#if they has a valid point in a moral argument their point is still valid regardless

[glitter-stained]

Ngl it really peeves me when the debate about Jason's ethics regarding killing in the batfam mixes up the question of him being a moral character in regards to sticking to his own philosophy (aka compromising with what he thinks is right to salvage relationships, but also exploding trains to evade capture, killing random goons in a gang war, etc) and the question of him being a moral character in regards to whether his philosophy is right. And even with regards to his philosophy there is his philosophy on politics, crime control and harm reduction, and his ethical philosophy itself (utilitarianism, aka focusing on intended positive consequences of actions for the greater good rather than the action being fundamentally moral or immoral in itself). Those are different things. Those require different debates and should not be conflagrated together. I'm not even saying Jason is right! I think utilitarianism and deontology both suck and fail at providing sufficient guidelines for moral behaviour. ("Everybody still loses" like the nihilist clown says. The symbolism of that one scene is pretty cool on that regard.)

And I think some people at dc would very much like for you to make the connection that because Jason is harming civilians/killing unnamed goons, he is a bad person, and as such you don't need to examine the way his stance on moral philosophy (utilitarianism) opposes Batman's. But that's not right, they don't get to wiggle out of the fact that utilitarianism vs deontology is a complicated debate that has been going on for ages, that there is no clear-cut answer where Batman fundamentally comes out on top, they don't get to use the fact that Jason (in the era currently discussed) is a villain to saddle us with a false dichotomy of "well jason is wrong about stuff so batman has to be right" to avoid addressing the actual question. The traits of the people being tied on the tracks do not change the shape of the trolley problem. The traits of the person deciding to pull the lever do not change the shape of the trolley problem. It's still one lever, three people tied on one track, one on the other, do you pull the lever. That's it. Yes, bending the metaphor to address other questions (such as "who keeps tying people to the tracks" to question systemic violence or "how does my bias, my prejudice and empathy impact my decision to pull the lever depending on who is on the tracks") are interesting but that's not what the debate is about. If I wrote an essay about the trolley problem in high school and focused primarily on the nature of the people being tied on the tracks, I'd get a big fat zero with "off-topic" written in red all over my essay, so I'm not inclined to allow DC comics to get away with it.

[sneezypeasy]

The Lightning Scene, How Azula Targeted Katara (of All People), and the Doylist Reason Why That Matters

Mention Zuko's sacrifice for Katara in Sozin's Comet Part 3 as part of a pro-Zutara talking point, and invariably you'll get a Pavlovian response of:

"But Zuko would have taken the lightning for anyone."

(Not to be confused with the similar-sounding Pavlovan response, which is "Zuko's sacrifice ain't shit compared to a mouth-watering, strawberry-topped meringue dessert"*, which is actually the only valid counter-argument to how the lightning scene is a bona fide Zutara treasure, but I digress.)

Now, I've talked in depth about how the lightning scene is framed far more romantically than it had any right to be, regardless of how you might interpret the subject on paper; this is an argument which I still stand by 100%. That Zuko would have gotten barbecued for anyone, and that he was at the stage of his arc where his royal kebab-ness represented his final act of redemption, doesn't change the fact that the animators/soundtrack artists decided to pull out all the stops with making this scene hit romantic film tropes bingo by the time it played out on screen.

(I mean, we stan.)

There's also a deeper level to this conundrum, a layer which creeps up on you when you're standing in your kitchen at night, the fridge door open in front of you, your hungry, sleep-deprived brain trying to decide on what to grab for a midnight snack, and quite inexcusably you're struck with the question: Okay, Zuko may indeed have taken the lightning for just anyone, but would Azula have shot the lightning at just anyone?

But there's yet a deeper layer to this question, that I don't recall ever seeing anyone discuss (though if somebody has, mea culpa). And that is: would you have written Zuko taking the lightning for anyone else?

Or in other words, who Zuko would have taken the lightning for is the wrong question to be asking; the question we ought to be asking is who Zuko should have taken the lightning for, instead.

Get your pens out, your Doylist hats on, and turn to page 394. It's time to think like an author for a hot minute.

(If you don't know what I mean by Watsonian vs. Doylist analyses, and/or if you need a refresher course, go have a skim of the first section of this 'ere post and then scoot your ass back to this one.)

So. You're the author. You've written almost the entirety of an animated series (look at you!!) and now you're at the climax, which you've decided is going to be an epic, hero-villain showdown. Classic. Unlike previous battles between these two characters, your hero is going to have a significant advantage in this fight - partly due to his own development as a hero at the height of his strength and moral conviction, and partly because your villain has gone through a bit of a Britney Spears 2007 fiasco, and isn't quite at the top of her game here. If things keep going at this pace, your hero is going to win the fight fairly easily - actually, maybe even too easily. That's okay though, you're a talented writer and you know just what will raise the stakes and give the audience a well-timed "oh shit" moment: you're going to have the villain suddenly switch targets and aim for somebody else. The hero will be thrown off his groove, the villain will gain the upper hand, the turns will have indubitably tabled. Villains playing dirty is the number 1 rule in every villain handbook after all, and each of the last two times your hero's braved this sort of fight he's faced an opponent who ended up fighting dishonourably, so you've got a lovely Rule of Three perfectly lined up for the taking. Impeccable. The warm glow of triumph shines upon you, cherubs sing, your English teachers clap and shed tears of pride. (Except for that one teacher you had in year 8 who hated everybody, but she's a right bitch and we're not talking about her today.)

Now here's the thing: your hero is a hero. Maybe he wasn't always a hero, but he certainly is one now. If the villain goes after an innocent third party, there's basically no-one your hero wouldn't sacrifice himself for. He's a hero! Heroes do be like that, it's kind of their thing. The villain could shoot a bolt of lightning at Bildad the Shuhite, and the only thing that'd stop our boy Redeemed Paladin Bravesoul McGee from shielding his foxy ass is the fact that Bildad the Shuhite has the audacity to exist in a totally different show (disgusten.)

But. You're holding the writer's pen. Minus crossover shenanigans you don't have the licensing or time-travel technology to achieve, you have full control over how this scene plays out. You get to decide which character to target to deliver the greatest emotional impact, the juiciest angst, the most powerful cinematic suspense. You get to decide whose life you'll put at risk, to make this scene the most intense spine-chilling heart-stopper it can possibly be.

This is the climax we're talking about, after all - now is not the time to go easy on the drama.

So.

Do you make the villain target just anyone?

Or do you make the villain target someone the hero cares about?

Perhaps, someone he cares about... a lot?

Maybe even, someone he cares about... more than anybody else?

You are the author. You are the God of this universe. You get to choose.

What would deliver the strongest punch?

If you happen to make the inadvisable decision of browsing through these tropes on TV tropes, aside from wasting the rest of your afternoon (you're welcome), you'll find that the examples listed are littered with threatened and dead love interests, and, well, there's a reason for that. For better or worse, romantic love is often portrayed by authors, and perceived by audiences, as a "true" form of love (often even, "the" true form of love). Which is responsible for the other is a chicken/egg situation, one I'm not going to go into for this post - and while I'm certainly not here to defend this perspective as objectively good, I do think it's worth acknowledging that it not only exists but is culturally rather ubiquitous. (If you're playing the love interest in a story with a hero v. a villain, you might wanna watch your back, is what I'm saying.)

Regardless of whether the vibe you're aiming for is romantic or platonic however, one thing is for certain: if you want maximum oomph, the way to achieve that is by making the villain go after the player whose death would hit the hero the hardest.

And like I said, this doesn't have to be played romantically (although it so often is). There are platonic examples in those trope pages, though it's also important to note that many of the platonic ones do show up in stories where a love interest isn't depicted/available/there's a strong "bromance" element/the hero is low-key ace - and keep in mind too that going that route sometimes runs a related risk of falling into queer-bait territory *coughJohnLockcough*

That said, if there is a canon love-interest available, one who's confessed her love for the hero, one who has since been imprisoned by the villain, one who can easily be written as being at the villain's disposal, and who could quite conveniently be whipped out for a mid-battle surprise round - you might find you have some explaining to do if you choose to wield your authorly powers to have the villain go after... idk, some other sheila instead.

(The fact that this ends up taking the hero out of the fight, and the person he sacrifices himself for subsequently throws herself into the arena risking life and limb to defeat the villain and rescue her saviour, also means the most satisfying way this plays out, narratively speaking, is if both of these characters happen to be the most important person in each other's lives - at least, as of that moment, anyway - but I think this post has gone on long enough, lol)

This is, by and large, a rebuttal post more than anything else, but the tl;dr here is - regardless of whether you want to read the scene as shippy or not, to downplay Zuko's sacrifice for Katara specifically as "not that deep™" because "Zuko would have taken the lightning for anyone anyway", suggests either that a) nobody should be reading into the implications of Katara being chosen as the person nearest and dearest to Zuko, so that putting her life in jeopardy can deliver the most powerful impact possible for an audience you'd bloody well hope are on the edge of their seats during the climax of your story or b) the writers made the inexplicable decision of having the villain threaten the life of... literally who the fuck ever, and ultimately landed on someone who's actually not all that important to the hero in the grand scheme of things - which is a cardinal writing sin if I ever saw one (even disregarding the Choice to then season it with mood lighting and sad violin music, on top of it all), and altogether something I'd be legitimately pissed about if my Zuko-OTP ship paired him with Mai, Sokka, or just about anybody else 😂

Most importantly c) I'm hungry, and I want snacks.

*The Aussies in the fandom will get this one. Everyone else can suffer in united confusion.

[straightline-bow]

I know everyone is mostly joking with the whole ‘oh the GPDA should strike’ thing after their statement in instagram, but I really think we should be having a conversation about how actually, they can’t strike, and that lack of ability to use collective bargaining can be and may be incredibly dangerous.

The issue with the GPDA as a union is that it only covers the twenty current Formula 1 drivers. Now, many people see no issue with this - why would anyone else need coverage? - but this is what sort of hamstrings the GPDA as a union. Should the members go on strike, there would be backlash in the press, pressure on the FIA, FOM, Liberty and the teams - but there are other drivers, who have the super licences needed to drive an F1 car. And could you even blame them? We’ve seen how hard it can be for rookies to get a seat - Colapinto looks a lot like he may be able to get on the grid, either for next year or the year after, and that is a swansong MIRACLE that came out of nowhere for him. Lawson and Piastri had to wait on the sidelines, as did Doohan. The only Driver’s Academies that seem to be working are Ferrari’s (A Leclerc off to WEC, Bearman in Haas), Mercedes’ to an extent (They tossed Aron aside when he’s been doing fantastically, but Antonelli has a seat) and sort of Mclaren’s (Bortoleto was under them in F2, but he has now severed ties to sign for Audi.). And even then they CLEARLY have their failures. Can you truly blame young drivers for taking any and every opportunity handed to them when so few succeed at all?

A strike would be very easily defeated by the FIA and Co - and there would be no guarantee of contracts post strike, and although the WDCs and highest level drivers could probably weather the storm, there is no way the rookies and those from smaller teams would be able to, and they could likely lose their seats over it. Quite frankly, the only way for a strike to work in the drivers favour in this day and age would be for them to vote to include all drivers who have superlicences in the union, and then for all of them to strike together.

A reminder: every driver who has an official contract with a team entered into the F1 championship can apply for a superlicence, if they hold the other requirements (usually a certain number of points plus a driver’s licence pluse a competition licence plus a theory test on first sitting), which means drivers from IndyCar, WEC, lower formulas, Formula E and test drivers are all usually eligible, or can be. I think the official number is around 70ish drivers are eligible, plus any retired F1 drivers who keep up the fitness standard and 100km of practise across a year - so drivers such as Jacques Villneauve could potentially still have a valid superlicence, so long as he proved he did enough practise.

Aside from the sheer unlikelihood of the GPDA being allowed to vote to include all holders of valid superlicences - which could possibly lead to the core members facing severe consequences, possibly the same as striking on their own - there are a lot of drivers who would not strike for safety precautions, purely they don’t think they are necessary (Brundle on the halo) or because they know if they broke the line they could get a drive, and because the GPDA has so little political power it very rarely is able to intercede to set minimum wages etc the way other unions are able to, any drivers breaking the line would know they weren’t losing out on anything but a moral argument, and potential safety issues. Some people don’t think about safety until they need it.

The current state of affairs is just incredibly concerning, and I think that although it’s fun and fine to make jokes about it, we should definitely remember both the driver’s own lack of agency, and that even though some aren’t satisfied with the statement they put out, it is perhaps one of the only things they can do.

[cowboys-tshot]

Circe and Odysseus in Epic: The Musical

EDIT: DO NOT TAKE MY WORD AS THE 100% TRUTH!!

I took some classes and wrote a paper about ancient Greek culture, but I am in NO WAY an expert. Please read through the reblogs to see some good criticisms and discussion about this topic further. My point overall stands that you can't apply modern rules and standards to ancient stories, but my evidence is undoubtedly flawed! This post has been edited to try and better reflect this.

I'm seeing everyone pointing out the possible issues with Epic the Musical's deviation from the original story of Circe and Odysseus, and as someone who's studied Ancient Greece/ancient Greek myths a bit, I wanted to say some stuff about it. This will be a bit of a long one, so apologies for my rambling!

Note that I'm not trying to shit on SA survivor's perspectives and (completely valid) arguments. I'm just trying to offer some context surrounding the original myth and how it fits (or rather, doesn't fit) with a modern audience. If I'm wrong with any of this, feel free to call me out! Criticize the shit out of me! I like learning about Greek culture and myths and would 100% love to hear other perspectives on this.

So, a few points about Ancient Greek myths to kind of explain the context around Circe and Odysseus:

Greek myths often did not have good views/depictions of women. Women were very often depicted as conniving, selfish, sexually insatiable creatures. There are a few deviations from this trope, the most prominent of which being Penelope herself—she's basically the ideal Greek wife, staying loyal to her husband for 20 years and all that.

Adultery often only applied to women. Husbands cheating on their wives wasn't merely tolerated, but kind of expected. Men often cheated on their wives with various kinds of prostitutes, concubines, mistresses, etc. Although, sleeping with unmarried women (that weren't specifically prostitutes) or married women was still looked down upon. Women didn't have this same standard. They could only sleep with their husbands—hell, their husbands (and family) were pretty much the only men they could even interact with once some really sexist Asiatic practices were brought to Athens.

The original myth has Hermes very plainly lay out how Odysseus' confrontation with Circe will go: Odysseus will eat the moly, draw his sword at her, she'll proposition him, and Hermes directly tells Odysseus to accept. Basically a "sleep with her if you want your men to live" situation. (See this post for more specifics on this).

So, let's apply this to Epic: The Musical. Here's some reasons I think may explain the Circe myth being changed:

The Greek "women being evil" stereotype is... problematic. While I 100% understand that it's important to acknowledge male victims of SA, I don't think the original myth was focusing on Odysseus being a victim—I saw it more of an emphasis on Circe being a sexually selfish woman, as women were often believed to be. Changing Circe to be less conniving and evil deviates from the concerning Greek stereotype.

The SA in the myth is not actually very clearly SA. Yes, with a modern perspective, it absolutely is sexual coercion, but for ancient Greeks, not so much. It made sense to them that sex could be transactional, especially when gods were involved. It's already been established that Epic, while still generally accurate to the original myth, does change things relating to morality/themes in order to better align with modern Western ideas (i.e. OG Odysseus not being as remorseful and merciful, as that was expected of a Greek hero, but Epic Odysseus having more empathy because that's more modernly heroic). If something from the original myth doesn't translate well into modern culture, then it's understandable to want to change or omit it.

In the case that the original Circe myth wasn't SA (I'm not saying one is more right than the other, I'm just covering all the bases), then it wouldn't even constitute as cheating. Like I described earlier, men often slept with women that weren't their wives. Plus, being a goddess, she's already kinda exempt from being blamed if Odysseus slept with her—only women are ever really blamed for sleeping with (or being SAed by) gods, and even then, their husbands sometimes don't even give a shit. But modernly, we would not see it that way. To us, it's not societally acceptable for a married man to sleep with another woman (without his wife's consent, at least). While Ancient Greeks viewed Odysseus as a good (or at least okay) husband, a modern audience wouldn't. Making Odysseus loyal to Penelope and not sleeping with other women (assuming this wasn't SA, but again that's one interpretation) makes him the good, loyal, empathic, modernly heroic man that Epic is clearly aiming for. Repeating my last point: If something from the original myth doesn't translate well into modern culture, then it's understandable to want to change or omit it.

Applying modern perspectives on Ancient Greek society and mythology isn't worth it. Like, we all joke about Greek mythology/Ancient Greece being super gay, but it was often just what we consider pedophilia (it's called pederasty if you'd like to know more). Y'know the Hades and Persephone story? Like, the original one with the kidnapping? Yeah, that was kinda normal in some areas. The myth of Demeter and Persephone is tragic, yes, but it was so normal that a lot of wedding ceremonies included references/recreations of it! Girls got married off ASAP after their first menstruation to men of at least 30 years old. We don't tolerate that shit today (for the most part, at least)! But it was normal in Ancient Greece. Applying modern rules and standards to ancient culture just does not work.

Anyways, I'll shut up now! I'm gonna go keep listening to The Circe Saga lmao

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Response to your reblog before I peace out.

The argument of the immorality of abortion is built on the assumption that life inherently has value. Lives do not have any inherent value, because they are the result of millions of years of naturally occurring processes. These natural processes do not have any inherent moral value; attempting to assign one would involve invoking some sort of "god" that exists beyond the material, observable, provable world we live in, rather than some logical, clear, and distinct notion such as the one attempted to be shown. For these reasons, abortion is morally neutral.

On that note, the morality and legality of abortion are thereby a human notion, with a logically valid -though not logically sound- argument in either direction. The argument presented says that "no human life should be purposefully ended by another human being. Because that's murder." In short, they believe that murder is necessarily and inherently immoral. That's all it is though, a belief: There is no wholly logical ground to stand on with regards to murder being universally bad in all scenarios, because of its' moral neutrality as I proved above. In other words, the morality and legality of aborting a fetus is wholly subjective.

"Do you actually have an issue with my argument that a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder[?]"

Yes I do. A fetus is not survivable beyond the confines of the womb for quite some time; in fact, not until right before the fetus is due to become a baby and be born, that ever-reliable 8 month mark after insemination. As such, considering the fetus is unable to survive without constant connection to the pregnant person, it stands to reason that this is an extension of their body at this point, rather than a separate entity. If one intended to claim it still was at the stages before a fetus can survive independently, then consider this implication: Parasites rely on being attached to living beings in order to survive. This includes humans. Therefore, following the earlier claim that "a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder," a parasite attached to a human is also a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder. Therefore, it is more reasonable to claim that for most of the pregnancy cycle, a fetus is not a separate entity from the pregnant person, and by extension, "ending its' life" is not murder.

"Babies are people, too, and have the same right to life as an adult."

This is true! Because babies are not fetuses.

Just thought you would want to read this, because anti-choice rhetoric can be very harmful in shutting down the agency of pregnant people and their ability to dictate their own lives. Knowing the direction that restrictions of this kind have gone in the past, those restrictions will not stop after the illegalization of abortion. Please consider who this harms and who this helps before spreading closed-minded rhetoric of that kind.

Either morality (God-given or otherwise, because there are many secular arguments against abortion) exists or it doesn't. There is a line in the sand or there is not. If you truly intend to argue that lives have no inherent value beyond what we assign them, then not only are the two of us operating in completely irreconcilable ethical frameworks, but yours collapses under its own weight; harm, agency, all these things mattering hinges on the idea that humans and (to a lesser extent) other forms of life have inherent worth, inherent dignity, that causing the former and undermining the latter are wrong in and of themselves.

If there is no objective standard on which to hang our arguments, then everything becomes subjective; all that matters is what we value on a social and individual level. And if that's the case, why would I ever bother to value the opinions of you, a stranger on the internet, over my own? It would be unfair and wrong of me not to consider other positions, to try to see things from another person's point of view, but why should I care about fairness or rightness?

Equating an embryo or fetus to a parasite is fallacious and incorrect. Ignoring that by the scientific definition parasites have to be a different species from the host, and that a pregnancy is a two-way street that also provides benefits for the mother, embryos and fetuses are simply living out the natural development cycle that literally every other human being on the planet has gone through. The biological principles at play in parasitism and human reproduction are fundamentally different.

I could keep going. I could match your arguments with my own about how anti-life rhetoric is a slippery slope to eugenics, about how I could just as easily twist your arguments around to make social parasites out of the elderly and disabled; but in this case it's pointless, because I can't even get you to sit down and agree upon simple principles like "human lives have value" and "murder is bad" or even "there is such a thing as objective morality."

[thewertsearch]

Ask Comp 10/12

Anonymous asked: Scratch: Won't anyone think of the children!! If you're gonna be smooching then get a room!!! also Scratch: Time to go manipulate more children into destroying their relationships! @manorinthewoods asked: There are two events in which Scratch has, so far, gained emotions: one, when he discovered that the Serkets stole an incredibly important magical item and hid it for centuries or millenia; and two, romance in his workroom. ~LOSS (20/9/24)

@manorinthewoods asked: "Is it because there’s a ‘good’ and an 'evil’ way for a God Tier to die?" On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate this brain fart? ~LOSS (20/9/24)

Wait, is that a brain fart? Because to me, it still scans.

Prospit, the 'good' moon, would naturally be associated with heroism, and vice-versa for Derse. Am I missing something really obvious?

Anonymous asked: Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Death's Bell grows ever nearer. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. But will it determine whether the thief is trully a sinner? Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Honk. I guess we'll see :o) @ben-guy asked: The showdown between Vriska and Terezi really is one of the watershed moments of HS imo. You've questioned if Vriska has matured enough to escape death by mysterious transcendental judgement engine… but let's not forget the meanings of the words in question, and their inherent linguistic and philosophical ambiguity. What if her death being caused by her pursuit of a heroic (albeit foolish) plan tragically makes her growth the cause of a permanent death instead? What if Terezi's decision to kill her is just regardless of Vriska's motivations, making her growth a moot point? Of course, this feels a lot less mutually exclusive, which goes against the implications of the clock imagery. […]

How did Scratch phrase it again?

The terms of a God Tier permadeath are defined according to the case of the individual - which implies that Heroic and Just are subjective, even to Sburb. It sounds like there might not be any ironclad rules, and that everyone's ruling works differently.

Yes, Scratch appears to be outlining some universal examples here - but what does, say, 'corruption' really mean? There are many equally valid interpretations, and a lot of them are contradictory. Maybe each death uses the definition that makes the most sense to that player.

In any case, I think Vriska's fate is currently meant to be unclear. She's designed from the ground up to be a complex, morally ambiguous character, and you could construct a valid argument for either outcome.

For my part, I'm fully convinced this will resolve as Just. I've been predicting Vriska's death for most of the Act now, and it's extremely fitting for it to happen at Terezi's reluctant hands. All those Incidents are finally coming full circle, and they're coming for her.

@morganwick asked: Note that Scratch starts talking about dark pockets and needing to speculate immediately after Vriska sees Karkat and Terezi's corpses. That's all Terezi needed to see, which means it's all Scratch needed to know - and all Hussie needed to know as well.

True! The fight that Scratch couldn't call was part of a doomed timeline. Its outcome was completely irrelevant to the story - and therefore, there's a good chance that Hussie didn't bother to decide on the victor. Author Theory survives another day!

@relaxxattack asked: i dont know if this counts as spoilers (it's a quote from andrew hussie) but i think your theory on scratch's omniscience is basically spot-on! "Doc here refers to the dark spots, the pockets of void on which his vision is built. These hint at limitations to his omniscience. As an alt-author figure, his omniscience makes sense, since the author has sweeping knowledge of story details as well. Because I "know everything," he "knows everything" too. Of course, as I write the story, there are plenty of things I don't know yet, and the "not knowing" is always an important part of the process in this largely improvisational medium. The known gaps are worked into the story, evaded through time skips and other tricks, filling out the surrounding narrative until certain answers become clearer, and then revealed at the right moment. The voids are built around, and in a real way, become foundational, almost load-bearing gaps in knowledge, just as he describes. Pillars of shadow. So his dark spots are not only a limitation to an otherwise ridiculously overpowered villain that can be exploited, they're a feature of a specific type of "authorial omniscience" copied into his profile." -- Andrew Hussie

...and it's officially Hussie-approved! Let's fucking go!

Anonymous asked: One kind of less obvious thing he says about circumstantial simultaneity is that it weaves together perfectly disparate chronologies such as a pair of distinct sessions, so it seems it is at work when there is communication between sessions, such as conversations between humans and trolls. ie: The troll sending the message is circumstantially simultaneous to the human receiving the message. Ditto for the memos. Anonymous asked: Posting for someone else again. -DJ || I interpret Circumstantial Simultaneity to mean a very simple thing: "those events happens at different times, but at the same meta-time". Especially if the things happen in different worlds, and so happening at the same time is impossible, because different worlds have isolated timelines. - RM

That makes a lot more sense than my interpretation. I think I was thrown off by Scratch's insistence that Circumstantial Simultaneity is 'not fully comprehensible to a mortal mind'. His use of such phrasing led me to assume that the concept was more complicated than it appeared, leading me to try and puzzle out the 'real' meaning of the term.

So, in a nutshell, circumstantial simultaneity is when multiple sections of reality are linked by shared events, allowing their local timelines to synchronize. Seems straightforward enough.

Anonymous asked: i don't think scratch technically lied. there are multiple ways in which scratch could die in the same way that there are multiple ways in which anyone could die - an axe could theoretically kill you, but that doesn't mean there has to be a timeline where you get killed with an axe

The semantics here are pretty interesting.

Scratch has stated that there are multiple ways to kill him, which could mean:

That there are multiple scenarios which have a non-zero probability of killing him.

That there are multiple scenarios that would hypothetically cause him to die, if they actually occurred.

These two statements have fairly similar meanings, but, as anon pointed out, there's an important distinction between the two. Statement 1 requires Scratch to actually die in some timelines, but Statement 2 doesn't require him to ever die, in any timeline.

Scratch has stated that he'll only die in one timeline, which means that there is only one scenario that will ever lead to his death. All other scenarios will never lead to his death - and thus, even if they could 'hypothetically' kill him, the probability that they will kill him is zero.

@heliotropopause asked: Never change, Noir. is that the oil jug WV uses for his mural in act 2? how'd it get to Scratch's lair?

I don't think it's the same jug, for the simple reason that both Carapacians emptied out the whole thing for their respective shenanigans. This ain't no Alchemy Jug!

abysswarlock asked: I like to think that the meta joke with the disks are a parallel of how the kings scepters hold small instantiations of skaia that exist within skaia itself, in this case the story of homestuck exists in disk form within the narrative itself.

Perhaps, but the Scepter's recursion is explained to be a game mechanic, whereas there's currently no explanation for the disk's existence. I guess Hussie himself could have put it there, but, like... why?

Anonymous asked: ‘His army thus inspired would spearhead a major re8ellion. Surely one at least on the scale of the sectarian revolt crushed 8y the High8loods, who thereafter for8ade its mention, or any invoc8tion of the heretical sym69ls at all, even in private journals.’ do you have any theories about this line?

Karkat's leadership shines in times of immediate crisis, which is part of why he struggled to keep his team together in the Veil. He doesn't know how to motivate people without an immediate, in-your-face threat - but since his ancestor was leading a rebellion, that probably wasn't an issue for him. The threat was omnipresent.

In short, I think Karkat Senior was always in Vantas Panic Mode. He'd have spearheaded Alternia's first rebellion with vim, vigor, seemingly infinite stamina, and sheer, bloody-minded determination - and if he was anything close to as likeable as Karkat, folk heroism was virtually inevitable. I can't wait to learn more!

@semaphoricwave asked: w.r.t. learning Mindfang dates the Summoner: it makes you wonder if Vriska's obsession with Tavros was the Alternian equivalent of comphet. She had no respect for his agency in the scenario (not difficult to develop when you're able to mind control people), but also she didn't seem to hold much stock in her own agency in all that, either. It's not even a cueball fortune, she just seems to want to be true: this boy she wants to 'make better' (but doesn't know how) is meant to make her happy. Anonymous asked: so with the revelation of the summoner, this makes TWO characters that vriska canonically was in/pursued as part of a romantic relationship that were descendants from her ancestors romantic partners. girl is inventing new kinds of comphet 😭

Vriska, for god's sake. Terezi is right there.

@iknowitsgreen asked: I find it so interesting that there's now an implication that Vriska literally expected Tavros to grow wings and fly to safety when she threw him off that cliff. The question is, did she simply resent Tavros for proving her fantasy wrong, or did she convince herself that Tavros chose to be paralyzed over showing his wings to her? It somewhat recontextualizes her early treatment of him either way

Layers upon layers upon layers. Vriska was fucked up about Tavros from twenty directions at once, and should never have been let within a thousand feet of the poor guy.

@manorinthewoods asked: Since trolls growing wings is apparently some sort of mythic event, presumably the God Tier wings of Vriska specifically tie into this. A God Tier troll gaining wings would be much more significant to the troll than to the human reader, as their culture places incredible emphasis on the meaningfullness of such - and perhaps the God Tier ascension could be likened to such a 'pupation'. ~LOSS (10/9/24)

It would explain why both Vriska and Aradia got them, but John didn't. The trolls have a lot in common with insects, so it stands to reason that in their culture, an insect's metamorphosis would be associated with divine apotheosis.

Anonymous asked: It’s super fascinating riding along as you go through this sequence because when I first read homestuck literally all the mind games went over my head haha. I saw what happened, and had a decent grasp on the characters, but the idea that Gamzee was manipulating Terezi? Never occurred to me. Everything about “why didn’t Terezi suspect Gamze” was just a mystery I never solved (mostly because I never understood gamzee, and still don’t) So Thank You so much for helping me understand better, years later! It’s so wild to look back and know what happens, but still have a limited grasp on why it went down that way.

Thank you for the kind words!

And yeah, a lot of Gamzee's schtick seems to be focused on obfuscating what he's actually doing. The real smoking gun there was the near-complete loss of Terezi's deductive abilities, at the exact moment Gamzee should have entered her radar.

@skelekingfeddy asked: ive always seen the grand highblood as not a troll, but like, the head of the imperial drones. when asked why his blood is black hussie said ‘Because he’s a huge gross monster? I don’t what sort of answer would be meaningful.When the highbloods were setting up the judicial system, they said ok we’re going to need some judges for this thing. Then they said ok how about these massive brainless monsters, that would be so perfect.’ […] its a headcanon of mine that hht is technically the same species as the mother grub. same with the imperial drones. if the mother grub is a queen bee then the drones are…well, drones. and hht is, like, a drone foreman, or sergeant, or something. i imagine that trolls and the drones’ species evolved a reproductive symbiosis, but then the empire took advantage of it and co-opted the drones + hht as enforcers

There's such an interesting untold story here, about how the early trolls might have cyberized a formerly symbiotic species, and essentially made them its slaves.

I've always been interested in how, exactly, the trolls developed their symbioses, and what they might have looked like before Alternian civilization became what it is today.

Anonymous asked: terezi tries to play disc 2 on a gramophone because she literally doesn't know how a cd works - sgrub is all run via grubtech, and most of her humanning has been with mr turntables who even if asked would probably describe a cd through obtuse metaphor likening it to a vinyl record

Oh, good point. Terezi's from a civilization which left CDs behind a long, long time ago.

Hey, come to think of it, why does the Veil even have a…

...oh, right. The room isn't 'canon', so I probably shouldn't be trying to theorize too hard about its contents. It's not really part of the story.

@catlikeascendant asked: I had the impression that just like mindfang was vriska's FLARP character, Redglare was terezi's. That would explain terezi having the outfit and responding to the name, at least @somebody0214 asked: Terezi did roleplay a lot as the Redglare so it would make sense she would respond to Redglare. @dissonancies asked: I'm honestly not sure Terezi does know about her ancestor. […] Vriska had the journals, but she tries to keep her cards close to her chest- remember, "Mindfang" was Vriska's roleplay name. Who's to say she didn't just "casually" "suggest" Redglare for Terezi's character, without telling her why?

Vriska, just how many of your friends have you been molding into their ancestors?

I won't be mad - I just want to know.

Anonymous asked: Equius Sr being fit to Inherit the cueball due his passive Voidiness is another point to sharing classpects with Equius Jr, the Heir of Void. @cationicflood asked: now that youve met the Expatri8, you know now why Scratch didn’t know Vriska had the cue ball until Terezi told him — it’s spent untold centuries ensconced in Zahhak-flavored Void aura. Even when it was in Vriska’s possession, it so happened she was quite literally neighbors with Equius.

We've talked a lot about how I believe Scratch's 'dark pockets' represent information that Hussie hasn't decided on yet. It's admittedly a little difficult to reconcile that with the fact that Void, an in-universe Aspect, is strongly implied to be the source of at least some of these pockets.

Maybe Aspects can work on a meta level, as well as a literal one. Like, perhaps Void is the aspect of author uncertainty, and therefore, anything that Hussie hasn't decided on out-of-universe is canonically 'hidden by Void'.

Anonymous asked: Mindfang warning Vriska about looking into the cueball…. So what you're saying is that Mindfang warned Vriska about the *stares*

It literally keeps happening!

@wolygan asked: So based off of the troll Ancestors we have seen, what do you think the rest might be like? also what do you think of the ones we have seen, since we don't know much about them yet. @absinthe-and-alabaster asked: Hi! I'm wondering if you have any updated thoughts from your initial ancestor theory post about the ancestors we haven't seen yet, given we know a bit more about troll history now

Not a lot! I'm obviously curious about the others, particularly Karkat's, but it's hard to come up with any concrete theories, other than 'their experiences and personalities will parallel those of their descendants', which is a freebie, based on the Ancestors we already have.

Anonymous asked: To be fair to EQ,Nepeta was far and safe when Gamzee attacked, and she could easly hide out of harm way with her skills. He just miscalculated and didn't realise she would follow him and attack Gamzee after he died.

True - but at the same time, he knew that Gamzee would still remain at large after his death, and that he, Equius, would no longer be able to protect Nepeta.

Even if she hadn't attacked him immediately, Gamzee would have remained a significant danger to everyone else on the Veil, Nepeta included. Had Equius fought back, he could have ensured that Gamzee would never be able to harm her.

@martinkhall asked: It's obvious to us that's not Vriska's handwriting. But just because Terezi can smell what the words say doesn't nesisarily mean she can smell the difference in how they're writen.

Plus, would Terezi necessarily be familiar with Vriska's handwriting? After all, most of the trolls seemed to communicate exclusively through modern technology. Would they really have any cause to pass notes to each other while FLARPing?

Anonymous asked: I would push back on the assertion that Heroic and Just deaths are the only way stories can work. One can be slain by a villain but not be a hero, and that can still matter to the story. A certain event from A Song of Ice and Fire springs to mind.

Oh, for sure - that's definitely correct outside of Homestuck. But within the comic, they really might be the only ways to die that Sburb considers 'dramatic' enough to be permanent.

Outside of the God Tier system, though, anything goes. After all, Equius was slain by a villain, and he didn't exactly die a hero.

@flerponius asked: Not really relevant to anything that's going on right now, but I thought you might find it interesting. In the Homestuck physical books, AH comments that the 4 grist types unlocked by default at the beginning of the comic (not including build grist) are related to the players quests; specifically, each grist type is a blight on the land it's found on, and the players quest would involve removing it from the land. I don't think this was explained anywhere else in the comic.

Oh, interesting. I wonder what they were supposed to be for?

Like, how does Rose's chalk relate to bringing life back to her oceans? Did Hussie have different Quest in mind for her, back then?

@manorinthewoods asked: The human session is shaping up to have lasted for less than a week due to Jack's interference, while the trolls slogged through over 600 hours (probably 612, to be specific, or 25.5 days) of relationship drama, powerleveling, and the production of inane yet somehow powerful weapons. Which of these is a more 'normal' length for a session? Did the trolls take too long, or were they rushing? Do bigger sessions last for longer? ~LOSS (2/9/24)

I'm pretty sure the troll session was closer to a 'typical' length.

According to Karkat, the human Reckoning arrived significantly sooner than normal - I assume this was due to Jack's double regicide.

If the human session had gone more smoothly, I imagine that it, too, would have taken several weeks. Like the trolls, the kids would have been able to hang out in person - and unlike the trolls, it probably wouldn't have devolved into multiple homicides.

@cheyj05 asked: Hey, just so you know it's pretty much impossible to read your liveblog in order on mobile. Searching the act 1 tag doesn't work so you pretty much would just have to scroll ALL the way back, which is impossible @cheyj05 asked: Ignore my last ask, I figured out how to do it

Mind sharing how, actually? I've been assuming that this was impossible, due to the Tumblr app's, uh, unique issues. If there's a way to browse the tags properly on mobile, I should probably add it to the pinned.

Anonymous asked: What do you mean "barely wind-themed", John made a car fly with his wind powers, why is a boat less believable?

You're not wrong. I guess I meant more that the boat's Breath energy looked a lot less like actual wind, and more like the abstract idea of Breath. It might just be stylistic, though.

@wolygan asked: I read another liveblog for Homestuck, and they just got to meeting Jade and then wrote a short essay on how they are convinced that Jade is the seer of light, just thought you might find that funny to know.

I do find that funny to know! Hussie got 'em again!

[bisclavret]

like many who have suffered at the hands of bbc merlin before me, i recently indulged in a thought experiment in which i outlined my own version of seasons 3-5 that stay thematically and tonally in line with the show (except they're less fucking stupid). but then i quickly realized that focusing on details is pointless: all you need is to solve the one Big Problem the show has, and the rest will follow. the problem in question? ✨morgana✨

i like the first two seasons. s1 achieves what it sets out to do and has fun while doing it, and s2, while flawed, sets up a ton of potential that the following seasons unfortunately squander, beginning with the insidious season 3. you can only distract me with cute knights and goblins and fart jokes for so long before i start seeing through you, evil, evil season of television.

my hypothesis is that if the writers had crafted s3 morgana into anything more sympathetic than a violent half-alive poltergeist that can never be reasoned with because she's suddenly terminally off her rocker, everything would've fallen into place. a sympathetic morgana would've made real, valid arguments against uther (and arthur) that wouldn't just be the ramblings of a woman possessed. her betrayal of arthur would have stemmed from her feeling increasingly morally superior to him because of his complacency in the face of their father's tyranny. under morgause's guidance she would stop believing that arthur is capable of change, and the whole point would be that she might actually be right. arthur would have to actively try and prove her wrong, instead of getting praised for doing the bare minimum because the bar is on the floor.

furthermore, morgana's prophetic dream about arthur and gwen becoming king and queen and her decision to prevent this however she can is a direct parallel to merlin learning about that same prophecy and making it happen by any means necessary. merlin's desires about his and arthur's futures are subtextually fueled by gay love and devotion, so why couldn't morgana's be? why couldn't she properly express her bitterness that arthur gets to be with gwen in a way she can't "took gwen away" from her, instead of suddenly declaring that gwen is nothing more than a servant, after two seasons of demonstrating again and again that she loves, values, and respects gwen more than anyone else in that godforsaken castle?

following this, an angry and emotionally volatile but still sensible morgana asking gwen to stay by her side during the coup of the castle in the s3 finale and gwen going behind her back to help arthur and the knights would've hurt like a bitch. double-sided betrayal! gwen having a real plot! the proper beginnings of a toxic yuri that would shape a generation!

then there's the utter hubris of having morgana shoot arrows at the same civilians she worried herself sick over for 2 seasons — even morgan, her medieval counterpart that was rooted in every sexist trope in existence, doesn't just go around killing senselessly but instead has (often petty!) personal vendettas against gwen, arthur, and the knights. morgana had every right to be sick of the pretensions around chivalry in camelot (she was always quick to mock it, even in s1), and to lash out at the knights and soldiers after years of feeling powerless in a castle full of armed men that blindly followed her oppressor. the show conveniently forgets that morgana was victimized as a woman as well as a sorcerer those first 2 seasons.

but like i said, this is not just about morgana. allowing her to remain a real and multifaceted character even as she betrays everyone in pursuit of her ambitions would've given the rest of the core four more interesting conflict to work with: merlin because he would have to experience real consequences to his actions, arthur because he would watch his sister go against his father (and his knights, and his birthright) and experience some actual internal dilemmas about it, and gwen because she would be forced to choose between morgana and arthur without the pretense that it's an obvious or easy choice for her to make.

even morgause and gaius would come off more interesting as mentors: neither one inherently evil or inherently good, both jaded by events that happened before our protagonists were even born, both heavily influencing morgana and merlin into fulfilling roles that they think are appropriate, but that morgana and merlin may not have chosen for themselves had they not been under their care.

you get the gist. if the show followed its own setup, morgana's mistakes wouldn't lie in cheap and senseless acts of violence but in alienating the people she loves because she is too hurt and jaded to trust them. meanwhile, everybody else would feel guilt over "failing" her and yet they would be too caught up in their own (sometimes flawed!) beliefs of right and wrong to truly see her point of view.

arthur would convince himself it was sorcery that corrupted her. merlin would know that isn't true but he wouldn't be able to argue without confessing everything, which is the defining conflict between him and morgana and it's cheapened when she's just an evil witch caricature and merlin is framed as inherently virtuous in contrast. gwen, too, would become a more active participant in her own life by choosing arthur over morgana and choosing to rule camelot with him instead of just waiting politely to see where things go.

and, of course, uther's downfall and death would be quick, final, and completely earned — when and why did the show even decide he of all people was the sympathetic villain, anyway?

lastly, and perhaps controversially, i think morgana should've learned merlin's true identity by season 4. her being the first of the main characters to find out makes perfect sense considering their shared history and their interconnected and mirrored arcs. even the show seems to agree, considering she does find out a little before arthur. but the narrative itself tried pointing flashing neon arrows towards this way earlier — there is a whole entire episode in s4 where merlin being emrys is repeatedly spelled out for morgana and she still isn't allowed to see it. that episode makes her look like the stupidest person to ever live, which is pretty funny im not gonna lie, but also another frustrating thing in the endless string of frustrating things that make up this show.

morgana learning that merlin has magic would've transformed the source of merlin's anxiety from a crippling fear of being outed someday to the crippling fear of knowing she could out him at any moment. this would make him want to beat her to the punch (perhaps he'd consider killing her for a minute and decide against it because she isn't a cartoonishly insane evil person in my version of events) and maybe he would even feel some tentative excitement at the idea of coming clean, now that it seems inevitable. after all, he always intended to tell arthur eventually! and i think gaius would have to admit outright that he does not want merlin to tell arthur he has magic because he, gaius, simply cannot risk such a gamble. it would be so interesting to see gaius and merlin clash and disagree once it becomes obvious that it's not merlin that isn't ready for the reveal, it's gaius. delicious!

with morgana's knowledge looming, things would inevitably spiral into a magic reveal by the end of season 4. i picture this season as an absolute mess of miscommunication between everyone at camelot, which is, y'know, canon. growing increasingly cunning and vengeful, morgana would use this tension to her advantage, destabilizing the court from the outside while she creates alliances with other sorcerers outside of camelot (instead of living alone in a hovel for no reason — morgana le fay i'm sorry i'm so sorry they gave you agravaine instead of your all-female entourage oh my god).

and here's where the events would change beyond recognition (aka here's where the meta becomes the fanfic i refuse to write). picture it with me: a militia of sorcerers infiltrates camelot and arthur and gwen have to set aside their differences (assuming gwen kissing lancelot and arthur overreacting happens, which it should) for the good of the kingdom as well as for love. picture high priestess morgana in her element, side by side with a bunch of misfit sorcerers that aren't so easily vilified, chopping down camelot's soldiers and knights and assuredly making their way to the newly-minted king.

then, just as it starts to seem that all hope is lost, in swoops merlin (the actual merlin, not his old fart disguise) on dragonback (kilgharrah hates morgana so much i know his sexist ass would stoop to anything to stop her)!!! imagine merlin showing off the extent of his powers in front of everyone and preventing the sorcerers from getting any further, declaring loud and clear that camelot is protected by him, by emrys. imagine that display of power alone being enough to send everyone home.

imagine the loyalties clearly drawn: merlin on arthur's side, morgana on the sorcerers'. imagine arthur, feeling confused and betrayed by everyone at this point, banishing merlin despite everything he's done for him in the angstiest, most emotionally dysregulated scene the show had ever put to screen. imagine merlin starting season 5 free at last but very lonesome, an embittered dragonlord like his father. imagine the absolute mess camelot would become without him, even with gwen �� now queen guinevere — there to pick up the slack. imagine arthur actually earning merlin back, finally growing into his role as king as he does so. imagine the reunion.

all this and more could've been not just possible but inevitable if morgana was allowed to remain a complex character that is neither inherently good nor inherently evil: it was undeniably the biased and one-note treatment of morgana's downfall by the writers that set the precedent for literally everything else that happened after merlin chose to poison her. the show wouldn't have even had to jeopardize its tone or the monster-of-the-week vibe, all it would've had to do is admit that even the "good guys" are capable of mistakes and what makes them good is the ability to feel remorse and change for the better. (as opposed to uther, who was miles beyond redemption since way before the pilot and deserved to lose everything and die alone. OBVIOUSLY???)

in a world where morgana remains multifaceted and sympathetic, mordred would get a better arc as well, so if we really wanted to, we could still end on the same tragic note that the show ended on. with so much harm inflicted onto so many innocent people by the pendragons for so long (including mordred and the many druids and sorcerers that raised him), it could realistically end up being a little too late for anything more than one shining glimpse of king arthur and the sorcerer merlin's short-lived golden age before fate catches up to them. glimpsing that reality just to immediately lose it would've been far more satisfying and far more tragic than whatever the writers thought they were doing with all that pointless carrot-dangling.

and finally, an ending in line with morgana's new and improved arc. in this version, rather than bleeding out on the forest floor alone, she would channel the morgan le fay we know from the legends: sobered up by the reality of her brother dying, she would use her high priestess status (and perhaps also her pendragon status) to be granted passage over to avalon alongside arthur on the boat — a one-way ride — just to make sure he gets there safely. this is her penance for the harm she has caused, the same way arthur's penance is to die and leave the true ruler of camelot (gwen) behind to achieve everything he was too slow and indecisive to build while he still had time.

merlin's penance, then, would be to stay behind and watch them cross over without him, waiting and waiting and waiting until they come back or until he can finally join them. which is a bit fucking harsh if i'm honest, so i'd at least make it slightly more faithful to the legends by having him return as an old man and letting him take a long nap under a tree by the shore, his body slowly enveloped by vines like the cobwebbed fisher king in 3x08, never fully sure if he's dreaming or if there really are strange shapes fading in and out of the fog over the lake. still tragic, but nevertheless a little more open-ended and whimsical than [TRUCK NOISES] THE END!

[meldingintheunderdark]

I wish the ultimatum was implemented and not limited to the Rite of Thorns and its other conditions.

Whenever the ultimatum is mentioned, especially on reddit or youtube, it's always about Minthara, rational and diplomatic, whereas Halsin is aggressive and cruel. Pure logic versus messy emotions. Some opinions are also based on Halsin supposedly being a raging drow racist (no).

Why would Halsin not be emotional though? It's about the horrible loss of the refugees, his druids, his animals and his Grove. It's about being a prisoner at the mercy of Minthara and the goblins. Who wouldn't be furious? Even without the Rite of Thorns, Halsin's anger would be warranted. Minthara shows no remorse whatsoever because, in her opinion, the Absolute forced her hand. Moreover, Minthara is also very emotional when she points out what Lolth and the Absolute cult did to her. They're simply expressing their emotions differently.

I'm persuaded some opinions I've read are undoubtedly skewed by the idea that logic is more valid than emotions. This archaic belief is still used to this day to silence the voices of marginalized groups, to disregard their righteous anger. Minthara, who appears calm and factual, seemingly has the upper hand over Halsin, who's emotional and stating his boundaries without compromise. If Minthara was the one outwardly emotional, I bet players would tend to think she's hysterical. Because she adopts an overvalued attitude too often demanded to make any dissident voice palatable, in control of her feelings and body language, she's right. And the big man mentioning his trauma, clearly emotional? He has no argument whatsoever. He's aggressive, he's unforgiving, so he's OOC. Are we talking about the same character? Halsin, who has just lost everything and everyone? Halsin, who's still not without sympathy? Halsin, who loathes to put the ultimatum to the PC? Halsin, who still thanks the PC and hopes to be proven wrong if he has to leave? Halsin is forgiving, but he isn't a forgiving idiot. Minthara is still a sadist. She isn't sorry. She hasn't changed. Why would he forgive her? Hence his "a viper cannot escape its true nature" statement.

People complain Halsin is bland, yet they can't tolerate his outbursts.

One is unrepentant and wants the destruction of the cult at all costs. One values life and fights to save Faerûn even if his demise is the sole outcome. Minthara is a skilled cutthroat. Halsin is self-sacrificing to a fault. The scene is so good. Two different individuals who will never see eye to eye. They're each other's antithesis. Their values are irreconcilable.

Minthara and Halsin are both extremely emotional and their arguments reflect their respective states of mind. Choosing Minthara or Halsin tells more about our own morals (or our character's) than their logic, or lack thereof. So disappointed the ultimatum will never be canon.

[ilikekidsshows]

Call me a childish hater but I'm glad the Hack-San Ladynoir ending got obliterated into pieces. It already felt degrading and hollow back then with how Adrien's worry for Ladybug's life is not not addressed to give Marinette a free pass for throwing the worst possible situation in Chat's face (someone else suddenly having her earrings which he understandably took as Scarabella being a Sentimonster and Hawkmoth possibly having found Ladybug). That episode said so much more about Marinette's absolut lack of care for Chat as a person than about Adrien being "needy". At least he deeply cared for her safety, can't say that about Marinette apparently)

And I also hate how Marinette is using the term 'sulking' to describe her own feelings if she were in Chat's position. It's such a childish and degrading word to use here. That episode already killed most arguments that Marinette thinks about Chat's safety beyond how she plays into it (with Kuro Neko for example killing the rest. Gurl seriously thought Chat's akumatized as a civilian for a while and didn't even consider it BAD that Hawkmoth knows his identity, which she disregarded again in Elation), but I simply HATE that Adrien was made to attack Scarabella because he clearly thought about the realistic worst cases

And yet the end of the episode has Marinette use childish terms and not even once push back on Chat basically telling her that he's irrelevant. She took care of what's important and that doesn't include him. She's perfectly fine with him thinking that because obviously she considers his hurt feelings as unprofessional neediness that came from their 'special bond' and not because he was still left to believe that he's supposed to care for her safety in their duo and that Ladybug would do the same (which the show has shown over and over again, she literally wouldn't. She barely remembers that Chat is a real person and the show plays it straight)

I hate that the episode had Adrien initially REACT in a way that honors the bond Ladynoir was once supposed to have (meaning, seeing a new holder with the other one's miraculous as a red alert situation) just to be girlbossed into oblivion by the two leaders on top of the hierarchy who clearly don't consider him in anything.

That is such an awful way to morally approach this as show. Adrien was the only one of the three of them who treated the situation with the right seriousness and he got punished for it by being treated as a pet and needy child to the two treat Ladybug's above him.

It says honestly so much more about Marinette and Alya than Adrien.

Marinette viewing Chat's problem as some unprofessional neediness is also highlighted by her not even humoring the question of if he too may need a person to confine in. All she say sis that she would have sulked if she had found out like this that he revealed himself to someone else, but she does not care to ask of he needs anyone. For. Her it's a ridiculous thought apparently that Chat could need something.

Or have valid feelings that go beyond unprofessional hurt feelings because "their bond is so special uwu". How special can it be if Marinette at no point can be made to give a shit about the person underneath his mask? When she immediately ditched him after being told "no" once in Kwamis choice?

How special can it be when Marinette over and over and over again degrades anything Chat feels as childish pettiness and sulking that need to be fixed by him catering to her more?

I don't care what anyone says, Adrien was right in leaving in Kwamis Choice. Very obviously he had to learn ever since Hack-San that Ladybug is a person he needs to be able to live without because this girl is the most unreliable partner anyone could be stuck with. My hope is that Lila will have a blast with the broken pieces that is Ladynoir. I don't even want them to break up forever to punish Marinette or some nonsense, I just want the show to fucking DEAL with this horrible morality that is Marinette's absolut disregard of Chat being a real person.

---

This tendency is extra annoying when as early as the New York Special we saw Adrien’s despair over killing someone be sidelined with Marinette lying on the ground, sobbing about how Adrien went back to Paris instead of spending a school trip with her, the epitome of having petty “me problems”. Cat Noir giving up his ring is just pushed aside with a "he made his choice", because why would Marinette care about her loyal superhero partner who was just seriously traumatized when she can cry about Adrien going home from a trip early instead? Adrien having any feelings on actually important stuff is just him “sulking”, but Marinette can throw herself a pathetic pity party about how she can’t see Adrien for a few days and we’re supposed to treat it like she’s lost everyone who ever cared about her.

But, sure, Adrien is the one being emotional and needy, while our feminist icon “girl power” protagonist cries and throws up because she has to be a day without her crush. At this point, Adrien could have a hole in his torso, and the show would still treat him as an ungrateful whiner, while Marinette getting “Queen Bee” in a Miraculous hero personality quiz would be treated like the world was ending. It doesn’t matter whether or not someone is dead, has had their secret identity discovered or has been replaced by a Sentimonster. What actually matters is whatever petty shit Marinette is worried about today, which is usually the same petty shit she’s worried about every day, just for the record.

This is Marinette being sad that she failed to tell the boy she will see in school a few days later that she loves him, like she fails to do every day of the week. But this is treated as the emotional lowest point of the movie, with more pathos than anything else this entire show has gotten even after the fact, because she’s crying in the rain about it this time. Clearly Marinette has more important things to worry about than Adrien does and this isn’t all just emotional manipulation on the part of the writers! Her love life is being slightly inconvenienced! We're supposed to take this shit seriously!

Like, while Marinette is lying on the ground, in the rain, crying after failing to do something she will be able to try again in a few days at the most, Adrien is dealing with having (temporarily) killed someone and his abusive father being in a Mood(™). Cat Noir is missing in action. Soon after we see Hawk Moth is gonna try to cause a nuclear apocalypse, which ends up being treated as normal superhero hijinks. The special treats all of this obviously more pressing stuff as unimportant, because it’s not about Marinette's love life and god forbid this show be about anything other than Marinette for five minutes.

Like, when I first saw the NY Special, I said she deserved to lose Cat Noir as a partner. I only meant that in a “This was caused by her own actions and Marinette should learn a lesson from this” kind of way back then. Now, though? Getting away from Marinette is for Adrien’s own good, and I hate that being concerned for Adrien now translates to “wanting Marinette to be punished”, all because Marinette has been turned into such a toxic, needy, clingy person that she will be in emotional agony if anyone around her takes distance from her to take care of their own needs first instead of solely catering to hers.

In a narrative that treats Marinette’s smallest inconvenience as more important than the well-being of any other character, of course the idea that Marinette herself could ever be in any real peril is inconceivable. The writers would never let anything happen to her, so Cat Noir is just stupid for worrying about her well-being, he should just be aware of the meta narrative, I guess. No one could ever defeat Ladybug, which is why the writers’ commentary claims Marinette won in the S5 finale, so the only thing to actually be worried about is whether or not she gets to have her boytoy of choice. Actual peril doesn’t exist in the larger narrative of Miraculous, outside of vague hypotheticals that will never come to pass, because the biggest worry of the entire universe is to make sure Marinette isn’t upsette.

[thestartarot]

North Node Aries / South Node Libra

My own observations, take what resonates.

18 y/o over due to sensitive topic nature, thank you.

Soul color: Red

Your destiny point: independence in all relationships and feeling accepted for who one truly is, a firm grasp on who you are, be meaningful, and have confidence to feel comfortable in your own skin.

How to overcome: stop worrying and letting your life get so defined by what people think of you or how someone decides to validate you. Find an actual sport to help with issues of insecurity brought on by competitiveness and learn when to walk away from confrontation.

Childhood: An Aries NN is always interesting in the dynamic of the home. A lot of repressed conflict here. Most likely, a lot of arguing in the home (between siblings, between parents, maybe everyone) and often times the fights were intense and the resolutions were passionate and heartfelt. This placement has an undeniable sense of feeling mistaken from all angles, feeling unusual. Because of this, the placement will go to great lengths to seek validation from family and friends. In addition to the validation needed at home and with friends, the media plays a big role in validating this placement and often what we are taught to be “standard” is actually unobtainable and sometimes impossible. There were probably a vast amount of different social groups and cliques growing up. This placement certainly didn’t want to lose out in popularity so may have been the most popular in school or may have been everyone to everyone, losing themselves in the process.

Also, there are moral issues here, embrace what is different and cool and genuine to you or stay in the crowd? This placement stays with the crowd, there’s more protection and the friends are a way to escape the confines of the home where it’s easy to not feel like enough with everything going on (sports, grades, finances etc.) This placement may have also had to mature early, maybe even having jobs at young ages.

Adulthood: This placement may still be in contact with same friends from high school or college because community are the social checks and balances Libra south node loves. Media is a big influence in this placement. A BIG shift from repressing what makes them feel uncomfortable or insecure in childhood to a lot of self help and self discovery in adulthood. This placement will learn to part ways with what no longer serves them, after a couple of mistakes learned the hard way, usually. Then, the Aries NN will go on to keep digging to discover themselves and where they may have gotten lost in childhood. This placement may put an emphasis on finding the one answer or the one thing that will make all of these uncomfortable feelings go away, but really it’s the Libra’s south node obsessions and perfectionism that is causing this placement so much heartache.

Libra, being an air sign, intelligence & debate are happy places for this placement. Loves to argue for their ideals, beliefs, and community. The placement feels validated in arguments by their own research and intellect and the people who support them. Conflict can grow too comfortable here.

Imposter syndrome could be strong here.

How to overcome: The nodes are axis points of fear, things we need to overcome to see the bigger picture. In tarot, these nodes are represented by The Fool & The Emperor or Empress. In particular to this placement, true healing comes from walking away from a fight, laughing at the ridiculous standards being imposed by media, choosing their own image and story, and having faith. This placement will actually have a lot of growth in the breakup of relationships and self determined individuals will use the trial by fire to keep moving in their interests and truth. This sign is fundamentally unique, a trailblazer, and a little quirky. This placement needs to believe in themself and get in touch with the fundamentals of who they are.

Also, Libra needs an outlet for all of that competition so go be the best at something (strong encouragement for competitive sport) and don’t worry what others think!! You got this!! You are enough and you were born with sound mind.

— Casper

[usercelestial]

the whole queer eddie being included in a queer characters posts reminds me of like when people were wishing the bucktommy date scene got cut instead of the eddie and buck in Bobby’s room and eddie praying …when there is that whole random ass scene with no real adherence to the plot or the characters with polly the neighbour right there as an option for them to cut..but no they wanna cut the scene with the mlm queer couple (that many mlm queer men in this fandom love) all because they hate tommy, can’t handle a daddy issues joke, and the fact that it’s not eddie with buck

yeah ultimately a lot of their cries for activism and queer rep are performative. they do not truly care about queer characters or queer representation and i think most people could smell that from a mile away. these people have always been way more concerned with their own ship than with anything else. they like to pretend that if you don't ship The Thing or if you don't hate bucktommy then you must not want eddie to be queer or even like his character and that's. a thought lol. but i think it's really interesting why they've come to that conclusion.

like for me, i love eddie enough that i don't have to change his character to make him something that i like. i love eddie enough to allow him to be his own character outside of my own interpretation of his queerness and outside of his relationship with buck. but at the same time i also love eddie enough to see myself in him and create theories about his identity. these two things co-exist: seeing the character for what the canon shows me he is AND seeing the character for what i'd like him to be. i think most people are able to find the balance and be pretty normal about it. i think these people are genuinely so far deep into whatever they want the story to be that they have to rewrite canon to fit that perception of the character and feel threatened when that gets pointed out.

which again, like i truly do not give a shit if you do cherry pick canon, just don't come for people who are like hey you know that's just your headcanon right? like don't act like your own interpretation is better than anyone else's. it's not, it's still just an interpretation. i do read eddie as queer while still acknowledging that within the canon universe, he is identified as a straight man by canon. which makes my reading of him just a headcanon (aka canon in your head but not anywhere else), no less valid and important but still not the story they may be trying to tell.

i've talked about this a little bit before but i think a lot of the issue here is the idea of playing nice and remembering that this is all pretend which i don't think they've really had to deal with before. a lot of these people have never been confronted with another big kid on the block. their ship has kind of held precedent for a really long time, along with their headcanons and their ideas of what these characters are. so now that buck actually is bisexual and is dating a man, who isn't eddie, suddenly their entire worldview of canon breaks down.

now there's canon gay representation. now you don't have a moral argument to justify your ship bc that thing you've been begging for, "canon bi buck/more canon queer characters" does exist. so now what are you arguing for? just a preferred ship? no that can't be, it must be more than, we must be fighting for something bigger.

but now you're forced to confront that it's all just headcanons and vibes and theories that have ran unchallenged for years and years. so now you have a group of people who do not know how to grapple with the reality they are being shown vs the reality they've created in their heads clashing against people who are fans of the same reality the show lives in and don't really care about the non-canon anymore. which, if that's your prerogative, if you prefer non-canon stuff, then go for it, that's what fandom is for, but the issue here is that they view this as genuinely a threat. they don't want any other interpretation. it doesn't just feel like a threat to their ship, it feels like a threat to the canon world they've created about these characters. they see other people coming in excited for something that isn't their thing, and now feel like we're taking something away from them. they don't want to see canon anymore, even if it's something they used to claim they want. they don't want queer rep, they want to be proven right.

[glitter-stained]

I keep seeing posts about how Jason should have chara development that makes sense regarding his morals and stop killing because of that rather than because Bruce told him to stop and like - it's not like I disagree. Of course, that would be great. Of course I want him to be written his age by writers that like him and have development that makes sense and work with Bruce and Dick and evolve on his own as a person.

But the thing is.

A few weeks ago I saw a critique of His Dark Materials that was so absurdly daft it made me want to peel my skin off. For context, His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman is a children/young adult book set in fantasy worlds that doubles as a retelling of Paradise Lost in which Lucifer wins, and criticism of christianism is preponderant in it. (This will spoil a good part of book 1 of HDM btw). I'm far from a HDM fan, I saw a few episodes of the adaptation and read it once when I was ten and thought the characters and world was fun but the rhythm in the 2nd and 3rd books was off and I didn't like the ending, so like it was fun but I definitely not a re-read for me. But the point is, this critique clearly had a degree in not getting the fucking point, because his arguments against the books clearly stemmed from an inability to shift his viewpoint out of the christian framework (I promise this is still a Jason post). One of his most ludicrous argument was the lack of character depth in HDM. This is particularly silly because one of the main characters, Mrs Coulters, is one of the most interesting complex characters I've ever seen in fiction. Now Mrs Coulters is interesting because she is a bad guy. Like, tortures and kills children level of bad guy. She doesn't magically grow to sacrifice herself in the name of martyrdom to repent for her sins or something silly like that; but still, she sometimes does very good, helpful things for the characters, because the tension between her character is between her ambition (and her faith though that's more questionable) and her motherhood, as she truly loves and cares for her daughter, one of the protagonists, and wants a better, safer world for her. Now the critique claimed that there was no character depth because there was no concept of sin and no redemption arcs in the books- but those are utterly Christian concepts, so of course they wouldn't be endorsed by a book that challenges their validity. Just because Mrs Coulters doesn't have a redemption arc doesn't mean she isn't deep; and the fact that she does good things not out of morality but out of love is what makes her a fascinating character.

So, thinking about that asinine critique, I was suddenly struck with the realization that Jason is somehow similar to Mrs Coulters in that he is a very loving person who tends to put his personal connexions above everything else (of course, he doesn't experiment on and torture children, that's not what I'm saying). My point is, I don't think why we shouldn't have a Jason who evolves not moved by his morals (though he has them and they matter) but by his love. The point of Death in the Family is Jason wanted to be loved and have a family and trying to shield Sheila's body with his and telling her he loved her. The point of UTRH is Jason doing horrible things in the most theatrical, strategically planned mental breakdown as begging for proof of love because he can't reconcile being loved in a different way that he loves and because he can't understand someone putting their moral code over love. And as much as RHATO #25 fills me up with dread, I have to say I love Jason's behaviour in that final stint. "I am my father's son" holy shit what a line. Jason is Willis' son and because of his filial love, his loyalty demands he avenges him. Jason is Bruce's son and because of his filial love, his loyalty demands that he does not kill. Jason almost murders Willis' murderer with a blank bullet and then when Bruce beats hims halfway to death he doesn't defend himself, doesn't fight back (like, one punch but come on, we've seen him fight, he just gives up). That right there? Hate to say it with how questionable RHATO's Jason is in general, but that's peak characterization. The conflict is entirely about Jason's conception of love, family and worldview, and it's deep and interesting and has nothing to do with morality. I want Jason storylines that explore that. I want Jason to work with the batfam in stories that make sense, I want the writers to acknowledge him as a victim and trauma survivor and allow him to grow from there instead of demonizing his mental illness, I want him to stop killing out of love and I want him to allow himself to love in healthier ways and for the width of his love to spread exponentially and for that to affect his behaviour and worldview.

And that's not just because I like Mrs Coulters and dislike the idea of holier than though moral characters! The christic symbolism Jason is crystal clear (especially in Lost Days), but it's not just about Jason: Talia is associated with Mary (which makes sleeping with him that much more obviously incestuous and horrible and ooc), Joker is the Devil and Bruce, of course, is God (which begs such interesting questions about the Holy Spirit - Robin maybe? To explore at a later date). Now, everybody's experience with Christianity differs wildly, but the way I learnt it growing up in catholic culture was basically God being an Authority of Judgement and Law, strict and all about morality; while Jesus is about love, unconditional love, even and especially the sinners and the damned (and as for the devil Lucifer is a fallen angel who fell after losing to God, and Satan is the demonic incarnation of temptation ain't that interesting). So I would argue that by having Jason kill or not kill out of love for his family, Jason is already his own character with autonomous thought process, independent morals and original interesting values that are a breath of fresh air in the world of superhero which is all about moral codes. Additionally, I think it's interesting and full of potential (and hope) that that very thing is why Jason and Bruce are held in opposition so often when in christianism they are two sides of the same coin.

TLDR: Jason going through character development that doesn't involve an evolution of his moral code is a great idea and if executed properly should give us fascinating stories with one of the most interesting characters in the DC universe, I used to think he should get a sort of "redemption arc" after UTRH where he questions his moral code but now I feel like I'm stuck in the same Christian/superhero framework as the pedantic guy who didn't understand His Dark Materials and I refuse to agree with them about anything so now I'm a hardcore "love over morals" Jason girlie. Obviously I still think moral code development would be a good and interesting storyline and better than anything DC is giving us rn, but I think we could do even better without it.

(also Star Sapphire Jason ftw)

[olderthannetfic]

Nearly 75% of fic on AO3 has less than 5 reader comments. Can we please acknowledge that lack of engagement in a positive fashion is the norm in fandom and that writers are expected to work for nothing in return yet readers are allowed to be entitled?

The source of my number

https://www.tumblr.com/transholmes/738776926733336576/and-even-those-numbers-on-the-lower-end-are

--

Hahahahaha.

Oh, anon.

Okay, first of all, I just posted a bunch of graphs showing exactly this, so not only am I well aware of it, but you also clearly don't read my tumblr much and are just here because some friend of yours is upset that I responded negatively to them about their dumb bookmarking opinions.

Second and more importantly...

No, no one is expected to do anything.

That's crazypants influencer talk where you think your hobbies are jobs that you have no choice about doing.

I suppose I do expect fans to have something at least marginally worthwhile to say—or else I'll block them for being whiny little bitches who make my day dumber as well as less amusing.

But mostly, what I expect is that people will do hobbies because they are fun. If I ever decide that writing fic is too boring, I will stop.

I write because it's fun.

I write original work for money too, and if you want to read that, you're going to have to pay Amazon your cold, hard cash. But I still do it because I enjoy the actual act of writing... at least a lot of the time.

What I see in the bookmark boo-hooing is a bunch of people who haven't noticed the last eighty thousand rounds of this same dumb wank and who not only expect to get the last word but expect that somehow I'm going to signal boost it on my tumblr as that... a tumblr known for contentious debates and nobody ever getting the last word till everyone's exhausted and never wants to hear about paper plates or beans again.

I also see that some of the thinnest-skinned people have fic patreons.

Now, I chose not to bring this up before because it sounds a bit below the belt in that "And thus you're morally impure and thus I can ignore your argument" way... But it's a consistent pattern in these conversations over time, and I do think it's relevant. The biggest sensitive babies are always the ones most afraid of bad reviews but also low engagement, and I think it's because they're caught in some half-pro, half-not limbo where they want the best of both worlds but keep getting the worst of both.

If you behave like a professional who is owed compensation, you can expect a more professional style of response to your work.

And what does the pro world look like? Radio silence. The occasional harsh review. Nobody caring why you wanted to write X or why you couldn't finish Y on time.

If you're here to socialize, you should look for a beta or a couple of good friends who like your blorbos and your style of fic, and then you can squee together about what you've written. It may not come in the form of visible AO3 comments. It may be in private chat.

In some cases, it may just be friends you can talk to about your writing but who aren't actually going to read it. I have plenty of friends who read different things than what I write.

That's what socializing and hobbies look like, dude.

It's fine to point out that many writers do get discouraged by low comment counts and then stop, so if I, as a reader in a fandom, want more, it behooves me to befriend writers and make them feel good.

But at the same time, writers get discouraged or move on to the next fandom all the time for all kinds of reasons. If the critical mass and the zeitgeist aren't there, then they aren't.

Do your hobbies for reasons internal to you.

If the main point is external validation, get into BDSM and find someone excited to indulge your praise kink. It will work a lot better than chasing fame via art.

[lilvoidcreature13]

I'm so tired of the "Snape deserved to be bullied bc he becomes a death eater" argument.

I live villainous / morally Grey characters and I've never seen anyone argue that a characters future actions justify the hardships they faced in their pasts. It a logically unsound argument and it makes me irrationally angry to even read it because you have to either 1.Are being disingenuous in your argument, in which case your not mature enough to actually have any valid points. Or 2. You actually believe the argument and somehow think that a unknowable future can justify past/presence abuse, in which case your no longer worth the air you breath. If your gonna make moral judgements like bullying and harassment is ok because [insert whatever reason you want] then your no better than the people who actually bully irl because guess what? Every bully, every abuser, every person whose ever harmed another person has found a way to justify their behavior. It's a slippery slop and you've already gone down it, the only saving grace is this is all over fictional characters and hopefully you don't apply that logic in real life. Of course beliefs about fiction don't often stay fictional and we, as a species, often use fiction to inform our morals, (that's why we still tell children about the Boy Who Cried Wolf even thought most kids aren't tasked with looking over sheep).

Also if ppl are gonna make the argument that future actions can justify past hardships than why don't we try using that same argument with other characters, shall we?

Harry deserved to be starved and neglected as a child because he not only blew up his aunt-in-law with magic but he was also a bad dad to Albus in the Cursed Child Theatre Production.

Hermione deserved to be called bullied by Snape, Pansy, Draco, and even Harry and Ron because she would hold a living person captive in a jar for days.

Ron deserved to be attacked by Sirious and dragged through the Whomping Willow tunnel because he'd later be a really shitty friend to Harry and Hermione during the Horcrux Hunt.

Neville deserved to be bullied by Snape because Neville lost the password list for the Gryffindor common room, which put his entire House in danger when their was a madman running loose in the castle.

Lily deserved to be called a mudblood because she literally dates her best friends SAer.

Remus deserved to be bites by Greyback as a child because he almost abandoned the woman he got pregnant while a war was literally brewing.

James deserved to be hunted down by Voldemort because he would later leave his wife alone with a baby to go harrasse muggle police officers when they're supposed to be hiding.

See, I can make absolutely stupid arguments for other characters that all follow that moral judgements, now can we all agree that "this character deserve X because [future actions]" is pure stupidity?

[cotton-could]

In defense of Zenitsu Agatsuma

Alright, we all know Zenitsu is quite a divisive character but his haters are taking their dislike towards him in a disturbingly disproportionate way to the point they pick his flaws and demonize... And their reasons to hate him is either "he's loud and annoying", "he's cowardly and useless", "he's a pervert" or "he forced himself on nezuko" so i'll refute those repetitive arguments because it's getting really tiring

"He's loud and annoying"

He's loud and? So is Inosuke and people dont give him hell for it and many of his lines is him screaming. Rengoku is loud aswell but people dont mind it. They only focus on Zenitsu and it's just unfair and biased because those same people are the same ones who love other louder characters while hating on Zen for it and the excuse it's probably "he's annoying". While the annoyingness depends a lot of the person, they somehow tolerate characters that are way more annoying than him but since Zenitsu is considered as a "loser", they just use him as a scapegoat.

And about being annoying... It's really frustrating that they only tolerate him when he's asleep aka being brave and imo its boring because we have so many characters that fear nothing and are super brave wich gets too repetitive and even boring so to it's quite refreshing to see a character that doesnt show a brave side and has more realistic reactions when encountering demons that are twice his height.

Besides the guy clearly has a lot of issues and unresolved traumas wich are shown with his clinglyness, self esteem issues, etc... sadly the author didnt put much focus and it doesnt go away magic and the fact that his haters are quick to be sympathetic to other Demon Slayer characters who did WAY worse than him but people refuse to try to understand him just show they just care about if a character is cool enough or quiet enough.

"He's cowardly and useless"

Did we watch the same show?? He may be cowardly sure (wich is valid given his circumstances) but calling him useless is a reach. If he was useless; Nezuko would've been killed by Inosuke, the kid he was protecting in the demon drum arc would've died aswell (he had countless of oportunities to ditch the little boy and leave him for dead), the mission in the red light district could've been more complicated, the little girl he defended from Daki wouldnt have her other ear, etc...

Hence, despite being a coward, he still has morals that his haters love to overlook. The guy was terrified of Tengen yet he still did what he could to defend the girls from him, took a nasty blow from Daki just for defending someone, tried to hide Genya from Sanemi, etc without expecting something back. Despite his flaws, Zenitsu is without a doubt one of the most selfless characters in the show but of course, according to dudebros and haters, crybaby=useless.

"He's a pervert"

This one is a valid criticism but sadly, his haters flanderize said flaw to make him some sort of predator, calling him all sort of awful things and even accusing him of stuff he didnt even do. His love for girls can be super weird and he's not a gentleman but they love to overlook all the moments where he genuinely protected girls that aren't only Nezuko and after doing so, he doesn't expect them to be his girlfriend or anything. He even demanded Daki to apologize to the little girl she bullied. If he only cared about women for lust pleasure then many of his kind actions toward them wouldn't even exist in the first place

Besides I find it super hypocritical for people to give Zenitsu hell for his innapropriate behaviour towards girls yet those same people turn a blind eye to Tengen slapping a minor's butt (some even going as far as trying to explain the reason), threw a little girl off the roof without caring if she'd survive or not and almost kidnapping the butterfly girls. Tengen did ALL of this without even apologizing to the girls nor without getting properly punished for said actions (and no, him losing his hand and eye are not direct punishment of his actions but rather unfortunate consequences of the battle). It's just crazy how those same people hold Zenitsu (a teenager) more accountable for his behaviour than Tengen (grown adult) for his smh.

"He forced himself on Nezuko"

Dude has an innocent crush on a girl who treats him well and people act as if he was a terrible and psychopathic guy who didn't cared about her and treated her like garbage. This man would rather suffer than hurt her and see her unhappy, he loves her in a genuine and pure way that goes being "she's cute" and it was shown in his dream. In the light novel, it was confirmed that he doesn't even care that she's a demon, meaning that he loves her regardeless of what she is.

Wich makes all the dumb tweets about Aoi being Nezuko's protector and that someone has to protect her from him. Seriously?? The same guy who saved her twice?? And that scene of him seeing Nezuko in the sunlight is not that serious ffs, he wasnt even too harsh with his movements (he gently held her hands), he was just reaction in a dramatic way and Nezuko wasn't even uncomfortable this whole time. If she were uncomfortable, shown signs that she dislikes him and avoids him then yes, the whole "protect her from Zenitsu" tweets would make sense but nop, it's just a cringey scene that people took it way too seriously. Before you mention me the chasing scene, that was an anime-only scene and in the manga he just bows down to her as he gives her flowers. Nezuko even sees him in a positive light, example:

Anyways that was my rant on Zenitsu, might do more about it in the future

[sweetcloverheart]

Clover Rants Miraculously: Thee Other 1%

I think this has been complained about before, but it honestly does kind of come off super extremely tonedeaf when the show starts moralizing about rich people being "evil" and how success corrupts people (especially egregious in season 5) when their main soapboxers for this argument to represent the "poor 99%" are...

Girl who's parents own the most popular and profitable bakery in the city (that's constantly getting commissioned for catering jobs by the wealthy and famous of the city), has a world-famous chef for an uncle, who's grandmother has enough cash to fund trips around the world and expensive gifts for her (no shade to Gina, biker GILF is valid and can do whatever she likes with her ex-husband's alimony checks), and is favored by famous rockstar + 2 world renowned fashion icons (one of whom was willing to fund a trip for her to New York for an apprenticeship). Like Maribug, I love you, but seriously...

Boy who's a world famous fashion model, who's father owns a (self-made) fashion empire that spans the globe, who's mother was a (claimed-to-be but the show refused to expand on this) famous actress and former noblewoman from the British aristocracy, and spent his childhood being taught by (very likely expensive) tutors paid for by his parents

Girl who's mother is the head chef for a extremely popular and long-running hotel-line (Alya sweetie I love you too, but...)

Set of twins who's mother is a former rockstar who may or may not still get royalty checks from her old producer (and maybe child support from her own ex(no shade to Anarka either you get that bag girl!))

Boy who's late father was a weapon's manufacturer (and a rather lucrative one at that) and noblewoman mother is the heir apparent to their household (mostly due to her twin being disappeared and then dead)

Girl who's mother is the owner of a huge tech conglomerate on par with Apple

Girl who is the affair child between the previously mentioned fashion icon and an never-seen business man, who spent a majority of her childhood at a (implied to be) super expensive bordering school

Corrupt (now former) mayor who has changed gears to corrupt movie director and still owns his expensive and profitable hotel chain

Classmates of the first mentioned girl who's parents include a famous mime actor, director of the Louve, and an astronaut (we're never shown/told what everyone else's parents do but I'm certain they're on similar paygrade levels)

A man who's screentime involves emotionally abusing his son, mistreating magical animals in his care, and humiliating children and his own adult friends for his own ends

Like, if it was an argument about "class solidarity doesn't exist between the elites because they constantly change/raise standards even among themselves", they might of had a point to make, but it's always just "Rich people are all inhuman monsters (except the ones that give us stuff, you guys are cool)"