#is clearly the most problematic because he is Very Bad in That Category

[omokers]

#still boggles the mind that anyone could accuse YQY of being a creepy stalker#in a cast of characters that contains luo fucking binghe

The more deep I fall into SVSSS the more any sort of animosity between Cucumber Qingqiu and Yue Qingyuan or Yue Qingyuan ignoring boundaries in fics makes me twitch

Cucumber Qingqiu sees Yue Qingyuan as an older brother figure and is very fond of him

He is not creeped out by him or avoids him or whatever

And Yue Qingyuan is fully supportive of any Shen Qingqiu even if he finds Cucumber Qingqiu puzzling in some ways and soul destroying in others

(it's great that Shen Qingqiu seems more at peace but heart wrenching that he doesn't remember their past)

And like yes Yue Qingyuan struggles to know the correct distance to keep with Shen Jiu but that's because Shen Jiu clings to him as much as he pushes him away. They both struggle with knowing where the boundaries are because what they want and what their secrets are demanding are two different things

But Cucumber Qingqiu is fond and pleasant and friendly but also doesn't have any of the connection that drove the intense relationship between Shen Jiu and Yue Qingyuan

And because he clearly doesn't remember him or their past or their connection he maintains a careful distance of caring older brother figure and nothing more

Because thats what makes this Shen Qingqiu happy

So stop making them at odds!

Stop making Yue Qingyuan out to be this awful creepy abusive person!

[lunar-years]

Ngl when I see ppl shipping Jamie and Dr. O'Sullivan I think they're at least a little homophobic and very straight.

well, i disagree with a blanket accusation of homophobia, but I do think it's an opinion that holds a very ~straight appeal~, definitely, lol.

there are honestly a boat load of reasons i hate it but they boil down to:

i kind of get why people (esp. a segment of the general audience) might be attracted to it because it's soooo something (bad) shows/sitcoms would do. Like, my god is it TRITE. Predictable, formulaic...boring as all hell! Of course he's going to get with the nameless sister who has less than five minutes total of screen time, just for a little added spice and drama, sure. That's what happens in (bad) shows. But luckily for the rest of us, Ted Lasso even at its worst is not that brand of bad, lol.

it's completely baseless? Nothing wrong with a baseless ship i guess, but at the same time...literally why this one? lol. Like, Jamie and Roy's sister share one scene together in which I don't believe they even say anything to one another directly? There is no chemistry, no...anything? The entire premise for the ship seems to be Jamie telling Roy his sister is hot. Which was very clearly intended as a way for Jamie to get under Roy's skin. Nothing about the scene makes me want to see those two dating.

the big proponents of it i've seen (often, definitely not always) seem to fit into one of two categories 1) people who don't really like Jamie and/or are upset Jamie "got in the way" of their ship, and thus want him to be written into a corner that pulls him away from their preferred couple/inherently shuffles up their dynamic. they don't actually care to watch a plot between Jamie & Roy's sister, they just want Jamie firmly categorized as Taken and thus Not Interested in Roy and/or Keeley, and this is a convenient and predictable(y stupid) way to do it. lol.

OR 2) people who DO really like Jamie and in fact really like Roy & Jamie, but in a very "no homo" way, who want to see more of their dynamic and have a way to define/further explore their closeness, whilst also justifying their own enjoyment of it, that's well set apart from "they have homoerotic tension." Jamie & Roy's sister dating holds an appeal because it more explicitly puts their relationship into firm "brotherly" territory. And I unabashedly loathe that for the same reason i loathe "Roy is Jamie's father figure!" ...foremost because no really, they can just be best friends!! Even if you do not want to ship roy-jamie romantically, you do not need to slap different familial labels on them (or put them into random other pairings) to make their relationship "more." Their relationship is already "more"...they are canonically best friends!! idk if I'm explaining this in the best way but the mindset behind it often feels very rooted in ~the nuclear family is the most important relationship a person can achieve~ and thus a need to fit everyone into traditional family roles (and in some cases that PLUS blatant homophobia) and it gives me a personal ick. Ew.

If you want to see quirky jamie & phoebe antics or roy and jamie bickering, Jamie x Roy's sister getting it on is in fact not actually necessary for any of that? (and imo doesn't add anything to anyone's arc) Going back to point one...using that pairing to get there feels TO ME very boring and sitcom cartoony.

(i also obviously dislike it for my personal shippy reasons and must acknowledge my bias. 🫡 Jamie dating his best friend's sister when he clearly has a crush on said best friend is a relationship-based mental low point/cry for help i do not actually want him to go through as my fav character, LOL.)

(disclaimer: people can of course feel differently and are entitled to ship whoever they want without even needing a clear reason or explanation! that's totally valid! i want to reiterate I don't think it's inherently problematic as a ship. I just personally think it's a rotten tomato of a plot point and i'm so beyond glad the show didn't waste time entertaining it.)

[oneshortdamnfuse]

after reading the reply you wrote out about the adults in billy's life and how they may have missed, ignored, or been ignorantly unaware of how he presented and walked around school, sports, etc. it made me think back to when i was a tiny but rather problematic child and how i got tossed around like an absolute bean bag by the adults in my life.

i was not a saint of a child. i bit and kicked and hit others. i got expelled from a daycare for it 😅. but one thing i remember most is once i had been caught, or been turned in by another kid/or blamed, or reacted to something. the response from the adult(s) in the room was not always very kind or gentle.

i can remember being dragged, picked up and carried like a sack of potatoes, hauled by my shirt collar or the seat of my pants to either the daycare or the principal's office. i remember being thrown in timeout so hard by a daycare worker that everytime she put me against a wall or door "to think about my actions" i'd hit my head and the breath would get knocked out of me. i can still see her red acrylic nails.

your post just made me think so much of this, because by the time i had a teacher or classroom aid or caretaker come after me it was because i was the "bad kid". the other kid may have said something extremely angering or hurtful but because i was the one who bit or slapped, i was the one that got manhandled. i was the one who was viewed as constant trouble. and those adults always looked like they'd had it with me. like they couldn't be angrier.

i also had a fair amount of bullies. i was pretty scrappy, but i was also very small. and when things would happen to me. when i got shoved against walls hard enough to hit my head that i saw stars, or when i got whipped in the face by a jump rope with the red and white hard plastic beads, i wasn't believed. or at the very least the other kid's behavior was minimized. because i was a child that was always in trouble, always in the office. so clearly i must've done something to provoke those attacks. i wasn't believed when a boy double my size followed me, cornered me, and choked me so hard my vision went black. i was 4 when that happened. the boy (and his parents) called me a liar. and my history of being a "bad kid" helped him.

how many adults especially in billy's childhood years pulled things like this on him? saw a kid throwing fists and just thought 'god not again. he's always the troublemaker.' and would then haul him to the office, and get mad at him all over again the next time it happened. getting angry at him, telling him what he should know not to do, but never once asking or thinking about why those little hands were formed into fists in the first place.

Ah, re: CPS / adult intervention or lack thereof? Yeah.

I feel you. I had similar experiences as a child. Always blamed for what other kids were doing (sometimes to me). It wouldn’t surprise me if Billy fell into the same category because adults probably didn’t even try to understand him even though everything he did was a giant red flag. Then he likely learned he couldn’t trust anyone to help him. His dad was his first bully. Then likely other adults. He may have been throwing punches at his peers, but adults who should have done something to help him spent their time punching down on him instead. He keeps telling Max that these are things “you learn” which is concerning, because then… who taught him? Or what life lessons taught him this? People don’t just become like that out of nowhere.

There’s no “bad kids,” just really bad “guidance” and/or lack of concern.

[beyondmistland]

Hi! Just saw your ask about Alysanne being Maegor’s daughter (possibility). It’s so complicated and interesting... but actually wouldn’t make sense because in many ways Alysanne is basically her grandmother Rhaenys over again - for they have so much in common: the beloved Good Queen who cared about people etc. Even Rhaena compared Alysanne to Rhaenys and herself to Visenya. And actually when I think about Visenya’s possible grandchild I think of someone similar to Rhaena as well. Anyway, I’m glad Visenya’s line didn’t continue because she was really downgrading with Maegor by blindly supporting her hitler of a son.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Maegor, for all his many, many faults was neither genocidal nor a eugenicist.

Children are their own people and there is never any guarantee they will turn out like their parents. Case in point, Jaehaerys I is nothing like his dithering father, Aenys I.

People don't have to literally be someone's descendant to resemble them in terms of looks or personality. People can and have taken after aunts, uncles, or grandparents on either side of their family. Heck, sometimes a person resembles no one in the family due to inheriting long-dormant recessive genes from a distant ancestor! And that’s before you get into people choosing to deliberately model themselves off someone they admire, which in this case would be famous kings, queens, knights, lords, ladies, etc.

Characters shouldn't be punished for the actions of their offspring and the idea that *bad* characters or characters with *bad children* shouldn't have descendants is imho very problematic. Seriously, by that logic, Daeron II shouldn't have been born and while I personally think he's more flawed than most of the fandom, he is undoubtedly one of the better Targaryen kings. Similarly, according to this train of thought, Aegon III and Viserys II shouldn't have been born because neither Rhaenyra nor Daemon are good people. Speaking of those two, who even decides who's a good or bad character? I personally find Daemon Targaryen loathsome but he clearly has a ton of fans and not just on Tumblr. Would a guy like Maekar fall under your category of *bad* considering his many flaws as a parent and person as well as the fact he accidentally killed Baelor Breakspear and sired Aerion Brightflame?

The fact that Visenya's line dies out is part of a wider trend wherein GRRM, for all his talk about disliking black-and-white conflicts/characters and preferring "the human heart in conflict with itself", often writes one side of any given struggle to be more sympathetic, with the other side ALWAYS dying out. Visenya's line dies out and through only having Maegor is made to be less sympathetic. Alicent's line dies out (unless you include unacknowledged bastards) and the Greens as a whole are written to be mustache-twirling redshirts. While before there was good reason to believe Bittersteel had children by marriage (which would have heightened the contrast with Bloodraven and fit in well with the grounded institutional nature of Bittersteel's legacy, whereas Bloodraven's is relegated to the fleeting memory of song, just as magic comes and goes) but now, according to GRRM, he probably never had children, which in this case I'm willing to let slide, mainly because it shows how he and Bloodraven are mirrors of each other in terms of being each side's respective fanatic, the conflict consuming every other aspect of their lives in service to it.

We have no idea what kind of mother, leader, or person Rhaenys would have been had she lived longer. And its not like Visenya didn't have people who loved her too or else Yandel wouldn't use the phrase "even those who loved her best".

I generally dislike tropes like "the evil stepmother" as @cynicalclassicist can attest.

Thanks for commenting, anon.

[bigskydreaming]

I will forever squint suspiciously at a fandom that overall makes a bigger deal out of Dick Grayson expressing he didn’t want to replace his father when he was still young and actively grieving than they do Tim Drake literally hiring an actor to be his fake uncle and saying no to Bruce’s first actual offer of adoption.

Like, if you can get on board with Timothy Drake-Wayne after that, because Tim changed his mind after he was further along in his grieving process, you can get on board with the idea that at some point after the age of ten or twelve Dick similarly changed his mind about thinking a second father would be an insult to his first father’s memory.

*Shrugs* I just don’t get how hard some people go to bat for the idea that Dick never wanted or needed someone he viewed as an actual parent at any point after he was eight. Because you can’t deny that whatever Dick has said about that in the comics, he’s NEVER made it nearly AS big a deal as most fans who cite it at all do. Like, when you run with the most extreme extrapolation of that but gloss right over Tim’s far more extensive efforts to keep Jack Drake the sole father figure in his memory at first, I feel like something else is going on there.

(And I’m not trying to turn this into a Tim vs Dick thing, btw, I’m honestly just using Tim’s story there as a benchmark for how a clearly parallel sentiment is overwhelmingly referenced in regards to just one character but not another. My issues with the way people engage with this particular idea in regards to Dick like, exists without Tim being in the equation at all. That was simply an example of the fact that there IS a discrepancy.)

But point being, as all roads in this particular direction of thought almost always seem to lead to Dick being slotted into some nebulous category separating him from the rest of his siblings, where he’s only partially Bruce’s kid but not FULLY, not like the others....I am the Wary. 

Because whatever the surface intentions behind that, it almost inevitably voids some of Bruce’s responsibility to him as a parent, while at the same time making it easier to heap parental or caregiver style responsibilities for the others on Dick. If Dick’s more like Bruce than he is like his siblings in the overall family dynamic, this not only lessens the need to show him on the receiving end of Bruce being a parental figure, it simultaneously heightens the urge to make him a parental figure to the others to pick up Bruce’s slack there, because they’re more partners than they are father and son, see. So why wouldn’t Dick pick up Bruce’s slack and help him out there, and why would he need Bruce to actually be fulfilling that very role with him instead?

All the things people are critical of Bruce for in his parenting with Dick aren’t quite as bad, right, when Dick’s not fully his son or doesn’t quite view Bruce as his father....its easier to reframe it as fights between colleagues. Or recast Dick’s estrangement from Bruce as not actually a failure on Bruce’s part to reach out and cement exactly what Dick meant to him every time Dick flat out says “I want to know what I mean to you, give a name to it, give me an explanation for why you made these choices that isn’t that you don’t want me because all I see when I look at those choices is you expressing you don’t want me.” 

Because if Dick doesn’t actually want that explanation ever, if Dick doesn’t actually want that rock-solid expression of Bruce putting a name to what he feels for Dick and what he views him as, then the arguments between Bruce and Dick in his late teenage years DO become two-sided. Its just them butting heads back then. Rather than what they actually WERE in the comics, which was Dick clearly expressing insecurities about his place in Bruce’s life and Bruce repeatedly letting him leave or outright telling him to leave without actually giving it to him.

(I’m not even talking about NTT #55 for once, I’m actually talking about when Dick went to Gotham after he found out about Jason being Robin now. And as the events of that issue get referenced a TON in fandom, its HIGHLY suspect that one specific part of that issue gets rewritten in particular: where its acted like it was Dick that stormed off in a huff there or Dick who didn’t want anything more than to confront Bruce about Robin. It really doesn’t get addressed enough IMO that yes, Bruce said outright that he did it because he missed Dick....and then two panels later, Bruce literally asks Dick to go now. Says I would like you to leave now. Bruce is the one who blew up and lost his temper, literally smashing something while Dick was just heated because he was understandably upset, while Bruce somehow made it like he was the one being hurt by Dick and asking for space from him. Yeah, he said I miss you, but he never DID anything with that and in fact just turned around two seconds later and drove Dick away again, like Holy Mixed Signals, Batman! Y’know? Like what exactly was Dick supposed to do with that? “Oh, so Bruce misses me, but also he didn’t want me there, like I was literally RIGHT THERE for the first time in seventeen months and he missed me so much that....he didn’t even ask me to stay for dinner? Or call or reach out to me afterwards? So....my conclusion is.....what, exactly?”)

Ultimately though, my big beef with the stuff about adoption or Dick not wanting to replace his father, its not even about those specifically. Its about that period when Bruce very visibly was NOT in Dick’s life....and that was BY BRUCE’S CHOICE. That is the thing that needs addressing in my book, and far too often goes unresolved. No matter what the particulars of Dick’s views or wants re: adoption, there is literally no confusion about the existence of comics where Dick is repeatedly the one to reach out to Bruce, at a point in his life where he no longer had any legal ties to Bruce whatsoever.....and clearly express in one way or another that he is there and willing to talk, that in fact he WANTS to talk about why Bruce doesn’t seem to want HIM, specifically. 

It was Dick who brought up the issue of Bruce adopting Jason but not him and asked WHY at that one issue with them at a party. It was Dick who returned to Gotham and asked Bruce WHY he made Jason Robin when he hadn’t wanted Dick to be Robin - (and for the record, NO version of events where Bruce is the one to make Jason Robin aligns with Dick voluntarily giving up Robin.....the one and only continuity in which Dick did that, HE made the choice to pass Robin on to Jason. Mixing and matching continuities specifically to make Dick unable to claim hurt or resentment for the identity he crafted for himself being given away to someone else without his approval because ‘he was the one who said he didn’t want it anymore’ is yet again, suspect, as it serves absolutely no purpose other than to lessen the hurt done to him and abdicate Bruce’s culpability in hurting him when he did that). 

It was Dick who returned to Gotham after Jason died with no intention but to express his condolences and share their grief, and it was Dick who returned to Gotham to check on Bruce after Tim said he was worried he was going to get himself killed, as well as again more longterm in order to help with Tim’s training.

And in each and EVERY one of those situations.....it was Bruce that ended those encounters, and ALWAYS without ever offering Dick any actual resolution or change in their dynamic. Despite Dick’s very presence in each of these being a very clear sign that Dick was unhappy with their estrangement and wanted a change to it or else he wouldn’t even be there, he would be off being comfortably estranged somewhere else and totally content with that.

THAT’S the bigger issue and always has been, I think. That no matter how else you parse it, Dick repeatedly looked for and asked for reassurances, some kind of actual TIES to Bruce, and that Bruce for whatever personal reasons of his own, repeatedly did not give....even when Dick walked him right up to the perfect opportunity to just fucking say “I would like you to come home more, I want you here, I want you as part of my family even though you’ve already aged out of our existing legal bond.”

Bruce still just WOULD NOT SAY IT. Dick was very clear about needing and wanting something from Bruce that Bruce DID NOT GIVE HIM. Bruce gave him basically nothing to work with in these encounters more often than not. 

(In the interest of not being disingenuous here, I do admit that at the party when Dick asked Bruce why he’d adopted Jason and not him, Bruce did give a fairly touching response about how by the time he thought Dick would be open to it, he thought that Dick was too old to actually want or need it anymore. BUT, problem is, even with that it does absolutely nothing to change or address how the very fact that Dick was expressing insecurity about this now meant that Dick WASN’T actually too old to want or need it. It was literally a smack in the face that Bruce’s conclusion was wrong and not actually about Dick’s wants. And Bruce knew this, even referenced it at later points when he threw it back in Dick’s face to accuse Dick of resenting Bruce adopting Jason and not him.....which is a clear indication that Bruce knew it was something Dick still wanted or else there would be no reason for resentment, and THAT is the issue there. That no matter what Bruce said at that party about his reasons for not adopting Dick sooner, that very conversation itself should have been reason enough for Bruce to rethink his stance then there....but he didn’t. Also he ended up adopting Dick like five years later soooooo.....if he could do it then when Dick was even older, that doesn’t work as a barrier for him not doing it then.)

And that’s the troubling part.....how many people try and make that period of their lives unclear with no other visible purpose than to make the fact that Bruce WOULD NOT OUTRIGHT CEMENT DICK AS FAMILY OR ASK HIM TO STAY, like.....less problematic.

And as I’ve said before and will no doubt say again.......that logic process bugs the hell out of me, because it ultimately tries to claim the responsibility for Dick’s unhappiness in this regard back then is at least as much his fault as Bruce’s. That it was some kind of fight between equals, or that it was something Dick initiated or that Bruce had no power to resolve on his own via just his own choices or gestures.

Because it wasn’t! That’s not remotely what all of that was! And like I’m also always saying, you don’t HAVE to stick with the canon by any means. You can literally rewrite things so Bruce adopts Dick before he’s eighteen and they never HAVE that period, you can rewrite things so that Bruce reaches out and ends that period early on by DOING THE WORK of being the parent in that situation, you can ‘fix that’ by any number of means......yet over and over we see that period of estrangement repeatedly upheld as a thing that exists in the history that fics and headcanons reference having happened......but with the only ACTUAL change from the comics being that its framed as though it was just growing pains or Dick being stubborn or a dozen other things that somehow keep coming back to Dick doing something wrong there instead of repeatedly standing in front of Bruce asking for him to clarify their relationship and Bruce changing the subject or asking him to leave.

Again. THAT’S the problem.

You want Good Parent Bruce Wayne? Then WRITE Good Parent Bruce Wayne. Don’t just write Stubborn Teenaged Asshole Dick Grayson who btw doesn’t even really want Bruce to be his parent so there’s absolutely nothing Bruce could have done to bridge that gap back then anyway. 

(As that’s an equally critical part of the equation here as well. See, since Dick DID clearly express a want for a clear connection to Bruce back then, acting like Dick never really wanted a second father is a super convenient way to write over the part where Dick spelled out for Bruce how to bridge the divide between them and make things good again.....by demonstrating an actual WANT to have Dick in his family!)

But writing Stubborn Teenage Asshole Dick Grayson Who Did This To Himself.....that is something entirely different from writing Good Parent Bruce Wayne. You haven’t actually done or said anything with BRUCE’S character by just making Dick the fall guy for every conflict between them as though they were just equals all along and there was never any kind of actual parent child relationship or even a DESIRE for there to be a parent child relationship. Where the responsibility for being the PARENT like, lands on the....y’know. Parent.

And for the record, I don’t think this issue is confined just to this period of the comics, I think rather that its kinda the point of origin of a very large recurring problem in Dick’s conflicts with other people.

Because like I said, it was abundantly clear that Dick was expressing a want to be acknowledged as family, or just flat out acknowledged by Bruce at all, during this time. And if people can somehow make THAT period into just his fault.....then of course it should be no surprise that they can make any conflict he’s part of into his fault. Its a freaking blueprint for doing just that! 

And that’s exactly why this pattern recurs so damn often with EXACTLY the same fanon beats......whatever role the other character plays even in initiating a conflict is shifted onto Dick and somehow made into his own proactive choice and not something he’s actually reacting to. Thus Dick does double duty as both the CAUSE of the conflict and the resulting EFFECT - aka how he reacted to that thing that originally, he did not actually cause or initiate. While meanwhile, the other character not only gets off scot free bearing no actual culpability....no, now since DICK is the one making all the actual choices in the conflict from start to finish, now the other character is actually his VICTIM in it as well.

And that’s just.....so....blegh.

[hello-nichya-here]

Can you please explain the Azula-bias effect? It's an interesting term.

The Azula-bias is basically the bizarre belief that Azula is EVIL. No, I don't mean it in the sense of she's a villain, or an antagonist, or one of the bad guys. I mean straight up evil. Antichrist type of evil. She is not a character who did bag things, and she had no motivations, and no traits - she is evil. She's both a chaotic, insane bitch who does things for no reason, and a cruel mastermind who is ALWAYS planning something. Don't be fooled by her just casually taking a nap after lunch - it is all part of her sadistic plan to kill you and everyone you love.

The fans who have a very clear Azula-bias assume that anyone who goes against her in any is automatically right. They'll ignore the good things she did (or say it was "all part of one of her plans" despite there being no evidence for it), casually forget that other characters often joined her on her bad actions (like Zuko, Mai, Ty Lee, Iroh and Ursa all supporting the war at some point in their lives), blow small things out of proportion (like saying that her destroying a toy she was gifted, something that most kids did at some point, is in no way different from the time she cheered while Zuko was being disfigured) and they'll even claim she did things she never did (Suki didn't have a single scratch on her and didn't seem to be traumatized by her time in prison, and Azula full on told the warden to stop torturing a prisoner, but you'll still see people claiming Azula would torture prisoners all the time). They'll also either ignore the bad things that happened to her (like her mother's neglect and her father's emotional abuse) or say she deserved it all because she was "evil" since she was born.

*dresses up as psychiatrist* I classify the people who suffer from this terrible condition in 6 categories (patients can fit into more than one).

The Impressionable/Mistaken Viewer

Avatar came out almost two decades ago, and while many of us have watched the show again at least once at some point, there are still fans who only watched it when it came out. So, they obviously can't remember a lot of it, and they also misremember somethings. Considering that Azula was by far the most competent antagonist, the villain with more screentime, these people (who were likely kids when they watched it) are basing their perception of her on the most memorable and shocking moments, like her killing Aang. I have seen fans who were shocked to find out that Azula was Zuko's younger sister, and that had a very different opinion of her after rewatching the show.

The Ableist Fucker

These people took Iroh's "She's crazy and needs to go down" to heart. In their eyes, Azula stopped being a person/character the moment the finale came out and she started hallucinating. From that moment onward, Azula was no different than the classic, deeply offensive and downright dangerous stereotype of mentally ill people - nothing she does, thinks or feels is a result of anything other than "insanity". Her personality, backstory, trauma, and environment no longer exist. If you ask them to describe her to you, they'll just say she's crazy. If you ship Azula with anyone, they'll mock you and say the only ship that's good for her is Azula X Therapy.

The Incel

By far the easiest to explain. They're some dudes that see a lot of some girl that rejected them in Azula, so they harass people who like her, and then immediately start jerking off to her. 4chan is full of these guys.

The Angry Stan

They're big fans of at least one of the characters Azula ever went against (mostly Zuko and Iroh), and they HATE that she had the AUDACITY to ever defeat them in a fight and/or out-smart them. These are pretty easy to identify since they'll make sure to let EVERYONE know how much they hate Azula, and how she was actually the worst fighter/bender ever despite that being absolute bullshit. Sometimes, they hate her for "getting in the way" of their ship - how dare people prefer her for their ships over whoever their fave is?

The Victim Of Bullying/Abuse

Azula reminds them of someone who hurt them, so they let their trauma talk and preject all of their resentment over that person on to Azula. Many of them will accuse you of being an abuse apologist if you like her because they cannot separate her from their trauma.

The Preacher/Anti

By far the loudest and most annoying of the bunch, they cannot understand that people can like villains, complex characters, stories that have no morals, problematic ships, and even want a "bad guy" to turn into a "good guy". They basically think like all the people who bought into The Satanic Panic - if something is not openly, clearly, fiercely going against "the bad guys" in the very specific way they want media to do, then that media is evil and whoever likes it is also evil. In their minds, anyone who likes Azula in any reason, or so much as demonstrates even the smallest bit of sympathy for her, is a fascist, abuser, white supremacist, racist, imperialist, psychopath, narcisist, colonizer and literally any other word they want to completely miss the point of. Most of these people ignore Zuko's bad actions to pretend he is a saint, but there are few who say he is also irredemable and that the Gaang should have never forgiven him. There are lots of them everywhere, but Twitter is basically their current home and therefore hell.

[crossdressingdeath]

apologies if this is a weird ask to receive, but on the topic of a lot of minors reading mdzs and not really understanding it - absolutely. most people i know who've read mdzs or watched cql (me included) are minors, and while i don't think that's a bad thing it does mean that we absolutely won't get all of what the story is trying to say (and are more likely to really like (fanon) jc (though i have met adult jc stans which scares me a little bit ngl)) but the problem is that a lot of minors say they do? like, it's not bad to not know something, but there's this desperate need to be right about everything that it ruins a lot of opportunities to examine the text and engage with it and try to figure out what the author is trying to tell you. again, i don't think it's bad that minors are reading mdzs, but it's a problem when some don't realize that no matter how hard they try they will not fully understand the story (and then go and say jc did nothing wrong when he's a homophobic serial killer who would stop at nothing to make wwx's life a living hell.)

It's like... if minors want to read or watch adult media I'm not going to stop them, I'm not their mom (and it would be incredibly hypocritical of me anyway), but there has to be an understanding that the thing was made with the expectation that the audience would be at a certain baseline of life experience that minors do not reach. The story is not written with minors in mind, but frequently the loudest groups of them act like it's a crime that this thing that says very clearly it is not for them isn't catering to them. Like... I've seen minors in the Hannibal fandom whining about there being explicit content in the fandom for this show with multiple sex scenes. That's the sort of level some of these people reach. If minors want to get into adult media that's entirely up to them, but annoyingly often they seem to forget that them liking a thing doesn't make it For Them.

I think minors insisting JC is Just The Best are thinking about it like this is a shitty YA novel where the protagonist falls in love with a "bad boy" who's just awful to her all the time because that's romance, apparently, and in that setting JC would be a "good guy", but this is an adult novel and that doesn't happen anywhere near as much in adult novels, because adults are more likely to have the life experience and maturity to say "No, that's not healthy and I don't want to read about it". JC isn't a good person. You can have horrible people in a story without them being villains, and that's a thing that in my experience YA very rarely does. And of course there's the whole thing where his tragic past does not justify the atrocities he commits, which... honestly there's no excuse for people missing that, I'm pretty sure I've seen that in actual kids' shows before, but it's definitely more common in adult media. You can't judge MDZS by the standards of Western YA because it fits neither of those categories, but people often do and I think those people are predominantly minors reading MDZS and forgetting that this is an adult romance novel.

And it's also like... it's very important to learn how to be wrong. And that's hard to do! No one likes being wrong! But sometimes you're going to be wrong because that's how people are, and you have to learn to accept that with something approaching good grace. And like... I sure as hell haven't mastered that. A lot of adults haven't mastered that. So naturally minors reading this thing that they already aren't quite equipped to fully comprehend are going to have a lot of trouble with accepting that sometimes other people know better than they do. I suspect that's where a lot of the wilder JC stan takes come from; they know they're wrong, they know they don't have a leg to stand on, but instead of accepting that and either picking a less problematic character to stan or deciding they like JC anyway and deciding your faves based on who is least problematic is a stupid way to engage with media (it is) they double down. You get some truly hilarious arguments when people decide to double down on an argument that everyone knows is bullshit.

[kim-ruzek]

The unit beyond Hank Voight: or how Intelligence should look if/when Voight is written out

Finally, part two. This was very fun to write and I'm glad I actually did it before season nine airs (I'm cutting it late I know!!!). I've had how I'd want the show to do this in my head for the longest time-- although, I'll say, I technically get to the root of this further into the meta, after the second header. So if you don't want to read it all and just my general thoughts, you can just skip on down to that! But I hope you read it all!

In this fandom, as a whole, no matter what ship or characters are our faves, we've all be debating whether or not it's right to still have Voight as the lead, or if they should write out his character.

If we break it down, take out all the nuance and the external and internal factors, I say yes. But if we don't, it's much more complicated than that.

I watch Chicago pd primarily for Burzek, that is why I decided to emotionally exhaust myself with a new show. But I liked that it was set in Chicago, and it lent into all the bad/darkness of Chicago, and not just on the streets, but the cops (even if they can and should do better there, because it's still very much on the side of bad cop propaganda).

And like it or not, Voight is a big part of that. People call him an anti hero, and by definition, he is, but I struggle to like addressing him as such. But the way that he is, his characterisation, it is woven into the very essence if the show, into the unit, into their dynamics and group chemistry.

This is why it's a complicated matter, that should Voight be written out is not a simple question with either yes or no as the answer. Or, at least, not just a yes or a no.

Taking Voight out of the unit isn't like taking out Jay or Kevin, or any of the others. The other team members are easily replaced. Of course, their specific dynamics and chemistries will never be replaced, it's a sign of a badly written character and storyline if it is. But they are, in the grand scheme of things, replaceable. It is as easy as having Jay transfer one episode and introducing a new detective the next. (The only other exception, I should mention, is Trudy. You get rid of Trudy and you'll just get a desk sargeant as a replacement, with none of that chemistry in any way).

Voight is different. He's the lead-- and leads are always harder to move out a show without it crumbling-- and he's the literal leader of the unit. Every dynamic within the show is interlinked through Voight's character even if Voight has no impact on the dynamic. And so you can't just write him out one episode and then introduce a sparkling new sargeant the next-- especially if the sargeant is a pre-existing character.

A lot of this fandom wants Voight gone asap and Jay as sargeant immediately after. That's just unrealistic and honestly it would be a bad move on the show's half to do so. In general, I don't want Jay to be sargeant. Not even for the reasons I'm about to list-- well, not just them-- but for personal ones. However, if it's in a few seasons time, I'd be more up for that, if the show gave time to improving his character-- even if I'd still grumble to myself about it!

As I said, removing Voight's character and immediately replacing it would already be a bad idea because of how much the show's dynamics are mixed up in him. Jay being the replacement would fuck this up even more, because he's already got his own dynamics with his unit.

Jay is definitely a leader type character. He was brought in to be. I could see him being a sargeant, and he's definitely the 'big brother' of the unit, even if they're all around his age. He definitely can have a clear head and is tactical and has that aura that people would be comfortable following his lead.

But he's also ignorant, impulsive and selfish. People say he'd make a good sargeant because of his morals-- but they're very much surface level morals. It's actually why I can see what drew him to joining the military, not just that want to leave, but he's clearly got a good-bad black and white line drawn in his head and this is what makes the military attractive to him.

Jay always thinks he's in the right. And technically, on the surface, he is. But he misses the nuance and he gets very caught up in his black and white view. This is what also makes him impulsive. He mentally, clearly, orders people into the good and bad categories in his mind and then he's pretty rigid in them-- jumping to conclusions.

He's got a good heart, but he doesn't take much time to stop, think and learn. Like with the racial issues prevalent and blm, he's only got a surface understanding and he does not make any effort to get a deeper one. Mainly because he doesn't realize-- because he thinks a lot of himself, in his black and white view. He is "good" and he cares that people suffer and therefore he thinks he understands.

He does not.

Say what you want about Adam-- and I'll be leaving my own personal biases out of this-- but even if you say he has a worse understanding than Jay, he's better because he makes more of an effort. He gets that he doesn't understand, and he's brash and vocal when he shouldn't be, but he also listens. And he tries to learn, he really, really does.

Jay doesn't. And Jay's also from canaryville. He went to Catholic school, Catholicism was clearly very prevalent in his life growing up. His father was an emotionally closed off man. He went to war. He's got his own biases but he's got this basic understanding and thinks that's that.

It's not. And it's barely okay with his current position in the unit, and it would be definitely not okay if he was their leader. Especially if he did what the greater part of the fandom wants, and leans on Hailey. Which let's face it, he would, because Jay doesn't think he has anything to learn and what he may think he does he thinks he can do it on his own, that he doesn't need to ask Kevin for guidance.

And yeah, Kevin is "only" an officer (and I'll get back to this point). Jay's got the higher role. But Kevin has been a black man, living in Chicago... Oh yeah, all of his life. That trumps promotions and titles, especially when Kevin has also been a cop for a lot of his adult life and has raised two kids in this racially charged city.

And then there's the fact that-- and most of this is because the show refuses to show the team bonding-- he's actually quite isolated from the team. We rarely get to see his supposed friendships with them, and this would affect how he can lead them and how they can follow. The dynamics would be off and it would be filled with conflict and, at times, be like a herd of sheep without their shepherd.

So, Ree, you ask. How should the show move on from Voight?

The show has been incredibly short sighted when it comes to Voight. He's been a problematic character from the literal start, and now we're reaching a point that a lot of the fans want him gone. And since the most vocal are the upstead and Hailey stans, I do believe the show will be thinking of ways to do this.

In my opinion, this should've been built up from season five, from when the reform storyline began. Instead, the show just shaved some aspects away from Voight's character.

He has changed a great deal, has grown a lot. I don't see what happened with Roy as a sign he can't change, because everyone's journey has back and forths. Especially when Voight likes to have control when people are hurting his family, he sees himself as their protector, but not as a bodyguard, but as an executioner.

And so I think the show will do two things to eventually write him out-- either promote him, or have him retire. But even this isn't simple and needs a lot of build up and work.

The show should've seen that Voight's days are potentially numbered and set up things so it's easy to slot his exit in place. For example, they should've kept consistent with having a captain in the precinct, even a lieutenant. This would have pre-existing roles for Voight to slot into easily, so they can still have his character around but let other characters get promotions or take on more work.

This would also help set up for retirement. Because even if he just retires as a sargeant, we already have other leader characters in the show for the others to bounce off-- instead of just introducing someone new. This would also help a sargeant Jay storyline, because then he'd have bosses to report too, making it very much seem that he is just the next link in the chain and would help balance out those dynamics.

Although, in a way, I don't blame them for not having foresight in season five. For other reasons but also-- because back then we also had Antonio and Al. We had a more layered and diverse unit. Instead, now we have the dad and the five children. Antonio would've made a good next sargeant, especially if we introduced a lieutenant role. Because I can see him aiming higher and helping to groom Jay into his replacement. Especially if Al was still around as a nice wall to bounce off, although it'd still be okay if we didn't.

Antonio would also be a good stepping stone because he had well developed relationships with every member of the unit. Well, apart from Hailey, but if they went down this route, they could've nurtured a dynamic there.

It would've also helped if they replaced their characters when they wrote them out. I get why they didn't. Al leaving made the partners even numbered, Rojas was after Antonio. And I wonder if covid affected their ability for season eight. But it's still the massive problem-- they keep trimming the fat, when it's unnecessary and not believing that maybe they should fix that.

And of course. They're all young. Even when they did bring in others, they're still young. And officers. And that would be okay, if they actually bothered promoting Kim, Kevin and Adam.

The unit's dynamics and feel is already off because of the lack of diversity in characterisation, race and age. And the show is doing nothing to fix this, and Voight should not leave until they have. Especially when against popular belief, history actually shows that Voight doesn't like blank slates, but people whose core characteristics fits what he wants his unit to be.

So: what does life after Voight look like? Well, hopefully, a more racially diverse group, with more age differences, different dynamics and friendships explored, Jay (and Hailey) being called the fuck out on their biases, more out of unit bosses dynamics to stop it being so insular and a happy ending exit for Voight. Because let's be real here-- Voight is not going to be written out by going to prison.

Even if he deserves it because one-- the unit would not survive that and they'd be repercussions for all and two-- realistically, as he was in prison once, the brass would not let this happen because how it would reflect on them.

In this day and age, they'd rather force him to retire quietly than publicly admit they got him out of prison and now is putting him back in. It may not be right, but realistically, they'd cover their ass first.

[pedropascalspain]

WILDEST DREAMS

WILDEST DREAMS

Pairing: Javier Peña/Reader

Warnings: not very much, mentions of sex and some curse words.

Notes: This fanfic is completely inspired by Taylor Swift’s song Wildest Dreams. English is not my native language, so please forgive me if it has some mistakes.

________________________________

You were working as a secretary at the embassy since a couple of weeks but you already have heard all the possible rumors. The other girls seemed to love gossip and they talked about every single worker at the Embassy, every one of them, and they knew all the dirty little secrets concerning the agents, other secretaries and even the ambassador. You were glad that you didn’t have much to hide. You were a very transparent person, and you never had the necessity to hide anything from anyone. But one of the main attractions of the girls was Javier Peña, they loved to talk a lot about him. They criticized what he was doing with women, as he was known to be a ladies man. They said that he was very problematic, but let’s be clear, jealousy was talking because all of them wanted a chance with him. And you understood that, how not to want a chance if he was so tall and handsome as hell. He was the most gorgeous man you ever saw, without a doubt.

By the things they were saying you could asume that he didn’t appear like a very good person. In terms of black and white, he was totally in the gray category. It was known he had to do some bad things in his job, so you could conclude that while his partner, Steve Murphy, was the good agent, he was the bad, but he did it so well you didn’t matter at all.

You almost wanted to be the lucky girl that he would pick up one night to be with him, mostly to use and to threw the next day as he is said to do with all the girls. But the key word was “almost”. You almost wanted it because you were too good girl to really behave that way although it was very very tempting. So you just tried to enjoy your time there talking nonsense about the people, mostly listening about what the others had to say about this one or that one, and watching them have fun just betting about who was going to be the chosen one or if there would be another informant or another Peña conquest, or some other gossip they chose to talk about.

Your work there was not very exciting. You were there basically as a common secretary. You thought that with the DEA working there to catch Escobar your work would be more exciting, but you were limited to attending the phone, doing copies and doing some coffees from one person or another. Sometimes you questioned yourself about why you picked up the job in the first place. Well, if you paid attention maybe it was because the pay was good, because you had the opportunity to travel to another exciting new country and because you had a chance to improve your Spanish. Apart from that, the work was boring as hell and the company wasn’t so good either, as you had nothing in common with all the other secretaries and you didn’t have a lot of friends here in Colombia. So you told yourself that you were going to spend maybe one or two years there and then you would move on to another work more fulfilling for you.

One day you were lost in your thoughts when the infamous Javier Peña proceeded to approach to your table. You couldn’t believe that you had actually a real chance to meet the man in person, the real legend, because you always watched him in the Embassy from the distance and you never had a chance to cross paths with him or to talk with him in person. So when he approached to your table you were a little confused. At first he was very charming and even more handsome at short distance. You could tell that all the other women nearby were looking at you.

“May I help you” you asked politely.

“Yes, I am Agent Javier Peña and I was wondering if you could get me an interview with your boss” he said with a half smirk.

“Well, maybe if you set an appointment we could work on that” you said looking through the agenda.

“Ok, but I didn’t explain myself clearly. I don’t have time to make an appointment so maybe if you could put an appointment for myself right now I could be very grateful” he said pointing his finger to the agenda you were consulting.

You looked at him with a raised eyebrow “I mean, you are trying to say me that I had to pass all the other appointments just because you smiled politely at me and because you are handsome?”.

“So you find me handsome” he smirked. 

You couldn't believe that was the only part of your sentence that stuck into his brain “Umm, I mean, no, that’s not the point, that’s not what I said but…”.

“I get it, hermosa”.

“No, you don’t get it guapo. I’m not some kind of puppet that you can make do whatever you want, I’m not that kind of girl” you were beginning to get furious.

“And why what kind of girl are you? Tell me”.

“A righteous one” you said a little confused by his question.

“So, hermosa, why don’t you do the right thing and let me see your boss, because this is a very important matter”.

Unbelievable. “Well, why don’t you do the right thing and set an appointment and maybe he could see you tomorrow. I bet you can wait one day”.

“Look, you are wearing a nice dress, so maybe you could make an appointment right now and then we could show that beautiful dress at the bar”, he was being very confident in himself, that made you more and more mad, although at the same time some dark part of you were excited that Javier Peña wanted to take you out. But you weren’t that kind of girl.

“Are you trying to buy me with your company? Do I look so desperate to you?”

He looked at you with confusion but with interest. You were mysterious and he liked that, he also liked that you didn’t seem to be like the other girls and that you weren't an easy catch.

“I mean, then you are telling me that you aren’t interested in that offer” he said looking directly into your eyes.

You began to flush but just at that moment your boss exited the office and saw you flustered by him. “Y/N what is he doing he?” he said with a very rude tone “I don’t want to see you with him or you are fired. I don’t want another stupid secretary that can’t keep her panties on. Understood?”.

Your blood boiled and you said without thinking twice, and in your sweetest voice “Agent Peña is here because he has an appointment with you right now”.

Javier looked at you with a mix of curiosity and amusement, and keeping an eye at you he answered to your boss “Yes, I had made an appointment”. You could tell he said it with humor.

“Right here Mr. Peña” you said as you guide him to your boss office passing in front of him with a perfectly still face. Maybe you were just a secretary, but that jerk better treat you right or his agenda was going to be messed up a lot.

Half an hour later, Javier exited the room and told you “You shouldn’t have to endure working for this asshole, hermosa”.

You half smiled and replied “If you ever need anything else from him I will be very much pleased to help”.

He smiled as he walked away.

*******************************

A couple of days passed by and you were tired to listen all the other girls talking about your encounter with Javier Peña. If you had to admit it, you still thought too much about it  but you couldn’t help it. Also, you suspected your boss was an asshole from day one but until this moment he hadn’t acted as one so clearly, only looked at you with lewd eyes. You only wanted for the week to end so you could forget about your boss, your stupid work, your superficial coworkers and your encounter with Javier Peña. 

It was finally Friday when you were walking out of the Embassy ready for heading home to spend another quiet weekend. You knew some girls had set up plans but you excused yourself because you couldn’t spent more time with them outside of the office or you would go crazy. You couldn't wait to arrive home and relax.

When you were approaching your car you saw someone by its side. You were between curious and scared when you finally saw it was Javier Peña. As he saw you, he began walking towards you and said “Let’s get out of this town drive out of the city away from the crowds”, while he took you by your arm and dragged you to his own car.

Normally, you should have protested, because he wasn't even asking you, he was treating you as his property. You couldn't help to shiver at the thought of being his. And you thought “heaven can’t help me now, nothing last forever but this is gonna take me down” as he took your hand and helped you into his car. You weren’t acting like yourself as you let this handsome man dragged you with him. You thought maybe the hot weather had finally affected your brain, or your common sense at least. You two kept quiet for a moment, and when he began driving he finally broke the silence. “Sorry for the kidnapping but I was observing you this week at the office and though you could use some change of scenery”.

“So it was a planned kidnapping I guess” you said jokingly. “But you're alright. Thanks, for the consideration but I’ve just didn’t expect you to notice me”.

“You did me a favor the other day and I am only returning it, since you refused my invitation to the bar. Also, I know one town nearby which has a damn good restaurant, without the possibility to drop by someone from the Embassy”.

You laughed, it seemed quite a good plan yet still strange. You though he maybe was trying his chances on you, as if he expected you to have fallen for him since the first second you met him.  You thought that this could end probably as one more rumor of Javier Peña, and probably one rumor to gossip about you. You could see the end as it begins but at that moment you didn’t care at all.

You felt brave, confident, different with him, maybe empowered because he chose you. You didn’t know what exactly to expect but decided it was about time for you to enjoy the moment, to add new experiences in your life. After all, you were a grown woman, so you could enjoy yourself a one night stand, even if that wasn’t your typical relationship. In fact, it would be your first night stand, but there always had to be a first.

So you surprised him, and yourself, by telling “Ok, let’s have fun. And also, as you said you’ve been observing me, I also knew some things about you, so whatever happens tonight my own condition is this: say you’ll remember me standing in a nice dress, staring at the sunset with red lips and rosy cheeks”.

He was genuinely surprised. So you continued “I don’t want dramas, I want to have fun, forget work and try to loose myself. If this ends just as a polite dinner between coworkers, remember me that way without resentment. And if we end having something more tonight say you’ll see me again even if it’s just in your wildest dreams. I won’t ask for anything more”. You could see a little change in him the moment you mentioned “something more”, like he began breathing faster. But it was just a second, and he instantly relaxed and chuckled.

“I’ve never encountered such a straightforward woman” he said smiling. “That’s a deal then”.

After the “deal” was settled, you both began to talk about a lot of things. He told you about his dangerous job, you told him about your boring one. You talked about movies, music and you felt so comfortable that you began for the first time in Colombia letting your silly self out and made a couple of jokes that got him cracking up.

You finally arrived to the restaurant and ordered. He was right, the food was amazing. You enjoyed the rest of the evening, it was very easy to talk to him, too easy. You wondered if it was because he was the charmer, and was used to charm women. You didn't let it bother you, so when you headed out of the restaurant and he was taking you home you told yourself that you weren't going to overanalyze things. You were just going with the flow, for the first time in your life.

You arrived to your building and the tension between you grew higher and higher. You could guess you both wanted the same thing but something was stopping him from it. When he walked you to your door you opened it and turned to say goodnight but, before any of you could react, you were both kissing deeply. He entered your house and stopped abruptly the kiss.

You watched him in surprise as he said “Your boss is a jerk, but I don’t want you to loose your job because you made me horny”.

You closed the door behind him and told in a low voice “No one has to know what we do “.

In a blink of an eye his hands were in your hair, his clothes were in your room and his voice was a familiar sound. You thought that nothing last forever but this was getting good.

The night turned into day and he was still in your bed sleeping, he didn’t left. He opened one eye and saw you already getting out of bed and stopped you. He took you by your waist and kept you in bed while he approached you and began kissing your neck. “Where are you going hermosa?”.

“I didn’t want to make you uncomfortable if you don’t want to stay. It’s ok as we already talked. I prefer to retire in time and that you'll see me in hindsight tangled up with you all night burning it down”.

“Do you want me to go?” he said while he continued kissing your arm, your shoulder, and caressing your skin.

“No, but I know how it works and… I’ve just wanted to remain myself when you leave me, that’s why I asked you that when you walk out the door please say you’ll see me again even if it’s just pretend”.

“Cariño, I don’t have to pretend because I’m not going anywhere unless you want me to”.

[ellaofoakhill]

My Thoughts on Boxes

Something has kinda been bugging me the last little while, that I like to think a lot of people can relate to. We live in a society that, generally speaking, likes putting things into boxes; we like analyzing and sorting and organizing. And there’s nothing really wrong with that in and of itself--frankly, I could stand to do a lot more of it in the more practical aspects of my life--but such a system only really works with things that easily fit into discreet categories, and the things that aren’t or can’t be easily sorted are either forced into a box where they don’t fit, or left adrift without any real place to be.

In particular, I’m talking about fiction. You have numerous genres that multiply by the day, and the age categories that stories within those genres are deemed suitable for. And don’t get me wrong, there are lots of practical reasons for those categories; they make advertising and the organization of bookstores and libraries dramatically easier, and for most stories, this system works great, with each finding the audience most likely to derive benefit from reading it.

But--again, solely my opinion here--this may have produced stories that are a lot flatter than stories written in previous eras (which had their own problems, I will NOT get into that today). By flat, I don’t mean boring, or a failure of the story. I mean that the story feels like it was changed to fit into the category it most closely matched. In the most egregious examples, I feel like things were either added to a story that did nothing for it besides make it fit its box better, or taken out that were either integral to the story or added a depth and breadth to it that improved the work overall, even if that made it harder to sort.

This makes me think of the Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch quote, “Murder your darlings”, but completely opposite to what he was getting at. The general interpretation is “Even if you like a given piece of writing/painting/sculpture/etc., if it does more bad than good for your work, you need to remove it for the sake of the art.” What I feel is happening is “You need to change your story so it fits the target demographic, no matter what it looks like at the end.” The former serves the story and its spirit; the latter sacrifices the story for... I don’t know, ease of advertising, perhaps? Certainly financial gain is involved there.

So my first argument against this jaded, greedy way of thinking runs thus. Look at the stories that are now considered classics of Western literature: look at Wuthering Heights and Pride and Prejudice; look at White Fang and Call of the Wild; look at Dracula and Frankenstein; look at The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia (no, I couldn’t resist throwing in two classic fantasy titles, and no, I won’t apologize for it). If you haven’t read these stories, you probably should. Yes, they have problems that mark them as products of their time, but every last one of them has one thing in common: none of them were written with a box in mind. We’ve thought of lotr as a fantasy staple for so long that we’ve forgotten that, prior to its popularity, fantasy as a genre wasn’t really a thing. There were fairy-tales, yes, and stories with fantastical elements, but a genre of story with precise conventions? Not really.

Let’s zoom in on Tolkien’s work, for a moment. Look at his world and its origins, and it draws heavy inspiration from Old English and Scandinavian myths and legends. Look at his characters, in particular his four hobbits, and he drew from his love of the English countryside, his respect for the common working man (Sam, the gardener, literally carries Frodo, the wellbred young gentleman, on his shoulders in the final leg of their gruelling journey to the Cracks of Doom), and his horrific experiences in the First World War. Hilariously enough, a big part of the reason he wrote the stories was as a self-justification for his indulgence in and lifelong love affair with language invention (look at the huge appendices at the back of The Return of the King and tell me I’m lying!). Read his work and any and all interviews with him, and a “genre box” seems clearly to have never crossed his mind.

Putting aside the genre box for a moment, let’s talk age categories. The Hobbit was a story he invented for his children, and it does show. Look at the Lord of the Rings, and it is clearly at a higher level of reading comprehension, and written for a more mature audience; there’s less silliness, though he keeps the wonder at this wild, magical world. But where to put it? The hobbits run a spectrum from basically teenagers (Pippin) to almost middle age (Frodo is in his fifties when he embarks on his journey to Rivendell), yet they’re clearly his protagonists, though we also see some narration revolving around Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, all of whom are adults, though the latter two are somewhat younger for their respective races, whereas Aragorn is in his eighties (this being offset somewhat by the fact that he lives to over two hundred, but I digress...). We’re told today (falsely; VERY falsely) that the main character(s) should match the age of their target audience. Where does lotr fit, then, in terms of age category?

The answer you’re looking for is: not really very well anywhere; at least, not according to modern convention. As for my personal experience, I could and did read both The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion at age thirteen. I consider myself a fairly intelligent young man, but I was varying degrees of lost when I read those. When I re-read them as an adult I was fine, but that isn’t to imply that teens shouldn’t be reading lotr, far from it. There’s nothing in them content-wise one wouldn’t reasonably expect a teenager to handle, and there’s a lot of good, powerful story and commentary in there that’s relevant to this day.

My point is, the age category doesn’t really matter. If I may shamelessly plug my own work for a moment, when I was first writing tftem, and even as I’m editing and publishing it now, I wondered and still wonder about this age category business. There is nothing in these stories I’d consider inappropriate for kids, and anyone above the age of about 8, with perhaps a slight stretch to their vocabulary, could comfortably read every story beginning to end. Further complicating matters, my beta readers ranged from 8 to almost 80, and most of the spectrum in between. They all liked it; whether they liked it for the same reasons is moot.

Which leads me into my second argument against boxing and categorizing stories. The boxes aren’t very reliable. If I may change media for a moment, cultural convention says, as an adult, there is only a narrow sleazy strip of cartoon entertainment I should be watching and enjoying. That tiny slice of the cartoon pie is the only slice I avoid like the plague. Yes, there are stories that don’t appeal to me because they’re too simplistic, or are problematic in ways that I find repellent, or just aren’t executed very well, but aside from things aimed at toddlers and the aforementioned “adult” cartoons, any cartoon is fair game. Give me an interesting concept, or a fascinating character, or hell just give me a good laugh or line of dialogue or beautiful fight scene, and I’ll give it a try.

My point is (yes I had one, and no, believe it or not I didn’t forget it), don’t write or draw or create with a box in mind. You will murder the spirit of your darlings. The box does not exist to define what you, the writer, are allowed to do, or what you should do. At best, the box exists in hindsight, once the work is done, to tell your prospective audience whether your story was written for them. And even then, lots of fantastic stories don’t sit well in boxes. Some of them actively rip the boxes to pieces. Lotr is a story that transcends boxes, and as a result has many layers and rabbit-holes and nuances that you can pick up when you’re ready to appreciate them, however old you are. In many ways, it’s ageless.

I didn’t write tftem to emulate Tolkien, nor even as an homage to him, or C.S. Lewis, or anyone else. But I did want to write a similarly ageless story, a story that could be read and appreciated a hundred years from now, by an audience of eight-year-olds or octogenarians. Why did we ever start moving away from stories like this? They were the foundation of stories for as long as stories have existed on Earth. People are still reading and marvelling at The Epic of Bloody Gilgamesh!

Tl;dr: don’t try to force your stories into boxes; they suffocate. Write what you enjoy writing; chances are it’ll live longer.

[didanawisgi]

Response to attacks from dr. David Gorski

Published on TrialSite (August 25, 2021)

My name is Geert Vanden Bossche. I received my PhD in Virology at the University of Hohenheim, Germany, and I have held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Germany and Belgium. I also have worked in R&D and vaccine development for GSK, Novartis, and Solvay Biologicals. Next I was a Senior Program Officer for the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team, and from there went to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) and was the Senior Ebola Program Manager. Then I joined the German Center for Infection Research as head of the Vaccine Development Office. Currently, I work as a consultant on biotech/vaccine issues, and I also do my own research on “natural killer” cell-based vaccines. I have argued that immune escape due to the current COVID-19 vaccines is driving new variants as the virus evolves its way around the inoculation. Dr. David Gorski is a Wayne State University of Medicine (Detroit) associate professor in oncology and surgery. He is also chief of the breast surgery division. Gorski has launched several “hit pieces” about me and my views. In one article, he attacks the notion that vaccines have a part in driving variants. He also has criticized YouTuber/intellectual Brett Weinstein for supporting the use of ivermectin in our pandemic.

Lack of Expertise

In my view, Gorski is both stigmatizing honest scientists and seemingly trying to create socially-dangerous tensions between the vaxed and the unvaxed and between medical experts who hold different views on our current vaccines. Gorski creates false dichotomies wherein one is good (pro-vaccine, put faith in government) or bad (anti-vaccine, open to alternate views and arguments), and this type of discourse and rhetoric is incompatible with science.

Gorski is also largely scientifically illiterate in the fields of virology, immunology, vaccines, and evolutionary biology. He cannot see that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are involved in the evolutionary dynamics of the pandemic; his effort to blame the latter category is unfair and potentially dangerous. Dr. Gorski is quick to mix up unrelated topics to create parallels that don’t make sense. He unscientifically conflates or compares data about: live vaccines and inactivated vaccines; epidemics and pandemics; measles and SARS-CoV-2; herd immunity and vaccine coverage rates; efficacy with effectiveness in vaccines; and sterilizing immunity with transmission-reducing immunity.

He also unfairly lumps me in with antivaxxers when I am pro (beneficial) vaccines. Much of this is likely based on the fact that Gorski’s expertise is largely lacking. His professional expertise in breast surgery seemingly does not allow him to opine intelligently about the topics at hand. And he regularly gets tangled up in his own misunderstandings and contradicts himself. Also, he sets himself up as a maximal “pro-vaxer” despite the noted lack of expertise in the various disciplines that apply to vaccination during a pandemic.

Innate Immunity

Gorski possesses no understanding of the workings of innate immunity, i.e., innate oligospecific antibodies or natural killer cells. He does not know the difference between innate (i.e., polyreactive) and naturally-acquired (i.e., antigen-specific) antibodies. This is clearly reflected by Gorski’s list of ‘factors proposed to explain the difference in severity of COVID-19 in children and adults’. None of these factors could explain why not only children, but any young and healthy individual, could become susceptible to Covid-19 disease only a few months after they got asymptomatically infected.  This can only be explained as a result of suppression of protective, innate antibodies by spike-specific antibodies (including vaccinal antibodies) as the latter outcompete innate antibodies for binding to SARSs-CoV-2. Gorski’s list, therefore, is completely irrelevant in regard of the overarching mechanism of natural immune protection against Covid-19.

He doesn’t have the wherewithal to understand the difference between naturally acquired immunity’s sterilizing cell-mediated immunity (CMI) and the S-based vaccines’ lack of CMI. He fails to see that there is currently no evidence of population-level immune selection pressure on CMI-mediated, sterilizing immunity induced in previously symptomatically infected persons. He doesn’t seem to realize that only a minor fraction of the population acquires protective immunity against COVID-19, whereas the vast majority are naturally protected by their first line of innate immune defense (a notion, he obviously didn’t even hear about).

Gorski specifically claims that younger people are now getting infected more because, “the variant is so much more transmissible and, therefore, the higher the percentage of the population that needs to be immune.” He doesn’t even seem to realize that these younger (<65 years) and healthy people (i.e., the majority of the population) proved to be immune during the previous waves. So why would they all of a sudden lose their immunity a few months later? Further hurting his credibility, Gorski refers to ivermectin as an “anti-worm” drug and wildly misrepresents the evidence so far showing that it can help with COVID-19. Again pushing the false either/or paradigm, he puts ivermectin in the “bad” category without any nuances.    

Contradictio in Terminis

The doctor seems to miss the fact that, “spreading” SARS-CoV-2 relates to infection or pathogens, not to the disease they may potentially cause. Gorski seems to forget that despite the fact that all knew that the efficacy of these vaccines was not 100%, the primary goal of these mass vaccination campaigns was to generate herd immunity. Now, maybe Gorski doesn’t really understand what herd immunity is about, but it suffices to remind him that it relates to the observation that unimmunized people can be protected provided the vaccine coverage rate in the population is high enough to prevent viral transmission. Gorski is trying to make people believe that herd immunity would imply vaccination of the total population, which is almost a contradictio in terminis.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                By going to ridiculous extremes to make his case, Gorki is basically just making himself ridiculous. He also lumps me in with folks claiming that stray spike proteins from the vaccinated are causing major harm, when I have never taken that view. He thinks that because a virus has a somewhat higher infectiousness, it will in no time dominate all other circulating variants, no matter the pressure that is exerted by the human population. All of the more infectious variants were isolated before end 2020. So why is it that only quite recently have the more competitive ones started to spread widely? For somebody who obviously has big holes in his knowledge of virology and basic immunology, it can, indeed, be difficult to understand that viral spread in a population is determined by the interplay between viral infectious pressure and population-level immune pressure.  The most blatant example of this is where he contradicts himself in saying: ‘Vaccines is a selective pressure’. Per definition, though, selective pressure is known to drive immune escape. And thus, according to Gorski,  ‘vaccinating as many people as possible as fast as possible’ is the way to go!

“Quo vadis, homo sapiens?”

It is simply impossible to achieve herd immunity with these vaccines for reasons I clearly explained in my contribution titled, “Quo vadis, homo sapiens?” No matter the level of uptake of these vaccines, they’ll never produce any kind of herd immunity, as they’re merely turning young and healthy people (who’re naturally capable of eliminating the virus) into asymptomatic spreaders. Secondarily, herd immunity has nothing to do with immune selection pressure. On the contrary: neither innate antibodies nor immunity induced by recovery from disease (i.e., the only 2 types of immunity that contribute to herd immunity) are spike (S)-directed, so they do not exert selection pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., determined by S), in contrast to the immune response induced by vaccination. Gorki is among the many stubborn know-it-alls who pretend that further increasing vaccine coverage rates will stop the virus from spreading and further evolving. All this without any single scientific argument backing his statement. Substantial outbreaks are still taking place in countries with high vaccine coverage rates, clearly demonstrating that vaccine-induced herd immunity is a myth.

Gorski is also completely missing the point on the lambda variant. He stares at different variants in regard of their sensitivity to vaccine-induced neutralization whereas the key message of the publication I alluded to was that i) increased viral infectiousness is insufficient to ensure sustained  viral transmission in a massively vaccinated human population (i.e., a population that exerts widespread spike-directed immune pressure on viral infectiousness and ii) that additional mutations in the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein may substantially contribute to the decreased neutralizing capacity of vaccine-induced antibodies against any given variant (as mutations in the RBD alone may not explain the decreased neutralizing titers). In other words, variants may incorporate additional mutations in the NTD to dramatically increase their resistance to vaccine-induced anti-S antibodies. This mechanism of escape neutralization is of course very problematic if it occurs in a variant that as already a high level of infectiousness (e.g., delta variant) as this may lead to a steep increase in morbidity and mortality rates in the population. Gorski’s conclusion that ‘there is plenty of reason to conclude that the vaccines offer considerable protection against at least severe disease from these variants’ is, therefore, anything but based on an understanding of the virus’ evolutionary adaptation to enhanced, widespread immune pressure on viral infectivity. As a matter of fact, a such dramatic combination of high infectiousness and complete resistance to wild-type spike vaccines has recently been reported https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114v1.full.pdf.

We’re curious to learn about Gorski’s predictions on how much protection the vaccines are going to provide against highly infectious variants that are completely resistant against the vaccines…

Vaccine efficacy versus vaccine effectiveness

Regardless of the fact that Gorski does not understand the difference between vaccine efficacy and vaccine effectiveness, he doesn’t even realize that the main issue is not whether or not the vaccine protects 100% or less; the real issue is that imperfect vaccines will enhance propagation of naturally selected immune escape variants, especially if high infectious pressure is combined with widespread immune pressure (due to mass vaccination).

Lies

If Gorski is unable to make his point otherwise, he’ll rely on lies:

I never stated that the emergence of more infectious variants was caused by the vaccines as Gorski pretends

I never stated that vaccines are ineffective, dangerous and that they make the vaccinated dangerous to the unvaccinated as Gorski pretends

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

I Need to Talk About “Problematic Faves” within TWDG [1/?]

You know what I love about TWDG and its characters...? 

How flawed they all are.

I’m not talking that they’re flawed in the stupid “My biggest problem is that I love too gosh darn much!” or “My defining character flaw is that I’m super clumsy lolz!” I mean that practically every single character we’ve met across these games has done at least one terribly awful thing. 

That includes all of our favorite characters. 

It doesn’t matter who your favorite character is. They have done at least one terrible thing within these games, if not many. 

This can include theft, murder, assault, using racist slurs/being racist in general, different acts of violence using weapons, verbal abuse, lying, sacrificing others for themselves, property damage, assisting in suicide, abandonment, and many other things that potentially result in the harm of others or themselves. 

We don’t like to think that our favorite character could ever do any of these things, or if they did, they have an excuse for why they did it.

Take Clementine for example. We all love Clementine. We’ve all been with her since the beginning, we’ve all watched her grow, and we’ve all morphed her into the person she is by the time s4 ends. 

But when you look at Clementine, as well as some of her actions and behaviors across the series, through a completely unbiased lens, it’s not hard to throw a certain overused word at her. 

“Problematic”

Clementine has killed several people. Most of them were in defense, but there are certain kills that are hard to defend or justify. 

My favorite example to use is when she shot the asshole who traded her bad bullets then asked Javi to lie for her. It’s easy to say, “Well, she didn’t mean to do it! She thought the bullets wouldn’t fire! Besides, that guy WAS the asshole who sold her the bad batteries and attacked her!”

Okay, fine. But that doesn’t mean diddly squat. 

Clementine knows better than to point a gun at someone she doesn’t have any intention of shooting. That was one of the first lessons Lee taught her, and it’s even a lesson she taught Sarah in s2. Clementine pointed the gun at him and fired anyway, which is WHY he got up and ended up attacking Javi. Then, Clementine shot the gun again, but this time it actually fired and killed him. She knew she fucked up, but the deed was done and she murdered that man. 

Clementine is just one of many characters who we could throw that phrase “Problematic Fave” at. At the end of the day, I could argue that every single favorite character within TWDG would fall into this category at some level, whether it be low or high. 

Even characters who we baby like “Oh precious child who has never done anything wrong in their life!” have an argument that can be made against them. 

Well, okay, except Rosie.

Rosie is the one exception I’ll allow. Even though she’s not a person, she’s a dog, but I still consider her a character. 

But, Clementine’s different. She’s our protagonist, therefore, it’s much easier to explain her actions or make excuses for what she does. Hell, a good chunk of her actions are made by us, so if she does something “wrong,” then we’re to blame for making that choice as her, further developing her character with the use of that choice. 

What about the characters who aren’t our playable protagonists? 

What about the major and side characters who have made poor decisions? The characters that we’ve thrown this label of “Problematic Fave” at more than others? The characters we’d consider “villains,” or in the very least “antagonistic.” 

What about the characters under those labels that we end up loving, and even defending, despite the terrible things they’ve done or said? Despite groups of others in the community saying that it’s wrong to like these characters?

Today I want to talk about those characters who are higher on the “Problematic Fave” tier list, and get to the bottom of WHY we love them. 

It’s not wrong for us to like these characters. 

Let’s get that out of the way right off the bat.

It’s not wrong to enjoy or love an antagonist, or a morally complex/gray character. I argue that everyone has an antagonist that they love, whether it be within the twdg universe or otherwise. 

I’m not here to shame anyone for liking a character who happened to be labeled under this “Problematic Fave” term by others who like to throw it around to start fights. 

If anything, I’m letting know that it’s totally okay to love these characters as long as you’re being safe about it. As in, you’re not excusing these bad behaviors while acting like these unhealthy things are okay when they’re clearly not.

Now... maybe you’re wondering WHY this is something that I feel I NEED to talk about. What brought this up and whatnot. 

I need to talk about this because I have a problematic fave and it’s bothered me for a long time. 

Before I get started, we should all be on the same page of what defines a “Problematic Fave,” since it’s a phrase that I’ll use throughout this whole thing.

 If you go to Google and search this term, this is the definition it’ll bring up: 

Very vague. And when I asked you guys:

It’s an easy enough term to understand. We all get the general idea. 

The problem is, like I mentioned before, every single character within this TWDG universe is problematic at some point. They’ve all said hurtful things, they’ve done hurtful things.... it’s the apocalypse! 

But there are a handful of characters who end up getting this thrown at them WAY more than any other characters. Not just “villain” characters either, like the St. Johns or Lilly, but characters who seem to have more gray coloring to them, those who are more antagonistic, who make more poor decisions, who get others killed or hurt, who display unhealthy behaviors. Those who we can’t quite put our fingers on if they are “good” or “bad.”

I’m sure that at least one character has popped in your brain as you’ve read thus far.

Let’s talk about the popular ones:

Kenny 

In my opinion, Kenny is... well, he's problematic. Whether you love or hate him, you have to admit that a lot of his actions over the course of seasons 1 and 2, though mostly 2, are harmful. 

I’m one of those people who don’t love or hate him. I’m more on the dislike side when it comes to s2 Kenny, but I can see why someone would love or hate him overall. 

On one hand, he IS an interesting character to take the time to study. His character tells us a lot about what happens to a normal, nice family man thrown into the apocalypse who loses everyone he’s ever loved, including his only child, his wife, and what happens when that family man has to keep going with the world trying to beat him down. 

He has his kind moments. He clearly cares about Clementine and AJ, but his behavior and actions, if not kept under control, could lead to disaster. They DO lead to disaster, since no one can stand to be around him, leading to everyone abandoning him, and in turn, abandoning Clementine and AJ. 

All of the weight of what’s happened to him has left him angry and violent. He lashes out at Clementine after Sarita’s death, going as far as to BLAME Clementine for it regardless of her choices. He isolates her from the group, becomes possessive the moment they meet back up again, and picks fights when he shouldn’t, which result in harm to her and others. He beats the shit out of Arvo in front of everyone as if he’s right in physically harming this disabled kid because of the situation they all find themselves in. 

In the end, if you actually have Clementine shoot him, he tells her and the player that “you made the right choice,” as if he knows he’s been such an antagonistic character that it’s only right that he die. 

The end to every good story has the so-called “bad guy” die... right?

Kenny is an obvious example of a favorite character being problematic, if not THE most obvious. He has so many people who love him, and just as many who hate him. 

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard or witnessed arguments about Kenny and this phrase was thrown around with other words like “toxic” and “abusive” yada yada. 

It makes sense to me that someone would question why Kenny would be another’s favorite character just as it makes sense that someone would love him. 

It all depends on how you see him and if you’re mature enough to accept and understand his trauma, unhealthy behaviors, and overall character [the good and the bad] for what it is. He’s a broken man, but it doesn’t give him an excuse to lash out at those he’s supposed to love and protect. 

What really gets me is that Kenny is loved by so many people and they’re vocal about it, probably even more vocal than those who hate him. And I’m not shaming you. 

The kind, mature Kenny stans of our community aren’t afraid to express their love for this character. They know who he is, and they’re willing to discuss him with others who love him, as well as with those who don’t in a calm manner. This is something I highly respect and thought deserved acknowledgment.

I have a point to mentioning this, because with my problematic fave, I have never openly admitted to how much I like this character because I was always scared of the potential hate that could be thrown my way. I mean, whenever I search this character, there’s a lot of shade being thrown around. 

Then times changed, my blog grew bigger and I became more confident in sharing my opinions and views, as well as discussing several positive and negative aspects of TWDG with all of you. 

Now, this isn’t just applicable to Kenny, either.

Of the characters who fall higher on this “Problematic Fave” tier list we’ve somehow acquired, there are a lot of people who absolutely adore Minerva. 

Marlon-

Even Lilly has people who love her-

Hell, there are people who SWEAR by 400 Days’ Nate. 

^THIS crazy bastard! 

I was even shocked to see there are a handful of people who really like Arvo, too!

Before we continue, I do want to reiterate that I’m not coming for anyone who likes Kenny, Minerva, or any of the other characters mentioned above. I want to make that clear in case I say something pertaining to these characters that you take offense to. Well all know how easy it is to be offended on here. Besides, I’m not one to judge given that I have my own problem character that I love and y’all are gonna judge me anyway, so let’s just chill. 

This whole idea of why we love these characters is fascinating. 

If we ever met these people in real life, we wouldn’t be so quick to love them and we know it. But, because they’re fictional and put out there for us to analyze and talk about with one another, we find ourselves attached to them.

I simply want to understand why. 

Now that we have a list of the more popular characters who fall into this tier, I’ll be using them as examples throughout the rest of these posts. 

However... before we get into that, I’m sure you’ve noticed that I haven’t told you who MY problematic fave is and why. 

Well, allow me to enlighten you because, even though I’m using Kenny, Minerva, ect. as examples, this character will be my MAIN example. 

Time to come out and admit it. 

...

...

...

It’s David.

I really like David.

I even dare admit that I.... kind of love him?

Why, you ask....?

David is a character I’ve rarely talked about.

The only time he ever seems to come up is when we’re talking about Livid, and we all know how that one goes. 

Even when we talk about ANF as a whole, it’s usually a discussion about Emo Clementine or how Gabe should’ve had a better character arc or just how gosh darn gorgeous Javi is or how Conrad is actually the best character and totally should’ve been a romance option because Javrad is the true OTP of ANF.

But that’s a topic y’all aren’t ready for.

Anyway.

I know that there are those out there who, like me, like David for what he is and his character development throughout ANF. I’m not going to act like I’m the one person in the world who likes him because I can’t be. 

However, it seems like every time I get an ask that involves David [and isn’t Livid] is hateful or otherwise negative a good 95% of the time.

That, on top of being a predominantly s4 blog, is why I haven’t talked much about David or admitted that I like him as much as I do.

But now the cat’s out of the bag.

CJ has a hidden love for David Garcia.

It’s true. This jerk is my big problematic fave.

And I can already hear it now: 

“CJ, how can you actually like David after he treated everyone so poorly and took AJ away from Clem?”

Oh, I don’t know... how can anyone love Kenny after the way he treated everyone so poorly and was a real prick to Clementine after Sarita’s death? 

Why does anyone love Minerva after she got Tenn/Louis/Violet KILLED and Clementine bit? 

Why does anyone like Nate, who literally murders an old, wounded couple and is overall an insane son of a bitch?

That’s why we’re here, ya dingus.

To figure this out. 

In preparation for this, I actually went and did some digging on what people think of David. I thought, “Maybe I’ll find some character analysis’ or posts that share my thoughts.” 

After reading a bunch of threads about him on various websites, I concluded that 99% of them look the same:

[ Also, where are these people who support David against Clementine? Because I did not find them, random person on wikipedia. I must not be looking in the right places. All I found were Kenny defense posts on your David thread. Riddle me that, random person on wikipedia whose name I scribbled out but just realized I missed the “edited by” rendering the scribble pointless!]

This did nothing but increase my anxiety about making this whole post because I’d rather not have paragraphs like this sent to my inbox for the next twenty years. 

But, I’m doing it anyway. Obviously. 

I have a real love-hate relationship with David, in case you couldn’t tell.

I should hate David. I really should.

I mean, I don’t like Kenny, and I fucking loathe Lilly. They’re two characters that have a lot in common with David, so logically, you’d think that I’d group him in with them and hate his dumb face. 

But I don’t. 

Even though David is an asshole. 

He likes to do things that really piss me off, then turn around like “I can’t change because I’m a soldier” as if changing and not doing bad things is completely impossible for him!

David breaks a grieving woman’s arm after her husband dies, takes AJ away from Clementine after kicking her [a 13-year-old] out of their group by herself, gets more upset over how his glass got broken than over his wife’s cut hand, constantly fights with and puts Javi down, barely mourns Mari’s death, and a number of other things.

I know change is hard, David, and you have a lot of trauma from being a soldier, but that’s not an excuse to do bad things! I firmly believe that with enough effort, love, and support, you can slowly get better! I really hate you, you infuriating man!

But I also love him.

....But I also really hate him.

Do you see my dilemma?

And y’know what? I got plenty to say about all the things he’s done. 

David is a fascinating character. 

Even now, going back up and rereading what I wrote, I have to urge to jump in and be like “Well, okay, I actually have a theory on why he did that...” as if I’m ready to defend him from myself. How does that work?! 

Well, okay, not necessary defend him in the way of justifying why he’d break that woman’s arm or anything, but instead show that he’s a gray character who is much more complex than people give him credit for. I have the urge to explain David’s character as a matter of character analysis and discussion, not pretend he didn’t do anything wrong or make excuses for his unhealthy and problematic behaviors.

Does that sound familiar?

David Garcia is to me what Kenny is to a lot of people.

I have a theory on why he married Kate in the first place when they clearly weren’t compatible as a couple! I have theories on why he was quick to boot Clementine out but look the other way when Lingard got high on their meds! Explanations of why having him and Gabe alive in the end is the better ending!

oh god everyone is going to hate me haha-

I have it all, and maybe one day I’ll sit down and write an entire in-depth character analysis of David if anyone is actually interested, but right now I just want to understand why I like to him in the first place because it makes no sense.

Since day one, it’s boggled my mind as to WHY I’ve always found myself leaning in favor of David. 

With every episode that came out after e2, David was the character who always piqued my interest and I found myself wanting to side with him just to see what would happen. Why did I still like him even though he kept doing things that I knew were wrong? Or that pissed me off?

Why was I furious when I reached my ending only to have David end up dead?

Why was I so pissed that this character, who drove me INSANE for most of the game, died?

Is it because I see a part of myself in him? Is it because of his character design, the performance of his voice acting, and his overall writing? Does it have anything to do with his backstory and relationship with Javi? Is it because I’m actually one of those people who see someone like this and think “hey I can fix you!” but don’t know it? What is it?

Why is David Garcia my “Problematic Fave” of TWDG?

Continued in [2/?]

[smallhatlogan]

Why Nonbinary Borderlands Fans are Mad About Zer0′s Pronouns, In a Timeline

2012

Zer0 was introduced in Borderlands 2 as a character meant to be absurdly mysterious in almost every way.  Zer0 is apparently not their real name, they seem not to be human (but it’s unclear if they’re an alien, robot, or something else entirely), no one knows where they came from, etc. Still, in Borderlands 2, they defaulted to he/him, and was assumed male.  It’s worth noting that Borderlands 2 also featured Bloodwing, Mordecai’s pet alien bird. In the original Borderlands Bloodwing was referred to as he/him, but switched between games to she/her. This is explained outside the game by Burch, who says that Bloodwing’s species changes gender halfway through life.

2013

Gearbox released the Diamond Plate Loot Chest. In it was the “Pandoran Gazette” an in-universe newspaper. It included an “Ask Doctor Tannis” advice column, the last question being:

Dear Doctor Tannis,

I have heard you are acquainted with the vault hunter known as "Zer0". I have been meaning to ask - that's not really his true name, is it? Hell, maybe Zer0 isn't even a "he". Do you have any details on this mysterious figure?

- Curious in Old Haven

Dear Curious,

I am indeed acquainted with the towering stack of leather and poorly-written poetry that so many refer to as "Zer0". As you have correctly noted, "Zer0" is not the Vault Hunter's true name. Zer0's actual name and gender are (CONTINUED ON PAGE 9)

Page 9 was not included. To my knowledge, this was where it was first seeded that Zer0 may not be male. 

November 2, 2014

 In a panel titled “Playing as a female character panel - Does it Matter” during PAX Australia, Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford discussed Zer0’s gender:

“The other things that’s interesting to me is sometimes when there’s characters that don’t have a gender or have an ambiguous gender I’ll choose them...In Borderlands 2 we left Zer0’s identity very ambiguous. What gender is he?” *crowd laughs* “We need better pronouns, don’t we? Don’t we need better pronouns?” (Timestamp) 

“What’s the gender of Zer0?….That says more about me than it does say about Zer0, the fact that I use the pronoun he when I describe Zer0. In fact, um, we purposely have left Zer0’s gender ambiguous. There’s a lot of folks at Gearbox that like to think that maybe Zer0’s of a particular species that doesn’t have gender- That is more androgynous.”  (Timestamp) 

(Timeline continues under cut)

November 25th, 2014

The first episode of Tales From the Borderlands was released. Anthony Burch answered this question on his Ask.fm: 

To my memory, tumblr blew up with excited nonbinary fans. Prior to seeing screenshots of this, I really didn’t have interest in Borderlands. The idea of a cool nonbinary character who used they/them pronouns, admist a virtual desert of representation, made me play through the entire series as fast as I could so I could catch up in time to see these pronouns in action. For a long time afterwards I’ve seen other nonbinary people expressing the same sudden interest in the series after learning this about Zer0. Because, yeah, it was a pretty big deal. 

2015: 

Zer0 appeared again in episode 5 of Tales, released almost a year later after the first. Their voice had changed to one that sounds more ambiguous in terms of gender, but Zer0 was still being referred to as “he/him”. Anthony Burch was one of the writers on this episode. Afterward, he answered this on his ask.fm:

Since he claimed it was honestly a mistake, nonbinary fans held out hope. There were posts going around tumblr clarifying that yes, Zer0 was still nonbinary, and still was meant to use they/them pronouns. It was just a mistake made by a thoughtless cisgender man. Of course, then some presumably-cisgender fan goes to Burch, and validates him, because clearly a character can’t just up and CHANGE pronouns! It’s not like anyone ever does that in real life! 

It’s not a fair point. It’s a dumb point from someone who has no stakes in this.  (Another thing worth noting is it has only been other characters who referred to Zer0 as he/him. Zer0 has never made a point of standing up for their own pronouns.) After this Burch just kind of gives up on the whole idea. 

This statement about characters being “progressive enough not to misgender someone” is weird, because the characters, even the sympathetic ones, in Borderlands have often blatantly failed to be progressive. The original Borderlands has the worst of it, it’s your basic 2009 edgelord shit. There’s blatant misogyny, not to mention the extremely homophobic joke surrounding Mr. Shank (and within that the transphobic joke about his girlfriend being a man in a wig). Burch only started writing for the game in Borderlands 2, however. It’s a huge step up, but there’s still a lot of bigotry. Captain Scarlett makes a “no fatties” joke. Mr Torgue fat-shames Ellie. Mr Torgue uses the R-slur. Multiple characters slut-shame Moxxi. Incest jokes surrounding Scooter, who also is implied to be a huge creep towards women.  Heck, there’s the entirety of Sir Hammerlock’s Big Game Hunt DLC is a racist, colonialist mess. Its antagonist is implied to be gay, one of two gay male characters introduced thus far, and he’s a pathetic, creepy stalker.  This is the game series where there are two common enemy types whose names are straight up ableist.  So citing characters as being “too progressive” rings hollow with this context.  Besides, trans people are often misgendered, even by people who’d otherwise be considered progressive.  Burch left Gearbox the same year, so he’s not entirely to blame for what anything afterwards. He just set a pretty bad precedent.

2019:

Gearbox did seem to take the “make a new nonbinary character” thing to heart.  They give us Fl4k, again a nonhuman character, who uses they/them pronouns. And okay, I love Fl4k, but like most nonbinary people I’m tired of all nonbinary characters being robots, aliens, or otherwise non-human in appearance (a trope that yes, Zer0 falls into as well). Still, Fl4k is cute and having a nonbinary playable character who uses they/them pronouns is cool! I definitely plan to play as them. Many nonbinary fans were suspicious though, it seemed likely that Fl4k might be meant to appease us and they could keep on using he/him for Zer0. We were proven right when they released the gameplay preview on May 1st. We hear Zer0 called “he”. None of us are surprised, but it still hurts, we felt like we’d been baited with Zer0.  Besides, why can only one character at a time be nonbinary? Why can a bird change pronouns but not a person? Why was a writer allowed to go out and promise this if it wasn’t going to be followed through on (yes, he didn’t use the word “promise” but telling a marginalized group something like that isn’t something you can just “forget” without people feeling betrayed)?

And that’s where we’re at, as of me writing this. I feel like there are some comments I’m bound to get on this, so I’ll answer them here: Why are you making such a big deal about this?

Me typing a few paragraphs isn’t making a big deal. But I feel misled and baited. After a few years of no clarification after Burch promising us they/them Zer0, a lot of people hung on to hope. A lot of people became big fans of Zer0 because they’re a fun, badass, nonbinary character. Their design is really, really rad! And heck, they were (at least for a time) the most popular playable character in Borderlands 2. Telling everyone, in-game, “actually Zer0 was never really a he, they’ve been a ‘they’ this whole time” would have been HUGE. Like how Blizzard made Overwatch’s poster girl, Tracer, canonically a lesbian, and then revealed their badass gruff guy (who fills the roll of your basic FPS protagonist), Soldier 76, to be a gay man. They/them are still not widely accepted pronouns. For us who use them, it’s difficult to convince people not to default to something gendered. Especially when we fail to appear completely androgynous. I’ve been told Zer0 can’t possibly be nonbinary because they have a deep voice and “masculine” body shape. But real nonbinary people come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of voices! 

What about Fl4k?

As I said, I’m very happy about Fl4k. They fall into some problematic tropes even more than Zer0 (as Fl4k is verified beyond a doubt to be a robot, and has an “acceptable” androgynous shape to them). I don’t know their voice yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if it also fell into the category of “acceptably androgynous”. Fl4k is new and already “they/them”. Zer0 is an established character who already has a lot of fans among a bunch of different groups of people. There’s definite value in demonstrating a character can switch pronouns, since pretty much every nonbinary person who uses they/them haven’t used those pronouns their entire life. Besides, there can and should be more than one nonbinary character.  Fl4k being nonbinary but not Zer0 kind of feels like Gearbox expects us to shut up and be happy with what we’re given.

What about nonbinary people who use he/him pronouns? Can’t Zer0 be that?

Those people are real and valid.  However, we’re talking about real people versus a fictional character. I admit I’d feel better if it was stated, in-game, “Yeah, Zer0 is nonbinary and uses he/him”. But even then, it’s REALLY EASY for cisgender people to ignore that information and write Zer0 off as male (And knowing gearbox, they’d put it somewhere easily missed. I’ve surprised so many straight people who’d played through Borderlands 2 with the fact that Sir Hammerlock is gay, simply because it was only verified in a side quest). And you know, we were promised they/them, so like, not doing that kind of sucks. Also I think it’s really important to normalize they/them.

So what are we supposed to do about this? What do you expect to change, anyways?

Honestly? I don’t expect Gearbox to fix this so late. In all likelihood, that’s way too much dialogue to re-record. But I still think it’s worth making our voices heard. We shouldn’t silently put up with this kind of thing. Other people will pull the same shit, being either unsympathetic or unaware of the harm they do. And heck, it’s unlikely, but maybe Gearbox will at least acknowledge their wrongdoing.

Also, it’s maybe worthwhile to ignore canon, and keep referring to Zer0 as “they/them”, or if this whole thing is news to you, it’s not too late to start. It would mean a lot to nonbinary fans, and make a point about how Zer0 is regarded.

[erinptah]

Super Drags review (tl;dr Show Good)

The post where I do my best to spread the Good News, that there exists a saucy gay drag-queen magical-girl animated comedy and everyone should watch it.

Okay, not everyone -- I'll give some caveats at the end -- but definitely a heck of a lot more people than Netflix has bothered to advertise it to.

Look at this! Why did nobody tell me about this??

What is Super Drags?

Fast facts:

It's a 1-season, 5-episode adult animated comedy series, released in November 2018

Here's the official page, with a free-to-view trailer

It packs more explicit, unashamed queerness into those 5 episodes than any other cartoon I can think of

The only possible competitor would be if you took the whole 5000-episode run of Steven Universe and pared it down to a supercut of Just The Gay Parts

This in spite of being produced in Brazil, which (in my broad understanding, as a total non-authority on the subject) is more oppressively, dangerously homophobic than the US

The original is in Portuguese

There is an English dub, fabulously voiced by contestants from RuPaul's Drag Race

It's wrapped in "for adults only!" warnings, not because the content is any less child-friendly than (say) your Bojacks Horsemen or your Ricks and Mortys, but because Brazilian authorities tried to get it shut down on the grounds of this much gay being Harmful For Children

It was (heartbreakingly) not renewed for a second season

Here's a promo video, in which the main characters (Portuguese, with subtitles) play Drag Race judges for Shangela, who ends up voicing Scarlet in English.

And here's a beautiful flashy music video of the big musical number! (Also Portuguese, no subtitles, but the melody and the visuals stand on their own.)

Plot and worldbuilding stuff!

The elevator pitch is "What if Charlie's Angels, but also drag queens, with superpowers, because magical-girl transformations?"

In this universe, all LGBTQ people have magical energy. The Big Bad is an evil magical-drag-queen nemesis who tries to drain our energy for her own purposes. It's like if Ursula from The Little Mermaid was a first-season Sailor Moon villain.

...sidenote, in case you were worried, the representation isn't "cis gay men and nobody else." There's a butch lesbian in the recurring cast, a genderfluid person (in that specific word!) as a one-off love interest, and all the ensemble scenes are wonderful collages of different races, body types, and gender presentations.

Our heroes also fight non-magical everyday homophobes, who get written with scathing realism.

The moment I knew the show wasn't pulling any punches was in the first episode, where a newscaster complains about being Silenced by the Law of Political Correctness, then chirps "however, we have a special guest who is thankfully above the law!"

According to the reviews I've found from Brazilian viewers, it's also pitch-perfect when it comes to local queer culture, community dynamics, slang and speech patterns, even memes. All of which flies right over my head, so here's a post (with no-context spoilers) about one viewer's favorite details.

The handful of reaction posts on Tumblr have a dramatic split between "Brazilian viewers fiercely defending the show as culturally-accurate, uplifting, and brave in a terrifying political moment" and "American viewers complaining that the show is problematic because it's a comedy about drag queens with no perfect role models and lots of sex jokes."

As the Super Drags tell their nemesis (and this is also in the first episode): "How dare you try to turn the LGBTQXYZ community against each other? We do enough of that on our own!"

In between missions, our girls work sitcom retail jobs and deal with other everyday problems. All of which are written in amazingly nuanced and thoughtful ways for a show that also features "defeating an orgy monster with a lip-sync battle."

Detailed character stuff!

Our heroes are Color Coded For Your Convenience!

The Super Drags themselves go by "she" in-uniform, and a lot of the time when out of it. Like the Sailor Starlights, only more so. I'll roll with that.

In blue: Safira Cyan, or Ralph by day, an excitable college-age kid who's built like a football player and squees like a fangirl. (She's an anime fan in the original, and for some reason all the otaku references were replaced in the dub, but you can see them in the subtitles.)

Ralph lives with her younger sister (they play video games together!) and their dad, comes out to them mid-series, and is very shippable with another young guy who starts out reciting the homophobic beliefs he was raised with but whose heart clearly isn't in it.

Safira's weapon is a classic magical-girl wand that casts protective force-fields. Which are shaped like condoms. Because of course.

In yellow: Lemon Chiffon, aka Patrick, the oldest of the group and generally the smartest/most strategic. In most cases, the other two treat her as the de facto team leader -- unless she pushes it too far.

By day she's a single guy with thick thighs and thinning hair, who has some body-image insecurities on the dating scene. And this show has Things To Say about unrealistic beauty standards within the community...not to mention, about masc guys who look down on anyone too flaming or femme because straight people disapprove.

Lemon's weapon is a fluffy boa that can be used as a whip or a lasso, especially when there's a bondage joke to be made.

In red: Scarlet Carmesim, also Donizete, the loudest and most aggressive teammate with the most cutting insults, who refuses to suppress that attitude in an attempt to appease racists. (But will give it a shot when trying not to get fired.)

Donny still lives in her religious/homophobic mom's apartment, and I'm pretty sure it's because neither of them can afford to move out. Her rock-solid sense of fierce self-confidence is the reason it doesn't bring her down.

Scarlet's weapon is a fan that she uses to throw shade. Yeah, you knew that was coming.

The Charlie to these angels is Champagne, who runs operations from a cool magitech compound and breaks the fourth wall at the end to petition for viewers' support in getting a second season.

...we let her down, folks :(

So here's a thing. The show never draws a sharp line between "people who become drag queens because it's a way they're driven to express themselves as gay men" and "people who become drag queens because they were trans women all along." That's consistent with how South American LGBT+ culture works. (Again: best of my knowledge, not personally an authority on this, etc etc.)

Many of the characters, including Champagne, never describe themselves in ways that translate to one of our sharply-defined Anglo-USian identity categories. And I'm not going to try to impose any English labels on them here.

But I can say (in contrast to Safira, Lemon, and Scarlet), Champagne never switches out of her "drag" name/voice/presentation, not even in the most candid off-duty scenes, and still has the same bustline when naked in the tub. Make of that what you will.

You Should Watch This Show

If you have a Netflix subscription, watch Super Drags!

If you ever do a Netflix free trial month in the future, make a note to yourself to watch Super Drags!

It's one of their original productions, so there's no risk of missing your chance because the license expired. But it's absolutely not getting the promotion it deserves. Which means potentially interested viewers won't find it, which means Netflix will think there's no interest, which means they'll keep not promoting it...etc etc etc.

No idea if there's any chance of getting it un-canceled, but maybe we can at least convince them to release it on DVD.

And the sheer gutsiness it took for a group of Brazilian creators to produce this show in the first place -- that deserves to be rewarded with your attention.

In spite of various anti-discrimination laws that sound good on paper, the country has serious problems with homophobia, transphobia, and anti-LGBT violence (warning, article has a violent image which is only partly blurred).

Maybe the creators could've gotten a second season if they made this one softer, less sexually-explicit, more restrained...but honestly? I bet that wouldn't have helped.

Consider Danger & Eggs, an Amazon original cartoon. It was made in the US, thoroughly child-friendly, and restricts its LGBT+ representation to things like "characters go to a Pride celebration...where nobody ever names or describes the quality they're proud of."

And it didn't get renewed past the first season either.

(Note: it had a trans woman showrunner and a queer-heavy creative staff, so I blame all that restraint on executive meddling, not the creators themselves. The showrunner even liked the tweet of my review that complains about it.)

So there's something very satisfying about how Super Drags went all-out, balls-to-the-wall (sometimes literally), all the rep explicit and unapologetic, packing every 25-minute episode with all kinds of queer content that would be censored or muted elsewhere -- but here it's exaggerated and celebrated and just keeps coming.

(...as do jokes like that, and I'm not sorry.)

Okay, there are a few legitimate reasons to not watch this show

Some caveats.

None of these things are Objectively Bad Problems that the show itself should be shamed for...but maybe they're genuinely not your cup of tea.

It does have actual Adult Content beyond "the existence of gay people." This show loves to swing barely-clothed cartoon genitalia in your face. There is, as mentioned, an orgy monster. If that kind of humor is going to bother you too much to appreciate the rest of the show, give it a pass.

I wasn't kidding about how realistic the homophobes are. Opening of the first episode has a guy trying to murder a busload of people while shouting slurs at them. If that level of hatred on-screen is gonna crush your soul, even in a show about sparkly queens flying to the rescue with dick-shaped magical weapons, don't push yourself.

Any fiction with this much crossdressing and gender-transgressing is going to hit some trans viewers in a bad way. Because trans people are such a broad group, with so many different experiences, that Every Possible Trope Involved pushes somebody's buttons. (See also: "some trans readers complain about a storyline that turns out to be drawn from a trans writer's actual life experience".) If this show goes does gender things that turn out to be personally distressing for you...or even just distressing for this specific time in your life...don't feel obligated to keep watching.

It has aggressively-sassy queer characters making jokes and calling each other things that are affectionate in-context, but would not be okay coming from straight/cis people. If you can't wrap your head around that, go watch something else.

Other Than That, Go Watch This Show

For all its big heart, big ambitions, and big gay energy, Super Drags is tiny enough that I've binged the whole show 2 times in the past 2 weeks. Thankfully, it's highly re-watchable -- lots of fun background gags and subtle foreshadowing that you don't catch on the first round.

(Pausing one last time to appreciate that a show with elements like "the high-tech robot assistant is called D.I.L.D.O." can be subtle at all, let alone be this good at it.)

I've also paged through all the fanart on Tumblr and Deviantart, looked up the single fanfic on the AO3, and started brainstorming plans to request it in Yuletide next year. Someone, please, come join me in (the English-language side of) the itty-bitty fandom for this ridiculous, glittery, over-the-top, fabulous series.

[polyamorouspixie]

The term “poly” is bad why not just use polyam

Funny, I was just going to make a blog post about this actually! I literally came to sit down and write it and found this message.

Now, I do think it’s very important to be aware of the way you use language and the impact it has. For example, I try to make my blog trans friendly, including non-binary (and if I do mess up because I’ve had three decades in this binary-obsessed culture and sometimes I don’t notice, feel free to pull me up on it), not equating gender with genitals, and not referring to two genders, opposite gender,or anything along those lines, because it’s important. I’ve made an effort to use the word “bananas” more in place of ableist words because actually it’s kind of gross to be ableist, you know?

And sometimes you find out a thing is racist and even though you thought it was harmless, you should stop saying it. 

But it isn’t good to just accept everything you’re told without investigation. For example, there have been cases where well meaning non-Muslims have said things like “please can you not put a dog in that advert, dogs are offensive to Muslims”, and then a whole load of Muslims have been put in a position of having to say that they’re not offended by the existence of dogs, they just may not want to touch them, and could people stop making out that Muslims are super sensitive and need to be specially catered to all the time, because the racists love that and it isn’t true, and then there’s a load of newspaper articles about how Muslims are stopping white people doing ANYTHING now and it just increases racism and it’s all lies.

I did a little investigation and I think that a similar thing may be happening here with well-meaning white people. I assume, and correct me if I’m wrong, anon, but the issue is that poly can also be used as shorthand for Polynesian, and that by using it as short for polyamorous then you are somehow preventing Polynesian people from... this is where I’m unsure and please, again, do give me more information on this, am I stopping Polynesian people from celebrating their culture online? And connecting with other Polynesians? (I once was told by another Tumblr user I was preventing Polynesians from having a safe space, so I’m going to work from that)

Working off this assumption I did a Google search using only the term “poly”. Google offers as additional questions that people have asked when just searching “poly” has failed them, and some of those relate to “poly relationships” (and others maths), but for the actual results: the first result is a basic description; it’s Greek for “many”. The second result references Polynesians. Then, we have polymers, poly- as a prefix again, polygon, polytechnic, an app for making 3D models, a Chinese business group, a pretend currency called Polymath, a Cornish arts charity, a site that sells prom dresses; some of these things multiple times. Finally on page 5 is a single reference to polyamory. 

My point being that certainly polyamorous people do not have a monopoly (ha!) on the prefix poly. It has a great number of meanings, most of which pre-date polyamory, and are far more widely used. And yet I’ve still managed to connect with other polyamorous people online, by using the full term “polyamorous”. I rarely find myself talking to someone about my relationship and find that whoops! They’re talking about plastics!

If you Google “Polynesian”, you get roughly 201,000,000 results. The first few pages are definitely about Polynesian people, places, and culture. I can only assume the rest is too. Polyamory doesn’t seem to be mentioned.

An additional factor is that Polynesians, although I’m sure many speak English (for example in Hawaii English and Pidgin are very common), many speak as first languages Samoan, or Maori, or about thirty more different languages. Samoan is one of the most common ones, and their word for Polynesian is “Polenisia”. Searching for this word brings up many pages that are about Polynesia in some way, though I don’t read Samoan so I could not tell you exactly what. The Rock doesn’t refer to his heritage as Polynesian, he refers to it as Samoan; I can only assume that is common, and there lies many more words which Polynesian people can use to find safe spaces online, not to mention a lack of specialness for the word poly.

Although Samoan uses the clearly influenced word Polenisia, the Maori people of New Zealand (who are also Polynesian) use the word Kiwa. It seems to me that as many of the search results for Polynesian are travel agents, that both Polenisia and Kiwa would be more useful terms; not to mention the many other native languages. 

The English word for Polynesia was first coined in 1756. The prefix poly- I can’t find such a precise date for, but one assumes dates back to before 500 BC when the ancient Greeks developed their language, and has been used since then in medicine, science, and any time someone wants to feel important by referencing Ancient Greece--such as in Polynesia itself which means ”many islands”. Poly as shorthand for many (ha!) other words pre-dates the word Polynesian by thousands of years. It’s a common useful word, it was long used by a tremendous number of people before it was ever applied to a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean. Trying to bring its usage to only one of those uses seems like an unwinnable task. 

I know that some people reading this aren’t going to be fully convinced; they think it should belong to Polynesian people. Here’s the thing: I’m not taking the word Polynesian from anyone. Certainly I wouldn’t want to re-use Polynesian to mean anything else. If it became known that the word Polynesian was problematic; I would, on the rare occasion I used it, use the preferred word as chosen by Pacific Islanders. I do sometimes wonder if, because it is a colonial word, if they would prefer something else, but it’s not for me to tell those people that their own description of themselves is problematic! The word “poly” isn’t sacred or special to Polynesian people, though it is less syllables (hence why it gets used as shorthand for so many things). It isn’t an offensive term--for example if people started using “eskimo” to mean something else, I’d be quite cross, as many of the people it’s used to refer to find it an offensive term. You start using slurs, you start throwing about sacred or important terms from other cultures--I’m going to tell you to stop it. Those are oppressive things to do.  Neither Poly nor Polynesian fall under these categories. Using colonial terms can be considered oppression, too, but it’s up to the group themselves to decide how they feel about that, and though I have looked I’ve yet to find any issue with Polynesians being referred to as such. 

I’m sure I’ll get some backlash from this, but I hope most people reading it have learned a little about Polynesian culture! M’s brother lives in New Zealand and has a lot of experience with Maori culture (did you know Maoris want everyone, Maori or not, to learn Maori in New Zealand schools? Did you know white politicians commonly use Maori words in speeches?), which I’ve found very interesting to hear about, and V lived in Hawaii as a child, and A studied there as an adult, and I’ve learned a little from them too (did you know Hawaiians LOVE Lilo and Stitch because it’s set there? They also taught me a little Pidgin which sadly I’ve mostly forgotten). Moari and Hawaiian are VERY different cultures, but both worth learning about. If anyone has any resources for learning about Polynesian cultures, please let me know, and I will happily share them on my blog!

If you want to send me any articles about how using the word “poly” is in fact oppression, that’s absolutely fine, all I ask is that the article is written by or at the bare minimum quotes at least one Polynesian. 

If you’re going to send me asks asking why can’t I use polyam or polya just in case 1) let’s go back to the “please stop encouraging racists to write articles about how non-whites are So Sensitive and we can’t do anything at all without offending them” particularly when those people of colour have not asked you to do anything of the sort 2) poly is established within the polyamorous community as a shorthand 3) polyam and polya are a horrible mouthful and awkward to type and 4) I don’t want to get into a “who is the most progressive” pissing contest that doesn’t benefit oppressed people in the slightest, and I don’t want to be mean, but some of you are doing that and going around being rude to people for no reason as well.

And because this is quite long let’s have a TLDR: 

“Poly” is neither offensive nor sacred or special to the people of Polynesia and that means it is not oppression to use it for other contexts. The word Polynesian remains exclusive to those people, as do the words such as Maori, Hawaiian, Samoan and Tahitan which refer to the cultures within the umbrella term Polynesian.

[rwdestuffs]

Done dirty: The White Fang.

Y’know, finding interesting ways to showcase the subject at hand is getting difficult…

You want to know something?- I’d say that the humans were pretty damn fortunate that all the faunus wanted was equality. They could have easily had enslaved their would-be-racist asses after they had won that war (actually, this sounds like a kickass ‘what-if’ story, if someone wants to make that, send a link my way please).

But really, the narrative seems to be really split on how we’re supposed to treat the WF. If we’re supposed to sympathize with them, then making them a terrorist group that Blake has to reform makes that hard. If we’re supposed to hate them, then making it so that they were retaliating against oppression and racists was a poor choice.

To clarify before I go any further: I side with the White Fang. Not with Adam. The WF is a civil rights group made to ensure the equality of Faunus (And is for some reason the only civil rights group to do so), and defend them. Adam, on the other hand, is a white kid who kills people in schools because he got rejected by a girl he liked (arguably the most accurate thing about the racism plot). This is the main point of the image used.

On it’s own, the idea of Faunus isn’t necessarily a bad one. Taking inspiration from racism in America isn’t a stupid choice. But they didn’t take inspiration from racism in America, they based it on the struggle of African Americans in the US. And when you just copy/paste that onto your fantasy minorities that are supposed to be a stand-in for all racial minorities, it creates a problem.

See, there are reasons as to why people would be afraid of faunus outside of them looking different. They hold inherent advantages like superior hearing, and night vision.

An easy fix for this would be to make it so that different faunus types are treated differently.

For example: Velvet. She’s got bunny ears. That means that she’s one of the “non-feared (Read: ‘good’)” faunus because all her trait does is give her better hearing. She’s ‘cool’ because she poses very little threat. Blake could also be in this category because she also only gets better hearing, but she might be trusted a little bit less because she gets better night vision thanks to her feline heritage. She is also ‘cool’ because she poses very little threat.

Now we go to the other side of the spectrum and go to Tyrian. He would be one of the “Feared” faunus. Scorpions on their own already freak me out, so making one human-sized and still letting him keep his venom is terrifying to me. Tyrian is ‘uncool’ because he poses a very clear and dangerous threat.

Faunus could have been used to showcase multiple forms of fear. In fact, these natural weapons and abilities would be an easy reason to justify humans hating them (again: Jealousy is right there).

See, if it were jealousy that fueled the hatred, then a lot of things would make sense. Humans are mad that they can’t have the advantages that faunus have, so they attack and belittle them. Not only would this make sense, but it would be a far better idea than what’s going on right now (though, to be fair, it’s not that hard to be better than the canon story for faunus discrimination).

But it’s not just the Fang as a whole that’s been done dirty, there are also several members that have been dirtied too. Like Sienna Khan.

The woman is a skilled fighter, has an interesting motivation, and managed to take over the White Fang.

And then she goes down like a bitch.

The writers tried to fix this by showing her off in the trailer, but that makes the situation far far worse.

- Sienna fights like that, and she gets defeated so easily?

Look, it’s possible to have a character show off how badass they are  even if they’re already dead. Take a look at Episode of Bardok from Dragonball. We, as the audience, know that Bardok is going to die, but seeing Freeza using his deadly technique after Bardok gives it his all in one final attack against the tyrant is one hell of a way to go out.

But Sienna just gets stabbed after less than five minutes of screentime.

For a show that got known for it’s fight scenes, it really lacked in the fighting to justify why Adam managed to beat her.

And to preemptively shut down any argument that “Sienna didn’t have her aura up,” I have to ask you why you wouldn’t have your own guard up if the people around you were pointing their weapons at you, and had very clearly betrayed you.

Sienna not having her aura up seems a lot more stupid now, doesn’t it?

Adam is also a character that was ruined. Not because he’s a terrorist, mind you (see comment about him being rejected above), but because they decided to make him a bitter ex.

Adam being a mentor figure and only a mentor figure should be enough to justify his relationship with Blake. There’s more relationships out there other than romantic and friendships. There’s student-teacher relationships, familial relationships, co-worker relationships, etc.

Adam being Blake’s mentor that fell from grace is really the only relationship we need for those two. It establishes a real fear, and it doesn’t add……… the problematic complications of an 18-year-old dating a 13-year-old.

Not only could this be a means of mirroring the relationship that Jaune had with his dead prop Pyrrha dead prop, but it would serve as a really cool moment of Blake surpassing her teacher when she inevitably defeats him. While I will acknowledge the fact that standing up to an abuser takes a lot of courage, it also takes courage to stand up to a mentor that you looked up to and admired- and finally tell them off or defeat them. That abuse story could have gone to Weiss, and her standing up to her abusive father- which she did. That was an awesome moment for Weiss.

But I guess Blake dodging into Adam’s sword and Adam somehow forgetting about Blake’s semblance was a higher priority. As was a priority for the writers to make sure that Adam goes down like a bitch.

Adam Taurus?- More like Ad-DUMB Taurus!

Anyone?

Okay…

I’d like to reiterate that as a surface-level idea, faunus racism isn’t a bad one. I’m sure that when we were younger, we all slapped animal parts onto a human, called it a new race, then called it a day. But it’s the poor implementation that makes it hard to sympathize with either side.

Apparently, when fighting against the grimm, you can only resort to violence. And the grimm are a force with no mercy.

But when fighting against inequality, you can’t use violence at all. Because the racists will obviously learn the error of their way if they see their targets sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya.

And the fact that there are no humans pushing for equality is also a historical mistake. For a bunch of writers who basically copy/pasted the struggle of minorities in America onto their animal people, they seemed to have missed the part where even people in the majority were on the side of the minorities. Sympathy is a great start, but that has yet to go anywhere. There was no mention of any humans at the protests siding with the Faunus, there were no mentions of humans boycotting restaurants alongside them- It’s just the faunus struggle. And it would be great if the writers would think this through a lot more than they have.

Because all a lot of us want, is some freaking nuance for the racism arc.

……… Yeah. I know.