#fandoms have become so political in how they operate

[peppertaemint]

SHINee fans have been showing their asshats about the comeback too? I thought it was just EXO-Ls being annoying again. I really don't understand this. I don't understand why fans think they know what's best for these grown adults. I don't understand once they saw how much fun Baekhyun and Kai had with the other SuperM members, why that's not enough? I don't understand why once Baekhyun said out of his own mouth that we would not have agreed to be in the group if it was going to be a short term thing? I understand why fans just can't ignore what they don't like and focus on what they do? EXO has announced they're having a comeback. What difference does it make whether it's first or last? It's coming. They're getting what they want so just stfu and wait. No point in whining and complaining about something you can't control so just ignore what you find unpleasant and then get hyped when news hits stating what you want to hear. I'm a huge EXO fan but I can wait. I know it's happening. That's good enough. This whole entitled attitude of things need to happen when they want it to happen has gotten out of hand and quite frankly gross. I for real saw an actual tweet wait let me show you... https://twitter.com/3799error/status/1609602960127889408?s=20&t=I3UFpJzFyDSQga0Aly-tHg

"I stan them for my pleasure, not their's" so basically, these men are to exist to not do what they want to do, but to just solely do what pleases this person and others who think this way. If that isn't some fucked up statement that shows exactly what the problem is with fandom culture, Idk what is. I'm disgusted and now I will be enjoying this SuperM comeback even more than I already was.

Screenshot of that tweet because it's a doozy:

SHINee World has mostly calmed down, thankfully. They're back to coming up with funny countdowns until Taemin's return. Just saw one dedicated to his philtrum since Key described it as looking like someone ripped off a piece of tape. 💀

Anyway, there's a lot to unpack in that tweet. Some fans fundamentally think they know better than record labels in countries they've never been to. And what's best for people they've never met in any meaningful way (nor will they ever). I could entertain it all and say fans are just passionate and backseat driving, but honestly I won't. It's a delusional level of parasocial engagement. Some fans struggle because they don't know where they end and other people begin, as though they get a say in someone else's life or art or work. It's the definition of narcissism.

Like you, I always err on the side of like... trusting people? They all said they wanted it to be a long-term project where they could show different types of concepts. That's what we're getting. Cool! I don't care when and how it comes. If the music's shit I'll say so (as per usual) but other than that let people you don't know live their lives. 💀

[secretmellowblog]

The thing is, Jean Valjean’s “nineteen year prison sentence for stealing a loaf of bread” from Les Mis isn’t actually unusual���.not even today! I see people talking about it as if it’s strange or unimaginable when it happens every day.

In modern America — often as a result of pointlessly cruel (and racist) habitual offender and mandatory minimum laws— people are routinely sentenced to life in prison for minor crimes like shoplifting or possession of drugs.

The ACLU did a report in 2013 detailing the lives of various people who were sentenced to life in prison without parole for nonviolent property crimes like:

•attempting to cash a stolen check

•a junk-dealer’s possession of stolen junk

metal (10 valves and one elbow pipe)

•possession of stolen wrenches

•siphoning gasoline from a truck

•stealing tools from a tool shed and a welding machine from a yard

•shoplifting three belts from a department store

•shoplifting several digital cameras

•shoplifting two jerseys from an athletic store

• taking a television, circular saw, and a power converter from a vacant house

• breaking into a closed liquor store in the middle of the night

And of course, so so so many people sentenced to life without parole for the possession of a few grams of drugs.

And we could go on and on!

Gregory Taylor was a homeless man in Los Angeles who, in 1997, was sentenced to “25 years to life” for attempting to steal food from a food kitchen. He was released after 13 years. The lawyers helping to release him even cited Les Miserables in their appeal, comparing Taylor’s sentence to Jean Valjean’s.

And there’s another specific bit of social commentary Hugo was making about Valjean’s trial that’s still depressingly relevant. He writes that Valjean was sentenced for the theft of loaf of bread, but also that the court managed to make that sentence stick by bringing up some of his past misdemeanors. For example, Valjean owned a gun and was known to occasionally poach wildlife (presumably for his starving family to eat.) . So the court exaggerates how harmful the bread theft was—he had to smash a windowpane to get the bread, which is basically Violence— then insist the fact that he owns a gun and occasionally poaches is proof that he is habitually and innately violent. Then when Valjean obviously becomes distressed traumatized and furious as a result of his nakedly unjust sentence and begins making desperate (and very unsuccessful/impulsive/ poorly thought through) attempts to escape…. the government indifferently tacks more years onto his sentence, labels him a “dangerous” felon, and insists that its initial read of him as an innately violent person was correct.

And it’s sad how a lot of the real life stories linked earlier are similar to the commentary Hugo wrote in 1863? Someone will commit a nonviolent property crime, and then the court insists that a bunch of other miscellaneous things they’ve done in the past (whether it’s other minor thefts or being addicted to drugs or w/e) are Proof they’re inherently violent and incapable of being around other people.

A small very petty fandom side note: This is also why I dislike all those common jokes you see everywhere along the lines of “lol it’s so unrealistic for the police to want to arrest Valjean over a loaf of bread, there must have been some other reason the police were pursuing him. Because the state would never punish someone that harshly and irrationally for no reason. so maybe javert was just gay haha”. (Ex: this tiktok— please don’t harass the creator or poster though, I don’t think they were intending to mean anything like that and its just a silly common type of joke you see made about Les mis all the time so it’s not unique in any way.) because like.

As much as I don’t think Les Mis is a flawless book or that its political messaging is perfect….the only way that insanely long unjust sentences for minor crimes is “unrealistic” is if you’re operating on the assumption that prisons are here to Keep You Safe by always only punishing bad criminals who do serious crimes. And that’s just, not true at all. Like I get that these are just goofy silly shallow jokes, and I’m not angry or going to harass anyone who makes them. but it feels like there’s an assumption underlying all those goofy jokes that “this is just not how prison works!” “Prisons don’t routinely sentence people to absurd laughably unjust pointless sentences!” “Prisons give people fair sentences for logical reasons!” When like…no

Valjean being relentlessly hounded and tortured for a minor crime in a way that is utterly ridiculous and arbitrary in its cruelty is not actually a plot hole in Les mis. It’s a plot hole in …..society ajsjkdkdkf. And the only way to fix that is to fight for prison abolition or at least reform, and (in America) stand up against the vicious naked cruelty of habitual offender and mandatory minimum laws.

But yeah :(. I hate how Les Mis opens with a prologue saying the novel will be obsolete the moment the social issues it describes have been resolved— but two hundred years later, the book is still more relevant than ever because we’re dealing with so many of the exact same injustices.

[secret0codename]

Creepypasta Hedcanons ^^

Jane The Killer

~ Okay, we all know that Jane is a lesbian and that she is married so I will focus on these points. At the beginning of his relationship with his wife (Mary) she was closed to herself! Even though his wife, girlfriend at the time, told him to feel comfortable, she became more confident over time!

~ I see Jane as a very strong woman, she is one of the most badass creepypastas! In my opinion, she wouldn't be a feminist person... She just tends to care a lot about women since she has already suffered at the hands of Jeff.

Laughing Jack

~ This guy has serious problems with children, a lot of lack of trust! But he's very good at what he does, and he's very manipulative. He really doesn't like children as much as (Jill) does, but he may even give polite children a chance, well that would be very rare, since he hates them.

~ Let's say he realizes that a child attracts him because he is polite, outgoing, fun or something like that. He will probably be a little "disgusted" in the first few days, but he would be able to put up with it. That is until she starts to grow up and make him feel less loved. Note: He has clearly been abandoned, has trust issues, meaning he doesn't trust anyone. Another important thing! He really thinks Mat*r is some kind of joke. Nobody explained this matter to him

Hoodie/Brian

~ Let's talk about Hoodie now, well the things I know about this guy are really mixed after all there are several things within the fandoms (MH and Creepypasta) that is, I'm going to mix some things! Hoodie is very good with cameras, he knows where to put them, how to configure them, how to record something correctly, he would be a proxy "cameraman" but he doesn't just record of course!

~ Hoodie/Brian, they are quiet, I would say closed to themselves even though they have a very old friendship with Tim/Masky, I would say they are still reserved enough to be difficult to investigate! It is generally not reported or invoked much, but it can be very well located by recording something or someone.

Masky/Tim

~ Masky, like Hoodie, can very well use a camera, but these two are very different and I will say this, Masky/Tim are totally different people and I can explain that!

-Called Multiple Personality Disorder in the past, Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a very complex mental disorder in which there is the presence of two or more identities or personality states that take control of the person's behavior.

-Masky is a more closed person, being more aggressive with people, serious and in some aspects a perfectionist with EVERYTHING he does

-Tim, on the other hand, is not as aggressive as Masky, but he can be serious and quiet, he still remains a perfectionist because that is a trait, everything he does has to be PERFECTIONAL otherwise he will collapse!<Tim/Masky tem vício em fumar e isso não é uma novidade>

Kate the Chaser

~ Kate is one of the least talked about creepypasta in my opinion, it's very rare to see someone talk about this proxy. Her first appearance if I'm not mistaken was in Slenderman The Arrival, where her best friend "Lauren" was looking for her. Kate must have been one of the first proxies (Along with Hoodie)

~ Kate is quite a runner, she usually stays in forests and her mask is more peculiar with a deformed mouth, her appearance that becomes visible is her medium black hair, Kate is one of the creepys that I think has a lot of potential even if she doesn't She is very well known, she is someone who is quieter, she doesn't have many friends, of those we know she was a faithful friend of, it was only her friend "Lauren" who she was friends with since she was little, Kate lived in a place further away from the city. She gradually grew older, to the point where her house, besides being dirty, was full of bizarre Operator/Slenderman drawings.

Homicidal Liu

~ After Jeff tried to kill Liu, but he survived, he ended up in a hospital. Falling in love with the nurse, ending up with her, unfortunately she dies in a "robbery". Liu will eventually no longer believe in happiness, and kills everyone around him who is happy! (I'm terrible at making summaries)

~ Liu is a very intelligent, serious person, polite to anyone he wants and even though he hates Jeff, he never disregards him as a brother! He just wants to kill him just like Jane. Speaking of which, I feel like he would probably team up with Jane if necessary to kill his brother in one way or another.

~ There is a ship between him and Nurce Ann, I won't touch on the subject because I'm not a shipper. But this is due to the fact that Liu has already fallen in love with his first nurse, as far as I remember her name but that could possibly happen.

Hello everyone, how are you Mannuh speaking here! I want to say that I am an investigator and so rest assured that when it is Hedcanon I will keep you informed so as not to pass on false information, I was really thinking about posting investigations here.. Like, theories, my points of view, reports, see some cases I I really wanted to occupy my head but that's it! ^^ Have a good night/day all of you ⦻ ⦻ ☠⦻ ⦻

__________________________________________

[senlinyu]

Hiya— forgive me, this is a big one!

Something I really appreciate about your work on both Manacled and LTDI is your approach to the wizarding world’s oppressive systems. I recently read a bit about how the caste system in India parallels to Jewish and African American oppression (there’s a great film on this too) and it made me go back and re-read Manacled just to look at it from this perspective.

I’m not sure how this fandom usually talks about wizarding world oppression since I don’t really engage, so I apologize if this is rehashing old metas haha. I mostly only see the direct parallels to “wizard nazis,” but I like that your work is more nuanced and detailed. I think it’s fascinating how the blood purity systems of oppression basically operate as a form of caste.

And in HP canon, the statue of secrecy is also very interesting, but you made it so much more engaging. Came for the enemies to lovers smut drama, stayed for the intellectual commentary haha!

I really like what you did in LTDI by exploring deeper how oppression looks like in a magical world, and the history behind the witch trials and dark magic. I *loved* the way dark magic was forbidden for muggle-borns, and the sickening and so realistic rationale that pure-bloods are taught about it.

And HOLY SHIT!—— You do such a good job at showcasing every aspect of this on LTDI through Hogwarts, Dumstrang, the archives, bullies, the press, and especially our two leads! Your depiction of the casual violence of oppression with Hermione and her journey learning about muggle-borns is devastating. and Draco’s absolute misery through the very oppressive system that’s supposed to put him on top is so true and also so brilliantly written. And it doesn’t hit me over the head with a shovel either, it’s just…human. It’s well done!! It reminds me why I like Dramione, besides the tension and the subtext, there’s so much richness that canon simply doesn’t have.

Sorry for the ramble! What I’m getting to is that when it comes to positive societal values (education, riches, peace, access to water and resources) and negative ones (lack of education, poverty, lack of resources, vulnerability to violence, incarceration,) the oppressor class is always going to rationalize that they earned it, and the subjugated second class deserves their lot. Here in America, the rationale was that people of color deserved subjugation because they were dirtier, meaner, stupider than their white counterparts; and these beliefs were upheld by religion, politics and incorrect science. But all of these are rationalizations and fabrications, because there is obviously nothing inherently superior about race (or in the case for white Jews— and here in HP— caste.) I think you translate that so beautifully to pure-bloods; but I was wondering how this works in relation to muggleborns.

On my reread of Let the Dark, I saw that muggle borns that didn’t manifest into Obscurus and went on to become wizards almost always grew into mastering black magic when they have access into the dark arts, while native-born wizards did not. The records of the fic also showed that black magic was corruptive to pure-bloods who tried it, and very hard to achieve at all even when put in similar nurture conditions when growing up.

So I guess this is all a really long-winded way of asking haha—— is Hermione’s muggle-born proficiency in black magic derived from nurturing or nature? and does that mean it’s vice versa for half/pure-bloods? Sorry I know you had a passage on exactly this but I just didn’t really know what you meant.

Anyway, these two are soooo fricking stupid horny for each other, I love the way you write them. Kudos ++ and thanks for all the work.

Can’t wait to see what’s next for LTDI ! ! ! !

Hi, thank you for the long ask. Am I correct in guessing that you saw the movie Caste? It's based on Isabel Wilkerson's book by the same name, which is one of the books that I read that was partially responsible for my inspiration for LTDI. A few years ago now, I was on a sort of journey reading about historical systemic oppression, but I didn't want to be limited to only American oppression and discrimination. I don't feel comfortable drawing absolutely direct parallels from real world in literature just because I feel like a lot of the times such attempts can perpetuate the very things they're trying to deconstruct (looking at you Zootopia), but the story is influenced by various reading I've done on discrimination and oppression throughout various colonial and class heavy cultures.

So as a result, I really didn't want to actually create a 'rational reason' for muggle-born oppression that had a legitimate basis, I wanted it to be a nurture based distinction. Yes muggle-borns have a unique ability that results from the trauma of their upbringing altering how their magic manifests, but that's not because they're actually naturally different, and in fact there's a very simple solution to preventing Black Magic by pre-emptively reaching out to muggleborns and preventing that formative trauma from occurring, but that would necessitate wizarding culture giving up their false sense of superiority and entitlement, and so they won't, and they let Muggle-born children and their families die where they don't have to see it.

[cardinalcanis]

Fire and Blood part 4: precious things.

[Part 3]

Summary: Ovidious and Guilliman have a tense argument regarding the recent events with Zadkiel.

TW: Some good old angst, fluff, Guilliman being bad with emotions.

Word count: 1715

Collab fic with: @jaghatai-khock

Tag squad (let me know if you wish to be tagged on stuff): @druidwolf21 @wolf-feathers12 @artemisareia @cosmic-cryptid-from-beyond @adhd-fandom-hyperfocus

@gallifreyianrosearkytiorsusan @kit-williams @egrets-not-regrets

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

Ovidious didn’t fight him, he just followed. Followed through the door he ripped off in panic, passed the claw marks on the floor and wall with peeled off pieces. Out of Zadkiel’s unsettlingly bare room, by all the standing Lamenters and later on terrified serfs. His beloved just followed as asked and Guilliman couldn’t utter a single word while silence accompanied them like an unwanted guest that you are too polite to tell them to leave. 

There were no loving jokes or seating at each other’s side. It was him on his superhuman sized chair, Ovid in a human sized one and the large desk between them. Just like their first encounter, as if they had become strangers again. There was a decisive yet fearful spark in his honeyed eyes, was Sulla scared of him? Had the sweet honey he had been fed gone from bountiful and runny to cloudy hard to swallow crystals?

The room they had spent so much time together no longer felt cozy and familiar, a sanctuary now invaded by an overwhelming force. Soldiers over war machines wearing the banners of uncertainty and distrust marched over once fertile fields, turning them into trenches. 

“You were smoking” he said, breaking the silence, his voice seeming to cause the impression of las fire in the night. 

“I’ve only had one today.” Ovid’s voice tame yet resolute, a standing fortress wall.

Theoretical: he needs to get answers out of what happened. Practical; he must ask the question. No, things are not as simple. Theoretical: he must know the truth of what happened despite his and Ovid’s feelings about it… 

“Practical, let your nephew be his own person.” Ovidious interrupted Guilliman’s train of thought, he had truly learned how his mind operated. 

“Not if that involved causing him to have a meltdown and mutilating his hair.” He heard Zadkiel screaming from far corners on the ship, that visceral pain, the fact he didn’t find Ovid and being told he was amid the same place of screams. 

“Lord Guilliman” yes, Ovid must be thinking he hated him, no other way could he be so proper and defensive. “Zadkiel is a walking meltdown, I’ve been telling you since the first day you found him.” 

“If you thought of the boy like that, why didn’t you call me to accompany you to get the report.” He had to go with Tyberos instead, a stranger to him for all things considered.

“Because you would shelter him from the truth! Look at the words you use with him: ‘boy’, ‘mutilate his hair’. When Tyberos and I opened the door…”

“This is NOT your issue to deal with Ovidious! This is NOT your family! You do NOT understand!” He barked back before he could properly greenlight the contents of his words. His hearts sank down into his chest seeing how his beloved recoiled back and increased the distance between them. “Beloved it’s hard to…” 

“Do not ‘beloved’ me after what you said.” Ovid said in a mournful tone, eyes slightly watery. “Long ago, you said that you trusted me with your soul. That you wanted me not to only be part of your world but to be in it, be with you in it. You asked me to care for Zadkiel like my own blood, as I was part of you therefore he was part of me too.” He stuttered the last words. “Was that a lie my Lord? Am I your beloved only when it doesn’t break your careful plans?” 

“Ovid I…” the thoughts in his head were running with so many possible dialogue paths.

“I am an adult Roboute Guilliman, what you are sheltering your nephew from becoming…”

“...it is not what…” Most of them do not end well, and all seem to be his fault. 

‘...If you wish me to just step out of your life and just do the job you brought me into your ship for…” 

“...beloved please…” he must remain calm, emotion caused this, maybe it is for the best, at least he will be safe. 

“...I’ll hold no bad blood towards you. It’s not the first time I’ve discovered I’m not as important as I thought.” 

Fuck the practical. 

“I was afraid, Ovidious Sulla, I was so afraid alright.” Pathetic “I looked for you, they told me you went to check Zadkiel due to a certain incident he had.” The wound on his neck, it hurt. 10,000 year old poison that is never gone. “Then I heard the screams, I’m not blind, I know his strength, just like the one of his father who I failed to.” The hopelessness that eats his soul is expanding, he’s getting numb. So cold, so hollowed, only pain. “Just as I was too late for Sanguinius I was for Zadkiel, I failed him too.” Is Ovid still in the room? He can’t see with such watery eyes, there’s only this void eating him. “I was afraid I was going to be late for you too, that I had failed you.” He feels so weak all of the sudden, the pain of the wound, it’s exhausting. “Just like the Emperor failed us, we failed him, we failed each other and I failed the Imperium… you are the only one I haven’t failed to until now…” he feels himself drifting, his soul fading, eaten by that despair Yvvraine warned him about. 

Guilliman felt his breath escape him, too weak to take another one. Then someone breathed for him, parting his lips into a kiss. 

“Beloved, stay with me.” He knew that voice, he hadn’t left. 

Roboute kissed the man back, truth be told, he had gotten used to the taste of smoke in Ovid’s mouth. The strong flavor was slowly grounding him, he wished he was a normal human, so he could squeeze him with all his strength without fear, and have a simple home to come back to together after a day of honest work. See their children grow, get old together… he’ll never be able to give Ovidious any of that yet he stays. What could he offer him? There is no life by his side. 

The sudden sting of a slap brought him back. 

“I said” slap “stay with me” slap  “you” slap “oversized” slap “ blueberry.” 

He caught the hand coming for another slap, and brought it to his lips, kissing the worn metallic fingers. Being mindful that not a single knuckle is left without his lip’s touch. The primarch looked into his beloved’s eyes, he had forgotten how honey never spoils. 

“You were right, I did tell you one lie.” He pressed Ovid’s hand on his cheek, wanting for the touch to never leave his skin. “When we first brought Zad here, a priest came to see him all happy and full of zealous delusion.” He paused, coming back slowly to his more measured cadence. “There was nothing left of the man to even figure out the order of events, his remains had to be picked up with a mop. I keep Zad in a tight leash so this doesn’t happen again, the Imperium has taken down primarchs that are inconvenient for them before, twice in fact. I cannot lose Zadkiel again.” he dug his face on Ovid’s neck, letting out a humm. “Then I would feel bad for keeping him in a strict cage, so I would ignore all his violent self destructive fighting.”

“There are other ways, Roboute.”

“What? Telling him that failed him? That I failed his father? Every time I see him I am reminded of Sanguinius’ last words asking Lion and me when should we meet again, him knowing full well he was not going to make it?” 

Ovidious kissed both of his tear soaked cheeks. 

“Yes you should.” 

Guilliman frowned, locking eyes with him. 

“It will break the bo… Zadkiel even more.” 

“It will break the cycle of your family never sharing the information that matters.” 

Throne, how could a man disassemble him and put him back together with such ease? Guilliman wondered, what would have been if the Emperor of Mankind had shared his plans and doubts with his sons? Maybe Lorgar wouldn’t have seen him as a god, preventing what Guilliman had to do in Monarchia, making the heresy never happen. Maybe they all would still be here, closer, an actual family. He can still have a family. 

“Zadkiel and you, you are my family. Sheltering us from the hard truths was how our father lost us.” Guilliman’s fingers ran along Ovidious’ hair, making sure not to mess with the styling so the man would not nag. “You are right, I must speak with Zadkiel.” 

The redhead cradled Roboute’s face in his hands before planting a soft kiss on his forehead. 

“Do you remember what I told you right before the first time we kissed?” 

“You mean in the middle of that argument when you climbed on top of my desk so you could contradict me while looking me in the eye? A lot was said.” 

How much he loved seeing his Ovid chuckle, small wrinkles forming around his eyes, the way his upper lip curled. 

“You remember that I said Roboute, right before I kissed you, thinking it was the worst and last choice I would ever make.” He got close enough for their noses to touch. 

Of course he remembers. 

“That you knew, one day, everyone will be able to see the man that you see in me.” 

Just like that first time Ovidious leaned forwards, barely grazing his lips with the whisper of a kiss. And just like that time, he pulled him closer, consenting into the imprudent and borderline heretic act they would be committing time and time again. What would set the Imperium ablaze with controversy if the truth about it would be let loose, maybe one day he’ll be able to love Ovid out loud, for now he must worship his beloved in secret. 

The man stepped out of his lap and held a hand to ‘help’ stand up from the chair, as if he could actually lift him. Guilliman amused him. 

“Practical.” Ovid said. “We wash our faces then you go talk to your nephew. I know he will see the man I do if you tell him the truth.” 

[leaves-fall-down]

Hate to say it but the overlap of "has a fanbase that heavily values their writing abilities" and "has a fanbase that deliberately detaches/miscontrues/borderline insults/fetishizes the singer's identity and inspiration from their artistry in an effort to pretend the music is closer to what the fans think they should be" venn diagram is not only just a straight up circle, but has taken over many of the same musicians and the fandoms overlap with each other to such an extreme extent that it sometimes becomes exhausting to consume any of their music as independent artists and then discuss them, let alone seeing how a lot of these artists have a "collective" fanbase that treats them all so bizzarely. Like do y'all not see the pattern with how you always feel some need to focus on certain "nicer" aspects of musicians' identities and entirely disregard others, or be all weird about it when you do acknowledge it? I'll provide examples, hopefully you'll see what I mean.

Tamino is an Egyptian and Lebanese man, at the same time he is Belgian, and that influences his art and it's so weird to just focus just on Persephone and his more "western" songs, or compare his nose to just a bunch of western white men. Hozier is Irish and inspired by Black American musicians who make political music and it's weird when you guys pretend he's just the fairy bog boy, which tbh you also likely wouldn't be saying if he was from Pennsylvania or Manchester or whatever, you're absolutely doing it with him because he is Irish, plenty of other artists write nature themes and don't get that weirdness put on them, you're doing it because he is Irish. Ethel Cain is a Southern American and writes from that very specific experience and has religious themes that influence her music and isn't just some "backwards" "hick" "redneck" (in a derogatory, insulting sense) girl that a lot of you clearly view "people like her" down south as. Måneskin has written in English since the beginning of their career, clearly takes inspiration from English and American musicians, and isn't entitled to write in Italian just because you think they should or because their native language ~fascinates~ you as an english speaker. Mitski often writes from a very VERY obvious perspective of being an Asian American woman and yet so many of you pretend that her songs about that experience are innately applicable to all of womanhood when they clearly aren't. They just aren't. They are about her experience as an ASIAN AMERICAN woman.

There are other artists y'all do this sort of shit to too (mainly Black ones!!) and it's absolutely annoying as shit to see that you can't just appreciate their identities for what they are and still need them to be closer in proximity to you and your identity or needs to "fulfill" something for you as an outsider, to the point of being delusional about the fact that this is all first and foremost their music and that it operates with their identities and they're all fantastic writers because on various levels they're being vulnerable about their identities and selves. That's not to say you can't pull your own meaning from the songs they write or whatever, but when discussing the artists themselves a lot of you are showing your asses with how you view "people like that" and how even though you're not being weird or bigoted in an obvious, deliberately mean sort of way, a lot of you still have shit to unpack and look at before you engage with them and their stuff. I mean Jesus christ even the most surface level understanding of erasure, fetishizing, and sterotypes can show what y'all are doing subconsciously, I'd hate to see how you talk about these people's identities when it's someone you don't see as both a product yet (parasocially) a friend, but is instead someone you hate.

[butmakeitgayblog]

Can I just say I love how like, into revisiting and analysing this dumb show’s scenes you still are — with the rise in popularity of streaming (I’m sure this has something to do with it, anyway) it’s become more and more commonplace for people to consume a piece of media, enjoy it, get bored of it after a while and never touch it again after moving on to the next new thing. It’s so wholesome and refreshing to see people still be so passionate and always find something new to talk about a show that, for all many of us care, ended 8 years ago. I do move in and out of being obsessed and disinterested with the media I’ve enjoyed, but in a world where I’m constantly seeing people say “oh you’re a fan of [X]? But that’s old :/“ (mostly about something that finished like last year lol) your blog is a breath of fresh air :)

Well thank you 🥹

The thing is, I get it. I get why and how people move on to different fandoms so quickly, and I don't really think poorly of that or anything. It's been almost a decade and it's easy to fall out of love with something after so long. Hell, when you think about it, this fandom has outlived the lifespan of a lot of entire relationships people have had 🥴. People find new things to get excited over and the *gasp* feeling of finding this new /thing/ is always fun. So I do get it.

But for me, it's just not that way. It's not that simple. Not because I think I'm somehow special (maybe a lil deranged 😬), but rather that's just how I operate. Before Clexa the only other ship I ever really cared about was Willara from Buffy which I watched when I was a goddamn teenager lol (RIP to my fellow gays always falling for girls who get shot ✊😔). I just don't get attached much to characters and ships. Usually ai like them in passing, enjoy watching them, and then that's... it. Tibette from the L Word. Wayhaught. Brittana. I like them and I follow them, but there's no real desire to delve deeper beneath the surface.

And then something like Clexa comes around and just absolutely fucks me up. It hits me and connects with me in a way that I just can't shake. Watching the show isn't enough. Thinking about it isn't enough. I have to discuss it and dissect it and fill in the gaps that we didn't see, and read and (now) create more stories for them just to understand everything about them to a deeper degree.

So few characters really elicit that kind of connection, but Clexa do. Even for a lot of the people who have moved on, at one time they felt that connection. Clexa was a fuckin madhouse for years and I think the fact that even still to this day people keep discovering and rediscovering them and falling in love with them all over again speaks volumes about just how wonderful that relationship and those characters actually were.

Especially Lexa.

Now, I love Clarke. I make it known that thiiiisss is a Clarke Griffin apologist's blog. That feral little kitten has never done anything wrong in her life. Ever. Including all of the terrible things she's done, as well as the many, many things that were flat out wrong. She is still innocent. She is only a baby. A murderous, tormented, compassionate, complex babygirl. So never get it twisted that I'm saying Clarke is somehow lesser than, but when push comes to shove when we're talking about baseline complexity, there is no character like Lexa. There's just not.

This woman was definition of doomed by the narrative. A child stolen away to be used as a glorified sacrificial lamb for her people. A toddler wielding a sword made of wood taller than her own tiny body, trained to accept her own life as expendable for the greatest good of her people before even learning her ABCs. She took the throne at 12 bby slaughtering her only companions and made her death mask out of kohl and fallen tears. Every person she ever loved as a mother, father, brother, either died for her, or by her own hand. The only two people she ever dared to be weak for were torn from her in the name of politics and the weight of her own bloodied crown. Under all the regalia she was just Lexa. Heda, always surrounded by her people and yet eternally just a lonely soul. Born here on Earth, raised to eventually die for others, left to rule over the people on the ground as best she knew how.

And yet through the pain, she was strong. So fucking strong it emboldened the warriors around her. She was brave, and lethal, and unyielding in her pursuit of peace. Meeting every push against her forward march to change head on, never flinching in her own brutality along the way. She knew that she was born for this; believed the black of her blood to be every bit as much of a blessing as it was a curse. Even when people doubted her and did their best to end her reign, Lexa always came out swinging.

She loved hard and kicked ass even harder, is what I'm saying. And the fact that they took a character like that and ended her so fucking carelessly? I just... I'm gonna be pissed off about that for a very long time. And until I'm no longer pissed off about that, I'll be here running mouth about it 🥴 probably still trying to make it better by writing her and the love of her life in as many stories as I can, so they can finally get the happy ending that was robbed of them in canon 🫡

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

On Euron and Daenerys

Something I don't think I'll ever get over is the absolutely devastating effect Game of Thrones had on how Euron Greyjoy is perceived by the fandom. In the show, because they were allergic to magic for some reason, they totally took away the supernatural elements from Euron. This left them with a villain with no motivation so they created the dumb fucking man we got in the show. A man who wants power and is apparently planning on marrying a queen to get it, end of story.

People for some reason decide to project Euron's characterization from the show onto his books counterpart. In the books, Euron wants to bring about the apocalypse, that's his goal, that's why he's collecting Valyrian artifacts, why he wants a dragon, and why he wants control of the iron fleet. And yet, people believe that Euron will end the books in much the same position as the show, except this time he'll be allied with and possibly even married to Daenerys. This makes no sense for both characters.

First of all, Dany would never marry Euron. Ever. He's a psychopathic misogynist who wants to destroy everything she holds dear. Even by Dany anti standards this doesn't make sense, after all, how can their "mad queen" become the supreme tyrant of Westeros if Westeros is gone? Also Euron has very little political power in the grand scheme of Westeros, sure the iron fleet is powerful, but a marriage alliance with the ironborn is far from the most advantageous match. Dany marrying Euron makes no sense for her character, even the extremely wrong interpretation of Dany antis.

It also makes no sense for Euron's character. Yes, he sent Victarion to try to broker a marriage pact, but this is influenced by a fundamental misunderstanding of who Dany is. Both Victarion and Euron are operating with the misogynistic idea that Dany could be easily controlled by a man. Euron has a history of sexually exploiting people for his gain, Falia Flowers for example. Dany has been around men who employ similar methods before, she wouldn't fall for any of his tricks and could easily get rid of him. So, once Euron actually knows about Dany as a person rather than a far off legend, he would know that killing her is his only option. Therefore, he wouldn't bother pursuing a marriage pact. Also it could be said he's using the marriage pact as a way to get the dragon binder close to the dragons, instead of actually pursuing it, which is why he sent Victarion, who hates Euron. But I'm not going to go into that theory lol.

All this to say, the way the show chose to protray Euron Greyjoy has caused the fandom to develop a very warped perception of the character. Euron is not seeking regular power, he doesn't want to rule Westeros, he wants to destroy it. On top of that, the deliberate misinterpretation of Dany's character leads to the prevalence of the Dany x Euron theory. They will not get married, they will not be allies, Dany will be key in defeating the Others, and Euron will die having failed his goal.

[irithnova]

I want to uh make a post about Mongolia's relationship with his history and I guess some fandom depictions I'm uncomfortable with.

I think nations who have imperialist histories have some complex feelings around them because their entire existence, despite their immortality or perhaps God like status, is at the mercy of their people and rulers. Nations are human inventions, the identity of the nation is what it's people makes it. They didn't exactly ask to be born or to be representatives of an entire group of people - they just are. Nations are also subjects to their "bosses", like whoever is the Leader, King, Queen, Emperor, President is at the time. The extent to which nations support said ruler and how much autonomy they had under them vary from ruler to ruler, century to century. It's not always wise to conflate a nation with it's politics however it can become incredibly disingenuous and runs the risk of imperialism apologia when it's ignored entirely.

It would be silly to say my analysis of Mongolia's particular relationship with his imperialist history fully covers every nook and cranny of emotions nations have about their own imperialist histories, however by explaining Mongolia's relationship with his it allows for me to explain a few different ways I think nations may look back on imperialist pasts and also allows me to air out some grievances about Mongol Empire depictions.

First of all - I think nations operate on a different moral compass. A lot of things they do seem extremely weird to most humans - like casual and open relationships. So nation morality would be different. For example, if a nation backstabbed (or even literally stabbed) another nation 400 years ago which in turn caused a lot of destruction, depending on what has happened in those 400 years, there may not even be a grudge there. They might even be friends. And that friendship could easily be broken depending on what happens in the next 400 years. A nation who was public enemy #1 1000 years ago may be well liked in the modern day.

Me saying that nations follow a different moral code does not mean that I am trying to justify wrong doing. However as literal... Gods perhaps, of course things will be different. I think all nations are in a morally grey area, as they are primarily driven by self interest. That ensures their survival after all. I believe all nations have done right and wrong, on global scales and interpersonal scales. No one is exempt from this.

My uncomfortable feelings stem from when exceptions are made for certain nations in order to downplay their assholery because of a bias - while other nations get the same old assholery treatment. I think you see where I'm getting at. I believe it is stepping into dangerous territory when one nations asshole status or imperialist past and even present/relationship with its government is magnified to such an extent that it becomes an offensive and stereotypical depiction.

If we talk about the treatment of China for example - magnifying the crimes of the CCP to the extent where your China depiction becomes nothing more than a Sinophobic caricature. A large part of Sinophobia is the assumption that a majority or even all Chinese people are part of a CCP hivemind - any warmth or humanity stripped from them as they are painted as cold, calculating and scheming orientals, every action having some sinister intent.

This over conflation of nations with their government is often reserved for China compared to the likes of the US or Russia. Again - it is foolish to not associate the nation with its government at all or only in very small parts and can lead into tricky territory. However over conflating a nation with its government and unsavoury actions committed on the nations behalf - especially when this is done selectively, quickly becomes offensive and in many cases even racist, and shows a persons prejudices against certain groups of people.

This is where Mongolia comes in.

This racialisation of the Mongols being uniquely evil in their imperialism isn't exactly a new invention so it's not a surprise that this depiction of Mongolia being a uniquely bad or evil nation personification compared to everyone else, even to other nations who have also engaged in imperialism/nation's who's engagement in imperialist ventures are far more recent or are still actually ongoing is a theme that's prevalent in the fandom.

You could take rochu fics for example where Mongolia is portrayed as the boogeyman they bond over their hatred for even 800 years after the fact (I won't even touch upon how incredibly historically inaccurate these fics are because we'll be here all day but just know - it's bad) and Mongolia has a terrible marauding personality still. However despite more recent and even currently ongoing Russian and Chinese imperialist ventures (even historical imperialism that goes way back with China before Mongolia even existed), including Russian and Chinese imperialism that has affected and still affects Mongols in the current day they aren't depicted so disgracefully.

In fact if anything, in the 21st century, Mongolia is at the mercy of both Russia and China, but people love to pretend that that is not the current reality because they need a token one dimensional "savage" nation to contrast against the more "virtuous" or "moral" nations.

The idea that the Mongols were somehow unique in their imperialism means that in turn, everything about Mongolia and it's culture and history is seen as inherently barbarous, almost as if they predispositioned to acting "backwards."

To say that Mongolia is 100% regretful of everything or 100% regrets nothing are both rooted in the racist notion that the Mongols were uniquely bad in what the Mongol Empire did.

I'm going to be talking about Western Exceptionalism here and how it relates to my point about "over conflating a nation with its government and unsavoury actions committed on the nations behalf - especially when this is done selectively, quickly becomes offensive and in many cases even racist, and shows a persons prejudices against certain groups of people."

You might have heard of the phrase "Conquerer (if you're) from the West, barbarian (if you're from the East)." It's basically a quote which summarises Western exceptionalism. In the West, the likes of Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Charlemagne are depicted as great conquerors and shrewd military commanders. They are almost universally viewed with this lense of admiration despite the fact that these men also had pretty hefty death tolls under their belts and established Empires.

Furthermore, people are willing to be more nuanced or clinical or objective if they do choose to speak on America or England's imperialist past in historical hetalia posts and circles. Not only that, but especially with the US, his "rise to power" is often lionised. America is not painted as some sort of bloodthirsty savage even if someone has a more critical take on him, and his technological developments are often highlighted. Meanwhile Mongolia has often been portrayed as a mindless brute, his people a faceless horde, and whatever advancements that the Mongol Empire accomplished are downplayed or downright ignored in order to fit the "Mongol barbarian" narrative.

As touched upon previously, the depiction of Mongolia that he regrets nothing often results in extremely racist depictions. Of course he has regrets - literally every nation does.

As a whole do I think Mongolia regrets the Mongol Empire? No. But there are certainly aspects of it that he finds regrettable.

I personally think a majority of nations who have had imperialist histories don't 100% regret it or at least aren't prostrating themselves begging for forgiveness over it - so no he's not unique in that aspect at all.

We need to remember that without Chinggis Khaan/the formation of the Mongol Empire, there would be no "Mongolia" as we know it or "Mongolians" as we know them. They essentially would have been another obscure group recorded a few times in Chinese chronicles and given little attention. He is essentially their founding father .

When I say that as a whole that Mongolia does not regret the Mongol Empire, that does not mean that I think that when he remembers those days, he gets a huge fucking boner thinking about how many people died under the Empire and that's the source of his happiness when he looks back. Mongolia's pride and fondness of his past is less to do with the death toll (despite what offensive fandom depictions and racists would lead you to believe) and more to do with what he was able to achieve at the time - this is not dissimilar to how other nations with Imperialist histories remember it.

For example, in England, Winston Churchill is almost venerated for his leadership during World War 2. A majority of British people don't celebrate Churchill because he was a raging racist who purposefully starved 3.8 million people in Bengal to death (that's not me justifying the insane Churchill worship that they participate in though), but celebrate him because of - again, his leadership during World War 2. Similarly, Mongolia/Mongolians don't celebrate Chinggis Khaan because they think his kill count was epic - but because it was Chinggis Khaan who solidified the Mongol identity and brought Mongolia onto the world stage after years of obscurity and the risk of simply being absorbed into neighbouring groups and forgotten. Just like how the US celebrates his founding fathers , Mongolia celebrates his own.

Mongolians are said to be a proud people - especially of their history. I mean they have a huge Chinggis Khaan statue for a reason. While I don't think Mongolia is always living in the past, he definitely remembers those times fondly. To regret it and prostate himself begging for forgiveness over it would essentially be him regretting the fact he's alive. What he was able to achieve was undeniably impressive - from a relatively obscure group of people surrounded by much more powerful and threatening neighbours and at risk of being absorbed to forming a strong, consolidated identity and creating the largest Empire to ever exist (before the rise of the British empire much later on. Sorry Mongolia you're number 2 how).

Does he think about the death toll? At times, yes. But like all nations with imperialist histories or even all nations who have been in conflicts - while he acknowledges it, there is little emotional investment in it. He doesn't look back at it in bloodthirsty pleasure but he also doesn't break down in hysterics. Perhaps it's turning a blind eye, sure. But again. Nations operate on a different moral code. And maybe it's even self preservation to an extent. If all nations dwelled on the numbers who died under them, they'd surely go mad.

I remember seeing a pretty funny comment on the r/Mongolia subreddit and it essentially went:

Did they deserve it? No

But are we proud of it? Yes

I think Mongolia agrees that yeah a lot of those people who died under his empire didn't exactly "deserve" it, but views it as a sort of necessary evil. And I think we need to remember that nations are not humans so nation morality is not going to be identical to human morality. This "necessary evil" mindset is a view that I think a majority of nations have when remembering a majority of the conflicts they participated in.

For example, with the destruction of the Khwarazmian Empire, sure, Mongolia isn't going to sit there and say "those kids deserved it", but he will say that it was something of a necessary evil, because Muhammad II (the ruler) decided to decapitate his envoys for no good reason despite agreeing to a peace treaty/trade agreement with the Mongols shortly before this. He'd give similar explanations for other scenarios. None of the explanations include "I did it because I just needed to kill 100,000 more people to reach my kill count goals."

This is not the only explanation he'll give. There are also instances where he will admit that yeah that was unprovoked or that was kind of shitty and I think that he owns it. Not own it as in "I'm proud of it I loved killing them" nor as in "wow I'm so irredeemable please forgive me", but he's pretty frank about it happening and won't deny it if someone asks. This is a pretty common mindset I've seen with Mongolians, they're not exactly in denial of what bad things took place during the Mongol Empire but it doesn't make them any less proud of what was accomplished.

And of course he does have regrets/ looks back and find things regrettable - as all nations do. I do think he is sore about certain things. An example of something that he thinks is regrettable was the burning of the House of Wisdom during the siege of Baghdad in 1258. There were perhaps certain cities that he would have actually liked to preserve but regrettably they weren't kept in tact. He thinks that perhaps the number of casualties could have been lower had X or Y not happened.

An example of something that I think he wholeheartedly regrets (while not to do with his empire but also in the past) was the Zhungar genocide. This regret over what happened with the Zhungars/Oirats (another Mongolic people) is a common sentiment amongst Mongolians and is quite a sore topic when discussed. This is despite the fact that Mongolia and the Oirat confederations were constantly at each others throats.

Mongolia is not unique in how he views his empire or imperialist ventures. It's pretty typical of how most nations with imperialist pasts handle it if you ask me. "I don't regret it entirely, however there are things about it I certainly find regrettable or unsavoury.", "It was something of a necessary evil, me and another kingdom were fighting over a piece of land so of course people were killed in the process", "I wholeheartedly regret this and wish it never happened."

The mindset and emotions depends on the conflicts, what happened, they circumstances surrounding them, the aftermath. Maybe nations are unjustified or even hypocritical in being upset about one conflicts destruction while pretty much turning a blind eye to another - I think a lot of them are somewhat aware of this themselves. However nothing about nations really makes sense. Perhaps nations need not question their actions.

What I'm saying this: No I don't think Mongolia is particularly unique in the way he views his imperialist history and I'm kind of tired of Mongolia being portrayed as uniquely evil because of his empire 800 years ago whereas nations such as the US and Germany are viewed much more favourably and conflated far less with government decisions and atrocities despite them being far more recent. It just shows me the way in which you view Mongolians, and it's not pretty.

Anyways other thoughts: No Mongolia isn't constantly thinking about his empire and I don't think he's emo about it. It is a source of pride and well there are lots of tributes to Chinggis Khaan around Mongolia of course hahah but like... He's definitely in the here and now and isn't "stuck in the past" malding and smoking 100 cigarettes a day about how powerful he used to be I mean look at how much Mongolia politically is getting involved in the international scene. I do think he does get fed up at his government but that's not the same as being depressed or hopeless over it - I think he rarely ever feels downright hopeless because if his broke ass could become an empire I guess anything could happen, but perhaps downtrodden at times. He doesn't see much sense in wallowing in pain. Not that he hasn't done that but from an objective sense he thinks it's dumb and useless so refrains from doing so as much as possible. Unless something happens to him that's so bad he's just thrust into that state of mind or something which has admittedly happened a few times but he tries to get back up quickly I feel. Anyways yeah Mongolia 👍

[dwellordream]

Sansa, Dany, and the Fandom's Shit Takes on Child Marriage

'12 is considered an adult in ASOIAF! stop projecting modern morals onto the series!'

first of all... it's not lol. multiple characters in ASOIAF express disgust and reluctance at the idea of marrying off children, particularly in the case of kids marrying adults. Tyrion himself brings up how young Sansa is. Ned describes Lyanna as a 'child-woman' at 15/16. Viserys expresses doubt that Drogo would find Dany, who is only 13, appealing. adults being sexually attracted to kids is not seen as a 'norm' or 'standard' in the series.

second of all, even though child-marriage does occur in the series, if your takeaway is that anyone critiquing this is 'missing the point', you are so tragically stupid i literally don't know what to say. do you think GRRM included this to celebrate it? to argue that in a morally dubious setting, the onus is on the victim to ‘make the best of it’? that the system can't change, and might makes right? really? that's your takeaway?

third of all, the idea that, had a character like Sansa actually 'embraced' the older men preying on her, she would have succeeded politically and become a 'player' is fucking ludicrous. Littlefinger would not hand Sansa significant power the moment she 'allowed' him to assault her. that's not how he operates.

he has never intended to let her become his equal or co-ruler in any regard. he views Sansa as a plaything and an emotional replacement for her mother. he might actually come to believe he loves her, he might show her affection and support, but he would never regard her as an equal or let her dominate the relationship in any way.

finally, in the case of Dany, if you view her relationship with Drogo as in any way healthy, triumphant, or an assertion of feminist power... I literally don't know what to tell you, lol. yes, Dany is able to use Drogo's affection towards her to secure some safety for the enslaved women of the khalasar.

however, at no point does she begin to actually command Drogo, and the second she displeased him the tables would have turned immediately. bargaining with your rapist is not the same thing as a consensual alliance of power between equals. Dany had as much autonomy within the khalasar as Drogo permitted.

[thebreakfastgenie]

The thing that gets to me about memes and jokes about politics/politicians is that, even if a person makes them to mock or deride a politician and their policies, that politician still has an audience of followers online who will read the joke differently, regardless of the op's intent. Like it greatly angered me to see people in the Star Trek fandom of all things use "transgender operations" as joke fodder instead of realizing it wasn't merely an unhinged phrase--and it is to those of us who aren't a part of the in-group--but a specific message to a follower base that is fearful of/hates trans people, immigrants, and those who have been or are currently incarcerated (to say nothing of what it means to link all 3 together, as in, to be trans is to be foreign to what is natural/native to the country, to be either is to be illegal, the long and highly racist legacy of the intruder who disrupts a society they do not belong to, etc.). Like that's what I can't stand about the desire to laugh at everything or to pass jokes off as harmless fun. Satire, jokes, and memes are tools of communication in this era and they become doubly important with politics attached to them. Trying to find humor in something so cruel just desensitizes people to what the actual message is while parroting it around further in a public forum, so it only gains a wider audience without any meaningful criticism and refutation attached to it. And now I have to see so many damn opinions about the Dem coalition failing or whatever when it's just plain anti-intellectualism, apathy, and disinformation that got us here, or to put it plainly: "Head empty. No thoughts. Just vibes." That meme has set some people back so far it's depressing.

(Sorry to vent in your inbox but this topic just makes me want to scream. I love your blog and seeing your sane political posts <3)

Yeah I was really upset to see memes about that phrase and the "eating cats and dogs" one in Star Trek meme groups, especially because I know the people making them don't support the message behind those phrases, they're just not thinking about it.

I think there is a very real strategy to laughing at fascists and making them look absurd, but it's really easy to normalize them instead, or make people associate them with laughter and entertainment and inadvertently build a subconscious positive association (as I've said before I think this explains a lot of Trump's appeal to low-propensity, low-information voters, that no one else has thus far been able to replicate). And some things shouldn't be funny, at least in public. Trump benefits from people not taking anything seriously, which is what constant irony-poisoned meming conditions the brain to do. You said it very well:

Satire, jokes, and memes are tools of communication in this era and they become doubly important with politics attached to them.

I don't think anyone was prepared for how the internet and social media affect this, either, because the speed and volume of communication is unprecedented.

I feel like such a curmudgeon with my "always meme responsibly" message but it matters!

Thanks for the message, this part is really good and I want to highlight it:

And now I have to see so many damn opinions about the Dem coalition failing or whatever when it's just plain anti-intellectualism, apathy, and disinformation that got us here, or to put it plainly: "Head empty. No thoughts. Just vibes." That meme has set some people back so far it's depressing.

[femmefighter]

Fandom ask thing!

How’s about 2, 3, 16, and 17?

Well, am I LATE in responding to this! Sorry, real life and my real ADHD brain came between me and answering these earlier. BUT I'M HERE NOW!! Shuffles through archive to find the actual questions so I can answer... 2. A headcanon you weren't sure about but have now come to like. Alien-genitalia Ahsoka. I've never minded the HC of Ahsoka being dual sex or having a penis at all, but my head used to spin at some of the ideas I read about. "What do you mean, she has a blue tendril?!?!" Now, I'm like, "c'mon, surprise me. Let's see what your imagination can cook up." Yes, I will continue to write my own Ahsoka as my vanilla genitalia, sorry guys. I never said I was the one with the imagination.

3. A character that fandom has helped you appreciate. Cali don't yell at me for this. Satine Kryze. I smashed through The Clone Wars whilst on a solo camping trip with my dog along the Australian eastern coastline last year. When it would get dark and the mosquitos would come out to play, my dog and I would retreat into my epic swag-tent in the back of my ute, and I'd watch TCW until I was ready to sleep. TBH I had come to TCW to learn more about Ahsoka and Bo-Katan having just met them in S2 of the Mandalorian. All the characters I then got to meet was a bonus SW education. Satine I enjoyed as a character, especially with her obvious modelling off Cate Blanchett's take on Queen Elizabeth I. But, I ended up rolling my eyes a bit at her being used as that trope of 'that tool to hurt Obi-Wan deeply but show he doesn't turn to the dark side'. Yes I still cried like a bitch when she died in his arms, but still. I'm sick of women being used as features to strengthen a man's story arc. It was through fandom *cough* the LesBo discord server *cough* that I learned to appreciate Satine more for her pacifism politics despite her own classic bubbling Mandalorian anger issues, as well as her deeply complex, tumultuous relationship with her younger sister, Bo-Katan. Satine, you deserved better, and I wish I appreciated you more in my first encounter with you. Time for a Clone Wars re-watch, I think.

16. A tiny detail in canon that you want more people to appreciate. That the characters in SW grow up, grow old, and grow in and out of certain roles or stereotypes fandom like to place them in. I think it's that 'found family' doesn't need to represent the traditional Western family nucleus. I see so much of fandom calling Hera and Kanan the mum and dad of the Ghost crew, and I'm not saying that's wrong, but it doesn't allow the natural growth that characters are allowed to have as they get older. Or maybe more that, fandom doesn't allow the characters to grow out of that. Hera is a natural leader, and summarising it as 'mum' vibes does her an injustice, as people much older than her respect her leadership and follow her to hell and back because of her natural command presence, her compassion for the people she leads and her steadfast belief in their cause. People seem to forget that characters like Zeb or Mon Mothma, who are 15/20 years older than Hera, follow her lead in times of crisis or even just daily run-of-the-mill military operations. Hera was a runaway 18 year old girl with just her ship and her murderous droid verses the galaxy, and she ends up a General of the Rebellion/New Republic. That's more than mum vibes, that's BAMF vibes.

On the other side of the equation you have Sabine and Ezra, often depicted as Hera's 'children' in Rebels. Yet they become adults With only an 8 year age gap between Hera and Sabine, it's natural that Sabine would grow into more of a little-sister dynamic with Hera, which they try to show in the Ahsoka series with Jacen calling her 'Aunt Sabine'. But people seem to prefer still calling Sabine a 'girl-failure' of a kid rather than the traumatised, 30 year old adult woman with complex relationships she now is. Pigeon-holing characters into nuclear family roles I feel either permanently infantilizes some characters unfairly, or makes them the chronic 'mum/dad' characters that aren't allowed to be seen as fun, rule-breaking or sexy. The characters in SW grow up, are changed by their experiences, relationships and traumas, and I find that beautiful. I wish more people did too.

17. The thing in canon that everyone loves that you also love. Sabine Wren being an artist as well as a killing machine. It might be an odd thing for me to fixate on, but growing up in a left vs right political society, I was often ostracised for being in the military but also being queer, left-voting, a seamstress and creative. Apparently, two such components of my identity were not allowed to co-exist in the one person. So naturally, I found it a breath of fresh air seeing in Rebels, Sabine spray painting anti-Imperial graffiti on a wall one moment to shooting or blowing up bucketheads a moment later without blinking an eye. Her painted armour, literally bringing those two 'opposing' sides of her identity together that makes her who she is - love it so damn much.

Anyways, I've probably taken all these questions too seriously and have possibly also pissed off half of fandom with my take on these. But at least I've had fun doing so. 😂

Thanks for the ask!!

[sapphichymns]

I’ll admit, I’ve been thinking about Kerblam a lot due to the rise of AI and how it’s used as a gotcha about the politics of 13′s era being actually conservative and not ‘woke’. So basically, Kerblam is a really annoying fungi in the fandom wank.

Here’s the thing, I know what the problem with the episode. It’s the word System. System is only ever used to describe the AI. Never was used to describe the way Kerblam uses the capitalist system to operate in Kandoka. Of course, it wouldn’t really raise eyebrows for a script editor, it really isn’t contradicting anything that came before. But when the Doctor says:

DOCTOR: The systems aren't the problem. How people use and exploit the system, that's the problem. People like you.

It somehow automatically became about the capitalist system Kerblam operates on. If it had been:

DOCTOR: The AI isn’t the problem. How people use and exploit the AI, that's the problem. People like you.

the fandom wank about it wouldn’t have ever reached this level of political jerk off (I swear I didn’t want to reach this level of the metaphor but I did).

The episode is not about capitalism in space(!), it’s about automation anxiety. How Kerblam is using an AI to replace jobs from people to maximize profit and it does cause an issue to the people of Kandoka.

KIRA: I was terrible too, my first week. I'm amazed the System kept me on. But now I just take a deep breath at the beginning of every shift and tell myself, Kira Arlo, you can do this. Sometimes I almost believe myself. DOCTOR: What I don't understand is, why does Kerblam need people as a workforce? These are automated and repetitive tasks. Why not get the robots to do it? KIRA: Do you not watch the news? DOCTOR: We travel a lot. RYAN: A lot. KIRA: Kandokan labour laws. Ever since the People Power protests, companies have to make sure a minimum ten percent of the workforce are actual people, at all levels. Like the slogan says, real people need real jobs. Work gives us purpose, right?

The people of Kandoka were indeed holding Kerblam accountable for the push of automation, even the way the episode ends is a continuation of that.

SLADE: We're suspending all operations for a month, pending review and while the TeamMates are rebuilding Dispatch. JUDY: All our workers have been given two weeks' paid leave, free return shuttle transport. And I'm going to propose that Kerblam becomes a People-Led Company in future. Majority organics. People, I mean. We're always looking for good workers to join our management team. DOCTOR: Er, thanks. We're strictly freelance.

(Note: Charlie did not  care about the people who worked at Kerblam. He only cared about Kira and only because, it affected him directly.)

I understand Oxygen is more popular because the Doctor says capitalism sucks and it’s basically abolished by the end of it but not every story needs the Doctor to just show up and somehow solve a systematic issue. Some times, talking about the importance of fighting little by little to make things better is just as important. It’s a recurring theme in 13′s era.

I don’t even think Kerblam needs a medal for effort or its issue is somehow some big moral failure. It just happened. It’s common for this show (or many others) to have its moment where it trips on itself. It’s just the conversation around it is so fucking dumb.

[marnz]

since i'm one of those people who watched tsn in 2023 (i was 12 when tsn was broadcasted) so it gave me this weird mixed feeling whenever i read markwardo fanfic because knowing how bad these people actually are irl and not some uwu precious baby but i can't blame fanfic writers in 2010-2011 for thinking zuckerberg and saverin were cool because during that time facebook was indeed cool and the internet was younger at that time too, the fic are good i admit but sometimes i need a moment to rethink why am i reading irl capitalists fanfic, it's so hard to distinguish between tsn and irl material most of the time too and not to mention tsn was just a story written based on irl saverin pov of fb and he was also an asshole. The only fun time to enjoy tsn was probably 2010-2011 because fb was cool, the cast was close and now even the cast of this film probably don't even contact each other anymore despite being so closed in 2010, sorry for rambling i just think it's amazing that people who enjoy tsn in 2010 still post about it in 2024!

well anon. Like I said. You had to be there. Look I love context and you said you were 12 in 2010 so here is some context: yes the internet was younger and yes fb/meta had not destroyed democracy yet but I also think there was more of a sense of hope related to technology, as opposed to dread. A lot of tech and social mainstays had not happened yet, politics were drastically different, Chris Hughes (cofounder of fb & communications guy) helped Obama get elected, people didn’t think global warming was real, society was MUCH more conservative and homophobic, etc., and the internet was the place to be.

when you say the internet was younger I’m interpreting this to mean that FB had not come into its final form yet, which is true, but also it & the internet was such a radically different experience. It felt limitless. You weren’t corralled in as much. You could go anywhere, you could find anything, you could make your own websites very easily, you were not assaulted by pop ups and apps were not mainstream because Apple didn’t launch the App Store until 2008. It was so easy to learn how to code. The operating systems between Apple and Android were SO distinct. Twitter launched in 2008/2009 but wasn’t quite so relevant until idk 2014? Fandom had just migrated from LJ to Tumblr but Tumblr was also hotter with the aesthetic girlies and porn blogs. “The algorithm” didn’t run the world. Yesterday I tried to find an article by searching for it and both Google and DuckDuckGo completely disregarded my request and did not turn up anything relevant. I can assure you that would not have happened in 2011. So there was SUCH a sense of optimism because the internet felt like a social good instead of an obligation that is increasingly privatized, surveilled, constrained, and decayed.

Which is why TSN got made and why there was an interest. It was a source of profound social change. But anyway. FB/Meta has ruined lives and it and all other social media apps that elevate divisive opinions to prompt as much engagement as possible (have you heard of the awful Isabel Fall twitter scandal? I recommend this article) are awful! And yet there’s an expectation of being online because a lot of communities now organize online, a lot of services require being online, etc., fandom has become less centralized/less unified, which is its own post.

Out of curiosity, what led you to watch the film? I do find it fascinating that there’s been a resurgence of TSN fandom. If this article had not been written I would not be posting about it but there’s still a lot of fic being written and fanvids being made to Taylor Swift songs. But it’s fandom devoid of all this context. So it is very strange, because you know what FB and all these people in it will become. I think I would have the exact cognitive dissonance you described if I watched it for the first time last year and tried to read fic. It is SO deeply fictionalized, so much of it is radically untrue, but you as the reader carry the truth in your mind. Which is why I cannot and do not engage with these days. And why I hold TSN in my mind curtained off. I spoke with many ppl from the original fandom yesterday and trust me, no one wants this.

I think, realistically, whatever movie Sorkin wants to make will probably be very good. It’s probably a good story to tell & explore. But I won’t be watching it. I lived that shit

[magicaldogtoto]

Started watching more of Granbelm and I'm starting to piece together what it is about a lot of Madoka-inspired/edgy Magical Girl shows that seem to be patterned slightly after Madoka that never really appeals to me.

This isn't going to be about Granbelm specifically, which I'm still watching; I have no real opinions on it so far other than "giant robots with magical girls is a good formula, more people should do that." Indeed, it's why I'm curious about the show in the first place (I love Magic Knight Rayearth).

(Content warning: There's some mention of suicide.)

It's not that I don't like darker shows now and then--you can already tell just by looking through my blog here--it's more that I just don't particularly care for battle royale/death game-type stories. I started thinking about this because I was talking to a friend about how I was considering finally reading The Hunger Games, which I put off for about a decade. I always felt kind of squeamish at the idea of kids getting into a fight to the death where only one person can survive and the others die horribly. This was back in 2012 or so; I've since then reconsidered things, and the political themes of the series do appeal to me (I have, however, watched the movies with friends; I even watched Battle Royale, which I don't particularly consider The Hunger Games a rip-off of, but it's the other death-game story people bring up when the latter is mentioned).

And people often do consider Madoka a battle royale-like story (going off to similarities between it and Kamen Rider Ryuki, which I have also watched), but I never really saw it as one, to be honest. It's true that Mami says that Magical Girls will fight each other for resources and territory, but then actually look at the plot of the original twelve-episode show, and... there's only two girls who fight each other. Moreover, the reasons for their fight aren't really tied to the need for Grief Seeds so much as them having very different ideas of how a Magical Girl should act. And that rivalry lasts about two episodes before it gets dropped as Kyubey's machinations become more apparent. Additionally, a lot of these battle royale-type shows always have people fighting with a fixed goal in mind (some prize/wish getting granted). In the context of Madoka, the wishes are granted before the girls fight, so it always felt like an inverse of that to me.

A lot of these shows that feel post-Madoka in their own way also operate on the concept of "more is better," in my opinion. As if in order to draw attention to themselves, they have to up the ante of what they thought people liked about the show. You know, "People liked when Sayaka and Kyouko fought for two episodes in PMMM, so now we'll have all the girls fighting," along with "People liked the five girls in PMMM, well we have more than five now," and "People like the angst and trauma the girls have to go through, so we'll just up that and make it so they're borderline suicidal." (Even PMMM's spin-offs are victim to this thinking, including the ones I personally like.) And this is where I disagree; more doesn't always equal good. I liked the simplicity of the original PMMM. Less characters also means more room for them to develop and for us to understand their issues.

I suppose this is an attempt by others to find what made PMMM work and replicate that ad infinitum for maximum profit, but as someone like me--who encountered PMMM in a bubble in the late 2010s, completely devoid of knowledge regarding the discourse surrounding it and its followers, because I was in college and barely did much in terms of anime fandoms for most of that decade--that isn't what really appeals to me about PMMM.

For me, what appeals to me about PMMM as its own story is a combination of its surreal/dissonant imagery of bright colors contrasted with darker ones, and just the idea of people trying to make their way in the world even though the world seems so callous. I mentioned it on Twitter that when I first watched the show, I was just out of school (beat a huge exam that I needed to take to pass), and I was thinking of all the possibilities of what my life out of college would be like. I was also dealing with someone I know committing suicide, so I was in this weird zone of struggling with the best moment of my life (currently), and one of the worst things that could have happened to me and people I know. Even what Madoka does in the end, I was fine with that. It reminds me of Guillermo del Toro's comments for his writing for Pan's Labyrinth, which also (spoilers) has a female protagonist in a cold world make a huge choice at the risk of her own life to do something that's for the greater good. That idea that, even a small change can have a ripple effect that affects other people. (Rebellion is a whole other discussion.)

Maybe it's because my initial viewing of PMMM is tied to that time, but none of the later post-Madoka type of shows have ever really gotten my attention that way. And I've personally come to the conclusion that the original twelve episodes of PMMM, while fine on their own and for their own story, are a terrible model to use as inspiration for other magical girl stories (which is why I didn't mind MagiReco just straight up throwing things out in the original game).

Everyone probably has different opinions about this; that's fine. I'm just talking about my own experiences here. It is what it is, in the end.

[lemonhemlock]

i don't understand got fans like how is tywin a genius strategist when the only thing the red wedding accomplishes in the long run is north independence with the starks on top of it probably forever 😭

there are a lot of things happening here, some driven by fandom discourse (reactions and counter-reactions) and some conflations of realpolitk with fantasy elements and book writing norms. enough ink has been spilled in every direction, as tywin has both detractors and fanboys, the latter of whom sometimes lean perilously in the redpill direction (you know the type). i have a divergent take from them but i'm not truly interested in the debate either, as it has been overdone to death by now.

the following is a little bit of a tumblr hive mind mentality, wherein people with a (justifiable) anti-patriarchal discourse want to discredit a character that so strongly symbolizes patriarchy to the point that they refuse to assign him any positive traits. so, if tywin is a bad father and a bad person, it must naturally follow that he is bad at everything - he is a shit general, he doesn't know a thing about politics or diplomacy or wealth management or any of the activities that fall within the purview of nobility.

which i just think is not authorial intention at all and neither did the execution truly suggest that to me. correct me if i'm wrong, but, so far, at least, all of the westerland POVs we have had on tywin have been positive (bar his children ofc). sure, we haven't had a whole lot, but the author also threw stannis in there for good measure, who is not an easily impressionable fellow. robert, as well, may not like tywin, but he sees him as a person he can do business with and tries not to step on his tail too much.

all of this to say that textual evidence points to the fact that tywin is a good administrator and a fearsome adversary. i don't think grrm is even interested in presenting us with a character that is devoid of savy and proficiency at this level, nor do i think that his expertise is unwarranted, as unlikeable as his personality is. even euron, who is arguably the most despicable character in the books, has his own specific skill set. at the end of book 3, the tyrell-lannister alliance is enough to secure the rule of joffrey/tommen and the north is under bolton rule.

now, of course that tywin doesn't plan for the white walkers, for jon's secret parentage reveal or for the existence of bloodraven luring bran. but who would? you can only plan according to the information you have at hand and, at the point in the books tywin operates, magic is a faraway dream to entertain children. as far as he knows, he just wiped out the stark line, bar sansa, who is married to his son. yes, she later escapes, which can become a problem. but my point is that, when people attempt to appraise tywin's efficiency, they bring the magical element into discussion, in that he is presiding over the calm before the storm and that there are many destabilizing factors at play against his status-quo, of which he is blissfully ignorant. but, the thing is that you can be otto von bismarck reborn, but your political ideology is not going to hold water against an alien invasion or fantasy beasts or weirwood CCTV. you can only plan and scheme according to the pre-established rules of your world, and if those rules change overnight, then of course your plans are going to prove "faulty" and you're going to have to adapt. but is this really a gotcha that directly targets your cunning or strategic thinking?

my final observation is on the norm-breaking red wedding. this is not the say that norm-violation doesn't carry consequences (there are already essays on this topic so i won't insist), but i'll interject that whether these consequences manifest always or only sometimes is still debated in the literature, as is the nature of those consequences. scholars remain divided, if you will. realists will tell you norm-adherence is subordinated to a state's cost-benefit analysis and the power they dispose of to achieve their goal. liberals (IR) will tell you that cooperation between actors is mutually-beneficial and thus respecting shared norms is the rational choice. in any case, in order for neoliberal institutionalism to function, you first need to have institutions - department in which westeros is sorely lacking. i'll remind you that westeros does not even have a parliamentary body.

coming back to the text, tywin pulled off this little tactic before - to great success as well. he eradicated the reynes and the tarbecks and, so far, we haven't heard one dissenting voice from the westerlands criticising his decision. you can argue that that's a worldbuilding flaw or an absence brought about by lack of space, but i think it's also fair to say he was allowed by divine providence (i.e. grrm) to have this victory without any visible consequences. and i will go as far as to say that, after the red wedding, tywin is not killed by a stark or a martell loyalist or a westerlands rebel, but by his own son, for reasons that have nothing to do with the reynes of castamere, the red wedding or elia martell. it's a common plotwriting technique - tywin is obviously punished for his deeds by the narrative in the metatextual sense, but it doesn't come as the result of his military enterprises or his political decisions. it's more of a crime of passion, driven by unfulfilled parental love.

this does not mean that the author is not trying to denounce tywin's style of ruling at the same time. that tywin is a deconstruction of machiavelli's prince is not a new or original remark. but if grrm agreed with tywin's ideology, then he would have lived out to "win" the so-called game of thrones. grrm is looking for a different type of kinghood and showing us a lot of different variants in the process. but i don't think he disqualifies tywin's version because it is not effective or because tywin was really actually secretly incompetent. are brutal tactics really not effective in the real world? i ask you: is that really an honest observation of the world around us?

no, i think grrm disqualifies brutality because it takes away one's humanity. because you shouldn't resort to it anyway, even if you can, even if it's so easy and tempting and effective. even if it means that, in its absence, you lose or die. because what kind of life is one impinged by cruelty and lived in the service of our base impulses?