#it's an intersection of very specific things. one of them being that one of the main characters is nb and uses they/them pronouns.

[starzzmissthesun]

i think you should totally drop whatever hc/ideas you have lying around honestly...i would love to see more into ur brain...pls <33

:DD

Hi!!!! Sorry this is a little late, I got so distracted with an animatic im working on(😈) and then a stupid essay😭😭 being honest rn... Almost all of what I've been thinking about is my fic.. 😔

But!! I can still go a little into that without spoilers. I've finally figured out The Perfect ending for this story that I feel fits with the overarching themes I wanted to tell. I've been making sure that every little detail fits with the themes I wanted to show, I wanted it to overlap Regulus and barty's characters and their overarching themes with PD. I also didn't want to just replicate PD cause I feel like that doesnt have the depth or commentary I want to out into it. Idk ive always thought it's super fun to put everything as some sort of symbol or metaphor or foreshadowing. I'm like literally so close to being done drafting and then I can actually talk about it a little more😭

Anyways! I've also been thinking about barty post regs death 😔(when am I not) But more specifically how every memory he had would almost be tainted, everything now would have an air of questioning and unsureness. Even memories where Regulus isn't there, just wondering where was he? What was he thinking? Am I remembering this right? What could've I changed? What was the domino that caused all of this to happen? Eventually finding it hard to accept the way it really was, having the "I guess it was" and feeling it, but overintellectualizing it. His logic and reasoning is his downfall in this situation, that's what makes him go crazy. (Side note I NEED to make a little post about his intersection between intelligence and madness) Hes doing a complicated version of when there's a task that seems so simple that you think it's a trick, but it's not, it's just that. What happened with Regulus was just that.

Also, I've recently self reflected and realized that a lot of my barty characterization is similar to how I think of Leonard Cohen's art(who I LOVE LOVE LOVE) Idk if you've listened to him or read any of his work, but I HIGHLY suggest it, it's perfect for fall. Anyways, a lot of his songs and poems carry themes of having a twisted self image, not completely self deprication though it may seem, but something else. It's closer to understanding and knowing that you are. Different. And unconventional. It's an uncomfortablility he has with himself. Being soemthig twisted from what you should've been. A lot of his stuff is also to do with tragically losing someone, out of their own choice, and still feeling very loyal yet bitter. Also of loving something so much that it turns dark, or it goes too quick, it spirals. Also his love songs are very barty's perspective on bartylus to me. And like, obvious war mentions. I could give some specific recs similar to barty or them if you'd like.

Another thing is of Regulus and his relationship with his dad. Though I see it completely reasonable if his dad was just kind of, not there and neglectful, it could give very interesting implications to his character, I like it the other way around. Orion seeing what a more carefree attempt at raising a child does and keeping Regulus even closer than he did before. I think Orion always liked Regulus more, despite him being the second, because he was a model son. I don't think he wanted this life or even to have kids, so Regulus being so complacent and in line with what he was supposed to be as a pure blood made him the decided favourite(as much as he could have one). He was always keeping a close eye on Regulus and he could feel it, but he didn't do anything out of place anyways. Orion could tell when he was even thinking something he wasn't supposed to. I believe that, no matter how much she tried, walpurga was too caught in her own head about her duty as a mother to see S+R as anything other than Her Kids, as property that she was supposed to care for and tend to, she obviously loved them, but couldn't see through them. But Orion was there around every corner looking through regulus' eyes into his soul to search for any thing out of his perfect kid.

Anyways.... That's all I can think of rn😭 but if you have questions about ANY of them lmk!!! I love yapping about my little thoughts 😁😁

[positivelybeastly]

What have been some of your favorite rps over the years? Have you developed any personal ocs that you particularly enjoy (I know you've got Dark Beasts going on, so if you wanna talk about what's going on there, that'd be cool too!

Oh, this is a tricky one! Not least because it relies on my memory, which is one of my least reliable traits, ha - but I shall do my best!

The first one that comes immediately to mind is this thread with @themckaytriarchy - it was sort of integral to the process of my getting over what X-Force did with Beast by taking control of it, and it also just let me dive into a more horror based thread, which I don't often get to do. Beast is a character who is often very horror-aligned, so getting to really explore that was a ton of fun. I got very poetic in there, but I had a great time.

There's also this thread with the same writer, which was sort of how Cereal and I really got to be such good friends, and how Hank and Tess ended up becoming BFFs. They just had such instant chemistry and bounced off each other really, really well, and I love getting to play Hank as the best aspects of all of his selves - the more mature vibe of his feline self mixing with his younger, gremlin energy, the regret of his modern self mixing in with that, I like when I can pull on all the strings at the same time, if that makes sense.

Oh! Another one is this thread with @silverjetsystm - one of the things I absolutely love about Hank is that he knows goddamn everybody, like, the man's been on every team you can imagine, so there's always some era you can dive into, and his time on the Secret Avengers was so undeveloped, and MK-mun has just been an absolute joy to write with. You can really tell when I'm getting into a thread because I just write reams and reams and reams, and things get more poetic, and Hank starts thinking heavier and heavier things.

Easily another one is this one with @thebettermccoy - I've been wanting a good Dark Beast to bounce off for ages, to the point where I took him on as an extra muse just so he and Hank could interact and I could practise their voices, but then Squirrel-mun took the brave step to take him on, and it's been a joy ever since. It's so gratifying to get to refer to one specific issue from 1996 that no-one but me and Squirrel-mun know about, and they know the lines of dialogue just as well as I do, and we can just dig.

Another one is this one with @themarvelliteraryuniverse - I've lowkey shipped Beast and Sabretooth for years because of Wolverine and the X-Men vol. 1 #8, and getting to actually attack that dynamic and explore it and see Locke's unique take on Victor mesh with my Hank in such an instantly compelling way . . . god, it's a dream come true for me, honestly. Something that often gets lost about Hank is his inherent sexual drive and energy, his repressed primality, his morals interacting with his pull towards the dark, and exploring that is always just a complete joy.

Oooh, ooh! This one with @notmymamasboy - not only is it fun to play Hank as getting used to being pursued again, but Stabby is just so good at throwing this inescapable, unrelenting energy into Raze that makes him feel like a force of nature that Hank has immense affection for and attraction to, but, again, knows has a lot of darkness attached to them. They just bounce off each other really well, and it's probably what fandom would qualify as a crack ship, but I just like the intellectual conflict intersecting with the interpersonal chemistry.

Another one I've loved is this one with @emmatriarchy - I'm an absolute sucker for getting to fill in missing bits of Hank's history, and I always thought it was such a travesty that X-Force never tugged on the very brief but incredibly impactful time where Hank and Sage interacted in X-Treme/New X-Men, because it adds such dimension to their dynamic. Getting to explore that in-situ is a dream for me, and I also just love getting to play Hank from specific periods with specific moods, especially with gloriously obscure and underappreciated muses, with is sort of this mun's whole thing. :)

Ooh, ohh! This one, with @maximummuses - I again felt like this entire thing was swept under the rug back in the 2010s, and it felt like such a disservice to Hank and Logan that they never got to have this conversation, that they never got to just GO AT one another, everything laid out, all honesty, all feeling. This was, again, just another dream for me, and as far as I'm concerned, this is canon and exactly how it happened.

Now we get into stuff that was more dynamics, and also older threads with are, like, a decade old . . . my X-Force Beast's twisted toxic relationship with dusktrip's Wolverine was a delight, and I miss that writer very dearly (they had to stop RPing due to a lack of time) because it let me just drown in a very dark place for a bit in a very controlled way. They, like themckatriarchy, were integral to me coming to terms with what X-Force did with Hank's character.

There are tons of threads with people like brandisnotmygivenname (Abigail Brand), technarchology (Warlock), hulksdontdoweak (She-Hulk), this-city-is-a-symphony (Dazzler), fangedfirecracker (Jubilee), levoleurcinetique (Gambit), healingtheassassins (Elixir), dontcallmejulio (Rictor) - a lot of people from nearly a decade ago who aren't active anymore, but I still think of them a lot, and a lot of the time, I have to remember that Hank's dynamics and history with these people in canon don't necessarily include these versions of the characters, ha.

But, very formative to my interpretation and exploration and journey with Hank.

As for OCs - I'm sort of a one fictional obsession kinda guy, so I don't really have too many! I did have a guy called Danny Jones who was a mutant based on Tito Bohusk from New X-Men. He was from a Young Avengers RP ages and ages ago, and I think at one point he was going to become a Ghost Rider? It was a long time ago, in fairness.

I also have an AU version of Hank called Sir Henry, codenamed Grandmaster, who's inspired by the Ghost Box steampunk version of Hank and Sublime. Instead of being a scientist, he's a Victorian era spymaster with Hank's typical intelligence, but a lot less of his warmth and ethical consideration. He tended to dual wield pistols a lot.

I actually still have some art a friend of mine did from the Exiles RP he came from. This is her OC, Joan, with whom he had a budding romance.

But, as of late, the biggest one has been The Irredeemable Beast, which has spawned a number of characters, the most significant of which is Zeke.

Zeke has always been a clone of Dark Beast, in my conception of him. I always figured that Dark Beast would absolutely be the type of person to keep spare clone bodies around because, frankly, he keeps wagging his ass at people who are stronger than him and can kill him, and the fact that he kept dying and coming back diminished only solidified to me that he would eventually kick the bucket and need an out.

The version of him in Irredeemable is altered slightly, in that he's a recently created clone of Dark Beast - in the original chain of events, he was released as a kid, along with a twin brother, Strauss, and they grew up relying on each other, eking out a meagre existence by living between the lines. They had full lives, but obviously severely disadvantaged, and hated Dark Beast whenever he was around because, well, why wouldn't they?

Zeke's fun to play around with just because he has a lot of Hank/Dark Beast's perception and wit, but he doesn't have the same level of intelligence, knowledge, privilege, or advantages, so he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder - yet he still tries to have fun, which is very Hank. He's a good grounding presence, which is why I decided to make him a central part of Irredeemable, and I have a good few plans for his arc going forward from Dark Beasts.

His narrative arc is sort of meant to tackle a big problem I had with both X-Force and, more widely, the Krakoan resurrection system, which is the amount of wasted bodies/clones, and the lack of thought put into what's a 'real' life and what isn't.

The whole Talon/Wolverine split is treated completely differently to how the clones in X-Force of both Hank and Logan are treated, and I wanted to unpick that, question exactly what a clone's life is worth, and question why we arbitrarily decided that we put more value on Talon/Wolverine, but carving dozens of Hanks and Logans was perfectly acceptable.

Every one of those Hanks or Logans could have been a valid individual in the exact same way that Ezekiel is, and I want Hank to have to think about that, and be faced with the ethical/existential question of the lives he arbitrarily brought into existence in such a cold, mercenary fashion without any consideration for his responsibility for them.

Zeke is just a really good foil for Hank, and Hank absolutely needs a foil, because his internal monologue is fascinating, but it really can get maudlin and self-involved, so you need to break that up with some youthful 'I don't give a shit' energy, which Zeke provides in spades.

One of the other characters in Dark Beasts, Yekaterina, is a pretty minor character, but pretty much any time I come back to my long term plans for the fic, I keep wanting to give her more to do. I think it's really important to me that X-Men have human characters who are friendly and pro-mutant, who make up the other half of the mutant metaphor, because that's something the comics really did just give up on for the longest time, and it makes such a difference to have a human who's like 'no, fuck Orchis, fuck all these racists, I'm with you because it's the right thing to do.'

I also have a tendency to write exclusively dudes, so Yekaterina and Jennifer Nyles keep being given more and more to do so that I break out of that writing rut. Same thing with Olivia Ocampo, the Orchis commander in Dunfee - I explicitly gave her a Marvel branded alliterative name so that I would use her more, and I know where her story goes. I need to get on that, actually, I want to release that chapter close to Christmas if I can . . .

Gorobitz and Taft are pretty shameless Rosencratz and Guildenstern expies. I like giving goons personalities, and I think it's funny exploring the weeds of the arbitrary distinctions of anti-mutant racism through the lens of a pair of garden variety Orchis grunts. They're gonna turn up in future chapters with similar segments.

I think that covers the majority of it? There are other characters who are going to appear later on, including an Orchis agent that I want to be a bit of a surprise. The entire fic is about the ramifications of Hank's actions and dealing with them, and that agent has a backstory that is all about Hank's actions and what they meant for her, and I think he's gonna struggle not to feel like he should just let her shoot him in the head when he finds out what her deal is.

Thanks for the question! It was a really good one!

[lurking-latinist]

🐈

[casekt]

Me @ myself: nobody's doing it like you

[genderkoolaid]

tbh my opinion isnt so much that trans men cannot have male privilege. its that the way we understand male privilege is based in cis women, specifically otherwise privileged (esp. otherwise-gendered privilege, i.e gender-conforming/straight/perisex) cis women's understanding of gender as something static and inherent to who you are, rather than something fluid which is, in part, constructed by society and placed onto you separately in every moment.

can a trans man experience (cis) male privilege? yes. can a trans woman? yes. and so can a cis woman! hell, a femme perisex cis woman with a gender neutral name could if she's assumed to be a cis man on a resume. male privilege is not an on/off switch. the idea that it is stems from cissexist understandings of male/female as entirely separate and static categories which everyone can and must be understood through. trans people in feminism are expected to constantly defend and deflect accusations of being Privileged Male Oppressors by promising cis perisex women that our experiences are just like theirs! we don't have any scary opinions that don't align with their worldview! we swear we won't ever make them have to reflect on how being cis+perisex has biased them and potentially made their analysis of gender at all inaccurate! trans experiences are only considered valuable to cisfeminism to the extent that they reaffirm what cisfeminists already hold true. thats why they only ever want to talk about a very simplistic narrative around wages pre/post-transition. its extremely unthreatening to cis people because it presents transness in patriarchy as just going from one cis role to another; it doesn't ask cis feminists to expand their paradigm to include the ways in which trans people are treated as a class and their own complicity in transphobic oppression.

which is why trans men have been getting fucked over by trans-affirmng cisfeminism. because by virtue of having our gender acknowledged, we are expected to forfeit our place in the feminist movement and adopt the role of outsider along cis men*. and its also why trans women and MTX people get fucked over the minute they cannot or refuse to describe their experiences through the one or two approved narratives. cisfeminism cannot tolerate transness-as-transness. it has to be compressed and reduced and diluted into something that fits within a cis-centric framework. we aren't allowed to have nuanced and intersectional conversations about trans men & other trans folks relationship with male privilege, the things we have to sacrifice to there, how fleeting it can be, the fact that for some of us being read as "biologically male" is actively more dangerous than being read as female... if it isn't familiar to cis women, then it means you aren't really oppressed.

*cis men should not be outsiders in feminism either btw but thats another post

[ambrosiagourmet]

In chapter 28, Marcille lays out why the journey she's been on has been worth the pain: because they were able to bring Falin back. The injuries, the indignity, and the mess of it all - they are tolerable primarily in context of destination she believes she's reached at this point.

In truth, of course, the story is far from finished. In fact, I would argue that this is actually where hers really starts. This scene holds the seed of the very thing the Winged Lion will exploit to lead Marcille to become the Lord of the Dungeon. After all, with a desire as far reaching and deeply held as Marcille's, if the only acceptable outcome is success, what other choice does she have but to bargain with the infinite?

So let's talk about this idea - where it leads her, how Laios' path intersects with it, and how they both help each other move forward in the face of failure.

First though, I want to step back and talk about something else: the shapeshifter chapters.

With these chapters recently covered by the anime, there has, of course, come plenty of fun discussions about which version of each character belongs which other character's perceptions, and what that means.

One thing I've seen pointed out a few times is the fact that both Laios and Marcille's impressions of each other are based around Falin. Marcille's version of Laios is larger and more masculine, because those are the traits that stuck out to her in contrast to Falin. Laios' version of Marcille was directly inspired by her appearance and demeanor when resurrecting Falin.

So why is this important to a discussion about Marcille being focused on success? Well, it shows us where Laios and Marcille's relationship starts: built primarily around their shared love for Falin. It's from that shared beginning that they begin to learn about each other on their own terms.

And this is true for the whole group, to be clear. They are united by circumstance - love for a lost companion, a sense of responsibility, a desire for freedom - but they all grow and help each other beyond that circumstance. They help Senshi bury the ghosts of his past and eat some Hippogriff stew. They help Izutsumi open up to mutual love and friendship. And they learn so much about each other: about Chilchuck's family and Laios' love of monsters and Marcille's desires to live life alongside others.

In the particular case of Marcille and Laios, understanding each other is what lets them save each other. It is not through Falin that Laios talks Marcille down from the edge the Lion has brought her to, nor is it through her that Marcille comforts Laios after the demon is defeated, when it is still unclear how everything will work out.

In fact, it is very specifically the unknown fate of Falin that Marcille comforts him about.

She is willing to accept the outcome - willing, now, to embrace the journey itself, rather than only accepting it as a means to an end.

This is a lesson she learns from Laios, and it's a lesson we watch Laios learn, too.

Just before making her deal with the Lion, Marcille recalls everything that led her to that moment. She lingers on the pain, recalling the worst of their journey:

She only pushes through by remembering her goals: saving Falin, and equalizing the lifespans of her friends to match her own.

And yet, 10 chapters later, when reflecting on why she actually wants to see her goals through, it is the good parts of that very same journey that shine through.

There's an inherent contradiction here, one which Marcille doesn't know how to face. How can the suffering that she tolerates also be the love that drives her forward? How can the loss that she's worked so hard to reverse also be the very circumstance that created a world she, now, cannot stand to give up?

And Laios confronts her with the truth. Because it just is.

Losing Falin forced him to open up to others in a way he never had. It forced him to choose what he cares about, and in making that choice, it gave him the opportunity to be seen. To connect with others.

He has already had to come to terms with the fact that Falin's death has given him something - he would not have been able to kill her again if he hadn't.

There is something here that is fundamental to Dungeon Meshi's understanding of what life even is. Like, I don't think it's a coincidence that part of Laios' speech to Marcille in chapter 85 is actually first seen in the chapter where they fight off ghosts.

In 'Sorbet,' while possessed , Laios thinks that it would have been better if the dragon had eaten him, instead of Falin. The ghosts make people lose their will to live - they are dragged away from life.

When he's pulled back from that brink, Laios realizes that he can't move forward without accepting that she is gone. He even compares the way he was holding on to her to being possessed: it pulled him away from life, from the present moment.

To carry on, he must accept what has been lost, and focus on protecting the life that they still have.

Like Marcille, he has to accept the contradictions of their journey. That life means eating, and eating requires death. That sometimes one must be selfish in order to be kind, and that selflessness can easily be twisted into to cruelty.

That loss will, inevitably, lead you to find happiness that you may not have found otherwise.

This is how he gets through to Marcille. And I think part of the reason he reaches her with these specific ideas is because those contradictions are baked so thoroughly into their relationship.

Marcille only met Falin after she had been left behind by Laios. Laios was able to reconnect with Falin because she left Marcille. They both met each other through Falin, and yet they only really got to know and care for one another after she died.

And of course, that's why Marcille uses the same ideas to comfort Laios, in the final chapter. It is because of Laios that she is able to accept the journey for itself, and not need the happy ending to justify its meaning to her.

Together, they help each other move forward, and accept that they may not be able to bring Falin back.

Which, if I'm being honest... I think this is the reason Falin can come back, narratively speaking, without the resurrection feeling like it takes away from the themes of the story.

After all, she doesn't do it for Marcille or Laios - she does it for her own sake. Her own hunger and her own desire to eat are the things that lead her back to life.

All three of them, together, end the story like this: not clinging to the things they are afraid to lose, but knowing they can choose to move forward together.

And, importantly, this happy ending is no longer the thing that gives the journey meaning. Rather, it is the privilege of the journey itself that is her happy ending: the chance to walk alongside others in the time they have, to get to know each other, and to eat well.

[mesetacadre]

So, like, have any of you actually ever had a conversation with a fascist offline about what they believe? I have.

To be clear, this wasn't a sit-down-let's-talk conversation. He (the only one) tried to start shit, and we (me + 2 comrades) confronted him in the act and regrettably got into a 30-minute "conversation".

Fascists, individually, are very mentally feeble. They are cowards who always seek to start conflict while trying to make themselves out to be the victims. This is, of course, until they gain enough popularity and canon fodder to throw 20 unstable fascists at anyone they don't like. But until this exaltation occurs¹ and their organizations enter a relatively stable cycle (in contemporary liberal democracies, they last between 2 and 7 years before disintegrating), there remains a contradiction between their aggressive desire to seek confrontation and their individual and collective insecurities. Fascist ideology is mostly not rooted in reality (more on this later), and it also has an important component of self-hate. They are an inferior specimen, unable to achieve what the fascist martyrs before them achieved (in Spain, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera usually occupies this position), and to add injury to insult, it's those who they perceive as weak and undeserving who rule over them. They ignore this perceived inferiority by joking about being chads, the superior race, or non-degenerates. But behind their rhetoric and "humor" there is usually a tinge of insecurity and hate against anyone who doesn't fit their increasingly narrow standard, including themselves.

This fascist we talked with kept referring to Jewish conspiracies, to the freemasons in every position of power, to old Falangists, to fascist "theorists", to some kind of esoteric spiritualism within the bounds of Christianity, somehow, and hyperborea. He talked about communists, how they were already in the government (referring to the social-democratic PSOE), how we were degenerates, how the day will come, etc. He attempted to scare us by saying that he was an ex-member of this more notorious fascist party and that they were looking for him to beat him up, which isn't something you admit to people you're trying to start conflicts with. After a while of his ramblings, one of my comrades couldn't help but laugh at him. It was all very ridiculous; I don't remember exactly what he said that made my comrade laugh. He got slightly more agitated, and the conversation ended in ~5 minutes.

Individually, fascists are also not the brightest people you'll encounter. For somebody to internalize fascist beliefs, they have to be unconsciously willing to never dig deeper about their beliefs, to contrast them with one another, or to contrast them with other fascists. They'll read a text (they may be stupid, but a lot of them do read more than you'd expect) about, say, the concept of race, and never really address the fact that it contradicts their own beliefs, or a fellow fascist's beliefs about the nation or about Europe.

And a really interesting thing is that fascism is far from a monolith. It's more akin to an entelechy². The specific contradictions of fascism manifest themselves much more between individual fascists than within a single individual. Like I mentioned before, there are contradictions when it comes to race (racialists like the nazis vs anti-racists like Falange Auténtica), to Europe (the idea of a Great Europe vs every idea of Nationality/Empire, which generally coexist poorly), to the nation (its intersection with race and/or Europe and how it interacts with these), to the reaction against progress (a conception of fascism as progressive, reactionary, or neither³), to science (a realist position based on scientificism such as race science and Kameradschaftrecht (nazi feminism) vs metaphysical conceptions, such as esotericism or the Thule society, reliant on aesthetics and mysticism), or to the economic policy (bourgeois positions, corporatism, vs workerist positions such as Strasser or Bombacci).

These contradictions aren't unique to the contemporary fascist situation of fragmentation and the peculiarities of social media either. Back in the 30s and 40s, there was a lot of disagreement on who counted as fascists. On one end, during the rise of the NSDAP, there was a small cadre of orthodox fascists who narrowed fascism "a la Italiana", and did not consider nazi-fascism to be fascism because of its differences on the scientificist conceptions of race. The Nazi party repressed this small wing. On the other end, it was a prevailing position in the USSR to not consider fascism to start with Italy's fascii di combatimento, but rather in Russia's Black Hundreds, having a broader conception of fascism.

This fascist we talked with considers himself a Carlist⁴, while another member of his groupuscule considers himself a national-socialist, while being Moroccan, and a third is a run-of-the-mill reactionary concerned with the 2030 agenda, globalism, immigrant invasions, the great replacement, that sort of thing. When fascist groups are relatively small and lack any form of inertia and/or formalized structure, their activity is extremely sporadic. There is no discipline to be found, no real planning or broad strategy, they are, rather, a group of similarly-enough-minded friends who sometimes like to do some vandalism or threaten/agitate leftists of any stripe. Their only method of growth is to generate controversies, fights, have a provocative tweet go semi-viral, to generate noise. When it comes to agitation for the fascist, concrete ideology is not relevant. They appeal to both rage and the satisfaction of, for example, seeing x annoying leftist org get their posters ripped off. Discussions of fascist theory rarely, if ever, influence their pragmatic activity, sometimes it's more similar to a circlejerk to see who has the most esoteric, exaggerated and offensive positions.

This is not to say fascist infighting is irrelevant, far from it. Fascists have their own petty disputes between groups, periods of extreme fractionarism, inter-fascist and intra-fascist violence. But when it comes to the philosophy of action, to how they apply all these beliefs, you'll be pressed to find meaningful, material differences. Some might be more or less aggressive, more or less esoteric, more or less contrarian, more or less effective. But they all rely on building that momentum, that controversy -> confrontation -> growth -> controversy cycle. The moment fascist groups lose that momentum, or one too many campaigns fall flat and fail to garner attention, they'll start to turn against themselves, to deteriorate their own structures in the permanent search for conflict that their beliefs demand. There is no way to hold the belief that, for example, race is a scientific category that makes the white/national/aryan/european/whatever race constantly threatened to disappear without exhorting you to seek conflict, whether it's against immigrants or other fascists who don't place as much importance on race.

If you find yourself in the context of a few small fascist groups festering and seeking conflict, it is a strategic error to confront them outright. Unless you're willing to downright kill them or injure them severely enough (with the bigger threat of legal repercussions that entails), fascists will be able to turn your explicit opposition against them into ammunition to attract more reactionaries to their own ranks. The best you, as an organized communist, can do in the period before exaltation, is to quietly collect information about them, study their patterns, and exert as much opposition as is possible without letting them turn it into a visible confrontation. If you're going to cover up their symbols and posters, do it when they can't film you or try to start a fight. If they're threatening someone to provoke them to then cry and hue about the rabid leftists, use the fact that they have low numbers, record them, and intimidate them without physical violence. Even if you can leave them writhing on the floor in a fight, they can use that as ammunition, but they can't use a video of them putting their tails between their legs and running off. You can't debate with fascists, this much is clear. You also can't just use violence to scare them away, because they'll use that violence to gain momentum, and then you can end up with an actually decently-sized and consistent fascist organization.

This is how we have been opposing these small groups of fascists attempting to grow through controversy. We opposed them non-visibly, effectively and professionally. When this group of about 15 fascists total (they never appear with more than 4 at a time because of their inconsistency) encountered this, they were at one point scared enough to stop all activity for about 2 months, and after that have yet to appear again. Meanwhile, other, more infantile orgs, overreacted by opposing them with full force and very publicly, which only encouraged the fascists to keep going and wasted energy in a futile back-and-forth, as well as putting their members in unnecessary risk by engaging in unplanned situations.

¹ Throughout this entire post, all analysis of the behavior of fascists offline assumes this exaltation has not occured

² Entelechy here means an impossible ideal, built entirely in the imagination, or with an unstable and shoddy manifestation.

³ Fascism often positions itself as a revolutionary movement, while other times it places more importance on the opposition against progress.

⁴ Carlism is a Spanish political current originating in the rejection of Isabel II as a legitimate heir to Fernando VII, it became very intertwined with Franco's dictatorship and the Falange during the Civil War

[williamvapespeare]

"every day i'm fucking smiling;" a rant (cogent, intellectual character study) about Charles

We all know that Charles Rowland is THE character of all time. Obviously. Undisputedly (except by Netflix) blabla. I, a mixed race bisexual idiot with daddy issues, am about to fucking get into it.

I think there are a lot of ways to get into that end of ep 4 scene – I think we can look from trauma, we can look from model minority syndrome, we can look from a place of people pleasing to the extreme, but I think the best way to get into Charles (for me, personally) is to look at him as a character formed of intersections. Of in-betweens. In literally EVERY way possible, he is between things. He’s mixed race, he’s (probably) bisexual, he’s between life and death, he’s between good and bad, he’s probably sitting somewhere between trauma and healing – like, he’s CONstantly engaging in coping mechanisms and that itself is an in between.

Ok this idea of “I must be liked” very obviously will come from living a life where the opposite of not being liked is always violence, and that definitely can’t be understated. But I think this whole scene and this line in particular really speak to this very specific feeling that comes with inhabiting an identity that is ALWAYS seen as “not enough” in some way. Like, if you sit in a place where you don’t speak one side of your family’s language well enough and simultaneously aren’t white enough (or whatever enough) for the other side, you’re just like fundamentally culture-less and fighting to just be ANYTHING.

(Another GREAT example of this I think is the game Life is Strange 2, which is about two Hispanic American brothers, one of them speaks Spanish and the other one is much younger and doesn’t and there’s a bit where the younger brother doesn’t want to leave the US and says “I don’t even speak Spanish” and the other one is like “don’t worry, everyone likes you.” Like YES being “““Likeable””” is maybe the only way in when you are so fundamentally detached from a thing that you are also fundamentally part of, anyway!!)

Similarly, like all of us bisexual people know we’re constantly getting shit from both sides, from straight people and gay people and probably like, corpses decomposing in the ground who are throwing around terms like “gold star lesbian” or whatever the fuck. People just look at whatever relationship you’re in and they’re like ah yep that’s you!!

Like the whole thing is the most reductive narrow-minded stupidity, but it’s also just THE WAY. It’s the way of stuff. And being like ok, I AM NOT ENOUGH OF ANYTHING THAT I AM. How are you going to deal with that, you’re going to try and be likeable?? Because that’s something you can control!!!

And I’m low key so mad that we can’t see a continuation of this story where we get to see a character slowly come to terms with these in-betweennesses and say like, I’m not actually two halves, I’m two wholes. This is intentional in-betweenness. Like yes, blabla let the boy be bi, but it’s SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT. And I trust this show and I trust these writers to get that right and we were robbed of that.

So yeah idk tldr “every day I’m fucking smiling” was like the gut punch of the century. Whoever wrote that I’m omw to haunt your local Denny’s with my extroverted mixed race bisexual energy THANK U

[centrally-unplanned]

As I have been reading more studies on intersections between adolescent mental health declines & their reduced lack of freedom for independent activity (which is well-documented), it definitely see a sort of lock-in effect there. Pre-"modernity" kids being independent was just a default state that there wasn't even the resources to mitigate, so relative independent was the norm. That lasted up until, in most places, the 1970's - it has a lot of causes but let looks at for example the generally large increase in the idea that one's kids would be *at risk* by being independent. Generally from criminals, but also things like cars or even bike accidents.

Ofc, in practice kids are safer today than than they were before by most metrics - lower crime, access to things like cell phones for emergencies (in the US car-first residential design made things worse, but not that much worse and this trend is across the developed world, even Japan). But once the social norm shifted it didn't really matter what the numbers are - instead its about whose to blame. If your kid gets 'kidnapped' because you let them walk home from school, that is socially perceived as 100% your fault, how on earth could you do that? Meanwhile doubling of the rates of depression just wash out, that isn't you - fairly so even, its multicausal, your specific example isn't the trend, and so on. Once you 'lock in' the idea that letting kids have freedom is inherently reckless, its very hard to buck that because all the price is put on you, the parent, to do so; while the price of control is put on the children, who don't get a say (parents do lose free time, but that is minor in comparison).

[kiefbowl]

so I just made a couple posts about this post, and rereading it I am going to try to be charitable as possible to everyone involved, but the vibe of this post really bothers me. but op deleted the post so I'm blocking out all the names out of respect for that, but I want to talk about this post

I think this is a very normal ask. It's literally just "hey, what are your opinions" and I don't see why that shouldn't be welcomed in a supposed feminist space. questions drive conversation, and not everyone is of the same opinion, life experiences, or knowledge, you know?

To be charitable to the green poster, they're just answering. I do think the "is literally the most anti-punk and anti-feminist thing you can do without genuinely hurting other people" is a bit much, and I also think she's misreading the op. I read Op as asking "if you're a feminist, what are some of your general opinions on subversive make up, and here's a list of examples: goth punk emo" and green is saying "conforming to patriarchy is never punk, and make up is patriarchal."

So I think the next response from Op shows that she took it a little personal as if being called out for doing the most "anti-feminist thing you can do without genuinely hurting people," which to be fair I'd probably be a little miffed too on a first read. And I think she's trying to pull out her question a little bit more, trying to re-contextualize it so that green gets what she actually meant. But this is a casual social media site so she's being casual and social. She's saying "okay, sure, but I'm asking about make up trends that are outside of what's commercialized" but I guess the big no-no is that she said "not male fantasy." Because yes, I ultimately agree, just because it's a more subversive culture, doesn't mean it's specifically feminist, or that the trends with-in aren't dictated to some degree by male fantasy. And then of course she asks: "If a woman wants to, isn't it regressive to say she can't?" So, to be fair to Op, she never specifically asked if make-up was specifically feminist or punk. But to be fair to green, green never specifically said a woman can't wear make-up.

But this is when it goes a little sideways, because frankly neither of them were being rude-rude. But green's next response is pretty rude imo. I think the subtext is "you're a big dummy." Op is not, and Op's first ask is what actually could be a very interesting jumping off point to discuss a variety of intersecting interests for feminists. Because I'm going to be real with you, there is no "The Answer" to make-up. Just because make-up and consumerism is never specifically feminist, doesn't mean it's always specifically anti-feminist. Sub cultures like Goth can be multiple things at once - subversive, and conforming. They also don't exist solely in one way. Copse make-up isn't feminist not because it's make-up, but because it's just make-up. But, like, yeah there's an element of subversiveness within western culture. There's also an element of acceptance, as long as it stays in the agreed on designated zones. A tee-shirt can't be feminist, either. Even if the tee-shirt says something feminist-y and subversive, like idk "I hate men and I love to abort their children" or w/e. Like okay, it's just a tee-shirt. And if you didn't make it yourself, it was probably made with slave labor, anyway. So you can wear it to the feminist poetry open mic at the local coffee shop, and you can wear it to a conservative's house, and the reactions in either place don't prove much about it's effectiveness. But it is a form of self expression, it's a form of participating in our culture(s) one way or another, and women are people they do participate. They can't not. So participating with some level of intention is better than her letting life passively happen around her. It's just not one thing, which makes it interesting.

So with all that being said, I think op's response is a sassy response to feeling like they're being spoken to rudely, which I think is fair enough.

This is not fair enough, and I find it bizarre. Maybe I missed something in another comment or post, but Op didn't 1. talk down to anyone and 2. didn't insult anyone who disagreed with them. But, to be charitable to pink - I understand why some women are on edge with the proliferation of troll accounts. But my ultimate advice to any women, young or old, trying to participate in a feminist space is to know that feminism is not a "solved" thing. Women have a variety of ways to think and approach a problem, and just because two ideas are conflicting doesn't mean they can't both have some merit. And since I think Op is a genuine person, this comes across as ostracizing a woman for asking a good natured, good willed question towards feminists to incite some discussion. A thing that should be welcomed if anything.

And then this response tries to be fair to Op, but also seems completely tone deaf to what she ever said. When in any of this exchange did Op ask for validation on anything? She admitted she is in a sub culture that both men and women use make up in, didn't specify what the subculture was, and then asked "hey, what are your opinions on this situation a little outside the norm of how we normally criticism make up." Then reacted to what one person's responses were, which the first response was simply direct but the second one was dismissive and rude.

So my point is, in order to be a successful feminist, I think you need to be able to navigate conversations with women that involve thinking outside the bun without devolving into sassiness when they aren't in complete lock step with you and have a predictable amount of curiosity. Feminism is a living discipline, and this could have been a moment of a meeting of the minds and a moment of cooperation to consider multiple sides of a question. That should be the ultimate goal.

And, to circle back to complete fairness of green's first response: when women are being direct with you, and maybe even misreading you a bit, it's worth taking a beat and thinking "can I read this in a kind tone at all? and if yes I'm going to assume that was the intention" because it can help get these conversations moving in the direction of cooperation rather than fighting.

And ultimately, have fun out there :)

[slythereen]

Hello there!

I’m new to f1 and Lestappen.

Is there a Charles and Max master post somewhere with their history? I keep hearing about the social media unfollowing and podium walk off and want all the tea and timelines.

Basically all I know about is the inchident.

Many thanks!

hello and welcome!! my scholarship (read: obsessively reblogging things or bookmarking them thinking i'll actually find them again later) tends to be VERY chaotic, but i know there are definitely compilations out there. i've read some great ones.

nini (@scuderiafemboy) has a LOT of lore content on tumblr and twitter & does a lot of translating of dutch interviews/manages to unearth old interviews all the time. the twitter thread of threads covers 2018 through june 2023! she also compiled some of the database on tumblr here.

@chibrary archives interviews, articles, etc., in glorious fashion. this is charles centric but naturally charles' history intersects with max's so there are some good pieces in there, like this 2015 article on the lestappen rivalry in karting. the #driver:max tag provides a lot of golden content (such as extended lore on the inchident!).

moments™

marginally related, but dani (lecstappens on twitter) once posted the video of max and charles being scolded and warned to behave themselves during the race following the inchident. one of my favorite pieces of lestappen info frankly... demon children. (also on posted by @il-predestinato on tumblr here. who, btw, is a gold mine of lestappen content.)

well, as long as i'm adding some favorite gems while i try to find the specific post i'm looking for... the lestappen singapore flag moment is my roman empire. i am also haunted by the awkward weather convo video. which i know is out there, but i am going crazy trying to find it.

i decided to just commit to the moments list, so here is charles drinking red bull gate 2023 (courtesy of @countingstars-17)

charles asking the tifosi to stop booing max at monza this year (@il-predestinato seriously has so much content)

this excerpt of max's manager talking about charles (@blueballsracing)

if i don't stop myself i will be here all year

more mini compilations !!

@hyacinthsdiamonds once produced a nice list of the ridiculous lore around lestappen that sounds made up

some 2021 specific "best moments" compiled by @coconutshygame

there is one post i am thinking of that touched on their wild lore/destined f1 rivalry etc. but i can't find it now so stay tuned 🫡

also, for some theorizing on the most recent lestappen debacles and what it all means with ferrari/rbr and a potential charles to rbr (ot charles to more power at ferrari) move:

@tsarinablogs is a Scholar™ with lovely essays

@valyrfia has an addition to the marketing mayhem

i recently compiled my unhinged #rbr-ferrari sticker war content to advocate for rbr charles here, which was added to by this anon with banger points

personally i use #rbr charles for the theorizing and delulu hours, but i think #lestappen rbr and #lestappen gate 2023 are also prime hunting ground for rbr specific lore

anyone who has info to share pls do ❤️ i know i'm missing loads of scholarship that is lost in the pits of my unorganized blog

[windvexer]

the intersection of divination and unintentional spirit contact

Generally I'd say, no - divination (tarot cards, spirit/"ouija" boards, black mirrors, crystal balls, etc etc) in and of itself does not automatically conjure or evoke spirits.

If a spirit is already not in the space where you're performing divination, an act of divination will not spontaneously make spirits appear.

That being said, I have experienced and seen others experience increases in spiritual contact, activity, and awareness after "getting into" divination.

My goal in this post isn't to try to make people fearful of divination (which they should not be) but to try and highlight some of the nuances I've experienced at the intersection of divination and unintentional spirit contact.

Generally, we can divide these experiences into two categories.

There's a specific spirit who is already around, and they'd love an opportunity to chat, and,

"Hey spirit chums, isn't it neat that there's a new practitioner in town who's developing a consistent practice? Let's go over next time divination is open and say hi!"

You'll notice a distinct lack of a third category, "the demons you learned about in your nondenominational Protestant Sunday shool spontaneously appear and your house will one day be featured in a string of Amityville spinoffs."

Of course, not all divination occurs in unintended spirit contact. I'd hazard that a minority of all divinatory attempts end up this way.

So, what kind of specific spirits might already be around, wanting to chat?

I believe (and I'm not so unique in this belief) that spirits are just around us and within things, all the time. A person may have spirits in their home and yard; have spirits attached to family heirlooms; be watched over by ancestors, guides, angels, or protectors; or, in the case of many Seekers, have obtained the attention of various gods or other allies.

When a reader shuffles their tarot cards with the intent to access information they would not be able to have if not for magic, we can conceptualize that the reader is opening a little window and peering into the beyond. If spirits are "beyond," and wandering past the window, they have the ability to wave back and say howdy.

Sometimes - and, in my experience, rarely - these spirits will jut in and "take over" a reading in order to deliver some important message.

Much more often, spirits who push their way into a reading don't have anything important to say at all. They're not there because they're big, powerful, important, or relevant - they're there because it's something to do.

Many random spirits who are already around and like to show up to readings are just curious, don't particularly care about you, and are happy to be very weaselly if it means they get more attention from you. These spirits may be thrilled to claim that they are powerful demons, top-tier angels, faerie kings, your hitherto-unknown familiar spirit, and so forth.

A major giveaway is that they will often not reveal this identity until you specifically ask them if they are a faerie king, or whatever, and they'll agree that they are because to them this is Omegle and it's fun to have you on the hook.

These spirits are easy to get rid of, because they have exactly as much power over you during and after a reading as they had before the reading - which is to say, zero.

If these spirits are already not affecting your life, they will continue to not affect it once the reading is over. The fact that a reading occurred does not "magically" give them power or influence over you.

And again - while a reader worth their salt can intentionally petition helper spirits and ask to receive messages, it is pretty dang uncommon for a person's guides to force their ways into readings. More likely than not, you're dealing with some rando.

Now, all that being said - from time to time, various spirits demand attention and will use a reading as an excuse to get that attention. In my experience, this is a problem often experienced by people who are specifically spirit workers (although it can happen to others).

In circumstances like these, it's not a random curious spirit who's taking the opportunity to chat, nor is it a guide giving advice. Rather, a spirit has figured out that someone nearby can hear it, and it would like to engage your services.

It's not unheard of for a spirit worker (or very spiritually sensitive person) to take home a unique little trinket from the thrift shop, something that just catches their eye, something that makes them feel ways about things, and ignore it, and ignore it, and ignore it...

Until they open up the spirit board to try and do a meditation on the meanings of the runes, and the thrift shop spirit barges in and demands a proper shrine and maybe an offering every now and then.

Again, this isn't summoning, or conjuring, or whatever. The act of divination didn't cause the spirit to appear - it just created an opportunity for a spirit to speak.

The solution to getting rid of such a spirit is often to help it out, or respectfully remove it from the premises, or so on. That's spirit working stuff, and not a facet of divination.

But, what about people who experience an increase in general spiritual activity after readings?

Well, it's a bit like buying a new house and becoming very active in the neighborhood. The neighbors take notice of you. That attention doesn't stop the second the cookout ends and you go back inside.

I'm much less inclined to believe that divination alone will cause you to be an active member in your spiritual neighborhood. But many diviners are witches, pagans, or practitioners. They're not just reading cards, but also practicing spells, praying to gods, and modifying their own spiritual environment.

A witch who is attempting meditations to find their spirit guides, experimenting with full moon rituals, casting spells, and trying to take care of their local environment, should not really be that surprised if spirits start showing up wanting to hang out.

It doesn't mean that witch has special spirit-drawing powers (sorry), and it doesn't mean the runes you bought off Etsy are summoning demons - it means you're integrating with the spiritual reality around you.

Of course, people who don't desire random spirit contact don't have to just deal with it. There is a big difference between throwing a neighborhood bbq where anyone is invited, and having a private cookout for friends in the yard.

Spirits, by and large, often don't bother people who don't want to be bothered. Hang a big no solicitors sign on your spiritual house, and a lot of spirits just won't bother.

Again, I doubt that just reading tarot (even if you do it a lot) is going to suddenly inspire tons of spiritual contact. A lot of people work very hard to get spirits to talk to them. It's usually not as easy as coming into contact with spiritual tools.

Even direct divination that actively seeks contact with spirits (like, trying to channel someone's ancestors for them) often does not bring the spirit into the space - it's more like a two-way phone call. It doesn't actually bring the spirit to where you are and then set it loose.

Anyway. Unintended spirit contact while using divinatory tools does happen, but it's... usually not a big deal. It's often the equivalent of someone walking past your picnic at the park and saying, "some weather we're having!"

And in the random instances I've encountered where the spirit contact is actually a Situation, nine times out of ten, the spirit just wants a spirit worker to help them with someone so they can get on with their life.

[tainbocuailnge]

i watched fight club today. really not hard to see how this became such a cultural mainstay. i feel like the opening sections before tyler even shows up are possibly even stronger than the rest of it, this setup of this guy with his cushy office job and his pleasantly furnished apartment being so chronically unfulfilled in his picture perfect life that he ends up visiting support groups for the terminally ill to vicariously get access to a framework through which he's allowed to lament his life, but even within these support groups everyone's lament has to adhere to a certain safe image, the narrator fucking hates marla for doing the exact same thing as him because she's not even pretending to go along with the image of beautiful lament despite her being extremely suicidal and just as much in need of support, and when chloe complains about her struggle to get laid now that she's consigned to a beautiful tragic cancer death she is quickly pulled away from the microphone. everyone on screen is excruciatingly unfulfilled because so much as voicing your desires outside very rigidly defined frameworks of acceptability is severely frowned upon.

it's extremely obvious why the men who join fight club are drawn to the allure of a framework through which they're allowed to desire and obtain the experiences of the flesh. all of tyler's crimes involve the taboo of the flesh somehow. splicing porn frames into movies. pissing and nutting into the food he's serving. stealing liposuction clinic fat to make soap and explosives. and of course starting underground fight rings. because the physical is inherently transgressive to these allowed frameworks of success and lament. when tyler lists the rules of fight club all the men present giggle at "no more than two guys per fight" "no more than one fight at a time" because just the fact that they're all here gathering as unfulfilled men indulging in the taboo of high impact physical contact gives everything a (homo)sexual angle that they have to laugh off. because even here in their transgressive taboo secret club they have to adhere to what is allowed! they're not gay. they're manly men who want to fuck women. they are deeply unfulfilled and deeply desperate for a place to belong among other men. they are simply exchanging one rigid framework for another.

it's no coincidence that the first support group the narrator goes to is for testicular cancer either, all these men crying about how losing their balls ruined their lives not because they almost died but because their wives divorced them for not being able to impregnate them anymore, because it destroyed their masculinity and thus their value as human beings, and especially bob who used to be an accomplished bodybuilder but needing to get his balls removed lead to hormonal imbalances that lead to breast growth and now this once masculine ideal is nobody anymore because he's no longer a proper man. he's the only one in tyler's army who gets to have a name.

like specifically bob and sophie really stand out to me as very bold statements especially considering when this movie was made and also very clear signs of what its trying to say here. the extreme social and physical alienation of modern consumerist society and the way it intersects with harmful ideas of masculinity to create a genre of extremely volatile reactionary asshole. and also the fact that the reason the narrator even ended up going to this support group is because his doctor was calling him a fucking pansy for not just powering through his insomnia and telling him to have a look at these tragically emasculated men if he wants to see what's really worth pitying. and having your balls cut off repeatedly being used as the worst threat you could possibly make to a man in this movie because being emasculated is worse than death.

tyler constantly tells the narrator he needs to be prepared to die if he wants to be free, he needs to lose everything and destroy everything if he wants to become able to do whatever he wants, but it's only after the narrator kills himself -> kills tyler and the ideal of masculinity tyler represents that he's actually able to desire something without being told what to desire. the narrator doesn't know what he wants and can't tell tyler what he wants when tyler demands to know, because being tyler isn't actually what he wants once it becomes clear to him where that ideology will lead, but as long as tyler is looming over him as his concept of the ideal (masculine) self he still can't be or even conceptualise his actual fulfilled self. because tyler is taking up all his brainspace to be nothing but a volatile reactionary asshole at the center of a death cult. it's the least masculine man in the movie who gets to be named, martyred even, in the pursuit of tyler's masculinity, and he's named because the narrator realizes he cannot abide tyler's ideal of masculinity. anyway. good movie.

[room-surprise]

IS LAIOS A FURRY? AN ANALYSIS.

(Laios imagining himself transforming into a wolf in Marcille's mindscape.)

(SPOILER WARNING FOR THE ENTIRE MANGA! This is an excerpt and elaboration from The Essay about cultural and linguistic references in Dungeon Meshi)

WHAT IS A FURRY?

The furry fandom is a subculture interested in anthropomorphic animal characters. Some examples of anthropomorphic attributes can include human intelligence and facial expressions, speaking, walking on two legs, and wearing clothes, but not all of these traits must be present at the same time. Warrior Cats, The Lion King, Zootopia and Sonic the Hedgehog all have huge furry fandoms, to give a few examples.

Many furry fans feel a deep connection to these characters and desire to “become” one through designing their fantasy alter-egos (a furry persona, or fursona), making artwork, role-playing, and if they can afford it, building and wearing costumes called fursuits that allow them to dress up as their fursona in real life.

(Laios' ultimate monster design, you could argue this is his fursona that he's been dreaming about, and refining since childhood.)

Ryoko Kui self-identified as a furry on her blog a long time ago, saying that she “was a furry in high school.” I’ve been unable to track down the original artwork or blog post that states this in order to cite it properly, but I think by looking at Kui’s extensive history, interest, and skill in drawing animals, monsters, and anthropomorphic characters, one can clearly see the “furry” influence.

She has a very clear interest in the intersection between humans and animals, several of her characters are furry characters, and a lot of her work appeals strongly to furry fans in ways that work made by non-furries often does not. She even makes an extremely specific joke about the Japanese furry subculture in a comic about Lycion and Laios arguing about authenticity, which I will get to in a moment.

But whether or not Kui has ever considered herself a furry, I think it’s safe to say that she’s on the internet enough that she must be aware of the subculture, and so it’s possible that she wrote Laios with that in mind.

Laios’ intense desire to become a monster, the way he repeatedly fantasizes about being a dog or wolf, his fascination with all animals (but especially monsters), his skill at drawing animals (and lack of skill in drawing people, or anything else), his interest in becoming a beast-man, and his desire to visit a kobold country because they look like dog-people, all paint a very vivid picture of his interests, and his experiences match up astonishingly well with the experiences of many people who identify as furries.

Western fans often call Laios as a “furry,” or a “monster fucker” mostly as a joke, however I think this should be taken as seriously as interpreting him as asexual or autistic, which are other labels fandom commonly applies to him in a more serious manner… And, incidentally, there is a great deal of overlap between the autistic, asexual and furry communities, so if Laios is one of these things, it’s also very possible that he’s some of the others, too… Even if Kui didn’t intend it, and simply modeled Laios after “some people she’s known” without realizing they were furries, autistic, or asexual, or any combination of the three. This happens frequently in fiction.

I think the most accurate broad labels for Laios would be “therian” and “monster fetishist,” because I believe these two terms encompass the canonical behavior we see from him in the manga and extra materials in a way that I think “furry” and “monster fucker” do not.

JAPANESE FURRY FANDOM: KEMONO VS. KEMONOMIMI

Japanese furries use the terms kemonā (ケモナー) to describe themselves, or kemono (ケモノ) to describe the characters they create and love. Both words mean “furry,” as in, covered in fur.

In the What-If comic where Lycion and Laios meet, Laios awkwardly says that Lycion isn’t a real furry because turning into a beast-man didn’t change him into a wolf on the inside.

“Isn’t that just like wearing a pair of animal ears on a headband and saying you’re a beast-man?” Laios asks, to which Lycion derisively tells Laios that he is just a “beast-man wannabe” or “poseur.”

This is a direct reference to one of the major conflicts in the Japanese Kemono fandom: are characters who are mostly human, but have animal ears and tails really kemono, or do they not count? The general consensus in the fandom is that ears and tail alone are insufficient; these characters are called kemonomimi, literally “beast ears”, like the headband Laios references. Most “cat-girl” characters fall into this category.

A real kemono character includes a muzzle instead of a normal human face and/or an animal-like appearance on the body surface, such as fur, scales, or feathers. According to researcher Inokuchi Tomohiro, this is due to the recognition that "disconnection from humans" is a crucial factor that distinguishes between kemono and non-kemono. He then defines kemono as "an animal that is depicted as a non-human being, but with the potential for mutual understanding/communication with humans.”

By this definition, Izutsumi in Dungeon Meshi is a kemono (furry) and not a kemonomimi (cat-girl), since her body is covered in fur, and she doesn’t have human breasts, but a more beast-like torso. The Winged Lion, the Goat, Kuro the kobold, and possibly the orcs are all kemono (anthropomorphic animal) characters as well.

IS LAIOS A THERIAN?

Though the terminology is very modern, and wouldn’t exist in the Dungeon Meshi setting, it’s possible that if Laios existed in the modern world he might identify as a type of Otherkin known as a Therian. Otherkin and Therians are sometimes part of the Furry fandom, but the two subcultures do not overlap completely.

Otherkin are a subculture of people who identify as nonhuman. Some Otherkin believe their identity derives from spiritual phenomena (such as possessing a nonhuman soul, reincarnation, or the will of God), ancestry, symbolism, or metaphor. Others attribute it to unusual psychology or neurodivergence and do not hold spiritual beliefs on the subject.

Therian refers to people who identify specifically as a real animal of the natural world. The species of animal a therian identifies as is called a theriotype. Therians mainly attribute their experiences of therianthropy to either spirituality or psychology, and often use the term "species dysphoria" to describe their feelings of disconnect from their human bodies and their underlying desire to live as their theriotype. The identity "trans species" is used by some.

Therians may seek out opportunities to perform species-affirming acts like wearing costumes, adopting animal-like behaviors such as making species-specific noises, eating species-specific foods, or moving/performing actions that their theriotype would do.

For example, someone with a horse theriotype may experience joy from snorting and neighing, pulling a cart, stomping their feet, or having a vegetarian diet. Someone with a shark theriotype may want to swim every chance they get, or enjoy eating a lot of raw fish. They may have special accessories they like to wear that make them feel connected to their theriotype, like animal ears on a headband, an actual animal’s tail or a symbolic tail hanging from their belt, an animal tooth necklace, or even just a t-shirt that has an image of their theriotype on it.

In Laios’ case, we know that he likes to imagine himself as a wolf, and in the real world he enjoys/is proud of his ability to bark and move like a dog. He’s practiced and performed this dog impression so often and so well that Falin thinks it’s his most noteworthy and amazing skill. He clearly holds hunting dogs in high esteem and admires them, and says that he learned many important life lessons from spending time with them. He enjoys playing with leftovers from monsters they kill (bones, skin, seeds, fur, etc.) and sometimes tries to collect them for either practical or sentimental reasons… And at the end of the manga he takes the pelt of his ultimate monster form and chooses to wear it as a cape, something that he continues to do for the rest of his life, possibly just because he likes to wear it, or because wearing it eases the pain of no longer being the ultimate monster.

It’s also possible that he’s only wearing it because he thinks it is a pragmatic, politically expedient move, but I think Kui very clearly communicates to us that Laios likes his monster cape, and it is the one thing he immediately thinks of when he wants to try and be king “on his own terms.” He’s willing to accept being king… if he can wear his monster cape. Whether or not it’s a good idea to wear it is secondary to the fact that he wants to do it.

Otherkin and Therian are of course both modern names for this phenomenon, but the concept of people strongly identifying with and being fascinated by animals is as old as humankind itself, so it isn’t impossible that Laios may feel this way, since so much of his behavior overlaps with things a Therian might do or feel.

MONSTER FETISHISM

In English, the word fetish originally described an object believed to have supernatural powers. Fetishes are often used in a spiritual or religious context. However, over time the word fetish has been used so frequently as a euphemism to describe a type of unconventional sexual interest that “sexual fetish” has become the primary meaning of “fetish” in English.

Fetishism is a sexual fixation on an activity, inanimate object, living thing, or human body part that is not normally involved in sex. The object of this interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object is a fetishist. The current medical consensus is that sexual fetishes are very common, and as long as they do not negatively impact a person’s life, they are harmless.

Like the English word fetish, the Japanese word 趣味 (shumi), has multiple meanings, such as “hobby”, “interests/tastes”, but it is also used euphemistically to refer to “sexual taste, vice, or fetish.” What meaning is intended must be intuited by the context surrounding the word. I believe the other words used to discuss fetishes are the loan words フェティッシュ (fetisshu) or フェチ (fechi), but these are extremely blunt and direct, and shumi is preferred in situations where polite euphemism, ambiguity or plausible deniability is desired, or is perhaps even necessary in order to make a joke.

Shumi is used throughout Dungeon Meshi to describe various people’s interests, including Laios’ interest in monsters.

Meanwhile Namari’s interest in race-specific weapons and gear is never explicitly identified as shumi as far as I’m aware, but she is called 武器マニア (weapon maniac) in the World Guide, and in the Bicorn chapter, Chilchuck labels her as 武具フェチ (armor/weapon fetishist), and uses the English loan word フェチ (fechi) which is very unambiguously “fetish.”

(The official English translation from Yen Press changed this to “armor fiend.”)

It seems odd to me that Namari’s interest in weapons and gear is identified by most readers (though not Yen Press) as a fetish, but Laios’ interest in monsters isn’t always, when their behavior around their special interest is shown to be the same in the manga:

Both Namari and Laios blush while talking about their respective interests, and get embarrassed and/or excited about the subject. In the post-canon comics, Laios blushes, hides his face, and has to be prodded to confess to Yaad, Kabru and Marcille that he wants to have his body eaten by monsters when he dies. He obviously finds the idea embarrassing and titillating somehow, and is too shy to admit it out loud until they force him to do it. He also blushes on several other occasions in the manga while thinking or talking about monsters.

I think this is because having a “weapons fetish” is normalized: many people have a fetish for weapons or armor and find it sexy. However the idea of a monster fetish makes people uncomfortable because in a story were monsters exist and are a type of animal, they assume Laios having a monster fetish must mean he wants to participate in bestiality.

This is not necessarily true. A fetish of this nature can (and most often does, for reasons of morality and safety) exist entirely in the realm of imagination, and the sexual fixation may not even involve the act of having sex with the fetish object.

WHAT IS A MONSTER FETISH?

In a world where monsters exist, a monster fetish could involve a sexual interest in the sight, smell, sound and feeling of a monster (looking at or creating artwork of monsters, observing monsters in the wild, wearing a monster costume, or owning monster pelts or body parts that can be safely touched, smelled, etc.), the experience of hunting monsters, eating monsters, the fantasy of being a monster, or the fantasy of performing sexual acts with or as a monster.

The fantasy element could be Laios simply wanting to be a monster, and that giving him sexual gratification without any further scenario being necessary, or it could be imagining himself as a human having sex with a monster, imagining himself as a monster having sex with another monster, or imagining himself as a monster having sex with a human.

All of these possible scenarios would fit under the “monster fetish” umbrella. We know Laios canonically does at least six out of these eight things, but we don’t know whether or not he derives sexual pleasure from them… However, we do know that talking or thinking about monsters makes Laios blush in a way that interacting with other human beings does not, and blushing is often a sign of intense emotion or sexual arousal. Kui’s meaning is intentionally ambiguous, but both meanings should be acknowledged: Laios might be emotionally excited, or he might be sexually excited and Kui is leaving it up to us to decide which it is.

This is, specifically, why I think “monster fucker” isn’t an accurate label. We don’t have enough evidence to assume Laios wants to have sex with monsters, or for monsters to have sex with him. All we can tell is that he becomes excited by the subject of monsters, and often times it is specifically the idea of eating them or being eaten by them that gets him the most excited.

VORAREPHILIA

Because so much of Laios' interest in monsters revolves around eating them and being eaten by them, and Dungeon Meshi's plot revolves around the very concept of eating and being eaten, let me make a brief side-bar to discuss the extremely popular, but niche furry sub-culture of vorarephilia.

Vorarephilia is often used as the butt of jokes on the internet, and very poorly understood by most people, so I felt taking a moment to explain it would be beneficial. Most people are probably not even aware that a fetish like this exists, and therefore aren't able to identify that the things Laios is interested in are something he shares with an entire subculture of real people.

Vorarephilia is a fetish that revolves around the fantasy of devouring or being devoured by another person or creature. The prey can either be swallowed whole and alive, or killed and then eaten... But the former is vastly more popular, and most fetishists imagine themselves as the prey, not the predator.

The fantasy of being eaten or eating someone else is just an extreme form of power exchange. Since vore is an impossible fetish in the real world, it exists entirely as artwork, writing, or verbal role play.

Like in most sex practices, the majority of people want to be the submissive partner, and have someone else do the work of pleasing them. You could compare the "predator" in a vorarephilia roleplay session to a "dom" and the "prey" to a "sub" in BDSM. Incidentally, most predators identify as women, and the vast majority of prey identify as men.

Kui's personal work seems to involve some themes that are similar to vorarephillic art.

And Dungeon Meshi features a lot of content which appeals to vorarephiles.

Meanwhile, the many tiny Laioses being eaten by the Ultimate Monster is a classic example of Macro/Micro, another niche furry sub-culture that sometimes overlaps with vore... A giant monster eating mouthful after mouthful of tiny humans is a classic theme.

The vore fandom is extremely diverse, some of them are furries, others are not, and the exact element of devouring and being devoured that appeals to every one of them can be totally different.

What the demon does to Mithrun and Thistle, and Laios does to the demon, is specifically a fetish called "soul vore", where someone's personhood/soul/awareness is eaten and (usually) destroyed by the predator via some kind of "digestion"... Often while the prey is conscious and aware of the process.

For many, the fear and pain the prey experiences while dying is essential to their enjoyment... And remember, most people want to imagine themselves as the prey!

The art on these pages is indistinguishable from things you would pay thousands of dollars for if you hired a furry artist to draw them.

It's also very important to note that on the other end of the spectrum, some vore fantasies revolve around the prey wanting to be loved by someone so much that they would devour them completely, so that they can absorb the prey and keep them with them forever.

Sometimes it's about wanting to become part of something greater that the prey admires or idealizes… the way Laios admires monsters. He explicitly states that when he dies, he wants to become a part of the food chain… While blushing furiously.

And although it isn't about Laios, I think it's important to note that Mithrun's desire was for the demon to finish eating him. A key part of his depression is the fact that he felt he wasn't good enough to consume, that the demon didn't love him enough to want to eat all of him.

I won't go further into vore or macro/micro, because I want to keep this post as simple as possible, and it's already quite long... But if one wanted to dig even deeper into what specifically Laios' interests are, beyond the very broad umbrella of "monster fetishism", I think vorarephelia would be worth considering.

DO OTHER CHARACTERS THINK LAIOS HAS A FETISH?

Characters frequently notice that Laios gets very excited when he’s talking about monsters: he talks louder and faster, his pupils dilate, he blushes, and he forgets what he’s doing, where he is, and what the appropriate behavior for his situation is. This behavior almost universally causes other characters to react with intense scorn, disgust and disapproval.

I don’t think it makes sense for everyone in the manga to react as negatively as they do to Laios’ behavior unless they think there is something off-putting, unsavory, or creepy about it. Their reactions mean they must think Laios’ interest isn’t innocent. It isn’t just a hobby, but of course none of them will say this explicitly, it would be much too direct and rude, and also it wouldn’t be funny if they started accusing Laios of wanting to participate in something as horrible as bestiality.

Part of the joke Kui is frequently making is that nobody says what they’re thinking out loud. For example, at the end of the manga, Kabru gives Laios a disgusted look and warns him to “not talk about your hobby (shumi)” while addressing the participants of the feast. I think we can intuit that hobby/shumi in this instance is probably meant as a euphemism for fetish, otherwise why would Kabru have such a disgusted look on his face? If he just meant hobby, his expression would probably be much more relaxed. Shumi being a euphemism is the joke.

Another example is the fact that Chilchuck frequently calls Laios a psychopath, sick in the head, etc. Those are extremely harsh things to say if he thinks Laios has a completely innocent interest in monsters. He doesn’t call Senshi a psychopath, even though Senshi is equally interested in eating monsters… Because Senshi doesn’t engage in any of the other, suspect behavior that Laios does. Senshi’s interest in monsters is perceived as innocent, while Laios’ is not.

For clarity’s sake: I am not arguing that Laios’ interest in monsters is canonically a sexual fetish, I am only arguing that there is evidence that it is, and that other characters in the story perceive it to be a sexual fetish, whether it actually is or not.

DOES LAIOS THINK HE HAS A FETISH?

People who have fetishes, especially extreme fetishes that are not normalized, often try to hide them. They do this out of fear of social disapproval, and feelings of shame, because they feel guilty for having abnormal desires. This is true even though the majority of fetishes are completely harmless, and morally neutral.

Most people also know that things which provoke sexual excitement are supposed to be kept private, and it’s not acceptable to express those feelings in public spaces, so even if they see something related to their fetish while in public, they will repress their sexual feelings about it.

Laios, who has difficulty understanding social rules and nuance, is aware that his interest in monsters is socially unacceptable, even though there are many other social things he is not aware of.

Laios has spent most of his life hiding his interest in monsters as much as he can, and it is only during the events of the manga that he starts to express himself openly, because his monster knowledge has become useful for their survival, because Senshi encourages him, and because Falin isn’t there to act as a social buffer for him.

But Laios knows people won’t approve, he knows something about his interest in monsters and the way he expresses it will cause people to react negatively, like in the post-canon comic where he doesn’t want to tell his friends about his desire for his corpse to be eaten by monsters, and the part of the finale where he is hiding in the woods, too ashamed to let people see him because they now know that his greatest desire was to become a monster, and not reviving Falin, which he thinks is the "correct" desire that he should have had.

(This of course ignores the fact that the desires the demon preys on are unconscious, and cannot be controlled by the victim.)

This likely means that Laios has encountered negative reactions to his interest in monsters so frequently, and they have been so intensely negative, that it has trained him to conceal his feelings. It is one of the social rules that he has learned.

Laios thinks there is something shameful, wrong, and inappropriate about his desires related to monsters so he thinks it is something he needs to hide.

IS ANIMAL/MONSTER FETISHISM ANACHRONISTIC?

Some may feel that being a furry, a monster fucker or a monster fetishist is something only modern people do, and therefore anachronistic for Dungeon Meshi’s setting. However humans have been admiring, dressing up as and pretending to be animals for rituals (including fertility rituals) since the dawn of civilization, and continue to do so in the modern era every time someone dresses up in a “sexy cat” costume for Halloween, or wears a multi-thousand dollar fursuit to a furry convention.

There are many instances throughout history of people wearing pelts, masks and tails in order to “become” animals, poetry and art of people fantasizing about either becoming a beast/monster (modern werewolf erotica), or having a beast/monster ravish them (the many, many times artists choose to depict Zeus turning into an animal to have sex with women), or coming of age rites that involve animal sacrifice and the adoption of an animal-like persona as part of the process of becoming an adult.

The stigmatization of this behavior, where “sexy cat costume” is normal and “fursuit” is weird, most likely originates from the disappearance of religious and social context for it. In the past, the admiration, imitation and idealization of animals by humans was part of many cultures, but the modern dominance of religions that forbid the worship of anything other than one, immaterial god has left no room for such things, and so society can only view it as the deranged behavior of abnormal people, who have something “wrong” with them, rather than a harmless, common human impulse to admire, fantasize about, and imagine themselves as animals.

[whetstonefires]

Do you have any opinions on Scholomance?

I do! I like it a lot. I really enjoyed all three books, blitzed through them easily and was much more excited to see how the plots unfolded than I'm used to these days, as a jaded adult, and I also really appreciated them as works of craft.

Especially the first one, I spent the whole time being all 'wow!' at how simple it was. So easy to read, but no waste. You really need to know what you're doing, to get that kind of pared-down elegance of form to work and still fit so much content in.

Like these are dense, there's a fantastic stylistic minimalism that allows El's character all the space it needs to breathe by making absolutely every other thing and person in the whole novel also do character work for her, which is exactly where the first person voice shines.

Also great use of character perspective to make the pacing feel really natural, so the fact that the first book takes three weeks, the second book takes one year, and the third book is like. Five or so incredibly stressful days spread out over the course of a few weeks? Doesn't feel imbalanced.

I actually got distracted from the story a few times by noticing the strength of Novik's technique. 😂 This is a me problem, in itself it's the opposite of distracting. Very low-profile.

I think the Scholomance is a great example of how far you can go in specfic when you aren't cringing from the label 'derivative,' because the Scholomance books feel very fresh ad clean specifically because nothing in them is concerned with standing out as 'original,' whatever that's supposed to mean, only with being well-executed and suitable to its task.

Hm, maybe that's where Liesel was born, the intersection of the efficient narrative style and the vast proportion of the story that concerns the maximization of utility and the instrumentalization of persons by themselves and others, and the forces that incentivize these behaviors. Or maybe she's just the narrative counterweight to Orion 'Head Empty' Lake lmao. How's that for a principle of balance, Galadriel?

I really did enjoy how beautifully it was laid out, over and over, in dozens of shades of humanity, how no matter where you go in an exploitative system almost everyone is being driven by the same survival instincts.

Because I don't think I've ever seen made so cleanly clear why you just can't expect any person or small group of people, no matter their level of goodwill or status, to unmake one of these systems from the inside; how it's not a matter of people being bad but of every single person being very...small.

And then not retreating into the idea of a person who is Big coming and breaking the cruel system from the outside as some kind of panacea, because 1) that is terrible, even if it's necessary and done in the best way possible and 2) that's not a sustainable answer to anything. Getting a balance between the protagonist being able to effect change and not subscribing to the great man theory of history can be really tricky!

Also did I mention, I love El, and I love most of the cast, even the dreadful ones. How am I going around with this many feelings about Li Shanfeng who doesn't appear until the actual climax?

The romance murdered me a bit, but it took up no more space than it absolutely needed to do its job, and I respect that. Also I appreciated Orion as a love interest; Novik has a slight record at this point of a version of that style of male love interest who's like a caricature of Mr. Darcy but old, which was shaping up to be my least favorite thing about her body of work.

...Orion is kind of like if you took the human king from Spinning Silver and gave him an alignment flip come to think of it, so he's not coming out of nowhere. Lmao.

Which reminds me (re: romance character typing) I've heard Novik didn't want it to be known she was astolat, which this series has renewed my sympathies if so. Because if I were a published novelist I wouldn't want people going 'you know, that resolution was really emotionally satisfying! reminds me of that fic she wrote where optimus prime and megatron get stuck in a hole underground and hatefuck about it.'

I don't even like Transformers. That fic almost made me cry. Actually I suspect it reads better if you don't like Transformers because I'm sure it does not give a shit about canon.

Anyway, whoever pointed out that one of the things El has going on is she's Enoby (and we're going to sit down and explore what the true reason to put your middle finger up at preps is, and what are some constructive ways to channel that socioeconomic wrath, and what it means that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism) was right and I'm not entirely over that either.

Fucking love El's mom as a character. Spectacular level of parent relevance and usefulness. A+.

Aadhya and Liu are also characters who fucking delivered.

Re: minimalism though, I laughed at the start of The Golden Enclaves when I realized that none of the enclaver characters who'd gotten development in the the first two books were from London, the enclave El was theoretically shooting for when we met her.

[the-delta-quadrant]

If you say binary trans people have privilege over nonbinary people, you're most likely to say that trans men have privilege over trans women because for being men

how does this make any sense.

binary transgender people have privilege over nonbinary people because they don't experience exorsexism.

transgender men do not have privilege over transgender women, because both transgender men and women experience an intersection of misogyny and transantagonism. transgender men don't have access to male privilege because male privilege is inherently tied to cisgenderness.

binary transgender people have privilege over nonbinary people because nonbinary people experience exorsexism on top of either antitransmasculinity, antitransfemininity or often both, whereas binary transgender people do not experience exorsexism. not being targeted by a certain kind of oppression is the very definition of privilege.

this doesn't apply to transgender men vs transgender women at all because they both experience an intersection of transantagonism and misogyny that may or may not be expressed differently based on gender, i.e. whatever a transgender man doesn't experience in antitransfemininity, he'll get in antitransmasculinity instead, and whatever a transgender woman doesn't get in antitransmasculinity, she'll get in antitransfemininity instead. transgender men don't "lack" oppression because they are men, they don't have privilege over transgender women, they too experience transantagonism and misogyny intersecting.

you cannot compare antitransmasculinity and exorsexism because exorsexism is always an extra layer on top of antitransmasculinity, antitransfemininity or both, not something that is experienced in place of them. both me and binary transgender men experience antitransmasculinity, but binary transgender men don't experience exorsexism, which is where binary privilege comes in. it has nothing at all to do with being a man or a woman, but with being either binary gender. binary transgender women also have privilege over nonbinary transgender men because one group doesn't experience exorsexism while the other group does.

exorsexism functions differently from antitransmasculinity and antitransfemininity. it's not another expression of misogyny + transantagonism but for nonbinary people. it's more than that, it's specific and unique to nonbinary people. it's not based on not being cisgender. it's not based on being seen as a woman or as feminine or as related to these concepts. it's based on not fitting the gender binary. it's just always paired with transantagonism and misogyny in some way. but it's not a secret third thing, it's an extra layer of bullshit on top of the same things that binary transgender men or women experience.

you cannot compare discussions of binary privilege to discussions of supposed transgender-male privilege. that's a cheap af way to shut down discussions about nonbinaryhood, exorsexism and binary privilege. it also gives you an excuse to continue learning and understanding nothing about how exorsexism works because if you did you'd know that these concepts aren't comparable, and that pointing out binary transgender people's privilege over nonbinary people has nothing to do with transgender men's supposed privilege over transgender women.

even your ideas about privilege are so binary that you expect exorsexism to follow the exact same logic as antitransmasculinity or antitransfemininity. wild.

(also if you followed me for more than 5 minutes you'd know that i regularly reblog from transgender men and others affected by antitransmasculinity about this, and talk about this myself. you really just wanted to make up some random excuse to shit on a nonbinary people over a made up thing.)