#genuinely what are some people doing i need to know. like the cognitive dissonance is so funny

[eddiegettingshot]

let me be shady w no context

[ineffable-endearments]

When you (generic, universal) talk about theories about the end of Season 2 and Aziraphale going to Heaven, you often run up against either:

taking everything at face value to the point of ignoring that some details contradict one another

or

accidentally nullifying major emotional, plot, and character beats by implying that they Didn't Really Happen.

A lot of the differences in analyses, especially ones that I like (LOL), can be explained by the fact that we're analyzing a character who is experiencing massive cognitive dissonance and believes a number of contradictory things at once.

Nobody is wrong to point out Aziraphale's need to Belong to a Good Cause, which makes his acceptance of the Supreme Archangel position entirely in-character; nobody is wrong to point out Aziraphale's anxiety around the Metatron, which indicates that he may have been coerced.

Did Aziraphale go back to Heaven because he's afraid of what will happen if he keeps refusing, or because the Metatron made an implicit threat? Did he go back to Heaven because he's vulnerable to flattery and wants to feel important? Did he go back to Heaven because he thought it would be a way to be permanently safe with Crowley? Or did he go back because he missed belonging to something Good, something bigger than himself? All of the above. It's all of them.

Yes, even though it's incredibly dissonant to believe a system that he KNOWS is dangerous and coercive can accomplish true Goodness, that is in fact his belief.

Admittedly, this is no one I follow - just random comments I see around from people I don't know very well - but it seems like some people out there are assuming Aziraphale can't possibly be making any plans to do anything remotely intelligent, because this would mean that he is already aware that Heaven is bad and would therefore leave no room for character growth.

Except no, that's not necessarily what it means. In fact, the cognitive dissonance is the main thing he is going to have to resolve. Having that dissonance - the belief that Heaven's ideals are genuine, along with the understanding that Heaven is dangerous and needs to be carefully manipulated - is what will move his plot forward. Mindless obedience wouldn't progress his story any more than magic brainwashing coffee would, and it would be equally inconsistent with his story and motivations so far.

The dissonance is the point. And part of the dissonance is that he already knows Heaven is dangerous - he just hasn't accepted what that means yet. It would make sense for him to simultaneously try to work within Heaven's system and watch his own back.

Also, only partly related: Neil might write a story about how the worst people exploit the need to belong and to be Good. He might write a story about how we have to become our own greater good. He might write a story about how to rebuild after you discover your greater good is not so great or good after all. He is not going to write a story about how having any faith or trust in something objectively bigger and stronger than yourself makes you a stupid clown who is wrong about literally everything and shouldn't have even tried.

Let Aziraphale fuck up. He needs to and he will. Whatever plans he was making in that elevator won't actually succeed. But give him credit where it's due.

Edited to add: And you know what? When he fucks up, he's going to get through it. And then he's going to do the right thing. And he's going to get it right when it matters the most.

[maxdibert]

speaking of Snape's teaching style — I love our bitchy abusive boi, but also I kinda do have a cognitive dissonance here, because while saying he was mean to the students just in honor of his espionage cover is unrealistic, thinking that neither Snape nor Dumbledore considered this crucially important aspect reduces them to dunderheads with planning horizon of a goldfish

perhaps Sev's natural tendencies simply coincided with the needs of the order, but at least Snape had a good reason to encourage the worst parts of himself, with Albus' silent (or perhaps not so silent in Albus' way) approval. overall I don't like it when Snape is portrayed as a lupin-like cutie patootie teacher who would coddle kiddos if only he didn't have to show off in front of Lucius, buuuut when the war aspect is completely excluded from the discourse, it also feels off. for me especially the very first lesson, specifically that "taking points for not looking after Neville" part, seems rather artificial and random, unlike most further interactions, where Snape looks way more refined in his malice

(talking only about him being a meanie, not about his breakdowns or anything)

thoughts on the matter?

Alright, let’s break this down.

First of all, if Severus showed favoritism toward Draco, I don’t think it had anything to do with maintaining some kind of cover. I think he genuinely had a soft spot for the kid. Just like Severus hated Harry because he saw James in him, it’s not far-fetched to think he was partial to Draco because he saw Lucius in him—someone who always treated him well and spoke highly of him.

Severus isn’t a jerk to all of his students; he’s specifically a jerk to Gryffindors, and even more so to Harry and his friends. Because the story is told from their perspective, we think of him as this huge asshole, but honestly, we have no idea what people like Cho or Cedric (as Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs) thought of him, or even Luna. We know nothing about how he’s perceived by houses other than Gryffindor and Slytherin, which conveniently have a rivalry and also conveniently represent Severus’ unresolved traumas from his own school years.

Then there’s the fact that Severus isn’t a pleasant person, nor does he pretend to be. Being nice just isn’t part of his personality. He’s sarcastic, sassy, and sharp, and he loves making cutting remarks, either to hit someone where it hurts or simply to use his words like poisoned darts. He doesn’t need people to like him, and honestly, he doesn’t want people to like him—he makes zero effort to be agreeable. Clearly, he hates his job and is completely fed up, so no, it’s not an act. He’s just an asshole. And we love him for it because, honestly, the more of an asshole he is, the funnier he gets. He’s someone who knows how to use his words like blades in a way that’s clever and even entertaining—especially if you have a dark sense of humor. That whole “he’s keeping up appearances” thing? Maybe he did certain things to maintain his cover, but his attitude wasn’t part of that. His shitty personality is just who he is, and we love him for it, lol.

But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about the kids. The guy makes sure they don’t die or end up impaled somewhere, working overtime and risking his neck for them. And that’s one of the dualities I love about him: he clearly doesn’t want to do it, but he has a strong sense of responsibility. He hates those kids; they drive him up the wall, and he’d probably strangle them if he could—but not only does he not do that, he goes out of his way to make sure they survive the school year. To me, that matters more than being a lovable person like Lupin, who doesn’t take his damn potion and puts everyone in danger.

Severus is a bastard, but he’s a responsible bastard when it counts. And I think, as an adult, you gain perspective and realize, yeah, he was an absolute dick, but I’d leave my kids with him over Lupin any day. With Severus, sure, they’d leave his class crying, but at least they wouldn’t end up dead. He’s the lesser evil, lol.

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

While I'm on a kick of being really open about my sexuality, lets just start throwing shit out there and seeing how people interact with it

People who have followed me from the beginning will know that most of my partners get some quippy little nickname assigned to them in place of a name for the internet, and I want to name that this actually DOESN'T come from where might think (or rather it's still infosec, but it goes beyond "don't post the actual names of people you fuck online"

In the scene I have most cultural context for, people often came to group play sessions with an alias (I have one too lol, and it's the only name I ever introduce myself to partners as, mine has been static for going on a decade now). You would introduce yourselves to playmates under your alias, and often you would continue to use it as a marker of in-scene vs out-scene topics of conversation (e.g. sometimes people will talk about their aliases in third person as a whole entity with their own motivation, life, and power, my mom used to talk about "her friend [redacted 1]" if she ever needed to be able to reference a thing without naming explicitly that she and [redacted 1] were the same person, and there are friends of hers who still call her exclusively by that name in private because they have loved each other for going on 50 years now and [redacted 1] is still their partner and love even if mom isn't and vice versa).

So for example, on here, I will refer to any metamours by the plural-inclusive term The Metamour with very little discussion of which one or how many there are or whatever. But in person, I call one metamour [redacted 2] and another metamour [redacted 3] because they were introduced to me by their aliases first, and I genuinely DID NOT KNOW THEY'RE ACTUAL NAMES until after we had become real friends lol.

Anyway, Youtube Boy doesn't know that his nickname here is Youtube Boy, and that's not his alias in scene, nor his actual name, but critically these terms allow me to side step early uncertainties around terms like "boyfriend/girlfriend/datemate/etc" which may imply a degree of romantic entanglement I'm genuinely uncomfortable with. On occasion during this round of posting, I have gone "well it's CLEARER tho" and tried to type out "my boyfriend" about one of my current partners (partner does not carry this same issue for me, as I have always carried dual connotations of Romantic Oartner and Play Partner, so I feel no discomfort/cognitive dissonance with it's implications) and every time I do it I physically cringe away from the screen and delete it. Maybe he wouldn't feel the same way, and hell maybe I won't forever either! But I have almost never been willing to use a word like boyfriend without fairly explicit conversations about commitment, meaning to each other, and boundaries that just don't come up all the time in play partnerships for me you know?

Anyway, what I'm saying here is that sometimes the point of being a slut is to get to be every iteration of yourself that you love being independently from each other in a space that adequately facilitates that iteration of you. I like the people I play with to each get absolutely all of me that is available to them, and I **LIKE** that this often means I get to spend time as different important aspects of self, wholly and without self-doubt or minimization.

And hell, sometimes I even name the iteratioms and let them become something bigger than just a "version of me" and that can be fun too.

[fortunatelychaoticphantom]

Why is the fact that Jesus and Jews were from Israel considered controversial? It’s what we’re taught at school (and for Christians - church) in the US.

I’m genuinely asking, this isn’t sarcastic. No one I know has ever disputed that fact before.

Hello!

You're referring to this post.

It's controversial because denying the connection of Jewish people (especially Ashkenazim but not only) to the land of Israel is a fundamental aspect of post-modern antisemitism.

Classical and modern antisemitism, particularly in Europe, relied on the Jewish people's foreignness to dehumanize them. It was obvious they were Not From Here, despite living there for centuries and longer, and many demanded that they Go Back To Where They Came From. And then they did.

But antisemitism didn't go away just because Israel was founded, it simply morphed, just like it had between its classical phase (centered on religious otherness, religious "crimes" and blood libels) and its modern phase (centered on race theory and economics).

Of course, right-wingers are still classically and modernly antisemitic. They usually don't bother to hide their hatred, it's pretty fundamental to their ideology and identity (though there are aspects of hiding, especially with holocaust denial). But the left has always been just as antisemitic as the right. But it has also grown in the post-modern age, after world war 2, with specific ideologies, centered around notions of humanism and the importance of human and minority rights. And antisemitism doesn't sit well with these notions, especially not after the holocaust... So something had to change. Unfortunately, it wasn't the antisemitism.

This is a classic cognitive dissonance; I feel something (hatred for Jews) that is inconsistent with my ideology (hating people based on their ethnicity is bad). In such instances you can either 1) work to change your actions (it doesn't matter what I feel, as long as I don't harm Jews, and eventually I might change my feelings for them); or 2) change your believes (Jews aren't a category worth protecting).

Now, "hating Jews" is still a big no-no in western left circles. Even now you can't actually directly say it (obviously this was true before October 7th. It seems like even these rules are changing as we speak). So westerners needed to do two things: 1) white-ify the Jewish people (especially the Ashkenazim) and 2) shift the focus on Israel.

The white-ification of the Jewish people is a major theme is western leftist circles in the past 70 years, especially in the US because of its complicated history with race and ethnicity, but it's prevalent in many other countries as well (it should be noted that Jewish people themselves have contributes to this phenomena for many reasons, but this is not the place for this discussion).

In the post-modern age, "whiteness" means "evil" and it is connected to European and western imperialism and colonization. So, essentially, they change what being a Jew is - a white person, as opposed to a Levantine person. This is where some of these people will do mental gymnastics to deny where Jews are originally from, whether denying modern Jews have anything to do with the historical ones (and many choose this route) or somehow both admitting they are from Israel but saying it doesn't matter because it happened a long time ago and then with the same breath talk about how Palestinians are the indigenous ancient people of the land (they are both indigenous, the world is just that stupid). Now, since white people are evil, they are open for criticism, especially if they are colonizers. And since Jews are white now, it makes no sense for them to live in the Middle East.

Which brings us to refocusing their criticism on Israel. Here, people have to walk a fine line between a legitimize political criticism of the Israeli government and the society itself throughout the years (and there are MANY justified criticisms...) and just being antisemitic. Unfortunately, western leftist circles tend to lean more heavily into the latter. And, again, as has been particularly evident for the last three weeks, their focus is on identifying Israel as colonizing enterprise, not just beyond the 67' Green Line, but by it's very nature of existence, since Jews are white now and don't belong there.

And now, once again, they call us to Go Back To Where We Came From (just to be very clear - Palestinians and the rest of the world are doing it as well), despite that part of the world literally saying "don't bring them here, they are not from here", like they always did, just like the post OP was sharing. Only those Europeans aren't saying "Jews are from the Land of Israel and they deserve to live there", they are just saying what the entire world has been saying for the past two thousand years - we don't want Jews anywhere, period.

They don't give a shit about where Jews are from. Some of them say we're from Europe for the sole purpose of destroying Israel. And they would gladly displace millions of Jews and send them to live again with the people who tried and nearly succeeded to annihilate us. Everyone else just don't care, as long as they can hurt us, but also refuse to accept us as their own. And trust me - if and god forbid when millions of Jews will once again become refugees, not a single nation around the world from which We Came From would take us in. Not one.

I know that people know where Jews are from, but the fact remains that huge sections of the world right now, especially on the left side of the political map, will actively deny it.

Because the truth is - the world doesn't give a shit what Jews are or are not. The world doesn't give a shit where Jews are from or aren't from. The world doesn't want Jews in Israel, and it doesn't want Jews anywhere else.

The only place the world deems the Jews to belong to is their graves.

[raayllum]

You think I've done awful things, and I have. But I'm not evil. It's me. You know me. I'm still the same person.

I actually think these lines / scene from Claudia is one of her most interesting in the entire show, so let's talk about it, beat by beat.

You think I've done some awful things, and I have.

This line, along with others from Viren (his "I had to" is another form of justification, and what's to justify if you done nothing 'wrong' or nothing to be blamed for?), i.e. "In the name of love, you will perform acts so unforgivable, you will never forgive yourself" as well as Claudia's explanation in 4x01 ("I had to do things... I never imagined I would be able to do" with tears in her eyes) and Terry's assertion ("I've seen you do a lot of awful things, dark magic things") is like... while Claudia still doesn't see the error, I'm willing to bet, with the bulk of her actions (elves and dragons are still clearly not wholly people to her), she's still done things that she considers awful. Things that crossed her previous moral lines, beginning, I'd bet, with the deer in 2x09, and that which only escalated from there.

Claudia still thinks she's a good person (which we will get to in a second, believe me) but she doesn't think she's squeaky clean. She knows, just as Viren knows (and just as Callum knows/believes) that she's done genuinely awful, terrible things.

A character feeling bad about doing something, or a character recognizing that something they've done is terrible ("It's horrific, Viren" "We have no other choice"), is not a get off scot free card in this show, and it never has been. Not for Claudia, and not for anyone else.

While Claudia has been manipulated by Aaravos, everything she's done is of her free will, and without lying to herself about the exact nature of them (even if there's still plenty she's in denial of like the plague, but I digress).

Claudia is like 5 different cognitive dissonances in a trenchcoat, but she's not stupid, either.

But I'm not evil. It's me.

This to me shows the mask slipping the post, because if there wasn't even a hint of possibility at being evil, you would feel no need to declare otherwise. I forget where I've said this before but Claudia cares (esp in arc 1, less so in arc 2 but it's not nonexistent) about being a good person. It's kinda like how Viren doesn't really care if he's good or not, but he wants to be important (matter). Bonus points for Claudia's hypocrisy/shields being worn down over time ("She kidnapped you and Prince Ezran, how can she be good?" -> attempting to do the exact same thing an episode later). She's cracking, but desperately trying to convince them (for mostly manipulation reasons) and herself (genuinely) that she's not, that instead...

You know me. I'm still the same person. I am.

TDP has always been very interested in identity, most notably for characters like Callum, Rayla, and Soren in arc 1, but it's fun to see it be expanded and interrogated further by looping Claudia in during arc 2. S5 and arc 2 places a lot of emphasis in particular on the idea of knowing yourself ("That's not my name. I am Elmer") or knowing others ("She's not the elf, she's Rayla") / preserving your sense of self in the face of change or hard circumstances ("But violence tests us" "Callum, you're the 'destiny is a book you write yourself' guy").

Claudia highlights this twofold. She asks the boys to know her, despite how much time and bad blood has gone by. She appeals to the many years of friendship they had in contrast to their few months turned years of being foes. It's barking up the wrong tree (Callum's Spellbook asserts that even as of s2/s3, "I feel like I don't know who she is anymore" on his end) but I am actually inclined to believe her.

This may be a misread, simply because from S1 but especially S2 onwards I always figured Claudia would end up precisely where she is now, so I don't know if it's the consistency influencing my judgement call possibly clouding more intense changes (she refused to use Harrow against the boys in 2x02, to a degree) but... I don't think almost anything Claudia does in S5 is something she wouldn't have done the bulk of in S1, other than threatening the boys, and she's done that multiple times by the time the end of S2 and S3 rolls around, most notably towards Ezran.

She's still the same person, but her circumstances and therefore her responses have gotten steadily, consistently worse. But this has always lived inside her. She's the same person (but worse), they know her and see her more clearly than they ever did before, and both of those things are precisely the problem.

[bright-thehawksflight]

I was tagged by my lovely friend @mlem-wooloowoo to do a thing! Thanks!

List 5 songs you like to listen to then tag some folks to play along!

1. Vienna by Billy Joel. Very relatable, very comforting, it got me through some pretty stressful times back in uni. Sometimes you just need a soft piano and a warm voice reminding you that It's alright, you can afford to lose a day or two.

2. Cirano by Francesco Guccini, especially the live version bc it conveys so much emotion. As for why, well, I'm a Cyrano girlie, no surprise there. Fave lyrics: le verità cercate / per terra, da maiali, / tenetevi le ghiande / lasciatemi le ali and that last Per sempre tuo, per sempre tuo, per sempre tuo that gives me shivers every single time.

3. L'espantaocells by El Pony Pisador. The first time I heard it my phone looped it automatically and it triggered my tavern wench reflex so bad I woke up an hour later having done all my chores. The fact that I do not understand the lyrics probably adds to the hypnotic effect. As we way back home, provare per credere.

4. Lucky by Donna Murphy. Once you get past the cognitive dissonance of hearing Mother Gothel sing a genuinely sweet, longing lullaby, it's great! Fave lyrics: Lucky / the people who have you / in their lives / to kiss goodnight / to wake with the light / I hope those people realize / they're lucky.

5. Inkpot Gods by The Amazing Devil. This is just an all-around great song, it packs power both in the sound and in the lyrics, it might punch you straight in the soul and/or give you a nice warm hug and tell you you've got this. Fave lyrics: And what you see is not the dark / it's just the gods upturning inkpots / cause they know what you'll become and the ever-impactful, ever-relatable Cause I'm more than what my mum told me to be.

This was surprisingly difficult but a lot of fun! I'm tagging @ninadove @flussoperpetuo @set-wingedwarrior @mayjuvac @mayapleiades @purple-hades and anyone else who feels like playing along (in which case do tag me, I love discovering new music!)

[skyclan-funny-name-squad]

I think the fact the erins can write abuse so well but never call it abuse and even think its right isn't some weird quirk but in fact, a natural progression. Most abusers think they're in the right after all, that they are justified in their actions no matter how horrific. So if you take a character who is abusive and are determined to write them in a way that gives justifications to their actions and you want show they arent actually that bad, you'll write realistic abuse because that's how actually abusers present and view themselves.

If you think a character you write is just troubled and misunderstood or not that bad even if they do horrific acts of violence and abuse, you're going to write them like that and try to convince the audience to agree with you, which requires the character to use actual abusive tactics to try and keep the audience on their side by downplaying and hiding their actions, in ways real life abusers will.

This isn't to say I think the erin's are abusive of course, just that abusive tactics don't come from a playbook that Evil People tm just get one day and no one else has, it comes from rationalizations and excuses. Which a writer can easily end up tapping into if they want to justify why this character they like did that domestic abuse to the audience.

If an author needs to rationalize why a character like Clear Sky is good and misunderstood secretly while still having him do a lot of crimes and have the protagonist like him, it's going to end up looking like realistic abuse just because theres that cognitive dissonance from what's actually happening that reflects reality of how abusers get away with it.

It's a lot harder to actively write abusers because you have to fight your brain more to get into that mindset when you already know the character is terrible. If you don't believe the justifications, they become flatter to write other characters believing it without a lot of skill.

If you believe a character is secretly a hero or misguided but not bad or even the one who was wronged actually, it's easier to make up and implement the justifications for their bad actions because you are looking for those same justifications in the same way as the abusive character would be, while if you know a character is abusive, you're not going to inherently dig as deep to find the reasonings and justifications the character would use and want to make it more obvious to the audience and characters, which isn't how abuse works so it can come off as flat or over the top. Not doing that requires genuine skill and practice, it can be done obviously, but its a tricky skill to learn to be subtle when actively writing abuse.

TLDR: See Ashfur defenders pulling out 300 pages of notes to justify or remove blame for his every actions vs people who view him as a clear villain but just go "ashfur's an abusive asshole who wants to control women" and leave it at. The defender ironically has a better grasp on how abusers actually think and act and justify

Erin's writing such realistic abuse isn't a bug of their seeming inability to recognize it, it's a feature

[another-goblin]

Quantum AU 

Where Dr. Ratio (quantum Erudition) caught the gaze of Nous and got accepted into the Genius Society, and little Aventurine (quantum Hunt) was rescued by the IPC rescue party after the genocide.

(why Quantum? no reason.  Just that it's as abstract as Imaginary, but different.)

Dr. Ratio:

he's what we'd have if some players' misconceptions about the canon Ratio were true. Science is above all; knowledge and truth are the biggest values;

looks down on less scientifically enclined people, but in a benevolent condescending way: "It's our responsibility to take care of them and save them";

doesn't teach, considers it beneath him. If you can't acquire knowledge by yourself, then you aren't worthy of it;

met Aventurine during a collaboration between his lab and the IPC. They found it mutually beneficial to continue their cooperation on a more personal level. Yep.

actually betrayed Aveturine in Penacony (justified it with "this new knowledge about Stellarons can save billions of lives"). Aventurine knew that he'd do this. Ratio knew that Aventurine knew. Is it even a betrayal if both parties know about it beforehand and count on it?...

would actually die himself for scientific progress (first of course he would make sure there's somebody equally capable to continue his work);

despite doing well, suffers from a severe case of impostor syndrom. You know, his canon passive-aggressive inferiority complex stuff about the Genious Socielty, minus the passive-aggressive part;

tries to avoid useless vanity projects. A lot of his discoveries are legitimately beneficial for humanity. Despite this, he grows more and more dissatisfied with his life because of some artificial principles and limitations he imposed on himself (the way a Genuious Society member is supposed to act in his understanding). Bonus HC - I think that the canon Ratio is quite satisfied with his job. His life seems quite fulfilling - not just helping people with his discoveries but also actually healing people as a doctor, teaching students, and of course his estracurriculum role as a "supposing"character"—basically secretly saving people, the way he did on Herta station;

in terms of appearance - outside of his lab, he pays even less lip service to the "generic modern western IPC" style of clothing than the canon Ratio, just wears this loose toga-like thing traditional to his people. Wears a full laurel wreath.

Aventurine:

I heard an idea that aventurine is a cheap gem that's sometimes passed off as other more expensive gems, and it reflects the way Aventurine sees himself. So in this AU he might have been assigned a different stone. I know nothing about gems though, so Aventurine it is;

his unique abilities caught the IPC recruiters' attention early on, so he was basically groomed into becoming a loyal follower of the IPC;

grew up feeling much safer about his life (no need to strife to protect himself), but very dedicated to the IPC, therefore Hunt;

got very rich from gambling before all the major casinos figured out that something's off and banned him from playing. Proceeded to increase his fortune many times over through some risky financial stuff. Now owns a famous casino himself;

known for curating and donating to all kinds of child care and resque organizations (bonus HC - the canon Aventurine does the same, but secretly);

was lucky to have some genuinely kind and caring people in his life growing up;

sincerely believes that the IPC are the good guys. Whatever dirty business he has to do, it's for the greater good;

despite all this, has been suffering from cognitive dissonance and doubt for a long time. He heard about the IPC's true role behind the tragedy of his people, but he struggles with accepting it. He's actually very close to breaking out of the IPC indoctrination;

in terms of appearance - no slave brand obvs, slightly taller than canon Aventurine from having enough food available to him growing up. His clothes are much less flashy than the canon Aventurine's but even more expensive.

[caintooth]

i am so apathetic to liberal doomerism lol.

i remember being a child and seeing the whole body of a pig, butchered and opened at a barbecue roast for the first time. party-goers pulled the pork directly from a cavity carved into the corpse, onto their plates. and i, the illusion of where food comes from shattered, sobbed over my first realization that “oh god, i am an animal. i am an animal who has been eating animals.”

and we have always been animals to the liberals, but they have always viewed themselves as separate, and superior. do you understand? we have always been The Other to them, while they view themselves as the most truly Human. they are pretending now to have that same moment of realization which i did, that we are not so different after all, that we are all the same in actuality.

but they continue to benefit from our slaughter and our pain. and they never think twice about it, except to pretend, except to hold us up in photos like we are fragile squealing piglets and say, “Look! Look how much I care for this creature,” only to throw us back in the mud pit and scrub their hands clean. only to shove a fruit in our mouths, tell us to be thankful for the meal, and then serve our heads on platters. because continuing to separate themselves from us garners them benefits and praise. treating us as livestock gets them praise from the people who control this metaphorical farm (the farm being capitalism, and those in control being conservatives), and treating us as pets gets them praise from their peers (other liberals). treating us as Animals, overall, allows them to remain in secondary position of power, and thus to remain Human.

but we have always known that conservatives view the liberals as Animals, too. that liberals are in fact abused pets living as in-denial hostages in the laps of fascists. and we know conservatives view us as both Animals and some unspeakable third thing, as Monstrous…

when i saw that pig corpse in my youth, my emotional response was overwhelming sympathy. i sobbed for days and did not consume meat for a very long time. but i did not feel fear, at any point, that i may be barbecued like the pig– because i understood at even the most subconscious of levels, our society fundamentally views actual pigs and actual human beings as separate.

what i need you to understand, what i am trying to say here, is that liberals are not reacting to the current political climate with genuine sympathy. they are reacting with abject TERROR. because they know they treat us as Animals, but also know we are not actually separate. they know in their most subconscious minds that they have been undeniably cruel to us, and live in fear that someone may begin to treat them the same way. that they will lose their precious illusion of comfort and security in the laps of fascists.

and liberals are never going to admit this. the cognitive dissonance is too strong.

they are only going to become crueler to us. they are going to try and further separate themselves from the “true” degenerates. they are already publicly discussing trying to “save” the few of us they find most palatable, those of us willing to act like house pets alongside them. and all the while they will continue pushing the rest of us deeper into social Otherness, into the label of Monstrous.

because the ultimate goal of liberalism is NOT genuine change or liberation. their goal is maintenance of the status quo. maintenance of THEIR comfort and safety.

they have been resting calmly alongside the fascists for their entire lives, only occasionally lifting their heads to speak out against particularly unignorable injustices. but now that they’ve been thrown out back with the rest of us, they will do ANYTHING to get back to their previous position. this includes stepping over us, stepping on us, ignoring us, even intentionally harming us, to get us out of their way, and to avoid being associated with us…

for folks who would appreciate this communicated more literally:

while liberals do tend to be people who are marginalized in some way, or are friends/family of marginalized people, they are still typically white, cis, financially privileged, and/or able-bodied, etc. this intersectionality of experience means they can and do still benefit from many social privileges which also benefit far-right conservatives.

for this reason, many liberals do not actually want complete eradication of fascism, whether they admit this or not. they may claim they are trying to “fight back” or “resist”, but the truth is, their efforts only go so far, because they don’t want to lose what social, financial, and political privileges they do have. this resistance to change is the reason the USA has existed as it has for so long.

liberals do not actually want major change. they want to maintain the status quo which benefits them. for this reason, they view many people who are marginalized in different, more visible, or simply less “palatable” ways as a danger to their personal comfort. they may genuinely believe we are degenerates, too, or over time come to fear association with us for fear of being treated like us.

either way, liberals value their comfort more than they value our lives. where has the panic and despair been all this time? they are only experiencing it now because their positions as conservative lapdogs have come into danger…

and i feel no sympathy for dogs who howl only for themselves, when they did not cry for the rest of the pack.

[acti-veg]

hi, I am vegan but I've never really encouraged my family to go vegan which I feel bad about. I think the problem is - my dad isn't 100% with it after having a stroke, so I don't think I would be able to explain to him why to change his mind. My mum and brother are pescetarian. With my mum, she's already got a lot to cope with, so asking her to change her diet just seems like another pressure to put on her on top of everything else. Plus she's really sensitive and if I talk about animal cruelty

(2 - she will tell me to stop talking about it because it upsets her too much (she’s not faking this as an excuse – it’s not that she doesn’t care about animals, she just hasn’t properly made the connection between animal suffering and eating animal products and doesn't seem to realise fish are sentient/suffer. I also really worry for her mental health – being too graphic with her about what happens I think would traumatise her).

(3- Food is also one of her main pleasures and she has tried vegan alternatives before, some she likes but the plant-based versions of things like butter, milk, cheese, she doesn’t like. She’s 74 and realistically I’m not sure if it’s worth me constantly upsetting her to try to get her to eat plant based – I feel like it’d be better for me to focus my energy on audiences I feel would be more receptive?)

(4 - With my brother again I feel this need to protect him. Because of what happens to animals is so horrible I find it really hard to have the conversation with him. I know that it’s obviously much worse for the animals who suffer than just hearing about it, but I would imagine that he would be genuinely upset, but have some kind of cognitive dissonance and still go on eating animal products – he’s probably partly of the mindset that we “need” to.)

(5 - But nothing really graphic (do you have any suggestions??) Sorry this is really really long but I’m just wondering what your opinion is on all this because I feel really guilty but I’m not sure what the best thing to do is and also I feel like if I’m too “pushy” this could actually put people off; also I don't want to come across "holier than thou" because again I think this turns people off from listening to the message. If you read all this thank you so much)

There will always be reasons stacked up for why someone won’t go vegan, you’re unlikely to meet anyone who is exactly prepared for it and understands the reasons why - otherwise they would have already done it. I think you do have to pick your battles (my mum isn’t vegan either and likely never will be), but that doesn’t mean you have to keep quiet and not speak out about things that you think are wrong.

It may be that graphic footage and descriptions of animal cruelty is not the way to go, but that isn’t the only way to advocate, or even the best way. Cook for your family, show them how joyful veganism can be and how good plant-based food is. Show them positive videos of animals in sanctuaries, even take them to a sanctuary if you can, show them health and environmental documentaries. Model what living a good life as a vegan actually looks like

Even if this only leads to a reduction in animal product consumption, that may be all you can do for them right now. But don’t feel like you can’t call out harmful behaviour just because it hurts their feelings - getting called out on harming others is never pleasant. You don’t have to list facts about animal agriculture everyone you see ham in their fridge, but you don’t have to smile and pretend you’re totally fine with animal consumption either.

The bottom line is that you know your family and what is most likely to work. If you know for a fact that explicit advocacy will only strain your relationship with no positive results for you to be telling them to go vegan, then don’t do it, but don’t hide who you are and what you believe in for other people’s comfort, either. You never know what seeds you may be planting from just gentle nudges and showing them how great a vegan lifestyle can be.

[eastgaysian]

Hey, as you are the resident Tom expert: why do think Naomi and Stewy seem to pick up on the fact that logan is abusive or at least damaging, but Tom remains almost willfully oblivious / genuinely oblivious the whole show? Do you think he was playing dumb? Or is it out of his desire to *be* powerful, be wealthy, be like Logan? just really interested in your thoughts if you’re still up for analyzing that insane slimy man clown <3

it's been fully a month since i got this ask i was on a trip with my friends and then went into lemming lockdown. but i have been thinking about it and i do still have thoughts on succession i prommy

this is kind of a complicated knot to untangle - i'll say first off that the way logan treats kendall vs shiv is markedly different, and kendall and shiv respond very differently. naomi and stewy also come from wealthy backgrounds and have some amount of disillusionment with Wealth and Power as a result while tom is, obviously, fixated on social climbing and caught up in the allure of money being a superpower.

with stewy, the biggest thing is that he's been a part of kendall's life since they were kids. while cut script canonicity is always iffy wrt things like 'dinner for winners' etc he's known kendall for, what, 30+ years? the fact is he's been around long enough and closely enough to see a lot more of the roys than most people do - he's also not going to turn a blind eye and enable or excuse like members of the old guard. he doesn't work for logan, he's kendall's best friend. while this doesn't necessarily mean he has always kendall's best interests in mind or that he encourages him towards what we'd consider 'healthy' behaviors, he's had a front row seat to the Kendall Show for decades. he knows first-hand how damaging it is for kendall to remain in logan's proximity/under his control

naomi obviously picks up on How Bad It Is much more quickly, which i would say is a combination of her seeing a lot of herself in kendall, not only with regards to addiction but also wanting to get the money and get out from the family company and all its baggage. in season 2 kendall is also at his absolute lowest, completely under logan's thumb, and everyone's aware of this.

on the whole it's just much more immediately obvious that kendall's fucked and that logan plays a huge role in this. compared to shiv generally being understood as logan's 'favorite,' trying to distance herself from logan/royness at the beginning of the show, and presenting a Cool and Composed front to everyone while kendall walks around with his big brown doe eyes and injured baby bird swagger. neither of them are fully willing to acknowledge just how much damage logan has done, but shiv is much better at hiding the extent of it from other people than kendall is

which is not to say that tom doesn't have some serious cognitive dissonance/conflicts of interest going on, like him asking shiv at the beginning of austerlitz if it's cool to speak to logan 'in a bridge-building way' despite the fact logan accused shiv of knowing about kendall's coup and blew up at her as a result. tom's not totally, willfully blind of what's going on - he saw logan hit iverson at thanksgiving, he got boar on the floor'ed. he correctly assesses in vaulter that 'you saw what your dad did to kendall. there's gotta be the chance he'll do the same to you? get bored of you, once he's got you?' which is again not totally separate from his own self-interest. he needs (or 'needs') to be in logan's proximity and in his good graces in a way stewy or naomi don't, which means smoothing over the fact he's abusive and awful

but i also don't think tom would be able to justify sucking up to logan to himself if shiv didn't okay tom talking to logan in austerlitz, then take logan up on his offer in the summer palace/fixate on the idea of becoming ceo. in an objective sense it's still awful for him to do, of course, but logan has kind of always been between tom and shiv. from his perspective shiv's chosen logan over him before and hasn't stopped him from choosing logan over her in small ways. shiv is chronically unwilling/unable to admit when she's been hurt and tom is unwilling/unable to look past that and recognize when he does something terrible, especially when everyone else is doing the same terrible things

[elumish]

Hi, asking because I recently got some feedback on my writing that I'm not sure how to process:

So I read a group a snippet from my manuscript in beta, and one person gave me some light criticism about the narrator. The book is close first person from the POV of a college-aged bookworm, though that scene doesn't really focus on her book reading or education. This person told me that my use of words like "verdant" or "penultimate" didn't fit with her dialogue in the moment. I got a bit defensive and clarified that she is established as well-read, so he let it go. (He also questioned why characters in 1945 were drinking Champagne out of coupes and not flutes, granted.) But that did send me on a bit of an anxiety spiral, so I have to ask... When is fancy language too much?

I genuinely don't know. I use words like "perchance" and "superfluous" and "ergo" in my daily conversations; I'm just naturally wordy. And people have told me as a kid to tone with the language because it makes me sound pretentious. It might just be me being autistic and not understanding conversational mores, but it does make one worry.

How do you tone down fancy language when it comes naturally to you? Or am I just needlessly worrying?

I know that this isn't exactly the question that you're asking, but it seems to me that there are two issues here: is using "fancy" language something that must be toned down in writing and if so how, and did the language the character was using match the context in which they were speaking?

To answer the first one, which seems to be your question, language like that isn't inherently bad if it's the language that the character would use. You are allowed to make specific linguistic choices for your character, and it seems like you're doing that here. But if you feel like you want/need to, I would look at other dialogue and listen to poeple speak. What words are they using in place of words like perchance or ergo? How are they phrasing things instead?

You probably need to do this anyway--unless all of your characters have the same background/education/etc (and honestly even then), they won't all be speaking the same way, so you should be varying your dialogue.

But now for the other part: from your description (and obviously you know better than I do), it seems like the comment isn't necessarily "I don't know if this character would ever use these words" as "there feels like a mismatch between this specific word choice and the broader dialogue in this scene."

And that is absolutely an idea worth looking into. You may ultimately decide that you disagree, but I wouldn't dismiss off-hand the idea that the reader is feeling cognitive dissonance when reading dialogue. That's the sort of thing that will jar a reader out of your story, which you generally want to avoid.

What is it that makes the reader feel like there's a mismatch? Is the dialogue otherwise crude or rough? Is everyone else using very different linguistic patterns? Is the character having an emotional outpouring that may feel academic to the reader because of the longer/more "well-educated" word choice?

These are all points that are valid and worth looking into.

I also just want to say--I wouldn't extrapolate a beta reader getting a historical fact about champagne consumption wrong out to them not having any worthy comments. I totally understand getting defensive about your work (I think ever writer does) but dismissing them out of hand because of a random factual error does you no favors.

[kaiserkisser]

so- i wanted to specify what i meant about the concept of dazais actual personality clashing with his masks in mam- i think the main example i can think of is dazai and genuinely liking/caring about the gang, where his first year act allowed him to unconsciously accept caring for them (in his own special way), since mori’s become more involved in the story we’ve seen quite a few moments of dazai seemingly forcing himself to act like or think that they don’t matter to him and he doesn’t care about them. i think there’s also a major element of cognitive dissonance in both canon dazai and mam!dazai where both act like they don’t have emotions or care about people when they very clearly do to some extent even if it’s not in a normal way.

on my other point of guilt- i don’t think it’s really guilt for an action- not for pomfrey, not for pansy’s arm, not for manipulating the people around him- but rather if anything it’s for the fact that he exists and feels as though he just passively brings misfortune to people around him. i think he could be responding to being directly reminded of this by mori and his new mission. more than guilt whatsoever though, i think the self destructive behaviors would more-so come from the fact that the previous year at hogwarts, dazai had a task, but after winter break, he is the task. while the positive environment would have helped him to feel more like a person, the actual mission given directly makes him a tool instead of an agent and would influence him to be even more self destructive. this is just my read on it though- and i could very well be interpreting it completely wrong!

- fable

wait yeah that actually does make sense like in the first year even though he did keep saying he hated emotions and shit, he did allow himself to care for them in his own way, but then after that cursed convo with mori, i think he's passively trying to pull away of sorts?? or like not show to anyone that he actually cares for them because then he knows that will become something that mori or anyone else can use as a weapon against him? and yes, agreed, both versions of dazai pretend that they dont care for whatever reasons, hiding that they actually do, that they're human in a way too

again, i think u do have a point, and agree with the 'he is the task now', his mission right now is to lean into the demon student persona rn if im not wrong (i very much may be bc ill have to jog my memory) and its unlike first year when he had to merely retrieve one of the wizarding worlds important artifact thingys. this time he is his mission. he needs to act like yhe demon student everyone believes he is, and in mori's eyes it should be easy enough for someone like him, and dazai knows that, and that puts pressure on him bc of how he thinks the wizarding world is pretty different from yokohama and the pm. and the demon student is supposed to be uncaring. since he has to lean into that image, he has to be uncaring, or attempt or pretend to be. leading to his self-destructive tendencies. but he tries to do this in a subtle way i think so that the gang doesnt suspect

I honestly have no idea whatsoever where im going with this or even if im going anywhere bc my thoughts r scrambled 😭😭😭 but your interpretation is pretty interesting and has valid points! thank u for rambling and sharing ur thoughts with me omg <3

[elftwink]

finished reading lightlark yesterday. ben-affleck-smoking.jpg

i want to complain but there's so much that i genuinely dont know where i would even start. got out the second book from the library because i was curious to see if it was any different since it had been published after the criticisms of the first book were published and i quit after 3 pages because this time I already know nothing will change. if you describe most stories as being woven, this novel was fraying and coming unravelled. loose plot threads everywhere and it only became more obvious it would not come together.

words cannot describe how fucking irritating, presumptuous, needlessly stubborn, and flip-floppy the main character is. if you're asking how she can both be stubborn and change her opinion on a dime it's because no matter what her opinion is she believes in it 100000% and will not ever let up on it UNTIL some stupid ass plot contrivance happens and suddenly she believes the opposite thing with equal enthusiasm but without any actual character reason. girlie acts suspicious of everyone all the time and is somehow STILL betrayed like FOUR TIMES??? her stubbornness is I think meant to be a character trait (or flaw, idk) but due to the way the world is so fucking undetailed and the characters only act because the plot requires it (because they are paper thin and have no motivations. Isla also has no motivations or agency its just harder to spot because she keeps telling you in her narration that she has sooo many motivations omg she's so complex... ok well then can ms. complexity like do ANYTHING other than follow other people's plans???) it comes across as though obstinate stubbornness simply is the correct way to act because of how the plot bends itself to make isla's stupid assumptions correct. shes never incentivized to change her behaviour nor is it challenged in any substantial way (one characters calls out her stubbornness but it's clearly meant to be part of a cute bicker back and forth to build the romance. it isn't cute it comes across as though they dislike each other. when they end up together the characters also seem confused. wow what a great romance where neither party is quite sure why they like each other. ok)

and I want to be clear I have no problem with stubborn characters, nor do I think all characters need an arc to be less stubborn. but it's so poorly written it seems even the author, hell, even the character herself, has NO IDEA why she is acting this way other than that she is a stubborn person. no thought is given to why people are stubborn or how being stubborn (and needlessly antagonistic) will impact your interpersonal relationships. there is no consequence, by which I mean there is no causal link between the events of the plot, the facts of the world, and the way people behave. at all. this book was a series of events, none of which ever connected together in any meaningful or even slightly clever way. the plot twist comes out of left field but you can guess it several pages in advance of the reveal because of how hamfisted it is so it starts to feel like isla is just stupid or pretending to be stupid because there's no other reason she should not be able to see this coming because of how spelled out it is (I mean, aster clearly thinks her readers are stupid enough to need that kind of spoonfeeding, but in her defense I suppose you need to spoonfeed is you refuse to lay any fucking groundwork or do properly paced foreshadowing)

Isla is a characters whose internal monologue tells you all about how skilled and talented and independent and strong willed she is, all the while following orders from anyone who gives them with only a snarky quip to try to cover the cognitive dissonance produced by the lack of agency Isla actually has vs the amount she tells you she has. Isla barely passes the sexy lamp test, and the only reason she does is because sexy lamps can't be injured dramatically. also the other women basically exist exclusively so isla can be #notlikeothergirls, and by the end of the book all the other female main characters end up being evil anyway. maybe this kind of shitty faux feminism would have been compelling 10 years ago, but this was published in 2022(?I think). what the hell is this

can't even get into the worldbuilding because it would require another 17 paragraphs. soulmate pov tiktoks have more consequential worldbuilding than lightlark

[egg-emperor]

Your analysis has been really interesting to read through, but ngl the whole mess around text interpretation has led me to ruminate on the fandom's doings a little. This probably will turn into disjointed ramblings, so please bear with me.

What I think is causing this cognitive dissonance is exactly that cutesy framing of some of Eggman and Sage's moments. Like, I don't believe that Sage was intentionally made to soften Eggman up or something, I believe that he can play the "family" act to keep her loyal to him. However, I won't deny that during my watch of a friend playing it, this specific framing left a slightly weird aftertaste, which I now see is what can easily cause so many misinterpretations of the scenes. Like, for example, the memo with Sage's pronouns. After seeing a lot of talk around the memos in general, what seems to throw people off from thinking that Eggman could be just using this as yet another play into her view of him as her father to keep her loyal is "why does he suddenly care about endearing himself to his own creation when he freely disregarded his previous creations". It can be interpreted in character, but there's just a smidge of off-ness that can be hard to wash out for some.

Not gonna lie, I kinda envy the ability of people like to at least mostly ignore the majority of the fandom's shenanigans and drama, cause I think that also plays a part imo, specifically this weird need to somehow ingratiate Sonic as a series to the mainstream, generally non-fan crowd. Like, the onus obviously should be on the people who misinterpret the text and see what's not there, yet these people also tend to be the loudest. And most non-fans seeing it just assume that's what the fandom as a whole thinks, and that's what the text actually is about. After all, nowadays Sonic is all but advertised as "its a kids game for babies so don't think about the story too much, it doesnt make sense in the end anyway", even by fans trying to genuinely recommend the series sometimes. And you'd think that there'd be pushback against this sort of mentality, but somehow, a majority of the Sonic fandom remains almost... defeatist? Like, either they can't argue to save their lives or just passively accept the misinformation. The people actually doing the analysis and all get disregarded as no-life nerds and are told that "no amount of analysis can make a product worth the money".

It's just... I dunno how or why or when it all started going like this, but at some point, the way people talked about media in general just caused immensely screwed. Discussions only seem to happen when someone wants to further validate their pre-established biases about a thing and it all just feels wrong.

Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to read and consider my analysis.

We seem to feel quite similarly. I'm not a fan of the cutesy framing of certain moments because it's not my thing and definitely makes it easier for fans to misinterpret. The casual fan, especially if they don't catch all context in the memos and apply them to the scenes to notice the undertones and understand Eggman's side of the dynamic, or if they're the kind who that stuff can appeal to and affect emotionally/they'd rather ignore the more unsettling aspects in discomfort, they're going to get it wrong.

I think the cutscenes mostly have the issue of focusing too much on Sage's side of the dynamic over Eggman's. A bunch of most important details of Eggman's side comes from the memos, which is great from the standpoint of being right from his personal perspective and words, so we get to know exactly how he thinks and feels- but not so great for those who won't listen or piece together what they learned from them with the scenes for needed context.

But Sage wasn't supposed to soften Eggman up. In the story he's still a bad guy wanting to do bad, wishing he could get out of Cyber Space to, and Sage appeals because of what she can do for him, how she's crucial to his survival, supports his desire for world domination and shows undying loyalty. The way some moments are framed as cute doesn't take away from it, a unhealthy dynamic can appear as cute and wholesome with unsettling undertones.

Ian Flynn pretty much describes it that way by saying you're supposed to feel happy for Sage but Eggman is a bad person and warming up to it for all the wrong reasons. It's intentionally more complex than what the loudest people who love and hate it are saying. I can see what Flynn means because all the pieces are there in the actual game for me to point out and analyze. They just could've been emphasized a bit more.

All you need is the memo where he talks about liking how Sage is loyal and efficient and accepting the father role because it can emphasize his genius and the pride he can take as her creator, then apply it to every interaction and you can see it. Eggman can play the act to appeal to Sage's desire for that dynamic and praise her actions as a way to further encourage her for her loyalty and efficiency, all for those selfish benefits.

It's how manipulation works and Eggman absolutely can and will play up the part with these conditions for the benefits, he's done similarly in the past. It's intentionally not done in the common verbal and physical abns!ve way like he does most commonly with his other creations, it's more emotionally manipulative. It makes the most sense for how he wants to further encourage her good work and loyalty, not lose it.

I can get why you felt that way. It's part of why I had the wrong idea of Frontiers Eggman's at first and it ruined my first experience playing it. The cute framing of certain moments, combined with fans taking these scenes and latching onto the misinterpretations from the moment it dropped and drilling into your head how they think we should think and feel while ignoring key details that disprove it, made me believe it for too long.

But had I not seen the misinterpretation and paid attention and did my usual analysis, which I closed my mind to in my first playthrough in ignorance, I would've caught on a lot faster. Just like how knowing what I know now after properly analyzing it then going into Final Horizon and avoiding what fandom was saying, made my experience more pleasant and let me think and interpret for myself. The fandom is still mostly to blame.

Yeah, the cute moments can give the wrong idea when you don't have all the context. But the context is in the game to piece together and understand why it's happening in a way that works for Eggman's character. I also think while he is of course playing the act, it's also framed cute as it is because we're seeing it more from Sage's side in the scenes, as it's a very different vibe in the memos where it's actually Eggman's side.

Maybe always being able to see the worst in Eggman (positively and affectionately lol 🥰💜) helps but I only see the memos as unsettling now. His creation starts to appear as more of a person to him so he thinks about how he can use it to his benefit by taking pride in his impressive scientific ability to create something so life-like as an artificial creation over the unimpressive traditional organic way he scoffs at and expresses aversion to.

He says if he created life it'd be "loyal and perfectly effective", which is fucked up thing to look for in your child, and says it's specifically because he's the genius creator/father, giving himself all credit and taking pride in her accomplishments as a reflection of his genius. It's selfish, egotistical, creepy, everything a parent shouldn't do. I can see what makes it unsettling in all his words. So many things are wrong with him I love it 😋💘

I really don't have much of an issue with that memo. It's one of the most misinterpreted but it's simply where he starts to realize that almost the whole time he's been calling her a "she" instead of an "it" like the program she was created to be. He actually starts just five after first mentioning her, in memo 13. He subconsciously sees her as a person and refers to her like such that fast due to how human and life-like she is.

Three memos after he's like wait why am I calling it a she? And wonders whether to call her an it like the program she was created to be or a she like he's seeing her as instead. Then another three after comes the disturbing memo about him creating life, so him establishing whether he's going to call her "she" or not leads to him thinking about how he can take pride and credit in her by establishing himself as her genius creator/father.

It's another of those cases where if context is removed it's more likely for people to get the wrong idea, especially if they're the type to be blinded by the cuteness factor but when you have the context of before and after and considering the important terms of why he values her at all with the she's an impressive life-like loyal and efficient creation and her dad is a genius memo, again it makes sense and is in character.

The "she's the best" line is one of the only parts I'd change, he's far too egotistical to say that about anyone else. It doesn't make sense because the whole reason he values her is what she does for him and the pride he can take in her, literally because he sees himself as the best person ever lol. Just specifying what she's the best of, like of his creations or something would've worked, not making it sound like he's saying in general.

But guess what? Apparently it was changed in Japanese in the translation I saw, to say she was just doing great or something lol. It's a case where I can make sense of it in English as her being the best in a specific area can again give himself credit as the creator as he's intentionally supposed to but the word choice was poor. But every time I felt a line should've been changed a bit, the Japanese version had me covered. XD

Back to the point- it's also important to consider that he's praising her in this memo with the important preface of saying that Sage has been crucial to his survival in Cyber Space and listing the ways she has served him well. It's on the condition of him getting something out of it every time. And in memo 19 we know he wants to take pride in her skill and accomplishments and take credit as her creator, so any praise is self praise.

So I can't be mad at the game, I think even in moments that had some level of cuteness factor to appeal to those into that which certainly worked on them, there was established context that made it work and in character, enough to piece it together and understand it. But some people's minds go blank with the "aww so cute" reaction and desire for it to be simply pure and wholesome so they don't think about it any more to do so.

I've been learning to avoid it just by stepping back from fandom because I'm less interested the more I see the drama and bad takes. Now I only see things if I'm forcibly subjected through someone else putting it on my dash/it's recommended/etc. A large majority of fandom is anti canon and literally admit it so I feel like I don't belong in it as a huge fan of it that enjoys celebrating it in my fan creations and discussions.

It suffers from the simplification and sanitization that modern fandom tends to do now, so they can fit all characters and stories into certain boxes and use them as bases to project fan character traits and concepts onto instead of celebrating canon. It makes it more appealing and mainstream and easier to consume by the crowd that stuff succeeds in appealing to. It's to the point it replaces people's memory/idea of it.

So of course from the outside looking in especially, non fans are going to believe that's what the text actually contains, especially since they get exposure to the fandom's twisting of canon and it's drilled into their heads how to think and feel about it by them, before they've even seen the games themselves. Then they find it hard to shut that out and look at the games alone for what they are. That happened to me with Frontiers.

Then of course you have people acting like the series "is just for babies and inconsistent and not good anyway you shouldn't think too hard about it", as if Sega JP especially haven't shown themselves to be incredibly passionate about the stories and characters they write. It is supposed to be that deep lol. And thinking that deeply is a good thing, as if it's better than just shutting our minds off and consume product.

That's why I've allowed myself to think as deeply as I want about Frontiers. I love analyzing every moment and line down to the last word and detail. Regardless of opinion on the concepts and how they were executed, it was intended to be thought about. I don't think it should be considered micro analyzing and thinking too hard about something ever. I'm looking at it in ways official writers have described it to be anyway.

The mentality is popular so there isn't much pushback. Plus I'm starting to see it in both people who say they don't like the games and those who say they're fans so I feel alienated for wanting to think deeper and seeing there can be more than meets the eye with characters and scenes. While clarification can be important so things aren't misinterpreted quite as easily, it's nice for there to be stuff to think about.

Nobody really wants to debate and discuss now. A majority intentionally oppose learning more about the media or hearing out other people. They take the challenging of one's perspective or a disagreement as an argument and act like it's intended as hate from the other person when that's not the case. They're like "I don't want to change my opinion, nobody can convince me, let me enjoy things how I want", etc.

I myself was a bit ignorant at first on the topic of Frontiers. I was convinced I didn't like Eggman's portrayal but it was all based on what fandom was telling me it was and how to feel when the actual game was actually way different. When I finally took suggestions of new perspectives, then shut fandom out and focused solely on canon with my mind open and willing to analyze it again, I saw it in a new light and enjoyed it.

Now some certainly think I'm a low life nerd, as I've been told "it's nice to be a fan until it "becomes serious" and by people saying they don't care what I have to say as if I have to do exactly what they want- because it's bad to be passionate and wanting to think deeply about something I guess. :P I'd rather be doing that than shutting it down. Canon is cool, analysis is good, being passionate and thinking about stuff is fun.

You really hit the nail on the head with that. I've always enjoyed being open minded, analyzing media carefully, hearing out different perspectives, and having discussions. But I made the mistake myself at one point with Frontiers and I regret it because as soon as I realized I almost became what I was against and changed it for the better, it became a lot more enjoyable again. It's always good to stay open minded!