with Caitlyn:

Vi: You need to find a way to call off the invasion. Caitlyn (in an outraged tone): What? Vi: This battle was on your soil. Down there, you'll be on their terms. Caitlyn: None of this is on our terms. Vi: Maybe you should change that.

During this conversation, Caitlyn is angry. She is calling the attackers animals, she admits she is pissed off, and when Vi suggests calling off the invasion, she says "what?" in an outraged tone. Caitlyn may have started the season talking about avoiding casualties, but after the memorial attack, she is angry, she is not in her right mind. Vi is the one that pushes back against Caitlyn here. Vi is the one that calms her down and convinces her to look for an alternative. Vi is the one showing more care for Zaun here, not Caitlyn (I'm not saying Caitlyn doesn't care about Zaun or casualties, by the way, just that at this moment, she was too clouded by anger). Saying that Vi "just went along with Caitlyn's plan" is ignoring Vi's agency and ignoring what we were shown in canon.

And about what you said about Vi's emo phase and why she didn't "stand against Caitlyn", you answered your own question in your post: Vi is human, she can waver, just like Ekko admits he wavered. Vi lost everyone she loves, she is disappointed in Caitlyn, she doesn't quite have the will to fight at that point. But just because she wavered, that doesn't mean she never cared about Zaun or about people in general, it just means that she was at a low point in her life.

About your point (5): Again, so what if Vi ends up living in Piltover? Doesn't mean she never cared about Zaun or that she stopped caring. And as I said in the beginning of this reply, I never said in my post that Vi had a special connection with Zaun. When you say that "her connection is just not as deep", yeah, I agree. In fact, if you reread my original post, you can see that I clearly stated that Vi is an empathetic person in general. She cares about Zaun, but she cares equally about Piltover as well. THAT is the point that I was making in my post. I was simply stating that Vi does care about Zaun, she is not completely detached and apathetic as some people in the fandom say she is (I'm not saying that you think that, by the way. I'm talking about the fandom in general).

About your comment that "Vi has been beating up and interrogating Zaunite prisoners for years while no longer showing aggression against Wardens": yes, because she was beating and interrogating Silco's goons. This has nothing to do with her not caring about Zaun. And her no longer showing aggression against the Wardens makes sense, because at some point, she must have realized that she wasn't going to escape that way, so she focused her attention on Silco's goons. Doesn't mean she hated Zaun or anything like that. Silco's goons aren't Zaun.

About your comment that "she will likely defer to Cait": if Caitlyn is sheriff, she has to defer to her simply by virtue of Caitlyn being a superior officer. But if by this you mean that Vi will accept anything that Caitlyn says, I disagree. As I pointed out in several examples in this very post, Vi does not blindly follow Caitlyn, she has her own agency and her own opinions and pushes back against Caitlyn when she needs to.

About all your bullet points about Vi being angry at Silco, I'm not going to repeat myself. As I said, there are plenty of examples that I gave above that show that Vi is not just motivated by revenge or hatred or just motivated by protecting her sister, but that she is also motivated by her empathy towards people in general (see what I wrote in my comments about your point 2, as well as my original post).

About your comment that "Vi is promoting relative harshness towards Zaunites when she teams up with Jayce": no she isn't, see what I wrote about this in my reply to your point 3.

Finally, to reiterate what I said in the beginning of this reply: you misunderstood my post. My original post never said anything about Vi caring about Zaun specifically, nor was it about Vi wanting independence or anything like that. I was simply saying that I disagree with people who say that she doesn't care about Zaun at all or that her actions are only motivated by protecting her family/hating Silco/supporting Caitlyn. My point in my original post is exactly what you said at the end of your post: Vi is an empathetic person in general: she cares about everyone, and that includes Zaun. And her empathy towards everyone is a big motivator in her actions, it's not just her hatred for Silco/care for loved ones like Jinx and Caitlyn. The point of my post is saying that Vi has agency and motivations beyond being an extension of these characters.

Vi is a protector and a fighter

I’ve seen people criticize the writing of Vi’s character in season 2 because she didn’t end up as a revolutionary for Zaun. I’ve also seen people defend the writing by saying that Vi doesn’t really care about fighting for Zaun, she only cares about her family and the people she loves. And I disagree with both of these positions. I don’t think Vi’s character was ruined because she was not a revolutionary (I don't think her character was ruined at all), but I also don’t think it’s correct to say that she doesn’t care about Zaun or that she doesn't want to fight for it.  On the contrary, one of the things that is consistent to Vi’s character is that she does care about Zaun, she doesn’t stop caring, and she wants to fight for it. Becoming an enforcer does not mean Vi no longer cares about Zaun, on the contrary, it’s the way Vi finds to protect it.

You can see that Vi cares about Zaun, and not just her family, from the beginning: as a teenager, she wants to fight back against Piltover: “we need to fight back. And if you won’t, I will”, “these are our streets, someone should remind them of that”. These sentiments have nothing to do with just protecting her family, it’s about her care for the Undercity. She later gives up on the desire to fight and decides to turn herself in to protect Powder, Mylo and Claggor, but that doesn’t mean that she never cared about Zaun, only that her priorities, at that moment, were with her family.

As an adult, we see Vi express similar sentiments about wanting what’s best for Zaun. When she meets Babette at the brothel, she says “By the looks of it no one down here lifted a finger to stop Silco”. She's disgusted that no one dared to protect the Undercity from Silco. Yes, stopping Silco would also mean saving her sister, but in this conversation, she’s talking about the Undercity in general, she wants to stop Silco because she sees what he did to the Undercity. When Silco finds them, she says “I'm gonna find her and erase whatever fucked-up delusions you put in her head. But first, I'm gonna bring your bullshit empire down all around you”. Here, she states that her goal is to find her sister AND also destroy Silco’s empire. When she’s at the Firelights’ hideout, she tells Ekko “I should have been there. For you, for everyone.” Again, she wanted to be there not just for Ekko, but for everyone. She looks at Caitlyn with admiration when Caitlyn says "This city needs healing", which once again shows how much Vi cares about the city in general. When she enlists Jayce's help to attack Silco's shimmer factory, we see Vi's desire to take action to help the Undercity, and her disdain for people who don't take action (she disdainfully calls Jayce "a victim" when he tells her he is not a vigilante, and after the raid on Silco's factory, she says "You've always been a part of this. You just never had to look it in the eye. One dead kid? There's hundreds more where he came from, thanks to Silco, and thanks to people like you who stuck their heads in the dirt"). In her second fight with Sevika, she imagines Vander saying "She still needs you. They all do". Who are "they all"? Yes, it could be Ekko and Caitlyn, but given all the other instances of Vi talking about her desire to protect the Undercity in general, I think it's likely that she thinks the Undercity needs her. So as we can see, even as an adult, Vi states multiple times her desire to help the Undercity as a whole, not just her family and loved ones. She wants to fight for it and disdains those that don't fight or don't do anything to help.

And her actions follow her desire to protect the Undercity. As a teenager, she wants to fight Piltover, because she sees Piltover as the greatest threat to the Undercity. But as an adult, she sees Silco and shimmer as the greatest threat to the Undercity. And she is right: Silco flooded the Undercity with a dangerous drug that is highly addictive, debilitating and damaging to people’s health, but also turns people into super strong monsters with little control of themselves, who also attack people who aren’t users (as Ekko says, “everyone here was an addict or a victim”, that is, those who weren’t addicts were being victimized by the addicts). Not only that, but while Silco wants the Undercity’s independence from Piltover, he doesn’t actually seem to care about the social inequality and injustice within the Undercity itself, as seen by his use of child labor in shimmer factories (which is possibly slave child labor, considering that in the Sucker montage in season 2, we see Chem-barons trying to capture kids against their will).

Vi is right in seeing Silco and the chem-barons as a threat to the Undercity, and her actions in seasons 1 and 2 are consistent with her desire to protect the Undercity from them: in season 1, she wants to stop Silco and enlists Jayce’s help to dismantle the shimmer factories. At this point, she is already working with the enforcers, even if she hasn’t officially joined them. Vi wanted to keep going, to completely rid the Undercity from Silco and shimmer, but Jayce refused. So she tries to go directly to The Last Drop to confront Silco, and that’s where she has her second fight with Sevika. In season 2, Vi becoming an enforcer and being part of Caitlyn’s strike team is just a continuation of her season 1 actions in which she already worked with enforcers and already wanted to free the Undercity from Shimmer and its gangs.

But Vi doesn’t just want to get rid of Silco and the chem-barons. She also still wants to protect the Undercity from Piltover: after the attack on the memorial, she argues with Caitlyn to convince her to do something to stop a full scale invasion of Zaun, which is what leads to the strike team’s formation in the first place. The strike team is formed exactly as a way to minimize casualties. Yes, even the use of the Grey is meant to minimize casualties, and no, the Grey is not this lethal gas the fandom claims it is (see this meta for a more detailed discussion of the effects of the Grey). We see during the strike team that Caitlyn uses nets (aiming to capture, not kill), they help Heenot even though he is a criminal, and we also see Vi push back when she sees Caitlyn going too far: Vi puts herself between Caitlyn and Heenot when Caitlyn threatens him with a gun, Vi protects Isha, and later, Vi argues with Caitlyn over her having worked with Ambessa. Vi is constantly trying to avoid unnecessary violence and trying to uphold Caitlyn to the highest standards. She is shown to still care about protecting the Undercity from Piltover's oppression.

By the way, I know some people might get confused between Vi’s stance on not hurting Isha and her apparently justifying Jayce killing a child. But I think they’re different contexts: Vi understands that casualties will happen in the heat of the battle and is willing to accept them (even if she obviously feels remorse for what happened to Renni’s son, as we can see in her face when she looks down at his body), but she is not ok with deliberately putting a child at risk (considering that she already had Jinx pinned down and there was no necessity to shoot, Caitlyn was not in a right state of mind and the hextech weapons were glitching).

The only time Vi stops trying to help the Undercity is during her pitfighter era, but that’s very understandable: it’s her lowest moment in life, the moment she lost everyone she loved (her family, her sister and Caitlyn). I can’t really blame her for sinking into despair and not caring about politics during this moment of her life. But this is her lowest moment, it’s not who she usually is. Who she usually is is a person who cares deeply about everyone around her and wants to actively take action to shape the world around her. She takes action to stop Silco and Shimmer, she wants to stop Jinx herself, she takes action to avoid a Piltover invasion, she tries to avoid casualties and unnecessary brutality in the strike team, and so on. And we see that she disdains those that don't take action. Vi is not someone who wants a normal peaceful life, she wants to be a difference in the world around her. Becoming an enforcer isn’t about Vi “not caring about the Undercity” or “betraying the Undercity”, it’s the way Vi found to protect the Undercity, even if it meant people of the Undercity would see her as a traitor (which is very clearly a parallel to Vander, who also compromised with enforcers). And yes, I know part of the reason for her becoming an enforcer is about supporting Caitlyn, but it's not just about supporting Caitlyn, as we see plenty of examples of her expressing her desire to protect the Undercity and fight for it.

But Vi doesn't only care about the Undercity, she is an empathetic person in general (as Vander says, she has a good heart). As a teenager, she might have hated Piltover, but as an adult, and after meeting Caitlyn, we see that she deeply cares about everyone, even the people of Piltover. She condemns Jinx's attacks on Piltover, calls her a psycho for them, and wants to stop Jinx. She also cares about fighting to protect people in general: when she goes to free Jinx, she doesn't ask Jinx to run away with her (which is what she would do if she only cared about her family), she asks Jinx to stay and fight against Ambessa and Viktor. And in the end, she fights to protect the entire world. Because Vi is a protector at heart, not just to her family and loved ones, but to everyone.

Vi doesn’t end up as a revolutionary, but she does end up as someone who tries to work within the system to help the Undercity AND Piltover in any way she can, and that's consistent with who her character has been in the entire show. She ends up as a protector, not just to Zaun, but to everyone (it makes sense that she and Caitlyn end up together, given that Caitlyn is also a protector who tries to work within the system to protect everyone). And if she continues as an enforcer (as I do believe she does, considering her League lore), she and Caitlyn would definitely try to make institutional changes so that enforcers will actually protect people instead of serving as a means to oppress them.

[bonebabbles]

wait im sorry. ive never read past the first book of dotc and all my knowledge of it really just comes from your blogs. wh. why did the erins decide to include sexual violence in warriors? like. that seems a little. too much? like all im hearing of dotc is just. terrible shit. i like reading more angst/serious stuff (i wanna say darker but not in the way "dark media" usually means on this site) but this feels like WAYYY to much for a book series meant for kids....... what were they thinking??

I legitimately do not understand what people like about DOTC. You can go back to where I started this re-read, and you can visibly watch my charitability drain as the project goes on.

It feels like literally everything that people say they like about this arc is not there, while they've completely forgotten or misremembered SERIOUSLY awful shit

And now, listen. I'm a huge fan of xenofiction, which is a genre that is full of kid's and teen's media, but I do love more adult fiction. I love nuanced themes, dark subjects, and complicated plots.

DOTC's message is just plain odious. None of what it sets out to say is worth saying, and it's borderline incompetent at even saying it to begin with.

What they want to say with Clear Sky and Slash is that Clear Sky isn't "evil." He's a "fundamentally good person," and all of his intentions were good, so he learned a valuable lesson from all the abuse and murder. To say this, they CONTRAST him to Slash, a REAL evil person, who just loves hurting kids and harassing women. Clear Sky is good because he is not "real evil" like this fake, cartoon caricature we just made up.

There was absolutely zero need for them to write Slash the way they did. They really want you to be distressed for Clear Sky as his wife is assaulted in front of him and hauled off while kicking and screaming, and they decided the best way to do that was pregnant woman pinning face licking. Sexual violence is an easy way to disgust and anger an audience, simple as that.

As a kid you may not realize how messed up it is (though the asks I get on this blog are a testament to how many kids did, but didn't have the words to express their discomfort) but as an adult with your critical thinking on? It hits different.

[northwest-by-a-train]

Time loops are really about trauma. Ghosts are really about trauma. Vampires, of course, were about trauma the entire time. Frankenstein is about trauma. So is Wuthering Heights. So is Jane Eyre. And of course Sense and Sensibility is about trauma as well. You know what else is just a neat package for trauma ? Fairy tales. Sitcoms. Poetry. Gilgamesh was of course about trauma, as were the Iliad and the Odyssey. Gawain and the green knight, Dante's Inferno, Don Quixote number among the moving testaments to trauma. History is just the record of trauma, Geography is also the record of trauma, and Political Philosophy as well. The above are also causes for trauma. Trauma itself is, as anyone who has experienced trauma can tell you, a source of trauma. Trauma from the greek Trauma, meaning wound. The absence of the word wound in favour of the word trauma is an exemple of trauma in language. Trauma is the body of Christ, of every woman, of every child, of every old person, of every outcast, everyone whose body can be freely subjected to violence, of everybody who shirks and shies away from violence. Of everyone who visits violence upon another. Trauma endures, and if trauma is ever forgotten, that too is trauma. Trauma means wound and we all know what wounds mean. Jenny Holzer said it best. Hiding trauma is a form of trauma, as is displaying it proudly on one's chest. Ignoring it, never acknowledging its presence is also trauma. Dreams replay and reword and foretell trauma. Trauma will affect the way you will treat your children, your parents, your friends and lovers, and every stranger. Especially the strangers. It's not like you're the master of your trauma. It's not like your trauma masters you either. It's on you, it makes you, but it's not of you. We all have experienced trauma because society is a trauma-inflicting machine. We will never be free of trauma. We desperately want to be free of it. Some of it we can free ourselves from, if we learn the ways and and work hard and try to understand it. We know of people it has worked on. We want that from ourselves and are glad for them. One day. One day. One day.

..... Anyhow I can't believe some people still believe in Freud. Dude high off his mind on cocaine saying whatever, right ?

[just-another-product-of-today]

.

[raptorific]

Look don't test me I'll block and turn off reblogs with a hair trigger if you all can't be normal about this but I do feel like it needs to be said that "do you think abortion should be allowed if the mother's reason for wanting it is—" the only acceptable answer to that question is Yes no matter what the end of that sentence is going to be. I do not care if someone wants an abortion for selfish reasons or bigoted reasons or cruel reasons or any other hypothetical strawman you can think of, there is no circumstance where someone should be denied the right to opt out of a forced pregnancy and birth. First of all, who's in charge of interrogating everyone seeking an abortion to make sure they're doing it for reasons Pure Of Heart? Second, why do you think Forced Birth is an appropriate punishment to inflict on anyone? If your answer to "should abortion be allowed when the motivation is—" is anything but an unequivocal "yes, and I don't care about the motivation" then you are not pro-choice

[patricia-taxxon]

If you're a neutral onlooker to this, I won't ask much of you, but don't you dare miss the cause and effect of what happened here. This isn't about justice, incest fetishism or grooming. It's the same pattern, transmisogyny-exempt people will never be forced to introspect on why they keep being dealt the same card or why it keeps working, why every inconvenient transfem that is loud enough to enter their peripheral vision is also suspiciously easy to find dirt on. I said I felt vaguely threatened by transmasculine people, I was attacked, strawmanned, and old retracted callouts were reheated and served within days, with new distortions added on for flavor.

I should have learned my lesson to never make comparisons to anything, but I'm talking to people who I trust will at least take me at my word. The Heard/Depp trial wasn't about proving who abused whom, it was about the right of women to speak of the abuse they faced from men in power in even the vaguest possible terms without themselves having their privacy and dignity violated in the endless drive to reveal the imperfect victim.

And to any of the other transfems who are participating in this charade, just remember, it will happen to you. You will have a messy breakup, you will be abused or groomed and have the tables turned back on you, you will say something that makes a TME person uncomfortable, and suddenly the only people you'll be able to trust are the transfems who've already been burned. I'll say something now that you'll write off, but I hope you remember it when your time comes. I forgive you.

[cl0ckworkqueerness]

in the wake of the reveal of the "pills that make you green" comic's creator revealing her true colours (something I've been aware of for a while but haven't had much specifically to speak about until now), i think it's important to take a step back and look at some of her claims about transandrophobia, as well as many anti-transandrophobia (or transandrophobic) talking points, and analyze them critically without, in any way, demeaning transmisogyny as a concept. let's start with some of the things i've seen on her blog and go from there

first of all, there's a lot of talk about how activists who are vocal about transandrophobia are "derailing" conversations about transmisogyny. while i'm certain there are some legitimate examples, many of the examples i have seen that i presume she is referring to are speaking about her comics that specifically strawman the stick figure who is an allegory of a trans man or transmasculine individual.

in these comics, this stick figure is often unjustly cruel and even oppressive of the lime stick figure, an allegory for trans women or transfeminine individuals, while simultaneously whining about how they also experience oppression and should be focused on instead. this frames trans men and transmasculine individuals as loud, taking up space, oppressing transfeminine people (who are More Oppressed), and simply cannot understand that they do not face as terrible of treatment as the other.

the problem that most people, myself included, take with this is that the author seems to be living in an alternate world where trans men, somehow, are a legitimate, strong, oppressive force over trans women, and want to take up all the space in the trans community's discussion to ourselves. there are definitely people who abuse the term transandrophobia to say transmisogynistic things, without a doubt, but in my experience most of us simply want to say that we, too, experience terrible types of oppression as a result of intersectionality that a trans woman, transfeminine, or trans person who's perceived as either of those things may not experience. transandrophobia is not meant to overtake transmisogyny, it is meant to stand beside transmisogyny and further prove that different trans people can experience different types of oppression, and thus should unite against both.

another thing i've seen on the comic author's account is how the idea of androphobia is anti-feminist and comes from MRAs or something, which... uh, again, i don't know what planet you're living on, but here on earth, there are men who are discriminated against and even treated with violence because of their ties to masculinity, femininity, both, or neither. and again, it is not our problem if MRAs decide to appropriate actual, useful terms in order to spread misogyny. we should not have to keep changing our language every time a bad person uses it. if we did, we would have no language, and thus once again be silenced.

since i don't have the time or the spoons to go through everything she's ever said or reblogged on her account, i'll just go over one more thing. no, the discussion and desired visibility of transandrophobia is not some kind of psyop or massive conspiracy to kill the idea of transmisogyny. if we didn't believe in transmisogyny, we'd have no reason to believe in transandrophobia either, after all. for me, at least, talking about transandrophobia is equally as important because trans men, like myself, have been forced into silence for so long and erased from most of history. trans men weren't even well documented until much, much later in history.

additionally, i doubt this needs to be said, but if any of you are actually intentionally ignoring transmisogyny in your discussion of intersectionality, you have no place in this discussion

and finally, to the author of these comics, i doubt you're reading this, but if you are, please reconsider your hostility. framing the discussion around transandrophobia in the way you are is not only equating trans people who face detrimental oppression to the people who are trying to oppress us and force us into silence, but you too are actively advocating for the silencing and erasure of, and subsequently the lack of resources for, trans men, transmasculine individuals, trans people who are perceived as either of these things, or anyone who primarily faces transandrophobia. i don't blame you for being defensive, and i will absolutely take your side should anyone be transmisogynistic towards you or anyone else, but you don't have to drag trans men who just want to talk about our shared experiences through the mud in order to support your point of transmisogyny's danger, especially within the trans community. if you want to have a genuine, mature discussion about transandrophobia and its dangers, and transmisogyny within the trans community, i'm sure someone would be happy to discuss that with you. but with the way you're treating and talking about trans men, it is unlikely that you will take anyone up on that offer

idk man. i feel like it's important to talk about transmisogyny and transandrophobia at the same time, as well as all other forms of intersectionality. we should be turning transphobes into couches instead of whatever the hell this is

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

ZOOMER NOOOOOOOOO T-T

I feel deeply betrayed now. Luce is adorable why can't you just love her like a normal person

Anyway I just hope we get an entertaining video out of this *shrugs*

look at these stupid motherfuckers LMAO

[marzipanandminutiae]

most clothing historians: hey so corsets weren't actually the unilateral torture devices they get portrayed as in fiction. most women wore them in a comfortable, or at least tolerable, manner on an everyday basis and it's kind of messed up that we're ignoring their lived experiences to promote a false narrative

too many people online: UM BUT THEY WEREN'T ALL GOOD THEY WEREN'T PERFECT AND WONDERFUL FOREVER. THAT'S DEFINITELY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. YOU LOVE CORSETS SO SO MUCH AND THINK THEY COULD NEVER BE HARMFUL AND I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY TORTURE DEVICES SOMETIMES. WE'RE LOSING SIGHT OF THAT. WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THEY WERE BAD SOMETIMES. AND UNCOMFORTABLE. AND PATRIARCHAL. DON'T FORGET THAT!!! DID YOU FORGET IT? I WILL REMIND YOU SINCE YOU SEEM TO WORSHIP CORSETS OR SOMETHING

Edit: while I appreciate people weighing in on their corset thoughts in the notes, this isn’t really meant to be about whether corsets are good or bad, or comfortable or not. It’s about people inventing this mostly-strawman character of “historical costumer who thinks corsets are the best thing ever with no nuance“ and responding to it

[crooked-wasteland]

I'm not going to post the whole thing because it just trails off into irrelevance and I'm not here to platform strawman arguments, so here's the relevant part:

This is what we call perspective taking. Because if you notice, no one is talking about Limbus but rather clowning on how the fans are clutching their pearls over the fact that Alex Brightman signed a piece of paper and it hurt Medrano's feelings, so this somehow must be some nefarious action and Brightman, a grown man, is now a victim of some kind. It's hilarious.

That isn't to say I don't have opinions on Limbus. Bringing a printout of their video thumbnail and having that in specific get signed with the text "I made this" being, frankly, weird. That's weird. That's really weird.

But everyone in this scenario is equally weird. Fans are weird for infantilizing a grown man. Limbus is weird for their actions. And Medrano is weird for thinking she's friends with her employees.

Alex Brightman is a grown, adult man who has many years of experience with handling fans and requests that make him uncomfortable. He has always been reasonably vocal about things not sitting right with him for whatever reason, including something as banal as "This could be used against my character potentially". He has always been generally selective and conscientious of the repercussions of such things.

I don't like how it appears Limbus used this in some way to try and co-opt Brightman's allegiances. Whether that was not the intention, or maybe it was. It seems weird to post that so publicly as well. Implying that, yes, Limbus did do this as a way of manipulating a storyline.

At the same time, people saying Brightman was coerced into signing it is hilarious and the narrative around Medrano and her employees being "friends" is frankly demented. You cannot be friends with your boss, truly, until money is not a factor in the relationship. The fact that Medrano is friends with all her important employees, and yet whenever someone stopped being her employee she also was no longer friends with them is something that is going to come up.

If all your friendships are tied to who you are paying, you don't have friends. In some ways I feel bad for her in how she obviously thinks she can pay people to be her friend. And in a way this shows her that calling anyone who you are paying a "friend" is not mentally good for really anyone. She'll find out who her real friends are when she no longer signs their paychecks.

But you should maybe slow down and really look at what's being said by people. No one here has actually said that Alex Brightman agrees with Limbus. All we said was that if such an action made him uncomfortable, he has shown previously that he is willing to speak up about that and even refuse.

The overall consensus is the reality that this man does not give any care to whatever dumpster fire the fandom is currently fanning. He's doing his job. It's not personal.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

RACIAL GASLIGHTING

"I don't see color"

"Are you sure that's what really happened?"

"It was just a joke."

"It's not always about race"

“Not all cops are bad or racist."

"Not all black people face racism"

"I'm not racist my friend is black."

"Black people should just comply and they won't get killed."

"People might listen if they protested peacefully."

"Just to play the devil's advocate here..."

"This country isn't racist, we had a black president."

"If you're not doing anything illegal you won't have to worry about the police."

"They weren't being racist, maybe you took it the wrong way."

"Martin Luther King Jr was peaceful, why can't you be?"

“Racism doesn't exist anymore."

"Slavery was so long ago.”

You're adorable but congrats on making a strawman. Because even if you're claiming I've said all this is all wildly out of context.

"if you're not doing anything illegal you won't have to worry about the police"

This is true sometimes. But no one in their right mind actually believes this, even if they say it. Because while yes SOMETIMES depending on where you live, this can tend to be true, it's not always.

"I don't see color"

Most people were raised to not in my generation. Rather than treating someone "like a minority" we treated them like a person. It's not that people are literally blind to color. They were just trained to not care about it. Which is honestly where we should be. Not afraid of using speech around people because of their ethnic background.

"This country isn't racist we had a black president"

This country as a whole isn't racist. Some of the people that live here are, but a "racist country" doesn't elect a person to the highest seat is power if they are mostly racist. Get over yourself.

"Black people should just comply maybe they won't get killed"

Statically this is true. So be as much of a shit as you want about it. There are over 3 million interactions with cops yearly a large number of which are black Americans. And MOST all of them end peacefully or with no excessive use of force. Because guess what? Non compliance in the proximity of a cop more than willing to use excessive force? They won't much care what color you are. Reason behind is that it's more about power for them than it is anything else. And yes, that even includes race.

"Are you sure that's what really happened"

How is this fucking gaslighting? This is called reasonable questioning and skepticism because here's the deal. Memory for most people isn't perfect. Not even remotely. And what you perceive to have happened isn't always what actually happened.

Example: I'm with someone who I know has a severe allergy to a certain bug. That bug manages to get in them. My brain thinks, be which and kill it so they are safe. They see me approach them trained in a part of their body. They panic thinking I'm going to hurt them and run off. What I was doing was trying to protect them from something that could kill them. What they saw is a person trying to potentially hurt them.

Most of what's here isn't gaslighting. It's nuanced statement you want to be racist. Or you personally believe such.

Also lastly:

"People might listen if they peacefully protest"

Uh yeah. Actually. BLM lost 90% of it's support less than 2 months after the violence started. Then significantly more after people concerned by the violence started looking into the organization vs the protests. Then the medias shit coverage of all of it. Now support of BLM is mostly ONLY moron activists types that are only good at being told what to think, and often can't think for themselves.

This list is actually stupid. So I'm throwing this to someone for his view on this. @siryouarebeingmocked

[ewingstan]

Hrm. I'm aware that there's a common narrative that Ward suffered from wb steering the text to directly respond to people who gave Amy too much credit. I've already given my thoughts on the way Amy's character has been handled so far—I certainly understand how people would see Amy's increasing propensity to give weak excuses to her actions and read them as wb strawmanning their own reactions to the text. Strictly speaking though, it didn't have to be read that way— its possible, for instance, that Amy's development was driven by wb really wanting Breakthrough's struggles with becoming better people to be contrasted against a villain who's too prone to abdicate responsibility to grow. I have my misgivings about that as a theme, but it is in line with the broader focus of the text, and doesn't rely on an assumption that wb is writing her that way to pwn commenters.

Eric though. Eric really does just seem inexplicable unless you read him as wildbow getting frustrated at certain parts of his fanbase and wanting to dress them down. At least when Amy gave weak justifications for herself, it was for herself—there's a legible reason why she'd do it in the first place. And as I said, it served a thematic purpose of contrasting Breakthrough's attempts to get better by taking responsibility for their actions with Amy spiraling from a refusal to do the same. What similar thematic purpose is Eric showing? What purpose is he serving at all, outside of claiming that people who "defend" Amy are the type of people who don't face real hardship and stare at women's boobs?

The type of defense here is important to note, because the main thing he does is push back against Victoria reading everything Amy does in the worst possible light. This is behavior that makes sense in a comment section when you're trying to detangle your own feelings about a character from a narrator who has a justifiably hostile perspective towards her. It's not the behavior of someone responding to a current crisis event. And it's not the behavior of someone talking to Victoria rather than other readers, considering how obvious Vicky makes it that there's history between her and Amy. Yes, the oddity of that reaction is to some degree intentional, in that its supposed to make Victoria feel increasingly alienated from those around her—but Eric also seems to be getting posed as a synecdoche for non-capes in general here, a representative of a common type of thinking, rather than a wackadoodle who choose a very bad time to defend a stranger's intentions.

On that point. I don't think that wildbow is fully uncritical of Victoria's tendency to fully dehumanize some of her more heinous enemies, or her tendency to see the unpowered masses she's nominally acting in service of as just not understanding the Great Sacrifices™ and Tough Choices™ of their protectors. Ward has flirted with those attitudes in the past, but there's usually enough tension in the framing to suggest it's not fully the intended takeaway. And I don't want to overstate my case, because even here the framing pushes against some of what Victoria takes away from Eric—its made clear that Victoria's in a particularly ugly state of mind right now. The characterization of Larue right afterwards pushes back somewhat against her attitude towards non-capes, and the conversation with Jessica made the idea of seeing Amy's perspective on an issue, and the idea of denying a villain's full responsibility for their actions, seem less ridiculous on its face. Reading Eric's inclusion in the best possible light, I'd see him as the text introducing certain ideas in an unflattering light in order to make Jessica's later reaffirmation of the theme that everyone can act horribly in the right circumstances hit that much harder.

But Eric really feels like who'd you write when you wanted to complain about the bleeding hearts. His presentation is much more what I'd expect from a jingoistic action flick, the most unflattering caricature of someone who wants basic limitations on the actions of cops and soldier. Very "decadent ivory tower cultural relativist who wants you to consider the drug lord/terrorist/rapist degenerate's point of view," who's putting obstacles in the way of the action hero's righteous and necessary cleansing crusade against the subhuman hoards. Why the fuck is a character made to support the worldview of Dirty Harry or the fucking Turner Diaries in a wildbow novel?

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

Honestly Netanyahu and his ilk remind me of guns' rights advocates: they base all their arguments against a strawman and then refuse to acknowledge that said strawman doesn't exist.

"You want to ban all guns!" "Well no I want to ban guns specifically designed for..." "You're lying, you want to ban all guns!" "That is literally not what this bill will do..." "It'll ban all guns! It'll ban all guns! 2nd Amendment!".

"You support Hamas!" "No actually, if they all dropped dead today I would celebrate, I just don't want want the people of Gaza to die for it." "You want every person in Israel to die!" "No, I think the attacks were a horrific tragedy and I really don't want more people to die, that's why I want you to stop killing civilians." "You're lying, you want every Jew to die!"

They know they have no argument against what we're actually saying, so they pretend to be arguing against something far more extreme and refuse to be broken out of their fantasy. They can't look you in the eye because even the slightest bit of good faith would crumple their argument like wet paper, so they shut their eyes and replace you with an easy villain they can defeat.

[maykitz]

im white, we dont have 'a stance on this delicate matter' stop trying to justify what you said. stop talking over black people. suggesting people watch a black woman be murdered is fucking crazy you cannot justify that in any way. especially not by making a strawman of an evil person lying to you about the footage. its released to the fucking public if they were lying we would know already. stop making it a spectacle.

first please cease this grovelling dom/sub roleplay in my inbox it's embarrassing. you do have a stance on it, you're just referring it back to the alleged monolith of black people to like, release your burden of having to actually argue your point. honestly i don't think anyone even appreciates these theatrical displays of allyship that have people going 'I have no brain or thoughts of my own, i exist to serve the will of the Poc People'. they're normal people with opinions as varied as anyone, get a grip man

secondly i invite you to read the notes of that post where several black people are in fact debating with each other over it. because it's actually far from some kind of a settled matter where there even is a firm consensus to go by. and anyway, aren't you speaking over black people like candace owens who say police brutality is made up by the loony left and basically all of the victims simply had to be killed because they were dangerous?

lastly. do you realise how absolutely funny it is to tell me i'm evil for suggesting that people look at the evidence and then say the public can't be lied to because the footage was released? well why do we know the police were lying? what can the public do with the footage to find out what the truth is?

[zenosanalytic]

When Christians Kill God

I was watching a Big Joel video essay on Nebula this morning(sorry, can't link it rn: he hasn't put it on youtube yet) about the God's Not Dead series of christian-nationalist movies, and it crystalized something for me:

When Nietzsche said "God is Dead"(and I have my Issues with Nietzsche this is not a "Nietzsche is Great" post), he didn't mean god had ltrl had a heart attack or something, nor did he mean ppl didn't BELIEVE in god anymore. He meant "God", as a concept, had lost the explanatory and organizational meaning he felt it had in the past: that "God" was no longer a transcendent and otherworldly point for social cohesion, which provided structure and meaning to society and life, and The Church no longer an institution everyone deferred to and interacted with by dint of its divine-connection, but rather that both had become subordinate to gross political power. He meant that God-as-concept was now a mere rhetorical means to achieve inescapably worldly, political ends(one could fairly argue if "God" had ever been anything BUT that).

There's a moment in one of the latest of these movies subtitled In God We Trust[1](we'll get back to this) that is VERY telling. The hero of the film, a conservative pastor running for congress, is debating a strawman liberal and the liberal says something like "Isn't do unto others the main message of Christianity? Isn't Love Thy Neighbor central to the teachings of Jesus?" to which the hero says "No." both times and then responds "central to the teachings of Jesus, IS Jesus." and follows it up with "the only reason the teachings of Jesus resonate is because he was the son of god" meaning that christianity isn't about following Joshua's teachings or example, but just baldly about worshiping him, as a deity and like:

First off Josh Says(Im going to have to quote the Gospel of John quite extensively here to make a point, so plz excuse that) pretty clearly

I am the way the truth and the life

That how he lived is The Life dedicated to god, and his example the WAY to god, and his life's teachings AND example the TRUTH of god, and reiterates it later when asked by Phillip to show them god by saying

have I been with you all this time, Phillip, and you still do not know me?

in other words 'WHAT HAVE I BEEN TEACHING YOU That you don't know god yet? Haven't you been paying attention to my words and actions?' and later

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works

in other words 'The Words of my Teachings are the Work of God. I. HAVE. BEEN. TEACHING YOU. GOD' and then, still, following from that

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, but if you do not, then believe because of the works themselves. Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

and later still

Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine but is from the Father who sent me

It Could-Not-Be-Fucking-Clearer: Joshua is saying DIRECTLY 'If you believe in me you will live by my example and my teachings, and if you do not live The Way and The Truth I have brought to you FROM GOD, then you DO.NOT. believe in me' His message could not be clearer.

The people who made God's Not Dead: In God We Trust made it's culminating moment a DIRECT RENUNCIATION of Joshua's teachings, and John 14 specifically, in favor of worshiping divinity in-and-of-itself. They reject his life, his teachings, his works --Everything the Gospels equate directly to Joshua and through him to God-- to merely worship a god for being a god, and in doing so mark themselves out as not christian at all. They DO NOT keep his words, and so they do not love him, and they are PROUD OF THIS!

So, No, God's Not Dead: In God We Trust(which you CLEARLY DONT DO, Actually): Christ is NOT "the central message of christianity", his WORDS are his BODY and those who KEEP them in their Hearts make themselves a HOME FOR GOD. When you reject his Words, you reject his Way, you reject his Life, you reject God, You. Reject. Christ.

I am no christian, but by the standards of the professed beliefs of the people who made this work, of the VERY TEXT they claim is their inspiration and truth, bowing down to divinity is NOT Enough. You HAVE to Walk the Way; you MUST Accept his Words.

But more to my point: What better proof that "God Is Dead", no longer a pillar to build your life around and bring ppl together by, now nothing more than a tool for unscrupulous power-seekers, than a gang of wealthy liars calling themselves ~Christians~ proudly celebrating their Rejection of "The Way The Truth The Life" in favor of scraping at divinity's feet, as a tawdry tactic to drum up votes for an election.

They Spit on their God and call it "Faith".

[1]That they'd name it this is particularly galling, given everything else, because of course that Wasn't The Original Motto of the US, E Pluribus Unum(Out of Many, One) is, but rather one adopted in 1956 after a long campaign of political christians campaigning for it. In other words: That "In God We Trust" is the official US motto is yet another example of God being reduced from something holy to a political football. ↩︎

[micahulrichdraws]

I don't think self-deprecation or concern for the person's well-being is ever going to come across well to someone saying they like what you do. Maybe I'm missing something, but there are reasons to like your art besides being miserable. Even if only the truly miserable liked your work, responding to them by pointing out how miserable they must be wouldn't feel great for them. Your art isn't giving them depression, and it's not like you're contributing to net suffering by making art with ~themes~, so it seems unnecessary to bring up. You suggested that if you struggle to enjoy life, and you make something, anyone who resonates will also struggle to enjoy life. I disagree. Some people will like it for completely shallow reasons. Some people have empathy for others' suffering. You can have a decent life and no mental illness and probably still appreciate a well-drawn skeleton. I don't know what kind of art a perfect world would produce, but any world where people are mortal is going to have sadness, and some art will reflect that. Yours isn't uniquely dark.

Sorry if you've gotten 100 asks saying this same thing. I wasn't sure based on the ones you responded to, and I just found your blog. I know it's sort of a joke, bc you do still sell art prints and stuff, so you clearly are okay with people liking your art. Tbh, I /had/ depression for a few years, so I'm not exactly proof against the theory that your art somolehow only appeals to depressed people. It seems unlikely, though. And the way you talk about your art as "garbage" kind of gave me flashbacks to the sort of self-deprecating humor I'd use when I hated myself. I don't know you or how you're doing, but that feeling made me want to say something.

You didn't just miss something, you missed like, everything I've ever said on my blog about like, everything to the point I'm not even sure this was intended for me? Like I'd break it down, point by point and be like 'no what are you smoking' but that'd be a waste of time after the 'why do you think my art gives people depression!?' part of whatever this is. Like, this is offensive levels of trying to make me be someone I'm not for the sake of a hypothetical argument against a strawman. So if, you want to take offense to who I am in case you misclick and end up here again here's an asshole enough of a response to give you a legitimate reason to find me intolerable:

Welcome to my page! I make art, jokes, and bullshit with folks to make people happy. I started doing this when I was big sad, because cheering people up cheers me up. Now, here's the crazy part: some people are very sad, and sometimes they tell me it makes them a small amount of happy, which gives me dopamine and makes me do it again. The word 'some' means 'not everyone', or even 'a fraction of a percentage'. For example, in this case, it means 'most people just like my drawings but some people get an extra lil bit out of it'. I don't take myself seriously because I know that the art world is insanely intimidating to those outside of it, and sometimes artists tend to be egotistical and condescending, a word that means 'having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority'. Naturally, I do everything in my power to avoid that, because I'm a very 'gates open' kinda person.

So, here's the WILD part: in my perfect world I would've never had depression. Now, I know, that would have been inconvenient for you as someone who passed by my page one time, and I do apologize. I also apologize that I don't make 'dark art', because I like frogs and mice doing cool shit. Finally, I apologize for my art having -~*themes and concepts*~-, I know good art only comes from ChatGPT and that was my bad.

Sike, I didn't apologize, my fingers were crossed behind my back when I said that. Fuck you for thinking me not wanting to be around for a decade is 'worth' because I drew a mediocre skeleton, and because somehow sadness is necessary. That line of thinking is so awful, here's a video explaining it:

PS: the reason my friends and I in these parts call my art 'art garbage' is because that's what my professors called it back in school for like 4 years, back when I started this shitshow. Much love.