#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

[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.

[galadhir]

Oh this is nice!!! I know that early 2000s LOTR fandom was extremely hard to deal with so more power to you for this one.

Honestly, I found the fandom a great place to be in those days. There weren't a lot of people writing Celeborn or even the Sindar in general, (other than Haldir and Legolas.) But the section of the fandom that I hung out in, I found delightful. Lots of really good writers, and a playful atmosphere in which we were all being inspired by each others' work and writing our own, and chatting about it with each other. I was lucky, maybe, but I have only pleasant memories.

I do remember what I thought was a thriving Elrond/Celebrian fandom in those days (although anything not-Legolas and not-Feanorian was obviously much smaller than those powerhouses.) I think it's great. Celebrian deserves a bit of development. If we want strong female characters in the Tolkien fandom we should maybe write more of them than just Galadriel, and surely Galadriel's daughter must have been special in her own right.

i think it's interesting that even in that one Celeborn is a Teler, and therefore always associated with the folk that got damaged by the Kinslaying

It *is* interesting :) I think Galadriel nails her colours to the mast as regards her support for the Sons of Feanor with that decision. And would have stood to potentially alienate herself from her whole people if not for Thingol embracing the Finarfinions and (cautiously) being okay with the people of Fingolfin. It's hard to go against your whole family for love - which is an interesting aspect of their story I don't see explored enough.

(Admittedly I haven't been in the fandom for 20 years, so it may have been done to death by now, but... somehow I doubt it.)

Also I like the version in which Celeborn is a Sindar, which also makes the marriage a mixed marriage in terms where Galadriel married a dark elf. There's a lot to be said about elvish racism in the way the Amanyar treat the elves of Middle-earth, and how that makes things tricky not only for Galadriel with her relatives but also for Celeborn with his.

I think that's sad that people ignore this and say that Celeborn never understood the real Galadriel (opinion that came from the show for some reason) or that he's just an useless betacuck with no personality because that's the only way a woman would have indipendence in her marriage, amirite? Because else a Real Man™️ would rather tame her, right ?

Ugh. This is still going on? Of course it is. Because we are more sexist than Tolkien, and we can't imagine a m/f marriage without subordination of one of the parties.

For some reason it seems to be impossible for people to understand that you can have a marriage where both people have their say - and are thus functionally equal - where one of them has more power than the other.

And yet that's easy - the one with power just refuses to exert it over the other person. They respect their spouse's autonomy because they are a good person.

Also it's possible their spouse has qualities other than power that make it only sensible to consider their opinion.

because they are your beloved and you want them to be happy

because they may have more knowledge of specific things than you and you trust their judgment

because they may have character traits you don't have and you need - ie caution, or wisdom. (See where Galadriel calls her husband 'Celeborn the Wise'. She obviously thinks he generally has good takes on stuff.)

etc

I can't believe I'm still having to argue for the equality and independence of spouses in this day and age.

The less said about Peter Jackson the better. To be fair, I loved the first film, but it was him having the elves of Lorien come to Helm's Deep that got me into fandom in the first place. I was like 'no. That's not how that happened. Do you think they didn't have stuff to do at home?' And then I wrote Battle of the Golden Wood to try to produce something that was a bit closer to canon.

If I wasn't so old and tired I would be tempted to write the story of the Fall of Eregion and the Forging of the Rings for the same reason. But omg I am so tired.

Objectively the funniest argument i've seen for the reason why Celeborn isn't in the show is that he's so boring that not even the showrunners know what to do with him and that he would be an useless baggage for Galadriel's story…

Well, they should do their job and think of something. I could do it. I could do it in a heartbeat. It's easy. How dare these people think that Galadriel's husband is going to be boring? What a travesty!

For what you say of the lore… you're right but i think that the Unfinished Tales rights are off so they cannot use them.

Oh yes, I keep forgetting about the copyright stuff, and their insane decision to write a story they don't have the rights to use the canon sources for.

They should have done something they *did* have the rights for, instead of just making up something that almost has to be wrong in order to be permitted at all. I'm sure there are an infinite number of stories that could be told around the events of LotR and The Hobbit.

What about that Haradhrim soldier that Sam wondered about, for example? I would genuinely love to see more about Far Harad and learn what lies Sauron told them to make them trek across Mordor on their war elephants to attack a city they'd probably never heard of.

You could add a female MC, a couple of blue wizards and some ex-Numenorian Corsairs and I'm sure you could mix up something fascinating that no one in Tolkien fandom could complain about at all.

(We still would complain, but it would be fun complaining and not whatever cannibalistic thing this is.)

Simon Tolkien should at least suck it up and if he was ok with Amazon's fic, to open the possibility for fans to publish LOTR retellings.

LOL! That would be great. I'm ready :)

Hoo, boy. I am definitely going to unfollow the Celeborn tag again, since it's full of Haladriel shippers arguing that Celeborn stans are harassing them.

I'm not getting into whether that's true. I have no interest in Rings of Power, and as far as I am concerned, Halbrand does not exist in Tolkien's world. I can't be somewhere where people mix Amazon's fanfiction with actual lore.

Also ship wars are not for me. I was a massive Celeborn defender during the release of the movies, and I wrote several novels worth of fanfic then. I think I'm spent.

Still, as a Celeborn fan I thought the Celeborn tag would be a great place to go to find stuff about Celeborn. How could I have been so foolish!

My poor lad! Not even his own tag is about him. Which is exactly what I should have expected, now I come to think about it.

[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. 🤍

[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 🔥

[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.

[faetthorn]

Probably my only contribution to the Pathologic fandom

Some important words below, if you're a patho fan take the time to read them

TW: pedophilia, SA, grooming, racism, colonialism

So I got into pathologic in july and almost instantly got hit with a post about the allegations from back in 2021 against Nikolay Dybowski, game creator and founder of Ice Pick Lodge. He’s groomed several girls ages 15-18 and inclusively has used his position as a member of HSE University in Moscow to do so. 3 years on and people have all forgotten this and are happily cheering for the bachelor route like nothing ever happened 

Yes I know you all wanna forget abt the uncomfortable situations, after all "what can we do" right? I wish I could just pull a switch in my brain and forget too, but I'm a victim of SA and child grooming, and I can't play this game without remembering what its creator did. The worst part is that the characters mean a lot to me. I got into pathologic while suffering from ptsd related nightmares and Daniil, Artemy and Clara brought me a lot of joy and comfort. Even now they and some elements of patho’s story mean the world to me. It hurts to be constantly reminded that everyone is against you, no matter how much you appreciate their work, no matter how much time and money you put into doing it.

I'd properly join the fandom and start calling for a boycott and for these allegations to be discussed and reminded of again but I just know it'll never happen. I'd be ignored or get a thousand replies "oh but the employees, they have nothing to do with it!!" "it's just a game!" "it'll get you nowhere!" “age of consent is x y or z in this country!” "stop being a vindictive little bitch!" "*insert rape threat here*" I expect to receive 0 support on this post and I'll block anyone I need to. Just wanted to let this out of my chest even if nothing will change: Petitions don't work, they never did and they never will. Passivity and politeness never got ME shit, at least.

DOXA, the rus student newspaper investigating these allegations was raided by police (1, 2) and recently considered an undesirable organization by the government. The courts and police would never do anything about this and they’re clearly more invested in persecuting student groups that have even the most basic feminist goals. A victim of Dybowski's has allegedly tried to denounce him to HSE University and the charges were dropped so as far as we know Dybowski wasn’t even fired. Not only is he the creator and chief writer of the games but he's also the head of the studio. Spreading awareness and boycotting is the only way justice can be made (at least in a way non-russians can participate). If you’re considering playing pathologic i cannot recommend it and i don’t want to be the reason someone gives more money to Dybowski. You don’t need more harmful shit when you have 2 games, a dlc and wonderful fandom content the game would never make canon. Hell, PIRATE all the games if you really need to. When the bachelor route comes out the IPL employees will have already been paid for it. Also, let’s not forget that WE DON’T KNOW where the profits we give will go. They might go to CP.  

I wonder why it's so easy for you all to rightfully call to boycott anything related to zionism without making excuses but then when it's a pedophile with countless cases of grooming and very probably rape you all stay quiet and do nothing just because it's your precious little interests. It's almost like it's all performative

In the same vein, there needs to be a discussion about how violently racist this game is because this art came from anger and sadness. I’m not indigenous but i’ve followed native activism for years and i wouldn’t have the beliefs i have today without the opinions of indigenous people. I know feeling betrayed by the art you use to cope with how horrible reality is is tough. Not only does this game have extremely racist stereotypes and portrays natives as a monolith, but it’s also unsurprisingly misogynistic in an extremely colonial way (need i remind you of Willow, the entire concept of the herb brides and the way they are dressed or the fixation with portraying steppe people as woman-sacrificing brutes). Not to mention the extreme cruelty of patho 2’s endings. Which is way more insulting when it’s directly tied via the in-game use of Buryat language and inspirations to the native peoples of Siberia who Russia colonized and whose culture is still actively repressed, at a time when the weight of colonization (environmental catastrophe, poverty, sexual violence and more) makes indigenous people commit suicide at a way higher rate than any other ethnicity in many countries, and this includes the native people of Siberia who this game “pays homage” to (1). This fandom in general needs to start being way more critical and checking their own racism too. And to any native patho fans i’m obviously not here to tell you how to feel abt patho’s racism

Well, there it is. I have no hope left to ask anyone to boycott the bachelor route or the other projects Dybowski's created but if this makes you think about the things you throw money at it’ll be something

Edit: I apparently need to clarify something since certain people have been pestering me about it. I'll keep standing behind the part where I say the profits (not the money used to pay the employees, the PROFITS) might go to CP. We're talking about a guy who has been sexually abusing underage girls since allegedly at least 2012 with full impunity. And let me repeat once again: we are not responsible for the IPL employees' well-being and payment. Dybowski is.

[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?

[roxannepolice]

The thing about Ricky September rising to the top of the chart as the most controversial aspect of Dot and Bubble is interesting, because... welp, as many people have pointed out, he's the surface level white twinky manic pixie nuwho Doctor at their most op on steroids. I've seen people comparing him to s6 Eleven specifically, but the offhand remarks about how much he knows, the interest in history, and most importantly, the proper introduction as the handsome guy who leads our protagonist away from cheap looking monsters and then runs hand in hand with her... that's Rose, the episode. The reason people took a liking to him is because he literally echoes the main character of the show we're watching. He's the Doctor doll in this sci fi dollhouse. That's why it's so shocking when Lindy uses him as cannon fodder.

So the fact that he's no less racist than everyone else in Finetime fits into the general concept of this episode as unpacking the naturalised racism of Shakespeare's Tempest/Forbidden Planet sf conventions, that Doctor Who, and the Doctor themself has been guilty of (welp this is what you get for thinking it's a good idea to turn a brown guy over to WWII villains or not filtering for racism when you random generate a time and space you will hide in with a black companion - you watch aryan bubble folks go to their deaths you bent ass over tits to prevent; not for many people this would have been karma doing its job, but for the Doctor it is).

But I don't think... the show wants us to hate itself, or its main character. Like, there are reviewers clutching their pearls over another cult text getting written by people who hate it, but. criticism isn't hatred, it's often an expression of love, and perhaps one of the highest forms of self-love. Which is why it caught my attention Ncuti Gatwa looks extra-doctorish in the last scene. Yes, clothes are surface, but in a visual medium they're a message too. Fifteen has been the most clothes changing Doctor we've seen so far, and he spends most of the episode in a more everyday casual shirt, but he dons the extravagant yet stylish tartan knee length suit for the end. And he does a Speech(tm), too, and helpless shouting, and finally a stern face (which ironically enough reminded me of fury of a Time Lord Ten). And like, he's not ignorant of why Finetimers look at him this way. They always knew, just never were on the practical not abstract side of the deal.

So Ricky the Doctor Doll works not only as a meta textual self reflexive parody, but also a contrast. Not so much as a "but see, this show, or even this era is not like other girls" masturbation, but more as a reflection on what makes this protagonist who they are. Yes, maybe s6 Eleven was op-ed too much, but that's not what made any Doctor, including this one, who they are. From this perspective the concept that Ricky would not have helped anyone from outside the in-group is... ironic considering how much of a separate chaff from grain sentiment there comes about in response to the Doctor's radical - and often pragmatically wrong! - kindness. Yes, the rationales for when they "should" be less merciful are more solid than skin colour, but I think this element of "this guy is what you WANT the Doctor to be, and not just visually" is there. Can't help thinking of how the destruction of Gallifrey - both in s1 and s12 - gets hailed as "yes, that's what the show is telling us is the RIGHT thing to do, just in general, not to prevent a specific outcome!". Meanwhile Fifteen keeps calling it genocide and remains wistful.

[nekropsii]

Small Atomic Ask Bomb!!

I've got a bunch of short asks that I'd hate to spam the dash with individually, so I'll just put 'em here, under the cut!!

Content Warning: Long, Brief Discussions of Racism, Misogyny, Grooming, Brief Mentions of Incest and Pedophilia in Fanfiction.

I've always been a hater, and I honestly don't really think it's a bad thing - not as much as everyone says, at least! I think being kind of a bitch about things that don't matter is good for you, actually. Gets the urge to be angry out in a way that's healthier than just snapping at people in critical moments. I also just think being strong and passionate in your convictions is good for you. Being a hater gives you a spine if you do it right, and it fires a gunshot and scatters people you don't really want to be around. It also has the funny side effect of people thinking I take things way more seriously than I do, just because I'm opinionated and will state said opinions clearly. Big fan of this meme:

This is me.

------

I used to peek in there every now and then, just to be nosy. Incest at the top, always. Or straight up pedo shit. Sigh. Looked in the Mituna tag a couple times. CroTuna fucking nightmare hell dimension, always. Or KanTuna, which I also have gripes with. Or KanMiTula, which I have even more gripes with.

It is my understanding that the state of Homestuck fanfiction hasn't gotten much better since the 2010s. Everyone is wrong and no one is normal. Sad.

------

I don't know if the mere act of only making Jade and Jake brown out of all the Kids is Racist on its own, per se, but it is kinda silly in the sense that, you know, John and Jade are siblings, so realistically they'd look similar. And... People absolutely do get racist about it. Like, making Jade and Jake uniquely huge, hairy, threatening, and oddly shaped - gangly in the context of Jade, buff as hell in the context of Jake. I've seen some SEVERELY racist drawings where Jade and/or Jake were the only hints of melanin in the Kid line up and... Oh my god. It can get to straight up caricature levels. Watermelons and everything. Just comedically racist.

------

Genuinely one of the dumbest fucking things in the world. People will say literally anything. Saying Damara isn't Japanese is on par with calling Porrim a fucking Men's Rights Activist. It's a funny little claim people who are grievously wrong say as a condemnation of the Alpha Trolls for no reason. Why. To look smart? To fit in? Dumbass. Notice how they always have to invent bullshit lies to critique anything instead of just saying things that are true. It really frustrates me how 99.9% of Alpha Troll criticism just isn't at all legitimate when there's some real, genuine issues you could critique. It's stupid horseshit. I hate it so badly.

I don't actually care whether or not someone likes the Alpha Trolls, but at least hate them accurately. Come on.

------

@sleepy-apparition

Everyone is so, so quick to turn a blind eye to just how violently misogynistic Kankri is, lmfao. Genuinely, I don't think I've ever seen anyone other than myself bring up the fact that he's an avid Slut-Shamer in the modern day. Other than that, I only really saw older Mituna fanatics bring it up over in the early-mid 2010s, but none of them are around these days.

Genuinely, some of the shit he says is so appalling, lol. Kankri FULLY deserves to get his ass beat.

------

I have said this before but I'll say it again - I do not think a Red Romantic Relationship will fix Dirk, or even really help him all that much. Before he gets into a RedRom, he needs some therapy, a break, and mood stabilizers.

However, I'm thoroughly of the opinion that a good BlackRom could work wonders on him, way more than a RedRom would. I think a solid, established Pitch Relationship with, like, Caliborn would be genuinely great for him, both mentally and in a Character Development sense. I hold zero interest in watching Dirk and Jake badly fumble a traditional romantic relationship - that notion is painful to me. ... But I do think I could read a full Intermission's worth of Dirk and Caliborn fucking around and not get tired of it once. They have a fantastic dynamic. It'd be good for Caliborn, too, I think.

This has been my Dirkuu propaganda bit. Thank you.

Also, the Voyeuristic feel of how people handle his Mental Illness. It makes me uncomfortable.

------

True. I don't have any other remarks to make about this, you're just correct. True.

------

... Fuckin'... Why, though? What- what's the appeal? There's nothing there. I literally cannot conceive any way in which that would be compelling, and I'd say Hal and Kankri are pretty high up there in the list of Male Homestuck Characters I Enjoy.

People will do anything but pay attention to Female Characters for five minutes. God. Lol.

------

It's literally just DaveKat 2. I don't think it even qualifies as a Crack Ship when it's just a variant of The Fandom's Most Darling M/M OTP. It's just a deeply mid RarePair. Crack Ship would be, like, Dirk Strider x Rainbow Dash.

Dirk x RD was a popular Crack Ship, sure, but it's still a Crack Ship on basis of being a Crossover Pairing.

------

I can't recall any specific instances of seeing this myself, but I'll believe it. People will do anything except be normal about Vriska. People will fight the war against Vriska on the side of and against Vriska at the same time. People will call her a Huge 8itch but then call her pathetic when she stops being a Huge 8itch.

We love Misogyny, I guess.

------

Well, he is based on Tumblr, after all. Particularly how dogshit the politics are on here. Of course he would. He'd do numbers on here, considering his Woke Hate Speech.

It's called Bubblr, by the way. Like, canonically. We do know what it's called.

------

It's actually based on the Three Wise Monkeys. You know, that old Japanese Proverb that goes "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil"? That.

Kurloz is Speak No Evil, Meulin is Hear No Evil, Mituna is See No Evil.

------

Great Question. My personal guess is that he's a little too nuanced for a lot of people to be comfortable with handling. He throws out too much surface-level Bigotry that people aren't willing to ignore because it isn't Racism for many to feel comfortable making him their Blorbo. When Dave says the N-Word and talks about how fucking Racist he is and it literally never gets acknowledged or resolved, that's fine and dandy, but god forbid Caliborn be a Misogynist in the funniest way possible AND have that get acknowledged literally constantly as a problem. The fact that Caliborn isn't a Fuckable White 13-Year-Old Twink means none of his crimes are ever forgivable because he's ugly and unshippable, or whatever.

The fact that he's Mentally Disabled doesn't help. People can't fucking STAND IT when a character is Mentally Disabled in a way that isn't Cute and Consumable, much less a character who is Unconsumably Mentally Disabled AND Complicated. It's just not allowed!!