#for saying this is distasteful hypocrisy with no point

[fortisseto]

Hello, I have a list of Sinners takes (more so critiques and issues about the current state of the Sinners fandom). It's going to be a long one, so sit tight! For a full disclaimer, I am a black person—listen to my voice and other black voices. This list has three items.

(Before anyone says anything, yes fandom is fandom. People are going to do what they want and that's within their will. I'm not coming here to forcibly say that you can't do anything, but I'm here to preach my word and perhaps it'll make you ponder in your own time.)

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Short answer? I hate it. But you aren't here for the short answer and neither am I. There are a couple of different reasons why shipping Preacher Boy Sammie and Remmick together, in my opinion, is wrong, and that's what I'm here to discuss. I first heard this take when I had just gotten out of the movie theatre and went to favourite Tumblr tags. I see someone saying something along the lines of, "Oh, Sammie and Remmick were so down bad for each other/Remmick wanted Sammie so bad." On TikTok, there's a video of a person saying this quote:

1. Sammick.

"Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen this take on Sinners yet— but Remmick was down bad for Sammie. Another thing that movie lacked was queerness, and I'm gonna put my queer little lens on and I'm gonna say that dude wanted Sammie. Yes, he wanted his musical talent, but I do think you could interpret it willingly that he was also just down fucking bad for him. Because that look in his eye, oh, 'Is that my soulmate? That's my soulmate.'"

Not only am I black, but I am also queer, and the following statement could not possibly be queerphobic under any circumstances: it is dangerous to romanticise the point of Remmick and Sammie's relationship and what Remmick was supposed to symbolise. If you know things about history and have ever wondered, "when did the Irish become white?" Your "when" should be directed to a "how." There's a book titled How the Irish Became White. Irish people were victims of colonialism and oppression, as they were othered by the rest of Europe due to their appearance, culture, language and religious practices. When they came to America, they would often be excluded in a lot of white spaces, and be painted with racist imagery in the media. The suffering they endured is incomparable to black people, as all oppression is, but it was still bad.

Now, back to the question of how did the Irish become white? It's simple. They became their oppressors to other black people. In the time of slavery, many Irish slowly integrated themselves into whiteness by showing their distaste for black people and actively participating in anti-black racism. They became overseers of plantations, practically carrying out the master's orders onto slaves.

This is something the movie was trying to tell us. Remmick is jealous and hurt because he is an Irish man who has been forced to cut himself off from his culture, and is being forced to forget himself. He wanted to see his ancestors again, and so he promised many a place of sanctuary and freedom, love and acceptance, when all he was doing was playing the role of his colonisers. Colonising Sammie's sound for his own benefit. He is a branch of white supremacy that's talked about much too little, and that is the white supremacy that's infatuated with black culture. So infatuated that if you called them racist, they would gasp, and like Remmick, say, "We believe in equality." Remmick isn't in love with Sammie, he is acting out of hurt and executing it like his oppressors did. It is supposed to show the hypocrisy of this rhetoric. You aren't changing your life and you aren't changing others, you are forcefully making them a part of your image because you've forgotten the sight of a mirror. You've forgotten the height of your father and the song of your mother. And from @/snarlmalden

"The portrayal of white people who have been violently separated from their own culture stealing the power of black culture and music to try to get reconnected was SO literal and somehow not at ALL heavy-handed or trite. Fkn remarkable."

Another problem with Sammick is how uncomfortable I find that people are with black love and queerness that doesn't centre white people. This also has to do with how people treat Stack and Mary versus Smoke and Annie (mind you, the main couple of Sinners). People will hate Annie, ignore her, and rather pay attention to how sexy the relationship between Stack and Mary is. It doesn't come out of nowhere. It isn't an original thought. People are uncomfortable with black love that doesn't involve a white, white passing or light-skinned person. People are uncomfortable with black film that doesn't involve or centre a white, white passing or light-skinned person. More on that later.

I think queerness in the media is extremely important, I say that as a queer man. It should be absolutely become more of a commonplace thing that it isn't phenomenal if we have a queer movie or queer main character. However, black queerness is an entirely separate conversation than the one that Sinners is. Like I prefer to keep saying, Sinners is a conversation. It's a discussion. It's also a mirror for you to reflect on how you respond to all of the things that are presented before you. As a black person, a white person, an Asian person, an indigenous person, a mixed person whose black passing or someone who exists in the one drop rule. Black queerness is something entirely separate from the message of this movie that I agree, should be tackled and talked about. However, what you need to understand that for this movie specifically, it would be too much for the runtime.

Black queerness isn't something that should be belittled, and all queer conversations should be good. They should be quality. The only way they would be able to discuss black queerness in a slightly above mediocre fashion would mean they would have to pull much less attention from the other messages in the movie. This movie already says so much about our struggles, and a problem I keep seeing with white queers is that they always want to insert themselves into our conversations. Into our struggles. Into our oppression. It is not The Oppression Olympics, and you don't have to be included in every single conversation of another oppressed person. It is okay to know where you stand, and to butt out when necessary.

I can't talk about Jewish struggles because I'm not Jewish. I can't talk about physically disabled struggles because I'm not physically disabled. I do not need to insert myself in other forms of oppression to prove that I am oppressed, and someone else's oppression doesn't take away from mine. These kinds of people are what Remmick's character is for. The hypocrisy of it all. The misplaced anger of it all.

Everyone deserves representation, And like my boyfriend said, things don't have to be queer to be enjoyable, and if you can't enjoy good, meaningful non-canon queer media, then stop inserting yourself in that media. Stop interacting with that media. You do not need to protest a film that did nothing wrong if the worst it did was not include you in its conversation. It's okay not to have a seat at the table.

2. Christians seeing Sinners and missing it.

I don't shame religion or religious people. I am not anti-religion. However, I'm seeing a lot of specifically black Christian people missing the meaning of a movie that's talking about them. So let me put it in a few phrases that I'm posing as questions.

Back in that day, they wouldn't let us read nor write. They didn't want us to. However, they gave us bibles and let us (and even encouraged us) to have our churches and experience the gospel for ourselves. Why do you think that is?

Back in that day, they would take our practice of Christianity or relationship to God and deem it wrong or immoral, and they put the fear of the devil in us if we had practiced it. You know, something similar to the phrase, "If you keep dancing with the devil, one day he might follow you home." Why do you think that is?

Back in that day, they would call our practices, our music and our culture devil worship. A sickness. Something deeply wrong with us or the world we grew up in. So they sought to change our ways and make us fear it. Forget it. Hate it, even. So much so that we end up seeing movies trying to tell us things they've hidden from us so discreetly that we're calling what we saw in there the devil, rather than the truth. Why do you think that is?

Where do you think the hate came from?

And where else does it go?

Preacher Boy didn't choose the devil. He chose himself. He didn't deny himself a God to worship, but he knew that some words can't save you from an evil that was placed in you. An evil that was taught to you. A hatred that was taught to you. That's why, when Preacher Boy began to pray, Remmick recited the prayer with him. He knows your words. He's the one that spoke them to you in the first place.

That's all I have to say about that.

3. The centring of whiteness and why I think Sinners hates you.

I don't hate Remmick. I think he's a very important part of the conversation of Sinners, so I don't hate his function in the story. I love it. But I'm coming to realise that a lot of you don't understand the point of why he's here.

I see so many posts on the Sinners tag that only talks about Remmick, why to empathise with him and how he's just [insert defence], or how hot he is. However, what I don't see is these same people showing that they understand the point of the movie or why he's there to begin with. What he's there to symbolise. What it says about you.

You can say white supremacist phrases, have white supremacist takes, and fall victim to micro aggressions without considering yourself racist. You can do all that and still post "black lives matter" when asked of. I never see as much praise for Annie, the leading lady, as much as I do Mary. So much of it comes down to sex appeal, and I've seen actual people say Annie sucks and how nothing she did worked because she was the one who died. She was the one who didn't conform to Remmick. These are the same people saying Sammie chose the wrong path by not giving up his guitar, but there will be plenty more on that later.

I feel like there's an underlying bias towards Remmick with many particularly white and queer Sinners fans that they themselves are unaware of. Do I blame them? Yes. Do I understand why? Also yes. You, a white person, cannot empathise with a situation that I, as a black American experience in day to day life. To be born black is a taboo, a curse, or at least that's what's been taught to us for centuries. Not just us, but you too.

This morning, I go on TikTok. The first video I see is from a woman (@hereciasmansion) who went to see Sinners for a second or third time in a 70-milimetre IMAX screen, one of the only eight (?) in the United States. This one was in Indiana. After crossing a state border over the course of two hours, she reaches the theatre and watches a very magical experience. The visuals were phenomenal and the staff were kind.

However, at the very end of the movie, at one of the final scenes when the Klan members came to Stack and Smoke's land that they bought from them to shoot it down, Smoke carries out his word of if they trespass, they will be shot on sight. The Klan member was shot and lying on the floor, bleeding. Smoke looks at him and asks if he has a cigarette. The Klan member yells to him, "Go to hell!"

And what does this woman, sitting in the theatre see and hear? After sitting through a good two hours and fifteen minutes of a spectacular movie, after seeing all that it's about, a white man looks at the black couple next to him and repeats the same words: go to hell. Suddenly, above her and who she was travelling with, all hell breaks loose. She says,

"In that moment, looking around at everybody's faces, and hearing the conversations happening around me, I watched the crowd segregate itself. The 'I just came here to watch a movie' crowd separated itself from the 'they doing too much' crowd, which separated themselves from the 'I just wanna know what's going on right now' crowd."

I would recommend watching her entire video, which I will link here. But, to summarise, if you've seen the movie, you know that Klan member dies. Smoke finishes him off. When that moment happened, the entire theatre sans the people involved in the conflict, began applauding. In that moment, she knew that everyone was applauding for different reasons. In her words,

"There was a group that was clapping because, in their head, a character in a movie died. But then there was another crowd that was clapping because it felt like the character on that screen was in the movie theatre sitting next to us. And what felt like a victory on that screen, most of us are never gonna see."

These spaces that we create for ourselves might be the closest thing black Americans get to freedom, and yet you come into our spaces expecting a movie with black people in it rather than a black movie. You expect objects instead of life. You expect a shallow pool rather than the ocean. You expect a white lie instead of the black truth.

How much did you understand what you walked out of? How much did you catch the point? How much did you have to look at yourself to understand what was happening, if you even reflected at all?

I'm leaving this quite open ended because I'd like to spark a discussion about this. I'd also like to spark a discussion with yourself, especially if you're a white Sinners fan. I think I've said what I wanted to say in bulk, but there will always be more to say and more that I will say. So I will leave it at this statement:

Sinners is a mirror, though to some, it's just glass.

[freeeggbailiffcash]

niskala suaka

Abdul Murad bin Abu Yamin was a young soul with strong desires.

He knew his purpose, knew his legacy.

More importantly, he knew how to keep his cards close to his chest.

Which is more than what he can say about Beja.

For all that he can honestly say about his adorable baby brothers (a moniker that never failed to make Beja glare venomously while Kahar-sweet, unsupecting Kahar would giggle softly), they were much too soft—yes even Beja was deemed too soft.

Beja was idealistic—enamoured with the idea of legacy and tradition. Too believing of the rehearsed sanctity of old lores. Worse, Beja couldn't even see pass their own father's hypocrisy.

Beyyad was all for filial towards their family, and as reluctant as he was, he played the role of obedient son far too well. But unlike Beja's blatant dedication, Beyyad was merely biding his time.

He's seen all that lies beyond Kudrat walls, knows the necessary evil that exist within its tainted walls. Call him a hypocrite but he knew well enough which battles to wage and which war to conquer.

He had expected Beja to share the same sentiment (he does worry for Kahar—fuck it, he'd be lying if he didn't twitch each time their father's temper flare when it came to Kahar) but Beja seemed to toe the line of blind loyalty and thinly motivated self-assered motivations.

Case in point, the fucking reason why Beja even deigns to associate himself with Megat Shah so much.

Initially yes, Beyyad technically did push them together for a partnership but it wasn't by choice really.

Megat Shah came from old money—he embodied Kudrat's foundations, golden spoon and the coonections he forged not only through his heritage but the kid knew how to play a crowd like a fiddle.

He had no prospects though—Megat Shah, for all the advantages he had was simply a fool (or an asshole). Just another rich kid playing the rebellious card too much.

Murad had assumed Beja would grow to despise him enough to steer clear of the kid once he's learnt how astonishingly mediocre Megat was.

What he could never predicted was that a year later, he'd still have Beja spouting some new facts about Megat in the spare time all three of them got to spend together at home.

Sure when he finished his SPM he did noticed how Beja and Megat never really parted ways—they were in the same batch and quite possibly the only ones who actually rivalled each other in terms of lineage and adequacy. Murad had brushed it off then.

But not when he noticed the frequent texting, the occasional foreign clothings ("Jaa, bilo mu beli hoodie ni?" "Ohh, tu bukan aku punyo. Tu Shah punyo." "Shah?") In hindsight, maybe his sharp tone was a bit hasty, considering that Beja had clamped up immediately afterwards, perceptively concealing his relationship with the other.

Luckily enough, Kahar was easier to pry information from, slipping about how the whole school practically recognizes the partnership between Reza and Megat—dubbing the two as some sort of dynamic duo.

Murad refused to admit that it grated on his nerves a bit when Beja brought Megat over, claiming that since it was only a short break, Megat and him had some work to do together.

Megat Shah's sheer presence unnerved him—not because he was languidly draped against one of their father's precious mahogony sofa like a cat, reading a damned comic, of all things—but the way both his baby brothers seemed to accept the integration into their household.

Kahar seemed to like Megat's easygoing crude jokes (he supposes at times he and Beja can get kinda serious *cough* boring *cough*) but Beja himself, though outwardly displaying his distaste ("Oiii, asal kau buat macam rumah kau, setan—" "Ehh Jaaa, kau yang ajak aku sini. Kene laa layan aku macam raja~") seemed to enable Megat's blatant callousness (Murad would've kicked him out if it wasn't for the sharp glare Beja sent him)

And it wasn't an isolated incident either.

Somehow, there's more and more remnance of Megat Shah in the Ab Yamin household—some Led Zepellin CDs left there in Beja's room, the ugly cheap silver rings that 'Shah' claims were trending. How apparently Megat Shah is a huge history nerd in spite of his emo cool kids facade.

The things he's forced to know about Megat Shah has been apparently itemized in alphabetical order with 80% of it came from what Beja had slipped/allowed Murad to read off of him.

Effectively the kid pisses him off and it's not just because he once very stupidly told Murad, "Tahu laa kau dulu Kapla besar kat Kudrat tapi tengok ahh nanti kitorang kalahkan batch kau—" ( the only reason why he didn't immediately punched the kid who was five years his junior was because he'd noticed the particular pronoun he used.)

Kitorang

Him and Beja.

Abdul Reza and Megat Shah.

As if they were a package deal—inseperable, tackling a legacy they couldn't even fanthom.

Serumpun bak serai, sesusun bak sirih Macam ombak di pantai bersama pasir berkasih

But waves can easily wipe out entire lines in the sand. So out of pettiness Murad calls Beja out on it.

"Buat gapo mu beriya simpan budok tu jadi saing rapat mu? Tok cukup kuat ko mu nak berdiri sendiri, sampai keno guna tongkat?"

It's a cruel dialogue, something their father would spout and he sees Beja bristles.

For a fleeting second, Murad almost wants to backtrack.

He is the oldest son of the Abu Yamin family, the heir apparent. It is his job to watch over his brothers.

Kudrat is not a sacred place where the last real Malay men are created.

No, Kudrat is a viscious, cuthroat aquarium where boys equipped themselves with the ability to make allies, to forge pacts that is easily severed.

A place where you either sink or swim.

Murad hates it with every fibre it woul serve a purpose to prepare his brothers for the real world, once they've realized the ridiculous state of their nation.

While he expects that Kahar would struggle a bit but he expected that if Reza could soar then Kahar could stand a chance.

His father had sold him an ocean And Murad was almost lost in the flood

Beja scoffs, "Mu toksoh sibuk pasal aku. Aku tahu jago diri aku."

It's a hard decision, but Murad loves his brother.

And he knows this exchange was enough for Beja to cut Megat off.

A throne could only seat one king.

Tiga warna tujuh jiwa sumpah setia Putih merah sifat niskala suaka

[crime-soncloud]

Alright so Canto 3... Where do I begin (spoilers obvs)

Alright firstly, RIP Effie and Saude, I genuinely was kinda heartbroken over them both. Effies fate was grisly and really helped the themes and backstory of this canto (that's gonna be touched on more at the end). Meanwhile Saude was such a tragic and very noble death, one that neatly parallelled Sinclair. Wasn't at all expecting them to die, I fully thought they would be some light hearted rivals, but NOPE they're not returning.

In terms of the gameplay... Yall I wasn't even prepared, I ate shit on a lot of these encounters, the dungeon was a disaster at points, the first time I've lost an encounter so far, and I had to Grind. Ended up actually improving a decent bit, and finally started blocking and evading. As I said before, Kromer was a struggle, I lost like 5 times because of when she staggered you using the nails and did a bajillion damage.

In terms of the outer layer of the story, without the big moments, I liked how Don quixote consistently fucks up the plans and causes big fights. Also loved Siegfried coming in, wrecking the teams shit, don quixote fangirling, and then leaving. Honestly I would probably be don quixote, I would suck as a team member. Understand why Vergillus was such a dick, still feel really bad for Don, girlie felt broken by that. Really curious what happened before with them. Rewatching it really makes me want to hug Don, Vergillus is abelist for this (/j /silly). Also Don quixote beating up Sinclair after he goes too far was surprising but interesting as hell. Probably important to backstory

Gregor constantly acting and creating stories in these situations is amazing, and Mersault being previously employed by N corp is interesting 👀 there's something that's gonna be unpacked.

Alright then... Time to go through the main arc, that of Sinclair, and the themes. Firstly, while I am an atheist, I have had a fair amount of dealings with religion and religious people (mostly alright apart from a few). However I think the theme of religious extremism, religious hypocrisy, and guilt/responsibility are extremely well done. As I said, Saude in this canto neatly contrasts Sinclair, as while Sinclair betrayed his family out of hatred/distaste of the mechanical parts (another really nuanced and interesting theme with a lot of depth), and never came clean, leading to him feeling deep guilt over his actions, Saude betrayed the team to try to save herself and Effie, and ultimately was able to redeem herself when she found out Effie died, by holding off N corp. Speaking of Effie, to me the fact he was essentially made into a "heretic" by N corp, to me indicates the idea that they are hypocritical, calling others heretics for trying to improve their lives using the enhancements (there's also an argument for the church's persecution of queer people here, but that might not be intentional, just an interesting thought), but forcing them onto people breaking in so they have an excuse to punish and torture them inhumanely because "they're not human" (can you see the queer subtext I'm seeing?). Finally Dante is amazing this canto, in how they also grow, and manages to support Sinclair, and starts to wonder who are they? What did they do? Are they a good person? And this becomes a catalyst for them to be better, more responsible, and to support Sinclair, the things that Dante says in the final part of the story is genuinely amazing

And as for the backstory... I want to hug Sinclair. His dislike of his family for what they did, feeling as though they are colder, due to their prosthetics. And then Kromer and Demian are interesting, Kromer appearing kind and caring but having a clear air of malice, hatred, and cruelty. The way she acts is chilling, and that cg of her standing over Sinclair is Evil.

Meanwhile I have no fucking clue about Demian, he seems kinda cool but has something going on under the surface, we'll probably have to fight him eventually. Extremely curious, his wisdom, sign (that is what we collect in the dungeon), saving of Sinclair, speeches, and the fact that he is the only character so far that isn't a fixer but hears Dante?? Like okay he is important AF. Definitely very interesting.

I was told by @zebrashork that it had to take a break at points in this canto, and it was fucked up a bit, and BOY is it! I'm probably missing a few things though. Also @flextapeyeehaw sorry for tagging you here, but I wanted to say that you didn't say anything about Kromer, when it came to hateable characters, but FUCK KROMER!

Will be tackling the 3.5 chapter/canto, I expect it to be light-hearted. Probably will just rb this with my thoughts on it

[wonviiii]

Genshiken Part 1- Blog #13

Genshiken explores the lives of different college students in a club dedicated to anime, manga, and gaming. From the very first episode, the social rejection of otaku culture is highlighted by both the “outsiders” and the people who also dwell in such interests, an example being the main character, Kanji Sasahara. The location of the anime club room is an indicator of this as it is tucked away in a desolate location. However, once inside, the room is unexpectedly colorful and welcoming- a symbol of how otaku spaces are often misunderstood, yet in reality, they are just vibrant spaces full of passion, just as any other club would be. Sasahara is initially hesitant, and although he understands the other club member’s conversation of the shows, he actually does not admit to having watched them, feeling embarrassed. This moment captures a key struggle many otakus face- the fear of being judged for their interests, even within their own community. Makoto Kousaka, in contrast to Sasahara, is proud to admit that he wants to join the club, and he takes an interest in anime, manga, and games. However, he is followed by a girl, Kasukabe, who disapproves of his interest and even says that it does not suit his appearance and past personality and therefore wants him to get rid of this hobby of his, emphasizing how hobbies are often subject to societal expectations, especially regarding who is “allowed” to enjoy them. Kasukabe’s distaste stemming from the belief that her childhood friend has turned into something undesirable is a theme that recurs throughout the series, dictating that being an otaku is a sign of social failure.

 Later episodes explore tensions through Madarame, who injures himself but prioritizes attending the convention over seeking medical help. His dedication to his hobby, at the cost of his health, brings up the extremes of otaku culture. In addition, something I noticed that really threw me off was the fact that the convention itself was male-dominated in nature. Almost all attendees were men, and the few women that were present were often in sexualized roles, such as maid costumes or high school girl uniforms promoting the booths. The lack of female representation is rather unsettling, especially considering the only times something was female-dominated was the manga and anime itself that portrayed mainly all women's bodies. This shows a disconnect between the community’s obsession with fictional women and their understanding of the real ones. This disconnect can also be seen when Madarame is attempting to converse with Kasukabe in the clubroom. His discomfort around real women as he seeks to escape reality by making it into a video game really contrasts with his knowledge of fictional female characters. His comment about her nose hair- expressing shock at how a girl could have such an "imperfection" reveals how his perception of women has been wrapped by unrealistic anime portrayals.

Lastly, a significant turning point in Sasahara’s journey is when he fully immerses himself in the convention, and he begins to feel a sense of belonging as he looks around. Yet, not soon after, he himself begins to judge those who seem different than himself. Particularly those who don’t fit the stereotypical otaku mold. He looks down on a man attending with his girlfriend and another that is dressed too “cool” to attend to an event for “losers.” He struggles with judgment yet also perpetuates the same judgment on others that society has taught him. This moment of hypocrisy really drives the nail down onto the double standards and how society desensitizes individuals to the scrutiny of judgment. All in all, the show talks about conflicts with self-acceptance, societal stigma of ridicule and misunderstandings, and the consequences of dwelling too much in fantasy. Therefore, I believe it’s not only a critique of society but also of otaku culture itself. 

[divinecomedyproductions]

Fandom Woes: Why people are writing AUs and the scam of “being original”

Many objections I have noticed of reimagined AUs(such as RWBY) is how "they don't resemble the property" and should be "their own thing", and the movie Across The Spider-Verse with the whole Spider-Men AUs and the criticism of multiverses in general.

Speaking from personal experience, there's a reason why they don't make their own thing. It's often because literary snobs have set these people up into a conundrum.

If you make a reimagined AU, they go out of their way to lecture "this does not resemble this thing anymore, make it its own thing."

And if you tweak it, the character and world designs, the names, anything to make it its own thing...

The snobs use greedy reductionism/nothing buttery to reduce it down to the inspirations and influences, especially when it came from a place of distaste and disagreement, and call it "derivative" and "butthurt thinly veiled fan fiction." and tell you to use different source material and "learn to be more original."

The snobs won't let you win.

So if you just keep trying to be “original” and you let these people define what that entails, your just letting others manipulate your creativity and your just dancing around for them like a monkey

You make an reimagined AU, its no longer "recognizable" and you get criticized

You make it its own thing, the inspirations, influences, and motives are pointed out and deemed "derivative" so you also get criticized

You're going to get criticized either way, so you might as well make a choice and stick with it.

And what's more infuriating is these sophists are guilty of hypocrisy

Let me give a personal example with the success of Kamen America, a superheroine I've come to love

She was created as an active disagreement how Captain Marvel was handled, combined with other elements such as Sailor Moon and various Tokusatsu

Once she gained popularity along with her Kamen Corps, many starting bashing her as a "porno captain marvel rip-off" because the creators dared to actively disagree with how a concept was handled, and I was lectured for my concept being "hostile" to RWBY which was born out my disagreement and distaste how its characters and ideas were handled

Yet these very people would be supporting the Evil Superman concept like Homelander and other characters of The Boys

and the Anti-Narnian His Dark Materials Trilogy, the former written by a guy who hates superheroes, and the latter a staunch atheist who can't stand CS Lewis and Christianity

Both who have said things about both subjects that are the textbook definition of "hostile" and yet nobody bats an eye.

Because its not wrong when "the right people" do it towards "the wrong things"

And the excuse they snobs say because these make the concepts objectively "more interesting" backed up with a whole "we-know-better-than-you" attitude which is leading me to hate that word "interesting"

The "Right People" can do whatever they want, but us "Wrong People" gotta follow all these rules and only have what the "Right People" tell us what we can have, how we create, and what we enjoy.

Then they turn around and lecture you about being "entitled" when the only thing your often guilty of being "entitled" to is your opinions and feelings, which last time I checked, people are entitled to.

[artemis-entreri]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but can you please post links to your review of Lolth's Warrior? I love your reviews and can't find your Lolth's Warrior one. Thanks!

[[ Greetings!

Not a dumb question at all! ^_^ The reason that you can't find it is because it doesn't exist. XD In fact, I still haven't read the book yet, and I don't know when/if I will. I'm thinking that this is a good thing, as apparently even among the most diehard Drizzt fans there have been some very negative reactions to Lolth's Warrior, more so than ever.

If you follow me, you've probably noticed a significant drop in my activity. I've been greatly enjoying investing my time in other things, which is something I've been wanting to do for a while now but my brain wouldn't stop being hung up over these characters. It's no secret that I've been tired of Salvatore's BS for a long time, but I was too invested in the characters to be able to move on.

I think what finally helped me flip the switch is WotC investing a shitload of money to make Drizzt products, especially with whitewashed Artemis even though it's 2023. With the context of them also giving the excuse that they couldn't pay the other creatives who worked on their setting at market standard rates in the past along with their actions with the OGL earlier in the year, well, suffice to say that while I haven't respected Salvatore for a long time I did respect WotC, however after everything that happened this year, that has changed. I'm not sure how much WotC execs are responsible for the recent mass lay-offs, which in itself is really bad, but the fact that Mike Mearls was finally let go doesn't really help WotC's case for me because it only serves as a reminder of how Mearls wasn't fired earlier for assisting his sex abuser friend (he was instead quietly shuffled to the video games division for a while). When Mearls returned to the D&D division, about half a dozen female D&D staffers quit at the same time. This says to me that WotC cares more about a male sex abuser supporter than they do about all those female members of their staff, and it makes me question whether they care about women and oppressed groups in general. I've really started to question how much hypocrisy is present in their making a huge show of being LGBT+ inclusive; recent D&D products do indeed include a lot of LGBT+ representation, but how much of that is due to Jeremy Crawford having to fight to get it in there each time? How could WotC continue to march in Pride parades with pomp and circumstance while allowing the Mearls incident to have transpired?

When the OGL snafu happened, a friend made the comment that WotC may have had its ups and downs in the past but overall was generally viewed in a positive light by many, but that the OGL fiasco has probably bankrupted them from a "good will" perspective for a while. This is basically where I'm at with the company now. I still care a great deal about Ed Greenwood and the authors who penned the works that led me to fall in love with the world so hard, and while I still play D&D and care about FR, I'm at a point where I feel like WotC has demonstrated a clear lack of regard for their own Drizzt franchise, so much so that they don't even bother to get basic facts about one of its primary characters correct. As such, what's the point in me continuing to care? While I also don't care about how WotC feels about me as an individual fan, I've long been distasteful of how dismissive they are of their most dedicated fans, the ones who have spent hundreds of thousands of unpaid hours curating the (in)consistencies of their universe that they themselves can't be bothered to maintain. I can understand the reasons for WotC actively instructing their creatives to not use the FR Wiki, but it's painfully obvious that those creatives including Salvatore still use it to keep their facts straight because there is no comparable official resource for them internally with the company itself. Furthermore, the stuff that WotC is continuing to do suggest that they have no intention to change that, quite the opposite in fact. It was quite eyebrow-raising when WotC compared their D&D franchise to the Marvel universe, because what makes the Marvel universe so compelling and successful is the very self-consistency that WotC is trying to do away with in D&D. A big part of the reason why Marvel movies are loved is because it's the same characters that recur, and you never know if a character from a different movie will show up in the movie you're currently watching, but it's always a delight when they do. And, of course, it's so epic when all of those storylines across many different movies all come together and culminate in truly astounding ways. Despite the usage of an infinite multiverse in Marvel, there's this big sense of consistency, which is what makes the franchise so impressive and compelling. Marvel's world is everything that D&D's is not, at least in D&D's current iteration. Even though many different stories across a shared world is part of the draw of FR for me, I don't need D&D to be like Marvel, however because WotC made that comparison of the current D&D world to the Marvel world, I can't help but feel like WotC is more talk than action. I'm not at all saying that D&D isn't a quality product, it's just for me the shine of WotC is no longer there.

I think the biggest indicator for me that I was ready to shift my focus was my lukewarm reception of Baldur's Gate 3. It is everything that I hoped for and more for a current generation Forgotten Realms/D&D video game, and yet I was just ok about it. Here is FINALLY something that I spent so many years dreaming about, getting more and more hungry for it following the flops of Sword Coast Legends and the Dark Alliance reboot, but when it finally happened, I was just ok about it. It's a fantastic game and 110% deserving of its awards and its huge fan acclamation, and yet I was just ok about it. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the game, but I can't see myself playing it again.

I'm still happy to help and support the people in this fandom, be it by answering lore questions, suggesting novels to read, pointing the way to resources, or with more serious matters. I don't know how much new content I'll make though, I've got a bunch of WIPs in terms of art and writing, as well as miscellaneous drafts containing information about the world, but I don't know if I'll ever feel like finishing them/polishing them up to post. It's very freeing to no longer feel compelled to read each new Drizzt book because the drop in quality with each new installment has really been immense, and I'm a lot happier not spending those hours consuming really badly-written media. I do feel bad for no longer providing for those who want to know what's happening in the newer books but don't feel like reading them and who want to know a non-sycophantic summary of them, but hey, maybe someone will step up and fill in the summaries for the books. I'm not really sure why none of the diehard Drizzt/Salvatore super fans have undertaken the task since Hero. Wikis are editable by anyone, but the Wiki staff do try to make sure that everything is objective and factual.

If you're trying to find my old stuff, I'm sorry that my tags are kind of all over the place, I never got around to organizing them better. 😅 I *think* I've reblogged all of my LoD art to my otp-jartemis sideblog, but now that I look at it I see that's probably not the case. If you like my art though and want to continue seeing it even if it's not in this fandom, it'll be on my non-fandom specific blog: sno4wy.tumblr.com

This isn't goodbye, as I'll still be here now and then, I just won't be as invested, which is honestly a really great feeling. :> ]]

[clarabowmp3]

C'mon anon, you know if it were either Travis or Taylor calling Joe tacky and distasteful in a public changing room, mind you - people, his fans, her haters, would freak and call Taylor everything under the sun. Is Joe allowed to say whatever about Tayvis, I guess. It's a free country after all but it's the hypocrisy for me. Like what has Travis ever done to Joe exactly? I doubt Travis even knows who he is. Also why should Joe care how Travis decides to go about his relationship with Taylor or vice versa. It's literally not his problem. Joe was in the wrong.

Okay, I get what you’re saying. There’s definitely a group of people hell-bent on hating Taylor even for irrational reasons, and you’re right that if the roles were reversed those people would come after her. But,

1. I think there would still be a decent number of swifties defending taylor/travis for the comments and attacking others condemning them. She’s spun this narrative in Miss Americana of misogyny fuelling most if not all the criticism of her, which was true at times esp in the 2010s. But recently there’s been other, more rational reasons to criticise her, which these diehard swifties still keep chalking it up to misogyny. My point being, there is (and might always be) a taylor swift defence squad, which joe does not have

2. What do you mean by hypocrisy? If we’re talking about the roles being reversed, I’d think taylor/travis also have the right to free speech etc, but I might not totally dismiss the conspiracy theory that she intentionally leaked her comment, cuz of her history of being a little petty (eg katy Perry and the dancers, her shady variant drops) and has always been very careful and meticulous about her image, PR etc that I would find it hard to believe she/any of her staff would let smth as damning as that happening. There would probably be some hypocrites who would be fine with Joe’s comments and not Taylor’s (is that what u meant by hypocrisy?) which I think is illogical, and are usually the type of people too cemented in their bias to listen to reason

3. You’re right that Travis has done nothing to Joe, but Joe has also done nothing to Travis! Joe was just talking abt Travis, we don’t know what Travis says about Joe, assuming he talks about him at all. Again, I think the circumstances indicate that he never meant for anyone including travis or taylor to hear what he said, and he’s still allowed to have personal thoughts and opinions. It’s unfortunate he was overheard but that wasn’t his fault. It’s not like he was intentionally trying to insert himself in the drama or throw shade at travis, and there’s nothing wrong with him still wanting to talk abt it with a friend or smth.

idk why a lot of anons keep repeating this sentiment, but from whichever angle I look at it I just cannot see how Joe is in the wrong.

[secretariatess]

Porn actress who became a mom was saying how she hated how people could still view those videos of her, but she works for Playboy and wouldn’t change anything about her past.

And of course, the comments are loaded with people, from what I could tell mainly men, talking about how she’s a modern woman not taking responsibility, how awkward it’s going to be for her son to find her when he becomes a teenager, mocking some of her wording that suggested she wasn’t a fan of everything that happened, and claiming they know she enjoyed it because they had seen some of her scenes and she looked really happy.

And I just . .. . If you have no shame watching that, if you have no shame or horror in claiming her son will find her videos while he’s still underage, how can you mock the woman for not really admitting to shame for making those videos?

I’m not saying this in defense of porn.  I don’t know anything else about her story, so I can’t make any judgment call on where she stands on the issue.  All I can say about that is that it is a damaging career in more ways than one, and shouldn’t be a point of pride.  If she’s still willingly involved, that’s a hard no from me.

But how can you justify shamelessly watching those videos while claiming the women should be ashamed for being in them?  Or should she just be ashamed because she became a mother?  Could she, in their eyes, have been proud of it as long as she remained single and childless?

It’s not that I’m trying to let her off the hook of her own choices.  I know there’s exploitation, but again, I don’t know what her story is.  I don’t know if she’s someone who willingly got into it, and is actually proud of it, or trying to haggle a line where she’s trying to express distaste but unable to get out of her situation; but in either scenario, she’s going to carry the weight of what she’s done.

For those consuming her product, and shaming her for her conflicting statements, what’s their excuse?  Are they trying to shame her back into it?  Or shame her out of it completely?  In the case of the latter, if you want her out of it completely, why are you still demanding the product?

I don’t have a fully realized thesis or statement, or even argument, but it just felt like there was a note of hypocrisy somewhere in here.

[frankie-catfish-morales]

Hi there, prepare for a long response.

So, I have bipolar 2 and mental illness. I am well aware of how it feels and how it works.

Some things I want to note.

Britney Spears was forced into a conservatorship, had her kids taken, was forced to take medications that altered her ability to think rationally, had a mental breakdown, was followed and mocked by paparazzi and the world, and then pretty much locked away for years. It is not in the same realm. At all.

Chappell Roan has been trying to get famous for almost a decade now. She just blew up in the past few months but she has actively been trying for many years. She is a grown woman and is 100% capable of understanding the downsides of fame. Celebrities have been discussing these issues for decades. Eminem wrote that he couldn't take a shit in the bathroom with his daughter without people approaching and stalking him.

I'm not saying this is deserved. But it is expected. Expecting to be famous and that all your fans will behave respectfully and normally is just...not realistic. There's always going to be "fans" that push the line. It comes with the territory. Should it? No. But does it happen? Yes. And it always will. And I just do not believe she would not know that.

I am a fan of Chappell. But I can also critique people I like and the things they do and think about the bigger picture. She and her family were stalked by fans before she made her political comments (more on that later), which is unacceptable, but there is not a single celebrity out there who has not had this happen and discussed it at length. It comes with the job, unfortunately, and at this point, infantilizing her to the point where you don't think she wouldn't know and expect that is kind of silly imo.

I did not know about her being kissed without her consent. That is wild and is terrible, and I can understand how that would definitely cause some trauma. I do not begrudge that.

However, as a fan, I can tell you that her most recent canceling of events and mental breaks have occurred immediately after she has made comments that were heavily critiqued by the public. I rarely saw any backlash or hate on her until she made the comments she made about the election and then belittled those critiquing her. Most vitriol that has been on her lately has been in response to:

1. Her canceling concerts and then going to the VMAs instead (if you do not want to be famous, why are you going to events to get more exposure and be more famous? That would be the LAST thing I would do if I was already getting overwhelmed). I also, with my mental state, wouldn't want to be famous, period. I also want to note that since canceling some festivals on her fans almost the day before, she then went to perform at Austin City Limits today. It is absolutely valid for fans to be upset about this hypocrisy.

2. Making the "both sides are bad" argument when saying she wouldn't endorse Kamala.

So now I will go into why that deserved critique, even though you disagree.

First, I personally feel a lot of discomfort watching a white woman openly appropriate drag culture and aesthetic, make millions off of it, and then actively undermine an election where the people she's imitating's ACTUAL LIVES are at stake. Donald Trump supports people who want to MURDER drag performers and trans people. She is white, female, and privileged, and the tone-deafness it takes to wear drag-stolen outfits and makeup as a white woman who will most likely never be unsafe walking around like that in the same way drag performers are, is very distasteful. I am also white, female, and privileged, but I try to constantly check and educate myself on reality of others.

I don't want to make assumptions on your identiy and age OP, but often when I see this "both sides" argument it's from younger people who dont' actually remember what it was like when Trump was in office. You may have been able to skate by relatively unaffected and therefore you and Chappell think you can do it again and it won't be that bad, but it will.

POC and LGBTQ+'s actual lives will be at stake should he get back in office. People could die. People will die. Women will be having back alley abortions again and dying. My physician parents did their residencies in New York and almost quit medicine at the amount of women coming in bleeding out and dying from alternative abortions. Police will beat the shit out of and kill anyone they want with less consequences than they have now. More restrictions will be put on gender re-affirming care, and there will be in increase in ostracization of trans people and their ability to safely exist in basic society. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden enacted several trans protective and affirming care in their term, so acting like there is not a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the two is wild, and disrespectful to the LGBTQ+ culture.

Trump being back in office will also have consequences on president appointed positions. Remember Marcellus Williams? The representatives that denied his appeal for execution were appointed by Trump by his previous term. If Trump hadn't been in office, Marcellus might still be alive.

It is also distasteful to see a young white woman purposefully mispronounce a woman of color's name, and I am not going to accept naivety on this, I'm sorry. Fucking google it girl. The least you can do is pronounce our first possible female black president's name correctly.

Which brings me to:

3. WHEN she was critiqued for this "not both sides" comment, (which she 100% percent didn't have to make? She could have kept quiet? Said nothing? Hired a PR team? Why doesn't she have a PR team?), she turned around and double down, called people stupid, said her words were skewed when they were not, and posted a bunch of out of touch whiny TikToks.

If you are going to make a very divisive statement, please understand you will be challenged. If you are unable to handle the challenge, consider taking accountability and being respectful, or being respectful and standing by what you said. But people are going to talk shit when you disappoint them.

She THEN cancels more festivals that a lot of people paid a lot of money for, literally the day before the festival. I have seen perspectives like, ,"there were other artists to enjoy." What if someone didn't care about other artists and only wanted to see her? Are they not valid? What if they spent their entire savings for this and are now out thousands of dollars they can't really afford? What if they had to take time off work or had to quit their job for this? What if they are severely mentally depressed as well and this concert was the only thing they have been looking forward to? Do they not matter?

I'm not saying I don't have empathy or that she should be forced to work when unwell, but what I am saying is that you do have a responsibility as an artist to live up to your word when you sign up for events, and I just do not think Chappell has what it takes to be a celebrity. I think she is making the problem worse for herself, which is contributing to her feelings, and I think she needs to toughen up a bit and hire a PR manager.

when chappell roan quits music and disappears from the public eye or worse, and there’s a huge conversation online about We Should Have Treated Her Better, i just want y’all to know that i will not be tolerating anybody’s delayed remorse and i will be very mean to everybody who played even the most minuscule, passing role in bullying that girl

[ramblesbambles]

The comfort of the faux mattress I lay on has given away to anxiety again. Princess and the pea.

Incoherent, even in my own mind. I'll make an excuse, I've always done so. Another ideology rant, another dream to decipher.

My previous rambles already show my distaste of current hierarchies. But I'm not immune to my solutions many many hypocrisies. A fascist government to control the masses in my ideal way. Playing god. Percentages, graphs and history has haunted my hopes. Blood of the upper classes won't suffice. A fault of fascism is that you cannot control the minds. Even your own will be subject to the addiction of control, death and the new scapegoat. Unfortunately, I'm unable to see past myself in order to be in the true neutral. My bias and prejudice makes me sickeningly human, no worries.

My needs and desire to live as I want will be haunted by that existential dread. How did I end up in this comically corrupt system? It's only mind breaking that the world we live in is real, not for it's nature or technical marvels. But for it's exploitation buy those who've granted themselves "power". Stupid rules really. Is it inevitable? Do medical breakthroughs only arise from money? When do we reject this fetish? And if we do, what would be lost? We are not a kind species. Well hit our chests and throw our sticks, but I have an understanding of the animals. I can forgive the animal before I can forgive a human. Perhaps that's my own fault, what makes me unlikeable. The natural world is held to such a romantic view, I find it easy to forgive and forget. The diseases, parasites, storms and stars. We can't talk to them, but we can understand their impact upon us. We cannot give them the same judgement as we give to others. Are humans inherently destructive? All things are, I think humans are inherently naive (myself included. This is only to soothe my ego, write down my manifesto. I am being narcissistic at this moment) and I'm willing to solve conflicts. Then again, limited resources have prompted so much war. We cannot be expected to be perfect. But I crave something inherently beyond our biological values. Not an evolution, but perhaps union. Unfortunately we would rather kill ourselves then let someone lead the world that isn't us. Is it right to say that we cannot wait for the death rate to surprise our birthrate? All fingers point to genocide but perhaps in my own prejudice... The old suffer the longer they're in this reality. They're shoved aside, made to be nostalgic relics for their children. It's an apathy I harbor, but the system that keeps them alive is the same who poisons them. Beige dungeons with trapped birds. They don't deserve it, they're often husks. No one should make 300k, no one should live past 90. No one should vote in a world that has moved on from their needs. Our leaders should be humanly prosecuted. Celebrities following are dismantled. We have rules that our government doesn't follow. Why should I? Self preservation? Lunatic selfish beliefs? Get rich? Stupid stupid stupid ideas

[anamericangirl]

You're a huge hypocrite, which is exactly the point of the post. You do realize how idiotic you sound by going "omg how are you upset about a cartoon fictional character being black? It's a cartoon!!!!" and then immediately proceed to get upset about cartoon fictional characters being white, don't you?

Literally WHO the fuck is upset a cartoon being white? We are the ones saying it’s not a big deal if a mermaid is black or not. because it’s a literal FISH.

You say you don’t care about race but you made multiple paragraphs calling us hypocrites for what? How are we hypocrites? What role does Ariel’s race play in the original cartoon? Is her being white relevant at all? Yeah I didn’t think so. So how the hell are we hypocrites? There’s nothing wrong with POC wanting representation. We are literally the minority. And there’s nothing wrong with white characters, we only get upset when white actors take roles SPECIFICALLY made for poc because of the LACK of representation we already have. Most of the times those roles tie into specific cultures of POC.

A mermaid is not specifically made for any race, that’s why we are saying we don’t care if they would’ve made her any fucking race.

You people need to get your head out of your ass, you’re not smart about hiding your clear distaste and racism. You’re the only one here acting dense like you don’t know why poc would care about race when it’s clear why we care. This is a diverse country, that’s why we care. Crying about how you “don’t care about race” is literally the most tone deaf shit I’ve ever heard.

I'm not saying anyone was upset about Ariel being white. This isn't specifically about The Little Mermaid.

I'll try to break this down one more time but I don't know if I can do it any plainer than I've already done.

What I'm referencing in these posts about The Little Mermaid is the whole narrative surrounding "representation" that you brought up. You're hypocrites because no one gives a fuck about race except for the people, like you, who care about representation and then if anyone else even engages in the discussion or points out double standards you'll immediately jump down our throats saying shit like "omg why do you care so much about race? Are you a racist???" When the only reason anyone is even talking about race in the first place is because you brought it up. And that's a big problem. You'll can say all the shit you want about race but if anyone responds in disagreement they're racists who are making a big deal about race.

This isn't really about The Little Mermaid. Her race isn't important to the story and her skin color doesn't fucking matter. I don't even really care about "racially accurate" casting in anything as long as the plot of the story doesn't rely on it. If Disney had made her black originally no one would even be talking about this. But the thing is they didn't. Ariel is a very prominent Disney figure that's been around for a long time and people have grown up with her looking a certain way so if you announce you're making The Little Mermaid again, which is pretty much supposed to be live action shot for shot remake of the cartoon classic, people might get excited to see Ariel and it might throw them off a bit when the Ariel they see is not the one they grew up with. Now anyone who doesn't like it is being called a racist and people don't like being called racists when they aren't.

But if you don't see the hypocrisy and the double standards in your side of the debate then it just seems like willful ignorance to me. You're a hypocrite because you throw fits when you think a role that should go to a poc goes to a white person and then celebrate when roles that, if being historically accurate is important, should go to white people go to poc (like Hamilton, for example).

But here's what my point really is with all this so tl;dr representation doesn't matter. Not in this area. Like I can't think of a bigger non-issue. People who need their race to be "represented" in movies and tv are pretty pathetic. Movies should be made to watch and enjoy and I can't imagine how you enjoy anything being as hyper focused on race as you are. What does being a numerical minority matter? Why does the number of people with certain skin colors matter? The diversity quotas that came from everyone crying about representation is a big part of what ruined the entertainment industry. It's not like there weren't poc in the movies before the representation narrative starting taking over everything. Demanding representation is how you get token characters or shitty live remakes that no one likes of timeless classics. There are now more movies than ever before where a black character serves no purpose other than to be The Black Character™ and it's obvious when that's the case and it sucks.

This isn't about the mermaid. This is about the politics and the reason Disney changed the race.

So yeah, you're a hypocrite for going after people who talk about not liking that instead of creating original stories and casting black actors Disney is just doing lazy remakes and race swapping classic characters when the whole reason it's even happening in the first place is because you made a big deal about "representation."

[elias-rights]

Honestly, a lot of reactions to Elias from TMA remind me of reactions to Sangwoo from Squid Game. They honestly think it's more likely that someone is "inherently evil" than yet another victim of a harmful system who decided that the only way to survive was to make sure other people were hurt in their place. For all that people like to applaud these series as "revolutionary anti-capitalist media" (lol), they sure don't have a strong understanding of systemic issues. Or even what 'systemic issues' actually means. The crabs are smothering the other goddamn crabs because they want to get out of the goddamn bucket as much as the next crab, not because god likes to make evil crabs every now and then.

-Ace J*nelias Anon (sorry I've been realizing that keeps showing up in the ship tag lol)

I haven't watched Squid Game, but that makes sense. Although pretending TMA can only work as an allegory of capitalism is not only patently untrue as of the first four seasons (as per the Q+As, and, though the final season leans very hard into the parallelism, it doesn't work with the finale[1]) but also incredibly reductive, if we analyse the podcast through that lens Jonah Magnus cannot be a billionaire but rather a white-collar class traitor. After all, one of the core characteristics of the 1% in the real world is that they couple meritocratic rhetoric with a complete refusal to acknowledge that people are subject to external circumstances thrust upon them by the system (whether that is generational wealth or systemic poverty). In sharp contrast to these expectations, however, Jonah isn't entitled.

Not once does he imply he has earned his position; he simply seized it. Nor does he appear blind to others' circumstances ("your own rotten luck", etc.). He is the polar opposite of the self-congratulatory meritocratic hypocrisy we hear from the wealthy in real life.

But let's put aside his words for a moment and examine his role within the system. We know he didn't have any unique advantages when it came to being claimed by the Fears (as opposed to perhaps the Lukases); in fact, the whole point of his turning to the Eye was that he was just as vulnerable as anybody else. He is not the vieux riche. If we insist on an allegory, we might say he betrayed the interests of his social class to achieve upward mobility. This is a far cry from the "capitalism personified" narrative his detractors insist on reading.

[1] Of course, going back to this point, the metaphor falls apart the moment his death fixes the world. And here I thought "Like Ants" had been clever foreshadowing that no individual murder can hope to dismantle an impersonal system. Furthermore, the idea of presenting the passing on of the Fears as something other than unforgivably selfish and vile becomes even more distasteful under the premise that it symbolises systemic oppression. Others have already drawn a parallel to colonialism here.

[finely-tuned-line]

RP:

Log 222

FTL: I can now hesitantly deem my attempts at taming FTLR-3 to be at least partially successful. It has stopped going for the food provided, though the reaction is not immediate and its distaste for doing so is clear. But it does await my command to go for it, and it is learning that if it waits, it gets more. This just goes to show how shockingly intelligent and aware it is. Fascinating.

FTL: The reason I say 'hesitantly' is due to the fact that I remain unsure as to whether its training would hold up outside of its current situation and location in its containment chamber. Of course, this is untestable and the only thing I can do is to continue reinforcing the behaviours.

FTL: Truth to be told, I am quite shocked at the level of success I have attained thus far. As previously stated many, many times, I hold no true knowledge of how to tame creatures. And while it may seem conceited and brazen of me to continue on with this plan despite my highly limited expertise on the subject, not even asking for aid from someone who know more than I, it is not so. This is not a matter of ego, this is a matter of danger. A matter of time. I have no time to beg an unknown Iterator for help. It is a problem that I caused, therefore I must fix it. If I fail, then that is solely my fault. Others will not get involved in this.

FTL: Perhaps I am but a hypocrite. I acknowledge the fact, though I sour at the thought, as would anyone else. My hypocrisy may be an established fact, but that is also irrelevant. I have no time to dwell on the wonderings of where I draw the line between myself and others. No time to dwell on why others are excused but I am not. Suppose I never wish to dwell on it. Why would I?

FTL: ...I do not like the urgency, I do not like having no time. It is not something I am used to, but it is necessitated by the situation. Every cycle gets more and more dangerous, I am sure that FTLR-3 is scheming in some fashion. It is not within the nature of any Rot to be confined, especially an intelligent one. It is merely putting up with me for now. Call me paranoid, but I believe this is possible.

FTL: Which does lead to the question of 'does that not render the training of FTLR-3 useless?'. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is unknown. Perhaps I am merely over-exaggerating. Perhaps I am not. I can only hope that I am. But even if it isn't actively planning against me, it will escape one day eventually, as per my point above. Any Rot would refuse to be confined - intelligent or not.

FTL: So taming is... progressing, in some fashion. Hopefully positive. I do need to figure out some way to transport FTLR-3 itself to Songs of the Negative Sunlight, if xi does agree to this plan. I was going to maybe ask LIFEGIVER for a transporter creature - as it still stands true that purposed organisms are not my forte - but I forgot to do that. Instead I shall repurpose one of the organisms that the Ancients utilised to transport materials for my experiments to me. I do believe that at least one of them remains. And they are perfect for the job. Secure, capable of flight, and capable of carrying heavy objects. Truth to be told, I am in luck that I have access to such an organism.

FTL: As for the container to hold it, I plan to reuse one of the containers that held the aforementioned deliveries of supplies. I suppose that the Ancients' debris is finally useful for something. I will, of course, reinforce it in some manner, but that will hopefully be unnecessary as FTLR-3 will not try to escape. One can never be too cautious though.

FTL: As for the delivery of the message for Songs of the Negative Sunlight, I have enlisted the help of the Locator, one of LIFEGIVER's purposed organisms. It is delivering the pearl with the message on it to xim, and for the sake of archival purposes and other such things, I will put the most important part here:

My current situation is that I have created a Rot that appears to be intelligent and aware, which results in it being part of the Great Cycle. Unsurprisingly, this is extremely dangerous. I have no doubts as to the fact that FTLR-3 would be able to easily survive outside of an Iterator structure. Both due to its adaptability, various feeding methods, and ability to move easily due to its cyan lizard façade. I'm sure you're wondering about why I am even contacting you about this in the first place. Before I explain, I do need to clarify my assumptions of your situation - based off of your last few messages, knowledge of your general person, and a few leaps of logic. I have concluded that you messed with the purified Void fluid that powers you, whether to research it or out of boredom. Perhaps a combination of the two. The transportation pipes then burst somehow, flooding your structure and the purified Void fluid thereafter regained its corrosive properties. The now-once-again-corrosive Void fluid is now slowly eating and corroding away at you, leaving you to suffer. My condolences for your current situation. As well as my apologies my using you to save myself, and for how bluntly I put all this. I did warn you though. The plan I have created to get rid of FTLR-3 consists of FTLR-3 getting dumped into the Void that floods you, and hope that its Ascension capabilities were regained alongside its corrosive properties. If it does not get Ascended, well the situation does not change much. Just as it would have here, it would find a way out eventually. Same results. Not the greatest plan, but it was the only one I could come up with. What I need from you is consent. Consent for me to enact this plan. I will find an alternative if necessary. Use whatever strength you have to overwrite at least some portion of this data pearl. The Locator will deliver it back to me, and if some of the pearl is overwritten, I will take that as an affirmative to carry on with the plan. If no pearl is returned, I will take that as denial. And if an unaltered data pearl is returned, well, I will then assume that you are completely non-functional.

FTL: That is the majority of the contents of the data pearl. The remainders consist of formalities and pointless apologies.

FTL: As much as I am cautious to give into the allure of hope, it does seem that everything is falling into place. This plan may actually work.

FTL: This is all almost over.

[ohana-system]

First of all, there's no need to be hostile simply because I needed clarification. You're also coming off as classist and ablest. Not everyone has had the privilege of a proper education. Some people also understand or interpret things differently due to various neurodivergencies. And no, people don't need to pay attention to your specific wording because 1: if it comes out of your mouth, then you are responsible for it, 2: everyone understands things differently, and 3 that's why people ask questions for clarification. You being impatient and not stopping to take all of that into account and having an attitude... does not bode well. Especially when you are now the one who is seemingly making assumptions about what I think your veiw on tulpas is based solely on a point I made without at all saying a single thing about you personally. Not to mention your not so subtle and uncalled for insults just because you have an unreasonable expectation that everyone should be on your level. "Low key disrespected." So your answer is to high key insult someone instead of commucate your feelings in a constructive and composed manner?

Switching is a skill. People vary in skill. Some never learn, some take a while to learn, some pick it up quickly, and some are simply a natural at it. So yes, you can be a new tulpa system and possibly still experience a fluid switch. Which, yes, as you said, falls under an abnormality. However not everyone, especially newcomers, will know whether that's abnormal or not without explanation. Which you included none of. If I am new to plurality, I cannot infer all of this context that you left out of your post. As an autistic person, I would struggle with that quite a bit unless you explain to me that there can be variation and what that variation might look like. And because I get the feeling you might decide to use that as an argument, yes, I realize you could also be autistic. Which would be why you're so hung up on people understanding your words in a specific and very black and white way. Well guess what. I know someone like that too, and while it infuriates them, they understand that's not how people work and that doesn't give them the right to chastise others for it.

Also what you've posted on your blog over the years is not something I should be expected to know about, nor go digging for just to understand a singular post that you made on a social website where it doesn't stay within the confines of your blog. You did say "both". Which can be read as "both must consent beforehand" not just "both usually consent but sometimes just one can consent". If you want to talk about specific wording, then why didn't you specify that?

And yes you absolutely could have pointed out how DID specifically requires dysfunction. So for someone who's so hung up on being specific, once again, why didn't you? The hypocrisy here is distasteful. It isn't harmful to suggest someone look into something IF certain things seem to coinside, but you listed one singular, incredibly common thing. Newcomers require significantly more introduction and information than you provided. Surface level suggestions are not particularly helpful. Especially when many of these newcomers are young, anxious, and impressionable children.

You also said the system you based this on manually created memory barriers. I'm pointing this out because, once again, you want to be specific, right? So if they manually created the barriers themselves then they still are a tulpamancy system. They're just perhaps very skilled at dissociation and got carried away. I suppose you could argue that they induced DID. However that is not what your post was about. Nowhere did you speak about inducing DID. You stated that more than tulpamancy could be happening. I think it's incredibly reasonable to draw the more likely conclusion that you were speaking about something that is naturally occurring as inducing extreme dissociation is not a common idea. Perhaps your post would have been clearer if you'd spoken about the actual concern which is apparently that you can give yourself a CDD as opposed to simply possibly having one.

And just to note, while I am most certainly perturbed, I am not intending this as hostility or a fight. I am simply pointing out all of the issues I see. However, if you cannot refrain from insult just because you struggle with being misunderstood, then I will take my leave of this discussion as I do not enjoy engaging with people who are unreasonable, rude, and incapable of taking criticism or having a legitimate conversation.

- Rue

Potential Red Flag that More than Tulpamancy Is Happening

If you and your tulpa(s) randomly switch (as in neither party consciously initiated it) or experience involuntary switches, that is not normal in Tulpamancy. Switching isn't random or involuntary in Tulpamancy; it's most often a mutual agreement between systemmates and a conscious thing that occurs. Tulpas don't randomly take front without warning or involuntarily in response to certain stimuli.

If you experience random/involuntary switching more than the random freak occurrence, you should look into dissociative disorders because this may be a symptom of something like DID.

6-5-2025

[the-nysh]

Been seeing takes expressing confusion over Garou's 'calm/tolerant/cooperative' behavior towards the heroes (like Mb) so far, amounting to basically: "he refused to team up with Platinum, yet he's ok aligning with Metal Bat? No way, the Garou 'I know' should intensely hate heroes! And would beat them all up instantly! This is ooc and makes no sense!"

And to me it's like...are you sure? Are you really quite sure? The same Garou who actually reacts like a giddy dorky fanboy when he meets the strongest S Class heroes (and conversely with pure disgust meeting real monsters)? With wistful smiles of one day earning his place in the Hero Guide? (So much irony.)

It's not heroism he hates, because Garou already has a set image in mind how heroes should perform their roles. For example, he ideally expects them to be generally kind & just, acting in 'fair' justice, to selflessly serve the weak and do their jobs well. (You see it when he often points his finger telling them how their roles should act.) But it's when he sees them acting poorly un-heroic: in self-serving, ego-stroking means for example, with false justice towards abusing their own position & power (like Tacchans) - now THAT is what he hates, when they're performing as 'heroes' in name only. (When he says 'you've thrown away your kindness; the hypocrisy makes me sick.') Ohhhh, then he'll certainly have something distasteful to say about that!

Unfortunately, most heroes he's interacted with (ones he's goaded/challenged to fight into seeing what they've got) have only affirmed to him his worst perceptions & disappointments in their 'bad' behavior - except in rare cases (surprising him), like Saitama running past him to attend to an injured Genos, and Metal Bat reacting to selflessly shield the helicopter alongside him - aka they're doing their jobs (performing their roles) as they should, then Garou has no need to attack them, interject, or critique their behavior (except yeah he did scold Mb at first for getting distracted off task.) He leaves them alone because he sees them actually being 'good,' with little else for him to object at the moment. The only thing he'd then expect of them is to keep up, especially when he's already been the one committed to keeping up this far, driven by his strongest feelings - determined solely on his own priority mission, which is right now focused on ensuring Tareo's safety. (So 'keep up' or stand back, as he'll just ironically do their jobs for them. Plus more irony: no lone hero, not even Saitama or Blast, can do or 'fix' everything alone.)

But in contrast, if heroes (& monsters alike) still insist on fighting him - like Flash, for example jumping the gun, acting on prejudice, or their own self-interest etc, then of course Garou won't back down. (He'd gladly fight those who would still oppose him, or always defends himself accordingly, even if it's only him alone vs 'god' and the entire mob.)

Because him setting that example - being that symbol there to 'scare' everyone into behaving well (playing nice & 'fair') is the crux of it, to the point he (wrongly, naively, stubbornly) believes he has no other choice but to take the (self)destructive monster role this far to incite what he wants - goodness & unity in others. (Repeatedly convincing and resigning himself of his 'evil' role & mistaken identity to do that, believing that he cannot cause change otherwise or ever be accepted as a hero in turn. No self-awareness and poor self-assurance/confidence here, thinking he has to become someone he's not.)

You even see his intent in the webcomic when he literally stands there, goading everyone into attacking him (demanding they rise to meet his challenge) to test their true heroic grit & spirits. (And if they fail? Of course he reacts in bitter disappointment.) The only thing is that he just hasn't realized that what he's after - the 'good' behavior of a selfless heroic heart - actually already exists within himself, and that is pure dramatic irony at ONE's finest.

So with that, and Garou yet to fully accept or reject himself on the line, we'll see how far he chooses to behave and consistently react as 'Garou' (or not?) next.

[celticcrossanon]

BRF Reading - 26th of September 2021

This is speculation only

Cards drawn 26th of September 2021

Question: What will be the consequences of this pseudo-royal NYC 'Tour' (to the Harkles)?

Interpretation: It will be a burden to them and link them to Prince Andrew in some way.

Card One: The Ten of Wands. This is a card of feeling burdened, of losing creative energy, of having your dreams turn to dust around you. The card shows Jason sitting in a burning shelter made out of planks from his ship, the Argo. The results of his adventures, the golden fleece, lies discarded on the ground.

Here Jason stands for the Harkles. They have built a pseudo-royal tour based on what they have used for attention since they left the BRF - PR contacts and money (shelter from the beams from the Argo). This tour is burning down around them. It is not going the way they expected and it will become a burden to them in the future. The prize they have gained since leaving the BRF, their narrative of having to leave the toxic BRF/being victims of the BRF, has been undermined and discarded by this royal cos-play (the golden fleece).

You can not say you were forced to leave a toxic BRF for your mental health, do everything you can to build a new life separate from the BRF where you are 'thriving', and then do a pseudo-royal tour that screams "Look at us! We are royals!". The hypocrisy is obvious to everyone except the Harkles. They have destroyed their narrative for a pseudo-royal tour that is turning out the opposite of what they expected. As the card shows, their dream of being celebrity royals is burning to the ground around them right now, leaving them with nothing but ashes.

Card Two: The Page of Wands. In this reading, the Page of Wands is coming across as a PR message. I drew two clarifiers and they were the Six of Cups, the card of childhood, and the Knight of Wands, my card for Harry when he is being an idiot - that is, when he is indulging in hasty actions without thinking them through. So the PR message indicated by the Page of Wands involves Harry, a child of the BRF, sending a message to the BRF.

What the message is can be seen through the figure on the card - a boy riding the golden sheep who will later become the golden fleece, waving a torch. The boy is Harry, the golden sheep is what Harry sees as the success of this 'tour', and the torch is the PR he is using to send his message to the BRF, saying "Look at me on the way to success without you! I don't need you! I can royal all by myself!". So even thought the tour is turning into a disaster for them and will become a burden for them, Harry is flaunting it to the BRF as a huge success - he can royal better than them (and without obeying their stuffy rules). The BRF, of course, is quite capable of sending a message back via PR, but I don't think Harry has thought of that.

Card Three: The World. The World is a card about the end of a cycle, of looking back at what you have done to get where you are, tying up any lose ends, and then celebrating your achievement before moving on. This pseudo-royal 'tour' can certainly be seen as a celebration of the Harkles' delusions, vut that is not the main energy I am getting from this card.

The energy of this card is of ending. It is over. Something has finished and can not be resurrected. I think that this end of a cycle refers to the Harkles's victim narrative, with the toxic BRF, as their 'tour' has seriously damaged the credibility of that narrative and exposed them as attention seekers. The ending could also be of the pseudo-royal tour itself - that they got this one and no more, as it would not surprise me if the word came down through diplomatic channels that these events with the Harkles are not to be allowed in the future.

The World is the major arcana card for Saturn, and Saturn is the planet that shows Karma, your past actions coming back to you. It is the planet of hard work - if you work hard and follow the rules, Saturn will reward you at some point in the future. It is the planet of time, as Saturn is all about the future consequences of present actions, and it is the planet of authority and authority figures, like the parent who makes you do your homework instead of playing. The Harkles have not worked hard, they have disobeyed the rules set down for Megxit and the rules of common decency, and they have flouted the authority of their parents/grandparents, disowning Thomas Markle and publicly mocking the BRF and hence HMTQ. Having the planet Saturn, the planet of consequences for your actions, appear in a spread about consequences under those circumstances - well, it is not the best card to have, to say the least.

As a consequence of this 'tour', I expect at lot of things to end for the Harkles, both expected and unexpected.

Card Four: The Knight of Cups. This is a water sign card, particularly a Pisces, and in this reading it is coming across as Prince Andrew, a sun-sign Pisces. Coming after The World card, this tells me that the ending of a cycle and Saturn consequences shown by that card will involve Prince Andrew in some way. The Harkles may be exposed as being linked to him and his activities as a consequence of this pseudo-royal 'tour'.

I drew a clarifier for this card, and it was the Nine of Pentacles. Pentacles is the money suit, so that indicates a link to Prince Andrew and his activities involving money, i.e. his shady business deals (this came up in my spread yesterday as well).

The Nine of Pentacles is also the card of being happy, rich and Single, the Knight of Cups can be a very romantic attitude to things or about romance in general, Prince Andrew is divorced, and taking all these things together this could be hinting at Harry being single as a consequence of this tour (again, this came up in my reading yesterday - divorce energy).

Card Five: The Five of Swords. This is a card of not being able to win for losing. It can be a card of conflict and disagreements. Whatever you do, you will not be happy with the result. In my deck, it carries a message of having to do your duty, however distasteful. The card shows the god Apollo appearing to Orestes, who is in exile, and telling him that his duty is to kill his mother, an act that will damn him in the eyes of the gods, but not doing it will damn him as well.

The Five of Swords can mean legal troubles, as an extension of its meaning of conflicts and disagreements. Coming after the Knight of Cups representing Prince Andrew, it could indicate that the Harkles will be involved in Prince Andrews legal troubles in some way (how, I don't know).

In its meaning as doing your duty, however distasteful, this card is a general message both to the Harkles (which they have ignored up until now, so I don't think they will listen to it) and to the next card, with which it is strongly linked.

I drew a clarifier for this card and it was the Seven of Pentacles. This is usually my card of dodgy sex acts, and as such reaffirms the link between the Harkles and Prince Andrew's legal matters. The Seven of pentacles can also show a case of divided allegiance, not knowing where to invest your time and talents. The divided allegiance energy is coming through strongly with respect to the Harkles. I don't know if one of them is going to decide to turn back to HMTQ, thus splitting the pair, especially after the divorce hints in the proceeding card (don't trust them Your Majesty!), or if the divided allegiance refers to their involvement in Prince Andrew's court case and they will work for their own interests in this matter, or if it is something else. I only know that that is the meaning that is coming through this card with respect to the consequences of this tour - a divided allegiance, and that ties in with the 'doing your duty' and 'not winning for losing' aspects of the Five of Swords card.

Card Six: The King of Cups. This is a water sign person, particularly a Scorpio, and it is coming across as Prince Charles. It is also coming across as strongly linked to the Five of Swords card in the sense of doing your duty, however unpleasant. Something about this pseudo-royal 'tour' is going to result in Prince Charles being forced to do his duty, a duty that he regards as unpleasant and that will not benefit him personally. The energy is very much that Prince Charles is forced into this and does not do t willingly, but rather because he has no other choice.

Underlying Energy One: The Chariot. The Chariot is the card of cancer, and this card is coming across as Prince William, who is a sun sign Cancer. Whatever the consequences of this tour are for the Harkles, Prince William will be behind them and pushing to make sure they are enacted. He will be like the Chariot card - going around or overcoming all obstacles and driving straight ahead until he achieves this.

Underlying Energy Two: The Hierophant. This is the card for institutions, and here it comes across as the BRF. The card is linked to the one before it, the Chariot. Consequences will come either from the BRF or from how the Harkles have mocked the BRF by this tour, or both areas. With the consequences from the BRF, they will be pushed through by Prince William, with the support of the BRF.

Underlying Energy Three: The King of Wands. This is a fire sign person, particularly a Leo. This is usually my card for Meghan, and her energy is here, but there is also the energy of a member of the BRF - Princess Beatrice, also a sun sign Leo. Princess Beatrice will be involved with whatever the BRF is doing, and she will support it.

Meghan's energy is a surprise, but it is definitely here. The 'tour' is going to have consequences for her and Harry, and she will be the one behind some of the consequences that fall on Prince Harry. I just drew two clarifiers for this card - The Two of Cups, the card of relationships, especially romantic ones, and deciding whether to pursue the relationship or not, and the Hermit, which is the card for Virgo, the sun sign of Prince harry, and is also the card for being alone/single. The Hermit card shows Kronus, the god also known as Saturn, who is our modern figure of Father Tim,e carrying the scythe associated with death/the grim reaper. The consequences from Meghan will affect the relationship between her and Prince Harry and may , in time, lead to Harry becoming single, i.e. lead to divorce/the death of their relationship.

Conclusion: This pseudo-royal tour will become a burden to the Harkles and expose the hypocrisy of their 'toxic BRF' victim narrative. It is being used by Harry to send a message to the BRF, and that message as well as the tour itself will lead to the ending of things for the Harkles, both expected and unexpected, as part of the consequences of their actions coming home to them. Prince Andrew will be involved in some way; they may be linked to him via shady money matters, or via his legal troubles, or both. Prince Charles will be forced to perform an unpleasant duty that is related to this 'tour' by the Harkles. Prince William will push through whatever actions come from the BRF, and these actions will be involve the support of Princess Beatrice. There will also be consequences for the Harkle relationship, with Meghan taking action against Harry, and there are indications of a divorce in the future.