#first one isn't meant to be anti-any ship btw

[just-antithings]

Okay not-so-slight-a-rant, I technically don't know if they are antis, they honestly haven't done anything that is actually bad, but that doesn't mean I don't think they are being stupid :/

So in a fandom I am in, some people are planning an event meant to celebrate a specific minority group I won't mention to keep this as anonymous as possible. And this is great! I think this fandom is great at making fanwork where the characters are part of this minority and an event to celebrate that sounds awesome!

Here's the catch. They directly go out of their way to say no "proship" content. When asked about what this means they say "universal limits such as no underage/adult, no incest and no partner/spousal abuse".

First of all - That is not universal limits, because none of those examples are limits to me. I could interact with any kind of fanwork that includes those things, no problem. Also, in a tale as old as time, when you consider the problematic element of the actual fandom (BTW it's a horror show :D), I always find it suspecious when they only limit relationship stuff, and not gore, death, torture, etc. Sound like purity culture to me. They then indirectly go to say that you can include those themes "as long as it is proberly tagged and treated, bla bla bla, we promise WE know the difference between romantisation and not".

So while they are not sending death threats or anything, it does feel like pretty classic anti behavior, so I go to block them and the event. Here's where they actually get stupid after my opinion: besides the minority group, the event is also meant to celebrate two specific characters - one which is the most hated character by antis in the fandom. So you don't allow for proship content of a character that is almost singely liked by proship people? Good luck with that I guess. Also, one of the mods on their blog mention they can't interact at all with content that include a third character from the source material - who is a major character that has a lot of influence on one of their lives and is very likely to be included in works made for this event. Expecially since it is not a specific ship event, so all ships (except proship ships :D) can be included. I mean, if you are heavily triggered by any content of a character, then maybe you shouldn't mod an event where that character is likely to made content for? But they are an adult and know themselves best, so honestly that really isn't my business.

Sorry for ranting in your inbox, but I thought it was relevant to the blog. If anyone recognize the event, please don't harass anyone related to it or try to sabotage it. It is a really nice idea, but I just don't trust the people behind it, as a proshipper myself. The point of this was just to complain a bit.

.

[dinosaursatemymom]

Tw:sa, mentions of sa

TL;DR: nuance is incredibly important when discussing ships and characters. Also don't fucking make shit up, that's gross.

oh

Oml

I just found out that some people think that Steve SA'd Nancy in s1

Btw I don't ship stncy, but this is just, no. Oml no.

I just have to say that this is definitely wild. Especially because that's, just, not what happened in the show, and trying to paint Steve as this evil assaulter who was only using Nancy for sex literally undoes his entire plot in s1 that proves he wasn't just using her for sex.

In the first scene, he pushes for more, she says no, they joke a little, and then he stops. It was clearly meant to be lighthearted. The scene where they actually do have sex, Nancy initiates it. Steve did not at any point force Nancy into having sex. Lighthearted joking about having sex is not sa. If you cannot tell the difference between lighthearted joking around and literal fucking SA then please do not say shit like this, especially if you haven't experienced SA yourself.

Like, if you wanna talk SA maybe talk about the very real violation of consent in the show by Jonathan.(ftr I have forgiven Jonathan for this, he has clearly grown since s1 I just feel it's necessary to bring up in this convo bc jncy shippers tend to just ignore that this happened) Jonathan not only violated nancy's privacy, he also violated Tommy's, Barb's, Steve's and Carol's consent in taking these pictures. They were not in a public space, he went into a private gathering and took pictures without consent. That's a violation of privacy, tommy and carol being assholes doesn't mean they should get their privacy taken. It's gross, and it's even worse when people try to excuse Jonathan's actions and say he didn't do anything wrong.

Yes, Jonathan has grown and can be forgiven for this.

But, he was not in the right for taking those pictures of them.

It's the same with Steve

No, he shouldn't have slutshamed Nancy or said those things to Jon.

But, he was in the right for being upset about the pictures and he has grown since then

All of these things are true.

What isn't true it's saying that Steve SA'd Nancy. Especially when this is used as anti stncy "evidence". That's gross. Wtf.

Don't erase the real consent and privacy violation and make one up just to defend a ship. Ew

Also Nancy deserved so much better than Jon in s1, I'm actually glad about the decision to make them get together in s2 because it gave Jon some time to grow and be less weird. I don't really like how they got together (a grown adult giving teens alcohol and telling them to have sex will never not be weird) but I digress.

JSYK this isn't rlly an anti jancy post. I think that they could be really great if they could just fucking communicate and work on their problems better.

Also I just get really annoyed when people treat ships as if they have no issues and are perfect, which tends to be a lot of peoples attitudes on jncy which has kinda turned me off from the ship itself.

So many conversations surrounding jncy and stncy lack much needed nuance, which can lead to people saying things like this as "proof" that a character/ship is bad and terrible and the worst ship ever.

[intp-vs-magi]

Some canon-compliant slice of life headcanons for the Eight Generals/Sindria

Yamlikha and Masrur dated once, seemingly to spite Sharrkan specifically. It lasted about a week before Ja'far told them to stop because it was "disrupting the peace" (Sharrkan wouldn't stop crying to him about it)

Not many people from Sasan moved to Sindria due to cultural and religious customs. So Spartos struggles to find company outside of his overbearing colleagues. He did remain friends with the squad of enbies Sharrkan and Pisti introduced him to.

Sinbad used to wander the streets of Sindria in disguise. Keeping tabs on the general vibe among the citizenry. Sometimes joining the fishermen if he was feeling nostalgic. Until he got too busy for that and resorted to eavesdropping with Zepar's power.

The recipes Ja'far teaches to the palace cooks are the ones Rurumu taught him. It's his way of keeping her memory alive at the heart of Sindria. It’s appreciated by those in the palace that were around when she was.

Sinbad enjoys sparring with the military Generals on occasion and uses it to blow off steam. Or at least he does with Hinahoho, Sharrkan, Spartos and Masrur. Drakon refuses to spar with him or anyone else. Sinbad seems to intuitively understand his reason, but everyone else finds it disappointing.

Pisti taught Aziza to fake cry in order to better garner Sharrkan's sympathy.

Yamlikha installed magical locks on her office door to keep people (Pisti and Sharrkan) from barging in and asking her to heal their random scrapes and bruises when SHE IS NOT A HEALER and there is an ENTIRE MEDICAL WING FOR THAT.

Drakon hoards due to his dragon instincts, but doesn't realize that he's doing it. This usually manifests as him bringing home some shiny nicknack he saw in a shop and immediately forgetting about it. Sahel resells most of it when things start getting crowded. She never mentions it to him because she finds it charming and knows he'd be embarrassed if someone pointed it out. At least they’re stimulating the economy.

Pisti's roc lives in a roost carved into the wall of the canyon that runs behind the palace. It’s name is probably something like Charlene or Margery. She takes it home every year to see it’s mate.

It is widely known that the seeds of the papagoreya fruit must be removed before export or they will leech poison during shipping. In reality this myth is perpetuated by farmers and sindrian merchants in order to keep a monopoly on the fruit. Foreign visitors often brag about getting to taste the fresh fruit “before the seeds are removed.” This conspiracy was Ja'far's idea of course.

Spartos returns home every year to partake in the Pilgrimage Feast. The dedicated party animals among the generals were furious to learn the nature of this holiday. It’s the one day of the year he allows himself to partake in drugs and tomfoolery and he goes and does it without them!

[ladyluscinia]

I know there's not much point to trying to address the "Izzy Hands is Kylo Ren" takes - they're not going anywhere, the loudest proponents already have me blocked, disagreeing probably mostly serves to get me blocked more, etc. - but they bother me a lot and I've got time and motivation right now...

So. Kicking a hornet nest. Halfheartedly. My argument is meandering and ends when I get bored of writing it. Under a cut because I'm not bothering to structure or trim this down.

I find this interpretation of the fandom response immensely frustrating for a few reasons. For one, I think it's rooted pretty heavily in an anti mindset that basically suggests giving positive attention to a "bad" character or ship as a fan is effectively stealing the attention you owe to a morally better one, and then casts suspicion on your motives. Asking "Why would you like Izzy so much when the pure and good Stede / Edward / Revenge crew are right there?" Accusing people of vilifying other characters if they suggest Izzy might have been wronged in any of the numerous interpersonal conflicts. Assuming the only explanation for sympathizing with him is bigotry (unconscious or otherwise) driving opinions... Which is an insane thing to just drop into discussion like it's obvious and unquestionable before we start introducing relevant concepts like "protagonist centered morality". I also, understandably, object to the take that since I don't write extensive disclaimers on how this character is pure bigoted evil, then the most generous interpretation (aka the only way I'm not a bad person myself) is that I'm just really stupid and do not understand the story. Or got distracted by a Victorian ankle collar flash and my ability to understand "this is a bad person" fell right out with my brain.

Like, fuck, people are not subtle with implying anyone who likes Izzy without a "oh but I also hate him and think he's pure villain" tacked on is either a moron or actively malicious, and problematic to the point of demanding public repentance either way. He's a fictional henchman in a pirate comedy.

And that henchman status leads into the main reason this take bothers me... I think it's just plain incorrect.

Ever since the very first time I saw someone arguing this - and responded to it in dissent as the author had invited people to do, though they did not appreciate someone actually taking them up on said invitation - my immediate complaint was that it hinges on taking the absolute worst faith read of every action Izzy takes from start to finish. Like, you can interpret all these things to mean what you say they mean, but it's hardly the only way and often not even the encouraged way. Example: the writers have openly stated they aren't trying to focus on homophobia and didn't intend the anchor hoist to be an example of Izzy being racially biased. It's one thing to declare the author is dead and keep reading those as inadvertently present in the text and relevant potential explanations regardless of intent. It's a whole different thing to decide that it is objectively wrong for fans to dismiss things like the anchor hoist as a coincidence (which it literally was) because you've decided the character is blatantly racist and that interpretations of his actions with less bigoted motivations are inherently unacceptable excusing of racism. For people that praise the writing so much, there is a lot of hostility to the idea that good writing on an antagonist might entail them being complex and maybe even - gasp! - not as evil as they could be. (Which Izzy very much isn't, btw.)

And on the specific comparison at hand, suggesting Izzy is effectively just Kylo Ren or Walter White or any number of white asshole characters that get idealized by fans ignoring that they are meant to be terrible... there's a pretty big elephant getting ignored. Namely, Izzy Hands is not a character with power. He's a henchman, with a much bigger, badder, scarier boss in Edward (who is on screen even more than he is). He isn't respected or feared by the Revenge crew. He doesn't have an institution of blatant symbolic and literal power backing him up like the Badmintons, despite this being a thing they very much could have done. Some of those extras in Navy uniform could have easily been, say, remaining Queen Anne crew, arriving at Izzy's heel to reinforce toxic pirate culture on Edward (who in this version is presumably traumatized by piracy and desperately trying to escape to a peaceful life). Instead Izzy is alone, and unthreatening, and written with both a noticable aversion to impulsive conflict violence and a fawn response. If these great writers were trying to do a Walter White style external harm and eventual self destruction arc to make a point about toxic masculinity, then this setup looks like they kinda really suck at it.

You can't write a character hitting the dramatic fall part of that narrative if they quite literally never get a leg up in the first place, and the fall is kind of integral to that group of toxic assholes. It provides the moral lesson / message that Izzy enjoyers keep being accused of being blind to. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that he's the "bad writers glorifying a power fantasy" version (more like Kylo Ren than Walter White), though I thought these weren't bad writers and it's a very strange concept of a power fantasy to be the butt of every joke.

You can't make any effective point about a toxic white guy with power without writing a toxic white guy with power. Like, idk, the Badminton brother who falls on his own sword because he's too haughty to take the person he bullied seriously??? Sure, nobody would have the point of Breaking Bad fly right over their head if Walter White had been a loser getting mocked relentlessly on screen and failing left and right, but something tells me "cancer patient who is a bit of dick goes bankrupt and dies, and nobody cares" wouldn't have made the points about toxic masculinity and hubris in the first place. If you want a real lack of media literacy, transplanting an arc and associated symbolism onto a character that doesn't fit the associated archetype and not addressing how it still works and sends the same message beyond assuring that it does is a good example.

I mean, seriously, these arguments are made by the same people who also relentlessly tear into the idea that Izzy is even slightly competent as a pirate. So they can't even pretend that his arc in the show is his fall of hubris (a dumb decision to start him in the show just after the climax turning point, but at least possible), because they are determined to remind you that he never had anything he thinks he's losing in the first place. How is that supposed to work??? Loser remains loser, gets embarrassed a bunch, says mean things that mostly get shrugged off, and look how dangerous and destructive toxic masculinity and arrogance is, kids!

That. Is. Not. His. Archetype.

For the thing that will really piss antis off, Izzy's whole comedic butt-monkey routine does give him a few archetypes he can lean into, and most of them are based around symbolic or literal victimhood. Like how he is kind of the designated toxic masculinity guy, and his life completely sucks for reasons often outside his control. Which does convey messages about how toxic masculinity isn't good for anyone, but in a way where the logical conclusion is that Izzy is also suffering under it and the logical arc (especially in a redemptive series) is to have the audience feel bad for him and root for him to get his own happiness by escaping it (you know... like what people think they are doing in a very flat way with Edward). There's also a semi-karmic element when his own actions backfire, but the endless humiliation conga makes that pretty sympathetic too (he's not successfully evil but still suffering plenty for it), and that puts him in the group of unthreatening antagonists who stumble right into the good side because being evil kinda sucks for them and they aren't as good at it as the other real villains. Think Zuko, or Spike.

Butt-monkey characters do tend to be more sympathetic than not. That's a comedy staple.

But sure, keep pretending he's more like Walter White or Tyler Durden than a character from The Office, and writing extensive posts on how liking the pure evil character you've made up in your head is proof of moral failing and / or idiocy. That's really a great use of time and fandom energy 🙄

Izzy will continue to be Just Some Guy