#i know it’s just fiction so like really who cares?? but i think it’s more of the fact so many ppl watch the show but aren’t processing what

[turtleblogatlast]

Thinking about how Leo says he uses his jokes to cope and y’know, thinking harder on it I think it may very well be because of what else uses one-liners and puns and that type of humor.

Specifically, 80’s action movies and campy sci-fi. Even more specifically, the protagonists of these.

So I can imagine why, exactly, Leo leans toward this brand of humor. It’s directly linked to things he loves! But even more than that is why I think it’s used as a coping mechanism.

In these genres, these quips tend to be said by the winner - or, if not a winner, then someone who will stay alive. So there’s a confidence behind them, an assurance, almost, that even if things go wrong, things aren’t ever too serious. There’s no bad endings here! It’s all good fun, even if the stakes seem high.

Leo canonically has been known to steer his brothers away from the more brutal villains and toward more fun, lighthearted activities and not-so-dangerous criminals. So for Leo, these jokes definitely make things less heavy, make the situations they find themselves in less intense.

It’s kinda not just coping, but also can be seen as a form of escapism. A safety blanket. A way for Leo to defuse the tension of knowing just how dangerous their lives are and replace that with a levity which implies that things will be okay.

Unfortunately, levity alone does not alter reality.

[dreaming-of-barbi]

That's so fucked up that people are romantizing Franco, because even Red Barrels are showing him as a total creep and disgusting person. In Outlast Tag I have a feeling that some artists are making him completly different character, making him charming/safe/lovely. I even have seen some people who were drawing him with normal face (without big forehead) and you couldn't tell them that it's the right character design! I feel like Franco enjoyers are more agressive than fans of other Outlast character. Even with Coyle/Eddie simps they seem to understand that they are evil and they murder others, but with Franco I feel like they can take it when someone tell them that he's grown up, murder people in very brutal way and his voice lines are just disgusting... it really seems that people are getting agressive only because someone tell some shit about 🎀✨️Franco🎀✨️. I know his fans isn't the only one that have stick in their ass (cause I seen a lot of shit bout Coyle/Big Grunts/Easterman etc.) but yall need to understand that FRANCO IS A GROWN ASS MAN and you would run for your life if you'd meet someone in irl as 1% fucked up as he is. Saying that he's just a Baby and he made nothing wrong is just 🤮 and problem is in yall if you justificate him and things he made.

idk how to tell you this ,,,, but this game is fictional. The characters are fictional. You're free to feel however you want about them, just like I and anyone else is.

I partially agree with the part about changing his appearance to make him look more "normal" or whatever, but at the same time people are allowed to interpret their favs however they want to. They can draw / write for him however they want to. I don't like "fixing" his face, just because it (personally) feels like saying "he's too ugly", but again, that's just me. As an artist, I know that people are going to have different interpretations of a character I like. It's just part of other people existing in the world. Not everyone thinks like you do, and that's okay.

Do you know how many posts I saw (and STILL see) about Eddie Gluskin, doing essentially the same thing as what you said people do with Franco?? That man would cut you open to "make a baby in you" no hesitation and people still ""romanticize"" him (me fuckin included I LOVE YOU EDDIE). Its just part of liking fucked up characters, some people are going to want to make them more "normal".

Personally, I see the normalization as more like wanting to give him some normalcy in his life, because of his past / lore. I love the idea of letting Franco have a normal life, be a normal person. A life where he never had to deal with the stupid Mafia stuff, had a decent father and never ran into Murkoff, having a normal, happy life. But, I also seriously adore his original, fucked up character.

Honestly, who actually cares if people are "justifying" his actions??? None of them are real. He is not real. I have never understood the sentiment that you have to make sure people know you don't justify a fictional characters actions... they are not real. It's not a real person. None of the things he did happened.

Maybe it's just me, but I would not run from someone like him. That's not some edge lord "im so evil and dark" bs but because of my real life experiences. Been with and around people in my life / family who are quite like him and I didn't run.

I imagine some of us are using it as a sort of coping mechanism, because (at least for me) some of us dealt with people who treated us like he would. Though, that's getting into personal territory, and I won't try and speak for others.

All I can really say is either learn that not everybody's going to have the same ideas as you or block the tag. Sorry if that's too harsh a response, but life is too short to really give that much of a fuck about someone /something other people like.

And I've said this before but this is literally Outlast, all of the characters are this fucked up, it's not just him.

Like does no one remember Outlast 2??? Does no one remember the pile of dead burnt babies, or the hundreds of other fucked up things in that game?? I really feel like Franco does not compare.

So, can we please just be over with this now? I mean, drama is totally fun and I love it, but I can imagine others don't.

[strawberrybyers]

one thing the asoiaf/got/hotd fandoms are going to do is completely miss the point of the story being told; the complexities of the characters; the imprisonment of the monarchy, classism, intergenerational trauma, bloodlines, and misogyny.

somehow millions of people love the shows and books and yet, cannot for the life of them be able to figure out why the characters maneuver the way they do. it’s being highlighted again just how much the mark is missed within the fandom based on how alicent and rhaenyra are talked about. sure, have your takes. dislike one, love the other. but the character analysis that follows with the reasoning as to why you feel the way you do about a character (especially the female characters) seems to sometimes lack the actual context that is given.

look at how women are treated. look at the ages of the characters. look at how everyone is just a pawn in someone’s game. look at the relationships amongst the families. look at how literally a fucking title and iron throne can control someone’s values because that’s what they’ve been taught is priority.

once again: nothing wrong with having different perspectives on the characters, but for the love of god, please look at the dynamics of the environment these characters are in and ask yourself: well, how could they respond to this in this way if they’ve never been taught anything different?? what other options do they have if they’ve never been given them?? if they are aware of other choices— how can they release themselves from the shackles they were born into when everyone else around them either supports it or is nonchalant because “it’s the way things are”. how can you expect a lone wolf to go into a room of armed hunters and beg to be spared?? ask yourselves these things, then maybe you’ll finally understand why alicent is who she is and why rhaenyra is who she is.

[j00d]

I think people with these attitudes forget that no relationship, real or fictional, will ever exist as 100% pure and healthy. It's just placing an impossibly high bar that only leads to disappointment. Everyone's got baggage to deal with, so imagining two people together with varying degrees of trauma, relationships are (as stated above) a layered, complicated mess. But we like it because it's a layered complicated mess. It's relatable. It's also, subjectively, more entertaining. I mean, ffs, imagine if Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy got along after the night they met. The entire emotional core of the book would be stripped away and no one would even know shit about Pride & Prejudice bc it'd be boring af.

I think this also comes down to the lack of understanding about what drives the narrative, which has been plainly stated as interpersonal relationships. And because that drives the narrative, it also drives the conflict. So like... removing the conflict, i.e. making Stolas and Blitz' relationship 100% healthy, just strips away most of the narrative to, at best, really boring. We can apply this to just about any media that relates to interpersonal relationships and dynamics.

Last note: It's 100% fine to not like Stolas and Blitz as a couple, even if it boils down to "I just don't care for them as a couple." People are entitled to like what they like. But don't attack or judge others who enjoy it because you don't. It's not hurting anyone, and especially if doing so while making the argument discussed above, then this type of narrative and conflict just might not be for you.

It's not like I can't understand why some people would hate Stolitz, I get it's not for everyone and we all have our own ship preferences (also, Idk about y'all, but I literally have no control over who I ship with who, either the ship chooses me or it doesn't).

But it's the "holier than thou" attitude these haters have that I cannot fucking stand. Acting like Stolitz can only be valid if it's the most healthy pure relationship imaginable, instead of the layered complicated mess that makes them so appealing in the first place. Like, we're talking about fictional ships in a fictional world here, not real life partners, so don't judge them like that.

I mean, I also have a HB ship that I hate and have blacklisted, because seeing it pisses me off and grosses me out (not even because of "unhealthy" reasons, I just hate it because I hate it), but I acknowledge that's my own problem to deal with and as long as people tag it properly and don't shove this ship in my face, we're cool.

And I assume most people have no idea what ship I'm even talking about, unless you're really good at guessing based on what ship I never post about on here or if I happened to have told you directly, because it came up in conversation.

[admiral-arelami]

AITA If My Favorite Character is a Fascist?

Uh oh. The Fascsplainers are at it again. Yes, we know what fascism is, thx.

[mademoiselle-cookie]

@missshelllo You know you can just reblog. It's easier and more practical.

But I will try to answer all your points. Keep in mind english is not my 1rst language.

But the manga was written in the 21th century. If you write a character having a sexist behavior, you treat him as him being sexist, even if it's to say it's normal for this time. A Bride's Story does that, and its story takes place near the Caspian Sea during the Russian conquest of Central Asia in the late 19th century. So NOT the most feminist place in the world. The women are still strong and developped and the sexist situations are treated like sexist situations even if they're normal and banal.

Or The Apothecary Diaries. It takes place in a fictional country based on Imperial China during the Tang dynasty, so again, not the most feminist place. And the sexist situations are called out by the author, even sometimes just in passing, even if no one can do anything about it.

(Or Mulan. The movie is not sexist and is considered extremely feminist despite taking place in a sexist context.)

It's also forgotting someone really important. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Born in 1859, who wrote A Scandal in Bohemia in 1891. In this short story, the only apparition of a character named Irene Adler, SHE OUTSMARTS SHERLOCK AND EVADES ALL HIS TRAPS. She shows a lot of independence, adaptability, and intelligence, win against a man and leaves to live her best life.

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote better female characters in 1891 than a 21th century author. Ryōsuke Takeuchi had no excuse for what they did to their female characters.

Also, Sherlock Holmes is treated as a sexist indivudual during Irene's arc. Why is he the only one? The author can called out their characters, they just choose not to when it's their favorites.

So there were about 50 women supposed to go to a dating event with only 2 men? If it was to get to know each other with a view to going further, why other men aren't there to do just that? Two men can't take care of this much women and it's a massive waste of time. It's not how it works. I don't know where to begin bc this idea is so stupid. The noble society will not force the Moriarty to organise a harem event. Even weddings are occasions for nobles to meet and chat with other people, including from a romantic perspective. Why not a tea party which goal is to meet people? It makes no sense.

Also, it doesn't answer why there's no chaperone. It's a really important thing at the time. You don't let a woman alone with another man, unless he's from your own family.

It's not just "girls alone party", It's a noble party, where the participants are taught etiquette from a very young age, and whose reputation is PRIMORDIAL. Reputation, especially for women, is extremely important. You may never get married because of this (worst fate for women of that era) because no one wants you, even if it's completely false.

Yes, women, even with etiquette, can be viscious, but they will be more subtle. They would try to do that in a way that will not hurt them. They will not act like middle-schooler kpop fan. They're adult!

And yes, some women would think they're entitled to everything, but there's a way to show that.

She's not supposed to be a strong woman going for what she want. She's supposed to be a gross individual that makes William uncomfortable with her sexual harassment. If their gender was swapped, the lady would rightfully seen as a creep, and William as a victim. It would not have been a "joke".

And it's disturbing that she is the only overweigth woman at the party, also the only woman who think harassing someone is a good idea. It's fatphobic af.

Yes, but William is mysteriously the most populair one, more than Albert, despite not being the heir and being, for the public knowledge, just a mathematician.

Even the servants get drooled all over, despite not having any statut or title.

And it doesn't explain the groupie behavior of all this women. They're educated adult.

Yeah but if you can't enter, it's not an issue if someone want to peak in. It's normal to want to lock your personnal office when you have guests. It would have not been suspicious.

I don't know what it's an answer to, but even at this time, William's plans are stupid and wouldn't work if the characters weren't Gary Sues and the world's logic wasn't bent to let them win.

William's plans don't work bc it's in the 19th instead of the 21th, it's bc it's a manga. I already talked abt this here.

But we don't see it.

I talked a bit more about this here but to be quick: we don't see what they publicly do as the Lord of Crimes.

Their last missions/arcs we saw were : Irene, the burglary, Jack the ripper, this chapter abt William/Sherlock and the commoner student, the tea party and William past.

From tome 6 to tome 9 (at least), we never saw the Lord of Crimes acting publicly, it's always in secret. So how can the public knows? And can WE knows what the public knows? How can they see him as a real person/entity when it was just a rumor before?

William makes mistakes? Really? When?

Or at least when it is treated as a mistake? I complain a lot abt him not wearing a mask while leaving a crime scene, but the story never points how absolutely fuckingly stupid it is, and the guy who caught him still thinks he's super smart and never acknoweldge what a fucking clown he was when he caught him. The famous Lord of Crime accidentally revealed is true identity to a media tycoon. And the author is not banging William's head for his stupidity. It's sound like a joke.

To go back to my example with DBD, when Edwin makes a mistake, he pays the price. When he tries to hit a powerful witch when he doesn't know how to fight, he gets sent flying; when he uses magic on a cat to force it to talk, he's stuck in a city across the ocean from home with a witch who wants revenge; when he refuses to talk to his best friend about what happened with the Cat King (bc he's figurating his sexuality in the worst situation possible), Charles is terrified and stressed out. (None of this mistakes come from stupidity or wickedness, Edwin has his own reasons to do what he does. But they're still mistakes)

At this point Sherlock is so inferior to William, I hardly believe he will be able to capture him, not if it's exactly what William want.

And William is a robot, he has no flaw, no real weakness. He's always perfect. He always has a plan and predicts everything. It's not credible and really boring. If at least the plans were really smart, and could actually work. I never have the thrill of seeing something intelligent, at best I have the writer thrill of imagining something better. I describe them often during my reviews so you can check that.

Sorry, but there is no substential difference between adult Will and child Will. Mentally, he's the same. He's still way better than anyone, even when they're supposed to ouclass him, he's still know more than it's realistically possible, he still manipulates people extremely well, he's still has no qualm torturing or hurting people he deems deserve it. He has the same personnality, can handle himself and his brother really well and has access to a lot of money despite being street orphan. Even his brother didn't change much, he's way to calm for what's happening in front of him.

The only difference is that it's way more irrealistic.

Is it treated as flaws or just quirky character traits? Did he really pay the price for that?

I don't remember the map thing so it either didn't happen yet, or it wasn't a real issue. The narcolpesy is just a joke, it never bothered him in his missions. The only women I remember he had problems with were the ones at the tea party, bc of their groupie behavior, and he wasn't the only one. Don't remember the overthink things, is it your interpretation? If it wasn't and the author really intended it like it, wasn't play like a real issue or a mere joke?

When I say flaws, I'm talking Sherlock who understimates Irene bc she's a woman and gets manipulated by her. I'm talking abt Sherlock being irascible and difficult, so much that Watson gets angry at him. Sherlock had to deal with the consequences of his actions.

To take Edwin as an example again:

Quirky character traits:

Not understanding the modern world (the only time it could have been an issue, he managed to understand it anyways despite being in a highly stressful situation)

Talking like a 1900 person

Flaws:

Not liking trying new things

His pride

His lack of bedside manners

His jealousy

The first one is light and fun, the other create problems for him and/or advance the plot. And they are, even if partially, overcome.

In Moriarty the Patriot, the plot never advance bc of William's flaws or mistakes (only when he get caught by Milverton and it's never treated as a mistake). And William... never changes. Even from when he was a kid, he's still the same.

Moriarty the Patriot Vol. 9

"En troupeau"

(translation: "in a flock")

It's only in the french version, not the english one. I don't know japanese so I don't know if it's the original intention to use words this negative and insulting toward women. The issue is, even if it's just the french translators who did a massive mistake, I had no problem believing that was just the author casually insulting women (my money on the english translators softening the term. Also the eng ver I read was fanmade).

Maybe in another manga, I wouldn't have minded. Like if the character is supposed to be a misogynist and you're supposed to think bad of them for that and not agreeing with them. But Albert is not supposed to be a sexist asshole. And given the manga's striking record in its depiction of women, I don't feel lenient.

And that's just the beginning.

(first picture of the guests)

♫ Où sont les hommes ? ♫

No reason why there shouldn't be men at the tea party. Or at least why women shouldn't be accompanied by chaperones. Etiquette was very important back then, and you wouldn't leave a woman alone with a man. The Moriartys are ONLY men to the rest of the world. No one would leave them with women alone.

Good Manners

Noble women have all received an education in good manners. They are more subject to the severity of etiquette than men. There is very little chance of seeing them throw themselves at men by elbowing each other and calling each other "primbêche" (again, only in the french version. In the eng one, it's just "these girls...")

Especially if the person in front of them is of a different rank than hers. The hierarchy is very important within the nobility and determines who you can talk to, how, who to be friends with, who to marry…

Sure, I know bc I've read hundreds of romance novels about English aristocracy but the author prides themself on depicting the real England of that period and doesn't even know that? Any webtoon whose story takes place in an aristocratic environment knows that, even when it's not the same universe as ours.

So no, aristocratic women don't behave like groupies (and of course the Moriartys have groupies, what did I expect)

It's basic for an author to do research. How many authors have you seen joke that they'd be mistaken for serial killers if you looked at their history? Do you know how long I searched for descriptions of the pain of tattoos for a fiction I'll never write?

It's crazy to put so little effort into a story that claims to be ambitious.

Servants

Nobles are raised from birth to view commoners - including servants - as inferior. Often, servants are more of a piece of scenery than actual human beings. It’s not meanness, it’s just their upbringing.

Of course, that’s the theory. There are exceptions. But that’s what they are, exceptions. Which are generally kept to oneself, and not shown publicly. Noble women won’t openly swoon over the Moriarty’s servants.

And if they ever got hurt doing something stupid, they would be more upset about their injury than about the lost work of a servant. That's what happens when people are used to having everything served on a plate since birth.

(And in this situation, the servant would indeed have been at fault. In a party with many people, an element that can easily hurt was accidentally thrown by the hip thrust of a not very thick woman? Thank goodness there was no one behind.

The protagonists obviously think that these women are wild and stupid. Why didn't they babyproof the entire property? Especially the rose garden, which is a place they know will be very busy.)

Flirting

Obviously, the woman who dares to flirt with William in an aggressive and vulgar way is fat and ugly. All the others are pretty and thin, except her. She can't be a pretty femme fatale who is used to having men at her feet and thinks that William will be the same. She must be an idiot who has the audacity to think that William will be attracted to her, whose inner ugliness is reflected on the outside. It's not stupidly fatphobic at all.

Popularity

Why are the Moriartys so popular? They are handsome but in the eyes of the general public, that's about it. They are not the only men who are attractive and have good status/wealth. In any case, their beauty is the only criteria cited to justify the obsession they are the object of (and it is NOT the most important criteria for noble society). Nothing justifies the groupie behavior of apparently all the noble ladies . They are not k-pop stars. Will is just a mathematician, not even the heir, and he is the one who receives the most attention?

There is no accounting for likes - and dislikes. If people think Jayden Revri is average-looking, I can assure you that there are women who don't swoon over the Moriartys.

The art isn't bad, but it's not good enough to rave about the characters that much. So all these compliments ring hollow. Just like in R&C

The chapter is just: look how beautiful and popular the main characters are.

(I won't talk about these ladies swooning over a math class)

Secret

William was showing off by saying that he put protection systems in his office to protect their secret. But apparently, he didn't think of a very basic one.

Locking the door.

The girls who entered his office don't seem very bright like all the women in this manga, so I highly doubt that they picked the lock (and even less broke down the door). And if these very young, naive girls managed to do it, they need to put better locks. It should be easy with a genius like Von Herder.

Speaking of him, why is the secret meeting room in the basement so poorly hidden? How did the dog (who is just a dog with the intelligence of a dog, not a spy looking for the Moriartys' secrets) get so far? Its owner too? Is the entrance to the basement so poorly guarded?

There is once again a simple solution.

A door. Locked. Hidden by a curtain or a screen. Or even the same appearance as the wall. How did they not get caught before with such miserable discretion measures? (Well, they got caught, because William and his brother are too stupid to wear a mask)

Sure, there is the wine cellar right next door. Well, they might as well not put the secret room just next to it, especially if it has no protection against intruders. Otherwise, they could have put away everything that could be compromising. And I maintain, at least a door should be put in the basement entrance.

"King's scholars"

Of course the brothers got nicknames at school because they're so cool and smart. It would have been stupid to be discreet. Especially since one was known for being stupid. And another wasn't a noble at all to begin with (he didn't get bullied for that? Lucky him)

???

How does he know it's for William specifically? They don't know they've been exposed and Milverton officially has no interest in William.

Explanations please!

Sherlock

And one booger for Sherlock, one!

Court case

I have nothing to say in particular about the trial, I don't know enough about law or how it was done at the time. For MTP standards, it's pretty good since we're shown the reasoning and it more or less holds up. Nothing transcendent (I'm pretty sure no judge will side with a street kid demanding blood, over a nobleman) but of a quality expected for this manga. The problem is elsewhere.

It's William again.

There is almost no difference between adult Will and child Will. He has the same mentality, the same habits, the same level of intelligence, the same impressive culture compared to his peers. Even considering that he lived in a bookstore and is a genius, it becomes hard to believe when he can speak and manipulate so well at such a young age and has such a vast culture. William has been perfect and superior since childhood. His adoption into the nobility, his aristocratic education and the years passed have made no difference. He is essentially the same.

(this is a problem his brother shares, being exactly the same as his adult version while he is far from having received the education necessary for it to be credible. But he is very secondary and does not have the ridiculously intelligent side)

And all this would not have been a problem if he had FLAWS. Flaws are important elements for a character, it makes them endearing and above all credible.

Look at Edwin from Dead Boy Detectives. He is very intelligent, has an impressive memory and a gigantic library of knowledge (and extremely kind despite a tragic past and strangely neither racist nor sexist despite the context in which he was raised). But if he is my babygirl, it is because he is a fucking diva (also, the other characters can shine independently of him).

William has no flaw nor weakness, no prospect of evolution, nothing. He's boring.

"The most famous trial in the world"

The newspaper tycoon only learned about this story while investigating William. Even Bond didn't know about it. So not very famous, no.

(to be fair, in french, it's just "of the century". Doesn't work either)

Cruelty

It's ridiculous how much they try to portray young William as cool when he should just be crazy. He's a kid who's 100% ready to cut up another person. The MC are only the villains they're supposed to be when it's cool and edgy, otherwise they're classic good Samaritans. When those two notions are opposite.

Higher Intelligence

You discovered his identity because he didn't think to hide himself when leaving a crime scene. Stop saying William is smart.

I repeat myself but by dint of repeating that the MC are exceptional, it has no weight anymore (especially if it is not compensated by their flaws).

Lord of Crime

Glad to see non-noble people being skeptical about the Lord of Crime but it makes no sense that he is already so famous and popular. When we see the main characters act, it is usually very discreetly, like with Jack the Ripper, or Irene. So how did he becomes so famous? The general public has no proof that he actually exists, it is just a rumor, but everyone treats him like a real person.

Bendley

A person who lacks finesse and is not very subtle. I wonder if he is sincere because it is so exaggerated but that is a question that the manga asks itself so not so much a criticism. And he is clearly treated with respect - more respect than Sherlock.

Reputation

It is sad that Milverton is supposed to be a very bad guy and not subtle (not a flaw tho), but given the situation in the US, and even in France, I can't honestly say that he is unrealistic.

In conclusion, this image I found which sums up William and his gang very well

[donnie-and-their-backup-turtles]

i kinda think part of why people treat donnie as less caring than he is is like. sometimes not knowing when he's joking? like that time he threatens to be "semi-lethal" when splinter's in the truck with meat sweats. like i'm sure most of you knew he was joking but like. do some of you realise he like, would not have done that? like remember how he was sad? when splinter actually got hurt? same with leo in the movie? and all of them at every other time?

like he's self proclaimed funniest. and also a mad scientist aesthetic doesn't make a character a villain by itself it's what you actually do with that (yes he has done bad things within that area (haunted stare towards mind meld) but you have to admit he like. did fix those. and feel bad and hopefully learn his lesson but hey that's another analysis)

i have mixed feelings on villain donnie stuff, as an example, because like. ANY character put in a situation where they lose their way is really fun and if in character is really interesting as to what could cause that.

but when it's treated as like. inevitable. who he is, or phrasing his brothers are the only thing stopping him being evil. it's like hm. ugh. kind of hurts a bit actually but that's probably because i relate to him ghfdjk

like the seen in snow day with the tech bo chainsaw like. all he really DOES is cut a snowman there but he's just like. leaning into being "evil" with the chainsaw but like he's just being silly with it. acting like that's proof of anything is wild to me, without any other data points.

also kind of separate but i think there's a dissonance between what is like. seen as evil? between me and like most people lol. like the scene in the movie as well with like "finally, man and machine, entwixt in perfect bionic synergy" someone i watched it with was like "haha evil moment" or whatever where i was just like. yeah real that would be rad as hell. honestly gender also.

not saying he's never done anything wrong but i am saying he immediately tries to fix all of those things

anyway he does have a really interesting relationship with morals in my eyes but like, at his core he really cares about people, you know?

this isn't hate to anyone btw i just care about donnie a lot as a character and as really layered autistic representation

[disdaidal]

Sometimes I really kind of envy you native English speakers who make writing and posting fics seem so fucking easy. With near perfect grammar and hardly any typos. Or those of you who are capable of writing & updating your fics whenever the muse hits you just right... and not like, once in six months. Actually, try two years lol.

Whereas me, a non-native speaker, who occasionally struggles even with basic English grammar:

I'm fine. Totally.

[chirpchirplol]

hi! anonymous asker here, I made an account to post about why I initially thought I was Lion. This is going to start off like me trying to argue it's wrong but that's not what it is. It's also long af, sorry for that, I wrote it out for myself to process it then went back and realized there was a literal question it was in response to. longafness after link, tl;dr: I value and rely on my gut feelings heavily, can't make myself ignore them, but I want them to be predictable and it's uncomfortable when they get out of line

So I felt confident about Lion, and with Badger or Snake, it was "I wouldn't like it but I could see it." Like with Snake, I love me some hedonism and struggle with selfishness - had assumed both those characters were huge Snakes lol - but find it as a whole to be a very "fuck you, I got mine" mentality. Sucks for those strangers in need with no one to come through for them! Like I have STRONG feelings about this, I don't understand how people don't find it horrifying. I actually have a weird opposite thing where I can get FURIOUS on behalf of strangers being mistreated, even hypothetical or fictional ones, in a way I don't for people I know well or even myself. Which is why I thought Badger was possible and maybe I just was resistant due to being burned or because I thought it was boring, but the unpersoning group thing creeps me out. "All people matter… except the ones that don't." It's so close to being really beautiful!

With Bird it was more, "who even does this?" Like with the Bird answer on the "lack of objective truth" question, "it's OK, I thought about it and reality is close enough to the model in my head", that is literally incomprehensible to me as a way a person would think. (My answer was "actually there is objective truth." That was my answer before I even got through the question.)

The main reason why I thought Bird was impossible is the "choosing to care about something" part. I can't do that. Caring about things is not something I can turn on or off at will, even if I want to. At least not important things as opposed to say hobbies, but even then I can't just go "ok self, you're gonna like football now because I said so" and then actually do. It's an organic process, I can kick it off but ultimately I either care or don't care, and if I don't then the farthest I'm gonna get is pretending, or lying to myself while knowing it's a lie. Definitely can't talk myself into caring about a job, god knows I've tried lol. My likes and dislikes are so fundamental to who I am as a person, so sacred even, that the idea that they are deliberately malleable for other people is just, whaaaaa?

Where this really kicks in is friends and relationships, I cannot deliberately make myself like someone I dislike or dislike someone I like, people generally don't grow more attractive to me over time. and it'd make me sad, like relationship-foundation-shakingly sad, if I found out my friends/partner felt that way with me. like they had to try to like me rather than just like me.

I'm not really a logical person either. I start with the conclusion, which is generally based on feelings, and then hope I can justify it in case I ever have to talk about it. (because arguing is stressful enough when I do have a defensible stance let alone when I can't explain it) I have this irrational but unshakeable assumption that my feelings and thoughts should just agree completely. When they don't, that feels bad, but my gut has veto power. To fully talk myself into or out of opinions I have to actually feel good about them, they have to not feel viscerally wrong, or else things get into an uncomfortable self-judging place where I know I should believe something but don't actually, truly, deep down, believe it. Or where none of the stances feel right, that's even more "fun".

A good example of that is actually the "past self is a different person" thing. My past self is still me, the things I did or thought in the past do not disappear just because I've changed nor do their permanent effects on me. I absolutely feel guilty about things I used to believe, and sure some of that is just the cringe of people knowing about it, but even if no one else knew I'd know and that's enough. And yet… I also theoretically believe in rehabilitation and think it's wrong not to, but apparently I actually don't, because that sure isn't something a person who believes in rehabilitation would say! I'm being flippant but this legitimately bothers me, especially because the idea of not believing in rehabilitation feels even more bad.

What convinced me ultimately: I'm not a Trump supporter, obviously. I would like to think it is absolutely impossible for me to become a Trump supporter. But that's what they all say, people become the things they would never EVER become all the time. Which led me to this question: Would it be worse to deliberately choose to do something wrong, or to slowly stop believing it's wrong without realizing? Or does that distinction even matter? Feel free to substitute something less extreme, like working for an evil company, bullying, cheating, selling out, betraying a friend, whatever line you would never cross.

And my answer is actually that the latter is wayyy more disturbing. I'm really big on owning and naming your beliefs and desires. It's a great way to get your conscience to kick in, to actually say it out loud then see how good or bad that felt. Same principle as how, if someone makes a racist joke, you act confused and ask them to explain it to you.

So the former would be gross, like fuck any person who would do it; but at least I could be conscious of the fact that I am choosing to do an evil thing for the sake of, I don't know, stonks. I would be engaged in the process, my conscience would be involved despite being ignored, and I would hope I would feel disgusted with myself forever. (Even considering the possibility is kind of disgusting.) But slowly having your beliefs erode over time into something bad… how do you stop that? How do you do ANYTHING about that? Shit what if it's happening right now? Even if the shift was in the opposite direction and I slowly became a better person without trying… I guess that's good? Can't argue with it being a net positive? But it feels unearned and unreliable, if you can sleepwalk forward you can sleepwalk back.

So that's conscious vs. unconscious I guess. Also I wrote and revised a ton of words to answer the question so there's that too.

bird primary + burnt snake secondary

 tl;dr: Fairly sure I'm Lion primary (maybe burned Badger since I sort of envy the idea of close communities, or hedonistic Snake, not sure where that line is)

(the way that divide works out is that basically, Burnt Badgers look like Snakes. They have the Snake's small community, but wish they could cast their net wider. Hedonistic Snakes tend to be more solo, and much more focused on /stuff/. Also, both options make pretty good short-term coping mechanisms.)

but unsure whether my secondary is Bird, Snake/burned Snake, or burned Lion.

I love researching and reverse-engineering and my immediate response to situations is to Google advice, but reactively, not proactively. I am allergic to planning, and prepwork feels stifling and unnatural.

Ooooh, have we got a single-player Environment Snake? (I also think of these as MacGyver Snakes.) Basically just pulling at the things around you in order to solve the problem at hand.

I studied math in college then did a coding bootcamp, and I always felt adrift because both only taught memorizing solutions to individual problems/proofs, not how to solve unfamiliar ones -- i.e., really learning. 

However, I neither consider myself flexible nor want to be, and singleplayer Snake is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more comfortable than stuff involving other people. (Complicating factor: not neurotypical.)

I think I can say, pretty confidently, that this system works just fine if you're not neurotypical. :) There's no reason you have to use the multi-player version if you don't want. The most dramatic single/multi player divide is probably Bookkeeper Badger vs Courtier Badger, and there are lots of people who prefer being just one or the other.

I do the "faces" thing reflexively, in the moment, but it doesn't feel like "shifting" or "becoming" anything: just me, lying.

That's Snake. "Becoming" is more of a word that a Courtier Badger would use, they kinda do have to believe it, or it doesn't work. Snake secondaries are a lot more aware of what they're doing, in the moment.

It's interesting that you are just straight-up using the word lie though. In my experience, Snakes are more likely to conceptualize that particular problem-solving strategy as "say it in a way they'll listen to," or something like that. You might just be super direct (and/or like hanging out in Neutral) buuuut... the negativity of "lie" can sometimes point to a Burnt secondary. No sign of that yet, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

I don't have a moral problem with lying; it's often even right since a) telling the truth often hurts people, and b) people do prefer it: most people want to hear what they want to hear, and if that happens to be the truth that's great.

Hmmm. This is sounding like primary stuff. And it's quite reasoned out, which makes me interested in hearing why you went for Lion primary instead of Bird.

But deep down, I guess I resent it. I wish that when I say what I mean it would convince people rather than create problems. I try to ration that to only things that REALLY matter to me, but tbh many things do. I hate arguing.

What I'm hearing here is the Bird primary fantasy of "If I was only able to explain it exactly right, in precisely the right words, then everyone would agree with me." And as you say earlier, it doesn't actually work like that. It sounds like you're feeling a bit cynical in regards to other people a the moment, and I can't exactly blame you.

I would love to be an inspirational secondary but I am bad at inspiring people.

There is definitely some burnt secondary talk going on here.

Family: I'm not close to my father -- he’s a terrible person, serial cheater, racist, etc. I'm closer to my mother, and don't think she's a bad person, but both parents were hypercritical and have horrible tempers, so my childhood felt horrible to live through since I was always getting yelled at or having corporal punishment used for doing something wrong.

Definitely seeing where the burned secondary energy is coming from, if so many of your formative experiences involved being told that the way you were doing things was wrong. I also see why you might have at least a fascination with the confident, firey, speak-your-truth-and-damn-the-consequences Lion secondary.

(On paper this could be called abusive, and anyone else being subjected to this makes me furious, but I'm not fully comfortable with the label for my situation, even though I know that's inconsistent.) 

I understand, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate your carefully articulated position, and it's slanting me in the direction of Bird primary. Even though this is obviously a topic you are very emotional about, all those emotions are arranged within the framework of thought. You're aware of and okay the fact that you feel all kinds of different ways about what happened.

Any secondary model came from my mom, but I don't know about primary. She always says my sister and I are "the most important things in her life." (One of the reasons I don’t want kids is that I don’t think I could ever believe or promise them that.) She ostensibly also hates my father and their divorce was vicious, but she kept working for him until he retired, goes on trips with him to see my sister or me, and pressured me for years to un-estrange him because “after all, he’s family” until I gave in and now pretend to have a relationship just enough to placate them. I don't have any ethical problems doing this, it's just irritating.

That is very, very unusual family dynamic. Have to get my head around that. Your mom may have some very intense Badger going on, especially with the the whole "after all, he's family" thing. That could fit go with a nasty divorce, especially if she thought his presence was a threat to you and your sister. On the other hand, she might just be able to compartmentalize to an insane degree, which would probably point to Bird secondary.

I don't understand this aspect of my mom; I observe it happening, but I don't understand it. It feels kind of sad, in an existential way. 

Honestly, I agree.

(Another way my dad sucks is that he played favorites with my sister and I, me being the favorite.

Being the Golden Child sucks just as much as being the Problem Child.

The shitty resulting dynamic is I only "care about" his approval to avoid him creating drama that ripples to everyone around him -- he's gotten better but he has literally started shit when I didn't end emails with "love" -- but my sister actually cares about his approval, and it hurts her.)

Secondary-wise, my mom would always harp on me to "pay attention to the people and things around you," and whenever I tell her about solving problems in Snakeish ways she's like "way to go, [me]!" But she also is meticulously planned and scheduled and organized, and hates surprises and not knowing exactly what will happen. She's the kind of person who gets frustrated in April when I haven’t told her my Thanksgiving itinerary, which, like... I don't want to think that far ahead.

She could be either Prep-work secondary, Bird or Badger. If she's a Bird, "pay attention to the people and things around you," points to a a Rapid-Fire Bird (which can look *very* Snakey.) Or it could be a way of describing Courtier Badger. Being that scheduled is more often a Bird thing... but I could also imagine a Badger manifesting like that, especially if she is so concerned with specifically planning holidays.

Low-stakes/high-stakes problem that felt good: This is a high-stakes problem containing a low-stakes problem. I'm rolling them together because they illustrate both aspects of my problem solving.

Higher stakes: That coding bootcamp required being on Zoom 8 hours every day. But I had 3 roommates (part of why I did it was to not have 3 roommates), and they didn't want me there that much. I can't go to coffee shops because either they're loud, or I will make them loud by talking for 8 hours, thus becoming the problem. Coworking spaces are expensive af. I even consider renting a storage unit but I don't think they have power and wifi. The idea I settle on is sneaking onto a nearby college campus: preferably the CS building, to blend in. I scour the college subreddit for posts about what buildings let students in without ID, then scout them out (this is March, the thing doesn't start until May, I'm just high on must-solve-now energy). After ~15 minutes (lol) of walking through campus I decide I've had enough, seems doable. The day of, I leave early in case I have to give up and go home, but that turned out to be completely pointless because tailgating in is shockingly easy. Like it's scary how easy it is. One day a security officer stopped me but even he eventually let me in after I acted increasingly frazzled and panicked -- not ENTIRELY an act but I definitely was playing it up.

I like this story. And I feel good about saying that it is QUITE snakey: what do I have immediately around me, and how can I use it to get what I want in this moment? Even little details like - you're not bothering to come up with a cover story or borrow/forge someone's ID. If you're caught you'll talk your way out of it. You did a little research, then scoped the place out, then were good to go.

Lower stakes: I usually did classes from an empty auditorium (students weren't supposed to be there but no one checked, and also I'm not a student right?). The whiteboard's eraser stand was a few inches away from the wall, and one day I drop my phone in the gap. Shit. The gap's way too high to reach down. I can't ask anyone for help because I'm already 2 layers deep of being somewhere I'm not supposed to be. The stand screws to the wall, but I don't have a screwdriver because who just carries a screwdriver around? (For whatever reason, going to a hardware store didn't occur to me.) I stare at the thing until I realize: I am literally in the ENGINEERING building. I search various offices, ask people for a screwdriver, but no luck. Then I see a board listing the departments. One floor has a "makerspace," and somehow, its door is wide open (the student lounge is locked down but the room with deadly power tools isn't, ???) I grab 5 sizes of screwdriver, then also grab duct tape and a ruler to fish my phone out in case the screwdrivers don't work, which turned out to be a good idea because they didn't

Sounds to me to me like you just MacGyvered a solution :D

One thing I am picking up on is your subtle critique of the existing rules/systems. Getting in via tailgateing is easier than it should be, talking your way past the guard was too easy. The door with the powertools really should be locked, etc. It's making me (again) think Bird primary for you. You've very tuned into the way things run, and how well designed (or not) that is. There's also just a little bit of Birdy rules-lawyer in "Students aren't allowed in this room, but I'm not a student (because I snuck in.)"

Hard decision-making process…. I don’t know. I don’t experience many decisions as hard. I often know what I want to do right away; the difficult part is doing it.

In the language of this system, that's a Burnt secondary.

Or I know what I should do, am obligated to do, have no choice but to do, etc., though sometimes it feels miserable or wrong, like resignation.

Unfortunately that is what it feels like to have a Burnt primary - you just use whatever problem-solving strategy you can at random, since they all feel like a chore and it doesn't really matter.

I can feel proud of making certain "right" choices in an abstract self-congratulatory way, but I never like it or really feel good about it. I either act on something immediately or put it off until the decision makes itself, a drop-dead deadline approaches, I get bored/impulsive enough to do it on the spot, or I suddenly swerve my life toward something I like better.

You're definitely an Improvisational secondary. Which is really fine, even though I know it doesn't feel that way all the time when you come from a family of intense Prep-work people. Just keep an eye on that 'wait until the deadline' impulse. It's very, very common for neurodivergent people to use that last-minute stress adrenaline to kind of hack their brain, and it's not sustainable.

I'd wanted to change careers for years but the actual decision to do the bootcamp was an impulse based on ~3 hours' research the day I encountered it.

That can absolutely work though. You *are* working on the problem and mulling it over in your head long term, even if you are (in the words of another snake secondary) "waiting for the opportune moment."

This is all healthy and well-adjusted, and it definitely has never caused any predictable problems! (Did get a job though.)

Hey, if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

My fantasy: To be successful and well-known in my field; to create the kind of art I want to create and have it be respected/influential. To live the life I want, with the aesthetic I want, and the opportunities from others and follow-through from me to achieve that. The details vary based on the field but that's the general template. 

I'd say that's a very human fantasy, without too many details that slant me one way or the other, in terms of this system. There's definitely a focus on the community around you and how you relate to it/integrate into it. And that makes me think Bird (the external primary) is more likely than Lion (the internal primary.)

Characters: I relate to characters who are flawed in the same ways I am -- they feel like cautionary tales -- or sometimes via empathizing in a way the story doesn’t (Carlotta from Phantom got done DIRTY).

It's interesting that you respond to characters who the narrative framing doesn't support, because the narrative framing doesn't support them. I guess that does fit with your interest in constructed systems, and if they're useful/functional or not. Which points to Bird.

On that big pop culture character test I always get Hannah from Girls and Gaius Baltar from Battlestar Galactica: harsh, but not wrong.

(I always get Inara from Firefly and Céline from Before Sunrise.)

It's been a second since I've seen Girls or Battlestar Galactica, but I do think that both of those characters are Bird Snakes, which is honestly impressive since Bird Snakes are easily the least common fictional archetype.

Baltar is clever, adaptive, reactive, he pulls from around him. He also bluffs and will *act* like he's an expert when he really isn't. A lot of his internal conflict revolves around extremely Bird primary rationalization - is this situation really his fault? and if it is, what is he morally/rationally supposed to do about it (if anything?) "Voice of *a* generation" Hannah also has this way of getting caught in her own feedback loops when trying to figure herself out. One of my favorite moments is the bit where she loses her purse on the way back from the wedding, and then rides the train all the way to Coney Island, sits on the beach and eats the slice of wedding cake while watching the sun rise. I think that's beautiful, and a very Snake secondary response.

I also gravitate toward a specific archetype: Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, Madame Bovary, Violetta from La Traviata. People who desire an impossible thing deeply and unshakably, temporarily achieve it, and are taken down dramatically.

Now that, I'm thinking is a story structure that you like. And/or you're drawn to these tragic great ladies, living most of the way in a fantasy world. It's a good, cathartic archetype.

What makes me feel powerful: I don’t really resonate with that framing. The closest is that feeling like I have no options is the same for me as feeling powerless.

Okay, "not feeling powerless," I'll take it. And we're back to that Burnt secondary again. I'm hoping you'll leave your Snake a little more room to breathe and play, because it seems like you're a pretty capable person. You manage to do the things you want to get done, and you have an excellent awareness of what are good and bad situations, both for you and just in general.

Thank you to anonymous for such an excellent submission. If you'd like a Sorting of your very own, commissions are open on my ko-fi. :D

If you'd like to read more about the system I'm using, my explanation is right here.

[aropride]

MAYBE IT WOULD STRENGTHEN THE STORY IF THEY GOT TOGETHER ACTUALLY 🖕

[todayisafridaynight]

So there's my grammar teacher who used to be known as the intimidating one but like.. He's always been open to me and my friend about like what he watches and interests and has literally asked to see my writing

Do you know how awkward it is to explain the last thing I wrote was haha flower cough;"#+(@+%

(he liked the concept and deadass said "send it to me that's a command" and now I'm omw to write something entirely new because ain't no way I'm sending MineDai)

LMAO I WAS GONNA SAY YOU'D HAVE TO HOLD A GUN TO MY HEAD TO SEND SLASH FICTION TO MY TEACHER

[arklay]

once upon a time i liked a ship for what it was and then i saw how the fandom treated it and now i have visceral hatred towards it (harsh but not far off)

[naggingatlas]

i looove putting spark over songs about like heroes and saving the world (tom cardy's 'level clear', uncle outrage's 'saved the world' <- nice voice hc for him!. and 'my superhero movie'.) when he like. Did. Not : ) funney.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

billions is really on one constantly like you gotta love how there's the wordless presentation of This Man & This Woman as like an image of epic power couple &/or pr for the Wholesomeness of this man to have the Family Values in having a wife & possibly even kids, and being fictional media, most of the time this comes up as Staged Material from actors for this Media, especially given that generally both parties will be preexisting Roles With Dialogue. and then when it comes to winston & their granting us their clearest most elevated least questioning/critical exercises in "this is Telling you that winston is inferior" in a) successful violation &/or b) successful-violation-born information that they recognize as Inferior & expect you will too....really a moment's pause sometimes remembering that since they couldn't be bothered to stage anything for winston & instead we got a) photos provided from will roland of himself from his real life or b) pics they didn't need to get rights to, in this case they show us selfies from a real-life-and-by-then-married-couple, and it's This that gets "well so of course this is another Recognition Of Inferiority presentation" and not "well isn't that nice, epic, &/or wholesome, or even just matter of fact" like. really unbelievable of them and steph wessels gets to cameo as someone who Of Course dumped this guy because [well just look at him we're right back to exactly 4 seasons prior in 3x03 where we're supposed to know winston isn't epic b/c if wags is there you're supposed to be projecting on him, thanks, & when the one thing you can take issue with being an apparently accidental misgendering, there's Nothing to take issue with in that in the face of this it's crickets from wags who's otherwise dying to kill winston already. awesome. but i mean. well just look at him. we Hate winston.] like and billions is off the rails like "b/c he's so bad at sex" like yeah i think nothing says Good At Sex like the nexus of "has never tried learning anything about sex" & "has never been told their sexual partners might benefit from their learning about sex" Hell yeah. but only those born with the good bodies (winston wasn't! btw! which we all Knew 500 thinking emojis) deserve to have sex and this is also an extremely epic thing to say in this zero critical lens Celebration of killing the autistic guy for not sufficiently staying an exploited object kept silently shut away in your possession but out of sight & mind.

literally unironically Extremely Normal of them where "normal" is expected to be synonymous with a [neutral to good] context, as it "normally" is lol, but we Do have a critical lens out here. just like amazing you brought his real life then even all the more recent marriage into things held up for us as more fodder for Why We All Hate Winston & Want To Kill Him which also always hinged on "well just look at him" which necessarily hinges on a real life person's form to be looked at (or heard, given that we know people don't always react to his speaking voice as "neutral" and this is just another aspect of people's bodies) while meanwhile it's like yeah delightful stuff actually. or who cares b/c the Context doesn't have to be "does this role seem personally appealing?" for the Question that doesn't need to be "do we want them dead or are they someone who can do whatever they want or someone who has to forever endure and support the previous and can do whatever they want that doesn't conflict with this" and then 500 zillion words to say about this actor who was only supposed to be Quant Kid 2 Who We All Hated & Killed for one scene in one ep getting a recurring role (to still only ever be hated & killed as far as the writing was concerned, for the overwhelming Mostly) b/c of this je ne sais quoi & of course still Acting as though this role is as much a person as any of the other roles, wow, can't believe this was found to be so Talented & Delightful & Essential despite still only seeing the role as [guy we hate & kill] & having no intention of like giving him an arc ever but we really want more of this. and then inevitably be really preoccupied about his dick like not in a "haha. pwned them in turn b/c that's gay" but like of course in being Superior it's like yep preoccupied with the inferior parties' sexuality & your own being superior too. his dick is bad and he's not tall enough and well just look at him, no wonder he was dumped [shows you an image from actually having good times with his eventual wife] like obviously. billions with their autistic character like how do we step it up from the episode where some guy yells the r word at him amidst like the threats and harassment and assault? well more of that plus surveillance and even more personal intrusion but also someone says he's effectively a child and then we enjoy validation of our eugenicist presumptions i guess about his sexuality and body and most like random details of personality (never stop pointing out that somehow that He Likes Puns is more evidence for how Objectively Hated he is) and this episode has no other point than revelling in all of this and considering this to also be like "yes this all makes wags look Epic, which is worth an episode ever, all the more so as 1/12th of a series finale season"

[monochromelullaby]

I read happy hardcore hexidream last night, and on the one hand I can absolutely see the horror elements, the abusive behaviors, the trauma responses.

On the other hand. Agere braincell looks at Hexi and is like 'oh but that could be a good caregiver right there'

[toytulini]

lightly defending Toshiro while also fully understanding Laois frustrations. as a bitch who let teachers call me the wrong name all through high school cos it was kinda funny