#i'm like throwing out buzzwords

[showmethesneer]

It's so funny how most of the time when someone asks me my favourite movie and i tell them it's Atonement, they have never even heard of it. And by funny i mean it makes me want to scream for hours but I'm so used to it now that i just kinda accept it.

[clea-dessendre]

okay I think I'm gonna start avoiding the veilguard videos since bioware seems to be insistent on spoiling everything in the damn game

[engagemythrusters]

????? i literally never said that you’re infantilizing yourself . it’s just weird to see posts about autistic coded characters being UNABLE to be people in power all because they aren’t social like jesus christ

Ah, but you see, this is not at all what you said in your last ask. What you said was, and I quote, "stop fucking infantilising din djarin bc he's autistic coded! [...] it's weird how you're putting it out there that people with autism 'no like people uwu'" Which. Absolutely implies that you think people not liking being around people qualifies as being infantilised. But! Maybe that was unintentional. I'll grant you that.

So, instead, we will talk about infantilisation, and how my post was not even CLOSE to infantilisation.

To start with, we need to define infantilisation. I'll give a couple decent definitions from multiple sources, just so we can get a good picture.

1: "to treat as if infantile" (Merriam-Webster), with the definition of "infantile" being: " of or relating to infants or infancy" and "suitable to or characteristic of an infant" 2: "the prolonged treatment of one who is not a child, as though they are a child" (Wikipedia--not a great source to pull directly from, but reputable enough to get my point across) 3: "the action of prolonging or perpetuating a state of infancy" (Oxford Dictionary)

So, from this we can extrapolate that "infantalisation" means "treating a non-child like a child." Great! We know the word. But this means nothing if we don't know how would someone treat another person like a child. How do we treat a child? How would that treatment be demeaning?

There are multiple ways people reduce a child's personhood. There's the matter of cuteness, where people only see how sweet and adorable the children can be, and treat them as if a doll or a pet. Then there's how dependent children are, which can be easily manipulated by elders. And, similarly, children are often considered non-autonomous.

Okay. So now we've discussed what infantilisation is and how children are treated. Let's put it together. What are some examples of infantilisation?

Here's one: today I saw a video of a fairly attractive East Asian woman in a frog costume. She was embarrassed to be seen without the costume's hat. The many, many comments only addressed one thing: how adorable she is. How cute and sweet it is. How does this relate to infantilisation? This would be that first one--only seeing how doll-like children (and this lady) can be. There was no discussion about how "relatable" it is to be embarrassed about something, no discussion about why she was in a frog costume, not even a comment about why someone was videoing this in the first place (after all, she did not consent to this, and it was embarrassing to her!). There was not one single comment relating to her being a person. It was all gushing over her adorableness. Not attractiveness. Adorableness. Akin to the way someone would fawn over a cat. (This is a huge issue with how Westerners treat East Asians, by the way.)

Now, that subject isn't particularly relevant. So let's try another one, this time relating to Din Djarin.

In a hypothetical scenario, say someone said, "Din Djarin can't rule because it requires him to make all the decisions and he can't do that." This would, in most scenarios, be infantilising. This takes away his independence, making him rely on others. This makes him non-autonomous, unable to govern himself. BUT. This could also be interpreted another way. Certain autistic people--myself included--cannot always make decisions for themselves. I find it absolutley impossible to make some decisions sometimes. Deciding exactly where I want to sit to eat dinner can put me off of eating dinner at all if I can't figure out what I want. Not able to decide which type of food I need to buy makes me not buy any food at all. If I do not get outside help, I will severly impact my life.

So, there's two sides to that one. Maybe Din Djarin couldn't make decisions for himself (he can, but again, hypothetical). That would be just fine. Now, would it be great in a leadership position? No, not really. I wouldn't be able to be in a leadership position because of this. I need directions, very specific ones.

When does it become infantilisation, then? If lack of independence means just that someone needs help sometimes (or a lot of the time! or even all of the time!!), where's the line between "help" and "infantilisation?" The answer is: intent and generalisation.

In the case of intent, infantalisation (in this hypothetical scenario) is that "he should not be allowed to rule as Mand'alor because he is too stupid to make decisions for himself." This implies negotive connotations to the inability to make decisions always. Lack of intelligence is not inherently bad. Lack of decision-making skills is not inherently bad. Not being able to lead is not inherently bad. BUT when the implication is that all of these things ARE bad, that's when it becomes infantilisation. He can't do anything; thus, we consider him childish (and we consider children useless). The intent is to harm and demean. (Non-infantilisation--aka viewing him as the adult and person he is--would be saying "he shouldn't be Manda'lor because he needs help in a way that would be counterintuitive to himself" because it would be, in this hypothetical, detrimental to expect him to constantly decide. This is acknowleging his limits and respecting his boundaries. That's never, ever a bad thing.)

In the case of generalisation, infantilisation would be, "autistic people should never rule." This is based off stereotype. And, while stereotype does indeed come from the fact that some people DO fit that stereotype, we can all acknowledge and accept that treating every single person in one category as if they fit that is WRONG. So, to generalise that all autistic people cannot rule, even though some truly couldn't (people with high support needs do exist!! we low support need autistics can't ignore them in our conversations. they can't always add themselves to the conversations like we can), would be stripping every single autistic of their identity. Making everyone of any minority out to be the same is removing identity. Meaning, stripping them of their autonomy and personhood.

That's infantilisation.

Here is why my post is absolutely not infantilisation.

My post states that Din Djarin should not rule over all of Mandalore because he "literally wants nothing to do with people a good two-thirds of the time. Man likes his son and that’s about it." Does this "cutesify" him beyond acknowledging his personhood? Nope! Does this strip him of dependence, either in intent or generalisation? Nope! Does this remove his autonomy, again in either intent or generalisation? Nope!

I also said that "this guy fuckin loves his job and he’d get way fuckin agitated if he couldn’t shoot someone down every few days" which... definitely implies a lot of competency. That is completely the antithesis of infantilisation. So, cutesifying, stripping independence, removing autonomy? Definitely nope.

What I have said can be summed up, in a rather basic and nuance-less definition, is that Din Djarin is too much of a "lone-wolf" trope sort of guy to be governing people all the time. Aka. He would be tired of people. Aka. Need for independence. Aka. Autonomous. And like... where's cutsey in that?

And even the comment on "He’d end every day crying himself to sleep. Either that or staring at the ceiling so hard it collapses on him and he never has to get up again." Again. No cutsey. No dependency. No non-autonomy. The closest I can get to thinking how this would relate to infantilisation is that I said "cry" which is something children do indeed do. But so do adults. Everyone can cry. There's no age limit to crying. ESPECIALLY if you're mentally exhausted all of the time.

Maybe you think the tag "man is so full of autism" is generalisation? That one I guess I can see if you misinterpret it. And maybe you did! Messages can get mixed--I again grant you this. It was not intended to be a generalisation. It was, in fact, based on ME. MY autism. and how it can QUITE OFTEN look like how DIN DJARIN acts. I don't like being around people for very long. He doesn't seem to either. I can make a veeery detailed post on this (which would also literally elaborate further on what the original post said) but that is neither here nor there. You misunderstood. That's okay. Move on.

BUT. Now that we've cleared up there is NO INFANTILISATION IN MY POST, let's clarify what YOU think I said.

You think I said that "autistic people are unable to be in power." This is not what I said. We've just covered the entire post, so I think you can see where I did not, in any case, say this. I said Din Djarin would not want to be in power, because it would be awful for him. There's NOTHING about ability in there. I did not say he couldn't. Nowhere! Not once! He's a very capable man--which I did indeed connote later!

So. NOT ONCE DID I EVER INFANTILISE DIN DJARIN'S AUTISTIC-CODED, BESKAR'GAM-CLAD SELF.

What you have done is taken a well-founded opinion I have (which I am still fully willing to back up with canon proof) and twisted it up because You. Didn't. Agree.

You don't HAVE to agree with me. You can think he'd be well-off in that position. Good for you. We all deserve opinions.

But you do NOT get to throw "infantilisation" around at A DISABLED PERSON like a fucking buzzword just because YOU DID NOT AGREE.

Sit on this. Reflect. And next time you find something you don't agree with. Remember your literature classes, rather than making a baseless "call out" on anon on the fucking internet.

[wickedhawtwexler]

my gaydar is so-so but my adhd-dar has not been wrong yet

[veal-exe]

EDIT

This has gotten a lot of traction so I’m gonna be rude and say that if anyone here has the means, that my spouse and I need help to not be homeless and hungry.

my paypal is Lahoreling@Gmail.com

END EDIT

———

I was discussing the incident mentioned later in this piece with my wife yesterday and I saw another post by someone earlier doing something mentioned in here and I'm finally going to say something about it.

There is a serious problem in leftist spaces, especially online, especially on Tumblr, when it comes to language.

The way people are expected to speak just to even enter these spaces is incredibly complex, to the point of being outright hostile to those who haven’t already spent time in them. And it’s not just newcomers; people who have important things to say, people speaking from lived experiences, people who don’t have English as a first language but still deserve to be heard, are constantly talked down to or even pushed out entirely for not using the "right" words.

This gets even worse when you factor in how often new terms are coined in English, and then people are shamed for not immediately knowing or using them.

I saw someone reblog their own post saying something like, "I know for a fact more than half of y’all didn’t understand a fucking word I said here."

And honestly? That stuck with me, because yeah, I’ve felt that before. Not because I don’t value critical thinking! because I absolutely do! I just made a post on that too! but because so many of these posts are written in a way that makes them Functionally Inaccessible to anyone who doesn’t already have the right background knowledge. And at a certain point, if you actually want your words to have an impact, if you actually want to create meaningful change, then you’re going to have to accept some things:

People will not always use perfect language.

2. People will not always know the exact terminology you personally prefer they use when engaging in discourse.

3. Dismissing or attacking people for how they say something, instead of engaging with what they’re saying, is actively harmful.

And more than that, if you genuinely want people to understand and engage with the things you’re talking about, especially people who don’t speak English as a first language, especially people without access to higher education, especially people who don’t even know where to begin when it comes to self-education (because yes, that is a skill that has to be taught) then you are going to have to be the one to adjust sometimes. You are going to have to let people say things imperfectly. You are going to have to take a step back and engage with the message rather than just the words being used to express it.

One of the experiences that made me realize that I, as a non-native English speaker, was not welcome in Tumblr leftist spaces was when I spoke about real-life oppression I had experienced. I left one word out of my post, a word which honestly, was not even important when talking about an incident that had Happened To Me, not theory, not hypotheticals or any what-ifs of oppression, a story, a story about something that happened to me.

And because of that, people sat in a Discord server, picking apart my words, accusing me of awful things, and then came into my askbox throwing jargon and buzzwords I’d never even heard before, then got mad at me for being frustrated that this was happening.

Think about that. People who are directly impacted by oppression are being pushed out of spaces meant to discuss it because the way they speak doesn’t conform to certain expectations. That is not justice. That is not solidarity. That is not progress.

There is a fundamental disconnect here between theory and praxis. Ironically so many of you do not know what praxis is, because most of you engage with a lot of theory, and not a lot of praxis, you use the word praxis a lot, but, ironically, you have no idea what it means.

{to put my money where my mouth is, it means Doing Something, in the simplest possible terms}

In theory, leftist spaces should be accessible. They should be places where people can speak openly about their experiences, learn from each other, and work toward meaningful change. But in practice? There’s a gatekeeping of language so intense that many people, particularly those who are marginalized in ways beyond just their political beliefs, are outright excluded.

And this is something I need people to sit with: The assumption that the "right" language is easy to learn, or that anyone who doesn’t use it is being willfully ignorant, is an inherently privileged stance. Knowing where to find information, how to process it, and how to integrate new terminology into your vocabulary is a skill that is largely tied to education. Having the time to engage with leftist literature and theory, to stay up-to-date on every new term that gets introduced, is also a privilege. And the fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge this, that they expect perfect articulation from everyone, regardless of background, and punish those who don’t measure up, is a huge problem.

Worse still, the same people who act as gatekeepers of this language often fail to communicate their ideas in a way that is accessible at all.

This doesn’t mean that complex ideas should never be discussed. It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t strive for accuracy in their language. But it does mean that if your goal is to educate, if your goal is to spread awareness, if your goal is to help people understand and join the movement, if your goal is to engage with fellow oppressed people, then you have a responsibility to meet people where they are. You have a responsibility to make your language understandable.

Because if people can’t even process what you’re saying, then what’s the fucking point?

And before anyone says, "Well, people should put in the effort to learn!" Let me make something very clear: They do.

People who are new to leftist spaces, or who are coming in from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, are often trying their best to engage. They are listening, they are learning, they are processing. But if the response to every mistake, every slightly off phrasing, every unfamiliarity with a new term, is immediate hostility,

or even if it's just 'hey I see you're sharing a personal moment, but can you change your language to make me, personally, more comfortable with you discussing your oppression?' then you’re not teaching.

You’re just making sure only the people who already think and speak exactly like you get to stay in the room.

Your language, your terminology, your theory? none of it means anything if you can’t make it accessible to the people who actually need it. And it means nothing if you use it to Exclude rather than Include.

[arabellasfvv]

I fear i'm weak for cheating <- thats your Cw (MDNI)

"Shhhh," he shushed firmly, making it sound more like a hiss than anything. The hand wrapped around your neck creeping up to slip two of his calloused fingers past your lips. Feeling around the wet cavern until he got a stable enough grip on your chin to push down on your tongue. You gagged at motion, and he just hissed at you again, telling you to "Keep quiet now." As his other hand went to pick up his ringing phone.

"Hello, hun." There was no love in his voice, you could tell— "hun" barely a pet name, more of a habit these days. If there had been, you would have to feel guilty. But you don't. Not with the way his cock was drilling into your hole. Leaving you almost made it impossible to feel anything but pure pleasure.

He didn't smile when he spoke to her, humming his "yes's" and "right's" wishing he didn't even have to. Talking something about his deployment.. the one he had left three days ago and spent at your place, fucking you over every surface in positions you wouldnt even begin to describe? Poor lady.

He did smile when he looked down at you. Blissed out, drool slipping past your swollen lips, coating his hand in it— probably still tasted like the whiskey you'd shared earlier.

You didn't hear the "what was what?" That made john respond with "Can't expect it to be quiet 'round 'ere, honey." When a whimper did slip past. If your mind had been present you might've realised how stupid that excuse was.

But your focus turned to the fact his hips were slowing down. You were so close, so ready to just fall apart again, and he was too familiar with your body— the nights with him have grown more recent, longer and far more intense. The dirty talked had upped and you wondered if it was because his wife had stopped putting out, or because of you— probably more familiar than with his partners. Knowing when it was time to keep you on edge. When to go from fast thrusts hitting angled just right, to slow ones pulling himself all the way out and pushing himself in all the way again, letting heavy balls slap against your skin.

Your legs kicked out in protest, hands curling into fists as if you were about to throw a punch. The best you could do since trying to verbally respond would only cause you and him to be in big trouble with the 'missus'.

John stayed unfazed, listening to his wife's rambling, nagging, whatever she was saying. With you squirming beneath him it didn't really matter, he'd trained his mind to only focus on the buzzwords.

"Mhm, can do..." he grumbled into the phone, leaning down to lick spit off your cheek, pushing his fingers in further to empathise his point of you staying quiet, don't even react to his actions.

But you could only do so much, biting down on his fingers —hard enough to make him grimace— to try and keep it down. He couldn't even be mad at you. Shit.

When your back arched, trying to find a deeper angle again, really feel the way his cock was stretching you out, and your hand tried to slip down your body wanting to relieve that aching need that threaten to consume you he knew it was time to focus back on what mattered. "Still got a job to do, yeah? I'll call ya from the port."

The moan of relief you let out when he hung up was music to his ears. "Should’ve married you, eh? Wouldn't be nagging me all the time. Just gotta fill you with some cock and youre pliant..." the way he spoke was almost as if he was dreaming, lettings his hands wander over your body, leaving your breast coated in your own spit. He looked far away for a moment, as if he was imagining you in his marital bed, you keeping his house clean, you...

"Still fertile.. could give me some pretty kids, couldn't you?" Your mind didn't really process the words, or more like the sincerity behind them. Dirty talk was all it registered as, not a genuine wish of seeing you swell with his child. Of coming home to you with his child on your hip.

"Shit— ah— yeah, you'd like that?" He crooned when your walls tighend around him, as if begging him to stay inside. "Knowing your place... fuckin' good girl you are."

[gothiccharmschool]

For others in any of the tech industries who've been "challenged to raise the bar using AI"* - you can use the damn thing to add the appropriate buzzwords to whatever internal project you're stuck with. Let ChatGPT thread the needle to close the loop on delighter initiatives. *I loathe AI/ChatGPT with all of my blackened soul. LOATHE. But when the corporate overlords hand down these sorts of instructions, I have to figure out ways to do so without feeling like I'm going to throw up.

[ravewing]

whirlpool — is he really as awful as the fandom makes him out to be ?

a wings of fire character analysis. minor content warning for mentions of abuse, grooming, pedophilia, and the likes.

whirlpool is, indubitably, the most universally disliked wings of fire character (and by a long shot, too). in the seven years that i've been an active wof fan, i think i've only seen two, maybe three, people say that they can even stand him. ask anyone in the fandom who the "worst character" is; nine times out of ten, they will probably answer, "whirlpool." ask the reason for this, and they will probably reply with something along the lines of him being a pedophile.

but is he?

i would like to note that i am in no way defending whirlpool. he is by no means a morally good, nor redeemable, dragon. i recently reread the lost heir, so i'm trying to approach this with an unbiased, strictly objective viewpoint. this is just my analysis of his character based on what i've heard people say about him compared to his actual character in the novel.

for a character that appears only in one book (two, if you count turtle's brief flashback in talons of power), whirlpool is a character that wings of fire fans just cannot seem to let go. for countless years, whirlpool has been the subject of a wide array of jokes, memes, and is overall used as the fandom's punching bag—and with good reason (at least, to an extent). however, this has, in recent years, quickly downspiraled into blatant pedophilia jokes.

pedophilia is something that, as i've noticed, is seen as "funny" or "quirky" in certain niches of the wings of fire fanbase, especially so on reddit. make a post asking for people to share their favorite ships, and you'll get at least five people saying something like "clay x bumblebee" or "burn x auklet" to be funny. perhaps it's just the fact that most of the people cracking these "jokes" are teenaged redditors, but the fact that pedophilia is watered down to nothing more than "Boiii!😂😂Cursed funny joke🗿🍷" is, without a doubt, an issue. this downplaying of such a heavy topic not only leads to people just blatantly saying insensitive things for a bad jest, but it also results in the people making those jokes becoming desensitized to the severity of the issue.

when something as serious as pedophilia is treated as nothing more than meme fodder or a buzzword to casually throw around, it diminishes the real harm and suffering experienced by victims. and over time, this normalization will blur the line between satire and genuine endorsement and create spaces where predatory behavior is either ignored or, in the worst cases, subtly encouraged under the guise of just being “dark humor.” this kind of discourse can also alienate victims of a genuine real-world issue, which inevitably makes it harder for them to speak out or feel supported in these communities. and while yeah, humor can be a tool to cope with difficult topics, there’s a stark difference between using it to challenge harmful behaviors and using it to trivialize them.

but i'm getting off track.

whirlpool is not a good dragon. he's manipulative, concerned with nothing more than his personal status and wealth, lacks proper seawing etiquette and self-awareness of his patronizing, annoying personality, by all accounts, an awful teacher, and is just overall a condescending know-it-all. he was a one-off pretentious antagonist, and that is all he was ever meant to be.

he serves as queen coral's most trusted advisor in magic and publishing in her council, and, since he's practically bending over to kiss the ground that her talons walk on like a well-trained circus seal, she finds him to be absolutely delightful, intelligent, and just overall a brilliant gift to all the world. considering this, it's no wonder why coral arranged for him to marry anemone in the future.

that's a detail that most people seem to forget. coral is the one who set up the whole anemone and whirlpool thing. of course, this doesn't mean that whirlpool didn't want to marry anemone; it's just that he was only in it so that he could become the future king of the seawings. he is never shown to have any sort of attraction to anemone (nor to tsunami or auklet); he simply views them as pawns in a game that will ultimately result in his seat in a throne. obviously, this is not a good thing. it's implied by anemone that he was essentially manipulating her to use her magic more, thus becoming "evil" and more susceptible to challenge her mother for the seawing crown (and i'm pretty sure that blister was encouraging this, too; the only difference is that her ideal end result would be using anemone as a war weapon to secure her reign over the sandwings). he is a manipulator, but not a pedophile.

when i first read the lost heir in elementary school, whirlpool was nothing but just an annoying side character who's only trait was being a boring "erm, ackshually" kind of guy who spent his every waking moment praising queen coral's literary works. obviously, i didn't fully pick up the more serious underlying tones of manipulation for power and the intricacies of royal politics, but after re-reading the book many, many times over the course of seven years, i've gathered a much more comprehensive grasp of his character.

the thing is, he just... doesn't have that much depth to him. that's the whole point; he's meant to just be a one-off antagonist that the reader isn't supposed to like. think about it. why would tui intentionally put a pedophile in a book directed towards elementary and middle schoolers? she wouldn't. he's literally just supposed to be annoying and die.

compare him to coral, for instance. yes, whirlpool was awful. but unlike coral, he did not write a scroll about eugenics, treat and harness a dragonet like a literal dog, publicly torture and execute loyal subjects for an accident (that was really coral's brother's fault), threaten to KILL his own daughter (okay, well, he did attempt to murder tsunami, but i think it's also pretty bad to tell your kid that you're going to kill her), neglect over 30 other of his own children, among a bounty of other not-so-great things. what i'm trying to say is, people often bash repeatedly on whirlpool with the same three jokes (like, come on, at least make a new joke. like whirlpoop or something i haven't heard that one before) while overlooking awful things that other characters do as well.

people love scarlet, blister, burn, darkstalker, vulture, mastermind, and countless other villains, despite the fact that many of them have done the exact same things as whirlpool or worse (elaboration in like two paragraphs). and there's nothing wrong with liking villains at all (personally i love a ton of wof's villains; i mean, come on, who doesn't?), so long as you're not trying to justify/redeem/defend their actions!!

what i'm trying to say is this:

this extreme vilification of whirlpool relies on literally nothing but exaggeration or outright misinformation. while yes, it is absolutely true that he was manipulating anemone to serve his own ambitions, his interest in marrying her had nothing to do with attraction or pedophilia—it was calculated power play, one arranged by queen coral herself. many people conflate his manipulative tendencies with predatory behavior, but his treatment of anemone was no different than how many other power-hungry characters in wings of fire have used young dragons as pawns in their schemes. this does not make him any less of a bad person, but it is important to distinguish between the two accusations.

another major issue with the fandom’s treatment of whirlpool is the sheer inconsistency in how different villains are perceived. as mentioned earlier, characters like darkstalker, scarlet, and even queen coral have committed arguably worse acts than whirlpool. darkstalker, for instance, manipulated young dragons like anemone, moonwatcher, fathom, and his own girlfriend, placed magical compulsions on his own friends, and tried to commit genocide—yet he has a massive fanbase, with many people willing to justify or romanticize his actions. scarlet is a tyrant who tortured innocent dragons for entertainment, but she is often seen as a charismatic, even beloved villain. (i can't lie, i love her too) coral, despite being directly responsible for the forced betrothal of anemone and whirlpool, does not receive nearly as much backlash as he does. why, then, is whirlpool singled out as the worst villain when he is hardly unique in his cruelty?

the answer likely lies in the nature of his character. unlike other villains who are powerful, charming, or entertaining, whirlpool is pathetic. he is not a fearsome warlord like burn or a tragic antihero like darkstalker is meant to be—he is an annoying, self-important sycophant whose ultimate goal is to climb the social ladder by cozying up to queen coral. he is the kind of villain who is easy to mock, easy to laugh at, and easy to pile hatred onto without deeper discussion. it’s the same reason why villains like mastermind or vulture don’t inspire the same level of vitriol—they are manipulative and amoral, but they aren’t written to be particularly cool or interesting in the way that characters like darkstalker or scarlet are.

at the end of the day, whirlpool is a terrible dragon. he is an opportunistic manipulator, annoying, a pathetic wet cat, and an overall detestable character. however, the way the fandom fixates on him, and exaggerated or misrepresents his crimes while ignoring worse actions from other villains, makes me wonder: why do some villains get a "pass" while others are relentlessly mocked? why do people misrepresent certain characters in ways that turn serious topics into joke fodder? and most importantly—why are we still talking about whirlpool, a one-off side villain from a book released over a decade ago, as if he’s the worst thing to ever happen in wings of fire?

side note: i couldn't figure out how to work this in there, but i don't know where the misconception that whirlpool is a super old decaying man came from. is he far too old for anemone? without a doubt. but from what i gathered from reading tlh, it seems like he's implied to be only slightly older than tsunami; somewhere around riptide's age, perhaps. anyhow, thank you for reading my chaotic mess of a character analysis! as a treat (or an abhorrent punishment, depending on the kind of person you are), here are some funny whirlpool expressions. the last two are my favorites .. he looks like he has eyeliner on in the last one lol

[thewertsearch]

TT: So what about Jade? […] TT: You didn't tell her your expedition with her would result in your death, let alone one she'd inadvertently cause. TT: Or that she'd be stuck with the job of resuscitating you. Did you? TG: what am i really supposed to say TG: hey were gonna hunt frogs til you shoot me through the jack TG: then i die and youve got to make out with me TG: that kind of changes how the whole thing goes doesnt it

Plus, after the first loop, you already knew you weren't going to tell her. The window of opportunity to decide the circumstances of your death had already closed.

TG: you dont know anything TG: about what i was feeling or what happened on lofaf TG: you were all pavement faced and babbling your throefester speak and flipping off the shit with your own crazy deathwish thing why do you think you know what was going through my head TG: youre just assuming and throwing around psyche buzzwords like aspd complex disorder

I don't think we've ever seen Dave this angry.

I think he's earned it, to be honest. These kids have been stuck in Skaia's emotional pressure cooker for nearly 24 hours, and they’re all reaching their respective breaking points. Dave's had just about enough, and he needs to let it out.

TG: im telling you if i said anything at all about it she probably doesnt even fire her gun once and all im doing is dragging her into a doomed timeline with me TT: I guess I'm learning to be impressed by your sense of obligation to inevitable misfortune. It's a strange case of inspiration through futility.

Well, it’s complicated.

On a surface level, it really does look like his misfortune was predestined - but the more of Homestuck I read, the more I gravitate toward the theory I linked in my previous post - that the Alpha Timeline can only 'force' you to do things that are already consistent with your personality. After all, we still haven't really seen a time loop that forces a character to act against their own nature.

If it's true, then perhaps Dave’s getting these shitty loops because he expects them – and maybe, if he changed his perspective, he’d start to be presented with kinder ones. It's worth a try, at least.

It’s not like this is exclusively a Sburbian phenomenon, either. Outside of Homestuck, plenty of us feel like our personalities trap us in loops of our own, forcing us to repeatedly experience the same thoughts, actions or situations.

We might not be time travelers, but our own metaphorical loops can feel just as inescapable as the literal ones binding Dave.

TG: i was never that cool with this TT: With what, exactly? TG: you know how you turned out to be this incredibly shitty seer of light and basically failed at that in every way imaginable TT: Hey!

Eh, I think you deserved that one.

[chronicsyd]

and in a tale as OLD as time, online "leftists" veer SO off the mark they end up going right wing because why on GODS green earth I'm hearing about a KKKiramman fic where Ekko's a slave and a Jayvik fic where they're LITERALLY HARVESTING MEL'S ORGANS I'll NEVER understand.

just the Misogyny, Racism, Lesbophobia especially coming from the Jayvik fans like NO them touching heads in space is not "more gay" than the the award winning canon couple sorry to burst your bubble guys. and NO the "couple" that wasn't even really confirmed by the last episode Wasn't going to be a priority over the couple that's had more chemistry for Over a Decade.

and I KNOW I'm walking into sensitive territory considering I'm white as a sheet of paper, but the "KKKiramman" and "Caitler" "jokes" were never funny and not even accurate if you actually opened a history book on these two events, not to mention it practically downplays the Real life suffering that have had to face during this period in history.

I think Arcane Twitter is the Worst when it comes to throwing out buzzwords like "Ekko's a wifebeater because he and Jinx fight in Episode 7" or "Mels an abuser/manipulator" like god you people Really didn't pay attention to a Single thing in the show did you?

participating in this fandom is no longer fun for me and I really think I need to take a step back for a little bit if This is the kind of horseshit that I'm going to be dealing with. I'm frankly getting Real tired of having to spell out what the show was trying to tell you like I'm teaching a couple of third graders. so, for now, I'm just gonna take a step back and calm myself until this fandom knows how to behave.

Good bye.

[bwat5-blog]

The Enforcer

**Spoilers For All Of Arcane **

"Traitor!"

"Bootlicker!"

"All for a girl she's known for a few days!"

"ACAB! COPAGANDA!"

As with everything in this show, there are plenty of loud, click-bait takes on this part of Vi's story. And people are certainly entitled to them. But I just don't get it. You are taking what is such a conflicting and important moment for this character and dumbing it down into a hash-tag, rather than letting yourself really think about the story they are trying to tell. If all you are after when you consume media is an excuse to throw buzzwords around, reality TV is probably more your speed. Just for a moment lets try to consider the different dimensions of what Vi is dealing with in this situation.

Vi is caught between her little sister who she no longer recognizes, the woman she loves who is being consumed by grief and rage, her identity as a daughter of Zaun, and her own feelings.

She can't see her little sister in Jinx, only the violent and deranged terrorist who abducted Caitlyn and tried to convince Vi to murder her. But she loves her, and is crumbling under the guilt of who she has become. She is watching Caitlyn sink deeper and deeper beneath the waves of her grief and anger with each passing day, the same Caitlyn who once saved Vi's life and stood up for the Undercity in front of the Council themselves. Vi hates the Enforcers for what they have done to her and her people but it's the only way she can stay be Caitlyn's side, and be present for Piltover's hunt for Jinx, however it ends. Not to mention the fact that even though they are destroying the Chem Barons, and Shimmer, both of which are unquestionably negative forces in Zaun, for wearing the uniform at all Vi has to know her own people will look at her like a traitor, no matter how much good she does for them.

I have written about and analyzed the use of The Grey from every angle I can think of. I'm absolutely not breaking it all down again here in depth. For a few quick points:

There is absolutely zero evidence that exposure in the way they use it is fatal or even harmful long term.

Amanda Overton confirmed their strikes were strategic to a pinpoint.

Jinx is a terrorist who likes to blow things up and Vi confirms they used it to clear the streets and keep people safe. The logic is clear.

Every Chem Baron foot soldier on their knees coughing rather than shooting is a life saved on either side

The alternative to the strike team was a full invasion of hex-tech wielding Enforcers not a five-person strike team travelling mostly in the vent systems and only emerging to fight when necessary.

Ekko was in Zaun when they were. If you think he would have been hanging out with Heimerdinger playing with bubbles and chilling while they were doing something truly terrible to the Undercity, I urge you. WATCH THE SHOW BEFORE YOU TALK ABOUT IT.

All that being said, I am not ignorant of the fact that Zaun has suffered lifetimes due to the pollution caused by Piltover's practices, including their air before the Kiramman vent system was created. So I'm sure Vi IS extremely conflicted. But maybe, just maybe, its time consider the possibility that the reason "her fascist ass girlfriend gasses a city and she doesn't care" is because Vi knows they are making the best they can out of a HORRENDOUS situation. (and Caitlyn isn't a fascist and didn't gas a whole city but I get that isn't what we are doing here).

This is not about trying to convince you they were right to do what they did, or wrong. It is not to convince you to love Vi or Caitlyn. It is simply to say that the heart of a story is in it's characters. Continue to dumb-down, brush off, reduce, generalize, and smash these characters into small easily digestible pieces you can analyze in the time it takes to tie your shoes, and you will only cheat yourself out of the full experience stories like this can bring. They do mean something. They matter. Even if we like to pretend they don't anymore.

As always thank you for reading. Anyone who takes the time to do so is more appreciated than you can know. Feel free to leave your thoughts if you choose as well! And keep standing up for stories that matter.

See yall next time.

[isaidyoulookshitty]

"i wrote lucanis as a bisexual disaster" vs "oh he's actually pan-demisexual and a virgin" well which one is it, girl. do either of those statements mean anything (rhetorical: pro- or retroactive commentary from devs/writers means fuck all to me if none of it is actually reflected in the product i paid for) or did you see how disappointed players were with the underdeveloped, rushed, and badly paced romance your baby boy ended up with and just slap a "grey-asexual" sticker on his forehead to explain it away. like anyone on the asexual spectrum is any less deserving of a well written romance plotline.

hi; i'm demisexual myself, so i know a bit about how this is supposed to work. there is NO chemistry between rook and lucanis, they have NO in-depth conversations about what they feel for each other, and there is NO foundation for emotional rapport to build on his supposed demisexuality. most of lucanis's thoughts, feelings, and motivations are revealed to the player through secondary npc's! but go ahead and throw out a bunch of queer fandom buzzwords on socmed to make it more marketable. a little more lipstick on that pig can't hurt.

as i've said before, maybe this is true of the other romance options. maybe they are all similarly flat, awkward, and disjointed. but i wouldn't know because at the time i wasn't allowed to pursue anyone else AND lucanis, and after i finished my first playthrough i skipped the credits and uninstalled the game. and i never will know because i have no desire to ever play it again. i get that the devs all worked hard and fought through a decade of mismanagement, layoffs, and development hell, but the harebrained spin job and damage control bioware keeps trying (and failing at) rather than acknowledging any of veilguard's shortcomings are nauseating at this point.

""""found family"""" """""hurt/comfort"""" """""slow burn""""" oh my god i'm TIRED. are we talking about an ao3 summary or a $70 video game?? if you absolutely must yoink fanfiction tropes for your professionally developed, AAA studio title either do it competently or leave it to the fic writers. after this dumpster fire i know they're already hard at work.

[velvetvexations]

I'm now going to talk about something that's unpleasant, but must be dealt with. I recieved multiple anons on the subject but am not going to post them to limit the extent to which this is official drama and because it'd be very repetitive.

Yesterday, I reblogged an addition to my post from prismatic-bell and literally within the minute got an ask about me reblogging from a Zionist. This was irritating both because I was expected to vet someone who reblogged my post and because I found it to be a very unhelpful ask throwing a buzzword at me without further elaboration. I've definitely seen people be Weird As Fuck about Jews under the cover of accusing them of being "Zionists," which tracks with the word's history because before October 7th that was a word, at least in the West, exclusively used as a Nazi dogwhistle. We really desperately need something else to call people who support Israel's government.

But other people have pointed me to xir saying genuinely awful things about Palestinians, and being strongly supportive of the Israeli government and IDF. This is unconscionable to me. I do not generally block anyone except for practical reasons like spam or fite-club being a dick to people in my replies, but in having reached out to xir over the fact I was getting people accusing xir of vague things, xi blocked me anyway.

To reiterate my stance on Israel, while I don't believe Hamas has ever done anything but cause further harm, I have hated the oppressors and murderers of Palestinians since most of the people currently protesting them in the West were eligible for a driver's license.

Having said that, I ask that you please not expect me to know the political stances of everyone on Tumblr, and in the future give me more to work with than "why are you reblogging from [x]?". This is especially necessary when it comes to people who may or may not actually be "Zionists."

[animsid]

so excited to see someone who hasn't listened to archives listen to protocol. I am going to study you like a bug. really curious what your thoughts on s2 is so far? cause jonny and alex said you could listen to protocol without archives and from my perspective that's true for s1 but not really for s2. I guess you're basically seeing things from sam's pov while most of the fandom is seeing it from georgie/melanie/basira's. so how is it working for you? does it feel like you're missing out? (especially since the newest episode basically spoiled all of archives)

i'm guessing it must also be weird for you to see everyone else screaming and crying over random (to you) stuff

I actually did a bunch of posts on Archives S1. It’s probably lost in the void of all my posts and reposts but I’ve consistently put #no-I-have-not-listened-to-archives and #no-archives-spoilers-please if anyone wants to find it

It does feel like I’m taking on Sam’s perspective (with a lot less eyes). Things in season 1 I was really confused about a lot of stuff, like why people were throwing up that Trevor Herbert is in Protocol as a Minister or whatever, and I think there was something in the Athletics case that was important?

I don’t feel like I’m missing anything, but I am a bit confused how this will all come together. I saw these buzzwords of “The Eye”, “Hunt” and others but genuinely had very little idea of what they actually were.

E42 just felt like… a lot? It was a lot of parallel-relevant lore which would have a sort of impact on Sam and his influence on Protocol, but also not really? I am interested how Sam and the Archivist will affect the main plot of Protocol. Is he going to become an Archivist himself?

For me, Protocol is a lot of fun even if I am concerned and curious for the direction of the story.

[olderthannetfic]

I always see people who have never been antis, talking about/questioning how some antis even ARE antis when you look at their taste in media - ie the ever famous joke of "Hannigram is #problematique" "but it's a show where he eats people" or whatever.

I thought I'd weigh in as someone who could, hypothetically, be called an ex-anti (which, thankfully, nothing ever really came out of it - it was just very 2014 keyboardwarrior-esque behavior of me being a chronically online young adult who would share posts in a group chat making fun of certain shippers, or reblog posts about how 50shades is The Most Problematic Media Ever to exist -- basically I was an anti with anti-lines of thoughts, but i never, like, a ran a Shipping Discourse Blog or whatever)

For me, personally, it was a few different things. I can now see how it's incredibly hypocritical that teenaged me shipped Light/L, while still thinking that Dramione was Bad And Abusive. It ultimately boiled down to a) being pretentious, and b) just not understanding media or what proshippers REALLY believed, with a side of c) not realizing that nuance exists. like i was pretty late to join tumblr, I think I immigrated here during PEAK "yourfaveisproblematic" era which definitely did have an impact on my opinions and my tastes.

to elaborate, a.) being pretentious. i mean this one just kinda goes without saying. "I engage in media in a way more intellectual way than you do, don't you know that? You're a filthy and disgusting person who writes Snape/Hermione because you're an actually disgusting pedophile IRL who would probably date your own student that you're abusing if you could. Meanwhile, I'm a very smart, good, and pure person. When I read Uncle Vernon/Harry, I'm doing it in a G-d honoring whump way that clearly condemns abuse, incest, and rape. Unlike YOU who only writes harmful stuff as a way to get people off :/"

(as an aside, i think this line of thinking will ALWAYS be present in fandom and popculture in some way, sadly. ie the recent trend of people hating on booktok bc the books are 'trashy' and how these porn addicts should read real classic literature instead.)

as for b.), not understanding media - i cannot emphasize enough that i was GENUINELY stupid and disconnected enough to think that proshippers REALLY WERE pro-All Of The Degenerate Dead Doves That They Wrote.

why did i feel this way? why did i understand that Lolita clearly isnt pro-pedophilia, but for some reason i thought that someone shipping weecest was? well, first of all, i think that fanfiction is (generally) seen as Less Serious than classic literature, and fandom is a fun place, so i guess i somehow thought that every fanfic/fanartist who wrote Problematic Things, especially Problematic Things that they portrayed as Sexy, really DID enjoy the thought of that Actually Happening To Real People.

and i think THIS is the bulk of why antis ARE antis. i'm not calling them all stupid - i do think BEING an anti is stupid, but at the same time, there are people who are truly smart and good-intended people who just have some really off color opinions about, like, homestuck ships or whatever. Lawlight is okay because notebooks that kill people don't exist so it's IMPOSSIBLE for the Harmful Aspects of Light/L to be romanticized! but schoolyard prejudiced bullies DO exist and are a REAL problem so Drarry is BAD (*truly completely unaware of the fact that there's 'realistic' aspects of the Light/L dynamic and 'unrealistic' aspects of Drarry - such as, for example, Hogwarts arguably being even MORE of a fantasy setting than DN is.*) I know that media literacy is the hot buzzword of the year to throw around in 2024, but, like, i really did not have media literacy.

as for c.), not realizing nuance exists - ok "nuance" might not be the best word here, but i dont know how else to describe it. like, each time ive typed the word "problematic" out in this ask, i've done so in a very tongue in cheek/ironic/retroactive way, but, like, those posts about how Everything Is Problematic, Including Your Fave ARE true. and i didn't like the fact that my favorite media or favorite person might've Made A Mistake! i need to Talk About Its Issues Because I'm So Betrayed That My Dear Sweet Comfort Media Would Do This To Me. I Need To Prove I Clearly Condemn It.

like, i legit morally could not justify reblogging a twilight post without adding in the tags '#this is my guilty pleasure it sucks that the books were so racist though' or whatever. Most people were lucky enough to avoid that line of thinking, but there was an actual group of people who felt a genuine need to virtue signal all the time, partly bc, hey, they WERE passionate about talking abt #issues in media, but also bc of a subconscious fear of If You Reblog A Singular Piece Of Hetalia Fanart, You're Literally A Nazi And Will Get A Callout Post Written About You.

and during all of this i was at the tail end of my high school experience (yes i know im younger than most of your audience, ha). i was going through A Lot emotionally, going through a lot of life changes, and lived in a very . . . interesting household/place where i couldn't do ACTUAL good in the world that i was passionate about. so to make up for the fact that i was genuinely in no place to do legit activism, clearly i had to save the gay community by arguing about johnlock queerbaiting or whatever.

^ and honestly i do think that is the position of most antis. theyre isolated and cant seem to do Enough in the Real Scary World so they have to resort to talking about how bad of a person someone is for "shipping abuse", bc theyre not in a situation where they could, for example, ACTUALLY fight the good fight to end abuse or raise awareness for it.

There was way more to it and way more that I could say, if I wanted to, but this post is long enough as it is and probably doesn't make much sense.

I feel bad for antis, honestly, or at least the ones who are antis in the way I used to be.

--

Oh yes, passionate young fools who think they can at least fix the internet if not their lives make up most of the cannon fodder. Some of the ringleaders are just mini dictators and wannabe cult leaders, but most anti-leaning types are just traumatized or clueless, even a lot of the ones who do serious damage and don't just mock shit in private with their friends.

[emilykaldwen]

I'm bored and home sick, and the lack of effort in this has given me something to do.

Guys, when you receive anonymous hate, understand this: they have one goal and one goal only and that's to make you feel bad, hurt your feelings, someone can't properly channel their feelings in well-adjusted ways. Instead of blocking or, heaven forbid, stepping away from the screen to go watch a movie, go outside, read a book, they make their own problems your problems. Nothing in an anonymous hate message is actual constructive feedback. It's not.

I have the perfect example here. Now, I am 95% certain this anon is also ocquestionbank/fuckstephaniemeryeandjkr, who I'm also certain is the same anon who lingers in the mutual overlap between myself and the HBOWar fandom (who also dabble with moi). So we're going to break this down.

Hate your OCs, hate your writing, hate your clique and hate you. I get it! When I see some stuff cross my dash, I'm just like OH MY GOD WON'T THIS PERSON GO AWAY. But that's a me problem, right? This is where we engage the #1 Tumblr Policy of filtering and blocking content we don't jive with. Tumblr has some pretty good filtering systems in place in addition to your standard block button. Additionally, if you're on desktop, make use of the XKit rewritten and similar extensions.

Hate your clique. This accusation has been thrown around a lot over the past few years. Let's refer to Webster: a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons especially: one held together by common interests, views, or purposes. The American Heritage Dictionary further states that this is generally used in a bad sense. The implication is that this is a closed circle that this anon wants access to. Last I checked, there's no clique. Is it that anon wants to be part of a supportive group of mutuals? I totally get that! And you should go and find your people! Shaking your metaphorical fist at someone and hollering across the street is not going to make you feel better. Trust me. I've been there.

Hate/hate/hate Generally, Hate is not the ACTUAL feeling. There are a lot of emotions beneath that the anon is not expanding on in order to engage in a constructive dialogue. Right now, the anon has specified what they hate about me, and that leaves me to infer that they feel jealous/inferior/envious of what I'm doing. Okay, cool. I also get feeling jealous or envious of people's accomplishments. But this just isn't constructive. This is targeted to go 'I hate you!' like a child on the school yard. Again, this first sentence is just about 'OH MY GOD I HATE YOU BECAUSE I CAN'T PROCESS MY FEELINGS'.

Abigail is a pick me Mary Sue and that is me being kind. I'm sorry, I don't know who you're referring to here. I do not have an OC named Abigail. With that being said, your accusation of 'pick me Mary Sue' does not offer any actual feedback. What specifics about the character you're referring to aren't to your standards? When these sorts of things are thrown out, they are not constructive nor actionable. The anon is merely throwing out buzzwords that OC writers tend to be self-conscious or nervous about. Again, the goal is to hurt the receiver's feelings and demotivate/demoralize. It's not actual constructive or well thought out feedback. Also, who fucking cares if you think someone's character is a Mary/Gary Stu?

Your writing is absolutely awful and you over write. Less is more. Both constructive and non-constructive. What about my writing is absolutely awful? Where are there examples of overwriting? And with the lack of proper examples and commentary, again, it shows that the anon is throwing out words to hurt and demotivate. Overwrite: to write about in an artificial or an excessively elaborate, wordy style. Now, I don't think my prose is overly purple, however I do know that a lot of the current writing trend is different than how I write. I actively practice for a more literary style as that is the type of writing I enjoy reading, and fanfiction is a way for me to practice techniques. Not everyone's writing is for everyone. But, as I stated before, the lack of actual examples offered in a constructive way means that the anon is throwing words specifically to hurt.

I don't recognize any of the canon characters either Lacking in examples. Everyone interprets characters differently. Etc etc. There's a lot of stuff I don't read because I don't like how someone writes a character. That's fic?

Grade: Targeted Anon Hate

When you get an anon saying things they don't like as the above example, do not take it to heart. Anon Hate is not actually something you need to take seriously because the goal of anon hate isn't scathing feedback from someone in your writing circle. Anon hate is done by someone who is unhappy, unfulfilled, and doesn't understand what the block button is or how them not liking you/your work isn't your problem, it's their problem. The people who do this sort of thing are the exact same kids who in middle school were making fun of other students or were a bullied individual that still hasn't come to terms with that and are lashing out at others in order to try feel better.

This sort of thing doesn't make you feel better at the end of the day. What does is gaining perspective and stepping away from social media.

So when you receive anon hate saying things about you/your writing or art/your characters, do not take it to heart. There is absolutely no sense in them whatsoever.

And honestly, even if the anon DID come back with passages they didn't like, they're not actually looking for a dialogue about word craft. They're just looking to tear you down.

Happy Friday!

(and if you'd like to read my fic, you can find all my masterlists at @emkald-fic!)