#i understand why some people don't like him or disagree with his morals; i really do. i do sometimes think there's no hope and that the -

[canonically47]

i cannot ever get over gi-hun actually. the fact that he chooses to believe in the good of humanity even after witnessing what he has, and that he joins the games AGAIN with (mathematically) even LESS chances of survival JUST because he wants to save people, people who DON'T CARE, people who are SELFISH and who continuously betray and hurt him just fucking KILLS ME. a very big critique from many people (and i've noticed, especially men) about the second season and gi-hun's character is that he is stupid. they find him to be stupid that he has this weak spot for an uncaring crowd, that he comes back to the games to save people who wouldn't think of him twice, instead of going to his daughter. they think that him caring and despising a system this deeply is a sign of weakness and stupidity.

but if anything, i find it admirable. maybe i can't bring myself to hate him because i think i'd do the same thing. i watch him on-screen and think, "yeah, i would do that too", every single mistake, every single thing, i get him. and he may look stupid to some but i think if anything, he's just too caught up in an ideal world in which people care, but i find it admirable that this is his personality even after witnessing the previous games. he still has hope, they haven't wiped it away from him. comparing him to in-ho is like night and day, because in-ho was broken by the games and came back to perpetuate that same hurtful system, while gi-hun was broken by the games and came back to break the people that created the system, and the system itself.

he speaks to me, as an individual who clings to hope until his very last breath, who can never seem to learn from his mistakes because he is so stubborn, he wants to prove that humanity could, and should, have hope and that it's worth to fight for it, not to just leave for a different continent and forget about it. that's what draws me to him, this endless fight in him, i can't find him stupid because he's so desperate to change things. and he never gives up even after his friends die before him.

idk i just am really unwell about gi-hun. i think people treat him too harshly. i'm unsure how well this is worded, but what i really want to say is that i don't think he should be perfect and immediately learn from every single mistake he has ever made. the fact that he is this broken given his past, even before the games he's set up as this really caring and traumatized individual, and that they double down on his same characteristics that make him so incredibly real... he's just really special to me. i really admire the way he is written and i think he's a really good representation of people who fight for a change even when it all seems lost. he's just that kind of guy that doesn't, couldn't, will never give up. and i really love that.

[ismaeldrawsthings]

I am the friend that's too woke bc my concept of gender dynamics and expressions make it difficult for me to understand What The Fuck are People On when they come to this god forsaken website and say "Madeline Miller imposed straight relationship dynamics onto Patrochilles' relationship" or "Madeline Miller made Patroclus feminine".

Is healing an inherently feminine trait for you? Is him not being fond of violence in the book inherently feminine to you? I don't understand.

It may not go with the context of The Iliad, but it goes perfectly with the context of TSOA. Of course Patroclus, the boy who accidentally took a life when he was still a child, wouldn't like violence. It goes hand in hand within the context of the novel. As well as him being a healer, having learned with Chiron. All of this make sense in the context of TSOA.

Now... And hear me out on this, you're allowed to disagree: I don't believe this is really mischaracterization.

I personally don't believe such thing as "mischaracterizing" a mythological character exist. Since mythological characters are moldable depending on: The culture in which they are written, who wrote them, the historical context, among others. They are multifacetic and their characterizations depend on the aforementioned factors. For example, in The Iliad, Helen fucking hated Paris and wanted to go back to Sparta with her husband. Meanwhile, in The Odyssey, Helen immitates the voice of the wives of the men inside the wooden horse in order to torture them, wanting to sabotage their victory in order to stay in Troy. These are two completely different and opposite characterizations of her character. Helen is one of the biggest examples of how characterization works in mythology. Some people believe she loved Paris and went to Troy willingly with him, others believe she hated him and he took her forcefully and raped her. All of these interpretations are true bc myths are ambiguous and adapt to the people's beliefs and practices.

And they adapt to their time, for which I say that Patroclus' character in TSOA was not a mischaracterization of him as a whole. Patroclus represents kindness, and the traits of a kind man were different in ancient Greece than they are today. It doesn't matter. What matter is that his kindness is a key part of his character, so Miller's writing isn't wrong. It isn't a misunderstanding of his character. She based this "anti-violence" version of him on Shakespeare's interpretation of his character, but Shakespeare was not wrong either. Shakespeare wrote what a kind man was in his time, and Miller wrote what a kind man is in her time based on the representation of kindness from previous time. And both of them are true. Both of them can be true, as well as all the prior.

People say Miller's characterization is wrong and could've not existed within the context of The Iliad or the Trojan war as a whole, for which I say: this is symbolic. The Trojan war is symbolic, is mythological, it does not exist. Is a lesson on moral ambiguity within the context of war and how a man's life is not worth more than other's (and a bunch of other things). It's relevant, it transcends time. It can be adapted and reinterpreted to give that same lesson in different historical contexts.

Why do we keep learning about The Iliad? Why does it matter? Why should it matter, if people are so insisten on the fact that it happened in ancient times to ancient people within ancient contexts? Because it is still relevant. War is still relevant. We cannot just say "oh, those old Greeks!" And rub our hands off because it doesn't apply to us. A modern reinterpretation of these old myths and characters are important for you to still understand the lessons these myths were meant to give in your modern context. And is not wrong to do so. Is not a "mischaracterization" or "misinterpretation". Is just another interpretation.

But that's just what I believe lmfao you're free to disagree with me

Summarizing: I don't believe you can really mischaracterize a mythological character as long as your characterization of said mythological character doesn't interfere with the purpose of their existence in the myth they are from. Patroclus is Achilles humanity and compassion, he stands out for his empathy, diplomacy and kindness. Madeline Miller does a great job of representing this, regardless of whether her representation of these traits differ from what they were like in an ancient context.

[zukosdualdao]

i know some people take the moment of azula speaking up in the flashback to the war meeting in sozin's comet as azula trying to "protect zuko" after he starts (while carefully choosing his words) disagreeing with ozai, but i really can't see it that way.

even aside from the fact that i don't think we should ever argue that her advocating for genocide here was a good thing, based on everything else about their relationship, i can't see this moment as anything but her once again trying to establish dominance and superiority over zuko. it actually reminds me of a different scene, all the way back from the flashbacks in zuko alone.

in both situations, ozai is testing his children in a way, and when zuko can't or won't give the "right answer", azula interjects and is able to say exactly what he wants to hear.

in zuko alone, of course, ozai is asking them questions that seem to be related to whatever (heavily inundated with propaganda, clearly) schooling they get. something that i find really interesting is that zuko doesn't seem to only struggle with firebending, but with his schooling as well. which isn't exactly surprising: abused kids often have trouble in school, and that seems particularly likely when ozai is already treating zuko like he is weak, incompetent, and unworthy in other areas. it's a self-fulling prophecy, on ozai's part: he demeans zuko for not being good at firebending (and perhaps for not being good in school), and, because kids are very naturally going to clam up and not get better at something when they're treated as worthless for any perceived flaw, it affects his ability to build his skills or performance in school.

but i think there's also a way in which zuko probably struggles to keep up in school because he's receptive to the values ursa tries to instill in him from a young age. he probably doesn't realize the things they are learning are things that are morally wrong, but there's a way, at this point, in which he can't relate to them, can't understand the motives of why it would be considered a good thing to defeat an enemy in such a brutal way when it runs so counter to the values of kindness ursa is trying to instill in her children, be it by explaining that throwing bread at turtleducks is not nice or that we shouldn't wish death on other family members.

by contrast, the emphasis on azula here is that she's clearly fully bought into the propaganda, that she respects and admires the brutality of the tactics. (also, is it just me, or does she sound a little like she's reciting a textbook, albeit with a lot of glee?) and notably, at the end, when she gets the answer 'right', she side-eyes zuko with a smug smirk. just like she does in sozin's comet as she's told she's right.

just for comparison's sake:

the situation in the sozin's comet flashback is different, of course, because they're not being quizzed on their schoolwork so much as they are being asked to put what they've learned about war and tactics into practice. zuko has a lot more understanding now than he did as a much younger child of the realities of war because he's seen it up close. and because of that, not only can he not condone or suggest any of the brutal and egregious tactics that are clearly expected of him, but he actually says something in defense of the earth kingdom, albeit trying to choose his words carefully, and with ozai (quite possibly willfully?) misinterpretating them.

to suggest that azula is protecting zuko here is its own form of a willful misinterpretation. you have to ignore the entire context of their relationship, azula's established motivations, and the tone of the scene itself to come to that conclusion. she does not interrupt zuko to keep him from saying something that will get him hurt, but because she wants to prove once again that she's better, that she's right and he's wrong, that he’ll never catch up. but zuko is starting to realize that he doesn’t and shouldn’t want to.

[theshinazugawaslut]

Which girl is suitable for Sanemi, in your opinion? And what kind of character or goals in life?

a/n: my genuine apologies for not being able to finish this sooner!

disclaimer: I will be mentioning things that Sanemi wouldn't be looking for in a partner but this is not to be taken personally.

To start off, I interpret Sanemi as a family-oriented man who would not be interesting in things like partying or hooking-up; he'd date to marry, and would only have sex if he loved you very dearly and trusted you with his life. I say this because Sanemi is a man who isolates himself from everyone he loves but also has a deep respect for women, he wouldn't wish to be like his father (and even without the idea of his abusive father, Sanemi would disagree with ideas like being a fuckboy or making bad decisions). This is not to hate on anyone who does do these sort of things, this is just how I imagine Sanemi to be and what makes most sense regarding his character.

I'm going to split this into little mini-sections with little examples and explanations as well: What Sanemi wouldn't like and what Sanemi would like.

What Sanemi Would Like/Need:

Someone of unshakeable character and a strong moral compass; meaning that the person should be resilient and strong-minded, not easily swayed by others.

Someone family-oriented; this would be incredibly important to Sanemi. He is someone who places great importance on his own mother and siblings hence he'd wish for someone who holds the same importance on their own family as well. This would also play into the fact that Sanemi would want children, so he'd unconsciously want someone who is good with kids and would also want children.

Someone humble, down-to-earth, and simple. Spoiled brats and stuck-up people would make Sanemi strangle someone.

Someone kind-hearted and patient; the most ideal sort of kindness would be someone who is Tanjiro-level. Someone who could calm him down, help him rationalise himself, or help him figure out his emotions during tough times. He'd like someone who is selfless and tender.

Emotionally intelligent. He'd unconsciously need this in a partner due to the fact he is usually unable to express and verbalise his feels so having someone understand him would mean the whole world to him.

Due to his pessimistic nature/thoughts, he'd need someone who can see good in people/things. He's not looking for an overly optimistic, happy person who believes all is good in the world but instead he's looking for someone who can separate right from wrong, acknowledge the darkness of the world and still choose to make and see the best.

Goals-wise — someone ambitious or determined. He doesn't care if your goal is to crochet the world's best handbag or have three kids or open a florist shop, as long as you love it! Someone who rambles a lot would be endearing to him since he likes to just listen.

Feminine. By this, I don't mean someone who looks feminine but someone who acts feminine, someone overall gentle and nurturing, someone he could trust to slice his heart open gently and kiss him so fucking sweet after.

What Sanemi Wouldn't Like/Want:

Somebody who is too social. This isn't to say he wants you cooped up inside the house all the time with no one around you but Sanemi wouldn't be very big on placing a lot of emphasis on friends; he'd rather you and him hang out together all the time so if you dislike clinginess in the sense he will go with you to the gym, shops, salon, your family, then you and Sanemi are definitely not made for each other. So if you're someone who constantly wants to have friends over and go out with friends, he'd most likely find himself bored and slightly irritated even if he won't say anything. He doesn't understand why some people care about their friends so much; if you were hanging out with siblings or parents, he's totally up for it, but he's more iffy about friends. To add to this, Sanemi would really appreciate someone who gets along with family and he'll definitely get along for yours.

People who go partying/clubbing. Sanemi would dislike this because he thinks there are much better ways to spend his time and he overall dislikes the idea of drinking. He probably thinks bars and clubs are immature and a waste of time. He thinks if you can't have fun sober, then you're no fun at all. Overall, he doesn't like the things associated with partying/clubbing culture, and he feels like it's not an overall good place to be. He won't judge people who do it but he definitely wouldn't like it in his own partner.

Hook-up/one-night-stands; Sanemi would never partake in this sort of culture in the first place and I don't think he'd ever go with someone who does. He has different values and beliefs that don't really align with that sort of culture, so I think it'd be very unlike he date/marry someone who partook in it. This isn't for people to get offended but he'd rather someone chaste like himself.

Someone who is always angry. I see this trope in fanfictions a lot but I don't think Sanemi would pair very well with someone who is snappish/brutish like him; he doesn't want you to be a whimpering, pathetic mess, but I don't think he's ever going to fall for someone like himself, he prefers serenity in his partners.

Argumentative. You'll both just end up heartbroken and in a very badly chaotic relationship. It would never work out.

If you don't want kids. He wants kids, he loves them and really wants his own, and you'd probably find a problem later in your life with him if you really don't want kids. He'd never force you or try to push it on to you but he'd feel really sad on the inside.

[forsoobado137]

Hi! Ik you mainly focus on the FACE family but do you have any headcanons about Germany in the public nations au? Love your public nations Tumblr posts btw

Oh Germany probably HATES being in the spotlight. It's not like he has super bad stage fright. He's more than happy to do the hard work that comes with being a nation. But he just doesn't understand why people see everything he does as a noteworthy event. He'll see edits of himself just doing normal shit and will not comprehend why there are so many likes.

In interviews and public appearances, he's completely serious. He wants to put out a good image for his country, and tries really hard to do it. This kind of backfired, because now he keeps getting invited to game shows so the German people can see him laugh and be silly. Of course, he can't refuse because he feels obligated to his job.

I also think he's used a LOT in PSAs. So much so that it's become a bit of a meme both in Germany and abroad. I imagine it becomes a trend to almost do something bad but then a clip of Germany going "Stop!" and scolding the viewer plays, and then follow his instructions lmao. Abroad, the trend is more "When I'm about to jaywalk but the hot German NP tells me to stop."

I think he's super inactive on social media. Most social media appearances are from other nation's post (especially Italy and France). When he does post, it's either because his boss told him to, his dogs did something adorable, or he's at a festival and has loosened up after a few drinks.

I also think that Germany feels a lot of shame about his past. Some people try to paint him as a heartless villain, especially in the context of WW2. Don't get me wrong, he has done some horrible things, and was complacent with the German government at the time, but he disagreed with his old boss' extreme views, and didn't really have a choice. I feel like a lot of people in the Hetalia universe will see these complex, morally gray situations nations are trapped in and take away all nuance. After all, It's easier to scapegoat one person who embodies the nation rather than hold accountable the many criminals and monsters behind atrocities.

[throwingawayhailstones]

Some interesting thoughts on Sonic's ideals (particularly in IDW)

*hides behind a fallen tree*

I honestly really like how he's portrayed in IDW. People harp on his morals and all that but I think the writers are trying to say something about people who have his mindset.

Sonic wants everyone to have the freedom to change. He prefers to spare his enemies when he has the choice and wants to save people because he's a good guy. Though it's clear he won't get too hung up if someone dies because of their own actions (see: Starline. Also the end of unleashed and forces. Sonic had no reason to think Eggman survived and was cool with it. Like he won't actively go out of his way to confirm a kill is what I'm saying). The problem with this is what if they don't ever choose to change? Sonic wants Metal to come around like Omega. He doesn't have to be a good guy perse but like maybe stop trying to kill him on sight and stop plotting you know? But we all know as long as Eggman exists that can't happen because he'll just reprogram Metal. And Eggman. He doesn't exactly "spare" Eggman but since he doesn't go out of his way to like kill him, despite being fully able to, Eggman can get back up and terrorize more people.

This leads to people like Surge and Kit and Lanolin who were deeply and personally hurt by Eggman (Starline came from Eggman) and blame Sonic because he's the one who has the power to stop him but doesn't take the initiative.

See the thing is, Sonic can only justify letting them go because he knows he'll just stop him the next time they shows up. He says this explicitly when he lets Metal go. He can go around with this confidence because he is strong. What about the normies? People like Lanolin? They don't get to do that because they aren't powerful. That's why they have shit like "jail".

We see how important being powerful is to Sonic's beliefs in the Metal Virus arc. Suddenly he can't whisk people out of harm's way. He can't spindash through his problems. You see his confidence crumble and you see him venting his frustrations at Eggman and Metal. You see him actually threatening to basically kill Eggman by infecting him.

He does understand why people don't like him and why they find his ideals frustrating. He's been in enough rough spots to empathize. He just believes that he's fast enough to deal with fallout.

He also isn't directly "forcing" anyone to adhere to his ideals. He believes in freedom so people have the freedom to disagree even if he doesn't like the outcome (see: metal). The problem is because of the scale (see: forces) people have to deal with the collateral damage. People have the freedom to change so you gotta deal with Eggman firebombing you crops every few months because you live too close to his base sorry bestie. Sonic is fast enough to save the day but because he's a *reactive* force rather than a *proactive* one, theres always going to be victims.

This reactive thing also funnily enough mirrors boost gameplay lmao

Will he change? No, probably not. But he'll def get tossed around the blender a few more times.

[ufopigeon]

to the random ass proshippers

I’ll block proshippers and I won’t throw any first punches if I find the accounts. Just block n’ move on. Think what you want, but think it away from me. This is for the ppl who are going after others both anonymously and in the open, and being insistent about misunderstanding his character. It is absolutely absurd that some are really trying to PUSH the mere implication that the Postal Dude could be a pedo/have pedophilic tendencies, or that “it makes sense for him”. Some of you are ragebait I’m sure, but I also sadly think some of you are really genuine. And this is also the last I am going to speak about it. Just wanted to do something longer on behalf of everyone else who does not agree with this random influx.

The Postal Dude is obviously designed to be an ambiguous character, allowing players to project various characteristics onto him. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that any and all negative traits can be justified. Ambiguity in character design is meant to give freedom in interpretation, but it doesn't equate to carte blanche for projecting extreme or inappropriate characteristics that aren't supported by the game’s narrative or the developer's intent. Assuming that a character would commit any and all bad acts simply because they commit some is a lazy and inaccurate approach to understanding character design.

The argument that, "Durrr he’s literally a mass shooter, why is it so far-fetched for him to be a pedo too?" is a slippery slope fallacy. It’s that same exact shit all the edgelords try to use when they say (just so they can justify attacking any queer fans, same way SOME proshippers want to feel justified in attacking those who disagree), “The Postal Dude SPECIFICALLY hates gay people and trans people and wouldn’t support them at all/be grossed out by them! Why? Uhh, because he’s literally an evil, vile character! Duh!” Sure he is. No denying that. And sure, you can think that about him. But it’s just fundamentally inaccurate. Just because the games allow for extreme behaviors doesn’t mean they endorse or include every possible immoral action.

And just because a character engages in morally questionable actions doesn’t logically lead to them engaging in the worst possible behaviors. The creator's stance is crucial in defining the boundaries of the character. If the creators have explicitly stated that Postal Dude would never engage in pedophilia (just like how they explicitly stated he wasnt transphobic) and that such content would never be included in the game, this is a definitive limitation on what the character can be reasonably interpreted as. Again, I don’t care if you hold a private opinion that differs. But when you start accusing those who disagree with this extreme interpretation of being the weird or wrong ones, that’s where it becomes an issue.

Dude's actions, while extreme, are presented within a certain context that aims to criticize or mock certain aspects of society. Pedophilia is not something that fits within this satirical style. Yes, even for Postal 1997. I don't care if it is generally considered more "serious" than other games, they still had Dude throwing out stupid-ass catchphrases in a silly radio-host-sounding voice that was obviously supposed to be a stark contrast to what was happening on screen (“Buttsauce”. “Smells like chicken” when burning NPCs. Really now? Go ahead and listen to more from the original. They’re all silly one-liners.). It was a shock at the time and a bit of dark humor. Following games only increased this aspect.

All in all, Postal Dude’s actions, while immoral, are usually presented in a way that allows for some level of detachment or absurdity, keeping them within the realm of dark comedy. Yes, 1997 is still included here. It’s an absurd game. One man took out hundreds of people and was armed to the teeth, even with literal rocket launchers. His main weapon has infinite ammunition. It was an obviously over-the-top video game with a loose connection to reality and an even looser message about “something something mental health and everyone has it in them to go postal”. It was a game made to shock people. Pedophilia, however, is universally considered an irredeemable act, something that cannot be framed in any context that would make it acceptable or even darkly humorous. The distinction between immoral and irredeemable acts is crucial here. The Postal Dude can be morally ambiguous, but crossing into irredeemable territory would fundamentally alter the character in a way that the game and its creators/99.9% of the fans do not support.

Also: “But muh 1997 promo art where it says his girlfriend was 17!! She says they just started dating 3 weeks ago!!” Yeah. The same photo was used with the girl also saying, “It was so weird. He told everyone I was his girlfriend, but I only met him once.” It says “live” near the bottom corner, implying this was an interview with the girl AFTER the crimes had taken place. In the promotional pic where it states she’s 17, it also says she DIED of third degree burns while he was on his rampage. Now that doesn’t really add up, does it. How can this girl give an interview after everything is said and done while also dying in the middle of his killing spree?

AKA, these promotional photos were reused over and over because they were on a budget and really not thinking about it, and are absolutely not valid for legit storytelling purposes at all. RWS has even said this themselves.

[gartenofbanny]

Morally, gray characters are those with complex motivations or goals that aren't simply right or wrong. One of my favorite morally gray characters in fiction is Jason Todd from DC. The second Robin that Batman failed to save, who ended up dying at the hands of the Joker and resurrected by Ra's Al Ghul.

Given a second chance at life, he comes to a revelation that villains should NOT be left alive. Villains, especially the Joker, have caused the suffering of thousands of people, as said by Jason Todd in Under The Red Hood.

Leaving villains alive will risk more innocent lives and graveyards to be filled when it easily could have been prevented.

But there is an opposite argument that does have merit to it. In DC, there is a crook turned superhero named Plastic Man who, after multiple chances, turned his life around for the better.

At the end of the day, Jason is ending a human life. A life with the potential to convert and change for the better. They're capable of changing, but it's a risky game to play. This is what makes Jason Todd a morally gray character. You understand his motivations, and depending on who you are, you agree or disagree with his actions. There is no easy answer for a topic like this.

So, what about Alastor? Well, he's just not a good person at all. Does he do some good things? Yeah, but he mostly does them in exchange, which will benefit him. He doesn't do anything out of the kindness of his heart (if he even has one), nor does he do stuff, which he believes is right.

So, as always, this blog will be separated into two sections listing the reasons why I don't believe Alastor is morally gray, starting off with status.

Alastor is an Overlord who makes contracts with other demons to get them to submit their souls. Alastor has many souls in his possession, including Husk, and he holds all of them in for power. Immediately, this is not what a morally gray character is. I have yet to see a morally gray character who enslaves other people just to further their goals because that's just what an evil person would do.

And it's not like Alastor had no choice or did it for the greater good or did it to simply defend himself. He ambushed Overlords, took their souls, and broadcasted their fucking screams across Hell to show the denizens of Hell that he means business. He wants people to be afraid of him or respect him for his power.

Secondly, there's just him as a person. He genuinely sucks. Everything he does, he usually does it for himself or because he's told to by a higher power. He helps Charlie just so he could watch the Sinners fail for laughs. He helps Vaggie with the commercial so he wouldn't have to make one ever again. He makes a deal with Charlie in exchange for a favor he'll likely use to his advantage in the future. All of these "kind" actions are usually in exchange for something else, he doesn't do anything out of the kindness of his heart just to further his own agenda.

And if you really think about it, Alastor contributed very little to the hotel despite making a deal with Charlie that he would help her. They only got one new patron, which was Sir Pentious, and it stayed that way for 6 months. Apparently, Charlie, Vaggie, and Alastor suck at their job if they can't bring any new members lmao. And no, just because a villain did something nice for once doesn't make them morally gray.

Thanos helped an old lady cross the street just so he could ruin some woman's life, that definitely doesn't make him morally gray.

Morally, gray characters are complicated, and that's what makes them interesting. Alastor isn't complicated. He's just a power-hungry psycho who eats people and wants to have fun. He's the perfect example of simplicity.

Just because Alastor will potentially be a morally gray character or complicated character in the future doesn't mean he is one now. And I say potentially because the writers of Hazbin and Helluva like to set things up with underwhelming payoffs. But that's a future blog for a different day.

In conclusion, Alastor is not a good person. He's a bad guy, and just because he's the protagonist doesn't make him any less evil or any more good. Anyway, thanks for reading, and I hope you all have a good one. ❤️‍🔥

[homicidal-sheep]

I will defend Eurylochus to my dying breath because what the fuck yall, he is not the malicious monster people are making him out to be?? Like these characters are so morally grey its not even funny.

I love Ody with all my heart but the man did fuck up. He is human, and a plaything of the Gods, which is a very dangerous position to be in at the best of times.

I've seen people saying Eury has no moral high ground on the Scylla thing because he wanted to leave all the men at Circe's. Now firstly, I highly doubt a simple scouting mission would include all the men (see Cyclops saga, when only a fraction went). So they would be running to save what men remained, not ditching the entire army. Secondly, what exactly did you want them to do when facing Circe? They didn't know Hermes was there. All they knew was there was a magic lady who could turn people into pigs. So what, were they gonna ask really really nicely? Somehow I highly doubt that would work. Without the Gods intervention, I just don't see them winning. Eury was cutting their losses because from his POV, there was quite literally nothing they could do for the men. Best case scenario they snuck the men/pigs out and, idk, kept them as pets??

As for the wind bag, yeah it was a really dumb decision. But Ody is the one who decided not to trust his men, especially Eury. Ody has already given up on the crew, and they likely feel that distrust. Why should they put their blind faith in a man who refuses to clue them in? Why should they believe that he has whats best for them in their hearts? Ody's own guilt caused him to embrace an ideology that got a bunch of them killed. (remember when he said the only one who's lines he hasn't crossed were his own?) And we can see some of this growing resentment in Perimedes cut song. We as viewers have context the men simply do not.

Sidenote, people say Eury would have gotten them lotus'd. Yeah maybe. or maybe Ody would have recognized the fruit before they ate it, like he did with Polites. We cannot know.

The other point I keep seeing, that I find absolutely baffling is "well they deserved to die for mutinying, they should have listened to their king and captain" I'm sorry when did we all become monarchists. Kings and captains can absolutely make bad decisions? We should not blindly trust authority?? Yeah Eury kept questioning the captain. He was second in command and the voice of the crew, not only is he voicing their discontent, I'd argue that a good king should have someone who is willing to disagree with them. While Ody is right, that in the middle of a dire situation isn't great, and it would have been better to address those issues in private, they are very legitimate worries. If your captain has admitted he would burn the world to see his son and wife, I think being a little worried is absolutely fair.

The Gods keep appearing and helping Ody but they are also incredibly dangerous beings who constantly play with the lives of mortals.

On to the cow thing. Ya it was fucking dumb. But I can understand why. The man is fucking tired. They don't see a way out and at that point, starving to death slowly, so desperately afraid, probably sounded like a terrifying fate. Better to get it over with.

And he still cares! Ody is his literal brother in law. They bandaged his wounds when they could have idk, sacrificed him to Posideon or something. What Ody did to them was 100% betrayal and I understand why they mutinied, with what information they had. For petes sake he kept singing "I need to get home", I, not we.

Again, I love Ody, but good lord, the man is the definition of an unreliable narrator. Let them all be complicated, tragic characters without labeling them as cookie cutter good guys and bad guys.

[burst-of-iridescent]

You constantly portray Katara (in your posts and in your "dissertation") like some damsel in distress who is in a codependent relationship and does not defend her opinion in front of her partner, to the point that she allows him to mistreat her children. But the basis of her character is that she will never tolerate any shit from anyone. She always defends her opinion, and she does not oppose Aang precisely because their values are basically the same with Aang. You cannot agree with this, because then you would either have to admit that Aang is not the terrible person you paint him, or that Katara is not the perfect girl you want her to be. That is why you are forced to humiliate her and completely rewrite her character, just not to admit that she is in an equal relationship with Aang and their values coincide.

In addition, such a "katara" makes even less sense for zutara, because if her character has a tendency to codependence on her partner and a willingness to tolerate shit from him, then their relationship with Zuko would not be healthy, since Zuko is prone to self-pity, selfishness and outbursts of anger even after his redemption and he does not show even a tenth of the maturity that Aang has by the end of the show (and even if you do not agree with this, I hope you understand that if there is a tendency to codependent relationships in a person's character, then this tendency is realized in any relationship, regardless of the partner. And any such relationship will be unhealthy).

well i lost braincells reading this so i expect reparations for that, but i'm in a nice, salty mood today so... sure anon, i'll bite.

She always defends her opinion, and she does not oppose Aang precisely because their values are basically the same with Aang.

you must really dislike katara, because saying that the only reason she never challenged aang is because she never disagreed with him, rather than that her idealization of him blinded her to his flaws is... so much worse. are you telling me she thought it was right for him to recklessly burn her? or yell at her in the desert and abandon her to take care of sokka and toph alone? or kiss her without her consent? or give their airbending child preferential treatment over their other two children?

because katara doesn't hold aang to account for any of the things on that (non-exhaustive) list, and if your explanation for that is that she agreed with him, then we both know who here is really bastardizing katara's character.

do katara and aang share certain core values? sure. they're both kind, compassionate and hopeful people. but saying that katara's morals are "basically the same" as aang's is objectively untrue when they clash in both the southern raiders and sozin's comet over their personal moral codes on the sanctity of life and whether taking one can ever be justified.

neither of these conflicts are ever truly resolved, even by the end of the show. katara and aang never come to any sort of understanding or middle ground, or even raise the subject ever again, despite it being clear that they don't share the same perspective. katara even explicitly rejects aang's creed of blanket forgiveness by stating that she did not forgive yon rha and never will. i don't know about you, but that feels like a pretty major difference of opinion to me.

additionally, the fact that these are the only two times in the entire show that katara actually pushes back against aang's beliefs and decisions - and stands firm on it - proves my point, because she's only able to do so when she has absolutely no other choice. it's only the trauma of her mother's murder and the literal fate of the entire world that forces katara to challenge aang rather than excuse and coddle him. and that is unhealthy both for aang and katara, because an equal partner should be able to call you out on your flaws and mistakes without first having to be backed into a corner to do it.

That is why you are forced to humiliate her and completely rewrite her character, just not to admit that she is in an equal relationship with Aang and their values coincide.

i really adore this recent trend in atla fandom of insisting that it's zutara shippers who are responsible for adultifying katara or humiliating katara or any and all problems that exist within katara's narrative as if we personally wrote the show instead of just... pointing out what already exists in canon.

i'm not the one who robbed katara of all agency in her relationship, or refused to give her arc equal narrative space with aang's, or turned her into a subservient trophy wife with no legacy or voice. you can go take that up with the creators.

believe me anon, i wish i could manipulate canon for my nasty zutara agenda, but alas you can't have everything in life.

Zuko is prone to self-pity, selfishness and outbursts of anger even after his redemption and he does not show even a tenth of the maturity that Aang has by the end of the show

zuko didn't throw a hissy fit because the girl he liked didn't like him back, pressure her for an answer, force a kiss on her, or be preachy and judgemental towards her during one of the most difficult times of her life - but hey, whatever floats your boat.

(thank you for providing no evidence, by the way. saved me a ton of time reading more batshit insane misinterpretations of canon, or lies, or both.)

In addition, such a "katara" makes even less sense for zutara, because if her character has a tendency to codependence on her partner and a willingness to tolerate shit from him, then their relationship with Zuko would not be healthy I hope you understand that if there is a tendency to codependent relationships in a person's character, then this tendency is realized in any relationship, regardless of the partner.

i'm genuinely bamboozled as to why you seem to think that i called katara codependent, because i didn't. i don't think katara and aang are codependent, and i have never once said that. but i understand that sending anonymous, bad-faith arguments is a difficult, underappreciated job, so let's take the hypothetical and assume i did to help you out.

fictional characters are not real people, and so it is possible for them to have different dynamics with different characters. that's why i can ship taang or zutara or mailee but not kat.aang or mai.ko. because each of these relationships are written to fulfil different narrative purposes, the characters involved are not doomed to repeat the same patterns of behaviour in each relationship as real people might be - and the difference between the zutara and kat.aang interactions in canon proves it.

[thewistlingbadger]

I've seen people make the argument that if you like/support Ellie Williams or Abby Anderson from The Last of Us Part Two, then you should be fine with Caitlyn Kiramman's actions in Arcane season two and I'm gonna break down why I disagree with this.

It's true that both TLOU 2 and S2 arcane are revenge stories and have similar story beats. Caitlyn Kiramman is a cop who comes from a privileged family and she ends up losing her mom, Cassandra Kiramman, in a terrorist attack against her city. The terrorist responsible for the attack is Jinx, the sister of Caitlyn's romantic interest. In the first season it's clear she has a good heart that ends up being corrupted by revenge in the second season. Caitlyn becomes so blinded by her hatred for Jinx she ends up pushing away those closest to her and she comes heinous, discriminatory crimes against the lower class.

Ellie Williams starts off TLOU series as a little girl who's sarcastic and lonely and also immune to a deadly zombie virus. She forms a father/daughter like relationship with a man named Joel Miller, the man tasked with ensuring Ellie makes it to a hospital on the other side of the country in order for a cure to be made for the virus. Ellie ends up living with Joel in a safe haven after they make it to the hospital, because according to Joel while Ellie was unconscious in the hospital, it was revealed that Ellie wasn't the only person who was immune and they didn't need her to make a cure. As Ellie gets older, she uncovers the truth: Making a cure from Ellie would have killed her and so Joel not only stopped the cure from being made, but he also killed everyone in the hospital. This causes a heavy strain on their relationship and Joel ends up being murdered right in front of Ellie before she ever got the opportunity to make amends with Joel. This makes Ellie go on a quest to kill Joel's murderer and in the process she ends up killing countless people and she loses everything to her lust for vengeance.

Ellie and Caitlyn have a few similarities but the similarity that's most important for the sake of this post is the fact that they lose a parent and end up losing their morals on their path to vengeance. For me personally, there're two reasons why I hold Caitlyn and Ellie on different levels.

1. Relationship

Both of the last of us games focus on the relationship between Joel and Ellie. In the first game alone you spend hours upon hours with the two characters. You're there for their ups and downs and you watch them go from strangers to people who genuinely care for each other. You can only really care about a relationship if you spend time with them, and in arcane, we spend no time with Caitlyn and Cassandra. We understand that their relationship is a bit strained because they have different perspectives on life, but this is the only thing we can really say about their relationship. The closest we get to them having some kind of positive moment is when Cassandra makes sure Caitlyn and Vi get an audience with the council and when Cassandra gives Caitlyn a nod to go after Vi after she leaves. This is all we have for this relationship. So realistically, outside of the fact that Cassandra is Caitlyn's mom, why should I care that Cassandra is dead? Like I said, we don't see anything substantial from their relationship. Not in flashbacks or during Cassandra's life or after her death. We never even see Caitlyn really grieve the loss of her mother. She never sheds a single tear for her. She talks about how her mom's death has left a hole in her and she talks about how it feels impossible to live up to her mom's legacy, but this doesn't really tell us anything about Caitlyn actually FEELS about her mom or her death. We never even see Caitlyn feel any kind of way to the fact that her relationship with her mom ended while they weren't on good terms. When Joel goes in TLOU 2, we see exactly how it impacts Ellie. We see her mourn his death and we see her frustration in losing him and how she struggles with remembering him exactly. We see how she's tortured by the fact they left things on bad terms and also by the fact that Joel maintained a lie for years. We understand exactly why she's doing what she's doing, even as she pushes to newer extremes. We don't have this for Caitlyn. For Caitlyn, it seems at the start that she's doing it for her mom and that makes sense, but then we see Caitlyn take on a much bigger role in society and it just seems odd and unnatural. It doesn't feel like it's about her mom anymore.

2. Damage

Ellie gets consumed by vengeance. She loses her friends, her girlfriend, her personality, everything. And she keeps going too, she keeps hurting her enemies and her allies. Ellie has killed so many people on all sides it's genuinely gross. But not as gross as what Caitlyn does. Caitlyn doesn't kill anyone in her mother's name that we know of, but Caitlyn uses her grief to oppress the lower class of the nation of zaun. She gasses the city which leaves its citizens sick and afraid. She sets up borders and checkpoints in the city and treats innocents like they're criminals. Caitlyn's heartbreak over her mom's death is used to discriminate against others and Ellie's grief is NOT used to do that at all. For Ellie, anyone who stands in her way for vengeance is against her but Caitlyn villainizes the entirety of the undercity.

I've also seen people compare Caitlyn to Abby Anderson, who in TLOU kills Joel in front of Ellie because years ago, Joel killed Abby's father. Although we don't see much of the relationship between Abby's dad and Abby, we can understand the severity of his loss because we see how it impacts Abby and we know his death was undeserved. Abby's dad was a good man and a doctor. He helped people and cared for those in his community. The only reason he was killed was because Joel shot him in order to save Ellie. Abby doesn't witness her dad's death firsthand like how Ellie does, but she does walk in on her dad's dead body, and we see her anguish at the sight. Cassandra Kiramman was not innocent. She was a member of Piltover's council, the political body responsible for the oppression of the lower class. We know she had prejudice against those from the undercity. This is another reason why I lack sympathy for Cassandra and her relationship with Caitlyn but have it for Abby and her dad. TLOU 2 shows us how the death of her father still haunts her years after its occurrence, and it also shows us how even after she got her revenge, she still felt the emptiness his death left her with. Again, Arcane really doesn't explore how Cassandra's death truly impacts Caitlyn.

[nerdygaymormon]

I talked with my mother in law about disagreeing with the august policy and she kept faily neutral and said God made that policy and His children make the choice to stray from Him. While i believe the policy was inspired i dont believe it came from His mouth. I don't understand how transitioning is straying, it feels like a morally neutral act. How can God ask someone to sacrifice their emotional and mental well being to keep their good standing with Him? It feels backwards and manipulative if I'm being honest. Obedience is good but not if it comes at the cost of being miserable. I'm angry at the church as an institution and I believe it's failing it's queer and trans siblings. I suppose I do disagree with God.

You ask some really good questions. I want to add a few more for you to consider.

Are scriptures the "word of God" and does God actually speak these things to a human who hears it and writes it down precisely as God said it, or are these human interpretations of what they believe is God's will?

Is this policy leading people to be more loving and to do good to their neighbor?

Why would God make people gay or trans and then forbid them from being gay or trans?

The Book of Mormon teaches we're meant to have joy in life, then why does the LDS Church have policies to deny joy to queer people? Why are they singled out to be miserable for God?

If gender affirming care for trans people is "straying" from God, why is gender affirming care for cis people not? The medical procedures that trans people use were all originally developed for cis people. People get breast augmentations, hysterectomies, nose jobs, tummy tucks, face lifts, pec implants, lip filler, bbl's, hormone injections, puberty blockers, growth hormones, and on and on.

At the last General Conference, Elder Oaks put forth a unique idea about temporary and permanent commandments. I think it's his way of getting around the idea that church leaders in the past were wrong, but it brings up interesting questions, if this is temporary then am I required to obey even if I don't agree? If this is temporary, will I be punished in heaven after it is no longer in effect?

We're taught in Matthew 7 that “a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” If a policy is bringing forth bad results for a whole group of people, is it a 'good' policy?

Is it a coincidence that this step backwards with the August policy seems related to the bathroom bills and other anti-trans legislation that's recently been passed? If this is actually God's will then how come we didn't know it in 2020 when the last big revision to church policies regarding trans people was implemented?

What if a trans person feels they are inspired to pursue transitioning, should the church be punishing them for following where God is guiding them?

Does this policy sound like it's from a loving God?

That’s enough questions. I want to end with 3 points.

The August policy is just that, a policy, not a commandment or revelation or scripture. Policies are temporary and can be changed. A great example is the 2015 policy of exclusion regarding gay people, which was reversed less than 5 years later in 2019. How much better if it the 2015 policy had never been introduced and all that hurt had been avoided.

You're not disagreeing with God, you're disagreeing with whomever wrote and approved the latest policies.

People have a conscience, what the church calls the light of Christ, which influences people for good. If things being said by a church leader bother your conscience, pay attention to that.

[almacambiondaughterofsaleos]

It's More Than Just A Mistake, Charlie

This comment just rubs me so much the wrong way because they are not here just for making mistakes but for as Adam and Lute showed continually making evil decisions through life and having no remorse for it. And again we see a lot of examples of it not just being mistakes but also horrible actions that wound them in hell. Seriously, look at the things the sinner do and don't downplay it as mistakes.

Seriously, these images above would disprove that made a few mistakes bs. They are horrible people who are willing to be evil pos and get away with it. And again Valentino is the prime example and after being licked by him you would think she would reevaluate why Adam and Lute aren't keen on redeeming sinners, because they do shit like this. Seriously, there is a whole cannibal town that glorifies eating people. And again that party scene with Sir Pentious where it's supposed to be a test to show Angel could get into heaven, but ignores the fact that everyone allowed Pentious to be sexually assaulted which again shows how skewed the show's priorities are.

It makes the narrative over at the episode of "Cherub" even more skewed because the idea was the Cherubs were obviously opportunists just trying to make Lipton turn over a new leaf, while it's obvious he was a pos man who should just die. However, Hazbin Hotel expects us to just see him as a man who made mistakes alongside his equally evil partner. It's again an example of confused morals because it seems like it just wants us to side with whatever protagonist is there and they have the narrative's favor despite the other side having a point.

Also from Hazbin itself I think a big example of the just made a few mistakes is Angel Dust. The current series emphasizes his promiscuity and drug use and treats it as if that was all he did in life and weren't really that bad (which I would disagree). However, I do think this is a result of whitewashing what has been previously known about Angel Dust is that he had mafia ties and that means he wasn't just making minor mistakes but full blown into crime and do some evil shit. And we are supposed to be siding with Emily why he's not in heaven, when he just recently was still being someone who reveled in being a sinner. It's a reason why the rehabilitation theme doesn't work because it doesn't treat the issues the characters have as severe as it is. They treat them as if they are just pissing on the floor and not the fact some of these guys like Angel Dust have blood on their hands. It's almost like due to her biases Charlie has a rose tinted view of things that contradicts what awful people they were and continued to be in life.

And let's talk about Adam, this guy is just an example to try to downplay how sinners made those mistakes by portraying him as a one dimensional immature sadist in other to make it seem barbaric. However, it still doesn't erase that monsters still end up down there despite the bs ass pull that the angels themselves don't know how to get into heaven. Let's be honest from what we have seen from the sinners they are in hell for a reason and there is no attempts to think why they should be given a second chance after showing what pos they are still. And again the show doesn't want to admit that these sinners aren't that way because of never being given a chance they probably had chances and squashed them. But again Charlie has to be right and never challenged so she can't think about how her stance can be shaky.

I do think the dimissmal of just mistakes they made actually goes against the spirit of redeeming them because it doesn't really understand the gravity of what these sinners did. It's because according to the narrative (and Charlie) these are just souls that didn't have direction and need another chance. Sorry, but they did have direction in life and they have at one point stop being given chances. And again the series doesn't offer one example of a true sinner who didn't deserve to be down there since Vaggie herself was retconned to be an angel. The series really does wonders to shoot itself in the foot due to not understanding and tackling what redemption takes. And one thing it needs to be said that people have to admit they aren't always the victims and sometimes are the victimizers who have not only hurt themselves and others in their pursuit of sin.

[halloween4life]

The Orange Side is going to represent Impulsiveness and the rest of y'all are wrong: a thread

For obvious reasons the title of this post is a joke. But anyway, hi hello. I wanted to talk about my theory of what I think the Orange Side is gonna be! Now this post is going to be looong so for the sake of everyone it's going to be put under the cut.

Disclaimers that I want to get out of the way now: I have just recently re-entered the fandom and I haven't been into Sanders Sides in years. I'm not a Patreon supporter nor do I have Twitter so I lack any information that may have been revealed there. Also I am still in the process of rewatching the series. So as of now, I don't really have a complete understanding of the series. I apologize if I get anything wrong, and if any of this puts you off, totally valid.

Oh also, general spoilers for like, anything Sanders Sides related but specifically Working Through Intrusive Thoughts (if you still somehow have not watched it). Honestly I recommend watching it before reading this as a refresher, because most of this theory is based around/supported by that video. It's like, really the only foundation for this theory as I don't really delve much into the other episodes.

First things first, I am going to lay down some rules on what the Orange Side could represent:

1) The concept needs to in some way be the "opposite" of logic. Realistically this doesn't have to be the case in the series, but based on how the other Dark Sides function, it makes the most sense for now.

2) The concept needs to be generally considered negative for them to be considered a Dark Side.

3) Whatever they represent needs to REALISTICALLY make sense as an aspect of C! Thomas' identity. I think a lot of people forget that the Sides are that, Sides of a whole person. So I tried my best to make that work.

Now, with that out of the way,,,I'm going to "debunk" some theories first. Yes sorry there is a lot of set up to this theory, but I feel like it's important. Also, reminder, if you believe in either of the theories I am going to debunk, that is TOTALLY 100% VALID! I'm just going to discuss why I don't think they work, so this is all just my opinion!

Theory 1: The Orange Side represents Rage

I'm pretty sure this is the most popular theory right now, and I know a lot of people also disagree with it. I think this one mostly came about because our only real evidence of the Orange Side is through Logan's anger fueled outbursts in WTIT and Learning New Things About Ourselves. While I definitely understand this line of thinking, I don't think it's right.

First and foremost, it breaks the third rule set up earlier. Again, all these characters are facets of Thomas' personality. And from what we've seen of him, it just doesn't make sense with his personality. Now, again, this could obviously be different in the series, we could learn that this is actually his rage and he's just been repressing it, but I doubt that'll be the case. (Also I feel like this could break the first rule but I don't know how to explain why).

Secondly, and I just think that rage in and of itself is just, way too specific of a concept to be represented by a side. This kinda works in tandem with the first point, since again, it just doesn't seem that large of an aspect of Thomas that it would be represented by its own side. As well, all the other sides represent either much larger concepts or multiple at a time. For instance, Logan, Patton, and Roman represent logic, morality, and (good) creativity respectively. While Virgil and Janus do represent anxiety and deceit, those titles are rather reductive, as they also represent vigilance and self-preservation respectively. (Really I think we need to talk more about the fact that Janus is canonically Thomas' self-preservation but is really only viewed as "deceit"). Remus is a fun case as although he is viewed as "intrusive thoughts", he as a whole represents the bad side of creativity. TLDR: Rage is too specific a concept to be its own side.

Theory 2: The Orange Side Represents Emotion

Okay I'm going to be honest, I've only seen one person on here with this theory (and for the life of me I can't remember their name). But I just want to say that if you are reading this, this isn't me calling you out or anything (honestly I really agreed with your theory until I came up with this one). If I remember correctly, this theory is more built on the Orange Side being an opposite to logic, and how emotions tend to cloud logic, similar to the reasoning for rage.

I think this theory most obviously breaks rule 2. Now emotions as a whole do have the capacity to be bad, I think the concept of just emotion is not generally considered bad. Definitely not enough for it to be considered along with the Dark Sides. It's simply too big of a concept to be either "good" or "bad".

On that subject, I think this theory has a similar issue to the rage theory, but in the opposite direction. While rage was too specific, emotions are waaay too broad to just be one singular side. Especially given that all of the current sides have some sway over Thomas' emotions. And it's also possible that this side would be considered too close to Patton. While yes, it is not explicitly stated that he is in charge of Thomas' emotions, he definitely has the most sway over them. Ultimately, I think this theory is just too vague to work.

Okay, now with that all out of the way, let's get into my actual theory. So,

Why do I think the Orange Side will represent Impulsiveness?

I'm going to start this off by comparing my claims to the rules I made up. Because tbh, that's how I came to the conclusion in the first place before I started finding evidence to support it (but isn't that how all good hypotheses work?)

1) Does impulsiveness act as a counter to logic?

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, Impulsive is defined as "prone to sudden illogical changes of mind, ideas, or actions". Now I was gonna go on a big explanation of how they are opposites but it literally says illogical in the definition. So uh, yayy 🎉🎉🎉

2) Is impulsiveness seen as a negative thing?

Now, truthfully there is no way for me to prove that impulsiveness is either "good" or "bad". That being said, I feel like a lot of people generally view impulsiveness as a bad thing. While in small amounts it can be seen as good and fun, the more frequently you engage in impulsive behaviors, the more destructive it can become. Often leading to bad decision making, i.e. avoiding work, making big financial decisions without much thought, and generally just doing what you want over what may be important.

3) Does this fit within Thomas' personality?

Yes. It has been shown time and time again that Thomas has an issue with his impulsive behaviors. Oftentimes manifesting in him avoiding chores and general self-care in favor of doing something easy or entertaining. The most clear example of this being the video "Growing Up." While yes, most of these decisions are made due to Patton, it's not entirely uncommon for the sides to be affected or swayed by the others. (Also if I'm being honest, I don't think it entirely fair to analyze the earlier episodes with the same critical lens as the later ones, it's definitely not fair to Thomas (the real Thomas) to criticize the early episodes for not perfectly aligning with later lore).

Now, finally, we can get into some evidence to support all these claims I'm making. First things first, as of right now Logan and the Orange Side are one in the same. We haven't been given any proof that they are at least physically different beings (unless you want to count the orange eyes in the Sanders Sides anime intro parody). So all of our evidence is just Logan acting really out of character. So, where does Logan act impulsively?

Our first major incident of this (I'm pretty sure) is in the episode "Learning New Things About Ourselves", specifically the scene where Roman essentially pisses him off so much that he throw's a crumpled up note card at him. Most important is his reaction afterwards, being shocked at himself.

He was basically pushed so far that he reacted without thinking (impulsively some may say? ok I'll stop, I'm sorry). Which, obviously, is EXTREMELY out of character for him. He is logic, he is supposed to think first before he acts, go through possible scenarios and decide the most favorable outcome. Yet, here he loses all control.

Our next example is less of Logan acting impulsive and more so how I believe his actions are affecting Thomas. In the episode "Working Through Intrusive Thoughts", Thomas basically spends the whole time being tormented by Remus because he can't keep his mind off of the risky text he sent Nico (I'm aroace but I'm gonna assume valid? So real?). While Logan is simultaneously trying to keep Thomas on schedule, accommodate his struggles, and accommodate Remus' actions as part of Thomas' identity. Basically, it's a lot, and when he's finally at his limit, well

Yeahhhh, a certain something makes itself known. And while Logan doesn't act particularly irrationally or impulsively in this moment (literally all he does is yell at Remus), it is what Thomas does after this outbreak that I find interesting. As immediately afterward he gets a call from Nico, inviting him out. And given the choice between what he has planned to do and needs to get done for the day, vs spending the day with Nico?

He decides suddenly to just drop everything he is doing for Nico. A rather impulsive decision if you ask me. And while yes, technically none of what Thomas was doing needed to get done that day (it was mostly chores), it was part of a plan and he promised himself to stick to it. Logan doesn't react well to any of this, both his own outburst and Thomas deciding to just leave him behind like it's nothing. And I don't think it's gonna spell anything good in the future for Logan and the rest of the gang.

So, where does that leave us now?

Well, moving a bit on to what I think is going to happen next. Obviously things are going to get worse before they get better. Logan will fall more and more into impulsive behaviors, which will only become more destructive for Thomas. As well, I think (hope, pray) that there will be some sort of team up between Logan and Remus. They're the only sides who I think could "properly" get along (I know that Janus and Remus have some sort of friendship, but it can only work so well as Janus being self-preservation can only really run counter to Remus' intrusive thoughts). Most likely they will feed into each other in a horrible cycle of "I can make him worse." I don't think that would be either of their genuine intentions, as I don't like labeling the Dark Sides and "bad", but I definitely don't think they would be good for each other. I do also think this will come about because Remus either knows or understands something about Logan that the others don't, not even Janus. As well I do hope that Logan and the Orange Side are one in the same somehow, and not just Logan being influenced.

Anyway, sorry for the insanely long post and sorry if it started to devolve towards the end. I am quite literally writing this on no hours of sleep, so give me a bit of grace. Also, another sorry if I have gotten anything wrong or if I have missed something. It has been very long since I've engaged with Sanders Sides, but I'm trying my best. Anyway, thank you for coming to my ted-talk, I hope Logan gets to commit murder in the next episode.

[aufberontrove]

Jayvik, Christian Linke, and the Discourse

Hey y’all, I’m breaking a bit from my usual type of post, but we’re still talking about Arcane, so it’s not too off-topic. I encourage anyone reading this to share their thoughts on anything I’m bringing up—or even to bring new ideas into the conversation. Just please, don’t harass anyone because of it.

Let me give some context first: I haven’t watched the full interview, and I might’ve spent way too much time on Twitter and Bluesky reading about this stuff. I still love Arcane, though. As someone who mostly posts Arcane content, I feel like I kind of have to respond to this, even if no one really cares.

About Jayvik:

Was there homoromantic subtext? Sure—if there wasn’t, people wouldn’t be shipping them this much. But to me, it feels like BBC Sherlock all over again: throwing in gay subtext without committing to it.

Honestly, there’s a simple way to handle this kind of situation: just say you didn’t intend for it to be read that way but can understand how people got that impression. That’s it. For some reason, though, Christian Linke doesn’t take that route—or at least, I haven’t seen him do so.

On Christian Linke

The main reason I’m writing this is to talk about Christian Linke, the co-creator of Arcane, who, apparently, is one of the worst people to disagree with on the internet. Let’s break it down by topic.

The Pitch

First, the quote he used. In this context, I could argue it’s okay to use the slur since it’s a quote, but you have to wonder: Why use that quote at all? There are so many other quotes to choose from, and he chose that one. It feels… weird.

As for the depiction of Zaun: maybe I’m misremembering, but the show doesn’t really lean into what he described in the pitch. The moral codes in Zaun seem pretty similar to those in Piltover. Sure, the chem-barons aren’t exactly moral, but neither is the Piltover council. Piltover is far from pure or righteous.

Let's talk about Viktor:

Apparently, Viktor is ace now. That kinda makes sense to me, but there was no hint of it in the show. It gives me “2007 Dumbledore is gay” vibes—except now it’s the German Twitch edition. And as many people have pointed out, gay asexual people exist too. So, framing it like this doesn’t really fix anything.

There’s also controversy about asexual disabled people, but I’m not comfortable commenting much on that since I’m neither disabled nor asexual. Still, it’s worth mentioning that people are discussing it. (Maybe this is related: Link 1 or Link 2).

Also apparently there is a joke from S1 that implies that he usually brings men to his room so yeah... so, there’s that.

Let's talk about Season 2:

Let’s just get this out of the way: Season 2 was rushed. That’s not really up for debate, and Christian himself confirmed it during Arcane Afterglow. The pacing feels weird in a lot of places. Was it entirely his fault? No, of course not. But certain moments, like “Timebomb” and the sex scene—even though I enjoyed at least one of them—feel like filler to either kill one of the main characters so you don't need to bother with them or cater to the majority of your audience.

Then there’s his cocky tweets and Reddit post.

Like, ok the show is good but I felt the same while watching Owl House, Avatar: Last Airbender, or anime like Koe no Katachi. I agree the fans aren’t owed anything, but the way he responds shows he has no PR training whatsoever.

If you have anything more share it with the class. I am closing Twitter because this discourse is killing my brain cells.

[mssr-crumpled-paper]

Gale and the Unperfect Victim

Here I am, back again with Gale posting cause I still have more thoughts on him as a character.

So, today, I read the phrase "the perfect victim" which is a myth often used to discredit the experience of female victims of SA, to dictate a way that victims of violence/assault are "supposed" to act. And when i tell you the concept of a perfect victim to anything immediately made me think of Gale, as well as the state of colonial resistance at large.

I'd like to preface with the idea that there is no "perfect victim" to any systemic crimes perpetuated. There is no one acceptable way of acting or responding to oppression or violence. With that out of the way let's get into the Gale analysis.

I often see people talk about Gale in this specific formula:

"I still don't like Gale as a character. His anger is understandable but [insert violent response to state sanctioned violence here].

There always seems to be such a conditional in the people's eyes of what is and isn't justifiable violence or resistance. To what means is a war just is one of the central themes of THG (or at least I believe so anyways).

Now this question raises a really interesting point about Gale's character. Obviously, Gale is meant to represent the other end of the extremist spectrum: kill all Capitol people indiscriminately, no matter their disposition and beliefs or levels of innocence; take down the Capitol at all cost.

This, coupled with the fact that Peeta represents the other end of the spectrum (do the right thing and hold onto conscience, choosing humanity for all ends) might present Gale as a heartless, cold killer.

Here we meet the instance of a "perfect victim." Subjected to seemingly relatively the same levels of oppression (some would even argue that Peeta suffered more), Peeta still continuously chooses to pacify. He represents conscience, which manifests in the way that he is soft spoken, generally kind/compassionate, white, blond, merchant's kid, unquestioningly devout, barely ever angry. Do you hear it? The sounds of a perfect victim, someone you're supposed to feel bad for because he didn't deserve any of this.

This view is revoked from Gale, someone who's fought, hunt, and kill all his life. Angry, harsh, not as well-spoken or charismatic, a possessive weirdo sometimes, and violent. His response to violence is almost always with anger, with the biting of the tongue until it bleeds, and then it explodes in everyone's face. "Gale is understandable, but..."

It makes me wonder how much compassion and understanding and help we can truly extend to a person who doesn't respond to violence the way he's supposed to. When they don't lay down and take it, or brood in angry silence, or extend a gracious forgiving hand. People would say he lacks humanity or compassion but I would wholeheartedly disagree. His dedication to his people, to his family, to his friends, to Katniss has manifested into anger and hatred for an imperial machine that has never cared if he died or lived.

I find it funny that somehow, this is always a trait demanded to be fixed by the oppressed. Even in post-war, post-apocalyptic movies where previous minority groups establish a closed community that's hostile to outsiders, that's a moral failing on their part. It fails completely to view the responsibility of the Capitol people, whose true extent of innocence can be argued against (how innocent are you really, when you're an exploitative force actively participating in the deaths and oppression of the lower colony-like districts).

Which then leads me to the posts I've been seeing about Palestine. So much focus on constant martyrdom, which is so important. SO important. But why are we turning our eyes away from their resistance? The truth of it is gratuitous violence is not their first choice, and resistance is always so ugly. We distance ourselves away from the violence to excuse ourselves of the need to have to justify the means to life of an entire people.

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?” - Walter Rodney

Do I agree with everything Gale does? No. I won't attempt to justify his notions of violence, but I will beg you to situate them within the asymmetrical power context in which they’re committed.