#for holding her accountable for her actions

[rowenasdarling]

you can love a character and still admit when they’re wrong. i love rowena but can acknowledge her flaws (she has none) and can hold her accountable for her wrongdoings (she’s never done anything wrong in her life) and call her out for her actions (which are always correct).

[smartytarty]

if smarty was an LI she'd be divisive pick because she'd be the cuck route and gamers famously love/hate getting cucked. you'd have a ditzy, sweet, kinda weird girlfriend for a whole month and then seemingly out of nowhere she'd take the pc to the smuggler's cove to get gangbanged by pirates and only pcs with the appropriate skillset could get them out of the situation unfucked. afterwards smarty reveals she's like. . . a) in need of a "pressure valve" or sorts wrt to bad situations and b) does NOT respect you c) is actively trying to prepare you for the cold, cruel, horny world. so. you'd have to like,, go through the horrible undertaking of domming her hard enough that her little meter doesn't fill up but ANY refusal to engage with her weird little games makes it fill so there you are in one of her mini dungeon events about to get dragged in to a soft bad end with smarty AGAIN. infuriating. when you try to hold her accountable for her actions she's not evenly slightly receptive to change and it triggers her dismissal event, where most players would probably leave her. but. on the other hand. she does hold your hand and look lovingly into your eyes when you fail the combat encounters and sigh dreamily and play with your hair and tell you how pretty you look getting fucked by a procession of randoms at the underground brothel. so. maybe that can save her.

[princess-glassred]

Todays been awful so fuck it, IT fandom unpopular opinions! (And they're actually unpopular for once!).

-As much as I hate to say this, I think getting mad at people for not liking Mike Hanlon is shifting the blame from who's really at fault for this and that's Andi Muschietti. Yeah it sucks that Mike is always forgotten by this fandom but this fandom is dominated of fans of the movie and the movie and book are totally different. If some 13 year old has only seen the IT movies I don't blame them for not caring about Mike because he got dicked over by Andi's racial bias. And don't say "well they should watch the mini series or book to appreciate him then" as if being in a fandom is supposed to require homework. A lot of people only like IT 2017 and that's fine, and they're not less of a fan for that. It's okay to not like certain members of the losers, as long as your reasons are valid.

-I wish fanfiction would potray Sonia and Eddie's relationship (and honestly Sonia/Myra) with more depth. I am NOT saying Sonia isn't abusive, she absolutely is, but i have seen A LOT of ridiculous portrayals of Sonia and it bugs me. Even good fic writers often pigeon hole her relationship with Eddie to just being him secretly hating every thing about her with no complicated feelings at all. As someone who grew up in an abusive household, majority of abusive relationships aren't like that. That's why abusive relationships are so sinister in the first place, they're hard to get out of because you convince yourself you love your abuser. Most kids, especially heavily manipulated ones like Eddie, would struggle with feeling pure hatred for their mother. And that's interesting! I wanna see that portrayed in Eddie's character, especially since he struggles with his own identity and feelings about himself quite a lot already. If you cannot handle a portrayal of an abusive relationship being more than just two dimensional awfullness 24/7, i don't think you should be reading something as heavy as IT.

-Similarly, the way people talk about Sonia, Myra, and to a lesser extent Belch is really gross. IT actually condemns fatphobia in the narrative by having Henry attack ben, and i see people complain all the time about how ben lost wait as an adult but suddenly when it's Myra, Sonia and Belch you can fat shame to your hearts content. I have seen so many posts from people, either roleplay accounts or otherwise, calling these three fat bitches or hogs or even fanfics that deliberatly use Sonia's weight as short hand for her being terrible instesd of letting her actions speak for herself. Fat shaming isn't suddenly cool when it happens to someone you hate. Molly Ranson is a real person and that is her real body, there are probably people in this fandom who even LOOK like Sonia out there. This also applies to insulting the appearance of any other actor btw.

-I think Ben Hanscom in the it 2017 continuity is honestly kind of a creep. He kisses Bev while she's unconcious depsite not actually knowing if it'll pull her out of the deadlights (he didn't even have a reason to think it would work at all), he holds onto her yearbook signature in his wallet for 27 years even tho he literally forgot everything, spends most of IT chapter 2 coping and seething that Bev isn't attracted to him, and never says anything to defend her from Richie spreading slutty rumors about her. The only time he defends her from slut accusations is when its henry and shes there to see him do it. If Henry did any of this you guys would be all over him, but because it's Ben and they play sappy music over it it's suddenly cute and whimsical.

-I also think Richie gets away with a lot of shit that if it was done by any of the antagonists the fandom would rip 'em to shreds. People give me shit all the time for sympathizing with Henry Bowers becaude he's racist and mysoginistic but Richie says many mysoginistic and racist things across adaptations and nobody cares. Of course he spreads rumors about Bevs promiscuity, but in the book he does quite a few racist impressions and bits like when he says "You know the worst part about getting AIDS? Trying to explain to your mother that you got it from a Haitian girl.". Hell, at least Henry is 12, practically groomed into it, and so mushy brained from the pills he can't think straight, what's richies excuse? I don't even care that Richie is gay, does being in the closet justify anything? Did being attracted to Henry absolve Patrick of the fact he killed a baby? No? The same goes for Richie. Ofc you can still like him, but i don't like it when richie fans act like he's all pure and ignore his worse moments just to grand stand.

-It 2017 is actually just as ewwy towards minors as the book. Just because you removed a gang bang scene doesn't mean you aren't still weird with minors. Mr. Muschietti still thought it was appropriate to make a scene where young Bev is forced to flirt with a pedo pharmacist, another where she gets kissed unconscious, and one where her friends oggle her in a bra. Yeah it's cool you got rid of the sewer stuff but WHY ADD ALL OF THAT IN.

-The whole "omg what if the ritual was going to work but richie had to sacrifice eddie as his token instead and thats why it didnt work" is kinda dumb. it implies that the native americans who created the god damn artifact couldn't do the ritual right but these random white guys could all along. The movie straight up says the ritual has never worked and Mike saying he believed it would work because of their connection is treated like it's wrong. Maybe Eddie was Richies token but I don't think that's why they defeated IT and I also don't think it would have worked to begin with.

[mot-hesbian]

It's even more annoying bc Pen didn't want or need him to grovel???

She was upset bc she heard one of her besties make a comment like that about her immediately after having a massive falling out with her other bestie (a falling out she acknowledges was on her, Eloise haters go choke) but literally all she needed was a simple apology from him????

Why can't they understand Penelope is not some stone cold girl boss? She's a 19 year old dorky romantic who just wants the people she loves most in her life. She didn't talk to Colin because she needed space cuz that comment hurt, but him apologizing and making it clear he does respect her and care about her was so she needed. Because Colin is amazing and she loves him even if, in her mind, her could never reciprocate those feelings. And he isn't a villain for not noticing her feelings or for not reciprocating or not realizing his own feelings sooner.

She immediately goes to apologize to/make amends with Eloise during their first interaction, she knows this was on her for making an impulsive choice without consulting El. She doesn't hold a grudge against El because El didn't do anything wrong (she handled it like the 18-year-old-girl-trying-to-figure-her-life-out that she is would handle feeling betrayed by her closest friend.)

And I hate anyone who judges Colin's behavior after the LW reveal too harshly. Like, the man has always been extremely sensitive, he's a very emotionally vulnerable person and that's a good thing. Accepting that part of himself and raising the people he cares for most don't think less of him for it is a HUGE part of his character arc that season. I love that Penelope doesn't push him or use her feelings against him (like I've seen a bunch of people do in fics) because she knows he'd probably ignore his feelings to take care of hers and she doesn't want that.

She accepts the entrapment comment, despite it hurting, because she knows the situation with Marina was traumatic for him and their current situation has likely drug up old feelings of betrayal. She creates a safe space for him to express those feelings because she loves all of him, especially his sensitive and vulnerable side.

Not to mention that Penelope actually takes accountability for all the things she has done in season 3. She never expects forgiveness and accepts when people need more time to forgive her or aren't sure they can. She questions Colin during the entrapment scene because she wants to know how to handle their situation going forward and to make sure he knows she does actually care about him. She explains her actions, she doesn't justify them (except maybe that scene with Portia and even then it's probably a natural response to go on the defensive in a situation like that with the woman who emotionally abused her her entire life) and I think that's great.

Pen solo fans suck she she would genuinely hate them for how they talk about her two favorite people. Colin and Eloise are literally the loves of her life.

TLDR: If you constantly hate on Eloise and Colin and claim to be a Penelope fan then you probably don't understand Penelope half as well as you think you do. Nor do you seem to understand the nuance and complexities of their characters. Eloise didn't need to apologize and Colin didn't need to grovel or suffer. And Penelope Anne Featherington would agree with me.

me, whenever I hear 'colin should've grovelled/suffered more!':

[isekyaaa]

I'm not the well versed with irl romance, but in so many romance manga/manhwa, there's a focus on a male lead that is extremely protective, vengeful for the mc, possessive, etc. He'll fight battles for her, support her, torture people that hurt her, etc. While I do not mind reading such male leads, I can't help but wonder if that's what those authors and fans want in someone. Someone that'll protect, support, and save them. You can also see it in the fics people write on this website. Like is that what romance is supposed to be?

For me, the thought of anyone being protective over me to the point of fighting my battles, standing up to people that hurt me, etc is disgusting. Like applying such a man to real life would disgust me so much. I was always taught to solve problems on my own. It's both my responsibility and my right. I do not want nor need people's protection. I do not want nor need people making my life easier for me. I appreciate support, but any more than that and I'd get so offended if anyone treated me in that way. It'd be the equivalent of saying that I am not adequate nor equipped enough to handle my problems. It's insulting.

But is that the kind of partner the people that write and read these stories want? Are they just reading it for fun and I do or do they deep down desire to be treated like this?

[peculiar--princess]

Haven’t been living recovery focused/doing the right thing lately n I feel uncomfortable & a bit sad

[justicefortyvarkell]

I think the hinge will be to where Cultivation fled after leaving Roshar. The rest of the Cosmere only has a few decades to prepare, but a few decades was all it took her to groom two new Vessels for Odium and Honor. Whether or not her failure to account for their actions after Ascension causes her to pull back on her meddling, that will remain to be seen.

For my money, I don't think she could at this point. Holding the Shard and its Intent for that long probably means she'll end up meddling wherever she goes, whether she thinks its for the best or not.

Taravangian, in his role as the architect of the Diagram and as Odium, is an inherently backward-looking character in the narrative. In this context, the contrast between the two major factions in Stormlight Archive becomes highlighted in stark contrast. As a human, Taravangian oscillates between sentimentality (another backwards-looking emotion) and acumen—which he uses to analyze the Diagram (a work he occasionally attributes to a version of himself that he treats almost like another person), thus looking back as well while moving forward. Rayse, too, is held by the past. His deal with Tanavast that bound Odium to Roshar, his emotional attachment to their feud. Even the Fused, returning again and again from Braize, hearken to the past.

Meanwhile, Honor, despite being a Shard with limited future-sight, is inherently a forward-looking power. Oaths do nothing to your past action, but in taking the oath, you bind yourself to a specific course of future action. To contrast the Fused, who are worn down more and more with each return to Braize, the Knights Radiant are always oriented towards the next Ideal.

This puts Taravangian/Odium's regressive mindset in direct competition with Dalinar/Honor's progressive, growth-oriented mindset. Dalinar was able to surprise Taravangian as mortals because Taravangian refused to see the man that Dalinar could become and instead only saw him as the man that he was, the Blackthorn. When Dalinar loses the contest in Wind and Truth, it is the Blackthorn, not the Bondsmith, that Odium wants at the head of his forces.

This will likely form the central tension in Retribution, but we'll have to wait and see how the conflict shapes up in the future of the cosmere.

[constantvariations]

Same train of thought is why in the fuck does Blake start out deradicalized?

The White Fang had been committing at minimum targeted property damage, grand larceny, and assassinations since Blake was twelve. Being radicalized at that young an age, she wouldn't just be lost in the sauce, Blake would be mixing kool-aid in Jonestown!

Something pretty major must have happened in order for her beliefs - which at this point would be intrinsically tied to her identity - to be shaken badly enough that she'd eventually leave the only family she'd known for the last five years. And even after leaving, there's still the unlearning of those beliefs and all the missteps that accompany that journey

Yet she gets introduced as being uncomfortable with the direction of things as if they haven't been going on for half a decade, as if she's not on what seems like a routine mission, as if there's not a damn good reason they're doing the things they're doing

ShawLuna kinda wrote Blake like she was born yesterday and is just now learning what sin is rather than a young woman having a moral crisis

[randomnameless]

Do you think Edelgard perceives herself as a victim? I’ve been thinking and I can’t decide myself, on one hand she clearly hates the idea of people being victims or helpless, and constantly reframes the victims of the war as “necessary sacrifices” instead of, y’know, tragic causalities of a war she started. She plays up her sad backstory to try to get Byleth to join with her in WC, but then she does all these things to concentrate as much power as possible on herself. On the other (other) hand, she pushes the culpability of the war on everyone except herself, and has trouble taking accountability. She’s obsessed with controlling everything but she doesn’t want to be blamed for the problems she’s created. What do you think?

Oh!

(sorry for replying one literal month later lol)

I find Supreme Leader hard to write because of this, but in a way, I believe that yes, she does.

However, for all the flak Faerghus gets for "ToXiC mAsCuLiNiTy" and "Chivalry BaD", there's something very toxic with the way some Adrestian victims (often women... blame the writers I guess?) deal with their abuse.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on Doro because I already typed a lot about her, but while she still sees herself as a victim from what she endured and suffered in her childhood, she adopted the toxic mindset of "this suffering is a thing of the past and I grew from that/beyond that to become the person I am now" - which we can also see in Manu who suffered from, roughly, the same traumas.

Petra also follows this pattern, being a hostage and treated like shit, but she grow "beyond" her status of a victim to become the strong person she projects and believes she is - it's only out of House that she realises more accutely her status within the Empire, the reality of her situation and, in Houses, refuses vassalage to Adrestia to make her country independent without having to "ask the Emperor".

It's the same pattern : "I was a victim" but "I became strong" so "I am not a victim anymore, this is something of the past".

Applied to Supreme Leader...

Well, trying to ignore the Agarthans and her dad's own infuence on her character (which is kind of hard, since the games try their hardest to make Agarthans responsible for everything BaD and we're not clear on how much they had an influence on her), I think Supreme Leader believes she was a "victim" of abuse.

But - through further abuse and surviving said abuse - she became strong* enough to "not be a victim anymore".

Which is why her line of "if the weak remain weak it's their fault" feels like it echoes part of her mindset : she was a victim but became strong enough, maybe by hardening her own feelings to become "strong", so she is not the same helpless "victim" she once was.

If she managed to do that, then everyone can do the same.

As for the "necessary sacrifices", since early 2019 someone theorised that "the people" she pretends the fight for as seen as some general "concept", much like the "greater good". So if some people are sacrificed, it's for her ideals - the goal and aim of her newfound strength - , and it piles on her drive, she must realise them otherwise those people would have died (and she would have suffered) for nothing.

However, despite acknowledging her past self as a victim, and because she's now "strong", she's not above using her past trauma (but actually, still present! Remember the rat scene?) to reach her goals, because, at her core, Supreme Leader is soemone who is very determined. Maybe it's her only drive to grow beyond the trauma, or her own illusions, or a mix of everything, but AM made it clear, Supreme Leader is not above, well, using herself if it means seeing her goals come to fruition : unlike Lobotogard from AG, AM!Supreme Leader willingly transforms in Hegemongard.

This is the cost she's willing to pay, so while the memes about Lord Farqaad were on spot, I still think that Supreme Leader is ultimately willing to sacrifice** herself for her goal (but only when there's no other way to ensure her future will come to fruition, and in a way, I guess she thought she would survive the Hegemon transformation, jury's out on what she meant to do in AM's finale, but imo, she still tried, even beaten and battered as she was, to claim Dimi's head).

Ultimately I think everything's a bit muddled by the fact that, as @fantasyinvader pointed out, Supreme Leader is a liar and knows the importance of maintening good PR.

She lies and manipulates the truth to reach her goals (which again, is a red flag when CF claims to want to restore the "distorted history" of Fodlan!) and for all the flak I give them, the devs managed to scrap enough material to give us a peek in Adrestia's mindset (or at least its top nobles), they're not people who self reflect, they are salty because they aren't ruling the world anymore, and they feel like they are better than the rest of Fodlan.

Put everything in the mixer, and you indeed have Supreme Leader (but also her court, especially Ferdie in SB who dares to say, as he is invading and trouncing people who don't really like and accept the idea of being invaded, that the fear those people feel are only in their mind, or something like that? Like, dude, you're rolling over their people and country, of course they'll fear and hate you!) giving her weird rhetoric lines (why are people opposing me if they are going to die?), victim blaming (something Treehouse swallowed like honey, if their lolcalisation is anything to go by, remember, it's Rhea's fault for not offering her head on a platter that is the reason why the War continues in CF!) and so on.

IDK if the devs wanted to bank that much on the Dany parallel with her "if I look back i am lost", but again, I don't know if her drive to make a "better Fodlan" is motivated by her trauma, Adrestian revanchism, Ionius telling her dumb things or Agarthans agarthaning, but her goal and vision are everything to Supreme Leader.

So she will do anythign to see them realised, even if it means sacrificing her people, starting a war, tweaking "the truth" or using her own trauma to motivate and recruit powerful people who might assist her with her goals.

To reply to your question, IMO she sees herself as someone who had once been a victim, but won't let that stop her from reaching her goals, even if it means creating thousands of "hers" in the process, because, in her mind, reaching her goal is more important than anything else.

*I know, she refutes Dimitri's claim that she is "strong" or laughs at it, but imo, it was more in the sense of "I was weak and became strong" so everyone can "become" strong.

**I don't think she wanted to throw away her life, but more something in the lines of "putting my life on the line" or sacrificing her precious (and to see how precious it is, just play CF lol) humanity.

[homoo-wan-kenobi]

this scene hurt my feelings. and it is terrible that one of the first things portia said was "what have you done?" cause I know she can see that penelope is upset. she's very clouded at times and I hope that we get to see her think before she speaks more even if it takes her a moment (kind of like she did in penelope's room in episode 2).

however, I think if prudence hadn't popped up after pen called her out on it, she would've inquired about how she was and what happened in full. but we all know, prudence is so used to having her mother's attention and penelope isn't.

I love lady featherington down so I hope the second half of the season rings true to polly saying that she [portia] apologises to penelope.

[fleshmetal]

just watched the borderlands movie and the only good part was that krieg’s little harness thingo lowkey looked like a very skimpy little bra thing sometimes

he needs some back support with those jugs ofc

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

s5: glimmer's weakness is her self-doubt mixed with overwhelming hubris.

s5: oh, and catra's weakness is water. other than that, she's perfect.

[yellowloid]

Do we know Miles's or any of the AM members' opinions on the genocide in Gaza? Like I love them to death, but the lack of response has reaaally been bothering me. Not to mention the amount of privilege in not carrying about politics *looking at you, Alex*. I've seen Louise being pro-Israel.

OHHHHH anon i've been WAITING to talk about this. thank you for the question.

the answer is no we don't. to my knowledge, none of the members have openly talked about it. there has been no story on their official instagram, nor has matt (the only one with a public profile) posted anything about it on his account. not only that, but i did some research and apparently that benefit concert that him, tyler parkford and josh homme took part in also hosted people like jesse hughes and sarah silverman who are more or less openly pro-israel. which doesn't mean *matt* is, it just means he's not careful who he's associating himself and his image with.

the others have stayed silent. and miles, too - who's so active on social media - has never even reposted anything about it. not a word.

about the girlfriends, louise (and amanda) have spoken about "wanting peace" and louise especially has reposted some stupid ass posts a few months ago basically saying it's not "childish" to just wish peace for everyone - proving that she literally knows nothing about what has been happening for DECADES. both her and amanda have repeatedly proven they're centrists, which is just so. yikes.

the only one among all of them who has openly and almost immediately asked for a ceasefire is katie.

i've seen some people argue that the royal albert hall proceeds have gone to the war child association, but honestly - that's not enough. that was before, and even though knowing that is better than nothing, something they did in the past doesn't justify their lack of a statement on the genocide in the present. the fact that they're not even active on social media - just because they're too lazy to get someone to properly manage their account - isn't an excuse for staying silent.

whether they like it or not, they're celebrities. they have a platform they could use and they repeatedly choose not to use it. i love them but for the past few months i've been beyond disappointed in them.

[wonder-worker]

"The feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist being appointed as the day upon which the coronation of the king [Edward V] would take place without fail, all both hoped for and expected a season of prosperity for the kingdom."

— Excerpt from the Croyland Continuator / David Horspool, Richard III: A Ruler and Reputation

Even though Edward IV’s death was unexpected, after twelve years of peace there need not have been too much of a sense of foreboding about the succession. The great dynastic wound from which the Wars of the Roses had grown had not so much been healed as cauterized by the extinction of the House of Lancaster. There was no rush for London, as had happened in earlier, disputed successions. The royal party didn’t set out from Ludlow for ten days after hearing the news of Edward IV’s death, while Richard took his time, too. And the new king had [his mother the dowager queen and] two uncles to support him: his mother’s brother, the sophisticated, cultured, highly experienced Earl Rivers; and his father’s, the loyal and reliable Duke of Gloucester, to whom Edward IV had entrusted unprecedented power and vital military command.

... [Richard of Gloucester] had achieved his goal by a mixture of luck and ruthlessness, and if he made it appear, or even believed himself, that destiny played a part, this only made him a man in step with his times. Modern historians have no time for destiny, but sometimes the more ‘structuralist’ interpretations of the events surrounding the usurpation can come close to it. When we read that ‘the chances of preserving an unchallenged succession were . . . weakened by the estrangement of many of the rank-and-file nobility from . . . high politics, which was partly a consequence of the Wars of the Roses and partly of Edward IV’s own policies’, it is hard not to conclude that an unforeseeable turn of events is being recast as a predictable one. But without one overriding factor – the actions of Richard, Duke of Gloucester after he took the decision to make himself King Richard III – none of this could have happened. That is, when the same author concedes ‘Nor can we discount Richard’s own forceful character’, he is pitching it rather low*.

Edward IV had not left behind a factional fault line waiting to be shaken apart. Richard of Gloucester’s decision to usurp was a political earthquake that could not have been forecast on 9 April, when Edward died. After all, Simon Stallworth did not even anticipate it on 21 June, the day before Richard went public. We should be wary of allowing hindsight to give us more clairvoyance than the well-informed contemporary who had no idea ‘what schall happyne’. This is not to argue that Richard’s will alone allowed him to take the Crown. Clearly, the circumstances of a minority, the existence of powerful magnates with access to private forces, and the reasonably recent examples of resorts to violence and deposition of kings, made Richard’s path a more conceivable one. But Richard’s own tactics, his arrest of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, the rounding up of Hastings and the bishops, relied on surprise. If men as close as these to the workings of high politics at a delicate juncture had no inkling of what might happen, the least historians can do is to reflect that uncertainty [...].

(*The author who Horspool is referencing and disagreeing with is Charles Ross)

[annamaryllis]

I would like to know exactly how luke asking annabeth to run away with him went down.

[proudfreakmetarusonikku]

”he shouldn’t have had to apologise” he was fucking misogynistically blaming a woman for shit her grown ass son did and expecting HER someone COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the situation to do something bc she was a woman and woman have to take responsibility for what men related to them do actually. he should apologise bc messaging sarah at all is misogynistic as shit. like imagine if people sent dream's mums dms if he did shit they didn’t like that’d be obviously horrible and invasive and misogynistic as shit bc why you blaming a random woman for shit men did. he should be on his fucking knees begging bc he did like misogyny 101 blaming women for shit men did.