#indoctrinating them into the OP fandom

[cacodaemonia]

I was unfortunate enough to come across this ask from someone I don't follow a while back. It was one of those wtf moments that was so strong, I had to show the screenshot to a friend who isn't in fandom and never has been. They know the basics of how fandom works, and I've told them about the pro-censorship people in fandom, but this post really required some extra explanation, and I thought I'd share how I broke it down for them:

Obviously, most antis are very young. We all know this. That doesn't mean that all young people are anti-sex, pro-censorship, or unable/unwilling to distinguish fiction from reality, but it's much easier for young folks to get caught up in dangerous and toxic communities—in both real life and online.

From what I've seen over the years, there are all kinds of reasons why antis campaign against fiction they don't like and why they harass other fans and small creators. But I think a key point is that they seldom target big name authors, movie studios, or other media companies who make 'problematic' things.

That right there tells you a lot about one of their primary motivations: power over others.

They want to feel morally superior to people who create art (including writing, etc.) that they dislike. And because they can't influence powerful individuals and companies, they turn their personal disgust and outrage on people who are their relative equals or on those who have even less socioeconomic power—especially marginalized groups like queer and disabled people, who make up large portions of fandom.

There are plenty of other factors that impact this radicalization, of course, but I really think that the power aspect and feeling like they're one of The Good People are the most important elements.

But anyway, the screenshot above got me thinking about how someone could reach the point where they genuinely believe that government censorship of fanworks is necessary to... what? Prevent people from making (subjectively) 'gross' art because... that will lead others to commit actual real life crimes?? That's what the anti above seem to be suggesting with the slippery slope comment, and when I got to this point in the explanation to my non-fandom friend, they were BOGGLED. They simply could not comprehend the massive leap of 'logic.'

So I paused for a moment and considered how I could explain it, based on the various stages of indoctrination I've seen among antis over the years.

I think that a lot of these young people are probably very new to fandom. They find out about fanfic and go onto AO3, and they likely assume that some algorithm will handfeed them what they want—even though they haven't bothered to learn how an archive like AO3 works and haven't used any search filters to include or exclude things they like or don't like (this required a whole explanation about AO3 filters to my friend btw).

So anyway, these people who have grown up on sanitized mass media fail to heed any of AO3's many warnings, including creators' tags, and they come across something that they think is gross or that makes them uncomfortable. For example, "Ewww, fics about underage characters having sex is gross and makes me uncomfortable." That's fine. Hit the back button and use filters to avoid that. Problem solved!

But then maybe they go on social media and complain about someone making art they don't like, and they rapidly get sucked the echo chambers of cult-like anti communities. And this is where they all amp each other up by exchanging conservative talking points dressed up in ostensibly progressive language. They begin to feel angry and self-righteous and certain that they have to do something about this issue they've collectively fabricated. After all, "Think of the children!!"

I should also point out that most antis don't seem to even understand the words they use. For example, in that screenshot, it's pretty clear that the op is using 'censorship,' 'glorification,' and even 'slippery slope' as emotional catch phrases rather than words that have useful and concrete meanings outside of fandom.

Finally, their crusade against the fiction they dislike becomes such a huge part of their identities and 'friend' (more like mutual purity surveillance) groups that they just keep building it up into this huge moral panic until they're unironically saying things like, "Writing a fic about a 17 year-old and an 18 year-old kissing is actual pedophilia and the author should be harassed and doxxed and imprisoned."

When I got to that point, my friend was still boggled, but it was more of a horrified sort of boggled, where you just stare into space and contemplate the merits of a giant space rock hitting earth in the near future.

I really wish people getting sucked into anti mindsets would take a moment to consider how bathshit their beliefs sound to the average human being on the planet who doesn't spend huge amounts of time on social media.

[mxtxfanatic]

I saw another anon ask a blog this question, and I really liked both the question and answer, so I got inspired to ask you the same question. How would you answer this anon's question?

https://www.tumblr.com/khattikeri/761604548119904256/read-your-jgy-and-wwx-aint-commies-post-and-felt?source=share

Sorry anon but… I don’t like the question, the initial answer, or the meta that inspired it, which is funny since I still agree with the final conclusion 😬 In order to answer this, I would have to explain what I take issue with of the original meta, so I'm putting that under the cut. But as for the ask, itself, Jin Guangyao would never in any setting be a communist revolutionary, but I think op has a fundamental misunderstanding of Wei Wuxian's character, priorities, motivations, and actions. Wei Wuxian would never see people rising up to do what's right and choose to "stay in his lane" (???) out of, what? a wish to maintain comfort? Literally when in the original story had he ever done that that would lead anyone to believe that this would be a choice he'd make?

Wei Wuxian is always the first to realize when a situation is unattainable and something has to be done for the betterment of everyone, and he always tries to be the first to act to minimize losses. If Wei Wuxian was a "stay in your lane" type of guy, Jiang Cheng would have never had to physically restrain him from acting throughout their weeks in the indoctrination camp, and Lan Wangji, Jin Zixuan, and Mianmian would have been all have been slaughtered. He would have never helped Wen Qing find her family. Shit, if he were a "stay in your lane" type of guy, why would he have gone against Wen Chao all those times and ended up joining the Sunshot Campaign? If revolution were to happen and somehow Wei Wuxian wasn't already in on it, damn right he'd join, especially since chances are the people that he taught morals to are already in it. Wei Wuxian is not a "sit back and cheer on the sidelines" type of person, and tbh, neither is Lan Wangji. Neither of them are waiting for other people to lead something if they're already right there.

Now for the meta as the origin point, the op’s reasons for why Jin Guangyao and Wei Wuxian aren’t “communist revolutionaries” is based on misunderstandings of both of their characters. I think they are most correct with their analysis of Jin Guangyao, but they still fall into popular fanon reasoning—“the watchtowers were a net good and showed that he really did care, somewhere!” despite there being no material benefits shown of these towers except for a massacred clan and other clans complaining about the Jin skimming money off the top—to give credence to why fandom may believe it. But I agree with their general assessment that Jin Guangyao is neither communist nor revolutionary in any kind of way because he deeply believes in hierarchy, classism, and elitism, with his only gripe being that the people at the top don’t see him as one of them (because of his prostitute mother; I heavily disagree with op’s assessment on jgy’s feelings towards meng shi, but that’s another topic).

Now, I disagree with a lot more of their analysis on Wei Wuxian because I believe op assigns a complacency to Wei Wuxian that simply doesn't exist. I still agree that Wei Wuxian isn't a "communist revolutionary" cause words mean things and there's no "revolution" to speak of, but to say that the story ends on the status quo and history repeating itself as Wei Wuxian chooses to "separate himself" from the great jianghu is false. The older generations, given free reign and having killed or suppressed dissent remain stuck in their ways, but the moment Wei Wuxian is resurrected, they do still have to own up to their faults. But that's not the real change: Wei Wuxian comes back and immediately starts influencing the children. He literally takes the new generation of cultivators—one of which is now a clan leader—under his wings and teaches them how to be better people, how to not value themselves over others just because they're cultivators, how to respect people regardless of their social positioning, and how to judge people on their actions and not on their backgrounds or the rumors they hear. We literally see this happen in real time across the course of the story. So yeah, a character like Jiang Cheng resets at the end of the novel, but you know who doesn't? Jin Ling, who starts out just as bigoted as his maternal uncle.

Again, I don't think this counts as "revolution," but it's absolutely a social change that Wei Wuxian (and Lan Wangji) are personally pushing forth that could eventually lead to the subsequent generations returning to the purer roots of their clans. The act of disregarding the opinions of the greater cultivation world does not equal completely disregarding everyone in it and their actions on everyone else, including their influence on others, and an inability to escape from wider society's disdain doesn't exclude the possibility of leading social change.

They're right that mdzs isn't a story about communist revolution, though, and so trying to see the story through that framework is a futile effort. Mdzs is about doing right by yourself and others even if you are hated and shunned for it, and that your good deeds, no matter how small, will have wider-reaching positive consequences even if you aren't alive to see them. This kind of moral necessitates the absence of immediate revolution and social change but not the possibility of revolution and social change in the future. If the story was resolved with "and there was a big revolution, and all the bad guys were killed, and everyone got to live happily ever after off the fruits of their labor!" then we'd have a completely different story with completely different themes and morals. (Really, we'd kinda just have a tgcf no-gods au.)

[goblinsatchel]

Just wanted to make a response to this post because op didn’t want to see my replies. Just as op said, depiction doesn’t always mean approval. Just because someone writes about it doesn’t mean they condone it in real life. Lots of people enjoy horror movies with lots of blood and murder, but they’re not bloodthirsty killers in real life.

Someone might be working through their complicated feelings from sexual assault by putting it on their favorite characters. Fiction is a great tool to explore trauma. By putting the victim in control you’re giving them a safe space to heal from painful experiences. In short, It’s therapeutic to get it all out.

You don’t have to have trauma though in order to write what you want. No one owes you their reasonings. So what if they’re only writing it for horny reasons? How would you know unless you had to out every person who has trauma? You don’t want to force victims to explain themselves to strangers. That’s just not good for anybody.

I’ve seen a lot of antis trying to compare proship to propaganda.. which is kinda crazy to me. There is definitely a distinction between political propaganda used by the media and politicians to indoctrinate people into believing certain ideologies for their benefit.. and noncon fic posted on AO3 (A website famously used for the tagging system, where you can avoid fics you dislike) written by a 20 something year old who is into some freak shit. The difference is a willingness to engage with these things.

Conservatives target minorities and push for censorship. (Labeling cartoons that have LGBTQ representation as somehow indoctrinating kids. As if watching a cartoon can somehow make you gay.) They want you dead, whether you’re pro-fiction or anti-fiction, in their eyes you’re still a dirty queer. Comparing the two is wild to me.

Proship means advocating freedom of speech, it means not harassing your fellow nerds. No, it doesn’t mean SA should be legal and okay. No, it doesn’t mean you want to force everyone into reading smut. No, it doesn’t mean everyone should be enjoying fandom exactly the same.

If you don’t like something? Don’t look at it, be responsible for your own internet experience and don’t police others. That’s it.

Anyway sorry for yapping, I hope at least some of this made sense lol.

[dandelionjack]

there is a lot of grieving involved in realising you’ve been a radlib this whole time and embracing actual marxism. mainly grieving for all the media you’ve enjoyed and been a fan of, particularly when you’re on the spectrum so media is your predominant way of interacting with the world.

it’s all fascist, all of it, all fantasy is. any story that features people with magical powers that elevate them above the populace and which they can use to heal or harm? any story that features an Exceptional Individual Who Can Change History Because They’re So Awesome/Tragic/Weird? fascist. any story that describes an inherent characteristic possessed by a race of mythical creatures? fascist.

it’s all fascist, all romanticism is. individuality in general, the belief that i’m somehow special because i’m autistic, that i’ve been sent here for a purpose, that all of this is leading up to some grand narrative — a product of liberal brainwashing. any story with a protagonist who significantly alters events, basically. any Chosen One — yes, even anti-chosenone stories like Dune. any superhero. any wizard. any Doctor Who.

all mysticism is. the belief that manifestation/thinking hard enough/casting spells/drawing sigils/whatever can change reality ignores socioeconomic factors and the thousand hidden background events constantly shaping every second of our lives. all magic(k) is at best a distraction or escapism and at worst a system of false consciousness that blames immaterial factors for people’s misfortune. chaos magick is the ultimate extension of the neoliberal mindset

there is no art created under capitalism that is not a commodity designed to make more profit. that’s it, that’s all Art is. especially pop music (which includes rock, punk, emo, goth, any subculture basically, jazz, and also classical too sorry adorno), movies and TV, but books as well. there is literally no escaping capitalist realism, no escaping the spectacle

all individual rebellion, all subculture, is liberal at its core. if you call yourself goth you’re making yourself a marketable product. in fact any stable identity-categories turn you into a subject of advertising.

everything is ideology. there is no art, there is only production. “b-but i make my own choices! i create what i want to see!” haha. buddy. you think your desires aren’t entirely contingent on the social milieu which indoctrinated you? you think you’re inventing something new? you think you’re “being yourself”? that “self” is a subject to be marketed to. byung chul-han writes that the word subject itself is a cognate of subjugation — the individual that considers themselves sovereign is a perfect slave to capitalism

this post is what radicalised me. i realised i fit into at least 9 of those categories (tchotchke collector, fandom devotee, cinephile, witch, member of an “alternative” music/fashion based subculture, hipster, cultured consumer, ethical porn proponent, anti-ai luddite) and initially i got mad as hell but having examined everything and done some reading i realised OP is probably right. we’re all treatlers

i don’t know how to deal with this though. my entire identity, sense of self (bourgeois concepts in of themselves) were based on some of the above labels and/or hobbies, interests, values. i literally have to rebuild myself from scratch

also they/them pronouns are probably unmaterialist too. hell, everything i am is inherently radlib. i don’t know what to do, i’m a failure to the revolution and i need to just kill myself since committing unorganised acts of violence against the state is infantile adventurism but no vanguard party org would accept me because i’m a slow reader and i’m stupid and sensitive and well all of the above. there is no hope for me in this world or the next one they are building

i’d say i probably need therapy to sort all of this out but therapy is a placating/pacifying mechanism invented by the bourgeoisie to suppress our justified feelings of rage and grief at the state of the world. being happy as a first-worlder at the expense of orphans in palestine or children in cobalt mines in the congo is actually unethical. so no, actually, i can’t go to a liberal therapist to sort this out, i deserve to implode and die

[lord-squiggletits]

Thinking about IDW Optimus again and the fandom's aversion to even acknowledging he exists bc he's a cop or whatever and like. Most of the time people literally just replace him in fic with some white bread knockoff archivist/librarian, not even bothering to keep in IDW OP's personality (which just bolsters my theory that the problem isn't him being a cop the problem is that he's too multifaceted but I digress).

And it's annoying because you could totally write IDW Optimus as not a cop while still keeping his canon personality. You just have to realize that the reason IDW OP became a cop in the first place is because his formative experiences when he was young shaped him to basically have two priorities: 1. To help people and 2. To do it by being on the ground actively doing something about the bad things happening to people.

IDW OP would not be a fucking librarian or archivist because even though those are noble pursuits that can help people and change the world, and Optimus is educated/smart enough for the profession, he wouldn't be satisfied just teaching people or spreading information about activism or social-historical studies or whatever. He's a mech of action: he needs to be doing things right now, in front of him, to people he sees/interacts with in his own eyes, improving society with concrete actions rather than indirect action or abstract inspiration.

So basically the alternate job ideas I can think of for IDW Optimus are something like being a firefighter (or any first responder really) or even whatever the equivalent would be to international charity organizations, those ones that send volunteers across the world to do stuff like build housing/infrastructure or distribute food or whatnot. I mean I can't imagine that the equivalents to these things would be exactly the same in IDW Cybertron, so you'd have to get a little creative with it, but these are just some ideas of jobs that would fit IDW Optimus' personality while still filling the niche of "not a cop" for people who are just that opposed to it.

Though I think the revulsion against coptimus is annoying in general tbh because IDW is already a continuity that rejects the idea of easily defined good/evil people or groups. It feels like people really want Optimus to be a good person in a very sanitized and academically approved way, so he has to be nice and squeaky clean but also like, a perfect leftist who knows theory and holds the most progressive opinions on every single issue....

There is no room for the idea that good people join bad institutions, there's no room for the idea that the reason people think cops are good guys who help people is bc of the government propaganda everything is saturated with. Hell there's even later issues of the Optimus Prime series by John Barber where Optimus like, MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES, is shown in flashbacks grappling with the fact that he as a cop/Zeta's regime that he works for might not actually be improving society like they say they are, and dealing with the fact that he feels more like a lesser evil compared to the Decepticons (perhaps not "lesser" at all).

It's like there's this idea in fandom of like, fictional media and opinions on media having to strictly adhere to progressive ideals at all times. So people just go "cops bad, this character is a cop, therefore they suck" without being willing to engage with the idea of like. IDW OP is born wanting to fight injustice and protect people -> a good way to protect people is to fight the people who are hurting them and committing crimes -> surely following the law is a reliable moral code to guide him in this -> becomes a cop because he's been indoctrinated into a society (much like our own) where he was told that the state/the law exist to protect the people and being a cop means you get to fight bad guys that hurt people. There's really so many interesting concepts there that could be (and CANONICALLY IS) explored about how good, well-intentioned people can be led to harmful actions simply because they have been fed the idea that the things they're doing are good/helpful/noble. Which is especially important for a character like Optimus, I think, who has a cultural icon status as The Irrefutable and Perfect Good, so it's really important actually to use IDW Optimus as an example of how even the most noble people you know have held problematic beliefs or done bad things at some point in their life. You know, because no one is born perfect and ideologically pure, and in fact society is constructed in exactly a manner to make people drink the kool-aid and believe that the systems designed to hurt them/others are just a normal, if flawed, society.

I mean the writing in IDW literally has Optimus deal directly and indirectly with the harm he's done as a cop and how people don't/didn't trust him because of that. I don't know what the fuck else this fandom wants if the source material literally saying "OP realizes that cops suck and he hurt people and earned their disdain by doing the things he did" doesn't stop them from going EW cop bastard sucks and is the worst Optimus. Like the narrative barely stops short of outright saying ACAB and Optimus himself would agree with this sentiment.

At that point, the collective fandom beef with IDW OP isn't because he's a cop and the narrative didn't do enough to condemn that. The problem is literally just that people don't read and don't care

TLDR: Consider the fact that good people can do bad things sometimes especially when living from birth in a corrupt society that thoroughly disguises its vices/oppressive structures as completely normal parts of existence

[all-de-fandoms]

Lmfao as a religious trauma survivor and a product of Christian fundie indoctrination myself I am in full support of calling fandom wank "purity culture" and the use of the word "puriteen"* as well actually.

It perfectly encompasses what purity culture was. It wasn't just about "no sex before marriage"; it policed every fucking thing you did and forced you to walk on eggshells your entire life so your Magical Sky Daddy didn't clutch His heavenly pearls at your naughty behaviours.

Holding hands with someone you weren't married to? Gateway to sin. Making eyes at someone of the opposite sex? Gateway to sin. Thinking "impure" thoughts about someone else? Thoughtcrime Gateway to sin. Wearing the "wrong" type of clothes? Listening to the "wrong" kind of music? Having the "wrong" sort of values? Enjoying the "wrong" kind of media? All of it was seen as a stepping stone toward being a sinful godless heathen (and to some people it was essentially just as bad).

And it wasn't enough to just avoid BadWrong Behaviours, either. In my ex-community you were expected to express your disapproval of it and be well versed in the theological how's and whys. Does any of that sound familiar?

Purity culture at its core is so much more than "wear this purity ring and pinky promise to Jesus that you'll never have sex until you're married" and if you didn't realise that while you were there you weren't paying attention.

*OP EDIT AS OF 24/02/24

Hey guys just a quick note I had said I ""support"" the use of puriteen because of its reference to Puritans, but as of now my views regarding that have changed somewhat. I still agree that young people who act like this are still emulating Puritan culture but I no longer agree with deriding them based on their age because ageism is bad actually. Thanks!

[vergess]

Again, I agree with you the two are not equivalent. On most things actually, that it's awful to compare them. And I think OP does too. I just think OP didn't meant it like you understood, tho you convinced me she could have phrased it better. I always get stressed about peoples words getting taken as more cruel and vile than intended because that happen to me due to my autism, I guess I got a bit emotional about this, sorry... Also, the cult links lead to a discussion on AO3, is that intended?

So, okay, I'm going to try to approach this more calmly, since you're clearly being genuine here. OP probably didn't intend to equate those two things, but, nevertheless, that is what the post does. Intent does not erase effect.

I agree that OP almost certainly did not mean to say that sexually harassing trans kids is the same thing as asking an artist a question about a comic they wrote decades ago.

Unfortunately, that is nonetheless what happened in the post.

Perhaps it was carelessness, perhaps it was accidental, the list of possible explanations is infinite. But the simple fact is, the equivalence was drawn.

Whether intentionally or not, that post takes a perfectly innocuous question about a comic book, and turns it into talking about sexually abusing children, with no cause and no warning.

Even in the post possible scenario, it's wildly inappropriate.

It's also a very common false equivalence specifically used by a politically active cult with a death toll. A cult which specifically uses discussions of fandom to recruit children who they then exploit, harass, and indoctrinate. A cult which also targets children and adults from marginalized groups (disproportionately queer people and Asian people) for harassment and violence.

It's a false equivalence that people need to stop making for multiple reasons, including harm done to survivors of childhood sexual abuse, harm done by a cult that uses the prevalence of this false equivalence to extend their reach, and which sets back efforts to make people actually take seriously violence done to kids.

There are going to be people who see that and tune out actual cases of real sexual harassment of children because they've been taught that when we say "sexual harassment of trans kids," we mean shit like asking a grown ass cisgender woman about a comic book she wrote decades ago.

And that's not a slippery slope thing. That's a real phenomenon already happening.

It was almost certainly unintentional on the part of the OP.

It's still a reprehensible thing to do, and people in general (not just OP) need to be aware of how common it is, and fucking. Stop. Doing it.

WRT the Ao3 post: I have had OP blocked for a while now, so it seemed rude and inappropriate to go digging through that blog for ~evidence~ when the simple fact is, I'm not actually talking to her, and I don't want to make the discussion about her. I want to point out this pervasive behaviour that needs to stop. So, I grabbed the first post I found from her which discussed the anti-shipper cult, in this case, discussing their piss weird hatred of Ao3 existing. Very much the only point of that link is to provide evidence that she is at least broadly familiar with the cult, because she's mentioned them in the past.

[adickaboutspoons]

The thing with Mother Teach is that it's SO interesting & layered, because it IS her trying to temper his expectations as a way of protecting him from a society that WILL punish a brown boy for aspiring above his "God-sanctioned station" in life, but that doesn't mean that it's not abusive. She is perpetuating the religious abuse inflicted upon her by unquestioningly accepting her assigned-by-providence caste & indoctrinating her son to believe the same. Yes, things sure do SEEM unfair, but we aren't allowed to question it, because the people in charge of disseminating the Word of God (who almost certainly also happen to be white & part of the colonial power structure) said it's right, & therefore we just have to accept that we're wrong to suppose it's not. It's using religion as a cudgel to keep people in their place, & discourage both social mobility & reasonable questioning of the status quo (&, considering that we know that Grown Ed HAS accrued the wealth his mother claimed was not for people like them & yet is still barred from the social position that should accompany it, the show gives us a beautifully subtle critique of this iteration of what is essentially the prosperity gospel). I just feel like fandom would do well to come to terms with the fact that a parent can do their very best, try to protect their child, & still be abusive. (I'm going to go a little further & throw Nana under the religious abuse bus & say her portrayal, & Ed's mom, present a more nuanced & realistic take on the abuser than the unrelenting monsters that were Ed & Stede's dads. They're complicated; loving & supportive (as long as you're Acting Correctly), often coming across to outsiders as likable & sympathetic, thus it's not immediately obvious what total shitstains they also are & what devastation they have wreaked upon their child's sense of self-worth). In re: point 3, the princessification babygirlifying of Ed has long troubled me, because it sands away &/or ignores the less acceptable parts of his personality in order to make him sufficiently demure to be palatable. Yes, he fancies a fine fabric, but he ALSO enjoys a good maim. He was visibly excited about the prospect of hobnobbing with posh knobs, but also clearly had a blast with Calico Jack's macho bullshit. It's not an either-or prospect. Focusing on one to the exclusion of the other is detrimental to the complexity & depth of his character (I'm looking at you, DJenks, & your "Ed is a soft uwu baby who can't be arsed to do any of the hard work it takes to actually run an inn" fic. While we're on the topic, I don't love how babygirlifying Ed not only perpetuates racist ideas that a MOC needs to be made completely nonthreatening to be lovable, but the princessification also perpetuates racist stereotypes of lazy POC who need a Strong (White) Hand to keep them in line). I also don't love the "Ed wearing the depression robe/painting himself as a bride is canon confirmation of his preferred gender presentation/he is canonically trans" take. Quite aside from the insipidity of the position that Ed painting himself as a bride = Ed literally wants to be a bride (OP's Doylist breakdown above is god-tier, but even from a Watsonian perspective, it's not like he had another groom doll to paint. FFS, did you expect him to whittle it down until his dolly had trousers too?), the idea that Ed wearing the depression robe is him dabbling in feminine presentation is troubling. Multiple times in S1 Stede is called a woman when he's wearing his robes, & we're ALWAYS meant to understand the person saying it was 1) wrong, & 2) a fucking bully gatekeeping the standard of masculinity. So if Stede can wear the exact same robe & we're still meant to understand him as Sufficiently Masculine, why would we be meant to understand Ed as Feminine? Are you not aligning yourself with the asshole bullies who derided Stede by thinking as much? What is different about Ed that makes him in the robe Feminine?

an incomplete list of terrible but extremely popular Our Flag Means Death takes that I would like to never see again please

(and I do mean popular, as in, lots of people seem to think they're canon, to the point where I feel slightly insane and like I was watching a different show to everyone else)

1. Ed's mum was loving and nice and supportive, if hampered by her bad situation

this comes up more in fic than analysis, to be fair, but good god, what show were some of you watching? this isn't to vilify her, because yeah, she's clearly a product of colonialism, white christian supremacy, and domestic abuse, but like. that doesn't make how she raised Ed good. clearly she was trying to keep him safe, but "we don't deserve nice things", and especially "it's not up to us, it's up to god", speaks to me of someone who squashes down any ambition on her son's part, has fully bought into the lies of christian colonialism, and tries to pass them down to her son.

as does happen in colonised communities, particularly among older generations. I know us white people like to think that every indigenous person is a perfect left-wing anti-imperial activist, but that's simply not the case, and Ed's mum is so clearly an example of an older conservative christian indigenous parent who had to believe the lies told by their coloniser in order to survive, but is now passing on that trauma to their children. and I just...

if I read one more fic where Ed's mum is a perfect loving supportive angel who always believed in her kid and always supported and protected him, I'm gonna scream. yes, it's sweet, and it's fun to sometimes veer from canon and give your blorbo nice things, but it's still veering from canon. and yet, I see very few people acknowledge that, or actually talk about the nuances of Ed's mother, and how she definitely tried to protect him, but was far from sweet, doting, and unconditionally supportive.

2. Ed's loving look when Stede is picking food from his beard in 1x07

like most of these things, I enjoyed it as a joke or exaggeration at first, until I realised that people were actually being serious. but every time I watch that scene, I see Ed looking absently-mindedly over Stede's shoulder, because a) that's what you do when someone leans in to pick something off you, and b) surely the point of the scene is that they're so comfortable and easy together that they don't notice the intimacy of what they're doing, but Lucius, an outside observer, thinks it's obvious. right?? I can't be the only one seeing it???

[sigh]

anyway. finally, the really really big one:

3. Ed is a soft uwu babygirl princess femme bottom sub who loves her cat collar and is teaching Stede how to dom him in the "say you're the captain" scene

I mean, there's not much to say except to link to duke's absolutely phenomenal twitter thread about "how the 'babygirlfication' and infantilization of ofmd ed teach is an extension of racist perceptions of indigenous men being inherently violent and thus needing to be emasculated to be considered sympathetic"

but especially That One Fucking Scene, good lord. talk about taking shit out of context. everyone looked at a slowed-down gif of one shot in the trailer and cried "babygirl!! he's such a simp, he just wants to be dommed!!", when actually that scene is about how a) Stede is cringefail and terrible at being a typical harsh, commanding pirate, and b) Ed is lovingly embarrassed by this. he encourages Stede to assert himself (and give Ed something to do during his probation/help him make amends with the crew), but like. normally. he's acting perfectly normal in that scene, and mostly annoyed by the outfit and embarrassed by how badly Stede fails. but just because he's sitting down while Stede is standing, and he happens to take a breath in that one shot (because, you know, people breathe sometimes), everyone's doubled down on their "submissive babygirl" bullshit, and I can't get the fuck away from it.

which - listen, it's fun for me, too! it's fun to explore exaggerated aspects of a character, it's fun to read/write/draw that angle in smut, I get it! but I keep seeing people keep claim it's literally canon, and I cannot stress enough that that is Straight Up False. for the love of god, please just watch the show without your (potentially kinda racist) bias glasses on, and remember to treat the characters with respect instead of projecting onto their every interaction a shallow dom/sub binary just because you find it hot.

Our Flag is a show very specifically about masculinity, and what it means to be a man; how assumptions about that can harm and restrict men; and how men can grow beyond them. it's a nuanced and sympathetic examination of this. the whole point is that Ed is allowed to like nice fabrics and be tired of violent piracy and still be a man. the point is that two men fall in love - equal, honest, sincere love - and are still men, still exactly who they are.

(on that note, insisting that Ed is canonically trans or femme because of these things often ends up just leaning into gendered stereotypes: men are harsh and active and dominant, and women are soft and passive and submissive, and if Ed's not the former, he must be the latter, right? it also tends to hetero-ify the central relationship, casting Stede as "the boy" and Ed as "the girl", needing one to be masc and one femme. not always, and again, I understand and have enjoyed transformative works that take those elements and run with them, and explore what the story could be like if Ed were trans/nb/etc - but it's still a transformative interpretation. it's not canon.)

relatedly: those fucking wedding toppers! it seemed blatantly obvious to me that half the point of those scenes was that Ed is distraught and blaming himself for Stede leaving because he wasn't the ideal partner. it's his entire arc for the first half of season 2! Ed hates himself and believes there's something wrong about him that makes him unlovable. so he keeps and then discards the wedding toppers, painting himself onto one of them, because he's projecting himself onto an image of ideal/successful romantic love that he thinks Stede wants, and in which he doesn't fit. he's trying to mould himself into someone else to make himself lovable, not realising that Stede already loves him for himself.

so it's important to the whole narrative that Ed's yearning for/projection onto the wedding toppers is false, and born from his insecurity. he gets drunk, and play-acts a stereotypical image of romantic happiness into which he doesn't fit, but real love looks nothing like that, because real love isn't found in stifling hegemonic cultural structures, but honest, emotional connections between people allowed to be their whole, vulnerable selves. Stede is not like the groom, and Ed is not like the bride, because they shouldn't have to be. Ed should not (and does not) have to warp himself into a demure bride in order to be worthy of love: he's already lovable and loved exactly as he is! that's the point!! of the scene!!!!!!

like, it's important that the groom figure isn't actually like Stede, either. yes, it's blond and has a nice, peach-coloured suit, but a) Stede was very specifically unhappy in the posh, heterosexual, married state the figures represent, and b) Stede by this point looks nothing like that figurine. it's directly contrasted with the image of him in the rowboat, scruffy and plain and earnestly in love, rather than fancy, cold ceramic.

[EDIT 29/12/24: I ended up writing a whole Twitter essay about the wedding cake toppers that I then gussied up for Tumblr; so if you want a clearer, more substantial, and better supported argument about those, check that out!]

but no, I have to wade through swathes of art and fic and meta about how badly Ed wants to be a sweet little demure kitty princess, how he wants a wedding night and a ring to prove he's Stede's property, and acting as if this is somehow canon, because people on the internet have zero reading comprehension and are scared of brown men.

the whole point of Our Flag is that you don't need to compress yourself into prescribed social roles, and in fact, doing so will only make you miserable; and that racist, patriarchal, colonial institutions should be resisted and dismantled at every opportunity.

so tell me again why the ultimate message is that Ed and Stede should get married under an arch in front of an altar and their lined-up friends, with flowers and rice falling around them, all dressed in white, one in a suit and one in a dress, with rings and a kiss and a honeymoon after, before they move into a detached house with a yard and a fence and re-adopt the kids that Stede abandoned? and this isn't about promises, fidelity, or even monogamy - I'm specifically talking about everyone in this fandom who seems to think that the ultimate goal is the most stereotypical 20th century cisheteropatriarchal christian wedding, but with the name "matelotage" slapped on top, as if that takes away all of the underlying baggage.

just - I know we're all meant to hate men and masculinity and yadda yadda yadda, but actually, to be earnest for a second, men deserve respect too, because all people and all genders do. and two men are allowed to be in a relationship and still both be men - complex men, with their own, layered relationships to their gender - without having to fall into neatly-arranged dom/sub masc/femme roles, or seal the deal with a hegemonically-approved ceremony.

so please, stop reducing an indigenous lead character to a caricature of a femme uwu princess bottom just because he has long hair, wore a robe once, and you're too scared of brown men to imagine him with proper agency. and then please, for the love of god, stop claiming that that interpretation is canon.

[kob131]

https://rwdestuffs.tumblr.com/post/616806790896680960

Ironwood: Yells, screams, rants extensively, shoots things, breaks things

He never screamed, he never ranted, he broke like one thing (a chess piece) and shoot one guy (who in his mind was trying to stop him from saving people).

Yeah, Ironwood is emotional. He’s a fucking veteran Huntsman fighting a war that he was lied about by the man he trusted and the allies he thought he had. He also kind of just had HIS ONE GOOD ARM FUCKING SCORTCHED AND HIS PARANOIA CONFIRMED. Pretty fucking understandable, you shouldn’t be misrepresenting him.

Fandom: Clearly this man is a rational, logical person who is making his decisions based solely on cold reason. RWBY is being too emotional.

Who the FUCK has argued that James is operating under cold logic? He’s not, of course he’s acting under emotion.

What are you even saying?

RWBYJNR: Lies, cheats, steals, rants about a politician trying to do his best to protect a kingdom from going to shit, and also harassed a kid when they’re lied to

You know, Psyga, it doesn’t help that not only are you ALSO misrepresenting shit (They never cheated, the stealing of one airship pales to the numerous DEATHS that would have been caused, they didn’t rant and ONE PERSON  messed with Oscar while the LEADER RUBY comforted him) but you yourself are guilty of this shit (Lying, cheating and stealing? Gee I wonder who else does that? *cough* RWDE *cough*)

Fandom: Clearly these group of well thinking, mentally scarred teenagers are rational, logical people who are making their decisions solely on reason. Ironwood is being too emotional.

Again, WHO IS SAYING THAT? Also, implying that Ironwood isn’t basically a walking mass of mental scars.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe grown men in charge of armies should be held to a slightly higher standard than teenagers, rather than the other way around?

Has it occurred to you that they’re both adults, they’re both fucking up and everyone screwed Salem’s pooch here? Honestly the only guy doing good is Ozpin. Yeah, he started this mess but he did some damn good work before Cinderella.

Also no Psyga, I am not supporting your hypocritical ass. “they’re taught to be pinnacles of man kind’’ By the headmasters....which includes IRONWOOD.

I laugh at the idea of James “A few city blocks”   Ironwood trying to do the best to protect his kingdom. Especially when he peaced out and decided to scarper not cos of Salem but due to a chess piece, all while ignoring the fact he had Salem agents on his stupid little rock already to instead focus on shrieking at RWBY a bout loyalty. 

The same James “I’ll promote you all to Huntsmen, I’m the one to tell my subordinates the truth first and I SUFFER FROM PARANOIA AND PROBABLY A HOST OF OTHER MENTAL SCARS” Ironwood right?

I mean you support Yang Tumblingxelian because ‘uwu vagin- I mean PTSD’ so SURELY you support Ironwood RIGHT?

Also, he freaked out about a chess piece because it’s SALEM’S SYMBOL. Its like saying “Oh its not Hitler it’s just his CALLING CARD”. And no shit James is calling out Team RWBY, he trusted them and they lied to his face. You know, the same position Team RWBY was in with Ozpin.

Plus Ironwood himself lies and steal in regards to supplies from Mantle and rants too, except unlike RWBY he doesn’t have nearly as good of an excuse save for the fact he’s surrounded himself with enablers and refuses to accept or seek out help. 

Amity? Yes.

Supplies? Where? Robyn says they should be going to Mantle, that doesn’t mean they’re Mantle supplies. Show me where it was shown, said or explained he TOOK the supplies.

Also, what enablers? People who put their trust in him? That’s like saying Team RWBY were enablers for Ozpin: it’s the Ace Ops and Winter’s fault for not looking out for their leader, just as it was James’ issue for not looking out for Ozpin.

Like seriously, nothing is ever done to show RWBY as unstable or irrational, at best they are uncertain which is frank;y better than Ironwood or Opzin’s “I know best” attitude because it means they are open to changing rather than breaking the moment they run into a problem their methods can’t solve. 

Changing, like going from opposing lying to lying themselves right AFTER knowing how bad of an idea that is.

This is the fucking Yang/Adam situation all over again, removing fault and agency just because you don’t like the other side.

We also literally see their rationales, they need to get he lamp to Atlas before either Salem’s agents find them or it potentially lures Grimm in. They make a good plan that only doesn’t work out cos the local general decided t bust out a super mech and prance around screaming and they still hung around long enough to help solve the problem that idiot created. 

Strange that you don’t their talk of telling the truth....

When it comes to Mantle their rationales for why its awful and Ironwood’s decisions are wrong are explained both morally and in terms of practicality, Ironwood sometimes listened but usually ignored them cos he’s an arrogant ass. 

Or, you know, he’s been lied to numerous times, he’s in immense physical pain right now, his mental issues are being played on and he’s in a rushed, fucked if you do fucked if you don’t situation.

You know, WHAT THE SHOW FUCKING SHOWS.

On one side is a pack of teenagers dragged into a lot of nightmarish shit they were in no way ready to deal with, who are trying to work together and find a way to save the world. They do this despite being horribly traumatized, physically dismembered in two cases, having to fight off their abusers (to the death in one case), all the while admitting they’re in over their head, they’ve made mistakes, and trying to fix them and generally improve things.

The other side is a military general blatantly abusing his political power to deprive a city of critical resources, leaving them exposed to man eating monsters, declaring martial law to stop the rest of the government from stopping him from outright abandoning the people of that city (and the rest of the planet) to those monsters, ordering the cold-blooded murderer of an elderly woman to steal her magical powers, ordering the arrest of a group of teenagers and one older man because SOME OF THEM vocally disagreed with these actions, then shot a teenage boy for politely disagreeing with him, with the intent being that the boy would die from either the bullet of the long fall that followed. He does all this while insisting he’s being logical, that he’s making the hard choices on everyone elses behalf, and that he is always right. While hallucinating, ranting and screaming about disloyalty, all of which because he failed once (And that’s ignoring how he backstabbed several supposed friends before that traumatizing incident.)

A. Ironwood is also dragged into this by the same metric.

B. James is ALSO in over his head. Everyone not named ‘Ozpin’ is and Ozpin BARELY qualifies.

C. And James is being abused and used too!

D. ‘physically dismembered in two cases’ One and *taps Ironwood’s metal arm*

E. To try and help EVERYONE he’s ‘depriving resources’ because shit ain;t infinite.

F. Aas opposed to the genocidal, ancient witch CONTROLLING the man eating monsters?

G. And the other option? Have everyone DIE in his eyes.

H. Cold blooded murder...that she agreed to of her own volition....

I. You misspelled ALL as SOME. As in, ALL of the protags disagreed with him.

J. ANd you know, trying to stop him.

K. You know, like literally everyone else

M. He never hallucinated, ranted or screamed

James Ironwood is a coward and a traitor to the Kingdom of Atlas. On top of that, he is an entitled little shit that neglected his responsibilities to the civilians of the Kingdom, and then was so fucking arrogant that he was actually OFFENDED that people were angry with him for not doing his job. Quite a lot of that can be blamed on the culture of the Atlas military, of the demands of blind loyalty and yes-men creating an echo chamber without him even noticing. But in the end, he made the decisions. He decided the people of Mantle are an expendable resource, months or even years before Cinder broke into his office. He decided to order the murder of an elderly woman, to overthrow his government, to arrest anyone that dared to disagree with him, and to personally shoot a boy in cold blood. 

You want to know the twisted part? I think those of us that admit Ironwood is in the wrong actually respect him more. We can see how he came to this point, the cultural indoctrination, the dangers of military culture, the PTSD he’s clearly suffered since Beacon... We can feel sympathy for a fallen hero. Those who support him continue to insist that he’s in his right mind, that all his decisions, from volume two onwards, have all been completely logical... And what kind of person would that make him?

Oh fuck you with that “Because I disagree that makes me better bullshit.”

You didn’t portray a fallen hero, you portrayed a flatter version of Adam, denying Ironwood’s reasons, glorifying Team RWBY and painted it black and white.

And before anyone claims I am supporting Team RWBY:

Actually look up my opinions of them on my blog. Or hell, this single post. I think both parties are at fault for the situation here for their own flaws. ANd I feel sad for both them.

The conflict in the fandom, however?

[kernsing]

Commenting on this thread in a separate post because it is so very long, and this is only tangential to the actual discussion.

I really dislike the ‘this interpretation is better/more canonical because [more nuance/better thematic coherency]’ line of argument when it is framed as an objective matter because how people consume, interpret, and integrate stories into their lives is a deeply personal matter that cannot be universalized; and nuance and themes and the value of those things that people see in a story are going to be subjective.

(Note: I don’t know if OP of linked thread meant their words that way, as their original post is untagged and might have just been a thing for their own blog and people who share their view of canon?? and not really a commentary on how other fans perceive Star Wars. Let’s be charitable.)

People will see a story through the lens of their own lives, resonate with different characters and see their stories more clearly than other characters’, give more weight to different lines and less to others, prefer different themes and interpretations of stories on a whole, straight up just like different aesthetics. People are just different. And to some people, stories are Serious Business/When-I’m-Invested-In-A-Story-I-Will-Orient-My-Whole-Life-And-Worldview-Around-It/just so capital I Important to them it will be no wonder that their interpretation of that story is deeply individual and that their differences with others or their past selves will shine through.

Like. I so far have had two separate Star Wars fandom experiences: one from a few years back that ended when I got sucked into different fandoms for a while, and one that started maybe a year ago and hasn’t finished yet. During fandom experience #1, I slanted more anti-Jedi/Jedi-as-cult, and as for #2, I’ve been very pro-Jedi/Jedi-as-culture. And. Both of these viewpoints on the story of Star Wars were and have been so very meaningful to myself. I’ve consumed so many fanworks, fanfic or meta, where both of these interpretations of the Jedi Order and the accompanying themes are so full of nuance about good and evil and morality, and they’re both beautiful and satisfying and good storylines that provoke a lot of thought.

You have a story about religious indoctrination and evil clothed in light, about a slave who was freed but not really freed, about someone who tried to love despite all the walls in his way, etc. (and you can talk about interesting parallels to toxic masculinity, among other things); then you have a different story about good people and good organizations that still fail and fall to outside pressure and corruption, about someone who loved and was loved and how that was still not enough, about light falling to darkness despite trying its very best, etc. (and you can talk about interesting parallels to Greek tragedy, among other things).

Just. These interpretations are all good stories in their own right, can we stop with the vaguely elitist ‘my interpretation is more nuanced’ stuff.

[bitteraristocrat]

OP deserves so much credit for this gorgeous, in-depth, and chillin analysis. And I think the hate comes from folks in the fandom who exalt characters like R!Ciel to their ‘precious baby do-no-harm blorbo” status.  I may be talking out of my arse, but I also think that Western fans have a tendency to completely write off fictional children characters as innocent or immature in the same way that Western media often portrays them. A large motif in Kuroshitsuji is children growing up too fast, or being far more intuitive, cunning, and capable of human cruelty than adults initially perceive them to be. If Our!Ciel came out of “that day” being as cruel and unyielding and bitter as he did, bearing in mind that a month earlier he was terribly demure and mousy, we can only imagine what Real!Ciel would have come out of there looking like. He was already the stronger of the two, and we know (like OP said) that he wanted to keep o!Ciel close and (arguably) controllable. It makes perfect sense to me that he would do anything in his power to make that happen. But, I also want to draw attention to Vincent, who is another character that fans seem to exalt to a “perfect” status. We must remember that this is the Phantomhive Family, the family of the Aristocrat of Evil. I would not at ALL be surprised if he played into their rivalry, and put the complex of survival of the fittest into r!Ciel’s head. AND, and, if Vincent already began indoctrinating r!Ciel into whatever underworld bullshit he was dealing with. That all said, I think both of the twins, but ESPECIALLY r!Ciel would have been exposed to some dark shit and I think Vincent is personally responsible for that and wins the award for Worst Father of the 19th Century. 

hey I'm not trying to get you hate but question about the poison theory... I could believe an older child could do that but why would you think a 5-year-old would? That's the part I think most people just can't get passed

I've answered this before, several times, and I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said, before people realize it's not something I'm arbitrarily making up... it's not "I believe this might happen in fiction" -- I suspected it because there have been well-documented cases of living, breathing 5-year-olds who have done this exact same thing, before. In fact, ones who have done much worse! And it was not an abuse case.

But I realized, very, very quickly, that while some people genuinely wanted to have a discussion, there were a number of people who were asking me about this, (or about asthma in general) in really bad faith? To find fault with me and put words into my mouth, paint me as someone who just hates children for no-reason or doesn't know anything about asthma. Read all of this carefully, please.

The sources and documented evidence out there, of 5-year-olds (and younger) who have killed or harmed animals, infants, are real people... and these deaths and injuries, as a result of these children and what happened to their families, are often extremely sensitive in nature. I can't justify continuing to send links of this type of evidence to people, who dislike my theory, to these studies and documentaries (the amount of content warning labels I'd have to provide, alone...) to... what...? Gawk at? Just to prove that it happens?

Should I have to explain to strangers or irritated people who have a reason not to like me, for what I think about a fictional story or character, that I actually have asthma and that I know the difference between types (most people don't know there's different types to begin with) and why none of this is adding up to me? Probably not. I know that this topic is sensitive in nature but suddenly, a lot of people were making judgments about my character and wanted to know details about my personal life. Why is that okay? If I ever came off overly defensive about this in the past, I apologize, that was why.

Back to the subject... Five-year-olds who are capable of getting into things they aren't supposed to, and playing with ""medicine."" Is that a rare occurrence? No. Five-year-olds capable of playing with ""medicine"", knowing the outcome might be harmful...and doing it anyway? Actually a lot more likely, than you think it is. Is it rare? Absolutely, but sadly... but not so rare that it's not well-documented and studied. The evidence is out there, and if people want to find it, they can do so. You don't have to take my word for it. And people can believe, what they want to believe. If they look at all of the behavior shown of RealCiel, and just shrug and say he surely can't be one of those kids. Fine. However...

- I'm suspicious, when a ten-year-old hides the ability he can regurgitate at-will, and likely had to practice this ability to perfection. He could have died, he could have choked, right then and there and just didn't. Am I supposed to believe this is the first time he's done something like that? He did it with such confidence, when he swallowed that huge ring. He knew he could keep it safe, and get it back in what I assume was a much more dignified way. That ring wasn't so much as tarnished, by his stomach acid. Why did he think he'd need this ability? Is it a watchdog secret? Or is it something he figured out on his own, and taught himself? I'm also suspicious, of the circumstances surrounding "that day" and the way real Ciel behaved, up until the moment he left the bedroom. - I'm suspicious that Tanaka was the only person spared and survived the fire, and that this master butler, a man who can stop a bullet with a sword, did nothing and seemed completely panicked... his last words before injury were "Don't come closer, Master Ciel is--!" Master Ciel is what? - I also find it an odd choice, that he trips/falls twice but both times, where moments where his brother was supposed to receive attention and he refocused it back on himself. Once during a fencing lesson when O!Ciel tried to talk to Lizzie, and once more when R!Ciel brought him flowers from the outing, he tripped and they were scattered everywhere. - I find it an odd choice, that O!Ciel was concerned with making everyone on the estate happy and worried about solving all of their problems and was considering the burdens of caring for so many people... while real Ciel compared them to livestock... like currency, and worried if they didn't keep things running right, they'd leave. A remark that wasn't unnoticed, by their father. - I'm actually not-at-all startled by how hard, R!Ciel took being told that his brother was going to leave him, someday. How hard he protested and how emotional he got, I think that part is fairly normal... but I am suspicious, of how immediate and quickly he recovered. The moment he realized, "Oh. ... I don't have a choice." Shouldn't he have cried harder? But he smiled, immediately and his tears dried up on a dime. Maybe a child in his position would have tried to run away... but with a sick brother, how could he? I don't think he just accepted it happily, I don't take that reaction at face value. I think he wanted his circumstances to be very different and someone, saw this and took advantage of him and manipulated him all the way to the events that lead to "that day." - And last but certainly not least... I'm extremely suspicious of the way Sebastian-the-borzoi reacts to Our!Ciel, especially the nose-prodding and constant barking at him, and only him. It looks a lot like a service dog alerting. They bark, they prod. They do not give up. He knew something was wrong, and if nothing else... I trust and have faith in that dog. It's not any one thing Real Ciel did, it's...everything we were shown of their childhood, combined. Could there be another party at play, here? Of course, I think it's obvious this child couldn't have acted alone. Someone with ill intentions... used him.

I don't blame him, for what happened "that day", I don't think he's 'evil' and I'm not 'out to get him' or whatever it is people think. ...

It's something that not a lot of people LIKE to think about, I'm sure, what children are capable of. But not every child who does that, is abused, and it's NOT always the cause of these behaviors. To say so? Is not only incorrect, but... it's really a slap to the face to the parents and caregivers of some of these children. I read about one case of a child who tried to kill his siblings on multiple occasions and blamed other grown adults for years, before he was caught. They found needles, knives, candy, and his mothers meds under the carpet padding in his closet. He would go to school and manipulate teachers and tell them things like, "Mommy didn't pack me a lunch today!" When she actually did, he was throwing his food, in the trash. He was not abused at home or in school, or treated any differently than his other siblings, who did not display any of this behavior.

Some people are simply born "different" and children do very strange things for attention and their ideas of love and affection, there's... a lot of people in this world, that dedicate their entire lives, to trying to help these children and understand why this occurs. To the best of my knowledge, when this occurs and abuse is not present or a cause, it's thought of as something that is neurological, with possible genetic factors at play.

While a lot of them are caught, early on (with symptoms often manifesting beyond a shadow of a doubt, around age 5... the most extreme case I've become aware of, showed alarming and severe signs at age 3 ) ... some children, learn to mask and learn how to avoid getting into trouble, and to make sure they're the most popular and well-loved person in the room. They mask so well, that this never gets properly diagnosed well into adulthood. The adults often lead quite successful lives, and don't usually seek help... because they don't feel like they need help. Why would they, unless they're forced to? For what reason? They say that psychopaths make up 1% (1 in 100 people) of the population. Yet, 20% of the most successful businessmen in CEO positions (1 in 5), are psychopaths. That all being said, this is a theory about a fictional character ...and I don't condone people using it, to hurt someone or to manipulate whether they agree or they don't. People are allowed to interpret Real Ciel differently, than I do. You're allowed to like him and think I'm incorrect. You're allowed to like him, even if I AM correct.