#i know i am missing points

[badedramay]

Breakdown of the Kim and Daood scenes from this week? 🤓

OH DO I HAVE WORDS TO SAY!!!!!

i can't believe how Yunhi is shaping up to be such a comfort watch for me. the mellow mood of the show..the quietness with which it does its thing..the gentle manner in which all the characters behave...all of it is very very comforting. even in situations where characters of other shows wouldn't hesitate in creating intense melodrama..the characters in Yunhi remain grounded and sensible. it's beautiful, i love it.

so, a LOT happened although in canon not even a day passed? Kim learned about Naveed's betrayal (yeah it is what it is). in her haste to apologize for her mistake she ended up making things worse for Dawood's family. Kim, rightfully, got reprimanded for her behavior. but gawwwwdddd it still warmed my heart. IQBAL, the one person who perhaps had disliked Kim the MOST when she had arrived in the house, was the one to gently make Kim understand how sometimes truth is the most dangerous thing one can hold. and that sometimes withholding truth in favor of harmless lies can save a person many troubles. Kim wears her truth like a badge of honor. her bluntness is a point of pride for her. since the start we have seen her practically sneering in contempt at these people who live their lives being hypocrites. who hide their truths and thus, live a life that's not honest. for Kim that's the worst way to live a life.

what Kim doesn't understand is that in a closely knit household..some level of hypocrisy is necessary to maintain a peaceful environment. some truths better hidden while ALL truths better phrased carefully lest they do more damage. Dawood and Dadajaan were going to ask Dawood's friends the same thing Kim wanted to ask them. however, they'd have phrased it in a less truthful but fully harmless way. but in comes Kim wielding her TRUTH and she blurted out in the worst possible way. her intentions were right..she wanted to apologize for accusing them. but her manner of doing so was wrong. so yeah..Dawood had every right to reprimand her for it.

what's BEAUTIFUL is how even when Dawood was calling her out..he was still so gentle with her. he wasn't scolding or shouting or spitting out in anger. he just told her, BLUNTLY, how she had screwed up. and Kim who knows what honest bluntness is fully understood where Dawood was coming from. she wasn't offended, she knew she had no right to be when she was in the wrong. the beauty of Kim is that if she is quick to point out the wrong in others, she's quick to accept the wrong in herself.

off goes Kim to apologize to Dawood's friend which was just a whole hilarity in itself. the "visa sponsor karden" wali request..the lie aunty made up about her diabetes, and Kim..my sweet innocent pure CHILD Kim..completely unable to read this social cue of someone making up an obviously fake story to save face taking that lie as truth and giving medical advice while Suraiya sat next to her trying her best to control her laughter...I LOVED IT SO MUCH!!! IT'S THESE LITTLE THINGS THAT MAKE YUNHI A PLEASANT WATCH!!

Kim's reaction to her father's betrayal was quite cold and also befitting her character. Dawood, bless his soul, continue to try make conversation with her going so far as to provoke her just to get a reaction out of her. but Kim is quite adamant when she makes a decision. which is what ultimately the big conflict™ between them will be about - her zidd to leave, his zidd to give her reasons to stay (gah i love it) I must say..Kim and Dawood have a very mature relationship considering how they are comfortable being in the same space. that shot of Kim playing with the flowers on the bed while Dawood unpacked his stuff...there was something so casual and everyday about how they were positioned? otherwise you'd see these newly wed characters trying to avoid being in the same space as much as they can but with Kim&Dawood there's this tacit understanding that this relationship and whatever tension that comes with it need NOT be anything overwhelming until they themselves give it the power to. it's quite interesting to watch.

NOW THE BIG FINISH!!! their terrace convo. major applause to Yunhi for addressing the criticism it got in such a wonderful manner. as Kim went on and on making another of her points­™ about how people judge women by the clothes they wear and completely disregard any goodness they have cuz how can a person be decent if their attire is "indecent"? first Dawood, while smiling, counters that you need to spend TIME with people to understand if they are good or not..a veiled critique of Kim's stubborn refusal to believe this household can have good people because of her own preconceived notions. and then Dawood drops the bomb (pun intended) that this very thing that Kim feels so offended about...didn't SHE do the very same thing to HIM when she first met him? Kim's passionate defense of a person's character not being defined by what they wear and how they appear to be...doesn't it reek of HYPOCRISY when she also judged Dawood to be a terrorist because he was wearing a traditional attire? and Kim, who has always something to say, WAS LEFT SPEECHLESS.

GAAAAHHHH I LOVE THIS. I LOVEEEEEEE THIS DYNAMIC THEY HAVE!!!! if he isn't always right, she isn't either. and they KNOW this. when they talk..they learn things about each other and accept them. there's no one FORCING the other to change. just them simply saying 'this is me. understand me. and accept me as i am.' this rids of their relationship from any power imbalance. as Dawood said..i'll accept your terms today and in exchange you'll have to accept mine tomorrow. this is how their relationship going to be. honest and a one where they both can demand the other for efforts because they THEMSELVES will be putting in that effort. oh..i am so so SO excited to watch it unfold. Sunday cannot come sooner. i am HOOKED!!!

[dkettchen]

cursed construction core hi vis bra that came to me in a dream

In the dream I saw it in the window display of a hardware/DIY/trade shop, implying it was meant to be a practical garment designed for actual female constructions workers in a Female Armour level missed-the-brief attempt at gender inclusion

The practical support from the visible underwire combined with the hi vis implying it’s not meant to be worn as an undergarment, I just-

I blame my binge-reading ND Stevenson’s gender comics talking abt masculinity and femininity incl the one abt Victoria’s Secret lingerie yesterday for this monstrosity x’D

[teaboot]

tranny freak :)

[yetanotherknitter]

out of all the insanity of the ace attorney series, I think that we don't talk enough about how absurd it is that Misty Fey's life and reputation were ruined (leading to several of her family members and eventually her own murders) because the guy she accused was found not guilty by reason of insanity. that means. they decided the guy did it. everyone agreed she found the right guy and they decided the circumstances meant that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions but. it was. it was the right guy. and she was driven into hiding for that

does this make more sense in the original or is it just really dissonant cultural values?? because. come on.

[cowardlykrow]

Even a hero needs some hope

[prolibytherium]

Just in general I think trying to look to pre-late modern period history for validation of LGBT+ identities is an absolutely useless venture. Every single underlying human experience defined through the lens and framework of LGBT identity has always existed, but it's impossible to pin down Exactly who and what a figure might have been if they existed in this contemporary context and decided to self identify via these labels.

It's also a wildly reductive lens that flattens the complexity and variety of how sex and gender has been constructed across time in different cultures, how sexual norms have varied, etc. This is not a constructive approach to learn about history and you're never going to be able to fit historical figures neatly into little identity categories.

[sheila--e]

Buceta Bugalatti's no good very bad cooking.

[sprolden]

I CANNOT BELIEEEEEVEEVVEEREHHENEW😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[jonathanbyersphd]

I just KNOW Jonathan had the hottest gossip at Hawkins High because people forgot he was there

[scificrows]

Okay, my brain refuses to think about anything other than Murderbot, so I looked at every use of the word "friend[s]" in TMBD and... created some pie charts. Normal human activities.

Some Thoughts™ I had while putting this together (under the cut):

In All Systems Red, Murderbot notes that the PresAux crew are all close friends (twice! and goes on to explain their internal relationships which I think is very cute). This is pretty much the only use of 'friends' in ASR, except for when Murderbot says that SecUnits can't be friends with each other.

It seems that this may be one of the first times Murderbot has ever really been around a group of friends before? Murderbot notes that this is not the norm for its contracts and admits that the fact that they are all friends and the way they interact with each other make it actually enjoy that contract (before!!!! the hostile attack, so it already enjoys this contract before they start seeing it as a person etc ghghhhh). [Inference: Friendship seems enjoyable.]

The first character that calls Murderbot its friend is ART in Artificial Condition. Murderbot immediately refutes this (and then goes on to call ART its friend to its clients for the rest of the book). [Inference: Maybe ART is Murderbot's friend. And maybe that is... agreeable]

Rogue Protocol has more than twice as many instances of the word 'friend' as any of the other novellas. Why? Miki. Friendship and its implications for non-humans are a central theme because Miki is friends with everyone. Murderbot initially scoffs at the notion that Miki and Miki's humans are friends. At the end of the book, after witnessing how desperately Don Abene tried to stop Miki from trying to save them, and her grief after its death, Murderbot has to admit that she had in fact been Miki's friend. [Inference: Humans can be friends with bots and can sincerely care about them]

In Exit Strategy, Murderbot tentatively uses the word "friends" for its humans for the first time (several times actually). It questions whether it can actually call them its friends or not and later realizes that it had been afraid what admitting that the humans are its friends would do to it. At the end of the book, Mensah tells Murderbot the PresAux crew are its friends, which is the first time a human has directly said that to it (at least on-page). [Inference: Humans can and want to be Murderbot's friends]

In Network Effect, Murderbot seems to be more habituated to the word 'friend', confidently calling ART and Ratthi its friends, like it is no longer just trying the concept on unsure if it fits. There are many instances in which other characters refer to MB as ART's friend or the other way around and Murderbot's humans refer to Murderbot as their friend several times. Generally, there seems to be less hesitancy, because yes, all of them are Murderbot's friends, why wouldn't they be. [Inference: SecUnits can have friends. This SecUnit has friends. They care about it a lot.]

Conclusion: The Murderbot Diaries tell the story of a construct that does not seem to consider the possibility of friendship for itself and is fine with that - until it accidentally starts caring a little too much and suddenly more and more people annex it as a friend (ew) to the point where it can no longer deny that this is happening and has to begrudgingly admit that yes, it has friends now and maybe that is actually not a bad thing.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

No teen farewell is complete without embarrassment.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[yvtro]

not enough appreciation for countdown #15 wherein jason meets alternative universe bruce who killed the joker (not stopping at this, he went on to eradicate most of gotham rogues gallery in a murder spree similar to that of red hood) and the utter disappointment that jay has in the person that this version of his father has become as bruce discourages him from helping donna in crisis. "we're both dead, batman." – what a raw piece of dialogue.

"go on, then, "jason." you're dead anyway. may as well make it official." "we're both dead, batman. any fool could see you've been dead inside for years."

[dykedvonte]

Something something perhaps the reason Curly lacks a truly undamaged ID where his face is visible is to represent how much damage Jimmy had already affected on him throughout their relationship and the way Curly obscured part of who he is and what he stood to unintentionally cater to this toxic influence in his life.

[betryl]

To be honest to me it's not really that big of a deal if someone just genuinely likes TSH's atmosphere and aesthetic and quotes and whatnot. Parts of it are purposefully written to be alluring and impactful and pretty, and I think you're allowed to find them so without it meaning you missed the warning about not idolizing people in pursuit of pointless and shallow ideals. You can be aware of the message and critique it wanted to convey while also just enjoying the book itself from time to time lol. If someone says they have a morbid longing for the picturesque or whatever chances are they know they're not supposed to take it literally or base their whole personality on it, they just think the cool quote is cool. And actually I think letting yourself indulge in Richard's perspective makes you realize even better how skewed it really is and it's the best way to experience TSH

[neuroticreno]

FALLOUT REQUESTSSSS re-upload edition..

[cuddlytogas]

there was some Twitter madness recently where someone left a comment on someone's art to the effect of, "Ed shouldn't wear a dress, he's a man!" which I do disagree with on principle, but unfortunately, it brought out one of my least favourite trends in the fandom

so, naturally, I had to write a twitter essay about it. and I already largely argued this in a post here, but the thread is clearer and better structured, so I thought I'd cross-post for those not on the Hellsite (derogatory). edited for formatting/structure's sake, since I no longer have to keep to tweet lengths, and incorporating a couple of points other people brought up in the replies

so

I want to point out that the wedding cake toppers in OFMD s2 aren't evidence that Ed wants to wear dresses. Gender is fake, men can wear skirts, play with these dolls how you like, but it's not canon, and that scene especially Doesn't Mean That.

People cite it often: 'He put himself in a dress by painting the bride as himself! It's what he wants!' But that fundamentally misunderstands the scene, and the series' framing of weddings as a whole. I'd argue that Ed paints the figure not from desire, but from self-hatred; it's not what he wants, but what he thinks he should, and has failed to, be.

(Yes, I am slightly biased by my rampant anti-marriage opinions, but bear with me here, because it is relevant to the interpretation of the scene, and season two as a whole.)

The show is not subtle. It keeps telling us that the institution of marriage is a prison that suffocates everyone involved. Ed's parents' cycle of abuse is passed to their son in both the violence he witnesses then enacts on his father, and the self-repression his mother teaches, despite her good intentions ("It's not up to us, is it? It's up to God. ... We're just not those kind of people. We never will be."). Stede and Mary are both oppressed by their arranged marriage, with 1x04 blunty titled Discomfort in a Married State. The Barbados widows revel in their freedom ("We're alive. They're dead. Now is your time").

But even without this context, the particular wedding crashed in 2x01 is COMICALLY evil. The scene is introduced with this speech from the priest:

"The natural condition of humanity is base and vile. It is the obligation of people of standing ... to elevate the common human rabble through the sacred transaction of matrimony."

It's upper class, all-white, and religiously sanctioned. "Vile natural conditions" include queerness, sexual freedom, and family structures outside the cisheteropatriarchal capitalist unit. "The obligation of people of standing" invokes ideas like the white man's burden, innate class hierarchy, religious missions, and conversion therapy. Matrimony is presented as both "sacred" (endorsed by the ruling religious body), and a "transaction" (business performed to transfer property and people-as-property, regardless of their desires), a tool of the oppressive society that pirates escape and destroy. That is where the figurines come from.

When Ed, in a drunk, depressive spiral, paints himself onto the bride, he's not yearning for a pretty dress. He's sort of yearning for a wedding, but that's not framed as positive. What he's doing is projecting himself into an 'ideal' image of marriage because he believes that: a) that's what Stede (and everyone) wants; b) he can never live up to that ideal because he's unlovable and broken (brown, queer, lower-class, violent, abused, etc); c) that's why Stede left. He tries to make himself fit into the social ideal by painting himself onto the closest match - long-haired, partner to Stede/groom, but a demure, white woman, a frozen, porcelain miniature - because, if he could just shrink himself down and squeeze into that box, maybe Stede would love him and he'd live happily ever after. But he can't. So he won't.

The fantasy fails: Ed is morose, turns away from the figurines, then tips them into the sea, a lost cause. He knows he won't ever fulfil that bride's role, but he sees that as a failure in himself, not the role. It's not just that "Stede left, so Ed will never have a dream wedding and might as well die." Stede left when Ed was honest and vulnerable, "proving" what his trauma and depression tell him: there's one image of love (of personhood), and he'll never live up to it because he's fundamentally deficient. So he might as well die.

This hit me from my very first viewing. The scene is devastating, because Ed is wrong, and we know it! He doesn't need to change or reduce himself to fit an image and be accepted (as, eg, Izzy demanded). Stede knows and loves him exactly as he is; it's the main thread and theme of season two!

(@/everyonegetcake suggested that Ed's yearning in these scenes includes his broader desire for the vulnerability and safety Stede offered, literalised through unattainable "fine" things like the status of gentleman in s1, or the figurine's blue dress. I'd argue, though, that these scenes don't incorporate this beyond a general knowledge of Ed's character. Ed is always pining for both literal and emotional softness, but the significance of the figurines specifically, to both Ed and the audience, is poisoned by their origin and context: there is no positive fantasy in the bride figure, only Ed's perceived deficiency.

Further, assuming that a desire for vulnerability necessarily corresponds with an explicit desire for femininity, dresses, etc, kind of contradicts the major themes of the show. OFMD asserts that there is nothing wrong with men assuming femininity (through drag, self-care, nurturing, emotional vulnerability, etc), but also that many of these traits are, in fact, genderless, and should be available to men without affecting their perceived or actual masculinity. It thematically invokes the potential for cross-gender expression in Ed's desires, especially through the transgender echoes in his relieved disposal, then comfortable reincorporation, of the Blackbeard leathers/identity. It's a rich, valuable area of analysis and exploration. But it remains a suggestion, not a canon or on-screen trait.)

Importantly, the groom figure doesn't fit Stede, either. Not just in dress: it's stiff and formal, and marriage nearly killed him. He's shabbier now, yes, but also shedding his privilege and property, embracing his queerness, and trying to take responsibility for his community. In a s1 flashback, Stede hesitantly says, "I thought that, when I did marry, it could be for love," but he would never find love in marriage. Not just because he's gay, but because marriage in OFMD is an oppressive, transactional institution that precludes love altogether. All formal marriages in OFMD are loveless.

So, he becomes a pirate, where they reject society altogether and have matelotages instead. Lucius and Pete's "mateys" ceremony is shot and framed not like a wedding, but as an honest, personal bond, willingly conducted in community (in a circle; no presiding authority, procession, or transaction).

That is how Stede and Ed can find love, companionship, and happiness: by rejecting those figurines and their oppressive exchange of property, overseen by a church that enables colonialism and abuse. Ed is loved, and deserves happiness, as he is, no paint or projection required.

ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: draw Ed in dresses! Write him getting gender euphoria in skirts! Write trans/nb Ed, draw men being feminine! Gender is fake, the show invites exploration, that's what 'transformative works' means! But please, stop citing the cake toppers as evidence it's canon. Stop citing a scene where a depressed Māori man gets drunk and projects himself onto a rich, white, silent bride because he thinks he's innately unlovable and only people like her can find happiness, shortly before deciding to kill himself, as canon evidence it's what he wants.

(Also, please don't come in here with "lmao we're just having fun," I know, I get it. Unfortunately, I'm an academiapilled researchmaxxer, and some of youse need to remember that the word "canon" has meaning. NOW GO HAVE FUN PUTTING THAT MAN IN A PRETTY DRESS!! 💖💖)