#i would be interested in knowing if calling out racism was as much on the front mind of people back then but i don’t think it would be

[emmcfrxst]

ngl i kinda wanna hear your analysis on arthur whenever u have time bc as much as we love this man- i think we sometimes forget that this man is canonically racist and sexist even tho he is considered progressive and better than most men during that time (looking at u micah😒).

examples of this being like during his antagonizing lines for the women around the camp or him not rlly caring when other racist gang member make racist comments towards lenny, javier or charles.

idk if this wording made any sense but i’m too lazy to go over it too much😭 i love your works btw!! just wanted to see your own analysis on our man🫶🫶

(don’t know if u need age for anons but i’m 19!)

i quite honestly don’t really have an analysis on this because i hadn’t really thought about it like that before (which. you are SO right. my bad) and i honestly think that this part of his character is kind of held within the boundaries of the game itself because when it comes to the antagonizing comments it’s a personal choice of the player’s whether or not they wish for arthur to treat women with respect and i think that despite the boundary of the player’s choice, there’s still moments where you can see that arthur is definitely not like the others when it comes to feminism/the rise of suffrage because he does, whether in low medium or high honor, accept to drive the carriage for the women in Saint-Denis and keeps them relatively safe during their speeches— he also mentions not minding the idea of women voting in a conversation with the leader of the suffragettes (although his answer ends up being kind of cynical, he’s still open to the idea)— and even in low honor, arthur makes sure to protect tilly and sadie multiple times throughout the game. the racism part is kind of tricky because we firstly as players don’t have an option of stopping the others from making comments or defending the poc members’ honor (i think? i could be wrong) so that part of arthur’s mindset isn’t shown and isn’t malleable throughout the game, he does mention not caring about skin color multiple times and also threatens the eugenicist and the kkk members upon meeting them, but as for his true, genuine personal beliefs (since it’s still the 1800s) i don’t know and i’m not exactly comfortable theorizing and discussing it in detail because i am Very Much White and i feel like it’s not my place to tell people how to feel about the content presented in the game; that’s really up to personal interpretation i think

[0-therw-0-rldly]

I’ll preface this by saying I’m not really a shipper. I just enjoy canon couples on TV Series/films.

Terms I’d like B*ddies to remove from their vocabulary because they don’t know how to use them correctly:

Media literacy: For a group that uses this term a lot you sure do misinterpret everything in this show.

Queerbaiting: Going to expand on this one. A show that’s already been pre established for having queer characters simply cannot queerbait.

Ship baiting: While sometimes you can argue that they could be doing that, that’s only if you look at the show in a very biased manner. You might think this is the case but the general audience doesn’t think the way you do.

Ship war: This isn’t a one tree hill situation where there was Team Brooke Vs. Team Peyton where the middle guy (Lucas Scott) had canonically been with both women. This is people not understanding fanon vs. canon and not being able to just watch the show. It’s like playing quarterback on Madden and thinking you could be better than Patrick Mahomes.

Plot device: everything’s a plot device. Move tf on.

Predator: You sound like crazy MAGA supporters calling everything regarding the LGBTQIA+ community as predatory. Sit down.

Co-parenting: I know this is a big one and discourse was brought up during the hiatus. Oliver and Ryan have loosely mentioned this years ago but it was never to be taken this seriously. Do y’all even know what co-parenting is or are you that big of a donut? Buck is someone who loves his best friend deeply and by extension, his kid too. Him taking care of him frequently does not make him a co-parent. Maybe he is a parental or uncle figure, but he isn’t a co-parent. Also, I swear y’all need to learn how a will works. He is a GODPARENT, not a GUARDIAN. Stfu.

Hag: This especially applies to women, but to say that someone 25-30+ is a hag for still being in fandoms or enjoying tv shows/films is inherently misogynistic. Men are never held to this much criticism for enjoying fictional media, but women aren’t allowed to?

Queer Coding: people of the same sex “looking at each other”, hugging, or having intimate moments all together doesn’t make them queer coded. It could mean that they just love each other that deeply platonically. While representation is amazing and just because you interpret a character as queer coded (just like my ship baiting comment) doesn’t mean others interpret it that way as well. In addition, network TV has stipulations, and also actors are allowed to decline storylines. Ryan has mentioned his character is heterosexual an abundance of times which means (at least for now) that he isn’t willing to go for this storyline.

Dead naming: Y’all construing the fact that Buck wants people like coworkers and some of his former love interests, to saying Evan is his dead name is inherently transphobic because do you even understand what a dead name is? Evan Buckley is shown as being fine with being called Evan by both Tommy and his sister. I’m pretty sure some of his love interests have called him Evan as well.

Fetishizing: You guys saw two hot guys who “looked at each other” and for 6 seasons have wanted nothing but to see those two make out with each other. Those of us who enjoy Tevan saw Buck giddy at the thought of Tommy and have wanted domestic fluff for them since.

Anything to do with racism, homophobia, and misogyny: I’ve seen the way you guys have conveniently weaponized Henren and by extension Aisha/Tracie when you didn’t get the Ryan/Oliver interview, don’t try to act like you’re morally superior. Not to mention wanting a canonically gay man to die in a show and not even holding those who use your ship name to write CSA fics accountable because you’re petty and want to throw hissy fits. Anyone looking at your comments as an outsider would think you’re homophobes and yes queer people can be homophobic.

I do hope you can expand your vocabulary. 🤍

[maxdibert]

One thing that really pisses me off is how Snaters or anti-Snape people, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves, decide to twist canon to fit Severus into their image of an irredeemable son of Lucifer whose actions are driven by absolute evil. Some of the claims they make while blatantly ignoring canon are:

Severus is resentful toward Harry because Lily chose James. False. This is one of the most common narratives that stems from the idea that Severus is a creepy, obsessive stalker fixated on his childhood friend. It's literally NOT true. Severus isn’t resentful toward James because of Lily. He has plenty of reasons to resent James that have nothing to do with Lily, such as being bullied by him for seven years, being given a horrible nickname, or being stripped in front of the entire school just because he "existed." Ignoring that James was a bully—specifically to Severus—is a way of villainizing the victim while completely disregarding the fact that this wasn’t a love triangle issue. It was a case of abuser and victim, and Severus was the victim. And seeing the face of his abuser constantly on a rude kid who keeps questioning him and recklessly putting himself in life-threatening situations is obviously triggering as hell.

Severus was an incel stalker obsessed with Lily. Since when? Severus was canonically friends with Lily years before they went to Hogwarts. They hung out together and had a friendship. He wasn’t stalking her; he was her damn friend. F-R-I-E-N-D. They stayed friends until their relationship fell apart. She cut ties with him, and he didn’t go chasing after her or spying on her. There’s no point in the canon where it’s implied that Severus was stalking Lily after their friendship ended, let alone after Hogwarts. And that nonsense about him hugging her dead body? Spoiler: THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE BOOKS. It’s exclusive to the movies and therefore not canon. And the “incel” accusation? Did Severus ever ask her out? Did he insult or assault her for not wanting to be his friend anymore? No, he accepted that she told him to get lost and left with his tail between his legs. That’s not incel behavior.

Severus wanted to be a hero but was selfish. False. Severus never, ever, in his life wanted to be a hero. He had a debt to himself, to his guilt over his actions, and he wanted to atone for his sins, period. Even Dumbledore questions him by asking if he really wants to hide "his best side" from others, and Severus prefers it that way. He never wanted people to see his good side or know how much he had sacrificed. He wasn’t interested.

Severus deserved the bullying he suffered because he tried to get the Marauders expelled. False, because no one deserves to be tormented by rich brats abusing their privileges out of boredom. And false because Severus didn’t want the Marauders expelled—he wanted his abusers expelled, which is entirely different and absolutely justifiable, because anyone in his shoes would want to see the people tormenting them gone.

Severus only did what he did because of Lily and his obsession. False, because first of all, it wasn’t an obsession—it was grief, guilt, and enormous remorse. And doubly false, because when Dumbledore tells him that Harry (whom Severus has literally risked his life for several times to protect out of guilt over Lily) has to be sacrificed, he still goes along with the plan. By then, he isn’t driven only by his debt to Lily but by a genuine desire to defeat Voldemort.

Snape is a murderer. False. There’s no indication in canon that Severus killed anyone besides Dumbledore, and that was euthanasia—Dumbledore himself asked for it. There’s also no evidence that he tortured anyone.

Snape was a Nazi and a racist. False. The Death Eaters are not equivalent to Nazis, and blood purity isn’t equivalent to racism. With that cleared up, Severus was literally half-Muggle because his father was Muggle, and he grew up in a Muggle environment. His early life was in a Muggle world, and he even mentions that his father disliked magic. His prejudice against the Muggle world comes from having an extremely negative personal experience, knowing only a poor, resource-starved Muggle world, with an abusive and violent Muggle father. That alone justifies his need to cling to the magical side of his heritage. Moreover, being a kid with zero financial resources, no family support, coming from a violent environment, and experiencing further bullying and ostracism at school by wealthy pure-blood kids who targeted him as their punching bag made him the perfect target for any extremist cult—especially when the future leaders of that cult were in his house, where he had to fit in or face more bullying and isolation. Ignoring all the social background of the character to push the narrative that he’s evil because he made a terrible decision at 17 is classist and prejudiced. Plus, remember that Severus spent almost 20 years serving Dumbledore. He switched sides practically right away.

[specialagentartemis]

Hey, would you be willing to elaborate on that "disappearance of the Anasazi is bs" thing? I've heard something like that before but don't know much about it and would be interested to learn more. Or just like point me to a paper or yt video or something if you don't want to explain right now? Thanks!

I’m traveling to an archaeology conference right now, so this sounds like a great way to spend my airport time! @aurpiment you were wondering too—

“Anasazi” is an archaeological name given to the ancestral Puebloan cultural group in the US Southwest. It’s a Diné (Navajo) term and Modern Pueblos don’t like it and find it othering, so current archaeological best practices is to call this cultural group Ancestral Puebloans. (This is politically complicated because the Diné and Apache nations and groups still prefer “Anasazi” because through cultural interaction, mixing, and migration they also have ancestry among those people and they object to their ancestry being linguistically excluded… demonyms! Politically fraught always!)

However. The difficulties of explaining how descendant communities want to call this group kind of immediately shows: there are descendant communities. The “Anasazi” are Ancestral Purbloans. They are the ancestors of the modern Pueblos.

The Ancestral Puebloans as a distinct cultural group defined by similar material culture aspects arose 1200-500 BCE, depending on what you consider core cultural traits, and we generally stop talking about “Ancestral Puebloan” around 1450 CE. These were a group of people who lived in northern Arizona and New Mexico, and southern Colorado and Utah—the “Four Corners” region. There were of course different Ancestral Pueblo groups, political organizations, and cultures over the centuries—Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, Kayenta, Tusayan, Ancestral Hopi—but they generally share some traits like religious sodality worship in subterranean circular kivas, residence in square adobe roomblocks around central plazas, maize farming practices, and styles of coil-and-scrape constructed black-on-white and black-on-red pottery.

The most famous Ancestral Pueblo/“Anasazi” sites are the Cliff Palace and associated cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado:

When Europeans/Euro-Americans first found these majestic places, people had not been living in them for centuries. It was a big mystery to them—where did the people who built these cliff cities go? SURELY they were too complex and dramatic to have been built by the Native people who currently lived along the Rio Grande and cited these places as the homes of their ancestors!

So. Like so much else in American history: this mystery is like, 75% racism.

But WHY did the people of Mesa Verde all suddenly leave en masse in the late 1200s, depopulating the whole Mesa Verde region and moving south? That was a mystery. But now—between tree-ring climatological studies, extensive archaeology in this region, and actually listening to Pueblo people’s historical narratives—a lot of it is pretty well-understood. Anything archaeological is inherently, somewhat mysterious, because we have to make our best interpretations of often-scant remaining data, but it’s not some Big Mystery. There was a drought, and people moved south to settle along rivers.

There’s more to it than that—the 21-year drought from 1275-1296 went on unusually long, but it also came at a time when the attempted re-establishment of Chaco cultural organization at the confusingly-and-also-racist-assuption-ly-named Aztec Ruin in northern New Mexico was on the decline anyway, and the political situation of Mesa Verde caused instability and conflict with the extra drought pressures, and archaeologists still strenuously debate whether Athabaskans (ancestors of the Navajo and Apache) moved into the Four Corners region in this time or later, and whether that caused any push-out pressures…

But when I tell people I study Southwest archaeology, I still often hear, “Oh, isn’t it still a big mystery, what happened to the Anasazi? Didn’t they disappear?”

And the answer is. They didn’t disappear. Their descendants simply now live at Hopi, Zuni, Taos, Picuris, Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambé, Ohkay Owingeh, Pojoaque, Sandia, San Felipe, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Tamaya/Santa Ana, Kewa/Santo Domingo, Tesuque, Zia, and Ysleta del Sur. And/or married into Navajo and Apache groups. The Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloans didn’t disappear any more than you can say the Ancient Romans disappeared because the Coliseum is a ruin that’s not used anymore. And honestly, for the majority of archaeological mysteries about “disappearance,” this is the answer—the socio-political organization changed to something less obvious in the archaeological record, but the people didn’t disappear, they’re still there.

[elodieunderglass]

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me out with a word I've forgotten? I'm trying to remember the name for a concept that (I think) talks about how people better understand or process Things once they have vocabulary to describe it - I've heard it talked about in regards to the colour orange, or coercive control, etc.

long story short i've just read a paper saying ancient Greeks and Romans weren't racist bc they had no word for racism and am trying to form an argument against!

(no worries if this is unanswerable, i'm aware its a bit of a long shot but you struck me as a person who Knows Things)

That’s extremely kind and funny of you. i don’t know much but i am ok at synthesis.

I think you might be thinking of the concepts loosely called the “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis”, which describes something called “linguistic determinism.” This idea has been “disproven”, as it is just too reductionist as a concept - people are clearly perfectly capable of having experiences that are tough to describe with words. There will be plenty of papers showing how this reasoning is applied.

but it is still commonly thrown around and still considered a useful teaching framework. That’s why you’ll see it referenced online as if it is fresh, new, and applicable - people learn about it every year in college. Also, elements of the framework are probably perfectly sound. It definitely seems to be the case that language shapes brains; it just doesn’t seem to be the case that humans who don’t have specific words for them can’t experience orange, or the future.

(Many things in college are taught using teaching frameworks that may not be, technically, true; the framework is intended to give a critical structure for interpreting information. Then, when we later find evidence that disproves the hypothesis, that single piece of information doesn’t destroy our expensive college education; what we paid for is the framework. This is mostly frustrating in the sciences, when fresh crops of undergraduate students crash around on social media, grappling with their first exposure to (complex concept) and how it’s DIFFERENT to what they learned BEFORE and their teachers LIED TO EVERYBODY and they’re going to save the world from POP SCIENCE by telling the TRUTH. You’ll notice that these TOTALLY NEW INFORMATION reveals map along the semester schedule. The thing here is that getting new information, or information being different from what you were previously told, does not cancel out the fact that you are getting what you pay for - an education. Learning new facts that change our relationships to hypotheses isn’t a ✨huge betrayal ✨ , but the expected process of academia. Anyway.)

You have an interesting response here, and can start by looking at the ways that Sapir-Whorf has been disproved. There will be loads of literature on that.

However, it would be interesting to look at the argument as an unpicking of the other side’s rather weird, ritualistic superstitious belief that a behavior doesn’t exist if the creatures doing it can’t describe it. It is not on the ancient Greeks and Romans to categorise and interpret their behavior for a modern educated audience. They do not have the wherewithal to do so. They are also fucking dead. We can name the behaviors we see, and describe their impacts, however the hell we like.

Sure, the ancient Greeks used “cancer” to refer to lumpy veiny tumors. We can infer that they still had blood cancer, because their medical texts describe leukaemia and their corpses have evidence of it - they just didn’t know it was cancer. But we do, so we can call it cancer. Just because Homer said “the wine-dark sea” in a flight of girlish whimsy doesn’t mean he was unable to distinguish grape juice from saltwater, which we know, because we can observe that he was an intelligent wordsmith perfectly capable of talking about wine and oceans in other contexts. We are the people who get to stand at our point of history with our words, and name things like “this person probably died of leukaemia” and “poets say things that aren’t necessarily literal” and “this behaviour was racist” and “that’s gay” and “togas kinda slay tho” despite Ancient Greeks having different concepts of cancer, wittiness, prejudice, homosexuality, and slaying than we do today.

Now just to caveat that people do get muddled about the concept of racism. Our understanding of racism from here - this point of history, with these words, probably from the West - is heavily influenced by how we see racism around us today: white supremacy and the construct of “whiteness,” European colonial expansion, transatlantic chattel slavery, orientalism, evangelism, 20th century racial science, and so on. This is the picture of racism that really dominates our current discourse, so people often mistake it for the definition of racism. (Perhaps in a linguistic-deterministic sort of way after all.) As a result, muddled-up people often say things like “I can’t be racist because I’m not a white American who throws slurs at black American people,” while being an Indian person in the UK who votes for vile anti-immigration practices, or a Polish person with a horrible attitude about the Roma. Many people genuinely hold this very kindergarten idea of racism; if your opponent does as well, they’re probably thinking something like “Ancient Greek and Roman people didn’t have a concept of white supremacy, because whiteness hadn’t been invented yet, so how could they be racist?” And that’s unsound reasoning in a separate sense.

Racism as the practice of prejudice against an ethnicity, particularly one that is a minority, is a power differential that is perfectly observable in ancient cultures. The beliefs and behaviors will be preserved in written plays, recorded slurs, beauty standards, reactions to foreign marriages, and travel writing. The impacts will be documented in political records, trade agreements, the layouts of historical districts of ancient towns.

You don’t need permission to point out behaviours and impacts. You can point them out in any words you like. You can make up entirely new words to bully the ancient romans with. You are the one at this point of history and your words are the ones that get used.

Pretending that “words” are some kind of an intellect-obscuring magical cloud in the face of actual evidence is just a piece of sophistry (derogatory) on the part of your opponent here. It’s meant to be a distraction. You can dismiss this very flimsy shield pretty quickly and get them in the soft meat of them never reading anything about the actual material topic, while they’re still looking up dictionary definitions or whatever.

[longing-for-rain]

what exactly is Aang's toxic masculinity that you're talking about? there are no examples of such behavior on his part in the show. he is not an ideal person, he is a child who sometimes behaved incorrectly, just like all the other children in the show (Katara, Toph, Sokka), and this is normal.

in addition, we see how he regrets some of his wrong actions and gets better, while Zuko does not regret his toxic behavior, doesn't apologize and doesn't face the consequences of his behavior (racist jokes about Aang, demands that Katara forgive him as if he has the right to her forgiveness, an attack on Aang to "teach him a lesson" and many other things).

Hi anon, thanks for the ask! This is a very good illustration of what I was talking about in this post when I mentioned that I feel toxic men are overlooked more often for appearing “nice” than they are for being conventionally attractive.

No examples of toxic behavior in the show? What do you call this then?

I know what I (and the law) call it:

But you see, he’s “nice” right? This is just a misbehaved child, as you put it? Yah, no. He knew better and still did it because he was possessive; this whole interaction started because he was jealous that an actress playing Katara was interested in men other than him. And the show proceeded to frame the situation in a way that made Aang sympathetic, despite being the aggressor and the one behaving irrationally. How much more “toxically masculine” can you get than that? But he put on a flower crown once so we’re supposed to think he’s a soft uwu feminine boi (even though he was absolutely enraged that a female actress played him).

I also find it very interesting that you describe Katara and Sokka as “children” while Zuko is omitted from that list despite being the same age. Are you admitting you agree he’s more mature, or are you admitting that you hold him to different standards?

But, anyways. You asked about toxic behavior on Aang’s part, which I’ll get further into now that the most egregious example is out of the way.

Let’s break down what you consider unforgivably toxic behavior on Zuko’s part and compare it to Aang’s behavior in similar situations.

1. “Racist” jokes

I’m guessing this is made with reference to the “Air Temple preschool” comment. How exactly is this racist? In context, Aang is the one trying to force his beliefs on others, and Zuko makes this comment to a) tell him to back off and b) point out that Aang is, in fact, a child who doesn’t have any business telling Katara how to feel.

This point is particularly interesting to me, because it implies that the simple fact that Zuko doesn’t agree with the philosophy of Aang’s culture makes him racist. By this logic, Aang is also racist against Katara’s culture, because he clearly disagrees with her philosophy and is openly telling her that his culture is morally virtuous over hers. And well. That’s even more believable considering Aang’s previous reactions to Water Tribe culture.

Ah, yes. Playing with a cultural artifact like it’s a toy because you were upset about not being the center of attention for once, and telling everyone how disgusting you think cultural food is, what great ways to show the supposed love of your life how much you respect her culture!

I know your response to this point would be something like “uwu but he’s a kid he didn’t knowww” ok well. The same logic can be applied to any alleged “racism” on Zuko’s part.

2. “Demanding” forgiveness

Zuko: What can I do to make it up to you?

Ah, yes. How demanding of him. He’s clearly so self-centered and only thinking about his own values and agenda here.

It’s not like he…

…told his friend how she’s allowed to process her grief and try to impose his own morals…

…or demanded to know if his crush liked him back, wouldn’t accept “no” as an answer, and forced a kiss on her…

…or told an abuse victim he was wrong to want to kill his abusive father for trying to commit a genocide…

…oh, um. Yeah. Sorry, but after actually watching the show it’s very clear to me which character doesn’t seem to regret or see the flaws in any of his actions at the end of the show, which is when all of these examples took place.

3. Training in the finale

“Attacking Aang to teach him a lesson” … wow, that’s a very dishonest way of phrasing that situation. I’m impressed, I have to say. I’ve seen lots of dumb takes from Aang stans over the years but this is a new one.

Well, luckily I actually watched the scene in context, so my reaction was the same as all the other characters’ reactions in canon when they learned the context behind this “attack”:

They agree with him. Yeah. Obviously, when nobody is taking training seriously when the world is about to literally go up in flames, you might need to do something to get their attention.

“But it was dangerous!” you might argue. Well… yeah. When magic and bending is in the equation, training in the Avatar universe has been shown to be somewhat dangerous at times. As an example, from this very same episode, Toph very nearly smashed Sokka with a giant flaming rock. That was way closer to hurting someone than Zuko was in this incident. If you’re going to fault characters for making their training exercises too dangerous, I guess Toph is mega cancelled.

Now back to Aang. What was his reaction in this situation? How did he react to the end of the world being days away? He ran away with absolutely no plan. Just like he did at the very beginning of the show.

I mean, think about it. This is a critical flaw (and toxic trait) in Aang that is literally never addressed, because he starts and ends the show the exact same way: he’s faced with a problem, he runs away from it, then he’s saved by an in-universe equivalent of an Act of God. Wowie, such great character development. Not fixing your core flaw and having a mythical plot device materialize into existence to solve your problems for you. Aang’s whole arc is a big blah, because the writing fails to address any of his flaws or have him meaningfully question any of his values.

Meanwhile, Zuko has consistently been a fan favorite because he’s the opposite. His flaws are meaningfully addressed, he does admit he’s wrong and fix his flaws, and his character shows a critically acclaimed change throughout the show. His arc is written so well that despite being a cartoon character, Zuko is widely considered the poster child for a good redemption arc across all forms of media.

So anyways, miss me with the double standards… there is a reason why Zuko is the fan favorite, and it’s not just his abs 🔥

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV Musings: Racism & Intersectionality, in Hollywood and in Fandom Spaces (Pt1: The Raceswaps)

This is in response/support of @adamnablelittledevil's post on this very subject:

"Hopefully people would finally understand nobody is making it up or exaggerating and it is indeed real and worse than they probably think."

Folk try to act like certain problems don't exist, especially when it concerns Black & Bipoc people in predominately white spaces with a KNOWN history of racism. People love to gaslight & be dismissive & rewrite history with revisionist narratives--especially to impressionable people & fans who are NEW to certain fandom spaces or racial dynamics/demographics, and DON'T know the history of the spaces they're entering, or the convos taking place--which is PRECISELY how we wound up with non-Black IWTV fans who ended up in the actual NEWS for prancing around an IRL plantation in 2024, acting like they never heard of slavery, ffs.

At some point, the venn diagram of accidental/willful ignorance, careless/irresponsible tone deafness, and active/passive-aggressive racism actually does intersect.

Incidents like this reflect a fandom steeped in problematic behavior that's too-long gone unchecked by the fans & network alike--who are also at fault for constantly mishandling its own project.

Contrary to poorly researched articles like USA today that denied/handwaved racist backlash against IWTV (a MUCH smaller & younger fandom compared to the LOTR & Amazon's Rings of Power adaptation), from its very inception, as early as the cast announcements, TVC's white fans were PISSED about the raceswaps & outright accused AMC of being woke/DEI (a la Bridgerton) when Jacob Anderson was cast as Louis DPDL.

A Quora thread from 2021:

A Reddit thread from July 2022: (Wayback Machine)

A Reddit thread from 2022 (circa Ep5): (Wayback Machine)

And boy oh boy did this one on Facebook in 2021 age poorly: 💀

Book fans constantly treat AMC's IWTV like performative colorblind trash, rather than as color-conscious prestige tv show that treats historical racism, colorism, classism, sexism, & homophobia seriously. They DGAF what showrunner Rolin Jones had to say about perpetuating the glorification of slaveowners, and just want a 1:1 adaptation of the books, when that was NEVER Rolin's intention.

There's fans who to this day refuse to see/accept Delainey!Claudia, and apparently there's colorist trends on Twitter (cuz ofc 🙄😒) about seeing her as Armand's daughter instead of Lestat's, just cuz of her skin color, which WTF??? (x x x):

Book/film fans hypocritically complain constantly about Bailey Bass (18-19) AND Delainey Hayles (25) playing 14y/o Claudia; but then gush about Vampire Diaries & Twilight & other shows on MTV & CW--who have all casted full grown adults as teenagers. Critiques like this are interesting (x x):

Cuz they specifically mention the Romanian kids and how Claudia supposedly "cannot at all pass for a child." However:

Some of those actual children ain't exactly tiny little toddlers & tykes either! 😅 Cuz age is a spectrum, not a monolith, imagine that.

And laaaawd don't get me started on Armand, and the BS that was happening on Reddit a few years ago (x x):

THIS is the kind of fandom we've been dealing with since DAY ONE.

And yet white fans have the nerve to whine about how tired and pissed they are whenever Bipoc fans call out the racism in the fandom/network, or god forbid look too-deep in the actual racially sensitive/relevant context of the show itself.

But I'll save my thoughts on all that for another post.

[musashi]

Hiiii, so this is a call for some help with a video I have in the works right now.

I am looking for a Latinx volunteer to... I guess sensitivity read and/or help me fine-tune a very specific part of a youtube video script. Preferably someone in the Ace Attorney fandom, but you do not need to be by any means--if there are any plot details you need me to explain to you to make my points clearer, my autistic ass will jump at the opportunity.

It's a misconception debunking video with a little 'character assassination' bit at the end where I plan on talking about unfortunate boxes, flanderizations, and stereotypes that some of the characters in my favourite visual novel often get lumped into. One of these characters is Diego Armando, a Latino (dark skinned Japanese in the original) man who is constantly held to higher scrutiny by the fandom than his lightskinned peers. He is frequently demonized, painted as a misogynistic scumbag, held in much worse faith than other culprits for his very understandable and sympathetic wrongdoing, and overall just treated incredibly harsh for things that other comparable characters get away with on account of them 'looking' white and having more anglicized names.

Since I am white myself I do not plan on speaking excessively about the experience when it is not my own but I think it is a huge fucking disservice to not focus on the fact that this fandom treatment all just stems from racism. It's the one part of my video where I don't plan on even entertaining "the other side" or explaining where the misinterpretation "comes from" I want to just. Make the point. That it's racism, with no rhyme or reason.

But I obviously don't feel qualified to just do that on my own so this is just me putting out feelers to ask if anyone would like to read over this part of my script for me, offer concrit (scalding concrit if you must, please, I want it to be as tight as possible) and basically just make sure my own white privilege doesn't gloss over, misrepresent, or miss anything. Basically just asking for help not fucking it up.

Again you do not have to be into AA to help me with this, I can tell you all about the character and what he does and doesn't do, his place in the story, and the things I hear about him in fandom and how they don't hold up on other comparable characters. Just know I will have to spoil the whole final game for you if you ever plan on getting into it haha. And, once again, please only volunteer if you are Latinx yourself.

I will, of course, give you full credit and thanks in my video and in the description, and link my viewers to any and all platforms if you'd like. Since I make no money off youtube and am horrendously broke myself, if you have any donation links posted anywhere I will boost the hell out of those too. That's about all I can offer for compensation OTL

Please contact me via ask if this is something you're interested in. You can also reply on this post and I can open DMs for you or get in touch with you via email or discord. I really, really, really want to include this in the video but I want to do it right.

Even if you're not someone who qualifies, if you are an AA blog or have lots of AA blogs following you, I'd appreciate a reblog to boost this! Thank you :3

[olderthannetfic]

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I'm surprised there isn't more drama over that the update OTW put out has explicitly rejected adding a Racism, Hate Speech or Slavery warning. I think their reasons for doing so are really good and well-articulated (the first two in particular always seemed like non-starters to me, because what counts as either of those varies so much from person to person and culture to culture in a way that what constitutes, say, "non-con" doesn't). But I'm surprised I'm not seeing more fuss raised on here by the Stop OTW Racism or whatever they're called group. Maybe I've just blocked enough but I know I still follow some people who supported that.

--

Around 300 people changed their works titles on AO3 during that campaign. It was a decent number of big names in very specific circles, but in the wider sphere of fandom, it was basically no one. More people were casually interested in EOTWR, of course, but the kinds of highly invested people who are going to have a big reaction to the update would probably have been willing to also change a couple of work titles temporarily.

I'm sure there's a reaction somewhere that I'm not seeing, but there's no reason to suppose it will be massive in the context of fandom overall.

[hastyprovocateur]

An analysis of Mizu×Akemi

Mizu gave up Akemi to Lord Daichi's men saying her path of revenge has no room for "love, friendship or weakness." She looked Ringo up and down at "weakness" after which he got offended and ended his apprenticeship for not helping Akemi. Mizu's eyes held guilt as Akemi cried out for her, hoping to be by Mizu's side and not go through with her marriage to the Shogun's son. Mizu was aware that if she fought Daichi's men, it meant more would be coming, which inadvertently meant more time having Akemi around, growing close to her... peering into her soul, breaking some walls... like she did at Madam Kaji's when she lay bare the fact that she's not the killer she pretends to be. Which was hammer meets nail as far as Mizu's singular purpose is concerned. It also means a lot that Mizu's appearance in itself wasn't scary to Akemi, or worthy of contempt despite being an aristocrat in an extremely xenophobic time. Racism should've been her second language but she doesn't exercise it. She only noted the distress evident in Mizu's behavior. Her rage- "Your face isn't even so scary... you're just... angry."

The thing about noticing is... you keep noticing more. Especially someone as observant and calculated as Akemi. Mizu was aware of this, hence why she tested Akemi's mettle in the brothel knowing she was the princess all along, trying to get under her skin instead of the other way around- "You thought I wouldn't recognize you?" casting back to the very intense first sight exchanged between the two on the bridge in ep 1. Mizu looked up with little interest, yet the stoic samurai's jaw dropped upon their prolonged eye contact and she tracked the palanquin long after Akemi had left her line of sight. It's implicit that love, friendship, and weakness represent Akemi, Taigen, and Ringo respectively. When Ringo questioned why Mizu let the princess go, she stated that Akemi's "better off" almost following up with "without me." She didn't deem her marriage to the Shogun as favourable, hell, she was unimpressed by the fact that Akemi was trying to save her doomed engagement with Taigen, telling her she's "begging to eat trash" despite being a "magical forest creature," who could have anything she wants. Mizu still considered it the lesser evil as opposed to spending time alone with her.

This isn't the case with Taigen, whom she is decidedly more comfortable with even though he threatens her, and calls her slurs. In part, Mizu believes that she deserves the hatred. She's more familiar with it. With her past where she was the demon as opposed to the future where she could be loved. Imagining true love is cruel for Mizu so she rejects it and embraces her darkness. It protects her from people actually seeing her as a person. As a whole. She can loathe herself in peace. She can be a vessel of revenge. She even promised Taigen the duel he wanted to up and kill her in exchange for his honour. Believing she won't have much to live for after concluding her revenge. Akemi is not the same. She never wished to hurt Mizu, going only so far as to try and drug her, until Mizu made her believe she killed her fiancé. Akemi was soon able to see Mizu's honour when she fought alone against the Thousand Clawed to protect Kaji's girls. Akemi was bent on helping, braving the trained men to protect Ringo and then to save Mizu's life from the man who almost choked her to death.

I will forever love the detail of her vulnerability in the face of death being mirrored by Mizu's own intimacy with Mikio in the flashback, letting her body serve love over rage for once. Engaging in sex was a huge step towards transparency on Mizu's part. Also, the fact that Akemi, in her little capacity, wielded her knife and pulled the clawed men away from unconscious Mizu, trying to keep their focus on her. Knowing she could very well die. She tells Ringo "I have been a captive my whole life. If I die, I'll die free." And then she goes upstairs saying "Mizu can't hold them off alone." Acting, most likely, out of a place of love. I was also warmed at the instances of Akemi trying to "drug" Mizu before she took on the bitter task of killing Kinuyo and then a few scenes later "slapping her awake" from a burning memory of betrayal. When her father's men came to fetch her, Akemi did not doubt that Mizu would fight for her after she did the same for her, hence her asking for her validation "I'm not going anywhere... right, Mizu?". And Mizu would've fought them for her, what's 3 more men after a whole army? But something prevented her.

To ruin Akemi's strong faith in her then... as opposed to later? When more of her ugliness had spilled before the princess? When both their hearts were more open to be scrutinized by the other? Madam Kaji and Swordfather Eiji are both the motherly and fatherly advice Mizu sorely needs. That fighting is an art, not independent of loving. Mizu cannot evade love if she is to take on a bigger war. She cannot do it alone and the story's purpose keeps circling back to the same lesson. Fighting from a place of hatred can never be stronger than fighting from a place of love. Akemi, evidently, was hoping to seek refuge under Mizu's protection. She is loyal, as she was to Taigen even though he abandoned her in pursuit of his lost honor. But Mizu's betrayal broke her heart. At the end of the Bunraku play in ep 5, Akemi confessed that she met the Onryo but that it was "incapable of love." That she searched his eyes for "love or mercy or good," only finding darkness. Both Mizu and Akemi weighed the merit of love in each other, Mizu pushed Akemi away because she felt love and Akemi avoided Mizu because she felt her lack of love.

Taigen, Mizu's former bully, did learn to respect her as a fighter and comrade. Representing their growing camaraderie, how they fight alongside. Mizu told him about Akemi getting married off to the Shogun's son in her duty to him as a friend. Upon learning that she abandoned Akemi, Taigen is also reasonably pissed. Mizu is on the precipice of the rebirth of her katana. Swordfather is justified in being wary of her guilt and darkness, refusing to aid in her pursuit but only guiding her by way of asking her to seek peace, to unify herself. Which she does by adding Chiaki's broken blade (which Taigen took), Akemi's knife, Eiji's tongs and Ringo's bell into the forge. She is ready to make amends by going to save Akemi, to encourage her to leave with Taigen, to be honorable as Ringo wants, and to find peace as Eiji wishes. And ofc to fuck the shit out of Fowler.

Akemi's repeated assertion of "we are not friends" (accompanied by the angy eyes) when Mizu comes back to save her is reflective of that heartbreak Akemi felt after relying on Mizu for her freedom before. Mizu tries to fix this by showing her a way to Taigen, trying to do right by her, asking "Do you still want your freedom or not." To give her what she wants even if she disapproves of Akemi's choice when she states "He's not a good guy, but he could be a great one." Seki too, gives Akemi a share of her dowry he saved to build a free life "With Taigen, or without." Akemi did end up rejecting the idyllic runaway Taigen was willing to embark on, it is hard to say Mizu would take it as an opportunity to make a move on Taigen after deeming him unsuitable for a partner. It would be against her nature to try to jump in as a lover just because Akemi's out of the picture. Not when she's so hot on the track of striking down Skeffington and Routley. It's pretty straightforward if you ask me.

Mizu is focused on going up for a bigger war. To seek the truth. To turn London upside down to kill all the four white demons that sabotaged her life since conception. This is parallel to Akemi deciding to stay and take control of the Shogunate through her powers over her decidedly meek husband. To take control of her life against all the odds that seek to box her up. I do not doubt that she will move to include Kaji and her girls in her retinue, subdue her father's machinations and rebuild Edo, and wrest power from whoever threatens her. Love doesn't seem to be on her cards. Kaji told her to choose a path of freedom through a man, not to choose a man to love like she'd been doing all along- "Stop running to and from men and decide what you want for your fucking self." Could this mean that Akemi is to never chase men romantically? Either way, Akemi follows through pretty quickly. Takoyoshi is a means to an end. Her sexual prowess was her first tool to entry into the Shogunate. Nothing more than an instrument of control as opposed to her initiating any sort of genuine romantic bond.

I fail to see as of now where Mizu and Taigen's paths collide romantically further since the latter clearly showed his intention to abandon all pursuits of greatness and to settle down. Which is vastly opposed to what Mizu and Akemi are bent on doing. I see a lot of potential there. If anything, Mizu would quite possibly need Akemi's refuge if she were to return to Japan in the wake of the London chaos. They are foils of each other. On the opposite ends of the spectrum with the same stories. Poor-rich, blue-red, water-vermillion, darkened-fair, streetsmart-booksmart, warrior-prostitute, bastard-pureblood, masculine-feminine, caged internally- caged externally, widow-new bride. Both deal with same vindictive self-serving parents. Mizu lost her stand-in mother in ep 5, and Akemi lost Seki at the end of ep 9. Mizu the crashing waves and Akemi the rising flames. Both women. Both so alike yet so different. Mizu's name is pretty straightforward, meaning "water." However Akemi's can be written as "bright sea" or "vermillion beauty" While vermillion is Akemi's colour scheme, "sea" is likely her connection to Mizu.

I find the sex in the show to be representative at best. Borne out of duty or manipulation rather than true love. Just because Akemi and Taigen had sex was no testament to the endurance of the depth of their relationship, same as Mizu and Mikio's wasn't. Akemi's alliances with men have always been influenced by the need to go with or against her father and never her independent choice. Same as Mizu merely agreeing to her mother's insistence on marrying and settling down. I liked the juxtaposition of Mizu being submissive during sex and Akemi being dominant, both with Taigen and Takoyoshi as well as in the brothel. Here, I would extend that this isn't their true nature. Both in marriage or the brothel, sex is labour meant to cater to men. As Seki said a woman can only have fixed paths- "Proper wife or improper whore." I can't imagine Mizu or Akemi being happy as either.

Akemi for the most of S1 only wanted to be loved but was being forced to use her lovemaking skills to steer men into agreeing with her. Playing the improper whore. I imagine that in a safer intimate relationship, she would enjoy being on the bottom, to be protected and pleasured instead of always being the pleasurer. Mizu on the other hand, was shown to deliberately downplay her physical agencies during her marriage, to pretend to not know knife throwing or what she wants during sex, thus settling for whatever her husband had to give lest he feel inferior. I would imagine she'd prefer to be loved in all her proactive masculinity, to not be forced to submit. To not be forced to be the proper wife.

Mizu has repeatedly been shown to dominate people unthinkingly, her safety lies in her being on top and knowing what she's getting into. We saw a glimpse of that in the brothel with Akemi under Mizu where she ordered the princess to "get down." The colours from their respective sex scenes blended into one, inky blue on Mizu's end, warm golden on Akemi's. Mizu immediately doses the princess on pursuing worthless men and then Akemi soon willingly submitting to Mizu's protection while thinking of her to be a man. They both tried doing the rightful wife thing, both tried to save their marriages with their husbands as best they could, to be the ideal women even after both men bailed on them. But now they are liberated. Akemi is free from her father and on the path to rule Edo, Mizu is on her own with Fowler, to pursue her revenge in London. Both are relentless in their pursuits. Akemi's "No one refuses me" and Mizu's "We're going to the 9th level" is one and the same. Unstoppable force meets immovable object. Only time will tell. I rest my case.

[holybodega]

hello yes I hear there is rwby dgrp Au 👀 /np

yes ! i like the idea with my brain, and i've decided to try my hand at making some stuff for it!!!!

here is the most recent color concepts for ruby's design :3

i will gush below more if you and anyone else are truly curious !!!!!!

so currently, (and hehe no spoilers for if i do make anything more for this) here is the list of students! sorgy if some faves were left out, it was very hard to narrow down to such a small list ;w;

i have started planning the trials, but obviously those are even bigger spoilers hehe, so i won't share those just yet !! but in the meantime, i can go over the setup and what the ultimates mean >>:3

-

setup: so instead of hope's peak, it's beacon .... do not worry why those who are not beacon students are here, i'm sure that'll be a point of interest once the story starts ,, hehe :3

i am still in the earliest stages of this, but i do like the idea that the students are still there to train as huntsman, it's just instead of having semblances, they are ultimates. ultimates are straaaange because sometimes it's like the characters have powers unimaginable to man and then there's ultimate clairvoyant where he's just...... a guy being a dude.... so

i think the school itself will be a hodgepodge of rwby and danganronpa sensibilities. it will borrow from both and primarily follow the danganronpa rules once the killing game starts, but i like to think i'll include a good amount of beacon's influence.

faunus: at this time, i'm unsure if i want to change anything about faunus? i feel like it's not very danganronpa to have catgirls be real, but i very much intend for white fang to exist still. i think it can work? (although much love and peace, we all know how poor the writing has been for faunus racism)

aura: as far as other rwby factors, obviously aura has to go in the state its in. can't really have an interesting killing game if each character has to spar to death. well you could, but then you'd just have hit youtube series rwby again. i think if it is used, it's more like the mastermind gives everyone aura trackers or something? idk

weapons: i'm super on the fence about their inclusions, i may make it a part of the plot, may not. it may be one of the bigger changes i make from the beginning. they will not be featured in the killing game itself because y'know. that would just. negate a loooot.

grimm: will be plot relevant, but i doubt they'll be super there

timeline: imagine how every danganronpa game starts up, first day of hope's peak (or what have you). all students have a clean slate on their memories in some form or fashion, and this AU will be no different to that set up. if it ain't broke, don't fix it! the idea is, this is set from the point of "ruby's first day at beacon." it's not going to play out any bit the same as the show because......... well....... spoilers for danganronpa but...... that's not their real first day at hope's peak dawg.

POV: as for the main character, it's gotta be ruby duh!! - ultimates: some of these are semblance based, some of these are character based. i was more so trying to catch a vibe with the ultimates rather than them being one-to-one.

Ultimate Accelerator

this is ruby's ultimate. as per stated above, this is going to be setup as "ruby's first day at beacon." as we all know, ruby is let into beacon early for her expertise in fighting. academic acceleration is a term for letting students into higher education at a younger age than typical, hence accelerator. also. ruby faste. zoom. but either it's this or ultimate excellence. i like both, i think ruby would hate being called "ultimate excellence." either way, she would want to keep it all under wraps.

Ultimate Socialite

this is weiss's ultimate. i think this one is self explanatory, but of course, weiss do be a nepo baby. especially since these are going to be based primarily on the characteristics of s1 specifically, she was truly trying for that socialite attitude.

Ultimate Escape Artist

so this is where we start to take some liberties. this is blake's ultimate. i think this one will be one of those OP ultimates that you scratch your head a little at and go, "yep, i guess that make sense." my idea is that blake will play off as your kyoko type. she's not particular one for investigation, but she's an escape artist, so she sure can get the hell out of any tricky situation.

Ultimate Gunslinger

another one i'm taking some stretches with, but i think it fits. this is yang's ultimate. i am on the fence big time on the weaponry, but i do want to take the leap to make yang a cowboy. fuck it. we ball.

Ultimate Lucky Student

this is jaune's ultimate. he's definitely a lucky student. :)

Ultimate Electrician

this is nora's ultimate. another easy one, she is big electricity!

Ultimate ???

this is pyrrha's ultimate. ???

Ultimate Serenity

this is ren's ultimate. this one is a bit of a doozy, but imagine angie yonaga's gag where she holds the other students in her arms as if she's jesus and they are the lamb? yeah like that probably.

Ultimate War Machine

this is penny's ultimate. she was built to be war machine. robo of mass destruction, what can you say?

Ultimate Leader

this is adam's ultimate. shout out to running your own terror org, king. congrats on that. not as good as kokichi, but he'll do!

Ultimate Farmhand

this is oscar's ultimate. he was trapped as a farmhand and he couldn't be clarmhand, he wanted to leave this place and get himself back in space.... school... in the school system. for normal farm boy reasonsssss.

Ultimate Spy

this is ilia's ultimate. she sneake.

Ultimate Martial Artist

this is sun's ultimate. this one is a bit of a loophole all around. technically everyone in this AU is still supposed to be trained martial artist, but i think sun is deserving of the ultimate because of his semblance. unfortunately on top that, there's not actually a lot of terms to pick from when you're looking into kung fu mastery, so i had to reuse ultimate martial artist. i could've called him the ultimate sifu or shifu, but i don't feel very attached to the idea that sun would be patient or responsible enough for a title like that, especially early show sun lmao. i was thinking of going with ultimate black belt, but it just felt uninspired. it could be funny to go with sifu in the future just because of how unserious he is lololol

Ultimate Designer

this is coco's ultimate. coco is but a humble designer with her $400 coach bag

Ultimate Copycat

this is velvet's ultimate. another one that is just like "bruh there's no way." i think it's neat to translate velvet's semblance into an ultimate this way. her photography memory is separate from her ultimate abilities nonetheless. her ultimate abilities stem from her physically being able to replicate actions that she sees.

-

well that's all i have for now, but if i get enough together, i'll maybe start a sideblog or an insta for it hehe

[s-che]

Monsterhearts 2: Plotting Anti-Plot

Last week I had the fortune to MC (and play) Monsterhearts 2 for the first time as the Dream Library begins a unit on monsters, monstrosity, and monsterfucking which will carry us through November, and boy howdy am I glad we managed to do it. 

For those who (somehow) don’t know, Monsterhearts is a game that bills itself as being about “the messy lives of teenage monsters.” It cites Twilight, Buffy, Ginger Snaps, The Vampire Diaries, and The Craft as media touchstones, it’s not joking when it says that these monsters are 1. messy and 2. teenagers. Monsterhearts is angsty, horny, frightening and, above all else, extremely fun to play. On top of that, Monsterhearts is also one of those games that, if you’re in a certain sector of the indie RPG scene, people will remind you is extremely fun to play all the fucking time. It feels sometimes like every designer I know has a good Monsterhearts story, and as much as Avery Alder’s reputation on a larger stage has been defined by The Quiet Year, I get the sense that for people who like what Monsterhearts is doing it’s an extremely hard game to beat. 

So to be totally honest, I was more than a little anxious MCing for my first time actually playing the game. There’s a sense in which hosting a game which you know is great can be way harder than hosting games you think might be bad — after all, if the session goes poorly, there’s nobody to blame but yourself. On top of that, Monsterhearts moves through some tricky territory: underage sex is a core element of the game, and the eight “Small Towns” (short, pre-prepped settings for quick starting the game) all deal more or less explicitly with histories of racism and colonialism in communities across North America. While these are interesting places to go in play, the idea of taking them on myself as host made me shy away a little bit (and I’m excited in the next session to look at things from a player’s perspective). 

All in all, though, I think the session was a resounding success. I went in with basically no prep and as much familiarity with the book as I could get (not enough to realize the quick reference sheet we were using for the first half of the session was from Monsterhearts 1, but so it goes), relying on the game itself — which leans away from strictly organized plots and encourages you, in true PBTA fashion, to let characters and their needs bounce off each other until the conversation goes somewhere interesting — to get us smoothly into play. I would call my efforts there a mixed success: while Avery has a real skill for writing pedagogically, giving you the explicit frameworks you need to get into play (if you’ve never begun a session of The Quiet Year by reading the rules book aloud to each other, you should go fix that now), the session was hampered a little by some awkward pacing and uncertainty: partially driven by my chronic tendency to waste time on slowly establishing things in one-shots rather than swinging as hard as I can in the first five minutes and letting the players lead from there and partially by player character relationships that lead to clear, decisive actions... which left one of our players bored at work while the other two went off adventuring. We ended up taking a moment, after returning from the normal mid-session bio-break, to chat and refocus ourselves, figuring out where we wanted to go and what we wanted to see in the last hour or so of the session, and then jumping back in and — thankfully — playing hard to reach a strong conclusion. In the end, I’m not interested in tracking down exactly where the first half of our session lost its footing (although I have some ideas for how I could have hit harder as an MC). I’m more interested in celebrating the way the table was able to come together, talk explicitly about what we wanted, and get the game somewhere satisfying for everyone involved. We closed on, among other things: an underwater fight between the Fairy (Mermaid?) Queen and a Kraken-Leviathan-Hellmonster, a throuple sneaking off from a beach party to hook up, and the messy end of a South Jersey summer (complete with a tsunami and a beached whale front of the boardwalk). It was a good time. 

Most striking to me in this moment, however, is the way thinking about Monsterhearts as a plotless game positions both me as MC and the other players. It really speaks to the way that capital-T The capital-C Conversation works in Powered by the Apocalypse games (good ones, anyway) to let play flow not according to the rules of a paced narrative, but along lines of player interest and highly-charged emotional incident. It is, I think, part of what makes all the PBTA games we’ve played in the Dream Library sing (in no small part because we pruned the last unit and didn’t play any PBTA games I think are bad, but that’s a different conversation) and it suits this game — with it’s emphasis on sex and messy desire — extremely well. It also fits in nicely with a point I’ve heard a couple of people make recently: that thinking of RPGs as first and foremost collective narrative engines is, at the very least, a narrow view. 

Anyway, this week I’m fortunate enough to be joined by a new host (hi @jdragsky) so I can check out MH as a player, then we’ve got a couple of two-shots planned for the end of the month before we move on to our next monstrously intimate game: Bluebeard’s Bride. You want in on an upcoming game? Have a link. You want to hear more about Monsterhearts? One of my players wrote up some of her thoughts as well.

Otherwise, well, get out of here. Scram.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Incomplete vs. overshoot

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT in Seattle (Feb 26) with Neal Stephenson, then Portland, Phoenix and more!

You know the "horseshoe theory," right? "The far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

It's a theory that only makes sense if you don't know much about the right and the left and what each side wants out of politics.

Take women's suffrage. The early suffragists ("suffragettes" in the UK) were mostly interested in votes for affluent, white women – not women as a body. Today's left criticizes the suffrage movement on the basis that they didn't go far enough:

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage

Contrast that with Christian Dominionists – the cranks who think that embryos are people (though presumably not for the purpose of calculating a state's electoral college vote? Though it would be cool if presidential elections turned on which side of a state line a fertility clinic's chest-freezer rested on):

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-alabama-ivf-ruling-was-influenced-christian-nationalism-on-the-media?tab=summary

These people are part of a far-right coalition that wants to abolish votes for women. As billionaire far-right bagman Peter Thiel wrote that he thought it was a mistake to let women vote at all:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

Superficially, there's some horseshoe theory action going on here. The left thinks the suffragists were wrong. The right thinks they were wrong, too. Therefore, the left and the right agree!

Well, they agree that the suffragists were wrong, but for opposite reasons – and far, far more importantly, they totally disagree about what they want. The right wants a world where no women can vote. The left wants a world where all women can vote. The idea that the right and the left agree on women's suffrage is, as the physicists say, "not even wrong."

It's the kind of wrong that can only be captured by citing scripture, specifically, A Fish Called Wanda, 6E, 79: "The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

Or take the New Deal. While the New Deal set its sites on liberating workers from precarity, abuse and corruption, the Dealers – like the suffragists – had huge gaps in their program, omitting people of color, indigenous people, women, queer people, etc. There are lots of leftists who criticize the New Deal on this basis: it didn't go far enough:

https://livingnewdeal.org/new-deal-and-race/

But for the past 40 years, America has seen a sustained, vicious assault on New Deal programs, from Social Security to Medicare to food stamps to labor rights to national parks, funded by billionaires who want to bring back the Gilded Age and turn us all into forelock-tugging plebs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/06/the-end-of-the-road-to-serfdom/

If you only view politics as a game of elementary school cliques, you might say that the left and the right are meeting again. The left says Roosevelt got it wrong with the New Deal (because he left out so many people). The right says FDR was wrong for doing the New Deal in the first place. Therefore, the left and the right agree, right?

Obviously wrong. Obviously. Again, the important thing is why the left and the right think the New Deal deserves criticism. The important thing is what the left and the right want. The left wants universal liberation. The right wants us all in economic chains. They do not agree.

It's not always just politics, either. Take the old, good internet. That was an internet defined by technological self-determination, a wild and wooly internet where there were few gatekeepers, where disfavored groups could find each other and make common cause, where users who were threatened by the greed of the shareholders behind big services could install blockers, mods, alternative clients and other "adversarial interoperability" tools that seized the means of computation.

Today's enshitternet – "five giant websites, filled with screenshots of the other four" (h/t Tom Eastman) – is orders of magnitude more populous than that old, good internet. The enshitternet has billions of users, and they are legally – and technologically – prevented from taking any self-help measures when the owners of services change them to shift value from users to themselves:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

The anti-enshittification movement rightly criticizes the old, good internet because it wasn't inclusive enough. It was a system almost exclusively hospitable to affluent, privileged people – the people who least needed the liberatory power of technology.

Likewise pro-enshittification monopolists – billionaires and their useful idiots – deplore the old, good internet because it gave its users too much power. For them, ad-blocking, alternative clients, mods, reverse-engineering and so on were all bugs, not features. For them, the enshitternet is great because businesses can literally criminalize taking action to protect yourself from their predatory impulses:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/20/benevolent-dictators/#felony-contempt-of-business-model

Superficially, it seems like the pro- and anti-enshittification forces agree – they both agree that the old, good internet was a mistake. But the difference that matters here is that the pro-enshittification side wants everyone mired in the enshitternet forever, living with what Jay Freeman calls "Felony contempt of business-model." By contrast, the disenshittification side wants a new, good internet that gives every user – not just a handful of techies – the power to decide how the digital systems they work use, and to be able to alter or reconfigure them to suit their own needs.

The horsehoe theory only makes sense if you don't take into account the beliefs and goals of each side. Politics aren't just a matter of who you agree with on a given issue – the real issue is what you're trying to accomplish.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/26/horsehoe-crab/#substantive-disagreement

[cosmichorrorlesbians]

what's your dissertation about? you mentioned it in the siltcord and i'm really interested

oh my god hey I'm so happy you're interested! broad strokes because I've only been working on it for a few weeks but: the current theme is 'resistant landscapes' (both man-made and natural) in the later writing of Shirley Jackson!

Essentially, my main thread is that Jackson had two parallel strands to her work, which as far as I can tell began kind of interrelated but then diverged quite significantly? She's probably best known now for The Haunting of Hill House and to a lesser extent We Have Always Lived In The Castle, which are these. weird surreal psychological horror novels, engaging explicitly or implicitly with the supernatural, and centred around introspective, strange and sometimes deeply misanthropic female characters from isolated social units with dysfunctional, possessive relationships to each other.

Aaaaand then on the other hand she was known for being a 'happy housewife' who wrote these whimsical, quasi-autobiographical stories about all her children and how hopeless her husband was. These were popular too. Betty Friedan called her out in landmark 1963 feminist manifesto The Feminine Mystique for essentially spreading patriarchal propaganda.

The interrelation between the two is really jarring, because in one family is a source of horror and tragedy and in the other it's a source of, like... laundry. And Jackson's home life wasn't everything those stories made it out to be-- her marriage was unfaithful, her mother could probably be fairly called emotionally abusive, and as I talked about on the siltcord, she developed severe agoraphobia which often left her housebound.

So, yeah. My plan is to explore the depiction of families as constructed social units in dialogue with the environments they are constructed in in that work. Obviously a lot of that is relation of house to family, in the context of which Hill House is especially rewarding to consider, but I also want to look at relationships with nature and urban environments (especially in the context of settler colonialism and how that has had an enduring legacy in Jackson's particular part of New England), xenophobia (largely in regard to class, though racism and anti-Semitism are presences in her writing), domesticity and the idea of the housewife, and how horror relates to All Of This. The ideal of making a home within a hostile environment and of that environment turning on you, essentially.

I don't yet have particular areas of focus within that broad umbrella, but I might update with bits and pieces about it as I work? I don't really talk about academic stuff on here but I am very much Critical Literary Analysis Guy and I do also post relentlessly about haunted houses as a concept so if people would be interested in it maybe I will

anyway if you've read this far I recommend Horror in Architecture: The Reanimated Edition (2024) by Joshua Comaroff and Ong Ker-Shing which is a book about how horror movie tropes can be mirrored in built environments! I'm reading it right now and it's conceptually fascinating plus fairlyyy comprehensible by academic standards (if a little dense) if you, like me, are a Fool who knows nothing of architecture. very good also for getting to look at pictures of some of the most Fucked Up Buildings (affectionate) you've ever seen.

[itsnothingofinterest]

Any predictions for the next chapter, or from this wrap up in general?

I’m gonna be honest; with Shigaraki dead, who knows how many of the League with him or soon to follow, and most of Class 1A ending their arcs as a disappointing collective carbon copy of the last generation, I’m not too interested. And that may hinder my ability to predict what little we have left, let alone to any enjoyable capacity.

The only real prediction I can make is about how the wrap up will take every implication or consequence of the kids’ failure to save or change and…continue to ignore them, brush them under the rug that is this feeling of how much the ‘day has been saved’ we’re being given.

I’m talking zero mention of corruption in the hero industry, no talk about the folks heroes aren’t around to save despite inspiring complacency & dependency, nothing to make us think villains won’t be treated worse after how Twice, Machia, and Shigaraki were treated, and you better believe they won’t bring up the Singularity Doomsday.

(Or, potentially more infuriatingly if it’s done poorly*, they actually will bring up some of the League’s old talking points…most of which no one on the heroes side have ever been shown caring about and weren’t really brought up in the final arc at all…and it’s all to talk about how they’re handling it the right way tm, which we learn is super easy for them. Turns out Shoji really can solve all of quirks racism by just being super inspiring at bigots, maybe with some finger wagging at them if he’s feeling daring**; don’t know why Spinner’s mob thought they needed to riot like that. And Shoto just made a few calls, gave a speech maybe, and now heroes abusing their power and/or families is a thing of the past; sure makes the lengths Touya went to seem silly.

Ugh, I’m getting a migraine just typing that out.)

And it’ll all end with future Deku saving some kid lost in the streets like Tenko Shimura, and we’ll be asked to just pretend that means every kid like Tenko Shimura gets saved from now on…even though that’s not how his backstory or criticism of the system worked at all. Remember: ‘the day is saved, so don’t think about it too hard.’

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Which I expect it would be.

**Which he will not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If, after seeing me say that I don't want an ending where they do nothing but also don't want an ending where they do everything, you're wondering what ending I'd be satisfied with…I honestly couldn't tell you.

I should want an ending where they change and improve things; but after spending a sizable fraction of MHA's total length effectively fighting against change and improvement because it was villains trying to shepherd it in while the heroes were always talking about rebuilding it all back to normal to the very end (including just last chapter), I don't know how Hori could pull that off without it feeling like bad writing. And unless that writing gets bad enough for Tomura to return from dust, I don’t much care for that idea either.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA if I were to report my ex friend's antisemitism to their university?

So I 20nb have been friends with most my current friend group since we were 11. Two years ago I stopped being friends with a guy in my friend group due to toxic behavior on his part (not antisemitic yet, just giving background info) He would constantly say things like "don't make fun of neurodivergent people's special interests and hyperfixations as they can't help it" and then would go and make fun of my special interests (note: said ex friend has ADHD). Over our friendship he had a lot of double standards like that and one day I had enough. The first time I brought it up he dismissed it as someone else in the friend group did the behaviors I'm accusing him of. I kinda dropped it as I didn't want to deal with that level of denial and thought that if I waited a few days he would have had some time to reflect. So I brought it up again and he continued to blame it being one of our other friends doing it and that I was simply "misremembering". I gave specific examples and rough time frames yet he continued to deny it. All I wanted was a simple "I'm sorry and I will work on that" yet he refused to do that. So I ended our friendship.

Since then we have been on rocky terms. We are still in the same friend group since the issue was between me and him, I didn't want to involve my friends and make people pick sides. He was moving away soon at the time of the end of our friendship so it wasn't like I was going to see him when the friend group all hung our together.

Since we are still in the same friend group, he is in the discord server our friend group has which is just like a massive group chat with things categorized into topics.

Recently there is the current conflict going on in Israel and Palenstine. I am Jewish and vented to the vent section of that discord server about how I have seen people I know irl post online antisemitic things. I am very much against Israels actions and made sure to include that in my vent so no one coukd twist my words. I didn't initially say exactly what I was seeing as I was still processing the fact that I was going to have to cut some people off.

He then replied to my vent saying that he has never seen anything antisemitic online and that if he has, he has seen Jewish people saying that it isnt. I replied that his reply to my vent was weird and that i was talking about people saying that all jews should die. I felt hurt as yet again he was being hypocritical towards me as he has said before that you should say that (what he said) when people complain about seeing hateful things towards a group (eg racism, homophobia, etc).

He then responded that I was only calling him antisemitic because he was arab. The thing is, I never called him antisemitic and I myself am also arab. (Yes I know, most people have never met an arab jew but we do exist).

I pointed out that I never called him antisemitic and I am also arab which he seems to have forgotten. I said that his response was still weird considering what he has said in the past about people who say what he said. I then invited him to dm me privately to discuss things further if he wants to as it's not fair to do this in front of all of our friends.

He did not respond and ended up blocking me on discord.

This irked me quite a bit but in the end I decided that him blocking me was for the better if he stands by his original response. I was talking to my partner about it who is not Jewish and he said that my ex friend's response was definitely weird and the fact that he was so quick to defend himself about being called an antisemite without even being called it was indicative that he probably is. I decided to look at my ex friends tumblr to see if there was anything to suggest that and there was. I saw a few posts which he has recently reblogged which used anti Semitic dog whistles like the echo, example: (((insert text you which doesnt say jew but you are implying jewish people are))).

I was quite appalled to see that and am debating if I should send it to his university. The university he attends has spoken out about antisemitism before and has kicked out people in the past for using racist dog whistles due to a potential danger to POC students so it is likely that he would get kicked out for using antisemitic dog whistles.

In my mind, he fucked around and therefore should find out aka face natural consequences for his actions.

WIBTA if I contacted his University about his antisemitism?

What are these acronyms?