#i just dont like “objective evils” if there isn't a good reason for them to exist

[hoodiedoodles]

i disagree with the notion that "Demons are only evil and can only be evil" that Frieren brings up as a show, especially when it contradicts itself

we're told that Demons are functionally similar to mimics-- being an advanced evolution that mimics humans to eventually achieve their goals. they are naturally immoral and incapable of feeling true emotions; they only copy those emotions. the Young Demon that Himmel kills admits that the only reasons she cries out for a mother is because "it makes [humans] stop hurting them". they have no concept of remorse or mercy, except where it makes them better at their jobs of killing humans.

but like... they are sentient creatures. any creature that can replicate intelligent behavior to the degree of being able to lie must be aware that there is more to them than "their nature".

hell, the way Demon Society is structured seems to confirm this anyway. they function in a "might makes right" society, where the more mana you have, the more power you have, thus emphasizing longevity and crushing the weak. but by this same logic, the self-serving and cruel nature of the Demons is a purely societal influence-- they think they can't escape their nature because they were NURTURED to believe that.

there's no such thing as objective, pure evil. if a creature is capable of intelligent thought then it's also capable of going against the status quo. and given how miserable Demons seem to be I don't believe that there just AREN'T any "good demons" out there. Maybe they can't feel empathy, but neither can some real people, and we don't treat low-empathy people as monsters just for their nature. they learn how to be kind and work within society even without being able to feel empathy

Frieren is a very well put-together and well thought-out story so I feel like Frieren's commentary on Demons is meant to be intentionally cruel and incorrect to make a point about the dangers of absolutism, but i also wouldn't be surprised if the author just made a group of "objectively evil monsters" to showcase Frieren, Fern and Stark being badasses without worrying about the moral consequences

[blackpilljesus]

I dont care about the odds of womens liberation happening because I dont solely focus on "winning" per se. That's not to say I dont want or aim towards it but freedom isn't just about the end but the journey too. Cultivating a lifestyle as a single childfree woman is something bigger than me and something I hold onto to get me by.

One thing about conscious is that we all know we're going to die. This terrifies some; but in some cases it gives a purpose to existence. Death becomes a metric to measure the things that are worth it in life, things to dedicate life towards for fulfillment in existing. Whether the end goal actually comes to fruition or not is irrelevant because the hope and purpose carries you as you live.

To get by the hardships of life and inevitability of death: dedicate yourself to something bigger than you. Having a sense of purpose beyond yourself drives innovation & delivery. It's not just about how long you live but what you live (& are willing to die) for. This is how cults, religion, charity, activism, natalism etc affect people. It gives them a sense of purpose greater than themselves so they devote their lives to them even in extreme cases where it'd kill them. They suffer & work in the name of their cause.

Many women regret encountering feminism & seeing maIes for how evil they are but I dont. I see things more clearly & more importantly it's given me a purpose in life; something to orient how I carry myself as long as I live: To pour my energy into myself & other likeminded women, to live beyond serving a maIe, to trust myself & not let the claws of maIe supremacy sink into me, to be the subject of my life instead of the object, to know I'm ending the line of suffering and not giving maIes what they ultimately want - another soul in the chain to continue the suffering, etc. That's the direction I'm taking my life.

I'm saying all of this because with things like separatism, 4B etc if you're serious about it think about these things as something bigger than yourself let it be something that you devote yourself to that goes beyond you. In the end it isn't just about you, it's about the future children you're saving from experiencing the hurt & suffering of this world. For me, no matter what happens as long as I dont give birth before I die that's a W for me - when I die the suffering in my line ends with me. So that's how I see this as something bigger than myself, it's not just about me but my (potential) future offspring. And before anyone tells me about how there's good in this world; good isn't guaranteed but suffering is.

When you give yourself to something bigger than you you're able to commit to things for the greater good & not just doing things for the sake of it. I dont refuse to date, reproduce, wear makeup, etc to stick it to anybody; it's just freeing for me. I think the lack of seeing these things as something bigger than yourself is part of why many women struggle to commit to this or even think of the idea (there's obvs many reasons but I wont get into them to stay focused). I commonly to hear things "I'm not doing x for some fringe online movement" because they dont see a greater good, sense, or purpose to it so instead women will get in pro woman spaces demanding it caters to them & their existing habits rather than working within these spaces towards a goal greater than themselves compared to dating which is why they're willing to inconvenience & risk more in that regard.

This might sound extreme but many people whether they're aware of it or not have a purpose for themselves at some point & legacy they want to build to leave something behind or it fulfils them. For me the way I see all of this is that I want to succeed as a single childfree woman as my legacy. That's what I build towards. I occasionally ask myself that if I was to die now would my life & the things I did reflect what I believed in at the end of the day. Now obviously people have different motives & legacy aspirations which causes conflict (even with maIe supremacy it's about legacy which is why maIes live & die for it. It makes it easier for them to reproduce & steal labour from women to pass off as their own & that's something added to their legacy - something that lives beyond). Ofc not everyone gets remembered but in the grand scheme of things as I mentioned it's not about the end goal but the journey there.

The thing with fulfilment is that it is so strong if this thing wasn't there people likely wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Despite the criticisms of religion, part of why it's so powerful & popular is bc many people wouldn't know what to do without that framework shaping their lives. Something they can lean on in hard times, something that directs the way they go about their daily lives so people take it very seriously with its ups and downs as it gives them purpose & they'd be lost otherwise. Similar thing with patriarchy, if you remove the benefits it comes with; maIes wouldn't have a purpose to work towards & existence wouldn't be worth it for most of them. This is why many of them dont care about going on rampages even if it costs them their lives to uphold the system as they have nothing to live for out of maIe supremacy. A loss of those structures would be a net negative as they have to work harder for the same or less results.

For many women, romance is something that fulfils them & adds purpose to their lives (remember having purpose to something means you're willing to struggle for it). In my previous post I addressed the argument of how there'll be violence when women reject maIes en masse but even when women choose to date maIes the risk of violence is still there (which there's endless strategies on how to 'vet' and mitigate) but they still go for it because a having relationship is something bigger than themselves. These things fulfil them so much so that many women refuse to take maIes as they are & actively shut out news about their violence bc it'd make them hate them & they dont want to do that bc losing romance would be losing it all. It isn't just about them, they're looking for someone to explore, build, and create life with as it fulfils them so they'd be willing to take risks to find that. Hell even out of dating, many women will risk their lives & livelihood to advocate for maIes politically as they see the cause as greater than them.

I've provided examples to put this concept in context so for the more relevant part: as a single childfree woman where does this leave you? Find a sense of purpose & fulfilment to it. This is something that has to come from within for it to stick, a sentence I say isn't going to give you purpose bc you dont know me & I dont know you. To a degree, typical things that give people purpose & fulfilment are messages that have been instilled into them from childhood. As people grow & face challenges it's something they lean on and it works for them to get by life. Many religious people look to their creator when they're going through hard times in addition to everything else they do surrounding religion as they devote themselves to that. So having a purpose & sense of fulfilment is important bc when adversity inevitably comes up it will help you overcome it.

TLDR: We're always taking risks depending on what we find purpose & fulfilment in. These things tend to be bigger than ourselves. Find purpose and fulfilment to being a single childfree woman.

This is the final part of my series of posts about the popularity & rise of single childfree women:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

[p8567899754nhu]

sakura making fun of naruto for being an orphan is B.S.

sakura never made fun of naruto for being an orphan . yeah thats it . no matter how much naruto dude-bro's may lament over it she never did it. i mean their sakura hate is so comical they keep inventing weird shit to back it up , but here are the panels from the manga for reference:

she is not "making fun" of naruto in either of these panels though she says a bunch of stuff-

"naruto was badly brought up"

-im sorry ? do you object to this? do you think naruto was not badly bought up? idk what to even say here, when usually naruto wankers' lament over how sad were the conditions in which naruto was bought up and how hiruzen is a trashy caretaker , also notice how sasuke doesnt care when she says that and continues to walk past

"how he always comes between us"

um.. considering the shit naruto was just doing(beating sasuke , tying him up, and then fcking trying to kiss sakura disguised as sasuke!! ) and before that (sitting on desk and glaring at sasuke because sakura likes him and he is popular) i dont think sakura's complaint is very misplaced , and it could be that he might have done similar shit prior to this

"dont you envy him for being alone, not having parents to nag at you all time"

This is somewhat insensitive and not to naruto , who isn't even present at the moment but to sasuke because she is ASKING sasuke if he envies naruto because his parents dead .sakura saying to sasuke (indirectly) that lack of family is something one should feel good about and is lucky for .(although compared to the shit naruto and kakashi and even lee give sasuke on his clan in particular this is something that is indirect and somewhat subtle and is not intended to berate sasuke in anyway )

P.S.: she is not a psycho who wants her parents dead or anything she wants to be alone and to not have her parents nag at her or ground her

but I never saw this as delinquent or unsual behaviour from sakura's POV, because sakura is a normal 13 year old !!

it would make perfect sense for a teen to want to be alone , to be rebellious, and to not want your parents tell you how to do everything!

especially since kishimoto wanted sakura to be a charechter that is relatable to young girls

however post time skip sakura's views have on family seemed to have changed a bit when she asks sasori "what is family to you?!"

i really really cant understand how psychos of naruto fandom would give a pass to-no askchually WORSHIP charechters like Itachi (who is a fucking remorseless genocidaire!) and hate this girl , i made a post before but it seems its a lot of misogyny acting up, aint it - for she not only rejects naruto(which is a big sin in itself) , she HATES him , and doesnt coddle him (most of the time-although there are moments when she does), she doesnt give two hoots about him a lot of the time and is fangirling on sasuke -oh the misery!! - arent these reasons enough to take petty things about her and constrew them as though they were on a whole different league of evil .

"he doesnt have to answer to anyone, its made him selfish, if i did something similar, id be grounded for life"

well.. sakura's speculation on why naruto is selfish is sort of misplaced but somewhat makes sense comparing to the shit naruto has done up to now i dont think she is wrong in calling him selfish -he does what he wants without giving a damn about anyone else ,that is selfish -isnt that what he did just now, he beat sasuke, tied him up and went to kiss sakura without giving 2 hoots bout either one of them, and got no consequences for it ! if sakura wouldve attempted something similar then she would've been punished severely by her parents, who would perhaps also make sure that something like this never happened again. - is there something wrong in what she said here ? i dont quite understand...

To sum up everything , all she says is :

1. Naruto is badly brought up

2. He does fucked up shit because he's badly bought up

3. He has no one to watch over so he does selfish things

4. Sakura wishes she could do a lot if the things naruto does and is envious at how far he can go without getting reprimanded

[songbirdblues]

theres much to be said about the woobification of tim drake as a character entirely in fanon, but one thing in particular that tends to irk me is the misinterpretation of this scene.

now, i generally dont have a problem with fanon interprets of events like this!!! in fact, im an avid fanfic reader and i can honestly say i dont mind when comic events get squashed or stretched out of proportion. people want angst and fluff, and hurt and comfort, and i can respect that a lot of dc fans get their info from fanon and dont bother/simply dont want to read comics because they lack those feel-good moments/that emotional depth that fanfics have. thats fine, thats none of my business, and thats perfectly valid!

...but i think it does get to a point where a comic is SO misinterpreted, like this one (or just this series in general, really), that it loses all that makes it good and interesting in the first place.

dick isn't a bad guy here. whether you think what he said was warranted or not, or if you think him saying that he thinks tim should seek help is insensitive or wrong, he's not some evil abusive guy who hates tim (tim literally calls him his brother in the scene???? in a positive context??)

i just see a lot of people think dick is some terrible villain for this event (and for the "firing and replacing tim just so damian can be robin for no reason" thing which is also a misinterpretation of what happened, but thats something else). when in reality dick himself is already struggling to keep his family from falling apart even more than it already has, has been forced to become batman, and has to raise this random, murderous kid that just popped into his life (i love damian but bro was giving dick gray hairs in his twenties in the beginning lol), all while dealing with the loss of his father for the second time in his life. on top of this, to him, his 16 year old brother is off doing god knows what across europe going on a wild goose chase looking for their (presumably) dead father and doesnt know what to do about it.

but despite all that, in tims eyes, dick massively messed up. we know he thinks this by what he says in the comic.

which leads me to my last point; tims own thoughts. this is a bit more of my opinion on tims character rather than objective fact so bear with me. tims internal monologue and emotional journey across red robin are why i think this series is so heavily (sorry to keep using this word) misinterpreted by fanon.

throughout the course of the story, tim is being forced to suffer with a grief that that he doesnt know how to deal with. like dick, this is the second father tim has lost. but the difference between them is that when tim experiences loss he... doesnt really know how to deal with it, like at all. he goes crazy when he loses someone close to him. at least dick can kinda sorta keep it together. after jack died and bruce tried to adopt him, tim literally hired a man to pretend to be his uncle to avoid it. when kon died, he tried to clone him 99 whole times with old luthor tech, (and later when damian died, tim hallucinated hugging him, or at the very least pretended to, which while a lot tamer than these other instances i still think it speaks to how deeply he feels these losses and how badly he handles it). i dont know the specifics of how he acted about other people hes lost like bart, stephanie, and his mom, but tim even says himself that part of the reason why he's doing all this is because of how many people he's lost, so it can be assumed he reacted harshly to their passing, too.

tim also admits, multiple times throughout red robin, that he knows he sounds/acts crazy, he admits that he goes farther than he ever went as robin when dealing with criminals and cases because as red robin he's now "tainted" and agrees with connor in a later issue that "red robin" is his punishment for himself.

so what i mean by all this is that, simply put, tim is an unreliable narrator. of course we as the readers feel angry at dick and cassie, tim himself is angry at them. he feels hurt and betrayed, and it could even be assumed at that point that he feels they abandoned him, and he thinks that they think hes crazy. he isolates himself from everyone, he feels unworthy of everything, and he "knows" hes lost it. "except for everything, im perfectly fine." is a quote he says, and there are plenty more like it in the series.

my point is that in tims eyes for the majority of his character arc as red robin, nearly everyone hes ever loved has either died or abandoned him, but as the audience we know thats not the case. cassie loves him, dick of course loves him, they just both made mistakes and hurt him, but that doesnt make either of them irredeemable or mean that they dont care about tim. tim himself, in that moment, just doesnt believe that, or doesnt even seem to consider that. he sees the bad, and blinded by his own grief and anger, doesnt see the good.

i just think a lot of people miss that, and just write dick off as borderline abusive or purposefully hurtful in red robin fanfics, because comics tend to get telephoned so much in the fandom that thats what people see him as, when it's not the case, which is how we got the "dick threatens to send tim to arkham" thing. (but thats just gonna happen i guess. did you know that in the actual jasons attack on titans tower comic jason wears his robin costume?? yeesh i'll have to stick with fanon on their interpretation of that whole thing. see its not bad all the time)

besides the idea of the whole arkham trope thing, theres still plenty of canon angst to pull from in red robin! you can write about how tim thinks hes losing it, ra's weird infatuation with tim and everything that comes with that, tim being forced to deal with losing robin, tims rocky relationship with tam fox, tims super rocky relationship with damian, any interaction between kon and tim, OH. the fact that at one point tim got kicked out of a tall building and accepted his death (only thinking about how bruce would be proud), only to be saved by dick last minute and then lying about knowing dick would save him (yeah right buddy) ((its issue #12)). theres also the idea of bruce and tim talking after tim finds him (canon bruce hug!!!). and theres more im forgetting for sure. all that to say theres plenty of ideas already there for the taking!!!!! red robin is a great comic filled with plenty of emotional moments.

moral of the story, dick isn't a terrible person, tim needs help but he isn't a little baby incapable of doing anything, and i believe writing them differently in the context of red robin (2009) is a disservice to their characters and their relationships with each other in the actual comic.

...but i mean, im not your dad. write what you want

[aggressiveworldbuilding]

Can you rant about WotC's Orcs, please?

Orcs are such a fucking waste and also a byproduct of the Tolkenization of dnd. Orcs are - from LOTR - corrupted elves who chose to become servents of Saron's sugar daddy Morgath or whatever the fuck (can't be bothered to look up the asshole's name rn) so the reason they are 'evil' isn't bc they are biologically bad because they are orcs - its because they chose to serve the Big Bad Evil TM. or were tortured? p sure the first ones chose to but not the point

There are So Many cool monsters mentioned in passing in one of the books and the most mudane boring bland ass 'hur dur they evil' tone to all of the descriptions. WHy. You are telling me there is a whole section on orcs that ride flying bats and you made it immediatly unappealing? Your telling me there are badass women who grow out their nails to claws to worship their god and you made them BORING???

The only things i would keep about orcs is their religious fanatisism. I like that about them - i think they deserve a whole well thought out religion, whether it be a highly organized church or a more nebulous worship. A whole pantheon of gods and such. Give it to them. As a treat. Lord knows they need sometjing to validate their holy wars.

Another thing is that it is mentioned that women in their culture are oppressed. Arent you tired of oppressing women WotC? Like - yea okay sure sexism is Yet another thing we should discsluss but why is it the Catholic brand of 'women is object'? If ur gonna fantasy my real life issue, at least consider in the context of the culture Why that is.

Halflings in my lore are sexist towards women, because rhey have a patriarichal monarchy. HOWEVER. It isnt the same as 'women opressed and must obey man'. Female halflings arent so much as oppressed as forgotten. They are a legal loophole - many rights (and offenses) simply doesnt apply to half the populatuon because the inheritance of property is so important to them - ans can only be passed on by men.

Is it good? No. Is it right? No - but thats not the point. No society is "good or bad" inherantly. Its how a society interacts with the morals ans values of another that dictates how it is perceived. So Orcs are likely 'evil' to creatures who dont beleive in their holy violence. But that doesnt mean they eat babies or whatever.

Tldr: orcs are to evil what elves are to good - a rip off and cop out. Use ur brain ans actually tell me sometjint abt them besides rhey kill people and are religious - you just described Paladins and Clerics!!!! And also catholics

[idyllic-affections]

🌻 WE TALKED ABOUT THE SAME TAKE RAHHAUAIAJAKAN i feel like if u want to post a take about a character u dont like, then u should at least make sure that it isn't biased... i do that. an another character i very dislike as a person (but love for his writing) is really close to my favorite character, so everytime i happen to talk about him i try to look at him with open mind and some understanding for his actions and not boil him down to "ue ue he evil fawk him!" because. look i hate him but even i can tell that hes a very complicated character so. yeah!

AJAHSJSJS look. look! the "canon" tag... was created by his antis. mhm. because his fans told them to get an own tag for all the hate and mischaracterization and well. they. um. tried? i have nothing against people that dislike this character alright. he is complicated, his relationship with his brother is i think above saving, hes can be an absolute ass and so go on so people can have genuine reasons to dislike him. or he just annoys them and that's ok!! but theres a difference between disliking a character and talking complete bullshit about them and calling it "canon that stans refuse to accept"

STOP LMFAO WE SHARE A BRAINCELL FR

ME 🤝 🌻 ANON UNKNOWINGLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAME SHITTY FURI & NEUVI TAKE

LITERALLY just... don't post it if you KNOW it's biased (or do, but put a disclaimer at the top). i couldn't post about wrio or dottore, for example, in an unbiased way, so i don't. i know my takes would be shitty because i Do Not Like Them. and i don't care for good takes about them because, again, I Do Not Like Them. good and empathetic takes do not matter to me because i just don't think any of them have justifable reasons for the way they behave (objectively though dottore cannot be justified at all; he's literally a serial kidnapper, murderer, AND terrorist. that is the truth that i feel like a lot of dottore stans don't acknowledge). so i don't post about them. because the takes would be bad.

THAT'S SO REAL there's a vast difference between actual canon that people don't really like, and just posting bad hater takes and calling those takes "canon that people don't really like." people often seem to struggle understanding the difference between their personal feelings and biases vs. what is actually canon, so it often manifests in Bad Takes. sigh. such is the nature of fandom spaces, i suppose!

[coilserpent]

astrology observations (vedic edition)

people with their ketu nakshatra in uttara ashada might feel like they've had their right for autonomy taken away from them. they usually have a better second half of life. (example for this placement is Britney Spears)

ketu ruled individuals especially ashwini might appear aloof to some people. unbiased with their opinions because they look at things from an objective pov, they dont attach to beliefs or get caught up in their own convictions and they truly believe evil and good coexist so they might appear sort of sociopathic to some since they never outwardly say something that another does is ''wrong'' or ''right''. this detachment from a sense of morality allows them to be in certain positions and use it for their own personal gains if expressed negatively (politicians tend to be ketu dominate. note: the idea of morality is distorted)

almost every magha had a goth phase. also this is the one ketu nakshatra that truly enjoys routine in their day to day life. the other two are wayyyy less concerned with their vital body, even to the point of neglecting their physical body since they're so unattached to the material.

jupiter nakshatras (punarvasu, purva bhadrapada, vishakha) are the guys that write songs about showing a woman what real love feels like. these men even put themselves in positions where they know the woman they're with isn't over her ex but still stay.

sun ruled people are compatiable with those who are mercury ruled since they have this natural ability to give energy out (yang - inner wisdom, knowledge) to the mercury person. mercury enjoys this because its a feminine energy that naturally absorbs. the reason for them to be good for one another is because the sun gives out in a way thats not prompted by any hidden motive or a desire to obtain control over the mercury person and they are drawn to that.

moon ruled (rohini, hasta, shravana) women i feel like would be called pick mes because they're so drawn to men who appear traditionally manly. they get attached soooo easily that's why they're scared to let just anyone in. they ooze natural femininity but they dont like appearing ''hot'' like mars women. they're concerned with their partner's needs the most out of all nakshatra rulers.

[dwtisgay]

can you explain you aversion to the word truthing because i feel like tinhatting is on the same level if not worse. is it a semantics thing or do you just not like how it sounds

I think inventing new words for speculation is stupid, tinhatting included however truthing sucks even more because apparently the whole reason we need a new fucking word is that some people are "delusional" and think dream and george dating is 100% "truth" Idk where the word came from but I hate its use because I don't fucking actually 100% know if dream and george are dating, what I speculate isn't objective truth, I jokingly like to say they are dating but that's a hyperbole of what I actually mean, which is that there is a HIGH likelihood they are dating based on evidence we have, I can get close to 100% but Ill never actually know unless they say, and that's fine, that's called speculation!

I think truthing may have its uses if you are delusional and just say people are dating based on nothing, but I see a lot of people online compile evidence and good arguments for why some people might be dating and they also get lumped in with "truthers" under one label or even worse, use it for themselves and its stupid

just a year ago people had such a stupid allergy to the word "truthing" to the point people now are making posts like "I dont truth them, but I think they are acting like they're dating" and its..why are we making up stupid new walls and trying to jump over them? the word truthing is such a weird stigmatized word that has put a barrier in the face of speculation, everyone speculates! its normal! its gossip! but suddenly now just because they slapped a new word on it, its horrible

I remember seeing people going "omg benchtrio truthers are so pedophilic and weird why would you speculate on minors sexuality" and its like...I was 16 once, I can see the signs, its just basic human empathy to look at someone and relate their experiences to you, there is nothing weird or creepy going on there I hate the word with a passion, and since people are gagging for new stupid words to use instead of simply not using them I've settled for a lesser evil which is tinhatting, because it emphasis that I am speculating, what I think isn't baseless but subjectively crafted with thought behind it and I don't want to have to deal with moralistic idiots who don't understand nuance or empathy

[spurgie-cousin]

I know everyone is mad at JB and M but really they must be heartbroken their son is in Jail. They must either think he is guilty or set up by the government. I dont understand why JB didnt go and listen to all of the evidence. Surely one of the other kids who attended would say the evidence was all there to their parents? I also wonder if Austin has approached them?

I'm sure they are heartbroken and probably in a lot of denial. I can only speculate as to why Jim Bob does anything that he does........I've always just assumed he's a little bit delusional, in a literal way. Not to get all armchair psychologist again, but I think a lot of the reason he created the life he has is because it's a very simple, morally black and white way of living; I don't think JB is kept up at night much struggling with the dilemma of being a good person, if that makes sense. And it's comfortable in his alternate universe where there are definite, infallible rules/truths about the nature of good and evil.

So I think anything that challenges that and adds moral complexity is just kind of immediately deflected. I think Josh gave him an excuse and he accepted it and isn't willing to face evidence to the contrary that might make him believe otherwise, because that would also mean entertaining the idea that a child he raised the 'right' way might have done this objectively horrible thing. And then what does that say about him, or even about what God thinks of him? Did Josh turn out this way because of JB’s own moral failing? This opens up a whole pandora’s box of late-night existential crises.

Assuming that any of that is true, I don't think he'd be super open to discussions like the ones you've mentioned. I've always got the vibe that he was kind of hard to communicate with in a genuine way, even from the early days (he just has that walled-off dad aura that is palpable idk).

[thelittlehansy]

Why it doesnt make any sense to go hide aurora in the woods in the maleficent remake....

In disney sleeping beauty aurora was not hide in the wood To prevent her to prick her finger on a spindle wheel. King stefan already burn all of them.

but because of two stuff

- maleficent wanted her dead

- maleficent was after them because the fairies change her curse of death into a slumber woke up by true love kiss.

Also one of the subtlity i never catch younger in the plot of the scenario They interpret maleficent curse as aurora can died any time before her 16th birthday thats why she was hide her whole life and not only on the day of her 16th birthday. ( i dont want to be rude but i think it possible the writor of maleficent didnt understand it )

Thats why flora elaborate her plan. Hide aurora in the woods to protect her against maleficent. Here is the dialogue between flora fauna merryweather :

Flora:Silly fiddle faddle!

Fauna:Now, come have a nice cup of tea, dear. I'm sure it'll work out somehow.

Merryweather:Well, a bonfire won't stop Maleficent.

Flora:Of course not. But what will?Fauna:Well, perhaps if we reason with her.

Flora:Reason?Merryweather:With Maleficent?

Fauna:Well, she can't be all bad.

Flora:Oh, yes, she can.

Merryweather:I'd like to turn her into a fat ole hoptoad!

Fauna:Now, dear, that isn't a very nice thing to say.

Flora:Besides, we can't. You know our magic doesn't work that way.

Fauna:It can only do good, dear, to bring joy and happiness.

Merryweather:Well, that would make me happy.

Flora:But there must be some way ... There he is!

Merryweather:There he is?

Fauna:What is it, Flora?Flora:I'm going to ... shh, shh, shh! Even walls have ears.[Flora sneaks around the corners]

Flora:Follow me![Flora minimizes herself, the other two follow her into the insides of a something on the table]

Flora:I'll turn her into a flower!Merryweather:Maleficent?

Flora:Oh no, dear, the princess!

Fauna:Oh she'd make a lovely flower.

Flora:Don't you see, a flower can't prick its finger.

Merryweather:It hasn't any.

Fauna:That's right.

Flora:She'll be perfectly safe.

Merryweather:Until Maleficent sends a frost.

Flora:Yes, a ... oh dear!

Fauna:She always ruins your nicest flowers.

Flora:You're right. And she'll be expecting us to do something like that.

Merryweather:But what won't she expect, she knows everything.

Fauna:Oh but she doesn't dear. Maleficent doesn't know anything about love, or kindness, or the joy of helping earnest. You know, sometimes I don't think she's really very happy.

Flora:[getting excited] That's it, of course! It's the only thing she can't understand, and won't expect. [to herself] oh, oh, now, now ... We have to plan it carefully, let's see, woodcutters cottage, yes, yes, the abandoned one, of course the King and Queen will object, but when we explain it's the only way ...

Merryweather:Explain what?

Flora:About the three peasant women raising a foundling child deep in the forest. !

You see this are the reasons why aurora was hide in the woods. As a protection against maleficent who was after her.

But in the remake.....

they change the WHOLE STORY

but still keep some little stuff about the original "in honor of the cartoon" but in the end it doesnt make any SENSE ! So they tought they were smart but too me this is just prove how much the didnt care understand the animated.

Maleficent doesnt want anymore aurora dead maleficent is defintly not after aurora and there is no reasons for stefan or the fairies to believe it. She cursed her to fall asleep and after give the solution " true love kiss" the last fairy do nothing at all. The plan is not anymore the fairies plan but stefan because "he still was fearing for her daughter " like why ? burn your spindle wheel and aurora can stay.

but they still keep two stuff from the animated : stefan Burn the spindle wheel and aurora is hide in the woods.......because thats it in the cartoon.... I think .they put it there without understanding why aurora is in the woods in the first place.

But since the whole PURPOSE to hide aurora in the cartoon was To protect her against maleficent who wanted her dead an was after her and since in the remake maleficent is not anymore after aurora and doesnt even want dead but only want stefan to suffer to find aurora a true love when for her true love doesnt exist. This is just...DUMB and they also hide aurora......on maleficent territoy.🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Aurora in the remake could have stay in her castle. There was literraly 0 reasons on the remake to go hide aurora in the woods. Hiding aurora in the woods was a consequences of evil maleficent who wanted her dead

This what they should have done in the remake to fit with what they change about the story.

- burn the spindle wheel

- find aurora a true love in case something happen.

So i just have the feeling with how little respect they have for the animated movie that they went " ok sleeping beauty that fairy tale everyone knows doesnt matter to actually rewatch the movie to understand why they did the stuff they did" i understand its basically a fairy tale the scenario is basic and it have one dimensional characters but there is still a story in that cartoon and you just cant took some stuff while ignoring the context.

Also here is the movie : they say at the start they burn the spindle wheel. But nope thats apparently not the case anymore ! They are just....broken.

They should be burn like in the original and perrault and grimm tale. I mean thats completly dumb to put them in the dungeon of the castle and not even burn them all....This is so stupid so here is my theory:

Its was done on purpose for aurora to find them later. Because you know :

The only reasons why it appear in the cartoon is.....thanks to maleficent.

But now maleficent is not anymore evil.....So now the spindle wheel doesnt have any reasons to suddently appear from nowhere.

I respect people who like it I can see the appeal but i hate this movie and how it treat sleeping beauty like trash for the sake of making a fairy that is suppose to be a demon a spiritual mommy for aurora.

[larktb-archive]

Whenever I go to block a racist I've been seeing a post that claims that revolutions dont work and peaceful protests do.

These are the examples said post uses:

These are all fucking terrible examples to use and I'm gonna go in order of worse to best which isn't saying much.

Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace

Yes this did in fact end the civil war. But no one denied that peaceful protests can make momentary symbolic changes such as ending a war or gaining a country its independence. This does often happen and you can list off dozens of countries wherein there has been a peaceful response to violence which has seemingly brought about an end to that violence I should know this because after all I come from the best known example of that happening aside from India (and I'll come back to my home country eventually). The problem with saying this is that it ignores the aftermath of the "peace" and whether or not it made enough of a difference in peoples lives for it to matter; even though external visible violence has been quelled, other covert forms of violence stay in place.

Liberia is a good example of this because of one major issue in Liberia: Corruption. Millions of USD are lost every year due to members of the government pocketing the money for themselves to the extent where, according to Transparency International, Liberia is 137 out of 180 and 53% of public service users had paid a bribe within the year of 2019. Interestingly enough the OP of that post calls China and Cuba corrupt despite the fact that Cuba is 60th and China is 80th. But I guess what happens after the revolutions is successful only matters when you're talking about places you dislike.

This corruption has lead to protests in 2019 and 2020, wherein police used tear gas to disperse peaceful protesters. Something to note is the minister of informations accusation of the protests being caused by outside elite forces. Rings a bell but I'm not sure from where.

Now one of the reasons Liberia is so corrupt is because of the lack of punishment against the main actors of the civil war, in spite of the trc listing out 100+ perpetrators and recommending that they be dealt with.

Then president, Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, was on this list and has admitted that she backed the civil war. She went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

Jasmine Revolution

Around 79% of people in post revolution Tunisia think the country is "going in the wrong direction", 29% of people would not vote with 48% not knowing who they would vote for, 81% said they don't feel close to a political party, 57% said they aren't interested at all in elections, only 20% believed elections would be free and fair, 45% said they disapprove of the current president, 71% said the government isn't addressing the needs of the youth, 50% of people said the government struggles with preventing political violence and I could go on and on.

But this is only 1 study with a very small sample size so by itself it's not a lot.

But when you compound that with a corruption index of 74, an unemployment rate of 15% (compared to Vietnam and Cubas horrible 3% rate and Chinas 6% rate), ~100,000 skilled workers leaving the country and a slowly increasing number of asylum applicants leads me to think that the data is not unfounded.

Suicide and murder rates also increased after the revolution, with cases of self immolation increasing threefold, such as with the case of Abderrazak Zorgui, who's death sparked protests which turned violent after the police were sent in to quell them.

At least 800 Tunisians went to fight for Isil and that's only counting those who came back from Syria. For comparison 900 returned to Turkey and 760 returned to Saudi Arabia.

Much like Liberia there has not been any justice, with the government instead introducing a law granting amnesty to former members of the dictatorship in Tunisia. A constitutional court was supposed to be set up in 2014 to speed up this process. 6 years on it still hasnt been set up.

Rose Revolution

Now this one is interesting. Georgia has a corruption ranking of 44, its unemployment rate of 11%, although higher than the corrupt, evil nations of Cuba and Vietnam isn't terrible and its Gini Coefficient is 36.4 which is pretty average.

So what's wrong with this one?

Well for starters four years after the Rose Revolution, Georgian protestors once again took to the capital to protest against the increasing amount of power, President Saakashvili, who led the Rose Revolution, was gaining.

To be more specific in 2004, legislation was passed to give him the right to dissolve parliament and in 2006 local elections were manipulated so that the government would dominate local legislatures.

And what's that? The president of Georgia blamed outside Russian influence on the protests and sent in police with tear gas and water cannons? That seems weirdly familiar familiar. Where have I heard that one before.

Here is a quote from a leader of a peaceful revolution after peaceful protests against him took place: "Everyone has the right to express disagreement in a democratic country. But the authorities will never allow destabilisation and chaos".

Interesting how after he was put in power, suddenly peaceful protest is the work of Moscow and needs to be controlled by police. Funny that. But this is totally a successful revolution guys!

And how many protests happened after this one? 3, not including the anti-homophobia protest. I think if you need to protest against the government every few years to the point where people keep calling each new protest, the Rose Revolution 2.0, your 1st revolution wasn't that successful.

Womans Suffrage

But before I talk about the relatively well off post-Soviet nations let's just do a assessment of the absolutely dumb as fuck idea that the Suffragists were more effective than the Suffragetes despite the Suffragists making no progress in the 40 years they existed prior to the branching off of the Suffragettes.

Now some historians do agree that the Suffragettes more violent methods did begin to turn men away from granting womens suffrage during their later years. Less concrete is the idea that this outweighs the net positive they had on the movement for womens suffrage.

In fact heres a contemporary source from 1906 praising the suffragette movement:

"I hope the more old-fashioned suffragists will stand by them. In my opinion, far from having injured the movement, [the Suffragettes] have done more during the last 12 months to bring it within the region of practical politics than we have been able to accomplish in the same number of years"

Who said that? Millicent Fawcett? Oh clearly she's just biased towards suffragettes?

But even if I gave evidence that the Suffragettes were indeed more effective than the Suffragists, you could easily find an opposing argument and vice versa. Ww1 happened and in the end that swift change of culture is what gave women their rights to vote (or at least the wealthy).

What can be argued is the historical reasons of why the Suffragettes became even more violent in 2nd decade of the 20th century leading to more guerrilla warfare like tactics being deployed such as arson.

Black Friday happened. Was a protests against the government caused by then Prime Minister Asquith, reneging his promise to put a bill granting womens suffrage through parliament. This protest started off as peaceful and ended up with women being physically and sexually assaulted by the police and counterprotesters with there being accusations of plain clothes police officers inciting this violence. Do I even have to say it?

In order to avoid further molestation, the Suffragettes stopped doing large gatherings with each other and went "underground" so to speak getting more and more violent.

What we should recall is the fact that prior to this Emmeline Pankhurst told the Suffragettes to stop all operations and renewed them after this traumatic event.

Prior to the suffragettes emergence the fight for women's rights had been by in large ignored by the public and it was only after their emergence that this became an issue in the forefront of the public's mind.

For a more nuanced view:

"Viewing the militant movement from the second half of the twentieth century, it is difficult to argue that violence does not ‘pay off’.   [The history of independence of the colonies, and Civil Rights campaigns in the USA shows that violence can succeed.]   It may be that suffragette violence after 1912 fell between two stools, being inadequate to force the government but sufficiently destructive to antagonise public opinion.  This writer [i.e. Constance Rover] is of the opinion that, as the events turned out, militant tactics helped the women's suffrage movement until 1912, but after that date were harmful.   This does not mean that militancy was necessarily a foolish policy.   With hindsight, one can conclude that militancy failed in the last two years before the war, but with the experience of rebellion we have had since, one cannot conclude that militant tactics are an unsuccessful means of obtaining an objective such as enfranchisement..."

- Constance Rover 1967.

I use the quote in specific because it calls the civil rights movement violent. And was written a year prior to the end of the movement. It's almost as if the movement has been whitewashed by liberals to be a completely non-violent effort or something.

Singing Revolution and Velvet Revolution

I'm putting both of these together as these states are all former Soviet nations who have became arguably more successful than others like Moldova, Bulgaria and the aforementioned Georgia.

Now in the post-Soviet Baltic states, there are a large list of things i could talk about. The high suicide rates, the mass exodus leading to a quarter of the population in each nation leaving them, the large amount of people at risk of poverty, high incarceration rates, the gutting of labour laws, the rise of anti-semitism and the glorification of Nazis within their societies all come to mind. Some of these also apply to Czechia and Slovakia.

I could talk about specific events such as the Gorilla scandal, the murder Jan of Kuciak literally everything concerning Czech prime minister Babiš and the large proportion of Soviet Nostalgia in both Czechia and Slovakia (1/3 in the former and 1/2 in the latter).

I could mention protests that have taken place after these revolutions leading to the usage of rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse protesters who were acting non-violently. But I'd be repeating myself so I'm leaving it at that.

"But Lilly" you might say, "that doesn't necessarily disprove OPs point that these protests were successful, they did after all achieve their goals of 'political revolution/ending war/gaining womens suffrage".

And that's true. But...

TL;DR

OP used these as examples to contrast against so called failed violent revolutions with OP using violent revolutions like Vietnam, Haiti, Cuba, China, the USSR and the French Revolution as examples of failed revolutions. Anyone with a brain knows these revolutions absolutely succeeded in their short term goals of political change. There is no Tsar anymore, Cuba and Vietnam are still socialist, the aristocracy of france were decapitated, Haitians arent slaves and China has no emperor.

So where does the problem with these revolutions lie? Well according to OP:

... of course as we've just seen the so called successful peaceful revolutions are also poverty-ridden, corrupt and unstable with problems years later so what's the actual difference? There is none (aside from the historical revisionism of socialist states but that's beside the point), it's just hypocrisy and an incredibly silly gotcha to those currently arguing for violent protest.

I could continue and talk about how Haiti collapsed because of sanctions from racist countries who wanted to punish Haiti for fighting against their white masters, how Vietnam was practically always in war throughout the 20th century and how its stabilized since the end of the Viet-Khmer war, how Cuba infinitely improved the lives of all Cubans and was far more humanitarian than any western nation at the time, how the USSR and communist China turned Russia and China from poor feudal states to economic powerhouses which were far more equal in nature than the US.

But this post is way too long and I don't want to have to read through another dozen sources written by anti-communists liberals again.

Edit: the conclusion didnt save properly (thanks tumblr)

To end I'll say that the major problem with non-violent protests that is shared by every single one of these examples (apart from womens rights) is the lack of punishment towards those who caused the problems the people were protesting against. This means that said people can become president or a member of the government without any impediment and those people continue to be corrupt. From Ellen Sirleaf Johnson to Mikheil Saakashvili to the Tunisian government to Andrej Babiš. On the other hand violent revolution makes sure that those who war complicit in the crimes of the past are not able to usher in the crimes of the future, even if others eventually do.

The thing about that is progress has still been made, and even if they begin to reverse some of the gains that had been made they cant reverse all of them. With non-violent revolutions there is no change except for the ways that those in power step on the working class being more covert than overt.

You can decide which you prefer.