#i have problems when it comes to bringing up ‘politics’ and racism

[lilhawkeye3]

“why do you keep bringing up racism when you talk about the Seam inhabitants, they’re Melungeon, they aren’t Black”

I’m going to hold your hand when I say this:

The Melungeon ONLY EXIST BECAUSE OF SYSTEMIC RACISM. That’s the ONLY REASON it’s even a term for us to use to identify this group with!

There used to be this fun thing called the one drop rule, or blood quantum laws. “One drop” of negro in your bloodline could see you lose any standing in polite white society, or at worst, see you enslaved! A great example of a common way people hid Black ancestry was by claiming indigenous ancestry— hard to trace, and more “noble” to claim (ever heard someone saying their greatx-grandma was a Cherokee princess? Yeah.)

The Melungeons are traced back to a group of families in 1800s Appalachia who were mixed-race. The term “Melungeon” is actually a slur for them, coming from the French word for “mixed” (mélange, thanks @midwesternfields for reminding me I left that out). They were part white, yes, but they claimed mixing with Native American tribes, Portguese, even the ancient Phoenicians (which… don’t get me started).

The thing is— they did DNA tests on the descendants in the past twenty years. The majority of these descendants were found to only have European and African ancestry, not Native American (one or two families were the exception). Being Black was so dangerous and shameful that they claimed a whole new ethnic term for themselves. And I’m not saying that’s bad. I understand why people would do that in that situation. And I agree that they have formed a regional culture of their own in the past 200 years.

The problem is y’all trying to pull the “I’ll accept the Seam people are brown but it’s because they’re Melungeon, not Black!”

Be so ffr. You’re continuing the same racist rhetoric that led to the whole reason they needed to create the term in the first place! You do not have one without the other.

Yes, the Seam population is not largely written as “Black” in the manner District 11 clearly evokes with dark-skinned kinky-haired farm laborers who work at gun point and with the threat of whippings, who have overseers and recognize Lou-Lou as theirs from a plantation hymn. But the commonality is there: Louella McCoy from the Seam had a near enough body double in the form of a Black girl from the fields of District 11 because Louella McCoy and enough of the Seam has African ancestry, because the regional population of Appalachia has it too, even if they still don’t like acknowledging it.

And then maybe you should consider why the easier group to think of as “Black” is the one compared to plantation slaves and field laborers, and not miners despite that history, too.

Anyways. Racism and colorism are a key point of the Hunger Games books and you don’t have one without the other.

this has been another tea time with hawk ☕️🦅

[wildlocks]

things that are bothering me the most:

antaam stuff makes no sense, full stop. it's also explained poorly/insufficiently.

most of what we see of rivain is completely uninhabited. i also don't care about more warden shit there, i was looking forward to more lore on rivaini people and culture, especially the seers obviously, we've been dying to know more about them for three games.

every elf we've met is ok with the huge revelations that their gods aren't what they seemed and this process happened offscreen. i would think there would be many different reactions to the spread of info about the evanuris, and i would think it would be extremely important to make it clear that info had spread pre-game.

the venatori are the same nonsensical vague useless boring cult with the most nothing goals. as incredibly lame as they are, it's even stretching my suspension of disbelief that they'd serve elven gods for vague promises of 'power' given tevinter's extreme history with the elves. i would think this would come up at least one single time.

the past two points are part of an overarching issue. the contentious and complex political landscape of thedas that makes the setting interesting feels flat. i'm supposed to believe NO ONE in super-elf-racist tevinter would blame the elves for their gods terrorizing thedas? even inquisition acknowledged this, w solas/inky showing concern that revealing the orb was elven would lead to elf racism.

i'm supposed to believe NO elves who've been oppressed by humans for centuries would think 'fuck them' and join up? what happened to the elves who joined solas at the end of trespasser when they heard he was trying to bring back their empire? at least inquisition had wacky cults for every side.

walking down the street in minrathous as an elf or qunari with no difference is simply absurd, i would literally rather never visit tevinter if they were going to implement it so toothlessly. where is the immediate opinion hit for being a mage/elf the inky takes in orlais???

yes the tone is off and a little shallow. yes the companions communicate too healthily for my tastes. yes i was dreading 'evanuris are behind everything' lore reveals and that's what we got. but i honestly think i could overlook those things if the above problems were solved and it felt like the same immersive, problematic thedas.

i'm so completely infuriated by the worldstate choices i'm going to make a separate post about it. but yeah i was concerned but made no noise, i was willing to wait it out and see how the three choices played out in game. and it's absolutely ridiculous that so far two out of fucking three have basically no impact, and the last one idgaf about unless inky romanced solas. i'm so so so so mad and disappointed about this, especially after staying open-minded when it was initially revealed.

everyone loves companion quests, so i don't know why the game feels like it needs to sell you on their significance. why did we get two different scenes of varric spelling it out to rook: do the companion side quests, or else they won't be able to focus! it's such a weird and superfluous tie-in. i don't get why they went so out of their way to clarify this when it didn't need to be clarified, companion side quests are expected in rpgs and their relevance to the plot is very easily accepted/overlooked.

[joyswonderland1108]

Jungkook is now apparently personally responsible for every American political controversy even though he lives in South Korea and wore a cap with the word "Tokyo" on it. The world ends at 8PM. Clutch your pearls accordingly.

You know what? I’m done. I am SO done with the brain-dead Olympic-level mental gymnastics people pull just to hate Jungkook. Man wore a hat and suddenly the entire internet turned into the Political Ethics Department of the World Police. Are y’all hearing yourselves?? Because it sounds like stupid is a global epidemic and we’re long past patient zero.

MAGA?? REALLY? A South Korean man who literally lives across the ocean, barely speaks English on the regular, has zero involvement in US politics, and was minding his business rehearsing — and your reaction is: “OMG HE’S PROMOTING TRUMP!” HOW. HOW DID YOU GET THERE. CONNECT THE DOTS FOR ME BECAUSE I’M SEEING A LINEAR PATH THAT GOES:

Cap says Tokyo → Jungkook likes Japan → he wore it → end of story. But y’all went: Cap says Tokyo → MAGA → Trump → white supremacy → racism → international scandal → cancel him.

I have never seen people so DESPERATE to twist an innocent moment into some warped political sin. Like y’all must really hate peace, huh? You saw BTS coming back and your K-pop faves getting overshadowed just by JK existing and said, “You know what, let me have a mental breakdown over a HAT.”

Get this through your thick-ass skulls: “MTGA” ≠ MAGA. Tokyo = a city in Japan. MAGA = a US political slogan.

They are not the same. They don’t mean the same. And they don’t have the same context unless you live in a cave where every sentence with “make” in it triggers a political panic attack.

Y’all mad at a man wearing a cap with the name of a city in a country he loves on it. Jungkook showed it more than once that he cherishes Japan, spent time there, sung in Japanese, and clearly values the culture. But you think he looked at a cap with Tokyo on it and said, “Yes, this is my political campaign now”? Be fucking serious.

Also, since when is it mandatory for South Korean idols to be fully briefed on the history of US political slogans?? He lives 10,007 km away, he’s not running for office, he’s not a political analyst, and he sure as hell doesn’t wake up wondering, “Gee, I wonder what phrase pisses off Americans today so I can avoid it!”

You think every idol should walk around wearing only shirts that say “I love Seoul” or “Korea Best!” now?? So when someone wears “I love NY” or “Bonjour Paris” y’all are fine, but the second it’s Jungkook and the word Tokyo, it’s an act of international treason? Hypocrisy jumped OUT and slapped y’all across the face.

And let’s be real: the loudest people screeching about this aren’t even genuinely upset. You’re not offended. You’re just PATHETICALLY threatened by Jungkook breathing the same air as your faves. You saw a chance to throw shit at him and took it, hoping it would stick. But guess what? You played yourself. Again. JK isn’t the problem. You are. You and your twisted little projections, your fake moral outrage, and your flaccid cancel campaigns built on absolutely nothing but bitterness and boredom.

And to those K-netz and their little spawn of international Kpopies with a keyboard and zero brain-to-mouth filter: may the worst karma hit you with all its might. You deserve NOTHING good. Nothing. You live to tear down people who are literally doing nothing but living their lives peacefully. Jungkook could wear a plain beige hoodie tomorrow and you’d find a way to say he’s supporting desert colonialism.

Grow up. Touch grass. Seek help. And while you're at it, shut the entire fuck up.

You don’t deserve Jungkook’s talent, humility, work ethic, or the pure joy he brings to millions of people. You're too busy wallowing in your own delusions to even see him as a human being anymore. So sit the fuck down and let people enjoy things.

[ilikekidsshows]

As someone who grew up in poverty, the pretence that Chloé was never a victim of abuse because she’s rich sounds so incredibly moronic to me for two reason.

First, privilege cushions oppression and abuse but does NOT erase them. In my life I’ve had to deal with a lot of tone-deaf rich kids whose petty complains screamed first world problem, but guess what? None of that was about being abused and neglected. No I don’t want to hear about your daddy refusing to buy you a new car. YES I want you to speak out if they’re neglecting and/or emotionally abusing you. Children as a class are severely ignored. They do not have agency even if they are the richest people on the planet, because that money belongs to their parents who can take it away from their child at any given moment. This is also the reason why André being lifted of any responsibility for the way Chloé was raised is such bullshit, but I digress.  

Now to reason number two – I’m under the impression ML pats itself on the back for its supposedly eat the rich message. This is part of a bigger problem which is the inability of the writing crew to show rather than tell. Marinette life is SO normal, right? She only happens to go to school with the richest kids in town and to be the daughter of the people who run the most appreciated bakery in Paris and to be in touch with several famous people and—

You get it. You cannot “This is just a kids show!” your way out of this because either ML teaches important lessons or it’s not supposed to be taken seriously. You can’t randomly decide which is it based on what’s most convenient to you. That’s not how it works. So yeah, sure, Chloé (and Adrien and Kagami and Félix) is rich, but the other characters are never shown to struggle financially and are if anything the sons and daughters of pretty important people. The only time Marinette has money trouble is when we find out her parents were saving up to send her to Shangai, but that’s pretty normal. A normal family can’t just think “Sure, let’s fly to another continent” and do that the day after. ‘Cause you know, money. 

That still doesn’t mean Marinette is struggling financially. She has a lovely home and a perfect family – that’s so much more many people, me included, can account for. So what, Marinette’s trauma doesn’t account for anything because she’s privileged? Is this the logic the ML fandom was fed and thought “Yeah, sounds pretty good to me!” What is this show’s problem, really. 

---

Miraculous wants to have its cake and eat it too in terms of many things. The writers often include contradictory elements into the show, which is why every detail is important to the “larger picture”, unless it isn't, in which case the show is really simple and there's no need to pay attention to details and fans are just overthinking things. There's a reason actual media analysts avoid this show like the plague now; there's no reward for paying attention because the writers arbitrarily contradict themselves in several episodes, often more times than once in the same episode even. The whole “Adrien apologises to Marinette for what happened with Lila thing” is extra confusing because of the constant contradictions.

The crew are also incredibly cowardly when it comes to actually saying something. We have a blatant allegory for racism when Roland opposed Tom and Sabine’s interracial marriage because they used “rice flour” in baking, but the writers deny this was an allegory when people bring it up. The crew are only comfortable saying something “political” when it's the most milk-toast, fence-sitting take imaginable. As I’ve pointed out before, their idea of a “green episode” was the mayor shooting trashcans into space, which was basically the show going: “don't litter!” Poison Ivy in the nineties was bolder.

That said, of course Miraculous isn't going to tackle the complexities of privilege in any meaningful way. In their eyes, you're privileged and evil if you're telling your rich parents to buy you stuff. Ignore Marinette getting a whole-ass scooter and a trip to Shanghai, because she didn't ask for those things so she isn't privileged. She's a good girl who deserves nice things, unlike Chloé, who's mean so her dad buying her expensive gifts to make up for neglecting her emotionally makes her privileged and evil. The writers want the no-care life of being well-off for all their cast, and even play around with the glamour of wealth several times, so any attempt at a "eat the rich" angle is ultimately insincere.

In addition, the writers still insist on vindicating the rich white men who even create the problems in the green episode, which just makes this mess even more confusing. Because the writers are stanning Gabriel and André, we get the actual businessmen intimidating anyone beneath them socially, the ones who actually own the wealth, treated more sympathetically than a teenaged bully whose dad buys her nice things, sometimes after she asks but often without her asking. Of course, considering Gabe's from rags-to-riches background (wildly exaggerated, considering his parents are still small business owners), you could think the creators are only critical of "unearned" wealth, if it wasn't for the Marinette Exception.

There's also the aspect of how the writers seem to only count wealth as a privilege after it passes a certain threshold, and otherwise they ignore the topic of wealth completely. Considering there isn't a single character in this series that's shown financially struggling even temporarily, there clearly isn't anything definitive (read: potentially upsetting) to be said about class privilege. Frankly, I think Chloé is the primary target of the "eat the rich" angle specifically because no one can argue someone who's never worked using her father's money to one-up her peers and screw people over is not privileged. It's, as I put it, the most milk-toast, fence-sitting take on wealth privilege imaginable. "Being a jerk about being wealthy is bad!" No shit, Sherlock. Good job, clown crew.

There's also the element of Marinette's special treatment, of course, since we still can't argue Marinette is working for the money she's spending since the people spending money on her are her parents, grandmother and boyfriends, while Marinette never mentions using her potential commission/babysitting money for anything (although I don't think they even discuss her payments for these jobs which just proves how meaningless they are). Marinette is never shown spending her own money on screen, but we repeatedly see other people use money for her benefit. Chloé is the only other character shown to get paid for like this, but for her, it's a sign of her undeserved privilege and being spoiled, while, for Marinette, it's more of a perk that she totally deserves.

The way Marinette's exception is presented reads like Miraculous is trying to sell you on the notion of "inherent goodness". If you're a good enough person, everything you do, is good or a forgivable mistake. This is the double standard they apply to Marinette when compared to anyone else, because only Marinette is good enough to reach "inherent goodness" levels. She is the goodest kid in the world according to Santa Claus himself, the greatest Ladybug ever according to Jeanne d’Arc and the best version of herself according to Sublimation. All of this means that Marinette is inherently good so she can never do anything that's really that bad and she deserved all the perks and praise.

[anti-terf-posts]

Three things that I've learned at the philosophy class today (14th/03):

I am a fuckin coward who does not know how to communicate their ideas n is afraid of embarrassin themselves if they try to do so.

This generation is way more conservative than we may think (which is ironic, considerin we're known as the “least conservative generation” n “the rad leftists”) an' no one around me ever noticed that.

Nobody at my class would survive any idea or concept of any of the non cishetero-amatonormative relationships dynamics that exists everywhere on the arospec, queerplatonic n the polyamorous communities. None of them. Not at all.

My teacher asked us to watch the movie The Matrix, since it was inspired by Plato's ideas, more specifically the cave story, so we could bring n discuss. Cause that was the subject of the class.

Surprisingly, the premise of the movie does not seem bad, n it's probably the red pill movement that ruined the experience, cause, as a classmate explained, is about a random guy who takes a red pill n discovers that the entire humanity is controlled by half a world of robots. Seems fun, I think I'm gon watch it if there is no gore or disturbin scenes. The whole problem started when my teacher touched on the red pill movement, omg...

Long, long story short, my teacher jus repackaged a whole lot of conservative bullshit that is shoved down our throats 24/7 since we were born until the school coordinator entered the classroom to talk to our teacher about somethin until she got angry at another student for askin her to go away, because it got her offended (lookin at this last part now, this is funny as shit, cause bro was tryin his best to be military style polite, as we study on a civic military school, n she still scolded the shit outta him, lmfao).

But somethin that caught me at the immediate time, but doesn't surprise me, now that I think about it was that my entire class shared heteronormative bioessentialist ideals. Our teacher, sure, it's expected, he's a grown ass adult, but it was my classmates that got to me.

I am 17 years old. Most of us are about to turn 18 n that's our last year of school. All of us were around 12/13 durin the pandemic, so I'm pretty sure many of us got to see the end or the leftovers of the “Quebrando Tabu” era. (For context, it was a left wing movement that was overall mainstream anti racism, iceberg tip lgbt rights activism n liberal feminism.) Since it was a very superficial left movement, I wouldn' expect radical leftists, anarchists or communists to come out of it, but the bare minimum I expected was for the girls at my class to not be indignated when men didn' perform traditional masculinity.

Bruh, they got angry over boys knowin names of hairstyles n complementin them on it, or knowin about makeup more than them. Like girl, if you're so insecure about a guy knowin make up more than you, go search more about make up, dammit!

Y'all, my eyes got wide when I heard people mentionin the fuckin bible to justify that the red pill movement was somewhat right, because “all relationships have a more masculine protective force n a more carin feminine force”. Totally not hetero-amatonormative discourse that reinforces gender roles on everybody, guys, I am definitely not scared. /sarcasm

An' it gets worse, cause then my teacher said: “even in homosexual relationships we observe this”. He said that even is relationship between two women, there was someone who did the role of The Man™ in the relationship. A thing that lesbians had been tryin to debunk. For. Years. N another fuck head commented on butches to support that. If that wasn' the most butchphobic thing I've ever heard, idk what it is.

An' I'm honestly not proud of myself for not standin up against it. As I said before, I am a coward n ion know how to stand up for myself or my ideals, n I'm jealous of those who know how to do so, kapakapakapa.

But moral of the story, the matrix has an interestin plot of the surface, we have never got over conservatism, no matter how much queers are visible right now, I need to do better, n people are disturbingly easy to think that they're goin against a system by spreadin logic of the fuckin system, jus because minorities are visible. The end.

Hey i don't think you should blame yourself for not standing up :( It's scary to share more leftist opinions, especially if you live in a more right-wing/conservative area. So you did nothing wrong, and I think you're already brave by sitting through that.

Also I'm going to have to agree with you on gen z being more conservative than we think :[ I live in a really left and progressive area, but I still hear kids yelling the r word and making homophobic/racist jokes. It's also really common to get weird looks whenever you talk about an opinion you have that's more liberal.

[olderthannetfic]

Okay, I need advice: I'm in a very tiny fandom (like less than two dozen active people and everyone knows each other) and one of the women in it is kind of freaking me out.

We became mutuals because we had some good discussions on some of the characters we liked, but I soon became sort of uncomfortable with a lot of her online behavior whereas simultaneously she's DM-ing me more and more.

She's one of those people who's a hardliner on the issues she cares about (mostly feminism- and SA-related) while talking over people when it comes to issues she doesn't care about (mostly racism and related things). And I see a lot of her trying to intrusively police how other people talk/act, derailing people's posts, arguing with people online over the most stupid shit (where not even her own opinions come off as overly coherent - this week she'll argue something along the lines of "men are evil" and the next she'll argue that people are "demonizing masculinity" - I'll add for clarification that she's not a TERF and supports trans rights but boy... Does she sound like one sometimes) and then digging through people's profiles to find and publicize minor transgressions and bad takes, passive-aggressive vagueposting, and going into mental breakdowns over the most innocuous of online interactions.

TBH she scares me. As someone who suffered through toxic people getting overly attached to me, I genuinely sometimes get a physical reaction when I see her lashing out on the dash.

And she keeps initiating conversations! And sometimes I don't reply or bring the conversation to a natural closure and she keeps at it, or sends me random fics of hers to read that I don't have the heart to tell her don't interest me or whatever. And recently when she disagrees with something I reblogged she direct messages me to rant about it - with a lot of sort of indirect language because she doesn't want to offend me but I can see the intent. The last couple of times I replied politely because I cared about clearing misunderstandings on the topic but next time I'm just gonna tell her I dislike it when she does that.

I really want this person to stop interacting with me, to be honest, and all my polite hints to the effect go unnoticed. But the fandom is so small I feel awkward and uncomfortable about unfollowing or blocking her. I don't think she's too bad of a person, she just comes off as very... Mentally ill, I guess? And since I've tried to be polite so far I feel like it might come out of left field for her?

TBH I feel like something about her behavior also triggers some kind of freeze/fawn reaction inside of me that I don't often get and consequently don't know how to deal with.

So I need impartial advice because I don't see the situation clearly myself

--

To summarize, a person who is a walking red flag wants to be friends, and you can't easily ghost her because the fandom is small.

I think you have to accept that there is no low-conflict way out of this.

That's what's holding you back, right? You don't want more drama and you know it's coming. I think you already know in your heart of hearts that you need to get away from her even if it's a pain in the ass.

Step one is to stop responding to her DMs. That will probably make her reach out more, but you should keep not responding. If she escalates and attacks you over it, block her.

The more you offer reasons or try to gently hint, the more that will encourage her. I don't think that's true of everyone, but I do think it's the case here. This is both because it doesn't sound like she's good at perceiving or respecting boundaries and because she inspires a bad lack of ability to assert boundaries in you.

I agree that it's unfortunate that you can't stand up for yourself or tell her plainly when she's out of line, but since you can't and that probably won't change any time soon, you'll need to protect yourself a different way. Sometimes, we just have to avoid people who are bad for us even when it's an us problem. (And here, whoaaaa red flags, so I don't think it's just a you problem anyway.)

There are many sad, lonely, needy people in the world. Some of them are officially mentally ill in some way with a diagnosis. Some just need things they aren't currently getting. That sucks...

But it's also not your job to fix.

[transmutationisms]

hello! I remember you making a post mentioning Margaret Sanger + eugenics recently… I’m wondering if you might be willing to share more thoughts on the relationship between Sanger, eugenics, and the birth control movement? or if you have any recs for papers to read on this topic? thanks in advance if u have anything to share!

yeah i stuck some reading under the cut for length but basically and reductively this has become a poisoned discursive well because reactionaries of various stripes have discovered that Sanger was a racist eugenicist, and have also discovered that if you say that about a public figure, a certain brand of liberal will immediately rush to condemn the person with little to no reflection on what the significance of their objectionable beliefs might historically have been, so now every family values white supremacist thinks they are the cleverest boy in the world for being like "erm actually Planned parenthood was founded by a eugenicist" and the best response the average liberal can come up with is "[splits hairs] no it wasn't".

in reality what they should be saying instead is more along the lines of: this is because eugenics and white supremacy were incredibly popular politics in the usa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and were ideologies that united public health champions (& political figures in general) from across the 'left–right political spectrum'. additionally Sanger's rhetoric varied over time and by audience, though i'm not really interested in doing rehabilitative work for her historical image and mostly bring this up to demonstrate that eugenics was so popular it was widely rhetorically advantageous to throw support for it, whether you were a feminist demanding access to birth control or a garden-variety misogynist opposed to reproductive autonomy.

anyway Sanger's legacy and the legacy of US feminists in general simply has to account for the fact that both 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' policy demands can be weaponised either for increased reproductive autonomy or for eugenic endeavours. it's not the [contraception / abortion / etc] in itself that creates the eugenics, and banning contraception or abortion doesn't solve the problem of capitalism nurturing and relying on eugenics (as disingenuous reactionaries already well know). a lot of right-wing writing on Sanger is indeed trumped-up, poorly substantiated, de-contextualised shock tactics—also, she did genuinely espouse a lot of racism and eugenics.

none of this is really relevant to the political question of whether, moving forward, reproductive autonomy ought to be ensured (it ought). but, it is certainly relevant to the question of why the us feminist movement has done a generally middling job of securing access to things like contraception and abortion: in part, this is because it has long been a movement that sacrificed an actual commitment to providing healthcare in an extremely unwise series of faustian racism bargains that (at best) framed reproductive rights in a very negative, libertarian-inflected way, and (at worst) threw over the principles altogether and wilfully ignored or even participated in the establishment of eugenic policies expressly designed to constrain the reproductive autonomy of racialised, poor, and disabled women.

Dorothy Roberts talks about feminist eugenics broadly, including some remarks on Sanger, in Killing the Black Body (1997)

Peter Engelmann's A History of the Birth Control Movement in America (2011) pretty much what it says on the tin; my notes from when I TA'd bioethics say we focussed on the introduction and chapters 1 and 3

Evolution and Eugenics in American Literature and Culture, 1880-1940: Essays on Ideological Conflict and Complicity (2003) ed. Lois Cuddy and Claire Roche has at least one chapter you'd probably find useful

there's also this annotated bibliography on Sanger but it's from the 80s, so the real value-add is if you want to see contemporaneous writings about her, or you want a list of her own actual publications. I don't know whether this is still considered a comprehensive list of the 70-odd years it does cover!

a couple dissertations, even though these are generally not as valuable citation-wise as published books or articles:

International Intercourse: Establishing a Transnational Discourse on Birth Control in the Interwar Era (2004) by Julie L Thomas, Indiana University

Feminist Eugenics in America: From Free Love to Birth Control, 1880–1930 (2006) by Susan Marie Rensing, University of Minnesota

[jmdbjk]

3D

I had to let some time pass before I wrote this. The discourse is heated and polarized.

You say: "ABG ... Asian Baby Girl, doesn't mean the same as it used to" ... it might not for you but it is rooted in misogyny and racism. Does that mean the n-word doesn't mean what it used to? Or the word bitch, cunt or whore? It's ok to use those words too when rapping about women? What about fag or fairy? Ok? No. Not okay.

You do you, Boo, but:

"The ongoing oppression of women is enshrined in religious, legal, political, educational, and employment systems and structures. An equivalent level of systemic and structural oppression has not been experienced by the current generation of white men in America. "

You can read the article this excerpt is from here.

My first impression upon listening/watching the first time: I did not like it because of fugly white boy, Jack Harlow. I've never liked him, I've never liked his lyrics or his vibe. He is the type of overdone, asshole misogynistic male bullshit rap that had become unavoidable for a while.

I don't have ANY problem with JK singing about sex, having sex, shooting his jizz to the sky or any of that. BRING. THAT. ON. I don't care if the song is about phone sex or masturbating on camera or whatever.

What I do have a problem with is a white guy saying one girl (the black girl) is boring but two girls (add the white girl) is cool. I have a problem with the concept of having women lined up ready to fuck as some sort of thing to laud. And they are all dressed alike, so that means he doesn't care about them, they're all the same. Just another pussy to fuck. Diversity, yay. Not.

I will listen to the alternate version of the song but I will never listen to or stream the version with the rap.

I love Jungkook. I love that he's exploring his sound. He is creating music that speaks to him RIGHT NOW in his career. Do I like that he's put this song out? No. But that's my own personal opinion.

I can't speak for Jungkook, a 26 year old Korean man. He has his own systemic and structural oppressions to deal with.

I am not going to second guess him. He will see the feedback and take it into consideration, I don't have to guess on that, I know he will. They all see what goes on.

I wanted to give JK the benefit of the doubt with Seven. I don't have a problem with Seven the song, but its the hype surrounding it that is perpetuated by the fandom that he is being pushed in the western market. This song proves it.

All that being said, BTS and each individual member all exist within an industry that is heavily influenced by the western market.

As such, every song each member releases will add to the colors that the team will be able to use when they come back together as a group. No one will be surprised if BTS utilizes a hardcore western rapper in the future now. It is just one more color in the mix.

But as my friend says: "Shoot for another Coldplay....They don't need to be lifting people up. They need to find peers. Which is why I would support a Lady Gaga collab with Tae. Which is why Hobi asked for J Cole. That's a peer, man. I can handle Pharrell with them.

The benchmark for peers, to me, is another artist who has nothing to gain from collab'ing with them. An artist who holds their own, on their own, and collabs to let each participant have fun, shine, and grow a bit. Not some newbie who needs the boost. The only exception to that would be if they worked with one of their juniors at Hybe."

And now I move on from this.

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

Madness and Evil is so Entertaining

Stephen Jay Morris

4/5/2025

©Scientific Morality

Let’s review, shall we? The chemical taxonomy of testosterone is C19 H20 O2. Why should you care what the formula is? Well, why not? The more you know, the more you can recognize the fallacies in magical thinking. For example, only violence can solve problems between rival tribes, so says God. If so, then where the fuck did King Solomon fit in the picture from the First Testament?!  I say that, in the Jewish Bible, God was an evil Lord. This gave Isreal permission to bomb innocent women and children in Gaza. And I heard that “God is love?” Whatever.

I was hoping that my left-wing contumacy would open up some minds. That’s the most I can hope for. Why did I mention the male hormone, testosterone? Because, in the superstitious mind, male personality traits come from God via a wave of his hand. But, no. Those traits come from the hormone, testosterone. All illusions of manhood and rugged individualism come from this bio-chemical.

The neo-masculinity movement out of the political right is religion-based. For decades now, commentators have been complaining about how effeminate men are. Most of the Aristocrats of the 18th Century wore powder wigs and high heeled shoes. This was nothing new. If you really investigated it, you’d know that conservatism originates from testosterone and liberalism emanates from estrogen, the female hormone. Compassion, love, peace, and charity are considered female traits, whereas war, law and order, money, football, police brutality, conformity, Authoritarianism, promiscuous sex, and masculinity are considered male. That is the source of the ideology, not commandments from a sky wizard.

 “Fear” is the perfect word for fascism. “The illegal aliens are coming to get you!  However, vote for us and we will protect you. We will protect you from woke and communism!”

 Racism is a byproduct of capitalism, as well as are sexism and ageism. One example of this is the success of the entertainment industry. For years now, the most popular movie genre has been “horror.” Why? Because violence and fear are excuses to live under a police state. Also, violence is macho. When you are in a state of terror, you are easy to control. In a movie theater, you cover your face when a serial killer appears on screen and slices off a hand with a rusty axe. It’s like riding a roller coaster at an amusement park: It’s okay to scream! Abusing women is the only way to control them. Violence solves everything. No, it doesn’t.

Americans love reading about true crime and mental illness. It’s so much fun. How about video games? Oh, by the way. Just because I have negative views on video games, it doesn’t mean I want to outlaw them. We all know that video games are marketed to adolescent males. They can be all about ancient warriors in outer space battling robots and monsters. Then, there are video games about war. The more people you kill, the more points you get. What effect will this have on young boys? Numbness to the victims of war and nonchalance about the enemies you kill. It’s all okay! You’re doing it for your country! If this is not conditioning young men to fight in war, then what good is it? To see how fast your reflexes are? Commoners like war because of the action;  Imperialists love war because it brings them more money.

I never liked violence as a child. I thought cartoon violence was stupid. Shit, I was only six years old! America loves violence because if a man can’t get laid, he kills for revenge.

Now on to my main subject: That homeomorphous commander-in-chief who belongs in a mental institution. You know, the tariff terrorist behind the Resolute Desk. Mentally ill victims who have been ignored for centuries, languish in various halfway houses throughout America. They are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones are the sons and daughters of the ruling class. They get groomed by societal leaders and owners of large corporations. Trump had a sociopathic dad who brain-washed him to be in the ownership class. After a time, Trump no longer wanted to be a real estate tycoon, so he became a reality TV host. When that career petered out, he ran for president. There has been much written about him. He uses people like Evangelicals, White Nationalists, the One Percent, and working-class whites. That latter group mystifies me. Do they suffer from willful ignorance, or are they merely enablers of a malignant narcissist?

You see, it’s not just politics, it’s abnormal psychology. Dig it!!!

[monsterblogging]

There's definitely a compelling story happening in Attack of the Clones. Anakin scans as a young man who has reached the absolute end of his rope from years of people telling him to practice spiritual bypassing instead of giving him true emotional and psychological support. It's very telling that the minute he's alone with Padme, he starts dumping his grievances with Obi-Wan on her. It's not really surprising that he falls for her so fast and secretly marries her; he is just that starved for human connection.

We can also see that Anakin has internalized a kind of toxic perfectionism. After Anakin kills the Tuskens in a rage, Padme tells him "To be angry is to be human," Anakin responds with "I'm a Jedi. I know I'm better than this."

Better than feeling angry.

And then he internalizes the guilt for Shmi's death, because somehow, Anakin has come to learn that it's all his fault, always.

The moment that broke my heart the most - the moment that made me cry - was when Padme agreed to go to Tatooine with him and he apologized. Imagine how traumatized you have to be to feel like you need to apologize when someone acts supportive when you want to go and rescue your mother.

This is also very interesting to me because there's something incredibly honest happening here: the way Anakin behaves really is what happens when someone internalizes the kind of stuff Obi-Wan and Yoda were teaching Luke in the OT. While watching the OT I was kinda horrified at how bad their teachings often were. ("Do or do not, there is no try" is the kind of thing that will absolutely fuck you up.) Anakin as depicted in this movie is basically just what happens when you bring a kid up on this stuff. (This isn't something that will only just fuck you up if you're mentally ill or traumatized, either; if you're mentally healthy, it will sooner or later traumatize you and make you mentally ill.)

Lucas is also pretty decent at pulling together political plots. I know a lot of people didn't the prequel trilogy's more political angle back in the day, but like... honestly, if we're going to let the man do anything, this is what we should let him do. Oh, and Jedi detective stories; pretty much everything that was Obi-Wan tracking down Kamino was good.

Unfortunately the movie has its problems; the whole thing of the Tuskens kidnapping Shmi is rooted in IRL anti-Native racism. The dialog and direction also could have been better in places (same problem as TPM where a good part of the dialog sounds unnatural).

I also think Padme's writing could have used help, too. Just as ESB never really made me understand why Leia wanted to smonch Han, AotC never really made me understand why Padme wanted Anakin so bad. Both stories feel to me like they're written from the assumption that women will just fall in love with conventionally attractive men in their vicinity.

And then there's that thing where Lucas seems to think battle scenes need comic relief, and... I dunno, maybe there's some people who like it, but I find it incredibly jarring to have this crucial fight scene interrupted by slapstick jokes. Jedi are getting killed, and C-3PO is complaining "this is such a drag!" while his head is literally getting dragged across the ground.

Finally, I actually think moving to CG was a reasonable choice for the prequel trilogy. No, the CG aliens don't look "realistic," but neither do the puppets and the animatronics in the OT, and it's evident that CG allowed for a much greater range of motion in nonhuman characters. I think both methods have advantages and disadvantages, and for what the PT wanted to do? I think CG was the right choice. IMO, the only place it really looks bad is where Lucas decided to insert a bunch of CG into the OT, because the looks don't match, and each one ultimately makes the flaws of the other stand out more.

[angy-grrr]

Not sure if you know of HXH, but apparently its facing a similar ending to JJK and MHA bc the writer apparently revealed that Gon's ending would be marrying some girl at the end of the story. Like lmao, i wonder if its an obligation of shonen stories like this to have this sort of ending? Or if the writers just think this is the most fitting scenario for their MCs bc its traditional and more preferable?

so, HXH, BNHA and JJK, all from SJ, end with random ass hetero romance even tho the authors have expressed some intention/desire to show support for creativity and challenging the boundaries? Yeah im blaming the new editor in chief, this feels like propaganda*

*Traditionally, both comics and mangas have been used as mediums to sell things and ideas to younger audiences in an international level at this point, but particularly focusing on the country they come from; this doesnt mean ALL are like that, ofc not and many ppl can create many different things with it. However, just like books, movies, pictures and shows, these drawings and stories can be used with such purposes, and we can see it way more when focusing on the ones made with a younger male audience in mind; superheroes like superman showing how its heroic to go to war for the US made little boys normalize thats what they should and will do -that its brave, great, wonderful and makes them closer to the perfect man

Comics and manga are political tools too, they can be used with different intentions depending on the political climate, social pressures, and external interventions, besides the ideals the authors can have. Manga, anime and kawaii culture (even tho this one was a countercultural movement created by Japanese young women and teens), were used by Japan as a nation and empire to push the idea, after World War II, that they are not a threat like German nazis; it made the international public to enjoy these cultures and be open to it, even after all of those conflicts, it worked perfectly as a political strategy -I would say its also relevant to highlight how for many schools teaching about nazism is "censored" in one way or another, like in many countries; as far as I saw after making a little research, WWII is simplified, or avoid bringing up discussions about propaganda, racism, LGBT+phobia, far right ideologies, etc, even tho those were what led to the nazi party in the first place. Historical revisionism at its finest!

So, bc of this, I believe the possibility of SJ actively asking for hetero endings in a time where LGBT+ and women's rights and laws in Japan are so highly discussed and polarized, and considering the priorities of the Conservative party including the depopulation of the country (focused on making younger ppl have more babies; for this the government even tried to fund a dating app, so they can get creative with that form of propaganda and biocontrol lol). As another "fun fact", abortion is only legal under certain circumstances like other countries (health problems, income problems, or rape), which only makes things more... weird to me, outside of a manga I like. I dont speak Japanese, I dont live in Japan, I dont know what's going on there truly, but I think these are still important when talking about art, literature and music regardless of what exact country is it.

Idk if the authors just like those endings for some reason, and I dont deny that as an option at all -and nobody should when nothing can/is confirmed-, i just find it weird how super popular battle shonen arent ending with "not too focused/developed romance but still makes kinda sense for shonen standards" but with "omfg wtf is going on who is this character/why did the author destroy the relationship in one chapter".

And with this I mean that BNHA could confirm ochako and deku in easy ways, and instead chose to make them barely see each other in 7 years nor care about it until she saw him a little more in a month (still not talking), and he heard ppl talk about dating inevitably m/f classmates who were friends, and had to bring up random ppl into it for no reason -dead ppl on top of that.

[kuzzzma]

To Catch a Killer (2023) – is a strange film, that outright LIES to it’s intended viewers.

It’s not about how they are going to catch a killer, this title is just a feint, to fool critics and audience alike. The purpose of the film is to ask some very uncomfortable questions sneakily, so subtly that viewers are not even aware that they were asked anything, yet the question will linger and doubt will fester and maybe this will lead to finding some answers in oneself.

Problems stated, questions posed:

Homelessnes

Sexual harassment

Human and LGBT rights

Gun control

History

Racism

Sexism

Police bias

Media responsibility

Media sensationalism

Ecology

Pollution

Politics and populism

Workers rights

Police unprofessionalism

Police brutality

And it’s not an attack on any one country. You see people at the mall, workplace, struggles with higher-ups, who don’t care one bit about solving the crime, but only about how it will reflect on their political aspirations (and everything can be sacrificed for that). It’s universal.

I look at those human interactions and it’s the same everywhere. I look at these landscapes and see a typical Russian small town during winter:

РУС!реал

– How long have you been married? – Ever since we were allowed.

This snippet of dialog jolts the viewer with it’s choice of words: the notion that you need to be ALLOWED to get married feels instantly WRONG, and yet… I find it much more effective that just silently doing token “representation”.

This jolt is much needed, it shakes up viewer and pokes at their assumptions about what kind of film they are watching just in time to pose the main Question right in the next scene.

The Question is stated outright, as well as the answer author proposes and later puts to test.

Big question to ask.

– That’s the big question. How people shape systems and how systems shape us. Today it’s all about the STATUS. People who have it will kill to protect it. People who want it will kill to achieve it and everyone else will be crushed inbetween. Governments, corporations, high school.. pattern seems to be the same. – How do we change that? – You need empathy. Connection. If we truly see ourselves in other people, we want to raise them up, not bring them down.

This is exactly what our protagonist will try to do when facing their perpetrator – establish connection, empathise, work together.

The perpetrator with his need for space and time, with his cabin in the woods reminds me of Henry David Thoreau. He even looks like him!

In the last arc wounded and dying perpetrator is hunted down with the whole might of police force. It’s all blinking lights, whole fleet of cars, helicopters in the air, radio chatter and sirens, all hands on deck. Hunters form a line and their prey is trapped.

We got his tracks!

This comes after this man stated his need for quiet, desire and inability to hide from society.

Makes viewer feel sick long before suicide by the firing squad of cops.

It’s a strange sad film, but it’s got sharp teeth and claws, and it puts boredom, glory, beauty and horror on display:

Boredom and Glory.

Beauty.

Horror

The essential advantage for a poet is not to have a beautiful world with which to deal; it is to be able to see beneath both beauty and ugliness; to see the boredom, and the horror, and the glory. T.S. Eliot

[wenellyb]

Tommy was definitely racist to Hen and Chim. It seems like in season 2 they all moved past it though. Fans don't have to forgive Tommy. He's not owed forgiveness but so far it doesn't seem like Hen and Chim are bothered anymore by his past racism and horrible behavior. In season 2 we saw a change in Tommy and the dynamic at the 118. In season 2 we saw Hen, Chim, and Tommy being friendly together. That doesn't mean he wasn't racist but it seems to imply that they all moved on or at least were able to be okay with each other. This show is known for bad behavior happening onscreen and then we don't see apologies, people just seem to move on so I don't know if we'll ever see Tommy apologize to Hen and Chim for being racist to them.

We haven't seen Tommy being racist or sexist towards Hen and Chim or anyone since season 2. I guess we'll see what happens in season 8. Personally, as long as Hen and Chim are okay with Tommy then I can be okay with Tommy but if they bring up his old behavior and feel like they need him to address it then I am right there with them. When it comes to shows sometimes I feel like if the victims are okay and have moved on then so can I and that's how I view Tommy. If we see Tommy being racist, sexist, or horrible again in anyway then I'll have problems with him again but so far we haven't seen that. He's come back and been nothing but helpful to everyone at the 118. Nothing excuses his past behavior though, not even him being better now.

I think you should definitely block shippers and stans if they impact your enjoyment of a show or character. Please don't let stans ruin things for you.

Hi Anon!!! Thank you for sending this! And honestly I have no problem with people liking Tommy, far from it, I hope I didn't imply that in my previous posts.

My problems are:

1) people who say that Tommy wasn't racist because Hen and Chimney were civil with him when they were working together. As if it's some kind of evidence...a lot of people have been civil and polite to racist coworkers, for various reasons (for exemple: they weren't in a position where they would afford to jeopaedize their job).

2) people who act like the fandom should forgive Tommy because Hen and Chimney forgave him. Racism is a complexe issue that can't be summarized in a Tumblr post. But it's not as simple as Hen and Chimney were the "victims", in the case of racism, the victim isn't only the person it's direct towards, but a whole group of people.

Let me give a stupid example, but just to explain what I mean. Let's say A says the n-word to B. Later, A apologizes and B forgives A because he was drunk or didn't realize what he was saying or for whatever reason, it doesn't mean that other Black people should forgive A. That slur wasn't only directed at B, even though B was the victim in that scenario, that slur targets every Black person who witnessed or heard about that conversation.

(I apologize I'm bad at giving example I hope you understand what I mean😭)

If Hen and Chimney, have fogiven Tommy it doesn't mean that other fans should "get over it", unless they want to.

If Hen and Chimney forgiving Tommy is enough for you then that's ok, more than ok, but it might not be the case for everyone, especially non-White fans.

Side note, I also don't like when people assume the only reason other people dislike Tommy as a character is because they ship Buddie. Some of them do, but not all of them.

Thank you for the ask, I really appreciate your input.

And you're right, I'll start blocking some people, at first, I thought I shouldn't be blocking some people because we're part of the same fandom but that's obviously the wrong strategy.

[jules-ln]

Okay, don’t shoot me but it IS hypocritical to get upset at people antagonizing Jayvik shippers as racists then generalize Meljay shippers as xenophobic.

Turning this into a matter of “us versus them” instead simply speaking against the toxic behavior you’ve seen is just adding fuel to the fire imo.

Are there rotten people in Mel and Meljay spaces that deserve to be called out? Yes! And there are many people in those spaces denouncing that behavior.

Additionally that doesn’t erase the fact that some are using this issue as an excuse to say racist and insensitive things towards black Americans in particular and take things out of context to justify their actions. And might I point out, no one has the time or energy to keep up with every bit of fandom drama. What character or ship people like isn’t a political affiliation.

Disclosure: I’ve been guilty of this myself, I’ll admit but I do actively try not to group people together in my head just because I’ve had negative experiences with a toxic subset.

Side note: most Meljay fans bring up the fact that they are POC x POC because some people try to say Meljay “just another boring het ship” and ignore the fact that interracial relationships, with a black woman, between two people of color is in fact, a rare representation.

Saying that you don’t think Meljay fans really care about Jayce and disregard his Latino identity sounds awfully similar to accusing Jayvik fans of being responsible for racist stereotypes against Jayce… yknow, something you spoke against a while back?

I’m not trying to pick a fight but these are my honest thoughts.

Feel free to let me know if you think I’m missing something/dismiss this/block me.

Oh, I know I was being hypocritical, that's why I admitted it at the end of that post lmao

And like I said I was getting pissed off because I have no issue in MelJays fans talking their hearts out hating Jayvik

Just👏tag👏your👏shit👏

And I tried to be kind and point out that they need to tag their stuff for the love of peace, then they come at me with the "SpEaK EnGlIsH" like any gringo pendejo

Como de a ver pendejo, yo aquí estoy en mi país, y puedo hablar el idioma que se me venga en gana chinga, si para algo pago el pinche Internet

That was the part that got me angry you know, because, oh, Jayce it's Latino, but fuck real Latinos, so like our culture it's just something spicy to put on top? My language it's something stupid?

That's where my problem is

And why is it always gringos at the center of the conversation about racism? As if Afrolatinos didn't exist. We aren't like a monolith and afrolatinos often get erased and discriminated

I don't know man, it's not so much MelJay fans that annoyed me, but gringos pendejos being gringos pendejos and not recognizing their own ignorance. Like if there was a Latino that came here and said "me gusta más el MelJay" pues ahí cada quien no?

No tengo problema con el ship de MelJay, y sé que no todos los fans son mal pedo, pero óyeme no, tantita madre con esos weyes, como de "a ver, si no te parece que hable en mi idioma, entonces paso a retirar a Jayce Latino" lmao

Because I'll say it again, Gringos are gringos no matter what, I just think that they suffer from the kind of thinking that just because they are PoC doesn't mean that they can't be racist/xenophobic towards other PoC

And lemme tell you, if you had the gringos as your neighbor, with the kind of history that exists between Mexico and Gringolandia, you'd understand that my issue wasn't so much with MelJay fans, but with Gringos. I'm not kidding when I say that Mexico it's like Zaun and Gringolandia like Piltover

Como dirían por ahí, pobre México, tan lejos de Dios, tan cerca de Gringolandia lmao

So I was just, angry about that lol (still a bit angry if I think about that lmao)

[blogger360ncislarules]

Welcome to 1970. In Call the Midwife Season 14, the groovy opener (airing March 30 on PBS) comes into the decade strong with storylines involving teenage pregnancy, political strikes, and more drama for the East London community of Poplar. Jenny Agutter, who has played Sister Julienne since the start, says that creator Heidi Thomas‘ Dickensian-style storytelling has created “quite a strong story” in the first installment, with a teen pregnancy that is handled in a way that only Midwife can.

She’s referring to the plight of a 14-year-old with child who “becomes a problem for Dr. Turner [Stephen McGann] and the nurse,” teases Agutter, because her deeply religious family believes it’s an immaculate conception. “They try to get the girl to denounce the devil,” she adds. “It’s scary stuff.”

Meanwhile, Sister Julienne and her longtime colleague Trixie (Helen George) are fighting back against a Board of Health that wants the state in control of the district’s healthcare. But as workers strikes and a building explosion caused by lack of regulatory checks later this season show, the state often fails the people, making the midwives�� grassroots aid vital. They really do have a higher calling!

Agutter also promises that burning questions from the Call the Midwife 2024 Christmas special will be answered in the premiere. It “is a conclusion” to all the loose strings. Overall, Season 14 is, in a word, about “poverty,” says the star. “Poverty and all the social issues that come out of it, the abuse that might happen, the difficulties.”

“It seemed like the ’60s brought a lot of growth and optimism,” Agutter explains. “And you’ve had a Christmas episode, which is actually half of a story. So it must be rather tantalizing for people because it doesn’t actually complete at all until you get into March, and you see that second half. And as I say, it being a completion of a Christmas episode, really it has the sense of joy of people getting together and enjoying a period of time together with family and making that family work in a community.”

“But it also shows the beginnings of what one’s feeling in 1970, which is the problems that come out of expecting more from might’ve been offered and what actually is on offer,” she continues. “We have strikes, people unhappy about what they’ve got. As far as Julienne’s concerned, the [Board of Health] really want Nonnatus House out of the game, so their sense of control there is being diminished. But they serve the community, and oftentimes when you hand over to state to take care of everything, it doesn’t actually take care of all those things.”

PBS / BBC Studios

That’s where the explosion later this season comes in. It’s brought about by the fact that “there haven’t been enough checks on the building” with the state managing housing regulations, Agutter shares. “It’s a very poor tenement building and fortunately there are no injuries, but it’s a sign of something falling apart, going wrong,” she says.

Homelessness and racism are also prevalent in Poplar in Season 14. “We’ve got an extremely good nurse who’s from Trinidad who’s joined us, and someone that Sister Julienne is very proud to have as part of her team,” Agutter reveals. Julienne is later shocked to learn that a patient throws out false accusations about this nurse alleging negligent medical care. Agutter says “it purely comes because she doesn’t like being touched by this person.”

“There’s also issues like spina bifida that comes up, the difficulties that sometimes come with we’re getting less home births, more births in the hospital, and then people being dismissed from hospital early and not being followed up,” Agutter adds.

Adding to those troubles is Nonnatus House’s increasingly diminished power to handle things themselves, aka state control places time-consuming roadblocks to their solutions.

“It’s one of those issues as to, if you don’t have the authority to do something yourself and you’ve got to run by the guidelines, it’s like what happens with education and all the rest of it,” Agutter shares. “Things become very difficult to do because you are being monitored all the time for what you can and can’t do. And then you can’t run things efficiently in your own way.”

Run-ins with the local council will be impossible, as Nonnatus now own their building, so they have the issues of having to take care of that building as well. They go to the council for help that, but they’re not particularly wanting to help with that.” Sister Julienne will spend much of this season figuring out “how to continue” the good work of Nonnatus House, “how to keep it going and what they can do” now that the government is stepping in so strongly.

Times certainly are changing in Poplar. From the set design to the fashion of the times, everything is going to look different. But as Agutter says with a laugh, “Unfortunately, the habits stay the same.”

[sluttyquarantinetheory]

I think Sera as a character would get less hate as an "unelfy elf" if dragon age games in general did a better job of showing dalish elves specifically as having more agency in their actions. Alienage culture is only really explored in Origins but still establishes itself apart from the Dalish. Inquisition established Sera as apart from both Dalish culture and alienage culture. I think that's an interesting character to explore one who sees herself as no different than a poor human walking around. A person who grew up with all the same racism directed towards her, but none of the cultural foundation of being an elf.

The problem is that Dragon Age treats Dalish elves with very little agency. Origins gives them the most agency with you having to at least argue with them and talk Zathrian into making peace with the werewolves rather than just making the decision outright. But with 2 every aspect of Merrill's quest is still locked behind your decisions and in Inquisition even if you smash and loot Dalish graves the Dalish will be polite and accepting of your aid even while you're hunting halla down the road for hide. And Veilguard outsources every decision about everything to you and is uninterested in letting elves have thoughts other than guilt about what their gods are doing.

There's not really an opportunity to embrace Dalish culture in a way that forces you to be emerged in it. To complete dalish quests you don't have to dig through their culture. It's a side option to listen to story tellers or read codexes. You don't have to really sort out an understanding of the culture to complete quests. Even in origins you only really have to learn that there's a history of violence between elves and humans and the best story conclusion to that storyline is to convince Zathrian that his own desire for vengeance is hurting his clan because the humans have already learned from their punishment so it's just one grieving old man that's bringing everyone down.

So when it comes to Sera, she becomes this glaring beacon against a culture we don't really get to see. She's not like other elves, but we don't know what that means in any real sense. And doubly so if you've only played Inquisition. Inquisition especially is so devoid of elvan culture that her talking about being elfy just seems flat.