#i can't believe this discourse is STILL happening

[vivziepoparchives]

Is there anything more about that blue fox from the Die Young amv that became the furry awakening for so many?

I should still have lots of JayJay art to post, but you can check her tag for what I already have if you're interested! If you're looking for more of a basic info overview, keep reading.

JayJay was originally named JiJi and she was a source of controversy for Viv because Viv didn't actually create JayJay. JayJay was a sparkle dog adopt that DollCreep purchased then redesigned. (I can't recall the original artist off the top of my head, unfortunately, and, if I'm remembering right, JiJi was purchased from someone who purchased her from the original artist before she even reached DollCreep.)

DollCreep, a friend of Viv's at the time, then sold JiJi to Viv who went on to use her in the infamous Die Young video. But there were disputes between the two about characters given or sold to Viv and where ownership laid. I'm not gonna get too into it, but in my personal opinion, this was just a case of not communicating the terms of sale well between friends. In the end, Viv renamed JiJi to JayJay and altered her design very slightly.

In terms of her purpose in Viv's Zoophbobia, she was supposed to show up in Book Two of the webcomic. Zoophobia didn't make it that far, though, so what we do know of her is mostly gleaned from Viv's art and posts about her.

She was part of a group of werewolf and canine characters Viv dubbed Party Dawgz in some posts and was close to the Queen of Werewolves. She's known for being a party animal, obviously, but cares about her packmates and friends deeply and just wants to have fun.

DollCreep also portrayed her as a party animal, but leaned into a more comedic and sexualized depiction of her. Viv tried to tone that part of her personality down a lot which was something she stated directly once.

I believe some more specific details of JayJay's story (such as her being a farm girl who got stuck as a werewolf) were changed along the way. But, in general, being a party animal is what has stuck with her the longest as her primary trait.

Fitting for a sparkle dog adopt.

Queen Bee from Helluva Boss is a big blaring neon throw back to JayJay and is probably near-identical in personality if you strip away the world-building specific aspects of both. Viv even referenced JayJay's original colors during Cotton Candy and obtained Kesha as her voice actress. So, in the end, this is where JayJay ended up in spirit.

Disclaimer: I was not around to witness the controversy of her ownership of JayJay in real time, but I have researched it for myself to reach my own conclusions about the situation. For me, it comes across as a messy falling out between friends, and I have sympathy for both sides.

As an archivist, I never want to shy away from the more controversial things that happened in Viv's history. But I also don't want a lot of discourse on this post about it, so I may block if I feel people are veering into overly aggressive and nonconstructive anti territory. Just try to be civil with any discussion if you want to avoid being blocked.

[joejhang]

anyone who says jinx is a better older sister than vi can fucking choke because they are so incomparable it's killing me. vi was a literal child when she took on both a sibling AND parent role towards powder. like hg was literally 15 years old. and despite her age and their shitty circumstances vi still did really fucking well as an older sister. she always protected and defended powder, always tried to do what was best for and by her, never downgraded her or made fun of her and always made sure to comfort and support her. everyone who says "vi abandoned her!" like do you know how stupid you sound. yes it wasn't right for vi to lash out the way that she did, but she was a teenage girl who just lost (another) parental figure (indirectly caused by her younger sister, no less) and who went thru some terrible trauma in the span of like...half an hour tops and even tho powder obv just wanted to help, it was partially her fault, so of fucking course vi would be upset and angry, she's literally grieving and trying to process all of that. and she literally retreated as soon as she came to her senses and realised she'd hurt powder. she didn't abandon her, she walked away to catch her breath, and kept powder within eyesight and as soon as she saw silco was going to run back to her but was forcibly stopped by marcus??? like she was literally fucking knocked out and arrested. she never left powder by choice and spent the next seven years living through hell on earth thinking about finding her sister again. "jinx is a better older sister than vi" OR she's an actual adult who's had a good role model for an older sister/parental figure and also just has an entirely different personality and entirely different bond with isha than vi and powder had??? jfc arcane fandom makes me wanna tear my hair out sometimes.

[the-far-bright-center]

It's baffling to me that a certain subset of the SW fandom is willing to accept some of TCW’s most ridiculous story arcs and blatantly OOC characterisations as literal canon, but then pretend that they 'can't believe' that Padme could possibly fall for Anakin in the actual Prequels films.

Really? You can believe that space-godzilla goes on a rampage and destroys a sector of Coruscant, that several of the main characters are kept as slaves by an evil cat-queen, that Obi-Wan fakes his own death (complete with a pretend funeral) and callously traumatises everyone who cares about him in the process, and that Maul somehow survives TPM and is at one point a ROBOTIC SPIDER ...

... but you can't believe that two child prodigies who formed a bond while mutually aiding one another can meet again years later under intensely emotional circumstances during the outbreak of a galactic war and legitimately fall in love with each other and get married?

Really???

[molesamole]

Guys can we not send asks to people harrassing them about being disappointed, and the same to the other side, please???? 😁😁😁

[britneyshakespeare]

I feel like certain people on Tumblr have really been fighting for backwards progress when it comes to how we talk about mental illness and abuse. I see posts at least several times a week on my dash that seem to have the purpose of implying people with insert-mental-illness and/or insert-symptom are not abusive when they do insert-action-that-makes-people-uncomfortable, often times meaning to promote a more positive image of people with particularly stigmatized conditions, like personality disorders, mood disorders, psychosis, addiction, or neurodivergence. And I really really hate it because these posts almost always have the ultimate purpose of telling people not just "This thing is not inherently abusive," but often it comes across as "You were not abused."

I just find that to be really unhelpful and unintentionally hurtful, and for what? I believe that destigmatizing various mental conditions is a worthy cause, but at the same time this type of rhetoric seems to be so protective of people in whichever stigmatized group they're trying to advocate for, that it comes back around to a sort of respectability politics. Anybody can be an abuser. And someone's means and methods of abusing can very much be influenced by a condition they have. Why wouldn't it be? Their conditions will affect every aspect of their life and their interpersonal relationships. Especially if these issues are going untreated or being insufficiently managed. I don't understand why anyone would want to make it appear as if abusers are mostly neurotypical and mentally well people, or that if they aren't, then their conditions have nothing to do with it and the overlap is merely incidental. What? It makes it so hard for anyone who is a victim to come to terms and identify the dynamics of what they've gone through.

Addicts and mentally ill people don't have to be unproblematic in order to be humanized and accepted. And nobody profits from writing hard and fast rules about how abuse apparently works, drawing clear lines between which behaviors can, and cannot, ever be abuse.

[electroniccollectiondonut]

okay my take on this whole titanic sub thing is. was paying 250k to get into the death tube a stupid decision motivated entirely by wealth? probably! does that make it okay for us to be celebrating the likely horrific deaths of these people who did not do anything wrong? no! what the fuck is wrong with you!

[ingravinoveritas]

yankeedoodle242 replied to your post “David being sold to Michael Sheen on The Last Leg...”

Oh. My. God. I cannot believe this is real & it for really real was on tv 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I have watched this a few (dozen, let’s be honest) times since last Friday, and I still can’t believe it, either. I think one thing we haven’t been talking about enough is that this was live. So, the bit itself was obviously planned, and Michael calling in was planned (whether or not David knew about it), but for all we know, Michael saying he’s going to keep David in his basement was ad-libbed. If that is the case, that means Michael specifically chose to say that--without any prompting--on live TV.

And David’s reaction to that--and to finding out that Michael bought him--was the most beautiful, most completely genuine smile you could ever hope to see:

As I’ve said many times before, I will never demand that anyone ship Michael and David if that’s not their thing, even though I ship them to the ends of the Earth and back. But at this point, and after everything that’s happened over the last three/nearly four years, I think it’s safe to say that Michael and David definitely do not mind shipping themselves with each other, or have any problem with people knowing about it.

There’s nothing quite like national live television, is there...

[neroushalvaus]

There comes a point where "this writer seems to hate gay people so much" stops being good media criticism and starts being a sentence used to flatten every single gay character and storyline written by that writer

[soulfireblue]

i think all of blue is just a little guy actually. aypierre is in his thirties so we gotta give him support before he... you know...

Sorry someone thought up a defense strategy to block all the hate directed at tubbo today, and it was saying he’s youngest on server look at him your hurting a little guy. And it like actually helped straight up people were going oh hes so cute a precious I didn’t realize like??????? We should not have to infantize ccs to make people feel bad for sending hate like my goodness

[picturejasper20]

Another thing about Steven Universe as character (and the series) that has been mischaracterized over the course of the years and the source of a good chunk of discourse online is the relationship that Steven has with the Diamonds.

A lot of videos, posts and memes have spread around the idea that Steven went to Homeworld in the final arc of the series because he wanted to ¨be besties¨ with the Diamonds, when what happens in the actual show is very different.

In the episode "Legs from Here to Homeworld"-which takes place after the episode ¨Reunited¨ that Blue and Yellow Diamond find out that Rose Quartz was in fact Pink Diamond- Steven shows to Blue and Yellow one of the corrupted gems (Centipeetle) and helds them accountable for making a lot of gems end up this way and orders them to fix the mess they caused.

Steven: ¨Do it again! It was working!¨ Yellow Diamond: ¨How long do you expect us to hold her together?¨ Steven: ¨I don’t know. Forever! You did this! So you have to do something!¨

Seeing they need White Diamond to fix the corrupted gems, Steven thinks of going to gem Homeworld to see if he can talk to White about the corrupted gems and convince her to come to Earth and help them.

That's the main reason Steven goes to Homeworld- he doesn't like the Diamonds nor wants to be friends with them- he just wants to see if White Diamond can listen to him and help to heal the corrupted gems.

He is aware that the Diamonds listen to him because he himself is a Diamond-Pink Diamond. So he goes along with this little game pretending to be Pink thinking that way White Diamond and the others will listen to him. He believes that maybe as ¨Pink¨ he can make them see the errors of their ways and stop this mini war conflict that he has been caught on in the last few years.

Others have made more detailed analysis about this in the past, that a good part of this arc has a huge trans/queer metaphor for Steven's character- where he keeps being refered to and imposed an identity he doesn't see himself as. He gets called by the Diamonds and other homeworld gems as ¨Pink Diamond¨ and refered to as ¨She¨, when he often corrects and clarifies that he prefers to be called ¨Steven¨.

The final showdown against White Diamond is about this: White keeps trying to play mind games with Steven, making him believe that Pink/Rose is still alive in him and he is in fact Pink/Rose. Because Steven doesn't know this for certain, it proves to be effective for a while, making him feel very confused.

White believes that she is perfect in every way- it is what all her identity is about. She is obsessed with her own perfection so much that she doesn't allow herself to think that she has flaws nor she can't be wrong about something- and because she thinks she has to be perfect, that means that she is right about Pink Diamond still existing inside Steven.

The reality proves her wrong when she takes out Steven's gem and everyone sees that the gem part turns into Steven. As a way of metaphor to a trans allegory and self love, Steven sees that he has always been himself and he shouldn't let other people define what his identity should be, that only him should decide that.

So, in a way, the Diamonds Days arc is intended to be seen as a metaphor to a LGBT+ kid/teenager standing up against their relatives, grandmothers or aunts in this case- and prove them wrong about their identity, that they are what they are and their family can't change that.

Okay, so Steven proves the Diamonds that they are wrong, they change their minds and they help with healing the corrupted gems by the end of ¨Change Your Mind¨.

Does this means Steven becomes friends with them after this?

Well... no

In Steven Universe The Movie, during the song sequence ¨Lets Us Adore You¨ the Diamonds beg Steven to stay with them a bit longer because they miss having Pink around, Steven is seen very uncomfortable around them and wants to get out as quickly as possible to return to Earth.

He sees them as somewhat allies and tries to persuade them in different ways to improve the current situation on Homeworld but he doesn't seem to like them much and doesn't enjoy being around them even if they aren't acting antagonistic towards him anymore.

He has a similar reaction when they come to Earth near the end of the movie. He is very done with them and says that they staying to leave on Earth isn't a good idea on the long run. Instead he shows Spinel to them and Spinel sees this as an opportunity to make a new friend again.

Well, about SU Future? How does Steven feel about them in that series?

In Future is where Steven begins to show real strong PTSD trauma symptoms (something he has had for a while except it wasn't nearly as strong). He knows that he has a problem most of the show but he avoids going to ask the Diamonds for help because he just feels very uncomfortable around them and it reminds him of traumatic experiences he had with them in Diamonds Days arc.

He doesn't go to them until after he accidentally shatters Jasper in ¨Fragments¨ and sees himself as a monster because of this. He separates himself from the rest of the crystal gems, feeling like he is as terrible as the Diamonds were. In ¨Homeworld Bound¨ he interacts with the three Diamonds, asking them for any way they can help him with his powers.

Most of the episode he feels frustrated because A) He can't find a solution to his problem and B) Sees that the Diamonds and Spinel are doing pretty well and he has been getting worse. It makes him get more and more angry the more time he spends in there.

The scene that leaves pretty clear how he feels about them, specially White, is when he talks to White. As shown in the gif above, when White touches Steven near where his gem is, Steven pushes her hand off from him, clearly being reminded of the time White ripped his gem off him in ¨Change Your Mind¨.

White uses her powers so Steven can talk to own self. This leads to an iconic scene that Steven gets angry at himself and White. He has a very strong intrusive thought of crashing White's gem into a pillar for what she put him through. He gets shocked for this and makes him run away scared as result.

This scene leaves clear that Steven has a lot of buried resentment for what the Diamonds did to him, mainly White. Being around them reminds him of his trauma, it makes him deeply uncomfortable and he would rather avoid them as much as possible.

The Diamonds get concerned about Steven and show up during the events of ¨I Am My Monster¨ when Steven transforms into gem like monster. The Diamonds and Spinel blame themselves for Steven feeling this way because of their past actions. White feels it is her fault because of how she hurt Pink Diamond and this brought problems to Steven.

They help with calming Steven down and him returning to his human form. Now there is some argument to be said about why they took part of this hug aside from using their powers to help the gems. I have talked more about this in here but i think it is to represent Steven accepting himself as being part Diamond and maybe forgiving, realizing that he isn't an ¨irredeemable monster¨ because of what he did, that way he stops seeing himself as one and goes back to his normal form.

After this, it is a bit unclear where Steven stands his opinion on his relationship with the Diamonds. I would assume that it is probably not much different than it was before. He still doesn't like them and probably doesn't want to be around them even after all that happened.

In short: Steven sees the Diamonds as allies and post the events of ¨Change Your Mind¨ he shows to be uncomfortable being around them, he doesn't seem to like them and mostly prefers to avoid them. He is glad that they are changing their ways for the better but he would prefer to not interact with them if he doesn't have to due to his own trauma.

The Diamonds regret how they have hurt Steven (and Pink) and care about Steven but he thinks it is better for him to have a distant relationship with them for the reasons i discussed. They can still improve and make amends for everything they did and Steven doesn't have to feel forced to have a relationship with them if he doesn't want to.

There are other things that could be discussed, about how the Diamonds Days arcs should have been longer or how the Diamonds needed more screen time- However, the point of this post is talk about people have mischaracterized Steven's relationship with the Diamonds, saying Steven is best friends with them when in reality he doesn't like them and spends most of Future series avoiding them.

[stilljuststardust]

*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:

Guide to shiftblr.

Welcome shifttokers! I am Stilljuststardust! I am a LOA and reality shifting blogger. This is a guide to my blog, shiftblr, and my perspective of shifting.

Yes you're going to see a lot of LOA, many people including myself, believe manifestation and shifting are the same or at least connected.

I know it's probably overwhelming how different the community is. It is ok if you don't believe in LOA but please be respectful of those who do!

Everyone has different beliefs so please respect the original spirit of shiftblr. Please do not bring discourse here. You can block tags as well as people.

*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:

Loa/shiftblr terms and their meanings

1. 4D/3D.

These are terms to describe the inner and outer worlds. The 3D is the outer world or the physical world. I know it's overwhelming how many posts tell you "the 3D isn't real" but please don't be alarmed by this. What they mean is that what currently exists in the 3D doesn't determine what you can and can't manifest and what is and isn't true for you.

So if you're bald and you want to manifest hair, the 3D might tell you it's impossible but since it is malleable you can gain hair through persistence in the 4D. So what's the 4D? The 4D is your inner world so thoughts, visualizations, beliefs.

The idea is that if you think as if you have it the outer world will change to match your inner world.

I feel like it's important to say now before explaining anything else:

No, intrusive thoughts do not manifest.

I have very intense intrusive thoughts usually revolving around my safety and I can tell you from experience they have never once manifested. You are safe. Your intrusive thoughts cannot hurt you.

2. Robotic affirming

Also known as the love of my life. Robotic affirmations are how many people manifest when they're struggling to believe/change their assumptions.

Robotic affirmations work without belief or feeling, your only goal is repetition. Whenever the topic comes up repeat your affirmations or think as if you already have what you want. This is what I recommend for people who are struggling emotionally because it's 100% ok to feel like shit. You can still manifest and feel like shit.

You say or think something to yourself that implies you have what you want and it imprints on your subconscious. Your subconscious will believe anything you tell it and with repetition you can get it to believe anything.

Your subconscious doesn't care what is or isn't true in the physical world it only cares what you are telling it repeatedly and consistently.

An affirmation is anything you say or repeat to yourself so avoid affirming against what you're manifesting. It's not that manifestation isn't working it's just that you're manifesting the wrong thing. You are ALWAYS manifesting and LOA is just a way to filter it to give you what you want.

You repeat something, your subconscious believes you, it manifests into your reality.

3. "Ignore the 3D"

This doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. It's easy to misinterpret this as somehow gaslighting yourself so hard you don't know what's going on around you but that is NOT what this is.

Ignoring the 3D just means when you see something you don't want you choose to affirm what you want to be true anyway.

So if you want to manifest/shift to a new house and you wake up in your old one you don't have to magically delude yourself into not knowing where you are you just chose to affirm as if you're where you want to be instead of where you are.

Obviously you're aware on some level of what's happening, that's OK. Ignoring the 3D just means staying consistent with your manifestation even when you're shown the opposite of what you want.

*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:

My posts on shifting

1.

Things to remember about shifting

2.

The senses shift last

3.

"Can I bring things back?"

*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:

[legandairy-horror]

Does anyone else feel a strange sort of dread waiting for new deltarune chapters?

It sounds crazy right? I admit it's a weird feeling for sure, and I'm not even 100% sure if dread is the right way to describe it. But as more info is revealed and the next chapter inevitably gets closer and closer to releasing I can't help but feel a strange sort of, melancholy? Longing? The only way I can describe it is "when you know the goodbye is coming". The strange somber feeling when you know you’re going to have to leave stuff behind, but aren't quite ready for it yet.

warning: words. Homestuck

In 3 months Chapter 1 will be 6 years old, and in 2 months Chapter 2 will be 3 years old. Deltarune is ostensibly in Early Access but this release schedule puts new chapters closer in time scale to whole sequals if anything, which they most assuredly are not trying to be. This has created a strange situation in the fanbase that I don't think I've ever truly seen anywhere else. One where, In the time between chapters It feels like everyone has had their own chance to decide what Deltarune is to them. To create their own version of this story, to write their own themes that they want to see explored, to imagine their own events and plot twists they want to see play out.

@lynxgriffin Paper Trail Comic Being an Alternate Story following off of chapter 1

@lilybug-02 The Chara Timeline Being one of many interpretations on the popular Asriel & Chara roommates headcannon.

@huecycles Andromeda Chapters being their interpretation on the full game

The innumerable Deltarune Theorists and analysts like HalfBreadChaos, Andrew Cunningham, Stuffed Alpaca, etc. etc.

@vyletbunni Deltatraveler being a whole ass fangame based around a chapter 2 meme that it has long since outlived

And that's kinda the thing isn't it? Once more deltarune comes out, a ton of these projects will just become outdated, it's an inevitability. So what will happen to them? will they become forgotten? maybe, maybe not, it's impossible to tell. but either way it feels kinda sad to think about yknow? that one day all the time and effort spent and all the memories made might one day just cease to exist.

There's a lot more I could say on this topic if given the chance but to keep this tumblr post from morphing into a 2 hour long video essay in text form let me leave off with this.

In the age of the internet and social media there will always be a fan of something. Nothing truly dies quite like it used to anymore, regardless of whatever influencers want you to believe. But that doesn't mean things stop changing, that there wasn't a past that has since been left behind. I'm a Homestuck fan. more specifically I'm a Late Homestuck fan, one who came in after the comic had already ended and it's peak in popularity was long behind it. The fandom's still around all these years later. But it'd be foolish to admit that, 8 years after the comics controversial end, the inescapable trend of new fans replacing old fans has left the fandom wholly disconnected from the monolith that it once was. the only remnants of which lie in decades old discourse and fanfiction. Like old relics of a long forgotten city, waiting to be excavated under a fine layer of dirt.

Before I close out here I just want to make it clear: I'm not saying that we should be trying to return to some nebulous "glorious past" that never really existed. I'm not trying to deride Toby Fox for not working in the sweatshop hard enough to produce more content™, or whatever you wanna try and spin-doctor this post into. It's just a thought that creeps into my head every now that I wanted to share, see if anyone feels the same, yknow?

Besides it's not all doom and gloom. For those of you OG Homestucks who read till the end. You remember Heinoustuck? Guidestuck? Nightfall? Fucking Ke$haStuck? yeah those are still going by the way! after years of inactivity they've now started back up again. some under new authors and some by the same author but still!

You could say a lot about that but to me at least, it makes me feels hopeful in a way. That, even if not everything will survive. we'll at least have some mementos to remember what came before.

[sweaterkittensahoy]

Stop misappropriating the abuse and trauma cults use through purity culture for your stupid fucking shipping discourse? Holy fuck no wonder everyone hates this whole discourse.

Since when is "priests getting shuffled around after raping kids and kids being told they're sinful because they had bodily reactions to being SAd" comparable to "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe"

I'm not gonna answer this with The Aristocrats, as a I threatened, because I want to make a very serious point to this anon:

Purity culture isn't just religious abuse. It is most widely connected to religious abuse. Including actions in the Catholic Church and all fundamentalist Christianity. It's entire existence is about terrifying and indoctrinating people into being fearful of their own actions and bodies so that they feel certain that moving out from the "umbrella of safety" (to use a fundamentalist term) will result in them being harmed in ways they can't imagine. This is generally happening at the same time as they are being harmed by those who are supposed to be keeping them safe from all those terrible, worldly evils. Like speaking up when you're being abused. Believing you are not responsible for the actions of a rapist, and many, many other things that any person with an ounce of self-worth and good sense (two things not allowed in fundamentalist circles) knows are true in abuse situations.

But the point of the purity culture as identity in the above-mentioned circles is to teach people from birth that they aren't to have their own feelings, ideas, or instincts. They are only to follow the feelings, ideas, and instincts on the approved list in order to stay within the structures they know and feel safe in even as they feel very unsafe.

That being said:

Purity culture can also exist WITHOUT a religious structure while still being about controlling the thoughts, feelings, and actions of everyone within it. In terms of fandom, purity culture is groups of people stating that if you write something uncomfortable or gross or immoral, then YOU must be uncomfortable or gross or immoral and therefore, not worthy of the safety and moral superiority of the group.

Purity culture without religion teaches black and white thinking, encourages thought policing, and shames anyone who steps outside of a very narrow definition of good and bad by turning an entire group of people against them for being "bad".

Just like in religious circles.

Just like in the cult of fundamentalism.

Purity culture is a term taken by fundamentalists and turned into a whole way of life because the goal of fundamentalism is to make people too scared to leave. Purity culture in fandom does the same thing. It uses fear and threats of abandonment/harassment to control the way people act because a group of people decided they didn't like something, so they must try and wipe it out rather than simply ignore it.

I am not mis-using the term because "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe." My use of the term is intentional and precise because what is happening in fandom spaces now is non-religious purity culture cult thinking. My use of the term does not invalidate or water down the use of it in conversations about religious abuse and trauma. With or without religion, purity culture is a dangerous cult of "us vs them" that is built to demoralize and eradicate those deemed unworthy.

[theoncomingchaos]

Who loves Rook: Spite or Lucanis

I've been seeing a lot of discourse about this, and I just want to add my thoughts.

I might be totally wrong about this, but here we go. When Spite was put into Lucanis, he was still Determination. The fact that he changed throughout the torture, forced insertion, and imprisonment suggests to me that they have been put into a speedrun of a similar situation to Anders and Justice/Vengeance where they have started to meld. (As Anders put it, you wouldn't know where one begins and the other ends). Just like Anders and Vengeance, Lucanis and Spite can have separate consciousnesses and even disagree about things, but their core values have started to influence one another and become a part of one another- heightening certain aspects.

I think this melding is why we see some dialogues where Rook tells Lucanis that he sounds like Spite and similarly it's also the reason for the shared attraction- which I fully believe is coming originally from Lucanis.

I'll be honest my first time through I romanced Lucanis and was very disappointed. I didn't even see him and Neve ever flirt (she only ever encouraged us!) But still, it seemed to go from 0 to 60 with him. Now, I am on my second playthrough and I only just met him, but I am starting to see some really subtle looks and dialogues that suggest that Lucanis wasn't lying later when he said he was attracted to Rook from the beginning, but was afraid to really pursue anything or even acknowledge the possibility of being with them. With his fear of trusting people, ptsd from the prison, failed history in romance, and his new situation with Spite that he still hadn't worked out yet, he never thought anything would or could ever come of his feelings. We know Lucanis loves romance stories and likely longs for one of his own, but in such a situation it must have seemed truly impossible and terrifying to let someone else in. Especially someone you really care for and are starting to trust. So, he pushed it all down. Rook flirts? Maybe a small smile, but then quickly lock it all up with everything else he can't handle. Focus on work. Don't think about Spite, or Rook, or anything difficult.

However, if the melding has already happened as I suspect, then the feelings Spite is expressing are shared with (and likely sourced from) Lucanis, he's just better at expressing it directly- which makes sense for a spirit that was once Determination. When you first talk to Lucanis after the rescue, the thing Spite says about Rook changes accordingly to your tone, but to me the responses still sound like they come from Lucanis and are then echoed in Spite: "He doesn't want to hurt us." Even the "He's more fun than you" is something Lucanis seems to think about himself as he is fully aware that much of his life has not been his own and believes "all he knows is death."

Leading back to the main point, Lucanis's trust and interest in Rook would be heightened by Spite the way Anders' anger towards the templars was heightened. Even though they are finally free from the prison, their is a sense of constant suffering from still feeling trapped by fear, regret, and pain- Spite feels that suffering too. The elements of determination are still within him the same way justice is another side to vengeance. Both spite and vengeance are the results of failing to achieve their goals of Justice and Determination. Spite sees Rook as a way to free them from pain and restraint, a glowing and beautiful key to the prison door, and he is determined to do what needs to be done to solve the problem. That's why he doesn't hesitate. He has no fear. He wants to talk to Rook. He wants Rook to come in and free them.

After Rook has freed them, they become a source of comfort and safety, once they encourage Lucanis and Spite to find a way to cohabit comfortably, the two continue to meld, and the need to protect Rook, to love Rook, to keep them, is very deeply shared. Now, IF Spite was somehow removed or even somehow restored (Both of which I think are impossible) that would likely change. Determination outside of Lucanis would likely become more like Compassion. He would likely forget the horrors he experienced to return to his original purpose.

So, that leaves some final questions, particularly one Hawke helpfully asked Anders- Is Spite an unwilling party in the threesome?

That's up to everyone's own morality. While both Spite and Lucanis didn't have a choice to become like this, it is the situation they are in and the way they have to find a way to accept and live with because there really doesn't seem to be any real way to change it. Through their time together, Lucanis and Spite have influenced each other and grown into something new. Part of that is Spite also loving Rook. In that way, for those who are feeling (rightfully) underwhelmed by Lucanis's romance, Spite can almost be seen as a symbolic expression of Lucanis's love.

All that being said, I think there were some small things they could have done to make the romance more satisfying over all...but I'll save that for another post.

[llilyrose]

llilyrose spends her time analyzing aroace stuff. yay.

isat spoilers afoot

what i especially like about the way adrienne wrote mira's orientation is the lack of room for interpretation. yes they snuck aroace talk into fantasy france, but just stop and think for a minute. what would happen if mira just said "i'm aroace" or "i don't feel love the same way" instead of all the nuance we got to her character in the friend quest convo?

we know she's sex repulsed, we know she's romance repulsed. we know she loves fiction that has those things in it, loves interpreting fictional characters that way, but can't bare to see herself in that situation. it makes a lot of sense with regards to her location (vaugarde, a very sex-positive and romance-adamant country) and also with regards to herself (the way she feels about her environment). Of course she wouldn't blame other folk around her for engaging with their religion the "correct" way, of course she'd internalize all her feelings of being outcast and turn it back on herself.

The fandom respects this! Nobody ships her romantically, or sexually, because we know she's not into that. We know she would never and i know a bunch of people who would punch you for even thinking it!

Now what if Adrienne hadn't put this in the game? What if they had just said on their tumblr one day, "mira's aroace," or something. where would we be now? aspec shipping discourse would definitely take the reins. we'd have people shipping her in all kinds of different ways, bending the aroace character to the best of their ability because they could still be into sex, or romance, or whatever. this is TRUE, it's POSSIBLE, but there's no nuance. We wouldn't know the way Mira really feels about these things unless Adrienne told us, so a lot of people would either ignore/"work around" her identity or just wouldn't even know about it to begin with!

Introducing mira's orientation in the way adrienne did leaves no room for discourse. we know if she's sex-positive, sex-negative, how she reacted to finding out she was, etc. It provides so much more representation than a simple "I'm aroace" ever could. It's such a wide label, so finally having CONCRETE information about a canonical aroace's experiences with their orientation is so, so freeing and honestly quite refreshing. and it's worked into the story seamlessly!!!

She's not an emotionless carcass with no capacity for love, she's not outwardly detesting sex or romance at every possible moment, she's simply a well-rounded character who happens to be aroace. You have time to warm up to her before ever even finding out about her orientation! Or having any clue at all (barring maybe the suspicious sketches)!!!!! Aroace people are real!!! We're so real!!!!

Speaking of the suspicious sketches! We know siffrin's alloace (from, like, one line of dialogue), but we don't know if he's sex-repulsed. Adrienne's gone on record to say "aces can still have sex" in reference to siffrin, so I'm inclined to believe he has at least some sort of libido.

When looking at the sketches, both him and mira have a repulsed reaction. I think there are three possible reasons for Siffrin here!

Siffrin is sex-repulsed and has a visceral reaction to them because he thinks it's gross.

Siffrin has no libido because the stress overrides everything in his system. That combined with his ace identity would probably lead to a distaste for the papers.

Some people would NOT GET THE MEMO from the act 3 friendquest. Sometimes when you're writing you have to account for the gamers being really really dense. Some people didn't even understand the Isa friendquest was him coming out as trans basically. Since Ace characters are hard to "prove" unless they explicitly state they dislike sex, this line of dialogue might've just been there to drill it in that Siffrin is ace because the only other place we see that implication is one line in the friendquest. It could even have no tie to his relationship with sex, who knows?

one of these options is not like the others! /silly

I couldn't tell you which one of those it is, but i think at least one of them had to have hit the mark. It's a lot harder to decode siffrin's sexuality when we only get like 5 lines of dialogue total that vaguely even reference it

With this we come back to the issue from earlier: He could be demi, he could be ace, he could be sex-repulsed, he could not! Most people write them sex-repulsed and I'm personally on that bandwagon, but interpreting them a different way isn't any less correct unless you completely ignore the fact they're ace in the first place.

Even sex-positive aces have complicated relationships with sex. Some do it for the gratification, some simply have higher libido and can't think of a different way to get it out, and others only do it to please their partner.

I think writing an ace character as sex-positive should be seen as a character study instead of an excuse to ship two characters together. Is this character the type to even enjoy it in the first place? How often? How do they interact with it? Etc. Which I think is what Adrienne was talking about when she said "aces can still have sex." We don't know about siffrin's identity, we don't have a grasp on the nuance, but we do know he's ace and that he experiences love differently from the way mirabelle does, and the way isabeau does, and the way odile does, and what have you.

I love love love the representation we get in isat. An aroace, an alloace, and someone that a lot of fans headcanon as aroallo though it's unconfirmed. Even if Odile's not aro, we still get that line of dialogue about not finding romance suitable for her at the moment, which speaks true to a different experience altogether. No two characters experience love, experience life the same in isat. That's why i get to make a tumblr text post that's a bit too long exploring the different avenues adrienne took when writing the characters lol :')

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.