#i'm aware that the quote is in the wrong context but i don't give a damn

[purrple-sectors]

I had this post on my drafts for months ngl and I think with everything that's happening (and to not let it rot on the drafts) it should be shared

----

With the Lando hate train going on, and many other hate trains, I feel like there's some things that need to be said related to fandom and hate culture in general, this is not only about Lando and it applies to any driver

It's very valid to dislike, lose respect, and/or hate a driver to some degree, but death wishes, including wishing for a serious crash and general hate speech is NOT OKAY in any way

There's some very valid stuff to hate about a driver, but not all things they do are valid to hate, for instance many of their actions are reasonable and not properly wrong, I'm talking for example about when they complain on the radio when they're genuinely struggling with the car

It's okay for people to like a driver you dislike and it's okay for people to dislike a driver you like, don't harass fans for having opinions different than yours

Refrain from using isolated quotes or sentences from drivers to base all your mindless hating but also defending, context matters like the question they were answering, what they said before and/or after, try to understand the situation in a wilder angle before making assumptions and spreading misinformation

Avoid generalising actions, the drivers are human beings, and humans are very complex, only bc they did/said something shitty once, that doesn't mean all they do is always with malicious intent

I know we are on a time where media impressions are so absolutely central that it's normal to question the motives behind some statements, but that's doesn't mean they are all done with manipulative intent, yes we can never be sure but that also means that we aren't sure if it was truly a pr manipulative move

Try to not claim that you know for sure the true intentions of a driver when its not disclosed and the comment/action itself is very dubious and/or not very serious, you can guess it but you shouldn't go around saying that what you think is the factual truth, you don't know them personally and what is going on on their heads, a comment you may feel like it was made with ill intent, could have been done very innocently and naively. I'm not saying that it always happens however at least try to consider that it may be a possibility

Don't go overanalysing and dissecting a driver's every action and words with the purpose of only finding things to hate on them, not only is quite disrespectful it's frankly borderline obsessive and creepy

If you want to truly hate, there's specific places where you can do it, but don't let it bled to spaces like Twitter and Instagram comments, places where most drivers (like Lando) are very present and can see not only the hate directed to them but also the hate directed to other drivers. This also include spaces where drivers' close ones can see the hate, mentioning in particular Max F's twitch chat.

But be aware that if you're hating/speaking ill about a driver on a social media platform there may be people that can get uncomfortable with it and block you as they should. DO NOT make it personal or weoponize it, they have every right to block you if they feel uncomfortable and dont want to see your content

Lasty if you ever feel like your mental health is in stake bc of f1, turn it off and give it a break, your mental health shouldn't dependent on some drivers that don't even know you, its okay to feel this way but it's imo unfair to blame on a driver for their performance when theyre simply doing their job and doing their best

On a final note all the drivers have done something shitty and/or had shitty attitudes at some point but many people are clouded by judgement and mindless hate some drivers without acknowledging (and refusing to) that their faves also did things wrong, please avoid doing this, not only its very hypocritical but its quite a dangerous mentality of "My fave cant do any wrong" that can easily be translated to day to day life, try to be critical on serious situations, and hold ALL drivers accountable for things they said/done, not just the ones you personally feel to! You will come across as quite hypocritical if you just select a few drivers and not hold anything accountable to others (especially if they're your faves) and in the long run is not a very good look

To sum up just practice basic human decency, this is mostly my take of view so take it with a grain of salt if it pleases you so. This applies to any driver and I'll add more if I find other things to say. To any new fans out there the only thing I ask you is to try to educate yourself before jumping into any hate train, give yourself a chance to form an opinion and then see which part or side of the community you relate most, don't let others dictate your opinion.

[lemondrop07]

meme i made

[hyperlexichypatia]

I think the way nonprofits and public agencies are funded leads us to adopt some of the worst aspects of a capitalist mindset towards our service users.

In a business, the goal is clear: Generate profit. Sell more product, to generate more profit. Recruit more customers, to generate more profit. Upsell customers to a more expensive product, to generate more profit. Convince customers to keep coming back and buying more things, to generate more profit.

Manipulation is built into the process, and it's understood by all parties. When a business does something "for you," it's in the hopes that you'll buy (or keep buying, or buy more of, or persuade other people to buy) their product. When a company offers free ice cream with your insurance quote, it's not because they like you and and want you to have ice cream; it's because they want you to come for the ice cream, stay for the insurance quote, and buy their insurance policy before you leave, so they can get your money. Everybody knows this.

Nonprofits and public agencies theoretically don't have this motive. Theoretically, the services we offer are for you, the service user. Theoretically, there is no profit motive, and thus no motive for manipulation. Theoretically, whether or not people choose to use the services we offer has no effect on us, so our only goal in promoting or raising awareness of our services is so that potential users can know about them and decide whether or not to use them.

Theoretically.

But in reality, public agencies and nonprofits are funded by governments, foundations, and donors. They demand "data" to justify their funding, and a major source of "data" is the number of service users. Markers of success have to be measurable and numerical, even if that metric doesn't really make sense. So even if there's not directly a profit motive for recruiting service users as "paying customers," there can still be a financial incentive for recruiting as many service users as possible, including using "sales" techniques like giveaways and gimmicks.

Now, this isn't inherently a bad thing -- after all, people in the nonprofit sector want people to use our services, so we want to get the word out about what we have to offer. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong for a nonprofit to use a raffle or a giveaway or a pizza party or whatever to get the word out and recruit new service users.

But since the services we offer are supposed to be for the service users' own benefit, sometimes the attitude around promoting them slips into the idea that the people we're ostensibly trying to serve have to be manipulated or bribed or tricked into accepting services for their own good, because they don't know or care what's good for them.

This can get into some really unfortunate implications territory in the context of the demographics of people who tend to work at nonprofits and public agencies, compared to the demographics of people those agencies tend to serve.

Attitudes can quickly morph into "Those People don't care about their children's health/education/etc., so we have to trick and manipulate and bribe them with food and prizes."

There's a difference between "Giveaways are a fun way to get the word out about our services" and "Those People don't care about their children's diabetes risk unless we make them sit through a lecture before we give them food." And way too many public agency and nonprofit workers, in private, in what they think is a sympathetic audience, are way too open about saying the latter.

[liesmyth]

Good morning,

my sister and I as queerish catholicish people* have been fascinated with the the new pope drama.

Anyways we were wondering about context.

When the pope was asking the vatican to "tone down the faggotry" was he

Deliberatly condemning homosexuls in the vatican?

Asking vatican employees to stop gay sex while at work.

Asking vatican employees to stop behaving in a stereotypically gay way at work?

Asking vatican employees to stop being so extra? This is pope Francis after all. He's not really a big luxury guy.....and maybe he finds the drag race aesthetic to be at odds with votes of poverty. (The documentary "Paris is burning" might correct that misunderstanding...but I can see how a general apeal to tone down extragance combined with a new slang phrase in his second language could cause this.

I do understand that whatever the context for the quote was, pope Francis used the wrong term.

But Im really curious what he was trying to accomplish.

Also how do I pronounce your new Url as I relay this information to my family?

*I am a practicing queer raised catholic and she a practicing catholic at a queer independent catholic** church

**yes its existence shocked me to, but they have like 18 members and a local epicable let's them met in thier space in off hours. And they take nor give any money to the vactican and sing the old mass.

Ok your sister's queer independent catholic church sounds honestly cool af. Hope they're having fun in there.

Context: the Pope was telling (Italian) bishops that the Church should discourage gay men from joining, and "there's too much homosexuality (faggotry) in seminaries already." We don't know the context as this was leaked, but if I HAD to make a guess I would say_ 1) This is undoubtedly a homophobic statement 2) this is coming from a guy who feels strongly that clergy should respect their votes of chastity, which a lot of priests straight-up ignore.

So, like. Francis HAS gone on record saying that gay men are likely to falter in their vocations or whatever. But if I had to speculate, and I don't believe I'm being overly charitable here, I think the point of his speech was, "By the way, priests should not fuck, remember that? And maybe men who are into men are more likely to fuck their colleagues and keep quiet about it, we all know it happens way too much."

But yeah tldr: he WAS "deliberately condemning homosexuals" in a "gay people are more likely than straight people to give in to the temptations of the flesh" kinda way. Which IS homophobic but not outrageously so, and I think very much in line with his overall line re: queer people in the Church, kind of when he said "Blessings to same-sex couples are fine! It's not the same thing as a real marriage tho."

I think it was a remark that wouldn't have raised any eyebrows among its intended audience if he hadn't used that word, which gave people who don't like him a lot of ammo to discredit him and motivation to leak the story. That's also why I think there's no way he was aware of the full implications of the word — would this pope say slurs in private? idk. maybe. I don't know him. Would he say slurs in front of an audience of bishops when half the Vatican can't stand him because they think he's a dangerous third-world outsider and a hardass? No fucking way.

At least that's my take. I'm gonna @monstrousgourmandizingcats who may have better insight.

this is how you pronounce it!

[velvetvexations]

I don't wish to hide behind a Native friend in voicing my opinions on the matter, but I asked said friend, Trickster Kisses, for permission to quote him so I can give context for why I have the stance that I do.

Here's him explaining it to me for the first time a few years ago:

Here's his tags on that post I reblogged yesterday:

Here's a post he made shortly thereafter:

And from a conversation we had last night:

Doubtlessly some Algonquin people disagree, but I've seen multiple say the controversy is silly, and like. Yeah. Saying "wendigo" is not going to summon evil spirits to possess you and turn you into a cannibal, it was a metaphor for greed. Natives are generally aware that the world doesn't work on Beetlejuice rules. Even if a few may insist on it, others find it deeply condescending to be treated like village peasants who cross themselves and warn the smirking white protagonist about the forest being filled with goblins and ghouls, except without the part where they turn out to be right because these things aren't real.

And it's different from creating images of Mahoumed, because (a) that's about respecting the single most important figure in the Koran short of Allah Himself, not being in fear of one particular mythical creature that got it's name popular with white people, and (b) non-Muslims depicting Mahoumed is literally only ever done purely to spite Muslims.

I even feel, as my friend does, that the necessary accuracy point is debatable, as other cultural beliefs include vampires, elves, and the Greek gods, and those are often distorted far beyond what the people that did or do believe in them would recognize, but in that I'm willing to concede more than my friend and say, yeah, getting something right and not just going with the pop cultural flow is almost literally the least you can do for a still very vulnerable and hurting group that's been done repeated catastrophic damage by your own group. You should, in fact, in my white opinion, just name your deer monster something else, and in that I "disagree" (it's more like a deferring perspective) with Trickster Kisses whose stance is much more relaxed.*

And I think if it were just "name your deer monster something else, be accurate if you actually use the wendigo name" a lot more people would be on board, that was the position of the Algonquin person on that post yesterday, but white people going all "stop it Patrick you're scaring him!" about it is really weird at best.

*from having asked about engaging with the wendigo in my own writing, a sequel to a story by Algernon Blackwood which got it very wrong:

Depends honestly, if you're not worried about backlash you can honestly just be like, whatever, sometimes vampires sparkle, it'd be cool to see more from the original myths but then you have to get into 'okay but like, which tribe's myths' ngl follow your heart in that regard, I personally consider all of them solid & acceptable

my own decision was to take it in a somewhat meta direction and directly address the fact that the Blackwood story was inaccurate

Okay, so like. This is the ask that prompted me to go to Trickster Kisses and ask him for permission to quote him, and in particular I asked if he could give a response to you specifically.

Listen. Anon. I truly did not expect him to be so angry. Like, I'm not kidding, I sincerely feel bad for you right now. This tongue-lashing is not coming from me. All I can tell you is that this is how an Algonquian person feels about it:

@gromlyn

Trickster Kisses, again four years ago:

[autisticlalna]

oops we're giving Cloneby an identity crisis

so a thing about Rubyco is that they, along with the rest of Team FAVR, love to bully us. Ruby also slips in and out of character on a dime, which means any conversation in the lore-discussion channel in the SBK Community Discord can get interrupted by a patented Rubyco jumpscare:

we've had to try and work around Cloneby before. that's why Solar's conversation with R.C. happened-- they were hoping to cause interference, which didn't work as planned. there's also been plenty of times where i've said maybe a bit too much and had to quickly backtrack when i realized a Cloneby Moment was in progress:

but this time, when Cloneby listened in, things got a bit... weird.

you might recognize that as the quote i used in this art. anyway:

at which point Cloneby withdrew. (also: thanks, viking, that killed me.)

but, hey, speaking of that art. i linked to Ruby's reblog of it for a specific reason: the tags.

ah. um. hi, Cloneby.

(Ruby being a menace in my notifs is nothing new, though. hi rubert <3)

a couple days later, we have the reason why i started drafting this in the first place: i drew more Cloneby art and got a reaction.

there's been a little bit of discussion about if the clones know they're clones or not. the answer seemed to be yes in context, between Avid telling Cloneby they're "better than the original" and Trone's weird "totally Trog. not anybody else." bit.

but... it looks like Cloneby has no idea. she's aware that there's something wrong, and that people (sbkers and fans alike) treat him differently, but doesn't know why and it's starting to get to zem.

so... what happens next? is Cloneby going to put two and two together, or are they going to be stuck in a spiral of feeling like they have to match up and fill a hole they don't understand they're filling? is ce going to change, to ask questions, to try and build a connection, or does cer dedication to cer job and the illusion of "saving people" run too deep? what happens when she further misaligns?

i'm having clone emotions and you're all going down with me.

[thebrightestwitchofherage]

December 19th, 73 days since October 7th

TLDR- I am sick of seeing Hamas propaganda here. People here are posting literal blood libels and mistranslated quotes.

After taking a break from social media for the rest of Chanuka, your favorite Zionist is back. Don't worry though, once again, people who never had any interest in this tiny piece of land, continue to tell me, a Jewish Israeli, that I have got my history and facts wrong, while they know better than I do. To that, I have 2 answers: 1. I am just a student who wants to live in peace. I am not a "zionist demon" or a "genocidal killer".

When I call myself a Zionist, all it means is that I'm a Jewish woman who would like to live peacefully in her homeland. I don't inherently support war or death from any side because I am a Zionist. 2. I actually live here, born and raised, and so were my grandparents. How delusional and condescending can you be to suggest that you, a Western person who only found out about this conflict a while ago on Tiktok, know better than an Israeli??? More on double standards Sometimes I wonder why most of you didn’t have such a strong reaction to any other war & civil war going on right now: in Ukraine/ Yemen/Congo and Syria**, etc. Considering the amount of antisemitic hate anons I've received I have a feeling why...

**Which directly affected the lives of most Palestinians.

As I've said in previous posts- It’s easy to throw around big words you don’t understand. There is no apartheid as all Israeli citizens have the same rights. - Gaza is not occupied by Israel- it’s been returned multiple times in history ( just to name a few: 1956,1987,2006...).

*Even when it was under Israel’s control, all it meant was that there were approximately 10 Jewish settlements in Gaza*. The Israeli military presence was to protect those people& prevent terror attacks.

Blood Libels

In addition to the lies and the poor mistranslations from Hebrew, I have also received \ seen an alarming amount of Nazi Propaganda. -you say that you’re anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, yet you use antisemitic rhetoric…

Comparisons between Israelis and Nazis -Comparing Israelis to Nazis is wrong on so many levels.

In case you aren't aware, the holocaust was a premeditated and carefully planned genocide, that lasted 6 years. 6 MILLION Jews were killed and all of their possessions were stolen. It followed hundreds of years of persecution, violence, and discriminatory laws. They were also starved and enslaved in different sorts of manual labor, in addition to being experimented on. They were held in Ghettos and concentration camps. In the aftermath of the war, Jews were completely driven out of their land and face prosecution across the world to this day. The existence of Israel allows Jews to live free of that. The Israel-Hamas war following October 7th is a war against a terrorist organization that invaded Israel and massacred its civilians. Unfortunately, due to Hamas' tactics, there are a lot of Palestinian civilian casualties. While they are wrong- the treatment of Palestinians and the bombing of Gaza are nothing like what the Nazis did.

Debunking some misconceptions I've seen on Viral posts here: -No, we Jews do not control the media and global banks. At least invent something new, this is giving Medivel blood libels used by the church lol. -We do not go around killing innocent Palestinian babies for fun. We have laws and a moral compass (Shocking I know). We do not go and kidnap people or rape women for fun either. Do you know who does that? Hamas, the terrorist organization. -We're not all white, this conflict does not revolve around race: There are many Jewish Israelis from the same countries that Palestinians originated from (i.e: Egyptian & Jordanian Jews ). -Israelis perceive Palestinians as lesser human'- This claim is usually supported by mistranslation of Hewbew and out-of-context Interviews. The phrase חיות אדם (Chayot Adam, savages, acting like animals) was obviously often used to describe Hamas terrorists who took part in the October 7th masssacre. We do not call or treat Palestinians as "animals" or savages. All of the referenced instances were about those Hamas terrorists.

-There isn't a 'Gaza Ministry of Health', it's all Hamas. The number of Palestinian casualties and other claims they make are not to be trusted. Most of the casualties are terrorists.

So what is my point?

It is important to note that am not ignoring any of the Palestinian deaths. I’m not saying they should die either. Please stop assuming I do!!

All I’m saying is that Israeli victims matter as well. For some reason, some people cannot comprehend that Israeli civilians do not deserve to die just because of where they live.

You wouldn’t call for the death of all Americans/ Europeans/ South Africans etc… while they committed actual genocide & apartheid.

[scoobydoodean]

hi! i read your misogynist post and while i haven't read it all to analyze, this one stood out to me the most:

In 1.06, Sam cuts Dean off before Dean can accept an offered beer from Rebecca, but then as soon as Sam needs Rebecca out of the room, Sam asks her to not just bring them those beers... but also fix them sandwiches. Rebecca says, "What do you think this is, Hooters?" and Dean mumbles, "I wish" and we somehow lose sight of the fact that Sam literally just asked a woman to make him sandwiches which is possibly the number one misogynist man trope.

while that i'm not justifying or defending, the thing about this section is he ASKED rebecca those things to distract her and not have her come back in the room right away after grabbing the drink, because he needed to DISCUSS with dean what he just saw on the camera without freaking her out because that was her brother. i would have done the same thing, and i'm a girl.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would read posts fully before responding to them. That said, of course there's a context to Sam's comments. I in fact stated in the very portion of my post that you yourself quoted that he wanted her out of the room:

then as soon as Sam needs Rebecca out of the room, Sam asks her to not just bring them those beers... but also fix them sandwiches.

Misogyny almost always has a conversational motive/context. It isn't usually cartoonishly and randomly spewed. There's a context to Sam's request. There's a context to Sam lying to the women he loves and intends as life partners, and using the word "bitch", and usually being bad with women more generally, and tending to view women Dean might be interested in or who might be interested in him as loose distractions. But if you think the writers weren't aware of exactly what they were writing when they specifically went to sandwiches, I think you're wrong, and Rebecca's immediate objection to Sam's request lends to the author's awareness.

The context of that entire section of the post is not to demonize Sam, but to state that fans who push this narrative that Dean is a huge misogynist (in an effort to erroneously demonize him) are almost always contrasting him with Sam, who they believe to be some bastion of progressive morals who has never so much as looked at a woman lustfully (because that would be Evil and Bad™️). When shades of misogyny in Sam (that he is very very unaware of) are intentionally written into the script from the Pilot.

Kripke appears particularly fond of giving Sam an air of moral superiority that often backfires on him when he endeavors to judge Dean. 1.16 "Shadow"—another Kripke episode—is also a great example. Sam at one point criticizes Dean (who has gathered all of their major leads up to this point) for not "thinking with his upstairs brain", because Dean dared get a bartender's number while asking her questions about the victim. Sam, meanwhile, has been floundering reading books and getting nothing. Later in the episode, Sam peers up at Meg in an upstairs window as she undresses, and gets called a creep by a woman who passes by and sees him leering. It's again—a situation where Sam's initial intention isn't any brand of misogyny. He thinks Meg is bad news and is tailing her, but then can't help... looking... and then looking again. But it's so blatantly intentional from Kripke—especially the contrast of Sam peering in at Meg upstairs while Sam sits in a car below—downstairs.

The goal of the writing team in writing in these moments certainly isn't to make me think of Sam as some horrible evil man. It's simply to give him flaws with a fascinating and rich context that make him far more interesting than the Mary Sue some of fandom is obsessed with rewriting him to be. Sam's misogynistic moments don't endeavor to villainize him any more than Dean’s do—they provide fascinating insights into Sam’s relationship with and clashes with Dean, and add to other incidents where Sam takes on a morally superior air—perhaps, in some ways, out of subconscious jealousy. I won't link you to every single thing I've written adjacent to the subject, but for example, this post on how Dean earns money, how Dean pimps himself out for information, and how Sam and Meg both minimize Dean's contributions to the case in "Shadow" while Dean actually gets all of the leads (similar minimizations occur in 1.10 "Asylum"—which is another excellent example of Sam floundering while Dean repeatedly displays his brilliance, only for Sam to ultimately accuse him of having no mind of his own).

[swordalt]

A Rough Translation

Of Quaickty's Statement, Courtesy Of A Spanish Speaker.

I provide the vod, as well so you guy can watch it yourself in case we missed anything.

The opinions in brackets are not all mine, most are the Spanish speaker's, When I have an opinion I will put my name (Ace) before it and leave it in quotes("").

I will provide more of my own opinions at another time, because of my god I have a lot to say but leave these opinions for context.

In general, what happened was that he started saying that he was going to make this announcement in Spanish because it is his mother tongue.

He said that the past few weeks have not been easy and that he is now realizing how much people affected the project and how deep the damage was (both administratively and financially).

He commented again that no information was given to him about what was really happening (Which he must now be having difficulty understanding 100% because whoever did it must have been trying to protect their own ass and other people by not telling the truth. What could be causing a fight)

HE FILED PROCESS!! (Ace: "Filed a Case") Amen. He said that he removed ALL the people who made the project collapse and that he is now suing them all for all the damage caused.

He said he really wants to give updates but due to the case being carried out he cannot. And that most of the problem was due to communication ( lack of it) and due to the filtering of this information being passed in the wrong way.

he doesn't want this to happen anymore. From what he said, the "wrong" people were knew too much and that made the company's correction process difficult.

(I must report that I notice that he gets very indignant every time he talks about the problem of people who have done harm to the company.)

He also explained the fact that he was trying to make money through the process so that things can be normalized correctly, which explains the new products.

He also said that he was handling the financial part of the project, so he wasn't very aware of what was happening in the other parts.

He apologized as he had too many problems to manage alone and couldn't talk much about it.

He said that the process that is happening now will take a long time and that many people will leave the project.

He understands if the public is upset about it. He also commented on the people leaving and said he understands what they are going through. He wishes them the best, but also highlighted that people may not want to participate in this phase of concerts and transitions.

(I personally thought a little “WHAT?” because of everything that was exposed)

He said a little more that all this restructuring will not be done in 3 weeks, and is demanding patience from those who still support the project.

He said he won't make promises he can't keep, He wants to show you step by step clearly.

He is very indignant, but continues to say that all kind help is very welcome.

But people who have bad intentions should just stay away so they don't do even more damage.

(Ace: "Quaickty what does that even mean, you don't know how to background check people????")

he even commented that it's difficult to build something well structured but it's easy to destroy.

(Ace: "it really isn't difficult, if you were completely involved from the start then things would be organized. Then he would know who was being overloaded, perhaps the growth of the server's fame would be slower, but it would have worked in a way that was better for everyone involved, not just Quaickty.)

He says that he received several emails about what the QSMP meant to people around the world and that he is not going to put a definitive end to the QSMP

(Crazy! Why did he say he was going to close the project!?). (Ace: "for context he mentioned earlier he was closing it, but they weren't transcribing at this point")

(Ace: "y'all need to stop sending emails and let the man work, I understand you want to see the server thrive but I'm begging you guys to stop being selfish for once. This is work we're talking about, hours out of your life stressing to make a project for someone, only to get very little recognition and no payment. I need you to understand how stressful a job is, even if it's something you enjoy you can still be overworked. You're only making him feel guilty, obligated to keep the project going, when he should be focusing on how to make sure everyone gets compensated. Stop, watch something else and wait. For the love of god have some kindness to Quaickty, this is stressful enough as it is")

So I think he will kind of shelve it to better structure and see what happened with everything clearly and correctly.

(Ace: "I think what they're saying here is they believe he'll be closing it till further notice to figure out how to do this correctly. Honestly it sounds like the qsmp as we know it right now is over")

My final thoughts, to quote Richarlyson"Falou pra porra e não falou nada"

(“He talked like hell and didn’t say anything”)

[fancy-feast-official]

instead of doing anything normal (like taking ibuprofen for my headache) i just spent the past four hours of my life writing an essay on why manfred von karma is abusive. kind of proud of it ngl.

also i tagged all quotes from the original post i'm talking about to their actual [user].tumblr.com site which has really bright colors fyi. i'll link the tumblr.com/[user] site at the end of the essay if bright colors don't work for you. also if ppl start sending me hate i'm just gonna block them.

In a Tumblr post by Wendy/Jessie Rose Rocket (referred to from here on as Wendy) on their interpretation of Manfred von Karma (MvK) in the Ace Attorney series, they argue that there is little canon evidence that MvK could have ever abused his children.[1] This however, is not the case, as there are various examples which they cite themselves that include traits of emotional abuse, including a hyper-controlling nature, manipulation, and invalidation of the victim’s feelings.

Before I get into the various examples given in the original post which indicate emotional abuse, I will say that I am not going to attack the more personal aspects of this argument, nor do I wish to attack any people who believe that MvK is not an abuser. I only want to look at the facts of his characterization and dissect the argument itself. Ignoring or overwriting the signs of emotional abuse in fictional characters can pose some threat to real people – if they’ll excuse emotional manipulation in fiction, they may be willing to excuse when they themselves are emotionally manipulated. I also think that it is misleading for Wendy to state that they are alright with abuse victims writing MvK as an abuser, before spending several hundred words explaining why they don’t think that MvK is an abuser, and that Ace Attorney fans are wrong in interpreting him that way.

Also, I will mention that both my own essay and the original post are triggered somewhat by the Filter Bubble Effect,[2] where content filtering and selection leads to a person only seeing one opinion or viewpoint. Wendy mentions that, while they see differing viewpoints on MvK on Tumblr, Twitter, and AO3, they do not see interpretations of him as abusive on other sites. I personally disagree with this statement as entirely factual, as before this post was made I had never seen interpretations of MvK as anything other than abusive. There is likely a split between these two interpretations, and I’m not willing to hazard a guess as to percentages in each camp.

With all that said, Wendy also mentions that both Miles Edgeworth (Edgeworth) and Franziska von Karma (Franziska) are “incredibly queer & nd coded.”[3] This is somewhat untrue. Both Edgeworth and Franziska are written as stuffy, calculating, and believing themselves to be entirely logical. While these are considered traits of neurodivergency, it is stated within the canon of the games that these traits have been trained in them by MvK. There’s an argument to be made on nurture versus nature (especially in the case of Edgeworth), but for the purposes of my argument I am going to say that this is more due to their upbringings than anything else.

While Edgeworth is somewhat queer-coded, it is only really present as a joke (Implications that Edgeworth isn’t aware that women find him attractive[4]), or because of his relationship with Phoenix Wright.[5] Franziska is not queer coded, though she is written as somewhat masculine compared to other female characters. This characterization is more a result of her being a female version of MvK and Edgeworth, and less to do with any alleged queerness.

The first piece of evidence which Wendy gives, under the context that it is “the one single piece of evidence that team fanfred brings to the table,”[6] are three lines from  Ace Attorney Investigations, both in the fourth case. The first is a conversation between Franziska and  MvK,

Franziska: Papa! You’ll come and watch my courtroom debut next, won’t you?

Manfred: Hmm… I’ll consider it.[7]

This conversation is rather innocuous, though it shows that MvK can be dismissive of his children at times. The more damning line is the second one which Wendy includes, where MvK says to Edgeworth, “A worthless person like you has no right to claim such a thing as perfection!”[8] This is one of many examples of MvK expecting nothing but perfection from both of his children. An expectation of perfection leads to Franziska and Edgeworth doubting themselves, and feeling worthless.[9] MvK places high importance on perfection, leading to his care for his children being conditional, reliant on their ability to be perfect.[10] Among other things, instilling self-doubt and worthlessness, and making acceptance or care conditional are signs that someone is being emotionally abusive.[11]

MvK is shown in various media to have a constant need for perfection and control of everything around him. in Ace Attorney Investigations, he manipulates aspects of cases so that he is guaranteed to win,[12] something he also does in “Turnabout Goodbyes.” It is completely reasonable that, when his own protégé does not display this inhuman perfection, he would be upset and lash out, as he does in the above example. Wendy notes that the word used in the original exchange, 半人前, does not translate to “worthless,” but instead to “an amateur / someone without experience.”[13] This, of course, is much more accurate to the context of their situation, but stating that the translation must have been made in bad faith is besides the point. There is no reason that MvK should be putting such high expectations for perfection on someone who, in real life, would not even have finished college yet. While it does not hold much weight as evidence for my own argument, it holds very little weight for their argument as well. However, it is important to cover this exchange, as they believe it is the only evidence a so-called “Fanfred” might be able to find indicating an abusive characterization.

Wendy continues on by listing the many ways in the anime that MvK is shown to be a good father. While they can be seen as evidence that he is not abusive, abusers can be nice to their victims, for a myriad of reasons. This can be done for any number of reasons, including: Bolstering the abusers image to the victim or outsiders, or to convince themselves they are a good person; As a manipulation tactic; And because the abuser is in the recovery phase of the abuse cycle.[14] I am going to focus on the former of these two reasons, as they are more likely in the von Karma situation. 

The most striking of the initial examples from the anime is Edgeworth’s statement that “he considers [MvK] the only person who was there for him after his father died.”[15] While this can seem like a positive thing, it is important to note that MvK very clearly isolated Edgeworth from his friends by moving him out of his house, away from his friends (who are not provided with any information as to why he’s gone). Social isolation is a tactic of abuse, used to tether a victim to their abuser so that they are more reliant on them.[16] The next examples of MvK complying with Franziska’s demands in an effort to make Edgeworth smile after he first moves in with them could be an example of him wanting to cheer Edgeworth up after the death of his father (who, I will remind you, was killed by MvK). However, this could have underlying motives, where MvK wants Edgeworth to open up to him, so that he might have more control over him. By killing Gregory Edgeworth, and raising his son to be as ruthless as himself, MvK takes care of the “curse” that he believes the Edgeworths to be.[17]

In the anime, MvK reacts rather calmly to Edgeworth’s first ever defeat during “Turnabout Samurai.” Wendy states that he seems “perplexed,” but is not in any way “cruel and unusual” what he says during that conversation.[18] Taken out of the context of MvK’s behavior, this is plausible. However, over the 15 years that he raised Edgeworth, he emphasized perfection over all else. Edgeworth’s reaction to losing is so negative because of MvK’s influences on his ideas of self-worth. In the conversation, MvK also advises Edgeworth to not have feelings, invalidating any feelings that Edgeworth might have about the cases he works on, feelings which can be necessary in determining the truth.

I agree with Wendy that MvK is, as they put it “a despicable fucking human being.”[19] In “Turnabout Goodbyes” alone, he:

Commits aggravated assault, including assault against a minor

Steals and tampers with evidence

Engages in conspiracy to commit murder, and is shown to have committed murder himself

Frames two people for murders that he was involved in

Due to his propensity for physical violence, it is no stretch to assume that he is physically violent with his own family members.[20] Even if he is not physically abusive, it has been shown time and time again that he emotionally abuses his children, and even despite that they look up to him. It is not uncommon for an abuse victim to love or care for their abuser. This can lead to blaming oneself for the abuse, and normalizing the abuse that is happening.[21] The reactions that Wendy wants to see in fics are plausible reactions for abusive victims to have when their abuser dies. It is possible for someone to understand they are being abused and yet still love the person doing the abusing.

Now, the lead poisoning business. Yes, it is possible for someone to get lead posioning from a bullet wound.[22] This is a plausible excuse for MvK’s behavior in later years, however, his tendency towards manipulation and hyper-control are present in “The Inherited Turnabout,” before he’s shot.[23] While lead poisoning does cause irritability, it also causes memory difficulties,[24] something that would hinder MvK’s ability to write his detailed plan for payback which he sends to Yanni Yogi.[25] This removes any plausible deniability for MvK in the murder of Robert Hammond – he very clearly knew what he was doing, and knew the consequences, which is why he tried to frame Edgeworth and Yogi. In a real court of law, he would be competent to stand trial for his crimes.

In conclusion, while he is not explicitly shown to physically abuse his children, Manfred von Karma canonically emotionally abuses his children, forcing them to adhere to his strict sense of perfection and morality. When both Franziska and Edgeworth fail to live up to his impossible standards, they doubt their own abilities and self-worth. Excusing this behavior in any person could lead to people not realizing that they’re being abused, and therefore having more difficulty getting out of abusive situations. It’s alright to like MvK as a character, but deliberately overlooking his abusive tendencies is to overlook a major part of his character, and his relationship with Edgeworth and Franziska.

"I'm Going to Change Your Mind About Manfred Von Karma"

[writing-in-verse]

So I Finally Read Sword Catcher by Cassandra Clare

There will be some level of spoilers so do be aware all who enter here.

I was apprehensive at first when i heard Cassie was writing a book in an entirely new setting, a new adult book no less, after writing YA for as long as I can remember. I've seen authors attempt to pivot to a different age bracket before and it is a challenge if you're not fully prepared for it.

Sword Catcher is entering the space where Game of Thrones and Gentleman Bastards have long ago carved out their right to be there and became titans of their own. It was surprising then to see both authors of the above had read Sword Catcher and had given a review for the back of the book - George R.R. Martin's quote and name was displayed proudly on the front of my edition for added flair.

It was a bold statement of intent, to sit among giants and share the space meant Cassie was putting her best foot forward. I don't want to suggest Lynch or Martin 'allowed' or 'gave permission' for Cassie to be in this space but they did vouch for her, showing a creative respect which carries weight and expectation.

I'm so happy to say Cassie pulled it off.

I'll admit I was cautiously optimistic about Sword Catcher, about Kel and Connor and Lin, a slightly worry that perhaps Cassie's years as a YA author could hold back the potential of this new work. If in being really honest, Shadowhunters is very important to me and I think part of me was unsure about leaving it behind.

Cassie's ability to build a world here is striking in it's ability to never overwhelm the reader with context and exposition without losing any of the depth and complexity you'd expect from a novel concerning kings and kingdoms. You come to learn of Castellane's long and muddled history over time, never giving away more than is needed to make the world feel complete but without throwing nonsense terms around which would simply not be remembered.

The class divides that permeate the work, held up by proto-capitalist greed and the politics of nations happening atop a towering hillside is fed in lockstep with the rest of the plot, holding enough information in front of the reader without giving the whole mystery away. Woven throughout is the Ashkari people, very clearly a Jewish analogue, a nation with no homeland other than the one their communities reside in. Locked inside the Sault after nightfall and looked upon with distrust, othered because of their ability to use even limited magic. I'm certainly not selling the tact and nuance Cassie brings to the world and the people who live in it but it's beautifully presented and should be applauded.

I don't have much to say about the characters, mostly because I can see their journey has just begun and I'm excited to see them all grow and change as the narrative unfolds. What I will say is Lin can do no wrong, Kel is just a fella, and Connor is one of the best written protagonists for how deeply flawed and naive he is and yet I simply cannot wish him ill.

I summary, Sword Catcher is an almost flawless first entry into a series I could see becoming a favourite of mine and I cannot see where it goes next. What a dazzling and captivating read.

[daz4i]

I'm having some thoughts regarding posts I've seen on my dash both recently and like, years ago, bc this is far from a new phenomenon. this isn't @ anyone specific nor am i going to give specific details bc it really is an expansive thing so like. to whoever needs to hear this ig

stop engaging with things in the worst faith reading possible. start giving people the benefit of the doubt i am begging you

9/10 of times, the person you see who might be slightly insensitive, or enjoys content you find harmful, or is using the wrong term for smth, is doing it out of ignorance on the matter

and most of the times it isn't smth they can just google to figure out. bc sometimes you really gotta do mental gymnastics or ignore every redeeming quality of a thing to find the harmful part. and usually unless a person is directly involved in activist circles or knows abt the history of a particular community etc they will never make that connection and I'm sorry to tell you, but that's most people you will encounter, both irl and online

9 times out of 10 there is no malice involved. attacking strangers because you think they are attacking you by doing a very normal thing (like quote a meme or enjoy a movie) isn't the way to gain anything, and you're more likely to cause antagonism in that person

it's good to inform others, but doing it by accusing them of harmful behavior isn't the way

also on a less deep note, you're just gonna become an incredibly unpleasant person to be around if you keep doing that shit. if you keep looking for the bad in everything you see others enjoy, you will keep seeing it. you will become extremely bitter. you gotta give people the benefit of the doubt for your own sanity fr

and before I'm taken out of context: no that doesn't apply to actual bigots (my whole point here is that most ppl just aren't informed and aren't actively hateful). no this isn't me telling you to be nice to your own oppressors so they hate you less. no this isn't me saying you have to let slide media that is genuinely harmful (I'm talking more about the people who consume it who are average and don't hold some secret ill intentions). yes I'm aware a lot of times people ARE bigots and just try to hide it which is why dogwhistles exist, which is exactly why i think it's important to remain informed and inform others so we stop engaging with these people or their content (i just think that doing it in combative ways is bad for everyone involved). ok i think that covered all my bases

tldr just. remember that people are people. and people can make mistakes. and you gotta let them grow from it. and sometimes, you are the one who makes the mistake, by assuming the worst of someone you don't even know

[babybluebex]

Girl not the baby bump at the oscarsss fhgdjfjfj. Same <3

ok so in total transparency, i'm not totally sure how to answer this ask and proceed with talking (and fantasizing??) about things like reproduction and healthcare in light of recent news.

to the anon who sent this, please understand that you did nothing wrong in sending this to me, i instigated this with my original post that i made before i had learned about the recent alabama supreme court ruling. but since having learned about it, though, i have a LOT of complicated feelings that i need to get off my chest.

from here on, i will be discussing triggering topics all directly related to the recent alabama supreme court ruling. if you do not want to read about that, be my guest and skip this post. the tl;dr of it is basically, i won't be posting anything more about having children for the foreseeable future.

so. if you don't know. if you're new to my blog or just never really knew. hi. i'm based in alabama. i've lived here for many years, but have never really been especially proud to say that i'm "from" here (bc i'm not "from" alabama, i'm "from" missouri, but that's a different can of worms). also, if you were unaware, last week (but it was only widely reported upon on monday, and I recieved the news on wednesday) the supreme court of alabama made a horrific ruling that frozen embryos are now considered children under the state's wrongful death act. if something were to happen to these frozen embryos (for example, the freezer they are being kept in gets turned off and the embryos thaw, thus making them unusable in IVF treatments), the people responsible for that could (and likely WILL) be criminally charged for wrongful death of a minor.

i will not mince words, because i cannot afford to mince words. this is ridiculous. this is plain stupid. and this is dangerous. in what world would a frozen embryo be considered a child? if this is news to you, your next question might be "why would they do this?" well, your answer lies in the direct words from the judge who passed the ruling: (screenshot taken from a new york times article, if you dm me i will GLADLY provide you with links to news articles discussing this more in depth)

it is a RELIGIOUS reason. it is a CHRISTIAN reason. i am still a student, yes, and my main degree is not exactly keyed into these political issues, but my MINOR??? poli sci babes. and even though i have not been awarded my bachelor's degree yet, i have taken TOO many political sciences classes to not be aware of a little thing called separation of church and state. when you study government systems (particularly american government) in ANY capacity, separation of church and state is one of the FOUNDATIONAL things that you are taught. i am at the end of my degree program, i have met all the requirements to receive my minor, and by now, this concept is so ingrained in our minds as students that my professors do not even mention it anymore. you learn this in INTRO LEVEL government classes. i first learned this is HIGH SCHOOL. so why are we letting our government officials disregard this and rule in whatever fucking way they want to and cite whatever the fuck they want to??

but anyway. this post is not meant to be a history lesson or a politics class. just giving you the current background for context, so i can explain my complicated thoughts that were brought up because of this ask.

i am nonbinary, but i do present feminine in my everyday life. even though i do not ascribe to many of the "traditional" thoughts of femininity, i have, for a long time, wanted to be a parent. for a long time, i have wanted to get married and have a family, and i strive for that future.

but now. the specific ruling does not directly effect me, but it's more the thought of what comes next that scares me. there is already a total ban on abortions in my state, and the same judge who said the above quote has said that he wishes to make it a criminal offense to any persons who help a pregnant person seek an abortion. so, let's say for example, if my boyfriend were to drive me across state lines to receive an abortion, he could be charged with a criminal offense. that's so unfathomably absurd to me.

but, because of this, i am quickly becoming turned off from the entire idea of reproducing at all. pregnancy scares me, because, in the likely event that my own health does not allow for a safe pregnancy (long story short, because of a few health issues, my doctor has told me that it will be difficult, if not highly unlikely, for me to conceive a child naturally), i cannot receive the necessary healthcare required, and any family or partner who helps me do so is then liable. i personally feel (operative word is personally, just because i feel this way does not mean that you have to as well) scared of that happening, of even opening myself up to that possibility. even fantasizing about becoming pregnant fills me with fear and anxiety, because, as much as i want to be able to detach myself from it and be like "oh having this person's baby <3" and write fiction about it, my anxiety will not let me detach from reality.

so. for the time being, until i can process these feelings and the fear better, i think i'm gonna refrain from writing/posting about having children/pregnancy/things of that nature. it's no longer a sweet little fantasy for me; this ruling sets a precedent, a dangerous precedent, and if this is the fear that i feel from something that does not directly effect me at the present moment, i could not tell you how i would feel when (not if, when) the state i reside in puts in even harsher and more damaging laws.

so yeah. idk. that's just sorta where my head is at rn.

[vanguarddawn]

So I'm in a Facebook group for artists against AI. While I support the message of the group and am strongly against the use of generative AI in any professional context, I want to make it clear before I get into any further detail in this post that 95% of the active group members are so deeply lacking in what I would consider "common decency" that I'm genuinely surprised they've managed to get this far in life without at least one person giving them a hard reality check. That said I do not think they would actually take it to heart even if it were to happen.

The main reason I stay in this group is not to keep with the movement or receive the latest "guaranteed method of telling if an image is AI! (hint: it's the same one that got debunked 2 days ago)" tips. I stay solely to see what they're getting up to next.

Last week it was comparing use of generative AI to real-world sexual violence against women. Before that it was wishing that every single artist that has ever shared even one AI-generated image over their entire career, aware of the fact or not, would lose their entire business and be forced into poverty for the rest of their lives. Before that, it was the whole Three Mile Island thing, complete with widespread nuclear fearmongering and active misinformation campaigns within the group. There's more, like actively encouraging other members to tag their art incorrectly to avoid scraping (including the wrong trigger warnings!), constant witch hunts against small studios who might or might not have used AI once, and their desire to attack AI-supportive celebrities being so strong that they have resorted to hurling racist attacks at public figures for being sponsored by these companies.

Every day I think I've seen the worst of it. I see some new take from them that makes me think "yep, this is definitely the worst it gets! There's no way these people could be so callous as to one-up themselves once again!"

And then they always manage to one-up themselves once again.

So what was it today? Why am I making this post at 2:30 in the morning to talk about some random Facebook group, when by all means I should be attempting to correct my sleep schedule?

This time, they're labeling themselves as, and I quote, "conditional allies with a devastating hurricane", in reference to Hurricane Helene halting ultrapure quartz mining operations in Spruce Pine, NC, the town that produces about 70% of the world's quartz used in semiconductors.

The group is labeling the temporary closure of the mine as a good thing, since now it will cost more to build servers that can potentially host generative AI programs. I hope I don't need to explain why this is an incredibly fucked up thing to say. At least 200 are dead, and the current damage estimate sits at about ~$30,000,000,000 USD at the time of writing. But all that matters to them is that this might screw over AI just a little bit. Maybe.

[thedaveandkimmershow]

I don't know why the thought came to me—okay I sort of do. I just don't know why this time it went one step further than it usually does.

For context, it's a sunny summer day and Kimmer 'n I are driving on Denny toward Capitol Hill. I don't remember what we were talking about but it occurred to me just then as it sometimes does how we'd be hanging out with Scott on days like this.

Scott?

Yeah, Scott.

Maybe he wouldn't be hanging out with us this very day... but we'd share some of this summer even if he was still living in Omaha, Nebraska. Of course we'd talk shop because his ideas were always ahead of the technology of the day and, this year especially, the technology's gotten good. Like seriously.

Would he be satisfied with it?

Would he still somehow find a way to reach beyond it?

How would his creative powers have grown by now?

And so on.

These are pretty normal thoughts, by the way. Scott passed away over a decade ago, 2010, succumbing to ALS faster than we thought possible. The fact that he even had ALS took us by surprise.

And then he was gone.

It was perhaps our first time understanding together that we don't have the kind of time we think we have. After all, we only kind of kept touch with Scott after he set off for L.A. and then established his production company, Market Media, in his home town of Omaha. During that period, our lives gained serious momentum in the directions we all were individually traveling. Career. Family. That sort of thing. And as our lives raced forward, something like fifteen years passed by.

Oh sure we talked by phone a few times. A coupla emails here 'n there. I met up with him once in Omaha while I was with a PBS production moving through town.

But we never shared our lives again. Not like when we were younger, pursuing our careers, figuring out our personal lives in real time... together. Our lives never overlapped again the way friends do. Comparing notes. Sharing victories and losses. Friendsourcing challenges. Laughing. Feeling that fire. Continuing to blaze the path we've been blazing all this time.

Together.

Why?

Why did we allow all that to slip away?

Because we assumed there was time.

No kidding. We thought there was tons.

And so the other day we're on Denny on the way to Capitol Hill on a sunny summer day... and it occurs to me how we'd be hanging out with Scott on a day like this.

Well, maybe not today... but definitely sometime during this summer. Which gets me to thinking about the career we both pursued once upon a time, this career I'm living right now, this very minute. And yeah. These are normal thoughts whenever I get to thinking about Scott.

What's not normal, though, is this:

The absence of Scott from our lives is most likely my greatest regret.

It is.

He should be here with us, is my point. He should be here with us enjoying the life we were all pursuing, this course on which we set out a long time ago. We should all still be the same kind of passionate about our careers together. Enjoying the fruit of our efforts across this long and winding road.

Don't get me wrong. There are people close to us whose loss is staggering. Especially across the last coupla years.

Scott's different, though.

We lost him at the beginning. At the very start. And because of that, his absence represents a life we never contemplated. And thinking about What If?... represents a life we could've had. The one we naturally expected. The one we assumed would come to pass.

The one with our dear friend Scott in it.

I won't lie. It does feel like we got robbed. But good.

So yeah. That happened. These thoughts about regret.

As I was writing this, I couldn't remember exactly when it was Scott died so I tried looking it up online. Instead, I ran smack into the link for Scott's Facebook page featuring a highlighted pair of quotes of which I either was never aware... or had long since forgotten.

"Keep faith, Give hope."

—Scott von Freiberg

"If one advances confidently in the direction of their dreams, and endeavors to live the life which they have imagined, they will meet with success unexpected in common hours."

—Henry David Thoreau

The Thoreau quote was definitely Scott when we first met him. His vision ran well beyond what we and others considered possible. And he was all-in on that vision for his life. "Living the Dream", for example, was one of Scott's first mind-blowing film projects. It was to have, if I remember correctly, four or five individual segments of which one was to feature The Blue Angels. Unfortunately, "Living the Dream" as a film project never came to pass... but I'm convinced that title would absolutely have reflected Scott's life had it not been cut short.

He was just one of those people, you know?

In the end, it's left to us, living this life we began chasing way back when we were young. And it is my deepest regret that Scott's not with us to enjoy this life that, once upon a time...

Was only a dream.

[julia-bunncat]

Some thoughts about Korekiyo's Love Suite Event 💟

I have wanted to speak on this subject for a very long time... But recently I read @hyperfixationtimego post (here) and only strengthened in my positions!! I hope you don't mind that I will rely a lot on your thoughts ^^" Because I agree with them and I just want to add a few words (and maybe correct some little misconceptions)!

Sooo... For starters, I completely agree that Kiyo's ideal is NOT his sister. Love hotel reveals the most intimate in the character's in some way... Deep down, Kiyo realizes that he has never loved her the way he says he did (and I guess that why I like this event - finally Kiyo doesn't mention her at all !!).

And it's absolutely true, that he wants attention. Control. I think, he was force to deny that desires, because, in fact, he lived the life of his sister. He did not have the opportunity to feel significant and loved, since, in general, there was no "I", only "She".

The only thing I doubt - is that a weak, sick girl, who confined to her bed, could tie someone up so easily :'D After all, Korekiyo told Shuichi that he had learned the practice of shibari during his antropological travel. He loved that not because his sister could use it against him, but because, in the process, he saw her spirit and "merged" with her.

«At one point, while crossing an entire country, Korekiyo was attacked by local natives who "welcomed" him by tying him up and torturing him with a whip to near death. He then hallucinated an image of his deceased sister...»

Here ⬆ quote from wiki, just in case :)

And now... I would like to proceed to the main topic of my personal thoughts! To be honest, I never understood why so many fans perceive this event as traumatic... 😅 Kiyo is creepy. This is the basis of his character. But sometimes fans make him almost satanic rapist, I'm sorry :""

Although, other than preventing Shuichi from escaping, he didn't do ANYTHING violent!!

Kiyo was aware from the very beginning that if Shuichi wanted to run away, then the fault would be on him.

Further, when Shuichi had already made an attempt to escape, he didn't rudely push him onto the bed or something else (only tightly grabbed his hand) - he didn't let him fall.

I wouldn't even be afraid to say that Saihara accidentally ended up on the bed xD

And this may seem like a weak "excuse"… But even despite the awareness of danger and paniс... Shuichi no longer resisted. I've always been interested in this lines:

On the one hand, perhaps Shuichi just started waking up (because there is a version that Love Hotel is actually a dream)... But in other way, I really want to believe that he decided to trust Korekiyo. Maybe he really believed that Shinguji would teach him, explain everything, because, in fact, he always did that in Free Time event, for example.

And in the end, it seems to me that if Shuichi tried to escape again - he would succeed. I have nothing to reinforce this opinion, but from a physical point of view, he had every chance (however, I reeeally love Shuichi and didn't mean to judge him for that, don't get me wrong!!)

The only thing that can cause certain outrage, and that shows Kiyo insensitive - is his slightly mocking attitude about everythin. I mean lines like:

«Kehehe, where are you going? You're in my control. Just surrender...»

«What sort of beauty will you show me as I toy with you..?»

When I read them in context personally, I get the impression that he is laughing at Shuichi. Teases with some almost cliched phrases. As if his "That was a joke" is about to sound... And actually, such frivolity only plays into the hands.

Finally, the answer to the question: "Why does Korekiyo stopping Shuichi from running?" seems very simple to me. I can even give several reasons at once. First, having received such coveted attention, he wants to get to know Shuichi better. To respond to his interest with his "curiosity". In other words, to exchange feelings, but we know that his sister completely distorted his concept of true love. That is why he's forced to operate only with those values that he received while studying anthropology. He doesn't know what else is possible. What will be healthier and more correct.

«Now give yourself to me... Your fear, worry, anger, and love...»

«I will reveal all of your beauty.»

And from this point of view, bondage/shibari for Korekiyo is not sex. It's a form of human "acquaintance". Understanding him. A way to "bare his soul," if you will.

Secondly, Kiyo didn't let Shuichi go because he is exactly the first person to admit him. Yeah, we've returned to the very beginning of the post xD That's even banal! Shinguji finally found his "only one" / "ideal" and now afraid of losing him. After all, he had already lost the person who controlled his whole life. To experience this a second time (especially when there is a hint of real feelings) will be painful. To put it mildly.

So it’s possible that by saying:

«Well, whether it is true or false is irrelevant to me»

...he’s being cunning.

«But as I said before, there will never be a time where I love you»

No, Korekiyo, my dear. It's already happened. If it wasn't, you wouldn’t have come back to the subject of interest over and over again~

Phphph However, that's all I wanted to talk about! Love Korekiyo and his love hotel :>

And sorry for my passion and maybe clumsy English 😅 It's not my native language, but I'm trying hard!