#ethical for people to consume if that makes sense

[haeryna]

smut in the au would be nice 👀

i think once i get my rules set up i will! rules were not super important when i first started since none of the works i've posted are nsfw, but if i want to start doing that, then i'll have to set up some boundaries with everyone lol. but i think eventually i will post smut for this au!

[oh-katsuki]

im going to be so fr.... i hate it when im shopping for something, perusing online or in person for stuff in my size and approximate measurements... and a skinny woman says to me “you should try poshmark instead” 🥺. u should look on there for stuff because it’s second hand 🥺 u should go to good will and thrift stores bc it’s more ethical 🥺 like i really wish u would be quiet bc u know damn well poshmark doesn’t do returns and that goodwill rarely carries good shit in my size. like ma’am, i’m fat and that transforms the ENTIRE way i shop for clothes compared to you. clothes are made for bodies like yours.... i’m expected to make do. 

[transexualpirate]

hot take but i think that "fictional characters are fictional and liking or disliking them have no real life effect" and "the way you treat certain characters can be an indicative of your character in real life" are statements that can and should coexist

example: character A is violent and makes misogynistic comments. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person A acknowledges that the character is bad but they still enjoy consuming content from the character and they do so unapologetically. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. they don't pretend the character isn't violent, or misogynistic, they just like the character despite that. they post about it constantly. this is a neutral action that shows nothing about person A.

character B is a white man that makes racist comments, treats a black person in the show badly and gains money through anti-ethical means. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person B claims the character is flawed but overall misunderstood and all their actions are entirely justified. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. person B claims the black character that character B treated badly either had it coming or overreacted. all of person B's favorite characters are white men. person B goes out of their way to justify that all of their favorite characters are actually misunderstood and good people, and more people should like them. this shows that person B likely has some favoritism for white men.

just. you're allowed to like fictional characters even if they're awful fucking people but. and im not sure why this is controversial. the way you interact with media says something about you. this isn't necessarily a bad thing. does this make sense please

[txttletale]

Hey, I'm not here to say ai art isn't art. The whole "you need to be paid for it to be real art!" is goofy. But if I put a prompt into the tool and it makes something based on that prompt then I didn't make it. I didn't put the effort in, and in that sense it isn't mine. What I'm more upset about than whether or not it has soul or whatever (that's up for debate for a lot of human-made art too) is the taking of credit for something you simply did not do. I'm not sure if I've seen you talk about this particular thing cuz there's a lotta silly asks getting dunked on, but I'm curious abt this one.

you can absolutely make art without being the one physically producing it, by "telling someone what to do". directors are artists. choreographers are artists. graphic novel writers who write panel descriptions for artists are artists and indisputably have some share of the authorship of the resulting panels. the same goes for mangakas with apprentices, or for that matter renaissance masters with apprentices, and for art directors. removing the other people involved in such an arrangement gives you a greater share of authorship, not a lesser one.

& the idea that art requires "effort" is reactionary. it's a protestant-work-ethic-esque valorisation of effort for its own sake. art can be easy. many many technological innovations have created easier ways to do things -- did you know that graphic designers used to have to manually place every written character and image on a spread through a time-consuming and arduous process called paste-up? now the exact same work can be done in minutes with a few clicks because of digital typefaces. digital art also saw the exact same arguments being made against it fifteen odd years ago -- 'digital artists have stabilizers and shape tools and layers and filters and brushes and an undo button, they're not real artists because they're not putting in the effort'.

i think it's interesting how anti AI art crusaders have this curious contradiction in their arguments -- they (correctly) identify that a computer program has no agency, intentionality, or creativity, but when a human and a computer both contribute to a finished product they ascribe the computer full authorship. it just doesn't add up! mi-24 attack helicopter blushing demurely

[respectissexy]

The fact that so many DropOut personalities are wrestling geeks and reality TV superfans makes so much sense when you think about it. Pro wrestling and reality TV are the most popular improvised long-form entertainment content consumed in America. What they are doing on DropOut is WAY more similar to WWE or The Real Housewives than a lot of people would intuitively think. Sam Reich is basically running an experiment to see if this kind of highly parasocial long-term televised improv can be done ethically.

[starlight-bread-blog]

My Interpetation of The Southern Raiders: Part 1 – A\ang

Warning: The views expressed in this analysis will be very critical of Aang. If you aren't critical of him in this episode, you aren't going to enjoy this post. This is your chance to leave. I probably won't have a debate for personal reasons.

——————

The Southern Raiders is probably one of the most discussed episodes in the fandom. Everyone knows Zuko Alone is great, but the discussion surrounding this episode is a war zone. In this essay I will try to answer every question posed in the discourse. This is part 1 out of three. In this part, I will discuss A\ang. I believe that understanding both Zuko and Aang's decisions in this episode will give us great insight into Katara's. Because the this episode is hers.

——————

1. Is Aang's philosophy of forgiveness valid?

(1) "Revenge is like a two-headed rat viper. While you watch your enemy go down, you're being poisoned yourself".

(2) "You do have a choice: forgiveness". // "It's easy to do nothing, but it's hard to forgive". // "Forgiveness is the first step you have to take to begin healing".

This philosophy is indeed morally sound. Revenge comes from rage, a negative emotion that causes harm in the long run. Forgiveness is letting go of that rage, which is healing. I cannot write a full thesis, this essay is not about that. But on paper, I do agree with A\ang. He's right to say that letting go of rage is a better alternative than getting consumed by it. (However, his philosophy might not help some).

——————

2. Was A\ang being insensitive when talking to Katara?

First I must reiterate, a lot of people frame the conflict of the episode as one regarding the ethics of murder. In my interpretation, it is not. During this episode Katara was in a deeply emotional place. Her rage stemmed from intense grief and those around her should treat her as a mourner - with great sensitivity.

Now, was Aang being this sensitive with Katara? Well, in my opinion, very much so.

Imagine a scenario where A\ang just happens to meet Haru, and he's about to go on a quest to find revenge on who imprisoned his father. He tries to help him with the following sentences:

(1) Um ... and what exactly do you think this will accomplish?

(2) Wait! Stop! I do understand. You're feeling unbelievable pain and rage. How do you think I felt about the sandbenders when they stole Appa? How do you think I felt about the Fire Nation when I found out what happened to my people?

(3) I don't think so. I think it's about getting revenge.

(4) Haru, you sound like Jet.

(5) The monks used to say that revenge is like a two-headed rat viper. While you watch your enemy go down, you're being poisoned yourself.

(6) Haru, you do have a choice: forgiveness.

(7) No, it's not. It's easy to do nothing, but it's hard to forgive.

(8) You did the right thing. Forgiveness is the first step you have to take to begin healing.

Everything makes sense, right? The pieces fit.He just talks about his cultura\personal values, nothing about what Katara needs at the moment. He could have had this exact conversation with Haru without changing a thing.

Therefore his lines are impersonal and thus preachy. In this conversation he doesn’t show signs of trying to convince Katara not to end her mother’s killer because she is, fundamentally, a good person and couldn’t live having committed murder. He shows signs of trying to make her obey his cultural ethos. This is highly insensitive. Katara was in a very emotional place, filled with rage and grief. And his response was, intentionally or not, to impose his own cultural principles onto her.

But his lines weren’t insensitive just because they were preachy, some of them were judgmental and even harsh. When A\ang is first confronted with Katara’s intentions, he says:

A\ang: Um ... and what exactly do you think this will accomplish?

You can tell from his tone and how the rest of the conversation plays out that he does know what Katara thinks this will accomplish. He asks the question as a form of disapproval - that he thinks that going after Yon Rha won’t accomplish anything. He’s not being genuine, he’s casting judgment on her. He’s almost looking down on her and Zuko, looking down from a moral high ground and sarcastically interrogating the two. Another line that sticks out is

A\ang: Katara, you sound like Jet.

He says she sounds like the man who wanted to flood an entire village full of innocent civilians. He’s insulting her, and greatly so, all the while wanting to keep a moral high ground. This is incredibly rude and condescending.

In the next scene, right after the intense argument concludes, it appears as though A\ang comes around to the journey Katara was about to go through.

A\ang: I wasn't planning to. This is a journey you need to take. You need to face this man.But when you do, please don't choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.

While he’s still discouraging Katara, it’s not outright condescending. But it’s as clear as day that he’d just preferred if she didn’t go on the journey at all. When he sees Zuko and Katara taking Appa to find Yon Rha, he says:

A\ang: So you were just gonna take Appa anyway?

Clearly disapproving of Katara. He doesn’t want her to go on the journey to find inner peace, he wants her to forgive the man who killed her mother right here and right now. He couldn’t change her mind on the subject, so he’ll advise her the next best thing. It is worth noting that in the beginning, before he advises her, he cracks a joke.

A\ang: It's okay, because I forgive you. [Pauses.] That give you any ideas?

Overall, A\ang’s behavior is unsympathetic and callous.Instead of placing his focus on Katara’s wellbeing, he preaches about Air Nomad teachings and goes as far as insulting her. Even when he comes around, it’s not because he realized his mistakes, it’s because he knew he couldn’t change her mind. And then he makes a humorous remark while giving him his supposed new found advice. The answer is: Yes. Aang was very insensitive when talking to Katara.

——————

3. Did A\ang know what Katara needed?

I don’t think he did. A\ang thought Katara needed to forgive Yon Rha, and as we previously established, without going after him. But even if we look at his second advice, she still doesn’t follow it.

A\ang: This is a journey you need to take. You need to face this man. [Katara situates herself on Appa's head.] But when you do, please don't choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.

Katara explicitly didn’t forgive Yon Rha, and yet the whole point of the ending is that she’s in a better place now. No matter what Zuko says, A\ang didn’t know what Katara needed. And considering that his lines in the episode were as impersonal as they were, it isn’t a surprise.

——————

In conclusion, A\ang’s behavior in The Southern Raiders is questionable at best. He might have had pure intentions, and had a good message, but the way he put out the message was degrading and preachy. And in the end, he didn’t know what was the right thing for Katara.

Continued

[hypergamiss]

Discovering the craftsmanship of vintage pieces is a slap in the face. It reveals how modern life is one big profit-driven scam. Everything's engineered to break, replaced by an even cheaper version. Cars, gadgets, even the food we eat – it's all designed for planned obsolescence, not to last.

They tell us it's "innovation," but it's really just maximizing profit. They hold advancements hostage, keep us on that treadmill of constantly needing the new, the slightly shinier, the ultimately pointless.

This greed…it's suffocating. Every purchase feels like feeding the beast, every bill a reminder of this rigged system, every questionable fee added on never makes sense. I try to be an ethical consumer, but there’s barely anything ethically made available to purchase. I have to hunt for things or give in because they are not easily available. And I would say that I have pretty good access and people to help me source things. It’s insane.

[sloowoorants]

Thoughts After Watching Hannibal

About two months ago, I saw some Hannibal fan art on Twitter. It looked pretty cool, and I just so happened to have some free time, so I thought: why not watch the show? It's just a normal crime thriller, right?

I expected the type of show that's relatively light yet still intriguing, filled with sarcastic humor, starring a typical grumpy-but-genius protagonist. (This is vaguely the type of show that I’m generally into: Inside Job, Sherlock, House, Suits, Mr. Robot….)

I was so, so wrong.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, could have prepared me for the bat-shit crazy fever dream of a show that Hannibal is: bizarrely artistic gore, incessant cannibalism puns, completely unpredictable romantic subplots, torturous sex scenes that feel like angry acid trips, a multitude of absolutely unhinged psychiatric conduct, esoteric cryptic dialogue which require five google searches and a whole thesaurus to understand, two lesbian murderers "milking" a guy for his sperm to inherent his family heirloom, long scenes of intense and unabashed eye-sex, clumps of dog fur sticking to sweaty bed sheets…and a literal fucking social worker crawling out of a horse, alive and breathing and everything, covered in whatever acrid substances come from a horse uterus.

I ended up watching all of Hannibal in a week, hastily devouring it in just a few sittings.

In no way am I a professional film analyst or critic, but after having stayed up for nights on end, every single one of them spent under my blanket binging episodes until devilish hours of dawn (and barely comprehending the plot from the sheer speed I was consuming the show at, but also from sleep deprivation), I have cultivated a skull full of thoughts on this blessed masterpiece, and I need to rant about it. Which is exactly what this post is.

I am going to separate this ranty-meta-ish thing (I think a “meta” is what it’s called? I’m not sure, I don’t use Tumblr a lot) into two parts: one, about the representation of morality in the show, and two, about the intimacy between Will and Hannibal. It’s not super well written, my grammar is a bit iffy, but I hope you still enjoy reading this, and remember to take everything I say with a grain of salt. After all, I am just some guy with unrestricted internet access, a keyboard, and a little too much passion for the media I love :)

Part One: Hannibal Lecter’s Morality

Hannibal loves art. There is no episode in the entire show where he doesn’t reference some artistic thing—He plays the piano, he plays the theremin, he frequents the opera, he draws, and he finds peace at the birthplace of the Renaissance, Florence. His love for art is why he kills, he transforms people he considers to be “inferior” and “ugly” and elevates them into art. He is acting out his own sense of justice, creating meaning from the meaningless.

In a way, he must have a certain degree of respect for his victims to do what he does. He could have just killed people and disposed of their body in a dumpster, but that’s not his style. Even if he doesn’t “care” about his victims in a traditional sense, there’s this unique honesty and attentive in his murders. Hannibal cares enough about his victims to make them art. And I’m not just talking about the way he displays their bodies, I’m also talking about his cooking, because a big part of art is also cuisine.

He follows a strict code of his own ethics, it’s almost like he’s acting out his “duty” to kill, to eradicate and transform the lesser “scum” of the world. To be killed by Hannibal is almost an honor, like being killed by God personally, skin to skin. Wouldn’t you feel a sense of divinity and fulfillment if God killed you with his own hands, knowing that he respects you enough to choke you himself, then turn you into an elegant display? Every kill of Hannibal’s is filled with passion – Which poses the question, does he kill out of hatred or not? When I think of violence fueled by hate, I think of sex or race based violence. But that’s not Hannibal. He kills victims he considers to be rude, yes, but is it a humiliation? Is it degradation?

This whole "elevate-swine-into-art" thing is also shown through the way that gore is generally portrayed throughout the show, and not just Hannibal’s murderers. It’s very interesting the way gore pretty in Hannibal. It’s often meticulous. It’s meaningful.

These murders are all aesthetically pleasing. For me, it creates a cognitive dissonance: on one hand, I know that these are painful, brutal murders, one the other, they’re kind of nice to look at, which makes me think—Have I ever for a second, while watching Hannibal, considered the crime scene to be beautiful? Have I ever viewed one of those scenes as art rather than gore? As an artist myself, do I understand Hannibal’s obsession with beauty? And if so, what type of person does that make me?

And I love the way this show makes us really think in Hannibal’s shoes, because of how unconventionally it portrays him as a villain. Usually, shows will provide villains with a backstory, but that doesn’t extend beyond just creating sympathy. In Hannibal, the villain is humanized. We understand him. We empathize. And what does that make of us?

Have I ever, in all seriousness, rooted for Hannibal instead of Jack Crawford? Have I ever thought someone deserved to die in the show? Have I ever looked at what Hannibal was cooking, and thought it looked delicious, despite knowing that its human flesh? Have I ever been annoyed at innocent patients of Hannibal, like Franklyn, because I viewed them from Hannibal’s perspective?

On top of that, Hannibal’s philosophy makes sense. I find myself agreeing to a lot of the things he says.

For example, this dialogue from S2e12 "Tome-Wan", when Will finds Mason Verger and Hannibal in his house, and Hannibal asks Will if he should kill or spare Mason Verger:

HANNIBAL: Murder or mercy?

WILL: There is no mercy. We make mercy, manufacture it in parts that have overgrown our basic reptile brain.

HANNIBAL: Then there is no murder. We make murder, too, it matters only to us. You know too well that you possess all the elements to make murder. Perhaps mercy, too. But murder you understand uncomfortably well.

Does Will only have the capacity for mercy because he has the capacity for murder? Does mercy only have meaning in the context of murder? Is our own compassion a reflection of our violence?

With that said, are the things that I believe to be evil still evil when I throw away my moral believes? Is morality only meaningful in my own perception? And if so, how much am I contributing to evil if I am the one judging it? Do I create the evil that I so adamantly detest? Does deciding what is murder and isn’t not murder require the ability to, and intrinsic understanding of, murder? Can the morality of life and death be so clear cut, separated into different categories?

These are the types of questions that the show makes me ask, which is part of the reason I love the show so much.

I also love how the show puts a dark turn on empathy. Empathy is way too often portrayed as one of the best traits of all time, many claim it to be the most important aspect of mankind, but Will’s empathy is what ends up making him go on a downwards spiral: He is drawn to the darkness because he can understand it. He chose to teach at the FBI academy because he gets to feel like a killer without actually killing.

It made Will miserable, being able to understand killers. It gave him all sorts of guilt and self-hatred and confliction, which was why he was so damn miserable at the start of the show. And on top of that, no one really cared about him, Alana only had a whole “professional curiosity” thing going on (yes, I know that Alana’s character is one-dimensional because Hannibal’s female characters are poorly written, but even with that in mind, I still think that a huge part of Alana’s affection towards Will was in fact just curiosity), Jack was constantly pushing Will past his limits, so the poor dude didn’t have any connections to anyone until he met Hannibal.

And after Hannibal clocks him immediately when they first meet with the whole “your  values and decency are present yet shocked at your associations” situation, Will experiences his first kill: Shooting Garet Jacob Hobbs. Ten. Times. Then he confesses to Hannibal that he liked the feeling of killing him.

But Will can’t let go of his morality, it’s the only thing he’s been able to hold on to this entire time. It’s his lifeline. He holds onto it so dearly because he needs to convince himself that he’s a good person, that he’s not a killer, and that he’s doing the right thing. Yet, he knows that letting that morality go would be so freeing. He wants to. Hannibal helps him let go of it, and we as viewers can’t help but be on Hannibal’s side, because Will’s corruption arc is so gratifying. We like it, deep down we root for it. And what does that say about our relationship with our own morality? Does our morality tie us down? Do we crave to be free?

Will’s killing style is different from Hannibal’s, though. He’s passionate, reactive, and he doesn’t care about the process of killing, or the display body (before you say “the firefly man”, I believe he was imitating Hannibal’s style instead of curating his own), as long as the person is dead. He kills them from a sense of righteousness, like a vigilante justice. Was it wrong for him to find a sense of pleasure in killing Garett Jacob Hobbs? Does finding pleasure in killing corrupt his righteousness? Is it worse to kill out of passion, or kill meticulously? Is Hannibal’s style of killing more respectful? Is Will brutal? Just because Will kills out of a more conventional moral judgement and Hannibal doesn’t, does that make him better than Hannibal?

Another way the show convolutes the concepts of good and evil is using religious symbolism.

For example, from S1e02, “Amuse-Bouche”:

HANNIBAL: Killing must feel good to God too. He does it all the time, and are we not created in His image?

WILL: Did God feel good about killing?

HANNIBAL: He felt powerful.

(Shocking that this line was from the literal second episode. This show got intense so fast.)

And Will’s quote from S3e02, “Primavera”:

WILL: God can't save any of us because it's...inelegant. Elegance is more important than suffering. That's his design.

Is God an artist? Does that justify what He does? Are we only creating taboo out of His works to comfort ourselves? What does it mean to view the world with a purely aesthetic vision?

It’s these quotes that really allow me to see from Hannibal’s perspective: To him, there is no ultimate purpose of the world, there is no end goal to achieve, just the creation of beauty, and that’s terrifying to think about. Even as an atheist, it’s hard to digest the belief that there is no purpose to anything. We spend our entire human lives looking for meaning. But Hannibal doesn’t see it that way. Life and death are just futile processes to create art, and there’s no bigger point behind it. The cycle of life is supposed to be art. In a way, he’s like the God (sounding like Hannibal here), giving people meaning by making them into art, just like how God designates meaning onto every creature he makes.

And the show has a lot of art parallels, not just with Hannibal’s murders. Here are some that I’ve noticed:

(Parallels, in order from left to right, top to bottom: Nude From Back by Picabia compared to a shot of Bedelia from the back, The Persistence of Memory by Dali compared to Will’s clock drawing, Le Double Secret by Magritte compared to how Will saw Hannibal after visual overload from light therapy, Ophelia by Millais compared to Bedelia sinking into the bathtub, Portrait of Pablo Picasso by Juan Gris compared to Will’s hallucination of himself falling apart in a mirror, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan by Ilya Repin compared to the cliff scene.)

I’m not the only one that has noticed these. Here is cool blog that focuses on artistic references in Hannibal, they’ve also noticed some of the ones I noticed: The Art of Hannibal.

Bryan Fuller probably didn’t do these on purpose while directing. But it still unintentionally solidified this theme artistic divinity. So I think Bryan must, to some extent, understand Hannibal’s obsession with making art out of death, because of the way art is subconsciously woven into the show. I don’t know though, just food for thought.

Anyways. Will, at the end of the show, while being cradled in Hannibal’s arms, both of them covered in blood that appears black in the moonlight, says to Hannibal: “It’s beautiful.”

And all that morality fleets and becomes insignificant in the face of aesthetics.

To Hannibal, beauty is moral. To Will, morality is beautiful. Have the lines begun to blur?

Part Two: Hannibal and Wills intimacy

“For [Hannibal and Will], two people who have been wandering their whole lives through a world in which they have not really experienced any viable form of connection with another human being—because they’re two extremely unusual people—and then they meet.”

-Hugh Dancy quote from SDCC 2013

Hannibal loves will. He drew him and Will as Patroclus and Achilles. He was ready to run away with Will in S2. He surrendered himself in S3 just because Will rejected him. And lets not forget the little twitch in his face when Francis attacks will. And when this dialogue happened (S3e12, “The Number of the Beast is 666”):

WILL: Is Hannibal in love with me?

BEDELIA : Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you... ache for him?

It is my belief that Will also loves Hannibal, although I understand that it’s not as agreed upon in the fandom as Hannibal’s love is. I think Will is just a little bit more reserved with affection, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Hannibal.

But one thing is for sure—there is a lot of homoeroticism in the show:

So, whether you think the love is reciprocal or not, the show is still, to put it lightly, really gay.

Hannibal’s love for Will is dark, possessive, powerful. Will is the only one that is capable of understanding Hannibal, and Hannibal was willing to risk literally everything just for Will to connect with him. He goes to extraordinary lengths just to make Will a murderer.

But even throughout Hannibal’s ruthless manipulation, which Will eventually becomes aware of, Will still stays for Hannibal. Because deep down, Will was willing to give up his own innocence to have that connection. Because Hannibal was the only person that could really understand Will too, no one else would be able to accept his dark tendencies.

S2e02, “Sakizuke”:

WILL: I don’t know which is worse. Believing I did it, or believing that you did it and did this to me.

(I remember reading a really good post by endlessly fascinated on how Will was actually being manipulative by saying this quote. I can’t find it though. If someone finds it, please tag me!)

Will eventually grows just as obsessed with Hannibal, as Hannibal is obsessed with him. Proof: telling Jack that he wanted to run away with Hannibal, telling Hannibal that he can’t get him out of his head, and that his inner voice is starting to sound like him him, and the “where would I go?” when Hannibal tells him not to leave his side, and the “one could argue, intimately” when Chiyoh asks him how he knows Hannibal, and the “before you and after you” when Hannibal asked him where the difference between the past and the future come from…I could go on forever. Will has never felt so grounded before, not in the way when he’s with Hannibal, with him, Will can see his own reflection, and he’s never been able to see that before.

And oh, the love language between them is violence. Will tries to kill Hannibal (someone tell me how many times, I forgot), and Hannibal tries to eat Will and a plethora of other fucked up shit. But in my eyes, none of those were out of hatred. Both of them trying to murder each other is out of love, out of acceptance, and out of forgiveness.

S3e06, “Dolce”:

HANNIBAL: You dropped your forgiveness, Will.

HANNIBAL: You forgive how God forgives.

And, S3e03, “Secondo”:

BEDELIA: Betrayal and forgiveness are best seen as something akin to falling in love.

HANNIBAL: You cannot control with respect to whom you fall in love.

No one can control who they love, or who they forgive, which is why Hannibal forgives Will and stabs him in the same breath. He is forgiving, not letting go.

Will forgives Hannibal too. He forgives Hannibal way too many times, throughout all the manipulation of Hannibal. Think about just how much insanity he’s endured: drugged, gutted, encephalitis abused, hypnotized, framed for murder, a serial killer was sent after his family, had his brain literally almost eaten, and despite all that, Will still forgives Hannibal—it was not a conscious decision. We cannot control who we forgive.

If Hannibal is a fallen angel, then Will is God to him. And God is indifferent, sometimes even cruel. Like Hannibal said himself, good and evil has nothing to do with God. Will forgives Hannibal, but that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t want to hurt Hannibal; just like how Hannibal forgave Will, but still gutted him. In that moment, Will forgave indifferently, so he could get back to revenge. They both forgive like blades, they both forgive with pain.

Doesn’t God forgive through punishment? God will forgive you for your sins but you still have to go to hell, right?

Violence is a pillar of stability in their relationship, it’s how they understand each other, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the smile on Will’s gut a permanent reminder of Hannibal’s hurt, and all of Hannibal’s scars a reminder of Will’s hurt.

I see all of their trying to kill each other is affection. Hannibal doesn’t try to eat Will because he hates Will, he tries to eat to immortalize him, to keep Will as part of him forever.

And through that violence, Hannibal helped Will let go of his morality. Will had spent forever trying to repress himself—Molly was a failed attempt to escape into normalcy. Will definitely thought about Hannibal those years Hannibal was in prison.

S3e13, “The Wrath of the Lamb”:

HANNIBAL: When life becomes maddeningly police, think about me. Think about me, Will.

Will definitely missed the hunger, the violence. We can see this though the passionate way he killed the Red Dragon. He probably held Molly’s gentle hands and desperately wanted to feel something more. To feel something dangerous. Something that could simultaneously revive and ruin him. Molly never understood him the way Hannibal did, and he will never love her the way he loves Hannibal.

He did think about Hannibal when life became maddeningly polite. He probably fantasized about what they’ve done, what they could’ve done, and the feeling of freedom when he’s with Hannibal.

And Hannibal waited for him patiently, staying exactly where he was three years ago. And when Will eventually pushed them off a cliff together, Hannibal showed no sign of resistance, and just let them fall.

“I think [Hannibal]’s feeling that embrace and that’s the first thing that he’s feeling, and even as he’s plunging into the Atlantic, he’s first and foremost thinking about the man he’s holding onto and the man who’s holding onto him.”

–Mads Mikkelsen on Hannibal’s thoughts during the final scene

Their violence is something that we as viewers may never comprehend, but we can all understand their intimacy. Isn’t it what we all want, after all, to be seen?

Anyways...

Hannibal is a great show! 10/10, would recommend. Although, the lighting kind of sucks. Bryan, if there is a season four, please make the show brighter, for the love of God.

Thanks for reading this! :)

[thousandyearphantombunker]

“The titan said Belos is evil tho! Are you stupid the show said he was evil!”“Masha said lil’ bro just got jelly that his brother got a girlfriend! He doesn’t have depth and his ending was supposed to be unsatisfying!”“But James Ironwood losing his arm is supposed to represent him losing his humanity”“Jason Rose said that James could’ve always become evil and sided with Salem”“They literally called him genocide general!”“But in this Q&A they said the puppies survived they just lost their laser powers! And in the tie-in material, they showed everyone was fine! You just hate Starco!”“The show/tie-in material/a fucking Q&A said blah blah blah!”These arguments are shit. TOH- “God says witches are evil so it is his duty to kill them!” is a pretty horrible justification for killing someone except when the titan says it to Luz. I don’t think Luz is in the wrong for killing Belos, he was a genocidal maniac and child abuser and genuinely irredeemable- nobody who hates the ending of The Owl House complains about Belos being irredeemable, they complain about the show flopping the cult critical message, how hunter’s possession felt like needless shock value, the show not properly setting up the collector or how the coven system/conformitorium’s writing is a mess or how Eda becoming a teacher makes as much sense as Toph becoming a cop and you can go ‘but the show said-’ what the show said had unfortunate implications, was uncomfortable to abuse survivors, and I can’t forgive the ass-pullery of the trailer-bait nightmare sequence or how in the hexside crew became irrelevant! When people complain about how Belos was handled nobody complains about him not getting a redemption arc- they complain that hunter should’ve been there to see belos die or how they hate Luz’s power up. RWBY -James Ironwood’s and Penny’s character arcs and deaths felt so ableist it’s actually uncomfortable to watch, I have ASD my sister, and like half of the people I know have PTSD, I don’t know any amputees but I’ve seen plenty making noise about how shit the writing was. Good, they should be mad! The show’s message about prosthetics/amputations was toxic! Not mention for all the hopeful messages Team RWBY screams at the top of their lungs about trust they knowingly broke Ironwood’s trust for very poorly defined reasons! while I do think ruthless pragmatism is a bad thing, team RWBY offered no alternatives, he wasn’t a villain- he was facing an ethical dilemma and got fucked over. And SVTFOE- I shouldn’t have to buy tie-in materials to understand the show- tie-in material should be a bonus not a supplement or requirement, I Don’t have to buy the ATLA comics inorder to understand the show, I don’t have to read all of Lord Of The Rings to understand the movies. It doesn’t matter how the show was supposed to be interpreted or how the audience is supposed to feel, and It’s perfectly valid for the audience not to care about damage control spinoffs (cough cough Steven Universe) or Q&A’s or whatever. I’ll admit sometimes the audience is fucking stupid and completely media illiterate but can we stop acting like anyone who doesn’t blindly consume product and go with what the writers said are stupid? I know im not articulating this well but I’m pissy rn and I’m having trouble deconstructing whats wrong with those kind of arguments but god there is so much wrong with these arguements

[theacemenace]

Let's be honest, there is no way to consume true crime ethically (or produce it, but that's another story). As someone who has consumed a lot of true crime in the past, I can confidently say that at the end of the day, what leads someone to seek out this content is nothing more than morbid curiosity. I've gone through every possible excuse in my head to try to justify my entertainment. But there is simply no way to escape reality.

"But I consume it to study people's minds!" Watching a 40-minute video of a woman putting on makeup and telling how a child was brutally molested and murdered is not studying. Do you want to study? Go read books written by experts in the field, read articles, etc.

"But I consume it to learn to defend myself!" I'm sorry, but how is true crime going to teach you how to defend yourself? I don't even know how to answer this one because it simply doesn't make sense. There is already a niche of content focused on personal safety, if that is what you are looking for perhaps you should consider consuming this instead of content monetizing the deaths of real people. Or take self-defense classes, I don’t know.

[kyouka-supremacy]

Hot take, Bones doesn't deserve the amount of hate they are getting. Some, I understand but the amount I'm seeing is ridiculous. They have multiple projects they're working on and I get it, rushing through BSD isn't great but they can't animate everything. Also... the way they animated Aku makes more sense. Hard to give a soft smile losing such a large amount of blood from your neck.

Mmh, I understand that it can be disheartening to see something you like so heavily criticized, but I do believe the studio is doing some major mess up this season and that people are legitimately enraged.

I'm the first one to say that we're all here to have fun and there's not really any point on focusing on things we dislike, but I think it's also valid to be upset when something you care about a lot is treated unlovingly, and people are in their own right to express such disappointment. Moreover, I feel like in this case there is a point in expressing one's disdain. It's important to be critic of the media we consume: we could all pretend to be satisfied and settle on complacency, but wouldn't that be deeply detrimental? Otherwise, sometimes it's important to acknowledge and even state loud that you don't like something, because it's only by recognizing something is wrong that people can get to work to change it and improve. If we all tamely pretended we liked the new season, if there was no one to ever evaluate its direction, animation quality, pace, there's little hope for any of them to improve, simply because there's no need to change something people are happy with.

Theodor W. Adorno is my favorite sociologist. He once said, “the splinter in your eye is the best magnifying-glass available”. With that he meant that pain is the greatest source of knowledge. Pain allows to see things that otherwise would go unnoticed: only by acknowledging pain one can understand that something is wrong, that something needs to be changed and improved. I think it's always important to state: “this is wrong”, because nothing can ever be fixed if you don't first recognize it's broken.

Personally, I do believe what Bones studio is doing is wrong. I don't think it's fair to have such a drastic quality drop with the last season just like it wasn't in the third. I don't think it's right to not have an original opening sequence nor an ending sequence (that we know of). I don't think it's right to have such a fast pace that you can't keep up with the events. I don't think it's right to have a season filled with reused animations. I don't think it's right to have very little animation to the point there's up to 36 seconds of the same static frame in a single scene. I don't think it's right to have a quality drop in the drawings and quality inconsistency between one episode and the next. I think it's outrageous that the Fukuchi vs. sskk fight was so poorly animated and completely striped of any emotion. I don't think it's right of them to assassinate Akutagawa's chapter 88 panel. But most of all, I don't think it's right to have a season come out three months after the other. I don't think that's in any way ethically sustainable, and I don't think anyone needed that. I don't think it's right that studios don't get that people don't want an uninterrupted flow of content, people want quality content, and it's important to say that, or they'll never get it. I think they messed up greatly with this season, and I don't think being working on multiple projects can use as an excuse in any way, because as a studio you should be able to tell when you've got your hands too full to handle another project without meeting the quality standard. If Bones studio was working on too many projects, they simply shouldn't have set this season up for release so early, because again, NO ONE needs a new season after just three months.

I can see why you would say that the way they animated Akutagawa's last words makes more sense. It definitely is more rushed, and ugly. I guess one could argue that it conveys how death is precipitous and unpleasant, and doesn't leave space for last words. ... But I highly doubt that much was intentional. The sskk scene in its entirety was so poorly curated that I can hardly see the direction make thematically relevant choices. Even in the rare hypothesis it was a conscious and intentional directing choice, the outcome was still extremely underwhelming, because the moment itself doesn't feel rushed in particular since it's coming right after an episode that was rushed in its entirety.

I agree Akutagawa's death scene in the manga isn't realistic the slightest. But realism in that moment was never what the reader was asking for in the first place! It's a moment of conclusion for Akutagawa. It's the end of his cruel and hated life, and the author chooses to end it in kindness. By giving him a moment to smile and redeem himself, the author is showing Akutagawa the compassion he never received in his violence ridden life. Death scenes in media are almost never meant to be realistic! Their main aim is to move the audience, not to portray a realistic death. It's part of the deal the audience makes with the media the second they start interacting with it, to suspend their belief in order to enjoy the media at its fullest. It's, fundamentally, the same reason why you wouldn't question the characters having superpowers.

All the same, if you find yourself to be on average satisfied with the anime, that's perfectly valid too!!! I'm sorry people's disappointment may have resulted disheartening, and I understand it's hard to avoid, but my best advice is to try and curate your own internet experience to be so that you see the least negativity as possible. You might want to consider blocking and unfollowing people whose comments you find unpleasant, even if it's just temporary for the time the season airs. If it gets too much, refrain from visiting the main tag on Wednesdays when new episodes drop if that can work for you. I recognize we as a fandom could work better to build a space that is enjoyable for people who are liking the new season and wouldn't want to meet so much negativity, and I'm the first to admit I've been quite inconsistent in tagging my posts recently, so in the future I'll try to tag negativity accordingly. I do appreciate you for reaching out and sharing your opinion Anon! Let's all work together to build a better fandom space for everyone (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

[aizawa2009]

Safety Things I’ve Scripted for my Teen Wolf x Hogwarts DR!

This is all subject to change and only posted for a reference for myself to use here and there.

🖇️🖇️🖇️

—> I handle gore and fear very well; there will usually be a big bad to fight, in hogwarts or around beacon hills or even anywhere I’m summoned as the acting Mother of Magic. This means I might have to see, smell or hear things that might terrify me, but being able to handle witnessing things like these would make my life a hundred percent easier and less stressful.

—> I am not easily scared nor do I feel the feeling of all consuming fear; again, if I come across something terrifying, I don’t want to lock up and see which one I am from freeze, fawn or flee. I want to be brave and be able to seek reassurance from myself and my own personal strength.

—> I do not easily get traumatized, I handle trauma very well, and I can process things healthily and easily; shit’s scary during a magical war and any supernatural battle! Even with my previous safety features, things can happen, and just in case, I want to be able to heal quickly and process/handle the things that happen to me.

—> I can protect myself and others easily, and I’m never gravely injured or hurt beyond repair; i’m shifting to hogwarts x teen wolf… i’m shifting to battle, no matter how lowkey I’ve made the ‘plot’ and ‘enemies’. I need to make sure in case of anything, I can use my magic to protect myself from danger, and my friends and family. Also, this is hand in hand to the regular precaution of ‘i can’t die’.

—> I can put together context clues easily, solve cases quickly and figure things out almost immediately; i want to be in the know! i need to know actually, to be able to protect my territory. Stiles won’t be the only one making connections and solving cases.

—> I’m not really put in difficult positions, such as having to kill, having to make huge ethical decisions for others, given extreme responsibilities from the ministry; self explanatory, to be honest. Yes, I’m important to Beacon Hills and magical society, but I don’t want too many responsibilities, which will crush my free time and emotional well-being.

—> I don’t accidentally harm others when I don’t mean to, physically, emotionally or even with my magic; magic might be hard to control with how much of it I have! I don’t know yet, so it will pay to take precautions. Also, I hate hurting the people in my life emotionally, so this a major precaution for me.

—> My sense of pain is more muted and easy to control; while I can feel pain, it’s not too intense and painful. It’s mostly a warning for me to know where my body is hurting.

—> I have great comprehension, understanding, communication and listening skills; so many things in life can be avoided if you simply communicate and COMPREHEND. My life isn’t a fanfic, so I would rather avoid these tropes and not have to endure a fall out or fight over a misunderstanding!

—> I’m never EVER cheated on, physically or emotionally or anything of the like; you got me fucked up if you think I’m shifting somewhere to be CHEATED ON. And no, I don’t gaf about your ‘anything can happen once you shift!!!’ Hey, ever considered thats because YOU believe that? Lydia and Allison’s stupid petty drama can stay far away from me as possible. Everybody can see through your narcissistic good-girl not-like-other-girls attitude, Allison. And Lydia’s not even that bad, but her TV show character development is going to take a while in real life.

—> I’m incredibly good at (defensive and offensive) magic; a war is a war. I’m going to survive no matter what, and I’d rather win. I also don’t want to face intense magical exhaustion or have the Nemeton seep or give me too much magic.

—> I’m great at seeing through lies and reading between context clues; again, no misunderstandings!

—> Anyone who has ill intentions towards me and actively acts about them is divinely punished and then goes through a long lasting period of karmic retribution/suffering; UNLESS I don’t wish them to AND they have apologized enough for it.

—> People do not have any gossip on me that is bad or smears my image; as a popular media figure, and someone who’s gone to school/is going to school in a small town, gossip is huge. With so few people in the Hogwarts year and less in Beacon Hills, I refuse to be used as a pasttime conversation piece. The media can report factual things on me and minor unharmful rumours, but nothing that can deface me or ruin my public image.

🖇️🖇️🖇️

[astercontrol]

you all know I'm not really interested in Legacy in anywhere near the depth that I'm interested in '82--

and YET, sometimes, these ideas keep coming to me

An idea in four weird acts:

1.

What if the Sea of Simulation was the same thing to Jordan that Clu was to Flynn.

what if she created it/ copied herself into it

and some version of her consciousness is in it, always working

and its purpose is to help make things

what if all the parts of the Grid that were made with her architectural skills just… appeared by emerging fully formed from the Sea

2.

what if this sentient Sea also, eventually, learned how to make living programs.

And those were the ISOs

like. I've seen theories about how the ISOs may have been like Flynn's children in a sense, because their creation may have somehow… spawned from his human presence on the Grid, or something

but… if the method of their creation also involved Jordan, this deepens that idea even further

(parallel to the River Jordan becomes almost painful…. body of water that has been the source and setting of endless history and life and culture but also endless war and violence. really that is… TOO much for me to even wanna get into. …moving on.)

3.

what if, as the creator of the ISOs, the Sea kept backups of her creations? What if the ISOs can be restored from her?

(If, as implied in the Betrayal comic, Clu poisoned the sea to prevent more ISOs emerging, then this may have harmed Jordan's program and/or the backups it was keeping.)

(But, maybe she has some form of protection. Maybe they're still in there and recoverable, if anyone's looking around after Legacy for ways to rebuild the Grid. We can only speculate!)

4.

As much as "reset buttons" that undo canonical harm are often seen as a lazy way out…

well, I often find them fascinating-- just for the (usually unexplored) ethical implications.

If everything and everyone that Clu destroyed can be brought back… what does this do to his villainhood?

And for this thought experiment, my brain is still stuck partway in the world of Riemann's fic The Five Stages of Rectification… where the premise is that both Clu and Flynn ended up still being alive after reintegration, just with their identities and worldviews very much shattered and needing to figure a whole lot of stuff out.

But whether or not Clu or Flynn still exist and have to live with this new reality-- and whether or not they are feeling remorse and seeking redemption--

the questions still remain deeply troubling, in regard to the atrocities that Clu committed, and the mistakes Flynn made that led to that happening.

if the Sea has backups... does it lessen the harm of what they did?

It may bring back everything they caused to be destroyed.

It doesn't change the intentions behind their actions. Doesn't change that many victims were killed with deliberate cruelty, and with the intention that they stay dead. (Ethical thought experiment: How much do intentions matter in comparison to outcome? Is this different depending on whether the outcome was better or worse than the intentions?)

It doesn't erase the suffering that happened during that destruction. The pain of those who were hurt and killed. The trauma of those who survived them. (Ethical thought experiment: If Clu could erase everyone's memory of the suffering he caused, thus removing the only thing still hurting anyone-- would it make things better, or worse?)

Further ethical thought experiment: How do these questions compare to arguments for why it is wrong to kill people in the real world, even if you believe that there is an afterlife where they will go and be happy forever?

just… a whole complicated MESS of ideas bursting out of this... which I am not even particularly interested in writing fic about, because deep philosophical moral questions are things I want in my fic as a background motif at MOST, and... this would definitely consume the entire theme of any story it got into.

Ah, Disney.

You can give every protagonist a dead mom who's such a non-character that it's easy to headcanon she never really existed.

BUT you cannot stop the fans from making something more out of what you've neglected.

Always.

[hussyknee]

Twitter feels like an even split between pro-Palestine supporters and the most horrific kind of racists, Zionists and white supremacists. Tumblr is by comparison overwhelmingly in support of Palestine. And yet the level of dehumanization, isolation, Othering and casual racism on here is so much more unbearable and suffocating than Twitter could ever be.

Tumblr wants to be seen as the anti-racist good guys on the right side of history while reinforcing the racist white supremacist western-centric status quo. Black and brown people are given platform under strict conditions of what values can be challenged and how far white comfort can be pushed. It's on Twitter that we have our own communities, our own power of advocacy, and a collective drive to interrogate and dismantle structures of power.

It reinforces what I have known for a long time— Tumblr's hatred of Twitter and TikTok is based primarily on refusing to tolerate the reality of equal representation, leftist action and racial justice. A true diversity of power and perspectives is messy, chaotic, conflict-driven and upends the sense of stability and space that can only come with a homogeneity of racial demographic. The majority of disenfranchised people understands that power structures and bureaucracies are built on purpose to exclude them — the poor, the sex workers, the incarcerated, the ghettoised, the disabled, the colonized. We have to fight to be heard, and our reality and political investment cannot be separated from the minority trauma that informs them. True equality entails not having to funnel that trauma through behaviour and ethics that makes their expression more palatable or considering of others; it removes all respectability politics and allows us to behave with the same unpunished toxicity that is unleashed on us by white and western people. Conflict, cacophony and having to tolerate the untempered emotions and self-interest of all groups is the price of true diversity and honest dialogue. It also primarily empowers Black and brown people and disempowers whites. In contrast, the "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" on predominantly white-driven and Western-oriented spaces is a simply a neoliberal farce that requires us to perform our own humanity and ask validation from whiteness. This is why you see only the worst aspects and negative effects of Twitter and TikTok and use them to reject the the platforms wholesale while creating a narrative of moral superiority around Tumblr's relatively low levels of conflict and glossing over the receding presence of Black and brown people in its userbase.

Race is not a layer of oppression. It's the fundamental bisection that creates the underclass on which the colonial capitalist world order is built. It's the caste hierarchy of humanity; who gets to be labourer and profiteer, the exploiter and exploited, the worker and producer, the consumer and consumed, the masses and the individual. The living bodies and embodied lives. The experience of every other marginalization is shaped by its waters. White women and queers will neither understand nor share in the oppression of women and QPoC from both diasporas and the Global South. Even further, every marginalization becomes a weapon against BIPOC in the hands of its white demographic. Black and brown people of those marginalized communities will always only be a token and shield for their white counterparts, while being the workhorses behind their struggles.

It doesn't matter how many times you post "Free Palestine" when we know its only the product of your preoccupation with your own personal moral landscape. Politics based on egoism will always be eclipsed by threats to your material reality. This is why a userbase that spent its entire existence grandstanding against Nazis now cannot see Zionists as Nazis and begs people to participate in a political establishment that has revealed itself to be a genocidal white supremacist regime in the clearest possible terms. Fascism against its own enfranchised is the end stage of an empire that has begun to collapse under the weight of its war-mongering and now resorts to eating itself to survive. No amount of moral distance between yourselves and its machinery of death, no amount of scapegoating the lives crushed underneath it, will stop the roofs you sheltered under falling on top of you. This the truth that the colonized, enslaved and indentured people that built your house have lived all along.

[samwisethewitch]

Aromatherapy for Processing Trauma

Aromatherapy uses scent, usually in the form of essential oils, for physical and emotional well-being. Our sense of smell is very closely connected to memory, and certain smells can have an effect on our emotions and mood.

Essential Oil Safety and Ethics

Because this is the Internet and because certain multi-level marketing corporations have intentionally spread misinformation about essential oil safety, let's talk about a couple of things real quick.

You should never, ever eat or drink essential oils. These are very concentrated extracts of the active compounds from plants, and just like you would never sit down and eat 200 pounds of lavender, you shouldn't eat lavender oil. Ingesting essential oils can have very serious side effects, up to and including organ failure and death. Just don't.

If you want to work with a liquid plant extract that you can take internally, I recommend trying a tincture or a tea.

Use caution when applying essential oils topically. Again, essential oils are very concentrated, so they can cause skin reactions even if you are not normally allergic to the plant they come from. Always do a patch test to check for an allergic reaction before applying an essential oil to your skin or putting it in a bath. Some, like cinnamon oil, should never be used topically.

Always dilute your oils. Whenever you put essential oils on your skin, mix them with a carrier oil (like olive oil or coconut oil). Typically for adults you want to only use two drops of essential oil for every teaspoon of carrier oil, but you might use a stronger or weaker concentration depending on your body and your needs. If you're adding essential oils to your bath, make sure you mix them into a bath salt (either Epsom salt or plain table salt) before adding them to the water.

When you diffuse essential oils, make sure you don't use too much. For a typical aromatherapy diffuser, you really only need 1-5 drops of oil.

Be careful using essential oils around children and pets. Contrary to what some MLMs say, essential oils may not be safe for your baby or your dog. If you have kids, make sure your oils are stored out of their reach. Don't diffuse essential oils around babies under 6 months old, and don't apply oils to the skin on children under 3 years old. If you use essential oils on your older child's skin, they should be TWICE as diluted as for an adult (so you would use HALF as much essential oil for the same amount of carrier oil). If you diffuse oils around your kids, don't run the diffuser for more than 60 minutes. Follow other essential oil safety rules.

If you have a pet in the house, only diffuse essential oils in open, well-ventilated rooms, never let the diffuser run for more than 60 minutes, and make sure your pet is able to leave the room if they want to. Never apply essential oils to a pet's skin. Research your oils to make sure they aren't toxic to your pets.

Moving from safety concerns to ethics concerns, don't use essential oils in public spaces. Many people don't tolerate these scents well because of health conditions, allergies, or chemical sensitivities. For this reason, you should only practice aromatherapy in your own private space.

Try to be an eco-conscious consumer. It takes a whole lot of plant material to make essential oils -- one pound of lavender oil requires 250 pounds of lavender buds! That's a lot of natural resources. Even "wildcrafted" or "wild harvested" products may still be contributing to overharvesting. Try to limit your environmental impact by using oils sparingly, avoiding oils made from endangered plants, buying from companies that use sustainable harvesting practices, and reusing or recycling the bottles.

Making Aromatherapy Trauma-Sensitive

Because scent is so strongly connected to memory, scents that remind us of a traumatic event can trigger anxiety or panic, or even make us physically ill. Before using aromatherapy, think carefully about the scents you feel drawn to and whether they may be triggering for you.

For example, if your abuser wore a floral perfume with rose and geranium notes, the scents of rose and geranium might activate your fight or flight response, even though those are usually considered calming scents. If your abuser wore a cologne or deodorant with a lot of woodsy notes, you might want to avoid woodsy essential oils like cedarwood.

If at any point you start to feel triggered or activated when using aromatherapy, stop using that scent until you can speak to a therapist or counselor about your experience.

Helpful Essential Oils for Trauma Survivors

Note: Much of the information in this section comes from Elizabeth Guthrie's book, The Trauma-Informed Herbalist.

Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia): The ultimate relaxing scent. Guthrie says that lavender "allows a person to completely relax. It is a wonderful tonic for a person who has been overthinking situations." Lavender is really helpful for anxiety and paranoia, especially if your anxiety takes the form of doom spiraling or thinking about worst case-scenarios.

Cedarwood (Cedrus virginiana): An excellent grounding scent. Guthrie says that cedarwood "is loved for its ability to help people reconnect to themselves." Be aware that Atlas Cedarwood (Cedrus atlantica) is endangered due to overharvesting -- try to use more sustainable varieties.

Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis): Great for mental clarity. Rosemary strengthens memory, and it can be useful for people who struggle with short-term memory or who are dealing with brain fog or gaps in memory as a product of trauma. Rosemary promotes alertness.

Clary Sage (Salvia sclarea): Promotes a sense of well-being and helps decrease feelings of stress.

Sweet Marjoram (Origanum majorana): Brings balance to the body and mind. Marjoram has a relaxing effect and can help release tension.

Geranium (Pelargonium graveolens): Another relaxing scent. Guthrie says that geranium "can also help a person who is feeling jumpy, as if they're living in a horror movie and a jump scare is just around the corner."

Chamomile (Anthemis nobilis): Reduces anxiety and relieves feelings of depression. Chamomile also famously helps with sleep issues such as insomnia.

Patchouli (Pogostemon cablin): Very strong grounding. Guthrie recommends patchouli to help reset the sleep-wake cycle for people struggling with insomnia and/or fatigue.

Bergamot (Citrus bergamia): Balances emotional energy and uplifts the mood. Guthrie recommends it for brain fog from exhaustion and for aid in letting go of anger.

Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus): A superstar for healing, whether physical, mental, emotional, or even spiritual. Guthrie recommends eucalyptus "to jumpstart the emotional healing process" and "to release the feeling that their trauma is part of their identity."

Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis): An uplifting and energizing scent. Great for bringing up the mood, promoting happiness, and helping with burnout.

Aromatherapy on a Budget

Listen, y'all. Essential oils are expensive. Ethically sourced essential oils are even more expensive. I save some money by 1.) using essential oils sparingly, and 2.) buying pre-mixed blends. I'll typically look for a blend that contains several oils that I want to work with instead of buying each oil individually. Right now I'm working with the "Harmony" synergy blend from Eden's Garden, which contains lavender, cedarwood, rosemary, clary sage, sweet marjoram, geranium, and chamomile.

If you can't find a blend that has all the qualities you want, you can still save money by buying a blend with most of the qualities you're looking for, then adding one or two low-cost oils. For example, I wanted a slightly more grounding effect than the blend I'm using has, so I add a little bit of patchouli oil to bring in that earthy, grounding quality.

Sources:

The Trauma-Informed Herbalist by Elizabeth Guthrie

"5 Benefits of Clary Sage Oil" by Corey Whelan

"Marjoram Essential Oil" on AromaWeb

"The 8 Proven Benefits of Chamomile Oil and How to Use It" by Jill Seladi-Schulman, Ph.D.

"Essential Oils & Pets" on Saje

"Are Essential Oils Safe for Kids?" by Teresa Carr

[itsclydebitches]

The thing about that Winter thing, just to remind, from her POV she killed James. The last she saw of him was was her making him explode. From her perspective she is the one who killed that guy. And she is not very Brocken up about it.

Its amusing because they give Adam more sympathy then this. Blake literally broke down sobbing after killing him and even the triumphant song they released had a note about how sad Adam's story was and how this boy lost his way being consumed by hate and spite.

It was not alot, but like...its more then they give Jimmy LOL.

Pretty sure I got this ask when we all thought Winter was writing on Ironwood's grave, but regardless...

Yeeeah.

Something I've been thinking about lately is how Ironwood is the one villain who is still irrevocably against Salem and how that should have made such a difference, but didn't. Even Adam, whose story-line became 99% about his abusive relationship with Blake, was working with Cinder earlier on who, in turn, was working for Salem. Every major villain in the show (that I can think of off the top of my head, anyway) did something to forward Salem's agenda: Cinder, Watts, Tyrian, Hazel, Emerald, Raven, Adam, Roman. That consistency means that although I might often side-eye the heroes' inability to forgive (or hypocritically forgive on a dime) it at least makes sense that they would look at someone like Lionheart, someone who was helping Salem end the world, and dismiss any goodness within them.

Ironwood, in contrast, was working against Salem up until the moment he died.

Did the writers give him a senseless, fucked-up means of moving against Salem via a 'just bomb civilians' plan? Yes and I'll forever side-eye that too. However, I think if the heroes should have forgiveness/sympathy/mixed feelings/an emotional reaction to any villain, it should be the one whose villains acts were all in the name of stopping their shared enemy. In debating the ethical and practical merits of Ironwood's plans, I think many fans have lost sight of the larger picture. He's trying to get the Relics away from Salem, keep their last army of huntsmen in reserve to fight Salem later, get at least one city of people safely away from Salem. No matter how messed up, no matter how misguided and OOC there wasn't a single thing Ironwood did that wasn't guided by his attempts to keep Salem from ending the world. In a better written show, that would have meant something. Even if we still had to get cartoon villain Ironwood, the characters would at least acknowledge that he (from the show's POV) did all the wrong things for the right reasons. Winter in particular was set up to be that nuanced insight, given his mentor-esque status and her unfailing faith in 99% of the choices Ironwood made. That the show would have her (from her POV) kill him and then just sneer at how she waited too long to do it is insane. Please write these characters humanely! Even if you come to hate someone for what they've done, years worth of love for them doesn't just up and disappear!! That's the one (1) snow scene moment RWBY got completely right: of course Ozpin is still going to care for Lionheart despite his betrayal.

For me, intent will always matter. It might not excuse everything (or anything at all), but it opens the door for forgiveness in a way that few other things will. Which is why the intent of other characters, in contrast, makes Ironwood's writing so much worse. You have Qrow teaming up with Tyrian because he refuses to go see Ironwood in handcuffs and Emerald who is "redeemed" because she was literally just standing beside Oscar post-realization that Cinder doesn't love her. The show says, "You're forgiven for being so stubborn you'll deliberately help kill your friend" and the characters say "You're forgiven for trying to end the world/destroying a school and then stopping out of selfish self-interest." But there's no "You're forgiven for taking extreme measures in a no-win scenario in an effort to salvage some hope against an immortal enemy." That's messed up to me! Especially given that Ironwood is (presumably) dead. If there's ever a time to let characters extend compassion in a way they may not be able to with the person still there and potentially still enacting wrong, it's when they've died for those heroic beliefs. Ironwood is the one villain who, methods aside, was 100% fighting the right battle and he's simultaneously the one villain that characters and story alike refuse to give even a smidge of sympathy for. Wild.