#highlights of the discourse

[mofsblog]

"This is some gay shit" Good. Silly. Fair enough. Doesn't inherently invalidate other interpretations of the relationship. Honestly yeah, it is kind of gay regardless of their canonical relationship status

"There's literally no platonic explanation for th-" WRONG!! KILLING YOU WITH AMATANORMATIVITY KILLING LOBSTERS 🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

whenever i say that a character needs therapy and healing before they start a relationship, people jump at my throat and assume that i'm saying that people with mental health issues shouldn't date at all or that they're not deserving of love.

folks. i have bipolar type 2. i'm also a psychology major. trust me when i say that i never said people with mental health issues shouldn't date at all.

i just think that it's a lot healthier to get into a committed relationship once you've started therapy and/or medication. no one is stopping you from getting into a relationship before that, but there is a higher chance of the relationship turning unhealthy and/or complicated. not just for your partner but for yourself as well.

and there are other relationships that people can and should focus on. i would never recommend an individual completely isolate themselves because they're mentally ill. that's the opposite of effective, it will only worsen your mental health.

romantic relationships aren't the only form of love. and when a person focuses solely on their romantic relationship, pushing aside their familial and platonic relationships, there's a higher chance of the person becoming overly dependent on their partner, which can again be unhealthy.

and keep in mind, my criticism is also more from a fictional perspective. stories that ignore a character's trauma and just give them a romantic partner aren't trying to tell you that people with mental health issues deserve love too, they're trying to brush the character's trauma under the rug and hoping that you won't notice.

a lot of these writers seem to genuinely think that romance will “cure” a character, and that's such a harmful mindset because it discourages people from seeking professional help. it's the same logic as thinking that birthing a child will solve relationship problems between a couple - that's just not how it works.

and in cases like catra, it's even worse because catra is not just dating anyone, she's dating the same person she has abused since childhood. this is destructive for both of them, not just adora. we have to realize that toxicity often stems from some kind of trauma (though not always) and it's not ableist to say that an abuser shouldn't be dating their victim.

one good example of a relationship involving a victim of trauma, in my opinion, is steven and connie from steven universe.

steven universe future focuses entirely on steven's deteriorating mental health, caused by all the trauma he endured in the original series. but in the end, after experiencing a mental breakdown, he actually seeks professional help before beginning to date connie.

it must also be mentioned that their relationship had great development since their friendship was already quite healthy and mutually supportive, and connie has been with steven through all his highs and lows. and so, it doesn't feel like this relationship came out of nowhere, just so that steven gets a happy ending.

it's a satisfying conclusion to both of their arcs and even better because they're allowed to stay away from each other and pursue their own goals while still being in a relationship, meaning that there won't be the risk of them becoming codependent.

this is all that i'm asking writers do with their characters with mental health issues/trauma. you can give them a romantic partner, just make sure you address their personal problems too, instead of brushing them under the rug.

[glitter-stained]

Still so mad that Mia's official Speedy suits didn't let her keep her wide pant legs, like come on that's such an integral part of her look

Like, I'm sorry, but putting aside that I have a very obvious favourite Mia artist, those:

Will never have the same oomf as this one:

Anyway Mia's always wearing wide pants as a civilian and I love the shapes when she jumps and does flips in them it's so cool she deserved to have them in her hero suit thank you for coming to my ted talk

[xxx-theartofsuicide-xxx]

This, ladies and germs, is what we call an emotional bias. This argument is worthless because it hinges on the personal disgust of the author while lobbing ad hominems at anyone who disagrees with them. Only surface level plot analysis is utilized to support the claims made therein, and no attempt is made to either acknowledge or invalidate all evidence to the contrary, which is bountiful and plenty.

This is the only type of argument you will ever see from antis. Civil debate is beyond their scope.

Reposting with a screenshot rather than a reblog because I'm happy to let OP hang out in the rain with the plastic cows.

Edit: I just noticed they had the audacity to put this in Winona's tag. Disrespectful. Ungrateful.

[beanghostprincess]

I mean… wlw content get overshadowed by mlm ships everyday so it is insensitive a little

Not to sound too mean but what do you expect me to do? I get that sapphic ships get overshadowed and underrated all the time in comparison to achillean ones. Believe me. I am a lesbian who is constantly pushing their sapphic ships everywhere.

But you can't expect people to suddenly stop posting about the achillean ships they enjoy just because they're more popular than YOUR favorite ships. Is it bothersome that achillean ships get more attention for the sole reason of being a male pairing while sapphic ships get ignored or not even suggested? Yeah!!!! It's frustrating.

But if you want some change in the amount of content you see then it's YOUR fight only and others should be allowed to post whatever they like. If you want to post only sapphic ships or you're bothered by them being talked in the same light as achillean ones, then it's YOUR choice to make.

Fandom is NOT activism!!! Fandom is meant to be enjoyed in whatever way you want. Fandom is to interpret media in your own way. So, honestly, if I want to make a simple post comparing two ships I like, why should I be trying to defend myself here for that? If people don't like it, then they can just block me, scroll, move on, etc.

To think a post about comparing fictional ships is insensitive is insane to me, tbh.

[fadewalking]

@ anon i am not going to post that ask because you name drop literally every single person even tangentially involved in this and none of those people agreed to be directly mentioned on my blog. I have no interest in facilitating any of my followers to harass anyone involved here, so I think it's best we stop pointing the spotlight at specific people who never willingly stepped forward on my blog.

But i will respond here, and this is the last anonymous message about this im going to respond to because we all really need to move on. So if you want to continue talking about this, you can, again, say it with your whole fucking chest in dms, and not cower behind anon.

"bro, the original post about the vallaslin had you blocked for at least 2 months. he doesn't even know you personally. he did have the decency to block you when you made him uncomfortable months ago too." im not sure how this is relevant to anything being discussed tbh. Of course he doesn't know me personally. that's like... 99% of tumblr mutuals? that's how social media and the internet works. you and i are talking right now and we don't know each other personally. and yeah he had me softblocked since a while ago, im not sure what that has to do with anything. Some friends sent me the og post bc it made them uncomfortable, so I offered my opinion to them in private. Then several more indigenous folk made public comments about it, and i offered an extremely vague, broad opinion that we shouldn't try to force people into agreeing with us. that's all I did lmfao.

"what you're doing to him... and other indigenous folx in the darpc is wrong and i hope you can realize it." Omitted all those names you mentioned. Again, originally all i said was don't try to force people into agreeing with you. A stance which, not for nothing, several other indigenous people endorsed. There is no world in which saying that is doing anyone wrong. That would have been the total end of my statement on the matter btw, had gcldfang not decided it was a good idea to send me anons.

"i saw you support a post from user [name omitted] (now conveniently deleted) that said everyone could do whatever wanted with dalish characters and it would not be racist. to me? that post and your reaction comes off as weaponizing your own identities against other indigenous people to excuse your white friends and make them feel better for participating in racism." So there are two different sentiments at play here. We could say "muns who feel that vallaslin is bad and slave markings are perpetuating racism." and/or we could say "Elves in the game who feel that vallalsin is bad and slave markings are perpetuating racism." both of these statements are kinda problematic but this one is more problematic than the other. It seems like you're saying the latter thing right now, idk whether you would agree with both statements or not, but it seems like right now you're only saying the latter.

But it strikes me as really ironic that you can't see the hypocrisy in saying things like "you can't tell me how to feel about my own culture" and in the same breath saying "your elf cant feel this way about their own culture, or it's racist." there are very clearly at least two canonical perspectives of the Evanuris. One as benevolent creators, and one as tyrannical slavers. It is canon that the Evanuris enslaved people. did some of them willingly serve? Of course. But it's canon, still, that there were slaves, and that perspective is offered by more people than just Solas. It just isn't racist for Elves to feel whatever type of way they feel about learning about that aspect of their culture. It's their culture. You can't tell them how to feel about their own culture.

This has pretty much been my and everyone else's point. Saying "if you think this way, that's racist." is not a good thing to say when it blatantly dismisses both in-game character's valid feeling about their own culture, and other irl cultural perspectives from real people. It's been mentioned by multiple people that facial tattoos have been used for a variety of purposes in other real cultures that were also used to inspire the portrayal of Elves in the game. I'm going to quote someone who sent me a message about this, who has already said it: "no one disagreed that the devs using the vallaslin the way they did was a poor choice. while it's true there have been cultures in history that did use facial tattoos for slaves, it's still an insensitive decision! and NO ONE disagreed with that! but from what I saw, you and roughly 4-5 other indigenous people, as well as several other writers, some white, some white and Otherwise marginalized, and some poc of other sorts were saying: 'hey. we get what you're trying to say here, but saying that your culture's perspective is the only correct/non-racist one is not good and not okay. it silences people of other cultures who see their cultures in these characters. yes the devs were racist and careless but that doesn't mean that erasing the other cultures that contributed is ok, and doesn't mean that you get to tell people of those cultures that their interpretations are inherently Less than yours'. Because that is how that original post read."

What that person pointed out is the "railroading" that i've been talking about. It's one thing to say something like "I and my characters all feel that the evanuris were actually gods and that Vallaslin is a good thing because im upset with the bastardization/villanization of how my culture was used to inspire these things in the elves." and it's a different thing to say "And if you and your characters don't agree with my perspective then you're racist/perpetuating racism, too." because that one cultural perspective isn't the only one that exists. Other cultures have their own perspectives and experiences with facial markings, and those matter, too. And yet even still, we have only ever acknowledged and agreed that the choice for Vallaslin to be used as a symbol for enslavement in the game is racially problematic.

"It feels like you punching down on other indigenous people for protesting their mistreatment. that is why people are blocking you. you are vagueposting about a vaguepost." my criticism of other indigenous people, as an indigenous person, is not punching down. That's not what it means to punch down. Nor did I ever say that they can't or shouldn't protest their mistreatment.

"i understand you like solas. i enjoy the egg too but equating the vallaslin with slave markings is racist. speaking from experience: the stigma against indigenous facial tattooing is a product of systemic racism and colonialism. what the characters say in dragon age is sadly impacted by the writers being racist: this is a fact. also people are allowed to be uncomfortable with your fave being a vessel for developer bias." I think it's a mistake to involve Solas in this conversation, honestly. but alright. Given Solas' experiences, and his own personal perspective, he is justified to feel the way he does about his own culture. That isn't racist. Especially considering that, in canon, the Evanuris did enslave people. But that's the fiction. In real life, again, as it's been pointed out, facial tattooing has been used for a variety of different purposes across multiple different cultures. Some were positive, some weren't. I agree that in western society, as a whole, there is stigma against indigenous facial tattooing that is a product of systemic racism and colonialism.

The characters in dragon age exist within the context of the fiction of their world, which has been influenced by a multicultural mix of real world identities. There is no one correct interpretation of their facial tattoos. Neither in the game or irl, because of the fact that multiple cultures were used as inspo for the Elves. You can't insinuate that the perspective of other real world cultures is racist, which is what it seems like you're doing. The world isn't black and white. Indigenous people are not a monolith. People are allowed to be uncomfortable with vallaslin based both on what it represents within in the fictional context of the game and how facial markings have been used within their own real world cultures. Every character in the game, not just Solas, is a vessel for developer bias. That's how bias works, it's inescapable. I've never said that people aren't allowed to dislike him. But it's curious to me how it's only ever Solas who gets hounded for his perspective and not anyone else who is equally as guilty of developer bias or blatant bigotry.

"coming from a tattooed inuit: don't you dare tell me how to feel about my culture being portrayed in a bad light." I'm not. Nowhere did I ever try to say you or anyone else can't how you feel. In fact, i've only ever said the exact opposite of this. We are all allowed to feel how we feel.

"don't tell me not to be pissed off at the way bioware handled things regarding vallaslin. the discrimination the dalish receive is exactly what i deal with everyday." I'm not. I have only ever agreed that it was wrong of bioware to handle Vallaslin the way they did.

And i've said that blatantly more times than I care to count atp. You and everyone else are right to feel whatever you feel about it, and Vallaslin should never have been used as a symbol of oppression in the game. But you just can't tell other people how to feel about it. It really is simply just that.

[dxxtruction]

Do you think - all speculation here but let's indulge a bit anyway - do you think, from Armand's perspective when he's in all likelihood just heard Daniel voice his complaints and beg to be turned into a replacement for all Louis' lost, that that could be a part of his choice to then come in when Louis' on his neck? That a part of him was thinking... even if Louis is angry in the moment... that Louis would inevitably do it? (He could, at least?)

He kept him alive all this time. He'd shared with him things he never shares. It's morning and he'd still kept his attention. He's special, Armand knows without needing to hear it out of Louis' mouth.

And like, from his perspective does he see this replacement as the last thing Louis needs? Considering how well filling a void by making another vampire had turned out for him the first time. How he'd been filling a seemingly un-fillable void as it is. How he's unstable, and not in the right mind to be taking on such a responsibility. How it's a bad idea doomed to fail, only a more disastrous mess to clean up in the end if he doesn't stop this now. Or, maybe let's say he's only at all concerned with himself, Armand has many selfish reasons to want Louis to move on. So, he at least finds Daniel, the potential of Daniel, to be a threat because of what he'd be replacing - leading to Daniel as this wedge between something that was already splitting hairs as it was. Maybe it's a bit of both, and either way, whether it's a success or not Daniel poses something Armand can't handle.

Anyway it'll be interesting to see how, or if, they bridge the initial feelings towards Daniel on Armand's part with the Daniel we have now. Cause there's a lot of questions there. There's a strange sense of fondness towards him? At least this is something I'm seeing in their interactions so far.

[dindjarindiaries]

Every year with every new season, all the chatter about whether Pedro will be on set for The Mandalorian or not returns. The only season this wasn't a problem for was season 2, and still, a rumor about him being a "behind-the-scenes diva" still caused gossip to fly around.

Trust me, it happens every time, and every time it's proven wrong. Pedro shows he's just as committed to the role, that he loves it just as much, and that sometimes it's simply a matter of what they work out for the scheduling or for the sake of his own physical body.

It's totally okay to be upset about Pedro not being in the suit that much, all feelings about it are valid, of course! It definitely adds a charm that was evident in many season 2 scenes. Din, however, has so far been someone else in the suit probably 75% of the time - and that's the Din we continue to know and love to this day, too. Thus, the story and character wouldn't be impacted by Pedro's absence alone.

For some reason, it seems people want to specifically discredit Pedro's contribution to the role, but that doesn't make sense. It's the same as Darth Vader has been ever since the beginning, but Pedro's been given an even more active role in it. Even for Vader's return in Obi-Wan Kenobi, Hayden wasn't the one in the suit for every single scene. Katee also spoke about how Bo-Katan isn't always her, too. The same goes for Din and Pedro.

Season 3 didn't feel the same because it was a darker tone, and it focused on more than just Din and Grogu. It had a lot to accomplish, and in doing so, it had to sacrifice some of the things that are most beloved about the series. You can agree with that decision and love it, or you can not agree and consider season 3 a miss. Either way, it wasn't any of the actors' faults, as season 1 proved that Din Djarin is just fine without Pedro physically there at all times.

Din Djarin has been a three-person team since the beginning. The things these actors can control about Din's character will be just fine in their hands. The blame for the way a story goes, as was the case in season 3, doesn't deserve to go to any of them.

It's hard to drown out the noise about this situation for every season, and trust me, I've been in this fandom long enough to know that - but a lot of what's said about Pedro seems to be, for some odd reason, many people wanting him to fail, and he won't.

[kawaiifacesong]

I'm just writing to sort out my feelings on the matter.

I've seen it said that the discourse around wanting to keep male friends platonic is "homophobic". I do think that the idea of two men being "unable to be friends anymore" has that flavour.

But for me the issue is that the male loneliness epidemic is a real thing, and it is indeed born from homophobia. Because at the end of the day, it's all about signalling. The common theory around the male gaze and fetishization of female sexualities (particularly w|w relationships) is to signal their heterosexuality. To signal otherwise would be to invite prejudice.

And many media male friendships have historically been given this flavour. Hence, the common refrain that platonic male relationships have often been marked by toxic masculinity, to signal that they could never be else but platonic. The other signal, of course, is outright homophobia from the characters themselves (as we all know from the age-old trope of closeted guys being the most prejudicial).

I do think that's lessened today, and we are seeing more platonic male friendships which don't have these homophobic or sexist markers. But it's no less important to showcase even if it is more common. Because at the end of the day, some people are homophobic. That's a very unfortunate fact of life. Believe me, I feel a lot of rage and resentment about how society is constructed by and for straight people, but it's currently the reality of the situation.

And showcasing that men can be close, and can be seen to be platonic, without having to throw in toxic and homophobic "signals" that they could never display attraction to one another, is progress. Does it directly address homophobia? Maybe not. But it decimates a structure that is built on the foundation of homophobia. The assumption that two men can't be close without being attracted to one another is a platform that allows homophobia to thrive.

Especially when one of the pairing is bi/queer. That, to my knowledge, is actually pretty rare. And that's something RG has said a lot about, and which I think is a pretty good take. A platonic male friendship where two guys, one heterosexual and one queer, can remain close without it becoming romantic is great progress in my view.

I think it tells a lot of guys that it's fine to be close to other men without having to have that relationship centered on, or filtered through, "signalling" their heterosexuality. And even more so, that they can be close to queer men without people being "sus".

The homophobia, as I see it, is in thinking that there is anything wrong with two men falling in love at all, friends or not, straight or queer, but (again) that's just a fact of life. We work in the system we have, not in the system we want.

If people think a "straight" man coming out as queer and falling in love with another "straight" guy who just came out as bi addresses the issue of the male loneliness epidemic or male friendships, I would say you are just plain wrong.

That sort of story is really about queer people and for queer people. And there's a lot of value in that. But at the end of the day, it's just another love story really. Nothing that hasn't really been seen before.

But it absolutely doesn't address platonic male friendships. At best, straight guys who need that "lesson" will just ignore it. Because it doesn't apply to them given it's not actually about straight guys.

At worst, they will see it as confirmation that having any kind of close friendship with another man, especially a queer man, will be taken as a "signal" about their sexuality, and probably not a signal that reflects how they actually identify.

[pb-dot]

It occurred to me that I've been posting a lot about Kendrick's halftime show without linking the whole thing, which is an unforced error on my part. The Not Like Us part gets a lot of attention, and rightfully so but wow the other stuff is cool too. The scene show is astounding, and the build-up to Not Like Us is powerful. Kendrick knew he had a cultural moment on his hands and he put the work in.

[fadewalking]

[Ok, I'll bite- How is saying "Hey, this is actually perpetuating racist ideas made by White ppl who created this media and it should stop" 'sucking up to the White man'? Are you okay?]

Are you lost? 😭 where in the world did I say the words "Sucking up to the white man?" That sentence has never left my fingertips, nor was it ever even implied. If that's what you think I said at any point, I encourage you to give whatever it was a second read, because you have critically failed to understand what I was saying, to the point you are literally inventing things.

Anyway, I've already stated what the problem is. And so has everyone else at this point. How is it that you're this deep in and you're only just now "biting" to consider the disagreeing perspective? And you're not even doing it in good faith.

I cannot put it more simply than I did in my original post. But I will try, by restating it in a hopefully easier to understand way: I think attempting to railroad different perspectives into agreeing with your point of view is narrow-minded and dismissive of other cultural perspectives that were used to inspire Elvhen culture. It wasn't just one. It was many.

Plainly, nowhere did I try to assert that racism in Dragon Age didn't exist, and nowhere did I assert that white people shouldn't stop being racist.

[ringneckedpheasant]

mr greg is Such an episode. we were eating so good w these songs

[justwant2bsound]

fell in the trap of wondering why Beyoncé won album of the year and had to grab me by my shoulders and remind myself that nicki minaj hasn’t won a single grammy ever

[iamnmbr3]

Wow. Just saw a critique of a story that deals with the topic of ableism saying that it is ableist since it depicts the central character being persecuted because of a disability but never has any of the other characters say that the ableism is wrong.

Like the argument is literally that because the sympathetic main character is persecuted due to a disability but none of the other characters turn to the metaphorical camera and are like "oh this is actually ableist and bad" somehow the creator is condoning that behavior instead of critiquing it. Even though that CLEARLY was not the intent.

Critical thinking skills really are dead huh? When will people learn that depicting something is not the same as condoning it?!